Public reports pack
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 Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 14 January 2026 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 21 JANUARY 2026 at 11:00 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 12 December 2025 (Pages 3 - 6) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 December 2025 at 10.30 am (Pages 7 - 20) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 December 2025 at 2.30 pm (Pages 21 - 22) (d) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 December 2025 at 3.30 pm (Pages 23 - 24) 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) (Pages 25 - 88) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
5. MR AND MRS SCOTT RAEBURN: ERECTION OF TEAROOM WITH 4 APARTMENTS ON UPPER FLOORS: FORMER SUSY'S TEAROOM, TIGHNABRUAICH (REF: 25/00181/PP) (Pages 89 - 126) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 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) (Pages 127 - 176) 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 FRIDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Alida Lily Acherman, Licensing Standards Officer Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor Dr Chukwuna Okekeogbu, Applicant 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Daniel Hampsey, Mark Irvine, Paul Donald Kennedy and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (IFEA LIMITED, OBAN) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Dr Chukwuma Okekeogbu joined the meeting by MS Teams. It was noted that the three Objectors were not in attendance. The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 7 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support for their application. APPLICANT The applicant, Dr Okekeogbu advised that IFEA Ltd had been established when he moved to Oban. In that time 5 properties had been purchased for long term let in Oban, the purchase of 4 John Anderson House was his first short term let property. On purchasing 4 John Anderson House Dr Okekeogbu confirmed that he had spoken to the neighbours of block 1 advising them of his intention of letting the property on a short-term basis and addressed the concerns of the three objectors with them. Dr Okekeogbu, stated that the Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
property would be maintained to a high standard, a noise monitoring device would be fitted within the flat and highlighted that the flat has a dedicated parking space with adjacent on street parking also available. The applicant also confirmed that he was willing to partake in the maintenance of the common areas. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS There were no objectors present at the meeting and members of the Committee were directed to the written objections within the Agenda Pack. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS There were no questions from the Members. SUMMING UP Applicant Dr Okekeogbu confirmed that he intends to use 4 John Anderson House as a short-term let, will run and manage the property to a high standard and will respect everybody. When asked, the applicant confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Hardie stated he was suitably impressed with the applicant and the application and was content to approve the application. Councillor Forest stated that given what can be considered regarding policies, she had no objections and would be happy to approve the application. Councillor Kain advised that he could not support the application as the policy was not consistent with other Council policies and that the conditions outlined in paragraph 6.1 of the report were vague and unachievable. Councillor Green stated that he was sympathetic with the objectors in that some properties within John Anderson House had changed from residential to short-term lets. Councillor Green added that the conditions on the licence would alleviate concerns raised and could see no reason but to approve the application. Councillor Brown advised that she was sympathetic with Councillor Kain’s position, that she appreciated the work carried out by the applicant and was happy to approve the application. Councillor Howard echoed Councillor Kain’s opinion adding that on the basis of the policy could see no reason not to approve the application. Councillor Blair confirmed he would support the officer’s recommendation to approve the application as the applicant has experience of managing similar properties. Councillor Blair added that concerns around noise can be managed via the conditions of the licence. DECISION Page 4
Page 5
The Committee agreed to grant the Short-Term Licence to Dr Chukwuma Okekeogbu subject to the inclusion of additional conditions set out in the report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal and damage to property and noted that Applicant would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager, submitted) Page 5
Page 6
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 7
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Peter Bain, Development Manager Alan Morrison, Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager Stuart Ramsay, Area Team Leader Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Shelley Gould, Senior Planning Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Jan Brown, Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Mark Irvine and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Dougie Philand declared a non-financial interest in planning application reference 22/00680/PP as a member of his family owned a substantial building firm within the local area. He left the meeting and took no part in the consideration of this application which was dealt with at item 4 of this Minute. 3. MINUTE The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 November 2025 was approved as a correct record. Having declared an interest in the following item, Councillor Dougie Philand left the meeting at this point. 4. MACLEOD CONSTRUCTION LTD: ERECTION OF 8 DWELLINGHOUSES AND FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS: LAND EAST OF KNOCK FARMHOUSE, UPPER LOCHGAIR (REF: 22/00680/PP) The Area Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report. This application is for planning permission for a residential development on a site allocated for housing within the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (2024). The principle of residential development has therefore been established by the site’s allocation (ref: H3029). At the time of writing the report, public representations have been received from 41 respondents with 35 objecting to the scheme and 6 raising concern. There have been no objections from statutory consultees subject to planning conditions. It is the opinion of the Planning Authority that the representations received, together with the Officer assessment of the relevant planning issues, provided all the information required to enable Members to make an informed decision based on the material Page 7 Agenda Item 3b
Page 8
considerations in this case. It is therefore not considered that the objections raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the report of handling, and it is not considered that a discretionary hearing would add value to the planning process. The proposal accords with the policy provisions of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 and it was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling. Motion To agree to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling. Moved by Councillor Kieron Green, seconded by Councillor Peter Wallace. Amendment To agree to hold a pre-determination hearing. Moved by Councillor Paul Kennedy, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Armour Councillor A Hampsey Councillor Green Councillor Hardie Councillor Howard Councillor Kain Councillor Wallace Councillor Kennedy On there being an equality of votes, the Chair made his casting vote in favour of the Motion. The Motion was carried by 5 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved according. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons: Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 31/03/2022, supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is Page 8
Page 9
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 4724/101 01/04/2022 Site Plan 4724/102 J 18/07/2025 Longitudinal Section along A83 showing visibility heights 4724/117 D 15/07/2025 Proposed Floor Plans Plot 1 4724/103 01/04/2022 Proposed Elevations Plot 1 4724/104 01/04/2022 Proposed Floor Plans Plot 2 4724/105 01/04/2022 Proposed Elevations Plot 2 4724/106 01/04/2022 Proposed Floor Plans Plot 3 4724/107 01/04/2022 Proposed Elevations Plot 3 4724/108 01/04/2022 Proposed Floor Plans Plot 4 4724/109 01/04/2022 Proposed Elevations Plot 4 4724/110 01/04/2022 Proposed Floor Plans Plot 5 and 7 4724/111 01/04/2022 Proposed Elevations Plot 5 and 7 4724/112 01/04/2022 Proposed Floor Plans Plot 6 and 8 4724/113 01/04/2022 Proposed Elevations Plot 6 and 8 4724/114 01/04/2022 Fence/Heat pump details 4724/115 01/04/2022 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. PP – Affordable housing with Commuted Sum option Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of affordable housing (as defined below) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall: a) Provide that a minimum of 25% of the approved dwellings are affordable homes; b) Define those properties to be used as affordable homes; Page 9
Page 10
c) Establish the timing of their provision relative to the phasing of the development, which shall ensure that the last 25% of the dwellings within the development are not commenced until the affordable housing phase has bene completed for occupation; d) Establish the arrangements to ensure the affordability of the affordable homes for both initial and subsequent occupiers (including any discount rate applicable in terms of (ii) below); OR e) Alternatively, shall provide for an equivalent Commuted Sum Payment to the Council’s Strategic Housing Fund having regards to the report ‘Valuation of Commuted Sum Payments’ approved by Argyll and Bute Council on 27th June 2013. For the purposes of this condition ‘affordable homes’ are defined as being either: i) Social housing (rented or shared ownership or shared equity) managed by a registered social landlord (a body registered under part 3 chapter 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, or any equivalent provision in the event of the revocation and re-enactment thereof, with or without modification); ii) Discounted low cost sale housing (subject to a burden under the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003), or any equivalent provision in the event of the revocation and re-enactment thereof, with or without modification). iii) Housing for sale or rent without subsidy, which is designed to be affordable and to meet the housing needs of the majority of those households identified as in housing need in the Local Housing Strategy or Housing Market Study i.e. one or two person households on average income, with conditions attached to their missives to prevent further extension, thereby helping to ensure that they are likely to remain affordable to subsequent purchasers. The development shall be implemented and occupied thereafter in accordance with the duly approved scheme for affordable housing. Reason: To accord with the provisions of the development plan in respect of affordable housing provision. 3. PP – Landscaping No development shall commence until a finalised scheme of boundary treatment; surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a planting plan and schedule which shall include details of: i) Existing and proposed ground levels in relation to an identified fixed datum; ii) Existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; iii) Location design and materials or proposed walls, fences and gates; iv) Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species, and size of every tree/ shrub to be planted; v) A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent ongoing maintenance for all planting vi) A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the proposal will contribute to the conservation/ restoration/ enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be maintained for the lifetime of the development. Page 10
Page 11
The development shall not be occupied until such times as the boundary treatment, surface treatment and any re-contouring works have been completed in accordance with the duly approved scheme. All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme during the first planting season following the commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. 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. The Biodiversity Statement should refer to Developing with Nature Guidance, NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity, and to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. 4. PP – Footpath link No development or site clearance works shall commence, for the development hereby permitted, until detailed planning permission has been granted for the footpath link outwith the red line boundary as indicated on the approved Site Plan drawing number “4724/102 Revision J”. Reason: to ensure that facilities are provided for the pedestrians that are generated by the development and that they may access the existing footpath system without interfering with the safety and free flow of traffic on the A83 trunk road. 5. PP – Junction with Public Road Prior to the commencement of the development, the proposed access on the A83 trunk road, as generally illustrated by the approved site plan, drawing number “4724/102 Revision J”, shall be constructed to a layout and type (and method) of construction to be approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland. Reason: To ensure that the standard of access layout complies with the current standards and that the safety of the traffic on the trunk road is not diminished. 6. PP – Trunk Road Drainage system There shall be no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system. Reason: to ensure that the efficiency of the existing drainage network is not affected. 7. PP – Internal layout access Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the proposed accesses to the new adoptable standard development road shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Details; and visibility splays of 25 metres to point X by 2.4 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access. The access shall be surfaced with a bound material in accordance with the stated Standard Detail Drawing. Prior to work starting on site the access hereby approved shall be formed to at least Page 11
Page 12
base course standard and the visibility splays 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. A dropped kerb crossing point shall be provided at each access with the access surfaced for a distance of 5 metres from back of footway. 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. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 8. PP – Construction Hours Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the construction of the development hereby permitted shall be restricted to the specified hours of 0800-1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0800 – 1300 hours Saturday and not at all on Sunday, Bank or Scottish Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the impact of noise, generated by construction activities on occupiers of residential properties. 9. PP – Parking and Turning The provision of parking and turning for the development hereby permitted, shall accord with the requirements of Policy 40 and Table 5 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 2024. Reason: To ensure an adequate number of vehicle parking spaces to meet development needs. 10. PP- Finished Floor levels Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the finished ground floor levels of the dwellings, hereby permitted, shall be at least 0.3m above surrounding ground level, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure appropriate mitigation for flood risk and to ensure an acceptable relationship between the development and its surroundings. 11. PP – Runoff Rate The post development runoff rate should be attenuated to the greenfield runoff rate before discharge from site. Any drainage at the site should be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753. Reason: In the interests of flood risk prevention. 12. PP – Programme of Archaeological Works No development shall take place within the development site, as outlined in red on the approved plan until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeological Service. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all Page 12
Page 13
recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeological Service. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 13. PP – ASHP Noise limits The noise level from the operation of the air source heat pumps hereby approved must not exceed 42dB LAeq (5 min) at 1 metre from the window of a habitable room on the façade of any neighbouring residential property. If, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed air source heat pumps result in any noise nuisance to the occupant of any neighbouring dwelling the Applicant shall install noise mitigation measures in agreement with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the residential amenities that occupiers can reasonably expect to enjoy are adequately protected. 14. PP – Contaminated Land Assessment No development, demolition or ground-breaking works shall commence until a scheme is submitted by the Developer (at their expense) to identify and assess potential contamination on site 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 PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the 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 including (where necessary) a detailed site investigation strategy. The desk study and the scope and method of recommended further 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. Page 13
Page 14
Reason: 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. 15. PP – Arrangements for Waste No development shall commence until a waste strategy detailing how much waste the proposal is expected to generate and detailing the arrangements for the storage, separation and collection of waste from the site, including provision for the safe pick up by refuse collection vehicles, have been submitted to an approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the duly approved provision shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwellings which it is intended to serve. Reason: In order to ensure that satisfactory arrangements have been made for dealing with waste on the site in accordance with NPF4 Policy 12. 16. PP – Materials No development shall commence until full details /samples of materials to be used in the construction of the dwelling houses hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed using the approved materials or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings. 17. PP – Restriction of PD Rights Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended), (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order(s) with or without modifications), nothing in Article 2(4) of or the Schedule to that Order, shall operate so as to permit, within the area subject of this permission, any development referred to in Part 1 and Classes 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3AA, 3B, 3C, 3D and 3E and Part 2 and Classes 8 and 9 of the aforementioned Schedule, as summarised below: PART 1: DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF A DWELLINGHOUSE Class 1A: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of a single storey ground floor extension, including any alteration to the roof required for the purpose of the enlargement. Class 1B: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of a ground floor extension consisting of more than one storey, including any alteration to the roof required for the purpose of the enlargement. Class 1C: The erection, construction or alteration of any porch outside any external door of a dwellinghouse. Class 1D: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of an addition or alteration to its roof. Class 2A: The erection, construction or alteration of any access ramp outside an external door of a dwellinghouse. Class 2B: Any improvement, addition or other alteration to the external appearance of a dwellinghouse that is not an enlargement. Class 3A: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a building for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the alteration, maintenance or improvement of such a building. Page 14
Page 15
Class 3AA: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a building for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse. Class 3B: The carrying out of any building, engineering, installation or other operation within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Class 3C: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the replacement in whole or in part of such a surface. Class 3D: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any deck or other raised platform within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse. Class 3E: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure any part of which would be within or would bound the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. PART 2: SUNDRY MINOR OPERATIONS Class 8: Formation of means of access to an unclassified road. Class 9: Stone cleaning or painting of the exterior of a building. No such development shall be carried out at any time within this Part and these Classes without the express grant of planning permission. Reason: To protect the sensitive area and the setting of the proposed dwellinghouses, in the interest of visual amenity and public health, from unsympathetic siting and design of developments normally carried out without planning permission; these normally being permitted under Article 2(4) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended). 18. PP – Provision of Play/ Amenity Space No development shall commence until details for the provision and maintenance of areas of communal open space and equipped play area(s) relating to the development been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details shall comprise EITHER: Direct Provision of Play/Amenity Space: i) Provision to satisfy the minimum standards set out in the Development Plan; 6sqm of equipped play space and 12sqm of informal open space per dwelling unit; ii) Specification of play equipment to be installed, including surface treatments and any means of enclosure, designed in accordance with the provisions of BS5696 (Play Equipment Intended for Permanent Installation Outdoors); iii) Proposals for the timing of the implementation of the play area(s) in relation to the phasing of the development; iv) A maintenance schedule for communal open spaces and equipped play areas in accordance with the provisions of BS5696 including details of on-going inspection, recording and procedures for detailing with defects. The communal open space and equipped play area(s) shall be provided in accordance with the duly approved details and shall be retained and maintained to the specified standards thereafter. OR: Indirect Provision of Play/Amenity Space: Page 15
Page 16
The provision of a direct financial contribution to be held and administered by the Council for the purpose of providing for the delivery of a commensurate play/amenity space to serve the development within a later phase of the development of designations H3029. The calculation of the value of the direct financial contribution will be based upon the cost of delivery and ongoing maintenance of a facility which would meet the Council’s minimum playspace requirements for the approved development as set out in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2. The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied until such time as a formal agreement between the developer and the Council for the payment and administration of the direct financial contribution for the deferred provision of playspace has been signed. Reason: In order to secure provision of communal open space and equipped play areas within the development in accordance with the minimum standards set out in the Development Plan. Note for the Applicant/Developer: It is noted that discharge of this condition by means of ‘direct provision of play/amenity space’ would require to be the subject of a further application for planning permission given that the development as approved does not include sufficient site area to accommodate the requisite play/amenity space. It is further advised that discharge of this condition by means of ‘indirect provision of play/amenity space’ shall require to be the subject of an appropriate formal agreement between the Developer and the Council under the provisions of either S75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, or the provisions of S69 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 4 December 2025, submitted) Councillor Dougie Philand returned to the meeting. 5. MOWI SCOTLAND: REPLACE EXISTING 10 X 120M CIRCUMFERENCE PENS WITH 6 X 160M CIRCUMFERENCE PENS (WITH A PARALLEL MINOR RELOCATION INTO DEEPER WATER MOVING THE CARRADALE SOUTH SITE CENTRE 99M EAST) AND SITING OF EXISTING FEED BARGE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION: CARRADALE SOUTH FISH FARM, KILBRANNAN SOUND (REF: 24/01381/MFF) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report and to supplementary report number 1 which advised that the Clyde Fishermen’s Association (CFA) had submitted two further representations each reiterating their position of objection to the proposal. A response to these late representations from the Applicant was also contained within the supplementary report. Reference was also made to the contents of a late representation received by Councillor Tommy MacPherson. Councillor MacPherson’s raised some of the issues also raised by CFA, along with a query regarding procedural matters during handling of the planning application. It was confirmed that the application was handled in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Page 16
Page 17
Regulations 2013, and the Council’s Scheme of Delegation as set out within the Council’s Constitution. Members were also advised of an error within Section A of the report of handling which referred to 8 x 4 pens rather than 6 x 3 pens and also of an error within the supplementary report regarding the date of the resubmission of amended plans due to changes in the moorings was in September 2025 only. The other resubmissions were to address scaling issues. The application is for a change of equipment and minor relocation of an existing marine fish farm in the Kilbrannon Sound approximately 400m off the eastern shore of the Kintyre Peninsula and will continue to be serviced from the company’s existing shore base located at Carradale Harbour. There is to be no change to the consented biomass for the site and the proposal is part of a wider 5 year project by the Applicant to upgrade and modernise fish farming pens to bring about a number of benefits. The proposal would accord with the Development Plan policy and it was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons numbered 1 – 17 detailed in the report of handling, and updated condition 18 detailed in supplementary report number 1. Motion To agree to hold a site visit and pre-determination hearing. Moved by Councillor John Armour, seconded by Councillor Fiona Howard. Amendment To agree to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons numbered 1 – 17 detailed in the report of handling, and updated condition 18 detailed in supplementary report number 1. Moved by Councillor Andrew Kain, seconded by Councillor Paul Kennedy. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Armour Councillor Green Councillor A Hampsey Councillor Kain Councillor Hardie Councillor Kennedy Councillor Howard Councillor Philand Councillor Wallace The Motion was carried by 6 votes of 3 and the Committee resolved accordingly. Decision The Committee agreed to hold a site visit and pre-determination hearing. Page 17
Page 18
(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 1 December 2025 and Supplementary Report Number 1 dated 16 December 2025, submitted) 6. MOWI SCOTLAND: REPLACE EXISTING 10 X 120M CIRCUMFERENCE PENS WITH 6 X 160M CIRCUMFERENCE PENS (WITH A PARALLEL MINOR RELOCATION INTO DEEPER WATER MOVING THE CARRADALE NORTH SITE CENTRE 79M EAST) AND SITING OF EXISTING FEED BARGE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION: CARRADALE NORTH FISH FARM, KILBRANNAN SOUND (REF: 24/01382/MFF) The application is for a change of equipment and minor relocation of an existing marine fish farm in the Kilbrannon Sound approximately 400m off the eastern shore of the Kintyre Peninsula and will continue to be serviced from the company’s existing shore base located at Carradale Harbour. There is to be no change to the consented biomass for the site and the proposal is part of a wider 5 year project by the Applicant to upgrade and modernise fish farming pens to bring about a number of benefits. The proposal would accord with the Development Plan policy and it was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons numbered 1 – 17 detailed in the report of handling, and updated condition 18 detailed in supplementary report number 1. Motion To agree to hold a site visit and pre-determination hearing. Moved by Councillor John Armour, seconded by Councillor Amanda Hampsey. Amendment To agree to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons numbered 1 – 17 detailed in the report of handling, and updated condition 18 detailed in supplementary report number 1. Moved by Councillor Andrew Kain, seconded by Councillor Paul Kennedy. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Armour Councillor Green Councillor A Hampsey Councillor Kain Councillor Hardie Councillor Kennedy Councillor Howard Councillor Philand Councillor Wallace The Motion was carried by 6 votes of 3 and the Committee resolved accordingly. Decision The Committee agreed to hold a site visit and pre-determination hearing. Page 18
Page 19
(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 4 December 2025 and Supplementary Report Number 1 dated 16 December 2025, submitted) 7. JOINT PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION PLAN 2025-2027 Consideration was given to a report inviting Members to approve the Joint Public Health Protection Plan 2025-2027 which outlines the health protection priorities for the period and reviews the previous plan. Decision The Committee agreed: 1. to approve the Joint Public Health Protection Plan (JHPP) for 2025-2027 (Appendix I), recognising the key role of local authorities and environmental health; 2. to formally reaffirm the appointments of the Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager, as the Council’s Designated Competent Person under the Public Health etc. (Scotland) Act 2008, and the appointments of Depute Designated Competent Persons as detailed in section 4.8 of this report and 4.2 of the JHPP; and 3. that the Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager signs the JHPP plan on behalf of the Council and takes the necessary steps to deliver the plan. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Regulatory Services dated 17 December 2025 and NHS Highland Joint Health Protection Plan (JHPP) 2025-2027, submitted) 8. UPDATE ON RECENT TAYNUILT BESS APPEAL A report summarising a recent decision by Scottish Ministers following an Appeal in respect of planning application reference 24/02083/PP was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 28 November 2025, submitted) 9. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3 - EVIDENCE REPORT STAGE ENGAGEMENT A report advising of the first stage of engagement for Local Development Plan 3 (LDP3) was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted the contents of this report and the engagement process that would be undertaken to inform the LDP3 Evidence Report. Page 19
Page 20
(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 28 November 2025, submitted) Page 20
Page 21
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jan Brown, Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy, Liz McCabe and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCE (J ROBERTSON, APPIN) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing Applicant opted to proceed by way of written submission and a copy of this was contained within the Agenda pack for this hearing. The hearing procedure that would be followed was noted and in the absence of the Applicant the Chair invited the Committee Manager to read out the written submission. APPLICANT My name is James Robertson and my hearing for the application for grant of a Taxi car licence is on the 17/12/25 at 2.30pm. I would prefer to include a written representation as follows. I have held a Private Hire Taxi Licence for the last few years. I am the only taxi operating out in the Appin area. I feel that it would benefit, not only my own business, but customers as well, if I was granted a Taxi Car Licence. A lot of my business involves taxi hires from the Appin area into Oban. As I am a Private Hire Taxi, I very rarely can pick up another hire in town as I cannot join the rank. It would benefit me greatly if I had a Taxi licence as I could spend some time on the rank after dropping my hire off instead of having to return to Appin without any more hires. Page 21 Agenda Item 3c
Page 22
I also still see a need for more taxi coverage at the 11pm to 1am time slot. There still would appear to be a lack of taxi operating at that time of night and also very early mornings. DEBATE Councillor Hardie said that the written submission was straightforward and honest and although he did not know the area well, he believed what had been stated and that he would be happy to support the application. Councillor Green commented that it was a fair distance from Appin into Oban and it may be someone would be looking for a lift there and back to attend an appointment. He said he would be happy to approve the application as this would allow the Applicant to pick up other work in town while he waited to return to Appin. Councillor Howard agreed with Councillor Hardie and Councillor Green. She commented that the Applicant was currently working at a disadvantage as a Private Hire Operator compared to Taxi Operators living closer to the town centre. She confirmed that she would support the application. Councillor Blair said it would be good to have another Taxi Operator in the area and that granting this licence would allow the Applicant to take on other work while he was in town. He advised that on that basis he would be happy to grant the licence. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Robertson and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 22
Page 23
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jan Brown, Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy, Liz McCabe and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCE (C SPREADBURY, OBAN) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and Mr Spreadbury joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of their application. APPLICANT Mr Spreadbury advised that he was applying for this licence as his children were now of an age where they were fairly independent. He said that for the last 17 years he has taken on the role of house parent to allow his partner to pursue her career. He said that he had previously been a lorry driver for 28 years for various companies and had been depot Manager for West Coast Motors. He said that driving had always been his passion and that he liked to meet new people. He referred to just finishing a 2 year term as Captain of the local Golf club and that he enjoyed meeting and talking to people from all over the world through that role. He advised that due to his love of driving and meeting and talking to people, he was applying for this licence. He added that his family have been local to Oban since the early 1890s. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Page 23 Agenda Item 3d
Page 24
Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Spreadbury that he planned to work 5.5 days over 7 days. He said that he intended taking Tuesdays and Wednesdays off and would start the mid shift on a Saturday. He said that a friend who was a taxi driver had been keeping him right with regard to the best shifts to do and when it was best to take breaks. He said that he would probably work Sundays as there were very little taxis on the rank on a Sunday. He advised that his two daughters worked at a restaurant on the pier and that they struggled to get a taxi after an evening shift. He referred to it being difficult for people to get lifts to appointments and to events at the schools and he commented that the local buses were irregular. Councillor Blair asked Mr Spreadbury if he believed there was a need for another taxi in the town. Mr Spreadbury said that he thought there was a need for another 6 or 8 taxis, especially at the weekends. He said that on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays there was a serious lack of taxis on the rank and in the streets. He advised that the friend he had spoken about earlier had confirmed there was a need for more taxis in the area. SUMMING UP Applicant Mr Spreadbury said that his partner had been more or less the breadwinner over the last few years and that he wanted to take some of the pressure off her and get back to work. He referred to regularly taking a family member to hospital appointments in Glasgow and that these were usually scheduled for Tuesdays or Wednesdays and was another reason why he planned to take these days off. Mr Spreadbury confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Green said he would be quite happy to approve the application. He thought it would be useful for the Applicant and would also benefit the wider community. Councillor Hardie said he agreed with Councillor Green. He advised that he thought the Applicant’s appraisal was excellent and that he would have no hesitation in granting the licence. Councillor Kain also agreed that he would be happy grant the licence. Councillor Armour said he could not argue with anything that had been said and commented that Mr Spreadbury had put his case across very well. He advised that he thought Mr Spreadbury would be an excellent asset to the taxi fraternity in town and that he would have no hesitation in granting the licence. The Chair commented that Mr Spreadbury would be a good quality, caring driver and was happy to approve the licence. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Spreadbury and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 24
Page 25
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 Cruach Clenamacrie Wind Farm, 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), on land at Glenlonan, approximately 7km east of the centre of Oban 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 (A) THE APPLICATION Section 36 Application made up of the following key elements: • Six wind turbines up to a maximum blade tip height of 200 metres • Foundations supporting each wind turbine • Battery Energy Storage System Facility (BESS) and compound, with a capacity of up to 20 MW • New access tracks, passing places and turning heads • Vehicular site access from the A85 • Access route through the Fearnoch Forest • Hardstanding areas for cranes at each turbine • Blade laydown areas • Temporary construction compound, including parking and welfare facilities • Watercourse crossings • Drainage works • Underground power cables and markers • An on-site electrical substation and associated parking • 2 borrow pits • Aviation obstacle turbine lighting The expected operational life is 50 years from the date of commissioning. Connection to Electricity Grid - The grid connection would be to the Taynuilt substation, which is located approximately 6.7km to the east of the proposed on-site substation. Page 25 Agenda Item 4
Page 26
(B) RECOMMENDATION: 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 & 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 & 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. (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 Page 26
Page 27
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 & Bute Council requests that all other conditions recommended by consultees are included in any Consent. (C) CONSULTATIONS: ENERGY CONSENTS UNIT RESPONSES NatureScot (4/04/25) – do not object and have advised the ECU that the proposal does not raise issues of national interest, however, they summarise the key considerations to be: • Significant landscape and visual effects on the Lynn of Lorn National Scenic Area (NSA), which are not considered to be easily overcome by siting, design or other mitigation; • Significant impacts on Schedule 1 bird species and a regionally important black grouse population, which are not considered to be easily overcome by siting, design or other mitigation. Landscape and Visual Impacts The proposal would result in significant adverse effects on Special Landscape Qualities 2 - A small scale, low-lying landscape within a vast highland backdrop and 4 – The coastline of great variety and diversity of the Lynn of Lorn NSA. They consider these effects would result from the siting of the Proposal and would be compounded by the vertical scale of the turbines and are not considered to be easily overcome by siting, design or other mitigation. In addition, they consider that the siting and the vertical scale of the Proposal within the Craggy Uplands with Settled Glens LCT would give rise to extensive effects on the surrounding distinctive, small-scale coastal landscape and seascape north-west of the Proposal. They consider that the LVIA under-estimates the extent of effects from the visible aviation lighting of the Proposal. In addition to effects concluded in the LVIA, the Proposal would introduce a new and significant effect of turbine lighting into areas south-west of the proposal out to around 7km. They consider that the Proposal, in combination with the application stage Corr Chnoc scheme (ECU00006023), would be likely to result in the perception of the Page 27
Page 28
Craggy Uplands LCT as being a landscape where wind farm development comprised a dominant characteristic, in effect changing its character from an upland landscape with wind farms to a ‘Wind Farm Landscape’. Ornithology While the proposed impacts on ornithological receptors do not raise issues of national interest, NatureScot do have a number of concerns regarding the Proposal, namely: - This six turbine Proposal has a disproportionately high potential impact for its size and as a small site there are significant concerns about whether it could be built in compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)(as amended) in relation to reckless offences based on the submitted EIAR. - It has the potential to exclude golden eagles from 2-3% of a territory. Whilst not at a level that would make the territory unviable, this is high for such a small Proposal. Four out of the six turbines impact the eagle territory. - It has potential to cause displacement/abandonment of black grouse lek sites for what appears to be a regionally important population: we consider all four leks sites connected. None of the leks sites have been suitably buffered. This is almost impossible to do without removal of T6 and T7 (original scheme proposed 8 no turbines). - It has the potential to cause displacement of up to two pairs of hen harrier. Not all nest sites have been suitably buffered. The lower end of our recommended disturbance distance buffer has been used (300m) and even then turbines have been proposed within 300m; contradicting statements in the ES that they have. Ecology Protected sites – Loch Etive Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) The Proposal is immediately adjacent to Loch Etive Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designated for its alder woodland on floodplains, mixed woodland on base- rich soils associated with rocky slopes, western acidic oak woodland and otter (Lutra lutra). In NatureScot’s view, this Proposal is likely to have a significant effect on mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes of Loch Etive Woods SAC. Based on the information provided, the conclusion of NatureScot is that the Proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site Otter Otters are a feature of interest of Loch Etive Woods SAC. In NatureScot’s view, it is unlikely that the Proposal will have a significant effect on any otter, either directly or indirectly. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required with regards to otter. Otter use of an area can change over time so they should be included in pre- construction survey work. The Applicant should get in touch if otters are located. Marsh Fritillary Although Marsh Fritillary were not located during the Applicants survey work, Butterfly Conservation Scotland have identified breeding Marsh Fritillary at the site. Page 28
Page 29
The Applicant may want to do further assessment to consider impacts on the species. NatureScot (17/10/25) – have advised the ECU that in terms of Landscape and Visual Impact, they continue to consider the proposed development does not raise issues of national interest, however they consider the proposed development would result in significant landscape and visual effects on the Lynn of Lorn National Scenic Area (NSA). The potential for these effects was addressed in the FEI submission and NatureScot advises it has nothing further to add to its response of 4 April 25. In terms of Ornithology, NatureScot consider the proposed development may result in significant impacts on Schedule 1 bird species and on a regionally important black grouse population. Following the consultation on FEI a response was received providing the following updates: • Hen Harrier – The Applicant needs to ensure they identify where the nests are pre and during construction. This will pose constraints during the construction phase, not just operational, and therefore the Applicant should have plans to mitigate the constraints. NatureScot reiterate the previous advice that the 750m buffer around an active nest will be hard to implement without stopping construction or operational maintenance in the breeding season. The discussion around mitigation and potential displacement of the hen harriers needs to consider that they are listed on Schedules 1 and 1A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) which includes reckless harassment at any time of year. There is an assumption that birds will relocate if disturbed and breed elsewhere, however, there is no guarantee this will happen. It is for the Applicant to be confident that their mitigation complies with the legislation. NatureScot recommend a protection plan be put in place with backstops, to minimise the risk of a WCA offence should mitigation not be adequate. • Black Grouse - NatureScot advise that works should be delayed until lekking has finished before starting works each day. They also support the additional pre construction black grouse surveys that will be carried out at the site; noting that regularity of use on these leks may have changed since 2021/2022 and will inform mitigation more accurately. • Golden Eagle - NatureScot acknowledge the new range value and other inconsistencies that have been corrected. They also noted in their response of the 4 April 2025 that the level of territory loss would not make the territory unviable. The ECU have asked the applicant to review this response and confirm how they are planning to address the points raised. RSPB Scotland (13/02/25) – advised the ECU they are not providing comment on the application. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (6/02/25) – advised the ECU that the proposed wind farm would have an adverse impact on the setting of a number of monuments (in particular Barguillean Farm, dun 250m SSW of (SM3930), Dunstaffnage Castle (SM90120), Ardchattan Priory, priory, burial ground and carved stones (SM13644), and the cluster of prehistoric burial monuments at the south-west end of Loch Nell, including Dalineun, chambered cairn 265m S of Dalaneas (SM4155). The severity of these impacts is, however, not such as to result in an objection. However, deletion, relocation or lowering the height of T6 would meaningfully reduce the likely adverse impacts on the setting of Barguillean Farm, Page 29
Page 30
dun 250m SSW of (SM3930), and a similar redesign of T1 and T2 would meaningfully reduce the likely adverse impacts on the setting of Dalineun, chambered cairn 265m S of Dalaneas (SM4155) and Dalaneas, chambered cairn 90m SSE of, & cairns 30m SW of & 100m SSW of (SM4156). Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (25/09/25) – further advise the ECU that they have considered the FEI information received and that they do not have any comments to make on the additional information provided, or on the minor design changes described. HES decision not to provide comments should not be taken as their support for the proposals. This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy on development affecting the historic environment, together with related policy guidance. Taynuilt Community Council (21/01/25) – advise that following a public meeting on 20th January 2025 to discuss the application, they have no adverse comments to make. Glenorchy and Innishail Community Council (28/02/25) – advise that they object to the proposal on the grounds of the cumulative environmental impact of the proposed developments around Loch Awe and surrounding area, which they consider is excessive. Oban Community Council (13/03/25) – advise that following a recent public meeting to discuss the application, they have agreed that they will not submit a representation / objection to the proposed wind farm. Connel Community Council (17/02/25) – advise that they formally object to the proposed wind farm development. Reasons are summarised below: Unsuitable / Inappropriate for the Local Area: • The valley is too small for such infrastructure. • The development would harm scenic landscapes and historical sites. • Negative impact on tourism and local businesses. Cumulative Infrastructure Concerns: • Existing wind farm and hydro power scheme at Cruachan already present. • Additional further developments would strain local infrastructure and roads. Environmental Impact: • Disruption to wildlife, including rare species like the Marsh Fritillary butterfly. • Concerns about peatland destruction, despite developer claims. • Ecological risks to watercourses and private water supplies. Health and Quality of Life: • Noise, infrasound, shadow flicker and light pollution affecting residents and animals. • Safety concerns over battery systems and potential pollution. Economic Consequences: • Limited local job creation; most roles filled by external contractors. • Long-term harm to tourism-dependent businesses like B&Bs and cabins. Lack of Consultation and Transparency: • Inadequate communication with residents during the planning process. • Many were unaware of the application being lodged. Planning and Safety Issues: • Fire safety and water storage not properly addressed. • Contradictions with local development plan policies and NatureScot guidance. Support for Alternative Energy: Page 30
Page 31
• Local preference for hydro pumped storage as a viable alternative to wind power. • Hydro schemes are seen as more sustainable and beneficial for local employment, with fewer negative impacts on the landscape and local communities. Scottish Forestry (30/01/25) – advised the ECU that they note that the woodland impacts are associated with the access track, widening and extending to the development. They recognise that the proposed woodland removal is small with limited impacts. However, the woodland types are important and advise that: • A PAWS and native woodland (Dailnamac) plan should be provided which quantifies the area of PAWS lost to the development and proposes compensatory planting in exceedance of the area lost. • Compensatory planting should be secured by a planning condition. Scottish Forestry (17/10/25) – advised the ECU that they have requested the following amendments / information: • The proposals should demonstrate full compliance with UKFS • Felling and Restocking should be considered 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 • Clarification of the total area of permanent woodland loss • Compensatory planting for the woodland lost should be secured by condition. The ECU have asked the applicant to review this response and confirm a timeframe for addressing the points raised. Scottish Forestry (12/11/25) – advised the ECU that they have reviewed the further comments and clarifications received from the applicant, and following this can confirm that Scottish Forestry’s initial concerns have now been addressed. The Woodland Trust (4/03/25) – advised the ECU that they didn’t have capacity to respond to the initial consultation request within the timescales stated, however, state that they do have concerns regarding this application as the access road is within ancient woodland. As such they would appreciate the opportunity to comment at a later stage in the process. To date no further comments from this consultee have been received by the ECU. Transport Scotland (TS) (4/02/25) – confirmed that they are satisfied with the submitted EIAR and that have no objection to the development in terms of environmental impacts on the trunk road network. They would, however, request that the following conditions be attached to any consent that may be granted: • Condition 1: The proposed means of access to the trunk road should be submitted for approval by the Planning Authority in consultation with Transport Scotland as trunk road authority and, thereafter, implemented prior to the commencement of development. Reason: To minimise interference with the safety and free flow of the traffic on the trunk road. Page 31
Page 32
• Condition 2: Prior to commencement of deliveries to site, the proposed route for any abnormal loads on the trunk road network must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland as the trunk roads authority. Reason: To minimise interference and maintain the safety and free flow of traffic on the Trunk Road as a result of the traffic moving to and from the development. • Condition 3: Prior to the movement of any abnormal load, any accommodation measures required on the trunk road network, including the removal of street furniture, junction widening and traffic management must be approved and implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland. Reason: To minimise interference and maintain the safety and free flow of traffic on the Trunk Road as a result of the traffic moving to and from the development. • Condition 4: Prior to the movement of any components and/or construction materials, any additional signing or temporary traffic control measures deemed necessary on the trunk road network due to the size or length of any loads being transported must be undertaken by a recognised QA traffic management consultant, to be approved by Transport Scotland. Reason: To ensure that the transportation of any components/materials will not have any detrimental effect on the road and structures along the route. • Condition 5: Prior to commencement of the development, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland. Thereafter, all construction traffic associated with the development shall conform to the requirements of the agreed Plan. Reason: To minimise interference and maintain the safety and free flow of traffic on the Trunk Road as a result of the traffic moving to and from the development. In addition to the above Conditions, the applicant should 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. Page 32
Page 33
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. Transport Scotland (TS) (26/09/25) – advise that having reviewed the FEI, can confirm that the comments made in their original response remain valid, and that they have no further comments to make. SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (19/02/25) – advised the ECU that they have a holding objection due to a lack of information and a requirement for suggested modifications in relation to peat and turbine / track siting. Impact on the water environment Terms of impacts on the water environment, SEPA request the applicant modifies the proposal in locations encroaching into the 50m watercourse buffer, to ensure and/or illustrate turbine locations have no deep excavations (greater than 1m) impinging on the 50m watercourse buffers. SEPA also object to T4 in its current location until it can be demonstrated no culverting for land gain will be required to enable this turbine at this location. In addition, it is unclear what earthworks will be necessary to enable the T3 access road and hardstandings. SEPA object to these elements until further information is submitted to illustrate earthworks will not encroach within 15m of the adjacent watercourse. In respect of watercourse crossings, and in order to comply with NPF4 Policy 22, SEPA request a condition ensuring the design and implementation of any new or upgraded watercourse crossing is designed to convey the 1 in 200 year including climate change flows and will be a clear span structure unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA. Crossings are to be designed in line with SEPA's Good Practice Guidance on watercourse crossings, WAT-SG- 25, and WAT-PS-06-02 Culverting of Watercourses. The Appendix 2 from SEPA requests a number of modifications to the infrastructure layout, including relocation of access tracks, which may reduce the number of watercourse crossings which would support the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance as the first principle. Impact on carbon rich soils SEPA advise that the Figures showing Peat Depth (Figures 9.1.6a-f) are difficult to assess due to blocking out of information with peat depth numbers which have a white background. It is also difficult to know which spot depth relates to which circle in the denser probed areas. In addition, the colours used to differential between different peat depths, in particular, the different colours of green are too similar to distinguish the depths of the individual probes. SEPA request the use of other colours apart from green for depths deeper than 1m in future submissions by this consultant. They also require any future plans to be at a larger scale. Page 33
Page 34
Terms of minimising the disturbance of peat, SEPA request Figures 9.1.6a-f along with Figures 5.7a-m are amended to clearly indicate the location of tracks in relation to deeper peat and to clarify the additional use of floating tracks in these areas and submitted for their review prior to any consent being granted. In addition, whilst SEPA do not object to a small proportion of excavated peat being used in the restoration of borrow pits in principle, they have concerns over the amount of catotelmic peat that is proposed to be used in this activity. As no further details have been submitted in relation to the proposed borrow pit restoration, SEPA cannot advise the Scottish Minister on whether the proposed reuse of excavated peat in the borrow pit areas will comply with NPF4 policy 5 in terms of restoring and / or enhancing the site into a functioning peatland system capable of achieving carbon sequestration, or whether the use of peat would constitute waste disposal operations. Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) SEPA note some small areas of moderately dependent habitat will be impacted by the development, however, agree that these habitats are mostly rain/surface water fed. The mitigation currently suggested around these habitats in Section 5.1 of Appendix 9.3 Groundwater-Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems Assessment and further use of floating roads should be sufficient to minimise any further impacts. SEPA request these mitigation measures are secured by condition. Micrositing SEPA request that a Micrositing limit of 50 metres is applied to all built elements of the application, and that micrositing be subject to additional restrictions. SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (20/09/25) – advised the ECU that they continue to maintain their objection to the application due to a lack of information. They request that determination is deferred until the information outlined below has been provided for assessment: • The Additional Information Figures 3.4 are underlain with peat depth information to illustrate the revised layouts have decreased the potential negative impacts on peat. • A revised Appendix 9.2 Outline Peat Management Plan with revised peat volume tables is submitted to accompany the revised layouts to demonstrate clearly that the revised layouts have decreased the potential negative impacts on peat. In addition, advise that the previous comments provided in their response dated 19 February 2025 (SEPA ref PCS-20003941) regarding the readability and clarity of peat depths on the original EIAR Figures 9.1.6a-f should be fully considered by the applicant when submitting the additional information requested above. SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (16/10/25) – advised the ECU that they continue to maintain their objection to the application due to a lack of information and potential negative impacts on peat. They SEPA have requested the following amendments / information: Page 34
Page 35
• T1 location should be modified further south-west to avoid areas of deep peat. • The applicant is requested to commit to micrositing T2 further off peat where possible. • The access track between T2 and T4 should be relocated off the areas of deepest peat. • The applicant is requested to commit to micrositing T3 further south off the deep peat. • The access track and watercourse crossing between T3 and T4 should be moved north off the areas of deepest peat. • The access track for T4 should be relocated off deep peat and the hardstanding and T4 are relocated 10-20m northwest to remove the hardstanding off the deepest peat. SEPA will accept reducing the watercourse buffer in this area to 30m for excavations greater than 1m. • T5 base should be moved 10-20m northeast to an area of shallower peat. • T6 turbine infrastructure should be south east off deeper peat. • The substation/BESS/construction compound should be relocated off the areas of deep peat either by reconfiguration of the area or whole infrastructure area further north/northeast. • It is recommended the updated Figure 9.2.1, if not submitted, is submitted as part of this application prior to any consent being issued. • SEPA have also made a number of comments on the Standard Conditions which should be reviewed. The ECU asked the applicant to review this response and confirm a timeframe for preparing and submitting the clarification required. SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (11/11/25) – following the submission of additional information, SEPA have advised the ECU that in relation to watercourse buffers, they previously requested a minimum watercourse buffer of 15m, and that this should be secured by planning condition. SEPA’s position on this remains the same: whilst it is welcomed that the layout amendments have resulted in a lesser extent of encroachment into the watercourse buffers, it is not entirely clear whether this has resulted in some of the infrastructure being moved outwith the watercourse buffers, or how far into the buffer infrastructure remains. In addition, no location specific reasoned justification has been provided on what the “other environmental and engineering constraints” are that prevent this from occurring. SEPA therefore continue to request that a minimum watercourse buffer of 15m for any earthworks associated with infrastructure, including access tracks, be secured by condition. In relation to peat and carbon rich soils, SEPA previously set out a table (appendix 1 of their 16 October letter) indicating where further modifications or detailed justification were required. SEPA are satisfied that adequate justification has now been provided, enabling them to update their advice as follows: • SEPA continue to request a condition that the applicant commits to micrositing T3 further south off areas of deep peat. • Also request that a condition be placed on any approval that the applicant commits to micrositing T6 away from areas of deeper peat. SEPA note and welcome that the applicant does not have any objections to their previously proposed conditions for other matters. Therefore, SEPA advice on other matters that require to be secured by condition remains as that set out in Appendix Page 35
Page 36
2 of their 16 October 2025 letter (albeit recognising that some of the references to EIA Report figures will require amending to refer to the relevant FEI figures). SEPA ask that these planning conditions be attached to any consent, if granted. If these will not be applied, then SEPA ask that their final response be considered as an objection. Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) (9th January 2025) – have advised the ECU that they note that the initial surveys of fish and fish habitat cover the proposed access route but do not include the wind farm site itself. Argyll DSFB’s remit is to conserve population of migratory salmonids which have been identified to be present in the lower reach of both the River Luachragan and Allt an Taillir. ADSFB therefore urge that in the event of the proposed wind farm being granted planning permission that monitoring of Water quality, macroinvertebrates, and fish should be undertaken to Scottish Government guidelines, which include sites within the reaches of habitat in both catchments where salmon and sea trout are present. Butterfly Conservation Scotland (28/08/25) - advise that they appreciate that their comments have been taken on board by the developer, and that they are satisfied that with what the applicant is proposing to address them. Further, they suggest that it would be good to see a plan developed with a timeline for the HMU, e.g. in terms of frequency of habitat monitoring and for reviewing its management and success etc. Buglife Scotland (9/09/25) – advise that it is welcomed that steps are being taken through pre-construction surveys to avoid translocation of Marsh Fritillary. This will obviously require surveys at the correct time of year to identify larval food webs and hopefully include enough flexibility in the plans to avoid any breeding habitat that is identified. Further, they reiterate the importance of surveys for Marsh Fritillary being undertaken to inform the planning application, so all the available information is provided for determination and to inform the mitigation strategy. Scottish Water (16/9/25) – advised the ECU they have no objection to this proposal. In addition, advise that a review of their records indicates that the proposed development falls partly within a drinking water catchment where a Scottish Water abstraction is located. Scottish Water abstractions are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas (DWPA) under Article 7 of the Water Framework Directive. Loch Nell supplies Tullich Water Treatment Works (WTW) and it is essential that water quality and water quantity in the area are protected. Further note: o Two turbines are located within the Loch Nell catchment and a further two turbines are located within the buffer zone. Although this is likely to be low risk to the source supply catchment it would always be the preference of Scottish Water to request that turbines are moved wholly out with the catchment where possible. o The fact that this area is located within a drinking water catchment should be noted in future documentation. o Anyone working on site should be made aware of this during site inductions. The ECU have asked the applicant to review this response and confirm how they are planning to address the points raised. Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Risk Assessment, Stage 1 Checking Report (PLHRA) (7/03/25) – recommendations in the report requiring a response from the developer, including: Page 36
Page 37
• request for additional peat depth data and survey coverage, • consideration of artificial drainage, • use of the undrained analysis equation over the drained analysis equation, • re-evaluation of consequence assessment, • consideration of slide runout in the consequence assessment, • omission of a fixed link receptor from the risk assessment, • re-evaluation of risk assessment, • further assessment of borrow pit areas Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) (17/12/2024) – have advised the ECU they have no objections, subject to conditions relating to Aviation Lighting and Aviation Charting and Safety Management. Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) (6/10/25) – the MOD position remains that, subject to conditions relating to aviation safety lighting, and charting data being applied to any consent that might be issued, the MOD has no objection to the scheme. NATS Safeguarding (6/12/24) – have advised the ECU that they have no objection as the proposals do not conflict with their safeguarding criteria. BT Group (17.12.24) – have advised that the proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. BT Group (19.09.25) – Continue to advise that the proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. Joint Radio Company (dated 2/1/25) – object to the proposed development due to insufficient information on the name of the development, turbine locations (NGR values: easting and northing), hub height and rotor diameter for each turbine. Joint Radio Company (dated 29/1/25) – continue to object to the proposed development, advising that whilst they have undertaken some analysis on this site, it would need a report from the developer to check the impact of some turbines. Joint Radio Company (dated 31/1/25) – advised that this proposal is now cleared – subject to 50m Micrositing, and with a caveat of 25m Micrositing on Turbine no. 5 – with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. Joint Radio Company (dated 10/10/25) – advised that the proposal continues to be cleared – subject to 50m Micrositing, and with a caveat of 25m Micrositing on Turbine no. 5 – with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. Health and Safety Executive (dated 11/12/24) – the development is not within any explosive licence safeguarding zones and is not within any HSE consultation zones. The HSE also has an interest in proposed developments that would have hazardous substances present at or above threshold quantities [see the Town and Country Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Regulations 2015]. However, this proposed wind farm and battery energy storage system does not appear to be of this type. Therefore, HSE's Land Use Planning team have no further comments. Page 37
Page 38
Health and Safety Executive (dated 22/09/25) – advised that they have no further comments to make, further to their original response advising no objections. Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. (undated) – advised that this proposal is out- with HIAL's safeguarding criteria. Therefore, Highlands and Islands Airports Limited has no objections to the proposal. Oban & The Isles Airports (18/02/25) – advised the ECU that they have been in engagement with the developer and have nothing further to add to the proposed development. Argyll & Bute Council Consultee Responses Consultant Landscape Advisor (1/10/25) - The Council’s Landscape Consultant has commented on both the EIAR, as submitted, and on the Further Environmental Information (FEI) which was submitted in response to cumulative issues relating to the application stage of the nearby proposed Corr Chnoc wind farm. Cumulative visualisations produced by the Corr Chnoc wind farm applicant have also been reviewed where these comprise different viewpoints to those considered in the Cruach Clenamacrie EIA/FEI due to the close proximity of the two schemes. The area surrounding the proposed development site and key assessment viewpoints were also visited in March 2025. Landscape Effects Significant and adverse effects predicted for: • Craggy Upland with Settled Glens (7a) – with effects extending up to around 6km of the proposed development. • Lowland Ridges & Moss (18) – Moss of Achnacree. • Rocky Mosaic (20) – Northern shores of outer Loch Etive. While effects on the perceptual characteristics of the High Tops LCT (which covers the dramatic mountainous landscapes of Argyll lying to the east and north of the proposed development) would be adverse in some areas, the distance of these mountains from the wind farm would limit the magnitude of change and, where they occur to the east, the presence of multiple operational (and consented) wind farm developments in closer proximity in the Loch Awe/Loch Fyne area would additionally reduce effects. It is considered that effects on the character of the High Tops LCT would not be significant. Similarly, the limited extent of visibility of the proposed development across the visually contained Craggy Coasts and Islands LCT would not result in overall significant effects on its character. Effects on designated landscapes It is considered that the proposed development would not have significant adverse effects on the special qualities of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park. It is considered that significant adverse effects could arise on views from parts of the Lynn of Lorn National Scenic Area (NSA), particularly from the open sea in the southern part of the designated area away from the partial screening provided by the peninsula of Fionn Ard. This would adversely affect the wider setting to the NSA although the turbines would not interrupt views towards the Mainland and Mull mountains which are noted in NatureScot’s description of special qualities. Given the distance of the proposed development from the designated area, the limited Page 38
Page 39
visibility likely to occur from the more contained and intimately scaled parts of the NSA and the focus of the special qualities on the highly scenic linear form of ridges and islands and islets and their rich vegetation cover, it is considered that the integrity of this NSA would not be affected. Further, it is not considered that significant adverse effects would occur on the special qualities of any other NSA. There would be relatively limited visibility of the proposed development from the North West Argyll Coast Local Landscape Area (LLA) which lies to the west of the development site. While it is considered that there would be adverse and significant effects on views from Kerrera (represented by Viewpoint 12) and from Viewpoint 11 at Knipoch, it is considered that the qualities that the LLA is likely to have been designated for would focus on the intricacies of the Argyll coast and islands and views to Mull, and these would not be significantly affected by the proposed development, which is located inland from the coast. There would also be some visibility of the proposed development from the extensive North Argyll LLA. Viewpoints 7, 15 and 16 lie within this designated landscape. It is considered that significant adverse effects would arise on views from Inveresragan on the north shore of Loch Etive (Viewpoint 7). Adverse but not significant effects would arise on views from Ben Cruachan (Viewpoint 16) and from the Strath of Appin area represented by Viewpoint 15. Given the relatively limited extent of visibility and the likelihood of the reasons for designation of the LLA being the mountainous scenery and their dramatic juxtaposition with the northern shores and waters of Loch Etive and the Lynn of Lorn area, it is considered that the integrity of this designated landscape would be unaffected. Visual effects Significant adverse effects on views would principally occur from: • The Glen Lonan area affecting views from Core Paths, National Cycle Route 78 and from settlement. • Roads and settlement east of Oban as represented by Viewpoints 3 from Barranrioch and Viewpoint 4 from Ardchonnel where the proposed turbines would form dominant features at distances of between 3.5-4km and would (particularly in the more open context of Viewpoint 3) contrast with the scale of the low craggy ridges and small hills characteristic of this area. There would also be brief but a significant impact on views from the A85 east of Taynuilt (illustrated by the cumulative visualisation from Viewpoint 9 in the Corr Chnoc wind farm Additional Information Report). • Loch Nell represented by Viewpoint 10 which is located at a popular layby on its shore. • Small hills east of Oban including Viewpoint 9 from the summit of Barran an Fhraoich (which is shown as a promoted viewpoint on 1:50k OS maps although does not appear to be frequently accessed) and Pulpit Hill (Illustrative Wireline I). • The shores of outer Loch Etive – represented by Viewpoints 5, 6, 7 and 13 and including views from the grounds of Ardchattan Priory Inventory listed Garden and Designed Landscape (Cultural Heritage Figure 7.31). Page 39
Page 40
• The sea basin between Oban, Mull and Lismore affecting views from ferries and other watercraft. Proposed visible aviation lighting on five of the wind turbines would extend the duration of significant adverse effects in close-by views from parts of Glen Lonan and from the settled area between Oban and the proposed development. Cumulative landscape and visual effects with other proposed wind farms With regard to Cumulative Effects, the Council’s Landscape advisor has made the following comments: The proposed development would introduce wind farm development into a new area where no large wind turbines are present and where the closest operational wind farms (Beinn Ghlas and Carraig Gheal) have a minimal visual influence. The Corr Chnoc, Musdale, Beinn Ghlas Repowering and Barachander proposed wind farm developments have greatest potential to incur significant adverse cumulative effects with the proposed development. Residential Visual Amenity Effects A Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) has been undertaken by the Applicant and is contained in Appendix 6.4. This identifies 5 residential properties/groups of properties with potential views of the proposed development lying within 2 km of the nearest turbine. Illustrative wirelines are stated in paragraph 17 of the RVAA as being included in Appendix 6.2. The names of these illustrations do not always accord with those labelled on Figure 1 of Appendix 6.4. It is assumed that the wireline titled G Angus’ Garden is the same property as Duntanachan shown on Figure 1 in Appendix 6.4 but there is no assessment of effects on visual amenity from this property or on properties at Fearnoch which are also shown on Figure 1 but do not appear in the detailed assessment table on page 3 of the RVAA. There is nothing to indicate in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the RVAA why these properties have been omitted and indeed paragraph 18 refers to two further properties located close to the edge of the study area which are described as having been included in the assessment. The Landscape Consultant cannot come to a view on potential visual amenity effects on residential properties until clarification on this matter is obtained from the Applicant. Conclusions and recommendations The proposed development would result in significant landscape and visual effects out of proportion to its relatively small size (in terms of numbers of turbines). Significant adverse effects on landscape character would principally affect the Glen Lonan area. The proposed development would have significant adverse effects on views from the minor roads/promoted cycle route and footpaths generally lying within 5km from the nearest turbine. Views from Loch Nell, from the small hills surrounding the development site, from parts of the island of Kerrera and from the northern shores of outer Loch Etive would also be significantly and adversely affected. Significant combined adverse cumulative effects would occur with the nearby application-stage Corr Chnoc wind farm on landscape character and on views. The proposed development would be located in a landscape with high sensitivity to large wind turbines. It would introduce very large infrastructure to a small-medium scale landscape with distinct scenic qualities. Page 40
Page 41
Mitigation recommended by the Council’s Landscape Advisor: A substantial lowering of the height of the proposed turbines would reduce their dominance in relation to the scale of the landscape and the degree of visual intrusion experienced from key views. This is likely to necessitate repositioning of turbines which may in turn resolve the lack of unity of the scheme seen in close views and present a tighter grouping of turbines which could further help mitigate landscape and visual effects. Clarification is also needed from the Applicant on the RVAA in terms of the properties assessed (see comment under the Residential Visual Amenity Effects heading in this report) and the location of the offshore Illustrative Wireline viewpoint from the Oban-Lismore ferry. Applicant response to advice of Council’s Landscape Consultant (15/10/25) The applicant has considered the mitigation suggested by the Council’s Landscape Advisor and responded as follows: Significant landscape and visual effects are minimised by the current design and the request for an amended design to be considered (rather than suggesting that no wind farm could be accommodated here) accepts that the site is a broadly suitable location for a wind farm. In this light the request is best understood as a preference by Ms Anderson for a wind farm that looks smaller and/or nicer and perhaps does not have lights. Such a preference is understandable when considering a wind farm in purely aesthetic terms, however many other important factors need to be taken into account in both wind farm design and planning decision making. The two queries relating to the illustrative views from ferries and homes considered in the RVAA were already answered in the assessments provided and have been further clarified in this response. Consultant Landscape Advisor response (4/11/25) The Council’s Consultant Landscape Advisor has considered the applicant’s response to the Landscape and Visual Review and responded as follows: Ferry route - comments noted and map helpful – The Landscape Advisor was not asked by the Council to comment at Scoping Stage but would certainly have requested a viewpoint from the ferry route if they had been involved. RVAA - comments noted although it is considered that there may still be a discrepancy between the plan drawings (This will be double checked.) Paragraph 6: This is incorrect, the reduction of the turbine height is also noted as providing an opportunity to improve the layout issues as the spacing between turbines would change. Paragraph 7 +10: See comments on LVIA above. Paragraph 8: Dispute that 'numerous' comparisons are made in the Landscape Advisor’s appraisal to other wind farms. The Corr Cnoc wind farm is of particular relevance due to its close proximity - it is also useful to compare and contrast siting, Page 41
Page 42
design and L+V effects between the two developments, given that the Council (and the Committee) needs to be informed in their decision making. Paragraph 13: Dispute that this is a brief view - the road rounds a wide bend at this point, and views focus on the hills. It is also interesting to note that the Corr Cnoc wind farm applicant selected this as a representative viewpoint in their LVIA. Paragraph 21: NPF4 provides no criteria on what constitutes a localised effect so the point which seems to be being made is irrelevant. Paragraph 22: It is acknowledged that some significant adverse L+V effects would still arise even if the turbines were reduced in size, to say 150m to tip height. However, the Landscape Consultant doesn't say that there wouldn't be a reduction in the magnitude of those effects i.e.) reducing from a major to a moderate magnitude of effect, still significant but resulting in an improved fit with landscape character and minimising effects on views. Further exploration of mitigation from key views would need to be undertaken before this could be definitively established. Local Biodiversity Officer (29/01/25) – has responded in relation to biodiversity interest, surveys, outline Habitat Management Plan (oHMP), outline Peat Management Plan (oPMP), outline Deer Management Plan (oDMP), Bird Protection Plan (BPP), Species Protection Plan (SPP) and outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (oCMEP). Designated Sites Note there will be loss of and impact on ancient woodland where the proposed access track will be upgraded. Loch Etive Woods SAC and Clais Dhearg SSSI both lie adjacent to the proposed site boundary, both which could be significantly impacted upon by the proposed development. I note a Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) was carried out to determine the Likely Significant Effects (LSE) of the proposed development on the qualifying features of these designated sites with the following results: • Glen Etive and Glen Fyne SPA – No LSE • Inner Hebrides and The Minches SAC - no LSE • Loch Creran SAC - no LSE • Loch Etive Woods - LSE from the Proposed Development due to changes in water quality. An Appropriate Assessment shows that there will be no adverse effect on site integrity through the implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) to monitor mitigation measures and habitat restoration and biodiversity enhancement measures within the designated sites. The Local Biodiversity Officer agrees with the above findings within the HRA and Appropriate Assessment. It should be noted that Clais Dhearg SSSI lies within Loch Etive Woods SSSI and therefore the same results apply. It is also noted that the applicant is in talks with NatureScot regarding potential restoration projects within Loch Etive SAC and Clais Dhearg SSSI as part of their offsite biodiversity enhancement measures. Habitat (Predicted Losses and Impact) Page 42
Page 43
High Value Habitats (EU Habitats Directive Annex 1) • F1a Blanket Bog (M19/M25) – 8.74ha (6.52%) – significant impact • H1b Upland Heathland – 1.79ha (3.09%) – not significant impact • H1b5 Dry Heaths: Uplands – 0.85ha (18.72%) – not significant impact • H1b6 Wet Heathland with Cross Leaved Heath; Upland – 1.09ha (5.56%) – not significant impact • W1e Upland Birchwood – 2.27ha (7.31%) - not significant impact Medium Value Habitat (Scottish Biodiversity List priority habitat) • F2b Purple Moor Grass and Rush Pastures – 3.87ha (9.92%) – not significant impact • H2a Native Hedgerow – 0.01km (3.57%) – not significant impact • W1a Upland Oakwood – 0.04ha (4.08%) – not significant impact • W1d Wet Woodland – 0.02ha (0.11%) – not significant impact • W1g Other Broadleaved Woodland – 0.017ha (3.27%) - not significant impact The Local Biodiversity Officer notes that the predicted loss and impact of 7.8ha of Blanket Bog will result in a significant impact from the Proposed Development. However, with the provision of the outline Habitat Management Plan (oHMP) and proposed enhancement of 57ha on site and 30-40ha offsite, the residual effects will not be significant. It is also noted that the applicant is in talks with NatureScot regarding the proposed onsite and offsite biodiversity enhancement measures within the oHMP which is welcomed. Peatland The Local Biodiversity Officer notes that the applicant has been in discussion with NatureScot and SEPA and welcomes the suggested relocation of turbines to ensure deep peat is avoided. The inclusion of an outline Peat Management Plan with appropriate mitigation measures is also welcomed. It is recommended the applicant continue discussions with NatureScot and SEPA to ensure best practice for peat extraction and restoration. European Protected Species Bats The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the proposed mitigation measures, including pre-works surveys to be carried out by a qualified bat ecologist and the production of a Species Protection Plan (SPP). Further, 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. Otter Note there is suitable habitat for resting, foraging and commuting present along watercourses within and around the site. Red Squirrel Note there is suitable habitat present. Page 43
Page 44
Fish Note that Atlantic salmon and brown trout were recorded Suitable habitat is also present for Fresh Water Pearl Mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera), though none were recorded. Mitigation measures will ensure no significant effects on fish species. It is welcomed that proposed mitigation measures include sensitively timed works to avoid the brown trout spawning season (October to April inclusive), production of an SPP and post works monitoring. Wood Ants Proposed mitigation measures are welcomed, including pre-works surveys during their active season (March to October), application of buffers where necessary, translocation if necessary (following expert advice) and post translocation / works monitoring. No evidence was recorded, but suitable habitat is present in and around the site for the following species: Amphibians, Badger (Meles meles), Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus), Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), Marsh Fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia), Mountain Hare (Lepus timidus), Pine Marten (Martes martes), Reptiles, Water Vole (Arvicola amphibious), Wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris), No evidence or suitable habitat recorded on site for Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus) Ornithology No likely significant impact of residual impacts on any bird species, with proposed mitigations outlined in the Bird Protection Plan (BPP) and oHMP in place. In addition, it is noted that the applicant is in discussions with NatureScot and RSPB regarding the potential impact and appropriate mitigation measures for Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus) and Black Grouse (Tetrao tetrix). The proposed mitigation and enhancement measures to include pre-works surveys by a qualified ecologist, sensitive timing of works, appropriate buffer zones where necessary, no works to be carried out if nests within buffer zones are occupied, post- works monitoring programme and on and offsite enhancement measures are welcomed. Outline Habitat Management Plan The following aims and objectives of the oHMP are welcomed: • To improve the condition of modified peatland communities within the site through: - a programme of drain blocking - Sitka spruce removal - peat bund installation - purple-moor grass reduction - reintroduction of Sphagnum • To improve the condition of offsite northern emerald habitat through: - halting run-off to prevent drying out - removing bog myrtle • To improve the condition of offsite marsh fritillary habitat through: - targeted bog myrtle removal - maintain devil’s-bit scabious through controlling grazing pressures Page 44
Page 45
- removal of Rhododendron ponticum • To control deer numbers to improve condition of designated woodland, ensure protection of onsite peatland restoration areas and maintain woodland regeneration to supporting breeding hen harrier In addition, note that the applicant is in discussion with NatureScot regarding the on and offsite habitat enhancement measures. The continuation of these discussions is encouraged, to gain expert advice in the different aspects of enhancement and management. The implementation of a Steering Group and a programme of monitoring for the duration of the life of the proposed development is also welcomed. outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (oCEMP) Welcome the proposed appointment of an ECoW, provision of Toolbox Talks to all site staff and best practice guidelines, to be adhered to throughout the lifetime of the proposed development. Bird Protection Plan (BPP) Welcome the inclusion of: • Appointment of ECoW • Pre-works surveys • Nest checks and appropriate buffer zones where necessary • Ensure compliance with the proposed mitigations Deer Management Plan (DMP) Note the applicant is in discussions with NatureScot and neighbouring landowners regarding a newly defined Cruach Deer Management Plan to include: • Herbivore Impact Assessment surveys • Habitat condition monitoring • Creation of a stalker role • Appropriate mitigation measures to ensure deer welfare at all times • Programme of deer culling to ensure deer numbers are at a state where they complement the habitat rather than negatively impact upon it due to high grazing pressure from high population In addition, note deer fences are proposed to allow habitat restoration and regeneration, to such a time the trees and shrubs are established. Recommend that due to the presence of black grouse in the area, the applicant should ensure the fences are clearly marked and a programme of monitoring fences for any potential black grouse carcasses is implemented. Local Biodiversity Officer (22/09/25) – has confirmed that she is satisfied with the submitted proposals but also ask that the applicant continues discussions with relevant organisations to ensure appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures are adhered to, and potential impacts are minimal. Noise Consultant (14/03/25) – advise that the desktop review and site survey conclude that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the applicant, with a few minor issues identified. The most significant of these issues are: • The consideration of cumulative operational noise impacts concludes that there are no risks but the basis of this is not presented. A review of Page 45
Page 46
cumulative impacts with the existing Bein Ghlas wind farm (operational) and Corr Cnoch wind farm (in planning) shows that there is potential for the 35 dB LA90 limit to be exceeded. • The noise emission data for the turbines assumes the benefit of trailing edge serrations but this is not specifically mentioned in the project description. This can provide benefits of up to ~3 dB in the turbine sound power level and therefore results in a potentially significant under-estimation of noise impacts. • The consideration of topographical screening is based on the visibility of the turbine whereas it should be the top of the turbine rotor. Given that the closest separation distance between receptors and turbines is ~1,330m, this is not considered to be a significant issue. • There are two noise sensitive receptors labelled ‘NSR2’ and two labelled ‘NSR3’ (6km apart): – NSR2 ○ Sealladh Mhor (196,315, 732,200) in Chapter 8 Table 8.5 but is given as NSR1 in Chapter 8 Table 8.6 ○ Duntanachan (196,706, 728245) in Chapter 8 Table 8.6 – NSR3 ○ Eltham Cottages (198,145, 732,385) in Chapter 8 Table 8.5 ○ Clachadubh (194,753, 727,382) in Chapter 8 Table 8.6 • Confirmation is sought that there are no derelict properties with residential planning status in the study area. • Confirmation is sought that the correction of predicted LAeq values to give LA90 values by subtracting 2 dB. Following a satisfactory response to the above issues from the Applicant, it is considered that there would be no reasons to object to the scheme on noise grounds. 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 scheme. Noise consultant (email dated 17.09.2025) - confirm that they have reviewed the Greencat Renewables description of their derivation of apportioned noise limits for their wind farm and Corr Chnoc. This was found to be compliant with the cumulative limit, therefore the predicted impact plus 2dB at all wind speeds is taken as the apportioned limit. In summary, the developer has provided a satisfactory response to the various queries, and therefore the noise consultant’s final recommendation is that the original conclusion of their assessment of the applicant’s noise assessment stands. Area Roads – at the time of writing no response has been received. Planning Officer comments: The proposal site is proposed to be accessed directly from the A85 Trunk Road, with no resultant access implications anticipated for the local road network. As stated above Transport Scotland have responded to the ECU consultation request, advising no objections to the proposals, subject to the attachment of relevant conditions to any approval. Flood Risk Assessor (24/12/24) – no objection, subject to conditions. Conditions recommended: Page 46
Page 47
1. Any proposed watercourse crossings that are added or upgraded should be designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change (46% allowance) flood event. 2. Surface water drainage should be 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. Flood Risk Assessor (2/10/25) – continue to advise no objection, subject to the conditions recommended in their original response. Access Officer – at the time of writing no response has been received. Environmental Health (18/12/24) – advise that they are unable to review the application and recommend that Planning consider employing a noise consultant to assess the effects that may arise. 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: 24/00069/PP - Erection of a meteorological mast up to 120m in height for a temporary period of 5 years. Approved 11/04/24 (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 Section 36 applications, the applicant has chosen to undertake Public Consultation. Further information on this is contained in the Cruach Clenamacrie Wind Farm Pre- Application Consultation Report (November 2024), available on the ECU website (reference: ECU00004841). (F) REPRESENTATIONS: As the Council is not the determining authority any letters of representation are considered by the Energy Consents Unit. At time of writing, 40 objections, 17 representations in support and 2 comments letters have been received by the ECU. The key issues raised are summarised below: Summary of Objections received Page 47
Page 48
Landscape and Visual Impact • The proposed 200m tall turbines will significantly adversely alter the visual character of the area, representing industrialisation of the countryside. • To erect these six wind turbines in front of Ben Cruachan would be extremely detrimental to visual landscape. • The windfarm would be visible from the whole area of the Lynn of Lorn National Scenic Area. It will be visible from Lismore, Kerrera, from ferries to Mull and the Outer Hebrides (Tiree, Coll, Barra), Connel, North Connel, Ardchattan and the Oban to Connel back road. • Adverse cumulative impacts with other nearby existing and proposed wind farms. • Incompatible with the area's natural beauty and panoramic designation. • The proposed development is disproportionately large for the local landscape and situated too close to residential properties. Planning Policy • 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 National Scenic Area (NSA) protections Tourism and Economic Impact • Detrimental impact on the local tourism economy. • Turbines would be visible from estate walking and cycling routes, potentially affecting visitor experience and bookings. • The development will have a detrimental impact on local tourism, including on B&B and accommodation providers. • 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. • Inadequate community consultation and Cybersecurity concerns over foreign ownership/operation and management. Natural Heritage / Biodiversity Issues • Significant loss of habitat and biodiversity • Increased flood and river pollution/contamination risk. • Site is very close to 3 SSSI’s and a Special Area of Conservation. • Environmental Impact Assessment lacks site-specific detail. • The site is home to rare and protected species: golden eagles, 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. Page 48
Page 49
• The loss of rich peatland habitat and the amount of carbon that would be released during the commissioning phase where over 40,000 cubic metres of peat rich habitat will be destroyed, is not justified. • Flora and Fauna will be severely impacted. • Fisheries have raised concerns about the local rivers. • Loss of existing woodland. Cultural Heritage • Potential harm to archaeological sites and sites of historical significance. • Proximity to heritage sites like standing stones and the “Road of the Kings.” Infrastructure • Lack of clarity on associated transmission lines and infrastructure. • 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. • Risks to aviation safety, including proximity to Oban Airport. • The inclusion of a BESS facility adds further environmental and construction concerns. • Pressure on local infrastructure during construction. • Objections to separate access roads for nearby wind farms, which could maximize land damage. • Traffic pressure on single-track roads during construction. 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. • 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 Lorn, including ferries and sailing yachts. • 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. Page 49
Page 50
• 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 • North Argyll already exceeds renewable energy targets. • Other projects (e.g., Cruachan 2, Beinn Ghlas Repower) offer greater capacity with less impact. Other • Recent seismic activity raises safety concerns. • Contend that there is no tangible benefit to the local community or economy. • Potential devaluation of nearby properties. • Is there capacity for grid connections for all the projects proposed? • Negative effects on agriculture. • Limited consultation with local residents. • Bladeless wind, tidal turbines and hydro schemes should be installed. • A Public Inquiry is warranted for the proposals. • Electricity cannot be effectively stored, and wind power is inconsistent. Summary of Support received Climate Change Mitigation • Urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO₂, and to de-carbonise both industry and energy production. • There is a need for more renewable energy with Global warming continuing to increase. • Renewable energy is essential to avoid severe national costs from climate-related hazards (e.g. flooding, droughts, storms). • The site will contain a battery storage unit thus prolonging the production of electricity. • The site has a high capacity wind resource and is expected to produce electricity for 50 years. • Scotland has been and remains a leader in renewable energy (wind and hydro) and the jobs created in assembling, installing, and maintaining our wind farms are key for local contractors. Minimal Tourism Impact • Site is remote, not a tourist hotspot. • Turbines likely not visible from major tourist routes or from Oban. Visual Amenity Considerations Page 50
Page 51
• Consideration of the proposals with the nearby Corr Chnoc Wind Farm (pending approval) will require a need to balance local amenity loss with national renewable energy needs. • Proposed site is suitable, is relatively small in scale and has very little environmental or visual impact. • Site is not sensitive or designated and has a good existing access. • Beinn Ghlas Wind Farm is nearby, suggesting visual impact is already present. Economic Benefits • Potential for energy export to the UK. • Wind farms reduce dependence on imported energy and would be a great asset. • Positive impact on Scotland’s balance of payments. • Economic and employment benefits for local businesses and contractors. • The wind farm will require a wide range of services, including: • Construction, Assembling, installation and maintaining wind farm. • Job creation for local employees and contractors. • Renewable energy projects are seen as making a significant contribution to both the local and Scottish economy and will bring substantial financial benefits to a fragile rural community. Community Wealth Fund Proposal • Suggests establishing a fund to benefit local communities and initiatives. • This Community Wealth fund is expected to significantly benefit the Argyll and Bute economy and leave a lasting local legacy. • Wind farms in Scotland have contributed millions annually to community projects, directly improving the quality of life for local residents. Summary of comments representations received Impacts to the Mid Argyll Important Invertebrate Area • Part of the Mid-Argyll Important Invertebrate Area (IIA) is directly adjacent to the northern border of the application site. IIAs are nationally or internationally significant places for the conservation of invertebrates and the habitats upon which they rely. • Much of this area of the IIA overlaps with Clais Dhearg Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designated partly for its dragonfly assemblage and population of the Vulnerable Marsh Fritillary Butterfly (Euphydryas aurinia). Buglife would also highlight that the Black Lochs within the SSSI support a population of the Near Threatened Medicinal Leech (Hirudo medicinalis), one of only three locations in Scotland for this species. Water quality impacts • There are hydrological links between the application site and Clais Dhearg SSSI with multiple small watercourses from the site flowing into the SSSI. Therefore, there is a route for pollutants and sediment to run off the site during the construction/decommissioning phases and through maintenance works during the operational phase. • Any pollutants within the watercourses would adversely impact the aquatic habitats of both Medicinal Leech, dragonflies and other aquatic invertebrates. It is vital that a comprehensive Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Page 51
Page 52
Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) is developed that will ensure there will be no impacts to the water quality of the wetland habitats within the SSSI. Impacts to Marsh Fritillary Populations • The Ecology Report indicates there is limited suitable habitat on site for Marsh Fritillary, with only occasional presence of its sole foodplant, Devils-bit Scabious (Succisa pratensis), and no know records for this species on site. However, the absence of records does not confirm the absence of a species unless the site has been well studied. • It is concerning that appropriate surveys to confirm if Marsh Fritillary are present within impacted areas are only to be undertaken before construction and not being used to avoid impacts. Determining the likely presence and impacts to this protected species is a material consideration in a planning application and therefore this information should be available prior to a decision being made. • Volunteers from Butterfly Conservation Scotland visited in June 2024 and recorded Marsh Fritillary adults (with evidence) at a number of locations within the proposed site boundary. Numbers were sufficient to indicate that on site breeding is taking place. • Translocations are inherently risky and should be avoided if at all possible. • It is likely that the construction of the wind farm, battery storage facility and associated infrastructure will cause the loss of suitable Marsh Fritillary habitat. This is acknowledged in the application documentation. • Should the proposed development proceed, we would urge that all reasonable mitigation measures are followed, and that suitable breeding habitat is identified prior to construction beginning and habitat loss avoided wherever possible. • We would also wish to see the full implementation of the proposed off-site enhancement scheme for Marsh Fritillary to ensure that any habitat loss on site is appropriately accounted for. This off-site scheme should be a long-term commitment for the lifespan of the windfarm and include an appropriately funded monitoring and maintenance programme to ensure the improved habitat remains in good condition. Wood Ants and Shining Guest Ant • Buglife welcomes that targeted surveys were undertaken on wood ant nests (Formica aquilonia and Formica lugubris) and that a precautionary approach to the presence of Shining Guest Ant (Formicoxenus nitidulus), a Scottish Biodiversity List species 3, has been taken. • Buglife supports the recommendation that wherever possible, any wood ant nest should be avoided with a minimum 20m buffer and that any necessary translocations of nests will follow best practice, as detailed in a Species Protection Plan. Outline Habitat Management Plan • Buglife welcome measures to improve habitat for the Near Threatened Northern Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora arctica) and Marsh Fritillary as part of compensation measures for the impact of this development. • It is important that a dragonfly expert has been consulted to inform these proposals and Buglife would also recommend consulting the British Dragonfly Society with regard to this species. • These proposals are in a sensitive location close to several designated sites with vulnerable aquatic habitats supporting rare invertebrates. Therefore, Buglife would Page 52
Page 53
reiterate that the provision of pollution and sediment control measures should be provided before determination. Note: The comments raised above are addressed in the assessment of the proposal at Appendix A of this report. Note: Please note that the letters of representation above have been summarised and that the full letters of representation are available on the Energy Consents Units website. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR): EIAR (November 2024) presented in three volumes: • Volume 1 : EIA Written Statement • Volume 2 : Figures • Volume 3 : Appendices Key topics covered in the EIAR include; Introduction; Planning and Renewable Energy Policy; EIA Methodology; Assessment of Alternatives; Project Description; Landscape and Visual; Cultural Heritage and Archaeology; Noise; Geology, Hydrogeology, Hydrology and Soils; Ecology; Ornithology; Transport and Access; Forestry; Aviation and Radar; Shadow Flicker; Telecommunications and Infrastructure; Climate Change and Carbon Balance; Summary of Mitigation. In addition, the following documents are also provided in support of the application: • EIAR Non-Technical Summary; • Planning and Renewable Energy Statement; • Pre-Application Consultation Report. Yes (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 as proposal accompanied by full EIAR. Page 53
Page 54
(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 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 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 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 Page 54
Page 55
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 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) • 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 Environmental Impact Assessment: No - Environmental Impact Assessment was required. Page 55
Page 56
(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. (P) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Stuart W Ramsay Date: 31/10/25 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 06/01/26 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 56
Page 57
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/02242/S36 PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 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, 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. Any Inquiry would be conducted by a Reporter appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. If consent is granted the Council as Planning Authority is responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, ongoing monitoring and enforcement. Page 57
Page 58
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 main wind farm site is located with Remote 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. 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 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 seek to ensure the proposal is considered as ‘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. In this case, following a detailed assessment, and taking into account the findings of the Landscape and Visual Review carried out by the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect it is considered that the landscape & visual impact of the proposal is unacceptable. It is concluded that the proposal is not in compliance with development plan policy relating to the spatial and settlement strategy, which requires proposals to be consistent with all relevant policies. 2.4 For the reasons detailed further below in this report, it is considered that this proposal would be contrary to Development Plan Policy, and associated guidance, in respect of renewable energy development in Argyll & Bute. 2.5 Having due regard to the above and following consideration of the conclusions and recommendations of the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect, it is considered that approval of this proposal would be contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policy 11, LDP 2 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas and LDP Policy 04 – Sustainable Development. Page 58
Page 59
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 site covers an area of approx. 310 ha (including the vehicular access), is bounded by Fearnoch Forest to the south, east and west, and is located approximately 7km east of Oban and 5 km west of Taynuilt. The proposed development would be operational for up to 50 years and would thereafter be decommissioned. 4.2 The site can be considered to be in 2 distinct parts, namely the main wind farm site itself, where the wind turbines and associated infrastructure would be located, and the long, narrow, vehicular site access from the A85 Trunk Road through Fearnoch Forest. The landscape within the site is characterised as craggy upland with oak-birch woodland, rounded knolls, rocky outcrops and numerous lochs in low-lying hollows and glens. The elevation of the wind farm site ranges from approximately 160 metres AOD in the north east to 273 metres AOD in the west. There are several prominent hilltops within and surrounding the site, including Cruach Clenamacrie (273m AOD). Deadh Choimhead (383m AOD) is located close to the southern edge of the site. 4.3 The proposed vehicular site access would extend from a new access point formed on the A85 at 20 metres AOD to the north east of the site and would then climb through the forest via new and existing access tracks to the entrance of the main site at approximately 180 metres AOD. No public roads are located within the site. 4.4 A number of small watercourses traverse the site, including the Lusragan Burn and the Black Loch's tributaries. Additionally, several small lochans can be found within and surrounding the site. 4.5 To the south of the proposed Wind Farm site, there is an on-road Core Path linking the A85 to the east / northeast with National Cycle Route 78 to the west, Core Path C160, which runs along the C32 Oban-Glenlonan-Taynuilt Road. 4.6 There are no Scheduled Monuments or Listed Buildings within the Site. Glenamachrie Cairn and An Dun, dun and Glenamachrie Standing Stone are the closest Scheduled Monuments located approximately 0.8km south-west of Page 59
Page 60
the Site. The closest Listed Building is the Category B Achnacloich House which is located approximately 2.3km to the north-west of the access track. 4.7 Directly north of the Site lies an area of the Loch Etive Woods Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) which is located within the Clais Dhearg Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In addition, there are areas of Ancient Woodland Inventory located within the Fearnoch Forest portion of the Site along the access track. 4.8 The closest settlement is Fearnoch, located approximately 2.3km to the north- east of the nearest turbine. There are several dispersed residential properties surrounding the site, with Glenamachrie being the nearest residential property, located approximately 1.3km south-west of the closest turbine. 4.9 Proposed Development – the main components are: • Six, three-bladed horizontal axis wind turbines, up to 200m in tip height and a generating capacity of approximately 7.2MW each; • 20MW Battery energy storage system (BESS) containers located adjacent to the substation compound; • New and upgraded access tracks, passing places and turning heads; • Hardstanding areas for cranes at each turbine location; • Turbine foundations; • Drainage works; • Up to four borrow pits; • Power cables, linking the wind turbines, laid in trenches underground, including cable markers; • An on-site electrical substation, parking, and a small storage compound; • Temporary laydown areas; • Temporary construction compound, including parking, and welfare facilities; and associated ancillary works. Infrastructure 4.10 Connection to Electricity Grid – the grid connection would be to the existing Taynuilt substation, which is located approximately 6.7km to the east of the proposed on-site substation. The nature and location of the connection will be determined by SSEN in a separate application process. 4.11 Scottish Water – have advised the ECU they have no objection to this proposal. In addition, advise that a review of their records indicates that the proposed development falls partly within a drinking water catchment where a Scottish Water abstraction is located. Scottish Water abstractions are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas (DWPA) under Article 7 of the Water Framework Directive. Loch Nell supplies Tullich Water Treatment Works (WTW) and it is essential that water quality and water quantity in the area are protected. Two turbines are located within the Loch Nell catchment and a further two turbines are located within the buffer zone. Although this is likely to be low risk to the source supply catchment it would always be the preference of Scottish Water to request that turbines are moved wholly out with the catchment where possible. Page 60
Page 61
The fact that this area is located within a drinking water catchment should be noted in future documentation. Anyone working on site should be made aware of this during site inductions. The ECU have asked the applicant to review this response and confirm how they are planning to address the points raised. In response, the applicant has advised that as a result of other constraints it has not been possible to move the turbines out of the DWPA and buffer zone. 4.12 Private Water supplies (PWS) – There are no Private Water Supplies within 250m of the proposed development. SEPA has not made any comment to the ECU with regard to PWS. 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 has been submitted with the application. This assesses the effects of the Proposed Development on socio-economics, tourism, and recreation during the construction and operation phases. The key takeaways of this statement are summarised below: • Up to £8.2 million is anticipated to be spent within the local economy during phase the construction and up to £1.3 million is anticipated to be spent annually during the operational phase. • Net employment benefit of up to 43 jobs (direct, indirect and induced) will be created across Argyll and Bute during the construction phase, as well as up to 8 jobs (direct, indirect and induced) during the operational phase. This will provide up to 66 Full Tim Equivalent (FTE) job years during the construction phase and up to 382 job years during the operational phase. • Net economic benefit of up to £4.3 million during the construction phase and up to £786,344 (annually) during the operational phase. • Any impacts on recreational activity upon forest tracks due to the construction phase will be mitigated through the implementation of an Outdoor Access Management Plan (OAMP). • No changes in tourism or recreational activity are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Development. 5.3 The Applicant has also stated they will contribute £5000 per MW of installed capacity per annum (index linked) into a community benefit fund for the lifetime of the proposed development (50 years). The Community Benefit Fund would provide long-term revenue which could be used to support community projects. Local communities would have the flexibility to choose how the money is spent and prioritise it on the things which matter most to them. Final decisions with regards to the Community Benefit arrangement will be made by communities themselves should the Proposed Development be consented, with guidance Page 61
Page 62
from the Applicant where appropriate. The Applicant is seeking to engage with local community councils to establish a Community Liaison Group (CLG) which could administer the fund. 5.4 In addition, in terms of socio-economic benefits in the local community, the applicant has advised: ‘If consented, the Proposed Development will create significant opportunities for local businesses through the construction and operation phases. This will include; accommodation providers, manufacturers and suppliers, contractors, and transpeople across a wider range of specialities, including construction, groundworks, landscaping, and plant hire. Local businesses and suppliers who are interested in getting involved in the Proposed Development can also be added to the Applicant’s database.’ 5.5 The economic benefits associated with this proposal relating to job creation and benefits to the local economy from the influx of construction workers, by spending on accommodation, eating out and visiting local attractions 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. 5.6 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 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 Noise ABC Noise Consultant – has concluded that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the applicant, with a few minor issues identified: The consideration of cumulative operational noise impacts (A review of cumulative impacts with the existing Bein Ghlas wind farm (operational) and Corr Cnoch wind farm (in planning); clarification on the labelling on properties, confirmation that there are no derelict properties with residential planning status in the planning area; Confirmation of the correction of predicted LAeq to give LA90 by subtracting 2 dB. 6.3 Following a satisfactory response, it is considered that there would be no reasons to object on noise grounds, subject to the application of a condition Page 62
Page 63
recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant which covers noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation. 6.4 Shadow Flicker 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.” 6.5 The EIAR identified nearby properties where shadow flicker effects might arise. The rotor diameter of the candidate turbine is 162 metres. Based on the Scottish Government guidance, the ten rotor diameter distance would be 1620 metres. The EIAR identified 2 properties within this 1620 m distance, Glenamachrie and Dorran Cottage. No properties were identified as likely to exceed the 30 hours per year threshold of significance, however, both receptors have been identified as marginally exceeding the daily threshold of 30 minutes by 1 minute. Notwithstanding this, given shadow flicker is only predicted between 06:00am – 07:00am, which the majority of the time, falls outside typical waking hours - this timing minimises potential disturbance, where impacts would not be considered significant in disturbance to residential amenity areas. As such, identified exceedances are not considered to be significant, with a low likelihood of disturbance due to shadow flicker. The effect of shadow flicker was therefore considered to be non-significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. The applicant concludes that shadow flicker is expected to have a low and not significant effect on nearby sensitive receptors. 6.6 The applicants supporting information states that flicker is only expected to occur from the two most southernly turbines (T1 & T3) at each location. In the event a shadow flicker complaint is received with suitable evidence, the turbines can be fitted with a shadow stop system that can be programmed to automatically shut down when environmental conditions are conducive to shadow flicker at affected properties. This means that the turbine would be equipped with a light level sensor, which would be used to ensure the turbine shuts down during periods of sufficient light to generate shadow flicker. Shadow flicker impacts could be managed through a suitable planning condition that requires a mitigation scheme to be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority in response to a justified complaint. Considering this, it is recommended that if consent is granted, consideration be given by the ECU that a shadow flicker mitigation scheme is secured by a planning condition. 6.7 Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal is acceptable in terms of any adverse noise or potential adverse shadow flicker impacts, subject to relevant conditions, and is therefore consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the ABLDP2. 7. SIGNIFICANT 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 Page 63
Page 64
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 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 following documents have been considered: • The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) within the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) accompanying the Section 36 application ECU00004841, submitted in December 2025; and • Further Environmental Information Report (FEI) submitted in September 2025 (which includes additional cumulative assessment of the effects of the proposed wind farm together with the neighbouring proposal at Corr Chnoc wind farm, which is now also at application stage with the ECU, as well as the Beinn Ghlas Repowering scheme planning application). 7.3 The proposal – would comprise 6 wind turbines up to 200m high to blade tip. Ancillary development would include approximately 10km of new/upgraded access track, a substation/control building and battery energy storage facility (this sited on the construction compound). Visible aviation lighting would be affixed to 5 of the 6 wind turbines. The proposed development would require removal of 18 hectares of woodland (the majority of this comprising Sitka spruce) and compensatory planting would therefore be required. Connection to the grid would be at the Taynuilt substation, 6.7km east of the proposed development site. 7.4 An Outline Habitat Management Plan (OHMP) is presented in Appendix 10.5. The OHMP focuses on restoring peatland habitat and providing habitats for specific species. Measures include wetting of peatland, the removal of self- seeded Sitka spruce on the site, the removal of rhododendron off-site and management of grazing. 7.5 The landscape and visual information provided by the Applicant The Council’s Consultant Landscape Advisor has confirmed that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) set out in Chapter 6 of the EIA-R accords with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) maps provided are clear. The day-time photomontage visualisations accord with best practice guidance and present an accurate representation of the proposed development. Illustrative wirelines are informative in most instances although the absence of location details for the ferry route view makes it difficult to fully gauge effects and the wireline itself appears confusing. The wirelines produced compare poorly with the visualisations included from ferry routes in the Corr Chnoc wind farm EIA which accord with best practice guidance. Night-time visualisations have been prepared from four representative viewpoints. It is considered that these provide less of an accurate representation of what is likely to be seen in the field and should be treated with caution. Page 64
Page 65
7.6 Landscape Effects – The proposed site lies within the Craggy Upland with Settled Glens Landscape Character Type (LCT), which is identified in the 2017 Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS). The Craggy Upland with Settled Glens LCT has a diverse character influenced by the irregular complex landform of deep glens, rocky outcrops, craggy hills and occasional small lochans. The intricate pattern of woodland, especially broadleaved woodlands, pastures, wetland and settlement contributes to the diversity of this landscape and reinforces its medium to small scale. The LWECS found this LCT to be of high sensitivity to wind turbines >80m high. 7.7 The proposed development would be located close to the small craggy hill of Deadh Choimhead and adjacent to the narrow Glen Lonan. Coniferous forestry covers the long slopes which extend to the north of the pronounced summit of this hill. The proposed development site comprises open craggy moorland which is patterned with occasional traces of broadleaved woodland lying to the north of the summit of Deadh Choimhead. Land to the north and west of the site is diverse, featuring a string of narrow lochs nestled within low hills which are covered with extensive broadleaved woodland on their south-eastern side. The form of Deadh Choimhead is particularly pronounced in views from the Glen Lonan area and from the public road near Lonan House to the east and the road north-west of Loch Nell. The turbines at 200m high would appear to dominate the relief of this hill and greatly detract from its character in these views with this effect most severe from Viewpoint 1. It is considered that effects on the Craggy Upland with Settled Glens LCT would be significant and adverse, with these effects extending up to around 6km of the proposed development. 7.8 Significant adverse effects would also be likely to occur on the character of the Rocky Mosaic LCT where it covers the northern shores of outer Loch Etive and the Lowland Ridges and Moss LCT in the Moss of Achnacree area. The proposed development would disrupt the scenic layering of the small irregular hills of the Craggy Upland with Settled Glens LCT with Loch Etive and its diverse shores. This is illustrated in Viewpoints 6 and 7 from the northern shore of Loch Etive. 7.9 While effects on the perceptual characteristics of the High Tops LCT (which covers the dramatic mountainous landscapes of Argyll lying to the east and north of the proposed development) would be adverse in some areas, the distance of these mountains from the wind farm would limit the magnitude of change and, where they occur to the east, the presence of multiple operational (and consented) wind farm developments in closer proximity in the Loch Awe/Loch Fyne area would additionally reduce effects. It is not considered that effects on the character of the High Tops LCT would be significant. Similarly, the limited extent of visibility of the proposed development across the visually contained Craggy Coasts and Islands LCT would not result in overall significant effects on its character. 7.10 Landscape Designations – the application site is not located within any designated National or Local Landscape Area, and it is considered that the proposals would not have significant adverse effects on the special qualities of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park. 7.11 In addition, the proposed development would lie within 8.8km of the Lynn of Lorn National Scenic Area (NSA). There would be views of the turbines principally from the western side of Lismore, across the southern part of the sea channel of the Lynn Page 65
Page 66
of Lorn and from the east-facing coastal edge of the heavily wooded Garbh Ard peninsula. Viewpoint 14 is located on the west side of Lismore while Viewpoint 15 lies on the A828 just outside the north-eastern boundary of the NSA. Technical Appendix 6.2 includes an Illustrative Wireline from the Lismore-Oban ferry although it is not clear whether this lies within the NSA as there seems to be no map showing where the viewpoint is located (it is not shown on ZTV Figures 6.1 and 6.2) and the distance of the viewpoint from the nearest turbine is also not noted on the visualisation. 7.12 It is considered that significant adverse effects could arise on views from parts of this NSA, particularly from the open sea in the southern part of the designated area away from the partial screening provided by the peninsula of Fionn Ard. This would adversely affect the wider setting to the NSA although the turbines would not interrupt views towards the Mainland and Mull mountains which are noted in NatureScot’s description of special qualities. Given the distance of the proposed development from the designated area, the limited visibility likely to occur from the more contained and intimately scaled parts of the NSA, and the focus of the special qualities on the highly scenic linear form of ridges and islands and islets and their rich vegetation cover, it is considered that the integrity of this NSA would not be affected. In addition, it is not considered that significant adverse effects would occur on the special qualities of any other NSA. 7.13 Effects on Local landscape Areas - There would be relatively limited visibility of the proposed development from the North West Argyll Coast Local Landscape Area (LLA) which lies to the west of the development site. While it is considered that there would be adverse and significant effects on views from Kerrera (represented by Viewpoint 12) and from Viewpoint 11 at Knipoch, it is considered that the qualities that the LLA is likely to have been designated for would focus on the intricacies of the Argyll coast and islands and views to Mull and these would not be significantly affected by the proposed development, which is located inland from the coast. 7.14 There would also be some visibility of the proposed development from the extensive North Argyll LLA. Viewpoints 7, 15 and 16 lie within this designated landscape. It is considered that significant adverse effects would arise on views from Inveresragan on the north shore of Loch Etive (Viewpoint 7). Adverse but not significant effects would arise on views from Ben Cruachan (Viewpoint 16) and from the Strath of Appin area, represented by Viewpoint 15. Given the relatively limited extent of visibility and the likelihood of the reasons for designation of the LLA being the mountainous scenery and their dramatic juxtaposition with the northern shores and waters of Loch Etive and the Lynn of Lorn area, it is considered that the integrity of this designated landscape would be unaffected. 7.15 Visual Effects - There would be close visibility of the proposed development from within Glen Lonan and the settled valley of the Lusragan Burn which lies to the west of the development site. Within 5-10km of the proposal, theoretical visibility would be extensive across the sea basin to the north-west, the western part of Lismore and outer Loch Etive, particularly concentrated along its settled northern shore. The proposed development comprises a small scheme of just 6 turbines although these turbines would be up to 200m to blade tip and will thus appear very large in relation to the small to medium scale landform of the landscape they are sited within. Page 66
Page 67
7.16 Significant visual effects are predicted from the following areas: • The Glen Lonan area affecting views from Core Paths, National Cycle Route 78 and from settlement. Viewpoints 1 and 2 represent views from this area. All six turbines would be visible from Viewpoint 1 at Barguillean which is located at an elevated point in the minor road in the more open eastern part of Glen Lonan. The turbines (and particularly Turbine 6) would dominate the scale of the craggy summit of Deadh Choimhead which forms a notable feature in views from this area. While only 1 or 2 of the turbines would be seen from within the narrow and strongly contained glen floor to the south, new very large-scale infrastructure would be introduced to this area, significantly detracting from the intimate scale of this landscape and the sense of naturalness and seclusion that can be experienced. • Roads and settlement east of Oban as represented by Viewpoints 3 from Barranrioch and Viewpoint 4 from Ardchonnel where the proposed turbines would form dominant features at distances of between 3.5-4km and would (particularly in the more open context of Viewpoint 3) contrast with the scale of the low craggy ridges and small hills characteristic of this area. There would also be brief but a significant impact on views from the A85 east of Taynuilt (illustrated by the cumulative visualisation from Viewpoint 9 in the Corr Chnoc wind farm Additional Information Report). • Loch Nell represented by Viewpoint 10 which is located at a popular layby on its shore. The proposed turbines would form a dominant and detracting feature seen at the end of views across the loch and would significantly diminish the sense of naturalness and tranquillity associated with this small loch. • Small hills east of Oban including Viewpoint 9 from the summit of Barran an Fhraoich (which is shown as a promoted viewpoint on 1:50k OS maps although does not appear to be frequently accessed) and Pulpit Hill (Illustrative Wireline I). In these views the proposed turbines would intrude on views of the Ben Cruachan massif which forms a focus to the east. • The shores of outer Loch Etive – represented by Viewpoints 5, 6, 7 and 13 and including views from the grounds of Ardchattan Priory Inventory listed Garden and Designed Landscape (Cultural Heritage Figure 7.31). The operational wind farm of Beinn Ghlas is visible in some of these views but the closer proximity and substantially larger turbines of the proposed development would result in significantly greater intrusion into scenically rich views comprising diverse wooded and farmed settled loch shores, open water and a backdrop of layered craggy hills and ridges. • The sea basin between Oban, Mull and Lismore affecting views from ferries and other watercraft. Viewpoint 13 from Dunstaffnage Castle (and the ZTV in Figure 6.2) illustrates the degree of intrusion likely to affect views from near shore areas. There would also be a significant adverse effect on views from Kerrera where the turbines would intrude on views towards the Ben Cruachan massif (Viewpoint 12). Proposed visible aviation lighting on five of the wind turbines would extend the duration of significant adverse effects in close-by views from parts of Glen Lonan and from the settled area between Oban and the proposed development. Page 67
Page 68
7.17 Residential Visual Amenity Effects - A Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) has been undertaken by the Applicant. This identifies 5 residential properties/groups of properties with potential views of the proposed development lying within 2 km of the nearest turbine. Illustrative wirelines are stated in paragraph 17 of the RVAA as being included in Appendix 6.2. The names of these illustrations do not always accord with those labelled on Figure 1 of Appendix 6.4. It is assumed that the wireline titled G Angus’ Garden is the same property as Duntanachan shown on Figure 1 in Appendix 6.4 but there is no assessment of effects on visual amenity from this property, or on properties at Fearnoch which are also shown on Figure 1 but do not appear in the detailed assessment table on page 3 of the RVAA. There is nothing to indicate in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the RVAA why these properties have been omitted and indeed paragraph 18 refers to two further properties located close to the edge of the study area which are described as having been included in the assessment. The Landscape Consultant cannot come to a view on potential visual amenity effects on residential properties until clarification on this matter is obtained from the Applicant. It is considered that the ECU should have this matter clarified prior to determining the application. 7.18 Cumulative landscape and visual effects with other proposed wind farms The proposed development would introduce wind farm development into a new area where no large wind turbines are present and where the closest operational wind farms (Beinn Ghlas and Carraig Gheal) have a minimal visual influence. The Corr Chnoc, Musdale, Beinn Ghlas Repowering and Barachander proposed wind farm developments have greatest potential to incur significant adverse cumulative effects with the proposed development. With regard to the proposed Corr Chnoc wind farm, significant adverse combined cumulative effects would arise on the character of the Craggy Upland with Settled Glens LCT, on views from Glen Lonan, the area east of Oban and west of the development site, from the Loch Nell area and from the Taynuilt area. While both developments would be seen from the northern shores of Loch Etive, the proposed development (Cruach Clenamachrie) would be considerably more intrusive because of its closer proximity and increased elevation (and lesser degree of screening by landform) when compared with the Corr Choc wind farm proposal. In respect of the Beinn Ghlas repowering scheme, the Council’s Landscape Consultant has advised that, having reviewed the cumulative ZTV mapping and visualisations, they do not consider that significant adverse cumulative effects would occur with the Beinn Ghlas Repowering scheme and the proposed development. 7.19 Nighttime lighting effects – The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) requires that ‘enroute obstacles’ at or above 150m above ground level are lit with visible lighting to assist their detection by aircraft. As the proposed turbines would be 200m to tip height, there would be a requirement for them to display medium intensity ‘steady’ (non-flashing) red aviation lights at night. These would be fitted to the of nacelles of the turbines. All nacelles would also be fitted with infra-red lighting which is not visible to the human eye. In this instance, it is considered that proposed visible aviation lighting on five of the wind turbines would extend the duration of significant adverse effects in close-by views from parts of Glen Lonan, and from the settled area between Oban and the proposed development. Visible aviation lighting associated with the Corr Chnoc wind farm, and the proposed development would extend the duration of significant adverse cumulative effects from some views and would, in combination, diminish the dark skies characteristic of this part of Argyll. The Beinn Ghlas Repowering scheme would not require visible aviation lighting. Page 68
Page 69
7.20 Conclusions - National Policy Framework 4 (NPF4) gives strong support to renewable energy developments. NPF4 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 to be acceptable”. NPF4 provides no guidance on the definition of what constitutes ‘localised’ effects. The Scottish Government’s Onshore Wind Policy Statement stresses that change will occur to the landscape but also states the importance of ensuring that the right development happens in the right place. 7.21 The proposed development would result in significant landscape and visual effects out of proportion to its relatively small size (in terms of numbers of turbines). Significant adverse effects on landscape character would principally affect the Glen Lonan area. It would introduce new and very large infrastructure to a small to medium scale and diverse landscape with a distinct sense of naturalness. The 200m high wind turbines proposed would dominate the scale of the landform of small craggy hills, narrow valleys and lochs. While this landscape is not designated or otherwise formally valued it possesses a distinctive scenic character and is of high sensitivity to development of this nature. 7.22 Significant adverse effects on views would principally occur in the Glen Lonan area. This area features generally dispersed settlement accessed by narrow roads. The proposed development would have significant adverse effects on views from the minor roads/promoted cycle route and footpaths generally lying within 5km from the nearest turbine. Views from Loch Nell, from the small hills surrounding the development site, from parts of the island of Kerrera and from the northern shores of outer Loch Etive would also be significantly and adversely affected. Visible aviation lighting would extend significant adverse effects particularly on closer views within around 5km of the proposed development. 7.23 Significant combined adverse cumulative effects would occur with the nearby application-stage Corr Chnoc wind farm on landscape character and on views. The combined effect of these nearby developments would increase the dominant effect of very large wind turbines and associated built infrastructure on the Craggy Uplands with Settled Glens LCT. Significant cumulative effects would occur on views from Loch Nell, on visual receptors within the lower-lying settled valleys between Oban and the proposed development site and east of Fearnoch Forest. 7.24 The Council’s Consultant Landscape Adviser has suggested mitigation which would have the potential to reduce the significance of effects. These are: • It is recommended that the Council request that the Applicant considers a reduction in turbine size (which is likely to necessitate repositioning of turbines which may in turn resolve the lack of unity of the scheme seen in close views and present a tighter grouping of turbines which could further help mitigate landscape and visual effects). • Clarification is also needed from the Applicant on the RVAA in terms of the properties assessed (see comment under the Residential Visual Page 69
Page 70
Amenity Effects heading in this report) and the location of the offshore Illustrative Wireline viewpoint from the Oban-Lismore ferry. 7.25 The Applicant has provided a response to the key points raised by the Council’s Landscape Advisor in a further submission document on the 15/10/25. letter dated 29/9/25. They advise that in their view, the differences of opinion are relatively minor in each case, there is no notable difference in relation to designated landscapes, and the differences of opinion in relation the effects on landscape character are very limited – a slightly greater extent of significant effects within the host LCT (though this may be because review attributes slightly higher sensitivity to the LCT and effects in the 4-6km distance band are identified as Small by the LVIA). Furthermore: Reduction in Turbine size and repositioning - The recommendation that ABC should seek that the Applicant markedly reduce the heights of the turbines is based only on changing its appearance, not on reducing significant landscape and visual effects – as referenced in paragraph 5 above. The suggestion that this might help to improve the appearance of the design is based on stated concerns relating to viewpoints 1, 3 and 9 (under ‘visual effects’ on page 4), however in each case it is simply the case that the nearest turbine appears larger – a factor that commonly arises in close views of wind farms and does not warrant the description of the layout as having a “jarring and uncoordinated appearance” in some close views as set out in the conclusions. The conclusion that the turbines are too large for the location is justified in part with reference to the pattern of operational and consented development in Argyll and Bute. However, there is no support within policy or guidance for future development to continue the pattern of the past. Older wind farms were consented under different planning policies when different turbine technologies were available and do not provide a template for the present or future. Realistically, the “substantial lowering” of turbines suggested would only also result in the repositioning of turbines suggested in the conclusions if there was also a notable reduction in rotor diameter and the on-site constraints permit repositioning. Both height and rotor reductions would reduce the benefits in terms of renewable energy from the wind farm. These options have already been considered and rejected in developing the design which seeks to optimise the balance between renewable energy generation and minimising significant landscape and visual effects. Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) clarification - Paragraph 18 of the RVAA (Appendix 6.4 to the EIA report) clearly sets out that “three properties have been located within the 2km study area ….” – these three are Dorran Cottage, Glenamacrie Farmhouse and the nearby bungalow. Paragraph 18 continues “… Two further properties are located at the edge of the study area and are also included” – these are 2 Kilvaree and Clachdubh. Those five properties are clearly labelled on RVAA Figure 1 and then considered in the table which follows that description in the RVAA. Illustrative viewpoints I and J in Appendix 6.2 and representative viewpoint 2 are referred to in the detailed text relating to each of the properties as required – as paragraph 17 of the RVAA states. Page 70
Page 71
Other properties further beyond the RVAA study area to the north at Fearnoch and to the east at Duntanachan are indicated as pink dots on Figure 1 (just as all plans provided within the LVIA do not abruptly stop at the edge of the study area), but this does not mean that they are or should be included in the RVAA. Ferry route view location query – The Council’s Landscape Consultant refers to ‘the ferry route view’, whereas there are two (Illustrative View A from the Oban- Mull route and Illustrative view B from the Oban-Lismore route.) This may be the reason for any confusion. For clarity the location of these two views is plotted in an attached plan. 7.26 Officer’s Conclusions – Based on the advice of the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect, and notwithstanding the acknowledged difference in opinion with the Applicant’s Landscape Planning Consultant, it is concluded that the proposal warrants an objection on landscape and visual grounds. 7.27 In summary, having due regard to all of the above it is concluded that the proposal cannot comply with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 4 – Natural Places of NPF4, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of ABLDP2 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 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 Page 71
Page 72
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 There are limited pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the site, however, approximately 500 metres to the south of the wind farm site the road through Glen Lonan is a Core Path linking to the A85 in the east / north east with the National Cycle Network (NCN) route to the west. Core Path 160, the Taynuilt to Oban route, is 14.5kmin in length between the A85 and NCN route 78. Other Core Paths in the area include Core Path c157 (c) Taynuilt – Airds circular, which runs parallel to the A85 at Taynuilt and also Core Path C300 (a) Kilchrenan to Taynuilt. Core Path C177 (d) Black Lochs, Kilvaree Connel is located 2km to the north west of the site. In addition, the forestry tracks within Fearnoch Forest are open to recreational use and interactions between traffic associated with the Proposed Development and other path users may occur. 9.3 The applicant’s Socio-Economic Statement considers how recreational activities may be affected by the development. It concludes that the main effects that could be experienced during the construction phase are visual/noise impacts from machinery, on-site activity and construction traffic. Some views of construction will be visible from some core paths when facing towards the Proposed Development, however, the ZTV does not take into account-built development and vegetation, which can significantly reduce the area and extent of actual visibility. The woodland areas surrounding the above-mentioned paths will provide screening and blocking of the Proposed Development, meaning views of the construction phase will not be constant. 9.4 9.5 Forestry tracks are not designated. However, they are used for recreational purposes by the public. Forestry tracks run throughout Fearnoch Forest and intersect with the eastern part of the Application Boundary, including large parts of the Proposed Access Track. As a result, the Proposed Development is anticipated to have visual and access impacts on forestry tracks during the construction phase. During the construction phase of the Proposed Development, it is anticipated that the sections of the forestry track affected by construction activities will remain open to the public where appropriate. Mitigation measures such as an Outdoor Access Management Plan (OAMP) which will allow forestry tracks to remain open, will be developed with Argyll and Bute Council and secured via a planning condition. Efforts will be made to separate users of forest tracks from construction traffic via crossing points, temporary diversions and traffic signage. Path users will also have the right of way. Any closures will be temporary and are not anticipated to be in place throughout the full construction period. Forestry tracks which will be utilised by construction traffic will also be upgraded. Therefore, increasing the recreational value of the tracks once the construction phase is over. Finally, there is not expected to be a change in recreational activity on the forestry tracks during the operational phase of the Proposed Development. ABC Core Paths – At time of writing no response has been received and it is therefore assumed that there are no issues relating to public access in relation to this proposal, however, the Council would request a condition requiring the Page 72
Page 73
9.6 submission of an Access Plan, should the ECU propose to approve the application. 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. 10. AVIATION AND DEFENCE INTERESTS, INCLUDING SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING 10.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigations 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 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 10.4 Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd and NATS – have advised the ECU that the proposal is out with safeguarding criteria and they have no objections to the application. Oban and the Isles Airport – have advised no objections to the proposal and they have been in direct engagement with the developer. 10.5 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Ministry of Defence DIO, 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 and the Joint Radio Company - have advised the ECU that they have no objection to the proposal. 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 Page 73
Page 74
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 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 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 relating to: approval of the detailed design of the proposed new access onto the Trunk Road, abnormal loads route; accommodation measures for abnormal load route; additional signing or temporary traffic control measures; and a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). A number of advisory notes are also suggested, in relation to requirements to undertake works within the trunk road boundary and legal agreements with the Trunk Road Authority. 12.3 ABC’s Roads & Amenity Services - at time of writing no response has been received and it is therefore assumed that there are no issues affecting the local road network, noting that access to the site is proposed to be taken from the A85 Trunk Road. 12.4 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by Transport Scotland, 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 Transport Scotland 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 Page 74
Page 75
provide guidance on assessing development proposals against heritage impacts. 13.2 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) - have advised the ECU that the proposed wind farm would have an adverse impact on the setting of a number of monuments (in particular Barguillean Farm, dun 250m SSW of (SM3930), Dunstaffnage Castle (SM90120), Ardchattan Priory, priory, burial ground and carved stones (SM13644), and the cluster of prehistoric burial monuments at the south west end of Loch Nell including Dalineun, chambered cairn 265m S of Dalaneas (SM4155). The severity of these impacts is, however, not such as to result in an objection. Further, there are no designated assets for HES interests within the boundary of the proposed development, so they are content that direct impacts to historic environment impacts for their interests do not arise. In terms of impacts on category A Listed Buildings, Gardens and Designed Landscapes, HES are content with the assessment. Whilst the windfarm would be visible from Ardchattan Priory (GDL00019), Achnacloich (GDL00007), Lochnell House (LB4716), Ardmucknish Bay, Lochnell Observatory (St Margaret’s Tower) (LB4717) and 1-4 Lochandu Cottages, Bonawe (LB52504), it would not alter how the assets are understood, appreciated or experienced and there would not be a significant impact on their cultural significance. 13.3 West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) – at the time of writing no response has been received. It is recommended that any future consultation response received by either the Planning Authority or sent direct to the ECU be fully considered before a decision is made on the application. 13.4 Having due regard to the above, subject to any condition(s) that may be recommended by 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 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 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 so there is no reduction in pre-development channel cross sectional area ideally to pass the 1 in 200 years plus climate change flood event; and that surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post Page 75
Page 76
development runoff is attenuated to the 1 in 2 year greenfield runoff rate. 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 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 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 NatureScot have advised the ECU that the proposal does not raise issues of national interest, however, in terms of biodiversity they summarise the key considerations to be: • Significant impacts on Schedule 1 bird species and a regionally important black grouse population, which are not considered to be easily overcome by siting, design or other mitigation. 15.3 Ornithology – NatureScot have advised that whilst the proposed impacts on ornithological receptors do not raise issues of national interest, they do have a number of concerns regarding the Proposal, namely: • This six turbine Proposal has a disproportionately high potential impact for its size and as a small site there are significant concerns about whether it could be built in compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)(as amended) in relation to reckless offences based on the submitted ES. • It has the potential to exclude golden eagles from 2-3% of a territory. Whilst not at a level that would make the territory unviable, this is high for such a small Proposal. Four out of the six turbines impact the eagle territory. • It has potential to cause displacement/abandonment of black grouse lek sites for what appears to be a regionally important population: we consider all four leks sites connected. None of the leks sites have been Page 76
Page 77
15.4 15.5 15.6 suitably buffered. This is almost impossible to do without removal of T6 and T7 (Original proposed scheme sought advice on 8 turbines). • It has the potential to cause displacement of up to two pairs of hen harrier. Not all nest sites have been suitably buffered. The lower end of our recommended disturbance distance buffer has been used (300m) and even then, turbines have been proposed within 300m; contradicting statements in the ES that they have. Further to the submission of additional information from the applicant on ornithology, NatureScot have responded on the 17/10/25 to advise: Hen Harrier The clarification around distance of nests to turbines is acknowledged. However, due to likely interannual changes in nest site location the Applicant needs to ensure they identify where the nests are pre and during construction as they may have moved closer or further from turbine locations and require more stringent mitigation. This will pose constraints during the construction phase, not just operational, and therefore the Applicant should have plans to mitigate the constraints. NatureScot reiterate the previous advice that the 750m buffer around an active nest will be hard to implement without stopping construction or operational maintenance in the breeding season. The discussion around mitigation and potential displacement of the hen harriers needs to consider that they are listed on Schedules 1 and 1A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) which includes reckless harassment at any time of year. There is an assumption that birds will relocate if disturbed and breed elsewhere, however, there is no guarantee this will happen. It is for the Applicant to be confident that their mitigation complies with the legislation. It is recommended that a protection plan be put in place with backstops, to minimise the risk of a WCA offence should mitigation not be adequate. Black Grouse Lek B's importance should not be understated, as the presence of a female bird makes the lek important whether or not it has only been observed once during the survey period. A satellite lek may only consist of one bird but this still needs to be buffered the same as a main lek and is intentional lekking not opportunistic. It is advised that works should be delayed until lekking has finished before starting works each day. NatureScot support the additional preconstruction black grouse surveys that will be carried out at the site; as regularity of use on these leks may have changed since 2021/2022 and will inform mitigation more accurately. Golden Eagle NatureScot acknowledge the new range value and other inconsistencies that have been corrected. They noted in their response of the 4 April 2025 that the level of territory loss would not make the territory unviable. RSPB Scotland – have advised the ECU they do not have any comments to make on the application. The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer – considers there will be no likely significant impact of residual impacts on any bird species, with proposed mitigations outlined in the Bird Protection Plan (BPP) and oHMP in place. In Page 77
Page 78
15.7 15.8 15.9 15.10 15.11 15.12 15.13 15.14 addition, welcomes the proposed appointment of an ECoW as part of a Bird Protection Plan (BPP). Marsh Fritillary Butterflies - Although Marsh Fritillary were not located during the Applicants survey work, Butterfly Conservation Scotland have identified breeding Marsh Fritillary at the site. The Applicant may want to do further assessment to consider impacts on the species. There is limited mitigation that will balance the loss of suitable habitat; Marsh Fritillary require a network of suitable habitat to support meta population dynamics. NatureScot note the Applicant intends to implement a translocation project if required but there is no further detail. Buglife Scotland – advise that it is welcomed that steps are being taken through pre-construction surveys to avoid translocation of Marsh Fritillary. Further, they reiterate the importance of surveys for Marsh Fritillary being undertaken to inform the planning application, so all the available information is provided for determination and to inform the mitigation strategy. Otter – NatureScot has advised that Otters are a feature of interest of Loch Etive Woods SAC. In NatureScot’s view, it is unlikely that the Proposal will have a significant effect on any otter, either directly or indirectly. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required with regards to otter. Otter use of an area can change over time so they should be included in pre-construction survey work. Fish – The Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) have advised that in the event of the proposed wind farm being granted planning permission that monitoring of Water quality, macroinvertebrates, and fish should be undertaken to Scottish Government guidelines, which include sites within the reaches of habitat in both catchments where salmon and sea trout are present. Bats - The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the proposed mitigation measures, including pre-works surveys to be carried out by a qualified bat ecologist and the production of a Species Protection Plan (SPP). Wood Ants – The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer states that proposed mitigation measures are welcomed, including pre-works surveys during their active season (March to October), application of buffers where necessary, translocation if necessary (following expert advice) and post translocation / works monitoring. Other European Protected Species (EPS) – The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer notes that in terms of other EPS, no evidence was recorded, but suitable habitat is present in and around the site for the following species: Amphibians, Badger (Meles meles), Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus), Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), Marsh Fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia), Mountain Hare (Lepus timidus), Pine Marten (Martes martes), Reptiles, Water Vole (Arvicola amphibious), Wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris) and Red Squirrel. No evidence or suitable habitat recorded on site for Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus). Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (oCEMP) - welcome the inclusion of the plan, to include; Appointment of an ECoW; Provision of Toolbox Page 78
Page 79
15.15 talks to all construction staff and contractors; to be adhered to throughout the lifetime of the proposed development. Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) 15.16 SEPA - note some small areas of moderately dependent habitat will be impacted by the development, however, agree that these habitats are mostly rain/surface water fed. The mitigation currently suggested around these habitats in Section 5.1 of Appendix 9.3 - Groundwater-Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems Assessment and further use of floating roads should be sufficient to minimise any further impacts. SEPA request these mitigation measures are secured by condition. Peat SEPA initially submitted a holding objection to the ECU in relation to a lack of information on impacts on peat and suggested a number of modifications in relation to peat and turbine/track siting. SEPA requested a number of modifications to the infrastructure layout, including relocation of access tracks, which may reduce the number of watercourse crossings which would support the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance as the first principle. SEPA also advised that the Figures showing Peat Depth (Figures 9.1.6a-f) are difficult to assess due to blocking out of information with peat depth numbers which have a white background. Following the submission of further information, responding to SEPA’s latest request to relocate or microsite turbines / access tracks / turbine infrastructure / substation/BESS/construction compound off areas of peat, and move a watercourse crossing off an area of deepest peat, SEPA has withdrawn their original objection to the proposals, subject to relevant conditions being attached to any approval. 15.17 Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment 15.18 Ironside Farrar - advised the ECU the following in a Stage 1 Checking Report: The PLHRA requires resubmission there are significant shortcoming throughout the PLHRA and reworking of the PLHRA report is required to support a robust assessment; areas for attention will be advised in the review findings and outline guidance offered to support the developer in preparing a satisfactory PLHRA. The reporting is considered to be generally well reasoned and to use appropriate assessment techniques. A number of queries are raised however, significant issues are considered to be the relative lack of probing when compared with published guidance at infrastructure locations and the omission of the SSSI/areas of SAC that run along the northern boundary from consequence and risk assessment sections. This latter issue has the potential to significantly change the conclusions of the report in the area. Additional information has been provided to Ironside Farrar to seek to address the various queries arising from their Stage 1 Checking Report. The ECU had advised that Ironside Farrar would be seeking to provide a Stage 2 Report to them by 19/12/25, however, to date this information has not been provided. The Council is therefore unable at this time to come to any conclusions on the potential for peat slide at the site. Argyll and Bute Council OBJECTS to the proposal on the grounds that there are unresolved issues in relation to impacts on peat, contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policies 5 and 11, and LDP2 Policies 30 and 79, and it Page 79
Page 80
is not possible to reach a conclusion on the proposal's acceptability in this regard at this time. NOTE - If these matters are resolved to the satisfaction of the ECU, Argyll & Bute Council will withdraw this objection. Should the objection remain unresolved, and the proposal progresses to Public Inquiry, Argyll & Bute Council would defer to SEPA and NatureScot. 16. TREES, WOODS, AND FORESTS 16.1 16.2 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. The applicant has advised that the construction phase has the potential to result in changes to the physical structure of the existing forestry within the Application Boundary, as well as forestry waste arising from the Proposed Development. The majority of the proposed infrastructure is located outside of existing woodlands; however, access for the Proposed Development is taken via commercial forestry plantations. The Forestry Study Area extends to 18.1 hectares (ha), excluding existing open ground. Felling would be advanced on 18.1ha for construction of the Proposed Development. There would be 6.8ha of woodland restocked in line with the aims of the Taynuilt Land Management Plan. There would be a loss of woodland totalling 11.3 ha due to the access track. In order to comply with the Scottish Government's Control of Woodland Removal Policy, compensation planting would be required to mitigate for the loss of woodland area. The Applicant is committed to providing appropriate compensatory planting. The extent, location and composition of such planting to be agreed with Scottish Forestry, taking into account any revision to the felling and restocking plans prior to the commencement of construction. 16.3 NatureScot : Loch Etive Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) – have advised that the Proposal is immediately adjacent to Loch Etive Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designated for its alder woodland on floodplains, mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes, western acidic oak woodland and otter (Lutra lutra). In NatureScot’s view, this Proposal is likely to have a significant effect on mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes of Loch Etive Woods SAC. Provided an appropriate Construction Environmental Management Plan is developed and adhered to, there will be no adverse effect on site integrity on the woodland qualifying features of Loch Etive Woods SAC. Based on the information provided, the conclusion of NatureScot is that the Proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. Page 80
Page 81
16.4 Scottish Forestry - initially advised the ECU that they note that the woodland impacts are associated with the access track, widening and extending to the development. They recognise that the proposed woodland removal is small with limited impacts. However, the woodland types are important and advise that: • A PAWS and native woodland (Dailnamac) plan should be provided which quantifies the area of PAWS lost to the development and proposes compensatory planting in exceedance of the area lost. • Compensatory planting should be secured by a planning condition. In a further response they requested the following further amendments and information from the applicant: • The proposals should demonstrate full compliance with UKFS • Felling and Restocking should be considered 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 • Clarification of the total area of permanent woodland loss • Compensatory planting for the woodland lost should be secured by condition. The ECU have asked the applicant to review this response and confirm a timeframe for addressing the points raised. In response, the applicant has now provided all relevant information to Scottish Forestry, who in turn have confirmed that all issues are now resolved. 16.5 Having due regard to the above the Council is able to conclude that in terms of impacts on woodland, 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 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 criterion e). 17.2 It is the intention to source aggregate for the construction of site access tracks, crane hardstanding areas, foundations and upgrades of existing forestry tracks from the on-site borrow pits, rather than an off-site quarry, which has the advantage of reducing the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) on public roads. Two borrow pits have been identified on the site. 17.3 Having due regard to the above taking into account that the proposed borrow pit is tied to the proposal it is concluded that the proposal is Page 81
Page 82
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 pits 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 50 years from the date of commissioning. At the end of the operational period, it would be decommissioned and the turbines and electrical equipment dismantled and removed. Any alternative to this action would be subject to a further consenting process. 18.3 Decommissioning would involve the removal of all above-ground infrastructure, including the dismantling and removal of the wind turbines and electrical equipment; reinstatement/covering of the turbine areas and associated hardstanding; and; demolition and removal of the substation and control building. The electrical cables will also be left in situ, once de-energised. Overall, it is estimated that the decommissioning period would be 12 months. It is recommended that this matter is covered by planning 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. 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 Page 82
Page 83
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 Renewable Energy Generation Targets - The proposal would consist of up to 6 wind turbines, each with a rated capacity of approximately 7.2 MW (based on candidate turbine), therefore the overall installed capacity of the wind farm would be approximately 45 MW, as well as including up to 20 MW of storage capacity with a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), which could contribute to the Scottish Governments minimum targets for having 20GW of onshore wind operational by 2030. 20.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets -. The Proposed Development would result in the production of approximately 7500 GWh over its operational lifetime of 50 years), displacing approximately 3,200,000 tonnes of fossil-fuel mix generation equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and therefore causing a positive environmental effect. Over this time, the carbon dioxide emissions of the proposal are cancelled out by the carbon savings, and through the rest of the operational period would result in a net saving of carbon dioxide emissions, thereby mitigating climate change. 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 Growth of Renewables and 04 – Sustainable Development of LDP2 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 development 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 grid connection would be to the existing Taynuilt substation, which is located approximately 6.7km to the east of the proposed on-site substation. The grid connection does not form part of this Application and would be subject to a future application, subject to the development receiving consent. 21.3 Energy storage – The project will have a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity of up to 20 MW as part of the development. This would be located within the footprint of the substation compound. The maximum export capacity of the BESS would be approximately 20MW/40MWh. The BESS would comprise of the following: • Battery Storage Units (BSU); • Power conversion system units; • Switchgear units; and Page 83
Page 84
• Control Buildings. Each BSU will be delivered to the site prefabricated, contained within a steel container, similar in size and appearance to a standard shipping container with a maximum size of approximately 8m x 2m. This facility will be able to store excess power generated by the wind farm and release the power on to the grid when the wind drops. Inclusion of a battery within the scheme increases the sustainability of the power generated. Energy storage enables renewable integration, helps to balance supply and demand, and enhances the security of supply. 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, 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 now consists of National Planning Framework 4 and the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2. 23.2 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 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 development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Following a detailed assessment of this application, it is considered that as this Page 84
Page 85
proposal would have a significant landscape and visual impact, it warrants an objection from the Council in this regard. 23.4 23.5 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 the ABLDP2 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 peat, 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. 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. 23.6 In conclusion, it is recommended by Officers that the Council formally objects to this proposal. Prior to reaching a decision the Energy Consents Unit should consider the suggested mitigation measures recommended by the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect and the responses that may be received from the various outstanding consultees. Any conditions recommended by consultees should be included in any consent granted by Scottish Ministers. 24. RECOMMENDATION 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 & 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 & 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 Page 85
Page 86
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. (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 & Bute Council requests that all other conditions recommended by consultees are included in any Consent. Page 86
Page 87
© Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 24/02242/S36 O 0 720 1,440360 Meters Application Site Legend Countryside Area Greenbelt Remote Countryside Area Settlement Area Page 87
Page 88
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 89
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: 25/00181/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mr and Mrs Scott Raeburn Proposal: Erection of Tearoom with 4 Apartments on Upper Floors Site Address: Former Susy's Tearoom, Tighnabruaich 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 • Erection of restaurant with 4 apartments on upper floors • Installation of bio disc treatment plant with connection to existing outfall pipe • Formation of vehicular access from public car parking area • Formation of five on-site parking spaces (ii) Other specified operations • Connection to public water supply (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: Environmental Health Service (memoranda dated 18th February 2025 and 8th April 2025) No objections subject to conditions and advisory notes relating to food and health legislation; external lighting; control of construction activities and noise; control of operational activities, noise and cooking odours; commercial waste; and contaminated land. Page 89 Agenda Item 5
Page 90
Scottish Water (letter dated 20th February 2025) There are no objections to the proposal – there is currently sufficient capacity in the Tighnabruaich Water Treatment Works to service the development. However, please note that further investigations may require to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to Scottish Water. According to their records, there is no public wastewater infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed development and, therefore, the applicant is advised to investigate private treatment options. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (e-mail dated 25th February 2025) It is noted that the site is well elevated above the 1 in 200-year flood level plus climate change uplift with an allowance for freeboard. As such, there are no objections to the proposal on flood risk grounds. It is also noted that investigations have identified that asbestos fragments and asbestos contaminated soils are present on the site. Any persons involved in the removal of asbestos construction and demolition waste or waste soils from the site must ensure it is characterised and consigned to an appropriately permitted or licensed facility in accordance with their Duty of Care and relevant waste management legislation. Any proposal to treat waste soils on site is likely to require a waste management licence. There is a Scottish Water sewerage network pumping station within approximately 115 metres of the development site. As per SEPA’s standing advice on wastewater drainage, "Sites of all scales, and particularly trade sites, should be required to connect to the public sewer unless evidence is provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that this would not be viable. At the discretion of the Planning Authority, the applicant may also be required to actively engage with Scottish Water to seek growth provision/adoption of the scheme." For information, the Kyles of Bute is a designated Shellfish Water Protected Area (SWPA) and any discharge will require appropriate treatment and authorisation under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulation 2011 (as amended). The planning application makes reference to the discharge of treated effluent to sea using legacy pipework but no detail is provided. Any new discharge will require to be through a constructed and adequately maintained sea outfall to a location below mean low water springs (MLWS). JBA Consulting Ltd – Flood Risk Assessor (report dated 25th February 2025) The site lies outwith the indicative limits of fluvial and surface water flooding, as per the SEPA Future Flood Maps. The coastal flood extent overlaps marginally with the southern region of the site. With reference to the Coastal Flood Boundary dataset, the 200 year still water level is 3.97 mAOD. Including an additional 0.86m allowance for climate change and a further 0.6m freeboard, Finished Floor Levels for the building should be set to a minimum of 5.43 mAOD. With reference to the site plan, it is evident that the proposed site sits at an elevation above 6.5 mAOD; hence, this is acceptable. Page 90
Page 91
Area Roads Engineer (report dated 25th March 2025 and 15th November 2025) The layout as initially submitted identified the provision of six on-site parking spaces and this was considered to be unacceptable on the grounds that this number of spaces was insufficient to serve the four flats, the patrons of the tearoom and the staff. Additionally, the on-site spaces were to be accessed individually from the Council car park thus preventing the use of each directly adjoining space within the car park and this was not considered to be an acceptable arrangement. An amended site layout was received during the processing of the application, which showed the creation of a single access and egress point and the provision of five on- site parking spaces. The Area Roads Engineer objected to this arrangement as it continued to be lacking in the appropriate number of spaces. (D) HISTORY: Planning Permissions 98/01657/DET, 04/01680/DET and 08/02143/DET were approved on 05.02.2019, 08.10.2004 and 29.01.2009 respectively for the retention of a static caravan at the application site. Planning Permission (ref: 22/00223/PP) was refused on 5th February 2024 for the erection of a restaurant with 4 flats above; a separate building to the rear incorporating three staff studios; and the installation of a bio disc sewage treatment plant. (E) PUBLICITY: Neighbour notification (closing date: 28.02.2025) and advertised under Regulation 20 Advert (closing date: 14.03.2025) (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Objections have been received from the following five sources: Paul Paterson, 2 Manor Way, Tighnabruaich (comments received on 07.02.2025, 15.05.2025, 03.07.2025 and 15.09.2025) Mrs Christine Paton, Lochee House, Tighnabruaich (comments received on 03.03.2025, 09.03.2025 and 12.03.2025) Lloyd Jones, LRJ Planning, Pen-y-Rhiw, Newport on behalf of Alexander Malcolm, The Firs, Tighnabruaich (letters dated 19.02.2025 and 04.03 2025) Heather Whyte, Roseville, Tighnabruaich (comments on received 03.03.2025) Thomas Whyte, Roseville, Tighnabruaich (comments on received 03.03.2025) Mr John Paton, Lochee House, Tighnabruaich (comments received on 05.03.2025, 09.03.2025 and 12.03.2025) (ii) Summary of issues raised: Page 91
Page 92
Design, Scale and Massing A summary of the key points submitted by objectors: • The length, breadth and height of the proposed building are considered to be excessive and out of proportion to the previous tearoom • The overall design is considered to lack any credible reasoning, planning, living and functional sense • The design style is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings and would look out of place in the typical West Highland architecture of the area, which is stone built, pitched roof and appropriate glazing. It would appear alien and contrived within the street scene • The proposal fails to respect the simple form, design and character of surrounding development • The current proposal is materially more intrusive, visually dominant and harmful than the previous scheme that was refused in February 2024 • There is minimal separation distance off the boundaries and the development fills the whole site, resulting in a cramped form of development that is not in keeping with the settlement pattern Officer response: These issues are addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Parking and Road Safety There are a number of objectors that are concerned about parking provision and general road safety. A summary of the key points includes: • The proposal would generate parking from customers/patrons, staff and holiday letting patrons and the scheme does not provide a sufficient number of spaces within the site boundary • The plans do not illustrate how cars and delivery vehicles can access, park and turn safely within the site • There are no disabled parking spaces for patrons and the proposal is based on use of the Argyll and Bute Council owned public car and coach park • The adjacent car park is busy during tourist season and this will lead to parking overspilling on to the road and increase conflict with cars and pedestrians • Assuming that coaches still use the car park, a significant percentage of capacity for cars (perhaps 30%) would be needed for the residential element of this development. It would also not be in the public interest for eight to twelve spaces to be used on a permanent basis for a private developer Page 92
Page 93
• The car park has an overnight parking restriction so cars from overnight guests could not use the car park. If the restriction was lifted then it could create an issue with motorhome parking • The car park will not support increase in demand (in their opinion) in its current unmaintained state and will suffer further disrepair due to the additional traffic and use by construction traffic • In the past residential use has been ruled out (see 98/01657/DET) when a caravan was refused permission as it did not have a separate curtilage, access and parking arrangements • Concern is expressed that the rear of the proposed development would encroach onto the driveway and access to the properties to the sides of the development site in addition to causing great difficulty with access to the local authority recycling area and coach park. It would also be highly susceptible to creating dangers for other traffic flow from vehicles and that of public access and right of way • The car park is a turning point for regular coaches visiting the area and, if difficulties in turning are created as a result of the proposal, there is concern that this could result in the potential loss of much needed tourism to the area Officer response: These issues are addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Residential Amenity - Overlooking/Loss of Daylight A number of objectors including direct neighbours, have raised issues of overlooking, loss of daylight and impact on privacy. Key points: • Concern is expressed that the proposed building, by virtue of its large size and shape, would significantly reduce the amount of light to other properties in the area. A daylight and sunlight assessment has not been provided • Concern is expressed that the second floor with balconies would look into next door neighbours and would be over-intrusive looking out onto the public walkway and coach park • It is understood that the building has risen from 0.8m above the ridge of Roseville to the west to 1.2m and this has increased concerns of the existing dwellinghouse being overshadowed by this new higher structure • Concern is expressed that the second tier appears to sit further beyond Roseville than the original single-storey tearoom and would be higher. It is contended that this would block even more light into this property and would potentially increase its energy bills • The height and location of the rear section of the plans raises concerns for the owners of Roseville with regards to privacy as the holiday Page 93
Page 94
apartments would have full views into their garden where their two children play • There would appear to be a side window overlooking Roseville and, if the balconies were to be open-sided, then privacy becomes a factor. Officer response: These issues are addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Residential Amenity – Noise, Disturbance and Odour A number of objectors, including direct neighbours, have raised issues of noise, odour and disturbance from cooking smells; the proximity of the stainless-steel flue pipe to the bedroom windows of the adjoining dwelling; and the significant number of people coming and going, including deliveries early in the morning. Concern is expressed that the intention to operate the proposed development during the day, evening and night would create a noise pollution infringement. There is no disclosure of operating hours, times and allowances regarding cut off periods, etc. The title deeds specifically rule out the sale of alcohol on the land but there would be scope for ‘Bring-Your-Own-Bottle’ events which may result in noise and antisocial behaviours. Limits on opening hours would, however, help to address this. Officer response: These issues are addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Foul Drainage and Water Supply Concern is expressed that the application fails to show any means and methods of wastewater treatment and the mention of a bio disc system means nothing without details of the type, designs, risks, plans, etc. It is contended that it is unlawful to discharge into the sea. Certain discharges of sewage from non-domestic premises constitute trade effluent in terms of the Sewage Scotland Act and other acts that pertain to sewage and discharging into the sea. The proposed development mentions connecting onto neighbouring properties and it is queried how a study and research have been done to make such plans. If the connection to the public water main requires to be laid through land outwith the application site, the developer must provide evidence of formal approval from the affected landowner(s) by way of a deed of servitude. As the proposed development would require formal approval from the nearest neighbours as well as from Argyll and Bute Council who own the car/coach park next to this development, there is a lack of evidence and authority that the developer has such permissions. Officer response: These issues are addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Page 94
Page 95
Contaminated Land It is contended that the previous tearoom building on the site contained asbestos and it is alleged that the burning of asbestos and other combustible material was associated with the demolition of this structure. It is also contended that the landowner has so far not provided certificates demonstrating the correct disposal of asbestos from the site and fact-based evidence of appropriate ground soil works. There is no contaminated land survey submitted by the applicant. Officer response: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Biodiversity There are concerns about biodiversity and that there have been no ecological surveys. There are no plans to enhance biodiversity given there is no room for landscaping. The proposed development lacks any biodiversity plans, wildlife and plant assessments and environmental assessments. Officer response: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Waste Concern is expressed that there is an absence of allocated space for waste storage, particularly given the identified capacity of the proposed facility (seventy covers) and the likely significant amount of waste that would be generated. Officer response: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Legal Issues Concern is expressed that the northernmost boundary of the application site has been drawn beyond the land belonging to the tearoom as shown in its title deeds. Mention is made of the potential existence of burdens on the land referred to as Susy's Tearoom (ref: ARG15953). It is not known whether these burdens continue and whether they are still legally binding. Various burdens are referred to that it is contended would affect the ability of the proposed premises to operate: the north side and east side of the land have to be fenced off; any building has to have the approval of the person that originally sold the land or their successors; any building should not be a nuisance or hurtful to the amenity of the land and neighbours; and the sale of alcohol or fish and/or chips is prohibited. It is mentioned that the title deeds make no reference to access rights to the site and it is possible that rights of access over the Council-owned car park may Page 95
Page 96
have lapsed as a result of the passage of time (approximately seven years) since a business has operated on the site. It is suggested that time be given to allow for a closer look at this issue and its potential implications regarding this application and its lawfulness. Officer response: These issues are essentially legal in nature and are not considered to have a material bearing upon the Planning aspects of the case. Electricity Substation A substation sits behind the application site and it is contended that the impact on the stability of the substation foundation and access to the structure (including safety risks, assessments, etc.) may need to be addressed. There is no mention of how the noise from the substation may affect the users of the development. Officer response: The potential impact of the proposed development on the stability of the substation foundation is an issue that would more appropriately be investigated between the applicant/developer and Scottish and Southern Electricity. The second issue is one that was raised at another site in Tighnabruaich in relation to the erection of a dwellinghouse adjacent to an existing substation (application refs: 11/01978/PP and 15/00295/PP). In that instance, a condition was attached that involved an identification of the noise levels generated by the operation of the sub-station together with an assessment of whether the noise was likely to give rise to complaints given the nature of the proposal. Any remedial measures that were deemed necessary would then be formulated and this is considered to be an appropriate means of addressing this issue in respect of the current proposal. Disabled Access/Facilities The proposal does not show how disabled people will gain access in and out of the building and to the proposed letting properties. Their indoor layout does not show a disabled toilet. Officer response: Internal layout and design is not a Planning matter and would be dealt with under the Building Warrant process. The outside provision of disabled parking bays and access to the building are addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Fire Escapes It is contended that there is a lack of fire escapes for those who will be in the second and third floor levels. Officer response: This issue would be dealt with under the Building Warrant process. Lack of Need Concern is expressed that Tighnabruaich has enough catering/drinking establishments without adding more. Page 96
Page 97
Officer response: The issue of the lack of need for a development does not have a material bearing upon the Planning aspects of the case. Storage of Boat The applicant has placed a boat under a fixed cover on part of the application site with the intention of carrying out repairs. This is considered to breach the requirements for any fixture being in-situ without official planning permission and local authority permission. It is contended that the owner/occupier must remove this boat building project with urgency as its ongoing presence would cause an unsightly mess, an obstruction to road users and to neighbours, a breach of health & safety and a hindrance to gaining access for soil samples to be taken for the said planning application. Officer response: This matter is being investigated separately and it is not considered to have a material bearing upon the Planning aspects of the current application. Construction Compound If permission for the proposed building was to be granted, it is contended that builders, their equipment and vehicles would be placed and parked within the public car and coach park, which it is considered would be unlawful and would breach the planning and parking regulations. It is questioned whether the Local Authority would be willing to give up and sacrifice all of the coach park, bottle bank, substation and neighbour rear parking areas for these purposes. Officer response: This matter is not considered to have a material bearing upon the Planning aspects of the current application. There are certain circumstances where a compound for the duration of the construction period does not require Planning Permission and the use of land that is not in the ownership of the applicant/developer for this purpose would require negotiation between the relevant parties. Representations from the public are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (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 TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No Page 97
Page 98
It is the assessment of the Case Officer that the agent has understood and given adequate consideration to the sustainability aspects of the proposed development in the submitted checklists, sufficient to accord with the core sustainability requirements of both national and local planning policy, specifically the relevant details of the ‘Sustainable Places’ group of policies within NPF4 and LDP2 policies 04, 08 and 09. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact, etc: 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. ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 obligation 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 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings 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 16 – Quality Homes Page 98
Page 99
NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Productive Places NPF4 Policy 28 – Retail NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 23 – Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Infrastructure Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities 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 Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLAs) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 82 – Contaminated Land Page 99
Page 100
(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 Design Guides (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 Objections to the application have been received from a total of five sources and, in terms of the ‘Scheme of Administration and Delegations’ contained in the Council’s Constitution (2025), this number is less than the eleven that is required in order for the PPSL Committee to consider a proposal. The reason that this particular application is before Members results from the recommendation of the Roads Department that Planning Permission be refused on the grounds of a lack of parking spaces and the Planning Department’s opinion that there are mitigating circumstances such that an approval can be justified as a minor departure to Development Plan policy. In considering the benefits of holding a pre-determination hearing in this particular case, it is the opinion of the Department that the representations that have been received, the views that have been expressed by consultees and the Officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report provide a sufficient level of information to enable Members to make an informed decision based on all of the material planning considerations pertaining to the development. It is, therefore, not considered that the proposal raises any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the Report of Handling and it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: Local Landscape Area Potential Contaminated Land (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Page 100
Page 101
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 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 ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc.: ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☒Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Site and Surroundings The application site, which is considered to be brownfield land, has an area of approximately 700m2 and the plot historically was a tearoom (Susy’s Tearoom) which was single storey with a pitched roof (similar to the neighbouring houses). It sits on the Shore Road near to, but not within, the village centre and is close to the pier where the Waverly passengers disembark and embark. None of the adjacent buildings are listed and it is not a Conservation Area. The Susy’s Tearoom building was removed in 2020/2021 and the land on which it stood has been vacant since then. Page 101
Page 102
The immediately surrounding area contains a small single storey bungalow to the west (Roseville), a one-and-a-half storey dwelling to the north-east (The Firs) and another modern one-and-a-half storey dwelling further to the east (Lochee House). All of these houses have a white render external wall finish and concrete tiled roofs of varying profile. Directly adjacent to the site in a northerly and easterly direction is a large public car park. Proposed Development The application is for the erection of a building that would accommodate a new café/restaurant on the ground floor and the introduction of 4 self-catering flatted apartments with balconies on the upper floors. The proposed building would be approximately 8 metres in height and would have a flat roof. The top mezzanine level would be stepped back/recessed. The predominant external wall finish would be white render but the top floor would feature Eternit panel grey cladding. Settlement and Spatial Strategy In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2, the site is located within the ‘Key Rural Settlement’ of Tighnabruaich and the assessment criteria contained in Policy 01 include ensuring that the development is of an appropriate scale and fit and that it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape. A previous application was refused due to overdevelopment and the scale not being appropriate. The current proposal involves a reduction in the scale of built development through the removal of the staff accommodation block and a significant number of design amendments have been made. It is considered that the site has the capacity to accommodate this revised scale and design with regard to all material planning considerations and, as such, the proposal represents an appropriate form of development that is consistent with the key aims of the Settlement Strategy within LDP2 Policy 01. NPF4 Policy 9 part (a) supports development on brownfield land such as the application site. Tourism /Commercial Policies The proposed café/restaurant is at the edge of the village centre and it has an established use as Class 3. There are no issues with providing a replacement café/restaurant at this location of a very similar scale and size as the previous one. The adopted Local Development Plan Policy 23 relates to tourist facilities and accommodation and NPF4 Policy 30 seeks to support tourism development on suitable sites and they are both relevant in relation to the proposal for 4 self-catering units (which is not a previous use). Overall, the proposal meets the criteria in LDP Policies 01 and 23 and NPF4 Policies 9 and 30 and is acceptable in principle. Design and Layout The revised design and layout are now considered acceptable given the removal of the staff block and the changes to the fenestration including windows and the location of Page 102
Page 103
the flue. The Art Deco style has been avoided to now offer a modern fresh look that fits better with the Scottish vernacular. Flood and Water Management There are no issues relating to flooding as the finished floor levels of the building are above the flood risk zone and no objections have been submitted by SEPA or the Council’s Flood Advisor. Biodiversity There are no protected site or species on this site and it is brownfield land with no trees and some limited scrub vegetation. NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to enhance biodiversity on application sites and, whilst there is limited space for landscaping, other biodiversity enhancement measures could be included as set out in both NatureScot and new Scottish Government guidance and a condition is recommended to ensure biodiversity enhancement measures are included. Contaminated Land It had previously been thought that the applicant had appropriately disposed of asbestos from the demolition of the former tearoom building but it has since transpired that this is not necessarily the case. The Council’s Contaminated Land Officer has recommended that a condition can satisfy any concerns in relation to contaminants potentially remaining from the asbestos and to ensure that there is no harm to human health. It is a strict pre-start condition and it would ensure the proposal is compliant with the relevant Development Plan policies. Residential Amenity of Neighbours Matters relating to the potential noise, smells, construction noise, opening hours, overlooking, privacy of neighbours are all considered in detail in the assessment section in Appendix 1 below and it is concluded that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on residential amenity subject to the attaching of suitably worded conditions. Access and Parking 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 the particular circumstance of this case, it is considered that this shortfall can be accepted as a minor departure to policy and the details of the mitigating factors are set out in Section (S) below. Page 103
Page 104
Infrastructure The proposal identifies connection to the public water main and Scottish Water has confirmed that the site is not within an area covered by the public sewerage system. As such, a bio disc foul drainage treatment plant is proposed and, whilst some concerns have been expressed by objectors over the detail of this, such matters would be controlled via a separate licence from SEPA. The main factor to consider in relation to planning is whether the system can be accommodated on the site and this has been satisfactorily demonstrated. The site plan identifies the provision of a bin store and this is something that can be conditioned to ensure final details are submitted for approval and that the arrangements are constructed prior to the premises coming into use. Conclusion The revised scheme is considered to satisfactorily address the reasons for refusal on the previous application in relation to the overdevelopment of the site, the design detailing and the lack of in-curtilage car parking. The Roads Department have recommended refusal given the non-compliance with LDP2 Policy 40 but it is considered that the shortage of three parking spaces can be considered as a minor departure to policy given the other benefits of the proposal. There is significant support given in the policies of NPF4 and LDP2 to a development such as this, which is on a brownfield, infill site within a settlement and which involves the replacement of a long-established food and drink enterprise whose built fabric and design had become somewhat dated. The proposal is, therefore, recommended for approval subject to conditions. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: Please see Section (S) below. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan: Policy 40 of LDP2 states that off-street vehicle parking shall be provided for development in accordance with the car parking standards set out in Table 5 on Pages 67 and 68 of the Written Statement. The current proposal incorporates five dedicated car parking spaces within the red line application site. The Roads Department considers that the provision of five on- site spaces is insufficient to serve the four self-catering apartments, the patrons of the café/restaurant, disabled persons and members of staff. A number of objections have also been received relating to the matter of parking and concern has been expressed that the car park does not have the capacity to support the additional parking demand. Page 104
Page 105
There are reservations that, if the overnight parking restriction was to be lifted to accommodate overnight parking for the self-catering units and members of staff then this would also encourage motorhome parking. There is concern that the spaces required would take up a significant proportion of the car park. In determining the extent of the shortfall in parking spaces associated with the current proposal, it is considered reasonable to accept the use of the public car park by patrons and members of staff of the proposed café/restaurant 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 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: • The presence of a large public car park immediately adjacent to the site and there is no evidence to suggest that there is insufficient capacity when the previous tearoom operated • The café/restaurant previously had no parking spaces on the site and the public car park was used by patrons and staff. There is no change in the floorspace of the café/restaurant so no change in trip profile and the use is lawful and established • Whilst acknowledging that the introduction of the 4 new self-catering apartments would intensify the overall site usage, the shortfall of three on- site parking spaces is considered to be relatively small and, given the active and sustainable travel options set out below, it is not considered that this level of shortfall would result in such clear and demonstrable harm as to warrant a refusal of the application • The aspirations that are inherent in NPF4 Policy 13 and Policy 33 of LDP2 highlight the importance of walking, cycling and proximity to public transport links. Public transport links including bus stops and the local pier (where passengers embark and disembark the PS Waverley) are within walking distance of the site and the agent has confirmed that a secure bike rack will be provided for customers and staff • The site previously was a café so it is brownfield land being brought back into use. The facilities on offer need to be expanded as the café/restaurant would not be commercially viable on its own so it is considered that the scheme as currently presented would bring economic benefit to the area (as opposed to a housing development, for instance) and would remove the blight of this brownfield site Whilst it is recognised that the proposal does not fully meet the provisions of Policy 40 of LDP2 in terms of off-street parking, the mitigating factors detailed above are of sufficient materiality for the application to be approved as a minor departure to the Development Plan. Page 105
Page 106
(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Steven Gove Date: 05/01/2026 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 06/01/2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 106
Page 107
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/00181/PP 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 Plan Drawing No. HG A3 L(9-)P901A - 07/02/2025 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 Page 107
Page 108
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 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: b) A detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of the risks such contamination presents c) 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) d) 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. Page 108
Page 109
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: 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. Page 109
Page 110
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. 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 Page 110
Page 111
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: 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. Page 111
Page 112
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 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. Page 112
Page 113
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’. Page 113
Page 114
ADVISORY NOTES 1. The attention of the applicant/developer is drawn to the contents of the letter dated 20th February 2025 from Scottish Water and the e-mail from SEPA dated 25th February 2025, both of which are in the list of documents relative to the application in the Council’s Public Access System 2. The attention of the applicant/developer is drawn to the information on the licensing requirements for short-term lets that is contained in the Argyll and Bute Council website and that can be accessed by using the following link: Short term lets licence | Argyll and Bute Council 3. The Environmental Health Service has provided the following advice: a. As a food premises, the proposal will be subject to the requirements of Food Law. The applicant/developer is strongly recommended to contact the Environmental Health Service to discuss the kitchen layout and proposed foods to be made to ensure compliance with the law and good practice in order to protect public health. In any case, the applicant is required to register as a food business b. The applicant should be fully aware of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) and its implications on client duties, etc c. It is very strongly recommended that appropriate measures should be taken in the design of all buildings and their construction to inhibit the roosting and nesting of gulls. Such measures are intended to reduce nuisance to, and intimidation of, persons living, working and visiting the development d. It is the intention of the applicant/developer to install a drainage system at the proposed development by means of connection to a new bio disc foul drainage treatment plant with discharge to a body of water. The system of drainage provided will require to be in accordance with the relevant Building (Scotland) Acts, and this will be a matter for consideration by the Building Standards Section in their processing of a Building Warrant application e. Discharge of effluent from the treatment plant into “controlled waters” (all inland watercourses, coastal and ground waters) will require a discharge consent to be put in place by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). If this agency is satisfied with the proposed provision for drainage, the Environmental Health Service would offer no objection to this arrangement f. Having regard to the formulation of the Noise Management Plan referred to in Condition 6 above, it is recommended that deliveries and collections to and from the site are not to be carried out between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00. Page 114
Page 115
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/00181/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Settlement Strategy 1.1. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), the site is located within the ‘Key Rural Settlement’ of Tighnabruaich and the assessment criteria contained in LDP2 Policy 01 include ensuring that development is of an appropriate scale and fit and that it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape. 1.2. A previous application (ref: 22/00223/PP) was refused, inter alia, for reasons of overdevelopment and its scale not being appropriate. The current proposal has reduced the scale of the development by removing the staff accommodation to allow for on-site parking. It is considered that the site has the capacity to accommodate this revised scale of development with regard to all material planning considerations and, as such, it is now considered to represent an appropriate proposal that is consistent with the key aims of the Settlement Strategy in LDP2 Policy 01. 1.3. NPF4 Policy 9 (a) supports the principle of redevelopment on brownfield sites and the application site is brownfield in nature. Part (c) relating to contaminated land is examined below and the proposal is considered to meet this policy subject to a suitably worded condition. 1.4. NPF4 Policy 28 and LDP2 Policy 45 support retail in line with the ‘town centre first’ principle. In this instance, the proposed café is not located within the local centre but is at the edge of the village centre and previously had an established use as a Class 3 facility (Susy’s Tearoom). There are no issues with providing a replacement café/restaurant at this location of a very similar scale and size as the previous one. 1.5. LDP2 Policy 23 relates to tourist facilities and accommodation and NPF4 Policy 30 seeks to support tourism development on suitable sites and both are relevant in relation to the proposal for 4 self-catering units (which were not part of the previous facility). 1.6. Policy 23 ‘Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities’ supports tourist accommodation where: • the development is in a form, scale and location which is consistent with its surroundings – as explained above, there is support in principle for this scale of development within a settlement location • The proposals respect and integrate well with the landscape/townscape character and amenity of the surrounding area – this is considered in more detail in Section 2 below • There is reasonably accessible public transport – the issues in relation to parking are considered in Section 8 below. In terms of sustainable travel, there are buses to and from Tighnabruaich and also visitors to this facility may arrive by the Waverly or as part of coach tours, which are considered more sustainable than the private car. Visitors may also travel by bike but the proposal does not include any specific details for the provision of bike parking or e-car charging. This, however, can be the subject of a condition. Page 115
Page 116
• It is well related to the existing built form of settlements – this is assessed in more detail in Section 2 below 1.7. NPF4 Policy 30 (b) contains similar criteria to Policy 23 and requires that the proposal should meet the following: ▪ Contribution to the local economy – it is considered that this proposal would make a significant contribution to the local economy. It is a prime development site and previously had a tearoom, which offered employment opportunities ▪ Compatibility with surrounding area in terms of nature/scale of activity and impacts of increased visitors – the proposed restaurant would replace the tearoom that previously existed on the site. This is considered to be a ‘like-for-like’ replacement that would not result in a rise in visitors. The introduction of four self-catering flats would increase the number of people but the nature and scale of this activity would be compatible with an existing village setting and is not considered to be significant ▪ Impact on communities, for example, hinder the provision of homes and services for local people – the development of this site for economic use, which continues the existing established use, does not affect the provision of homes or services for local people. Indeed, the opening of the restaurant would benefit the community by adding a new service/meeting place to the area and providing jobs ▪ Opportunities for sustainable travel and appropriate management of parking and traffic generation and scope for sustaining public transport services particularly in rural areas – this is assessed above under LDP2 Policy 23 ▪ Accessibility for disabled people – this issue will be addressed in detail at the Building Warrant stage although there are no concerns based on the plans currently under consideration ▪ Measures taken to minimise carbon emissions – the Sustainable Buildings Checklist submitted by the agent advises that, at this stage in the design process, the energy requirements for the building have not yet been calculated. However, it is “anticipated that renewables such as PV / solar / heat pump and zero carbon technologies will be utilise to optimise reliance on renewables and minimise the use of fossil fuels” ▪ Opportunities to provide access to the natural environment – The site has extensive views across the water and there is access to the shore across the main road 1.8. Overall, the proposal meets the criteria in LDP Policies 01 and 23 and NPF4 Policies 9 and 30 and is acceptable in principle. 2. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 2.1. NPF4 Policy 14, LDP 9 and LDP Policies 05, 08, 09 and 10 serve to ensure that new development, by reason of density and layout, effectively integrates with the urban setting and they resist developments with poor quality or inappropriate layouts or densities, including overdevelopment. 2.2. NPF4 Policy 14 requires proposals to be underpinned by the six qualities of successful places – healthy, pleasant, connected, distinctive, sustainable and adaptable. It also Page 116
Page 117
states that proposals that are detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding areas will not be supported. 2.3. The LDP2 design policies establish general principles for new development including that: • New development must reflect or recreate the traditional building pattern or built form • The scale, shape and proportion of development should respect or complement existing buildings and the plot density and size. Colour, materials and detailing are crucial to integrate the development within its context 2.4. This is a well-positioned site that has the benefit of the adjoining car park and the residential properties in this part of Tighnabruaich have limited architectural merit. As such, it is recognised that the plot has the potential to accommodate a building that wishes to make a statement arrived at through an innovative contemporary design approach and which would be used by members of the public. Indeed, there are other buildings in the village which are different from those in their surroundings and which stand out for this reason. 2.5. Whilst the Planning Authority does not wish to stifle distinctive development, it was considered that the previous proposal would have had an adverse visual impact on the immediate and wider surroundings by virtue of its excessive scale and massing and the inappropriate design detailing. Additionally, it would have represented an overdevelopment of the site on the basis that the separate restaurant/self-catering flats and staff accommodation buildings would have taken up the maximum available space (64% larger than the previous Susy’s Tearoom, caravan and metal shed) and would have resulted in an intensification in the previous use (a tearoom and static caravan for staff) through the presence of the restaurant, four holiday letting units and three staff studios. 2.6. The footprint of the currently proposed restaurant building is virtually the same as that taken up by the previous café, caravan and metal shed whilst the 3 staff units that were initially proposed have now been removed to allow space for on-site car parking to the rear, improving the parking on the site to what it was historically. 2.7. In acknowledging that the current proposal would still constitute an intensification in comparison with the long-standing previous use of the site, the removal of the staff accommodation is considered to result in a development with an appropriate scale of use. 2.8. In addition to the considerable reduction in the mass and footprint of buildings on the site, there have been a number of significant design improvements, including: • The relocation of the stainless-steel flue from the west-facing side elevation to the north-facing rear elevation and a reduction in its diameter • The avoidance of the Art Deco style • The simplification and slight enlargement in the areas of glazing on the front elevation of ground floor • The introduction of glazed balustrading on the first floor and on the open side on the east-facing side elevation Page 117
Page 118
• An increased verticality in the appearance of the top floor (although the overall height of the building is not material to the overall scale) • The introduction of a recessive grey cladding external finish, which satisfactorily mitigates the increase in volume and massing through the provision of an appropriate contrast to the remainder of the building thereby breaking up the massing • The omission of the porthole windows on the east-facing elevation Although the ridge of the revised building is 0.6 metres higher than the original scheme (and, therefore, 1.4 metres higher than the top of the adjoining dwellinghouse, Roseville), it is not considered that this increased differential would result in the residential property becoming dominated to a significantly adverse degree in terms of scale. 2.9 For all of the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposal is now consistent with Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 05, 08, 09 and 10 of LDP2. 3. Landscape 3.1. LDP2 Policy 71 relates to Local Landscape Areas (LLAs) and this part of Tighnabruaich sits within such a designation. The policy seeks to resist development in or affecting LLAs where its scale, location or design would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. In all cases, the highest standards of location, siting, design, landscaping, boundary treatment and materials and detailing will be required. 3.2. As set out in Section 2 above, the proposed development is considered to be of an appropriate scale, massing, layout and design and, on this basis, it would have a ‘neutral’ effect thereby preserving the character and appearance of this part of the LLA in accordance with LDP2 Policy 71 and NPF4 Policy 4. 4. Flood and Water Management 4.1. NPF4 Policy 22(c) supports proposed developments that would not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk; that would manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems: and that seek to minimise the area of impermeable surface. The above NPF4 Policy is underpinned in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 by Policy 55 ‘Flooding’ and Policy 61 ‘Sustainable Drainage Systems’. 4.2. In relation to potential flood risk, the responses from SEPA and the Council’s own advisor identify that the site lies outwith the indicative limits of fluvial and surface water flooding, as per the SEPA Future Flood Maps. The coastal flood extent overlaps marginally with the southern region of the site. With reference to the Coastal Flood Boundary dataset, the 200 year still water level is 3.97 metres Above Ordnance Datum (mAOD). Including an additional 0.86m allowance for climate change and a further 0.6m freeboard, Finished Floor Levels for the building should be set to a minimum of 5.43 mAOD. With reference to the site plan, it is evident that the proposed site sits at an elevation above 6.5 mAOD; hence, this is acceptable. 4.3. The applicant does not include any details of the surface water drainage and there is concern that, given the size of the site, it may be difficult to secure a sustainable urban drainage system in accordance with the policy within the bounds of the site. However, it is on a coastal area where surface water can be discharged into the coastal waters without Page 118
Page 119
causing any issues of localised flooding. A condition is recommended to secure an on- site SUDS scheme to deal with the surface water. 4.4. On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to a suitably worded condition, the proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant Policies. 5. Biodiversity 5.1. NPF4 Policy 3 states that proposals should contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity including restoring degraded habitats and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Local developments (such as the preset proposal) must include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity and these should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the development. LDP2 Policy 73 ‘Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity’ underpins this policy. 5.2. There are no protected site or species on the application site and it is brownfield land with no trees and some limited scrub vegetation. Some objectors have commented on the absence of a biodiversity/species assessment; however, this is not considered necessary in this case given the state of the site. There is, however, a requirement under NPF4 Policy 3 to enhance the biodiversity on the site. It is recognised that there is limited space for landscaping but other biodiversity enhancement measures could be included such as bat/bird boxes on the building itself and climbing plants could be used up the side of the building. A condition is recommended to ensure biodiversity enhancement measures are included. 5.3. On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to a suitably worded condition, the proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant Policies. 6. Contaminated Land 6.1. NPF4 Policy 9 requires consideration of contamination on brownfield sites and Policy 82 ‘Contaminated Land’ covers the same topic. 6.2. During the consideration of the previous application, it had been thought that the applicant had disposed of asbestos appropriately although it has since transpired that this was not necessarily the case and an investigation has been undertaken by the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer, who has been consulted on the current proposal. 6.3. It is recommended that a condition can satisfy any concerns in relation to contaminants potentially remaining from the asbestos thereby ensuring that there is no harm to human health. It is a strict pre-start condition and it would ensure the proposal is compliant with the relevant policies. 7. Residential Amenity 7.1. There is concern from some of the contributors regarding the impact of the scale of this development in terms of noise, overlooking, loss of privacy and daylighting. In terms of the first issue, LDP2 Policy 14 ‘Bad Neighbour’ states that bad neighbour development includes any form of use involving a high turnover of customers at unsociable hours or that could result in unpleasant odours. 7.2. This criterion applies to the proposed café/restaurant but it should be noted that the use of the site for the consumption of food and drink on the premises had previously been established so this part of the proposal is accepted in principle. However, given the length of time that the previous tearoom had been operated, it is highly unlikely that there Page 119
Page 120
were any conditions on a Planning Permission that controlled matters such as noise, odour, etc. The Environmental Health Officer has recommended that conditions should be attached to a new permission in relation to controlling construction and operational noise and addressing any potential cooking odours. It is considered reasonable to attach these types of condition as this would result in assessments being carried out in the context of the most up-to-date legislation and guidance and would allow appropriate safeguarding measures to be introduced, such as opening hours, delivery/collection times, etc. 7.3. The owners of Roseville directly on the boundary are concerned about overlooking/loss of privacy as a result of the presence of balconies associated with the upper floor apartments. It is considered that the applicant has addressed this matter with the westernmost front balcony having a solid wall on the elevation facing towards the mutual boundary. 7.4. The grounds of the dwellinghouses to the northeast and east (The Firs and Lochee House) are distances of 25 metres and 39 metres respectively from the closest part of the proposed building and these properties are considered to be of a sufficient distance away that their privacy and amenity would not be affected to a significantly adverse degree as a result of overlooking. 7.5. There has been no daylight and sunlight analysis submitted with the application. However, in looking at the direction of the sun and the possible shadow that would be cast from the proposed building, it is likely to overshadow the neighbouring car park and it is not considered that the shadow would cast as far as the property known as The Firs apart from possibly in late evening when the setting sun is low in the sky. It is not considered there would be any loss of daylight to the property to the south of the proposed development given the path of the sun. 7.6. The ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ document published by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) advises that the loss of light to windows in existing buildings need not be analysed if the distance of each part of the new development from the existing window is three or more times its height above the centre of the existing window. In this case, the height of the new building is 8 metres and it would be located some 29 metres and at an angle from the west-facing elevation of the dwellinghouse known as The Firs, which contains a single small window. The distance between the two buildings is more than three times than the height differential referred to in the BRE guidance and, therefore, no analysis is needed. This is the same conclusion for the west- facing windows on the dwellinghouse that is further from the site (Lochee House) whilst the immediately adjacent Roseville does not have a window on its east-facing elevation. 7.7. There is concern over noise/disturbance from the scale of activity that this development would create. As mentioned above, there is already an established use as a café on this site so a degree of noise/disturbance has previously been accepted in this area. It is not considered that the introduction of an additional 4 self-catering letting units would result in the creation of noise and disturbance that would diminish the existing levels of residential amenity to a significantly adverse degree. Noise arising from the construction and operation of the development (including opening hours) can be controlled via conditions. 7.8. The proposal may result in odours from the extraction system. The flue is located on the rear elevation of the building that would face towards car parking spaces and the area containing recycling bins. The Environmental Health Service has recommended the attaching of a condition that requires the submission and approval of a detailed Page 120
Page 121
specification regarding the collection, treatment and disposal of cooking odours and the implementation of the system prior to the operation of the café/restaurant. 7.9. Overall, and subject to suitably worded conditions, it is considered that the proposal would not affect the residential amenity of the area to a significantly adverse degree and, as such. it meets the requirements of Policy 14. 8. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters 8.1. NPF4 Policy 13 supports development that provide easy access by sustainable transport modes and also provide charging points for vehicles and cycles and safe, secure cycle parking. The relevant Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 policies are Policy 35 ‘Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes’ and Policy 40 ‘Vehicle Parking Provision’. 8.2. As explained above, the site is directly adjacent to a public car park and there is suitable access and egress (with the appropriate visibility) into this car park. There are no concerns with regard to access to the site and turning areas within the public car park off the public road. 8.3. The previous application did not include any on-site parking and this contributed to one of the reasons for refusal. It previously was considered that the introduction of the four self-catering apartments and the three staff accommodation units would represent an increase in the demand for parking that would not be met by the proposed development. 8.4. As a result of the omission of the staff accommodation units, the current proposal incorporates five dedicated car parking spaces within the red line application site. The Roads Department considers that the provision of five on-site spaces is insufficient to cater for the four self-catering apartments, the patrons of the café/restaurant, disabled persons and members of staff. A number of objections have also been received relating to the matter of parking (see Section F above) and concern has been expressed that the car park does not have the capacity to support the additional parking demand. There are reservations that, if the overnight parking restriction was to be lifted to accommodate overnight parking for the self-catering units and members of staff then this would also encourage motorhome parking. There is concern that the spaces required would take up a significant proportion of the car park. 8.5. In determining the extent of the shortfall in parking spaces associated with the current proposal, it is considered reasonable to accept the use of the public car park by patrons and members of staff of the proposed café/restaurant 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 spaces. As five on-site spaces are proposed, this represents a shortfall of three spaces. 8.6. 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: • The presence of a large public car park immediately adjacent to the site and there is no evidence to suggest that there is insufficient capacity when the previous tearoom operated • The café/restaurant previously had no parking spaces on the site and the public car park was used by patrons and staff. There is no change in the floorspace of the café/restaurant so no change in trip profile and the use is lawful and established Page 121
Page 122
• Whilst acknowledging that the introduction of the 4 new self-catering apartments would intensify the overall site usage, the shortfall of three on-site parking spaces is considered to be relatively small and, given the active and sustainable travel options set out below, it is not considered that this level of shortfall would result in such clear and demonstrable harm as to warrant a refusal of the application • The aspirations that are inherent in NPF4 Policy 13 and Policy 33 of LDP2 highlight the importance of walking, cycling and proximity to public transport links. Public transport links including bus stops and the local pier (where passengers embark and disembark the PS Waverley) are within walking distance of the site and the agent has confirmed that a secure bike rack will be provided for customers and staff • The site previously was a café so it is brownfield land being brought back into use. The facilities on offer need to be expanded as the café/restaurant would not be commercially viable on its own so it is considered that the scheme as currently presented would bring economic benefit to the area (as opposed to a housing development, for instance) and would remove the blight of this brownfield site 8.7. Whilst it is recognised that the proposal does not fully meet the provisions of Policy 40 of LDP2 in terms of off-street parking, the mitigating factors detailed above are of sufficient materiality for the application to be approved as a minor departure to the Development Plan. 9. Infrastructure 9.1. NPF4 Policy 18 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. NPF4 Policy 22(c) supports proposed developments if they can be connected to the public water mains. The above NPF4 Policies are underpinned in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 by Policy 60 ‘Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems’. 9.2. In addition, NPF4 Policy 12(c) expects that developments, including residential and commercial, should incorporate measures that allow the appropriate segregation and storage of waste together with convenient access for the collection of waste. This NPF4 Policy is underpinned in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 by Policy 63 ‘Waste Related Development and Waste Management’. 9.3. It is proposed to connect the development into the public water main but there is no public sewerage system at this location. Scottish Water has confirmed that there is currently sufficient capacity in the public water supply. 9.4. The application includes provision of a bio disc foul drainage treatment plant. There are some questions over the detail of this from objectors; however, such matters would be controlled via a separate licence from SEPA. The main factor to consider in relation to planning is whether it can be accommodated on site and this has been satisfactorily demonstrated. 9.5. The site plan identifies the provision of a bin store and this is something that can be conditioned to ensure final details are submitted for approval and that the arrangements are constructed prior to the premises coming into use. Page 122
Page 123
9.6. On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to suitably worded conditions, the proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant Policies. Page 123
Page 124
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 125
FBs Manse The Grove Sewage Ppg Sta MLWS Anchorage House House 4.3m Shingle & Boulders ESS The Firs Lochee MHWS Woodside Tignabruaich FBs B 8000 Tighnah Eaglais Groyne House Car Park Knowe Drains Shingle & BouldersInglewood © Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to; 25/00181/PP O 0 30 6015 Meters Application Site Page 125
Page 126
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 127
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 127 Agenda Item 6
Page 128
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 128
Page 129
(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 129
Page 130
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 130
Page 131
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 131
Page 132
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 132
Page 133
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 133
Page 134
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 134
Page 135
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 135
Page 136
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 136
Page 137
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 137
Page 138
• 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 138
Page 139
• 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 139
Page 140
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 140
Page 141
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 141
Page 142
(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 142
Page 143
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 143
Page 144
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 144
Page 145
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 145
Page 146
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 146
Page 147
• 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 147
Page 148
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 148
Page 149
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 149
Page 150
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 150
Page 151
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 151
Page 152
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 152
Page 153
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 153
Page 154
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 154
Page 155
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 155
Page 156
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 156
Page 157
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 157
Page 158
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 158
Page 159
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 159
Page 160
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 160
Page 161
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 161
Page 162
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 162
Page 163
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 163
Page 164
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 164
Page 165
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 165
Page 166
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 166
Page 167
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 167
Page 168
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 168
Page 169
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 169
Page 170
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 170
Page 171
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 171
Page 172
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 172
Page 173
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 173
Page 174
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 175
© 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 175
Page 176
This page is intentionally left blank