Argyll & Bute Council Development & Economic Growth
This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (ECDU) Section 36 consultation regarding the proposed Earraghail Renewable Energy Development on land south of Tarbert and north of Skipness, Argyll & Bute
Reference No:	22/00445/S36/ECU00003421
Applicant:	The Scottish Government on behalf of Scottish Power Renewables (UK) Limited
Proposal:	Electricity Act Section 36 consultation for Earraghail Renewable Energy Development, comprising thirteen onshore wind turbines around 78MW, solar photovoltaic array around 5MW and battery storage technologies (BESS) around 25 MW
Site Address:	Land South of Tarbert and North of Skipness, Argyll & Bute
(A) Section 36 application made up of the following elements: 13 wind turbines, up to 180 m to blade tip, including foundations and aviation lighting Ground mounted solar arrays Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) units Crane hardstandings for wind turbine installation and maintenance Transformer/switchgear housings located adjacent to turbines & solar arrays New (10.4 km) and upgraded (12.9 km) access tracks including watercourse crossings, passing places and turning heads Underground electrical cabling Compound containing substation, control building and BESS One main site construction and maintenance compound and a security compound Permanent lattice construction meteorological mast, up to 105 m high Health & safety and other directional site signage Search areas for up to 3 new borrow pit areas Peatland restoration, habitat improvement, and native woodland planting Proposed new walking bothy and stone seating on the Kintyre Way; circular walking route and viewpoint near Tarbert Grid Connection – The grid connection may require consent under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, which is the subject of a separate consenting process to this Section 36 application.
(B) RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council as Planning Authority OBJECTS to this proposal for the reasons detailed below, and that the Scottish Government be notified accordingly. Members should note that an objection from the Council will instigate the requirement for a Public Local Inquiry to be held.
(C) CONSULTATIONS: ENERGY CONSENT UNIT RESPONSES: NatureScot (7th October 2022) – in summary, advise the ECU that this proposal will have significant adverse day and night time effects on the special landscape qualities of the North Arran National Scenic Area (NSA) such that the objectives of the designation and overall integrity of the area would be compromised. NatureScot therefore object to this Proposal. The Proposal (with turbines up to 180 m tall) will substantially compound the adverse effects of existing and consented wind farms from the western coast and hills of North Arran NSA. There will be a marked increase in the size, prominence and visual intrusion of turbines and turbine lighting will contribute to these effects. NatureScot also advise there are likely to be significant adverse effects on North Arran Wild Land Area (WLA) 03. In addition, there are natural heritage interests of international importance on the site, but NatureScot’s advice is that these will not be adversely affected by the proposal. NatureScot also consider that the proposal will result in adverse effects, at a local scale, on a known golden eagle range. NatureScot consultation response on Wild Land Area – North Arran (26th October 2022) – advised the ECU they object due to significant adverse effects on Wild Land Area (WLA) 03 - North Arran. NatureScot notification on NPF4 and withdrawal of their objection on WLA – North Arran (15th February 2023) – advised the ECU their objection relating to significant adverse effects on Wild Land Area (WLA) 03 - North Arran is withdrawn. This is in light of NPF4 policies relating to Wild Land Areas. Their objection on grounds of the effects of the proposal on the North Arran National Scenic Area (NSA) is maintained. NatureScot response to Additional Information (21st March 2023) – advise the ECU that they have no further comment to make on the Additional Information. Historic Environment Scotland (4th May 2022) – advised the ECU they do not object and welcome where mitigation has been embedded into the design to reduce and avoid impacts on heritage assets and their settings. They note that some adverse impacts will remain on the settings of Skipness Castle and Kilbrannan Chapel (Property in Care and Scheduled Monument) and the Dun Skeig, duns and fort (Scheduled Monument). Historic Environment Scotland response to Additional Information (6th March 2023) – advised the ECU they have no comments. Transport Scotland (4th April 2022) – advised the ECU they are satisfied with the assessment of environmental impacts associated with increased construction traffic but require the submission of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit for the proposed access junction before concluding their consultation. Applicant’s response to Transport Scotland with Stage 1 audit report (3rd August 2022) – the applicant provided the ECU with the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit requested by Transport Scotland. Transport Scotland response – sign off Stage 1 Audit Report (4th October 2022) – advised the ECU they have no further comments to make regarding the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. Transport Scotland response to Additional Information (21st March 2023) – advised the ECU they are satisfied this has no impact on the conclusions of their previous responses which remain valid. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (4th May 2022) – advised the ECU they are generally satisfied with the approach to issues in their remit relating to: GWDTE; Peat; Buffers; Mitigation; Watercourse Crossings; and Regulatory Requirements. Marine Science Scotland response to Additional Information (9th March 2023) – provide advice to the ECU on fish surveys; site specific mitigation and fish monitoring programme; water quality monitoring programme; pre & post construction monitoring; and EcoW inspections. Scottish Forestry (31st March 2022) – advised the ECU they had insufficient information to advise whether the proposal meets the requirements in the Practice Guide and recommended the Applicant provides additional information demonstrating the proposals alignment with the Practice Guide. They also advised they had insufficient information to agree a Compensatory Planting (CP) area, and recommended that the applicant provide additional information regarding the area of permanent removal of woodland and extent of peatland restoration achievable around the base of the turbines, with a recalculation of the CP required. Details of a Compensatory Planting condition are provided. Applicants clarification to Scottish Forestry on Compensatory Planting (16th September 2022) – the Applicant provided clarification to the points raised in Scottish Forestry’s consultation advice to the ECU. Scottish Forestry – further comments on Compensatory Planting (20th September 2022) – advised the ECU the details provided address their concerns. Scottish Forestry recommend that the 56.3 hectares of compensatory planting is secured by a condition. Scottish Forestry response to Additional Information (23rd March 2023) – advised the ECU that they have no comment. Woodland Trust (1st April 2022) – advised the ECU they object on the basis of likely damage and loss to Bardaravine Wood, an area of 1a woodland of ancient semi-natural origin (ASNO) designated on NatureScot’s Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI). Applicant’s clarification is response to Woodlands Trust consultation comments (16th August 2022) – The Applicant provided a response to the points raised by the Woodlands Trust to the ECU. Woodland Trust response to Additional Information (22nd March 2023) – advised the ECU they have reviewed the agent’s response and acknowledge that the existing holiday park has resulted in the removal of Bardaravine Wood, and they withdraw their objection to this element of the proposal. They oppose the loss of ancient woodland to facilitate proposed road widening works and highlight that NPF4 does not support the loss of ancient woodlands. They further advise that they do not support woodland translocation as a means of mitigation. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (22nd June 2022) – advised the ECU they do not object and provide advice, in relation to biodiversity and habitat management to minimise and ensure any impacts are fully mitigated and biodiversity benefits achieved. They ask that: a bird monitoring plan; habitat management plan; ecological clerk of works and post-construction monitoring are secured as conditions of any consent. Scottish Water (25th February 2022) and Scottish Water response to Additional Information (21st February 2023) - advised the ECU they do not object, this does not confirm the proposal can be serviced. Advice is provided on: drinking water protected areas and surface water. Ministry of Defence (MOD) (21st March 2022) – advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions to secure: aviation safety lighting and aviation charting & safety management. Ministry of Defence response to Additional Information (6th March 2023) – advised the ECU their position has not changed. They have no objection subject to conditions to secure: aviation safety lighting and aviation charting & safety management. National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) (25th February 2022) – advised the ECU the proposal has been examined by their technical safeguarding teams and conflicts with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) plc objects. The reasons for NAT’s objection is that a technical impact is anticipated, which has been deemed to be unacceptable. Highlands & Islands Airport Limited (HIAL) (28th March 2022) – initially advised the ECU that, the proposal may infringe the safeguarding criteria for Campbeltown Airport. HIAL requested that the Applicant commission an Aviation Impact Feasibility Study (AIFS). With the aim of understanding any impact on the operation of Campbeltown Airports. Highlands & Islands Airport Limited (HIAL) (18th October 2022) – advised the ECU they have no objection – they have reviewed the IFP Assessment and confirm the proposal does not impact the safeguarding criteria and operation of Campbeltown Airport. Aberdeen International Airport response (7th March 2022) & Response to Additional Information (24th February 2023) – advised the ECU the proposal is located outwith their consultation zone. As such they have no comment. Glasgow Airport (16th March 2022) – advised the ECU the proposal has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria and they have no objection. Glasgow Prestwick Airport (10th April 2022) – advised the ECU the proposal raises aviation safety concerns which have an operational impact on the Airport as an air navigation services provider. Until all technical and operational aviation safety matters are addressed to the satisfaction of the Airport, and a mitigation agreement is put in place for the life of the wind farm, the Airport objects. Glasgow Prestwick Airport response to Additional Information (20th February 2023) - no further comment – objection remains. BAA Aerodrome Safeguarding (Edinburgh) response (28th February 2022) & Response to Additional Information (22nd February 2023) – advised the ECU the proposal lies outwith the Aerodrome Safeguarding zone for Edinburgh Airport and they have no objection. BT (8th March 2022) – advised the ECU the project should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. Joint Radio Company (10th March 2022) – advised the ECU the proposal is cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by: The Local Utility and Scotia Gas Networks. Royal Yachting Association Scotland response (25th March 2022) & Response to Additional Information (17th February 2023) – advised the ECU they have no comment. Ironside Farrar (22nd July 2022) – advised the ECU the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA) requires minor revisions. Given that there is a significant amount of peat on the site, some clarification and further justification is requested to address several queries, mainly relating to the methods of assessment. Applicants response to Ironside Farrar (25th January 2023) – the Applicant provided a clarification letter to the ECU to address Ironside Farrar’s comments. Ironside Farrar – at time of writing, no further advice has been received in response to the clarification provided by the Applicant. North Ayrshire Council (14th April 2022) – advised the ECU they do not object to but consider the proposal has the potential to have significant adverse impacts on the qualities of the North Arran NSA. They request that consideration is given to the significance of impacts on both Wild Land Area (WLA) 03 – North Arran and North Arran National Scenic Area designations when determining the suitability of the proposal. Furthermore, they understand that NatureScot provide consultation advice on the potential impacts on these designations. Arran Community Council (3rd April 2022) – advised the ECU that there does not appear to be a strong adverse view of the proposal from Arran with the responses highlighting some of the issues around Visual impact. There are also views that we need to consider how future energy demand will be met if policy is to reduce carbon fuels. They will monitor the proposal and respond further if required. East Kintyre Community Council (28th February 2022) – advised the ECU they object on the following grounds: a) visual amenity due to cumulative harmful visual impacts contrary to Argyll & Bute Council’s LDP 6 and Proposed Local Development Plan 2 Diagram 7, and b) Community Development Amenity due to the wholesale harmful impacts to a designated Tourism development area. Details supporting this objection are provided in their letter to the ECU. West Kintyre Community Council (15th May 2022) – conclude by advising the ECU that they consider the application would significantly affect the visual, residential and landscape amenity of the area to both its visitors and residents alike and trust the concerns of the local community will be considered fully when determining the application. As a community they are increasingly aware of the effects of global warming and climate change and agree there is a need to develop a mix of strategies to combat this. The Scottish Government has set ambitious targets to help combat the effect of global warming. WKCC believe Kintyre is helping to achieve these targets by the number of operational, consented and under construction in planning or at appeal developments already present on the peninsula. Currently the peninsula hosts180+ turbines either operational, under construction or approved, there are also 46 proposed turbines in planning awaiting a decision (including this application). Many residents state they increasingly feel they are not being heard due to the area being sparsely populated and producing good renewable on shore wind energy results and are therefore an easy option for governments wishing to reach these renewable targets. WKCC object to the proposal on behalf of the local community and request that the issues raised by the community are taken into consideration when determining this application. Tarbert & Skipness Community Council (30th May 2022) – advised the ECU they object to this proposal on the following grounds: significant landscape impacts; loss of residential visual amenity; shadow flicker; adverse impact of aviation lighting on dark skies; significant effects on Designated Landscapes; transformation of ancient path (forms opening section of Kintyre Way) linking Tarbert and Skipness (and their castles); adverse impact/direct damage on heritage and archaeological assets (castle, chapel, historical townships, bronze-age sites and ancient woodland); unacceptable proximity/ecological risk to largest area of ancient woodland on Kintyre (SSSI/SAC); destruction of ancient woodland Bardaravine (Woodland Trust); direct and indirect environmental impacts (rare, red-listed protected bird species (golden and sea eagles, black grouse and red-throated diver); downstream hydrological impacts (change in upland land use, vibration and sonic impacts); buffer zones inadequate to protect habitats and non-development areas around the site; unreasonable proximity to coastal fringe; significant negative cultural and natural heritage impacts; significant negative cultural and natural heritage impacts, reflected in changes to both the built and natural environment, contrary to SPP; adverse cumulative impact (clustering, amalgamation in Kintyre and Knapdale, and tunnelling effect B8001); adverse impact on maritime scenic qualities (ferry routes, key sea routes from Clyde to Tarbert); adverse impact on visitor experience in one of the most beautiful areas in the Firth of Clyde (uniquely dominated by wild-land views); significant local economic and employment impact; adverse impact on critical tourism sector; significant planning conflict with adjacent land use and business/community interests; and inadequate mitigation. South Knapdale Community Council (21st June 2022) – advised the ECU they shall not be making formal comment, they remain neutral on this matter. Skipness Estate (31st May 2022) – advised the ECU they object on the grounds detailed in the community statement. This response serves to raise additional points and supply information regarding the new land-holding developing eco-tourism and high-biodiversity agroforestry which stands to be rendered unviable, should the proposal be approved in its current design. A planning application has now been submitted for this project and it is considered that only if turbine 3 (T3) were removed, would it have any hope of survival. If T3 was removed, and another visual and sonic assessment conducted a decision could be made as to whether the loss of visual and auditory amenity would render the project unviable. Further detail including: the history of their proposal; a complaint relating to unauthorised access; and the Design & Access Statement for the proposal are provided in their letter to the ECU. (Off grid-artists retreat). Applicants clarification in response to Skipness Estate’s consultation response (12th September 2022) – the Applicant provided a clarification letter to the ECU to address the points (access and eco-tourism and agro-forestry development at Altagalvash (22/01120/PPP)) raised in Skipness Estate’s consultation response. Skipness Estate further comments in response to RSK letter of 12th September 2022 (6th October 2022) – provide further comments to the ECU in respect to: the unacceptable consultation process; visual impact (T3); tourism impact; economic and employment impact; cultural, ecological and regional economic importance of the site; planning application (should have been included in cumulative assessment in EIAR); unauthorised access; ancient coastal woodland; adverse impacts of T3 and T5 on Skipness Castle, Kilbrannan Chapel, Skipness Point and beaches; aviation lighting; and will withdraw objection if T3, T5 and T6 are removed (would continue to support community objection to the entire development); communities are up in arms about the scale of development on the Kintyre Peninsula; proposal is contrary to both regional and national policy; and they are happy to cooperate with the government reporters in any further Inquiry. Note: 22/01120/PP (application referred to by Skipness Estate) was withdrawn on the 10th March 2023, following receipt of a statement of withdrawal from the Applicant dated 31st January 2023. The following consultees have not responded to the ECU: Civil Aviation Authority, Crown Estate, Argyll Fisheries Trust, Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board, John Muir, Mountaineering Scotland, Scottish Rights of Way, Scottish Wildlife Trust, Scottish Wild Land Group, Visit Scotland, Maritime & Coastguard Service, West of Scotland Archaeology Service, OFCOM, Ericsson and Atkins; and Gigha, Ardrishaig, Kilfinnan and Bute & Cowal Community Councils. ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL RESPONSES ABC Landscape Consultant Review (April 2022) - advice to the Council is to raise an objection on landscape and visual grounds. This is principally because this proposal would introduce new visibility of prominent wind farm development into the Ardlamont Peninsula, affecting its character (including part of the Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) covering this area) and views from coastal walks, Kilbride Beach, the B8000 and from the Portavadie Marina resort. This area is promoted as Argyll’s ‘Secret Coast’ and is valued for its scenic qualities as evidenced by the APQ designation. The significant adverse effects that would affect the character of a broad seascape area (encompassing outer Loch Fyne/the western Sound of Bute and northern part of the Kilbrannan Sound) and also effects on views from the ferries across Loch Fyne and to Arran, which are popular with visitors, are of equal concern. ABC Roads & Amenity Services (22nd March 2022) – no objection subject to conditions to ensure the site is accessed from the A83 Tarbet-Campbeltown Trunk Road, and no other public road is used to access the site; and, all vehicles leaving the site must leave by the site access that connects directly to the A83 Tarbet – Campbeltown Trunk Road. They must not use the lightly constructed Local Authority maintained single track roads. ABC Local Biodiversity Officer (22nd March 2022) – no objection, advice/comments provided in regard to: Borrow Pits; Peat Management Plan; Designations & Constraints; Ecological Interest; Habitat Management Plan; Forestry Assessment; Water Courses; Crossings; Species Surveys; European Protected Species; Monitoring; Ornithological Interest; and Construction Environment Management Plan. In summary, the Local Biodiversity Officer notes the contents of the Ecological including fish species and Ornithological surveys along with the Habitat Management, Peat Management and Forest Assessment Plans. The Local Biodiversity Officer supports the pre-construction start surveys and monitoring as set out in the CEMP. The Ecological and Ornithological mitigations are to be included in the CEMP, as well as specific Toolbox talks and monitoring of species, watercourses including keeping a log of any issues relating to silt contamination and any bird strikes, all to be overseen by an Ecological Clerk of Works. ABC Flood Prevention Officer (13th May 2022) – no objections subject to conditions. It is recommended that planning conditions to the effect of the following be attached to any consent granted for this application: Watercourse crossings not to reduce the existing capacity of the channel and ideally be designed to convey the 1:200 year plus climate change flow plus an allowance for freeboard; and drainage to be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 guidance and Sewers For Scotland 4th edition. ABC Noise Consultant (3rd March 2023) - desktop review and site survey concludes that good practice has been adopted by the applicant, with a few minor issues identified. The most significant of these issues is the identification of a number of derelict buildings within 2km of the site boundary, for which the planning status is unknown, for which, the ongoing residential use should be established. If it remains the planning authorities wish that these properties should remain with a residential use, then these should be reassessed by the Applicant, including where relevant the battery storage equipment which may become significant. As presented, the wind farm will not exceed 31 dB LA90 at any receptor or any wind speed up to 12m/s. This makes the site suitable for adopting the ETSU-R-97 simplified noise limit of 35 dB LA90 at any wind speed up to 12m/s for day or night periods. However, the developer may wish to have a higher headroom and request a noise limit based on background + 5dB, with a lower fixed limit. If this is considered, the Noise Consultant suggests a lower fixed limit of 35 dB LA90 daytime and 38 dB LA90 night-time to be appropriate for this scheme. In the absence of any new residential receptors being identified (e.g. currently derelict properties), there are no reasons to object to the scheme on noise grounds, but a suitably worded condition to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation should be applied. West of Scotland Archaeology Service – at time of writing no response has been received (Officers tried to secure a response and have highlighted the proposal was scheduled to be reported to committee).
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) REPRESENTATIONS: As the Council is not the determining Authority all letters of representation are considered by the Energy Consents Unit. At time of writing, public representation figures stand at 12 of which 11 are objections and 1 is in support, all of which are published on the ECU website. The main issues raised are summarised below: Material Considerations raised in the objections are summarised as follows: Adverse Ecological Impact (river systems, biodiversity, protected habitats, inadequate buffer zone) Adverse Ornithological Impact (rare birds, eagle strikes) Adverse Impact on Ancient Woodland (largest protected SSSI/SAC on Kintyre) Adverse Landscape & Visual Impacts (including from Arran) Adverse Impact on Landscape Designations (Arran’s National Scenic Area, Adverse Cumulative Landscape & Visual Impact (with Transmission Infrastructure and other wind farms (capacity has been reached) Adverse Aviation Lighting Impacts (visual impact, dark skies, light pollution, impact on local astronomers, impacts on Arran) Adverse Tourism Impact (including adverse visual impact on Portavadie Leisure Facilities – one of the main attractions is the stunning views over to Kintyre which will be adversely affected by the proposal) Adverse Economic Impact – due to impact on tourism Adverse Cultural Heritage Impact Adverse Impact on Kintyre Way Adverse Impact on Coastal Fringe – proximity, out of scale with coastal fringe surroundings. Minimal Socio-economic benefits v Adverse Tourism Impacts Connection from the Transmission Network to the wind farm should be underground. The Scottish Government have already overturned local objections to wind farms on Kintyre. Contrary to the Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2017) Lack of consultation with local businesses, communities and community councils Wind farms/Renewable Energy Developments and their Transmission Lines should be dealt with in an integrated manner (consultation and applications) Precedent - a precedent will be established for further 180m high development southwards along Kintyre. Capacity - No more wind farms should be built on Kintyre. Offshore wind should become the predominant location for wind farms. Considerations raised in support are summarised as follows: Positive Impact for RTS Forestry, working on current projects within Kintyre. Have been able to develop and sustain business including direct employment of over 50 staff and indirect employment of c120 full time equivalent sub-contractors within the forestry industry. A significant proportion of these have and continue to be involved in infrastructure and renewable energy projects such as Earraghail (planning & development, site preparation works, and design and delivery of mitigation works e.g. compensatory planting to assist in The Scottish Government Policy on Woodland Removal. The following matter raised in representations is not a material planning consideration: Community Benefit
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 Pre-Application Consultation Report (February 2022) which is available on the ECU website (reference: ECU00003421). 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 representations are available on the Energy Consents Units website.
(E) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Has the application been the subject of:
Environmental Impact Assessment Report( EIAR): Yes EIAR (February 2022) presented in 4 volumes: Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary Volume 2: Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA Report) Volume 3: EIA Report Figures Volume 4: EIA Report Technical Appendices Key matters covered in the EIAR include: Introduction; Site Description and Design Evolution; Proposed Development; Climate Change, Renewable Energy and Planning Policy; EIA Approach and Methodology; Scoping and Consultation; Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; Ecology; Ornithology; Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Geology and Soils; Archaeology and Cultural Heritage; Access, Traffic and Transport; Noise; Socio-economics, Recreation and Tourism; Other Issues; and Schedule of Commitments. The EIAR should be read with the following supplementary documents: Planning Statement Design and Access Statement (DAS) Pre-Application Consultation Report (PAC Report) Additional Information (10th February 2023) – includes viewpoints and visualisations from the Isle of Arran (requested by NatureScot); correspondence from stakeholders clarifying matters in the EIAR (Appendix A – D); and update on aviation consultation status (requested by ECU). Planning Statement Addendum (16th March 2023) – prepared to provide an updated policy context for the proposed development. Since the application was submitted the Scottish Government has adopted the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), a revised Onshore Wind Policy Statement (OWPS) and published the Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan.
An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: Yes – the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the Western acidic oak woodland feature of the Tarbert Woods SAC. Consequently, the ECU, as competent authority, is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interest.
A Design or Design/Access statement: Yes (February 2022)
A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc.: All relevant reports are encompassed within the EIAR and Additional Information.
(F) Statutory Development Plan (NPF4 and LDP) and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application:
List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.
National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption Policy 3 – Biodiversity Policy 4 – Natural Places Policy 5 – Soils Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places Policy 11 – Energy Policy 12 – Zero Waste Annex B – National Statements of Need 3. Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan (2015) Policy LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development Policy LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones Policy LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment Policy LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy Policy LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables Policy LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of Our Communities Policy LDP 10 – Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption Policy LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance to the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2015 & 2016 SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity) SG LDP ENV 2 – Development Impact on European Sites SG LDP ENV 4 – Development Impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves SG LDP ENV 5 – Development Impact on Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) SG LDP ENV 6 – Development Impact on Trees / Woodland SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the Environment SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources SG LDP ENV 12 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs) SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape SG LDP ENV 16(a) – Development Impact on Listed Buildings SG LDP ENV 19 – Development Impact on Scheduled Monuments SG LDP ENV 20 – Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance SG LDP MIN 2 – Mineral Extraction SG LDP PG 1 – Planning Gain SG LDP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development SG LDP Sustainable - Sustainable Siting and Design Principles SG LDP SERV 1 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater (i.e. drainage) Systems SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features / Sustainable Systems (SUDS) SG LDP SERV 3 – Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) SG LDP SERV 5 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management SG LDP SERV 5(b) – Provision of Waste Storage and Collection Facilities within New Development SG LDP SERV 6 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation SG LDP SERV 7 – Flooding and Land Erosion – The Risk Framework for Development SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the Outdoors SG LDP TRAN 2 - Development and Public Transport Accessibility SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 6 –Vehicle Parking Provision SG LDP TRAN 7 –Safeguarding of Airports Supplementary Guidance 2- Renewable Energy (December 2016) (December 2016) Note: The above supplementary guidance has been approved by the Scottish Government. It therefore constitutes adopted policy and the Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan (January 2023) Onshore Wind Policy Statement (OWPS) (December 2022) Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS, 2019) Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership and Community Benefit of Onshore Renewable Energy Developments (May 2019) Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2017) Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape, SNH (August 2017) ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) Onshore Wind Turbines: Planning Advice, Scottish Government (May 2014) Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, Landscape Institute, and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, (2013) PAN 1/2011: ‘Planning and Noise’ (March 2011) The Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) 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
Argyll & Bute proposed Local Development Plan 2 (November 2019) – The Reporters have written to Argyll & Bute Council regarding the Proposed Local Development Plan 2, which is currently at Examination. Due to the status of National Planning Framework 4 the reporters are currently determining what, if any, further processes are required as a consequence. Although PLDP2 remains a material consideration it is now subject to this further assessment against NPF4 policies. Therefore, it considered appropriate not to attach significant weight to PLDP2 policies during this time, i.e. until the consequences of NPF4 policies for the PLDP2 have been assessed by the Reporters and the Examination report is issued. Specific sites in PLDP2 that have not received objections and are not being dealt with at the Examination may continue as strong material considerations, e.g. allocations and potential development areas.
(G) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No
(H) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No
Author of Report: Arlene Knox	Date: 6th April 2023
Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies	Date: 6th April 2023
Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth

RECOMMENDED REASONS FOR OBJECTION TO: 22/00445/S36

1.	Landscape & Visual Impact (including cumulative)

The proposed development site lies within the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic Landscape	Character Type (LCT) identified in the Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity	Study. This landscape has some characteristics which reduce sensitivity to large scale	wind energy development including a generally simple landform and landcover and an	expansive scale. These uplands already accommodate a number of operational and	consented wind farms. One of the more sensitive features of this LCT is the rugged and	minimally modified coastline between Skipness and Tarbert.

There would be relatively limited visual intrusion associated with the proposal from the	West Loch Tarbert area, Gigha and the eastern and western coastal edges of Kintyre. The	proposal would however be widely visible across the broad sea basin formed by outer Loch	Fyne, the Sound of Bute and the north Kilbrannan Sound and from the western part of the	Ardlamont Peninsula and the north Arran coast and hills.

This proposal would have significant adverse effects on part of the Upland Forest Moor	Mosaic LCT affecting the development site and an area approximately 3km beyond	outer turbines. The proposal would also have significant adverse indirect effects on the	character of part of the Rocky Mosaic LCT over the western part of the Ardlamont	Peninsula. An area of seascape (comprising the broad sea basin of outer Loch Fyne, the	northern part of the Kilbrannan Sound and the western Sound of Bute and associated coastal	fringes) would also be significantly and adversely affected by the proposal.

The proposal is not located in a designated or otherwise formally valued landscape but it	would indirectly and significantly affect some of the qualities of the Area of Panoramic	Quality (APQ) covering the western part of the Ardlamont Peninsula.

In terms of visual impact, this proposal would principally significantly affect views from the	western coast and open hills of the Ardlamont Peninsula including from parts of the	Portavadie Marina resort. It would have significant adverse effects from the sea including	from the Tarbert/Claonaig to Lochranza and Portavadie to Tarbert ferries,	which are routes	popular with tourists, and from a section of the Kintyre Way.

This proposal could be one of the first wind farms to introduce lighting to the dark skies of	Argyll & Bute with all 13 turbines having visible aviation lighting on nacelles and towers. The	Applicant has committed to installing an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS). Such a	system would substantially reduce the duration of night-time lighting as lights would only come	on when an aircraft approaches. The effects of constant night-time lighting (without the	installation of an ADLS) would be significant and adverse from parts of Argyll & Bute and north	Arran but would not be significant if an ADLS was installed.

All wind farm proposals are likely to incur significant landscape and visual effects and it is	therefore important to gauge the range, extent and severity of effects in making	judgements on acceptability in landscape and visual terms. Having evaluated the likely	landscape and visual effects of this proposal, and additionally compared these with	operational, consented and application-stage wind farms, Argyll & Bute Council object on	landscape and visual grounds. This is principally because	this proposal would introduce new	visibility of prominent wind farm development into the Ardlamont Peninsula, affecting its	character (including part of the APQ covering this area) and views from coastal walks, Kilbride	Beach, the B8000 and from the Portavadie Marina resort. This area is promoted as Argyll’s	‘Secret Coast’ and is valued for its scenic qualities as evidenced by the APQ designation. The	significant adverse effects that would affect the character of a broad seascape area	(encompassing outer	Loch Fyne/the western Sound of Bute and northern part of the	Kilbrannan Sound) and also effects on views from the ferries across Loch Fyne and to Arran,	which are popular with visitors, are of equal concern.

Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will have significant	adverse landscape and visual impacts and is therefore inconsistent with the	provisions of: Policy 11 – Energy and Policy 4 – Natural Places of National Planning	Framework 4, Policies LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; LDP	3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment;	LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the	Development Management Zones; and SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape; SG 2 Renewable	Energy of the Argyll & Bute Local	Development Plan; and guidance contained in the	Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2017.

2.	Aviation

National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) have advised that an unacceptable technical impact is anticipated and they object. Glasgow Prestwick Airport advise that the development raises aviation safety concerns which have an operational impact on the airport as an air navigation services provider. Until all technical and operational aviation safety matters are addressed to the satisfaction of Glasgow Prestwick Airport, and a mitigation agreement is put in place for the life of the wind farm, the airport also objects to the proposal.

National Development Plan Policy 11 – Energy requires aviation matters to be addressed, and Local Development Plan Policy is clear that developments that have an adverse impact on the Safeguarding of Airports should be refused.

Having due regard to the above it is concluded that due to the fact that National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport have advised the Energy Consents Unit that they object to the proposal, it will have an adverse impact on aviation and is therefore inconsistent with the provisions of: Policy 11 – Energy of National Planning Framework 4, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy SG TRAN 7 – Safeguarding of Airports, and Supplementary Guidance 2 – Renewable Energy of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.

Argyll & Bute Council therefore object to the proposal due to the adverse impact it would have on Aviation. The Energy Consents Unit should please note that in the event that National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport withdraw their objections, then Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds. Should these objections not be removed and the proposal progresses to an Inquiry, Argyll & Bute Council would defer to National Air Traffic Services and Glasgow Prestwick Airport as the Technical Experts on this matter.

Notes for the Energy Consents Unit

Battery Storage – Whilst, the provision of battery storage meets the requirements of policy, Officers are concerned that no consideration has been given to the Landscape & Visual Impact of this battery storage facility. This is would comprise large shipping containers located in a rural landscape. Before a decision is reached on this proposal by the ECU it is the view of Argyll & Bute Council that any impacts of this needs to be considered/clarified

Noise – Argyll & Bute Council would be grateful to receive clarification from the Applicant in respect to the points raised by the Noise Consultant on residential receptors (derelict properties).

Historic Environment - Whilst it is acknowledged that Historic Environment Scotland have not objected to this proposal, it has not been possible for Argyll & Bute Council to reach a conclusion on the proposals acceptability in this regard in the absence of advice from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service.

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 22/00445/S36

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A.	THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME

In Scotland, any application to construct or operate 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 ministerial authorisation given would include a ‘deemed planning permission’ and in these circumstances there is then no requirement for a planning application to be made to the Council as Planning Authority. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee along with various other consultation bodies.

The Development Plan is not the starting point for consideration of S36 applications. This is because Sections 25 and 37 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 which establish the primacy of LDP policy in decision-making, are not engaged in the deemed consent process. NPF4 and the Local Development Plan now form the Statutory Development Plan. Whilst the Statutory Development Plan does not have primacy in S36 decision-making it still remains an important material consideration informing the Council’s response to the proposal.

Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act does require both the applicant and the decision-maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the prospective 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, historic 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.

Similarly, it obliges the Scottish Ministers in their capacity 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).

Consideration of the proposal against both NPF4 (2023) and the adopted Argyll & Bute LDP 2015 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent to which the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties.

It is open to the Council to either support or object to the proposal, and to recommend conditions it would wish to see imposed in the event that authorisation is given by Scottish Ministers. In the event of an objection being raised by the Council, the Scottish Ministers are obliged to convene a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) if they are minded to approve the proposal. They can also choose to hold a PLI in other circumstances at their own discretion. Such an Inquiry would be conducted by a Reporter(s) appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. In the event that consent is given, either where there has been no objection from the Council, or where objections have been overruled following PLI, the Council as Planning Authority would become responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, and for the ongoing monitoring and enforcement.

This report reviews the policy considerations which are relevant 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 3rd party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government following publicity of the application by them. It recommends views to be conveyed to the Scottish Government on behalf of the Council before a final decision is taken on the matter. The conclusion of this report is to recommend that the Council raise an Objection to this Section 36 consultation on Landscape & Visual and Aviation Grounds for the reasons detailed in this report.

B.	SETTLEMENT STRATEGY

Policy LDP DM1 establishes acceptable scales of development in three different ‘zones’ or the ‘Settlement Strategy’. In terms of the local development plan proposals map, the proposal is predominantly located within ‘Very Sensitive Countryside’. In the Very Sensitive Countryside, only specific categories of development are supported. This however includes renewable energy related development. In principle, policy LDP DM 1 supports renewable energy and ancillary developments in these areas, providing they are consistent with all other Local Development Plan Policies.

Policy 11 – Energy and Policy LDP 6: Renewable Energy provides the primary policy framework for assessing wind farms. In this case, it is considered that it has not been demonstrated that the scale and location of the proposal, will integrate sympathetically without giving rise to adverse consequences in terms of: landscape & visual impact (including cumulative) and aviation. For the reasons detailed below in this report, it is considered that this proposal does not satisfy Development Plan Policy and associated guidance in respect of renewable energy development.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that due to significant adverse Landscape & Visual Impact (including cumulative) and Adverse Aviation Impact this proposal cannot be considered ‘sustainable’ and is therefore contrary to the provisions of LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones.

C.	ENERGY & SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF RENEWABLES

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.

This proposal has been assessed primarily against the criterion in the two lead Statutory Development Plan policies relating to renewable energy. These are: Policy 11 – Energy of National Planning Framework 4 and Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan. Other policies are referred to where relevant. It should be noted that in accordance with the advice of the Chief Planner, where there are discrepancies between these policies or the LDP policy is out-of-date, the default position is to defer to Policy 11. An example of this is the reference to SPP and the Spatial Framework in Policy 6. SPP is no longer extant and the requirement for a Spatial Framework has not been carried forward to NPF4. Consequently, it has not been considered in this report.

D.	LOCATION, NATURE AND DESIGN OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Location - The proposal is located within the forestry areas of Skipness and Corranbuie between Tarbert, to the north east, and Skipness, to the south, situated within the northern part of Kintyre Peninsula. The nearest turbines are located approximately 5.7 km south of Tarbert and 3 km north of Skipness.

The Site - is dominated by the Corranbuie (1065ha) and Skipness (1165 ha) forests, and the land consists predominantly of commercial forestry. The topography of the site is variable and undulating and is dictated by 5 small hills within the forested areas: Cnoc nan Caorach (254 m AOD), Cruach Bhreac (351 m), Cruach na Machrach (346 m), Guallan Mhor (303 m) and Meall Donn (276 m).

The main transport route within the immediate area is the A83 trunk road which serves the Kintyre peninsula between Tarbert and Campbeltown and passes the north western end of the site. The B8001, also a key route runs along the western end of the site. The Kintyre Way walking route traverses parts of the site. There is an additional walking route, Corranbuie Walking Trail, a circular route from Tarbert that is also part of the Kintyre Way that passes along part of the northern boundary.

There are several Landscape designations outwith the site, the North Arran National Scenic Area (NSA) and Special Landscape Area (SLA), and the Argyll & Bute Council Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQ). Tarbert Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is the closest natural heritage designation. The Local Nature Conservation Site West Loch Tarbert adjacent and to the west of the site, while 0.8 km north west and 0.5 km to the west is the Glen Ralloch to Baravalla Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The nearest Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are Knapdale Lochs SPA & Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA, respectively 8.3 km and 14.9 km away. The Sound of Gigha proposed SPA (pSPA) is 0.2 km away. Skipness Castle and Kilbrannan Chapel schedule monument, a medieval chapel and castle, are located 1.5 km south east.

Description of the Proposal - The proposal comprises 13 three-bladed horizontal axis wind turbines up to 180 m tip height, with a rated output of 78 megawatts (MW) and ground mounted solar arrays of around 5 MW, producing a combined output of around 83 MW or between 230-280GWh of electricity annually. A battery energy storage system (BESS) of around 25 MW would also be installed to store generated renewable energy and provide flexible management of energy delivery and ancillary support services to the National Grid.

In addition to the turbines, solar arrays and BESS, the proposal also includes: aviation lighting; turbine foundations; crane hardstandings; transformer/switchgear housings; up to 3 borrow; a permanent lattice meteorological mast, up to 105 m high; underground cabling; new (10.4 km) and upgraded (12.9 km) access tracks; watercourse crossings; passing places and turning heads; one main site construction and maintenance compound and a security compound; health & safety and other directional site signage; compound containing substation, control building and BESS; peatland restoration; habitat improvement; native woodland planting; proposed new walking bothy and stone seating on the Kintyre Way; circular walking route and viewpoint near Tarbert.

As a result of any possible issues encountered during site construction it may be necessary to microsite elements of the proposal. It is proposed that a 50m micrositing tolerance from turbines and other infrastructure would be applied and within this distance any micrositing would be agreed in advance.

The proposal would require 110.79ha of woodland to be felled in order to facilitate wind turbines, solar arrays and associated infrastructure. Forestry felling will be required in a 108m key holed radius from each turbine location within woodland to allow for construction, operation and environmental mitigation, including bat habitat standoff distances. In line with the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy, compensatory planting (CP) of an area equivalent to the net loss, or habitat restoration would be undertaken. Of the 110.79 ha of forestry to be felled, approximately 27.18ha could be replanted following completion of the construction phase.

The proposal is anticipated to have an operational life of 40 years, after which it would be decommissioned, and the turbines dismantled and removed. Effects associated with carbon emissions during manufacturing and pay-back period during operation have been calculated – estimating a total of 22 months of operation to offset life-cycle emissions.

The proposal would be connected to the substation and electricity network via an onsite control building. The control building would also host solar panels on the roof to reduce the carbon footprint of the building and will likely include other energy efficient measures, such as electric vehicle charging points and rainwater harvesting. A small car park will also be located adjacent to the control building.

Access - access is via the A83 at Tarbert Holiday Park to the north of the site.

Grid Network - The grid connection does not form part of the section 36 consent application.

The proposal would connect to the electricity transmission network via an SSE overhead line (OHL) between Crossaig and Craig Murrail substations. The grid connection may require consent under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, which is the subject of a separate consenting process to this Section 36 application.

Infrastructure

Audit of Proposal - Scottish Water have considered the EIAR and the Additional Information and has advised the ECU that they have no objection, however, they advise that this does not confirm the proposal can be serviced. They also provide advice on drinking water protected areas, surface water and general notes.

Drinking Water Protected Areas – Scottish Water has advised the ECU that a review of their records indicates that there are no Scottish Water drinking 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.

Surface Water - Scottish Water has advised the ECU that for reasons of sustainability and to protect their customers from potential future sewer flooding, they will not accept any surface water connections into their combined sewer system.

E.	NET ECONOMIC IMPACT, INCLUDING LOCAL AND COMMUNITY SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS

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 LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan require 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.

The EIAR, Planning Statement and Planning Statement Addendum detail the benefits the proposal will bring to the economy. In summary, the benefits during construction include: The capital expenditure during the construction phase is estimated to be approximately £117.1 million (including solar), approximately £13.78 million spent in the local economy and approximately £43 million spent in Scotland as a whole; The local economy would be expected to be boosted by a total of £4.2 million of net Gross Value Added (GVA) 2 during the construction period. The Scottish economy would benefit by approximately £17.4 million net GVA; and during construction, the proposal is expected to support employment in the Argyll & Bute economy which has the potential to be beneficial for local residents. There would be 53 person years of employment benefiting local residents and approximately 215.4 person years of employment for Scotland as a whole.

During the operational phase, the proposal is expected to support, in net terms, 9 permanent person years of employment benefiting local residents and 13 permanent person years of employment for Scotland as a whole.

Experience from other renewable energy projects developed and constructed by the Applicant indicates that a wide selection of supply chain businesses could expect to benefit from the investment in the local and Scottish economy, including haulage, aggregates supply, forestry services, building services, fencing, plant hire and security. The Applicant is committed to employing good practice measures regarding maximising local procurement.

It is considered likely that the proposal would operate in combination with other renewable energy projects in the area to encourage the development of the relevant skills and longer term business opportunities as Argyll and Bute continues to capitalise on its natural energy resources as part of its commitment to economic recovery and response to climate change. Therefore, the Applicant concludes that for both construction and operational phases, the socio-economic effects at the level of Argyll & Bute are considered beneficial.

The EIAR advises that Community Benefit Funds would be made available for the local community. Community Benefit is not however, considered to be a ‘material planning consideration’ in the determination of planning applications. If permission were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit, either directly with the local community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process.

Tarbert & Skipness Community Council have advised the ECU that they object on the grounds of significant local economic and employment impact and significant planning conflict with adjacent land use and business/community interests. Skipness Estate have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the grounds of economic and employment impact. They have also raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on a planning application for an eco-tourism and high-biodiversity agroforestry which they had submitted. However, it is understood that this application has now been withdrawn.

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, Policies LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and Supplementary Guidance 2 of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.

F.	IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY, VISUAL IMPACT, NOISE AND SHADOW FLICKER (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE)

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 LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan require all applications for wind turbine 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 – It has not been possible to obtain advice from Environmental Health on Noise. Consequently, the advice of an independent Noise Consultant has been obtained. They have advised that good practice has been adopted by the applicant, with a few minor issues identified. The most significant of these issues is the identification of a number of derelict buildings within 2km of the site boundary, for which the planning status is unknown, and for which the ongoing residential use should be established. If it remains the planning authorities wish that these properties should remain with a residential use, then these should be reassessed by the applicant, including where relevant the battery storage equipment which may become significant. As presented, the wind farm will not exceed 31 dB LA90 at any receptor or any wind speed up to 12m/s. This makes the site suitable for adopting the ETSU-R-97 simplified noise limit of 35 dB LA90 at any wind speed up to 12m/s for day or night periods. However, the developer may wish to have a higher headroom and request a noise limit based on background + 5dB, with a lower fixed limit. If this is considered, the Noise Consultant suggests a lower fixed limit of 35 dB LA90 daytime and 38 dB LA90 night-time to be appropriate for this scheme. In the absence of any new residential receptors being identified (e.g. currently derelict properties), there are no reasons to object to the scheme on noise grounds, but a suitably worded condition to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation should be applied.

Air Quality, Lighting and Private Water Supplies – It has not been possible to obtain advice from Environmental Health.

Shadow Flicker – the EIAR concludes that no properties will experience Shadow Flicker effects from the proposal.

Tarbert & Skipness Community Council have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the grounds of shadow flicker. The EIAR concludes that no properties will experience this, consequently, it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory in this regard.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that subject to clarification being provided in respect to the derelict properties referred to by the Noise Consultant, and subject to the recommended conditions being applied in the event that consent is granted it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy, and Policies LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and Supplementary Guidance 2 of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.

G.	SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE)

Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4 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 to be acceptable. Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 also states that proposals that impact on international or national designations will be assessed in relation to Policy 4. Policy 4 – 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. Proposals that will affect a National Park, National Scenic Area, Site of Special Scientific Interest or a National Nature Reserve will only be supported where: the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the areas will not be compromised; or any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. Proposals that affect a landscape area in the LDP will only be supported where: development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified; or any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local importance. The precautionary principle will be applied in accordance with relevant legislation and Scottish Government guidance. Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against landscape and visual impacts, including effects on wild land (including cumulative).

Argyll & Bute Council’s landscape consultant provides the following advice:

Introduction – A review of the landscape and visual effects of the proposal has been undertaken following review of the EIAR dated February 2022 and additionally informed by field work, to consider potential landscape and visual effects, including cumulative effects with the applications for the Narachan and Rowan wind farms.

The proposed development - The proposal comprises 13 turbines, 180m to blade tip and ancillary development including a battery storage compound, solar array and access tracks. Access would be from the A83, south-west of Tarbert. The wind farm would be largely located in an area of productive forestry owned by Forestry and Land Scotland and keyhole felling is proposed to accommodate turbines and other development. This would result in a loss of 110 hectares of forestry and compensatory planting will be undertaken by the Applicant. The proposals also include an area of native woodland planting and restoration of peatland and moorland.

Visible aviation lighting is proposed on all 13 turbines with 2000 candela medium intensity lights affixed to nacelles with these able to be dimmed to 200 candela when visibility is good. Low intensity lights would additionally be fixed half-way up each turbine tower. Nacelle lights would be subject to shielding which would reduce the intensity of lighting experienced from lower elevations. The Applicant is committed to the installation of an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS) which would substantially reduce the duration of night-time lighting as lights would only come on when an aircraft approaches. This commitment is dependent on the agreement of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) but there is confidence that such a system could be deployed by 2025 at the latest, as explained in EIA-R Technical Appendix 15.5.

Information provided in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) - The LVIA has been undertaken in general accordance with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition although it differs from many other LVIA in the way effects on visual receptors are assessed. The level of detail provided is appropriate and consideration has also been given to seascape and coastal character, relevant given the location of the proposal. The Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that effects on some landscapes and on seascape character are under-estimated in the LVIA although visual effects are generally accurate for identified receptor groups.

The figures supporting the LVIA are clear and informative with representative viewpoint location maps, the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) map, taking into account screening by woodland, and photographs and wirelines illustrating sequential effects from ferry routes especially useful.

2017 Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Capacity Study - The proposed wind farm lies within the Upland Forest Moor Mosiac Landscape Character Type (LCT) identified in the Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Capacity Study (LWECS). This LCT covers the Kintyre peninsula between Machrinhanish/Campbeltown in the south and West Loch Tarbert in the north.

This LCT has a predominantly large scale and simple landform and landcover. While these key characteristics are generally less sensitive to larger wind turbines, smaller scale hills and glens on the outer fringes of these uplands and the remote and little modified coast between Skipness and Tarbert are specifically noted in the study as being of increased sensitivity. The proposed turbines, which would be up to 180m high to blade tip, would fall within the ‘Very Large’ typology considered in the LWECS. The LWECS concludes that the sensitivity of the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT is high-medium to wind turbines of this size. The guidance set out in the study for this LCT advises that there is very limited scope for additional 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. Since the study was issued in 2017 the Eascairt, Clachaig Glen, Beinn an Tuirc III and High Constellation wind farms have been consented on the Kintyre peninsula.

The guidance set out in the LWECS for the Rocky Mosaic LCT, which covers the narrow, settled fringes on the east and west coasts of Kintyre, Knapdale and Loch Fyne and the Ardlamont Peninsula, concludes that this landscape would be highly sensitive to larger wind turbines sited on the edges of adjacent upland areas.

Landscape effects - The proposed development site lies within the northern extent of the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT6 identified in the LWECS. While the generally large scale, simple landform and landcover of this LCT reduces susceptibility to wind energy development, the proposal would introduce large scale infrastructure to a new part of the Kintyre Peninsula and one where the coastal edge of this LCT against Loch Fyne has a distinctly remote and natural character that would be diminished when appreciated from the sea. The Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that there would be significant adverse effects on part of this LCT specifically affecting the proposed development site and up to approximately 3km surrounding it.

Screening by landform would limit the extent of visibility of turbines in views to the west from West Loch Tarbert, Gigha and the east coast of Kintyre. However, there is little containment to the east of the development site and the proposal would form a prominent feature seen across an extensive sea basin and coastal fringes. The Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that significant adverse effects would be likely to arise on the character of part of the Rocky Mosaic LCT on the eastern coastal fringes of Loch Fyne between Portavadie and Ardlamont Point. While there would be no direct effects on the physical components of this LCT as the proposal is not sited in it, the prominence of large wind turbines would be likely to affect the seclusion and the little developed character of this landscape experienced in the western part of the Ardlamont Peninsula.

Significant adverse effects would also arise on the character of the seascape which covers the broad sea basin where Loch Fyne merges with Kilbrannan Sound and the Sound of Bute and which includes the coastal fringes of the Ardlamont and Kintyre Peninsulas and north Arran. While some wind farm development is seen at distance on the Kintyre peninsula and further north within Loch Fyne from parts of this seascape area, this proposal would introduce much more prominent large scale infrastructure into this scenic and little modified area.

The requirement for visible aviation lighting on all 13 turbines within the proposal will contribute to the duration of landscape effects. Argyll & Bute, Arran and associated seascapes have low night-time lighting and dark skies and this would alter, introducing new sources of light which would diminish the sense of remoteness and naturalness that can be experienced. Mitigation committed to by the Applicant in the form of an ADLS would reduce these effects to not significant.

Effects on valued landscapes - The proposed development site is not covered by any landscape designations or other recognised landscape interests.

The Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area - The Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area (NSA) lies within approximately 13km east of the proposal. EIA-R Figure 7.13 (Screening ZTV with Designations) indicates that visibility of the proposal would be relatively limited across this generally visually contained and well-wooded landscape which is focussed on the narrow waters of the Kyles and the steep slopes which contain them. Patches of visibility would be likely from the relatively little frequented open slopes within the NSA east of Bute (on the Strone Peninsula) and from the open water and a small part of the shore of the Kyles. Viewpoint 15 in the EIA-R is a rare open view from densely forested hills and a viewpoint which is not easy to access. The small viewpoint close to the A8003 at Creag Rubha Bhain (EIA-R Illustrative Wireline F) offers a more accessible open view towards the proposal. Viewpoint 16 serves as an example of the type of views which will occur from near sea level. In this view the proposal is seen directly above Tighnabruich in a dip in the low hills of the Ardlamont Peninsula which immediately back the settlement. While this would result in an adverse effect, the extent of visibility would be limited and this, together with the distance from the view, would be unlikely to be significant. Overall, while there would be some adverse effects from relatively rare open views out from the NSA, it is concluded that effects on the special qualities of the Kyles of Bute NSA would not be significant.

Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQ) - The principal areas of visibility affecting the APQ designation are associated with the Ardlamont Peninsula which lies to the east of the proposal. It is considered that there would be very limited visibility from the Knapdale and West Kintyre parts of the APQ lying to the south-west or west/north-west of the proposal and effects on these areas would therefore not be significant.

There is no citation for the APQ designation covering the Ardlamont Peninsula. This area is classified as the Rocky Mosaic LCT and the detailed assessment against landscape value set out in the ABLWECS considers that the qualities/reasons for designation are likely to be the diverse landform and landcover of these coastal fringes and the scenic views possible over water to a backdrop of mountains. While the APQ is mapped as a land-based designation, the panoramic scenic qualities indicated by the name of this local designation are likely to relate to wider seascapes, some of which lie outside Argyll & Bute’s boundaries. An example of this is the importance of views across the sea from parts of the APQ covering the Ardlamont Peninsula to north Arran. This proposal would introduce new visibility of wind farm development into presently little developed scenic views. It would also diminish the sense of seclusion and naturalness associated with part of this designated area. The Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that effects would be significant and adverse on the character of the part of this APQ covering the western coast of the Ardlamont Peninsula and its associated seaward views.

Valued landscapes lying outside Argyll & Bute - Effects on the North Arran NSA and the North Arran Wild Land Area (WLA) are not considered in detail in this appraisal as these landscapes lie outside Argyll & Bute. It is however noted that effects on views from some of the northern hills and from the remote northern coast of Arran would be adversely and significantly affected by this proposal. Lighting of turbines (particularly if mitigation proposed to reduce the duration of night-time lighting does not materialise) would contribute to these effects and could diminish the perception of wildness within the WLA.

Effects on visual amenity - The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) mapping within the LVIA indicates that there would be relatively little visibility of the proposal from the west Kintyre coast, West Loch Tarbert and Knapdale area and also from the B8001. There would be some visibility from the east coast of Kintyre, affecting views from the B842 when travelling south, where this proposal would be seen directly above Skipness (Viewpoint 11) although visibility from Skipness itself would be limited.

Principal areas of visibility will occur east of the proposal, across Loch Fyne and from the coast and immediate hinterland of the western part of the Ardlamont peninsula. There would also be widespread visibility across outer Loch Fyne and the northern part of the Kilbrannan Sound and from the coast and mountains of north Arran and western side of Bute.

The most significant adverse effects of this proposal on views from within Argyll & Bute would be from:

Outer Loch Fyne/northern Kilbrannan Sound - significantly affecting views from the Lochranza to Claonaig/Tarbert ferry routes and the Portavadie to Tarbert ferry and users of other watercraft in this area. Useful sequential photographs and wireline visualisations are shown in EIA-R Technical Appendix 7.6. This proposal would be seen in particularly close views from the Tarbert to Lochranza ferry route where it would detract from the rugged and little developed coastline between Skipness and Tarbert. The proposal would also detract from the scenic qualities of the Skipness area from the Tarbert and Claonaig to Lochranza ferry routes being seen directly in the backdrop to the settlement and the richly pattern woodlands, moorland and farmland which characterise this area.

Portavadie/West Ardlamont Peninsula - where there would be visibility from some of the key facilities within the Portavadie Marina complex, views from sections of the B8000 (on the descent to Portavadie from Millhouse), from walking routes along the coast and from the popular beach at Kilbride Bay. This proposal would introduce new visibility of wind farm development into many of these views. In some views from the Ardlamont coast, the proposal would detract from the focus provided by the north Arran Mountains in views from the Ardlamont Peninsula, introducing large modern structures into views and diminishing the scenic qualities and, in less developed areas, also the sense of seclusion and naturalness experienced.

The Kintyre Way - introducing new and close visibility from the route between Skipness and Tarbert as demonstrated by Viewpoint 1 where the proposed turbines would detract from views towards the north Arran hills and affect the experience of receptors using this long-distance route.

It should be noted that while the LVIA concludes that views from parts of the Portavadie Marina resort would be significantly affected, the closest representative visualisation is from the Portavadie Ferry terminal where visibility is restricted by vegetation and landform (EIA-R Viewpoint 5) and effects would therefore not be significant. Review of the cumulative visualisations within the proposed Rowan wind farm EIA-R (VPs 9 and 20) illustrate the greater vertical extent of the Earraghail turbines (when compared with the Rowan turbines) that would be seen from the east Loch Fyne/Portavadie area. More elevated open parts of the resort and the Portavadie Spa will be significantly affected; the proposal would be likely to detract from long channelled views down outer Loch Fyne to the north Arran Mountains in these views.

The proposal would also introduce more prominent wind farm development into views from the western parts of Bute (as demonstrated in Viewpoint 13 from Ettrick Bay).

There would also be significant adverse effects on views from the northern hills and north coast of Arran. While these are not addressed in detail in this review as they lie outside Argyll & Bute, this proposal would be likely to significantly affect views from the Arran Coastal Way on the north coast of Arran as evidenced in EIA-R Viewpoint 8 from Cock of Arran and Viewpoint 9 from Lochranza.

Night-time lighting - Visible aviation lighting is proposed on the nacelles and towers of all 13 turbines of the proposal. Night-time visualisations have been produced from 3 representative viewpoints from Kilbride Bay, Cock of Arran and Mullach Buidhe. The Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that the night-time visualisations need to be treated with caution as while they provide some indication of effects, they do not replicate the levels of brightness that can be experienced in the field.

The LVIA concludes that lighting would incur significant effects on receptors in the Portavadie and Ardlamont Peninsula area and the northern end of Arran. The Council’s Landscape Consultant agrees that effects would be significant and adverse from these areas. The Council’s Landscape Consultant does not agree with the assumption made in the lighting assessment that the only people in the Arran hills at night are walking to Goat Fell as wild camping is popular across the north Arran hills (LVIA, paragraph 342). The night-time visual analysis similarly assumes that there would be no receptors on the Kintyre Way or Arran Coastal Way at night (Viewpoints 1 and 8, Technical Appendix 7.7, paragraph 1.2). This seems unreasonable given that some walkers may choose to camp near these routes overnight.

The applicant is committing to the installation of an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS). Such a system would substantially reduce the duration of night-time lighting as lights would only come on when an aircraft approaches. The Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that the significant effects of night-time turbine lighting would be reduced to not significant if an ADLS was in operation.

Cumulative landscape and visual effects - At a strategic level, this proposal would extend new development northwards on the Kintyre Peninsula and introduce new visibility of wind farm development into parts of Argyll & Bute. This proposal would principally be seen together with operational and consented wind farms located on Kintyre in views from the Kilbrannan Sound and from north and west Arran. There would be significant adverse cumulative effects arising from the Lochranza to Claonaig ferry and from the Kintyre Way where this proposal would be seen in sequential views from this long-distance recreational route.

This proposal would be seen in combination and sequentially with the application-stage Rowan wind farm from parts of Loch Fyne and its eastern shores. Views from the B8000 north of Portavadie would be intermittent due to screening by vegetation and this, together with the separation distance between the two developments, would avoid significant cumulative effects. Cumulative effects with the application-stage Narachan wind farm on Argyll & Bute receptors would not be significant due to the distance between the two developments.

Aviation lighting associated with this proposal and the Narachan and Rowan wind farm proposals would be likely to contribute to significant adverse cumulative night-time effects on north Arran and surrounding seascapes (as demonstrated in EIA-R Viewpoint 18). The implementation of an ADLS proposed by the applicant would result in this proposal making a minor contribution to these effects.

Summary and conclusions - The proposed development site lies within the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic Landscape Character Type (LCT) identified in the Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study. This landscape has some characteristics which reduce sensitivity to large scale wind energy development including a generally simple landform and landcover and an expansive scale. These uplands already accommodate a number of operational and consented wind farms. One of the more sensitive features of this LCT is the rugged and minimally modified coastline between Skipness and Tarbert.

There would be relatively limited visual intrusion associated with the proposal from the West Loch Tarbert area, Gigha and the eastern and western coastal edges of Kintyre. The proposal would however be widely visible across the broad sea basin formed by outer Loch Fyne, the Sound of Bute and the north Kilbrannan Sound and from the western part of the Ardlamont Peninsula and the north Arran coast and hills.

This proposal would have significant adverse effects on part of the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT affecting the development site and an area approximately 3km beyond outer turbines. The proposal would also have significant adverse indirect effects on the character of part of the Rocky Mosaic LCT over the western part of the Ardlamont Peninsula. An area of seascape (comprising the broad sea basin of outer Loch Fyne, the northern part of the Kilbrannan Sound and the western Sound of Bute and associated coastal fringes) would also be significantly and adversely affected by the proposal.

The proposal is not located in a designated or otherwise formally valued landscape but it would indirectly and significantly affect some of the qualities of the Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) covering the western part of the Ardlamont Peninsula. It may also significantly affect the North Arran National Scenic Area and Wild Land Area although no detailed appraisal has been undertaken of potential effects on these valued landscapes as they lie outside Argyll & Bute.

In terms of visual impact, this proposal would principally significantly affect views from the western coast and open hills of the Ardlamont Peninsula including from parts of the Portavadie Marina resort. It would have significant adverse effects from the sea including from the Tarbert/Claonaig to Lochranza and Portavadie to Tarbert ferries, which are routes popular with tourists, and from a section of the Kintyre Way. Significant adverse effects would be likely to occur on views from parts of north Arran, lying outside Argyll & Bute.

This proposal could be one of the first wind farms to introduce lighting to the dark skies of Argyll & Bute with all 13 turbines having visible aviation lighting on nacelles and towers. The Applicant has committed to installing an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS). Such a system would substantially reduce the duration of night-time lighting as lights would only come on when an aircraft approaches. The effects of constant night-time lighting (without the installation of an ADLS) would be significant and adverse from parts of Argyll & Bute and north Arran but would not be significant if an ADLS was installed.

All wind farm proposals are likely to incur significant landscape and visual effects and it is therefore important to gauge the range, extent and severity of effects in making judgements on acceptability in landscape and visual terms. Having evaluated the likely landscape and visual effects of this proposal, and additionally compared these with operational, consented and application-stage wind farms within Argyll & Bute, my advice to the Council would be to raise an objection on landscape and visual grounds. This is principally because this proposal would introduce new visibility of prominent wind farm development into the Ardlamont Peninsula, affecting its character (including part of the APQ covering this area) and views from coastal walks, Kilbride Beach, the B8000 and from the Portavadie Marina resort. This area is promoted as Argyll’s ‘Secret Coast’ and is valued for its scenic qualities as evidenced by the APQ designation. The significant adverse effects that would affect the character of a broad seascape area (encompassing outer Loch Fyne/the western Sound of Bute and northern part of the Kilbrannan Sound) and also effects on views from the ferries across Loch Fyne and to Arran, which are popular with visitors, are of equal concern.

The Council’s landscape consultant recommended the following visualisations for the Committee to review: Earraghail wind farm EIAR - Viewpoint 1: Kintyre Way between Skipness and Tarbert; Viewpoint 3: B8001; Viewpoint 7: Kilbride Bay, Ardlamont Peninsula; Viewpoint 8: Arran Coastal Way, Cock of Arran; Viewpoint 9: Lochranza, Arran; Viewpoint 11: B842 east coast Kintyre; Viewpoint 12: A83 near Clachan (illustrates relatively limited comparative visibility); Viewpoint 18: Mullach Buidhe night-time visualisations (NB all Narachan turbines shown as being lit); Technical Appendix 7.6 Ferry Route Visualisations; and Rowan wind farm EIAR - Viewpoint 9: Portavadie (Figure 6.29b and c) and Viewpoint 20: Waters of Loch Fyne (Figure 6.40b)

The Applicant organised for the visualisation packs to be printed for Members consideration. The only exclusion from the Council’s Landscape Consultants list is the “Rowan wind farm EIAR - Viewpoint 9: Portavadie (Figure 6.29b and c) and Viewpoint 20: Waters of Loch Fyne (Figure 6.40b)”.

North Arran National Scenic Area – NatureScot have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal due to the fact that it will have significant adverse day and night time effects on the special landscape qualities of the North Arran National Scenic Area (NSA) such that the objectives of the designation and overall integrity of the area would be compromised.

Strategic Implications - NatureScot have advised the ECU that the location of the proposal will have strategic implications for both Arran and Argyll & Bute. Those of relevance to Argyll & Bute are as follows. Development in this location opens up a new area for development spreading large scale wind energy development to the more sensitive northern end of Kintyre where there are currently no wind farms. This part of the Kintyre coast, between Tarbert and Skipness, is noted for its remote and undeveloped character (Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS) 20171), which would be compromised.

Strategically, the introduction of large scale wind energy in this location would also introduce new visibility and significant adverse effects to some parts of the wider countryside including from the secluded west coast of the Ardlamont peninsula promoted as Argyll’s Secret Coast. There would be significant adverse effects on the wider seascape including the expansive seascape area and the associated coasts spanning between northern Arran, west Bute, northern Kintyre and Cowal. At present, existing and consented wind farm development on Kintyre is focussed on the main plateau between Campbeltown and the B8001. This Proposal is further north beyond the valley of the B8001 on a series of slightly detached hills, on the headland at the northern end of Kintyre where it is highly prominent. NatureScot concur with the LWECS that there is very limited scope for additional turbines in this landscape character type due to potential significant cumulative effects from sensitive landscapes.

North Ayrshire Council have advised the ECU they do not object but consider that the proposal has the potential to have significant adverse impacts on the qualities of the North Arran NSA. They request that consideration is given to the significance of impacts on both Wild Land Area (WLA) 03 – North Arran and North Arran National Scenic Area designations when determining the suitability of the proposal. Furthermore, they advise they understand that NatureScot will provide advice on the potential impacts on these designations.

West Kintyre Community Council have advised the ECU that they object to this proposal and consider it would significantly affect the visual, residential and landscape amenity of the area to both its visitors and residents alike and trust the concerns of the local community will be considered fully when determining the application.

Tarbert & Skipness Community Council have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the grounds that the proposal will have highly significant landscape impacts; loss of residential amenity (Skipness); adverse impact of aviation lighting on dark skies; significant effects on Designated Landscape (North Arran NSA, Special Landscape Areas, Kyles of Bute NSA and Areas of Panoramic Quality); unreasonable proximity to the coastal fringe; and adverse cumulative impact (clustering, amalgamation in Kintyre and Knapdale, and tunnelling effect on B8001); adverse impact on maritime scenic qualities (ferry routes, key sea routes from Clyde to Tarbert); and adverse impact on visitor experience in one of the most beautiful areas in the Firth of Clyde (uniquely dominated by wild-land views).

East Kintyre Community Council have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the grounds of visual amenity due to cumulative harmful visual impacts contrary to Argyll & Bute Council’s LDP 6 and proposed Local Development Plan 2, Diagram 7.

Skipness Estate have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the grounds of adverse landscape and visual impact; adverse cumulative impact (clustering, amalgamation in Kintyre and Knapdale, and tunnelling effect B8001); adverse impact on maritime scenic qualities (ferry routes, key sea routes from Clyde to Tarbert); adverse impact on visitor experience in one of the most beautiful areas in the Firth of Clyde (uniquely dominated by wild-land views); and aviation lighting.

Officer’s Conclusion - All of the above consultee advice and responses have been considered. Officers concur with the expert advice of NatureScot and the Council’s landscape consultant in respect to landscape and visual impacts (including cumulative). 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 generally 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. Furthermore, Policy 4 protects local landscape designations, such as the Area of Panoramic Quality paragraph (d) states that: “development proposals that affect a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area in the LDP will only be supported where (i). development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified; or (ii) any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local importance.” It is considered that this proposal will have a significant adverse landscape and visual impact which are not outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits and is therefore contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan in this regard.

Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will have adverse landscape and visual impacts (including cumulative) and is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 4 – Natural Places of National Planning Framework 4, and Policies LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality; SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape and Supplementary Guidance 2 Renewable Energy of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan. It is therefore recommended that Argyll & Bute Council object to the proposal on these grounds.

H.	IMPACTS ON TOURISM AND RECREATION (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)

Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 does not require Impacts on tourism to be considered – this criterion is no longer included. In the Planning Statement Addendum the applicant states that this is presumably reflecting the evidence that there is limited or no impact on tourism from wind farms. Officers are unclear what evidence is being referred to, and are not aware of any recent studies which have reached this conclusion. Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan require all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on tourism and recreation.

Tourism – It is acknowledged that Policy 11 of NPF4 does not include a requirement for the impact of proposals on tourism to be assessed. However, Policy LDP 6 of the Local Development Plan 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. The Council’s LDP Policy LDP 6 identifies impacts on tourism and recreation as a material consideration in the assessment of renewable energy developments on the basis that inappropriate developments with significant adverse effects which contribute to the degradation of landscape character are unlikely to be in the interests of the Argyll tourism economy.

Recreation – The proposal also includes enhancement measures to support recreational and tourism uses within the site during the operational phase based on consultation with stakeholders. These include a new circular walking route, the provision of a new bothy for recreational users of the Kintyre Way, and a viewpoint location.

West Kintyre Community Council (WKCC) – have advised the ECU they consider the application would significantly affect the visual, residential and landscape amenity of the area to both its visitors and residents alike and trust the concerns of the local community will be considered fully when determining the application.

East Kintyre Community Council – have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the following grounds of Community Development Amenity due to the wholesale harmful impacts to a designated Tourism development area.

Tarbert & Skipness Community Council have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the grounds that it will transform an ancient path (forms opening section of Kintyre Way) linking Tarbert and Skipness (and their castles); and adverse impact on maritime scenic qualities (ferry routes, key sea routes from Clyde to Tarbert); adverse impact on visitor experience in one of the most beautiful areas in the Firth of Clyde (uniquely dominated by wild-land views); and adverse impact on critical tourism sector.

Skipness Estate have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the grounds of tourism impact.

Royal Yachting Association Scotland have considered the EIAR and the Additional Information and have advised the ECU that they have no comment.

The concerns expressed in regard to the adverse landscape and visual impact this proposal will have on tourism have been taken into account. As these two matters are intrinsically linked, and there is little evidence to demonstrate whether or not wind farms adversely affect tourism, it is considered that such impacts are covered in the landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal and recommended reason for objection.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposals is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy, and Policies LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the Outdoors; and Supplementary Guidance 2 of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.

I.	PUBLIC ACCESS

Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on public access are addressed, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes. Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 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.

During construction, where possible, recreational access to the site would be maintained along publicly accessible paths such as the Kintyre Way. Where access along the existing route is not possible, a diversion would be agreed and implemented. There may be occasions when access to the site for members of the public is not possible for short periods during the construction phase for health and safety reasons (e.g., during delivery of certain infrastructure components). Changes to access arrangements within the site would be detailed in an Access Management Plan prepared in advance of construction commencing. The Access Management Plan details will be discussed with Argyll & Bute Council’s Outdoor Access Manager and shared with key stakeholders such as Local Community Council’s and the Kintyre Way Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SCIO)

Having due regard to the above subject to a condition to secure an Access Management Plan in the event that consent is granted it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy, and Policies LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the Outdoors; and Supplementary Guidance 2 of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.

J.	AVIATION AND DEFENCE INTERESTS INCLUDING SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING

Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigations demonstrates how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed. Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed. Policy SG LDP TRAN 7 – Safeguarding of Airports of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan states that development will be refused where it would constrain the present and future operations of existing airports and airfields.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) – have advised the ECU that they have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions to secure: aviation lighting and aviation charting & safety management. BAA Aerodrome Safeguarding (Edinburgh) have considered both the EIAR and the Additional Information and have advised the ECU that the location of this development falls outwith the Aerodrome Safeguarding zone for Edinburgh Airport therefore they have no objection/comment. Aberdeen International Airport have considered both the EIAR and the Additional Information and have advised the ECU that the proposal is located outwith their consultation zone. As such they have no comment to make and need not be consulted further. Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL) have advised the ECU in their most recent advice that they have reviewed the Instrument Flight Procedure Assessment submitted by the developer and can confirm that the proposal does not impact the safeguarding criteria and operation of Campbeltown Airport. Therefore, HIAL have no objection to this proposal.

National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) – have advised the ECU that the proposal has been examined by their technical safeguarding teams and conflicts with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) plc objects to the proposal. The reasons for NAT’s objection is that a technical impact is anticipated, which has been deemed to be unacceptable. Glasgow Prestwick Airport have considered both the EIAR and the Additional Information and continue to advised the ECU the proposal raises aviation safety concerns which have an operational impact on the Airport as an air navigation services provider. Until all technical and operational aviation safety matters are addressed to the satisfaction of the Airport, and a mitigation agreement is put in place for the life of the wind farm, the Airport objects.

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) – at time of writing the ECU have not received any consultation advice from the CAA.

Additional Information - The ECU requested that an update to the current aviation consultation status be included in the Additional Information. This explains that following the withdrawal of the objection from Highlands & Islands Airport Limited, that 2 objections remain in relation to aviation from Glasgow Prestwick Airport and NATS Safeguarding. The Applicant further explains that they have submitted a formal response to Glasgow Prestwick Airport’s objection, and are awaiting a response. They also advise that similar objections regarding aviation have been introduced across other wind farm sites in Scotland. There are ongoing discussions between them, GPA and other stakeholders in relation to a variety of projects. Finally, they are confident that the advanced nature of these discussions will lead to a positive resolution.

The relevant National and Local Development Plan Policies are quite clear that impacts on aviation require to be addressed. Furthermore, that development should be refused where it would constrain the present and future operations of existing airports and airfields. As there are two outstanding aviation objections, it is considered that these matters require to be addressed before a decision is made by Scottish Ministers, and that the application cannot be supported until these outstanding issues are resolved.

Having due regard to the above it is concluded that due to the fact that National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport have advised the Energy Consents Unit they object to the proposal, it will have an adverse impact on Aviation and is therefore inconsistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of National Planning Framework 4, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy SG LDP TRAN 7 – Safeguarding of Airports, Supplementary Guidance 2 – Renewable Energy of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan in this respect.

Furthermore, that the Energy Consents Unit should be advised that in the event that National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport withdraw their objections, then Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds. In the event that a Public Inquiry is held Argyll & Bute Council would not give evidence on this technical matter, and would defer to NATS and GPA in this regard.

K.	TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING INSTALLATIONS (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)

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 LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and Supplementary Guidance 2 of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 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.

BT have advised the ECU that the project indicated should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. The Joint Radio Company have advised the ECU that this proposal is cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by: The Local Utility and Scotia Gas Networks. It is therefore concluded that impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting links have been satisfactorily addressed.

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 National Planning Framework 4, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and Supplementary Guidance 2 of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan in this respect.

L.	ROAD TRAFFIC AND ADJACENT TRUNK ROADS

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 LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on road traffic and impacts on adjacent trunk roads. Policy SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan requires that accesses which connect to or impact significantly on a Trunk Road require consultation with Transport Scotland.

Access - access to the site would be secured via the A83 at Tarbert Holiday Park to the north of the site. To allow the safe delivery of turbine components and construction materials, the site entrance will require to be upgraded.

Main Impacts - The main impact upon traffic is predicted to be during the construction phase as a result of the increased number of heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements. The proposal would result in a maximum increase in traffic on the A83 (T) Kennacraig during its construction. To minimise negative traffic and transport effects during construction, in the event that consent is granted, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will be prepared and agreed with Argyll & Bute Council and Transport Scotland in advance that will identify the measures to be put in place.

Provision and Delivery of construction materials - for the provision and delivery of construction materials, two different delivery scenarios have been assessed. First, a scenario whereby all construction materials are delivered to the site. The second is for access track aggregate other than the running surface to be sourced from onsite borrow pits, thereby reducing the total number of heavy goods vehicle movements. Both result in increases in heavy goods vehicles (HGV) movements on the A83, but the use of borrow pits would result in a lower rate.

Detailed access assessment - should consent be granted, a detailed access assessment would be undertaken which would identify the requirements for any road modifications, vegetation or tree trimming required along the access route.

Transport Scotland (TS) – initially advised the ECU that they were satisfied with the assessment of environmental impacts associated with increased construction traffic but that they would require the submission of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit for the proposed access junction before concluding their consultation response. They also confirmed in this correspondence that they agree, that in the event that the proposal receives consent, that the detail of the Abnormal Load Assessment may be secured by condition. They also note that an outline Construction Traffic Management Plan has been prepared, and advise that once prepared the final Construction Traffic Management Plan will require to be agreed by them. It is expected that this would also be the subject of a planning condition in the event that consent is granted. The Applicant provided the ECU with the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit requested by Transport Scotland. In their most recent correspondence to the ECU (Additional Information - Appendix A) Transport Scotland have confirmed that they have signed off the Stage 1 Audit Report and have no further comments to make.

The Council’s Roads & Amenity Services have advised that the applicant’s Access, Traffic and Transport document, item 21 states: “Vehicular traffic would not approach the site from the B842 Claonaig Southend Road and no construction traffic shall use it without a prior written authorisation from the Roads and Infrastructure Services. This assumption is consistent with the consultation received from A&BC. As vehicles travel away from the proposal, they would be distributed across wider network. Beyond the Study Area, professional judgment suggests that effects relating to site access, traffic and transport would unlikely be significant”.

The wording "As vehicles travel away from the proposal, they would be distributed across wider network. Beyond the Study Area, professional judgment suggests that effects relating to site access, traffic and transport would unlikely be significant" gives serious concern.

The single track public road leading to Skipness is lightly constructed, has been subject to a landslide which has not been permanently dealt with, is a ferry route, a cycling and walking route and is the only road available to access properties and the ferry terminal.

Consequently, Roads & Amenity Services have no objection subject to conditions to ensure: that the site is accessed from the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road, no other public road shall be used to access this site; and, All vehicles leaving the site must leave by the site access that connects directly to the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road. They must not use the lightly constructed Local Authority maintained single track roads.

Having due regard to the above, subject to the relevant conditions being attached in the event that consent is granted it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of National Planning Framework 4, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes, and Supplementary Guidance 2 – Renewable Energy of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.

M.	HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

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 LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings.

Historic Environment Scotland (HES) – have advised the ECU that they do not wish to object to the proposals and welcome where mitigation has been embedded into the design of the proposals to reduce and avoid impacts on heritage assets and their settings. They note that some adverse impacts will remain on the settings of Skipness Castle and Kilbrannan Chapel and the Dun Skeig, duns and fort.

The West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) – at time of writing no response has been received from WoSAS despite trying to secure it in advance of completion of this report.

Tarbert & Skipness Community Council – have advised the ECU that they object to this proposal on the grounds of adverse impact/direct damage on heritage and archaeological assets (castle, chapel, historical townships, and bronze-age sites).

Skipness Estate have advised the ECU that they object due to the adverse impacts of T3 and T5 on Skipness Castle, Kilbrannan Chapel, Skipness Point and beaches.

Whilst it is acknowledged that Historic Environment Scotland have not objected to this proposal, Officers consider that it is not possible to reach a conclusion on the proposal’s acceptability in this regard in the absence of advice from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. It is therefore recommended that a note is attached to the recommendation to the Energy Consents Unit, informing them of this concern.

N.	HYDROLOGY, THE WATER ENVIRONMENT AND FLOOD RISK

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 LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 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 SG LDP SERV 7 – Flooding and Land Erosion - The Risk Framework for Development of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan provides guidance on the type of development that will be generally permissible within specific flood risk areas. It requires flood risk assessments, drainage impact assessments, or land erosion risk appraisals to accompany application where required.

SEPA - Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) – has advised the ECU that they gladly note, the GWDTE technical report is comprehensive and includes detailed maps of all the areas including GWDTE and proposed work. This meets all SEPA application guidelines and is helpful to interpreting the report. The majority of GWDTE habitat (M23/M25) located in all four areas highlighted are likely to be fed by surface/rainwater sources. The description and outline of each area is excellent, clearly identifying the sensitive areas and possible impacts. The planned work to widen access tracks and placement of crane pads within the buffer zones of these habitats is minor and unlikely to have negative impact. This is aided by a detailed analysis of the topography and geology within the report.

SEPA – Buffers – has advised the ECU that the intrusions into the buffer zones have been carefully considered and determined to be acceptable. The careful management of drainage placement and system should assure minimal impact. The re-establishment of current drainage systems once construction work has settled will further help to support the existing habitat. A 10m buffer is appropriate for the solar array, where only small watercourses are present and in line with regulatory requirements.

SEPA – Mitigation – has advised the ECU that the mitigation steps are reassuring and thorough. The report helpfully provides a breakdown of general good practice for the site as well as specifically each area of sensitivity. The proposal to have Environmental Clerk of Works is welcomed as is the recommendation to avoid higher sensitivity areas via micro-siting where appropriate.

SEPA – Watercourse Crossings – has advised the ECU that replacement culverts are likely to require authorisation by way of registration and otherwise all reinstated culverts (even on minor watercourses) should adhere to best practice as some existing ones may not live up to that standard depending on when they were put in. SEPA note two new bridging arch culverts are proposed for new crossings which arguably could classify as a minor bridge with no construction on the bed or the banks, providing this is the case. Consideration should be given as to whether any of the existing culverts could be replaced with something to improve on the closed culverting option.

The Council’s Flood Prevention Officer – has advised that they have no objections subject to conditions. It is recommended that planning conditions to the effect of the following be attached to any consent granted for this application: watercourse crossings not to reduce the existing capacity of the channel and ideally be designed to convey the 1:200 year plus climate change flow plus an allowance for freeboard; and drainage to be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 guidance and Sewers For Scotland 4th edition.

Tarbert & Skipness Community Council have advised the ECU that they object on the grounds of downstream hydrological impacts (change in upland use, vibration and sonic impacts.

Having due regard to the above, subject to the relevant conditions being attached in the event that consent is granted it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of National Planning Framework 4, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewable, Policy SG LDP SERV 7 – Flooding and Land Erosion - The Risk Framework for Development and Supplementary Guidance 2 – Renewable Energy of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.

O.	BIODIVERSITY (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE)

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 likely net effects of the development on climate emissions and loss of carbon. (Impacts on carbon rich soils and reference to the carbon calculator have not been carried forward from SPP). Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 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)

Ornithology

Designated Sites

NatureScot - Knapdale Lochs SSSI / SPA – the proposal is located within foraging range of the Knapdale Lochs SSSI / Special Protection Area (SPA), selected for breeding black throated diver. No black throated divers were recorded during the surveys or observed using habitats within the site. NatureScots have advised the ECU that it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on any qualifying features either directly or indirectly. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required.

NatureScot - Ornithology – have advised the ECU that they consider that there is potential for adverse effects on the golden eagle territory in which the proposal is located. This could lead to a loss in productivity as the proposal will likely erode their habitat and result in loss of range. Productivity could also be affected by collision risk. This loss of productivity would not have a significant impact on golden eagles at the regional (Natural Heritage Zone) level, NatureScot conclude this would result in adverse effects at a local level and they consider that this is a poor location for a wind farm. In their opinion, the habitat displacement and collisions risks to golden eagles could be reduced by removing Turbines 11, 4 and 5, however, it should be noted that this would not alleviate their concerns in regard to landscape and visual effects. They also advise that there are gaps/inconsistencies in proposed mitigation in relation to species protection plans for other sensitive species present (red throated diver, black grouse and hen harrier). A Species Protection Plan will also be required to cover the proposed Habitat Management Works due to proximity to golden eagle nest sites.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland (RSPB) - advised the ECU they do not object and provide advice, in relation to biodiversity and habitat management to minimise and ensure any impacts are fully mitigated and biodiversity benefits achieved. They ask that: a bird monitoring plan; habitat management plan; ecological clerk of works and post-construction monitoring are secured as conditions of any consent.

Ecology

Ecology - NatureScot have advised the ECU they are generally satisfied with the assessment of the impacts of the proposal on protected species and habitats and the proposed mitigation measures.

Micrositing – NatureScot have advised the ECU they note that a micro-siting allowance of 50m has been sought by the Applicant. Micro-siting should be utilised to avoid areas of deep peat whilst maintaining the appropriate buffer distances of sensitive ecological features within the site e.g. watercourses and woodland edges.

Habitat Management Plan (HMP) - NatureScot have advised the ECU they note the ambitions of the HMP to deliver large scale restoration of blanket bog and heath habitats and to create 25ha of new native woodland. However, they consider that a number of factors need to be considered in the development of the HMP. All 3 HMP units are within disturbance buffers of recent and historical golden eagle nest sites. As such, species protections plan and an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) will be required to ensure an offence is not committed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. In addition, given the proximity of the native woodland creation adjacent to the Tarbert Woods SAC and Tarbert to Skipness Coast SSSI, there is a risk that planting new trees could introduce pests, pathogens or invasive species into the SSSI / SAC if planting stock is not appropriately sourced.

NatureScots preference on sensitive sites such as this to increase woodland cover is by natural regeneration. Where this is not possible, planting should use indigenous origin material from the same seed zone to best conserve genetic patterns and adaptation. It is important to note that woodlands are more than just the trees themselves, they encompass the soils, ground flora and shrubs, all of which play important roles within the woodland habitat. The Applicant should therefore consider including some non-tree related objectives in the HMP.

The EIAR acknowledges that some of the mire habitats within the site are currently negatively impacted by deer browsing. Active and ongoing management of deer numbers will be key to ensure that the objectives of the HMP are met. NatureScot acknowledge that Forest and Land Scotland (FLS) will continue to manage deer within the site, and reiterate that the results from the monitoring of habitat restoration / woodland establishment as part of the HMP should feed into FLS’s deer management activities. NatureScot appreciate that the details of the HMP will be developed further should the proposal be consented and they would expect to be consulted on this.

Fish

Marine Science Scotland – the Applicant included a completed Marine Scotland Questionnaire in the Additional Information (Appendix B). Marine Science Scotland have provided a response to this and have provided advice to the ECU on fish surveys; site specific mitigation and fish monitoring programme; water quality monitoring programme; pre & post construction monitoring; and EcoW inspections.

Soils

Peat – NatureScot have advised the ECU they are content with the assessment of the proposal on the peat resource and note efforts have been made in the design of the wind farm to avoid areas of deep peat. They are also content with the measures detailed in the Outline Peat Management Plan (OHMP) with regards to the storage and reuse of peat on site.

Peat – SEPA have advised the ECU the placement of turbines and infrastructure actively avoids deeper areas of peat by design and additionally via micro-siting. Most of the proposed infrastructure is on < 0.5m peat depth or no peat. The PMP seems reasonable. Use of peat in borrow pit and peatland restoration is acceptable providing it is being done as part of a wider approved restoration plan for the site such as creating/restoring borrow pits to usable habitat.

Mitigation – SEPA has advised the ECU that the mitigation steps are reassuring and thorough. The report helpfully provides a breakdown of general good practice for the site as well as specifically each area of sensitivity. The proposal to have Environmental Clerk of Works is welcomed as is the recommendation to avoid higher sensitivity areas via micro-siting where appropriate.

Ironside Farrar on behalf of the ECU – advised the ECU the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA) requires minor revisions. Given that there is a significant amount of peat on the site, some clarification and further justification is requested to address several queries, mainly relating to the methods of assessment. The Applicant has provided a clarification letter to the ECU to address Ironside Farrar’s comments. At time of writing, no further advice has been received in response to the clarification provided by the Applicant.

The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer – has no objection, and notes the contents of the Ecological Chapter of the EIAR including fish species and Ornithological surveys along with the Habitat Management, Peat Management and Forest Assessment Plans. The Local Biodiversity Officer supports the pre-construction start surveys and monitoring as set out in the CEMP. The Ecological and Ornithological mitigations are to be included in the CEMP, as well as specific Toolbox talks and monitoring of species, watercourses including keeping a log of any issues relating to silt contamination and any bird strikes, all to be overseen by an Ecological Clerk of Works.

Tarbert & Skipness Community Council have advised the ECU that they object on the grounds of direct and indirect environmental impacts (rare, red-listed protected bird species (golden and sea eagles, black grouse and red-throated diver) and buffer zones inadequate to protect habitats and non-development areas around the site.

Skipness Estate have advised the ECU that they object on the grounds of ecological impact/importance of the site.

Officers note the concerns that have been highlighted to the ECU by NatureScot in respect to the potential impact of the proposal on golden eagle and suggested mitigation, it is also noted that this would not alleviate their landscape objection. It is also acknowledged that they have not objected on ornithological grounds.

Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to the conditions recommended by NatureScot, RSPB, Marine Science Scotland and the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer being attached in the event that consent is granted the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 – Biodiversity, and 5 – Soils of NPF4, and Policies LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity); SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the Environment; SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources and Supplementary Guidance 2 of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.

P.	TREES, WOODS AND FORESTS

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 SG LDP ENV 6 - Development Impact on Trees / Woodland of the Argyll & Bute Local	Development Plan states that Argyll & Bute Council will resist development likely to have an	adverse impact on trees by ensuring that adequate provision is made for the preservation of	and where appropriate the planting of new woodland/trees, including compensatory planting	and management agreements.

Designated Sites

Tarbert Woods SAC / Tarbert to Skipness Coast SSSI - NatureScot have advised the ECU the proposal is located close to the Tarbert Woods SAC (designated for Western acidic oak woodland) and Tarbert to Skipness Coast SSSI (designated for upland oak woodland and bryophyte assemblage). It is one of 4 component SSSI woodlands that make up the Tarbert Woods SAC. NatureScot have also advised the ECU that this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the Western acidic oak woodland feature of the Tarbert Woods SAC. Consequently, the ECU, as competent authority, is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interest. To help them do this, NatureScot advise that on the basis of the information provided to date, if the proposal is carried out strictly in accordance with the measures outlined in the draft CEMP and mitigation detailed in Chapter 10: Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Geology and Soils, their conclusion is that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. They also consider that the measures provided in the draft CEMP will also prevent any adverse effects on the objectives of the Tarbert to Skipness Coast SSSI or the overall integrity of the area.

Bardaravine Wood – the Woodland’s Trust initially advised the ECU that they objected on the basis of likely damage and loss to Bardaravine Wood, an area of 1a woodland of ancient semi-natural origin (ASNO) designated on NatureScot’s Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI). The Applicant provided a response to the points raised by the Woodlands Trust to the ECU, demonstrating the proposal is not located in an area of ancient woodland and has provided information in relation to access track upgrade works including mitigation. The Woodland Trust considered this response and advised the ECU they acknowledge that the existing holiday park has resulted in the removal of Bardaravine Wood, and they withdraw their objection to this element of the proposal. They continue to oppose the loss of ancient woodland to facilitate proposed road widening works and highlight that NPF4 does not support the loss of ancient woodlands. They further advise that they do not support woodland translocation as a means of mitigation.

It is considered that the assessment within the EIAR and the Applicant’s response to the Woodland Trust’s consultation response demonstrates that the proposal is in compliance with Policy 6 - Forestry, woodland and trees. The existing access track is a timber haul road. It is noted that NatureScot have not raised any concerns in respect to ancient woodland loss to facilitate widening of this to facilitate delivery of turbine components. It is acknowledged that upgrading the existing road reduces the overall amount of ground disturbance. The Applicant confirmed that the primary aim will be to reduce impacts as far as reasonably possible, the second will be to provide mitigation where impacts are unavoidable (EcoW to oversee works and woodland translocation is proposed to compensate for loss of any ancient woodland).

Practice Guide & Compensatory Planting - Scottish Forestry initially advised the ECU that they required additional information regarding the proposals alignment with the Practice Guide and Compensatory Planting Areas. The Applicant provided the Additional Information (Appendix D) requested by Scottish Forestry. Scottish Forestry have now advised the ECU that they are satisfied that the information provided addressed their concerns. Scottish Forestry recommend that the 56.3 hectares of Compensatory Planting is secured by condition in the event that the proposal receives consent. Appendix D of the Additional Information includes the letter to Scottish Forestry and the response.

Tarbert & Skipness Community Council have advised the ECU they object to this proposal on the grounds of impacts on ancient woodland; unacceptable proximity/ecological risk to largest area of ancient woodland on Kintyre (SSSI/SAC); and destruction of ancient woodland Bardaravine (Woodland Trust).

Skipness Estate have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal due to the impact it would have on ancient coastal woodland.

Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to the conditions recommended by NatureScot, and 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 LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SG LDP ENV 6 - Development Impact on Trees / Woodland; SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity); SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the Environment; Supplementary Guidance 2 Renewable Energy; of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.

Q.	DECOMMISSIONING, SITE RESTORATION AND QUALITY OF SITE RESTORATION	PLANS

Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how proposals for the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration have been addressed. It also requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates 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 LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewable and of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from the need for conditions relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration and the need for a robust planning obligation to ensure that operators achieve site restoration.

Following construction and commissioning, the proposal would be operational and generating electricity for a period of approximately 40 years, after which it would be decommissioned and removed, or alternatively, a further application could be made to extend the period of operation. If a further application is not submitted, decommissioning would require the total removal of above-ground infrastructure. Reinstatement of the site would be carried out in accordance with an approved method statement. 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.

Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to an appropriate condition being attached in the event that the proposal receives consent the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and Supplementary Guidance 2 of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan,

R.	CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrated	how cumulative impacts have been addressed. Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable	Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local	Development Plan also require	cumulative impacts to be addressed. Any cumulative impacts which have been	identified	are covered in the preceding sections of this report.

S.	RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION TARGETS AND GREENHOUSE GAS	EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS.

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 LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan require all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate Change Mitigation - The calculations of total carbon dioxide savings and payback time for the proposal indicate the overall payback period of a development with 13 turbines with an average (expected) installed capacity of around 6MW each would be approximately 1.8 years, when compared to the fossil fuel mix of electricity generation. The payback will be further reduced by the proposed addition of solar arrays, although not included within the Carbon Calculator (which was solely devised for the Scottish Government to monitor onshore wind energy).

This means that the proposal is expected to take around 22 months to repay the carbon exchange to the atmosphere (CO2 debt) through construction of the wind turbines; the site would in effect be in a net gain situation following this time period and would contribute to national objectives.

This proposal would produce around 245 to 295 GWh of electricity annually which equates to the annual power consumed by approximately 50, 4306 average UK households (depending on the actual turbines installed). A key benefit is the savings in CO₂ emissions due to the replacement of other electricity sources over its lifetime and displacement of carbon-emitting generation after 1.8 years of operation.

When decision makers are considering the impacts detailed in Policy 11 they need to give significant weight to the contribution of the proposed development to renewable energy generation targets and on GHG emissions reduction targets. The recently published OWPS sets a minimum target of 20GW of deployed onshore wind by 2030 which is an additional 12GW. In addition, Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 states that significant weight is to be given to the global climate and nature crises when considering all development proposals.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal by its very nature is consistent with the provisions of Policies 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crisis and 11 – Energy of National Planning Framework 4, Policies LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment, LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development, LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones, and Supplementary Guidance 2 – Renewable Energy of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.

T.	GRID CAPACITY & ENERGY STORAGE

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. Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll &	Bute Local Development Plan require all applications for wind turbine developments to be	assessed against impacts arising from opportunities for energy storage.

Opportunities for energy storage - A key benefit of this proposal is that it includes a battery	energy storage system (BESS) to store energy from the proposal or excess electricity from	the national grid, providing stability to the electricity supply network, meeting energy demands	and providing improved energy security. Whilst, the provision of battery storage meets the	requirements of policy, Officers are concerned that no consideration has been given to the	Landscape & Visual Impact of this battery storage facility. This is a large facility of shipping	containers proposed to be located in a rural landscape. Before a decision is reached on this	proposal by the ECU it is the view of Officers that the impacts of this needs to be	considered.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of National Planning Framework 4, Policy 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and Supplementary Guidance 2 – Renewable Energy of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan in this respect.

U.	PERPETUITY

Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that consents for development 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.

Should consent be granted for this proposal Officers would expect it to be time limited	to 40 years to reflect the life of the wind farm as detailed in the EIAR.

V.	CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

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.

The lead Development Plan policies support renewable energy development in principle, but requires that proposals are 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.

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 generally 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. Furthermore, Policy 4 protects local landscape designations, such as the Area of Panoramic Quality paragraph (d) states that: “development proposals that affect a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area in the LDP will only be supported where (i). development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified; or (ii) any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local importance.” It is considered that this proposal will have a significant adverse landscape and visual impact which are not outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits and is therefore contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan in this regard.

Development Plan Policy also requires aviation impacts to be resolved – there are two outstanding aviation objections, consequently, it is considered that the proposal is also contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan in this regard.

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, while significant weight has been given to these matters, the significant adverse Landscape & Visual Impact (including cumulative) and adverse aviation impacts are considered to outweigh the benefits of the development in relation to contribution towards energy targets, and limited socio-economic benefits.

This project has the potential to contribute to combating the climate emergency through an additional 78MW (wind), 5MW (solar photovoltaic array) and 25MW (battery storage technologies (BESS) of renewable energy capacity towards Scottish Government targets. In reaching the recommendation to object to this proposal, Officers have had regard to relevant National and Local Policy and guidance; the EIAR and other supporting documents; the advice of key consultees; and the material consideration raised in the representations. It has been concluded that notwithstanding those factors which weigh positively in the balance of considerations, the significant adverse Landscape and Visual Impact (including cumulative) and Aviation Impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development and would therefore be unacceptable.

Para 3.6.1 of the Onshore Wind Policy Statement states that: “meeting our climate targets will require a rapid transformation across all sectors of our economy and society. This means ensuring the right development happens in the right place. Meeting the ambition of a minimum installed capacity of 20GW of onshore wind in Scotland by 2030 will require taller and more efficient turbines. This will change the landscape”.

As referred to above “the aim is to ensure the right development happens in the right place,” there is not a policy expectation that an adverse impact on the local environment should be accepted as the price to pay for the ability to satisfy Scotland’s energy needs and UK climate change commitments.

Regional Spatial Priorities for the North and West Coast and Islands of NPF4 (p22) states: “The area has an exceptional environment with coastal and island landscapes that are an important part of our national identity”.

The natural environment in Argyll & Bute continues to be seen as a finite resource worthy of protection. It must therefore be recognised that support for renewable energy should only be given where justified.

This document is called Technical Appendix 15.4 in the document footer and in cross references in some of the chapters within the main EIA-R