THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989; AND THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997

REPORT OF A PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRY INTOTWO APPLICATIONS FOR WIND FARM DEVELOPMENTS:

AT GRIFFIN, BALLINLOAN AND SCOTSTON FOREST ESTATES;AND AT CALLIACHAR

Inquiry Reporter: David A Russell MA(Hons) MPhil MRTPI File references: IEC/3/65 and IEC/3/101

Inquiry dates: 12 September to 19 October 2006

Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit4 The CourtyardCallendar Business ParkCallendar RoadFalkirkFK1 1XR

The Scottish MinistersEdinburgh

File references: IEC/3/65; and IEC/3/101

March 2007

Ministers

1. In accordance with my minutes of appointment dated 5 April 2006, I conducted a public local inquiry in connection with two applications for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct and operate wind farms in Perth and Kinross.

2. The application (Ref: IEC/3/65) by GreenPower (Griffin) Ltd was submitted in April 2004. Following subsequent amendment, it seeks consent for 68 wind turbines at Griffin, Ballinloan and Scotston Forest Estate. The application (Ref: IEC/3/101) by I&H Brown (Calliachar) Ltd, was first submitted in February 2004 and, also following amendment of the original proposal, seeks consent for 27 wind turbines at Calliachar. Both proposals were the subject of environmental impact assessment, and have been the subject of a significant number of representations from individuals and organisations. In December 2005, following receipt of an objection to each proposal by Perth and Kinross Council, the Scottish Ministers confirmed that a public local inquiry would be held.

3. Following transfer of the case files to Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit, the Relevant Notice was issued on 31 March 2006, and I held a pre-inquiry meeting on 23 May at which the arrangements for the inquiry were confirmed. Public notice of the inquiry was published in the local press on 8 August 2006.

4. Both applications were considered at a conjoined public local inquiry which was held in the Amulree Village Hall. It started on 12 September 2006, sitting on a total of fourteen days between then and 19 October 2006. I conducted accompanied inspections of the application sites and their surroundings on 16 October and 3 November 2006; and I conducted further inspections of the surrounding area on an unaccompanied basis, both before and after the inquiry.

5. Oral evidence was presented to the inquiry by witnesses on behalf of each applicant, Perth and Kinross Council, and the Amulree and Strathbraan Windfarm Action Group (ASWAG). Six people gave evidence on their own behalf and, at my request, evidence was also given by a representative of Scottish Natural Heritage. A full list of those who spoke at the inquiry is provided in Appendix 3.

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 their behalf.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 2

7. I have also taken account of the environmental information within the original and amended environmental statements and the additional information provided to the inquiry, and of the consultation responses and written representations which were submitted by a number of organisations, and by, or on behalf of, individual members of the public. Copies of all these submissions are available on the case files.

8. Annexes to the environmental statements in relation to birds were submitted with the applications to the Scottish Executive. As these contained confidential information, they were not produced for the inquiry and have not been seen by me. They were considered by Scottish Natural Heritage in making its consultation responses.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 3

CONTENTS

Section Page

1. Factual Background 5

2. Legislative Framework and Planning Policy Context 8

3. Summary of the Case for GreenPower (Griffin) Ltd 18

4. Summary of the Case for I&H Brown (Calliachar) Ltd 32

5. Summary of the Cases for Perth and Kinross Council 44

6. Summary of the Cases for the Amulree and StrathbraanWindfarm Action Group 54

7. Summary of the Cases for Scottish Natural Heritage 67

8. Summary of the Cases of Other Third Parties 72

9. Consultation Responses and Written Representations 76

10. Findings of Fact: The Griffin Application 80

11. Conclusions and Recommendations: The Griffin Application 99

12. Findings of Fact: The Calliachar Application 102

13. Conclusions and Recommendations: The Calliachar Application 123

Appendices

Appendix 1: Planning Conditions Suggested by GreenPower (Griffin) Ltd and Perth and Kinross Council A1

Appendix 2: Planning Conditions Suggested by I&H Brown (Calliachar) Ltd and Perth and Kinross Council A17

Appendix 3: Appearances A37

Appendix 4: Documents A39

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 4

1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Griffin site description and application history

1.1 The Griffin application site is located in an upland area extending east from its boundary with the A826 road through Glen Cochill; and lying to the north of Strathbraan. The site extends over an area of about 30 square kilometres. It mainly comprises three broadly parallel ridges, with intervening shallow valleys, oriented north-west to south-east, and generally sloping down in the same direction from summit heights of up to 529 metres. Most of the site has been the subject of commercial forestry plantation, although some of the summits and crags are unplanted, and some land on either side of the Ballinloan Burn remains as open heather or grassland. This is in the vicinity of the deserted village of Salachill, which is a scheduled ancient monument.

1.2 The application was submitted to the Scottish Executive by GreenPower (Griffin) Ltd in April 2004, seeking the Scottish Ministers’ consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the installation, then, of 82 wind turbines. The application had been the subject of environmental impact assessment, and an environmental statement was submitted with the application.

1.3 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 68 wind turbines, capable of generating a total of 204 megawatts. 61 turbines would have a hub height of 77 metres, with a total height to blade tip of 124 metres. The remaining seven turbines would have heights of 67 metres and 114 metres respectively.

1.4 The turbines would be erected in three groups. The westerly group of 30 turbines would be aligned in three parallel rows, stretching from the south side of Creag a’Mhadaidh towards Craig Tombane. The second group of 25 turbines, also in three rows, would stretch from Meall Reamhar to beyond Ben Salachill. The third group of 13 turbines, would stand in two rows along the south-west flanks of Creag Dubh and Creag an Eunaich.

1.5 Most of the proposed turbine locations are within areas of existing forestry plantation. Prior to installation, felling would be undertaken to a distance of about 400 metres prior to installation. Two vehicular accesses would be taken from the A826, north of its bridge over the Cochill Burn, and access tracks of some five metres width would be provided. Borrow pits, stone crushing facilities, a concrete batching facility and a temporary construction compound would be located within the site during the construction phase. During the operational phase, up to six wind monitoring masts would be installed; three sub-station control rooms would be provided; and a direct link to the grid network would be obtained by connection to the existing 132kV overhead power line which passes through the site, about 400 metres east of the A826.

1.6 Consultation responses were submitted by or on behalf of a wide range of organisations, and around 1,100 letters of representation were also submitted either in paper or electronic form.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 5

1.7 In its response to consultation, Perth and Kinross Council resolved on 25 October 2005 to notify the Scottish Ministers of its objection to the Griffin application. The minute of the meeting confirmed that the objection was made on the grounds that the application did not comply with the provisions of both government guidelines and the development plan, particularly (1) the unacceptable impact on roads; (2) the unacceptable visual intrusion; (3) concerns on the impact on tourism; (4) concerns on the impact on local water supplies; and (5) the impact the proposals would have on the landscape of the area.

1.8 In December 2005, following receipt of the council’s objection, the Scottish Ministers confirmed that the application would be the subject of a public local inquiry. In sending the application to the Inquiry Reporters Unit, it was stated on behalf of the Scottish Ministers that the cumulative impact of the Griffin and Calliachar wind farms should be assessed together.

Calliachar site description and application history

1.9 The Calliachar application site is located about five kilometres south of Aberfeldy in an open upland area between Glen Cochill to the east, and Glen Quaich to the west. Moness Forest, a commercial coniferous plantation, lies immediately to the north-east. Vehicular access is obtained by a track leading from the A826 in Glen Cochill. The single track public road from Amulree to Kenmore climbs out of Glen Quaich and rises to a height similar to the appeal site, passing about four kilometres to the west of the proposed wind farm, before descending to Kenmore.

1.10 The site extends over an area of about 10 square kilometres. It comprises an area of elevated moorland between Glen Cochill and Glen Quaich. The site is irregularly shaped, and is mostly over 450 metres above sea level, and rises to 623 metres at the summit of Meall Odhar. The land comprises mainly open heather moorland, which is mainly used for sheep grazing and as a grouse moor. Loch Hoil lies to the north, close to the site boundary, and an existing 132kV overhead power line pass through the site in a north-south direction. The south-eastern part of the site extends into a dip in the slopes on the northern side of Glen Quaich, above Loch Freuchie.

1.11 The application was submitted by I & H Brown (Calliachar) Ltd in February 2004, seeking consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the installation, then, of 46 wind turbines. The application had been the subject of environmental impact assessment, and an environmental statement was submitted with the application.

1.12 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. As amended, the scheme which is before the Scottish Ministers is for 27 wind turbines, capable of generating a total of 62.1 megawatts. The turbines would have a hub height of 60 metres, with a total height to blade tip of 100 metres.

1.13 The turbines would be erected in a single group, with the layout generally narrowing from four turbines across at its north-western end, to a line of single turbines at its south-eastern end. All the turbines would be located to the east of the existing overhead power line.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 6

1.14 New access tracks would be provided to link to each of the turbine locations, with a construction compound located at the north-east edge of the site. The layout plans also indicated the proposed locations of three borrow pits and three anemometers, with a sub-station adjacent to the existing 132kV overhead power line.

1.15 Consultation responses were submitted by or on behalf of a wide range of organisations, and nearly 800 letters of representation were also submitted either in paper or electronic form.

1.16 On 25 October 2005, Perth and Kinross Council also resolved to notify the Scottish Ministers of its objection to the Calliachar application. The minute of the meeting confirmed that the objection was made on the grounds that the proposed development would be:

1) Contrary to Policy ERP14 of the structure plan, as it would have a significant adverse impact on the area’s local environmental quality;2) Contrary to Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 of the local plan, because it would have significant adverse impact on the visual and landscape character of the area;3) Contrary to Policy 2 of the council’s policy and guidelines on wind energy developments, as it would be in a “Sensitive Area”, where large commercial wind farms will not be permitted; and fails to meet Guidelines 1, 2 and 3 as it would have a significant adverse impact on the visual and landscape character of an area of sensitive landscape; and, 4) Contrary to National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’, as its visual and landscape impact cannot be satisfactorily mitigated.

1.17 In December 2005, following receipt of the council’s objection, the Scottish Ministers confirmed that the Calliachar application would also be the subject of a public local inquiry. In sending the application to the Inquiry Reporters Unit, it was stated on behalf of the Scottish Ministers that the cumulative impact of the Griffin and Calliachar wind farms should be assessed together.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 7

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 sub-paragraph.

(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 re-iterated 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. At the inquiry, it was submitted that this provides that Section 25 of the Act must be applied to the Scottish Ministers’ determination of whether to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted. 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. Therefore the application of Section 25 to the Scottish Ministers determination of whether or

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 8

not to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted, is not a statutory requirement.

2.4 As both applications seek consent for the construction of a generating station under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, the developments fall within Schedule 2 of the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000. [Document 1.04] Accordingly, each applicant is required 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 both application sites comprises the Perth and Kinross Structure Plan and the Highland Area Local Plan. [Documents: CD D01 and D02] In the structure plan, the key policies of potential relevance to this proposal are:

Sustainable Economy Policy 3 (Policy SEP3), which states: “Support will be given to measures which promote an integrated flexible and innovative approach to rural development which encompass economic, social and environmental considerations and which:

o Maintain or enhance local employment opportunities.o Promote diversification.o Help sustain viable rural communities and services. o Introduce new technologies to rural areas (including information and

telecommunications technology and renewable energy schemes).”

Environment and Resources Policy 1 (Policy ERP1), which states: “The council will seek to safeguard the long term diversity and sustainability of species and natural and semi-natural habitats in Perth and Kinross. The Tayside LBAP (local bio-diversity action plan) will be a material consideration in the identification of land allocations in local plans and in the assessment of development proposals. Where there is a potential adverse effect upon local biodiversity an ecological appraisal will be sought and considered before the proposal is determined. Criteria for the assessment of proposals will be developed.”

Environment and Resources Policy 2 (Policy ERP2), which states: “The protection and conservation of wildlife, habitats and other natural features will be supported. Development affecting areas designated as being of international or national importance will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:

o The objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be damaged.

o There are no alternative solutions.o There are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest including

social or economic considerations.”

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 9

Environment and Resources Policy 3 (Policy ERP3), which states: “Proposed developments should not compromise the conservation objectives and overall integrity of National Scenic Areas unless there is a proven public interest where social or economic considerations outweigh the scenic quality and integrity of the area and development cannot be met in other less damaging locations. Local plans will identify those areas of local importance and prepare policies to ensure their management, protection and enhancement. Where development is proposed it should be of the highest standard of design.”

Environment and Resources Policy 4 (Policy ERP4), which states: “The Tayside Landscape Character Assessment will be a material consideration in the identification of land allocations in local plans and the assessment of development proposals. In addition, local plans may develop criteria for assessing the sensitivity of local landscape types to different types of development.”

Environment and Resources Policy 8 (Policy ERP8), which states: “The council will seek to ensure that the rich and varied cultural heritage resources of Perth and Kinross are recognised, recorded, protected and enhanced as appropriate. New development which would adversely affect listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled ancient monuments, historic gardens and designed landscapes or their settings will not be permitted unless there is a proven public interest where social, economic or safety considerations outweighs the cultural interest in the site. The same protection will be afforded to sites proposed for designation. Other important archaeological sites or landscapes will also be protected from inappropriate development. Local plans will bring forward policies for their protection and enhancement.”

Environment and Resources Policy 14 (Policy ERP14), which states: “Proposals for the development of renewable energy schemes will be supported where they are considered environmentally acceptable and where their energy contribution and benefits in reducing pollution outweigh any significant adverse effects on local environmental quality. Community based renewable energy developments in particular will be encouraged. Proposals for renewable energy developments will be assessed against the following criteria: The immediate and wider impact of the proposed development on the

landscape and wildlife resource; The need to protect features and areas of natural, cultural, historical and

archaeological interest; The specific benefits that the proposal would bring to the local community

and/or Perth and Kinross. The cumulative effect of similar developments on the local area.An environmental assessment will normally be required for large scale schemes and local plans will provide more detailed locational guidance particularly for wind farm developments and other renewable energy technologies.”

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 10

2.6 The structure plan’s key diagram identifies as “Upland Area” all the land in Perth and Kinross lying to the north of the Highland boundary fault, which includes both applications sites, and confirms that Strategy 3 applies to the Upland Area. This strategy states: “In the Upland Area, the strategy seeks to support diversification and to sustain fragile communities. The strategy promotes this by (among other things):

Encouraging economic use of minerals, renewable energy and forestry, supporting rural diversification and supporting the development of innovative forms of business based on new communications technologies.

Safeguarding nationally and locally important natural and cultural resources. Promoting the use and development of the Tayside Landscape Character

Assessment and other more detailed assessments as a basis for developing policies and making allocations in local plans as well as the consideration of planning applications.”

2.7 In the Highland Area Local Plan, the policies of potential relevance are:

Policy 1 (Sustainable Development), which states: “The council will seek to ensure, where possible, that development within the plan area is carried out in a manner in keeping with the goal of sustainable development. Where development is considered to be incompatible with the pursuit of sustainable development, but has other benefits to the area which outweigh this issue, the developer will be required to take whatever mitigation measures are deemed both practical and necessary to minimise any adverse impact. The following principles will be used as guidelines in assessing whether projects pursue a commitment to sustainable development:(a) The consumption of non-renewable resources should be at levels that do not restrict the options for future generations.(b) Renewable energy resources should be used at rates that allow their natural replenishment.(c) The quality of the natural environment should be maintained or improved.(d) Where there is great complexity or there are unclear effects of development on the environment, the precautionary principle should be applied.(e) The costs and benefits (material and non-material) of any development should be equitably distributed.(f) Biodiversity is conserved.(g) The production of all types of waste should be minimised thereby minimising levels of pollution.(h) New development should meet local needs and enhance access to employment, facilities, services and goods.”

Policy 2 (Development Criteria), which states: “All developments will also be judged against (among others) the following criteria:(a) The sites should have a landscape framework capable of absorbing or, if necessary, screening the development and where required opportunities for landscape enhancement will be sought.(c) The development should be compatible with its surroundings in land use terms and should not result in a significant loss of amenity to the local community.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 11

(d) The road network should be capable of absorbing the additional traffic generated by the development and a satisfactory access onto that network provided.”

Policy 3 (Landscape), which states: “Development proposals should seek to conserve landscape features and sense of local identity, and strengthen and enhance landscape character. The council will assess development that is viewed as having a significant landscape impact against the principles of the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment produced by Scottish Natural Heritage.”

Policy 11 (Renewable Energy), which states: “The council will encourage, in appropriate locations, renewable energy projects. …Renewable energy developments, including ancillary transmission lines and access roads, will be assessed against the following criteria:

(a) The development will not have a significant detrimental effect on sites recognised at a national, regional or local level for nature conservation interest or archaeological interest.(b) The development will not result in an unacceptable intrusion into the landscape character of the area.(c) The development will not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers by reasons of noise emission, visual dominance, electromagnetic disturbance or reflected light.

Developers will be required to enter into an agreement for the removal of the development and the restoration of the site following the completion of the development’s useful life.”

Policies 14 and 17 (Nature Conservation), which state: “The council will not normally grant consent for any development which would have an adverse effect on:

(a) Sites supporting species mentioned in Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended; Annex II or IV of the European Community Habitats Directive; or Annex 1 of the European Community Wild Birds Directive.(b) Those habitats listed in Annex 1 of the European Community Habitats Directive”; and

“The council will seek to protect and enhance habitats of local importance to nature conservation, including grasslands, wetlands and peatlands and habitats which support rare or endangered species.”

2.8 The Scottish Executive’s ‘National Planning Framework for Scotland’ was published in April 2004. [Document: CD I05] At paragraphs 75, it confirms setting: “a target of deriving 40% of the electricity generated in Scotland from renewable sources by 2020. The development of renewable energy technologies is being encouraged as a means of tackling climate change and promoting the Scottish economy. The aim is to realise Scotland’s large renewable energy potential while safeguarding the environment.”

2.9 The Scottish Ministers’ current policy on wind farm proposals is set out in National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’, which states:

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 12

At paragraph 16: “In support of the UK Government’s commitment to renewable energy and its contribution to the climate change programme, more renewable energy developments are required to meet UK international obligations. The Scottish Ministers wish to see the planning system play its full part by making positive provision for such developments by: facilitating and guiding renewable energy developments in up-to-date

structure and local plans; ensuring that development control decisions are taken efficiently, consistent

with national and international climate change policy commitments and obligations; and

preventing the unnecessary sterilisation of renewable energy resources; while at the same time: meeting the international and national statutory obligations to protect

designated areas, species and habitats of natural heritage interest and the historic environment from inappropriate forms of development; and

minimising the effects on local communities.”

At paragraph 19: “Planning policy is based on the principle that renewable energy developments should be accommodated throughout Scotland where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. Furthermore, with improved turbine design, wind farm developers are now able to capture lower wind speeds than previously and the requirement for exposed sites may not always be paramount. The capacity of the transmission and grid may also in particular circumstances provide a technical constraint, which could influence the siting of some renewable energy developments, in advance of its upgrading.”

At paragraph 22: “The aim of the Scottish Executive therefore is to ensure that the commitment to renewable energy is satisfied and supported through development plan policies and development control decisions unless, at the site level, there are serious adverse impacts that can not be mitigated. These could include the following: In relation to international natural heritage designations (Ramsar sites, Special

Protection Areas [SPAs] and Special Areas of Conservation [SACs], renewable energy projects, which would have an adverse effect on the conservation interests for which the site 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.

In relation to national designations (National Scenic Areas, Sites of Special Scientific Interest [SSSI], National Nature Reserves, National Parks and Natural Heritage Areas), renewable energy projects should only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that 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. Similar considerations should also apply in approved green belts.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 13

In relation to the historic environment including designated built and cultural heritage sites, areas or features (listed buildings, conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, scheduled ancient monuments and sites listed in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes) or their settings, planning authorities and developers are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the site, area or feature.

In relation to the local community, developments should not be permitted where they would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby, and where the impact cannot be mitigated satisfactorily.

Outwith internationally and nationally designated areas, other areas may with appropriate justification also be identified and protected in development plans. While these areas may be important locally, the level of protection will not be as high as that afforded internationally or nationally. In applying policies to these local designations, planning authorities should ensure that these are not such as to impose unreasonable restrictions on the ability to meet the overall requirement for renewable energy.”

At paragraph 36: “The characteristics associated with wind farms raise a number of issues that require to be considered, and where appropriate, addressed. These relate to: Visual impact - the size and scale of the development and its relationship to

the characteristics of the locality and landform in which it is to be built will be a relevant consideration. The visibility of a wind farm may in some circumstances raise concerns, although distance as well as landscape and topography will affect its prominence. Additionally the cumulative impact of neighbouring wind developments may in some circumstances be relevant.

Landscape - the character of the landscape and its ability to accept this type of development, including the associated infrastructure, will be an important consideration. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has prepared a comprehensive programme of landscape character assessment and where appropriate local authorities should provide a local interpretation. A cautious approach should be adopted in relation to particular landscapes that are valued, such as National Scenic Areas or National Parks or sites in the inventory of designed landscapes. Such concerns may also extend to regionally important landscapes such as regional parks, and parts of approved green belts may be valued for their contribution to the landscape setting of nearby towns.

Birds and habitats - the importance of complying with international and national conservation obligations must be recognised eg the potential impact on bird populations at proposed sites near roosting and feeding areas and on migration pathways requires careful assessment.

Other considerations - because of the height of turbines and electro-magnetic fields generated, consideration is needed on airfield flight paths and military aircraft flying areas. Wind farm proposals have raised concerns among residents worried about the likely impacts on local amenity. Issues such as noise, construction traffic, interference with telecommunications (including TV reception) and driver distraction are often raised. While such issues require to be addressed, recent research by the Scottish Executive indicates that once operational, wind farms quickly achieve local acceptance.”

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 14

2.10 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 PerceptionUp to 2 kms Likely to be a prominent feature2-5 kms Relatively prominent5-15 kms Only prominent in clear visibility – seen as part of the wider

landscape15-30 kms Only seen in clear visibility – a minor element in the

landscape.”

2.11 In July 2006, the Scottish Executive published the consultation draft of Scottish Planning Policy 6 ‘Renewable Energy’, which is intended to replace National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’. It sets out the national planning policies for renewable energy developments that the Scottish Ministers will take into account when considering policies in development plans, and when considering applications for planning permission which come before them on appeal or call-in. They will also be applied to the authorisation of onshore electricity generation schemes under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

2.12 The document re-iterates the target that 40% of electricity generated in Scotland should come from renewable sources by 2020; and states the intention to facilitate successful achievement of this target, and beyond, in an environmentally acceptable manner. This is expected to be a through a range of technologies, although hydro and onshore wind power are expected to continue to make the most significant contribution.

Perth and Kinross Council’s Wind Energy Policy Guidelines

2.13 In May 2005, the council approved its “Wind Energy Policy Guidelines” as supplementary planning guidance. [Core Document E01] Wind Energy Policy 1 states: “The council will encourage the development of commercial wind energy schemes which assist in achieving the Scottish Executive’s target of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2010 and also community wind energy schemes to provide local electricity needs in locations least damaging to landscape character, amenity, habitat, and species in Perth and Kinross as shown in Diagram 1. In the period to 2010, the council will look favourably on those schemes within the ‘Broad Areas of Search’ which meet the criteria set out in the council’s Wind Energy Policy Guidelines. The council will work, in conjunction with public agencies and the private sector, to ensure that Perth and Kinross makes an appropriate contribution to meeting the Scottish Executive’s aspirational target of electricity generated from all renewable sources by 2020. The contribution to be made in Perth and Kinross to

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 15

this target will be subject to a later review as wind energy schemes are implemented and other technologies come forward.”

2.14 Diagram 1 indicates that the Griffin site lies within the designated ‘broad area of search’; and that the Calliachar site lies within, or mainly within, the designated ‘sensitive area’.

2.15 Wind Energy Policy 2 states: “In the broad area of search, community and commercial wind energy developments will be supported where they would be consistent with the council’s detailed policy guidelines and it has been demonstrated that they utilise turbines of a size and a scale appropriate to their location, are in locations least damaging to settlements, landscape character, visual amenity, habitats, and will not have unacceptable cumulative impacts.

Within the strategically sensitive area there is a presumption against wind energy developments unless it has been demonstrated that the utilised turbines are of a size and a scale appropriate to their location, are in locations which will have a slight or no significant impact on settlements, landscape character, visual amenity, habitats, will not have unacceptable cumulative impacts and would be consistent with the council’s detailed policy guidelines…”

2.16 Guideline 1 concerns landscape impact, and its objective is to avoid significant adverse impacts on landscape character in Perth and Kinross. The policy guideline states: “Wind energy proposals will be encouraged except in locations where they will have a substantial or moderate adverse impact on landscape character which cannot be mitigated. A commercial or community wind farm is unlikely to be acceptable on prominent ridges, hills or sensitive skyline locations in or within 5 kilometres of any of the sensitive locations listed below, unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the council that the impact will be slight or not significant:

National Scenic Areas National Parks Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes Perth Green Belt Areas of Great Landscape Value The views from major tourist routes (M90, A826, A822, A827, A85, A9, A93,

B8019, B946) The views from popular public or representative viewpoints and paths as agreed

with the council Settlements.”

2.17 Guideline 2 concerns visual impact, and its objective is to avoid significant visual impact on houses or settlements, locally prominent or valued landforms and locally prominent buildings and scheduled ancient monuments. The policy guideline states: “Wind energy proposals will be encouraged except in locations where they will have a substantial or moderate adverse visual impact which cannot be mitigated. A commercial or community wind farm, cluster or turbine is unlikely to be acceptable within 20 times the height to blade tip of: houses and settlements, locally prominent landforms, scheduled ancient monuments, significant archaeological sites and their settings, conservation areas and listed buildings where no satisfactory assessment has been undertaken and where it has not been

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 16

demonstrated to the satisfaction of the council that the visual impact will be slight or not significant…”

2.18 Guideline 3 concerns cumulative landscape and visual impacts, and its objective is to avoid unacceptable significant visual and landscape impacts both within and outwith Perth and Kinross. The policy guideline states: “Wind energy proposals will be encouraged except in locations where they have a substantial or moderate adverse cumulative impact on important receptors. A commercial or community wind farm… when located within 40 kilometres of another, is unlikely to be acceptable where it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the council that the cumulative landscape and visual impact will be slight or not significant…”

2.19 The Tayside Landscape Character Assessment was commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage and published in 1999. [Core Document H18] Both sites are included within the “Highland Summits and Plateaux” landscape character type, which comprises the upland areas which separate the principal glens beyond the Highland boundary fault. The assessment provides general guidelines which indicate that tall structures (aerials, masts, wind turbines and pylons) should be discouraged because of their likely impact on the harsh undeveloped character of this landscape type; and that any proposals should be subject to rigorous landscape impact assessment.

2.20 Subsequently, a strategic study of the capacity of the landscape to accommodate wind farms commissioned by the council was more positive about the potential of southern Highland Perthshire. [Core Document G01] Further dividing the area into sub-units, it found four where it recommended that commercial wind farms could be located, subject to detailed impact assessment and other criteria. These included the Cochill-Tay-Braan sub-unit of the Highland Summits and Plateaux, which includes the Griffin site; and also both Strathbraan and Glen Quaich. While the Cochill-Tay-Braan unit was classified as having higher landscape potential for accommodating wind farms, it also had high visual sensitivity. The Calliachar site was included within the Cochill-Quaich sub-unit, classified as having lower landscape potential for accommodating wind farms, together with high visual sensitivity.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 17

3. SUMMARY OF THE CASE FOR GREENPOWER (GRIFFIN) LTD

The need for, and benefits of, the proposal

3.1 Policies at both UK and Scottish level confirm the national commitment to promote the development of renewable energy capacity. In Scotland, onshore wind energy will continue to have in important role in meeting the Scottish Ministers’ target of generating 18% of Scotland’s electricity demand from renewable sources by 2010, and 40% by 2020. While existing consents are already sufficient to ensure that the 2010 target can be met, the Scottish Ministers are now looking towards the 2020 target. The policies of the development plan and the provisions of the council’s supplementary planning guidance both recognise the need to promote renewable energy generation in Perth and Kinross.

3.2 Details of the needs and benefits of the proposal are set out in a document submitted with the amended environmental statement. [Document GP2] The proposed wind farm will result in the installation of 204 megawatts of generating capacity. Using the standard assumption that a wind farm will operate at an average capacity factor of 30%, the generation would be equivalent to meeting the average annual demand of some 114,000 homes. Based on the current mix of electricity generating technologies which creates between 850 and 900 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the wind farm would avoid the production of between 456,000 and 483,000 tonnes of CO2 annually, which is equivalent to around 125,000 tonnes of carbon. The trees which are to be removed to accommodate the wind farm would have absorbed 6,500 tonnes of carbon annually.

3.3 The firm now has a viable grid connection offer for April 2010, which is not dependent on any upgrading of the grid network. The benefits could be secured then, following a construction period of about 15 months. In economic terms, the project is worth about £145M, and up to £45M of the construction costs could be spent in the local economy. The company is committed to maximising the use of local services and suppliers, and is already advising local businesses of the opportunities. The landowners would benefit from rental payments to support the operations of their estate.

3.4 The firm also proposes to enable community ownership of at least one of the 68 turbines, with financial receipts equivalent to those resulting from one 68 th of the total output of the wind farm. This may be based on a co-operative structure of ownership, with investment by individuals of between £200 and £20,000, but the final structure would follow full consultation with the local community. The firm also proposes to establish a community fund, with an annual top-up typically of £1,000 for each installed megawatt of capacity (i.e. £204,000). This is a commitment which it will honour.

3.5 GreenPower also proposes to deliver ecological and recreational benefits through a land management plan, which is to be the subject of a planning condition. In addition to the felling of the coniferous plantations within 400 metres of the turbines, the objective would be to maintain and enhance areas of upland moorland, heath, blanket bog, riparian habitat and semi-natural woodland, as these habitats are particularly important in supporting a number of key species which are rare, of conservation concern, or have enhanced statutory protection. These include hen harriers, black grouse, peregrine, merlin, ospreys, black throated divers, and otters.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 18

3.6 A Forest Plan is not required, as the relevant information regarding the environmental assessment of the felling is contained in the environmental statement, and other matters can be addressed in the construction method statement and the land management plan.

3.7 Proposals to enhance access and recreation include car parking at the site entrance; interpretation and signage; improvements to the circular walk around Loch Kennard; the provision of shelters and hides there and at designated viewpoints; and additional footpaths and cycle tracks to connect existing “dead end” tracks and link with the network within the adjacent Craigvinean Forest. There would be no new access restrictions on entering the forest, and responsible public access would be encouraged.

3.8 The operational life of the project is predicted to be 25 years, and any extension would be subject to further consents. A suspensive conditions is proposed to ensure that a bond or alternative financial provision would be put in place at the start of the project to cover the cost of de-commissioning and site restoration. A method statement on de-commissioning would be put in place near to that time, in order to apply the best practice techniques then available.

The landscape and visual effects

3.9 The landscape and visual effects of the proposal are described in detail in the amended environmental statement. The Tayside Landscape Character Assessment identifies the Griffin site as lying within the ‘Highland Summits and Plateaux’ landscape character type. However, this site is only partly representative of the landscape characteristics of that type, as its sensitivity has been reduced by the planting of extensive commercial forestry with its associated tracks and deer fences, and by the erection of the overhead power line. The Tayside Landscape Character Assessment recognises that locations within commercial coniferous plantations can reduce the environmental impacts of wind farms, as they have already modified an open landscape and can now provide screening of the turbines.

3.10 A landscape study of the Ochil Hills and the southern Highlands of Perthshire [Core Document G01] has identified the site as being within an area (H2) that has high potential for wind farm development; and the council’s consultant who carried out the study had confirmed in evidence that, in landscape terms, this site is the most appropriate location for a wind farm in the whole of the study area. He also confirmed that the site does not have the characteristics which make area H2 as a whole visually sensitive. Scottish Natural Heritage has confirmed its view that the landscape characteristics of the site relate well to wind turbines. It is large scale, open, exposed and windswept; and it is not as remote or as wild as core areas of the ‘Highland Summits and Plateaux’. Although the proposed turbines are tall, they would not be out of scale with this landscape. Smaller turbines were considered, but these reduced the benefits of the development.

3.11 The effects of the construction of the development on the fabric of the landscape would be relatively small, consisting of new and widened access tracks, turbine foundations, cable trenches, a construction compound, borrow pits, sub-station/control buildings and grid connection works. Temporary construction areas would be fully re-instated. The magnitude of this fabric loss would be medium, but being primarily within a commercial plantation it would be of low to medium sensitivity, giving rise overall to an effect of moderate/minor significance, which is not significant.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 19

3.12 However, 991 hectares of plantation woodland would be clear felled. This would extend the existing areas of open moorland and, with the proposed broadleaf planting and other habitat improvement measures, would lead to potential landscape and nature conservation benefits. These would be seen in the context of a man modified landscape with ongoing forestry management operations.

3.13 The effects in relation to landscape character type would vary with distance. Within about 750 metres of a turbine, the landscape would be that of a wind farm, with the turbines being the determining element. Beyond that range, and up to five kilometres, the wind farm would give rise to a local characterising influence, with the magnitude of change varying with the degree of visibility. Thus, between two and five kilometres, the local landscape character would become “Highland Summits and Plateaux with Wind Farm”. However, this is a transition area between the higher summits to the north-east and north-west, and the settled valleys and lower landscapes to the south; and it is located within an extensively forested, man modified landscape which can accommodate a wind farm. Within a seven kilometres radius of the nearest turbines, it would also have significant effects on the landscape character of Strathbraan and the hills to the south, due to the open views towards the site.

3.14 The company had worked with both Scottish Natural Heritage and the council’s officials to modify the design and layout of the scheme to make it acceptable to them in landscape and visual terms. The wind farm would be visible from within a small part of the River Tay (Dunkeld) National Scenic Area, and also from parts of the Loch Tummel and the Loch Rannoch and Glen Lyon National Scenic Areas. However, Scottish Natural Heritage had confirmed that the objectives of these designations would not be compromised. There would be no significant effects on any Area of Great Landscape Value or on any property included within the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes.

3.15 The ‘zone of visual influence’ maps (ZVIs) prepared as part of the environmental assessment demonstrate how the landform to the south, west, north and east of the site limits the visibility of the proposed wind farm. Visibility is predicted on higher ground in the vicinity of the site, but only limited or no visibility in adjoining valleys. On the valley floor of Strath Tay, both to the north and to the east, there would be no visibility. The exclusion of areas of forestry and woodland within ten kilometres further reduces potential visibility. [Document GP2]

3.16 Of some 1,400 residential properties which lie within seven kilometres of the site, only 35 would have potentially significant visual effects. For none of these would all the turbines be visible, and only six properties within five kilometres of the site would have open views of the site. This highlights the suitability of the site. It is very well contained visually, and there would be little or no visibility from the larger settlements in the area. Very few residents objected on the grounds of adverse effects on views from their houses.

3.17 At the nearest house, Scotston, intervening forestry would provide screening of the seven blade tips potentially visible; and within three kilometres of the wind farm, the screening effect of local tree cover and intervening buildings would partially restrict views of the turbines from 11 of the 13 houses where significant effects are predicted. Similarly, at between three and five kilometres, there would be predominant or partial screening for 20 of the 25 houses where significant effects are predicted. The removal of the eight nearest

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 20

turbines to Trochry has resulted in the closest turbines being 3.3 kilometres away, rather than 2.8 kilometres. While for the individual residents, these effects may be of concern, overall, they are limited.

3.18 There would be significant visual effects experienced by users of both the A826 and the A822, on short sections of these routes: intermittently, on three short sections of the A822 south of Milton, for those travelling north and at distances of over five kilometres from the nearest turbines; on the A826 north of a Milton, along a four kilometres section and at a distance of between two and three kilometres from the nearest turbine with up to 41 turbines visible, although to the north of Scotston they would be well screened by forestry; and on the A822 between Dunkeld and Milton, which is not part of the Perthshire tourist route, the wind farm would be visible on two sections west of Borelick and east of Trochry totalling 3.5 kilometres in length, where up to 35 turbines would be visible at distances of 3.1 to 3.7 kilometres. The applicant’s landscape witness accepted that visibility of the turbines from these routes had the potential to affect tourists’ perception of the area.

3.19 The wind farm would not be visible at close distances from other main transport routes. On the A9, the closest view would be from 17.5 kilometres to the south; on the A93, from over 19 kilometres; on the A923 from over 12 kilometres; and on the A924 from over 13 kilometres. Significant effects would be experienced on the cycle route across the site, and on certain sections of the footpath network south of Strathbraan at distances of 3.8 to 9 kilometres. These views would illustrate the well balanced appearance of the wind farm, and the relationship of its layout to the topography and the pattern of open moorland and forestry.

3.20 Views from lower level walks and cycle routes in the area, including those along the River Tay, at the Hermitage, and within Craigvinean Forest, would be screened by the topography and tree cover. Because of their distance from the wind farm, the visual amenity of climbers and walkers on popular summits such as Farragon Hill, Ben Vrackie, Ben Chonzie and Schiehallion would not be significantly affected. However, hill walkers on King’s Seat, on Meall non Caorach, and in the uplands south of Strathbraan would experience significant visual effects.

3.21 King’s Seat at Birnam overlooks the Tay Valley at Dunkeld. It is a popular hill for walkers, as there are fine panoramic views from the summit. The wind farm would be clearly visible, in the context of the large scale plantation woodland. In amending the scheme, a fundamental objective was to improve its layout and composition in relation to the views from King’s Seat, Birnam, particular towards the distant conical summit of Schiehallion. The removal of turbines at the southern end of the site has reduced the scheme’s lateral extent. Scottish Natural Heritage had confirmed that this has satisfied its concerns regarding the potential effects on views from the summit of King’s Seat.

3.22 The council’s landscape witness had addressed visual effects in a cursory manner, adopting a low threshold for significant effects and taking no account of the extent of visibility, the limited number of turbines which would be visible, or the context within which they would be seen.

3.23 All parties have accepted that, just because significant adverse landscape and visual effects may arise, these do not automatically make a development unacceptable. Any commercial wind farm is likely to give rise to some significant landscape and/or visual

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 21

effects. The firm’s professional landscape witness stated that, in his view, the proposal would be acceptable in landscape and visual terms without any further reduction or modification. This was based on his involvement in a large number of wind farm developments, and on taking into account all the specific characteristics of this landscape. Both Scottish Natural Heritage and the council’s planning witness had also reached this conclusion.

3.24 Neither the council’s nor the action group’s landscape witness had come to any conclusion as to whether the landscape and visual effects would be acceptable. The report to committee by the council’s planning officer had made a reference to the possibility of reducing the number of turbines visible from Trochry, however the council’s planning witness had confirmed that this was not required in order to make the development acceptable. The view of the action group’s planning witness was that the proposal would give rise to an unacceptable effect on landscape character and/or that it would be visually dominant leading to an unacceptable loss of amenity, but this was not supported by the evidence of the landscape witnesses or contained in other written representations.

3.25 The assessment of landscape and visual effects contained in the planning officer’s precognition was flawed. It ignored the views of Scottish Natural Heritage and of the officer who reported to committee. It ignored the views of the council’s own landscape witness that the site is the most appropriate in the study area for a wind farm. It relied on that witness’s evidence for finding that the landscape and visual effects would be unacceptable, but that was a conclusion which the landscape witness had not reached. In cross-examination, the council’s planning witness had confirmed that the views in the precognition did not reflect his professional views, which were that the proposal would not have unacceptable effects on the landscape character of the immediate or wider area, or on visual receptors, including residents and road users.

3.26 In the closing submissions for the council, it had been contended that the landscape effects would be unacceptable. This was not founded on the evidence to the inquiry by the council’s landscape and planning witnesses; and while the councillor who gave evidence had stated that there would be significant effects on the landscape, he had confirmed that he had not weighed the benefits of the wind farm against these effects.

3.27 The applicant’s landscape witness confirmed that the design of the wind farm had been driven by the site’s topography and by the main viewpoints, which include King’s Seat, Birnam, the settlements in Strathbraan at Trochry and around Borelick, and the routes of the A822 and A826. The layout had been amended to address the concerns which had been raised by the council, Scottish Natural Heritage and members of the public. Eleven turbines had been removed from the southern end, including the eight nearest to Trochry. As a result of this, and re-positioning, a separation distance of 3.3 kilometres from dwellings in Trochry would be achieved. There are 13 houses in Trochry, and for each, screening or partially screening would be provided by trees. Overall, only 16 properties would have open views towards the wind farm from less than seven kilometres and, of these, only six would be within five kilometres, and two within three kilometres. None would see more than 41 of the turbines. The predicted effects on the visual amenity of residents would not be unacceptable. The house at Scotston in Glen Cochill is closest to the wind farm, but topography would obscure all but the blade tips of seven turbines, and these would all be screened by the intervening commercial forestry plantation.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 22

3.28 The proposed turbine heights reflect manufacturers’ current specification, and are in use in one wind farm in Scotland and are proposed for two other, larger wind farms. Here, seven turbines would be ten metres shorter to mitigate skyline effects from key viewpoints. The scale of the turbines, and of the wind farm as a whole, can be compared favourably with the scale of the Griffin, Ballinloan and Scotston Forest. The site lies within a large scale upland landscape, which is not covered by any national or local landscape designation, and is of medium quality due to the extensive commercial forestry plantation.

3.29 Use of a study area based on a radius of 30 kilometres from the wind farm was agreed at the scoping stage, and it contains the following four National Scenic Areas: River Tay (Dunkeld) is one kilometre to the east; Loch Tummel is 11 kilometres to the north; Loch Rannoch and Glen Lyon is 17 kilometres to the west; and the River Earn is to the south-west. However, the significant landscape effects of the proposal would be experienced within seven kilometres of the site, and the site lies within an area identified as a ‘broad area of search’ in the council’s own wind energy policy guidelines. [Document CD – E01]

3.30 Significant cumulative landscape and visual effects of the Griffin wind farm in conjunction with the proposed Calliachar wind farm would be limited in extent and should be considered acceptable. Their form would be broadly consistent, as their linear arrangements follow the general trend of the area’s ridgeline topography. However, there is sufficient distance between them and limited intervisibility due to topography and plantation forestry, so that they would not appear conjoined. The landscape witness agreed with the view of Scottish Natural Heritage that, while the character of the Braan-Tay-Quaich landscape unit would be altered by the two schemes in combination, and the wind farms would become a key characteristic, the overall Highland Summits and Plateaux landscape character type would not be affected.

3.31 Only two houses in Strathbraan (Tomgarrow and Balhormish) would have theoretical visibility of both wind farms, but the effect would not be more significant as the visibility of Calliachar would be limited to between one and five blade tips, at a distance of over nine kilometres. Other houses in Strath Tay and Strath Tummel to the north with potential views of both wind farms lie at greater distances, and only slight or negligible visual effects are predicted.

3.32 For road users, combined visibility of both wind farms would be limited. On the A822 northbound, partial skyline views of Calliachar and Griffin would be seen at distances of about seven and nine kilometres respectively, with the latter partially screened by local tree cover. On the A826, there would be theoretical visibility of both over a three kilometres section to the north of Scotston, although in reality the Griffin turbines would generally be well screened by forestry over this section. As the Calliachar wind farm would not be visible from the A9 trunk road, there would be no cumulative effects from there.

3.33 For recreational users, both wind farms would be visible from surrounding summits at varying distances. Significant effects would arise in views from the nearer summits such as Meall nan Caorach to the south, King’s Seat to the south-east and Farragon Hill to the north, although the similar form of layout would also be apparent. In the case of King’s Seat, the significant effects would be limited to those of the Griffin wind farm. From more distant mountain summits and from National Scenic Areas, the cumulative visual effects would not be significant.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 23

3.34 In terms of the cumulative effects on landscape character, each project would lead to a localised wind farm landscape limited to its individual sphere of influence, and would not lead to the merging or loss of distinction between these adjoining areas. The difference in turbine heights would not give rise to confusion, because the Calliachar wind farm would be located on a higher and more prominent ridge. Imposing a minimum separation distance between wind farms would spread their impacts over a wider area.

3.35 There would be no significant cumulative effects in relation to the proposed upgrade of the Beauly-Denny transmission line.

The effects on natural heritage

3.36 Perth and Kinross Council has not objected on grounds of ecology, and the formal consultees raised no specific concerns on ecology issues.

3.37 An assessment of the potential effects on ornithology was set out in the environmental statement [Documents GP1 and GP2], and had included species protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, as well as those listed in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive. It concluded that the effects on bird species would be of low significance during the construction, operational and de-commissioning phases, assuming that appropriate mitigation measures are adopted. The mitigation measures are set out in the environmental statement and in greater detail in the outline land management plan [Document GP4], including habitat enhancement which would benefit breeding species in the locality, for example:

Positive and active management for hen harrier, including maintenance of heathland and moorland for hen harriers outwith the turbine envelope.

Maintaining the moorland habitat for other priority bird species such as black, grouse, peregrine and merlin.

Managing the habitat of the open water bodies to maintain and enhance their value for black throated divers and osprey.

Protecting and enhancing the black grouse population within the site, including active habitat management, with a focus on forest edges.

Ensuring the continued and where possible enhanced breeding success of key bird species, such as osprey, peregrine, black throated diver and hen harrier.

3.38 Scottish Natural Heritage had confirmed that, subject to suitable conditions being imposed, it has no objection to the proposal arising from potential effects on bird species. Its witness had confirmed that he and other officers, including the “Natura” staff, had fully assessed the project in light of all the relevant legislation, and as required by the Birds Directive. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that all the legal obligations have been met at this stage, and considerable weight should be given to the views of Scottish Natural Heritage. It should also be noted that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had not objected to the proposal.

3.39 Little weight should be attached to views of the action group’s ornithology witness. He had not undertaken any fieldwork or assessment of his own; he did not provide any evidence to support his assertions about adverse effects on a number of species; and he was unaware that second stage forest rotation would not occur for 25 years.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 24

3.40 The environmental statement also set out an assessment of the effects on terrestrial ecology and concluded that, subject also to appropriate mitigation measures, all the effects on habitats and protected animals would be of low significance. Given the improvements in habitat quality which would be delivered through the land management plan, some of the effects of the wind farm would be positive, for example:

Maintaining the riparian habitat to maintain its value for otter. Managing the transition of land and habitats after felling. Maintaining and enhancing the areas of semi-natural woodland. Management of field boundaries, hedges, dykes and positive management for

roadside boundaries.

3.41 A separate forest plan has not been prepared, because the environmental assessment of the felling proposals are contained in the environmental statement, and other relevant matters will be addressed in the construction method statement and the land management plan.

3.42 The applicant’s hydrology consultant stated that the phasing of forest felling would reduce the potential for these activities to generate sediments into streams, and the felling methods would follow Forestry Commission guidelines to prevent impacts on watercourses. Mulching of the felled timber on site is recommended best practice. It promotes compaction and prevents erosion of particulates. This method had been used recently at the Black Law wind farm, and both surface stability and early heather regeneration have been achieved.

3.43 The areas of deep peat within the site would be unaffected, and mitigation measures would be used to prevent other areas of peat from drying out, and to prevent leakage or spillage of materials. A new crossing point on the Ballinloan Burn would be required, and three existing stream crossings would be widened and re-inforced. The construction methods would prevent the interruption of stream flows, and minimise sediment generation, with mitigation measure to trap sediments and prevent their transmission downstream. Both the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Tay District Salmon Fisheries Board had confirmed that the measures proposed to prevent damage to the burns and their fish populations are acceptable.

3.44 No objections have been raised by Scottish Natural Heritage or any other consultee in relation to potential effects of the proposed wind farm on the terrestrial ecology.

Effects on archaeology

3.45 A detailed assessment of the effects on sites of archaeological interest was set out in the environmental statement. The scheme was amended to address potential effects on the scheduled ancient monument at Salachill, which is a deserted village. A number of turbines in close proximity have been deleted, and the proposal would not give rise to significant environmental effects. Historic Scotland no longer objects to the proposed development, and the action group’s witness on archaeology provided no evidence to support the assertion that there may be undiscovered archaeological remains within the site. None were identified before afforestation took place, and that process would have affected any remains. An archaeological mitigation plan would be submitted for the approval of the council, prior to development starting; and a condition requiring the appointment of an Archaeological Clerk of Works to undertake a watching brief during construction would be acceptable.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 25

Noise effects

3.46 The environmental statement contains a detailed noise impact assessment, based on the methodology described in ETSU-R-97. [Core Document J04] The company’s acoustic consultant confirmed that, with a small amount of mitigation for noise at the house at Scotston, involving the slowing of certain turbine rotors for certain wind speeds in certain directions, the noise limits required by ETSU-R-97 could be achieved. This would be included in the specification given to the manufacturer. Wind shear is not a significant issue at the Griffin site and, even if it occurred, the proposed noise limits would be met. If the Calliachar wind farm was also developed, because of the distance of separation and the orientation of the sites, there would be no significant cumulative noise effect.

3.47 The council has now agreed a noise condition based on the ETSU-R-97 methodology, which is endorsed as good practice for wind farm developments in Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’. [Core Document B03]

Effects on tourism and recreation

3.48 The applicant’s planning witness confirmed the important role of tourism in the economy of Perth and Kinross. However there is no evidence from studies or surveys that construction of a wind farm has resulted in the decline of tourism in any area. The council did not object on this ground, and only anecdotal evidence was provided that the ability to glimpse the wind farm from the A822/A826 tourist route would lead to a reduction in visitor numbers. Given the limited visibility of the turbines, the lack of survey rigour, and the assumption that all those seeing the wind farm would view its landscape and visual effects as adverse, only limited weight can be attached to such evidence. This concern was further undermined by the assertion by the action group’s witness that the views of those who do not object to wind farms should be disregarded.

3.49 The Reporters who dealt with the wind farm proposals at Abercairny and Drumderg, also in Perth and Kinross, did not accept that these would have an unacceptable effect on the tourism industry. [Documents PKC A09 and A10(a)] This is particularly relevant in the case of Abercairny, due its proximity to the A822 tourist route. There is no evidence to suggest that the Griffin wind farm would have any unacceptable effects on either tourism or recreation. The improved cycleways and paths proposed within the site would bring a positive benefit, although the possibility of recreational users experiencing noise from the wind farm in and around the site was acknowledged.

Traffic and road safety effects

3.50 Issues relating to construction traffic have been addressed in the original and amended environmental statement [Documents GP1 and GP2], and in the “Additional Access Route Information” [Document GP3]. Construction activity would last about 15 months, but would be preceded by a period of tree felling. Access would be taken from the A9 trunk road at its junction with the A822, then by the A822 to its junction at Milton with the A826, and then by the A826 as far as the site access south of Scotston in Glen Cochill. The predicted levels of traffic on the local roads would be acceptable, due to their spare capacity. Large turbine components would be transported under escort and police supervision, and would not cause unreasonable delays to local road users. A construction traffic management plan would be prepared to minimise inconvenience to other road users.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 26

3.51 A number of improvement works are proposed. At the Ladywell Bridge which carries the Perth-Inverness railway over the A822, works would be carried out to improve clearance, alignment and visibility, and to stabilise the embankment. This work would take about three weeks, when there would be a short diversion using the Inver road. Up to 15 passing bays would be constructed, and the junction of the A822 with the A826 at Milton would also be improved, together with a bend on the A826 just to the north of that junction.

3.52 The applicant’s consultants had confirmed that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of road capacity and safety. None of the relevant consultees had raised objections on these grounds. The action group’s traffic consultant accepted that there are engineering solutions in relation to all the concerns, and did not argue that consent should be withheld. The concerns of local residents regarding the capacity of the road network and road safety implications are strongly held, but without substance. The council has considered the effects, and had raised no objection, subject to the specified works being carried out.

3.53 There would be potential cumulative effects if both the Griffin and the Calliachar wind farms are constructed at the same time, although this is unlikely to occur. There is no evidence that the capacity of the road network would be exceeded, or that unacceptable road safety or traffic management issues would arise.

Effects on hydrology and private water supplies

3.54 On the basis of detailed survey work, the company’s hydrology consultant had concluded that the construction, operation and de-commissioning of the wind farm would not have unacceptable effects on hydrogeology or hydrology, and would have negligible effects on the private water supplies of properties outwith the site. The British Geological Survey has confirmed that it does not have any concerns about the proposal, subject to the imposition of suitable planning conditions. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has confirmed that it is satisfied with the hydrogeological assessment and the report on private water supplies. [Documents GP7 and GP8] The suggestion from the action group’s witnesses that further information should be submitted does not stand up to scrutiny.

3.55 All the construction works and subsequent operations would comply with updated versions of legislation, national guidance and best practice guidelines, which would form the basis for pollution prevention in the construction method statement.

3.56 While local residents do have concerns, the evidence is clear that there would be no unacceptable adverse effects on private water supplies or any unacceptable increase in the risk of flooding to properties. Only one private water supply source lies less than about two kilometres from a wind farm structure. That is Scotston’s supply which is about 350 metres from a new pylon and substation, where construction would last a few months. Specific mitigation measures have been proposed to ensure regular contact, monitoring and, if necessary, provision of an alternative supply during the same day.

3.57 Similarly, in the event of a catastrophic event such as a major fuel spillage, there is a possibility of an effect on water supplies sourced direct from the River Braan, such as those for houses at Trochry. Similar mitigation and monitoring measures are proposed. A programme of surface water quality monitoring would be carried out during the construction, operation and de-commissioning of the wind farm.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 27

3.58 Increased flood risk was not an issue for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Tree felling can lead to a 1% to 2% increase in discharge as a result of forest felling over 10% of a catchment area. Here, forest felling would take place over 22% of the catchment area of the Tombane Burn, and as the crop here is young, this would lead to a 2% to 3% change in peak flow. As the catchment of the Tombane is 9% of that of the River Braan into which it flows, the effect on the River Braan would be an increase in peak flow of 0.18% to 0.27%, which is within the error margin of the measuring instruments. This would not lead to a significant increase in the maintenance requirements for pumps or filter systems associated with private water supplies.

3.59 There is a theoretical possibility of cumulative hydrological effects arising from both the Griffin and the Calliachar, but this would require certain sequences of events to occur simultaneously. The probability of this happening is extremely low.

Compliance with the development plan

3.60 Policy ERP14 of the structure plan is the starting point for considering whether the proposed development would accord with the development plan. The wording is confusing. It should be interpreted as a two part test: if a proposal is considered environmentally acceptable, then it would accord with the policy; where significant adverse environmental effects are identified, the benefits associated with the proposed development, including the energy contribution and reduction in pollution, need to be taken into account and, if they outweigh any significant environmental effects, then the development would accord with the policy. The policy also sets out a number of criteria which need to be considered when assessing a renewable energy scheme.

3.61 Here, the planning witnesses for both the applicant and the council confirmed that, in their view, the benefits would outweigh the adverse effects. Taking account of all the criteria set out in the policy, the harm caused by the relatively limited adverse effects would be outweighed by the benefits. Therefore the proposal would accord with Policy ERP14.

3.62 The proposal also accords with Policy SEP3 of the structure plan, which seeks to support rural diversification and innovation, including wind generation schemes. Its support is not restricted to community based wind farms. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development would breach Policy ERP1, which seeks to safeguard long term diversity and sustainability of species and habitat. It would accord with Policy ERP3, as the conservation objectives and integrity of the National Scenic Areas in the area would not be compromised, and this is confirmed by the views of Scottish Natural Heritage.

3.63 The assessments of the proposal carried out by the company’s landscape witness, by the council’s planning officer, and by Scottish Natural Heritage, had all had regard to the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment, as required by Policy ERP4. As confirmed by Historic Scotland, the proposal accords with Policy ERP8 which seeks to prevent development that would adversely affect cultural heritage resources, including scheduled ancient monuments.

3.64 The most relevant policy in the local plan is Policy 11. It confirms that the council will support renewable energy developments in appropriate locations, subject to an assessment against certain criteria. The site is in an entirely appropriate location which, in

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 28

the view of both the council’s landscape and planning witnesses, is the most appropriate for a wind farm in the study area. The proposal would not conflict with any of the policy’s criteria.

3.65 The proposal would be carried out in keeping with the goal of sustainable development, as sought by Policy 1, and would also accord with all the other relevant policies of the local plan. Overall, therefore, the development would accord with the provisions of the development plan and deemed planning permission should be granted unless there are material considerations which indicate otherwise.

3.66 Neither the councillor who gave evidence, nor the council in giving its reasons for submitting an objection to the proposal, mentioned any provisions of the development plan with which it did not accord. The councillor stated that his objection was that the development would have a significant impact on the landscape of the area. That test would rule out any wind farm in Perth and Kinross, and suggests such a complete mis-understanding of both the development plan and the statutory tests that it undermines the council’s objection.

Supplementary planning guidance

3.67 The council’s supplementary planning guidance on wind farm proposals is a material consideration. The Griffin site is within an area identified as a “broad area of search” where wind farm proposals are given clear support, subject to various policy guidelines. There are serious concerns with these guidelines, which have been highlighted in other inquiry decisions, and little weight should be attached to them, even although this proposal would accord with them. The council’s planning witness confirmed that he shared that conclusion.

National planning policy and guidance

3.68 The proposal would be consistent with Scottish Executive’s approach to sustainability set out in Scottish Planning Policy 1 'The Planning System'. National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ confirms that most renewable energy capacity is expected to be met from onshore wind farms, and that the policy basis is that renewable energy developments should be accommodated throughout Scotland where the technology can operate efficiently, while protecting designated areas and minimising effects on local communities. The draft version of Scottish Planning Policy 6 on renewables confirms that the 40% target for 2020 is not a cap; and its supports the identification of broad areas of search and of areas where wind farms should be avoided for natural heritage values or cumulative effects.

3.69 A balance does have to be struck between the competing demands for renewable energy resource exploitation and for countryside protection. A finding that the wind farm would have significant effects in landscape and visual terms is not enough, because there are unlikely to be any sites where there would be no significant effects. The importance of this balancing exercise is re-inforced by the determination of the Scottish Ministers to achieve the higher targets for renewable energy generation. Here, the landscape and visual effects are such that there would be no fundamental conflict with the aims and objectives of the policies that have been adopted for the area.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 29

3.70 Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ confirms that there are few landscapes where a wind farm would not be a distinctive feature in views, and stresses that society has to accept wind farms as a feature of the Scottish landscape for the foreseeable future. It points to the inevitable consequence of tall structures being sited on open land and visible over long distances and, with the unfamiliar feature of movement, these distinctive features in the landscape have to be assessed with these characteristics clearly in mind.

3.71 National Planning Policy Guideline 14: 'Natural Heritage' sets the framework for safeguarding the landscape and natural heritage interests. The site does not lie within any area designated for its natural beauty or landscape value and, in relation to habitats and species, there are no statutorily protected sites.

Electricity Act 1989

3.72 For applications for consent under Section 36, paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 places obligations on the license holder to have regard to the desirability of preserving, among other things, natural beauty; and to undertake reasonable mitigation. There is no obligation or requirement to reduce, or entirely remove, all significant environmental effects from a proposal.

3.73 Here, the applicant has gone to considerable lengths to take into account and have regard to the various factors. It is also clear that all reasonable steps have been taken to mitigate any environmental effects that may arise. This is demonstrated by the extensive public consultation undertaken during the design of the project, and while it was under consideration by the council and statutory consultees. This led to extensive amendment in the design and to a significant reduction in the number of turbines; and resulted in a project which is now acceptable to most of the statutory consultees as well as the officers of the council.

3.74 Accordingly, the applicant has fulfilled the obligations set out in Schedule 9, and there is no reason to withhold Section 36 consent.

Conditions

3.75 A schedule of suggested conditions to be imposed on any deemed planning permission was submitted. (See Appendix 1) These had been discussed and agreed with the council, with one exception. It concerns the flexibility in the precise siting of the turbines, referred to as micro-siting. The applicant seeks the ability to adjust the siting of each turbine within 25 metres of that shown in the submitted plan in order to deal with specific ground conditions, particular where the proposed site is currently covered by commercial forestry plantation. The same condition has been applied to other wind farms.

3.76 The conditions have also been agreed by Scottish Natural Heritage, and all are consistent with the tests set out in Circular No. 4/1998: 'The use of conditions in planning permissions'. Issues relating to the compatibility of turbine design with those proposed for the Calliachar wind farm are addressed satisfactorily in the suggested planning conditions.

Conclusions

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 30

3.77 In closing submissions it was argued that this proposal represents a highly appropriate opportunity to provide a significant wind farm development that accords with renewable energy principles and complies with national planning and energy policy and guidance. On the evidence presented, any potential or significant adverse environmental effects are limited, and no unacceptable effects would arise. Due to its size, the benefits in terms of its contribution to meeting the Scottish Executive’s renewal energy targets and reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be significant. These benefits outweigh any harm to the environment or other interests that may arise.

3.78 The proposal complies with the development plan and there are no other material considerations which indicate that either Section 36 consent or deemed planning permission should not be granted.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 31

4. SUMMARY OF THE CASE FOR I & H BROWN(CALLIACHAR) LTD

Site selection

4.1 A rigorous evaluation of potential sites was undertaken against a range of criteria, including wind yield, grid connection, proximity to houses, telecommunication and aviation issues, visual effects, ease of access, topography, and both environmental and policy constraints. Of 15 potential sites, three in the Aberfeldy area were short listed before Calliachar was selected. National policy does not suggest that it is necessary to demonstrate that a site is the best or only one available, but it is necessary to demonstrate that it is an appropriate one.

The need for, and benefits of, the development

4.2 To help limit greenhouse gas emissions, the Scottish Executive has set a target of 18% of electricity generation in Scotland from renewable sources by 2010, and 40% by 2020 (i.e. 6 gigawatts), and has emphasised that this is not a cap. This commitment is reflected in the National Planning Framework [Document APP21]; and in the positive approach to provision of additional capacity which is set out at paragraphs 16 and 19 of National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ [Core document A05]. It is also reflected in the draft version of Scottish Planning Policy 6: ‘Renewable Energy’ which has been published for consultation, and emphasises the Scottish Ministers’ commitment to the 2020 target.

4.3 An initial offer of a grid connection for the proposed wind farm at Calliachar was dependent on the upgrading of the Beauly – Denny transmission line which passes through the site. However, following an optimisation process to be carried out at the end of 2006, there is likely to available grid capacity before then, and the potential connection date is 2010.

4.4 With an installed capacity of 62.1 megawatts, sufficient electricity would be generated from the proposed wind farm to meet the needs of around 37,500 households. The revised environmental statement indicated that, based on guidance published by Scottish Natural Heritage, the wind farm would secure total carbon savings over a 25 year period of some 470,000 tonnes. [Document IHB11] There would be local economic benefits through employment generation and local spending, with up to 100 jobs during the construction phase and three or four during its operational life; environmental benefits through habitat management; and access benefits through provision of facilities for cycling and walking. The applicant has also offered a community trust fund, financed by an annual sum equivalent to £1,500 for each megawatt of installed capacity.

Landscape and visual effects

4.5 The evidence of Scottish Natural Heritage and the John Muir Trust in relation to landscape and visual effects supports this development, while the council’s landscape witness did not object to the proposal. The Calliachar site contains no statutorily protected landscapes. Outwith the site, no landscapes that are either statutorily protected or non-statutorily designated which would be significantly affected by the development. It is an

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 32

upland moorland which is typical of vast tracts of Perthshire, and of vaster tracts of Scotland. In the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment it forms part of the landscape character type identified as “Highland Plateaux and Summits”. The integrity of this area would not be harmed due to the localised nature of the wind farm’s effects. In conjunction with the Griffin wind farm, Scottish Natural Heritage also accepts that the landscape character of this area would not be adversely affected overall.

4.6 The applicant’s landscape witness has worked on 20 wind farm projects and he confirmed that the “zone of theoretical visualisation” (ZTV) for this proposal is one of the most limited he had come across. The proposed wind farm is extremely well located as there would be either no views, or no significant views, of the turbines from Dunkeld, Trochry, Amulree, Aberfeldy or Kenmore; or from any route defined as a tourist route in the council’s wind energy planning guidelines, including the A822 and the A826; and no possible views at all from the A827, the M90, the A9, the A85, the A93, the B8019 or the B846.

4.7 He criticised the findings of a study commission by the council and Scottish Natural Heritage, which had made a strategic assessment of the potential effects of wind farm developments on both landscape character and visual amenity in both the Ochils and the southern part of Highland Perthshire. It had found the Calliachar site as having, overall, low potential. The study had been flawed in ignoring landscape designations; failing to weight criteria; assuming that visually prominent areas are visually sensitive; and creating an irreconcilable conflict between the landscape and the visual criteria. This resulted in the startling results that enclosed valleys with settlements such as Glen Quaich and Strathbraan were recommended as locations for wind farms. In the event, Scottish Natural Heritage has ignored the study’s advice in relation to the Calliachar site.

4.8 Some of these flaws have been carried through to the council’s wind energy policy guidelines, which appear to show the access road within a “broad area of search” and the development site with a “sensitive area”. Landscape designations have been taken into account in differentiating between the two categories, so it is not clear why the Calliachar site, which is not covered by any designation, is defined as sensitive. Nonetheless, the policy in sensitive areas is that there is a presumption against wind farm developments unless they utilise turbines of a size and scale appropriate to their location; have a slight or no significant impact on settlements, landscape character, visual amenity, habitats; would not have unacceptable cumulative impacts; and would be consistent with the council’s detailed policy guidelines.

4.9 If these conditions are met, the development of a wind farm in a sensitive area can be acceptable. This differs from the terms of the council’s objection to the proposal, which states that it would be in a sensitive area where large commercial wind farms will not be permitted.

4.10 As wind farms do have significant effects which cannot be mitigated, what is important is that the effects are not unacceptable, and that careful siting and design minimises the adverse effects. The Calliachar wind farm accords with this guidance, and Scottish Natural Heritage shares the view that its landscape and visual effects would be acceptable.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 33

4.11 In relation to visual effects, the test in Policy 11 of the local plan is that of visual dominance to neighbouring occupiers. There are only seven properties whose outlook could conceivably be affected and, of these, only two (Glenquaich Lodge and Croftmill) have full views towards the site. However the former is occupied for less than eight weeks in the year, while the other is a holiday let. Given a separation distance of 3.5 kilometres, there would be no visual dominance of these properties. The nearest house to the wind farm is Turrerich, at a distance of about two kilometres, but it is screened by topography and is owned by the applicant. By virtue of orientation, screening or distance, there would be no significant impact on any neighbouring occupiers. At other recent inquiries into wind farms in Perth and Kinross, separation distances of 1.5 kilometres or 1.7 kilometres have been found to be acceptable.

4.12 Much evidence focused on the significant effects of the proposal on views from the road between Amulree and Kenmore where it passes through Glen Quaich. This road is neither defined nor signed as a tourist route; it is not signed at all at its northern end and it is not signed to Kenmore at its southern end; it is single track, with passing places and steep gradients; part of it is not gritted and has no snow clearance in the winter; it rises higher than the Drumochter summit and there are warning signs advising against use in adverse weather; and it has a weak bridge with restrictions. Views from the road are not protected by the terms of the development plan or by the council’s wind energy policy guidelines.

4.13 Usage of the road is low, particularly as a through route in winter, and drivers are required to watch the road. It is 17.2 kilometres long, and turbines would be visible, theoretically, along less than six kilometres. This takes no account of screening by roadside features. At no stage would all the turbines be visible. At most, and only over a one kilometre section, would the blade tips of sixteen turbines be visible. At the southern section, they would be seen at a distance of between three and five kilometres; and at the northern section they would be about four kilometres away. At the highest point on the road (522 metres AOD) none of the turbines would be visible.

4.14 Only half of the wind farm would be seen from the road through Glen Quaich. Where it would be seen, the turbines would be settled in the shallow dip in the eastern side of the glen. This would help to contain the development and frame it within its setting. While it would not diminish the scale of the effect, it would help to integrate it more satisfactorily into the landscape. In answer to questions from the Reporter, the applicant’s landscape witness confirmed that mitigation of this effect could only be achieved by removal of the 13 visible turbines. The suggestions by Scottish Natural Heritage, that turbines Nos. 26 and 27 should be removed and the height of the others reduced, would only achieve a marginal reduction in the length of road over which the wind farm would be seen, and no great reduction in the visibility of the wind farm. As proposed, the turbines would not appear out of scale with the landscape. Another suggestion, of housing the transformers within the turbine hubs, is not preferred for safety reasons, but they could be sited behind the turbines to minimise their visibility from Glen Quaich.

4.15 From the Rob Roy Way, the wind farm would be visible over a 3 kilometres stretch of the footpath, at distances of over 2.75 kilometres. The views would be restricted to a southerly aspect and, due to the linear arrangement of the turbines, the wind farm would not occupy a wide proportion of the view. Given the panoramic views to the north which are obtained from this footpath, this would not be unacceptable.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 34

4.16 In all these circumstances the visual impacts would be entirely acceptable. The Reporter at the Drumderg inquiry found it difficult to believe that intermittent views of a compact array of turbines at distances of 4 to 6.5 kilometres would discourage vehicle occupants from visiting an area. Refusal on visual amenity grounds would not be justified. On the contrary, the limited zone of theoretical visualisation (ZTV), the limited number of houses and occupiers, and the limited use of the Glen Quaich road are all positive attributes of the Calliachar site.

4.17 In relation to cumulative effects in conjunction with the Griffin wind farm, a significant effect was recorded on the track below Beinn Eagagach in respect of both the landscape and the visual impact. As this is only on the southern fringe of the Loch Tummel National Scenic Area, from where there are views across the more highly developed Tay Valley, it was the opinion of the applicant’s landscape witness that these effects would not be unacceptable.

4.18 Scottish Natural Heritage considered that there would be high cumulative impacts on visual amenity from both wind farms when viewed from Munros in the Loch Rannoch and Glen Lyon National Scenic Area to the north, and from vehicles northbound on the A822 north of the Sma’ Glen, and on the A826 through Glen Cochill. However, as the wind farms are broadly consistent in their design, the agency did not object, subject to conditions relating to turbine design.

4.19 The cumulative visual effects in conjunction with the proposed upgrade of the Beauly-Denny transmission line would be limited to the stretches of the road through Glen Quaich, to the south of Loch Freuchie. Here, the effects are likely to be significant, but the pylons would not break the skyline and would be viewed against a backdrop. Accordingly, the effects would not be unacceptable. The suggestion of Scottish Natural Heritage that there would be high adverse impacts on views and on the visual amenity of northbound users of the A822 is not accepted, because the intervening landform would screen views of the Calliachar wind farm to a greater extent than was previously illustrated in the landscape and visual assessment (LVA).

4.20 The evidence of the unqualified landscape witness for the action group needs to be treated with caution, and little weight should be attached to it. The matrix used for his assessment has been criticised in previous inquiry reports, and his evidence was largely confined to visual rather than landscape impacts. He had not visited 25% of the viewpoints. There he relied on the applicant’s submitted photographs and photomontages to reach his own, different, conclusions, such as in the case of Ben Vrackie, which is 22 kilometres away, he found that the wind farm would be a major/moderate element in the landscape, rather than a minor one. He uses terms that are not capable of being defined objectively; and his approach to assessing visual impact relies on numerical calculations based on turbine size and distance, rather than reasoned professional judgement, taking account also of the number of turbines, the horizontal angle, and the context of the view in which they may be seen.

4.21 In closing submissions for the applicant, it was argued that the position of the council is necessarily restricted by the evidence led at the inquiry. Its only evidence on landscape and visual effects was given by its landscape witness. His evidence was that he does not object to the Calliachar proposal, and this was both his professional and his considered view. The council must rely upon that evidence. Its planning witness confirmed that, if that evidence is accepted, there is strong policy support for the proposal from both the

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 35

development plan and government policy. In his closing submission, counsel for the council had argued that the landscape and visual effects of the wind farm were intrinsically unacceptable. That position did not reflect the council’s evidence. Similarly, the council’s submission that all turbines visible from Glen Quaich should be removed did not reflect the council’s evidence, nor was it put in cross-examination to witnesses, or contained in any suggested condition. If these submissions are not withdrawn, a finding should be made that they do not reflect the evidence.

4.22 It is inevitable that any wind farm in rural Scotland will have significant adverse effects on the landscape character and the amenity of the area in which it is sited. In a suitable location, however, these effects can be localised. The Calliachar wind farm achieves this. As the site is large scale and open, it can absorb the large scale of the proposed turbines without unacceptable conflicts of scale arising. It is not designated for its landscape qualities, and it is already influenced to a degree by the road network, the existing transmission line and the coniferous plantations.

4.23 It greatest effect would be on the landscape and visual amenity of Glen Quaich. However, the applicant’s landscape witness stated that, from his experience of the Novar wind farm where a similar situation arose, while the wind farm would visible over a four kilometres stretch of the road, it would not define the experience of the whole glen. The location of the turbines within a lower lying saddle along the side of the glen would undoubtedly reduce its impact on the wider area. While this effect is an unfortunate consequence of the development, it is almost unprecedented for a modern wind farm to have such relatively contained and limited effects.

Traffic and road safety effects

4.24 This is an issue of concern to the local community. However, neither the council nor the trunk roads authority objected on this ground, while the action group’s planning and transportation witnesses accepted that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, there was no ground of objection. The local road network operates well within its capacity and, even if both the Calliachar and Griffin wind farms were constructed simultaneously, total traffic would represent only 6% of its capacity. There is also capacity at the junction of the A822 with the A9. When the wind farm is under construction, the ratio of flow to capacity would be only 0.3, so there would also be capacity here for the Griffin wind farm to be constructed simultaneously. As large loads would be controlled by a police escort, there would not be a safety issue.

4.25 Due to these factors, and there being very few sensitive users located along the route corridor, the environmental impacts of traffic during the construction period would not be significant. The access would be taken from the A9 by the A822 and the A826, although the Birnam to Inver road may be used to by-pass the Ladywell bridge on the A822. This option has been studied and found to be practicable, and would minimise the need for improvement works at the bridge. The environmental statement identified a schedule of seven road improvements which would be required to accommodate construction traffic, and confirmed that the provision of passing bays would also be required. [Document IHB2] The amended environmental statement indicated that the construction period would last for about ten months. [Document IHB11]

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 36

4.26 A letter produced at the inquiry from the council’s head of roads service referring to the unsuitability of the A822 and A826 concerned the diversion of all traffic from the A9 after an accident, and was not relevant to the wind farm proposal. Accordingly, there is no possible reason to refuse consent on traffic or transportation grounds. A traffic management plan should be developed, in consultation with various parties, for implementation during both construction and de-commissioning.

Effects on tourism

4.27 There is no proper basis for concerns about adverse effects on tourism. An assessment of the effects of wind farms [Document APP62] has concluded that there is no evidence that their development has resulted in the loss of tourism trade or business. A survey by Visitscotland found that 75% of respondents were neutral or positive to wind farms; 61% wished to visit a wind farm; and 70% stated that a wind farm would make no difference to a return visit. The Reporter at the Abercairny inquiry found that, although the turbines would be clearly visible from several locations along the A822, any adverse effect on the tourist economy of Crieff was unlikely to be significant; and the Reporter at the Drumderg wind farm inquiry concluded that it would have only a minor effect on the tourist sector.

4.28 At Calliachar, the turbines would not be visible from the defined tourist routes. No rights of way would be affected by the development. The Rob Roy Way passes close to the site, although 2.75 kilometres form the nearest turbine. This is a walking route which crosses Scotland east-west, from Drymen to Pitlochry. “Walking Support” is the company which set it up and maintains its web-site, and while it originally objected, the removal of all the turbines to the west of the overhead power line led to the withdrawal of its objection. None of the climbing routes around Aberfeldy are close to the site. A new car park would be created on the A826 at Loch Na Creige and new cycle and footpaths would be created in the adjacent forest. Local lochs and rivers provide fishing, while local estates provide fishing, shooting and stalking. The estate which includes the Calliachar site has a grouse shooting business and, although tourists spend days on the moor, the owner is satisfied that the wind farm would not have an adverse impact.

4.29 Tourism is important to the local economy, but a survey of businesses demonstrated that it is likely that there would only be a minor detrimental impact from the wind farm, with no more than a 3% impact on visitor accommodation. Any loss of visitors resulting from the visibility of the turbines from the Rob Roy Way or other local walking routes is likely to be offset by the encouragement and attraction of others as a result of the proposed additional facilities, and further improvements which could be financed through the proposed community trust fund. Visitors passing through the area who see fleeting glimpses of the wind farm are unlikely to be discouraged from visiting the local towns or tourist facilities. It is also unlikely that any visitors who are discouraged from using walking routes in close proximity to the site would be lost to the wider area, or to Scotland as whole.

Effects on the natural heritage

4.30 The River Tay special area of conservation, designated under the EU Habitats Directive, lies 5.5 kilometres from the site. The conclusions of the environmental statement and the evidence to the inquiry are that the proposal is not likely to have significant effects on this designated site, and this has been confirmed by Scottish Natural Heritage, based on

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 37

the distance of separation. Accordingly, an “appropriate assessment”, as outlined in the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994, is not required.

4.31 In relation to ornithology, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds no longer object to the proposed wind farm. The council does not object on this ground either. The site had been re-surveyed by a qualified and expert professional. Nineteen of the original turbines had then been removed, and the layout of the access tracks and the remaining turbines was altered. Further mitigation measures have been agreed, relating to the shutting down of specified turbines at certain times of year in certain circumstances in order to accommodate the worst case scenario in relation to breeding birds.

4.32 Supplementary information had been provided in relation to hen harriers, black grouse, golden eagle, osprey, red kite, merlin, peregrine, both red and black throated divers, short-eared owl, waders and whooper swan. The baseline data was agreed with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds as being sufficient and fit for purpose. Concerns regarding loss of habitat through construction, disturbance and collision risk have been addressed, and the effects found to be not significant, subject to the implementation of the suggested conditions. This confirmed the conclusions in the environmental statement. Bird populations within the potential impact zone of the wind farm are generally low, and no significant residual impacts are predicted on any of the site’s ornithological features.

4.33 Recently, additional information has indicated that for hen harriers the collision risk with wind turbines is a fifth of that previously assumed; while field surveys in 2006 confirmed that no hen harriers had nested successfully within the site, for the fourth consecutive year.

4.34 The action group’s evidence on birds is, at best, speculative. It appears to contradict its own documents, which confirms that no golden eagle has nested on the site; that none has nested in Glenfender, which is some distance away, for at least twenty years; and that a previous appeal decision confirms that there would be no adverse impact to golden eagles from a wind farm in their territory. The action group’s witness confirmed that there was no collision risk to golden eagles.

4.35 That witness was not aware of the contents of the confidential annex to the environmental statement which addressed the effects on birds, and which had been available to Scottish Natural Heritage. The construction exclusion zone around Loch Hoil, if divers are found to be breeding, would be 900 metres, rather than 500 metres as that witness had thought. Furthermore, research from Orkney had confirmed that divers co-exist happily with wind turbines at distances of 100 to 200 metres.

4.36 Similar concerns were raised at the Abercairny and Drumderg inquiries, where both Reporters concluded that there would be no significant adverse effects on birds. Here, there is no basis for refusal of the wind farm proposal in relation to the effects on birds. On the contrary, the proposed habitat management plan would deliver a net benefit to the area’s bird population, particularly in increasing the estate’s potential to support populations of hen harrier, short-eared owl and black grouse.

4.37 All the ecological issues have been fully considered and addressed, and there is no objection from Scottish Natural Heritage or the council in relation to these matters. Much of

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 38

the site consists of upland heath. While it is a priority habitat in the Tayside biodiversity action plan, upland heath or heath mosaic covers some 223,300 hectares of Tayside. Here, only 14 hectares of heath habitat would be lost during construction, and the site is not within or adjacent to any area designated as nationally or internationally important for upland heath or blanket bog.

4.38 The habitat management plan proposes the management of 250 hectares of moorland and the creation of 180 hectares of additional heather moorland from the removal of a conifer plantation. Rather than a net loss of upland heath, there would be a positive contribution to its restoration and management.

4.39 The revised wind farm scheme had removed turbine locations from areas of blanket bog and significantly reduced the length of access track which crosses deep peat. Scottish Natural Heritage indicated that it would comment further on this aspect when agreeing a construction method statement. It is proposed to continue to manage the site as a grouse moor, so it is not anticipated that there would be any secondary impacts on habitats arising from the operation of the wind farm on the site.

4.40 The habitat management plan would deliver further benefits to habitat diversity in adjacent plantations and by the provision of artificial otter holts on Loch Hoil. An ‘appropriate survey’ for otters was completed in 2003. The findings were included in the environmental statement, and mitigation was proposed in the supplementary information provided. On that basis, Scottish Natural Heritage advised that the development is unlikely to have a significant effect on the conservation status of the species. A condition requiring a further survey to be conducted prior to construction would update the information on otters, and allow for any changes to be taken into account in finalising details of mitigation. The necessary license would be applied for.

4.41 On this basis, in terms of nature conservation, the proposal accords with all the relevant policies of the structure plan (Policies ERP14, ERP1 and ERP2). It also accord with the provisions of the local plan, particularly with Policy 11 as it would not affect any areas designated for nature conservation interests. It is consistent with government guidance on the implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directive, and with national planning policy and advice contained in National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’, National Planning Policy Guideline 14: 'Natural Heritage', and Planning Advice Note 60: ‘Planning for Nature Conservation’.

Effects on hydrology, hydrogeology and private water supplies

4.42 A detailed hydrological impact assessment [Document IHB50] had been carried out on the risks to sensitive receptors which could arise from the development activities, and a risk assessment found that all potential impacts would either be low or negligible. This assumed compliance with planning conditions and method statements for construction activities, and competent implementation of the proposed environmental management plan. The potential impacts are not significant and do not require mitigation. No private water supplies would be affected. There is no potential for cumulative hydrological impacts along with the Griffin wind farm.

Effects on the historic environment

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 39

4.43 In a written statement, the applicant’s cultural heritage consultant stated that there are 15 sites within the development area of the wind farm. All are judged to be of local importance. For only four of these would there be potential for direct impacts. These are three shepherd’s cairns and one marker cairn, and all four could be readily avoided and fenced off. This would remove any potential direct effects on the known cultural heritage resource, but a written scheme of investigation for archaeological mitigation works would be prepared for approval by the planning authority. This would also cover an archaeological monitoring strategy; guidelines for construction contractors; and the excavation and recording of any archaeological remains identified.

4.44 Outwith the site, although 12 scheduled ancient monuments, three listed buildings and four historic gardens and designed landscapes would theoretically be intervisible with the wind farm at blade tip level, it would have no significant effects on any of their settings. Historic Scotland has agreed that none of the predicted effects on external receptors would be significant.

Noise effects

4.45 At all properties within three kilometres of the wind farm, predicted noise levels are below the levels to protect amenity which are advocated in ETSU-R-97. [Core Document J04] Noise therefore could not be a reason for refusal due to the distance from noise sensitive properties, and can be addressed by planning conditions. The impact of noise on recreational users would be restricted to those engaged in walking, bird watching, fishing or shooting in close proximity to the turbines.

Assessment of the application under Section 36

4.46 This proposal is the subject of an application made for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. A requirement of Section 3 of Schedule 9 of the Act is that regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving natural beauty. The evidence on the landscape and visual impact of the proposed wind farm has demonstrated that no unacceptable significant effects would arise.

4.47 The evidence on ecology and ornithology has also demonstrated that it would not result in an unacceptable significant effect, but that the habitat management plan would result in a net benefit for nature conservation. The requirement to have regard to the desirability of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest has therefore also been met.

4.48 The evidence also indicates that the proposed development would have no significant effects on cultural heritage resources. Thus the requirement to have regard to the desirability of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest has also been met.

4.49 As also required, reasonable steps have been taken by the applicant to mitigate the effects of the proposed development in relation to these aspects. The mitigation measures are set out in the environmental statement and are the subject of proposed planning conditions, and included the removal of 19 turbines proposed in the original scheme.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 40

4.50 It was submitted that, although there is a statutory duty on the decision maker to have regard to the desirability of preserving or conserving these features, there is no requirement actually to preserve or conserve them. This is logical, as the structures which are the subject of applications under Section 36 involve an alteration, rather than preservation or conservation. Similarly, there is no requirement to mitigate effects. Rather, the decision maker is to have regard to the extent to which the applicant has done what he or she reasonably can do to mitigate the effects.

4.51 The Act also gives the Scottish Ministers the power to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted. This is discretionary, and can only be exercised if Section 36 consent is granted. Theoretically, it would be possible to grant consent under Section 36, but refuse planning permission. However, there would be little or no logic in doing so.

Assessment in relation to the development plan

4.52 The central relevant policy of the structure plan is Policy ERP14. It is a policy of active encouragement for renewable energy proposals. It gives support to proposals which are environmentally acceptable, but also to proposals where the energy contribution and the benefits in reducing pollution outweigh any significant adverse effects. The policy also sets out four criteria for the assessment of renewable energy schemes. In this case, the assessment provides support for this proposal because of:

Its contribution to greenhouse gas objectives and the government’s policy targets on renewable energy.

Its effects on landscape and wildlife, and on features of natural, cultural, historical and archaeological interest being acceptable.

The provision of employment opportunities and the benefits arising from investment in estate diversification which the additional income would allow.

The absence of significant cumulative effects from this development in conjunction with the Griffin wind farm or the upgrading of the Beauly-Denny transmission line.

4.53 The proposal would be consistent with Policy ERP2, as it would have no effect on any area designated as being of international or national importance for the protection and conservation of wildlife, habitats and other natural features.

4.54 The proposal complies with Policy ERP3, as it would not have unacceptable effects on any National Scenic Area. The proposal complies with Policy ERP4, as account had been taken of the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment in the detailed siting and design of the proposal, and in its assessment. Scottish Natural Heritage had confirmed that the Highlands Summits and Plateaux landscape character type would not be adversely affected overall by this development.

4.55 The proposal is also consistent with Sustainable Economy Policy 3, as it is a renewable energy scheme which would enhance local employment opportunities with up to 100 jobs during construction and three or four during operation; it would represent diversification in a form which complements the continued agricultural use of the estate; and it would help to sustain the rural community through the creation of jobs and the community trust fund.

4.56 The central policy of the local plan is Policy 11. It gives encouragement to renewable energy developments. It also requires assessment against three criteria. The proposal would

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 41

not affect any sites designated at national, regional or local level for nature conservation or archaeological interest and, with no unacceptable intrusion into the landscape or visual dominance to properties, the proposal would enjoy considerable support from this policy.

4.57 The proposal is clearly a sustainable development and therefore also enjoys the support of Policy 1. The proposal meets the development criteria set in Policy 2. Due to the relatively small area in close proximity to the wind farm where there would be significant landscape effects, it has been demonstrated that the site has a landscape framework which is capable of absorbing and screening the development. In the light of the advice in Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ that it is important for society at large to accept wind farms as a feature of many areas of Scotland for the foreseeable future, this development should be regarded as compatible with its surroundings in land use terms; the site is sufficiently large to accommodate the development; and the road network can absorb the additional traffic generated during construction, and there is a satisfactory access onto the network. As required by Policy 3, consideration has also been given to landscape character.

4.58 The proposal would also be consistent with Policies 14 and 17, as Scottish Natural Heritage has confirmed that it would be acceptable in relation to ecology and nature conservation, and there would be no significant effects on the River Tay special area of conservation. The proposed habitat management plan would secure net gains for nature conservation from the proposed development.

Assessment in relation to other policies

4.59 The interpretation of the council’s wind energy policy guidelines which is set out in its own objection to the proposal is misleading as, under the terms of Policy 2, wind energy developments can be permitted within sensitive areas, subject to certain criteria being satisfied. The Calliachar site was originally within an area of search. Although most of it is now in a sensitive area, the proposal complies with the requirements both of Policy 1 and Policy 2.

4.60 The wind energy policy guidelines are unduly restrictive, and aspects are contrary to national planning policy. They were not submitted to the Scottish Ministers as a formal alteration to the structure plan, on the advice of officials that it was clear that this would result in rejection, and that there was every likelihood that the Ministers could change the policy, possibly in ways that might not reflect the interests of Perth and Kinross. Accordingly, no weight should be attached to these policy guidelines. Despite this, given their restrictive nature, the proposal’s compliance with them confirms the suitability of the Calliachar location for this development.

4.61 National policy support in favour of the proposal is a weighty material consideration. The support for further renewable energy generation from wind farms is clear from both UK and Scottish Executive policy. The UK Energy Review in July 2006 re-iterated the priority given to combating climate change, and the commitment of the Scottish Executive both to achieving the target of 40% renewable electricity by 2020, and to considering applications for renewable energy generation that would go beyond that figure.

4.62 The National Planning Framework confirms the expectation that the contribution from wind power will rise in response to these targets; while National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ sets out clear policy guidelines to

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 42

accommodate further renewable energy developments throughout Scotland, where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental effects can be addressed satisfactorily. The draft of Scottish Planning Policy 6: ‘Renewable Energy’ confirms that there will be continuing support for onshore wind farms.

Planning conditions

4.63 A schedule of suggested conditions was lodged which had been agreed with the planning authority, with one exception. Each would meet the six tests set out in The Scottish Office Development Department Circular No. 4/1998: 'The use of conditions in planning permissions', and would afford appropriate environmental protection. The applicant considers that the condition relating to micro-siting should allow the location of each turbine to be within 25 metres of the position shown in the application, rather than within ten metres as requested by the council. This is appropriate as the width of the turbine base is 17 metres, and it would not produce a different visual impact. A Section 75 agreement would not be required, as the financial bond for future restoration can be secured through a suspensive planning condition; and, while the habitat management plan would also relate to land outwith the application site, that land is under the control of the applicant.

Conclusions

4.64 It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the Calliachar site, if not perfect, is ideal for a wind farm. It has wind and there are no significant adverse effects in respect of archaeology, rights of way, water supplies, noise, traffic, tourism, and ornithology. There would be ecological advantages flowing from the proposal, and there would also be advantages to the local economy and to the community. There would be no significant impacts on views to or from protected tourist routes, and its zone of theoretical visibility is one of the most limited. It would be consistent with government policy. It meets all the requirements of the Electricity Act, and the development plan actively supports the proposal. Section 36 consent and deemed planning permission should be granted at the earliest opportunity.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 43

5. SUMMARY OF THE CASES FOR PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL

5.1 Both applications were the subject of consultations carried out with Perth and Kinross Council during 2004 and 2005, and each was the subject of substantial amendment. After long public hearings, they were considered at a special meeting of the development control committee of the council on 25 October 2005, at which reports by its officer were considered. The members decided not to accept the officer’s recommendation of conditional acceptance of the Griffin proposal, but to object to it for the reasons set out at paragraph 1.7 above. The officer’s recommendation to object to the Calliachar proposal was accepted, on the basis of the reasons set out at paragraph 1.16 above. Subsequently, the council resolved informally not to argue that either proposal would adversely affect either transport or tourism interests.

5.2 The determining issues for each proposal are: Whether it complies with the tests set out in Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989;

and, Separately, whether it is consistent with the relevant provisions of the development

plan with regard to:(i) The significance of its effects on the landscape character of south Highland Perthshire and surrounding area;(ii) The significance of the visual impacts;(iii) The significance of any cumulative impact; and,

Whether, in the event that the Schedule 9 tests are not passed, and the development is found to be contrary to the development plan, there are any material considerations that would justify a departure, so as to allow consent and deemed planning permission to be granted.

Any assessment of compliance with the development plan depends largely on the assessment of the overall environmental impact. Principally, that means landscape and visual impact.

5.3 On behalf of the council it was submitted that each proposal: does not satisfy the criteria of Schedule 9; does not accord either with the development plan or with national renewable energy policy; and that there are no material considerations indicating that, nonetheless, the proposed development should be approved.

5.4 Under the terms of Section 3 of Schedule 9 (see paragraph 2.1 above), the Scottish Ministers must consider the desirability of preserving the natural beauty of the location, presumably as it exists at the moment of the decision; and then consider the extent to which the applicant has reasonably made efforts to mitigate the effect of the proposal on that natural beauty. As the Schedule does not embody the concept of “other material considerations”, it does not require the decision maker to consider other extrinsic considerations, such as the thrust of government energy policy.

5.5 Self evidently, due to their alien form, the installation of wind turbines on either site cannot preserve natural beauty. Therefore, to give content and meaning to the terms of Schedule 9, there must be more. It was submitted for the council that the first step must be to consider the natural characteristics of the receiving landscape; and that the primary resource for this purpose must be the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment. [Core Document H18] It classifies each site as being within the Highland Summits and Plateaux landscape

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 44

character type. Although the assessment states that tall structures should be discouraged within this landscape character type, that is not a prescriptive conclusion. An assessment requires to be made both of the particular project and of the receiving landscape.

5.6 Schedule 9 requires a balance. It requires “regard” to be paid to the desirability of preserving what is there, assuming it to have inherently beautiful characteristics; and it then requires “regard” to be paid to the success of attempted mitigation. It says nothing about the weight to be applied to each side of the scale.

5.7 However, Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 also applies to the making of a direction that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted, in the same way as it would to a planning application which had been referred to the Scottish Ministers under Section 46. Deemed planning permission therefore does not automatically follow a consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act but, as deemed planning permission can only follow a Section 36 consent, the tests for that consent set out in Schedule 9 must be applied first. If that consent is to be granted, the requirements of Section 25 of the planning Act must be applied in determining whether to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted also. The familiar approach should therefore be applied, of looking first at the development plan to determine whether the proposal accords with it; and then looking at other material considerations to see if the development plan should not be followed. Schedule 9 therefore does not provide a short cut to a grant of planning permission.

Schedule 9 assessment of the Griffin proposal

5.8 On the evidence, the Griffin proposal does not achieve the objective of Schedule 9 in relation to having regard to preserving natural beauty. The proposal involves 68 turbines of over 120 metres height which, along with the extent of deforestation, has no parallel in Scotland. The site is of exceptional natural beauty, and views from King’s Seat and Trochry show that the development would not contribute to its preservation. It does not matter that the site is not within a National Scenic Area, or that all of it cannot be seen from the roadside. Its natural beauty is worth preserving for its own sake.

5.9 With regard to the second test of Schedule 9, only limited mitigation can be achieved for this type of project, given the physical characteristics of the wind turbines. Its success is a matter of judgement. Here, the number of turbines has been reduced, but the impact on the landscape and the magnitude of the visual impact remain very substantial both from King’s Seat which has many visitors, and from Trochry where residents live all the time and where those passing along the public road will find the turbines very prominent in the view.

5.10 The applicant’s landscape witness was unable, in answer to questions, to say what he meant by the acceptability of the project, and left the impression of someone doing his client’s bidding. His evidence should be heavily discounted, as he left his objectivity in the office, and drove all his landscape assessment towards a conclusion of notional acceptability, which was shown in the end to have no content.

5.11 In relation to visibility of the wind farm from Trochry, the applicant has offered no further mitigation. An additional reduction in turbine numbers would be possible, which would further mitigate its visual impact. Accordingly the applicant’s attempt to mitigate the effect of the proposal remains incomplete.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 45

Schedule 9 assessment of the Calliachar proposal

5.12 The Calliachar proposal would not achieve the objectives of Schedule 9 either, as the addition of wind turbines would not preserve the natural beauty of Glen Quaich, or of the road from Glen Quaich to Kenmore. The effect on Glen Quaich has been ably set out in the series of photomontages produced by the applicant’s landscape witness [Document IHB39]. He felt able to characterise the effects as visually acceptable. To recommend a grant of consent, the Reporter would have to find that these images represent an acceptable and suitably mitigated attempt to preserve natural beauty. This would really be an impossible conclusion to reach if proper objectivity is applied. The effect is obvious, without considering the effects on residents, tourists or other receptors.

5.13 Attempts by the applicant to mitigate the impact have been half hearted. While nineteen turbines have been removed, the remaining effect is so gross that one wonders whether they were included in the first place only to allow them to be removed. The visibility of the turbines across Loch Freuchie would create a dramatic effect. It would be intrusively unacceptable, appearing as the focus in the view. It cannot be argued that they will preserve natural beauty, or that mitigation has blunted their worst visible effects. The only possible solution is to eliminate all the turbines from Glen Quaich.

5.14 On the higher hill towards Kenmore, there would still be extreme visibility, but the cluster on that hillside would at least have the appearance of a coherent design, rather than an expression of uncoordinated prodigality across some of the best that Perthshire has to offer. The applicant’s attempts to downgrade the landscape and visual importance of Glen Quaich and the road through it should be treated with great caution.

The development plan

5.15 In the structure plan, each proposal needs to be considered in relation to Policy SEP3, which relates to helping to sustain viable rural communities; and Policy ERP4, which identifies the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment as a material consideration. The important policy is Policy ERP14, which sets criteria for the assessment of renewable energy schemes. This provides, along with the local plan and the council’s supplementary planning guidance, a sound and easily understood framework for the determination of applications.

5.16 Proposals are to be supported where they are environmentally acceptable, and where their energy contributions and benefits in fighting pollution outweigh any significant impacts on local environmental quality. This calls for a general judgement about all-round environmental acceptability, and a balanced approach to the interaction of measurable benefits and significant environmental impacts. It follows precisely the guidance in National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’, where trivial effects are to be discounted and the importance of renewables to the community at large, as an instrument for pollution abatement, is underlined.

5.17 This does no more than state the obvious: that the effect on the environment, the assessment of the energy produced and pollution savings, and the significant effects on local environmental quality, all need to be taken into account and weighed in the balance. Four criteria are set by the policy in order to assist decision makers, and developers, further. All are relevant in these cases, and judgement is required in their application:

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 46

o The effect on the wider landscape;o The need to protect features of natural interest; o The benefits for the local community and the district of Perth and Kinross;

and,o The cumulative impact with other like proposals.

There is no question of this approach downgrading national considerations. The structure plan has sustainability at its heart, and fully recognises both European and national policy making where these affect the area.

5.18 The local plan focuses on local considerations. Policy 11 begins with general encouragement, and then sets criteria which are even generous enough to contemplate wind farms within designated nature conservation or archaeologically interesting sites. While it seeks to protect established interests such as local landscape character and local amenity, this is to be expected, as this type and size of development is in a class of its own in its potential for visual and/or aural effects. This approach strikes the necessary balance in guiding the growth of renewable energy development in Perth and Kinross. Each proposal must achieve environmental acceptability, wherever it is located.

Other material considerations

5.19 The wind energy policy guidelines were approved by the council in May 2005 as supplementary planning guidance. The draft was not rejected or criticised by the Scottish Ministers. A draft was submitted as a proposed structure plan alteration, but was returned by Scottish Executive planners as too specific for a structure plan. Rather restricted preferred areas were then turned into less restricted broad areas of search, in line with the Executive’s advice, and two proposals have been the subject of positive recommendations by officers. There was extensive public consultation, and at no time was the council told not to proceed with the supplementary planning guidance in its final form. Its complies with the advice in the draft of Scottish Planning Policy 6.

5.20 The definition of broad areas of search and strategically sensitive areas was made on a clear and rational basis. The ‘sensitivities’ included areas with designations relating to landscape or nature conservation, but also areas hosting habitats listed in Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive, such as active raised bog, blanket bog, degraded raised bog, upland heath and montane habitats, and also the Perth green belt, airport consultation zones, and communication, navigation and surveillance system consultation zones. The findings of the strategic landscape capacity study also helped to define the ultimate boundaries between broad areas of search and the sensitive area.

5.21 However, location does not solely determine whether consent or deemed planning permission is granted, and other criteria have to be taken into account. The guidelines provide a clear set of goalposts. Proposals within a strategically sensitive area are not automatically rejected, as the presumptions against can always be displaced by the submission of a development proposal of appropriate quality, backed up by careful research and an environmental impact assessment of strictly objective quality.

5.22 Both the Griffin and the Calliachar proposals infringe the following elements of the wind energy policy guidelines:

Policy 2 ‘Siting of Wind Energy Developments’

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 47

Guideline 1 ‘Landscape Impact’ Guideline 2 ‘Visual Impact’ Guideline 3 ‘Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts’

In the end, this is a matter for judgement. However, the council’s approach has a rational coherence, which seeks to prioritise and take account of a variety of restraining factors, while encouraging wind energy development where it can be properly accommodated within Perth and Kinross.

5.23 The proposals also offend against the guidance in National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ which recognises that the siting of wind farms will always be a balance between maximising energy capture and minimising visual impact. If the terms of the development plan cannot be satisfied and if impacts cannot be mitigated satisfactorily, the applications would have to be refused.

5.24 The council also commissioned a strategic landscape study to inform its policy framework for the development of wind farms in the Ochils and south Highland Perthshire. [Document G01] Both sites lie within the Highland Summits and Plateaux, with the Griffin site being located within sub-unit H2 ‘Cochill – Tay – Braan’, which is classified as having higher landscape potential for accommodating wind farm developments, but is also classified as having high visual sensitivity.

5.25 The same consultant was later asked to carry out an assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the proposals. He concluded that, although the Griffin site is within an area with higher potential to accommodate a wind farm, this very large proposal would have adverse effects on both landscape character and visual amenity.

5.26 In his evidence to the inquiry as the council’s landscape witness, the consultant stated that the Griffin proposal was assessed as having a moderate landscape impact and a moderate to substantial visual impact. The site is lower, with a more rolling and less rugged topography than other parts of the Highland Summits and Plateaux, and is covered in extensive forestry plantations. This proposal would change the sub-unit’s character to a mix of large scale, open and afforested moorland that is dominated by a large scale wind farm with turbines towering above the plantations. Due to their scale and rotation, these industrial structures would appear dominant in the landscape, and out of scale with the hills and plantation. Their effects on the wider area of the Highland Summits and Plateaux would be less, but also significant.

5.27 In relation to National Scenic Areas, the Griffin wind farm would have significant effects on views from some of the key hills and summits of the Loch Rannoch and Glen Lyon National Scenic Area; and from King’s Seat, Birnam, which is an iconic viewpoint within the River Tay (Dunkeld) National Scenic Area, the whole wind farm would appear as a dominating and conspicuous feature at a distance of about seven kilometres.

5.28 As there would be 68 turbines, mostly 124 metres high to blade tip, the wind farm has the potential to be a dominating feature in the landscape at distances of up to 10 kilometres; prominent at up to 20 kilometres; and noticeable at up to 30 kilometres. The wind farm would also have significant effects on the visual amenity of the Highland Summits and Plateaux, including Glen Cochill and part of the Griffin Forest and Tay Forest Park; the A822; the A826; Trochry and other houses in Strathbraan; hill slopes on the south side of Strathbraan; and some hills and slopes east of Pitlochry. He considered that there would be

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 48

significant effects on visual amenity from 13 of the 22 viewpoints assessed in the environmental statement.

5.29 In the policy context, his conclusions were that the Griffin proposal would: In relation to Policy ERP14 of the structure plan, have significant effects on local

environmental quality; In relation to Policy 3 of the local plan, not conserve landscape features and a sense

of local identity, or strengthen or enhance landscape character; and, due to its significant landscape impact, require assessment against the principles of the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment which classifies this area as one where tall structures should be discouraged;

In relation to Policy 11 of the local plan, result in an intrusion into the landscape character of the area;

Not accord with National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’, as the serious adverse landscape and visual impacts cannot be mitigated satisfactorily; and,

Not accord with the council’s supplementary planning guidance on wind energy proposals.

5.30 He noted that the wind farm would be located in an area that, although with high visual sensitivity, is defined in the strategic study as appropriate for accommodating wind farms. However, the large scale of this proposal means that it would be very conspicuous and practical mitigation measures would not reduce its effects significantly.

5.31 Counsel for the planning authority confirmed in closing submissions that the landscape witness’s assessment was concerned only with the proposal’s effects on landscape character and its likely visual impact. The effects of the significant reduction in the number of turbines, and in the height of a few of them, appear over-stated. The changes from most viewpoints are only to the density of the turbines. The Griffin proposal would still occupy much the same spread and have much the same visual impact as the original layout. It was submitted that its impact would be so great, that it cannot be judged acceptable. Overbearing, prominent, dominant in some views, out of scale and intruding into a generally benign landscape, the wind farm is too large for its site. It is over-development dressed up respectably as a bearer of green energy.

5.32 Due to its area and height, the wind farm would be out of scale even within this large scale landscape. It would have an adverse effect on both the River Tay (Dunkeld) and the Loch Rannoch National Scenic Areas; and it would have a high cumulative landscape and visual impact with both the Calliachar and Drumderg wind farms.

5.33 In the strategic landscape study, the Calliachar site is located within sub-unit H3 ‘Cochill to Quaich’ of the Highland Summits and Plateaux character type. This sub-unit is classified as having lower landscape potential for accommodating wind farm developments, and is also classified as having high visual sensitivity. In the consultant’s assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the Calliachar proposal, he concluded that it was likely to have a substantial landscape impact and a moderate to substantial visual impact.

5.34 In his evidence to the inquiry as the council’s landscape witness, he stated that the landscape character of the sub-unit would completely change from open, rugged, quiet and usually still and peaceful moorland with a transmission line, to moorland dominated by the

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 49

presence of a large scale wind farm with the turbines and access tracks and associated structures and buildings. Due to the scale and rotation of the turbines, these industrial structures would dominate the landscape, and would be uncharacteristic of the landscape type. Their effects on the wider area of the Highland Summits and Plateaux would be less, but also significant.

5.35 In relation to National Scenic Areas, the Calliachar wind farm would have significant effects on views from some of the key hills and summits of the Loch Rannoch and Glen Lyon National Scenic Area; and from King’s Seat, Birnam, which is an iconic viewpoint within the River Tay (Dunkeld) National Scenic Area, part of the wind farm would appear on the skyline at a distance of about 16 kilometres.

5.36 The wind farm would also have significant effects on the visual amenity of Glen Quaich; the minor road from Amulree to Kenmore; the hills and slopes to the north-east and south-west of Glen Quaich; the Sma’ Glen; the hills and slopes on the south side of Strathbraan; some summits and slopes on the north side of the Tay, above and to the west of Aberfeldy; and some hills and slopes east of Pitlochry.

5.37 In the policy context, his conclusions were that the Calliachar proposal would:o In relation to Policy ERP14 of the structure plan, have significant effects on

local environmental quality;o In relation to Policy 3 of the local plan, not conserve landscape features and a

sense of local identity, or strengthen or enhance landscape character; and, due to its significant landscape impact, require assessment against the principles of the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment which classifies this area as one where tall structures should be discouraged;

o In relation to Policy 11 of the local plan, result in an intrusion into the landscape character of the area;

o Not accord with National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’, as the serious adverse landscape and visual impacts cannot be mitigated satisfactorily; and,

o Not accord with the council’s supplementary planning guidance on wind energy proposals.

5.38 He also noted that the wind farm would be located in an area that is defined in the strategic study as of lower potential for accommodating wind farms, and as an area of high visual sensitivity. He concluded that this large scale wind farm is not well located in the southern Highland Perthshire landscape, and that mitigation measures would not reduce significantly its effects on the landscape and visual amenity.

5.39 In his closing submissions, counsel for the planning authority argued that the Calliachar proposal would intrude so far into Glen Quaich that the character of the glen would change completely. The applicant’s landscape witness had made the case for refusal through the excellence of his photographic work and his obvious experience. Judgements about overall acceptability are not for him.

5.40 Counsel also referred, in relation to both proposals, to the council’s decision making process. It had convened a public meeting to allow the views of constituents to be taken into account. Members are entitled to give weight to these, provided that they are founded on

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 50

proper planning considerations. In that regard, he directed attention to the evidence of the witnesses for the action group, and that of the councillor who gave evidence for the council.

5.41 In his evidence, which was given in relation to the Griffin wind farm only, the councillor confirmed the council’s support for renewable energy as contained in the policies of the structure plan and in its supplementary planning guidance. While the council had yet to approve or support any wind farm proposal, he was confident that it would when a proposal is made that complies with its supplementary guidance.

5.42 Contrary to the officer’s recommendation, the committee had resolved unanimously to object to the Griffin proposal. In his view, the officer’s support had been heavily qualified, seeking the reduction of an unspecified number of turbines to reduce its visibility from Trochry. The conclusions contained reservations and indicated a finely balanced judgement. He had concluded that the proposal as submitted was unacceptable, and should be opposed. He confirmed that, after further reflection, the council had decided not to advance its objections relating to road traffic impact and hydrogeology.

5.43 The starting point for his own assessment was the adverse landscape and visual impact of the proposal and the amenity concerns of local residents, which were re-enforced by the huge scale of the wind farm compared to any other proposal in Perth and Kinross. He could not ignore the large number of local people, with local knowledge of the area, who objected to the proposal.

5.44 The council had appointed a landscape consultant to advise on the preparation of its supplementary planning guidance and, later, to assess the landscape and visual impact of each proposal. He found it extremely significant that the consultant had concluded that the modified proposal would have a damaging effect on the landscape. He had reached the view that he must give greatest weight to the landscape expert appointed to advise the council, and had therefore concluded that the Griffin proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape of the area.

5.45 In answer to questions, he advised that he did not know why any other member had opposed the proposal, because there had been no debate at the committee meeting. Although the report had stated that the proposal would accord with the development plan and the council’s supplementary planning guidance, he had not agreed with that conclusion. He agreed that it is necessary to look at the benefits of a proposal, but he had found none. He accepted that the officer’s report had been comprehensive but, based on the landscape consultant’s advice, it was wrong.

5.46 The council’s planning witness had submitted precognitions to the inquiry in relation to each proposal. In the precognitions he had argued that, despite the support in principle for wind farm developments which is contained in the structure plan, the local plan and the supplementary planning guidance, the adverse landscape and visual effects of both proposals carry more weight; and he had concluded that there were no material considerations to justify approval of either proposal as a departure from the development plan.

5.47 However, in answer to questions he had confirmed that it was his own professional view that, as the Griffin proposal would comply with Policies SEP3, ERP4 and ERP14 of the structure plan, and with Policies 1, 2 and 11 of the local plan, it generally accords with the development plan. It would also accord with the council’s wind energy policy guidelines.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 51

None of the effects of the proposed development would justify refusal, while account had also to be taken of the benefits that would arise. He agreed that, subject to the imposition of the proposed conditions, the Griffin wind farm is acceptable.

5.48 In relation to the Calliachar proposal, he accepted that the draft version of the wind energy policy guidelines had been the subject of serious criticism by the Scottish Executive, and the council had been advised by its officers that, if it was submitted as an alteration to the structure plan, it would almost certainly be rejected. He also accepted that the guidelines showed that the A822, along with Strathbraan, Glen Cochill, Amulree and Glen Quaich, are all included in a broad area of search, apparently in conflict with detailed guidance which suggests that major tourist routes should be treated as sensitive. These include the A822 and the A826, but the road from Amulree to Kenmore through Glen Quaich is not listed. On this basis he agreed that it was possible that a wind farm in Glen Quaich itself would be consistent with the guidelines.

5.49 He accepted that the guidelines do not prohibit wind farms in sensitive areas, contrary to one of the council’s stated reasons for opposing the development. If the committee had proceeded on that basis, it would have done so on the basis of a mis-understanding. He agreed that the strategic study had identified Glen Quaich as having both high landscape potential and low visual impact for a wind farm. Although there was no documentation to explain subsequent delineation of broad areas of search, he stated that Calliachar had been omitted on the basis of its habitats.

5.50 He accepted that Policy ERP14 gives active support to the Calliachar proposal, when assessed on the four criteria. He relied on the council’s landscape witness who had not objected to the proposal; there were no reasons for objection in relation to natural heritage interests; benefits would arise from the project; and there would be no cumulative impacts of significance. It would also comply with Policy 11 on a similar basis that the landscape witness had not raised an objection; that there would be no unacceptable visual intrusion; and that there are no sites designated for nature conservation or archaeological interest. In addition, the general encouragement for renewable energy developments contained within national policy is a material consideration in favour of the proposal.

Conclusions

5.51 In closing submissions on behalf of the council, it was contended that both proposals are contrary to the development plan, National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ and the council’s supplementary planning guidance. Applying first the rules of Schedule 9, and then taking a mature and measured approach in a detailed planning assessment under the rules of Section 25, as a matter of sound planning judgement it is concluded that the significantly adverse visual, landscape and operational impacts of each development outweigh any claimed economic or other benefit, either local or national. There are no other material considerations that justify the applications being sustained in contravention of these soundly based conclusions.

5.52 In the event of the Scottish Ministers granting consent for either development and granting deemed planning permission, planning conditions should be imposed. These have been agreed, with the exception that, rather than 25 metres, a ten metres distance for micro-siting of turbines is sufficient to avoid creating a significantly different visual composition of each wind farm.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 52

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 53

6. SUMMARY OF THE CASES FOR THE AMULREE AND STRATHBRAAN WINDFARM ACTION GROUP

6.1 It was submitted on behalf of the action group that the inquiry was about the effects of the proposals not only on the landscapes, but also on the people who live in them, work in them, and look upon, visit or otherwise enjoy them. They fashion and maintain the landscapes, and are as much a part of their ecology as hen harriers or ospreys. They ensure that Amulree, Strathbraan and Glen Quaich remain a living landscape and a sustainable part of Highland Perthshire. The area is not remote or inaccessible, but it is here, beyond the Sma’ Glen, that the Highlands begin.

6.2 The landscape is the product of a land use system centred principally around farming, forestry and tourism. Ironically, these proposals which are said to save the world, will kill the spirit that glues this community together. Reversibility is a hollow promise. The action group represents the views of the people of both Amulree and Strathbraan and, while some may live nearer to one proposal than the other, the community is opposed to both. Each in its own way is totally unacceptable. The scale of the community’s concern was evidenced by the number of objections and the level of attendance throughout the inquiry.

6.3 Evidence in relation to particular aspects was given to the inquiry on behalf of the action group by some 17 local witness, including representatives of both the Kenmore and District and the Dunkeld and Birnam Community Councils, local residents and others running businesses in the area. In addition, evidence on individual topics was given on behalf of the action group by nine professional or expert witnesses.

6.4 The chair of the action group spoke in evidence of its concern to protect the area for future generations. The proposed developments pose the community with potential threats of uncertainty and disturbance, ranging from road safety and travel disruption, to water supplies. Both applicants had failed properly to inform and consult with local residents, including where information had been required on private water supplies or visibility from properties. Given the proximity of the Griffin site to a national scenic area and the threat to birdlife from the Calliachar proposal, the failure of Scottish Natural Heritage to object to these developments is a dereliction of duty for a body charged with “Working with Scotland’s people to care for the natural environment”.

6.5 It is the local people who would have to live with the consequences if the wrong decisions are made by the Scottish Ministers. In the case of Calliachar, what makes Glen Quaich special, in addition to its landscape, habitats and wildlife, are the everyday activities of estate management which give it a sense of timelessness, and give local people a strong feeling for the land and the environment. This would be destroyed by the presence of 27 giant turbines. Other witnesses stressed that, in addition to desecrating the landscape, these wind farms would disrupt their lives. These fears had been heightened by errors and omissions by the developers both in preparing the impact assessments and in consulting with the local community.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 54

Impacts on transport

6.6 A number of witnesses highlighted the particular concerns of local residents about the impact of construction traffic on the A822 between its junctions with the A9 at Dunkeld and with the A826 at Milton. It is narrow and twisting, with blind bends and no footways, and evidence was given of a number of accidents, including fatal ones, and of near misses being a regular experience.

6.7 This road is intended as the access route for construction traffic for both wind farms, and there is very serious concern about the scale of additional traffic, which would include many thousands of movements by heavy goods vehicles and by abnormal large loads, resulting in an increase in heavy traffic of up to 2,500%. Some residents live very close to the road, and there are concerns about the effects of noise and disturbance, including from possible night-time movements. Reference was also made to the narrow width of a number of bridges along this route, including two which are narrower than the base of the turbines proposed for the Griffin wind farm. Road closures would be inevitable, including during the works to excavate under the Ladywell railway bridge.

6.8 Although it had been suggested that congestion would be eased by the provision of up to 15 passing bays, the agreement of the landowners had not been obtained. Those with children using school buses, and others who had experienced personal bereavement as a result of road accidents, or with medical conditions which could require immediate emergency attention, spoke of their concerns about the capacity of the road to accommodate the additional traffic safely, without disrupting community life. This road forms the only link enabling local people to carry on their lives, in terms of going to work, school etc. The only detours possible are extremely lengthy, and the delays caused to the attendance of the emergency services could have fatal consequences.

6.9 Concern was also expressed about the effects of the additional traffic on the junction of the A822 with the A9 trunk road, where there is no central refuge lane, and continuous flows of traffic on the main road can lead to long queues and frustration. Two local families have lost members in accidents here, and the additional traffic would only add to the dangers.

6.10 The transport engineer who gave evidence on behalf of the action group referred to the short-comings of the A822/A826 route which is proposed for use by construction traffic, including the height restriction at the Ladywell Bridge, width restrictions at other bridges, and the need for improved visibility and additional land to provide passing places. Traffic levels would increase substantially as a result of construction traffic, particularly if both are under construction at the same time; delays would be caused by escorted loads moving to the site; and diversions would be necessary to allow works to be carried out at the Ladywell Bridge.

6.11 There are inherent difficulties with narrow tourist routes which have no footways and few verges. Safety issues would arise along these roads, particularly at points where visibility is restricted and because, in the absence of a footway, the road surface is shared with pedestrians and cyclists. No cumulative assessment of noise, severance or disruption had been made; and, considering that both schemes had reduced in size, he noted that the levels of traffic predicted showed an unexplained increase in real terms.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 55

Recreation, tourism, and the local economy

6.12 Representatives of both the Kenmore and District and the Dunkeld and Birnam Community Councils, and six local people involved in tourism related businesses, spoke in evidence about the importance attached by visitors and clients to the experience of wildness in the landscape, and the diminished recreational experience which would result from the presence of wind turbines. The A822/A826, as a national tourist route, forms a primary axis of movement for visitors not only to this area but also to the Highlands. The zone of influence of the wind farms here is an area which has national significance for tourism and, as the local economy is about 50% dependent on tourism, it also underpins the viability of the basic services that local residents need and use.

6.13 The proposed turbines would be so dominant and discordant that the image of the area would be changed, not only for all those using the local road network, but particularly for those involved in active pursuits on higher ground, such as walkers, climbers and those involved in field sports. People make the effort to get on to high ground to experience the sense of looking out over an untrammelled landscape. While that might be an illusion, it is one which would easily be punctured by developments of this unprecedented and incongruous nature.

6.14 Both sites display some of the characteristics of wild land, with their rough terrain, quietness, and absence of human activity or development. They are effective places for storing and releasing clean water, and their soils, trees and natural vegetation act as major stores of carbon. The experience of these areas can have a profound effect on people’s sense of well-being, allowing them to connect with the land and with wild-life, and to gain a sense of identity. For people coming to this semi-natural landscape in search of tranquillity, the turbines would introduce a discordant man-made feature due to their scale, movement and associated noise.

6.15 These wild places are also the greatest economic resource of the area. Surveys for VisitScotland suggest that 26% of people would not visit an area with inappropriately located wind farms, and this could result in a loss of up to £91M to the tourist economy of Perthshire. Local people who run self-catering holiday accommodation are concerned that the wind farms would have a long term impact on the number of tourists who would wish to come to the area. Those witnesses involved in businesses which cater for tourists wishing to explore the area stated that most come to this area for its wild and natural landscapes and unspoilt views. Some use the footpaths and cycleways through the Griffin site, and others take routes past the deserted village at Salachill. Its setting would be seriously affected by the Griffin turbines, and the quality of this walk would be seriously affected by noise and visual intrusion. The attractive walk around Loch Kennard would be totally spoilt.

6.16 From many other surrounding areas, the wind farms would be clearly visible and would have a significant adverse effect on the character of the landscape. Visitors’ perception of Highland Perthshire would change. Local businesses would be severely curtailed in the long term, while the economic benefits associated with the wind farms would be short lived. For example, the coast to coast walk past Salachill may no longer be commercially viable, and this would result in an annual loss of £55,000 to the Perthshire and Lochaber economies. Wind farms would make the landscape similar to other parts of Europe, and would discourage visitors from Europe, as they would no longer experience the perception of wilderness.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 56

6.17 One witness who runs a shop in Dunkeld stated that local businesses there are heavily dependent on the tourist and visitor trade, which is closely related to the area’s marvellous landscape. Due to their visibility from the A822/A826 tourist route and/or from the Amulree to Kenmore road, and from surrounding peaks and viewpoints, wind farm developments of this magnitude would have an adverse impact on these businesses. Few can rely only on the local population. Most depend on those who combine shopping with a trip to an area with an attractive environment. Currently the tourism economy is fragile, with falling visitor trips and falling regional income from tourism.

6.18 Concern was also expressed that Dunkeld would lose trade from those tourists who currently stop there on their journeys, as a result of the delays and congestion on the A9 which would be caused by construction traffic. A recent survey has confirmed that 35% of local businesses consider that the wind farms would have an impact on tourism. This threat is extremely unwelcome, as apparently small changes can have a disproportionate impact at the margin. It may mean the difference between survival and ruin. Due to the area’s reliance on tourism, the direct and indirect effects of the closure of a small business would be multiplied.

6.19 Another witness, who operates self catering holiday accommodation, referred to the high levels of occupancy in Trochry and Dunkeld, and to customers who state that they are attracted to the area by its unspoilt scenery, tranquillity and quiet roads. The suggestion that wind farms would be a tourist attraction is rejected. In Cornwall, despite the presence of wind farms, turbines are never visible in any of the advertising illustrations for tourist accommodation or attractions. The tourism industry should not be jeopardised by desecrating the unspoilt scenery of this part of Perthshire.

6.20 A resident of Glen Quaich confirmed that it is a destination in its own right, due to the special landscapes and the “Highland experience” it offers, combined with its accessibility. Walking routes go round and through the glen; fishermen come to Loch Freuchie and other lochans; it is used for bird watching and field sports, and by the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme for outdoor activities; and the road between Amulree and Kenmore is used for car rallies.

Landscape and visual effects

6.21 The proposed Griffin wind farm would be in a new league of visual significance, as there would be 68 turbines, mostly 124 metres high. They would crest three parallel ridges, with the southern end visible from Trochry and from the A822 through Strathbraan, with a fringe of turbines also visible from the A826 through Glen Cochill. Major adverse effects would occur when the wind farm is observed from the public viewpoint of King’s Seat on Birnam Hill, which is within a national scenic area that extends to about one kilometre from the wind farm. From here, the sheer scale of the proposed wind farm has the capacity to alter the landscape character of the area and the view of Schiehallion.

6.22 With de-forestation associated with the development, the action group’s landscape witness considered that the view from here would be subject to a major landscape effect, due to the substantial magnitude of change in a high/exceptional sensitivity landscape. In contrast, the applicant’s witness had concluded that there would be a moderate magnitude of change on high sensitivity receptors in a high sensitivity landscape.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 57

6.23 The applicant’s landscape witness under-estimated the magnitude of the impact of the wind farm, wrongly categorising the effects on some receptors as moderate, rather than substantial. His comments on the significant visual and cumulative effects which would be experienced by hill walkers are welcome and should be given due weight; but the impact on local residents is not confined to the views from their houses, as they also experience the landscape from the curtilage of their houses and when they move about the locality.

6.24 The representative of the Dunkeld and Birnam Community Council stated that it appeared that it was the planting of commercial forestry at the Griffin site which had made it an acceptable location for the development of a wind farm. Given the height of the turbines, plus the associated tracks and cable runs, it would have a significant detrimental impact on both the site and the surrounding area.

6.25 The Calliachar wind farm would be visible across Loch Freuchie from the central part of Glen Quaich; and also from the highest levels of the road between Amulree and Kenmore. It would significantly and adversely affect the landscape character and visual amenity of one of Perthshire’s most unspoilt and open glens; and it would impair the character of an accessible and important view of many major mountains from one of the most impressive routes over the Highland plateaux.

6.26 A local resident of Glen Quaich spoke of her concern that the turbines would blight a landscape which is valued by those who work in and visit that area. The applicant’s landscape witness had carried out his own assessment of the landscape and visual impact along Glen Quaich, and it demonstrates why the application should be refused. While the effects are locally concentrated, they focus on a funnel of cascading turbines seen across Loch Freuchie and made more visible by the open slopes of Glen Quaich. In addition, the choice of viewpoint on the Rob Roy Way has failed to capture the impact of turbines on this route, where the experience of the wide range of visitors would be ruined.

6.27 From mid-distance, the Calliachar wind farm would be visible from high ground and from important summits such as Ben Chonzie. The representative of the Dunkeld and Birnam Community Council stated that it would be visually intrusive from King’s Seat and every popular mountain in this area, a large proportion of which is designated as national scenic area.

6.28 The present pylon line is mainly backgrounded by land. The proposed pylons would stand prouder, crossing the skyline, and would be much more noticeable along Loch Freuchie and Glen Quaich. In conjunction with the Calliachar turbines, they would give a sense of an incongruous engineering and utility landscape.

6.29 Neither wind farm is acceptable. Together, both wind farms would combine to create the impression of a wind turbine landscape: perceived, sequential and simultaneous. They would be seen sequentially along the skylines from various routes used by tourists. Intermittent views of each would be seen when emerging northwards from the Sma’ Glen on the A822. From the Amulree to Kenmore road, the turbines of the Calliachar scheme would be seen choking the central slopes of Glen Quaich and perhaps reflected in the water of Loch Freuchie, and then inserted into the vistas from one of Scotland’s highest passes. From the A826 through Glen Cochill, the western fringes of the Griffin wind farm would be visible, together with occasional views of the Calliachar turbines. From the A822 through

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 58

Strathbraan, the southern ridge ends and side slopes of the Griffin wind farm would appear successively crested by irregular turbine groups.

6.30 As evidence of the quality of this landscape, reference was made by a number of witnesses to the work of the Victorian artist, John Everett Millais. It was stated that he had painted all but one of his landscapes in this area because he thought its beauty was unparalleled.

The natural environment

6.31 The action group’s ornithology witness stated that, with the Griffin wind farm, some degree of disturbance or impact is possible on five key bird species (black-throated and red-throated divers, peregrine, merlin and hen harriers), and there is also evidence that pink-footed geese fly through the site to roost on Loch Kennard. The proposed habitat management plan would be unlikely to secure greater benefits than would be achieved through the second rotation of the forestry plantation. The removal of turbines from the Griffin proposal had not affected the hen harrier nest site of which he was aware.

6.32 The action group’s ecology witness stated that construction of the Calliachar wind farm could lead to a short-term loss of productive otter territory at Loch Hoil and, although he did not have experience in relation to otters, he considered that a license is likely to be required due to the change from present conditions. In the absence of fully detailed mitigation measures, its effects on habitats of international importance cannot be assessed.

6.33 The site is considered by the Perth and Kinross Recorder as outstanding in local and regional terms for its “bird assemblage”; and the group’s ornithology witness stated that a power company had not pursued this site because of its ornithological sensitivities. He criticised the surveys undertaken and the collision risk model used for hen harriers as flawed, and for implying that species listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive are of medium rather than high sensitivity. The need to keep turbines more than 500 metres from hen harrier nests reduces the benefit of the proposed habitat management plan in returning areas of forestry plantation to moorland. Hen harriers are more at risk when displaying, and that can occur anywhere. If an unoccupied golden eagle nest crag adjacent to the site was re-occupied in future, the wind farm would either pose a collision risk, or remove a large area of their home range.

6.34 In relation to red-throated and black-throated divers, it is not just the distance from the turbines which is important, but the flight lines. Here, some of the Calliachar turbines would stand directly in the line of flight between Loch Hoil and Loch Freuchie.

6.35 The representative of the Dunkeld and Birnam Community Council referred to the admitted increased risk of collision risk for birds, and expressed concern over the potential impact on breeding birds, and on the number of rare species which the area would support in future.

6.36 On behalf of the action group, it was submitted that the position of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is difficult to understand, as it had asked for refusal, yet did not formally object. It referred to the decline in numbers of hen harriers in the Eastern Highlands between 1988 and 2004, and recommended that, in view of their conservation

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 59

status in the UK as a whole, a precautionary approach should be adopted and consent should not be given.

6.37 Guidance published by Scottish Natural Heritage indicates that, due to the presence of species with unfavourable conservation status (hen harrier and golden eagle), this is at least a site of regional concern, and is a serious matter for Ministers. Scottish Natural Heritage withdrew its objection to the Calliachar wind farm despite its requirement for a robust collision risk analysis not being met. Given the unfavourable conservation status of hen harriers in the adjacent natural heritage zone to the east, and given their flight characteristics, it is difficult to understand how Scottish Natural Heritage could consider the impacts of the proposed wind farm as purely local or site level, or arrive at its sanguine assessment of their conservation prospects.

6.38 As no full studies were carried out in relation to the ten other Annex 1 species, the Scottish Ministers cannot be confident that their favourable conservation status would not be adversely affected either. Article 4 of the Birds Directive implements conservation measures for species listed in Annex 1. It requires trends and variations in population levels to be taken into account in relation to species which are vulnerable to specific changes in their habitat; and, outside protected areas, member states are to strive to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats. The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 goes further by requiring public bodies to conserve biodiversity, and to be guided in this by the local biodiversity action plan.

Effects on water supplies and flooding

6.39 All the residents in this area have private water supplies. Those living at Scotston, beside the A826 in Glen Cochill, which is the nearest house to the Griffin wind farm expressed their concern at the potential risk to the retention and quality of their water supply, through the effects both of the mulching of areas of forestry and of the construction of the foundations for the turbines and associated buildings and equipment. The proposals for monitoring and potential provision of a replacement supply were inadequate.

6.40 A local estate owner expressed reservations about the measures to deal with disruption to, or pollution of, water supplies to houses and residents in Trochry; and considered that the proposals for monitoring and for consultation with residents were inadequate. The additional maintenance costs for those whose supplies might be affected had not been addressed.

6.41 The action group’s professional witness on hydrogeological issues confirmed that the private water supply for the house at Scotston is the most likely to be affected by the Griffin wind farm. In the absence of a hydrogeological conceptual site model, the impact on the quantity and quality of the supply could not be accurately assessed. Despite the application of good practice measures, there is the potential for pollution incidents to occur with contamination rapidly entering the ground water and flowing towards potential surface water and water supply receptors. She recommended a network of ground water boreholes for monitoring purposes, with further detailing of the proposed emergency plan. Monitoring of bore-holes had been undertaken at the Black Law wind farm. She accepted that the council could require this if it considered this approach to be necessary.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 60

6.42 With the Calliachar wind farm, potential impacts on the private water supplies at Turrerich, Easter Shian and Wester Shian should not be discounted, and a monitoring programme and emergency action plan should be put in place.

6.43 The action group’s professional hydrology witness referred to potential pollution arising from spillages, or from sediment resulting from increased run off, which could enter watercourses which are used for private water supplies or watering stock. In the case of the Griffin wind farm, the proposed tree felling could also increase flood flows in the Tombane and Ballinloan Burns, and in the River Braan, increasing flood risk to properties.

6.44 In the case of the Calliachar wind farm, increased flood flows may be caused in the Turrerich Burn. This is unlikely to increase flood risk to properties, although stock watering could be affected. Water quality may be reduced, with increased sediment adversely affecting fish stocks. Pollution from spillages could affect water quality in Loch Freuchie. There is also potential for a peat slide, as one turbine is in a medium risk area, and the analysis undertaken should be reviewed once definitive guidance is to hand.

6.45 These issues have not been sufficiently investigated, and the impact would depend on the reliability of the interception and mitigation measures installed. Deterioration in the ecological status of a watercourse would contravene the requirements of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, and engineering works would have to satisfy the Controlled Activities Regulations brought into force in April 2006. On the basis of the above reasons, the Griffin application should be refused, and the Calliachar application should not be granted prior to further investigation and review.

6.46 One local resident raised his concerns about the potential impact on flooding. In the past, the Tombane Burn had become more susceptible to flooding when forestry work had upset the natural drainage, and floodwaters had reached into the garage of his property. The Griffin wind farm would require blasting of bedrock to provide roads, culverts and bridges. A local farmer confirmed that flash flooding is now more common and more severe, with the banks of the Tombane Burn recently being eroded for the first time. The timber felling and construction works are likely to increase the volume and velocity of water. If consent is recommended for the Griffin proposal, he suggested that these problems could be addressed by the removal of the western turbines (A1 to A30).

Noise

6.47 The potential noise from the nearest turbines of the Griffin wind farm to the house at Scotston was raised as a concern by its residents. The applicant’s noise assessment indicated that the house would be within the 40 decibel range, and it was suggested that weather conditions could amplify the noise generated, particularly during quiet nights. In addition, it was understood that there can be an additional three decibel pulsing effect as the rotors pass the turbine hubs, and concern was expressed about this in relation to a wind farm with 68 turbines. While the council’s wind energy policy guidelines suggest that wind farms are unlikely to be accepted where turbines would be within a distance equal to twenty times the height to blade tip, here about 23 of the turbines would be closer.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 61

Archaeology

6.48 The action group’s professional archaeology witness stated that, in addition to the scheduled ancient monument which comprises the deserted village at Salachill, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland had conducted a survey of the upper Ballinloan Burn in 1993 which identified additional buildings, cairns and field systems. He had also studied aerial photographs taken in 1948 and found other features near a former turbine location. The archaeological watching brief proposed by the Griffin applicant would be unsatisfactory in relation to unknown archaeological remains which may be discovered under the areas of forestry plantation which are to be removed, and the condition should specify that the watching brief should also cover the forestry clearance operations.

Needs and benefits

6.49 The action group does not dispute the need to tackle the urgent problem of generating electricity from renewable resources, and does not seek to challenge government policy. However, current planning consents would double present capacity, and 60% of the 2020 target has already been consented. Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act places decision makers under a duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty and of conserving flora and fauna, and also to have regard to the extent to which reasonable mitigation has taken place in formulating the proposals. These tests are comprehensively not satisfied by either of these proposals.

6.50 The target for 2020 of 40% of electricity generation in Scotland coming from renewable sources is confirmed in the national planning framework. However, it contains explicit and strongly worded caveats to ensure that planning decisions enhance the natural environment and quality of life, and do not prejudice the “rich diversity of Scotland’s landscapes which are a natural treasure”. This reflects the duties under the Electricity Act and, given the progress achieved towards meeting the 2020 target, impels the decision maker to deploy a precautionary approach at any point of dilemma.

6.51 These objectives are also reflected in the guidance of National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’, and it emphasises the need to minimise effects on local communities and on the amenity of local residents; to consider visual impact and exercise caution in relation to national scenic areas; and to comply with national and international obligations in relation to birds and habitats. The draft version of Scottish Planning Policy 6 seeks more specific consideration of effects on local communities. This community is already contributing to renewable targets through the many hydro schemes in the area, and many local people already demonstrate a high degree of environmental awareness in both their homes and their lives.

6.52 The Tayside Landscape Character Assessment was published in 1999, and was prepared in the context of wind turbines which were only 53 metres in height. Even then, it discouraged proposals for aerials, masts, wind turbines or additional pylons within the Highland Summits and Plateaux character area, which includes both sites.

6.53 Here, the need to secure the benefits which would arise from these schemes does not outweigh the adverse effects of either or both projects. The Scottish Executive’s aspiration

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 62

to exceed its target for 2020 does not justify driving bulldozers through sensitive sites like these.

6.54 While there may be opportunities for local businesses to secure contracts, and employment opportunities for local people, it is more likely that work would be sub-contracted to external agencies, and that any new jobs would be offset by losses in tourism. The offer of a community fund is not seen as attractive. Local people love the countryside and enjoy a range of pursuits in it. They do not believe that it is their right to destroy it for financial gain.

Planning assessment

6.55 The action group’s professional planning witness based his assessment of the proposal on a review of the reports made to committee by the council’s planning officer. On that basis, he considered that the Griffin proposal would, in relation to the provisions of the structure plan:

Be contrary overall to Sustainable Economic Development Policy 3 because its scale, location and impact would adversely affect environmental and social interests, and it would not maintain or enhance local employment opportunities beyond the construction phase;

Not accord with Policy ERP1, as it is not possible to conclude that there would be no significant adverse effects on bio-diversity;

Not accord with Policy ERP4, based on the action group’s evidence on landscape issues, the council’s consultant’s concerns about the scale of the wind farm, and the conditional and complex response by Scottish Natural Heritage;

Not accord with Policy ERP8, due to its impact on the River Tay (Dunkeld) and Loch Rannoch National Scenic Areas, as advised both by the council’s consultant and by Scottish Natural Heritage;

Be contrary to Policy ERP14, due to the adverse environmental effects, and the absence of a guarantee that the benefits would be captured, thereby justifying a precautionary approach. There are no specific local benefits to outweigh these impacts, but there is significant potential for adverse cumulative impacts.

6.56 In relation to the provisions of the local plan, he stated that: In relation to Policy 1, as it has not been shown by an assessment against the

criteria that the Griffin proposal would meet them, the development should be regarded as not complying with the policy, and accordingly the precautionary approach set out in criterion (d) should apply;

The proposal does not meet the policy objectives of Policies 3 and 5, and a departure is not justified;

Policy 11 is predicated on an assumption that appropriate locations for wind farms will be identified by the council, and although the Griffin site is within a broad area of search in the council’s wind energy policy guidelines, it is not identified in the adopted development plan or in any draft development plan.

6.57 Accordingly, he concluded that, overall, the Griffin proposal would not accord with the development plan and, on that basis, there should be a presumption against granting planning permission.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 63

6.58 His assessment of the Calliachar proposal in relation to the terms of the structure plan was that:

It would be contrary overall to Sustainable Economic Development Policy 3 because its scale, location and impact would adversely affect environmental and social interests, and it would not maintain or enhance local employment opportunities beyond the construction phase;

It would not accord with Policy ERP1, as it is not possible to conclude that there would be no significant adverse effects on bio-diversity;

It would not accord with Policy ERP4, as the impacts on landscape character are of such significance that the development would be unacceptable;

In relation to Policy ERP8, while the action group did not lead any evidence about cultural heritage, if there is any doubt of lack of information, then the proposal would be contrary to this policy;

It would be contrary to Policy ERP14, as the scheme would not be environmentally acceptable due to the immediate and wider impacts on the landscape and wildlife resource; and as there are no specific local benefits to outweigh these impacts, but there is significant potential for adverse cumulative impacts.

6.59 In relation to the provisions of the local plan, he stated that: Due to its impact on a locally important landscape, the Calliachar proposal would

not accord with Policies 1 and 2; The proposal would conflict with the requirement of Policy 3 that it should

conserve, strengthen and enhance landscape features and character; Policy 11 is predicated on an assumption that appropriate locations for wind farms

will be identified by the council through the development plan. The Calliachar site has not been so identified. The proposal would conflict with the policy’s criterion concerning visual amenity, particularly as regards visual dominance. Accordingly the proposal would conflict with this policy.

6.60 He concluded that, overall, the Calliachar proposal would not accord with the development plan and, on that basis, there should be a presumption against granting planning permission. He endorsed the view of the planning officer in his report to committee that the proposal raises potential significant adverse landscape and visual impacts on Glen Quaich.

6.61 In answer to questions in relation to the provisions of the development plan, he accepted that, contrary to the terms of the officer’s reports to committee: the test in relation to Policy ERP1 of the structure plan was not the existence of significant effects; in relation to Policy ERP4, the requirement is only to have regard to the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment; and the relevant policy in relation to a National Scenic Area is Policy ERP3, not ERP8, and the requirement is that the development should not compromise the conservation objectives and the overall integrity of that area.

6.62 Turning to national planning policy and guidance, this applies to both proposals. The national planning framework confirms the Scottish Executive’s target of generating 40% of Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020. It does not set out a spatial strategy for the location of wind farms, but its introduction confirms that there is a strong commitment to protecting and enhancing Scotland’s natural, built and cultural environments, which are essential components of the quality of life of people living in Scotland and unique economic assets. It states that Scotland’s landscapes are a national treasure; and that the effect on landscape character will be an important consideration in deciding on renewable

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 64

energy projects. He stated that this suggests that a precautionary approach should be taken in assessing projects which are likely to impact on that resource, and that these projects can draw only limited support from the framework.

6.63 The proposals are not supported by Scottish Planning Policy 1 'The Planning System', which requires the quality of the natural heritage to be maintained and enhanced. Due to their highly significant intrusion into the landscape and the likely impact on wildlife populations, these proposals would also be contrary to the objectives set out in National Planning Policy Guideline 14: 'Natural Heritage'. In addition to conservation of natural beauty, native species and wildlife habitats, these include environments which are cherished and valued and, as such, are essential to social and economic well-being. The economic well-being of this area is dependent on tourists being attracted by its natural beauty. This would be adversely affected by approval of these applications. These developments would result in a “wind farm landscape”, and the quality of the sites and the surrounding areas which are used for outdoor recreational activities would be reduced.

6.64 Planning Advice Note 60 ‘Planning for Natural Heritage’ indicates how the planning system can contribute to the conservation, enhancement, enjoyment and understanding of Scotland’s natural environment. In view of the thrust of this advice, a reasonable test for these proposals is whether they have set out to enhance the natural heritage. In his view, each would fail that test.

6.65 National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ contains no guidance on the preferred locations for wind farms, leaving that to planning authorities through their development plans, although the importance of landscape impact is recognised. Accordingly, proposals cannot draw comfort from a simple association with the guideline’s commitment to the further development of renewables, and to much of the new capacity coming from wind farms. It is accepted that the environmental statements submitted for each application generally accord with the guidance set out in Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’.

6.66 The draft version of Scottish Planning Policy 6 ‘Renewable Energy’ confirms that the growth of renewables technologies should be guided to the appropriate locations through development plans. Time should therefore be allowed for the review of development plans to enable such locational guidance to be incorporated. In that context, the current proposals should be treated as premature.

6.67 Considerable weight should be given to the council’s wind energy policy guidelines. These were the subject of extensive consultation. As the Griffin site lies within a broad area of search, it falls to be considered against the detailed criteria. The Calliachar proposal does not accord with Policy 2, as it lies within a strategically sensitive area. On that basis, both proposals would be materially in breach of the guidelines.

6.68 If consents are granted, these should be subject to suspensive conditions to tie the operation of each wind farm directly to an equivalent reduction in fossil fuel burn. Any consent should also be subject to a wide-ranging Section 75 agreement to include a restoration bond and a method statement for restoration agreed in advance of construction, and the nature, form and use of any community benefit scheme. This approach is supported in the draft version of Scottish Planning Policy 6 ‘Renewable Energy’, at paragraphs 61 and

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 65

65. [See Core Document A13] Conditions should be imposed to address the practical issues facing local residents in their homes, and in particular the private water supply at Scotston.

6.69 With regard to the conditions suggested by the council and the applicants, he considered that the limitation of micro-siting of turbines should be restricted to 10 metres, that local third parties should be involved in the consideration of subsequent details; that traffic management plans should be published; and that, for the Griffin application, the arrangements for identifying and providing an alternative water supply for the occupiers of the house at Scotston should be identified before construction. The wording of the suggested Condition No. 35 for the Calliachar wind farm, dealing with the provision of additional passing places on the A822/A826, should be amended to reflect the wording of the equivalent condition (No. 36) suggested for the Griffin wind farm .

Conclusion

6.70 These proposals should be regarded as premature and refused on that basis but, if not, they should be refused as being contrary both to the development plan and to the council’s wind energy policy guidelines. Failing that, the visual impact arising from the scale and number of turbines sited on highly visible moorland and forest justifies refusal of each. While the contribution to achieving the Scottish Executive’s renewable energy targets would be a material consideration, it would not justify setting aside well founded development plan objections.

6.71 If it is decided to support either proposal, an intentions letter should be issued requiring the prior conclusion of a Section 75 agreement to cover the matters required to be addressed outwith planning conditions, before consent is issued under Section 36 or any direction issued that planning permission is deemed to be granted.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 66

7. SUMMARY OF THE CASES FOR SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE

7.1 Scottish Natural Heritage submitted written representations in relation to each proposal and, at the request of the Reporter, a representative (its advisory ornithologist) attended to give evidence and to answer questions in relation to further written representations which had been submitted late.

7.2 In a written submission dated 1 August 2006 in relation to the Griffin proposal, Scottish Natural Heritage stated that, in principle, this is an acceptable location for a renewable energy development of this type. However, it would object to the proposal if suitably worded planning conditions or legal agreements were not to be applied in relation to two issues: bird interests with regard to hen harriers and black throated divers; and turbine design. It detailed the matters to be addressed in order to overcome these objections, and commented on the conditions which were proposed by the council at that time. Further advice on these was given in a subsequent letter dated 1 September 2006 which, additionally, recommended the imposition of another condition to require the submission of an operational protocol to address working practices and maintenance during the operational life of the wind farm.

7.3 Scottish Natural Heritage also made three recommendations in relation to the Griffin proposal:

That for those turbines visible from the A822 in Strathbraan, the transformer should be enclosed within the turbine tower;

Broadleaf planting should be used to mitigate visual impacts from the A822; and, The height of turbine A17 should be reduced, to lessen the impact on views from

the A826.

7.4 In earlier letters addressed to the Scottish Executive’s energy consents unit in relation to the Griffin wind farm (dated 17 September 2004 and 5 October 2005), Scottish Natural Heritage had set out in detail its consideration of the landscape and visual impacts of the revised proposal; and confirmed that the revised scheme had addressed satisfactorily its main concerns. The proposed wind farm would not compromise the objectives of the designation of the River Tay (Dunkeld) National Scenic Area; while the high visual impact on views from King’s Seat, Birnam Hill would be qualified by the context of large scale coniferous forestry, which is the dominant land use.

7.5 Despite the high cumulative landscape and visual impacts which would arise from its development in combination with the Calliachar wind farm, these would be acceptable to Scottish Natural Heritage. While the character of the ‘Braan-Tay-Quaich’ landscape character unit would be adversely affected, it is one of more than 20 units within the Highland Summits and Plateaux landscape character type. It is not at its core, and some of the key characteristics are diluted, as it is not as elevated, wild or remote as other units to the north. Due to the similarities of their layouts and relationships to landforms, the cumulative visual impact of the two schemes could also be acceptable, subject to conditions being imposed in relation to turbine design.

7.6 Scottish Natural Heritage had sought further information from the applicant in order to assess the impact of the proposal on the EU Birds Directive’s Annex 1 species, specifically

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 67

in relation to hen harriers and black throated divers. On consideration of that information in the context of the amended layout, it confirmed that it had no objection to the scheme’s potential impacts on hen harriers, subject to the proposed habitat management plan properly covering habitat management for hen harriers, and appropriate monitoring being undertaken. Subject to a condition to avoid disturbance, there should be no significant impact on black throated divers.

7.7 With regard to black grouse, which is a priority protected species under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, Scottish Natural Heritage considered that there is likely only to be a minor adverse impact on the small population occurring within the site; it welcomed the suggested mitigation measures identified in the environmental statement; and it recommended that the proposed land management plan include measures to enhance the site for this species.

7.8 With regard to otters, which are a European protected species, the environmental statement confirmed that a survey had found that the site is well used by otters, but that no breeding holts or resting places were identified, although some potential resting places were identified which lie close to proposed turbine locations or tracks. As construction work is likely to cause disturbance to otters, a licence would be required. In relation to the test for the issuing of licences, Scottish Natural Heritage confirmed that the impact of the development is unlikely to have a significant effect on their conservation status.

7.9 In a written submission also dated 1 August 2006 in relation to the Calliachar proposal, Scottish Natural Heritage stated that it has no objection to the scheme’s potential impacts on hen harriers, provided that suitably worded conditions are imposed on any consent to minimise these impacts. Issues in relation to black throated divers and turbine design also required to be addressed by conditions and/or legal agreements, and further advice on these matters was submitted in a subsequent letter dated 29 August, which also recommended imposing a further condition to require the submission of an operational protocol.

7.10 With regard to the legislative framework for special areas of conservation, Scottish Natural Heritage confirmed that it had determined that it was unlikely that the Calliachar proposal would have significant effects on the River Tay special area of conservation. This was based on its consideration of the release of sediment and other pollutants from the wind farm site into the Urlar Burn, the lower reaches of which come within the designated area.

7.11 Scottish Natural Heritage also made three recommendations in relation to the Calliachar proposal:

In relation to short distance views, turbines 26 and 27 should be removed, to mitigate the high visual impact upon Glen Quaich;

The overall height of the turbines should be reduced, to lessen their dominance in short distance views; and,

Transformers should be housed within the turbine stems, as separate housing would be highly visible in views from Glen Quaich.

7.12 At that time, Scottish Natural Heritage also indicated its objection to either the Griffin or the Calliachar wind farm being granted consent together with the proposed wind farm at Abercairny, on the grounds of cumulative landscape and visual impacts. Subsequently,

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 68

during the course of the inquiry, the Scottish Ministers issued their decision refusing consent for the Abercairny wind farm.

7.13 With regard to the cumulative landscape and visual impacts of the Griffin and Calliachar wind farms, Scottish Natural Heritage confirmed that it did not object to consent for both proposals being granted. It also confirmed that it did not object to either proposal on the basis of their cumulative impacts in conjunction with the proposed upgrade of the Beauly-Denny power line. In the case of the Calliachar wind farm, this was subject to suitably worded conditions being imposed to minimise the landscape and visual impacts. Scottish Natural Heritage was satisfied that this would be achieved by the conditions suggested by the council.

7.14 In earlier letters addressed to the Scottish Executive’s energy consents unit in relation to the Calliachar wind farm (dated 26 July 2004, 11 May 2005 and 5 October 2005), Scottish Natural Heritage had set out in detail its consideration of the impact of the proposal on Annex 1 bird species, European protected species and Schedule 5 species interests. In relation to hen harriers, the advice at that time was that either the removal of turbines 16 to 27 would be required, or further surveys and collision risk analysis would require to be undertaken.

7.15 The results of the otter survey in the environmental statement had confirmed that the site is heavily used, although no breeding holts or resting places were found, and that construction works are likely to lead to disturbance to otters. Scottish Natural Heritage stated that a licence would be required for any work that would disturb otters, or destroy or disturb their shelters or breeding places. In relation to the tests which are applied for the issuing of licences, Scottish Natural Heritage advised that the impact of the proposed development on otters is unlikely to have a significant effect on the conservation status of the species.

7.16 In terms of landscape and visual impact, it confirmed that a renewable energy development of this type would be acceptable in principle in this location. Scottish Natural Heritage considered that turbines 26 and 27 appeared to sit apart from the rest of the wind farm, and to increase its impact in areas of high sensitivity. Although the proposal would have a significant effect on the characteristics of the Highland Summits and Plateaux landscape character type within the ‘Braan-Quaich-Tay’ unit, it would not be adversely affected overall, including in conjunction with the Griffin wind farm.

7.17 In his evidence to the inquiry, Scottish Natural Heritage’s representative explained that, within its published locational guidance for wind farms, both sites lie within areas of medium natural heritage sensitivity where there is often scope to accommodate developments of an appropriate scale, siting and design.

7.18 He confirmed that the proposed conditions had satisfied Scottish Natural Heritage that any potential impacts on the avifauna have been minimised to an acceptable level and that the proposal would comply with the terms of the EU Birds Directive. Scottish Natural Heritage’s conclusion was that, subject to the imposition of the suggested conditions, the impacts of these proposed wind farms would not warrant withholding consent.

7.19 In relation to the Griffin wind farm, no collision risk would be posed to overflying pink footed geese; the proposed condition to avoid disturbance to black throated divers was

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 69

satisfactory; and the proposed protocol for the operational period was good practice, which should be informed by ongoing monitoring.

7.20 The Calliachar wind farm had been used as a prototype by Scottish Natural Heritage staff in preparing its guidance on ‘Assessing significance of impacts from onshore wind farms on birds outwith designated areas’ and the accompanying policy, which were both published in July 2006. [Documents SNH4 and SNH5] He stated that Scottish Natural Heritage was now satisfied with the proposed conditions in relation to the marking of guy wires on anemometer masts; the appointment of an ecological clerk of works; post construction monitoring; mitigating disturbance to divers; the protocol for the operational period; and the proposed habitat management plan which would provide positive enhancement for black grouse, hen harriers and other Annex 1 species in the wider countryside, in accordance with the EU Birds Directive.

7.21 With regard to the proposed condition on turbine shutdown, Scottish Natural Heritage had remained highly precautionary about the potential presence of hen harriers nesting in the Turrerich and Glenfender Burns. Turbines 21, 25, 26 and 27 are closest, and the suggested periods of shutdown would cover the period when breeding is most likely to commence and, if it does, the period when hen harriers are likely to be present. Due to the paucity of studies, a turbine avoidance rate by hen harriers of 95% is still used to ensure that the worst case scenario is covered. The majority of foraging flights are within two metres of the ground, and the highest risk area is up to 500 metres from the nest where the majority of adult display and juvenile practice flights occur. Elsewhere hen harriers have nested successfully within 300 metres of turbines, so it is highly precautionary to require turbines to be shut down until 1st September within a 500 metres buffer if nesting takes place.

7.22 The purpose of this condition is to reduce levels of disturbance and to lower any potential collision risk further by the imposition of turbine shutdown. This is consistent with the framework of existing guidance which states that Scottish Natural Heritage will not normally object to a wind farm proposal on account of purely local or site level impacts. Here, any impacts can be reasonably and efficaciously mitigated and reduced to an acceptable level; there is unlikely to be any significant impact on the population of hen harriers at the regional level; and none of these birds can be shown to be coming from, or are in any way linked to, a designated site. The site lies within Natural Heritage Zone 15, and the favourable conservation status of hen harriers within this zone would be maintained.

7.23 In answer to questions, he confirmed that red throated divers have been nesting for years within 200 metres of three turbines on an Orkney wind farm. Here, monitoring would be based on existing models. It was very unlikely that monitoring would reveal significant adverse impacts, but the ecological clerk of works would be alert to the responsibilities under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act.

7.24 He was satisfied that both proposals had been fully assessed in relation to the requirements of the Birds Directive, and that the responsibilities under the EU Directives have been met. There was unlikely to be a significant impact on any Annex 1 species.

7.25 Scottish Natural Heritage also submitted a supplementary statement to the inquiry. This confirmed that it had also considered the cumulative effects on flora, fauna, ecological and ornithological interests of both the Griffin and the Calliachar proposals. In relation to the potential cumulative landscape and visual impacts, Scottish Natural Heritage did not

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 70

object to the proposed wind farms, subject to a mechanism being put in place to ensure that the relevant characteristics of the wind farms would be broadly compatible. The key characteristics include the design and proportion of turbine towers and nacelles, blade lengths, colour, rotational speeds, cut-in and cut-out speeds, and direction. It was understood that both applicants are in broad agreement on this, and that it need not restrict significantly the choice of turbine.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 71

8. SUMMARY OF THE CASES OF OTHER THIRD PARTIES

8.1 A number of individuals also gave oral evidence to the inquiry, either in support of or in opposition to the proposed developments.

8.2 Vaughan Hammond spoke in support of the Griffin wind farm proposal. He is a professional forester employed by Tilhill Forestry Ltd, the company responsible for managing the Griffin, Ballinloan and Scotston forests. He confirmed that the proposed removal of timber would represent one sixth of the annual timber growth in the area of woodland between Aberfeldy and Trochry. The carbon saving of the wind farm is a true saving against the equivalent energy generation by fossil fuels. He confirmed that the trees within the site would normally grow to between 25 and 28 metres in height before felling. He also confirmed that in his experience, mulching of teenage and pre-commercial crops has led to rapid re-colonisation of native vegetation, including almost immediate heather regeneration. Here, the site conditions are even more conducive.

8.3 While preparation of a forest plan is appropriate for the normal felling proposals of an individual owner, the holistic land management plan proposed here provides the opportunity for significant enhancement of the conservation value of the forests at an earlier stage than awaiting normal crop rotation. The proposed provision of additional roading would provide additional opportunities for cycling within the forest. The Griffin site is appropriate for a wind farm, as it meets the criteria of: having no significant conservation value; having ready access to the national grid; and not causing significant damage to amenities.

8.4 Mark Ruskell MSP also supported the Griffin proposal. He argued that there is a need now for a large amount of renewable energy generation capacity to come on-stream, to form part of a low carbon energy mix and enable Europe to play its part in cutting carbon emissions. Onshore wind farms are proven technology, and can be replaced in future if more efficient ways of generating renewable energy are secured. Scotland has the wind resource, and can set a good example.

8.5 The council’s strategy for the location of wind farms in Perth and Kinross is largely a good one. The Griffin site is in a preferred area of search. He agrees with that. It is within a plateau of commercial forestry which would have been described previously as industrial. Focusing high quality developments on suitable areas enables inappropriate developments to be steered away from unsuitable areas. It may well be that the cumulative impact with the Calliachar wind farm would be too great. In his opinion, the Griffin site is better and more productive.

8.6 No wind farm is devoid of environmental impact, but a balance must be struck between the wider environmental benefits and the local impact on an area’s landscape value. There is no evidence to indicate that an individual wind farm in a good location has an impact on amenity and tourism. The development of access through the Griffin forest would make it even more attractive for mountain bikers and other users. This is a good scheme in the right place.

8.7 Murdo Fraser MSP gave evidence in opposition to both proposals, focusing on their impact on the local tourist industry and the impact of construction traffic on the local area. Tourism is essential to the economy of Perthshire, as it provides 15% of the employment.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 72

VisitScotland has estimated that 79% of UK visitors to Perthshire intend to return. This is not surprising given the quality of the scenery. Many of its visitor attractions, such as the Hermitage and Dunkeld Cathedral, are in the vicinity of these sites. Tourism here would be adversely affected by the erection of these large wind farms in an area of unspoilt scenery. A VisitScotland survey found that 28% of visitors agreed that they would tend to avoid an area of countryside if they knew there was a wind farm there. If these proposals had that effect here, the impact on the local tourist industry would be catastrophic.

8.8 These wind farms are proposed in some of Scotland’s most outstanding scenery. Griffin is only 22 kilometres from Schiehallion; and its turbines would be in the direct line of sight towards Schiehallion from Birnam Hill, which is a popular tourist spot. Both wind farms would be seen by those emerging from the Sma’ Glen on the A822, while beyond, there would be views of the Griffin wind farm for the next 12 kilometres. Those using the road through Glen Quaich alongside Loch Freuchie would have the Calliachar wind farm as a backdrop to this beautiful expanse of water.

8.9 Of 783 letters of comment received by Perth and Kinross Council by October 2005 on the Calliachar proposal, only one was in support; while only 13 of the 1060 letters in relation to the Griffin wind farm were in support of that proposal. This confirms the findings of the VisitScotland survey which has shown that the appearance of wind farms is regarded as an eyesore which has a negative effect on tourism.

8.10 With regard to the impact of construction traffic, he acknowledged that the A822 would be improved by the proposed works and the provision of passing places, but the additional traffic would add to congestion on the A9 trunk road, which has a chilling record of accidents and fatalities. There would be 54,500 additional vehicle journeys to and from the Griffin site over an 18 month period, including 476 abnormal loads. The Calliachar development would involve over 24,000 vehicles entering and leaving the site, with 81 abnormal loads of over 41 metres length.

8.11 Almost all these journeys would involve use of the A9 between Perth and its junction with the A822 at Dunkeld. They would lead to more congestion, delays and frustration, with the increased likelihood of drivers making risky overtaking manoeuvres. On return, the vehicles would have to turn right from the A822 onto the A9, at a junction where car drivers may already wait for 15 minutes to cross. Heavy goods vehicles require longer gaps and, with no central reservation, longer queues on the A822 are likely, causing further delay and disruption to tourists.

8.12 Margaret Beaumont spoke against both proposals. She manages the Foulford Inn, which is a hotel, bar and restaurant, together with a nine hole golf course. It is situated on the A822 to the south of the Sma’ Glen. She stated that she had yet to meet any tourist who thought that there was anywhere in Highland Perthshire which would be suitable for a wind farm. Perthshire prides itself on the beauty and variety of its landscapes, while the greatest asset of Scotland’s tourist industry is its unspoilt landscape. This is constantly reflected in the results of tourist attitude surveys, which reveal that the landscape is the most important aspect of tourists’ holidays, and the main factor in persuading them to return.

8.13 In Perthshire, 14% are employed in tourism, and it is even more important in this part, where there are few alternative employment opportunities. Rural economies are notoriously fragile, and the tourism industry notoriously aggressive. It would be extremely

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 73

short-sighted and cavalier to damage forever our unique countryside, which has a special place in the hearts of our visitors, and brings them back year after year. Progress in tackling global warming is required, but other approaches can be adopted effectively.

8.14 The Griffin proposal is huge, and would be seen at various points along the A822/A826, which is one of only 12 national tourist routes. They were chosen to lead visitors through Scotland’s most attractive areas. Road disruption along this route during construction would colour tourists’ perception of the area. It would ruin the peace and quiet of the rural experience, which is what visitors seek, influencing them to choose another destination and, possibly, never return. A survey for VisitScotland, undertaken when wind farms were smaller, found that 26% of visitors said that they would be less likely to return to an area where a wind farm had been built.

8.15 The proposal to erect a wind farm at Calliachar is absolutely preposterous. She encourages as many of her visitors as possible to take the road through Glen Quaich and over the top to Kenmore, in order to experience the very essence of Highland Perthshire: its remoteness, tranquillity, wildness, wildlife, naturalness and nature – which is accessible to all who use the road, including the elderly, frail and disabled. A commercial wind farm development in Glen Quaich would be nothing short of criminal, transforming the whole area, with no benefit to local people whose livelihoods depend on their rural environment. The unique landscape would be ruined forever. It is the epitome of rural Highland Perthshire, and it should be conserved and managed with care and pride for future generations and the obvious good of Scotland as a whole.

8.16 Adrian Grant also spoke in opposition to both proposals. He referred to his research into the history of Glen Quaich which, when published, he considered would be of great interest to members of numerous clans, making the glen a ‘must see’ destination for them. He feared that this potential would be lost if the development of the wind farms went ahead, blighting the area’s largely unspoilt state. He acknowledged the need to tackle climate change, and the role of wind power. However, given the potential visual impact of these proposals on residents and visitors over a wide area, he recommended that they be rejected at this time, pending the institution of a proper national plan for wind farm development in Scotland, within which developers could compete fairly, consistent with the public good.

8.17 Derek Birkett stated that he had worked as an electrical engineer in the electricity supply industry prior to his retirement, and that he objected to the Griffin proposal. The claim of a 30% to 35% capacity factor for this and other wind farms is not borne out by available data. It is dependent on the capricious nature of the wind resource. There is an absence of historical data, while commercial confidentiality and inconsistencies have affected published data. Records from E-on Netz indicate a capacity factor of around 20%. Figures for Scottish wind farms published by Ofgem indicate an average capacity factor of around 25%, with a figure for 2004 of 34% appearing abnormal. An average capacity factor for Northern Ireland of 36% between 1998 and 2004 contrasts with about 20% for west Denmark, which has a similar wind regime.

8.18 While figures for Scotland published by the Department of Trade and Industry would support an average capacity factor of between 30% and 35%, this reduces for wind farms further to the east and inland. As such, the Griffin site might expect a factor of 25% to 30%. This would reduce the displacement of coal based electricity generation, and therefore of the contribution to carbon emissions; and would also affect the proportion of conventional

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 74

standby plant having to run inefficiently for any given scale of installed wind resource. In practice, the displacement is undertaken on a cost basis, and may involve displacement of pumped storage hydro-electricity rather than coal based generation.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 75

9. CONSULTATIONS AND WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 In addition to the organisations and individuals who gave oral evidence at the inquiry, a large number of others made written representations either following the submission of the applications or prior to the start of the inquiry. Of these, many submitted representations in relation both to the original and to the amended schemes.

9.2 In relation to the Griffin proposal, the following consultation responses were received in relation to the environmental statement:

BT did not object, as the wind farm should not cause interference to current and planned radio networks.

Historic Scotland did not object. It had originally raised its concerns about the adverse impact on the setting of certain scheduled ancient monuments, particularly the deserted village at Salachill.

The Health and Safety Executive did not object. The Crown Estate confirmed that its interests were not affected, and that it had no

comment to make. The Ministry of Defence, the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic

Services Ltd did not object. Consultants acting for the Scottish Executive’s trunk road network management

division advised that the percentage increase in traffic is such the proposed development is likely to represent a minimal environmental impact on the trunk road network.

The Royal Fine Arts Commission for Scotland (now Architecture and Design Scotland) did not object. It criticised the absence of clear design objectives and of a strategy to deliver them, rather than the approach adopted of incremental changes to avoid environmental and technical constraints.

The Association of Salmon Fisheries Boards did not object, but raised concerns about the impact of construction.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency did not object, but raised concerns regarding information on hydrology which required to be addressed. In related correspondence it stated that it accepted that where ground water abstraction occurs two kilometres from the wind farm, it is unlikely that any adverse impact would result from the construction and operation; and that this common sense approach is a sufficiently robust assessment of the risks involved.

The Perth and Kinross Countryside Trust referred to its investment in improving access to the site and the impact of the original proposals on the cycle routes, and suggested the removal of some turbines and other improvements to benefit recreational use.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds agreed that there would be no significant impact on priority bird populations, but that the impact on hen harriers and black grouse merited further consideration. The details of habitat enhancement should form part of a Section 75 agreement.

The Perthshire Tourist Board (now VisitScotland) expressed concerns that there would be a negative impact on tourism locally, due to the scale of the proposed development, its proximity to the national tourist route, and its effect on recreational users of the countryside.

The Mid Atholl, Strathtay and Grandtully Community Council considered the

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 76

development of this site as an unwelcome intrusion, and expressed concern about the effect on tourism; the impact of construction traffic on the road network; and the noise from the turbines and from maintenance.

The Dull and Weem Community Council expressed reservations about the effects on bird life and tourist numbers.

9.3 Over 1,050 letters of objection were submitted. Many objectors expressed their personal appreciation of the area’s qualities gained through their experience of living here or of visiting it on holiday. Most of the matters raised were reflected in the oral evidence given to the inquiry by the Amulree and Strathbraan Windfarm Action Group, by the council, and by individual objectors. Other issues raised included the adverse effect on traditional field sports on surrounding estates in Strathbraan, and disturbance resulting from vibration, seismic effects, electro-magnetic interference, turbulence and shadow flicker. The absence of lights on the turbines and warning markers on the rotor arms raised safety concerns. It was not understood why the visual impact of the turbines could be regarded as acceptable when some local residents have been told that installing solar panels on the roofs of their houses was not. Some objectors expressed arguments and doubts about the effectiveness of wind farms in tackling greenhouse gas emissions.

9.4 Some 38 letters in support of the proposal were submitted. These supported the principle of developing a wind farm at this location, as it is a good choice of site; considered the visual, landscape and traffic impacts to be acceptable; and recognised the benefits which would be secured in terms of the local economy and employment, improved recreational access, and the reduction in the use of fossil fuels. In a letter submitted prior to the inquiry on behalf of an adjacent landowner who is preparing a project for the development of a visitor centre and village in Glen Cochill, support was given for the Griffin wind farm as a complementary project which had addressed all the environmental and landscape issues, would benefit the local economy, contribute to the generation of green power, and which fits well with planning policy.

9.5 In a written submission to the inquiry, the John Muir Trust stated that it objected to the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal, due to the size of the turbines and the scale of the development; and to its cumulative effect in conjunction with the proposed upgrade of the Beauly-Denny transmission line. The trust owns Schiehallion, which is 22 kilometres from the Griffin site. It is an iconic mountain that is visited by many Scots and visitors. It affords an experience of wildness both on the mountain, with views to all compass points, but also when looking towards the mountain from viewpoints such as Birnam Hill.

9.6 The trust’s objection is based on the effect of the wind farm on views towards and from Schiehallion. While Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ suggests that at this distance it would appear only as a minor element in the landscape, account should be taken of the size and number of the turbines. The view from Birnam Hill would be despoiled by the protrusion of turbines, extending far above the tree canopy.

9.7 The site is close to three National Scenic Areas, and the adverse effects of the proposal would contravene the guidance in National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ that consent should only be granted where it has been demonstrated that the objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the area would not be compromised, or that any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social and economic benefits of national

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 77

importance. Given the number of other proposals which have obtained or are seeking consent, this wind farm is not needed in order to fulfil the Scottish Executive’s target for renewable energy generation by 2020.

9.8 The Forestry Commission Scotland stated that, while it did not offer an opinion on whether or not the proposed wind farm should be approved, it considered that the environmental statement had not inadequately addressed forestry issues, including the landscape impact of the proposed tree felling. In particular, it had not been accompanied by a long term forest plan, which would explain the rationale for the proposed clear felling, particularly in view of the role of forestry in tackling global warming through carbon sequestration. Such a plan would also set out the options for future management of the cleared area, and incorporate a deer management plan.

9.9 In relation to the Calliachar proposal, the following consultation responses were received:

National Air Traffic Services Ltd, the Civil Aviation Authority, Defence Estates and the Defence Communication Services Agency confirmed that they did not have any objections.

BT confirmed that the wind farm should not cause interference to current and planned radio networks.

Consultants acting for the Scottish Executive’s trunk road network management division advised that the percentage increase in traffic is such that the proposed development is likely to represent a minimal environmental impact on the trunk road network. Due to some concern regarding the use of the junction of the A822 with the A9, they recommended that the applicant liaise with the area manager to ensure minimum disruption to the trunk road network.

The Tay Salmon Fisheries Board did not object, but highlighted the need to consider soil and peat erosion during construction.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency offered no objection. The Department of Trade and Industry did not object, but highlighted the need to

comply with the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002. Historic Scotland did not object. The Perthshire Tourist Board (now VisitScotland) expressed concerns that there

would be a negative impact on the national tourist route, with a consequent adverse impact on tourism businesses in the area; and that the cumulative impact of developments in this area would be out of character with its wild and sensitive countryside.

The Health and Safety Executive confirmed that it had no comments. The Crown Estate confirmed that its interests would not be affected. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds raised its concern about the impact on

hen harriers. Given the massive decline in eastern Scotland and their conservation status in the UK, a precautionary approach should be adopted. While there was insufficient evidence to sustain a formal objection, the society considered that the site is inappropriate for a wind farm and that the application should be refused. If consent is granted, an equivalent area of habitat off-site should be created, and secured through a Section 75 agreement and a land management plan; and provision made for shutdown of certain turbines during the breeding season,

The Mid Atholl, Strathtay and Grandtully Community Council considered the development of this site as an unwelcome intrusion, and expressed concern about

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 78

the effect on tourism; the impact of construction traffic on the road network; and the noise from the turbines and from maintenance.

9.10 Over 780 letters of objection were submitted. Many objectors expressed their personal appreciation of the area gained through their experience of living here or visiting it on holiday. Most of the matters raised were reflected in the oral evidence given to the inquiry by the Amulree and Strathbraan Windfarm Action Group, by the council, and by the individual objectors. Other issues raised included disturbance resulting from vibration, seismic effects, electro-magnetic interference, turbulence and shadow flicker. The Ramblers Association Scotland suggested that wind turbines are not acceptable on open undulating moorland, and the environmental statement had confirmed that this proposal would have negative long term effects on visual amenity and landscape character. An adjacent estate raised concerns about the indirect impact on its business which would result from the adverse effect on its clients’ perceptions of the unspoilt character of the area. Another referred to possible implications for deer management on adjacent estates. Some objectors expressed arguments and doubts about the effectiveness of wind farms in tackling greenhouse gas emissions.

9.11 In two letters broadly in support of the proposal: Walking Support confirmed that the revisions to the scheme had removed its concerns that walkers using the Rob Roy Way would be affected by noise, disruption or intrusion; and one resident accepted that Perthshire should take its share of wind farm developments and stated that, if a choice is made between this and the Griffin project, expressed his support for the Calliachar proposal due to its lesser size and height, and being visible to fewer people.

9.12 In written submissions to the inquiry, the John Muir Trust stated that it did not object to the Calliachar wind farm if consent is given to this proposal only. The Forestry Commission Scotland confirmed that it had no comment on the Calliachar proposal as no significant forestry interest would be affected. The estate factor for the landowner, Culfargie Estates, referred to its record of sustainable land management and wildlife conservation, including the recovery of black grouse. Existing land uses would continue in conjunction with the wind farm. As well as generating renewable energy, it would assist the estate financially by allowing further investment in habitat management, agricultural improvements and property repair and development.

9.13 Mike Hardie, a professional Scottish Blue Badge Tourist Guide who lives in Perthshire, stated that the wind farm has been successfully blended into the surrounding landscape. The turbines would not be visible from surrounding towns and villages and would only be glimpsed briefly from the two adjacent routes. For his hill walking clients, no turbines would be visible above the skyline when viewed from Schiehallion, Ben Chonzie and Ben Vrackie, with very limited visibility from Ben Lawers. He considered that his tourism business would benefit, as the elegant turbines would be appealing, appropriately sited and would add interest to the landscape. He has received positive comments from clients on the appearance of wind farms in the landscape, and requests to visit them. This reflects a MORI poll in 2002, which found that 80% of tourist visitors would like to visit a wind farm, and 91% would not be put off visiting an area by the presence of a wind farm. He also commended to the recreational improvements proposed by the applicant.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 79

10. FINDINGS OF FACT: THE GRIFFIN APPLICATION

10.1 In relation to the Griffin proposal, I find the following facts, the test applied being the balance of probability:

General

10.2 I adopt as fact the site description and application background in relation to the Griffin proposal, as set out in Section One at paragraphs 1.1 to 1.8; and the legislative framework and planning policy context, which are set out in Section Two.

10.2 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. There is some ambiguity in the legislation as to the basis on which these two decisions should be reached.

10.3 I find that, as specified in Section 7(1) of Schedule 8 of the Electricity Act, it is only if it is first decided that consent under Section 36 is to be granted that the question arises as to whether or not the Scottish Ministers should direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted also.

10.4 In Schedule 9, the Electricity 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.

10.5 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.

10.6 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 UK government energy policy, the Scottish Ministers’ own policies on renewable energy, 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.

10.7 However, I consider the distinction to be 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, including the relevant provisions of the development plan. While it may be theoretically possible to attach different weight to the same considerations in determining

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 80

whether to direct that planning permission should be deemed to be granted, having already determined that Section 36 consent should be granted, it is not apparent why, or in what circumstances, that would be justified.

10.8 I find that there is also scope for doubt as to whether the Scottish Ministers are required 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 has been argued that it is applied by the terms of Section 57(3), that appears to refer to applying the provisions of the planning Act to a planning permission which has been deemed to be granted, rather than to the determination of whether to direct that it should be deemed to be granted. Again however, I consider this to be academic, as long as it is apparent that the decision maker has had regard to the relevant provisions of the development plan; and that the determination has been made in accordance with the plan or, if not, that there are material considerations which have justified the determination being made otherwise.

The need for, and benefits of, the proposal

10.9 The development of new wind farms gains broad support from government energy policies of both the UK and the Scottish Executive. Both seek to encourage the development of further renewable energy capacity, and expect wind energy to make a substantial contribution.

10.10 The Scottish Ministers have set as targets the generation of 18% of Scotland’s electricity demand from renewable sources by 2010, with 40% by 2020. There is an offer of a grid connection for the Griffin wind farm in April 2010 so, if the necessary consents are granted and it is constructed timeously, it would contribute to meeting both targets.

10.11 The consents already granted for other renewable energy developments in Scotland are capable of ensuring that the 2010 target would be met without the Griffin wind farm; and there is no evidence to suggest that this wind farm would be essential to enable the 2020 target to be met. However, the Scottish Ministers have confirmed that neither target is to be regarded as a cap. Accordingly, irrespective of the number and scale of other renewable energy developments elsewhere in Scotland, the additional capacity provided by this development is supported, in principle, by government policy in Scotland.

10.12 The elevated and exposed nature of the application site is likely to provide a significant wind resource. With an installed capacity of 204 megawatts, the wind farm would provide the potential to generate a significant amount of renewable energy. I accept that there are a number of uncertainties which make it difficult to estimate how much electricity would be generated by the wind farm in practice, and also the extent to which that would result in reduced carbon emissions. These uncertainties include the fickle nature of the wind regime; the unpredictable effects of turbine micro-siting; the future reliability of the turbines used; and future changes in the other sources of electricity generation which could be displaced by the renewable energy generated by the wind farm. However, I find the applicant’s working assumptions to be reasonable, including a 30% capacity factor, providing the potential for CO2 emissions to be reduced by between 456,000 and 483,000 tonnes annually, based on the current mix of electricity generating sources.

10.13 The applicant estimates that the cost of construction would be £145M, of which some £45 could be spent locally. It therefore has the potential to bring significant benefits to the

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 81

local economy in the short term, dependent on the extent to which local businesses are successful in securing contracts and local people are successful in securing employment opportunities. During the operational phase, direct employment would not be substantial, although maintenance and monitoring would be on-going, while rental payments to the landowners are likely to encourage further investment in the estate. Indirect benefits in terms of improved facilities for walkers and cyclists are unlikely to result in significant economic or employment benefits to the local area.

10.14 The applicant’s proposals to enable community ownership of one turbine, and to establish a community fund with an annual payment of £1,000 per megawatt of installed capacity, would represent significant benefits to the local economy. However, as these measures would not address any particular need or impact arising from the development, I do not consider that these benefits can be required through the imposition of a condition on a consent, or through their prior inclusion in a Section 75 agreement, although that would not prevent the applicant from honouring this commitment.

Landscape and visual effects

10.15 All but seven of the 68 turbines which are proposed would have hubs that are 77 metres high, reaching to 124 metres at maximum blade tip height. As such, the proposed wind farm would become a significant element or characteristic of the landscape in which it is set, in the same way that the existing forestry plantation is currently one of its characteristics. Inevitably, due to the number and height of the turbines and their spatial extent, the wind farm would also have a significant visual impact, which would vary with distance, the extent of screening from any particular viewpoint, and the relationship with the viewer.

10.16 The Tayside Landscape Character Assessment provides a useful aid in assessing the role and nature of the application site and its setting. It is located north of the Sma’ Glen and the Highland boundary fault, in an area known as southern Highland Perthshire. It has been assessed as forming part of a landscape character type known as “Highland Summits and Plateaux”, comprising the upland areas which separate the principal glens beyond the Highland boundary fault. The assessment provides general guidelines which indicate that tall structures (aerials, masts, wind turbines and pylons) should be discouraged because of their likely impact on the harsh undeveloped character of this landscape type; and that any proposals should be subject to rigorous landscape impact assessment.

10.17 The subsequent study commissioned for the council made a strategic assessment of the potential for accommodating wind farms in southern Highland Perthshire, and concluded that the Braan-Cochill-Tay sub-unit, which includes the Griffin site, is one of five with higher landscape potential for accommodating wind farms, although it was also found to have high visual sensitivity. It concluded that commercial wind farm development could be accommodated here, and in the adjacent sub-units containing Strathbraan and Glen Quaich.

10.18 Government advice set out in Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ recognises that due to their nature and their location in open land, wind turbines are likely to be highly visible, and it is through good siting and design that developers should ensure that the landscape and visual impacts are limited and appropriate to the location.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 82

10.19 Government policy set out in National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ is restrictive in relation to the development of wind farms in areas designated as nationally important for their landscape qualities, such as national scenic areas, national parks and natural heritage areas. The Griffin site is not subject to any of these designations, although the River Tay (Dunkeld) national scenic area lies about one kilometre from the eastern boundary of the application site. While the guideline recognises that concerns may also extend to regionally important landscapes, the Griffin site is not covered by any other landscape designation, such as an area of great landscape value or a regional park.

10.20 I find that, while the Griffin wind farm would impinge on some outward views from within three national scenic areas, which include King’s Seat on Birnam Hill, Schiehallion and other popular mountain peaks to the north, it would not compromise their integrity or the landscape or scenic qualities for which these areas were designated. This finding is supported by the views of Scottish Natural Heritage.

10.21 However, due to the number, height, scale and industrial nature of the turbines, the wind farm would have a very significant effect on the landscape of the site itself. Along with the particular landform of the site, the wind farm would appear as a dominant characteristic of the landscape. The significance of the commercial forestry plantation would reduce, partly due to the felling of substantial areas, but also due to the much greater height of the turbines, compared even to the height of the trees when mature. I find that the effect would only be mitigated to a degree by the design and layout of the wind farm, which incorporates three linear arrays of turbines, aligned parallel with the three main ridges within the site to reflect and emphasise its topography.

10.22 In the context of the wider landscape setting of southern Highland Perthshire, the wind farm’s significance would be greatly reduced. As is reflected in the landscape designations, the area is dominated by the mountains to the north and by the major straths and glens. Thus, the open but less elevated nature of the application site would result in the wind farm appearing as a much less significant feature in the wider landscape, located in what is essentially a transitional area to the north of the Highland boundary fault. It would not appear dominant in the overall area characterised as ‘Highland Summits and Plateaux’ in the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment.

10.23 The cumulative landscape impact of the Griffin wind farm would not be significantly greater in conjunction with the proposed Calliachar wind farm. Clearly, it would introduce a significant increase in the number of turbines, and in their height. The Griffin site is less elevated, but comprises ridges with a similar alignment to the Calliachar site and, following clear felling, the wind farm would also be set in upland heath flanked by commercial forestry similar to that on the west side of Glen Cochill. While each would introduce a dominant and discordant feature into its local landscape, the cumulative impact on the ‘Highland Summits and Plateaux’ character type would not be substantial overall.

10.24 Turning to the visual effects of the Griffin wind farm, these are potentially very significant due to the open and elevated nature of the application site. From within the site itself, or from other elevated vantage points nearby, the visual impact would be very significant except where forestry plantations provide local screening. This would reduce with distance, although the prominence of this wind farm would be accentuated by the number, height and spatial coverage of the turbines. From the track on the north side of

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 83

Loch Kennard, just outwith the site but within the Griffin Forest, the turbines would dominate the views across the loch. From King’s Seat, Birnam Hill, at a distance of some five kilometres the wind farm would still appear as a prominent feature in views along Strathbraan, and would be particularly intrusive in views towards Schiehallion, which tends to draw the eye due to its height, shape and relative prominence. I consider that the significance of that visual impact is substantially reduced by the context of the 360 degree panoramic views which are gained from that vantage point.

10.25 When viewed from some of the popular mountain peaks to the north, for instance from Schiehallion which is about 22 kilometres away and is much higher, the Griffin wind farm would appear a much smaller element in the landscape and, being viewed from above, would be seen against a backcloth of the land beyond and in the context of even more extensive panoramic views. While it would be a noticeable feature in certain views from these peaks, I do not consider it would appear either intrusive, or as a major element.

10.26 Despite its elevated position, the extent of the wind farm’s potential visibility is greatly reduced by the presence of the straths and glens which divide the upland areas. They carry the roads and railway, and accommodate the towns and villages and nearly all the individual houses. The valley sides would provide effective screening from many viewpoints. The Griffin wind farm would not be visible at all from Aberfeldy or Dunkeld, or from Strath Tay to the east (which carries the railway and the A9 trunk road) or from the north between Aberfeldy and Ballinluig until higher ground is reached on the opposite valley sides.

10.27 The wind farm would not be totally screened from views from Strathbraan to the south or from Glen Cochill to the west. For those travelling north on the A822, the blade tips of over 40 turbines and parts of the hubs of over 30 turbines would be visible from vehicles emerging up out of the Sma’ Glen, with fewer also visible from the vicinity of Corrymuckloch. Further east, there would be more intermittent views to the north from Strathbraan of the turbines at the southern ends of the three ridges. These would generally be viewed at around 90 degrees from the direction of travel, and at distances of about three kilometres. These views would also be subject to some screening by woodland and other vegetation. On some stretches of the road there would be no visibility at all, while at certain points the blade tips of around 40 turbines and parts of the hubs of up to 17 would visible. Where significant parts of the turbines are visible, they would appear as prominent features on the skyline to the north.

10.28 From Glen Cochill travelling south on the A826, the landform and existing forestry plantations close to the road would provide effective screening. However those travelling north on the southern section of the A826 would see an extensive array of turbines cresting the horizon in open views to the north-east, with the blade tips of some 34 turbines and the hubs of about 24 turbines at a distance of 2.8 kilometres from the nearest. Closer views would also be obtained from the vicinity of the road bridge over the Cochill Burn at a distance of about 1.5 kilometres, but topography and forestry plantations would afford greater screening of the turbines. A reduction in the height of turbine A17, as suggested by Scottish Natural Heritage, would not achieve significant mitigation of the visual impact.

10.29 Outwith the site itself, it is on this stretch of the road that the wind farm would have its greatest visual impact on people, either residents or visitors, moving about or through the area. Due to their height, number, proximity and spatial extent, the visual impact here would

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 84

be a very significant one, although dissipated somewhat by the broad and open nature of the glen and the partial screening effect of the forestry plantations.

10.30 The issue of avoiding separate housing of the transformers was recommended by Scottish Natural Heritage, in relation to those turbines which would be visible in views from Strathbraan. However, separate housing is preferable on operational grounds, and in the context of the scale and height of the proposed turbines which would be visible from Strathbraan, I do not consider that the additional visual impact would be significant. I therefore find that it would not be necessary to require the transformers to be housed within the turbine stems.

10.31 Overall, the visibility of the wind farm from houses in the area would be limited to very few. There are potentially significant effects on views from only 35 of the 1,400 houses within seven kilometres of the wind farm. Nearly all of these are in Strathbraan. In Glen Cochill, there is only one house, Scotston, and it is the closest to the wind farm at about 1.1 kilometres from the nearest turbine. However, due to the screening effect of the topography, it would potentially have visibility of the blade tips of only seven turbines, but even these would be obscured from view by the existing forestry plantation.

10.32 The hamlet of Trochry is the only settlement from which residents in some houses would experience a visual impact from the wind farm, with the closest turbine being 3.3 kilometres away. Of 13 houses in Strathbraan within three kilometres of the wind farm, all but two would have partial screening from vegetation or other buildings. Only six houses within five kilometres would have open and unrestricted views, with the closest being about 2.8 kilometres from the nearest turbines.

10.33 The wind farm would be located to the north of these houses and, given the broad nature of the strath, its east-west orientation and the key role of the River Braan, the turbines would not occupy the focal point of the views from most of the affected houses. However it is likely that residents would be fully aware of the presence of the wind farm and it would be more visible from some gardens and as people move about the area in the course of their daily lives. Some turbines would be highly visible in views up the valleys of the Tombane and Ballinloan Burns, and from properties in elevated positions on the south side of Strathbraan.

10.34 I find that, due both to the distance of separation and to the screening effects of topography and vegetation, the wind farm would not result in the visual dominance of any houses.

10.35 For people participating in recreational pursuits, the visual impact of the wind farm would also vary with their location and the nature of their activity. For those walking or cycling on routes through the site itself, or past Loch Kennard, or walking up the Ballinloan Burn past the Salachill deserted village, the turbines would be dominant visual features. For those in the nearby Craigvinean Forest, where topography allows, visibility is likely to be restricted to glimpses by the screening effect of the trees. For those engaged in sporting pursuits on nearby estates, or hillwalkers approaching from the south of Strathbraan or who have climbed King’s Seat, the wind farm is likely to be seen as a significant, but not as a dominant, feature.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 85

10.36 I now turn to the cumulative visual effects of the Griffin wind farm in conjunction with the proposed Calliachar wind farm, if it is built. Some of the turbines in the other wind farm would be seen from certain parts of each site, but at distances of at least four kilometres. For road users, both would be visible on a stretch of the A822 north of the Sma’ Glen, but the main impact would be a sequential one, with each wind farm being partially visible from different points on the A822, A826 and the road through Glen Quaich. Only two houses in Strathbraan, from which the Griffin turbines would be visible, would have even minor views of any of the Calliachar wind farm, and that would be at distances of over seven kilometres.

10.37 From King’s Seat, some of the Calliachar turbines would be visible beyond the Griffin wind farm; whereas from more westerly vantage points on the south side of Strathbraan, there would be simultaneous views but with increasing visual separation. From more distant summits, the addition of the Griffin wind farm would add significantly to the areal extent of the turbines visible, but these would remain a minor element in the views. The layout and design of the two wind farms would not in itself create visual discordance, as both follow similarly aligned ridges and the distance of separation combined with the lower elevation of the site would make the additional height of the Griffin turbines less apparent.

10.38 I find that there would be no significant cumulative landscape and visual effects of the Griffin wind farm in conjunction with the proposed upgrading of the Beauly-Denny transmission line.

10.39 The existence of significant landscape or visual effects does not automatically mean that these would not be acceptable. In the case of wind farms, the response to their presence and to their landscape and visual effects is essentially a subjective one. Although some people find them visually appealing, or a welcome indication of a positive response by society to the environmental challenges of global warming, they would constitute a generating station which is why this application for consent requires to be made under the Electricity Act. Accordingly, I find that it is appropriate to treat these landscape and visual effects as adverse or detrimental, rather than as beneficial. Again however, the existence of landscape and visual effects which are both significant and adverse would not automatically render them, or the proposed wind farm, unacceptable.

The effects on the natural heritage

10.40 The assessment of the potential effects of the Griffin wind farm on ornithology set out in the environmental statement concluded that the impact on bird species would be of low significance. This includes species protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive which have been found to be present on the site, including hen harriers, black throated divers and black grouse. That conclusion is not contradicted by the evidence led on behalf of the action group or other objectors, particularly in relation to collision risk or displacement.

10.41 Imposing the suggested condition with regard to the approval and implementation of a habitat management plan would be of significant benefit to a range of bird species breeding within or in the vicinity of the site. This would include species of birds subject to the above Act and Directive.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 86

10.42 As confirmed by Scottish Natural Heritage’s representative, granting consent for this wind farm would not be in contravention of the Scottish Ministers’ duties in relation to the EU Birds Directive.

10.43 The proposed clear felling of immature coniferous plantations is likely to lead to rapid restoration of the moorland habitat and regeneration of heather. The proposed mulching of timber on site follows good practice, and would be likely to reduce erosion of particulates. Subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures to trap sediment through the prior approval of a construction method statement, damage to burns and their fish populations is unlikely to be significant.

10.44 Surveys have confirmed that otters do use the site, although no evidence has been found of breeding holts or resting places. Scottish Natural Heritage has confirmed that, although the impact of the development is unlikely to have a significant effect on their conservation status, the construction of the proposed wind farm is likely to cause disturbance to them. Accordingly, the developer would require to obtain a licence to do so. I find that there is a reasonable prospect of such a licence being obtained, as no evidence has been brought forward which would indicate that there is an alternative means of developing the wind farm without causing disturbance to the otters which use the site; the national policy support for the development of further renewable energy capacity may be regarded as an imperative reason of over-riding public interest; and, based on the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage, the other test in relation to the impact on the conservation status of otters is also likely to be met.

Effects on the historic environment

10.45 The deserted village of Salachill is a scheduled ancient monument, located in the upper valley of the Ballinloan Burn and within the application site. The revised layout has removed the turbines which had been proposed in close proximity. Although many turbines would visible, and highly prominent, from the village, they would not intrude on its immediate setting which comprises the open agricultural landscape on either side of the gently sloping valley. I find that the proposed wind farm would not have a significant effect on the scheduled ancient monument or its setting, and I note that Historic Scotland removed its original objection following the submission of the revised layout.

10.46 I also find that the proposed wind farm would not have a significant effect on any other scheduled ancient monument; or on any conservation area, listed building or site included in the inventory of historic gardens and designed landscapes; or on any of their settings. The proposed condition to ensure archaeological monitoring of the site during construction would provide an appropriate safeguard in relation to any unidentified archaeological remains which are revealed as a result of the clear felling operations.

Noise effects

10.47 The house at Scotston is the only property where occupants may, under certain weather conditions, be adversely affected by noise from the proposed wind farm. The suggested condition agreed with the council would ensure that the noise limits required by ETSU-R-97 would be achieved, as the applicant confirmed that the specification of the turbines installed would include provision for slowing the rotation of certain turbines in certain conditions, to avoid unacceptable disturbance to any residents. There would be no

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 87

significant cumulative noise impact on the residents of Scotston if both the Calliachar and Griffin wind farms were developed.

10.48 Recreational users within and in the near vicinity of the site would be affected by noise from the turbines. This would vary with wind speed and direction, and with distance from the turbines. The impact of such noise would vary from individual to individual, and could affect the level of recreational use of the site. However the noise effects would not prevent existing recreational activities from continuing.

Effects on recreation and tourism

10.49 The effects of the wind farm on recreation would be indirect. Access to the site would be retained and additional routes for walking and cycling would be provided. There is no evidence that the presence of the wind farm would prevent any existing recreational pursuits from being carried on, either within the site or in the surrounding area.

10.50 People’s enjoyment of their recreational pursuit could be adversely affected by the sight or sound of the wind farm, and perhaps for some people even the thought of it. Potentially, this could dissuade them from undertaking that pursuit within the site or the local area. This is clearly a concern to nearby sporting estates from which the turbines would be visible, and also to those whose livelihoods depend at least to a degree on the area’s continued attractiveness for a range of recreational activities.

10.51 However, no evidence has been presented from any other area where a wind farm has been developed that would indicate that this effect is likely, or that it would lead to a reduction or displacement of recreational activity, either locally or from a wider area.

10.52 Tourism is an important element in the economy of Perth and Kinross, employing 15% of the workforce. Locally it is even more important. This was highlighted by several local witnesses, who gave clear evidence on the extent to which local businesses and individuals are wholly or partly dependant on the spending of visitors on accommodation, food and drink, activities and entertainment, and on goods and services.

10.53 There is the potential for a wind farm to affect tourism locally if it discourages visitors and tourists from coming, staying and participating in activities in the area, or from coming back to do so. However the effects of a wind farm would be indirect, and would vary depending mainly on the extent to which it is seen, and on how it is perceived. This would vary from place to place within the area; from activity to activity; and from visitor to visitor.

10.54 It is therefore less likely to affect people staying in Aberfeldy and Dunkeld, which are the main towns, than those staying in Trochry; less likely to affect those quad biking than those hill walking; less likely to affect those on Schiehallion than those on King’s Seat, Birnam Hill; and less likely to be seen as a negative feature by those who find wind farms appealing and positive than by those who find them alien and offensive.

10.55 Concerns about the impact on the local tourism industry are understandable, and are re-inforced by the findings of a survey by VisitScotland that 26% of respondents would not visit an area with an inappropriately located wind farm. However, no evidence was put to

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 88

the inquiry to demonstrate that, in practice, any wind farm has had a negative effect on tourism in its local area.

10.56 In the context of my findings above in relation to the proposed wind farm’s landscape and visual effects, its impact on natural heritage and the historic environment, and its noise effects and impact on recreation, I do not consider that it would be perceived by visitors as an inappropriately located wind farm, and therefore make them unlikely either to visit or return to the area.

10.57 The main areas of Perth and Kinross most valued for their wild, rugged and mountainous character and/or outstanding scenic qualities have been designated as National Scenic Areas and do not include this site. I consider that visitors would not be surprised to find that other upland areas with some characteristics of wildness would be used to capture the available wind resource. I therefore find that it is not inappropriate for a wind farm to be located in this transitional area between the Highland Boundary Fault to the south and the mountainous area to the north.

10.58 While I accept that the presence of a wind farm is unlikely to have a positive effect on tourism, in the absence of clear or compelling evidence, I cannot conclude that this proposal would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on tourism, as is feared by local businesses.

10.59 Visitors to this part of Scotland are already likely to have driven past wind farms visible on elevated and exposed sites, for instance from the M74, A68 or A9. While the A822/A826 route from the A9 and Crieff through the Sma’ Glen and Glen Cochill to Aberfeldy and on to Pitlochry is designated and signposted as a national tourist route, I do not consider that the limited visibility of the Griffin wind farm from that route would negate its designation or its function.

10.60 I am also satisfied that the disruptive effect of construction traffic is likely to have only a temporary and short term impact on the attractiveness of the area for recreational activities or for tourism generally.

Traffic and road safety effects

10.61 The construction of the wind farm would result in an eighteen month period during which the local community served by the A822 and A826 between the A9 trunk road and the site would be subject to very significant inconvenience and disruption. For those who live in the area, this is the only road available to them to access work, school, shops and the other elements of daily life outwith Strathbraan and Glen Cochill, and without it they would require to make very long and time-consuming detours.

10.62 Although both are two-lane ‘A’ class roads, they are relatively narrow and twisting in places, requiring approaching drivers to exercise mutual care and attention, particularly in negotiating bends and narrow bridges. The junction of the A822 with the A9 requires southbound traffic to turn right across fast moving flows. During summer particularly, constant streams of traffic in either direction provide limited opportunities for drivers emerging from the A822 to cross. Evidence from local residents indicates that minor accidents and near misses are a not infrequent occurrence on the A822, and there have been two fatalities at the A9 junction.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 89

10.63 Existing traffic levels on the A822 and A826 are low, and there is substantial capacity in technical terms to accommodate a large increase in traffic. Calculations of a 2,500% increase in heavy goods traffic were not disputed, and reflect the small number of such vehicles using the road at present and the nature of the on-site construction work which requires to be serviced, including woodland clearance, excavation, road building, concrete construction, and the installation of 77 metres high turbines and 47 metres long rotor blades, together with other buildings, plant and equipment.

10.64 Abnormal loads would add to congestion on the A9 and cause delays to other traffic when passing along the A822/A826, but would travel under police supervision. Improvements prior to construction work starting are proposed, including excavation of the carriageway under the Ladywell railway bridge to allow the passage of abnormal loads, a number of visibility and width improvements, and the provision of a number of passing bays. The agreement of adjacent landowners to the acquisition of the land necessary for the provision of these passing bays has not yet been obtained. However, neither the local roads authority in relation to the A822 and A826, nor the trunk roads authority in relation to the junction of the A822 with the A9, has objected to the proposal in relation to construction or operational traffic, either in terms of capacity nor safety. Even if constructed at the same time as the Calliachar wind farm, sufficient road capacity would be available.

10.65 In these circumstances, I do not consider that the understandable concerns of local people about the impact of construction traffic can justify the refusal of consent for the wind farm. I acknowledge the particular importance of the A822 through Strathbraan to the local community. It requires to be used for the whole range of local journeys, including those by school buses and emergency vehicles. However, part of the function of any public road is to facilitate approved developments on sites which are served by it, and it is inevitable that some disruption and delay may be caused to the local community from time to time, and sometimes over extended periods. The proposed requirement for a traffic management plan to be agreed and implemented should assist in minimising the adverse impacts. The implementation of the proposed road improvements would be of long term benefit to all users, particularly in accommodating the timber lorries and the agricultural and other large vehicles which will also require to use this route in future.

Effects on hydrology, hydrogeology and private water supplies

10.66 Detailed survey and analysis has been carried out by the applicant of the effects of the construction of the wind farm on the hydrology and hydrogeology of the area. The construction work would require to comply with separate pollution control legislation, but I find that the application of best practice embodied in the proposed construction method statement should ensure that water courses are safeguarded from pollution and soil erosion. The impact of clear felling on flooding in the Tombane Burn and River Braan would be minimal.

10.67 As properties in this area are not served by a public water supply, any potential threat to the safety and security of private water supplies would be of concern particularly where the source of that water is not known for certain. I note that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency did not object in this respect, and was satisfied that it is unlikely that any adverse impact would arise from the construction and operation of the wind farm where the ground abstraction is two kilometres away.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 90

10.68 The house at Scotston is nearer, being about one kilometre from the nearest turbine and about 350 metres from the proposed position of a building to accommodate a sub-station control room which would be beside a pylon on the existing transmission line. Its water supply is taken from a tank sunk in sloping ground on the opposite side of the A826, slightly closer to the proposed control room. In these circumstances I find that there is a theoretical possibility that the water supply might be affected or interrupted, but I also accept that the level of risk is likely to be very low due to the distance of separation and the limited extent of the construction work which is proposed.

10.69 In these circumstances, the proposed condition requiring a programme of monitoring to be carried out and, in the event of an adverse effect, the provision of an alternative water supply is necessary, and I find that it would provide appropriate, sufficient and reasonable safeguards. The construction activities would be subject to separate statutory controls.

10.70 The potential for cumulative hydrological impacts in conjunction with the Calliachar wind farm is negligible.

Other effects

10.71 I find 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 either by itself or in conjunction with the proposed Calliachar wind farm.

Assessment against the relevant provisions of the development plan:

(a) The provisions of the structure plan

10.72 The objective of Strategy 3 is to support diversification and sustain fragile communities in the Upland Area, partly by encouraging renewable energy. The proposed development would accord generally with this strategy, and would not have any significant detrimental effect on any natural or cultural resources which have been designated for their national or local importance.

10.73 The development of the proposed wind farm would be consistent with Policy SEP3, as its support for the introduction of new technologies to rural areas specifically includes renewable energy schemes. In addition, it would promote diversification and, in the context of my findings above (at paragraphs 10.49 to 10.60) in relation to its impact on the local tourism economy, it would both enhance local employment opportunities overall and help to sustain viable rural communities and services.

10.74 The proposal would not be contrary to Policy ERP1. It has been the subject of environmental impact assessment, in which regard was had to the Tayside bio-diversity action plan, and there is no evidence to suggest that the construction and operation of the wind farm would prejudice the long term diversity and sustainability of species or of natural and semi-natural habitats in Perth and Kinross.

10.75 The proposal would not be contrary to Policy ERP2. It would not have an adverse effect on any area designated as being of international or national importance for nature

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 91

conservation, and adequate protection and conservation of wildlife, habitats and other natural features would be supported.

10.76 In view of my findings in relation to the effect of the wind farm on National Scenic Areas, and as the site is not identified in the local plan as an area of local importance for its scenic qualities, I consider that the proposal would not be contrary to Policy ERP3.

10.77 The proposal would not be contrary to Policy ERP4, as the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment formed part of the basis for assessing the landscape impact of the proposal.

10.78 Based on my findings above at paragraphs 10.45 and 10.46, I consider that the area’s cultural heritage resources and their settings would be adequately protected, in accordance with Policy ERP8.

10.79 The key policy of the structure plan in relation to wind farms is Policy ERP14. Unfortunately, its wording lacks clarity, and is open to different interpretations. I consider that it indicates that support will be given, not only to the development of renewable energy schemes which are considered environmentally acceptable, but also to those where their energy contribution and the benefits in reducing pollution outweigh any significant adverse effects on local environmental quality. The reference to community based renewable energy developments is not relevant to this proposal.

10.80 It also states that proposals will be assessed against four criteria. It then lists what purport to be criteria, but while they are each relevant topics, they are not worded as criteria, i.e. as tests which a proposal should satisfy. In practice, these topics have been addressed through the environmental impact assessment process and the additional information and evidence produced at the inquiry; and they provide much of the material for assessing whether the proposal is environmentally acceptable, both in its own right, and in conjunction with any similar developments in the area.

10.81 Confusingly, while there is a requirement to assess the specific benefits that a proposal would bring to the local community, it is only the benefits in terms of energy contribution and reduction in pollution which are included in the balancing exercise to determine whether any significant adverse effects on the local environmental quality are outweighed. Further, other aspects relevant to the assessment of a wind farm are left out of the policy’s equation, such as any adverse effects on the local economy or the impact on residential amenity or the disruption to local travel journeys which would be caused by construction traffic.

10.82 With regard to the additional references in the policy, the requirement for environmental assessment has been fulfilled in this case; and, while the local plan does not provide more detailed locational guidance for wind farm developments, it does set out further policies against which each proposal requires to be assessed.

10.83 I now turn to the four “criteria” listed in Policy ERP14. In relation to the first, my findings with regard to the immediate and wider impact of the proposal on the landscape resource are set out above at paragraphs 10.15 to 10.23, and on the wildlife resource at paragraphs 10.40 to 10.44. The second criterion concerns the need to protect features and areas of natural, cultural, historical and archaeological interest, and the relevant findings are

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 92

contained within paragraphs 10.15 to 10.46. The third criterion concerns the specific benefits to the local community and/or Perth and Kinross, and the relevant findings are at paragraphs 10.13 and 10.14. The final criterion concerns the cumulative effects of similar developments on the local area, and my findings in relation to the cumulative impact of this proposal in conjunction with the proposed wind farm at Calliachar, which is the only other wind farm proposal in the local area, are set out at paragraphs 10.23, 10.36 and 10.37, 10.47, 10.64, 10.70 and 10.71.

10.84 The presence of significant adverse effects on aspects of the environment would not by itself automatically render a proposed wind farm unacceptable. Indeed, given the nature and scale of wind turbines, and their requirement to be located in a setting where they can exploit the wind resource, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances where they would not have a significant adverse effect in landscape and visual terms, at least within the development site and its immediate vicinity. A judgement has to be made as to whether these adverse effects would be unacceptable due to their severity or extent.

10.85 This is reflected in government advice in Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ that developers should seek to ensure that, through good siting and design, the landscape and visual impacts are limited and appropriate to the location; and, although its policy is based on the principle that renewable energy developments should be accommodated throughout Scotland, National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ advocates a cautious approach towards landscapes that are valued, and it refers to a range of designations in that regard.

10.86 Based on my findings at paragraphs 10.15 to 10.23, I am satisfied that, despite the significant adverse effects locally, the overall impact on the landscape would be acceptable. With regard to its visual effects, carefully siting and layout in relation to the surrounding topography and vegetation has generally secured very effective screening. I find that the critical viewpoints in judging overall acceptability are: the impact on the view from King’s Seat, Birnam Hill; visibility from the A822 along Strathbraan; and visibility from the A826 in Glen Cochill.

10.87 King’s Seat is a popular viewpoint, and the wind farm would appear as a prominent feature when looking across Strathbraan and it would intrude into the view towards Schiehallion. However, this is in the context of a panoramic 360 degree view. Along the A822, partial views of many turbines would be seen intermittently, mainly at right angles to the direction of travel. I consider that the wind farm would become a significant and prominent feature of Strathbraan, but not a dominant one. Although some would be clearly visible in views up the valleys of the Tombane and Ballinloan Burns, the turbines would be clearly located on the ridges above and would not appear to descend down into Strathbraan itself.

10.88 This also applies in relation to Trochry, where the river would remain the key feature of its setting, with some of the turbines on the horizon to the north, partly screened by topography and vegetation. For those travelling northbound on the A826, more turbines would be more visible, and at a closer distances, with the wind farm being seen as the dominant feature on the eastern side of Glen Cochill and its turbines towering over the coniferous plantations. However, the visual impact would essentially be a local one, and would not impinge on any key feature or on the wider landscape context.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 93

10.89 While it is clear from the evidence and the representations that many others would disagree, I find that none of these landscape and visual impacts, either individually or collectively, would be so severe or extensive as to render the proposed wind farm unacceptable. I note that Scottish Natural Heritage shares this conclusion.

10.90 Subject to the imposition of the suggested conditions, I find that the proposed wind farm would not have any other significant adverse environmental effects. Scottish Natural Heritage has confirmed that the proposal is not likely to have significant effects in relation to birds, habitats or species protected under the EU Birds and Habitats Directive; that, if consent is granted, the Scottish Ministers would have met their legal obligations under these Directives; that although disturbance would be caused to otters, the development is unlikely to have a significant effect on their conservation status and a licence is likely to be granted; and that the conditions suggested by the applicant and the council would provide appropriate protection and mitigation.

10.91 In these circumstances, I find that the proposed development would be supported by Policy ERP14, as it would be environmentally acceptable overall. I am also satisfied that, in the context of government support for increased renewable energy generation, although there would be significant adverse effects on local environmental quality, they would not be so severe or extensive as to outweigh the energy contribution and pollution benefits of the wind farm.

10.92 Accordingly, my overall assessment of the proposal in relation to the structure plan is that granting consent would be consistent with its provisions.

b) The local plan

10.93 Policy 3 relates specifically to landscape. This proposal would not accord with its terms as, in addition to a requirement to assess developments against the principles of the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment, it seeks proposals which conserve landscape features and sense of local identity, and which strengthen and enhance landscape character. The proposed wind farm would not conserve existing landscape features; it would change the existing sense of local identity; and it would neither strengthen nor enhance the existing landscape character.

10.94 Policies 14 and 17 relate to nature conservation, and seek to provide protection against adverse effects on species and habitats covered by EU Directives, national legislation and local designations. In the context of the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage, and my findings in relation to the effects on the natural heritage at paragraphs 10.40 to 10.44 above, I find that the proposal would not be contrary to these policies.

10.95 The key policy of the local plan is Policy 11, which relates specifically to renewable energy developments. It encourages renewable energy projects in appropriate locations and, apart from specifying a requirement for site restoration after its useful life, it sets out three criteria against which each proposal is to be assessed. I find that this proposal would satisfy each of these, for the following reasons:

I have found at paragraphs 10.40 to 10.46, that the development would not have a significant detrimental effect on any site recognised at a national, regional or local level for nature conservation interest or archaeological interest.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 94

Based on my findings above at paragraphs 10.15 to 10.23, I consider that the development would not result in an unacceptable intrusion into the landscape character of the area.

In view of my findings above at paragraphs 10.47 and 10.31 to 10.34, I consider that the development would not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers by reasons of noise emission or visual dominance. No evidence has been led to suggest that neighbouring occupiers would be adversely affected by electromagnetic disturbance or reflected light.

10.96 Drawing together these findings in relation to the local plan, despite not being in accordance with the terms of Policy 3 which relate solely to landscape issues, I find that, overall, the development would be in accordance with the local plan due to the broader support for this proposal which is provided by Policy 11.

10.97 Overall, therefore, I also find that the proposed development of the Griffin wind farm would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the development plan.

Assessment against government policy and advice

10.98 The proposal gains broad support from the national planning framework which encourages renewable energy developments to meet the target that 40% of Scotland’s electricity generation should come from renewable sources by 2020; and generally satisfies the aim of realising Scotland’s potential while safeguarding the environment.

10.99 The national policy set out in National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ is also broadly supportive, as it encourages developments throughout Scotland where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. Although wind farms in more westerly locations may achieve higher capacity factors than the 30% factor estimated here, that is not a basis for refusing consent. Consent for connection to the transmission grid has been granted for 2010, and general technical issues concerning the effectiveness of the contribution and the operational efficiency of the grid are not relevant to the consideration of individual proposals.

10.100 In terms of the environmental impacts, I find that these have been addressed satisfactorily in respect of the international and national statutory obligations to protect designated areas, species and habitats of natural heritage interest, as well as the historic environment. The guideline states that Ministers also wish to see the planning system play its part in minimising the effects on local communities. Here, the removal of some of the turbines originally proposed would has reduced significantly the potential effects on the community arising from the visibility of the wind farm from houses in Strathbraan and the disruption arising from construction traffic.

10.101 These effects could be further reduced by the removal of more turbines or a reduction in their height. However, I do not consider the effects of this proposal on the local community to be so significant as to justify refusal; nor do I find that further reductions would be necessary to secure significant mitigation for the local community, given the distance of separation of the houses from the visible turbines. A reduction in the number or height of the turbines would not secure significant mitigation of the visual impact of the wind farm when viewed from surrounding summits.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 95

10.102 I find that the applicant has fulfilled the advice in Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ that developers should seek to ensure, through good siting and design, that the landscape and visual impacts are limited and appropriate to the location. Topography and vegetation would provide very effective screening, with no visibility at all from Aberfeldy or Dunkeld; with potentially significant effects on only 35 of the 1,400 houses within seven kilometres; and with only six houses within five kilometres having open and unrestricted views, with the closest being about 2.8 kilometres from the nearest turbines.

10.103 The consultative draft of Scottish Planning Policy 6 ‘Renewable Energy’ does not indicate any significant change in the policy basis for assessing wind farm applications.

Perth and Kinross Council’s Wind Energy Policy Guidelines

10.104 Although identified within a ‘broad area of search’, the proposal for the Griffin site would not accord with the guidelines due to its proximity to the A822, A826, the Salachill scheduled ancient monument, the River Tay (Dunkeld) National Scenic Area, and the settlement of Trochry; and as it would have a number of significant landscape and visual impacts.

10.105 The terms of the guidelines, while purportedly seeking to encourage the development of wind farms, are significantly more restrictive than the provisions of the structure plan and the local plan, to an extent that would appear likely to inhibit their development. They were adopted as non-statutory guidance by the council, rather than submitted to the Scottish Ministers for approval as a formal alteration to the structure plan, on the advice of officials that this would guarantee that the policy guidelines were not amended in a way that would be unacceptable to the council.

Assessment under Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989

10.106 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 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 amended 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.

10.107 While it is the duty of the Scottish Ministers to have regard to the extent to which the applicant has complied with above duty, they themselves are 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 Griffin wind farm is not within any area designated for its qualities of scenic or natural beauty, such as a National Scenic Area, Area of Great Landscape Value, national park or green belt; and that while it would have some significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, I have been found these to be acceptable.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 96

10.108 In relation to the desirability of conserving flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features of special interest, the above findings concerning the proposed wind farm’s effects on the natural heritage have identified that it would not have any significant effect on any designated site; that, if they grant consent, the Ministers would not be in breach of their responsibilities in relation to species protected under Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive or in relation to the EU Habitats Directive; and that, subject to the imposition of the suggested conditions, the effects on the natural heritage would be acceptable.

10.109 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, and there is no evidence that any features of architectural interest would be affected.

10.110 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. The findings above indicate that, subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures to trap sediment through the prior approval of a construction method statement, damage to burns and their fish populations is unlikely to be significant; and there was no objection lodged in relation to fisheries or fish stocks by the Association of Salmon Fisheries Boards, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or Scottish Natural Heritage. I therefore find that this requirement of Schedule 9 would also be met.

Conditions

10.111 In the event that the Scottish Ministers decide to grant consent for the wind farm under Section 36 of the Electricity Act, and also decide to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted, they may specify conditions to which that planning permission is to be subject. The applicant has submitted a schedule of suggested conditions (see Appendix 1). With one exception, these have been agreed by Perth and Kinross Council, which would be the planning authority for the purposes of any further approvals specified in the conditions, and for monitoring and enforcement.

10.112 The government’s advice on planning conditions has been set out in The Scottish Office Development Department Circular No. 4/1998: 'The use of conditions in planning permissions'. In addition to general advice, it sets out six tests which each planning condition should satisfy. It should be: necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and reasonable in all other respects. I find that the suggested conditions would meet these tests.

10.113 The council has argued that the condition regarding micro-siting of turbines should be restricted to ten metres, rather than 25 metres, from the positions indicated on the submitted plan without the approval of the planning authority. I accept that some flexibility in micro-siting would be justified to take account of detailed ground conditions. This is particularly relevant where the site of a proposed turbine is currently within a coniferous plantation. Any alteration to the siting would have some effect on the landscape and visual impacts of the wind farm, but no evidence has been submitted which would indicate that this would be significant. Given the number and size of the turbines, the scale of the site and the effective screening of the area’s topography, I find that a micro-siting allowance of 25 metres would be reasonable.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 97

10.114 Section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 applies to any planning permission deemed to be granted, and requires that it should be granted subject to the condition that: “The development to which the deemed planning permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which the permission is deemed to be granted.” I therefore find that this condition should also be imposed.

Section 75 agreement

10.115 I find that it is not necessary that any decision of the Scottish Ministers to grant consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, or to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted, should be subject to the prior conclusion of an agreement between the planning authority, the applicant and the landowner under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

10.116 There is a requirement for a financial bond to be put in place prior to the development starting, in order to ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site following the de-commissioning of the wind farm. I find this requirement to be addressed through the proposed suspensive planning condition.

10.117 The decisions of the Scottish Ministers should not be dependent on securing in advance, through a legal agreement, the applicant’s stated commitment to ensuring both community ownership of at least one turbine and the establishment of a community fund. That is a matter for the applicant.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 98

11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: THE GRIFFIN APPLICATION

11.1 I will deal first with the application for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the Griffin wind farm.

11.2 Based on the evidence given to the inquiry, the environmental information contained in the original and amended environmental statements and that provided to the inquiry, the written submissions, the site inspections, and my findings of fact at Section 10 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.

11.3 With regard to the first determining issue, for the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 10.106 to 10.110, I conclude that these obligations have been met. I therefore turn to the second determining issue.

11.4 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 Perth and Kinross Structure Plan and the Highland Area Local Plan, and their relevant provisions are set out above at paragraphs 2.5 to 2.7. For the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 10.72 to 10.97, I conclude that the proposed development would be consistent with the relevant provisions of the development plan.

11.5 Relevant government policy is also a material consideration, and the key elements are summarised at paragraphs 2.8 to 2.12 above. For the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 10.98 to 10.103, I conclude that the development of this wind farm would be supported by government energy policy and consistent with national planning policy.

11.6 In relation to Perth and Kinross Council’s wind energy policy guidelines, the key provisions of which are summarised at paragraphs 2.13 to 2.18, for the reasons set out in my findings at paragraph 10.104, I conclude that the proposed Griffin wind farm would be contrary to these guidelines. However, for the reasons given at paragraph 10.105, I consider that little weight can be attached to these guidelines, particularly where, as in this case, the proposal has been found to be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the development plan and consistent with government policy.

11.7 With regard to other material considerations, my consideration of the proposal’s landscape and visual effects and its effects on natural heritage and the historic environment are set out at paragraphs 100.15 to 100.46 and have been incorporated in my assessment of the proposal in relation to the relevant provisions of the development plan. With regard to its noise effects, its effects on recreation and tourism, its traffic and road safety effects, and its effects on hydrology, hydrogeology and private water supplies, for the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 10.47 to 10.70, I conclude that none of these would justify refusal to grant consent.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 99

11.8 As confirmed at paragraph 10.71, 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.

11.9 For the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 10.9 to 10.13, 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 10.14, the applicant’s proposals to enable community ownership of at least one turbine and to establish a community fund cannot be required through the imposition of a planning condition or prior inclusion in a Section 75 agreement; and, accordingly, although it has been stated on behalf of the applicant that these commitments would be honoured, I conclude that no weight should be attached to them in determining whether or not to grant consent.

11.10 I have found no other material considerations which would indicate that consent under Section 36 should be granted, or refused.

11.11 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 the both the applicant and the Scottish Ministers have been 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 energy policy and would be consistent with national planning policy;4. That none of the effects of the proposal would justify refusal to grant consent;5. That, although no weight should be attached to the applicant’s proposal to enable community ownership of at least one turbine and to establish a community fund, the need for and benefits of the proposal are both significant, and are material considerations which support the granting of consent; 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.

11.12 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.

11.13 Accordingly, again based on the evidence given to the inquiry, the environmental information contained in the original and amended environmental statements and that provided to the inquiry, the written submissions, the site inspections, and my findings of fact at Section 10 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:

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 100

1. Whether the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the development plan; and,

2. Whether the other material considerations indicate that planning permission should be deemed to be granted, or not.

11.14 My conclusions above (at paragraphs 11.3 to 11.10) 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 energy policy and would be consistent with national planning policy;3. That 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 the applicant’s proposal to enable community ownership of at least one turbine and to establish 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.

11.15 With regard to the conditions to which any deemed planning permission should be subject, for the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 10.111 to 10.114, I conclude that the conditions set out in Appendix 1 should be imposed, together with the condition required by section 58(1) of the Act to limit the duration of the planning permission.

11.16 For the reasons given in paragraphs 10.115 to 10.117, 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.

Recommendations

11.17 My recommendations on the application by GreenPower (Griffin) Ltd for 68 wind turbines at Griffin, Ballinloan and Scotston Forest Estate are that:

1. The Scottish Ministers should grant consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989; and if they do so,

2. Under the powers of Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the Scottish Ministers should also direct that planning permission for the development shall be deemed to be granted, subject to the conditions referred to at paragraph 11.15 above.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 101

12. FINDINGS OF FACT: THE CALLIACHAR APPLICATION

12.1 In relation to the Calliachar proposal, I find the following facts, the test applied being the balance of probability:

General

12.2 I adopt as fact the site description and application background in relation to the Calliachar proposal, as set out in Section One at paragraphs 1.9 to 1.17; and the legislative framework and planning policy context, which are set out in Section Two.

12.3 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. There is some ambiguity in the legislation as to the basis on which these two decisions should be reached.

12.4 I find that, as specified in Section 7(1) of Schedule 8 of the Electricity Act, it is only if it is first decided that consent under Section 36 is to be granted that the question arises of whether or not the Scottish Ministers should direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted also.

12.5 In Schedule 9, the Electricity 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.

12.6 Schedule 9 also requires the applicant and the Ministers to avoid, so far as possible, causing injury to fisheries or to the stock of fish in any waters.

12.7 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 UK government energy policy, the Scottish Ministers’ own policies on renewable energy, 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.

12.8 However, I consider the distinction to be 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, including the relevant provisions of the development plan. While it may be

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 102

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 determined that Section 36 consent should be granted, it is not apparent why, or in what circumstances, that would be justified.

12.9 I find that there is also scope for doubt as to whether the Scottish Ministers are required 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 has been argued that it is applied by the terms of Section 57(3), that appears to refer to applying the provisions of the planning Act to a planning permission which has been deemed to be granted, rather than to the determination of whether to direct that it should be deemed to be granted. Again however, I consider this to be academic, as long as it is apparent that the decision maker has had regard to the relevant provisions of the development plan; and that the determination has been made in accordance with the plan or, if not, that there are material considerations which have justified the determination being made otherwise.

The need for, and benefits of, the proposal

12.10 The development of new wind farms gains broad support from government energy policies of both the UK and the Scottish Executive. Both seek to encourage the development of further renewable energy capacity, and expect wind energy to make a substantial contribution.

12.11 The Scottish Ministers have set as targets the generation of 18% of Scotland’s electricity demand from renewable sources by 2010, with 40% by 2020. As yet there is no offer of a grid connection for the Calliachar wind farm, although there is a possibility of a date in 2010 being offered following programmed upgrading work. If the necessary consents are granted, it is likely that this wind farm would contribute to meeting the 2020 target and, if it is constructed timeously, there is a possibility that it would contribute to meeting the 2010 target as well.

12.12 The consents already granted for other renewable energy developments in Scotland are capable of ensuring that the 2010 target would be met without the Calliachar wind farm; and there is no evidence to suggest that this wind farm would be essential to enable the 2020 target to be met. However, the Scottish Ministers have confirmed that neither target is to be regarded as a cap. Accordingly, irrespective of the number and scale of other renewable energy developments elsewhere in Scotland, the additional capacity provided by this development is supported, in principle, by government policy in Scotland.

12.13 The elevated and exposed nature of the application site is likely to provide a significant wind resource. With an installed capacity of 62.1 megawatts, the wind farm would provide the potential to generate a significant amount of renewable energy. I accept that there are a number of uncertainties which make it difficult to estimate how much electricity would be generated by the wind farm in practice, and also the extent to which that would result in reduced carbon emissions. These uncertainties include the fickle nature of the wind regime; the unpredictable effects of turbine micro-siting; the future reliability of the turbines used; and future changes in the other sources of electricity generation which could be displaced by the renewable energy generated by the wind farm. In this context, I have found no evidence to indicate that the applicant’s estimate is unreasonable, that the electricity generated would be equivalent to that sufficient to meet the needs of around

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 103

37,500 households. Based on guidance published by Scottish Natural Heritage, the applicant calculated that the total carbon savings over a 25 year period would be some 470,000 tonnes.

12.14 The construction of the wind farm has the potential to bring significant benefits to the local economy in the short term. This would be, dependent on the extent to which local businesses are successful in securing contracts and local people are successful in securing the 100 jobs which it is estimated would be generated. With only three or four permanent jobs during the operational phase, direct employment would not be substantial. Rental payments to the estate are likely to support further investment in agricultural improvement and in property repair and development. Indirect benefits in terms of improved facilities for walkers and cyclists are unlikely to result in significant economic or employment benefits to the local area.

12.15 The applicant’s proposal to establish a community trust fund with an annual payment of £1,500 per megawatt of installed capacity, would represent a significant benefit to the local economy. However, as the monies would not address any particular need or impact arising from the development, I do not consider that this benefit can be required through the imposition of a condition on a consent, or through its prior inclusion in a Section 75 agreement, although that would not prevent the applicant from implementing this proposal.

Landscape and visual effects

12.16 The 27 turbines would have a hub height of 60 metres, and a total height to blade tip of 100 metres. As such, the proposed wind farm would become a significant element or characteristic of the landscape in which it is set. Inevitably, due to the number and height of the turbines and their spatial extent, the wind farm would also have a significant visual impact, which would vary with distance, the extent of screening from any particular viewpoint, and the relationship with the viewer.

12.17 The Tayside Landscape Character Assessment provides a useful aid in assessing the role and nature of the application site and its setting. It is located north of the Sma’ Glen and the Highland boundary fault, in an area known as southern Highland Perthshire. It has been assessed as forming part of a landscape character type known as “Highland Summits and Plateaux”, comprising the upland areas which separate the principal glens beyond the Highland boundary fault. The assessment provides general guidelines which indicate that tall structures (aerials, masts, wind turbines and pylons) should be discouraged because of their likely impact on the harsh undeveloped character of this landscape type; and that any proposals should be subject to rigorous landscape impact assessment.

12.18 The subsequent study commissioned for the council made a strategic assessment of the potential for accommodating wind farms in southern Highland Perthshire, and assessed the Cochill-Quaich sub-unit, which includes the Calliachar site, as having lower landscape potential for accommodating wind farms. It was also found to have high visual sensitivity. The study concluded that the adjacent sub-units containing Strathbraan and Glen Quaich had higher landscape potential and were capable of accommodating commercial wind farms.

12.19 Government advice set out in Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ recognises that due to their nature and their location in open land, wind turbines are likely to be highly visible, and it is through good siting and design that

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 104

developers should ensure that the landscape and visual impacts are limited and appropriate to the location.

12.20 Government policy set out in National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ is restrictive in relation to the development of wind farms in areas designated as nationally important for their landscape qualities, such as national scenic areas, national parks and natural heritage areas. The Calliachar site is not subject to any of these designations. While the guideline recognises that concerns may also extend to regionally important landscapes, the Calliachar site is not covered by any other landscape designation, such as an area of great landscape value or a regional park.

12.21 I find that, while the Calliachar wind farm would impinge on some outward views from within three national scenic areas, which include King’s Seat on Birnam Hill, Schiehallion and other popular mountain peaks to the north, it would not compromise their integrity or the landscape or scenic qualities for which these areas were designated. This finding is supported by the views of Scottish Natural Heritage.

12.22 However, due to the number, height, scale and industrial nature of the turbines, the wind farm would have a very significant effect on the landscape of the site itself. Along with the particular landform of the site, the wind farm would appear as a dominant characteristic of the landscape, the abrupt height of the turbines and their vertical linear form contrasting with the low open moorland vegetation. I find that the effect would only be mitigated to a degree by the design and layout of the wind farm which, although broadly linear and relating to the ridge-line on either side of the summit of Meall Odhar, incorporates an additional array on land which falls south towards Glen Quaich, above Loch Freuchie.

12.23 In the context of the wider landscape setting of southern Highland Perthshire, the wind farm’s significance would be greatly reduced. As is reflected in the landscape designations, the area is dominated by the mountains to the north and by the major straths and glens. Thus, the open but less elevated nature of the application site would result in the wind farm appearing as a much less significant feature in the wider landscape, located in what is essentially a transitional area to the north of the Highland boundary fault. It would not appear dominant in the overall area characterised as “Highland Summits and Plateaux” in the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment.

12.24 The cumulative landscape impact of the Calliachar wind farm would not be significantly greater in conjunction with the proposed Griffin wind farm. It would increase the number of turbines by about 40%, although these would be of a lower height than the Griffin turbines. The Calliachar site is more elevated, but its ridge follows a similar alignment to the ridges within the Griffin site. The Calliachar wind farm would also be set in upland heath flanked by the commercial forestry plantations of the Moness Forest on the west side of Glen Cochill, which would appear similar to the Griffin wind farm on the east side of Glen Cochill with its three linear arrays which, following the proposed clear felling, would be set in upland heath and flanked by commercial forestry. While each wind farm would introduce a dominant and discordant feature into its local landscape, the cumulative impact on the ‘Highland Summits and Plateaux’ character type would not be substantial overall.

12.25 Turning to the visual effects of the Calliachar wind farm, these are potentially very significant due to the open and elevated nature of the application site. From within the site

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 105

itself, or from other elevated vantage points nearby, the visual impact would be very significant except where forestry plantations provide local screening. This would reduce with distance, although the prominence of this wind farm would be accentuated by the number, height and spatial coverage of the turbines.

12.26 From King’s Seat, Birnam Hill to the east, and from Schiehallion and other popular mountain summits to the north, at distances of over 18 kilometres the wind farm would be a noticeable but not a prominent feature. It would be seen in the context of the 360 degree panoramic views which are gained from these vantage points. This would reduce the significance of these visual impacts substantially. I do not consider it would appear either intrusive, or as a major element in these views.

12.27 Despite its elevated position, the extent of the wind farm’s potential visibility is greatly reduced by the presence of the straths and glens which divide the upland areas. They carry the roads and railway, and accommodate the towns and villages and nearly all the individual houses. The valley sides would provide effective screening from many viewpoints. The Calliachar wind farm would not be visible at all from Kenmore, Aberfeldy or Dunkeld, or from Strath Tay to the east (which carries the railway and the A9 trunk road) or from the north between Kenmore and Ballinluig until higher ground is reached on the opposite valley sides.

12.28 The wind farm would not be totally screened from views from Strathbraan to the south, from Glen Cochill to the east, or from Glen Quaich to the west. For those travelling north on the A822, the blade tips and some upper hubs of about ten turbines would be visible from vehicles emerging up out of the Sma’ Glen, with fewer also visible from the vicinity of Corrymuckloch.

12.29 Travelling north through Glen Cochill on the A826 beyond Scotston, again a few hubs and blade tips would be visible, although in addition to the substantial screening effect of the topography, the commercial forestry plantations close to the road would fully obscure the views along most of this stretch, with none of the turbines visible in views across Loch na Creige.

12.30 There would also be visibility of the Calliachar wind farm from the minor public road between Amulree and Kenmore, both on stretches of the road as it passes over the upland plateau above Kenmore in the vicinity of the track connecting with Aberfeldy and which forms part of the Rob Roy Way, and as it passes through Glen Quaich. From this elevated viewpoint above Kenmore, the turbines would certainly appear as an incongruous feature in views over the open moorland plateau to the east, but they would be at distances of over 3.8 kilometres. They would appear as a prominent but not a dominant element, and I find that they would not detract from the principal dramatic feature which is the panoramic view towards the array of mountain peaks to the west and north.

12.31 However, I find that the visual impact of the Calliachar wind farm on, and within, Glen Quaich, would be significant, and of a different order. About half the turbines would not be visible at all, being effectively screened by the topography of the valley sides and the elevated ridge beyond. However the southern array would appear to encroach down into the glen itself, descending from the summit of Meall Odhar into the upper reaches of the Turrerich Burn and occupying the dip in the valley slopes above Loch Freuchie.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 106

12.32 The location of these turbines in relation to Loch Freuchie would accentuate their visual impact, particularly when travelling along the public road through Glen Quaich from Amulree. The loch is one of the key features of the glen, which adds significantly to its visual attraction, and tends to draw the eye of those approaching and passing alongside it. In these circumstances, the presence of 13 of the wind turbines erected on the upper slopes of the land to the rear which forms a dip in the valley slope behind the loch, would have a very significant visual impact (see Figures 28 and 29 in Document IHB39). The entire hub and rotors of the turbines would be fully visible, with the closest being only about two kilometres from the loch. I find that the concern expressed by Scottish Natural Heritage in relation to the impact of turbines Nos. 26 and 27 extends to all the others in this group.

12.33 While I find that the topography of the valley side would provide complete screening of these turbines from other viewpoints on the road, they would appear as a prominent and dominant visual feature along a four kilometres stretch of the road which includes its whole length alongside the loch. Glen Quaich does not qualify for the protection which is afforded to areas which have been designated at national level or below for their scenic or landscape qualities. However, it does encapsulate the intrinsic characteristics of a Highland glen, with its ‘U’ shaped glaciated main valley accommodating a loch and limited cultivated farmland; with its steep sides rising to open heather moorland above; and with the traditional economic and recreational activities associated with this environment still being carried on throughout.

12.34 In this context, I find that the southern array of turbines of the proposed Calliachar wind farm would represent the intrusion of a major and uncharacteristic visual element at perhaps the most sensitive location in the glen, where the dip in the valley slopes prevents the effective screening which is provided for the rest of the wind farm. The significance of this view is reflected in many of the representations submitted by members of the public, including local residents and visitors, although I note that Scottish Natural Heritage raised no formal objection in relation to either the landscape or the visual effects of the Calliachar wind farm.

12.35 In reaching such judgements, a high degree of subjectivity is inevitable. Despite not being designated for its scenic qualities; despite the council’s strategic study recommending that Glen Quaich itself could be capable of accommodating a wind farm; and despite the lack of objection to this specific proposal from Scottish Natural Heritage, it is my assessment that, although relatively localised, a very significant visual effect would be caused by the southern array of 13 turbines which would be wholly, or almost wholly, visible across Loch Freuchie from the public road through Glen Quaich. Effective mitigation could only be achieved by their omission from the proposed development.

12.36 The issue of avoiding separate housing of the transformers was recommended by Scottish Natural Heritage, on the basis that these would be highly visible in views from Glen Quaich. However, separate housing is preferable on operational and safety grounds, and in the context of the scale and height of the proposed turbines which would be visible from Glen Quaich, I do not consider that the additional visual impact would be significant. I therefore find that it would not be necessary to require the transformers to be housed within the turbine stems.

12.37 The Calliachar wind farm would be visible from very few houses, and would not be seen from any settlement. Although the wind farm might be seen from seven houses in Glen Quaich, only two would have full views towards the turbines and, as these would be at a

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 107

distance of at least 3.5 kilometres, I find that, although there would be a significant effect, the wind farm would not result in visual dominance of these residential properties. However, due to the prominent position within the glen of the southern array of turbines, the wind farm would create a clear visible presence to the residents of Glen Quaich as they move within and through the glen. Parts of the wind farm would also be seen from houses on the southern slopes of Strathbraan, but due to the much greater distance and the partial screening provided by intervening topography, I find that the wind farm would not be a prominent feature or have significant visual impact.

12.38 For people participating in recreational pursuits, the visual impact of the wind farm would also vary with their location and the nature of their activity. For those walking or cycling on tracks on or near the site itself, or those fishing on Loch Hoil, bird watching on the slopes, or grouse shooting on the moor, the turbines would be dominant visual features. For those engaged in sporting pursuits on nearby estates, or walkers approaching on the Rob Roy Way from the south side of Glen Quaich or from Aberfeldy, the wind farm is likely to be seen as a significant, but not as a dominant, feature.

12.39 I now turn to the cumulative visual effects of the Calliachar wind farm in conjunction with the proposed Griffin wind farm, if it is built. Some of the turbines in the other wind farm would be seen from certain parts of each site, but at distances of at least four kilometres. For road users, both would be visible on a stretch of the A822 north of the Sma’ Glen, but the main impact would be a sequential one, with each wind farm being partially visible from different points on the A822 and A826 and, in the case of the Calliachar wind farm, the road through Glen Quaich. Only two houses in Strathbraan, from which the Griffin turbines would be visible, would also have any view of the Calliachar wind farm, and that would be at distances of over seven kilometres.

12.40 From King’s Seat, some of the Calliachar turbines would be visible beyond the Griffin wind farm; whereas from more westerly vantage points on the south side of Strathbraan, there would be simultaneous views but with increasing visual separation. From more distant summits, the addition of the Calliachar wind farm would add significantly to the areal extent of the turbines visible, but these would remain a minor element in the views. The layout and design of the two wind farms would not in itself create visual discordance, as both follow similarly aligned ridges and the distance of separation combined with the greater elevation of the site would make the smaller height of the Calliachar turbines less apparent.

12.41 I find that there would be no significant cumulative landscape and visual effects of the Calliachar wind farm in conjunction with the proposed upgrading of the Beauly-Denny transmission line. It would replace with fewer larger pylons the existing transmission line which passes through the site close to the western-most turbine, and through Glen Quaich along the lower flanks of its northern slopes on a similar route to the present line. The visual impact of the addition of the Calliachar wind farm would be less significant in the context of the upgraded line than in relation to the existing transmission line.

12.42 The existence of significant landscape or visual effects does not automatically mean that these would not be acceptable. In the case of wind farms, the response to their presence and to their landscape and visual effects is essentially a subjective one. Although some people find them visually appealing, or a welcome indication of a positive response by society to the environmental challenges of global warming, they would constitute a generating station which is why this application for consent requires to be made under the

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 108

Electricity Act. Accordingly, I find that it is appropriate to treat these landscape and visual effects as adverse or detrimental, rather than as beneficial. Again however, the existence of landscape and visual effects which are both significant and adverse would not automatically render them, or the proposed wind farm, unacceptable.

The effects on the natural heritage

12.43 In considering this application, specific duties are imposed on the Scottish Ministers by the EU Habitats and Birds Directives due to the potential effects on a special area of conservation and on Annex 1 protected bird species. However I find, based on the conclusions of the environmental assessment and the other evidence to the inquiry and as confirmed by Scottish Natural Heritage, that the Scottish Ministers would not be precluded from granting consent for the proposed Calliachar wind farm. The potential release of sediments and other pollutants into the Urlar Burn is not likely to have significant effects on the River Tay special area of conservation and, accordingly, an “appropriate assessment” as outlined in the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 is not required. Also as confirmed by Scottish Natural Heritage, the potential impacts on protected bird species have been minimised to an acceptable level, and would comply with the EU Birds Directive so that consent could be granted, subject to the imposition of the suggested conditions.

12.44 The construction and operation of the wind farm would introduce the potential risk for birds of disturbance, displacement and collision. These risks may be reduced or avoided by the layout and siting of the turbines, and through operational measures particularly during the breeding seasons. These have been reflected here in the revised layout and the omission of some turbines in the amended scheme, and in the suggested conditions to ensure mitigation during the construction, operational and de-commissioning stages.

12.45 The action group’s ornithological witness provided clear evidence of the potential risk to hen harriers, and to both black and red throated divers, as well as the potential effects in the event that a nearby golden eagle nest crag is re-occupied. However, the representative of Scottish Natural Heritage confirmed that it had fully assessed the impact of the wind farm on each of the Annex 1 species present; it was satisfied with the protection provided by the suggested conditions, including for black grouse; and it had concluded that there was unlikely to be a significant effect on any of the Annex 1 species in relation to their conservation status across their natural range.

12.46 As Scottish Natural Heritage is the body with specific responsibility to advise on these matters, I consider that greater weight should be attached to its conclusions. Accordingly, I find that the risks to bird species which would be posed by the wind farm are not so great as to justify consent being withheld or refused. However, I also find that the imposition of the suggested conditions would be necessary, including the requirement for the shutdown of specified turbines for certain periods in certain circumstances relating to the presence of breeding hen harriers.

12.47 Surveys have confirmed that otters do use the site, although no evidence has been found of breeding holts or resting places. Scottish Natural Heritage has confirmed that, although the impact of the development is unlikely to have a significant effect on their conservation status, the construction of the proposed wind farm is likely to cause disturbance to them. Accordingly, the developer would require to obtain a licence to do so. I find that there is a reasonable prospect of such a licence being obtained, as no evidence has been

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 109

brought forward which would indicate that there is an alternative means of developing the wind farm without causing disturbance to the otters which use the site; the national policy support for the development of further renewable energy capacity may be regarded as an imperative reason of over-riding public interest; and, based on the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage, the other test in relation to the impact on the conservation status of otters is also likely to be met.

12.48 The site does not lie in an area designated for protection in relation to its natural heritage interests. Much of it consists of upland heath. While this is a priority habitat in the Tayside biodiversity action plan, the loss of 14 hectares which would arise from the construction of the wind farm is insignificant in the context of the 223,300 hectares in Tayside as a whole. The proposed habitat management plan would result in the regeneration of upland heath in an area of cleared forestry, and this would also benefit local populations of hen harrier, short-eared owl and black grouse. The amended scheme has removed turbine locations from areas of blanket bog, and Scottish Natural Heritage has indicated that the issues relating to access tracks crossing deep peat can be addressed through the proposed construction method statement.

Effects on the historic environment

12.49 The proposed wind farm would not have a significant effect on any scheduled ancient monument, listed building, or historic garden and designed landscape, or on the setting of any of these. The potential impact on four cairns within the site would be avoided through the imposition of a condition requiring the approval of a scheme for archaeological mitigation works. Historic Scotland did not object to the proposed development.

Traffic and road safety effects

12.50 The construction of the wind farm would result in the local community served by the A822 and A826 between the A9 trunk road and the site being subject to very significant inconvenience and disruption over a period which the amended environmental statement indicates would last for about ten months. For those who live in the area, this is the only road available to them to access work, school, shops and the other elements of daily life outwith Strathbraan, Glen Cochill and Glen Quaich, and without it they would require to make very long and time-consuming detours.

12.51 Although both are two-lane ‘A’ class roads, they are relatively narrow and twisting in places, requiring approaching drivers to exercise mutual care and attention, particularly in negotiating bends and narrow bridges. The junction of the A822 with the A9 requires southbound traffic to turn right across fast moving flows. During summer particularly, constant streams of traffic in either direction provide limited opportunities for drivers emerging from the A822 to cross. Evidence from local residents indicates that minor accidents and near misses are not an infrequent occurrence on the A822, and there have been two fatalities at the A9 junction.

12.52 Existing traffic levels on the A822 and A826 are low, and there is substantial capacity in technical terms to accommodate a large increase in traffic. Construction traffic would lead to a large increase in heavy goods traffic, reflecting the small number of such vehicles using the road at present and the nature of the on-site construction work which requires to be serviced, including excavation, road building, concrete construction, and the installation of

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 110

60 metres high turbine hubs and 40 metres long rotor blades, together with other buildings, plant and equipment. Woodland clearance proposed as part of the habitat management plan would result in additional movements by timber lorries.

12.53 Abnormal loads would add to congestion on the A9 and cause delays to other traffic when passing along the A822/A826, but would travel under police supervision. Improvements prior to construction work starting are proposed, and may include excavation of the carriageway under the Ladywell railway bridge to allow the passage of abnormal loads, as well as a number of minor road improvements, and the provision of a number of passing bays. The agreement of adjacent landowners to the acquisition of the land necessary for the provision of these passing bays has not yet been obtained. However, neither the local roads authority in relation to the A822 and A826, nor the trunk roads authority in relation to the junction of the A822 with the A9, has objected to the proposal in relation to construction or operational traffic, either in terms of capacity or safety. Even if constructed at the same time as the Griffin wind farm, sufficient road capacity would be available on the A822 and A826, and at the junction of the A822 with the A9 trunk road.

12.54 In these circumstances, I do not consider that the understandable concerns of local people about the impact of construction traffic can justify the refusal of consent for the wind farm. I acknowledge the particular importance of the A822 through Strathbraan to the local community. It requires to be used for the whole range of local journeys, including those by school buses and emergency vehicles. However, part of the function of any public road is to facilitate approved developments on sites which are served by it, and it is inevitable that some disruption and delay may be caused to the local community from time to time, and sometimes over extended periods. The proposed condition requiring a traffic management scheme to be agreed should assist in minimising the adverse impacts. The implementation of the proposed road improvements would be of long term benefit to all users, particularly in accommodating the timber lorries and the agricultural and other large vehicles which will also require to use this route in future.

Effects on hydrology, hydrogeology and private water supplies

12.55 Detailed survey and analysis has been carried out by the applicant of the effects of the construction of the wind farm on the hydrology and hydrogeology of the area. The construction work would require to comply with separate pollution control legislation, but I find that the application of best practice embodied in the proposed construction method statement should ensure that water courses are safeguarded from pollution and soil erosion.

12.56 As properties in this area are not served by a public water supply, any potential threat to the safety and security of private water supplies would be of concern particularly where the source of that water is not known for certain. I note that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency did not object in this respect. I accept the conclusions of the hydrological impact assessment that the potential risks to sensitive receptors would either be low or negligible, subject to compliance with the suggested planning conditions, construction method statement, and competent implementation of the proposed environmental management plan.

12.57 No private water supplies are likely to be affected, and the construction activities would be subject to separate statutory controls. The potential for cumulative hydrological impacts in conjunction with the Griffin wind farm is negligible.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 111

Noise effects

12.58 The predicted noise levels arising from the operation of the wind farm at all properties within three kilometres are predicted to be below the levels to protect amenity which are advocated in ETSU-R-97. This embodies the approach to the control of noise from wind farms which is recommended by the Scottish Minister. I find that the suggested conditions, which conform with ETSU-R-97, would provide the necessary safeguards for local residents in relation to noise disturbance within properties.

12.59 The impact of noise on recreational users would be restricted to those engaged in activities such as walking, bird watching, fishing or shooting in close proximity to the turbines. It would vary with wind speed and direction, and with distance from the turbines. The impact of such noise would vary from individual to individual, and could affect the level of recreational use of the site. However the noise effects would not prevent existing recreational activities from continuing.

Effects on recreation and tourism

12.60 The effects of the wind farm on recreation would be indirect. Access benefits would be provided through additional facilities for walking and cycling, together with car parking off the A826 at Loch Na Creige. There is no evidence that the presence of the wind farm would prevent any existing recreational pursuits from being carried on, either within the site or in the surrounding area.

12.61 People’s enjoyment of their recreational pursuit could be adversely affected by the sight or sound of the wind farm, and perhaps for some people even the thought of it. Potentially, this could dissuade them from undertaking that pursuit within the site or the local area. This is clearly a concern to nearby sporting estates from which the turbines would be visible, and also to those whose livelihoods depend at least to a degree on the area’s continued attractiveness for a range of recreational activities.

12.62 However, no evidence has been presented from any other area where a wind farm has been developed that would indicate that this effect is likely, or that it would lead to a reduction or displacement of recreational activity, either locally or from a wider area. Walking Support confirmed that it is no longer concerned that walkers on the Rob Roy Way would be affected by noise, disturbance or intrusion, following the removal of the nearest turbines in the amended scheme. The view of the estate within whose land the Calliachar wind farm is located, is that the presence of the wind farm is not likely to discourage those who participate in grouse shooting within the site itself.

12.63 Tourism is an important element in the economy of Perth and Kinross, employing 15% of the workforce. Locally it is even more important. This was highlighted by several local witnesses, who gave clear evidence on the extent to which local businesses and individuals are wholly or partly dependant on the spending of visitors on accommodation, food and drink, activities and entertainment, and on goods and services.

12.64 There is the potential for a wind farm to affect tourism locally if it discourages visitors and tourists from coming, staying and participating in activities in the area, or from coming back to do so. However the effects of a wind farm would be indirect, and would

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 112

vary depending mainly on the extent to which it is seen, and on how it is perceived. This would vary from place to place within the area; from activity to activity; and from visitor to visitor.

12.65 The Calliachar wind farm is therefore less likely to affect people staying in Aberfeldy, Kenmore and Dunkeld, which are the main towns, than those staying in Glen Quaich; less likely to affect those quad biking than those hill walking; less likely to affect those looking out from Schiehallion or from King’s Seat, Birnam Hill than those looking across Loch Freuchie or from the Rob Roy Way as it passes to the north; and less likely to be seen as a negative feature by those who find wind farms appealing and positive than by those who find them alien and offensive.

12.66 Concerns about the impact on the local tourism industry are understandable, and are re-inforced by the findings of a survey by VisitScotland that 26% of respondents would not visit an area with an inappropriately located wind farm. However, no evidence was put to the inquiry to demonstrate that, in practice, any wind farm has had a negative effect on tourism in its local area.

12.67 In the context of my findings above in relation to the proposed wind farm’s landscape and visual effects, its impact on natural heritage and the historic environment, and its noise effects and impact on recreation, I do not consider that it would be perceived by visitors as an inappropriately located wind farm, except where it intrudes into Glen Quaich on the slopes to the north of Loch Freuchie. On that basis, I find that there is a greater possibility that the presence of the southern array of turbines visible behind and above Loch Freuchie may result in some people being unlikely either to visit or return to Glen Quaich.

12.68 This is underlined by the evidence of local people and those operating tourist businesses that they often recommend to their visitors that they take the road from Amulree through Glen Quaich and over the elevated plateau to Kenmore, as it provides them with a ‘Highland experience’ as they travel through the glen, past the loch, and rise steeply up out of the glen to cross the upland moor with its panoramic view of the mountain ranges to the north, before dropping down steeply to Kenmore and Loch Tay. For the reasons given above in relation to the wind farm’s visual effects, I consider it is the southern array of turbines above Loch Freuchie which would impinge on that experience.

12.69 Overall, however, as there is very limited tourist accommodation in Glen Quaich, and the road from Amulree to Kenmore is lightly trafficked and is not signposted as a through route, I find that the scale of this impact on the tourist economy, if it occurs, is likely to be small and localised.

12.70 The main areas of Perth and Kinross most valued for their wild, rugged and mountainous character and/or outstanding scenic qualities have been designated as National Scenic Areas and do not include this site. I consider that visitors would not be surprised to find that other upland areas with some characteristics of wildness would be used to capture the available wind resource. I therefore find that it is not inappropriate for a wind farm to be located in this transitional area between the Highland Boundary Fault to the south and the mountainous area to the north.

12.71 Despite the support for the proposed development expressed by a tourist guide, I consider that the presence of a wind farm is unlikely to have a positive effect on tourism.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 113

However, in the absence of clear or compelling evidence, I cannot conclude that this proposal would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on tourism outwith Glen Quaich, as is feared by local businesses in the wider area.

12.72 Visitors to this part of Scotland are already likely to have driven past wind farms visible on elevated and exposed sites, for instance from the M74, A68 or A9. While the A822/A826 route from the A9 and Crieff through the Sma’ Glen and Glen Cochill to Aberfeldy and on to Pitlochry is designated and signposted as a national tourist route, I do not consider that the very limited visibility of the Calliachar wind farm from that route would negate its designation or its function.

12.73 I am also satisfied that the disruptive effect of construction traffic is likely to have only a temporary and short term impact on the attractiveness of the area for recreational activities or for tourism generally.

Other effects

12.74 I find 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, either by itself or in conjunction with the proposed Griffin wind farm.

Assessment against the relevant provisions of the development plan:

(a) The provisions of the structure plan

12.75 The objective of Strategy 3 is to support diversification and sustain fragile communities in the Upland Area, partly by encouraging renewable energy. The proposed development would accord generally with this strategy, and would not have any significant detrimental effect on any natural or cultural resources which have been designated for their national or local importance.

12.76 The development of the proposed wind farm would be consistent with Policy SEP3, as its support for the introduction of new technologies to rural areas specifically includes renewable energy schemes. In addition, it would promote diversification and, in the context of my findings above in relation to its localised impact on the local tourism economy, it would both enhance local employment opportunities overall and help to sustain viable rural communities and services.

12.77 The proposal would not be contrary to Policy ERP1. It has been the subject of environmental impact assessment, in which regard was had to the Tayside bio-diversity action plan, and there is no evidence to suggest that the construction and operation of the wind farm would prejudice the long term diversity and sustainability of species or of natural and semi-natural habitats in Perth and Kinross.

12.78 The proposal would not be contrary to Policy ERP2. It would not have an adverse effect on any area designated as being of international or national importance for nature conservation, and adequate protection and conservation of wildlife, habitats and other natural features would be supported.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 114

12.79 In view of my findings in relation to the effect of the wind farm on national scenic areas, and as the site is not identified in the local plan as an area of local importance for its scenic qualities, I consider that the proposal would not be contrary to Policy ERP3.

12.80 The proposal would not be contrary to Policy ERP4, as the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment formed part of the basis for assessing the landscape impact of the proposal.

12.81 Based on my findings above at paragraph 12.49, I consider that the area’s cultural heritage resources and their settings would be adequately protected, in accordance with Policy ERP8.

12.82 The key policy of the structure plan in relation to wind farms is Policy ERP14. Unfortunately, its wording lacks clarity, and is open to different interpretations. I consider that it indicates that support will be given, not only to the development of renewable energy schemes which are considered environmentally acceptable, but also to those where their energy contribution and the benefits in reducing pollution outweigh any significant adverse effects on local environmental quality. The reference to community based renewable energy developments is not relevant to this proposal.

12.83 It also states that proposals will be assessed against four criteria. It then lists what purport to be criteria, but while they are each relevant topics, they are not worded as criteria, i.e. as tests which a proposal should satisfy. In practice, these topics have been addressed through the environmental impact assessment process and the additional information and evidence produced at the inquiry; and they provide much of the material for assessing whether the proposal is environmentally acceptable, both in its own right, and in conjunction with any similar developments in the area.

12.84 Confusingly, while there is a requirement to assess the specific benefits that a proposal would bring to the local community, it is only the benefits in terms of energy contribution and reduction in pollution which are included in the balancing exercise to determine whether any significant adverse effects on the local environmental quality are outweighed. Further, other aspects relevant to the assessment of a wind farm are left out of the policy’s equation, such as any adverse effects on the local economy or the impact on residential amenity or the disruption to local travel journeys which would be caused by construction traffic.

12.85 With regard to the additional references in the policy, the requirement for environmental assessment has been fulfilled in this case; and, while the local plan does not provide more detailed locational guidance for wind farm developments, it does set out further policies against which each proposal requires to be assessed.

12.86 I now turn to the four “criteria” listed in Policy ERP14. In relation to the first, my findings with regard to the immediate and wider impact of the proposal on the landscape resource are set out above at paragraphs 12.16 to 12.24, and on the wildlife resource at paragraphs 12.43 to 12.48. The second criterion concerns the need to protect features and areas of natural, cultural, historical and archaeological interest, and the relevant findings are contained within paragraphs 12.16 to 12.49. The third criterion concerns the specific benefits to the local community and/or Perth and Kinross, and the relevant findings are at paragraphs 12.14 and 12.15. The final criterion concerns the cumulative effects of similar

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 115

developments on the local area, and my findings in relation to the cumulative impact of this proposal in conjunction with the proposed Griffin wind farm, which is the only other wind farm proposal in the local area, are set out at paragraphs 12.24, 12.39 and 12.40, 12.53, and 12.74 above.

12.87 The presence of significant adverse effects on aspects of the environment would not by itself automatically render a proposed wind farm unacceptable. Indeed, given the nature and scale of wind turbines, and their requirement to be located in a setting where they can exploit the wind resource, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances where they would not have a significant adverse effect in landscape and visual terms, at least within the development site and its immediate vicinity. A judgement has to be made as to whether these adverse effects would be unacceptable due to their severity or extent.

12.88 This is reflected in government advice in Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ that developers should seek to ensure that, through good siting and design, the landscape and visual impacts are limited and appropriate to the location; and, although its policy is based on the principle that renewable energy developments should be accommodated throughout Scotland, National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ advocates a cautious approach towards landscapes that are valued, and it refers to a range of designations in that regard.

12.89 Based on my findings at paragraphs 12.16 to 12.24, I am satisfied that, despite the significant adverse effects locally, the overall impact on the landscape would be acceptable. With regard to its visual effects, carefully siting and layout in relation to the surrounding topography and vegetation has generally secured very effective screening. I find that the critical viewpoints in judging overall acceptability are: visibility from the A822 north of the Sma’ Glen; visibility from the A826 in Glen Cochill; and visibility from the public road between Amulree and Kenmore, both on the moorland section above Kenmore and in the vicinity of Loch Freuchie in Glen Quaich.

12.90 Travelling north on the A822 beyond the Sma’ Glen, partial views of a few turbines would be seen in the direction of travel, but these would be at a considerable distance with very substantial screening provided by the intervening topography. Similarly, for those travelling northbound on the A826 beyond Scotston, partial views of a few turbines would be visible along a short section on elevated ground to the north-west. Again, the intervening topography would provide substantial screening, and the roadside forestry plantations would obscure the view for much of this section.

12.91 From the public road between Amulree and Kenmore, the wind farm would be much more prominent. On the section crossing the moorland above Kenmore, the north-western array of 14 turbines would be visible in views to the east, and although the full height of some would be visible, these would all be at distances of over 3.8 kilometres. Here the wind farm would be viewed in the context of the panoramic views which are obtained from this section of the road towards the mountain ranges to the west and north. In these circumstances, I find that this visual impact would be acceptable.

12.92 However, the other section of the road is in Glen Quaich itself, where the visual context is the sense of enclosure provided by the glen, together with the visual focus created by the loch. For the reasons given in my findings at paragraphs 12.31 to 12.35, I find that the southern array of turbines would appear to descend down into the glen behind Loch

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 116

Freuchie, without any effective screening. I consider that this would represent an unacceptable intrusion into a scenic view of great intrinsic quality.

12.93 I accept that neither Glen Quaich nor Loch Freuchie are recognised for their scenic or visual qualities by any statutory or non-statutory plan, nor do they lie within any wider landscape designation which might afford greater protection. However, detailed assessment of each proposal is still required, and this may identify local impacts which would be unacceptable, or local features which are worthy of protection.

12.94 I note that Scottish Natural Heritage found the landscape and visual impacts to be acceptable, while it is also clear from the evidence and the representations that many others are opposed to a number of its effects. My finding is that the visual impact of the southern array of turbines on Glen Quaich and on views over Loch Freuchie in particular would be so severe that it would render the proposed wind farm visually unacceptable, and therefore environmentally unacceptable also.

12.95 Subject to the imposition of the suggested conditions, I find that the proposed wind farm would not have any other significant adverse environmental effects. Scottish Natural Heritage has confirmed that the proposal is not likely to have significant effects in relation to birds, habitats or species protected under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives; that, if consent is granted, the Scottish Ministers would have met their legal obligations under these Directives; that although disturbance would be caused to otters, the development is unlikely to have a significant effect on their conservation status and a licence is likely to be granted; and that the conditions suggested by the applicant and the council would provide appropriate protection and mitigation.

12.96 In these circumstances, I find that the proposed development would not be supported by Policy ERP14, as it would not be environmentally acceptable overall, due to the visual impact of the southern array of turbines. The policy therefore requires me to consider whether this is outweighed by the energy contribution and pollution benefits of the wind farm. The Calliachar wind farm would make a useful contribution towards meeting the Scottish Ministers’ target of generating 40% of Scotland’s electricity requirements from renewable sources by 2020, and it might also contribute to the 2010 target of 18%. However, there is no evidence to indicate that these targets would not be met without this wind farm, and accordingly I find its benefits in terms of renewable energy generation and the consequent reduction in pollution do not outweigh this significant adverse effect on local environmental quality, and therefore would be contrary to the terms of Policy ERP14.

12.97 Accordingly, for that reason, my overall assessment of the proposal in relation to the structure plan is that granting consent would not be consistent with its provisions.

b) The local plan

12.98 Policy 3 relates specifically to landscape. This proposal would not accord with its terms as, in addition to a requirement to assess developments against the principles of the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment, it seeks proposals which conserve landscape features and sense of local identity, and which strengthen and enhance landscape character. The proposed wind farm would not conserve existing landscape features; it would change the existing sense of local identity; and it would neither strengthen nor enhance the existing landscape character.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 117

12.99 Policies 14 and 17 relate to nature conservation, and seek to provide protection against adverse effects on species and habitats covered by EU Directives, national legislation and local designations. In the context of the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage, and my findings in relation to the effects on the natural heritage at paragraphs 12.43 to 10.48 above, I find that the proposal would not be contrary to these policies.

12.100 The key policy of the local plan is Policy 11, which relates specifically to renewable energy developments. It encourages renewable energy projects in appropriate locations. Based on my finding with regard to the visual impact of the southern array of turbines on Glen Quaich and on Loch Freuchie in particular, I do not consider that the proposed Calliachar wind farm is in an appropriate location.

12.101 With regard to the other elements of this policy, apart from specifying a requirement for site restoration after its useful life, it sets out three criteria against which each proposal is to be assessed. I find that this proposal would satisfy each of these, for the following reasons:

I have found at paragraphs 12.43 to 12.49, that the development would not have a significant detrimental effect on any site recognised at a national, regional or local level for nature conservation interest or archaeological interest.

Based on my findings above at paragraphs 10.16 to 10.24, I consider that the development would not result in an unacceptable intrusion into the landscape character of the area.

In view of my findings above at paragraphs 12.58 and 12.37, I consider that the development would not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers by reasons of noise emission or visual dominance. No evidence has been led to suggest that neighbouring occupiers would be adversely affected by electromagnetic disturbance or reflected light.

12.102 Drawing together these findings in relation to the local plan, I consider that the proposal is not supported, despite satisfying the requirements of Policies 14 and 17 and the additional criteria of Policy 11 as, in respect of the southern array of turbines, it does not meet the essential requirement of Policy 11 of being in an “appropriate location”. I find that much less weight should be attached to the terms of Policy 3, as it appears impossible for any wind farm to satisfy its terms.

12.103 Overall, therefore, I find that the proposed development of the Calliachar wind farm would not be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the development plan.

Assessment against government policy and advice

12.104 The proposal gains broad support from the national planning framework which encourages renewable energy developments to meet the target that 40% of Scotland’s electricity generation should come from renewable sources by 2020. It generally satisfies the aim of realising Scotland’s potential while safeguarding the environment, with the exception of the visual impact of the southern array of turbines on Glen Quaich and Loch Freuchie in particular.

12.105 The national policy set out in National Planning Policy Guideline 6: 'Renewable Energy Developments’ is also broadly supportive, as it encourages developments throughout

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 118

Scotland where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. Although wind farms in more westerly locations may achieve higher capacity factors than the 30% factor estimated here, that is not a basis for refusing consent. Consent for connection to the transmission grid might be granted for 2010, and general technical issues concerning the effectiveness of the contribution and the operational efficiency of the grid are not relevant to the consideration of individual proposals.

12.106 In terms of the environmental impacts, I find that these have been addressed satisfactorily in respect of the international and national statutory obligations to protect designated areas, species and habitats of natural heritage interest, as well as the historic environment. The guideline states that Ministers also wish to see the planning system play its part in minimising the effects on local communities. Here, visibility from residential properties would be very limited, and the removal of some of the turbines originally proposed has reduced significantly the potential effects on the community of disruption arising from construction traffic.

12.107 These effects could be further reduced by the removal of more turbines. However, I do not consider the effects of this proposal on the local community to be so significant as to justify refusal; nor do I find that further reductions would be necessary to secure significant mitigation for the local community, given the distance of separation of the houses from the visible turbines. A reduction in the number or height of the turbines would not secure significant mitigation on the visual impact of the wind farm when viewed from surrounding summits.

12.108 Planning Advice Note 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’ states that developers should seek to ensure, through good siting and design, that the landscape and visual impacts are limited and appropriate to the location. Here, topography would mostly provide very effective screening, with no visibility at all from Aberfeldy, Kenmore or Dunkeld; and with potentially significant effects on only 7 houses, all within Glen Quaich. However, as already outlined above, I find that the visual impact of the southern array of turbines on Glen Quaich and Loch Freuchie in particular is neither limited nor appropriate to the location. On that basis, I find that the proposal would not accord with this aspect of government advice. Accordingly, I also find, to that extent, that the support given by government policy to proposals where environmental impacts can be addressed satisfactorily would not apply to this proposal.

12.109 The consultative draft of Scottish Planning Policy 6 ‘Renewable Energy’ does not indicate any significant change in the policy basis for assessing wind farm applications.

Perth and Kinross Council’s Wind Energy Policy Guidelines

12.110 The site of the Calliachar wind farm appears to be identified as lying mainly within a ‘sensitive area’ in the council’s wind energy policy guidelines. The proposal for the Calliachar site would not accord with the guidelines due to its proximity to both the A822 and the A826, and as it would have a number of significant landscape and visual impacts.

12.111 The terms of the guidelines, while purportedly seeking to encourage the development of wind farms, are significantly more restrictive than the provisions of the structure plan and the local plan, to an extent that would appear likely to inhibit their development. They were adopted as non-statutory guidance by the council, rather than submitted to the Scottish

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 119

Ministers for approval as a formal alteration to the structure plan, on the advice of officials that this would guarantee that the policy guidelines were not amended in a way that would be unacceptable to the council.

Assessment under Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989

12.112 Notwithstanding my above findings in relation the visual impact of the southern array of turbines on Glen Quaich and Loch Freuchie, 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 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 amended 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.

12.113 While it is the duty of the Scottish Ministers to have regard to the extent to which the applicant has complied with above duty, they themselves are 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 Calliachar wind farm is not within any area designated for its qualities of scenic or natural beauty, such as a National Scenic Area, Area of Great Landscape Value, national park or green belt; but that it would have some significant adverse landscape and visual impacts. I have found these to be acceptable, except in relation to the visual effects of the southern array of turbines on Glen Quaich and on Loch Freuchie in particular.

12.114 In relation to the desirability of conserving flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features of special interest, the above findings concerning the proposed wind farm’s effects on the natural heritage have identified that it would not have any significant effect on any designated site; that, if they grant consent, the Ministers would not be in breach of their responsibilities in relation to species protected under Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive or in relation to the EU Habitats Directive; and that, subject to the imposition of the suggested conditions, the effects on the natural heritage would be acceptable.

12.115 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 conditions can be imposed to ensure that four cairns within the site would be protected; and there is no evidence that any features of architectural interest would be affected.

12.116 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. No objection was lodged in relation to fisheries or fish stocks by the Tay Salmon Fisheries Board, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or Scottish Natural Heritage. Subject to the imposition of the suggested conditions (Nos. 45 and 46) to require a surface and groundwater management plan and a survey and measures to protect migratory fish, damage to burns and their fish

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 120

populations is unlikely to be significant; and the potential release of sediments and other pollutants into the Urlar Burn is not likely to have significant effects on the River Tay special area of conservation. I therefore find that this requirement of Schedule 9 would be met.

Conditions

12.117 In the event that the Scottish Ministers decide to grant consent for the wind farm under Section 36 of the Electricity Act, and also decide to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted, they may specify conditions to which that planning permission is to be subject. The applicant has submitted a schedule of suggested conditions (see Appendix 2). With one exception, these have been agreed by Perth and Kinross Council, which would be the planning authority for the purposes of any further approvals specified in the conditions, and for monitoring and enforcement.

12.118 The government’s advice on planning conditions has been set out in The Scottish Office Development Department Circular No. 4/1998: 'The use of conditions in planning permissions'. In addition to general advice, it sets out six tests which each planning condition should satisfy. It should be: necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and reasonable in all other respects. I find that the suggested conditions would meet these tests.

12.119 The council has argued that the condition regarding micro-siting of turbines should be restricted to ten metres, rather than 25 metres, from the positions indicated on the submitted plan without the approval of the planning authority. I accept that some flexibility in micro-siting would be justified to take account of detailed ground conditions. Any alteration to the siting would have some effect on the landscape and visual impacts of the wind farm, but no evidence has been submitted which would indicate that this would be significant. Given the number and size of the turbines, the scale of the site and the generally effective screening of the area’s topography, I find that a micro-siting allowance of 25 metres would be reasonable.

12.120 Section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 applies to any planning permission deemed to be granted, and requires that it should be granted subject to the condition that: “The development to which the deemed planning permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which the permission is deemed to be granted.” I therefore find that this condition should also be imposed. Consequently, the reference in suggested condition No. 1 to the consent being “for a period of 12 months for site investigations and the construction of the development”, should be deleted.

Section 75 agreement

12.121 I find that it is not necessary that any decision of the Scottish Ministers to grant consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, or to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted, should be subject to the prior conclusion of an agreement between the planning authority, the applicant and the landowner under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

12.122 There is a requirement for a financial bond to be put in place prior to the development starting, in order to ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site following the de-

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 121

commissioning of the wind farm. I find this requirement to be addressed through the proposed suspensive planning condition.

12.123 The decisions of the Scottish Ministers should not be dependent on securing in advance, through a legal agreement, the applicant’s stated commitment to the establishment of a community trust fund. That is a matter for the applicant.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 122

13. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: THE CALLIACHAR APPLICATION

13.1 I will deal first with the application for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the Calliachar wind farm.

13.2 Based on the evidence given to the inquiry, the environmental information contained in the original and amended environmental statements and that provided to the inquiry, the written submissions, the site inspections, and my findings of fact at Section 12 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.

13.3 For the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 12.112 to 12.116, I conclude that these obligations have been met, albeit that I have found, in relation to the preservation of natural beauty, that the visual effects of the southern array of turbines on Glen Quaich and on Loch Freuchie in particular would not be acceptable. I therefore turn to the second determining issue.

13.4 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 Perth and Kinross Structure Plan and the Highland Area Local Plan, and their relevant provisions are set out above at paragraphs 2.5 to 2.7. For the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 12.75 to 12.103, I conclude that the proposed development would not be consistent with the relevant provisions of the development plan.

13.5 Relevant government policy is also a material consideration, and the key elements are summarised at paragraphs 2.8 to 2.12 above. For the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 12.104 to 12.109, I conclude that the development of this wind farm would be supported by government energy policy, but that it would not be fully consistent with national planning policy due to the visual effects of the southern array of turbines on Glen Quaich and on Loch Freuchie in particular.

13.6 In relation to Perth and Kinross Council’s wind energy policy guidelines, the key provisions are summarised at paragraphs 2.13 to 2.18. For the reasons set out in my findings at paragraph 12.110, I conclude that the proposed Calliachar wind farm would be contrary to these guidelines. However, for the reasons given at paragraph 12.111, I consider that little weight can be attached to these guidelines.

13.7 With regard to other material considerations, my consideration of the proposal’s landscape and visual effects and its effects on natural heritage and the historic environment are set out at paragraphs 12.16 to 12.49 have been incorporated in my assessment of the proposal in relation to the relevant provisions of the development plan. In this regard, the

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 123

only effect which I have found would be unacceptable is the significant adverse visual effect of the southern array of turbines on Glen Quaich and Loch Freuchie in particular.

13.8 With regard to its traffic and road safety effects, its effects on hydrology, hydrogeology and private water supplies, its noise effects, and its effects on recreation and tourism, for the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 12.49 to 12.73, I conclude that none of these would justify refusal to grant consent.

13.9 As confirmed at paragraph 12.74, 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.

13.10 For the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 12.10 to 12.14, the need for and benefits of the proposal are both significant, and are material considerations which would support the granting of consent. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the proposal’s significant adverse visual effects on Glen Quaich and on Loch Freuchie in particular are outweighed by the wider benefits in terms of increased renewable energy generation and reduced carbon emission, together with local economic and employment benefits which would result from the development. I conclude that they are not, as the inevitable tension between these considerations is already addressed in national planning policy, which makes clear that despite the priority given to increased renewable energy generation, support only extends to proposals which are found to be environmentally acceptable.

13.11 There are no additional benefits which arise from this development which would justify its approval. For the reasons set out at paragraph 12.15, the applicant’s proposals to establish a community trust fund cannot be required through the imposition of a planning condition or prior inclusion in a Section 75 agreement; and, accordingly, although it has been stated on behalf of the applicant that this commitment would be honoured, I conclude that no weight should be attached to it in determining whether or not to grant consent.

13.12 I have found no other material considerations which would indicate that consent under Section 36 should be granted, or refused.

13.13 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 have been met;2. That the proposed development would not be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the development plan;3. That the development would be supported by government energy policy, but that it would not be fully consistent with national planning policy;4. That the southern array of turbines would result in a significant adverse visual effect on Glen Quaich and Loch Freuchie in particular, which would be unacceptable and would justify refusing granting consent;5. That no other effects of the proposed wind farm would justify either granting, or refusing to grant, consent;6. That the need for and benefits of the proposal are significant material considerations, but do not outweigh the unacceptable visual effects which justify refusing consent;

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 124

7. That no weight should be attached to the applicant’s proposal to establish a community fund, and, 8. That there are no other material considerations which would still justify granting consent under Section 36.

13.14 The Scottish Ministers are only empowered to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted for a proposal when they have first decided to grant consent under Section 36. Accordingly, if they refuse to grant consent under Section 36, they should not consider the issues relating to the deemed planning permission.

13.15 However, in the event that the Scottish Ministers do decide to grant consent under Section 36, this should be subject to them confirming in their decision that they have taken account of the environmental information, and 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.

13.16 Accordingly, again based on the evidence given to the inquiry, the environmental information contained in the original and amended environmental statements and that provided to the inquiry, the written submissions, the site inspections, and my findings of fact at Section 12 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,

2. Whether the other material considerations indicate that planning permission should be deemed to be granted, or not.

13.17 My conclusions above (at paragraphs 13.3 to 13.12) 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 not be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the development plan;2. That the development would be supported by government energy policy, but that it would not be fully consistent with national planning policy;3. That the southern array of turbines would result in a significant adverse visual effect on Glen Quaich and on Loch Freuchie in particular, which would be unacceptable and would justify not directing that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted;4. That no other effects of the proposed wind farm would justify either directing, or refusing to direct, that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted;5. That the need for and benefits of the proposal are significant material considerations, but do not outweigh the unacceptable visual effects which justify refusing to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted; 6. That no weight should be attached to the applicant’s proposal to establish a community fund, and,

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 125

7. That there are no other material considerations which would still justify directing that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted.

13.18 In the event that the Scottish Ministers also decide to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted, they should consider the conditions to which it should be subject. For the reasons set out in my findings at paragraphs 12.117 to 12.120, I conclude that the conditions set out in Appendix 2 should be imposed, subject to the amendment indicated at paragraph 12.120, together with the condition required by Section 58(1) of the Act to limit the duration of the planning permission.

13.19 For the reasons given in paragraphs 12.121 to 12.123, I conclude that a direction by the Scottish Ministers that planning permission shall be 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.

Caveat

13.20 My recommendation that consent should be refused for the proposed Calliachar wind farm arises from my finding that the significant adverse visual effects on Glen Quaich and on Loch Freuchie in particular of the southern array of turbines would be unacceptable. That array comprises turbines Nos. 15 to 27. I have found (see paragraph 12.35) that mitigation of this effect could only be secured by the omission of these turbines from the proposed wind farm.

13.21 Such an amendment could be secured through the imposition of a condition. However, it would be for the Scottish Ministers and their legal advisers to consider whether it would be competent to impose such a condition.

13.22 Its effect would be to reduce the number of turbines from 27 to 14. No consideration was given by the applicant in evidence or submissions to the inquiry as to the acceptability of such a modified scheme. The effect would be to give consent for a reduced, rather than a different, proposal. As such, it would be unlikely to cause prejudice to the consultees or those who made representations in relation to the submitted application for 27 turbines.

13.23 The omission of these turbines would be likely to bring the wind farm below the threshold (50 megawatts) for which consent under Section 36 is required. However it may be competent to grant consent under Section 36 for the development which is the subject of the application; but, in directing that planning permission is deemed to be granted, to make that permission subject to a condition which restricts the development to turbines Nos. 1 to 14.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 126

13.24 Accordingly, in the event that this approach is found to be competent, I recommend that the Scottish Ministers grant consent for the application under Section 36 for the Calliachar wind farm, and direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted, subject to:

the conditions set out in Appendix 2 being imposed, subject to the amendment indicated at paragraph 12.120, and to the omission of suggested condition No. 25 which relates only to turbines Nos. 21, and 25 to 27;

the condition required by Section 58(1) of the Act to limit the duration of the planning permission;

and a further condition restricting the planning permission which is deemed to be granted to 14 turbines (turbines Nos. 1 to 14, as shown in Figure 3-1 ‘Revised Layout’ in Document IHB12 ‘Supplementary Information to the Environmental Statement’).

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 127

APPENDIX 1. PLANNING CONDITIONS SUGGESTED BY GREENPOWER (GRIFFIN) LTD AND PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL

Timing

1. The consent is for an operational period of 25 years from the date of commissioning of the development. Within one year of the end of the operational period, the company is required to obtain written confirmation from the Planning Authority that all decommissioning works have been completed in accordance with the approved Decommissioning and Restoration Statement referred to in Condition 49 of this consent. Written confirmation of the date of the commissioning of the development shall be provided to the Planning Authority within 1 month of the commissioning of the development. The date of commissioning of the development shall be no later than 5 years from the date of this consent. Reason: In accordance with the terms of Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. All construction activities, except any post-construction site restoration works and timber felling works, shall be completed within 36 months of the date of commencement of the development. Reason: To ensure an ordered progression of the development.

3. No section of the development hereby authorised shall be commenced until a strategy for the restoration of the site (the “Post Construction Restoration Statement”) shall be submitted by the company and approved by the Planning Authority Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

4. In the event of the windfarm not generating electricity on a commercial basis to the public network, for a continuous period of 12 months, from 50% or more turbines installed and commissioned from time to time, the Planning Authority may direct that that part of the development shall be decommissioned and the site reinstated in accordance with the restoration scheme referred to in Condition 49. This Condition will take effect following the commissioning of the development. The Planning Authority shall have due regard to the circumstances surrounding the failure to generate and shall take the decision on reinstatement following discussion with the company and such other parties as the Planning Authority consider appropriate. No later than 12 months following the expiry of the said continuous period of 12 months or within such variation of this timescale as the Planning Authority may agree in writing, the company shall decommission and restore the site in accordance with the terms of Conditions 48 and 49. Reason: To ensure the turbines are removed from the site at the end of their operational life, and to protect the character of the countryside and the visual amenity of the area

5. All temporary contractors’ site compounds shall be removed and the land reinstated in accordance with the “Post Construction Restoration Statement” as

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 128

described in Condition 3 no later than 3 months following the commissioning of the development. Reason: To ensure temporary compounds do not leave a footprint on site.

Design

6. Each turbine shall be erected in the positions indicated on Figure A2 of the Amended Environmental Statement. A variation of the indicated position of any turbine on the said Drawing A2 by up to 25 metres shall be permitted. Any variation greater than 25 metres shall require the approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with the regional archaeologist and Scottish Natural Heritage. Reason: To ensure that any micro-siting is employed so that areas of high nature conservation value are avoided and in the interests of residential amenity.

7. No work shall commence on construction of the turbine towers and all ancillary elements (including, transformers, switch gear and control building, compound and fencing) until approval has been obtained from the Planning Authority of the details including colours and external finishes of the turbines and all ancillary elements. Thereafter the whole development shall be implemented in accordance with these details as approved. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity

8. Prior to the commencement of development, the Company shall submit and the Planning Authority shall approve 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 for a TV picture loss or interference at their house, office, shop 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 Company shall remedy such impairment so that the standard of reception at the house, office, shop or other building is maintained. Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjacent residents.

9. Track running widths shall generally be no greater than 5 metres wide, except where passing places or turning is required, unless otherwise shown on approved plans or otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise disruption to habitats and the visual impact of the access tracks.

10. Reinstatement of any internal access track shall be carried out according to the Post Construction Restoration Statement referred to in Condition 3, using the materials identified in the restoration plan unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the access tracks.

11. All electricity and control cables between the turbines, substations and control buildings shall be laid underground alongside tracks which are to be constructed on the site unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise disruption to habitats.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 129

12. Prior to commencement of the development full details of the location, extent and means of working the borrow pits shall be submitted and agreed and thereafter implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Rock crushing activities will be confined to approved borrow pits. Restoration of the borrow pits will be carried out according to the Post Construction Restoration Statement referred to in Condition 3. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure the borrow pits do not leave a footprint on site.

13. All turbines shall be of a 3 bladed design and shall rotate in the same direction when generating. Each turbine shall supplied by the same manufacturer, have the same design of tower and nacelle, and be of the same colour and finish. The use of logos on turbine blades, towers or nacelles is prohibited. Reason: To ensure that the windfarm matches and thereby maintains the visual quality of the area.

14. The wind turbines shall not be illuminated externally, except as required by any regulation, including civil aviation and to comply with safe working practices and health and safety regulations during construction and any maintenance activities. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

15. Bulk oil shall not be stored on site without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To limit risk of pollutant contamination.

Method Statements

16. Prior to the commencement of the development, plans to a scale of 1:500 shall be submitted to the Planning Authority showing the location of any site compound or contractor’s laydown area or area where any fuel, oil, lubricant, paint or solvent is stored on site and required temporarily in connection with the construction of the development. No work shall commence on site until the company has obtained written approval from the Planning Authority of a Construction Method Statement which shall cover all the activities specified below. Thereafter, the Construction Method Statement as approved, by the Planning Authority, shall be implemented. The Construction Method Statement shall cover:

1 Track construction. This method statement shall assume that the company will use geo-textile floating track construction over all areas of peat where the peat depth exceeds 1 metre and “floating tracks” should be at a gradient of 1:10 or under. If tracks cannot be implemented at this gradient, full details of proposed alternative layouts and routes should be submitted to the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, for approval prior to the commencement of the track. This method statement will also address the issues of track restoration and ‘cut and fill’ heights/widths;

2 A track construction/reinstatement plan; 3 A peat and soil stripping management plan including the mineral and slope

stability of the site and outlining the storage and proposed use and replacement of peat, topsoil and subsoil. The scheme shall have regard to the drainage implications of soil movement and storage;

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 130

4 The height and location of all stockpiles of roadstone following approval by the Planning Authority of their location;

5 Oil spill contingencies, foul drainage and surface water drainage arrangements, this method statement to be approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency;

6 Concrete batching and handling; 7 A dust management plan; and 8 Water abstraction. Reason: To ensure compliance with all commitments made in the environmental statement and subsequent schemes developed following the consultation process and to ensure necessary contingencies are in place and to minimise pollution risks arising from construction activities.

Archaeology

17. Prior to the commencement of development, an independent and suitably qualified archaeologist, the Archaeological Clerk of Works, shall be appointed, at the expense of the Company, to oversee, on behalf of the Planning Authority, the construction of the wind farm and the implementation of all archaeology related planning conditions. The Archaeological Clerk of Works shall undertake a watching brief during construction and shall remain appointed throughout the construction of the development and up to the completion of the agreed programme of works under the Post-Construction Restoration Statement. Reason: In order to safeguard archaeological interests and ensure an ordered progression of development.

18. Prior to the commencement of development, an Archaeological Mitigation Plan shall have been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Archaeological Mitigation Plan. The Archaeological Mitigation Plan shall include:

proposals for the avoidance and fencing of known archaeological features; proposals for a targeted watching brief during development; and proposals for suspension of work, excavation and further analysis, recording and

publication as may be necessary where avoidance is not possible Reason: In order to safeguard archaeological interests.

19. For all tracks on Figure A2 a variation of their indicated position by up to 10 metres shall be permitted. A variation of up to 25m shall be permitted subject to approval by both the Archaeological Clerk of Works and the Ecological Clerk of Works. A variation of greater than 25 metres shall only be permitted following written approval of the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the regional archaeologist. Reason: In order to safeguard heritage interest.

Ecology

20. Prior to the commencement of development, an independent and suitably qualified ecologist, the Ecological Clerk of Works, shall be appointed, at the expense of the Company, to oversee, on behalf of the Planning Authority, the construction of the wind farm and the implementation of all ecology related planning conditions. The Ecological

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 131

Clerk of Works shall undertake a watching brief during construction and shall remain appointed throughout the construction of the development and up to the completion of the agreed programme of works under the Post-Construction Restoration Statement. Where protected species are found the Ecological Clerk of Works will ensure that work is suspended at that location until such time as the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, has agreed measures designed to safeguard the protected species and those measures have been implemented within timescales agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. Reason: In order to safeguard ecological interests and ensure an ordered progression of development.

21. Prior to any construction works, an ecologist approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage shall carry out a protected mammal species survey and based on the findings of this survey, the company shall submit a management plan for the approval of the Planning Authority. This plan shall include mitigation measures designed to safeguard protected mammals within and adjacent to the operational areas of the site. Thereafter the measures shall be implemented within timescales agreed in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. Reason: To protect wildlife species

22. Prior to any work commencing on site, details of the measures to be taken to protect breeding birds and specifically to discourage birds from breeding on those areas of the site to be worked in during that breeding season, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and such other parties as the Planning Authority consider appropriate. Thereafter the measures shall be implemented within a timescale to be determined by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect wildlife species

23. Prior to construction, diver specific surveys shall be carried out by a competent independent ecologist of Loch Creagh. In the event that breeding divers are identified or in the event that the breeding status is not confirmed: • construction of access tracks, sub-stations and winning of stone from borrow pits

shall not be permitted within 600m of the Loch during the breeding season (15 th April – 31st July inclusive);

• a protocol will be established to the approval of the Planning Authority, in consultation with SNH, restricting on-foot movement of any construction workers (and their dogs) within 600m of Loch Creagh, but noting that this restriction does not apply to vehicles. In addition, felling of forestry for the wind farm shall be no closer to Loch Creagh than as shown in Figure A4 of the Amendment Environmental Statement. No construction compound shall be permitted within 600m of Loch Creagh. Reason: To protect wildlife species

24. Prior to the commencement of the development, the company will submit an Operational Protocol for approval by the Planning Authority, in consultation with SNH and the RSPB, which will detail the procedures for access for wind farm staff for turbine, track and other infastructure maintenance and operational requirements, during the bird breeding season and in proximity to potential nesting sites for hen harrier and divers. The Operational Protocol will also address interpretation and

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 132

visitor management to encourage responsible public access during the bird breeding season. Reason: To minimize impacts upon hen harriers and divers during the operation of the wind farm

25. The company shall undertake six years of ornithological monitoring from the date of this consent: first, annually for a period of 3 years following the commissioning of the development, and second, at five yearly intervals, at 5, 10 and 15 years thereafter. An Ornithological Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. The findings of these surveys shall be collated into two reports, at three and fifteen years after the commissioning of the development, and all of the original data, and the reports, shall be made available to the Planning Authority and Scottish Natural Heritage. The findings of the first report shall be used to inform the implementation of the Land Management Plan. The findings of the second report shall be used to inform the Decommissioning and Restoration Statement. Reason: To protect wildlife species

26. Prior to the start of works affecting watercourses, the company shall arrange a survey to determine the presence of migratory fish, and the results of the survey shall be submitted to the Planning Authority. Should any watercourse, where the presence of migratory fish has been established by the said survey, be likely to be significantly adversely affected by the proposed works, then measures to avoid the adverse impacts shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and such other parties as the Planning Authority consider appropriate. Thereafter, avoidance measures as approved shall be implemented within a timescale to be approved by the Planning Authority. Notwithstanding the terms of this condition, any culvert to be constructed on the site shall be designed so as to ensure the free passage of fish, otters and water voles. In the absence of an approved scheme which specifically provides for it, no construction work or vehicular activity is to take place within 10 metres either side of a watercourse Reason: In the interests of nature conservation

27. Before the end of the operational period, an independent assessment by a suitably qualified ecologist, named and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, shall be made of habitat quality within the Land Management Plan area and any mitigation measures implemented as approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect priority habitat

Noise

28. Construction work, which is audible from the boundary of any noise sensitive receptor, shall not take place outwith the hours of 07.00 - 19.00 on Monday to Friday inclusive, 07.00 – 13.00 on Saturdays or on national public holidays unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority. Outwith these said hours, development at the site shall be limited to turbine commissioning, emergency works, dust suppression and the testing of plant and equipment, or construction work that is not audible from any noise sensitive property outwith the site. The receipt of any materials or equipment for the construction of the site, by track, other than turbine blades, nacelles and

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 133

towers, is not allowed outwith the said hours, unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority having been given a minimum of two working days notice of the occurrence of the proposed event. Reason: To minimise disturbance and protect the amenity of nearby residents.

29. At the reasonable request of the Council the operator of the development shall, at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Council to measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine generators following the procedures described in the documents attached to these conditions (called in these conditions “the guidance notes”). Reason: To minimise disturbance to residents in the vicinity of the windfarm.

30. The level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind turbine generators when measured in accordance with section A of the guidance notes shall not exceed the levels set out in the table in the Annexe to Noise Conditions. Reason: To minimise disturbance to residents in the vicinity of the windfarm.

31. At the reasonable request of the Council the operator of the development shall, at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Council to measure and assess the tonal noise of the development in accordance with the procedure described in section B of the guidance notes. If, at any property, the tonal noise from the combined effect of the wind turbines generators exceeds the threshold of audibility:-

(a) by more than 2.0dB but less than 6.5dB a penalty of ((5/6.5) x Audibility)dB shall be added to the noise level derived for that property in accordance with section A of the guidance notes. (b) by more than 6.5dB a penalty of 5dB shall be added to the noise level derived for that property in accordance with section A of the guidance notes.

Reason: To minimise disturbance to residents in the vicinity of the windfarm.

32. The wind farm operator shall log wind speed and wind direction data at a grid reference to be approved by the Council as Planning Authority to enable compliance with conditions 28 and 30 to be monitored. This wind data shall include the wind speed in metres per second (ms) and the wind direction in degrees from north for each 10 minute period. At the reasonable request of the Planning Authority the recorded wind data, measured at 10m height above ground level and relating to any periods during which noise monitoring took place or any periods when there was a specific noise complaint, shall be made available to them. Where wind speed is measured at a height other than 10m, the wind speed data shall be converted to 10m height, accounting for wind shear by a method the details of which shall also be provided to the Planning Authority. At the reasonable request of the Council the wind farm operator shall provide a list of ten-minute periods during which any one or more of a relevant set of turbines was not operating normally. This information will only be required for periods during which noise monitoring in accordance with conditions 29 and 31 took place. The “relevant set” and “normal operation” are defined in the guidance notes. Reason: to minimise disturbance to residents in the vicinity of the windfarm.

33. No blasting shall be carried out on the site except between the following times: 10:00 and12:00 hours and 14:00 and 16:00 hours on Mondays to Fridays and

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 134

10:00 12:00 hours on Saturdays. There shall be no blasting or drilling operations on Sundays, Bank Holidays or national Holidays. The above conditions shall not apply in cases of emergency when it is considered necessary to carry out blasting operations in the interests of safety. The Planning Authority shall be notified in writing immediately of the nature and circumstances of any such event. Reason: In the interests of amenity and public safety.

34. Prior to the commencement of blasting operations details of methods employed to minimise air overpressure and ground vibration as a result of blasting operations shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for written approval. All blasting operations shall take place only in accordance with the scheme as approved or with such subsequent amendments as may receive the written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenity and public safety.

35. Fixed and mobile plant which incorporates bleeping type warning devices used within the site during the construction period shall not be audible at the nearest noise sensitive property outwith the approved working hours in Condition 28. Where the use of audible devices is essential on the grounds of health and safety, outside the working hours defined in Condition 28, only devices having a warbling character shall be used. Reason: to minimise disturbance to residents in the vicinity of the windfarm.

Roads

36. Prior to the commencement of works and over the period of construction, where deemed necessary, the A822 and A826 shall be improved by means of passing places/strip widening at locations to be agreed with the Council as Roads Authority. All works shall be carried out to the standard and specification required by the Council as Roads Authority to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow

37. The details of the new site access from the public road shall be agreed with the Council as Roads Authority and constructed prior to the commencement of works on site to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority, except that works not requiring upgrading of the entrance can be commenced earlier, subject to the approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow

38. Prior to the commencement of works the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement under Section 96 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 in respect of the A822 and A826 whereby a baseline survey of the road shall be completed and agreed by the Company and the Planning Authority and thereafter the road shall be inspected on a regular basis by the appropriate council officers and repairs attributable to the wind farm traffic carried out to the timescale and standards specified by the Council as Roads Authority to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 135

Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow.

39. Prior to the commencement of works the A822 and A826 shall be strengthened where required for the proposed wind farm traffic to meet the requirements of the Council as Roads Authority to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow

40. Prior to the commencement of works the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Council as Roads Authority in respect of: a) the temporary removal or lowering of bridge parapets, boundary walls and

structures adjacent to the public highway; b) the temporary hardening of verges; c) the relocation, removal and temporary re-siting of road signs and other street furniture; d) the provision of advanced warning signs and temporary barriers, which shall be in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual; all to aid the passage of abnormal loads and construction vehicles Any temporary works shall be restored to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow

41. Prior to the commencement of works the applicant shall agree a traffic management scheme with the Council as Roads Authority in accordance with the Roads Traffic Act 1982 and the Council’s procedure for Abnormal Loads Routing to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow

42. The site access track and public road shall be kept free from mud, debris etc. at all times and suitable wheel cleaning facilities shall be provided within the site to prevent the deposition of mud, debris etc on to the public road to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow

43. A wheel and chassis wash facility which operates on a closed cycle shall be installed at a location determined by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, this facility shall be operated throughout the construction period. Reason: To ensure all vehicles leaving the site will not emit dust or deposit mud, slurry or other deleterious material on the adjoining public highway

44. The clearance of snow from access tracks will be by mechanical means only unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of snow clearing operations by avoiding the use of chemicals or salt wherever possible.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 136

45. Prior to the commencement of any works to improve the A822 and A826 a scheme (including hours of working) to protect nearby residential properties from noise and vibration arising from these works shall be submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority. The scheme as approved will be implemented prior to the start of works on the windfarm site and all costs will be met by the company. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

Water

46. Prior to any construction works or felling, a Surface and Groundwater Management Plan covering water treatment and the means of drainage from all hard surfaces and structures within the site shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. For the purposes of this Condition, “hard surfaces” includes internal access tracks, construction and laydown areas, turbine pads and crane pads. The details to be submitted shall indicate the means of protecting groundwater and diverting surface water run-off, and shall allow for the recharging of peat areas within the site and any necessary mitigation measures implemented within a timescale to be agreed by the Planning Authority. An element of the Surface and Groundwater Management Plan will relate to the maintenance of the quantity and quality of water supplied from any spring or borehole which serves residential property in the area around the development site has been submitted and agreed by the Planning Authority. Watercourses should be monitored before, during and after construction and should include as a minimum such matters as turbidity, Specific Electrical Conductivity (SEC) and major ions. At least two sets of samples shall be taken before any development takes place in order to establish baseline conditions. Daily monitoring of SEC and turbidity will, as minimum, be required. The company shall fully implement its obligations under the approved Surface and Groundwater Management Plan and the reasonable costs of implementing the plan shall be borne by the company. The Plan shall include any mitigation measures to prevent movement of concrete-derived pollutants and surface runoff at the turbines and access tracks. Reason: To protect private water supplies and to ensure compliance with all commitments made in the Environmental Statement..

47. Scotston water supply: A water quality monitoring programme shall be implemented when invasive construction activities take place within 500m of the spring supplying Scotston. The plan will include pre-construction monitoring, construction monitoring and post-construction monitoring. The pre-construction monitoring shall include samples taken one in each of the two months preceding commencement of works. The monitoring during construction shall include weekly samples. The monitoring post construction shall include monthly samples taken for 12 months following completion of the relevant construction works. The samples shall be analysed for Specific Electrical Conductivity (SEC), turbidity, major ions, taste and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). In addition, during construction, daily in-situ monitoring of Specific Electrical Conductivity (SEC) and turbidity will take place and an early warning system employed all as approved by the Planning Authority. If contamination is identified, a same day replacement of bottled potable water will be provided by the Company. In addition, alternative arrangements for the

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 137

Scotston supply will be required to be implemented at the reasonable cost to the Company and to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect private water supplies.

Land Management Plan

48. Prior to the commencement of development, a Land Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. The Land Management Plan, as approved shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and shall set out the objectives for land management during the operation of the wind farm and the measures to be undertaken to achieve those objectives, including:

• Wind Farm operational requirements and their interaction with other land management objectives;

• Forestry management, including; o Felling plans; o Forestry clearance operations; o Re-stocking plans where appropriate;

• Stock management; • Nature conservation management, including:

o Management for target habitats; o Management for target species;

• Access and Recreation; The Land Management Plan shall also include those relevant mitigation measures set out in Chapter 17 of the Environmental Statement (Amendment, August 2005) relating to ongoing land and habitat management and such mitigation measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority Reason: To safeguard protected species and ensure compliance with the Habitats Directive.

Decommissioning

49. Prior to the end of the period of this consent as detailed in Condition 1, or at an earlier date as detailed in Condition 4, all wind turbines, ancillary equipment and buildings shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land shall be restored and subject to aftercare, in accordance with the restoration and aftercare scheme referred to in Condition 3. For the purposes of this Condition “restored” means the removal of all wind turbines, crane pads, top layer of foundation and all buildings and ancillary development. Notwithstanding this requirement, no later than one year prior to commencement of the restoration and aftercare scheme, the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Natural Heritage and such other parties as the Planning Authority considers appropriate, shall review the retention of turbine pads, cable/ducts, access tracks and the grid connection within the context of the restoration strategy. Thereafter, the plan as approved shall be implemented, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the turbines are removed from the site at the end of their operational life, and to protect the character of the countryside and the visual amenity of the area.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 138

50. In order to ensure the satisfactory removal of hill tracks, turbine towers and blades, and any ancillary equipment associated including overhead power lines and pylons with the wind energy development a ‘Decommissioning and Restoration Statement’ will be required prior to the commencement of development as defined in Condition 1 and it should be updated on a five yearly cycle. At least 1 year before the cessation of generation from the site the finalised restoration and aftercare scheme shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH and such other parties as the Planning Authority consider appropriate. The restoration strategy shall set out the means of reinstating the site following the removal of the components of the development as specified in Condition 45. In particular the restoration strategy shall detail the level of subsoil, topsoil and peat replacement required over each part of the site and the proposed seed mixes. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site and to protect the character of the countryside and the visual amenity of the area.

51. Prior to the commencement of the development, the company shall provide to the Planning Authority details of the bond or other financial provision which it proposes to put in place to cover all decommissioning and site restoration costs on the expiry of this consent. No work shall commence on the site until the company has provided documentary evidence that the proposed bond or other financial provision is in place and written confirmation has been given by the Planning Authority that the proposed bond or other financial provision is satisfactory. The company shall ensure that the approved bond or other financial provision is maintained throughout the duration of this consent and 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 company, the landowners, and the Planning Authority,. Reason: To ensure that there are sufficient funds available to ensure the full restoration of the site.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 139

Definitions

In this consent and conditions, unless the context otherwise requires:- “the application” means the application submitted by GreenPower (Griffin) Limited and as amended; “the commencement of the development” means the date on which the development shall be taken as begun in accordance with section 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997; “the commissioning of the development” means the date on which the last wind turbine generator forming part of the development first supplies electricity on a commercial basis; “the company” means GreenPower (Griffin) Limited having its Registered Office at 15 Gladstone Place, Stirling, FK8 2NX and its successors or assignees whomsoever; “the development” means a wind-powered electricity generating station at Griffin, Ballinloan and Scotston comprising no more than 68 wind turbines and associated works all as more particularly described in the application; “decommissioning” means measures to ensure the full restoration and aftercare of the site; “method statement” means a set of procedures detailing activities to be undertaken, sequencing of activities, assessment of risks, and an outline of mitigation and contingency measures; “noise sensitive property” means the curtilage of any residential dwelling existing at the date of this consent and which is occupied or utilised during daytime hours “operational period” means the period from the date of commissioning of the development until the last date on which any of the wind turbine generators supplies electricity on a commercial basis “Planning Authority” means Perth & Kinross Council or its successors “protected species” means those species protected under schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended, the Conservation Regulations 1994 (Schedules 2, 3, 4), and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). “site” means the area of land outlined in red on Drawing A2 (of the Amendment Environmental Statement (August 2005))appended to this consent; “switch gear and metering building” means those areas of land indicated by a red square with a red outline on drawing A2 of the Amendment Environmental Statement (August 2005) appended to this consent, and all of the buildings and erections thereon.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 140

ANNEXE TO NOISE CONDITIONS

THE GUIDANCE NOTES – Section A

The following paragraph is based upon steps 2-5 specified in Section 2 of the Supplementary Guidance Notes to the Planning Obligation contained within pages 102-103 of “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97” published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry. It has been adapted in the light of experience of actual compliance measurements made by Hoare Lea Acoustics.

2. Values of the LA90,10min noise statistic should be measured at the affected property using a sound level meter of at least IEC 651 Type 1 quality. This should be fitted with a ½" diameter microphone and calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1990. The microphone should be mounted on a tripod at 1.2 - 1.5 m above ground level, fitted with a two layer windshield or suitable equivalent, and placed in the vicinity of, and external to, the property. The intention is that, as far as possible, the measurements should be made in “free-field” conditions. To achieve this, the microphone should be placed at least 10m away from the building facade or any reflecting surface, where possible, and no less than 3.5m away where this is not possible with appropriate adjustment made to measured levels to account for facade effects.

The LA90,10min measurements should be synchronised with measurements of the 10-minute average wind speed and with operational data from the turbine control systems of the wind farm.

The wind speed and wind direction and a note of all 10 minute periods when one or more of the relevant set of turbines was not operating normally should be provided to the consultant to enable an analysis to take place.

The “relevant set” of turbines is the six turbines nearest to the monitoring location. The precise definition of “non-normal” operation should be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority on the basis of data available but should generally be taken to mean when the turbine power output is significantly different from the reference power curve using the nacelle anemometer.

In the interests of commercial confidentiality no information is required to be provided for individual turbines or on the nature of any abnormality or for any period during which noise monitoring is not taking place.

The noise measurements should be made over a period of time sufficient to provide not less than 50 valid data points during each of night and quiet day. Measurements should also be made over a sufficient period to provide valid data points throughout the range of wind speeds considered by the Planning Authority to be most critical. Valid data points are those that remain after the following data have been excluded: All periods during rainfall All periods during which wind direction is more than 45 degrees from every line from each of the turbines in the relevant set and the measurement position. All periods during which turbine operation was not normal

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 141

The purpose of the exclusions for wind directions that are not downwind is to exclude periods in which it is likely that only background noise is measured and so reduce the possibility that further measurements have to be taken with turbines switched off.

3. A least squares, “best fit” curve should be fitted to the data points.

4. The measured noise level shall be determined from this best fit curve. If this curve lies below the maximum values of turbine noise indicated by the table in the annex to these conditions, and the Planning Authority/EHO consider there to be no audible tones, then no further action is necessary.

5. If the noise level is above the limit, or if the application of a tonal penalty - see later - takes it above the limit, a correction for the influence of background noise should be made. This may be achieved by repeating steps 2-4, with the Wind farm switched off, and determining the background noise at the assessed wind speed, Lb. The wind farm noise at this speed, Lw, is then calculated as follows:

If the wind farm noise level lies below the values indicated from the table in the annex, and the Planning Authority/EHO consider there to be no audible tones, then no further action is necessary.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 142

THE GUIDANCE NOTES – Section B

The following paragraph comprises step 6 specified in Section 2 of the Supplementary Guidance Notes to the Planning Obligation contained within pages 103-104 of “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97” published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry . Reference is made to Section 2.1 of this document which also forms part of the guidance given here.

6. Where, in the opinion of the Planning Authority/EHO, the noise immission contains a tonal component, the following rating procedure should be used. This is based on the repeated application of a tonal assessment methodology - see below.

For each 10-minute interval for which LA90,10min data have been obtained, a tonal assessment - see Section 2.1 - is performed on noise immission during 2-minutes of the 10-minute period. The 2-minute periods should be regularly spaced at 10-minute intervals provided that uninterrupted clean data are obtained.

For each of the 2-minute samples the margin above or below the audibility criterion of the tone level difference, ΔLtm, is calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 below.

The margin above audibility is plotted against wind speed for each of the 2-minute samples. For samples for which the tones were inaudible or no tone was identified, substitute a value of zero audibility.

A linear regression is then performed to establish the margin above audibility at the assessed wind speed. If there is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic average will suffice.

The tonal penalty, KT, is derived from the margin above audibility of the tone according to Fig 17.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tone Level above Audibility (dB)

Pena

lty (d

B)

Figure 17 Penalties for tonal noise

The rating level is the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level, Lpw and the tonal penalty, KT. It is this level which determines whether the wind farm has complied with the limits set in the planning condition.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 143

THE LEVELS REFERRED TO IN CONDITION 30.

The figures in the body of the table are noise emmision levels from turbines measured in dB as an LA90 in accordance with the procedure set out in the guidance notes.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 144

APPENDIX 2: PLANNING CONDITIONS SUGGESTED BY I & H BROWN (CALLIACHAR) LTD AND PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL

Timing

1. The consent is for a period of 12 months for site investigations and the construction of the Development, 25 years from the date of the Final Commissioning of the Development for the operation of the Development and 24 months for the Decommissioning of the Development. The Company is required to obtain, no later than the end of the period of 24 months following the end of the said 25 year period, written confirmation from the Planning Authority that all Decommissioning works have been completed in accordance with the approved decommissioning scheme referred to in Condition 48 of this consent. Written confirmation of the date of the Commissioning of the Development shall be provided to the Planning Authority within 1 month of the Commissioning of the Development, and the date of Commencement of the Development shall be no later than 5 years from the date of this consent.Reason: In accordance with the terms of Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. Construction work within 500 metres of nest sites of hen harrier, merlin and short-eared owl shall not be undertaken during the breeding season of 1 March – 31 July without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage.Reason: To mitigate potential impacts on the population of such species

3. At least one month prior to the Commencement of the Development, the Company shall provide to the Scottish Ministers and the Planning Authority written details of the bond or other financial provision which it proposes to put in place to cover all Decommissioning and site restoration costs for those parts of the Site requiring restoration in accordance with condition 48, including the restoration of borrow pits which have not already been restored, on the expiry of this consent along with an independent confirmation by a Chartered Surveyor whose appointment for this task has been approved by the Scottish Ministers that the amount of the bond or financial provision so proposed is sufficient to meet such Decommissioning and restoration costs. In considering whether this bond or other financial provision is satisfactory, the Scottish Ministers shall inter alia take into account the advice of the Planning Authority. There shall be no Commencement of the Development until the Company has provided documentary evidence that the proposed bond or other financial provision is in place. The Company shall ensure that the approved bond or other financial provision is maintained throughout the duration of this consent and the Company shall provide to the Scottish Ministers and the Planning Authority at five-yearly intervals an independent review of the bond or other financial provision so approved and amend the bond or other financial provision as directed by the Scottish Ministers. Reason: To ensure that there are sufficient funds available to ensure the full restoration of the Site.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 145

4. In the event of the windfarm not generating electricity on a commercial basis to the public network, for a continuous period of 12 months, from 50% or more turbines installed and commissioned from time to time, the Planning Authority may direct that that part of the Development shall be decommissioned and the Site reinstated in accordance with the restoration scheme referred to in Condition 48. This Condition will take effect following the Commissioning of the Development, in terms of Condition 1. The Planning Authority shall have due regard to the circumstances surrounding the failure to generate and shall take the decision on reinstatement following discussion with the Company and such other parties as the Planning Authority considers appropriate. No later than 12 months following the expiry of the said continuous period of 12 months or within such variation of this timescale as the Planning Authority may agree in writing, the Company shall decommission and restore the Site in accordance with the terms of Condition 48. Reason: To ensure the turbines are removed from the Site at the end of their operational life, and to protect the character of the countryside and the visual amenity of the area and to allow for better design mitigation of hydrological impact.

Design

5. Each turbine and access track shall be erected and constructed in the positions indicated on Figure 3-1 "Revised Layout" of the Calliachar Wind Farm Supplementary Information to the Environmental Statement. A variation of the indicated position of any turbine or track on the said Figure by up to 25 metres shall be permitted following the approval of the ecological clerk of works after consultation with the regional archaeologist. Any variation greater than 25 metres shall require the approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with the regional archaeologist and Scottish Natural Heritage. The said provisions relating to variation shall not have effect such that any variation will bring the original position of the turbine indicated on the said Figure closer than 2000 metres to a residential property, unless already shown on the said Figure. Reason: To ensure that any micro-siting is employed so that areas of high nature conservation and archaeological value are avoided.

6. Prior to the Commencement of the Development, the precise routing of all temporary and permanent access tracks shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. If required by the Planning Authority, these shall be marked out on the Site in addition to a detailed plan which includes contours. The approved precise locations shall be implemented.Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, to minimise impacts on Annex 1 bird species and on UK BAP habitats and to minimise the disruption to hydrological processes on Site.

7. Prior to the Commencement of the Development, details of the Anemometry Masts, including their precise locations and the means of marking of guy wires shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The approved details shall be implemented. Reason: To minimise the collision risk of hen harriers from anemometry masts.

8. No work shall commence on the construction of the turbine towers and all above

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 146

ground ancillary elements (comprising, transformers, Switch Gear and Control Building, compound and fencing) until approval has been obtained from the Planning Authority of the details including colours and external finishes of the turbines and all such ancillary elements. If required by the Planning Authority, samples of the materials shall be provided. Thereafter the Development shall be implemented in accordance with these details as approved. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity

9. Prior to the Commissioning of the Development, the Company shall submit and the Planning Authority shall approve a TV & Radio Reception Mitigation Plan. The Plan shall provide the results of a baseline TV reception survey recording the current standard of television and radio reception in the area and assessing the impairment (if any) which the turbines may have on such television and radio reception. Within 12 months of the Commissioning of the Development, any claim by any individual person for a TV picture loss or interference at their house, office, shop 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 and caused solely by the windfarm and not as a result of the poor installation of television equipment, the Company shall remedy such impairment so that the standard of reception at the house, office, shop or other building is maintained to the standard indicated in the baseline TV reception survey. Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjacent residents.

Construction

10. Prior to the Commencement of the Development, a plan to a scale of 1:500 shall be submitted to the Planning Authority showing the location of any site compound or contractor’s laydown area or area where any fuel, oil, lubricant, paint or solvent is stored on the Site and required temporarily in connection with the construction of the Development. Each plan shall indicate the location of the buildings, car parking, material stockpiles, oil storage, lighting columns and boundary fencing. The plans shall describe the surfacing of each site compound, the means of drainage and dust suppression within the compound and shall set out the activities that will take place within that compound. Specifically, any fuel, oil, lubricant, paint or solvent stored on the Site shall be contained within bunds and double skin tanks, which must be locked and capable of containing at least 110% of the largest capacity vessel stored therein or if there is more than one container within the system, not less than 110% of the largest container's storage capacity or 25% of their aggregate storage capacity, whichever is the greater and the containers shall be located at least 10 metres from any watercourses or drains. The site compound shall be located at least 600 metres from Loch Hoil at a site where there is screening from forestry between the site compound and Loch Hoil or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. Thereafter any temporary site compound at the Site shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure necessary contingencies are in place and to minimise pollution risks arising from construction activities and to avoid significant impacts to breeding black-throated divers on Loch Hoil during the construction of the development.

11. All temporary contractors’ site compounds shall be removed and the land reinstated to its former profile and condition no later than 3 months following the Final

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 147

Commissioning of the Development or following the first available seeding/planting season after the Final Commissioning of the Development, which ever is the later.Reason: To ensure temporary compounds do not leave a footprint on Site.

12. Track running widths shall be no greater than 5m wide unless otherwise shown on approved plans or otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise disruption to habitats and the visual impact of the access tracks.

13. All electricity and control cables between the turbines and Switch Gear and Control Building shall be laid underground alongside tracks which are to be constructed on the Site unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise disruption to habitats.

14. Prior to the Commencement of the Development of the borrow pits full details of the location, extent, means of working and restoration of the borrow pits to be used only during the construction period shall be submitted and agreed and thereafter implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Rock crushing activities will be confined to approved borrow pits and adjacent to such areas.Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure the satisfactory restoration of the Site

Operation

15. The blades of all the turbines shall rotate in the same direction when generating electricity and the turbines shall be of the same type. The use of logos on turbine blades, towers or nacelles is prohibited unless such sign is required for health and safety or operational reasons. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

16. The wind turbines shall not be illuminated. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

17. Bulk oil shall not be stored on the Site without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.Reason: To limit the risk of pollutant contamination

Method Statements

18. There shall be no Commencement of the Development until the Company has obtained written approval from the Planning Authority for details of Method Statements for all activities specified below. Thereafter, each Method Statement as approved by the Planning Authority shall be implemented. Method Statements shall be lodged to cover:

i) On-site construction, including track construction, the laying of underground cables alongside tracks. Where any tracks are to be constructed on areas of peat where the peat depth exceeds 1 metre, the Company shall consult with Scottish Natural Heritage as to the appropriate method for the construction of such tracks. Where any tracks cross watercourses, the Company shall consult with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as to the design of the crossing points to allow for the free passage of fish and otters;

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 148

ii) A track Downgrading/reinstatement plan, including details of timing and extent of any necessary Downgrading/reinstatement;

iii) A peat and soil stripping management plan outlining the storage and proposed use and replacement of peat, topsoil and subsoil. The scheme shall have regard to the drainage implications of soil movement and storage to reduce silt runoff;

iv) The height and location of all stockpiles of aggregate following approval by the Planning Authority of their location;

v) Oil spill contingencies; this Method Statement to be approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency;

vi) Concrete batching and handling; vii) A dust management plan; viii) Water abstraction; ix) Conifer-felling; x) Restoration proposals for borrow pits and other construction areas;

Method Statements to be approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Forestry Commission Scotland as appropriate. Reason: To ensure compliance with all commitments made in the environmental statement and subsequent schemes developed following the consultation process.

Archaeology

19. There shall be no Commencement of the Development until the Company has submitted to the Planning Authority a written scheme of investigation for archaeological mitigation works comprising:(i) the placing of marker posts during the construction period of at least 10 metres from the visible outer edge of archaeological sites numbered 6, 8, 9 and 14 on Figure B-1 of the Supplementary Information to the Environmental Statement; all marker posts to be visible from a distance of at least 50 metres in good visibility conditions;(ii) a programme of archaeological monitoring including the procedure to be followed for any archaeological sites found during the construction of the Development;(iii) guidelines for use by construction contractors outlining the need to avoid causing unnecessary damage to the archaeological sites identified on Figure B-1;and agreed in writing by the Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust and approved by the Planning Authority. The approved written scheme of investigation shall be implemented. Reason: In order to safeguard archaeological interests.

Ecology

20. Prior to the Commencement of the Development, an Ecological Clerk of Works shall be appointed by the Company and approved by the Planning Authority following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage for the period from the Commencement of the Development until the Final Commissioning of the Development and separately during the periods of Decommissioning and restoration of those parts of the Site requiring restoration in accordance with condition 48. The scope of works of the Ecological Clerk of Works shall include:(i) monitoring compliance with the ecological mitigation works approved in this

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 149

consent;(ii) advising the Company on adequate protection of nature conservation interest on the Site, including altering construction practices if these practices are having adverse impacts on the natural heritage; and(iii) advising on the micro-siting of turbines and tracks.Reason: To minimize environmental impact during the construction and decommissioning phases.

21. Prior the Commencement of the Development, an ecologist approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage shall carry out a survey of protected breeding moorland birds between the months of April to June within that part of the Site where construction works are to take place and the results of the survey submitted to the Planning Authority. If such breeding birds are found details of the measures to be taken to protect such breeding birds shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and such other parties as the Planning Authority consider appropriate. Thereafter the measures shall be implemented within a timescale to be determined by the Planning Authority.Reason: To protect wildlife species

22. The Company shall undertake six years of monitoring of hen harriers and other protected moorland birds from the date of this consent: first, annually for a period of 3 years following the Commissioning of the Development, and second, at five yearly intervals, at 5, 10 and 15 years thereafter. The detail of this monitoring shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and such other parties the Planning Authority considers appropriate. The findings of these surveys shall be collated into two reports, at three and fifteen years after the Commissioning of the Development, and all of the original data, and the reports, shall be made available to the Planning Authority, Scottish Natural Heritage and such other parties the Planning Authority considers appropriate. After the first report, any appropriate mitigation measures developed and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage shall be implemented within a timescale to be approved by the Planning Authority.Reason: To protect wildlife species

23. Prior to the Commencement of the Development, a survey will be undertaken to determine the presence of otters within that part of the Site where construction works are to take place and the results of the survey submitted to the Planning Authority. If the presence of otters is found and the Planning Authority considers that they are likely to be adversely affected by the construction of the turbines and access tracks, then measures to minimise the adverse affect which shall include a protection zone of 5 metres around open watercourses where access tracks and construction activities occur close to water courses and the timetable for the implementation of the measures shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. Thereafter the approved measures shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed timetable.Reason: In the interests of amenity and to minimise the disturbance of otters.

24. Prior to the Commencement of the Development of (i) the access track or (ii) the winning of stones from any borrow pit, both within 900 metres of Loch Hoil, a survey shall be undertaken of Loch Hoil for breeding black-throated divers at the appropriate

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 150

time of year. If such survey shows that black-throated divers are breeding on Loch Hoil: (i) there shall be no construction of such access track or such winning of stone and (ii) the Company shall put in place a protocol to avoid the on-foot movement of construction workers and their dogs within 900 metres of Loch Hoil, both during the breeding season of black-throated divers (15 April – 31 July inclusive). For the avoidance of doubt, the restriction relates only to the on-foot movement of construction workers and their dogs and does not relate to any vehicle movements.Reason: To avoid significant impacts to breeding black-throated divers on Loch Hoil during the construction of the development.

25. For a period of 5 years following the Commissioning of the Development, turbines numbered 21, 25, 26 and 27 identified on Figure 3-1 of the Supplementary Information to the Environmental Statement shall be switched off during the period of 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after sunset from 16 March until 31 May. During this period, the breeding activity of hen harriers shall be monitored in the Turrerich and Glenfender Burn areas. If, as a result of such monitoring, nesting attempts of hen harrier are recorded within 500 metres of such turbines, any of turbines numbered 21, 25, 26 and 27 within 500 metres of the nest shall remain switched off until 1 September during such hours and the remaining turbines can be switched back on. The Company shall review the regime following such 5-year period and the results of such review shall be provided to the Planning Authority and Scottish Natural Heritage.Reason: To minimise the collision risk of hen harriers that nest in the Turrerich and the Glenfender Burn valleys

26. Prior to the Commencement of the Development, details of any seed mixes to be used for the re-instatement of surface vegetation shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. The seed mixes shall be sourced locally. The approved seed mixes shall be implemented.Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that non-native, invasive species are not introduced to UK BAP habitats.

27. Prior to the Commencement of the Development, (A) a habitat management plan relating to (i) hen harriers, black grouse, red grouse, merlin, golden plover and short-eared owls including the restoration of heathland and the provision of foraging areas, (ii) the construction of artificial otter holts in the area of Loch Hoil, and (iii) the monitoring of habitats, and (B) a land management plan relating to (i) the provision of a ranger service and (ii) recreational uses of Moness Forest shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The Habitat Management Plan and the Land Management Plan, as approved shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority during the Operational Period and shall be reviewed every five years from its implementation to assess the effectiveness of the measures proposed and if necessary, such measures shall be amended by the Company following consultation with the Planning Authority, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Reason: To safeguard Protected Species and ensure compliance with the Habitats Directive.

28. Prior to the Commencement of the Development, an operational protocol shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The operational

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 151

protocol shall contain procedures for the maintenance of turbines and other infrastructure forming part of the Development relating to (i) vehicular movements within 500 metres of the nest sites of breeding hen harriers during the breeding season of hen harriers (16 March until 1 September) if hen harriers are breeding; and (ii) vehicular and people movements (including construction worker's dogs) within 900 metres of Loch Hoil during the breeding season of black-throated divers (15 April – 31 July) if black-throated divers are breeding on Loch Hoil. The operational protocol as approved shall be implemented during the Operational Period and for the avoidance of doubt does not prevent such movements of vehicles and/or people. Reason: To minimise any significant adverse impact on hen harriers and black-throated divers during the operation of the development.

Noise

29. Construction work, which is audible from the boundary of any Noise Sensitive Dwelling, shall only take place between the hours of 07.00 - 19.00 on Monday to Friday inclusive, 07.00 – 13.00 on Saturdays with no working on a Sunday or local or national public holiday. Outwith these said hours, development at the Site shall be limited to turbine commissioning, emergency works, dust suppression and the testing of plant and equipment, or construction work that is not audible from any Noise Sensitive Dwelling outwith the Site. The receipt of any materials or equipment for the construction at the Site, by road, other than turbine blades, nacelles and towers, is not allowed outwith the said hours, unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority having been given a minimum of two working days notice of the occurrence of the proposed event. Reason: Tto minimise disturbance and protect the amenity of nearby residents.

30. Fixed and mobile plant which incorporates bleeping type warning devices used within the Site during the construction period shall not be audible at the nearest Noise Sensitive Dwelling. Where the use of audible devices is essential on the grounds of health and safety, only devices having a warbling character shall be used. Reason: To minimise disturbance to residents in the vicinity of the windfarm.

31. At the reasonable request of the Planning Authority the Company shall at its expense employ a consultant approved by the Planning Authority to measure and assess the level of noise immissions from the wind turbine generators following the procedures described in the documents attached to these conditions (called in these conditions “the guidance notes”).Reason: To minimise disturbance to residents in the vicinity of the windfarm

32. At wind speeds not exceeding 12 metres per second, as measured or calculated at a height of 10 metres above ground level at the windfarm at a grid reference or grid reference to be approved in writing by the Planning Authority, the wind turbine noise immission level at any Noise Sensitive Dwelling existing at the date of this consent shall not exceed:

(a) During Night Hours the wind turbine noise immission level shall not exceed 43dB LA90, 10min or the night hours LA90, 10 min background noise level plus 5dB(A), whichever is the greater.

(b) At all other times, the wind turbine noise immission level shall not exceed 40dB LA90, 10 min or the Quiet Waking Hours LA90, 10 min background noise level plus 5dB(A), whichever is the greater.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 152

(c) The above wind turbine noise immission limits may be increased to 45dB LA90, 10 min or the relevant Quiet Waking Hours or Night Hours LA90, 10 min background noise level plus 5dB(A) whichever is the greater, at any Noise Sensitive Dwelling owned, occupied or leased by persons having a financial involvement with the windfarm in accordance with the principles of ETSU-R-97.

Background noise level refers to the background noise level set out in Table 1 in the guidance notes. Reason: To minimise disturbance to residents in the vicinity of the windfarm

33. At the reasonable request of the Planning Authority, the Company shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the Planning Authority to measure and assess the tonal noise of the Development in accordance with the procedure described in section B of the guidance notes. If, at any Noise Sensitive Dwelling, the tonal noise from the combined effect of the wind turbines generators exceeds the threshold of audibility:-(a) by more than 2.0dB but less than 6.5dB a penalty of ((5/6.5) x Audibility)dB shall be added to the LA90, 10min noise level derived for that Noise Sensitive Dwelling in accordance with section A of the guidance notes.(b) by more than 6.5dB a penalty of 5dB shall be added to the LA90, 10min noise level derived for that Noise Sensitive Dwelling in accordance with section A of the guidance notes.Reason: To minimise disturbance to residents in the vicinity of the windfarm.

34. The Company shall log wind speed and wind direction data at a grid reference to be approved by the Planning Authority to enable compliance with conditions 31 and 33 to be monitored. This wind data shall include the wind speed in metres per second (ms-1) and the wind direction in degrees from north for each 10-minute period. At the reasonable request of the Planning Authority the recorded data measured at 10m height above ground level and relating to any periods during which noise monitoring took place or any periods when there was a specific noise complaint shall be made available to the Planning Authority. Where wind speed is measured at a height other than 10m, the wind speed data shall be converted to 10m height, accounting for wind shear by a method the details of which shall also be provided to the Planning Authority. At the reasonable request of the Planning Authority the Company shall provide a list of ten-minute periods during which any one or more of the relevant set of turbines was not operating normally. This information will only be required for period during which noise monitoring in accordance with conditions 31 and 33 took place.Reason: To minimise disturbance to residents in the vicinity of the windfarm.

Roads

35. Prior to the use of the A822 and A826 by abnormal loads for the construction of the Development, a road survey shall be undertaken of those parts of the A822 and A826 to be used by the abnormal loads. If the results of such road survey require the creation of passing places/strip widening, prior to the passage of the abnormal loads on such parts of the road, passing places/strip widening shall be created with no more than 100 metres between each passing place/strip widening where practicable or as otherwise agreed with the Council as Roads Authority or intervisible at locations to be agreed with the

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 153

Council as Roads Authority. All works shall be carried out to the standard and specification required by the Council as Roads Authority to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow

36. The details of the new Site access from the public road shall be prepared in accordance with the Council's guidelines and approved standards and shall be agreed with the Council as Roads Authority and constructed prior to the Commencement of the Development to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow

37. Prior to the Commencement of the Development the Company shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the duration of the construction period under Section 96 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 in respect of (i) the A822 from its junction with the A9 to its junction with the A826 and (ii) the A826 from its junction with the A822 to the Site access which will provide for an existing conditions survey to be carried out prior to the use of such parts of the A822 and A826 by abnormal loads for the construction of the Development. The existing conditions survey will form the baseline for such maintenance agreement. Thereafter, the maintenance agreement will provide for such part of the roads to be inspected on a regular basis by the appropriate council officers and repairs caused by the use of such roads by abnormal loads for the construction of the Development to be carried out to the timescale and standards specified by the Council as Roads Authority to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow.

38. Prior to the use of the A822 and A826 by abnormal loads for the construction of the Development, a structural survey of such parts of the roads to be used by such abnormal loads shall be carried out in consultation with the Council as Roads Authority. If the results of the survey indicate that measures require to be undertaken to provide the strength necessary to accommodate the anticipated abnormal loads, such measures shall be agreed with the Council as Roads Authority and carried out to meet the requirements of the Council as Roads Authority to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow

39. Prior to the Commencement of the Development the Company shall enter into an agreement with the Council as Roads Authority in respect of any temporary removal or lowering of structures adjacent to the public road and any temporary hardening of verges to aid the passage of abnormal loads and construction vehicles. Advanced warning signs and temporary barriers shall be in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual. Any temporary works shall be restored to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow

40. Prior to the passage of abnormal loads relating to the construction of the Development the Company shall enter into an agreement with the Council as Roads

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 154

Authority in respect of any relocation, removal and temporary re-siting of road signs and other street furniture necessary to aid the passage of such abnormal loads over their access route to the Site.Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow

41. Prior to the Commencement of the Development the Company shall agree a traffic management scheme with the Council as Roads Authority in accordance with the Roads Traffic Act 1982 and the Council’s procedure for Abnormal Loads Routing to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow

42. The junction of the Site access track to the public road shall be kept free from mud, debris etc. at all times. A wheel and chassis wash facility which operates on a closed cycle shall be installed at a location to be approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter this facility shall be operated throughout the construction period. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow and to ensure all vehicles leaving the Site do not emit dust or deposit mud, slurry or other deleterious material on the adjoining public road

43. The clearance of snow from access tracks will be by mechanical means only unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage.Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of snow clearing operations by avoiding the use of chemicals or salt wherever possible.

44. Prior to the commencement of works to improve the A822 and A826 a scheme (including hours of working) to protect nearby residential properties from noise and vibration arising from these works shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme as approved will be implemented prior to the Commencement of the Development and all costs will be met by the Company.Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

Water

45. There shall be no Commencement of the Development until a surface and groundwater management plan has been submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The plan shall: (i) relate to the maintenance of the quantity and quality of the River Tay SAC; (ii) detail the monitoring of the watercourses affected by the Development prior to and during the planned construction phase; (iii) detail the treatment and means of temporary construction and permanent drainage arrangements from the access tracks, construction and laydown areas, turbine pads, crane pads and borrow pits forming part of the Development, indicating the means of protecting groundwater and diverting surface water run-off, allowing for the recharging of peat areas; (iv) detail pollution prevention and control measures and foul drainage arrangements; and (v) any necessary mitigation measures. The Company shall fully implement its obligations under the approved water management plan within the agreed timescale and the reasonable costs of implementing the plan shall be borne by the Company.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 155

Reason: To ensure compliance with all commitments made in the environmental statement and subsequent schemes developed following the consultation process.

46. Prior to the start of works affecting watercourses, the Company shall arrange a survey to determine the presence of migratory fish, and the results of the survey shall be submitted to the Planning Authority. Should any watercourse, where the presence of migratory fish has been established by the said survey, be likely to be significantly adversely affected by the proposed works, then measures to avoid the adverse impacts shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Tay District Salmon Fishery Board. Thereafter, avoidance measures as approved shall be implemented within a timescale to be approved by the Planning Authority. In the absence of an approved scheme which specifically provides for it, no construction work or vehicular activity shall take place within 5 metres either side of a watercourse, which buffer zone shall be demarcated, and where the crossing of watercourses by access tracks is unavoidable, the details of the construction methodologies should be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority.Reason: In the interests of nature conservation

47. No turbine foundations or crane pads shall be located within 20 metres of any open watercourse unless otherwise approved in terms of condition 5.Reason: to minimise silt run-off

Decommissioning and Restoration

48. At least 6 months before the end of the Operational Period, a written Decommissioning and restoration scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority providing for the removal of all above ground elements of the Development (comprising wind turbines, top layer of foundation and crane pads, and all buildings and ancillary development) apart from the access tracks, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and such other parties as the Planning Authority considers appropriate. In particular, the restoration scheme shall detail the level of subsoil, topsoil and peat replacement required over each part of the Site and the use of turfs. The approved scheme shall be implemented. Notwithstanding this requirement, no later than one year prior to the commencement of the restoration scheme, the Planning Authority, following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, shall review the retention of turbine pads, cable/ducts and access tracks within the context of the restoration scheme to identify any elements to be retained on Site or requiring alternative reinstatement.Reason: To ensure the turbines are removed from the Site at the end of their operational life, and to protect the character of the countryside and the visual amenity of the area.

Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements

49. The Company shall provide the Ministry of Defence with the following detailed information:

(d) The date of the Commencement of the Development;(e) The date of the completion of the construction;(f) The height above ground level of the tallest structure;(g) The maximum extension height of any construction equipment;

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 156

(h) The position of the turbines in latitude and longitude;(i) Site lighting if appropriate.

Reason: To provide details to military aircrew as a result of low flying training.

Blasting Operations

50. No blasting shall be carried out on the Site except between the following times: 10:00 and 12:00 hours and 14:00 and 16:00 hours on Mondays to Fridays and 10:00 to 12:00 hours on Saturdays. There shall be no blasting or drilling operations on Sundays, Bank Holidays or national holidays. The above conditions shall not apply in cases of emergency when it is considered necessary to carry out blasting operations in the interests of safety. The Planning Authority shall be notified in writing immediately of the nature and circumstances of any such event.Reason: In the interests of amenity and public safety.

51. Prior to the commencement of blasting operations details of methods employed to minimise air overpressure and ground vibration as a result of blasting operations shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for written approval. All blasting operations shall take place only in accordance with the scheme as approved or with such subsequent amendments as may receive the written approval of the Planning Authority.Reason: In the interests of amenity and public safety.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 157

Definitions

In this consent and conditions, unless the context otherwise requires:-

“Anemometry Masts” means the permanent mast indicated on Figure 3-1 appended to this consent;

“the Application” means the application seeking consent under Section 36 Electricity Act 1989 and for planning permission to be deemed to be granted under Section 57(2) Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 for the construction and operation of 27 wind turbines and associated works at Calliachar submitted by I & H Brown Calliachar Limited and as amended;

“the Commencement of the Development” means the initiation of the Development by the carrying out of a Material Operation;

“the Commissioning of the Development” means the date on which the first wind turbine generator forming part of the Development first supplies electricity on a commercial basis;

“the Company” means I & H Brown Calliachar Limited, a company with registered number SC255367 and registered office at PO Box 51, Dunkeld Road, Perth, PH1 3YD or its successors or assignees;

“the Development” means a wind-powered electricity generating station at Calliachar comprising no more than 27 wind turbines and associated works all as more particularly described in the Application;

“Decommissioning” means measures to ensure the decommissioning and removal of the wind turbine generators forming part of the windfarm from the Site;

“Downgrading” means measures to reduce the visual impact of access tracks including side dressings;

"the Final Commissioning of the Development" means the date on which all the wind turbine generators forming part of the Development first supply electricity on a commercial basis;

“Material Operation” has the same meaning as in section 27(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;

“Method Statement” means a set of procedures detailing activities to be undertaken, sequencing of activities, assessment of risks, and an outline of mitigation and contingency measures;

"Night Hours" means 2300 – 0700 hours on all days;

“Noise Sensitive Dwelling” means the curtilage of any residential dwelling existing at

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 158

the date of this consent and which is occupied or utilised during daytime hours;

“Operational Period” means the period from the date of the Final Commissioning of the Development until the commencement of the Decommissioning of the wind turbine generators;

“Planning Authority” means Perth & Kinross Council or its successors;

“Protected Species” means those species protected under schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended, the Conservation Regulations 1994 (Schedules 2, 3, 4), and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and Birds Directive (79/409/EEC);

"Quiet Waking Hours" means 1800 – 2300 hours on all days, plus 0700 – 1800 on Sundays and 1300 – 1800 on Saturdays;

“Site” means the area of land outlined in red on Figure 3-1 appended to this consent;

“Switch Gear and Control Building” means the area of land coloured grey on Figure 3-1 appended to this consent, and all of the buildings and erections thereon.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 159

Annexe to Noise Conditions THE GUIDANCE NOTES – Section AThe following paragraph is based upon steps 2-5 specified in Section 2 of the Supplementary Guidance Notes to the Planning Obligation contained within pages 102-103 of “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97” published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry. It has been adapted in the light of experience of actual compliance measurements made by Hoare Lea Acoustics.2 Values of the LA90,10min noise statistic should be measured at the affected property using a sound level meter of at least IEC 651 Type 1 quality. This should be fitted with a ½" diameter microphone and calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1990. The microphone should be mounted on a tripod at 1.2 - 1.5 m above ground level, fitted with a two layer windshield or suitable equivalent, and placed in the vicinity of, and external to, the property. The intention is that, as far as possible, the measurements should be made in “free-field” conditions. To achieve this, the microphone should be placed at least 10m away from the building facade or any reflecting surface, where possible, and no less than 3.5m away where this is not possible with appropriate adjustment made to measured levels to account for facade effects.

The LA90,10min measurements should be synchronised with measurements of the 10-minute average wind speed and with operational data from the turbine control systems of the wind farm.

The wind speed and wind direction and a note of all 10 minute periods when one or more of the relevant set of turbines was not operating normally should be provided to the consultant to enable an analysis to take place.

The “relevant set” of turbines is the six turbines nearest to the monitoring location. The precise definition of “non-normal” operation should be agreed in writing with the local authority on the basis of data available but should generally be taken to mean when the turbine power output is significantly different from the reference power curve using the nacelle anemometer.

In the interests of commercial confidentiality no information is required to be provided for individual turbines or on the nature of any abnormality or for any period during which noise monitoring is not taking place.

The noise measurements should be made over a period of time sufficient to provide not less than 50 valid data points during each of night and quiet day. Measurements should also be made over a sufficient period to provide valid data points throughout the range of wind speeds considered by the local authority to be most critical. Valid data points are those that remain after the following data have been excluded:All periods during rainfallAll periods during which wind direction is more than 45 degrees from every line from each of the turbines in the relevant set and the measurement position.All periods during which turbine operation was not normal

The purpose of the exclusions for wind directions that are not downwind is to exclude periods in which it is likely that only background noise is measured and so reduce the possibility that further measurements have to be taken with turbines switched off.3 A least squares, “best fit” curve should be fitted to the data points.4 The noise level at the critical wind speed, La, shall be determined from this best fit curve. If this curve lies below the value indicated from the two noise criteria curves at the critical wind speed, and the local authority/EHO consider there to be no audible tones, then no further action is necessary.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 160

5 If the noise level is above the limit, or if the application of a tonal penalty - see later - takes it above the limit, a correction for the influence of background noise should be made. This may be achieved by repeating steps 2-4, with the Wind farm switched off, and determining the background noise at the assessed wind speed, Lb. The wind farm noise at this speed, Lw, is then calculated as follows:

If the wind farm noise level lies below the value indicated from the two noise criteria curves at the critical speed, and the local authority/EHO consider there to be no audible tones, then no further action is necessary.

THE GUIDANCE NOTES – Section B

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 161

Guidance Notes to the Planning Obligation contained within pages 103-104 of “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97” published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry . Reference is made to Section 2.1 of this document which also forms part of the guidance given here.6 Where, in the opinion of the local authority/EHO, the noise immission contains a tonal component, the following rating procedure should be used. This is based on the repeated application of a tonal assessment methodology - see below.

For each 10-minute interval for which LA90,10min data have been obtained, a tonal assessment - see Section 2.1 ETSU-R-97 on pages 104-109 - is performed on noise immission during 2-minutes of the 10-minute period. The 2-minute periods should be regularly spaced at 10-minute intervals provided that uninterrupted clean data are obtained.

For each of the 2-minute samples the margin above or below the audibility criterion of the tone level difference, Ltm, is calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 referred to above.

The margin above audibility is plotted against wind speed for each of the 2-minute samples. For samples for which the tones were inaudible or no tone was identified, substitute a value of zero audibility.

A linear regression is then performed to establish the margin above audibility at the assessed wind speed. If there is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic average will suffice.

The tonal penalty, KT, is derived from the margin above audibility of the tone according to Fig 17.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tone Level above Audibility (dB)

Pena

lty (d

B)

Figure 17 Penalties for tonal noiseThe rating level is the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level, Lpw and the tonal penalty, KT. It is this level which determines whether the wind farm has complied with the limits set in the planning condition.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 162

Table1 referred to in condition 32:Background noise levels, dB LA90

Turrerich Wind speed (m/s)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Quiet daytime

29 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Night-time

28 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 163

APPENDIX 3: APPEARANCES

For GreenPower (Griffin) Ltd: Richard Glover, Solicitor, of Hammonds, Solicitors, 2 Park Lane, Leeds LS3 1ES appeared. He called:

Dr Mark Evans, GreenPower Developments Ltd Stephen Halliday, Stephenson Halliday Dr Sheila Ross, AMEC Earth & Environmental UK Dr Andrew McKenzie, Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd David Stewart, David Stewart Associates

For I&H Brown (Calliachar) Ltd: Gordon Steele QC appeared, instructed by Sandra Leece, Solicitor, Shepherd & Wedderburn, Saltire Court, 20 Castle Terrace, Edinburgh EH1 2ET. He called:

David Keddie, Roger Tym and Partners John Ferry, Enviros Consulting Ltd Dr Kate Barlow, BMT Cordah Ltd Sam Shortt, SIAS Ltd Bill Sheridan, BMT Cordah Ltd James Welch, EDAW David Bell, Jones Lang LaSalle

For Perth and Kinross Council: John Campbell QC appeared. He called: Councillor Robert Lumsden, Perth and Kinross Council David Tyldesley, David Tyldesley and Associates Graham Esson, Perth and Kinross Council

For the Amulree and Strathbraan Windfarm Action Group: Geoffrey Sinclair appeared. He called:

Andrew Whitfield, Jacobs Babtie Ronald Falconer, Jacobs Babtie Vanina Saint-Martin, Jacobs Babtie Alistair Rees, Jacobs Babtie David Chudziak, Jacobs Babtie Ian Kelly, Graham & Sibbald Geoffrey Sinclair, Environmental Information Services Patrick Stirling-Aird, Scottish Raptors Study Group John Mackay Local witnesses: John Anderson, Meikle Tombane John Bryce, Tomnagrew Ann Lindsay, Meikle Trochry Farmhouse Thomas Steuart-Fotheringham, Murthly & Strathbraan Estates Ann Steuart-Fotheringham, Kennacoil House Susan McKinnon, Auchnacloich Robert Noble, Strathbraan Treks Michael Funston, Scotstoun Jill Wilson, Chair, Amulree and Strathbraan Windfarm Action Group Fiona Cameron, Milton George Wilson, Kenmore & District Community Council

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 164

Sheila Mannion, Dunkeld & Birnam Community Council Kevin Johnston, Dunkeld and Birnam Tourist association Andrew Pointer, Transcotland Alistair Wylie, Kettles of Dunkeld Ian Abbott, Rowanbank, Butterstone Dr Anthony Pleasance, Aldville, Trochry

For Scottish Natural Heritage: Louise Cockburn, Solicitor, of Archibald Campbell & Harley WS, Solicitors, appeared. She called:

Rhys Bullman, Scottish Natural Heritage

Other Third Parties: Vaughan Hammond, Tilhill Forestry Mark Ruskill, MSP Murdo Fraser, MSP Maureen Beaumont, Foulford Inn Adrian Grant, 7 Shiels Avenue, Freuchie, Fife Derek Birkett, Cromdale, Grandtully

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 165

APPENDIX 4: DOCUMENTS

CORE DOCUMENTS:

Legislation and Statutory Instruments1.01 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/1997008.htm

1.02 Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (Scotland) Rules 1997http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1997/97079601.htm

1.03 Electricity Act 1989http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1989/Ukpga_19890029_en_1.htm

1.04 The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2000/20000320.htm

1.05 Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 http://www.scotland-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2004/20040006.htm

1.06 Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910028_en_1.htm

1.07 Wildlife and Countryside Act 19811.08 The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999

http://www.scotland-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi1999/19990001.htm

1.09 The Renewable Obligation (Scotland) Order 2002http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2002/20020163.htm

1.10 The Renewable Obligation (Scotland) Order 2004http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2004/20040170.htm

1.11 The Renewable Obligation (Scotland) Order 2005http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2005/20050185.htm

1.12 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/1997009.htm

1.13 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/ancient_monuments_and_archaeological_areas_act_1979.pdf

1.14 Water Environment (Controlled Activities)(Scotland) Regulations 2005http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2005/20050348.htm

Section A – Scottish Executive National Planning Guidelines and National Planning Policy GuidelinesCD – A01 SPP 1 The Planning System

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/planning/spp1-00.aspCD – A02 SPP 2 Economic Development

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/planning/spp2-00.aspCD – A03 NPPG 4 Land for Mineral Working

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/03/3085211/52124CD – A04 NPPG 5 Archaeology and Planning

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/nppg/nppg5bcon.htmCD – A05 NPPG 6 Renewable Energy Developments

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/planning/nppg/nppg6-00.asp

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 166

CD – A06 SPP 7 Planning and Floodinghttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47210/0026394.pdf

CD – A07 NPPG 11 Sport, Physical Recreation and Open Spacehttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/1996/06/nppg11

CD – A08 NPPG 14 Natural Heritagehttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/nppg/npg14-00.htm

CD – A09 SPP 15 Rural Developmenthttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/planning/spp15-00.asp http://www.scotland .gov.uk/consultations/planning/prd-00.asp

CD – A10 SPP 17 Planning for transporthttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/16154406/44078

CD - A11 NPPG 18 Planning and the Historic Environmenthttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/nppg/phe-00.htm

CD – A12 SPP 20 Role of Architecture and Design Scotlandhttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20748/53364

CD – A13 SPP6 Renewable Energy, Consultation Drafthttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/135669/0033623.pdf

Section B – Scottish Executive Planning Advice NotesCD – B01 PAN 42 Archaeology

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/1994/01/17081/21711CD – B02 PAN 44 Fitting New Housing Development into the Landscape

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/04/01145231/52326CD – B03 PAN 45 Renewable Energy Technologies

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/pan/pan45-00.aspCD – B04 PAN 50 Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral Workings

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/AdviceGuidance/PANsCD – B05 PAN 51 Planning and Environmental Protection

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/pan/pan-cover.aspCD – B06 PAN 56 Planning and Noise

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/pan/pan56-00.htmCD – B07 PAN 58 - Environmental Impact Assessment

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/pan/pan58-00.htm

CD – B08

PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritagehttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/about/Planning/pan_61.aspx

CD – B09 PAN 68 Design Statementshttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/planning/dpps-00.asp

CD – B10 Designing Places, 2001http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/planning/dpps-00.asp

CD – B11 PAN 73 Rural Developmenthttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20638/51727

Section C - Scottish Executive Circulars CD – C01 Circular 17/1985 Development Control Priorities and ProceduresCD – C02 Circular 6/1990 Award of Expenses in Appeals and other Planning Procedures

and in Compulsory Purchase Order Inquirieshttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/1990/03/circular-6-1990

CD – C03 Circular 12/1996 Planning Agreementshttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/1996/04/circular-12-1996

CD – C04 Circular 4/1998 The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 167

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/about/Planning/Circular_4_1998.aspxCD – C05 Circular 10/1999 Planning and Noise

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/about/Planning/circular10_1999.aspxCD – C06 Circular 15/1999 Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations

1999http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning-Building/Planning/15243/2157

CD – C07 Habitats and Bird Directives: June 2000http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/nature/habd-00.asp

CD – C08 European Protected Species, Development Sites and the Planning System: Interim guidance for local authorities on licensing arrangements: 2001http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/environment/epsg.pdf

CD – C09 Memorandum of Guidance: on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areashttp://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/memorandumofguidance_1998.pdf

Section D - Development PlanCD – D01 Perth and Kinross Structure Plan 2003

http://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/89A3E323-1169-49C6-B530-102C66067200/0/WrittenState.pdf

CD – D02 Highland Area Local Plan 2000http://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/68DBE2C6-B1BB-4361-A088-590B9469071A/0/HALP.pdf

Section E - Supplementary Planning GuidanceCD – E01 Wind Energy Policy and Guidelines, May 2005

http://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/FCD51800-0C0A-4F5D-9D0E-7CB36EAC0F09/0/WindEnergy_SPG_May2005.pdf

Section F - Perth & Kinross Council Committee Reports and MinutesCD – F01 Enterprise & Infrastructure Committee, 3 March 2004 - Report by Executive

Director (Planning & Transportation) - Wind Energy Policy Guidancehttp://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/00FE2C16-236A-4EEF-8C96-5E284E0518B8/0/March04WindEnergyPolicy.pdfhttp://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/312E85F0-0BF8-4965-A6C2-EE2713E484BA/0/EandI_Minutes_03_March_04.pdf

CD – F02 Enterprise & Infrastructure Committee 23 June 2004 - Report by Executive Director (Planning & Transportation) - Wind Energy Policy and Guidelineshttp://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/6A7F7E1C-BD6E-47CC-A430-54EB80C21B69/0/June2304WindEnergyPolicy.pdfhttp://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/79E5CDB9-AF43-4C4C-9D03-BA16DBA5DDA1/0/SpecialEandI_Minutes_230604.pdf

CD – F03 Enterprise and Infrastructure Committee, 1 December 2004 - Report by Executive Director (Planning & Transportation) - Wind Energy Policy: the Next Stepshttp://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/7E60DC60-FDA9-4632-B7EE-790342C7D3AD/0/Dec04_WindEnergyPolicy.pdfhttp://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/AD948401-1F23-45A4-9DDF-58DFC1DBF7E2/0/Minute_041201.pdf

CD – F04 Enterprise and Infrastructure Committee, 20 April 2005 - Report by Executive Director (Planning & Transportation) - Wind Energy Policy: the Next Stepshttp://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/917E4651-C5B5-4C0D-85D3-F432D799B9ED/0/Committee_WindEnergy_20_April_05.pdf

CD – F05 Report 05/667 Non Tech Report Wind Farm Proposals 25 October 2005http://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/EA0CFB1D-6C46-43C5-9AD7-80268CF19D27/0/Non_Tech_Report_25_Oct_05.pdf

CD - F06 Report 05/668 South Highland Perthshire Background 25 October 2005http://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/C8374185-02A5-436B-B4BE-FA7E5F4B0993/0/Wind_Background_25_OCt_05.pdf

CD – F07 Report 05/669 WIND CALLIACHAR 25 October 2005http://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/ED02B070-6647-4F9C-A777-

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 168

919A63CA7F44/0/Calliacher_25_Oct_05.pdfCD – F08 Report 05/670 GRIFFIN WIND 25 October 2005

http://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/AF8A3C3E-093A-47D7-947B-A9A6D95BC589/0/Griffin_25_Oct_05.pdf

CD – F09 DC Committee Minutes 25 October 2005 (Special)http://percms-l/NR/rdonlyres/32EAB6DA-A430-40B6-8963-E476382B4211/0/F6eDCCommitteeMinutes25October2005Special.pdf

Section G – PKC Commissioned Studies

Landscape and Visual

CD – G01 DTA Landscape Study Windfarm Development, 16 June 2004http://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/6F3C0CDD-9296-433A-8D91-C8A1B09CAA5B/0/DTReportFinal_Complete.pdf

CD – G02 DTA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 5 January 2005http://percms-l/NR/rdonlyres/6F3C0CDD-9296-433A-8D91-C8A1B09CAA5B/0/DTReportFinal_Complete.pdf

CD – G03 DTA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 8 October 2005http://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/996AE516-F05C-48F6-9EC1-BBAB5105F244/0/DT_Final_ES_Assess_Oct_2005.pdf

Hydrogeology

CD – G04 BGS Calliachar ES review http://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/0AA0B08F-E491-4342-9867-3D8A998B83A1/0/BGS_Calliachar_ES_review.pdf

CD – G05 BGS Griffin ES review http://www.perthshire.com/NR/rdonlyres/A0B21127-23A5-434B-A046-495B33D1372C/0/BGS_Griffin_ES_review.pdf

NoiseCD – G06 New Acoustics Calliachar ES review

http://percms-l/NR/rdonlyres/CEE5F2E7-CC64-44B9-8EBF-DD7703E7E645/0/O3NACalliacherReport.pdf

CD – G07 New Acoustics Griffin ES reviewhttp://percms-l/NR/rdonlyres/055FDB7A-BBA5-4ADF-906F-00E662A70B36/0/O4NAGriffinReport.pdf

Section H - SNH StudiesCD – H01 A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment

http://www.snh.org.uk/pubs/pdf/save.asp?pid=454&pdf=pdfs/publications/heritagemanagement/EIA.pdf

CD – H02 An Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes : No. 4 Tayside, Central and Fife

CD – H03 Constructed tracks in the Scottish Uplandshttp://www.snh.org.uk/pubs/pdf/save.asp?pid=513&pdf=pdfs/publications/heritagemanagement/constructedtracks.pdf

CD – H04 Cumulative effect of Windfarms Version 2, SNH, 2005http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/Cumulativeeffectsonwindfarms.pdf

CD – H05 Energy and the Natural Heritage, SNH Policy Statement: 06/02, April 2006http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/polstat/EnergyPolStat.pdf

CD – H06 Enhancing Our Care of Scotland's Landscapeshttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/130529/0031255.pdf

CD – H07 Guidance for Competent Authorities when dealing with proposals affecting SAC freshwater sites

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 169

http://www.snh.org.uk/pubs/pdf/save.asp?pid=511&pdf=pdfs/publications/heritagemanagement/guidanceforcompetentauthorities.pdf

CD – H08 Guidance on Local Landscape Designationshttp://www.snh.org.uk/pubs/pdf/save.asp?pid=389&pdf=pdfs/publications/heritagemanagement/GuidanceonLocalLandscapeDesignations.pdf

CD – H09 Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of windfarms and Small-scale Hydro-electric Schemes, SNH, 2001

CD – H10 Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotlandhttp://www.ccnetwork.org.uk/ca/LCA_Guidance.pdf

CD – H11 Loch Tummel NSA Landscape Assessment for SNH, Land Use Consultants, 1996CD – H12 National Scenic Areas: Scottish Natural Heritage's Advice to Government

http://www.snh.org.uk/news/1out-nsa2.aspCD – H13 Natural Heritage Futures: Eastern Lowlands, SNH, 2002

http://www.snh.org.uk/futures/Data/pdfdocs/Eastern_Lowlands.pdf CD – H14 Natural Heritage Futures: Loch Lomond, the Trossachs and Breadalbane

http://www.snh.org.uk/futures/Data/pdfdocs/Loch_Lomond.pdfCD – H15 Natural Heritage Zones: A National Assessment of Scotland’s Landscapes

http://www.snh.org.uk/futures/Data/pdfdocs/LANDSCAPES.pdfCD – H16 River Tay (Dunkeld) NSA Landscape Assessment for SNH, Land Use

Consultants, 1996CD – H17 Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms in Respect of the

Natural Heritage, Policy Statement No. 02/02 Update May 2005 http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/polstat/ar-ps01.pdf

CD – H18 Tayside Landscape Character Assessment for SNH by Land Use Consultants 1999 http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/LCA/tayside.asphttp://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/LCA/maps/tay.pdf

CD – H19 Topic Paper 2 Links to other Sustainability Toolshttp://www.ccnetwork.org.uk/ca/LCA_Topic_Paper_2.pdf

CD – H20 Topic Paper 5 Understanding Historic Landscape Characterhttp://www.ccnetwork.org.uk/ca/LCA_Topic_Paper_5.pdf

CD – H21 Topic Paper 6 Landscape Character Assessmenthttp://www.ccnetwork.org.uk/ca/LCA_Topic_Paper_6.pdf

CD – H22 Topic Paper 9 Climate Changehttp://www.ccnetwork.org.uk/ca/LCA_Topic_Paper_9.pdf

CD – H23 Visual Analysis of Wind Farms : Good Practice Guidance SNH 2005http://www.snh.org.uk/strategy/renewable/sr-we00.asp

CD – H24 Wildness In Scotland's Countryside: Policy Statement No. 02/03, July 2002http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/polstat/pd-wsc.pdf

CD – H25 Windfarms and Carbon Savings, June 2003http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/polstat/caf.pdf

Section I – Government Reports and documents

CD – I01 A handbook of climate trends across Scotland, Scottish Executive, 2006http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/100896/0024396.pdf

CD - I02 Changing Our Ways: Scotland's Climate Change Programme, March 2006http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/100896/0024396.pdf

CD – I03 Energy White Paper – Our energy future: creating a low carbon economy: DTI (2002)http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/index.shtml

CD - I04 Enterprise and Culture Committee of the Scottish Parliament – Report on Renewable Energy in Scotland – 6th Report Session 2 2004http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/enterprise/reports-04/

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 170

elr04-06-01.htmCD – I05 Forum for Renewable Energy Development in Scotland: Scotland's Renewable

Energy Potential: Realising the 2020 Target - Future Generation Group Reporthttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/09/09144010/40137

CD – I06 National Planning Framework for Scotland, Guidance for the spatial development of Scotland to 2025, April 2004http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47237/0026384.pdfhttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47237/0026385.pdfhttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47237/0026386.pdfhttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47237/0026387.pdf

CD – I08 Public Attitudes to Windfarms - Research Findings, 2003http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47133/0014639.pdf

CD - I08 Regional Renewable Energy Assessments – OXERA Environmental and ARUP Economic and Planning 2002 for the DTIhttp://www.oxera.com/cmsDocuments/Reports/DTI%20regional%20renewable%20energy%20assessment%20oxera_report.pdf

CD – I09 Response of the Scottish Executive to the Enterprise and Culture Committee Report of 2004

CD – I10 Scottish Executive Consultation Paper – Scotland’s Renewable Energy Policy beyond 2010 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47034/0014765.pdf

CD – I11 UK Climate Change Programme 2006http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/ukccp06-all.pdf

CD – I12a Scotland’s Renewable Resource: Volume 1http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47176/0014634.pdf

CD – I12b Scotland’s Renewable Resource: Volume 2http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47176/0014635.pdf

Section J – Other reports and documents

CD – J01 Cumulative Effect of Wind Turbines: A guide to assessing the cumulative effects of wind energy development, ETSU, 2000.http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewables/publications/pdfs/w1400538.pdf

CD – J02 Wind Power in the UK, Sustainable Development Commission, 2005www.sd-commission.org.uk

CD – J03 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2002) (2nd edition)  SpoN Press, Londonhttp://www.sponpress.com/default.asp

CD – J04 The Assessment and Rating of Noise for Wind Farms (ETSU-R-97), ETSU for DTI, 1996http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/page21743.html

CD – J05 Guidelines for Community Noise, World Health Organisation, 1999http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html

CD – J06 BS 8233 – 1997 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings, Code of Practicehttp://www.bsonline.techindex.co.uk/

CD – J07 Effects of the wind at night on wind turbine sound, van den Berg, GP, (2003) Journal of Sound and Vibration, London

CD – J08 Method for - Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas BS 4142:1997http://www.standardsdirect.org/standards/standards4/StandardsCatalogue24_view_2440.html

CD – J09 Forestry Practice Guide: Forestry Design Planning – A guide to good practice, 1998http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/fdp.pdf/$FILE/fdp.pdf

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 171

CD – J10 Forests and water guidelines, 2003http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/fcgl002.pdf/$FILE/fcgl002.pdf

CD – J11 ETSU W/13/00386 - Noise Measurements in Windy ConditionsCD – J12 ISO 9613-1 Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors Part 1

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=17426&scopelist=

CD – J13 ISO 9613-2 Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors Part 2http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=20649&scopelist=

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 172

DOCUMENTS FOR BOTH APPLICANTS:GREENPOWER (GRIFFIN) LTD AND I&H BROWN (CALLIACHAR) LTD

APP/1 Pre-Inquiry Meeting Notes (23.5.2006)APP/2 Climate Change: A UK Programme 2006APP/3 Changing Our Ways - Scottish Climate Change — Scottish Executive 2006APP/4 UK New and Renewable Energy Prospects for the 21 DTIAPP/5 UK New and Renewable Energy Prospects for the 21 Century: Conclusions in

response to the public consultation, DTIAPP/6 Report of the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit — The

Energy Review February 2002APP/7 EC White Paper 1997 — Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of

Energy. White Paper for a Community Strategy and Action Plan (COM (97) 599 final (26/11/1997)

APP/8 Scottish Executive: Securing a renewable energy future — Scotland’s renewable energy policy paper 2003

APP/9 House of Lords Select Committee Report; Electricity from renewables Session 1998 12th Report 1999 Volume 1 Report

APP/10 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 22nd Report: Energy—the Changing Climate (Executive Summary) June 2000

APP/11 Framework for Economic Development in Scotland – Scottish Executive 2004APP/12 House of Lords Science and Technology Committee - 15 July 2004:

Renewable Energy Practicalities Volume 1 ReportAPP/13 House of Commons Select Committee on Environmental Audit on renewable

energy Tenth Report 2004APP/14 Report of the National Audit Office, DTI Renewable Energy 11 February

2005APP/15 Report of the Sustainable Development Commission “Wind Energy in the UK

— a guide to the key issues surrounding on shore wind power development in the UK” 2005

APP/16 Speech by Alan Wilson, MSP (Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning), Speech in the debate on Motion S2M-3870 on future energy policy 26 January 2006

APP/17 The Scottish Executive News Release of 22 July 2005 Future of Scottish Renewable Energy Mapped Out

APP/18 Text of speech by Malcolm Wicks MP Setting Energy Policy in the UK 20 September 2005

APP/19 Text of speech by Malcolm Wicks MP The Energy Review 19 December 2005APP/20 “Scotland’s renewable energy potential” Scottish Executive 2005APP/21 National Planning Framework (extract – paragraph 54)APP/22(a) “Our Energy Challenge — Securing clean, affordable energy for the long-

term,” DTI Consultation Document (January 2006)APP/22(b) “The Energy Challenge: Energy Review Report 2006” DTI (11 July 2006)APP/23 Scottish Executive News Release, “Planning Roost for Renewables”, 10 July

2006APP/24 RSPB website reports on climate change, 2003, 8 January 2004APP/25 A Changing Climate for Insurance June 2004, Association of British InsurersAPP/26 House of Commons Hansard debate Wind Farms 25 October 2004

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 173

APP/27 Wind Power Note 16, December 1997, Danish Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association

APP/28 Dispelling the myths of Energy Payback Time: Wind Stats Newsletter, David Milborrow Spring 1998

APP/29 EC – Communication – Share of Renewable Energy in the EU – 26 May 2004APP/30 EU Directive EC2001/77/EC on the promotion of electricity produced from

renewable energy sources in the internal electricity marketAPP/31 Text of speech by Malcolm Wicks MP, Minister of State for Energy, The

Energy Review, Institute of Directors Energy Conference, London, 13 July 2006

APP/32 Text of speech by The Rt. Hon Alistair Darling MP, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Energy Review, Statement to the House of Commons, 11 July 2006

APP/33 SNH’s Policy on Renewable Energy – Policy Statement No 01/02APP/34 Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms in respect of natural

heritage – Policy Statement No 02/02 update May 2005APP/35 “Landscape Character Assessment: Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for

Judging Capacity and Sensitivity.” Scottish Natural Heritage and The Countryside Agency

APP/36 “Landscape Character Assessment: Topic Paper 9: Climate change and natural forces – the consequences for landscape character” Scottish Natural Heritage and The Countryside Agency

APP/37 Visual Analysis of Wind Farms; Good Practice Guidance, Consultation Draft SNH July 2005

APP/38 “Guidance for Assessment of Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts Arising from Wind Farm Developments”, May 2004, Fourth draft Scottish Natural Heritage Advisory Services Landscape Group

APP/39 Renewable Energy Update, Annex 1; SNH/03/6/6 - Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002

APP/40 Scottish Natural Heritage Guidance: Cumulative Effect of Windfarms version 2 revised 13 April 2005

APP/41 Loch Tummel National Scenic Area Landscape Character Assessment for SNH by Land Use Consultants, Final Report March 1999

APP/42 Stanton C (1996) The Landscape Impact and Visual Design of WindfarmsAPP/43 Forestry Practice Guide: Forestry Design Planning - A Guide to Good

Practice, The Forestry Authority and Forest Service, 1998APP/44 Central Region Landscape Character Assessment (1999) ASH Consulting

Group for Scottish Natural HeritageAPP/45 “Setting of Cultural Heritage Features” by Simon Collcutt Journal of Planning

and Environmental Law, 1999 pages 498-513APP/48 Biodiversity. The UK Action Plan, HMSO, London 1994APP/47 Tayside Biodiversity Partnership 2002. Tayside Biodiversity Action Plan

(extract – Upland Heath).APP/48 Natural Research Limited, “Natural Research Information Note 1; A Review

of the impacts of Wind Farms on Hen Harriers Circus Cyaneus,’ DP Whitfield and M Madders, October 2005.

APP/49 “Forests and Birds: A Guide to Managing Forests for Rare Birds”. RSPB, Forestry Authority. Currie and Elliott, 1997.

APP/50 “Bird Monitoring Methods, manual of techniques for key UK species” Gilbert,

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 174

Gibbons and Evans (1998). RSPB, BTO, WWT, JNCC, ITE, The Seabird Group.

APP/51 “NEG Micon Replacement Wind Turbine, Burgar Hill, Orkney - Assessment of Ornithological Impact”, Haworth, (August 2002)

APP/52 “European Protected Species, Development Sites and the Planning System - Interim Guidance for local authorities on licensing arrangements” Scottish Executive, October 2001

APP/53 Natura 2000 UK SAC Data Form, River Tay. JNCC, 17 May 2006APP/54 “Investigation into the Potential Impact of Windfarms on Tourism”, 2003

NFO System 3, final report prepared for Visit ScotlandAPP/55 Tourist Attitudes Towards Wind Farms - MORI Scotland for the Scottish

Renewables Forum and the British Wind Energy Association (September 2002).

APP/56 Tayside Economic Review 2005 – Scottish Economic Research APP/57 Extracts from Loudonhill Laigh Newton Extension – Appraisal of Tourism

Impact: Final Report. Roger Tym & Partners for Tarmac Northern Limited (January 2004).

APP/58 Email correspondence between Roger Tym & Partners and Outdoor Access Officer, East Ayrshire Council (19 November 2003).

APP/59 Walking Routes in Straiton - Appraising the Economic Impact: Willie Miller Urban Design + Urban Planning and Roger Tym & Partners for Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire (November 2003).

APP/60 A Walking Strategy for Scotland, Consultation Document. The Scottish Executive (February 2003) Standard Tourism Volume and Value Datasheets for the Perthshire Tourism Region; VisitScotland

APP/61 Scottish Tourism the Next Decade; A Tourism Framework for Change. Scottish Executive. March 2006

APP/62 Assessment of the effects of wind farms on tourism in the UK, by David Stewart, dated August 2006 including other reports and

studiesAPP/63 List of appeal and call-in decisions in England, Scotland and Wales since 1999APP/64 BS5229: Part 1 1997 - Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open

SitesAPP/65 Green on Green: Public Perceptions of Wind Power In Scotland and Ireland –

Charles R Warren, Carolyn Lumsden, Simone O’Dowd and Richard V BurnieAPP/66 “Onshore wind: Power ahead”, March 2006 British Wind Energy AssociationAPP/67 Project West Wind; Shadow flicker assessment report, Meridian Energy, 22

June 2005APP/68 C8 Gleneagles Communiqué (extract), 2005APP/69 Windfarm Construction: Economic Impact Appraisal” O’Herlihy & Co. Ltd.

3 March 2006APP/70 Letter from the Scottish Executive to the Head of Forward Planning, Perth

Council dated 25 October 2004APP/71 Letter from Scottish Executive to the Chief Executive, Local Authorities dated

5 August 2005APP/72 Letter from Scottish Executive to the Scottish Renewables Forum dated

December 2005APP/73 Highland Council: Renewable Energy Local Content of Schemes - 31 May

2006

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 175

APP/74 Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic. Guidance Notes No.1 Institute of Environmental Assessment

APP/75 Non-technical summary for AbercairnyAPP/76 Non-technical summery for Beauly-Denny lineAPP/77 Drummuir windfarm appeal decision from SEIRU, letters dated 11 April 2005

and 2 February 2005 (reference number P/PPA/300/128 and P/PPA/300/137)APP/78 An Suidhe appeal decision from SEIRU, 31 March 2003 (reference number

P/PP/75/98/SA/32)APP/79 Little Cheyne Court windfarm - appeal report to the Secretary of State for

Trade & Industry, 13 May 2005 (DTI reference number GDBC/003/0000IC)APP/80 Green Knowes windfarm - appeal decision from SEIRU, 13 June 2006

(reference number P/PPA/340/320)APP/81 Whitelee windfarm - Section 36 Electricity Act 1989 consent, 5 May 2006

(reference number IEC 3/33)APP/82 Long Park windfarm (Halburn and Bow Farm) - appeal decision from SEIRU,

11 July 2006 (reference number P/PPA/140/251)APP/83 Dummuies windfarm appeal decision from SEIRU, 22 September 2004

(reference number P/PPA/110/456)APP/84 Scout Moor windfarm – decision from the Department of Trade and Industry

dated 25 May 2005 (conclusions and decision only)APP/85 Whinash windfarm - appeal decision from the Department of Trade and

Industry, 2 March 2006APP/86 Ferndale windfarm, Rhondda Cynon Taf - appeal decision from The Planning

Inspectorate, National Assembly for Wales 6 April 2005 (reference number APP/L6940/A04/1154754)

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 176

DOCUMENTS FOR GREENPOWER (GRIFFIN) LTD

GP1 Section 36 Application letter together with Environmental Statement dated April 2004 (7 volumes)GP2 Amended Environmental Statement dated August 2005 (4 volumes)GP3 Additional access route information dated August 2006GP4 Outline Land Management Pland dated August 2006GP5 Set of relevant statutory consultee responsesGP6 Key correspondence relating to hydrology, hydrogeology and private water suppliesGP7 Hydrology report dated June 2006GP8 Report on private water supplies dated June 2006GP9 Appendix to landscape and visual amenity evidence dated July 2006GP10 Residential receptor survey dated July 2006GP11 Addition route access information erratum

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 177

DOCUMENTS FOR I&H BROWN (CALLIACHAR) LTD

IHB/1 Letter from I&H Brown Ltd to Scottish Executive dated 16 February 2004

IHB/2 Calliachar Wind Farm Environmental Statement Volume 1 (February 2004)

IHB/3 Calliachar Wind Farm Environmental Statement Volume 2 (February 2004)

IHB/4 Letter from I&H Brown Limited to Scottish Executive dated 5 March 2004

IHB/5 Calliachar Wind Farm Environmental Statement Addendum 1 (March 2004)

IHB/6 Letter from I&H Brown Limited to Scottish Executive dated 8 April 2004

IHB/7 Calliachar Wind Farm Environmental Statement Addendum 2 (April 2004)

IHB/8 Letter from BMT Cordah Limited to Scottish Executive dated 2 June 2004

IHB/9 Confidential Addendum on the Status of Schedule One Species Ecology Consulting (January 2005) — NOT CONTAINED IN THE PRODUCTIONS AS CONFIDENTIAL

IHB/10 Letter from I&H Brown Limited to Scottish Executive dated 28 February 2005

IHB/11 Calliachar Wind Farm Supplementary Information Volume 1 (February 2005)

IHB/12 Calliachar Wind Farm Supplementary Information Volume 2 (February 2005)

IHB/13 Geology, Hydrogeology and Hydrology Annex C (May 2005)

IHB/14 Letter from I&H Brown Limited to Scottish Executive dated 30 June 2005

IHB/15 Calliachar Wind Farm Supplementary Information (June 2005) - NOT CONTAINED IN THE PRODUCTIONS AS CONFIDENTIAL

IHB/16 Letter from I&H Brown Limited to Scottish Executive dated 16 March 2005

IHB/17 “Drive Through” CD “Calliachar Wind Farm”

IHB/18 E-mail from BMT Cordah Limited to Graham Esson, Perth and Kinross Council dated 6 June 2005 enclosing the geology, hydrogeology and hydrology annex

IHB/19 Letter from BMT Cordah Ltd to Scottish Natural Heritage (undated) but date stamped as received 15 August 2005

IHB/20 Consultation responses in respect of the proposed Calliachar Windfarm (separate folder)

IHB/21 Public Notice of Public Local Inquiry — The Perthshire Advertiser, 8 August 2006

IHB/22 Report on Third Party Representations, Calliachar Wind Farm, Jonas Lang LaSalle August 2006

IHB/23 Letter from I&H Brown Limited to Perth and Kinross Council dated 30 April 2004 relating to the draft Wind Energy Policy Guidelines

IHB/24 Letter from I&H Brown Limited to Perth and Kinross Council dated 10 February 2005 relating to the Wind Energy Policy

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 178

IHB/25 Letter from Scottish Renewables to Perth and Kinross Council dated 11 February 2005 relating to the Draft Wind Energy Policy

IHB/26 Letter from Murdo Fraser MSP to I&H Brown Limited dated 16 March 2005

IHB/27 E-mail from Sheila Mannion, Chair, Dunkeld and Birnam Community Council to Scott Brown, I&H Brown Limited dated 1 March 2005 enclosing minutes of the Community Council meeting held on 28 February 2005

IHB/28 E-mail from Sheila Mannion, Chair, Dunkeld and Birnam Community Council to Jennifer Chapman, I&H Brown Limited dated 18 March 2005 enclosing minutes of an Aswag meeting.

IHB/29 E-mail from Sheila Mannion, Chair, Dunkeld and Birnam Community Council to Scott Brown, I&H Brown and others dated 8 April 2005 enclosing a letter from the Community Council to Perth and Kinross Council dated 7 April 2005

IHB/30 Letter from Peter Ely, Secretary, Kenmore end District Community Council to Scottish Executive dated 28 March 2004 enclosing a copy of the minutes of the Community Council meeting held on 18 March 2004

IHB/31 Letter from J Duncan Millar, Chair, Kenmore and District Community Council to I&H Brown Limited dated 18 March 2005

IHB/32 Letter from I&H Brown Limited to Mr Jamie Duncan Millar, Kenmore and District Community Council, dated 29 March 2005

IHB/33 E-mail from J Duncan Miller, Chair, Kenmore and District Community Council to Scottish Executive dated 11 April 2005

IHB/34 Minutes of the meeting of the Kenrnore and District Community Council held on 20 April 2005 (extract)

IHB/35 Letter from Walking Support to I&H Brown Limited dated 21 March 2005 enclosed in letter from I&H Brown Limited to Perth and Kinross Council dated 24 March 2005

IHB/36 Record of discussion dated 25 October 2005 by JS Brown, I&H Brown Limited

IHB/37 Record of discussion dated 23 May 2006 by JS Brown, I&H Brown Limited

IHB/38 Copy completed comments forms at public exhibition, Amulree, December 2003:

1. Shane King 9 John L Anderson

2. J Duncan Millar (Chair, Kenmore and 10. Margaret and SMW Ritchie

District Community Council) 11. Mr J Behney

3. Irene B Miller 12. Stella Morse

4. Alex Murphy 13. Chris Eddington

5. Miss M Findlay 14. R Convery

6. A H Thomson 15. Ron Payne

7. J W Miller 16. Mrs Gillian McGregor

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 179

8. Colin McGregor

IHB/39 Illustrations supporting the Landscape and Visual evidence of James Welch MLI

IHB/40 E-mail from Scottish and Southern Energy to I&H Brown dated 9 August 2006 regarding transfomers together with two photographs and drawing E80-6799.0

IHB/41 Test Report: Measurement of Noise Emission from a BONUS 2.3 MW Wind Turbine Situated at Blahoj, Denmark (21.11.2002)

IHB/42 Siemens Acoustic Emission 2.3 MW (24.10.2005)

IHB/43 “Calliachar Windfarm Environmental Statement Comments on Noise Section” Dick Bowdler, New Acoustics, 17 May 2O04

IHB/44 Tables of noise levels

IHB/45 “Noise Receptors” figure (August 2006)

IHB/46 Exchange of e-mail correspondence dated 27 January 2006 and 1 February 2006 between Bill Sheridan, BMT Cordah Limited and Roy Dennis regarding

Rannoch Wind Farm

IHB/47 National Vegetation Classification Survey (2003) and figure (August 2006)

IHB/48 Draft Habitat Management Plan — Calliachar windfarm

IHB/49 Preliminary Peatslide Risk Assessment - Calliachar Wind Farm Project — Draft Final Report by Enviros Consulting Limited: August 2006

IHB/50 Calliachar Hydrological Impact Assessment — A draft report by Enviros Consulting Limited: August 2006

IHB/51 Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003

IHB/52 E-mail correspondence from Mike Shepherd, Area Officer, Scottish Natural Heritage dated 22 June 2006 regarding the River Tay SAC

IHB/53 Letter from Sean Caswell, Senior Planning Officer SEPA to I&H Brown Limited in respect of CAR dated 14 August 2006

IHB/54 Socio-economic and Tourism Impact Report, Roger Tym and Partners, August 2006

IHB/56 Working Draft — Construction Method Statement 31 July 2006 (reference 287/4747 (Rev. 7/06))

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 180

DOCUMENTS FOR PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL

Section A: Appeal DecisionsPKC-A01 Rendal, PPA/330/032PKC-A02 Whinash, t0IY0P4S2PKC-A03 Garvock Hill, PPA/110/504PKC-A04 Greeen Knowes, PPA/340/420PKC-A05 Balado, PPA/340/283PKC-A06 Dummuie, PPA/110/456PKC-A07 Borrowstone, PPA/270/285PKC-A08 DrummuirPKC-A09 AbercairnyPKC-A010 Drumderg

Section B: Wind TurbinesPKC-B01 GE Energy 15PKC-B02 V52 UKPKC-B03 V80 UKPKC-B04 V82 UKPKC-B05 Bonus 600kwPKC-B06 AM BONUS 1 MW-54PKC-B07 Siemens Scottish Wildlife Trust 1.3-62PKC-B08 REpower PP MD70 ukPKC-B09 REpower PP MM70 ukPKC-B010 REpower PP MD77 ukPKC-B011 REpower PP MM82 ukPKC-B012 Nordex PB S60 GBPKC-B013 Nordex PB S70 GBPKC-B014 Gamesa G52_General_Characteristics

Section C: ForestryPKC-C01 Climate change and British woodlandPKC-C02 Climate change and Scottish’s Forestry Strategy topic paper 1PKC-C03 Forestry carbon questionsPKC-C04 Forestry contribution to climate change mitigationPKC-C05 Forests in global carbon balancePKC-C06 Frequently asked questionsPKC-C07 Human influences on carbon balancePKC-C08 Planting strategies and future topic paper 2PKC-C09 Plantation adaptation strategies for climate changePKC-C010 Sustainable Forest ManagementPKC-C011 Woodland and our changing environment PKC-C012 Role of biomass in greenhouse gas mitigation

Section D: LandscapePKC-D01 Argyll & Bute Capacity Study LUC July 2002PKC-D02 Ayrshire and Clyde Valley windfarm landscape capacity studySection E: Other Reports and DocumentsPKC-E01 Advertising Standards 21 December 2005

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 181

PKC-E02 Efficiency and performance

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 182

DOCUMENTS FOR THE AMULREE AND STRATHBRAAN WINDFARM ACTION GROUP

1. LandscapeLandscape/1 SNH – Visual assessment of windfarms: Best Practice – Report No.:

F01AA303A - 2002Landscape/2 General – The Scottish Wind Assessment Project – Gazateer of wind power in

Scotland Landscape/3 SNH – Renewables Trends in Scotland Statistics and Analysis – December

2004Landscape/4 SNH - Renewables Trends in Scotland Statistics and Analysis – June 2006Landscape/5 SNH – Appeal decisions – Extracts – Llethercynon, Margam, Wogaston and

Holderness

2. OrnithologyOrnithology/1 Eagle and Merlin information - confidentialOrnithology/2 Calliachar Assessment by Ronald YoungmanOrnithology/3 Griffin – Assessment by Ronald YoungmanOrnithology/4 Griffin and Calliachar – Assessments by Natural Research (Projects)

LtdOrnithology/5 General – Papers regarding bird deathsOrnithology/6 General – Paper: Resident Golden Eagle ranging behaviour before and

after construction of a wind farm in ArgyllOrnithology/7 General – Paper: Spatial association as an indicator of the potential for

future interactions between wind energy developments and golden eagles Aquila chrysaetos in Scotland

Ornithology/8 General – Paper: The effects of illegal killing and destruction of nests by humans on the population dynamics of the hen harrier Circus cyaneus in Scotland

Ornithology/9 General – Paper: Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts

Ornithology/10 General – Paper: Predicting home range use by golden eagles Aquila chrysaetos in Western Scotland

Ornithology/11 General – SNH Information Paper: Assessing the significance of impacts from onshore windfarms on bird outwith designated areas: basis for guidance in European and national legislation, and government policy

Ornithology/12 General – SNH Guidance Paper: Assessing significance of impacts from onshore windfarms on bird outwith designated areas

Ornithology/13 General – Paper: Assessing the impact of wind farms on bird – British Ornithologists Union

Ornithology/14 General – Forestry Commission Bulletin 81 – Goshawks: Their Status, Requirements and Management

3. RoadsRoads/1 Letter from PKC Roads and Transportation

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 183

4. TourismTourism/1 Scottish Tourism – the Next Decade A Tourism Framework for ChangeTourism/2 Rural Development Programme for Scotland 2007 – 2013 (extracts)Tourism/3 Tourism in Scotland – 2005 (Summary Statistics)Tourism/4 Tourism Attitudes Surveys – 1999, 2001, 2004 and 2005 (extracts)Tourism/5 Perceptions and experiences of access to the Scottish countryside for open-air

recreation of visitors from mainland Europe (extracts_Tourism/6 Country Sports Tourism in Scotland 2003 (Sumary and Extracts)Tourism/7 Scottish Recreation Survey 2003-2004 (Summary and Extracts)Tourism/8 Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms in Scotland 2002

(Extracts)Tourism/9 Summary 2001 Census dataTourism/10 In-migration to the Highlands and Islands 2004 (Summary and Extracts)Tourism/11 Maps of the southern boundary of the Cairngorms National ParkTourism/12 Establishing the overall value of a local path network (Dunkeld) 1998

(Extracts)

5. Local WitnessesMackinnon/1 General – Correspondence with the Ramblers AssociationSteuart-Fotheringham/1 General – Drilling Reports – Star DrillingWilson/1 General – DVDFunston/1 Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound –

G.P. van den Berg

6. PlanningPlanning/1 Wind Farms – A Reality Check – Prof Anthony TrewavasPlanning/2 General – Correspondence regarding access to the sites.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 184

DOCUMENTS FOR SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE

SNH1 Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 – ExtractSNH2 Policy on Renewable Energy, SNH Policy Statement No. 01/02SNH3 Strategic Location Guidance for Offshore Windfarms in Respect of the Natural

Heritage, SNH Policy Statement 02/02SHN4 Assessing Significance of Impacts from Onshore Windfarms on Birds Outwith

Designated Areas SNH5 Assessing Signficance of Impacts from Onshore Windfarms on Birds Outwith

Designated Areas: Basis for the Guidance in European and National Legislation, and Government Policy

SNH6 Forests and Birds: A Guide to Managing Forests for Rare BirdsSNH7 Survey Methods for Use in Assessing the Impacts of Onshore Windfarms on Bird

CommunitiesSNH8 Defra Review of Heather & Grass Burning Regulations and Code Etc. – ExtractSNH9 Penbreck & Carmacoup Proposed Windfarm – Precognition of Dr Mike Madders

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 185

DOCUMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL THIRD PARTIES

Maureen Beaumont:1. ‘Marquess opposes wind farm plans’ – article from The Scotsman, 5 May 20062. Tourism Attitudes Survey 2005 – VisitScotand, Novermber 20053. ‘Trump threat to ditch £300m Scottish golfing resort’- article from The Scotsman,

1 April 20064. Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Toursim on Scotland: Final

Report – VisitScotland, 30 August, 2002

Derek Birkett:Appendix 1 UK onshore wind capacity factors 1998-2004 (DTI Energy Trends, March

2006)Appendix 2 Statistics on Accredited Generating Stations (The Renewables Obligation,

Ofgem’s first annual report) (extract)Appendix 3 Statistics on Accredited Generating Stations (The Renewables Obligation,

Ofgem’s first annual report) (extract)Appendix 4 Wind Year 2003 – An overview (Wind Report 2004, E-on)Appendix 5 Capacity Factors for Scottish Wind Farms (DGB June 2006)Appendix 6 Renewable Energy : Practicalities (Extract)Appendix 7 Fig. 6 Load FactorsAppendix 8 Load and Capacity Factors for Scottish Region 2001-2008Appendix 9 Wind Speed / Power Characteristics of Wind Turbines N80 and N90Appendix 10 Guidlines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions : Annexes

updated July 2005: Annex 1 – Fuel Conversion Factors: Table 2: Converting Fuel Types to CO2 (Defra, July 2005)

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 186

DAVID A RUSSELLPrincipal Inquiry Reporter March 2007

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 187

THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989; AND THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997

PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRY INTOAN APPLICATION FOR WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT

AT GRIFFIN, BALLINLOAN AND SCOTSTON FOREST ESTATES:REPORT ON A CLAIM FOR AN AWARD OF EXPENSES

Inquiry Reporter: David A Russell MA(Hons) MPhil MRTPI File reference: IEC/3/65

Inquiry dates: 12 September to 19 October 2006

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 188

Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit4 The CourtyardCallendar Business ParkCallendar RoadFalkirkFK1 1XR

The Scottish MinistersEdinburgh

File reference: IEC/3/65

March 2007

Ministers

1. In accordance with my minute of appointment dated 5 April 2006, I conducted a public local inquiry in connection with the application for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct and operate a wind farm at Griffin, Ballinloan and Scotston Forest Estate in Perth and Kinross.

2. At the close of the inquiry, a claim was submitted on behalf of the applicant, GreenPower (Griffin) Ltd, for an award of expenses to be made by the Scottish Ministers against Perth and Kinross Council. As I have submitted my report on the merits of the Section 36 application, I will now address the claim for an award of expenses.

Summary of cases

3. On behalf of the applicant, it was submitted that the Ministers are empowered by the provisions of Section 62(2) of the Electricity Act 1989 and Section 210(7) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to make orders as to the expenses incurred by parties to an inquiry; and that it is appropriate to apply the guidance in the Scottish Office Development Department Circular No. 6/1990.

4. As the application for an award of expenses had been made prior to the close of the inquiry, the first test set by the circular, that the award should be applied for at an appropriate stage in the proceedings, was satisfied.

5. In relation to the second test, the council had acted unreasonably. It had done so, firstly, by objecting to the application without any reasonable planning grounds for doing so. The advice in the report to committee by its planning officer was that the development was in accordance with the development plan and that there were no reasons to object. This was confirmed by the council’s planning witness when cross-examined.

6. The councillor who gave evidence stated that he and the committee had relied on the views of the council’s landscape witness to support their view that there would be unacceptable landscape effects. That was not a conclusion which the landscape witness had reached either in his studies or reports which had been before the committee, or in his evidence to the inquiry. They had also ignored the views of Scottish Natural Heritage. In addition, the councillor had confirmed that he and the committee had ignored the benefits which would be associated with the development, particularly in view of the support for

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 189

renewable energy generation set out in government policy and in the supportive policies of both the structure plan and the local plan.

7. They appeared more concerned about local opposition to the proposal than the views of their professional advisers or statutory consultees, and the council’s objection had failed to mention any of the provisions of the development plan and had not given sound or clear cut reasons.

8. Secondly, the council’s actions in relation to the inquiry had also been unreasonable. The majority of the grounds of objection were withdrawn in the weeks leading up to the inquiry. These related to the proposal’s effects in relation to tourism, private water supplies and roads, while the objection in relation to noise withered away during the course of the inquiry. This reinforces the assertion that its original decision to object was unreasonable. It only pursued its objection in relation to landscape and visual effects. Although the councillor who gave evidence asserted that these effects would be unacceptable, no evidence was produced to substantiate that claim, and he could not explain how the committee had reached its decision.

9. Finally, it was unreasonable for the council to lead Mr Esson as its planning witness. It was clear that he was supportive of the development, given his involvement in the committee report, but he was somehow persuaded to produce a lengthy precognition that tried to justify the committee’s decision. The precognition was more akin to a work of fiction than evidence to a planning inquiry. This was confirmed by his acceptance at the beginning of cross-examination that the precognition did not reflect his personal or professional views. If he had not quickly distanced himself from his precognition, this could have constituted professional misconduct, given the guidance set out by the Royal Town Planning Institute’s code of conduct. Whatever the motivation, and whoever decided that he should present evidence that did not represent his professional view, this clearly constitutes unreasonable behaviour on behalf of the council.

10. The third test is that the council’s unreasonable conduct has caused the applicant to incur unnecessary expense, either because it should not have been necessary for the case to come before the Scottish Ministers for determination, or because of the manner in which the council had conducted its part of the proceedings.

11. The Scottish Ministers are obliged to hold an inquiry if the planning authority submits an objection which is not withdrawn, and that is what happened. Otherwise, the holding of an inquiry is at the discretion of the Scottish Ministers where objections have been raised by other parties. It was submitted that, if the council had not submitted an objection, the Scottish Ministers would not have exercised their discretion to hold an inquiry in this case, for the following reasons:

They have not done so before, where the planning authority has not submitted an objection.

There were no objections from statutory consultees. The objections by other parties all related to issues already considered by the

council or other statutory consultees.If no inquiry had been held, the applicant would not have had to incur any of the expenses associated with it.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 190

12. If the Scottish Ministers had exercised their discretion to hold an inquiry, the applicant’s expenses would have been significantly less if the council had not objected, as the work required to be undertaken by its witnesses would have been greatly reduced. In addition, the time taken at the inquiry for the council to present its case and undertake cross-examination would not have been required.

13. For these reasons, the applicant has incurred unnecessary expense, due to the council’s unreasonable behaviour.

14. An award of all of the expenses of the applicant should be made, on the basis that it was unnecessary for the proposal to be considered at an inquiry. If that is not accepted, a partial award should be made of 30% of the applicant’s overall expenses in relation to the inquiry. This is a reasonable proportion, given the work involved in dealing with the council’s objection both prior to, and during the inquiry.

15. The award should be made on the Court of Session (agent and client) scale because of the technical nature of the issues, the involvement of experts, and the requirement for a large volume of documents to address the issues. The applicant’s witnesses should be certified as expert witnesses, and the solicitor who represented the applicant should be certified as an appropriate advocate.

16. On behalf of the council, it was accepted that there is a competent statutory basis for a claim to be made for an award of expenses, but it was submitted that the council had not acted unreasonably, and neither its actions nor any omissions had resulted in expenses being incurred unnecessarily by the applicant.

17. The council’s committee had been entitled to rely on the material before it, and a difference of opinion between the members and the officials does not justify an award of expenses. The landscape consultant reported that the development would have significant landscape and visual effects. The officer’s report indicated support for the proposal “on balance”, and that compliance with the development plan was tempered with a recognition of reservations. The members were not persuaded by the report, and decided to disagree with it. That is not unreasonable behaviour. They did not reach a conclusion to which a properly directed planning authority could not have come.

18. The council gave notice in good time of its intention not to pursue some of its grounds of objection at the inquiry. While the objection did not cite policies or their wording, its purpose and intent were clear, being the scale of impact on the landscape and the visual consequences, as is confirmed by the photomontages from Trochry and King’s Seat. The members’ local knowledge of the landscape and of these viewpoints were reflected in their decision. Where the meaning and intention of the council’s decision are clear, there is no requirement for greater articulation.

19. The council’s conduct in relation to the inquiry was not unreasonable either. It was acting responsibly in advising in advance of the inquiry that it would not pursue three of the five grounds of objection. It had not failed to produce evidence to substantiate its objection. It had relied on the reports and evidence of its landscape assessor whose conclusions were demonstrably sound and reliable; on the terms of its own decision; and on the evidence of its planning witness which conceded the topographical suitability of the site for a wind farm, but expressed the same reservations about scale which had influenced the members. In

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 191

respect of an application for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, no more should be required of a planning authority.

20. It is fruitless to speculate whether the Scottish Ministers would have caused an inquiry to be held if the council had not lodged an objection, and it is not a basis on which to argue that the council’s decision to object was an unreasonable one.

21. It is obvious that, if an inquiry had not been held, the expense of the inquiry would not have been incurred. In the event, no expert evidence on noise was required at the inquiry, as the issue was resolved in advance, apart from the wording of the condition. However, the case for the proposed development could not have presented effectively at an inquiry without the evidence of the applicant’s other expert witnesses.

22. Accordingly, the claim for an award of expenses should be refused.

Conclusions

23. As noted in paragraph 4 of SDD Circular 6/1990, parties are normally expected to meet their own expenses in planning and related inquiries. Awards of expenses do not follow the decision on the merits of the proposed development, and are made only where each of the following tests is met:

The claim is made at the appropriate stage in the proceedings; The party against whom the claim is made has acted unreasonably; and, This unreasonable conduct has caused the party making the application

unnecessary expense, either because it was unnecessary for the matter to come before the Scottish Ministers, or because of the way in which the party against whom the claim is made has conducted its side of the case.

24. Here, the claim was made prior to the close of the inquiry, which is the appropriate stage in the proceedings. I therefore turn to the second test, to determine whether the council has acted unreasonably.

25. Here, the council was acting as a statutory consultee in relation to an application made to the Scottish Ministers for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. It was not acting in the role of a planning authority in determining a planning application. My consideration of whether any actions of the council were unreasonable requires to be undertaken in that context.

26. Members of planning committees are expected to exercise their own judgement in relation to development proposals, and in principle it is not unreasonable for them to disagree with the recommendation of their professional officers, provided that they have sound planning grounds for doing so. In the case of the proposed wind farm, it is not at all surprising that different conclusions should be reached as to the acceptability of the landscape and visual effects, and I am satisfied that the members had ample evidence before them, both from their professional advisers and from local residents. There is no basis for a finding that they were swayed simply by the level of local opposition, without proper planning grounds.

27. The council’s stated grounds of objection all related to valid planning considerations. I agree that the omission of any reference to an assessment of the proposal in relation to the

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 192

relevant provisions of the development plan is a valid source of criticism. Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires a planning authority to determine a planning application in accordance with the relevant provisions of the development plan, unless there are material considerations which indicate otherwise. While it could be expected that a planning authority would adopt the same approach to its consideration, as a consultee, of a development proposal submitted under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, it is not a statutory requirement. I therefore conclude that, in the context of the submission of an objection, the omission did not constitute unreasonable behaviour.

28. Similarly, both the views of Scottish Natural Heritage on the effects of the proposal, and the benefits of the proposal in relation to government policy on increased renewable energy generation, are relevant planning considerations. However, these were not only brought to the attention of the committee members, but have also been submitted to the Scottish Ministers for their consideration in determining whether or not to grant consent. While it would be unreasonable not to give weight to these, that is essentially a matter for the Scottish Ministers in this case.

29. With regard to the conduct of the inquiry proceedings, I agree that the council did not act unreasonably in giving notice in advance that it would not pursue certain of the stated grounds of its objection. In addition, it was appropriate that one of the committee members was led to give evidence on his reasons for finding that the landscape and visual impact would be unacceptable. His admission that the standing orders of the committee had precluded discussion, because there was no seconder in favour of the officer’s recommendation, points to a problem with the council’s committee procedures, rather than unreasonable behaviour in the proceedings of the inquiry.

30. However, I do find that it was unreasonable for the council’s professional planning witness to submit a precognition to the inquiry which did not reflect his own professional views of the development, but instead provided a rationale for the council’s objection. The fact that, under cross-examination, he readily and immediately accepted that this was the position and confirmed that his professional opinion was supportive of the proposal, provides only partial mitigation.

31. Accordingly, in that regard, I conclude that the council has acted unreasonably in its conduct of the inquiry proceedings.

32. It is therefore necessary for me to address the final test, which is to identify whether that unreasonable behaviour has caused the applicant to incur expenses unnecessarily. I find no basis for concluding that, but for this unreasonable behaviour, there would have been no need for the inquiry to be held.

33. I am therefore satisfied that the expenses of the applicant in preparing for the inquiry, in presenting its case, and attending in relation to other parties’ cases, were not incurred unnecessarily. However, the element of inquiry time taken by the planning officer in presenting his precognition, from which he departed under cross-examination, did result in the applicant incurring expenses unnecessarily. I estimate that to have amounted to about one day, when the attendance of the applicant’s solicitor and planning witness would have been required.

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 193

34. I have taken account of all the other matters raised in the submissions regarding the claim for an award of expenses, but they do not lead me to alter my conclusions.

35. I therefore recommend that the Scottish Ministers find the council liable to the applicant in respect of the expenses of attending one day of the public local inquiry.  I recommend that the account of expenses be remitted to the Auditor of the Court of Session to tax on an agent and client basis. I also recommend that the Scottish Ministers sanction the employment of the applicant’s solicitor as an appropriate advocate and certify David Stewart as a necessary expert for the applicant.

DAVID A RUSSELLPrincipal Inquiry Reporter March 2007

IEC_3_065 & IEC_3_101 194