Public reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 18 February 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 18 February 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 11 February 2026 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2026 at 10:30 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTE (Pages 3 - 16) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 January 2026 4. MR BILLY MCPHEE: REPOSITIONING OF 3 CHALETS (STATIC CARAVANS) (RETROSPECTIVE): AUCHENGOWER CARAVAN PARK, AUCHENGOWER PARK, COVE (REF: 25/00516/PP) (Pages 17 - 50) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 5. CNOC BUIDHE WIND ENERGY HUB LIMITED: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION: CNOC BUIDHE WIND FARM ENERGY HUB, COMPRISING A WIND FARM OF UP TO 29 WIND TURBINES, WITH 14 OF THESE UP TO 180M TO BLADE TIP AND 15 UP TO 200M TO BLADE TIP, WITH ANCILLARY ENERGY STORAGE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE: APPROXIMATELY 2.5 KM EAST OF BELLOCHANTUY AND 10 KM NORTHWEST OF CAMPBELTOWN (REF: 25/00600/S36) (Pages 51 - 110) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 6. HIGH BRENFIELD WIND FARM LTD (ANGUS THOMSON): SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR ERECTION OF UP TO 10 WIND TURBINES WITH A MAXIMUM BLADE TIP HEIGHT OF UP TO 200 METRES: LAND APPROXIMATELY 2KM SOUTHWEST OF ARDRISHAIG (REF: 25/00984/S36) (Pages 111 - 184) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
7. MR NIKOLAY PETKOV: SITING OF 4 GLAMPING PODS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS: BALKAN HOUSE, RAHANE (REF: 25/01118/PP) (Pages 185 - 210) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 8. GB WIND FARM LTD: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION: GIANT'S BURN WIND FARM, COMPRISING FIVE TURBINES UP TO 200 M TIP HEIGHT, TWO TURBINES UP TO 180 M TIP HEIGHT, A BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM, AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE: APPROXIMATELY 1.3KM NORTHWEST OF DUNOON (REF: 25/01342/S36) (Pages 211 - 278) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 9. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ3 2025/26 (Pages 279 - 292) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth REPORT FOR NOTING 10. PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT 2025 - OBJECTION TO ENERGY CONSENT APPLICATIONS (Pages 293 - 294) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Vice-Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 21 JANUARY 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Stuart Ramsay, Area Team Leader – Mid Argyll, Kintyre & the Islands Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader – Bute, Cowal, Helensburgh & Lomond Arlene Knox, Senior Planning Officer Shelley Gould, Senior Planning Officer Steven Gove, Planning Officer Donna Lawson, Traffic and Development Officer Keith Tennant, Parking Supervisor Louise Russell, Landscape Architect 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy and Dougie Philand. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 12 December 2025 was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 December 2025 at 10.30 am was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 December 2025 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. d) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 December 2025 at 3.30 pm was approved as a correct record. Page 3 Agenda Item 3
Page 4
4. VOLTALIA UK LTD (SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION): SECTION 36 CONSULTATION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE 6 WIND TURBINES WITH A GROUND TO BLADE TIP HEIGHT OF 200 METRES, AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM AND COMPOUND (BESS) - CRUACH CLENAMACRIE WIND FARM: LAND AT GLENLONAN APPROXIMATELY 7KM EAST OF OBAN AND 5KM WEST OF TAYNUILT (REF: 24/02242/S36) The Area Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report which provided a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) Section 36 Consultation for Cruach Clenamacrie Wind Farm, to construct and operate 6 wind turbines, and associated infrastructure including Battery Energy Storage System compound (BESS) at land at Glenlonan, approximately 7 km east of Oban and 5 km west of Taynuilt. This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and third party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government. Reference was also made to supplementary report number 1 which clarified a number of procedural points raised by the Applicant. Decision The Committee agreed that the ECU be notified accordingly that: 1. Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal on landscape and visual grounds, as the proposed wind farm would result in significant adverse landscape and visual effects, contrary to NPF4 Policy 11 and LDP2 Policy 30. 2. Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment - Argyll and Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion in respect to the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (NPF4 Policies 5 and 11 and LDP2 30 and 79) as no response has been provided by Ironside Farrar on the further information provided by the Applicant. Argyll and Bute Council OBJECT unless this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of Ironside Farrar prior to the determination of this application by the ECU. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to Ironside Farrar (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of a PLI. 3. Archaeological Impact - Argyll and Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion within the time afforded in respect to Archaeological Impact as no response has been received from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Argyll and Bute Council are therefore not in a position to confirm whether the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policy 21 and would recommend that the ECU consider these matters prior to determination. 4. Argyll and Bute do not object on noise impact grounds, subject to the inclusion of an Operational Noise Planning Condition, as recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant, Mott MacDonald, specified in their Review of Evidence – Noise, dated March 2025. Page 4
Page 5
5. Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Public Access grounds, subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction. 6. Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Roads grounds, subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions, as specified by Transport Scotland in their consultation response to the ECU dated 04/02/25. 7. Argyll and Bute Council requests that the recommendations of the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer are considered by the ECU, including: Recommend that the applicant continue discussions with NatureScot and SEPA to ensure best practice for peat extraction and restoration. While the impact to bats is unlikely to be significant, it would be advisable to monitor any fatalities that may occur from collision as they are found to forage within the wind turbine areas. This information will feed into mitigation measures which can be altered accordingly, to ensure any negative impacts to foraging / commuting bats is minimal. Recommend that due to the presence of black grouse in the area, the applicant should ensure the fences are clearly marked and that a programme of monitoring fences for any potential black grouse carcasses is implemented Recommend that the applicant continues discussions with relevant organisations, to ensure that appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures are adhered to and potential impacts are minimal. 8. Ornithology: Whilst NatureScot has not objected to this issue, it is noted that they consider the proposed development may result in significant impacts on Schedule 1 bird species and a regionally important black grouse population. It is recommended that the ECU gives further consideration to this issue before determining the application. 9. Argyll and Bute Council requests that all other conditions recommended by consultees are included in any Consent. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 6 January 2026 and supplementary report number 1 dated 20 January 2026, submitted) 5. MR AND MRS SCOTT RAEBURN: ERECTION OF TEAROOM WITH 4 APARTMENTS ON UPPER FLOORS: FORMER SUSY'S TEAROOM, TIGHNABRUAICH (REF: 25/00181/PP) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The application is for a building that would accommodate a new café/restaurant on the ground floor and the introduction of 4 self-catering flatted apartments on the upper floors. The application site is considered to be brownfield land and is located within the Key Rural Settlement of Tighnabruaich. The Susy’s Tearoom building was removed in 2020/2021 and the land on which is stood has bene vacant since then. Objections to the application have been received from a total of five sources, and in terms of the Scheme of Administration and Delegation contained in the Council’s Constitution Page 5
Page 6
(2025), this number is less than the eleven that is required in order for the PPSL Committee to consider proposal. This application is before Members as the Roads Department are recommending refusal as they do not consider the parking spaces in the large neighbouring car park to represent a suitable provision and are of the view that the number of proposed on-site spaces is insufficient to meet the increase in parking demand resulting from the proposed development. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the use of the public car park by patrons and members of staff of the proposed café/restaurant can be accepted as this was the situation that existed for decades in association with the previous Susy’s Tearoom. Having regard to the parking standards in LDP2 Policy 40, the number of spaces to be provided in relation to the four two-bedroomed units would be eight. As five on-site spaces are proposed, this represents a shortfall of three spaces. In this case it is considered that this shortfall can be accepted as a minor departure to policy and the details of the mitigating factors were set out in Section (S) of the report of handling. It was recommended that planning permission be granted as a minor departure to Development Plan Policy subject to the conditions, reasons and advisory notes appended to the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission as a minor departure to Development Plan Policy, subject to the following conditions and reasons and the advisory notes appended to the report of handling: Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. Approved Details Unless otherwise directed by any of the conditions below, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified in the application form dated 4th February 2025; the supporting information; and the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received General Arrangement – Site Location Plan Drawing No. HG A3 L(9-)P901 - 05/02/2025 General Arrangement – Site Location Drawing No. HG A3 L(9-)P901A - 07/02/2025 Page 6
Page 7
Plan General Arrangements – Site Layout Drawing No. HG GA L (--) P002C C 12/06/2025 General Arrangements – Ground & 1st Floor Plans Drawing No. GN GA L (--) P003B B 12/06/2025 General Arrangements – Ground Floor Plan Drawing No. HG GA L (--) P004B B 12/06/2025 General Arrangements – First and Mezzanine Floor Plans Drawing No. HG GA L (--) P005B B 12/06/2025 General Arrangements – Sections Drawing No. GN GA L (--) P006B B 12/06/2025 General Arrangements – Proposed Elevations Drawing No. HG GA L (--) P008B B 12/06/2025 General Arrangements – Proposed Elevations Drawing No. GN GA L (--) P009C C 12/06/2025 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Contaminated Land Assessment Unless otherwise agreed in writing and in advance by the Planning Authority, prior to any development commencing on the site, a scheme will be submitted by the Developer (at their expense) to identify and assess potential contamination on the site. No work on the site shall commence until the scheme has been submitted to, and approved, by the Planning Authority, and is thereafter implemented in accordance with the scheme so approved. The scheme shall be undertaken by a competent person or persons in accordance with relevant authoritative guidance including Planning Advice Note (PAN) 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the Page 7
Page 8
most up-to-date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. This scheme should contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, and must include: a) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model/preliminary risk assessment, including a ground investigation strategy for any phases of ground investigation proposed to be undertaken (exploratory, main or supplementary). The desk study and the scope and method of recommended investigations shall be agreed with the Council prior to addressing parts b, c, and d of this condition. Should the desk study show the need for further assessment, this will be undertaken in the following sequence: a) A detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of the risks such contamination presents. b) Development and agreement of a remedial strategy (if required) to treat/ remove contamination ensuring the site is made suitable for its proposed use (this shall include a method statement, programme of works and proposed verification plan). c) Submission of a verification report for any agreed remedial actions detailing and evidencing the completion of these works. Written confirmation from the Planning Authority that the scheme has been implemented and completed shall be required by the Developer before any development hereby approved commences. Where remedial measures are required as part of the development construction detail, commencement must be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the potential risks to human health, the water environment, property, and ecological systems arising from any identified land contamination have been adequately addressed. 3. Short Term Holiday Accommodation The residential accommodation units hereby approved shall be used for short-term holiday occupancy only and not as a main residence and shall not be occupied by any family, group or individual for a cumulative period of more than three calendar months in any one year. A register showing dates of arrivals and departures shall be maintained by the Site Operator and shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to define the permitted occupancy to satisfy the provisions of the Development Plan. 4. Noise Assessment and Management Plan for Construction Operations Prior to the commencement of the development, a Noise Management Plan relative to the construction phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The document shall incorporate the following: Page 8
Page 9
i. An identification and assessment of all potential sources of nuisance that may cause disturbance to nearby residents during the construction of the development, including noise/ vibration, dust, surface runoff and any temporary lighting. This should cover all aspects of the proposal (e.g. ground works, access improvements and construction of building and any associated facilities). ii. For all potential sources of nuisance, the applicant will be required to provide a management plan that incorporates details of the suitable control measures to be put in place so as to ensure that construction works do not cause a loss of amenity to local residents and/or statutory nuisance. Such details shall include (but not be limited to) the intended hours of working; the movement of vehicles into, within and out of the site; the use of plant; and the storage of equipment and materials on the site. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the construction of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Noise Management Plan. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. 5. Hours of Construction Working The hours of working at the site during the construction of the development hereby approved shall be restricted to 08.00 to 18:30 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. No construction work shall take place at the site on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. 6. Noise Assessment and Management Plan for Operational Activities Prior to the development coming into use, a Noise Management Plan relative to the operational phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The document shall incorporate the following: i. A noise assessment undertaken in terms of BS4142:2014+A1:2019 ‘Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound’, the scope of which shall include the extraction unit for the commercial premises. ii. Details of the means by which extraneous noise will be mitigated to ‘Best Practicable Means’. The Noise Rating Criteria to be achieved during the day (0700-1900hrs) will be NR35 and will be NR25 during the evening/night (1900- 0700hrs). iii. Details of the opening hours of the café/restaurant and the timing of deliveries and collections to and from the site. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be operated in accordance with the approved Noise Management Plan. Page 9
Page 10
Reason: In order to ensure that acceptable noise and vibration levels are not exceeded. 7. Odour Assessment and Mitigation Measures Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed specification regarding the collection, treatment and disposal of cooking odours shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The specification shall incorporate the following: i. Precise details of the location of equipment used for the cooking and heating of food. ii. Information (including manufacturer’s details) on canopies, grease filters, rates of air movement over the canopy, make–up air, air disposal points, etc. The air disposal points should terminate at least 1 metre above any opening windows. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the system for the collection, treatment and disposal of cooking odours shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved details prior to the premises being brought into use for the preparation and sale of food and it shall, thereafter, be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the agreed specification. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the immediate area and prevent the creation of odour nuisance. 8. Arrangements for the Storage and Collection of Waste Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the proposed arrangements for the storage and collection of waste shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The arrangements shall be implemented in accordance with the approved requirements prior to the development being brought into use and shall thereafter be retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to accord with the principles of sustainable waste management within NPF4 Policy 12 and LDP2 Policy 63. 9. External Lighting Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, all external lighting on the application site shall be operated, positioned and angled in compliance with the Scottish Government Guidance Note “Controlling Light Pollution and Reducing Lighting Energy Consumption” (March 2007). Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the immediate area from the creation of nuisance due to light pollution and to support the reduction of energy consumption. 10. Details of Access and Parking Prior to the commencement of the development, the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority: Page 10
Page 11
i. The location, design and materials of any proposed walls, fences and gates. ii. The means by which direct access between any of the proposed parking spaces and the adjoining public car park is to be prevented. iii. The materials to be used in the surfacing of the car parking spaces and turning court. iv. The layout of the access point into the turning court from the public car park. Prior to the development being brought into use, the parking spaces and the access into the turning court shall be formed in full accordance with the details approved under points (ii), (iii) and (iv) above. Thereafter, the parking spaces and turning court shall be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interests of road safety and in order to ensure that there is a level of parking provision that is commensurate with the scale of the development. 11. Biodiversity Enhancement Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a biodiversity statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The statement shall demonstrate how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be implemented and maintained for the lifetime of the development. All physical biodiversity enhancement measures (e.g. bird nesting boxes, ‘swift bricks’, wildlife ponds, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes, etc) shall be implemented in full before the development hereby approved is first brought into use. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within the next available planting season following the development first being brought into use. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot and Scottish Government Planning Guidance: Biodiversity as appropriate. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. 12. Surface Water Drainage Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of a sustainable urban drainage system compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C753 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved surface water drainage system shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate surface water drainage is implemented to prevent flooding elsewhere. 13. Electricity Substation Page 11
Page 12
Prior to the commencement of the development, a report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Environmental Health Service and Scottish and Southern Electricity. This report shall incorporate the following: i. An assessment of the noise levels generated by the operation of the existing electricity sub-station, together with an assessment of whether the noise is likely to give rise to complaints. This assessment should be carried out using the methodology detailed in BS4142:2014+A1:2019 ‘Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound’. In accordance with Planning Advice Note 1/2011, as part of the assessment, consideration must be given to any likely increase in noise levels that may reasonably be expected in the foreseeable future from the operation of the electricity sub-station. ii. Using the findings of the above assessment, the developer must then identify the measures needed to mitigate any potential adverse effects of noise for the patrons of the café/restaurant and the occupiers of the short-term holiday letting units. Examples of suitable mitigation measures are detailed in Planning Advice Note 1/2011. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the building shall be constructed having regard to the mitigation measures included within the approved report. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the proposed building having regard to the provisions of Policy 14 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (2024). 14. Bicycle Storage A facility for the storage of cycles, the details of which shall have been previously submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, shall be provided within the application site prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the approved cycle storage shall be retained in perpetuity for this dedicated purpose. Reason: In the interests of facilitating the use of cycles by the patrons of the building hereby approved in accordance with the provisions of National Planning Framework 4 Policy 13 ‘Sustainable Transport’. (Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 6 January 2026, submitted) Page 12
Page 13
6. CNOC BUIDHE WIND ENERGY HUB LIMITED: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION: CNOC BUIDHE WIND FARM ENERGY HUB, COMPRISING A WIND FARM OF UP TO 29 WIND TURBINES, WITH 14 OF THESE UP TO 180M TO BLADE TIP AND 15 UP TO 200M TO BLADE TIP, WITH ANCILLARY ENERGY STORAGE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE: APPROXIMATELY 2.5 KM EAST OF BELLOCHANTUY AND 10 KM NORTHWEST OF CAMPBELTOWN (REF: 25/00600/S36) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report which provided a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) Section 36 Consultation for Cnoc Buidhe Wind Energy Hub approximately 2.5 km East of Bellochantuy and 10 km Northwest of Campbeltown. This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and third party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government. Reference was also made to supplementary report number 1 which provided Members with an update on correspondence received from the Applicant in respect to Ornithology and also advised Members of new consultee responses received from Scottish Forestry and Ironside Farrar. The Committee was asked to agree the recommended response to the ECU set out in supplementary report number 1. Decision The Committee agreed that the ECU be notified accordingly that: 1. Ornithology - Argyll and Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion on ornithology due to the outstanding information requested by NatureScot in respect to a kernel analysis for golden eagle and alternative raft locations for Osprey. Furthermore, the Council does not agree that a suspensive condition is the best mechanism to secure the removal of five wind turbines in the interests of mitigating barrier effects on Greenland white-fronted geese. It is considered that this amendment to the proposal would constitute a material change which could have implications for the wider proposal that are unclear at this time and require to be explored e.g. environmental impacts, infrastructure re-design, and requirement for re- consultation. To apply such a condition could result in an unreasonable and unimplementable consent. Argyll and Bute Council OBJECT unless the outstanding information is submitted to the satisfaction of NatureScot and the important mitigation to protect Greenland white- fronted geese is undertaken in advance of determining this application. It is, therefore recommended that the proposal should be amended accordingly and be subject to a further period of formal consultation prior to any determination by the ECU or Scottish Ministers. NOTE: With regard to the mitigation, should NatureScot remove or update their objection with mitigation that is considered appropriate as part of the consideration of Page 13
Page 14
the current proposal, or which could be secured via planning conditions to be agreed with the Planning Authority, then Argyll and Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds. 2. Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment - Argyll & Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion in respect to the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (NPF4 Policies 5 and 11 and LDP2 30 and 79). In their Stage 2 Checking Report, Ironside Farrar have advised they have two further queries on assessment of risks to infrastructure that require a response from the developer. It is understood that a response was provided to Ironside Farrar on the 19th of January 2026. Argyll and Bute Council OBJECT unless this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of Ironside Farrar prior to determination of this application by the ECU. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to Ironside Farrar (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of a PLI as no response has been provided by Ironside Farrar on the further information provided by the Applicant. 3. Archaeological Impact - Argyll and Bute Council has no objection in respect to Archaeological Impact, subject to a condition and informative to secure the recommendations of the West of Scotland Archaeology Service being attached to any grant of consent for a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for archaeological mitigation measures and an advisory note that the Applicant ensures they have all necessary legal permissions for any elements of their archaeological mitigation. Specifically, in regard to the RAF Hudson aircraft crash site mitigation proposals which may require a license from the MoD if it is to be disturbed. 4. Public Access – Argyll and Bute Council has no objection in respect to Public Access subject to advisory notes being attached to any consent to ensure that any Access Controls i.e. gates, and cattle grids comply with the British Horse Society Guidance. Furthermore, that public access during construction should comply with NatureScot guidance ‘Good practice during wind farm construction.’ 5. Landscape & Visual Impact - Argyll and Bute Council also intends to object to the application on the basis of NPF 4 policies 4a and 11 Section E, Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 13 and LDP2 Policy 30 on the basis that the application would have a cumulative, significant and unacceptable adverse impact in respect of landscape, visual and cumulative matters and that a detailed representation would be submitted following consideration of the matter at the next scheduled meeting of PPSL Committee. In the event the ECU grants consent it was recommended that a condition to secure further aviation lighting mitigation in the form of an Aircraft Detection Lighting System be attached to such a consent. 6. Biodiversity Impact - Argyll and Bute Council has no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer being attached to any consent. 7. Noise Impact - Argyll and Bute Council has no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to suitably worded conditions to limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Council’s Noise Consultant being attached to any consent. Page 14
Page 15
8. Flood Risk - Argyll and Bute has no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any consent: • To ensure watercourse crossings are designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event. • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre- development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. 9. Argyll and Bute Council requests that all conditions recommended by other consultees are included in any Consent with exception to the condition requiring removal of 5 turbines referred to at (1) above. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 9 January 2026 and supplementary report number 1 dated 20 January 2026, submitted) Councillor John Armour left the meeting at 12.33 pm during consideration of the foregoing item. The Chair, Councillor Gordon Blair, left the meeting at 12.45 pm during consideration of the foregoing item. The Vice Chair, Councillor Kieron Green, assumed the role of Chair at this point. Page 15
Page 16
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 17
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 25/00516/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Billy McPhee Proposal: Repositioning of 3 chalets (static caravans) (retrospective) Site Address: Auchengower Caravan Park, Auchengower Park, Cove, Argyll And Bute DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Repositioning of 3 caravans (chalet style) within the site boundary (Retrospective) • Formation of parking/turning areas for each plot (Retrospective) • Associated land engineering/reprofiling ground levels work (Retrospective) • Erection of associated timber decking (Retrospective) (ii) Other specified operations • N/A (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that Planning Permission be granted as a minor departure to Development Plan Policy and subject to the conditions, reasons and advisory notes appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Argyll and Bute Council – Roads Authority 01.05.2025 On review, it is considered that the proposed does not represent an intensification of an existing site facility. Additionally, the proposed does not feature any alterations to the existing parking provision or any parking provision requirements. Page 17 Agenda Item 4
Page 18
Furthermore, as the application does not propose or suggest any alterations to, or intensifications of, any point of access/ egress. I therefore confirm Roads have no objection to the proposed. Core Paths – No response at time of writing the report Biodiversity Officer – 26.08.2025 European Protected Species and Protected Species Desk studies show that bats, red squirrel and breeding birds are present within the area, with other species likely present due to the habitat present. As no surveys were submitted prior to works being carried out I cannot comment on whether licences would have been required from NatureScot for works to proceed, but it is likely that protected species were present. It is therefore important that measures are taken to mitigate against the loss and provide biodiversity enhancement. Trees Ancient Woodland is present on site and was impacted upon by the development. This is an irreplaceable habitat and in accordance with NPF4 Policy 6: b) Development proposals will not be supported where they will result in: i. Any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition; ii. Adverse impacts on native woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees of high biodiversity value, or identified for protection in the Forestry and Woodland Strategy; iii. Fragmenting or severing woodland habitats, unless appropriate mitigation measures are identified and implemented in line with the mitigation hierarchy; A tree survey indicating the biodiversity value of each individual tree should have been submitted along with the condition of the woodland, species present, age and location. A programme of tree planting should be submitted to include species which must be native and appropriate to the locality of the area and sourced locally, location, age, timing of planting and a schedule of monitoring and maintenance until such a time as the trees become established. Biodiversity Enhancement Measures As no further works are proposed and due to the loss of habitat and biodiversity on the site, I ask the applicant to provide a plan of biodiversity enhancement measures. A programme of tree planting should be submitted to include species which must be native and appropriate to the locality of the area and sourced locally, location, age, timing of planting and a schedule of monitoring and maintenance until such a time as the trees become established. If there is any Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) on site, then I recommend these are removed and managed accordingly to ensure they do not grow back. Other measures could include installation of bird and bat boxes including swift boxes if appropriate, insect bricks, red squirrel feeding boxes, retention of dead wood and log piles, planting of native wildflowers appropriate to the locality of the area. The applicant should refer to the ‘Developing with Nature’ guidance on the NatureScot website https://www.nature.scot/doc/developing-nature-guidance#planting-for-nature for further guidance. Further comments on 20/01/2026 Page 18
Page 19
The site sits wholly within ancient woodland of semi-natural origin. Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable habitat and sensitive to impact and change. Any proposed planting must be carried out in a sensitive matter, using species that are appropriate to the habitat, locality of the area and locally sourced. I am satisfied with the proposed tree, shrub and hedge species to be used (This is referring to the proposal planting plan submitted 20/01/26). Any potential soils that need to be added to the site must be carefully managed and if possible, sourced from a nearby site with compatible soil type to reduce impact. The use of chemicals should be avoided, especially within this habitat due to the sensitivities present. I note Rhododendron ponticum is in the process of being removed. This guidance from FLS may be of use Stem Guide (low res web copy) single pages. Any proposed debris clearance must also be sensitively managed. I recommend a survey is carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist to determine species already present. This survey will feed into the Landscape Design and help formulate appropriate mitigation and management measures necessary as well as enhancement opportunities on site and ensure further impact to this habitat is avoided. I am satisfied for the above to be Conditioned. Environmental Health – 20.08.2025 No objections subject to a condition relating to the control of external lighting. Cove and Kilcreggan Community Council – 11.06.2025 The Community Council (majority decision) object in the strongest possible terms to this large retrospective planning application regarding the ‘sighting’ of what are new caravans outside the area designated in initial planning permission 11/00984/PP. The granting of this large retrospective planning application would appear to people in the community that non-compliance with statutory requirements is ‘rewarded’ with ex-post planning permission. The CC and members of the community feel this is unfair and has a potential ‘knock-on’ effect for other sites where developers and can evade normal systems and processes and still achieve their individual aims. The use of the discretionary powers that rests with A&B Council are, in this instance, possibly inappropriately applied given the level of complaints at ‘delivery’ of the new units to the site when enforcement action (to a site with a history of planning issues) could have been easily taken. We are also mindful that we understand that 2 of these units are residential and the third is more holiday accommodation. Therefore, the CC requests that should the decision regarding the 25/00516/PP be to remove the 3 units from their current location that the relocation, to other sites within Auchengower, is undertaken at the expense of the site owner and not those who appear to have purchased their unit in good faith. In the event that A&B Council grants this planning application the Community Council wishes to see significant amelioration of the current site to reduce the visual impact of this development. This would include issues of vegetation management, resolving the drainage issues which cause significant flooding on the B833 and more appropriate colour schemes for fencing etc. Page 19
Page 20
(D) HISTORY: 24/00057/ENOTH2 Unauthorised siting of three caravans without planning permission; siting and use of caravans not in accordance with approved planning permission (C.3122). 13 separate live enforcement cases Relating to each individual caravan that is alleged to be in breach of condition as not in accordance with approved planning permission. 20/00053/ENFLB Unauthorised demolition of a Listed Building (Auchengower House) 11/00202/ENFOC2 Layout differs from original consent. C.3122 Use of land as part residential caravan site for 30 caravans and part non-residential caravan site for 30 caravans and erection of 6 toilet units. Approved 1969 subject to the condition “that all caravans located in the non-residential area are vacated and removed from their summer positions during the period 1st November to 31st March of each calendar year.” C3122/1 Amendment to layout of caravan park. Approved 1977 subject to the conditions: • that all caravans located in the non-residential area are vacated and removed from their summer positions during the period 1st November to 31st March of each calendar year. • No trees shall be removed without the prior consent of the District Council. C.3122/2 (also known as 94/00218/VARCON) Winter storage (removal of condition). Approved 1996 97/00312/DET Erection of porch- Caravan 8 Holly Twirl Shore Road Cove 11/00984/PP Variation of Condition 1 (occupancy restriction) in relation to planning permission (C.3122) Holiday caravans to be vacated 1st Feb- 7th March. Approved August 2011. (E) PUBLICITY: Advert Type: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application Expiry Date: 05.06.2025 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Page 20
Page 21
There has been a total of 14 representations made in respect to the application, of which 12 are in objection and 2 are in support. (i) Representations received from: Objection Mrs J Barr, South Park East, Shore Road, Cove 05.05.2025 Mr Lionel Wilson, Auchengower Mansion House, Shore Road, Cove 05.06.2025 Mr Ken Owen, Hartfield Court, South Ailey Road, Cove 22.06.2025 Ms Anne Strachan, Edendene, Shore Road, Cove 15.06.2025 Mr Alastair McLean, Ellerslie, Shore Road, Cove 12.06.2025 Mr Richard Reeve, Aidenwood, Barbour Road, Kilcreggan 14.06.2025 Mr James Greg, Upper Flat, Craigowlet House, West Shore Road, Cove 13.06.2025 Mr Euan Wright, Waveney, Argyll Road, Kilcreggan 12.06.2025 Mr James McLean, Seymour Lodge, Shore Road, Cove 29.05.2025 Ms Charlotte McLean, Seymour Lodge, Shore Road, Cove 29.05.2025 Dr Lucy Steeds, Ailey Cottage, North Ailey Road, Cove 14.06.2025 Mrs Penny Elles, West Ailey, Shore Road, Cove 04.06.2025 Support Mr Andy Evans, 3 Bluebell Dell, Auchengower Park, Cove 09.06.2025 Mr Roy Pearce, 12 Mansion View, Auchengower Park, Cove 15.05.2025 Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: Objections Amenity • The siting of the caravans has a negative impact on visual amenity, as they are positioned at the roadside/shore with no supplementary landscaping. Officer Comment: Please see the assessment below. Character/Landscape Impact • The character of the area is affected, as the other caravans are out of view up the hill. An objector argues that this development does not fall within the original applications scope, where caravans were permitted out of sight from the road and shore side. Officer Comment: Please see the assessment below. • It is mentioned that the character of built heritage and natural landscapes is broken by the development. It is a sensitive site as it forms a first impression when entering the village. Officer Comment: The Site is on the boundary to the village, although not within it. Please see the assessment below. • The objector requests the site be returned to woodland as per the conservation area. Officer Comment: the site is outwith the Cove and Kilcreggan Conservation Area. Page 21
Page 22
Woodland • There has been a loss of trees in order to make room for the site, and to provide views of the loch for the caravans. The objector mentions the loss of trees should be viewed in the context of the climate crisis and the relevant development plan policies which seek to protect, conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. Officer Comment: The development is sited in an area of ancient woodland but is not in a conservation area, and the trees were not protected by a tree protection order (TPO). Please see the assessment below. • Trees were cut down without first informing the council, and there are no trees on the existing site plan provided by the applicant. These include native trees of significant value. Officer Comment: The tree removal did not require permission and therefore there is no requirement to include the trees on the existing site plan. As above, see the assessment below. • It is alleged that the applicant felled trees in the Open Space Protected Area (OSPA) adjacent to the site. Officer Comment: This would be treated as a separate issue to this application as it is outside the red line site boundary but it should be noted that the trees within the adjacent OSPA are not protected by conservation area or TPO and would not have required consent for felling. Site Designation • The site is not designated for residential homes in the local development plan 2 (LDP2), and does not comply with criteria for developments outside of designated areas, sustainable development, placemaking and conservation of the built environment required by the LDP2. Officer Comment: While it is not an allocated site within the Local Development Plan, the residential caravans are repositioned within the original boundary of the caravan park rather than an addition/extension of the caravan park boundary. The overall site area therefore has an established use as a caravan park. Please see the assessment below as it pertains to compliance with the relevant development plan. Climate Impact • The development is contrary to the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) in its provisions to address the nature crisis. Officer Comment: Please see the assessment below. Miscellaneous • There is objection to the nature of retrospective planning applications and how this damages the civic environment of the area, including local faith in the planning system. Officer Comment: This pertains to the Scottish planning system in general rather than this specific application. • The objector states that the caravans are not repositioned from elsewhere in the site, but new caravans. The site is already at the permitted quota for caravan provision. Officer Comment: The caravans have been accounted for against the submitted plans and there are the correct number of caravans on site. Page 22
Page 23
• The foundations and hardstanding laid on the site is alleged to be insufficient in terms of safety. Objections to the dumping of materials to form hardstanding are made, and the objector requests the area is replanted to return it to woodland. Officer Comment: The engineering works to create the platform are not part of this application as the works were undertaken more than 4 years and are exempt from planning enforcement. • It is mentioned that the needs of the current residents are addressed by the landowner before the removal of the caravans. Officer Comment: Please see the assessment below. • Reference is made to previous planning enforcement issues with the site. Officer Comment: Each application is weighted on its own merits. Please see the assessment below. • The site does not comply with the views set out in the Cove and Kilcreggan Local Place Plan – which has care for the natural environment and encouraging working age people to move to the area as key aims. Officer Comment: Please see the assessment below. • The objector states that the site is outwith the boundary of the original planning application. Officer Comment: the new development is within the red line boundary on 11/00984/PP, although it is not designated as pitches for caravans. Support Economic Impact • The economic benefit of development is mentioned, with the contributor stating that more people will be attracted and contribute financially to the local area. Officer Comment: While it can be argued that if the park is enhanced there may be economic benefit, the caravans are repositioned from elsewhere in the site – there is no overall increase in plots meaning that there will not be significantly more residents or holiday makers than previous to the development. Road Safety • It is mentioned that the development will not increase risks to motorists or pedestrians on Shore Road. Officer Comment: Please see the assessment below. Character/Landscape • The development is small, and therefore will have a low impact on the character of the area. Officer Comment: Please see the assessment below. Amenity • The siting of the caravans enhances the view of the park from the road, and will only improve as the landscaping becomes settled and managed. Officer Comment: Please see the assessment below. Page 23
Page 24
Environmental Impact • The attached septic tanks will prevent pollution in the loch. Officer Comment: the caravans are shown as within Scottish Water Mains Supply. • There will be minimal impact on light or noise pollution. Officer Comment: Please see the assessment below. Miscellaneous • The development is supplying residential homes in the context of a housing crisis. Officer Comment: The new caravans replace old caravans that have been removed from the site, and as they are repositioned they are not providing any additional residential homes. • Should the caravans be required to be removed, that part of the site could damage visual amenity being an area of hardstanding only, potentially becoming a site for antisocial behaviour. Officer Comment: The potential for antisocial behaviour in the future is not a material planning consideration. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist The Checklist was submitted 08/09/2025 and then a revised Sustainability Checklist was submitted 20/01/2026. Contribution to community – The parks supports both permanent residents and holidaymakers. The three new chalets have greater accessibility and inclusivity and provide shorter walking distances. Support for home working – The chalets is supported by good broadband access. Minimise need for travel – The site is located near shops, schools, healthcare and recreation. There is no increase in units on the site, so no increase in travel movements. ☒Yes ☐No ☐Yes ☒No Page 24
Page 25
Existing public transport and active travel – Local bus services connect the site to nearby towns. There is walking and cycling routes locally. Appropriate location for regeneration/growth - The site has been successfully operated for decades, making it a sustainable location. There is no growth proposals and relocations would satisfy a demand for more accessible units near the entrance. Impact on existing org – Local businesses benefit from sustained tourist trade and resident expenditure. There is no food store or restaurant on site so residents require to purchase food locally. Infrastructure – the development uses existing utilities, road and drainage. Brownfield – The works are entirely within an area of Brownfield land previously used for storage and does not involve naturalised or greenfield land.(note: the planning authority do not consider the full site to have been used for storage and there has been loss of Ancient Woodland). Measures to improve/retore the natural env – Landscaping will be maintained and natural vegetation is preserved to support biodiversity. Loss of trees/woodland – There were 4 silver Birch trees removed from the area as part of woodland maintenance. The trees were in poor condition. As well as the trees some invasive Rhododendron were removed. (Note: this is not been evidenced and the planning authority have concluded more trees were removed) Loss of Open space – The development is entirely within an area previously used for storage in an established site. Construction phase – no applicable, retrospective. Landscape – the site is in a countryside location but not in a NSA or LLA. The chalets are located on the lower levels of the park and wont be prominently located or highly visible to the public. It respects the established landscape character. (Note: planning authority assessment on landscape impacts is below, this is the applicant’s perspective). Building details – The chalets are single storey, low ridge with neutral colour and sited to maximise natural light while benefiting from woodland shelter. No cut and fill was required. Conclusion – The proposals strengthens the long-term viability of an established mixed use site. It reinforces local economic resilience by supporting both permanent housing and tourism sectors. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc. Planning Statement / Economic ☒Yes ☐No Page 25
Page 26
A short statement was initially submitted explaining the site context and nature of the retrospective application and then it was subsequently revised and further information on the Housing Emergency and Economic factors was submitted. Initially all that was said was “The purpose of this application is to seek retrospective approval for the re-siting of 3 existing chalets within the park, with no increase in the currently approved number of chalets” They state the reason for the application is: “As accommodation and safety standards have increased over the years, minor changes have been made to chalet plots to best accommodate vehicles, fire safety distances between chalets, and to the chalet units themselves to deliver the most up to date modern living accommodation standards. This has resulted in the site owner relocating the 3 chalets to an alternative location where accessibility is improved on a lower ground level near the entrance of the site.” “The retrospective 3 chalets are in use as 2 residential chalets, and 1 holiday chalet. The applicant is simply reorganising 3 existing chalets to an alternative location within their established site boundary. The proposal does not constitute an intensification of use, and complies with the limitations set out in Policy 69 of the LDP2, and the intended aims of NPF4 Policy 30.” The additional / revised statement also includes the following key points: - “The two residential chalets included in this application provide permanent homes, directly contributing to housing availability. While sustainability objectives are important, the housing emergency requires planning decisions to prioritise the preservation of existing housing stock.” - Granting permission would be “ensuring that the Auchengower Caravan Park can continue to play its part in supporting local tourism, sustainable rural living, and addressing Scotland’s pressing housing challenges.” - Park investment “the applicant has invested £570,000 in maintaining, improving and safeguarding the site over the last 10 years. This investment has been funded entirely from private means and reflects a sustained commitment to the site.” Also in summary they state that prior to investment, internal roads were badly maintained and footpaths unsafe, woodland/tree management was non existent, and rhododendron was overgrown throughout the site. The removal of the Listed Auchengower House was for genuine safety reasons as the building was derelict, unsafe and beyond repair. The applicant accepts that formal consent was not secured but the works were carried out in good faith. - The retrospective units are necessary to the site financial structure and the income will help meet the Page 26
Page 27
ongoing essential costs – tree inspections, woodland management, compliance upgrades, insurance and general maintenance. Without this investment, the site will inevitably deteriorate and there will be increased safety risks. Refusal would remove a key income stream. - Supporting Information is published in full on the planning application file and is available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure NPF4 Policy 22 – Flooding and Water Management Productive Places NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Page 27
Page 28
Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 06 – Green Infrastructure Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Policy 26 – Informal Public Outdoor Recreation and Leisure Related Development Connected Places Policy 33 – Public Transport Infrastructure Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Access Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 52 – Community Plans, Local Place Plans and Locality Plans Policy 60 - Private Sewage Treatment Plans and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Drainage Systems Homes for People Policy 66 – New Residential Development on Non-Allocated Housing Sites within Settlement Areas Policy 69 – Residential Caravans and Sites (for Permanent Homes) High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (“The 1960 Act”) • Cove and Kilcreggan Local Place Plan • Landscape Character Assessment (Nature Scot 2019) Page 28
Page 29
• Rosneath Peninsula Environmental Baseline Report (LUC 2023) • Argyll and Bute Local Housing Strategy 2022-2027 (“LHS”) • Housing (Scotland) Act 2014 (“The 2014 Act”) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • ABC Economic Development Action Plan • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) • Historic Environment Scotland - HEPS • Historic Environment Scotland – Managing Change in The Historic Environment - various (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No A total of 15 public representations have been received in response to this planning application, of which 12 are in objection and 2 are in support. There is also a representation from the Community Council in objection. Although the application has raised many concerns locally given it is retrospective and required enforcement case being opened, it is the opinion of the Planning Authority that the representations received do not raise any complex issues. We consider that the Officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report and the presentation at PPSL which will present the finished retrospective development, provides all the information required to enable Members to make an informed decision based on all the material planning considerations in this case. It is therefore not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Ancient woodland inventory • Semi ancient woodland • Setting of Listed Building (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Class 4.1 - Land capable of producing a narrow range of crops, primarily grassland with short arable breaks of forage crops and cereal. Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Page 29
Page 30
Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? Note: This is a retrospective application and tree loss has already taken place. No further tree loss is proposed. ☒Yes ☐No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☒No details to be secured by condition if to be approved ☐N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield Site is part brownfield and part greenfield. ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☐Settlement Area ☒Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations This application is made following planning enforcement case 24/00057/ENOTH2. Retrospective planning permission is sought for the following; a repositioning of three caravans (one holiday and two residential use), along with associated works being the erection of associated decking for each caravan and formation of parking/turning areas for the caravans within an established caravan park. The application site is at the south-west of the Auchengower Park, on the first bend of the access that leads up to the rest of the park. Auchengower Park has been a registered caravan site from 07/04/2017 for both residential and holiday caravans. At the time of writing, public representations had been received by the Planning Authority from 15 respondents in relation to this planning application with 13 objecting (including the Community Council) and the remaining 2 supporting. Loss of woodland and landscape/visual impacts are the key concern of the public representatives. Page 30
Page 31
In summary the key conclusions of the officer’s assessment are: • There are significant benefits of the proposal in terms of providing affordable, accessible permanent homes within an established residential park to meet current expected standards. • There are benefits in creating an income stream for an existing established tourism / residential caravan site that requires the income to ensure the long term maintenance and sustainability of the site as a whole. • The layout and landscape effect of the development has altered the woodland and coastal character of the area, affected the setting of a listed building, namely Auchengower Lodge and the important gap between the settlements has adversely affecting the sense of place, and resulting in a proposal that is therefore not consistent with the development plan but subject to conditions these impacts can be reduced significantly. • There were adverse impacts on trees and Ancient Woodland through the creation of the original hardstanding area but this area was created more than 4 years ago and is now lawful. There was also further removal of trees to create views from the caravans within the Ancient Woodland. There is however no objection from the biodiversity officer as there is now an opportunity to mitigate the loss of woodland and protected species, via conditions, by requiring a wildlife survey, bringing in soils from a local source and securing compensatory native planting to enhance the woodland in the long term. This long-term enhancement also includes continued management of the non-native rhododendron on site which is a significant benefit to the area. • On balance, the provision of caravans on this area of hardstanding that has become lawful, will be an improvement to the area being used for storage/materials which would be more unsightly than this tidy and quality caravan development. The landscaping will reduce any impacts to negligible in the long term. In conclusion, there is support within the policy provision of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) in terms of providing permanent affordable homes, supporting the tourism sector and sustaining an established long business but it is acknowledged the local landscape and ancient woodland has been affected by the development works. In approving the proposal, there can be significant gains to local biodiversity in terms of long-term woodland management and the landscape harm can be somewhat mitigated. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be approved as a minor departure from the development. The full report is provided in Appendix A. This application would be determined as a local application under the Council’s delegation scheme; however, several public representations has been received. To meet the requirement of the scheme of delegation, the planning application for the proposed development is therefore put to Members for determination. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No Page 31
Page 32
(R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: See Section (S) below. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan NPF4 policies 9, 14, 30 and LDP2 policies 05, 08, 09, 10 and 23 seek to ensure that development is of appropriate design and siting and does not adversely affect on landscape character or valued landscape qualities. The proposal has had an adverse impact on the sensitive undeveloped woodland and coastal landscape character and valued landscape qualities of this countryside area between Ardpeaton and Cove. NPF4 Policies 4 and 6 and LDP2 Policies 02, 73, 77 and 78 seek to enhance biodiversity, protect woodlands including Ancient Woodland. The proposal has involved the loss of some woodland which has not been able to be quantified. The loss of Ancient Woodland is contrary to the aforementioned policies. NPF4 Policy 7, LDP2 Policy 16 and relevant HES guidance seek to protect historic assets. The setting of the nearby Listed Building - Auchengower Lodge – has been affected by the introduction of the three new chalets. The lodge house would have previously been the only building at the road level to the main house. In the particular circumstance of this case, it is considered that this shortfall can be accepted as a minor departure to policy given the following wider considerations: • There are significant benefits of the proposal in terms of providing affordable, accessible permanent homes and also creating an income stream for an existing established tourism / residential caravan site that requires the income to ensure the long term maintenance and sustainability of the site. • The site is within an established site with necessary infrastructure provision and does not result in an overall net increase in the number of caravans in terms of impact on travel. There is good connections by bus from the site to nearby facilities such as medical centre, shops, onward travel, schools and the residents and holiday makers of the site will support the local businesses – shops and facilities etc. • There will be suitable tree re-planting to reduce the visual impact and the previous unsightly storage area has been removed. • There will be biodiversity gains from long-term woodland management and removal of invasive Rhododendron ponticum. • The application site was the previously a storage area at the entrance to the caravan site with a bin area and so had already had its setting affected. The impact therefore considered minor. Page 32
Page 33
• There are no objections from Roads, Environmental Health or the Council’s biodiversity officer. It is noted that the Community Council object but this is on the issue that it was retrospective rather than the impacts the proposal has on the environment. Whilst it is recognised that the proposal does not fully meet the provisions of a number of policies in terms of landscape, woodland and historic assets, the mitigating factors detailed above are of sufficient materiality for the application to be approved as a minor departure to the Development Plan. (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 30.01.2026 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 05.02.2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 33
Page 34
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/00516/PP 1. Approved Details Unless otherwise directed by any of the conditions below, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified in the application form dated 1 May 2025; the supporting information; and the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan 1 of 4 28.04.2025 Existing Site Plan 2 of 4 31.03.2025 Proposed Site Plan 3 of 4 28.05.2025 Chalet Floor Plan 4 of 4 10.04.2025 Landscape Plan 10B 20.01.2026 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Defining Use of Caravans: The occupation of caravans 1 and 3 hereby approved shall be permanent residences and the occupation of caravan 2 hereby approved shall be solely for holiday purposes and may not function as a permanent residence. Reason: In order to define the permitted occupancy having regard to the lawful use of the site. 3. External Lighting Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, all external lighting on the application site shall be operated, positioned and angled in compliance with the Scottish Government Guidance Note “Controlling Light Pollution and Reducing Lighting Energy Consumption” (March 2007). Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the immediate area from the creation of nuisance due to light pollution and to support the reduction of energy consumption 4. Wildlife Surveys Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, within 1 month from the date of this decision, a detailed habitat and species survey shall be undertaken and the results, together with a scheme of enhancement measures, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The survey methodology shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the survey commences. The scheme of measures shall be implemented in full accordance with a time-scale to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority or no later than 12 months from the date of this decision. Page 34
Page 35
Reason: To safeguard protected species and nature conservation interests and ensure the proposed biodiversity enhancement and landscape proposals are suitable. 5. Biodiversity Enhancement Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, within 3 months from the date of this decision, a final biodiversity statement, based on the findings of the species survey as per Condition 4, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The statement shall demonstrate how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be implemented and maintained for the lifetime of the development. All physical biodiversity enhancement measures (e.g. bird nesting boxes, ‘swift bricks’, wildlife ponds, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes, etc) shall be implemented in full no later than 12 months from the date of this decision. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within the next available planting season or no later than 12 months from the date of this decision. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot and Scottish Government Planning Guidance: Biodiversity as appropriate. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. 6. Non-Native Species Removal Plan Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a long-term Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) Flora Management and Removal Plan, including a timetable for the maintenance works, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Biodiversity Officer. The approved plan shall have been prepared by a suitably-qualified person. Thereafter, the plan shall be fully adhered to, and any removal shall be implemented in accordance with the plan and the timetable. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity Note: This guidance from FLS may be of use Stem Guide (low res web copy) single pages 7. Landscaping scheme Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, within 3 months from the date of this decision, a final scheme of landscape plan (based on the draft plan, received 20.01.2026) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a final planting plan and schedule which shall include details of: i. Proposed soft landscaping including the final location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted alongside the road edge with no gaps (based on any recommendations from the protected species survey); ii. Final paint colours for the decking; Page 35
Page 36
iii. Details of any soils to be brought on to site, including the source. Note: it should be sourced from a nearby site with compatible soil type to reduce impact. iv. A programme for ongoing maintenance. All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority within 6 months of the decision hereby issued. Any trees/shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme fail to become established, die, become seriously diseased, or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the following planting season with equivalent numbers, sizes and species as those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity. 8. Changes to caravans The permission hereby granted relates to the retention of the caravans existing on the site at the date of the application only and no replacement caravans shall be sited on the land unless, and until, details of the size, design and colour of such replacement caravans have first been approved in writing of the Planning Authority. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and to safeguard the visual amenities of the area. 9. Numbers of Caravans: Not more than 3 caravans shall be sited on the land the subject of this permission at any one time and shall not be laid out other than in accordance with the approved Proposed Site Plan received by the Planning Authority on 28.05.2025. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and to safeguard the visual amenities of the area. 10. Surface Water Drainage Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, within 3 months from the date of this decision, details of a sustainable urban drainage system compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C753 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Council’s Flood Advisors. The approved surface water drainage system shall be operational within a further 3 months of the scheme being approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate surface water drainage is implemented to prevent flooding elsewhere. 11. Parking The parking area for a minimum of 1 vehicle per unit shall be retained for such a dedicated purpose, unless the prior consent for variation is obtained in writing from the planning authority. Page 36
Page 37
Reason: To comply with car parking standards contained in Policy 40 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. Page 37
Page 38
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/00516/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Background and Settlement Strategy . 1.1. The Caravan Park is located between the settlements of Cove and Ardpeaton in an area of countryside and has been in operation since the 1970s and is a long-established local business. The caravan site has permission for 30 residential caravans and 30 non- residential caravans – a total of 60 caravans with a specific layout, required by Condition 5 of C3122: “That the caravans are sited in accordance with the layout pan approved by the county council”. The site was originally built around a Victorian Villa, known as Auchengower Mansion House (Category B Listed Building), which has been subject to unauthorised demolition in circa 2020. The House sat up on the cliffside and its landscaped gardens surrounding was developed into the caravan park. There are numerous enforcement cases live at the caravan park, mostly relating to the repositioning of caravans without permission, some which followed the demolition of the listed building. Members should be aware that it is the planning authority’s opinion that the building was likely to have been beyond economic repair and was subject to a Demolition Notice issued by the Council’s building standards team. The applicant states in their supporting statement that “The removal of the Listed Auchengower House was for genuine safety reasons as the building was derelict, unsafe and beyond repair. The applicant accepts that formal consent was not secured but the works were carried out in good faith.” So it is agreed that even though formal consent was not sought that the works to demolish the house are likely to have been consented as the Policy on Listed Buildings allows demolition where there a property is beyond economic repair. It has therefore not been considered expedient to enforce against this matter. 1.2. The historic planning permissions provide clear detail on the layout of the caravan park as it relates to the pitches and access to caravans in the upper part of the site, in contrast to this, the application site is listed as a ‘refuse/bin store and collection point’ and ‘woodland area’. In the historic planning reports it was states that: “We would also like to set a limitation on the siting of caravans in that they must not be visible from the main road”. The previous planning history of the park clearly and precisely sets out the permitted number of caravans and their layout, which this application contradicts hence the reason for enforcement. Further, both C3122 (condition 6) and C3122/1 (condition 2) require that: “no trees or bushes be removed from the site without the consent of the county council” and “No trees shall be removed without the prior consent of the district council. Reason: In accordance with previous consent and in the interests of amenity” respectively which is a breach of condition. 1.3. The legislation from the Scottish Government on fire safety was updated guidance in 2022, requiring spacing between caravans to generally be no less than 6 metres and the site license has conditions dictating this minimum distance between caravans. The applicant argues that increased demands on space for parking/turning, larger units as well as legislation requiring set distances between caravans to increase, the site has become crowded in its previously permitted layout. It is therefore not offering the best environment for permanent residents in accordance with current standards and is bringing the viability of the caravan park into question. They argue that this is why the repositioning has been carried out, to improve access and privacy for residents across the whole site. Page 38
Page 39
1.4. In terms of the LDP2, the site is defined as ‘Outwith Settlement Areas’ within an area identified as ‘Countryside Area’ (CA) where Policy 02 of LDP2 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2. In CAs, where there are nature conservation or landscape designations in place, Policy 02 requires that development proposals will demonstrate that they are compatible with the designation interests. The woodland interests and landscape character have been impacted by the development. The clearing of trees on the boundary of the site has made it especially prominent, especially compared to the previously woodland appearance along the roadside. The landscape character of the area has been altered. There has been no submission of a landscape and visual impact assessment to support the application. Further detailed assessment of this impact is below. 1.5. The site is partially brownfield site, as prior to siting the caravans part of the site was a level area of hardstanding. The area of hardstanding was unauthorised works undertaken in 2020 that is now time barred from enforcement. The rest of the site was greenfield and included woodland. The proposed development must be considered against NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings. Policy 9 b) requires that: proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. The proposal is a minor departure from this policy given a very small part of the application site was greenfield. 1.6. LDP2 Policy 23 – Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities dictates a presumption in favour of new or improved tourist facilities and accommodation, provided it meets certain criteria. NPF4 Policy 30 Tourism states that a) development proposals for new or extended tourist facilities or accommodation, including caravan and camping sites, in locations identified within the LDP, will be supported if they meet a number of criteria. The proposal is effectively re-positioning of caravans for tourist and residential use and therefore the principle of the development is supported by this policy. However, the policy has other criteria including compatibility with the surrounding area which is relevant when considering the re-positioning and this is assessed below. 1.7. NPF4 Policy 17 rural homes does not apply to this proposal, as the caravans are not new homes. Similarly, Policy 69 – residential caravans and sites (for permanent homes) states that no new residential caravans will be permitted for permanent homes; however, there is no policy conflict between this requirement and the proposal. Several objectors mentioned that the caravans are new, and that this development therefore must be contrary to policy, however the caravans on site have been counted and accord to the site plans that have been provided. There is no increase in residential caravans. This aspect of the application is therefore consistent with policy 17 and 69, despite it being a development that involves residential caravans. They are caravans that previously have had permission and are solely being re-positioned. Despite the lack of support from Policy 69 for new residential caravans, it should be recognised that the residential caravan sector in Scotland plays a significant role in delivering housing, particularly affordable housing. 2. Local Living and sustainable transport 2.1. NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. 2.2. As the development is a repositioning of 3 caravans within the existing Auchengower Park, this development creates no additional travel generation. Furthermore, the site is Page 39
Page 40
already served by nearby public transport routes, although it has been identified in the LPP that active travel routes in the area need improvement. The 3 units are also not up the steep road so provide 3 more accessible units wherein those that are disabled can easily access the bus stop at the entrance of the site. Overall, the application is consistent with the requirements of NPF4 – Policy 13 and LDP2 Policy 33 – Public Transport Infrastructure and Local Living Policy 15 of NPF4. 3. Location, Nature and Design of Retrospective Development 3.1. The application site is within the existing boundary of Auchengower Caravan Park, approximately 30 metres up the access from the B833 (Shore Road). It is rectangular in shape, 1500 square metres in size, and approximately 6 metres east of the B833. As the application is retrospective, the site has already been cleared of vegetation, the ground has already been profiled, and the caravans have been erected on site with associated decking, new internal road and parking areas. 3.2. In terms of the engineering works to create the previous storage area, this was created approximately 9-10 years ago shortly after the new owner bought the site. The area was used to store rubble at the time of the demolition of the Auchengower Mansion site in circa March 2020 and the council have photographic evidence of this and the expansion of this area (now 6 years ago). The engineering works to create this platform / storage area and the loss of woodland as the result of this storage area are not subject to consideration as they have become time barred from any enforcement action. 3.3. Peaton Glen, Ardpeaton Woods is designated as a Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS) and it bounds Auchengower Caravan Park to the north, approximately 100 metres from the application site. Open Space Protected Area (OSPA) OS2036 is immediately to the west of the B833; it runs parallel to the site and separates the land between the shore of Loch Long and the B883. There is no overlap between the application site and the LNCS or the OSPA, they are merely in close proximity. While the site is not within the settlement boundary of Cove, it is immediately adjacent to the village boundary making it approximately half a kilometre from the Cove and Kilcreggan Conservation Area. It is concluded that the LNCS, OSPA and the Conservation Area are not affected by the development. 3.4. The site is within an area of Ancient Woodland and this is assessed in more detail below as there has been some impacts in this regard. 3.5. The landscape and seascape character of the wider Rosneath Peninsula is described as noticeably less developed, giving a greater sense of rurality. The smaller-scale wooded nature of the coastal fringes create a more intimate landscape with a higher perceived sense of wildness, whilst the open moorland hills offer panoramic views across the sea lochs to the mountains beyond by the Rosneath Peninsula Environmental Baseline Report (2023). The site of this development is visible primarily in close view from the road, and the area is accessed by a diverse array of receptors, from commuters and locals to recreational walkers, cyclists and those on ferries, sailing or fishing but the wider views are from a distance and are filtered and framed by trees along the shore (which remain and are in the OSPA on the opposite side of the road). 3.6. The proposal consists of the repositioning of three Boston model caravans, measuring 12 metres x 6 metres (12.68 metres x 6.644 metres size from roof and including barge boards) and single storey in height with a sloped roof. They have been erected with the decking facing towards the B833 and Loch Long, with the side elevation visible on approach from the access. They provide an open plan lounge, dining area and kitchen at the rear, with bedrooms, shower room, and en-suite at the front. The caravans are of Page 40
Page 41
contemporary design, finished with wood grained aluminium cladding. The attached decking extends a further 2.5 metres from the rear elevation, 7.2 metres across from the elevation, 9 metres parallel down the side elevation, before meeting the side elevation again 1.2 metres in. The siting of the caravans positions panoramic windows and decking towards Loch Long and positioning near to the entrance of the site is intended to enhance the accessibility. The layout can therefore be said to improve views of the landscape from the caravans. 3.7. The Landscape Character Assessment (Nature Scot 2019) states that the area is ‘Open Ridges’ Landscape Character Type and it is described as “Settlement is largely confined to the loch edges. The houses are typically at an acute angle to the road and are stepped up the slope on terraces. Beech hedges contrast with local stone walls, natural rock outcrops and mixed woodlands to create a richly varied local landscape. The strip of land by the loch side is particularly prominent in views from the opposite side of the loch. Reflection increases the visual effect of built development on this shoreline landscape.” It also states “Despite the wooded character, there are many long, framed views and the landscape has an open, well-structured character” and “On the loch edges, there is a gradual change to a smaller scale landscape, with wooded gills and a narrow, intermittent band of built development”. 3.8. The topography of Auchengower Caravan Park contributes to the assessment of this site as it relates to landscape character and amenity. The park sits on a steep slope and before this development the caravans were all sited in the upper portion, therefore screened from view by the slope and surrounding woodland. This also meant the landscape character between the settlements of Cove and Ardpeaton was predominately the original woodland character. This is only a small section between the two settlements but it is important green area between the build up areas and interrupts the ribbon development that makes up the settlement areas. 3.9. The caravans sit on a small and gentle slope down to the B833, with the rear raised to maintain level, which provides the caravans a better view out onto Loch Long; and their height above the road mean they are not immediately on the roadside and there is space for landscaping to the front. Part of the application site was the ‘refuse/bin store and collection point’ as shown on the original application C.3122 and 11/00984/PP which benefited from a woodland screen. This woodland screen could be replaced. 3.10. It is accepted that the previously approved layout (in the 1970s) was carefully considered to avoid the area on the lower side of the cliff next to the road where there is a strip of Ancient Woodland. However, via suitable mitigation a new woodland screen can protect and enhance this important roadside strip on the lower slope. 3.11. The applicant claims it was only 4 birch trees that were removed but there was evidence of more than 4 trees and a mix of species. On the officer’s site visit it was noted that there were a number of stumps of Sycamore trees left along the edge of the site beside the road, and one stump from a birch. The trees are already growing back and the original stone boundary wall remains. Even though there has currently been no replanting to form screening via new shrubbery/trees, the applicant confirms that he was told to stop works before he had finished the landscape works. The applicant has submitted a detailed replanting plan including the replacement of a mixed native hedgerow along the side of the wall, 15 larger Oak and Birch trees and a mix of smaller native bushes around the edge of the decking. This is welcomed and will significantly mitigate the landscape and visual impacts of this development. Page 41
Page 42
3.12. NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. LDP2 Policies 05, 08, 09 and 10 serve to ensure that development, by reason of density and layout, effectively integrate with their setting and they resist developments with poor quality or inappropriate layouts or densities including over-development. NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development b) requires that development proposals in rural areas should be suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. 3.13. The design of the development does not in itself present a contradiction to NPF4 policy 14 or LDP2 Policies 05, 08, 09 and 10 as the caravan’s colour and style is in keeping with the caravans across the existing caravan park. The LDP2 states that: “Argyll and Bute’s wet and damp climate and often exposed locations mean that such homes [Caravans] can be difficult to heat and are prone to deteriorating faster than their designed life and so they are not considered suitable for long term retention” (8.7). However, the caravans are new, likely making them more sustainable than older models. 3.14. LDP2 Policy 23 – Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities dictates a presumption in favour of new or improved tourist facilities and accommodation, provided that: i. the development is in a form scale and location which is consistent with its surroundings; ii. The proposals respect and integrate well with the landscape/townscape character and the amenity of the surrounding area; iii. They are located in accessible locations, taking into account the scale and nature of the proposed development, and include proposals to widen the options for sustainable travel to access them (including public transport, cycling or on foot); and iv. They are well related to the existing built form of settlement areas or the existing development pattern outwith the settlement areas and avoid dispersed pattern of development unless the developer has demonstrated a locational requirement based upon the need to be near to the specific tourist interest being exploited and that the proposed development will not undermine these interests. It is considered that this development is acceptable in terms of its location with access to sustainable travel, and subject to the landscaping as mentioned above, it will be framed and sit comfortably in the landscape in the longer term. Even though it is creating further ribbon development, this development pattern is existing and therefore the development has not created a dispersed pattern of development. 3.15. NPF4 Policy 30 has similar criteria and requires proposals to be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of nature and scale of the activity and impacts of increased visitors. There is no increase in the number of visitors as the caravans are not ‘new’ but re-positioned. 3.16. The Rosneath Peninsula Environmental Baseline Report (2023) states that new development and changes in land use along the coastal fringes of the peninsula may result in the degradation of the landscape and visual resource, including loss of important landscape features such as trees and woodland. The proposal is considered to be a minor departure from both LDP2 Policy 23 and NPF4 Policy 30 given that there has been loss of important landscape features i.e. trees, but subject to extensive new landscaping the coastal fringe is considered to be protected in the long term. 3.17. The significant level of replanting will bring back the woodland character and reverse the adverse effect on the previously woodland character of the site. Subject to the compliance with the condition, the development will become sympathetic to the woodland landscape that it is positioned in, and the concern over the current lack of boundary treatment on the landscape will be removed. Page 42
Page 43
4. Visual Amenity 4.1. As stated above, the site of this development is visible to the locality, with the visual amenity of this site characterised by a rural, woodland and coastal appearance between the settlements of Cove and Ardpeaton. The contemporary design of the caravans, coupled with the raw material finish and loss of woodland has had an impact on the visual amenity of the area, particularly from fleeting glimpses as you travel along the road. 4.2. LDP2 Policy 02 and 23 requires that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects on visual amenity. NPF4 Policy 14 – Liveable Places c) states that 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. 4.3. The LDP2 states that: “static caravans because of their shape, size and materials of construction can often be difficult to integrate visually with their landscape or townscape settings and can therefore have a detrimental impact on the amenity of a local area” (8.8). There are concerns from several contributors with regard to the amenity of the local area, and how the development has negatively impacted it. Even though the impact on amenity of the development is currently deemed unacceptable, there is significant mitigation proposed. As previously mentioned, the site is sensitive due to its location on the B833 and proximity to the OSPA and shorefront where there are a large and diverse array of receptors. However, the views from the loch are framed by existing woodland and are fleeting. The muted brown colours of the caravans means that from a distance they will be difficult to distinguish in the wider landscape. 4.4. The decking and fencing surrounding the caravans is of timber construction, it significantly extends the footprint and visibility of the caravans. The raw material finish of the timber fencing makes the caravans stand out strongly against the surrounding trees which previously characterised the site. The contemporary finish and design of the caravans is acceptable in the context of a long-established caravan park. Currently, there has been no replanting to screen or soften the visual impact of the caravans, however the owner proposing new landscaping to help integrate the caravans with their site. 4.5. Conditions requiring extensive boundary treatments and landscaping to integrate the site with its surroundings and provide screening would be required to reduce the harm to amenity. It is therefore considered that subject to the screening the proposal would be a minor departure from policy in this regard. 5. Natural Environment 5.1. The site is within an area of ancient woodland, where there has been a loss of woodland resource which may have been home to red squirrels, bats and many other important birds and plants. The woodland has already been removed and the information provided by the owner has not been verified by any supporting information and there is no information on the condition or the biodiversity value of the current site. Aerial photography and street view imagery illustrates there was continuous woodland on the site (prior to the unauthorised engineering works and the caravans being sited) and a number of mature trees. It should be noted that there is a small part of the site (next to the access road) has been clear of woodland for many years, so the full site is not ancient woodland. This part of the site has been listed as a bin store or vacant space in different approved plans and constitutes under a third of the total site. 5.2. The Rosneath Peninsula Environmental Baseline Report (2023) states that increasing demand for new development along the narrow coastal fringes of the Rosneath Peninsula Page 43
Page 44
could result in increased fragmentation of habitats (e.g., woodland). Not only does this vegetation provide habitats for biodiversity, but it is also integral to defining the smaller scale landscape character of the coastal fringes. 5.3. Even though part of the application site has been previously a bin storage area of potentially low biodiversity value given the rhododendron which is invasive, there has been part of the site that would have been mature woodland (as can been seen from google imagery), where there could have been important wildlife. The clearing of vegetation and ground engineering works will have had some impact on biodiversity. NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity requires that d) any potential adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, of development proposals on biodiversity, nature networks and the natural environment will be minimised through careful planning and design. A draft landscaping plan has been submitted to show proposed landscaping works with some biodiversity enhancement measures including the continued control of the non-native invasive rhododendron and retention of felled trees/logs on the woodland floor. The draft landscape plan will help reduce the fragmentation of the woodland and enhance biodiversity. The biodiversity officer is content with the draft landscape plan, although there was some concern about bringing soil into the site and the need for a species survey to gauge what species are using the site currently to inform the final landscaping and biodiversity enhancement measures. 5.4. It is recommended that conditions would secure the implementation of the landscaping plan and the final details of the size of species and any other biodiversity enhancement measures inc. long-term control of the invasives and features that help the wildlife on site. Therefore, nature based solutions would contribute significantly to enhance the site, and potentially could make the proposed development consistent with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 4 or LDP2 policy 73 (development impact on habitats, species and biodiversity). 5.5. Conditions are considered to make the development compliant and enhance the biodiversity to reverse the loss. This would include biodiversity enhancement measures: a programme of tree planting and monitoring; bird and bat boxes; red squirrel feeding boxes; native wildflower planting; among other possible measures. 6. Trees and Woodland 6.1. As indicated above, the site is identified as Ancient Woodland where there has been removal of woodland resource to accommodate the hardstanding/engineered platform (which is exempt from enforcement) where the caravans are sited but also areas of woodland around this platform were cleared to create views. This means that developing part of the site would not have resulted in loss of woodland and the area removed has mainly been along the roadside. 6.2. The applicant has said 4 silver birch were removed and were in poor condition but they have not backed this up with any evidence of the size or condition of the trees that have been cleared. A tree survey was not carried out on site before works began, meaning that it cannot be said what trees were on site; however, during a site inspection there was evidence of several tree stumps from mainly Sycamore and Birch and that the site is fairly wet with a ditch running behind the wall. There was evidence of rhododendron having been removed and is now returning in small shoots. There is woodland removed outwith the red line boundary, but the works to remove it were carried out in conjunction with this development. In addition, historic images and mapping show a mixture of trees and shrubbery contained along this stretch. Page 44
Page 45
6.3. NPF4 – Policy 6 b) states that development proposals will not be supported where they (i.) result in any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition; (iii) fragmenting or severing woodland habitats, unless appropriate mitigation measures are identified and implemented in line with the mitigation hierarchy. The loss of ancient woodland in this instance is contrary to the development plan. 6.4. NPF4 - policy 6 c) requires: “Development proposals involving woodland removal will only be supported where they will achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits in accordance with relevant Scottish Government policy on woodland removal. Where woodland is removed, compensatory planting will most likely be expected to be delivered.” This, at a minimum, requires compensatory planting to be carried out by the applicant to become compliant with this aspect of the policy. 6.5. LDP2 Policy 77 states there is “a strong presumption in favour of protecting woodland resources” with particular care to be taken to ensure that ancient semi-natural woodland of high nature conservation value is safeguarded, conserved and, where possible, enhanced. While a loss of irreplaceable woodland has already resulted from this development, further works must be undertaken to compensate for the impact. 6.6. The proposal is clearly contrary to the development plan as it relates to trees and woodland where Ancient Woodland has been removed to accommodate this development site. If the development is approved, a programme of tree planting should be submitted to include species which must be native and appropriate to the locality of the area and sourced locally, location, age, timing of planting and a schedule of monitoring and maintenance until such a time as the trees become established. 6.7. Both previous permissions contain conditions restricting the removal of trees from the site in order to preserve the amenity that they provide in screening the site. No trees or bushes are to be removed without the prior consent of the planning authority, which means that these works constitute a breach of conditions as well as being contrary to the development plan. This is however it a minor breach given the owner is willing to provide replacement tree planting, in native species which will mitigate the loss and indeed further enhance the woodland, that was previous choked with invasive rhododendron, via long-term management of the invasives. 7. Historic Environment 7.1 The caravans are positioned at the entrance of what was the Auchengower Lodge House which is a Category B Listed Building. The Listing states “Later 19th century. Single storey, L-plan, gabled Gothic lodge with Jacobean Baronial details en suite with villa of Auchengower. Whinstone and sandstone rubble, polished sandstone dressings and margins; chamfered reveals, lintel band with chip-carved floral details. Base course; quoins; eaves band. Projecting eaves supported on paired timber consoles at corners.” 7.2 The caravans are approximately 70m to the north of the Lodge and therefore the setting of the Lodge House needs to be considered. 7.3 NPF4 Policy 7 (Historic assets and places) generally seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment, assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. NPF4 Policy 7(c) requires that development proposals affecting the setting of a listed building preserve its character, and its special architectural or historic interest. LDP2 Policy 16 (Listed Buildings) add to this that that development must be of the highest quality, and respect the original structure in terms of setting, scale, design, materials and proposed use. Page 45
Page 46
7.4 Historic Environment Scotland do not advise on matters relating to category B or C listed properties. 7.5 It is considered that the proposed development, by reason of siting, scale, form and style will have an adverse impact on character of the listed lodge house in accordance with NPF 4 Policy 7, LDP2 Policy 16 and relevant HES guidance on development impact on historic assets, but it must be noted that the site was previously a storage area (albeit constructed without planning permission) and was unsightly. Therefore this is considered to be a minor departure from the development plan. 8. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters. 8.1. The proposal does not provide an intensification of use, and so access does not materially differ from previous to the development. As mentioned previously, there are existing public transport networks that serve the park; and while the LPP states active travel links need improvement, they are in place. The parking provision is sufficient for the caravans, and there has been enough space provided for one car between each caravan as per the fire safety guidance (2022). 8.2. As the roads authority has no objections to the proposal, access and parking is consistent with requirements. 9. Infrastructure, flood and water management 9.1. NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. While some contributors mention concern about the potential for flooding on the B833, the site is not within a future flood likelihood area, or a drainage consultation area. This site is within Scottish Water Mains Supply. 9.2. The proposal therefore aligns with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 55 – Flooding. 10. Contaminated Land 10.1 The source of the material to construct the storage area where the caravans are now sited, is unknown. There may have been risk of contaminants but the engineering works to create the platform is not part of this planning application. 11. Other Material considerations 11.1. The Local Place Plan (LPP) produced by Cove and Kilcreggan Community Council, accords with NPF4 and LDP2 requirements by: showing how the community has been engaged and involved in the plan; it has been informed by place based assessments; spatial maps clearly show development and improvement proposals; and, an outline delivery strategy is included, meaning that it can be considered in this application as a material consideration. 11.2. The Local Place Plan (LPP) requires that all new developments show a commitment to sustainability while preserving the area’s unique heritage. Protecting and building on the Victorian heritage of the village, any new development should fit in and reflect this. It is accepted that the site is on a prominent approach to the village, but once the new landscaping is established this will preserve the character and heritage of the village. Page 46
Page 47
11.3. Environmental protection is identified as a core tenant of the LPP, it is the second theme addressed by the plan. The repositioning of three caravans and their associated decking is not considered to be a significant detriment to the nature or climate crisis in itself. Depleted biodiversity in the area is a key challenge addressed under this theme however, and as mentioned above, the full extent of biodiversity impact of the development is difficult to assess when the development is retrospective. The biodiversity requirements set out in the LPP include: the planting of native species and wildflowers, as well as providing wildlife habitat. A community initiative detailed in the plan identifies the coastal foreshore (including this site in the caravan park) as key for providing better access, whilst maintaining and managing habitats for wildlife. The applicant has submitted a draft landscape scheme which includes details of the new native planting and also rhododendron clearance in line with this aspiration. 11.4. The Cove and Kilcreggan Community Council whilst they offer objection, it relates to the owner undertaking the works retrospectively, rather than in principle or in relation to the harm caused. Indeed the Community Council have suggested suitable mitigation. They request that in the event of the application being given permission that “significant amelioration of the current site to reduce the visual impact of this development”, including vegetation management, appropriate colour schemes for the fencing and resolving any potential drainage issues which could cause flooding on the B833. They also state that in the event enforcement action requires the removal and replacement of the caravans to elsewhere in the park, that this is done at the expense of the owner and not the residents. Page 47
Page 48
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 49
© Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/00516/PP O 1:1,250 0 10 205 Meters Application Site Page 49
Page 50
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 51
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth This Supplementary report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) consultation on the Section 36 Consultation for Cnoc Buidhe Wind Energy Hub, comprising a wind farm of up to 29 wind turbines, with 14 of these up to 180m to blade tip and 15 up to 200m to blade tip, with an ancillary battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure approx. 2.5km East of Bellochantuy and 10km Northwest of Campbeltown. _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 25/00600/S36/ ECU00004767 Applicant: Cnoc Buidhe Wind Energy Hub Limited Proposal: S36 Consultation: Cnoc Buidhe Wind Energy Hub, comprising a wind farm of up to 29 wind turbines, with 14 of these up to 180m to blade tip and 15 up to 200m to blade tip, with an ancillary battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure. Site Address: Approx. 2.5km East of Bellochantuy and 10km Northwest of Campbeltown _________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Supplementary Report is for the consideration of Members. 1.2 A detailed Report of Handling and Supplementary Report 1 were prepared for PPSL Committee on the 21st January 2026. 1.3 At said committee the Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the reports which provided a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) consultation on the Section 36 Application for Cnoc Buidhe Wind Energy Hub. 1.4 The Committee was asked to agree the recommended response to the ECU set out in the report of handling. The Committee agreed that the ECU be notified accordingly that: 1. Ornithology - Argyll and Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion on ornithology due to the outstanding information requested by NatureScot in respect to a kernel analysis for golden eagle and alternative raft locations for Osprey. Furthermore, the Council does not agree that a suspensive condition is the best mechanism to secure the removal of five wind turbines in the interests of mitigating barrier effects on Greenland white-fronted geese. It is considered that this amendment to the proposal would constitute a material change which could have implications for the wider proposal that are unclear at this time and require to be explored e.g. environmental impacts, infrastructure re-design, and requirement for re-consultation. To apply such a condition could result in an unreasonable and unimplementable consent. Argyll and Bute Council OBJECT unless the outstanding information is submitted to the satisfaction of NatureScot and the important mitigation to protect Greenland white-fronted geese is undertaken in advance of determining this application. It is, therefore recommended that the proposal should be amended accordingly and be Page 51 Agenda Item 5
Page 52
subject to a further period of formal consultation prior to any determination by the ECU or Scottish Ministers. NOTE: With regard to the mitigation, should NatureScot remove or update their objection with mitigation that is considered appropriate as part of the consideration of the current proposal, or which could be secured via planning conditions to be agreed with the Planning Authority, then Argyll and Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds. Officer Comment: Members are advised that a further consultation was received from the Energy Consents Unit on 6th February 2026. This is because the Applicant has now submitted further additional information to the Scottish Ministers relating to analysis of additional data from tagged birds. Officers will be guided by NatureScot’s response on this. If they are satisfied that the additional information satisfactorily addresses the outstanding issues noted above, then the Council’s objection will be withdrawn as stated in the recommendation which was agreed by Members. 2. Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment - Argyll and Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion in respect to the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (NPF4 Policies 5 and 11 and LDP2 30 and 79). In their Stage 2 Checking Report, Ironside Farrar have advised they have two further queries on assessment of risks to infrastructure that require a response from the developer. It is understood that a response was provided to Ironside Farrar on the 19th of January 2026. Argyll and Bute Council OBJECT unless this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of Ironside Farrar prior to determination of this application by the ECU. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to Ironside Farrar (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of a PLI as no response has been provided by Ironside Farrar on the further information provided by the Applicant. 3. Archaeological Impact - Argyll and Bute Council has no objection in respect to Archaeological Impact, subject to a condition and informative to secure the recommendations of the West of Scotland Archaeology Service being attached to any grant of consent for a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for archaeological mitigation measures and an advisory note that the Applicant ensures they have all necessary legal permissions for any elements of their archaeological mitigation. Specifically, in regard to the RAF Hudson aircraft crash site mitigation proposals which may require a license from the MoD if it is to be disturbed. 4. Public Access – Argyll and Bute Council has no objection in respect to Public Access subject to advisory notes being attached to any consent to ensure that any Access Controls i.e. gates, and cattle grids comply with the British Horse Society Guidance. Furthermore, that public access during construction should comply with NatureScot guidance ‘Good practice during wind farm construction.’ 5. Landscape & Visual Impact - Argyll and Bute Council also intends to object to the application on the basis of NPF 4 policies 4a and 11 Section E, Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 13 and LDP2 Policy 30 on the basis that the application would have a cumulative, significant and unacceptable adverse impact in respect of landscape, visual and cumulative matters and that a detailed representation would be submitted following consideration of the matter at the next scheduled meeting of PPSL Committee. Page 52
Page 53
In the event the ECU grants consent it was recommended that a condition to secure further aviation lighting mitigation in the form of an Aircraft Detection Lighting System be attached to such a consent. 6. Biodiversity Impact - Argyll and Bute Council has no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer being attached to any consent. 7. Noise Impact - Argyll and Bute Council has no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to suitably worded conditions to limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Council’s Noise Consultant being attached to any consent. 8. Flood Risk - Argyll and Bute has no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any consent: • To ensure watercourse crossings are designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event. • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. 9. Argyll and Bute Council requests that all conditions recommended by other consultees are included in any Consent with exception to the condition requiring removal of 5 turbines referred to at (1) above. 2. Conclusion 2.1 Following PPSL Committee on the 21st January 2026, Officers informed the ECU of Members decision and advised them that matters would be considered further at the February Committee and thereafter the final response from Argyll and Bute Council would be provided. 3. Recommendation 3.1 It is recommended that Members consider the contents of this report. Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 26th January 2026 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 2nd February 2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 53
Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 55
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth This Supplementary report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) consultation on the Section 36 Consultation for Cnoc Buidhe Wind Energy Hub, comprising a wind farm of up to 29 wind turbines, with 14 of these up to 180m to blade tip and 15 up to 200m to blade tip, with an ancillary battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure approx. 2.5km East of Belochantuy and 10km Northwest of Campbeltown. _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 25/00600/S36/ ECU00004767 Applicant: Cnoc Buidhe Wind Energy Hub Limited Proposal: S36 Consultation: Cnoc Buidhe Wind Energy Hub, comprising a wind farm of up to 29 wind turbines, with 14 of these up to 180m to blade tip and 15 up to 200m to blade tip, with an ancillary battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure. Site Address: Approx. 2.5km East of Belochantuy and 10km Northwest of Campbeltown ________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 1. Introduction 1.1 The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to provide Members with an update on correspondence received from the Applicant in respect to Ornithology and also to advise Members of new consultee responses received from Scottish Forestry and Ironside Farrar. 2. Ornithology 2.1 Applicant (15th January 2026) – advised they have noticed something in the detail of the summary of their discussions with NatureScot, which they think has then flowed through to the Recommendation (1). 2.2 In paragraph 15.11 of the ROH in the summary of the Clarification Note, it is stated that Cnoc Buidhe has proposed a condition that, should Tangy IV be, or be able to be, constructed, then Cnoc Buidhe would remove 5 turbines. Just to clarify, the Clarification Note only focussed on why mitigation in response to a cumulative effect should be conditional, and did not discuss the detail of which, and how many, turbines this should be. In other words, the Clarification Note did not commit to removing the 5 turbines NatureScot had identified in their prior response. 2.3 The Applicant wanted to flag this as the current recommendation doesn’t allow for the councillors to opine on a scenario where NatureScot’s conditioned objection no longer requires the removal of all 5 turbines (which may also therefore not require re-assessment and re-consultation). 2.4 The Applicant asks if it is possible to amend the recommendation to be contingent on securing the changes/mitigation NatureScot require, rather than the removal of 5 turbines specifically. Page 55
Page 56
2.5 The Ornithology recommendation in the Report of Handling is based on the advice of NatureScot as statutory advisors on such matters and the views of Officers. NatureScot object unless a condition is attached to any consent requiring the removal of 5 turbines (turbines 15, 24, 26, 28, and 29). Consideration has been given to the Applicant’s proposed condition to mitigate the proposal. However, regardless of their suggested condition, the fact remains that NatureScot require the removal of 5 turbines. NatureScot have made it very clear that there is no scenario relating to this current application where they would no longer require this mitigation. It is therefore the view of Officers that there is no requirement for Members to reach a view on such a scenario if they choose to follow the advice of NatureScot, the statutory advisors on ornithology. The condition has been prepared by the Applicant based on a future scenario where Tangy IV or Tangy IV repowering may not be constructed. However, Tangy IV is an extant application and forms part of the baseline and therefore must be considered at this time. 2.6 NatureScot state in their response quite clearly that it is for the ECU and Argyll & Bute Council to decide how best to secure their recommended mitigation. It is the view of Officers as detailed in the Recommendation in the Report of Handling that this mitigation should not be the subject of a condition and that the proposal should be amended accordingly. Consequently, no amendment has been made to (1) Ornithology. It is appreciated that the Applicant may not wish to accept that five turbines should be removed and want to reserve their position on committing to such, with the aim of challenging NatureScot’s advice at a later date. However, NatureScot’s position on the need to remove these turbines has been clear and consistent. 3. Scottish Forestry 3.1 Since completion of the Report of Handling Scottish Forestry have provided a response to the Energy Consents Unit on the clarification provided by the Applicant. 3.2 Scottish Forestry (16th January 2026) - advised the ECU the clarification was helpful and they do not have any further comments to make. They reiterate that the restorability of the deep peat to a Priority Habitat does need to be demonstrated by the Applicant before they can agree the final compensatory planting area and discharge any conditions relating to offsite compensatory planting. Scottish Forestry ask the ECU to consider securing the points in bullet points 2 and 3 of the Applicant’s clarification in a condition. 3.3 Point 2 states that alongside the Forest Plan, the Applicant will undertake an assessment using the Forestry Commission Practical Guide: “Deciding future management options for afforested peatland (2015)” and engage professional support from an EcoW during the delivery of restoration works to ensure these meet the assessment criteria. Point 3 states that the total area of woodland loss will be determined prior to construction when the detailed infrastructure footprint and replanting areas are confirmed. Page 56
Page 57
3.4 The ECU have confirmed to Scottish Forestry if the development is consented, the conditions can be imposed to ensure management of peat and woodland loss calculations as well as compensatory planting 3.5 Having due regard to the above subject to the conditions recommended by Scottish Forestry being attached to any consent it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 6 – Forestry, woodland, and Trees of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees and 78 – Woodland Removal of the LDP2. Consequently, it is recommended that point (3) Scottish Forestry is removed from the recommendation. The conditions required by Scottish Forestry will be covered in revised point (9). 4. Ironside Farrar 4.1 Since completion of the Report of Handling Ironside Farrar have provided a response to the Energy Consents Unit on the clarification provided by the Applicant in the form of a Stage 2 Checking Report. 4.2 Ironside Farrar (19th January 2026) – advised the ECU that The Developer’s response has addressed most of the queries raised in the Stage 1 Checking Report. However, there are two further queries on assessment of risks to infrastructure that require a response from the developer. 4.3 The Applicant provided a response to Ironside Farrar on the 19th January 2026. At time of writing no further response has been received. 4.3 Having due regard to the above due to the fact that there is still a final response from Ironside Farrar outstanding in regard to the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment it is not possible to reach a conclusion on whether the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2. The Recommendation has been amended accordingly at point (2) to reflect Ironside Farrar’s most recent response. 5. Conclusion 5.1 The correspondence received from the Applicant regarding part (1) of the recommendation and further consultation responses from Scottish Forestry and Ironside Farrar have been considered. Officers do not consider that there is any need to change the recommendation at point (1) Ornithology. The Recommendation has been amended to take account of the advice of Scottish Forestry and Ironside Farrar and is detailed below for Members consideration. 5.2 In light of the above a revised recommendation has been prepared for Members consideration which is provided below. 6 RECOMMENDATION That the ECU be notified accordingly that: Page 57
Page 58
(1) Ornithology - Argyll & Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion on ornithology due to the outstanding information requested by NatureScot in respect to a kernel analysis for golden eagle and alternative raft locations for Osprey. Furthermore, the Council does not agree that a suspensive condition is the best mechanism to secure the removal of five wind turbines in the interests of mitigating barrier effects on Greenland white-fronted geese. It is considered that this amendment to the proposal would constitute a material change which could have implications for the wider proposal that are unclear at this time and require to be explored e.g. environmental impacts, infrastructure re-design, and requirement for re-consultation. To apply such a condition could result in an unreasonable and unimplementable consent. Argyll & Bute Council OBJECT unless the outstanding information is submitted to the satisfaction of NatureScot and the important mitigation to protect Greenland white-fronted geese is undertaken in advance of determining this application. It is, therefore recommended that the proposal should be amended accordingly and be subject to a further period of formal consultation prior to any determination by the ECU or Scottish Ministers. NOTE: With regard to the mitigation, should NatureScot remove or update their objection with mitigation that is considered appropriate as part of the consideration of the current proposal, or which could be secured via planning conditions to be agreed with the Planning Authority, then Argyll and Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds. (2) Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment - Argyll & Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion in respect to the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (NPF4 Policies 5 and 11 and LDP2 30 and 79). In their Stage 2 Checking Report, Ironside Farrar have advised they have two further queries on assessment of risks to infrastructure that require a response from the developer. It is understood that a response was provided to Ironside Farrar on the 19th of January 2026. Argyll & Bute Council OBJECT unless this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of Ironside Farrar prior to determination of this application by the ECU. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to Ironside Farrar (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of a PLI as no response has been provided by Ironside Farrar on the further information provided by the Applicant. (3) Archaeological Impact - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Archaeological Impact, subject to a condition and informative to secure the recommendations of the West of Scotland Archaeology Service being attached to any grant of consent for a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for archaeological mitigation measures and an advisory note that the Applicant ensures they have all necessary legal permissions for any elements of their archaeological mitigation. Specifically, in regard to the RAF Hudson aircraft crash site mitigation proposals which may require a license from the MoD if it is to be disturbed. (4) Public Access – Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Public Access subject to advisory notes being attached to any consent to ensure that any Access Controls i.e. gates, and cattle grids comply with the British Horse Society Page 58
Page 59
Guidance. Furthermore, that public access during construction should comply with NatureScot guidance ‘Good practice during wind farm construction.’ (5) Landscape & Visual Impact - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to landscape and visual impact subject to a condition to secure further aviation lighting mitigation in the form of an Aircraft Detection Lighting System being attached to any consent. (6) Biodiversity Impact - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer being attached to any consent. (7) Noise Impact - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to suitably worded conditions to limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Council’s Noise Consultant being attached to any consent. (8) Flood Risk - Argyll & Bute has no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any consent: • To ensure watercourse crossings are designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event. • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre- development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. (9) Argyll & Bute Council requests that all conditions recommended by other consultees are included in any Consent with exception to the condition requiring removal of 5 turbines referred to at (1) above. Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 20th January 2026 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 20th January 2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 59
Page 60
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 61
Argyll & Bute Council Development & Economic Growth This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) consultation on the Section 36 Consultation for Cnoc Buidhe Wind Energy Hub, comprising a wind farm of up to 29 wind turbines, with 14 of these up to 180m to blade tip and 15 up to 200m to blade tip, with an ancillary battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure approx. 2.5km East of Belochantuy and 10km Northwest of Campbeltown. Reference No: 25/00600/S36/ ECU00004767 Applicant: Cnoc Buidhe Wind Energy Hub Limited Proposal: S36 Consultation: Cnoc Buidhe Wind Energy Hub, comprising a wind farm of up to 29 wind turbines, with 14 of these up to 180m to blade tip and 15 up to 200m to blade tip, with an ancillary battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure. Site Address: Approx. 2.5km East of Belochantuy and 10km Northwest of Campbeltown (A) THE APPLICATION The Section 36 Application comprises the following key elements: • Up to 29 wind turbines, with a maximum tip height varying between 180m - 200m (14 at 180m to blade tip and 15 at 200m to blade tip) (potentially with an external transformer) • Aviation safety lighting (8 turbines with visible lights) • Foundations supporting each wind turbine. • Crane hardstandings at each turbine location • Watercourse crossings and associated infrastructure • Approx. 17.7km new access tracks and 9.8km upgraded existing tracks. • Onsite underground electrical cables and trenches • A control building and substation • A Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with an indicative capacity of up to 108.6MW. • Habitat management and restoration proposals, including up to 177.5ha of peatland restoration plus an additional 6.4ha of mixed broadleaf planting. • Compensatory planting • Two temporary construction compounds, laydown areas and car parking • Felling of 568.8ha to accommodate infrastructure, wider forestry management and peatland restoration proposals • One temporary borrow pit; and • Approx. 0.5 km of new temporary excavated track to facilitate access to the onsite borrow pit from the forestry track to the west of T28. The generation capacity of the wind turbines will be approx 191.4MW and the capacity of the BESS will be 108.6MW. Permission is sought to operate the proposal for a period of 40 years. Connection to Electricity Grid - The power produced by the wind farm (and stored in the BESS) will be transmitted to the substation via underground cables. A connection to the national grid will be required. The Applicant holds a grid connection offer of 2029. The grid connection does not form part of this application. A separate Page 61
Page 62
Section 37 application will be made to the Scottish Ministers by Scottish and Southern Energy Networks (SSEN). (B) RECOMMENDATION: That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) Ornithology - Argyll & Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion on ornithology due to the outstanding information requested by NatureScot in respect to a kernel analysis for golden eagle and alternative raft locations for Osprey. Furthermore, the Council does not agree that a suspensive condition is the best mechanism to secure the removal of five wind turbines in the interests of mitigating barrier effects on Greenland white-fronted geese. It is considered that this amendment to the proposal would constitute a material change which could have implications for the wider proposal that are unclear at this time and require to be explored e.g. environmental impacts, infrastructure re-design, and requirement for re-consultation. To apply such a condition could result in an unreasonable and unimplementable consent. Argyll & Bute Council OBJECT unless this important mitigation to protect Greenland white-fronted geese is undertaken in advance of determining this application. It is, therefore, recommended that the proposal should be amended accordingly and be subject to a further period of formal consultation prior to any determination by the ECU or Scottish Ministers. (2) Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment - Argyll & Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion in respect to the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (NPF4 Policies 5 and 11 and LDP2 30 and 79) as no response has been provided by Ironside Farrar on the further information provided by the Applicant. Argyll & Bute Council OBJECT unless this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of Ironside Farrar prior to determination of this application by the ECU. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to Ironside Farrar (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of a PLI. (3) Scottish Forestry – Argyll & Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion within the time afforded in respect to Forestry as no updated response has been provided by Scottish Forestry to clarify they are satisfied with the Applicant’s response. Argyll & Bute Council are therefore not in a position to confirm whether the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policies 6 and 11 and LDP2 Policies 77 and 78 and would recommend that the ECU consider these matters prior to determination. (4) Archaeological Impact - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Archaeological Impact, subject to a condition and informative to secure the recommendations of the West of Scotland Archaeology Service being attached to any grant of consent for a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for archaeological mitigation measures and an advisory note that the Applicant ensures they have all necessary legal permissions for any elements of their archaeological mitigation. Specifically, in regard to the RAF Hudson aircraft crash site mitigation proposals which may require a license from the MoD if it is to be disturbed. Page 62
Page 63
(5) Public Access - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Public Access subject to advisory notes being attached to any consent to ensure that any Access Controls i.e. gates, and cattle grids comply with the British Horse Society Guidance. Furthermore, that public access during construction should comply with NatureScot guidance ‘Good practice during wind farm construction.’ (6) Landscape & Visual Impact - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to landscape and visual impact subject to a condition to secure further aviation lighting mitigation in the form of an Aircraft Detection Lighting System being attached to any consent. (7) Biodiversity Impact - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer being attached to any consent. (8) Noise Impact - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to suitably worded conditions to limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Council’s Noise Consultant being attached to any consent. (9) Flood Risk - Argyll & Bute has no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any consent: • To ensure watercourse crossings are designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event. • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre- development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. (10) Argyll & Bute Council requests that all conditions recommended by other consultees are included in any Consent with exception to the condition requiring removal of 5 turbines referred to at (1) above. (C) CONSULTATIONS ENERGY CONSENTS UNIT RESPONSES NatureScot (8th August 2025) – advised the ECU they object until further information is obtained from the Applicant on barrier effects on the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA. Once this is provided, they will give the proposal further consideration. In respect to disturbance effects they object unless conditions to control the timing of borrow pit blasting activities are applied to any consent to ensure works are undertaken to avoid significant disturbance of wintering Greenland white-fronted geese roosting in Lussa Loch. Golden eagle – NatureScot do not consider that the effects of habitat/range loss/territory impact for golden eagle have been adequately assessed. A kernel analysis of the most recent full year (minimum) is required to help them understand the extent of this territory. Page 63
Page 64
Osprey – to reduce the risk of collision mortality, NatureScot advise that alternative osprey nesting platforms should be provided further away from the proposal to reduce the risk of collision mortality i.e. to the east of Lussa Loch. OCEMP & subsidiary plans – the proposals contained in the Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan appear to be broadly appropriate for: pollution prevention, protection of protected species and sensitive bird interests and biodiversity enhancement. Aviation Lighting – it would be worthwhile exploring further mitigation using ADLS. Advice is also provided on the North Arran NSA, Kintyre Goose Lochs SSSI, Bellachantuy and Tangy Gorges SSSI/GCR. NatureScot defer to Argyll & Bute Council with regards to potential significant adverse effects on local landscape designations. Additional Information – Ornithology (October 2025) – submitted by the Applicant. Additional Information - NatureScot (21st November 2025) – provided further advice to the ECU in relation to potential barrier effects on the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA. They advised they object unless the proposal is amended/made subject to conditions so that works are done strictly in accordance with their required changes/mitigation. Golden eagle – they note the Applicant has not submitted previously requested kernel analysis of the most recent full year of satellite tag data for golden eagle. Their advice remains that until this information is submitted, they cannot make a full assessment of the likely effect of the proposal. Habitats Regulations – they advise that as the proposal could affect the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA protected for its Greenland white-fronted goose the site’s status means the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations apply, and the ECU is required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SPA by carrying out an appropriate assessment. Kintyre Goose Roosts Ramsar site and Kintyre Goose Lochs SSSI may also be affected but the interests of these designations are fully addressed as part of the consideration of the SPA. To help the ECU do this NatureScot have advised that if the proposal is undertaken strictly in accordance with the following changes/mitigation, the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site: Changes - the proposal shall be amended to remove the five most southwest turbines, 15, 24, 26, 28 and 29. Reason: to maintain a clear functional ‘corridor’ to accommodate the displacement effect on the established flight path between Tangy Loch and Glenbarr. Mitigation - A programme of Post Construction Monitoring shall be created and funded by the Applicant for satellite tagging of Greenland white-fronted geese in the area, subject to agreement with NatureScot, for at least two years post commissioning. Reason: to help understand cumulative barrier effects arising from the proposal on Greenland white-fronted geese. Clarification notes from Applicant (28th November 2025) – the Applicant provided a clarification note in response to NatureScot’s objection. Page 64
Page 65
NatureScot response to Applicant’s Clarification note (18th December 2025) – advised the ECU this advice is provided further to that contained in their previous responses, in relation to the mitigation of potential barrier effects to the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA. NatureScot provide their views on the applicant’s clarifications. Condition – in principle NatureScot are happy to work towards agreeing a condition. However, they have concerns with the condition proposed by the Applicant. It is agreed that the consented Tangy IV forms part of the baseline for consideration of cumulative effects. However, there is disparity on the status of the Variation Application for Tangy IV and its implications for any consent that may follow. It is NatureScot’s understanding that the Variation Application will consider only limited aspects of the proposal – turbine dimensions and minor layout changes within micrositing tolerances. The number of turbines (16) has been established and will not be revisited. There is therefore no mechanism to reduce the number of turbines in Tangy IV (consented or varied). Consequently, the proposed condition is not appropriate. If a suspensive condition is to be applied, 1(ii) should include wording that also pertains to any Varied Development that may be consented at Tangy IV as a result of a Variation Application, given that the principle of the proposal comprising 16 turbines is already established and cannot be varied, unless made subject of a Variation Application by the Applicant. It remains NatureScot’s view that the only means to secure the mitigation they deem necessary is the removal of five turbines to mitigate the barrier effects on Greenland white fronted geese. The responsibility for determining the most appropriate mechanism to secure this mitigation lies with the ECU and Argyll & Bute Council. The Applicant asks whether their proposed condition is sufficient for NatureScot to “remove their objection.” This is a misunderstanding of NatureScots position. The purpose of a conditioned objection is to secure changes/mitigation that are deemed necessary to protect nationally and/or internationally important natural heritage interests. The response has the status of an objection if conditions to secure mitigation are not attached to any consent granted by Scottish Ministers. The objection cannot be removed by providing the wording of the condition. It is the act of applying the condition to any consent that will have the effect of removing it. RSPB Scotland (8th August 2025) – advised the ECU they have no comment. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (16th May 2025) – advised the ECU the proposal does not raise historic environment issues of national significance, and they do not object. Scheduled monument consent may be required for some of the proposed forestry works. They recommend a condition to ensure that Killocraw cup marked stone and Dun a’Bhuic dun SW of Cleongart are fenced off to mitigate the risk of accidental damage during construction. Scottish Forestry (4th June 2025) – advised the ECU that further information should be provided in the Forestry Plan to demonstrate full compliance with the UK Forestry Standard. The Applicant should provide an assessment, as per the “Deciding future management options for afforested deep peatland,” to determine if the Priority Habitat restocking exemption applies. The Applicant should clarify the total area of woodland loss to ensure that the correct area of compensatory planting is applied. Compensatory planting for the woodland lost, other than that converted to Priority Habitat peatland, should be secured by a condition to any consent. It is not clear whether forest lost to new roads has been included in the woodland loss figure and this should be clarified. The appropriate consenting route required to accommodate Page 65
Page 66
construction, including infrastructure and management felling, totalling 1,041.3ha and restocking of management felling areas and compensatory planting relating to permanent woodland loss would be the S36 consent. Any felling and restocking not required for the development should follow the usual consenting routes under the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018. Applicant Response to Scottish Foresty (11th July 2025) – provided the following response to Scottish Forestry: • The Forest Plan would be produced by a professional forestry consultant who will ensure it is delivered to UKFS standards. • Alongside the Forest Plan, they will undertake an assessment using the Forestry Commission Practical Guide: “Deciding future management options for afforested deep peatland (2015)” and engage professional support from an ECoW during the delivery of restoration works to ensure these meet the assessment criteria. • The total area of woodland loss will be determined prior to construction when the detailed infrastructure footprint and replanting areas are confirmed. • The Applicant is happy to secure the compensatory planting requirement via condition, with the final wording to be agreed. Transport Scotland (TS) (15th May 2025) – advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions being attached to any consent to secure submission and approval of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), the route for abnormal loads, abnormal load accommodation measures required, and any necessary additional signing or temporary traffic control measures. In addition, advisory notes are provided relating to works within the trunk road boundary. SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (21st May 2025) – advised the ECU they object due to impacts on peat. They will reconsider their position if the proposals are modified to address issues relating to the relocation of T1, T3, T5, T7, T14 and T27 to shallower peat, modification of T3 track layout, relocation of the track to T25. In addition, SEPA request conditions relating to enabling works, geotechnical clerk of works, construction, and environment management plan, borrow pits – scheme of works, forestry, peat and carbon rich soils, and decommissioning, restoration and aftercare are attached to any consent. If these will not be applied, then SEPA object. Applicant – Justification Note to SEPA (30th September 2025) - the Justification Note provided to the ECU contains plans showing adjusted locations, with reduced peat impacts, of the infrastructure identified in SEPA’s response. The adjusted infrastructure locations are all contained within micrositing allowances assessed as part of the S36 application and so no additional environmental impacts requiring assessment result. SEPA (10th October 2025) – advised the ECU they withdraw their objection subject to conditions outlined in their previous response and a further micrositing condition. If these will not be applied, then SEPA object. Health and Safety Executive (21st October 2025) – advised the ECU they have no comment. Vodaphone (17th October 2025) – advised the ECU they have no comment. Page 66
Page 67
Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) – the ECU advised ADSFB were consulted but did not respond. Scottish Water Scottish Water (17th April 2025) – advised the ECU they have no objection. Advice is provided on surface water and drinking water protected areas. Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA), Stage 1 Checking Report (PLHRA) (25th July 2025) – advised the ECU The PLHRA required minor revisions. Applicant response (1st December 2025) – provided a response to Ironside Farrar’s Stage 1 Checking Report comments. At time of writing no further response has been received from Ironside Farrar. Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) (15th May 2025) – advised the ECU that, subject to the conditions to secure Aviation Lighting and Aviation Charting and Safety Management, they have no objection. NATS Safeguarding (22nd April 2025) – advised the ECU the proposal conflicts with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) plc objects. Note from Energy Consents Unit (22nd July 2025) – the ECU advised it has been agreed NATS Safeguarding objection is withdrawn on the basis that should Scottish Ministers decide to grant consent an appropriately worded condition will be imposed which will mitigate the unacceptable impacts on the operation of the primary radar located at Lowther Hill and associated air traffic management operations. NATS Safeguarding (18th July 2025) – advised the ECU they are content with the proposed condition and if the Scottish Government is minded to grant consent subject to its imposition, then they can treat NATS objection as withdrawn. Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) (14th April 2025) – advised the ECU they have no objection. Highlands & Islands Airport (19th May 2025) – advised the ECU the following submission of an updated Instruments Flight Procedure Assessment they have no objection subject to a condition to secure confirmation from the operator of Campbeltown Airport that an Instrument Flight Procedure Assessment has demonstrated that an IFP Scheme is not required or an IFP Scheme has been approved by the Airport Operator and the Civil Aviation Authority has confirmed its approval and it has been submitted to NATS in the interests of aviation safety to secure mitigation and ensure the development does not alter traffic patterns or impact the safety of Campbeltown Airport. Office for Nuclear Regulation (14th April 2025) – advised the ECU they have no comment. British Horse Society (16th May 2025) – provided advice to the ECU on Outdoor Access management for equestrian users, and guidance on managing woodland and forestry access and drivers of large vehicles. West Kintyre Community Council (June 2025) – have advised the ECU they object on the grounds of landscape & visual impact (including cumulative), impact of aviation lighting on dark skies, ancient heritage sites, ornithology – loch Lussa, SSSI, SPA, Kintyre Ramsar, endangered white front Greenland geese and other species, Page 67
Page 68
potential damage to health from infra sound, economic, tourism and recreational impact, potential environmental damage and pollution from lithium battery fires/explosions, community benefit – electricity discount letters sent to households during the formal consultation may discourage objections, and Allt Domhain is not included in any documentation. East Kintyre Community Council (14th April 2025) – have advised the ECU they object on the grounds of Socio-Economics & Tourism Amenity including lack of full economic assessment based on Kintyre tourists including attractions such as the Kintyre Way, Route 66, West Coast Water and the area’s dark skies, adverse visual impact from these important tourism attractions, including Loch Lussa, the Kintyre Way and Peninver, the Kintyre peninsula’s fragile socio-economic designation in the LDP2, and, the destruction of views from two top tourist spots – Peninver and the Kintyre Way. Campbeltown Community Council (16th December 2025) have advised the ECU they have no significant objection. However, they do have a caveat with regard to the proposed energy storage scheme with the potential fire risk of lithium-ion batteries. Given that Cnoc Buidhe is situated in an area of peat, a fire would be difficult to control. This would be well outside the capability of our local rural fire service. BT (15th April 2025) – advised the ECU they have no objection. BT requires 100m minimum clearance from any structure to the radio link path. Joint Radio Company (23rd April 2025) – advised the ECU the proposal is cleared subject to 50m micrositing with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. North Ayrshire Council (3rd September 2025) – advised the ECU that consideration should be given to the potential impacts on the North Arran NSA. Argyll & Bute Council Consultee Responses Consultant Landscape Architect (21st August 2025) – recommends no objection in respect of landscape and visual interests. The significant landscape effects are limited to within 5 km, and visual effects to within 16 km, of the site. The proposals have gone through an appropriate iterative design process, which has included mitigation where it is appropriate to do so, followed design advice provided by Argyll & Bute Council, NatureScot, and Historic Environment Scotland (HES), and focused on reducing impacts at sensitive receptors. This process is clearly set out in the EIAR. Key design revisions include: the reduction in turbine numbers from 33 to 29; a revision of the proposed tip heights from 230 m to an even mixture of 180 m and 200 m; relocation of turbines into the interior of the site, away from the highly sensitive coast and residential receptors; and the adoption of all recommended and currently available aviation lighting mitigation measures. West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) (13th January 2026) – have advised they have no objection to the proposal subject to a condition to secure a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for archaeological mitigation measures and also ask that the Applicant be advised to ensure that they have all necessary legal permissions for any elements of their archaeological mitigation that lie out with the planning system. Specifically, in regard to the RAF Hudson aircraft crash site mitigation proposals which may require a license from the MoD if it is to be disturbed. Page 68
Page 69
Local Biodiversity Officer (4th July 2025) - requested further information and amendment: the Plantlife survey including proposed mitigation and enhancement along Drumore Burn, relocation of the hardstand area near T29 to avoid sensitive habitat, fish and Fresh Water Pearl Mussel surveys, a Species Protection Plan to include mitigation for bats, small pearl-bordered fritillary butterfly, reptiles and amphibians. Fish and freshwater pearl mussel should also be included, dependant on the results of the surveys, and a more detailed Biodiversity Enhancement Plan including details of riparian planting in the Drumore Burn Regeneration Management Area, monitoring and management of tree species, and deer. Consideration should also be given to opportunities to enhance habitat for small pearl bordered fritillary butterfly and inclusion of hibernacula for reptiles and amphibians. Applicant Response to Local Biodiversity Officer (11th July 2025) - provided further information on Drumore Burn, T29 hardstanding and GWDTEs, and fish and freshwater pearl mussels. Local Biodiversity Officer (LBO) (18th August 2025) – provides advice and recommendations on: NatureScots objection and requirement for conditions, Atlantic temperate rainforest along Drumore Burn, Construction Environment Management Plan, SEPA – deep peat, bat mortality monitoring and mitigation, Species Protection Plan, Pine Marten, Small Pearl-Bordered Fritillary Butterfly, Amphibians and Reptiles, Biodiversity Enhancement Plan, fish and freshwater pearl mussel, ornithology, cumulative impact, Bird Protection Plan, Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy, and peatland restoration, Noise Consultant (June 2025) - conclude that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the Applicant, with a few issues identified. The most significant of these issues are that confirmation there are no derelict residential properties within the study area is not given. Minor observations include errors in the reporting of the grid references of baseline noise monitoring locations. The Applicant has also applied a lower fixed limit (non-financially involved) of 43 dB LA90 for the night-time period. The Noise Consultant recommends that a lower fixed limit of 38 dB LA90 is adopted, and the updated values are provided. Following a satisfactory response to these issues, it is considered there would be no reason to object on noise grounds, subject to a suitable condition to limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation to control noise levels from the proposal. Applicant’s response to Noise Consultant (11th & 16th July 2025) – the Applicant corrected the discrepancies in the grid references of baseline monitoring locations. They confirmed that when identifying properties to assess within the study a review was undertaken of satellite imagery and OS Address Base data. All relevant residential properties identified from this process were considered as part of the noise assessment. Consequently, the Applicant is not aware of any derelict residential properties in vicinity of the proposal. With regard to the proposed noise condition, the Applicant states that it looks appropriate in principle and they are happy to follow best practice guidance when drafting conditions. However, the Applicant notes the UK Government has released a consultation on Assessment and rating of wind turbine noise guidance which discusses both a consistent night and day-time fixed limit, and inclusion of Amplitude Modulation. Given this ongoing, and pertinent, consultation they suggest discussing condition wording at a later date with updated guidance in place. Page 69
Page 70
ABC Noise Consultant (6th August 2025) - confirmed the Applicant’s response is reasonable, however, note there is no guarantee on the timeline of introduction of the new Government guidance. ABC Roads and Infrastructure Services (RIS) (14th April 2025) – no objection subject to conditions to ensure the site is accessed from the A83 Tarbet – Campbeltown Trunk Road. Strictly no direct access from any Argyll & Bute Council Road and a Traffic Management Plan to be submitted for approval by RIS, prior to any work starting on site. The Traffic Management plan should include details of all materials, plant, equipment, components, and labour required during the construction works. Furthermore, RIS note the use of borrow pits but appreciate additional materials may be sourced from local quarries. RIS are concerned about the possible impact on the local road network. Depending on the Traffic Management Plan, RIS may require road condition surveys to be conducted. Additional Information – ABC Roads and Amenity Services (RIS) (20th November 2025) – no objection subject to conditions to ensure the site is accessed from the A83 Tarbet to Campbeltown Trunk Road. Strictly no direct access from any Argyll & Bute Council Road and a Traffic Management Plan to be submitted for approval by RIS, prior to work starting on site. The Traffic Management plan (TMP) should include details of all materials, plant, equipment, components, and labour required during the construction works. Note - Depending on the TMP, RIS may require road condition surveys to be undertaken. The site connects directly to the A83 Tarbet to Campbeltown Trunk Road approximately one mile north of Bellochantuy, Transport Scotland should be notified. RIS note this junction “will provide access to the Proposed Development for all abnormal loads associated with the turbine deliveries, as well as access for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) delivering construction materials and general site traffic” with traffic travelling north and south on the A83(T) through to the junction. Significant volumes of material are required to support construction, which includes construction of approx. 18km of new access track and 10km of upgraded track. Whilst it is noted the Applicant recognises “To seek opportunities to obtain site-won stone for construction purposes and thereby minimising construction traffic volumes through exploring borrow pit options” RIS further notes that the borrow pit assessment concludes “The borrow pit has the potential to provide approximately 45% of the estimated aggregate requirement for the Proposed Development (minus concrete aggregate) assuming 50% suitability of excavated material”. RIS is therefore concerned about the possible impact on the local road network. Flood Risk Assessor (6th May 2024) – no objection subject to conditions to ensure any proposed watercourse crossings are designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event and that surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensure that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. Access Officer (12th January 2026) – has no objection in respect to Public Access subject to advisory notes being attached to any consent to ensure that any Access Controls i.e. gates, and cattle grids comply with the British Horse Society Guidance. Furthermore, that public access during construction should comply with NatureScot guidance ‘Good practice during wind farm construction.’ Page 70
Page 71
Please note: the above are summaries and the full consultee responses can be viewed on the Energy Consent Unit and Argyll & Bute Council websites. (D) HISTORY: 23/00598/SCOPE - Scoping opinion for proposed S36 application for Cnoc Buidhe wind farm, Cnoc Buidhe wind farm, West Lussa Forest, Campbeltown – Opinion issued 19th June 2023 (E) PUBLICITY: As the Council is not the Determining Authority the ECU oversees the Publicity of the application. Public Consultation – Whilst not a statutory requirement for S36 applications, the Applicant has undertaken Public Consultation. Public exhibitions were held in November 2022 and 2023. A summary of the representations received during the public exhibitions is provided in the Pre-Application Consultation Report (March 2025) which accompanies this S36 application available on the ECU website (reference ECU00004767). (F) REPRESENTATIONS: As the Council is not the determining Authority the ECU considers any representations. At time of writing, they are in receipt of 51 representations made up of 12 objections and 39 letters in support. The key issues are summarised below: In Support • Will help Scotland meet renewable energy targets. • Renewable energy is critical to address climate change. • Proposal is well located within an existing wind farm cluster. • The proposal will help boost the local economy – supply chain commitments, local ownership, electricity discount scheme, rent and business rates. • Wind turbines are an excellent solution to energy issues. • They are not an "eyesore.” • Cnoc Buidhe would power over 230,00 homes helping tackle Climate Change and ensuring increasing energy demands are met by the lowest cost generation that reduces bills and means we do not need to rely on imported fuels and power and their highly volatile prices. • Cnoc Buidhe includes approx. 180 ha of Peatland Restoration, alongside Native Broadleaf Planting and regeneration of Atlantic Temperate Rainforest. This will increase the biodiversity in the area and protect the environment for future generations. • Cnoc Buidhe has committed to £5000/MW of Community Benefit Fund likely to represent approx. £1,000000 each year for 40 years. This will be used to fund an Electricity Discount Scheme for local residents and businesses, offering annual discounts of between £700 - £150 on electricity bills. • Cnoc Buidhe has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with EKREG offering 1% of Community Ownership for free, an additional 4% at cost and more at market rate if there’s appetite. Page 71
Page 72
• Cnoc Buidhe will help boost the local economy through prioritisation of local suppliers and contractors. Contracts will be awarded to local businesses that meet the minimum requirements and are within 10% of the best quote tendered. • Cnoc Buidhe is expected to generate significant benefits for the Argyll & Bute economy including £28m Gross Value Added and four hundred job years generated during construction and development, plus £1.4m GVA and c. £3.4m in non-domestic rates per year during operation (40 years). Against • Public Inquiry – objectors would like to be kept informed and included. • Historic Environment, Archaeology, and Listed Buildings • Biodiversity, Ecology & Ornithology – rainforest, bird flight paths, roosting Kintyre geese, migrating Greenland white-fronted geese owls, hen harriers, eagles, and black grouse. • Scale of development – over intensification • Adverse landscape and visual impact • Impact of aviation lighting on dark skies • Misleading photomontages of VP’s - Drumore Na Bodach, Bellochantuy Beach • Noise and Acoustic Environment, health, amplitude modulation, infrasound • Transportation – impact on roads, businesses, and homes • Impact on the local economy and tourism - Kililegruer Campsite and Lussa Loch - anglers, birdwatchers, and walkers • Walking routes, Route 66 and the Kintyre Way • Duration of consent • Scotland does not need to produce any more energy. • Health & wellbeing • Battery Storage System Safety – fire/explosion potential impact has not been considered. • Batteries & Environmental Impact – not a green product in terms of production and disposal • Impact on peat • Flooding • Cumulative Impact - High level of applications in Kintyre (including pylons) • Unacceptable Mitigation Measures Note: The comments raised above are addressed in the assessment of the proposal at Appendix A of this report. Note: Please note that the representations above have been summarised, and the full letters of representation are available on the ECU website. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR): Yes The EIAR (November 2024) comprises the following volumes: • Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary (NTS) • Volume 2: Main Report Page 72
Page 73
• Volume 3a: Figures • Volume 3b: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Visualisations (Part 1) • Volume 3c: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Visualisations (Part 2) • Volume 3d: Cultural Heritage Visualisations • Volume 4a: Technical Appendices (Part 1) • Volume 4b: Technical Appendices (Part 2); and • Volume 5: Confidential Documents Key topics covered in the EIAR include: • Chapter 1 Introduction • Chapter 2 Approach to the EIA • Chapter 3 Site Selection and Design Strategy • Chapter 4 Development Description • Chapter 5 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment • Chapter 6 Cultural Heritage • Chapter 7 Ecology • Chapter 8 Ornithology • Chapter 9 Hydrology, Hydrogeology & Geology (including peat) • Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration • Chapter 11 Access, Traffic and Transport • Chapter 12 Socioeconomics, Tourism and Recreation • Chapter 13 Other Issues • Chapter 14 Summary of Significant Effects In addition, the following documents are also provided in support of the application: • Planning and Renewable Energy Policy Statement • Design and Access Statement • Pre-Application Consultation Report Additional Environmental Information October 2025 • Ornithology Report (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: NatureScot will advise the ECU (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: Yes (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04): Not required proposal accompanied by full EIAR. (v) A report on the impact of the proposal e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: All relevant reports are encompassed within the EIAR. (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Page 73
Page 74
Is a Section 75 agreement required: No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been considered in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations considered in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 33 – Minerals Annex B – National Statements of Need 3. Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) (Adopted 2024) Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables Policy 31 – Minerals Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 56 – Land Erosion Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Policy 70 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSA’s) Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact on Sites of International Importance Page 74
Page 75
Policy 75 - Development Impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Policy 76 - Development Impact on Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 80 - Geodiversity (ii) List of all other relevant planning considerations considered in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013 • Scottish Energy Strategy (2017) • Onshore Wind Policy Statement (2022) • Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan (2023) • Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Renewable Energy Developments, Scottish Government, 2019 • Onshore Wind Turbines: Planning Advice, Scottish Government (May 2014) • The Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, 2017 (LWECS) • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment – Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (2013) • Scottish Natural Heritage – Visual Representation of Wind Farms Guidance (Version 2.2, 2017) • Scottish Natural Heritage - Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance (Version 3a, 2017) • Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (2019) • Scottish Government, Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity, 2023 • The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 • Managing Change in the Historic Environment • PAN 1/2011: ‘Planning and Noise’ (March 2011) • Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) • UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) • PAN 60 – Planning for Natural Heritage (Jan 2008) • Views of statutory and other consultees • Planning history of the site • Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an EIAR: No, an EIAR was required. (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No - PAC is not required for S36 applications. (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: No (O) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No – due to unresolved objections from NatureScot and National Air Traffic Services Page 75
Page 76
(P) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 8th January 2026 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 9th January 2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 76
Page 77
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/00600/S36 COMMITTEE REPORT PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME 1.1 Any application for an onshore power generating station with an installed capacity of over 50 MW requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under S36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any authorisation given includes a deemed planning permission. Consequently, there is no need for a planning application to be made to the Council. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee. 1.2 The Development Plan is not the starting point for considering S36 applications. The reason for this is that sections of the Planning Act which establish the primacy of Development Plan Policy in decision making are not engaged. NPF4 and LDP2 form the Development Plan. Whilst they do not have primacy in S36 decision making, they remain an important consideration to inform the Council’s consultation response. 1.3 Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act requires the Applicant and the decision maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the developer shall have regard to: (a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings, and objects of architectural, historical, or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings, or objects. 1.4 It obliges the Scottish Ministers as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at (a) and the extent to which the Applicant has complied with the duty at (b). 1.5 Assessment of the proposal against the policies of NPF4 and LDP2 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent that the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties. 1.6 The Council can either support or object and recommend conditions to be imposed if Scottish Ministers grant consent. If the Council raises an objection, Scottish Ministers are obliged to hold a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) if they are minded to grant consent. They can also choose to hold a PLI in other circumstances at their own discretion. Public Inquiries are conducted by Reporters appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA). If consent is granted the Council as Planning Authority is responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, ongoing monitoring, and enforcement. Page 77
Page 78
1.7 This report considers the relevant policy considerations, planning merits, views of consultees and representations. It recommends views to be conveyed to the ECU for consideration before a decision is made. 2. SPATIAL AND SETTLEMENT STRATEGY 2.1 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas establishes acceptable scales of development in three different zones. The site is located within Remote Countryside, which only supports specific categories of development. This includes renewable energy related development. In principle, Policy 02 supports renewable energy and ancillary development in these areas, providing they are consistent with all other relevant LDP2 Policies. With respect to the requirement for developments to accord with all other relevant policies, particular attention is drawn to Policies 70 to 76 with respect to landscape and the natural environment. Proposals must also demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (individual or cumulative) on natural heritage, built and/or cultural heritage, and landscape and visual amenity. 2.2 Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA) - requires that proposals in or affecting a LLA must demonstrate that: a) any significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, economic or environmental benefits of community wide importance; b) The proposal is supported by a landscape and visual impact assessment and has taken account of the content of any relevant Argyll & Bute Landscape Capacity Assessment; and c) The location, scale, design, materials and landscaping would be of a high standard and would safeguard or enhance the special qualities and character of the LLA. Part of the access route is located in the West Kintyre (Coast) LLA which has been considered by the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect. 2.3 Policy 04 – Sustainable Development requires that in preparing new proposals developers should demonstrate the following sustainable development principles (where relevant) such as: maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; support existing communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services; conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets; respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; avoid places with significant risk of flooding, or ground instability and avoid having significant adverse impacts on land, air and water environment. This application is supported by an EIAR which sets out in detail the measures proposed to ensure the proposal is ‘Sustainable Development.’ 2.4 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP2 provide the primary policy framework for assessing renewable energy proposals. In this case, due to the outstanding information and consultee advice and need for amendment referred to in the recommendation it is has not been possible to reach a conclusion. 2.5 Having due regard to the above due to outstanding information detailed in the Recommendation relating to Golden eagles, Osprey, Scottish Forestry and the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment and need for amendment required by NatureScot it is not possible to reach a conclusion on whether Page 78
Page 79
the proposal is consistent with the provisions of LDP 2 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas and LDP Policy 04 – Sustainable Development. 3. ENERGY & SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF RENEWABLES 3.1 Argyll & Bute Council is keen to ensure that Argyll & Bute continues to make a positive contribution to meeting the Scottish Government’s targets for renewable energy generation. These targets are important given the compelling need to reduce our carbon footprint and our reliance on fossil fuels, reinforced by the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development, and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects. 3.2 This proposal has been assessed primarily against the two lead Statutory Development Plan policies relating to renewable energy, Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2. Other policies are referred to where relevant. 4. LOCATION, NATURE, AND DESIGN OF PROPOSAL 4.1 The proposal is located on the western side of the Kintyre peninsula within Lussa Forest, approx. 2.5km east of Bellochantuy and 8.2km north-west of Campbeltown. The site comprises undulating plateau and low, rounded hill summits which generally slope westwards towards the coast. Summits include Cnoc Buidhe in the south and the south-western slopes of Cnoc Reamhar in the north. Lussa Loch lies to the south-east and some small watercourses drain west towards the coast. 4.2 Landcover is almost entirely commercial forestry, in various stages of the planting, growing and felling cycle, connected by a network of forestry tracks. These tracks connect to the A83 which borders the site at its western access point. The Kintyre Way passes within 300m of the south-eastern site boundary along the western shore of Lussa Loch. 4.3 The Kintyre 66 route follows the A83 on the western and B842/National Cycle Network 78 on the eastern Kintyre coast forming a loop around the Kintyre peninsula. The B843 passes 10km to the south between Campbeltown and Machrihanish. 4.4 There are no residential properties within the site, but a number of farmsteads and isolated properties are located on the elevated, farmed slopes to the west and settlements within 5km include Bellochantuy and Glenbarr which are set on the low-lying coastal strip by the A83. Thirty-six residential properties were identified within 2.5 km of the turbines and were examined as part of the Residential Visual Amenity Assessment. 4.5 Nearby existing and consented wind energy development comprises a large cluster surrounding the central ridge of the Kintyre peninsula and another linear group further north. The larger central cluster surrounds the Cnoc Buidhe site to the north, east and south and comprises the operational Beinn An Tuirc wind farm (Phase 1, 2, and 3) to the east, Auchadaduie and Blary Hill to the north and Tangy I and II to the south. The consented Tangy IV, a repowering scheme to replace Page 79
Page 80
the existing Tangy I and II Wind Farms, is 1km to the south. The linear cluster further north follows the spine of the Kintyre hills with the consented Clachaig Glen wind farm closest at 7km to the north together with the existing Deucheran Hill, Cour and Freasdail developments and the consented High Constellation and Eascairt. 4.6 In addition to these developments, transmission infrastructure, including substations and overhead lines are characteristic elements of the landscape. Access to the proposed wind farm would be from the A83 to the west, via the existing Beinn an Tuirc wind farm track north of Bellochantuy. Approx. 18.2 km of new track would be built and 9.8 km of existing tracks would be upgraded. Permanent ancillary infrastructure includes a substation compound with a control building and a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS). Temporary infrastructure components include borrow pits and construction compounds. 4.7 The site is located entirely within Lussa Forest, a commercial forestry plantation managed by Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS). As a result of construction, 568.8ha of woodland would require to be felled and 236ha would not be restocked. 88ha of this has been identified for peatland restoration with a further 147.8ha of compensatory planting required. 4.8 A Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy (BES) details the proposed habitat enhancement measures, which include: • forest to bog restoration, without the use of translocated peat (approx. 106.4 ha in total) - 33.6 ha of direct compensation for the loss of 3.36 ha of priority peatland habitat and 72.8 ha; when considering the use of translocated peat, this includes a further 71.1ha of enhancement. • 39.3 ha of mixed broadleaved tree planting, of which 6.4 ha results directly from the proposal, and is therefore considered enhancement. • 9.9 ha has been designated as the Drumore Burn Regeneration Management Area (DBRMA) to improve habitat connectivity to the Atlantic temperate rainforest out with the site to the west, as well as the centre of the site. • Targeted management of blanket bog susceptible to tree encroachment. • Grazing management and protection of sensitive upland habitats; and • Pine Marten Denning Opportunities (installation of pine marten boxes). 4.9 It is proposed that the site would continue to have the characteristics of a working commercial forest, with access tracks and periodic harvesting of timber. 4.10 Visible aviation lights would be installed on the nacelles of eight of the 29 turbines (T2, T4, T9, T13, T15, T19, T27 and T28) and 22 turbines would be fitted with infra-red (non-visible) hub-mounted obstruction lights, as agreed through consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). Based on historic weather data, it is expected that the visible lights would only need to operate at 100% brightness for about 7% of the time that they are lit. 4.11 The S36 Application comprises the following key elements: • Up to 29 wind turbines, with a maximum tip height varying between 180m - 200m (14 at 180m to blade tip and 15 at 200m to blade tip) (potentially with an external transformer) • aviation safety lighting (8 turbines with visible lights) Page 80
Page 81
• Foundations supporting each wind turbine. • Crane hardstandings at each turbine location • Watercourse crossings and associated infrastructure • Approximately 17.7km of newly constructed access tracks and 9.8 km upgraded existing tracks. • Onsite underground electrical cables and cable trenches • A control building and substation • A Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) designed to complement with an indicative output capacity of up to 108.6 MW. • Habitat management and restoration proposals, including up to 177.5 ha of peatland restoration plus an additional 6.4 ha of mixed broadleaf planting. • Compensatory planting • Two temporary construction compounds, laydown areas and car parking • Felling of 568.8ha to accommodate infrastructure, wider forestry management and peatland restoration proposals • One temporary borrow pit; and • Approx. 0.5 km of new temporary excavated track to facilitate access to the onsite borrow pit from the forestry track to the west of T28. 4.12 The generation capacity of the wind turbines will be approx 191.4MW and the capacity of the BESS will be 108.6MW. Permission is sought to operate the proposal for a period of 40 years. Infrastructure 4.13 Office for Nuclear Regulation - advised the ECU they have no comment. 4.14 Scottish Water – have advised the ECU they have no objection. Advice is provided on Drinking Water Protected Areas, and Surface Water. 4.15 Drinking Water Protected Areas – they have confirmed there are no Scottish Water drinking water catchments or water abstraction sources, designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas in the area that may be affected by the proposal. 4.16 Surface Water – for reasons of sustainability and to protect customers from potential future sewer flooding, they have advised they will not accept surface water connections into their combined sewer system. 4.17 Connection to Electricity Grid – The electrical power produced by the wind farm and the BESS will be transmitted to the substation via underground cables. A connection to the national grid’s electricity system will be required. The Applicant holds a grid connection offer of 2029. The grid connection does not form part of the proposal and is not the subject of the Application. A separate S37 application will be made to the Scottish Ministers by Scottish and Southern Energy Networks (SSEN) 4.18 Private Water supplies (PWS) – The EIAR considers the impact on PWS. No PWS sources are hydrologically connected to the footprint of the infrastructure and therefore no significant effects are predicted. 5. NET ECONOMIC IMPACT, INCLUDING LOCAL AND COMMUNITY SOCIO- ECONOMIC BENEFITS Page 81
Page 82
5.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 states that proposals will only be supported where they maximise net economic impact, including local and community socio- economic benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP 2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed in terms of net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. 5.2 Socio-Economic Impact - The proposal would deliver some economic benefits during its construction and operation. The expected socio-economic benefits are set out in the EIAR. The EIAR advises that during the construction phase, it is estimated the proposal will generate 1,000 job years across Scotland, including 404 job years in Argyll & Bute. 5.3 During the operational phase it is estimated it will generate 95 jobs across Scotland, including 12 jobs in Argyll & Bute, per year. 5.4 It is expected that the proposal will contribute commercial rates to the local economy. It is estimated that these will be worth in the region of £3.4 million annually. 5.5 Community and Economic Benefit – The community benefit fund is expected to be worth £957,000 (29 turbines, each at 6.6 MW, and a community benefit rate of £5,000 per MW per annum each year), the details of this are provided in the EIAR. 5.6 The Applicant has worked with West Kintyre, East Kintyre and Campbeltown Community Councils, and their agent, Kintyre Wind, to develop a community ownership offering. This has culminated in all three community councils formally expressing interest in community ownership and signing a Memorandum of Understanding. 5.7 Capital Expenditure of the Proposed Development - The EIAR advises that during the construction phase it is estimated the proposal will generate £68.2 million GVA in Scotland, of which £28.0 million GVA will be in Argyll & Bute. During the operational phase it was estimated that the proposal will generate £7.1 million GVA in Scotland, including £1.4 million GVA in Argyll & Bute, annually. 5.8 The economic benefits associated with this proposal during construction and the operational phases relating to job creation and benefits to the local economy are a relevant consideration, which has been considered. Community Benefit is not however, a ‘material planning consideration’ in the determination of planning applications, as there is no planning mechanism available to secure it. If consent were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit either directly with the local community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process. 5.9 Having due regard to the above it is considered a degree of net economic impact including local and community socio-economic benefits typical of such developments will be provided. It is therefore concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewable of LDP2 in this regard. Page 82
Page 83
6. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY, VISUAL IMPACT, NOISE AND SHADOW FLICKER 6.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including residential amenity, visual impact, noise, and shadow flicker have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for renewable developments to be assessed in terms of impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity noise, and shadow flicker (including cumulative). Noise 6.2 ABC Noise Consultant – initially concluded that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the Applicant, with a few issues identified. The most significant of these issues being confirmation there are no derelict residential properties within the study area was not given. Minor observations included errors in the reporting of the grid references of baseline noise monitoring locations. 6.3 The applicant has also applied a lower fixed limit (non-financially involved) of 43 dB LA90 for the night-time period. The Noise Consultant recommends that a lower fixed limit of 38 dB LA90 is adopted, and the updated values are provided. 6.4 Following a satisfactory response to the above issues from the Applicant, it is considered that there would be no reasons to object on noise grounds, subject to a suitably worded condition to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation being applied to control noise levels from the proposal. 6.5 Applicant’s response to Noise Consultant – corrected the discrepancies in the reported grid references of baseline monitoring locations. 6.6 The Applicant advised that when identifying properties to assess within the study area a review was undertaken of satellite imagery and OS Address Base data. All relevant residential properties identified from this process were considered as part of the noise assessment such that they are not aware of any derelict residential properties in the vicinity of the proposal. 6.7 With regard to the proposed noise condition, this looks appropriate in principle and in general the Applicant is happy to follow best practice guidance when drafting conditions however they note that the UK Government has just released a consultation on Assessment and rating of wind turbine noise guidance which discusses both a consistent night and day-time fixed limit, and inclusion of Amplitude Modulation. Given this ongoing, and pertinent, consultation they suggest discussing condition wording later when the updated guidance is in place. 6.8 ABC Noise Consultant - confirmed that the Applicant’s response is reasonable, however, they note that there is no guarantee on the timeline of introduction of the new Government guidance. Shadow Flicker Page 83
Page 84
6.9 The EIAR considers the potential for significant shadow flicker effects as a result of the proposal. No properties are predicted to surpass the threshold of 30 hours per year or 30 minutes per day. No significant effects are predicted, and mitigation is not required. 6.10 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant being attached to any consent it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 in this respect. 7. SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS 7.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how significant landscape and visual impacts have been addressed, recognising that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy. Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered acceptable. Policy 4 a) - Natural Places of NPF4 states that proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments are assessed against landscape and visual impacts. 7.2 The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect - has undertaken a review of the landscape and visual effects and reached the following conclusions on the proposal. 7.3 Significant landscape effects are limited to within 5 km, and visual effects to within 16km, of the site. The proposals have gone through an appropriate design process, including mitigation where appropriate, followed design advice provided by Argyll & Bute Council, NatureScot, and Historic Environment Scotland (HES), and focused on reducing impacts at sensitive receptors. This process is clearly set out in the EIAR. Key design revisions include a reduction in the number of turbines from 33 to 29, revision of tip heights from 230m to a mixture of 180m and 200m, relocation of turbines into the interior of the site, away from the highly sensitive (in landscape and visual terms) coast and residential receptors and adoption of recommended and currently available aviation lighting mitigation measures. 7.4 The design mitigation which has been undertaken has resulted in the following landscape and visual conclusions in relation to Argyll & Bute the integrity of the West Kintyre Local Landscape Area (LLA) will not be compromised, no significant impacts are identified within small-scale glen landscapes, and no significant effects are identified as a result of aviation lighting 7.5 It is considered that project and design mitigation has appropriately addressed the potential significant landscape and visual effects of the proposal. 7.6 Landscape Impact - Significant effects on landscape character are predicted in the LVIA for the host Landscape Character Type (LCT) 39: Plateau Moor and Forest – Argyll (Unit A) comprising significant (Major) direct effects within the site and significant indirect effects within 2km of the site during the construction phase. Similarly, during the operational phase significant (Major) direct effects were Page 84
Page 85
found within 2km and significant (Moderate) indirect effects within no more than 5km. The nature of the surrounding forested plateau landscape on which Cnoc Buidhe is located helps the development to fit into the broader Kintyre peninsula in a reasonably unobtrusive fashion and the Councils Consultant Landscape Architect agrees with this assessment. 7.7 No significant effects were found within the LVIA for any of the other LCTs within the study area. The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect broadly agrees with the assessment. However, it is worth noting that LCT 55 which covers the island of Gigha currently has a character of seclusion and the proposal would noticeably increase the visibility of large-scale development from many southern parts of the island. 7.8 No significant effects on locally or nationally designated landscapes were identified in the LVIA, including the North Arran NSA, the East Kintyre (Coast) LLA, the West Kintyre (Coast) LLA and the Mull of Kintyre LLA and the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect agrees with these judgements. 7.9 Visual Impact - Significant (Major) visual effects are predicted at Viewpoint 2: Lussa Loch Dam. Significant (Moderate) effects extend to over 15km from the proposal for the current baseline assessment and are predicted for 12 other viewpoints: 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Significant effects are predicted for people within the settlements of Glenbarr (Moderate) and Machrihanish (Moderate). 7.10 Significant sequential effects (Moderate) are predicted for the Tayinloan – Gigha Ferry Route. Significant sequential effects are also predicted for very localised sections of the Kintyre Way in the vicinity of Lussa Loch (Major) and a localised section of the route in the vicinity of Rhunahaorine Point (Moderate). However, effects on the Kintyre Way when considered as a whole, are assessed to be not significant. 7.11 Significant (Major) effects are predicted for core paths between Campbeltown and Bridgend via Lussa Loch and significant (Moderate) effects are predicted for the core path between Machrihanish and Westport and the Glenbarr school route. Localised, significant effects are predicted from Core Paths (C088j, C088k, and C088l) as they traverse the western shore of Lussa Loch, but the overall sequential visual effect will be minor. 7.12 Overall, the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect agrees with the approach and findings of the visual assessment and believes the proposal would result in relatively limited visual effects thanks to the design strategy evidenced in the Design & Access Statement accompanying the EIAR. 7.13 However, it could be argued, that the sequential effects on the A83 and the promoted Kintyre 66 route have been underestimated, due to the susceptibility of the receptors being assessed as medium. The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect believes it is likely there would be localised significant effects on the users of this route. The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect also considers the significance of effects on road users in Viewpoint 4 could be judged as moderate (significant) rather than minor as currently reported, for the same reasons. The Planning and Renewable Energy Statement (PRES) accompanying Page 85
Page 86
the EIAR appears in places misleading in the way it summarises the significant visual effects. 7.14 Cumulative - Significant cumulative effects on landscape character are predicted for the host LCT 39: Plateau Moor and Forest – Argyll (Unit A). Significant cumulative effects on visual receptors are predicted for Viewpoints 1, 3, 4 and 5 under both Scenario 1 and 2 future baselines. The LVIA highlights that significant visual effects identified under the current baseline assessment are predicted to reduce to not significant for a number of receptors (including 8 viewpoints) under the Scenario 1 future baseline (most certain one) as well as Scenario 2 future baseline. This means the significant visual effects would be contained within 7km, rather than over 15km for the current baseline. The contribution of the proposal to total cumulative effects is not judged to be significant. 7.15 Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) - concludes there will be no properties where views of the proposal would affect the living conditions or breach the residential visual amenity threshold. Concerns raised regarding photomontages from Drumore Na Bodach and Bellochantuy Beach have been submitted to the ECU. The Council’s Landscape Consultant has reviewed these concerns and is content that no further consideration is required. 7.16 Mitigation - Measures to reduce effects on the landscape resource, views and visual amenity were achieved through the design of the proposal. A total of 568.8ha will be felled to construct the proposal. The species composition of the forest on site would change because of the proposal including a net reduction in Sitka spruce of 242.3ha, an increase in broadleaf woodland of 6.4 ha and an increase in peatland restoration of 88.1 ha. The location and composition of the additional 147.8 ha of the compensatory planting is to be agreed with Scottish Forestry. 7.17 Aviation lighting mitigation - options are addressed within the Aviation Lighting and Mitigation Report. In summary, a reduced visible lighting scheme is proposed in addition to infrared lighting. The visible lighting is proposed to automatically reduce in intensity depending on the visibility conditions (automatic dimming). The Applicant is also committed to the implementation of vertical directional intensity mitigation (LEDs which are designed to minimise the light spillage and over- brightness). 7.18 Review against NPF4 Policy - The NPF4 national spatial strategy acknowledges the need for a rapid transformation across all sectors of our economy and society in order to meet our climate ambitions. At the same time, it stresses the importance of ‘ensuring the right development happens in the right place.’ The following paragraphs provide a review by the Councils Consultant Landscape Architect of the proposal in relation to the most relevant NPF4 policies. 7.19 Policy 4 d) states that development proposals that affect a site designated as a local landscape area in the LDP will only be supported where: i. Development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified; or ii. Any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area are clearly outweighed by social, environmental, or economic benefits of at least local importance. Page 86
Page 87
7.20 As no special qualities relating to the LLAs have been defined by Argyll & Bute Council, the EIAR used key characteristics of the local landscape character to assess effects of the proposal on the LLAs, which the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect considers to be a reasonable approach. 7.21 There would be localised direct effects on the West Kintyre (Coast) Local Landscape Area (LLA) where the site access meets the A83. The EIAR predicts the proposal will introduce turbines to inland views from a limited geographical extent of the LLA. Theoretical visibility will be restricted due to complex landform. Whilst localised significant indirect effects are predicted from within the LLA (e.g. moderate effect from Viewpoint 1 and 3), key views along the coast and westwards towards the open sea and islands will be largely unaffected. The introduction of the proposal is not anticipated to affect the integrity of the LLA, and the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect agrees with this conclusion. 7.22 Mull of Kintyre LLA is located 12km to the south. No viewpoints have been provided in the EIAR which lie within the LLA, but Viewpoints 11 and 13 are located in the vicinity of it and these point to potential for localised significant effects from the LLA. The EIAR acknowledges that, where visible, the proposal would increase the horizontal extent and scale of wind turbines in relatively distant views and would be seen above the skyline of central Kintyre. However, given the context of existing wind development on the Kintyre spine, the intervening distance, and the limited theoretical visibility from within the LLA, it concludes that the introduction of the proposal will not affect the integrity of the LLA and the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect agrees with this conclusion. 7.23 In terms of cumulative effects, the EIAR acknowledges that the proposal would intensify indirect effects on localised areas of the West Kintyre (Coast) and Mull of Kintyre LLAs. 7.24 Policy 11 - Policy 11 e) requires project design and mitigation to demonstrate how impacts on communities and individual dwellings as well as significant landscape and visual impacts are addressed. In terms of significant landscape and visual impacts, 11e ii states that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy and where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered acceptable. NPF4 provides no guidance on the definition of what constitutes ‘localised’ effects. 7.25 Details in relation to the iterative design process and embedded mitigation, relevant to the LVIA are provided in the Design & Access Statement and Chapter 3 - Site Selection and Design Strategy. A number of design objectives which guided the design related to limiting landscape and visual effects and applying appropriate design mitigations, such that significant landscape and visual impacts could be considered generally acceptable. One of the design objectives related to minimising effects on residential visual amenity at the closest residential properties (Corrylach and Dorran Cottage to the east, and Drumore na bodach to the west) by maintaining at least a 1 km buffer between properties and turbines. RVAA concludes that there will be no properties where views of the proposals would affect the living conditions or breach the residential visual amenity threshold. 7.26 The preliminary design included 33 turbines of up to 230m height, while the final layout comprises 29 turbines of reduced scale (14 up to 180m tip height and 15 up to 200m tip height). The EIAR does demonstrate that significant impacts have Page 87
Page 88
been reduced through appropriate design mitigation, as illustrated by the comparison wirelines in Figures 3.1 to 3.5. 7.27 Further reductions in effect significance could potentially be achieved through the removal of turbines, which would result in reduced output. However, the Councils Consultant Landscape Architect has reviewed the problematic turbines (e.g. causing stacking or spoiling the balance of the visible layout) in various views and, as they differ, it would be difficult to achieve a meaningful reduction in effects across the study area without removing a large proportion of the turbines, likely affecting the scheme’s output and viability. 7.28 For example, removing a single turbine (T10) would likely reduce the effects from Viewpoint 1 (Bellochantuy), however, approx. 9 different turbines would need to be removed to meaningfully reduce effects from Lussa Loch Dam (Viewpoint 2). Removing turbines T1, T2 and T6 would help slightly reduce visual effects from Killegruer Caravan Site, A83 (Viewpoint 3), while removing turbines T2, T4, T12 and T15 would help reduce effects from Glenbarr (Viewpoint 4). However, most of the effects at short-range would still likely remain significant. In addition, removing all of those turbines would likely result in problematic gaps in previously balanced layouts visible from other directions. 7.29 Reductions in effect significance could potentially also be achieved through the reduction in size and changes in spacing of the turbines, however, Figure 3 Constraints suggests that there is limited scope for relocating turbines. As for reduction in tip height, the final proposal increases the vertical extent of existing wind energy development in some views, but in other views appears to fit the visual context in terms of scale quite well. As such, the Councils Consultant Landscape Architect is not convinced the reduction in size would yield meaningful reductions in levels of visual effects. 7.30 The significant residual landscape effects can be considered ‘localised,’ as they are assessed to occur within up to around 5km from the proposal and the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect agrees with this assessment. 7.31 Significant visual effects for the proposal on its own extend to over 15km and are predicted for thirteen viewpoints. However, under the cumulative Scenario 1 (which is considered the most certain future baseline scenario and includes the consented Tangy IV Wind Farm), the EIAR predicts that significant visual effects would reduce for several receptors including 8 viewpoints and would be contained within approx. 7km of the proposal. As such, the visual effects could potentially be considered ‘localised,’ and it could be difficult to argue the proposals do not comply with Policy 11e. 7.32 Having reviewed several recent wind energy development decisions, the key NPF4 test in relation to the acceptability of wind farm proposals appears to be ‘the right development in the right place’. Given the location of the proposal within an existing wind farm cluster, amid low landscape value commercial forestry and away from the sensitive Kintyre coastline, it is the Councils Consultant Landscape Architects opinion the proposal passes that test. 7.33 Key Viewpoints to be considered by the Planning Committee include Viewpoint 1: Bellochantuy, Viewpoint 2: Lussa Loch Dam, Viewpoint 3: Killegruer Caravan Site, A83, Viewpoint 4: Glenbarr War Memorial, A83, Viewpoint 5: Beinn Bhreac, Page 88
Page 89
Kintyre, Viewpoint 7: Machrihanish Beach, Viewpoint 8: Machrihanish, B843, Viewpoint 14: South Pier, Gigha, Viewpoint 21: Beinn Bharrain, Arran. 7.34 NatureScot have deferred to Argyll & Bute Council and North Ayrshire Council in terms of effects on locally designated landscapes. 7.35 North Ayrshire Council - advised the ECU that consideration should be given to the potential impacts of the North Arran NSA. Officer’s Conclusion 7.36 Based on the expert advice of the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect, and NatureScot it is concluded the proposal does not warrant an objection on landscape and visual grounds. This is however subject to a condition being attached to any consent to secure an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS), as an additional mitigation measure in regard to visible aviation lighting. This additional measure is recommended by NatureScot in their response to the ECU. 7.37 Having due regard to the above subject to an ADLS condition being attached to any consent it is concluded that the proposal complies with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 4 – Natural Places of NPF4, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 in this respect. 8. IMPACTS ON TOURISM AND RECREATION 8.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 does not require impacts on tourism to be considered. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on tourism and recreation. 8.2 Tourism – Policy 11 of NPF4 does not include a requirement for the impact of proposals on tourism to be assessed. However, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP does. In Argyll & Bute the landscape is regarded as being a particularly valued asset both in terms of its intrinsic qualities and in terms of its value to the tourism economy. For all types of development, the maintenance of landscape character is an important facet of decision-making in the countryside in Argyll & Bute, regardless of the scale of development proposed. 8.3 As Tourism and Landscape & Visual matters are intrinsically linked, and there is little evidence to demonstrate whether wind farms adversely affect tourism, it is considered that such impacts are covered in the landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal. 8.4 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 04 – Sustainable Development and 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of ABLDP2 in this respect. 9. PUBLIC ACCESS Page 89
Page 90
9.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on public access are addressed, including impact on long distance walking, and cycling routes and scenic routes. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and those scenic routes identified in NPF4. Policy 32 – Active Travel of LDP2 requires active travel and recreation to be integrated in developments from the start of the wider design process and existing active travel networks should be safeguarded and integrated with the development. 9.2 British Horse Society have provided advice to the ECU on Outdoor Access management for equestrian users during the construction and when the wind farm is operational. They have also provided guidance on managing woodland and forestry access and guidance to drivers of large vehicles. 9.3 The Council’s Access Officer – has no objection in respect to Public Access subject to advisory notes being attached to any consent to ensure that any Access Controls i.e. gates, and cattle grids comply with the British Horse Society Guidance. Furthermore, that public access during construction should comply with NatureScot guidance ‘Good practice during wind farm construction.’ 9.4 Having due regard to the above subject to the ECU advising the Applicant to follow guidance provided by the British Horse Society and NatureScot in the event that consent is granted, it is considered the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; and Policy 32 - Active Travel of the LDP2. 10. AVIATION AND DEFENCE INTERESTS INCLUDING SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING 10.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed. Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would compromise the safe operation of an Aerodrome or Technical Site or constrain their present or future operations. 10.2 Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) – advised the ECU that, subject to conditions to secure Aviation Lighting and Aviation Charting and Safety Management they have no objection. 10.3 Highlands & Islands Airport advised the ECU that following submission of an updated Instruments Flight Procedure Assessment they have no objection subject to a condition to secure confirmation from the operator of Campbeltown Airport that an Instrument Flight Procedure Assessment has demonstrated that an IFP Scheme is not required or an IFP Scheme has been approved by the Airport Operator and the Civil Aviation Authority has confirmed its approval and it has been submitted to NATS in the interests of aviation safety to secure mitigation and ensure the development does not alter traffic patterns or impact the safety of Campbeltown Airport. Page 90
Page 91
10.4 The Applicant has confirmed they are content with HIAL’s proposed condition, subject to final confirmation of the full suite of conditions with the ECU should consent be forthcoming. 10.5 National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) initially advised the ECU the proposal conflicted with their safeguarding criteria due to potential for unacceptable impacts on the operation of the primary radar located Lowther Hill and associated air traffic management operations. Accordingly, they objected. It has subsequently been agreed with the ECU that the NATS Safeguarding objection is withdrawn on the basis that should the Scottish Ministers decide to grant consent an appropriately worded condition will be imposed which will mitigate the unacceptable impacts on the operation of the primary radar located at Lowther Hill and associated air traffic management operations. 10.6 Glasgow Prestwick Airport have advised the ECU they have no objection. 10.7 Having due regard to the above and subject to the conditions required by Defence Infrastructure Organisation, National Air Traffic Services and Highlands & Islands Airport it is concluded the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes, of the LDP2. 11. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING INSTALLATIONS 11.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, have been addressed particularly, ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. 11.2 BT advised the ECU the proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. BT require 100m minimum clearance from any structure to the radio link path. Joint Radio Company - advised the ECU the proposal is CLEARED - subject to 50m Micrositing with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. Vodaphone have advised they have no comment. 11.3 Having due regard to the above subject to the conditions recommended by BT, and the Joint Radio Company it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on telecommunications, broadcasting installations and transmission links (including cumulative impacts) and is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 in this respect. 12. ROAD TRAFFIC AND ADJACENT TRUNK ROADS 12.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on road traffic and on adjacent trunk roads have been Page 91
Page 92
addressed, including during construction. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on road traffic and impacts on adjacent trunk roads. Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes of LDP2 acceptance of development utilising new and existing public roads, private roads and private access regimes is subject to road safety and street design issues being addressed to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority and the Planning Authority. Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads requires that accesses which connect to or impact significantly on a Trunk Road require consultation with Transport Scotland. 12.2 Transport Scotland (TS) have advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions being attached to any consent to secure submission and approval of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), the route for abnormal loads, abnormal load accommodation measures required, and any necessary additional signing or temporary traffic control measures. In addition to the advisory notes are provided relating to works within the trunk road boundary. 12.3 ABC Roads and Infrastructure Services (RIS) – The site connects directly to the A83 Tarbet to Campbeltown Trunk Road approximately 1 mile north of Bellochantuy, Transport Scotland should be notified. RIS note that this junction “will provide access to the proposal for all abnormal loads associated with the turbine deliveries, as well as access for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) delivering construction materials and general site traffic” with traffic travelling north and south on the A83(T) through to the junction. 12.4 Significant volumes of material are required to support construction includes construction of circa 18km of new access track and 10km of upgraded track. Whilst it is noted that the Applicant recognises “To seek opportunities to obtain site-won stone for construction purposes and thereby minimising construction traffic volumes through exploring borrow pit options” RIS further notes that the borrow pit assessment concludes “The borrow pit has the potential to provide approximately 45% of the estimated aggregate requirement for the Proposed Development (minus concrete aggregate) assuming 50% suitability of excavated material”. RIS is therefore concerned about the possible impact of this proposal on the local road network. 12.5 RIS have no objection subject to conditions to ensure that the site is accessed from the A83 Tarbet to Campbeltown Trunk Road. Strictly no direct access from any Argyll & Bute Council Road and a Traffic Management Plan is to be submitted for approval by RIS, prior to any work starting on site. The Traffic Management plan should include details of all materials, plant, equipment, components, and labour required during the construction works. Note - Depending on the TMP, RIS may require road condition surveys to be conducted. The condition surveys to be recorded by means of video and photographs, and a copy of the video and photographs to be submitted to RIS, for approval, prior to any work starting on site. 12.6 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by Transport Scotland and Roads & Infrastructure Services it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads in this regard. It is Page 92
Page 93
recommended that the conditions required by Area Roads and Amenity Services are attached to any consent granted by the ECU. 13. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 13.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on the historic environment have been addressed. Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4 intent is to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings. Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment, Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments, Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes, and Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance support the key policies and provide guidance on assessing development proposals against heritage impacts. 13.2 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) – advised the ECU the proposal does not raise historic environment issues of national significance, and they do not object subject to conditions. Scheduled Monument Consent may be required for some of the forestry works which require felling adjacent to Killocraw cup marked stone. Dun a’ Bhuic, dun SW of Cleongart sits close to an existing forestry access track which will be used as the main access route for the wind farm. HES recommend a condition is attached to any consent to ensure that Dun a’Bhuic dun SW of Cleongart is fenced off to mitigate the risk of accidental damage during construction. With these issues address HES are content that there should be no adverse physical impact upon assets within their remit resulting from the proposal. 13.3 West of Scotland Archaeology Service – have advised they have no objection to the proposal subject to a condition to secure a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for archaeological mitigation measures and also ask that the Applicant be advised to ensure that they have all necessary legal permissions for any elements of their archaeological mitigation that lie out with the planning system. Specifically, in regard to the RAF Hudson aircraft crash site mitigation proposals which may require a license from the MoD if it is to be disturbed. 13.4 Having due regard to the above subject to the conditions and advisory note to address the concerns of Historic Scotland (protective fencing) and the West of Scotland Archaeology Service it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy and Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment; 19 – Scheduled Monuments; 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes; and 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance of the LDP2 14. HYDROLOGY, THE WATER ENVIRONMENT AND FLOOD RISK 14.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk have been addressed. Policy 30 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed Page 93
Page 94
against impacts arising from effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk (including cumulative). Policy 55 - Flooding of LDP2 provides guidance on the type of development that will be permissible within specific flood risk areas. Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals requires flood risk assessments, and drainage impact assessments, to accompany applications where required. 14.2 The Council’s Flood Prevention Officer – has advised they have no objection subject to conditions to ensure that any proposed watercourse crossings are designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event and that surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensure that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. 14.3 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Flood Prevention Officer it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 55 – Flooding; and Policy 57 Risk Appraisals of LDP2. 15. BIODIVERSITY 15.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on biodiversity, including birds have been addressed. Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 requires that when considering all proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 3 – Biodiversity of NPF4 requires proposals to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 5 – Soils of NPF4 supports the generation of energy from renewable sources that optimises the contribution of the area to GHG emissions reduction targets on peatland, carbon-rich soils, and priority peatland. A detailed site-specific assessment will be required for development on peatland which will include the net effects of the development on climate emissions and loss of carbon. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from effects on the natural heritage, including birds and to be assessed against impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator (including cumulative). Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity requires proposals to incorporate, safeguard and enhance existing site biodiversity wherever possible. 15.2 NatureScot initially advised the ECU they objected until further information was obtained from the Applicant on barrier effects on the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA. Once this was provided, they would give the proposal further consideration. In respect to disturbance effects they object unless conditions to control the timing of borrow pit blasting activities are applied to any consent to ensure works are undertaken to avoid significant disturbance of wintering Greenland white-fronted geese roosting in Lussa Loch. 15.3 Golden eagle – NatureScot do not consider the effects of habitat/range loss/territory impact for golden eagle have been adequately assessed. A kernel analysis of the most recent full year (minimum) is required to help them understand the extent of this territory. Page 94
Page 95
15.4 Osprey – to reduce the risk of collision mortality, NatureScot advise that alternative osprey nesting platforms should be provided further away from the proposal to reduce the risk of collision mortality i.e. to the east of Lussa Loch. 15.5 Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (OCEMP) & subsidiary plans - NatureScot advised that the proposals contained in the OCEMP appear to be broadly appropriate for pollution prevention, protection of protected species and sensitive bird interests and biodiversity enhancement. 15.6 NatureScot also provided advice on the Kintyre Goose Lochs SSSI, Bellachantuy and Tangy Gorges SSSI/GCR. 15.7 Additional Ornithological Information was submitted by the Applicant in relation to barrier effects on the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA 15.8 NatureScot considered the Additional Information and provided further advice to the ECU in relation to potential barrier effects to Greenland white-fronted goose, part of the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area (SPA). They advised that they object unless the proposal is amended/made subject to conditions so that works are done strictly in accordance with their required changes/mitigation. 15.9 Golden eagle – NatureScot also noted that the Applicant had not submitted previously requested kernel analysis of the most recent full year of satellite tag data for golden eagle. Their advice remains that until this information is submitted, they cannot make a full assessment of the likely effect of the proposal on golden eagle. 15.10 Habitats Regulations – they advise that as the proposal could affect the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area (SPA) the site’s status means the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations apply, and the ECU is required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SPA by carrying out an appropriate assessment before it can be consented. Kintyre Goose Roosts Ramsar site and Kintyre Goose Lochs SSSI may also be affected but the interests of these designations are fully addressed as part of the consideration of the SPA. To help the ECU do this NatureScot have advised that if the proposal is undertaken strictly in accordance with the following changes/mitigation, the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. Changes - the proposal shall be amended to remove the five most southwest turbines, 15, 24, 26, 28 and 29. Reason: to maintain a clear functional ‘corridor’ to accommodate the displacement effect on the established flight path between Tangy Loch and Glenbarr. Mitigation - A programme of Post Construction Monitoring shall be created and funded by the Applicant for satellite tagging of Greenland white-fronted geese in the area, subject to agreement with NatureScot, for at least two years post commissioning. Reason: to help understand cumulative barrier effects arising from the proposal on Greenland white-fronted geese. 15.11 Clarification Note from Applicant – the Applicant provided a response to NatureScot’s objection. This response focuses on the fact that NatureScot’s objection is due to cumulative barrier effects from Cnoc Buidhe with the consented Page 95
Page 96
Tangy IV. The Applicant has proposed a condition that only requires the turbines to be removed in the event that Tangy IV is constructed. Furthermore, that in the event Tangy IV is constructed or the consent remains valid at the time of construction of Cnoc Buidhe that they would then remove the 5 turbines. The Applicant has provided an assessment which concludes that the proposed condition complies with all of the tests set out in Scottish Government Circular 4/1998 “The use of conditions in planning permissions” and that it can be used to address NatureScot’s objection. 15.12 The proposed condition is: 1(i) “Subject to condition 1(ii)Turbines X/Y shall not be erected without the written consent of the Planning Authority following consultation with NatureScot. 1(ii) Condition 1(i) shall not apply if the consent issued by the Scottish Ministers for Tangy IV Wind Farm on 20th December 2019 ceases to be capable of lawful implementation before any of the turbines permitted by the consent have been erected. 15.13 Sub-paragraph (i) restricts the erection of the affected turbines, to address NatureScot’s concerns. Sub paragraph (ii) removes that restriction if there is no longer potential for cumulative barrier effects because the Tangy IV consent is not implemented. 15.14 NatureScot provided a further response to the Applicant’s Clarification note. 15.15 Condition – in principle NatureScot are happy to work towards agreeing a condition. However, they have concerns with the condition proposed. It is NatureScot’s understanding that the number of turbines at Tangy (16) has been established and this will not be revisited by the Tangy variation application. There is therefore no mechanism to reduce the number of turbines in Tangy IV (consented or varied). Consequently, the proposed condition is not appropriate in this case. 15.16 If a condition is to be applied, 1(ii) should include wording that also refers to any Varied Development that may be consented at Tangy IV as a result of a Variation Application, given that the principle of the proposal comprising 16 turbines is already established and cannot be varied by the Consenting Authority, unless made subject of a Variation Application by the Applicant. It remains NatureScot’s view that the only means to secure the mitigation they deem necessary is the removal of five turbines from the Cnoc Buidhe proposal. The responsibility for determining the most appropriate mechanism to secure this mitigation lies with the ECU and Argyll & Bute Council. 15.17 The Applicant asks whether their proposed condition is sufficient for NatureScot to “remove their objection.” This is a misunderstanding of NatureScots position. The purpose of a conditioned objection is to secure changes/mitigation that NS deem necessary to protect nationally and/or internationally important natural heritage interests. Their response has the status of an objection if conditions to secure mitigation are not attached to any consent granted by Scottish Ministers. Consequently, the objection cannot be removed by providing the wording of the condition. It is the act of applying the condition to any consent that will have the effect of removing it. Page 96
Page 97
15.18 RSPB Scotland – advised the ECU they have no comment. 15.19 SEPA – initially advised the ECU they objected due to impacts on peat and that they would reconsider their position if the proposals were modified to address issues relating to the relocation of T1, T3, T5, T7, T14 and T27 to shallower peat, modification of T3 track layout, relocation of the track to T25. In addition, SEPA request conditions relating to enabling works, geotechnical clerk of works, construction, and environment management plan, borrow pits – scheme of works, forestry, peat and carbon rich soils, and decommissioning, restoration and aftercare are attached to any consent. If these will not be applied, then SEPA object. 15.20 The Applicant provided a justification note to SEPA – it contains plans showing adjusted locations, with reduced peat impacts, of the infrastructure identified in SEPA’s response. The adjusted infrastructure locations are all contained within micrositing allowances assessed as part of the S36 application and so no additional environmental impacts requiring assessment result. 15.21 SEPA considered the justification note and advised the ECU they withdraw their objection subject to conditions outlined in their previous response and a further micrositing condition. If these will not be applied, then SEPA object. Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment 15.22 Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA), Stage 1 Checking Report advised the ECU that the PLHRA required minor revisions. The Applicant provided a response to their comments and at time of writing no further response has been received from Ironside Farrar. Consequently, it is not possible to reach a conclusion on the acceptability of the proposal in this regard. 15.23 The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer (LBO) initially requested further information and amendment: the Plantlife survey including mitigation and proposed enhancement along Drumore Burn, relocation of the hardstand area near T29 to avoid sensitive habitat, fish and Fresh Water Pearl Mussel surveys, a Species Protection Plan to include mitigation for bats, small pearl-bordered fritillary butterfly, reptiles and amphibians. Fish and freshwater pearl mussel should also be included, dependant on the results of the surveys, and a more detailed Biodiversity Enhancement Plan including details of riparian planting in the Drumore Burn Regeneration Management Area, monitoring and management of planted tree species, and management of deer. The applicant should also consider opportunities to enhance habitat for small pearl bordered fritillary butterfly and potential inclusion of hibernacula for reptiles and amphibians. 15.24 Response from Applicant – provided further information on Drumore Burn and advised the list of species identified during Plantlife’s Survey are contained in the Habitats and Vegetation Survey Report in the EIAR. The assessment of impacts on the Atlantic Temperate Rainforest along Drumore Burn are presented in Chapter 7 - Ecology. No Significant effects are identified from this assessment and so no additional mitigation is considered necessary. Details on the proposed enhancement are provided in– Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy. Page 97
Page 98
Regarding T29’s hardstanding and GWDTEs - no part of T29’s hardstanding is sited on NVC Habitat. There are other items of infrastructure within the site which overlap with Habitats of Conservation Concern, totalling a loss of 5.74 ha within the Ecological Study Area. Assessment of impacts on Habitats of Conservation Concern is presented in Chapter 7 – Ecology and concludes a Negligible Significance. Conversely 177.50 ha of Peatland Restoration is proposed as part of the Biodiversity Enhancement measures for which a Minor Positive EIA effect is concluded. Fish and Freshwater pearl mussels - were scoped out and are not included in the EIAR. Pre-construction fish habitat surveys will ensure watercourse crossings are microsited and habitat features retained or reinstated, as necessary. An Ecological Clerk of Works will supervise the construction of crossings, and post- construction fish habitat surveys and monitoring will be undertaken to ensure mitigation measures are effective 15.25 The Local Biodiversity Officer provided the following further advice: 15.26 The LBO notes that NatureScot are holding an objection until further information is received and subject to conditions. The Applicant should continue discussions with NatureScot. 15.27 Atlantic temperate rainforest is present along the Drumore Burn, immediately adjacent to the site and may be indirectly impacted upon. The LBO notes Plantlife conducted a survey to determine the presence of lichens and bryophytes along Drumore Burn. It appears this survey has not been submitted. The Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) must include strict mitigation measures to ensure no impact upon this sensitive area from the proposal. 15.28 The LBO notes the Applicant is in discussions with SEPA and NatureScot. SEPA have submitted an objection but will reconsider should the proposal be modified to avoid impacting deep peat. The LBO asks that these discussions continue. As per NPF4 Policy 5, the mitigation hierarchy should be adhered to, with areas of deep peat avoided in the first instance. 15.29 Recommendation: The LBO notes a programme of bat mortality monitoring is proposed with information feeding into mitigation measures, including feathering and curtailment, to ensure any negative impacts to foraging / commuting bats is minimal. However, as there are a high number of Pipistrelle spp. recorded within the site, the LBO asks that these mitigation measures are employed as a matter of course where high number of bats were recorded. (a) Reduced rotation speed while idling The reduction in speed resulting from feathering compared with normal idling may reduce fatality rates by up to 50%. As this option does not result in any loss of output, as best practice, it is recommended wherever it is practically possible and there remains uncertainty over the risk posed to bats. It can be applied at any site with a blade pitch control system which can be automated using SCADA data. Research has shown that feathering and curtailment are effective methods in reducing impacts in some bat species. Page 98
Page 99
These should be included in the Species Protection Plan (SPP). 15.30 Pine Marten - Comments – The LBO is satisfied with the following proposals: Retention of mature trees with cavities suitable for denning pine martens or compensatory boxes where retention is not feasible. At least five boxes will be installed. The LBO is satisfied with these proposals. Pine marten will be included in the SPP and proposed habitat creation and restoration within the Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy (BES) will benefit pine marten in the long term. 15.31 Small Pearl-Bordered Fritillary Butterfly – Comments - As a Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL) species and with suitable habitat present, the LBO ask that this species is included within the proposed SPP and opportunities for habitat enhancement are submitted with the Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (BEP). 15.32 Amphibians and Reptiles - to ensure the protection of these during the construction phase, the LBO asks that they are included in the SPP and CEMP and care is taken during vegetation removal. If works cannot be completed out with the hibernation period, an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) must be present to oversee vegetation clearance. Should any reptiles or amphibians be discovered, the ECoW should be informed immediately, and the animal should be relocated to an appropriate area. They should also be included in the BES where the creation of hibernacula would benefit. 15.33 The LBO notes a Species Protection Plan (SPP), and Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (BEP) are proposed to be submitted post-consent. Due to the loss of habitat and biodiversity, The LBO asks that these are submitted pre-consent to determine appropriate scale of enhancement and mitigation measures proposed to the losses. 15.34 Fish and Freshwater Pearl Mussel – the LBO notes that no surveys have yet been submitted. Due to the potential sensitivities on site, the LBO requests these surveys are submitted. This information will feed into appropriate mitigation measures necessary. The Applicant should consult with Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board for updated information regarding sensitive species. 15.35 Ornithology – Golden eagle, white-tailed eagle, osprey, and hen harriers are present within the site and will potentially be impacted upon. The cumulative effects of wind farms are having a negative impact on bird species. Appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented to reduce potential impact of bird collision. Research has shown that painting one of the blades black can reduce fatalities. A programme of monitoring should be implemented with results provided to NatureScot, RSPB, and Argyll Raptor Study Group. This information will feed into further mitigation measures which can be altered accordingly to ensure any negative impacts to birds is minimal. A Bird Protection Plan (BPP) will be drafted and agreed with NatureScot. The LBO asks that discussions with NatureScot continue. Page 99
Page 100
The LBO notes that NatureScot have requested further information with regards Golden Eagle and Osprey. The LBO asks that these discussions continue. 15.36 Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (BEP) – the LBO notes the information within the BES will feed into this document after consultation with ABC, NS, SEPA and other relevant stakeholders. 15.37 Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy (BES) • For peatland restoration the LBO asks the Applicant to continue consulting with NatureScot and SEPA. The recommendations as set out within NatureScot’s Advising on Peatland Guidance should be adhered to - compensation restoration of a 1:10 ratio (lost restored) as well as 10% enhancement. • The LBO asks that a detailed programme of tree planting be submitted to include species which must be native and appropriate to the locality of the area and sourced locally, location, age, timing of planting and a schedule of monitoring and maintenance until such a time as the trees become established. • Small pearl-bordered fritillary butterflies are present on site and should be included in the BEP. • Amphibians and reptiles are present on site and should be included in the BEP. The LBO notes that a BEP Steering Group is proposed to be established to discuss, coordinate, and deliver the detailed BEP. The LBO asks that external consultees with expertise within the necessary areas are consulted to ensure all enhancement measures are appropriate. 15.38 Species Protection Plan (SPP) – the LBO asks this is submitted pre-consent to determine if the compensation, enhancement, and mitigation measures proposed are appropriate to the scale and impact of the proposed development. As stated in the Bats section, prevention of bat mortality should be priority. Therefore, while a programme of monitoring of bat mortality is still necessary to aid in further mitigation measures, the practice of feathering and curtailment should be implemented as a matter of course. 15.39 Bird Protection Plan (BPP) - The Applicant has stated this will be drafted and agreed upon with NatureScot. 15.40 It has not been possible to reach a conclusion on ornithology due to the outstanding information requested by NatureScot in respect to a kernel analysis for golden eagle and alternative raft locations for Osprey. Furthermore, Officers do not agree that a suspensive condition is the best mechanism to secure the removal of five wind turbines in the interests of mitigating barrier effects on Greenland white-fronted geese. It is considered that this amendment to the proposal would constitute a material change which could have implications for the wider proposal that are unclear at this time and require to be explored e.g. environmental impacts, infrastructure re-design, and requirement for re- consultation. To apply such a condition could result in an unreasonable and unimplementable consent. It is recommended that the Council object unless this important mitigation to protect Greenland white-fronted geese is undertaken in advance of determining this application. It is, therefore, recommended that the proposal should be amended accordingly and be subject to a further period of formal consultation prior to any determination by the ECU or Scottish Ministers. Page 100
Page 101
15.41 Having due regard to the above due to outstanding information relating to Golden eagles, Osprey and the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment and need for amendment required by NatureScot it is not possible to reach a conclusion on whether the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2. If consent is granted the conditions recommended by NatureScot, SEPA, and the Local Biodiversity Officer should be included. 16. TREES, WOODS, AND FORESTS 16.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on trees, woods and forests have been addressed. Policy 6 – Forestry, woodland, and Trees of NPF4 intent is to protect and expand forests, woodland, and trees. Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees of LDP2 states that there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting woodland resources. Policy 78 – Woodland Removal of LDP2 states that proposals that involve the removal of woodland resources will be assessed against the criteria for determining the acceptability of woodland removal, in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. Where this assessment concludes that compensatory planting would be appropriate, developers will need to provide for this in accordance with the advice in the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. 16.2 Scottish Forestry have advised the ECU that further information should be provided in the Forestry Plan to demonstrate full compliance with the UK Forestry Standard. The applicant should provide an assessment, as per the “Deciding future management options for afforested deep peatland,” to determine if the Priority Habitat restocking exemption applies in this case. The applicant should clarify the total area of woodland loss to ensure that the correct area of compensatory planting is applied. Compensatory planting for the woodland lost, other than that converted to Priority Habitat peatland, should be secured by a condition to any consent. Furthermore, it is not clear whether forest lost to new roads has been included in the woodland loss figure and this should also be clarified. Finally, the appropriate consenting route required to accommodate construction, including infrastructure and management felling, totalling 1,041.3ha would be the S36 consent. Restocking of management felling areas and compensatory planting relating to permanent woodland loss would also be via the S36 consent. Any felling and restocking not required for the development should follow the usual consenting routes under the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018. 16.3 The Applicant has provided a response to the points raised by Scottish Forestry at time of writing there is no response from them to confirm they are satisfied with the information provided. 16.4 Having due regard to the above it has not been possible to reach a conclusion on this matter due to fact that there is no response from Scottish Forestry on the further information provided by the Applicant. It is therefore not possible to assess whether the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 6 – Forestry, woodland, and Trees of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees and 78 – Woodland Removal of the LDP2 Page 101
Page 102
17. MINERALS 17.1 Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 states that proposals for borrow pits will only be supported where the proposal is tied to a specific project and is time-limited, the proposal complies with the mineral extraction criteria in Policy 33 taking into account the temporary nature of the development, and appropriate restoration proposals are enforceable and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 states that proposals for mineral extraction will generally be supported for borrow pits where the proposal is found to be acceptable after being assessed against NPF4 Policy 33 criterion e). 17.2 In order to minimise the volume of material imported to the site and any associated environmental impacts associated with increased traffic, it is anticipated that some stone will be sourced from an onsite borrow pit. It will likely be necessary to import some stone to the site. Aggregate will be required for the construction of access tracks (18.2 km of new track and 9.8 km of upgraded track), crane pads, and compounds. Some material is expected to be gained from new cut and fill construction, but this is not expected to generate sufficient aggregate for all on-site requirements. There is therefore a need for additional excavation of aggregate material. An existing borrow pit/quarry is present within the site and is used to provide aggregate for ongoing forestry activities, however this existing source is required for use by FLS. 17.3 Having due regard to the above taking into account that the proposed borrow pits are tied to the proposal and subject to a condition to secure details of the borrow pits and a borrow pit restoration plan being attached to any consent it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 in this regard, subject to a condition to secure details of the borrow pit and a borrow pit restoration plan. 18. DECOMMISSIONING, SITE RESTORATION AND QUALITY OF SITE RESTORATION PLANS 18.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration have been addressed. It also requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the quality of site restoration plans have been addressed including the measures in place to safeguard or guarantee availability of finances to effectively implement those plans. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 requires consideration to be given to the long-term environmental management of the site. 18.2 The proposal is expected to operate for up to 40 years following which decommissioning of the wind turbines and other infrastructure and site restoration would be undertaken as required. Any alternative to this action would be subject to a further consenting process. 18.3 It is recommended that this matter is covered by planning conditions consistent with other projects across Argyll & Bute if the proposal obtains consent from the ECU. Page 102
Page 103
18.4 Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to an appropriate condition being attached if the proposal receives consent the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 - The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 19. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 19.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how cumulative impacts have been addressed. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 also requires cumulative impacts to be addressed. Any cumulative impacts which have been identified are covered in the preceding sections of this report. 20. RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION TARGETS AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS. 20.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that, in considering the impacts of the proposal, significant weight will be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 requires that when considering proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all renewable developments to be assessed against the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions. 20.2 Renewable Electricity Generation - Both UK and Scottish Government energy policy recognises the need for substantial increases in renewable energy generation if the transition towards net zero is to be achieved. The proposed turbines will have a combined rated output of around 191.4 MW. A battery energy storage system will also be installed with a capacity of up to 108.6 MW giving a total capacity for the proposal of around 300 MW. The prospective electricity generation from the proposed wind turbines equates to the annual power consumed by up to approximately 235,000 average Scottish households. 20.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – The proposal would reduce greenhouse gas emissions through replacing fossil fuel generation. The length of time a wind turbine needs to be in operation before it has, by displacing fossil fuel energy generation, avoided as much carbon dioxide as was released in its lifecycle is known as the carbon payback period. A carbon balance assessment has been undertaken using the Scottish Government’s carbon calculator. The results show that the wind farm component of the proposal is estimated to produce annual carbon savings of over 300,000 tonnes of CO2e per year, through the displacement of grid electricity, based on the current fossil fuel grid mix. The estimated payback time, using the Scottish Government Carbon Calculator is 1.1 years, with a minimum/maximum range of 0.7 to 1.9 years, based on the fossil fuel mix of the electricity grid. The proposal is evaluated to have an overall beneficial effect on the carbon emissions associated with energy production. 20.4 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crisis and 11 – Energy of NPF 4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Page 103
Page 104
Growth of Renewables and 04 – Sustainable Development of LDP2 in respect to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. 21. GRID CAPACITY & ENERGY STORAGE 21.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that grid capacity should not constrain renewable energy development. It is for developers to agree connections to the grid with the relevant network operator. Furthermore, that proposals for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported, which include energy storage. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires the Council to have regard to the opportunities for energy storage. 21.2 Grid Capacity - Connection to Electricity Grid - The electrical power produced by the individual wind turbines (as well as that stored in the BESS) will be transmitted to the proposed Substation via underground cables. A connection to the national grid’s electricity system will be required. The Applicant holds a grid connection offer of 2029. The grid connection does not form part of the Proposed Development and is not the subject of the Application. A separate Section 37 application under the 1989 Act will be made to the Scottish Ministers by Scottish and Southern Energy Networks (SSEN). 21.3 Energy storage – It is proposed that a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity of up to approximately 108.6 MW in total will be constructed within the substation compound to enable co-location of BESS with the proposed wind turbines. It is anticipated that the preferred choice will be Li-ion batteries, contained within secure steel shipping-like containers. When needed, the energy stored in the batteries will be transferred to 33 kV transformers within the BESS compound then onto the 33 kV substation via underground electrical cable from the BESS substation. 21.4 The BESS will consist of batteries, inverters, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, fire protection and auxiliary components all contained and bunded within secure steel shipping-like containers. The exact technology will be confirmed at the time of procurement. 21.5 Up to 54 units are anticipated with an approximate output capacity of 2 MW each. Each BESS unit will be approximately 9.1 m x 1.6 m, with a height of up to 2.5 m. Should the rating of each BESS unit increase due to improvements in technology at the time of deployment (e.g. each unit has an approximate output capacity of more than 2 MW each) then fewer BESS containers would be required. 21.6 Fire Safety issues have been raised regarding the BESS. The Applicant has confirmed that the inclusion of a Battery as part of the development was considered within each EIA chapter, with no significant effects concluded. They have advised that they will agree a Fire Safety Plan, as part of the condition discharging process in consultation with the HSE and local fire brigade to ensure there’s local capability to manage any potential fire. 21.7 The Health and Safety Executive were consulted by the ECU and have advised they have no comment. Page 104
Page 105
21.8 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the ABLDP2 in respect to Grid Capacity and Energy Storage. 22. PERPETUITY 22.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that consents for proposals may be time limited. Areas identified for wind farms are, however, expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. It is acknowledged that areas identified for wind farms are expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. However, as the expected operational life of the proposal is 40 years from the date of commissioning, should consent be granted, Officers would expect it to be time limited to 40 years to reflect the life of the wind farm as detailed in the EIAR. 23. CONCLUSION 23.1 This proposal is classed as “Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation” - a National Development, in terms of the Spatial Strategy given its capacity to generate and store more than 50MW. In principle, there is support for this scale of development given its importance in the delivery of Scotland’s Spatial Strategy. However, such projects are still required to be assessed against the provisions of the Development Plan, which consists of NPF4 and LDP 2. 23.2 The lead Development Plan policies support renewable energy development in principle but require proposals to be assessed against the criterion detailed in this report. While the weight to be given to each of the considerations is a matter for the decision maker, NPF4 is clear that significant weight will require to be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. However, a balance still requires to be reached in terms of the impact of the development. 23.3 In relation to landscape and visual impacts NPF4 advises that where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied such effects will be considered acceptable. However, NPF4 must be read as a whole, and detailed consideration given to linked policies. Policy 4 (Natural Places) – sets out that proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Whilst it is considered that this proposal will have a significant landscape and visual impact, it is not considered that it warrants an objection 23.4 The Scottish Government gives considerable commitment to renewable energy and encourages Planning Authorities to support the development of wind farms where they can operate successfully in appropriate locations. This is not however blanket support without qualification. In considering the appropriateness of the development, significant weight has been given to these matters. 24. RECOMMENDATION 24.1 That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) Ornithology - Argyll & Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion on ornithology due to the outstanding information requested by NatureScot in Page 105
Page 106
respect to a kernel analysis for golden eagle and alternative raft locations for Osprey. Furthermore, the Council does not agree that a suspensive condition is the best mechanism to secure the removal of five wind turbines in the interests of mitigating barrier effects on Greenland white-fronted geese. It is considered that this amendment to the proposal would constitute a material change which could have implications for the wider proposal that are unclear at this time and require to be explored e.g. environmental impacts, infrastructure re-design, and requirement for re-consultation. To apply such a condition could result in an unreasonable and unimplementable consent. Argyll & Bute Council OBJECT unless this important mitigation to protect Greenland white-fronted geese is undertaken in advance of determining this application. It is, therefore, recommended that the proposal should be amended accordingly and be subject to a further period of formal consultation prior to any determination by the ECU or Scottish Ministers. (2) Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment - Argyll & Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion in respect to the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (NPF4 Policies 5 and 11 and LDP2 30 and 79) as no response has been provided by Ironside Farrar on the further information provided by the Applicant. Argyll & Bute Council OBJECT unless this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of Ironside Farrar prior to determination of this application by the ECU. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to Ironside Farrar (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of a PLI. (3) Scottish Forestry – Argyll & Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion within the time afforded in respect to Forestry as no updated response has been provided by Scottish Forestry to clarify they are satisfied with the Applicant’s response. Argyll & Bute Council are therefore not in a position to confirm whether the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policies 6 and 11 and LDP2 Policies 77 and 78 and would recommend that the ECU consider these matters prior to determination. (4) Archaeological Impact - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Archaeological Impact, subject to a condition and advisory note to secure the recommendations of the West of Scotland Archaeology Service being attached to any grant of consent for a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for archaeological mitigation measures and an advisory note that the Applicant ensures they have all necessary legal permissions for any elements of their archaeological mitigation. Specifically, in regard to the RAF Hudson aircraft crash site mitigation proposals which may require a license from the MoD if it is to be disturbed. (5) Public Access - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Public Access subject to advisory notes being attached to any consent to ensure that any Access Controls i.e. gates, and cattle grids comply with the British Horse Society Guidance. Furthermore, that public access during construction should comply with NatureScot guidance ‘Good practice during wind farm construction.’ (6) Landscape & Visual Impact - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to landscape and visual impact subject to a condition to secure further Page 106
Page 107
aviation lighting mitigation in the form of an Aircraft Detection Lighting System being attached to any consent. (7) Biodiversity Impact - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer being attached to any consent. (8) Noise Impact - Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to suitably worded conditions to limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Council’s Noise Consultant being attached to any consent. (9) Flood Risk - Argyll & Bute has no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any consent: • To ensure watercourse crossings are designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event. • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. (10) Argyll & Bute Council requests that all conditions recommended by other consultees are included in any Consent with exception to the condition requiring removal of 5 turbines referred to at (1) above. Page 107
Page 108
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 109
© Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/00600/S36 O 1:35,000 0 325 650162.5 Meters Application Site Page 109
Page 110
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 111
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) consultation on the Section 36 Consultation for proposed High Brenfield Wind farm. Reference No: 25/00984/S36 / ECU00004961 Applicant: High Brenfield Wind Farm Ltd (Angus Thomson) Proposal: Section 36 Consultation for erection of up to 10 wind turbines with a maximum blade tip height of up to 200 metres Site Address: Land approximately 2km southwest of Ardrishaig (A) THE APPLICATION Section 36 Application made up of the following key elements: • Up to 10 wind turbines each with a maximum tip height of 200m • Approximately 5km upgraded existing access tracks • Approximately 7.45km new access tracks (of which approximately 7km will be cut and approximately 450m will be floated) • Construction of turbine foundations and crane hardstandings • Installation of Underground cabling; • Substation compound containing a substation and control building and other grid equipment • Up to thirteen watercourse crossings (eight upgraded existing crossings and five new crossings) Temporary works will include • Temporary construction compound • Temporary construction laydown compound and concrete batching plant; • Temporary construction access junction bellmouth • Up to two borrow pits Connection to Electricity Grid - The electrical power produced by the individual turbines will be fed to an on-site electrical substation through underground cables. This substation will connect to the National Grid at Craig Murrail Substation which is currently under construction by SSEN north of Lochgilphead. The site will be accessed from the A83 using the existing Brenfield Farm access junction which will be upgraded to allow deliveries of the large turbine components (turbine blades and sections of the towers). A new access track will be formed from the A83 junction to the wind farm using upgraded sections of the existing Brenfield Farm track where possible. The turbine components are expected to arrive by sea at Campbeltown Harbour and will travel to the site along the A83 as far as Tarbert. Just before reaching Tarbert, the vehicles will turn left onto the Page 111 Agenda Item 6
Page 112
B8024, to bypass the village, before rejoining the A83 and travelling a further 12km, to reach the Site Access Point north of Inverneill and south of Ardrishaig. The construction of the Proposed Development is anticipated to take approximately 18 months with environmental impacts controlled through implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This document will be produced before construction starts in line with the principles which are presented within the outline CEMP included as an Appendix to the EIA Report. Once the turbines are operational, the access tracks, turbine foundations, substation, met mast and crane hardstand areas around the turbines will remain in place. The temporary construction compound, laydown areas, borrow pits, and working areas of hardstands will be restored. The Proposed Development will have an operational lifespan of 40 years after which it will be decommissioned. (B) RECOMMENDATION: That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) Argyll and Bute Council, having particular regard to the Objection raised by NatureScot and deferring to their expertise, object to the proposal on landscape and visual grounds, as the proposed wind farm would result in significant adverse landscape and visual effects on Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA), Kilmartin Glen and Loch Fyne, contrary to NPF4 Policy 4, NPF Policy 11, LDP2 Policy 30 and LDP 2 Policy 70. (2) Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal in respect of potential impact of aircraft safety as set out in the NATS Safeguarding objection letter and therein referenced report dated 20.06.25. The objection by NATS confirms that the proposals are not currently considered to be in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policy 11 (aircraft safety). For the avoidance of doubt, should the NATS Objection to this application be withdrawn then the objection of the Planning Authority should also be regarded as withdrawn. (3) Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment - Argyll and Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion in respect to the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (NPF4 Policies 5 and 11 and LDP2 30 and 79). Argyll and Bute Council object unless this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of Ironside Farrar prior to the determination of this application by the ECU. Should this issue not be resolved, the Council would defer to Ironside Farrar (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event that the application is referred to the DPEA for examination. (4) Archaeological Impact - Argyll and Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion within the time afforded in respect to Archaeological Impact as no response has been received from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Argyll and Bute Council are therefore not in a position to confirm whether the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of Page 112
Page 113
NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policy 21 and would recommend that the ECU consider these matters prior to determination. (5) Argyll and Bute do not object on noise impact grounds, subject to the imposition of appropriate condition(s) to ensure operational noise and amplitude modulation matters are satisfactorily addressed, as recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant, Mott MacDonald, specified in their Review of Evidence – Noise, dated August 2025. (6) Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Public Access grounds, subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction. (7) Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Roads access or safety grounds, subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions, as specified by Transport Scotland in their consultation response to the ECU dated 31.07.25 and as set out in this report. (8) Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Flooding and/or Drainage impact grounds subject to the inclusion of the conditions as set out in the response of the Councils Flooding advisor dated 03.07.25. (9) Argyll and Bute Council in accordance with the views of the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer Objects to the proposals as it is considered that the applicant has failed to provide necessary biodiversity evaluation and weighting to trees within the area of Ancient Woodland which will be adversely affected by the proposals. It should also be noted that any further necessary bat surveys must be undertaken in respect of these trees, and any European Protected Species mitigation measures submitted and agreed by the Scottish Ministers prior to the granting of any deemed planning consent to ensure any consent is issued in compliance with all legislative requirements. (10) Argyll and Bute Council do not object in relation to impact on peat or proposed peat management issues subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to address these matters as advised by SEPA and NatureScot in their consultation responses. (11) Argyll and Bute Council requests that all other conditions recommended by consultees are included in any Consent. (C) CONSULTATIONS: ENERGY CONSENTS UNIT RESPONSES – Relevant extracts from consultation responses are set out below. All consultation responses and other documents can be viewed in full on the ECU site at the following Link: Page 113
Page 114
Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details Consultation Responses to ECU Members are requested to note that the original EIAR was supported by further (FEI) submissions dated 03.12.25 and therefore some consultees have provided updated responses based upon this additional information and reconsultation by the ECU. NatureScot (13.10.25 & 19.01.26) – advised the ECU that NatureScot object 13.10.2025 Response Extract. Summary The location, size and scale of the proposed development would result in significant adverse effects on some of the special landscape qualities (SLQs) of the Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA). We consider that the proposal would have significant adverse effects on two of the SLQs of the NSA, such that the objectives of the designation and overall integrity would be compromised. We advise that the proposed development may therefore not meet Policy 4 c) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) due to the extensive nature of the effects on the low remote summits, slopes, ridges and landmarks within the Knapdale NSA. We therefore object to this proposal. We have considered other interests and taken them into account in reaching our conclusions on this proposal. The landscape advice presented in Annex 1 focuses on the potential for significant adverse effects on the SLQs of the NSA. We provide advice on designated sites and ecology in Annex 2. (Members are requested to note that further commentary on the referenced Annex 1 will be provided at a later stage in this report). 19.01.2026 FEI Response Landscape and Visual We refer to our response 13th October 2025 and continue to advise that the location, size and scale of the proposed development represents a step change in prominence and proximity of wind farms to the Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA), Kilmartin Glen and Loch Fyne. We consider that the proposed development would significantly adversely affect two Special Landscape Qualities (SLQs) of the Knapdale NSA and would significantly adversely affect the experience of areas of Kilmartin Glen and extensive landscapes and seascapes of Loch Fyne. These impacts would be to a degree that would result in an evident and noticeable material change to the SLQs of the Knapdale NSA such that the objectives of this designation and overall integrity would be compromised. While the turbine height and number could be reduced, accounting for the site’s location within the western hills of Loch Fyne close to the sensitive coast, which is intervisible from highly Page 114
Page 115
sensitive areas of the Knapdale NSA, Kilmartin Glen and across a widespread extent of Loch Fyne, it is considered unlikely that the significant effects identified could be notably reduced. We therefore consider that given the proposed siting, scale and type of development, it would not be feasible to overcome the significant adverse effects identified within the site parameters. Accounting for the anticipated significant adverse effects on the Knapdale NSA we advise that the proposed development may therefore not meet Policy 4 (c) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). Therefore, we maintain our outright objection, as expressed in our previously submitted response Ornithology Based on our professional knowledge and experience and local understanding of the ornithological interest of this specific site, we are able to make a reasoned judgement that, in this case, this is unlikely to have affected our conclusions in respect of the predicted effects on birds arising from this particular proposal. However, the Applicant and those they engage to undertake such work must note that the submission of survey work that does not follow our published guidance in the future is likely to result in the need for additional survey work to fill any such gaps in survey effort, and consequent delays to their project timeline. We emphasise the importance of engaging competent persons and following all our published guidance, in spirit and to the letter, when undertaking ornithological survey work. Collision Risk Modelling In respect of Collision Risk Modelling (CRM), we would note that confidence in the results of such modelling is entirely dependent upon the input of high quality data gathered in accordance with best practice and current guidance (see point above). The Applicant states that “flights were recategorised according to the average height recorded for those individual flight segments”. Averaging flight heights recorded in the field could mask flight time spent at collision risk height. Our guidance advises that the bird’s flight height is estimated at the time of detection and then at 15 second intervals thereafter to inform CRM. Again, only based on our professional knowledge and experience, and local understanding of the ornithological interest of this specific site are we able to make a reasoned judgement that, in this case, this is unlikely to have affected our conclusions in respect of the predicted mortality of birds showing flight activity with this particular proposal. Further Environmental Information (Peatland comment) In both the Executive Summary and at 3.2 of the submitted Further Environmental Information (FEI) the Applicant states that “Consultation responses have been received from both SEPA and NatureScot. Both consultees have confirmed that they have no objections based on the impacts of the Proposed Development on peatland or the mitigation proposed”. This misrepresents our position, given that our submitted consultation response was silent on the aspect of impacts on peatland. Page 115
Page 116
In respect of these matters, having reviewed the supporting information for the proposed development, we do not consider that it would raise issues of National Interest in relation to its effects on peatland. This is not to say that the development would not result in significant effects, rather that NatureScot does not judge these effects to meet our threshold in respect of our national remit for peatland. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (04.09.25, 28.10.25 & 29.01.26) No Objection Response dated 04.09.25 commented that, Our Advice Based on the information supplied within the EIA report there is the potential for significant adverse impacts on a number of assets in our remit. There is currently insufficient information provided within the EIA report, and we are unable to reach a view on the potential impacts of the proposed development including any mitigation measures which may be required to reduce significant impacts. We require the submission of further visualisations and assessment to be able to fully understand and assess the potential effects on the setting of the following assets: • Dunchragaig, cairn 280m NW of (Scheduled Monument SM90111 & Property In Care) • Ballymeanoch, henge, 390m WNW of Ballymeanoch Cottage (Scheduled Monument SM176) • Ballymeanoch, standing stones 450m NW of (Scheduled Monument SM4301) We therefore object to the proposed application until sufficient information is provided to allow us to properly assess and understand the potential effects of the proposals. The provision of this information will allow the applicant to adequately assess the impact of the proposals, and allow us to provide advice that will allow the Scottish Ministers to reach a fully informed decision on the application. We have provided further information regarding the application in the annex to this letter. Response Dated 28.10.25 Commented that: Our Comments HES objected to the application on the 4 September 2025, based on insufficient information contained within the EIA report. In our objection we stated that we were unable to reach a view on the potential impacts of the proposed development including any mitigation measures which may be required to reduce significant impacts. We stated that we required the submission of further visualisations and assessment to be able to fully understand and assess the potential effects on the setting of the following assets: • Dunchragaig, cairn 280m NW of (Scheduled Monument SM90111 & Property In Care) • Ballymeanoch, henge, 390m WNW of Ballymeanoch Cottage (Scheduled Monument SM176) • Ballymeanoch, standing stones 450m NW of (Scheduled Monument SM4301) • Ballymeanoch, kerb cairn 430m NW of (Scheduled Monument SM3749) Page 116
Page 117
Additional visualisations We welcome the applicant’s commitment to produce additional visualisations – including a suite of night-time photomontages. We have reviewed the nature and location of the visualisations proposed and are content with these, however we reiterate our previous request for the applicant to identify monuments on these additional visualisations. We have no additional comments to make on this element of the applicant’s response…. …. Within the applicants scoping report and subsequent pre-application consultation, there was no indication of a preference to depart from standard practices for the assessment of nationally important heritage assets which is why we were not able to pick up on this issue at an earlier stage. There is additional confusion and confliction introduced within the EIA report, as the applicant’s methodology states: ‘As such a qualitative descriptive narrative is provided for each asset to summarise and explain each of the professional value judgements that have been made in establishing sensitivity and magnitude of impact for each individual asset.’ (Page 22) This is not the case within the current EIA submission. With regards to the ‘Ballymeanoch Asset Group’, the applicant’s assessment should consider each asset in the grouping and it’s setting individually to determine whether its setting and cultural significance may be affected by the proposed development. We therefore maintain our objection to the proposed application until further visualisations and assessment is provided to enable a full understanding of the potential impacts of the proposals. Response Dated 29.01.26 The proposals would impact the setting of two scheduled monuments: Ballymeanoch, henge, 390m WNW of Ballymeanoch Cottage (Scheduled Monument SM176) and Ballymeanoch, standing stones 450m NW of (Scheduled Monument SM4301). The turbines would appear over the skyline in wider views over the monuments and in views out from them. Having considered the additional information provided, we conclude that whilst the turbines would be visible in views from, and of, both monuments, the impact would not be sufficient to warrant an objection. Our objection to the proposed development is therefore removed. Lochgilphead Community Council (19.08.25): No Objection. Stated Neutral Stance Acknowledging the significant efforts of Low Carbon to engage with the community on the High Brenfield windfarm proposal and mindful of the significant financial community benefit which would be forthcoming if consent was granted, the Lochgilphead Community Council are in favour. However we do understand that not all in the local community are supportive. Accordingly our response is neutral. Ardrishaig Community Council (24.08.25 & 22.01.26) : Objection. Extracts from 24.08.25 Objection Page 117
Page 118
Members are requested to note that the extracts set out below are taken from a more comprehensive document which can be found on both the Council and the ECU website. A Community at Risk of Being Locked In Ardrishaig is already constrained by flood risk. Loch Gilp and the A83 form a hard barrier at the village’s foot, while the Crinan Canal cuts through its centre. With SEPA projecting a rise in water levels in the loch, the only safe direction for the community to grow and adapt is uphill. Yet the proposed High Brenfield Wind Farm would occupy that very land. This would not only prevent Ardrishaig from thriving — it risks forcing the community into shrinkage and decline, trapped between flooding below and turbines above. Such an outcome runs directly against: · NPF4 Policy 16 (Quality Homes) – which requires sufficient land and flexibility for future housing and community growth. · NPF4 Policy 22 (Rural Places) – which seeks to enable rural places to thrive, not to be spatially constrained to the point of decline. A National Transport Lifeline at Risk The A83 is equally vulnerable. As the sole vehicular artery linking Mid Argyll to Kintyre, it is vital to regional and national resilience. Yet at Ardrishaig and Inverneill, it runs at lochside level, already prone to flooding. With the canal behind and turbines above, the corridor would be locked in, with no flexibility for adaptation or reinforcement. Jeopardising the A83 in this way would compromise the future of Kintyre itself, cutting across the Scottish Government’s responsibility to safeguard essential infrastructure. 1.3 A Site Repeatedly Found Unsuitable This site has already been the subject of previous wind farm proposals, including EDF’s 2014 application, which were withdrawn after planning and community objections. The reasons remain unchanged: proximity to homes, overwhelming visual impact, and harm to heritage and landscape. That the current application is being brought forward under Section 36 does not alter the fundamentals. Planning has already shown this site to be unsuitable — and the same grounds for refusal remain today. 1.4 Policy Must Be Read as a Whole The developer’s own representatives admitted at the first public consultation that the site was chosen “because it was available, with no planning constraints”, not because it was the most appropriate or least harmful. That opportunistic siting cannot be justified by net-zero targets alone. NPF4 is a statutory development plan and must be applied in full, not cherry- picked. Whilst Policy 11 (Renewables) supports wind energy, it does not override other equally binding policies: · Policy 4 (Natural Places) – protection of valued landscapes and visual amenity · Policy 16 (Quality Homes) – safeguarding space for housing · Policy 22 (Rural Places) – supporting rural regeneration and resilience Page 118
Page 119
· Policy 1 & 3 – addressing the climate and nature crises together Approving High Brenfield would reduce NPF4 to a single-issue framework, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the policy. 1.5 Additional Grounds for Objection Community Opposition – An April 2025 survey of 750 households (170 responses) shows 67% of respondents opposed to the windfarm, citing noise, visual intrusion, ecological damage, property devaluation, and wellbeing impacts. Even amongst those supporting the proposal, there were concerns about the proximity to residences, noise and ecological harm. Failure to properly assess impacts and propose adequate mitigations across the whole of the EIA – It will be evident to anyone reading the remainder of this response that, in every chapter, ACC has identified numerous and significant failures to conduct adequate assessments, comply with numerous policies in NPF4 and other regulatory requirements or offer adequate mitigations. This leads to concerns about the developer’s commitment, both to the environment and the communities which will be impacted, were consent for this development to be granted. Landscape and Visual Impact At 200m, the turbines would dwarf the landform, visually dominate Ardrishaig, Inverneill, and Lochgilphead, intrude on the Knapdale and North Arran National Scenic Areas, and overwhelm the Crinan Canal corridor. This is permanent industrialisation of an iconic coastal and cultural landscape, contrary to NPF4 Policy 4 and LDP2 ENV 9. Heritage and Tourism – The dominance of the turbines threatens the Crinan Canal (Scheduled Monument) and Ardrishaig Harbour (Category B listed), undermining tourism built on scenic and cultural assets. Environmental Harm – Industrialises sensitive upland habitats, disturbs peat and hydrology, and threatens biodiversity, conflicting with NPF4 Policies 1 and 3. Cumulative Burden – Mid Argyll and Kintyre already host multiple windfarms and transmission infrastructure. High Brenfield would materially increase saturation, exceeding landscape capacity identified in the Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2017). Democratic Deficit – Section 36 removes local decision-making, undermining the Scottish Government’s stated principle of a “just transition” co-designed with communities. 1.6 Conclusion This proposal is not simply another wind farm. It is a development that would, if approved: · Lock a community into decline because of flood risk, cutting off its only space for future housing and regeneration. · Compromise a nationally vital transport artery — the A83 — with direct consequences for Mid Argyll and Kintyre. · Ignore a planning history in which this site has already been judged unsuitable. Page 119
Page 120
· Misapply NPF4, treating renewable generation as the sole policy test and disregarding equally binding protections for homes, places, nature, heritage, and resilience which have been largely ignored or underplayed in the EIA. These impacts are unique, profound, and irreversible. They provide Ministers with clear, defensible grounds for refusal. Ardrishaig Community Council therefore urges Scottish Ministers to refuse consent for the High Brenfield Wind Farm. Extracts from further Objection dated 21.01.26 Ardrishaig Community Council (ACC) submits this response in January 2026 in respect of the High Brenfield Wind Farm Section 36 application, following the submission by the Applicant of Additional Further Environmental Information (“FEI”), subsequent correspondence with statutory consultees, and the publication of updated policy guidance and relevant peer-reviewed evidence. This submission must be read in conjunction with ACC’s detailed representation submitted in August 2025, which remains valid in its entirety. ACC therefore proceeds on the basis that all matters raised in August 2025 remain unresolved, except where the Applicant has clearly and expressly demonstrated otherwise through its subsequent submissions. In the absence of such demonstration, those matters should be treated as outstanding at the point of determination. ….Accordingly, ACC does not accept that the Applicant’s late response resolves, negates or diminishes the concerns set out in ACC’s August 2025 representation. All matters raised therein which remain unaddressed, partially addressed, or reliant on post-consent controls should continue to be treated as live and unresolved issues in the determination of this application. The purpose of this further submission is not to restate ACC’s August objections in full, nor to duplicate material already before Ministers. Instead, it examines whether the Applicant’s Additional FEI and subsequent correspondence materially change the position previously set out by ACC; identifies where statutory consultees continue to raise objections or unresolved concerns; highlights where the Applicant asserts that matters have been resolved but significant uncertainty, evidential gaps or reliance on future conditions remain; and draws attention to new policy guidance and peer-reviewed evidence published since submission of the application where this reinforces or sharpens existing concerns. Where issues raised in August are not revisited in detail in this submission, that should not be taken to imply that they have been resolved or abandoned. In addition, where ACC has not responded in detail to specific points raised for the first time in the Applicant’s response dated 19 January 2026, this should not be taken as agreement or acquiescence, but reflects the procedural constraints created by the timing of that submission. ACC’s position is that the proposed development is unacceptable in principle and that the Section 36 application should be refused…. The Applicant’s proposed conditions repeatedly proceed on the assumption that unresolved objections or Page 120
Page 121
concerns can be addressed through future agreement with statutory consultees. As demonstrated in the accompanying Appendix, that assumption is not supported by the evidential record in this case and cannot lawfully substitute for resolution of substantive planning issues at the point of determination In particular, the application seeks consent for a development which would result in fundamental and irreversible change to landscape character and setting; unacceptable harm to heritage assets and their setting; unresolved risks to public and private water supplies; permanent loss and fragmentation of sensitive habitats and carbon-rich soils; and cumulative impacts on communities and infrastructure which exceed what can reasonably be absorbed. These matters go to acceptability in principle, not to the adequacy of management plans or mitigation detail. ACC recognises that planning conditions can play a legitimate role in controlling and mitigating development impacts. ACC bases this submission on the established principle that planning conditions cannot remedy fundamental deficiencies in environmental assessment. Ministers cannot use conditions to defer the assessment of significant effects or to substitute for information required under the EIA Regulations. Where impacts go to acceptability in principle, the appropriate planning response is refusal rather than conditional approval. ACC draws Ministers’ attention to the accompanying Appendix, which provides a structured analysis of the Applicant’s proposed planning conditions and explains why key issues cannot be cured through conditional consent. That analysis demonstrates that the conditions framework is being relied upon not merely to regulate implementation, but to defer assessment, assume future agreement, and transfer unresolved impacts into post-consent processes. In ACC’s submission, the Appendix shows that the proposed conditions do not provide a lawful or decision-ready basis on which consent could properly be granted. Taken together, the Applicant’s proposed conditions would transfer unresolved environmental, amenity and public health risk from the Applicant to regulators, affected communities and Ministers themselves. Granting consent in these circumstances would not resolve those risks. Argyll District Salmon Fisheries Board (20.06.25); No Objection We have gone through the application and are satisfied that this development will not have any impact on fish habitat. British Horse Society (19.06.26) No Objection The BHS is here to help and can provide guidance on suitable surfaces and infrastructure to accommodate equestrians and other access takers. We would be very willing to work with the applicant on these aspects. We can advise on matters including but not limited to: Access Management Plans, Core Paths, potential to create circular routes, gates, cattle grids. BT Radio Networks (25.06.25 & 17.12.25) : No Objection The conclusion is that the Project indicated should not cause interference to BT’s Page 121
Page 122
current and presently planned radio network. MOD Defence Infrastructure Organisation (07.07.25 & 18.12.25): No Objection In this case the development falls within Low Flying Area 14 (LFA 14), an area within which fixed wing aircraft may operate as low as 250 feet or 76.2 metres above terrain features to conduct low level flight training. The addition of turbines in this location has the potential to introduce a physical obstruction to low flying aircraft operating in the area. To address this impact, and given the location and scale of the development, the MOD require conditions are added to any consent issued requiring that the development is fitted with aviation safety lighting and that sufficient data is submitted to ensure that structures can be accurately charted to allow deconfliction. Suggested condition wordings are set out in Appendix A. Appendix A Condition - Aviation Lighting Prior to commencing construction of any wind turbine generators, or deploying any construction equipment or temporal structure(s) 50 metres or more in height (above ground level) the undertaker must submit an aviation lighting scheme for the approval of the Scottish Government in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence defining how the development will be lit throughout its life to maintain civil and military aviation safety requirements as determined necessary for aviation safety by the Ministry of Defence. This should set out: details of any construction equipment and temporal structures with a total height of 50 metres or greater (above ground level) that will be deployed during the construction of wind turbine generators and details of any aviation warning lighting that they will be fitted with; and the locations and heights of all wind turbine generators and any anemometry mast featured in the development identifying those that will be fitted with aviation warning lighting identifying the position of the lights on the wind turbine generators; the type(s) of lights that will be fitted and the performance specification(s) of the lighting type(s) to be used. Thereafter, the undertaker must exhibit such lights as detailed in the approved aviation lighting scheme. The lighting installed will remain operational for the lifetime of the development. Reason for condition. To maintain aviation safety. Condition - Aviation Charting and Safety Management The undertaker must notify the Ministry of Defence, at least 14 days prior to the commencement of the works, in writing of the following information: a)the date of the commencement of the erection of wind turbine generators; b)the maximum height of any construction equipment to be used in the erection of the wind turbines; c)the date any wind turbine generators are brought into use; d)the latitude and longitude and maximum heights of each wind turbine generator, and any anemometer mast(s). Page 122
Page 123
The Ministry of Defence must be notified of any changes to the information supplied in accordance with these requirements and of the completion of the construction of the development. Reason for condition. To maintain aviation safety. NATS Safeguarding (20.06.25) – Objection The proposed development has been examined by our technical safeguarding teams and conflicts with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) plc objects to the proposal. The reasons for NATS’s objection are outlined in the attached report TOPA SG36445. We would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the legal obligation of local authorities to consult NATSbefore granting planning permission. The obligation to consult arises in respect of certain applications that would affect a technical site operated by or on behalf of NATS (such sites being identified by safeguarding plans that are issued to local planning authorities). In the event that any recommendations made by NATS are not accepted, local authorities are obliged to follow the relevant directions within Planning Circular 2 2003 - Scottish Planning Series: Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) (Scotland) Direction 2003 or Annex 1 - The Town And Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites And Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002. These directions require that the planning authority notify both NATS and the Civil Aviation Authority (“CAA”) of their intention. As this further notification is intended to allow the CAA to consider whether further scrutiny is required, the notification should be provided prior to any granting of permission. It should also be noted that the failure to consult NATS, or to take into account NATS’s comments when determining a planning application, could cause serious safety risks for air traffic. It is noted that the applicants have provided further information by submission dated 19.01.26 on these matters to seek the withdrawal of the current NATS objection. However, at time of writing the objection by NATS has not been withdrawn and remains in force. Members are requested to note that it is considered procedurally necessary for the Planning Authority to maintain an objection unless NATS withdraw their objection. Prestwick Airport (04.12.25) No Objection On behalf of Glasgow Prestwick Airport, I have reviewed the updated site information with regards to the Section 36 Application for High Brenfield Wind Farm (ECU00004961). The new layout and tip height does not introduce any aviation safety impact upon Page 123
Page 124
Airport, and as such we would have nothing further to add to our removal of objection dated 01 May 2024 Glasgow Airport (19.06.25) No Objection This proposal is located outwith the radar consultation area and is below the height that requires assessment against instrument flight procedures (300m AGL) for Glasgow Airport. We therefore have no comment to make and need not be consulted further. Highland and Islands Airport Ltd (28.07.25 & 23.01.26) No Objection Highlands and Islands Airports Limited has been consulted on the above proposed development, received by this office on 4 Dec 2025. This proposal is located out-with our safeguarding criteria. As such we have no comment to make and need not be consulted further. Joint Radio Company (02.07.25) No Objection This proposal is cleared - subject to 50m Micrositing - with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. JRC analyses proposals for wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel & Power Industry. This is to assess their potential to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies in support of their regulatory operational requirements In the case of this proposed wind energy development, JRC does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data you have provided. However, if any details of the wind farm change, particularly the disposition or scale of any turbine(s), it will be necessary to re-evaluate the proposal. SSEN (08.01.26) No Objection Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the additional information submitted with this Section 36 ELA 1989 application.Upon review of the additional information, we have "no comments" to make on this additional material. More broadly, we have no concerns about the location of the proposed wind turbines relative to our existing 132kV An Suidhe - Crossaig overhead transmission line, but given the site access would run underneath our critical national infrastructure asset, we ask the ECU to apply an informative note to the decision notice, if approval is granted, asking them to contact SSEN Transmission's Asset Management team at transmission.asset.management@sse.com at least 30 day prior to commencing on site works to obtain relevant HSE GS6 safety information for undertaking works near our overhead line. Scottish Forestry (28.06.25 ,22.10.25 & 22.01.26) No objection (subject to conditions) Conclusion Scottish Forestry is broadly supportive of the embedded design approach to minimise woodland impact through track reuse and peat-sensitive engineering. Page 124
Page 125
However, clarification, additional mapping, and documentation are required before Scottish Forestry can confirm compliance with national and local woodland policy and best practice standards. We look forward to collaborating with the applicant and planning authority to resolve these matters Response Dated 22.10.25 We advise that: The proposals demonstrate full compliance with UKFS. The UK Forestry Standard 5th edition was published on 3 October 2023 following the completion of an extensive review process. The 5th edition applies from 1 October 2024 for all woodland creation and management activity. This followed a 12-month transition period to allow relevant guidance to be updated and draft woodland plans to be finalised. The Applicant considers their Felling and Restocking in the context of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 and associated policies on Forestry and Forestry Removal in line with the adopted Forest and Woodland Strategy. The applicant clarifies the total area of permanent woodland loss to ensure that the correct area of compensatory planting is applied. Compensatory planting for the woodland lost should be secured by a condition, a draft of which is attached in Annex 1. Annex 1: Compensatory Planting Condition (1) No felling or development shall commence, including site and ground investigations until a woodland planting scheme to compensate for the removal of 61.94ha plus hectares of existing woodland (“the Replanting Scheme”) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Scottish Ministers in consultation with the Planning Authority. (2) The Replanting Scheme shall provide: (a) details of the location of the area(s) to be planted, including a map and description of current land use; (b) the nature, design/layout, species composition, purpose and specification of the proposed woodland to be planted; (c) the phasing and associated timescales for implementing the Replanting Scheme; (d) proposals for reporting to the Planning Authority on compliance with timescales for obtaining the necessary consents and thereafter implementation of the Replanting Scheme; (e) proposals for the maintenance and establishment of the woodland to be planted, including annual checks, replacement planting, fencing, ground preparation and drainage; and (f) details evidencing compliance with The UK Forestry Standard and the Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal (as amended or replaced from time to time). (3) The Replanting Scheme approved under part (1) of this condition shall be implemented in full, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Scottish Ministers in consultation with the Planning Authority. Reason: To secure replanting to mitigate against effects of deforestation arising from the Development Page 125
Page 126
Forestry Felling Plan (1) No felling shall take place until a Forestry Felling Plan (FFP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Forestry. The FFP shall cover the Development site and shall provide: (a) details of felling and restocking proposals; (b) details of the management measures to reduce the amount of felling required to accommodate the Development; (c) measures to deal with forest waste including brash in line with the UK Forestry Standard; (d) timelines for implementing the plan; (e) details setting out annual monitoring of the felled area and reporting procedures to be carried out by a qualified expert; (f) details of forestry management practices; and (g) details demonstrating compliance with The UK Forestry Standard and the Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal (as amended or replaced from time to time) and Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 and associated policies on Forestry and Forestry Removal in line with the adopted Forest and Woodland Strategy. (2) The approved FFP shall be implemented in full upon Commencement of Felling. Reason: to minimise and manage the effects of forestry felling required to accommodate the Development. Annex 2: Note on the Consenting Route • Consenting Route - the appropriate consenting route for the management felling required to accommodate construction of the Development, including infrastructure and management felling, totalling 191.7ha would be the Section 36 consent. • Restocking of management felling areas and compensatory planting relating to permanent woodland loss (61.94ha) would also be via the Section 36 consent. • Any felling and restocking not required for the development should follow the usual consenting routes under the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018. Response Dated 22.01.26 Upon review of the additional information, we have no further comments to make on the FEI. The response from Scottish Forestry dated 22nd October 2025 remains extant and both appendices have been attached for ease of reference. Transport Scotland (31.07.25 & 05.12.25) No Objection Response dated 31.07.25 extract Noting the observations set out in this response, based on the information provided, Transport Scotland would offer no objection to application ECU00004961 subject to the application of appropriate conditions to any consent that may be awarded. Page 126
Page 127
As requested, Transport Scotland has reviewed the Onshore Wind Standard Conditions and has provided comments and proposed amendments to address matters within its remit (in addition to proposed amendments suggested by the applicant ). These are provided in the Table 3 appended to this response. In addition to the Conditions, the applicant should also be informed of the following advisory notes setting out requirements relating to works within the trunk road boundary: i The applicant should be informed that the granting of planning consent does not carry with it the right to carry out works within the trunk round boundary and that permission must be granted by Transport Scotland Roads Directorate. ii Trunk road modification works shall, in all respects, comply with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the Specification for Highway Works published by HMSO. The developer shall issue a certificate to that effect, signed by the design organisation. iii Trunk road modifications shall, in all respects, be designed and constructed to arrangements that comply with the Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads published by Transport Scotland. The developer shall provide written confirmation of this, signed by the design organisation. iv The road works which are required due to the above Conditions will require a Road Safety Audit as specified by the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. v Any trunk road works will necessitate a Minute of Agreement with the Trunk Roads Authority prior to commencement. vi To obtain permission to work within the trunk road boundary the developer should contact the Area Manager through the general contact number 0141 272 7100. vii The Operating Company has responsibility for co-ordination and supervision of works and after permission has been granted it is the developer's contractor's responsibility to liaise with the Operating Company during the construction period to ensure all necessary permissions are obtained. We trust the above is sufficient. However, should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us. Members are requested to note that Transport Scotland have in their response provided a series of proposed conditions which they request are attached to any consent with the following main headings. • Enabling Works • Traffic Management • Abnormal Loads • Trunk Road Mitigation Measures • Decommissioning, Restoration and Aftercare • Site Decommissioning, Restoration and Aftercare FEI Response Dated 05.12.25 extract We can confirm that our response dated 31 July 2025, including the comments and proposed modifications to the standard suite of conditions outlined therein, remains valid and should continue to be taken into consideration in Page 127
Page 128
determining the application. SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (07.08.25,10.10.25 & 26.01.26) No Objection (subject to conditions) Response dated 07.08.25 Extract We ask that the planning conditions in the Appendix below be attached to any consent if granted. If these will not be applied, then please consider this representation as an objection. Detailed and lengthy conditions covering the following main issues are required by SEPA; Proposed Conditions 12 Micro siting 14 Enabling Works 18 Geotechnical Clerk of Works Response dated 03.08.25 extract I can confirm that we are in agreement with the proposed wording for planning condition 31 and have no other issues to raise at this point. The final response indicates that SEPA are content with the proposals and the intended wording of conditions through discussions with ECU. Response Dated 26.01.26 Thank you for consulting us on the additional information and updated draft conditions for this application. We have no additional comments to offer on the Further Environmental Information (November 2025) documents, but we confirm that we support the latest updated draft conditions (Version 3) which are listed on the ECU portal as: High Brenfield WF_Standard_Onshore_Wind_Cond_V3_15.01.2026 Scottish Water (30.06.25, 08.09.25 & 19.09.25) –No objection Advice provided on technical and procedural requirements to safeguard Protected Water Catchment Area and drinking water supplies. These matters would be controlled outside the Planning Legislative Framework by Scottish Water and/or SEPA. SEPA (07.08.25, 10.10.25& 26.01.26) No Objection subject to imposition of conditions 07.08.25 Response Extract Advice for the determining authority We ask that the planning conditions in the Appendix below be attached to any consent if granted. If these will not be applied, then please consider this representation as an objection. Please note the advice provided below. Page 128
Page 129
For all other planning matters, please see our triage framework and standing advice which are available on our website at sepa.org.uk/environment/land/planning/. 10.10.25 Response Extract I can confirm that we are in agreement with the proposed wording for planning condition 31 and have no other issues to raise at this point. 26.01.26 Response Extract Thank you for consulting us on the additional information and updated draft conditions for this application. We have no additional comments to offer on the Further Environmental Information (November 2025) documents, but we confirm that we support the latest updated draft conditions (Version 3) which are listed on the ECU portal as: High Brenfield WF_Standard_Onshore_Wind_Cond_V3_15.01.2026 Please also refer to our previous response under SEPA ref: PCS-20005847. Argyll and Bute Council Consultee Responses Consultant Landscape Advisor (05.09.25 & 22.01.26) - No objection Raised. The Council’s Landscape Advisor has examined both the initial EIAR submission and the FEI additional information requested by HES. It is his opinion that although some significant localised adverse impacts will occur, there will be no overall unacceptable adverse impacts caused by the proposals which would merit objecting on Landscape Impact grounds. The conclusions of his landscape Impact evaluation report are set out below. 11. Conclusions This proposal would have significant localised effects on landscape character within and around the site, significant effects on LLAs (on “views across and along Loch Fyne” ). There would also be significant effects on views from locations within a 10km radius mainly to the northeast and east of the wind farm site and the summits of nearby hills to the north and west. Whilst the site is close to the Knapdale NSA, effects on its Special Landscape Qualities would not be significant as there would be limited visibility of turbines from within the NSA due to the screening effects of landform. Whilst the scale of the proposed turbines does not align with the ABLWECS, in general the scale of the turbines fits the scale of the large scale landform reasonably well. Significant landscape effects are predicted for: • Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosaic (LCT 6b) (localised effects in and in the environs of the proposal site) • West Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA (indirect effects on “views across and along Loch Fyne”) • East Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA (indirect effects on “views across and along Loch Fyne”) Page 129
Page 130
The overall cumulative effect of wind farms on the character of Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosaic is assessed not to be significant due to the relatively limited combined visibility and the wide spacing between the schemes. Significant visual effects are predicted for: • Cruach Breacain and Cruach Lusach (hills close to the site) • Lochgilphead and Blarbuie Woodland Park • Sections of the A83/ Argyll Coastal Trail between Ballibeg and Lochgilphead • B8000/ Otter Ferry (across Loch Fyne) • Section of core paths C111(a & b) - Creag Ghlas, Cairnbaan to Kilduskland Reservoir, C140(a & b) - The Corran to Kilmory Gardens and C406 - Otter Ferry Circular, Loch Fyne • Argyll Paddle Trail (kayak route on Loch Fyne/Loch Gilp) Although Ardrishaig and Inverneil are both close to the wind farm site, visual effects are not predicted to be significant for either settlement where visibility to turbines would be limited by topography, some screening is provided by trees and woodland, the orientation of views is generally to the east, away from the proposal and the existing overhead power lines are already visible on the skyline. The proposal is assessed not to introduce a significant cumulative visual effect and the additional effects introduced by the proposal are predicted not to lead to a significant sequential effect alongside the other developments. It is assessed that the addition of the proposal would not result in the overall cumulative visual effect of wind turbines being dominant or oppressive in views experienced at various points within the area. Permanent removal of 61.13ha of coniferous plantation within Ardrishaig Forest would be required to facilitate the construction of the proposal. A further 129.76ha would be felled to the wind firm boundaries to avoid foreseeable wind blow and replanted up to a 226m diameter ‘wind protection zone’ around turbines. The loss of a small area (0.59ha) of non-native AWI woodland is also required to construct the access track. Compensatory planting to comply with the Scottish Government's Control of Woodland Removal Policy of at least 67.25ha is proposed to be delivered as part of the proposal to be arranged in consultation with Scottish Forestry post-consent. In addition the applicant proposes to restore an area of AWI within the Attichuan Forest equal to that being disturbed by the construction of the access track (0.59ha). From a landscape and biodiversity perspective it would be desirable for the compensatory planting to be native woodland rather than single species non- native conifer plantation. It is recommended that ‘smart’ aviation lighting activated by approaching aircraft (as referenced in the Design Statement, but not the current proposal) is implemented if it is approved for use in UK airspace before construction of the wind farm. From a review of the photomontages the layout design of the proposed wind farm appears to have been carefully considered, with minimal ‘stacking’ of turbines and well balanced overall composition, making use of landform to limit visual impacts. Page 130
Page 131
There would be benefits in reducing the turbine size and spacing (though of course this would reduce the capacity of the wind farm). However, there are no individual turbines that are especially prominent or are ‘outliers’ seen from multiple directions, the removal or repositioning of which would be likely to appreciably reduce landscape or visual impacts. Review against NPF4 Policies 4 and 11 Policy 4 c) states that development proposals that will affect a National Scenic Area will only be supported where: 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 national importance. The EIAR predicts effects on the Knapdale NSA’s Special Landscape Qualities to be not significant. I consider the assessment to be reasonable and that the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the NSA would not be compromised. Policy 4 d) states that development proposals that affect a site designated as a local landscape area in the LDP will only be supported where: i. Development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified; or ii. Any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local importance. The proposals are predicted to have a significant effect on the West Loch Fyne (Coast) and East Loch Fyne (Coast) LLAs through indirect effects on “views across and along Loch Fyne” which are qualities identified in the ABLWECS for LCT6a Loch Fyne Upland Forest Moor Mosaic which overlaps the designated areas. The LVIA argues that while the proposals would have significant adverse effects on the qualities of the LLAs identified with in the ABLWECS, given their localised nature and the limited geographical extent of the LLAs affected, the effects are not of such a scale to prevent an understanding or appreciation of the key qualities of the LLAs and their overall integrity would be maintained. I consider this to be a fair assessment, and it would be difficult to argue with it, particularly as the LLAs do not have formal citations or qualities for which they have been identified. Policy 11e requires project design and mitigation to demonstrate how impacts on communities and significant landscape and visual impacts are addressed. In terms of significant landscape and visual impacts, 11e ii states that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy and where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered acceptable. NPF4 provides no guidance on the definition of what constitutes localised effects. Details in relation to the iterative design process and embedded mitigation, relevant to the LVIA are provided in the Design and Access Statement. It is stated Page 131
Page 132
that decisions taken to refine through turbine size reduction and removal and re- siting from the preliminary design (17 turbines, 220m high) to the current proposal (10 turbines, 200m high) were driven by landscape and visual and cultural heritage considerations including visibility from the Knapdale NSA (including Tayvallich), Scheduled Monuments within the Kilmartin Glen and the settlements of Lochgilphead, Ardrishaig and Inverneil. The EIAR does demonstrate that impacts have been reduced through appropriate design mitigation and the design layout appears to fit reasonably well into the landscape limiting significant landscape and visual effects. The significant residual landscape effects of the proposals can be considered localised, occurring mainly within up to around 7km from the proposed wind farm. Significant visual effects, though extending as far as Otter Ferry approximately 10km away can be considered localised with the greatest visual impacts on communities occurring in parts of Lochgilphead relatively close to the proposals, so it may be difficult to argue that the proposals do not comply with Policy 11e. Whilst significant visual effects are predicted for travellers on sections of the A83/Argyll Coastal Trail, visibility would be intermittent and localised to relatively short stretches of the route with other infrastructure including overhead power lines and other wind turbines are already visible. 12. Key viewpoints to be considered by the planning committee. 1. Inverneill (Viewpoint 2) 2. Ardrishaig Pier (Viewpoint 3) 3. Lochgilphead Conservation Area Waterfront (Viewpoint 6, turbines visible in combination with Srondoire/ Allt Dearg) 4. A83 (Viewpoint 7, Argyll Coastal Trail, close to East Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA) 5. Otter Ferry (Viewpoint 12, within West Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA) 6. Tayvallich (Viewpoint 19, within Knapdale NSA) 7. B8024 (Viewpoint 21, within Knapdale NSA) 8. Moine Mhor minor road (Viewpoint 18, within Knapdale NSA) 9. Standing Stones Stockavullin (Viewpoint 15, within Knapdale/ Melfort LLA) 10. Core Path C137a – Port Ann Circular (Viewpoint 22, within West Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA) Further comment related to FEI submissions Dated 22.01.26 The Council’s Landscape advisor has provided additional comments in response to the submitted FEI information requested by HES as set out below; The four FEI photomontages provide useful additional evidence of the potential landscape and visual effects of the proposal experienced at Kilmartin Glen within the Knapdale/ Melfort LLA but do not raise any new concerns that landscape or visual effects have been underestimated within the LVIA. I therefore stand by the conclusions of the High Brenfield Wind Farm Landscape and Visual Review (Jacobs, August 2025). Local Biodiversity Officer (10.10.25 & 10.02.26) Response Dated 10.10.25 Extracts Ancient Woodland Page 132
Page 133
Ancient Woodland is present on site and an area of 0.59ha will be impacted upon by the proposed development, although it has been subject to felling and planting of Sitka Spruce. I note the applicant is in discussions with Scottish Forestry regarding the woodland onsite and I ask these discussions continue. Comment: It is not clear if there are native trees within the Ancient Woodland that require felling. I request this information please. If any are proposed to be felled, I request a tree survey be submitted to include information on their biodiversity value. I also request a bryophyte and lichen survey be submitted to understand the potential impact on them. 3.3 Peatland I note the applicant is in discussions with SEPA and NatureScot. I ask these discussions continue. As per NPF4 Policy 5, the mitigation hierarchy should be adhered to, with areas of deep peat avoided in the first instance. 3.4 Summary of European Protected Species ….Comment: I note Locations 5, 6, 10 and 11 have been removed. Soprano and common pipistrelle are both calculated as Medium risk at Location 2. It is not clear if there are any roosts within the Ancient Woodland. Can the applicant please clarify? Bats Recommendation: There are a number of wind farms within the area which will be cumulatively impacting upon bats. As a matter of caution and due to bats being present within the site, it would be advisable to reduce the rotation speed while idling. Please see NatureScot guidance for further information https://www.nature.scot/doc/bats-and-onshore-wind-turbines-survey-assessment- and-mitigation..... I ask the applicant to monitor any fatalities that may occur from collision, as bats are found to forage within the wind turbine areas. I also ask that post-construction surveys are carried out to aid the monitoring process. This information will feed into further mitigation measures which can be altered accordingly to ensure any negative impacts to foraging / commuting bats is minimal. Bats should be included in the Species Protection Plan (SPP). The cumulative effects of wind farms are having a negative impact on bird species. Appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented to reduce potential impact of bird collision. Research has shown that painting one of the blades black can reduce fatalities. A programme of monitoring should be implemented with results provided to NatureScot, RSPB and Argyll Raptor Study Group. This information will feed into further mitigation measures which can be altered accordingly to ensure any negative impacts to birds is minimal. A Bird Protection Plan (BPP) will be drafted and agreed with NatureScot. I ask that discussions with NatureScot continue. No works should begin until this has been submitted and agreed upon. 4.0 Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP) I ask that peatland compensation and enhancement measures are agreed with NatureScot and SEPA. 5.0 Species Protection Plan (SPP) Page 133
Page 134
I note one is yet to be submitted. I ask that the following species are included: • Bats • Badger • Red squirrel • Pine Marten • Protected invertebrates including small heath and small pearl-bordered fritillary butterfly No works should begin until this has been submitted and agreed upon. 7.0 Comments I am satisfied with the proposed mitigation measures, including: • Appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) • Pre-construction surveys by a suitably qualified ecologist • Best practice measures implemented • Post-construction monitoring of pine marten by suitably qualified ecologists • Toolbox Talks to all onsite staff I am submitting a Holding Objection until I receive further requested information. (The applicant provided additional information in response to these matters on 19.01.26). Response Dated 10.02.26 Extract Tree Survey report: 20 native tree species are proposed to be felled within ancient woodland. T1-T9, T11, T20-22, T26 and T30-31 - mature oak T10 and T29 – dead oak T12-13 – mature beech T15 – mature birch It should be noted that the biodiversity value of the trees and not their category should be considered. Although not clear, the photos appear to show evidence of lichens and bryophytes present on the trees. The presence or absence of bats within these trees must be determined and appropriate surveys undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist where necessary. I therefore maintain my Holding Objection in the absence of this information being provided. Noise Consultant (Mott McDonald) (05.08.25 & 1.10 25) – No Objection subject to conditions. Mott MacDonald Ltd has been commissioned by Argyll and Bute Council to undertake a peer review of the noise assessment for the proposed High Benfield Wind Farm. This review includes a desktop assessment against current good practice, a check of the predicted noise levels from the wind farm, and a site survey of the area surrounding the wind farm site including the nearest residential receptors. This report summarises the findings of the review. Page 134
Page 135
The desktop review and site survey conclude that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the Applicant, with a few issues identified. The most significant of these issues are: ● The correction of the predicted LAeq receptor noise level to the LA90 parameter is not confirmed and the comparison of the reported receptor noise levels with the results of the Mott MacDonald comparative model suggests that a correction was not applied. In accordance with best practice, 2 dB is usually subtracted from the LAeq values obtained as an output of the noise modelling. Consequently, the receptor noise levels presented by the Applicant are expected to be 2 dB greater than they should be. ● Confirmation that there are no derelict residential properties within the study area is not given Following a satisfactory response to the above issues from the Applicant, it is considered that there would be no reasons to object to the Proposed Development on noise grounds. 3.3 The Applicant does not propose a condition on operational noise impacts. It is suggested that a lowered fixed limit on quiet amenity hours and night-time noise from the Proposed Development alone of 35 dB LA90 for all non-financially involved properties is adopted and is expected to be achievable at all receptors including both night-time and quiet amenity hours, and at all wind speeds. For financially involved properties, a lowered fixed limit on quiet amenity hours and night-time noise from the Proposed Development alone of 45 dB LA90 is proposed at all wind speeds. A suitably worded condition such as that included in Section 4 of this report to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation should be applied to control noise levels from the Proposed Development. Further Response following clarification by Applicant on above (01.10.25) In response to the clarifications: • We have done a detailed check on our calculations and found that there was an error in our spreadsheet, which has now been corrected. Our results now align with those of the applicant. Apologies for the confusion. • We note the applicant’s belief that there are no derelict buildings within the study area with residential status. Having considered both points, we would confirm that the clarifications are satisfactory, and therefore our original conclusions are valid. The proposed condition is set out in detail at section 4.2 of the original consultation response and as set out in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 of the consultation response. Guidance Notes are also referenced at Notes 1-5 (inclusive) relating to methodology which Officers would also wish to see attached in any deemed consent as part of an approved method statement should the Scottish Ministers determine to approve the current proposals. Page 135
Page 136
Advice has also been provided at paragraph 4.1 in relation to Amplitude Modulation recommending that; Given the evolving position regarding amplitude modulation, it is considered particularly important that wind farm planning consents include a condition to control such impacts, and that following the principles in ETSU-R-97, the burden of that investigation should fall to the developer. The UK Government is currently consulting on updates to the ETSU-R-97 guidance, which includes the proposed AM condition as proposed by A&BC. Should future government guidance regarding amplitude modulation conditions be at variance from the condition recommended in this report, an application can be lodged with the Planning Authority to amend or remove said condition. However, should government guidance advise that amplitude modulation conditions should be attached, and none existed, there would be no mechanism for applying such a condition in retrospect. We would therefore recommend a noise condition to control amplitude modulation from the wind farm. There are a number of ways that this could be applied, such as the one cited in the November/December 2017 issue of the Institute of Acoustics’ Acoustics Bulletin magazine (McKenzie et al., 2017). The proposed condition has not been subjected to a legal review, as that is outside of the current remit. It is expected that one would be undertaken by the decision maker as part of the granting of planning permission if the proposed development is successful. It is the opinion of officers that this matter should be addressed by the Scottish Ministers/ECU who, as the decision maker, should take expert advice in relation to Amplitude Modulation Impacts and potential condition wording to ensure that this matter, raised by the Council’s Noise advisor, is both properly considered and appropriately addressed by the Determining Authority should the decision be taken to approve the current application. Area Roads Manager. No response received. It is considered that local road network matters can be adequately addressed by the imposition of appropriate suspensive conditions requiring the submission and approval of the following; • Cumulative Traffic Impact Assessment, • Construction Traffic Management Plan • Junction/access road design details to required standard of the Area Roads Engineer It is noted by Officers that Transport Scotland have not raised objection to the proposals and the majority of the route used to deliver equipment will be along the Trunk Road Network. (Transport Scotland have responded to the ECU with recommended conditions to address envisaged the Trunk Road Network movements). Flood Risk Assessor (03.07.25) – No objection subject to conditions. Conditions recommended: Page 136
Page 137
. 1. Surface water drainage design calculations are provided at detailed design stage demonstrating that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water runoff. 2. Sections 2 to 3 of the checklist above are addressed at detailed design stage and the surface water drainage system should be in operation prior to the start of construction Access Officer (20.01.26) No Objection. Recommends production of access plan and seeks improvements to footpath network in local area. These matters can be addressed/finalised by appropriate conditions on any future consent. West of Scotland Archaeology (WoSAS) – at the time of writing no response has been received. Please note: the above are summaries and the full consultee responses can be viewed on the Energy Consent Unit and Argyll & Bute Council websites. (D) HISTORY: The Planning History below relates to applications within the general locality of the currently proposed windfarm. 14/00258/PAN – EON renewables windfarm proposal . Site 3 miles south of Ardishaig. 14/01342/S36 – EDR Energy Renewables application for a wind farm on the High Brenfield site (ECU00002094). Application was withdrawn. 16/00983/PAN – EDF Proposal of Application Notice for proposed wind farm 16/02699/PAN – EDF Proposal of Application Notice for proposed wind farm 17/02188/SCOPE - Proposed Section 37 application for the proposed Inveraray to Crossaig overhead line reinforcement 18/01700/S37 – Section 37 application for the proposed Inveraray to Crossaig overhead line reinforcement. Approved and constructed 20/01520/FDP - Long term forest plan. No Objection. 23/02159/SCOPE – High Brenfield Windfarm (related to current application) 25/00629/FELLIC – Scottish Forestry Felling Application. Undetermined Members are requested to note that although there has been considerable historic interest in windfarm provision in the general area of the proposal, no formal applications have been either approved or refused. (E) PUBLICITY: Page 137
Page 138
As the Council is not the Determining Authority the ECU oversees the Publicity of the application. Public Consultation – Whilst not a statutory requirement for Section 36 applications, the applicant has undertaken Public Consultation. Further information on this available on the ECU website and the Pre Application consultation details have also been provided as part of the application submission details on the Council’s website. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: As the Council is not the determining Authority any letters of representation are considered by the Energy Consents Unit. A link to these is provided below: Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details At time of writing, 36 third party responses have been submitted to the ECU at time of writing as follows: Objections : 21 Support : 16 The main issues raised in objecting to the current proposals set out in these responses are summarised below: Summary of Objections • The 200m tall turbines on lowland hills will significantly alter the visual character of the area and will have significant adverse landscape impacts • The scale is too big for the sensitive coastal hills and seascape setting • The proposal would dominate distant views of 5 National Scenic Areas and historical sites of Kilmartin Glen • Existing wind farms are generally located further inland in less settled areas, with turbine hights significantly lower than this proposal and are not considered to dominate the views along the Loch Fyne coastline. When combined with existing turbines nearby, the High Brenfield scheme risks visual confusion and discordance. • While NPF4 is broadly supportive of green energy developments it does provide some protection for the National Park Area, National Scenic Area, Sites of Special Scientific Interest or a National Nature Reserve and local populations in the vicinity of these developments. I would suggest the developer for the High Brenfield Wind Farm proposal has failed consider the long lasting impacts this development will have. • There is no effective mitigation for this in terms of the landscape and visual impacts associated with these proposals, particularly in light of the proximity of the proposed development to the two largest settlements in Mid-Argyll, Lochgilphead and Ardrishaig. • The Skyline is already dominated by SSEN transmission line which has considerable impact. The local landscape is not capable of absorbing the current proposals in combination with the impacts of the SSEN line. Page 138
Page 139
• There is no scope to accommodate turbines over 150m high anywhere in Argyll and Bute and very limited capacity for turbines 80–130m in height, only in specific upland areas, set back from sensitive edges. • The proposed site includes or borders important semi-natural habitats, including peatland, heath, SSSI sites and ancient woodland. There is a real risk of disturbance or loss of habitat for protected species, including but not limited to golden eagles, bats, red-throated divers, otters, pine martins, adders and red squirrels. The submitted Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) does not provide sufficient assurance that these impacts can be avoided or meaningfully mitigated. • Impact of the High Brenfield Wind Farm on the Inverneil Burn SSSI • Proposal is a risk to Regional Bird Populations • Peat Disturbance and adverse impacts on carbon store characteristics • Noise pollution - The proposed turbines are close to property. Noise already carries down from the proposed site. The turbine noise will be amplified causing noise pollution. • The environmental and landscape costs of the High Brenfield Wind Farm significantly outweigh any potential benefit. Under NPF4 and the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan, wind energy developments must be sited in appropriate locations and avoid unacceptable environmental harm. In this case, the scale and setting of the development are wholly inappropriate, and the proposal fails to align with key planning principles of sustainability and landscape protection • The proposals are contrary to LDP 2 Policy 30 and the terms of the Argyle and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2017) • The issue of shadow flicker caused by rotating blades is of concern • The building of the proposal will cause a risk on local roads and the A83 as there are no alternative routes. A83 will be significantly affected. • The EIA acknowledges the risk of the development lying within a Drinking Water Protected Area (DWPA) which feeds the Kilduskland Reservoir. This is a primary source of drinking water and a non-negotiable public asset for much of Mid Argyll. This reservoir is small, it has a sensitive catchment and cannot easily absorb sudden changes in water quality. Therefore, any activity that poses even a small risk to this supply may be viewed as inherently unacceptable. • Turbines 1 and 2 sit inside the Drinking Water Protected Area (DWPA) for Kilduskland Reservoir and that Scottish Water has repeatedly asked for them to be moved. We further understand that erection of these turbines within the water catchment area could cause earth/peat upheaval on the hillside and debris being able to enter the works, damaging the ability to produce sufficient drinking water for many homes throughout Mid Argyll. If Scottish Water feels the safest option is to move the turbines outside this area, we concur with that option. For the developer to say they would deal with protection after approval is given is unacceptable. • Water contamination associated with the proposals is a danger to wildlife • Argyll is overwhelmed by windfarms • This is the wrong Place to build a windfarm • Potential adverse impact on tourism • While the proposal may bring economic benefits at the national or regional scale, the EIA underplays localised social, recreational, and tourism impacts, Page 139
Page 140
offering insufficient assurance to nearby communities who bear the most immediate burden • The Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2017 has This guidance has been superseded by National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the 2017 guidance is now considered alongside NPF4 in planning decisions. As such we point to the recent decision of the proposed wind farm at Skipness where the minister concluded that the significant landscape harm was not justified by the renewable energy benefits—requiring developments to be in “the right places”. • The green credentials of building wind turbines is already highly debatable with so much steel, concrete and non-recyclable turbine blades in use but the gearboxes and transformers require 200-800 litres of oil per turbine every 3 to 7 years. • What chance is there of any decommissioning including the restoration of our natural environment? We will be left with huge pads of concrete seeping toxins into the soil and ugly tracts of roads winding up our previously scenic hillsides. • Mitigation measures are not guarantees and community stakeholders understand that best-practice mitigation (e.g. buffer zones, drainage plans, pollution monitoring) reduces risk but does not eliminate it. Past experience and industry data show that failures do happen. • Flooding. Water running down from the hills is already causing flooding in Ardrishaig/inverneil and on the A83. Clearing trees to make way for the turbines will increase the potential for flooding. • Risk of landslides. Disturbing the amount of land needed to build the turbines will increase the risk of land slides. • Traffic disruption- with the new 20mph speed limits which have been imposed in Tarbert/Ardrishaig the lorries carrying equipment/materials will be running at higher revs in order to maintain the new speed limit and keep moving with the weight of the load they are hauling. Higher revs equal more noise, more pollution as the exhausts will put out more in emissions. • Lack of affordable housing- There is already a lack of affordable housing in the area. Specialist workers will be needed to work on the construction, running and maintenance of the turbines. This will put a strain on an already stretched housing market, possibly pricing local people out of rentals and purchasing. • Proposals will cause low frequency ultrasound impacts detrimental to human health of residents and of wild animals in the area. Matters Raised in Support of the Proposals • Commercial forestry sites seem a good choice for siting windfarms in general and the additional access opportunities for many in the community which utilise this forest for walking, biking and horse-riding would surely be welcomed. • Green energy needs to have its place and this particular project seems to have been well-considered. While the site is in close proximity to the village of Ardrishaig, the site has been well designed to mitigate the landscape impact. • Low Carbon's representatives have been very forthcoming in engaging with us all through their presentations and on a more individual level, and have been very willing to work through matters and concerns arising throughout the preapplication process. • This is a well sited proposal that will become a productive part of the countryside Page 140
Page 141
• The development also offers significant economic benefits for our community, including: the creation of jobs during both construction and ongoing operations; increased support for local businesses and generation of long-term revenue through land leases and tax contributions. Job creation for local contractors will be beneficial. • The windfarm will make a significant contribution to national and international decarbonisation targets. Scotland has the capacity to play a major part in in the transition from fossil to renewable energy this proposal supports our nations endeavours to be at the forefront of renewable energy generation to benefit our future generation. • There has been detailed community consultation, the positive interaction from this particular developer has been very well presented and opportunities for the local stakeholders to raise questions, and concerns, have been provided. • Relationship with High Brenfield has been nothing short of positive. They have shown a deep understanding of the needs of our rural community and a sincere interest in how they can contribute to its social, environmental, and economic wellbeing. We are confident that their project has the potential to bring long- term benefits—not only in terms of clean, renewable energy but also in the form of local investment, partnership opportunities, and community development. • The community benefits of windfarm development such as this can be seen in many areas such as investment in Argyll College to support engineering courses, presence in local schools highlighting skilled jobs and career pathways that don’t involve net migration to the central belt and an engaged workforce that represent the wind industry in clubs/groups throughout Argyll. • Improved access tracks associated with the proposals would be a benefit for the local community • Use of local accommodation by contractors during building would benefit local community Note: The comments raised above are addressed in the assessment of the proposal at Appendix A of this report. Matters Raised in Submissions/Objections not considered material to the consideration of this application: • No compensation proposed for residents and their homes would become uninhabitable. • Turbines are made from Poisonous substances and cause nanoplastics in water systems. Concrete retained after use has ceased. • Community Money/Fund payments and the voluntary nature of these. Such payments could be regarded as bribery. It would be wrong to consider any payment at this stage. • This project is unnecessary. • Turbines have a lifespan of an average 25 years but the technology will be obsolete well before this. We are on the cusp of developing much better energy capture technology which will be much less intrusive and unpalatable than on- shore wind turbines. The Scottish Government should be halting all new developments to future proof our green electricity production and protecting us from the greed of multi-national companies. Page 141
Page 142
• By reason of the proposal going directly to Ministers and bypassing Argyll and Bute’s planning committee and the changes to planning consents brought about by NPF4. How can our democratically elected MSPs believe that this is fair and just? • This part of Scotland currently pays the most for electricity with the highest daily standing charge in the whole of the UK and no option for mains gas. It seems doubly cruel that we would also have to live in the shadow of enormous pylons and even larger wind turbines. The owner of the site is a hedge fund company in London so no locally recyclable profit from the sale of the land either. • The Ardshealsch residential property adjacent to Brenfield Point has access rights to take water from a spring located in the field to the south of the property. This field forms part of the proposed 80 mtr blade transporter site access option B. The occupants of this property have not been consulted regarding the potential impact caused during site set up and beyond. • Potential for injury to people/animals and damage to property. When these turbines break falling parts and blades can travel. As the proposed site is close to property/grazing farm animals, walkers cyclists, horse riders there is a significant risk. • These turbines are close to properties. Should there be a fire given the dry spells we have had the risk of wild fires quickly spreading to surrounding properties/ Inverneil and Ardrishaig is already high. Our emergency services are already stretched. Our fire service would be unable to cope with this and if one were to break out at the proposed High Brenfield wind farm. Note: Please note that the letters of representation above have been summarised and that the full letters are available on the Energy Consents Units website at the following link; Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR): Yes EIAR (November 2024) presented in five volumes: • Volume 1 : Non-Technical Summary • Volume 2 : Main EIAR and associated morthodology and subject Chapters (Chapters 1-17) • Volume 3 : Technical Appendices • Volume 4 : Design and Access Statement, with Associated Appendices and Figures • Figures 1 to 17 • Confidential Appendices (These relate to protected species and by law are not allowed to be made publicly available) Page 142
Page 143
Key topics covered in the EIAR and subsequent FEI include: Introduction; Site Description; Alternatives and Design Evolution; Description of Proposed Development; EIA Process and Methodology; Landscape and Visual; Cultural Heritage; Ornithology; Ecology; Biodiversity; Hydrology and Hydrogeology; Geology Ground Conditions and Peat; Access, Traffic and Transport; Forestry; Noise; Aviation; Shadow Flicker; Telecoms; Climate Change Impact Assessment; Climate Change and Carbon Balance Schedule of Mitigation and Summary of Residual Effects In addition, the following documents are also provided in support of the application: • Planning and Energy Policy Statement; Including submissions on community consultation, carbon payback, Habitat and biodiversity enhancement proposals, Peat enhancement, Recreation and access benefits, and Socio Economic Benefits. This document also sets out a more detailed commentary and evaluation on both the planning and wider policy framework supporting renewable energy proposals. • Pre-Application Consultation Report; The applicants have also provided the following additional supporting submissions which can be found on the ECU website 08.08.25 – Comments to Scottish Water 08.08.25 – Comments to Joint Radio Company (JRC) 19.08.25 – Clarification to Scottish Forestry 22.08.25 – Submission to A&B in respect of Noise 18.09.25 – Response to SEPA 22.09.25 – Clarification to HES 11.11.25 – Further Letter to JRC 02.12.25 – Response to NatureScot Landscape scape and Ornithology Comments 19.01.26 - Response to Ardrishaig CC submissions/objection 20.01.26 – Comments to A&B Biodiversity Officer (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: NatureScot will advise the ECU (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: Yes (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04): Not required proposal accompanied by full EIAR. (v) A report on the impact of the proposal e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: All relevant reports are encompassed within the EIAR and FEI submissions to the ECU. Page 143
Page 144
(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been considered in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations considered in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaptation NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF 4 Policy 25 -Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 33 – Minerals Annex B – National Statements of Need 3. Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables Policy 31 – Minerals Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 56 – Land Erosion Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Page 144
Page 145
Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Policy 70 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSA’s) Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact on Sites of International Importance Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources • List of all other relevant planning considerations considered in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Scottish Energy Strategy (2017) • Onshore Wind Policy Statement (2022) • Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan (2023) • Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Renewable Energy Developments, Scottish Government, 2019 • Onshore Wind Turbines: Planning Advice, Scottish Government (May 2014) • The Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, 2017 (LWECS) • Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment – Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (2013) • Scottish Natural Heritage – Visual Representation of Wind Farms Guidance (Version 2.2, 2017) • Scottish Natural Heritage - Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance (Version 3a, 2017) • Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (2019) • Scottish Government, Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity, 2023 • The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 • Managing Change in the Historic Environment • PAN 1/2011: ‘Planning and Noise’ (March 2011) • Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) • UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) • PAN 60 – Planning for Natural Heritage (Jan 2008) • Views of statutory and other consultees • Planning history of the site • Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No - Environmental Impact Assessment was required. (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): PAC is not required for S36 applications. However details of Page 145
Page 146
pre-application consultations undertaken have been provided by the applicant to the ECU in accordance with recommended best practice. (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: No (O) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No. (P) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: David Moore Date: 01/02/26 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 02/02/26 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 146
Page 147
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/00984/S36 PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME 1.1. In Scotland, any application for an onshore power generating station with an installed capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any authorisation given includes a deemed planning permission. Consequently, there is no need for a planning application to be made to the Council. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee. 1.2. The Development Plan is not the starting point for considering S36 applications. The reason for this is that the sections of the Planning Act which establish the primacy of Development Plan Policy in decision making are not engaged. NPF4 and LDP2 now form the Development Plan. Whilst they do not have primacy in S36 decision making, they remain an important consideration to inform the Council’s consultation response. 1.3. Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act requires the applicant and the decision maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the developer shall have regard to: (a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historical or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings, or objects. 1.4. It obliges the Scottish Ministers as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at (a) and the extent to which the applicant has complied with the duty at (b). 1.5. Assessment of the proposal against the policies of NPF4 and LDP2 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent that the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties. 1.6. The Council can either support or object and recommend conditions to be imposed if consent is granted by Scottish Ministers. If an objection is raised by the Council on or after 18.02.26, (due to changes brought in by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025) the Scottish Ministers are no longer obliged to automatically hold a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) if they are minded to grant consent as was previously the case. The application will be referred to the DPEA, and the appointed Reporter would determine whether a Public Inquiry, Hearing or Written Representation Procedure is considered by them to be the appropriate procedure. If consent is granted the Council as Planning Authority is responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions within any deemed planning permission, ongoing monitoring and enforcement. 1.7. This report considers the relevant policy considerations, planning merits, views of consultees and representations. It recommends views to be conveyed to the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) for consideration before a decision is made. Page 147
Page 148
2. SPATIAL AND SETTLEMENT STRATEGY 2.1. Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas establishes acceptable scales of development in three different zones. The main wind farm site is located with a Countryside Area, which only supports specific categories of development. This includes renewable energy related development. In principle, Policy 02 supports renewable energy and ancillary development in these areas, providing they are consistent with all other relevant LDP2 Policies. Proposals must also demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (individual or cumulative) on natural heritage, built and/or cultural heritage, and landscape and visual amenity. 2.2. Policy 04 – Sustainable Development requires that in preparing new proposals developers should demonstrate the following sustainable development principles (where relevant) such as: maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; support existing communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services; conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets; respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; avoid places with significant risk of flooding, or ground instability and avoid having significant adverse impacts on land, air and water environment. This application is supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) which sets out in detail the measures proposed to ensure the proposal is ‘Sustainable Development’. 2.3. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP2 provide the primary policy framework for assessing renewable energy proposals. 2.4. In this case, it is currently not possible to conclude that the proposal is consistent with development plan policy relating to the spatial and settlement strategy as this requires proposals to be consistent with all relevant policies. This is due to the outstanding adverse landscape impacts and the Objection to the proposals by NatureScot detailed later in this report. 3. ENERGY & SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF RENEWABLES 3.1. Argyll & Bute Council is keen to ensure that Argyll & Bute continues to make a positive contribution to meeting the Scottish Government’s targets for renewable energy generation. These targets are important given the compelling need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, reinforced by the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects. 3.2. This proposal has been assessed primarily against the two lead Statutory Development Plan policies relating to renewable energy, Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2. Other policies are referred to where relevant. 4. LOCATION, NATURE AND DESIGN OF PROPOSAL 4.1. The Proposed Development is located approximately 2km southwest of Ardrishaig, Lochgilphead (the ‘Proposed Development Site’ or the ‘Site’). The Proposed Page 148
Page 149
Development Site which is centred on National Grid Reference (NGR) (NR 82427 83636), as illustrated in Figure 1-1: Site Location (provided in Volume 4 of the EIA Report) and is located entirely within the Argyll and Bute Council (ABC) Planning Authority area. 4.2. The Site lies between 10m and 318m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) and is largely sloping west to east with various small watercourses and two high points; Cruach Brenfield (318m AOD) and Cnoc nam Muc (255m AOD), both of which are in the southern part of the Site. 4.3. The Site is currently operated as a commercial forestry plantation of predominantly non- native species with a network of forestry grade tracks. The existing forestry is subject to a long-term felling and re-stocking forest plan. The recently constructed Inverary to Crossaig 275 kV overhead electricity transmission line (OHL) crosses the eastern part of the Site from north to south. 4.4. Approximately 3.3km of access tracks within the Site were constructed/upgraded to facilitate the installation and ongoing operation of the OHL, which are proposed to be reused within the Site for the construction and operation of the Proposed Development. This section of upgraded track forms part of the Site access route and main track from the OHL to the northern half of the turbine array. 4.5. A borrow pit for the extraction of 60,000m³ of material for the purposes of the OHL project was formed and worked in accordance with a granted planning permission and is located within the Site boundary, approximately 250m north of the proposed substation location. 4.6. The nearest major road to the Proposed Development is the A83 trunk road which runs to the west of the Site. This will serve as the primary access route, while the B8024 runs south of the Site and connects to the A83 southeast of the Site boundary. There is one core path (C128(b) Inverneil to Ardrishaig via 39 Steps) which crosses the Site boundary within the access corridor and three core paths (C128(a), C127(d) and C295(e)) within 1km of the Site boundary. Three of these Core Paths are designated National Cycle Network forming part of National Cycle Route 78 (C128(b), C128(a) and C295(e)) and pass within 500m of the Site boundary. 4.7. The settlement pattern in the wider area is characterised by commercial forestry with pockets of open moorland. Loch Fyne lies adjacent to the Site entrance on the opposite side of the A83. There is a pattern of scattered dwellings along the shoreline of Loch Gilp and Loch Fyne with the nearest substantial settlement being the Ardrishaig and Lochgilphead located approximately 2km and 4.6km north-east of the Site boundary. The smaller settlement of Inverneil lies approximately 1.8km southeast of the Site boundary. 4.8. The closest commercial scale wind farms to the Site are the operational Allt Dearg and Srondoire Wind Farms situated approximately 5.9km and 5.6km south of the Proposed Development Site, respectively. The operational A’ Chruach lies approximately 12km to the northeast of the Proposed Development Site. 4.9. The Proposed Development will comprise the following • Up to 10 wind turbines each with a maximum tip height of 200m • Approximately 5km upgraded existing access tracks Page 149
Page 150
• Approximately 7.45km new access tracks (of which approximately 7km will be cut and approximately 450m will be floated) • Construction of turbine foundations and crane hardstandings • Installation of Underground cabling; • Substation compound containing a substation and control building and other grid equipment • Up to thirteen watercourse crossings (eight upgraded existing crossings and five new crossings) 4.10 The applicant submits that once operational, the Proposed Development will generate approximately 211,817 Mega Watt hours (MWh) per year which is equivalent to the annual electricity required for around 66,192 households in Scotland, and will displace an equivalent amount of fossil fuel generated electricity amounting to a reduction in the release of greenhouse gases equal to 91,081 tonnes per year. 4.11 In addition to the above, the Applicant is proposing areas of habitat management and biodiversity improvements, as set out in an Outline Habitat Management Plan (OHMP), submitted as Technical Appendix 6-5 of the EIA Report. 4.12 Connection to Electricity Grid – The electrical power produced by the individual turbines will be fed to an on-site electrical substation through underground cables. This substation will connect to the National Grid at Craig Murrail Substation which is currently under construction north of Lochgilphead. 5. NET ECONOMIC IMPACT, INCLUDING LOCAL AND COMMUNITY SOCIO- ECONOMIC BENEFITS 5.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 states that proposals will only be supported where they maximise net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP 2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed in terms of net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. 5.2. A Socio-Economic Statement in support of this application has been provided at Chapter 13 of the EIAR. This estimates that the following benefits will arise as a result of this proposal: • There is a strong fit with NPF4 Policy 11c, in terms of maximising net economic benefit, both in terms of the employment and GVA effects of construction and operation of the Proposed Development, as well as the substantial community benefit package; • There is strong support across other national and regional policy areas, including the National Strategy for Economic Transformation, the Onshore Wind Vision and Sector Deal for Scotland, the Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan, Argyll and Bute Economic Strategy and the Highlands and Islands Regional Economic Strategy; • Pre-development investment and planning fees, benefitting a range of Scottishbased companies and organisations; Page 150
Page 151
• Total expected CAPEX investment of £79.2 million, of which £28.5 million potentially benefitting Scottish companies and £9.5 million potentially benefitting local companies. This includes opportunities for local businesses to support in terms of groundwork, landscaping, civil engineering, and construction contracts; • Up to 69 construction jobs and GVA of £4.1 million in Argyll and Bute, and 207 construction jobs and GVA of £12.3 million at the Scottish level; • Total annual operating and maintenance expenditure of £3.6 million per annum, of which £2.1 million potentially benefitting Scottish companies and £1.5 million benefitting local companies; • Up to 12 operation and maintenance jobs and GVA of £0.7 million in Argyll and Bute, and 17 construction jobs and GVA of £0.9 million at the Scottish level; • An expected £12,766 per MW in business rates, equating to approximately £766,000 per annum in business rates at 2022 levels. Adjusted to 2025 prices this equates to £875,000 per annum in business rates. • Wider financial benefits linked to community benefit funding, with a total community benefits funding of £300,000 per annum or £12.0 million (2025 prices) over the proposed 40-year operational life. • A robust and equitable community benefits delivery package, developed in conjunction with the local communities; The opportunity for a community shared investment in the development, which has been explored with interested community groups and an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been provided by the Applicant; • A range of wider qualitative benefits such as supply chain impacts, perception benefits, community wealth building effects and enhancements in local community infrastructure; and • Overall, the secondary research completed to date confirms that the tourism sector is not adversely affected by onshore wind farms. In fact, the tourism sector has continued to grow across Scotland as more wind farms have been developed. 5.3. Officers would ask members to note that Voluntary Payments of funds to communities should not be regarded as material to the determination of the current application. 5.4. However, NPF 4 Policies 11 and 25 would in the opinion of Officers allow jobs created during construction and operation to be considered as a material benefit , and also opportunities for local contractors to undertake work and secure or expand local employment. These positive benefits should be given weight in the determination of the application. 5.5. There is no authoritative information that officers are aware of which confirms that the development of windfarms causes an adverse impact on tourism and therefore this point is accepted by officers. 5.6. Having due regard to the above it is considered a degree of net economic impact including local and community socio-economic benefits typical of such developments will be provided. It is therefore concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy and Policy 25 Community Page 151
Page 152
Wealth Building of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewable of LDP2 in this regard. 6. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY, VISUAL IMPACT, NOISE AND SHADOW FLICKER 6.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including residential amenity, visual impact, noise and shadow flicker have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for renewable developments to be assessed in terms of impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity noise and shadow flicker (including cumulative). 6.2. Chapter 15 of the EIA Report assesses the potential effects of the Proposed Development arising during construction, operation and decommissioning phases on aviation and telecommunications as well as the potential for shadow flicker effects on sensitive receptors. The chapter also considers the risks to human health and safety Residential Amenity Assessment 6.3. The Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) – is set out at Volume 4 if the EIAR and more particularly at Figures 5-7-1 to 5-7-19. Visibility of the nearest proposed turbines from individual residential properties is examined. It is the contention of the applicant that no properties would suffer an amenity impact which would be unacceptable. 6.4. The applicants submit within Volume 2:Chapter 5 of the EIAR that there are eight residential properties within 2km of the Proposed Development as follows: • Achabraid – located approximately 1.7km to the southeast; • Brenfield House – located approximately 1.8km to the east; • Middlehill – located approximately 1.6km to the southeast; • Redrock – located approximately 1.7km to the southeast; • Springhill – located approximately 1.75km to the southeast; • Strath Brenfield – located approximately 1.8km to the southeast; • Tara – located approximately 1.6km to the southeast; and • Upper Brenfield – located approximately 1.9km to the east. 6.5. The location of these properties is illustrated on Figure 5-7-1 and the effects on these properties are considered further within the RVAA in Technical Appendix 5-7 (Volume 3 of the EIA Report). 6.6. Having reviewed this information, the Council’s Landscape and Visual Impact advisor is in agreement with the Applicant’s conclusions on these matters that no unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of individual residential properties in closest proximity to the proposals will occur. At Section 9 of his consultation response he states: The RVAA (Technical Appendix 5-7 of the EIAR) of residential properties within 2km of the proposed turbines concludes that of six properties and one group of properties assessed, none would experience greater than a minor moderate effect that is Not Significant. The assessment concludes that visual effects experienced at each property are not of such a scale that the Residential Visual Amenity Threshold is reached and consequently no residents experience an overbearing or overwhelming effect on their visual amenity that their property would become an unattractive place to live. Page 152
Page 153
Visual Impact 6.7. A detailed viewpoint assessment of the operational effects resulting from the Proposed Development is presented at Technical Appendix 5-6 (Volume 3 of this EIA Report) and this considers the long-term visual effects during the operational phase of the Proposed Development for each of the 24 viewpoints. 6.8. The applicants submit that with reference to the Viewpoint Assessment at Technical Appendix 5-6, when considered against the existing baseline, it is assessed that significant visual effects will be experienced at six of the 24 representative viewpoints during daylight hours. These are as follows: • Viewpoint 1 - Cruach Breacain; • Viewpoint 5 - Cruach Lusach; • Viewpoint 6 – Lochgilphead; • Viewpoint 7 – A83; • Viewpoint 8 - Lochgilphead, Blarbuie Woodland Park; and • Viewpoint 12 – Otter Ferry. It is assessed that during the hours of darkness, significant visual effects are experienced at two of the 24 representative viewpoints. These are: • Viewpoint 1 - Cruach Breacain; and • Viewpoint 5 - Cruach Lusach. Assessment of Effects on Visual Receptor Groups 6.9. The submissions also consider the effects of the Proposed Development on the visual receptor groups brought forward into detailed assessment. Principal visual receptors within the initial 45km LVIA study area overlaid with the blade tip ZTV are illustrated on Figure 5-20 and within the detailed 20km LVIA study area overlaid within the blade tip ZTV at Figure 5-21 (Volume 4 of this EIA Report). 6.10. The submissions evaluate visual impacts from individual properties and settlements as well as transportation routes and other referenced points of visibility. The general conclusions and impact analysis are accepted by the Council’s advisor who considers that the Visual Impact of the proposals is not so significant as to merit objection on these matters. The A&B advisor concludes that Details in relation to the iterative design process and embedded mitigation, relevant to the LVIA are provided in the Design and Access Statement. It is stated that decisions taken to refine through turbine size reduction and removal and re-siting from the preliminary design (17 turbines, 220m high) to the current proposal (10 turbines, 200m high) were driven by landscape and visual and cultural heritage considerations including visibility from the Knapdale NSA (including Tayvallich), Scheduled Monuments within the Kilmartin Glen and the settlements of Lochgilphead, Ardrishaig and Inverneil. The EIAR does demonstrate that impacts have been reduced through appropriate design mitigation and the design layout appears to fit reasonably well into the landscape limiting significant landscape and visual effects The Significant visual effects, though extending as far as Otter Ferry approximately 10km away can be considered localised with the greatest visual impacts on communities occurring in parts of Lochgilphead relatively close to the proposals, so it may be difficult to argue that the proposals do not comply with Policy 11e. Page 153
Page 154
Whilst significant visual effects are predicted for travellers on sections of the A83/Argyll Coastal Trail, visibility would be intermittent and localised to relatively short stretches of the route with other infrastructure including overhead power lines and other wind turbines are already visible. 6.11. Noise Impacts 6.12. ABC Noise Consultant – has concluded that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the applicant and the submissions, following clarification, are acceptable . It is concluded that following a satisfactory response to some issues raised, that there would be no reasons to object on noise grounds subject to the application of conditions which covers operational noise levels as set out in their response report and updated response. 6.13. A&B Noise Consultants have recommended that operational noise control and monitoring conditions are placed upon any grant of consent and this has been recommended to the Scottish Ministers. 6.14. Officers note the specific commentary provided in respect of Amplitude Modulation. Where the Councils Noise consultant states, Given the evolving position regarding amplitude modulation, it is considered particularly important that wind farm planning consents include a condition to control such impacts, and that following the principles in ETSU-R-97, the burden of that investigation should fall to the developer. The UK Government is currently consulting on updates to the ETSU-R-97 guidance…We would therefore recommend a noise condition to control amplitude modulation from the wind farm. There are a number of ways that this could be applied, such as the one cited in the November/December 2017 issue of the Institute of Acoustics’ Acoustics Bulletin magazine (McKenzie et al., 2017). The proposed condition has not been subjected to a legal review, as that is outside of the current remit. It is expected that one would be undertaken by the decision maker as part of the granting of planning permission if the proposed development is successful. 6.15. Officers note the advice that the consideration of this matter rests with the decision maker, however officers consider that such matters require to be properly addressed by the Determining Authority for the reasons set out in the A&B Noise consultants response. 6.16. It is considered that there would be no reasons to object on noise grounds, subject to the application of a condition(s) recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant which cover operational noise levels, tonality and Amplitude Modulation. 6.17. Shadow Flicker 6.18. A shadow flicker assessment is required when any properties lie within 10 rotor diameters of a wind farm. This is in line with Scottish Government online renewables planning advice on ‘onshore wind turbines’ which states that: “where separation is provided between wind turbines and nearby dwellings (as a rule 10 rotor diameters), ‘shadow flicker’ should not be a problem.” Shadow Flicker can arise from the passing of the moving shadow of a wind turbine rotor-blade over a narrow opening such as the window of a nearby residence. A similar effect can occur when the gloss blades of a rotating turbine reflect the sun causing a flashing light. Page 154
Page 155
6.19. Shadow Flicker can arise from the passing of the moving shadow of a wind turbine rotor-blade over a narrow opening such as the window of a nearby residence. A similar effect can occur when the gloss blades of a rotating turbine reflect the sun causing a flashing light. There is one property within the potential shadow flicker effect distance of the proposed turbines. The applicants submit that , modelling of the proposed turbine locations without climate adjustments and therefore representative of a worst case, has demonstrated there are no significant effects anticipated on receptors. No significant effects or cumulative effects relating to shadow flicker are identified as a result of the Proposed Development. 6.20. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal is acceptable in terms of any potential shadow flicker impact, residential amenity impacts, Visual Impacts and Noise Impacts and is therefore consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the ABC LDP2. 7. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS 7.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how significant landscape and visual impacts have been addressed, recognising that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy. Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered acceptable. Policy 4 a) - Natural Places of NPF4 states that proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against landscape and visual impacts. 7.2. No statutory designations lie within the Proposed Development Site boundary. The following landscape designations lie within 5km of the Site boundary: • Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA); and • West Loch Fyne (Coast) Local Landscape Area (LLA) (2.4 km northeast from the Site boundary). The following landscape designations lie between 5km and 10km of the Site boundary: • East Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA (6.2 km northeast from the Site boundary); and • Knapdale Melfort LLA (8.9 km northwest from the Site boundary). 7.3. Full details of all designations have been set out by the applicants at Volume 2 Chapter 5 of the EIA Report. Chapter 5 of the EIA Report further evaluates the likely significant effects arising from the Proposed Development on landscape character and visual amenity during construction, operation and decommissioning. It also details the relevant legislation, policy and guidelines and the consultation carried out to inform the assessment. 7.4. There are no international, national or local landscape designations covering the Site itself. The Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA) is located approximately 1.1km to the northwest of the Site. Five Local Landscape Areas (LLA) overlap the detailed 20km LVIA study area, the nearest of which is the West Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA located approximately 2.4km to the east. Page 155
Page 156
7.5. The proposed turbines and the majority of the associated infrastructure are located within the Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosaic landscape character type (LCT 6b) as defined in the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (ABLWECS). A short section of the proposed access track overlaps the adjoining Rocky Mosaic landscape character type (LCT 20). 7.6. The nearest operational wind farms to the Proposed Development are Allt Dearg and Sròndòire located approximately 5.9km and 5.7km to the south respectively. Appropriate design mitigation has been embedded into the final layout of the Proposed Development that reduced the height of the blade tips of all turbines from 220m to 200m and reduced the number of turbines from 17 to 10 to minimise landscape and visual effects whilst maximising wind energy yield and, therefore, renewable energy generation. 7.7. The applicants submit that during operation, the Proposed Development results in significant visual effects during daylight hours to six of the 24 viewpoints and to two of the 24 viewpoints during the hours of darkness. The Proposed Development does not result in any significant visual effects to any of the residential properties within 2km of the proposed turbines nor to the settlements of Inverneil and Ardrishaig. A significant visual effect will be experienced from the southern edge of Lochgilphead at Lochgilphead Front Green only. 7.8. The evaluation examines both localised and more distant impacts in considerable detail. Perhaps of most relevance in respect of the application , and having regard to the objections NatureScot is the submission that: The Proposed Development does not result in any direct effects to the physical attributes of the Knapdale National Scenic Area. The Proposed Development results in indirect effects that are Not Significant to the perception of the six Special Landscape Qualities (SLQs) assessed in detail and the overall integrity of the NSA will not be compromised. The Proposed Development introduces some localised indirect significant effects to views experienced to the West of Loch Fyne (Coast) and the East of Loch Fyne (Coast) LLAs but the effects would not prevent an understanding or appreciation of their qualities and their overall integrity would not be compromised. In relation to cumulative effects, the Proposed Development does not introduce a significant landscape or visual effect and in terms of the overall totality of effect, the High Brenfield Wind Farm May 2025 │ High Brenfield Wind Farm Limited 9 combined effect will not be significant due to the relatively limited combined visibility and the wide spacing between the cumulative schemes. 7.9. The findings of the Applicant’s Landscape Advisor in general terms reflect the findings of the Council’s own Landscape Advisor who has undertaken a review of the landscape and visual effects of the proposal. The conclusions of the A&B Landscape Advisor are that: This proposal would have significant localised effects on landscape character within and around the site, significant effects on LLAs (on “views across and along Loch Fyne” ). There would also be significant effects on views from locations within a 10km radius mainly to the northeast and east of the wind farm site and the summits of nearby hills to the north and west. Page 156
Page 157
Whilst the site is close to the Knapdale NSA, effects on its Special Landscape Qualities would not be significant as there would be limited visibility of turbines from within the NSA due to the screening effects of landform. Whilst the scale of the proposed turbines does not align with the ABLWECS, in general the scale of the turbines fits the scale of the large scale landform reasonably well. Significant landscape effects are predicted for: • Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosaic (LCT 6b) (localised effects in and in the environs of the proposal site) • West Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA (indirect effects on “views across and along Loch Fyne”) • East Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA (indirect effects on “views across and along Loch Fyne”) The overall cumulative effect of wind farms on the character of Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosaic is assessed not to be significant due to the relatively limited combined visibility and the wide spacing between the schemes. Significant visual effects are predicted for: • Cruach Breacain and Cruach Lusach (hills close to the site) • Lochgilphead and Blarbuie Woodland Park • Sections of the A83/ Argyll Coastal Trail between Ballibeg and Lochgilphead • B8000/ Otter Ferry (across Loch Fyne) • Section of core paths C111(a & b) - Creag Ghlas, Cairnbaan to Kilduskland Reservoir, C140(a & b) - The Corran to Kilmory Gardens and C406 - Otter Ferry Circular, Loch Fyne • Argyll Paddle Trail (kayak route on Loch Fyne/Loch Gilp) Although Ardrishaig and Inverneil are both close to the wind farm site, visual effects are not predicted to be significant for either settlement where visibility to turbines would be limited by topography, some screening is provided by trees and woodland, the orientation of views is generally to the east, away from the proposal and the existing overhead power lines are already visible on the skyline. The proposal is assessed not to introduce a significant cumulative visual effect and the additional effects introduced by the proposal are predicted not to lead to a significant sequential effect alongside the other developments. It is assessed that the addition of the proposal would not result in the overall cumulative visual effect of wind turbines being dominant or oppressive in views experienced at various points within the area. Permanent removal of 61.13ha of coniferous plantation within Ardrishaig Forest would be required to facilitate the construction of the proposal. A further 129.76ha would be felled to the wind firm boundaries to avoid foreseeable wind blow and replanted up to a 226m diameter ‘wind protection zone’ around turbines. The loss of a small area (0.59ha) of non-native AWI woodland is also required to construct the access track. Compensatory planting to comply with the Scottish Government's Control of Woodland Removal Policy of at least 67.25ha is proposed to be delivered as part of the proposal to be arranged in consultation with Scottish Forestry post-consent. In addition the applicant proposes to restore an area of AWI within the Attichuan Forest equal to that being disturbed by the construction of the access track (0.59ha). Page 157
Page 158
From a landscape and biodiversity perspective it would be desirable for the compensatory planting to be native woodland rather than single species non-native conifer plantation. It is recommended that ‘smart’ aviation lighting activated by approaching aircraft (as referenced in the Design Statement, but not the current proposal) is implemented if it is approved for use in UK airspace before construction of the wind farm. From a review of the photomontages the layout design of the proposed wind farm appears to have been carefully considered, with minimal ‘stacking’ of turbines and well balanced overall composition, making use of landform to limit visual impacts. There would be benefits in reducing the turbine size and spacing (though of course this would reduce the capacity of the wind farm). However, there are no individual turbines that are especially prominent or are ‘outliers’ seen from multiple directions, the removal or repositioning of which would be likely to appreciably reduce landscape or visual impacts. Review against NPF4 Policies 4 and 11 Policy 4 c) states that development proposals that will affect a National Scenic Area will only be supported where: 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 national importance. The EIAR predicts effects on the Knapdale NSA’s Special Landscape Qualities to be not significant. I consider the assessment to be reasonable and that the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the NSA would not be compromised. Policy 4 d) states that development proposals that affect a site designated as a local landscape area in the LDP will only be supported where: i. Development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified; or ii. Any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local importance. The proposals are predicted to have a significant effect on the West Loch Fyne (Coast) and East Loch Fyne (Coast) LLAs through indirect effects on “views across and along Loch Fyne” which are qualities identified in the ABLWECS for LCT6a Loch Fyne Upland Forest Moor Mosaic which overlaps the designated areas. The LVIA argues that while the proposals would have significant adverse effects on the qualities of the LLAs identified with in the ABLWECS, given their localised nature and the limited geographical extent of the LLAs affected, the effects are not of such a scale to prevent an understanding or appreciation of the key qualities of the LLAs and their overall integrity would be maintained. I consider this to be a fair assessment, and it would be difficult to argue with it, particularly as the LLAs do not have formal citations or qualities for which they have been identified. Page 158
Page 159
Policy 11e requires project design and mitigation to demonstrate how impacts on communities and significant landscape and visual impacts are addressed. In terms of significant landscape and visual impacts, 11e ii states that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy and where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered acceptable. NPF4 provides no guidance on the definition of what constitutes localised effects. Details in relation to the iterative design process and embedded mitigation, relevant to the LVIA are provided in the Design and Access Statement. It is stated that decisions taken to refine through turbine size reduction and removal and re-siting from the preliminary design (17 turbines, 220m high) to the current proposal (10 turbines, 200m high) were driven by landscape and visual and cultural heritage considerations including visibility from the Knapdale NSA (including Tayvallich), Scheduled Monuments within the Kilmartin Glen and the settlements of Lochgilphead, Ardrishaig and Inverneil. The EIAR does demonstrate that impacts have been reduced through appropriate design mitigation and the design layout appears to fit reasonably well into the landscape limiting significant landscape and visual effects. The significant residual landscape effects of the proposals can be considered localised, occurring mainly within up to around 7km from the proposed wind farm. Significant visual effects, though extending as far as Otter Ferry approximately 10km away can be considered localised with the greatest visual impacts on communities occurring in parts of Lochgilphead relatively close to the proposals, so it may be difficult to argue that the proposals do not comply with Policy 11e. Whilst significant visual effects are predicted for travellers on sections of the A83/Argyll Coastal Trail, visibility would be intermittent and localised to relatively short stretches of the route with other infrastructure including overhead power lines and other wind turbines are already visible. 12. Key viewpoints to be considered by the planning committee. 1. Inverneill (Viewpoint 2) 2. Ardrishaig Pier (Viewpoint 3) 3. Lochgilphead Conservation Area Waterfront (Viewpoint 6, turbines visible in combination with Srondoire/ Allt Dearg) 4. A83 (Viewpoint 7, Argyll Coastal Trail, close to East Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA) 5. Otter Ferry (Viewpoint 12, within West Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA) 6. Tayvallich (Viewpoint 19, within Knapdale NSA) 7. B8024 (Viewpoint 21, within Knapdale NSA) 8. Moine Mhor minor road (Viewpoint 18, within Knapdale NSA) 9. Standing Stones Stockavullin (Viewpoint 15, within Knapdale/ Melfort LLA) 10. Core Path C137a – Port Ann Circular (Viewpoint 22, within West Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA) 7.10. No objection has been raised by the Council’s Landscape Advisor and therefore his overall conclusions are that although there will be localised significant landscape and visual impacts, his overall conclusion is that the development should be regarded as acceptable in terms of Landscape and Visual Impacts and no objection should be raised. Nature Scot: Objection Extracts Page 159
Page 160
7.11. The above views contrast with the views of NatureScot as set out in their consultation responses of 13.10.25 and 19.12.25. Detailed evaluation of Landscape and Visual Impacts is contained within Annex 1 of their 13.10.25 response which sets out their objection to the application having regard to the following matters: The introduction of the proposed development would result in significant adverse effects on some of the special landscape qualities (SLQs) of the Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA), areas of the profound, ancient and evocative Kilmartin Glen and across extensive areas of the landscapes and seascapes of Loch Fyne. From within the Knapdale NSA the introduction of the proposed development would either introduce new visibility of wind farm development or would extend the presence of wind farm development north of operational Allt Dearg / Sròndòire wind farms and south of consented Glasvaar bringing development of this nature notably closer to the NSA (within 1.1 km). We consider individual significant adverse effects resulting from the introduction of the proposed development on SLQ 2: “A landscape of skylines” and SLQ 4: “A profoundly evocative, ancient place” would result in an evident and noticeable material change such that the objectives of this designation and overall integrity would be compromised. We advise that the proposed development may therefore not meet Policy 4 c) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) due to the extensive nature of the effects on the low remote summits, slopes, ridges and landmarks within the Knapdale NSA and therefore we object to this proposal. These effects would result from the proposed siting, scale and type of development, which we consider would not be feasibly overcome within the site parameters. 2. Focus of this advice This advice focuses on the significant adverse effects on the SLQs of the Knapdale NSA2 and the distinctive landscape of Kilmartin Glen and the distinctive landscapes and seascapes of Loch Fyne. This advice refers to relevant Argyll & Bute Council (ABC) Local Landscape Areas (LLAs). However, we defer to ABC with regards to the potential for significant adverse effects on these local landscape designations. The proposed development would be located approximately 1.1 km east of the Knapdale NSA. The high sensitivity of parts of other nearby landscapes are acknowledged by ABCs locally designated landscapes the West Loch Fyne (Coast) Local Landscape Area (LLA) approximately 4.4 km to the east, the East Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA approximately 8.1 km to the east, the Knapdale/Melfort LLA approximately 9.2 km to the south and 10.2 km to the north, the Bute & South Cowal LLA located approximately 12.5 km to the southeast and the Jura LLA – located approximately 16.6 km to the northwest. The site forms in part the skyline of the Knapdale NSA to the west and the skyline, setting and views experienced from much of Loch Fyne and settled loch shores to the east. From areas of Kilmartin Glen the hills north of the site form part of the wider skyline and help contain southward looking views from areas including Moine Mhòr and Slockavullin. Other wind farm developments within 45 km and 20 km are shown on LVIA Figures 5.22 and 5.23. The closest operational wind farms include: • Sròndòire (one turbine 100 m blade tip height, two turbines 120 m blade tip height) approximately 5.7 km south; • Allt Dearg (12 turbines, 81 m blade tip height) approximately 5.9 km south; and Page 160
Page 161
• A Chruach (21 turbines, 126.5 m blade tip height), approximately 15.9 km northeast. Consented wind farms closest to the site include: • Rowan (13 turbines, 200 m blade tip height) approximately 11.8 km south; • Glasvaar (12 turbines 149.9 m blade tip height) approximately 16.5 km northeast; and • Airigh (two turbines, 138.5 m blade tip height, four turbines 131 m blade tip height, eight turbines 149.5 m blade tip height), approximately 17.1 km to the southwest. The Inveraray to Crossaig 275 kV overhead line is located approximately 1 km east of the site associated steel lattice towers have an average tower height of 50.7 m above ground level. From some areas within the Knapdale NSA, Kilmartin Glen and from areas across Loch Fyne and its settled shores existing wind farms and other elements of energy infrastructure are visible. From within the Knapdale NSA and Kilmartin Glen these are largely seen as distant or very distant features on the periphery of view often partly screened by intervening landform. From areas of Loch Fyne and its settled shores the presence and influence of operational Allt Dearg / Sròndòire wind farms and the Inverary to Crossaig 275 kV overhead line have some notable influence when seen in closer proximity near the eastern side of the loch, on the perception of these small- scale coastal landscapes where these elements are generally seen partly or fully against the skyline in westward and south westward looking views. The site was previously considered by NatureScot as: • Application Cruach Brenfield Wind Farm (13th May 20144), comprised 18 turbines up to 125 m to blade tip height. NatureScot objected5 to the proposal based on but not limited to significant adverse effects on the Knapdale NSA, and the landscape character and qualities of the Loch Fyne coast and the perception, experience and enjoyment of this landscape/ seascape. In 2015 a revised layout comprised 11 turbines up to 123.7 m to blade tip height went to scoping. The NatureScot scoping response to the revised layout noted that the proposal could adversely affect the Knapdale NSA. The application was withdrawn 14th March 2016. Other planning applications in proximity to the site: • Application Inverneill Wind Farm - Renamed Allt Rubha (1st December 20156), comprised 9 turbines up to 126.5 m blade tip height located approximately 0.2 km west of Cruach Brenfield Wind Farm. The NatureScot response dated 5th February 2016 noted an objection on the basis of a combined cumulative scenario with Cruach Brenfield. On its own it was noted that Allt Rubha would detract from the existing pattern of development and result in an adverse impact on the Knapdale NSA and the sensitive East Loch Fyne Coast Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ now LLA), including people’s views and appreciation of the region. The application was withdrawn 31st March 2016. We consider that the applicant underplays the susceptibility of some landscape character types, in turn sensitivity and there is a lack of consideration of key landscape characteristics for LCTs that would be affected by the proposals are a notable omission from the LVIA and the reporting of landscape effects. Page 161
Page 162
We anticipate that significant adverse landscape effects on LCT 43 Upland Parallel Ridges (within the Knapdale NSA) would extend to a wider geographical area than reported where the proposed development would notably affect the: “Dramatic, scenic upland landscape”. We consider that there would be significant adverse landscape effects on the small scale LCT 20 Rocky Mosaic extending to a minimum of 5 km where the proposed development would be seen from a widespread geographical area affecting the sense of containment and the perceived small scale of these coastal landscapes. In terms of effects on seascape characteristics Figure 5.6 shows extensive theoretical visibility within the study area across the majority of Loch Fyne, Loch Gilp, Loch Caolisport and areas of Loch Crinan and the Sound of Jura. While the applicant identifies key waterbodies in the LVIA baseline and reports landscape and visual effects associated with some of these areas, consideration of seascape effects within the LVIA are generally limited. In terms of night-time effects, we disagree with the applicant’s approach that visual susceptibility and sensitivity would decrease at night for a number of the visual receptors. We consider that given the low baseline light levels as shown by Figure 5.11 and that night-time skies would actively be sought from a number of areas, particularly the remote areas of Knapdale, historic Dunadd, Kilmartin Glen, and the shores of Loch Fyne that the high sensitivity of visual receptors would remain during night-time hours for a number of the assessment viewpoints. We note that for night-time viewpoints within the Knapdale NSA while it is helpful to understand that aviation lighting is likely to be screened by intervening features from Viewpoint 19 - Tayvallich, it would have been beneficial for alternative night-time photography to be provided from Viewpoint 20 - Taynish Barr Mòr trail Core Path (C136) where aviation lights would be visible and baseline light levels are low. In terms of effects resulting from visible aviation lighting we note that Technical Appendix 5.3 Assessment of Night-time Lighting focuses solely on the effects of the visible aviation lighting on visual amenity. The applicant notes that: “Without being able to fully appreciate landscape features and components that contribute to landscape character it is not possible to carry out a meaningful landscape character assessment. This precedent was established in the Reporter’s decision for Crystal Rig IV”. We consider that there are notable differences between the site of the proposed development and consented Crystal Rig IV in terms of landscape and seascape character, and the established and emerging pattern of wind farm development. For example, from the night-time baseline images provided for Viewpoint 17 - Dunadd Summit there is a clear visual relationship with the ridgelines that enclose the site, even at night. 6. NatureScot’s appraisal of effects on SLQs of the Knapdale NSA and Kilmartin The Knapdale NSA comprises a variety of distinctive landscapes – the juxtaposition of ridges and volcanic plugs rising from flat expansive Mòine Mhòr in the north, and the long parallel ridges in the south, incised by sea lochs Loch Sween and Loch Caolisport. A profound sense of place and history is experienced across the Knapdale NSA with coasts and sea regularly present. Recreational resources include but are not limited to sections of the Dalriada Heritage Trail, the Argyll Coastal Route, National Cycle Network Route (NCNR) 78 the Crinan Canal / Argyll Paddle Route, Dunadd and the popular Footprint Stone, Crinan Wood, Taynish National Nature Reserve and numerous ABC Core Paths. Page 162
Page 163
We consider the following SLQs are those likely to experience adverse effects resulting from the introduction of the proposed development, some significant and adverse: • SLQ 2: “A landscape of skylines” • SLQ 4: “A profoundly evocative, ancient place” • SLQ 6: “In the north, dramatic juxtaposition of ridges and volcanic plugs arising from the flat expanse of Mòine Mhòr bog” • SLQ 7: “A centre of parallel ridges and secret lochans” The proposed development would adversely affect the eastward, southward and northeast ward looking experience of this SLQ from southern areas of the NSA including many elevated locations, low moorland hills, and the open waters of Loch Caolisport and the Sound of Jura. While operational Allt Dearg / Sròndòire are already visible within a similar portion of view, from some elevated positions within the NSA as shown by Viewpoint 1 - Cruach Breacain, Viewpoint 10 - Cnoc Rhemar and Viewpoint 20 - Taynish Barr Mòr trail Core Path (C136), they are seen as relatively distant features. The proposed development would bring wind farm development notably closer, the size of the proposed turbines (200 m) and their anticipated prominence on the skyline would interrupt the experience of: “an area dominated by skyline”. Similar views to those represented by Viewpoint 5 - Cruach Lusach would be experienced from the remote low moorland hills within the southwestern part of the NSA including Corr-bhàn Mòr 407 m AOD, A’ Mhaol Odhar 352 m AOD, Cnoc Dubh 247 m AOD and An Stùchd 382 m AOD where it is anticipated that some of the turbines would be seen against the skyline. From some lower elevations and from open waters the proposed development would introduce visibility of either wind turbine hubs, blades and blade tips where wind farm development is not currently experienced. From Loch Caolisport and the Sound of Jura it is anticipated that the proposed turbines hubs and blades would be seen to breach the skyline in eastward and northeast ward looking views where: “In lower coastal Knapdale the ridges fall to the sea”. From other areas such as around Tayvallich, while visibility of the proposed turbines is likely to be limited to blades and blade tips, associated movement would have an adverse effect on where: “the ridgelines is revealed providing a dynamic, sweeping strongly horizontal skyline enclosing the loch-filled trenches”. In northern areas of the NSA including from Dunadd (Viewpoint 17 - Dunadd Summit) and Mòine Mhòr the proposed development would introduce visibility of either some wind turbine hubs, and blades, or blades and blade tips into southward looking views. The moving elements would detract from the experience of the skyline and would extend the presence of electricity infrastructure when seen in combination west of the Inverary to Crossaig overhead line. We anticipate similar views to those represented by Viewpoint 17 would be experienced from Duntrune Castle and popular Cruach Mòr Dunardry 214 m AOD south of Dunadd. Similar views to those represented by Viewpoint 15 - Standing Stones, Slockavullin would be experienced near Poltalloch and Ballymeanoch. Where visible from areas of the NSA within approximately 15 km the size of the proposed turbines (200 m) and their anticipated prominence in eastward, southward and northeast ward looking views on the skyline would conflict with the current largely open experience of the Knapdale skyline. We consider that effects on SLQ 2 would be significant and adverse. We consider that significant adverse daytime effects on this SLQ would extend into significant adverse night-time effects where the turbine lights would be seen above the existing low-level lighting of settlements and along Page 163
Page 164
key transport and recreational routes. While we consider that effects on SLQ 7 would be adverse they are unlikely to be significant as areas affected would largely be limited to the introduction of moving turbine blades and blade tips. The introduction of the proposed development in proximity to the NSA would conflict with the current sense of place experienced from key areas including Dunadd Summit and Kilmartin in the north where can be found: “…some of the finest examples in Scotland of standing stones, stone circles, burial mounds, cup and ring marked slabs and other prehistoric landscape features”. As shown by Viewpoint 17 the proposed development would introduce visibility of wind farm development and extend the presence and influence of electricity infrastructure north and west of the Inverary to Crossaig overhead line to the southward looking experience of the: “breathtaking 360º panorama, more spectacular than its modest height might portray” gained from Dunadd including from the popular Footprint Stone. While views of the proposed turbines would be limited to some hubs and blades, we consider that the contemporary moving elements would notably detract from this: “profoundly evocative, ancient place”. Similar views to those represented by Viewpoint 15 - Standing Stones, Slockavullin and Viewpoint 18 - Moine Mhòr minor road would be experienced when travelling between notable landmarks along the Dalriada Heritage Trail / NCNR 78, the A816 / Argyll Coastal Route and other Core Paths and minor roads within the NSA and Kilmartin. As shown by Viewpoint 15 - Standing Stones, Slockavullin the proposed development would introduce visibility of wind farm development seen against the skyline from low lying areas of Kilmartin and across much of the popular Dalriada Heritage Trail. Other similar views from this historic landscape would be experienced from Duntrune Castle and Cruach Mòr Dunardry. Although it should be noted that while the description for SLQ 4 provides narrative for Kilmartin’s ancient sites much of this landscape is located outside the Knapdale NSA within the Knapdale / Melfort LLA. Nevertheless, we consider that effects on this unique landscape would be adverse and significant and that the proposed development would be an unsympathetic addition to the experience of one of the most important prehistoric landscapes in Scotland. We consider that the introduction of the proposed development would have a significant adverse effect on the appreciation of SLQ 4: “A profoundly evocative, ancient place”. Effects on SLQ 6: “In the north, dramatic juxtaposition of ridges and volcanic plugs arising from the flat expanse of Mòine Mhòr bog” would be adverse but are unlikely to be significant given that maximum case visibility from lower elevations is likely to be limited to moving turbine blades and blade tips. We consider that significant adverse daytime effects on SLQ 4 would extend into significant adverse night-time effects where the turbine lights would be seen incongruous to the current experience of dark skies from profoundly evocative, ancient places including Dunadd and Kilmartin’s ancient sites. 7. NatureScot’s appraisal of effects on Loch Fyne The SNH consultation response 23rd June 2014 to previous application Cruach Brenfield, defined Loch Fyne as: “a highly scenic and valued regional resource and contributes to the distinctiveness of the region”. Our consideration of Loch Fyne, a sea loch off the Firth of Clyde as a distinctive landscape / seascape remains and we consider this to be an important area for residents, local communities and tourists, where transport, recreational routes, destinations, and settlement are concentrated on the loch sides. Our consideration of Loch Fyne includes Loch Gilp the narrow loch south of Lochgilphead which opens south towards the widest reach of Loch Fyne. Page 164
Page 165
Key indicators of distinctive characteristic landscape and seascape value which are likely to experience significant adverse effects from the introduction of the proposed development are drawn from the key landscape and seascape characteristics of affected LCTs13 and Seascape Character14 based on Landscape Institute Technical Guidance Note 02-2115. Characteristics are grouped in relation to the key areas of Loch Fyne with potential to experience significant adverse effects: • The coastal edge • Relatively small-scale landscape with a diverse mix of colours and textures; • Complex transitional landscape; • Settlement is consistently present, varying from small linear settlements to dispersed housing; • Much of the loch is visible from the A83; • This coast often feels secluded, especially along the longer headlands and the intricate coastline at Silver Craigs and Castleton, where road access is limited; and • The diversity of the coast is an attractive quality. The more intricate and irregular stretches of coast, the islands and the sandy bays add to visual diversity and underpin an attractive coastal experience. Within ZTV coverage operational windfarms, existing elements of electricity infrastructure, telecommunications masts, main transport routes and commercial conifer forest plantations have some influence on the experience of Loch Fyne, particularly the Inverary to Crossaig overhead line and operational Allt Dearg / Sròndòire when seen in closer proximity near the eastern side of the loch. The proposed development would be located close to the sensitive coastal edge and would become a new dominant and intrusive large scale focal point (despite the presence and influence of other existing elements of electricity infrastructure), visible on the skyline formed by the enclosing hills west of Loch Fyne seen in northward, southward and westward looking views across much of Loch Fyne and its associated shores. From settled coastal edges including from areas of Ardrishaig and Lochgilphead (Viewpoint 6), Inverneill (Viewpoint 2) and from key recreational destinations including Otter Ferry (Viewpoint 12) and an extensive section of the strategic route of the A83 (Viewpoints 7 and 23) the proposed turbines would clearly breach the skyline. The vertical height of these man-made elements would conflict with the relatively low underlying hills, the generally small scale transitional coastal landscape below and the perceived scale of settlement. The proposed development would adversely affect the current appreciation of views from key settlements, visitor attractions, roads and the key characteristic: “…attractive coastal experience” of Loch Fyne. From the open waters of Loch Fyne itself to settled shore sides, key recreational destinations and main transport routes associated with Loch Fyne the proposed development would be regularly seen across the loch where the proposed turbines would notably breach the skyline and impinge on the coastal landscape / seascape below. Accounting for the scale of the turbines and anticipated widespread area of effect, which are considered to be significant adverse and non-localised on the experience of these characteristics from Loch Fyne and its associated shores. We consider that significant adverse day time effects would extend into significant Page 165
Page 166
adverse night-time effects within a minimum of 5 km where aviation lights would be visible from settlements, roads and recreational routes. 9. Cumulative effects We broadly agree with some of the cumulative effects reported. However, from Dunadd summit where the proposed development would introduce visibility of wind farm development seen against the skyline on the southward looking experience of the: “breathtaking 360º panorama...”, consented Glasvaar would be seen against the skyline in successive northeastern looking views. We consider that the introduction of the proposed development would result in a significant adverse cumulative effect on the appreciation of SLQ 2: “A landscape of skylines” and SLQ 4: “A profoundly evocative, ancient place”. Where wind farm development would adversely affect both the northward and southward aspects of the: “breathtaking 360º panorama...” and would notably detract from the unique sense of place gained from the summit of Dunadd. We anticipate that some similar significant adverse cumulative effects would be experienced from some higher and lower elevations within the northern part of the Knapdale NSA within ZTV coverage as shown by Figure 5-28 Cumulative Zone of Theoretical Visibility with Consented Glasvaar including from areas of Loch Crinan, Duntrune Castle, Mòine Mhòr, Strathmore and popular elevated Cruach Mòr Dunardry. 10. Mitigation We advise that the nature and scale of the proposals at this location are such, that it cannot be accommodated without significant widespread adverse landscape and visual effects, including significant adverse effects and night-time effects on the Knapdale NSA, areas of Kilmartin and Loch Fyne. We consider that given the proposed siting, scale and type of development, it would not be feasible to overcome the significant adverse effects identified within the site parameters. 12. Conclusion The site comprises part of a wider area of open upland summits and plateaux which plays an important role forming in part skylines experienced from within the Knapdale NSA, Kilmartin Glen and across much of Loch Fyne and associated shores. The location, size and scale of the proposed development represents a step change in prominence and proximity of wind farms to the Knapdale NSA, Kilmartin Glen and Loch Fyne. The proposal would significantly adversely affect two SLQs of the Knapdale NSA and would significantly adversely affect the experience of areas of Kilmartin and extensive landscapes and seascapes of Loch Fyne. These impacts would be to a degree that would result in an evident and noticeable material change to the SLQs of the Knapdale NSA such that the objectives of this designation and overall integrity would be compromised. While the turbine height and number could be reduced, accounting for the site’s location within the western hills of Loch Fyne close to the sensitive coast which is intervisible from highly sensitive areas of the Knapdale NSA, Kilmartin and across a widespread extent of Loch Fyne it is considered unlikely that significant adverse effects identified could be notably reduced. We therefore consider that given the proposed siting, scale and type of development, it would not be feasible to overcome the significant adverse effects identified within the site parameters. Accounting for the anticipated significant adverse effects on the Knapdale NSA we advise that the proposed development may therefore not meet Policy 4 c) of National Page 166
Page 167
Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and therefore we object to this proposal. 7.12. In this instance the Planning Authority has before it, as part of this consultation, differing professional opinion on the significance of Landscape Impacts. The views presented, by the applicant’s Landscape advisor, the Council’s Landscape advisor and NatureScot are the professional opinion of the three parties undertaking the exercise and each should be respected and considered carefully. 7.13. Weight must however be given to the views of NatureScot as a statutory advisor to the Scottish Ministers in respect of impacts upon National Scenic Areas and on landscape matters. It is therefore the opinion of Officers that the views of NatureScot should carry considerable weight, particularly where it relates impacts upon National Scenic Areas. 7.14. Given the extent and detail of the objection by NatureScot in their consultation response, Officers do not consider that it would be reasonable, as a matter of planning judgement, to take a different stance to NatureScot. Therefore, in this instance the Planning Authority defers to the views of NatureScot on Landscape Impacts as set out in their consultation responses (Annex 1 in particular) and considers that an objection, in accordance with the reasons stated by NatureScot should be the view of the Planning Authority in respect of Landscape Impacts. 7.15. The views of NatureScot in respect of the potential impact of nighttime aviation lighting should also be given due considered by the Determining Authority in respect of Landscape Impact. 7.16. Officer Conclusions on Landscape Impact 7.17. On large scale renewable energy proposals such as this, there is an acknowledged acceptance in policy advice that there can be unavoidable significant but localised landscape impacts which should not count, in themselves, against the approval of such developments as these can often not be avoided given the nature and scale of windfarm proposals. 7.18. These localised, but adverse impacts on their own would not normally outweigh NPF 4 and LDP 2 policy support for renewable proposals (and wider policy support for renewable energy proposals relating to climate change). However, in this instance, the impacts contended by NatureScot in their stated objection go beyond localised impacts and therefore an element of judgement is required, to balance the acknowledged policy support and benefits of the scheme, with any adverse impact contended by NatureScot. The additional submission of the applicant dated 19.01.26 in response to the objection of NatureScot have been considered as part of this recommendation. 7.19. As NatureScot are expert and authoritative advisors on landscape impacts and in respect of National Scenic Areas, significant weight must be given to their objections to the proposal in the balance of judgement. Although the Planning Authority is only a consultee and not the Determining Authority , there is still a need to come to a planning judgement on the merits of the case having regard to competing policy objectives and whether the Planning Authority should raise objection to the proposals. 7.20. Given the objection by NatureScot, it is concluded that the proposal , on does not comply with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 4 – Natural Places of NPF4, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of ABLDP2 8. IMPACTS ON TOURISM AND RECREATION Page 167
Page 168
8.1. Tourism – Policy 11 of NPF4 does not include a requirement for the impact of proposals on tourism to be assessed. However, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP does. In Argyll & Bute the landscape is regarded as being a particularly valued asset both in terms of its intrinsic qualities and in terms of its value to the tourism economy. For all types of development, the maintenance of landscape character is an important facet of decision-making in the countryside in Argyll & Bute, regardless of the scale of development 8.2. As Tourism and Landscape & Visual matters are intrinsically linked, and there is little evidence to demonstrate whether wind farms adversely affect tourism, it is considered that such impacts are covered in the landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal. 8.3. Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 04 – Sustainable Development and 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of ABLDP2 in this respect. 9. PUBLIC ACCESS 9.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on public access are addressed, including impact on long distance walking, and cycling routes and scenic routes. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and those scenic routes identified in the NPF. Policy 32 – Active Travel of LDP2 requires active travel and recreation to be integrated in developments from the start of the wider design process and existing active travel networks should be safeguarded and integrated with the development. 9.2. The applicants have set out by submission that they are currently exploring options to enhance opportunities for access and recreation including the provision of interpretation boards and waymarked trails represents an extension and improvement of the informal track network in the vicinity of the Site. 9.3. The Council’s Access Manager in his response commented that’ 9.4. With mitigation, as specified by the EIAR, in place, the EIAR concludes that the construction traffic effects would be transitory nature and not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. No long term issues would be associated with the construction phase of the development. 9.5. Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; and Policy 32 - Active Travel of the ABLDP2. This is subject to the inclusion of a condition for an Access Plan. 10. AVIATION AND DEFENCE INTERESTS 10.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed. Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 stipulates that development will not be Page 168
Page 169
permitted where it would compromise the safe operation of an Aerodrome or Technical Site or constrain their present or future operations. 10.2. Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) – have advised the ECU that, subject to conditions to secure an Aviation Lighting Scheme and Aviation Charting and Safety Management details the MOD has no objection. 10.3. National Air Traffic Control (NATS). At time of writing NATS has maintained its objection to the proposals relating to potential impact on aviation safety. It is noted that the applicants have provided further information by submission dated 19.01.26 on these matters to seek the withdrawal of the current objection. However, at time of writing the objection by NATS has not been withdrawn and remains in force. 10.4. Officers defer to the expertise of NATS on these matters. It is considered procedurally necessary for the Planning Authority to lodge an objection unless NATS withdraw their objection. These matters will ultimately be for the Scottish Ministers/ECU to address as the Determining Authority. 10.5. Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Ministry of Defence and the withdrawal of the NATS objection, it is concluded the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes, of the ABLDP2 in this respect. 11. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING INSTALLATIONS 11.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, have been addressed particularly, ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. 11.2. BT have advised the ECU that they have no objection. 11.3. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on telecommunications, broadcasting installations and transmission links (including cumulative impacts) and is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 in this respect. 12. ROAD TRAFFIC AND TRUNK ROADS 12.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on road traffic and on adjacent trunk roads have been addressed, including during construction. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on road traffic and impacts on adjacent trunk roads. Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes of LDP2 acceptance of development utilising new and existing public roads, private roads and private access regimes is subject to road safety and street design issues being addressed to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority and the Planning Authority. Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads requires that accesses which connect to or Page 169
Page 170
impact significantly on a Trunk Road require consultation with Transport Scotland. 12.2. Transport Scotland (TS) have advised the ECU that they are satisfied with the submitted EIAR and have no objections to the development in terms of environmental impacts on the trunk road network. Subject to the imposition of conditions and an advisory noted as detailed in their consultation response to the ECU dated 31.07.25 and as set out previously in this report. 12.3. ABC’s Roads & Amenity Services have not at time of writing responded to the application. However, Officers are content that the use of suspensive conditions to address road capacity , road safety, cumulative impacts on the public road network and design of junctions with the public road, that the proposals can be regarded as acceptable as this is an approach consistently applied by the Area Roads Manager to proposals of this type in previous determinations of large scale infrastructure projects. The following conditions are suggested by Officers to address these matters; Condition 01 Cumulative Traffic Impact Analysis Prior to the commencement of development, a Cumulative Traffic Impact Analysis shall be undertaken to ensure that cumulative demands on the road network associated with these proposals and any other permitted or projected major infrastructure proposals in the area shall be provided to the Planning Authority for the approval in consultation with Transport Scotland. Reason: To ensure accurate vehicle movement data is available having regard to other proposed infrastructure projects in area. Condition 02 Construction Traffic Management Plan No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Phased Delivery Plan have been prepared and approved in writing by the Local Authority, in consultation with the Roads Authority, and Transport Scotland as the trunk roads Authority. The Plan shall details approved access routes, agreed operational practises (including avoidance of convoy movements, specifying conduct in use of passing places, identification of turning areas, information of wheel cleansing facilities, signage to be installed as required by the Area Roads Engineer warning of construction traffic. reporting of verge damage) and shall provide for the provision of an appropriate Code of Practice to drivers of construction and delivery vehicles. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved Traffic Management Plan. Reason: To minimise interference with the safety and free flow of the traffic on the road network, to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cycle users using the road and adjacent facilities and to be consistent with current guidance and best practice. Condition 03 Access and Junction Design to Public Road Any proposed adopted roads access shall be formed in accordance with the Operational Services Drawing No SD08/001a; and visibility splays of 160 metres x 2.4 metres shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter, or as may otherwise be approved in writing by the Area Roads Engineer. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Page 170
Page 171
12.4. Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Transport Scotland and the Planning Authority, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads in this regard. It is recommended that the conditions required by Area Roads and Amenity Services are attached to any consent granted by the ECU. 13. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 13.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on the historic environment have been addressed. Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4 intent is to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings. Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment, Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments, Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes, and Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance support the key policies and provide guidance on assessing development proposals against heritage impacts. 13.2. No statutory designated heritage assets (World Heritage Sites, Schedule Monuments, Inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Inventory Battlefields, Conservation Areas, and Listed buildings) have been identified within the Site. There are no World Heritage Sites, Inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Inventory Battlefields, Conservation Areas, and Schedule Monuments within the 1km Study Areas as defined in Volume 2 Chapter 10 Cultural Heritage. There are three Scheduled Monuments within the 5km radius of the Site boundary: • Crinan Canal, Cairnbaan – Ardrishaig (SM6501) located 2km east from the Site boundary; • Achnamara clapper bridge, Knapdale (SM10341) located approximately 4.5km northwest of the Site boundary; • St Margaret's Church, cross; (SM10398) located approximately 4.6km northeast of the Site boundary; Lochgilphead Conservation Area is located 4km northeast from the Site boundary, while the Crinan Canal Conservation Area lies at 5.5km northwest from the Site. Two Inventory Garden and Designed Landscapes (GDLs) lie within 10km of the Site boundary: • Ballimore (GDL00041), located approximately 6.4 km east of the Site boundary; and • Stonefield Castle Hotel located approximately 9km southeast of the Site boundary. No Category A listed buildings are present within 5km of the Site. There are three Listed Buildings (Categories B and C) within the 1km Study Area; • The Category B Listed Walled Garden and Summer Houses Beside Inverneill House, Inverneill House; • The Category B Listed Campbell Of Inverneill Mausoleum; and Page 171
Page 172
• The Category C Listed Inverneill Bridge Over Inverneill Burn. The following additional heritage designations are located within 10km of the Site: • 42 Scheduled Monuments; • 87 Listed Buildings; 13.3. Further details of all these assets can be found in Volume 2 Chapter 10: Cultural Heritage of the EIA Report. 13.4. Officers are of the opinion that the proposals will not have a significant adverse impact upon any cultural or heritage assets as would warrant an objection. No response has been received from WoSAS to date and therefore the Scottish ministers are advised to seek response from them prior to the determination of the application to ensure Archaeological matters are properly addressed, most likely by suspensive condition. 13.5. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) – initially objected to this proposal but subsequently withdrew their objection following the submission of further visualisations under FEI. They have advised the ECU that the proposed wind farm would result in adverse impacts to the settings of a number of scheduled monuments but it is considered that these impacts would be just below the level of significant adverse impact on the integrity of the setting for any individual scheduled monument. In their response dated 29.01.26 they confirm their position; The proposals would impact the setting of two scheduled monuments: Ballymeanoch, henge, 390m WNW of Ballymeanoch Cottage (Scheduled Monument SM176) and Ballymeanoch, standing stones 450m NW of (Scheduled Monument SM4301). The turbines would appear over the skyline in wider views over the monuments and in views out from them. Having considered the additional information provided, we conclude that whilst the turbines would be visible in views from, and of, both monuments, the impact would not be sufficient to warrant an objection. Our objection to the proposed development is therefore removed. 13.6. Officers defer to the expert views of HES on these matters. 13.7. Having due regard to the above subject to conditions it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy and Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment; 19 – Scheduled Monuments; 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes; and 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance of the ABLDP2 14. HYDROLOGY, THE WATER ENVIRONMENT AND FLOOD RISK 14.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk have been addressed. Policy 30 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk (including cumulative). Policy 55 - Flooding of LDP2 provides guidance on the type of development that will be permissible within specific flood risk areas. Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals requires flood risk assessments, and drainage impact assessments, to accompany applications where Page 172
Page 173
required. 14.2. The Council’s Flood Prevention Officer – has advised that they have no objection subject to conditions to ensure that watercourse crossings are designed to convey the 1 in 200 years plus climate change flood event; and, surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. 14.3. SEPA have raised no objections to the proposals in respect of flooding matters. 14.4. Having due regard to the above, subject to the recommended conditions it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 55 – Flooding; and Policy 57 Risk Appraisals of ABLDP2. 15. BIODIVERSITY , HABITAT & PEAT 15.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on biodiversity, including birds have been addressed. Policy 3 – Biodiversity of NPF4 requires development proposals to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 5 – Soils of NPF4 supports the generation of energy from renewable sources that optimises the contribution of the area to GHG emissions reduction targets on peatland, carbon-rich soils, and priority peatland. A detailed site-specific assessment will be required for development on peatland which will include the net effects of the development on climate emissions and loss of carbon. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from effects on the natural heritage, including birds and to be assessed against impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator (including cumulative) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity requires proposals to incorporate, safeguard and enhance existing site biodiversity wherever possible. 15.2. Whilst no significant effects were found through the assessment of the Proposed Development on sensitive ecology and ornithology receptors as presented in Chapter 6 Ecology and Chapter 7: Ornithology in Volume 2 of the EIA Report, there remains a statutory duty to protect certain features (e.g., Priority Peatlands) and policy requirement to ‘conserve, enhance and restore’ such features under NPF4 Policy 3 and provide ‘significant biodiversity enhancement’ which is separate from mitigation under NPF4 Policy 4. 15.3. In light of this requirement, the applicant submit that the following enhancement measures are proposed: • Compensate for the loss of M25 Molinia-Potentilla priority peatland habitats present on 50cm or more depth; • Enhance the condition of peatland habitats; • Enhance habitats to encourage Black grouse Tetrao tetrix; and • Enhance nesting opportunities for pine marten Martes martes. Peatland Page 173
Page 174
15.4. Compensation and enhancement of peatland would be achieved through forest to bog enhancement within the Wind Protection Zones (WPZs) of the turbines to achieve the 10 times peatland loss to restoration ratio plus 10% Priority Peatland enhancement required by NatureScot guidance (NatureScot, 2023). 15.5. Both NatureScot and SEPA have confirmed that they raise no objection to the proposals in respect of any impacts on Biodiversity , Habitat or Peat matters subject to the imposition of appropriate mitigation as set out in the submitted EIAR and the use of appropriate conditions. They are content that the proposed Biodiversity, Habitat and Peat mitigation details submitted are acceptable in this instance. 15.6. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has raised a holding objection to the proposals and sought further clarification on some details as previously set out in this report. The applicant provided further information on these matters on 19.01.26 and at time of writing updated comments are awaited from the Council’s Biodiversity Officer. 15.7. Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment 15.8. This is a matter which the Planning Authority and Officers have no expertise to provide comment on. Ironside Farrer advise the Scottish Ministers/ECU on these matters and Officers are content to defer to their views on this matter which must be addressed prior to the determination of the current application. 16. TREES, WOODS, AND FORESTS 16.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on trees, woods and forests have been addressed. Policy 6 – Forestry, woodland, and Trees of NPF4 intent is to protect and expand forests, woodland, and trees. Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees of LDP2 states that there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting our woodland resources. Policy 78 – Woodland Removal of LDP2 states that proposals that would involve the removal of woodland resources will be assessed against the criteria for determining the acceptability of woodland removal, in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. Where this assessment concludes that compensatory planting would be appropriate, developers will need to provide for this in accordance with the advice in the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. 16.2. Scottish Forestry have raised no objection to the proposals and in their response dated 28.06.25 Recommended that the Applicant should : : 1. Submit a Woodland Impact Assessment (WIA) detailing: • Total woodland loss (native and commercial); • Ownership, species, and age class breakdown; • Any thinning or management activities required; • Justification for forest and/or woodland removal and proposed compensatory planting (location, scale, species). 2. Clarify terminology around ancient woodland “disturbance” and “restoration,” and provide restoration prescriptions aligned with UKFS and native woodland policy. 3. Align supporting documentation (including the Planning Statement) with the Argyll and Bute LDP and Forestry and Woodland Strategy. 4. Confirm felling extent from access track centreline and validate with site-specific GIS figures (GPX files or equivalent) or track design sections. Page 174
Page 175
5. Apply UKFS-compliant buffer zones to all watercourses and consider increased protection for SSSI-linked tributaries. 6. Ensure consistency across chapters regarding forestry references and confirm if any documents have been omitted. Conclusion Scottish Forestry is broadly supportive of the embedded design approach to minimise woodland impact through track reuse and peat-sensitive engineering. However, clarification, additional mapping, and documentation are required before Scottish Forestry can confirm compliance with national and local woodland policy and best practice standards. We look forward to collaborating with the applicant and planning authority to resolve these matters constructively. 16.3. Scottish Forestry provided a further response on 22.10.25 following the submission of the FEI information as follows; We advise that: • The proposals demonstrate full compliance with UKFS. The UK Forestry Standard 5th edition was published on 3 October 2023 following the completion of an extensive review process. The 5th edition applies from 1 October 2024 for all woodland creation and management activity. This followed a 12-month transition period to allow relevant guidance to be updated and draft woodland plans to be finalised. • The Applicant considers their Felling and Restocking in the context of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 and associated policies on Forestry and Forestry Removal in line with the adopted Forest and Woodland Strategy. • The applicant clarifies the total area of permanent woodland loss to ensure that the correct area of compensatory planting is applied. • Compensatory planting for the woodland lost should be secured by a condition, a draft of which is attached in Annex 1. I will be happy to discuss further or make any clarifications. 16.4. As no objection has been raised the above matters are considered capable of resolution through the impositions of appropriate conditions by the Determining Authority. 16.5. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to the requirements of Scottish Forestry being addressed that this element of the proposal is consent it is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 6 – Forestry, woodland and Trees of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees and 78 – Woodland Removal of the LDP2. 17. MINERALS 17.1. Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 states that development proposals for borrow pits will only be supported where: the proposal is tied to a specific project and is time-limited; the proposal complies with the mineral extraction criteria in Policy 33 taking into account the temporary nature of the development; and appropriate restoration proposals are enforceable and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 states that proposals for mineral extraction will generally be supported for borrow pits where the proposal is found to be acceptable after being assessed against National Planning Framework 4 Policy 33 Page 175
Page 176
criterion e). 17.2. The EIAR notes that in order to minimise the amount of stone required to be imported on to site, up to two borrow pits may be used. 17.3. Having due regard to the above taking into account that the proposed borrow pits would be tied to the proposal it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 and Policy 31 – Minerals of the ABLDP2 in this regard, subject to a condition to secure details of the borrow pit and a borrow pit restoration plan. 18. DECOMMISSIONING, SITE RESTORATION AND QUALITY OF SITE RESTORATION PLANS 18.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how proposals for the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration have been addressed. It also requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the quality of site restoration plans have been addressed including the measures in place to safeguard or guarantee availability of finances to effectively implement those plans. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 requires consideration to be given to the long-term environmental management of the site. 18.2. The proposal would have an operational life of up to 40 years from the date of commissioning. At the end of the operational period, a decision would be made as to whether to refurbish, remove or replace the turbines. If refurbishment or replacement were chosen, then the relevant consent applications would be made. If a decision was taken to decommission the development, this would entail the removal of all the turbine components, transformers, the substation, compound fences and associated buildings. Access tracks where required for forestry use and underground cables would be left in place and foundations removed to a depth of 0.5m below ground level to avoid environmental effects from removal. Hardstandings and sections of access track no longer required would be removed or partially removed and restored in accordance with industry guidance. A Site Decommissioning Plan would set out environmental protection measures and restoration principles which should be implemented. 18.3. It is recommended that this matter is covered by conditions consistent with other projects across Argyll & Bute in the event that the proposal obtains consent from the ECU. 18.4. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to an appropriate condition being attached if the proposal receives consent the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 - The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2. 19. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 19.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how cumulative impacts have been addressed. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 also requires cumulative impacts to be addressed. Any cumulative impacts which have been identified are covered in the preceding sections of this report with respect to both Noise Evaluation and LVIA matters. Page 176
Page 177
20. RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION TARGETS AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS. 20.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that, in considering the impacts of the proposal, significant weight will be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 requires that when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 require all renewable developments to be assessed against the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions. 20.2. The applicant has confirmed by submission that; Once operational, the Proposed Development will generate approximately 211,817 Mega Watt hours (MWh) per year which is equivalent to the annual electricity required for around 66,192 households in Scotland, and will displace an equivalent amount of fossil fuel generated electricity amounting to a reduction in the release of greenhouse gases equal to 91,081 tonnes per year. When taking into consideration the potential carbon loss of various construction and operational phases, the Proposed Development is anticipated to achieve carbon neutrality within 1.8 years (with a minimum and maximum range of 0.6 years and 5 years). The carbon intensity of the Proposed Development is expected to be 17.20g carbon dioxide (CO2)/kWh, which is significantly below the 2030 overall carbon intensity target. The Proposed Development is anticipated to have an overall beneficial effect on climate change mitigation. The outputs from the Scottish Government’s Offline ECU Carbon Calculator are presented in Volume 2 Chapter 14: Climate Change and Carbon Balance of the EIA Report. 20.3. Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crisis and 11 – Energy of NPF 4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 04 – Sustainable Development of LDP2. 21. PERPETUITY 21.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that consents for proposals may be time limited. Areas identified for wind farms are, however, expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. However, as the expected operational life of the proposal is 40 years from the date of commissioning, should consent be granted, Officers would expect it to be time limited to 40 years to reflect the life of the wind farm as detailed in the application submissions. 22. CONCLUSION 22.1. This proposal is classed as “Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation” - a National Development, in terms of the Spatial Strategy given its capacity to generate and store more than 50MW. In principle, there is support for this scale of development given its Page 177
Page 178
importance in the delivery of Scotland’s Spatial Strategy. However, such projects are still required to be assessed against the provisions of the Development Plan by the Planning Authority, which now consists of National Planning Framework 4 and the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2. 22.2. The lead Development Plan policies support renewable energy development in principle but require that proposals be assessed against the criterion detailed in this report. While the weight to be given to each of the considerations is a matter for the decision maker, NPF4 is clear that significant weight will require to be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. However, a planning judgement still requires to be reached in terms of the impact of the development. 22.3. In relation to landscape and visual impacts NPF4 advises that where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied such effects will be considered acceptable for such projects. However, NPF4 must be read as a whole, and detailed consideration given to linked policies. Policy 4 (Natural Places) – sets out that development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. 22.4. NPF 4 clarifies, at Page 07, that the National Spatial Strategy has the following overall objective Scotland’s future places will be net zero, nature-positive places that are designed to reduce emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change, whilst protecting, recovering and restoring our environment. Meeting our climate ambition will require a rapid transformation across all sectors of our economy and society. This means ensuring the right development happens in the right place ( *Officer Emphasis) 22.5. Therefore, it is fundamental to any large-scale windfarm development being considered acceptable that the site chosen and the scale and the design of the development do not have unacceptable impacts on the Natural Environment. Where this is the case, it will not deliver the outcomes of the National Spatial Strategy to support the right development in the right place. 22.6. The applicants have submitted at part 9.4 of their Planning Statement that, The need for the Proposed Development is firmly established by Annex B of NPF4 with Policy compliance driven by the significant weight placed in favour of developments contributing to reducing emissions, the contribution to renewable energy targets and the need to tackle the nature crisis. The Proposed Development will directly contribute to these targets through the installation of approximately 60MW of renewable energy, reducing net carbon emissions by an estimated 91,081 tonnes per year. The biodiversity enhancement measures proposed will directly contribute to tackling the nature crises. In assessing the Proposed Development against NPF4 as a whole, the Proposed Development is closely aligned with the objectives and intent of the Policy Framework. Close attention has been paid to Policy 11 as the primary policy applicable to the Proposed Development with the assessment showing support for the development in terms of 11(a) as a renewable energy scheme and 11(c) by the measures presented by the Applicant to maximise economic benefit. Through the conduct of the EIA and the design process as detailed in the EIA Report Page 178
Page 179
and DAS, the Applicant has clearly demonstrated how the impacts listed in Policy 11(e) have been addressed with significant effects either avoided or minimised. In terms of Policy 11 (e)(ii) in particular, significant landscape and visual effects have been demonstrated to be acceptable through both appropriate design mitigation (ultimately removing five turbines specifically to address these effects) and demonstrating the localised nature of the remaining significant effects with residual significant effects limited to a distance of less than 10.5km from the Site. It is acknowledged that the Proposed Development will result in other residual significant effects, however, attention is drawn to the findings of the Public Local Inquiry in relation the Glendye windfarm (Reference WIN-110-3) in June 2023 in which the reporter stated in (in connection with Policy 11(e)): “We do not agree with the interpretation of some parties that all of the items listed must necessarily be fully mitigated or resolved. We agree with the applicant that this should form part of the decision-maker's process of weighing the planning balance.” Taking account of the weight to be applied to the Nationally important benefits of tacking the climate and nature crises as required by energy policy, NPF4 and the OWPS and the limited extent of the determined environmental impacts, the benefits of the Proposed Development clearly outweigh any adverse effects and is therefore strongly supported by planning policy. It is therefore concluded that the Proposed Development is consistent with both National and local planning policy. 22.7. There is undoubtedly a strong and supportive Planning Policy Framework in respect of windfarm proposals and acknowledged benefits which would arise from these proposals at national and local level. However, this support must be caveated upon the impacts of development being considered acceptable as a matter of judgement and weighting. 22.8. In this instance NatureScot have raised objection to the proposals and state that the proposed wind farm would result in significant adverse landscape and visual effects on Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA), Kilmartin Glen and Loch Fyne. This objection must be balanced against both the strong policy support for renewable power generation proposals, and in this particular instance the fact that the Councils own Landscape Advisor is of the view that no objection to the proposals on landscape or visual impacts should be raised. 22.9. Officers have carefully considered these conflicting positions and concluded, as a matter of planning judgement, that the views of NatureScot should be preferred, and that the contended significant landscape impacts outweigh the benefits of the scheme in this particular instance. 22.10. Indeed NPF 4 Policy 11 and LDP 2 Policy 30 reflect this position when read in their entirety. Support for such development is clearly based upon acceptable location where unacceptable non localised impacts will not occur. Officers have therefore deferred to the views of NatureScot on these matters. 22.11. Given the above , Members are advised, as a matter of Planning Judgement, that Argyll and Bute Council objects to the proposal as it will have significant adverse landscape and visual effects on Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA), Kilmartin Glen and Loch Fyne as contended by NatureScot in their consultation response and this unacceptable Page 179
Page 180
landscape Impact is not outweighed by the acknowledged benefits of the scheme in this particular instance. 23. RECOMMENDATION That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) Argyll and Bute Council, having particular regard to the Objection raised by NatureScot and deferring to their expertise, object to the proposal on landscape and visual grounds, as the proposed wind farm would result in significant adverse landscape and visual effects on Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA), Kilmartin Glen and Loch Fyne, contrary to NPF4 Policy 4, NPF Policy 11, LDP2 Policy 30 and LDP 2 Policy 70. (2) Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal in respect of potential impact of aircraft safety as set out in the NATS Safeguarding objection letter and therein referenced report dated 20.06.25. The objection by NATS confirms that the proposals are not currently considered to be in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policy 11 (aircraft safety). For the avoidance of doubt, should the NATS Objection to this application be withdrawn then the objection of the Planning Authority should also be regarded as withdrawn. (3) Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment - Argyll and Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion in respect to the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (NPF4 Policies 5 and 11 and LDP2 30 and 79). Argyll and Bute Council object unless this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of Ironside Farrar prior to the determination of this application by the ECU. Should this issue not be resolved, the Council would defer to Ironside Farrar (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event that the application is referred to the DPEA for examination. (4) Archaeological Impact - Argyll and Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion within the time afforded in respect to Archaeological Impact as no response has been received from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Argyll and Bute Council are therefore not in a position to confirm whether the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policy 21 and would recommend that the ECU consider these matters prior to determination. (5) Argyll and Bute do not object on noise impact grounds, subject to the imposition of appropriate condition(s) to ensure operational noise and amplitude modulation matters are satisfactorily addressed, as recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant, Mott MacDonald, specified in their Review of Evidence – Noise, dated August 2025. (6) Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Public Access grounds, subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction. (7) Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Roads access or safety grounds, subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions, as specified by Page 180
Page 181
Transport Scotland in their consultation response to the ECU dated 31.07.25 and as set out in this report. (8) Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Flooding and/or Drainage impact grounds subject to the inclusion of the conditions as set out in the response of the Councils Flooding advisor dated 03.07.25. (9) Argyll and Bute Council in accordance with the views of the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer Objects to the proposals as it is considered that the applicant has failed to provide necessary biodiversity evaluation and weighting to trees within the area of Ancient Woodland which will be adversely affected by the proposals. It should also be noted that any further necessary bat surveys must be undertaken in respect of these trees, and any European Protected Species mitigation measures submitted and agreed by the Scottish Ministers prior to the granting of any deemed planning consent to ensure any consent is issued in compliance with all legislative requirements. (10) Argyll and Bute Council do not object in relation to impact on peat or proposed peat management issues subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to address these matters as advised by SEPA and NatureScot in their consultation responses. (11) Argyll and Bute Council requests that all other conditions recommended by consultees are included in any Consent. Page 181
Page 182
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 183
© Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan relative to; 25/00984/S36 O 0 720 1,440360 Meters Application Site Page 183
Page 184
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 185
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 25/01118/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Nikolay Petkov Proposal: Siting of 4 glamping pods and associated works Site Address: Balkan House, Rahane, Argyll and Bute G84 0QW DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Change of use of land to site for siting of glamping pods. • Siting of 4 no. holiday accommodation pods / cabins • Formation / improvement of private access junction with public road (C72 Peaton Road). • Formation of circulation track and parking • Ground engineering works (ii) Other specified operations • Connection to public water supply network • Connection to existing private waste water treatment plant and surface water drainage systems • Removal of trees and natural vegetation. • Landscaping (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that Planning Permission be refused for the reasons appended to this report. Page 185 Agenda Item 7
Page 186
(C) CONSULTATIONS: Area Roads 28.07.2025 Recommend that consideration of the application be deferred pending submission of further details. It is noted that the point of access drawing references a previous planning permission ref:18/00952/AMSC (in conjunction with 16/00115/PPP), however it should be similarly noted that the above permission is for an access to a single dwelling and that the current application is for 4 no. glamping pods. Environmental Health 07.07.2025 No objections subject to recommended planning conditions to safeguard local amenity relating to matters including external lighting and potential sources of nuisance during the construction phase. Further details relating to waste / recycling containers and storage should be required by condition. It is also recommended that any requirement for a Short-term Let Licence be secured by planning condition. It is recommended that any permission be subject to advisory notes relating to surface water drainage; private sewage treatment plant/drainage; CDM Regulations; and ‘anti-gull’ construction measures. Scottish Water 17.07.2025 There is current capacity for water supply however the applicant should be aware that further investigations may be required once a formal application has been submitted to Scottish Water. There is no (Scottish Water) record of public wastewater infrastructure in the vicinity of the site and as such the applicant is advised to investigate private treatment options. Surface water connection into Scottish Water combined sewer system will be allowed only in limited, exceptional circumstances however this would require significant justification by the applicant. Further advice is offered with regard to the responsibilities / obligations of the applicant / developer with regard to the implications of separate legislation including the Water Services (Scotland) Act 2005 and the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968. (D) HISTORY: 18/00952/AMSC - Approval of matters specified in conditions 1-10 relative to planning permission in principle reference 16/00115/PPP - Site for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses Approved – 26.11.2025 16/00115/PPP - Renewal of planning permission in principle 13/00732/PPP - Site for the sub-division of garden ground for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses and installation of septic tank. Approved subject to conditions – 12.06.2017 13/00732/PPP - Site for the sub-division of garden ground for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses and installation of septic tank. Approved subject to conditions – 04.13.2013 Notes: Page 186
Page 187
The above consent has been partially implemented in that the north eastern plot, identified as “House 2” on the approved drawings, has been constructed. This dwellinghouse is known as “Balkan House”. The implemented development includes a private driveway along the eastern edge of the application site that connects the residential curtilage with the Peaton Road. The plot annotated as “House 1” has not been developed. The site for the current application for siting of 4 no. holiday let cabins corresponds to the undeveloped House 1 plot previously approved. (E) PUBLICITY: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application: Date of expiry – 07.08.2025 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: A total of 15 submissions have been received. 14 of these are objections to the proposed development and 1 is categorised as a representation (i.e. making comments on the application proposal without specifically supporting or objecting to it.) Objection • Mr Ciaran MacKechnie - 13 Roodwell Cottages, Stenton EH42 1TE • Mr Allan Liebow – Harwin, Rahane, Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute G84 0QW • Mr Joseph Morris - 11 William Street Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute G84 8BD • Kathleen Watmough - 17/14 Lochrin Place, Edinburgh EH3 9QT • Blyth Kerr – 106 Biggar Road, Edinburgh EH10 7DU • Hannah Napier – Lothlorien, Rahane Argyll and Bute G84 0QW • Garry Ludford – Greenlea, Rosneath Road, Rahane, Argyll And Bute G84 0QW • Craig Dalrymple - The Priory, Peaton Road, Rahane, Near Helensbugrh, Dumbartonshire G84 0QW • Nicola O'Neill - 101 Corsehill Crescent, Hamilton, North Lanarkshire ML3 8FD • Mrs Angela Varley - 6 Herons View, Rahane, Argyll and Bute G84 0QW • Craig Thornton - Corlach, Peaton Road, Rahane, G84 0QW • Jeal Kilshaw - 2 Aikenshaw Cottages Rahane G84 0QW • Mrs Dorothy MacLeod - Aonach View, Peaton Road, Rahane, Argyll and Bute G84 0QW • Mrs Kellie Gourlay - Manora Rahane Argyll and Bute G84 0QW Representations • Mr Michael McManus - 24 Argyll Road, Rosneath, Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute G84 0RP Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. Page 187
Page 188
(ii) Summary of issues raised: Incompatible land use • Commercial tourism development would result in an intensification of activity that would be out of keeping with and harmful to the quiet residential character of the area contrary to Local Development Plan policy. Comment: This matter is considered in detail within the following assessment sections. Impact on local visual amenity • Location, layout, scale, density and detailed design of the cabins would be out of keeping with the visual character of existing development, and detrimental the visual amenities / character of the local area contrary to NPF 4 and LDP 2 planning policy. No visual impact assessment has been submitted. Comment: This matter is considered in detail within the following assessment sections. • Concern is expressed that the proposed external materials can deteriorate over a short period of time. Comment: This matter is considered in detail within the following assessment sections. Impact on residential amenity • Loss of privacy from direct overlooking into existing houses and overlooking of private open amenity space of nearby houses. Comment: This matter is considered in detail within the following assessment sections. • Disturbance to occupiers of nearby houses resulting from intensification of activity / noise. Nature of proposed use including external decking areas likely to result in late-night disturbance. Lack of on-site management to control / address guest behaviour. “Transient occupancy associated with higher risk of inappropriate behaviour.” Comment: This matter is considered in detail within the following assessment sections. Ecological impact • Adverse ecological impact by reason of tree vegetation removal. No ecological impact assessment has been carried out. Comment: This matter is considered in detail within the following assessment sections. Landscape impact • Adverse visual landscape impact by reason of removal of trees and natural vegetation Page 188
Page 189
Comment: It is considered that the information submitted does not clearly indicate whether existing trees / hedgerows along the site boundaries are to be removed. Sustainable transport • Location is not sustainable in relation to transport provision and is not well located in relation to local services and amenities resulting in the proposed development being car dependent contrary to climate policies. • There are no amenities / services in Rahane to support visitors, and this will result in car journeys. Comment: This matter is considered within the following assessment sections. • Notwithstanding the emphasis placed on cycling in the Design and Access Statement, local road / cycling conditions suggest that anyone other than dedicated, “hardened” cyclists would not be suited to cycling in the local area and that it’s totally unsuitable for “small families.” Comment: This matter is considered within the following assessment sections. Highways, access and parking • The public road network is not suitable to accommodate the resultant intensification of traffic resulting in road traffic hazards. No traffic impact assessment has been submitted. Comment: The Area Roads consultation response does not raise concerns with regard to the capacity of the surrounding public road network to serve the traffic levels generated by the proposed development. It is not considered that the scale of the proposed development would warrant a traffic impact assessment. • Insufficient car-parking provision which will create pressure for parking on the Peaton Road and increase road traffic hazards. No management mechanism evident to control one car per cabin. Comment: The Area Roads Authority has not raised concerns regarding off-street parking provision with reference to adopted standards. • Concern regarding road traffic hazards at the junction of the proposed access with the public road network with reference to traffic speeds and conflict with cyclists. Comment: Notwithstanding the submission that the previously approved access junction is suitable to accommodate the increased intensity of traffic movements generated by the proposed development, the planning authority as advised by Council Area Roads, considers that the application submission does not demonstrate that the proposal can be adequately served by the previously approved access; and that additional information is required to allow a full assessment of access and road safety issues. Page 189
Page 190
Inadequate infrastructure • No demonstration that sewage system has capacity to accommodate intensification of use leading to potential contamination. Comment: This matter is addressed in detail in the following assessment. • Additional provision for refuse storage is likely to create detrimental environmental effects. Comment: It is not considered that this matter is an over-riding constraint to development. Were the planning authority minded to support this application then it is considered that acceptable provisions for refuse / recycling storage could be achieved by means of planning condition. • Inadequate mains water supply Comment: The consultation response from Scottish Water does not raise any concerns relating to water capacity constraints. Procedural • Inadequate information to allow full assessment on matters including visual impact; noise impact; ecological impact. Comment: The planning authority considers that inadequate information has been submitted in respect of potential impact on several planning considerations. Where this is considered to be the case then this will form a technical reason for refusal. • Inadequate neighbour consultation. Comment: Planning officers are satisfied that publicity and neighbour notification has been carried out by the planning authority in full accordance with the appropriate legislative / procedural requirements. General / Miscellaneous • Any activity would be an improvement in the current condition of the site. Comment: Improvement of the visual appearance of the site would not warrant support of a proposed development that is considered to be unacceptable with reference to planning policy. It is noted the current proposal is not the only means of improving the appearance of the site and that, for example, implementation of the extant planning permission for erection of a house would also improve the appearance of the site. • No demonstration of economic necessity or community benefit. Comment: The planning authority does not consider that the proposed development would result in a level of material benefit to the local economy or community that would warrant support of this application proposal. Page 190
Page 191
• The pavement required by the previous application 18/00952/AMSC has not been provided and this breach has not been enforced. Comment: This matter will be investigated by the planning authority, however it is not considered to be directly relevant to the assessment of the current application for planning permission. • The level of demand has been primarily been assessed on the basis of out-dated / irrelevant statistics. Comment: It is not considered that this matter is material to the planning assessment. • Bin collection in Rahane is erratic which forces pedestrians onto the road at a bad bend on a busy road Comment: Bin collection is not a material planning consideration. • Submitted photographs are 4 years (plus) old and as such misrepresent the present site conditions. Comment: Notwithstanding the photographic images submitted as part of the application, planning officers have assessed the proposed development on the basis of thorough site inspections. The current condition / appearance of the site will be reported to PPSL Committee members by means of this written report and by a presentation including current photographic images. On this basis, the assessment of this application will not be prejudiced by out-dated photographs of the planning application site. • The term “glamping pod” is misleading in that it suggests a smaller scale and nature of development than the lodges proposed, that can accommodate 4 no. people. Comment: Notwithstanding the use of terminology, the scale and appearance of the proposed tourist accommodation units is clearly shown on the application drawings and the planning authority will assess the proposed development on this basis. • Ambiguity and contradiction within the submitted details with regard to the total no. of guests that can be accommodated and management mechanisms for control of numbers. Comment: The proposal has been assessed on the basis that the proposed accommodation pods / cabins have the potential to accommodate up to small families. • There is no ‘draw’ for guests to tourist accommodation in a quiet residential hamlet with existing accommodation available at “Cove Park” and “Rosneath Caravan Park.” Comment: The provision of tourist accommodation at nearby locations is not a material planning consideration. This application should be considered on its own merits. Page 191
Page 192
• Precedent for similar commercial development within gardens of houses. Comment: It is not considered that any support of this application would set a precedent for support of commercial development within residential curtilages. Any such future applications that may be submitted will be assessed with regard to their individual planning merits and circumstances. • Impact on local property values. Comment: This matter is not a material planning consideration. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: • New native landscape planting will help the proposed cabins into their surroundings; reinforce the rural setting of the site; and enhance biodiversity. • It is submitted that the proposed development will accord with all relevant Development Plan policy. • The proposed cabins have been carefully positioned and “guest expectations will be set before booking” in order to preserve the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby houses. • Site access will be via the access point with the C72 Peaton Road approved under the terms of planning permission ref: 18/00952/AMSC and 16/00115/PPP. The access is suitable for the low volume and type of traffic associated with small- scale visitor accommodation. • On-site parking and turning will be provided in a discreet manner. • Cycle storage will be provided to encourage sustainable travel options. ☒Yes ☐No (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No Page 192
Page 193
(v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure Productive Places NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 26 – Business and Industry NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Page 193
Page 194
Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 06 – Green Infrastructure Policy 07 – Provision of Temporary Green Infrastructure on Sites Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • ABC Economic Development Action Plan • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) Page 194
Page 195
(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No A total of 15 representations have been received in relation to the proposed development (14 objections and one representations of a neutral nature.) The approved Hearing protocol advocates a lesser emphasis on the previous numbers (of representations) threshold as a ‘trigger’ for a Hearing and more reliance on a criteria based approach in order to ‘add value’ to the determination process. • In relation to the assessment of this application proposal, it is considered that notwithstanding the number of representations, there is consensus between the local community and the planning authority’s recommendation. • The material considerations in relation to the proposal are not considered to be significantly complex and are largely limited and impact upon the character and appearance of the settlement; impact on residential amenities of nearby residents; and technical matters including the private access junction with the adopted road and potential capacity issues with the private waste-water drainage system. • The proposed development is considered to be contrary to fundamental and up-to-date Local Development Plan policies. As such, the recommendation does not seek to justify a departure to the provisions of the Local Development Plan. • Therefore, having regard to the criteria–based assessments set out in current protocol, it is considered that a Pre-Determination Hearing will not add value to the decision- making process, and is not required. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • None (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Page 195
Page 196
Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☒Yes ☐No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☒Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☐N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The site is located within the Rahane settlement area as identified in LDP 2 wherein Policy 1 states that development proposals will normally be acceptable subject to qualifying criteria including it being the redevelopment of a brownfield site; compatibility with surrounding uses; being of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; that it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements; and that it complies with all relevant Local Development Plan 2 policies. In this instance, it is considered that the proposed development for siting of 4 no. tourist accommodation cabins would result in an overly-intensive nature of commercial activity that is incompatible with surrounding homogenous residential land use; and that it would not respect the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal would not be consistent with the Settlement and Spatial Strategy as set out in the Argyll and Bute Local development Plan 2. Rahane is a minor, rural settlement that has a tranquil, residential character. It is considered that the proposed development to site 4 no. 1-bedroom tourist accommodation pods / cabins would result in a significant intensification of use that would be out of keeping with, and detrimental to this established quiet residential character. Page 196
Page 197
It is considered that the proposed siting of 4 no. tourist accommodation pods / cabins would fail to respect the character and appearance of the existing built development with regard to site layout / development pattern; site density; scale; massing and volumetric form. As such, the proposal would result in a materially adverse impact on local visual amenity and conflict with the principles of ‘place-making’ contrary to relevant local development plan policy. Having regard to the scale and nature of the proposed development and its proximity to nearby residential properties, it is considered that the proposal would result in materially adverse impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby houses by reason of direct over-looking of private outdoor amenity space and noise disturbance. NPF 4 and LDP 2 Policies support development proposals that would contribute positively to the local economy, and this includes tourist accommodation. However, this support is subject compliance with several qualifying criteria, including that the proposed development is in a “form, scale and location” which is consistent with its surroundings; respect and integrate well with the townscape character and amenity of the area; relate well to the existing built form of settlement areas; and are in accessible locations. It is not considered that this proposal satisfies these qualifying criteria, and as such it cannot be supported by those policies. There are existing mature trees and large shrubs along the southwestern and northwestern boundaries of the site. These natural features make a significantly positive contribution to the visual character of the area and have biodiversity value – although whether this is minor or high is unknown. The application does indicate which of these existing trees are to be cut-back or felled to allow the proposed development. Were the planning authority minded to support his application then additional information would be requested to allow further assessment. As proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in principle then this additional information has not been requested, however the absence of this information forms part of the reasons for refusal. Inadequate information has been submitted to allow a full assessment of the intensification of traffic movements generated by the proposed development (relative to development of the application site to provide a single dwellinghouse as previously approved) and the private access junction. On the basis of the information submitted, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority that the development can be adequately serviced by existing private sewage treatment infrastructure. Having regard to all relevant material planning considerations, it is considered that this planning application should be refused. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Refused: The proposal is considered to be contrary to policies 14, 18, 30 of National Planning Framework 4, and policies 01, 04, 05, 10, 14, 23, 36, 37, 39 and 60 of the Argyll and Page 197
Page 198
Bute Local Development Plan 2, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission in this instance as a departure to the Development Plan having regard to s25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/a (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Norman Shewan Date: 04.02.2026 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 05.02.2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 198
Page 199
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/01118/PP 1. Rahane is a minor settlement comprising exclusively residential development with no services / shops or other commercial land-uses located within this settlement and on this basis, the settlement has a tranquil, residential character. The introduction of a commercial tourist accommodation use comprising 4 no. 1-bedroom accommodation units, with capacity for small family accommodation, within an area of former residential garden area considered by the planning authority as capable of accommodating 1 no. 4-bedroom dwellinghouse, would result in an incompatible use relative to the surrounding homogenous residential land-use, that would be overly- intensive in nature and out of keeping with and detrimental to the established tranquil, residential character of this rural, residential settlement contrary to NPF 4 Policies 14 and 30 and LDP 2 Policies 01, 04, 05, 10 and 23. 2. The visual character of Rahane is made up largely by the pattern of built development in conjunction with natural landscape features. Existing houses are typically detached; average to relatively large in scale; traditional pitched-roof volumetric form and massing; and set within spacious and maturely landscaped gardens. There is a mix of external finishes including render, stone and timber cladding with roofs typically clad with natural or ‘artificial’ slate. The proposed siting of 4 no. single-storey, relatively small cabin type pods with mono-pitched roofs at a very shallow angle dispersed around the peripheries of the site would be completely out of keeping with the character of built development within this settlement in terms of layout, density, scale, massing and form to the detriment of visual character and amenity and inconsistent with the principles of ‘place-making’ contrary to NPF 4 Policies 14 and 30, and LDP 2 Policies 04, 05, 08, 10 and 23. 3. It is considered that the proposed development would have a significantly adverse impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby houses by reason of loss of privacy through overlooking of private open amenity space and by general disturbance from noise generated by the short-term accommodation of 4 no. holiday cabins/pods, contrary to the provisions of NPF 4 Policy 14 and 30 and LDP 2 Policies 08, 14 and 23. 4. The site cannot be accessed by foot easily as there is no pavement from the bus stop on the nearby Shore Road and the road is two-way and traffic volumes are not low. The proposal is therefore not easily accessible by public transport, foot or bicycle, and as such is contrary to the provisions of NPF 4 Policy 30 and LDP 2 Policy 23, as it fails to provide safe access via sustainable and active travel to nearby tourist facilities. 5. The application states that a new private access is not proposed nor are any proposed improvements to an existing access. The application proposes that that the development is to be served by an existing private access junction with the public road that has been formed under the provisions of planning permission for a house ref: 18/00952/AMSC and 16/00115/PPP and that this access has capacity to accommodate traffic movements generated by the current proposed development. The planning authority note that the private access junction has not been completed in accordance with the previously approved details. Furthermore, the planning authority considers that the proposed development to provide 4 no. 1-bedroom tourist accommodation cabins will result in a material intensification of traffic movements relative to development of the site to provide 1 no. 4-bedroom house, and that the applicant has failed to submit adequate information to demonstrate to the satisfaction Page 199
Page 200
of the planning authority that access can be provided to serve the proposed in accordance with LDP 2 Policies 36, 37 and 39. 6. The planning application forms confirm that there are trees on or adjacent to the application site and the Design and Access Statement advises that “existing mature vegetation has been retained wherever possible.” However, the existing trees on the site are not shown on the application drawings (other than a diagrammatic indication of the extent of the existing tree canopy) and it is not indicated if any of the existing trees are to be felled or cut back. It is considered by the planning authority that additional information is required in order to allow a full assessment of impact upon trees, including their biodiversity value. This additional information would include a tree survey and tree impact plan clearly identifying any trees to be cut-back or felled. It is considered that the information submitted is inadequate to allow a full assessment of impact on trees and their biodiversity value. 7. The waste water drainage for proposed development is proposed to connect into an existing private treatment plant with an outflow to an existing watercourse, that has been sized for 2 no. 4-bedroom houses. One of these 4-bedroom houses, “Balkan House,” has been erected and connected to the private drainage system. On the basis of the information submitted, it is not considered that the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority that the existing private treatment system has adequate capacity to serve the existing 4-bedroom dwellinghouse plus the proposed 4 no. 1-bedroom tourist accommodation cabins; and as such the proposal is likely to have adverse impact on environmental, amenity or health problems contrary to NPF 4 Policy 18 and LDP 2 Policy 60. Page 200
Page 201
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/01118/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Settlement Strategy 1.1. The planning application site is located within the Rahane Settlement Area Development Management Zone as identified in the LDP 2. 1.2. NPF 4 Policy 1 requires significant weight to be given in the assessment of development proposals to the global nature and climate crises. The supporting text advises that Local Development Plans (LDPs) must address global climate and nature crises by ensuring that the spatial strategy will reduce emissions. Policy 2 addresses climate mitigation and adaptation and requires that development proposals are sited to minimise greenhouse gas emissions and that this should be ‘designed into’ the LDP Spatial Strategy. Policy 9 supports the sustainable re-use of brownfield land including derelict or vacant land. 1.3. This site is located within the Rahane settlement area identified in LDP 2 wherein Policy 01 states that development proposals will normally be acceptable subject to qualifying criteria including it being the redevelopment of a brownfield site; compatibility with surrounding uses; being of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; that it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements; and that it complies with all relevant Local Development Plan 2 policies. 1.4. It is acknowledged that the site comprises the proposed development of a vacant area of land (with extant planning permission for the erection of a house). It is also acknowledged that the development proposal is of a small-scale that is appropriate to the small settlement size. 1.5. Rahane is a small settlement with a homogeneous residential land use and the site is adjoined on two sides by existing houses, and on a third side by a residential house plot forming part of a larger residential development that is currently under development. It is not considered that the use of this application site as a commercial tourist accommodation site would be compatible with surrounding residential land-use and character of the settlement and as such it is considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the established residential character of the settlement and upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby houses by reason of the relatively intensive and commercial nature of the proposed development. Additionally, it is considered that the development of this site to provide 4 no. cabins would not respect the character and appearance of existing built development. This assessment is set out in more detail within this report. Whilst sustainable development of this site is consistent with the LDP 2 Spatial Strategy in principle, on the basis of the above assessment, it is not considered that LDP 1 supports the proposed development for the change of use and siting of 4 no. tourist accommodation cabins. 1.6. As such, it is considered that the development proposal is not consistent with the LDP Spatial Strategy. Page 201
Page 202
2. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 2.1. The site comprises an area of land extending to 995m2 with a frontage onto the C72 Peaton Road and located towards the western edge of the small settlement of Rahane. 2.2. The site historically formed part of the residential curtilage of a dwellinghouse known as “Corlach.” The original curtilage was sub-divided and planning permission has been approved for the erection of two houses within the north western part of the garden area. The approved layout for this planning permission has one house plot at the front of the site (fronting onto Peaton Road) and a second house plot to the rear of it. The planning permission includes the formation of two new, separate private access junctions onto Peaton Road i.e a separate access to serve each of the two approved houses. The rear plot has since been developed to provide a 4 bedroom house along with the access junction and private drainage system under the provisions of the earlier planning permission. This house is known as “Balkan House.” The previous planning permission has therefore been partially implemented (by the development of Balkan House) and as such the front plot has an extant planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse and private access junction. The current application site for the siting of 4 no. glamping pods approximately corresponds with the front house plot previously approved. The current application site is extended into the curtilage of the adjoining house, Balkan House, to include the existing private waste water treatment plant and surface water filter trench located to the rear (north east) and a strip of land along the end of Balkan House required to install underground foul and surface water pipework connection the proposed 4 no. accommodation units to the existing drainage system. 2.3. The main part of the site for the siting of the pods and the private vehicular circulation / parking (i.e excluding the land required for the drainage system) is an irregular triangular shape in plan. It is bounded to the south by Peaton Road. To the north east, the site is bounded by the curtilage of Balkan House, and the private driveway from Peaton Road to Blakan House runs adjacent to the eastern boundary of the application site, separating the site from a nearby residential property to the east. This latter house is known as “Corlach.” The application land is bounded to the north west by an area of former undeveloped agricultural land which is currently being developed under a separate planning permission for residential development. The prevailing ground levels fall from south west to north east from a high point of 33.0m AOD at the south western corner of the site adjacent o Peaton Road down 26.0m AOD measured at the northern corner of the site adjacent to the front boundary with Balkan House. Due to the sloping topography, “Balkan House” to the north east of the application site, and “Corlach” to the east are at a significantly lower level relative to the application site. 2.4. The site boundary with Peaton Road is demarcated by a row of mature trees with a gap towards the centre where trees have been removed to form an access junction into the application site. The north western site boundary is demarcated by trees and hedgerow. 2.5. The site has an overgrown character and neglected appearance including the siting of a static caravan, a car that doesn’t appear to have been used for a long time and various random piles of assorted construction materials. 2.6. The proposed development is for the change of use of land for the siting of 4 no. “glamping pods.” Several objectors have expressed concern that the use of the term “glamping pod” is misleading with regard to the scale of the units and the number of guests that can be accommodated. In the interests of clarity, the basic unit has a footprint area of 9.0 x 3.8m with an internal floorplan comprising a double bedroom, shower-room and open-plan kitchen/dining/living area, and an external covered terrace area. Two of the units have an additional 2.0m deep external, covered terrace that runs along the full width (9.0m) of the Page 202
Page 203
unit. Two of the units have a small, recessed, external decking area at the front (end) of the 9.0x3.8m ‘footprint’ area. 2.7. The 4 no. accommodation units are laid out around a central spine road/track that leads off of a private access junction with Peaton Road and culminates in a hammerhead turning point towards the north eastern end of the application site. ‘Spurs’ off of this central road / track provide a total of 4 no. parking spaces in front of or adjacent to the side of the proposed accommodation units. The circulation road / track and the parking bays are to be surfaced with a permeable material. 2.8. Two of the units are to be sited towards the front (road side) of the site, orientated ‘end- on’ to the road boundary, either side of the central vehicular access. Both of these units have patio doors / windows to the bedroom and kitchen / living spaces on the ESE facing elevations; and these open onto a covered, 2.0m deep external terrace that runs along the full width of the east facing elevations. The Proposed Layout Plan drawing refers to these units as “side-entry cabin with covered deck.” The other two units (C3 and C4) are located within the northern (lower) part of the site between the NW site boundary and the internal driveway and orientated approximately perpendicular to the alignment of the circulation road / track. These are referred to on the Proposed Layout Plan drawing as “Front-entry cabin with covered deck”. These latter 2 no. units have a slightly smaller internal plan-form than the side entry units as the front wall, including patio doors/windows to the kitchen/living space is ‘pushed back’ into the 9.0 x 3.8 overall plan form to create an external deck that is enclosed by the side walls and roof. The front elevations of these 2 no. units face due south east. The walls of the proposed accommodation units are to be clad with natural timber vertically fixed planks. The mono-pitched roofs have a very shallow angle of pitch with timber fascias / soffits and grey-coloured metal roofing material. The side-entry cabins have max. 3.0m height from ground level to the higher roof edge and the front entry cabins will have a corresponding height of 2.9 metres. 2.9. Access is to be by means of the private access junction approved under the terms of planning permission for two houses (18/00952/AMSC and 16/00115/PPP). From this junction, a spine road / track continues to the rear part of the site where there is a hammerhead turning area. Four parking spaces are provided as ‘spurs’ off of the main track. Bike stands are to be installed outside of each unit. 2.10. Foul water drainage is to be provided by a connection into an existing treatment plant that has been installed within the residential curtilage on the north eastern side of the adjacent house, “Balkan House.” Surface water drainage is also proposed to connect into a filter trench located to the north east of Balkan House. Overflow from the filter trench and treated waste water discharges to a watercourse that runs through the curtilage of Balkan House, and to the Gareloch. 2.11. The Proposed Layout Plan indicates the extent of the existing tree canopy along the south western (Peaton Road) and north western edges of the site. In regard to landscaping, the Design and Access Statement “Existing mature vegetation has been retained wherever possible, helping to maintain a green buffer between the development and surrounding properties.” However, no indication is given as to whether it is proposed to cut back or fell any of these existing trees. New native planting is proposed including a mix of native trees, low-growing shrubs, meadow-style grass and wildflower areas. A new fence is proposed along the eastern site boundary with the existing private access driveway serving Balkan House. 2.12. No finished floor levels are submitted for the accommodation units and a section through the site showing existing and proposed levels has not been submitted. Page 203
Page 204
2.13. An area for storage for refuse / recycling bins is indicated adjacent to Peaton Road to one side of the private access junction. 2.14. NPF 4 Policy 14 requires that proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area and supports development that are consistent with six identified qualities of successful places. The policy continues that: “development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful spaces will not be supported.” 2.15. LDP 2 Policy 04 requires (amongst other considerations) that the planning authority take into account whether proposed development will respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements. Policy 05 seeks to achieve “good quality places” by requiring that development proposals comply with several criteria including that the proposed use should be compatible with surrounding land uses; and that the design should develop the areas sense of identity by embracing existing distinctive characteristics, with the design respecting and complimenting its surroundings. In relation to “sustainable siting,” Policy 08 requires that development be assessed with regard to specified criteria including that development should integrate into the existing built form; that siting should take into account the character of the area in terms of settlement pattern, layout and density; avoid overlooking other properties. Policy 10 requires that design of any development must respond appropriately to the site and its context including consideration of character in relation to urban grain, scale, mass and spirit of nearby buildings. Policy 14 advises that the Council will resist development that would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring land uses resulting from, but not limited to, issues including noise. The policy goes on to advise that in certain circumstances, it may be possible to mitigate adverse impact on neighbouring amenity by means of planning conditions or legal agreements. 2.16. The minor, rural settlement of Rahane has a tranquil residential character. The pattern of built development / urban grain is made up of medium to relatively large detached houses set in spacious and maturely landscaped gardens. Houses are typically set approximately centrally within their plots. House designs vary but are typically 1 ½ to 2 storey designs with traditional pitched roof volumetric forms. Material finishes vary and include render, stone and timber cladding with slate (or ‘artificial’ slate) roofs. 2.17. The proposed development comprises long and narrow cabins / pods with mono- pitched roofs at a very shallow angle. The footprint area of each unit is approximately 34m2. The proportions/scale/volumetric form of the units recall static caravans, although it is acknowledged that the detailed design is elevated above that of typical static caravans by the detailing and material finishes. In this respect it is considered that the scale, massing and form of the proposed development is out of keeping with that of existing development. The layout, which shows 4 no. volumetric forms with almost identical scale and form, dispersed around the peripheries of the site around a central open area (vehicle circulation and landscaping) is at odds with the existing development pattern which comprises a single, large, pitched-roof form house set roughly centrally within large residential plots. Any other built structures within existing residential curtilages by reason of their siting and scale have a very clearly subordinate relationship to the principal volume, that is the house. In conclusion, by reason of site layout, scale, massing and volumetric form it is considered that the proposed development will not respect the established character of the area contrary to the provisions of the local development plan that relate to quality ‘place-making’ and design. 2.18. The 4 no. units are orientated such that the principal elevations comprising the windows to the main living spaces and external decked areas face due south east towards a nearby dwellinghouse, “Corlach.” There is an intervening private access to “Balkan Page 204
Page 205
House” between east side of the application site and the boundary of the curtilage of “Corlach.” The distance from the decking in front of C1 to the boundary of the residential curtilage of “Corlach” at its closet point is approximately 8.0 metres. The distance from the front of the decking areas in front of units C3 and C4 to the nearest point of the boundary with “Corlach” is 16.0m and 11.0m respectively. It is also noted that the level of the proposed pods / cabins is significantly higher than that of the curtilage of “Corlach.” It is considered that a combination of the proximity of the proposed accommodation pods, orientation and levels relative to nearby properties, notably “Corlach” would result in an significantly detrimental impact upon the residential amenities that the occupiers of that property would reasonably expect to have by reason of loss of privacy through overlooking of private open amenity space. 2.19. It is also considered that the development of the site to provide 4 no. holiday-let units of accommodation, each with potential to accommodate small families, would result in a significant intensification of activity relative to one dwellinghouse, as previously approved on this site. Given the relatively modest size of the site, and that it is bounded on 3 sides by existing residential properties, it is considered that this intensity of activity would have a detrimental impact upon the tranquil, residential character of this settlement and result in a significant level of disturbance to the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby houses by reason of noise. It is also considered that the elevated nature of the site relative to most of the settlement will exacerbate noise disturbance. 2.20. Having regard to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Scotland Order 1992 para. (8) it is considered that the proposed use and buildings will affect residential property by reason of noise and will alter the character of an area of established amenity; and as such that it should be assessed as being “Bad Neighbour Development.” It is acknowledged that this is a modest scale of tourist accommodation development, however it is considered that the character of this settlement is very sensitive to change by reason of its small scale and quiet residential character; and that even a commercial tourist accommodation use for 4 accommodation pods / cabins on a relatively small site and in such proximity to existing houses has potential to materially affect nearby residential property and alter the character of an area of established amenity. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal should be assessed as “bad neighbour development” with reference to LDP 2 Policy 14. 2.21. Whilst the consultation response from the Council’s Environmental Health Service does not object to this application, the requirement for a Short Term Let Licence is highlighted and in this respect the response advises that: “Particular attention should be paid to noise control during the holiday rental given its proximity to local residential property and light construction type.” Therefore, the potential for noise nuisance to the occupiers of nearby houses is noted. Notwithstanding that Council Environmental services has not objected to this application, the planning authority considers that the proposed use would have an unduly detrimental impact on local amenity contrary to relevant planning policy. 2.22. With regard to LDP 2 Policy 14 it is not considered that the adverse impact on nearby residential amenity by reason of disturbance through an increased intensity of activity and noise could be mitigated by means of conditions. 3. Tourist Accommodation Development - Economic / Community Benefit 3.1. NPF 4 Policy 30 advises that proposals for tourism related development will take into account a number of considerations including contribution to the local economy; compatibility with the surrounding area; opportunities for sustainable travel etc. Page 205
Page 206
3.2. LDP 2 Policy 23 establishes a presumption in favour of new tourist accommodation where development is in a “form, scale and location” which is consistent with its surroundings; respect and integrate well with the townscape character and amenity of the area; relate well to the existing built form of settlement areas; and are located in accessible locations. 3.3. The design and access statement states that there will be secure cycle storage. There is a bus stop on the shore road but the route to get to the bus stop is via the side of a busy road with no pavement. There are no established walk routes close by that the visitors could access. The site is not considered to be sustainably accessible in this regard. 3.4. It is considered that the proposed development does not comply with the qualifying criteria, nor has it been demonstrated that the development proposal will provide material benefit to the local economy / community and is not located in an accessible location, and as such is not supported by NPF 4 Policy 30 or LDP 2 Policy 23. 4. Natural Environment / Biodiversity 4.1 The site was formed part of the residential curtilage of a dwellinghouse known as “Corlach.” The site is not overlain by any sites of international, national or local designations. However, there are a number of trees along the boundaries of the site and significant natural regrowth has taken place over recent years and it is considered that the site may provide biodiversity value. The application does not clearly show existing trees nor which of these trees will be required to be cut-back or felled to allow the proposed development to be implemented. In addition, a tree survey has not been carried out and as such it is considered that the planning authority does not have adequate information to allow a full assessment of impact on the natural environment, with particular regard loss of trees to the detriment of biodiversity. 5. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters. 5.1. The application forms state that it is not proposed to form a new / altered access from a public road. The submitted Road and Access Plan is notated as follows: “site access per application ref. 18/00952/AMSC.” The Design and Access Statement states that the proposed development will use the access junction approved under the provisions of planning permission ref. 16/00115/PPP & 18/00952/AMSC to serve “House 1.” It is further submitted that this access is “suitable for the low volume and type of traffic associated with a small-scale tourist development. 5.2. Having inspected the site, planning officers accept that a dropped kerb has been installed and stone chippings laid down within the site, including land adjacent to the dropped kerb; however officers do not accept that the access point has been formed in accordance with the access details approved under the provisions of planning permission ref: 18/00952/AMSC and 16/00115/PPP. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development to provide 4 no. holiday cabins with potential to each accommodate it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of Council officers, including Area Roads Officers, that the access point details previously approved to serve a single, 4-bedroom dwellinghouse are suitable to serve what would be a material intensification of traffic movements in relation to the approved use. 5.3. The consultation response from Area Roads request that determination of the application be deferred pending receipt of additional information to allow a full assessment of this proposal. The requested additional information includes improved access width appropriate to the level of intensification proposed; access road gradients; turning areas; visibility splays; and continuation of the existing footway along the kerb line. A request for this further information was issued by officers on 20.08.2025 however there is no record Page 206
Page 207
of the requested information having been received. As such, the information currently available does not allow the planning authority, in consultation with Area roads, to carry out a full assessment of this development proposal with regards to access issues. 5.4. The Area Roads consultation response does not make reference to on-site parking provision. LDP 2 Policy 40 generally requires that all development make off-street parking provision to serve new development in accordance with standards set out in Table 5. The table does not specify standards for short-term letting accommodation. The requirement for a 1-bedroom (Use Class 9) residential unit is 1 parking space. For hotels / hostels, the standard requirement is 1.2 spaces per room. In the absence of comments from Area Roads, it is considered that 1 parking space per cabin is acceptable. 6. Infrastructure 6.1. NPF Policy 18 encourages an ‘infrastructure first’ approach to development to ensure that the infrastructure needs of proposed development is understood early in the development process. LDP 2 Policy 60 requires a (waste water) connection to the public sewer for all development proposals in all settlements where there is a public sewer available unless the applicant can demonstrate that this isn’t feasible. Development with private waste water systems will only be supported where the proposal is not likely to result in or add to existing environmental, amenity or health problems. LDP 2 Policy 61 requires that “development proposals will manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), which should form part of and integrate with proposed and existing blue-green infrastructure. All SUDS features should be in accordance with the Principles of The SUDS Manual (C753).” 6.2. The application submission includes a proposed drainage plan which shows connection to an existing private treatment system located within the curtilage of the adjoining dwellinghouse “Balkan House.” In this respect it is noted that the curtilage of Balkan House is within the ownership and control of the applicant and that the planning application site (edged red on the application drawings) extends to include the existing waste water treatment plant and surface water drainage scheme comprising a filter trench. Treated waste-water and the surface water filter trench connect to an outflow to a watercourse. The Design and Access Statement advises that the existing waste water treatment plant has been sized for two 4-bedroom houses (i.e Balkan House and the house that has permission on the current application site) and is therefore considered to have suitable capacity (to serve Balkan House plus the proposed 4 no. pods. In relation to SUDS, notes on the drainage drawing state that all vehicular tracks and parking area are to be constructed with a porous build up on free draining stone and that all (pod) units to have a 250mm wide by 200mm deep gravel border to all draining sides. 6.3. Whilst this issue is covered by Building Control legislation, reference to the SEPA Code of Practice – Flows and Loads (Sizing Criteria, Treatment Capacity for Sewage Treatment Systems indicates that loadings for 4 no. 1-bedroom cabins exceeds that for a 4-bedroom house. On this basis, there is an element of doubt as to whether the existing private water treatment plant has the capacity to serve the existing house and the proposed 4 no. tourist accommodation cabins, and if not then the proposal is likely to result in or add to environmental, amenity or health problems contrary to policy. 6.4. Were this application considered to be acceptable regarding all other relevant planning considerations it could be supported with these matters resolved by means of planning condition. However, as the proposal is considered to be unacceptable with regard to other planning matters, then it is considered that a technical reason for refusal would be appropriate to the effect that the applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of Page 207
Page 208
the planning authority that the development will make adequate infrastructure provision to meet the servicing requirements of the proposed development. 6.5. In the event of any appeal against the refusal of planning permission being upheld, it would be recommended that an upheld appeal be subject to a planning condition requiring satisfactory evidence that the existing private treatment plant has capacity treat the waste drainage from the proposed development; and if not, then the replacement / up-grading of the private treatment plant. Page 208
Page 209
Aonach View Greenlea Shingle Spreads Groyne Cairon Lodge HERONS VIEW Balkan House 21.3m Shingle Well Cottage Shingle 36.6m Corlach 4 Lothlorien 6.4m Glen Nevis 1 Morvern Manora Spreads © Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan relative to; 25/01118/PP O 0 30 6015 Meters Application Site Page 209
Page 210
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 211
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) consultation on the Section 36 Consultation for Giant’s Burn Wind Farm, comprising five turbines up to 200 m tip height, two turbines up to 180 m tip height, a battery energy storage system, and associated infrastructure. The turbines will have a combined rated capacity of over 50 MW; and the battery energy storage system will have a rated power of approximately 23 MW giving a total site capacity of over 73 MW. Reference No: 25/01342/S36/ ECU00005007 Applicant: GB Wind Farm Ltd Proposal: S36 Consultation: Giant’s Burn Wind Farm, comprising five turbines up to 200 m tip height, two turbines up to 180 m tip height, a battery energy storage system, and associated infrastructure. Site Address: Approx. 1.3km North West of Dunoon (A) THE APPLICATION The Section 36 Application comprises the following key elements: • Seven variable pitch (three bladed) wind turbines, five each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 200 m and two up to 180 m; • It is anticipated that three of the turbines (T1, T3 and T7) will be fitted with visible aviation warning lights; • turbine foundations (up to 25 m diameter) and a crane hardstanding area and a temporary blade laydown area, tower and nacelle storage (approximately 4,313m2) at each wind turbine; • BESS with a rated power of approximately 23 MW and energy storage capacity of 53 MWh • up to 6.4 km of new on-site access track with a typical running width of 5 m (wider on bends) and 3.8 km of upgraded existing access track (widened from 2.5 m to minimum 5 m & wider on bends) and associated drainage, three turning heads and nine passing places; • underground cabling and electrical infrastructure along access tracks to connect the turbine locations, and the on-site electrical substation; • one on-site substation compound (40 m x 25 m) which would accommodate a control building for the Scottish and Southern Energy Networks (SSEN) substation and the wind farm substation; • one temporary secondary construction compound (50 m x 100 m); • one main construction compound for the Applicant (50 m x 100 m); • clearance of 32.94 ha of on-site forest with 21.68 ha to be felled for peatland restoration and restocking of approximately 13.57 ha The generation capacity of the wind turbines will be over 50MW and the capacity of the BESS will be 23MW. Permission is sought to operate the proposal for a period of 50 years. Connection to Electricity Grid - The grid connection point is subject to confirmation by the network operator. It is current anticipated that the Proposed Development will connect to Dunoon substation, with the precise route of the grid connection cabling having not yet been determined. The grid connection application will be made by Scottish and Southern Energy Networks (SSEN) who Page 211 Agenda Item 8
Page 212
are responsible for the transmission and distribution of electricity in Argyll and Bute. A separate Section 37 application will be made to the Scottish Ministers by SSEN. (B) RECOMMENDATION: That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) Following advice from NatureScot, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority and the Council’s Landscape Consultant Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal on landscape and visual impact grounds, as the proposed wind farm would result in extensive significant adverse landscape and visual effects, contrary to NPF4 Policy 11, NPF Policy 4 and LDP2 Policy 30. (2) Following advice from SEPA and NatureScot Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal on deep peat and priority peatland habitat grounds, as there are significant outstanding matters contrary to NPF4 Policy 11, NPF Policy 4 and LDP2 Policy 30, 73 and 79. Should this matter be satisfactorily resolved between ECU and SEPA and NatureScot, the Council’s objection would be withdrawn. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to SEPA and NatureScot (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. (3) Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal on Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment as there are significant outstanding matters contrary to NPF4 Policy 11, NPF Policy 4 and LDP2 Policy 30 and 79. The applicant has not provided an updated report as requested by the ECU. Argyll and Bute Council object unless this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of Ironside Farrar prior to the determination of this application by the ECU. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to Ironside Farrar (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. (4) Following advice from Historic Environment Scotland (HES), Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal the based on cultural heritage impacts as there are significant effects on the setting of the Scheduled Monument Dunoon Castle and inconclusive effects on other scheduled monuments contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policy 19. Should this matter be satisfactorily resolved between ECU and HES the Council’s objection would be withdrawn. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to HES (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. (5) Following advice from NATS and Glasgow Airport, Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal the based on aviation impacts contrary to NPF4 Policy 11 and LDP2 Policy 30 and 43. Should this matter be satisfactorily resolved between ECU and NATS/Glasgow Airport the Council’s objection would be withdrawn. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to NATS/Glasgow Airport (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. Page 212
Page 213
(6) Argyll and Bute do not object on noise impact grounds, subject to the inclusion of an Operational Noise and Amplitude Modulation Planning Conditions, as recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant, Mott MacDonald, specified in their Review of Evidence – Noise, dated January 2026. (7) Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Public Access grounds, subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction. (8) Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Roads grounds, subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions, as specified by Argyll and Bute Council’s Roads Service and Transport Scotland in their consultation response to the ECU. (9) Argyll and Bute Council requests that the recommendations of the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer and NatureScot are considered by the ECU. Specifically with reference to the need for mitigation (turbine feathering) for bats and surveys and mitigation for migratory salmonids, should consent be granted. (10) Argyll and Bute Council requests that all other conditions recommended by consultees are included in any Consent, should it be granted. (C) CONSULTATIONS RESPONSES TO THE ENERGY CONSENTS UNIT NatureScot (27 November 2025): The location, size and scale of the Proposal would result in significant adverse effects on six Special Landscape Qualities (SLQs) of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) and the experience of the Upper and Inner Clyde area. We advise that the Proposal may therefore not meet Policy 4 c) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) due to the extensive nature of effects on the Argyll Forest area of the LLTNP and may not meet NPF4 Policy 11e (ii) due to the extensive and substantial nature of the effects on the distinctive Upper and Inner Clyde areas landscapes and seascape. We therefore object to this Proposal. We offer advice only in relation to peatland, ornithology and other natural heritage interests. We recognise that onshore wind farms are designated as National Developments in NPF4 and understand their role in supporting the transition to a net zero economy. Whilst acknowledging the strong policy support for these types of development, as the location of these developments is not specified in NPF4, the impacts of individual proposals require to be considered on a case-by-case basis in keeping with wider NPF4 policies. We advise that the nature and scale of the proposed development at this location are such that it cannot be accommodated without significant adverse landscape and visual effects, including significant adverse effects and night-time effects on the Argyll Forest area of the LLTNP and the Upper and Inner Clyde area. We consider that given the proposed siting, scale and type of development, it would not be feasible to overcome the significant adverse effects identified within the site parameters. Page 213
Page 214
The site comprises part of a wider area of upland summits and plateaux close to the coastal edge of the Firth of Clyde which plays an important role forming in part skylines experienced from within the Argyll Forest, across much of the Upper and Inner Clyde area. The location, size and scale of the proposed development represents a step change in prominence and proximity of wind farms to the Argyll Forest area of the LLTNP and the settled Upper and Inner Clyde area. The Proposal would significantly adversely affect six SLQs of the LLTNP and the experience of the Upper and Inner Clyde area. These impacts would be to a degree that would result in an evident and noticeable material change to the SLQs of the LLTNP such that the objectives of this designation and overall integrity would be compromised. The Argyll Forest is the only area of the LLTNP (or any national park in Scotland) with a marine element, and the Proposal would have a significant adverse effect on that element - notably the recognised marine gateway of the Holy Loch and its associated coasts. We consider that effects on the Upper and Inner Clyde area would be significant adverse and would result in a substantial change to this area. While the turbine height and number could be reduced, accounting for the sites’ location within hills behind Dunoon close to the sensitive coast which is intervisible from highly sensitive areas of the LLTNP, and across a widespread extent of the Upper and Inner Clyde area, it is considered unlikely that the significant effects identified could be notably reduced. We therefore consider that these effects are unlikely to be overcome through re-design or removal of turbines. Accounting for the anticipated significant adverse effects on the LLTNP, we advise that the proposed development may therefore not meet Policy 4 c) of NPF4 and may not meet NPF4 Policy 11e (ii) due to the extensive nature of the effects on the distinctive landscapes and seascapes of the Upper and Inner Clyde area. Loch Lomond & Trossachs National Park Authority (24 November 2025): the National Park Authority objects to the proposal for the following reasons: (i) Significant change in scale and proximity of windfarm development to the National Park. The proposal would introduce a windfarm development of significant scale (up to 200m in height) close to (2.7km from) the National Park boundary. (ii) Significant adverse effects on the Special Landscape Qualities of the National Park. Such a large-scale wind farm in the open upland area within the Cowal Hills behind Dunoon will result in significant adverse effects on the Special Landscape Qualities of the National Park. (iii) Significant effects on visual amenity. The wind farm would be a dominant feature that would have a significant adverse impact upon the open views and visual amenity for residents, visitors and recreational users in the southwestern area of the National Park. (iv) Significant effects on landscape character. The windfarm will have significant adverse effects on the landscape character of the Steep Ridgeland and the adjacent Mountains Glens Landscape (Landscape Character Type 4) covering Strath Eachaig, Kilmun, Strone, and southern edge of Loch Eck. (v) The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4, Policy 4 Natural Places part c). The location, scale, type and proximity of the windfarm to the National Park boundary will compromise the objectives and integrity of the designation and the significant adverse effects are not Page 214
Page 215
outweighed by any social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. The National Park’s Landscape Assessment concludes that the nature and scale of the proposed development at this location is such that it cannot be accommodated without significant adverse landscape and visual effects. This includes significant adverse day time effects and night-time effects on the Argyll Forest area of the National Park. It is assessed that given the proposed siting, scale and type of development, it would not be feasible to overcome the significant adverse effects identified within the site parameters. The National Park does not consider that there is any option for mitigation of the development’s impact. The introduction of turbines of this scale and in this proximity and location to the National Park boundary, would significant and adversely effect the experience, enjoyment and perception of several SLQs. These SLQs are recognised and valued and are integral to defining the National Park character, scenic value and sense of place. This would undermine the integrity of the National Park designation. The National Park’s assessment is aligned with NatureScot’s assessment of the proposal with the exception of the conclusion of the significance of adverse effects in relation to Special Landscape Quality 15’ ‘The seaside architecture of Kilmun and Blairmore’. The proposed Giant’s Burn windfarm would be of significant scale and proximity to the southwest boundary of the National Park. The proposed development would have a significant adverse effect on several of the Special Landscape Qualities within the Argyll area which are integral to the National Park designation. The proposed location, so close and prominent to the National Park boundary will compromise the integrity of the National Park designation. It would have a significant adverse impact upon the open views and visual amenity for residents, visitors and recreational users of the National Park including the experience of the Upper and Inner Clyde seascape - the marine gateway to the National Park. Given significant adverse effects on the National Park and its special qualities it is considered that the proposed development does not comply with NPF4 Policy 4 ‘Natural Places’ c) which is clear that development will only be supported where the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the National Park will not be compromised. It also does not comply with NPF4 Policy 11 (Energy) e) ii. due to the extensive (more than localised) nature of the effects on the distinctive landscapes and seascapes of the Upper and Inner Clyde area that cannot be mitigated. The significant adverse effects that the proposal will have upon the Special Landscape Qualities for which the National Park has been designated are not outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. the National Park Authority object to the proposal. RSPB Scotland (23 January 2026) – advised the ECU they have no comment. SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (20 October 2025): Policy 5d of National Planning Framework 4 requires that where development on peatland, Page 215
Page 216
carbon-rich soils or priority peatland habitat is proposed the detailed site-specific assessment should inform careful project design and ensure, in accordance with relevant guidance and the mitigation hierarchy, that adverse impacts are first avoided and then minimised through best practice. We do not consider that enough baseline peat probing has been carried out to inform the layout, and where peat probing information is available it is not always clear that the mitigation hierarchy has been applied. As a result we object until the following issues are addressed: 1. Peat probing is carried out in the area impacted by the proposed Upgraded Access Track. This is required to inform the peat disturbance calculations. 2. Peat probing is carried out in the area of new access track and large passing place at the north of the site. This is required to demonstrate that the proposed route applies the peat mitigation hierarchy and minimises impacts on peat and carbon rich soils, and to inform the peat disturbance calculations. 3. The layout clearly demonstrates that the mitigation hierarchy has been applied. While it is acknowledged, as outlined in section 3.2 of the Peat Management Plan, that areas of deeper peat are sporadic and localised, it is not clear that suitable steps have been taken in the design of the layout to avoid the deepest areas of peat. For example the following require further consideration: (1) T2 is located on some peat in the > 3m category, but shallow peat is located to the south and east. Designing the layout so that this turbine was online rather than on a spur track would also reduce excavation and likely peat disturbance. (2) T3 and T4 both impact on small areas of peat > 3m deep and have a large earth work envelope where, in the case of T3 there is limited peat probing information. (3) The BESS Units and Control Building are located on peat that is mostly in the > 1m depth yet most of the site to the east has shallower peat/peaty soils. (4) The Construction Compound impacts on peat in the 2-3m and 3+m category. Changing its shape or moving it southeast would remove or at least reduce this impact. 4. Where it is clearly demonstrated that all potential steps have been taken to avoid the areas of deepest peat then mitigation measures such as floating infrastructure can be acceptable if demonstrated to be technically achievable. For example, section 4.3 of the Peat Management Plan indicates that the Construction and BESS compounds will be floated, but it is noted that there is an approximate 10 m height difference across both sites so it is not clear how this would be achieved. 5. There is currently only one construction compound and significant site works will be needed before it will be accessible. It therefore seems likely that there will be a requirement for an additional construction compound near the entrance to the site and clarification on this issue is issue is requested. If one is required, it should be added to the site layout and appropriate baseline peat information provided. Proposals for site reinstatement using peat should follow recognised best practice. We note that there are also proposals to use excavated peat in forest to bog restoration and cell bund creation, which will adhere to the Peatland ACTION technical compendium guidance on surface bunding where possible. As you know we no longer provide advice on peatland restoration and defer to NatureScot on this issue. Should NatureScot be of the view that either of these activities is not considered restoration then please reconsult us and we will provide further advice on this aspect of the proposal, which will likely be considered a waste disposal operation. Should the above issues be addressed we ask that the planning conditions in the Appendix below be attached to any consent if granted. If these Page 216
Page 217
will not be applied, then please consider this aspect of the representation as an objection. Applicant response: At the time of writing no response has been received from the Applicant. Scottish Forestry (1 September 2025) – advised the ECU that further information should be provided in the Forestry Plan to demonstrate full compliance with the UK Forestry Standard especially regarding species and age class diversity. The Applicant should provide an assessment, as per the “Deciding future management options for afforested deep peatland,” to determine if the Priority Habitat restocking exemption applies. The Applicant should clarify the total area of woodland loss to ensure that the correct area of compensatory planting is applied. Compensatory planting for the woodland lost, other than that converted to Priority Habitat peatland, should be secured by a condition to any consent. It is not clear whether forest lost to new roads has been included in the woodland loss figure and this should be clarified. The appropriate consenting route required to accommodate construction, including infrastructure and management felling, totalling 32.94ha and restocking of management felling areas and compensatory planting relating to permanent woodland loss would be the S36 consent. Any felling and restocking not required for the development should follow the usual consenting routes under the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018. Applicant Response to Scottish Forestry (20 October 2025) – provided the following response to Scottish Forestry: • The wind farm commitment to replant on site is limited to 7.39 ha which is less than 7% of the total Sandbank Forest Plan (FP) and Auchamore forest areas. The replanting will form part of the revised FPs which will adhere to the UKFS species and age class diversity. • Confirmed proposed restocking includes 0.74ha native broadleaves in line with the UKFS minimum of 5% native broadleaves. The replanting with native broadleaved trees under the control of the wind farm would be from the Provenance Region 10 and Native Seed Source Zone 106. • Confirmed 7.39 ha replanting on site with Sitka spruce and other conifer will meet UKFS requirements to not exceed 65% of any single species. • Confirmed that for the proposed contiguous area of clear felling, a phased restocking plan spread out over 5 years to deliver age class diversity. The planned timing for felling for construction, governed by the grid connection date, is anticipated as 2029. Replanting would normally follow within two years therefore the wind farm replanting on site would be 2031. The adjacent areas were replanted in 2015 and 2022 so the age diversity should be achieved without spreading out the replanting of the relatively small 7.39 ha. • Clarified the permanent woodland loss for the new access tracks and upgrading of existing tracks as follows: the total area of felling is noted at 32.94ha but Table 12.5 Felling for the Proposed Development (3.85+7.39+21.68=32.92) does not account for the 0.02ha of felling, where is this accounted for? Table 12.5 individual lines correlate to the GIS data however the total of 32.94 ha is a typographical error and as pointed out the total should be 32.92 ha. • Clarified that the BES would demonstrate that the proposed Conversion of 21.68 ha of forest to peatland restoration is restorable to a functional Priority Peatland Habitat. Page 217
Page 218
Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (11 September 2025) – advised the ECU that based on the information provided they object to the proposal because insufficient information has been provided and we are currently unable to reach a view on the potential effects of the proposed development including any mitigation measures which may be required to reduce any significant effects. We require the submission of additional wireline and photomontage visualisations to be able to fully understand and assess the potential effects on the setting of the following assets: • Dunoon Castle (Scheduled Monument SM5450) • Ardnadam, settlement, chapel and enclosure (Scheduled Monument SM3235) • Adam’s Cave Chambered Cairn (Scheduled Monument SM6552) • Ardgowan House, Inverkip (Category A Listed Building LB12480) • Ardgowan (Inventory Garden & Designed Landscape GDL00021). Applicant – Further information to HES (14 November 2025) - the Justification Note provided to the ECU contains plans showing adjusted locations, with reduced peat impacts, of the infrastructure identified in SEPA’s response. The adjusted infrastructure locations are all contained within micrositing allowances assessed as part of the S36 application and so no additional environmental impacts requiring assessment result. Further Response by Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (16 January 2026) We have reviewed the additional information supplied in the consultation letter dated 14 November 2025, along with its accompanying visualisations. On this basis, we are now content that there are unlikely to be any significant adverse impacts on the setting of Ardgowan House, Inverkip (Category A Listed Building LB12480), and Ardgowan (Inventory Garden & Designed Landscape GDL00021). In addition, we are of the view that although there are likely to be significant adverse impacts on the setting of Dunoon Castle (Scheduled Monument SM5450), our own assessment of these impacts are that these are unlikely to be of the magnitude that we would object. However we maintain our earlier stated position on the following assets: • Ardnadam, settlement, chapel and enclosure (Scheduled Monument SM3235) • Adam’s Cave Chambered Cairn (Scheduled Monument SM6552). We maintain our objection. This is because insufficient information has been provided for the two scheduled monuments identified above, and we are unable to reach a view on the potential impacts of the proposed development including any mitigation measures which may be required to reduce significant effects. On receipt of additional visualisations, we will revisit our position. Transport Scotland (TS) (26 August 2025): advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions being attached to any consent to secure submission and approval of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), the route for abnormal loads, abnormal load accommodation measures required, and any necessary additional signing or temporary traffic control measures. In addition, advisory notes are provided relating to works within the trunk road boundary. Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) (25 August 2025): ADSFB note the likely presence of brown trout and European eel within the development site. pre (baseline), during and post construction surveys are proposed as per Marine Directorate’s guidelines. While we welcome this approach, we feel that it is important that the monitoring program includes the spawning and nursery habitats of migratory fish populations (Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout) known to be present Page 218
Page 219
in the Glenkin Burn and Little Eachaig. Atlantic salmon is now considered by IUCN to be an endangered species in Great Britain and therefore should be a priority for ensuring that no adverse effects of the development occur and if detected during and post construction that suitable and effective mitigation or repair is undertaken by the developer. We therefore strongly recommend that surveys of migratory salmonid fish and their habitat are undertaken and fully considered throughout the proposed development and that the monitoring program demonstrate that the interests of Argyll DSFB have been protected. Scottish Water (23 January 2026) – advised the ECU they have no objection and there are no surface water and drinking water protected areas that may be affected by the proposed activity. Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA), Stage 1 Checking Report (PLHRA) (14 November 2025): advised the ECU The PLHRA required resubmissions as there are significant shortcomings throughout the PLHRA and reworking of the PLHRA report is required to support a robust assessment. Applicant response: At time of writing no updated report has been received from the Applicant. Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) (21 August 2025): advised the ECU that, subject to the conditions to secure Aviation Lighting and Aviation Charting and Safety Management, they have no objection. NATS Safeguarding (1 August 2025): advised the ECU the proposal conflicts with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) plc objects. Applicant response: At the time of writing no response has been received from the Applicant. Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) (25 July 2025): advised the ECU they have no objection. Glasgow Airport (GLA) (1 September 2025) – advised the ECU proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and conflicts with safeguarding criteria. Located approximately 36km from the Aerodrome Reference Point, turbines of up to 200m high in this location are predicted to be visible to Glasgow radar and will therefore generate unwanted returns (clutter) on air traffic control display screens. GLA therefore objects to the proposal. However it is noted that the proposed development may benefit from an approved mitigation technology (Terma). This could allow our objection to be removed, but is subject to: • specific technical and operational evaluation by Glasgow Airport; • formal agreement between the Glasgow Airport and the applicant Applicant response: At the time of writing no response has been received from the Applicant. Highlands & Islands Airport (13 August 2025): advised the ECU the proposal is outwith HIAL’s safeguarding criteria and therefore they have no objection. Page 219
Page 220
BT Group (1 August 2025): advised the ECU this proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. BT requires 100m minimum clearance from any structure to the radio link path. Joint Radio Company (27 August 2025): advised the ECU the proposal is cleared subject to 50m micrositing with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. Kilmun Community Council (25 August 2025): advised the ECU they object on the grounds of Improper site selection and design, with no justification for locating turbines and BESS infrastructure in a sensitive upland area adjacent to residential zones and panoramic viewpoints. Concerns raised about: • Excessive landscape and visual harm, including skyline breach and visual domination, • Failure to protect biodiversity and carbon-rich peatland, with no credible enhancement strategy, • Incomplete assessment of hydrology, flood risk, and peat disturbance, • Unresolved and serious public health hazards from noise, shadow flicker, and low-frequency sound. • High-risk, unregulated BESS component with no fire control or emergency response plan, • Unfeasible and unsafe transport access, placing public infrastructure and road safety at risk. Argyll and Bute Council Consultee Responses Gourock Community Council (28 August 2025) – advised the ECU and ABC that they object due to the impact of the gigantic turbines on our iconic view of the Cowal Hills from Gourock’s shires. Impact on tourism and 95 cruise ship visits per year – shared tourism important to both Gourock and Dunoon communities. Damage to peat and wildlife (including bats and raptors), potential community impacts, noise, health concerns, aviation safety. Express disappointment that Statkraft omitted GCC from the list of exhibition venues, despite the impact from McInroy’s Point. Consultant Landscape Architect (30 September 2025): This proposal would have significant effects on landscape/ seascape character including: • the host ABLWECS Steep Ridgeland and Mountains LCT which extends to the Firth of Clyde Coast and includes Dunoon; • the adjacent Mountain Glens around Holy Loch LCT, 1.4 km north-east of the turbines wraps around the head of Holy Loch, extends north into LLTNP toward Loch Eck and includes the settlements of Sandbank, Kilmun and Strone; and • the Inner Firth of Clyde Seascape Character Area, which extends east along the Clyde from Holy Loch and Dunoon. There would also be significant effects on views from locations within the above areas, notably the settlements of Dunoon, Sandbank, Kilmun and Strone and from ferries and recreational craft in the Firth of Clyde. The site is close to the LLTNP. Whilst the LVIA states that effects on its SLQs would not be significant it records significant adverse visual effects for locations within the park including the waterside villages of Kilmun and Strone, both of which enjoy open views across Holy Loch to the Cowal Peninsula, uninterrupted by existing or Page 220
Page 221
consented windfarm developments. The LVIA includes an assessment of the effects of the proposal on the SLQs of LLTNP, but considers the existing Inverclyde Wind Farm to reduce the sensitivity of the receiving landscape to the proposal rather than adding to its cumulative effects, stating ‘The more accessible areas of LLTNP closer to the Site mostly already have views out across the water towards the settlements, ports and Inverclyde Wind Farm on the south side of the firth. The LVIA states that the proposal performs well against three of four design criteria set out for the host landscape type in the ABLWECS. However, importantly ABLWECS states that ‘The introduction of wind farms and larger turbines seen on the skyline of the Steep Ridgeland and Mountains …’ would adversely affect the strong sense of Cowal forming the threshold to the ‘Highlands’ and the point where the Glasgow conurbation is left (this perception heightened by the ferry crossing to Dunoon). The present contrast of the landscapes of the Cowal with the more developed Inverclyde and North Ayrshire coast would be diminished.’ Significant visual effects are predicted in the LVIA for: • Sandbank (VP01 and Illustrative Views A-E in Appendix 5.3) • Dunoon (VP02 and VP03 and Illustrative Views F-I in Appendix 5.3) • Kilmun and Strone (Illustrative Views J-K in Appendix 5.3, VP04) • Ferry routes between Gourock and Dunoon/Hunter’s Quay (VP03, VP14 and View L in Appendix 5.3) • Recreational water users between Gourock, Kilcreggan and Dunoon and within Holy Loch (VP03, VP09, VP14, VP15, VP16 and Views J-L in Appendix 5.3) • Local roads and Core Paths between Sandbank and Loch Eck (VP06) • Users of Core Paths within 2km (Illustrative View D along High Road in Appendix 5.3) The LVIA does not predict significant effects on views from the Inverclyde and North Ayrshire coastline despite open visibility to the proposal on the skyline of the Cowal Peninsula across the Firth of Clyde, and the absence of other wind farm developments visible from these locations. The visual assessment predicts that visual effects experienced from the A815 which follows the coast around Dunoon and Sandbank would be not significant, despite clear close views to turbines. Although the visual effects on residents of and visitors to Kilmun and Strone are assessed, the effect on travellers on the A880 along the coast within the LLTNP with open views across Holy Loch to the proposal are not assessed. Three of the proposed turbines would have aviation lights at hub height, however the night-time visual effects are predicted to be not significant in the context of other artificial light sources. From a review of the photomontages the layout design of the proposed wind farm appears to have been carefully considered, with limited ‘stacking’ of turbines and balanced overall composition, such that removal or relocation of the proposed turbines are unlikely to reduce impacts. The scale of the turbines is such that they tend to diminish the apparent scale and distance of the hills when seen from across Holy Loch and the Firth of Clyde to the east and southeast. Applicant response to Council’s Landscape Consultant (summary of letter 29.1.2026): The response sets out: ‘paragraphs 1 and 2 on page 8 acknowledge that the LVIA and visualisations meet guidance and that the assessment findings are largely agreed with. Given this, the criticisms that follow should be regarded as minor matters. Further clarification is provided on the limitations of ZTVs which include the modelling of forestry and noting that there is no guidance requiring such limitations to be ‘declared’ on the ZTV figures themselves’. Further commentary is provided on methodological approaches taken to sequential assessment for users of primary recreational routes and cumulative assessments for the Dunoon Overhead Page 221
Page 222
Line/removal of dead larch. The response reiterates that NPF4 policy indicates that ‘significant landscape and visual impacts…are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy.’ In relation to ABLWECS it is asserted that: although the guidance advises not siting wind farms on the Cowal Peninsula, the landscape quality it is seeking to protect would not be notably affected. In relation to townscape effects, the response confirms that effects on the character of the settlements are considered as part of considering effects on the relevant LCTs. In relation to the LLTNP it states ‘At no point does the Jacobs report disagree with the findings of the LVIA in relation to these locations and thus the description of significant visual effects as being ‘considerable’ is inaccurate. In addition, effects on people travelling to the National Park via Dunoon and Hunter’s Quay are not visual effects on people in the National Park and should not be considered as such.’ In relation to the Bute and South Cowal LLA and the West Renfrewshire LLA it is noted that - comment made regarding Inverchaolain Wind Farm potentially giving rise to significant cumulative effects on the LLA are not relevant to the Proposed Development and should not be included in the Jacobs report. In relation to visual effects: The broad description of the “settled coasts of Inverclyde and North Ayrshire” encompasses quite a large area, however it is assumed that the focus of any difference of opinion is whether the changes to the closer views from Gourock and Inverkip would potentially be significant. Given the comment on page 4 of the Jacobs report that effects are “perhaps understated”, this appears to be a minor difference of opinion…visual effects at Strone Hill would be significant based on the EIA Report. In relation to Residential Visual Amenity Assessment: Page 16 of the Jacobs report relating to ‘notable’ significant effects on residential receptors beyond the RVAA study area is incorrect should be disregarded. As set out in the relevant guidance (Landscape Institute TGN 02/19 Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA)) at paragraph 1.6:“It is not uncommon for significant adverse effects on views and visual amenity to be experienced by people at their place of residence as a result of introducing a new development into the landscape. In itself this does not necessarily cause particular planning concern.“ In relation to Cumulative effects: Comments in the Jacobs report at both page 17 and page 8 paragraph 5 appear to suggest that an assessment of the total combined impacts of the proposed development with existing and consented wind farms should be provided, based on an interpretation of the wording in part of the relevant NatureScot guidance. However, this interpretation is at odds with the more detailed advice provided later in the NatureScot guidance. In relation to Policy 71: The LVIA and other reports provide supporting information (i.e. documentary evidence, expert reports) to the application and the application is accompanied by an LVIA as the policy requires. Council’s Landscape Consultant further response (9.2.2026): The inclusion of forest within the ZTV modelling is not considered to comply with best practice for wind farm assessments. It’s the first time I have come across its inclusion for a windfarm project. Bare ground ZTVs are the norm representing a precautionary approach to illustrate the ‘worse-case’. The removal of diseased larch emphasises the unreliability of ZTVs including forest cover. Large-scale felling coups have long-term impacts. Forestry practice allows for 2 years to elapse between felling and restocking and it takes time for replanting to reach 15m height. I would maintain that it is overly optimistic to include all existing Page 222
Page 223
forestry in the ZTV. Especially since it would appear that some may already have been felled. Disagrees that the difference is ‘minor’ as effects on views looking across the Clyde assessed as not significant may be significant. For example in my view effects at VPs 14 McInroy’s Point and 15 Lunderston Bay would be significant. Some sections of the LVIA lack clarity, for example the Significant effect at VP 23: Strone Hill is not reported in the main LVIA which misrepresents effects. The reason views from Dunoon and Hunter’s Quay are referenced in our report is that they are on the approach to the LLTNP and are relevant to the journey from across the Firth of Clyde. I don’t agree that the visual effects are not ‘considerable’. The visual effects experienced at Strone and Kilmun alone would be considerable. The LVIA uses the ABLWECS landscape Character Types as a basis for their assessment, so presumably the Applicant has some confidence in it. I would acknowledge that it should be treated with caution given its age and the growth in turbine size since its publication. However, it still provides the best available detailed landscape baseline information and guidance on sensitivities for the region and is referenced in LDP2 Policy. I would not expect cumulative effects with Inverchaolain to carry weight in the decision making process for Giant’s Burn, however, I think it important to highlight the potential for significant cumulative effects. If this proposal is consented, it would introduce wind farm development to the Cowal and could make it difficult to refuse further wind farm development on the Cowal. In the case of Giant’s Burn I would argue that significant effects would be more than localised, accepting of course that there is no definition of ‘localised’ in NPF4. Also it is hard to see how sufficient design mitigation has been applied, given the significance of the residual effects. The information provided in the EIAR is not enough to fully convince me of no significant effects on the LLA. That is not to say that I believe that the effects would necessarily be significant. West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) – no response received. Local Biodiversity Officer (22 October 2025): notes the proposed site is linked hydrologically to Holy Loch LNR / LNCS and may impact upon the qualifying features present and ancient woodland and native woodland are present on the site. Ancient woodland is irreplaceable habitat and cannot be compensated for. Due to the potential loss of native trees, tree surveys are requested prior to planning consent being granted, detailing the condition, location, species, age and biodiversity value of all trees on site. These should include bryophytes and lichens and the potential impact on these. The proposed Turbines are sited on Class I and Class II peat with T2, T3 and T4 appearing to be sited on areas of deep peat. As per NPF4 Policy 5, the mitigation hierarchy should be adhered to, with areas of deep peat avoided in the first instance. Areas of potentially High Dependent GWDTE also appear to be impacted on. I ask that these areas are avoided. Activity levels recorded as High, Moderate to High and Moderate for several species across the site including European Protected Species and Protected Species (Bats). it would be advisable to reduce the rotation speed and monitor any fatalities that may occur from collision, as bats are found to forage within the wind turbine areas. Post-construction surveys are required to aid the monitoring process. This information will feed into further mitigation measures which can be altered accordingly to ensure any negative impacts to foraging / commuting bats is minimal. These need to be included in a Species Protection Page 223
Page 224
Plan (SPP) to ensure mitigation measures are implemented to avoid negative impact and enhancement measures proposed. Due to the transient nature of animals, I ask that pre-works surveys are carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist for other European Protected Species including Otter, Badger, Water Vole, Red Squirrel and Pine Martin. A Species Protection Plan will also be required for reptiles and amphibians which have been sighted. No surveys have been submitted for Fish and Freshwater Pearl Mussel or Invertebrates. Due to the potential presence for SBL invertebrate species to be present on site, pre-works surveys should be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist with guidance from Buglife. The cumulative effects of wind farms are having a negative impact on bird species. Appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented to reduce potential impact of bird collision. Research has shown that painting one of the blades black can reduce fatalities. A programme of monitoring should be implemented with results provided to NatureScot, RSPB and Argyll Raptor Study Group. This information will feed into further mitigation measures which can be altered accordingly to ensure any negative impacts to birds is minimal. Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP) is proposed but there will be a loss of 14.34ha of peatland habitat with 81.34ha compensation. This falls short of the 1:10 (loss:compensation) and 10% enhancement as per NatureScot guidelines. A Deer Management Plan (DMP) should be submitted. The use of fencing reduces connectivity and should be avoided where possible, but where fences are necessary, these must be marked appropriately and monitored to reduce collision impact to birds. Applicant Response to Local Biodiversity Officer (4 February 2026) - note that many of the topics raised by the Council would be addressed in the final Biodiversity Enhancement Plan and Species Protection Plan where appropriate. Further information is provided as follows: • the forestry to be felled all non-native conifer, (including first and second rotation forest crops) 0.36 ha of early (1930) non-native conifer planting are to be retained. Tree surveys are therefore not required. • The non-native woodland does not have potential to be Atlantic rainforest (as it is too heavily modified) therefore it is considered that a pre-consent bryophyte and lichen survey is not required. Opportunities for riparian and non-riparian tree planting (including opportunities for expansion of Atlantic temperate rainforest are included in the BES). • Discussions on peatland impacts are ongoing with SEPA, taking into consideration NatureScot’s advice. • An intentionally balanced approach to bats was taken resulting in an overall picture of Medium risk to individual bats. The Population Risk Assessment was undertaken for species of high population vulnerability and was concluded to be Low. Pipistrelle bats (86% of the calls) are not of high population vulnerability (excluding Nathusius’ pip which comprised only 22 calls, vs 3500 of common and soprano pips combined). The consultation response suggests mitigation in the form of reducing rotation speed. However, guidance states, “Where there is little scope for avoiding areas of high risk through micro-siting or a reduction in the number of turbines, buffers and/or curtailment mitigation can be put in place”. Buffers are already stipulated as a matter of best practice, but the proposed development area is not high risk, therefore the suggestion for additional mitigation that would affect energy generation is not strongly supported by the guidance and therefore there are no plans to curtail the individual turbines. No curtailment is Page 224
Page 225
proposed at this site, however post-construction monitoring could be included in the detailed BEP post-consent, to be agreed prior to construction in order to improve understanding of bat activity in the area. • Pre-construction surveys for otter, badger, water vole, red squirrel and pine marten, these are all already committed to within Chapter 6 Ecology. • Reptiles and amphibians will be included in the SPP. • Neither NatureScot or the Argyll and District Salmon Fishery Board have requested surveys for fish and fresh water pearl mussels and due to no concerns being raised, the applicant does not think it is necessary to include them as part of this application. • The applicant will commit that prior to construction; the BEP will be updated to include pre-works survey to be undertaken in line with recommendations from Buglife. • To address overgrazing current forest areas will have a deer management plan which would be updated as a result of the development. The applicant will commit to this being expanded to be within the BEP, to be agreed post-consent. • The request for bats, reptiles, amphibians and potentially invertebrates to be included within the SPP is standard and can be agreed within a condition Officer response: Argyll and District Salmon Fishery Board strongly recommend surveys of migratory salmonid fish and their habitat are undertaken and fully considered throughout the proposed development and a monitoring program is implemented. Given the identified presence of brown trout parr in Birchen Burn any agreed mitigation measures should be implemented. The NatureScot response sets out ‘we would advise that as a minimum feathering of the turbine blades below cut-in speed is implemented at this site’). NatureScot guidance notes – ‘The reduction in speed resulting from feathering compared with normal idling may reduce fatality rates by up to 50%. As this option does not result in any loss of output, as best practice, it is recommended wherever it is practically possible and there remains uncertainty over the risk posed to bats’ Officers will request this be secured by planning condition should the proposal be granted consent by Scottish Ministers. Noise Consultant (September 2025) - conclude that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the Applicant, however the following aspects require further consideration: ● Measured background sound levels appear to have been strongly affected by watercourse noise such that noise limits derived as a function wind speed are weakly correlated to wind generated noise. Consequently, two options are suggested: – Further measurements are undertaken at locations that are representative of the sensitive receptors but are less affected by watercourse noise and new noise limits are derived and used to assess noise impacts – A fixed limit of 37.5 dB LA90 is applied at all wind speeds during the day and night-time periods ● Confirmation of the absence of derelict buildings with permission for residential development should be confirmed. A single building approximately 500 m south of Strensaul Cottages is visible on aerial imagery but is not considered by the assessment ● Confirmation that the application of serrated trailing edge to the blades of all turbines is commitment of the project design ● Confirmation of the turbine hub height of the project design and that the noise modelling has considered this ● A rain gauge was installed at position given as ‘MP3’ although this position is undefined in the reporting ● The resolution of the graphs showing the prevailing background noise and scatter plot makes it difficult to tell which data was excluded or retained. It is requested that the Page 225
Page 226
Applicant addresses these points before the suitability of the assessment and significance of the noise impacts can be considered. Potential draft planning conditions also proposed on Operational turbine noise, Amplitude modulation, Proposed operational turbine noise condition. Applicant’s response to Noise Consultant (October 2025) – provided further clarifications and confirmation on data collection/survey methodology as requested. ABC Noise Consultant (January 2026) - Following further clarifications from the applicant, it is now considered that there are no reasons to refuse the application on noise grounds, subject to the imposition of noise conditions as set out in Appendix A of the submitted advice report. ABC Roads and Infrastructure Services (RIS) (26 January 2026) – At this stage we have insufficient detail to make proper evaluation from a roads perspective and as such give general instruction. The Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) is required to evaluate the proposals and address a number of points, including: • Concerns over the ‘straight’ section leading on to the exit/B836. We assume the straightening is to allow for abnormal load movement, however for other traffic we have concern over the speed of vehicles/run off onto the B836. • The visibility splays provided to west/left of exit to B836 are in excess of the 136m required. Obstacles to visibility, particularly to the west require detail as to how they would be overcome. • The junction onto the B836 shows a proposed widening but does not take into account overcoming the dip in gradient to the west nor the telecoms pole that would require relocation. • Detail of the road width/passing places on the access road, particularly near entrance e.g. to prevent queuing • Confirmation of borrow pit use/concrete batching on-site or sourced from off-site • Location of wheel washing/inspection areas • Services access locations • Detail on entrance/exit onto public road – access width, design etc • Width of access road Conditions are suggested to provide an agreed Construction Transport Management Plan (CTMP) including points as above; Provide notice of proposed route details for abnormal loads for approval including any require street furniture removal, temporary widening etc.; Access road entrance to standard required in our Roads Development Technical Guidance including drainage and prevention of water/objects onto the public road. Flood Risk Assessor (30 January 2026) – no objection subject to conditions to ensure any proposed watercourse crossings are designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event and that surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensure that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. Access Officer – no response received. Please note: the above are summaries and the full consultee responses can be viewed on the Energy Consent Unit and Argyll & Bute Council websites. (D) HISTORY: Page 226
Page 227
24/00397/SCOPE - Scoping opinion for proposed Section 36 application for Giant's Burn Wind Farm – Opinion issued 4 April 2024. 24/01926/PP - Erection of a 120 metre high meteorological mast for a temporary period of up to 4 years 24/01926/DOC01 - Request to discharge conditions relative to application 24/01926/PP. Specifically condition 5. 24/01926/DOC02 - Request to discharge conditions relative to application 24/01926/PP. Specifically condition 3. 09/00569/DET - Strone Saul Hill Dunoon, Construction of wind farm comprising eight turbines, anemometer mast, upgraded access track, internal tracks and ancillary development – REFUSED/APPEAL DISMISSED (E) PUBLICITY: As the Council is not the Determining Authority the ECU oversees the Publicity of the application. Public Consultation – Whilst not a statutory requirement for S36 applications, the Applicant has undertaken Public Consultation. Two periods of public exhibitions were held, in April 2024 and April 2025. The in-person events were held in Innellan, Dunoon, Kilmun and Cove in 2024 and Dunoon, Kilmun, Sandbank, Innellan and Cove in 2025. A summary of the representations received during the public exhibitions is provided in the submitted Pre-Application Consultation Report (June 2025) which is available on the ECU website (reference ECU00005007). (F) REPRESENTATIONS: As the Council is not the determining Authority the ECU considers any representations. At time of writing, they are in receipt of 928 representations in total of which 914 are objecting to the proposal, 3 are neutral and 6 are letters of support. The key issues for each representation type are summarised below: Neutral • Potential benefits to Sandbank, Benmore and Kilmun communities should this development proceed, including shared ownership with Cowal Community Energy. • Profit retention from shared ownership would provide a vastly greater amount of financial benefit than the standard, recommended ‘Community Benefit’ payments. Support • Project will support grid constraints in the area. • Additional onshore wind capacity is essential to meeting Scotland’s legally- binding decarbonisation targets while reducing exposure to volatile wholesale markets. • Giant’s Burn is consistent with national policy, contributes materially to security of supply and net-zero delivery, and offers credible opportunities for local economic participation. Page 227
Page 228
• It will bring economic benefits to the Cowal area and contribute to the net zero objective. • Benefits for local communities. • Appropriate site for renewables, close to grid connection point and communities. • Potential for private wire connection to support local proposed data centre projects. • Visual impacts will be minimal. • Pollution and temporary construction impacts on peat can be controlled. Object Site and design • Proposed development located in a sensitive upland landscape that overlooks Dunoon, Sandbank and the Holy Loch. • Improper site selection and design, with no justification for locating turbines and BESS infrastructure in a sensitive upland area adjacent to residential zones and panoramic viewpoints • Turbine array extends across an exposed ridgeline to the west of Loch Loskin, with prominent summits such as the Socach, Giants Knowe, Bishop’s Seat, Big Knap and Eilligan forming a distinctive ridge. • No alternative locations explored. Site unsuitable for large industrial structures. • Exceptionally tall turbines are out of proportion with existing infrastructure. Landscape and Visual Impact • Highly prominent and exposed setting, where its scale and form are entirely disproportionate to the surrounding landscape. • Excessive landscape and visual harm, including skyline breach and visual domination. • Turbines would dominate approach to Dunoon by ferry, be clearly visible form key walking routes, core paths, tourist viewpoints and public roads. • The height and location of the turbines will be an overbearing presence in the area. In Dunoon they will constantly loom large over the town. • 200 metre high turbines placed on the tops of the hills above Dunoon would be visible for many miles around and would affect a large population, not only here in Cowal and Dunoon area but also in Inverclyde, Ayrshire, Kilcreggan, and Bute. • Negative impact on LLA and LLTNP - "Maritime Gateway to the Highlands." • The aviation lighting required for turbines of this height would severely impact dark sky quality, altering the nighttime landscape for over 11 hours a day. • The proposed 200m tall turbines will significantly adversely alter the visual character of the area, representing industrialisation of the countryside. • The proposed development is disproportionately large for the local landscape and situated too close to residential properties. Tourism and Economic Impact • Detrimental impact on the local tourism economy which relies on natural landscape. • Turbines would be visible from walking and cycling routes, potentially affecting visitor experience and bookings. Page 228
Page 229
• The development will have a detrimental impact on local tourism, including on B&B and accommodation providers. • Impact on users of the Clyde including paddle steamers and cruise ships. • Minimal long-term job creation. • Economic benefits may not reach the local community. • Financial incentives seen as inadequate compensation. • Limited long-term local economic benefits; most jobs expected to be temporary. Natural Heritage / Biodiversity Issues • The EIA lacks a complete Phase 1 habitat map. • Species surveys are limited in scope and timing, lacking year-round data or an understanding of seasonal variations. • The assessment does not adequately address connectivity corridors, and the proposed layout seems to disrupt rather than preserve these crucial ecological links. • Impact on the Holy Loch Nature Reserve including on recovering sea grass meadow and salt marsh communities as a result of run off. • Impacts on red squirrels at the proposed entrance splay to the site. • Impacts on amphibians and slow worms in Glenkin Forest. • Impacts on Brown trout parr in the Birchen burn. • Impacts on pine martin. • Inadequately addresses contamination risks to land and water. • EIA lacks robust mitigation strategies and does not acknowledge the challenges of managing such risks in steep, peaty upland areas. • Significant loss of habitat and biodiversity. • Increased flood and river pollution/contamination risk. • Environmental Impact Assessment lacks site-specific detail. • The site is home to rare and protected species: golden eagles, white tail eagles, ospreys, sea eagles, buzzards, hen harriers, marsh fritillaries, bats, owls, badgers, pine martens, otters and wild deer. • The area includes peatland, which is sensitive and important for carbon sequestration. • Flora and Fauna will be severely impacted. • Fisheries have raised concerns about the local rivers. • Loss of existing woodland. Peat and Hydrology • The loss of rich peatland habitat. • located in an upland catchment with extensive peaty soils, active watercourses, and wet flushes. These features are crucial for the hydrological health of Loch Loskin, the Holy Loch, and the surrounding lowland water systems. • Development layout places hard infrastructure like tracks, excavations, and turbine bases directly within hydrologically sensitive areas, without buffer zones or modelling of altered flow paths, sediment displacement, or erosion. • Peatslide risk assessment is vague, noting that one third of the site may be hazardous, with generic mitigation proposals that do not offer site- specific solutions. Infrastructure • Lack of clarity on associated transmission lines and infrastructure. Page 229
Page 230
• Traffic pressure on single-track roads during construction - 90% increase in Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic on parts of the A815 and over 70% on the B836. • No provisions are made for how residents along the A815 will manage the daily effects of construction traffic, noise, and potential access limitations. • Vulnerabilities of A83 when transporting components. • Significant construction and grid connection requirements. • Risk of disruption to local roads and transport, which will need to be upgraded. • Possible disruption/interference to telecommunications. • The inclusion of a BESS facility adds further environmental and construction concerns which are not addressed through management plans. • BESS presents an unacceptable and unmitigated fire and health risk. • Pressure on local infrastructure during construction. Planning Policy • Inconsistency with earlier rulings and dismissed proposals. • Contrary to the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2) • Contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) • Contrary to the Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2017) • Does the site abide with the Electricity Act 1898? • The site is in a landscape character type deemed unsuitable for turbines of 200m. • Preference for Scotland should be hydro pumped storage energy. • Conflicts with LLTNPA protections/SLQs Cultural Heritage • Potential harm to archaeological sites and sites of historical significance. • Proximity to heritage sites in Dunoon and Kilmun • Lack of on-site surveys. Public Health and Amenity • Concerns over noise, nuisance, and degradation of local amenity for current and future generations, including adverse impacts on resident’s general and mental health. • Effects of operational noise, shadow flicker, or low-frequency sound on nearby homes. • Impact on Glenkin Cottage and private water supply. • Statkrafts Noise survey has chosen to not take into account valley topography • Shadow flicker during the day and turbine lighting at night could affect nearby homes and wildlife. • Safety concerns regarding the proposed battery energy storage system, including fire and toxic emissions, and access to the site for the fire and emergency service. • Concerns about health, including stress related illnesses, sleep disturbance, loss of tranquillity. • The RVAA zone should be increased to at least 5 km to include all the nearby settlements. • Adverse visual impacts from the many rural dwellings in this area, and from vessels in the Firth of Clyde, including ferries and sailing yachts. Page 230
Page 231
• Adverse impacts on existing “Dark Skies”, due to proposed aviation warning lights. Precedent • Fears the approval could set a precedent for similar developments in inappropriate locations. Sustainability of Wind Farms • Questions the overall sustainability of wind farms due to high energy and resource demands during construction and decommissioning. • Carbon footprint of construction and turbine disposal. • Short operational lifespan may not justify long-term damage. • Concerns over reliance on desktop studies. • No safe way to recycle turbine blades. Community Benefit • Contend that there is no tangible benefit to the local community or economy. • Devaluation of nearby properties and land. Lack of Justifiable Need • Argyll already exceeds renewable energy targets. • This proposal is the product of commercial expediency. Other • Potential devaluation of nearby properties and those in Inverkip, Gourock and Wemyss Bay. • Is there capacity for grid connections for all the projects proposed? • Limited consultation with local residents. • Electricity cannot be effectively stored, and wind power is inconsistent. • Statkraft already holds permissions for wind farms in remote uplands – Slickly, Andershaw, Twentyshilling Hill – yet many turbines there are still not built or running. Why should one of Scotland’s most iconic views across the Clyde be put at risk, when the company hasn’t even delivered on its existing consents in far more suitable locations. • Wind farms in Scotland rely heavily on subsidy mechanisms (Renewables Obligation Certificates, and more recently Contracts for Difference). Studies show that up to half the income of onshore wind farms comes from taxpayer or billpayer support. • According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, UK renewables subsidies now total £25.8 billion annually, with consumers already having paid over £220 billion since 2002 — ~£8,000 per household. New CfD contracts strike at £92–113/MWh, yet consumers must still cover the difference when wholesale prices fall. • In the first half of 2025 alone, Scottish wind farms were paid £117 million not to produce electricity, representing 37% of potential generation (4 TWh) — enough to power every Scottish home for six months. Nationally, constraint payments to wind farms cost £810 million in H1 2025. Adding Giant’s Burn into an already saturated system means taxpayers will fund turbines that produce no usable energy. Note: The comments raised above are addressed in the assessment of the proposal at Appendix A of this report, where relevant to the planning process. Page 231
Page 232
Note: Please note that the representations above have been summarised, and the full letters of representation are available on the ECU website. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR): Yes The EIAR (November 2024) comprises the following volumes: • Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary (NTS): The NTS provides a non- technical overview of the EIA Report and is intended for review by the general public. It includes a description of the Proposed Development and a summary of the predicted environmental effects. • Volume 2: EIA Report (EIAR) • Volume 3: EIA Report Figures: o Volume 3a: Figures to support Chapters 1-15 of the EIA; o Volume 3b: Proposed Development Visualisations – Landscape Viewpoints 1 – 24 and Heritage Viewpoints 1 - 18; and • Volume 4: EIA Report Technical Appendices Key topics covered in the EIAR include: • Chapter 1: Introduction; • Chapter 2: Site Description and Design Evolution; • Chapter 3: Description of the Proposed Development; • Chapter 4: Approach to EIA; • Chapter 5: Landscape and Visual; • Chapter 6: Ecology; • Chapter 7: Ornithology; • Chapter 8: Geology, Hydrology and Peat; • Chapter 9: Cultural Heritage; • Chapter 10: Traffic and Transport; • Chapter 11: Noise; • Chapter 12: Forestry • Chapter 13: Aviation; • Chapter 14: Other Considerations; and • Chapter 15: Schedule of Commitments. In addition, the following documents are also provided in support of the application: • Planning Statement (David Bell Planning, July 2025) • Socio-Economic Benefits Report (Statkraft, June 2025) • Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment – Stage 1 checking report • PreApplication Consultation Report (Statkraft, June 2025) (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: NatureScot will advise the ECU Page 232
Page 233
(iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: No (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04): Not required proposal accompanied by full EIAR. (v) A report on the impact of the proposal e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: All relevant reports are encompassed within the EIAR. (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been considered in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations considered in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 33 – Minerals Annex B – National Statements of Need 3. Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) (Adopted 2024) Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables Page 233
Page 234
Policy 31 – Minerals Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 56 – Land Erosion Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Policy 70 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSA’s) Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact on Sites of International Importance Policy 75 – Development Impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Policy 76 – Development Impact on Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 80 – Geodiversity (ii) List of all other relevant planning considerations considered in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013 • Scottish Energy Strategy (2017) • Onshore Wind Policy Statement (2022) • Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan (2023) • Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Renewable Energy Developments, Scottish Government, 2019 • Onshore Wind Turbines: Planning Advice, Scottish Government (May 2014) • The Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, 2017 (LWECS) • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment – Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (2013) • Scottish Natural Heritage – Visual Representation of Wind Farms Guidance (Version 2.2, 2017) • Scottish Natural Heritage - Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance (Version 3a, 2017) • Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (2019) • Scottish Government, Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity, 2023 • The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 • Managing Change in the Historic Environment • PAN 1/2011: ‘Planning and Noise’ (March 2011) • Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) • UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) • PAN 60 – Planning for Natural Heritage (Jan 2008) • Views of statutory and other consultees • Planning history of the site Page 234
Page 235
• Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an EIAR: No, an EIAR was required. (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No - PAC is not required for S36 applications. (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: No (O) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No – due to identified extensive significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, significant cultural heritage impacts and unresolved deep peat and priority peatland habitat impacts. In addition, there are unresolved objections from SEPA, National Air Traffic Services, Glasgow Airport and outstanding matters in relation to Peat Landscape Risk Assessment. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the proposals are consistent with these elements of the Development Plan. (P) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Shelley Gould Date: 30 January 2026 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 9 February 2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 235
Page 236
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/01342/S36 PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE REPORT PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME 1.1 Any application for an onshore power generating station with an installed capacity of over 50 MW requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under S36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any authorisation given includes a deemed planning permission. Consequently, there is no need for a planning application to be made to the Council. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee. 1.2 The Development Plan is not the starting point for considering S36 applications. The reason for this is that sections of the Planning Act which establish the primacy of Development Plan Policy in decision making are not engaged. NPF4 and LDP2 form the Development Plan. Whilst they do not have primacy in S36 decision making, they remain an important consideration to inform the Council’s consultation response. 1.3 Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act requires the Applicant and the decision maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the developer shall have regard to: (a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings, and objects of architectural, historical, or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings, or objects. 1.4 It obliges the Scottish Ministers as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at (a) and the extent to which the Applicant has complied with the duty at (b). 1.5 Assessment of the proposal against the policies of NPF4 and LDP2 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent that the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties. 1.6 The Council can either support or object and recommend conditions to be imposed if Scottish Ministers grant consent. Previously, if the Council raised an objection to a section 37 or section 37 application, Scottish Ministers were obliged to hold a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) if they were minded to grant consent. On 30 January 2026 the Scottish Government published a letter to industry and planning authorities clarifying new processes around objections to applications for energy consent following the receiving of Royal Assent of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 in December 2025. This letter clarifies that where a planning authority objects to an application and that objection is not withdrawn, or cannot be resolved by conditions or Page 236
Page 237
modifications, a new reporter led examination process will apply. These changes come into effect on 18th February 2026 and will be applicable from that date. Reporters are appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA). If consent is granted it is presumed that the Council as Planning Authority will remain responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, ongoing monitoring, and enforcement, however, further guidance is anticipated following consultation later this year. 1.7 This report considers the relevant policy considerations, planning merits, views of consultees and representations. It recommends views to be conveyed to the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) for consideration before a decision is made. 2. SPATIAL AND SETTLEMENT STRATEGY 2.1 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas establishes acceptable scales of development in three different zones. The site is located within Remote Countryside, which only supports specific categories of development. This includes renewable energy related development. In principle, Policy 02 supports renewable energy and ancillary development in these areas, providing they are consistent with all other relevant LDP2 Policies. With respect to the requirement for developments to accord with all other relevant policies, particular attention is drawn to Policies 70 to 76 with respect to landscape and the natural environment. Proposals must also demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (individual or cumulative) on natural heritage, built and/or cultural heritage, and landscape and visual amenity. 2.2 Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA) - requires that proposals in or affecting a LLA must demonstrate that: a) any significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, economic or environmental benefits of community wide importance; b) The proposal is supported by a landscape and visual impact assessment and has taken account of the content of any relevant Argyll & Bute Landscape Capacity Assessment; and c) The location, scale, design, materials and landscaping would be of a high standard and would safeguard or enhance the special qualities and character of the LLA. The far western part of the site overlaps with the Bute and South Cowal Local Landscape Area which extends northwards and westwards to cover much of the Cowal Hills, and the Isle of Bute. 2.3 Policy 04 – Sustainable Development requires that in preparing new proposals developers should demonstrate the following sustainable development principles (where relevant) such as: maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; support existing communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services; conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets; respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; avoid places with significant risk of flooding, or ground instability and avoid having significant adverse impacts on land, air and water environment. This application is supported by an EIAR which sets out in detail the measures proposed to ensure the proposal is ‘Sustainable Development. Page 237
Page 238
2.4 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP2 provide the primary policy framework for assessing renewable energy proposals. In this case, due to consultee advice requesting outstanding information it is has not been possible to reach a conclusion on the peat/soils/biodiversity/aviation impact elements of the policy. Please see detailed policy assessment below. 2.5 Having due regard to the above due to widespread significant adverse effects on landscape and visual impact and built and/or cultural heritage the proposal is not consistent with the relevant provisions of LDP 2 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas and LDP Policy 04 – Sustainable Development. Due to outstanding information relating to deep peat/priority peatland habitat/aviation and the need for an updated Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment, it is not possible to determine whether the proposal is consistent with all relevant provisions of LDP 2 Policy 02 - Outwith Settlement Areas and LDP Policy 04 – Sustainable Development. 3. ENERGY & SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF RENEWABLES 3.1 Argyll & Bute Council is keen to ensure that Argyll & Bute continues to make a positive contribution to meeting the Scottish Government’s targets for renewable energy generation. These targets are important given the compelling need to reduce our carbon footprint and our reliance on fossil fuels, reinforced by the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development, and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects. 3.2 This proposal has been assessed primarily against the two lead Statutory Development Plan policies relating to renewable energy, Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2. Other policies are referred to where relevant. It is noted that this proposal makes a comparatively small contribution of 50.4MW installed capacity and 23MW of BESS towards renewable energy targets. It is noted the proposal would theoretically generate enough electricity to power the domestic electricity needs of approximately 58,212 average UK households per annum. 4. LOCATION, NATURE, AND DESIGN OF PROPOSAL 4.1 The proposal site covers an area of approximately 700.6 ha and sits approximately 2.1km north-west of Dunoon on the northeastern side of Bishop’s Seat and Giant’s Knowe. The area is topographically complex and is characterised by several raised peaks such as Tom Odhar (256m AOD) to the west, and Kilbride Hill (390m AOD) to the North. The area reaches a topographic height at Cruach nan Capall to the northwest, with an elevation of 611m AOD. The site is incised by numerous burns that generally drain towards the Little Eachaig River via Glen Kin in the north and Holy Loch to the east of the site boundary. 4.2 The proposed development site sits at an elevation of 304-469m AOD between Strone Saul and Elligan and is c.2.1km in length north to south along the hill peak. There is commercial forestry surrounding the site, which is most notable on the Page 238
Page 239
eastern border. The area is located within the steep ridges and mountains Landscape Character Type (LCT), and the Bute and South Cowal Local Landscape Area (‘LLA’) is located to the west of the Site, 1.9 km from the nearest turbine. There are no landscape, ecological, geological, or archaeological designations within the Site boundary. However, within 10 km of the Site, the following designations are present: o Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (‘LLTNP’) is located 1.8 km to the north; o Loch Eck Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (‘SSSI’) (5.4 km to the north), Shielhill Glen SSSI (8.9 km south-east) and North End of Bute SSSI (9.8 km south-west); o Holy Loch Nature Conservation Site (‘LNCS’) 1.3 km north-east; o Six Scheduled Monuments (‘SM’) within 5 km of the Site – Dunloskin Wood, Platforms and Charcoal Production Area SM (0.1 km to the east), Ardnadam Settlement, Chapel and Enclosure SM (0.4 km to the east), Adam’s Cave, Chambered Cairn, Ardnadam SM (0.8 km to the northeast), Ardhallow Battery and Defences SM (2.3 km to the southeast), Kilmun Collegiate Church, Tower and Burial Ground SM (2.6 km northwest), and Dunoon Castle SM (2.7 km to the southeast); o A further 16 Sms are located within 10km of the Site; and o Fifteen Category A-Listed Buildings are located within 10 km of the Site. Forty-nine Category B Listed Buildings and fifty-one Category C Listed Buildings are also located within 5 km of the Site. 4.3 The Carbon and Peatland Map 2016 illustrates the area as being underlain with Class 1 and 2 Peat, with the majority of the Site situated within an area of Class 2 Peat, with an area of Class 1 Peat within the northern part of the site. The applicant notes its intention to avoid areas of Class 1 Peat and notes that restoration is planned for other areas of the site. Additionally, the Spout Burn intersects the central site area, flowing in a northwestern direction to meet Glenkin Burn. 4.4 The proposed access track is located within privately owned areas of commercial forestry comprised largely of commercial conifers with small areas of mixed broadleaves and open ground. There are two separate landowners. Landowner 1 owns four commercial woodland properties; Ardnadam, Dalinlongart, Dunloskin and Glenkin which make up the Sandbank Long Term Forest Plan (LTFP). Landowner 2 owns the Auchamore Forest. 4.5 Five new watercourse crossings will be required and seven existing watercourse crossings may need to be upgraded as a result of the proposal. Approximately 10.2 km of on-site access tracks would be required to provide access to the wind turbines, substation, and construction compound. Where possible, the location of the access tracks follows existing forestry tracks. A total of approximately 6.4 km of new track would be created and approximately 3.8 km of existing track would be upgraded. 4.6 A total of 32.94 ha of forestry will require to be felled to enable the construction and operation of the Proposed Development. Permanent felling of 3.85 ha is required with a further 21.68 ha proposed for to be felled to restore peatland. The applicant is Page 239
Page 240
proposing to restock approximately 13.57 ha of appropriate compensatory planting and is seeking locations both within and outwith the Site. 4.7 Turbine components will be transported to the site from King George V Docks on the River Clyde via the M8 and M898 to cross the Erskine Bridge where the abnormal load will join the A82 westward to Tarbert. Loads will then join the A83 using a new bypass at Tarbert before joining the A815 to head south towards Dunoon. Loads will turn right onto the B836 and proceed westbound. After approximately 2 km, loads will turn into a new site access junction. Here the route mainly follows an existing forestry track into the Site. 4.8 There are 3 properties within the proposed site area: Glenkin Cottage, Stronsaul Cottages and Auchenblae. 4.9 The proposed development would consist of: • seven variable pitch (three bladed) wind turbines, five each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 200 m and two up to 180 m; • three of the turbines (T1, T3 and T7) would be fitted with visible aviation warning lights; • turbine foundations (up to 25 m diameter) and a crane hardstanding area and a temporary blade laydown area, tower and nacelle storage (approximately 4,313m2) at each wind turbine; • BESS with a rated power of approximately 23 MW and energy storage capacity of 53 MWh; • up to 6.4 km of new on-site access track with a typical running width of 5 m (wider on bends) and 3.8 km of upgraded existing access track (widened from 2.5 m to minimum 5 m & wider on bends) and associated drainage, three turning heads and nine passing places; • underground cabling and electrical infrastructure along access tracks to connect the turbine locations, and the on-site electrical substation; • one on-site substation compound (40 m x 25 m) which would accommodate a control building for the Scottish and Southern Energy Networks (SSEN) substation and the wind farm substation; • one temporary secondary construction compound (50 m x 100 m); • one main construction compound for the Applicant (50 m x 100 m); • clearance of 32.94 ha of on-site forest with 21.68 ha to be fell for peatland restoration and restocking of approximately 13.57 ha 4.10 The BESS would consist of twelve battery containers of steel construction, similar in appearance to shipping containers measuring approximately 9.3 m (l) x 1.7 m (w) x 2.6 m (h). The compound would include a water storage tank, welfare and storage buildings, with the MV switchgear housed in the control room building. 4.11 The Proposed Development would be connected to the electricity network via an on- site substation control building located within the substation compound (approximately 50 m x 100 m). The compound would include an area for car parking and High Voltage (HV) equipment, such as transformers and circuit breakers. The main control building would be single storey and would measure approximately 6 m x Page 240
Page 241
26 m with a pitched roof which would be 5.9 m high at its tallest point. It is proposed that the buildings would have a cement render with wet dash finish and the final external finishes would be agreed with Argyll and Bute Council. Underground power cables would run along the side of the access tracks in trenches from each of the turbines to the substation. 4.12 To support the application a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy (BES) is proposed to complement the existing Sandbank Long-Term Forest Plan (LTFP). This will include peat resource and restoration and enhancement, tree planting (including riparian planting), blanket bog targeted management, grazing management, installation of nesting boxes for protected species, mosaic habitat enhancements for black grouse and raptors, monitoring programmes to allow for adjustments to habitat enhancement measures. Planning history of the site and surrounding area 4.13 The closest operational wind farms to the Site are Cruach Mhor, Inverclyde, and High Mathernock & Priestside, all are located between 10 and 20 km from the Site. Additionally, a wind farm known as Inverchaolain is proposed adjacent to the Site which is at the EIA Scoping stage. It is noted that previous applications for proposed wind farms both on this site and the immediate surrounding areas have been consistently refused by the Local Planning Authority and unsuccessful at appeal as follows: • The previous proposal on this site - the Strone Saul Hill Wind Farm for eight 100m turbines (Local Authority planning reference: 09/00569/DET) - was refused in 2010 on the grounds of significant adverse landscape and visual impacts and insufficient assessment regarding potential impact on golden eagle and black grouse populations. • Corlarach Hill Wind Farm approx. 3.4km to the south of the proposal site for 14 x 125m turbines (Local Authority planning reference: 07/00851/DET) was refused in 2007 due to the potential significant adverse impacts on nationally important landscapes and dismissed at appeal. • Black Craig wind farm (16 x100m turbines) (Local Authority planning reference: 07/00851/DET) southwest of the site was dismissed at Planning Appeal as being inappropriate for the location and damaging to visual amenity and the local economy. • Proposals for Bachan Burn wind farm (2013), approximately 1.6 km to the southeast of the current proposal, were withdrawn. 4.14 Given the extensive planning history of the site, it is considered by the Local Planning Authority and statutory consultees such as NatureScot and Loch Lomond Trossachs National Park that this site has been proven to be an unsuitable site for large scale wind farm development. 5. NET ECONOMIC IMPACT, INCLUDING LOCAL AND COMMUNITY SOCIO- ECONOMIC BENEFITS 5.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 states that proposals will only be supported where they maximise net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic Page 241
Page 242
benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP 2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed in terms of net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. 5.2 Socio-Economic Impact - The expected socio-economic benefits are set out in the submitted Socio-Economic Benefits Report which advises that during the construction phase, it is estimated the proposal will generate 482 direct and indirect job years across Scotland including 58 direct and indirect job years in Argyll and Bute. During the operational phase it is estimated the proposal will generate 14 direct full time equivalent (FTE) and 13 indirect FTE jobs across Scotland, including 10 direct FTE jobs and 6 indirect FTE jobs in Argyll & Bute, per year. 5.3 The applicant estimates that during the development and construction phase the proposed development will contribute £39million in direct Gross Value Added (GVA) through its construction. The application proposes that the development will be able to support the development of both skills and businesses in the renewable energy business industry. In line with Scottish government guidelines of £5,000 per MW of installed electricity generating capacity it is estimated that the proposed development could generate up to a total community benefit fund of £12.5million over the 50 years operational life. 5.4 In line with Scottish Government best practice principles shared ownership in the development is offered to local community interest groups. Benmore and Kilmun Community Development Trust, Sandbank Community Development Trust and Cowal Community Energy (CCE) have provided neutral representations to the ECU, noting that there are potential financial benefits to the local community from this development as the developer is amenable to agreeing shared ownership and profit sharing with CCE (which has 8 local Community Development Trusts as signed up members). 5.5 The developer also proposes £10,000 per annum to provide a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fund for the local community during the operational period of the proposed development and notes it has forged ties with local education centres such as Dunoon Grammar School and the University of the Highlands and Islands. 5.6 The economic benefits associated with this proposal during construction and the operational phases relating to job creation and benefits to the local economy are a relevant consideration, which has been considered. Community Benefit is not however, a ‘material planning consideration’ in the determination of planning applications, as there is no planning mechanism available to secure it. If consent were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit either directly with the local community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process. 5.7 Having due regard to the above it is considered a degree of net economic impact including local and community socio-economic benefits typical of such developments will be provided. It is therefore concluded that the proposal is consistent with the Page 242
Page 243
provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4, NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewable of LDP2 in this regard. 6. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY, VISUAL IMPACT, NOISE AND SHADOW FLICKER 6.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including residential amenity, visual impact, noise, and shadow flicker have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for renewable developments to be assessed in terms of impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity, noise, and shadow flicker (including cumulative). Residential amenity impacts 6.2 The submitted Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) (Technical Appendix 5.4 of the EIAR) of properties within 2km of the proposed turbines states that 118 homes in the study area would have ‘more open’ visibility of the turbines from windows and/or garden, with 55 having open views from their garden and main living area windows and requiring detailed assessment. Figure 5.4.1 in Annex B of the Appendix indicates three individual properties (R1 - Glenkin Cottage, R2 - Stronsaul Cottages and R3 - Auchenblae) and two groups of properties (G4 - Shore Road and G5 - High Road, Massan View, Lorimer Terrace and Allan Terrace) taken forward to detailed assessment. 6.3 In this assessment, the RVAA concludes that residents at Glenkin Cottage to the north-west of the Site, at Auchenblae and at the homes with open views on High Road, Lorimer Terrace and Massan View would experience Large magnitude effects (illustrative view D from High Road in Appendix 5.3 Illustrative Views), but that the most visible turbines would be set back beyond the skyline and a combination of distance and this partial screening would be sufficient that they would not be experienced as overwhelming or overbearing and the report concludes that the RVA threshold would therefore not be exceeded. 6.4 The Council’s Landscape Consultant comments that is notable that residents of numerous properties in Dunoon and Sandbank close to the proposal but outside the 2km RVAA study area would also experience significant visual effects as can be seen in the illustrative views in Technical Appendix 5.3 and VP01, VP02 and VP03. 6.5 Officer opinion – the proposal would result in widespread, significant impacts on residential amenity both within and outside the RVAA 2km study area. These are considered to result in a significant visual impact on local communities which are not able to be effectively addressed through redesign, due to the prominence, height and location of the proposed development which would appear overbearing from many of the identified viewpoints and illustrative views around Dunoon, Sandbank, Kilmun and Strone. Noise impacts 6.6 ABC Noise Consultant – initially concluded that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the Applicant, with clarifications and confirmations required in relation to: the number of derelict residential properties within the study area; turbine blades will Page 243
Page 244
be fitted with serrated trailing edges (which has an acoustic benefit); strong influence of noise from watercourses on the results over a wide range of wind speeds and queries over the fixed levels of background sound level; inconsistency in the filtering of measured noise levels at higher wind speeds during the daytime at Stronesaul Cottages and Glenkin Cottage; hub height(s) of the turbines; location of the installed rain gauge; and resolution of the graphs showing the prevailing background noise and scatter plot makes it difficult to tell which data was excluded or retained. 6.7 The applicant has also applied a lower fixed limit (non-financially involved) of 43 dB LA90 for the night-time period and 35 dB LA90 for the daytime. Given the noted limitations of the measured background sound levels, the application in the derivation of noise limits is not considered robust. Therefore, two options are proposed to the applicant: • Repeat the survey of background sound levels in a suitably representative location to minimise watercourse noise and redefine the background +5dB limits. Or, • Justify a case to adopt a fixed lower limit of 37.5 dB LA90 at all wind speeds for the day and night-time periods. Suggested proposed conditions are also suggested to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation being applied to control noise levels from the proposal. 6.8 Following further clarifications from the applicant, the Council’s Noise Consultant considers that there are no reasons to refuse the application on noise grounds, subject to the imposition of noise conditions as set out in Appendix A of their advice. Shadow flicker 6.9 Chapter 14 of the submitted EIAR considers the potential for significant shadow flicker effects as a result of the proposal. No properties are predicted to surpass the threshold of 30 hours per year or 30 minutes per day. No significant effects are predicted, and mitigation is not required. 6.10 Private Water supplies (PWS) – The EIAR considers the impact on PWS. No PWS sources are hydrologically connected to the footprint of the infrastructure and therefore no significant effects are predicted. Having due regard to the above, it is considered that while the proposal is likely to be consistent with some of the provisions of NPF4 Policy 11- Energy, there are concerns that the proposal does not comply with all provisions of LDP2 Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables due to the extensive significant visual effects on residential amenity which would impact on communities and individual dwellings. Should planning consent be granted by Scottish Ministers, the conditions recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant and shadow flicker should be attached to mitigate any operational effects. 7. SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS 7.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how significant landscape and visual impacts have been addressed, recognising that Page 244
Page 245
such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy. Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered acceptable. Policy 4 a) - Natural Places of NPF4 states that proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. NPF4 Policy 4 c) – Natural Places states that Development proposals that will affect a National Park, National Scenic Area, Site of Special Scientific Interest or a National Nature Reserve will only be supported where: 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 national importance. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against landscape and visual impacts. 7.2 The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect has undertaken a review of the landscape and visual effects of the proposal, which is based on examination of the EIAR and visits to the area surrounding the site. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) within the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) accompanying the Section 36 application ECU00005007 (submitted 15 July 2025) appears to accord with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition and other best practice guidance for wind farm assessment. The Landscape Consultant agrees with most of the findings on the significance of landscape and visual effects, although notes that the significance of effects on views from across the Firth of Clyde are understated. 7.3 While the visualisations in the LVIA generally appear to accord with best practice guidance and present an accurate representation of the proposed development Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect raised a number of matters with the proposed methodology. The Applicant has provided clarification on the Council’s Landscape consultant advice (29.1.2026) and the Council’s Landscape consultant has responded to this (9.2.2026). Please see section C of the Report of Handling for further details. It is not considered that these responses change the overall assessment of the proposal on landscape and visual impact grounds or the recommendation. The following matters of difference remain between the Council’s Landscape consultant and the Applicant’s Landscape Consultant: • The inclusion of forest within the ZTV modelling is not considered to comply with best practice for wind farm assessments. It’s the first time I have come across its inclusion for a windfarm project. Bare ground ZTVs are the norm representing a precautionary approach to illustrate the ‘worse-case’. • The removal of diseased larch emphasises the unreliability of ZTVs including forest cover. Large-scale felling coups have long-term impacts. Forestry practice allows for 2 years to elapse between felling and restocking and it takes time for replanting to reach 15m height. I would maintain that it is overly optimistic to include all existing forestry in the ZTV. Especially since it would appear that some forestry may already have been felled. • Some sections of the LVIA lack clarity, for example the Significant effect at VP 23: Strone Hill is not reported in the main LVIA. Page 245
Page 246
• The reason views from Dunoon and Hunter’s Quay are referenced in our report is that they are on the approach to the LLTNP and are relevant to those travelling from across the Firth of Clyde to the Park. I don’t agree that the visual effects are not ‘considerable’. The visual effects experienced at Strone and Kilmun alone would be considerable. • The LVIA uses the ABLWECS landscape Character Types as a basis for their assessment, so presumably the Applicant has some confidence in it. I would acknowledge that it should be treated with caution given its age and the growth in turbine size since its publication. However, it still provides the best available detailed landscape baseline information and guidance on sensitivities for the region, and is referenced in the LPD2 policy. In the case of Giant’s Burn I would argue that significant effects would be more than localised, accepting of course that there is no definition of ‘localised’ in NPF4. Also it is hard to see how sufficient design mitigation has been applied, given the significance of the residual effects. • I would not expect cumulative effects with Inverchaolain to carry weight in the decision making process for Giant’s Burn, however, I think it important to highlight the potential for significant cumulative effects. If this proposal is consented, it would introduce wind farm development to the Cowal and could make it difficult to refuse further wind farm development on the Cowal. • The information provided in the EIAR is not enough to fully convince me of no significant effects on the LLA. That is not to say that I believe that the effects would necessarily be significant. 7.4 Landscape Impact - Direct landscape effects would include the removal of small areas of forestry around the locations of turbines T1 and T2; the construction and presence of the wind turbines, tracks and other infrastructure within the open moorland of the site; and the planting and growth of areas of new deciduous shrubs and trees along the forest margin. These changes are not predicted to be significant. Significant effects on the character of landscapes and seascape are however, predicted in the EIAR for: • the host Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (ABLWECS) Landscape Character Type (LCT) Steep Ridgeland and Mountains (LCT1); • the adjacent LCT4 Mountain Glens around Holy Loch, 1.4 km north-east of the turbines (Figure 5.1 indicates theoretical visibility of 5-7 turbines from the majority of this LCT, but on Figure 5.5 this is reduced by forest cover); and • the adjacent Seascape Character Area 3 Inner Firth of Clyde, which extends east along the Clyde from Holy Loch and Dunoon (Figures 5.1 and 5.2 indicate widespread visibility of 5-7 turbines). 7.5 The submitted EIAR states that these would result from the presence of the turbines and close views of the turbines such that they are a key feature of the landscape within the upland area south of Glen Lean, up to 5 km from the turbines, within Dunoon and Sandbank and areas up to 4 km from the turbines across Holy Loch to the north-east, and within the Firth of Clyde up to 6-7 km from the turbines. 7.6 The Steep Ridgeland and Mountains LCT described in the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (ABLWECS) as ‘steep-sided, craggy-topped mountains and sharp ridges, deeply cut by the long, narrow sea lochs of Cowal’ is Page 246
Page 247
illustrated in the visualisation for viewpoints (VP) 03 (Dunoon Castle) and VP07 (Glen Lean) located within it and from VP04 (Strone Pier) within the neighbouring Mountain Glens LCT. The Mountain Glens LCT is illustrated in the visualisations for VP01 (Lazaretto Point Ardnaman), VP05 (A815 Orchard) and VP06 (Benmore Gardens). 7.7 It is noted that the ABLWECS does not advise any further development of commercial scale wind farms (beyond the operational Cruach Mhor and Clachan Flats wind farms) in the Steep Ridgeland and Mountains, stating that landscape and visual sensitivity for turbines > 50m is high and there is no scope to additional new development of this scale in this landscape without significant effects occurring. Of particular significance in relation to the proposal location the ABLWECS states: ‘Strategically, the steep and rugged mountainous terrain of Cowal and its intricate pattern of deep sea lochs strongly contrast with the simpler, lower plateau-like uplands of Clyde Muirsheil and with the more developed character of the coastal edge on Inverclyde and North Ayrshire. The introduction of wind farms and larger turbines seen on the skyline of the Steep Ridgeland and Mountains or against the most prominent coastal edge and promontories of this character type form the wider Firth of Clyde basin would adversely affect the strong sense of Cowal forming the threshold to the ‘Highlands’ and the point where the Glasgow conurbation is left (this perception heightened by the ferry crossing to Dunoon). The present contrast of the landscapes of the Cowal with the more developed Inverclyde and North Ayrshire coast would be diminished.’ 7.8 The Council’s Landscape Consultant notes that is evident in several of the photomontage views (e.g. VP04, VP05, VP14, VP09 that the very large scale of the turbines would diminish the apparent scale and distance of the hills of the Steep Ridgeland and Mountains of the Cowal Peninsula and introduce turbines to an area of the view where none are currently visible. Although covered to some extent in the visual assessment, despite including a heading ‘Effects on Landscape/ Townscape Character’ and widespread visibility of turbines from Dunoon, Sandbank, Kilmun and Strone, the LVIA does not specifically address the (albeit indirect) effects on the townscape which would result from views of turbines. These views would be extensive throughout these townscape areas as demonstrated in Technical Appendix 5.3 – Illustrative views. Please see paragraphs 6.2 to 6.5 for assessment of residential amenity impacts which are assessed by officers to be unacceptable. 7.9 Visual Effects - Figure 5.1 indicates that the higher ground to the west and north would restrict visibility in those directions to areas close to the site and some hill summits, including within LLTNP and channelled views along Glen Lean and Loch Eck. To the east and south, visibility would be more widespread across much of Dunoon and Sandbank, across Holy Loch, along the Firth of Clyde to slopes and hill tops around the coastline, the islands of Bute and Great Cumbrae and around Glasgow. 7.10 The proposal would introduce large turbines to an area of the skyline where no other turbines are visible and would fundamentally alter the nature of views towards the Cowal Peninsula experienced by large numbers of people living in and visiting the area. The LVIA predicts significant visual effects would arise at the following locations: Page 247
Page 248
• Sandbank (VP01 and Illustrative Views A-E in Appendix 5.3): The bareground ZTV indicates widespread theoretical visibility of all seven turbines from Sandbank. Although buildings and woodland would provide some screening, there would be views of the turbines prominent on the skyline from much of the settlement including the coast. Whilst the focus of views from houses along the coastal fringe tends to be seaward, the turbines would appear high above the forested hills that form the backdrop to the settlement. • Dunoon (VP02 and VP03 and Illustrative Views F-I in Appendix 5.3): The bareground ZTV indicates widespread theoretical visibility of all seven turbines from Dunoon. Although buildings and woodland would provide some screening, the turbines would be prominent on the skyline in views from much of the settlement including open spaces and the esplanade. Whilst the focus of views from houses along the coastal fringe tends to be seaward, the turbines would appear high above the forested hills that form the backdrop to the settlement. The large scale of the turbines would diminish the apparent scale and distance of the hills. • Kilmun and Strone (Illustrative Views J-K in Appendix 5.3, VP04): Kilmun and Strone within the LLTNP lie along the A815 coast road overlooking Holy Loch towards the wind farm site. There would be open, close views of all seven turbines prominent on the skyline across the water. The large scale of the turbines would diminish the apparent scale and distance of the hills. • Ferry routes between Gourock and Dunoon/Hunter’s Quay (VP03, VP14 and View L in Appendix 5.3): Ferry travellers on both routes would see close views of the turbines on the skyline above Dunoon and Sandbank throughout their journey. • Recreational water users between Gourock, Kilcreggan and Dunoon and within Holy Loch (VP03, VP09, VP14, VP15, VP16 and Views J-L in Appendix 5.3): The Firth of Clyde is a popular recreational boating area with various marinas and sailing clubs along its coastline. Figures 5.2 and 5.3 show the widespread visibility of 5-7 turbines across a large area of the Firth of Clyde extending south beyond Cumbrae and east up the Clyde estuary beyond Helensburgh and Greenock. • Local roads and Core Paths between Sandbank and Loch Eck (VP06): There would be some open views of the turbines from closer routes including the B836, with visibility decreasing further north due to tree cover. VP06 within Benmore GDL within the LLTNP indicates partial visibility with some screening provided by trees. • Users of Core Paths within 2 km (Illustrative View D along High Road in Appendix 5.3): The core paths (indicated on EIAR Figure 5.6 Visual Receptors) which run through the forested slopes between the proposal and the edge of Sandbank and from where there would be views of the turbines from felled areas. Other effects assessed in the EIAR as not significant or not assessed 7.11 The Council’s Landscape Consultant notes that in addition to the significant effects identified above, there would also be widespread impacts on the views across the Page 248
Page 249
Firth of Clyde experienced from along the settled coasts of Inverclyde and North Ayrshire (VP13, VP14, VP15, VP16, VP17), with the introduction of wind turbines above the Cowal Peninsula in an area where there is no existing wind farm development. The effect on users of the A815 is predicted to be not significant, despite the close range views experienced by travellers (VP01, VP03, VP05), albeit intermittently. 7.12 The effect at Strone Hill (VP23) within LLTNP is predicted to be not significant, despite the turbine occupying an area of the available panoramic view which is currently free from wind farms, and the other turbines visible being distant and appearing relatively much smaller in scale. All seven turbines proposal would be fully visible and prominent in the view southwest across the Cowal Peninsula which takes in the distant hills of the Isle of Arran, with ‘stacking’ of two pairs of turbines. 7.13 No separate visual assessment appears to have been undertaken for the A880 which runs through Kilmun and Strone within LLTNP, despite the open close-range views across Holy Loch to all seven turbines on the Cowal Peninsula skyline. Several of Scotland’s Great Trails covered by the bareground ZTV in Figure 5.1 (e.g. West Island Way, Ayrshire Coastal Path) have not been shown on Figure 5.6 while the LVIA provides limited justification for the effects identified along those routes and no sequential assessment. 7.14 Night-time effects - Figure 5.8 includes theoretical visibility of aircraft lighting. The coastal settlements around the Firth of Clyde are well lit and there are bright lights at the various port facilities. The area to the west of the site is more rural and typically dark at night. In the LVIA no significant visual effects are predicted to result from the three proposed red aviation lights. Both LLTPA and NatureScot disagree with this assessment and consider the introduction of aircraft lighting to result in significant effects for example, “underlying landscape and seascape characteristics including the ridge (largely between Bishops Seat, Big Knap and Strone Saul) that forms part of the site and the wider skyline of the Cowal Hills, the coastal edge and Firth of Clyde remain evident in Viewpoint 9: Kilcreggan, as does the ridge and coastal plain in Viewpoint 5: A815, Orchard within the LLTNP.” Landscape designations 7.15 Landscape designations are shown along with ZTV mapping on Figure 5.2. Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) is located approximately 2.7 km to the north-east of the proposal site on the north-east shore of Holy Loch and continuing to the north and north-east. The Bute and South Cowal Local Landscape Area (LLA) is located 1.7 km to the west of the proposed turbines with the western edge of the proposal site located just within the LLA. The West Renfrewshire LLA lies 10km to the southeast of the proposal. Bute and South Cowal Local Landscape Area (LLA) 7.16 The eastern boundary of this LLA lies less than 2km to the west of the proposed turbines, with the LLA itself extending across the western half of the Cowal Peninsula and around Loch Striven, continuing south to take in much of the Isle of Bute. In the LVIA in the absence of a formal citation the impact of the proposal is considered Page 249
Page 250
against the ‘scenic value’ of the LLA; the ‘quality which derives from the visual composition of the landscape’ and is judged to be of high susceptibility and high/medium sensitivity. No attempt has been made to identify individual ’special landscape qualities’ against which to assess impacts. 7.17 The LVIA predicts that the effect on the LLA would be not significant, noting that theoretical visibility of turbines shown within the LLA, as shown in Figure 5.2 (i.e. theoretical visibility, which assumes screening to be provided by forestry, rather than bare ground worst-case scenario) would principally arise from ‘hill summits and facing slopes within 5-7km to the west and north-west of the proposed turbines’; from the western end of Glen Lean as illustrated by VP07, and from Beinn Bhreac around 7-8km to the southwest. Visibility of 3-5 turbines would also arise from areas on the Isle of Bute, but as illustrated by VP20 Rothesay, the turbines would be distant and mostly screened by hills. Notably from this location the proposed Inverchaolain turbines (scoping stage) would be much more prominent and likely to result in significant effects. 7.18 Permanent, changes to views are predicted to arise over the upland areas within 5km of the turbines, decreasing up to 9km. The area affected by such changes to views would be divided by areas of no visibility due to terrain and forestry and would comprise a limited extent of this LLA, focussed around the northwest boundary. The effects are predicted to be not significant in the LVIA. West Renfrewshire Hills LLA 7.19 The LLA lies outside the Argyll and Bute administrative area, across the Firth of Clyde approximately 10km to the southeast of the proposal. One quality of the LLA identified as having the potential to be affected by the proposal is: “a panoramic view stretching to the south-west over the Isle of Bute across the length of the Cowal Peninsula northwards to the Holy Loch and the Rosneath Peninsula. The Renfrew Heights and plateau moorlands separating the Clyde and the Ayrshire basin to the south create strong and containing skylines‘. VP18 (Kelly Cut) shows the turbines seen on the skyline of the Cowal Peninsula. Given the westward orientation of the slopes within the LLA, this would affect most of the designated area as illustrated by Figure 5.2 (note the bare ground ZTV in Figure 5.1 extends further, covering an area under forestry, some of which appears to have been felled recently). The turbines would occupy a relatively narrow arc of the available view. Effects are predicted in the EIAR to be not significant, but the turbines would be visible on the skyline of the Cowal peninsula close to the complex rugged terrain to the north, their large size diminishing the apparent scale of the landform and distance 7.20 There are no other wind turbines visible to the west from VP18, although Inverchaolain (at scoping) turbines would also be visible on the skyline, considerably widening the arc over which turbines would be seen and likely resulting in significant cumulative effects. Further assessment of LLAs is found at paragraphs 7.43 and 7.47 below. Special Landscape Qualities of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) Page 250
Page 251
7.21 An assessment of effects on the Special Landscape Qualities of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) is included in the LVIA and concludes that a number of relatively minor and localised effects would arise along the south-west boundary of the LLTNP from Strone (refer to VP04 Strone Pier) to Kilmun and the accessible hillsides above these villages (e.g. VP23 Strone Hill), and extend through the glen at the southern boundary closest to the proposal site and along Loch Eck as far as Dornoch Point (VP08). VP05 (A815, Orchard), VP06 (Benmore Gardens Entrance) and VP22 (Benmore Gardens Hilltop) illustrate visual effects experienced from Strath Eachaig within the National Park. Considered together, these effects are predicted in the EIAR to be not significant. 7.22 Whilst the geographic extent of close range visibility of turbines from within the LLTNP is limited, it is considered that the significance of visual effects is considerable, particularly from the area across Holy Loch including Kilmun and Strone, and the wind farm would have significant effects on views experienced by visitors to the National Park arriving by ferry at Dunoon and Hunter’s Quay and travelling north along the A815 coast road. The photomontage for VP24 (Beinn Mhor, the highest peak on the Cowal Peninsula) indicates that all seven turbines would be visible in an area of the view not currently affected by wind farms and at much closer proximity than other visible wind farms, such that it would affect the sense of remoteness and tranquillity experienced. Looking south along Loch Eck (VP08 Dornoch Point) the introduction of turbines to the focal point of the framed view would alter the sense of remoteness and tranquillity currently experienced. National Park Authority Assessment of effects on SLQs 7.23 The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTPA) is a distinct administrative area to Argyll and Bute and is a statutory consultee to the ECU. The LLTPA has undertaken a planning assessment which focuses on the effects of the proposed development on the Special Landscape Qualities which are part of its National Park landscape designation. Special Qualities are defined (NatureScot 2008) ‘as the characteristics that, individually or combined, give rise to an area of outstanding scenery’. These are qualities that are perceived and experienced by people affecting the sense of place. 7.24 The LLTPA consultation response notes that Paragraph 5.10.58 of the LVIA concludes that there will be no significant adverse effects on the SLQs of the National Park. It states “Considering the above effects (referencing table 5.6) on the SLQs together, non-negligible effects would arise along the south-west boundary of the [National Park] from Strone to Kilmun and the accessible hillsides above these villages and extend through the glen at the southern boundary closest to the site and along Loch Eck as far as Dornoch Point. Considered together, these would give rise to impacts of small magnitude on qualities between High and High/medium sensitivity and effects would be moderate, adverse and not significant.” 7.25 The National Park disagrees with this conclusion and considers the following SLQs are likely to experience adverse effects resulting from the introduction of the proposed development, some significant and adverse. The National Park also consider that the submitted LVIA has underplayed the magnitude of effect, and in some instances the susceptibility and sensitivity of the following SLQs: Page 251
Page 252
General Special Landscape Qualities SLQ 1: “A world-renowned landscape famed for its rural beauty” SLQ 5: “Settlements nestled within a vast natural backdrop” SLQ 7: “Tranquillity” SLQ 8: “The easily accessible landscape splendour” Sub area of Argyll Forest Special Landscape Qualities SLQ 9: “A remote area of high hills and deep glens” SLQ 12: “The variety of glens” SLQ 13: “The slender jewel of Loch Eck” SLQ 15: “The seaside architecture of Kilmun and Blairmore” 7.26 The National Park considers that significant nighttime effects will also be experienced in the following: SLQ 1, SLQ 5, SLQ 7, SLQ 8, SLQ 9 and SLQ 13. 7.27 The full LLTPA assessment can be viewed on the ECU website. The National Park’s Landscape Assessment concludes: “the nature and scale of the proposed development at this location is such that it cannot be accommodated without significant adverse landscape and visual effects. This includes significant adverse day time effects and night-time effects on the Argyll Forest area of the National Park... The introduction of turbines of this scale and in this proximity and location to the National Park boundary, would significant and adversely affect the experience, enjoyment and perception of several SLQs. These SLQs are recognised and valued and are integral to defining the National Park character, scenic value and sense of place. This would undermine the integrity of the National Park designation… It would have a significant adverse impact upon the open views and visual amenity for residents, visitors and recreational users of the National Park including the experience of the Upper and Inner Clyde seascape - the marine gateway to the National Park.” 7.28 LLTPA concludes that “Given significant adverse effects on the National Park and its special qualities it is considered that the proposed development does not comply with NPF4 Policy 4 ‘Natural Places’ c) which is clear that development will only be supported where the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the National Park will not be compromised. It also does not comply with NPF4 Policy 11 (Energy) e) ii. due to the extensive (more than localised) nature of the effects on the distinctive landscapes and seascapes of the Upper and Inner Clyde area that cannot be mitigated. The significant adverse effects that the proposal will have upon the Special Landscape Qualities for which the National Park has been designated are not outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. The National Park Authority therefore objects to the proposal.” NatureScot Appraisal and Advice in relation to Landscape and Visual Impacts 7.29 NatureScot leads on the provision of advice concerning the effects of a proposal on the National Park SLQs caused by proposals outside the National Park. The detailed Page 252
Page 253
submission to the ECU sets out the following areas of disagreement with the submitted assessment: • Landscape and seascape effects: We anticipate that significant adverse seascape effects reported on SCA 3 Inner Firth of Clyde would extend further than the 6 to 7 km reported and that there would be some significant adverse effects on the southern part of SCA 5 Loch Long and the northern part of SAC 7 Upper Firth of Clyde; • Townscape effects: Consideration of effects within the assessment on the townscape character of the closest settlements Dunoon, Sandbank, Kilmun and Strone appears to be limited; • Visual effects: Given the high sensitivity of visual receptors, and accounting for the vertical height and horizontal extent of the proposed development, we consider that the scale of visual change would be higher and in turn that significant adverse visual effects would be experienced by the visual receptor groups illustrated by the below viewpoints: o Viewpoint 8: Dornoch Point / A815 receptor group; o Viewpoint 23: Strone Hill; and o Viewpoint 24: Beinn Mhor Viewpoints and relevant LVIA receptor groups near the Firth of Clyde where applicable: o Viewpoint 9: Kilcreggan / Kilcreggan and Kilcreggan-Gourock Ferry elements of this receptor group; o Viewpoint 13: Lyle Hill Viewpoint / Visitors to Lyle Hill Viewpoint receptor group; o Viewpoint 14: McInroy's Point, Gourock / Gourock receptor group; o Viewpoint 15: Lunderston Bay; • Viewpoint 16: Inverkip / Inverkip receptor group; o Viewpoint 17: Weymss Bay / Wemyss Bay and Skelmorlie receptor group; and o Viewpoint 18: Kelly Cut / Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park receptor group. 7.30 NatureScot consider that other LVIA ZTV Figures including 5.2, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.8 do not represent a worst case scenario as they include screening elements for buildings and forest, which does not represent recent felling within the study area and future ongoing crop rotation. NatureScot consider that the applicant underestimates the geographical extent of potential significant adverse effects particularly on the Upper and Inner Clyde area including associated settled coasts. NatureScot disagrees that there would be no significant adverse effects on the LLTNP. 7.31 NatureScot disagrees that no significant visual effects would be experienced by the LVIA Visitors to the Benmore Botanic Garden receptor group. NatureScot also consider it a notable omission that effects of visible aviation lighting on landscape and seascape character are not considered in the assessment. NatureScot conclude in their advice: “The site comprises part of a wider area of upland summits and plateaux close to the coastal edge of the Firth of Clyde which plays an important role forming in part Page 253
Page 254
skylines experienced from within the Argyll Forest, across much of the Upper and Inner Clyde area. The location, size and scale of the proposed development represents a step change in prominence and proximity of wind farms to the Argyll Forest area of the LLTNP and the settled Upper and Inner Clyde area. The Proposal would significantly adversely affect six SLQs of the LLTNP and the experience of the Upper and Inner Clyde area. These impacts would be to a degree that would result in an evident and noticeable material change to the SLQs of the LLTNP such that the objectives of this designation and overall integrity would be compromised. The Argyll Forest is the only area of the LLTNP (or any national park in Scotland) with a marine element, and the Proposal would have a significant adverse effect on that element - notably the recognised marine gateway of the Holy Loch and its associated coasts. We consider that effects on the Upper and Inner Clyde area would be significant adverse and would result in a substantial change to this area.” 7.32 Based on their assessment NatureScot conclude that “Accounting for the anticipated significant adverse effects on the LLTNP, we advise that the proposed development may therefore not meet Policy 4 c) of NPF4 and may not meet NPF4 Policy 11e (ii) due to the extensive nature of the effects on the distinctive landscapes and seascapes of the Upper and Inner Clyde area.” 7.33 Officer opinion – the Council would defer to the views of LLTPA and NatureScot in relation to the impact of the proposed development on the National Park and the distinctive landscapes and seascapes of the Upper and Inner Clyde area. 7.34 Cumulative effects - There are three other operational wind farms in the 30km cumulative assessment study area: • High Matherstock & Priestside (three turbines approx 19km away) • Kelburn Estate/ Millour Hill/ Dalry (28 turbines approx 25km way) • A’ Cruach (21 turbines in two groups of 7 and 14, approx 28km away) The separation/ scale of these proposed wind farms from the site and pattern of existing and consented development is such that the cumulative effects of the proposal in with these wind farms is unlikely to be significant. There are three wind farms at planning application stage within 30km at Vale of Leven (29 km away), Eredine (29 km away) and Crosbie (25 km away). The separation of these proposed wind farms from the site and pattern of existing and consented development is such that the cumulative effects of the proposal in with these wind farms is unlikely to be significant. 7.35 Inverchaolain Wind Farm is at the scoping stage and proposed a short distance to the southeast of the proposal. Although the wirelines in VP01-24 include this wind farm proposal (likely significant) cumulative effects of the proposal with this potential development have not been considered in the assessment. Both NatureScot and LLTPA note that this proposal is likely to have significant cumulative effects on landscape and visual impact, should it proceed to determination. Review against NPF4 Policy 4 and 11 Page 254
Page 255
7.36 The NPF4 national spatial strategy acknowledges the need for a rapid transformation across all sectors of our economy and society in order to meet our climate ambitions. At the same time, it stresses the importance of ‘ensuring the right development happens in the right place.’ This proposal is located on the southern edge of a National Park and so NPF Policy 4c applies which states that: development proposals that will affect a National Park will only be supported where: 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 national importance. 7.37 Both the LLTPA and NatureScot have concluded that the location, size and scale of the proposal would result in significant adverse effects on six of the SLQs of the LLTNP and the experience of the Upper and Inner Clyde area. These impacts are concluded to be to such a degree that they would result in an evident and noticeable material change to the SLQs of the LLTNP such that the objectives of this designation and the overall integrity of the National Park designation would be compromised. Both statutory consultees object to the proposal on landscape and visual impact grounds and note that the proposal does not meet NPF4 Policy 4c. It is not clearly demonstrated that the significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance, given the relatively small contribution of this proposed development of 50mw to national energy generation. 7.38 Policy 11e (ii) requires project design and mitigation to demonstrate how impacts on communities and significant landscape and visual impacts are addressed. In terms of significant landscape and visual impacts, NPF4 Policy 11e (ii) states that “such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy and where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered acceptable.” However, NPF4 provides no guidance on the definition of what constitutes ‘localised effects’ and it is recognised that the impacts of individual proposals therefore require to be considered on a case by case basis. 7.39 Chapter 2 – Site Description and Design Evolution of the submitted EIAR summarises the evolution of the design and mitigation embedded into the design to reduce the landscape and visual effects of this proposal. These include a reduction in the number of turbines from nine to seven, relocations of turbines and of substation and construction compound to reduce impact on landscape and visual receptors, moving turbines away from homes, and reducing tip height of the two turbines closest to Dunoon and Sandbank to mitigate visual effects. Other recorded mitigation measures include seeking to avoid turbine bases being seen in front of the skyline in views from the east (although some turbine bases would remain visible), a reduced aviation lighting scheme to minimise the number of lights and aviation lights to reduce to 200 candela (from 2000 candela) in good visibility. Page 255
Page 256
7.40 Although the above design/mitigation measures may be considered appropriate and may have reduced landscape and visual effects to some extent, significant effects remain for large numbers of receptors as detailed in the LVIA. Significant visual impacts of the proposals would be experienced by large numbers of people including visitors to the LLTNP, visitors and residents of Dunoon, Sandbank, Kilmun, Strone, Gourock, Inverkip, Wemyss Bay and recreational users of the Upper and Inner Firth of Clyde area. The extent of these impacts over multiple administrative areas are considered to be more than a ‘localised area’. The proposal would introduce visually prominent wind farm development to a widely visible area of the landscape that has none, significantly altering the way the landscape – including designated distinctive landscapes of the Argyll Forest area of the LLTNP and distinctive Upper and Inner Clyde areas landscapes and seascape - would be perceived and enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. 7.41 Furthermore both LLTPA and NatureScot advise in their consultation responses that given the proposed siting, scale and type of development, it would not be feasible to overcome the significant adverse effects identified within the site parameters. NatureScot note that: “While the turbine height and number could be reduced, accounting for the sites’ location within hills behind Dunoon close to the sensitive coast which is intervisible from highly sensitive areas of the LLTNP, and across a widespread extent of the Upper and Inner Clyde area, it is considered unlikely that the significant effects identified could be notably reduced. We therefore consider that these effects are unlikely to be overcome through re-design or removal of turbines.” LLTPA also conclude in their consultation response that: “given the proposed siting, scale and type of development, it would not be feasible to overcome the significant adverse effects identified within the site parameters. The National Park does not consider that there is any option for mitigation of the development’s impact.” 7.42 It is further noted that the extent of the significant and adverse effects experienced over a wide area which encompasses the National Park, its approach via the Firth of Clyde and the A815, settlements of Dunoon, Sandbank, Strone, Kilmun and wider impacts experienced from the Bute and South Cowal LLA, the West Refrewshire Hills LLA and views from Inverkip, Gourock and Wemyss Bay demonstrate the extensive regional rather than ‘localised’ impact of this proposal. It is therefore considered that the proposals do not meet the policy provisions of NPF4 4 (c) or 11e (ii). Review against LDP2 Policy 30 and Policy 71 7.43 LDP2 Policy 30 states that The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable environmental effects, whether individual or cumulative, on local communities, natural and historic environments, landscape character and visual amenity, and that the proposals would be compatible with adjacent land uses. All applications for wind farms will be assessed against, among other things, impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact and residential amenity and landscape and visual impact. Page 256
Page 257
7.44 The Council’s Landscape Consultant advises that they expect landscape and visual considerations to carry considerable weight in the council’s overall judgment. Significant visual impacts would be experienced from large numbers of properties in Sandbank, Dunoon, Kilmun and Strone and significant landscape and visual effects would occur over a wide area extending across the Firth of Clyde and beyond the National Park boundary. Although the submitted RVAA does not predict any overwhelming or overbearing effects at residential properties, it is notable that it predicts that 118 homes in the study area would have ‘more open’ visibility of the turbines from windows and/or garden and that residents of numerous properties in Dunoon and Sandbank outside the 2km RVAA study area would experience significant adverse visual effects. Significant effects are predicted for the Ridgeland and Mountains LCT, the adjacent Mountain Glens around Holy Loch LCT and Seascape Character Area 3 Inner Firth of Clyde, as well as on ferry routes and recreational water users in the Firth of Clyde and local roads and core paths. 7.45 LDP2 Policy 71 states that the council will resist development in, or affecting, a Local Landscape Area where its scale, location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. All development proposals in or affecting a Local Landscape Area must demonstrate that: a) Any significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, economic or environmental benefits of community wide importance; b) The proposal is supported by a landscape and visual impact assessment and has taken account of the content of any relevant Argyll and Bute Landscape Capacity Assessment. 7.46 The Bute and South Cowal LLA lies less than 2km to the west of the proposed turbines, however the LVIA predicts that landscape effects on the LLA would be not significant. Based on the visualisations from Rothesay on Bute (VP20) and Glen Lean (VP07) it seems unlikely that the character of the LLA would be significantly affected. However, without further visualisations from more elevated locations to the west of the proposal and consideration of effects on key landscape qualities it is difficult to assess the significance of the effects on this LLA. It is also notable that the ZTV (Figure 5.2) gives forestry areas an assumed height of 15m, which given that most areas are commercial conifer plantations subject to periodic felling, may lead to under-representation of the visibility of the wind turbines from within the LLA. 7.47 The proposal is accompanied by an LVIA which identifies widespread significant effects even with mitigation in place. The LVIA has considered the content of the ABLWECS and argues that the wind farm design ‘performs well against three of the four design criteria set out for the host landscape type in the ABLWECS’. However, the ABLWECS does not advise any further development of commercial scale wind in the Steep Ridgeland and Mountains, stating that landscape and visual sensitivity for turbines > 50m is high and there is no scope to additional new development of this scale in this landscape without significant effects occurring. It also states that ‘The introduction of wind farms and larger turbines seen on the skyline of the Steep Ridgeland and Mountains or against the most prominent coastal edge and promontories of this character type form the wider Firth of Clyde basin would Page 257
Page 258
adversely affect the strong sense of Cowal forming the threshold to the ‘Highlands’ and the point where the Glasgow conurbation is left (this perception heightened by the ferry crossing to Dunoon). The present contrast of the landscapes of the Cowal with the more developed Inverclyde and North Ayrshire coast would be diminished. Officer’s Conclusion 7.48 Having reviewed several recent wind energy development decisions, the key NPF4 test in relation to the acceptability of wind farm proposals appears to be ‘the right development in the right place’. Based on the planning history of this site, expert advice of the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect, and the consultation responses of NatureScot and LLTPA it is concluded the proposal warrants an objection on landscape and visual grounds. The proposal is anticipated to result in extensive significant adverse effects on both the immediate and neighbouring residential areas, the LLTNP and on the distinctive landscapes and seascapes of the Upper and Inner Clyde which cannot be described as ‘localised’ due to their extent. Due to the proposed location and scale of the proposal, it is not considered that these significant and adverse effects can be mitigated. It is also not considered that the significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the LLTNP has been designated are outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance, given the relatively small contribution of this proposed development of 50mw to national energy generation. 7.49 Having due regard to the above it is therefore concluded that the proposal does not comply with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 4c) Natural Places and NPF4 Policy 11e (ii) Energy and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 as the proposed wind farm would result in extensive significant adverse landscape and visual effects. Should consent be granted a planning condition should be attached to require an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS), as an additional mitigation measure in regard to visible aviation lighting. This additional measure is recommended by NatureScot in their response to the ECU. Page 258
Page 259
8. IMPACTS ON TOURISM AND RECREATION 8.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 does not require impacts on tourism to be considered. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on tourism and recreation. 8.2 Tourism – Policy 11 of NPF4 does not include a requirement for the impact of proposals on tourism to be assessed. However, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP does. In Argyll & Bute the landscape is regarded as being a particularly valued asset both in terms of its intrinsic qualities and in terms of its value to the tourism economy. For all types of development, the maintenance of landscape character is an important facet of decision-making in the countryside in Argyll & Bute, regardless of the scale of development proposed. 8.3 The submitted material highlights that the following groups would be ‘visual receptors’ and impacted by the proposed development: • Users of Core Paths within 2 km – which run through the forested slopes between the Site and the edge of Sandbank and from where there would be views of the turbines from felled areas (major/moderate and adverse); • People living in and visiting Sandbank – which lies at the foot of the forested slopes to the east of the Site and would have open views from some streets (major and adverse); • People living in and visiting Dunoon – which lies at the foot of the forested slopes to the east of the Site and would have open views from some streets and open spaces (major/moderate and Adverse); • Users of local roads and Core Paths between Sandbank and Loch Eck – from where there would be some open views of the turbines from closer routes including the B836, with visibility decreasing further north due to tree cover (major/moderate and Adverse); • Ferry passengers on the two routes between Gourock and Dunoon/Sandbank – who would see close views of the turbines on the skyline above Dunoon throughout their journey (major/moderate and adverse); • People living in and visiting Kilmun – from where there would be open, close views of the turbines across Holy Loch, which is the main outlook from the village (major and adverse); • People living in and visiting Strone – from where there would be open views of the turbines across Holy Loch, which is the main outlook from the village (major/moderate and adverse); and • Recreational water users between Gourock, Kilcreggan and Dunoon and within Holy Loch – from where there would be close views of the turbines on the skyline above Dunoon and Sandbank 8.4 The submitted LVIA states that visual effects would be largely localised in spatial extent, with no significant effects beyond a distance of 11/12km. However, the Council’s Landscape Consultant notes that Several of Scotland’s Great Trails covered by the bareground ZTV in Figure 5.1 (e.g. West Island Way, Ayrshire Coastal Path) have not been shown on Figure 5.6 while the LVIA provides limited justification for the effects identified along those routes and no sequential assessment. The applicant has responded to note that most receptors would experience negligible effects as a result of the Proposed Development, and the remainder would not experience significant effects (Dunoon to Portavadie cycle Page 259
Page 260
route, National Cycle Route 75/753 and Ayrshire Coastal Path). For each of these, the visibility of other wind farms from parts of the route is not likely to alter the effects arising from the Proposed Development, given the very limited visibility of operational and consented development indicated for each route by Figure 5.10 which shows cumulative visibility with operational and consented wind farms. 8.5 As Tourism and Landscape & Visual matters are intrinsically linked, and there is little evidence to demonstrate whether wind farms adversely affect tourism, it is considered that such impacts are covered in the landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal. This proposal has a significant and widespread landscape and visual impact which is likely to result in the deterioration in the enjoyment of the landscape as it is accessed by identified ‘visual receptors’ including visitors and tourists. 8.6 Having due regard to the above it is not possible to determine whether the proposal is consistent with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables - impacts on tourism and recreation, although it is likely that there will be major and adverse impacts on many identified ‘visual receptors’. 9. PUBLIC ACCESS 9.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on public access are addressed, including impact on long distance walking, and cycling routes and scenic routes. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and those scenic routes identified in NPF4. Policy 32 – Active Travel of LDP2 requires active travel and recreation to be integrated in developments from the start of the wider design process and existing active travel networks should be safeguarded and integrated with the development. 9.2 The submitted LVIA that significant visual effects would arise for the following groups of visual receptors: • Users of Core Paths within 2 km – which run through the forested slopes between the Site and the edge of Sandbank and from where there would be views of the turbines from felled areas (major/moderate and adverse); • Users of local roads and Core Paths between Sandbank and Loch Eck – from where there would be some open views of the turbines from closer routes including the B836, with visibility decreasing further north due to tree cover (major/moderate and Adverse). 9.3 Access to the site is via the B836 which is also National Cycle Route 75. The Core Path Dunans loop to Invereck and the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park boundary intersects the development site boundary and part of this core path will be used to access the development. An Access Plan is recommended to secure ongoing accessibility of existing public access routes nearby and within the proposed development site. 9.4 Having due regard to the above subject to the use of a planning condition to access plans in the event that consent is granted, it is considered the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; and Policy 32 - Active Travel of the LDP2. Page 260
Page 261
10. AVIATION AND DEFENCE INTERESTS INCLUDING SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING 10.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed. Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would compromise the safe operation of an Aerodrome or Technical Site or constrain their present or future operations. 10.2 National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) and Glasgow Airport have advised that the proposal conflicts with their safeguarding criteria and have submitted objections. At the time of writing there has been no update from the ECU or the applicant in relation to ongoing discussion to resolve these matters. It is therefore not possible to determine whether these matters have been appropriately addressed in line with the provisions of LDP2 and NPF4 policies. 10.3 Should it subsequently be agreed with the ECU that the NATS and Glasgow Airport Safeguarding objections are withdrawn it is anticipated an appropriately worded condition will be imposed which will mitigate the unacceptable impacts on the operation of the primary radar located at Lowther Hill and associated air traffic management operations. 10.4 Having due regard to the above it is not possible to conclude whether the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes, of the LDP2. Appropriate planning conditions may be required to resolve these issues should Scottish Ministers decide to grant consent. 11. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING INSTALLATIONS 11.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, have been addressed particularly, ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. 11.2 BT advised the ECU the proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. BT require 100m minimum clearance from any structure to the radio link path. Joint Radio Company - advised the ECU the proposal is CLEARED - subject to 50m Micrositing with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. 11.3 Having due regard to the above subject to the conditions recommended by BT, and the Joint Radio Company it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on telecommunications, broadcasting installations and transmission links (including cumulative impacts) and is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 in this respect. Page 261
Page 262
12. ROAD TRAFFIC AND ADJACENT TRUNK ROADS 12.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on road traffic and on adjacent trunk roads have been addressed, including during construction. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on road traffic and impacts on adjacent trunk roads. Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes of LDP2 acceptance of development utilising new and existing public roads, private roads and private access regimes is subject to road safety and street design issues being addressed to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority and the Planning Authority. Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads requires that accesses which connect to or impact significantly on a Trunk Road require consultation with Transport Scotland. 12.2 The Site would be accessed from the B836. Regular construction traffic, inclusive of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), would use the B836 to deliver the necessary turbine components to the Site. It is assumed that these components will be delivered to King George V Dock, Glasgow, and use the A82 to Tarbet, join the A815 and head southbound toward Dunoon towards Sandbank (north of Dunoon). Loads will then join the B836 and head westbound for approximately 2 km and join the Site access junction. During the construction phase HGV traffic levels are expected to increase more than 90% on sections of the A815, and 70% on the B836. A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would be prepared to detail the measures required to manage vehicles travelling to and from the proposed Site. This would be updated through the planning and construction of the Proposed Development. With the implementation of appropriate mitigation, the assessment concludes that residual effects would be minor to negligible and would occur during the construction phase only. 12.3 Transport Scotland (TS) have advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions being attached to any consent to secure submission and approval of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), the route for abnormal loads, abnormal load accommodation measures required, and any necessary additional signing or temporary traffic control measures. In addition to the advisory notes are provided relating to works within the trunk road boundary. 12.4 ABC Roads and Infrastructure Services (RIS) – have insufficient detail to make proper evaluation from a roads perspective and as such give general instruction. The Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) is required to evaluate the proposals and address a number of points, including: • Concerns over the ‘straight’ section leading on to the exit/B836. We assume the straightening is to allow for abnormal load movement, however for other traffic we have concern over the speed of vehicles/run off onto the B836. • The visibility splays provided to west/left of exit to B836 are in excess of the 136m required. Obstacles to visibility, particularly to the west require detail as to how they would be overcome. • The junction onto the B836 shows a proposed widening but does not take into account overcoming the dip in gradient to the west nor the telecoms pole that would require relocation. • Detail of the road width/passing places on the access road, particularly near entrance e.g. to prevent queuing Page 262
Page 263
• Confirmation of borrow pit use/concrete batching on-site or sourced from off- site • Location of wheel washing/inspection areas • Services access locations • Detail on entrance/exit onto public road – access width, design etc • Width of access road. 12.5 RIS have no objection subject to conditions to ensure that the matters raised above are addressed in the CTMP. Notice is also requested of proposed routes for abnormal roads and access road entrance to standard required in our Roads Development Technical Guidance including drainage and prevention of water/objects onto the public road. 12.6 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by Transport Scotland and Roads & Infrastructure Services it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads in this regard. It is recommended that the conditions required by Area Roads and Amenity Services are attached to any consent granted by the ECU. 13. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 13.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on the historic environment have been addressed. Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4 intent is to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings. Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment, Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments, Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes, and Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance support the key policies and provide guidance on assessing development proposals against heritage impacts. 13.2 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) – required the submission of additional wireline and photomontage visualisations to be able to fully understand and assess the potential effects on the setting of the following assets: • Dunoon Castle (Scheduled Monument SM5450) • Ardnadam, settlement, chapel and enclosure (Scheduled Monument SM3235) • Adam’s Cave Chambered Cairn (Scheduled Monument SM6552) • Ardgowan House, Inverkip (Category A Listed Building LB12480) • Ardgowan (Inventory Garden & Designed Landscape GDL00021). Further information and visualisations were provided by the applicant which was reviewed by HES as being unlikely to be any significant adverse impacts on the setting of Ardgowan House, Inverkip (Category A Listed Building LB12480), and Ardgowan (Inventory Garden & Designed Landscape GDL00021). In addition, HES stated that although there are likely to be significant adverse impacts on the setting of Dunoon Castle (Scheduled Monument SM5450), our own assessment of Page 263
Page 264
these impacts are that these are unlikely to be of the magnitude that we would object. However HES maintain their stated stated objection due to insufficient information available to assess the impact on the following assets: • Ardnadam, settlement, chapel and enclosure (Scheduled Monument SM3235) • Adam’s Cave Chambered Cairn (Scheduled Monument SM6552) 13.3 LDP2 Policy 30 sets out that applications for all wind turbine developments will be assessed against impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings. The Planning Authority has concern at the significant impact of the proposal on the integrity of the setting of Dunoon Castle and considers that the proposal would not comply with this element of LDP2 Policy 30 and Policy 19. 13.4 Having due regard to the above it is not possible to determine whether the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy and Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment; 19 – Scheduled Monuments; 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes; and 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance of the LDP2. 14. HYDROLOGY, THE WATER ENVIRONMENT AND FLOOD RISK 14.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk have been addressed. Policy 30 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk (including cumulative). Policy 55 - Flooding of LDP2 provides guidance on the type of development that will be permissible within specific flood risk areas. Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals requires flood risk assessments, and drainage impact assessments, to accompany applications where required. 14.2 The Planning Authority’s Flood Prevention Officer – has advised they have no objection subject to conditions to ensure that any proposed watercourse crossings are designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event and that surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensure that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. 14.3 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Flood Prevention Officer it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 55 – Flooding; and Policy 57 Risk Appraisals of LDP2. 15. BIODIVERSITY 15.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on biodiversity, including birds have been addressed. Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 requires that when considering all Page 264
Page 265
proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 3 – Biodiversity of NPF4 requires proposals to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 5 – Soils of NPF4 supports the generation of energy from renewable sources that optimises the contribution of the area to GHG emissions reduction targets on peatland, carbon-rich soils, and priority peatland. A detailed site-specific assessment will be required for development on peatland which will include the net effects of the development on climate emissions and loss of carbon. 15.2 Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from effects on the natural heritage, including birds and to be assessed against impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator (including cumulative). Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity requires proposals to incorporate, safeguard and enhance existing site biodiversity wherever possible. Priority Peatland Habitat 15.3 In relation to impacts on peat, NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils states that ‘Where development on peatland, carbon-rich soils or priority peatland habitat is proposed, a detailed site specific assessment will be required’. In addition, Policies 30 and 79 of LDP2 seek to assess applications against their impacts on carbon rich soils, advising that development that would potentially have a significant adverse effect on peat structure and function will not be supported. 15.4 The majority of the site is identified as Class 2 peatland, with an area of Class 1 peat to the north containing proposed turbine (T4) and track infrastructure. As per habitat surveys, the site is characterised by extensive blanket bog (235.81ha), which primarily consists of M19 Calluna– Eriophorum vaginatum mire, significant areas of M17 blanket mire on wetter ground and localised bog pools (M1, M2, M3). Blanket bog communities on this site are primarily associated with deeper peat substrates (1.5m - 9.0m) as confirmed by habitat surveys. Past management has caused erosion and modification, however much of the site retains intact mire communities of high ecological value. The site, including areas of proposed infrastructure, features natural surface patterns, widespread blanket mires, peat-forming species and scrub/trees are largely absent. This indicates that the peatland habitats within the development boundary are of national importance. 15.5 The EIA Report states that the Proposal will result in the loss of approximately 14.34ha of priority peatland habitat; 7.41ha direct loss and 6.66ha indirect losses are described in Chapter 6 – Ecology. Losses are primarily described for M19 blanket bog (13.28ha, 8.75%), M17 (0.79ha, 0.94%) and M25 on peat >0.5m (0.27ha, 9.57%). No losses are described for bog pool communities; however, these habitats appear to exist in close proximity to some of the proposed infrastructure and may be at risk of indirect impacts. It is unclear how the 10m dewatering buffer to inform indirect loss has been justified, and whether any other potential indirect impacts such as drainage or sedimentation have been assessed or incorporated into the peat loss and carbon calculations. Furthermore, there are weaknesses noted in survey accuracy, mapping consistency, and application of the mitigation hierarchy. The methodology used to calculate the area of peatland impacted is unclear and there is a concern that excavation estimates are conservative. Page 265
Page 266
15.6 NatureScot notes that currently the oroposal does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with NPF4 Policies 3 and 5 and sets out in their response a number of measures for further attention relating to management of peatland impacts, avoiding impacts through the mitigation hierarchy and a more robust Biodiversity Enahncement Strategy with offsetting in the order of 1:10 required (as opposed to the 1:5.7 currently proposed). 15.7 NatureScot concludes that the magnitude of such impacts to deep peat, with associated carbon losses, in the case that such concerns are not addressed, are at odds with the climate emergency and the intended purpose of the Proposal in contributing to net zero. It must be noted that NPF4 Policy 5c states that developments on carbon-rich soils and priority peatland will only be supported for the generation of energy from renewable sources that optimises the contribution of the area to greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets or restoration of peatland habitats. The proposed Turbines are sited on Class I and Class II peat with T2, T3 and T4 appearing to be sited on areas of deep peat. As per NPF4 Policy 5, the mitigation hierarchy should be adhered to, with areas of deep peat avoided in the first instance. Areas of potentially High Dependent GWDTE also appear to be impacted on. These areas should avoided. SEPA have also raised the impact on deep peat as an issue requiring further information – however at the time of writing there has been no response from the applicant on these matters. 15.8 Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA), Stage 1 Checking Report advised the ECU that the PLHRA required resubmission to address a number of matters. At time of writing no further response has been received from the applicant. Consequently, it is not possible to reach a conclusion on the acceptability of the proposal in this regard. 15.9 As there are unresolved issues in relation to impacts on deep peat, priority peatland habitats and in relation to the contents of the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment, as set out above, it is recommended that the Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that it is not possible to reach a conclusion on the proposal's acceptability in this regard at this time and the Council should object on these grounds. The Local Biodiversity Officer advice 15.10 The proposed site is linked hydrologically to Holy Loch LNR / LNCS and may impact upon the qualifying features present, however there is insufficient information to determine how significant this may be. Ancient woodland and native woodland are also present on the site and additional surveys were requested. However the Applicant has responded to note all ancient woodland felling is non-native conifer and therefore a tree survey is not required. The applicant also notes that a 1:10 enhanced compensatory planting proposal has been offered in recognition of the disturbance of AWI soils. 15.11 Activity levels recorded as High, Moderate to High and Moderate for several species across the site including European Protected Species and Protected Species Otter, Badger, Water Vole, Red Squirrel and Pine Martin, invertebrates, amphibians). The applicant has confirmed that these are to be covered by pre- works surveys and Species Protection Plans should planning consent be granted. 15.12 In relation to bats, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and NatureScot have advised the rotation speed should be reduced and monitoring of any fatalities that may occur from collision should be undertaken, as bats are found to forage within the wind Page 266
Page 267
turbine areas. The applicant has responded that ‘an intentionally balanced approach to bats was taken resulting in an overall picture of Medium risk to individual bats. The Population Risk Assessment was undertaken for species of high population vulnerability and was concluded to be Low. Pipistrelle bats (86% of the calls) are not of high population vulnerability (excluding Nathusius’ pip which comprised only 22 calls, vs 3500 of common and soprano pips combined).’ The applicant refers to guidance which states, “Where there is little scope for avoiding areas of high risk through micro-siting or a reduction in the number of turbines, buffers and/or curtailment mitigation can be put in place”. Buffers are already stipulated as a matter of best practice, but the proposed development area is not high risk, therefore the suggestion for additional mitigation that would affect energy generation is not strongly supported by the guidance and therefore there are no plans to curtail the individual turbines. No curtailment is proposed at this site, however post-construction monitoring could be included in the detailed BEP post-consent, to be agreed prior to construction in order to improve understanding of bat activity in the area. 15.13 The NatureScot response sets out ‘we would advise that as a minimum feathering of the turbine blades below cut-in speed is implemented at this site’). NatureScot guidance notes – ‘The reduction in speed resulting from feathering compared with normal idling may reduce fatality rates by up to 50%. As this option does not result in any loss of output, as best practice, it is recommended wherever it is practically possible and there remains uncertainty over the risk posed to bats’ and officers will request this be secured by planning condition should the proposal be granted consent by Scottish Ministers. Post-construction surveys are required to aid the monitoring process. This information will feed into further mitigation measures which can be altered accordingly to ensure any negative impacts to foraging / commuting bats is minimal. 15.14 The applicant states that neither NatureScot or the Argyll and District Salmon Fishery Board have requested surveys for fish and fresh water pearl mussels and due to no concerns being raised, the applicant does not think it is necessary to include them as part of this application. In fact, Argyll and District Salmon Fishery Board strongly recommend surveys of migratory salmonid fish and their habitat are undertaken and fully considered throughout the proposed development and a monitoring program is implemented. Given the identified presence of brown trout parr in Birchen Burn any agreed mitigation measures should be implemented if consent is granted. 15.15 Ornithology NatureScot has provided detailed comments on golden eagle assessments and potential implications for restoration proposals. As well as comments on mitigation for bat populations and the need for species protection plan for reptiles and amphibians, NatureScot provide detailed advice on the requirements for the Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy to ensure significant additional long term biodiversity enhancements are secured in addition to any proposed mitigation/compensation. 15.16 The cumulative effects of wind farms are having a negative impact on bird species. Appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented to reduce potential impact of bird collision. Research has shown that painting one of the blades black can reduce fatalities. A programme of monitoring should be implemented with results provided to NatureScot, RSPB and Argyll Raptor Study Group. This information will Page 267
Page 268
feed into further mitigation measures which can be altered accordingly to ensure any negative impacts to birds is minimal. 15.17 The LBO notes the Applicant is in discussions with SEPA and NatureScot. SEPA have submitted an objection but will reconsider should the proposal be modified to avoid impacting deep peat. The LBO asks that these discussions continue. As per NPF4 Policy 5, the mitigation hierarchy should be adhered to, with areas of deep peat avoided in the first instance. 15.18 Having due regard to the above due to outstanding information relating to deep peat, priority peatland habitats and further information required by SEPA and NatureScot it is not possible to reach a conclusion on whether the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2. If consent is granted the conditions recommended by NatureScot, SEPA, and the Local Biodiversity Officer should be included. 16. TREES, WOODS, AND FORESTS 16.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on trees, woods and forests have been addressed. Policy 6 – Forestry, woodland, and Trees of NPF4 intent is to protect and expand forests, woodland, and trees. Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees of LDP2 states that there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting woodland resources. Policy 78 – Woodland Removal of LDP2 states that proposals that involve the removal of woodland resources will be assessed against the criteria for determining the acceptability of woodland removal, in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. Where this assessment concludes that compensatory planting would be appropriate, developers will need to provide for this in accordance with the advice in the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. 16.2 The permanent woodland loss for the new access tracks and upgrading of existing tracks as part of the proposal is 32.92ha. The applicant notes that the proposed BES would demonstrate that the proposed Conversion of 21.68 ha of forest to peatland restoration is restorable to a functional Priority Peatland Habitat. 16.3 The wind farm commitment to replant on site is limited to 7.39 ha which is less than 7% of the total Sandbank Forest Plan (FP) and Auchamore forest areas. The replanting will form part of the revised FPs which will adhere to the UKFS species and age class diversity. Confirmed proposed restocking includes 0.74ha native broadleaves in line with the UKFS minimum of 5% native broadleaves. The replanting with native broadleaved trees under the control of the wind farm would be from the Provenance Region 10 and Native Seed Source Zone 106. Confirmed 7.39 ha replanting on site with Sitka spruce and other conifer will meet UKFS requirements to not exceed 65% of any single species. Confirmed that for the proposed contiguous area of clear felling, a phased restocking plan spread out over 5 years to deliver age class diversity. The planned timing for felling for construction, governed by the grid connection date, is anticipated as 2029. Replanting would normally follow within two years therefore the wind farm replanting on site would be 2031. The adjacent areas were replanted in 2015 and 2022 so the age diversity should be achieved without spreading out the replanting of the relatively small 7.39 ha. Page 268
Page 269
16.4 Scottish Forestry have raised no concerns with the proposals in relation to the commercial forestry. However, The Planning Authority’s Local Biodiversity Officer has raised concern at the loss of 1.08ha ancient woodland and native trees as a result of the proposal. It is not possible to mitigate the loss of ancient woodland. Tree surveys are therefore requested should consent be granted in order to protect these biodiversity elements. 16.5 Having due regard to the above, the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 6 – Forestry, woodland, and Trees of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees and 78 – Woodland Removal of the LDP2 17. MINERALS 17.1 Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 states that proposals for borrow pits will only be supported where the proposal is tied to a specific project and is time-limited, the proposal complies with the mineral extraction criteria in Policy 33 taking into account the temporary nature of the development, and appropriate restoration proposals are enforceable and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 states that proposals for mineral extraction will generally be supported for borrow pits where the proposal is found to be acceptable after being assessed against NPF4 Policy 33 criterion e). 17.2 No borrow pits are proposed as part of this proposed development. Provided all peat management is undertaken in line with best practice guidance the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 in this regard, subject to a condition to secure details of the borrow pit and a borrow pit restoration plan. 18. DECOMMISSIONING, SITE RESTORATION AND QUALITY OF SITE RESTORATION PLANS 18.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration have been addressed. It also requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the quality of site restoration plans have been addressed including the measures in place to safeguard or guarantee availability of finances to effectively implement those plans. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 requires consideration to be given to the long-term environmental management of the site. 18.2 The proposal is expected to operate for up to 50 years following which decommissioning of the wind turbines and other infrastructure and site restoration would be undertaken as required. Any alternative to this action would be subject to a further consenting process. 18.3 It is recommended that this matter is covered by planning conditions consistent with other projects across Argyll & Bute if the proposal obtains consent from the ECU. 18.4 Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to an appropriate condition being attached if the proposal receives consent the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 - The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 Page 269
Page 270
19. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 19.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how cumulative impacts have been addressed. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 also requires cumulative impacts to be addressed. Any cumulative impacts which have been identified are covered in the preceding sections of this report. 20. RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION TARGETS AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS. 20.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that, in considering the impacts of the proposal, significant weight will be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 requires that when considering proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all renewable developments to be assessed against the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions. 20.2 Renewable Electricity Generation - Both UK and Scottish Government energy policy recognises the need for substantial increases in renewable energy generation if the transition towards net zero is to be achieved. The proposed turbines will have a combined rated output of around 50.4 MW. A battery energy storage system will also be installed with a capacity of up to 23 MW giving a total capacity for the proposal of around 73.4 MW. The prospective electricity generation from the proposed wind turbines equates to the annual power consumed by up to approximately 58,212 average Scottish households. 20.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – The proposal would reduce greenhouse gas emissions through replacing fossil fuel generation. The length of time a wind turbine needs to be in operation before it has, by displacing fossil fuel energy generation, avoided as much carbon dioxide as was released in its lifecycle is known as the carbon payback period. A carbon balance assessment has been undertaken using the Scottish Government’s carbon calculator. The results show that the wind farm component of the proposal is estimated to produce annual carbon savings of approximately 37,288 tCO2 yr-1 (Grid-mix of electricity) tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per annum if a grid mix of electricity generation were used as the counterfactual position. The carbon assessment indicates that the carbon emissions payback time would be approximately 2.4 years when compared against a grid mix electricity generation. 20.4 The proposal is evaluated to have an overall beneficial effect on the carbon emissions associated with energy production, however it is noted that the effects on the removal of deep peat are not adequately covered in these calculations given the lack of information on these elements of the proposal. In addition, it is noted that this is a relatively small contribution towards energy generation targets of 50mw (plus 23mw storage through the proposed BESS). Officers do not consider that the generation capacity of this proposal warrants the significant landscape and visual effects to this sensitive receiving environment (as set out in Chapter 7 above). Page 270
Page 271
20.5 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crisis and 11 – Energy of NPF 4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 04 – Sustainable Development of LDP2 in respect to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. 21. GRID CAPACITY & ENERGY STORAGE 21.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that grid capacity should not constrain renewable energy development. It is for developers to agree connections to the grid with the relevant network operator. Furthermore, that proposals for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported, which include energy storage. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires the Planning Authority to have regard to the opportunities for energy storage. 21.2 Grid Capacity - Connection to Electricity Grid - The electrical power produced by the individual wind turbines (as well as that stored in the BESS) will be transmitted to the proposed Substation via underground cables. A connection to the national grid’s electricity system will be required which the applicant does not yet have an offer for. The grid connection does not form part of the Proposed Development and is not the subject of the Application. A separate Section 37 application under the 1989 Act will be made to the Scottish Ministers by Scottish and Southern Energy Networks (SSEN). 21.3 Energy Storage is proposed that 2 hr battery storage (rated power of approximately 23 MW and energy storage capacity of 53 MWh) and other electrical equipment would be located within the SSEN construction compound, once the substation construction has been completed. There would be two entrance points to the compound for fire safety and easier BESS installation. The batteries would store excess generated power and provide grid support services. 21.4 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the ABLDP2 in respect to Grid Capacity and Energy Storage. 22. PERPETUITY 22.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that consents for proposals may be time limited. Areas identified for wind farms are, however, expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. It is acknowledged that areas identified for wind farms are expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. However, as the expected operational life of the proposal is 50 years from the date of commissioning, should consent be granted, Officers would expect it to be time limited to 50 years to reflect the life of the wind farm as detailed in the EIAR. 23. CONCLUSION 23.1 This proposal is classed as “Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation” - a National Development, in terms of the Spatial Strategy given its capacity to generate and store more than 50MW. In principle, there is support for this scale of development Page 271
Page 272
given its importance in the delivery of Scotland’s Spatial Strategy. However, such projects are still required to be assessed against the provisions of the Development Plan, which consists of NPF4 and LDP 2. 23.2 The lead Development Plan policies support renewable energy development in principle but require proposals to be assessed against the criterion detailed in this report. While the weight to be given to each of the considerations is a matter for the decision maker, NPF4 is clear that significant weight will require to be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. However, a balance still requires to be reached in terms of the impact of the development and NPF4 must be read as a whole. 23.3 In relation to landscape and visual impacts NPF4 Policy 4c (Natural Places) – sets out that development that will affect a National Park will only be supported where: i. The objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the areas will not be compromised; or ii. 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 national importance. Following a detailed assessment of this application, it is considered that this proposal would have a significant landscape and visual impact on the National Park and on the distinctive seascapes and landscapes of the Firth of Clyde to the extent that the significant and adverse effects would compromise the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the area. There will also be extensive significant townscape effects and residential amenity impacts. For clarity, it is also not considered that this relatively small-scale proposal in terms of energy generation will be outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. 23.4 NPF4 Policy 11 advises that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how significant landscape and visual impacts are addressed - recognising that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy and that where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered to be acceptable. It is not considered that this proposal is able to be effectively mitigated due to the prominence of the site and the scale of the proposed development. This conclusion is supported by statutory consultees NatureScot and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. As such the Planning Authority objects to the proposal on landscape and visual impact grounds. 23.5 In relation to impacts on deep peat and priority peatland habitats, NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils states that ‘Where development on peatland, carbon-rich soils or priority peatland habitat is proposed, a detailed site-specific assessment will be required’. In addition, Policies 30 and 79 of LDP2 seek to assess applications against their impacts on carbon rich soils, advising that development that would potentially have a significant adverse effect on peat structure and function will not be supported. As there are unresolved issues in relation to impacts on deep peat, impacts on priority peatland habitats and in relation to the contents of the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment, as set out above, it is recommended that the Planning Authority objects to the proposal on the grounds that it is not possible to reach a conclusion on the proposal's acceptability in this regard at this time. Page 272
Page 273
23.6 Historic Environment Scotland have submitted a holding objection based on potential significant effects on Scheduled Monuments (Ardnadam, settlement, chapel and enclosure (SM3235) and Adam’s Cave Chambered Cairn (SM6552). Without further information it is not possible to determine whether the proposal is consistent with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy and NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4, and LDP2 Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables. There is an identified significant adverse impact on the setting of Scheduled Monument Dunoon Castle (SM5450) which although not grounds for an objection by HES, would contradict LDP2 Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment; LDP2 Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments and LDP2 Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance. The Planning Authority therefore objects on cultural heritage grounds to this proposal. 23.7 There are outstanding objections from NATS and Glasgow Airport. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the proposal is consistent with NPF4 Policy 11 and LDP2 Policy 30 and 43. Should this matter be satisfactorily resolved between ECU and NATS/Glasgow Airport the Council’s objection would be withdrawn. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to NATS/Glasgow Airport (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. 23.8 The Scottish Government gives considerable commitment to renewable energy and encourages Planning Authorities to support the development of wind farms where they can operate successfully in appropriate locations. This is not however blanket support without qualification. In considering the appropriateness of the development, significant weight has been given to these matters. 23.9 In conclusion, it is recommended by Officers that the Planning Authority formally objects to this proposal on landscape and visual impact grounds and cultural heritage grounds. Responses by statutory consultees suggest that there are no mitigation measures available to overcome the widespread significant and adverse visual effects of the proposal on national, regional and local landscapes. Further information is required to resolve biodiversity, deep peat, priority peatland impacts, peat landslide risk assessment and aviation objections. Any conditions recommended by consultees should be included in any consent granted by Scottish Ministers. 24. RECOMMENDATION 24.1 That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) Following advice from NatureScot, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority and the Council’s Landscape Consultant Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal on landscape and visual impact grounds, as the proposed wind farm would result in extensive significant adverse landscape and visual effects, contrary to NPF4 Policy 11, NPF Policy 4 and LDP2 Policy 30. (2) Following advice from SEPA and NatureScot, Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal on deep peat and priority peatland habitat grounds, as there are significant outstanding matters contrary to NPF4 Policy 11, NPF Policy 4 and LDP2 Policy 30, 73 and 79. Should this matter be satisfactorily resolved between ECU and SEPA and NatureScot Page 273
Page 274
the Council’s objection would be withdrawn. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to SEPA and NatureScot (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. (3) Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal on Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment as there are significant outstanding matters contrary to NPF4 Policy 11, NPF Policy 4 and LDP2 Policy 30 and 79. The applicant has not provided an updated report as requested by the ECU. Argyll and Bute Council object unless this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of Ironside Farrar prior to the determination of this application by the ECU. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to Ironside Farrar (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. (4) Following advice from Historic Environment Scotland (HES), Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal the based on cultural heritage impacts as there are significant effects on the setting of the Scheduled Monument Dunoon Castle and inconclusive effects on other scheduled monuments contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policy 19.Should this matter be satisfactorily resolved between ECU and HES the Council’s objection would be withdrawn. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to HES (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. (5) Following advice from NATS and Glasgow Airport, Argyll & Bute Council object to the proposal the based on aviation impacts contrary to NPF4 Policy 11 and LDP2 Policy 30 and 43. Should this matter be satisfactorily resolved between ECU and NATS/Glasgow Airport the Council’s objection would be withdrawn. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to NATS/Glasgow Airport (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. (6) Argyll and Bute do not object on noise impact grounds, subject to the inclusion of an Operational Noise and Amplitude Modulation Planning Conditions, as recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant, Mott MacDonald, specified in their Review of Evidence – Noise, dated January 2026. (7) Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Public Access grounds, subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction. (8) Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Roads grounds, subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions, as specified by RIS and Transport Scotland in their consultation response to the ECU. (9) Argyll and Bute Council requests that the recommendations of the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer and NatureScot are considered by the ECU. Specifically with reference to the need for mitigation (turbine Page 274
Page 275
feathering) for bats and surveys and mitigation for migratory salmonids, should consent be granted. (10) Argyll and Bute Council requests that all other conditions recommended by consultees are included in any Consent, should it be granted. Page 275
Page 276
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 277
© Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan relative to; 25/01342/S36 O 0 720 1,440360 Meters Application Site Page 277
Page 278
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 279
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL Committee Development & Economic Growth 18th February 2026 Development Management Performance Update – FQ3 2025/26 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides an update on the performance of the Development Management Service for the reporting period FQ3 2025/26. 1.2 The attached document Appendix 1 provides an overview of the current demands upon the Development Management Service, its output during this period, the handling of the current backlog of casework, and the average time taken to determine planning applications. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that PPSL: (a) Review and agree the content of the report. 3.0 DETAIL & BACKGROUND 3.1 The performance of the Council’s Development Management Service has been significantly impacted by the legacy effect of the Covid Pandemic upon interruption to workflow and a subsequent increase in demand for regulatory activity relating to new development. This situation has been exacerbated by the Service having previously been down-sized in response to the longer-term wider financial pressures facing the Council combined with a number of long-term vacancies that proved extremely difficult to fill as a result of a national shortage of planning professionals. The determination of planning applications has also been impacted by the uncertainty created by a changing planning policy backdrop with the Scottish Government’s adoption of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) in February 2023 with minimal transition arrangements having had a noticeable adverse impact on FQ4 2022/23 output as a result of a significant volume of casework requiring to be reassessed prior to its determination. The cumulative effect of these extraordinary pressures has given rise to a significant backlog of planning casework that continues to impact upon the ability of the Council to deliver the Development Management Service in an efficient and effective manner at this time, and impacts upon customer service. At FQ4 2022/23 the backlog of applications amounted to approximately 375 formal applications and 175 pre-application enquiries. Page 279 Agenda Item 9
Page 280
3.2 An Improvement Action Plan (IAP) was prepared in early 2023 in response to the significant decrease in performance and wider issues impacting upon the resourcing of the service and its interactions with customers. The implementation of the IAP has ensured the delivery of additional capacity within the Development Management Service and along with this improvement initially in terms of output and more latterly improving trends are also now able to be identified in relation to the making of timely determinations. Building upon the foundation of the IAP, the Development Management Service Plan and Development Management Charter approved by PPSL on 18th September 2024 set out updated performance targets for the Service. These include a wider range of measures that seek to demonstrate the delivery of individual elements of the IAP and in addition to timeliness include measures which can be utilised to measure customer satisfaction, and staff welfare. 3.3 DEMAND: The Development Management Service receive approximately 2000 planning and related application case work items on an annual basis. The Development Management Service is resourced with the expectation that demand will be relatively constant and steady throughout the year. Whilst the volume of new submissions decreased by approximately 10% during 2020/21 they had returned to and exceeded pre-pandemic levels during 2021/22. Submission rates have subsequently been maintained at a high level and during 2022/23 were 5% up on pre-pandemic levels. Appendix 1, Sheet 1 shows that whilst submission rates continued to show an increase in demand during FQ3 2025/26 this has decreased slightly from the previous reporting period. 3.4 CAPACITY: During the majority of FQ3 2025/26 the DM Service has operated with 4 vacant posts in addition to impacts arising from planned and unplanned absence. One vacant post has been successfully recruited however the new member of staff was unable to take up post with the OLI team until January 2026 but has now joined the team and commenced training. Two vacant posts have arisen in the BCHL team during FQ3 through the departure of an Enforcement Officer, and a Planning Officer reducing their hours to part-time, both posts have been successfully recruited with new starts taking up post during January 2026. A further vacancy has arisen following the departure of the Area Team Leader for MAKI in early November; this post is currently being covered on an acting-up basis however this has caused some disruption across the wider service during November/December whilst caselists and other duties are re-assigned. To assist with capacity issues during this period an additional agency staff member has been recruited to augment the MAKI team. 3.5 Productivity during FQ3 has also been significantly impacted as a result of technical issues with backoffice systems maintained by the Council’s Corporate IT Service. During October/November issues with both server and software stability resulted in extensive periods of unplanned downtime, a requirement to work with time consuming work arounds and slow system performance that effectively reduced the capacity of the DM Service to undertake casework within the IT environment provided. Whilst these issues were largely resolved from mid- November the reduced ability to issue decisions over a four-week period has impacted both on productivity and timeliness of performance during FQ3. Page 280
Page 281
Concerns about the time taken to resolve issues, and the resources allocated to their resolution have been escalated with the IT Service collectively by the DM Service and other affected Services. 3.6 OUTPUT: Notwithstanding the reduced availability of professional officer resource within the DM Service during FQ3 excellent output during December by both professional and admin officers has largely caught up with the backlog of casework accrued as result of technical issues during FQ3. Whilst performance is slightly down from FQ2 it remains broadly comparable to previous reporting periods. (Appendix 1, Sheet 2). It is anticipated that productivity should improve as new recruits bed in during FQ4. It is however highlighted that recruitment issues which have already arisen during FQ4 will continue to cause some disruption to performance across the DM Service. These include recruitment to a vacant Planning Officer post and recruitment of a Team Leader, both of which are required to bring the MAKI team back up to full capacity. 3.7 Excellent output during December has brought this measure back on track and has seen output from the DM Service manage to keep pace with the number of applications validated during FQ 3 (Appendix 1, Sheet 3). The monitoring of ‘live’ casework has however continued to identify a slight increase in the number of ‘legacy’ cases which are older than 1 year from validation remain ‘live’ and it is noted that these have increased from 91 to 93 items during FQ3 (Appendix 1, Sheet 4). 16 legacy items were determined during FQ3 however in the same period 18 additional items became legacy cases. It is noted that the volume of ‘legacy’ cases has attracted negative media attention during early January 2026 however these reports failed to identify that the majority of undetermined ‘legacy’ cases are stalled whilst awaiting the submission of further information or amended details from the applicant which are necessary to progress the potential of a positive outcome. This position is both reflective of the Council’s willingness to work with applicants and allow the opportunity for issues to be resolved within the statutory planning process but is also an indication that there are still issues in relation to the availability of professional officers to work more proactively to push for the resolution of stalled applications. The high volume of ‘legacy’ items does give some cause for concern not only in terms of immediate performance but also as an indication that the Service has not yet fully resolved issues in relation to its capacity and resilience which requires to be closely monitored moving forward. 3.8 PRE-APPLICATION ENQUIRIES: Demand for pre-application advice remains high however Pre-application turnover has fallen behind demand during FQ3 as available capacity has focused on recovery of performance on statutory workloads. FQ3 has also seen an increase in the submission of pre-application enquiries without payment of the required fees which has caused delays to progression of enquiries following their validation and which impacts adversely on performance reporting. A commitment has been provided to review and improve the pre-application process, this will include the provision of enhanced information on the Council website to allow a greater proportion of customers to ‘self-serve’; development and roll out of a new pre-application service has been identified as a priority project. Page 281
Page 282
3.9 ‘HOUSEHOLDER’ DEVELOPMENT: The performance of the Development Management Service is also measured in terms of the time taken to determine applications as it is recognised that failure to provide timely decisions can create uncertainty and be detrimental to the delivery of development across the Council area. Overall ‘time-taken’ measures have been skewed for sometime by the determination of a high volume of older ‘legacy’ applications that have accrued as part of the planning backlog. The increasing proportion of older applications being determined from FQ3 2022/23 onwards is identified in the bar graphs that provide a breakdown of application age within the average time measures (Appendix 1, Sheet 5 and Sheet 6) and demonstrate that ‘legacy’ applications are successfully being targeted for determination. During FQ3, 1 ‘legacy’ householder item was determined, this single item added almost 1 week to average time reporting measures. 3.10 The reported issues arising from disruption to staff availability and technical issues during FQ3 has also seen a reduction in performance to the underlying ‘householder’ average time measure (Appendix 1, Sheet 5) where delays preventing the issue of decisions headline KPI from 7.9 weeks in FQ2 2025/26 to 10.6 weeks in FQ3 2025/26. Removing the impact of ‘legacy’ cases the reduction in performance was from 7.9 weeks to 9.7 weeks. It is also highlighted that this position relates to ‘raw’ data and does not factor in delays which have arisen as a result of matters outwith the control of the Council, or applications that have been subject to processing agreements. Whilst the data sets are not directly comparable it is still helpful to reference the SG Returns as a benchmark. In this respect the latest available national average for householder applications at FQ4 2024/25 was 8.4 weeks. 3.11 ‘LOCAL’ DEVELOPMENT: The determination of ‘legacy’ applications continued to have an adverse impact upon the average time taken measure applied to all other ‘local’ planning applications (Appendix 1, Sheet 6) where the determination of 15 ‘legacy’ applications during FQ3 cumulatively added 11.5 weeks to an average time measure that reports on the determination of 118 applications in total. During FQ3 87% of all other ‘local’ applications determined were less than 1 year old at the time of their determination and were determined in an average of 15.2 weeks (previously 88% in 14.9 weeks at FQ2 2025/26). 72% of the total were less than 6 months old and determined in 11.2 weeks on average (previously 74% in 10.9 weeks in FQ2 2025/26). The average time taken to determine ‘all other local applications’ has increased slightly during FQ3 from 24.5 weeks to 26.7 weeks. It is again highlighted that this position relates to ‘raw’ data and does not factor in delays which have arisen as a result of matters outwith the control of the Council, or applications that have been subject to processing agreements. During FQ2 the Council determined a number of legacy applications which have impacted on the raw data relating to the average time period, including items that were delayed largely due to matters outwith the control of the Council. Whilst the data sets are not directly comparable it is still helpful to reference the SG Returns as a benchmark. In this respect the latest national average for local applications (excluding householder) at FQ4 2024/25 was 15.2 weeks. 3.12 CONCLUSIONS: FQ3 disappointingly has seen the timeliness of performance Page 282
Page 283
dip although it has been identified that the DM Service have operated during this periods with significant IT constraints that have included periods of time where casework could not be progressed. Notwithstanding the abnormal IT constraints the DM Service have managed to keep pace with demand during FQ3 although this in part has been as a result of an extraordinary effort from both professional and admin staff to manage the backlog accrued during periods of unplanned downtime. The IT delays are however evident within the decrease in performance where timeliness of determination is measured. It is anticipated that these measures will show improvement through FQ4 following the restoration of a more stable backoffice IT environment. 3.13 The determination of extant ‘legacy’ items also continues to impact on ‘local’ application performance and will do so until such time as the remaining 93 items have been determined, and subject to appropriate intervention to prevent new ‘legacy’ items from accruing. 4.0 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Policy None 4.2 Financial None 4.3 Legal None 4.4 HR None 4.5 Customer Service Requirement to manage customer expectations in the determination planning and related applications 4.6 Risk Failure to determine planning and related applications in efficient and effective manner would have potential to adversely impact upon the local economy, delivery of housing, and health and wellbeing of individuals. 4.7 Climate Change None 4.8 Fairer Scotland Duty None 4.9 Equalities – Protected Characteristics None 4.10 Consumer Duty None 4.11 Island Communities None 4.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing None Executive Director with responsibility for Development & Economic Growth Policy Lead: Cllr Gordon Blair 28th January 2026 For further information contact: Peter Bain – 01546 604204 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – FQ3 2025/26 DM performance report Page 283
Page 284
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 285
# Volumes FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Statutory 509 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 412 386 415 411 397 2012 75.9% 1982 76.1% 1751 74.3% 1690 76.1% 1223 74.9% Non-Statutory 10 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 23 26 23 25 20 56 2.1% 51 2.0% 87 3.7% 85 3.8% 68 4.2% PREAPP 166 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 107 117 116 107 118 582 22.0% 570 21.9% 520 22.1% 447 20.1% 341 20.9% Totals 685 674 607 643 679 594 631 549 584 602 549 542 529 554 543 535 2650 2603 2358 2222 1632 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework received. YTD as at 31st December 2025 data source = UNIform (Access queries) This tab provides information on the volume of DM case work received by financial quarter and includes a breakdown between statutory items (planning and related applications), non- statutory items (consultations from other regulatory bodies), and pre-application enquiries. FY25/26 YTD Split of Casework Received The data set covers the last 16 financial quarters and confirms that demand for the determination of planning applications and other statutory activity of the Council as the Planning Authority remains high and relatively constant in its volume. End FQ3 2025/26: Submission rates for FQ3 are within expected parameters. Commentary: FY24/25 New Casework Received FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 509 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 412 386 415 411 397 10 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 23 26 23 25 20 166 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 107 117 116 107 118 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Volume of New Casework Received PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 74.9% 4.2% 20.9% Split of Casework Received: FY25/26 YTD Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Appendix 1 Page 285
Page 286
# Volumes FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Statutory 396 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 427 425 370 407 382 1610 72.4% 1549 74.5% 1778 75.1% 1780 76.5% 1159 74.4% Non-Statutory 13 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 15 25 21 22 26 46 2.1% 33 1.6% 75 3.2% 88 3.8% 69 4.4% PREAPP 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 133 100 97 568 25.5% 496 23.9% 513 21.7% 459 19.7% 330 21.2% 2224 2078 2366 2327 1558 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework closed. data source = UNIform (Access queries) YTD as at 31st December 2025 This tab provides detail on the volume of DM casework that has been closed and includes a breakdown between statutory items (planning and related applications), non-statutory items (consultations from other regulatory bodies), and pre-application enquiries. FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 Casework Closed FY24/25 FY25/26 YTD Split of Casework Closed The data set covers the last 16 financial quarters and demonstrates that regardless of performance issues in respect of timeliness output remains high. There has been a notable improvement in productivity from FQ1 2023/24 which corresponds with the increasing availability of officer resource and a more settled position following the significant disruption to workflow arising from NPF4 (FQ4 2022/23); this improving position has continued through subsequent reporting periods. End FQ3 2025/26: Productivity during 2025/26 has reduced although this is not wholly unexpected as the Service has operated with vacancies during this period. Output during FQ 3 was impacted significantly by issues arising from an update of back office systems that resulted in unexpected extended periods of downtime over a four week period in October/November. Output was also detrimentally impacted by vacancies and training of incoming staff members, particularly in the MAKI team which has had extensive disruption to staff availability, and loss of the Team Leader during this period. Commentary: 396 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 427 425 370 407 382 13 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 15 25 21 22 26 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 133 100 97 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Volume of Casework Closed PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 74.4% 4.4% 21.2% Split of Casework Closed: FY25/26 YTD Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Page 286
Page 287
# Volumes FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Closed 409 419 377 407 379 495 439 479 440 481 495 442 450 391 429 408 Validated 450 462 455 436 509 462 428 366 428 425 425 370 400 387 427 387 Difference (no) -41 -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 72 50 4 2 21 This data is unfiltered - it shows the number of cases closed vs number of cases validated. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Casework Turnover - Volume This tab shows a comparison between the volume of new statutory and non-statutory casework and output per financial quarter. The Y axis has been formatted to track the cumulative backlog of applications over the last rolling 16 financial quarters. Commentary: The graph shows that after 7 financial quarters (FQ2 2021/22 - FQ4 2022/23) where output was lower than input, a backlog of 375 casework items were accumulated. During this period the DM Service were impacted by Covid restrictions/recovery and required to operate with a number of key vacancies due to a national shortage of planning professionals. Improving performance during 2023/24 has however reduced the backlog at the end of that period to 206 items. As significant improvement in performance is evident from FQ1 2023/24 which corresponds with the resolution of key staffing issues within the Service, this improving position has been maintained moving forward from that point. End FQ3 2025/26: Turnover for much of FQ3 seen output fall behind demand due to unexpected issues arising from an update to key backoffice systems that significantly reduced the ability of admin, CVT, and planning officers to undertake their duties over a four week period in Oct/Nov. Productivity has also been impacted by a reduced staff presenence in both BCHL and MAKI arising from staff departures in Oct and Nov. Resolution of systems issues and improved availability of staff thoughout December has seen a significant recovery of performance late in the reporting period. -41 -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 72 50 4 2 21 FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Casework Turnover Rate Page 287
Page 288
Jan '24 Apr Jul Oct Jan '25 Apr Jul Oct Jan '26 Apr Jul Oct 1 - 2 Years 204 166 130 89 66 48 48 54 59 2+ Years 85 73 62 40 36 38 42 37 34 289 239 192 129 102 86 90 91 93 0 0 0 Estimated on 1st August 2024. Data sourced from Uniform on - or as near as possible to first working day of each financial quarter (from August 2024) Live Legacy Applications - quarterly progress: Argyll & Bute Council Commentary: This graph provides detail of the volume of 'legacy' cases remaining at the start of each Quarter since Jan 2024 (start FQ4 24/25). 'Legacy' cases are statutory items that remain undetermined more than 1 year after validation. These cases are generally items that have a high degree of complexity, can be contentious, or are not readily aligned with the requirements of the Development Plan. A significant number of 'legacy' items are items that have required substantial reworking or the provision of additional information from the applicant with the intention of addressing identified short-comings in the original submission, often requiring extensive input from planning officers. In some cases 'legacy' items are no longer being actively pursued by applicants but have not as yet been formally withdrawn. The determination of 'legacy' items has a significant adverse effect on average time performance measures and can also impact on allocation of staff resource and morale.. End FQ3 2025/26: During FQ3, 16 legacy items were determined. However, during this period 18 new legacy items have accrued. The determination of legacy cases has plateaued and gives rise to concern and an indication that this backlog of longstanding complex cases is unable to be resolved without additional targetted resource. 204 166 130 89 66 48 48 54 59 0 0 0 85 73 62 40 36 38 42 37 34 0 0 00 50 100 150 200 250 300 Jan '24 Apr Jul Oct Jan '25 Apr Jul Oct Jan '26 Apr Jul Oct Live Legacy Applications: Argyll & Bute 1 - 2 Years 2+ Years Page 288
Page 289
# Volumes FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Closed 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 133 100 97 Validated 153 159 137 117 140 117 132 120 130 115 92 103 116 117 100 118 Difference (no) -8 -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 12 0 16 0 -21 Number of PREAPP's closed vs number of PREAPP's validated. data source = UNIform (Access queries) PREAPP Turnover - Volume This tab shows a comparison between the volume of new pre-application casework and output per financial quarter. The Y axis has been formatted to track the cumulative backlog of pre- application enquiries over the last rolling 16 financial quarters. Commentary: The Graph shows the accumulation of a backlog of pre- application enquiries over the period FQ3 2021/22 - FQ4 2022/23 during a period where the DM Service operated with a number of key vacancies and has experienced significant workflow disruption with the introduction of NPF4. It had previously been identified that the backlog amounted to around 180 applications; however following a review of the data input and accuracy of the data available (see detail of correction below) it has become evident that earlier reports included cases that were invalid and cases that had not been closed off proprerly in the back office system. The updated report confirms that the backlog of pre-application enquiries reached a maximum of just over 50 items; this position has seen significant improvement. End FQ3 2025/26: Turnover during FQ3 has seen output fall behind demand. This is largely attributed to the impact of unexpected issues arising from an update to key backoffice systems that significantly reduced the ability of admin, CVT, and planning officers to undertake their duties over a four week period in Oct/Nov. Productivity has also been impacted by a reduced staff presenence in both BCHL and MAKI arising from staff departures in Oct and Nov. Available resource has been focussed on recovery of performance for statutory case work during December. -8 -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 12 0 16 0 -21 FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 PREAPP Turnover Rate Page 289
Page 290
# FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 < 6 months 10.8 10.9 10.2 11.0 13.3 11.8 11.6 11.8 12.0 9.6 9.6 10.1 8.5 8.1 7.9 9.3 < 6 months 79 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 52 60 59 66 48 < 1 year 13.3 12.4 12.4 12.0 17.3 17.8 15.4 14.6 18.3 12.4 12.6 12.6 9.8 8.7 7.9 9.7 6 months - 1 year 8 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 5 4 1 0 1 < 2 years 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 18.5 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 19.0 13.5 12.2 10.4 7.9 10.6 1 - 2 years 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 3 2 4 7 1 3 2 0 1 All Determined 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 21.6 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 26.1 15.9 14.2 10.4 7.9 10.6 Over 2 years 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 Total 88 76 76 86 62 59 83 75 75 60 75 59 68 62 66 50 This data is filtered - as per Scottish Government statistical returns - to allow benchmarking. "Householder" = Development Type N01. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The line graph shows performance over time; the bar graph shows the proportionate split between 'legacy' casework and newer items. A comparison of the two demonstrates that the 'All Determined' average can be readily impacted by the determination of a small number of 'legacy' applications. The improving resource availability has allowed the focus of the DM Service from FQ1 2023/24 to move from addressing the most urgent applications to also addressing the wider backlog of application casework. Increasing output does however mean that a high volume of 'legacy' applications continue to be determined with significant deteriment to average time measures as is seen with the deterioration of performance across FQ4 2022/23 to FQ4 2023/24. In order to provide some context additional information is provided that demonstrates the effect of removing older applications from reporting to provide a truer picture of the time taken to deliver the larger proportion of casework. The bar graph provides this breakdown in a format which shows the increasing volume of older applications currently being determined but also confirms that a significant proportion of output is still undertaken in a timely manner. Peformance from FQ1 2024/25 has shown a marked improvement which demonstrates that the majority of householder applications are now being determined in much shorter time periods. End FQ3 2025/26: During FQ3 Householder Applications have been determined in an average of 10.6 weeks (decrease from 7.9 weeks during FQ2 25/26); one legacy item has been determined during FQ3 and is responsible for adding 0.9 weeks to the headline performance measure. The lengthening timeperiods during FQ3 are attributed to significant issues with backoffice systems in Oct/Nov, and significant staff turnover within the reporting period. The remaining householder items determined were all less than 6 months old and determined in an average time of 9.3 weeks. Performance in the determination of householder applications is slightly behind track (DM Service Plan Target <10 weeks), National Average (latest data FQ2 24/25) was 8.7 weeks. Average Time to Determine Applications: Householder ( <6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) Volume of Applications Determined: Householder - Time Taken The Average Time Taken to Determine Householder Planning Applications This tab provides detail on the average time taken to determine 'householder' planning applications, this is based on raw data which does not take into account any delays that might arise from matters outwith the control of the planning authority. 10.8 10.9 10.2 11.0 13.3 11.8 11.6 11.8 12.0 9.6 9.6 10.1 8.5 8.1 7.9 9.3 9.7 10.6 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 21.6 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 26.1 15.9 14.2 10.4 7.9 10.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Average no. of weeks to determine: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months < 1 year < 2 years All Determined 79 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 52 60 59 66 48 8 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 5 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 4 7 1 3 2 1 2 4 1 1 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 % Split: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 290
Page 291
# FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 < 6 months 11.5 12.4 10.1 10.2 12.9 13.5 14.0 12.7 12.1 11.6 11.5 12.7 12.2 10.2 10.9 11.2 < 6 months 125 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 104 110 80 92 85 < 1 year 13.4 14.5 14.0 18.0 19.2 19.3 18.7 18.8 21.0 19.0 16.3 17.0 15.6 17.9 14.3 15.2 6 months - 1 year 11 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 22 17 33 15 18 < 2 years 14.2 15.7 16.1 19.9 23.6 21.9 25.0 25.8 29.3 26.1 24.5 25.6 20.7 21.4 19.7 19.5 1 - 2 years 2 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 22 13 9 11 9 All Determined 16.7 16.8 17.0 19.9 24.5 27.6 27.4 30.2 33.4 30.0 37.8 31.2 26.4 26.7 24.5 26.7 Over 2 years 3 1 1 0 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 7 7 6 5 6 Total 141 132 136 153 105 129 156 155 144 163 176 155 147 128 123 118 This data is filtered - as per Scottish Government statistical returns - to allow benchmarking. "Local (excluding Householder)" = Development Types N02B/C, N03B/C, N04B/C, N05B/C, N06B/C, N07B/C, N08B/C, N09B/C, N10B/C. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The line graph shows performance over time; the bar graph shows the proportionate split between 'legacy' and newer items. A comparison of the two demonstrates that the 'All Determined' average can be readily impacted by the determination of a small number of 'legacy' applications. The improving resource availability has allowed the focus of the DM Service is to move during 2023/24 from addressing the most urgent applications to also addressing the wider backlog of application casework. Increasing output does however mean that a higher volume of 'legacy' applications will be determined with significant deteriment to average time measures as is seen with the deterioration of overall average time performance measures from FQ2 2022/23 to FQ4 2023/24. In order to provide some context additional information is provided that demonstrates the effect of removing older applications from considerations to provide a truer picture of the time taken to deliver the larger proportion of casework that has been determined. The bar graph provides this breakdown in a format which shows the increasing volume of older applications currently being determined but also confirms that a significant proportion of output is still undertaken in a timely manner. End FQ3 2025/26: FQ3 has seen 15 legacy applications cleared, with the effect of adding 11.5 weeks to the overall average time measure which now sits at 26.7 weeks (decrease from 24.5 weeks in FQ2 2025/26). It is also noted that some of the negative impact is attributed to delays to determination which were outwith the control of the planning authority and which will be adjusted in statutory reporting by the Scottish Government. During FQ3 the determination of non- legacy local applications were undertaken in an average of 15.2 weeks (decrease from 14.3 weeks in FQ2 25/26). It is however highlighted that a consistently high proportion of applications are continuing to being determined at an early stage with 72% of all local applications in FQ3 were newer items determined in an average time of 11.2 weeks (previously 74% in 10.9 weeks in FQ2 2025/26). Due to the impact of legacy items, the headline measure remains off-track (DM Service Plan Target <16 weeks). For the purpose of comparison, the National Average (latest data FQ2 24/25) was 14.8 weeks. The lengthening in timescales during FQ3 are attributed to significant issues with backofice systems in Oct/Nov and disruption arising from significant staff turnover during this period. Average Time to Determine Applications: Local (Excluding Householder) ( <6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) Volume of Applications Determined: Local (Excluding Householder) - Time Taken The Average Time Taken to Determine Local (excluding Householder) Planning Applications This tab provides detail on the average time taken to determine 'local' planning applications, this is based on raw data which does not take into account any delays that might arise from matters outwith the control of the planning authority. 11.5 12.4 10.1 10.2 12.9 13.5 14.0 12.7 12.1 11.6 11.5 12.7 12.2 10.2 10.9 11.2 13.4 15.214.2 19.516.7 16.8 17.0 19.9 24.5 27.6 27.4 30.2 33.4 30.0 37.8 31.2 26.4 26.7 24.5 26.7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Ave no. of weeks to determine: Local (Excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) 125 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 104 110 80 92 85 11 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 22 17 33 15 18 2 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 22 13 9 11 9 3 1 1 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 7 7 6 5 6 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY21/22 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 % Split: Local (excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 291
Page 292
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 293
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL Committee Development & Economic Growth 18th February 2026 Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 – Objection to Energy Consent Applications 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The purpose of this report is to update Members on new processes around objections to applications for energy consent following the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (the 2025 Act). The new arrangements apply to applications for consent under sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 (the 1989 Act). 2.0 DETAIL 2.1 Up until the 18th February 2026, where a planning authority objected to a s36 or s37 application before the deadline for response, a public inquiry was required to be held to consider the proposal prior to determination. 2.2 Following changes made by the 2025 Act, this procedure will no longer apply. Instead, a new Reporter led examination process will apply in circumstances where a planning authority objects to an application prior to the deadline and that objection is not withdrawn, or cannot be resolved by conditions of modifications. As noted above, these changes come into effect on 18th February 2026 and will be applicable from that date to live applications for consent under sections 36 and 37 of the 1989 Act. 2.3 A Chief Planner’s letter was published on 30th January 2026 to provide clarification on these processes in advance of them coming into effect. This advises that where a planning authority has objected to an application prior to 18th February 2026, and that objection has been made within the period provided for or agreed under regulation 8 of the Electricity (Applications for Consent) Regulations 1990, the Scottish Ministers will cause a public inquiry to be held, unless the objection is withdrawn, or cannot be resolved by conditions or modifications. 2.4 Where a planning authority objected before 18 February 2026 to an application which remains undetermined as of that date but that objection has not been made within the period provided for or agreed under regulation 8 of the Electricity (Applications for Consent)Regulations 1990, the Scottish Ministers shall appoint a reporter to examine the application under the new provisions, Page 293 Agenda Item 10
Page 294
unless that objection is withdrawn or cannot be resolved by conditions or modifications. 2.5 Where a planning authority objects to an application on or after the 18th of February, the new process will apply and a Reporter will be appointed to carry out an examination unless that objection is withdrawn or cannot be resolved by conditions or modifications. 2.6 In addition, the Chief Planner’s letter advises that further guidance will be provided, as necessary and in due course, on the application process changes brought about by the 2025 Act. It further advises that the Scottish Government intends to consult later this year on additional measures enabled by the Act. 2.7 A link to the Chief Planner’s letter can be found below: Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 - objections to energy consent applications: Ministerial letter - gov.scot 3.0 RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that Members note the content of this report. 4.0 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Policy None arising from the report. 4.2 Financial Potential to reduce costs in the event that the amended legislation gives rise to less formal proceedings in the event of Local Authority objections being raised. 4.3 Legal None arising from the report. 4.4 HR None arising from the report. 4.5 Customer Service None arising from the report. 4.6 Risk The amended legislation potentially gives rise for less opportunity for local participation. 4.7 Climate Change These changes are intended to speed up the process for energy application decided by the Electricity Act. 4.8 Fairer Scotland Duty None arising from the report. 4.9 Equalities – Protected Characteristics None arising from the report. 4.10 Consumer Duty None arising from the report. 4.11 Island Communities None arising from the report. 4.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing None arising from the report. Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth 3rd February 2026 For further information contact: Sandra Davies – 01436 658884 Page 294