Cruach Clenamacrie WF Supplementary Report v1
Argyll and Bute Council · 21 January 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 21 January 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 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 application for a wind farm located on land at Glenlonan, approximately 7km east of Oban and 5km west of Taynuilt, consisting of 6 turbines, each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 200m, and associated infrastructure, including a Battery Energy Storage System. Generating capacity will be more than 50MW _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 24/02242/S36/ECU00004841 Applicant: Voltalia UK Ltd (Scottish Government Consultation) Proposal: 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 Site Address: Land at Glenlonan, approximately 7km east of Oban and 5km west of Taynuilt ________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 This Supplementary Report is for the consideration of Members. An associated detailed Report of Handling for the original submitted Section 36 Consultation has been prepared for the PPSL Committee on the 21st January 2026. Following publication of the Committee papers the applicant has advised on the 19th January that they have considered the Officers’ Report of Handling, and that they have serious concerns regarding its terms, and the process leading up to its publication. They are of the opinion that the Report contains material errors and statements that do not fairly or accurately reflect the Applicant’s position. Further, they advise that these failings are material to the Committee’s consideration of the application and the weight that can be given to Officers’ advice. Failure to discharge agreed commitments following an agreed extension of time and withholding of further landscape advice. The applicant states that the Council’s explanation for an extension of time, as set out in an email of 5th November 2025 to the agent, was that “In summary, we requested that consideration be given to a further, hopefully final, extension of time, in order to ensure that all the relevant factors are taken into account in the Council’s final consultation response to the ECU”. It is now apparent from the Report that Officers’ advice was not accurate, and material information had not been shared with the Applicant or reported to members. The applicant would welcome an explanation from Officers as to why they did not disclose the existence of the comments from landscape officers and failed to ensure Scottish Ministers were properly advised of the position.
Page 2
1.5 1.6 1.7 Officer Comment: In response to the applicant’s comments above, the request for a further extension of time on the consultation was sent to the Scottish Government’s ECU on the 3rd November 2025, prior to the receipt of the further comments of clarification received in a subsequent email from the Council’s landscape consultant. The only stated reason for requesting a further extension of time was, “it would be beneficial for the planning authority to be able to consider all the final consultation responses submitted, including that from SEPA, in order to inform our conclusions on this s36 consultation.” The email to the ECU also specifically referenced outstanding issues to be resolved in regard to impacts on peat (still unresolved), the need for the applicant to provide further information to consultees, and the lack of a consultee response from WoSAS (also still unresolved). No reference to seeking further landscape advice was included in the extension of time request to the ECU on the 3rd November, as the landscape consultant had already provided her detailed review of the landscape and visual effects of the proposal. Further email exchanges with the landscape consultant were merely to advise that the applicant’s landscape consultants had responded to the submitted review, expressing their own opinions on the Council’s landscape consultant’s review. The only request for further clarification was in relation to Residential Visual Amenity, where the Council’s landscape consultant was forwarded the applicant’s statement of clarification. This statement appears to have clarified the position as no further emails from the Council’s landscape consultant have been received. In light of the above, officers dispute that at the time of the request for an extension of time to the ECU on the 3rd November, additional comments from the Council’s landscape consultant had been received. Further, when a subsequent email was received, on the 4th November, it raised no additional material issues that required a response from the applicant. Officers took the view that as the report of handling fully takes into account the applicant’s submitted LVIA, the Council’s Landscape and Visual Review and the applicant’s subsequent response to the review, no further landscape advice was required or sought. It should also be noted that the further email from the Council’s landscape consultant, dated 4th November, whilst raising no additional issues, was recently forwarded to the applicant, when requested. Clarification that EIA scoping was undertaken by the applicant. The applicant considers that the officer report infers that formal EIA Scoping was not undertaken for the proposal and ask that this is clarified for Members. Officer Comment: In response, officers can confirm that a request for a scoping opinion was received on the 12th July 2023, and that due to ongoing staff resource issues no response was provided to the ECU. Ironside Farrar (Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment) and WoSAS (Archaeology) Officers are recommending an objection on the grounds they have yet to receive a report from Ironside Farrar on issues relating to peat, in particular a Stage 2 report in response to the submitted Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment. A similar position applies in respect of information requested from WoSAS on potential impacts on archaeology. The applicant considers that the absence of reports from relevant third parties in this regard are not proper grounds of objection. Officer Comment: Officers disagree with the applicant’s opinion on this matter and confirm that the lack of information on peat constitutes a defensible ground for
Page 3
2 2.1 objection. Terms of the lack of a consultation response from WoSAS, officers are not in a position to confirm whether the proposal is consistent with relevant policies and would recommend that the ECU consider these matters prior to determination. Conclusion Officers conclude that there has been no withholding of information that would be considered material in the assessment of the application, in particular in regard to the proposals landscape and visual impacts, that a scoping request was indeed submitted to the Council in the summer of 2023, and that the recommendation to object on the lack of information pertaining to peat landslide hazard risk assessment is a defensible reason for objecting to the Section 36 Consultation to the ECU. 3. Recommendation It is recommended that Members consider the contents of this report and agree to the recommendation detailed on the original report. Author of Report: Stuart W Ramsay Date: 20th January 2026 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 20th January 2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth