abcdefghijklmnopqrstu

Transcription

1 Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals abcdefghijklmnopqrstu Appeal Decision Notice T: F: E: Decision by Scott M Ferrie, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers Planning appeal reference: PPA Site address: land east of Penmanshiel Farmhouse, Grantshouse, Scottish Borders Appeal by RES UK and Ireland Ltd against the failure of Scottish Borders Council to determine application for planning permission 11/01464/FUL dated 26 October 2011 The development proposed: construction of wind farm comprising 15 No turbines 100m high to tip and associated infrastructure including substation and control room building, 1 No permanent meteorological mast, up to 6 No temporary guyed meteorological masts, 1 No temporary 10m communications mast, on-site access tracks, site entrance, temporary construction compound, and associated ancillary and engineering works Application drawings: site location plan; planning application boundary plan; Environmental Statement; Further Environmental Information Date of hearing session: March 2013 Date of site visits by Reporter: 16 November 2012; 21 March 2013; 27 and 29 May 2013 Date of appeal decision: 16 October 2013 Decision I allow the appeal and grant planning permission subject to the 33 conditions listed at the end of the decision notice. Attention is also drawn to the 4 advisory notes at the end of the notice. The development proposal as set out above is for the 15 turbine scheme applied for by the appellant. For the avoidance of any doubt, and arising from condition 1 which has the effect of deleting turbine 3 from the scheme, permission is hereby granted for 14 turbines together with the other associated infrastructure as set out above. Reasoning 1. The determining issues in this appeal are the acceptability of the proposal in regard to: (a) landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative impacts; (b) (c) impact on residential amenity; impacts on the historic environment; all in accordance with the provisions of the development plan and having regard to other material considerations; and DX Falkirk

2 2 (d) whether any other matters indicate that permission should nonetheless be granted or refused. Development plan policy 2. When this appeal was lodged the approved Scottish Borders Structure Plan remained in force. Scottish Ministers subsequently approved the SESplan Strategic Development Plan in June By means of a procedure notice I requested the parties comments on the policies of that plan relevant to determination of this appeal and their assessment of the proposal against those policies. Policy 10: Sustainable Energy Technologies states that the plan seeks to promote sustainable energy sources, and provides instructions to local development plans to establish a framework for the encouragement of such technologies, taking into account relevant, including environmental, factors. I am satisfied that no other provisions of the plan would be determinative in the assessment of this proposal. 3. There is not yet an adopted local development plan in place covering the Scottish Borders Council area. In that context the Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan (2011) remains part of the development plan and continues to provide the development plan framework for the assessment of renewable energy proposals. 4. Policy D4: Renewable Energy Development of the local plan states that the council will support wind farm proposals where they can be accommodated without unacceptable impacts on the environment. The siting and design of all renewable energy proposals should take account of the social, economic and environmental context. Renewable energy developments are to be approved provided that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on a range of considerations, including landscape and archaeological heritage, or that any adverse impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated. The policy sets out a detailed framework for the assessment of commercial wind farm proposals and also requires that reference be made to Scottish Planning Policy in assessing the visual and other impacts of such proposals. 5. Although not forming part of the development plan, the council s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy (2011) provides further detailed guidance on the assessment of wind energy proposals and identifies broad areas of search for such proposals. As such, subject to a particular reservation which I address below, I consider it to be an important material consideration in the determination of this appeal. 6. Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development requires that all new development be of high quality, in accordance with sustainability principles and that, of particular importance to this appeal, be designed to integrate with its landscape surroundings. A detailed range of standards, applying to all development, are set out in the policy. 7. Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing or proposed residential areas will not be permitted. The level of visual impact of a proposal is listed as a factor requiring consideration under this policy.

3 3 8. Policy BE2: Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments requires the impact of development proposals on scheduled monuments and other archaeological or historic sites to be subject of detailed investigation, in accordance with stated policies of the structure plan. Although that plan is now superseded, I am satisfied that the policy nonetheless requires that such investigation be undertaken. Landscape impacts 9. Criterion 1 of Policy D4 states that commercial wind farms will normally be more acceptable within preferred areas outwith environmental designations. The appeal site is not covered by any landscape designation and consequently the council states this criterion to be satisfied. The Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area is however, located just to the north of the A1107, about 80 metres distant from the eastern-most row of proposed turbines. The council indicated during the hearing session that it would not have refused planning permission based on impact on this landscape designation. Having regard to the special qualities of that area, I agree with that assessment. 10. Criterion 2 of Policy D4 states that locations within large scale landscape settings defined as upland type in The Borders Landscape Character Assessment will normally be more acceptable locations for commercial wind farms than other landscape character types, subject to a detailed assessment of the proposal. Figure 7.7 of the Environmental Statement 2011 indicates that the majority of the proposed turbines would be located within landscape character type 21 (Coastal Moorland Coldingham Moor); but that the westernmost turbines would be located within, but on the edge of, landscape character type 26 (Pastoral Upland Fringe Valley Eye Water) and the southern-most turbines would be located on the boundary between landscape character type 21 and landscape character type 19 (Coastal Farmland Coldingham). 11. The appellant considers that to be a quirk of landscape character mapping at a large scale, and refers to SNH guidance which indicates that the precision of boundaries will vary with the scale of the assessment, that landscape is a continuum and that character does not in general change abruptly. As I understand it, Figure 7.8 of the Environmental Statement represents the appellant s assessment of local landscape character, and shows the majority of the appeal site (including all turbines) being located within coastal moorland, with only the southern-most part of the site located within pastoral upland fringe. On that assessment, the proposed turbines would be located about 90 metres back from the edge of the coastal moorland landscape character type. 12. The council, in its response to this appeal, appears to accept this interpretation of local landscape character, as does SNH, in its consultation response to the council. Based on that and on my extensive inspections of the appeal site and the surrounding area, I am satisfied that the proposed turbines would be located wholly within an area displaying characteristics of coastal moorland. That is not to disregard that the proposal would result in impacts on adjacent landscape character types. The Pastoral Upland Fringe Valley landscape character type is located to the south-west of the appeal site, and is described in The Borders Landscape Character Assessment as having a medium-scale landscape. I am satisfied, based on zone of theoretical visibility figures in the Environmental Statement and

4 4 on my inspections of the surrounding area, that the character of this landscape type would not be adversely affected to any unacceptable degree. 13. The coastal moorland landscape character type is characterised, in The Borders Landscape Character Assessment, as an expansive flat to gently rolling plateau sloping steeply to rugged cliffs at the coast and as an unusual landscape with a barren, exposed character and dramatic open views over the clifftops to the North Sea. It is further described as a distinctive, large-scale landscape with a barren wind-swept quality. Although not an upland landscape character type, I consider it significant that the landscape is described as large scale in the landscape character assessment and that some other of its characteristics referred to above could also reasonably be attributed to upland landscapes. I conclude that this criterion cannot be fully satisfied, as the landscape character type is not defined as upland, but that its characteristics do not clearly preclude a commercial-scale wind farm development. 14. Criterion 3 of Policy D4 states that locations with surrounding landform capable of minimising the visibility of the development, and where there is no interference with prominent skylines, will be considered more favourably than other locations. I agree with the appellant that the proposed turbines would be located within a lower lying bowl, contained on 3 sides by Greenside Hill, Meikle Black Law and Gowel Hill. There is disagreement between the appellant and the council, supported by SNH, as to whether that degree of containment is sufficient to minimise the visibility of the proposed development. 15. Reference to Figures 7.3B and 7.6 of the Environmental Statement appears to indicate a degree of visual containment of the proposal from lower lying areas to the north, and to the south and west along the Eye Water valley, which also hosts key transport routes. The near complete concealment of a proposal of this nature could not be reasonably expected. Figures 7.3B and 7.6 indicate that turbines would theoretically be visible over large areas on all sides, excluding to the north, where there would be significant visibility from the sea only. The council estimates that there would be theoretical visibility of the proposal from some 75-80% of the land area within 5 kilometres of the proposal. The appellant indicates however, that the computer generated zone of theoretical visibility indicates a figure of 58.5% theoretical visibility, excluding main areas of forestry and areas of sea, within 5 kilometres. I consider cumulative impacts later in this decision, but find it important to note at this stage the degree of overlap of theoretical visibility of the proposal and the adjacent Drone Hill wind farm. The appellant states that Penmanshiel would add only 10.9% of new areas of theoretical visibility, that is, additional areas from which Drone Hill is not theoretically visible. 16. The second part of this criterion refers to interference with prominent skylines. The council and SNH are particularly critical of the proposal in regard to its likely impact on the north-western edge of the coastal platform. SNH notes that this would increase the extent of turbine visibility in areas such as the A1 corridor and immediately south of Cockburnspath, including at the junction of the A1 with the A1107, about 2.3 kilometres from the nearest turbine. 17. I have carefully assessed this impact of the proposed development, given the importance attached to it by the council, SNH and others. I found the north-western edge of

5 5 the coastal platform to be a prominent feature, although not the main focal point, in views when travelling south along the A1. Figure 7.3B of the Environmental Statement indicates that 1 to 3 blade tips would be visible from the A1 / A1107 junction. No visualisation from this location has been produced, and I can see no evidence of the council or SNH having requested one. Viewpoint 17 is located on the A1, about 7.4 kilometres to the north-west of the nearest turbine. Viewpoints 11 and 12 are located to either side of the A1, about 4.5 kilometres to the north-west of the nearest turbine, and Viewpoints 4 and 8 are located about 2 and 1 kilometres respectively from the A1, but at about the same orientation and distance from the proposal as the A1 / A1107 junction. Taking all of these into account, together with my site inspections of the surrounding area, undertaken in a range of weather conditions, I find that turbines would be clearly visible from many points to the north-west. They would certainly appear on the skyline from some locations. They would however, be visually contained to some degree by the intervening landform. I do not consider that they would adversely affect appreciation of the platform edge to any significant degree, or that they would appear out of scale with or overwhelm the landscape. 18. The proposed wind farm would also be visible against the skyline from other directions. These have not been highlighted to me as prominent skylines, but I have no doubt that the impact on the landscape character and skyline when viewed from the west also merits particular consideration. From this orientation, the landform is not particularly distinctive, but rather comprises an expansive, undulating landform, with the North Sea beyond to the north in some views (for example from Viewpoint 8). The turbines would be much less visibly contained by the landform from this direction, and would appear as prominent features in the landscape. I am satisfied however, that they would not form the focal point in views or unacceptably affect appreciation of the landform, nor that they would appear out of scale within the landscape. 19. Drawing these findings together, I consider the proposal to be consistent with Criterion Criterion 5 (i) relates to impact on landscape character and areas characterised by remote qualities. The council concedes that not to be relevant in the determination of this case and I agree. 21. The council s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Wind Energy establishes a spatial strategy for the consideration of proposals such as this one. The appeal site is almost wholly located within an area of moderate constraints (higher). The council advised during the hearing session that the moderate constraints (higher) designation covering the majority of the site arose from wildlife considerations, a matter it took no exception to on detailed examination of the proposal. 22. Figure 5 of the SPG identifies visually sensitive land by landscape character type. A total of 23 of the 30 landscape character types identified in The Borders Landscape Character Assessment are listed. I find it significant that character type 21 Coastal Moorland is not listed there. At the hearing session it was contended for the council that character type 21 ought to be added to that list. I attach no weight to that contention, as it was otherwise stated for the council that the landscape character assessment had been carried out systematically and that it was not appropriate to adjust it on a case by case

6 6 basis. I accept the council s argument that interpretation of the spatial strategy should be approached with caution, but find nonetheless that from a landscape perspective, the proposal is not clearly at odds with the spatial strategy. 23. I conclude overall that the surrounding landscape is able to accommodate the proposed wind farm. I find no serious tension with the terms of the development plan, including Policy D4, in regard to the landscape impacts of the proposal. Visual impacts 24. As this is an appeal against the council s failure to determine the planning application, there are no reasons for refusal. In section 17 of its response to the appeal however, the council sets out the grounds on which permission would have been refused were it not for the appeal being made. Those reasons relate to adverse landscape and cumulative landscape impacts, and to impact on the setting of cultural heritage features, which I consider later. Other than that, there is no direct reference to adverse visual impact or to impact on specific receptors. In response to my request for clarification on this matter at the hearing session, the council stated that it considered that adverse impacts would arise to users of the A1107, the Southern Upland Way, the Berwickshire Coastal Path and National Cycle Route 76, which crosses Coldingham Moor. 25. Although these impacts are alluded to in the council s response to the appeal, I can only approach assessment of this matter on the basis that the council did not consider the impacts to be so adverse as to justify the refusal of permission. I note however, that SNH, whilst not objecting to the proposal, expressed concern at visual impact on the A1107, a popular and scenic tourist route. 26. Criterion 4 of Policy D4 requires that particular attention be given to impacts on high sensitivity receptors, including major tourist routes, and Criterion 5 (ii) requires that consideration be given to popular public viewpoints. 27. In considering the landscape impacts of the proposal above, I have made passing reference to the impacts of the proposal on south-bound travellers on the A1. From that direction I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptably adverse impacts on visual amenity. For north-bound travellers, Figure 7.3B indicates that there would be no theoretical visibility of the turbines until a point adjacent to Grantshouse, just to the south of the proposal. Viewpoint 2 indicates that from there all blade tips and 9 turbine hubs would be theoretically visible at a distance of 1.58 kilometres to the nearest turbine. The accompanying visualisation shows the turbines being significantly screened by a stand of largely coniferous trees. There is no guarantee that these will remain, but equally I have no indication that they are likely to be removed. 28. I consider that there would be substantially more significant visual impacts for users of the A1107. In addition to those travelling in vehicles, National Cycle Route 76 follows the A1107 across Coldingham Moor. This raises its sensitivity to the proposal. I noted its use by groups of 3 or more cyclists on 2 of my site inspections, which I take to be an anecdotal indication of its popularity. Viewpoint 10 on the A1107 indicates that the blade tips of all

7 7 15 turbines, and the hubs of 5, would be visible at a distance of 4.3 kilometres. However, the existing Drone Hill turbines already significantly influence this view. 29. Figure 7.29 of the Further Environmental Information provides a useful indication of the sequential effects of the proposal along this route. From Viewpoints A to F, the view is significantly affected by the Drone Hill turbines and I do not consider that the proposal would significantly exacerbate that. Viewpoints G and H, travelling through Drone Hill, show those turbines as the dominant feature, with the Penmanshiel turbines becoming a significant feature only by Viewpoint H, but sitting beyond Drone Hill. From Viewpoints I and J, views of the proposal would largely be blocked by Old Cambus Wood. The tips of 4 turbines would be visible from Viewpoint K, and by Viewpoint L the proposal would be screened by the intervening topography. I conclude on this receptor, and taking the existing influence of the Drone Hill turbines into account, that the proposal would not adversely impact on views to an unacceptable degree. 30. The Southern Upland Way (SUW) passes within about 1 kilometre of the western edge of the proposed wind farm. At that point, and for most of its remaining 5 kilometres or so to the coast, Figure 7.3B indicates that there would be no theoretical visibility of the proposal, screened by the edge of the coastal moorland, a product of the visual containment resulting from surrounding landform. Viewpoint 5, on the line of the SUW, indicates that all 15 turbines would be visible at a distance of 2.9 kilometres to the nearest turbine. This view is already influenced by Drone Hill, but those turbines sit about 2 kilometres beyond Penmanshiel. 31. The Environmental Statement assesses the visual impact of Penmanshiel on the SUW as a whole as moderate and not significant. I accept that the route is already heavily influenced by wind farms, but I do not agree that the visual impact, illustrated for example by Viewpoint 15, would be insignificant. That said, I am satisfied that the proposal even when viewed from that location, which illustrates the most adverse effect of the proposal on the route, would not appear over-dominant or out of scale with the surrounding landform. 32. I have considered the likely impacts of the proposal on other recreational routes in the area, and generally consider these to have been appropriately assessed in the Environmental Statement. 33. All told, I do not find that the visual impacts of the proposal on these receptors would be unacceptably adverse, and consider the proposal to be consistent with development plan policy in this regard, also having regard to the council s SPG on Wind Energy. 34. I consider the visual impacts of the proposal on the residential amenity of local residents below. Cumulative landscape and visual impacts 35. Criterion 5 (ix) of Policy D4 requires assessment of the cumulative impact of wind farm proposals. It states that unacceptable cumulative impact may restrict the potential for development in otherwise appropriate areas.

8 8 36. The cumulative baseline has altered since submission of the Further Environmental Information. The approvals at Neuk Farm and Aikengall II were discussed at the hearing session. In addition, permission was granted for the Quixwood development following the hearing session. I have carefully considered the implications of those approvals for the cumulative baseline. Paragraph 188 of Scottish Planning Policy advises that the weight to be given to undetermined applications should reflect their position in the application process. Consequently I afford little weight to as yet undetermined applications. 37. The proposed wind farm would be positioned about 500 metres to the west of the operational Drone Hill wind farm. The design differences between the proposal and that wind farm is a key criticism of the scheme on the part of the council, SNH and others. The proposed turbines would be 100 metres high to blade tip. That compares with the Drone Hill turbines, which are 76 metres high. SNH acknowledges that some effort has been made to coordinate the layout of both wind farms, but argues that the higher turbines and wider spacing of the Penmanshiel turbines would detract from the design of the Drone Hill wind farm and would appear discordant, particularly within 3 kilometres, and especially so when viewed from the A1107. SNH point out that the combined wind farms would have a lateral spread of about 3.8 kilometres along an east-west axis, with turbines of different heights and possibly different ratio of blade length to tower height and resultant rotation speed. It is contended that this would lead to visual confusion. 38. In support of its concerns, SNH refers to is guidance on Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape (2009). In that guidance it is stated that Individual windfarms should generally appear visually separated from one another in a landscape, unless specifically designed to create the appearance of a single combined windfarm. 39. This matter was discussed at some length during the hearing session. For the appellant it was contended that the turbine proportions of both schemes would be the same. There would be an overlap of rotational speeds, and that although at times different, this would be within a reasonable range; variation of rotational speed naturally occurs in any case in a wind farm where wind speed varies over the site. It was confirmed that the appellant s design intention was to create an extension of Drone Hill, that there would be a high degree of overlap in views of both schemes, and that Penmanshiel would most often be seen behind Drone Hill and be perceived as an extension of that scheme. Only from the south-west would Penmanshiel be seen as adjacent to and slightly in front of Drone Hill. In summary, it was contended for the appellant that it would be difficult to discern the difference in turbine heights, and that is borne out by the visualisations produced in support of the proposal. 40. I acknowledge the objectors contention that those visualisations do not present a truly realistic impression of the proposed scheme. Although there is no contention that the visualisations were not produced in accordance with relevant SNH guidance, I was particularly careful during my site inspections to bear this criticism in mind and to attempt to form as accurate an impression as possible in regard to the likely visual impacts of the scheme when compared to Drone Hill. I have already considered above the visual impacts of both schemes on those travelling on the A1107. Those cumulative impacts would be significant, but taking the above factors into account, I do not accept that the differences between the 2 schemes would be so visually jarring or confusing as to be unacceptable.

9 9 41. From the south-west, illustrated for example by Viewpoint 5, where the proposal would be viewed in front of Drone Hill, it seems to me likely that the schemes would be viewed as a single wind farm, with the smaller Drone Hill turbines receding into the distance. I accept that there is more likelihood of the schemes being perceived as separate wind farms when viewed from the south, such as illustrated by Viewpoint 6. I am satisfied however, that even in such limited views the cumulative impact of both schemes would not appear unacceptably discordant. 42. In addition, I am satisfied that the council s criticism of the stacking effect likely to be apparent from some directions is an inevitable product of the grid layout of the scheme, designed to replicate the Drone Hill layout. Indeed, that effect is readily apparent in the Drone Hill scheme, illustrated by Viewpoint Figure 7.4 of the Further Environmental Information illustrates the cumulative zones of theoretical visibility of the proposal with Drone Hill. The degree to which the theoretical visibility of the proposal and that of Drone Hill coincide is notable. There would be only a marginal increase in theoretical visibility of a wind farm caused by Penmanshiel, and I can see no reference to any particularly valued area or viewpoint which would be influenced in that way. I accept that the proposal would be more visually prominent than Drone Hill when viewed from directions from the north-west through to the south-west. Nonetheless I find the coincidence of visual influence to weigh in favour of the proposal. 44. The addition of the proposed scheme would effectively result in much of the western half of the coastal moorland landscape character type hosting wind farm development. I have already found however, that that character type has many of the characteristics of large scale upland landscapes, and that it is not listed in The Borders Landscape Character Assessment as a visually sensitive character type. In addition, the coincidence of visual influence over the character area of the proposal with Drone Hill is almost identical. I conclude that the cumulative impact of the proposal on the host landscape character type would be acceptable. In addition, I am satisfied that there would be no clearly unacceptable cumulative impacts on other affected character types. 45. Similarly, I am satisfied that the cumulative visual impact on those receptors considered above would be within acceptable limits. 46. The council s SPG on Wind Energy refers at paragraphs , to a cluster and space concept, where certain areas of landscape would accommodate multiple wind farms whilst other areas would be kept free of such development. It is stated that this concept would require acceptance of wind farms within sight of each other in the cluster zones, and a reduction of potential sequential impacts by avoiding areas of high visual sensitivity. 47. It was stated for the council at the hearing session that this approach was supported in principle, but was being treated with caution due to a difficulty in defining such areas. The council, in granting permission for Quixwood, considered that approval to be consistent with the cluster and space concept. I note the appellant s disagreement on that point, but it is not for me to comment on that decision. I am in no doubt however, principally due to the degree of coincidence of the zones of theoretical visibility of Penmanshiel and Drone Hill, that the appeal scheme would be consistent with this concept.

10 Overall, I found existing wind farms to be a recurring feature from many viewpoints and when travelling around the east Berwickshire area. Taking those into account, together with the consented schemes in the cumulative baseline, I am satisfied that the addition of the proposed scheme would not exceed the landscape capacity of the area to accept them. I note the concerns of the council, SNH and other objectors that east Berwickshire is in danger of being characterised by wind farm development. I find however, that the addition of this proposal would not result in an area which could be said to be characterised by wind farms. 49. In my separate decision on the Blackburn appeal, I conclude that that scheme would not be an acceptable addition to the cumulative baseline, with or without Penmanshiel. Consequently, I need not balance the impacts of Penmanshiel against those of Blackburn. 50. All told, I find the cumulative landscape and visual impacts of the proposal, including those relating to impact on residential amenity and cultural heritage assets considered below, to be consistent with the requirements of Policy D Drawing these matters together, I find the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal to be broadly consistent with the terms of the development plan, and Policy D4 of the local plan in particular, having regard to the SPG on Wind Energy. 52. The Scottish Government Online Renewables Advice on Onshore Wind Turbines states that: SNH is the Scottish Government national agency and statutory advisor on landscape matters. Their guidance is expected to be followed in the first instance in respect of landscape character appraisal, landscape and visual impact analysis and wind farm design. Although not objecting to the proposal, SNH has expressed serious concerns in regard to the landscape and visual impacts of the appeal proposal. I have, in assessing the acceptability of the proposal in regard to landscape and visual impacts, been particularly mindful of this tension. I am nevertheless satisfied that those impacts of the proposal are acceptable, having regard amongst other things to The Borders Landscape Character Assessment prepared on behalf of SNH. Impact on residential amenity 53. Policy H2 of the local plan seeks to prevent development which would have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing or proposed residential areas. Criterion 5 (ii) of Policy D4 states that wind farm proposals are only to be approved where the overall visual impact on sensitive receptors, including residential properties, is judged acceptable. 54. In its response to the appeal, the council does not refer to adverse impact on residential amenity as a reason on which it would have refused permission for the proposal. Paragraph 11.7 of its response notes that sensitive receptors include residential property and that some farm properties e.g. Renton Barns would clearly be affected by radically altered views but it can be argued that the level of impact on residential receptors is perhaps similar to impacts that have been accepted elsewhere in the Borders. 55. Figure 7.12 of the Environmental Statement shows 2 settlements in the vicinity of the appeal site: Grantshouse, immediately to the south of the site boundary and about

11 kilometres to the south of the nearest turbine (turbine 3); and Cockburnspath, about 4.5 kilometres to the north-west of the nearest turbine. The same figure indicates that, due to the containing valley landform, all properties north of the A1 in Grantshouse itself would have no theoretical visibility of the proposed turbines. Properties in Cockburnspath would have theoretical visibility of 1 to 3 or 4 to 7 turbines, depending on location within the village. The Environmental Statement concludes that the visual impact on both settlements would not be significant. The council has not disputed that conclusion, and having carefully studied the material before me and comparing it with the situation on the ground, I agree. 56. Figure 7.12 also indicates the presence of 25 groups of properties, containing 60 individual residential properties, within 3 kilometres of the proposed turbines. The Environmental Statement concludes that a number of properties will experience a significant change to a view or views, but that none of these would unduly suffer from negative visual effects such as visual dominance. I have carefully considered this matter during my site inspections of the surrounding area and agree with that conclusion. I also note here that the deletion of turbine 3, although necessary for another reason, is likely to reduce residual effects on a number of residential properties, including those in the 2 groupings highlighted in the Environmental Statement as experiencing significant effects. 57. In its response to the appeal, the council, although not relying on noise impacts as a reason on which it would have refused permission, expressed some concern that while ETSU noise limits may not be breached, by setting higher limits than have previously been accepted, this will lead to an unacceptable precedent leading to a creeping rise in rural background noise. The council confirmed however, that it had no concern in regard to proposed cumulative noise limits. 58. Due to unavoidable circumstances, it was not possible to discuss noise impacts or noise conditions during the hearing session. In a subsequent exchange of written submissions, the council and the appellant agreed a set of appropriate noise conditions. 59. The council does not take issue with the conclusion of the Environmental Statement that there would be no properties affected by shadow flicker from the proposed development. 60. The council s SPG on Wind Energy, referring to paragraph 190 of Scottish Planning Policy, contains an initial presumption against any turbine within 2 kilometres of any residence, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable based on a study of stated factors. During the hearing session it was conceded for the council that that presumption goes beyond the terms of paragraph 190, which refers to the separation distance between areas of search and settlements. That being the case I afford that provision of the SPG little weight. That is not to say that the impact of the proposal on residential property need not be carefully assessed, and in this regard I am satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the proposal would have no unacceptable impacts on residential amenity. 61. I conclude on this matter that the proposal is consistent with development plan policy, including Policies H2 and D4.

12 12 Impact on the historic environment 62. The appeal proposal, after mitigation, would have no unacceptable direct impacts on known archaeological features. In its response to the appeal, the council indicated that it would have refused permission on the basis of unacceptable adverse impacts on the setting of the Winding Cairn and Ewieside Hill Fort scheduled monuments, including cumulative impacts in the case of the latter. Historic Scotland s position is one of objection in regard to indirect impacts on the setting of Winding Cairn only, but that objection would be withdrawn were the adverse impacts of the scheme to be mitigated by the deletion of turbine Policy BE2 of the adopted local plan requires an assessment of impacts to ensure accordance with stated policies of the now superseded structure plan. Those essentially sought to safeguard the setting of scheduled monuments. Policy D4 of the local plan includes the same general objective. Both Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Historic Environment Policy require that the setting of scheduled monuments be appropriately protected. 64. The proposed wind farm would be located immediately to the north of the Winding Cairn scheduled monument, an Early Bronze Age burial monument. The monument occupies a prominent position on a south-east facing spur of land between 2 burns on the southern flank of Penmanshiel Moor. The nearest turbine to the monument, turbine 3, would be positioned about 200 metres to the north-west, just on the edge of the spur. There is no disagreement amongst the parties that the proposal would adversely affect the setting of the monument. 65. I agree with Historic Scotland that the turbines would appear as dominant in relation to the monument, and that turbine 3 would be especially so. The appellant submitted, in the Further Environmental Information, visualisations illustrating the impact of the proposal as submitted on the setting of the scheme, together with visualisations illustrating the impact of a so-called 14 turbine layout, with turbine 3 removed. I am in absolutely no doubt that the impact of that turbine on appreciation of the setting of the monument would be overwhelming. Otherwise I consider that the impact of the remaining turbines would be significantly adverse, but not unacceptably so. 66. The council and the appellant agree that condition 3 could legitimately be removed by means of condition and I conclude that such a deletion is necessary if the scheme is to be permitted, in accordance with the policy context set out above. I am satisfied that deletion of turbine 3 would have no other consequential adverse impacts in regard, for example, to landscape and visual impact, and that those impacts would consequently be lessened to varying degrees. 67. The proposal would be viewed at a distance of about 3.3 kilometres from Ewieside Hill Fort. The well-preserved remains of this large prehistoric fort command wide views in all directions over the surrounding landscape. It is stated in the Environmental Statement that the proposal would be visible against the skyline to the east in a narrow arc of view (20 degrees) and at a lower elevation. The visualisation for Viewpoint 8 indicates that about 50% of the extent of the wind farm would be seen in front of the currently visible

13 13 Drone Hill turbines, and that the remaining 50% would extend the views of wind farm development further towards the south. I am satisfied from the material prepared by the appellant in support of the application, and from my impressions of the monument and its surroundings formed during the accompanied site inspection, that the impact of the proposal on the setting of this feature would not be significantly adverse. 68. The Further Environmental Information contains visualisations illustrating the cumulative impacts of the proposal with other schemes in the baseline. Currently the most significant visual impacts resulting from wind farms are to the east (Drone Hill), and to the west (the Aikengall cluster). I do not consider that approved schemes in the vicinity, including Hoprigshiels and Neuk Farm, would add significantly to that, although the approved scheme for Quixwood would result in a clearly visible impact to the south at a distance of about 4 kilometres. Taking all operational and consented schemes into account, I am satisfied that the addition of Penmanshiel, although clearly visible, would not be significantly adverse. 69. In reaching these conclusions on the acceptability of likely impacts on Ewieside, I take support from the position of Historic Scotland, which does not object to the proposal in this regard. 70. I am satisfied that the proposal would have no unacceptably adverse impacts on other cultural heritage features, including on the setting of the Oldhamstocks and Cockburnspath conservation areas, which would both experience distant and partially obscured views of the proposal. Other matters 71. Having regard to the environmental information submitted in support of the proposal, and to consultation responses and objections received, I am satisfied that any other outstanding issues relating to archaeology, loss of woodland, access and traffic generation (including during the construction phase) and ecology could be satisfactorily resolved by the planning conditions set out below. Compliance with the development plan 72. Although I have identified a limited degree of tension between the proposal and the detailed policy considerations set out in the adopted local plan, and particularly Policy D4 in regard to the landscape impacts of the proposal, I do not find that tension so significant to conclude that the proposal is contrary to that policy. 73. In all other regards I find the proposal to be consistent with the policy context set out above, including Policies D4, G1, H2 and BE2 of the local plan. In turn, I find the proposal to be consistent with Policy 10 of the SESplan Strategic Development Plan. Overall conclusions 74. Overall I find that the proposal is consistent with development plan policy and have identified no other material considerations sufficient to outweigh that.

14 The terms of Policy D4 require that reference be made to Scottish Planning Policy in assessing the visual and other impacts of wind farm proposals. Scottish Planning Policy provides considerable support for such development. That support is not however, unqualified. Paragraph 187 states that the development of wind farms should be supported in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed. I find that to be the case here. I am also aware of the draft version of Scottish Planning Policy and the NPF3 Main Issues Report, but consider that these are not at a sufficiently advanced stage to afford them significant weight. 76. I therefore, find it appropriate that permission be granted, subject to the conditions listed below. These are based on the conditions agreed between the council and the appellant following the hearing session. I have considered the representations of other parties on those conditions but do not find that substantive changes are required. I am satisfied that the conditions listed below meet the tests for conditions set out in Circular 4/1998: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. 77. I note the appellant s request that a period of 5 years be allowed for commencement of the proposal, and the council s agreement on that matter. I have not been made aware of any particular justification for that extended period, and consider that the standard commencement period of 3 years, as provided for in the Act and set out in advisory note 1 below, is appropriate. This will provide more certainty to the local community. I also note the council s position that those matters it originally sought to include within a planning obligation are now adequately covered by means of condition. 78. I have taken account of all other matters raised but find none sufficient to lead me to a different conclusion. Scott M Ferrie Principal Reporter Conditions: 1. That no permission is hereby granted for turbine 3 and any associated infrastructure required solely in connection with that turbine. Reason: In order to safeguard the setting of the Winding Cairn scheduled monument. 2. The permission hereby granted shall endure for a period of 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported from any of the wind turbines to the electricity grid network ( First Export Date ). Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the planning authority within 1 month of the First Export Date. Reason: In recognition of the expected lifespan of the wind farm.

15 15 3. If any wind turbine fails to supply electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months then, unless otherwise approved in writing by the planning authority, a scheme for the removal of the wind turbine and any surface ancillary works solely relating to that wind turbine, shall be submitted in writing for the approval of the planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure that any redundant wind turbine is removed from site, in the interests of safety, amenity and environmental protection. 4. The development shall be implemented in strict accordance with all the provisions of this permission, subject to the provisions of Condition 7. Reason: for the avoidance of doubt. 5. Not later than 12 months before the end of this permission, a decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the planning authority, such scheme to include the removal of above-ground elements of the development (save for access tracks which may be left in situ with the approval of the planning authority), the management and timing of any works, environmental management provisions and a traffic management plan to address any traffic impact issues during the decommissioning period. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure the decommissioning and removal of the development in an appropriate and environmentally acceptable manner and the restoration of the site, in the interests of safety, amenity and environmental protection. 6. Prior to commencement of development details of the scheme to be put in place to cover the full cost of decommissioning and site restoration shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority. Thereafter the scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure that sufficient funds are kept available to restore the site satisfactorily. 7. The number of horizontal axis turbines shall not exceed 14 and the height of each turbine from ground level to blade tip shall not exceed 100 metres. The turbines shall all rotate in the same direction. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area. 8. Turbines (excepting turbine 3) shall be erected and the site tracks constructed in the positions indicated in Figure 4.1 in the Environmental Statement save for the ability to vary without further recourse to the planning authority, the indicated position of any turbine, track or associated infrastructure by up to 30 metres. Any variation of turbines, tracks or associated infrastructure by between 30 and 50 metres shall require the written approval of the planning authority. Within 2 weeks of the completion of construction a plan shall be submitted to the planning authority showing the final location of the turbines and other infrastructure. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to take account of local ground conditions, whilst safeguarding amenity.

16 16 9. At least 2 months prior to the commencement of any works, a full site specific Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and Construction Method Statement (CMS) must be submitted for the written approval of the planning authority (in consultation with SEPA and other relevant agencies) and all work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. These documents shall take account of matters set out in the ES including details of all on-site construction works, post-construction reinstatement, drainage, mitigation, and other restoration, together with details of their timetabling and shall include the following: a. Site Waste Management Plan; b. SUDS design philosophy including run off and sediment control measures; and flood risk management; c. Dust Management including cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway; d. Pollution prevention and control measures; e. Arrangements for onsite storage of fuel and other chemicals; f. Ecological monitoring throughout the construction period; g. Details of foul drainage arrangements; h. Details of temporary site illumination; i. Details of any temporary diversions of rights of way and associated signage; j. Details of any watercourse engineering works including any stream crossings; k. Details of the methods to be adopted to reduce the effects of noise occurring during the construction period to the lowest practicable level and in accordance with BS5228; and l. Post-construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas. The Construction Method Statement shall thereafter be implemented as approved. Reason: To control pollution of air, land and water. 10. No construction traffic shall access the site until a Traffic Management and Road Safety Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, which includes detailed information relating to the following matters: the delivery route for abnormal loads; routes for heavy goods vehicles; schedule relating to any third party land required in relation to road/junction alterations or construction of new access roads; delivery schedule exclusion times for abnormal loads; mitigation/management measures for each pinch point; provision of temporary passing places (if proposed) and any alterations proposed to the minor road to enable abnormal loads to reach the new private access way, together with restoration proposals; all new signage identifying to road users the presence of the site, access and potential to encounter construction traffic; monitoring of impacts on, and remediation of any damage to, the public road network; and an appraisal of the likely physical impact on designated public paths and rights of way and mitigation for any disturbance to the paths. The development and decommissioning shall thereafter be undertaken in strict accordance with the details approved in terms of this condition.