Public reports pack
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
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 15 October 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2025 at 11:00 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 September 2025 at 11.00 am (Pages 3 - 14) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 September 2025 at 2.30 pm (Pages 15 - 16) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 September 2025 at 3.30 pm (Pages 17 - 18) (d) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 30 September 2025 at 10.00 am (Pages 19 - 32) (e) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 30 September 2025 at 2.00 pm (Pages 33 - 34) 4. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR WIND FARM CONSISTING OF 9 TURBINES EACH WITH A MAXIMUM BLADE TIP HEIGHT OF UP TO 180 METRES. GENERATING CAPACITY WILL BE MORE THAN 50MW: KILLEAN ESTATE, NEAR TAYINLOAN (REF: 24/01541/S36) (Pages 35 - 82) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
5. 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) (Pages 83 - 136) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair (Vice-Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Shona Barton, Governance Manager Peter Bain, Development Manager Bryn Bowker, Area Team Leader – Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader - Bute, Cowal, Helensburgh and Lomond David Moore, Senior Planning Officer Stuart Ramsay, Senior Planning Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey and Mark Irvine. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Graham Hardie declared a non-financial interest in Planning Application reference 25/00535/PP as members of his family submitted letters of support in respect of this proposal. Councillor Hardie also declared a non-financial interest in Enforcement Case Reference 15/00051/ENAMEN as his wife was a friend of the landowner. He confirmed that he would leave the meeting and take no part in the consideration of these cases which were dealt with at items 5 and 9 of this Minute. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 August 2025 at 11.00 am was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 August 2025 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 August 2025 at 3.30 pm was approved as a correct record. Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
4. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT SECTION 36 CONSULTATION: CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF BALLIEMEANOCH PUMPED STORAGE HYDRO SCHEME: 4.4 KM TO THE SOUTH OF PORTSONACHAN AND 9 KM NORTHWEST OF INVERARAY (REF: 24/01324/S36) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report which provided a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit and Deployment Unit consultation on a revised Section 36 Application for the construction and operation of Balliemeanoch Pumped Storage Hydro Scheme at land 4.4 km to the South of Portsonachan and 9 km Northwest of Inveraray. Before proceeding with his presentation, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Applicant had submitted a late Community Wealth Economic Growth and Resilience submission, which had been circulated by the Applicant to the Members and a copy of this had also been placed on public record. This submission stated that the Applicant wished to commit to funded apprenticeships - a £500,000 fund for apprenticeships and training working with the University of the Highlands and Islands to deliver training and legacy benefits by seeking to utilise young people in both the construction and future operation of the facility. Secondly, a Community Resilience Fund of £50,000 per annum for 25 years to tackle the effects of climate change, a total of £1.25 million, and thirdly, the construction of 12 new homes in Inveraray within the approved Masterplan area, which would initially be used by the Senior Project Managers and, thereafter, would be transferred for general housing use, either to a Registered Social Landlord, or for general occupation in the area. He advised that community benefits were not normally considered to be material planning considerations and were a voluntary contribution matter dealt with out with the planning system and out with Officer reports. He said, however, that it was his opinion that the training provision commitment and the housing provision commitment could be regarded as material planning considerations to the application in respect of NPF4 Planning Policies 11c and/or Policy 25 and having regard to the Council’s declared Housing Emergency. In respect of the promoted Community Resilience Fund, it was his view that as it was set out, this was not capable of being considered and should not be considered, as a material planning consideration in the determination of this application. The late submission made by the Applicant did not change the recommendation in the main report before the Committee for consideration. This report reviewed the policy considerations which were applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and third party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government. The application details were amended by the Applicant following objections received, mainly expressing concerns relating to the alteration of the water levels of Loch Awe and consequent potential adverse flooding impacts on roads, houses and businesses. There were also objections to the original larger proposal from SEPA and NatureScot related to the impact of the development on peat and habitat. The Applicant has revised and reduced the scale of the development, and the current application has been amended from the original scheme and now constitutes the application details before the Council with the original Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) now supported by additional environmental evaluation contained within the Further Environmental Information (FEI) documentation. Page 4
Page 5
It was recommended that no objection be raised to the revised S36 proposals subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions summarised within the report and other consultation responses and that the current ‘holding objection’ lodged with the Scottish Ministers be withdrawn. Decision The Committee agreed that no objection be raised to the revised S36 proposals subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions summarised within the report and other consultation responses and that the current ‘holding objection’ lodged with the Scottish Ministers be withdrawn. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 5 September 2025, submitted) Councillor Graham Hardie, having declared an interest in the following item, left the meeting at this point. 5. TARBERT HARBOUR AUTHORITY: EXTENSION OF EXISTING CAR PARK TO FORM MIX OF CAR PARKING AND BOAT STORAGE AND FORMATION OF SLIPWAY: LAND ADJACENT TO MARINA OFFICE, GARVAL ROAD, TARBERT (REF: 25/00535/PP) The Area Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report. This is an application for an extension of an existing car park to form a mix of car parking and boat storage and formation of a slipway at an existing established marina site. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP) 2, the application site is located within a Conservation Area, near listed buildings and Scheduled Monuments and within the Settlement Area of Tarbert. The site is also identified within a Tourist Development Opportunities area. A total of 57 representations have been received for the application, for which 16 were in support, 21 neutral and 40 in objection to the proposal. There have been no objections received from statutory consultees. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to S25 of the Act. It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons: Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Page 5
Page 6
Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 01.04.2025, supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan 107065-MMD-01- XX-DR-C-0120 2 23.04.2025 Location Plan 1:750 107065-MMD-01- XX-DR-C-0121 2 23.04.2025 Existing Site Plan 107065-MMD-01- XX-DR-C-0122 2 23.04.2025 Proposed Site Plan (Winter Use) 107065-MMD-01- XX-DR-C-0130 2 23.04.2025 Proposed Site Plan (Summer Use - Car Parking) 107065-MMD-01- XX-DR-C-0131 2 23.04.2025 Proposed Site Plan (Mixed Use) 107065-MMD-01- XX-DR-C-0132 2 23.04.2025 Boat Recovery Positions 107065-MMD-01- XX-DR-C-0136 2 23.04.2025 Proposed Site Sections and Finished Floor Level (Section A-A and Section B- B) 107065-MMD-01- XX-DR-C-0135 2 23.04.2025 Proposed Site Sections and Finished Floor Level (Section C-C and Section D- D) 107065-MMD-01- XX-DR-C-0137 2 23.04.2025 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 1, for the purposes of clarity strictly no excavation shall take place below the public road / toe of embankment. Reason: In the interests of Road Safety. 3. PP – Road Condition Survey No development shall commence until a survey recording the condition of between the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road / U40 Shore Road (Garvel Road) junction and the application site has been undertaken and deposited with the Roads Authority. The survey shall be undertaken to a specification which has first been agreed in writing with the Roads Authority and shall address the condition of the carriageway and Page 6
Page 7
verges and the condition of any bridges and culverts along the route. (Video recording would be beneficial). Reason: To establish the condition of the public road prior to construction works being commenced in order to provide a baseline against which the need for reinstatement works may be assessed. Note to Applicant: Damage arising from abnormal traffic associated with the construction of this development shall be reinstated in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Roads Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 either upon significant damage being identified during the course of construction works, or following a final inspection upon completion of construction works, whichever is the sooner. 4. PP – Construction Traffic Management Plan and Method Statement No development shall commence until a Traffic Management Plan and Method Statement has been submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. The Traffic Management plan should include details of all materials, plant, equipment components and labour required during the construction works. The Plan shall also detail approved access routes, agreed operational practices (including avoidance of convoy movements, specifying conduct in use of passing places, identification of turning areas, reporting of verge damage) and shall provide for the provision of an appropriate Code of Practice to drivers of construction and delivery vehicles. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved Traffic Management Plan. Reason: To address abnormal traffic associated with the development in the interests of road safety. 5. PP - Parking and Turning As Shown The parking and turning area shall be laid out and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. This shall include provision for 3 disabled parking spaces. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 6. PP – Basic Landscape/Surface/Boundary Treatment No development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of: i) Location, design and materials any proposed walls, fences and gates; ii) Surface treatment of proposed means of access and hardstanding areas; iii) Any proposed re-contouring of the site by means of existing and proposed ground levels; iv) Proposed hard and soft landscape works; Page 7
Page 8
The development shall not be occupied until such time as the boundary treatment, surface treatment and any re-contouring works have been completed in accordance with the duly approved scheme. All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme during the first planting season following the commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity. 7. PP – Biodiversity Enhancement Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until a biodiversity statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The statement shall demonstrate how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be implemented and maintained for the lifetime of the development. All physical biodiversity enhancement measures (bird nesting boxes, ‘swift bricks’, wildlife ponds, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes etc) shall be implemented in full before the development hereby approved is first brought into use. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within the next available planting season following the development first being brought into use. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. Note to applicant: Your attention is drawn to the consultation comments of the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer regarding suggested biodiversity enhancement measures. 8. No development, including demolition and/or construction works associated with the hereby approved development shall take place outside 08.00 hours to 18.00 hours Mondays to Fridays; 08.00 hours to 13.00 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Any variation to the hours of operation shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any agreed change being implemented. Reason - To ensure that the residential amenities that occupiers can reasonably expect to enjoy are adequately protected. 9. No development shall commence until details of flood risk signage to be erected at the application site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Council’s Flood Risk Advisor. The duly approved details shall be implemented thereafter prior to commencement of first use of the hereby approved development. Page 8
Page 9
Reason: In order to ensure appropriate mitigation for flood risk. 10. PP - Bird Breeding Season The removal of any vegetation or trees should be undertaken outside the nesting bird season (March-September) or alternatively a nesting bird survey should be undertaken to confirm no active nests are present. The survey shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority prior to the removal of any vegetation and trees. Reason: To protect breeding birds in the interests of nature conservation. 11. PP – Pre-commencement Survey No development or other work shall be carried out on the site until a pre- commencement survey for the presence of Otters has been carried out by an appropriately qualified person and has been submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Council’s Biodiversity Officer. In circumstances where species of interest are identified as being present, or at risk from construction works, the survey shall further provide suggested avoidance and or mitigation measures, including timing constraints, to address such presence or risk. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the measures identified in the duly approved scheme. Reason: In order to establish that the circumstances of the site have not changed significantly between approval and implementation of the development for the purpose of protecting natural heritage assets in the interest of nature conservation. 12. PP – Surface Water Drainage – No further detail required Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C753. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. 13. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until the design and external construction materials to be used in the proposed boat wash water treatment unit shown on the hereby approved plan ref 107065-MMD-01-XX-DR- C-0130 Rev 2 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity. 14. PP – Construction Environmental Management Plan Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall have been submitted to and approved Page 9
Page 10
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved plan shall be fully adhered to throughout the construction period, and shall provide, amongst other things, for: - measures for controlling dust and preventing any spills; - specifications and a timetable of works for the construction phase of the development; - pollution prevention measures including management of plant, materials, chemicals and fuels, and washing/storage arrangements; - the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; - loading and unloading of plant and materials; - the erection and maintenance of any security hoarding/fencing. The submitted details shall have regard to SEPA's Guidelines for Pollution Prevention 5: Works and maintenance in or near water. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and the natural environment. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 2 September 2025, submitted) Councillor Hardie returned to the meeting. 6. SAULMORE BAY RESORT LTD: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR MARINA; BOATYARD INCLUDING ANCILLARY OFFICES (CLASS 4) AND STORE (CLASS 6); LEISURE RESORT INCLUDING BUILDINGS FOR OFFICES (CLASS 4), LEISURE USE, GYM AND SPA (CLASS 11), RETAIL (CLASS 1A), RESTAURANTS AND CAFES (CLASS 3), AND RELATED USES; HOLIDAY LODGES (SUI GENERIS); AND OTHER HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION TYPES (SUI GENERIS); NEW PARKING AREAS, ROADS, WALKWAYS, AND CYCLEWAYS; DRAINAGE AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE; AND LANDSCAPING AND BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT: LAND AT CAMUS BRUAICH RUAIDHE, CONNEL (REF: 25/01210/PAN) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The proposed site is located within open countryside, adjacent to the western settlement boundary of Connel and to the North of the A85, around Camus Bruaich Ruaidhe bay (Loch Etive). The site is also identified as a Potential Development Area (PDA) in the adopted Local Development Plan 2 for a Marina/Leisure/Tourism use. The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and summarises the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. It was recommended that Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of the PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submission. Decision Page 10
Page 11
The Committee noted the content of the report and requested that the following matters be given consideration in finalising any future planning application submission – • To ensure that any improvements to infrastructure are tied into neighbouring developments or potential developments as outlined in LDP2, in particular, the Oban Development Road, leisure development (potential Golf Course) and maybe housing nearby. • Minimise impacts on transport links and potentially have a benefit that can be shared across several developments. • Any development to be undertaken to have a high standard of sensitivity to this area. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 29 August 2025, submitted) Councillor Peter Wallace left the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. 7. UPDATE ON PLANNING PERMISSION NON-DETERMINATION APPEAL: LAND TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST OF TAYNUILT SUBSTATION, TAYNUILT The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The planning application for the Battery Energy Storage Unit at land to the immediate West of Taynuilt Substation was presented to Members for determination on 18 June 2025 with a recommendation from Officers that it should be approved. At this meeting Members agreed to hold a pre-determination hearing to assist them in making a determination on whether to approve or refuse this application. The Applicant has now lodged an appeal to Scottish Ministers on the basis of non- determination which means the matter has been removed from Council process without Members have an opportunity to express a formal view and the site visit and hearing have now been superseded by the appeal and can now no longer proceed. Within the appeals process there is an opportunity for the Planning Authority to make submission to the Reporter on the mechanism by which the appeal should be decided. A report seeking a view from Members on the response to the Appeal was considered. Decision The Committee agreed: 1. to note the submission of the Non-Determination Appeal; and 2. that the response to the Appeal should include the following: • Reflect the factual position the PPSL had reached advising on the level of objection and comment the application has generated and, in particular, that Members had determined to have a site visit and pre-determination hearing and therefore Page 11
Page 12
recommend by submissions that this is a course that the Reporter should follow in this case. • Due to the weight of public opinion the PPSL were of the view that only a site visit and pre-determination hearing would give them a better understanding of the location of the proposed development, before they reached a conclusion on their deliberations. • Members were cognisance of public opinion on this and with that public opinion, as a planning authority, the Committee felt they had a duty not only to look at the Development Plans and Policies and consider applications against those, but to be seen to do that in the eyes of the public. In this case the level of interest was such that for the public to have confidence in the planning system, and the Committee as planning authority, that the Committee were carrying out their role and scrutinising this, and in comparing the application with the policies, that a pre-determination hearing and site visit were the proportionate and appropriate course of action. The Committee were of the view that the only way at this point where they could continue to reach that view reached by democratic decision, and avoid a democratic deficit with that, was for the Reporter now to take on that role of being seen to not only consider the Policies, but to be seen to consider publically these Policies before coming to a decision. • The Committee felt there was more information they required than what was contained in the submissions before them. The Committee felt this information would be more readily obtained from seeing the site first hand and from the hearing. Also in relation to the exact location of the site, the impact on neighbouring properties, noise, and also the potential risks with such a development, and being able to put these into context. They believed having that site visit and hearing, where they would have been able to gather that information directly and follow it up with questions, was vital in this instance. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 5 September 2025, submitted) 8. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ1 2025/26 A report providing an update on the performance of the Development Management Service for the reporting period FQ1 2025/26 was considered. Decision The Committee reviewed and agreed the content of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 8 September 2025, submitted) The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following 2 items of business on the grounds that they were likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Page 12
Page 13
Councillor Graham Hardie, having declared an interest in the following item, left the meeting at this point. 9. ENFORCEMENT REPORT - REFERENCE 15/00051/ENAMEN The Committee considered enforcement case reference 15/00051/ENAMEN. Decision The Committee agreed the recommendations detailed in the report. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 18 September 2024 and supplementary report number 1 dated 16 September 2025, submitted) Page 13
Page 14
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 15
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor Sergeant David Holmes, Police Scotland 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Fiona Howard, Mark Irvine and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF TAXI DRIVER LICENCE (NUMBER 6508) (W CURRIE, ALEXANDRIA) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing Police Scotland opted to proceed by way of audio call and Sergeant David Holmes joined the meeting by telephone. It was noted that the Licence Holder was not present. Before proceeding further, the Chair invited the Council’s Solicitor to provide an update. Mr Walker advised that it had come to Officers’ attention earlier today that the Licence Holder was currently in hospital and that he had not received the required notice that this hearing had been arranged. It was further noted that the Licence Holder was not in a position to attend today or make arrangements for legal representation. For these reasons, the Committee were advised that in the interest of fairness, this hearing should not go ahead today and that, if required, a suspension hearing would be held at a later date. Given the Licence Holder’s current circumstances, the Committee were advised that the risk of him driving his taxi at this time was low. DECISION The Committee noted the position and agreed not to proceed with the suspension hearing at this time. Page 15 Agenda Item 3b
Page 16
(Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 16
Page 17
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor Robert McBride, Applicant 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Fiona Howard, Mark Irvine and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A TAXI CAR LICENCE (R MCBRIDE, ROTHESAY) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and Mr McBride joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT Mr McBride said that this was something he had been thinking about for the last 18 months as his business had been growing and getting busier. He said he was losing a lot of customers with only 2 cars as he could not keep up with demand. He advised that he had taken on extra customers from other cars that were no longer on the rank. He advised that when one of his cars was in the garage this left him with just one car which led to him losing business. He said he was worried if both cars were ever off the road at the same time he would be left with no car to run his business. He said that as he has picked up a lot of new business, and having thought about it for the last 18 months, he believed he now needed another car on the road. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Page 17 Agenda Item 3c
Page 18
Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr McBride that he had 4 full time employees and 2 part time employees. Mr McBride advised that he had another couple of boys willing to help if he had another car on the road. Councillor Green asked Mr McBride if he felt there was a shortage of taxis in Rothesay. Mr McBride said that there was a shortage for his business but he could not speak for the other operator’s business. He said he felt he needed another car on the road as his competitor was picking up the business he was unable to provide and that was another reason for him wanting another car on the road. SUMMING UP Mr McBride reiterated that his business was growing and he thought that was a great thing as he was able to provide employment to other people and there was the chance here to employ more people if he had a third car. He said that he had gotten busier over the last 2 or 3 years and that financially it would work for him to have another car on the road. Mr McBride confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Brown advised that as there had been no objections to this application, that there appeared to be a need for this, and that the Applicant was providing employment to local people, she could see no reason not to approve this application. Councillor Green advised that he was likewise minded for the reasons given by Councillor Brown. Councillor Wallace confirmed that he agreed with Councillor Brown. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr McBride and noted that he would receive written notification of this decision within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 18
Page 19
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor Alida Achermann, Licensing Standards Officer Emma Douglas Applicant David Freeborn, Applicant Alex Freeborn, Applicant Audrey Junner, Applicant’s Agent Janice Oliver, Objector Marilyn Laverty, Objector Gordon Chalmers, Objector Karina Alexander, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Armour, Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (E DOUGLAS, D FREEBORN AND A FREEBORN, 11 CREAGAN PARK, ERRAY ROAD, TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicants opted to proceed by way of video call and Emma Douglas, Alex Freeborn and David Freeman and their Agent, Audrey Junner, joined the meeting by MS Teams. Four of the Objectors also opted to proceed by way of video call Janice Oliver, Karina Alexander, Marilyn Laverty and Gordon Chalmers and joined the meeting by MS Teams. Fiona McAdam, Objector, opted to proceed by way of written submission and a copy of this was contained within the Agenda pack for today’s hearing. Page 19 Agenda Item 3d
Page 20
The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 9 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicants to speak in support for their application. APPLICANT Ms Junner advised that she was in attendance on behalf of the Applicants’ Agent and that she would speak on behalf of the Applicants. She referred to a number of matters raised by the Objectors which she said were not relevant to this application and advised that she had noted that within the Officer’s report the Committee had been asked to disregard these matters. She confirmed that she would not go into the details of these. She advised that she would address the outstanding and valid points and the responses to these provided by the Applicant’s Agent, and she said that she hoped this would give some comfort to the Committee that the premises would be well run. In terms of privacy and security and the use of the shared footpath, she advised that it could be seen from the photographs provided that the path led from the front door of the property and was wide enough to access without the need to go across the grassed areas. She referred to the pack of information that would be prepared and shared in advance to anyone using the property, to ensure that they were aware of access to the property and rules in respect of common and private areas. She referred to concerns raised about anti-social behaviour and advised that there was no reason to believe this would be an issue. She explained that the property would be well run with guests fully briefed. She said that other neighbours in the block would be able to contact the owner directly if they had any issues. She said that it was not anticipated that there would be any issues given the nature of the operation. In respect of concerns raised about pets, she advised that the owners all had family pets and that they would like to continue bringing their pets to the property. She had advised that they would be happy to accept that guests under the short-term let licence would not be permitted to bring pets. She acknowledged that there has been apprehension about the change of use of the property. She explained that the property has belonged to the family for generations, since it was built, and acknowledged that introducing something different might be daunting. She said that she wanted to reassure the neighbours that the Applicants and guests would be considerate and mindful of the location and that the information pack would set out all the rules and policies. She said that the Applicants had a deep connection to the island and opening up their property occasionally to guests through the short-term let process would allow them to retain the property for their family and friends to use going forward. She asked the Committee to grant the application and confirmed that the Applicants accepted the proposed conditions to be attached to the licence. Mr Alex Freeborn said that the family had a deep connection to the area. He said that he had been brought up on Mull and had attended the local primary school. He said that they would like to keep and maintain the property to the highest possible standard and to the requirements of the short-term let licence conditions. Page 20
Page 21
QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS Mrs Alexander referred to the Applicants’ intention to provide an information pack to guests and asked if this had been prepared as none of the Objectors had seen sight of this. She commented that they would like to have been consulted on its contents and to have been able to check that it was okay. Mr Alex Freeborn advised that the information for guests had not been written up yet as they had been waiting for the outcome of the hearing. He advised that they would be happy to draw up the paperwork in a collective manner with neighbours to ensure they were happy and had input. OBJECTORS Janice Oliver Ms Oliver referred to the title deeds and said that she had noted that these should not be considered by the Committee. She advised that the whole point of these properties was that businesses should not run from them. She said that everyone in the block accessed their gardens via her garden. She said she would not have wanted to move into a property that had an Airbnb. She said the title deeds were written to provide a level of intimacy. She said that everything hinged on what the title deeds said because that was what mattered. She referred to the photographs provided and said they did not show the width of the footpath at the front door of number 11. She referred to the family advising that they had been visiting since childhood and said that she had lived here for 24 years and that their visits were very brief and that she did not see any closeness to the property from any of them. She referred to comments within the paperwork about a shared courtyard and advised that this was not a shared courtyard and that it was her back garden. She said that people tended to spill out of number 11 into her garden and there was not enough space outside number 11. She said that people would come out to make phone calls, have a smoke and have a chat. She said this was immediately outside her front door and that it left her feeling intimidated. She said the idea of people sticking to the footpath was a nonsense as her garden was so convenient to use. She said that the idea of having 6 people living in the flat was overcrowding, with one bathroom. She suggested that guests may use the garden instead if there was a party. She said there was very little soundproofing between the flats and that she did not feel she would get any peace living in the lower flat. She said her quality of life would be terrible and that she would need to look to move somewhere else if the application was granted. She advised that if she sold her flat it may be bought and used as an Airbnb and that if this happened she would feel bad for her neighbours. She said the whole thing was opening up a nightmare scenario which, she advised, was why the title deeds were so important and could not be disregarded. She referred to a property in Glasgow that was part of a block of 4 flats and that enforcement action had been taken by the Council as it was operating as a short-term let without planning permission. She said this set a precedent and that she could not understand why this hearing had to be held. She said that over the last 6 or 7 years the flat had only been occupied 3 or 4 weeks per year. She said the garden was neglected with overgrown vegetation and the footpath was Page 21
Page 22
getting very slimy. She imagined that even with winter lets, the property would remain empty during the winter. She suggested the fabric inside the property would be getting damaged. She advised that she was worried about the security of equipment she stored in her shed, the coal in her bunker, and the fruit in her trees. She said that strangers coming every week would not all be perfect citizens. She advised that even when going to put her washing out she would need to keep her door locked as the garden would be a public way. She said she would need to lock her door every time she stepped out into her garden. She commented that once when the family had brought their dog one had barked, growled and gone for her. She said another member of the family that came with their dog would always leave it in the property and it would howl while they were out until they returned. She said there was up to 4 hours of non-stop howling which was hard to endure. She said there was also a problem with the bins as they tended to be kept outside the front door which made the narrow footpath even more narrow. She said there would also be a fire risk with strangers coming and going every week. She also advised that the gardens were not fenced off and that there was a burn that was not fenced off which, she suggested, could be a danger to families. She said that there was a need to fence off the garden with a gate between her front door and their front door, at their expense, to make it clear to visitors that they were stepping into her garden. Marilyn Laverty Ms Laverty advised that she was the only person to have bought their house from the Council and that she had lived here for 40 years. She said that when she purchased her property, she received a letter from the Council which advised that it could only be used as a self-contained dwelling house, occupied by one family and for no other purpose. No business or trade occupations could be carried out and no name plates or advertisements of any kind could be fixed to the property without the consent of the Council. She said that she took that to mean she could not run a business, and she never did. She said she could not understand how someone could now come and run a business from their home. She said that was her main objection. She said she would like to know who she could call on locally if there was an emergency as none of the owners of the property lived there. She also said security would be a problem, especially for Ms Oliver and that there would also be extra noise with people on holiday coming and going late at night. She said that she had spoken to Mrs Douglas about her dog howling and that she had stopped that from happening again by taking the dog out with her. She said she did not have a problem with that issue at the moment. She referred to parking issues and advised that she was disabled and could not walk a long distance. She said that she would need to be able to park outside her property and advised that she had a blue badge. She also referred to the overgrown garden and said she was worried about trees falling. She said that one or two were near enough to hit the roof if they were to fall over. She said she did not know who the trees belonged to and that this needed to be looked at. She also advised that a lot of trees in the front garden had self-seeded and that there was a very large shrub outside the window that had not been maintained. Page 22
Page 23
She said that the bins were also a problem. She advised that in the past the bins were put out on the road and sat there for a long time and in the end a neighbour moved them and cleaned them out. With regard to security, she said the thought of different people you did not know coming every week was not very nice. She said it was okay when the family was there as she knew who there were. She said the main issue for her was that this was a residential property and not a business property. She said that this was stated on her title deeds, and she had no idea why it could suddenly be changed. Gordon Chalmers Mr Chalmers read out the following submission: Introduction Unlike the other objectors, I am not a resident of Creagan Park, but I live close by and have been asked to assist the objectors articulate their concerns and address issues raised by this application. I am a STL Licence holder but have no financial motive in objecting. Invalid points of Objection (3.7). I note that matters relating to title deeds are said not of themselves grounds to grant or refuse the application. In fact, it is a mandatory condition of grant that Planning Permission under the 1997 Act is in force. That is on my licence, and I was required by A&B to verify that we do indeed have permission under that Act. It is also clear throughout the process that a proof of permission to run a business is required. The applicants assert that their proposed use does not constitute a change of use; how then can they have secured the necessary Insurance to run a self-catering let? The matter of Insurance is very much a condition of the grant of a licence, and this requires further scrutiny. 3.8-3.10. Noted these are not directly related to consideration of the grant but might reasonably be expected to bear on any conditions to be applied. 3.11 This matter was raised in my first letter of objection, and the matter was rectified as stated by moving the notification from the house window to the roadside where it could readily be examined. However, after moving the notice the section regarding day-to-day management was altered. Initially it was stated that the premises would be managed by Mull Holiday Cottages, Tobermory. This is a well-respected local letting business with qualified and vetted staff and contractors. This was scored out and replaced with the names of the three applicants. I note the heading of the paper given to committee shows them as resident at 11 Creagan Park, when in fact their home addresses as shown on the notice are in Dunfermline, Fort Augustus and Thirsk. This latter detail forms the principal point of my objection; I do not know any of the named applicants, but I have serious doubts as to their ability to manage the flat day-to-day. There are many many situations that arise daily that cannot simply be dealt with remotely, and for the applicants to suggest local contingencies can be put in place is patently stretching credulity. If they have people locally who will undertake the management, they Page 23
Page 24
must be named and the objectors given the opportunity to object afresh. On this ground alone I contend the application is not competent and must be resubmitted with fuller information for the neighbours and the licensing committee to consider. The broader picture. The application is recommended for approval. This recommendation is followed by what can only be described as an eye-watering list of additional conditions, which even a cursory visit to the premises would strongly suggest makes the prospect unmanageable other than by someone living close by. The neighbours have described the impact that this licence will have on their amenity. It is clearly a subjective assessment for the officers to make, but I and the neighbours would wholeheartedly argue that the impact of the grant of a licence here would adversely affect their quality of life. A recent decision in Glasgow confirms there that city planning policy states proposals for “the reuse of existing buildings for short-term holiday letting will not be supported where the proposal will result in…. an unacceptable impact on local amenity”. “The use of a flat as short-stay accommodation… has the potential to result in conflict with mainstream residential flats in a block through regular influx of temporary residents as well as increased pressure on infrastructure and shared space.” Even if A&B Policy does not coincide with this common-sense approach, the committee should give consideration to these issues in determining this application. Conclusion In light of the weight of objection on amenity and competency grounds I respectfully call on the committee to reject the application at this stage Karina Alexander Mrs Alexander spoke on behalf of herself and her husband, who could not attend the meeting. She referred to the recommendation in the Officer’s report to grant this licence. She noted that it was stated that the Committee had no power over the title deeds and she said that this hearing should be adjourned so that the appropriate people that did have power could check this out. She advised that in the Argyll and Bute checklist reference was made to the title deeds. She suggested the owners of number 11 had either not read the title deeds or misrepresented them. She advised that this housing had previously been Council housing for working people on Mull. She said there was a clause in the title deeds preventing what was happening at number 11. She said that letting it out would mean it was no longer a single-family dwelling, with up to 6 people staying every week. She said that was a material change of use and required planning permission and that this process should be halted until that had been dealt with. She referred to parking on the road and said that this process should be halted until the appropriate agency had ruled on the matter of the road. She said that no parking existed at Creagan Park and that there was no legal parking on the street. She said that two residents of Creagan Park were disabled. She said parking was a huge issue. She said the residents of Creagan Park understood its special qualities and that short-term lets Page 24
Page 25
would have no consideration of this. She said that the Council should have stated that no short-term lets were authorised. She referred to maintenance of the place, which she said has been a problem for a long time with regard to the upkeep by the current owners. She then referred to a number of photographs showing areas of the garden which had not been maintained, the narrow walkway between number 10 and number 11, and the location of the burn at the back of the property, showing that it was not secured. She said that this was a very tight knit community. She pointed out from the photographs provided in the Agenda pack, that the picture of the front door of the property and the courtyard had been mislabelled. She said the front door and courtyard belonged to number 12 and not number 11. She said it appeared that things had not been done as thoroughly as possible. She noted that the owners wanted to use the holiday home for themselves and stated that the title deeds said it should be for a single family. She referred to current maintenance of the property and said that if it became a holiday let the maintenance would be even worse. She referred to the pictures provided as part of the inspection which showed a mown lawn. She said she did not think the Officer went into the back garden. She referred to the Applicants not living on the island and having not identified a local person to deal with emergencies. She said that she was concerned the turnover of guests would cause more disrepair. She said that granting the application would cause an undue nuisance for residents in the surrounding properties. She said that planning permission had to be obtained to start a holiday let in the area. She said that no application had been made that they were aware of. She said that giving the residents a phone number would not adequately meet the needs of the residents and that there was a need to have someone on the island to deal with emergencies. She said this needed to be in place before a decision was made by the Committee. She said that the other agencies should be involved in respect of planning, parking and checks on whether it was legally allowed to run a holiday let, before this application came before the Committee. At this point it was noted that Councillor Hardie had left the meeting during the Objectors’ presentations due to connectivity issues and that he was unable to return. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANTS Mr David Freeborn asked if Ms Oliver had proof that the coal bunker area was hers. Ms Oliver advised that the coal bunker for number 11 was in her garden and that the down pipe between the front doors of number and 11 and number 12 marked the boundary. She said that there appeared to have been an assumption that number 11 had free access to number 12. She said that Mr Freeborn’s Uncle had never respected the boundaries and was very difficult. She said that Mr Freeborn was making the same argument that they had the same use of her back garden. She said there was no courtyard. She said the down pipe between the 2 front doors was where the back garden began. Page 25
Page 26
Mr David Freeborn asked Ms Oliver how people in number 11 accessed their coal if the bunker was in her garden. Ms Oliver replied that the title deeds stated that the properties were not suitable for a business because a lot of mutual respect and understanding of shared areas was required. She said she agreed that it was not ideal but she had bought into that provision in the title deeds and that she had accepted that it was okay for neighbours to access their coal from her garden. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor, David Walker, that an additional condition to the licence could be added that required a contact person to be available 24/7 to deal with any issues and that they must live within 10 miles of the property. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from the Applicants that they would be happy for this condition to be added. Councillor Green asked the Objectors if they would be happy with this condition to be added. Ms Oliver said the contact person should live within 1 mile of the property. Mr Chalmers advised that part of his objection was that no person had been named and that they should have been named and subject to scrutiny before the application came to the Committee. He said this was new information that the Objectors had not had the ability to address. He advised that this application should be refused and resubmitted once the owners found someone to manage their property. Ms Junner pointed out that the application stated who was managing the property and that those named would not change. She explained that they were proposing to have a local person available to deal with any maintenance issues, but they would not be managing the property. Mr Walker confirmed that the condition would be competent on the basis that it was a local contact person and the day-to-day management had not changed. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Walker and Councillor Green that this condition had been applied at other hearings and that it was competent. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Walker that it was his understanding that there were no parking restrictions on the access road in front of the properties. Councillor Brown said she still found it concerning regarding the issue of the title deeds and asked for clarification on this. Mr Walker explained that the issue of title deeds was out with the scope of the short-term let licensing regime and were not a material consideration in respect of this application. He said the Committee could be legally challenged if they took them into account in determining this application. Private action could be taken regarding issues with title deeds, and the Objectors would need to seek their own legal advice regarding the enforcement of title deed conditions. With regard to a mandatory planning condition, he advised that as this was not a planning control area this was not relevant in this case. He said that planning matters were separate and out with the scope of the short-term let licensing regime. Councillor Brown referred to the contract the neighbours had that had been drawn up by Argyll and Bute Council Solicitors and that she found this unacceptable. She said she was also not happy that the onus was placed on Objectors to make sure the Applicant was acting legally. She said she believed it should be the Applicants’ duty to make sure Page 26
Page 27
they were acting legally. She acknowledged that this was not a matter that could be considered by this Committee but said she just wanted to say that she was uncomfortable with the position the Committee continually had to take on these matters. Councillor Philand asked Officers if there was a requirement for the property to be disability compliant and, if so, if they were compliant. He referred to the photographs showing stairs on the pathway and steps into the house. He asked if there were appropriate widths for wheelchairs within the property. Mr Walker advised that there was no requirement under the short-term let legislation about having to alter a property for disabled access. He said there was no requirement within any legislation for alterations to that affect to be made. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Walker that if a person had any neighbour issues regarding title deeds, they could take civil action. Councillor Blair asked how neighbours had reached a consensus over the years in respect of communal repairs. Ms Oliver said that for the 24 years she had lived there there had not been a lot of repairs required. She referred to roof repairs required 17 years ago and said that her neighbour was not keen to do anything. She advised that she arranged for the work to be done, and the neighbour paid his share with no argument. She said she got tired with the responsibility of it all. She referred to another issue with the roof recently and advised that she had difficulty contacting Mrs Douglas due to her shift work as a nurse and that she had been asked to contact the brothers. She said that it was difficult having to deal with 3 people. Ms Oliver confirmed that Mrs Douglas paid for her share of the roof bill but did question it. Ms Oliver said there was no mechanism in place. Councillor Blair said that he had noted that there had been discussion and dialogue in the past and that bills had been paid. Councillor Blair referred to the guidance for guests that had still to be prepared, and he asked if this would include a condition regarding pets. Ms Junner said that information regarding the local contact person would be included along with all rules and regulations. She said this would be provided to guests in advance and would also be available within the property. She said the pack had not been developed yet, but the owners were more than happy to develop this alongside their neighbours. Councillor Blair asked if the local contact would have responsibility for maintaining the garden. Mrs Douglas said that they had a gardener that cut the grass and that discussions had been held regarding the overgrown bushes. She said that they were coming up in October to remedy this. She advised that they had also been in touch with a local tree surgeon to cut the trees down to a more appropriate height and that they were waiting to hear back from him. She said that they were in the process of getting this work done, including removal of the garden shed. Councillor Blair asked if a family consisting of a mum, dad, 3 children and a dog were to move into the house, would this cause the Objectors equal anxiety. Ms Oliver said the whole point was that they would be there for the long term and they could come to an understanding with neighbours and learn to accommodate each other. Councillor Howard expressed her concern about the letter from the Council. She said that as this was not a title deed, but an actual legal letter from the Council regarding a contract, she could not see how the Committee could break that. She said she did not think the Committee could give permission for this short-term let without this problem being researched. Page 27
Page 28
Mr Walker advised that a separate civil action would need to be taken by parties due to the limitations of the short-term let legislation. Ms Junner advised that this letter would form part of the title deeds and that it was a matter for the Land Tribunal to deal with such disputes. She said there had been no attempts by the Applicants to circumvent the law and that it was not appropriate for this to be discussed at this hearing which was about whether the property should be licensed or not. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Walker that new legislation sometimes superimposed previous legislation and could also sit alongside other pieces of legislation. The short-term let legislation was relatively new, and it sat alongside, but could not go into, planning and civil matters. Councillor Wallace sought and received confirmation from Ms Oliver that the pathway went beyond the boundary of the 2 properties. Councillor Wallace asked the Applicants if they had any plans to fence off the burn and make it more secure. Mrs Douglas said this was something they could potentially do but it had not been discussed as yet. Mr Alex Freeborn suggested that one option could be to put the back garden out of bounds and make sure people did not access it. He said he could not see a need for guests to use the back garden as when they came out of the house and turned right, they were within the property’s front garden and that there was no need to pass by other properties. He said that the path was jointly owned and jointly maintained. Councillor Irvine sought and received confirmation from the Applicants that they would be able to meet all the recommended conditions proposed to be attached to the licence. Mr Alex Freeborn confirmed that they would maintain things as best they could and that there would be a local person to assist them with that. Councillor Irvine sought and received confirmation from Mrs Douglas that they had a local cleaning company “Mops of Mull” set up to deal with the changeovers and that they would be happy to deal with minor management work if required. Councillor Brown referred to disabled parking and asked if the Council had a responsibility to make a disabled parking space available outside a person’s house, if requested. She asked if the Council would have a responsibility to ensure disabled paring was available for someone with a blue badge. Mr Walker said that he believed they could apply for an assessment for a disabled parking space. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Walker that if a disabled parking space was made available outside someone’s house, there would be nothing to prevent anyone with a blue badge from parking there. SUMMING UP Objectors Janice Oliver Ms Oliver referred to new information obtained today that Mops of Mull would be looking after the property. She said it would have been good to have known this in advance so that they could have found out the kind of service they would provide. She questioned Page 28
Page 29
who would put the bins out and take them back in. She said this property could not possibly work as an Airbnb style property. She said it had been already established that this type of property was not allowed planning permission in Glasgow. She questioned why things could be done differently here. She referred to the dangers of the burn. She referred to shared maintenance of the footpath and asked when the Applicants would do their share. Karina Alexander Mrs Alexander referred to access to the coal bunkers and advised that the deeds required that both neighbours should maintain access. This gave them access to the coal bunker but not the courtyard. She said she appreciated that some Council Members had expressed the same concerns they had about breaking contracts, and she advised that gave her some hope that there was some humanity out there. Whatever the decision was today, she said they would have to live with it and she hoped that they had conveyed that this was not an appropriate use of this property. Marilyn Laverty Ms Laverty referred to the Council letter saying that the property should not be run as a business. She advised that the letter also said that any minerals found in the garden would remain the property of the Council. She questioned if this was now something that could be disregarded too. Gordon Chalmers Mr Chalmers thanked Councillors Brown and Howard for their interventions on this. He said he felt the Committee were being asked to come to a decision in the dark. He questioned how public liability insurance could have been obtained for running a business, if it had been said that the property was not changing from residential to business status. He said he believed that Mr Walker had misled the Committee by saying the mandatory planning condition did not apply in this area as he had been required to obtain planning permission for his licence. Regarding disabled access, he said that disability legislation may apply and that the Committee needed assurance about this before making a direction. He noted that Councillor Irvine had asked the Applicants if they were confident of fulfilling all the conditions and questioned why the Objectors were not asked about their confidence. He said that he hoped the Committee would consider the representations fully and hold this application in abeyance or reject outright. Applicant Ms Junner advised that having heard the submissions by the Objectors, a lot of reference had been made to the title deeds. She advised of the short-term let licensing regime and the scope of this being different from planning and from what the Land Tribunal did. She said there had been multiple case law on this and that had to be respected. She asked the Committee to follow the test of previous decisions regarding matters about title deeds. She pointed out that the Committee were not being asked to grant the licence in perpetuity and that it would be required to be renewed and reviewed. This would provide the Page 29
Page 30
opportunity to see how it has worked in practice. She said she hoped that it gave some comfort that issues flagged could be addressed through the conditions. She referred to issues raised about maintenance and the current use of the property. She advised that consideration should be given to how the property will be managed in the future and not how it has been in the past and she hoped that general assurance had been given that matters would be put in place to run it well. She said it was good to hear about these things and hopefully the Applicants could, with the neighbours, develop a welcome pack and develop a good working relationship in terms of the use of their property. She confirmed that public liability insurance was in place. She said there was no desire to mislead the Committee or do anything that was illegal. She confirmed that the Applicants had taken advice on the other points and that they were confident of their position. She said that in terms of the legislation, the Applicants have shown that they were fit and proper to operate a short-term let licence and she hoped that the Committee would afford them the ability to do so by granting the licence today. Mr Alex Freeborn thanked Ms Junner for summing up. He implored the Committee to grant the short-term let licence and confirmed that they would comply with all the conditions and be good neighbours. He said they were doing this to keep the property in the family. He said it was not about making a profit and that any money made would be used to support the maintenance and improve the property for them and others to use. He said he thought that they would be good neighbours and that they would make sure to comply with any conditions suggested today. When asked, all parties, with the exception of Ms Oliver, confirmed that they had received a fair hearing and this was noted. DEBATE Councillor Brown said that unfortunately she had no option but to go with this as she could not see any grounds to refuse and that reluctantly she would support this application. Councillor Green advised that looking at the information before the Committee and the presentations made, he could not see anything that would prevent the Committee ruling on this today. He noted the request to continue for further information, and he advised that there had been no information specifically identified that would be relevant to consider that would give grounds for a continuation. He confirmed that he was minded to support the application. Councillor Blair thanked the Objectors for providing such a large batch of information which, he said, was very beneficial. He said that he took on board all the information and the confirmation from the owners that they wanted to be good neighbours and continue to work with the local neighbours to ensure this project worked. He said he was quite content and comforted by what the solicitor had said about this being an ongoing process that would be reviewed. He said that he was happy to support the recommendations. Councillor Philand said he took a slightly different view and felt that there were a number of areas that he would like more information on. He said it was interesting that Ms Junner had said the owners would work with the neighbours and he commented that it was a pity that had not happened up until now. He referred to not knowing who would do the turnover, who would be the contact person, and whether the Disability Discrimination Act Page 30
Page 31
applied in this case. He said that he would like to seek more information about that and that he would be minded to continue this case to get that further information. Councillor Irvine echoed the sentiments of some of his other colleagues. He advised that on the basis of what was in front of the Committee and what the remit was, he was content to approve the application. He commented that during the course of all short-term let hearings the issue of title deeds had been raised on a number of occasions. He acknowledged that this was not for this Committee to resolve but it remained a continuing issue which he was sure the Committee would face again and again. He said he was comfortable with the application and, like Councillor Blair, was encouraged that communication with the neighbours would continue and that the Applicants would not just stick to the conditions but look to work on other aspects of concerns raised. He said that he hoped that would add fuel to the goodwill fire and that he was content to approve this. Councillor Amanda Hampsey left the meeting during the foregoing discussions. Motion To agree the recommendations in the report subject to the inclusion of the following additional condition: “The Licence Holder must provide a contact name and number that could be used to report any issues or complaints, and which would be accessible on a 24/7 basis with the assurance that someone living within 10 miles of the property would be able to attend at the property or respond appropriately when required”. Moved by Councillor Kieron Green, seconded by Councillor Mark Irvine. Amendment To agree to continue consideration of this application in order to receive details of those that would be involved in the changeovers, who the emergency contact would be, and whether there was anything that needed to be complied with in terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 2010. Moved by Councillor Dougie Philand, seconded by Councillor Jan Brown. A vote was taken by calling the role. Motion Amendment Councillor Blair Councillor Brown Councillor Green Councillor Howard Councillor Irvine Councillor Philand Councillor Wallace The Motion was carried by 4 votes to 3 and the Committee resolved accordingly. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Emma Douglas, David Freeborn and Alex Freeborn subject to the inclusion of additional conditions set out in the report in Page 31
Page 32
respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, damage to property, and wood burning stoves/open fires, and to the following further condition: “The Licence Holder must provide a contact name and number that could be used to report any issues or complaints, and which would be accessible on a 24/7 basis with the assurance that someone living within 10 miles of the property would be able to attend at the property or respond appropriately when required”. The Applicants would be notified in writing of the above decision within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager and Written Submission by Objector, submitted) Page 32
Page 33
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor Alida Achermann, Licensing Standards Officer Pi Davidson, Applicant’s Agent Patricia Jackson, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Armour, Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Graham Hardie, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (A MORRISON, CURLEW COTTAGE, BRUICHLADDICH, ISLE OF ISLAY) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of written submission and a copy of this was contained with the Supplementary Agenda Pack issued for this hearing. His Agent, Pi Davidson joined the meeting by MS Teams. Patricia Jackson, Objector, opted to proceed by video call and joined the meeting by MS Teams. During the course of the hearing the Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed, to halt the process for procedural reasons, and, in the interest of fairness to all parties, to hold the hearing afresh on a future date. DECISION The Committee agreed that the hearing should be held at a future meeting. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager and Written Submission from Applicant, submitted) Page 33 Agenda Item 3e
Page 34
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 35
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 application for a wind farm located on the Killean Estate, near Tayinloan consisting of 9 turbines each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 180m. Generating capacity will be more than 50MW Reference No: 24/01541/S36/ECU00004927 Applicant: The Scottish Government Proposal: Section 36 Consultation for wind farm located on the Killean Estate, near Tayinloan, consisting of 9 turbines each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 180m. Generating capacity will be more than 50MW. Site Address: Killean Estate, near Tayinloan (A) THE APPLICATION The Section 36 Application comprises the following key elements: • Up to 9 wind turbines, each with a maximum tip height of 180m • At each wind turbine, associated low to medium voltage transformers and related switchgear • Permanent wind turbine foundations • Hardstanding areas for crane erection at each wind turbine • Two new watercourse crossings and 14 existing crossings which may need to be upgraded • Approx. 10.5km of access tracks, comprising 5.58km of new tracks and 4.92km of existing tracks to be upgraded • Upgraded site access from the existing junction with the A83 • Temporary turning area to facilitate access on opposite side of road to site access • Onsite underground electrical cables and cable trenches • Substation compound • A temporary construction compound for office welfare and materials storage • Up to 6 borrow pit search areas • The potential for onsite concrete batching, the location of which would be confirmed prior to commencement of development once need is confirmed • Felling of 41.3ha hectares of forestry and associated compensatory planting. • Habitat management and biodiversity improvements as set out in Outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (OBEMP) The expected operational life is 50 years from the date of commissioning. Connection to Electricity Grid - The proposal is likely to be connected to the grid network at Carradale substation, approx. 11.2km southeast of the site. Works required to connect to the national grid would be the subject of a separate consenting process. Page 35 Agenda Item 4
Page 36
Classification: OFFICIAL (B) RECOMMENDATION: That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) There is an unresolved objection from National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS). Consequently, Argyll & Bute Council OBJECT on the grounds that the proposal will have an adverse Aviation Impact, contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 which 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 which requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed, and Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 which 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. Note: If NATS withdraw their objection and subject to any conditions they recommend being attached to any grant of consent Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds. Should the objection remain unresolved, and the proposal progresses to Public Inquiry, Argyll & Bute Council would defer to NATS. (2) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to landscape and visual impact subject to conditions to secure the mitigation recommended by the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect being attached to any grant of consent: • Aircraft Detection Lighting System • Substantial increases in broadleaved planting as part of the wind farm restocking plan including riparian planting across the wider Killean estate. • Redesign of the outer margins of productive woodland to remedy hard angular edges and improve the fit of plantations with landform. • Compensatory planting should be undertaken within the Killean Estate. Argyll & Bute Council and Scottish Forestry should be consulted on the location, extent, and composition. • Management of existing mature mixed woodlands in the vicinity of Killean House including new planting to retain and enhance screening of the proposed wind farm from the coast and protect the landscape setting provided to the Killean Estate buildings and St John’s Church. (3) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to archaeological impact, subject to conditions to secure appropriate archaeological mitigation being attached to any grant of consent following further consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. (4) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer being attached to any grant of consent. • An appropriate plan for mitigation against potential deer impact on newly planted trees until such time as they are established and no longer vulnerable to over- browsing. Page 36
Page 37
Classification: OFFICIAL • 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. (5) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to suitably worded conditions to limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Councils Noise Consultant. (6) Argyll & Bute has no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any grant of consent: • To ensure watercourse crossings are designed so there is no reduction in pre- development channel cross sectional area ideally to pass the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event; and, • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development runoff is attenuated to the 1 in 2 year greenfield runoff rate. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. (7) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Access subject to the condition to secure the recommendation of the Access Officer being attached to any grant of consent: • Access Plan to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Council prior to the commencement of development. (8) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to provision of the turning area across from the site access subject to the following conditions being attached to any grant of consent. • Exact details and specifications of the design of the turning area to be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. • Exact details and specification of the restoration plan for the turning area to be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. These shall include details of timescales and landscaping. • A condition to limit the turning area to an appropriate temporary period to be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. (9) Argyll & Bute Council requests that all conditions recommended by other consultees are included in any Consent. (C) CONSULTATIONS ENERGY CONSENTS UNIT RESPONSES NatureScot (18th November 2024) – advised the ECU they objected until further collision risk information regarding the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area was provided. That while there are significant adverse landscape and visual effects, they do not raise issues of national interest. They noted the presence of Leisler’s bats within the footprint of the proposal, and that further advice Page 37
Page 38
Classification: OFFICIAL would be provided separately. They defer to Argyll & Bute Council and North Ayrshire Council in terms of effects on locally designated landscapes. NatureScot (23rd January 2025) (Leisler bat advice) – advised the ECU that the bat surveys indicate that there is at least a moderate level of bat activity within the survey area. Of note is the occurrence of Leisler’s bat, which is a rare and high-risk species. Kintyre is not currently acknowledged to be within the Leisler’s bat range; however, the bat survey provides evidence of a wider distribution of this species in Scotland than is currently known. Bat Mitigation - as the Applicant is proposing to keyhole turbines into existing forestry, this can increase the risk of bat fatalities due to the increase in forest edge habitat close to the turbines and associated infrastructure. NatureScot advise that feathering is routinely applied to the turbine blades below cut-in speed during operation. This measure can help reduce the risk of bat casualties by 50%. If feathering is implemented, NatureScot would ask that monitoring is carried out for 3 years post-construction to assess changes in bat activity. NatureScot note that the Applicant was unable to have bat data analysed through Ecobat as it was unavailable. NatureScot believe it is now available and advise that the Applicant has the data analysed, if possible, to provide an independent assessment on the level of bat activity at the site. NatureScot (30th May 2025) (response to additional information provided regarding the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area) – advised the ECU there are natural heritage interests of international importance, but they will not be adversely affected. This response should be read in conjunction with their other advice provided on landscape & visual, ecological and bat impacts. Applicant Response to NatureScot’s further comments (18th June 2025) – Applicant provided a note on NatureScot’s 30th May response to the ECU on issues relating to ornithology, including Greenland White-fronted Geese, Survey Quality, Golden Eagle, Black Grouse and Red-throated Diver. RSPB Scotland (29th November 2024) – advised the ECU they shared NatureScot's concern regarding collision risk for Greenland White-fronted Geese and would comment further on this once the information was provided. They advised that the Outline Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (oBEMP) is appropriate and welcome the proposals that have been included. They note that felling will be required should the proposal be consented. It is unclear where the Compensatory Planting (CP) is to be provided. They recommend that it is delivered as low-density native shrub and broadleaf woodland, and that planting on good quality open ground habitats is avoided. RSPB (17th June 2025) (response to additional information provided regarding the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area) – advised the ECU they have no further comments to make on the revised collision risk model for Greenland White- fronted Goose. They do not object. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (20th November 2024) – advised the ECU the proposal does not raise historic environment issues of national significance, and they do not object. They recommend that any trees forming the woodland backdrop to the Killean Estate damaged or removed by works to upgrade the wind farm access tracks, should be replaced. The access tracks should be designed to avoid direct impacts on the Category A listed Doll’s Houses and avoid impacts on their setting, and removal of the temporary bellmouth upon completion of turbine delivery. Page 38
Page 39
Classification: OFFICIAL Scottish Forestry (25th September 2024) – advised the ECU compensatory planting should be secured by a condition. Furthermore, the appropriate consenting route required to accommodate construction, including infrastructure and management felling, totalling 41.3ha would be the Section 36 consent. Restocking of management felling areas and compensatory planting relating to permanent woodland loss would also be via the Section 36 consent. Transport Scotland (TS) (4th October 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions being attached to any consent to secure approval of details of the means of access to the trunk road, the route for abnormal loads, abnormal load accommodation measures required, any necessary additional signing or temporary traffic control measures, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), and wheel washing facilities. In addition, advisory notes are provided relating to works within the trunk road boundary. SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (2nd October 2024) – have advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions being attached to any consent to secure finalised plans for borrow pit management and restoration prior to commencement of development (if not attached SEPA object), and a Finalised Peat Management Plan. Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) (25th September 2024) – advised the ECU they are satisfied the proposal should not have any significant impact on migratory salmonid fish habitat providing the construction phase is conducted according to current environmental regulations. ADSFB are mindful that migratory salmonid fish (sea trout) are present in the lower reaches of the Killean Burn, Tayinloan Burn, Clachaig Water and Carradale Water which may be affected by any deterioration in water quality caused during construction. ADSFB advise that in the event of consent being granted monitoring of Water quality, macroinvertebrates, and fish is undertaken to Scottish Government guidelines. Scottish Water (26th August 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection. They provide advice on Drinking Water Protected Areas and Surface Water. Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA), Stage 1 Checking Report (PLHRA) (6th February 2025) – advised the ECU the PLHRA is satisfactory. Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) (30th August 2024) – advised the ECU that, subject to conditions to secure Aviation Lighting and Aviation Charting and Safety Management they have no objection. NATS Safeguarding (23rd August 2024) – advised the ECU the proposal conflicts with their safeguarding criteria and they object. NATS Safeguarding (14th July 2025) – advised the ECU that it is always their preference to identify mitigation and, put in place the delivery framework before withdrawal of their objection. However, they can confirm that they do have an identified mitigation that with the commitment of both parties can be delivered prior to the development commencing. Glasgow Airport (9th September 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection. Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) (4th October 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection. Page 39
Page 40
Classification: OFFICIAL Highlands & Islands Airport (22nd October 2024) – advised the ECU they required an updated Instrument Flight Procedure Assessment report and submitted a holding objection. Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL) (27th January 2025) advised the ECU that an updated Instrument Flight Procedure impact assessment has been provided which confirms the proposal will have no impact on the IFPs serving Campbeltown Airport. Therefore, HIAL remove their holding objection. Campbeltown Community Council (3rd October 2024) – advised the ECU they object on the following grounds: proximity to A83 and visibility, industrialisation of Kintyre landscape, adverse impact on tourism, adverse visual impact, flooding on the A83, adverse impact on peat deposits, use of outside contractors instead of local firms, road delays caused by delivery of abnormal loads, and movement at night will cause disruption due to noise and vibrations. West Kintyre Community Council (4th October 2024) – have advised the ECU they object on the grounds of landscape & visual impact (including cumulative), adverse impact on tourism, increase in local flooding, adverse noise and visual impact for nearby properties, possible ill health effects, lack of information on battery storage plans, and adverse ornithological impact. East Kintyre Community Council (22nd August 2024) – have advised the ECU they object on the grounds of lack of full economic assessment on tourism attractions (based on Kintyre), and adverse visual impact. Tarbert & Skipness Community Council (TSCC) (3rd October 2024) – have advised the ECU they object on the grounds of the previous refusal on this site (WIN- 130-3), adverse visual impact, length of consent sought (50 years), approval would set bad precedent, adverse impact on recreation & tourism, Adverse impact on natural heritage and ornithology, cultural heritage impacts and adverse impact of aviation Lighting. BT (29th August 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection. Arqiva (28th August 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection subject to a condition to mitigate the impact of any degradation of television and radio reception caused by the wind turbines. Joint Radio Company (29th August 2024) – advised the ECU the proposal is cleared subject to a condition to secure 100m Micrositing with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. North Ayrshire Council (4th October 2024) – advised the ECU that consideration should be given to the potential impacts on the North Arran NSA. Argyll & Bute Council Consultee Responses Consultant Landscape Architect (10th February 2025) - recommends no objection in respect of landscape and visual interests subject to conditions to secure: an Aircraft Detection Lighting System, Substantial increases in broadleaved planting as part of the wind farm restocking plan including riparian planting across the wider Killean estate, Redesign of the outer margins of productive woodland to remedy hard angular edges and improve the fit of plantations with landform, Compensatory planting within the Killean Page 40
Page 41
Classification: OFFICIAL Estate. Argyll & Bute Council should be consulted, in addition to Scottish Forestry, on the location, extent and composition of this planting, and management of existing mature mixed woodlands in the vicinity of Killean House including new planting to retain and enhance screening of the proposed wind farm from the coast and protect the landscape setting provided to the Killean Estate buildings and St John’s Church. West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) (28th August 2025) – does not recommend an objection and provides general comments and advice on direct and indirect physical impact issues and setting and cumulative impact issues. In terms of cumulative impact WOSAS find they cannot support the proposed encroachment onto lower ground that is more densely populated with known archaeological sites and monuments. WOSAS does not believe that an objection solely based on predicted adverse impacts on the historic environment would be likely to be sustained. However, they believe that the broader impacts they have referred to might be employed to add weight to the Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment of the proposal. Should the Council determine to object on these or on other grounds they would be pleased to advise further as required. Similarly, if a potential archaeological condition or conditions are required for submission to the ECU or at a later stage, they will be pleased to suggest a suitable form of words. Applicant Response to WOSAS (16th September 2025) – They are pleased there is no objection recommended on cultural heritage grounds, and that there is no specific issue with the predicted cultural heritage impacts. There is a comment that there may be too much focus of the assessment on individual heritage assets. This may be how the assessment is set out, however any relevant relationships to other monuments / relevant historic landscapes, as far as it is possible to identify these, would have been addressed as part of that. The comments are referring to a broader, and more subjective appreciation of the historic environment. As this remains quite vague, they are not sure there is much they can offer by way of a detailed response; other than to emphasise that they have considered wider landscape relationships as part of the setting impact assessment. If there is a specific monument or group of monuments that they have not suitably assessed, they would be happy to respond accordingly – noting there is a large range of heritage assets/archaeological sites which span a large period. West of Scotland Archaeology Service – a copy of the Applicant’s response was sent to WOSAS. At time of writing no further response has been received. Local Biodiversity Officer (23rd September 2024) – provides advice on the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA and its associated SSSI, Habitats Regulations assessment, Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP), Habitat Losses and Impact, peatland, European Protected Species, Species Protection Plan, Protected Species, ecological clerk of works, ornithology. The Local Biodiveristy Officer recommends that the applicant should include an appropriate plan for mitigation against potential deer impact on newly planted trees until such a time that they are established and no longer vulnerable to over-browsing and 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. Noise Consultant (3rd March 2025) – advise that good practice has been adopted by the applicant, with a few minor issues identified. The most significant of these issues are: • The study area for Killean wind farm includes receptors that are exposed to noise levels from the operational Deucheran wind farm and consented Clachaig Glen Page 41
Page 42
Classification: OFFICIAL wind farm. It has been shown that the application of apportioned noise limits will be necessary to ensure cumulative noise impacts do not exceed the derived noise limits at some receptors. It is recommended that the Applicant considers this and suggests suitable values. • The omission of the details of any screening attenuation and concave ground corrections that have been applied. The inclusion of the applied values in the reporting is suggested within good practice but is not a formal requirement, however, it has potentially led to an inability to accurate replicate the applicant’s calculations. • The receptor labelled H27 ‘South Beachmore Farm’ is incorrectly named ‘High Crubasdale’ in Tables 11.7, 11.8, 11.9 and 11.10. • Confirmation there are no derelict properties with residential planning status in the study area. • The proposed noise condition does not contain the partial levels. Nor include a suitable control for amplitude modulation. Following a satisfactory response there would be no reason to object on noise grounds. A suitably worded condition to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation should be applied to control noise levels from the proposal. A revision based on the proposed condition should be provided. Applicant response to Noise Consultant (1st October 2025) – have considered the Council’s Noise Consultants review and note that some minor points have been raised. They will be pleased to agree a wording for a revised noise condition which will include updated limits that more thoroughly account for potential cumulative operational impacts and that include controls for amplitude modulation (AM). This will provide further comfort that the requirements of ETSU-R-97 will be met in practice. They consider that this can be addressed during the agreement of conditions process. Additionally, they acknowledge the error highlighted relating to receptor location coordinates and will be happy to correct this. Finally, they confirm that from their understanding, the previous consent for the reinstatement of a residential dwelling at Braids has lapsed and there are no derelict properties with residential planning status in the study area. Noise Consultant (1st October 2025) – have reviewed the clarifications provided by the applicant and would respond as follows: • They agree that the apportioned limits can be agreed with the conditions (if consent is granted) • They note that no further information on screening or valley correction has been provided – it will be the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the agreed noise limits can be met. They are unable to verify this in the absence of this information. • Confirmation of typos is fine. • Confirmation that there are no derelict properties is fine. • Confirmation that the applicant will accept an AM condition is also fine. On that basis, they conclude that satisfactory clarifications have been provided or can be dealt with at the conditions stage of the application, and their previous conclusions regarding the acceptability of the scheme still stand. Page 42
Page 43
Classification: OFFICIAL ABC Roads and Amenity Services (5th September 2024) – no objection. The site access connects directly to the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road, Transport Scotland should be notified. Flood Risk Assessor (7th November 2024) – no objection subject to conditions to ensure watercourse crossings are designed so there is no reduction in pre- development channel cross sectional area ideally to pass the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event; and, surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development runoff is attenuated to the 1 in 2 year greenfield runoff rate. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. Access Officer (8th July 2025) – no objection subject to a condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction. 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: 16/03400/S36 – S36 consultation for proposed Killean Wind Farm, Killean Wind Farm, Tayinloan – Objection submitted to ECU 18th October 2017. 16/01313/PP - Erection of 14 wind turbines (13 with a blade tip height of up to 126.5m (and hub height of up to 80m) and one with a blade tip height of up to 115.5m (and hub height of up to 69m)), upgrading of permanent access, formation of site access tracks, erection of permanent anemometer mast, control building and substation, watercourse crossings and temporary construction compound, Clachaig Glen wind farm, Land North East of Muasdale – Refused 21st September 2017. Both the above wind farms were considered at a conjoined Public Inquiry which commenced on the 9th of January 2019 the outcome of which is detailed below: WIN-130-3 Killean – Scottish Ministers refused the application on the 18th of December 2019 PPA-130-2064 (Planning Permission Appeal) Clachaig Glen – Scottish Ministers allowed the appeal and granted planning permission on the 18th of December 2019. 22/00613/S36 – S36 Consultation regarding the proposed Clachaig Glen wind farm and battery storage located approximately 20km north of Campbeltown and 1.8km north-east of Muasdale on the west coast of the Kintyre – Objection submitted to the ECU on the 19th of January 2023. WIN-130-7 Clachaig Glen – Following objection from the Planning Authority, a Public Inquiry was held on various dates between August and December 2023, the outcome of which was that Scottish Ministers granted Section 36 consent on the 8th of November 2024. (E) PUBLICITY: As the Council is not the Determining Authority the ECU oversees the Publicity of the application. Page 43
Page 44
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 Killean wind farm Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report, July 2024 available on the ECU website (reference: ECU00004927). (F) REPRESENTATIONS: As the Council is not the determining Authority any letters of representation are considered by the ECU. At time of writing, the ECU are in receipt of 21 objections and one general comment. The objections are from residents within the local area. The main concerns raised relate to: • Public Inquiry – objectors would like to be kept informed and included. • Historic Environment, Archaeology, and Listed Buildings (including the Dolls Houses) • Biodiversity - birds (including eagles), badgers, bats, otters, red squirrels, pine martens, and Greenland White fronted geese. • Scale of development • landscape and visual impact • Impact of aviation lighting on dark skies • Misleading photomontages of VP’s • Noise and Acoustic Environment, health, amplitude modulation, infrasound • Private water supplies • Transportation – impact on roads, businesses, and homes • Amenity impacts on the property ‘Braids’ from turbines T14 and T17 • Impact on the local economy and tourism • Walking routes and the Kintyre Way • Previous refusal on this site for smaller wind farm • Duration of consent – increase from 25 – 50 years • Aviation/Navigation Safety • Compensation/money/community benefit • Maintenance and disposal of used turbines • Scotland does not need to produce any more energy • Health & wellbeing • Impact on house at Kilmory 1968m • Impact on peat • Flooding • Cumulative Impact - High level of applications in Kintyre • Planning Policy LDP & NPF4 Note: The comments raised above are addressed in the assessment of the proposal at Appendix A of this report. Note: Please note that the representations above have been summarised, and the full letters of representation are available on the ECU website. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: Page 44
Page 45
Classification: OFFICIAL (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR): Yes EIAR presented in 4 volumes: • Volume 1: Written Statement • Volume 2a: Figures (excluding LVIA) • Volume 2b: LVIA Figures and Visualisations • Volume 3: Technical Appendices • Volume 4: Non-Technical Summary Key topics covered in the EIAR include: • Introduction • Chapter 2. Proposed Development Description • Chapter 3. Design Evolution and Alternatives • Chapter 4. Approach to EIA/Climate Change, Legislative and Policy Context Chapter 5. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment • Chapter 6. Cultural Heritage Assessment • Chapter 7. Ecology • Chapter 8. Ornithology • Chapter 9. Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeological Assessment • Chapter 10. Traffic and Transport • Chapter 11. Noise • Chapter 12. Aviation, Radar, and Defence • Chapter 13. Other Issues (Socioeconomics, Telecommunications, Infrastructure, Shadow Flicker, Carbon Balance). • Chapter 14. Schedule of Mitigation • Chapter 15. Summary of Residual and Cumulative Effects In addition, the following documents are also provided in support of the application: • Planning Statement • Design Statement • Pre-Application Consultation Report (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: NatureScot will advise the ECU (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: Yes (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04): Not required proposal accompanied by full EIAR. (v) A report on the impact of the proposal e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: All relevant reports are encompassed within the EIAR (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No Page 45
Page 46
Classification: OFFICIAL (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been considered in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations considered in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 33 – Minerals Annex B – National Statements of Need 3. Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) (Adopted 2024) Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables Policy 31 – Minerals Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 56 – Land Erosion Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Policy 70 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSA’s) Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact on Sites of International Importance Page 46
Page 47
Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 75 - Development Impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Policy 76 - Development Impact on Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 80 - Geodiversity (ii) List of all other relevant planning considerations considered in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013 • Scottish Energy Strategy (2017) • Onshore Wind Policy Statement (2022) • Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan (2023) • Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Renewable Energy Developments, Scottish Government, 2019 • Onshore Wind Turbines: Planning Advice, Scottish Government (May 2014) • The Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, 2017 (LWECS) • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment – Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (2013) • Scottish Natural Heritage – Visual Representation of Wind Farms Guidance (Version 2.2, 2017) • Scottish Natural Heritage - Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance (Version 3a, 2017) • Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (2019) • Scottish Government, Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity, 2023 • The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 • Managing Change in the Historic Environment • PAN 1/2011: ‘Planning and Noise’ (March 2011) • Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) • UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) • PAN 60 – Planning for Natural Heritage (Jan 2008) • Views of statutory and other consultees • Planning history of the site • Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters (G) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an EIAR: No, an EIAR 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 – due to unresolved objection from National Air Traffic Services Page 47
Page 48
Classification: OFFICIAL (L) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 3rd October 2025 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 6th October 2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 48
Page 49
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/01541/S36 COMMITTEE REPORT PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME 1.1 Any application for an onshore power generating station with an installed capacity of over 50 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 sections of the Planning Act which establish the primacy of Development Plan Policy in decision making are not engaged. NPF4 and LDP2 form the Development Plan. Whilst they do not have primacy in S36 decision making, they remain an important consideration to inform the Council’s consultation response. 1.3 Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act requires the applicant and the decision maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the developer shall have regard to: (a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings, and objects of architectural, historical, or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings, or objects. 1.4 It obliges the Scottish Ministers as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at (a) and the extent to which the applicant has complied with the duty at (b). 1.5 Assessment of the proposal against the policies of NPF4 and LDP2 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent that the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties. 1.6 The Council can either support or object and recommend conditions to be imposed if consent is granted by Scottish Ministers. If an objection is raised by the Council, Scottish Ministers are obliged to hold a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) if they are minded to grant consent. They can also choose to hold a PLI in other circumstances at their own discretion. Any Inquiry would be conducted by a Reporter appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. If consent is granted the Council as Planning Authority is responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, ongoing monitoring, and enforcement. Page 49
Page 50
Classification: OFFICIAL 1.7 This report considers the relevant policy considerations, planning merits, views of consultees and representations. It recommends views to be conveyed to the ECU for consideration before a decision is made. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 An extension was requested from the ECU in May to enable objections to be resolved from NatureScot, RSPB Scotland, and National Air Traffic Services and a consultation response to be received from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. This request was refused, and a holding objection was submitted which requested that the ECU postpone making a decision on the application until the outstanding matters had been resolved and the Council provides a further response. Apart from the outstanding NATS objection all matters have been resolved, and it is intended that this report and its recommendations will provide the Council’s final consultation response to the ECU. 3. SPATIAL AND SETTLEMENT STRATEGY 2.1 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas establishes acceptable scales of development in three different zones. The wind farm site is located within Remote Countryside, which only supports specific categories of development. This includes renewable energy related development. In principle, Policy 02 supports renewable energy and ancillary development in these areas, providing they are consistent with all other relevant LDP2 Policies. With respect to the requirement for developments to accord with all other relevant policies, particular attention is drawn to Policies 70 to 76 with respect to landscape and the natural environment. Proposals must also demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (individual or cumulative) on natural heritage, built and/or cultural heritage, and landscape and visual amenity. 2.2 Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA) - requires that proposals in or affecting a LLA must demonstrate that: a) any significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, economic or environmental benefits of community wide importance; b) The proposal is supported by a landscape and visual impact assessment and has taken account of the content of any relevant Argyll & Bute Landscape Capacity Assessment; and c) The location, scale, design, materials and landscaping would be of a high standard and would safeguard or enhance the special qualities and character of the Local Landscape Area. Part of the existing access and proposed temporary turning area to be located across from it on the other side of the road would be in the West Kintyre (Coast) LLA. Given the temporary nature of this it is acceptable subject to condition to secure submission of the exact details and specification of the temporary turning area and reinstatement proposals (including landscaping) for agreement with the planning authority prior to commencement of works. A condition is also recommended to ensure that the turning area is temporary, and use is restricted. 2.3 Policy 04 – Sustainable Development requires that in preparing new proposals developers should demonstrate the following sustainable development principles (where relevant) such as: maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; support existing communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services; conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets; respect Page 50
Page 51
Classification: OFFICIAL the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; avoid places with significant risk of flooding, or ground instability and avoid having significant adverse impacts on land, air and water environment. This application is supported by an EIAR which sets out in detail the measures proposed to ensure the proposal is ‘Sustainable Development.’ 2.4 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP2 provide the primary policy framework for assessing renewable energy proposals. In this case, due to the outstanding objection from National Air Traffic Services the proposal is contrary to development plan policy relating to the spatial and settlement strategy which requires proposals to be consistent with all relevant policies. 2.5 Having due regard to the above, this proposal is contrary to the provisions of LDP 2 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas and LDP Policy 04 – Sustainable Development. 3. ENERGY & SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF RENEWABLES 3.1 Argyll & Bute Council is keen to ensure that Argyll & Bute continues to make a positive contribution to meeting the Scottish Government’s targets for renewable energy generation. These targets are important given the compelling need to reduce our carbon footprint and 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 proposal is located off the A83, at approx. 2.5km east of Tayinloan, on the Kintyre Peninsula. The site extends to approx. 1,052 ha and comprises upland plateau moorland and conifer forest, locally known as the Killean Estate. 4.2 Within the site are several small lochs, from north to south these include Loch Dirigadale, Loch a' Ghlinn Bhig, Loch Luireach, Loch Fionn-Ghleann and Loch na Naich. Several watercourses also run through the site - primarily the tributaries of Allt Chaltuinn to the north and Killean Burn to the west. Killean Burn passes through the west of the site and flows westwards into the Sound of Gigha. 4.3 The A83 passes northwards, approx. 1km to the west of the western boundary of the site. 4.4 Proposed Development – the main components are: • Up to 9 wind turbines, each with a maximum tip height of 180m Page 51
Page 52
Classification: OFFICIAL • At each wind turbine, associated low to medium voltage transformers and related switchgear • Permanent wind turbine foundations • Hardstanding areas for crane erection at each wind turbine • Two new watercourse crossings and 14 existing crossings which may need to be upgraded • Approx. 10.5km of access tracks, comprising 5.58km of new tracks and 4.92km of existing tracks to be upgraded • Upgraded site access from the existing junction with the A83 • Temporary turning area to facilitate access on opposite side of road to site access • Onsite underground electrical cables and cable trenches • Substation compound • A temporary construction compound for office welfare and materials storage • Up to 6 borrow pit search areas • The potential for onsite concrete batching, the location of which would be confirmed prior to commencement of development once need is confirmed • Felling of 41.3ha hectares of forestry and associated compensatory planting. • Habitat management and biodiversity improvements as set out in Outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (OBEMP) 4.5 It is anticipated that construction would take approx. 15 months, depending upon seasonal working and weather conditions. The proposal is expected to operate for up to 50 years following which decommissioning of the wind turbines and other infrastructure would be undertaken. Infrastructure 4.6 Connection to Electricity Grid – The proposal would be connected at Carradale Substation, located approx. 11.2km southeast of the site. The connection would be comprised of buried 132kV cables and/or Overhead lines (OHL). The exact arrangement of this grid connection is subject to detailed design by SSEN Transmission, the Transmission Operator (TO). Any final grid connection route and associated consents would be the responsibility of the TO and this route would require further studies and would be subject to a separate consenting process. 4.7 Scottish Water – have advised the ECU that they have no objection. Advice is provided on Drinking Water Protected Areas, and Surface Water. 4.8 Drinking Water Protected Areas – they have confirmed there are no Scottish Water drinking water catchments or water abstraction sources, which are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas under the Water Framework Directive, in the area that may be affected by the proposal. 4.9 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. 4.10 Private Water supplies (PWS) – SEPA have not provided any advice on private water supplies. Page 52
Page 53
Classification: OFFICIAL 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 Socio-Economic Impact - The proposal would deliver some economic benefits during its construction and operation. It is estimated that during construction, the proposal could generate £5.9 million Gross Value Added (GVA) and 80 jobs in Argyll & Bute and £18.1 million GVA and 260 jobs in Scotland. During the operational phase, annually the proposal could generate £0.3 million GVA and 3 jobs in Argyll & Bute; and £1.1 million GVA and 12 jobs across Scotland. 5.3 The Applicant has stated that through local partnerships they will support communities to develop skills sought after within the onshore wind sector, to secure jobs and optimise the opportunities associated with the proposal. They have also committed to prioritise local companies in the provision of contracts during construction and operation. 5.4 The proposal will contribute to public finances through the payment of non- domestic rates, which could amount to £0.7 million annually, or £35.6 million over a 50-year operational lifetime. This will support the funding of local public services in the context of challenging public sector finances. 5.5 To support local ambitions and needs, it has become customary practice to offer community benefit funding, with Scottish Government guidance suggesting £5,000 per annum per installed MW. This level of funding would generate around £0.3 million every year for the local economy, equivalent to £14.9 million over the lifetime of the wind farm and could support up to 5 jobs locally. 5.6 The local area also could take part in the Applicant’s Local Electricity Discount Scheme, reducing the household energy bills in the community, as well as shared ownership options. 5.7 The latest position from the Applicant is they now have internal approval to formally offer a revenue share to the community. It is anticipated that the Information Memorandum will be ready for presentation to the community groups around the date of committee. They expect to be able to offer the Community an opportunity to purchase up to 5% of the project post construction. 5.8 The economic benefits associated with this proposal relating to job creation and benefits to the local economy from the influx of construction workers, by spending on accommodation, eating out and visiting local attractions are a relevant consideration, which has been considered. Community Benefit is not however, a ‘material planning consideration’ in the determination of planning applications, as there is no planning mechanism available to secure it. If consent were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit either directly with the local Page 53
Page 54
Classification: OFFICIAL community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process. 5.9 Having due regard to the above it is considered a degree of net economic impact including local and community socio-economic benefits typical of such developments will be provided. It is therefore concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewable of LDP2 in this regard. 6. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY, VISUAL IMPACT, NOISE AND SHADOW FLICKER 6.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including residential amenity, visual impact, noise, and shadow flicker have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for renewable developments to be assessed in terms of impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity noise, and shadow flicker (including cumulative). Noise 6.2 ABC Noise Consultant – has advised that good practice has been adopted by the applicant, with a few minor issues identified. The most significant of these issues are: • The study area for Killean wind farm includes receptors that are exposed to noise levels from the operational Deucheran wind farm and consented Clachaig Glen wind farm. It has been shown that the application of apportioned noise limits will be necessary to ensure cumulative noise impacts do not exceed the derived noise limits at some receptors. It is recommended that the Applicant considers this and suggests suitable values. • The omission of the details of any screening attenuation and concave ground corrections that have been applied. The inclusion of the applied values in the reporting is suggested within good practice but is not a formal requirement, however, it has potentially led to an inability to accurate replicate the applicant’s calculations. • The receptor labelled H27 ‘South Beachmore Farm’ is incorrectly named ‘High Crubasdale’ in Tables 11.7, 11.8, 11.9 and 11.10. • Confirmation that there are no derelict properties with residential planning status in the study area. • The proposed noise condition does not contain the partial levels. Nor include a suitable control for amplitude modulation. 6.3 Following a satisfactory response, it is considered that there would be no reasons to object on noise grounds. A suitably worded condition to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation should be applied to control noise levels from Page 54
Page 55
Classification: OFFICIAL the proposed development. A revision based on the proposed condition should be provided. 6.4 Applicant’s response to Noise Consultant – they have considered the Noise Consultants review and note that some minor points have been raised. They will be pleased to agree wording for a revised noise condition which will include updated limits that more thoroughly account for potential cumulative operational impacts and that include controls for amplitude modulation (AM). This will provide further comfort that the overall requirements of ETSU-R-97 will be met in practice. They consider that this can be addressed during the agreement of conditions process. Additionally, they acknowledge the error highlighted in the Councils Noise Consultants review relating to receptor location coordinates and will be happy to correct this. Finally, they confirm that from their understanding, the previous consent for the reinstatement of a residential dwelling at Braids has now lapsed and there are no derelict properties with residential planning status in the study area. 6.5 ABC Noise Consultant - have reviewed the clarifications provided by the applicant and would respond as follows. They agree that the apportioned limits can be agreed with the conditions (if consent is granted). They note that no further information on screening or valley correction has been provided – it will be the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the agreed noise limits can be met. They are unable to verify this in the absence of this information. Confirmation of typos is fine. Confirmation that there are no derelict properties is fine. Confirmation that the applicant will accept an AM condition is also fine. On that basis, they would conclude that satisfactory clarifications have either been provided or can be dealt with at the conditions stage of the application, and therefore their previous conclusions regarding the acceptability of the scheme still stand. 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 Analysis was performed on all properties within ten rotor diameters of any turbine. This shadow flicker assessment is based on turbines with a 155m rotor diameter, and a 100m micro-siting allowance for infrastructure. As such, this 100m distance is added to the ten-rotor diameter (1,550 = 10 * 155) m distance to give a total distance of (1,650 = 1550 + 100) m from any turbine. Analysis was undertaken for shadow flicker at all properties within 1,650m from any wind turbine. 6.8 With an allowance for 100m micro-siting, there are no inhabited houses within 1,650m of any wind turbine and thus no flicker is predicted. A property referred to as Braids is scoped out of the assessment as it is uninhabited and would require planning permission to make habitable. The building currently lacks a roof, windows, and some walls, and is therefore not considered to be a building used for long-term residential purposes. It is therefore concluded that Killean Wind Farm will not cause a material reduction to residential amenity owing to shadow flicker. Page 55
Page 56
Classification: OFFICIAL 6.9 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Councils Noise Consultant being attached to any grant of consent it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 in this respect. 7. SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS 7.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how significant landscape and visual impacts have been addressed, recognising that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy. Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered acceptable. Policy 4 a) - Natural Places of NPF4 states that proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments are assessed against landscape and visual impacts. 7.2 The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect - has undertaken a review of the landscape and visual effects of the proposal. 7.3 The proposal - A previous application for a wind farm on a similar site was refused following a Public Local Inquiry held in 2019. This original application comprised a development of 15 turbines, 149.9m high to blade tip and extended more to the east than the current proposal with around 6 turbines being located on open moorland. The current application comprises 9 turbines up to 180m high to blade tip. Most of the turbines are located within a conifer plantation with 3 turbines lying in more open ground close to the woodland edge. 7.4 A Design Statement has been produced which outlines opportunities, constraints and decision-making influencing the design. This document notes the previous application for a wind farm on this site and its refusal in 2019. It outlines the changes that have occurred to Scottish planning policy since then with the adoption of NPF4. It states that there is recognition that the reasons for refusal of this previous scheme are important but that it is not possible to remove all landscape and visual impacts given the increase in turbine height and it is acknowledged that ‘in many instances the visual effects that would arise would be of a similar nature’. One of the key aims has been to avoid a notable increase in visual impact when compared with the previous scheme and the document seems to express the view that the reduction in the number of turbines from 15 to 9 would be key to achieving this. 7.5 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) - accords with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (GLVIA3). The visualisations are clear and consistent with best practice guidance although the maps showing viewpoint locations are too small to read. 7.6 The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect considers that the LVIA generally under-estimates landscape and visual effects. They have reviewed the findings from the original Killean LVIA and note some key differences with the judgements made in the LVIA for the current scheme. The LVIA for the original scheme concluded that significant effects would occur on a larger number of Landscape Page 56
Page 57
Classification: OFFICIAL Character Types (LCTs) and on views from the Islay Ferry and Knapdale whereas the current LVIA does not. The current proposal has a smaller number of turbines although these are over 30m higher than the turbines proposed in the original scheme. The extent of visibility of the proposal (despite the reduction in the number of turbines) is similar to that of the original scheme. 7.7 The Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2017 - The proposal lies within the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic (6) Landscape Character Type (LCT). The Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (ABLWES) finds the combined landscape and visual sensitivity of this landscape to be high-medium to wind turbines >80m high. 7.8 The study identifies major constraints as potential cumulative effects with other wind farms. It notes that while no designated landscapes apply to this LCT, it abuts a coastal APQ in places and turbines visible on prominent skylines above the coastal fringe may indirectly affect special qualities. Key cumulative issues are highlighted in the study and these include: ‘Larger turbines and/or more extensive wind farm developments sited on the outer edges of the Kintyre uplands where they would be likely to significantly increase landscape and visual impacts on the settled coastal edge of Kintyre and on views from Arran and Gigha and would also further erode the established pattern of wind farm developments largely associated with the less sensitive core of these uplands’. 7.9 The guidance set out for the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT advises that there is very limited scope for additional large typology turbines to be accommodated within this landscape principally due to potential cumulative effects that could occur on the coastal fringes of Kintyre and on views from Arran and Gigha. The guidance advises that significant intrusion on adjacent settled and small-scale landscape character types and on Arran and Gigha should be avoided by siting larger turbines well back into the interior of these uplands. 7.10 Effects on landscape character - The LVIA finds that significant effects would arise on the character of the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT within which the proposed wind farm would be sited. The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect agrees with this finding and with the judgement that these effects would extend up to around 6km or so from the wind farm. The LVIA concludes that there would be no significant effects on any other LCT within the LVIA study area. 7.11 Contrary to the findings of the LVIA, the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect considers that the wind farm would incur significant adverse effects on the Coastal Plain LCT which forms a triangular and flat area of farmland, woodland and moor extending west to Rhunahaorine Point. This is a small LCT, and effects would be widespread. The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect also disagrees with the judgement made in the LVIA regarding effects on the character of the Coastal Parallel Ridges LCT which covers the whole of the island of Gigha. Gigha lies less than 3km from the west coast of the Kintyre peninsula at its closest point across the narrow Sound of Gigha. The very large turbines would be prominent in views from Gigha and from the Sound of Gigha and the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect considers that significant adverse effects would occur on the sense of remoteness and naturalness associated with the island and the immediate waters surrounding it. It should be noted that the recent consent of the Clachaig Glen II wind farm will diminish the current perceptual qualities associated with Gigha and its immediate seascape if constructed. Page 57
Page 58
Classification: OFFICIAL 7.12 There would also be some localised adverse effects on the Rocky Mosaic LCT where the proposal would be seen principally in the vicinity of Glenacardoch Point and where the creation of the access off the A83 would involve the removal of vegetation and road widening near Killean. Sections of hedgerow are proposed to be removed near the site access. Some removal of trees near the site access also formed part of the previous proposal considered at PLI but this does not appear to be mentioned in the EIAR. While the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect considers that there will be some significant adverse effects on parts of the Rocky Mosaic LCT, they will be limited in extent and effects on this LCT would not be widespread. 7.13 Effects on designated landscapes - The proposal is not located in a designated landscape but would lie within 1.7km of the West Kintyre Coast Local Landscape Area (LLA). There is no citation for this, but it principally comprises settled and more intricately patterned coastal fringes with key special qualities likely to comprise a diverse landform and landcover pattern and views along the coast and out to sea to the west to Gigha, Islay and Jura. The LVIA concludes that the proposal would not have significant effects on this LLA. It is considered that there would be significant adverse effects on some of the key qualities of this LLA but that overall, the integrity of the designation would not be compromised given the limited visibility of the proposal particularly from the more diverse parts of the coast and lack of intrusion in westward views. 7.14 Visual effects - The location of the proposal on west-facing outer slopes of the Kintyre peninsula would increase visibility from the sea, coast, and Gigha. It is considered that significant adverse effects on views would principally occur from the following locations: • The Kintyre Way where the proposal would be seen at close quarters as the route is aligned through the site. VP’s 1 and 2 illustrate the close views that would occur from this nationally important route. While the proposal would be seen from the Kintyre Way where it is aligned along the coast in the vicinity of Rhunahaorine Point, effects would be particularly severe along approx. 7km of the route east of Tayinloan. The proposal would be likely to introduce new visibility of a large-scale wind energy development along approximately 5km of the route but would be seen together with the consented Clachaig Glen II wind farm principally between the eastern edge of the site and Loch na Naich for around 2km distance (The cumulative ZTV Figure 5.36 indicates theoretical visibility of the Clachaig Glen II within Killean Glen and across the Killean wind farm site but from field observations it is considered that woodland (including non-productive woodland aligning the Killean burn) and local landform features would be likely to screen views so that the Killean wind farm would only be seen from this part of the Kintyre Way). Both developments would be likely to result in an overwhelming effect for walkers who would be surrounded by very large wind turbines. • The Sound of Gigha and Gigha - The proposal would be visible across much of Gigha and the Sound of Gigha. There will be fairly consistent visibility of the proposal from the single-track road which runs the length of Gigha, from settlement which is principally located on the more sheltered eastern side of the island and from walking routes along the coast and on the hills on the higher spine of the island. These views are illustrated by VP’s 6 and 8. The recently consented Clachaig Glen II wind farm would have a similar visual influence in views from the Sound of Gigha and Gigha. Both wind farms would Page 58
Page 59
Classification: OFFICIAL appear to lie near each other and would increase the extent of visibility of wind turbines seen on the skyline of the Kintyre uplands • The west Kintyre coast - there would be extensive visibility of the proposal from the open Coastal Plain (VP 3 from Tayinloan jetty, VP 4 Point Sands). There would also be visibility in the vicinity of Glenacardoch Point. (The A83 is tucked into the base of rising and often wooded slopes and the raised beach edge south of Clachan and views of the proposal would be limited from this route as it traverses the western coast of Kintyre). The recently consented Clachaig Glen II wind farm will be seen in close association with this proposal and would increase the extent of large wind turbines seen on the skyline of hills to the east from the coast. • Knapdale - There would be visibility of the proposal from the southern part of the Knapdale peninsula with this likely to be restricted to more open coastal locations due to the extensive woodland present. More distant operational wind farms located in the central part of the Kintyre peninsula are already clearly seen in the view but are not prominent due to the size of turbines, their partial screening by landform and their distance. Viewpoint 11 from the B8204 illustrates how the turbines will appear overly large in relation to the height of the northern uplands of the Kintyre peninsula increasing the impact on views. It should be noted that the recently consented Clachaig Glen II wind farm would appear to overlap with this proposal from this part of Knapdale. If built, this consented scheme would lessen the effects of the proposal from this location. • The Islay Ferry - Similar to the account of views from Knapdale above, the Council’s Landscape Architect considers that while alone the proposal would incur significant adverse effects due to its size and prominent position on east- facing slopes as the ferry approaches West Loch Tarbet, should the consented Clachaig Glen be built, these effects would be reduced where both schemes appear to overlap. 7.15 The LVIA concludes that significant night-time effects would arise from three viewpoints (two of these along the Kintyre Way at Killean and Loch na Naich VPs 1 and 2). The Council’s Landscape Architect considers that night-time lighting would additionally extend the duration of significant effects from the Sound of Gigha and from Gigha (the night-time visualisation from VP6 at Ardminish is useful but it cannot compare with the brightness of wind turbine lighting seen in the field). 7.16 Residential Visual Amenity Assessment - The Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) identifies 12 residential properties lying within 2km of the proposal. One of these properties (Braids which lies very close to the wind farm) is uninhabited and 8 properties (lying in the vicinity of Largie Farm on lower wooded slopes) have no theoretical visibility of the proposal due to the screening provided by landform and trees. The RVAA found that effects on the remaining 3 properties would not be significant. Although the Councils Landscape Architect has not been able to visit each of the properties considered in the RVAA, based on the visual material produced in the LVIA, they consider the findings to be reasonable. Page 59
Page 60
Classification: OFFICIAL 7.17 Cumulative landscape and visual effects with other proposed wind farms - This proposal has greatest potential to incur significant adverse cumulative effects with the consented Clachaig Glen II wind farm which lies within 1km to the south. Significant adverse combined cumulative effects would occur on landscape character and on views from the Kintyre Way, the Sound of Gigha and Gigha. The Killean proposal will increase the horizontal extent of turbines seen on the upland skyline but, in a scenario where the Clachaig Glen II proposal is constructed, it would not introduce new larger wind turbines to views. 7.18 Conclusions - A key aim of the design has been to avoid a notable increase in visual impact when compared with the previous Killean scheme which was refused in 2019. The location of the previous scheme on open west-facing slopes opposite Gigha and the size of the turbines were key factors influencing significant landscape and visual effects and the reasons for refusal. While this proposal has fewer turbines, they are larger. There have been some improvements to the siting of turbines but only as far as turbines have been removed from sensitive open moorland to minimise effects on Golden Eagles. The site still comprises west- facing slopes lying on the outer edges of the Kintyre peninsula which are more open to views from the Kintyre coast and Gigha and its immediate seascape. The Councils Landscape Architect considers that some of the objectives identified in the Design Statement, for example the aim to offset the distance between turbines and the Kintyre Way, would achieve no meaningful mitigation in terms of reducing the prominence of very large wind turbines seen near this route. 7.19 The previous Clachaig Glen wind farm proposal was preferred at the conjoined inquiry held with Killean in 2019 principally because of its reduced landscape and visual effects. This was due in part to its more visually contained siting and smaller turbines (115-126m high to blade tip). The Clachaig Glen II proposal (comprising larger turbines than the original consented scheme) was recently consented on appeal in November 2024. The reporter considered that while this wind farm would have significant effects on landscape character extending 3km from the development, it would not harm the West Kintyre LLA, would not dominate the settled small scale Rocky Mosaic LCT or affect or detract from the character of the coast. In terms of the effects on views, the Reporter concluded that significant effects would occur on Gigha and the Sound of Gigha, the Kintyre Way, and Point Sands but it would not intrude on views from the west. The Councils Landscape Architect considers that the Clachaig Glen II significantly increases the intrusion on Gigha and the Sound of Gigha when compared with the original Clachaig Glen scheme which comprised smaller turbines and additionally benefitted from some screening by landform. 7.20 Changes have occurred to national planning policy since the 2019 Conjoined Killean and Clachaig Glen Wind Farms PLI. NPF4 Policy 11e ii states that significant landscape and visual 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. 7.21 The proposal would have significant adverse effects on landscape and coastal character and on the character of the island of Gigha. Significant adverse effects on views will principally occur from Gigha Sound, from the settled eastern coast and small spine of hills on Gigha, the Kintyre Way and the Rhunahaorine Point/Point Sands area. Visible aviation lighting of 4 turbines will increase the duration of adverse effects on views. Page 60
Page 61
Classification: OFFICIAL 7.22 Cumulative landscape and visual effects would principally arise between the consented Clachaig Glen II wind farm and this proposal. As there is a strong likelihood that the consented Clachaig Glen II scheme will be constructed, it is important that the Killean proposal is not considered in isolation. In many key views, for example from Point Sands (VP4) and from Gigha (VPs 6 and 8), the Killean proposal will appear as an extension to Clachaig Glen II, exacerbating significant adverse effects, for example, in terms of increasing the extent of turbines seen on skylines looking east but not being the first to introduce new much larger and more prominent wind turbines to the scene. Put simply, the consent of Clachaig Glen II will already incur significant adverse effects on key views from Gigha, Gigha Sound and part of the west Kintyre coast and this will reduce landscape and visual sensitivity and the magnitude of change likely to occur should the 9 turbines of the Killean proposal be added in a similar location. This is confirmed by the cumulative wirelines produced in the EIAR for VPs 4, 6 and 8. In views from the A83 both wind farms will generally be seen together with the presence of Clachaig Glen II, in VP 9 near Clachan for example, likely to result in the effects of the Killean proposal being not significant if subsequently constructed. A similar reduction in the sole effect of Killean would occur from VP 11 in Knapdale if Clachaig Glen II were present. 7.23 Recommendation in terms of landscape and visual matters - The proposal would have similar significant adverse landscape and visual effects to the previous proposal which was refused in 2019. Changes to national planning policy and the consent of the Clachaig Glen II wind farm have a bearing on the decision to be made on the acceptability of this proposal in terms of its landscape and visual effects. While the Councils Landscape Architect considers that the effects of this proposal on its own could be termed more than local in extent because of the significant effects on landscape/coastal character and on views from Gigha and the Sound of Gigha that would arise (lying up to 9km distance), the likely construction of the Clachaig Glen II wind farm would moderate these effects. The Councils Landscape Architect therefore recommends that no objection should be raised in respect of landscape and visual interests subject to the following conditions being imposed: Visible aviation lighting - The Applicant’s proposal for a condition to allow for implementation of an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (outlined in the Schedule of Mitigation) Chapter 14 of the EIAS is welcomed. While the Clachaig Glen II reporter’s findings on conditions requiring periodic review of aviation lighting are acknowledged the Councils Consultant Landscape Architect considers that the large number of wind farm proposals across Argyll & Bute requiring aviation lighting is a major concern and such a condition is imperative to reduce the cumulative landscape and visual effects of such lighting Woodland and wider landscape mitigation and enhancement – the Councils Landscape Architect considers that the Applicant should adopt a more ambitious approach to forest restructuring using the wind farm development as a catalyst for more effective and speedier restructuring of productive forestry which would enhance both landscape character and biodiversity and fit with the aims of NPF4 Policy 3. Wider landscape enhancement should also be undertaken as should measures to ensure the longevity of screening woodland. A condition should be set up to require the applicant to undertake: Page 61
Page 62
Classification: OFFICIAL • Substantial increases in broadleaved planting as part of the wind farm restocking plan (the increases above the agreed forest plan which are currently proposed are relatively small) including riparian planting across the wider Killean estate (both new woodlands and management and expansion of existing riparian woodlands, for example those within the valley of the Killean Burn). • Redesign of the outer margins of productive woodland (this tying in where appropriate with measures set out in the BEMP to enhance Black Grouse habitat) to remedy hard angular edges and improve the fit of plantations with landform. • Compensatory planting should be undertaken within the Killean Estate. Argyll & Bute Council should be consulted, in addition to Scottish Forestry, on the location, extent and composition of this planting. • Management of existing mature mixed woodlands in the vicinity of Killean House including new planting to retain and enhance screening of the proposed wind farm from the coast and protect the landscape setting provided to the Killean Estate buildings and St John’s Church (as seen in Cultural Heritage Figure 6.4) 7.24 Key visualisations for the Committee to review include: VP1: Loch na Naich – Kintyre Way, VP2: Killean – Kintyre Way, VP3: Tayinloan Jetty, VP4: Point Sands, VP6: Ardminish Bay, Gigha, VP8: Creag Bhan, Gigha, VP9: A83 near Clachan (Sheet A illustrates how the proposal would be seen together with Clachaig Glen 2), and Figure 6.4: Killean Estate Buildings 7.25 NatureScot – in summary, have advised the ECU while there are significant adverse landscape and visual effects, these do not raise issues of national interest. Furthermore, they defer to Argyll & Bute Council and North Ayrshire Council in terms of effects on locally designated landscapes. NatureScot advise that the nature and scale of the proposal at this location is such, that it cannot be accommodated without significant adverse landscape and visual effects, including cumulative effects and night-time effects. They consider that given the proposed siting, scale, and type of development, it would be very challenging to overcome the significant adverse effects identified within the site parameters. They would encourage the Applicant to reconsider the design, particularly where the proposal would have significant adverse effects on parts of the west coast of Kintyre, the Isle of Gigha, and the Sound of Gigha. This is likely to require a reduction in the vertical height of the turbines which may reduce some of the severity of effects. 7.26 North Ayrshire Council - advised the ECU that consideration should be given to the potential impacts of the North Arran NSA when determining the application. Officer’s Conclusion 7.27 Based on the advice of the Council’s Landscape Architect, NatureScot, and North Ayrshire Council it is concluded that the proposal does not warrant an objection on landscape and visual grounds. This is however subject to the conditions recommended by the Councils Landscape Architect being attached if the proposal receives consent. Page 62
Page 63
Classification: OFFICIAL 7.28 Having due regard to the above subject to the conditions recommended by the Councils Landscape Architect being attached to any grant of consent it is concluded that the proposal complies with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 4 – Natural Places of NPF4, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 in this respect. 8. IMPACTS ON TOURISM AND RECREATION 8.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 does not require impacts on tourism to be considered. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on tourism and recreation. 8.2 Tourism – Policy 11 of NPF4 does not include a requirement for the impact of proposals on tourism to be assessed. However, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP does. In Argyll & Bute the landscape is regarded as being a particularly valued asset both in terms of its intrinsic qualities and in terms of its value to the tourism economy. For all types of development, the maintenance of landscape character is an important facet of decision-making in the countryside in Argyll & Bute, regardless of the scale of development proposed. 8.3 As Tourism and Landscape & Visual matters are intrinsically linked, and there is little evidence to demonstrate whether wind farms adversely affect tourism, it is considered that such impacts are covered in the landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal. 8.4 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 04 – Sustainable Development and 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of ABLDP2 in this respect. 9. PUBLIC ACCESS 9.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on public access are addressed, including impact on long distance walking, and cycling routes and scenic routes. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and those scenic routes identified in NPF4. Policy 32 – Active Travel of LDP2 requires active travel and recreation to be integrated in developments from the start of the wider design process and existing active travel networks should be safeguarded and integrated with the development. 9.2 The Council’s Access Officer has advised that the 9 wind turbines will be visible for over 5 miles of the Kintyre Way which is the most heavily used path in the area affected by the proposal being popular with walkers, cyclists, and horse riders. The height of the turbines is understood to be 180m and this is inevitable. This is the latest of around 16 wind farms in operation or under construction in the Kintyre area. The Access Officer does not know whether this concentration of wind farms has had a positive or negative effect on tourism in the area. The 9 turbines will be close to the Kintyre Way; however, this will not Page 63
Page 64
Classification: OFFICIAL be the only location where this is the case. This is not unique to the Kintyre Way with many long-distance paths in Scotland and the rest of the world passing close to wind farms. 9.3 The Access Officer is concerned that the developer has not produced an Access Plan which details how they will manage public access during the construction phase, especially the upgrading of the main access road which is a designated Core Path C094(b) and follows the route of the Kintyre Way. The developer and their contractors are required to keep the Core Path open throughout the works and will need to manage the construction to allow this. Elsewhere contractors have been able to upgrade forestry tracks without closing them to the public although this has required additional planning and the employment of banksmen etc. Whilst it is permissible to divert sections of the route on to adjacent routes this will require a Section 208 Path Diversion Order for which the developer should allow at least 8 weeks for consultation. This is only possible for one part of the affected section of the Core Path and some improvements to the alternate route via Braids may be required before it can be used, as will the permission of the landowner. 9.4 In summary the Access Officer does not have any objection to the proposed wind farm. The Applicant will need to consider how they manage the construction phase of the project to ensure that the public can continue to exercise their legal rights of access, and the Access Officer is happy to discuss this with them at that stage. A condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction will ensure that this happens. The Access Officer is also happy to meet the developer and the contractor to advise on the draft Access Plan prior to its submission. 9.5 Having due regard to the above subject, to the condition to secure an Access Plan being attached to any grant of consent 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 LDP2. 10. AVIATION AND DEFENCE INTERESTS INCLUDING SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING 10.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed. Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would compromise the safe operation of an Aerodrome or Technical Site or constrain their present or future operations. 10.2 Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) – advised the ECU that, subject to the conditions to secure Aviation Lighting and Aviation Charting and Safety Management, they have no objection. 10.3 Highlands & Islands Airport initially submitted a holding objection and advised the ECU they required an updated Instrument Flight Procedure impact assessment report. An updated Instrument Flight Procedure impact assessment was Page 64
Page 65
Classification: OFFICIAL submitted which confirmed the proposal will have no impact on the IFPs serving Campbeltown Airport. Therefore, HIAL removed the holding objection and confirmed they have no objections. 10.4 National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) has advised the ECU the proposal conflicts with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, they object. They further advised the ECU that it is always their preference to identify a specific mitigation and, if possible, put in place a delivery framework before actively offering a conditional withdrawal of their objection. However, they have confirmed that they have an identified mitigation that with the commitment of both parties can be delivered prior to the development commencing. 10.5 Glasgow Prestwick Airport and Glasgow Airport have advised the ECU they have no objection. 10.6 Having due regard to the unresolved NATS objection it is concluded the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes, of the LDP2. Note: If NATS withdraw their objection, and the ECU is minded to grant consent for this proposal. Any conditions recommended by NATS to secure any necessary mitigation and the conditions recommended by the Ministry of Defence should be attached. 11. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING INSTALLATIONS 11.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, have been addressed particularly, ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. 11.2 BT advised the ECU that the proposal should not cause interference to their current and presently planned radio network. Arqiva advised the ECU they have no objection and recommend a planning condition to mitigate the impact of any degradation of television and radio reception caused by the wind turbines. Joint Radio Company - advised the ECU the proposal is CLEARED - subject to 100m Micrositing (as stated in the EIAR) - with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. 11.3 Having due regard to the above subject to the condition recommended by Arqiva and the Joint Radio Company it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on telecommunications, broadcasting installations and transmission links (including cumulative impacts) and is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 in this respect. 12. ROAD TRAFFIC AND ADJACENT TRUNK ROADS Page 65
Page 66
Classification: OFFICIAL 12.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on road traffic and on adjacent trunk roads have been addressed, including during construction. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on road traffic and impacts on adjacent trunk roads. Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes of LDP2 acceptance of development utilising new and existing public roads, private roads and private access regimes is subject to road safety and street design issues being addressed to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority and the Planning Authority. Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads requires that accesses which connect to or impact significantly on a Trunk Road require consultation with Transport Scotland. 12.2 Transport Scotland (TS) have advised the ECU the nearest trunk road to the site is the A83(T) which would provide access into the development via a private access track. A turning area on the west side of the A83(T) opposite the site access is required to assist with the right turn manoeuvre required to enter the site. Based on the review undertaken, Transport Scotland can confirm that they are satisfied with the submitted EIAR and have no objection to the development in terms of environmental impacts on the trunk road network. They would, however, request that the following conditions be attached to any consent that may be granted: details of the proposed means of access to be submitted for approval, the proposed route for any abnormal loads to be submitted for approval, details of any accommodation measures to be approved and implemented, any additional signing or temporary traffic measures must be undertaken by a recognised QA traffic management consultant prior to the movement of any components, Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to be submitted and approved, and wheel washing facilities to prevent vehicles depositing debris on the trunk road. Transport Scotland advise that in addition to the conditions the Applicant should be informed of their advisory notes which set out the requirements for works within the trunk road boundary. 12.3 ABC Roads and Amenity Services - have advised they have no objection. The site access connects directly to the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road, Transport Scotland should be notified. 12.4 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by Transport Scotland it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads in this regard. It is recommended that the conditions required by Area Roads and Amenity Services are attached to any consent granted by the ECU. 13. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 13.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on the historic environment have been addressed. Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4 intent is to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled Page 66
Page 67
Classification: OFFICIAL 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) – have advised the Energy Consents Unit that their view is that the proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance, and they do not object. 13.3 Historic Scotland advise that there are 4 Category A listed buildings immediately adjacent to the application site boundary with the potential to be affected by the construction of access tracks for the proposal. These are the ‘Doll’s Houses,’ Killean. The following additional Category A listed buildings may also be affected by the proposal: Killean House (LB12005) and Killean Chapel (St John’s), Killean Burial Ground (LB12004). There are also several nearby scheduled monuments which may be affected. These include the following: Killean, fort NE of (SM3179), Beacharr, standing stone & long cairn (SM182), Dun Beachaire, dun (SM3143), and Low Clachaig, cup marked boulder 915m E of (4352). 13.4 Whilst the proposal would be visible in key views associated with the settings of several heritage assets, HES are content that the severity of impacts is such that the turbines would not result in significant adverse impacts to the level where they would object. 13.5 They have also considered the impact of the proposed bellmouth and site access on the setting of St John's Church, church, burial ground, and carved stones, Killean (SM3030). This monument consists of the remains of the old parish church of Killean and its burial ground. A simple, unicameral church was erected here probably in the second half of the 12th century, it was altered several times of the following centuries before being abandoned in 1770. The setting of the monument is focused on the sense of place. Its location on the flat coastal plain meant it was visible from much of the surrounding area. There is little modern development west of the road which adds to a sense of separation and means that its place in views up and down the coastline remains uncompromised. 13.6 A bellmouth is proposed just to the north of the monument, to the west of the A83, to facilitate the transport of turbine components approaching from Campbeltown and turning right up the access track to the proposed wind farm. The ground will be reinstated upon completion of turbine delivery. Whilst components are likely to be visible from St John's and the tranquillity and isolation of the church’s setting compromised when in use, the bellmouth will be temporary and then removed upon completion of turbine delivery. Provided this can be ensured HES do not object to these impacts. 13.7 HES have also previously advised that if any trees forming the woodland backdrop to the Killean Estate are damaged or removed by works to upgrade the wind farm access tracks, they should be appropriately replaced. It is recommended that these concerns should be addressed by condition if the proposal received consent. 13.8 West of Scotland Archaeology Service – does not recommend an objection and provides general comments and advice on direct and indirect physical impact Page 67
Page 68
Classification: OFFICIAL issues and setting and cumulative impact issues. In terms of cumulative impact WOSAS find they cannot support the proposed encroachment onto lower ground that is more densely populated with known archaeological sites and monuments. WOSAS does not believe that an objection solely based on predicted adverse impacts on the historic environment would be likely to be sustained. However, they believe that the broader impacts they have referred to might be employed to add weight to the Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment of the proposal. Should the Council determine to object on these or on other grounds they would be pleased to advise further as required. Similarly, if a potential archaeological condition or conditions are required for submission to the ECU or at a later stage, they will be pleased to suggest a suitable form of words. 13.9 Applicant Response to WOSAS (16th September 2025) – note that there is no objection recommended on cultural heritage grounds, and that there is no specific issue with the predicted cultural heritage impacts. There is a comment that there may be too much focus of the assessment on individual heritage assets. This may be how the assessment is set out, however any relevant relationships to ther monuments/relevant historic landscapes, as far as it is possible to identify these, would have been addressed as part of that. The comments are referring to a broader, and perhaps more subjective appreciation of the historic environment. As this remains quite vague, they are not sure there is much that can be offered by way of a detailed response; other than to emphasise that wider landscape relationships have been considered as part of the setting impact assessment. If there is a specific monument or group of monuments that in the view of WOSAS has not been suitably assessed the Applicant would be happy to respond accordingly – noting that there is a large range of heritage assets/archaeological sites which span a large period. 13.10 West of Scotland Archaeology Service – were sent a copy of the Applicants response to ascertain whether they had any further comments. At time of writing no further response has been received. 13.11 Having due regard to the above subject to the conditions to address the concerns of Historic Scotland (tree protection/planting and timeous reinstatement of the temporary bellmouth) and any conditions recommended by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service following further consultation it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy and Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment; 19 – Scheduled Monuments; 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes; and 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance of the LDP2 14. HYDROLOGY, THE WATER ENVIRONMENT AND FLOOD RISK 14.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk have been addressed. Policy 30 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed 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. Page 68
Page 69
Classification: OFFICIAL 14.2 The Council’s Flood Prevention Officer – has advised that they have no objection subject to conditions to ensure that watercourse crossings are designed so there is no reduction in pre-development channel cross sectional area ideally to pass the 1 in 200 years plus climate change flood event; and, surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development runoff is attenuated to the 1 in 2 year greenfield runoff rate. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. 14.3 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Flood Prevention Officer it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 55 – Flooding; and Policy 57 Risk Appraisals of LDP2. 15. BIODIVERSITY 15.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on biodiversity, including birds have been addressed. Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 requires that when considering all proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 3 – Biodiversity of NPF4 requires proposals to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 5 – Soils of NPF4 supports the generation of energy from renewable sources that optimises the contribution of the area to GHG emissions reduction targets on peatland, carbon-rich soils, and priority peatland. A detailed site-specific assessment will be required for development on peatland which will include the net effects of the development on climate emissions and loss of carbon. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from effects on the natural heritage, including birds and to be assessed against impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator (including cumulative). Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity requires proposals to incorporate, safeguard and enhance existing site biodiversity wherever possible. 15.2 NatureScot initially advised the ECU the proposal could affect internationally important natural heritage interests, and they objected until further information regarding the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area was provided. This would enable them to carry out an appraisal of these effects and help the ECU determine the proposal. NatureScot also noted the presence of Leisler’s bats within the footprint of the proposal and advised they would provide further advice on this is due course. 15.3 NatureScot provided advice to the ECU on bats at the site. Bats - The bat activity surveys indicate that there is at least a moderate level of bat activity within the survey area with Nyctalus, Myotis and Pipistrellus species being recorded. Of note is the occurrence of Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus leisleri), which is considered a rare and high-risk species in Scotland. Kintyre is not currently acknowledged to be within the Leisler’s bat established range; however, the bat activity survey provides evidence of a wider distribution of this species in Scotland than is currently known. Page 69
Page 70
Classification: OFFICIAL 15.4 Bat Mitigation - As the Applicant is proposing to keyhole turbines into the existing forestry, this can increase the risk of bat fatalities due to the increase in forest edge habitat close to the turbines and associated infrastructure. We would advise that feathering is routinely applied to the turbine blades below cut-in speed during operation. This measure can help reduce the risk of bat casualties by 50%. If feathering is implemented, we would ask that monitoring is carried out for three years post-construction to assess changes in bat activity. We note that the Applicant was unable to have bat data analysed through EcoBat as it was unavailable at the time. We believe it is now operational and would advise that the Applicant has the data analysed, if possible, to provide an independent assessment on the level of bat activity at the site. 15.5 NatureScot have provided the ECU with a response to the additional information provided by the Applicant, which they requested in their initial response. In summary, they advise that there are natural heritage interests of international importance on the site, but their advice is that these will not be adversely affected by the proposal. They refer to their previous advice in relation to landscape and visual impacts and ecological impacts. 15.6 Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area - The Proposal is located approx. 540 m to the south-west of Loch an Fhraoich, a component loch of the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar Site, and the Kintyre Goose Lochs Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Rhunahaorine Point SSSI (also part of the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA) is located approx. 1.7 km to the north-west of the proposal. These sites are all designated for overwintering populations of Greenland white-fronted geese (GWFG). 15.7 The site’s status means that the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) apply or, for reserved matters, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Consequently, ECU is required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SPA before it can be consented (commonly known as Habitats Regulations Appraisal). 15.8 NatureScot’s advice is that this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the GWFG feature of the SPA. Consequently, ECU, as competent authority, is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interest. They advise that based on the information provided, their conclusion is that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. 15.9 RSPB Scotland – initially advised the ECU that they shared NatureScot's concern regarding the assessment of collision risk for Greenland White-fronted Geese. They would be pleased to provide further comment on this element once the information requested by NS has been provided. Having considered the revised collision risk model for Greenland White-fronted Goose they have advise the ECU they have no further comments and do not object. 15.10 Outline Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (oBEMP) - RSPB Scotland considers the oBEMP to be appropriate and welcomes the outline proposals therein. Page 70
Page 71
Classification: OFFICIAL 15.11 Compensatory Planting - It is noted that infrastructure felling of 33.4 ha and management felling of 7.9 ha will be required should the proposal be consented, but it is presently unclear where the required Compensatory Planting (CP) is proposed to be delivered. RSPB Scotland recommends that wherever possible in an Argyll context, CP is delivered as low-density native shrub and broadleaf woodland, and that planting on good quality open ground habitats is avoided. 15.12 SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) have advised the ECU that a planning condition in relation to Borrow Pit restoration should be attached to any consent if granted. If this will not be applied, then SEPA object. 15.13 Peat Management Plan - SEPA note the proposal to use a depth of 2m peat as restoration of the borrow pits. As most of the borrow pits appear to lie on shallower peat it is unlikely restoration of peat, tying into existing water tables will be successful. SEPA also note the applicant proposes to use this infill of acrotelm and catotelm peat as 'substrate for afforestation' on top of restored borrow pits. Any form of tree planting on top of peat is likely to result in its desiccation; loss of its carbon storing potential and cause it to no longer be peat. SEPA are of the opinion this would therefore be viewed as peat and would require a waste management license. 15.14 SEPA therefore request a condition is attached to any consent for the submission of detailed finalised plans for borrow pit management and restoration prior to commencement of construction on site. In the meantime, they recommend the applicant explores further re-uses of the excavated peat. SEPA recommend the submission of a Finalised Peat management Plan is also conditioned. 15.15 Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) - SEPA have reviewed Technical Appendix 7.1 and the Outline Biodiversity Action Plan and confirm they have no detailed comments to make on these aspects of the proposal. However, they recommend the applicant explores the possibility of the use of peat, even if in small volumes, in conjunction with the proposed drain blocking to improve existing bog habitat. Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment 15.16 Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA), Stage 1 Checking Report advised the ECU that no further response is required. The PLHRA is satisfactory. The checking report has determined that the PLHRA is sufficiently robust in all respects, although some recommendations may be made for clarity, no further revisions are required. 15.17 The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer (LBO) – has provided the following advice and recommendations. 15.18 The Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA/Ramsar/SSSI – lies 540m north of the site boundary and 2.2km from the closest wind turbine. Its Qualifying Feature is - wintering population of Greenland white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons). The Local Biodiversity Officer notes NatureScot’s response of the 28th of October 2023 where they: ‘Advise that the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA and its associated SSSI, so a Habitats Regulations assessment will be required. Effects on the geese could include collision mortality, barrier effects, disturbance during construction and Page 71
Page 72
Classification: OFFICIAL operation, and cumulative effects. The applicant has included a Habitats Regulation Appraisal Report with an overall conclusion ‘the Proposed Development would have no adverse effect on the integrity of the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA.’ The Local Biodiversity Officer agrees with the findings in this report and the mitigation measures of no construction work for the access site taking place to the west of the A83 during October to March to prevent disturbance during feeding. The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the objectives within the Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP) to include a long-term enhanced monitoring programme and GPS-tagging to obtain more data. 15.19 Predicted Habitat Losses and Impacts – has advised that none of the predicted habitat losses (acid flush, blanket bog, wet modified bog, wet heath, marshy grassland, and hedgerow) are likely to have a significant impact and there would be no effects on other habitats of conservation value. The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the habitat and peatland enhancement objectives within the BEMP and the continued monitoring of habitat and peatland restoration throughout the lifetime of the wind farm. They advise that the applicant should include an appropriate plan for mitigation against potential deer impact on newly planted trees until such a time that they are established and no longer vulnerable to over-browsing. 15.20 Peatland - One wind turbine will be located on blanket bog but on peat less than 1m depth. Design of the proposal has changed to avoid areas of deep peat as much as possible and reduce habitat loss of blanket bog. Floating access tracks will be adopted where the levels of peat exceed 1m in depth. The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the objectives within the BEMP for peatland enhancement and monitoring throughout the lifetime of the wind farm. Summary of European Protected Species 15.21 Bats – Seven species of bats were identified in the surveys. The surveys did not identify any area of high bat activity that would require buffering in the wind farm design. No loss of potential bat roosts. No significant impact to bats with a low- risk site for collision with wind turbines. The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the avoidance of bat preferred habitat features with a minimum 50m buffer maintained between wind turbine blade tips and the nearest woodland edge. The Local Biodiversity Officer makes the following recommendation: 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. 15.22 Otter – Evidence of otter was recorded along many of the watercourses and along several of the waterbodies within the site. The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the inclusion of a Species Protection Pan (SPP) to include pre-construction surveys undertaken within one month of the commencement of works, to inform the need for any mitigation measures to ensure significant effects on the species are avoided. Summary of Protected Species 15.23 Badger - No records found within the potential impact zone (30m). A sett was located 50m from the proposed access track across the Killean Burn. Water Vole, Page 72
Page 73
Classification: OFFICIAL Red Squirrel, Pine Marten, and Reptiles - No evidence recorded. Suitable habitat is present 15.24 Fish - Species likely present are brown trout and European eel. Some suitable habitat present. Watercourses will be buffered by 50m apart from locations where access tracks unavoidably need to cross. The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the inclusion of the Species Protection Plan (SPP) and appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) to implement the SPP to include provision of a Toolbox Talk to all construction staff and contractors and to conduct pre- construction surveys of protected species of within a month of works starting and implement appropriate mitigation measures where necessary. 15.25 Summary of Ornithology – 58 species recorded in the Breeding Bird Surveys with an additional 15 non-breeding bird species. 45 species recorded in the Wintering Bird Populations. Species recorded are a mix of raptors, wild fowl, passerines, and grassland birds. Black grouse lekking sites were recorded on site. Red throated divers recorded breeding within 2km of the site. No significant impact of residual impacts on any bird species. Proposal would not affect the favourable conservation status of any bird species of conservation importance. No adverse effect on the integrity of any SPA qualifying interests 15.26 The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the removal of the two northernmost wind turbines to avoid the main goose flight corridor as well as location of the wind turbines and associated infrastructure to avoid protected sites and species including the Kintyre Goose Roost SPA, golden eagles, and hen harriers. It is also noted that there will be a 500m buffer between wind turbines and used black grouse leks and no construction work will take place before 09:00 within 750m of any lek sites during April and May. 15.27 The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the creation of 10ha low-density native woodland edges to improve connectivity and black grouse habitat as outlined in the BEMP. They also welcome the provision of three artificial nest rafts for red- throated divers and long-term monitoring to include breeding bird surveys (BBS), vantage point (VP) surveys, and winter geese surveys. 15.28 Recommendation – as with the habitat and peatland enhancement, the application needs to include a plan for mitigation against potential deer impact on newly planted trees until such a time that they are established and no longer vulnerable to over-browsing. 15.29 Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP) - the Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the following objectives within the plan: habitat and peatland enhancement including black grouse, red-throated diver, greenland white-fronted goose, long term monitoring of planned objectives, reporting of monitoring results to relevant parties and implementation of a Biodiversity Enhancement Management Group. 15.30 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) - the Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the inclusion of the plan to include implementation of an EcoW, provision of Toolbox talks to all construction staff and contractors, conduction of pre-construction works within one month prior to works starting, and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures where necessary. The Local Page 73
Page 74
Classification: OFFICIAL Biodiversity Officer welcomes the appointment of an ECoW prior to construction and throughout works where necessary. 15.31 Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) – advised the ECU they are satisfied the proposal should not have any significant impact on migratory salmonid fish habitat within the site providing the construction phase is conducted in accordance with current environmental regulations. Migratory salmonid fish (sea trout) are present in the lower reaches of the Killean Burn, Tayinloan Burn, Clachaig Water and Carradale Water (which also has Atlantic salmon) which may be affected by any deterioration in water quality caused during construction. ADSFB urge that in the event the proposal receives consent that monitoring of Water quality, macroinvertebrates, and fish should be undertaken to Scottish Government guidelines. It is recommended that the matters raised by ADSFB in relation to the construction phase and monitoring are secured by condition. 15.32 Having due regard to the above, subject to the recommendations made by NatureScot, SEPA, RSPB Scotland, the Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board and the Local Biodiversity Officer being secured by condition in the event that consent is granted it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2 16. TREES, WOODS, AND FORESTS 16.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on trees, woods and forests have been addressed. Policy 6 – Forestry, woodland, and Trees of NPF4 intent is to protect and expand forests, woodland, and trees. Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees of LDP2 states that there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting woodland resources. Policy 78 – Woodland Removal of LDP2 states that proposals that involve the removal of woodland resources will be assessed against the criteria for determining the acceptability of woodland removal, in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. Where this assessment concludes that compensatory planting would be appropriate, developers will need to provide for this in accordance with the advice in the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. 16.2 Scottish Forestry have advised the ECU that compensatory planting should be secured by a condition. Furthermore, that the appropriate consenting route for the management felling required to accommodate construction of the development, including infrastructure and management felling, totalling 41.3ha would be the Section 36 consent. Restocking of management felling areas and compensatory planting relating to permanent woodland loss would also be via the Section 36 consent. 16.3 Having due regard to the above subject to the condition recommended by Scottish Forestry being attached in the event that the proposal receives 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 Page 74
Page 75
Classification: OFFICIAL 17. MINERALS 17.1 Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 states that proposals for borrow pits will only be supported where the proposal is tied to a specific project and is time-limited, the proposal complies with the mineral extraction criteria in Policy 33 taking into account the temporary nature of the development, and appropriate restoration proposals are enforceable and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 states that proposals for mineral extraction will generally be supported for borrow pits where the proposal is found to be acceptable after being assessed against NPF4 Policy 33 criterion e). 17.2 Borrow pits may be used to provide the stone for the construction of access tracks, compounds, and hardstands, subject to sufficient quality and quantity of stone being available at the six borrow pit search areas. These search areas are shown as the maximum potential area of borrow pit extraction, but it is not anticipated these areas would be fully exploited. Final borrow pit locations within the borrow pit search areas would be subject to detailed ground investigations to confirm suitability of material. A condition is recommended to secure details of the borrow pits and a borrow pit restoration plan. 17.3 Having due regard to the above taking into account that the proposed borrow pits are tied to the proposal and subject to a condition to secure details of the borrow pits and a borrow pit restoration plan being attached to any consent it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 in this regard, subject to a condition to secure details of the borrow pit and a borrow pit restoration plan. 18. DECOMMISSIONING, SITE RESTORATION AND QUALITY OF SITE RESTORATION PLANS 18.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration have been addressed. It also requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the quality of site restoration plans have been addressed including the measures in place to safeguard or guarantee availability of finances to effectively implement those plans. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 requires consideration to be given to the long-term environmental management of the site. 18.2 The proposal is expected to operate for up to 50 years following which decommissioning of the wind turbines and other infrastructure would be undertaken as required. Any alternative to this action would be subject to a further consenting process. 18.3 In the event of decommissioning, or replacement of the wind turbines, it is anticipated that the likelihood of environmental effects is like, or less than, that expected during construction. Decommissioning would be undertaken in line with best practice processes and methods and will be managed through an agreed CEMP. Decommissioning will involve the following: dismantling and removal of wind turbines and electrical equipment; restoration of the wind turbine areas, hardstands, and access tracks; and dismantling and removal of the substation compound. The CEMP will be updated as required to ensure best practice is Page 75
Page 76
Classification: OFFICIAL adopted during decommissioning. It is recommended that this matter is covered by planning conditions consistent with other projects across Argyll & Bute if the proposal obtains consent from the ECU. 18.4 Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to an appropriate condition being attached if the proposal receives consent the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 - The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 19. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 19.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how cumulative impacts have been addressed. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 also requires cumulative impacts to be addressed. Any cumulative impacts which have been identified are covered in the preceding sections of this report. 20. RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION TARGETS AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS. 20.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that, in considering the impacts of the proposal, significant weight will be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 requires that when considering proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all renewable developments to be assessed against the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions. 20.2 Renewable Electricity Generation - Both UK and Scottish Government energy policy recognises the need for substantial increases in renewable energy generation if the transition towards net zero is to be achieved. The turbines would have an anticipated capacity of approx. 6.6MW. The annual generation from the turbines is therefore estimated at approx. 227.8 Gigawatt hours (GWh) based on a site derived capacity factor of 43.77% 1. The turbines will therefore supply renewable electricity equivalent to the approximate annual domestic needs of up to 70,3162 average UK households. Each unit of renewable electricity transmitted will displace a unit of conventionally generated electricity, therefore displacing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It is estimated that the proposed wind turbines will displace approx. 96,5873 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year, or 4,829,360 tonnes over the anticipated 50-year lifespan of the proposal. 20.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – The proposal would reduce greenhouse gas emissions through replacing fossil fuel generation. The length of time a wind turbine needs to be in operation before it has, by displacing fossil fuel energy generation, avoided as much carbon dioxide as was released in its lifecycle is known as the carbon payback period. A carbon balance assessment has been undertaken using the Scottish Government’s carbon calculator. The results reveal the net impact will be positive overall, as the calculations of total carbon dioxide emission savings and payback time indicate the overall payback period would be approx. 1.5 years, when compared to the fossil fuel mix of electricity generation. Over the expected 48.5 years the proposal is likely to be generating carbon-free Page 76
Page 77
Classification: OFFICIAL electricity, this could result in around 4,829,360 tonnes of net carbon dioxide emission savings when replacing fossil fuel-mix electricity generation. Overall, the proposal would lead to substantial net carbon savings and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over its operational life. Peatland is an important carbon store, and the proposal has potential to impact peat, despite mitigations proposed to limit disturbance. A carbon balance assessment report has been produced and Scottish Government’s online carbon calculator tool completed to determine the carbon payback time for the proposal. The results from the carbon calculator reveal that the net impact of the proposal will be positive overall, as the calculations of total carbon dioxide emission savings and payback time for the proposal indicates the overall payback period would be approximately 1.5 years, when compared to the fossil fuel mix of electricity generation. This means that the proposal is expected to take between 0.6 and 1.9 years to repay the carbon exchange to the atmosphere (the CO2 debt) through construction of the wind turbines; the proposal would in effect be in a net gain situation following this time period and would contribute to national CO2 reduction targets. The proposal therefore illustrates a significantly positive net impact in terms of its contribution towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy production. 20.5 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crisis and 11 – Energy of NPF 4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 04 – Sustainable Development of LDP2 in respect to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. 21. GRID CAPACITY & ENERGY STORAGE 21.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that grid capacity should not constrain renewable energy development. It is for developers to agree connections to the grid with the relevant network operator. Furthermore, that proposals for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported, which include energy storage. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires the Council to have regard to the opportunities for energy storage. 21.2 Grid Capacity - Connection to Electricity Grid - The proposed point of connection into the electricity grid system is at the substation compound. The proposal would be connected at Carradale Substation, a substation located approx. 11.2km southeast of the site. The connection would be comprised of buried 132kV cables and/or Overhead lines (OHL). The exact arrangement of this grid connection is subject to detailed design by SSEN Transmission. Any final grid connection route and associated consents would be subject to a separate consenting process and EIA if required. 21.3 Energy storage – This project will not have a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS). The reason there is no BESS proposed at Killean is simply down to the terms of the Applicant’s option agreement with the landowner. It was signed around the time of the original application, before BESS became more commonly included in wind applications, so they currently have rights for a wind farm only. Not to say that this could not be amended and incorporated in future. Page 77
Page 78
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. It is acknowledged that areas identified for wind farms are expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. However, as the expected operational life of the proposal is 50 years from the date of commissioning, should consent be granted, Officers would expect it to be time limited to 50 years to reflect the life of the wind farm as detailed in the EIAR. 23. CONCLUSION 23.1 This proposal is classed as “Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation” - a National Development, in terms of the Spatial Strategy given its capacity to generate and store more than 50MW. In principle, there is support for this scale of development given its importance in the delivery of Scotland’s Spatial Strategy. However, such projects are still required to be assessed against the provisions of the Development Plan, which consists of NPF4 and LDP 2. 23.2 The lead Development Plan policies support renewable energy development in principle but require proposals to be assessed against the criterion detailed in this report. While the weight to be given to each of the considerations is a matter for the decision maker, NPF4 is clear that significant weight will require to be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. However, a balance still requires to be reached in terms of the impact of the development. 23.3 In relation to landscape and visual impacts NPF4 advises that where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied such effects will be considered acceptable. However, NPF4 must be read as a whole, and detailed consideration given to linked policies. Policy 4 (Natural Places) – sets out that proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Whilst it is considered that this proposal will have a significant landscape and visual impact, it is not considered that it warrants an objection subject to the conditions recommended by the Councils Consultant Landscape Architect. 23.4 The Scottish Government gives considerable commitment to renewable energy and encourages Planning Authorities to support the development of wind farms where they can operate successfully in appropriate locations. This is not however blanket support without qualification. In considering the appropriateness of the development, significant weight has been given to these matters. 23.5 In conclusion, it is recommended by Officers that the Council objects to this proposal until such time as National Air Traffic Services remove their objection. Thereafter, the Council would have no objection to this proposal subject to the recommended conditions being included in any consent granted by Scottish Ministers. Page 78
Page 79
Classification: OFFICIAL 24. RECOMMENDATION 24.1 That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) There is an unresolved objection from National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS). Consequently, Argyll & Bute Council OBJECT on the grounds that the proposal will have an adverse Aviation Impact, contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 which 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 which requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed, and Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 which 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. Note: If NATS withdraw their objection and subject to any conditions they recommend being attached to any grant of consent Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds. Should the objection remain unresolved, and the proposal progresses to Public Inquiry, Argyll & Bute Council would defer to NATS. (2) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to landscape and visual impact subject to conditions to secure the mitigation recommended by the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect being attached to any grant of consent: • Aircraft Detection Lighting System • Substantial increases in broadleaved planting as part of the wind farm restocking plan including riparian planting across the wider Killean estate. • Redesign of the outer margins of productive woodland to remedy hard angular edges and improve the fit of plantations with landform. • Compensatory planting should be undertaken within the Killean Estate. Argyll & Bute Council and Scottish Forestry should be consulted on the location, extent, and composition. • Management of existing mature mixed woodlands in the vicinity of Killean House including new planting to retain and enhance screening of the proposed wind farm from the coast and protect the landscape setting provided to the Killean Estate buildings and St John’s Church. (3) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to archaeological impact, subject to conditions to secure appropriate archaeological mitigation being attached to any grant of consent following further consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. (4) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer being attached to any grant of consent. Page 79
Page 80
Classification: OFFICIAL • An appropriate plan for mitigation against potential deer impact on newly planted trees until such time as they are established and no longer vulnerable to over- browsing. • 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. (5) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to a suitably worded conditions to limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Councils Noise Consultant. (6) Argyll & Bute has no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any grant of consent: • To ensure watercourse crossings are designed so there is no reduction in pre- development channel cross sectional area ideally to pass the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event; and, • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development runoff is attenuated to the 1 in 2 year greenfield runoff rate. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. (7) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Access subject to the condition to secure the recommendations of the Access Officer being attached to any grant of consent: • Access Plan to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Council prior to the commencement of development. (8) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to provision of the turning area across from the site access subject to the following conditions being attached to any grant of consent. • Exact details and specifications of the design of the turning area to be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. • Exact details and specification of the restoration plan for the turning area to be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. These shall include details of timescales and landscaping. • A condition to limit the turning area to an appropriate temporary period to be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. (9) Argyll & Bute Council requests that all conditions recommended by other consultees are included in any Consent. Page 80
Page 81
""""" " " "" " " " " "" © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 24/01541/S36 O 1:35,000 0 325 650162.5 Meters Application Site Page 81
Page 82
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 83
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 83 Agenda Item 5
Page 84
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 84
Page 85
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 85
Page 86
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 86
Page 87
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 87
Page 88
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 88
Page 89
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 89
Page 90
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 90
Page 91
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 91
Page 92
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 92
Page 93
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 93
Page 94
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 94
Page 95
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 95
Page 96
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 96
Page 97
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 97
Page 98
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 98
Page 99
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 99
Page 100
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 100
Page 101
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 101
Page 102
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 102
Page 103
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 103
Page 104
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 104
Page 105
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 105
Page 106
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 106
Page 107
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 107
Page 108
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 108
Page 109
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 109
Page 110
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 110
Page 111
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 111
Page 112
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 112
Page 113
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 113
Page 114
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 114
Page 115
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 115
Page 116
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 116
Page 117
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 117
Page 118
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 118
Page 119
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 119
Page 120
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 120
Page 121
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 121
Page 122
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 122
Page 123
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 123
Page 124
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 124
Page 125
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 125
Page 126
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 126
Page 127
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 127
Page 128
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 128
Page 129
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 129
Page 130
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 130
Page 131
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 131
Page 132
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 132
Page 133
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. Page 133
Page 134
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 135
" " " "" " " " " " © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/00036/S36 O 1:45,000 0 420 840210 Meters Application Site Page 135
Page 136
This page is intentionally left blank