The Scottish Government: Section 36 Consultation for Erection of 12 Wind Turbines with a Maximum Blade Tip Height of Up to 200 Metres and Battery Energy Storage System (Bess) - Corr Chnoc Wind Farm: Land Approximately 2Km North East of Kilmore and 5Km East of the Centre of Oban (25/00036/S36)
Argyll and Bute Council · 22 October 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 22 October 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Classification: OFFICIAL 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 Corr Chnoc Wind Farm comprising up to 12 turbines with a maximum height of 200m and ancillary infrastructure, including a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) on Land approximately 2km North East of Kilmore and 5km East of the centre of Oban Reference No: 25/00036/S36 / ECU00006023 Applicant: The Scottish Government Proposal: Section 36 Consultation for erection of 12 wind turbines with a maximum blade tip height of up to 200 metres and battery energy storage system (BESS) - Corr Chnoc Wind Farm Site Address: Land Approximately 2km North East of Kilmore and 5km East of the centre of Oban (A) THE APPLICATION Section 36 Application made up of the following key elements: • Twelve wind turbines up to a maximum tip height of 200 metres • Foundations supporting each wind turbine • Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and compound with capacity up to 25 MW • A 132 kilovolt (kV) substation and compound including control building; • A network of buried cables; • Access from the A85; • A network of new and upgraded tracks throughout the site extending to 21.4km and 17 watercourse crossings (12 new and 5 upgraded); • Up to two borrow pits; and • Three temporary construction compounds, two measuring 50m x 80m and one measuring 75m x 100m. The expected operational life is 50 years from the date of commissioning. The site would be accessed from the A85 before turning south to a network of existing (to be upgraded) and new access tracks which will initially pass through Fearnoch Forest before reaching the wind farm area. Connection to Electricity Grid - The grid connection would be to Creag Dubh substation. The underground cables connecting to the substation will be laid in trenches and follow access roads as much as possible. (B) RECOMMENDATION: That the ECU be notified accordingly that:
Page 2
Classification: OFFICIAL (1) Argyll & Bute Council OBJECTS to the proposal on the grounds that there are unresolved ornithology issues contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policies 3 and 11 and LDP2 Policies 30 and 73, and it 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 NatureScot, 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 NatureScot. (2) Argyll & Bute Council does not object on landscape and visual grounds subject to the removal of Turbine 18 (as agreed by the applicant). The Council recommends the following advice is also considered by the Energy Consents Unit: Mitigation - Consideration should be given to the mitigation recommended by the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect: 1. Felling of 27.44 ha of woodland and forest would be required for construction of the access including 5.63 ha of AWI woodland. Of the total felling, 10.76 ha of woodland would be restocked on site. The remaining 16.68 ha of felled woodland would not be restocked within the site, but compensation planting would be required to comply with the Scottish Government's Control of Woodland Removal Policy. The Applicant commits to providing appropriate compensatory planting to be agreed with Scottish Forestry and controlled through planning conditions. Where possible restocking should be local to the windfarm area and comprise native species broadleaf woodland to help offset losses of AWI woodland, enhance the surrounding landscape and potentially provide ‘positive effects for biodiversity’ (in line with NPF4 Policy 2). 2. Smart aviation lighting (ADLS) activated by approaching aircraft be implemented if it is approved for use in UK airspace before construction of the windfarm. A condition is recommended to ensure that ADLS be installed should it become available for use in the UK. (3) Argyll and Bute does not object on noise impact grounds subject to the inclusion of a condition recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant including the apportioned limits as set out in the July 2025 response from the applicant (Metrica 15/7/25). (4) Argyll and Bute Council does not object on Public Access grounds subject to a condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction. (5) Argyll and Bute Council does not object on Roads grounds subject to the conditions specified by the Roads Service in their consultation response dated 14/01/25, namely: • New accesses at junction with public road, (UC32 Glenlonan)to be constructed in accordance with Operational Services Drg No SD08/001a and aligned to 90° to the public road. New accesses on UC32 to be staggered for a minimum 30m and not be directly opposite each other.
Page 3
Classification: OFFICIAL • No walls, fences, hedges etc will be permitted within 2m from the channel line of the public road. Visibility splays measuring 84m x 2.4m to be cleared and maintained at connections with UC32 Road • A system of surface water drainage is required to prevent the flow of water from passing onto the public road. Any roadside ditch/drains to be culverted in agreement with Roads. • Road signs and road markings as per TSRGD to be installed as following: • Signs as per Dia 504.1 to be installed at an agreed location on the public road, (UC32) east and west of new junctions. • Road markings as per Dia 1002.1 and 1022 to be installed at new junctions at connections with UC32. • Junction signs as per Dia 601.1 to be installed at junctions with public road. (6) Argyll & Bute Council requests that the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer are considered by the ECU: 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. (7) Marsh Fritillary Butterflies: Whilst NatureScot has not objected to this issue, it is noted that there are unresolved issues between the applicant and NatureScot. It is recommended that the ECU gives further consideration to this issue before determining the application. (8) Argyll & Bute Council requests that all other conditions recommended by consultees are included in any Consent. (C) CONSULTATIONS: ENERGY CONSENTS UNIT RESPONSES NatureScot (16th May 2025) – advised the ECU that NatureScot object until further information is obtained from the applicant. The key issues are with ornithological impacts: • Significant impacts on Schedule 1 bird species through the siting and use of Vantage Points that: • May have resulted in a breach of Schedule 1 licencing rules; • May have caused disturbance that led to the red throated divers’ breeding attempt to fail; • Likely negatively impacted flight activity of red throated divers and white- tailed eagles, and
Page 4
Classification: OFFICIAL • Have resulted in underestimated flight activity and unreliable collision risk predictions within the EIA report and NatureScot cannot therefore fully assess the application. • Significant impacts on Schedule 1 bird species by not assessing the correct or adequate data, or considering increasing cumulative impacts of the area, especially for golden or white-tailed eagles. These issues can be addressed in the following ways: • Surveys using appropriately sited Vantage Points (VPs) (outwith accepted disturbance distances) are needed to monitor breeding season performance of resident Schedule 1 birds. • Surveys using appropriately sited VPs are needed to not impact flight activity and collision risk modelling. • Surveys from appropriately sited VPs are needed to fully assess impacts on white-tailed eagle from existing and planned windfarms in the area. • Correct population data must be used to accurately assess and model impacts on both species of eagles. • Correct information and assessment of the impacts on the golden eagle territory. • A reassessment of the cumulative impact of territory loss on the G/LAW1 golden eagle territory. While not raising issues of National interest, in addition to the above NatureScot have concerns regarding the following landscape and visual effects of the proposal: • Significant effects on the Special Landscape Qualities (SLQs) of Lynn of Lorn NSA and wider effects on the distinctive coastal character. These effects are not considered to be easily overcome by siting, design or mitigation. The proposal would not affect the integrity of the NSA, but it may not meet NPF4 Policy 11(e)ii. NatureScot (24th July 2025): We confirm that our appraisal of landscape and visual impacts contained in the 19th May (corrected) response would remain unchanged. However, paragraph 4.3 of our document, which summarised the Applicant’s Assessment of the Effects, needed updating to reflect changes in the Applicant’s Assessment as per the Additional Information. Applicant Response to NatureScot Consultation in relation to landscape (29th September ) – Argues that since the NSA’s integrity is not compromised, there is no conflict with NPF4 Policy 4; Emphasises that Policy 11 must be considered in full, including its support for renewable energy; Disagrees with NatureScot’s assessment of SLQs 2 and 4, stating the proposed development is distant and does not significantly affect the NSA’s panoramic qualities. RSPB Scotland (31st March 2024) – advised the ECU they do not object to the application but recommend that the following information is required to fully assess the application: • Given the ongoing success and expansion of White-tailed Eagle populations in Scotland, their willingness to nest in commercial forestry plantations and their poor turbine avoidance behaviour, RSPB Scotland recommends that a draft WEMP is submitted for consideration as Further Environmental Information during the EIA process prior to any consenting of the Proposed Development. We also recommend that a commitment to active, ongoing
Page 5
Classification: OFFICIAL monitoring and mitigation for White-tailed Eagle activity on site is stipulated in the Habitat Management Steering Group (HMSG)’s terms of reference. • Given the proximity of this new breeding site, and the suitability of habitat within the Proposed Development boundary, it is recommended that specialist survey for this protected species is delivered at the earliest opportunity and submitted as Further Environmental Information during the EIA process, prior to any consenting of the Proposed Development. • RSPB Scotland is concerned that presently, this oHMP proposes to remove invasive Sitka Spruce from sensitive habitats for a period of 50-years, without any action/activity directed at reducing the incidence of Sitka Spruce reinvasion. This potentially represents 50-years of pro-rata biodiversity enhancement funding directed solely at managing (rather than taking steps to resolve) a known and ongoing issue. Applicant Response (August 2025): The applicant’s submitted clarification report has responded to the RSPB comments by way of a Clarification Report rather that the submission of Addition Information (AI) to the EIAR. With regard to white-tailed eagle, it is proposed that a WEMP would be submitted as part of a planning condition, similar to the proposed Habitat Management Plan. The applicant contends that producing the WEMP closer to the operational period of the Proposed Development is considered to be a preferrable option given that the distribution and abundance of the white-tailed eagle population, both locally and regionally, is continuing to evolve, as are management options trialled and recommended by NatureScot’s Sea Eagle Management Scheme (which has participants on the estate). They argue that the WEMP would therefore contain the most suitable management options for all parties at the time of implementation. In addition, the applicant commits to consult with FLS, regarding possible solutions to the issue of conifers seeding into sensitive habitats and habitat management areas in the Site. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (10th March 2024) – Initially objected to the application due to insufficient information. The proposals have the potential to have significant adverse physical and setting impacts on a scheduled monument known as Glenamachrie cairns 850m ESE of (SM4121) as a result of the construction and use of the wind farm access track immediately adjacent to the monument. We do not consider these impacts have been considered adequately in the EAIR. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (dated 26/6/25): In their response of 10 March 2025, HES objected as the EIAR contained inaccurate information relating to the scheduled monument known as Glenamachrie, cairns 850m ESE of (SM4121) and it was not possible to reach an informed conclusion on the proposals. Their letter outlined the additional information necessary. The applicants have now provided further information to address the issues raised in their original response. They are content that the information provided in the Technical Note accompanying the consultation meets the requirements outlined in their objection. This includes additional mitigation measures to address the risk of physical impacts on the monument. They maintain their position that the proposed wind farm would result in adverse impacts to the settings of a number of scheduled monuments but consider these impacts to be just below the level of significant adverse impact on the integrity of setting for any individual scheduled monument. They therefore withdraw their objection.
Page 6
Classification: OFFICIAL Kilmore and Kilbride Community Council (30/1/25): As the host community council for the proposed development, KKCC would like to take this opportunity to highlight their comments concerning the application for Corr Chnoc Wind Farm. It should be noted that Galileo, the applicant, has engaged with them extensively throughout the pre-application consultation process, keeping them informed of the proposals, and making amendments to the scheme, where appropriate. The Corr Chnoc development will contribute to tackling climate change through the delivery of clean, green renewable electricity, supporting the Scottish Government in delivering its net-zero target. In addition, it will aid greater energy security through the delivery of homegrown power. A proposed Community Wealth Fund (CWF) would amount to in excess of £21 million over the lifetime of the wind farm, inclusive of a Renewable Electricity Discount Scheme (REDS) for those closest to the project, a plan which is welcomed (subject to further consultation). The opportunity for 10 per cent Shared Ownership is also welcome, and KKCC consider that it is good to see Galileo working with ALI energy and Local Energy Scotland on seeking to deliver this. At a community council meeting held on Wednesday 22nd January 2025, it was noted that out of a total of 4 Community Councillors and 6 members of the public, 5 noted their opposition to the proposals. However, a survey undertaken as a community council on the proposed development found 55 per cent support in the community council area, out of a total of 40 respondents. The main objections centred around impact on wildlife, visibility, dispute over the figures for carbon savings and the effects on climate change. The supporting comments included benefits to the community, production of electricity through wind power and support for the carbon savings and effects on climate change. Given the findings on this, while the obvious benefits of development are noted, KKCC do not feel in a position to provide either support or opposition to the application and have encouraged the community to put forward individual responses. Kilmore and Kilbride Community Council (19/8/25): Subsequently KKCC have done a much wider survey and have these comments to make. From the meetings there is a majority of the community not supporting Corr Chnoc Wind farm, including objections on wind turbine noise, pollution to Loch Nell, destruction of habitat, cumulative effect of wind farm pollution, visual impact, battery fire risk, size of turbines, disruption to community. They had some positive comments including work opportunities, community funding and buy back, availability for forward thinking for community projects. Overall, the community appears to wish to object to the wind farm Oban Community Council (dated 13th February 2025): The Community Council discussed this application at its recent meeting in January 27th and asks that its unanimous support for the application is noted. Members expressed one qualification relating to such developments generally however. This qualification rests not with the clear requirement for wind derived energy, but rather with the financial incentives offered to local communities, particularly in respect of the proposed Community Wealth Find (CWF). Galileo have engaged with OCC extensively throughout the pre-application consultation phase, keeping them informed of the proposals. In particular, it is noted the reduction in the scheme from the initially proposed 18 to 12 turbines, and the consequent reduction in installed capacity. This will, of course, reduce the value of the CWF from that originally suggested, OCC also noted a point made to Galileo previously, that future inflation will reduce the value of the CWF in real terms before the scheme is commissioned, when indexation of the annual contribution will then commence.
Page 7
Classification: OFFICIAL The proposed CWF of £5,000/MW installed capacity would amount to £432,000 per annum during the lifetime of the wind farm. It is understood that this will be index linked following commissioning, but it is not to be index linked in the intervening period, which could be up to a decade from when the proposal was first introduced to OCC. This would result in the £5,000 / MW being effectively reduced to £4085 in today’s value, using the UK Government target of 2% annual inflation. Further, it is understood that the figure of £5,000 was recommended by the Scottish Government in 2014, and it is only a recommendation. If adjustment for inflation had been applied from the outset, this sum would have been approximately £6,700 (using CPI) or £7,600 (using RPI) today, without further adjustment for the anticipated period pre-commissioning. Thus, the real value of the recommended £5,000/MW in 2014 has been and will continue to be seriously eroded. OCC believes strongly that the £5,000 / MW recommendation should be reviewed, and preferably be incorporated in legislation if at all possible. Kilninver and Kilmelford Community Council (14th February 2025): No objections. The applicant has engaged extensively with the Community Council throughout the pre-application consultation process, meeting with them and keeping them informed of the proposals, which is to be welcomed. Kilninver and Kilmelford Community Council (24th July 2025): Would like to note that Kilninver and Kilmelford Community Council have no objection to the application for Corr Chnoc Wind Farm at this stage. Connel Community Council (17th February 2025): Formally object to the proposed wind farm development. Reasons summarised below: Unsuitability 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 at Cruachan already present. • Additional 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, 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: • 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 policies and NatureScot guidance. Support for Alternative Energy: • Preference for hydro pumped storage over wind power.
Page 8
Classification: OFFICIAL • Seen as more sustainable and beneficial for local employment. Taynuilt Community Council (dated 21/1/25): On 20th January 2025 in a public meeting, Taynuilt Community Council discussed the above Sect 36 Electricity Act 1989 application to construct and operate Corr Chnoc Windfarm and had no adverse comments to make regarding this development. Dunbeg Community Council (dated 25/3/25): DCC has no objections to the plans. Dunbeg Community Council (dated 18/7/25): We have examined the additional information regarding the cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment of the Corr Chnoc windfarm and Dunbeg Community Council confirms it still has no objection to the plans. Scottish Forestry (25/5/25) – It is advised that: • A Plantations on Ancient Woodlands Sites (PAWS) and native woodland (Dailnamac) plan should be provided which proposes compensatory planting in exceedance of the area lost; • Compensatory planting should be secured by a condition. Transport Scotland (TS) (12th February 2025) – Confirmed that they are satisfied with the submitted EIAR and that there are no objections to the development in terms of environmental impacts on the trunk road network. They have, however, requested that additional drawing information is supplied at this stage for the site access junction to allow the suitability of proposals to be considered. Transport Scotland (TS) (11th September 2025) – Following the submission of the Clarification Report (CR), TS are now satisfied with both the submitted EIAR and CR and have no objection to the development in terms of environmental impacts on the trunk road network. Conditions have been recommended should consent be granted. SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (10th March 2025) – initially advised the ECU they objected due to a lack of information and a requirement for modifications in relation to peat and GWDTE. Information required included: a request for an updated map of infrastructure showing peat overlain on peat depth and an updated peat management plan. With regard to GWDTEs, SEPA has requested that the applicant reconsider the layout to avoid potential GWDTE and flush habitats and amend the peat management plan and layout drawings as appropriate. With regard to peat reinstatement it is noted that reinstatement of borrow pits with 8,300m3 of peat is proposed. The applicant should provide an explanation of how the integrity of the peat as a store of carbon will be maintained if it is reinstated in an area which does not currently support deep peat as this is something that we do not support and may, in fact, be a waste disposal activity. SEPA (dated 2/5/25): Confirmed that SEPA do not have specific issues or concerns regarding the protection of the water environment for this application provided their guidance is followed and the regulatory requirements under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities)(Scotland) Regulations 2011, or any regulations that apply
Page 9
Classification: OFFICIAL when the works are undertaken are met. SEPA consider that the application would be consentable in those circumstances. SEPA (dated 4/7/25): Have now reviewed the further information and continue to have concerns regarding the reuse of peat in borrow pits. SEPA therefore maintain their holding objection until this is modified. SEPA (dated 12/9/25): Following the provision of further information regarding the reuse of peat, particularly in relation to impervious bunds, SEPA are now in a position to remove their holding objection. Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) (9th January 2025) – It is noted that the fish habitat survey report offers little detail on the likely distribution of migratory and other fish or obstacles to fish migration. Argyll DSFB’s remit is to conserve population of migratory salmonids which have been identified to be present in the River Lonan and tributaries. ADSFB urge that in the event of the proposed wind farm being granted planning permission that further information is provided on the distribution of migratory fish and that monitoring of Water quality, macroinvertebrates, and fish (ABC note -word missing?) should be undertaken to Scottish Government guidelines which include sites within the reaches of habitat where salmon and sea trout are present. They also ask that the migration of fish are specifically considered in the design of any new stream crossing over the River Lonan and ask that Argyll DSFB are consulted on the design and installation of any new structure. Fisheries Management Scotland (dated 17/2/25): The proposed development falls within the catchments relating to the Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board and Argyll Fisheries Trust. It is important that the proposals are conducted in full consultation with the relevant boards (see link to FMS member DSFBs and Trusts below). They have also copied this response to the Boards. Due to the potential for such developments to impact on migratory fish species and the fisheries they support, FMS have developed, in conjunction with Marine Scotland Science, advice for DSFBs and Trusts in dealing with planning applications. They would strongly recommend that these guidelines are fully considered throughout the planning, construction and monitoring phases of the proposed development. Scottish Water (10/4/25) – advised the ECU they have no objection. Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment, Stage 1 Checking Report (PLHRA) (26th March 2025) – Recommendations requiring a response from the developer. Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment, Stage 2 Checking Report (PLHRA) (September 2025): The Developer’s response addresses the queries raised in the Stage 1 Checking Report. A comprehensive response including updated figures, text and methodology has been provided and no further assessment is required at this point. Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) (20th January 2025) – advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions relating to Aviation Lighting and Aviation Charting and Safety Management. Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) (25th July 2025): The MOD position remains that, subject to conditions relating to aviation safety lighting, and charting
Page 10
Classification: OFFICIAL data being applied to any consent that might be issued, the MOD has no objection to the scheme. NATS Safeguarding (9th January 2025) – advised the ECU they have no objection. BT (undated) – The project indicated should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. The British Horse Society (17/1/25): Pleased to note that the applicant intends to carry out at Path Planning Study, the findings of which shall be used to produce an Outdoor Access Management Plan. The applicant is encouraged to fully consider equestrian users, alongside walkers and cyclists, throughout this process. Obstructions to access like cattle or deer grids and locked gates with no side gates should be avoided. Joint Radio Company (dated 9/1/25): This proposal is cleared – subject to 75m Micrositing – with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. Health and Safety Executive (dated 9/1/25): The development is not within any explosive licence safeguarding zones and is not within any HSE consultation zones. 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, Corr Chnoc Wind Farm does not appear to be of this type. Therefore, HSE's Land Use Planning team have no further comments. Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. (dated 9/1/25): This proposal is out-with HIAL's safeguarding criteria. Therefore, Highlands and Islands Airports Limited has no objections to the proposal. Visit Scotland (dated 10/2/25): The developers must consider negative impacts of the proposals, in particular: • short-term disturbance/congestion on low-capacity single track road network (construction) • short-term neighbour disturbance (construction) • long-term effects on visual amenity of immediate and wider landscape • long-term effects on the visitor economy (tourism, leisure and recreation) for consumers and industry (holidaymakers, accommodation and activities providers) • long-term disturbance of species and damage to habitats (key characteristics of the landscape) • long-term disturbance to local residents, many of whom are engaged in or rely on landscape sensitive tourism or hospitality enterprises. The developers will be expected to submit mitigation measures and supporting evidence to the planning authorities. As with any development which could impact on the landscape, Visit Scotland believes such projects should be sensitive to their surroundings and involve a full consultation with all interested parties. Visit Scotland's preference is for any development to consult with and consider the views of the sectors directly affected – including tourism. Argyll & Bute Council Consultee Responses Consultant Landscape Advisor (3/4/25 and 14/7/25) - The Council’s Landscape Consultant has commented on both the EIAR as submitted and the Additional Information Report (AI) which was submitted in response to cumulative issues relating to the application stage Cruach Clenamacrie wind farm. In terms of Landscape Effects, significant effects predicted for:
Page 11
Classification: OFFICIAL • Craggy Upland with Settled Glens (7a) – especially Glen Lonan. • Craggy Upland (7) – NW Loch Awe. • Craggy Coast & Islands (7b) – Oban-Melfort. • Lowland Ridges & Moss (18) – Moss of Achnacree. • Rocky Mosaic (20) – Ardchatten. The landscape designations that are affected are: • North West Argyll LLA/APQ – significant localised effects. • Knapdale/Melfort LLA/APQ – localised significant effects. • Lynn of Lorn NSA – effects predicted to be not significant. In terms of Visual Effects, significant visual effects predicted for: • Glen Feochan – especially from Dun Ladain Fort. • Glen Lonan / C32 Road – turbines highly visible. • Kilmore – turbine 18 particularly prominent. • A816 near Knipoch Hotel – night-time lighting impacts. • Tralee Beach – wide arc of turbine visibility. • Ben Cruachan – distant but visible. • Lismore (NSA) – cumulative effects with Cruach Clenamacrie. • Oban-Mull Ferry – turbines prominent above Oban. • Duart Castle, Mull – visible across Firth of Lorn. With regard to Cumulative Effects, the Council’s Landscape advisor has made the following comments: • Cruach Clenamacrie Wind Farm (nearby proposal) significantly increases cumulative impacts. • Combined visibility from multiple viewpoints (e.g. Glen Lonan, Tralee Beach, Lismore, Oban-Mull Ferry) is significant. A Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) assessed nine properties within 2km. Four properties were predicted to experience significant effects Two of the properties assessed in the RVAA, Glenamacrie Farmhouse and Bungalows and Clachadubh are also included within the RVAA for Cruach Clenamacrie. Both properties are located within Glen Lonan between the two wind farm sites. For the application stage scenario the AI predicts significant cumulative effects on residential visual amenity for both properties. The Council’s Landscape Advisor has recognised the design evolution that has taken place prior to the submission of the application which includes: • Turbine layout refined from 23 to 12 turbines. • Turbines relocated to reduce visibility from sensitive areas. • Use of existing forestry tracks to minimise infrastructure footprint. Further mitigation recommended by the Council’s Landscape Advisor: • Remove or resite turbine 18 (most visually prominent).
Page 12
Classification: OFFICIAL • Consider reducing size or relocating turbines 2, 4, and 6. • Implement smart aviation lighting if approved. Applicant response to advice of Consultant Landscape (24th September 2025) The applicant has considered the additional mitigation suggested by the Council’s Landscape Advisor, namely: 1. Reduce turbine size and spacing. 2. Remove Turbine 18. 3. Resite or remove Turbines 2, 4, and 6. The applicant has advised that they would be unable to amend the turbine size and spacing due technical, environmental and economic effects. They have also rejected the recommendation for the resiting / removal of turbine 2, 4 and 6. They have however agreed to remove turbine 18 from the scheme, acknowledging its prominence in certain viewpoints (VPs 4 and 6). Local Biodiversity Officer (received 26th February 2025) – has responded in relation to designated sites, habitat loss, peatland, European Protected Species, Protected Species and outline Habitat Management Plan (oHMP). Designated Sites Only Loch Etive Woods SAC qualifying feature otter is scoped into the EIA, although there will be no Likely Significant Effects on the otter through embedded mitigation and site-specific environmental protection plans. An existing access track already runs through Deadh Choimhead LNCS so the Proposed Development is not considered to impact upon it. I note the applicant is in consultation with Forestry Land Scotland (FLS) regarding the area of Ancient Woodland and I am happy with this. Habitat Loss A range of Annex I and Scottish Biodiversity List priority habitats are present on site. The proposed development will result in the permanent and temporary loss of: • Semi-natural broadleaved woodland – 0.42ha • Wet and dry heaths – 6.92ha • Blanket and wet modified bogs – 19.5ha • Total loss of 26.84ha Peatland The majority of the site sits on Class 2 peat with areas of deep peat that will be impacted upon. The NPF4 Policy 5 mitigation hierarchy should be adhered to. I note that the applicant is in discussions with NatureScot and SEPA regarding peat. I welcome these discussions to ensure optimal mitigation measures are undertaken to protect peat. I welcome the inclusion of a Peat Management Plan (PMP). European Protected Species 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
Page 13
Classification: OFFICIAL altered accordingly to ensure any negative impacts to foraging / commuting bats is minimal. I note a SPP will be implemented to include otter Protected Species I note that with proposed embedded mitigations, BDMP, HMP, WEMP there will be no Likely Significant Effect on any bird species. I also note that the applicant is in discussions with NatureScot and RSPB. I welcome these discussions to ensure appropriate mitigation measures are implemented to protect all protected species. Outline Habitat Management Plan I welcome the following aims and objectives of the oHMP: • Enhancement of degraded peatland and heath habitats Removal and control of regenerating trees Control of bracken • Enhancement of riverine habitats Riparian planting Management of fish cover • Butterfly habitat creation and enhancement specific grassland management to support larger butterfly and moth species General grassland enhancement to improve species richness and strengthen the pollinator corridor. The following proposals are welcomed: • Inclusion of Species Protection Plan (SPP) • Inclusion of a Bird Disturbance Management Area (BDMP) • Appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) • Provision of Toolbox Talks • Best practice measures on site at all times. Noise Consultant (March 2025) – concludes that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the Applicant, with a few minor issues identified: The most significant of these issues is: • The omission of the contribution of the proposed Cruach Clenamacrie wind farm in the cumulative assessment, the planning application for which was submitted just over one month ahead of the planning application for Corr Chnoc. This may also affect the apportioned noise limits that have been proposed by the Applicant to inform a potential planning condition. Taking this into account, the results of the comparative noise model developed by Mott MacDonald indicate slightly higher noise levels at the four noise sensitive receptors considered by the Applicant’s assessment. Therefore, it is recommended that the Applicant considers this and confirms any changes to the apportioned noise limits. • Confirmation that there are no derelict properties with residential planning status in the study area • Confirmation of the correction of predicted LAeq to give LA90 by subtracting 2 dB
Page 14
Classification: OFFICIAL Additionally, a minor issue was noted: • Reference to East Ayrshire Council is stated in the list of abbreviations at the beginning of Chapter 14: Noise Following a satisfactory response to the above issues from the applicant, it is considered that there would be no reasons to object to the Proposed Development on noise grounds. A suitably worded condition such as that included in Section 4 of this report to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation should be applied to control noise levels from the Proposed Development. Noise consultant (email dated 30.07.2025): We have reviewed the applicants’ responses (Reference: 0187/Noise) following review of Chapter 14 (Noise). Regarding response to ‘MM Comment 1’, it is noted the Cruach Clenamacrie wind farm has been considered within cumulative assessment. The applicant advises there is no material change to the outcomes of the assessment and has updated apportioned noise limits for inclusion within proposed planning conditions. This appears to be compliant with the requirements for cumulative impact but the applicant has not provided sufficient information for us to check the suggested noise limits. We therefore recommend that the proposed limits are considered for inclusion within relevant condition subject to receipt and review of the amended EIA Chapter 14 and updated cumulative assessment. We agree with the responses to Comments 2 and 3. So to summarise, we agree in principle to the applicant’s response, but would recommend full disclosure of the derivation of the proposed limits by the applicant for final approval to be given. Noise Consultant (1/10/25): We have considered the applicant’s response in respect of noise clarifications for the proposed Corr Chnoc windfarm. We would comment as follows: • We would agree with the apportioned limits as set out in the July 2025 response from the applicant. These must be used in the noise condition if consent is to be granted. • We took from previous correspondence from the applicant that a revised assessment would be submitted but have no objections to the July 2025 letter serving as a clarification rather than further evidence. On that basis, we are satisfied that the clarifications have been provided, and the original conclusion of our assessment of the applicant’s noise assessment stands. Area Roads (13th January 2025) – no objection subject to conditions. Comments: The proposal is situated off the C32 Glenlonan Road with rural 60 mph speed restrictions. Main access and service route is off the A85 Trunk Road over a forest haul route, crossing the C32 Glenlonan Road. Sightlines 84m 2.4m at junctions with UC32 required. No wall, fences, hedges etc. will be permitted within the verge. All construction traffic to access the site over the proposed access track off the A85 at Fearnoch.
Page 15
Classification: OFFICIAL CTMP to be provided prior to works commencing. Further comments and conditions may be required on receipt of full planning details. Conditions: • New accesses at junction with public road, (UC32 Glenlonan) to be constructed in accordance with Operational Services Drg. No. SD08/001a and aligned to 90° to the public road. New accesses on the UC32 to be staggered for a minimum 30m and not be directly opposite each other. • No walls, fences, hedges etc will be permitted within 2m from the channel line of the public road. • Visibility splays measuring 84m by 2.4m to be cleared and maintained at connections with the UC32 Road. • A system of surface water drainage is required to prevent the flow of water from passing on to the public road. Any roadside ditch / drains to be culverted in agreement with Roads. • Road signs and road markings as per TSRGD to be installed as following: • Signs as per Dia 504.1 to be installed at an agreed location on the public road,(UC32) east and west of new junctions. Flood Risk Assessor (30th January 2025) – No objection subject to conditions. Conditions recommended: Any proposed watercourse crossings should be designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change (46% allowance) flood event. Surface water drainage should be designed in accordance with the 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 – at time of writing no response has been received. 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: 11/02553/PP - Windfarm comprising 11 turbines (121metres high to blade tip) erection of meteorological mast, switchgear building, construction compound, access works and ancillary development. Withdrawn 1/12/16. (E) PUBLICITY: As the Council is not the Determining Authority the ECU oversees the Publicity of the application.
Page 16
Classification: OFFICIAL Public Consultation – Whilst not a statutory requirement for Section 36 applications, the applicant has undertaken Public Consultation. Further information on this is contained in the Corr Chnoc Wind Farm Pre-Application Consultation Report (December 2024) available on the ECU website (reference: ECU00006023). (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, 49 objections and 5 representations in support have been received by the ECU. The key issues raised are summarised below: Summary of Objections Landscape and Visual Impact: • The 200m tall turbines on lowland hills will significantly alter the visual character of the area. • Highly visible from the A816 road and surrounding landscape. • Incompatible with the area's panoramic designation • 12 turbines (up to 200m) would dominate views from Kilmore, Glen Lonan and Loch Nell, affecting tourism and local amenity. • The proposed development is disproportionately large for the local landscape and situated too close to residential areas (approx. 1km). Planning Policy: • Previous wind farm proposals in nearby areas (Raera Forest and Clachan) were refused due to similar concerns. • These earlier proposals involved smaller turbines, reinforcing the unsuitability of the current scale. • The proposal allegedly contravenes: • Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2) • Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2017) • The site is in a landscape character type deemed unsuitable for turbines over 150m. Tourism and Economic Impact: • Kilninver Estate operates four holiday cottages. • Guest survey results: • 62% would not book if turbines were visible from the property. • 28% would be deterred by visibility in the general area. • Turbines would be visible from estate walking and cycling routes, potentially affecting visitor experience and bookings. • Believe the development will negatively affect the scenic value of the area and local tourism. • 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.
Page 17
Classification: OFFICIAL • Inadequate community consultation and concerns over foreign ownership. Natural Heritage Issues: • Damage to peatlands and increased flood risk. • Threats to wildlife, including golden and white-tailed eagles. • Environmental Impact Assessment lacks site-specific detail. • The site includes sensitive peatland and habitats for protected species such as the Marsh Fritillary butterfly and various raptors. • Concerns over water pollution risks and disruption to biodiversity. • The site is home to rare and protected species: golden eagles, sea eagles, hen harriers, marsh fritillaries, bats, owls, badgers, pine martens, and deer. • The area includes peatland, which is sensitive and important for carbon sequestration. Cultural Heritage: • Potential harm to ancient sites and landscapes of historical significance. • Proximity to heritage sites like standing stones and the “Road of the Kings.” Infrastructure: • Lack of clarity on transmission lines, battery storage, and access routes. • Significant construction and grid connection requirements. • Risk of disruption to local roads and transport. • Notes 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. • Noise and shadow flicker could affect nearby homes and wildlife. • Safety concerns regarding the proposed battery energy storage system, including fire and toxic emissions. • Concerns about mental health, loss of tranquillity, and property devaluation. Precedent • Fears the approval could set a precedent for similar developments in inappropriate locations.
Page 18
Classification: OFFICIAL Sustainability of Wind Farms • Questions the overall sustainability of wind farms due to high energy and resource demands during construction and decommissioning. • Carbon footprint of construction and turbine disposal. • Short operational lifespan may not justify long-term damage. • Concerns over reliance on desktop studies. Community Benefit • Contend that there is no tangible benefit to the local community or economy. • Potential devaluation of nearby properties. Lack of 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. • Negative effects on agriculture. • Limited consultation with local residents. Summary of Support Climate Change Mitigation: • Urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO₂. • Renewable energy is essential to avoid severe national costs from climate- related hazards (e.g. flooding, droughts, storms). • Legislation is driving increased electricity use for transport and heating. • Onshore wind farms are a necessary part of the renewable energy mix. Rising Energy Demand • Legislation is driving increased electricity use for transport and heating. • Onshore wind farms are a necessary part of the renewable energy mix. Minimal Tourism Impact: • Site is remote, not a tourist hotspot. • Turbines likely not visible from major tourist routes or Oban. Visual Amenity Considerations: • Nearby Cruach Clenamacrie Wind Farm (pending approval) already affects visual landscape. • Need to balance local amenity loss with national renewable energy needs. • Beinn Ghlas Wind Farm is nearby, suggesting visual impact is already present. Economic Benefits • Potential for energy export to the UK. • Positive impact on Scotland’s balance of payments.
Page 19
Classification: OFFICIAL • Economic and employment benefits for local businesses and contractors. • The wind farm will require a wide range of services, including: Construction, drainage, and fencing Materials supply and building merchants Plant hire, security, fuel, and waste management Hospitality and car hire services • Galileo (the developer) has committed to using local employees and contractors wherever reasonably practicable. • Renewable energy projects like Corr Chnoc are seen as making a significant contribution to both the local and Scottish economy. Community Wealth Fund Proposal • Suggests establishing a fund to benefit local communities. • Emphasises that benefits should be localised to offset any amenity loss. • A £21 million community wealth fund is proposed over the 50-year operational lifetime of the wind farm. • This fund is expected to significantly benefit the Argyll and Bute economy and leave a lasting local legacy. 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): Yes EIAR (November 2024) presented in five volumes: • Volume 1 – Written Statement • Volume 2 – Figures • Volume 3 – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Visualisations • Volume 4 – Technical Appendices • Volume 5 – Confidential Appendices (These relate to protected species and by law are not allowed to be made publicly available) Key topics covered in the EIAR include: Introduction; Site Description; Alternatives and Design Evolution; Description of Proposed Development; EIA Process and Methodology; Landscape and Visual; Cultural Heritage; Ornithology; Ecology; Hydrology and Hydrogeology; Geology Ground Conditions and Peat; Access, Traffic and Transport; Forestry; Noise; Aviation; Shadow Flicker; Telecoms; Climate Change Impact Assessment; Schedule of Mitigation.
Page 20
Classification: OFFICIAL In addition, the following documents are also provided in support of the application: • EIAR Non-Technical Summary; • Planning and Energy Policy Statement; • Design Statement; • Pre-Application Consultation Report; • Socio-economic assessment. (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 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
Page 21
Classification: OFFICIAL 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 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)
Page 22
Classification: OFFICIAL • 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 (G) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No - Environmental Impact Assessment was required. (H) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No - PAC is not required for S36 applications. (I) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (J) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: No (K) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No. At the time of writing it is not clear whether the proposal would be fully consistent with the Development Plan as there are currently unresolved issues in relation to ornithology. (L) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Sandra Davies Date: 6/10/25 Reviewing Officer: Arlene Knox Date: 6/10/25 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 23
Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/00036/S36 PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME 1.1. In Scotland, any application for an onshore power generating station with an installed capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any authorisation given includes a deemed planning permission. Consequently, there is no need for a planning application to be made to the Council. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee. 1.2. The Development Plan is not the starting point for considering S36 applications. The reason for this is that the sections of the Planning Act which establish the primacy of Development Plan Policy in decision making are not engaged. NPF4 and LDP2 now form the Development Plan. Whilst they do not have primacy in S36 decision making, they remain an important consideration to inform the Council’s consultation response. 1.3. Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act requires the applicant and the decision maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the developer shall have regard to: (a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historical or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings, or objects. 1.4. It obliges the Scottish Ministers as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at (a) and the extent to which the applicant has complied with the duty at (b). 1.5. Assessment of the proposal against the policies of NPF4 and LDP2 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent that the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties. 1.6. The Council can either support or object and recommend conditions to be imposed if consent is granted by Scottish Ministers. If an objection is raised by the Council, 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. 1.7. This report considers the relevant policy considerations, planning merits, views of consultees and representations. It recommends views to be conveyed to the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) for consideration before a decision is made.
Page 24
Classification: OFFICIAL 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. Proposals must also demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (individual or cumulative) on natural heritage, built and/or cultural heritage, and landscape and visual amenity. 2.2. Policy 04 – Sustainable Development requires that in preparing new proposals developers should demonstrate the following sustainable development principles (where relevant) such as: maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; support existing communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services; conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets; respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; avoid places with significant risk of flooding, or ground instability and avoid having significant adverse impacts on land, air and water environment. This application is supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) which sets out in detail the measures proposed to ensure the proposal is ‘Sustainable Development’. 2.3. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP2 provide the primary policy framework for assessing renewable energy proposals. In this case, it is currently not possible to conclude that the proposal is consistent with development plan policy relating to the spatial and settlement strategy as this requires proposals to be consistent with all relevant policies. This is due to the outstanding ornithological issues detailed later in this report. 3. ENERGY & SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF RENEWABLES 3.1. Argyll & Bute Council is keen to ensure that Argyll & Bute continues to make a positive contribution to meeting the Scottish Government’s targets for renewable energy generation. These targets are important given the compelling need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, reinforced by the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects. 3.2. This proposal has been assessed primarily against the two lead Statutory Development Plan policies relating to renewable energy, Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2. Other policies are referred to where relevant. 4. LOCATION, NATURE AND DESIGN OF PROPOSAL 4.1. The proposed site covers an area of approx. 728.06 ha and is located approx. 5km east of the centre of Oban and 5km south west of Taynuilt on Dunach Estate. The proposed development would be operational for up to 50 years, and thereafter would be decommissioned.
Page 25
Classification: OFFICIAL 4.2. The site forms two distinct parts, namely ‘The Wind Farm Area’, defined as that park of the site where the wind turbines would be located; and ‘The Fearnoch Forest Access Area’, defined as the part of the site forming the access track through Fearnoch Forest. The elevation of the wind farm area ranges from 140m AOD and 280m AOD. It is located on a knolly area of craggy uplands to the south of Glen Lonan, to the north west of Beinn Ghlas and Sgorr Mhor, to the north east of Glen Feochan and to the east of Loch Nell. There are a number of small lochans located around the edges of the site. 4.3. The site would be accessed via the A85 trunk road before access a network to existing (to be upgraded) and new access tracks which initially pass through Fearnoch Forest before accessing the wind farm area in the southern part of the site. 4.4. Immediately to the north of the Wind Farm Area, (crossing the proposed access track) 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. Construction vehicles accessing the Proposed Development will be required to cross the C32 when travelling through to the Wind Farm Area from the A85 to the north. It is not however proposed to utilise the C32 for access. 4.5. The closest residential property to the site is Glenmachrie, which lies approximately 1km north of the site. The closest residential property to a wind turbine is a property known as Kilbride Farm, located 1,372m from turbine T14. There are a number of other individual residential properties in the vicinity of the site as shown in figure 16.1 of EIA Report. 4.6. Proposed Development – the main components are: • Twelve wind turbines up to a maximum tip height of 200 metres • Foundations supporting each wind turbine • Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and compound with capacity up to 25 MW • A 132 kilovolt (kV) substation and compound including control building; • A network of buried cables; • Access from the A85; • A network of new and upgraded tracks throughout the site extending to 21.4km and 17 watercourse crossings (12 new and 5 upgraded); • Up to two borrow pits; and • Three temporary construction compounds, two measuring 50m x 80m and one measuring 75m x 100m. 4.7. Infrastructure 4.8. Connection to Electricity Grid – The Applicant has secured a connection to the Creag Dhubh sub-station. The connection of the substation to the grid would be subject to a future and separate application for consent, most probably under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. 4.9. Scottish Water – have advised the ECU that they have no objection, however this does not confirm that the proposal can currently be serviced. Advice is also provided on Drinking Water Protected Areas and Surface Water. 4.10. Drinking Water Protected Areas – Scottish Water have advised that the proposed activity falls within a drinking water catchment where a Scottish Water abstraction is located. They advised that it is a relatively large catchment and the activity appears to
Page 26
Classification: OFFICIAL be a sufficient distance from the intake that it is likely to be lower risk to water quality, however mitigation in this catchment is required and Scottish Water must be notified of any pollution incidents that could impact Loch Nell. 4.11. Surface Water – for reasons of sustainability and to protect customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water have advised that they will not accept any surface water connections into their combined sewer system. 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 Impact and Net Economic Benefit Statement has been submitted in support of this application. This estimates that the following benefits will arise as a result of this proposal: • Pre-development investment and planning fees, benefitting a range of Scottish- based companies and organisations; • Total expected CAPEX investment of £114.0 million, of which £41.0 million potentially benefitting Scottish companies and £13.7 million potentially benefitting local companies. • Up to 99 construction jobs and GVA of £5.9 million in Argyll and Bute during the construction period; • Total annual operating and maintenance expenditure of £5.2 million per annum, of which £3.0 million potentially benefitting Scottish companies and £2.2 million benefitting local companies; and • Up to 18 operation and maintenance jobs and GVA of £0.9 million on an annual basis in Argyll and Bute. 5.3. In addition to the above, the supporting statement also notes that applicant has made the following commitments: • The establishment of a Renewable Electricity Discount Scheme (REDS) for local properties within approximately 4km of the Proposed Development, to provide a discount on their electricity use; • Up to 10% community shared ownership of Corr Choc Wind Farm will be offered to the community surrounding the development to invest in; • The Applicant has consulted locally on these proposals and has recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Argyll, Lomond and the Islands Energy Agency (ALIenergy) to spearhead the formation a shared ownership vehicle; • Community wealth funding of £432,000 per annum and around £21.6 million (2024 prices) over the proposed 50 year operational life;
Page 27
Classification: OFFICIAL • A construction community fund in the region of £100,000 to be distributed to local applicants over the construction period; and • Use, where commercially feasible, local contractors and encourage their involvement through a 'Meet the Buyer' event. 5.4. 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 6.3. ABC Noise Consultant – has concluded that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the applicant, with a few minor issues identified: Omission of the contribution of the proposed Cruach Clenamacrie wind farm in the cumulative assessment; 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. 6.4. 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 recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant which covers noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation. 6.5. Shadow Flicker 6.6. 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.” 6.7. The EIAR identified nearby properties where shadow flicker effects might arise. The rotor diameter of the candidate turbine is 162 metres. Based in the Scottish Government guidance, the ten rotor diameter distance would be 1620 metres. The EIAR identified 25 properties within this 1620 m distance. The EIAR concluded that shadow flicker may potentially occur at 3 of the 25 properties in the study area. No properties were identified as likely to exceed the 30 hours per year or 30 minute per day thresholds. The effect of shadow flicker was therefore considered to be non significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.
Page 28
Classification: OFFICIAL 6.8. As all predicted shadow flicker effects are below the respective assessment criteria, no specific mitigation measures are required. 6.9. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal is acceptable in terms of any potential shadow flicker impact Noise Impact and is therefore consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the ABC LDP2. 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 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 Advisor - has undertaken a review of the landscape and visual effects of the proposal, which is based on examination of the EIAR and AI submissions 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 ECU00006023 submitted in January 2025; • Additional cumulative wirelines of the proposals in combination with Cruach Clenamacrie wind farm (application stage) prepared by the Applicant at the request of NatureScot and dated 11 March 2025; and • Additional Information Report (AI) submitted in July 2025 (which includes additional cumulative assessment of the effects of the proposed wind farm together with the neighbouring proposal at Cruach Clenamacrie, which was at scoping stage when the LVIA was prepared but is now also at application stage). 7.3. The proposal – comprises 12 turbines finished in a matt grey colour, with a maximum tip height of 200m and an output of 86MW. The site covers a knolly area of the Craggy Uplands that undulates between 140m and 280m above OD to the south of Glen Lonan. The area is incised by burns that mostly drain to the northwest into the River Lonan and Loch Nell and there are a number of small lochans located around the edges of the site. Seven turbines (2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 18) would have medium intensity red aviation lights mounted on the nacelle. Ancillary development would include two borrow pits, a sub station and a battery energy storage system (BESS) with a footprint of approximately 75m x 65m. 7.4. The site would be accessed via the A85 from the north via a combination of new and upgraded access tracks. It is proposed to utilise two access junctions, one for general construction traffic delivering construction materials and general Site traffic, and one for abnormal indivisible loads (AIL) associated with the turbine deliveries general construction activities, with a new proposed AIL access junction approximately 375m to the east. The access track would run south from the A85 through Fearnoch Forest making use of the existing forestry tracks where possible. The proposed access route
Page 29
Classification: OFFICIAL crosses Glen Lonan, and the C32 road before ascending the valley slope to the proposed wind farm site. The section of access track and associated earthworks between the C32 road and the wind farm appears likely to require removal of native scrub woodland, but the associated impacts of this are not assessed in the LVIA. It appears that a rough access track into the site has already been created in this area. 7.5. Landscape Effects – The proposed wind farm is predominantly located within the Craggy Upland Landscape Character Type (LCT) (no.7) with turbine number 4 at the northeast end of the site being located within the Craggy Upland and Settled Glens LCT (no. 7a). The northern section of the access track including the junction with the A85 is in the Rocky Mosaic LCT. 7.6. Where theoretical visibility is predicted, the effect of the Craggy Upland with Settled Glens LCT (Glen Lonan) is predicted to be significant within around 4km of the wind farm site. The level of cumulative effect with Cruach Clenamacrie across some localised areas of the LCT is predicted to be significant. 7.7. In terms of the Craggy Upland (NW Loch Awe) LCT, the effect of the proposal is predicted to be localised in extent and significant within around 3km from the proposed wind farm. Across large parts of the LCT unit to the south east where no visibility is predicted there would be no change. For the application scenario the level of cumulative effect with Cruach Clemamacrie across some localised areas of the LCT are predicted to be significant. 7.8. ABLWECS notes that this landscape has high sensitivity to very large turbines (>130m) and high-medium sensitivity to the large and medium typologies (50-130m), and that development would need to be set well back from the outer edges of these uplands to minimise effects on the surrounding more sensitive landscapes. 7.9. In addition, significant application scenario cumulative effects with Cruach Clemamachrie (visible at closer range) are predicted for the Lowland Ridges and Moss / Moss of Achnacree LCT (no. 18 North Connel Area). With regard to the Rocky Mosaic (no. 20 Ardchatten) LCT, the application scenario cumulative effect with Cruach Clenamacrie is predicted to be significant. Beinn Ghlas wind farm is visible on the skyline, and repowering, which is now at the application stage would further increase the prominence of wind farms in the LCT. 7.10. Landscape Designations – The application site is not located within a designated national or local landscape. There are, however, a number of designated areas in the vicinity of the site. These include the Lynn of Lorn National Scenic Area (NSA) and Ben Nevis and Glen Coe NSA, and the North West Argyll (Coast) LLA (previously APQ), Knapdale/ Melfort LLA (previously APQ), and North Argyll LLA (previously APQ). 7.11. The Loch Etive Mountains Wild Land Area (WLA) is approximately12km northeast of the proposals and the Ben Lui WLA is approximately 20km to the east. Both WLAs overlap North Argyll LLA. However effects on WLAs have been scoped out of the assessment. 7.12. In terms of the LLAs, significant effects are predicted for the North West Argyll LLA which is situated 2km to the south-west of the application site. Theoretical visibility of the proposed turbines is relatively widespread across eastern and southern parts of the LLA, across Loch Feochan and parts of its containing slopes at distances of 3-8km, the flat entrance to Glen Feochan at the head of Loch Feochan at distances of 1-3km, and across more elevated parts of the LLA to the north-east of Minard Point between 6-8km away. Localised significant effects on ‘…the diversity of form and islands, sea and coast’ Likely Special Quality are predicted. The term ‘Likely Special Quality’ has been used in
Page 30
Classification: OFFICIAL the LVIA because Argyll and Bute currently has no citations for its LLAs. For the operational development, the cumulative effect of the proposals together with Cruach Clenamacrie is predicted to be significant. 7.13. The effects on the Lynn of Lorn NSA’s Special Landscape Qualities are predicted to be not significant. Whilst the addition of Cruach Clenamacrie to the view would increase the cumulative effects on the designation, the AIR predicts that effects would be moderate and not significant. 7.14. Visual Effects - The location of the wind farm site in the north west of the Craggy Uplands with the ridge of Beinn Ghlas a short distance away providing a degree of visual containment, limiting visibility from the southeast mainly to areas close by and a few areas of more distant higher ground. With some notable exceptions, visibility to the site from the Craggy Coast & Islands including lower ground on Kerrera and much of Oban and the nearby coastline is also limited by intervening topography. However, there is widespread theoretical visibility of turbines across the Firth of Lorn and Lynn of Lorn and the Isle of Lismore in the north west and north across Ardmucknish Bay to Tralee Beach and across the mouth of Loch Etive towards Benderloch. 7.15. Views of the wind farm would also be gained from more distant high ground 10-20km to the north and northeast of the proposals including parts of Appin, the hills between Loch Creran and Loch Etive, Ben Starav and Ben Cruachan. 7.16. There are a number of settlements, routes and other locations in the surrounding area from where people are likely to gain views of the proposals. These include: • long distance walking/recreational routes including the Caledonia Way cycle route/ National Cycle Route 78 and Core Paths (C160, C170, C 171, C177, C520); • roads including the A816, A828, A85 and local routes; • settlements including Kilmore, Oban, Connel, North Connel, Black Crofts, Achnancairn and Barranrioch and rural properties south and west of Oban; • walking destinations (including Ben Cruachan, Ben Starav and hills to the northwest); • the waters of the Firth of Lorn, the Lynn of Lorn and Sound of Kerrera (views experienced from ferry routes and recreational craft); and • visitor attractions such as Tralee Beach and Duart Castle on Mull. 7.17. Significant visual effects are predicted from the following locations: 7.18. Glen Feochan - Road users and recreational walkers would see the tips of several turbines and the hub of one turbine (no.2) above the skyline the nearby craggy ridge from viewpoint 1, Dun Ladian Fort, Glen Feochan and theoretical visibility of turbines continues along the 2-2.5km stretch of the route east and south east towards Musdale. Visibility from the glen further to the east would be restricted by the valley topography. 7.19. Glen Lonan/ C32 - Road, core path and Caledonia Way cycle path users in the glen would see turbines at close range in the eastern part of the site above the ridge above the skyline. From viewpoint 2 Glen Lonan, near Clachadubh (2.1km away) the hubs of three turbines (2, 4 and 6) would be visually prominent. The ZTV indicates potential visibility of turbines along a considerable stretch of the glen, with larger numbers of turbines (10-12) theoretically visible along the stretch of road to Barguillean to the east and to the west, and 7-9 turbines potentially visible at closer range than viewpoint 2, along the road towards Loch Nell and Oban in the west. The proposed access track including forestry removal would also be visible. The new section of access track with associated
Page 31
Classification: OFFICIAL earthworks from the C32 road to the wind farm site is not included on any the visualisations. 7.20. Viewpoint 3 (C32 Road, near Dun-neil) 3km from the site illustrates the view that would be experienced from the north of Loch Nell just beyond the west end of Glen Lonan. All 12 turbines would be prominent above the ridgeline in a wide arc of view, with turbines 2, 4 and 6 and 5 and 8 to the left side of the view appearing slightly separated from the main grouping and turbine18 appearing high above the ridgeline overlooking Loch Nell on the right side of the array. 7.21. Cruach Clenamachrie wind farm would be visually prominent from Glen Lonan in combination with Corr Chnoc. The cumulative ZTV (AIR Figures 6.13i) indicates combined visibility along much of the glen between Taynuilt and Oban. The AIR predicts for the application scenario that the level of cumulative effect at viewpoint 3: C32 Road, near Dun-neil would be significant. However, ‘no change’ cumulative effect is predicted at viewpoint 2: Glen Lonan, near Clachadubh. 7.22. Kilmore - Residents would experience significant effects of close range views to a small number of turbines visible above the nearby ridge. Viewpoint 4 (A816 Kilmore) 2.5km away indicates that turbine 18 (the closest turbine to Kilmore) would be visually prominent on the skyline, with the blades or two other turbines also partly visible on the above the forested ridge. 7.23. A816, Knipoch (within North West Argyll LLA) - Viewpoint 6 on the A816, near Knipoch Hotel 5.5km from the nearest turbine indicates that five turbine hubs and the blade tips of six others would be prominent above the skyline of the ridge with Loch Feochan in the foreground. Turbine 18 is the closest and most prominent sitting to the left side of the view, slightly separate from the other turbines. Aircraft lighting would be visible on three of the turbines, including no.18 and the night-time visual effect for the 5000cd scenario is predicted to be significant. Cumulative visibility with Cruach Clenamacrie at viewpoint 6 would be limited (Figure AI16.22). 7.24. Tralee Beach - Viewpoint 11 Tralee Beach, Ardmucknish Bay 12.4km from the nearest turbine indicates that the hubs of all 12 turbines would be visible, spread in a wide arc across the Craggy Upland skyline. Beinn Ghlas wind farm is visible slightly further away (14.9km) on the skyline to the left, but the much smaller scale of the turbines makes them appear to be much further away. The two turbines of Barran Caltunn to the right are closer (7.8km), but again their smaller scale gives a perception of greater distance. For the application stage scenario the cumulative effect of the proposal together with Cruach Clenamacrie is predicted to be significant. Cumulative visibility is illustrated on the cumulative wireline for viewpoint 11 prepared by the Applicant at the request of NatureScot and dated 11 March 2025. 7.25. Ben Cruachan - From Ben Cruachan (viewpoint 13) 14.1km away all 12 turbines would be visible, in two roughly parallel partially stacked lines. The EIAR states that it is ‘likely that effects would be reduced to not significant in the event that Beinn Ghlas Wind Farm is either decommissioned or repowered’. Beinn Ghlas repowering was at scoping stage when the assessment was undertaken so was not included in the baseline. For the application stage scenario the cumulative effect of the proposals together with Cruach Clenamacrie is predicted to be moderate and not significant. 7.26. Lismore (within Lynn of Lorn NSA) - From Kilcheran (viewpoint 14) 14.7km away all 12 turbines would be visible across the Lynn of Lorn against a backdrop of Rugged Uplands, with five hubs breaching the skyline and the distant, smaller Caraig Gheal turbines beyond and the two much smaller turbines of Barran Caltunn in front. Beinn
Page 32
Classification: OFFICIAL Ghlas wind farm (19.5km away) is visible on the skyline to the left, appearing to be much more distant due to the much smaller (55m) turbine height. Aircraft lights would be visible on seven turbines, but other lighting would also be visible around the coastline and they are not predicted to result in a significant effect. Cruach Clenamacrie would be visually prominent to the left of the view, increasing the arc over which large (<200m) turbines would be visible across the Rugged Uplands and the cumulative effect for the application stage scenario is predicted to be significant. Cumulative visibility is illustrated on the cumulative wireline for viewpoint 14 prepared by the Applicant at the request of NatureScot and dated 11 March 2025. 7.27. Oban-Mull Ferry - From viewpoint15 Oban-Mull Ferry 13.2km away, all 12 turbines would be visually prominent on the Craggy Uplands above Oban, with Beinn Ghlas forming a backdrop to the turbines on the left side of the array and the hubs of those on the right side against the skyline. For the application stage scenario effects of the proposals together with Cruach Clenamacrie are predicted to be significant, extending the arc of visibility of large turbines to the left of the proposals. Cumulative visibility is illustrated on the cumulative wireline for viewpoint 15 prepared by the Applicant at the request of NatureScot and dated 11 March 2025. 7.28. Duart Castle, Mull - From viewpoint 16 Duart Castle, Isle of Mull 17.7km away all 12 turbines would be visible across the Firth of Lorn above Oban, with Beinn Ghlas forming a backdrop to the turbines on the left side of the wind farm and the hubs of those on the right side against the skyline. The AIR predicts that for the application stage scenario the proposals would extend the perception of larger scale wind farm development further south in views of the mainland and cumulative effects of the proposals together with Cruach Clenamacrie would be not significant. 7.29. Potential significant visual effects at other assessment viewpoints - From viewpoint 8 Blackcrofts, by North Connell Hall 7.8km away all 12 of the proposed turbines would be visible above ridgeline, with several hubs against the skyline and Connel in the middle ground across the narrows at the mouth of Loch Etive. Visual effects are predicted in the EIAR to be moderate and not significant for both daytime and night-time with 5000cd aircraft lighting. However, given the prominence of the turbines in the view and high sensitivity of the receptors the visual effect of the proposals could potentially be significant. At the request of NatureScot the Applicant has submitted a cumulative wireline for this viewpoint and dated 11 March 2025 indicating the Cruach Clenamacrie turbines in combination with the proposals. For the application stage scenario cumulative effects of the proposals together with Cruach Clenamacrie are predicted to be significant. 7.30. The Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) - identifies 9 residential properties lying within 2km of the proposal, the majority of which are located to the west and south west of the site. The purpose of the RVAA is to identify any properties where the magnitude of change could result in an ‘overbearing’ or ‘dominant’ visual impact on the amenity of a residential property. The Landscape Institute Guidance refers to this as the ‘RVAA threshold’. The ‘threshold’ infers a level of impact which would become a material planning consideration. The RVAA indicates that four of the nine properties included are likely to experience a significant visual effect. In accordance with the methodology, a Step 4 assessment was undertaken for one group of the properties that would have a high magnitude of change (property 3, Glenamacrie Farmhouse and Bungalows). This found that this would not reach the RVAA threshold due to the moderate field of view occupied by the proposals, the slightly reduced perceived scale of most of the turbines due to varying degrees of landform screening and distance, and the absence of built development with large sectors of the view of Glen Lonan ‘such that a large part of the surrounding landscape can still be appreciated’.
Page 33
Classification: OFFICIAL 7.31. It should be noted that two of the properties assessed in the RVAA for this proposal (Glenamachrie Farmhouse and Bungalows and Clachadubh) were also included within the RVAA for Cruach Clenamacrie. These properties are located within Glen Lonan between the two proposed sites. For the application stage scenario the AI predicts significant cumulative effects on residential visual amenity for both properties. RVAA wirelines are included in Technical Appendix 6.2 Figures AI2a-i. No assessment of whether this would reach the RVAA threshold was included in the AI. The applicant has provided a response to this point as follows (email dated 13/10/25) “In accordance with NatureScot’s guidance 'Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments' (2021), the recent Cumulative Update to the Corr Chnoc LVIA contains an assessment of the additional effects on certain residential properties caused by the Proposed Development in conjunction with the Cruach Clenamacrie proposal (and not the combined totality of the cumulative effect of Cruach Clenamacrie with Corr Chnoc). As a result, it was not appropriate to subsequently make an assessment to determine whether the assessed additional cumulative effects would reach the Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) threshold….. Notwithstanding this guidance, we do not consider that the combined cumulative effects of Corr Chnoc and Cruach Clenamacrie would reach the RVAA threshold at Clachadubh and Glenamachrie Farmhouse and Bungalows. We note that Abseline Landscape Planning (author of ‘Cruach Clenamacrie Wind Farm – FEI Appendix 4.1 Residential Visual Amenity Assessment’) also conclude that the RVAA threshold would not be reached by the Corr Chnoc project, for any assessed property.” The Council’s Landscape Advisor has confirmed that he is content with this response. 7.32. There are a number of residential properties close to the proposal but outside the 2km RVAA boundary from which significant visual effects would be likely to be experienced, particularly in the area north and west of Loch Nell. Cruach Clenamacrie would also potentially be visible from a number of these properties. 7.33. Night-time lighting effects – The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) requires that ‘en-route 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. Seven of the turbines (2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 18) would have these medium intensity lights. The night- time visualisations submitted by the applicant depict the worst cast scenarios depending on the clarity of visibility. From the Knipoch viewpoint on the A816 aircraft lighting would be visible on three of the turbines and the night time visual effect for the 5000cd scenario is predicted to be significant. While ‘smart’ aviation lighting (ADLS) is referenced in the Design Statement, this is not in the current proposal as it is not currently approved for use in the UK. It is recommended that ‘smart’ aviation lighting be implemented if it is approved for use in UK airspace before the construction of the windfarm.
Page 34
Classification: OFFICIAL 7.34. NatureScot has advised that, while not raising issues of national interest, there are concerns that the proposal will have significant effects on the Special Landscape Qualities (SLQs) of the Lynn of Lorn NSA and wider effects on the distinctive coastal character. They do not consider that the effects can be easily overcome by siting, design or mitigation. They conclude that the proposal would not affect the integrity of the NSA, but it may not meet NPF4 Policy 11 (e) ii. 7.35. In response to NatureScot’s comments, and in consultation with the Council’s Landscape Advisor, Policy 11 has been considered in relation to this issue. Policy 11e requires project design and mitigation to demonstrate how impacts on communities and significant landscape and visual impacts are addressed. In terms of significant landscape and visual impacts, 11e ii states that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy and where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered acceptable. NPF4 provides no guidance on the definition of what constitutes ‘localised’ effects. 7.36. Details in relation to the iterative design process and embedded mitigation, relevant to the LVIA are provided in the Design Statement and Chapter 3 Alternatives and Design Evolution. It is stated that decisions taken to refine through turbine removal and re-siting from the preliminary design comprising 23 turbines down to the current proposal (12 turbines) were primarily driven by landscape and visual (and cultural heritage) considerations. The EIAR does demonstrate that significant impacts have been reduced through appropriate design mitigation. Further reductions in effect significance could potentially be achieved through the removal or reduction in size and spacing of turbines, which would result in reduced output. 7.37. The significant residual landscape effects of the proposals can be considered ‘localised’, occurring mainly within up to around 5km from the proposed wind farm and within localised areas of other LCTs. Significant visual effects, though quite widespread (including viewpoints as distant as Ben Cruachan, Lismore and Duart Castle on Mull), can also be considered ‘localised’ with the greatest visual impacts on communities occurring close to the proposals north and west of the site, so it may be difficult to argue that the proposals do not comply with Policy 11e. 7.38. The local landscape around Loch Nell and along Glen Lonan is scenic and, it could be argued, worthy of local designation. However, as it is not currently afforded protection it would be difficult to argue convincingly that the effects of the proposals would be greater than localised or that appropriate design mitigation has not been applied. 7.39. Conclusions - 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 be acceptable. NPF4 provides no guidance on the definition of what constitutes ‘localised’ effects. 7.40. This proposal would have significant effects on landscape character, including effects on Local Landscape Areas and on views, from locations to the south, west, north and northeast of the wind farm site. Whilst the site is close to Oban, the seaward orientation of the land on which much of the town sits, and the intervening crest would limit visibility of the wind farm from the town. However, the wind farm would be visually prominent at close range to receptors east of the town and from Glen Lonan and Glen Feochan/ Musdale around Kilmore, and from the waters of the Firth of Lorn, including on the approaches to Oban Harbour and across the Lynn of Lorn from Lismore. The landform
Page 35
Classification: OFFICIAL Beinn Ghlas would limit wider visibility of the proposals across the Craggy Uplands to the south east. 7.41. Whilst the scale of the proposed turbines does not align with the ABLWECS, in general the scale of the turbines fits the scale of the rugged landform reasonably well when viewed from a distance, although the close proximity to the smaller scale ‘settled glens’ of the 7a Craggy Upland with Settled Glens/ Glen Lonan landscape unit where the topography is more complex with smaller scale variation, the large scale of turbines results in significant effects. 7.42. For the application stage scenario the AIR predicts significant cumulative effects to result from the proposals together with Cruach Clenamacrie for: • 7a Craggy Upland with Settled Glens / Glen Lonan • 7 Craggy Upland / NW Loch Awe • 7b Craggy Coast & Islands / Oban-Melfort • 18 Lowland Ridges & Moss / Moss of Achnacree (North Connel Area) • 20 Rocky Mosaic / Ardchatten Significant visual effects are predicted for: • Glen Feochan • Glen Lonan/ C32 (including significant cumulative effects with Cruach Clenamacrie at viewpoint 3: C32 Road, near Dun-neil) • Kilmore • A816, Knipoch • Tralee Beach (including significant cumulative effects with Cruach Clenamacrie) • Ben Cruachan • Lismore (including significant cumulative effects with Cruach Clenamacrie) • Oban/ Mull Ferry (including significant cumulative effects with Cruach Clenamacrie) • Duart Castle, Mull Glenamacrie Farmhouse and Bungalows and Clachadubh are located within Glen Lonan between the proposals and Cruach Clenamacrie. For the application stage scenario the AIR predicts significant cumulative effects on residential visual amenity for both properties. 7.43. The Council’s Consultant Landscape Adviser has suggested mitigation which would have the potential to reduce the significance of effects. These are: 1. A reduction in turbine size (below the proposed <200m) and corresponding closer spacing would have the potential to reduce the significance of effects, both by reducing the visual prominence of turbines and allowing turbines to be moved away from the boundary between the Craggy Upland (7) and Craggy Upland with Settled Glens (7a) landscape types and improve the ‘fit’ of the turbines to the landform. 2. The removal of turbine 18 would help to reduce visual effects from some viewpoints notably: • A816 Kilmore (viewpoint 4) - where its removal would be likely to render the effect ‘not significant’; • Pulpit Hill in Oban (viewpoint 5) – to increase the distance/ separation from the nearest turbine; and
Page 36
Classification: OFFICIAL • A818 near Knipoch Hotel (viewpoint 6) which lies within the North West Argyll LLA/ APQ - to reduce the prominence of the wind farm on the rugged skyline and its effect on the LLA. 3. Consideration should also be given to removal/ resiting further southwest or reducing the scale of turbines 2, 4 and 6 at the northeast end of the wind farm to reduce the effect on the landscape of Glen Lonan and the Craggy Upland with Settled Glens and visual impacts on users of the C32/ Caledonia Way. This, along with removal of turbine 18 would also reduce the arc of the view from the C32 road near Dun-neil (viewpoint 3), Blackcrofts, by North Connell Hall (viewpoint 8), Oban Lismore Ferry (viewpoint 10), Tralee Beach (viewpoint 11), Kilcheran, Lismore (viewpoint 14) and Duart Castle, Isle of Mull (viewpoint 16). Removal/ resiting of turbines 2 and 6 would also potentially lessen the prominence of the wind farm from Dun Ladain Fort (viewpoint 1). 4. Felling of 27.44 ha of woodland and forest would be required for construction of the access including 5.63 ha of AWI woodland. Of the total felling, 10.76 ha of woodland would be restocked on site. The remaining 16.68 ha of felled woodland would not be restocked within the site, but compensation planting would be required to comply with the Scottish Government's Control of Woodland Removal Policy. The Applicant commits to providing appropriate compensatory planting to be agreed with Scottish Forestry and controlled through planning conditions. Where possible restocking should be local to the windfarm area and comprise native species broadleaf woodland to help offset losses of AWI woodland, enhance the surrounding landscape and potentially provide ‘positive effects for biodiversity’ (in line with NPF4 Policy 2). 5. It is recommended that ‘smart’ aviation lighting (ADLS) activated by approaching aircraft (as referenced in the Design Statement, but not the current proposal) is implemented if it is approved for use in UK airspace before construction of the wind farm. 7.44. The effects of visible aviation lighting are concerning particularly given the large number of applications in Argyll & Bute where turbine lighting is proposed. While it is accepted that the day-time effects of the proposal would be of greater significance and would be likely to affect more people, consideration should be given to future mitigation of the effects of lighting on the dark skies of Argyll. It is therefore also strongly recommended that an Aircraft Detection Lighting System should be installed at the earliest opportunity as this would reduce the duration and impact of night-time lighting. 7.45. The Applicant has provided a response to the key points raised by the Council’s Landscape Advisor in a letter dated 29/9/25. They advise that whilst they consider the proposal in it current form adheres to good design practice and appropriate mitigation, they have considered the further mitigation recommended by the Council’s consultant. This is summarised as follows: Reduction in Turbine Size and Corresponding Closer Spacing - At Corr Chnoc, the spacing of turbines is already as tightly compressed as is technically appropriate. It would be ill-advised to tighten the spacing any further, particularly to the east of the array where the turbines will often be in a downwind position. This compromise in turbine spacing had to be made for environmental and EIA reasons including, but not limited to: • The avoidance of watercourse buffers;
Page 37
Classification: OFFICIAL • The avoidance of peat and deep peat; • The avoidance of sensitive NVC communities; • Ornithology considerations; and • Reducing landscape and visual impacts by pulling turbines as close to the southern land boundary as possible Aside from the environmental constraints listed above the Council’s Landscape Advisor suggests that opting for smaller turbines could enable tightened spacing. The applicant advises that this is not the case at Corr Chnoc. The candidate turbines assessed at Corr Chnoc have a minimum hub height of 119m. Whilst it is theoretically possible to specify non-standard tower sections with turbine manufacturers (to reduce hub heights and thus tip heights), this comes at significant expense. Reducing tip heights would also lead to a reduced energy output due to lower wind speeds (and thus reduced contributions towards CO2 reductions). Furthermore, given the turbine spacing is based on rotor diameter not tip height, reducing the maximum heights in isolation would not enable tighter layout spacing. The Removal of Turbine 18 - The applicant recognises that T18 is the most visible turbine from VPs 4 and 6, where significant effects were identified in the EIA Report. On balance and considering the environmental and social benefits of the proposed development, landscape and visual effects were deemed to be acceptable in the conclusions of the supporting planning statement. Nevertheless, acknowledging the Council's landscape advice, the Applicant is prepared to accept the additional mitigation measure of deleting T18 should this allow the Planning Committee to come to a positive view of the acceptability of the proposal on landscape grounds. The removal and/or resisting further southwest of turbines 2, 4 and 6 - For the reasons listed previously relating to turbine spacing and environmental constraints, it is not possible to move turbines 2, 4 or 6 to the south west. Moving turbines 4 and 6 in this direction would infringe on watercourse buffers and likely increase the impact on peat. It would also further compress the turbine separation distances which are already within the design goals identified for the project. Turbine 2 could be moved south west without impacting a watercourse buffer or negatively effecting separation distances. However, doing so would raise the ground level of the turbine (making it more visible) and push it into areas of peat. As such, none of the suggested changes relating to resiting can be achieved without negative environmental impacts. The applicant contends that deleting these turbines would avoid the issues described above but it is not proportionate or necessary in the planning balance to delete 27% of a 11-turbine project (considering the removal of T18). They feel that this is particularly true given that Jacobs already accept that appropriate design mitigation has been applied. 7.46. Officer’s Conclusion 7.47. Based on the advice of the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect and the applicant’s agreement to delete Turbine 18 from the scheme, it is concluded that the proposal does not warrant an objection on landscape and visual grounds. 1. The mitigation suggested by the Council’s landscape advisor addresses landscape and visual issues and has not considered the technical feasibility of the proposed mitigation or knock on effects of relocating turbines. As noted in the paragraphs above, the applicant has responded to the Council’s Landscape Advisor’s comments and has detailed the reasons why it would be technically difficult or uneconomically viable to implement some of these measures. The applicant has, however, agreed to the
Page 38
Classification: OFFICIAL recommendation requesting the removal of Turbine 18. The removal of this outlier turbine would have a number of positive effects in that it would help to reduce visual effects from some viewpoints notably; A816 Kilmore (VP 4) where its removal would be likely to render the effect ‘not significant’; Pulpit Hill in Oban (VP 5) to increase the distance/ separation from the nearest turbine; and; A818 near Knipoch Hotel (VP 6) – this lies within the North Argyll LLA/APQ and the removal of T18 would reduce the prominence of the wind farm on the rugged skyline and its effect on the LLA. 7.48. Taking account of the above, and balancing the consideration of landscape and visual issues against other policies in the Development Plan, it is considered that the removal of Turbine 18 would make a positive contribution to the landscape and visual effects of this wind farm. It is considered that with the removal of this turbine the proposal would accord with the relevant development plan policies and it would not be reasonable to require the addition mitigation, namely a reduction in size of the turbines and the removal / resiting or reducing the scale of turbine 2, 4 and 6, due to technical and other difficulties outline by the applicant. 7.49. With the deletion of Turbine 18 and the consideration of the remaining mitigation recommended by the Council’s Landscape Advisor, namely the imposition of an ADLS planning condition and the agreement of an appropriate local native species woodland restocking plan, 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 ABLDP2 in this respect. 8. IMPACTS ON TOURISM AND RECREATION 8.1. Tourism – Policy 11 of NPF4 does not include a requirement for the impact of proposals on tourism to be assessed. However, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP does. In Argyll & Bute the landscape is regarded as being a particularly valued asset both in terms of its intrinsic qualities and in terms of its value to the tourism economy. For all types of development, the maintenance of landscape character is an important facet of decision-making in the countryside in Argyll & Bute, regardless of the scale of development proposed. 8.2. As Tourism and Landscape & Visual matters are intrinsically linked, and there is little evidence to demonstrate whether wind farms adversely affect tourism, it is considered that such impacts are covered in the landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal. 8.3. Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 04 – Sustainable Development and 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of ABLDP2 in this respect. 9. PUBLIC ACCESS 9.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on public access are addressed, including impact on long distance
Page 39
Classification: OFFICIAL walking, and cycling routes and scenic routes. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and those scenic routes identified in the NPF. Policy 32 – Active Travel of LDP2 requires active travel and recreation to be integrated in developments from the start of the wider design process and existing active travel networks should be safeguarded and integrated with the development. 9.2. There are limited pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the site, however, immediately to the north 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 length between the A85 and NCN route 78. This route crosses the access track in Glen Lonan. 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, also at Taynuilt. There are also a number of forest paths in the site. 9.3. In relation to the Core Paths and forest paths within the site, the EIAR, as a worst case scenario, assumes that the traffic impacting these paths will increase by over 100%. However, the construction vehicles will only cross the site and not use the C32 for direct access. The Construction Phase Effects Survey concludes that Core Path / C32 users and forest path users are likely to experience significant effects prior to the application of mitigation measures. The EIAR notes that the impacts related solely to the peak of construction activities and that the construction period is short lived and the effects are temporary in nature. Whilst it acknowledges that other months within the construction programme may cause significant effects, these would be less than those addressed in the peak month of construction and for which mitigation measures have been proposed. 9.4. With mitigation, as specified by the EIAR, in place, the EIAR concludes that the construction traffic effects would be transitory nature and not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. No long term issues would be associated with the construction phase of the development. 9.5. 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 submission of an Access Plan. 9.6. Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; and Policy 32 - Active Travel of the ABLDP2. This is subject to the inclusion of a condition for an Access Plan. 10. AVIATION AND DEFENCE INTERESTS INCLUDING SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING 10.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed. Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would compromise the safe operation of an Aerodrome or Technical Site or constrain their present or future operations.
Page 40
Classification: OFFICIAL 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. Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd – have advised the ECU that the proposal is outwith HIAL’s safeguarding criteria and they have no objection to the proposal. 10.4. Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Ministry of Defence, it is concluded the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes, of the ABLDP2 in this respect. 11. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING INSTALLATIONS 11.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, have been addressed particularly, ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. 11.2. BT have advised the ECU that they have no objection. 11.3. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on telecommunications, broadcasting installations and transmission links (including cumulative impacts) and is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 in this respect. 12. ROAD TRAFFIC AND 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 that they are satisfied with the submitted EIAR and have no objections to the development in terms of environmental impacts on the trunk road network. In their initial consultation response to the ECU, TS requested an additional drawing for the site access junction. Following the submission of the Clarification Report (CR) submitted by the applicant, TS advise that they are now satisfied with both the submitted EIAR and CR and have no objections to the development subject to conditions and an advisory noted as detailed in their consultation response to the ECU dated 11/9/25. 12.3. ABC’s Roads & Amenity Services have advised they have no objection subject to conditions to secure:
Page 41
Classification: OFFICIAL • New accesses at junction with public road, (UC32 Glenlonan)to be constructed in accordance with Operational Services Drg No SD08/001a and aligned to 90° to the public road. New accesses on UC32 to be staggered for a minimum 30m and not be directly opposite each other. • No walls, fences, hedges etc will be permitted within 2m from the channel line of the public road. Visibility splays measuring 84m x 2.4m to be cleared and maintained at connections with UC32 Road • A system of surface water drainage is required to prevent the flow of water from passing onto the public road. Any roadside ditch/drains to be culverted in agreement with Roads. • Road signs and road markings as per TSRGD to be installed as following: • Signs as per Dia 504.1 to be installed at an agreed location on the public road, (UC32) east and west of new junctions. • Road markings as per Dia 1002.1 and 1022 to be installed at new junctions at connections with UC32. • Junction signs as per Dia 601.1 to be installed at junctions with public road. 12.4. Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Area Roads Manager and 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 Area Roads and Amenity Services are attached to any consent granted by the ECU. 13. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 13.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on the historic environment have been addressed. Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4 intent is to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings. Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment, Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments, Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes, and Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance support the key policies and provide guidance on assessing development proposals against heritage impacts. 13.2. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) – initially objected to this proposal but subsequently withdrew their objection following the submission of a further technical note. They advised the ECU that the proposed wind farm would result in adverse impacts to the settings of a number of scheduled monuments but it is considered that these impacts would be just below the level of significant adverse impact on the integrity of the setting for any individual scheduled monument. Conditions were recommended to the ECU. 13.3. West of Scotland Archaeology Service – No response has been received from WoSAS to date. 13.4. Having due regard to the above subject to the conditions recommended by Historic Environment Scotland it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy and Policy 7 – Historic Assets and
Page 42
Classification: OFFICIAL 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 to convey the 1 in 200 years plus climate change flood event; and, surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. 14.3. 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. Ornithology – NatureScot (NS) has objected to this application on the basis that it could affect important natural heritage issues. The key issues that NS have with the proposal relate to ornithological impacts. NS considers that there may have been significant impacts on Schedule 1 bird species (Schedule 1 birds associated with this site for this proposal include red throated diver, golden eagle, white tailed eagle and hen harrier) through the siting and use of Vantage Points (VPs). NS consider that this: • May have resulted in a breach of Schedule 1 licencing rules (NS are currently investigating this);
Page 43
Classification: OFFICIAL • May have caused disturbance that led to the red throated divers’ breeding attempt to fail; • Likely negatively impacted flight activity of red throated divers and white tailed eagles, and • Have resulted in underestimated flight activity and unreliable collision risk predictions within the EIAR. 15.3. NS has advised that it is not, therefore, possible to fully assess the application. There is concern that, in relation to Schedule 1 bird species, the EIAR has not assessed the correct or adequate data, or considered the increasing cumulative impacts of the area, especially for golden and white tailed eagles. 15.4. NS has provided guidance on how the applicant may address these issues. This comprises the following: • Surveys using appropriately sited VPs (outwith accepted disturbance distances) are needed to monitor breeding season performance of resident Schedule 1 birds. • Surveys using appropriately sited VPs are needed to not impact flight activity and collision risk modelling. • Surveys using appropriately sited VPs are needed to fully assess cumulative impacts on white tailed eagle from existing and planned wind farms in the area. • Correct population data must be used to accurately assess and model impacts on both species of eagles. • Correct information and assessment of the impacts on the golden eagle territory. 15.5. Whilst it is understood that there have been ongoing discussions between the developer and NS, these issues have yet to be resolved. If this was a mainstream planning application where the Council was the determining authority, officers would rely on the advice of NS (in terms of national issues) before concluding whether the proposal would comply with the relevant policies. In order for the planning authority to advise whether this proposal would accord with development plan policies LDP2 policies 30 and 73 and NPF 4 policies 3 and 11, this issue would need to be resolved. At this stage it is not clear if, or when a solution will be found which is acceptable to NS. 15.6. In the current circumstances and also taking account of the requirement of NPF4 Policy 1 to give significant weight to the nature crisis as well as the climate crisis, officers are recommending that the Council object to this proposal until such time as the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of NS. 15.7. The RSPB has not objected to this proposal but recommended that a draft White tailed Eagle Management Plan (WEMP) be submitted as additional information. It was also recommended that active, ongoing monitoring and mitigation for white tailed eagle activity on site should be stipulated in the Habitat Management Steering Group (HMSG)’s terms of reference. The application has provided further clarification on these issues in the Clarification Report submitted in August 2025. The RSPB has not responded to this report. 15.8. Marsh Fritillary Butterflies - Marsh Fritillary (MF) butterflies are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). They are also included on the Scottish Biodiversity List and are an Annex II species on the EC Habitats Directive. In their consultation response to the ECU dated 16 May 2025, NatureScot expressed a lack of confidence in the anticipated success of the “pollinator corridor” because on the one hand, beyond devil’s bit scabious being the host for Marsh
Page 44
Classification: OFFICIAL Fritillary larvae, little is known about the detailed nuances required of their particular habitat and so there is no guarantee that a created habitat will be suitable and match this species’ specific needs. There are so many elements to a naturally occurring habitat that it is hard to replicate. They also lacked confidence in the pollinator corridor mitigation plan because the EIA report/HMP/OHMP lacked details for e.g. on: • how it would be created • the existing habitats • how the applicant intends to “enhance” the land • the grazers, their density • how maintenance and monitoring would be guaranteed in the event the corridor land (which is out with the wind farm envelope) changes ownership during operational lifetime of the windfarm • how the pollinator corridor is expected to function or benefit Marsh Fritillary or other lepidoptera species that are included within the habitat management aims. 15.9. The applicant’s Clarification Report supports the applicant’s claims that there is poor MF habitat on the site based upon nine quadrant locations surveyed for devil’s bit scabious (DBS) which represented less than 4% of each quadrant. NS contend that nine quadrants from the whole area are not sufficient to judge the suitability of the habitat across the whole site. It also depends on when the quadrats were surveyed as DBS may not have been fully up to speed and in any case will not all be in flower at one time so allowing a spread of availability for species using it over the season. 15.10. NS undertook a site visit in September 2025 along with Butterfly Conservation Scotland (BCS). BCS contend that “Some areas of good Marsh Frit breeding habitat were discovered within the WFA. Specifically, two locations at NM90068 26020 and NM91248 26110 had scabious in relative abundance that was well above any threshold for habitat suitability. There were other patches of note where Marsh Fritillary could potentially breed.” 15.11. It was also noted by NS and BCS on 4 Sept that the current track design crosses a wetland area where scabious is present at NM91423 25765 and runs in close proximity to some other suitable patches. Any changes to the plan and/or micro-siting of infrastructure could potentially impact these patches. Not all proposed track routes, turbine locations and other infrastructure were checked on the visit. 15.12. NatureScot has not objected on this basis, however, it is noted that there are still unresolved issues between the applicant and NatureScot and it is recommended that the ECU give further consideration to this issue prior to determining the application. 15.13. Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) 15.14. SEPA - following further clarification on GWDTE have advised that they • Welcome the mitigation proposals including the provision of signage on site, a constraint drawing in the CEMP and the restriction of micrositing to preclude detrimental infrastructure adjustments. They advise that this should be added as a condition to any granted consent. • They note that Turbine T4 would be restricted from moving east towards the W4b community. They advise that this should be added as a condition to any granted consent. • The track between T2 and T6 is constrained by topography, however, we note that GWDTE in this area have been identified as unlikely to be highly groundwater dependent.
Page 45
Classification: OFFICIAL • Track between T5 and T6 is constrained by topography and the suppliers requirements. M23a in this area is unlikely to be groundwater dependent, however W4b may be and should be avoided where possible. • Track between T14 and T18 we note that GWDTE in this area have been identified as unlikely to be highly groundwater dependent. Their consultation responses to the ECU should be considered to be an objection if the conditions they recommend are not applied. 15.15. Peat 15.16. SEPA initially submitted a holding objection to the ECU in relation to peat. They raised concerns the section of track between turbines T14 and T18 regarding the encroachment of deep peat and the indirect route taken. Following the submission of further information from the applicant demonstrating that a more direct route would result in increased peat disturbance, SEPA advised that the current alignment was considered to be the best placement. 15.17. With regard to peat reinstatement, SEPA initially submitted a holding objection to the reinstatement of borrow pits with 8,300m³ of peat. They requested that the applicant should provide an explanation of how the integrity of the peat as a store of carbon would be maintained if it is reinstated in an area which does not currently support deep peat as this is something that SEPA would not support. Following the provision of further information regarding the reuse of peat, SEPA advised in an email to the ECU dated 12/9/25 that they were now in a position to remove their holding objection. 15.18. Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment 15.19. Ironside Farrar initially advised the ECU that the PLHRA required minor revisions. The Applicant provided clarifications and Ironside Farrar have subsequently advised the ECU that the Applicants response adequately address the queries raised no further assessment is required at this stage. 15.20. The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer (LBO) welcomes the inclusion of Species Protection Plan (SPP), Bird Disturbance Management Plan (BDMP), the appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) and the use of best practice measures on site at all times. The LBO also recommends that 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. 16. TREES, WOODS, AND FORESTS 16.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on trees, woods and forests have been addressed. Policy 6 – Forestry, woodland, and Trees of NPF4 intent is to protect and expand forests, woodland, and trees. Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees of LDP2 states that there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting our woodland resources. Policy 78 – Woodland Removal of LDP2 states that proposals that would involve the removal of woodland resources will be assessed against the criteria for determining the acceptability of woodland removal, in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. Where this assessment concludes that compensatory planting would be appropriate, developers will need to provide for this in
Page 46
Classification: OFFICIAL accordance with the advice in the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. 16.2. Scottish Forestry (SF) advised the ECU that from their desk exercise it would seem that 5.63ha of Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) lost is category 2a – Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS). SF would expect that the compensatory planting area exceeds the area lost as per The Guidance. There is no agreed metric for calculating the exceedance and the applicant should discuss a suitable method of calculation with their ecology and forestry advisors. In addition, SF advise that the small native woodland loss proposed at Dailnamac requires compensatory planting in exceedance of the area lost. In terms of the road design, SF advise that this addresses the NPF 4 hierarchy of mitigation by making use of existing forestry roads as far as possible. It is also noted that that the EIA describes how site surveys informed a reworking of the track design to prevent the need to fell any Ancient Woodland. SF are satisfied with the proposal subject to the provision of a PAWS and native woodland (Dailnamac) plan which proposed compensatory planting in exceedance of the area lost and a condition securing compensatory planting. 16.3. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to the requirements of Scottish Forestry this element of the proposal is consent it is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 6 – Forestry, woodland and Trees of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees and 78 – Woodland Removal of the LDP2. 17. MINERALS 17.1. Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 states that development proposals for borrow pits will only be supported where: the proposal is tied to a specific project and is time-limited; the proposal complies with the mineral extraction criteria in Policy 33 taking into account the temporary nature of the development; and appropriate restoration proposals are enforceable and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 states that proposals for mineral extraction will generally be supported for borrow pits where the proposal is found to be acceptable after being assessed against National Planning Framework 4 Policy 33 criterion e). 17.2. The EIAR notes that in order to minimise the amount of stone required to be imported on to site, up to two borrow pits may be used. Borrow Pit 1 could yield approximately 30,000 m³ of construction aggregate while borrow pit 2 could yield 24,000m³. 17.3. Having due regard to the above taking into account that the proposed borrow pits are tied to the proposal it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 and Policy 31 – Minerals of the ABLDP2 in this regard, subject to a condition to secure details of the borrow pit and a borrow pit restoration plan. 18. DECOMMISSIONING, SITE RESTORATION AND QUALITY OF SITE RESTORATION PLANS 18.1. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how proposals for the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration have been addressed. It also requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the quality of site restoration plans have been addressed including the measures in place to safeguard or guarantee availability of finances to effectively implement those plans. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 requires consideration to be given to the long-term
Page 47
Classification: OFFICIAL 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, a decision would be made as to whether to refurbish, remove or replace the turbines. If refurbishment or replacement were chosen, then the relevant consent applications would be made. If a decision was taken to decommission the development, this would entail the removal of all the turbine components, transformers, the substation, BESS facility, compound fences and associated buildings. Access tracks where required for forestry use and underground cables would be left in place and foundations removed to a depth of 0.5m below ground level to avoid environmental effects from removal. Crane hardstandings and sections of access track no longer required would be removed or partially removed and restored in accordance with industry guidance. A Site Decommissioning Plan would set out environmental protection measures and restoration principles which should be implemented. 18.3. It is recommended that this matter is covered by 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 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 12 wind turbines all at blade tip heights of up to 200m, each with an indicative capacity of approximately 7.2 MW along with a 25 MW BESS. The proposed development would have a generating capacity of up to 111.4MW, with the BESS and wind turbines combined 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 EIAR states that the Proposed Development would have the potential to generate 13,283 GWh of renewable energy over its operational lifetime 50 years. This saves 112,640 tCO2e/year, from the
Page 48
Classification: OFFICIAL equivalent energy sourced from fossil fuels (equivalent to 5,631,976 tCO2e over the lifetime of the Proposed Development). When taking account of the limited absolute emissions (Ab) generated by the wind farm, the relative emissions (Re) and total saving equates to 5,307,505 tCO2e. 20.4. The EIAR concludes that he Proposed Development’s greenhouse gas emissions across its full lifetime were calculated in an offline version of the SEPA Carbon Calculator, as the online version of the Carbon Calculator is temporarily unavailable due to a server migration issue. These were quantified as being 324,471 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e), mainly due to manufacture of the turbines, the construction and decommissioning processes, some initial tree felling and the requirement to maintain backup generation for when the wind turbines are not operational. These emissions would be offset by the production of renewable energy, saving 112,640 tCO2e per year compared to a Fossil Fuel Mix Scenario of generated electricity (or 5,307,505 tCO2e over the Proposed Development’s operational lifetime when accounting for the limited emissions generated by the wind farm itself). 20.5. The layout of the Proposed Development has been designed to minimise disturbance to peat and carbon losses by avoiding deep peat where possible, and through the proposed construction approach, including progressive restoration, with peat excavated from other areas placed directly on the sides of the tracks. These preventative designs, best practice implementation and mitigation measures result in a short carbon payback period of 2.9 years (compared to a Fossil Fuel Mix Scenario of electricity) or 5.9 years compared to a grid mix of generation. Over the 50-year operational lifetime it is expected that the Proposed Development’s carbon footprint would be repaid more than seventeen times over, compared to the fossil fuel generation it is expected to displace. It is therefore concluded that the Proposed Development would have a major beneficial, and thus significant beneficial effect on greenhouse gas emissions. 20.6. 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 Applicant has secured a grid connection to the Creag Dhubh substation. The grid connection does not form part of this Application and is subject to a future application subject to the development receiving planning consent. 21.3. Energy storage – The project will have a BESS with a capacity up to 25 MW located adjacent to the on-site substation. This 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.
Page 49
Classification: OFFICIAL 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. 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. Whilst it is considered that this proposal will have a significant landscape and visual impact, it is not considered that it warrants an objection from the Council subject to the deletion of Turbine 18 and the consideration of the remaining mitigation recommended by the Council’s Landscape Advisor, namely clarification on the RVAA issue, the imposition of an ADLS planning condition and the agreement of an appropriate local native species woodland restocking plan. 23.4. It is also recommended that the in reaching a determination, the ECU have regard to the request for conditions in relation to noise, public access and roads and also consider the biodiversity issues relating to bats and marsh fritillary butterflies. 23.5. It is, however, recommended that Argyll and Bute Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that there are unresolved ornithology issues contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policies 3 and 11 and LDP2 Policies 30 and 73, and it is not possible to reach a conclusion on the proposal's acceptability in this regard at this time. If these matters are resolved to the satisfaction of NatureScot, Argyll & Bute Council would withdraw this objection.
Page 50
Classification: OFFICIAL 24. RECOMMENDATION That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) Argyll & Bute Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that there are unresolved ornithology issues contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policies 3 and 11 and LDP2 Policies 30 and 73, and it 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 NatureScot, Argyll & Bute Council will withdraw this objection. Should the objection remain unresolved and the proposal progresses to Public Inquiry, Argyll and Bute would defer to NatureScot. (2) Argyll & Bute Council does not object on landscape and visual grounds subject to the removal of Turbine 18 (as agreed by the applicant). The Council recommends the following advice is also considered by the Energy Consents Unit: Mitigation - Consideration should be given to the mitigation recommended by the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect: 1. Felling of 27.44 ha of woodland and forest would be required for construction of the access including 5.63 ha of AWI woodland. Of the total felling, 10.76 ha of woodland would be restocked on site. The remaining 16.68 ha of felled woodland would not be restocked within the site, but compensation planting would be required to comply with the Scottish Government's Control of Woodland Removal Policy. The Applicant commits to providing appropriate compensatory planting to be agreed with Scottish Forestry and controlled through planning conditions. Where possible restocking should be local to the windfarm area and comprise native species broadleaf woodland to help offset losses of AWI woodland, enhance the surrounding landscape and potentially provide ‘positive effects for biodiversity’ (in line with NPF4 Policy 2). 2. Smart aviation lighting (ADLS) activated by approaching aircraft be implemented if it is approved for use in UK airspace before construction of the windfarm. A condition is recommended to ensure that ADLS be installed should it become available for use in the UK. (3) Argyll and Bute does not object on noise impact grounds subject to the inclusion of a condition recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant including the apportioned limits as set out in the July 2025 response from the applicant (Metrica 15/7/25). (4) Argyll and Bute Council does not object on Public Access grounds subject to a condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction.
Page 51
Classification: OFFICIAL (5) Argyll and Bute Council does not object on Roads grounds subject to the conditions specified by the Roads Service in their consultation response dated 14/01/25, namely: • New accesses at junction with public road, (UC32 Glenlonan)to be constructed in accordance with Operational Services Drg No SD08/001a and aligned to 90° to the public road. New accesses on UC32 to be staggered for a minimum 30m and not be directly opposite each other. • No walls, fences, hedges etc will be permitted within 2m from the channel line of the public road. Visibility splays measuring 84m x 2.4m to be cleared and maintained at connections with UC32 Road • A system of surface water drainage is required to prevent the flow of water from passing onto the public road. Any roadside ditch/drains to be culverted in agreement with Roads. • Road signs and road markings as per TSRGD to be installed as following: • Signs as per Dia 504.1 to be installed at an agreed location on the public road, (UC32) east and west of new junctions. • Road markings as per Dia 1002.1 and 1022 to be installed at new junctions at connections with UC32. • Junction signs as per Dia 601.1 to be installed at junctions with public road. (6) Argyll & Bute Council requests that the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer are considered by the ECU: 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. (7) Marsh Fritillary Butterflies: Whilst NatureScot has not objected to this issue, it is noted that there are unresolved issues between the applicant and NatureScot. It is recommended that the ECU gives further consideration to this issue before determining the application. (8) Argyll & Bute Council requests that all other conditions recommended by consultees are included in any Consent.