Decision by Richard Dent, a reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers

Transcription

1 Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals Appeal Decision Notice T: F: E: Decision by Richard Dent, a reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers Planning appeal reference: PPA Site address: land east of Loch Freasdail and north of Loch Cruinn, Whitehouse by Tarbert, Argyll and Bute Appeal by RES UK and Ireland Ltd against the decision by Argyll and Bute Council Application for planning permission, reference 12/02150/PP, dated 1 October 2012 refused by notice dated 26 September 2013 The development proposed: 11 wind turbines up to a total of 22 megawatt installed capacity with associated access track, infrastructure and ancillary development including a substation, permanent and temporary anemometer masts, temporary construction compounds and a network of underground cables Application drawings: see Annex 1 Date of site visits by reporter: 25 February and 19 March 2014 Date of decision: 15 April 2014 DECISION I allow the appeal and grant planning permission subject to the 33 conditions listed in Annex 2 at the end of the decision notice. Attention is drawn to the 4 guidance notes to be read in conjunction with conditions and the 4 advisory notes following the guidance notes. REASONING 1. The determining issues in this case are whether the proposed turbines would face any insurmountable technical constraints or result in any unacceptable environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. This assessment must be undertaken in the context of the development plan. It is also necessary to take into account any material considerations. Although the reasons for refusal relate to landscape and visual impacts, compensatory forestry planting, and access and traffic matters, third parties have raised a number of other issues. These issues are, for the most part, valid planning considerations and therefore it is appropriate to address these in addition to the reasons for refusal.

2 2 Technical considerations Traffic generation and access 2. The fifth reason for refusal indicates that the council finds it impossible to conclude the proposal accords with the requirements of local plan Policies LP TRAN 4, New and Existing Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and LP TRAN 5, Off-site Highway Improvements. 3. Subject to conditions, including agreement on the delivery route for the turbines, Transport Scotland has no objections. The council requested details of the site access from the A83 and this information was made available as a drawing in the Supplementary Environmental Information, July Subsequently, the council requested further information including the haul route within the site, a traffic management plan and a detailed method statement. The appellant believes that adequate information had been provided to assess the impact of the proposal and that any further traffic related matters could be dealt with through the imposition of conditions. 4. In view of previous difficulties encountered in respect of the delivery of turbines, the council explains that a precautionary approach had been adopted in the hope that any problems could be resolved prior to the issue of planning permission. However, the council now agrees the matter could be dealt with by conditions. 5. Whilst it would normally be expected that detailed site access arrangements would be agreed prior to the determination of the planning application, in my experience, the other matters identified by the council are not uncommonly the subject of conditions of planning permission. Indeed, this can be seen to be the case in certain of the appeal decisions that have been lodged as documents to support this appeal. 6. I therefore conclude that it would be appropriate to impose conditions to ensure the relevant level of control can be applied in terms of traffic generation and access. In respect of the access details, the council s suggested condition 1 includes a requirement that the development is carried out in accordance with various drawings including drawing 02564D This drawing Detailed Site Entrance Layout provides information on the access and, being included in a suggested condition, has been accepted by the council. 7. Suggested condition 7 requires the submission for approval of a construction and environmental management plan. This plan would encompass the matters set out in the environmental statement including all on-site construction works. A traffic management plan, containing a route access report, is required under the condition as part of the environmental management plan. I believe that a requirement to comply with drawing 02564D and suggested condition 7 would impose the necessary level of control in terms of all matters related to traffic generation and site access. Subject to fulfilment of the conditions to the satisfaction of the council and compliance thereafter, traffic and site access requirements would not provide an insurmountable constraint. In turn, I conclude that the development could not be regarded as contrary to the provisions of local plan Policies LP TRAN 4 or LP TRAN 5.

3 3 Noise 8. Noise levels were not part of the reasons for refusal but a number of third parties have expressed concern, particularly in respect of the effects of noise crossing water and noise at night. 9. In accordance with Scottish Government guidance, the acoustic effects of the proposal were assessed in terms of The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (ETSU- R-97). Noise levels were assessed at the closest residential properties against measured background noise levels with noise limits derived in line with ETSU-R-97. The operational noise levels at all properties are predicted to be within the derived noise limits at all considered wind speeds. The cumulative effects of turbines at Fraoch-Choile and Whiteside Burn were included in the assessment but the predicted levels remained within the limits. 10. The council has considered the noise impact assessment and has no objections subject to conditions regarding noise immission levels, noise complaints procedure, data recording, restriction of audible tones and construction hours and methods. 11. Whilst I recognise that some third parties are concerned about noise, it is clear that the assessment has been undertaken as required under Scottish Government guidance and accepted by the council. There is no evidence to support the claim that sound crossing water would cause a noise problem at properties on the opposite shore of West Loch Tarbert. In any event, should noise complaints arise, the suggested conditions, which are, in general, agreed by the appellant and the council, provide a basis for remedial procedure should this be required. 12. On the basis of the foregoing, there is no conflict with the development plan and noise levels would not give rise to an insurmountable technical constraint. Health and shadow flicker 13. Some general concerns have been expressed about health but no evidence has been provided to suggest a causal impact on health by the operation of the wind turbines. On behalf of Transport Scotland it has been calculated that the level of traffic generation would not result in any harmful levels of air pollution. No properties are within a distance of the proposed turbines that would give rise to shadow flicker. 14. I therefore conclude that the operation of the wind farm would not give rise to any unacceptable health or shadow flicker issues. Television and radio reception, telecommunications and aviation 15. No adverse consultation responses were received on these matters although the Ministry of Defence requires the installation of aviation lighting on the turbines. The council points out that the site is within an intrinsically dark area and therefore, if feasible, lighting should be used that would not be visible to the naked eye. In the event of the implementation of the project, it would be necessary to install lighting to the satisfaction of

4 4 the Ministry of Defence and, at that time, it would be possible to consider the least intrusive lighting. 16. I conclude that appropriate conditions would ensure that there would be no technical impediments to the construction of the turbines in respect of television and radio reception and aviation safeguarding, Conclusions: technical considerations 17. Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, I conclude that no technical issues would arise to cause an insurmountable constraint rendering in the implementation of the proposal impossible. Environmental impacts Cultural and historic heritage 18. This is not a contentious matter. Historic Scotland, although believing that the environmental statement has possibly under-estimated some impacts, has not objected to any matters of statutory historic environment interest. I note, in particular, the importance of Dun Skeig, Duns and Fort and consider that the environmental statement makes a reasonable assessment of impact. Viewpoint 12 provides the relevant visualisation. 19. Subject to the imposition of a condition (the terms of which are generally agreed by the council and the appellant) requiring the submission and approval of a programme of archaeological works, I conclude that the project could be undertaken without an unacceptable impact on the cultural and historic environment. Natural heritage Otters and red squirrel 20. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) is generally content with the pre-construction surveys proposed in respect of otters and red squirrel. Additional advice has been provided to extend the area of the otter survey and the timing and potential action required for red squirrel and their dreys. Conditions agreed by the council in respect of the preparation and approval of a construction and environmental management plan along with the appointment of an independent ecological clerk of works should ensure a satisfactory approach to the mitigation of any impact on otters and red squirrel. Ornithology 21. Initially, SNH objected because of the potential for significant adverse impacts on Greenland white-fronted geese, a qualifying interest at the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area (SPA). A similar objection applied in respect of the Kintyre Goose Lochs Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). SNH required a second winter s vantage point survey results in order to conduct a robust assessment.

5 5 22. The appellant undertook additional survey work which was presented as supplementary environmental information. Having taken this information into account and carried out a further appraisal, SNH advised that the proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of the SPA. In turn, it would be necessary to undertake an appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations SNH further advised that, on the basis of the information provided and appraisals carried out to date, the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. Similarly, SNH was able to indicate that the proposal would not adversely affect the Kintyre Goose Lochs SSSI. 23. In respect of other bird interests within the countryside, SNH required the preparation of a management plan for the land to be cleared of trees. The plan should demonstrate how the area would become more attractive to hen harriers following the construction of the wind farm. 24. The council is satisfied that there are no ornithological reasons for refusing planning permission but there are objections from the RSBP and various third parties. In addition to concerns about impact on Greenland white-fronted geese and hen harriers, a detrimental effect on black grouse and red-throated divers is feared. RSBP believes that a condition requiring the deployment of rafts on Loch Lurach and Loch Cruinn would provide appropriate mitigation for red-throated divers. Hen harriers, says RSPB, should be monitored along with habitat management. Black grouse could also be encouraged though habitat management. 25. Insofar as ornithology is concerned I am satisfied that the impacts on the various species of concern to SNH are acceptable or capable of mitigation. The imposition of conditions would secure appropriate mitigation measures although, in the lack of comment by SNH, I am not persuaded that specific mitigation for black grouse and red-throated divers is required. 26. The advice provided by SNH permits the undertaking of an appropriate assessment of the impact on the qualifying interests of the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area. That appropriate assessment leads me to conclude that the proposal would not affect the integrity of the SPA. Forestry 27. The fourth reason for refusal states the application fails to provide adequate information in respect of proposed site clearance and compensatory planting. This prevented the council from assessing whether the development meets Scottish Government requirements under the terms of the Policy on the Control of Woodland Removal. In turn, states the council, the proposal does not satisfy local plan Policy LP ENV 7, Development Impact on Trees/Woodland. 28. Following discussion with Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS), the appellant believes that national forest standards could be achieved and this could be confirmed in due course following the preparation of forest plans. The final requirement for compensatory planting would be defined once the detailed development proposals were known and the precise

6 6 area of felling identified. This, states the appellant, would satisfy the Policy on the Control of Woodland Removal. 29. Some 200 hectares of land are available off-site for planting and along with the potential for planting pockets of woodland within the development site, it is anticipated by the appellant that adequate provision could be made for compensatory planting with no net reduction in woodland cover. 30. FCS confirmed that a report prepared by the appellant addressed the outstanding forestry issues and therefore there was no further objection to the proposal subject to a suspensive condition requiring details of a long-term forest plan and compensatory planting. The appellant accepts the imposition of a suspensive condition would be appropriate and the council has agreed having acknowledged that matters have been resolved to the satisfaction of FCS. The council has therefore suggested two detailed conditions although the appellant believes that a single, more straightforward condition would suffice. 31. I am satisfied that the issue of forestry planting, including compensatory planting, is capable of resolution by means of the imposition of a condition or conditions. I shall deal with the details below but, in the meantime, I conclude that the proposal would not lead to an unacceptable environmental impact in terms of loss of forest cover. Peat and related matters 32. Concern was expressed by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) about lack of information on various matters including peat management. Third parties have raised the issue of the potential for carbon release as a result of peat excavation. 33. On the basis of the provision of additional information, SEPA was ultimately satisfied that matters relating to wetland disturbance and peat management could be addressed subject to appropriate conditions including the preparation of a peat management plan for approval. 34. I have no evidence to indicate that the project would lead to a net increase in carbon emissions and consider that conditions would be capable of securing adequate control over peat management and other related matters involving site drainage and potential pollution. I shall consider the suggested conditions below but I am able to conclude that there would not be an unacceptable impact as a consequence of peat excavation and other site works. Landscape character impact 35. No formal landscape designations apply to the site. The southern part of the Knapdale peninsular is designated as an Area of Panoramic Quality as is the western coastal strip of Kintyre from the Clachan area southwards. The northern part of the Isle of Arran is a designated Area of Great Landscape Value and a National Scenic Area. This latter designation also includes inshore waters. Visual impact is considered below but, in landscape character terms, I conclude the distance of the proposed turbines from the various designated areas would ensure that any impact would be minimal.

7 7 36. The proposed site lies within a landscape character area known as Upland Forest-Moor Mosaic (UF-MM). This particular area of UF-MM extends over much of the Kintyre peninsular. Adjacent to West Loch Tarbert, there is a band of Rocky Mosaic landscape character area, broader in the vicinity of Whitehouse where it extends a short distance up the glen followed by the B8001. A narrow band of Rocky Mosaic landscape character area follows the coast adjacent to the Kilbrannan Sound. There is a small area of Hidden Glens landscape character type on the coast near Skipness and an area of Coastal Plain landscape character type on the Kintyre coast opposite the Isle of Gigha. 37. The UF-MM is described in the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study as comprising broad areas of undulating upland plateau. For the most part, states the study, the landscape could accommodate large scale wind farm development although the more complex smaller scale hills and occasional narrow settled glens on the fringes of the plateau are more sensitive. I accept the appeal site could be regarded as being in a fringe area with some smaller scale hills and the glen through which the B8001 passes being settled, albeit quite sparsely. Overall, the landscape sensitivity is defined as medium although, in my opinion, the vicinity of the appeal site is at the upper end of the medium category. 38. SNH states that the proposal would impinge on a wide range of different landscapes and would have a disproportionate adverse effect on character. Cumulatively, SNH believes the proposal would have strategic adverse impacts on landscape character. Existing wind farm development is a key characteristic of the UF-MM type states SNH but the proposal would be at the northern end of the peninsular, away from the existing focus. The large turbines would therefore be located in a more sensitive part of the peninsular and also impact on smaller scale landscapes in close proximity. 39. The first reason for refusal reflects the opinion of SNH and states that the proposal would dominate the scale of the landscape to the detriment to the smaller scale landscapes, including the settled and farmed landscapes and the coastal edge, all of which would be sensitive to the intrusion of development of the scale proposed. It is stated that the influence would extend to the sensitive seascapes of West Loch Tarbert, and Kilbrannan Sound. 40. As explained, the UF-MM landscape character type extends over much of the Kintyre peninsular from the coast south-east of Tarbert to the vicinity of Campbelltown. Wind farms that have been constructed inevitably have an impact on landscape character. However, the landscape character area is large and in my opinion, these existing wind farms have little impact on the wider character. The construction of 11 large turbines at Freasdail would clearly have a further impact on landscape character as is the case with any development of this type. Despite the level of wind farm development on the peninsular, I consider that the proposal could be absorbed into the wider UF-MM landscape character type without overall detriment. The very scale of the area and the medium level of sensitivity, albeit at the higher end of medium, lead me to this conclusion. 41. I recognise that the appeal site lies on the fringe of the landscape character area where the hills are falling towards to coastline of West Loch Tarbert. The scale of the landscape is not as expansive as the higher parts of the landscape character type but, nevertheless, the

8 8 site can be seen to be upland and is not part of the Rocky Mosaic along the coast, even although this type extends inland near Whitehouse. 42. Any wind farm inevitably becomes a dominant landscape characteristic, particularly within and close to the site itself. Clearly this constitutes a significant impact on existing landscape character. However, even regarding the sensitivity of the landscape as being at the upper level of medium, I do not believe that the impact would extend significantly and detract from the wider landscape, the character of which, overall, would be retained. 43. Although SNH has expressed concern that the wind farm would impact on smaller scale landscapes in close proximity, a detailed analysis has not been provided. The nearest landscape character type is the Rocky Mosaic along the coast. There is a degree of separation both vertically and horizontally between the boundary of this landscape type and the turbines. Whilst the wind farm might have a degree of impact on the Rocky Mosaic type, especially where it broadens inland near Whitehouse, I do not consider that there would be a significant adverse effect. In my opinion, the essential Rocky Mosaic landscape character type would be retained unharmed. 44. Other landscape character types in the general area the Coastal Plain and the Hidden Glens would experience no significant impact due to the distance from the wind farm and the topographical disposition of the intervening landform. Similarly, more distant landscape character types, particularly on the Isle of Arran and across West Loch Tarbert would also experience no significant impact. 45. All-in-all, I conclude that the only significant impact on landscape character would be experienced in the Upper Forest-Moor Mosaic landscape character type. The level of impact would be acceptable both in respect of the impact of the wind farm itself and in cumulative terms. Visual impact 46. Visual impact in is a central concern of many. The general location of the proposed wind farm on the Kintyre Peninsular and its relationship with areas designated for landscape value is widely considered to be unacceptable. More specific adverse visual impacts on residential amenity and tourism are also raised as issues. The first three reasons for refusal set out the council s views on visual impact, the third reason relating to cumulative impact. SNH, although not explicitly objecting to the proposal, has expressed severe concerns in respect of visual impact. The site layout is the subject of particular criticism by SNH. Site layout 47. SNH believes that wind farms in a particular vicinity should achieve consistency of design objectives. Ideally, I agree with this objective but consider that individual site characteristics may well make such an objective difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. In any event, the Freasdail development would have no visual relationship with any existing wind farm and therefore, in practice, consistency of design is not a valid concern. Chapter 3 of the environmental statement describes the basis of the design and it is clear that

9 9 considerable thought has been directed towards the development taking into account landscape and visual impact along with site constraints. Nevertheless, SNH considers that the grouping of the turbines would lead to a visually confusing and incoherent appearance. Viewpoint 2 illustrates this concern says SNH. 48. Most wind farms with numerous turbines, such as proposed at Freasdail, cover extensive areas of ground on sites which are often upland and seldom level. In these circumstances it may often be very difficult to provide a layout where the development appears as a compact cluster from all points of view. In this case, I believe a reasonable attempt has been made to provide a development which relates to the site topography. Viewpoint 2 is due east of the site and so reflects the three generally east-west lines of turbines proposed. In my opinion this is neither confusing nor incoherent. In any event, this configuration would not be apparent from other viewpoints. 49. Overall, I consider the design layout to be acceptable and, in itself, it would not create a visually substandard development. Scenic considerations 50. The first reason for refusal compares the location of the proposed wind farm at Freasdail with established developments on the Kintyre peninsular. The existing wind farms are said to benefit from inland, upland spine locations and consequently, it is claimed, they have comparatively little influence on the more sensitive coastal landscapes. SNH points out that the proposal is sited on the more sensitive hills on the edge of the uplands. The site is at the northern end of the central spine of hills to which SNH attributes increased sensitivity because of the way in which the combination of landscapes and seascapes in the area are experienced. This location is said to be pivotal with views from all directions including the settled coast and hills of Kintyre and Knapdale, the sensitive seascapes of West Loch Tarbert and Kilbrannan Sound, the islands of Arran and Gigha as well as more distant coastlines and seascapes. 51. The reason for refusal reflects the opinion of SNH stating that the proposal is not in accordance with the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, 2012 as the site is not set well back into the interior. Reference is made to the implications for parts of South Knapdale which is designated as an Area of Panoramic Quality. Short range views from the B8001, views from the A83 when travelling north and the Kennacraig ferry terminal are further examples of adverse visual impacts to which reference is made. The reason for refusal further contends that the proposal would be regarded as separate from the existing focus of wind energy development on Kintyre and would therefore exert a disproportionate influence in terms of simultaneous and sequential views. 52. The second reason for refusal is also concerned with the visual impact of the turbines on roads, ferry routes, footpaths and parts of South Knapdale. 53. The appellant accepts that the proposal would inevitably have a degree of visibility although believes the extent of the impact would be limited. However, the council s general approach concerns the appellant in respect of the comparison with other wind farms and

10 10 the reference to a disproportionate impact. As agreed by the council, the appellant believes the Freasdail scheme should be judged on its own merits. 54. I have noted the arguments in respect of the established wind farms on the Kintyre peninsular and accept, in general terms, although visible, these developments do not have particularly significant visual impacts from the eastern and western coastal strips. However, these existing wind farms have been approved and I do not believe they require to be, or should be, assessed as part of these appeal proceedings other than in terms of cumulative impact. As argued by the appellant, the Freasdial proposal must be considered on its own merits. 55. It is apparent that visual impact in the proximity of the wind farm would be significant. The B8001 crosses the peninsular from north-west to south-east along the northern slopes of a small glen. The wind farm would lie on the low hills to the south of the glen and would be highly visible to those travelling on the B8001 although the nearest turbine to the road would be at a distance of about 1.7 km. This is illustrated in viewpoint 2 and the additional viewpoint further north on the B8001. My own impression having visited this location is that the impact would be more than suggested in the photomontages although not greatly so. 56. Motorists are regarded as being of medium category receptors as progress along roads results in transitory views often over a relatively short period. Despite the higher impact than suggested in the environmental statement, I consider that, because of the distance of the turbines from the road, the visual effect would not be unacceptable. Travelling to the north-west, the turbines would not be included in any significant panoramic views which included coastal and seascape aspects. Travelling to the south-east, the mountains of Arran are visible but would not be obscured by the turbines. 57. The turbines would also be visible to motorists travelling both northwards and southwards on the A83. Approaching from the south, the wind farm would first be visible in the vicinity of Clachan (viewpoint 10) some 7 km from the nearest turbine. At this point I do not consider that there would be a significant visual impact. There would be further views of the wind farm north of Clachan but, although closer, these views would be partial and not sustained over long distances. From the north, the turbines would be visible from a short distance to the north of Whitehouse. However, although on the skyline, the wind farm would be set back some 3 km and partly obscured by the landform in the foreground. I do not consider that the visual impact would be unacceptable in these views. 58. An additional viewpoint was prepared providing a photomontage from Kennacraig Pier. The turbines would remain visible but again I am of the opinion that distance and topography would reduce the impact to an acceptable level. 59. The long distance footpath, the Kintyre Way, passes approximately 1.5 km to the south of the proposed wind farm. The environmental statement points out that views of the wind farm would be restricted to a small number of elevated locations beyond the extensive forested areas north of Carradale. Viewpoint 6 provides a photomontage from the Kintyre Way near Cnoc Cregan. It is clear that the development would have an impact on those using the footpath. However, taking into account the 142 km length of the footpath and the

11 11 relatively transient nature of the impact on walkers, I do not think that, in visual terms, the effect would be unacceptable. 60. Much concern has been expressed about the level of visual impact on the opposite, Knapdale, shore of West Loch Tarbert especially in the vicinity of Dunmore. Between the head of the loch and Dunmore, many views to the Kintyre shore are obscured by woodland. Beyond Dunmore, Knapdale is designated as an Area of Panoramic Quality. Although I acknowledge the basis of the designation, the views across the loch are not unrestricted. However, there are some open views at points virtually opposite the proposed wind farm, an example of which is viewpoint 16, entitled B8024, Dunmore, although I appreciate that, more accurately, the location is Achaglachgach House, about one kilometre to the north. 61. I have compared the photomontage with my observations on the site itself and believe that the environmental statement illustration underplays the visual impact of the turbines. Nevertheless, although the turbines would be a new element in the views across West Loch Tarbert, at that distance the development would not detract from the wider vistas to the extent that refusal is justified. Travelling south-west from Dunmore into the designated Area of Panoramic Quality the wind farm would fall away to the rear. 62. Those travelling in the opposite direction, towards Tarbert would have forward-looking views of the wind farm as shown in viewpoint 15 although the distance to the turbines from this viewpoint is over 10 km. Again I acknowledge that the wind farm would be a new feature in the landscape. However, notwithstanding the justified importance attached to the quality of the landscape in this vicinity, I believe that the panoramic nature of many of the views would lead to the visual impact of the wind farm being absorbed into the wider vista. The wind farm would not be invisible or pass un-noticed but the level of impact would not be at a level to warrant refusal. Travelling east from the Knapdale peninsular, the turbines would become closer but I do not believe that the visual impact would increase to an unacceptable level. As I have indicated, at Achaglachgach House, beyond the Area of Panoramic Quality and at the closest point to the wind farm before the turbines fall behind the traveller, there would be no justification for refusing permission. 63. The environmental statement provides illustrations of the zones of theoretical visibility (ZTV) and it is apparent that the wind farm at Freasdail would be capable of being seen over wide distances, especially to the east and west of the site. However, in practice, as the environmental statement explains, the screening effects of vegetation, buildings and other surface features would reduce the degree of visibility. In any event, extensive areas of theoretical visibility are at distances beyond those locations analysed above. As a result, the visual impact is very much reduced as the more distant viewpoints in the environmental statement clearly illustrate. In particular, I do not consider that the proposal would have a significant visual impact on the Area of Great Landscape Value which covers the north of the Isle of Arran. Similarly, the National Scenic Area which extends across the north of the island and includes the coastal waters would not suffer unacceptable visual impact. I have no reason to believe that the proposal would lead to any adverse impact on the Wild Land Search Area designated in the Arran mountains. 64. In cumulative terms, the council explains that the proposal would result in a disproportionate effect insofar as the site would influence a wider range of receptors than

12 12 those existing wind farms. I do not consider this approach to be an assessment of cumulative impact but more of a comparison between the proposal and other existing sites. As the appellant has said, it is necessary to assess the merits of the current proposal. Indeed, this is the approach I have taken in my analysis of the potential for technical constraints and the environmental impacts of the proposed Freasdail development. 65. It is, of course, necessary to also undertake a cumulative impact assessment of the proposal, particularly in respect of landscape character and visual considerations. Insofar as landscape character is concerned, the wind farms on the Kintyre peninsular are constructed within the Upland Forest-Moor Mosaic (UF-MM) landscape character type. Each individual wind farm has an inevitable local impact but this is an extensive landscape character type which I consider to be robust in terms of both form and scale. I do not think that, cumulatively, the proposed wind farm, when assessed with the existing developments, would significantly detract from the wider UF-MM landscape character type. 66. I note the concerns of both the council and SNH in respect of visual impact but I have assessed the impact of the Freasdail development and found it to be acceptable. For the most part, the proposed development would not be viewed in conjunction with any existing wind farms. It would only be seen in conjunction with other developments in long-range views when the visual impact would be very limited. I do not consider that such views would constitute an unacceptable cumulative visual impact. 67. I appreciate that there are several existing wind farms on the Kintyre peninsular along with turbines on the Isle of Gigha, and that more are possible. However, I do not believe that the scale of wind farm development is such that those travelling the length of the peninsular along either the eastern or western coastal routes would consider that turbine arrays dominate the views. Accordingly, in terms of consecutive cumulative visual impact, I consider the proposal to be acceptable. 68. All in all, I conclude that the proposal would not lead to an unacceptable impact in landscape character or visual scenic respects in itself or cumulatively. Residential amenity 69. I have previously concluded that no residential properties would be subject to unacceptable noise levels. It is also necessary to consider whether the proposed wind farm would lead to unacceptable visual impacts from houses. In this respect I have noted that SNH and several third parties have indicated that turbines should not be constructed within 2 km of residential property. The appellant has drawn attention to the terms of Scottish Planning Policy and I agree that there is no specific guidance on the distance from individual properties. 70. The closest property to the proposed site is Grassfield Farm, some 1.5 km distant where, explains the appellant, topography, forestry and orientation would mitigate any impact. I accept this to be the case. 71. Redesdale House and Lonlia are approximately 1.8 km to the north-east of the nearest proposed turbines whilst Spion Kop is some 2.1 km distant. Redesdale House has an

13 13 important outlook south and south-west from the sitting room towards the wind farm site. Although some trees ensure that the view is not clear and unbroken, the turbines of the Freasdail wind farm would be prominent. Spion Kop is in a more elevated position and has views across the glen to the site. These properties would experience the most significant visual impacts from the wind farm. 72. Although it is a function of the planning process to protect residential amenity in the face of untoward development proposals, the preservation of views from residential property is not part of that process. In this case, I recognise that these houses would experience significant changes to the view following the construction and operation of the turbines. Indeed, the eleven turbines would occupy the south-western sector of the aspect although the nearest structure would be at least 1.8 km distant. 73. In assessing the degree of impact I have taken account of the content of additional viewpoint 2 and my visits to the properties in question. However, even if viewpoint 2 might be thought to underplay the situation, I do not believe that residential amenity would be reduced to the extent that living in the vicinity would be intolerable. In turn I conclude that the impact on these residential properties is not such that would justify withholding permission. 74. I am aware that two potential plots for houses lie within the application site but understand that all the ground, including the appeal site, is within a single ownership. No other properties have been brought to my attention that would experience a level of visual impact similar to those properties discussed above. On this basis, it could not be said that the local community, as a whole, would suffer significantly detrimental residential impacts. I therefore conclude that the proposed wind farm would not lead to an unacceptable visual impact on residential property. Tourism 75. The council states that it is impossible to be conclusive about the extent to which the impact of wind farms might affect tourism and therefore could not warrant a specific reason for refusal. However, says the council, the turbines impinge on important views, the landscape and scenic qualities. Where these are valued recreational and tourist resources, wind farm development would not be in the interests of the tourism economy. 76. Third parties have objected to the proposal on the basis that the wind farm could deter visitors and the local economy would suffer. Businesses, many of which are marginal, would suffer. Particular reference has been made to holiday accommodation in the Dunmore vicinity. It is feared that significant recent investment would be wasted as tourists would not return should the wind farm be constructed. 77. Over the years various surveys have been undertaken in an attempt to assess the impact of wind farms on tourism. The appellant has lodged the Moffat Report which was published in In my opinion, earlier surveys may well not be helpful as they were carried out at a time when wind farm developments were far fewer than is currently the case. More recent surveys do not appear to provide clear guidance or conclusions on the impact on tourism and, as indicated in the environmental statement, attitude towards wind farms is subjective and very much the personal opinion of the individual.

14 In recent years wind farms have become a familiar sight in various parts of Scotland and, in general, it is unlikely that views of turbines would be unexpected by tourists. It is understandable that tourists would be concerned if wind farms were located in designated landscapes or in areas where landscape impact was significantly adverse. In such circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to anticipate that some tourists would not be likely to return. 79. In the case of the Freasdail wind farm, which is not within an area designated for its landscape quality, my assessment of the visual impact has led to the conclusion that the proposal is acceptable. This assessment has looked particularly at the impact on the B8001, the A83 and opposite (north-west) shore of West Loch Tarbert, including holiday accommodation at the waterside. I agree with the council, and conclude that the potential impact on tourism could not be regarded as the basis for refusing permission. I have previously taken account of the impact of the proposal on the Kintyre Way and also note the council s references to National Cycle Route 78 and a number of historic and recreational locations. In no instance is there any substantive evidence to suggest that the proposal would be significantly adverse to the extent of warranting refusal. Conclusion: environmental impacts 80. Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure mitigation where necessary, I conclude that no environment impacts would arise to justify the refusal of planning permission. Provisions of the development plan 81. As indicated at the outset, the assessment of technical constraints and environmental impacts requires to be set in the context of the provisions of the development plan. 82. The policies of the structure plan and local plan relied on by the council are contained in the various reasons for refusal. I have dealt with those relating to traffic and forestry matters. However, before turning to the remaining policies, it is worthwhile to note the terms of structure plan Recommendation REC SI 4, Renewable Energy Investment. As pointed out by the appellant, the pursuit of renewable energy investment opportunities, including wind-power potential in the west of Argyll and Bute, is recommended. The Key Diagram (diagram 2) shows the Kintyre peninsular to be part of the area of renewable energy focus in terms of REC SI This recommendation is reflected in Policy STRAT RE 1, Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development, which encourages renewable energy development. This support is not without qualifications and section A requires development to be consistent with development management policies regarding nature conservation, landscape and the historic environment (Policies STRAT DC7, DC8 and DC9). In terms of my assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposal I am satisfied that the requirements of these policies are met. Similarly, also as specified in Policy STRAT RE 1, I have concluded that there is no adverse effect on local communities or telecommunications. Any impact on transmitting or receiving systems is capable of resolution through imposition of a condition.

15 Policy STRAT RE 1 also refers in section B to broad areas of search and sensitive areas or sites where development would only be considered in exceptional circumstances. These are matters to be dealt with in the local plan. I shall therefore return to this point but I am able to conclude that the proposal complies with section A of the policy. 85. Policy STRAT SI 1, Sustainable Development, sets out the principles to be applied to all development proposals in order to achieve sustainability. In this respect, several third parties have questioned the basis of wind-generated electricity, particularly the technical and economic aspects. However, as will be demonstrated below, wind resource is crucial to the renewable energy policy of the Scottish Government, the merits of which I have no mandate to debate as part of these appeal proceedings. On the face of the matter, the proposed wind farm is a development which accords with the sustainable approach to structure plan objectives. In general terms, therefore, the proposal is in the spirit of Policy STRAT SI 1. More specifically, I do not consider the proposal has been shown to be in conflict with the eleven principles set out in the policy to which any development must adhere. In particular, as explained under Policy STRAT RE 1, my assessment of environmental impacts has not shown the proposal to be unacceptable. 86. Policy STRAT DC 5 and Policy STRAT DC 6 deal respectively with Development in Sensitive Countryside and Development in Very Sensitive Countryside. The boundary defining sensitive countryside and very sensitive countryside passes through the wind farm site. Most of the turbines lie within the area of very sensitive countryside although turbines T1 and T9 are close to the boundary within sensitive countryside. Only specific forms of development will be permitted on well-chosen sites in very sensitive countryside. This includes renewable energy related development subject to support by Policies STRAT RE 1 (relevant in this case) or STRAT RE 2. Insofar as I have not identified any unacceptably adverse environmental impacts or technical constraints, I regard the site as well chosen. I have also found that the site is acceptable under Policy STRAT RE 1. In turn, this leads me to conclude that the nine turbines in very sensitive countryside have policy support. 87. Renewable energy development is not referred to in the policy dealing with sensitive countryside. However, large-scale developments may be permitted under certain circumstances. Noting, therefore, that there is not a total embargo on large-scale developments, I am prepared to accept the appellant s argument that as the two turbines in the area of sensitive countryside are virtually adjacent to the very sensitive countryside designation, no landscape or visual issues arise. The wind farm would be seen in its totality and, even if in breach of Policy STRAT DC 5, in practical terms, refusal of turbines T1 and T9 would not be justified. 88. Local Plan Policy LP REN 1, Wind Farms and Wind Turbines, supports wind farm developments subject to various criteria. My assessment of the proposal leads me to conclude that the Freasdail development would be acceptable in terms of those matters identified in the first paragraph of the policy and the items listed under section (A). Section (B) refers to the wind farm policy maps, the need for which was raised in structure plan Policy STRAT RE 1(B). As pointed out by the appellant, the broad area of search identified in the wind farm policy map relates to a very small part of the Kintyre peninsular. For the most part, the peninsular, including the appeal site, is designated as a potentially

16 16 constrained area. The local plan indicates that proposals in such areas will be considered on merit taking into account the criteria included in the policy and areas designated for natural heritage purposes. Once more, insofar as my assessment has found the proposal acceptable in these respects, I conclude the development would comply with Policy LP REN 1. In reaching this conclusion I have noted that the site has not been identified as a sensitive area or site in terms of Policy STRAT RE 1(B). 89. Local Plan Policy LP ENV 9 requires there to be no significant adverse effects on a National Scenic Area. In this case, the Blade Tip ZTV (environmental statement Figure 6.4) indicates that the only National Scenic Area having views of the turbines would be that covering the northern part of the Isle of Arran and the adjacent coastal waters. I am satisfied that viewpoints 4, 5, 7 and 8 show that the proposed wind farm would have no significant adverse impact. Although I have not viewed the site from Arran or from the sea, my views of Arran from the east coast of Kintyre lead me to believe that the distance between the wind farm and the National Scenic Area is such as to reduce any visual impact to a level which would not be significant. Indeed, I note the council did not consider it essential that the site should be viewed from Arran or from the sea. I therefore conclude the proposal does not offend Policy LP ENV Local Plan Policy LP ENV 10, Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQ), states that development in or adjacent to such areas will be resisted where there would be a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. No APQ could be said to be adjacent to the appeal site. However, for the purposes of this appeal, I recognise that part of the Knapdale coast, on the opposite shore of West Loch Tarbert, and the west coast of the peninsular southwards from a point west of the appeal site, are designated APQs. 91. I have previously assessed the impact on the Knapdale coast and concluded that there would be no significant visual impact. Similarly, I conclude there would be no significant impact on the APQ. As argued by the appellant, there would be negligible visual impact on the west Kintyre coast APQ. Accordingly, I conclude that the development would not be contrary to Policy LP ENV 10. Conclusion: provisions of the development plan 92. All-in-all, I conclude that, on the basis of my assessment, the proposal conforms to the provisions of the development plan. This points to the granting of planning permission. Material considerations 93. As a consequence of the foregoing conclusion it is necessary to consider whether any material considerations would suggest that planning permission should be refused. National energy policy 94. The position of the Scottish Government is very clear in respect of the generation of energy from renewable sources: a target of generating 100% equivalent of national electricity consumption by 2020 with an interim target of 50% by It is recognised that