Directorate
for
Planning
and
Environmental

Appeals
Report
to
the
Scottish
Ministers
ELECTRICITY ACT 1989

Report by David Russell, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers






Case reference: IEC/3/105/3
Site Address: Bardnaheigh Farm, Westfield, by Thurso
Application by Baillie Wind Farm Ltd for consent under Section 36, dated 12 July 2004
The development proposed: erection of a wind farm
Planning authority lodging objection: Highland Council
Dates of inquiry: 17 to 26 March 2009
Date of this report and recommendation:
August 2009
Scottish Government: Directorate for
Planning and Environmental Appeals
4 The Courtyard
Callendar Business Park
Callendar Road
Falkirk
FK1 1XR
The Scottish Ministers
Edinburgh
File reference: IEC/3/105/3
August 2009
Ministers
1.
In accordance with my minute of appointment dated 16 December 2008,
I conducted a public local inquiry in connection with an application for consent under
Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to erect a wind farm, known as the Baillie wind
farm, at Bardnaheigh Farm, Westfield, by Thurso. I now submit my report on that
application.
2.
The application was submitted by Baillie Wind Farm Ltd in July 2004, and the
proposed development was the subject of environmental impact assessment. The
development as now amended would consist of 21 wind turbines, each 110 metres
high, with a combined generating capacity of 52.5 megawatts. Arrangements for the
application to be considered at a public local inquiry were made after the local
planning authority, Highland Council, notified the Scottish Ministers on 30 January
2008 of its objection to the proposed development.
3.
On 23 May 2008, the case was passed to the Directorate for Planning and
Environmental Appeals and on 1 September 2008 the Relevant Notice was issued.
On 5 November 2008 I held a pre-inquiry meeting at which the arrangements for the
public local inquiry were discussed and subsequently confirmed. Public notice of the
inquiry was published in the local press on 6 February 2009.
4.
The inquiry was held in Thurso, sitting for seven days between 17 and 26
March 2008. I conducted an accompanied inspection of the application site and
surrounding viewpoints; and I also conducted an unaccompanied inspection to other
more distant viewing points, including routes where existing wind farms elsewhere in
Caithness can be seen.
5.
Oral evidence was presented to the inquiry by witnesses on behalf of the
applicant, Highland Council, the Caithness West Action Group, Historic Scotland and
by a number of individual members of the public, and was tested under crossexamination. A full list of those who spoke at the inquiry is provided in Appendix 2.
6.
My summary of the cases for each party takes account of the precognitions
and any written statements which were lodged, together with the answers given by
witnesses during the inquiry and the closing submissions made on behalf of that
party.
7.
I have also taken account of the environmental information within the
environmental statement and the additional information provided to the inquiry, and
of the written representations which were submitted by a number of organisations
and by individual members of the public. Copies of all these submissions are
available on the case files.
CONTENTS
Page
Summary Report
Section:
1. Site description and application background
2
2. Legislative framework and planning policy context
4
3. Summary of the applicant’s case
12
4. Summary of the cases for Highland Council and the Caithness West
Action Group
26
5. Summary of the case for Historic Scotland
31
6. Summary of the cases of other third parties
33
7. Consultation Responses and Written Representations
36
8. Findings of Fact
39
9. Conclusions and Recommendations
53
Appendices
Appendix 1: Conditions
57
Appendix 2: Appearances
64
Appendix 3: Documents
65
IEC_3_105_3
1
1.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATION BACKGROUND
1.1
The application site is located in an area of mainly open undulating
countryside, comprising mixed farmland and elements of forestry plantation and
moorland vegetation. It lies some seven kilometres west of Thurso and about three
kilometres south-east of Dounreay. It extends to around five square kilometres,
bounded to the south by the C1 road from Westfield to Shebster, to the west by the
minor road from Shebster to Forss, and by the Forss Water to the east. However the
turbines would occupy a smaller area extending west from Bardnaheigh farm and
north towards Stemster Hill. Most of the wind farm site would also be visible from
the minor road from Westfield to Forss, which runs in an elevated position to the east
of the Forss Water.
1.2
To the west of the site, the land rises to the low ridge that runs north from Hill
of Shebster which reaches a height of 133 metres. A cairn there, and two further
north along the ridge at Cnoc Freiceadain, are scheduled ancient monuments.
Dounreay is visible from the ridge, but not from the application site. There is an
existing wind farm at Forss, about three kilometres north of the application site and
close to the coast, which comprises six turbines, reaching to 75 metres in height.
1.3
The settlement pattern has scattered housing and there are a number of
houses both within the application site and nearby which lie within a few hundred
metres of the proposed position of the nearest wind turbine. None would lie between
two or more turbines.
1.4
When the application was submitted to the then Scottish Executive by Baillie
Wind Farm Ltd in June 2004, it sought the Scottish Ministers’ consent under
Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the erection of a wind farm, then, of 25 wind
turbines. The application had been the subject of environmental impact assessment,
and an environmental statement was submitted with the application in July 2004.
1.5
Following the statutory consultation process in relation to both the application
and the environmental statement, the applicant amended the scheme and the
environmental statement in the light of the responses submitted and additional
information obtained. As amended, the scheme which is before the Scottish
Ministers is for 21 wind turbines, each capable of generating between 2.5 and
3 megawatts. All would have a hub height of 70 metres, with a total height to blade
tip of 110 metres.
1.6
The wind farm layout would mainly comprise linear rows, although potentially
subject to micro-siting variations, with a minimum separation distance between
turbines of 300 metres. Seven turbines would stand within or adjacent to the
woodland plantation towards the south-west corner of the site. Four turbines to the
west of Bardnaheigh Farm would also stand to the south of, and parallel to, an
existing line of pylons and 132kV overhead wires which lead over the Hill of Shebster
ridge from Dounreay and cross the application site.
1.7
The proposed sub-station for the wind farm would be adjacent to one of these
pylons, immediately north of Bardnaheigh Farm, and the proposed laydown area and
contractor’s compound would be in the same vicinity. Two anemometer masts would
IEC_3_105_3
2
also be erected, and some 10.6 kilometres of access tracks and underground
cabling would be installed. The wind farm is proposed to be operational for 25 years.
1.8
Consultation responses were submitted by or on behalf of a wide range of
organisations, and over 1,000 representations were also submitted either in paper or
electronic form, with 210 objecting and 839 supporting the proposal.
1.9
In its response to consultation submitted on 30 January 2008, Highland
Council notified the Scottish Ministers of its objection to the proposal on five grounds,
which in summary are:
 It is contrary to the presumption against development set out in the Caithness
local plan, as part of the site is covered by PP3 designation;
 It is contrary to SPP6, due to the proximity of the wind farm to existing houses
 Its impact on tourism would be unacceptable due to its cumulative effect along
with other wind farms;
 Its adverse visual impact is contrary to the Highland Renewable Energy
Strategy;
 It should be the subject of an appropriate assessment carried out to the
satisfaction of Scottish Natural Heritage and to address issues raised by the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and by Historic Scotland.
1.10 Where the planning authority has lodged an objection to a wind farm
application under Section 36, the Scottish Ministers are required to hold a public
local inquiry. In May 2008, the case was forwarded to the Directorate for Planning
and Environmental Appeals and I was subsequently appointed by the Scottish
Ministers to hold the inquiry. My initial minute of appointment confirmed that the
Scottish Ministers had requested that the inquiry should be restricted to five matters
but, following subsequent correspondence, that restriction was later removed and an
amended minute of appointment was issued.
IEC_3_105_3
3
2.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
2.1
Applications for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 are
subject to the requirements of Schedule 9 ‘Preservation of amenity and fisheries:
Scotland.’ Section 3 of that schedule states that:
(1)
In formulating any relevant proposals, a license holder or a person
authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity—
(a) shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of
conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of
special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of
architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and
(b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the
proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on
any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects.
(2) In considering any relevant proposals for which their consent is required
under Section 36 or 37 of this Act, the Scottish Ministers shall have regard to (a) the desirability of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a) of
subparagraph (1) above; and
(b) the extent to which the person by whom the proposals were
formulated has complied with his duty under paragraph (b) of that subparagraph.
(3) Without prejudice to sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above, in exercising any
relevant functions each of the following, namely, a licence holder, a person
authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity and the Scottish
Ministers shall avoid, so far as possible, causing injury to fisheries or to the
stock of fish in any waters.
2.2
Schedule 8, at section 7, provides that:
(1) On granting a consent under section 36 or 37 of this Act in respect of any
operation or change of use that constitutes development, the Scottish
Ministers may direct that planning permission for that development and any
ancillary development shall be deemed to be granted, subject to such
conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction……
(3) The provisions of the Planning Act (except Parts VII and XII) shall apply in
relation to any planning permission …deemed to be granted by virtue of a
direction under this paragraph as if it had been granted by the Scottish
Ministers on an application referred to them under the relevant section of that
Act.
2.3
The power of the Scottish Ministers, on granting consent under Section 36 of
the Electricity Act for an operation that constitutes development, also to direct that
planning permission for that development shall be deemed to be granted, is reiterated in Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
Section 57(3) also confirms that the provisions of the Act apply to such a deemed
planning permission, as if it had been granted by the Scottish Ministers for an
application referred to them under Section 46. However, in the case of a Section 36
application, there is no application for planning permission, and the provisions of the
Act are only applied once the Scottish Ministers have directed that planning
permission shall be deemed to be granted.
IEC_3_105_3
4
2.4
As the application seeks consent for the construction of a generating station
under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, the development falls within Schedule 2
of the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations
2000. This requires the applicant to submit an environmental statement for the
proposal, setting out the information which is reasonably required to enable the
environmental effects of the development to be assessed. The regulations set out
requirements regarding publicity and consultation in relation to the environmental
statement, as well as the matters to be taken into account and the contents of the
environmental statement. The Scottish Ministers cannot grant consent unless they
take into consideration the environmental information and state in their decision that
they have done so.
2.5
The development plan in relation to the application site comprises the
Highland Structure Plan and the Caithness Local Plan. [Documents: CD8 and CD9]
In the structure plan, the key policies of potential relevance to this proposal are:
General Policy G2: ‘Design for Sustainability’ which states: “Proposed
developments will be assessed on the extent to which they:

are compatible with service provision (water and sewerage, drainage,
roads, schools, electricity);

are accessible by public transport, cycling and walking as well as car;

maximise energy efficiency in terms of location, layout and design,
including the utilisation of renewable sources of energy;

are affected by significant risk from natural hazards, including flooding,
coastal erosion, land instability and radon gas, unless adequate
protective measures are incorporated, or the development is of a
temporary nature;

are affected by safeguard zones where there is a significant risk of
disturbance and hazard from industrial installations, including noise,
dust, smells, electro-magnetism, radioactivity and subsidence;

make use of brownfield sites, existing buildings and recycled materials;

impact on individual and community residential amenity;

impact on non-renewable resources such as mineral deposits of
potential commercial value, prime quality or locally important
agricultural land, or approved routes for road and rail links;

impact on the following resources, including pollution and discharges,
particularly within designated areas:
o
habitats
freshwater systems
o
species
marine systems
o
landscape
cultural heritage
o
scenery
air quality;

demonstrate sensitive siting and high quality design in keeping with
local character and historic and natural environment and in making use
of appropriate materials;

promote varied, lively and well-used environments which will enhance
community safety and security and reduce any fear of crime;

accommodate the needs of all sectors of the community, including
people with disabilities or other special needs and disadvantaged
groups; and
IEC_3_105_3
5

contribute to the economic and social development of the community.
Developments which are judged to be significantly detrimental in terms of the
above criteria shall not accord with the Structure Plan.”
General Policy G3 ‘Impact assessments’, which states: “Where environmental
and/or socio-economic impacts of a proposed development are likely to be
significant by virtue of nature, size or location, The Council will require the
preparation by developers of appropriate impact assessments. Developments
that will have significant adverse effects will only be approved if no reasonable
alternatives exist, if there is demonstrable over-riding strategic benefit or if
satisfactory overall mitigating measures are incorporated.”
General Policy G4 ‘Community benefit and commitment’, which states: “The
Council will expect developments to benefit the local community and contribute to
the wellbeing of the Highlands, whilst recognising wider national interests. The
Council will seek to enter into agreements with developers as appropriate on
behalf of local communities for environmental and socio-economic purposes as
indicated below:
o
where a development will have a long term impact on the environment
contributions will be sought towards a fund for local community initiatives;
o
where as a result of a development new infrastructure proposals
require to be implemented by The Council or other agencies, or existing
programmes brought forward, developers will be expected to pay those
costs as an integral part of that development; and
o
in appropriate circumstances The Council will expect a financial bond
to be secured for long term environmental restoration and/or socioeconomic stability.”
General Policy G6 ‘Conservation and promotion of the Highland heritage’,
which states: “The Council will seek to conserve and promote all sites and areas
of Highland identified as being of a high quality in terms of nature conservation,
landscape, archaeological or built environment.”
General Policy G8 ‘Precautionary principle’, which states: “In the relatively
rare situation of assessing development proposals where the potential impacts
are uncertain, but where there are scientific grounds for believing that severe
damage could occur either to the environment or the wellbeing of communities,
The Council will apply the precautionary principle.”
Policy E1 ‘Distributed renewable energy developments’, which states: “The
Council supports the utilisation of the region's distributed renewable energy
resource, including hydro, wind, wave and tidal stream power. Proposals will be
assessed against the provisions of the General Strategic Policies. Approvals for
renewable energy developments will normally be for a temporary period only (tied
to the lifetime of a project), with provision where appropriate for the removal and
reinstatement of affected areas. Earlier action for removal and reinstatement will
be required in the event of premature permanent cessation of energy production.”
Policy E2 ‘Wind energy developments’, which states: “Wind energy proposals
will be supported provided that impacts are not shown to be significantly
IEC_3_105_3
6
detrimental. In addition to the General Strategic Policies, wind energy proposals
will be assessed in respect of the following:
o
visual impact;
o
noise;
o
electro-magnetic interference;
o
roads, bridges and traffic;
o
aircraft flight paths/MOD operations; and
o
cumulative effects.”
Policy L4 ‘Landscape character’, which states: “The Council will have regard
to the desirability of maintaining and enhancing present landscape character in
the consideration of development proposals, including offshore developments.”
Policy T6 ‘Scenic views’, which states: “The Council will protect important
scenic views enjoyed from tourist routes and viewpoints, particularly those
specifically identified in Local Plans. There will be a presumption against
development in narrow areas of land between roads and railways and open
water.”
Policy BC3 ‘Preservation of archaeological sites’, which states:
“Archaeological sites affected by development proposals should be preserved, or,
in exceptional circumstances where preservation is impossible, the sites will be
recorded at developers’ expense to professional standards. Provision will be
made in Local Plans for the appropriate protection, preservation and
enhancement of archaeological sites.”
Policy N1 ‘Nature conservation’, which states: “New developments should
seek to minimise their impact on the nature conservation resource and enhance it
wherever possible. The Council will seek to conserve and promote all sites
according to the following hierarchy:
 sites and species of international importance - Developments which
would have an adverse effect on the conservation interests for which a
site has been designated will only be permitted where there is no
alternative solution and there are imperative reasons of over-riding
public interest, including those of a social and economic nature. Where
a priority habitat or species (as defined in Article 1 of the Habitats
Directive) would be affected, prior consultation with the European
Commission is required unless the development is necessary for public
health or safety reasons.
 sites of national importance - Developments will only be permitted
where the objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the area
will not be compromised or any significant adverse effects on the
qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly
outweighed by social and economic benefits of national importance.
 sites of local importance - Developments will be assessed for their
effects on the interests of sites of local conservation importance and
will be resisted where these are judged to be unreasonably
detrimental.”
IEC_3_105_3
7
2.6
In the Caithness Local Plan, the following provisions are of potential
relevance:
At paragraph 6, it states that the council “will seek to support the
development of renewable energy opportunities in suitable locations that
accord with the Structure Plan and National Planning Policy Guidance.”
At paragraph 3 (page 15), it states that: “The Council will promote the A9,
A99 and A836 roads as tourist routes and identify key strategic sites for new
facilities.” At paragraph 46 is states: “The Council will seek to identify and
safeguard scenic views from unsympathetic development. Views from public
roads to open water are particularly important for amenity and tourism. To aid
appreciation of scenic views the Council will favour improved lay-by parking,
visitor interpretation and view point features, notably on the A9, A99 and
A836.”
On the Proposals Map, the appeal site is covered partly by Primary
Policy PP2, which states that “The Council will favour development, unless
this would significantly affect important features”; and partly by Primary
Policy PP3, which states that:
“The Council will presume against
development, particularly where there is significant damage to heritage,
amenity or public health.”
Strategic Objective 8 of the local plan includes the safeguarding and
enhancing of the cultural heritage of Caithness by protecting archaeological
sites. The strategy map identifies a Heritage Area of National or International
Interest for archaeology and a potential archaeology visitor centre, both on the
south side of Caithness. It does not refer to the scheduled ancient
monuments on the ridge leading from Shebster Hill.
An annex to the local plan contains policies which the council applies
throughout Highland, including Supporting Policy SP1, which states that
development proposals must be compatible with adjoining uses and take into
account amenity of neighbouring buildings.
Scottish Government policy
2.7
In November 2007, the Scottish Government announced a new target of
generating 50% of Scotland’s electricity from renewables by 2020, with an interim
target of 31% by 2011. It estimates that around eight gigawatts of installed
renewables capacity will be necessary to meet the 50% target; while the 2011 target
implies around 5 gigawatts of installed capacity, which is almost double current
levels at that time.
2.8
In Scottish Planning Policy 6 ‘Renewable Energy’, the Scottish Government
has set out its planning framework to help ensure the delivery of its renewable
energy targets. It states that: “Spatial policies should not be used to restrict
development on sites where the technology can operate efficiently and
environmental and other impacts can be addressed. In all instances, development
plans should provide clarity on the criteria that should be met to enable development
IEC_3_105_3
8
to take place in a satisfactory manner. Plans should, however, use spatial policies to
afford significant protection to areas designated for their national or international
natural heritage value, green belts and those areas where further development
would result in unacceptable cumulative impacts.”
2.9
The policy is that the 2020 target “should be met by a range of renewable
technologies. Hydro and onshore wind power are currently making the most
significant contribution. This is expected to continue although these technologies will
increasingly operate as part of a renewables mix as other technologies come on
line.”
2.10 While supporting renewable energy developments, it also confirms the
Scottish Ministers’ commitment to:
 meeting international and national statutory obligations to protect
designated areas, species and habitats and protecting the historic
environment from inappropriate forms of development
 ensuring impacts on local communities and other interests are
satisfactorily addressed.
2.11 Annex A provides planning authorities with advice on preparing spatial
frameworks for guiding wind farm developments of over 20 megawatts. The
frameworks are intended to identify broad areas of search, areas to be afforded
significant protection, and criteria for assessing proposals in other areas. The
section dealing with “communities” states:
“Broad criteria should be used to set out the considerations that developers
should address in relation to local communities. These should ensure that
proposals are not permitted if they would have a significant long term
detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby. When considering
spatial policies, planning authorities may consider it helpful to introduce zones
around communities as a means of guiding developments to broad areas of
search where visual impacts are likely to be less of a constraint. PAN 45
confirms that development up to 2 km is likely to be a prominent feature in an
open landscape. The Scottish Ministers would support this as a separation
distance between turbines and the edge of cities, towns and villages so long
as policies recognise that this approach is being adopted solely as a
mechanism for steering proposals to broad areas of search and, within this
distance, proposals will continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis.”
2.12 Although published in 1997, National Planning Policy Guideline 14: 'Natural
Heritage' remains the current statement of the Scottish Ministers’ policy on planning
and natural heritage. In relation to special protection areas, it states:
“Under the Habitats Directive, special protection areas and special areas of
conservation are together intended to form a Community-wide network of
protected areas designed to maintain or restore the distribution and
abundance of species and habitats of Community interest, to be known as
Natura 2000. They are identified for the purposes of protecting those habitats
and species within the EU which are endangered, vulnerable, rare or
otherwise require special attention. ….The Conservation (Natural Habitats
IEC_3_105_3
9
&c.) Regulations 1994 place a statutory duty on planning authorities to meet
the requirements of the Habitats Directive.
…The Regulations require that where an authority concludes that a
development proposal unconnected with natural heritage management is
likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 area, it must undertake an
appropriate assessment of the implications for the conservation interests for
which the area has been designated. Guidance on the assessment of
proposals affecting Natura 2000 areas is set out in Appendix A of Annex D to
Circular 6/1995. In cases where an assessment of the proposal is also
required under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988,
authorities should ensure that the environmental statement prepared in
respect of the proposal meets the requirements of both sets of regulations.
A development which would have an adverse effect on the conservation
interests for which a Natura 2000 area has been designated should only be
permitted where:
 there is no alternative solution; and
 there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest, including
those of a social or economic nature.
Where a priority habitat or species (as defined in Article 1 of the Habitats
Directive) would be affected, prior consultation with the European
Commission is required unless the development is necessary for public health
or safety reasons.”
2.13
The guideline also deals with landscape protection:
“Scotland is fortunate in having a rich diversity of landscapes. Many areas, for
example in the Highlands and Islands, possess mountain and coastal
landscapes which are valued nationally and internationally for their quality,
extensiveness and wild land character….
In collaboration with local authorities, SNH has completed Landscape
Character Assessments for the whole of Scotland. These assessments can
provide valuable local guidance on the capacity of the landscape to
accommodate new development and some planning authorities have already
begun to make use of them in policy development and development control
casework.
The most sensitive landscapes may have little or no capacity to accept new
development. Some of Scotland's remoter mountain and coastal areas
possess an elemental quality from which many people derive psychological
and spiritual benefits. Such areas are very sensitive to any form of
development or intrusive human activity and planning authorities should take
great care to safeguard their wild land character. This care should extend to
the assessment of proposals for development outwith these areas which
might adversely affect their wild land character.”
2.14 The recently published Scottish Planning Policy 23 ‘Planning and the
Historic Environment’ confirms that the Scottish Ministers’ policy for scheduled
IEC_3_105_3
10
ancient monuments is now set out in the SHEP (Scottish Historic Environment
Policy) published by Historic Scotland.
2.15 At paragraph 9 it gives the following advice: “The location of historic features
in the landscape and the patterns of past use and activity are part of the historic
environment. Setting is more than the immediate surroundings of a site or building
and, for example, may be related to the function or use of a place, or how it was
intended to fit into the landscape or townscape, the view from it or how it is seen
from around, or areas that are important to the protection of the place, site or
building.”
2.16 At paragraph 43 it confirms that: “Scheduled monuments are of national
importance and they should be preserved in situ and within an appropriate setting.
While the scheduled monument consent process is separate from the statutory
planning process, where works requiring planning permission affect a scheduled
monument, the protection of the monument and its setting are material
considerations in the planning process. The current SHEP provides further detail.”
2.17 Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ gives the
following advice in relation to visual impact: “Turbines in wind farms are likely to be
tall, frequently located in open land, and therefore likely to be highly visible. …. It will
normally be unrealistic to seek to conceal them. Developers should seek to ensure
that through good siting and design, landscape and visual impacts are limited and
appropriate to the location. The visual effect will be dependent on the distance over
which a wind farm may be viewed, whether the turbines can be viewed adjacent to
other features, different weather conditions, the character of the development and
the landscape and nature of the visibility. The following is a general guide to the
effect which distance has on the perception of the development in an open
landscape:
Figure 8: General Perception of a Wind Farm in an Open Landscape
Distance
Up to 2 kms
2-5 kms
5-15 kms
15-30 kms
Perception
Likely to be a prominent feature
Relatively prominent
Only prominent in clear visibility – seen as part of the
wider landscape
Only seen in clear visibility – a minor element in the
landscape.”
2.18 Highland Council published the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy nonstatutory supplementary guidance. It places the application site within an area to
which the strategy applies a presumption against development. The strategy
contains a policy (S2) which requires a separation of at least one kilometre between
turbines and houses.
IEC_3_105_3
11
3.
SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S CASE
The statutory framework
3.1
The appropriate approach to decision making for an application under
Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 is to identify all the relevant considerations, and
then undertake a balancing exercise. The development plan has no higher status
than other material considerations. The decision about the deemed planning
permission follows the decision on the Section 36 consent.
3.2
Schedule 9 requires the applicant to consider the desirability of preserving
natural beauty, conserving flora and fauna, and protecting certain sites of
architectural or historic or archaeological interest. Here, these matters have been
addressed in the environmental statement and its addendum. The applicant is also
required to do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effects on these elements. In
this case, the proposed wind farm would not affect the sites of the scheduled ancient
monuments, so the duty of protecting them does not arise. However, the applicant
has considered the indirect effects in the environmental statement, and has mitigated
the indirect effects on the monuments by relocating some of the turbines and has
proposed measures to improve accessibility to the monuments and the
understanding of them.
Landscape and visual issues
3.3
The approach set out in the environmental statement addendum is consistent
with Scottish Natural Heritage’s guidance. The layout is an ordered cluster rather
than a formal grid. It takes account of the landform and minimises the extent to
which it would occupy views. While the turbines would appear in rows on occasion
when passing along certain routes, they do not line up in relation to particular
receptors. This would not exacerbate its visual impact, and in all views it would be
seen as a single wind farm. In an open landscape such as this, the wind farm would
always be visible. The key in its design is to limit the extent of its visibility.
3.4
Strathy Point, Dunnet Head and Dunnet Bay all have landscape designations
of some form, but the views from there would be at distances of over 19 kilometres
and the wind farm would occupy only between 2 and 5 degrees of the arc of view.
Other features such as Dounreay, Thurso and the existing Forss wind farm would
also be visible.
3.5
The landscape which contains the application site is large in scale, exposed
and windswept, and these are landscape characteristics which are recognised as
being capable of accommodating wind farms. The effect on Shebster Ridge is
limited, as it is only from outwith the site, to the north and the west, that it appears as
a ridge in the wider landscape.
3.6
It is clear both from Scottish Planning Policy 6 ‘Renewable Energy’ and a
subsequent letter [Documents CD18 and CWAG101] that the impacts of a wind farm
on residential amenity have to be assessed on a case by case basis. The fact that
some visibility of a wind farm can be obtained from part of a house or garden is not
sufficient, necessarily, to give rise to a significant adverse effect on the amenity of
IEC_3_105_3
12
the residents. Here, some of those living in houses which are in close proximity to
the wind farm would have no view of it at all.
3.7
Account has also to be taken of the orientation of the buildings and of the
experience on the approaches to them. While views from rooms occupied during the
day are regarded as more sensitive than others, the applicant’s assessment did not
restrict the sensitivity analysis to the lower rooms, but considered the orientation of
the building as a whole. The impacts on the approaches to a property, or on rear
gardens, can also result in a high magnitude of change being assessed, even where
the houses are oriented away from the turbines.
3.8
Account also has to be taken of the scale of the landscape in which the
houses are situated. Here, the landscape does not restrict views and so the wind
farm would only fill a limited arc of the overall view enjoyed from each property. This
significantly mitigates the impact on residential amenity. Views tend to be
panoramic, and big skies form an important component of the landscape. Here, the
existing overhead power lines, commercial forestry, houses and roads all tend to
reduce the site’s visual sensitivity.
3.9
Road users in the area are also important visual receptors. There would be a
significant effect experienced over sections of the A836, but these are already
subject to significant visual intrusion arising from the Forss wind farm and from
Dounreay. The road is designated as a tourist route, but is not of high sensitivity
throughout. The C1 road is part of a national cycle route, but it is not a scenic route
as, on the way out from Thurso, it is characterised by significant man-modified
features including the T3UK building, quarrying deposits, overhead transmission
lines, housing, commercial forestry and Dounreay.
3.10 The concern about cumulative impacts appears to relate generally to the
overall effect of a number of wind farms located across Caithness, rather than the
particular cumulative effects of this proposal in conjunction with other specific wind
farms. In practice, the only significant cumulative impact which would arise with an
existing or consented wind farm is with the existing Forss wind farm, and this would
arise primarily in relation to the A836, and only to a limited extent. Neither the
Lieurary or South Shebster wind farm proposals have been determined.
3.11 There is nothing in the cumulative impact issues which would warrant refusal.
Scottish Natural Heritage has confirmed that the landscape and visual effects of the
development would be acceptable. It withdrew its original objection which clearly
related to the methodology which was used in the environmental statement, and it
agrees with the conclusions regarding the extent of visual and sequential impacts.
The key issue is the cumulative sequential views along the A9 road corridor from
Dunbeath to Thurso. Scottish Natural Heritage confirms that this landscape has the
capacity to absorb the proposed scale of development, although it also states that, if
the Baillie wind farm proceeds, its capacity to accommodate wind farm development
would be close to being reached. The council’s planning officers also considered
that there was no objection to the proposal’s landscape or visual effects.
3.12 Scottish Natural Heritage’s policy on wind farm development is that it should
be directed to man-modified landscapes, such as this, and away from wilder
IEC_3_105_3
13
landscapes to minimise natural heritage impacts. This site also lies within a zone of
least heritage sensitivity in the terms of Scottish Natural Heritage’s strategic
locational guidance.
3.13 One of the consequences of this approach is that, by encouraging
development in man-modified landscapes, it is likely that there will be residential
properties in the area, and almost inevitable that there will be some conflict between
wind farm developments and neighbouring residents (or “residential receptors”).
Noise
3.14 Planning Advice Note 45 deals with operational noise associated with wind
farms, and recommends that the guidance set out in ETSU-R-97 should be adopted
in assessing these impacts and setting limits. That advice has been applied to all
wind farms consented under the Electricity Act, and supersedes the earlier advice
regarding ambient noise levels contained in Planning Advice Note 56.
3.15 There are no substantive issues at this site in relation to noise. The
assessment undertaken by the applicant has been conservative and robust, and
demonstrates that the wind farm can operate within the tightest limits set by ETSUR-97. These have been applied to wind farms throughout Scotland, and no
significant issue in relation to noise generated by wind farms has arisen. There is an
on-going issue regarding noise at only one wind farm site in the United Kingdom.
3.16 The occupiers of a number of the properties close to the wind farm have a
financial interest in the development (Bardnaheigh farmhouse, bungalow and
cottage; Skaill 5, 6 and 7; and Hillcrest), and the occupiers of the two closest nonstakeholders properties (Achiebraeskaill and the steading conversion at Stemster)
have not objected. None of the occupiers of properties within 500 metres of a
turbine has objected.
3.17 Background noise measurements were undertaken at a number of
representative locations. At the inquiry criticism was made of the wind shields used
for the microphones, but tests have demonstrated that this made no material
difference to the results.
3.18 The 10 metres high wind monitoring mast was located within the site and
close to the amended turbine locations. Readings of wind speed would not have
been materially affected by the nearby tree plantation, as the trees then were only
five metres tall and, as the mast stood to the south, the prevailing wind from the
south-west would have been unaffected by these trees. An assertion at the inquiry
that the readings from the mast demonstrated that this effect had occurred was
flawed, as the masts were not synchronised. Questions regarding missing data and
wrongly calibrated data had been addressed and were explained at the inquiry.
3.19 Criticisms made at the inquiry of the methodology and measurements used
for assessing wind shear on the site were based on mis-understandings and were
not justified. The alternative assessment undertaken on behalf of the action group
was flawed, both because the measurements from the meteorological mast and the
background noise measurements had not been synchronised, and as data relating to
IEC_3_105_3
14
periods of rain had been retained, contrary to the guidance in ETSU-R-97.
Accordingly, that assessment should be entirely discounted.
3.20 The noise emission levels from the turbines were agreed. These are based
on levels warranted by the manufacturer. However the attenuating factor to be
applied relating to the prevailing ground conditions, and the height of the receptors,
were not. In accordance with the guidance set out in International Standard ISO
9613, the applicant’s consultant had assessed the ground condition of the appeal
site as porous, and applied the appropriate factor (G = 1) at a receptor height of 1.4
metres.
3.21 The action group’s consultant asserted that a factor of G = 0.5 should be
applied instead, as the standard had not been specifically devised for wind farms;
and also that it should be applied at a receptor height of four metres. That height is
not appropriate, as most of the houses in the area are single storey, and as the
background noise measurements and any enforcement measurements would be
undertaken at 1.4 metres. Actual results from an operational wind farm suggest that
the use of these factors is very conservative in practice. [see Document CWAG77]
This may be caused by the shielding effect of upwind turbines on those that are
downwind; and also by the fact that the warranted sound levels given by
manufacturers are also likely to be conservative, and possibly two decibels above
the measured levels, to give themselves some commercial confidence.
3.22 In that context, the use of the G = 1 ground attenuation factor is entirely
justified. On this basis, no mitigation would be required. Applying a factor of G = 0.5
at a height of 1.4 metres provides a conservative sensitivity test, and indicates that
limited mitigation may be required in certain wind speeds. Even applying the factor
of G = 0.5 at a height of 4.5 metres would still enable the wind farm to operate,
subject to a number of constraints in different wind directions. These calculations
have additional conservatism built in, as they assume that each property is
downwind of every turbine, which could not occur in practice. Accordingly, the
applicant’s consultant has advised that the wind farm would comfortably meet the
limits set by ETSU-R-97, including the lower daytime limit of 35dB. Any uncertainties
arising from the particular turbine model which would be used can be addressed
through a planning condition requiring a further assessment to be undertaken in
respect of the specific turbine.
Shadow flicker
3.23 The effect of shadow flicker is only experienced indoors. It can occur when
the sun shines through a narrow window opening of a building and is caused by the
rotating blades of a turbine standing within 10 rotor diameters from it. There is no
agreed level of acceptability for shadow flicker in the United Kingdom, although there
are European standards. A worst case assessment has been undertaken, which
takes no account of the actual position of window openings or of the shielding
created by other buildings or ground cover. The findings are set out in the
addendum to the environmental statement.
3.24 The turbines would be fitted with software to shut them down when the
circumstances for shadow flicker occur. A suspensive condition could require its
IEC_3_105_3
15
installation and implementation. In these circumstances, shadow flicker would not
affect residential amenity.
Other aspects of residential amenity
3.25 There would be a significant impact on the visual amenity of the occupiers of
a number of properties. However, as is recognised in Policy S3 of the Highland
Renewable Energy Strategy, there are circumstances where the sensitivity is
reduced. Here, there are a number of other development influences in the vicinity of
the site, including Dounreay, the overhead transmission lines which pass through the
site, and the presence of commercial forestry. The scale of the landscape is another
factor, and almost none of the objectors refers to any leisure activities being carried
on within the site.
3.26 In Scottish Planning Policy 6, Annex A gives guidance in relation to
“communities”. This is in the context of setting out a spatial strategy, and refers to a
separation distance of two kilometres being a general guide in relation to cities,
towns and villages. However it confirms that proposals would continue to be judged
on a case by case basis. A stand-off distance of two kilometres from the dispersed
settlement pattern on this site would not be consistent with this guidance. In the
case of this proposal, subject to appropriate planning conditions being imposed, the
development can operate in a manner which would not cause significant long term
detrimental impact on residential amenity.
3.27 Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ recognises that in
relation to many wind farms there is often concern about their impact on visual
amenity at the outset, but confirms that surveys have shown that these concerns
have often not been borne out after construction.
3.28 In this case, the evidence at the inquiry demonstrated that the only significant
impact on residents is likely to be a visual impact in relation to a limited number of
properties. Nothing in national policy indicates that this should result in the refusal of
an application.
Ornithology
3.29 Ornithological matters have been a key factor in the location and design of the
wind farm, with a good data base enabling turbines to be located to avoid recorded
geese flight activity and with a stand-off distance from feeding areas.
3.30 The consistent flight lines of Greenland white fronted geese is down the Forss
valley. There is no evidence of these geese feeding within the wind farm site.
Infrequent flights recorded through the site have been taken into account in the
collision risk model, and the potential for night time flights has been incorporated.
This resulted in the assumption that 526 geese annually would fly through the area
occupied by the turbines, and the most up-to-date avoidance rate predictions were
applied. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds confirmed that it was satisfied
with the results of the modelling, based on the observations undertaken.
IEC_3_105_3
16
3.31 Studies have shown that there is not a significant risk of geese flying into a
wind farm site and being killed, and an avoidance rate of 99% is very conservative.
These studies form the background for Scottish Natural Heritage’s conclusions. The
Scottish Ministers will require to carry out their own appropriate assessment of this
development, and Scottish Natural Heritage is a formal consultee in that process and
considerable weight should be attached to its findings, set out in its written
submission of 16 February 2009.
3.32 Fears of geese all being killed by flying into the wind farm at night are
unfounded, and there is no evidence of geese having flown into other vertical
structures or high voltage wires. Fears of disturbance to the geese that roost on
Broubster Leans are also unfounded, and feeding areas in the fields around
Knockglass are beyond the distance at which disturbance could occur. Evidence
from the Tangy wind farm in Argyll also suggests that fears about the impact on
white-fronted geese are unjustified.
3.33 In relation to whooper swans, extensive survey work has demonstrated that
these are not regularly sighted over-flying the wind farm site and the risk of collision
is extremely small.
3.34 Ultimately it will be for the Scottish Government to undertake the appropriate
assessment for these species, and in doing so it will be required to consider the
effects on their designated populations as a whole. The current population of
Greenland white fronted geese at Broubster is around 200, and this has been
consistent over an extensive period.
3.35 The overwhelming evidence is that there would be an insignificant effect on
these species. This would not justify imposing conditions to secure mitigation
measures that would include the shutdown of turbines.
Cultural heritage
3.36 The impact of the wind farm on the Cnoc Freiceadain Cairns and the stone
row was a factor in the location of the turbines and the visual effect on these
monuments was considered in the environmental statement, and was identified as
both major and significant. The impact of the development on the cairns would be
related to the visual experience of visitors, rather than to any direct functional impact
on the cairns themselves.
3.37 In line with the purpose of environmental impact assessment, the applicant
has therefore considered the potential to mitigate these impacts. The issue of
considering alternatives has been addressed through the iterations made to the
layout of the turbines, and the option of alternative sites is not a genuine one as
there is no cap on the number of wind farm which could be approved.
3.38 The impact on the setting of the monuments would be an indirect one, and it
would also be temporary as the consent being sought would be limited to 25 years,
in line with national and structure plan policy on wind farms, and any extension
beyond that would be the subject of a separate consent procedure. As the impact
IEC_3_105_3
17
would also be reversible, this should be considered a lesser impact than one which
is permanent and irreversible.
3.39 Assessing the impact of a development on the setting of a scheduled ancient
monument is a matter of judgement. No advice on methodology was proffered by
Historic Scotland’s witnesses. The advice within the Scottish Historic Environment
Policy and Scottish Planning Policy 23 indicates that function and how the
monument was intended to fit into its landscape are relevant factors in defining its
setting, but reference is also made to how it is now seen within the existing
landscape.
3.40 It is accepted that indirect effects on a monument, such as an impact on its
setting, could reduce the cultural value of the monument. The applicant’s
archaeological consultant has an extensive background in Neolithic monuments and
great weight should also be placed on the conclusions of Henshall and Ritchie
[Document BWL102, paragraph 3.7] that proximity to settlement, rather than their
outlook or visibility from afar, is likely to have been the prime consideration in their
siting, as the landscape at that time would have retained much open woodland which
would have obstructed distant viewing.
3.41 The wind farm would not be directly in the view between the Shebster Cairn
and the Cnoc Freiceadain Cairns, and would have no effect on their intervisibility. At
present there are overhead lines and the Forss wind farm within that view. No other
specific points of intervisibility in the landscape were referred to in evidence which
could lead to the conclusion that the integrity of the setting of these monuments
would be affected.
3.42 The wind farm could also affect the aesthetic qualities of the monument’s
setting. Historic Scotland considers that this has to be assessed against the current
landscape in which it is situated. Here it includes the combined effects of the
industrial complex at Dounreay and the associated overhead lines which run just to
the south of the Cnoc Freideadain Cairns, and regard should also be had to the
scale of this landscape and its capacity to absorb change.
3.43 Their prominence in the landscape is another factor. The Shebster ridge is
not a significant feature when viewed from the south or the east. It is only prominent
from the north, and when travelling south on the unclassified road to Shebster.
3.44 Although the wind farm would have a significant impact on the visual
experience of visitors to the scheduled ancient monument, there would be clear
separation between the wind farm and the visitors. The experience of walking to the
monuments from the unclassified road would be unaltered. When at the monument,
there would be a clear topographical separation from the wind farm, with the
monuments being located above and beyond the wind farm site. The turbines would
be viewed in the context of a large scale landscape with a big sky.
3.45 At present, as the number of visitors to the Cnoc Freiceadain cairns is very
limited, it is clear that the present arrangements are not effective, despite their
potential interest. At present visitors have to park in a passing place, and access
involves the use of a stile which presents a barrier to less-able bodied people. The
IEC_3_105_3
18
mitigation proposals would relocate the car parking to an existing woodland to
minimise visual intrusion and that, together with improved access and linkages,
could be addressed through a suspensive planning condition. The promotion of
archaeology within Caithness has the potential to increase visitor numbers.
3.46 Further mitigation could be achieved through a three dimensional LIDAR laser
screening survey which the applicant would be willing to undertake. That work could
answer some of the outstanding questions about long cairns, enhancing our
knowledge and understanding. Although it is an expensive operation, it is effective
when compared with traditional field work and would place Caithness at the forefront
of archaeological investigation and promotion, securing benefits both for education
and for visitor experience.
3.47 Together these measures would result in better promotion of the Cnoc
Freiceadain Cairns, with modern facilities and better accessibility for the benefit of
both lay and specialist visitors. There would also be the opportunity to connect the
cairns with both the wind farm and Dounreay, thus providing a tourist destination that
enables renewable energy to be linked to cultural heritage.
Health and safety
3.48 A number of statements given in evidence by the Caithness West Action
Group were incorrect. Properties south of the wind farm would not be affected by
shadow flicker. Concerns raised about epilepsy had been investigated, but the
turbine blades do not operate at a rate which could trigger a fit. The layout complies
with government guidance in relation to the stand-off distance from roads.
3.49 National guidance on wind farm safety has been published, but was not
referred to by the action group’s witness, although he was aware of it. His argument
that wind farms are extremely dangerous and constitute a significant safety risk to all
concerned is not borne out by the evidence:
 International and British standards are applied to the structural integrity of
turbines;
 In relation to fire and flame spread, previous problems with back up power
have been addressed;
 Issues relating to ground stability and lighting were addressed in the
environmental statement;
 Issues relating to falling objects are addressed in turbine design and referred
to in Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’;
 The issue of ice throw was addressed in the environmental statement, and
evidence was given that a sensor can be fitted to ensure turbine shutdown in
conditions when there is a risk.
3.50 Reference had been made to the mechanical operating and maintenance
manual of a particular turbine model. The statements within it have to be considered
in that context. It is advice for mechanical operating and maintenance staff on
procedures to be followed when maintenance is being carried out, and does not
apply generally. Also, much of the evidence given of fatal accidents relating to wind
turbines concerns smaller agricultural turbines in America.
IEC_3_105_3
19
3.51 The action group’s witness attempted to portray wind farms as potentially
causing significant health effects. The studies referred to have not been peer
reviewed, and this demonstrates the danger of an unqualified individual pulling
information off the internet and presenting it as established fact. Many wind farms
are operating in Scotland, and there appears to be no evidence of adverse health
effects.
3.52 Here, shadow flicker only arises in certain circumstances and would be
addressed through a condition. Blade glint is not a widespread problem in Britain,
and the turbines would have a matt rather than the gloss finish would could cause
the effect. Turbine noise has been addressed, and low frequency noise does not
occur at commercial wind farms.
Transportation
3.53 The site is well located in close proximity to a port from which all components
can be delivered. Construction of the wind farm would involve 189 abnormal roads
on the route from Scrabster along the A836 and then the C1 road to the site. These
would be undertaken during off-peak hours and with a police escort, but not at night,
and the relevant authorities are aware of the proposals. Additional import of stone to
the site is unlikely to be necessary, as the underlying stone within the site would be
used.
Tourism
3.54 The Moffat Report was sponsored by the Scottish Government with the
purpose of replacing the myths about the impact of wind farms on tourism in
Scotland with evidence.
No tourist interviewed in Caithness or Sutherland
responded by saying that the presence of a wind farm would affect their decision to
return, and the Baillie wind farm was listed as one of the potential developments. As
many visitors indicated that they would be encouraged to return, as indicated that
they would be deterred.
3.55 The report conservatively estimated that the impact of all the proposed wind
farms on tourism in Caithness would equate in total to a decrease of up to £700,000
in the gross value added to its economy over the period to 2015, equating to
30 “annual” jobs in total over that time.
3.56 The only tourism business which lodged an objection to this wind farm was
the Castle of Mey, which did so by a generic objection through the Caithness
Windfarm Information Group. The Forss House Hotel is the only recognised tourist
business in the vicinity of the site, and it lodged no objection. This part of Caithness
is not a significant tourist destination, with the only attraction being the Cnoc
Freideadain Cairns which are visited by only a few hundred people each year. There
is no evidence that golfers playing the Reay golf course would be adversely affected.
3.57 This proposed wind farm would not affect the “brand image” of Caithness. A
wind farm is depicted on a mural that greets visitors arriving at Wick Airport; it is a
key theme on display at the Caithness Horizons Centre in Thurso which depicts the
evolution of industry from atomic to renewable energy. The proposed Baillie wind
IEC_3_105_3
20
farm would assist this promotion. It is well away from the main tourist destinations
and its intervisibility with Dounreay would send a powerful message, in line with the
new image of Caithness. This would be enhanced by the proposed mitigation
measures for the Cnoc Freiceadain Cairns which provide the potential to place
Caithness at the forefront of archaeological investigation and promotion.
Public opinion
3.58 Many letters of support and objection have been lodged. Those supporting
the development focus on the benefits of renewable energy, while those opposing it
raise site specific issues. The Caithness West Community Council objected at the
scoping stage as it did not wish any wind farms to be located in Caithness, and this
attitude has pervaded its approach throughout. Its chairman wrote a letter to the
local newspaper which sought to alienate any individual who promoted a wind farm
development; and when the officer’s recommendations on the application were
published, it held a poll over the Christmas period which contained a flawed
question. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the purpose of the poll was
to try to put pressure on the councillors, and that little weight should be attached to it.
Benefits
3.59 The main benefits of the scheme would be its contribution to meeting the
Scottish Government’s targets in relation to renewable energy generation. The wind
resource at this site is over 30% better than the average in Scotland, and will be
reflected in the wind farm’s electricity output. The efficiency of the location and the
scale of the output are considerable factors in its favour. In evidence, the company’s
representative indicated that, based on a conservative estimate and assuming an
operating capacity factor of 38%, the wind farm would save some 75,000 tonnes of
carbon dioxide each year.
3.60 It was submitted that the suggestion made on behalf of the council and the
action group that the applicant should enter an agreement that the wind farm should
be dismantled if the target output is not achieved is absurd. Its benefits relate not
only to CO2 savings, but also more widely to sustainable development. The savings
are unmeasurable, and such an agreement would make the development
unbankable. There was no evidence before the inquiry that the energy from wind
farms would simply displace hydro generation.
3.61 This scheme benefits from a firm grid connection agreement which is currently
dependent on the upgrade of the Beauly-Denny link taking place. However a grid
optimisation process is currently occurring, as a result of which the National Grid
Company has been able to advance consented projects; and it is also prepared to
provide a connection on a non-firm basis, under which the operator would not
receive payments in the event that it was necessary for the wind farm to be
“constrained off” the system because of grid issues. The development would be
fundable under such arrangements, and in practice the issue of constraint has not
occurred to date.
IEC_3_105_3
21
3.62 This site also benefits from its ease of grid connection. The current
agreement is that a cable would be run underground to Dounreay. In addition, this
project would boost the security of national energy supplies.
3.63 The benefits which would arise in relation both to tourism and the scheduled
ancient monuments have been highlighted above. There would also be public
access to the wind farm site. It was also stated in evidence that the rental income
would support five local farming and land-owning businesses, and that the applicant
was committed to paying an annual contribution to the West Caithness Community
Fund to provide support for local projects. Construction of this £75M - £80M project
would benefit local business and create about 30 jobs at that time. In relation to
permanent jobs, there would be two running the operating company and three or four
involved in maintaining the wind farm, all locally based.
Policy
3.64 In terms of Government energy policy, this provides overwhelming support for
this proposal, with Scottish Planning Policy 6 highlighting the Scottish Government’s
commitment to achieving challenging targets for renewable energy generation and
supporting a thriving renewables industry in Scotland. The applicant’s planning
consultant confirmed that the interpretation of the advice in Annex A of Scottish
Planning Policy 6 in relation to communities [see Document CWAG101], which was
contained in a letter from the Scottish Government written on behalf of the Energy
Minister, does not mean that there would be an automatic refusal for a proposal
which would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people
living nearby.
3.65 In submissions it was stated that compliance with the structure plan in this
case will depend on the findings made in respect of the evidence. However a
number of policies are of direct relevance:
 Policy G2 requires both the positive and the potentially negative aspects of
the development to be balanced. Non-compliance with an individual criterion
would not render the development contrary to this policy.
 Policy G3 is contrary to Scottish Planning Policy 6. It automatically requires
developers to look for alternative sites, as all wind farms have significant
adverse effects. Also, it states that development will only be permitted where
“no reasonable alternatives exist”. Its wording cannot be supported and little
weight should be attached to this policy.
 Policy G4 can be satisfied as the applicant has entered into discussions with a
local community group.
 Both the positive and the negative aspects are relevant to Policies G5
and G6. While there is no issue in relation to the protection of cultural
heritage sites, there would be impacts on the setting of the monuments, but
the mitigation proposals would enhance the understanding and promotion of
the area’s cultural heritage.
 In relation to Policy G8, there is no scientific uncertainty about the issues
raised at the inquiry.
 Policy H3 forms the basis for the approach set out in the local plan under
Policies PP1-4.
IEC_3_105_3
22




The proposal is not contrary to the tourism policies of the structure plan, or
with Policy A2 which supports diversifying farm incomes through non-farming
enterprises.
Policy E1 supports the concept of temporary development and Policy E2
introduces criteria. The evidence given to the inquiry is that all matters can be
addressed satisfactorily. It is accepted that there would be some negative
visual impact.
Policy L4 deals with landscape character and supports the approach
undertaken by the applicant. None of the other landscape policies are
engaged.
There is general compliance with specific policies relating to impacts on
cultural heritage, and the mitigation proposals strongly accord with
Policy BC2.
3.66 In the Caithness Local Plan, paragraph 1.34 defers matters relating to
renewable energy to the structure plan. In these circumstances, little weight should
be attached to the other policies of the local plan. However, the development does
not appear to compromise any aspects identified on the strategy map.
3.67 Policies PP1-4 derive from Policy H3 of the structure plan and do not relate to
wind farm development. Policy PP1 relates primarily to built up areas and is
supportive of development. Policy PP2 favours development in areas linked to local
road corridors outwith the areas of restraint around Thurso and Wick, which derive
from Policy H3 of the structure plan. Neither of these locations would generally be
favoured for wind farm development.
3.68 Outwith these areas, Policy PP3 provides a general presumption against
development and Policy PP4 creates a very strong presumption against
development. These policies were not designed for wind farm developments. They
fly in the face of the approach advocated in Scottish Planning Policy 6, and no
weight should be attached to them.
3.69 Limited weight should also be attached to the Highland Renewable Energy
Strategy, which was adopted prior to Scottish Planning Policy 6 being finalised, and
has not had regard to the guidance contained in it, or in Annex 2 to Planning Advice
Note 45. The strategy embargoes vast areas of the Highlands with a presumption
against development, contrary to the approach of Scottish Planning Policy 6. In
these circumstances, limited weight should attach to the fact that this application site
is in an area with a presumption against development.
3.70 At a previous appeal, it was noted that political influences played their part in
the finalisation of the strategy, and that the council accepted that more weight should
attach to Scottish Planning Policy 6. The blanket restriction on developments within
one kilometre of a residential receptor flies in the face of the general approach that
developments should be assessed on a case by case basis.
3.71 There are four key national planning policy documents. Scottish Planning
Policy 6 gives very strong support for the development of renewable energy, and its
targets have since been increased. Renewable energy adds to sustainable
development and to the security and diversity of energy supplies, so the benefits of
IEC_3_105_3
23
the scheme do not merely relate to the CO2 savings. Frameworks should be
positively disposed to meeting energy targets, and the application of a sequential
approach is prohibited. It highlights potential criteria for dealing with a range of
issues, and confirms that all national and international designations should not be
compromised. It also confirms the need to balance benefits against impacts.
3.72 It is also clear that the two kilometres stand-off distance referred to in the
Annex in relation to “communities” is not to be regarded as an embargo on
development. Under the local plan’s definitions, this site is not within two kilometres
of any town or village and so cannot be excluded from a broad area of search. A
broader definition of the term “community” is not justified. Whether there would be a
long term significant impact on the amenity of people living nearby requires to be
assessed in terms of the detailed evidence given at the inquiry.
3.73 The key aspects of Scottish Planning Policy 23 relate to the references to
what constitutes “setting” in relation to the scheduled ancient monument; the
protection of a monument’s setting being a material consideration in determining
planning applications; and the need for that protection to be incorporated in planning
policy.
3.74 Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ provides
important guidance. It highlights that public concern over the visual impact of wind
farms is a recurring feature of proposals in Scotland, but refers to the research
undertaken. It confirms that there is not a blanket restriction on wind farms within
two kilometres of a community, and that proposals are to be tested against criteria
which seek to confirm whether issues that are raised by a proposed development
can be dealt with.
3.75 The Scottish Historic and Environment Policy recognises that the opening up
of monuments to public access can bring wider benefits, and that conservation is not
its sole focus. In this case, Historic Scotland’s evidence to the inquiry was very
narrow and failed to recognise the wider policy objectives. Thus, to the extent that
there would be an impact on the protection and management of the scheduled
ancient monument, this has to be balanced against the benefits which would accrue
from the proposed mitigation, enabling the two additional key outcomes identified in
the policy to be achieved, both through securing greater economic benefits from the
historic environment, and enabling the historic environment to be valued, understood
and enjoyed.
Conditions
3.76 Following the discussion of the suggested conditions at the inquiry, it was
confirmed that the applicant would accept a condition allowing micro-siting of
turbines up to 25 metres from their identified locations, and that arrangements for
improved access to the scheduled ancient monuments should be the subject of a
suspensive condition requiring their approval by the planning authority in
consultation with Historic Scotland.
IEC_3_105_3
24
3.77 The noise condition promoted by the action group would not be consistent
with ETSU-R-97 as it is based on a single background noise measurement. The
lower limits proposed by the council are not consistent with ETSU-R-97 either.
3.78 A suspensive condition is also suggested to deal with the issue of shadow
flicker.
Conclusion
3.79 Despite being identified as an area with significant capacity for wind farm
development, Caithness has not proved an easy place to pursue such proposals.
This site has advantages in terms of its wind resource, ease of grid connections, and
good transport access. Direct natural heritage impacts are very limited, particularly
on the qualifying interests of the Caithness Lochs special protection area which have
been extensively analysed and have been taken into account in the design and
layout of the wind farm. Cultural heritage impacts are restricted to aesthetic ones on
visitors to the scheduled ancient monument.
3.80 There would be some significant impacts on the visual amenity of some
residents, but that should be seen in the context of the very broad landscape within
which they are located and the fact that relatively few houses would be orientated
towards the wind farm.
3.81 The issues were correctly summarised by the council’s officers in the report to
committee: the significant contribution towards renewable energy objectives and
other benefits require to be weighed in the balance against these adverse impacts.
The officers recommended that the council should not object to the application, and
Scottish Natural Heritage reached the same conclusion having assessed the natural
heritage issues raised by the application. The Scottish Ministers should grant
consent, subject to the appropriate conditions.
IEC_3_105_3
25
4.
SUMMARY OF THE CASES FOR HIGHLAND COUNCIL AND THE
CAITHNESS WEST ACTION GROUP
4.1
Highland Council and the Caithness West Action Group combined their
representation at the inquiry. In considering the application the council had not
accepted its officers’ recommendation, and had decided to object to it for the
following reasons:
 The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Caithness local plan, the site
being covered in part by a PP3 designation, which presumes against
development;
 The proposal is contrary to SPP6, in relation to the proximity of the wind farm
to existing dwellinghouses
 The proposal is unacceptable in terms of its cumulative impact with other wind
farms in the vicinity, and in relation to the likely adverse impact on tourism,
tourism routes, and tourist destinations such as Dunnet Head and Strathy
Point;
 The proposal is unacceptable in terms of its adverse visual impact and is
contrary to the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy policy and guidance;
 The application should be the subject of an appropriate assessment carried
out to the satisfaction of Scottish Natural Heritage and to address issues
raised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Historic Scotland.
It was conceded in submissions that the last of these is not a reason, and can be
ignored.
4.2
Schedule 9 sets out the only statutory tests for an application for consent
under the Electricity Act. However, by incorporating a deemed planning permission
into the consent process, the normal development plan procedures set by Section 25
of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require to be followed. In this
case, when assessed against the provisions of the development plan, it is concluded
that the proposal is contrary to its terms. As there are no countervailing material
considerations, it should be refused.
4.3
National energy policy encourages renewable energy developments where
these can be located without undue environmental or amenity impact. The advice in
the Annex of Scottish Planning Policy 6 is directed to the formulation of plans, but
discloses some sensitivity among Ministers about the potential for amenity to be
disturbed if substantial groups of turbines are located to close to communities and
places where people actually live. It is the host communities which have to bear the
brunt of any disturbance which arises after construction of a wind farm. What has to
be measured is the likelihood of a significant long term detrimental impact.
4.4
The proper reading of the description of “edge of cities, towns and villages …”
in Scottish Planning Policy 6 should include communities, as it cannot have been the
Ministers’ intention to exclude communities simply because they are dispersed, as is
common in many parts of Scotland, including Caithness. Here the community is
dispersed, rather than concentrated, with seven houses within 500 metres of one of
the turbines; 25 houses within one kilometre; 61 houses within two kilometres; and
158 houses within three kilometres. These are considerable numbers, and the most
striking feature of this development is that every turbine would have a house within
one kilometre of it.
IEC_3_105_3
26
4.5
The conclusions of the report “Residential Receptor Assessment” [Document
BWL41] are not credible, as it uses a narrow definition of sensitivity, lacks a full
assessment of cumulative impact, and uses both selective criteria and a discredited
significance matrix methodology. Account should have been taken of the sensitivity
of the curtilage of dwellinghouses, not just of the expectation of views from the lower
floor of the principal elevation. The grouping of dwellings into quadrants was misguided, as the position of each can be mapped. Current turbines are larger, and
therefore more prominent than those available when government advice in Planning
Advice Note 45 was issued.
4.6
Some of the viewpoints used for assessing visual impact are not
representative, and at a number of receptors the cumulative impacts with other
proposed wind farms has not been recognised. As a result the significance of the
effects on residential amenity at a number of receptors would be greater than the
applicant’s consultant had assessed.
4.7
Many of the landscape and visual impacts of the wind farm would also be
greater than has been assessed by the applicant’s consultant due to the clustering
effect of the turbine layout geometry, the poor selection of a representative
viewpoint, the presence of a dark backdrop, and/or the under-stated sensitivity of
road users.
4.8
The development would have an overwhelming effect on those closest to it. It
is proposed for a prominent ridge-line, occupying the eastern flank of the Hill of
Shebster which is in an area with a subtle landscape, devoid of stark and prominent
features, where any rise in topography is the more pronounced. The site itself has a
complex form of secondary ridges, plateaux and valleys. The proposed layout fails
to respond to these characteristics and instead imposes a geometric grid which is
constrained by proximity to dwelling houses and to transmission lines. It thus
maximises the number of turbines within the area, while the turbines align without
regard to the topography. It does not achieve a sympathetic or even a broadly
appropriate fit with the landscape. Its visual impact is increased by the triangular
grid pattern which maximises the viewpoints from which the geometry is apparent,
resulting in a series of confused clusters, rather than an evenly dispersed cohesive
grouping.
4.9
The wind farm cannot be viewed as a “single element to create a simple
image” in accordance with guidance issued by Scottish Natural Heritage. The
withdrawal of Scottish Natural Heritage’s objection was unjustified. Its statement
that, if this wind farm is approved, the threshold capacity of accepted landscape
change in this area will have been reached, is extraordinary as it is not based on any
known capacity study, and the same statement was made by Scottish Natural
Heritage in response to another wind farm proposal at South Shebster.
4.10 Scottish Natural Heritage’s conclusion on this wind farm is unsound and
unsafe. It did not take account of the proximity of the turbines to dwellings, or the
relative landscape significance of the Hill of Shebster ridge, or of the effects arising
from the geometric layout. The changes arising from the revised scheme were not
sufficient to have justified withdrawing its previous opposition.
IEC_3_105_3
27
4.11 In terms of its cumulative impact with other wind farms, additional
representative viewpoints would have allowed a more comprehensive understanding
and significant cumulative effects would have been apparent, particularly if projects
at the scoping stage had been included. The sensitivity of viewpoints on the A836
must be regarded as high, as the road is promoted as a tourist route and forms part
of the national cycle route. This is likely to magnify the most significant cumulative
impacts. These are likely to arise in conjunction with the Forss wind farm and with
those proposed for Hill of Lieurary and South Shebster.
4.12 There would also be sequential effects, given the visibility of this proposed
wind farm together with others along the key transport routes. The impacts should
be regarded as permanent because, although the turbines may have only a 25 year
functional life, it is accepted that they are likely to be replaced.
4.13 In relation to the archaeological remains at Cnoc Freiceadain, the council and
the action group adopt the evidence and submissions of Historic Scotland. It is quite
clear that the turbines will adversely affect the setting of the cairns.
4.14 The action group’s noise consultant had analysed the data regarding
background noise which had been provided by the applicant and had identified that
the wind speeds recorded at the higher mast were 50% greater than those recorded
by the mast sited near Hillcrest. He had not been informed until the day before
giving evidence that the data was not synchronised, and conceded if that was the
case then his calculations may not be accurate.
4.15 The consultant also expressed concern that the microphone windshield which
had been used was inadequate, being of the wrong size and porosity; and that
pieces of wind speed data were missing. Although these errors might not make a
significant difference to the overall analysis, their existence results in a lack of
confidence in the data, and would tend to make the background noise calculations
higher than they actually are.
4.16 He also differed from the applicant’s noise consultant who considered that the
methodology for calculating turbine noise should scrupulously follow the approach
advocated in ISO 9613, by using the factor G = 1, because the ground here is soft,
and a height of 1.4 metres, because that is the height where compliance monitoring
would be undertaken. Instead, he took the empirical view that the G = 0.5 factor and
a receiver at 4 metres should be used, because this has been shown to give
accurate results in practice, and has been accepted recently by a Department of
Trade and Industry working group.
4.17 The applicant should also be required to justify using a higher noise limit for
those properties where the owner has a financial involvement in the project. It had
been conceded that without that adjustment, the requirements of ETSU-R-97 would
not be met at a number of these properties.
4.18 The proposed development would result in an increase in ambient noise of
between 3 and 4 times, if the figures of the action group’s consultant are correct.
IEC_3_105_3
28
4.19 If the calculations produced by the applicant’s consultant are correct, the wind
farm’s noise effects would be at the margins of acceptability under ETSU-R-97, and
are only met by adopting the night-time standard of 43 decibels. If the council’s
preferred standard of 38 decibels is used, then mitigation would have to be applied
by turning off three of the turbines in certain wind conditions. Further mitigation
would be required if the calculated background noise measurements do prove to be
too low.
4.20 If the conditions which the action group’s noise consultant considers realistic
do occur in practice, then the degree of mitigation required may be so great that the
wind farm might not reasonably be operable. While the imposition of a condition
might ensure that noise levels are controlled to below the limits set by ETSU-R-97,
the variations in noise which would result from turbines being turned off and restarted, or reduced in power, would render them more noticeable and more
annoying.
4.21 In this case, the issue of noise is a direct function of the proximity of the
turbines to houses, and it is a key consideration. Measurements and predictions are
surrounded by uncertainty, and refusal would be justified on this ground alone.
Failure to meet the parameters set by ETSU-R-97 would also justify refusal, as this
would result in a significant adverse effect on residential amenity.
4.22 The predicted increases in ambient noise are such that, in cases such as this
where the actual turbine model has not yet been selected, sensible precaution
requires refusal of the application, since the noise levels predicted have not been
demonstrated to be sufficiently robust to be able to give any reasonable degree of
confidence that there would not be noise at an unacceptable level.
4.23 In relation to ornithology, it is clear that the wind farm has the potential to
affect the qualifying interest of the Caithness Lochs special protection area, so that
the decision maker is required to undertake an appropriate assessment to test
whether the wind farm would affect its integrity.
4.24 Scottish Natural Heritage has confirmed that the population of Greenland
white-fronted geese is relatively stable at around 440, although the action group’s
witness indicated that it has dropped by 10%. There are two distinct flocks, and the
one at risk consists of some 200 birds. Adopting the precautionary principle, an
annual collision risk of 0.15% should be applied. The development of the wind farm
would result in a considerable loss of feeding habitat, with the geese experiencing
greater disturbance from the rotating turbine blades than from farming activities, from
which they are largely shielded by the undulating topography.
4.25 In their evidence, representatives of the action group referred to strong local
objections to the proposal throughout the application process, due to the size and
proximity of the turbines to existing houses, with consequent detrimental effects on
the amenity of local residents. A number of health and safety issues which could
impact on local people were raised, including the structural integrity of the turbines,
fire risk, ice throw, and the potential for effects on the health of local residents,
including the triggering of epileptic fits and a “syndrome” related to the proximity of
wind farms. These risks justify a greater separation distance from existing houses
IEC_3_105_3
29
than is proposed. Transport arrangements during construction also posed risks to
local people, and could impede emergency evacuation from Dounreay. There were
also concerns that this wind farm would affect tourism locally, which is important to
the economy of Caithness.
4.26 It was conceded in submissions that the planning policy which bears upon this
case is not in an entirely satisfactory state, as it is now accepted that the Highland
Renewable Energy Strategy does not comply with Scottish Planning Policy 6, and it
is being revised. However, the site lies wholly within an area where the strategy
indicates that there will be a presumption against onshore wind farm developments.
The proposal is also contrary to the development plan, principally in relation to
Policies G2 and E2 due to its significant detrimental impacts in terms of noise,
landscape and visual effects, and its impact on cultural heritage and, potentially,
nature conservation. That raises a presumption for refusal. The need for renewable
energy and to meet the targets could conceivably overcome that presumption if the
location of the proposed wind farm was acceptable, but it is not.
4.27 If consent is granted, it should be subject to an agreement to secure the
delivery of the benefits which are claimed for the scheme by both increasing the
supply of renewable energy and securing a reduction in pollution that would
otherwise have been generated. While renewables can displace conventionally
generated power, it should be demonstrated in every case. In Caithness, it may be
hydro power that is displaced, with no saving in carbon.
4.28 This guarantee could be secured through a Section 75 agreement, with
reference to a minimum base load output. This would enable everyone to see what
they were getting. If that approach is not accepted, it should be found that the
benefits are ill-defined and essentially guess-work, and should receive less, or no,
weight.
4.29 In conclusion it was submitted that the application depends on the
conclusions reached in relation to ornithology, noise, and the residential, landscape
and visual impacts. For such developments to command the support of the
communities within which they would be located, they should achieve environmental
acceptability and should not be over-bearing, dominant, unacceptably noisy or
intrusive to a point where a significantly adverse effect on residents is predicted.
The Scottish Government’s policy supports renewable energy developments, but
only where these are environmentally acceptable. This means that they can operate
to their capacity and still achieve a satisfactory measure of compatibility with their
receiving environments, whilst also avoiding significant adverse effects on the
amenity of their neighbours. This proposed development fails that test.
IEC_3_105_3
30
5.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE FOR HISTORIC SCOTLAND
5.1
Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act requires that those formulating proposals
should have regard to the desirability of protecting sites, buildings and objects of
architectural, historical or archaeological interest.
5.2
In this case, the issue for Historic Scotland is whether the proximity of the
wind farm would have an adverse effect on the setting of the scheduled ancient
monuments of Cnoc Freiceadain and Hill of Shebster. The former contains two
cairns, known as Cnoc Freideadain and Na Tri Sithean.
5.3
The applicant has departed from the assessment of the significance of the
impacts on these monuments which was set out in the environmental statement and
the addendum, so no weight should be placed on that assessment. Also,
intervisibility as a factor in understanding a monument’s setting is not an issue here.
5.4
The argument that the impact of the development on the setting of the
monuments should be regarded as temporary because the application is for a time
limited period is not supported by the terms of The Scottish Office Development
Department Circular No. 4/1998: 'The use of conditions in planning permissions'.
Paragraph 105 makes clear that the material considerations to be taken into account
are the same both for a temporary and an unlimited consent.
5.5
The fact that consent is sought for a temporary period cannot be used to say
that the effect on the area would be limited. Similarly, the claimed reversibility of the
development is not a good argument for the impact being limited. No such
suggestion is made in Scottish Planning Policy 6, and it is difficult to see how a
future application to renew the permission for a wind farm would be resisted.
5.6
The policy that scheduled ancient monuments should be preserved within an
appropriate setting is set out in Annex A to Scottish Planning Policy 23. There is no
widely accepted or legal definition of setting, but paragraph 9 provides some
assistance (quoted at paragraph 2.15 above). Paragraph 3 in Annex 5 of the
Scottish Historic Environment Policy provides the following advice regarding adverse
impact:
“Whether any particular development will have an adverse impact on the
setting of a scheduled monument is a matter of professional judgement. It will
depend on such variables as the nature, extent, design of the development
proposed, the characteristics of the monument in question, its relationship to
other monuments in the vicinity, its current landscape setting and its
contribution to our understanding and appreciation of the monument.”
5.7
To define the setting of these monuments, a good starting point is their
location. The Cnoc Freideadain cairns are almost on the flat summit of Cnoc
Freiceadain which, at 122 metres AOD, is a prominent feature on the skyline, with Tri
Na Sithean being prominent from all directions. The cairn at Hill of Shebster is just
to the north of the actual summit, and some 700 metres south of the other cairns
along the ridge.
IEC_3_105_3
31
5.8
There is a debate as to whether the cairns were designed to be visible. The
extent of the afforestation at the time of their construction is a matter of speculation.
Authors agree that tree cover was sparse in the Neolithic period, so the cairns are
likely to have been more visible than might have been the case had there been
heavier afforestation across the ridge. While it is not known why particular locations
were chosen, each is in a prominent one. If that in itself is unique, then it may be all
the more important to ensure that the integrity of the prominence setting is not
adversely affected.
5.9
It was submitted that it should not be determined that the setting of these
monuments is less important because, when they were constructed, they may have
been less obvious because of forestation. That would be to assess the setting on a
speculative basis, and would not accord with the requirements of the policy in which
the current landscape setting is the context within which the assessment of impact is
to be made.
5.10 In assessing the impact on the setting, regard should be had to the size and
proximity of the turbines, being 110 metres to blade tip and with the closest turbine
standing only 588 metres from the Cnoc Freideadain cairns. The blades would be
turning most of the time, and the turbines would puncture the horizon.
5.11 If the cairns were placed in close proximity to settlements, the view from them
in Neolithic times would have been of a settlement or agricultural land. It is this
setting into which the turbines would intrude. The landscape has changed over time,
but developments such as Dounreay do not compromise the setting of the
monuments to the extent suggested by the applicant.
5.12 The applicant’s archaeological consultant accepted that the visual impact on
the setting of the Cnoc Freiceadain cairns and, to a lesser extent, the Hill of Shebster
cairn would be significant. He considered that the critical question is whether the
wind farm would overpower the setting of the monuments. That over-states the test
which is to be applied. He also stated that the “contextualisation of his appraisal”
was influenced by the knowledge that the duration of the impact involved would be
26 years, and he appeared to be arguing for his own academic viewpoint. That
however misses the point, as it is important for the monuments to be preserved in a
manner that allows that academic debate to continue, particularly where the reasons
for the location of these prominent monuments is unclear.
5.13 The two proposals suggested by way of mitigation are at the lower end of the
hierarchy of mitigation. While improved access to the historic environment is
supported by policy, the suggested measures have not been assessed in terms of
their impact on the cultural significance of the monuments. As they were offered at a
late stage and cannot be assessed for compliance with policy, no weight should be
attached to them. If the development did proceed, the suggested LIDAR laser
scanning would be welcome, but would not in itself justify a breach of policy.
5.14 It is not for Historic Scotland to determine whether there are any exceptional
circumstances which would justify a departure from policy, but in considering this
issue, regard must be had to the number and extent of wind farms, both constructed
and planned. Accordingly, Historic Scotland asks that the application be refused.
IEC_3_105_3
32
6.
SUMMARY OF THE CASES OF OTHER THIRD PARTIES
6.1
Stuart Young confirmed that he is the chairman of the Caithness Windfarm
Information Forum, but was giving evidence on his own behalf. He considers that
Caithness has already passed saturation point for wind farms. He indicated that he
produces large scale photomontages of wind farms and in his evidence he sought to
highlight the importance of the correct distance for viewing photomontages so that
the turbines are seen at the correct scale. He suggested that the photomontages in
the environmental statement do not adequately represent the visual impact of the
proposed Baillie wind farm, where the turbines would be taller that those at the
existing four wind farms in Caithness.
6.2
Two of the images in the environmental statement were too indistinct to be
representative of the views (viewpoints 25 and 04b). He also suggested that better
viewpoints could have been used, as five conceal the true impact on communities,
five avoid showing the impact on travellers or tourists; and the viewpoint from the
Orkney ferry suggests that the wind farm would not be highly visible for the greater
part of the voyage. However, viewing the existing wind farms from certain locations
would eliminate any uncertainty about the true visual nature of the proposed
turbines.
6.3
The nearest turbine to a green on the golf course at Reay is 4.7 kilometres
away, and he suggested that the wind farm would disturb the golfer’s peaceful
enjoyment of the game. In answer to questions he confirmed that he is not an expert
in either photography or landscape, but that his interest is in opposing wind farms.
6.4
Russell Hayley stated that he is a resident of West Caithness, living at Reay.
He had viewed the visual representations of the Baillie wind farm proposal looming
over the village of Reay on the website of the Caithness Windfarm Information
Forum, and the link from there to an objection letter which could be sent to the
council. On the applicant’s website, the turbines appeared tiny by comparison,
despite the viewpoint being a mile closer. On investigation, he found that the visual
representation on the forum’s website did not follow the guidelines issued by Scottish
Natural Heritage. The forum amended the website image after he drew attention to
this matter.
6.5
Other photomontages produced by Stuart Young and the forum also
contained errors related to cropping, field of view, and the position of certain
turbines. Anyone viewing these images would have got a misleading impression of
the wind farm.
6.6
He confirmed that he supports this wind farm proposal, both because of his
general concerns about global warming and because he considers that it can be
accommodated. He has no financial involvement in the development.
6.7
William Brown stated that he is the convenor of the Caithness West
Community Council. Its duty is to ascertain, co-ordinate and express to public
authorities the views of the community which it represents. It had held public
meetings to discuss this proposal in February 2006 and November 2007.
Questionnaires circulated at the end of these meetings identified that, at the first,
IEC_3_105_3
33
23 people were against the wind farm, with only the developer in favour. At the
second, 32 were against, 2 in favour and 4 abstained, with a further 32 objections
submitted by letter and email by those who could not attend.
6.8
A subsequent postal ballot was held, resulting in an overwhelming vote
against. The developer produced a petition with several hundred signatures in
support, but only two live in West Caithness. On this basis, the community council
concluded that the local community is overwhelmingly not in favour of the
development.
6.9
In answer to questions, he confirmed that the community council had first
expressed its concerns about the development at the time of scoping, before the
application had been submitted, as its view is not to support wind farms in its area.
Letters published in the local press expressing his opposition to the development
had been written in his private capacity, although he accepted that their terms would
not have been appropriate if he had signed them as the convenor of the community
council.
6.10 John Webster stated that he opposes this development. He lives at Buldoo,
to the east of Dounreay and 2.5 kilometres west of the six smaller turbines at Forss.
These cause shadow flicker on residential and business properties and, being on
land at the same level as the houses, generally dominate the landscape whether or
not they are turning. Residents at Buldoo would face and look up to the Baillie
turbines towards the south, reaching to 220 metres above sea level, and also at a
distance of 2.5 kilometres to the nearest. In winter months, the rising sun would
cause shadow flicker and nuisance; while in summer months, glinting may also
cause a nuisance.
6.11 In view of this and other wind farm proposals, and in conjunction with the
controversial issues in the immediate nuclear exclusion zone, he suggested that
Buldoo is likely to be at the centre of an enormous blight issue.
6.12 Celia McDougall stated that she lives at Shebster and objects to the
proposed wind farm. It would cause a major invasion of the natural landscape that
would be detrimental both to the people and to the birds of the area, as well as to the
scope and shape of the landscape. If there were government guidelines for
identifying the most suitable sites, this would not be one of them.
6.13 Caithness is known for its big skies, resulting from the uninterrupted expanses
of high skies above a low, undulating horizon. The turbines would intrude into this
landscape which allows long distances to be seen from every viewpoint. The
application site is only between 70 to 100 metres above sea level, so that these tall
turbines would double the landscape height and in conjunction with other existing
and further proposals, wind farms would be visible in every direction.
6.14 There would be clusters of houses close to the wind farm, some within
500 metres of the nearest turbines, with potential impact on householders through
noise and from shadow flicker due to the low angle of the sun for much of the year.
It would also be close to the national cycle route, to a number of distinctive
IEC_3_105_3
34
archaeological sites, including the chambered cairns, and to feeding areas and flight
paths of white fronted geese.
6.15 Two precognitions were taken as written submissions, as the authors were
unable to attend the inquiry on the day. Letitia Dungavel stated that she lives at
Bardnaheigh farmhouse, adjacent to the proposed wind farm and some 400 metres
from the nearest turbine. She and her family support the development due to its long
term benefits for global warming, and it would provide alternative job opportunities to
Dounreay. She knows many people who feel the same. The proposal is fully
detailed, with great attention to the landscape and would fit well with the existing
pylon line. The Forss wind farm would cause no detrimental effects to local people
in combination with this proposal, while the Causewaymire wind farm is
18 kilometres away.
6.16 The adjacent road is the back road between Thurso and Reay, which is not
particularly busy and is mainly used by Dounreay workers to avoid congestion. It is
also the national cycle route, but most tourists take the coastal road where the Forss
House Hotel, the area’s only tourist facility, is located. A visitor centre at the Baillie
wind farm would be of educational benefit both to local people and visitors.
6.17 Children enjoy seeing turbines, and there is a pleasing tranquillity about them
as they slowly revolve. The wind farm would not detract from the scheduled ancient
monuments, and few Caithness people or visitors know of, or visit, the cairns.
6.18 David Mason stated that he supports the development, and that the
employment opportunities, equivalent to between five and six full-time equivalent
jobs, that would be created are especially important in Caithness, due to the decline
in employment in agriculture and the nuclear industry. Caithness is well located to
take advantage of the development of technologies in the renewable energy
industry. In Scottish Planning Policy 6 the Scottish Ministers confirm that a thriving
renewables industry in Scotland has the potential to develop new indigenous
industries, particularly in rural areas.
IEC_3_105_3
35
7.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES AND WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
7.1
Four organisation submitted responses relating to air safety: the Highlands
and Islands Airports Authority indicated that the proposal is unlikely to impact on
operations at Wick Airport; National Air Traffic Services confirmed that it has no
safeguarding objection; the Civil Aviation Authority advised that there may be a
need to install aviation obstruction lighting; and the Ministry of Defence confirmed
that it has no objection.
7.2
Ofcom advised that two telecommunications operators may be affected and
the applicant should have clearance from them. The Scottish Environment
Protection Agency has no objections, subject to the imposition of conditions requiring
a pollution prevention plan and protection of watercourses. Caithness West
Community Council confirmed its objection to the proposal, principally in relation to
its visual impact, the effects on residential amenity and on birds.
7.3
Scottish Natural Heritage has withdrawn its earlier objections to the
proposal in relation to its landscape and visual effects and to its impact on the
ornithological interests of the Caithness Lochs special protection area and the Loch
Calder Site of Special Scientific Interest.
7.4
In a further written submission dated 16 February 2009 and lodged prior to the
public inquiry, it confirmed its advice that, although the proposal is likely to have a
significant effect on the special protection area and therefore that an ‘appropriate
assessment’ is required, it is also possible to ascertain that the proposal would not
have an adverse effect on its integrity. It also advised that it is not necessary to
impose any conditions on the consent in order for this conclusion to be reached with
certainty.
7.5
Caithness Lochs special protection area comprises six lochs, including Loch
Calder, and Broubster Leans which is a mire. The three qualifying birds species of
the special protection area are the whooper swan, greylag goose and Greenland
white-fronted goose. The conservation objectives for the special protection area are:
to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species, or significant
disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is
maintained; and to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are
maintained in the long term:
 The population of the species as a viable component of the site
 The distribution of the species within the site
 The distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species
 The structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting
the species
 No significant disturbance of the species.
7.6
The potential causes of a likely significant effect arising from the proposed
wind farm are that: there would be short term disturbance to the birds during the
construction period; there would be long term disturbance to the birds’ feeding areas
arising from the sight of the operational turbines; and there would be the risk of
collision with the moving blades of the turbines as the birds fly between their feeding
and roosting areas.
IEC_3_105_3
36
7.7
Scottish Natural Heritage had re-calculated the collision risk for each of the
three qualifying birds species using an up-dated avoidance factor of 99% for the
geese, and 95% for the swans. Its estimate of the risk to the greylag geese and
whooper swans was the same as the applicant’s, respectively eleven and one birds
annually, while for the Greenland white fronted geese it had estimated an annual
collision risk of 0.3 birds, compared with the applicant’s estimate of 0.2 birds, but
confirmed that this difference has no implications for Scottish Natural Heritage’s
position.
7.8
The combined effects with other wind farm proposals was also taken into
account. For each of the species, Scottish Natural Heritage stated its reasons for
finding that, taking account of the effects of the wind farm in relation to both
disturbance and collision, both on its own and in conjunction with the other wind
farms, the five conservation objectives listed above would all be met and that, in
relation to each species, the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the
special protection area.
7.9
A substantial number of written representations both in favour of and in
opposition to the proposed development were submitted to the council and/or to the
Scottish Ministers. There were over 230 objections submitted, mainly from local
people, and highlighting the impacts of the proposed development. There were over
800 representations in support of the development. These were drawn from a wider
area, with some from other countries, but the majority were from addresses within
Highland including over 100 from Wick and the eastern area of Caithness, and also
more than 100 from Thurso and other villages in the western part of Caithness lying
near to the wind farm. Some of those who occupy the individual houses closest to
the proposed wind farm also confirmed their support. Those in favour of the
proposal generally highlighted the wider benefits arising from wind energy generation
which this development would help to achieve. The key issues raised in the written
representations were reflected in the evidence given to the inquiry.
7.10 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds also submitted a detailed written
statement prior to the inquiry in support of its objection to the proposal. It contended
that there might be an adverse effect on the integrity of the Caithness Lochs special
protection area.
Assumptions made in the environmental statement are
questionable, and the reliability of the data is reduced by the use of a single vantage
point observer in the fieldwork surveys. While the society accepts that the collision
risk model has been used accurately, it considers that the increased mortality of the
three species has been under-estimated. It also states that it is unsatisfactory for
Scottish Natural Heritage to rely wholly on the results of the modelling, as there is
limited data and under-recording was likely. It should also have had more regard to
a recommendation made in one of its commissioned reports that there should be a
presumption against wind farms within 5 kilometres of roost sites of the qualifying
species of a special protection area.
7.11 The society concludes that an appropriate assessment is required to
determine the significance of the impact. While it does not consider that loss of
feeding areas due to land take is a cause for concern here, research suggests that
IEC_3_105_3
37
displacement from feeding areas in the vicinity of the wind farm is likely and
Greenland white fronted geese are particularly susceptible to disturbance.
7.12 If consent is granted, measures to mitigate these adverse impacts, including a
habitat enhancement package, monitoring proposals and a construction method
statement, should be secured either by imposing conditions or through a Section 75
agreement made prior to works commencing. The most effective measure would be
turbine shutdown during periods of greatest bird activity, possibly using radar survey
to establish thresholds of activity. A monitoring programme linked to postconstruction contingency measures should also be used to allow additional
shutdown if the development is having an adverse effect on the designated sites.
IEC_3_105_3
38
8.
FINDINGS OF FACT
8.1
I find the following facts, the test applied being the balance of probability.
8.2
I adopt as fact the site description and application background in relation to
the proposed development, as set out in Section One; and the legislative framework
and planning policy context, which are set out in Section Two.
8.3
To enable the development to proceed, the Scottish Ministers would require
not only to issue a consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act, but also to issue a
direction that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted. Only if it is first
decided that consent under Section 36 is to be granted does the question arise as to
whether the Scottish Ministers should direct that planning permission shall be
deemed to be granted also.
8.4
Schedule 9 of the Act sets out specific obligations on the Scottish Ministers in
their determination of an application for consent under Section 36: they require to
have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna
and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites,
buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; but also to
have regard to the extent to which the applicant has complied with the duty to do
what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the
natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites,
buildings or objects.
8.5
Schedule 9 also requires both the applicant and the Ministers to avoid, so far
as possible, causing injury to fisheries or to the stock of fish in any waters.
8.6
The Act does not state that these are the only matters to which regard should
be had. In these circumstances, a decision maker should not fail to take account of
matters which would be material to a decision to grant consent for such an
application. As this is an application to erect a wind farm, I consider that government
policy, along with the environmental effects identified in the submitted and amended
environmental statements and in the additional environmental information submitted
to the inquiry, are among the material considerations to which regard should be had.
So too are the relevant provisions of the development plan, but what differentiates
the determination of an application under Section 36 from the determination of a
planning application, is that the decision making process specified under Section 25
of the planning Act is not a statutory requirement.
8.7
That distinction is largely academic, as it is for the decision maker in each
case to determine the weight to be attached to each of the material considerations,
which would inevitably include the relevant provisions of the development plan.
8.8
The Scottish Ministers are also not required by statue to apply Section 25 of
the planning Act to their determination as to whether to direct that planning
permission shall be deemed to be granted. While it may be theoretically possible to
attach different weight to the same considerations in determining whether to direct
that planning permission should be deemed to be granted, having already
IEC_3_105_3
39
determined that Section 36 consent should be granted, it is not apparent why, or in
what circumstances, that would be justified.
The need for and benefits of the proposal
8.9
Within the wider context of UK government energy policy, the policies of the
Scottish Government specifically promote the development of further renewable
energy generation capacity and confirm, despite a range of other initiatives and
technologies, that onshore wind farms are expected to continue to make a significant
contribution towards that objective.
8.10 This wind farm would provide an installed capacity of approximately 52.5
megawatts, providing a useful contribution towards meeting the Scottish
Government’s target of generating 50% of Scotland’s electricity from renewables by
2020. The current grid connection offer is for 2012, but the option of a non-firm
connection before that date offers the prospect of an earlier contribution. The
characteristically windy nature of the Caithness climate indicates that this wind
farm’s contribution would be more sustained and therefore more effective than those
in many other parts of Scotland.
8.11 The extent to which it would replace fossil fuel generated electricity, and
thereby reduce CO2 or other emissions which contribute to climate change, is
inevitably uncertain, not just because of the nature of the wind resource, but also
because the sources used for energy generation are also liable to constant change
from a variety of factors. While government anticipates that such emissions will be
reduced through increased renewable energy generation, there is no basis in policy
for making the granting of consent for an individual project dependent on a condition
or other legal mechanism which would purport to guarantee the delivery of these
emission reductions.
8.12 For the local economy, outwith the construction period direct additional
employment would be small, although the development would contribute to a
growing role for Caithness in developing renewable energy industries and
technologies. This offers an alternative to the decline in employment opportunities in
both the nuclear industry and in agriculture. Clearly the main long term beneficiary
would be the applicant company and its partners, and also the local residents who
have a financial stake in the development. To the extent that generated revenues
are retained locally, this would be likely to help support local businesses and
services. Improved access, education and promotion regarding the scheduled
ancient monuments, if secured as mitigation through a planning condition or
agreement, could also make a useful contribution to tourism locally.
8.13 Despite mention in General Policy G4 of the structure plan and the Highland
Renewable Energy Strategy, any payments made by the developer into a local
community fund cannot be sought by the planning authority, whether it be Highland
Council or the Scottish Ministers, where those payments would not address any
particular need or impact arising from the development. Nor should they be secured
through a planning condition or a Section 75 agreement. Such payments would be a
matter entirely for the applicant’s discretion.
IEC_3_105_3
40
Landscape and visual effects
8.14 The government’s advice is that, as wind turbines are tall and frequently
located in open land, they are likely to be highly visible. This is particularly apt in
relation to Caithness, where the large scale, open and relatively flat landscape
enables any wind farm, particularly one such as this with 110 metre high turbines, to
be seen over great distances, and often from many directions. They can therefore
be highly prominent, because of their height and the open landscape; but may not
be dominant, except when viewed at close distances, because they occupy only a
small proportion of a wide, or even 360 degree, panoramic view which is largely
uninterrupted by hills or deep valleys.
8.15 In these circumstances, some may consider the landscape wholly
inappropriate for wind farm development, while others would judge that it has
considerable scope to accommodate them. Each position could be justified by the
visual evidence of the existing wind farms which are constructed and operational In
Caithness. Although the impact on this landscape of a wind farm such as Baillie
would undoubtedly be major and significant, and properly regarded as adverse,
nonetheless I would not regard it as unacceptable. This is because I consider that
the large scale, open and largely horizontal character of the landscape is capable of
accommodating, but not disguising or concealing, such an element; and it does not
have particular scenic qualities which are recognised by any formal landscape
designation.
8.16 This site’s surrounding topography provides a small degree of containment,
although this is relatively insignificant in relation to the wider landscape setting.
From the north-west, the wind farm would be seen as standing beyond the Shebster
ridge which separates the site from Dounreay and the coastline of the Pentland Firth.
In nearer views, it would be seen to occupy the land between the Forss valley and
the Shebster ridge, although the relative gentle changes in topography would be
largely over-powered by the scale of the turbines. The concentrated and compact
layout would, to a degree, contribute to that element of containment.
8.17 When viewed from the Shebster ridge in the vicinity of the Cnoc Freiceadain
cairns, the turbines would clearly be standing on the lower ground to the east of the
minor road from Shebster to Forss, but the blades would be turning at a height level
with the viewer and would be highly prominent, resulting in a significant and adverse
visual impact on those visiting the ridge and its scheduled ancient monuments.
8.18 The site lies within a settled lowland agricultural landscape, which has a
pattern of scattered housing, some in clusters, but mainly reflecting the nature of the
farm holdings. Wind turbines appear as alien industrial elements in any landscape in
Scotland, and would do so here too. One of the key features of this proposed wind
farm is the nearby presence of houses all around it, in some cases within the
application site itself, and also the proximity of some of the houses to particular
turbines.
8.19 For instance, houses at Hillcrest and Bardnaheigh are within the application
site, and 250 and 300 metres respectively from the nearest turbine to them. In total,
six houses would be within 500 metres from the nearest turbine, almost 30 within
IEC_3_105_3
41
one kilometres, and over 60 within two kilometres. The residents of those houses
which have the windows of main ground floor rooms orientated directly towards the
wind farm, would experience a major and significant visual impact, but it would not
be restricted to them as the effect would also be experienced by others who would
view the wind farm from other rooms, their gardens, or on approach to or departure
from their houses.
8.20 I consider that in these circumstances this visual impact should be treated as
an adverse one, although I recognise that in this case the residents of some of these
houses are stakeholders in the proposed wind farm or are supporters of it, and could
therefore be expected to respond positively to the visible presence of the rotating
blades of the turbines, even those closest to their own houses.
8.21 Setting aside the other potential impacts which might arise for nearby
residents from the presence of a wind farm, the issue that arises here is whether the
significant adverse visual impact on local residents would be so great as to render
the development unacceptable. The occupier of any house does not have a right to
a view. Here, the view from nearby houses would not be lost or wholly obstructed,
but would be dramatically altered. The height of the turbines and the rotating motion
of the blades, combined with their proximity, would result in the wind farm becoming
a dominant element in certain views particularly when the windows of the principal
rooms face towards it. This effect would be reduced to some extent by the limited
arc which it occupies in the wide overall field of view.
8.22 Any assessment of acceptability in these circumstances relies on judgement
rather than measurement. Different conclusions would be reached by different
residents or outside observers. Government guidance provides limited assistance.
The advice in Scottish Planning Policy 6 to planning authorities preparing spatial
strategies for large wind farms states that criteria should be adopted in relation to
local communities, to ensure that proposals are not permitted if they would have a
significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby.
However it appears to define “communities” as comprising cities, towns and villages.
This would exclude scattered rural communities such as this.
8.23 In further suggesting that a two kilometres separation distance could be
adopted from the edge of cities, towns and villages as a tool to help direct
development to the areas of search, it also confirms that any proposals within that
distance would continue to be judged on a case by case basis. I consider that even
if such a separation zone from the edge of cities, towns and villages was adopted,
there are few locations outwith upland Scotland where a wind farm could be sited
more than two kilometres from any house.
8.24 Such an approach would represent a real barrier to achieving the
government’s renewable energy objectives, although I recognise that a letter
produced at the inquiry [Document CWAG101], which was written on behalf of the
Energy Minister, appears to confirm this, stating that Scottish Planning Policy 6
“confirms that, in all instances, proposals should not be permitted if they would have
a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby.
This principle applies to houses within and outwith two kilometres of the proposed
IEC_3_105_3
42
development and regardless of whether they are single dwellings or part of a
settlement.”
8.25 Given that I have found that this wind farm, because of its visual prominence
and proximity, would have a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of
some of the people living nearby, and as the impact would be long term, that
interpretation would appear to preclude the granting of consent for this application.
However, the guidance also confirms that proposals are to be considered on a case
by case basis, and I consider that this inevitably requires a judgement to be reached
on the acceptability of the impacts identified.
8.26 In reaching that judgement here, I find that the issue to be addressed is
whether the adverse effects which would be experienced by some of the residents of
the 60 or so houses which are within two kilometres of the nearest turbines is
sufficient to outweigh the wider public benefits which the development is designed to
achieve. In my judgement, on the merits of this case, I find that these adverse
effects are not so great as to be unacceptable, due to: the relatively small number of
houses involved; the support expressed by some of these residents, whether
through financial involvement or otherwise; the separation distances from the
turbines; the compact layout of the wind farm and its position within an open
landscape; and the capacity of the landscape to accommodate the wind farm.
8.27 Those using the local road network would also experience some significant
visual impact from the proposed development. The A836 is the main coastal road
leading west from Thurso and is designated as a tourist route. However its main
attribute in that regard is the views which can be obtained towards the Pentland Firth
and Orkney. In the vicinity of Forss, while the proposed wind farm would be fairly
prominent in views to the south, I consider that this would not detract significantly
from the interest which principally arises on the northern side of this route from such
features as the local hotel in its woodland setting, the small existing wind farm and,
further to the west, the various nuclear energy facilities at Dounreay which are now
being de-commissioned, together with the coastal features and the sea views.
8.28 On approach from the west, when seen from viewpoints at Strathy Point or
Drum Hollistan, the wind farm would be a noticeable feature, but the eye would tend
to be drawn more towards the coastal features and to Dounreay. To the east of
Thurso, from vantage points such as Dunnet Head, the wind farm would not appear
prominent because of the distance, and the Pentland Firth coastline and views
towards Orkney would tend to attract most attention. Neither would it impinge
greatly into views of northbound travellers towards Thurso on the A9 or, even less
so, on the railway.
8.29 Perhaps the main visual impacts on road users would be on those travelling
west from Thurso on the inland C1 route which passes south of the site and is also a
national cycle route, and on those travelling north on the minor roads on either side
of Loch Calder, where the wind farm would appear as an increasingly prominent
focal point in the view. While the visual effect would be significantly adverse, and the
wind farm may appear as a dominant feature on some stretches, I do not consider
that to be sufficient to render it unacceptable.
IEC_3_105_3
43
8.30 Turning to the cumulative landscape and visual effects, it is the Forss wind
farm which would be most often and most clearly seen in conjunction with the Baillie
wind farm. Although at about 2.5 kilometres it would be relatively close, its coastal
location, fewer turbines and lower height would clearly differentiate it, whether in
distant or near views, and I do not consider that the combined landscape and visual
effects would be unacceptable. In relation to other proposals in this part of
Caithness, concerns about further proliferation of wind farms would require to be
addressed when each of these is determined, and I do not consider it appropriate to
pre-judge the assessments which would require to be made for those in the event
that consent is granted for this wind farm.
8.31 In the context of the other wind farms elsewhere in Caithness which have
been constructed or approved, I consider the distance from this site to be so great
that the cumulative landscape and visual impacts arising from approval of this
proposal would not be significant. That finding also relates to the sequential
cumulative impacts which would arise, for instance for those travelling north on the
A9 to Thurso. Some have expressed concern that too many wind farms might be
constructed in Caithness, and Scottish Natural Heritage in its consultation response
suggested that some sort of landscape capacity may be approached in this area if
this, and perhaps another proposed wind farm south of Shebster, are built. Such a
wider assessment of the landscape’s capacity for further wind farm development was
not part of the remit of this inquiry.
Tourism
8.32 The impact of this wind farm on tourism would mainly be related to its effects
on the landscape. Based on my above findings in that regard, I consider that it is
unlikely to have a significant effect. Many visitors who would see the wind farm
would be passing it as part of a longer journey, either on the coastal route around the
north of Scotland or travelling to and from Orkney via Scrabster. The only
substantial tourist facility nearby is the Forss House Hotel, already situated very
close to an existing wind farm, but well located on the coastal route to draw trade
from passing traffic, business related visitors to Dounreay, and those spending
longer in the north of Caithness. No objection has been lodged from its owners, and
I consider that no significant effect on its business is likely to arise from the presence
of the proposed wind farm.
8.33 Effects on other tourist businesses in Caithness, such as the Castle of Mey,
are also unlikely, and I have found no compelling evidence to suggest that there
would be any significant deterrence effect from this wind farm, particularly as wind
energy is being reflected in the re-branding of Caithness which is already evident to
those arriving at Wick Airport and in the new visitor centre in Thurso.
Ornithology
8.34 With regard to its impact on natural heritage, the key issue in the case of this
wind farm relates to the Caithness Lochs special protection area which has been
designated to conserve three bird species: Greenland white-fronted geese, greylag
geese and whooper swans. The designated area covers six lochs, including Loch
Calder to the south, and an area of mire known as Broubster Leans. Although the
IEC_3_105_3
44
application site is outwith the designated area, the wind farm would have the
potential to impact on these species through direct collision, disturbance, or
displacement.
8.35 In these circumstances, the habitats regulations require the planning authority
(in this case the Scottish Ministers) to consider the potential impact of the proposed
development on those species. As they have been observed flying both through and
near the site, and feeding in relatively close proximity to the proposed position of
some turbines, I consider that it must be found that the proposed wind farm is likely
to have a significant effect on them. Therefore the Scottish Ministers would be
precluded from granting consent without first undertaking an “appropriate
assessment” to establish whether the development would have an adverse effect on
the integrity of the special protection area, having regard to its conservation
objectives in relation to each of those species.
8.36 In its written submission dated 16 February 2009, Scottish Natural Heritage
set out why, in making its own assessment, it had concluded that the wind farm
would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the special protection area, and
why it had concluded so with sufficient certainty also to recommend that it would not
be necessary to impose conditions to require appropriate mitigation measures to be
undertaken in the event that an adverse effect did occur in relation to one or more of
the species. In undertaking their own assessment, the Scottish Ministers are
required to consult Scottish Natural Heritage, and as its adviser in this regard,
I consider that significant weight must be attached to its view.
8.37 However that assessment is based on a recognition that the wind farm would
result in collision fatalities, albeit at a level which would not impact significantly on
the population of the species supported by the special protection area. There is
inevitably a degree of doubt about such calculations, based as they are on a
mathematical collision risk model derived from limited human field observations over
a limited period of years.
8.38 Given the legal duties imposed on national governments by the European
Union in relation to the protection of such key species through the mechanism of
special protection areas, I consider that a precautionary approach should be adopted
in these circumstances. This could be achieved by imposing a suspensive condition
to ensure the prior approval, before development starts, of a monitoring programme
linked to a scheme of mitigation through turbine shutdown for periods which would
vary depending on the scale and nature of the impact, as suggested by the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds. This would be consistent with the government’s
obligations and, in view of its confidence in its own assessment of the risk, should
not be prejudicial to the viability or successful operation of the applicant’s
development.
The scheduled ancient monuments
8.39 Scheduled ancient monument consent would not be required for this
development, as it would not have any direct effect on either of the scheduled
ancient monuments at Hill of Shebster or Cnoc Freiceadain. However, any impact
on the setting of a scheduled ancient monument would be a material consideration to
IEC_3_105_3
45
be weighed in determining whether consent should be granted. Unfortunately, there
is no unambiguous definition of what the setting of a scheduled ancient monument is
meant to consist, either generally or in relation to particular monuments.
8.40 Here the monuments are located, respectively, just off the summit of the Hill
of Shebster, and almost on the crest of the ridge which runs north from it. The
scheduled area is tightly drawn around the cairns. The hill and the associated ridge
lie entirely to the west of the minor road which connects Shebster and Forss, and
from which access to the monuments is gained by a stile adjacent to a passing place
that is used for parking purposes. This road also marks the western extent of the
application site, and when viewed from the cairns the nearest turbines would be
located within or beyond the forestry plantation on that side of the road, at a
minimum distance of over 580 metres.
8.41 I consider that it is the Hill of Shebster and the associated ridge running
northwards which is the essential setting of these monuments. This conclusion is
without prejudice to the academic debate as to the relationship which the cairns may
have had with the wider landscape and the people who lived there at the time of their
construction. That landscape has undoubtedly evolved over centuries, with power
lines, forestry, nuclear and renewable energy establishments, roads, housing and
agricultural buildings all evident, and I find no compelling reason why the proposed
wind farm would prejudice the setting of the monuments or the ability to appreciate
alternative theories regarding its function or relationship with the different
environment in which the cairns would first have been set.
8.42 That finding is not affected by my earlier conclusion that the wind farm would
have a significant detrimental visual impact on visitors to the ridge and, therefore,
also to the cairns. I regard that as a separate matter. I also consider that the
mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to improve the physical access to the
Cnoc Freiceadain monuments for visitors, combined with the proposed LIDAR
survey work and interpretation, offer the opportunity to enhance the understanding
and interpretation of the monuments and thus the visitor experience. The unique
opportunity provided by the vantage point on the ridge to connect the Neolithic
monuments with iconic elements of recent energy industry initiatives which would be
represented by Dounreay, Forss, Baillie and the Pentland Firth, has the potential to
engage the interest of visitors and residents alike.
Noise
8.43 The noise generated by wind turbines can cause disturbance to residents in
nearby houses. In this case, the proximity of the houses on all sides of the wind
farm requires that careful assessment is made to ensure that appropriate protection
would be provided for residents where necessary.
8.44 Planning Advice Note 45 advises that the approach set out in ETSU-R-97
should be adopted for wind farm proposals, and this has been followed by the
applicant’s consultant. There is no persuasive evidence that this has proved
insufficient elsewhere. The methodology makes provision for a small relaxation in
standards in relation to any houses where the occupants have a financial interest in
the development. That is reasonable, and it is relevant to this wind farm.
IEC_3_105_3
46
8.45 While a number of criticisms were made of the method of data collection
employed and subsequent calculations made in the applicant’s assessment, many of
these were based on mis-understandings and I am satisfied that the assessment has
incorporated a number of conservative assumptions which give confidence that its
results are robust and fit for purpose. It has identified that there is the possibility of
noise disturbance at some properties, dependent on wind speed and direction, and
that it is necessary to impose planning conditions to require monitoring and
mitigation measures to be implemented to reduce noise output to acceptable levels
in those circumstances. I am satisfied that such reductions can be achieved at
specified wind speeds and directions through turbine shutdown or by adjustment to
the angle of the blades to reduce power output.
Shadow flicker and blade glint
8.46 Similarly, due to the position of the wind farm and its proximity to a number of
houses, there is the possibility of shadow flicker being experienced in some of the
houses at those times when the sun is positioned behind a turbine, causing the
moving shadows cast by the rotating blades to result in a flicker effect being
experienced within those rooms where windows face the particular turbine.
8.47 The days of the year and times of day when this effect could be caused in
individual houses can be calculated, and the applicant confirmed that sensors
attached to a turbine can trigger shutdown to avoid this occurring. I find therefore
that this matter can also be addressed by imposing a condition which would avoid
nearby occupiers experiencing that potential source of nuisance.
8.48 The potential for nuisance to be caused by the sun’s reflection glinting off the
rotating blades of the turbines can addressed by the use of a matt, rather than a
gloss, finish. This can be secured through a planning condition.
Health and safety issues
8.49 Risks of various types are inevitably associated with any form of development,
not least with electricity generation. Here concerns have been raised about the
health and safety of those who would be living near to the wind farm. However, the
applicant has confirmed that the speed of rotation of the blades would not be at a
rate that triggers epileptic fits; and that sensors can be fitted to ensure shutdown on
the infrequent occasions when icing of the blades may occur and give rise to the
potential for ice throw.
8.50 Public access is generally allowed to wind farm sites, and I am satisfied that
the safety advice to staff undertaking maintenance is not directly applicable to
members of the public visiting at other times. Other regulatory regimes deal with
matters relating to structural integrity and fire risk, while a suggestion that there may
be a health “syndrome” experienced by some living close to wind farms is
uncorroborated and has not been subject to peer review. Records of accidents
relating to all kinds of wind turbines elsewhere in the world do not demonstrate that
this wind farm would be inherently unsafe.
IEC_3_105_3
47
Transport
8.51 The proximity of this site to the harbour at Scrabster would enable the long
and heavy loads associated with the construction of wind turbines to be delivered to
the site with the minimum of inconvenience to other road users, as these short
journeys would be made under police escort and during off-peak periods. Works at
some junctions to allow clearance would be required, notably at Bridge of Isauld, but
from the evidence I am satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of this being
achieved. There is no evidence that the proximity of Dounreay, and the requirement
for contingency arrangements in the event of an emergency there, would preclude
the local road network from being used for these deliveries.
8.52 While the sub-soil availability of stone on site is likely to avoid the need to
import stone for construction purposes, I consider that the additional lorry journeys
which could be required for that purpose can be accommodated on the local road
network without undue congestion or disturbance.
Other effects
8.53 I find no evidence that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the
construction and operation of the proposed wind farm would have any other
significant adverse effects.
The development plan
8.54 The Caithness Local Plan defers to the structure plan’s provisions for
assessing the merits of any wind farm application, by stating that the council will
seek to support the development of renewable energy opportunities in suitable
locations that accord with the structure plan and national planning policy guidance.
In these circumstances I am satisfied that very little weight can attach to the terms of
Primary Policies PP2 and PP3 which the proposals map of the local plan indicates
apply to different parts of the site, and which apply support for development and a
presumption against development respectively. These policies derive from the
structure plan’s approach to housing development, and not from its provisions
relating to renewable energy developments.
8.55 The key policy of the structure plan which is directly relevant to wind farm
proposals is Policy E2, giving support to those which are not shown to be
significantly detrimental, and stating that they are to be assessed against the plan’s
general strategic policies, and in relation to visual impact; noise; electro-magnetic
interference; roads, bridges and traffic; aircraft flight paths/MOD operations; and
cumulative effects.
8.56 Based on my above assessment of these potential impacts, and on the
consultation responses, and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, I find
that the proposed development would not be significantly detrimental in these
regards, or inconsistent with any of the additional criteria in relation to sustainability
which are set out in General Policy G2.
IEC_3_105_3
48
8.57 The impacts of this proposal have been assessed as required by General
Policy G3, but while a number of significant adverse impacts have been identified,
mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the scheme or would be
imposed by planning conditions, or I have found these to acceptable. The
expectation on developers to make community contributions, set out in General
Policy G4, is not relevant to the determination of this application as they would not
be necessary to enable the development to proceed or to address a particular
impact.
8.58 In relation to General Policy G6 regarding the conservation and promotion of
Highland heritage, I find that the impact of the development in relation to nature
conservation, landscape and archaeology would not be so great as to be
inconsistent with its aims. In addition, and again subject to the imposition of
appropriate planning conditions, I find that there are no scientific grounds for
believing that severe damage could be done to the environment or to the well-being
of communities, such as to justify applying the precautionary principle as outlined in
General Policy G8.
8.59 In relation to other provisions of the structure plan which may be relevant,
Policy E1 gives general support to renewable energy developments, and planning
conditions to limit the duration of the consent and provide for de-commissioning and
site restoration would ensure that its other terms would also be satisfied. In addition
the approach set out in Policies L4, T6, BC3 and N1 in relation to landscape
character, scenic views, archaeological sites and nature conservation would not be
contravened either.
Government policy
8.60 The Scottish Government’s policies give strong and clear support to schemes
such as this which would increase the amount of electricity which is generated from
renewable sources. However that support is not over-riding. It is clear that
proposed developments also require to be environmentally acceptable, and Scottish
Planning Policy 6 and Planning Advice Note 45 set out advice on assessing
particular impacts and highlight the importance which the government attaches to
meeting its international obligations with regard to nature conservation.
8.61 As set out above at paragraphs 8.22 to 8.26, there is some ambiguity in the
interpretation of the policy advice contained in the Annex to Scottish Planning
Policy 6 as it relates to communities and whether individual houses in the
countryside are to be afforded the same degree of protection as cities, towns and
villages, and whether the identification of a significant long term detrimental impact
automatically precludes consent being granted. Subject to that, and to the
imposition of conditions to mitigate any potential impact on the local populations of
the three birds species which are protected by the designation of the Caithness
Lochs special protection area, I find that the Baillie wind farm would be supported by
government policy.
IEC_3_105_3
49
Highland Renewable Energy Strategy
8.62 The Highland Renewable Energy Strategy includes the application site within
an area to which it suggests that a presumption against the development of wind
farms should apply, although this does not preclude consent being granted if it can
be shown that constraints can be addressed. As I have found above that the
impacts of this proposal can be avoided or mitigated, I do not consider that this
presumption should continue to apply.
8.63 This finding is re-inforced by the acceptance by the council that this nonstatutory guidance is not consistent with national policy set out in Scottish Planning
Policy 6 and its confirmation that the strategy is to be replaced.
Requirements under Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989
8.64 I find that the applicant has had regard both to the desirability of preserving
natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features of
special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic
or archaeological interest; and also to do what can reasonably be done to mitigate
the effects which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside
or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings and objects. This has been
demonstrated through the environmental impact assessment undertaken in relation
to the original proposal; the subsequent modifications made to the proposal; the
environmental impact assessment undertaken in relation to the revised proposal;
the additional environmental information provided to the inquiry; and the preparation
of conditions suggested for imposition on any planning permission which the Scottish
Ministers may direct should be deemed to be granted.
8.65 While it is the duty of the Scottish Ministers to have regard to the extent to
which the applicant has complied with the above duty, they themselves are also
required to have regard to the desirability of preserving and conserving the same
elements. In relation to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, the above
findings have identified that the site of the proposed wind farm is not within any area
designated for its qualities of scenic or natural beauty, such as a national scenic
area; and that while it would have some significant adverse visual impacts, I have
found these to be acceptable and the landscape to be capable of accommodating
the wind farm.
8.66 In relation to the desirability of conserving flora, fauna, geological and
physiographical features of special interest, the above findings have identified that
the proposed wind farm would be likely to have significant environmental effects on
the three bird species for which the Caithness Lochs special protection area has
been designated. In these circumstances the Scottish Ministers would be required,
under the terms of the habitats regulations and the EU Birds Directive, to undertake
an “appropriate assessment” to ascertain that the development would not have an
adverse effect on the integrity of the special protection area, having regard to its
conservation objectives in relation to each of those species.
8.67 They would be required to consult Scottish Natural Heritage and have regard
to its advice, which is referred to above. Based on all the evidence, I have found
IEC_3_105_3
50
that, subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure monitoring and any mitigation
shown to be necessary, such an adverse effect would not occur and, accordingly,
that the effects on the natural heritage would be acceptable. Subject therefore to the
Scottish Ministers undertaking their own appropriate assessment based on the
evidence, I find that this duty under Schedule 9 would be satisfied.
8.68 In relation to the desirability of protecting sites, buildings and objects of
architectural, historic or archaeological interest, the above findings have identified
that the effects on the historic environment would not be significant, as I have found
that the wind farm would have no direct effect on either of the scheduled ancient
monuments at Hill of Shebster or Cnoc Freiceadain, or on what I have identified to
be their setting; and the imposition of planning conditions in relation to the
development site would ensure that any features of architectural interest are
protected.
8.69 Schedule 9 also requires both the applicant and the Scottish Ministers to
avoid, so far as possible, causing injury to fisheries or to the stock of fish in any
waters. Subject to the prior approval of the construction method statement and to
protection for watercourses in the event of micro-siting adjustments to the positions
of the turbines being incorporated in conditions, damage to burns and their fish
populations is unlikely to be significant. I therefore find that this requirement of
Schedule 9 would also be met.
Conditions
8.70 In the event that the Scottish Ministers decide not only to grant consent for the
application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act, but also to direct that planning
permission is deemed to be granted for the proposed development, I find that the
conditions set out in Appendix One should be imposed. These derive originally from
those suggested by the council and discussed with the parties at the inquiry, but
account has also been taken of the changes to the duration of planning permissions
brought into force on 3 August 2009 following the implementation of the
Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. Additional conditions are proposed to deal with
other issues raised at the inquiry or in written submissions, including protection from
ice throw and blade glint, and a potential need for aircraft navigation warning lights.
I find that each condition would meet the six tests for planning conditions set out in
The Scottish Office Development Department Circular No. 4/1998.
Section 75 agreement
8.71 I find that the issuing of any direction that planning permission shall be
deemed to be granted should not be made subject to the prior conclusion under
Section 75 of the planning Act of any agreement between the applicant, landowner
and the local planning authority, as matters concerning provision for restoration and
off-site works can be addressed through imposing suspensive planning conditions.
Similarly, a suspensive condition can address the requirement to protect the fabric of
the public road network from the effects of construction traffic.
IEC_3_105_3
51
8.72 The Scottish Ministers’ decision on the application should not be dependent
on securing in advance, through a legal agreement, any payments for the benefit of
the local community, as that is a matter entirely for the applicant.
IEC_3_105_3
52
9.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1
Based on the evidence given to the inquiry, the environmental information
contained in the original and revised environmental statements and that provided to
the inquiry, the written submissions, the site inspections, and my findings of fact at
Section 8 above, I consider that the determining issues in relation to the application
for consent under Section 36 are:
1.
Whether the obligations which Schedule 9 of the Act places on the both
the applicant and the Scottish Ministers have been met; and if so,
2.
Whether the other material considerations indicate that consent under
Section 36 should be granted or not.
9.2
With regard to the first determining issue, for the reasons set out in my
findings at paragraphs 8.64 to 8.69, I conclude that these obligations have been met.
I therefore turn to the second determining issue.
9.3
As the wind farm application seeks approval for a form of development, the
relevant provisions of the development plan are an important material consideration
in relation to the Section 36 consent. Here, the development plan comprises the
Highland Structure Plan and the Caithness Local Plan, and their relevant provisions
are set out above at paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6. For the reasons set out in my findings
at paragraphs 8.54 to 8.59, I conclude that the proposed development would be
consistent with the relevant provisions of the development plan.
9.4
Relevant government policy is also a material consideration, and the key
elements are summarised at paragraphs 2.7 to 2.17 above. For the reasons set out
in my findings at paragraphs 8.60 and 8.61, I conclude that the development of this
wind farm would be supported by government policy.
9.5
In relation to Highland Council’s Highland Renewable Energy Strategy, the
key provisions of which are summarised at paragraph 2.18, for the reasons set out in
my findings at paragraph 8.62, I conclude that the presumption against development
of wind farms, which the strategy indicates in relation to the application site, should
not apply. For the reasons given at paragraph 8.63, I consider that little weight can
be attached to the non-statutory guidance contained in this strategy particularly
where, as in this case, the proposal is found to be in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the development plan and consistent with government policy.
9.6
With regard to other material considerations, my consideration of the
proposal’s landscape and visual effects and its effects on tourism, ornithology and
the scheduled ancient monuments are set out at paragraphs 8.14 to 8.42, and my
findings in relation to the impact on the amenity of local people arising from noise,
shadow flicker, blade glint, health and safety issues and transport are set out at
paragraphs 8.43 to 8.52. Where relevant, I have incorporated these findings in my
assessment of the proposal in relation to the relevant provisions of the development
plan. Subject to appropriate conditions being imposed, I conclude that none of these
effects, either alone or in conjunction with others, would justify refusal to grant
consent.
IEC_3_105_3
53
9.7
As confirmed at paragraph 8.53, I have found no evidence that would lead me
to conclude that any other significant effects would arise from the construction and
operation of the proposed wind farm.
9.8
For the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 8.9 to 8.12, I conclude
that the need for and benefits of the proposal are both significant, and are material
considerations which support the granting of consent. However, for the reasons set
out at paragraph 8.13, any payments by the applicant into a community fund cannot
be required through the imposition of a planning condition or prior inclusion in a
Section 75 agreement, and no weight should be attached to any such payments.
9.9
I have found no other material considerations which would indicate that
consent under Section 36 should be refused.
9.10 Drawing these matters together, my conclusions in relation to the
determination of the application for consent under Section 36 are:
1. That the obligations which Schedule 9 of the Act places on both the
applicant and the Scottish Ministers would be met;
2. That the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the development plan;
3. That the development would be supported by government policy;
4. That, subject to appropriate conditions being imposed, none of the effects
of the proposal would justify refusal to grant consent;
5. That any payments by the applicant into a community fund cannot be
required through the imposition of a planning condition or prior inclusion in a
Section 75 agreement, and no weight should be attached to any such
payments; and,
6. That there are no other material considerations which would still justify
refusing to grant consent under Section 36, subject to the Scottish Ministers
confirming in their decision that they have taken account of the environmental
information submitted.
9.11 In the event that the Scottish Ministers decide to grant consent under
Section 36, they may also direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be
granted, and may specify the conditions to which the permission is subject. This is a
separate determination, to which the obligations set out in Schedule 9 of the
Electricity Act 1989 do not apply. While there does not appear to be a statutory duty
to apply the approach prescribed by Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning
(Scotland) Act 1997 to this determination, it appears to me to be both prudent and
reasonable to do so.
9.12 Accordingly, again based on the evidence given to the inquiry, the
environmental information contained in the original and revised environmental
statements and that provided to the inquiry, the written submissions, the site
inspections, and my findings of fact at Section 8 above, I consider that the
determining issues in relation to the Scottish Ministers’ decision on whether to direct
that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted are:
1.
Whether the proposed development would be in accordance with the
relevant provisions of the development plan; and,
IEC_3_105_3
54
2.
Whether the other material considerations indicate that planning
permission should be deemed to be granted, or not.
9.13 My conclusions above (at paragraphs 9.3 to 9.9) on these matters, in respect
of the Section 36 application, apply equally here in relation to the deemed planning
permission. Accordingly, my conclusions in relation to the determining issues are:
1. That the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the development plan;
2. That the development would be supported by government policy;
3. That, subject to appropriate conditions being imposed, none of the effects
of the proposal would justify not directing that planning permission shall be
deemed to be granted;
4. That, although no weight should be attached to any payments by the
applicant into a community fund, the need for and benefits of the proposal are
both significant, and are material considerations which support a direction that
planning permission is deemed to be granted; and,
5. That there are no other material considerations which would still justify not
directing that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted.
9.14 With regard to the conditions to which any deemed planning permission
should be subject, for the reasons set out in my findings at paragraph 8.70,
I conclude that the conditions set out in Appendix 1 should be imposed.
9.15 For the reasons given in paragraphs 8.71 and 8.72, I conclude that the
Scottish Ministers’ direction that planning permission is deemed to be granted should
not be made subject to the prior conclusion of an agreement under Section 75 of the
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, or any other legal agreement.
Recommendations
9.16 I recommend that the Scottish Ministers should grant consent for the
application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, and I also recommend that
they should direct that planning permission for the proposed development shall be
deemed to be granted, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix One.
DAVID A. RUSSELL
Principal Inquiry Reporter
August 2009
IEC_3_105_3
55
APPENDIX ONE: PLANNING CONDITIONS
1.
The planning permission hereby deemed to be granted lapses at the end of a
three year period beginning on the date of this consent, unless the development to
which the permission relates has begun.
Reason: To limit the duration of the deemed planning permission, as required by
Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended.
2.
This permission shall endure for a period of 25 years from the date of final
commissioning of the development. That date is to be notified in writing to the
planning authority within three months of final commissioning. At the end of this
period, unless the express approval in writing of the planning authority is given, all
wind turbines, buildings and ancillary equipment, shall be dismantled and removed
from the site, and the ground fully re-instated in accordance with the approved
scheme referred to in condition No. 6 below.
Reason: In order to clarify the terms of this permission and to ensure restoration of
the site.
3.
Except as otherwise provided for and amended by the terms of this consent,
the development shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the
provisions of the Section 36 application, the amended plan submitted, and the
Environmental Statement (as revised by the Addendum and Supplementary
Information to the Environmental Statement). This permission shall be for a
maximum of 21 turbines, 2 anemometer masts and 1 substation and control building,
to be sited as shown on the amended section 36 application plan showing the
amended overall wind farm (Application Boundary and Proposed Site Layout (rev u),
figure number 1.2). The access track leading to turbines 4 and 10 will be amended
as shown on the revised plan forming part of the Second Addendum (Application
Boundary and Revised Layout (rev x, figure 1.2) as agreed with the Scottish
Environmental Protection Agency.
The prior written approval of the planning authority in consultation with Scottish
Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency shall be required
for the proposed micro-siting of any wind turbine or access track more than
25 metres in any direction from the approved location. For the avoidance of doubt,
no turbine shall be located closer to a non-stakeholder property than the minimum
distance between any turbines and that property as detailed in the Addendum to the
Environmental Statement dated 2006, and no turbines shall be located within
20 metres of a water body. Other than at watercourse crossings, there shall be no
construction works within: 10 metres of a headwater stream less than two metres
wide; 20 metres of a stream or water body wider than two metres; and 50 metres of
any watercourse in areas of peat. Any such micro-siting submission by the
developer shall include a revised site layout for the location of all turbines and
access roads.
Reason: In order to clarify the terms of this permission and to ensure restoration of
the site; and to protect local residents and the water environment.
4.
Prior to development starting, the final specification of the wind turbine details
shall be submitted for the prior approval in writing of the planning authority, including
the make, model, design, power rating and warranted sound power levels; the
IEC_3_105_3
56
colour and matt paint finish; and the mechanism to avoid potential ice throw. The
developer's noise assessment shall be updated as necessary to reflect the turbine
specification chosen, and shall be submitted to the planning authority prior to the
commencement of development. In the event of predicted exceedance of ETSU-R97 levels or as otherwise agreed, the developer shall submit mitigation measures to
the planning authority for their prior written approval in advance of the
commencement of development.
Reason: In order to clarify the terms of the permission and retain effective control
over the development; to avoid nuisance to nearby residents arising from noise or
blade glint; and to avoid the possibility of ice throw.
5.
Prior to development starting, details, including means of access, fencing,
design, materials and colours/external finishes and construction, of all ancillary
elements to the development, including in particular details relating to the substation
and control building, shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the planning
authority.
Reason: In order to ensure a high standard of design in the interest of visual
amenity.
6.
Before the development starts, an indicative scheme for the ultimate reinstatement of the site, including the removal of all wind turbines and ground reinstatement, shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the planning
authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency. The scheme shall be reviewed and amended as necessary, and
the amended scheme shall be approved in writing by the planning authority, at least
12 months prior to actual de-commissioning and re-instatement works.
No work shall commence on the site until the developer has provided documentary
evidence that a bond or other financial provision to cover all decommissioning and
site restoration costs is in place and written confirmation has been given by the
planning authority that the proposed bond or other financial provision is satisfactory.
The developer shall ensure that the approved bond or other financial provision is
maintained throughout the duration of this consent. The bond or other financial
provision will be subject to a five yearly review from the commencement of the
development, to be conducted by a competent independent professional who has
relevant experience within the wind energy sector and provided to the applicant,
operator, landowners, and the planning authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the restoration of the site is achieved after decommissioning.
7.
Prior to development starting, a construction method statement shall be
submitted to and be approved in writing by the planning authority in consultation with
Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The
statement shall detail contractor arrangements for the following:
(i) The appointment, at the expense of the developer, of a suitably qualified
ecologist to supervise construction activities.
(ii) Detailed justification for any culverting elements and design of any such
culverting.
(iii) Measures to prevent entry of cement or any other pollutant materials to
watercourses.
IEC_3_105_3
57
(iv) The source of all fill and bulk materials.
(v) Identification of waste streams arising from the works, such as peat, spoil
and other excavated material, and the means of dealing with these.
(vi) Excavation and make-up of internal access tracks and hardstanding,
including measures to address silt-laden run-off from temporary and
permanent access tracks, soil storage and other engineering operations.
(vii) Construction arrangements for turbine foundations including concrete
batching and de-watering arrangements to treat potentially sediment-laden
water.
(viii) Cable laying within the site.
(ix) Construction management operations including site lighting, temporary
servicing for workers, vehicle storage and other storage arrangements.
(x) Associated vehicle movements and routeing for different phases of
construction.
(xi) Proposals for phasing of operations, including the provision of information
on the construction timetable which takes into account the implications of
times of the year when high rainfall is more likely.
(xii) The detailed siting and design of the construction works compound
together with associated concrete batching areas including a strategy for their
eventual removal and satisfactory re-instatement.
(xiii) Re-instatement of ground post-construction, including re-vegetation of
access track edges and hardstanding areas, together with monitoring and
maintenance arrangements.
(xiv) Arrangements for fuel storage and fuelling, the storage and handling of
oils and lubricants, and the handling of cement materials all to prevent any
entry to watercourses with contingency plans in the event of spillage.
(xv) Measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation or discolouration of
watercourses, together with monitoring proposals and contingency plans.
(xvi) Measures to monitor pre- and post-construction surface water run-off
and, where necessary, further mitigation measures to be implemented to
manage surface water flow.
(xvii) Surface water drainage arrangements, to comply with "Sustainable
Urban Drainage Systems” (SUDS) principles, including provision of
calculations of pre- and post-development run-off to equivalent of predevelopment run-off, and sensitivity testing of the effect of large return period
rainfall events.
(xviii) Provision of welfare facilities on site during construction and the means
of disposal of sewage effluent.
(xix) Mechanisms to ensure that sub-contractors and all other parties on the
site are managed and aware of issues and provisions relating to pollution,
including emergency procedures.
(xx) Contingency measures for periods of unexpected bad weather.
(xxi) Avoiding excavation close to watercourses where possible, especially in
wet weather.
(xxii) Avoiding construction activity near watercourses suitable for
spawning/juvenile fish habitat in sensitive periods.
(xxiii) Measures for monitoring fisheries during construction.
(xxiv) Measures including the installation of box culverts, rams and covers
over excavations to minimise potential impacts on otters.
IEC_3_105_3
58
Reason: In order to ensure satisfactory construction arrangements and any
necessary mitigation.
8.
Prior to development starting, an ornithological impact monitoring scheme
shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the planning authority, in
consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. The scheme shall deal with the three
bird species for which the Caithness Lochs special protection area has been
designated, and shall provide for bird flights through the wind farm site, and feeding
activity in proximity to the wind farm, to be monitored together with any adverse
effect on the integrity of the local populations of these species arising from collision
or disturbance. The approved scheme shall incorporate measures to ensure turbine
shutdown to mitigate the impact of the wind farm on these bird populations where
necessary, such measures and periods of shutdown to reflect the cause, level and
nature of the impacts identified, and to ensure that the integrity of the special
protection area is maintained.
Reason: To ensure that the wind farm will not have an adverse effect on the integrity
of the Caithness Lochs special protection area.
9.
Prior to development starting, arrangements for an archaeological watching
brief to cover site clearance and excavation works shall be submitted to and be
approved in writing by the planning authority. All site clearance or excavation works
shall be implemented in accordance with the approved arrangements.
Reason: In order to protect any features of archaeological importance.
10.
Prior to the development starting, the following sites of archaeological or
historical interest shall be identified and physically marked out on the ground for the
duration of the construction works:
(a) The sheepfold (ND06NW0100);
(b) The enclosure (ND06NW0099);
(c) The two cairns and sheepdip on Stemster Hill (ND06NW0037).
Reason: In order to protect known features of archaeological importance and to
avoid accidental damage.
11.
Unless otherwise agreed by the planning authority, the wind farm shall be
wholly constructed and commissioned within one construction period in accordance
with this approval.
Reason: To minimise the period of disturbance to local residents and to avoid
prolonged uncertainty.
12.
Access to the site by heavy goods vehicles shall be restricted to 07:00 to
19:00 hours on Mondays to Fridays and from 07:00 to 12:00 on Saturdays with no
such access/egress on Sundays or Bank Holidays (except for the delivery of
abnormal loads under escort). Unless agreed in writing by the planning authority in
advance, any construction activity involving audible noise at any nearby house shall
also be subject to the foregoing hours restrictions.
Reason: In order to minimise noise and disturbance during construction.
13.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with a road safety and
traffic management plan to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the roads
authority prior to the development starting. This plan shall cover:
IEC_3_105_3
59

Allowing traffic to pass on at least 3 occasions during the transportation of
abnormal loads;
 Utilising optimal size abnormal load convoys to reduce incidences of delay;
 Appropriate route and signage for contractors and public safety;
 Co-ordination of abnormal loads with Network Rail and rail operators, if
appropriate;
 Appropriate contingency plans in the event of breakdown;
 The avoidance of potential combined effects with other wind farm construction
traffic;
 Details of a liaison group which shall inform and consult local residents
regarding traffic movements; and
 A scheme of monitoring and repair, to ensure that any adverse impact of
construction on the fabric of the public road network is rectified.
Reason: In order to minimise the impact of construction of the development on the
public road network and its users.
14.
Prior to the development starting, a scheme of mitigation for shadow flicker
shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the planning authority, based on
a detailed assessment of the impact of each turbine on nearby houses. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the commissioning of the wind farm.
Reason: To protect the occupiers of nearby houses from the effects of shadow
flicker.
15.
Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit to the
planning authority for approval a TV & radio reception mitigation plan. The plan shall
provide for a baseline TV reception survey, to be carried out prior to commencement
of turbine installation, the results of which shall be submitted to the planning
authority. Within 12 months of the commissioning of the development, any claim by
any individual person regarding TV picture loss or interference at their house,
business premises or other building, shall be investigated by a qualified engineer
and the results submitted to the planning authority. Should any impairment to the TV
signal be attributable to the wind farm, the developer shall remedy such impairment
so that the standard of reception at the affected property is equivalent to the baseline
TV reception.
Reason: To ensure that any effect on TV or radio reception is rectified.
16.
Before the development commences, an archaeological mitigation scheme
shall be submitted to and be approved by the planning authority, in consultation with
Historic Scotland. The scheme shall include measures to improve public access to
the Hill of Shebster and Cnoc Freiceadain scheduled ancient monuments; and for
improved interpretation of the cairns, incorporating the results of a LIDAR laser
scanning survey to be undertaken on behalf of the applicant in consultation with
Historic Scotland.
Reason: To secure improved access to and interpretation of the scheduled ancient
monuments, in mitigation of the visual impact of the wind farm on visitors.
17.
Prior to development starting, the applicant shall provide the Ministry of
Defence (Defence Estates – Safeguarding) and the Civil Aviation Authority with the
following information, a copy to be submitted to the planning authority:
 Proposed date of commencement of construction;
IEC_3_105_3
60
 Estimated date of completion of construction;
 Precise location and height above ground level of the tallest structure;
 Maximum extension in height of any construction equipment;
 Position of the turbines in latitude and longitude plus eastings and northings.
Reason: In order to ensure aviation safety.
18.
Within one month of the commissioning of the final turbine, the applicant shall
provide the Civil Aviation Authority and Ministry of Defence (Defence Estates –
Safeguarding) with written confirmation of the date of completion of construction, the
height above ground level of the tallest structure and the latitude and longitude of
that structure, with a copy to be submitted to the planning authority.
Reason: In order to ensure aviation safety.
19.
Details of any proposal to install aircraft navigation warning lights on any
turbine shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the planning authority
prior to installation.
Reason: In the interests of aviation safety and visual amenity.
20.
The wind farm operator shall log wind speed and wind direction data
continually and shall retain the data which has been obtained for a period of no less
than 12 months. The data shall include the average wind speed in metres per
second for each 10 minute period. The measuring periods shall be set to commence
on the hour or in 10 minute increments thereafter. The wind speed data shall be
made available to the planning authority on request on a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet in electronic format. Where the wind speed is measured at a height
other than 10 metres, the data shall be supplemented by adjusted values which
allow for wind shear, normalised to 10 metre height. Details of the wind shear
calculation shall be provided.
At wind speeds not exceeding 12 metres per second, as measured or calculated at a
height of 10 metres above ground level (at the location of the meteorological mast
shown at location easting 302610 northing 965639 on the approved layout plan) the
wind turbine noise level at any house or other Noise Sensitive Premises shall not
exceed:(a) During night hours, 43 dB LA90,10min, or the night hours LA90,10min
background noise level plus 5 dB(A), whichever is the greater;
(b) During quiet waking hours, 35 dB LA90,10min or the quiet waking hours
LA90,10min background noise level plus 5 dB(A), whichever is the greater;
and
(c) At all times 45 dB, LA90,10min or the (day/night as appropriate) hours
LA90,10min background noise level plus 5 dB(A), whichever is the higher in
respect of any house where the occupier is a stakeholder in the development;
providing that this condition shall only apply to dwellings or other noise sensitive
premises lawfully existing at the date of this planning permission.
At the request of the planning authority and following a valid complaint to the
planning authority relating to noise emissions from the wind turbines, the wind farm
operator shall measure or calculate, at its own expense, the level of noise emissions
from the wind turbines. The measurement and calculation of noise levels shall be
undertaken in accordance with "The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind
IEC_3_105_3
61
Farms", September 1996, ETSU report number ETSU-R-97 having regard to
paragraphs 1-3 and 5-11 inclusive, of The Schedule, pages 95 to 97; and
Supplementary Guidance Notes to the Planning Obligation, pages 99 to 109; and
calculations of noise made using the approach reported in the environmental
statement submitted with the planning application. The assessment approach shall
be approved by the planning authority prior to undertaking the detailed assessment.
In comparing measured wind turbine noise levels with background noise levels,
regard shall be had to the prevailing background noise levels as measured at
specified properties and shown by the best fit curves in the environmental statement
submitted with this Section 36 application. In the event of a complaint from a
property other than one of the specified properties in the environmental statement,
the measured wind turbine noise levels at that other property shall be compared to
the prevailing background noise levels at the specified property which is most likely
to have similar background noise levels.

"Wind turbine noise level" means the rated noise level due to the combined
effect of all the wind turbines, excluding existing background noise level but
including any tonal penalty incurred under the methodology described in
ETSU-R-97, pages 99 – 109.
 "Background noise level" means the ambient noise level already present
within the environment (in the absence of noise generated by the
development) as measured and correlated with wind speeds.
 "Wind speeds" means wind speeds measured or calculated at a height of
10 metres above ground level on the site at a specified Ordnance Survey grid
reference agreed with the planning authority.
 "Night hours" means 23:00 – 07:00 hours on all days.
 "Quiet waking hours" means 18:00 – 23:00 hours on all days, plus 07:00 –
18:00 on Sundays and 13:00 – 18:00 hours on Saturdays.
 "Noise sensitive premises" means existing premises, the occupants of which
could be exposed to noise from the wind farm.
Should the noise levels be exceeded, the wind farm operator shall take immediate
steps to ensure that noise emissions from the wind farm are reduced to the
aforementioned noise levels or less, and obtain written confirmation of that reduction
from the planning authority.
Reason: In order to control noise in the interest of residential amenity.
21.
In the event that any wind turbine fails to produce electricity supplied to a local
grid for a continuous period of 12 months (not due to it being under repair or awaiting
replacement), then it shall be deemed to have ceased to be required and, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority (whose consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld), that wind turbine and its ancillary equipment shall be
dismantled and removed from the site within the following six months and the ground
fully re-instated to a specification agreed in writing by the planning authority.
Reason: In order to protect visual amenity..
IEC_3_105_3
62
APPENDIX TWO: APPEARANCES
For Baillie Windfarm Ltd, Colin Innes, Solicitor, of Shepherd & Wedderburn
appeared. He called:
 Steven Pottinger, of Baillie Windfarm Ltd
 Alex Schlicke, of Geddes Consulting
 Darran Humpheson, of RPS Planning and Development Ltd
 Simon Zisman, of RPS
 David Bell, of Jones Lang LaSalle
 John Barber, of AOC Archaeology Group
For Highland Council and the Caithness West Action Group, John Campbell, QC,
appeared. He called:
 Cllr David Bremner, Member of Highland Council
 Mark Steele, of Mark Steele Consultants
 Dick Bowdler, of New Acoustics
 Stan Laybourne, resident of Halkirk
 Ian Kelly, of Graham & Sibbald
 David Craig, of the Caithness West Action Group
 Alasdair McDonald, of the Caithness West Action Group
For Historic Scotland, Colin Boyd, QC, of Dundas & Wilson, Solicitors appeared. He
called:
 Adele Shaw, of Historic Scotland
 John Raven, of Historic Scotland
Other inquiry participants:
 Stuart Young, self-employed construction consultant
 Russell Hayley, resident of Reay
 William Brown, Convenor of the Caithness West Community Council
 John Webster, resident of Buldoo
 Celia McDougall, resident of Shebster
IEC_3_105_3
63
APPENDIX THREE: DOCUMENTS
(Note : Document numbers not listed where that document was not referred to in
evidence to the inquiry.)
CORE DOCUMENTS :
Proposal
CD 1
CD 2
CD 3
CD 4
CD 5
Planning
CD 6
CD 7
CD 8
CD 9
CD 10
CD 11
CD 12
CD 13
CD 14
CD 15
CD 16
CD 17
CD 18
CD 19
CD 20
CD 21
CD 22
IEC_3_105_3
Application Letter
Baillie Windfarm Environmental Statement comprising:
Baillie Windfarm Environmental Statement comprising:
A(i) - Original Environmental Statement, July 2004
A(ii) – Non-Technical Summary, July 2004
A(iii) - Technical Appendices, July 2004
B(i)– Addendum, January 2006
B(ii) – ES Addendum, Non-Technical Summary, January 2006
C(i) – Second Addendum covering letter, dated 17 October 2007
enclosing Peat Slide Non–Technical Summary and Revised Site
Layout
C(ii) – Peatslide Hazard and Risk Assessment Factual Report, October
2007
C(iii) - Peatslide Hazard and Risk Assessment Interpretive Report,
October 2007
Consultation Responses in relation to original ES and Addendums
Objections in relation to original ES and Addendums
Report to Highland Council Planning Committee dated 22 November
2007
The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland)
Regulations 2000
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as
amended)
Highland Council Structure Plan (2001)
Caithness Local Plan (2002)
Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines (HRES)
(May, 2006)
National Planning Framework for Scotland, 2004
National Planning Framework (Discussion Draft), January 2008
Draft revised National Planning Framework, January 2008 (2)
National Planning Framework (December 2008, as laid before
Parliament)
National Planning Policy Guidance 14 – Natural Heritage
SPP – Scottish Planning Policy November 2008, Parts 1 and 2
SPP 2 – Economic Development
SPP 6 – Renewable Energy
SPP 15 – Planning for Rural Development
SPP 23 Planning and the Historic Environment
Scottish Historic Environment Policy (October, 2008)
Planning Advice Note 42 – Archaeology and The Planning Process
64
CD 23
CD 24
CD 25
CD 26
CD 27
CD 28
CD 29
CD 30
CD 31
CD 32
CD 33
CD 34
Tourism
CD 35
PAN 45 – Renewable Energy Technologies and all Annexes
PAN 56 – Planning and Noise
PAN 58 – Environmental Impact Assessment
PAN 60 – Planning and Natural Heritage
Circular 10/1999 – Planning and Noise
Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (Scotland) Rules
1997
Circular 17/1985: Development Control Priorities and Procedures
Circular 4/1998: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions
Circular 6/1990: Awards of Expenses in Appeals and Other Planning
Proceedings
Circular 17/1998: Code of Practice For Public Inquiries
Circular 12/1996: Planning Agreements
Circular 6/2000: Nature Conservation: Implementation in Scotland of
EC Directives on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild
Flora and Fauna and the Conservation of Wild Birds ( The Habitats and
Birds Directives )
The Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Tourism in Scotland – A
Report for Glasgow Caledonian University, March 2008 (The Moffat
Report)
Landscape
CD 36
Caithness and Sutherland Landscape Character Assessment
CD 37
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2nd Edition
2002.
CD 38
SNH Guidance: Cumulative Effect of Windfarms (Version 2 revised
13.04.05)
CD 39
SNH Guidance: Visual Assessment of Windfarms Good Practice
Guidance, 29 March 2006.
CD 40
SNH Guidance: Visual Assessment of Windfarms – Best Practice –
2002 (Report F01AA303A) University of Newcastle.
CD 41
SNH Policy Statement 02/02: Strategic Locational Guidance for
Onshore Wind Farms in respect of the Natural Heritage , (Update May
2005)
CD 42
Countryside Agency Topic Paper 6: Techniques for Judging Capacity
and Sensitivity
Noise
CD 43
Guidelines for Community Noise, World Health Organisation Noise
(2000)
CD 44
BS 8233:1997 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings,
Code of Practice. BSI
CD 45
BS 4142:1997 Method for – Rating industrial noise affecting mixed
residential and industrial areas. BSI
CD 46
BS 5228 parts 1 to 5 – Noise and Vibration Control on Construction
and Open Sites. 1994 1997
CD 47
ISO 9613 1 Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors Part 1
CD 48
ISO 9613 2 Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors Part 2
IEC_3_105_3
65
DOCUMENTS FOR BAILLIE WINDFARM LTD:
Community Engagement on Behalf of Baillie Windfarm Limited –
Consultation Report –Executive Summary; January 2007
BWL 2
Community Engagement on Behalf of Baillie Windfarm Limited –
Consultation Report – Final Report; January 2007
BWL 3
CWIF papers
A Caithness Wind Farm Information Forum: Objections
BWL 4
Newspaper articles:
STUART YOUNG:
A (i) Press & Journal November 21 2007: Stuart Young admits error
in photomontage on CWIF website, agrees image cropped and
88ft too high.
A (ii) Caithness Courier November 21, 2007: Stuart Young admits
error in photomontage on CWIF website, agrees image
cropped and 88ft too high.
BILL BROWN:
B (ii) John O'Groat Journal August 20, 2004: Letter expressing
"contempt" for local windfarm developers.
B (iii) John O'Groat Journal January 25, 2008: Editor prints apology
following "slanderous" comment by Community Council
Chairman (Bill Brown)- "developer…has been going round
lobbying and offering people money if they support his
scheme".
DAVID BREMNER:
C (iii) Letter dated 3 October 2007 from Cllr David Bremner, Highland
Council, to Michael Russell MSP, regarding the withdrawal of
SNH's objection to the application, expressing the concern of
constituents that SNH was under "pressure" from the Scottish
Government.
BWL 5
OS Maps of Caithness:
A OS Landranger Map: 10 "Strath Naver, Bettyhill & Tongue"
B OS Landranger Map: 11 "Thurso & Dunbeath"
C OS Landranger Map: 12 "Thurso & Wick, John O'Groats"
Renewable Energy
BWL 10
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the promotion of use of Energy from Renewable Sources,
Commission of the European Communities (January 2008)
BWL 11
The EU’s Target for Renewable Energy: 20% by 2020, Volume 1
Report, 27th Report of Session 2007-08, European Union Committee,
House of Lords (HL paper 175-I)
BWL 12
Draft Framework for the Development and Deployment of Renewables
in Scotland, 'Making Scotland and Leader in Green Energy', Forum for
Renewable Energy Development, The Scottish Government (2008)
BWL 13
Renewable Energy Policy Paper, prepared for Baillie Wind Farm
Limited, Jones Lang LaSalle (February 2009)
Planning
BWL 14
Baillie Wind Farm, Access Enhancement Report, Jones Lang LaSalle
(2009)
BWL 1
IEC_3_105_3
66
BWL 15
Letter from Baillie Windfarm Limited to Highland Council submitting
docs BWL 16, 17 and 41
BWL 16
Baillie Windfarm Limited, "Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and
Planning Guidelines: Meeting the Policies", 29 September 2006
BWL 17
Baillie Windfarm Limited, "Demonstration of Compliance with HRES
Constraint Features", 29 September 2006
BWL 18
Baillie Windfarm Limited document entitled, "Notes on Highland
Renewable Energy Strategy"
BWL 19
Letter from Baillie Windfarm Limited to Highland Council, dated 12
January 2006
BWL 20
Baillie Windfarm and Spittal Hill Windfarm Representations to the
Highland Council Renewable Energy Strategy, 13 January 2006
Archaeology
BWL 23
Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (English Heritage
Guidance, 2005)
BWL 24
Cultural Heritage Wireframes and Photomontages
F Viewpoint-Cnoc Freiceadain (View East)(showing turbines 121)
G Viewpoint-Cnoc Freiceadain (View West)
BWL 26
AOC Archaeology Group, 2009. Baillie Wind Farm: Impacts on Cultural
Heritage. Report
BWL 28
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. (c.46).
London.
BWL 29
Burra Charter 1999 [Online] ICOMOS Australia. Available at:
http://www.icomos.org/australia/burra.html [Accessed 19/12/2008]
BWL 30
Guidelines to the Burra Charter: cultural significance. 1988. [Online].
ICOMOS Australia. Available at:
http://www.marquiskyle.com.au/bcsignificance.html [Accessed 19/12/2008]
BWL 31
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention) 1972 [Online] UNESCO.
Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ [Last accessed
20/01/2009].
BWL 33
Planning Guidelines. 2006. [Online] The Department of the
Environment, Heritage & Local Government, Ireland. Available at:
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/F
ileDownLoad,1633,en.pdf [Last accessed: 21/01/2009]
BWL 36
Davidson, J. L. & Henshall, A. S., 1991. The Chambered Cairns of
Caithness. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
BWL 38
Corns, A., Fenwick, J. & Shaw, R., 2008. More than meets the eye.
Archaeology Ireland, Vol 22, 3 (85) pp. 34-38.
BWL 39
Archaeology Ireland. 2008. Tara, Co. Meath, A guide to the ceremonial
complex. Heritage Guide No. 41. Landscape
BWL 40
Cumulative Impact Assessment (January 2009) Geddes Consulting
BWL 41
Residential Receptor Assessment (January 2009) Geddes Consulting
BWL 42
Assessment of Visual Amenity from Houses, 29 September 2006
BWL 43
Review of Guidance on the Assessment of Cumulative Impacts of
Onshore Windfarms – Phase 1 Report’ September 2008, Entec, Report
for DBERR
BWL 44
SNH letter, Response to THC on South Shebster Windfarm, 16 March
2006
BWL 45
SNH Policy Statement 01/02: Renewable Energy
IEC_3_105_3
67
BWL 46
BWL 47
BWL 48
BWL 49
Noise
BWL 60
SNH Commissioned Report No. 070: Study into Landscape Potential
for Wind Turbine Development in East and North Highland and Moray
(ROAME No. F02AA302)
SNH Commissioned Report No. 087: Landscape strategy and
assessment guidance for wind energy development within Caithness
and Sutherland (Contract no. 1995–NW27)
Report to the Highland Council by Aquatera Ltd: Strategic Renewable
Energy Resource Assessment for the Highland Area Ornithology
RPS Collision Risk Modelling Data 2008
The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Windfarms, DTI Working
Group on Noise from Wind Turbines: ETSU-R-97, 1996
Tourism, Recreation and the Economy
BWL 61
Scottish Government Press Release on Wind farms and Tourism 12
March 2008
BWL 62
"The Impact of wind farms on the Tourist Industry in the UK", prepared
by BWEA for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Tourism (May 2006)
Planning & Other Appeal Decisions
BWL 67
Drumderg Windfarm Appeal decision letter and expenses letter
awarding expenses against Perth and Kinross Council, 25 September
2006
BWL 68
Clyde Windfarm, South Lanarkshire (2006) (IEC/3/90). Report
Available
at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/917/0063580.pdf [Last accessed
19/01/2009]
BWL 69
St John's Hill Windfarm Appeal decision letter, 26 November 2007
(P/PPA/110/634)
BWL 70
Langhope Rig Windfarm Appeal decision letter, 13 May 2008
(P/PPA/140/337)
BWL 71
Drone Hill Windfarm Appeal decision letter, 26 November 2008
(P/PPA/140/357)
BWL 72
Toddleburn Windfarm Decision letter, dated 11 January 2007
(P/PPA/140/262)
BWL 73
Ardrossan Extension Decision
BWL 74
Historic Scotland's response to Ardrossan Extension
Additional Documents
BWL 78
SNH, Survey Methods for Use in Assessing the Impacts of Onshore
Windfarms on Bird Communities, November 2005.
BWL 79
Context Photographs
1. View from Shebster Cairn to the East.
2. View from Shebster Cairn to Cnoc Freiceadain.
3. View from Cnoc Freiceadain northwest to Dounreay.
4. Cnoc Freiceadain Display Board.
5. View looking at the east end of Na Tri Sithan.
6. View from Cnoc Freiceadain looking northeast.
7. View from Cnoc Freiceadain to the south.
8. View from Na Tri Sithan to the east.
9. View of Na Tri Sithan from the southwest.
BWL 80
Duff House Decision, dated 25 June 2007 (P/NID/96/G/59)
IEC_3_105_3
68
BWL 83
Letter from Historic Scotland to Dumfries and Galloway Council relating
to Application 07/p/4/0364
BWL 85
RPS Letter to SNH dated 18 June 2007
BWL 86
Noise Document comprising – noise emission data for Nordex N80,
wind shear analysis, ground effect sensitivity test, and wind rose data
BWL 88
Letter from Historic Scotland to Ofgem, dated 20 December 2002
BWL 89
Schedule 9 Statement by SP Distribution Limited
BWL 90
Ardrossan Extension Layout
BWL 91
AO Visualisation VP 13
BWL 92
AO Visualisation VP 21
BWL 93
AO Visualisation VP 25
BWL 94
St John's Hill Wind Farm, Figure 3.1-Site Layout
BWL 97
British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), ‘Low Frequency Noise and
Wind Turbines’, BWEA website, available at:
http://www.bwea.com/ref/lowfrequencynoise.html (created January
2005). Technical Annex:
http://www.bwea.com/pdf/lfnannex.pdf(created February 2005)
BWL 98
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform,
'Research into aerodynamic modulation of wind turbine noise', report
by University of Salford, August 2007 http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40570.pdf
BWL 99
Government Statement in relation to the above -July 2007 http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40571.pdf
BWL 100
DTI 'The measurement of low frequency noise at three UK wind farms'
2006 (Hayes MacKenzie for DTI)
http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/energy/sources/renewables/explained/wi
nd/onshore-offshore/page31267.html
BWL 101
Government advice on findings of Hayes MacKenzie Report
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file35592.pdf
BWL 102
Henshall, A.S. and Ritchie, J.N.G 2001. CH3 The land, the
environment and the locations. In: The Chambered Cairns of the
Central Highlands. Pp.29-35. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
p29-35
BWL 103
Wheatley D & Gillings M, 2002. Spatial Technology and Archaeology:
The Archaeological Applications of GIS. London: Taylor & Francis.
pp 201-216 + references
BWL 104
The Highland Council Committee Report of 28 May 2008
http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/committees/strategiccommittees/plann
ingenvironm entanddevelopmentcommittee/2008-05-28-ped-min.htm
BWL 105
Minute of The Highland Council Committee Meeting 28 May 2008
http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B0C92282-6E5D-4012AE644160B375EF63/0/Item14Ped4008.pdf
BWL 106
PPS 22 – Companion Guide -extract p171
BWL 107
Achany decision, dated 13 December 2007, PPA/270/438
BWL 108
Windshield Performance Test Report, Supplementary Information –
Darran Humpheson
BWL 109
Bill Sheridan supplementary precognition in response to Dick Bowdler's
Precognition – Toddleburn Inquiry
BWL 110
IHB 44.10 – Production from Toddleburn Inquiry including: photograph
of windshields; noise data from GRAS windscreen
IEC_3_105_3
69
BWL 111
BWL 112
Table of Calculated Turbine Noise Levels (Agreed by Bowdler and
Humpheson) 18th March 2009
Updated Table of Results based on ES Addendum assessment of
Nordex N80 using manufacturer's warranted sound power level data –
calculated turbine data as agreed between Humpheson and Bowdler
DOCUMENTS FOR HIGHLAND COUNCIL:
THC1
THC2
THC3
THC4
THC5
THC6
THC8
THC9
THC10
THC11
Committee Report 19 September 2003
Committee Minute 19 September 2003
Notice of Refusal 1 October 2003
Highland Council Structure Plan 2001
Caithness Local Plan 2002
Caithness and Sutherland LCA.
Landscape and Visual Impact Report, Assessment and figures by
Mark Steele Consultants.
The Highland Council. Position statement on the Highland Renewable
Energy Strategy, 4 March 2009-08-05.
Decision letter. Lochluichart wind powered energy station. 22
December 2008.
Guidelines on the environmental impacts of wind farms and small
scale hydroelectric schemes.
DOCUMENTS FOR THE CAITHNESS WEST ACTION GROUP:
Birds
CWAG1
CWAG2
CWAG3
CWAG4
CWAG5
Transport
CWAG10
Safety
CWAG20
CWAG21
IEC_3_105_3
Greenland White-fronted Geese and Whooper Swans in Caithness
during the 1994/95 winter. Report to SNH. Nigel Harding and Stan
Laybourne, 1996
South Shebster Proposed Wind Farm and Visitor Centre – SNH
Ornithological Queries Report, Volume 1, April 2008
South Shebster Proposed Wind Farm and Visitor Centre – SNH
Ornithological Queries Report, Volume 2, July 2008
Numbers and behaviour of Greenland White Fronted Geese in
Caithness with special reference to daily routines of roosting and
feeding. Winter 1993/94 with update of records from 1986/87. Report to
SNH. S Laybourne and MIH Legg, 1994.
Survey of Winter Wildfowl using Caithness Lochs proposed Special
Protection Area and RAMSAR Site, Winter 1996/97, Report to SNH. S
Laybourne, 1997.
Strathy South Wind Farm environmental statement Volume 4 –
Appendices. June 2007
The Health and Safety Risks and Regulatory Strategy Related to
Energy Developments, Health and Safety Executive, June 2006.
BWEA Guidelines for Health & Safety in the Wind Energy Industry,
October 2008
70
CWAG22
CWAG23
CWAG24
CWAG25
Health
CWAG30
CWAG31
CWAG32
CWAG33
CWAG34
CWAG35
Planning
CWAG40
CWAG41
CWAG42
Wind Turbine Accident Compilation, database of wind turbine accidents
and incidents.
Wind Turbine Ice Throw Studies In The Swiss Alps, René Cattin et. al.
2007
Vestas Mechanical Operating and Maintenance Manual, V90 – 3.0
MW, VCRS 60 Hz, Ref 964106.R00 , 29 June 2007
Tables and figures to accompany precognition by David Craig
Health Effects of Wind Turbine Noise, Dr N Pierpoint, March 2006
Wind Turbine Syndrome: Noise, shadow flicker and health, Dr N
Pierpoint, August 2006
Wind Turbines, Noise and Health, Dr A Harry, February 2007
Le retentissement du fonctionnement des eoliennes sur la santé de
l'homme, Academie nationale de medicine, Mars 2006 [The effects of
wind turbine operations on human health, National Academy of
Medicine, France, March 2006]
Looking into the ‘noise’ about wind turbines, National Wind Watch, 5
December 2008
Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effects on
Health; Barbara Frey and Peter Hadden, June 2007
04/00178/FULCA Erection of Sixty meter high anemometer mast
(retrospective) at Baillie Hill, Shebster, Thurso; Report C/P/184/04,
9 August 2004
06/00185/FULCA Renewal of Planning Consent (04/00178/FULCA) for
the erection of 60 metre high anemometer mast and ancillary
equipment at the Site of Stemster Hill, Shebster, Caithness, KW1 6XJ,
report C/P/119/06, 15 May 2006
Letter 04/00342/s36CA DM/CC dated 30 January 2008 from David
Mudie, Highland Council, to Lesley Rush, Scottish Government Energy
Consents Unit, and accompanying minutes of Highland Council
planning meeting 15 January 2008
Carbon savings
CWAG50
Promoters overstated the environmental benefit of windfarms, Daily
Telegraph, 21 December 2008
CWAG51
Windfarm lobby bows to ASA and cuts CO2 saving figures Spinners'
numbers overblown , The Register, 23 December 2008
CWAG52
Calculations for wind energy statistics, BWEA
CWAG53
Non-broadcast Adjudications: Renewable Energy Systems Ltd;
21 December 2005, Advertising Standards Authority
Opinion
CWAG60
IEC_3_105_3
Letter January 2008 from David Sutherland, Highland Council Ward
Manager for Thurso, Wick and Landward Caithness, to Derrick Milnes,
Secretary, West Caithness Community Council, regarding the Postal
Ballot for Baillie Wind Farm conducted in December 2007.
71
CWAG61
CWAG62
CWAG63
CWAG64
Noise
CWAG70
CWAG71
CWAG72
CWAG73
CWAG74
CWAG75
CWAG76
CWAG77
CWAG78
CWAG79
CWAG80
CWAG81
CWAG82
CWAG83
CWAG84
CWAG85
Residents say NO to wind farm , John O'Groats Journal, 11 January
2008
Baillie decision hailed as a victory for democracy , John O'Groats
Journal, 18 January 2008
Example of Baillie support petition
Tables and Figures in support of precognition of Alastair MacDonald
ETSU R 97 – The Assessment and Rating of Wind Farm Noise
BSEN 61400-11 – Wind Turbine Generator Systems. Acoustic
Measurement Techniques.
Mountboy Wind Farm Environmental Statement
Bullmore – Precognition to the Tillyrie Public Inquiry.
ETSU-W-13-386 – Noise Measurements in Windy Conditions
Main Specification NM80 Turbine
J H Bass, A J Bullmore, E Sloth. Development of a Wind Farm Noise
Propagation Prediction Model. Contract JOR3-CT95-0051, pages 155
and 156
Bullmore et al. Wind Farm Noise Predictions – the Risk of
Conservatism. Second International Conference on Wind Turbine
Noise.
Decision on Rossie Farm Wind Farm, Auchtermuchty (Ref
P/PPA/250/675)
BS8233 – Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings, page 1.
Developer’s Noise Data Files (On CD only)
Barmoor Wind Farm Environmental Statement, Section 11, Noise, RPS
Group plc, 2006
Barmoor Wind Farm Environmental Statement, Volume 3, Technical
Appendix 11.6, RPS Group plc, 2006
Tables and figures to accompany precognition by Dick Bowdler
Night Shear
GRAS Windshield Tests (Sheridan – Toddleburn/Montreathmont)
Other relevant reports
CWAG90
Planning Appeal by CRE Energy: proposed development of wind
turbines and associated infrastructure at Borrowston Mains, Dounreay,
Thurso, Caithness , P/PPA/270/285, WMH Patterson, Reporter,
Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit, March 2005
CWAG91
Planning Appeal: proposed erection of three 3MW wind turbines at Hill
of Lieurary, by Thurso, Caithness , P/PPA/270/369, David N Gordon,
Reporter, Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit, March 2006
CWAG92
Proposed windfarm at Bardnaheigh and Stempster, Environmental
Statement, RPS Cairns Limited, for NGT (Scotland) Limited, July 1994
CWAG93
Baillie Wind Farm Scoping Report, prepared for Dudley Developments
by RPS Consultants Ltd, CS/SGP 5004 \Scoping Report, Final
version, 27 June 2003
CWAG94
Baillie Wind Farm Scoping Opinion, a response by the Scottish
Ministers, 18 August 2003
CWAG95
The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8
CWAG96
A selection of various press cuttings, articale and correspondence
IEC_3_105_3
72
CWAG98
CWAG99
CWAG100
CWAG101
Caithness Wind Energy and Poll, May 2006
Caithness & North Sutherland Regeneration Plan – snapshot 3, June
2008
VisitScotland – Position Statement on Wind Farms, August 2008
Correspondence to/from Jim Mather MSP regarding SPP6 and 2km
separation distance from dwellings, December 2008
DOCUMENTS FOR HISTORIC SCOTLAND:
HS1
HS2
HS3
HS4
HS5
HS6
HS7
HS8
HS9
HS10
HS11
HS12
HS13
HS14
HS15
HS16
HS17
HS18
HS19
IEC_3_105_3
Historic Scotland Framework Document (2008).
The Electricity Act 1989
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.
Scottish Government (2000) Guidance on the Electricity Works
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations.
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)
(2004) Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment. IEMA.
Lincoln (Sections 1, 3, 11, 13 and 14).
Historic Scotland (2008) Annex: Scoping of Development Proposals;
Assessment of Impact of the Setting on the Historic Environment
Resource – Some General Considerations.
Historic Scotland’s Consultation Response: Letter dated 28 October
2003 (to Request for Scoping Opinion).
Historic Scotland’s Consultation Response: Letter dated 13 June 2005
(to Environmental Statement).
Historic Scotland’s Consultation Response: Letter dated 24 March
2006 (to Addendum).
Historic Scotland’s Consultation Response: Letter dated 14 June 2006.
Historic Scotland’s Consultation Response: Letter dated 17 January
2007.
Historic Scotland’s Consultation Response: Letter dated 29 January
2008.
RPS Baillie Wind Farm ES Addendum – Additional Information
(submitted to Historic Scotland on 1 September 2006).
Highland Council Archaeology Unit (13 September 2004)
Memorandum to Head of Development Council: Baillie Wind Farm
04/00342/S36CA.
Entry in the Schedule of Monuments (1994) Cnoc Freiceadain, Long
Cairns.
Entry in the Schedule of Monuments (1933) Hill of Shebster,
Chambered Cairn.
Historic Scotland (23 December 2003) Interim Statement of Cultural
Significance: Cnoc Freiceadain, Long Cairns.
Extracts from Davidson, J L & Henshall, A S (1991) The Chambered
Cairns of Caithness: An Inventory of their Structures and Contents.
Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh.
Extracts from Henshall, A S (1963) The Chambered Cairns of
Caithness: An Inventory of their Structures and Contents. Edinburgh
University Press. Edinburgh.
73
HS20
HS21
HS22a)
HS22d)
HS22e)
HS22h)
HS22i)
HS23
HS24
HS25
HS26
HS27
Extracts from Close-Brooks, J (1995) The Highlands. HMSO.
Edinburgh.
Extracts from Philips, T (2002) Landscapes of the Living, Landscapes
of the Dead: The Location of Chambered Cairns of Northern Scotland.
BAR (British Series), 328. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Photograph: Viewpoint 1: Cnoc Freiceadain – 50mm lens.
Photograph: Viewpoint 1: Cnoc Freiceadain – Panorama.
Photograph: Viewpoint 2: Hill of Shebster, Chambered Cairn – 50mm
lens.
Viewpoint Location Map.
Photograph: Viewpoint 2: Hill of Shebster – Panorama.
Alan Macdonald (30 January 2009) Photomontages from Historic
Scotland Scheduled Monument Sites of the Proposed Baillie Wind
Farm.
Scottish Government (2003) Securing a Renewable Future: Scotland’s
Renewable Energy.
Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Jim Mather speech to the
All-Energy 08 conference.
Extracts from Scottish Government (2005) Choosing Our Future:
Scotland’s Sustainable Development Strategy.
Report to Scottish Ministers on Notification of Application for Erection
of a Dwellinghouse at 43 Callanish, Isle of Lewis (26 January 2009).
DOCUMENTS FOR STUART YOUNG:
SY/Baillie/1 Photograph of Causeymire Windfarm display
SY/Baillie/2 Photomontage – Lieurary and South Shebster Windfarms from A836
near Cnocan Dubh. Viewing distance 2056mm
SY/Baillie/3 Wirefame-based photomontage – Baillie Windfarm from A836 near
Cnocan Dubh. Viewing distance 380mm
SY/Baillie/4 Wirefame-based photomontage – Baillie Windfarm from A836 near
Cnocan Dubh. Viewing distance 500mm
SY/Baillie/5 Wirefame-based photomontage – Baillie Windfarm from A836 near
Cnocan Dubh. Viewing distance 1000mm
SY/Baillie/6 Acetate sheet with wireframe image of turbines extract from ES
Figure 4.53
SY/Baillie/7 Photomontage – Lieurary and South Shebster Windfarms from A836
near Cnocan Dubh. Viewing distance 500mm
SY/Baillie/8 Composite image – Buolfruich Windfarm and Baillie Turbines. Viewing
distance 500mm.
SY/Baillie/9 Photomontage – Alternative Viewpoint to ES Figure 4.21
SY/Baillie/10 Photographs of Causeymire Windfarm from ND 12984 54633, Old
Schoolhouse near Achies. Viewing distances 380mm and 500mm.
SY/Baillie/11 Photographs of Causeymire Windfarm from ND 19080 54443, near
Crofts of South Dunn. Viewing distances 380mm and 500mm,
SY/Baillie/12 Photograph of Causeymire Windfarm photographs of various viewing
distance sizes, and of their display frame.
SY/Baillie/13 Copy of e:mail from Ms Lesley Cranna of Scottish Natural Heritage
dated 1st March 2006.
SY/Baillie/14 Extract from e:mail correspondence – S Young/R Hayley
IEC_3_105_3
74