Report by Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services
Minutes:
The
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. He then outlined the procedure that would be
followed and invited the Head of Governance and Law to identify all those who
wished to speak.
PLANNING
Arlene
Knox presented the planning application on behalf of the Head of Planning,
Housing and Regulatory Services. She
asked Members to note that the report of handling should be read in conjunction
with Supplementary Report 1 which
provided corrections to the commentary set out under sections P and U of the
main report and Supplementary Report 2 which updated Members on representations
and consultation responses received since the proposal was last reported to
committee.
A
total of 15 additional letters of objection have been received, including: a
letter of objection from Councillor Alan Reid, withdrawal of a letter of
representation, and a request to speak in support of the proposal today. These late items do not raise any new
material considerations. The revised totals are as follows: a total of 377
letters have been received, comprising 315 Objections, 56 letters of support
and 4 general representations.
A
further consultee response has also been received from Kilmun Community Council
confirming that they are remaining neutral and are not making any objection to
the application, due to the lack of objections made to them.
Scottish
Natural Heritage has formally objected to the proposal on the grounds that it
would have an adverse effect on the special qualities and integrity of the
Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area. SNH
consider that these effects cannot be mitigated. SNH also have significant concerns regarding
the landscape and visual impacts of this proposal. The Scottish Wild Land Group also object on
the grounds that they believe the environmental and other impacts hugely
outweigh any benefits.
No
objections have been raised by any other consultees, subject to appropriate
conditions in the event that planning permission were to be granted. In the
event that Members are minded to grant planning permission against the
recommendation of Officers, it should be noted that the proposal will be
required to be notified to Scottish Ministers due to the fact that the
statutory consultee SNH has objected.
The
main report covers a number of topic areas, however, following a brief
description of the development, she advised she would focus on the key area of
concern to Officers & SNH, specifically the landscape & visual impact
of the proposal, as all other issues are either acceptable or can be mitigated
by appropriate planning conditions. A
pack of graphics was circulated during the site visit yesterday, which was
supplied by the Applicants to assist in the appreciation of the proposal in its
landscape setting, which Members may wish to refer to during this presentation.
The
site is located within the Ardtaraig Estate which is approximately 3.1km to the
east of Glendaruel and 17km North West of Dunoon. The site itself is an area of
open, rugged moorland on the west facing flank of A’Chruach and is surrounded
on all sides by commercial forestry plantations. The A866 runs parallel along
the western boundary of the site. The
B836 lies to the south east of the site. The proposal is located immediately to
the south of the existing Cruach Mhor windfarm which has 35 turbines, 71m in
height. Cruach Mhor wind farm occupies a rare area of slacker ground on the
western edge of more complex craggy terrain which occurs to the east and is
relatively well-screened with limited visibility.
The
application is for a wind energy development comprising: the erection, 25-year
operation and subsequent decommissioning of seven wind turbines up to 136.5m at
their highest point, together with off-site vehicular access, on-site access
tracks, hardstanding areas, a substation battery storage facility and control
building compound, borrow pits and cabling. During construction, a temporary
construction compound would also be required to house a site office and welfare
facilities.
Access
to the site will be via the existing Cruach Mhor wind farm entrance, located
directly off the A886.
Turbines
would have a maximum blade tip height of 136.5 metres and a rotor diameter of
117 metres. Each wind turbine would have a capacity of approximately 4.2 MW,
giving a total installed capacity of 29.4 MW.
The
substation compound would comprise a hardstanding and a single storey building
such as this which would house switchgear, metering, protection and control
equipment as well as welfare facilities. A battery storage facility is also
proposed to be incorporated to further maximise the electricity generated from
the proposed wind turbines.
The
site is located within ‘Very Sensitive Countryside’ as defined by the Local
Development Plan. Within ‘Very Sensitive
Countryside’ Policy DM 1 encourages sustainable forms of renewable energy
development located on appropriate sites.
It is considered that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of this
policy as the site is not considered to be ‘appropriate’ due to the significant
adverse landscape and visual effects the proposal is likely to have. It is
considered that due to these adverse effects the proposal cannot be considered
to be sustainable.
Supplementary
Guidance has been prepared in accordance with SPP which provides a Spatial
Framework for wind farms and wind turbine developments over 50 metres high. The
site is located in a Group 2 area of significant protection where wind farms
may be acceptable, if it can be demonstrated that any significant effects on
the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or
other mitigation.
The
site is located within a Group 2 area as defined by SPP and Supplementary Guidance
due to the mapped presence of Class 2 nationally important carbon rich soils,
potentially of high conservation value and restoration potential. Following the advice of SNH and SEPA, it is
not considered that this status would be an impediment to the proposal being
permitted subject to conditions to secure a Peat Management Plan and a Habitat
Management Plan.
The
turbines are located 1.77km from the northern boundary of Kyles of Bute
National Scenic Area and fully within the Kyles of Bute Area of Panoramic
Quality. The proposal is 2.9km from the
adjacent Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park.
The
Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area is the closest National landscape
designation to the site. The focus of the NSA is the relationship between the
surrounding land, sea lochs and the Kyles of Bute.
It
is considered that the impacts of Ardtaraig wind farm on the Kyles of Bute
National Scenic Area would compromise the objectives of the designation and the
overall integrity of the NSA for the following reasons:
·
the wind farm’s location and scale
in close proximity to this relatively small NSA would adversely affect the
appreciation of the special qualities by affecting their landscape context and
wider landscape setting;
·
given the small extent of this NSA,
the scale of the turbines is also likely to significantly detract from key
views from within and of the NSA;
·
the proposal will introduce a large
, prominent wind energy development into the views and setting of the NSA;
·
and there is currently no
noticeable wind energy development in this nationally important landscape and
the adjacent uplands provide an open and undeveloped skyline and setting for
many highly scenic views and coastal panoramas.
It
is considered that the proposal would result in a significant adverse effect on
the special qualities of the Kyles of Bute NSA and that it will undermine its
integrity.
The
receiving landscape’s overall high landscape and visual sensitivity is
confirmed by the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study
(2017). This report categorises the
receiving landscape character type (1) – Steep Ridgeland and Mountains as being
of the highest sensitivity in the regional combined sensitivity score for
Argyll & Bute. For this landscape
character type the Capacity Study states: “there is no scope to accommodate
turbines >50m high as additional new developments within this landscape
without significant effects occurring on a number of key sensitivity
criteria”. These hills are notably
rugged forming distinctive ridges, increasing their sensitivity. Sensitivity is heightened due to the close
proximity to the valued NSA designation, and their location within the
APQ. These hills are especially
important in providing a wider backdrop to the NSA and are highly visible from
the NSA. This skyline is currently not
noticeably affected by built structures.
It is perceived visually as a semi-natural northern boundary to the NSA.
It
is considered that the wind farm would change this important landscape characteristic
due to the location of the turbines on the defining ‘ridge’, their prominence,
scale, colour and movement. The proposal
would create a new competing focus on the horizon which would detract from the
existing composition and the focus of the Kyles. They would also intrude on the views and
setting of the coastal fringes of the NSA, including spectacular panoramic
views over the Kyles from the A8003. The
wind farm would significantly detract from the dramatic scenery and setting of
the NSA and the special qualities of the APQ would also be diminished by
turbines sited on this visually prominent hill.
The
proposal will potentially be visible from a wide range of views from within and
to the Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area.
It is very prominently sited on a ridge providing the immediate setting
to the NSA. It will significantly
intrude on the defining skyline which encircles and visually contains the
northern end of the Kyles of Bute area, an important component of many of the
area’s views and panoramas. Areas of
visibility of the proposal often coincide with areas enjoyed for recreation
frequented by both visitors and residents in particular the popular and highly
scenic landscape of the Kyles of Bute NSA, key approach routes and popular hill
views from part of the adjacent Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National
Park. The turbines will impinge on and
detract from views from a range of key viewpoints on the shores including
potentially scattered settlement, key routes, hill views, and also from the
water, popular for recreation.
It
is likely to become a competing focus for people enjoying views, from within
and to the NSA, due to its size, contrast of scale, incongruous character and
rotating blades on the immediate containing skyline. These criteria combined with the proximity of
views would result in a significant adverse impact on a range of key panoramas
and views, important to people’s experience of this landscape. It is considered that the proposal would have
significant adverse visual effects on the following:
·
Views from the water’s edge
including potentially scattered settlement
as represented by VP 10 (Cowal Way)
·
Water based views as represented by
VP 11 (Kyles of Bute NSA) where scenic coastal views are strongly contained and
channelled towards the wind farm by steep – sided hill slopes. The wind farm is framed and would become the
focus of the view. The Kyles of Bute
area are very popular for recreational sailing and sea kayaking with anchorages
and sailing schools nearby. The proposal
would appear prominent on the skyline of the hills which provide the wider
setting to these seascapes. This would
be experienced by, for example: recreational water users on the narrow channels
of the Kyles/Loch Ruel where the coast is highly visible.
·
Views from parts of key routes
including the A8003/NCR75 and A886/B836, and the promoted Cowal Way Long
Distance Route, which lies close to the coast as represented by VP’s 8, 2, 5
and 10.
·
Key views from elevated locations including
Creag Dubh, the National Trust for Scotland viewpoint (layby off the A80003) as
represented by, VP 8. The proposal will
appear prominent and incongruous on the skyline.
·
Hill views popular with walkers
e.g. Cruach nan Caorach as represented by VP7
·
Views of the NSA from near the
boundary are also significantly affected including south of Kames as
represented by VP14, VP 2 B836 a key approach to the NSA from Dunoon and
elevated views in the LLTNP including popular hills as represented by VP 9
Beinn Mhor. These views are important in
providing residents and visitors an appreciation of the richness of this scenic
landscape; and
·
Views from the northern end of Bute
as represented by VP20 are also adversely affected and may be underrated in the
ES.
She
then went through the key viewpoints referred to in the reasons for refusal,
some of which we visited yesterday.
SLIDE 13 – VIEWPOINT 2: EAST OF STRONAFIAN
Viewpoint
is representative of views from the B836, National Cycle Route 75, Bute &
South Cowal Area of Panoramic Quality, and lies adjacent to the Kyles of Bute
NSA.
SLIDE 14 – VIEWPOINT 5: A886, NORTH OF
ARDACHUPLE FARM
Viewpoint
5 is representative of views from: the A886, Kyles of Bute NSA, scattered
settlement and it is adjacent to the Bute & South Cowal Area of Panoramic
Quality.
SLIDE 15 – VIEWPOINT 7: CRUACH NA CAORACH
“CRUACH NA COORUCH”
Viewpoint
7 is representative of views from a Kyles of Bute NSA hilltop.
SLIDE 16 – VIEWPOINT 8: A8003 CREAGAN DUBH,
“CRECHAN DOO” KYLES OF BUTE VIEWPOINT
Viewpoint
8 is representative of views from the A8003, National Cycle Route 75 and the
Kyles of Bute NSA.
SLIDE 17 – VIEWPOINT 9: BEINN MHOR – “BANE
VORE”
Viewpoint
9 is representative of views from the summit of a ‘Graham’ within Loch Lomond
& the Trossachs National Park.
SLIDE 19 – VIEWPOINT 10: COWAL WAY, LOCH
RUEL, NORTH OF EILEAN DUBH
Viewpoint
10 is representative of views from the Cowal Way Long Distance Walking Route,
the Cowal Way Glenbranter to Portavadie Core Path and the Kyles of Bute NSA.
SLIDE 20 – VIEWPOINT 11: KYLES OF BUTE NSA
Viewpoint
11 is representative of views from the Kyles of Bute NSA, in particular people
on water-borne craft.
SLIDE 21 – VIEWPOINT 14: UNAMED ‘B’ ROAD CAR
PARK BY BLAIR’S FERRY
Viewpoint
14 is representative of views from the Cowal Way long distance walking route, a
minor road, regional cycle route 94, a Core Path, Bute & South Cowal Area
of Panoramic Quality, a parking area and water borne craft on the west Kyle.
SLIDE 22 – VIEWPOINT 20: ISLE OF BUTE,
BALNAKAILLY CIRCUIT
Finally,
Viewpoint 20 is representative of views from the Kyles of Bute NSA and walkers
on the Balnakailly Circuit.
This
application is recommended for refusal by Officers on four separate grounds
which are set out in detail within the main report of handling. The first
relates to an expected adverse effect upon the special qualities of the Kyles
of Bute NSA arising from the scale and siting of the turbines, the second
relates to the expected adverse effect which would arise upon the character of
the landscape, the third relates to the adverse visual impact which is expected
to arise from a range of key viewpoints including settlements, key routes, hill
views and recreational locations, and the fourth relates to the potential for
the development to have an adverse impact upon the tourism and recreation. It
is the consideration of officers that there is no mitigation which the
applicant could offer within the confines of the current application which
would satisfactorily address these issues of concern.
Overall,
it is considered that the proposal does not conform to the relevant Local
Development Plan policies detailed in the main report and that there are no
other material considerations, including issues raised by third parties, which
would warrant anything other than the application being refused. It is therefore recommended that planning
permission is refused for the reasons detailed in the report.
APPLICANT
Kari
Clouston, Project Manager for Infinergy advised that the company has worked on
this proposal for over 4 years. He
confirmed that they have met with a variety of residents to discuss the ins and
outs of this proposal and wind power in general. He said that his job could be tough,
particularly when the odds were against them.
He pointed out that there have been no objections submitted by the local
Community Councils as far as he was aware and, apart from one, no objections
from statutory consultees. He advised
that it was his view that they had a first class renewable energy proposal to
maximise renewable energy of this site particularly with the battery storage
technology. He said that over the
lifespan of this windfarm £3.5m in community benefit would go directly to the
local community. He also advised of an
additional offer of 10% ownership stake in the windfarm. He pointed out that these turbines were twice
the size of those of the neighbouring Cruach Mhor wind farm. He advised that there was good reasons for
this. He referred to wind turbine
technology advancing significantly over the last 10 to 15 years with higher
turbines producing more green energy for the network. He referred to the UK Government removing
support for onshore wind farms which can only be considered now if they meet
all technical and environment tests. He
advised that these 7 turbines proposed were expected to outperform the 35
turbines at the other site making them over 4 times efficient than their
neighbours. He confirmed that they have
worked extensively with the Forestry Commission and Scottish Power to share
infrastructure. He said that sharing an
existing access was a unique benefit of this proposal. He referred to a recent advert placed in the
Dunoon Observer from the National Scenic Area Protection Group opposing this proposal. He commented that over the year they have
heard a wide variety of views of what was, and what was not, acceptable in the
public’s eye as well as what was important to this country and to the world. He referred to the proposal being recommended
for refusal on subjective issues. He
pointed out that there has been no objection from the Loch Lomond and Trossachs
National Park Authority. He said that it
was not possible to make the wind turbines invisible and that ‘beauty was in
the eye of the beholder’ and they can be seen as a landmark in their own
right. He referred to concerns about
the impact on tourism and stated that there have been numerous reports that
have demonstrated that onshore wind farms did not damage tourism activity. He said that it has been demonstrated that
wind farms have enjoyed an increase in tourism year on year. He commented that he was sure everyone at
the hearing was aware of the climate change projections for this generation and
generations to come. He advised that after
years of lackadaisical action we now had just decades to put on the hand
break. He said that this Committee and
others like it could now apply this hand break.
CONSULTEES
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)
Liz
Prior advised that she was the local SNH Operations Manager based in
Dunoon. She advised that there was no
point in reiterating all their concerns as these had been clearly laid out by
Arlene in her presentation and they were also clearly provided in their
response letter. In summary she advised
that SNH were objecting on the basis of the adverse impacts on the Kyles of
Bute National Scenic Area (NSA). She
advised that SNH consider these impacts to have no mitigation - that no change
to the scheme could mitigate these impacts.
She confirmed that SNH have worked with the Applicant since the onset
and repeatedly made it clear that SNH did not consider this to be an
appropriate site for a wind farm. She
confirmed that SNH did not take objecting to a proposal lightly. She advised that they weighed up the scales
of economy of every proposal. She
advised of SNH providing advice in the spirit of Government wind energy
capacity and that it was important to strike the right balance between
renewable energy and protecting the natural heritage. She confirmed that their qualified landscape
architect carried out a robust assessment of this proposal and that they were
of the opinion, and would advise the Scottish Ministers if approved, that they
thought this went beyond reasonable doubt that this would affect the NSA and
should be refused. She confirmed that
was their comments on the landscape and visual aspects of the proposal. She advised that they had also considered the
proposal on ornithological grounds but did not submit an objection in that respect. She advised that SNH did not consider that
any one species would be affected but they did have concerns about the local
impact on the Golden Eagle and the Hen Harrier.
She added that peatland was another aspect which they provided advice on
and that their concern was the localised impact on peatland in this area. She confirmed that SNH maintained their
objection and should this proposal be considered for approval it would require
the consent of Scottish Ministers.
Colintraive and Glendaruel Community Council
Kathleen
Russell advised that the Community Council had a meeting about a year ago which
had been attended by people from the whole area putting forward their
objections and reasons for these. She
advised that at the end of the day they submitted an representation with
positive and negatives for both sides of the argument and that was why the
Community Council did not stand on one side or the other. She confirmed that they took a neutral stance
and that was why there was no objection from the Community Council.
SUPPORTERS
Shian Carlow
Mrs
Carlow advised that she has been a resident of Ardtaraig Estate for many years
with her father and grandfather also there before her. She advised that she raised 4 children and
back in the 1981 when they first went to school there were 48 children with the
school bursting at the seams. She
advised that there was also a local hotel, shop, tearoom and playgroup at that
time. She said that when her youngest
left in 1995 the school role had dropped to 15 and the hotel, shop and tearoom
had shut. She advised that the school
had been threatened with closure. She
said that the decline in numbers was evident at the secondary schools in Dunoon
and Rothesay. She questioned how many
children from 1981 remained in the local area today. She said that depopulation was a serious
problem across Argyll and Bute. She
noted that some people in the room today did not want this proposal to go
ahead. She suggested that by investing
in its future we would save Cowal. She
referred to money being available to invest in the community – building homes
for young people, opening a community shop etc.
She referred to this being a worthwhile project to get money to get
started. She advised that this was not
the first time Ardtaraig Estate has been involved in an electricity
scheme. She advised that when her
grandfather was young he had argued against the development of the dam on
visual grounds and that there were plenty objections when it was built. She commented that she did not believe it had
any effect on tourism as people continued to visit and stop in the laybys with
their campervans and fish on the loch.
She commented that providing clean energy made daily life possible. She referred to the Government asking people to
buy electric cars and pointed out that everything used today needed
recharged. She said that items were
being sold as clean and green, but they were only as clean and green as the
electricity powering them. If they were
being powered from a coal fire power station or nuclear power station this was
hardly clean or green. She advised of
the need for the turbines to be higher in order to be more efficient. She referred to the neighbouring wind farm
and advised that there has been no issued there with birds since it was first
commissioned. She said that there was a
Hen Harrier there that nested at the base of the turbine. She advised that a far greater threat was
climate change and that this was an opportunity to make a difference. She commented that everyone wanted too much
and advised that if we continued to consume energy at the present rate we had
to take responsibility for its production and that ‘not in my backyard’ was not
acceptable. She referred to Scotland
only have two nuclear power stations left with 43% of the electricity coming
from Torness, which was due to close, and 50% production at Hunterston which
was due to close in 2023. She commented
that hopefully wave and tidal power would come on the scene but at the moment
none were operational in Scotland and only one in England. She referred to the Scottish Government being
committed to a nuclear free future and eliminating fossil fuels. She asked
where the energy would come but from renewables. She suggested there was a risk of becoming a
third world country with regular 3 day blackouts. She said that it was time to pay the price
for the damage done to the climate. She
asked the Committee to consider this opportunity and vote in favour as this
chance may not come again in our lifetime.
William
Carlow read out the following submission on behalf of Dennis Archer.
“I
understand that complying with provisions of a local development plan is
something we must all try hard to do. However,
regarding claims that the LDP of 2015, relevant to this application, is not out
of date, I believe that too much has changed in the past three years for that
to be accepted without question.
The
public perception of issues relating to climate change and air pollution – in
other words the use of fossil fuels – has altered beyond all recognition. By the end of February 2019, 54 local
councils in the UK had declared a Climate Emergency in very recent times*. Can Argyll & Bute afford to be far behind?
On
March 15th 2019, hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren took part
in a second climate strike across the world, very many of them in the UK. Councillors will not be unaware of the
activities of Extinction Rebellion.
More
specifically, confirmatory news arrives almost weekly. Glasgow has Scotland’s first Low Emission
Zone. Only a few days ago
Jaguar/Landrover were forced to recall thousands of cars because of excessive
emissions. We have just experienced
extraordinary, worrying, record-breaking February temperatures. The pace of change is simply staggering.
There
cannot be any mistaking which way the tide is turning.
A
Climate Emergency declaration would likely mandate the Council to take every
measure reasonably possible to combat the effects of dangerous climate change.
This would include a much more dramatic level of support for renewable,
non-polluting energy, whether wind, solar or whatever else.
This
does not mean abandoning or rewriting the Local Development Plan. It merely demands a different balance of
priorities. A reassessment of the
significance of environmental benefits – 900,000 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide could
suddenly seem dramatically important compared to the damaging visibility of a few
distant wind turbines from a yacht in the Kyles of Bute.
It
is incumbent upon us all to do whatever we can to mitigate the effects of
global warming. These are scientifically
indisputable facts, not mere matters of opinion. If we do not, then we may choose between
being washed away by rising sea-levels or swept aside by impatient young people
who understand only too well the urgency of the situation.
Argyll
& Bute should support renewable energy at every possible opportunity. The benefits far outweigh the visual damage”
*https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/climate-emergency-declarations-cover-15-million-citizens/
William Carlow
Mr
Carlow advised that there have been 2 high profile campaigns running against
this development. He advised of the
self-styled Scenic Area Protection Group which, he said, overstated the height
of these turbines and their coverage over the hill. He referred to a picture used by the Group to
demonstrate how they would be viewed on the hill. He advised that they would not cover the
whole of the hill and would only be to the left of it. He said that the trees shown at the front of
the picture would soon obscure them. He
also referred to the NAW Group (No Ardtaraig Wind Farm Group) being very active
in putting up signs along tourist routes and creating bad feeling. He advised that this group focused only on 4
things – firstly, the wind farm would damage health; secondly, the wind farm
would damage wealth; thirdly, the wind farm would damage the environment; and
fourthly, the wind farm would damage the community. He advised of many people living within 500m
of the Striven Hydro Power Station and said that there has been no case, that
he has been aware, of any unusual health problem. He said that he was in his mid-70s and lived
within 500m of the power station and also within 4km of the Cruach Mhor wind
farm and did not fear it. He commented
on wealth being a major concern and suggested that this would be a concern for
those with second homes and retirement nests in the local area but not because
of the wind farm, but because of a lack of it.
He commented on forecasts being made of a shortage of electricity which
could lead to it having to be imported from elsewhere as it has to now for
England and Northern Ireland. He
questioned whether anyone in a rural area would get a fair share if rationing
was introduced. He asked what the price of an unsaleable holiday house would be
then. He referred to concerns about the
environment and suggested that these were surely misplaced. He said he was not aware of wind power having
a negative effect on the environment. He
referred to countries like Mozambique and Malawi struggling as a result of the
extravagances of the modern world. He
referred to community concerns and pointed out that the wind farm would
generate £3.5m over its lifetime and asked where else the community would
benefit from so much. He said that this
chance would not come again. He asked
the Committee to put their thinking caps on and get a real understanding in
their thoughts. He referred to the objectors being led by a few people with
limited interest. He asked what was
right for the community and for our grandchildren. He said he wanted to make them proud.
OBJECTORS
Councillor Alan Reid
Councillor
Reid advised that he was a Councillor for the Ward where this proposed wind
farm would be situated. He acknowledged
that climate change was a real threat and that there was a need for far more
renewable energy. He said that this
should not be at the expense of a National Scenic Area (NSA) like the Kyles of
Bute. He advised that the positioning of
these wind turbines on the ridge would have a negative impact on the NSA. He said that there was plenty of land in
Scotland for renewal energy projects which would not have a negative impact on
a NSA and that a balance had to be struck.
He confirmed that he agreed with the conclusion of SNH that the proposal
would have an adverse effect on the special qualities and integrity of the NSA
which was visited by people from all over the world. He agreed that there was no way to mitigate
these impacts. He advised that the
positioning of the wind turbines would be clearly visible from the NSA due to
their large size and scale which, he said, would no doubt deter tourists from
visiting. He acknowledged that Argyll
and Bute needed more people and jobs but wind farms of this scale in this area
would mean less tourists, leading to less jobs.
He pointed out that the proposal was contrary to Scottish Planning
Policy and Local Development Plan policy.
He commented that he was not saying you could not deviate at times from
these policies, but advised that granting this application would drive a coach
and horses through these policies. He
said that the understood that in terms of the integrity of the NSA a balance
had to be struck between addressing climate change and protecting the NSA. He urged the Committee to reject this
application.
At
this point a member of the audience asked to make a contribution. It was confirmed she had not previously made
a written representation and after some clarification of procedures the Chair
ruled that she could not contribute to the meeting.
John McNaughton
Mr
McNaughton circulated a map of the area to Members to aid his presentation. He advised that he was speaking on behalf of
the Kyles of Bute NSA Protection Group as well as the wider community and that
he gladly took on this responsibility.
He commented on the number of objections to this proposal. He advised that all the Community Councils in
the area had not expressed support for this proposal and that they all took a
neutral stance. He said that the vast
majority of the Colglen Community were against this proposal which you could
take from the number of letters submitted.
He advised that he coached shinty on Friday evenings at the local
primary school and commented that the school role has been climbing over the
last 5 to 6 years. He pointed out that
their NSA was world famous and unique.
He said that it was the smallest but the most beautiful, and being only
1.5 hours from Glasgow was one of the most accessible. He advised of the Ruel Estuary having 2
vantage points on the east and west sides of Loch Riddon and referred to the
Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS) which the Council
paid for and used to advise the Members on.
He commented that the Estuary was a very important Site of Scientific
Interest (SSSI) and that there was a 100 year Management Plan managed by SNH
going forward. He said that looking at
the Estuary you would be looking towards where the proposed turbines would be,
right behind the SSSI. He said that
these turbines would have flashing lights on top, designed to attract your
attention as a pilot would need to see them when flying over. He referred to comment made about the trees
obscuring the view and advised that this particular view point was maintained
by the National Trust for Scotland and these trees were cleared by the National
Trust whenever the Trust had the money and time to clear them so that the view
point remained the same. He advised that
looking from that view point you could see a trig point which would be to the
right hand side of the proposed turbines.
He said that this trig point sat at 405 m and that the turbines would be
higher, rising to 450 m into the sky – they would be 50 m higher than the trig
point. He also pointed out that the
blades would be nearly 5 times longer that the width of the hall the hearing
was being held in and looking from the back door to the hall, the blades would
reach half way up Argyll Street, Dunoon, if laid flat. He said that the site of the proposed
turbines was on the edge of the NSA. He
pointed out the site’s location on the map circulated earlier to the Committee
and commented that the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park boundary was
2.9 km away. He said that the National
Park was 720 square miles in size and was a turbine free zone as outlined in
the Park’s Planning Policy Plan. He said
that only turbines up to 15 m high would be considered which was very similar
to what was stated in the LWECS document.
He said that these 2 designated areas (the National Park and the NSA)
were considered to be of equal importance.
He advised that the pylons and infrastructure required to take the
electricity away from the wind farm would be much closer to the National Park
boundary. He said that currently there
were ongoing projects within the National Park to improve visitor experience. These included taking down existing pylons in
visually sensitive areas. Referring to
whether tourism would be affected or not at the end of day, he said that he
thought it would be but others would say not.
He advised that these schemes within the National Park were recognising
that pylons were affecting visitor experience and so to mitigate that they were
looking to bury these pylons. He said
again that within the National Park there were no turbines and pointed out that
the National Park and the NSA had the same designation and were recognised as
of equal importance. He commented that
Argyll and Bute Council had a good record of protecting beauty spots and also
had a good record of granting planning permission for appropriately sited wind
farms. Referring to employment, he
commented on the Economic Forum set up to study rural development. He said that we needed to do everything we
could to protect the landscape. He
advised that he had noticed few letters of support for this proposal and
commented that most of those were made up of members of the family who
supported this application and stood to gain financially from it. He said that he did not think their argument
was that it would negate climate change.
He said that he did not think the 333 people objecting to this proposal
would disagree that negating climate change was a very important issue going
forward and that he was sure all the objectors were aware of that view. He said that the point was that Local
Planning Policy was put in place to protect national scenic areas and other
designations all-round the country from big developers coming in and using
climate change as an argument. He
advised that there was legislation to keep these places protected or, he
suggested, we could end up with wind turbines on the Royal Mile. He said there needed to be policies in place
so areas such as the NSA could be protected.
He referred to the Cruach Mhor wind farm and advised that it sat in a
hanging valley so was entirely acceptable for turbines. He commented that they were half the size of
the ones proposed so were not as efficient.
He advised that when permission was granted for the Cruach Mhor wind
farm a condition was attached at that time, even although it was in a hanging
valley, that the forest at the south edge of Cruach Mhor could not be harvested
so that it would shield the view point from the turbines. He pointed out that the Applicant for this
current proposal would not be able to do that due to the height of the turbines
and where they were positioned. He
referred to the community benefitting from money paid into the Cruach Mhor Wind
Farm Trust and commented on the community benefit offered as part of this
current proposal. He advised that this
would not help Council services as it would not help to fill in the pot holes
or increase the number of bin uplifts.
He referred to a previous planning application submitted in 2016 for a
wind farm which had been refused. He
commented that there would be plenty opportunities for Colglen in the
future. He said that they were not
fanatical wind farm objectors and that they were ordinary people living in
Colglen, with some being there for generations.
He advised that he was the 6th generation of his family
living in Colglen. He advised that the
community was not in the dark ages and that they were forward thinking. He said that this application did not
recognise the area’s traditional values and unique location. He said that there was no one in the community
that wanted it to thrive more than he did.
He said that he would like to see a 7th generation of his
family living and working on the landscape as he has done. He advised that this application was
detrimental to the area and moved that it be rejected.
David Warden
Mr
Warden advised that he was the current Chair of the Argyll Raptor Study
Group. He said that they were a group of
volunteers throughout Argyll and that they were one of a number of raptor study
groups that existed in all parts of Scotland.
He advised that they came together under the banner of the Scottish
Raptor Study Group and collected data and information on all species of birds
of prey which went to the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme. He advised that the information collated
provided a national picture and SNH etc could see what the picture was in the
way of birds of prey. He said that they
did not have any special policy with regard to wind farms and that they judged
each application on its own merits. He
advised that they did not often object to wind farms but on this occasion they
had no other alternative. He advised
that they objected on the basis of damage to a whole raft of species. He commented that if you had to pick a spot
in Cowal where not to have a wind farm this would be it. He advised that there were some iconic
species there which should be protected and he ran through each of these in
turn. He referred to the Short Eared
Owl, and advised that this was not nocturnal like other owls. He said that these owls were regularly found
at the site of the proposed wind farm.
He then referred to the Hen Harrier which they first starting observing
12 years ago. He advised that at that
time there were in excess of 10 pairs and they were now down to a handful. He advised that there were only 3 pairs last
year which were active breeders. He also
advised that the only pair that were successful were the pair at
Ardtaraig. He advised that the
vegetation and mosaics which exist at Ardtaraig were suitable for the Hen
Harriers and if this wind farm was to go ahead then a considerable amount of their
habitat and breeding area would be lost.
He then referred to the most iconic Golden Eagle. He referred to the Applicant’s Environmental
Statement submitted which indicated that they had information on satellite
traffic transmissions and the behaviours of one particular bird fitted with a
satellite tag. He said that they were
over relying in their submission on this information. He advised that the satellite information and
some of their arguments put forward were based only on one individual bird
wearing a tag. He pointed out that
there were several pairs of Golden Eagle that surround Ardtaraig that could
have been relevant to this application.
He advised that judging the situation on one bird alone was not
sufficient especially in view of the information that his Group had. He advised of several other Golden Eagles
with a range of ages in the area. He
advised of monitoring sub adults, or juveniles.
He said that 4 juveniles used Ardtaraig from time to time and that they
were moving through the area. He advised
that one of those eagles had notoriety and was called Freya and was named by
the viewers of the Spring Watch programme in 2016. He advised that she has been spending a
considerable amount of time in Cowal and that this has been proven by tracking
data over that ridge. He said that she
came to Cowal and came to the Ardtaraig area and then headed to North Kintyre
and was tracked to Mull and then across to Crianlarich before returning to
Cowal. He suggested that she was
looking for a breeding community when old enough. He advised that there was a need for a
healthy population of adult birds to ensure that any vacancies in the adult
population were filled. He advised that
this application would result in a far more substantial risk in collision and
this has been referred to in the Environment Statement. He advised that the most recent information
he had was from observing the area yesterday.
He confirmed that he saw an adult bird and sub adult bird soaring over
the Met Mast associated with this wind farm.
He advised that the White Tailed Eagle (Sea Eagle), was starting to
recolonise in Cowal and that they first started to arrive in Cowal in 2013 as
far as they were aware. He commented
that progress was relatively slow in terms of colonisation. He said that during the last breeding season
sightings were considerable with the Sea Eagle being seen in the Ardtaraig area
by game keepers and stalkers, members of the public and 2 Raptor Group members. He expected this trend to continue as birds
were returning to the ground they once occupied. He advised that through time, and certainly
over the next 5 years, they would be seen more regularly. He advised that another aspect of the Sea
Eagle was tourism. He commented that
people would be familiar with the tourism generated on Mull and Jura which
benefited these communities with the addition of jobs which were worth millions
to Mull. He advised that he could see no
reason why this could not happen in Cowal as they had the same species and
landscapes. He advised that the tourism
aspect associated with Sea Eagles had already started and commented that a
holiday letting venue in the west of Cowal had on their website a visual of a
Sea Eagle on the shore in their ground.
He advised that there was an opportunity for an increase in tourism and
wildlife tourism. He stated that these
iconic species should be protected and that their habitats should be
protected. He advised that Cowal had the
birds and that there was a need to protect the landscape.
Jennifer Macalister-Hall
Mrs
Macalister-Hall drew the Committee’s attention to her submission made in
September last year. She advised that
while supporting renewal energy and understanding all the arguments towards it,
there was still a consideration as to whether a development was appropriate for
a particular location. She referred to
this area being an area of national beauty with the local community relying on
the preservation of the natural habitat to support a key source of employment –
namely tourism. She advised that people
came to the area because of its natural beauty and because it has not been
developed was its attraction. She said
that this development would not encourage tourism. She advised that it would be detrimental to
tourism and would be detrimental to the growth of tourism in this area,
especially tourists interested in wildlife.
Reg MacDonald
Mr
MacDonald advised that he was a volunteer for the No Ardtaraig Windfarm (NAW)
Campaign. He commented that he had deep
roots in the area with his maternal grandfather a Minister for the Church of
Scotland and is paternal Grandfather a councillor for Sandbank. He advised that they moved to Loch Striven in
the 1950s and that he grew up there before the family moved to Canada. He said that he has now returned with his
family and that his children attended Kilmodan Primary School. He pointed out that there were a lot of
emotive issues here today but there was also the question of the Rule of Law
and it was about the application of Scottish Planning Law and the Local
Development Plan and that was what was required to be upheld here today. He thanked the previous speakers, advising
that they had covered a lot of the issues he was going to speak about. He advised that in general terms he supported
the planning recommendation and conclusions.
He referred to the location, nature, and design of the development and
advised that it should be noted that there would be 7 turbines, 139m in height. He referred to the Met Mast located at the
site and advised that it had only been put up there 2 weeks ago. He said that looking at the mass and scale of
the turbines it could be seen how large these would be on the mountainside. He also referred to the requirement for 4
borrow pits and to the decommissioning of the project, advising that some of
the materials, such as the hard standings, would remain on the hillside. He also referred to water course crossings
and the excavation of peat. He advised
that this was a big project in a very sensitive area and that he thought it
would have detrimental consequences for that location, if approved, for years
to come. He referred to SNH advising
that this was a small NSA with views from various viewpoints. He commented that it could be viewed from
North Bute. He said that there was
limited scope overall in this sensitive area for small or medium scale
developments. He commented that these
were the largest wind turbines he had seen for a long time. He referred to cumulative effects and pointed
out that there were 6 wind farms within 6 km of this proposal. He referred to the visual impact and advised
that he concurred with the views of the Planning Department and SNH. He commented on the Environmental Impact
report and noted that there were 20 key viewpoints with it being stated that 15
of those would be significantly affected.
He commented that the other 5 would still be notably effected and that
the development would have a huge impact on the area. He quoted the reasons given by the PPSL
Committee in 2016 for refusing planning application reference15/02060/PP in
August 2016. He advised that the
decision was made by the current Committee’s predecessors and related to 2
turbines. He pointed out that this was a
new wind farm proposal of far higher scale.
He advised that he appreciated that viewpoints could change. He said that he had 2 letters from neighbours
(Keith Chalmers and Bill Carlow) which were filed with the Planning Department
and he read out extracts from these letters.
He then referred to the issue of tourism advising this was very
important on an economic basis for Cowal.
He referred to the very special NSA and the surrounding
environment. He commented that he lived
a very quiet life and that this matter was very true to his heart. He referred to going out and knocking on doors
and speaking to his neighbours and those in the surrounding communities of
Glendaruel, Colintraive, Kilfinan, Kilmun, Sandbank, Dunoon, Innellan and
Toward. He spoke about having the
amazing privilege to meeting the most wonderful people he had ever met. He advised that they invited him into their
homes, they shared their ideas and said that they supported the NAW campaign in
a way that overwhelmed him. He stated
that 90% of these communities supported this campaign to protect this
area. He advised that in Glendaruel and
Colintraive the vast majority did not want this project. He referred to the Community Councils not
taking a decision and suggested that this may have been due to there being a
lot of division in the community back in 2016.
He advised that there were still a lot of people against that proposal,
and perhaps even more so today. He
advised that the key duty here was to represent these people and their local
concerns and interests. He stated that
in relation to the campaign they talked to a lot of people, they waved down
cyclists and stalked kayakers and boaters along the Kyles and at Colintraive
and Tighnabruaich. He said that the
overwhelming concern was that this was the wrong project in the wrong
place. He advised that there were in
fact 822 citizens that objected to this proposal. He referred to a petition which was
submitted and advised that he was not aware that a petition with hundreds of
names would only be counted as one objection.
He said that if the Committee wanted to really know who in the community
objected they just needed to look at who signed the petition. He advised that there were really 822 against
this proposal with only 52 in support.
He advised that not a lot of these 822 people were his friends or
family. He said they were members of the
community with considerable concerns about what was happening. He thanked the Chair for allowing him to
address these concerns and said that when applying Scottish Planning Policy and
the Local Development Plan it seemed to him that this application must be
refused.
Dr Neil Hammatt
Dr
Hammatt advised that he has not lived in Cowal for
that long but he was aware that this was an important area to birds. He advised that he wished to add to the
raptors of importance, the Osprey, and stated that one nested close by on Loch
Riddon and that the male quite often in the morning would fly through that
area. He said that he had made a detailed
list of birds which he has seen in the area which were classed as red
listed. He advised that there were
important numbers of these birds in the area and pointed out that in the UK
many of these species were disappearing vastly in other areas. He advised that this area was very important
for biodiversity. He commented that at a
global level biodiversity and the loss of biodiversity was considered by the UN
to be an equal threat to humanity as global warming. He advised that there would be policies in
years to come to protect biodiversity.
He said there was a need to balance the loss of biodiversity with what
was an appropriate position for a wind farm development to address global
warming. He said the loss of biodiversity
was more important that negating global warming. He commented that there were large areas
where the wind farm could be situated but not here.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor
McCuish sought and received confirmation from Mrs Knox that in terms of numbers
of turbines, this could be considered a medium scale application.
Councillor
Trail referred to the SNH Officer earlier stating that they had engaged with
the Applicant when this project first came forward and noted that the Applicant
had continued with the application despite SNH’s objection to it. He asked the Applicant if they agreed with
the claim that SNH had engaged with them and also asked if they had considered
other sites for this wind farm. Mr
Clouston confirmed that they had engaged with SNH and that there had been a number
of discussions. He said that they felt
from the onset that possibly SNH were against the scheme but that they believed
SNH were wrong and that they proceeded with their application on that
basis. He referred to assessing sites
around Scotland and that this site met their criteria. He referred to having a number of iterations
and designs which started off 4 years ago with 10 turbines and through
discussions with local people and with consultees the design had been changed a
number of times.
Councillor
Taylor referred to hearing from SNH that this was an unacceptable development
and that no mitigation would help. He
asked SNH and Planning to advise what types of mitigation measures beyond resiting of a development could have been considered by a
developer to address visual impact. Mrs
Knox gave some examples of mitigation, including the reduction in height of
turbines, the reduction in number or removal of turbines. She confirmed that, in her view, there was no
way to mitigate the impacts in respect of this proposal. Ms Prior said there was not really much else
to add other than reducing the turbine height, micro siting, or removing
certain turbines. She confirmed that, in her view, in this case all 7 turbines would
be prominent in the landscape.
Councillor
Moffat sought and received confirmation from the Applicant about how the
electricity produced would be taken from the site to the grid. Mr Clouston confirmed that the wind farm
would be connected to the grid via power lines and that the erection of these
power lines would be the subject of a separate planning application if this
proposal was approved. He said that it
was their intention to go down the same line as the Cruach Mhor wind farm. He advised that the line would run parallel
to the Cruach Mhor lines and, if possible, they would bury the cables where
they could.
Councillor
Forrest referred to claims about the negative impact on tourism as a result of
the siting of the wind farms. She asked
if there was any empirical evidence to support these claims. Mr Clouston referred to their Environmental
Impact Statement which addressed the economy and tourism. He advised that there were a lot of publicly
available reports that have done extensive studies about the impact of wind
farms and they conclude that there is no evidence of impacts and that, in fact,
they can increase tourism. Mrs Knox
referred to research done on the impact of turbines. She advised that the key issue here was the
impact on the National Scenic Area which itself was important to tourism. She advised that this impact on this special
landscape would in itself affect tourism.
Councillor
McCuish referred to page 26 of the planning report and the comments made by the
Environmental Health Officer that the wind farm would unlikely need significant
lighting and given that there were no known sensitive receptors within a
reasonable distance of the proposed construction activities, it was not
anticipated that light pollution would be a matter to control via planning
condition. He sought comment from
Objectors on this. Mr McNaughton said
that it was his understanding that there would be lights for pilots which were
meant to attract their attention. He
said that it was his understanding that these lights were required for turbines
of more than 50 m. Mr MacDonald advised
that from their research on this warning lights were an MOD requirement. He said that these would be noticeable in
non-daylight hours. He advised that the
Environmental Statement states that the turbines would be fitted with MOD
accredited lighting. He said that the
MOD would expect infra-red lighting and visible lights of 25cd or 200cd and
flashing lights.
Councillor
Douglas said that it was her understanding that bigger wind turbines were now
being built as they were more efficient and because of this less were
required. She asked if this was correct
and that the turbines we were now likely to see for a new development or the
renewal of an existing development would now be bigger or were the turbines for
this proposal particularly large. Mrs
Knox advised that she thought the turbines being presented now reflected the
technology that was now available. She
referred to Cruach Mhor wind turbines being 71 m and said that there was now
the ability to build larger turbines.
She said that it was quite logical that these would be more efficient so
you would require less of them. She
confirmed that she expected we would now see more of the larger turbines. Mr Clouston referred to these larger turbines
generating more electricity due to their larger blades. He commented that these turbines at a height
of 136.5m were quite low as you were now seeing turbines with 175 m to 200 m
tips.
Councillor
Douglas commented that she realised there was a trend now for it to be normal
to see larger turbines and expected that we would become used to that. She referred to the special landscape in this
area not lending itself to these turbines.
She asked if there could have been a compromise with SNH and the
Applicant and asked if there was any other area of Argyll and Bute or within Cowal
that these turbines could have been sited which may not have had such an impact
visually.
Mr
Clouston advised that it was not a case of randomly picking sites. He referred
to grid connection costs and advised that this particular area ticked a lot of
boxes. He said that it was hard to get
the balance completely right. He
referred to the renewable energy which would be generated there.
Councillor
Hardie asked if there was any threat of noise pollution. He also asked how long it would take to build
the whole development. Mr Clouston
advised that a noise assessment was undertaken and the Environmental Health
Officer was happy. He advised that as a
worst case scenario it would take a year and a half to complete the
development.
Councillor
Moffat referred to a conversation she had recently and comments she heard that
quite often at night, as there was no light pollution, you could see shooting
stars in this area. She asked if the
lighting on the turbines would affect that.
Mr Clouston advised of the infra-red lights and the flashing lights
which would be for the pilots rather than shining down. He said that they would have an impact on the
view of the stars. Mr Carlow advised
that he lived locally and that he had a telescope he had received from his
grandchildren for his birthday. He said
that over a whole year there were only 23 evenings when it was clear enough to
view the stars as there was a lot of cloud in Argyll. He commented on talk about the special scenic
area and said that the lights would only be visible at night and so would not
affect the scenic area.
Councillor
Moffat referred to the condition and size of the local roads and also on the
size of the blades and columns that would need transported to the site. She asked how the Applicant would access the
site on these roads. Mr Clouston advised
that the site would be accessed from the north.
He confirmed that there was already an access in place. He said that they had originally looked to
avoid the Cruach Mhor opening and had the option of going down a B road which
would have led to scarring of the landscape and it was only one way. He confirmed that they would now be using the
A886 coming from the North
Councillor
Blair referred to comments made in the SNH consultee response that if the
Committee accepted this application today SNH would be recommending securing a
Habitat Management Plan. He asked the
SNH Officer what they would expect in that Plan and he also asked her to
explain what she meant by micro siting.
Ms Prior explained that micro siting was when you had an indicative
layout of the turbines and were trying to site them into dips in the
landscape. She advised that there was no
opportunity to do that in this case.
With regard to the Habitat Management Plan she advised that this would
need to address the management of birds and the peatland. She advised of the need to encourage habitats
elsewhere to encourage birds away from the wind farm. She advised that there would need to be up to
date bird surveys carried out – what the birds were using and how they were
using it. The same for peatland, if it
was extracted - how it would be sorted and used over time. Mr Clouston advised that it was very common
for them to have to carry out a Habitat Management Plan for a scheme and that
they had no issues with doing so.
Councillor
Blair referred to comments made about bird collisions asked if there were
statistics on the mortality of birds available.
The Applicant’s Ornithologist advised she would not like to comment on
the national statistics referred to as she could not be sure of the document
which would have been referred to. She
advised that collision risks at wind farms were assessed and that there was a
national database which collected data on collision fatalities at wind
farms. She advised that had to be taken
with a lot of caution as there was also a need to assess how many birds were
using the area and then how many were colliding. She said that if there was a collision risk
and birds were found there, that was what was assessed. She commented that you needed to look at the
use of an area and the elevations of birds flying then assess the potential for
collision. She advised that they used a
location of flights model agreed with SNH eg using the Hen harriers and
Owls. She referred to talk about the
Golden Eagle and she said that there was a lot of evidence to suggest that
these birds avoided going anyway near wind farms. She advised that the satellite tagged female
was pretty much avoiding wind farms and that the majority of locations sited
over a wind farm were above the turbine level.
She said that the satellite tag data provided huge data all the time and
that they had spent 2 years on this site collecting all of this data. She confirmed that they were bird
enthusiasts.
Councillor
Redman asked the Applicant and Objectors if they had any concerns about the impact
on local infrastructure eg local road.
Mr Clouston advised that there had been no formal objection from
Roads. He confirmed that they would do a
condition survey of the roads before any work was carried out so that they
could carry out any repairs at the end of the works. He said that during construction there would
be a peak period of traffic which would be short in terms of impact. Mr MacDonald advised that there would be a
significant impact on infrastructure. He
advised that the existing roads to Dunoon were not capable of taking on this
additional traffic. He also advised that
some upgrades would be required such as bigger pylons and more cabling.
Councillor
McCuish sought and received confirmation from Planning that the wind farm
location was close to, but not in the NSA.
Mrs Knox advised that the windfarm was within an Area of Panoramic
Quality but not within the NSA.
Councillor
McCuish commented that despite the wonderful scenery Cowal was still
experiencing a population decline. He
asked the supporters and objectors if they thought this proposal would make
that better or worse. Mrs Carlow said
she hoped that it would improve the population as a result of the money that
would come from the wind farm. She
advised that there a huge shortage of accommodation for visitors walking the
Cowal Way. She added that she hoped that
the hotel could come back into being and if the school could be made more
attractive. She said that more money
would attract families to the area. Mr
MacDonald advised that the scale and size of this wind farm would have a
negative impact on the economic future of the local communities. He advised that he had spoken to community
members who have advised they would leave the area if this went ahead. He referred to infrasound, noise, disturbance
to ecological life and questioned that if there was a choice between living next
to a mega 30mw wind farm of next to a mountain, where would you live if you did
not know what the potential health hazards were. He commented on the very few full time
employees relating to the Cruach Mhor Wind Farm, and advised that those
employees were not from the local community.
He said that he thought a project of this size in that area would reduce
the number of people moving into the area.
He said it would clearly have a negative impact on green tourism and
wildlife tourism. Mr McNaughton said
that any money going into any area was a matter of conjecture as you needed to
have people that could apply for the money.
He said that the money was not massive compared to what the Applicant
would make. He suggested that other
businesses would be affected by their contribution and asked if this would
result in other businesses springing up against them. As far as beds went, he advised that there
were plenty at the Glendaruel Caravan Park.
He said that there was not a Community Trust in place to receive this
money and that you had to be very careful not to compromise other businesses in
the area. He advised that there was a
great story to tell in Cowal which has been seen as a dead end to some
people. He advised of the need to
attract more people to the area and that the NSA Protection Group was committed
to doing that. He referred to Argyll’s
Secret Coast. He said you had to be
careful to protect the indigenous businesses in the area and that these should
not be compromised going forward.
Councillor Reid advised that just being outside the NSA did not make a
difference and that this proposal would still have an impact on it. He commented on the area being dependent on
tourism and said it was clear that putting turbines close to the NSA would have
a detrimental impact on the economy. Dr Hamilton advised that there was no
depopulation on Mull unlike other parts of Argyll. He said that for eco-tourism Mull was one of
the best places to go to. He commented
that it was a victim of its own success as it was difficult to get onto the
island during the high season, as was Islay.
He commented that Cowal had so many special qualities and that the
hospitality industry had yet to cotton on yet.
He advised of the need to develop infrastructure in the long term for
eco-tourism.
Councillor
Freeman sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that the nearest
turbine to the NSA was 1.8 km away.
Councillor
Freeman sought and received confirmation from Planning that they had no
concerns about cumulative impact.
Councillor
Freeman sought and received confirmation from Planning that when talking about
lighting, this was navigational lighting and not spot lighting.
Councillor
Freeman referred to comments made that lighting would not have an impact on the
NSA as you would only see the lights when it was dark. He sought comment from Planning on this. Mrs Knox advised that she did not think there
has been any assessment done on the impact by light on the NSA in the
dark. In terms of the Local Development
Plan, she advised that areas were designated as dark skies areas and that the
only one in Argyll was the Isle of Coll.
She confirmed that the Kyles of Bute NSA did not have dark skies status.
Councillor
Freeman referred to concerns about drinking water and advised that he would
assume if there were concerns Scottish Water or Environmental Health would have
highlighted these. Mrs Knox confirmed
that Scottish Water and Environmental Health had raised no such concerns.
Councillor
Freeman sought and received confirmation from the Planning Officer that there
was no clear evidence nor research that the wind farm would have a negative
impact on tourism and that was why she used the word “may” in her report. She advised that the main concern was the
impact the development would have on the NSA which was in itself a tourist
attraction.
Councillor
Freeman referred to the RSPB not raising any objection and asked Mr Warden if
the Raptor Group worked with the RSPB and if they had any discussions about
this proposal with them. Mr Warden
confirmed that they did speak and work with the RSPB and that they had
highlighted to them the threat to the Hen Harrier. He advised that the RSPB did not have the
sort of data that the Raptor Group had.
He said that they had individuals in Cowal throughout the seasons and
that their data was far greater than the RSPB’s. He pointed out that the satellite tagging
information showed a considerable amount of activity of species which was not
available to the RSPB and suggested that may have been why they did not object
to this application.
Councillor
Freeman asked Mr Warden if his group had objected to the Cruach Mhor Wind
Farm. Mr Warden advised that he could
not say as he has not been Chair of this Group for that long and the Group has
only been in existence for 20 years. He
said he was not sure when Cruach Mhor was finished.
Councillor
Redman asked the Applicant if there were contingency plans for decommissioning
and asked the objectors if they had any concerns about this. Mr Clouston advised that detail about
decommissioning was contained within their Environmental Statement. He confirmed that there was money there to
remove the turbines if the site was renewed.
Mr MacDonald said that decommissioning protocols could only be expressed
as entirely inadequate. He said that the
report did not contain a lot of detail on this.
He referred to the material used to make the turbines and said there
would be a lot of non-recyclable waste from them. He referred to the foundations which would be
considerable as the turbines required to be anchored to them. He said that they could be broken up but they
did not have to be and could be left on the hill. He referred to geo hydrological issues and
waste contamination to the water supplies for houses in Glendaruel. He said that the regulatory regime that
covered decommissioning was woefully inadequate and that the Scottish
Government needed to look at setting out a more appropriate decommissioning
process.
Councillor
Moffat commented on seeing a lot of applications for wind farms. She advised that when they first started out
they were smaller structures which were now being replaced with larger more
efficient turbines. She asked if the
foundations could be reused. Mr Clouston
advised that it would cause more environmental damage to try and remove the
foundations. He advised that it was
better to keep the foundations in place below one metre with land put on top of
it. He said the carbon payback was 2.5
years.
Councillor
Kinniburgh referred to the consultee response by the Loch Lomond and Trossachs
National Park and noted that they had not objected to the proposal. He asked if the hills they referred to as
Grahams were within the National Park.
Mrs Knox advised that it was her understanding that Beinn Mhor was within
the National Park and that this the hill they referred to as being a Graham.
The
Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed, to adjourn the meeting at 12.40 pm for
lunch.
The
Committee reconvened at 1.20 pm
The
Chair welcomed everyone back to the meeting and continued with questions.
Councillor
Kinniburgh asked again about the hills known as Grahams. Mrs Knox advised that Fiona Johnstone from
the National Park was in attendance and that she had sought clarification from
her on their response. She advised that
the National Park had not objected to the proposal because there would only be
a localised impact on a small area of the park. . She advised that although they had concerns
about that small area they were not objecting as it did not impact on the whole
park. She said that they did have
concerns about visibility from the Grahams but because they only took up a
small area of the National Park this was not sufficient for them to object.
Councillor
Kinniburgh commented that he thought the consultee response appeared to be
contradictory and he asked the Applicant to comment as he had referred to the
National Park having no objections. Mr
Clouston invited Linda Thomson, their Landscape and Visual Impact Assessor to
respond. Ms Thomson advised that in
relation to the National Park’s opinion they have said that there were moderate
affects and the hills they were talking about were over 2,000 feet. She said that it was her understanding for
something to have an effect on the National Park it would have to have an
overall effect on the integrity of the National Park and looking at the ZTVs
the proposal actually limited the effect on the National Park as a whole. She said that it came down to those 3 localised
hill tops referred to in their response.
She confirmed that collectively these 3 hills were Grahams.
Councillor
Kinniburgh asked if there were hills over 2,000 feet out with the National
Park. Ms Thomson advised that yes there
were hills across Scotland over 2,000 feet.
Councillor
Blair raised concerns about the quality of responses from consultees and the
non-attendance at hearings by consultees.
Mr Reppke advised that the Council could not compel anyone to attend a
hearing and that lots of organisations had their own criteria on whether or not
to attend. He also added that contributors
today had no way of knowing what questions would be asked by Members.
Councillor
Kinniburgh sought and received confirmation from Planning that the infra-red
light on the turbines would only be seen by military aircraft and that the MOD
have requested this lighting. She
advised that there would likely be infra-red and solid light.
SUMMING UP
Planning
Sandra
Davies briefly picked up on a couple of issues that came up. She referred to the Applicant making comment
regarding a shared ownership proposal of 10% and advised that there has been
nothing before the Council that would indicate that this was a well advanced
proposal with any quantifiable benefit.
She advised that the Members of the Committee should therefore attach
little to no weight to it as a material consideration in the determination of
this application. She also referred to
discussion on the impacts of wind farms on tourism and advised that this
research was based on wind farms which have been in the past generally well
sited. She said that should
inappropriately sited wind farms be approved in sensitive locations this may
affect the impacts on tourism in the future.
She commented that whilst her colleague had noted the number of turbines
would be medium scale, Members should note that the height of the turbines
would be very large scale in terms of the Council’s Landscape Wind Energy
Capacity Study.
She
advised that planning was not black and white and that it was about balancing
different competing issues and putting the right development in the right
place. The adopted Local Development
Plan (LDP) and associated guidance provides policies and guidance on the
various issues which require to be considered when determining applications.
She
advised that arguments have been heard today on the importance of renewable
energy and the LDP is supportive of this but these wind farm developments need
to be located on the right sites. The
Kyles of Bute NSA is one of only 2 NSAs across the whole of the country. NSAs
cover only 13% of Scotland. Both
Planners and SNH are of the view that this wind farm would have unacceptable
impacts on the special qualities and integrity of this NSA which would not be
capable of being mitigated. A
development which does not protect the environmental for future generations
cannot be regarded as sustainable.
In
conclusion the application is recommended for refusal for 4 reasons – adverse
effects on NSA, landscape effects, visual effects and tourism effects.
Finally,
if Members are minded to approve this application Scottish Ministers must be
notified due to SNH’s objection on the impacts on the Kyles of Bute NSA.
Applicant
Kari Clouston
Mr
Clouston said that they had done their best to inform the community of what
their proposals were and that it was evident that some have been
misinformed. He advised that Mr
McNaughton had said the turbines would be 170 m wrong. He said this was not correct and that they
would be 58 m long.
Linda Thomson
Ms
Thomson provided further information on landscape and visual impacts referring
to the ZTV that the Members had before them.
She commented that this ZTV was one of the smallest she had ever seen
and that the only other small one was for Cruach Mhor wind farm. She said that Mr MacDonald was correct to
say that there were 20 viewpoints. She
said that these viewpoints were selected to show the locations where there was
likely to be significant effects so it was not unusual that these were the
locations you would be shown the wind farm from. She referred to Mr MacDonald saying there
was significant impact from 15 viewpoints.
She advised that this was not the case and that that it was 8 view
points and that these had been specially selected because they were the most
likely to be significantly affected.
Looking at the ZTV in terms of the NSA, she commented on hearing about
the effect on the special qualities of the NSA. She advised there was a very specific test
against very special qualities and that it was the effect on these special
qualities of which there were 8. She
pointed out that 4 of these had very little to do with the turbines beyond the
boundary of the NSA. She said that there
were 2 very specific ones where the turbines would be sited – views to the
Kyles of Bute and the Bute landscape - beyond that it did not affect key views
within the NSA.
She
referred to the LWEC Study which assessed the location of the site being highly
sensitive to wind farms of a large scale.
She pointed out that large scale was up to 200 m which was considerably
bigger than what was being discussed here.
She advised that the landscape character type was extensive and that the
development should be considered on its own merits and on its own landscape
character type.
She
referred to discussion about mitigation and advised that in addition to looking
at the landscape and the visual impact it was her job to look at how a job can
be put in place and the design of it.
She advised that they had done a lot of micro siting and that it was the
best that it could be.
Supporters
William Carlow
Mr
Carlow advised that if Argyll and Bute Council was keen to be seen to be
progressive in putting in alternative renewable energy sources then this site
had all the infrastructure in place. He
referred to a lack of cycle paths. He
commented that people walking on the hills had no tracks to follow and that all
they had was peat hags and large tussock which were very uncomfortable to walk
on. He advised that routes through the
new farm would provide areas for people to walk and take picnics and that this
would more likely have a positive rather than negative effect on tourism.
Objectors
Councillor Alan Reid
Councillor
Reid advised that this Committee has always been very careful to grant wind
farm applications in the right places and that they have made a contribution to
climate change by granting wind farms and hydro schemes in the right places. He said that this was not an acceptable place
to put a wind farm and that the Committee should take the advice from Planning
and SNH to not build these giant wind turbines so close to the iconic Kyles of
Bute NSA. He acknowledged the need for
far more renewables to stop climate change but there was a need to build these
in the right place. He advised that
there was no need to build a wind farm so close to the NSA to achieve enough
renewables to mitigate against climate change. He urged the Committee to reject
this proposal and asked the Applicant to find another site which did not impact
on NSAs.
John McNaughton
Mr
McNaughton referred to one of the Councillors asking earlier about
tourism. He advised that some would say
it would not affect tourism and others would say it would. He said that any reasonable person would go
with the latter. He asked that if it did
not affect tourism, why the National Park were taking down pylons. He advised that there would be a local impact
on tourism and that there was no need to use the wider stats of the
country. He referred to Ms Thomson
advising that the ZTV was the smallest she had ever seen. He suggested this was because of the nature
of the small NSA area which was fiord like.
He referred to the Ruel Estuary and said that looking back from the view
point you would see where one of the turbines would be sited. He commented on mitigation and said that it
was obvious that mitigation was not possible in any way to offset the impact of
the turbines. He referred to Ms Thomson
cherry picking from the LWECS report when she mentioned 200 m turbines, as if
theirs was somehow small. He said that
to cherry pick further from the report it was stated that only turbines up to
50 m would be acceptable in these areas.
He referred to large multi-national wind farm companies seeking more
land based sites as it was more politically expedient. They were actively seeking more in Scotland
for that reason as this was a politically favourable climate at the moment. He advised that the local impact was the
problem here. The Applicant was told
from the beginning about the impact and told not to proceed but was carrying on
regardless because of the wider political climate. He referred to access to the
site coming through Forestry Commission ground and commented that he was not
sure if permission for access had been granted yet. He referred to the Forestry Commission being
a Government body like SNH and commented on two Government bodies in conflict
over this proposal. He said that he
did not know what the Forestry Commission stood to gain financially from this
if they did grant permission over their ground. He referred to one of the Councillors asking
about siting the development elsewhere and he said that he did not think the
Applicant had answered this question very well. He commented on where the turbines would be
sited and questioned why it was at this particular spot and wondered if it was
because it was windier. He pointed out
that the Met Mast had only been put up in the last 2 weeks. He referred to the scale and size of the
turbines which, with technical improvements and their size made them more
efficient. He said that it was very
important, due to the size of these turbines, that they were sited in the most
appropriate place. He referred to
viewing the sky at night and said it was rubbish to say that there have only
been 23 nights over the last year when the night sky has been clear. He suggested that during the night the lights
would make the turbines more prominent.
He referred to MacFarlane’s Lantern which made the night almost
daylight. He commented that the view
point was just as busy on a clear night.
He also referred to dark skies status and advised that local residents
were investigating dark skies status for the local area with a view to
increasing tourism to the area. He
commented on the need for a separate planning permission for the pylons and
said that these would be under half a mile from the National Park. He referred to the condition of the roads and
the size of the turbines to be transported on it. He said that this was an Area of Panoramic
Quality with steep ridges and that the introduction of a man made element in
the APQ could only be detrimental to the visitor experience. He moved that the application be rejected.
David Warden
Mr
Warden advised that habitats there at the moment were very precious. He advised of the need to protect the birds
that were there and that it was now known about the presence and activities of
Golden Eagles where the turbines would be adjacent to. He advised that the collision risk will have
increased substantially and that the Applicant’s statement about calculating
for collisions would need to be recalibrated in view of the additional information
we were getting from satellite transmissions.
He said there would be an increased risk of collision especially in the
cold weather. He advised that even if
collisions did not occur the Golden Eagle would be displaced to try and avoid
the turbines. He advised that the
collision risk for the Short Eared Owl and the Hen Harrier could not be avoided
and that the Hen Harrier was very susceptible especially during spring. He said they would lose a substantial amount
of their habitat and which may make it unsustainable for foraging in the future. He said Cowal may lose the Hen Harrier as a
breeding species. He advised that he
could not see this being worth the damage.
He referred to the Sea Eagle and the reliance on eco-tourism. He saw no reason to change what we had
now. He advised that eco-tourism would
provide jobs and investment at a much higher level than the proposal by the
Applicants. He asked that the
application be rejected on that basis.
Reg MacDonald
Mr
MacDonald advised of local democracy depending on transparency. He referred to money and the financial
projects in relation to the project – and said none were forthcoming. He asked what this project would be worth in
the context of its revenue to the Ardtaraig Estate landowners or
Infinergy. He said that depending on who
you consulted with it would be £800,000 per mw per annum. He asked if that meant this project would
make revenue of £24m per year, close to half a billion over 25 years. He said he did not know and that some due
diligence was required. He said those
sums of money were so huge and so significant they could have a corrupting
influence on our conduct at times. He
referred to the amount being offered to the community. He referred to ornithology and thanked the
presenters for their in-depth knowledge and presentations. He referred to this unique mainland eco
system with huge opportunities for eco-tourism which would be sustainable and
would help local employment. He referred
to the various view points and the visual impacts and said that he would have
to agree to disagree with Infinergy. He
referred to the Environmental report which, he said, did state there were 15
viewpoints that would be significantly affected. He said it was their report and not his. He referred to comments about roads and path
ways on the hills. He pointed out that
the Stronfield Forest was operated by the Colintraive and Glendaruel Trust and
that they had plans for these types of activities so this was not a valid
concern. He referred to eco-tourism and
tourism in general and acknowledged that there were a lot of reports out
there. He said that he had taken the
time and effort to meet people and attended local events in Cowal and Bute such
as the Cowal Games. He said at these
events visitors could not believe that we would do something like this to our
land. He said that this was the wrong
project in the wrong place. He advised
that this was a question of applying Scottish Planning Policy and the policies
of the Local Development Plan. He
advised that the Head of Planning had clearly demonstrated that the proposed
Ardtaraig Wind farm conflicted with many policies. He advised that it was his opinion there were
no material considerations which would justify setting aside those policies and
that there could be no competent motion to approve this application. He submitted that this application be
rejected.
When
asked, everyone that had taken part and were still present confirmed that they
had received a fair hearing.
In
terms of the Councillor’s National Code of Conduct Councillor Reid left the
meeting at this point.
DEBATE
Councillor
McCuish drew Members’ attention to the last paragraph on page 20 of the
planning report which stated “Argyll and Bute Council will resist any
development in, or affecting, National Scenic Areas that would have an adverse
effect on the integrity of the area, or that would undermine the Special
Qualities of the area unless it is adequately demonstrated that any significant
adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated
are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of
national importance”. He said that it
was his opinion that this application ticked 2 of these boxes – social and
economic. He advised of hearing a lot
about protecting the wonderful scenery and wildlife but had not heard once
about protecting the workforce. He
acknowledged that tourism was vitally important but said the tourists all went
away in the winter. He advised that he
was struggling with the application and took into account that the community
were very much against it.
Councillor
Trail thanked everyone for their presentations, some of which, he said were
quite educational. He said that he
wished to remind Mr MacDonald that planning was about land use and that it did
not matter whether a company made a lot of money or not and it was about it
being an appropriate site for development.
He
advised that for him it boiled down to between visual impact and the landscape
against the community benefit and renewable energy associated with climate change.
He thanked Mr and Mrs Carlow for their presentations but felt that in this case
the landscape had to be protected and while he believed the ZTV was very narrow
it just happened to be in the wrong place in the sense that part of the Kyles
of Bute was in the ZTV area. At the
present minute, he said that it was a fine judgement to go on one side or the
other and that at present he was going to agree with the Planners.
Councillor
Redman said that they had to weigh up the benefits of tourism and the economic
benefits to the local area. He said that
he was not convinced that the new turbines would benefit tourism and that he
thought that they would have a negative effect.
He said that you could not use moral blackmail about global warming
damage to future generations to get us to approve an application. He said he had to go with the economy versus
the environmental impact. He referred to
the 800 plus objections from the general public if we took account of the
petition and 300 plus if we did not. He said that he was minded to reject the
application.
Councillor
Taylor thanked everyone for their contribution which helped to inform
debate. He commented that he saw wind
farms across the country and that he was not offended by them but he said that
such developments should not be detrimental to the National Scenic assets in
Argyll or elsewhere. He advised that he
was certainly moved by SNH’s obvious position as he was only aware of one other
time when they have objected to an application.
Despite many representations from SNH it has only been twice that they
have constituted an objection and he was moved by that. He advised that he had heard nothing to say
we should compromise the landscape. He
advised that as much as he would like the community to benefit from the wind
farm, they must protect the community’s asset.
Councillor
Forrest said it had been really good to hear all the different views. She said the decision was not about their
general documented support for renewable energy or their commitment to
development, it was about this specific application in this special place. Having listened carefully regarding this, she
said she was content with the planning recommendation to refuse. She advised of the need to protect the NSA
and she commented that SNH very rarely objected.
Councillor
Hardie thanked all who had come to the hearing. He advised that he was also
minded to refuse and this was for 3 reasons: 1 – the high number of objections,
2 – community benefit not being a material consideration, and 3 – the objection
from SNH.
Councillor
Moffat commented that often when she sees an application she thinks that it
will be straightforward but that is never the case. In this instance, she said that it has been
the worst case. She said there was not
one of them that did not understand the need for a decent environmental
programme and the issues about wind turbines etc. She advised that there was a need to put
these aside as we have to try to preserve what we have for the future. She said that she was taken aback as seldom
did SNH say anything against a proposal.
She advised that for them to come across with this argument would give
her a great deal of discomfort to go any other way. She confirmed that she would also like to see
this proposal turned down.
She
acknowledged that something needed to be done to encourage jobs. She commented that people for the jobs for
this type of proposal were generally brought in. She said that she did not see a benefit from
this other than it would be nice to have clean energy. She said that the size of these turbines was
not appropriate for this landscape and that she could not see another reason
not to see no. She apologised to those
who supported it.
Councillor
Freeman advised that he was minded to agree with Councillor McCuish. He referred to the community being opposed to
it but said that with all wind farm applications there were always a fair
number of objections and support. He
commented on none of the Community Councils raising any objections and pointed
out that they were tasked with representing the views of their communities so
none of them objecting was a major factor for him. He noted that apart from local objection,
there had only been one objection from a statutory consultee – from SNH. Looking at the layout of the turbines and
referring to the site visit, he said that he did not believe they would have a
significant impact on the NSA and that he certainly had sympathy for the
proposal.
Councillor
Blair said that he had Cowal in his heart and that he was keen that Cowal
became a premier location for tourists.
He advised that looking at the application, he did not have a problem
with the wind turbines and that he took a wider view. He said that he was thinking about Mozambique
and the effect we were having on the other side of the world as a result of
what we did here. He referred to the
objectors and supporters and commented that contributions had been received
from all over the world. He advised that
he saw this as a global issue. He
commented that if you climbed Beinn Mhor and looked towards Islay you would see
wind turbines in Mid Argyll. He
commented that he liked living in a vibrant rural community and that he saw
wind turbines as part of that. He
referred to decommissioning and said this was more of an issue for Torness and
Hunterston. He said that he would like
to support this application and proposed a continuation to seek appropriate
guidance on a competent motion.
Councillor
Douglas thanked everyone for speaking. She
said that a lot had been said about the balance of principles, the national
environment, investment and climate change both from a local and national
perspective. She said that climate
change was an international issue. With
regard to the community she said this was a huge thing for a rural area. She commented that the money paid to the
community could be huge. She said she
did not think this was the wrong project in the wrong location. She thought it was a good project and whether
it was in the right place or not she was not sure. She referred to the turbines increasing in
size and commented that the hills were not increasing in size. She said it was not about looking back and
being used to what we have. She advised
of the need to move forward and balance local tourism with climate change. She said she was struggling with balancing
that.
Councillor
MacMillan advised that he had studied this application very carefully and that
while he was in favour of wind farms in the correct locations, there was also a
need to preserve the valuable viewpoints.
He advised that this location was the most valuable and known all over
the world and that he would not like to see a wind farm encroaching on this
area. He confirmed that he would not be
supporting the application.
Councillor
Kinniburgh confirmed that he had listened to all that had been said. He referred to the Planning Officer saying
planning was not black and white and he said that was generally the case. He said there were aspects of this
application that were not black and white eg tourism could be argued. He said he did agree with the Applicant’s
view of the ZTV as compared to some we have looked at there were limited views
of this wind farm in this particular case.
He advised, however, that it was clear to him that the Kyles of Bute NSA
was one of the best views you could get in Argyll and Bute and it certainly
fell into that category in Scotland, if not one of the best, the best. He said that he had no hesitation in
supporting the planning in what they have said.
Motion
To
agree to refuse planning permission for the reasons stated in the report of
handling.
Moved
by Councillor David Kinniburgh, seconded by Councillor Alastair Redman
Amendment
To
agree to continue consideration of this application in order to seek guidance
on a competent Motion to approve.
Moved
by Councillor Gordon Blair, seconded by Councillor Lorna Douglas
The
Motion was carried by 8 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly.
DECISION
The
Committee agreed to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:
1. Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area (NSA)
Argyll and Bute Council will
resist any development in, or affecting, National Scenic Areas that would have
an adverse effect on the integrity of the area, or that would undermine the Special
Qualities* of the area unless it is adequately demonstrated that any
significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has
been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic
benefits of national importance.
It is considered that
the impacts of Ardtaraig wind farm on the Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area
(NSA) would compromise the objectives of the designation and the overall
integrity of the NSA for the following reasons: the wind farm's location and
scale in close proximity to this relatively small NSA would adversely affect
the appreciation of the special qualities by affecting their landscape context
and wider landscape setting; given the small extent of this NSA, the scale of
the turbines is also likely to significantly detract from key views from within
and of the NSA; the proposal will
introduce a large, prominent wind energy development into the views and setting
of the NSA, appearing incongruous on the skyline at the northern end of the
NSA; and, there is currently no noticeable wind energy development in this
nationally important landscape and the adjacent uplands provide an open and
undeveloped skyline and setting for many highly scenic views and coastal
panoramas.
It is considered that
the proposal would result in a significant adverse effect on the special
qualities of the Kyles of Bute NSA and that it will undermine its
integrity. This environmental consideration is of such magnitude
that it cannot be reasonably offset by the projected direct or indirect
benefits which a development of this scale would make, including the
achievement of climate change related commitments.
Having due regard
to the above it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the provisions
of SG LDP ENV 12 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs); SG LDP
ENV 14 – Landscape; Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable
Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 –
Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the
Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; and LDP 6 -
Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local
Development Plan; Scottish Planning Policy (2014); The future of energy in
Scotland: Scottish Energy Strategy (December 2017); Onshore wind policy
statement (January 2017); SNH Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape
Guidance, (August 2017); and ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity
Study’ SNH and A&BC (2017);
2. Landscape Effects
Argyll and Bute Council will
resist any development in, or affecting, National Scenic Areas that would have
an adverse effect on the integrity of the area, or that would undermine the
Special Qualities* of the area unless it is adequately demonstrated that any
significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has
been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic
benefits of national importance. Argyll and Bute Council will also resist
development in, or affecting, an Area of Panoramic Quality where its scale,
location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of
the landscape unless it is adequately demonstrated that any significant adverse
effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are
clearly outweighed by social, economic or environmental benefits of community
wide importance.
The receiving landscape’s overall high landscape and visual
sensitivity is confirmed by the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity
(2017) (LWECS). This report categorises
the receiving character type (Steep Ridgeland and Mountains (1)) as being of the
highest sensitivity in the regional combined sensitivity score for Argyll and
Bute. For this landscape character type the LWECS states: "there is no
scope to accommodate turbines >50m high as additional new developments
within this landscape without significant effects occurring on a number of key
sensitivity criteria." These hills are notably rugged forming distinctive
ridges, increasing their sensitivity. Sensitivity is heightened due to the
close proximity to the valued NSA designation, and their location within the
APQ. These hills are especially important in providing a wider backdrop to the
NSA and are highly visible from the NSA. This skyline is currently not
noticeably affected by built structures. It is perceived visually as a
semi-natural northern boundary to the NSA.
It is considered that
the wind farm would change this important landscape characteristic due to the
location of the turbines on the defining 'ridge', their prominence, scale,
colour and movement. The proposal would create a new, competing focus on the
horizon which would detract from the existing composition and the focus of the
Kyles. They would also intrude on the views and setting of the coastal fringes
of the NSA, including spectacular panoramic views over the Kyles from the
A8003. The wind farm would significantly detract from the dramatic scenery and
setting of the NSA and the special qualities of the APQ would also be diminished
by turbines sited on this visually prominent hill. This environmental
consideration is of such magnitude that it cannot be reasonably offset by the
projected direct or indirect benefits which a development of this scale would
make, including the achievement of climate change related commitments.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the
proposal is contrary to the provisions of 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; Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy; LDP
STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development
Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and
Enhancement of our Environment; and LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth
of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; Scottish
Planning Policy (2014); The future of energy in Scotland: Scottish Energy
Strategy (December 2017); Onshore wind policy statement (January 2017); SNH
Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance, (August 2017); and
‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ SNH and A&BC (2017);
3. Visual Effects
Argyll and Bute Council will
resist any development in, or affecting, National Scenic Areas that would have
an adverse effect on the integrity of the area, or that would undermine the
Special Qualities* of the area unless it is adequately demonstrated that any
significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has
been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic
benefits of national importance. Argyll and Bute Council will also resist
development in, or affecting, an Area of Panoramic Quality where its scale,
location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of
the landscape unless it is adequately demonstrated that any significant adverse
effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are
clearly outweighed by social, economic or environmental benefits of community
wide importance.
The proposal will potentially be visible from a wide range of
views from within and to the Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area. It is very prominently sited on a ridge
providing the immediate setting to the NSA.
It will significantly intrude on the defining skyline which encircles
and visually contains the northern end of the Kyles of Bute area, an important
component of many of the area’s views and panoramas. Areas of visibility of the proposal often
coincide with areas enjoyed for recreation frequented by both visitors and
residents in particular the popular and highly scenic landscape of the Kyles of
Bute NSA, key approach routes and popular hill views from part of the adjacent
Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park.
The turbines will impinge on and detract from views from a range of key
viewpoints on the shores including potentially scattered settlement, key
routes, hill views, and also from the water, popular for recreation. These effects would be greatest, but not
limited to, within 10km of the proposal.
It is likely to become a competing focus for people
enjoying views, from within and to the NSA, due to its size, contrast of scale,
incongruous character and rotating blades on the immediate containing
skyline. These criteria combined with
the proximity of views would result in a significant adverse impact on a range
of key panoramas and views, important to people’s experience of this
landscape. It is considered that the
proposal would have a significant adverse visual effects on the following:
- Views from the water’s edge including potentially scattered
settlement (no assessment viewpoint) as represented by, for example, VP 10
(Cowal Way)
- Water based views as represented by, for example, VP 11
(Kyles of Bute NSA) where scenic coastal views are strongly contained and
channelled towards the wind farm by the steep - sided hill slopes. The wind farm is framed and would become the
focus of the view. The Kyles of Bute
area (Loch Ridden/Ruel and the Kyles) are very popular for recreational sailing
and sea kayaking with anchorages at Caladh Harbour, Salthouse and Ormidale (Craig
Lodge) and sailing schools nearby. The
proposal would appear prominent on the skyline of hills which provide the wider
setting to these seascapes. This would
be experienced by, for example: recreational water users on the narrow channels
of the Kyles/Loch Ruel where the coast is highly visible.
- Views from parts of key routes including the A8003/NCR75
and A886/B836, and the promoted Cowal Way Long Distance Route, which lies close
to the coast as represented by, for example VP 8, 2, 5 and 10.
- Key views from elevated locations including Creag Dubh, the
NTS viewpoint (layby off the A8003) as represented by, for example, VP8. The proposal will appear prominent and
incongruous on the skyline.
- Hill views popular with walkers e.g. Cruach nan Caorach as
represented by VP7
- Views of the NSA from near the boundary are also
significantly affected including south of Kames as represented by VP14, VP2
B836 a key approach to the NSA from Dunoon and elevated views in the LLTNP
including popular hills as represented by VP9 Beinn Mhor. These views are important in providing
residents and visitors an appreciation of the richness of this scenic
landscape.
- Views from the northern end of Bute as represented by VP20
are also adversely affected and may be underrated in the ES.
The foregoing
environmental considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be
reasonably offset by the projected direct or indirect benefits which a
development of this scale would make, including the achievement of climate
change related commitments.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the
proposal is contrary to the provisions of 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; Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy; LDP
STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development
Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and
Enhancement of our Environment; and LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth
of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; Scottish
Planning Policy (2014); The future of energy in Scotland: Scottish Energy
Strategy (December 2017); Onshore wind policy statement (January 2017); SNH
Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance, (August 2017); and
‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ SNH and A&BC (2017).
4.
Tourism and Recreation Effects
As detailed in reason for refusal
no.1, the proposal would result in a significant adverse effect on the special
qualities of the Kyles of Bute NSA which will undermine its integrity.
The presence of adverse landscape
and visual impacts in the Kyles of Bute NSA would suggest that the development
may influence public attitudes to a point where tourists might become dissuaded
from visiting. This is supported by SPP
2014 which deems windfarms in National Scenic Areas to be unacceptable
ostensibly as a consequence of their scenic sensitivity to large scale development
and their value to Scotland’s tourist economy.
Whilst the proposed windfarm is not within the NSA, it will be visible
from within these areas and an inappropriately scaled and sited development
will raise similar issues in relation scenic sensitivity and capacity to absorb
large scale development.
Having due regard to the above, the proposal poses adverse
impacts on tourism and recreation and is therefore inconsistent with the
provisions of: SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access
to the Outdoors; 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 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; and SG 2 Renewable Energy
of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, Scottish Planning Policy and
the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect.
(Reference:
Report by Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services dated 11 January
2019, supplementary report number 1 dated 21 January 2019 and supplementary
report number dated 21 March 2019, submitted)
Supporting documents: