Our ref:
Your ref:
PCS/118269
The Scottish Government
Energy and Climate Change Directorate
If telephoning ask for:
By email only to: EconsentsAdmin@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
01 March 2012
Lorna Maclean
Dear Sir/Madam
The Electricity Act 1989
The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations
2000
Addendum to Section 36 application to construct and operate Kilgallioch Windfarm
(Arecleoch Phase 2)
Thank you for your consultation letter dated 26 January 2012.
We have previously provided responses to the proposal in letters dated 14 May 2010 and 15
October 2010 in which we made a number of recommendations and asked for planning conditions
to be attached to any consent granted. A number of the conditions asked for and
recommendations made remain relevant to the revised proposal and are outlined in section 1
below. A summary of these and any other additional recommendations/conditions is presented in
Annex 1.
Additionally, we provided specific comments on a draft Peat Management Plan in a letter dated 5
September 2011 and on the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) in a letter dated
7 October 2011, a copy of these responses is included as Annex 2. As these were comments on
draft plans any advice on these sections of the addendum are included in section 2 of this letter.
1.
Previously issued consultation recommendations/conditions to be carried
forward
Wetland Ecology
1.1
We made the following comments regards wetland ecology in our letter of 15 October
2010.
1.
The revised Phase 1 and NVC maps are a significant improvement to that provided
in the ES. The presentation of the data can now be used to determine potential
impacts on wetland habitats. The maps show that the majority of the infrastructure
is located within the forest area which will be felled for the development. The
majority of wind farm infrastructure outside the forest area is located on M25, M23
and some M15 vegetation. The maps show that good quality vegetation and blanket
bog mesotopes have mostly been avoided.
2.
A number of turbines (T52, T56, T64, T110) are located in the forest area that also
includes good quality bog vegetation (M17 and M18). We would suggest micrositing
in these areas to avoid impacts on good quality vegetation.
3.
T127 is located on good quality bog vegetation that is not within a forest area. We
would suggest micrositing this turbine to avoid direct or indirect impacts on the good
quality vegetation.
4.
The revised maps showing peat depths across the site are a significant
improvement to that provided in the ES. The maps show that a large proportion of
wind farm infrastructure is located on peat deeper than 1m although areas of
deeper peat have mostly been avoided. T64, T110, and T74 are located on peat
with recorded depths of 3.7m, 3.8m, and 4m. We would suggest micro-siting these
turbines (and crane pads and access tracks) to avoid deep peat.
5.
T9 is located on peat with a recorded depth of 6m. Due to the limited length of the
peat probe (6m) used for the peat depth survey the peat could be deeper in this
area. We would recommend moving this turbine to avoid deep peat or using piling
for the turbine foundation to minimise the volume of excavated peat.
1.2
In relation to comment 3 above, T127 is still located on an area of good quality blanket bog.
It is still advised that impacts on the best quality bog vegetation are avoided as much as
possible through micro-siting the turbine, crane hardstanding and access track.
1.3
In relation to comments 4 and 5 above, a further peat survey has been completed at the
proposed locations of T64, T110, T74 and T9 (see Table 1, TA11.2). Although the peat
depth has reduced (T64 – from 3.7m to 3.3m, T110 – from 3.8m to 2.9m, T74 – from 4m to
2.9m, and T9 – from 6m to 2.2m) all four turbines are still located on deep peat. Further
recorded peat depth data is available for the access tracks leading to T64 and T65, T110,
T75, and T76, T77 and T79. Peat depths for the access tracks to T75, and T76, T77 and
T79 are noted to be between 2 and 2.5m. Peat depths for the access track to T64 and T65
is noted to be between 4 and 4.5m. Peat depths for the access track to T110 are noted to
be 3.8m.
1.4
Since the turbine location and the access tracks are located in areas with variable deep
peat it is recommended that the location of T65 and T110 (both turbines are on spur tracks
from main access tracks) are reconsidered or alternative construction methods for turbine
foundations are considered (e.g. piling). Also, T64 is located on a non-forested good quality
blanket bog area and T110 is located in an area of more open forest noted to have good
quality bog vegetation (see comment 2 above in italics). Relocating (or deleting) this
infrastructure would reduce the estimated volume of excavated peat for the development
and reduce impacts on biodiversity interests.
2.
Advice on new Addendum
Peat Management Plan
2.1
It was noted that the plan proposes filling borrow pits with excavated peat. There is no
discussion of how the hydrology of this peat in-fill will be maintained to stop it drying out
and resulting in habitat loss and the release of carbon. An additional concern here is that if
peat slurry without turves is utilized in this way, the borrow pits would become unsafe
areas. Proposals must be presented of how the borrow pits will be restored so that SEPA
can determine if it is an environmentally and ecologically acceptable use for the excavated
2.2
peat. Operational staff must also be consulted to ensure that current waste regulations
regarding the use of peat are being followed.
In section 5.2 of the Peat Management Plan general proposals for using excavated peat to
restore blanket bog are outlined. It is noted in this paragraph that ‘the ecological benefit is
therefore demonstrated’. It is important to highlight to the developer that SEPA will require
more detailed proposals for the use of peat in proposed restoration areas to determine if
there will be an ecological benefit. This cannot be determined based on the limited
information provided at this stage.
2.3
Proposals to restore areas of currently forested peat bog are briefly outlined in the Peat
Management Plan. One of the areas highlighted in Figure 2 (mire restoration areas) has a
turbine (T52) proposed to be located within it. It is recommended that an alternative area
for mire restoration is selected where there will be no direct or indirect impacts from wind
farm infrastructure.
2.4
The excavated peat (up to 1.2m) that will be used to cover cable trenches (which will then
be overlaid with peat turves) will raise the peat mound too high above the water table and
that the peat will then dry out. It needs to be ascertained why this amount of peat needs to
be used in this way.
2.5
The use of peat to dress the edge of floating roads (described as 0.7m of peat tapering to
0m at a distance of 2m from track) sounds reasonable, although possibly not justifiable
across the entire site. Furthermore it is important that peat turves are used on the surface
and not loose deep peat in these locations.
Ecology comments on the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP)
2.6
We previously raised concerns in our letter commenting on the Construction Environment
Management Plan (CEMP) dated 7 October 2011 regarding the acidification of
watercourses at this site and the possible impact on the Bladnoch SAC. SNH should be
consulted regards any potential impact on the SAC.
2.7
In our response of 7 October 2011 we also raised the issue of macro-invertebrate
monitoring to assess the baseline against which potential pollution impacts of the
vulnerable watercourses could be monitored. Technical Appendix A4.3 Indicative Water
Management Plan refers to surface water monitoring including the requirement for baseline
monitoring prior to construction. Although chemical monitoring including pH will be
included, there is no discussion regarding macro-invertebrate ecological monitoring (to
species/mixed taxon level of identification). No watercourse macro-invertebrate ecological
monitoring is discussed in the Ecology Chapter 9 either. Macro-invertebrate survey work
has been required at other wind farm development sites and in this case, due to the
watershed location of the site and the vast scale of the development, the importance of this
requirement increases.
2.8
Chapter 12 refers to watercourse crossings and it was noted that on Figure 12.3 there are
numerous new watercourse crossings as well as many existing watercourse crossings that
require upgrading. It is suggested that at the very least Cross Luce at Miltonise
downstream of the Pilwhirn Burn; Polbae Burn at Derry/Drummakibben and Tarf Water
downstream of the Loch Strand burn confluence should have this survey work completed
prior to construction and then repeated in spring and autumn during the construction phase.
Water Management Plan
2.9
The Water Management Plan should make reference to The Forest and Water Guidelines
5th Edition and The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011,
A Practical Guide, and any works should align with these guides.
2.10
Section 2.1 of the Water Management Plan states that silt traps will be installed in drainage
ditches downstream of felling areas. It is not clear whether these drainage ditches are
directly connected to other watercourses. Silt traps should be constructed off-line from
watercourses. SEPA should be consulted regards the details of the silt traps.
2.11
Although it indicates that all settlement lagoons will discharge to vegetated ground if this
changes and the lagoons discharge to a watercourse then this will require to be authorised
under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR).
Construction of access tracks should ensure that drainage does not discharge direct to
watercourses and should be discussed with SEPA. Any new culverting of watercourses or
upgrading of culverts on watercourses on 1:50000 scale map will require to be authorised
under CAR. If the bed of the burn is rock then a bottomless arch culvert or clear span
bridge should be used instead of a closed culvert to ensure free passage of fish is not
affected in watercourses that have a fishery interest.
Regulatory advice
Regulatory requirements
Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on our
website at www.sepa.org.uk/planning.aspx. If you are unable to find the advice you need for a
specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the operations team in your local SEPA
office at:
SEPA
Rivers House
Lochside Industrial Estate
Irongray Road
Dumfries
DG2 0JE
If you have any queries relating to this letter, please contact me by telephone on 01355 574 200 or
e-mail at planning.ek@sepa.org.uk.
Yours faithfully
Lorna Maclean
Senior Planning Officer
Planning Service
Copy to:
Arcus Renewables
2F Swinegate Court East
3 Swinegate
York,
YO1 8AJ
Appendix 1 – Recommendations and Conditions
Recommendations
Wetland Ecology
Micro-siting of T127 to avoid impacts on good quality blanket bog
The location of T65 and T110 are reconsidered or alternative construction methods for turbine
foundations are considered
Relocation or removal of T64
Peat Management Plan
Find an alternative area for mire restoration to the area which has turbine T52 located within it
where there will be no direct or indirect impacts from wind farm infrastructure.
Water Management Plan
The Water Management Plan should make reference to The Forest and Water Guidelines 5th
Edition and The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011, A
Practical Guide, and any works should align with these guides.
Bottomless arch culverts or clear span bridges should be used instead of closed culverts
Conditions
Peat Management Plan
As stated in section 5.1 of the Peat Management Plan a condition should be attached to any
consent granted requiring borrow pit restoration plans to be produced and issued to SEPA for
review prior to each borrow pit being opened up.
A planning condition should be attached to any planning consent granted requiring details of
proposals for the use of peat in proposed restoration areas to determine if there will be an
ecological benefit.
Before excavated peat is used to cover cable trenches, information should be submitted to
ascertain why this amount of peat needs to be used in this way.
Water Management Plan
Wind farm infrastructure should not have a direct or indirect impact on wetland habitats. Settlement
lagoons and silt traps should be located away from sensitive wetlands and constructed off-line
from watercourses. SEPA should be consulted regards the details of the silt traps.
Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP)
Prior to construction macro-invertebrate survey work should be undertaken, this should be
repeated in spring and autumn during the construction phase.
As stated in section 2 of the CEMP the final locations of proposed borrow pits should be agreed
with local operations staff prior to work commencing.
Wash out water from concrete delivery vehicles should be removed from site by an appropriately
licensed contractor.
As stated, in the CEMP the final design of the replacement bridge should be agreed in advance
with SEPA.
Appendix 2
Peat Management Plan
Dr Paul Phillips
Arcus Renewable Energy Consulting Ltd.
Suite 2F
Swinegate Court East
3 Swinegate
York
YO1 8AJ
Our ref:
PCS 115559
Your ref:
If telephoning ask for:
Lorna Maclean
5 September 2011
By email only to: paulp@arcusrenewables.co.uk
Dear Sir/Madam
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts
Kilgallioch Peat Management Plan
Thank you for your consultation email of 18 August 2011.
We would offer the following comments on the draft Peat Management Plan.
Advice for the planning authority
1.
Waste Management
1.1
The waste management proposals appear to be in line with current best practice and
SEPA’s guidance on developments on peat, however the developer may wish to take
cognisance of the following points.
Restoration of borrow pits (Section 6.2)
1.2
It is noted that the developer wishes to utilise some of the waste peat for the restoration of
borrow pits associated with the proposed development. While waste peat may be suitable
for this, the developer must demonstrate that the use of waste peat will have an ecological
benefit e.g. that the aim is to create or restore a habitat without causing a risk of harm to
human health or pose a risk to animals. Such use of waste peat may require the
registration of an exemption from the Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations
2011, under Schedule 1, Paragraph 9. SEPA should be consulted in detail before any
restoration of borrow pits takes place.
Enhancement of peat bog (Section 5)
1.3
The proposal to enhance sections of peat bog by the blocking of ditches from forestry
operations and the placement of turves must be undertaken with advice from Scottish
Natural Heritage. SEPA would require the registration of an exemption from the Waste
Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011, under Schedule 1, Paragraph 9 for
such an activity. The developer must demonstrate that the use of waste peat in such a
project would provide a definite ecological improvement.
2.
Ecology
2.1
We welcome the detailed maps showing peat profiles in relation to windfarm infrastructure.
We also welcome the efforts that have been made to micro-site access tracks and turbines;
with the total removal of some deep-peat located turbines from the lay-out and the
relocation of some tracks to shallower peat. However there remain some concerns as
follows:





The excavated peat (up to 1.2m) that will be used to cover cable trenches (which will then
be overlaid with peat turves) will raise the peat mound too high above the water table and
that the peat will then dry out. It needs to be ascertained why this amount of peat needs to
be used in this way.
It was noted that the plan proposes filling borrow pits with excavated peat. There is no
discussion of how the hydrology of this peat in-fill will be maintained to stop it drying out
and resulting in habitat loss and the release of carbon. An additional concern here is that
if peat slurry without turves is utilized in this way, the borrow pits would become unsafe
areas. Proposals must be presented of how the borrow pits will be restored so that SEPA
can determine if it is an environmentally and ecologically acceptable use for the
excavated peat. Operational staff must also be consulted that current waste regulations
regarding the use of peat are being followed.
The plan mentions the use of peat for habitat restoration, but further details of this
proposal will be required by SEPA to determine if the restoration proposals are
acceptable.
The use of peat to dress the edge of floating roads (described as 0.5m of peat tapering to
0m at a distance of 2m from track) sounds reasonable, although possibly not justifiable
across the entire site. Furthermore it is important that peat turves are used on the surface
and not loose deep peat in these locations.
Turbine 9 on deep peat (>4m) remains in place. Could this be relocated slightly to
adjacent, less deep peat area?
Regulatory advice
3.
Regulatory requirements
3.1
Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found
on our website at www.sepa.org.uk/planning.aspx. If you are unable to find the advice you
need for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the operations team in
your local SEPA office at:
SEPA
Rivers House
Lochside Industrial Estate
Irongray Road
Dumfries
DG2 0JE
Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP)
Our ref:
Your ref:
Dr Paul Phillips
Arcus Renewable Energy Consulting Ltd.
Suite 2F
Swinegate Court East
3 Swinegate
York
YO1 8AJ
PCS 115559
If telephoning ask for:
Lorna Maclean
7 October 2011
By email only to: paulp@arcusrenewables.co.uk
Dear Sir
Electricity Act 1989
Kilgallioch wind farm, South of Barrhill
We would offer the following comments on the Construction Environment Management Plan
(CEMP) for Kilgallioch windfarm.
1.
General
1.1
It should be noted that some of the catchment shown on figure one drain to Cross Water of
Luce and not Tarf Water catchment as stated.
2.
Section 1
Silt Trap Design
2.1
SEPA would recommend discharge from these facilities are to ground in the first instance.
It appears from the CEMP that the intention is to discharge to vegetated ground, we would
welcome this.
2.2
A combination of silt traps and settlement lagoons for any existing road drainage and road
drainage during track construction may be required. Experience from other sites recently
has shown that rock filled silt traps do not always remove enough sediment. Combination of
measures may also be required for road drainage in close proximity to watercourses. The
Agency would recommend that areas such as this are monitored by the ecological clerk of
works and discussed with us prior to installation.
3. Section 2
Borrow Pits
3.1
3.2
Final locations of proposed borrow pits should be agreed with local operations staff prior to
work commencing. As stated in section 2 of the CEMP.
Local operations team should be contacted to ascertain if any dewatering licences are
required for borrow pits.
4.
Section 3
Accidental spillage within construction compounds
4.1
This section mentions straw bales as a measure used to close off the drainage network in
the event of a spillage. We would not view this as an effective measure and would
recommend a penstock instead.
Wash out of empty concrete delivery vehicles
4.2
Under no circumstances would wash out water from concrete delivery vehicles be allowed
to be discharged to vegetated land to soak away. All wash out water must be removed
from site by an appropriately licensed contractor.
5. Section 4
Tarf Bridge Upgrade
5.1
The agency has no objections to this proposal however local office should be contacted to
agree design of the structure, method statements for the work and required authorisations
under CAR. As stated in the CEMP section 4 b) the final design of the replacement bridge
should be agreed in advance with SEPA.
6.
Ecology
6.1
The CEMP states that the only construction work within 50m of watercourses within the
Bladnoch SAC is the upgrading of the Tarf Bridge at 222320E 571700N but that the Polbae
and Tarf catchments will regularly have track construction and track upgrading works and
new crossing points constructed within 50m of the watercourses. The CEMP discusses the
prevention of sediment release into the wider hydrological system through the use of
settlement lagoons; however there are no details about what happens to the water from the
settlement lagoons. The windfarm is located in some of the most acidified catchments in
Scotland and the input of further low pH water could worsen the current situation and
impact on the Bladnoch SAC.
6.2
The CEMP provided does not discuss environmental monitoring such as macroinvertebrate monitoring to assess the baseline against which potential pollution impacts of
the vulnerable watercourses could be monitored. Further details of the on-site monitoring
regime including the monitoring of pH and turbidity should be provided.
6.3
Section 3 discusses the management and movement of liquid concrete and suggests that
sump water could be discharged to surrounding vegetated surfaces. Such high alkalinity
water would damage acid dependant habitats and vegetation and must not be undertaken
as the primary mode of disposal without assessment of the habitat quality of the area of
ground to be used.
6.4
The Tarf Bridge to be constructed must enable the passage of migratory fish. The Galloway
Fisheries Trust must be consulted on the exact design of the new bridge so that it is
acceptable. As stated in CEMP section 4B.
6.5
The CEMP provides no information of a tree felling pollution prevention plan. Significant
areas of plantation will be required to be clear felled which could lead to pollution impacts
on adjacent watercourses through sedimentation and low pH runoff effects.
Regulatory advice
7.
Regulatory requirements
7.1 Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on
our website at www.sepa.org.uk/planning.aspx. If you are unable to find the advice you need
for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the operations team in your local
SEPA office at:
SEPA
Penkiln Bridge Court
Minnigaff
Newton Stewart
DG8 6AA
If you have any queries relating to this letter, please contact me by telephone on 01355 574 200 or
e-mail at planning.ek@sepa.org.uk.
Yours faithfully
Lorna Maclean
Senior Planning Officer
Planning Service