EIA REPORT - Banks Group · 2018. 7. 11. · PREFACE This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)...

KYPE MUIR WIND FARM EXTENSION Wind Farm Proposal Section 36C Variation Application

EIA REPORT

© The Banks Group. All rights reserved.

This document has been provided for your reference by The Banks Group. No material from this document may be otherwise copied, altered, republished, transmitted or distributed in any way without permission.

Aerial photographs are © Getmapping PLC and © AirFotos Ltd as indicated and are also subject to the conditions above.

All map data is reproduced from Raster 10,000 and Raster 50,000 by permission of Ordnance Survey registered on behalf of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. All Rights Reserved. AL 100017630.

PREFACE

This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report has been prepared to accompany an application for consent in relation to a proposed variation of consent for Kype Muir Wind Farm Extension (the proposed Development) under section 36C of the Electricity Act 1989. The application also seeks to vary the associated direction under Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended (The Planning Act) for deemed planning permission on land approximately 6.5 km to the south-west of Strathaven and 4.5 km south-east of Drumclog, in South Lanarkshire. The Application has been submitted by Banks Renewables (Harting Rig Wind Farm) Limited to the Energy Consents Unit.

The EIA Report reports the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which has been co-ordinated and written in part by Natural Power Consultants Ltd (Natural Power).

Natural Power has been leading, undertaking and reviewing EIAs and producing EIA Reports (formerly referred to as Environmental Statements) for the renewable energy industry since 1995. Natural Power’s lifecycle experience and our 360° technical resources ranging from ecologists, hydrologists, planning consultants, design and geotechnical engineers, project managers, construction managers, technical analysts, asset managers, turbine technicians and others provide wide ranging capability in EIA topics.

Testimony to Natural Power’s experience and ongoing commitment to competency and continual improvement, its Planning and Environmental Department is accredited by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and EIAs and EIA sections prepared by Natural Power are stamped with the IEMA quality mark. In addition, Natural Power also operates in formally accredited health and safety (IOSAS 18001), environmental (14001) and quality (9001) management systems.

Other consultants involved in the EIA have provided professional input for Ground Conditions & Hydrology, Ecology, Forestry, Cultural Heritage, Landscape & Visual Impact, Noise and Traffic & Transportation. Their Statement of Competence are provided within the relevant chapters.

The EIA Report comprises the following elements:

Volume 1

Non-Technical Summary – providing an overview of the proposal and summarising the findings of the EIA and any key mitigation measures proposed;

EIA Report - providing a detailed description of the proposed Development and its potential significant environmental effects, reporting the findings of the EIA, as well as any proposed mitigation measures and providing other relevant background information;

Technical Appendices – containing detailed reports and figures to accompany the individual assessments documented in the EIA Report;

Planning Application Drawings – drawings and plans relating to the planning application; and

Environmental Statement Drawings – drawings and plans relating to individual chapters of the EIA Report.

Volume 2

Landscape & Visual Graphics and Visualisations – containing the figures, illustrations and the extended banner style visualisations which specifically accompany the landscape and visual impact assessment, including photo montage and wire frame diagrams from a range of selected viewpoints; and

Cultural Heritage & Archaeology Figures & Visualisations – containing the figures, illustrations and the extended banner style visualisations which specifically accompany the Cultural Heritage & Archaeology assessment.

In addition, a Planning Statement has been prepared to accompany the planning application. These form part of the planning application and are included within Volume 1 of the submission, although they do not form part of the EIA Report.

The Non-Technical Summary is available free of charge from either Natural Power or Banks. It will also be available to view/download from the following website: http://www.banksgroup.co.uk/banks-group/banks-renewables/

Electronic Copies, on CD, of the entire set of documentation are available from Banks at the address below, at a cost of £5 (including postage and packaging):

Banks Renewables 2nd Floor, Block C Brandon Gate Leechlee Road Hamilton ML3 6AU

Telephone: 0191 378 6100

Email: [email protected]

Printed copies of the EIA Report may be purchased at a cost of £250 (including postage and packaging) from Banks at the above address.

Members of the public can view copies of the Non-Technical Summary, EIA Report and other planning documentation during the Council’s office hours at:

South Lanarkshire Council Planning Department Montrose House 154 Montrose Crescent Hamilton South Lanarkshire ML3 6LB

Strathaven Library Glasgow Library Strathaven South Lanarkshire ML10 6LZ

http://www.banksgroup.co.uk/banks-group/banks-renewables/

mailto:[email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT ............................................... 1

2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 6

3. DESIGN EVOLUTION.................................................................................................. 22

4. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ........................................................................... 35

5. ORNITHOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 64

6. ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION .............................................................. 75

7. GROUND CONDITIONS AND HYDROLOGY ............................................................ 103

8. CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY ........................................................ 112

9. FORESTRY ............................................................................................................... 121

10. NOISE .................................................................................................................... 143

11. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 164

12. AVIATION .............................................................................................................. 185

13. SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS, SCHEDULE OF MITIGATION, RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 189

LIST OF KEY ABBREVIATIONS & GLOSSARY

ALV Abnormal Loads Vehicle

AOD Above ordnance datum

ATC Air Traffic Control

Banks Renewables Banks Renewables (Harting Rig Wind Farm) Limited (the Applicant

/ the Developer)

BAOS Broad Areas Of Search

BCT Bat Conservation Trust

BGS British Geological Survey

BoCC Birds of Conservation Concern

BPP Bird Protection Plan

BTO British Trust of Ornithology

CA Conservation Area

CAA Civil Aviation Authority

CAR Controlled Activity (Scotland) Regulations

CC Community Councils

CLVIA Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

CMS Construction Management Statement

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

COPA Control of Pollution Act 1974

COSHH Control of Substances Hazardous to Health

Council South Lanarkshire Council

CRM Collision Risk Model

CTMP Construction Traffic Management Plan

CW Cumulative Wireframe

CZTV Cumulative Zone of Theoretical Visibility

DES Design Evolution Statement

dB Decibel

DBA Desk based assessment

DMP Decommissioning Management Plan

DMR Town and Country Planning (Development Management

Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

DTT Digital Terrestrial Television

ECDU Energy Consents and Deployment Unit

EcIA Ecological Impact Assessment

EHO Environmental Health Officer

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ECJ European Court of Justice

EMP Environmental Management Plan

ES Environmental Statement

ETSU Energy Technology Support Unit

FCS Forestry Commission Scotland

FRA Flood Risk Assessment

GDL Gardens and Design Landscapes

GCVSDP Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan

GCVSDPA Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan

Authority

GLVIA Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

GVPs Generic Vantage Points (Ornithology)

GWDTEs Groundwater Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystems

GPA Glasgow Prestwick Airport

GPS Global Positioning System

ha Hectare

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

HMP Habitat Management Plan

HS Historic Scotland

Hz Hertz

IEEM Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment

IR Infra-red

JRC (The) Joint Radio Company

km Kilometre

kV Kilovolt

kW Kilowatt

LA90 Noise levels that are exceeded for 90% of the sample period

LAeq Equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level

LB Listed Building

LBAP Local Biodiversity Action Plan (South Lanarkshire)

LCA Landscape Character Area

LCT Landscape Character Type

LDP Local Development Plan

LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

MCDHW Highways Agency Manual of Contract Documents for Highway

Works

MoD Ministry of Defence

M/S Metres per second

MW Megawatt

MWh Megawatt Hours

NATS National Air Traffic Services

NERL National Air Traffic Services (NATS) En Route Ltd

NGR National Grid Reference

NHZ Natural Heritage Zone

NIDL Non-Inventory Gardens and Design Landscapes

NPF3 National Planning Framework 3

NSR Non-Statutory Register Sites

NTS Non-Technical Summary

NVC National Vegetation Classification

Ofcom Office of Communications

ONS Office of National Statistics

OS Ordnance Survey

PA Planning Application

PAC Pre-Application Consultation

PAN Planning Advice Note

PM Photomontage

PPC Pollution Prevention and Control

PPP Pollution Prevention Plan

PS Planning Statement

PRoW Public Rights of Way

RSA Regional Scenic Area

RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System

SDP Strategic Development Plan

SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency

SI Site Investigation

SIMD Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

SINC Site of Importance for Nature Conservation

SLA Special Landscape Area

SLCA Sensitive Landscape Character Area

SLLP South Lanarkshire Local Plan

SLLDP South Lanarkshire proposed Local Development Plan

SLSFLCWTU South Lanarkshire Spatial Framework & Landscape Capacity for

Wind Turbines Update

SM Scheduled Monument

SMR Sites and Monuments Record

SNH Scottish Natural Heritage

SPA Special Protection Area

SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPP Scottish Planning Policy

SPT Scottish Power Transmissions

SSRSG South Strathclyde Raptor Study Group

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

SUDS Sustainable Urban Drainage System

TIA Traffic Impact Assessment

TNEI TNEI Services Limited (The Planning and EIA Consultant)

UHF Ultra High Frequency

UKBAP UK Biodiversity Action Plan

UKLFS UK Low Flying System

VP Vantage Point (Ornithology) / View Point (LVIA)

WCA Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

WeBS Wetland Bird Survey

WF Wireframe

WoSAS West of Scotland Archaeology Service

WYG WYG Ltd

ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility

1 Kype Muir Wind Farm Extension EIA Report

1. INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

This chapter outlined the current Kype Muir Extension status and what Banks Renewables are seeking to change to the project. The chapter also notes the document structure, provides details to who the Applicant, are and defines the key document terms.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 This document forms the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) which accompanies the application made by Banks Renewables (Harting Rig Wind Farm) Limited (hereafter referred to as the Applicant) to the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit (ECU) under section 36C of the Electricity Act 1989 to vary the consent for Kype Muir Wind Farm Extension (the proposed Development). The application also seeks to vary the associated direction under Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended (The Planning Act) for deemed planning permission.

1.2 In September 2016, Kype Muir Extension was granted consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act. The consent is for 15 wind turbines, 8 turbines with a maximum tip height of 152 m, 7 turbines with a maximum tip height of 132 m, and associated infrastructure. The Applicant is seeking to amend the consent to:

a) A wind farm of generating capacity exceeding 50 MW;

b) Increase the maximum tip height and rotor diameter of the turbines;

c) Make minor alterations to turbine foundations, crane pads and track orientation;

d) Update the draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and associated forestry plan;

e) Increase the duration of consent from 25 to 30 years; and

f) Vary the time period for commencement of development from five years to seven years.

1.3 A full and detailed description of the proposed Development is set out in Chapter 2 (The Proposed Development) of this EIAR.

Site Location

1.4 The location of the proposed Development is on land approximately 6.5 km to the south-west of Strathaven and 4.5 km south-east of Drumclog, see the figure below and Drawing PA01. The proposed Development is situated within the authority of South Lanarkshire Council (SLC).


Figure 1.1: Site Location

1.5 Kype Muir Wind Farm, which is operated by Banks Renewables, started construction in April 2017 and is scheduled to become operational in January 2019. Bankend Rig Wind Farm has been operational since 2013. Dungavel Wind Farm become operational in 2015 and Auchrobert wind farm become operational in 2017.

REASON FOR APPLICATION

1.6 Due to the recent changes in onshore wind farm economics, many wind farm developers, including the Applicant are seeking to increase the height of the turbines to maximise the wind farms efficiency. To assist in maximising the efficiency of the wind farm, the Applicant is also seeking to increase the rotor diameter of the consented turbines and extend the permitted operational life. The reasons for application are considered in more detail in chapter 2, The Proposed Development.

1.7 The Onshore Wind Policy Statement, sets out the Scottish Governments support for the use of larger turbines where they are appropriately sited. Due to the nature of the site within a cluster of operational and under construction wind farms, and the capacity of the landscape, Banks Renewables believe that Kype Muir Extension is a site which can accommodate larger turbines.

APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT

1.8 It has been agreed with the ECU, SLC and other statutory consultees that as this application is an S.36C, in line with regulation 28, paragraph 2(c)(i) of The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment)(Scotland) Regulations 2017, the applicant was only required to assess the difference in significant effect from the consented Kype Muir Extension to proposed Development. The extent of the assessments was agreed with ECU, SLC and other statutory consultees through a Scoping Request submitted to ECU on 21 December 2017. This ensured the Applicant undertook the correct level of assessments to consider the potentially significant effect. A discussion on the impact of the proposed changes to the consent is contained with the chapters of this Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) from Chapter 4 (Landscape &


Visual) to Chapter 13 (Synergistic Effects, Schedule of Mitigation, Residual Effects and Conclusions.

1.9 The consented wind turbines and associated infrastructure have been considered in detail within the original ES. This EIAR considers the changes to the consented development only.

1.10 Potential significant environmental effects considered to arise from the changes between the consented scheme and the proposed Development have been studied as part of an iterative design and development process. In line with The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, referred to hereafter as the EIA Regulations, this EIAR presents the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), setting out a description of the likely significant effects of the proposed Development on the environment. The assessment and consultation of the Original Kype Muir Extension remain relevant and should be considered jointly with the EIAR conclusion. The EIAR conclusion are included with Chapter 13.

1.11 The preparation of this EIAR has been coordinated by Natural Power Consultants Limited (Natural Power) on behalf of the Applicant. Detailed assessments of the potential environmental effects of the Development have been undertaken by a range of specialist consultants appointed by Banks Renewables.

1.12 To allow an element of flexibility in selection of the final turbine, which will be made further to grant of permission, this variation application is seeking consent for a range of tip heights, rotor diameters and corresponding hub heights It is proposed that final choice of turbine dimensions will be submitted to South Lanarkshire Council prior to turbine erection. The dimensions of the proposed turbines will range between 150 to 220 metres to tip with rotor diameter of between 110 to 140 metres. Full details of the propose turbine dimension envelop is outlined in Chapter 2, The Proposed Development.

1.13 Each assessment chapter within this EIAR will assess the worst case scenario within the range of tip heights, hub heights and rotor diameter being considered. The tallest tip heights have been assessed for each topic. The assessment scenarios for rotor diameter and hub height were agreed with consultees via scoping progress. The range of turbine dimensions set out in Chapter 2 (Table 1) has been considered during topic assessments and any combination within this range would not alter the conclusions of the assessments The assessment undertaken is outlined in greater detail at the start of each topic. Table 1 below outlines the agreed scenario for each chapter.

Table 1 – Turbine dimensions to be assessed

Topic Highest hub or largest rotor to be assessed

Landscape and Visual Impact Highest hub

Ornithology Largest rotor

Ecology Largest rotor

Noise Highest hub

Cultural Heritage Highest hub

Forestry Largest rotor

Aviation Largest rotor


KEY TERMS

1.14 To ensure clarity and consistency throughout the EIAR, the following key terms have been used:

The applicant is: “Banks Renewables (Harting Rig Wind Farm) Limited” and is referred to as ‘Applicant’;

The lead consultant EIA co-ordinator is: Natural Power Consultants Limited and is shortened to “Natural Power”;

The project name is “Kype Muir Extension” and is referred to as the “proposed Development” throughout the text;

The project development area within the red line application boundary is referred to as the “proposed Development Area”;

The project is located within South Lanarkshire Council which is abbreviated to “SLC”;

The consenting authority is the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit which is abbreviated to ‘ECU’;

“The consented Kype Muir Extension (which the proposed Development would replace) is referred to as the “original Kype Muir Extension” throughout the text;

The original Kype Muir Extension’s application submitted in September 2014, is referred to as the “original Application”;

The original Kype Muir Extension’s ES is referred to as the “original ES”;

The “Site boundary” is the formal (red line) development boundary of the Site as shown in Drawing PA02;

The “study area” is the area over which desk based or field assessments have been undertaken. The study area varies depending on the nature of the potential effects within each discipline, as informed by professional guidance and best practice regarding EIAR. The study areas all cover the Development area, and are explained within the methodology section of the relevant chapters within this EIAR;

1.15 A glossary and list of key abbreviations used within this EIAR are included at the front of this document.

1.16 The proposed Development comprises the following key elements;

4 turbines increase to up to 156 metres to blade tip;





An increase to all 15 turbines rotor diameters to between 110 metres and 140 metres;

Minor alterations to turbine foundations, crane pads and track orientation Amended forestry felling plan;

Update to the HMP;

Increase the operational life to 30 years; and

Increase the time period of commencement of development to 7 years.


2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

SUMMARY

This chapter outlines the proposed changes from the original Kype Muir Extension to the proposed Development.

In September 2016, Kype Muir Extension was granted consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act. The consent is for 15 wind turbines, 8 turbines with a maximum tip height of 152 m, 7 turbines with a maximum tip height of 132 m, and associated infrastructure. The Applicant is seeking to amend the consent to:

a) A generating capacity exceeding 50 MW;

b) Increase the maximum tip height and rotor diameter of the turbines;

c) Minor alterations to turbine foundations, crane pads and track orientation;

d) Update the draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and associated forestry plan;

e) Increase the duration of consent from 25 to 30 years; and

f) Increase the time period for commencement of development from five years to seven years.

INTRODUCTION

Consented Scheme

2.1 The original Kype Muir Extension had 15 turbines and the following associated infrastructure consented:

15 wind turbines each with three blades, comprising 7 turbines with a maximum tip height of 132 m and 8 with a maximum tip height of 152 m, a maximum rotor diameter of 104 m and a maximum hub height of 80 m and 100 m respectively, with a total generating capacity of up to 60 MW;

A total length of 11.3 km of access track including construction of approximately 9.04 km of new access tracks (using approximately 2.26 km of existing tracks).

A total of 5 water crossings are required including 1 new water crossings and 4 upgraded water crossings;

Underground electrical and communications cabling;

One control building and substation area (dimensions of 42 m x 28 m) and a platform area for National Grid substation equipment and control building (85 m x 35 m);


Up to four borrow pits for the excavation of stone and other construction materials;

Temporary construction compound (dimensions of up to 75 m x 135 m);

Turbine crane pads and laydown (areas of up to 28 m x 45 m);

Turbine foundations (dimensions of up to 18 m x 18 m x 2.3 m);

A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) which would see the restoration of areas of degraded and modified blanket bog and hen harrier enhancement;

A community benefits package offering a guaranteed minimum contribution to the local communities of £7.6 million over the lifetime of the Development; and

Utilise the same access route and main access track as the existing Kype Muir Wind Farm.

Summary of Proposed Changes

2.2 The Applicant is seeking to vary the consented scheme to the proposed Development by;

Increasing all 15 turbine rotor diameters to between 110 m and 140 m and increase tip heights to between 150 m and 220 m in line with Table 2.1;

As a result of the increase in turbine size minor alterations to turbine foundations, crane pads and track orientation has been required in order facilitate the construction of the proposed turbines. (Drawing ES10 illustrates the comparison of the infrastructure layout of the 2016 Consented layout and the proposed Development);

Amending the forestry felling plan to take account of the increase infrastructure;

Updating the HMP;

Increasing the operational life to 30 years; and

Vary the time period for commencement of development from five years to seven years.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.3 The proposed Development comprises the following key elements;

A generating capacity exceeding 50 MW;






An increase to all 15 turbines rotor diameters to between 110 metres and 140 metres;

An increase in size of turbine foundation;

An increase in size of the crane pads;

Amended forestry felling plan;

Update to the HMP;

Increase the operational life to 30 years; and

Increase the time period for commencement of development from five years to seven years.

2.4 A description of the elements of the proposed Development is provided below and an updated Annex 1: Description of Development showing tracked changes of the Annex 1 that accompanied the 2016 Consent, has been provided in Technical Appendix 13.2 of this EIAR. Where details remain the same as the original Application this will be confirmed in the description for the avoidance of doubt.

2.5 The Applicant is proposing to increase the operational period from the consented 25 years to 30 years, following which the proposed Development would be decommissioned and the site reinstated, unless further permissions are sought.

2.6 The Applicant is proposing to increase the time period for commencement of development from five years to seven years as a variation to the associated 57 direction is sought to allow sufficient time between determination of this S36C variation application and commencement of development for appropriate procurement processes to be followed and condition discharge.

2.7 The total area within the planning application boundary (the proposed Development Area), as demonstrated on Drawing PA02, is 942 ha. It is estimated that the total land-take of the proposed Development following construction will be approximately 13 ha or approximately 1.3% of the total site area. During construction, the proposed Development is anticipated to occupy approximately 21 ha or 2.2% of the proposed Development Area.

WIND TURBINE SPECIFICATION

2.8 Table 2.1 below provides the consented and proposed turbines dimension.

2.9 The proposed Development will have a generating capacity exceeding 50 MW. The final installed capacity will depend on the final choice of turbine prior to the construction of the proposed Development.

2.10 As per the original Kype Muir Extension, the turbines will be of a typical design with three bladed rotors mounted on nacelles / hub housing the generator, gearbox and other operating equipment. A transformer will be associated with each turbine and this may be in the form of a transformer in the tower or an external transformer.


2.11 A typical wind turbine structure is shown on Drawing ES01. The model of turbine will not be known until a manufacturer has been chosen, which is expected to follow a tendering process after receipt of consent. For this reason, the EIAR is based on preliminary design information for which any changes would only improve the potential environmental effects. For the purposes of this document and the EIAR undertaken, the ‘worse case’ scenario has been assessed for each topic area. See the original Kype Muir Extension ES for further details on the wind turbine specification.

2.12 On average a turbine over a year, is expected to generate between 39 % and 44 % of its maximum theoretical power output (an increase of around 12 % from the consented layout). The theoretical output figure is known as the capacity factor.

2.13 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations require all structures, including wind turbines, greater than 150 m to be lit with visible aviation lighting. Therefore all the turbines at the proposed Development will require to be fitted with visible aviation lighting. To ensure compliance with the Air Navigation Order 2016, the turbine at Kype Muri Extension will be fitted with the following visible lighting:

1 x Medium Intensity (2000 candela) omni directional visible red light on the nacelle of the turbine;

At least three (to provide 360° coverage) low-intensity (32 candela) visible red lights at an intermediate level of half the nacelle height.

2.14 If visibility in all directions is more than 5 km the light intensity for any light required to be fitted to any generator and displayed may be reduced to not less than 10 % of the minimum peak intensity specified for a light of this type.

WIND TURBINE LOCATIONS AND HEIGHTS

2.15 The grid references and maximum hub and tip heights for each of the turbines are set out in Table 2.1 below. The locations of the turbines remain the same as the consented development. The final choice of turbine for the site will not be made until after any consent has been granted. To ensure sufficient flexibility is retained in turbine selection, the application seeks consent for a range of tip heights, rotor diameters and their associated hub heights. A range of different rotor diameters maybe used across the site in order to maximise efficiency and output from the proposed development but will each remain within maximum and minimum values set out in Table 2.1.


Table 2.1: Kype Muir Extension Grid References and Heights

Turbine

number (as

per consented

layout)1 Easting Northing

Consent

hub

height

(m)

Consented

turbine

height (m)

Proposed

min and

max hub

height

(m)

Proposed

min and

max rotor

diameter

(m)

Proposed

min and

max

turbine

height

(m)

4 268936 636755 80 132 85 - 101 110 - 130 150 - 156

5 269207 636479 80 132 85 – 101 110 - 130 150 - 156

6 270552 637674 80 132 85 - 101 110 - 130 150 - 156

7 270622 637282 100 152 80 – 145 110 – 140 150 - 200

8 272034 637408 100 152 80 – 165 110 – 140 150 - 220

9 271838 636936 100 152 80 – 165 110 – 140 150 - 220

10 271484 637307 100 152 80 – 145 110 – 140 150 - 200

11 271267 636729 100 152 80 – 165 110 – 140 150 - 220

12 270988 637006 100 152 80 – 165 110 – 140 150 - 220

13 270705 636500 100 152 80 – 145 110 – 140 150 - 200

14 270426 636819 100 152 80 – 145 110 – 140 150 - 200

15 270221 635859 80 132 80 – 121 110 – 140 150 -176

16 270163 636308 80 132 80 – 121 110 – 140 150 - 176

17 269705 636170 80 132 85 – 101 110 - 130 150 - 156

18 269950 636614 80 132 80 – 121 110 – 140 150 - 176

2.16 The Applicant is not seeking to change the 70 m micro-sitting allowance for the proposed Development provided under deemed planning consent condition 15 Micro-sitting for the original Kype Muir Extension.

WIND TURBINE FOUNDATIONS

2.17 Larger turbine foundations will be required for the proposed turbines. Currently consented are foundation of 12-21 metre in diameter and approximately 2.5 metres in depth, resulting in a volume of between 350–450 m3 with 42–48 tonnes of steel imbedded in concrete. Note that 18 turbine foundations were applied for and assessed within the original Kype Muir Extension ES but only 15 turbine foundations will be required for the proposed Development.

2.18 The proposed larger turbine foundations are reinforced concrete pads, approximately 18–26 metres in diameter by approximately 3.5 m in depth, over a maximum gradient of 1:4. An area of 30 metres by 30 metres will be required to incorporate the footprint of each foundation. The actual extent will be dependent on ground conditions and subject to ground investigation works and detailed design which will be undertaken

1 Turbines 1, 2 and 3 where included within the original layout but were not granted consent. The turbines numbers have been kept the same as the consented Kype Muir Extension to allow for easy comparison between the documents.


post-consent. The volume of concrete required for each foundation will be between approximately 450 m³ and 760 m³, with between approximately 48 and 70 tonnes of steel also being required.

2.19 The foundation is likely to include a steel support plinth to suit the base profile of the tower section. This plinth will contain the base ring connection and several ducts in order to allow electrical and communications cabling to be installed. A concrete upstand is likely to be cast on top of the concrete slab to which the tower will be bolted. This foundation is likely to minimise excavation requirements and visual projection above the ground. The foundation is likely to be overlaid with topsoil to an approximate depth of 200 mm, in order to encourage vegetation growth. Backfilled areas will be levelled following construction.

2.20 As per the consented Kype Muir Extension, an internal or external transformer is proposed for each turbine, which would be approximately 5 m by 5 m. The duct entry arrangement would be confirmed post-consent.

2.21 The final detailed foundation design will be designed in order to be most appropriate for each individual foundation dependent upon post-consent, pre-construction ground investigations. For illustration, a drawing of a typical turbine foundation is shown in Drawing ES02.

CRANE PADS

2.22 To facilitate installation of the larger towers and turbines, a larger area of hardstanding is required compared to the original Kype Muir Extension to accommodate the two cranes which will be required at each turbine location to lift the turbines into place. Each crane pad area will be approximately 44 m x 55 m + 10 m x 35 m (2,420 + 350 = 2,770 m2) in size. They will consist of compacted stone with layers of geotextile as required. The depth of stone required will depend on actual ground conditions however an indicative crane pad design is illustrated in Drawing ES03. A 5 m wide access track will be provided in order to aid the movement of components.

LAYDOWN AREAS

2.23 Additional laydown area located on the other side of the crane pads approximately 12 m x 60.5 m (726 m2) in size will be required to facilitate turbine erection. Layout down areas will be temporary and are likely to consist of bog mats, as illustrated in Drawing ES03. These additional temporary laydown areas will be removed post construction.

2.24 It would not be intended to strip topsoil and vegetation from these areas, however depending on the topography it may be necessary to install temporary rock banks to rest turbine components on during assembly.

SITE ACCESS AND TRANSPORT

2.25 Access to the site is to remain per the original Kype Muir Extension with access from the B743 via Lambshill Road. There are a number of turbine options within the proposed turbine dimensions and transportation methods which allow this access route to remain as per the original Kype Muir Extension.

ONSITE ACCESS TRACKS


2.26 Approximately of 11.3 km of onsite track required will be required (2.3km of upgraded access tracks and 9km of new access tracks). The layout of the track requires minor alterations from the original Kype Muir Extension layout is proposed. See Drawing ES10 for a comparison of the track alterations.

BORROW PITS

2.27 To remain per the original Kype Muir Extension. To minimise environmental effects, it is intended to win as much material within the Development as possible. Four potential borrow pit (temporary quarry) search area locations (BP01 to BP04) have been identified and are shown on Drawing PA03.

2.28 The locations of the four borrow pits have been determined based on the site evidence of historical quarries, topography and drift cover.

CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND

2.29 To remain as per the original Kype Muir Extension. A temporary construction compound will be installed with approximate area of 10,125 m². The construction compound will be fenced off and will include a temporary lay down area for storage of materials. The storage area will contain secure containers for the storage of any chemicals and paints required for construction activities.

ON SITE SIGNAGE

2.30 There may be the need for signage at the proposed Development to provide safe navigation around the site. Signage would consist of non-illuminated post and panel sign locations and non-illuminated turbine identification signs with a maximum of 3 signs per post facing at the proposed Development.

2.31 The signage would comprise of two elements; directional signs and roundels displaying the site speed limit. The directional and speed roundel sign measure 300 mm x 400 mm x 3 mm respectively, which will be mounted on a 2500 mm x 76 mm grey aluminium pole. The poles will be set within 600 mm deep concrete foundation. This will ensure the stability of the signs, in line with current guidance for such installations.

2.32 The sign fixtures allow back-to-back mounting and are used on sign locations where more than two signs are specified. The signs will be hard wearing using tamperproof fixtures, securing the signs in place. A high quality typeface is used to maximise readability. The signage is uncluttered and designed to be legible from vehicle or from foot.

2.33 The exact number of signs required at any of the post locations will be decided post consent, following a full review of the health and safety requirements.

CONTROL BUILDING

2.34 To remain per the original Kype Muir Extension. The control building for the proposed Development, including clearance, security, access, storage and fencing etc. is anticipated to be approximately 42 m x 28 m.

CABLING

2.35 To remain per the original Kype Muir Extension.


GRID CONNECTION

2.36 Although a grid connection is an integral and requisite component of any wind farm development, it follows a separate consenting process via an application under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 or use of a statutory undertakers Generally Permitted Development rights.

2.37 Although it is not possible to determine the exact grid connection route with certainty at this stage, as illustrated on Drawing ES07 it is likely that the grid connection will be made to the under construction Kype Muir Wind Farm control building and then utilise the underground connection that is currently being put in to Coalburn substation from the Kype Muir Wind Farm control building.

WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS

2.38 The internal track layout has been designed to minimise the number of watercourse crossings required as far as is practical to do so. Upgrades to four existing watercourse crossings will be required within the site.

FORESTRY

2.39 Currently the development has consent for keyhole felling at 13 of the 15 turbines along with an area of felling in the south of the site to facilitate hen harrier enhancement and an area to the north of the site to facilitate blanket bog enhancement. To facilitate the larger rotor diameter on site, larger key holing felling is required.

2.40 The extent of keyholing around each turbine will be dependent on the dimensions of the turbines selected and will be finalised post consent, prior to commencement of development. A standard mitigation measure adopted to prevent bat collision and barotrauma at wind farm sites is the establishment of standoff zones from trees and hedges. Natural England Guidance (2014) recommends maintaining a 50 m buffer around trees and hedges into which no part of the turbine intrudes. The bat standoffs will be used to determine the extent of the areas to be keyholded around the turbines, subject to a minimum keyholed area of 10 m around wind farm infrastructure.

2.41 The following calculation will be used to calculate the extent of the keyholes require in the existing forestry at Kype Muir Extension based upon the revised turbine dimensions:

b = √(50 + 𝑏𝑙)2 − (ℎℎ − 𝑓ℎ)2

where: bl = blade length hh = hub height fh = feature height (height of trees) 2

2.42 A larger area will be keyholed to facilitate turbine erection, but these areas will be replanted up to the keyholed areas calculated in line with the calculation set out above, subject to a minimum area of 10 m around wind farm infrastructure. During the operational life of the wind farm, depending on the maintenance works required there may be a requirement to fell the replanted area to facilitate repair works. This would be discussed with the Council prior to repair works being undertaken.

2 Natural England Technical Information Note TIN051 – Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines, Third Edition, 2014


CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

2.43 The Construction Management Statement (CMS) which will be finalised post consent, prior to commencement of development will set out in detail the individual items of work associated with the construction of the proposed Development to ensure that works are undertaken in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner. The document will provide full technical details of the various temporary and permanent components of the proposed Development. A draft CMS for the Development was prepared as part of the 2014 assessment. An updated draft CMS has been submitted in as Technical Appendix 2.1.

Table 2.2 Indicative Draft Construction Programme

Activity Start Finish Weeks

Forestry / Felling Activities Month 1 Month 4 20

Junction widening Month 4 Month 5 6

Pre-construction and track drainage installation

Month 5 Month 9 20

Opening of borrow pits Month 4 Month 7 16

Construction compound Month 4 Month 4 2

Access track construction Month 5 Month 17 48

Control Building civil works Month 19 Month 22 16

Turbine foundations and crane pad hardstandings

Month 12 Month 20 36

Control Building Electrical fit out and collector circuits cabling

Month 21 Month 23 8

Turbine Delivery Route – Road Upgrades Month 11 Month 13 12

Turbine and Permanent Met Mast erection Month 16 Month 22 28

Commissioning and tests on completion Month 21 Month 24 16

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (EMP)

2.44 The EMP will set out the standards of the environmental performance of the proposed Development. The document will contain a number of objectives for the construction, operational and decommissioning phases which aim to ensure that the site is constructed, operated and decommissioned in an environmentally acceptable manner, having inherent proposed mitigation to offset or avoid any remaining potential impact during the lifetime of the development.

CARBON BALANCE

2.45 An updated carbon balance assessment has been included within the application. The calculation has be undertaken using the Scottish Governments online Carbon Calculator Tool. The reference number of the calculation is GL6K-SD91-XJZP (V12).

2.46 The proposed Development, while taking the total expected loses into account, is expected to save 2,918,434 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over its 30 year lifetime. This represents a 613,314 tonne increase in savings compared with the 2014 18 turbine layout (and therefore even greater savings on the 2016 Consented layout with 15 turbines). The carbon payback period is expected to be 3 years 1 months.


2.47 Due to the short payback times expected, the proposed Development is considered to have a major beneficial effect on the environment from the production of renewable energy, in comparison to the generation of electricity using fossil fuels.

2.48 Further details are contained within Technical Appendix 7.1 (Carbon Balance Assessment).

HABITAT ENHANCEMENT MEASURES

2.49 The 2014 application included a draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) which was based on the 2014 Proposed Layout of 18 turbines. The draft HMP has been updated to reflect the reduction in the number of turbines and the larger turbines now proposed. In summary, the proposed changes are:

The area of blanket bog enhancement that was proposed around T1, T2 and T3 (the turbines that were not included in the 2016 Consented Layout) has been removed as without the wind farm infrastructure associated with these excluded turbines it will not be possible to deliver this area of enhancement.

The 2014 draft HMP proposed that 59 ha of woodland in the southern proportion of the proposed Development Area should be felled to facilitate hen harrier enhancement. Within their consultation response to the original Application, Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) objected to this area of felling. To address FCS concerns a reduced area of enhancement was agreed. The draft HMP has been updated to reflect this.

2.50 The draft HMP is detailed within Technical Appendix 6.2 (Draft Habitat Management Plan) and summarised in Chapter 13 (Synergistic Effects, Schedule of Mitigation, Residual Effects and Conclusions).

2.51 The updated Draft HMP aims remain the same as the consent development and seeks to achieve the following in relation to the proposed Development:

Minimise the opportunities for encounters between raptors and turbines in the near proximity to the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA;

Maximise opportunities for habitat enhancement to benefit hen harrier and other protected raptors in proximity to the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA;

Minimise forestry removal;

Maximise opportunities for bog restoration and enhancement, with 13.8 ha of blanket bog enhancement proposed;

Maximise opportunities for broad-leaved scrub and woodland where creation of these habitats will not affect the integrity of Annex 1 types, with 56 ha of broad-leaved planting proposed; and

Tie in with the adjacent Dungavel Wind Farm and Kype Muir Wind Farm HMPs.

2.52 In relation to minimising the opportunities for encounters between raptors and turbines, proposed reactive maintenance of short sward grass would occur when necessary


around each key holed turbine with the emphasis being on preventing habitat for nesting. Moorland habitat would be formed for hen harrier foraging by creating moorland by removing forestry surrounding the Auchengilloch Glen and abutting the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA.

2.53 Bog restoration and enhancement would occur via drain blocking of Feeshie Rig, whilst creation of new habitat would occur via the planting of broad leaved scrub and woodland along the Feeshie Burn.

2.54 Further details of these measures and the rationale behind them are provided in Technical Appendix 6.2 (Draft Habitat Management Plan). Drawing ES04 shows the key components proposed as part of this HMP.

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE

2.55 The consented lifetime of the original Application is 25 years, however as the Applicant is seeking to increase the duration of consent from 25 to 30 years, the status of the proposed Development will be reviewed prior to the end of its lifetime. The lifetime could increase if taking into account issues such as technological advances and the views of relevant consultees and stakeholders, hence the decision to take the option for decommissioning or re-powering will be considered.

2.56 A Decommissioning Method Statement will be prepared in consultation with the planning authority and statutory consultees. For the purpose of this EIAR, it is assumed that decommissioning will take place and will include the following:

Removal of turbines and towers;

Removal of crane pads and other hardstanding areas; and

Reinstatement of all affected areas.

2.57 At present, it is generally accepted that removal of cables and electrical infrastructure is more damaging than leaving them in situ so this is the current preferred option. Site access tracks would remain in situ as they are likely to be required by the Landowner for ongoing forestry operations. The control building and equipment will be removed and the land reinstated. It is also proposed to leave turbine foundations in the ground and the turbine locations will be reinstated to a minimum depth of 500 mm above the foundations and re-vegetated which will allow agricultural land use to take place. This follows advice given in the Scottish Government’s web based renewable advice (last updated May 2014) (which replaced PAN 45) which advises “Turbine bases to be left ’in situ’ to avoid damage taking place through removal”.

2.58 All of this work will take place in parts of the site already disturbed during construction, and all areas affected will be reinstated on completion.

BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.59 The proposed Development will generate the following benefits3:

a) Contribute to the attainment of the Scottish Governments renewable energy targets. The proposed development, with an estimated installed capacity of 63

3 All figures are based on Kype Muir Extension having an installed capacity of 63 MW. Any alteration to the installed capacity will result in a change to the figures.


MW (assuming potential candidate turbines of 4.2 MW each) would make a valuable contribution to the Scottish Government’s energy targets;

b) The proposed Development would generate enough renewable electricity to power circa 56,763 households annually.

This is an increase of 11,763 homes compared to the 2014 submitted scheme despite the reduction in number of turbines4.

c) The proposed Development is estimated to save 2,918,434 tons of carbon dioxide over its lifetime.

d) It would contribute to the diversity and security of the UK’s energy supply by generating electricity from a sustainable, indigenous resource using a technology that is recognised as amongst the lowest cost forms of generating electricity;

e) The proposed Development would result in ecological enhancements through measures set out in the draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) including enhancement to hen harrier habitat and facilitating bog restoration;

f) The proposed Development will create and support jobs directly, indirectly and through induced means, with Banks Renewables Connect2Renewables initiative seeking to maximise the benefit to the local economy. During the construction phase it is anticipated that 167 construction jobs will be directly supported. It is likely that many more will be indirectly supported throughout the supply chain. During the operational phase around 24 jobs will be supported with approximately 25 jobs supported during decommissioning;

Construction and operational works on the wind farm site will generate ancillary benefits for the local economy through the purchasing of accommodation, food and drink. The DECC/RUK commissioned report ‘Onshore Wind: Direct and Wider Economic Impacts, based on case studies, estimated this to equate to £7,500 per MW installed. This suggests an additional local benefit of £472,500 to services providers in the local area over the lifetime of the wind farm.

g) Establish a jobs and training initiative which has the potential to create approximately 400 training and employment opportunities for local people over the first 5 years of the wind farms operation5.

h) A total estimated spend of £151million on development, construction, operation and decommissioning:

An estimated £58.4million of this will be spent within 30 km of the wind farm; and

An estimated £69.1, million within Scotland.

i) Provide local Communities within 10 km of the wind turbines a community benefits funding over the operational lifetime of the wind farm;

4 The original Kype Muir Extension ES, based on 18 turbines, predicted 45,488 homes would be powered by development. Consent was granted for 15 turbines; therefore the number of homes powered by the consented scheme would be less. 5 Based on a contribution of £1,800 per opportunity at 63 MW.


The Communities will be provided with 2.5% share in the annual gross combined revenue generated by Kype Muir and Kype Muir Extension Wind Farms. The Communities will receive 1.5% of the revenue from Kype Muir Wind Farm when it becomes operational in 2019. It is estimated that to reach the combined contribution of 2.5%, 4% of the Kype Muir Extension revenue will be shared with the community. 4% is an estimate, and the exact percentage from Kype Muir Extension will be agreed prior to turbine operation, but the percentage will result in the communities receiving a 2.5% share in the combined revenue of Kype Muir and Kype Muir Extension.

The share in the gross annual revenue will be underwritten with a guaranteed minimum payment of £5,000 per installed MW per annum = £9.45 million over the wind farms operation.

This is an increase of £1.8 million compared to the guaranteed minimum associated with the 2016 consented scheme.

j) Generate £25.7 million in business rates over its 30 year operational lifetime6.

Whilst it is acknowledged that business rates will be paid to the Scottish Government in the first instance, as set out in the Scottish Governments Local Finance Circular 5/2017 the Council will receive the equivalent value of the rates back as part of their block grant.

This is an increase of £8.17 million compared to the 2016 consented scheme.

Connect2Renewables

2.60 As demonstrated during the construction of Kype Muir and Middle Muir Wind Farms (please see example below), Banks Renewables are committed to maximising the benefits of our proposed developments in the communities within which they are located. To deliver this aim, Banks Renewables has adopted a Connect2Renewables Charter which includes commitments to:

a) Maximise contracting opportunities for local firms;

b) Guarantee “local first” tender lists;

c) Give “local element” material consideration in awarding contracts;

d) Provide direct training and employment opportunities for local people on our wind farm projects in South Lanarkshire;

e) Support improved access to further education and training for local people; and

f) Target overall minimum economic benefit to local economy of £500,000 per installed megawatt over the life of the Development. This would equate to approximately £31.5 million investment in the local economy.

2.61 These principles will be applied to Kype Muir Extension.

6 Based on the 2017 review by the Scottish Government. 7 Estimated rates payment for the consented Kype Muir is estimated at £17,625,900


2.62 Based upon evidence from currently implementation of the Connect2Renewables Initiative in South Lanarkshire, the local spend associated with Kype Muir Extension is expected to exceed this minimum target. It is estimated that the total local economic benefit of Kype Muir Extension will be £58.4 million. The estimated combined local spend of Kype Muir, Middle Muir and Kype Muir Extension Wind Farm’s over the lifetimes of the wind farms, through the adoption of Banks Renewables Connect2Renewables initiative is £203.29 million.

Connect2Renewables – Kype Muir Wind Farm Example Kype Muir Wind Farm is an 88MW wind farm, currently under construction adjacent to Kype Muir Extension. Construction commenced just over a year ago and as set out in the table below through Banks Renewables Connect2Renewables commitments to maximise benefits to the local community 31%, which equates to £15.15 million, has been spent to date within the local area (30km of the wind farm). It is anticipated that 67% of the total lifetime spend on the project, £100.2 million, will be spent locally.

42 of the 52 contractors used to date on Kype Muir during the construction phase have been local. This has included local plant hire companies, material supplies and fencing contractors.

KYPE MUIRLocal Spend

(£m)

Scotland

Spend (£m)

UK Spend

(£m)

Total

Project

Spend (£m)

Local as

% of UK

Spend

Local Spend

as % of Total

Spend

Development 4.56 7.52 8.81 9.33 52% 49%

Construction Spend to Date 15.15 21.00 26.22 48.29 58% 31%

Remaining Construction

Spend10.84 11.88 15.88 60.94 68% 18%

Operations/Maintenance 27.69 33.69 57.75 101.37 48% 27%

Decommissioning 1.50 0.30 1.80 1.80 83% 83%

Business Rates 29.94 29.94 29.94 29.94 100% 100%

Connect2Renewables

Funding1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 100% 100%

Community Revenue Share

(Guaranteed Minimum)4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 100% 100%

Community Benefit Funding 4.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 100% 100%

TOTAL 100.72 115.37 151.44 262.71 67% 38%

NB: Green Numbers denotes actual or firm cost


Jobs and Training Initiative

2.63 Banks Renewables have been working with South Lanarkshire Council and the communities surrounding the site to develop a jobs and training initiative associated with Kype Muir and Middle Muir Wind Farms which aims to improve employment credentials of local people. As set out in the 2014 application, this initiative is also to be applied to Kype Muir Extension. £2,500 per installed MW will be ring-fenced for the jobs and training initiative over the first 5 years of operation8. This has the potential to create approximately 400 training and employment opportunities for local people.

2.64 Measures included in the initiative could include, but are not limited to:

a) Supporting local businesses who wish to employ local people;

b) Bursary support for local people wishing to enter further education;

c) Subsidising apprenticeship opportunities and training schemes;

d) Business start-up grants; and

e) Support for retraining.

Administration of Community Benefit

2.65 Communities with 10 km of the wind turbines will be provided with a community benefits fund over the operational lifetime of the wind farm.

2.66 As set out in the 2014 application, utilising the model that has been set out in the Kype Muir Wind Farm section 75 agreement, the community benefits funding will be made to two bodies:

a) £2,500 per installed MW per annum will be paid into South Lanarkshire Councils Renewable Energy Fund (REF); and

b) The second administrating body, the Kype Muir Community Fund (KMCF) will receive a guaranteed minimum payment of £2,500 per installed MW per annum. In addition, if due, the KMCF will also receive an annual balancing payment to account for the difference between the guaranteed minimum and the percentage revenue share. This will be based on the following calculation:

Balance due = percentage gross revenue for year – guaranteed minimum payment.

2.67 Payments will be made in arrears on an annual basis.

2.68 Payments will not be made if a force majeure event occurs that impacts the operation of the wind farm for a continuous period of more than 30 days.

2.69 To ensure that the KMCF is managed appropriately with full public accountability and transparency, and ensure that funding is directed into community projects and initiatives that are supported by and wholly benefit the Communities, it is proposed that the KMCF is a ring fenced administrative fund set up by Banks Renewables on behalf

8 £1,250 from the REF and £1,250 from the KMCF


of the Communities and managed by an independent community foundation that works with Banks Group across the UK.

2.70 It is proposed that the Kype Muir Community Partnership Group (KMCP), which has been set up in relation to Kype Muir Wind Farm, drawing upon voting members from the representative Community Councils would determine all applications made to the KMCF in accordance with criteria agreed with Banks Community Fund and the Council. In addition, it is it is hoped that the Council will agree to the KMCP being consulted on applications to the Kype Muir Wind Farm Extension REF.

2.71 Banks Renewables are encouraging the Communities to develop Community Action Plans for their area which identify projects that they wish to see developed in their local community. Projects identified in Community Action Plans should then be given priority when determining applications to the Community Fund.


3. DESIGN EVOLUTION

SUMMARY

This chapter sets out how and why the design of the proposed Development has changed and details the parameters which have been considered in arriving at the proposed Development. The changes to the economics of onshore wind is discussed, along with the how the proposed Development has balanced the economics with other receptors within this EIAR.

As Kype Muir Extension has already received consent the principle of a wind farm at this location has been established therefore this design iteration chapter considers original Kype Muir Extension as the baseline. The iterative design process that has been undertaken has resulted in a suitable amended design for the site which balances the need to maximise the efficiency and output of the wind farm with ensuring the environmental impacts remain acceptable.

INTRODUCTION

3.1 The original Kype Muir Extension was approved by Scottish Ministers in September 2016 (2016 Consented Scheme) this chapter outlines the methodology and process which followed to arrive at the design of the amended scheme, the proposed Development.

3.2 In this chapter the Applicant explains the design of the proposed Development, sets out the thorough process that has led to the final design, and explains why the final design is considered optimal for the site.

3.3 Factors considered in the design evolution cover a range of elements including the environmental, technical and commercial constraints and requirements to arrive at what the Applicant considers to be suitable wind farm development for the site.

3.4 The original Kype Muir Extension ES sets out the reasons for selecting the site and this EIAR does not seek to discuss the site selection process. Kype Muir Extension is a consented development and the principle of wind farm on the site has been established.

WHY LARGER TURBINES?

3.5 The original Kype Muir Extension was designed, submitted and approved to operate under certain market and economic conditions. In 2014, when the original Kype Muir Extension was submitted, the Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) was available to wind farm developments and this provided an economic incentive to produce electricity from a renewable source, however this incentive has since been withdrawn. Following the Scottish Government Onshore Wind Policy (2017) of the ROC, the Scottish Energy Strategy (2017) was published setting out the Scottish Government’s aims deliver secure, affordable, clean energy for Scotland’s households, communities and businesses9. Wind turbine technology has also moved on since the original Application was submitted. There is now technology available that is capable of increasing the output and efficiency of wind farms, utilising larger rotor diameters and

9 Scottish Energy Strategy (2017)


higher hub heights than historically used which can assist in meeting the Scottish Governments energy targets.

3.6 As an established technology that is now one of the lowest cost forms of electricity generation, the Scottish Government expect ‘new generation’ onshore wind to remain key to delivering the clean, reliable, low cost and low carbon energy future10 they aspire to. Supporting this, paragraph 25 of the Scottish Onshore Wind Policy states: “The Scottish Government acknowledges the way in which wind turbine technology and design is evolving, and fully supports the delivery of large wind turbines in landscapes judged to be capable of accommodating them without significant adverse impacts.”

3.7 It is therefore, now vital that onshore wind farms maximise their efficiency using larger, more productive turbines that maximise energy yields in order to deliver the Scottish Governments energy targets.

Figure 3.1 – Turbine efficiency increases with height

3.8 Due to the nature of the site within a cluster of operational and under construction wind farms, and the capacity of the landscape, Banks Renewables believe that Kype Muir Extension is a site which can accommodate larger turbines.

DESIGN EVOLUTION

3.9 The design evolution process for the amendment to the site design has sought to balance increasing the efficiency of the wind farm with ensuring that the environmental impacts of the proposed Development remain acceptable.

Design principles

3.10 The following design principles informed the design evolution process:

a) Maximise the generating capacity of the wind resource;

10 Scottish Government Onshore Wind Policy (2017)


b) Provide a wind turbine layout which integrates with Kype Muir Wind Farm and Dungavel Wind Farm, and develops upon the design principles established through the 2016 Consented scheme;

c) Minimise additional visual impact, especially from key viewpoints to the north and residential receptors within the vicinity of the site;

d) Achieves acceptable noise levels from the wind turbines at sensitive properties based on the principles for establishing noise limits agreed through the original Application;

e) Takes into consideration design guidance from South Lanarkshire Council (please see the Mitigation section of chapter 4 for further details), SNH and other consultees as appropriate; and

f) Ensures that felling of the existing forestry is in kept to a minimum while respecting bat standoff distances around turbines and forestry edges, and providing/creating habitats for protected species and habitats.

Design iterations

3.11 The consented Kype Muir Extension was taken as the baseline (the 2016 Consent has already established the principle of a wind farm in this location). To maximise the efficiency of the wind farm larger turbines, with taller tip heights and larger rotor diameters need to be delivered on the site. This was the starting point for the design iteration process.

3.12 The positioning of the turbines was also considered to establish if moving the turbines within the site could increase the efficiency of the wind farm. A range of options were assessed but it was concluded that the consented layout remained the most efficient in terms of turbine positioning.

3.13 The following viewpoints were used to assess the visual impact during the design iteration process11:

a) Strathaven War Memorial

b) Drumclog

c) Gilmourton

Option 1:

3.14 The starting point for the design iteration process was to increase all the turbines to 200 m as this would maximise the generating capacity of the site.

11 Design wirelines show turbines with a rotor diameter of 136m. This differs from the wirelines that are presented as part of the LVIA which are based on a worst case scenario from a landscape and visual perspective – 110m rotors.


Option 2:

3.15 Following a review of wirelines from the north it was concluded the height of some of the turbines would be more in keeping with the established pattern of development from adjacent wind farms and the principles that had been established by the 2016 Consented scheme if they were reduced in height. The 2016 Consented Scheme contains turbines in two height categories, 7 turbines at 132 m to tip and 8 turbines at 152 m to tip, with the smaller turbines located towards the more visible northern edge of the site, and the taller turbines to the south of the site. To create a more cohesive layout, the heights of the turbines consented at 132 m were reduced from 200 m to 176 m with the exception of the more elevated T4/T5/T6 turbines which were reduced further to 149 m. This resulted in a layout which was in keeping with the established pattern of development with adjacent wind farms from key view points and the principles established by the 2016 Consented scheme, but still of greater benefit when considering turbine efficiency and energy output.


Option 3:

3.16 Following discussions with the turbine manufacturers it became apparent that the generating capacity of the site could be increased if the 200 m turbines were increased to 220 m turbines and the 149m turbines were increased to 156m. Taking the principles that had been established through the design iteration process to date, we looked at the option of increasing all the 200 m turbines to 220 m and the 149m turbines to 156m.


Option 4 – proposed scheme:

3.17 Following a review of wirelines for option 3 it was felt that increasing the height of all the 200 m turbines to 220 m would move the design away from the design principles that we were seeking to achieve. Turbines T7/T10/T13/T14 were therefore retained at 200 m, and the turbines that sit to the rear of the site, tucked behind Kype Muir Wind Farm on lower lying ground were increased 220 m which allowed an optimised layout to be established balancing the maximisation of energy output whilst maintaining the established pattern of development of the adjacent wind farms from key viewpoints.

3.18 It was felt that increasing the 149m turbines by 7m to 156m was negligible from a landscape and visual perspective, but of benefit when considering turbine efficiency. Increasing the turbines to above 150 m would introduce the requirement for aviation lighting, but as set out in the night-time lighting assessment (TA4.4) given the location and nature of the site this was found to be acceptable.


Turbine spacing:

3.19 Once the principles of the heights of the turbines across the site had been established consideration was given as to whether the spacing between the turbines was sufficient to achieve efficient operation and consistency with manufactures warranty requirements. The spacing was found to be sufficient for the larger turbines and therefore no changes were required to the positioning of the turbines.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

3.20 Public exhibitions were held in Strathaven on 27 and 28 March. Leaflets providing local residents with an update on Kype Muir Wind Farm and details of the proposed amendments to Kype Muir Extension were distributed to all households within the surrounding communities, inviting them to the exhibitions. The exhibition gave members of the local community the opportunity to view, discussion and provide feedback on the proposed amendments to Kype Muir Extension Wind Farm.

3.21 Overall the feedback received on the proposed amendments to the scheme was positive. Over half of the respondents (59%) thought that the proposed Development would have a positive effect on South Lanarkshire. 82% of respondents either supported the amended proposals for Kype Muir Extension or had no firm view. Only 13% of respondents did not support the proposals.

3.22 In addition to the public exhibitions, details of the proposed amendments to Kype Muir Extension have been discussed with the community through the Kype Muir Community Partnership which is made up of representatives from the surrounding Community Councils. Generally speaking the Kype Muir Community Partnership is supportive of the proposed amendments to the Kype Muir Extension.

HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN

3.23 The original Application included a Draft HMP which sought to restore areas of degraded and modified blanket bog, and provide hen harrier enhancement.

3.24 The original Application was for 18 turbines, however Section 36 consented was only issued for 15 turbines (the 2016 Consented Scheme). Turbines T1, T2 and T3 were refused on the advice of South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH).


Figure 2.2 – 2014 Application Layout Figure 2.3 – 2016 Consented Layout (18 turbines) (15 turbines – T1, T2, T3 refused)

3.25 The draft HMP which accompanied the original Application was based on the 18 turbine layout.

3.26 The draft HMP has been updated to reflect the reduction in the number of turbines. The area of blanket bog enhancement that was proposed around T1, T2 and T3 (the turbines that were refused) has been removed as without the wind farm infrastructure associated with the refused turbines it will not be possible to deliver this area of enhancement.

3.27 The 2014 draft HMP proposed that 59 ha of woodland in the southern proportion of the site should be felled to facilitate hen harrier enhancement. Within their consultation response to the original Application Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) objected to this area of felling. To address FCS concerns a reduced area of enhancement was agreed. The draft HMP has been updated to reflect this agreement.


Figure 3.1 – Amendments to HMP

CONCLUSIONS

3.28 The design of the proposed Development has considered a range of the environmental and technical aspects which are documented within this EIAR. As the application is an S.36c application, not all environmental and technical aspects where considered, as the principle of a wind farm development within the site boundary is established. The submitted design has been carefully chosen following the in-depth technical assessment and the findings of the EIA process.

3.29 The need for the proposed Development and the increase in turbine size has been outlined above, while the various chapters within this EIAR outline how the effect of the proposed Development is either not significant or if potentially significance how the effect has been mitigated against.

3.30 The iterative design process that has been undertaken has resulted in a suitable amended design for the site which balances the need to maximise the efficiency and output of the wind farm while ensuring that environmental impacts remain acceptable.


4. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT

SUMMARY

This assessment updates the Original ES to outline the landscape and visual effects of the Consented 2016 Layout; identifies changes to policy and baseline since the Original ES, and then goes on to assesses the magnitude and significance of the proposed Development for the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the proposed Development, focussing on effects that will differ from the 2016 Consented Layout.

Given the proximity of the existing Kype Muir, Dungavel and Auchrobert wind farms this means that the views towards the proposed Development Area and the landscape near the proposed Development will already be affected by large wind farms and this has a bearing on the significance of effects identified. The assessment identifies effects against this baseline such that the effects of the 2016 Consented Layout and the proposed Development can be directly compared for ease of reference.

Effects on landscape character will be the same as for the Consented 2016 Layout, except in the area of Rolling Moorland outside the site but within up to 3 km to the southeast – where the effect of being ‘near a wind farm’ would be slightly intensified and extended by the taller turbines. This is a marginal change which does not result in the effects identified being of higher magnitude or significance.

Effects on visual receptors would, in general, be very slightly increased for receptors within approximately 7 km. For receptors within 3-6 km to the northwest, there would be effects of increased magnitude and significance with effects on local roads, core paths and settlements including Gilmourton, Caldermill and Drumclog being of Moderate significance and Adverse.

There would be no change to effects on designated landscapes.

A key change to the proposals is the inclusion of aviation lighting. In the host units of the Rolling Moorland character type the introduction of lighting to a relatively dark landscape would give rise to significant adverse effects. Elsewhere, effects on character as a result of the lighting would be negligible.

Significant adverse visual effects would arise at Gilmourton as a result of relatively close views of the aviation lights in views towards the site which are currently dark. Other settlements within 6km are slightly more distant than Gilmourton and have more existing lighting seen nearby and in views towards the site and would not experience significant effects. Road users would not experience significant effects at night as a result of the turbine lighting.

Effects on designated landscapes as a result of the proposed aviation lighting would be negligible.

The residential properties most affected will be those within 2.6km to the north of the site. For most of these dwellings, screening by other houses and/or vegetation will notably limit effects and the most affected property will be South Kirkwood Cottage which lies 2.6km from the turbines. None of the properties will


be affected such that the property would be rendered an unattractive place in which to live.

The change of turbine size means that the turbines tend to be perceived as being of the same scale as whichever of the existing Kype Muir and Dungavel wind farms is the closer.

STATEMENT OF COMPETENCE

4.1 This assessment was undertaken by Mary Fisher CMLI and Mark Evans CMLI; both are landscape architects with extensive experience of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). Mary Fisher is a key contributor to IEMA and Landscape Institute best practice guidance in relation to both EIA and LVIA.

INTRODUCTION

4.2 This assessment defines the existing landscape and visual baseline environments; assesses their sensitivity to change; describes the key landscape and visual related aspects of the Development; describes the nature of the anticipated change upon both the landscape and visual environments; assesses the magnitude and significance of the changes for the construction, operational and decommissioning stages. Figures and visuals referred to in this chapter can be found within volume 2 of the EIAR.

The Site and Proposal

4.3 Figure 4.1 places the proposed Development within its local context. The proposed Development is as set out in Chapter 2 (The Proposed Development).

4.4 The Site is located within an area of mixed commercial forestry and moorland set on low hills approximately 6.5 km southwest of Strathaven. The Development is situated immediately to the southwest of the consented Kype Muir Wind Farm, between it and the operational Dungavel Wind Farm. A Core Path runs through the northeast of the Site connecting Lambhill to Auchengilloch.

Approach

4.5 This report considers, as part of the baseline conditions, the effects of the 2016 Consented Layout. The original Application was for 18 turbines (‘the 2014 Proposed Layout’) and the original ES reflected that, but the scheme was reduced to 15 turbines during the decision making process. As a result, no LVIA has been provided for the 2016 Consented Layout which forms part of the baseline for this assessment. Sections 4.7-4.11 of this chapter set out the effects of the 2016 Consented Layout taking into account the Original Application LVIA and the commentary regarding effects within the decision letter.

4.6 The assessment also considers:

Changes to the planning context and landscape and visual baseline that have taken place since the consent;

Changes to guidance and methodology since the original ES was provided. Where feasible this assessment replicates the previous approach to


maintain compatibility with the previous assessment – as set out at sections 4.24-4.27 of this chapter.

The difference between the effects arising from the 2016 Consented Layout and the proposed Development. Only those effects which are likely to be different, and give rise to potentially significant effects, are considered in detail.

Effects of the 2016 Consented Layout

4.7 During the consenting process for the original Application, 3 turbines (1-3) were omitted, resulting in a consented development that had reduced effects from those for the 18 turbines in the 2014 Proposed Layout.

4.8 The primary result of the layout change was to pull back the extent of the development to the northwest, reducing effects on visual receptors and landscape character within approximately 5 km to the northwest of the site – between Caldermill, Drumclog, and the B743. Within this zone, as seen for visualisations for the 2014 Proposed Layout from viewpoints 7,8,11 and 22, turbines 1-3 were the closest and would have appeared to descend the hillside and be notably closer than the Dungavel turbines, which were at a similar distance but appear more distant due to being beyond a ridgeline in views.

4.9 The reduction to 15 turbines had the result of reducing effects in the nearest views (e.g. viewpoint 22), and to a limited degree in more distant views (viewpoints 7, 8, 11), also reducing the localised Small scale effects on the Upland River Valley LCA landscape character to Negligible.

4.10 Table 4.1 below summarises effects of the 2016 Consented Layout on assessed viewpoints (changes from the original ES chapter 7 are underlined):

Table 4.1: Scale of effects of 2016 Consented Layout on viewpoints

Viewpoint Distance, Direction

Scale of Effect Positive / Neutral / Adverse

VP1: Kype Reservoir 2.1 km, northeast Negligible Neutral

VP2: South Kirkwood 2.6 km, north Large-Medium Adverse

VP3: Sandford 5.5 km, north Negligible Neutral

VP4: B7086 at Deadwaters 5.3 km, northeast Negligible Neutral

VP5: A71 west of Strathaven 6.5 km, north Small Neutral

VP6: Strathaven War Memorial 7.0 km, north Small Neutral

VP7: Gilmourton 4.7 km, northwest Small Neutral

VP8: A71 at Caldermill 5.7 km, northwest Medium-Small Neutral

VP9: Lethame Road, Strathaven 7.2 km, north Small Neutral

VP10: Stonehouse 8.2 km, northeast Negligible Neutral

VP11: Drumclog 5.5 km, northwest Negligible Neutral

VP12: Glassford 9.6 km, north Negligible Neutral

VP13: Lesmahagow 9.0 km, northeast Negligible Neutral

VP14: Kirkmuirhill 10.9 km, northeast Negligible Neutral




VP15: Chapelton 11.3 km, north Small-Negligible Neutral

VP16: Loudoun Hill 8.1 km, west Negligible Neutral

VP22: B743 northwest of site 3.0 km, northwest Negligible Neutral

4.11 Table 4.2 below summarises effects of the 2016 Consented Layout on landscape and visual receptors (changes – reduced effects due to the removal of 3 turbines - from the original ES chapter 7 are underlined):


Table 4.2: Summary of effects of 2016 Consented Layout

Receptor Comments Distance/ Direction

Sensitivity Magnitude Significance,

Positive /Neutral /Adverse

Landscape Character

7 Rolling Moorland Within the host unit 0 km Medium-Low Low Slight, Adverse

Overall effects on character type Negligible Minimal, Neutral

7 Rolling Moorland Localised effects to NW of site 3.0 km, SE Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral


8 Upland River Valley 3.0 km, SE Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral

18a East Ayrshire Plateau Moorlands

1.5 km, S Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral

Settlements & visual receptor groups

Gilmourton 4.6 km, NW High-Medium Low Slight, Neutral

Drumclog 5.3 km, NW High-Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral

Caldermill 5.7 km, NW High-Medium Medium-Low Moderate-Slight, Neutral

Deadwaters 5.2 km, NE High-Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral

Sandford 5.4 km, N High-Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral

Strathaven 6.2 km, N High-Medium Low-Negligible Slight, Neutral

Dispersed settlement, B743 and B745, local roads and core path EK/1455/1

3-5 km, NW High-Medium Low Slight, Neutral

Dispersed settlement, local roads and core paths crossing the Avon Water west of Sandford

3-6 km, N High-Medium Low Slight, Neutral

Routes

A71 4.9 km, NW Medium-Low Medium-Low Slight, Neutral



Sensitivity Magnitude Significance,


Core path EK/3780/1 Overall effects on route passes through site

High-Medium Medium Moderate. Neutral

Specific Viewpoints

Tinto Hill Effects on the view 25.5 km, E High Negligible Minimal, Neutral

Black Hill Fort Effects on the view 12.7 km, NE

High Negligible Minimal, Neutral

Landscape Designations

River Ayr Sensitive Landscape Character Area

Overall effects on designation 1.5 km, SE High-Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral


SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

Study Area

4.12 The extent of the study area has been broadly defined by its visual envelope and the anticipated extent of the ZTV arising from the proposed Development itself. In this case, a study area of 25 km was agreed with South Lanarkshire Council (‘the Council’) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) as being appropriate to cover all potentially material landscape and visual impacts. Within this overall study area smaller sub-areas have been agreed for various receptors in order to focus on likely significant effects, in accordance with best practice guidelines (Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) 3rd edition, 2013, para. 1.17):

10 km for local landscape character, locally designated landscapes, promoted scenic road routes and visitors attractions or heritage assets for which landscape and views contribute to the experience;

5 km for most other visual receptors; and

3 km for the assessment of effects on residential visual amenity (Technical Appendix 4.3 (Residential Amenity Assessment)), with individual dwellings considered in detail to 2.5km, and a summary assessment for dwellings between 2.5-3km.

4.13 During the scoping process it was agreed that Kype Muir, Auchrobert, Dungavel and Bankend Rig wind farms were to be included within the assessment baseline and shown in wirelines and that no cumulative assessment is required.

4.14 Turbines over 150 m in height require aviation lighting and a night time assessment is therefore included. The scoping detail of that assessment is set out within the Night-Time Assessment (Technical Appendix 4.4), summarised at section 4.99-4.103 within this chapter.

Scoping and Consultation

4.15 Relevant consultation responses are collated in Technical Appendix 4.1 (LVIA Scoping Correspondence). A summary of these responses is described in Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - Summary of Consultation Undertaken

Consultee Summary of Response Where & How Addressed

Scottish Natural Heritage and South Lanarkshire Council

Detailed agreement of study areas, and individual receptors to be assessed including cumulative sites, viewpoints, residential properties.

Throughout this chapter.

Scottish Natural Heritage and South Lanarkshire Council

Detailed agreement of night-time assessment scope and methodology

Technical Appendix 4.1


POLICY & GUIDANCE

4.16 Full details of planning policies are provided in the Planning Statement accompanying the application, key changes in policy in relation to landscape and visual matters since the previous assessment are identified below.

National Planning Policy

4.17 National policy in relation to the proposed Development is expressed in the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), June 2014 with related guidance in “Onshore wind turbines” (last updated May 2014) published online on the Scottish Government website. These documents predate the previous assessment and are considered in full in the original ES.

Regional and Local Planning Policy

4.18 Current regional and local planning policy is described in the following adopted documents:

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (Clydeplan), July 2017; and

South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (SLLDP), 2015.

4.19 Both of these plans have been adopted since the previous assessment, however the draft policies of SLLDP were referred to within the original ES and the original Kype Muir Extension was consented after the adoption of the SLLDP.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (Clydeplan) 2017

4.20 Clydeplan contains no specific policies of relevance to this assessment. It identifies broad areas as being suitable for wind development, deferring the detailed definition of the boundaries and policies to the local plans.

South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (SLLDP), 2015

4.21 The following proposed policies are relevant to the proposed Development in the context of this assessment:

Policy 4 Natural and Historic Environments which covers the impacts of proposed developments on local communities and landscape character; and

Policy 15 Natural and Historic Environments which covers the consideration to be given to landscape designations; and

Policy 19 Wind Energy which makes reference to 2014 SPP and supplementary guidance (see below).

Local Guidance

4.22 Local guidance relevant to this assessment is contained in the following documents:

South Lanarkshire Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance: 10 (SPG10) Renewable Energy, 2016;


Proposed Tall Wind Turbines: Landscape Capacity, Siting and Design Guidance (Draft), 2017 – intended to become an addition to SPG 10;

4.23 Both of these documents are new since the previous assessment. For South Lanarkshire, SPG10 includes an updated landscape capacity study (Feb 2016) which is regarded as superseding the 2014 landscape capacity study which informed Clydeplan and the 2014 study is not referred to within this assessment. SPG10 and the draft Tall Turbines guidance form part of the documented baseline and are reviewed within the ‘Mitigation’ section later in this chapter, with accompanying commentary on the implications for the proposed Development design.

METHODOLOGY

Overview

4.24 The methodology for this assessment is, as far as feasible, the same as for the original ES (as set out in the methodology section (7.16-7.91) of Chapter 7 and Appendix 7.1 of the original ES).

4.25 In order to consider ‘worst case’ effects, the maximum hub height has been used in preparing ZTV studies and wireframes, as agreed during the scoping process. The range of turbine dimensions set out in Chapter 2 (Table 2.1) has been considered during assessment and any combination, including a mix of rotor sizes, within this range would not alter the conclusions of this assessment.

4.26 Visual Representation of Wind Farms, SNH, 2017 has been published following the original ES. This revised guidance document requires a different format of visualisation to that used within the original ES. The visualisations provided in this EIAR follow the 2017 SNH guidance and as a result are not directly comparable to those in the original ES. There are a number of changes of which the most noticeable are that they are reproduced larger on the page and turbines face the viewpoint in all views rather than the prevailing wind direction. It has been judged appropriate to follow the updated guidance to reflect current best practice and for the pragmatic reason that the visualisations would not have been directly comparable without the methodology change, as the original ES visualisations show the 18 turbine 2014 Proposed Layout, not the 2016 Consented Layout.

4.27 It is noted that SPG10 provides guidance on the assessment scope and process and has also been published since the original ES. This guidance has been taken into account in agreeing the scope of this assessment and does not require any amendments to the methodology used in the original ES.

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Introduction

4.28 An overview of the baseline study results is provided in this section with the full baseline description of the individual landscape and visual receptors being provided alongside the assessment of effects for ease of reference.

4.29 This section provides a review of the key local guidance documents and identifies those landscape and visual receptors which merit detailed consideration in the assessment of effects, and those which are not judged to require further assessment as effects "have been judged unlikely to occur or so insignificant that it is not essential


to consider them further" (GLVIA, 3rd edition, para 3.19); or are effects that would not differ from those of the 2016 Consented Layout.

4.30 Both this baseline section and the effects section describe landscape character and visual receptors before considering designated landscapes. It is common for designations to encompass both character and visual considerations within their special qualities or purposes of designation. It therefore makes a more natural reading sequence to draw together those aspects of character and views which relate to the designation if they have been described earlier in the chapter.

ZTV Studies

4.31 Finalised ZTV studies were prepared based on the proposed Final Layout and size. These are shown on Figures 4.5 to 4.8, illustrating potential visibility on a bare landscape (Figure 4.6); including the screening effect of woodlands and settlements (Figure 4.5, 4.7 and 4.8). Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show theoretical visibility for the proposed Development; and Figures 4.7 and 4.8 compare the 2016 Consented Layout and the proposed Development. Felling plans for Kype Muir wind farm are also incorporated into the model for Figures 4.5, 4.7 and 4.8 to provide a more accurate representation of potential visibility close to the Development.

4.32 As can be seen from the ZTV studies, the visibility pattern remains very similar to that for the 2016 Consented Layout:

4.33 Potential visibility of the proposed Development would be relatively continuous within 2-3 km. At this distance gaps in potential visibility begin to occur where the turbines would be screened, due to changes in topography, in all directions except to the north and northwest where rising ground on the far side of a broad valley would result in continuous potential visibility occurring over a greater extent. New areas of visibility compared to the 2016 Consented Layout (as shown by Figure 4.7) would arise across parts of the open moorland to the south and southwest of the proposed Development Area; within the valley to the southeast of Drumclog and at 5-6 km northwest between Sandford and Deadwaters.

4.34 Generally, beyond 5 km from the proposed Development potential visibility would gradually become more intermittent as distance increases becoming limited to more elevated ground. This tends to occur sooner, at around 2-3 km, and in a more pronounced way to the south and more gradually over a longer distance to the north. This pattern tends to continue beyond 15 km although some potential visibility begins to occur from lower lying areas to the west, along the A71 corridor, and from more open areas to the northeast on the far side of the M74. New areas of visibility compared to the 2016 Consented Layout (as shown by Figure 4.7) would arise across parts of the open moorland to the south and southeast of the Site; in small patches to the east of the site; and would be very limited elsewhere.

Landscape Character

4.35 As set out within the scope of assessment above, only those character areas within 10 km from the proposed Development Area are included in this assessment, as local character areas beyond 10 km will not experience more than negligible effects on character. South Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire fall within this 10 km study area; relevant assessments are unchanged from the original ES and remain as follows:

South Lanarkshire Landscape Character Assessment (SLLCA), 2010 – as reflected in SPG10; and


East Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study (EAWCS), 2013.

4.36 Local Landscape Character Types (LCT’s) within 10 km of the site are shown on Figure 4.3. The original ES considered three character areas in detail, scoping out those which had limited visibility; lay towards the outer edges of the study area; and/or were already characterised by wind development. The areas considered in detail in the original ES; within the decision making process for the original Application; and within this assessment are:

7 Rolling Moorland;

8 Upland River Valley; and

18a East Ayrshire Plateau Moorlands.

4.37 With increased turbine size, factors to be considered in identifying areas meriting detailed assessment are that:

Larger turbines may give rise to new areas of visibility – resulting in more extensive effects on character areas, or effects on areas that were not previously considered;

Larger turbines may increase the scale of effect – meaning that more distant areas may need to be considered.

4.38 As shown by the comparative ZTV study (Figure 4.7) and Figure 4.3, the new areas of visibility, outside of the three areas listed in section 4.44, arise:

Within the area of 5 Plateau Farmland 4-6 km to the northeast of the proposed Development Area;

In small patches or at a distance such that they are not likely to alter effects identified for the 2016 Consented Layout.

4.39 For the 2016 Consented Layout, as summarised at section 4.7-4.11 above, effects on character, which would be greater than negligible, were judged to extend no further than approximately 3 km from the turbines. Given the difference in size between the consented and proposed turbines, this affected area may potentially extend to 5 km. The three character areas listed at section 4.36 above cover most of the area within 5 km. The remaining areas are:

4 Rolling Farmland, and

5 Plateau Farmland.

4.40 Considering the areas identified in 4.38 and 4.39 above as being potentially likely to experience greater effects than for the 2016 Consented Layout due to increased turbine size or visibility:

4 Rolling Farmland – This area lies to the north of the site and remains largely outside of the ZTV; hosts a number of single turbines, and the existing Kype Muir Wind Farm is situated between the proposed Development and this area. Effects on this area will be a negligible addition


to the effects of the existing Kype Muir Wind Farm and are not considered further.

5 Plateau Farmland – These areas lie to the east and northeast of the proposed Development, beyond the existing Kype Muir and Auchrobert wind farms. Effects on these areas will be a negligible addition to the effects of the existing wind farms and are not considered further.

4.41 Effects on the following areas are considered in the Predicting and Assessing Impacts section below:

7 Rolling Moorland;

8 Upland River Valley; and

18a East Ayrshire Plateau Moorlands.

Visual Receptors

Visual Environment of Existing Site

4.42 As shown on Figure 4.1, the proposed Development is situated within the partially forested Kype Muir area and open moorland of Harting Rig, adjacent to Dungavel Hill to the southwest. The elevation ranges from between 260 m and 460 m AOD with limited pronounced landform features. Commercial forestry is the dominant land use with some open moorland and small areas of unimproved pasture in the vicinity of the proposed Development Area. Settlement surrounding the proposed Development is dispersed (mainly to the north and west), typically comprising small villages, hamlets and a number of isolated farmsteads or small groups of houses. The landscape abuts the upland valleys of Glengavel and Avon Water to the north and northeast which run into the River Clyde to the northeast in the wider area. There are extensive areas of moorland to the south and south west of the Site within East Ayrshire and areas of partially forested moorland to the northwest towards East Renfrewshire, parts of which are occupied by Whitelee wind farm.

4.43 There are a number of operational and consented wind farms and single turbines in close proximity which include the existing Kype Muir Wind Farm to the immediate northeast of the proposed Development and the Dungavel wind farm to the southwest. Auchrobert wind farm is located to the east of Kype Muir wind farm. Other wind farms visible in the vicinity include Whitelee to the northwest, Bankend Rig to the southwest and Hagshaw Hill to the southeast. These form part of the baseline for this assessment.

Visual Receptors

4.44 The ZTV studies illustrate the pattern of settlement and theoretical visibility within the study area. Within the 5 km study area, there are a few villages, smaller hamlets and scattered individual dwellings. Dwellings within 3 km of the proposed turbines are considered within the residential amenity study (Technical Appendix 4.3).

4.45 The following settlements lie within 5 km (or just beyond that distance) of the proposed Development and are considered in detail in the Predicting and Assessing Impacts section below:

Gilmourton – 4.6 km northwest;


Drumclog – 5.3 km northwest;

Caldermill – 5.7 km northwest;

Deadwaters – 5.2 km northeast;

Sandford – 5.4 km north; and

Strathaven – 6.2 km north.

4.46 As shown on Figure 4.1, a number of dwellings approximately 3-5 km to the northwest and west, generally falling along the B743 and A71 road corridors, form a dispersed community of residents but do not lie within any distinct settlements. This group of visual receptors is considered in the Assessment of Effects section, along with local roads including the B743 and B745, and Core Path EK/1455/1 which also lies within this area.

4.47 A second group of dispersed dwellings lie 3-6 km north of the site along the High Kype Road and Roman Road south and west of Sandford. This group of visual receptors is considered in the Assessment of Effects section, along with the local roads in the same area and the nearby Core Paths which cross the Avon Water to the west of Sandford.

Key Routes

4.48 As shown on Figure 4.1, the A71 located 4.9 km to the northwest is the only main road or rail route passes within 5 km of the proposed Development and is considered in detail in the Assessment of Effects section.

4.49 There are no National Trails, long distance walking routes or National or regional Cycle routes within 5 km of the proposed Development.

4.50 Core path EK/3780/1 passes through the proposed Development Area and is considered in the Predicting and Assessing Impacts section of this chapter.

4.51 As set out within the original ES, core paths to the south west pass of the site through woodland and are close to Dungavel wind farm. Effects on these routes would be negligible.

Specific Viewpoints

4.52 Tinto (original ES Viewpoint 21) is situated 22.5 km east of the proposed Development and Black Hill Fort (original ES Viewpoint 17) is situated 12.7 km northeast; and are both marked on Ordnance Survey maps as panoramic viewpoints. It has been agreed through the scoping process that effect on these viewpoints does not require assessment.

Landscape Designations and Value

Nationally Designated Landscapes

4.53 There are no National Parks or National Scenic Areas within the 25 km study area.

4.54 As shown on Figure 4.2, there is one World Heritage site (New Lanark), designated for its international historic significance, within the 25 km study area. It is, however, beyond 15 km from the proposed Development and indicated by the ZTV studies to have very


limited visibility of the proposed Development. Effects on the landscape setting that contributes to this designation are likely to be negligible and it is not considered in detail.

Locally Designated Landscapes

4.55 Within 10 km of the proposed Development there are the following local landscape designations (see Figure 4.2):

Douglas Valley Special Landscape Area (SLA) – 8.8 km southeast;

Middle Clyde Valley SLA – 7.2 km north;

River Ayr Sensitive Landscape Area* – 1.5 km south; and

Southern Uplands Sensitive Landscape Area* – 9 km south.

*Note: Sensitive Landscape Areas are not named within East Ayrshire Council policy; names given here have been defined by the authors of this chapter and match those used in the original ES for ease of reference.

4.56 Only a very small portion of the Douglas Valley and Middle Clyde Valley SLAs, and Southern Uplands fall within the 10 km study area, in locations illustrated by the ZTVs to have overall limited potential visibility of the proposed Development and therefore these designations are not further assessed.

4.57 The only landscape designation considered in detail in the Assessment of Effects section is the River Ayr Sensitive Landscape Area.

Local Landscape Value

4.58 Within the 10 km study area there are a variety of features that add to the value of the local landscape. These include a number of heritage assets, recreational landscapes and promoted walking routes. However, none of these features are assessed to increase the value of the landscape within the study area above Community value. None of these features are considered to be in need of assessment in their own right, other than where they are assessed as Public Rights of Way or recreational landscapes. Areas covered by local landscape designations identified above are considered to be of Local value.

PREDICTING AND ASSESSING IMPACTS

4.59 This section sets out the effects that the proposed Development would have on both landscape and visual receptors. The effects are reversible and after a period of 30 years the proposed wind turbines would be removed, unless a further application to extend the life of the proposed Development is applied for and granted or an alternative application granted to 'repower' with new wind turbines and associated infrastructure is applied for and granted. 30 years is a 5 year increase on the 25 year life of the original Kype Muir Extension and reflects an alteration to the duration of effects which is taken into account in the assessment of the magnitude of effects. Whilst 30 years is regarded as long-term, the effects of the proposed Development on landscape and visual receptors are reversible.


4.60 The impacts of lighting are covered within the night-time assessment (Technical Appendix 4.4). The lights will only be switched on during darkness and low-light conditions.

4.61 As agreed during scoping, the assessment provided is based on the site being ‘bare ground’, so that the results can be directly compared to the original ES, and to the effects of the Consented 2016 layout presented within Table 4.2 above.

Construction and Decommissioning Phases

4.62 The nature of effects during construction and decommissioning would be the same as for the original Application (as set out in section 7.157 to 7.161 of the original ES. Neither construction nor decommissioning activities would give rise to notable landscape character or visual effects over and above those of the operational site. The primary landscape and visual effects arising from the proposed Development would be from the operational turbines and this assessment therefore only focusses on the operational effects.

Operational Phase

Effects on Landscape Fabric

4.63 In addition to the turbines the proposed Development will involve the creation of access tracks, crane pads and control buildings as illustrated on Drawing PA03. Following cessation of construction activities the construction compound will be removed and, along with the borrow pits, will be replanted with native woodland as illustrated on ES04 Draft Habitat Management Plan.

4.64 The remaining control buildings will be single storey finished to fit in with the local vernacular and will be surrounded by forestry which will screen views from the wider landscape. The final design of the control buildings will be agreed with the Council prior to construction.

4.65 As illustrated on ES04 there are two areas of clear felling proposed to improve habitats, these represent a relatively small proportion of the total forestry on site and the more extensive area to the south is reduced from that considered in the Original ES and is not widely visible from the surrounding landscape. Clear felling is characteristic of areas of commercial forestry such as this and that proposed would not be particularly notable. The keyhole felling for individual turbines will be slightly increased from the 2016 Consented Layout.

4.66 Aside from the turbines the most visible physical alteration to the site will be the creation of access tracks. These will be similar in appearance to existing forestry tracks and to those of existing neighbouring wind farms. They occupy a very small proportion of the proposed Development Area and do not notably extend nor introduce an uncharacteristic feature into the landscape.

4.67 In line with the 2016 Consented Layout a micro-siting allowance of 70 m radius in any direction is proposed for the turbines, internal access tracks and other associated infrastructure. The result of micro-siting on the landscape and visual effects would be limited to some very localised effects within the proposed Development Area. It would not alter the assessment of effects on any of the identified receptors.

4.68 Overall effects on landscape fabric will be negligible.


Effects on Landscape Character

4.69 The increased size of the turbines proposed compared to the 2016 Consented Layout would not alter effects for areas within the proposed Development Area as the turbines would dominate by reason of their proximity and height in either case.

4.70 In nearby areas of Rolling Moorland to the northwest and southeast of the proposed Development Area the differences in turbine size between the existing Kype Muir Wind Farm, Dungavel and the proposed Development are more likely to be perceptible. However, viewpoints 2 and 22, which lie at the outer edges of this area, 2.5-3 km to the northwest, indicate that differences in scale are not readily apparent from these lower slopes due to a combination of distance; the bases of turbines being screened, undulating terrain, and design of the proposed Development in terms of the turbine sizes selected.

4.71 The turbines at the existing Kype Muir and Dungavel give rise to the characteristic of being 'at a wind farm' across much of the site and this would increase with the addition of turbines within the site. Beyond this area, the effects of the adjacent wind farms are less pronounced. In areas up to 3 km to the northwest and southeast of the site – extending to the edge of the Rolling Moorland to the northwest, and the edge of the forestry to the southeast, the existing influence of turbines would be increased with the introduction of the proposed Development, with the effect of being ‘near a wind farm’ slightly intensified and extended to the southeast by the taller turbines which would tend to be perceived as being slightly closer rather than larger.

4.72 Medium-Small scale effects would arise within 1-1.5 km to the southeast of the site across Dunside Rig; and Small scale effects would occur within the proposed Development Area and the remaining area within 3 km to the southeast and northwest of the proposed Development. Beyond this area effects would reduce to Negligible as changes in landscape character and terrain create a greater sense of separation and the proposed Development is increasingly seen at a distance within a wider pattern of existing wind farm development.

4.73 The only character area which would receive effects which would differ from the consented scheme would be the area of Rolling Moorland within 3 km to the southeast of the site. This area is further considered below, and the Upland River Valley and East Ayrshire Plateau Moorlands character areas are not considered further given that effects would be the same as for the 2016 Consented Layout (set out in Table 4.2 of this chapter).

7 Rolling Moorland

4.74 As illustrated by Figure 4.3, this LCT and its sub-types occur as a band that arcs from the southwest of the study area up to the centre, taking in the proposed Development Area, and then extending back to the southeast edge and beyond. It broadly follows a series of low hills topped by moorland and commercial forestry. The key characteristics are defined as:

“distinctive upland character created by the combination of elevation, exposure, smooth, rolling or undulating landform, moorland vegetation and the predominant lack of modern development;

these areas share a sense of apparent wildness and remoteness which contrasts with the farmed and settled lowlands and the windfarm-dominated Plateau Moorlands;


there are extensive views over the surrounding Ayrshire and Lanarkshire lowlands from the hilltops.”

4.75 The LCT has two sub types, 7a Rolling Moorland Forestry and 7b Rolling Moorland Windfarm which are characterised by extensive commercial forestry and the presence of wind farms respectively. Both of these sub types occur within the study area and the proposed Development falls across parts of both 7 Rolling Moorland and 7a Rolling Moorland Forestry, although this assessment was made prior to the presence of the existing Kype Muir Wind Farm, Auchrobert and Dungavel wind farms. These areas are fairly typical of the LCT and generally exhibit all of the above characteristics, as well as now being notably influenced by wind farms.

4.76 As set out in Table 4.2 and fully described in the original ES, the area of Rolling Moorland around the site is considered to have Medium-Low sensitivity to the proposed Development.

4.77 As set out at section 4.72 above, localised Medium-Small and Small scale effects would arise across the site and open moorland extending 3 km northwest and southeast of the site. These Long-Term effects would impact on an Intermediate area of the LCT and would be of Medium-Low magnitude, Slight and Not Significant. These effects would be Neutral given the existing influence of wind development within the affected area.

4.78 Outside of this localised area and across the LCT as a whole the impacts resulting from the proposed Development would be of Negligible magnitude resulting in Minimal, Neutral effects that are Not Significant.

Visual Effects

Visual Aids

4.79 Technical Appendix 4.2 describes any changes to the baseline at each viewpoint since the original ES, and changes to effects on viewpoints compared to the effects of the 2016 Consented Layout. The scale of effect, taking into account existing and consented wind farm development at each viewpoint is summarised in Table 4.4 below; effects that are increased from the 2016 Consented Layout due to the increased turbine size are underlined:

Table 4.4: Summary of scale of effects on viewpoints



VP1: Kype Reservoir 2.1 km, northeast Negligible Neutral

VP2: South Kirkwood 2.6 km, north Large Adverse

VP3: Sandford 5.5 km, north Negligible Neutral

VP4: B7086 at Deadwaters 5.3 km, northeast Negligible Neutral

VP5: A71 west of Strathaven 6.5 km, north Small Neutral

VP6: Strathaven War Memorial 7.0 km, north Small Neutral

VP7: Gilmourton 4.7 km, northwest Medium Adverse

VP8: A71 at Caldermill 5.7 km, northwest Medium Adverse

VP9: Lethame Road, Strathaven 7.2 km, north Small Neutral




VP10: Stonehouse 8.2 km, northeast Negligible Neutral

VP11: Drumclog 5.5 km, northwest Medium-Small Adverse

VP12: Glassford 9.6 km, north Negligible Neutral

VP13: Lesmahagow 9.0 km, northeast Negligible Neutral

VP14: Kirkmuirhill 10.9 km, northeast Negligible Neutral

VP15: Chapelton 11.3 km, north Small-Negligible Neutral

VP16: Loudoun Hill 8.1 km, west Negligible Neutral

VP22: B743 northwest of site 3.0 km, northwest Small Neutral

4.80 Each of the viewpoints is a ‘sample’ of the potential effects, representing a wide range of receptors – including not only those actually at the viewpoint, but also those nearby, at a similar distance and/or direction.

4.81 From these viewpoints it can be seen that:

Effects would be largely unchanged from the 2016 Consented Layout;

There would be small increases in effects at viewpoints 2, 7, 8 and 22, and a more pronounced increase at viewpoint 11. All of these viewpoints lie in an area 2.5-6 km northwest of the proposed Development. Effects in this area would also typically be adverse. Increased effects arise due to the increased visibility of the taller turbines. The tendency for effects to be adverse arises where this increased visibility would cause turbines to fill the horizon between the existing Kype Muir and Dungavel turbines, and the viewpoint as a function of terrain and/or enclosure tends to focus towards the site. Viewpoint 22 is an exception as it lies on the south side of the valley and the primary views are away from the site.

Visual Receptors

4.82 Visual receptors within settled areas are considered to be of High-Medium sensitivity to the proposed Development.

Gilmourton (4.6 km northwest)

4.83 This is a small settlement comprising houses and a primary school clustered around a T-junction of two minor roads south of the A71. The extent of visibility would be the same as for the 2016 Consented Layout and views from the settlement would be similar to those at Viewpoint 7, although often entirely or partly screened by buildings and vegetation. Six of the turbines along the western edge of the proposed Development would be visible seen beyond the skyline to the right of the hill top, appearing recessive to the more nearby Dungavel Wind Farm turbines seen running down the hillside. A further group of turbines would be seen adjacent to the existing Kype Muir Wind Farm and would be perceived as part of that wind farm. In between these two areas, blade tips of two turbines would be visible above the land form, such that turbines would largely fill the visible horizon looking southwest. As at Viewpoint 7, effects on the settlement would be greater than for the Consented 2016 Layout due to the slightly increased prominence of the turbines and are assessed to be of Medium scale.


4.84 Long-term effects would be experienced across a Wide extent of the settlement and radiating roads, although mostly from the roads rather than the village itself, and overall would be of Medium magnitude resulting in effects that are Moderate, Adverse and Not Significant.

Drumclog (5.3 km northwest)

4.85 This is primarily a linear settlement set along the eastern side of the A71 although there are a number of outlying properties on Meadowfoot Road and the B745. The extent of visibility from the settlement would be the same as for the 2016 Consented Layout. Viewpoint 11 is situated on Meadowfoot Lane and illustrates the appearance of the proposed Development as it would be seen from the settlement, with 11 of the turbines appearing as a similarly scaled extension to Dungavel wind farm and blade tips just visible in the remaining gap to the existing Kype Muir wind farm; effects here would be of Medium-Small scale.

4.86 Long-term effects would be experienced across a Wide extent within the settlement and overall would be of Medium-Low magnitude resulting in effects that are Moderate, Adverse and Not Significant.

Caldermill (5.7 km northwest)

4.87 This is a very small settlement comprising just a few houses and a farm set along the A71. Viewpoint 8 is located on the A71 on the side of the road closest to the site, and has a more open view towards Dungavel and existing Kype Muir wind farms than is typical for the rest of the settlement. As illustrated by Viewpoint 8, turbines would be seen to fill the horizon line – with both existing development and the proposed Development appearing of a uniform scale. The extent of visibility from the settlement would not notably differ from the 2016 Consented Layout. Long-term effects here would be of Medium scale over a Wide extent of the settlement and overall Medium magnitude resulting in effects that are Moderate, Adverse and Not Significant.

Deadwaters (5.2 km northeast)

4.88 Viewpoint 4 illustrates views from this settlement. Although there would be a slight increase in the extent of visibility of the turbines to the east of the hamlet compared to the 2016 Consented Layout, there would be no change to effects, which would be of Negligible magnitude, Minimal, Neutral and Not Significant.

Sandford (5.4 km north)

4.89 Development of new housing at this settlement since the original ES was prepared has required viewpoint 3 to be moved eastwards. This further decreases visibility from streets within the settlement and has added new dwellings with open views from rear windows and gardens towards the site. Effects would be unchanged from those of the 2016 Consented Layout, and would be of Negligible magnitude, Minimal, Neutral and Not Significant.

Strathaven (6.2 km, north)

4.90 Viewpoints 5, 6 and 9 illustrate views from some of the more open aspects of Strathaven. Although the turbines would appear more prominent than the 2016 Consented Layout, effects on the settlement would remain the same as for the 2016 Consented Layout as these would still mainly arise from the spread of turbines across the horizon, rather than their vertical scale which would remain in scale with the existing


Kype Muir wind farm. Effects would be of Low-Negligible magnitude, Slight, Neutral and Not Significant.

Dispersed settlement, B743, B745, local roads, core path EK/1455/1 (3-5 km northwest, west)

4.91 This group comprises a number of individual dwellings located along the B743, A71, B745 and local roads and a path between them. Viewpoints 7, 8, 11 and 22 lie within this area. Most of the properties are orientated along these roads and have a main elevation facing the proposed Development Area, however, visibility from dwellings and routes varies due to intervening vegetation and topography – as set out within the original ES. There would be a slight increase to the extent of visibility of turbines in the area to the south and east of Drumclog, compared to the 2016 Consented Layout. As noted at section 4.81, the scale of effects would be slightly greater in in this area, and effects would typically be adverse, due to turbines often being seen across the horizon to the southwest – in particular from the valley floor and southwest facing slopes where outward views are directed towards the site.

4.92 Long-term effects on this group of receptors would range from Medium to Small scale - typically towards the upper end of this range, and affect an Intermediate extent taking into account breaks in visibility. These effects would be of Medium magnitude, Moderate, Adverse and Not Significant.

Dispersed settlement, local roads including High Kype Road and Roman road, core paths west of Sandford (3-6 km north)

4.93 This group comprises a number of individual dwellings located along the High Kype Road and more dispersed settlement to the west of Sandford as well as local roads and core paths which cross the Avon Water to the west of Sandford. Views of the proposed Development from local roads and houses situated along them would be limited due to screening by roadside and intervening vegetation, and topography as set out in the original ES. Viewpoints 3 and 5 illustrate views from this area, and as noted at sections 4.81 and 4.87-4.89, effects would not differ from the 2016 Consented Layout apart from a minor increase in the prominence of the turbines, but remaining in scale with the existing Kype Muir wind farm. Effects would be of Low magnitude, Slight, Neutral and Not Significant.

Key Routes

A71 (4.9 km northwest)

4.94 The extent of visibility of the proposed Development from the route would not be notably greater than for the 2016 Consented Layout. The closest views of the turbines from this route would be between Caldermill and Drumclog and would be intermittent and mainly noticeable between roadside and garden vegetation. Viewpoints 8 and 11 are on this route and provide an indication of the likely scale and nature of views. Further north towards Strathaven, vegetation often lines the route, but intermittent and occasional more sustained views would be available above low hedgerows, as seen at Viewpoint 5. Southwest bound drivers beyond Drumclog would tend not to see the proposed turbines, which would be behind them in views from the route. For northeast bound drivers, the turbines would be behind them once beyond Caldermill.

4.95 Drivers using the A71 would be of Medium-Low sensitivity. Effects would be Long-term and taking into account distance would be Medium to Small scale over a Localised


extent. Overall effects would be of Medium-Low magnitude and Slight, Adverse and Not Significant for both northbound and southbound drivers.

Core Path EK/3780/1 (passes through the Site)

4.96 As set out in the original ES, this route passes through the existing Kype Muir wind farm and the Site. The increased turbine size compared to Kype Muir and the differences in heights between different turbines within the proposed Development may be perceptible to some more observant users of the route, but for most people the proximity and presence of the turbines will be the primary influence on views, rather than their vertical scale, which is difficult to quantify from close proximity. Effects would be the same as for the 2016 Consented Layout and would be of Medium magnitude, Moderate, Neutral and Not Significant.

Effects on Landscape Designations

River Ayr Sensitive Landscape Area, East Ayrshire – 1.5 km, southeast

4.97 The extent of the Sensitive Landscape Area within the study area is illustrated on Figure 7.2.

4.98 As set out in the original ES, this designation relates to the landscape character of the East Ayrshire Plateau Moorlands character type within the study area. As set out at section 4.73, effects on this area would be the same as for the 2016 Consented Layout.

Night-time Effects

4.99 The turbines of the Proposed Development will be fitted with upward-facing 2000 candela aviation lights on the top of the nacelle; and three 32 candela lights mounted half way up around each tower. Technical Appendix 4.4 sets out the assessment of night time effects, which are summarised below. Supporting figures are included in Volume 2.

4.100 In the host units of the Rolling Moorland character type the introduction of lighting to a relatively dark landscape would give rise to effects that would be Major-moderate, Adverse and Significant. Over other units of the wider character type beyond the site, and other character areas, effects would be negligible.

4.101 Major-moderate, Adverse and Significant visual effects would arise at Gilmourton as a result of relatively close views of the aviation lights in views towards the site which are currently dark. Moderate and Adverse and Not Significant effects would arise on Strathaven, Sandford, Caldermill, Drumclog and Deadwaters – these settlements are slightly more distant than Gilmourton and have more existing lighting seen nearby and in views towards the site.

4.102 Road users at night will be primarily focussed on the road as revealed by their headlights rather than outward views. Within approximately 8 km, including drivers using the A71; road users would experience Slight, Adverse and Not Significant effects.

4.103 Effects on designated landscapes as a result of the proposed aviation lighting would be negligible

Residential Visual Amenity Assessment


4.104 Technical Appendix 4.3 sets out the assessment of effects on residential visual amenity, which are summarised below. Supporting figures are included in Volume 2.

4.105 The nearest property is Kype Dam Lodge, located just under 2 km from the nearest turbine within the proposed Development, and this is the only property within 2 km. It would not be notably affected by the proposed Development, with the turbines seen on the approach to the house in the context of the closer Kype Muir and Auchrobert turbines, and outward views in the direction of the site from the house and garden screened by forestry.

4.106 The properties most affected will be those to the north of the site – including Lambhill Steadings, Lambhill Farm, Lambhill Lodge, Auchengilloch and South Kirkwood cottage. Visual effects in the vicinity and on the approach to these houses would be significant and adverse. For the closer dwellings in this group, screening by other houses and/or vegetation will notably limit effects and the most affected property will be South Kirkwood Cottage which lies 2.6 km from the turbines. Effects would be similar to those for viewpoint 2, albeit interrupted by trees.

4.107 None of the properties will be affected to the extent that the addition of the proposed Development, in the context of the existing wind farms, would be sufficiently “oppressive” or “overbearing” that the property would be rendered an unattractive place in which to live.

4.108 The effects of the aviation lighting fitted to the turbines within the proposed Development are considered within Technical Appendix 4.4 – including at viewpoint 2 near the most affected properties. In terms of potential night-time effects on residential amenity, effects on indoor spaces, gardens and approaches to properties are considered within Technical Appendix 4.3, identifying that the primary effects at night will be on occasional evening use of external garden spaces and on drivers heading home at night. It is considered that the aviation lights will have some adverse effects on residential amenity, but not to the extent that any property would be rendered and unattractive place in which to live.

Differences in effects between 2016 Consented Layout and Final Layout

4.109 As this is a variation application; differences in effects between the consented and proposed Development are to be considered. As the preceding assessment, and Tables 4.5 and 4.6 below indicate, these differences are:

Increased (but not significant) visual effects on the settlements of Gilmourton, Drumclog and Caldermill; and on dispersed settlement, B743 and B745, local roads and core path EK/1455/1. All of these receptors are located 3-6 km northwest of the turbines.

Visual effects on the A71 would remain of Slight significance, but would tend to be Adverse rather than Neutral due to turbines more frequently being seen as a relatively continuous group between the existing Kype Muir and Dungavel wind farms.

The inclusion of aviation lighting is a change from the 2016 Consented Layout and would give rise to new effects on character and views at night. Significant effects would arise on the host landscape character area (7 Rolling Moorland); and significant visual effects would arise at Gilmourton. Moderate and Adverse (not significant) effects would arise on settlements


within approximately 6 km; and Slight and adverse (not significant) effects would arise on roads within approximately 8 km.

In terms of residential amenity, the principle of the most affected group of houses (within 2.6 km to the north) having turbines occupying the same arc of view at the same proximity is already established as acceptable. The difference is that the turbines of the proposed Development would appear larger in the view - closer in scale to, but still smaller than, the nearer turbines within the existing adjacent wind farms. This is a minor difference to the effects and would not make the combination of the three wind farms notably more oppressive or overbearing.

4.110 Table 4.5 below provides a full summary of all effects identified within this assessment, with the above differences between the 2016 Consented Layout and Proposed development underlined.

4.111 Table 4.5 below summarises effects of the Proposed Development on landscape and visual receptors (changes - increases due to the increased turbine sizes - from the effects of the Consented Development as set out in Table 4.2 are underlined; significant effects are indicated in bold text):


Table 4.5: Summary of effects


Sensitivity Magnitude Significance


Landscape Character

7 Rolling Moorland Within the host unit 0 km Medium-Low Low Slight, Adverse


7 Rolling Moorland Localised effects to NW of site 3.0 km, SE Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral


8 Upland River Valley 3.0 km, SE Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral

18a East Ayrshire Plateau Moorlands

1.5 km, S Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral

Settlements & visual receptor groups

Gilmourton 4.6 km, NW High-Medium Medium Moderate, Adverse

Drumclog 5.3 km, NW High-Medium Medium-Low Moderate, Adverse

Caldermill 5.7 km, NW High-Medium Medium Moderate, Adverse

Deadwaters 5.2 km, NE High-Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral

Sandford 5.4 km, N High-Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral

Strathaven 6.2 km, N High-Medium Low-Negligible Slight, Neutral

Dispersed settlement, B743 and B745, local roads and core path EK/1455/1

3-5 km, NW High-Medium Medium Moderate, Adverse

Dispersed settlement, local roads and core paths crossing the Avon Water west of Sandford

3-6 km, N High-Medium Low Slight, Neutral

Routes

A71 Effects on route within 5 km of site

4.9 km, NW Medium-Low Medium-Low Slight, Adverse



Sensitivity Magnitude Significance


Core path EK/3780/1 Overall effects on route passes through site

High-Medium Medium Moderate, Neutral

Landscape Designations

River Ayr Sensitive Landscape Character Area

Overall effects on designation 1.5 km, SE High-Medium Negligible Minimal, Neutral

Night time Effects (only non-Negligible effects are listed):

7 Rolling Moorland Within the host unit 0 km Medium High Major-Moderate, Adverse

Gilmourton 4.6 km, NW

Medium High-Medium Major-Moderate, Adverse

Drumclog 5.3 km, NW Medium Medium Moderate, Adverse

Caldermill 5.7 km, NW Medium Medium Moderate, Adverse

Deadwaters 5.2 km, NE Medium Medium Moderate, Adverse

Sandford 5.4 km, N Medium Medium Moderate, Adverse

Strathaven 6.2 km, N Medium Medium Moderate, Adverse

Minor roads within 8km Medium-Low Medium Slight, Adverse

A71 4.9km, NW Low Medium Slight, Adverse


MITIGATION

4.112 The layout evolved as part of an iterative process that took into account environmental issues as well as technical constraints with the final layout being informed by:

Information collated during the previous assessment and consenting process; and

feedback from key consultees including South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH).

4.113 Landscape and visual considerations played a key role in the consideration of increased heights for the turbines and in the decision not to alter the positions of the turbines from the consented layout.

4.114 The design of the Development is described in more detail in Chapter 3 (Design Iteration). In summary the key principles relating to the final layout design include:

Maximising the benefits of energy generated from the development within the bounds of a minimised and acceptable increase in landscape and visual effects;

Maintaining the design principle of the consented scheme in using smaller turbines towards the more visible northern edge and taller turbines to the south.

4.115 In developing the final layout a thorough review of the relevant location specific guidance was undertaken and key local design considerations were addressed; these are summarised in below.

South Lanarkshire Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance: 10 (SPG10) Renewable Energy, 2016

4.116 This document seeks to guide renewable energy development within South Lanarkshire and includes both guidance and a landscape capacity study for wind development. The principle of development on this site, and with turbines sited in the proposed positions is already accepted, and this section focusses primarily on guidance relating to turbine sizes rather than matters relating to site selection.

4.117 Section 6.3.7 states that:

“The following guidance should be taken into account in situations where height reduction may be used to achieve particular benefits to a proposed development as follows:

mitigating significant landscape or visual impacts on a highly valued or sensitive receptor

avoiding an adverse scale relationship with a landform or other key landscape element or feature

allowing an intervening landform and/or forest to screen views of turbines from certain receptors


achieving a significant reduction in overall visibility by virtue of their relationship to surrounding landform and trees.”

4.118 The document also refers to and incorporates the 2016 South Lanarkshire landscape capacity study, which considers all turbines over 120m in height in a single category. Appendix 4 to the capacity study notes the following further points in respect of the guidance in the SPG:

“As it has to be balanced against losses in output, size reduction should be used in specific cases where a clearly identified benefit can be achieved. ... Where reduction in impact would be a matter of degree rather than a clear quantitative change the benefits are less clear cut.”

4.119 In respect of the juxtaposition of turbines of different sizes, it notes that:

“where two or more developments are in close proximity to one another, turbines of a similar size and type should be used. The use of significantly different turbine sizes within a single windfarm or between two windfarms in close proximity can otherwise lead to adverse visual and scale effects which increase the appearance of clutter, or create odd perspectives when seen from certain viewpoints.”

Reviewing the visualisations for the proposal, it can be seen that from the majority of viewpoints the turbines appear in scale with the adjacent turbines at Kype Muir, Dungavel and/or Auchrobert. The only viewpoint where scale differences can be perceived is viewpoint 14, where the three turbines seen to the left of Kype Muir appear very tall. This is a function of the particular angle of view, which given the limited opportunity to view the wind farm from this direction; and the distance to viewpoint 14 is not regarded as a reason to modify the design.

4.120 For the Rolling Moorland character type which includes the site, the guidance notes that:

“Careful consideration should be given to limiting turbine size in locations with more modest distinctions in landform.”

4.121 In respect of the proposed development, the primary considerations are in relation to minimising effects on the settled areas and valleys to the north of the site; ensuring consistency of appearance with the adjacent wind farms; and ensuring that the scale of the turbines is proportionate to the landform. These three objectives are all served by using taller turbines set further back on the moorland, and smaller turbines towards the northern outer edge of the development.

4.122 In respect of cumulative effects, Table 6.2 sets out five criteria in relation ‘cumulative area 6’ which includes the site. Criteria 2, 3 and 5 do not apply to the proposed Development (by virtue of its siting and nature). Criterion 1 relates to separation from adjacent development – which previously judged to be acceptable for the 2016 Consented Layout and is unchanged for the proposed Development. Point 4 suggests: “Give careful consideration to the position, scale and cumulative effects of developments close to the surrounding settlements including Larkhall, Stonehouse, Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill and Lesmahagow”. The proposed Development meets this guidance in respect of the named settlements, and settlements closer to the site – with no significant effects on any settlements identified.

Proposed Tall Wind Turbines: Landscape Capacity, Siting and Design Guidance (Draft), 2017


4.123 This draft guidance specifically considers taller turbines and their potential effects, including those arising from of the mandatory aviation lighting required for turbines of 150m or taller. The guidance identifies that mitigation options for lighting are limited and restricted primarily to adjustments to heights of turbines to either remove the need for lighting or screen hubs where specific circumstances arise such that this would be beneficial.

4.124 The guidance provides additional considerations in respect of varied turbine sizes, noting that these can be accommodated through such measures as ensuring consistent turbine appearance and proportions; placing larger turbines at lower elevations to even out heights and/or further from key viewpoints to reduce apparent scale. The guidance also notes that more extensive wind farms are better able to accommodate size differences as the broad horizontal scale remains the dominant factor.

4.125 In respect of these points – it is the horizontal scale and placement of taller turbines further from key viewpoints which are the relevant design approaches. Placing taller turbines on the lower slopes would have increased visual effects and formed obvious contrasts with the existing wind farms at Dungavel and Kype Muir.

4.126 Taking into the account SNH guidance on turbine sizing, further considerations set out within the SLC guidance and the local landscape character; as shown on Figure 6.1f of the guidance, the guidance identifies site as having Medium capacity for turbines of 150m to ca. 200m (by which it means 200m or up to 10% taller – i.e. 220m). It further indicates that “To avoid potential domination of smaller neighbouring scale landscapes, larger turbines should be located towards the centre of Rolling Moorland areas. There they will be more remote from scale indicators in the surrounding valleys, seen at a greater distance behind existing smaller turbines and/or partly screened by rolling landforms.” In respect of aviation lighting the guidance notes that the area including the site is less sensitive to impacts arising from aviation lighting due to its proximity to “settlements and more densely populated farmland and valleys characterised by some artificial lighting.”

RESIDUAL EFFECTS

4.127 As all mitigation measures are included within the design of the proposed Development, the impacts identified within the ‘Predicting and Assessing Impacts’ section are the residual effects.

REFERENCES

Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition;

Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Landscape Character Assessment, Guidance for England and Scotland;

Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (2011) Special Report –The State of Environmental Impact Assessment Practice in the UK;

Council of Europe (2000) European Landscape Convention, Council of Europe;

Scottish Natural Heritage (2017) Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape;


Scottish Natural Heritage (2012) Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments;

Landscape Institute (2011) Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment, Advice Note 01/11;

Landscape Institute (2017) Guidance Note 02/17 Visual Representation

Scottish Natural Heritage (2017) Visual Representation of Windfarms;

The Scottish Government (2014) Scottish Planning Policy;

The Scottish Government (May 2014) Onshore Wind Turbines;

Scottish Natural Heritage (2015) Spatial Planning for Onshore Wind Turbines – natural heritage considerations;

Glasgow and Clyde Valley (2017) Strategic Development Plan;

South Lanarkshire (2015) Local Development Plan;

South Lanarkshire Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (2016) 10 Renewable Energy;

South Lanarkshire (2017) Proposed Tall Wind Turbines: Landscape Capacity, Siting and Design Guidance (Draft);

South Lanarkshire (2010) Landscape Character Assessment;

East Ayrshire (2013) Landscape Wind Capacity Study


5. ORNITHOLOGY

SUMMARY

Desk based studies, consultations and field surveys spread over five years were used to assess the effects of the proposed Development on breeding, wintering and migrating birds. In 2014, potential effects associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Original Application were assessed, in isolation and cumulatively with other relevant developments. All survey work and assessments followed contemporary guidance produced by SNH.

Following further consultation in 2017 and 2018 with SNH regarding this variation application, it was agreed that the scope of this ornithology chapter could be limited to consideration of operational effects as a result of the proposed Development, and how this information may or may not influence the otherwise non-significant impacts assessed in the original Environmental Statement (ES). The ornithology chapter of the original ES should therefore be consulted for a full description of the ornithological surveys undertaken for this assessment, and the revised collision risk modelling can be found in TA5.1.

In summary, the proposed Development is located in the Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway Natural Heritage Zone and lies near to the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands Special Protection Area (SPA), classified for its internationally important breeding populations of hen harrier, merlin, peregrine, short-eared owl and golden plover and its wintering population of hen harrier.

No raptors were found breeding within the proposed Development Area although during 4 years of survey hen harrier and merlin did breed at several locations over 1 km away. Occasional foraging flights by hen harrier, merlin, peregrine, goshawk and red kite were recorded within the proposed Development Area and its 500 m buffer. No breeding golden plover were observed within the proposed Development Area but there were low numbers of non-breeding golden plover. A small number of black grouse were also found to use the proposed Development Area, with breeding confirmed on one occasion.

Modelled mortalities from collision with turbine blades were considered to be insignificant in terms of potential long-term impacts on local bird populations, reiterating the conclusions presented in the original ES. All other effects for construction, operation and decommissioning were assessed in 2014 as being negligible and therefore not significant, across all species, for the original Application, in isolation and in its contribution to regional cumulative effects. These conclusions still apply to the revised Application.

Information is presented to allow the competent authority to conduct an assessment of potential effects of the proposed Development on the integrity of the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA. This information should demonstrate that the proposed Development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.



5.1 This chapter has been prepared by Applied Ecology Ltd. All Applied Ecology Ltd ecologists and ornithologists are professionally trained and comply with best practice guidance provided by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). They are therefore suitably qualified in the survey and assessment of ecological and ornithological features.

INTRODUCTION

5.2 This chapter of the EIAR considers the potential effects of the proposed Development on birds. Following scoping (see below) the only ornithological consideration relevant to this variation application was any potential change in operational effects, namely changes in collision risk as a result of larger turbines, and the effects arising from the aviation lighting required for turbines of this height. All other aspects of the ornithological assessment remain as per the original ES, and are not reproduced here. The original ES should be referred to for that detail.

5.3 In addition to the ornithological chapter of the original ES, this chapter is supported by a number of Technical Appendices produced for the original ES:

Original ES - Technical Appendix 8.1 (Ornithological Technical Appendix);

Original ES - Technical Appendix 8.2 (Confidential Ornithological Appendix);

Original ES - Technical Appendix 8.3 (Ornithological Figures).

5.4 In addition, the original ES was supported by a post-submission technical report submitted in March 2015 which detailed the approach taken for and results of collision risk modelling.

5.5 This chapter is also supported by two new, additional Technical Appendices produced in 2018:

Technical Appendix 5.1 (Updated Collision Risk Report);

Technical Appendix 6.4 (Draft Habitat Management Plan).

SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

5.6 This chapter refers only to the estimation of hen harrier collision risk associated with the proposed Development, and the potential effects on ornithology presented by aviation lighting of turbines. Issues relating to the collision risk for merlin have been scoped out (see TA5.1 for more information).


5.7 A request for a Scoping Opinion for the proposed Development was submitted in December 2017 for the proposed Development. SNH and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) responded to that request (Table 5.1).

http://www.cieem.net/


Table 5.1: Scoping Responses


SNH – 02 February 2018

Provided that the turbine locations/layout, construction methodology and timing remain the same, the only ornithology parameter that needs to be re-assessed is collision risk. Therefore [they] agree that the hen harrier and merlin collision risk assessments need to be re-assessed and that all other bird species can be scoped out as detailed in Table 4.4 of the draft scoping report.

The revised collision risk can be found in TA5.1.

Ideally [they] would advise that construction and decommissioning works should take place out with the bird breeding season. However, if this is not possible, [they] support the proposals to produce and follow a bird protection plan to ensure that no offences are committed.

Mitigation measures relating to construction and decommissioning can be found at para 5.21.

Having reviewed the information provided in the December 2017 Scoping Report [they] strongly recommend that the real turbine dimensions [are used] in any modelling and if that means modelling at individual turbine level then that is what should be done. This is [their] advice because while a larger rotor swept area may increase collision risk, larger turbines may rotate slower so there is likely to be a compensatory effect. It can also mean that the proportion of flights at risk height may also change.

[They] advise that an updated in-combination assessment will also be required even if the revised collision risk modelling figures are similar to those from the original application.

Given the range of potential turbine hub height and blade length configurations forming this variation application, a description of the method by which collision risk has been calculated by turbine group is provided in TA5.1.

Information to inform a Habitats Regulations Appraisal will be required.

The information required for a Habitats Regulations Appraisal can be found in TA5.1 and from para 5.26.

RSPB – 08 February 2018

[They] do not accept the proposal to remove approximately 2/3rds of the area to the south east of the proposed windfarm site that had

An area of hen harrier enhancement is still included in the proposed Development, albeit it reduced in area. A



originally been identified for hen harrier enhancement.

As such, [they] would wish to see this area of habitat enhancement re-instated. Failing this, [they] wish to see alternative proposals which would deliver comparable benefits for hen harriers.

compromise was needed in order to meet the requirements of numerous consultees.

[They] believe an Appropriate Assessment will be required as the increase in turbine height may lead to an increase in collision risk for species which are features of the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands Special Protection Area (SPA) and as such there is a likely significant effect on the site.

The information required for a Habitats Regulations Appraisal can be found in TA5.1 and from para 5.26.

POLICY, LEGISLATION & GUIDANCE

5.8 The following legislation has been taken into account when undertaking this assessment:

The Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds 2009/147/EC (The EU 'Birds Directive');

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (WCA);

The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended) ('The Habitats Regulations');

The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (as amended);

5.9 The following guidance has been consulted whilst undertaking this assessment:

SNH Guidance: Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of onshore windfarms on bird communities (2005);

SNH Guidance: Recommended bird survey methods to inform impact assessment of onshore wind farms (2014);

SNH Guidance: Assessing significance of impacts from onshore windfarms on birds out-with designated areas (2006);

SNH Guidance assessing the cumulative impact of onshore wind energy developments (2012);

SNH Commissioned Report: Literature review to assess bird species connectivity to Special Protection Areas (Pendlebury et al. 2011);

SNH Guidance: Assessing Connectivity with Special Protection Areas (SPAs) (2013); and


SNH Guidance Use of Avoidance rates in the SNH wind farm collision risk model (2010).

METHODOLOGY

5.10 The methodologies used in this assessment remain as described in the original ES. Additional methodological considerations associated with the revised calculation of collision risk are described in TA5.1.

BASELINE CONDITIONS

5.11 The baseline conditions remain as described and assessed in the original ES and its Technical Appendices.


Construction Phase

5.12 The potential construction phase effects on ornithological features remain as assessed in the original ES. As described in the original ES, assuming that a Bird Protection Plan (BPP) is in place prior to the start of construction, all predicted effects on birds will be low to negligible and not significant in EIA terms.

Operational Phase

Collision risk

5.13 Following the revised calculation of collision risk presented in TA5.1, there have been no significant changes to the order of magnitude of calculated collision risk for the proposed Development, and therefore collision impacts are considered to remain as not significant.

Aviation lighting

5.14 Due to the height of the turbines in the proposed Development, aviation lighting will be required. There have been a number of studies in North America regarding the potential impacts such lighting may have on ornithological interests, and there is a body of evidence which shows that aviation lighting on some structures can attract and/or disorient birds and hence increase their collision risk (Drewitt and Langston, 2008). However, the circumstances contributing to this are still poorly understood and the effects appear to be variable depending on the structure, the lighting type (e.g. colour, steady or flashing) and the species at risk of collision.

5.15 The research suggests that the species most susceptible to altered behaviours are primarily migrant passerine species during their migration, and the effect is particularly noted in North America, where large scale, broad-front migration occurs during which large numbers of birds cross entire continents en masse. The effects were particularly notable on overcast nights with drizzle or fog (Hill 1990, Erickson et al. 2001). However, there is currently little evidence to suggest that UK resident species or individuals are affected in this way.

5.16 Translating this information to the proposed Development, it is likely that the effects of aviation lighting would be limited. The UK does not experience the same broad front migration phenomena observed in North America; overland migration in the UK is much more limited simply because the UK landmass is significantly smaller than


continental North America, so the bird populations are smaller. The UK experiences strong coastal migration effects, but much more limited inland observable movements of large numbers of birds. While it is possible that there may be some bird migration activity over the proposed Development Area, the numbers of birds involved is likely to be small, and drawn from a wide geographic area; as such any population impacts are likely to be minimal. The sensitive species recorded within the vicinity of the proposed Development Area would be unaffected. As a result, because the conditions in which aviation lighting could impact on birds of moderate to high conservation importance are highly unlikely to occur at the proposed Development, this potential impact is considered to be not significant.

Decommissioning Phase

5.17 There have been no changes to the decommissioning phase impacts and effects from those assessed in the original ES. There are therefore no such effects which would be significant in EIA terms.

Micro-siting

5.18 Micro-siting tolerances will be used pre-construction to locate turbines so that their final dimensions will meet various locational criteria for bats as well as birds. The final turbine dimensions will not result in a lowest sweep point any closer than 22 m from the ground, and the spatial micro-siting distance will not exceed 70 m. On the assumption that these criteria are adhered to, micro-siting will not change the significance of the effects as re-assessed above and in TA5.1.

Cumulative Effects

5.19 Cumulative ornithological effects are also included in TA5.1, to consider the revised collision risk rating for the proposed Development in the context of other wind turbine proposals around the SPA.

5.20 Given the minimal predicted collision risk for hen harrier (and all other bird species of moderate or high conservation importance within the proposed Development Area), the proposed Development does not contribute significantly to the in combination effect of the developments considered as part of the cumulative assessment. Therefore the cumulative operational effects of the proposed Development are considered to be negligible to low, and not significant in EIA terms.

MITIGATION

Mitigation and Monitoring

5.21 As described in the original ES, the Development design has embedded elements of mitigation, such as stand-off distances to known nest sites of specially protected species, and a commitment to maintain at least a lowest turbine sweep point of 22 m above the ground. A Bird Protection Plan will also be produced prior to construction, which will detail the actions to be taken by the Applicant, as advised by an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW), should construction or decommissioning work need to occur during the bird nesting season.

Enhancement

5.22 The Draft Habitat Management Plan (TA6.4) includes an area of habitat enhancement for hen harrier foraging which is 835 m from infrastructure features at its closest point.


This area is contiguous with the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA and therefore will represent an increase in the availability of hen harrier foraging habitat for bird associated with this designated site. It is also contiguous with the enhancement area proposed for hen harrier at the adjacent Dungavel Wind Farm.

5.23 The distance between the proposed Development and the enhancement area will potentially decrease further the likelihood of hen harrier and other raptor species of conservation important venturing within the collision risk zone. In addition, the physical link with the Dungavel Hill HMP area will increase the overall collective beneficial effect of the management compared to the benefits of each plan taken individually.

5.24 TA6.4 (the Draft Habitat Management Plan) also proposes an area of blanket bog enhancement and broad-leaved scrub planting which will provide further foraging and nesting opportunities for black grouse.

RESIDUAL EFFECTS

5.25 As described in the original ES, all residual construction, operational, decommissioning or cumulative effects on bird species of high or moderate nature conservation importance are deemed to be nil or negligible, and therefore not significant in EIA terms.

5.26 The range of turbine dimensions set out in Chapter 2 (Table 1) has been considered during this assessment and any combination within this range would not alter these conclusions.

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

5.27 The likely effects of the proposed Development have been evaluated in accordance with the methods described and the significance of each predicted effect stated. It is concluded that the likely effects of the proposed Development on all bird species are not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.

POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THE SPA

The Need For and Form of Assessment

5.28 The proposed Development is in a location where it may influence components of the qualifying interest of the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA, which is located to the south-east of the proposed Development approximately 850 m from the closest proposed turbine location. The SPA is classified for its populations of breeding hen harrier, merlin, peregrine, short-eared owl and golden plover and its non-breeding hen harrier.

5.29 Due to the proximity to the SPA and the nature of the proposed Development, the proposals fall under the provisions of Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive, and hence Regulation 48 of the Habitat Regulations 1994 (as amended).

5.30 Under Regulation 48, an "appropriate assessment" needs to be undertaken in cases where any plan or project which:

a) either alone or in combination with other plans or projects would be likely to have a significant impact on a European site designated for nature conservation, and

b) is not directly connected with the management of the site for nature conservation.


5.31 The term Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is usually adopted to describe this appropriate assessment process.

5.32 In terms of the requirements listed above for HRA, it is clear that the proposed Development is not directly connected with the management of the SPA for nature conservation (criterion b). Therefore, it must be demonstrated that the proposed Development, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, does not have a significant impact on the SPA. Guidance provided by SERAD (2000) and SNH (2012, updated in 2015) is clear that the HRA process is also relevant to projects or plans outwith a Natura 2000 site boundary; it is the potential impacts on a site's qualifying interests which are relevant, and not necessarily the project or plan's location in respect to the Natura 2000 site boundary.

5.33 Under the terms of the Regulations, the HRA is to be carried out by the relevant competent authority. With respect to the proposed Development, the competent authority is the Scottish Ministers and this section of the report seeks to provide the information required by the Scottish Ministers to undertake a HRA of the proposed Development. It draws on the ornithological surveys and assessments described earlier, and considers the SPA in the context of the proposed Development as well as other relevant developments in the wider area.

The Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA Interest

5.34 The Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA qualifies under Article 4 (1) of the EC Birds Directive as it regularly supports breeding populations of European importance of Annex 1 species, breeding hen harrier, merlin, peregrine falcon, short-eared owl and golden plover. The SPA also qualifies for its non-breeding hen harrier interest.

5.35 The conservation objectives of the SPA are listed as:

(i) to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species (as listed above) or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; and

(ii) to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

population of these species as a viable component of the site;

distribution of these species within the site;

distribution and extent of habitats supporting these species;

structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting these species;

no significant disturbance of these species.

5.36 With respect to non-breeding (over-wintering) hen harrier, it is apparent from available desk-study records and baseline surveys collected over several years that there are no records of such birds in the vicinity of the proposed Development. It is therefore highly unlikely that there will be a significant effect on this particular SPA interest feature.


5.37 Although it is possible that birds recorded during the breeding season in and around the proposed Development were not part of the SPA interest, a precautionary assessment has been made based on the assumption that all breeding season records of the species noted above were of interest features associated with the SPA.

Consideration of Effects on the Conservation Objectives of the SPA

5.38 The SPA interest involves several qualifying species. Given low frequency of records for breeding golden plover, short-eared owl and peregrine, and their distance from the proposed Development Area, it is highly unlikely that any of these three species would be adversely affected by the proposed Development, either alone or as a contributor to in-combination effects. Subsequent considerations therefore refer only to hen harrier and merlin.

5.39 Of the five conservation objectives that need to be considered under the HRA process, objective 2 (Ensure for the qualifying species that the distribution of the species within the site is maintained in the long term) does not require further consideration because it specifically refers only to effects “within” the SPA.

5.40 With respect to conservation objective 5 (Ensure for the qualifying species that there is no significant disturbance) it is highly unlikely that nesting or foraging harrier or merlin constituting SPA interest will be disturbed or displaced by the proposed Development, given both the distances involved and the very low use of the proposed Development Area by either species (in either the breeding season or non-breeding seasons).

5.41 With respect to the remaining conservation objectives for hen harrier and merlin, the pertinent consideration is the predominantly forested baseline habitat in the proposed Development Area (commercial conifer plantation) and the distance of the proposed Development from known sources of the merlin and hen harrier SPA interest. Commercial conifer forest is largely excluded as a habitat within the limits of the SPA boundary and in the immediate proximity of the SPA boundaries (although known nest sites of the SPA interest are close to or within the edge of the conifer forest in several instances). This exclusion is despite a generic assumption that the foraging range of both hen harrier and merlin can be crudely captured by a 2 km radius from known nest sites, and thereby be used to describe SPA boundaries. The boundaries of the SPA were defined based on an assumption that most foraging activity of breeding hen harrier and merlin would likely occur within 2 km of nest sites. This also means that that such boundaries should be modified by the presence of coniferous plantation due to the long-term low importance of such habitats for hen harrier or merlin foraging.

5.42 The results of the baseline surveys confirmed these criteria for boundary delineation in that there was very limited evidence of foraging activity in coniferous forest habitats occurring either between the SPA and the proposed Development Area, or within the proposed Development Area itself. Therefore, due to the delineation of the SPA boundaries at the time of classification the predominant forested habitat of the proposed Development (and the landscape between it and the SPA), coupled with the low number of observations of flight activity in these areas, the habitat of the proposed Development is highly unlikely to be critically-supportive to the maintenance of the SPA interest.

5.43 Therefore, the conservation objectives concerned with the maintenance of critical habitats for the SPA interest will not be compromised as a result of the proposed Development. These objectives are (4) “Ensure for the qualifying species that the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species are maintained in the long term” and (3) “Ensure for the qualifying species that the


distribution and extents of habitats supporting the species are maintained in the long term”. As noted above, one of the aims of TA6.4 (Draft Habitat Management Plan) is to create an enhancement of habitats for foraging hen harrier and merlin (which could include birds that form part of the SPA interest), and this will also help to ensure that the ‘habitat-centric’ conservation objectives of the SPA will not be compromised by the proposed Development.

5.44 For the remaining conservation objective (1: Ensure for the qualifying species that the population of the species is maintained as a viable component of the site), the primary source of increased mortality which could effect maintenance of species viability is collision risk. As described in TA5.1, there will be no discernible increase in mortality arising from collision. Also, there will be no increase in attractiveness of the turbine envelope to hen harrier or merlin due to the design of the wind farm and the Draft HMP, and therefore collision risk is unlikely to be significant. In combination effects are considered below.

5.45 It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the proposed Development will not compromise the conservation objectives underpinning the protection of the qualifying interest of the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA.

In Combination Effects

5.46 The calculations presented in TA5.1 show that the proposed Development will not make a significant contribution to the in combination effects on the SPA interest features, when taken into consideration alongside other wind turbine developments surrounding the SPA. This is largely due to the negligible effects of the proposed Development in isolation, and it remains within the same order of magnitude of impact as that associated with the original Application which was consented in 2016.

5.47 Overall, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed Development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA, either alone or in combination with other wind farm developments. It therefore follows that there will be no detrimental effects on the SSSIs that spatially overlap the SPA.

REFERENCES

Band, W., Madders, M., & Whitfield, D.P., (2007). Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In: de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (eds.) Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation, pp. 259-275. Quercus, Madrid

Pendlebury C., Zisman, S., Walls, R., Sweeney, J., McLoughlin, E., Robinson, C., Turner, L. & Loughrey, J. (2011). Literature review to assess bird species connectivity to Special Protection Areas. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 390. SNH, Battleby

SERAD (2000) (Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department) (2000). Habitats and Birds Directives, Nature Conservation: Implementation in Scotland of EC Directives on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna and the Conservation of Wild Birds (‘The Habitats and Birds Directives’). Revised Guidance Updating Scottish Office Circular No 6/1995

Wilson, M. W., Austin, G. E., Gillings S. and Wernham, C. V. (2015). Natural Heritage Zone Bird Population Estimates. SWBSG Commissioned report number SWBSG_1504. pp72. Available from:www.swbsg.org


SNH (2000) Windfarms and birds: calculating a theoretical collision risk assuming no avoiding action.

SNH (2014) Recommended bird survey methods to inform impact assessment of onshore wind farms. May 2014.

SNH (2006) Assessing significance of impacts from onshore windfarms on birds out-with designated areas

SNH (2010) Use of Avoidance rates in the SNH wind farm collision risk model.

SNH (2012) Assessing the cumulative impact of onshore wind energy developments. March 2012

SNH (2016c) Assessing connectivity with Special Protection Areas (SPAs) June 2016.

SNH (2016b) Dealing with construction and birds. March 2016.

SNH (2016a) Wind farm proposals on afforested sites – advice on reducing suitability for hen harrier, merlin and short-eared owl. January 2016.

SNH (2014) Recommended bird survey methods to inform impact assessment of onshore wind farms.

SNH (2015). Habitats regulations appraisal of plans: guidance for plan-making bodies in Scotland. Version 3.0. Updated version of 2012 guidance initially prepared by David Tyldesley and Associates.

Drewitt, A.L. and Langston, R.H.W. (2008) Collision effects of wind-power generators and other obstacles on birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134 pp 233 – 266.

Erickson, W.P., Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Young, D.P., Jr Sernja, K.J. & Good, R.E. (2001). Avian collisions with wind turbines: a summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States. Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. National Wind Coordinating Committee Resource Document. http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/avian.htm

Hill, D. (1990). The Impact of Noise and Artificial Light on Waterfowl Behaviour: a Review and Synthesis of Available Literature. BTO Research Report 61. Thetford, UK: British Trust for Ornithology.

http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/avian.htm


6. ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

SUMMARY

This chapter presents the findings of an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) for the proposed Development. Where no update surveys were undertaken, assessment material provided in the original Environmental Statement (ES) remains relevant and has been re-used.

The study area was found to support a number of ecological features, amongst which were extensive blanket bog habitats, ground-water dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs) and protected species, including, badger, otters and bats, with assigned ecological value ranging from Site level up to County level.

Construction and/or operational phase impacts were identified for blanket bog, GWDTEs and bats. However, a hierarchy of mitigation measures has been applied to ameliorate these effects.

Key amongst the proposed compensation and enhancement measures is the preparation and delivery of a Habitat Management Plan (HMP - refer to Technical Appendix – TA6.4) which would see the restoration of areas of degraded and modified blanket bog. Other mitigation measures include the use of ‘stand-off’ zones to protect bats and the adoption of standard pollution prevention measures to protect other ecological features within the study area.

The Chapter finds that the implementation of mitigation will reduce the significance of potential effects and, consequently, there will be no significant negative residual effects. The proposed Development could also have a positive effect on blanket bog habitats, as a result of the implementation of the HMP.


6.1 This chapter has been prepared by Applied Ecology Ltd. All Applied Ecology Ltd ecologists are professionally trained and comply with best practice guidance provided by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). They are therefore suitably qualified in the survey and assessment of ecological features.

INTRODUCTION

6.2 This chapter considers the potential effects of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed Development on ecology and nature conservation. It utilised the findings of a number of ecology surveys undertaken in 2013, updated where relevant in 2017-2018, and considers the significance of potential impacts the proposed Development may have on ecological features.

6.3 The assessment set out in this chapter is based on information provided in Chapter 2 – The Proposed Development, and Chapter 3 – Design Iterations.

6.4 Other chapters relevant to this chapter include Chapter 5 - Ornithology, Chapter 7 - Ground Conditions and Hydrology, and Chapter 9 - Forestry.

http://www.cieem.net/


6.5 This chapter is supported by a number of Technical Appendices produced for the original Environmental Statement (ES):

Technical Appendix 9.1 (NVC and GWDTE Survey Technical Report);

Technical Appendix 9.2 (Confidential Protected Species Technical Report);

Technical Appendix 9.3 (Bat Survey Technical Report).

Technical Appendix 9.4 (Ecological Impact Assessment) which accompanied the original ES is superseded by this chapter.

This chapter is also supported by four new, additional Technical Appendices produced in 2018:

Technical Appendix 6.1 (updated habitat and GWDTE maps);

Technical Appendix 6.2 (updated otter and badger technical report);

Technical Appendix 6.3 (updated bat survey technical report);

Technical Appendix 6.4 (updated Draft Habitat Management Plan).

SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

6.6 Following scoping (see below), it was established that this assessment should be limited to those ecological features which had either changed in their extent or composition since the production of the original ES, or those for which the characteristics of the proposed Development could potentially represent altered impacts and/or effects.

6.7 Therefore, this assessment includes consideration of impacts and effects on:

sites designated for nature conservation;

habitats, including GWDTEs; and

otter, badger and bats.

6.8 Potential impacts and effects on reptiles and fisheries are assumed to be as assessed in the original ES. In addition, the need for a cumulative ecological assessment has been scoped out.

Study Area

6.9 For the purposes of the assessment, the study areas referred to throughout the chapter vary by ecological feature. Surveys undertaken for the original ES were carried out within the following buffers:

statutory designated site searches – 10 km from the proposed Development Area;

existing faunal/flora records – 2 km;

bat surveys – within the proposed Development Area;


other protected species surveys – Within 100 m – 250 m of the proposed Development Area; and

National Vegetation Classification (NVC) and Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) surveys – within the proposed Development Area.


6.10 From the outset of the design process, various organisations were consulted with a view to fully informing both the design and this assessment. Table 6.1 summarises consultation responses received. Responses listed in the table include those received via Scoping Opinion and later discussions regarding survey scope and method.



SNH – 21 August 2017 Further bat survey is not required at this site.

Additional bat survey was undertaken in the autumn of 2017, to increase robustness of revised reporting of bat usage of the proposed Development Area. See TA6.3.

A programme of post-construction monitoring should be implemented including bat casualty searches. Mitigation by curtailment may be necessary.

Given the very low bat usage of the Development Area, no operational phase monitoring of bat usage is proposed. More details are provided in TA6.3.

Bat data should be submitted to the Ecobat online recording tool.

No operational phase bat activity is proposed. More details can be found in TA6.3.

SNH – 20 December 2017

Bat species of high risk of collision have been recorded at the proposed Development Area.

Agreed, albeit in low numbers.

There has been significant habitat change in the area since the 2013 surveys.

Agreed. The revised habitat map is provided in TA6.1.

The 2016 DEFRA study indicates difficulties with drawing conclusions about post-construction bat activity based on pre-construction surveys. Some characteristics of the proposal may pose a greater risk to bats than the previous scheme, while other aspects may pose a lesser or similar risk.

Agreed. A discussion of the 2016 Defra report results, in the context of the bat activity at the proposed Development Area, is provided in TA6.3.



Standard mitigation (buffers, feathering etc.) likely to reduce risk in certain conditions.

Agreed. Specific mitigation for bats is presented in para 6.68.

Curtailment may address residual risks but may not be proportionate to the level of risk ultimately posed by the proposed Development.

Agreed. Proportionality of response is considered in TA6.3.

Post-construction monitoring would be reasonable and proportionate given the uncertainties.

Given the low activity levels, post-construction monitoring, including casualty searches, would not be proportionate in this instance. This is discussed in TA6.3.

SNH – 02 February 2018

Accept that the blanket bog enhancement area around the refused turbines will be removed from the HMP. They remain supportive of the enhancement at Red Bog.

The Red Bog enhancement area has been retained. Please see TA6.4.

Pre-application update surveys to be carried out for habitat and terrestrial species.

These are reported in TA6.1, TA6.2 and TA6.3.

A revised habitat assessment should be included in the Ecological Impact Assessment.

This is included from para 6.38.

A cumulative ecological assessment can be scoped out.

Agreed.

Advice from August 2017 and December 2017 should be consulted with regards to bats.

Consideration of the scoping responses provided regarding bats is provided in TA6.3.

Fisheries Management Scotland – 02 February 2018

Guidelines in their advice on terrestrial wind farms should be consulted.

Fisheries have been assessed for the construction phase (para 6.52) but were scoped out of the operational phase.

Marine Scotland – 19 January 2018

The Applicant should be mindful of salmon populations in the lower reaches of the Clyde catchment.

Fisheries have been assessed for the construction phase (para 6.52) but were scoped out of the operational phase.

The water quality monitoring programme conditioned for the consented Kype Muir Extension should be executed for the proposed Development.

Good construction practice measures are described at para 6.54. Water quality is also covered in Chapter 7 – Ground Conditions and Hydrology.



The ECoW should undertake regular visual checks of watercourses.

The role of the ECoW is considered at para 6.54.

Cumulative impacts on water quality and fish populations should be considered.

Following advice from SNH (see above) the need for a cumulative assessment has been discounted. Fisheries have been assessed for the construction phase (para 6.52) but were scoped out of the operational phase.

Construction phase monitoring of watercourses should consider the potential impact of felling on water quality.

Good construction practice measures are described at para 6.54. Water quality is also covered in Chapter 7 – Ground Conditions and Hydrology.

The HMP should consider the beneficial effects of riparian vegetation on rover ecosystems.

Riparian woodland planting is considered in the HMP (see TA6.4).

RSPB – 08 February 2018

Accept that the blanket bog enhancement area around the refused turbines will be removed from the HMP.

The revised HMP can be found in TA6.4.

They do not support the removal of part of the hen harrier enhancement area as they believe the FCS objection to this not valid.

16.2 ha of hen harrier enhancement is still included in the HMP. The requirements of all consultees could not be met in this instance, and a compromise was needed. The appropriateness of the areas of habitat enhancement for hen harrier is considered in Chapter 5 – Ornithology.

South Lanarkshire Council (Greenspace Team comments) – 04 April 2018

Accept that the blanket bog enhancement area around the refused turbines will be removed from the HMP.

The revised HMP can be found in TA6.4.

Defers to SNH for designated sites advice; sufficient information will be needed to carry out an Appropriate Assessment.

Details regarding the SPA and requirements for Appropriate Assessment can be found in Chapter 5 – Ornithology.



Larger turbine bases will require a reassessment of the ecological impacts.

The updated ecological impact assessment can be found from para 6.44.

The need for a cumulative ecological assessment can be scoped out.

Agreed.

SEPA – 02 February 2018

The following items must be submitted in support of the application (inter alia):

(b) Map and assessment of impacts upon GWDTEs and buffers.

The GWDTE map is provided in TA6.1. The assessment on GWDTEs can be found from para 6.48.

Turbine base size should be assessed in the ecology topic.

Description of the method of habitat impact assessment, including GWDTEs is provided at paras 6.44-6.49 and Table 6.9.

Sufficient detail regarding enhancement proposals and mitigation of impacts must be submitted.

The revised HMP can be found in TA6.4. Table 6.12 summarises the residual impacts following the application of these measures.


6.11 Detailed information relating to planning policy can be found within the accompanying Planning Statement. This chapter has also been informed by relevant biodiversity legislation and policy, including European and domestic environmental legislation, UK nature conservation policy and local biodiversity guidance. These include:

The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 as amended, including amendments made in 2017 with limited relevance to Scotland;

The Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) 1981;

The Protection of Badgers (Scotland) (as amended) Act 1992;

the Scottish Biodiversity List;

the South Lanarkshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan; and

the former UK BAP Priority Habitats and Species lists.

6.12 Further detail of relevant legislation and policy is provided in the technical appendices accompanying this chapter.

METHODOLOGY

6.13 This chapter has been informed by a suite of desk and field studies, further details of which are described below. The Ecological Impact Assessment has been undertaken in line with good practice guidance, also as described below.


6.14 The scope of desk and field studies were agreed with SNH during the production of the original ES, and as in Table 6.1.

Desk Study

6.15 The desk study remains as described in the original ES.

Field Survey

6.16 The ecological assessment has been informed by a series of technical field studies. For habitat surveys, these remain as described in TA9.1 which accompanied the original ES, with updated distribution of certain features as described in TA6.1 which accompanies this EIAR. For otter, badger and bats, these are as described in TA9.2 and 9.3 which accompanied the original ES, as well as TA6.2 and TA6.3 which accompany this EIAR.

Ecological Impact Assessment Methodology

6.17 The Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) was undertaken following good practice guidelines (CIEEM, 2016) current at the time of reporting. This represents an updated methodology to that adopted for the original ES.

6.18 In summary, EcIA requires six steps:

identifying and characterising Important Ecological Features (IEFs);

identifying and characterising impacts and their effects

identifying measures to avoid and mitigate impacts and their effects;

assessing the significance of any residual effects after mitigation;

identifying appropriate compensation measures to offset still significant residual effects; and

identifying opportunities for ecological enhancement.

Identifying Important Ecological Features (IEFs)

6.19 The sensitivity, value or importance of ecological features can be related to a wide range of ecosystem services that they can provide to the environment, people or wider society. These benefits can include the conservation of genetic diversity, people's enjoyment or understanding of biodiversity, or the health benefits of biodiversity. A summary of an approach to valuing ecological receptors in Scotland can be found in Table 6.2. The table shows how ecological importance can be ascertained using a combination of statutory measures (legally protected sites and species) and non-statutory but widely accepted measures, such as the presence of notable habitats and species listed in biodiversity lists of local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs). Use can also be made of the Ratcliffe assessment criteria for the selection of sites with nature conservation value (Ratcliffe, 1977) and certain protected species have their own frameworks for the assessment of the importance of on-site populations. All these criteria can vary at different geographical scales.


Table 6.2: An approach to assessing Important Ecological Features in Scotland

Level of sensitivity or value

Examples (not exhaustive)

International (including European)

An internationally designated site or candidate site (SPA12, pSPA13, SAC14, cSAC15, pSAC16, Ramsar site17, Biogenetic Reserve18) or an area which SNH has determined meets the published selection criteria for such designations, irrespective of whether or not it has yet been notified.

A viable area of a habitat type listed in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive, or smaller areas of such habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of that ecological resource.

A regularly occurring population representing >1% of the European resource of a species listed in Schedules 2 or 4 of the Habitat Regulations.

National A nationally designated site (SSSI19, NNR20, Marine Nature Reserve) or a discrete area which SNH has determined meets the published selection criteria for national designation irrespective of whether or not it has yet been notified.

A viable area of a priority habitat identified in the former UK BAP or Scottish Biodiversity List, or smaller areas of such habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of that ecological resource.

A regularly occurring population representing >1% of the national population of a nationally important species, i.e. a priority species listed in the former UK BAP or Scottish Biodiversity List and/or Schedules 1, 5 (S9 (1, 4a, 4b)) or 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, or Schedules 2 or 4 of the Habitat Regulations.

A regularly occurring and viable population of a UK Red Data Book species.

Council/ Regional

Viable areas of key habitat identified in Council LBAP or Scottish Biodiversity List, or smaller areas of such habitats that are essential to maintain the viability of that ecological resource.

Any regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species listed as being nationally scarce (occurring in 16-100 10 km squares in the UK) or in a relevant Council LBAP or Natural Heritage Zone profile on account of its rarity or localisation.

Non-statutory designated wildlife sites including semi-natural ancient woodland greater than 0.25 ha.

Networks of species-rich hedgerows.

Local Locally important habitats or species such as:

- semi-natural ancient woodland smaller than 0.25 ha;

- features that are scarce within the local area or which appreciably enrich the local habitat resource e.g. networks of hedgerow/ditches not considered to be species-rich;

- small populations of notable species (e.g. SBL or LBAP species) regularly resident on or using the site.

12 Special Protection Area classified under the EU Birds Directive for importance to birds. 13 Potential Special Protection Area. 14 Special Area of Conservation Area classified under the EU Habitats Directive for important habitat or non-bird species. 15 Candidate Special Area of Conservation. 16 Potential Special Area of Conservation. 17 Wetland of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention. 18 Sites deemed representative examples of particular habitats in Europe. 19 Site of Special Scientific Interest. 20 National Nature Reserve.


Level of sensitivity or value

Examples (not exhaustive)

Site Commonplace and widespread habitats or species which contribute to the functioning or value of the wider ecological landscape, such as:

- scrub, poor semi-improved grassland, coniferous plantation woodland, intensive arable farmland etc.;

- common and widespread faunal species, or occasional individuals of more notable species such as SBL or LBAP species, either resident on or using the site.

Identifying impacts and their effects

6.20 Characterising impacts refers to the changes expected in the extent and integrity of an IEF. It takes into consideration the fact that different impacts on different IEFs can result in permanent or temporary effects of differing magnitudes, and this is also dependent on their timing and/or frequency of occurrence, and whether or not they can be reversed.

6.21 Impacts have been defined here as being high, medium, low or neutral, as summarised in Table 6.3. Impacts may be negative (detrimental) or positive (beneficial).

Table 6.3: Criteria for describing impacts and effects on Important Ecological Features

Impact type Description

High High impacts may include those that result in large-scale, permanent changes in an IEF, and likely to change its ecological integrity. These impacts are likely to result in overall changes in the conservation status of a species population or habitat type at the location(s) or geographical scale under consideration.

Medium Medium impacts may include moderate-scale permanent changes in an IEF, or larger-scale temporary changes, but the integrity of the feature is not affected. This may mean that there are temporary changes in the conservation status of a species-population or habitat type at the location(s) or geographical scale under consideration, but these are unlikely to be irreversible or long-term.

Low Low impacts may include those that are small in magnitude, have medium-scale temporary changes, and where integrity is not affected. These impacts are unlikely to result in overall changes in the conservation status of a species population or habitat type at the location(s) under consideration, but it does not exclude the possibility that mitigation or compensation will be required.

Neutral There is no perceptible change in the ecological receptor.

6.22 Different impacts and their outcomes also have different probabilities of occurring. It is rarely possible to quantify probability accurately in the natural world in the absence of large, long-running data sets, and therefore for the purposes of this EcIA, probabilities are simply assessed qualitatively and relatively, using the terms defined in Table 6.4 below.


Table 6.4: Criteria for categorising the probability of effects occurring

Probability Description

Certain It is reasonable to conclude that these effects will occur as a result of the proposals.

Likely It is reasonable to conclude that these effects are more likely to occur than not occur.

Unlikely It is reasonable to conclude that these effects are less likely to occur than to occur.

Significance of effects

6.23 In accordance with CIEEM (2016), a “significant effect” is one which supports (positive) or undermines (negative) biodiversity conservation objectives for a stated IEF, or for biodiversity generally if this is more relevant to the circumstances being assessed. These significant effects are considered by an ecological professional to be sufficiently important to warrant explicit assessment and reporting so that a decision-maker is adequately informed of the environmental consequences of a proposed project.

6.24 The significance of an effect on an IEF is given with reference to a specific spatial scale, which may or may not be related to the geographical scale used to define the IEF. However, mitigation and compensation solutions may need to be applied so as to ensure outcome consistency with the scale at which the significant effect has been identified.

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Desk Study and Designated Sites

6.25 The findings of the 2013 desk study are as presented in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5: Desk Study and Designated Sites Results

Source Relevant Data

SNHi The following statutory designated sites were identified:

Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands Special Protection Area (SPA)

Adjacent to south-eastern edge of the proposed Development Area.

The SPA is designated for its raptor assemblages.

Muirkirk Uplands Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Adjacent to south-eastern edge of the proposed Development Area.

The SSSI is designated for its raptor and breeding bird assemblages. It is also recognised for the quality of its blanket bog and upland habitat mosaic.

Blood Moss and Slot Burn SSSI

3.9km to the south-east of the proposed Development Area.

The SSSI is designated for the quality and extent of its blanket bog resource.

SLC SLC no longer maintain a register of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). A Biodiversity Assets Approach has instead been adopted, with a focus on the maintenance of areas of peatland, Ancient Woodland and freshwater systems.


Source Relevant Data

Ancient Woodland Inventory

No ancient woodland was identified within the study area.

NBN In 2013, there were no species records from within the proposed Development Area, however the following species of interest were identified within the study area:

Otter;

Water vole;

Badger; and

Bats.

Clyde Bat Group

In 2013, two pipistrelle roosts were noted as having been recorded in Strathaven, in 1999 and 2002. The roosts contained 11 and 14 individual bats respectively.

Ayrshire Bat Group

In 2013, no specific records for the following species had been recorded in the wider area:

Common pipistrelle;

Soprano pipistrelle;

Brown long-eared bat;

Daubenton’s bat;

Leisler’s bat;

Noctule; and

Natterer’s bat.

Field Survey

NVC and GWDTE Survey

6.26 Full details of the habitat survey results can be found in TA9.1 which accompanied the original ES, and TA6.1 accompanying this EIAR. The main changes noted during the walkover updates in 2017 and 2018 was the felling and infrastructure construction associated with the adjacent Kype Muir Wind Farm.

Badger

6.27 Details of the updated badger survey can be found in TA6.2. No significant changes in the distribution and type of badger signs were found, compared to that recorded in 2013.

Otter

6.28 Details of the updated otter survey can also be found in TA6.2. No significant changes in the distribution and type of otter signs were found, compared to those recorded in 2013. There were possibly fewer fresh signs of sprainting in 2018, but this may have been related to the poor weather conditions at the time of the updated survey.

Bats

6.29 Details of the updated bat survey can be found in TA6.3. There was no change in the suite of species recorded as using the proposed Development Area for foraging and/or commuting, and the overall level of activity was considered still to be low. Fewer bat


passes were potentially recorded in 2017, although this was only an autumn survey and the results were not significantly different in all instances.

Fisheries

6.30 As with the original ES, no update survey was carried out for fisheries, and as in the original ES, it is assumed that brown trout and stone loach were present in all watercourses with in the study area.

Reptiles

6.31 As with the original ES, no specific reptiles surveys were carried out, although there are informal records for common lizard within the proposed Development Area. As with the original ES, it is assumed that the study area will support a small reptile population.

Modifying Influences

6.32 The dynamic nature of the natural environment means that the ecological features associated with the proposed Development Area will continually change over time. In the absence of development, the following processes are the most likely means by which the proposed Development Area’s ecological status will change:

ongoing grazing will continue to affect the diversity and overall value of the blanket bog resource; and

forestry operations, including felling and re-stocking, will change the proposed Development Area’s forest structure. Depending on the Forest Management Plan this may affect a range of habitats and the use of the proposed Development Area by protected species.

Information Gaps

6.33 While every attempt was made to collect accurate baseline data for both the original ES and this updated assessment, all ecological surveys represent a ‘snapshot’ of activity. Ecological features are dynamic and often transient and it is not possible to confirm the absence of a species through survey. It may be necessary to update ecological surveys in the future, and data presented in this chapter should not be used for long-term analysis of species distribution or occurrence.

6.34 Species or habitat specific limitations are discussed further in the relevant Technical Appendices.

6.35 The proposed Development Area boundary shown on the maps provided in the Technical Appendices includes much ground for which no development is currently proposed. Where possible, survey data have been updated to include the entirety of the boundary, for completeness. However, this is less relevant for some ecological features (e.g. bats) and this approach was discussed agreed with SNH during the preparation of the original ES.


Identification of Important Ecological Features (IEFs)


6.36 Based on the criteria given in Table 6.2, a summary of the value of designated sites is provided in Table 6.6. Table 6.7 provides a similar table for habitats, and Table 6.8 for protected species.

Table 6.6: Summary of designated sites IEFs

Site Value Rationale

Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA

International Site designated under EU legislation for its important bird species.

Muirkirk Uplands SSSI National Site designated under national legislation for its important bird assemblage and habitat mosaic.

Table 6.7: Summary of habitat IEFs

Habitat Value Rationale

Dwarf shrub heath – wet and dry types

Council The heathlands recorded within the proposed Development Area include NVC types which would represent Annex 1 habitats, however they are generally species-poor examples of these communities and represent only small areas of habitat. Nevertheless, peatlands, which would also include heathland areas, are considered to be a Biodiversity Asset within South Lanarkshire.

Blanket bogs, including modified bogs and mosaics with flushes and other wetland habitats

Council The bogs recorded within the proposed Development Area include NVC types which would represent Annex 1 habitats. They constitute a large proportion of the non-forested habitat within the proposed Development Area and are therefore important for their size and rarity at a European level. However, their quality has been degraded by historical levels of grazing and drainage. Nevertheless, peatlands are considered to be a Biodiversity Asset within South Lanarkshire, and the modified bogs and flushes include some NVC types which are considered to be GWDTEs.

Coniferous plantation woodland

Site Coniferous plantation is widespread and commonplace, with low species diversity. Not considered to be an IEF but included here for completeness.

Marshy grassland Local The marshy grasslands are widespread and commonplace habitats, typical of this assemblage of upland habitats, with a diversity that has been impacted by grazing, drainage and forestry practices within the proposed Development Area. They do however include NVC types which are considered to be at least moderately groundwater dependent, which raises their value within this EcIA.


Table 6.8: Summary of protected species IEFs

Species Value Rationale

Badger Local The badger activity recorded around the periphery of the proposed Development Area is indicative of a small number of animals which contribute to the biodiversity value of the proposed Development Area as a whole.

Otter Local The otter activity recorded within the proposed Development Area is indicative of a small number of animals active at its peripheries, but which contribute to the biodiversity value of the proposed Development Area as a whole.

Bats Local Bat species recorded within the proposed Development Area are not roosting but represent low numbers of mostly common and widespread foraging or commuting bat species. However, low numbers of Leisler’s bats also occasionally use the proposed Development Area, and although their distribution is probably wider than previously thought, this is a relatively uncommon species in the local area.

Fisheries Local Brown trout and stone loach recorded in the proposed Development Area watercourses. Connectivity to other watercourses, such as the Kype Water.

Reptiles Site Extensive network of heathland, bog and acid grassland habitats suitable for this species, but not encountered regularly or in large numbers.

Zone of Influence

6.37 Given that the spatial arrangement of turbines has not altered since the production of the original ES, the following IEFs can be scoped out of the ecological assessment for the construction phase, because they were not considered to be significantly affected by the configuration of turbines previously assessed:

sites designated for nature conservation.

(Impacts on the SPA are considered in Chapter 5 – Ornithology.)

6.38 Given also that the spatial arrangement of turbines has not altered since the production of the original ES, the following IEFs can be scoped out of the ecological assessments for the operational phase:

sites designated for nature conservation;

habitats, including GWDTEs;

otter;

badger;

fisheries; and

Reptiles.


Construction Phase

6.39 Potential direct effects of construction include:

direct loss of habitat through land take for construction of the built development and its associated infrastructure and landscaping; and

direct loss or harm of species through construction activities.

Potential indirect effects of construction include:

changes to the existing hydrology that could lead to detrimental changes in wetland flora and fauna as a result of increased drainage or dewatering;

increased pollution risk associated with accidental spillage of fuels, oils, and increases in silt laden run-off and dust emission; and

disturbance effects to faunal species.

Habitats

6.40 Using GIS, the proposed Development footprint was overlain on the Phase 1 Habitat Map to calculate the extent of habitat lost directly to construction. To account for the instances where batter edges and cabling may lead to increased direct impacts on habitats, an additional 2.5 m buffer in all directions was applied for the access tracks. The footprint of all other infrastructure features was as given.

6.41 Indirect impacts on habitats and species are less easy to quantify. In terms of habitats, the disruption of the hydrological patterns within water-dependent habitats as a result of built infrastructure is an area still lacking empirical research. Most existing data refer to the effects of ditching and ploughing as part of afforestation projects on bog habitats and which may or may not be transferable to construction situations. Gilman (1994) suggests that alterations in blanket bog water levels do not extend further than approximately 10 m from the nearest forestry drain whereas some estimates quote effects occurring up to 50 m from drains (Natural England, 2010). As there is no current consensus on the issue, an estimate of indirect effects on water-dependent habitats has been made via the calculation of the area of such habitats within a 30 m buffer around the infrastructure footprint. However, it is recognised that this does not account for micro-scale variations in hydrological functioning of habitats and hence there may be variation in the zone of influence. It may therefore be an under-estimate for some types of habitat. Nevertheless, the estimate allows the identification of areas where indirect effects are predicted to be higher or lower.

6.42 In addition to potential changes in groundwater and surface water affecting water dependent habitats, there is potential for construction operations to cause pollution of wetland and terrestrial habitats through accidental spillages if inadequately controlled (see also Chapter 7 – Ground Conditions and Hydrology). This may include vehicular fuels and oils as well as the risk of pollution from road surface slurry formed from dust deposition during the laying and use of access tracks. The risk of silt-laden run-off is greatest during periods of heavy rain; for dust emissions it is highest during dry weather. These could lead to adverse effects on receiving aquatic and terrestrial habitats and their associated fauna.


6.43 Fragmentation as a source of habitat deterioration as a result of construction is discussed at a qualitative level through consideration of the habitat map and development layout. Fragmentation and disturbance effects are also applicable to faunal ecological receptors.

6.44 Potential construction phase impacts and effects on habitats are summarised in Table 6.9 below. Due either to the small areas of habitat loss involved, or the low value of the IEF, the only significant impacts are associated with blanket bog and GWDTEs. Due to the conservation importance of blanket bogs, prior to mitigation the impacts are considered to be negatively significant at the Council level. For the GWDTEs, the impacts prior to mitigation would be smaller in scale and involve habitats of lower conservation importance. These would therefore be negatively significant at the Local level. The original 2014 ES utilised a different method of ecological impact assessment, but the resultant significance of effects was similar to this derived for the revised Application.

Badger

6.45 Potential construction phase impacts and effects on badger are summarised in Table 6.10 below. Due to the distance between current badger activity and proposed construction, impacts will be limited to the possibility of badgers straying into construction areas. As this would be an unlikely occurrence, potential impacts on badger remain as assessed in the original ES, and are considered to be not significant.

Otter

6.46 Potential construction phase impacts and effects on otter are summarised in Table 6.10 below. Otter are unlikely to venture into construction areas although they may use terrestrial habitat whilst moving between catchments. They may be subject to collision or experience habitat fragmentation where new watercourse crossings are constructed, and/or be disturbed by noise or changes in water quality or quantity. However, usage of the proposed Development Area by otter is low, and all infrastructure will be at least 50 m from watercourse (with the exception of crossing points), and therefore these impacts are considered to be not significant.

Bats

6.47 Potential construction phase impacts and effects on bats are summarised in Table 6.10 below. No bat roosts will be disturbed by the construction of the proposed Development, and night time working will be limited to the winter months when bats would be hibernating. Extensive areas of suitable foraging habitat will remain, and bat usage of the Site is very low. Construction phase impacts on bats are therefore considered to be not significant.

Fisheries

6.48 Potential construction phase impacts and effects on fisheries are summarised in Table 6.10 below. As assessed in the original ES, watercourses will remain largely unaffected except at the two new crossing points in the upper reaches of the North and South Feeshie Burns. These impacts are therefore considered to be not significant.

Reptiles


6.49 Potential construction phase impacts and effects on reptiles are summarised in Table 6.10 below. Although the revised turbine infrastructure footprint is larger than that assessed in the original Environmental Assessment, it remains that the footprint of the proposed Development is small in the context of the retention of extensive suitable reptile habitat. During their active period, reptiles are well able to move away from construction plant, and the populations within the proposed Development Area are small and scattered. Construction phase impacts on reptiles therefore remain as not significant.

Table 6.9: Likely construction phase impacts and effects on habitats prior to mitigation

IEF Importance level

Impacts Effects Impact scale and certainty

Effect significance prior to mitigation

Dwarf shrub heath – wet and dry types

Council Construction of infrastructure

Direct loss of 1.21 ha of habitat (4.8 % of footprint)

Low negative impact; certain

Not significant

Changes in hydrological regime

Indirect effects on c. 0.42 ha of habitat

Low negative impact; unlikely

Not significant

Construction of infrastructure

Fragmentation Low negative impact; certain

Not significant

Blanket bogs, including modified bogs and mosaics with flushes and other wetland habitats

Council Construction of infrastructure


Medium negative impact; certain

Significant negative impact at a Council level



Medium negative impact; likely



Fragmentation Medium negative impact; certain


Coniferous plantation woodland

Site Construction of infrastructure

Direct loss of c. 133 ha of habitat (although some of this will be immediately replanted)

High negative impact; certain

Not significant


Fragmentation Medium negative

Not significant





impact; certain

Marshy grassland

Local Construction of infrastructure

Direct loss of 0.02 ha of habitat (< 0.1 % of footprint)


Not significant




Not significant


Fragmentation Low negative impact; certain

Not significant

Open water Site Changes in hydrological regime



Not significant

Tracks and hard standings

n/a n/a – reuse of existing tracks

Direct use of 1.28 ha of habitat (5.0 % of footprint)

- -

GWDTEs Various Construction of infrastructure



Significant negative impact at a Local level



Low negative impact; likely



Fragmentation Low negative impact; likely


Table 6.10: Likely construction phase impacts and effects on faunal species prior to mitigation




Badger Local Collision with plant

Injury or death Low negative impact; unlikely

Not significant





Loss of foraging habitat

Reduced survival/ reproduction rates

Medium negative impact; unlikely

Not significant

Severance of traditional foraging/ commuting routes


Increased risk of RTAs

Entrapment


Not significant

Noise, vibration or lighting

Disturbance – reduced survival/ reproduction rates


Not significant

Otter Local Collision with plant

Injury or death Low negative impact; unlikely

Not significant

Excavations Entrapment Low negative impact, temporary, unlikely

Not significant


Disturbance – reduced survival/ reproduction rates

Low negative impact, temporary, unlikely

Not significant

Bats Local Severance of foraging/ commuting routes

Altered opportunities for foraging

Low negative impact, permanent, unlikely

Not significant


Disturbance Low negative impact, temporary, unlikely

Not significant

Fisheries Local Changes in water quality and quantity

Physical disturbance of habitat and mortality

Low negative impact, unlikely

Not significant

Reptiles Site Interaction with plant

Injury or death Low negative impact, unlikely

Not significant





Reduced habitat


Low negative impact, unlikely

Not significant

Construction Phase mitigation measures

Good Construction Practice Measures

6.50 It is assumed that an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) will oversee the early stages of construction as per Conditions 14 and 20 of the 2016 consent, particularly the ground-breaking works, to ensure that good practice measures with regards to ecology are implemented. Other good construction practice measures can be found in the draft Construction Method Statement (CMS – TA2.1), as agreed in Conditions 23 and 26 of the 2016 consent. These can be summarised as:

Road layouts and development configuration have been designed to maintain or impede drainage through water dependent habitats where either of these scenarios would be beneficial to habitat quality and the hydrological regime.

Pre-construction surveys will be carried out for otter, water vole, red squirrel and badger, and destructive searches carried out for features of potential value to reptiles. All watercourses within 250 m of the development footprint will be surveyed for signs of otter, and all habitat within 50 m for signs of badger if this is considered appropriate. If necessary, a disturbance licence will be sought for any relevant, shelters, resting places or setts.

The site induction for construction personnel will include a site briefing provided by the ecologist regarding bats, otter, reptiles and badger, and the identification of shelters of these species. The briefing will also emphasise the importance of protection of watercourses and key habitats such as wetland areas.

General good practice measures for working in and near to watercourses will be adhered to, for example, during construction, silt interception traps will be provided to minimise unchecked contaminated run-off. Appropriate artificial drainage must be designed and installed. Detailed drainage designs will require review and approval by the scheme Environmental Manager (and ECoW as required), and appropriate drainage measures will be installed in advance of major ground-breaking works. A pollution prevention plan will be written and implemented for construction works.

Fuels and other chemicals will be stored securely within the site construction compound.

Appropriate wash-out facilities will be available for vehicles and machinery.


Trenches and excavations will be covered at the end of each working day, or will include ramps, and stored pipes will be capped, to prevent entrapment of animals.

If construction work is carried out during the hours of darkness, machinery and floodlights will be directed away from watercourses and woodland edges. Use of heavy machinery and pile drivers will be limited to avoid two hours before and after dawn and dusk within 100 m of watercourses or woodland edges.

A site speed limit of 15 mph for all construction traffic will be in place to protect badger and otter.

Additional habitat mitigation measures

6.51 Significant effects on blanket bog will be addressed through the execution of a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (see TA6.4, and Condition 37 of the 2016 Consent). The HMP will include inter alia:

the creation of c. 13.8 ha of blanket bog in areas currently forested, within the Red Bog part of the Site. This will be augmented by the incorporation of an additional c. 2.39 ha of bog habitat currently existing between these two forestry coups, giving a total of c. 16.2 ha of positive management of blanket bog; and

enhancement of c. 33.9 ha of habitat specifically for foraging hen harrier. This will include 21.5 ha of land which is currently forested. Due to the ground conditions in this area, and the nature of the surrounding non-forested habitats, it is likely that this will represent a form of blanket bog.

6.52 Significant effects on GWDTEs has been minimised as much as the design process will allow and will be mitigated further by the good construction practice measures described above. It should be noted that GWDTE habitat within the stated 100 m and 250 m buffers considered for GWDTEs (see TA6.1; buffers have been increased to 170 m and 320 m respectively to accommodate the micro-siting allowance) is primarily associated with buffers around pre-existing tracks in the Long Knowe valley, which will be reused. Therefore, no new impacts will be incurred in these areas despite the figures given in Table 6.9. It will be possible to reduce further the significance of these effects during micro-siting and detailed design, including the use of porous materials at track and infrastructure locations associated with GWDTEs. This will allow the continued movement of groundwater and support the existing GWDTE habitat resource.

6.53 Pollution prevention measures (as described in TA3.4 for the original ES) will also reduce the likelihood of significant effects.

Badger mitigation

6.54 No specific mitigation for badger is required. However, a pre-construction update survey for badger will be carried out, and the ECoW will update the survey information throughout the construction period.

6.55 A speed limit of 15 mph will be established for the Site, and all excavations will be ramped at the end of each working day to prevent the entrapment of animals.


Otter mitigation

6.56 A pre-construction survey will be carried out for otter, and the ECoW will update the survey information throughout the construction period.

6.57 Although impacts on otter are considered to be unlikely, the following mitigation measures will be applied:

all water crossings will be designed to support otter passage. This will require sufficient clearance in spate conditions and, potentially, the use of mammal ledges. Designs should be compliant with best practice guidance (Highways Agency, 1999);

site works will follow standard pollution prevention methods (SEPA, 2013) to ensure watercourses are protected from accidental spillages;

an on-site speed limit of 15 mph will be imposed to reduce potential vehicle collisions with otters.

Bats mitigation

6.58 No construction phase mitigation measures are required for bats.

Operational Phase

6.59 During the operational period of the wind farm, site activities will be limited to the operation and maintenance of turbines and occasional site traffic. As such, potential operational impacts of the proposed Development will be limited to potential impacts on bats.

Direct operational phase impacts

6.60 The primary operational impacts of wind turbine developments on bats relate to the direct collision with turbine blades or barotrauma (see TA6.2 for a more detailed discussion).

6.61 Given the low level of bat activity within the Site and the maintenance of appropriate stand-off distances (see below), it is considered highly unlikely that there will be large number of bat deaths associated with the proposed Development. Nyctalus species of bat were recorded as passing through the Site, and these species tend to fly high and fast, within the turbine blade strike zone. They are therefore at a greater risk of mortality than other bat species. In addition, as they fly at height, they are less likely to use landscape features such as woodland edges and watercourses as navigational aids, increasing the probability that they will fly across open areas. However, this species was recorded at a very low frequency, and the potential effect on the populations of Leisler’s bat are not considered likely to be significant.

6.62 Given the very low level of bat activity on the Site, and based on the guidance provided in a recent Defra study, it is considered unlikely that there would be bat collisions associated with the proposed Development which would represent a significant impact on the conservation status of local bat populations, as summarised in Table 6.11. This aside, further avoidance measures for bats are proposed, and these are discussed below.

Indirect operational phase impacts


6.63 It has been suggested that the lighting of tall turbines for aviation purposes may increase the risk of collisions for foraging bats, if insect prey are attracted to the light sources. However, several studies in the USA have found that there is no statistically significant difference in the number of bat collisions at lit and unlit turbines (Johnson et al., 2004; Jain et al., 2010, Baerwald & Barclay, 2011). Such lighting will not be sufficient to light directly watercourses or forest edges, and to that end there will be no indirect effects on bats as a result of aviation lighting.

Table 6.11: Likely operational phase impacts and effects on faunal species prior to mitigation




Bats Local Collision and/or barotrauma

Death or injury

Low negative impact, permanent, unlikely

Not significant

Lighting of turbines

Death or injury

No impact No impact

Operational Phase mitigation measures

6.64 Although potential operational impacts on bats are not considered to be significant, the likelihood of collision will be reduced further by:

maintaining a keyhole of at least 50 m + rotor sweep around each turbine where this will involve felling. Dimensions for keyholes will be determined when the turbine blade and hub height configurations have been finalised post-consent, pre-construction, and will be incorporated into the finalised HMP;

locating turbines at least 50 m + rotor sweep from watercourses. Again, this will be determined when the turbine blade and hub height configurations have been finalised; and

feathering turbine blades below cut-in wind speeds.

6.65 Other measures including in the HMP include tree planting along watercourses to increase their commuting and foraging value to bats.


6.66 Based on the proposed timescales of the operational phase, it is assumed that decommissioning will take place at least 30 years after construction. The decommissioning process will include the removal of all turbines and associated infrastructure.

6.67 Within the context of ecology and nature conservation, 30 years represents a considerable period of time, during which habitats and protected species assemblages can change extensively in terms of structure and function, particularly following the implementation of Habitat Management Plans. When considered with the uncertainty of the construction methods and techniques which will be available at that time, the accuracy of an impact assessment may be low. In response to this challenge, this


assessment makes the broad assumption that the significance of potential impact effects associated with decommissioning will match those associated with construction. This assumption is made on the basis that the process will involve the removal of the same features assessed for construction, with associated vegetation removal and a limited quantity of new areas of hard standing or tracks.

6.68 The assessment of the potential significance of decommissioning should be understood to consider only those activities associated with decommissioning; it does not consider how the absence of a wind farm in the Study Area will affect habitats and species.

Micro-siting

6.69 It is unlikely that micro-siting (by a maximum distance of 70 m) will alter the significance of effects as assessed here, based on the generally low levels of protected species activity and the largely homogenous nature of the study area's habitats. The proportion of habitats affected by the proposed Development approximately represent the proportion associated with the overall site, and therefore any movement within the 70 m micro-siting allowance could reasonably be expected to result in impacts on individual habitats at a similar magnitude to those assessed here. However, the following restrictions will be observed:

micro-siting must not result in infrastructure within 50 m of watercourses;

micro-siting must not result in turbines being closer than 50 m + rotor sweep from watercourses; and

micro-siting should seek to avoid those most species rich areas of blanket bog, particularly where Sphagnum beds are present.

6.70 All proposals for micro-siting should involve input from the ECoW.

Cumulative Effects

6.71 As agreed during scoping, no cumulative ecological assessment is presented in this chapter.

MITIGATION


6.72 Mitigation measures for each of the construction and operational phases of the proposed Development are described above. In addition to these, a range of monitoring activities are proposed in the HMP, some of which are also relevant to Chapter 5 – Ornithology. These include:

monitoring of peat restoration areas at 5-yearly intervals, including peat depth, surface wetness, and species composition;

monitoring and weeding out of self-seeded Sitka spruce seedlings annually for first 5 years and thereafter at 5-yearly intervals;

vantage point monitoring of hen harrier and other notable raptor species annually for 3 years post-construction;


hen harrier prey monitoring (meadow pipit, skylark and voles) annually for first 3 years and thereafter every 5 years;

monitoring of broad-leaved tree species establishment rates, and encroachment of undesirable species, on an annual basis for the first 5 years.

Enhancement

6.73 Enhancement measures are described in full in the draft HMP (TA6.4).

RESIDUAL EFFECT

6.74 Following the implementation of mitigation and enhancement, the significant of potential effects will be altered. A summary of the residual significance following successful implementation of mitigation and enhancement is provided in Table 6.12 below.

6.75 The proposed Development will result in significant positive effects for blanket bog habitats. No other significant effects will arise.

6.76 The range of turbine dimensions set out in Chapter 2 (Table 2.1) has been considered during this assessment and any combination within this range would not alter the overall conclusions of this assessment.


Table 6.12: Residual Effects

Ecological Feature

Significance of Effect Prior to Mitigation

Avoidance Mitigation Compensation Enhancement Residual Significance of Effect

Construction Phase

Blanket bog Negative significance at the Council level

Micro-siting to avoid bog habitats where possible

Good construction practice measures

Pollution prevention plan

ECoW support throughout construction period

Use of porous materials to maintain hydrological connectivity

16.2 ha of bog habitat will be created as part of the HMP.

33.9 ha of additional habitat likely to include blanket bog within hen harrier enhancement area.

n/a Positive significant effect at the Council level

GWDTEs Negative significant at the Local level

Micro-siting will avoid GWDTEs where possible




Use of porous materials to maintain hydrological connectivity

n/a n/a Not significant

Otter Not significant

Pre-construction survey and micro-siting




Ecological Feature

Significance of Effect Prior to Mitigation

Avoidance Mitigation Compensation Enhancement Residual Significance of Effect



15 mph speed limit

Ramping of excavations

Badger Not significant

Pre-construction survey and micro-siting



15 mph speed limit

Ramping of excavations


Bats Not significant

Micro-siting so that turbine dimensions, forestry keyholes and distance from watercourses meet stand-off criteria of 50 m + rotor sweep

n/a n/a n/a Not significant

Operational Phase

Bats Not significant

Feathering of blades below cut-in speed

n/a n/a Planting of riparian woodland

Not significant


REFERENCES

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom.

Highways Agency (1999). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges; Volume 10, Section 14, Part 4. Nature Conservation Guidance in Relation to Otters.

Natural England (2014). TIN 051 – Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines (Interim Guidance).

SEPA (2013). Pollution Prevention Guidelines.

Anderson, A.R., Pyatt, D.G. (2000). Physical and hydrological impacts of blanket bog afforestation at Bad a’ Cheo, Caithness: the first 5 years. Forestry, 73 467-478.

Gilman, K. (1994). Hydrology and wetland conservation. Chichester, Wiley.

Natural England (2010). Investigating the Impacts of Windfarm Developments on Peatlands in England. A report commissioned by Natural England. Number NECR032.

Johnson G.D., Perlik M.K., Erickson W.P. & Strickland M.D. (2004) Bat activity, composition, and collision mortality at a large wind plant in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32, 1278–1288.

Jain A.A., Koford R.R., Hancock A.W. & Zenner G.G. (2010) Bat mortality and activity at a northern Iowa wind resource area. The American Midland Naturalist, 165, 185–200.

Baerwald E.F. & Barclay R.M.R. (2011) Patterns of activity and fatality of migratory bats at a wind energy facility in Alberta, Canada. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75, 1103–1114.


7. GROUND CONDITIONS AND HYDROLOGY

SUMMARY

This assessment has assessed the effects on the ground conditions, hydrology and hydrogeology environmental as a result of increasing the height of the proposed turbines and consequential minor alterations to turbine foundations, crane pads and track orientation.

The only sensitive receptor within the site to be affected by this change is peat deposits. The assessment identified the potential to increase the release of carbon due to increased disturbance of the peat due to larger turbine foundations and crane pads.

Mitigation measures developed to remove or reduce this likely effect are in line with those identified in the original ES.

Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and carrying out the construction works in accordance with best practice should ensure there are no significant residual effects from the Development on geology, ground conditions, hydrology and hydrogeology due to the increased turbine height.

INTRODUCTION

7.1 This chapter describes the impacts on the geological, hydrological and hydrogeological environment within the development study area as a result of the proposal to increase the turbine heights from those consented in 2016 and consequential minor alterations to turbine foundations, crane pads and track orientation.

7.2 The proposed larger turbines will require larger crane pads and foundations which may impact upon the geological, hydrological and hydrogeological environment.

7.3 For full details of the proposed changes please refer to Chapter 2 (The Proposed Development) and Chapter 3 (Design Iteration).

Study Area

7.4 The study area is unchanged from that stated in the original ES for Kype Muir Extension.


7.5 A Scoping Report was submitted in December 2017 and Scoping Opinions were received in January and February 2018. No additional requirements / issues were requested in the responses relating to the geological, hydrological and hydrogeological environment which were not raised as part of the original ES.

7.6 However, SEPA provided specific comments relating to the geological, hydrological and hydrogeological environment and Marine Scotland made specific comments on water quality, these are detailed in Table 7.1.


Table 7.1 Summary of Relevant 2017 Scoping Responses


SEPA a) Map and assessment of all engineering works within and near the water environment including buffers, details of any flood risk assessment and details of any related CAR applications.

Refer to Chapter 14 (Ground Conditions and Hydrology) of the original ES and Technical Appendix 7.2 - Figure 7.2.3

b) Map and assessment of impacts upon GWDTE and buffers.

Refer to Chapter 6 (Ecology and Nature Conservation) and Technical Appendix 6.1

c) Map and assessment of impacts upon groundwater abstractions and buffers.

Refer to Chapter 14 (Ground Conditions and Hydrology) of the original ES and Technical Appendix 7.2 - Figure 7.2.3

d) Peat depth survey and table detailing re-use proposals.

Refer to Technical Appendix 7.2 - Figure 7.2.4 & Figure 7.2.5 and Technical Appendix 7.3

e) Map and table detailing forest removal. Refer to Chapter 9 (Forestry) and figures ES05 and ES06

f) Map and site layout of borrow pits. Refer to Plan PA03 and ES10 of the original ES.

g) Schedule of mitigation including pollution prevention measures.

Refer to Chapter 14 (Ground Conditions and Hydrology) of the original ES

h) Quarry or Borrow Pit Site Management Plan of pollution prevention measures.

Refer to TA2.1 Draft CMS.

i) Map of proposed waste water drainage layout. No waste water drainage required.

j) Map of proposed surface water drainage layout Refer to Chapter 14 (Ground Conditions and Hydrology) of the original ES and the Mitigation section of this Chapter.

k) Map of proposed water abstractions including details of the proposed operating regime.

No water abstractions proposed.

l) Decommissioning statement. Refer to Chapter 2 (The Proposed Development)



Marine Scotland

Water quality, both hydrochemical parameters and biotic indices considered throughout application.

A water quality monitoring programme condition retained.

Cumulative impacts on the water quality and fish populations should be considered.

Refer to Chapter 14 (Ground Conditions and Hydrology) of the original ES and the Construction Stage of the Mitigation section of this Chapter.

Scottish Water Kype Reservoir has a small abstraction licence therefore water quality and water quantity in the area should be protected.

Refer to Chapter 14 (Ground Conditions and Hydrology) of the original ES and the Construction Stage of the Mitigation section of this Chapter.


7.7 Key acts of legislation relevant to this assessment are described in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2: Relevant Legislation & Policy

Scale Legislation

EU Dangerous Substances Directive, 76/464/EEC

Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/EC)

Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

UK Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999

Control of Pollution Act 1974

Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001

COSHH Regulations (2002)

Environmental Protection Act 1990

Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999

The Environment Act 1995 (as amended)

Agriculture Act 1986

Scotland Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (2014)

The Environmental Liability (Scotland) Regulations 2009

Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004

Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (as amended)

Planning Advice Note (PAN) 50

Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan

Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003


Scale Legislation

The Water Environment (Register of Protected Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2004;

Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005

Regional Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (GCVSDP) (2012)

The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Central Southern Uplands) Designation Order 1993

South Lanarkshire South Lanarkshire Local Plan (SLLP) (2009)

Renewable Energy - SLLP Supplementary Planning Guidance

South Lanarkshire Proposed Local Development Plan

South Lanarkshire Minerals adopted Local Development Plan 2012

BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE

7.8 Best practice procedures and mitigation for the protection of the environment during general construction works is provided by the guidance documents listed in Table 7.3 below.

Table 7.3: Best Practice Guidance

Guidance Documents

CIRIA guidance:

CIRIA Report C502: Environmental Good Practice on Site (CIRIA 2005);

CIRIA Report C532: Control of water pollution from construction sites: guidance for consultants and contractors. (CIRIA 2001)

CIRIA (R125): A Guide to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health in Design & Construction (CIRIA 1993);

SEPA Guidance

Engineering in the Water Environment Good Practice Guide - Construction of River Crossing (2010)

Engineering in the Water Environment Good Practice Guide - Sediment Management (2010)

SEPA Position Statement to support the implementation of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 – WAT – PS – 06 – 02; Culverting of Watercourses – Position Statement and Supporting Guidance

Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) and Guidance for Pollution Prevention (GPP):

PPG1 – Understanding your environmental responsibilities – Good environmental practices (July 2013);

GPP2 – Above ground oil storage tanks (January 2018);

PPG3 – Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems (April 2006);

GPP5 – Works and maintenance in or near water (January 2017);

PPG6 – Working at construction and demolition sites (2012);

PPG7 – Safe storage – The safe operation of refuelling facilities (July 2011);

GPP8 – Safe storage and disposal of used oils (July 2017);

GPP13 – Vehicle washing and cleaning (April 2017);


Guidance Documents

PPG18 – Managing fire, water and major spillages (June 2000);

GPP21 – Pollution incidence response planning (July 2017); and

PPG26 – Safe storage - drums and Intermediate bulk containers (March 2011).

Scottish Executive and Scottish Government, SNH Guidance and others:

Regulatory Position Statement – Developments on Peat (SEPA 2010);

Peat landslide Hazard and Risk Assessments: Best Practice Guide for Proposed Electricity Generation Developments (Scottish Executive, second edition 2017);

Floating Roads on Peat (SNH and FCS 2010);

Good Practice during The Development Construction (Scottish Renewables, SNH, SEPA and FCS 2015);

Developments on Peatland: Site Surveys (SNH, SEPA, Scottish Government and The James Hutton Institute [undated]); and

Developments on Peatland: Guidance on the assessment of peat volumes, reuse of excavated peat and the minimisation of waste (Scottish Renewables and SEPA 2012)

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11, Part 10, HD 45/09 Road Drainage and the Water Environment (Highways Agency 2009)

British Standards:

BS5930:1999+A2:2010 Code of practice for Site investigations (2010).

BS 10175:2011 Investigation of potentially contaminated Sites. Code of practice (2013).

METHODOLOGY

7.9 The methodology used for this assessment is unchanged from that stated in the original ES.

BASELINE CONDITIONS

7.10 The baseline conditions are unchanged from those identified in the original ES.

Classification of Potential Receptors

7.11 The only receptor identified in the original ES which could potentially be effected by the change of turbine height and consequential minor changes to infrastructure is peat.

7.12 The peat on site is considered to be a sensitive receptor due to its ability to act as a carbon store as well as a natural habitat. The majority of the site (82%) has peat depth less than 2m of which 57% are less than 1.5m depth and some localised areas where the depth exceeds 2m.


7.13 No potentially modifying influences have been identified in relation to ground conditions, hydrology or hydrogeology.

Information Gaps

7.14 No information gaps have been identified.



7.15 This section considers the potential effects of the Development in the absence of any mitigation measures and considers the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Development. Generally the potential effects identified in the original ES are unchanged with the expectation of those noted below.

Construction Phase

7.16 It is anticipated that spread foundations will be used for the turbines where the strata has sufficient bearing capacity at a suitable depth. The type of foundation will be confirmed following ground investigation and geotechnical testing at the start of the detailed foundation design stage (post consent). However, due to the increased turbine height the foundations are likely to increase in size, up to 26 m in diameter. Crane pads are also likely to increase and could have a footprint of 2,770 m²

7.17 The increased foundation and crane pad size has the potential to increase the volume of peat being excavated, resulting in greater carbon emissions and impacting on peat balance as detailed below.

Carbon Balance

7.18 Technical Appendix 7.1, Carbon Balance Summary, details the impact of the proposed changes on the Developments carbon balance. However, overall the Development is expected to save 2,918,434 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over its lifetime resulting in a carbon payback period of 3 years and 1 month.

Peat Balance

7.19 Technical Appendix 7.3, Draft Peat Manage Plan (PMP), details the impact the proposed changes have on the balance of excavated peat.

7.20 Due to the increased turbine foundation diameters, up to 26 m, and the potential increase in crane pad dimensions, the total volume of peat to be excavated has increased from 122,706 m³ to 177,393 m³.

7.21 As detailed in the Draft PMP, through on site peat reuse measures it is proposed that all of the excavated peat will be reused on site.

Operational Period

7.22 No change to effects from those identified in the original ES.


7.23 No change to effects from those identified in the original ES.

Micro-siting

7.24 There would be no change to the significance of the effects identified as a result of micro-siting any of the turbines or associated infrastructure a maximum of 70 m in any direction (if required).

Cumulative Effects

7.25 No change to cumulative effects from those identified in original ES.


MITIGATION


7.26 Mitigation measures during design, operation and decommission are the same as those identified as part of the original ES.

7.27 In addition to mitigation measures already set out in the original ES, lessons learnt by the Applicant during the construction of Kype Muir wind farm will be incorporated into the temporary and permanent surface water drainage design. The design process for the temporary and permanent surface water drainage will be iterative and will be based upon on site pre-work surveys.

Construction Stage

7.28 A Construction Method Statement (CMS) which will set out in detail the individual items of work associated with the construction of the Development to ensure that works are undertaken in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner, will be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to commencement of development (as per planning condition 23 of the original consent and proposed draft conditions –TA13.1). In addition, prior to commencement of development an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) will be agreed with the Planning Authority (as per planning condition 26 of the original consent and proposed draft conditions – TA13.1) which will set out measures to monitor environmental impacts including water quality.

7.29 Mitigation measures during the construction stage will generally be the same as those identified as part of the original ES, with the following additional measures.

Prior to construction commencing a Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) will be produced and agreed with SEPA. The PPP will include a temporary drainage plan and measures on how to deal with construction material with a high volume of fines.

In addition to the PPP, the following will finalised prior to construction commencing or undertaken during construction.

o Peat Management Plan (PMP)

o Habitat Management Plan (HMP)

o Protection and Monitoring of Groundwater Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE)

Implementation of a water quality monitoring regime.

RESIDUAL EFFECTS

7.30 In accordance with the methodology, potential effects have been assessed prior to mitigation and residual effects, after implementation of the mitigation measures, are detailed in Table 7.4.



7.31 As per the original ES, the Development has the potential for some ‘Minor’, ‘Short-Term’ and ‘Reversible’ impacts on the watercourses, groundwater and peat; this is unchanged due to the increased turbine height and associated infrastructure changes.

7.32 No significant hydrological, geological or hydrogeological effects or residual effects have been identified in this assessment provided that the proposed mitigation measures are properly implemented.


Table 7.4: Potential and Residual Effects

Description of Receptor

Description of Potential Effect Description of Residual Effect

Receptor Sensitivity Effect Nature of Effect

Duration Magnitude Potential Significance

Summary of Mitigation

Residual Magnitude

Residual

Significance

Peat Low Excavation for site infrastructure resulting in release of carbon into the atmosphere.

Negative Long Term

Minor Minor Layout developed to minimise track in areas of peat (see TA7.3 (Draft PMP).

Appropriate peat guidance to be adhered to.

Mitigated by renewable energy generation (see TA 7.1 (Carbon Balance Summary).

Minor Negligible


8. CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY

SUMMARY

This chapter presents an assessment of the likely effects of the proposed Development on cultural heritage (heritage assets) within the proposed Development Area and in the wider study area. The assessment does not re-evaluate direct effects on the archaeological resource arising from construction of the proposed Development as reported in the original ES. The proposed revision to turbine heights does not require the relocation of any of the consented turbines and only minor changes to the infrastructure layout and there would be no resultant change to the assessment previously carried out.

The assessment does not re-evaluate the cumulative impacts assessment as reported in the original ES. As agreed through scoping the cumulative assessment has been scoped out of the cultural heritage assessment.

The assessment addresses the potential impact on three heritage assets in the wider study area resulting from the proposed increase in turbine heights as described in Chapter 2: Proposed Development. Those assets are:

•Dungavel Hill Cairn (SM2848);

•Burnbrae Barrow (SM4298); and,

•Auchengilloch Monument (LB1279).

Unless otherwise stated, the other effects on cultural heritage as reported in Chapter 12: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology of the original ES remain valid.

No significant residual effects have been predicted.


8.1 The Cultural Heritage Assessment was carried out by George Mudie MA (Hons) FSA Scot MCIfA; a Senior Consultant, based in CFA's main office in Musselburgh, East Lothian. He has over 15 years full-time experience of producing EIAs for a range of projects including Masterplanning developments, renewable energy developments, surface coal mining operations and industrial and commercial developments.

8.2 CFA Archaeology Ltd (CFA) is a Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Registered Organisation (RO) providing professional cultural heritage consulting and contracting services for a wide range of projects across the UK. CFA is a Constructionline and Achilles registered supplier, CHAS accredited and has ISO9001:2008 certification.

INTRODUCTION

8.3 This chapter presents an assessment of the effects on cultural heritage assets resulting from the proposed increase in turbine height and minor changes to the supporting


infrastructure (turbine foundations, crane pads and track alignments) details of which are set out in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development (and in Appendix A).

8.4 The assessment does not re-evaluate direct effects on the archaeological resource arising from construction of the proposed Development as reported in the original ES. As agreed through scoping, assessment of direct effects on cultural heritage has been scoped out.

8.5 The assessment does not re-evaluate the cumulative impacts assessment as reported in the original ES. As agreed through scoping, the cumulative assessment has been scoped out of the cultural heritage assessment. Nevertheless, where they are visible from the assessed assets discussed below, Auchrobert Wind Farm, Dungavel Wind Farm, Bankend Rig Wind Farm (all constructed) and the under construction Kype Muir Wind Farm are shown on the comparative wirelines that accompany the assessment (Figures 8.2 – 8.4) as they are considered to constitute part of the baseline.

8.6 Where appropriate, cross-reference is made to Chapter 12 – Cultural Heritage and Archaeology in the original ES.

8.7 The assessment is supported by a comparative blade tip height ZTV (Figure ES09) and comparative visualisations (Figures 8.2 – 8.4) which are referenced in the text where relevant. The visualisations show, and the assessment is based upon, the ‘worst case scenario’ of the maximum hub and blade tip height options being considered; as described in Chapter 2 (Table 1). The range of turbine dimensions set out in Chapter 2 (Table 2.1) has been considered during assessment and any combination within this range would not alter the conclusions of this assessment. With the turbine positions remaining unchanged, the changes apparent between the proposed Development and the 2016 Consented Layout result as a consequence of the increase in the turbine hub heights.

8.8 Unless otherwise stated, the other effects on cultural heritage as reported in Chapter 12 of the original ES remain valid.

SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

Study Area

8.9 The assessment of impacts on the setting of cultural heritage assets with statutory designations employs a Wider Study Area that extends 10 km from the outermost turbines (that were identified from the ZTV to have theoretical intervisibility with the turbines). The Wider Study Area is consistent with that employed in the original ES.

8.10 There has been some change to the extent of the ZTV resulting from the increase in turbine blade tip height, which has necessitated some re-evaluation of the predicted impact of the proposed development on the settings of heritage assets in the Wider Study Area (Figure ES09). For convenience and ease of reference, the Wider Study Area employed for the original Application has been retained for the assessment presented below and is shown on Figure ES09.

8.11 The assessment addresses the potential impact on three heritage assets in the wider study area resulting from the proposed increase in turbine heights as described in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development Those assets are:

Dungavel Hill Cairn (SM2848);


Burnbrae Barrow (SM4298); and,

Auchengilloch Monument (LB1279).


8.12 Responses to the Scoping Report, issued in December 2017, were received from Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and from South Lanarkshire Council. A summary of the responses that have been received and that are relevant to this assessment is provided in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Summary of Scoping and Consultation Responses


HES (response to formal Scoping Report)

26/01/2018

Content with the proposed scope of the cultural heritage assessment as described in the Scoping Report paragraphs 4.47 to 4.51.

Noted.

Direct effects and Cumulative effects are scoped out of the EIA.

The following assets are assessed:

a) Dungavel Hill Cairn

b) Burnbrae Barrow; and

c) Auchengilloch monument.

Comparative wireframes are provided from these three assets (Figures 8.2-8.4).

South Lanarkshire Council (response to formal Scoping Report)

04/04/2018

The Council’s archaeology advisers, West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) were consulted on the scoping report and agree that the heritage issues for both direct and indirect impacts can be scoped out.

Noted.

Direct effects and Cumulative effects are scoped out of the EIA.


8.13 Since the original Application there have been some changes to planning policy and guidance relevant to cultural heritage.

8.14 Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) 2009 has been superseded by Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (HESPS) 201621.

8.15 Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP) (2012) has been superseded by Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan (2017)22.

8.16 South Lanarkshire Local Plan (SLLP) (2009) has been superseded by South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (LDP) (2015)23.

Policy 1: Spatial Strategy;

Policy 2: Climate Change;

21 Historic Environment Scotland (2016) ‘Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement’, Edinburgh 22 Clydeplan (2017) ‘Strategic Development Plan July 2017’, Glasgow 23 South Lanarkshire Council (2015) ‘South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan


Policy 15: Natural and Historic Environment

Policy 19: Renewable Energy

8.17 South Lanarkshire Council has also adopted supplementary guidance (supplementary guidance 9) for the natural and historic environment which includes additional policies of relevance:

Policy NHE 2 Scheduled Monuments and their setting

Policy NHE 3 Listed Buildings

Policy NHE 4 Gardens and designed landscapes

Policy NHE 5 Historic battlefields

Policy NHE 6 Non-scheduled archaeological sites and monuments

Policy NHE 7 Conservation areas

8.18 The updated policy documents do not materially alter the assessment previously reported in Chapter 12 of the original ES.

8.19 In 2016 Historic Environment Scotland issued updated guidance, 'Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting' (HES 2016)24, which notes that (paragraph 1):

“Setting can be important to the way in which historic structures or places are understood, appreciated and experienced. It can often be integral to a historic asset’s cultural significance”.

“Setting often extends beyond the property boundary or ‘curtilage’ of an individual historic asset into a broader landscape context”.

8.20 The guidance also advises that (paragraph 4):

“If proposed development is likely to affect the setting of a key historic asset, an objective written assessment should be prepared by the applicant to inform the decision-making process. The conclusions should take into account the significance of the asset and its setting and attempt to quantify the extent of any impact. The methodology and level of information should be tailored to the circumstances of each case”.

8.21 Chapter 3 of the guidance recommends that there are three stages in assessing the impact of a development on the setting of a historic asset or place:

Stage 1: identify the historic assets that might be affected by the proposed development;

Stage 2: define and analyse the setting by establishing how the surroundings contribute to the ways in which the historic asset or place is understood, appreciated and experienced; and,

24 Historic Environment Scotland (2016) ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Setting’, Edinburgh


Stage 3: evaluate the potential impact of the proposed changes on the setting, and the extent to which any negative impacts can be mitigated.

METHODOLOGY

8.22 The assessment has been conducted in accordance with the most recent relevant guidance produced by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA): ‘Code of Conduct’ (CIfA 2014)25, and ‘Standard and Guidance for a Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment’ (CIfA 2014)26.

Desk Study

8.23 Up-to-date data on the locations and extents of Scheduled Monuments (SMs); Listed Buildings (LBs); Conservation Areas (CAs); Gardens and Designed Landscapes (GDLs), were downloaded, in GIS from the HES Data Warehouse (HES 2017)27 for the purposes of identifying any such heritage assets that may have been added to the database since the original ES that may require inclusion in the assessment.

8.24 No other new desk-based research has been required in order to address the proposed increases in turbine heights.

Field Survey

8.25 No additional field survey or site visits to heritage assets has been required in order to address the proposed changes to the development resulting from the proposed turbine height increase. The assessment relies upon the baseline condition of cultural heritage assets recorded during the original field survey and site visits.

Impact Assessment Methodology

8.26 The methodology employed in the assessment set out in Chapter 12 of the original ES has been adopted for this cultural heritage assessment. The following assessment should therefore be read in conjunction with the original ES.

BASELINE CONDITIONS

8.27 There have been no new designations within the Wider Study Area since submission of the original Application. Therefore, the cultural heritage baseline presented in the original ES (Appendix 12.2: External Receptors within ZTV within 10 km of the Development) remains valid for the assessment of the revised scheme.

8.28 Adopting Stage 1 of the guidance provided by Historic Environment Scotland, the assets to be considered in the assessment have been identified, on the recommendations of SLC and the ECU, in this case as being as follows:

Dungavel Hill Cairn (SM2848) – Figure 8.1;

Burnbrae Barrow (SM4298) – Figure 8.2; and

Auchengilloch Monument (LB1279) – Figure 8.3.

25 Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014) ‘Code of Conduct’, London 26 Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014) [updated 2017] ‘Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment’, London 27 Historic Environment Scotland Spatial Data Warehouse [online GIS downloader]


8.29 Based on analysis of the comparative blade tip height ZTV (Figure ES09), no heritage assets with statutory or non-statutory designations that lie within 10 km the proposed Development have been identified that would have predicted visibility of the increased height turbines that did not have predicted visibility of the consented turbines at their original heights.

8.30 Those previously assessed as experiencing effects of the 2014 Proposed Development are:

Dungavel Hill Cairn (SM2848)

8.31 This roughly circular cairn, measuring 14 m in average diameter and 1.1 m high, stands in a prominent location on the rounded summit of Dungavel Hill. It has been much mutilated by stone-robbing and construction of a modern marker cairn and crude stone shelter, of no great age, from its remaining stone content. The cairn is a funerary monument of Bronze Age and there are wide ranging views all round from the cairn; the principal view is to the north northwest over the Glengavel Water.

Burnbrae Barrow (SM4298)

8.32 The barrow is a roughly circular, grass-covered mound, measuring 15 m in diameter and 1.2 m high, that was excavated in 1880. It is a funerary monument of Bronze Age date that is situated on the edge of a steep scarp overlooking the right bank of the Burnbrae Burn. From the barrow the main, open aspect is to the north towards the confluence of the Avon Water and the Kype Water.

Auchengilloch Monument (LB1279)

8.33 The monument is a square-plan, polished ashlar corniced pedestal set on a stepped plinth and was erected in 1834 to mark the remote moorland spot where conventicles were frequently held during the latter part of the 17th century, during the Covenanter period. It is not a prominent visual feature from the wider landscape and lies in a secluded spot in Auchengilloch Glen at the head of the Back Burn and from which the open aspect is to the north northeast.


Construction Phase

8.34 As a result of the increase in turbine size, some minor alterations to turbine foundations, crane pads and track orientation has been required. However, in no instance do any of the proposed changes result in a direct effect on any of the heritage assets identified in the assessment of the 2014 Proposed Layout.

8.35 On the advice of SLC, assessment of direct effects is scoped out of the assessment; although it is relevant to note that the proposed Development results in no change to the assessment of direct effects reported in Chapter 12 (12.75 – 12.78) of the original ES.

Operational Period

Dungavel Hill Cairn (SM2848) – Figure 8.1

8.36 The assessment of the effect of the 2014 Proposed Layout on the setting of Dungavel Hill Cairn is set out in detail in the original ES (Chapter 12: 12.83 – 12.86) where it is


concluded that the 2014 Proposed Layout would constitute a detectable change from baseline conditions, but that its presence would not materially alter the baseline setting of the cairn. The effect of the 2014 Proposed Layout on the setting of Dungavel Hill Cairn (represented by reference to a wireline visualisation presented as Figure 12.2 in the original ES) was assessed as being of no more than low magnitude and of minor significance, and therefore not significant in EIA terms.

8.37 The comparative wirelines (Figure 8.1) show that, from the cairn, there is a slight difference in the appearance of the proposed Development, compared against the 2016 Consented Layout. However, it would remain possible for any visitor to appreciate the all-round views from the cairn and to understand the cairn’s relationship with the surrounding wider landscape; which is particularly directed towards views to the northwest, down into the Glengavel Water valley. The legibility of the landscape setting of the cairn would be retained and the integrity of the setting, which includes the operational Dungavel Wind Farm and the under construction Kype Muir Wind Farm, would not be adversely affected by the proposed Development.

8.38 The effect of the proposed Development on the setting of Dungavel Hill Cairn would remain of no more than low magnitude and of minor significance, and therefore not significant in EIA terms.

Burnbrae Barrow (SM4298) – Figure 8.2

8.39 The assessment of the effect of the 2014 Proposed Layout on the setting of Burnbrae Barrow is set out in detail in the original ES (Chapter 12: 12.87 – 12.90) where it is concluded that the effect would constitute a barely distinguishable change from baseline conditions and would have little effect on the ability to appreciate and understand the setting of the barrow. The effect of the 2014 Proposed Layout on the setting of Burnbrae Barrow (represented by reference to a wireline visualisation presented as Figure 12.3 in the original ES) was assessed as being of no more than imperceptible magnitude and of negligible significance, and therefore not significant in EIA terms.

8.40 The comparative blade tip height ZTV (Figure ES09), and the comparative wirelines (Figure 8.2), show that, as a result of the removal of T1 – T3, there would be no visibility of the 2016 Consented Layout from the barrow. The ZTV and wirelines also demonstrate that there would be no visibility of the proposed Development from the barrow. Consequently the effect of the proposed Development on the setting of Burnbrae Barrow remains as no effect when compared with the 2016 Consented Layout.

Auchengilloch Monument (LB1279) – Figure 8.3

8.41 The assessment of the effect of the 2014 Proposed Layout on the setting of Auchengilloch Monument is set out in detail in the original ES (Chapter 12: 12.91 – 12.94) where it is concluded that the effect would constitute a discernible change to the baseline setting of the monument that would partially but not materially alter the baseline setting, which already includes views of the consented Kype Muir and Auchrobert wind farms. The effect of the 2014 Proposed Layout on the setting of Auchengilloch Monument was assessed as being of low magnitude and of minor significance, and therefore not significant in EIA terms.

8.42 The comparative wirelines (Figure 8.3) show that there is a noticeable difference in the appearance of the increased height turbines, against those of the 2016 Consented Layout. However, the proposed increase in the height of the turbines does not affect


the ability of the visitor to appreciate and understand the remote moorland character. Likewise, the legibility of the landscape setting of the monument would be retained and the integrity of the setting, which includes the under construction Kype Muir Wind Farm and operational Auchrobert Wind Farm, would also not be adversely affected by the proposed Development.

8.43 The effect of the proposed Development on the setting of the Auchengilloch monument remains as low magnitude and of minor significance, and therefore not significant in EIA terms.


8.44 No significant effects are predicted during the decommissioning phase of the proposed Development, presuming that the same road infrastructure is used for the dismantling and removal of the components of the Development. The removal of the wind turbines would reverse any of the operational (indirect) adverse effects of the Development identified in this assessment.

Micro-siting

8.45 There are no surviving assets that lie at, or within, 70 m of any of the proposed Development infrastructure or turbines. There would therefore be no direct effect on any of the cultural heritage assets identified through the assessment of the 2014 Proposed Development and reported in the Chapter 12 of the original ES arising from the need for any micrositing within approved limits.

MITIGATION


8.46 The emphasis in Scottish Government Planning Advice Note 2/2011: Planning and Archaeology (PAN2/2011)28 is the preservation of important remains in situ where practicable and by record where preservation is not possible. The mitigation measures set out in the original ES take account of this planning guidance (and recognition of the requirements of Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 198929) and provide various options for protection or recording and ensuring that, where practical, surviving assets are preserved intact to retain the present historic elements of the landscape. In line with condition 39 of the original consent (and the draft planning conditions TA13.1) a programme of archaeological works will be agreed with the Planning Authority and implemented.

8.47 The proposed revisions to the 2016 Consented Layout do not require any changes to the turbine locations and only minor amendments to the infrastructure layout. Therefore, the mitigation set out in the original ES remains valid for the proposed Development.

Enhancement

8.48 No significant effects are predicted as a result of the proposed Development and no enhancement measures are required in respect of cultural heritage interests.

28 Scottish Government (2011) Planning Advice Note (PAN) 2/2011: Planning and Archaeology, Edinburgh 29 HM Government (1989) Electricity Act 1989, HMSO, London


8.49 Nonetheless, the Applicant proposes that Condition 39: Programme of Archaeological Works in the decision notice of the original Application would remain relevant to the proposed Development and carried forward should the proposed Development be consented.

RESIDUAL EFFECTS

8.50 The proposed Development would have residual effects of low magnitude and of minor significance on the settings of Dungavel Hill Cairn (SM2848) and the Auchengilloch Monument (LB1279); but these effects are considered to be not significant in EIA terms.


9. FORESTRY

SUMMARY

The proposed Development is partially situated within an extensive area of extremely suboptimal commercial forestry, which was planted between 1989 and 1990.

The structure of the forest will inevitably alter, even in the absence of development, as crops mature and are harvested. This chapter provides information on the anticipated differences between "normal" changes as the result of standard forest management and those which will occur as the result of proposed Development, with a comparison against the 2016 Consented Layout.

As a result of the proposed Development, 134.4 ha of conifer woodland would be felled as a single operation to facilitate the proposed Development.

During the period between commencement of construction in 2021 and 2040 (the 20 year period of a standard Forest Plan), tree harvesting associated with the proposed Development will produce 3,727 Tonnes of timber more than the Baseline Forest Plan in the absence of Development and 5,36 Tonnes more than set out in the 2016 Consented Layout.

During the 5-year period between 2021 and 2025 (Phase 1 of the Forest Plan), 134.4 ha of tree felling is proposed in the Final Layout, whereas no felling would be proposed under normal commercial forestry conditions until Phase 3 of the Forest Plan (2031-2035). The Phase 1 felling in the Final Layout proposes 50.9 ha more felling than during Phase 1 of the 2016 Consented Layout.

The Final Layout will result in a nett stocked woodland area of 272.9 ha, which is 52.9 ha less than under normal forestry management plans and 20.5 ha less than the 2016 Consented Layout.

The area of Woodland Removal resulting from the proposed Development is calculated as 24.1 ha for which the Applicant is willing to agree to a compensatory condition as set out in Condition 40 of the consent for the Original Application.

Overall, it is considered that the nett residual effect on forestry is minimal and not significant.


9.1 This chapter has been prepared by Andy Turnbull, a partner within the Forestry Team of Bidwells LLP, independent forestry consultants and managers. The consultant graduated from the University of Edinburgh in 2009 with a BSc Honours in Ecology (Forestry) and is a Member of the Institute of Chartered Foresters (MICFor).

9.2 The consultant has been involved in range of wind farm projects within afforested areas across Scotland acting on behalf of both the landowners and developers. This work has included providing advice to landowners on the negotiation of wind farm option


agreements and leases; contributions to Environmental Statements and Habitat Management Plans for Developers; consultancy and management of forestry operations during the construction phase; and provision of compensatory planting for projects including the neighbouring Kype Muir Wind Farm. In addition, Bidwells produced the original ES for Kype Muir Extension.

INTRODUCTION

9.3 The effects of the 2016 Consented Layout on the forestry site were considered, with the underlying principles being decided on and accepted during the initial planning process. The aim of this chapter is therefore not to review the agreed principles which underpinned the 2016 Consented Layout, but to assess any potential additional effects the proposed Final Layout will have on the forestry environment.

9.4 Therefore, this chapter of the EIAR describes the forestry aspects of the proposed Development focusing on the impact of the Final Layout compared to the 2016 Consented Layout. The proposed Development’s Final Layout consists of fifteen turbines, thirteen of which are planned to be located within areas of established commercial forestry, largely comprising Sitka spruce, which was planted between 1989 and 1990. The forest is named "Lambhill" and is held by a single private ownership.

9.5 Thirteen turbines are proposed to be keyholed into existing forestry to minimise the area impacted by the proposed Development and reduce deforestation. Keyhole felling has been designed to facilitate turbine construction, with replanting taking place within these keyholes up to defined buffer zones.

9.6 The buffer zones set out in this chapter are based on the maximum possible turbine rotor diameter that will potential be selected following a procurement tendering processes. The turbine keyholes can therefore be viewed as the “worst case” scenario and the actual tree free keyhole may be smaller. For the purposes of this chapter we have assumed a buffer zone of 86.3m radius around turbines with a rotor diameter of 130m and a buffer zone of 92.0m radius around turbines with a 140m rotor diameter. The infrastructure associated with the Development as described in Chapter 2 (The Proposed Development), including access tracks, site compounds and control building will also require some removal of trees. Borrow pits and a temporary construction compound will be re-instated following the construction period and replanted.

9.7 This chapter has been streamlined to focus on the comparison of the Final Layout compared to the 2016 Consented Layout and will not cover detail which remains unchanged from the original Application. This chapter includes:

Scope of Assessment;

Methodology;

Baseline Conditions;

Development Forest Plan;

Implications of Development Felling and Restocking Plans;

Timber Harvesting Volumes;

Harvesting Management Practices and Forestry Waste;


Residual effects; and

References.

SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

Scope Area

9.8 This Chapter focuses on the full extent of the Lambhill Forest, which extends to 623.5 hectares (ha) of which 497.1 ha forms part of the proposed Development area. For the purposes of this report, Lambhill Forest has been assessed as one commercial unit from a forestry management perspective, as it is reasonable to assume the owner would develop management proposals for the whole of the forest not just the area subject to the proposed Development.

9.9 Lambhill Forest was planted between 1989 and 1990 predominantly with Sitka spruce, with smaller proportions of other conifers including Japanese larch and Lodgepole pine. Integral open ground is found throughout the forest, primarily associated with rides and riparian corridors. Broadleaved trees were extensively planted but have largely failed to establish as a result of poor maintenance, deer browsing and poor species and provenance choice, although a few individual broadleaves are present.

9.10 Extremely variable conditions for the growth of tree crops exist across the proposed Development Area, largely as a result of altitude, exposure, high soil moisture and low fertility associated with peaty soils. This is reflected in extensive areas of low yield class crops on wet, deep peat dominated ground, with areas of marginally better crops on slopes with better natural drainage, however overall the proposed Development Area can be considered to be a poor quality commercial forest.

METHODOLOGY

9.11 This chapter follows the assessment methodology set out in the Environmental Assessment (Forestry) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (as amended 2006) in assessing the overall significance of environmental effects. Sensitivity and magnitude are not defined as per other chapters, however the assessment contained within this chapter has followed best practice set out within Appendix 2 of the ‘Environmental Assessment of Forestry Projects’ (FCS).

9.12 To facilitate the proposed Development the following felling requirements have been accounted for as part of the Final Layout design. These included creating the following tree free areas, and it should be noted that the initial felling and bat protection buffer zones described are based on the maximum possible extent proposed. The areas will be confirmed post-consent, pre-commencement and could well result in a reduction in the areas required to be felled.

Fell a 50 m buffer either side of the track centre point to facilitate micro-sitting and construction, allowing for a maximum of a 30 m wide tree free zone within which tracks would be located once replanting has taken place;

Fell a 50 m buffer around the parameter of the control building to allow for micro-sitting and following replanting, create and maintain a 10 m tree free buffer around the constructed control building;


Fell a 150 m radius circle around centre point of each turbine with a 130 m rotor diameter where keyholed for initial construction purposes;

Fell a 160 m radius circle around centre point of each turbine with a 140 m rotor diameter where keyholed for initial construction purposes;

Where turbines are keyholed, ensure a 86.3 m radius bat protection buffer zones are maintained as tree free areas around the turbines with 130m rotor diameters and a 92.0 m radius bat protection buffer zones around the turbines with 140 m rotor diameters (as stated in section 1.4 these keyholes are the maximum possible size and could well be reduced once the preferred turbine specification has been procured);

Maintain a 10 m tree free buffer zone around crane pads; and

Clear 21.6 ha to create improved habitat for Annex 1 Priority Species (hen harrier, short eared owl, merlin). The rational for this is explained in detail in Chapter 6 (Ecology and Nature Conservation).

Clear 13.8 ha to restore an area of Annex 1 Priority Habitat (Blanket bog). The rational for this is detailed in Chapter 6 (Ecology and Nature Conservation).

9.13 Permanent infrastructure areas and their associated buffers, including the areas to be felled around the turbines for bat mitigation, and the areas of habitat enhancement identified in the HMP, will be cleared and maintained as tree free while temporary infrastructure areas will be cleared, restored and replanted following construction.

Desk Study

9.14 Please refer to the original ES for a description of the methodology used to undertake the forestry analysis (Chapter 15, paragraphs 15.36 – 15.48).

Forest Plans

9.15 No Forest Plan is currently in place at the proposed Development Area. As part of the original ES, proposed felling and restocking plans were produced for the commercial forest within the proposed Development Area boundary in the absence of the Development. These felling and restocking plans lay out the restructuring of the forest which would be expected to take place in the absence of the proposed Development. As such these plans remain unchanged from the original Application.

9.16 The period of the forestry analysis is 20 years (as per the original ES) to mirror the standard Forest Plan period.

9.17 The felling and restocking plans in the absence of the proposed Development are given in Technical Appendix 15.1 of the original Application.

9.18 The original ES outlined phased felling to facilitate the proposed Development based on the 2014 Proposed Layout, with some minor changes because of the 2016 Consented Layout – namely the adjustment of the hen harrier habitat proposals. In the original Application, the phased felling programme was based on a Wind Farm construction date of 2018. To accommodate the Final Layout this has changed to 2021


and so have the corresponding Forest Plan felling phases. Due to the slow growing nature of the crops, this has not resulted in a change to the phasing of felling required.

Timber Harvesting Volumes

9.19 The methodology and assumptions used to derive timber volumes are described in the original application.

BASELINE CONDITIONS

9.20 The baseline conditions of the forest property remain unchanged from the original Application and will not be covered here.

9.21 Our analysis will compare the Final Layout Forest Plan against the Felling and Restocking Plans produced for the forest in the absence of Development (the Baseline Forest Plan) and for the 2016 Consented Layout (the 2016 Consented Layout Forest Plan). Both the Baseline and 2016 Consented Forest Plans remain unchanged.

FINAL LAYOUT DEVELOPMENT FOREST PLAN

Development of the Felling and Restocking Plan

9.22 To compare the effects of the Final Layout a revised Development Forest Plan (Felling and Replanting Plans) was produced for comparison to the Baseline and 2016 Consented Development Forest Plans.

9.23 To undertake this analysis the following methodology was followed.

9.24 Forestry data was collated using the procedures previously outlined in the Methodology (see paragraphs 19.11 – 19.19). Details of the Final Layout’s turbine specification, turbine locations, infrastructure such as tracks, site compounds and control building were provided by other members of the project team. The siting of turbines and related infrastructure is influenced by site constraints and technical considerations such as wind resource and gradients. This information, along with environmental constraints and land management requirements associated with the proposed Development has been combined with the forestry data to inform the Final Layout Development forestry proposals.

9.25 The felling programme was driven by technical, silvicultural, landscape and visual constraints and HMP requirements, in addition to "normal" silvicultural harvesting and areas of the proposed Development Area anticipated to be felled to accommodate the construction and operation of the Development. Keyholing of turbines is planned to minimise felling associated with the turbines. As previously described the Final Layout felling proposals can be viewed as the “worst case” scenario, detailing the maximum amount of felling that may be required to facilitate the Development. The final felling proposals will be confirmed post-consent, pre-commencement and could result in a reduction in the areas that are required to be felled.

9.26 Due to the relatively low average tree heights across the proposed Development Area, where keyhole and infrastructure felling is taking place, it is not considered necessary to fell to wind-firm boundaries given the low growth rates and heights of the trees all of which are below the critical height of 16m for WHC5.

9.27 An area of bog habitat restoration in heavily checked crop is also proposed in the north of the proposed Development Area as well as felling to improve, primarily hen harrier


habitat, in the south east of the proposed Development Area. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6 (Ecology and Nature Conservation).

Final Layout Development Felling Plan

9.28 The felling proposed at the proposed Development Area can be divided into the following categories:

Initial felling required as part of the construction phase of the Development, which for the purposes of this assessment, has been anticipated as 2021;

Initial felling required to implement the HMP works anticipated to take place in 2021; and

Phased felling as part of the Baseline Forest Plan;

9.29 Chapter 2 of this EIAR provides information on the layout of the proposed Development, identifying where turbines and infrastructure such as tracks, borrow pits, the construction compound and temporary and permanent met masts are planned in relation to the forestry within the proposed Development Area. To meet the construction requirements for the proposed Development some tree clearance will be required.

9.30 The Final Layout Development Felling Plan can be found in Drawing ES05 and the areas to be felled to accommodate the Final Layout Development are detailed in Table 9.1 and Figure 9.1.

Table 9.1: Final Layout Development Felling Table Felling Phase Area (ha) %

Phase 1 2021 - 2025 Windfarm Felling 99.1 15.9

Phase 1 2021 - 2025 Bog Restoration Felling 13.8 2.2

Phase 1 2021 – 2025 Hen Harrier Habitat Felling 21.5 3.4

Phase 2 2026 – 2030 0.0 0.0

Phase 3 2031 – 2035 15.3 2.5

Phase 4 2036 - 2040 12.0 1.9

Open Ground 270.5 43.4

Outwith Plan Period 165.3 26.5

Long Term Retentions 18.6 3.0

Natural Reserves 7.4 1.2

TOTAL 623.5 100%


Figure 9.1: Final Layout Development Felling Graph

9.31 A comparison between the Baseline Felling Plan, the 2016 Consented Development Felling Plan and the Final Layout Development Felling Plan can be seen in Table 9.2 and illustrated in Figure 9.2 below. The effects on timber volumes produced under each scenario are discussed later in this chapter.


Table 9.2: Comparison of Baseline, 2016 Consented Layout & Final Layout Development Felling Plans

Felling Phase Baseline Felling Area (ha)

2016 Consented Layout Felling Area (ha)

Final Layout Development Felling Area (ha)

Phase 1 2021 - 2025 Wind Farm Felling

0.0 48.2 99.1

Phase 1 2021 - 2025 Bog Restoration Felling

0.0 13.8 13.8

Phase 1 2021 - 2025 Hen Harrier Habitat Felling 0.0 21.5

21.5

Phase 2 2026 – 2030 0.0 0.0 0.0

Phase 3 2031 – 2035 15.3 15.3 15.3

Phase 4 2036 - 2040 33.5 12.0 12.0

Open Ground 270.5* 261.9 270.5

Outwith Plan Period 283.2 221.5 165.3

Long Term Retentions 13.9 18.6 18.6

Natural Reserves 7.1 7.4 7.4

TOTAL 623.5 623.5 623.5

* The area of Open Ground has increased in the Baseline and Final Layout Felling Plan as a result of HMP activity, which is accounted for in the existing neighbouring Kype Muir Wind Farm.


Figure 9.2: Comparison of Baseline, 2016 Consented Layout & Final Layout Development Felling Graph

9.32 A comparison between the Felling Plans are summarised below:

During the Forest Plan period the Final Layout requires the felling of an additional 112.9 ha compared to the felling set out in the Baseline plan. This includes 99.1 ha to facilitate the construction and operation of the wind farm, 21.5 ha to improve hen harrier habitat and 13.8 ha of bog habitat restoration to deliver the HMP all taking place within Phase 1. Whereas no felling is anticipated in the Baseline Felling Plan until Phase 3.

The Final Layout requires an additional 50.9 ha of felling to facilitate the construction of the wind farm, compared to the wind farm felling set out in the 2016 Consented Layout.

The 21.5 ha of forestry to be felled in 2021 in the Final Layout for hen harrier habitat improvements would have been planned to be felled in Phase 4 of the Baseline Felling Plan.

During the Forest Plan period the Final Layout proposes a total of 161.7 ha of felling compared to 48.8 ha of felling identified as part of normal forestry management in the Baseline Felling Plan.

Final Layout Development Restocking Plan

9.33 The Final Layout Restocking Plan shows the areas to be restocked within the woodland following harvesting. Exceptions to this are the areas detailed below:


Land required for the proposed Development infrastructure and associated bat mitigation buffers around turbines;

Land converted to non-forest habitat as part of the HMP; and

Land left unplanted for forest design and landscape purposes.

9.34 In designing the Final Layout Restocking Plan, several modifications were implemented to improve the forest management boundaries, such as reducing forestry compartment fragmentation and re-shaping edges to enhance the landscape value of the forest.

9.35 Tree species composition was diversified to include a greater area dedicated to local provenance native broadleaved woodland and to commence the restructuring of the forest in line with current forest policies.

9.36 In addition to species diversification and enhanced landscape design, two forested areas have been identified to be managed with conservation and enhancement of biodiversity as a major objective in line with UKWAS requirements. These are shown as Long Term Retentions and Natural Reserves on Drawing ES06.

9.37 The Final Layout Development Restocking Plan can be seen in Table 9.3. Figure 9.3 illustrates the species composition of the forest within the proposed Development Area at the end of the 20-year Final Layout 2018 Development Forest Plan proposals.

Table 9.3: Final Layout Development Restocking Plan Species Area at Start

of Plan Period (2021) (ha)

Area at End of Plan Period (2040) (ha)

Change (Ha)

Sitka spruce 260.4 171.0 -89.4

Sitka spruce/Japanese larch 21.5 14.4 -7.1

Sitka spruce/Lodgepole pine 32.2 22.7 -9.5

Sitka spruce/Japanese larch Lodgepole pine

1.5 1.2 -0.3

Japanese larch 19.6 10.8 -8.8

Lodgepole pine 1.1 1.1 0.0

Lodgepole pine/Japanese larch 0.6 0.0 -0.6

Native Broadleaves 21.0 51.7 +30.7

Open Ground 265.6 277.9 +12.3

Turbine and Infrastructure Open Ground

0.0 37.4 +37.2

Hen Harrier Habitat Enhancement Open Ground

0.0 21.5 +21.5

Bog Habitat Restoration Open Ground

0.0 13.8 +13.8

TOTAL 623.5 623.5


Figure 9.3: Final Layout Development Restocking Plan

9.38 Land removed from forestry and converted to another land use due to the proposed Development is detailed in the graph above and the rationale for the habitat related felling discussed in more details in Chapter 6.

9.39 A comparison between the Baseline Restock Plan, the 2016 Consented Layout Restock Plan and the Final Layout Restock Plan is shown in Table 9.4 and illustrated in Figure 9.4. The Baseline species composition as at 2021 is also detailed to demonstrate how the forest species composition will be restructured over the 20-year plan period.


Table 9.4: Summary table of comparison of current species composition with Baseline, 2016 Consented Layout and Final Layout Restocking Plans

Species Area at Start of Plan Period (2021) (ha)

Area at End of Baseline Plan Period (2040) (ha)

Area at End of 2016 Consented Layout Plan Period (2040) (ha)

Area at End of Final Layout Plan Period (2040) (ha)

Change between 2016 Consented Layout and Final Layout at End of Plan Period (2040) (ha)

Sitka spruce 260.4 226.4 192.3 171.0 -21.3

Sitka spruce/Japanese larch 21.5 18.1

13.5 14.4 +0.9

Sitka spruce/Lodgepole pine

32.2 32.2 20.7 22.7 +2.0

Sitka spruce/Japanese larch Lodgepole pine

1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.0

Japanese larch 19.6 17.7 13.7 10.8 -2.9

Lodgepole pine 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.1 +0.2

Lodgepole pine/Japanese larch

0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Native Broadleaves 21.0 28.2 51.1 51.7 0.0

Open Ground 265.6 297.7 261.9 277.9 +16.0

Turbine and Infrastructure Open Ground

0.0 0.0 32.9 37.4 +4.5

Bog Habitat Restoration Open Ground

0.0 0.0 13.8 13.8 0.0

Hen Harrier Habitat Open Ground

0.0 0.0 21.5 21.5 0.0

TOTAL 623.5 623.5 623.5 623.5


Figure 9.4: Comparison of current species composition with Baseline, 2016 Consented Layout and & Final Layout Development Restocking Plans Graph

9.40 A summary of the comparison of Baseline, 2016 Consented and Final Layout Restocking Plans:

From an initial conifer stocked area of 336.9 ha in 2021 there is a net reduction of 39.3 ha under the Baseline Forest Plan because of standard forest planning processes, while the Final Layout Forest Plan sees a nett reduction of 115.7 ha (i.e. an additional 76.4ha). The 2016 Consented Layout set out a net conifer reduction of 94.6 ha, or 21.1 ha less than the Final Layout.

Open ground associated with forestry increases under the Baseline Forest Plan by 32.1 ha.

Under the Final Layout 37.4 ha of open ground is required for Wind Farm infrastructure, which is 4.5 ha more than proposed under the 2016 Consented Layout;

To deliver the Final Layout, 21.5 ha of hen harrier habitat enhancement and 13.8 ha of bog habitat restoration will take place as part of the HMP, as per the 2016 Consented Layout.

Within the forest boundary the area of broadleaved woodland increases from 21.0 ha to 28.2 ha under the Baseline Forest Plan, an increase of 7.2 ha, and from 21.0 ha to 51.7 ha in the Final Layout Forest Plan, an increase of 0.6 ha compared to the 2016 Consented Layout and 30.7 ha overall; and


From a total stocked area of 357.9 ha (all woodland types) in 2021, the stocked area decreases under the Baseline Forest Plan by 32.1 ha to 325.8 ha, and by 85.0 ha to 272.9 ha under the Final Layout Forest Plan. The 2016 Consented Layout would have resulted in a reduction in stocked area of 293.4 ha, which is 20.5 ha less than proposed under the Final Layout.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINAL LAYOUT DEVELOPMENT FELLING AND RESTOCKING PLANS

9.41 A total felling programme of 134.4 ha is directly associated with the Development in 2021; included within this area is 99.1 ha of felling for turbines and infrastructure, 21.5 ha felled and not replanted to enhance hen harrier habitat and 13.8 ha of crop felled and not replanted for HMP bog restoration. The 99.1 ha of felling for turbines and infrastructure is based on the maximum possible felling required to facilitate the Development. Post-consent and pre-construction the final felling areas will be defined based on confirmed turbine specification and may result in a reduced area of felling required. Of the total area felled for construction, 61.7 ha of replanting will take place on completion of the construction in turbine keyholes (up to the bat protection buffer zones around turbine bases), on borrow pits and temporary site compounds, and alongside the access tracks. All felling operations will be carried out in accordance with latest published guidelines and industry best practice. A further 9.8 ha of Sitka spruce will be replanted as part of routine forestry operations in Phase 3, along with an additional 9.2 ha of native broadleaves planted to prevent the development of suitable hen harrier habitat on the north side of Auchengilloch Hill – an operation which would not be undertaken under normal forestry circumstances. Furthermore, outwith the forest property boundary but within the wider proposed development area, 4.1 ha of native broadleaves will be planted to improve the riparian habitat along the Feeshie Burn, in an area previously used for extensive livestock grazing.

9.42 Using the most up to date (Mar 2015) Guidance to FCS staff on implementing the Scottish Governments' Policy on Control of Woodland Removal, we have operated on the basis of a requirement for a hectare for hectare replacement. We have taken into account that the Baseline Forest Plan in the absence of development would have restructured the woodland to conform with current landscape and forest planning principles, which leads to some reduction in the area of like for like woodland required. We have not applied any further reductions for windfarm roads, as we feel there is no strong case that these would have been required to serve the forest. In accordance with the revised Control of Woodland Removal Implementation Guidance and in consultation with SNH, areas being restored to active blanket bog (Annex 1 Priority Habitat) and the adjacent SSSI/SPA have not been included in the compensatory planting calculations. In addition, areas of newly created woodland along the Feeshie Burn and areas replanted with broadleaves within the forest, which would not normally be restocked following harvesting have been taken into account to offset the felling area.

9.43 Table 9.5 summarises the considerations in arriving at an appropriate level of compensatory planting for addressing the Scottish Government's Control of Woodland Removal Policy in relation to the proposed Development.


Table 9.5: Compensatory planting requirement calculation associated with the Development Final Layout

Consideration Final Layout

Area Subtotal of area subject to compensatory planting (ha)

Development and infrastructure Felling

99.1 99.1

Replanting post construction

61.7 37.4

Additional Planting to prevent Hen Harrier Habitat

9.2 28.2

Feeshie Burn Woodland Creation

4.1 24.1

Nett Woodland Removal 24.1

9.44 As detailed in Table 9.5, an area of 24.1 ha has been identified as requiring compensatory planting under the Control of Woodland Removal Policy. This is 13.7 ha more than the 10.4 ha proposed as a result of the 2016 Consented Layout.

9.45 For this woodland loss, the Applicant is willing to agree to a condition requiring off-site compensatory planting as per Condition 40 of the Consent for the Original Application.

TIMBER HARVESTING VOLUMES

9.46 Table 9.6 shows the estimated maximum theoretical volume of timber that could be harvested during the 20 year period of the Forest Plan to accommodate the Final Layout. A comparison is made with the potential volume harvested under the Baseline, 2016 Consented Development and Final Layout Development Felling Plans.

9.47 It should be noted that much of the forestry felled within Phase 1 of the Final Layout Felling Plan will be growing at a suboptimal rate and be found on fragile deep peat soils. The tree size and risk of damaging the soil from extracting timber will likely result in the need for suitably constructed and maintained brash mats to undertake harvesting operations. The section below, Harvesting Management Practices and Forestry Waste, discusses the use of the timber detailed in Table 9.6.


Table 9.6: Theoretical Timber Harvesting Production Figures Baseline 2016 Consented

Layout Final Layout Application

Variance Final Layout vs. 2016 Consented Layout

Felling Phase Area Felled (ha)

Vol. (m3)

Tonnes (T)

Area Felled (ha)

Vol. (m3)

Tonnes (T)

Area Felled (ha)

Vol. (m3)

Tonnes (T)

Tonnes (T)

Turbine & Infrastructure Fell Area

0 0 0 48.3 4,293 3,868 99.1 9,832 8,938 +5,070

HMP Hen Harrier Fell Area 0 0

0 21.5 1,610 1,450 21.5 1,680 1,527 +77

HMP Bog Rest. 0 0 0 13.8 878 791 13.8 1,078 980 +189

Phase 1 2021-2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phase 2 2026-2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phase 3 2031-2035 15.3 4,728 4,046 15.3 4,728 4,046 15.3 4,728 4,046 0

Phase 4 2036-2040 33.5 14,070 12,042 12.0 5,040 4,314 12.0 5,040 4,314 0

TOTAL 48.8 18,798 16,088 110.9 16,549 14,469 161.7 22,357 19,805 +5,336

9.48 From Table 9.6 it can be seen that the increase in harvesting associated with the Final Layout when compared to the Baseline Felling Plan, results in an additional 3,717 Tonnes of timber being felled over the life time of the 20 year Forest Plan period.

9.49 The Final Layout with resulted in 5,336 Tonnes more timber being felled over the life time of the Forest Plan period compared to the 2016 Consented Layout. This is because the Phase 1 felling, including the two HMP felling areas, will be harvested in 2021 rather than 2018 as described in the original ES and 2016 Consented Layout. Therefore, the trees will have had three more years of growth and timber accumulation.

9.50 However, as stated above, much of the Phase 1 felling will be carried out in forestry crops growing at Yield Class 6 or lower on deep peat soils. As such no meaningful or merchantable timber can or will be recovered.

HARVESTING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES & FORESTRY WASTE

Forestry Waste Issues

9.51 Consideration has been given to the disposal of non-forestry residues in line with the Management of Forestry Waste WST-G-027 version 3 (Dec 2017) advice from SEPA and the accompanying Use of Trees Cleared to Facilitate Development on Afforested Land – Joint Position Statement and Guidance (February 2014) from the SEPA, SNH and FCS.

9.52 These policies require consideration of unmerchantable timber, residual brash and stumps produced by tree harvesting to facilitate developments where standard forestry replanting is not being undertaken.

9.53 In the context of the proposed Development, this relates to previously afforested areas associated with:


37.4 ha of ground to be felled and maintained as tree free for turbines and infrastructure, to be felled and cleared of brash with 10.4 ha of this area requiring stump removal for infrastructure footprints

21.5 ha associated with habitat creation for Annex 1 Priority Species (hen harrier, short-eared owl, merlin) where stumps will be retained but brash will be generated;

13.8 ha associated with restoration of an area of Annex 1 Priority Habitat (Blanket bog) where stumps will be retained but brash will be generated.

Ground Conditions

9.54 A high proportion of the turbines and associated infrastructure are located in elevated and exposed locations on peaty soils. Wet, infertile peats result in tree crops with poor, checked growth and correspondingly low commercial, landscape and ecological value. Such soils are at risk of being damaged as part of forestry harvesting operations, regardless of being associated with forestry or renewables developments.

9.55 The passage of forestry machinery used for felling, processing and extraction of timber can result in rutting, compaction and soil erosion unless appropriate ground protection measures are employed as detailed under the section entitled "Brash" below. Further details on ground conditions across the proposed Development Area, including details of peat distribution and condition, are provided in Chapter 7 (Ground Conditions and Hydrology).

Forestry Access

9.56 All timber that can be extracted will utilise the newly constructed Kype Muir Wind Farm main access route, which leads to the B743 and from there onto the A71. New internal access roads will be required for the Development, elements of which will be "floating roads" i.e. roads constructed on peat over 1 m in depth, further details of which can be found in the Construction Management Plan.

Timber Markets

9.57 At the time of writing, timber markets are buoyant, with the proposed Development Area being well located to take advantage of major sawlog, wood panel, pulp mills and biomass plants located in the region and nationally.

Materials Generated – Merchantable Timber

9.58 Of the 134.4 ha area proposed to be felled for the proposed Development, 72.7 ha constitutes crops which will be felled but not be replanted. As set out in Table 9.6 above 12,590 m3 (11,445 T) of timber will be generated of which 4,062 m3 (3,660 T) is estimated to be conventionally merchantable material.

Material Generated – Unmerchantable Timber

9.59 Of ground to be felled and not replanted 109.6 ha is represented by extremely poor, low yield class trees producing crops below conventionally harvestable volumes. As no conventional figures are available for the production of unmerchantable material, the lowest conventionally measurable volume has been used, being Yield Class 6 crop at age 32, which has a net volume of 83 m3 per ha or 71 T per ha after accounting for 5 % integral open ground.


9.60 On this basis, the forecast production of conventionally unmerchantable material is 8,564 m3 (7,715 T).

Material Generate – Brash and Stumps

9.61 Unlike timber volumes and tonnages, there is an absence of published research data regarding volumes and tonnages of brash and stumps produced per hectare of commercial conifer crop. Using the assumption that the volume/tonnage of brash and stumps is produced is equal to the volume/tonnage of standing merchantable timer, and that there are equal amounts of brash and stumps. Therefore, a tree crop measured at 400 m3 of standing timber should produce 200 m3 of brash and 200 m3 of stumps. On this basis the following volumes of brash and stumps will be generated from non-forestry replant areas:

Brash: 3,264 m3 (2,940 T)

Stumps: 1,873 m3 (1,687 T)

Total: 5,137 m3 (4,627 T)

Destination of Forestry Material

9.62 The following information details the use and destination of the various forestry materials resulting from felling associated with the proposed Development.

Merchantable Timber: 4,062 m3 (3,660 T)

9.63 Merchantable materials will be sold into existing markets, which for sawlogs are likely to include BSW at Dalbeattie, James Jones & Son at Lockerbie and Forest Garden at Lockerbie. Small round wood markets are likely to include Egger at Barony (Cumnock) and Iggesund at Workington.

Unmerchantable Material: 8,564m3 (7,715 T)

9.64 Crops in unmerchantable areas are growing poorly as a direct result of the ground conditions, which are very wet, very poor and on peaty soils, growing trees which are shorter and have smaller dimension and lower amounts of branches than larger, commercially mature crops on better sites. In these very wet areas the unmerchantable material generated will be required to support harvesting machinery and protect soils from rutting, compaction and erosion in the form of brash mats.

9.65 Clearance (harvesting) of afforested areas for the proposed Development will have to occur prior to the proposed Development and associated infrastructure. As these sites by their very nature are the most sensitive to ground disturbance, the brash mats used will be left in-situ post harvesting, as the benefits of removal are out-weighed by the potential damage associated with extraction.

9.66 Additional brash mat routes will need to be created for harvesting access and timber extraction purposes for felling areas in both the north and south of the property, requiring approximately 1.8 km of brash mat tracks to extract timber to existing roadside areas. On the basis that brash tracks will be a minimum of 4.0 m wide and approximately 0.5 m deep, 2.0 m3 of brash will be required per linear meter of brash mat, equating to 3,600 m3 for the 1.8 km of access brash mats.


9.67 It is therefore considered that the 8,564 m3 (7,715 T) of material theoretically produced, will be used in the construction and regular maintenance of brash mats within the operational harvesting areas and for the access routes (a more detailed description of brash mats is included under brash and stumps below).

Brash and Stumps: 5,137 m3 (4,627 T)

9.68 On a conventional, good quality, harvesting site the trees are felled and the branches and tips of the trees are removed to leave clean tree trunks, which are cut into product specification lengths, forming the merchantable material. The remaining branches and "lop and top" form the brash, which are collected up to form brash mats to protect the soil and help support the weight of harvester and forwarder movements across the site. This results in brash lanes across the harvesting site approximately every 10-15 m, with the intervening areas being relatively free from brash.

9.69 The use of brash mats is particularly important on wet, peaty soils characteristic of those found over the majority of the proposed Development Area and as such, following industry best practice, the use of brash mats is considered essential. Through operational use, brash mats degrade in service and become embedded in the soft, wet ground. As the brash mats break down they will be renewed using fresh material generated from harvesting. Post harvesting it is proposed brash mats are left in-situ, as the ground disturbance associated with digging out brash material from the ground is considered to out weight any benefit associated with removal

9.70 Due to the risk of soil erosion associated with stump removal on peaty soils on elevated sites, tree stumps in areas to be harvested and maintained as tree free will be cut as close as possible to the ground and allowed to remain in-situ and degrade naturally along with the brash as per standard forestry practice for areas reverting to open ground habitats in forests. Only the area required for the physical construction footprint of the proposed Development will have stumps removed. On this basis, it is estimated 1,873 m3 (1,687 T) of stumps will be generated.

9.71 Significant sections of new road required for the proposed Development will be located on peat over 1 m deep, requiring construction of "floating roads". The current preference is for the 3,624 m3 (2,940 T) of brash and 1,873 m3 (1,687 T) of stumps generated to be used in the construction of the base of these "floating roads". Based on a road specification of 7 m total width, a layer of brash and stumps 50 cm deep (fully compacted) would be laid along the track, with the combined 5,137 m3 of brash and stump material supporting the construction of 1.46 km (1,467 m) of "floating road".

9.72 Using the stump and brash material in the construction of roading infrastructure is considered to be the most appropriate use of this material, as it will assist in construction of a robust road network which will benefit both the Proposed development and ongoing management of the forests, while eliminating the need to remove materials from site and the associated vehicle movements. It also has to be noted that some of this material may not be available as it may have to be used to supplement material for brash mat construction and maintenance.

9.73 If it is not possible to re-use the stump and brash material on site, off-site markets for biomass or horticultural mulch will be explored with the associated 5,137 m3 (4,627 T) of brash and stumps generating approximately an additional 308 loaded lorry movements.

Summary


9.74 A summary of forest residue material and its proposed end use is provided below:

Table 9.7 Summary table of forest residue production and use

Forest Residue Material

Volume (m3)

Tonnage (T)

Forest Residue Use

Merchantable Material 4,062 3,660 Conventional timber markets, generating 146 loaded timber lorry movements

Unmerchantable Material 8,564 7,715

Used in brash mat construction and maintenance for soil protection during timber harvesting and extraction

Brash 3,264 2,940 Construction of floating roads or biomass/horticultural chip markets

Stumps 1,873 1,687 Construction of floating roads or biomass/horticultural chip markets

TOTAL 17,763 16,002

9.75 It is important to note that the estimates above are considered to be the maximum amounts theoretically generated and it is considered likely that areas of poorer quality crops (which dominate these areas) will produce less material than forecast.

9.76 In addition, the areas of proposed felling area based on the maximum possible turbine size being considered on site. The felling area will be finalised on completion of the turbine procurement process and may well result in a reduced felling area.

9.77 This information demonstrates that all forestry materials generated as a result of felling to construct the proposed Development can either be sold to existing conventional markets, or re-used on site in a number of constructive ways in the case of brash and stumps. On this basis, there will be no requirement for mulching or spreading of crops across the site.

Restocking

9.78 The restocking specifications and methods were discussed and covered in the original ES.

RESIDUAL EFFECT

9.79 The area of productive conifer forestry is reduced from 297.6 ha under the Baseline Forest Plan to 221.2 ha under the Final Layout Development Forest Plan. The 2016 Consented Layout detailed a productive conifer area of 242.3 ha at the end of the 20 year Forest Plan period.

9.80 The age structure of the forest will undergo advanced restructuring in places due to the area (134.4 ha) to be felled in one operation to facilitate the proposed Development. Subsequent restocking in places that will remain under forestry will result in areas of young woodland onsite, with a greatly increased presence of broadleaf woodland.


9.81 Felling due to the Final Layout results in 3,717 tonnes more timber being produced within the 20-year Forest Plan period compared to the Baseline Forest Plan in the absence of the proposed Development. Around 61% of the theoretical timber harvested during the Final Layout Forest Plan will be felled during the initial construction phase of the Development.

9.82 Overall, it is considered that the net residual effect is minimal and not significant.

REFERENCES

Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (Scotland) Regulation. (1999)

Forestry Commission Scotland. (2009) Scottish Government Control of Woodland Removal Policy. Forestry Commission Scotland.

Forestry Commission. (2011) The UK Forestry Standard: The Government's Approach to Sustainable Forestry. Forestry Commission.

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. (2017) Management of Forestry Waste WST-G-027 Version 3. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.

UKWAS 4.0. (2018) The UK Woodland Assurance Standard Fourth Edition. UKWAS.


10. NOISE

SUMMARY

This chapter contains an assessment of the potential noise effects from the operational phase of the proposed Development.

A new set of Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits have been derived which take account of the proposed increase in turbine hub height. As part of the assessment a new set of Site Specific Noise Limits were derived for the receptors located closest to the proposed Development. The Site Specific Noise Limits were derived to be 10dB below the Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits or, where significant headroom was identified between the noise limits and predicted noise levels from existing wind farms, then the Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits were apportioned in accordance with good practice.

A cumulative noise assessment has been undertaken to consider the proposed Development operating concurrently with a number of nearby operational and consented wind turbine developments. The cumulative noise assessment indicates that total predicted cumulative noise levels meet the Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits at the nearest noise sensitive receptors.

In addition, the predicted operational noise immission levels from the proposed Development meet the Site Specific Noise Limits at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. On that basis no significant effects are predicted.

There are a range of turbine models that may be appropriate for the proposed Development and if consent is granted further data will be obtained from the supplier for the final choice of turbine model to demonstrate compliance with the Site Specific Noise Limits derived in this report.


10.1 The noise assessment was undertaken by TNEI Services Ltd (TNEI). TNEI is a specialist energy consultancy with an Acoustics team which has undertaken noise assessments for over 4GW of onshore wind farm developments in Scotland and the UK. The noise assessment was undertaken by staff who are all members of the Institute of Acoustics.

INTRODUCTION

10.2 This chapter summarises the findings of the operational noise assessment, included in full in Technical Appendix 10.1 (Operational Noise Assessment).

SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

Study Area

10.3 The study area remains the same as that considered in the noise assessment for the original Kype Muir Extension which considered the closest noise sensitive receptors to the proposed Development. The nearest noise sensitive receptors and wind turbine developments to the proposed Development are shown on Figure A1.1 of Technical Appendix 10.1.



10.4 The Scoping Response issued by SLC for the proposed Development contained information specifically relating to operational noise. A construction noise assessment was included in the original submission and as such construction noise has been scoped out of this application. A summary of the information and the actions taken to address the requests is given in Table 10.1 below.



South Lanarkshire Council (SLC)

Scoping Opinion

Consented Conditions

The consented conditions in place will require to be met. The updated noise impact assessment should demonstrate that the operational parameters as evaluated are met using ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise and also the IOA Good Practice Guide to the

application of ETSU‐R‐97.

Configuration of the Wind Farm

Where the configuration of the wind farm has changed consideration needs to be given to the controlling property principle.

Turbines for other Schemes

The noise assessment should consider where known the selected turbine rather than proposed candidates.

Hub height adjustment

Adjustments in hub height may require a corrected wind shear calculation to determine the wind speeds standardised to 10m (v10).

The consented conditions would not appropriate for the proposed Development as the limits need to be set relative to the turbine hub height. The noise limits have therefore been updated to reflect the potential increase in turbine hub height (as noise limits are set relative to hub height wind speeds standardised to a 10m reference height). A new set of noise limits to replace the numbers included in Tables 1 and 2 of the Decision Notice are included in Tables 10.10 and 10.11.

The configuration of the wind farm will not change. The controlling property principal has not been used in the assessment but full details of the approach adopted are provided.

As part of the cumulative noise assessment the installed turbine type has been modelled where information on the turbine type was available. Where warranted data was available then it has been used in the modelling. In the absence of warranted data the noise data has been analysed in accordance with Section 4.2 of the IOA GPG.

The maximum hub height considered was 165m. In order to account for the change in hub height and the uncertainty with extrapolation, TNEI worked with



This may be from direct calculation or using the differential method to determine the wind shear exponent, hub height and thereafter the v10. Should the hub height change, the anemometer used for the initial assessment shall be not less than 60% of the new hub height and the lower anemometer at least 15m lower than the upper.

Change in tip height only

Where the hub height remains the same and the height is adjusted by increasing the rotor swept diameter, the sound power levels should also be adjusted accordingly.

Amplitude Modulation

The Amplitude Modulation may require consideration as a result of the greater wind shear differential and possibility of aerodynamic noise (trailing edge) and or stalling.

wind resource specialists at Prevailing to determine an appropriate methodology to consider and account for the potential uncertainty associated with extrapolation but also the variation in wind speeds between the Kype Muir mast location and the proposed Development Site. Further details on the methodology adopted in provided in Section 4.3 of Technical Appendix 10.1.

An appropriate candidate turbine has been modelled which is representative of the turbine hub and tip heights proposed.

There is currently no method for predicting AM at the planning stage. Further information on AM can be found in Section 3.3 of Technical Appendix 10.1

Energy Consents Unit

The noise response provided a summary of the points detailed in the Scoping Opinion issued by SLC which are summarised above.

None, see above.

10.5 Direct consultation was undertaken on 16th May 2018 with the Environmental Health Department at SLC in order to respond to the points raised in the Scoping Response and also to provide further information on the approach to the noise assessment for the proposed Development.

10.6 Details of the consultation are provided in the Annex 2 of Technical Appendix 10.1 (Operational Noise Assessment). Construction and decommissioning noise was assessed in the original submission and therefore has been scoped out of the variation application for the proposed Development.


10.7 The assessment was undertaken using the following combination of guidance and assessment methodologies:

Planning Advice Note PAN 1/2011: ‘Planning and Noise’30;

30 The Scottish Government, 2011. Planning Advice Note PAN 1/2011: Planning and Noise - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/343210/0114180.pdf


Web Based Renewables Advice: ‘Onshore Wind Turbines’ (last updated May 2014)31;

ETSU-R-97 ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’32;

ISO9613: 1996 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors Part 2: General method of calculation’33; and

Institute of Acoustics ‘A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise’ (2013) (IOA GPG)34.

10.8 The above documents are discussed in detail within Technical Appendix 10.1 (Operational Noise Assessment).

METHODOLOGY

10.9 As per the approach adopted for the operational noise assessment for the original Kype Muir Extension, the operational noise assessment for the proposed Development has been undertaken in three separate stages:

Stage 1 – derive new Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits which take account of the uncertainty associated with extrapolation and the variation in wind speeds across Kype Muir and the proposed Development.

Stage 2 – undertake noise predictions to determine whether noise immission levels attributable to the Development are within 10dB of the total noise predictions from the other wind farms/turbines within the area. Where turbine predictions are within 10dB then undertake a cumulative noise assessment; and

Stage 3 – establish the ‘Site Specific Noise Limits’ for the Proposed Development based on 10 dB below the ‘Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits’ or where significant headroom occurs apportion the Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits and compare the noise predictions from the Proposed Development on its own against the ‘Site Specific Noise Limits.’

10.10 The aim of the noise assessment was therefore to determine the likely significant impacts of the proposed Development at the nearest noise sensitive receptors, to derive Site Specific Noise Limits (which consider the potential maximum increase in hub height) and to demonstrate that the proposed Development can meet the criteria.

10.11 Due to the potential hub heights for the proposed Development will vary up to a maximum of 165m, the wind speeds were re-calculated to consider the worst case hub height and the resultant data was standardised to 10m.

31 The Scottish Government, Web Based Renewables Advice: ‘Onshore Wind Turbines’ – updated May 28th 2014 -

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451413.pdf 32 The Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines (1996) ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind

Farms’, ETSU for the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) 33 International standards organisation, ISO9613:1996 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors’ – Part 2:

General method of calculation 34 Institute of Acoustics (2013) ‘Good Practice Guidance on the application of ETSU-R-97 for wind turbine noise assessment’

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451413.pdf


10.12 Section 2.6 of the IOA GPG discusses wind speed measurement and details methodologies which can be used to derive standardised wind speeds. In relation to the methodology to be applied to allow the adjustment for an increase in hub height the guidance states:

‘A meaningful extrapolation should be undertaken, and this would be achieved with the upper anemometer (2) being at a height not less than 60% of the hub height of the proposed turbine and the lower anemometer (1) at least 15 metres below it. Within those requirements, the two measurement heights closest to the hub height should be used.’

10.13 The maximum hub height of the turbines proposed is 165m therefore the 70m mast used for the original Kype Muir baseline assessment equates to approximately 42% of the original hub which is less than the 60% which is referenced in Section 2.6 of the IOA GPG. In the absence of guidance to assess the scenario at the proposed Development, TNEI consulted with wind resource specialists (Prevailing Ltd) to determine an appropriate methodology to consider, and account for, the potential uncertainty associated with extrapolating using a mast which is less than 60% of the hub height.

10.14 The approach adopted for the assessment calculated the hub height wind speeds (165m) based on the wind speed / shear data recorded at the 70m mast. The uncertainty associated with extrapolating the wind speeds from 70m to hub heights up to 165m was calculated, and the resultant wind speed time series was adjusted to account for the uncertainty. The adjustment to consider the uncertainty associated with using a mast which is less than 60% of the maximum turbine hub height is designed to result in conservative noise limits which will protect local residents.

10.15 In addition, due to the differing topography Prevailing also considered the systematic difference in wind speeds as measured on Kype Muir Wind Farm and those modelled at the proposed Development.

10.16 Further detailed information on the calculations used to account for both the uncertainty associated with the extrapolation from the 70m mast and the correction to account for the systematic difference in wind speeds between the two sites will be included in Section 4.3 of Technical Appendix 10.1.

10.17 For the receptors where noise limits were originally set for Dungavel Wind Farm an adjustment has been made to the data and the noise limits have been moved 1ms-1 to the right which results in the production of more conservative noise limits. The 1ms-1 was deemed appropriate and was in line with the adjustments made to the Kype Muir Noise Limits.

10.18 The existing consented noise limits for the original Kype Muir Extension are set 10 dB below the noise limits that were already allocated to the existing Kype Muir and Dungavel Wind Farms such that the original Kype Muir Extension would have a negligible impact on the ability of those schemes to meet their noise limits. This was a simplistic approach deemed suitable at the time of that original application.

10.19 The same approach was adopted for the proposed Development however in accordance with the IOA GPG, more detailed consideration has also been given to instances where ‘significant headroom (>5 dB)’ exists between the Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits and the predicted levels from other schemes. In such instances the IOA GPG notes that:


‘In cases where there is significant headroom (e.g. 5 to 10 dB) between the predicted noise levels from the existing wind farm and the total ETSU-R-97 limits, where there would be no realistic prospect of the existing wind farm producing noise levels up to the total ETSU-R-97 limits, agreement could be sought with the LPA as to a suitable predicted noise level (including an appropriate margin to cover factors such as potential increases in noise) from the existing wind farm to be used to inform the available headroom for the cumulative assessment without the need for negotiation or cumulative conditioning.’

10.20 Accordingly, at locations where significant headroom exists cautious predictions of noise from all other developments have been made (by adding 2 dB35) to the likely levels. The cautious predictions have then been subtracted from the Total ETSU-R-97 noise limits to determine the residual noise limit which could be allocated to the proposed Development. Where significant headroom does not exist, the Site Specific Noise Limits have been set 10 dB below the Total ETSU-R-97 noise limits as per the original application.

10.21 The exact model of turbine to be used at the Site will be determined as the result of a future tendering process should consent be granted. Achievement of the noise limits determined by this assessment will be a key determining factor in the final choice of turbine for the proposed Development. The noise assessment was based upon a candidate turbine, a Nordex N131 3.9MW wind turbine. This turbine has been selected as it is considered to be representative of the scale of turbine which could be installed on the Site. Predictions of wind turbine noise in the tables below have therefore been made based upon sound power level data for the Nordex N131 3.9MW wind turbine and a noise prediction model that was considered to provide a realistic impact assessment. The noise model used in this assessment alters turbine noise data to account for different hub heights, where applicable. The hub heights considered in this assessment are up to 101 m, 121 m, 145 m and 165 m.

10.22 Issues relating to operational noise such as Amplitude Modulation and Low Frequency Noise are also addressed in detail within Technical Appendix 10.1 (Operational Noise Assessment).


10.23 ETSU-R-97 does not define significance criteria, but describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development. Achievement of ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits ensures that wind turbine noise will meet current Government guidance.

10.24 In terms of the EIA Regulations, the terminology of significance used in this chapter refers to compliance/non-compliance with the ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits. For situations where predicted wind turbine noise meets or is less than the noise limits defined in ETSU-R-97, then the noise effects are deemed not significant Any breach of the ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits is deemed to result in a significant effect.

BASELINE CONDITIONS

35 It should be noted that, due to the logarithmic way in which the decibel is measured and expressed, a 2 dB increase is the equivalent of a 60% increase in sound energy. To put this into context for the 26 turbines at the existing Kype Muir Wind Farm, adding 2 dB is equivalent to modelling 41 turbines. This is therefore considered to be a robust approach.


10.25 The baseline conditions have changed due to the increase in maximum hub height, and a re-analysis of the data from the original baseline survey has been carried out to reflect this. Wind speeds have been re-analysed using the methodology stated in Sections 7.11 to 7.16 above. The data has been analysed in accordance with the Institute of Acoustics Good Practice Guidance, which was released in 2013 (after the original 2010 baseline survey). Updated Wind Conditions and Regression Analysis can be found in Figure A1.2a – A1.2F of Technical Appendix 10.1.

10.26 The noise assessment locations for the operational noise assessment are the same as those considered in the original Kype Muir Extension’s ES.


10.27 It is possible that noise propagation and noise immissions could change over the life of the project due to climate change. However noise limits are set for the life of the project and so the operator has to ensure that the proposed Development operates to within the noise limits throughout the lifetime of the scheme. In the event that climate change resulted in the exceedance of limits, turbine noise could be reduced through curtailment measures.

Information Gaps

10.28 A candidate turbine (Nordex N131 3.9MW) has been used for predictions of operational noise from the proposed Development, whilst the final model of turbine to be used may differ from that presented here operational noise levels will have to comply with the noise limits established in this noise assessment. No other assumptions or data gaps have been identified.


Determining the Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits (Stage 1)

10.29 The prevailing background noise data collected as part of the original noise assessment for Kype Muir Wind Farm was adjusted to take account of the potential maximum increase in hub height, the uncertainty associated with extrapolation and the difference in wind speeds across the two sites. The Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits have been established for each of the NALs as detailed in Table 10.2 and Table 10.3 below, based on an upper fixed minimum of 40dB (Daytime) or background plus 5dB and 43dB (Night-time) or background plus 5dB.

10.30 The updated regression analysis graphs are shown on Figures A1.2a-A1.2f included in Annex 1 of Technical Appendix 10.1.


Table 10.2: Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits- Daytime

Receptor Wind Speed (ms-1) as standardised to 10m height

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

NAL1 - High Dykes

Farm 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42.4 45.5 49.4

NAL2 - Gainer Hill

Cottages 40 40 40 40 40 40 40.8 43.1 45.6 48.5 51.7 55.2

NAL3 - Hawkwood

Farm 40 40 40 40 40 40 41.4 43.4 45.9 48.9 52.3 56.2

NAL4 - Lambhill

Steading * 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 49.1 54.5

NAL5 - Hazliebank 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40.9 43.5 46.7 50.4 54.7

NAL8 - Kype

Lodge** 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 48.2 53.9

NAL9 – Burnside

Farm 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40.9 42.8 44.7 46.5 48.3

NAL10 –

Glengavel House 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42.5 45.8 49.3 53.1

NAL11 – 5

Hamilton Drive 40 40 40 40 40 40 40.4 42.2 43.9 45.7 47.4 49.2

NAL24 – Logan

Farm *** 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 48.2 53.9

* Financially involved with Kype Muir Wind Farm ** Owned by Auchrobert Wind Farm *** Financially involved with Cumberhead Wind Farm therefore limits adjusted accordingly

Table 10.3: Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits- Night-time

Receptor

Wind Speed (ms-1) as standardised to 10m height

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

NAL1 - High Dykes

Farm 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 45.5 50

NAL2 - Gainer Hill

Cottages 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43.9 47.5 50.7 53.2

NAL3 - Hawkwood

Farm 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 44.2 47.5 51.1 55.2

NAL4 - Lambhill

Steading 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 49.5

NAL5 - Hazliebank 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 44.7 47.7 50.6

NAL8 - Kype

Lodge 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46.9


Receptor

Wind Speed (ms-1) as standardised to 10m height

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

NAL9 – Burnside

Farm 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43.4 45.8 48.1

NAL10 –

Glengavel House 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43.5 46.1

NAL11 – 5

Hamilton Drive 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43.3 46.1 48.8

NAL24 – Logan

Farm 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46.9

Assessment of the likely effects and the requirement for a cumulative noise assessment (Stage 2)

10.31 A comparison has been undertaken of the predicted wind turbine noise immission levels from the proposed Development and all other schemes at each of the identified noise sensitive receptors in order to determine whether predictions are within 10dB of each other. As is detailed in Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 of the IOA GPG where noise immission levels are greater than 10dB apart then a cumulative noise assessment is not required. This is because addition of a new noise source which is at least 10dB quieter than the existing noise level will have a negligible impact on overall noise levels. Where predictions are found to be within 10dB of each other then a cumulative assessment is required. It was found that at eight of the 24 noise sensitive receptors considered, noise predictions from the proposed Development were within 10dB of the noise levels produced by the other schemes. On that basis, a cumulative assessment was required at the eight locations. Further details on the assessment results can be found in Section 6.1 of Technical Appendix 10.1 (Operational Noise Assessment).

10.32 The turbines modelled in the cumulative noise assessment are summarised in Technical Appendix 10.1 (Operational Noise Assessment) (Table 2 of Annex 4). Noise data for the candidate wind turbines has been obtained from the manufacturers and has been analysed in detail. Uncertainty has been accounted for using the guidance contained within Section 4.2 of the IOA GPG.

10.33 Noise predictions have been undertaken using the propagation model contained within Part 2 of International Standard ISO 9613-2, Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. The model calculates, on an octave band basis, attenuation due to geometric spreading, atmospheric absorption and ground effects. The noise model was set up to provide realistic noise predictions, including mixed ground attenuation

(G=0.5) and atmospheric attenuation relating to 70% Relative Humidity and 10C.

10.34 Typically wind farm noise assessments assume all properties are downwind of all turbines at all times (as this would result in the highest wind turbine noise levels). However, where properties are located in between groups of turbines they cannot be downwind of all turbines simultaneously so it is appropriate to consider the effect of wind direction on predicted noise levels. Where appropriate, cumulative predictions include for the effects of directivity as per Section 6.3 of Technical Appendix 10.1 (Operational Noise Assessment).

10.35 In line with current good practice, an assessment has been undertaken to determine whether a concave ground profile correction (+3dB) or barrier correction (-2dB) is


required due to the topography between the turbines and the noise sensitive receptors. A concave ground and barrier correction was found to be required for a number of turbines at a number of receptors. Details of the analysis for each receptor and turbine are contained in Annex 4 of Technical Appendix 10.1 (Operational Noise Assessment).

10.36 The assessment (shown in tabular form in Table 10.4 and Table 10.5) compares predicted cumulative wind turbine noise with the Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits. A negative exceedance indicates compliance with the limits. The Tables show that the predicted cumulative wind turbine noise immission levels meet the Total ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits under all conditions and at all locations for both daytime and night-time periods.


Table 10.4: Total ETSU-R-97 Compliance Table – Daytime

Noise Assessment Location Wind Speed (ms-1) as standardised to 10m height

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

NA

L1

- H

igh

Dykes F

arm

Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limit

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42.4 45.5 49.4

Predicted Cumulative Wind Turbine Noise LA90

- - - - - 37.3 38.5 39 39.1 39.1 39.1 39.1

Exceedance Level LA90 - - - - - -2.7 -1.5 -1 -0.9 -3.3 -6.4 -10.3

NA

L2

- G

ain

er

Hill

Co

ttag

es Total ETSU-R-97 Noise

Limit 40 40 40 40 40 40 40.8 43.1 45.6 48.5 51.7 55.2


- - - - - 37.7 38.6 39 39.2 39.3 39.3 39.3

Exceedance Level LA90 - - - - - -2.3 -2.2 -4.1 -6.4 -9.2 -12.4 -15.9

NA

L3

-

Haw

kw

oo

d F

arm


40 40 40 40 40 40 41.4 43.4 45.9 48.9 52.3 56.2


- - - - - 36.3 37.6 38 38.1 38.1 38.1 38.1


NA

L4

- L

am

bh

ill

Ste

adin

g


45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 49.1 54.5


- - - - - 38.5 40.1 40.3 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4


NA

L5

-

Hazlie

ba

nk Total ETSU-R-97 Noise

Limit 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40.9 43.5 46.7 50.4 54.7


- - - - - 36.6 37.9 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.4 38.4

Exceedance Level LA90 - - - - - -3.4 -2.1 -2.7 -5.2 -8.3 -12 -16.3


NA

L8

- K

ype

Lodg

e


45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 48.2 53.9


- - - - - 40.8 42.4 42.7 42.7 42.8 42.8 42.8


NA

L9

– B

urn

sid

e


40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40.9 42.8 44.7 46.5 48.3


- - - - - 37.2 38.5 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.3 39.3

Exceedance Level LA90 - - - - - -2.8 -1.5 -1.8 -3.6 -5.4 -7.2 -9

NA

L1

0 -

Gle

ng

avel


40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42.5 45.8 49.3 53.1


- - - - - 36.6 37.5 38 38.4 39.1 39.1 39.1

Exceedance Level LA90 - - - - - -3.4 -2.5 -2 -4.1 -6.7 -10.2 -14

NA

L1

1 –

5

Ham

ilto

n D

rive


40 40 40 40 40 40 40.4 42.2 43.9 45.7 47.4 49.2


- - - - - 37.1 38.5 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.3 39.3


NA

L2

4 –

Lo

gan

Farm


45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 48.2 53.9


- - - - - 33.6 34.9 35.2 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.3


Note: For the cumulative noise predictions the noise model considers the range of noise data available for each turbine type modelled. For some turbines noise data was not available for wind speeds less than 6 ms‐1 therefore no cumulative predictions are included for wind speeds less than 6 ms‐1.


Table 10.5: Total ETSU-R-97 Compliance Table - Night-time


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

NA

L1

- H

igh

Dykes F

arm

Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limit 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 45.5 50


- - - - - 37.3 38.5 39 39.1 39.1 39.1 39.1


NA

L2

- G

ain

er

Hill

Co

ttag

es

Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limit 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43.9 47.5 50.7 53.2


- - - - - 37.7 38.6 39 39.2 39.3 39.3 39.3


NA

L3

-

Haw

kw

oo

d F

arm

Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limit 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 44.2 47.5 51.1 55.2


- - - - - 36.3 37.6 38 38.1 38.1 38.1 38.1

Exceedance Level LA90 - - - - - -6.7 -5.4 -5 -6.1 -9.4 -13 -17.1

NA

L4

- L

am

bh

ill

Ste

adin

g Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limit 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 49.5


- - - - - 38.5 40.1 40.3 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4


NA

L5

-

Hazlie

ba

nk Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limit 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 44.7 47.7 50.6


- - - - - 36.6 37.9 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.4 38.4



NA

L8

- K

ype

Lodg

e

Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limit 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46.9


- - - - - 40.8 42.4 42.7 42.7 42.8 42.8 42.8


NA

L9

– B

urn

sid

e

Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limit 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43.4 45.8 48.1


- - - - - 37.2 38.5 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.3 39.3


NA

L1

0 -

Gle

ng

avel

Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limit 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43.5 46.1


- - - - - 36.6 37.5 38 38.4 39.1 39.1 39.1

Exceedance Level LA90 - - - - - -6.4 -5.5 -5 -4.6 -3.9 -4.4 -7

NA

L1

1 –

5

Ham

ilto

n D

rive

Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limit 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43.3 46.1 48.8


- - - - - 37.1 38.5 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.3 39.3

Exceedance Level LA90 - - - - - -5.9 -4.5 -3.9 -3.8 -4 -6.8 -9.5

NA

L2

4 –

Lo

gan

Farm

Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limit 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46.9


- - - - - 33.6 34.9 35.2 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.3


Note: For the cumulative noise predictions the noise model considers the range of noise data available for each turbine type modelled. For some turbines noise data

was not available for wind speeds less than 6 ms‐1 therefore no cumulative predictions are included for wind speeds less than 6 ms‐1.


Derivation of Site Specific Noise Limits for the Development (Stage 3)

10.37 The Site Specific Noise Limits have been derived to be 10dB below the Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits except where significant headroom is predicted to occur. Where significant headroom (>5dB margin between the predicted noise levels from all other schemes and the Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits) was found to occur, a +2dB buffer has been added to the predicted levels and the resultant cumulative wind turbine noise were logarithmically subtracted from the Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits to determine the Site Specific Noise Limits for the proposed Development. As per the Original Kype Muir Extension’s ES, Site Specific Noise Limits have been set at the closest receptors to the proposed Development as it was assumed that if noise limits can be achieved at these locations, the limits will also be achieved at other properties located at greater distance from the proposed Development.

10.38 The noise propagation parameters used in the assessment are as detailed in Sections 10.27-10.30 but exclude the impact of directivity.

10.39 Figures A1.3a to A1.3i (Annex 1 of Technical Appendix 10.1 Operational Noise Assessment) show the calculated wind turbine noise immission levels at the noise sensitive receptors which have been plotted as a function of wind speed at 10m height.

10.40 The assessment (shown in tabular form in Tables 10.6 and 10.7) shows that the predicted wind turbine noise immission levels from the proposed Development meet the Site Specific Noise Limits under all conditions and at all locations for both daytime and night-time periods at all receptors.


Table 10.6 Site Specific Noise Limits Compliance Table – Daytime


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

NA

L1

- H

igh

Dykes F

arm

Site Specific Noise Limit 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 32.4 35.5 39.4

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 - - - 18.6 23.3 27.0 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5

Exceedance Level LA90 - - - -11.4 -6.7 -3.0 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -3.9 -7.0 -10.9

NA

L2 -

Gain

er

Hill

Cottag

es




NA

L3 -

Haw

kw

ood

Farm



Exceedance Level LA90 - - - -8.7 -3.8 0.0 -0.2 -2.1 -4.6 -7.6 -11.0 -14.9

NA

L4 -

Lam

bhill

Ste

ad

ing




NA

L5 -

Hazlie

ban

k




NA

L8 -

Kype

Lo

dg

e Site Specific Noise Limit 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 38.2 43.9




NA

L9 –

Burn

sid




NA

L10 -

Gle

nga

vel Site Specific Noise Limit 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 32.5 35.8 39.3 43.1



NA

L11 –

5

Ham

ilton

Drive




NA

L24

–

Loga

n F

arm

Site Specific Noise Limit 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 43.7 47.9 53.8



Note: Noise data was not available for wind speeds less than 4 ms‐1 therefore no predictions are included for wind speeds less than 4 ms‐1.

Table 10.7 Site Specific Limits Compliance Table – Night-time


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

NA

L1 -

Hig

h

Dykes F

arm




NA

L2 -

Gain

er

Hill

Cottag

es





NA

L3 -

Haw

kw

ood

Farm




NA

L4 -

Lam

bhill

Ste

ad

ing




NA

L5 -

Hazlie

ban

k




NA

L8 -

Kype

Lo

dg

e




NA

L9 –

Burn

sid




NA

L10 -

Gle

nga

vel Site Specific Noise Limit 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.5 36.1



NA

L

11

–

5

Ham

ilton

Driv

e




Exceedance Level LA90 - - - -16.3 -11.6 -7.8 -6.3 -6.3 -6.3 -6.6 -9.4 -12.1 N

AL24

–

Loga

n F

arm

Site Specific Noise Limit 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43.7 44.3 46.5


Exceedance Level LA90 - - - -22.5 -17.1 -13.4 -12.5 -12.5 -12.5 -13.2 -13.8 -16

Note: Noise data was not available for wind speeds less than 4 ms‐1 therefore no predictions are included for wind speeds less than 4 ms‐1.


Micro-siting

10.41 The proposed Development will be required to comply with the Site Specific Noise Limits regardless of any micro-siting requirements.

MITIGATION


10.42 The exact model of turbine to be used for the proposed Development will be the result of a future tendering process. Achievement of the noise limits determined by this assessment will be a key determining factor in the final choice of turbines for the Site. Predictions of wind turbine noise have been based upon sound power level data for the Nordex N131 3.9MW wind turbine and a noise prediction model that can be considered to provide a realistic impact assessment.

RESIDUAL EFFECT

10.43 Predicted wind farm operational noise levels for the proposed Development at all Noise Assessment Locations (NALs) meet the Site Specific daytime and night-time Noise Limits. At some locations, under some wind conditions and for a certain proportion of the time wind farm noise may be audible; however, it will be at an acceptable level in relation to the ETSU-R-97 guidelines. On that basis no significant effects are predicted.


10.44 Predicted operational noise levels indicate that for dwellings neighbouring the proposed Development, wind turbine noise from the proposed Development will meet the Site Specific Noise Limits derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97 and current good practice.

10.45 There are a number of operational and consented wind turbines located in the vicinity of the proposed Development and therefore a cumulative assessment was undertaken. Predicted cumulative operational noise levels indicate that for noise sensitive receptors neighbouring the proposed Development, cumulative wind turbine noise will meet the Total ETSU-R-97 Noise Limits; therefore, the operational noise effects are deemed not significant.

10.46 Should the Scottish Ministers be minded to grant consent for the Variation it would be appropriate to update Tables 1 and 2 of the noise related planning condition (condition 28 – please see TA13.1 for details) to include the revised noise limits applicable to the proposed Development as detailed within Table 10.6 and 10.7 above.

REFERENCES

The Scottish Government (2011). PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise. Scotland: The Crown

The Scottish Government, Web Based Renewables Advice: ‘Onshore Wind Turbines’ – updated May 28th 2014 - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451413.pdf

IOA (2013). A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise’. UK: Institute of Acoustics.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451413.pdf


ISO (1996). ISO 9613-2:1996 Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors: Part 2 – General Method of Calculation. Geneva: International Organization for Standardisation.

The Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines (1996). ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise From Wind Farms. UK: Energy Technology Support Unit


11. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

SUMMARY

Existing traffic data was collected to establish a base point for assessing the traffic impact during the construction phase of the proposed Development. This was projected to future levels to allow a comparison to be made of the impact on the local road network with the addition of construction traffic.

The maximum traffic impact associated with construction of the wind farm is predicted to occur between months 9 and 11 of the construction programme. During these months, an average of 87 HGV movements are predicted per day and it is estimated that there will be a further 36 car and light van movements per day to transport construction workers travelling to and from the site.

The construction traffic will result in a temporary increase of traffic flows within the study area. During the construction of the wind farm the associated traffic impacts are predicted to be greatest on the Lambhill Road and the B743 south of Strathaven.

Due to the volume of additional construction traffic movements associated with the proposed Development, no significant long lasting capacity issues are expected on any of the roads within the study area.

With the implementation of mitigation measures such as an appropriate traffic management plan and suitable liaison with the Council, the residual traffic and transportation effects are temporary and have been assessed as having a minor effect which is not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.


11.1 The assessment was carried out by Liz Hunter BSc(Hons), CMILT, MIHT of WYG Environment Planning Transport Limited, part of WYG Group.

INTRODUCTION

11.2 This Chapter considers the likely significant effects on receptors along the transport routes resulting from vehicle movements associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed Development. The specific objectives of the chapter are to:

Outline the relevant legislative framework;

Describe the transport baseline;

Describe the assessment methodology and significance criteria used in completing the impact assessment;

Describe the potential effects, including direct, indirect and cumulative effects;


Describe the mitigation measures proposed to address likely significant effects; and

Assess the residual effects remaining following the implementation of mitigation.

11.3 An assessment of the effects of the traffic movements has been made in accordance with Institute of Environmental Assessment (now Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)) Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic. The document is referred to below as the IEMA Guidelines.

11.4 The chapter is supported by Appendix 11.1: Transport Assessment.

SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

Study Area

11.5 The study area which was agreed with SLC in relation to the original Kype Muir Extension submission comprises the parts of the public road network that could be used by construction and operational traffic accessing the Site. The study area is identical to that which was previously agreed, and used, in relation to the assessment undertaken for the under construction Kype Muir Wind Farm. Access to the Development is proposed from the B743, via the access route already approved in relation to the under construction Kype Muir Wind Farm. The roads identified as forming the likely route to Site by abnormal loads and construction traffic are the A71, A70, A723, A726 B743 and Lambhill Road.

11.6 No cumulative impacts are anticipated due to the proposed Development as no other significant developments that would impact on the study area are anticipated to be under construction (the main period of traffic generation) within the same timescale. Cumulative effects have therefore been scoped out of the assessment.


11.7 The Applicant submitted a scoping report to the Energy Consents Unit in December 2017 in respect of the EIAR which included a section considering traffic and transport. This indicated that an abnormal loads route assessment would be undertaken to demonstrate that the proposed turbines can be delivered to the site and updated traffic movement figures would be provided.



Transport Scotland Generally satisfied with the proposed scope of traffic and transportation assessment

N/A

South Lanarkshire Council Roads and Transportation Services HQ (Bridge and Structures Team)

Requirement for full assessments in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges of the four bridges on the abnormal load delivery route:

Cander Bridge

Glassford Bridge

As set out in the

conditions for the consented scheme, full

assessments will be

undertaken post-consent, prior to commencement

of abnormal load movements.



Old Caste Bridge

Browns Bridge


11.8 A review of relevant transport policies, current legislation and guidance has been undertaken as part of this assessment and is summarised as follows:

Scottish Planning Policy36;

Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 201737;

South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan38;

South Lanarkshire Council Supplementary Guidance 10: Renewable Energy39;

South Lanarkshire Council Local Transport Strategy40;

South Lanarkshire Council Local Transport Strategy41;

Onshore Wind Turbines – Online Renewables Planning Advice (May 2014)42;

Transport Assessment Guidance (July 2012)43;

The Institution of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) ‘Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment’ (2005)44;

IEMA ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (1993)45;

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Environmental Appraisal46: and

36 UK, Scottish Government (2014) Scottish Planning Policy, Edinburgh 37 UK, Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority (2017), Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan, Glasgow 38 UK, South Lanarkshire Council (2015), South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan, Hamilton 39 UK, South Lanarkshire Council (2015), South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Supplementary Guidance 10, Hamilton 40 UK, South Lanarkshire Council (2013), Local Transport Strategy 2013-2023, Hamilton 41 UK, South Lanarkshire Council (2013), Local Transport Strategy 2013-2023, Hamilton 42 UK, Scottish Government (2014), Online Renewables Planning Advice, Edinburgh 43 UK, Transport Scotland (2012), Transport Assessment Guidance, Glasgow 44 UK, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2005), Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment 45 UK, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (1993), Guidelines for Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic 46 UK, Highways Agency, (2009), Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Environmental Appraisal, London


Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 15 Economic Assessment of Road Schemes – Section 1 NESA Manual47.

METHODOLOGY

Desk Study

11.9 The baseline review focused on the nature of the surrounding road infrastructure and the level of traffic that uses it. It was informed by desktop studies and consultation, comprising the following:

Relevant transport planning policy;

Relevant roads hierarchy;

Any areas of road safety concerns;

Review of traffic flow, speed data and accident data;

Sensitive locations;

Any other traffic sensitive receptors in the area (core paths, routes, communities, buildings etc.); and

Ordnance Survey (OS) plans;

Potential origin locations of construction staff and supply locations for construction materials to inform extent of local area roads network to be included in the assessment; and

Constraints to the movement of Abnormal Indivisible Loads (AILs) through a Route Survey including swept path assessments.

Field Survey

11.10 Field surveys were also undertaken to further enhance the understanding of the road network in the study area and to identify potential constraints. These included:

Visual inspection of all roads identified in the study area network;

Photographic/video record of any constraints; and

Traffic surveys to determine existing traffic flows and speeds on the surrounding road network.


11.11 The methodology adopted in this assessment involved the following key stages:

Determine baselines;

47 UK, Highways Agency, (2013), Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 15 Economic Assessment of Road Schemes – Section 1 NESA Manual, London


Review development for impacts;

Evaluate significance of effects on receptors;

Identify mitigation; and

Assess residual effects.

Sensitivity/Importance/Value

11.12 The IEMA ‘Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment’ (2005) note that the separate ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (1993) document should be used to characterise the environmental traffic and transport effects (off-site effects) and the assessment of significance of major new developments. The guidelines intend to complement professional judgement and the experience of trained assessors.

11.13 In terms of traffic and transport impacts, the receptors are the users of the roads within the study area and the locations through which those roads pass.

11.14 The IEMA Guidelines includes guidance on how the sensitivity of receptors should be assessed. Using that as a base, professional judgement was used to develop a classification of sensitivity for users based on the characteristics of roads and locations. This is summarised in Table 11.2.

Table 11.2: Classification of Receptor Sensitivity:

Receptor Sensitivity

High Medium Low Negligible

Users of Roads

Where the road is a minor rural road, not constructed to accommodate frequent use by HGVs

Includes roads with traffic control signals, waiting and loading restrictions, traffic calming measures

Where the road is a local A or B class road, capable of regular use by HGV traffic.

Includes roads where there is some traffic calming or traffic management measures

Where the road is Trunk or A-class, constructed to accommodate significant HGV composition.

Includes roads with little or no traffic calming or traffic management measures

Where roads have no adjacent settlements.

Includes new strategic trunk roads that would be little affected by additional traffic and suitable for Abnormal Loads and new strategic trunk road junctions capable of accommodating Abnormal Loads

Users/ Residents of Locations

Where a location is a large rural settlement containing a high number of community and public services and facilities

Where a location is an intermediate sized rural settlement, containing some community or public facilities and services

Where a location is a small rural settlement, few community or public facilities or services

Where a location includes individual dwellings or scattered settlements with no facilities


11.15 Where a road passes through a location, users are considered subject to the highest level of sensitivity defined by either the road or location characteristics.

Magnitude of Effect

11.16 The following rules, also taken from the IEMA Guidelines are used to determine which links within the study area should be considered for detailed assessment:

Rule 1 – include highway links where traffic flows are predicted to increase by more than 30% (or where the number of heavy goods vehicles is predicted to increase by more than 30%); and

Rule 2 – include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows are predicted to increase by 10% or more.

11.17 The IEMA Guidelines identify the key impacts that are most important when assessing the magnitude of traffic impacts from an individual development: the impacts and levels of magnitude are discussed below:

Severance – the IEMA Guidance states that, “severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it becomes separated by a major traffic artery.” Further, “Changes in traffic of 30%, 60% and 90% are regarded as producing ‘slight’, ‘moderate’ and ‘substantial’ [or minor, moderate and major] changes in severance respectively”. However, the Guidelines acknowledge that “the measurement and prediction of severance is extremely difficult”. (Para 4.28).

Driver delay – the IEMA Guidelines note that these delays are only likely to be “significant [or major] when the traffic on the network surrounding the development is already at, or close to, the capacity of the system.” (Para 4.32);

Pedestrian delay – the delay to pedestrians, as with driver delay, is likely only to be major when the traffic on the network surrounding the development is already at, or close to, the capacity of the system. An increase in total traffic of approximately 30% can double the delay experienced by pedestrians attempting to cross the road and would be considered major;

Pedestrian amenity – the IEMA Guidelines suggests that a tentative threshold for judging the significance of changes in pedestrian amenity would be where the traffic flow (or its lorry component) is halved or doubled (Para 4.39). It is therefore considered that a change in the traffic flow of -50% or +100% would produce a major change in pedestrian amenity;

Fear and intimidation – there are no commonly agreed thresholds for estimating levels of fear and intimidation, from known traffic and physical conditions. However, as the impact is considered to be sensitive to traffic flow, changes in traffic flow of 30%, 60% and 90% are regarded as producing minor, moderate and major changes respectively; and


Accidents and safety – professional judgement would be used to assess the implications of local circumstances, or factors which may elevate or lessen risks of accidents.

Significance of Effect

11.18 To determine the overall significance of effects, the results from the receptor sensitivity and magnitude of change assessments are correlated and classified using a scale set out in Table 2.4 of Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5 of the DMRB and summarised in Table 11.3.

Table 11.3: Significance of Effects:

Receptor

Sensitivity

Magnitude of Impact

Major Moderate Minor Negligible

High Large Large/ Moderate Moderate/ Slight Slight

Medium Large/ Moderate Moderate Slight Slight/ Neutral

Low Moderate/ Slight Slight Slight Slight/ Neutral

Negligible Slight Slight Slight/ Neutral Neutral

11.19 In terms of the EIA Regulations, effects would be considered of significance where they are assessed to be large or moderate. Where an effect could be one of Large/Moderate or Moderate/Slight, professional judgement would be used to determine which option should be applicable.

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Desk and Field Study

Study Area

11.20 The A70 is a non-trunk strategic route with the section near the site linking Cumnock with the M74. The road is single carriageway in its entirety.

11.21 The A71 is a non-trunk strategic route with the section near the site linking Strathaven with the M74. The A723 is a non-trunk strategic route with the section near the site linking Hamilton with the Strathaven. The A726 is a non-trunk strategic route with the section near the site linking East Kilbride with the Strathaven. All three roads are single carriageway in their entirety.

11.22 The B743 is a main distributor road linking Strathaven with Muirkirk. The road is single carriageway in its entirety.

11.23 Lambhill Road is a minor rural road linking the B743 to Lambhill Steading. The road was single track in its entirety but was recently significantly upgraded by Banks Renewables prior to the commencement of the under construction Kype Muir wind farm construction.


11.24 The average link capacities for the various links within the study area have been estimated using detail contained in Chapter 3 of the NESA Manual. The theoretical capacities (Vehicles per hour in each direction) are detailed below:

A70 – around 10,800 vehicles per 12 hours;




B743 – around 10,800 vehicles per 12 hours; and

Lambhill Road – around 1,680 vehicles per 12 hours.

Traffic Flows

11.25 Eight sites were identified that would allow an accurate estimate of the potential impact of the construction phase to be made. To gauge existing usage, Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) surveys were commissioned at the following locations:

A70 West of Muirkirk;

A70 East of Muirkirk;

A71 West of Strathaven;

A71 East of Strathaven;

A723 North of Strathaven;

A726 North of Strathaven;

B743 South of Strathaven; and

Lambhill Road.

11.26 The locations of the traffic count sites are illustrated in Technical Appendix 11.1. For each location, seven days of count data was collected commencing 18 April 2018.

11.27 The traffic counters allowed the traffic flows to be split into vehicle classes and the data have been summarised into cars/ light goods vehicles (Lights) and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) (all goods vehicles >3.5 tonnes gross maximum weight).

11.28 The surveys were undertaken during the construction of Kype Muir wind farm. The results indicate that traffic flows on Lambhill Road were significantly higher than those surveyed for the original planning application. As such, and to ensure a robust assessment of the impact of development traffic on this sensitive road link, the original survey flows (which date from 2011) were used to represent the baseline.

11.29 Table 11.4 summarises 24 hour weekday traffic data collected at the eight sites.


Table 11.4: Existing Traffic Flows (Weekday Average Two Way Flows):

Survey Location Cars/ Lights HGV Total

A70 West of Muirkirk 3,461 244 3,705

A70 East of Muirkirk 2,040 230 2,270

A71 West of Strathaven 4,539 397 4,936

A71 East of Strathaven 9,036 485 9,521

A723 North of Strathaven 4,829 123 4,952


B743 South of Strathaven 1,514 58 1,572

Lambhill Road 70 10 80

Speed Data

11.30 The ATC sites used to provide traffic volume data were also used to collect speed statistics. The two-way 5-day average and 85th percentile speeds observed at the count locations are summarised in Table 11.5.

Table 11.5: Speed Summary (Weekday Average Two-Way):

Survey Location Average Speed

(mph)

85th Percentile

Speed (mph)

Speed Limit

(mph)

A70 West of Muirkirk 34.68 39.88 30

A70 East of Muirkirk 47.77 56.01 60

A71 West of Strathaven 39.13 46.51 60

A71 East of Strathaven 49.17 55.76 60

A723 North of Strathaven 45.38 50.98 60

A726 North of Strathaven 41.95 47.74 60

B743 South of Strathaven 51.71 59.71 60

Lambhill Road 36.26 45.28 60

Accident History

11.31 Road traffic accident data was obtained for the four years from the start of 2013 to the end of 2017 on along the full extent of the abnormal loads route from the M74 to the site access and the full extent of the B743 from the online resource crashmap.co.uk48.

11.32 A detailed summary is provided in Tables 5.4 to 5.7 of Technical Appendix 11.1; it was concluded that of the 50 accidents recorded throughout the study area:

48 http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search

http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search


76% resulted in slight injury, 22% in serious injury and 2% (1 accident) in fatality;

70% involved cars, either single vehicle or two or more vehicles;

2 (4%) involved HGVs which is important to note as the majority of construction traffic will be HGV;

58% occurred when the road surface was dry, 38% when it was wet or damp; and

66% occurred during fine weather.

Future Baseline Traffic Flows

11.33 Construction of the project could be completed by 2022 if consent is granted. For this assessment, a 24 month construction period was assumed.

11.34 Any lengthening in the programme will have a reduced effect on the surrounding road network in peak period trip generation terms.

11.35 To assess the likely impacts during the construction phase, base year traffic flows were determined by applying a National Road Traffic Forecast (NRTF) high growth factor to the surveyed traffic flows. Applying high NRTF growth factors provides a robust assessment as they represent higher than average growth when considering link capacities. The NRTF high growth factor between the survey year (2018) and the year of construction completion (2022) is 1.0580.

11.36 These factors were applied to the survey data to estimate the 2022 Base traffic flows shown in Table 11.6.

Table 11.6: 2022 Baseline Traffic Flows (Weekday Average Two Way Flows):

Survey Location Cars/lights HGV Total

A70 West of Muirkirk 3,662 258 3,920

A70 East of Muirkirk 2,158 243 2,402

A71 West of Strathaven 4,802 420 5,222

A71 East of Strathaven 9,560 513 10,073



B743 South of Strathaven 1,602 61 1,663

Lambhill Road 74 11 85

Abnormal Indivisible Load Routing

11.37 For the purposes of reviewing the abnormal load implications, a route from KGV Docks in Glasgow has been assumed. The final choice of port would be determined in consultation with South Lanarkshire Council during the turbine selection process, post consent.


11.38 The route from KGV Docks to the site access is as follows:

Loads would exit KGV Docks in Glasgow onto Kings Inch Drive;

Loads would continue on Kings Inch Drive before taking a left turn onto the M8 slip road, Mayo Avenue;

Loads would join the M8 at junction 25A;

Loads would continue on M8 before joining the M74;

Loads would continue on M74 until Junction 8;

Loads would exit the M74 at Junction 8 and proceed westbound on the A71; and

Within Strathaven, loads would turn left onto the B743 and proceed southbound to Lambs Hill Road.

11.39 The potential abnormal load route is illustrated in Figure 9.1 of Technical Appendix 11.1.


11.40 As noted above, the baseline surveys were undertaken during the construction of Kype Muir wind farm. The results indicate that traffic flows on Lambhill Road were significantly higher than those surveyed for the original planning application. As such, and to ensure a robust assessment of the impact of development traffic on this sensitive road link, the original survey flows (which date from 2011) were used to represent the baseline.

11.41 With the exception of the above, baseline conditions are only likely to change if a significant traffic-generating development is constructed and the associated traffic impacts on roads within the study area. Additional baseline traffic would serve to reduce the resulting impact of the proposed Development. No such potential developments have been identified.

Information Gaps

11.42 No key assumptions were made when obtaining data and no information gaps were identified.


11.43 Based on the classifications set out in Table 11.2, users of the A71, A723, A726 and A70 are considered receptors of low sensitivity. However, where the routes pass through Strathaven and Muirkirk, large rural settlements, users are considered receptors of high sensitivity. Stonehouse is not considered to be a sensitive receptor as the A71 forms a bypass to the town and no direct access is taken from the road.

11.44 Users of the B743, a rural B class road with scattered individual dwellings, are considered receptors of medium sensitivity.

11.45 Users of Lambhill Road are considered receptors of high sensitivity.

11.46 With the exception of Strathaven and Muirkirk, settlements within the study area are generally set back from the key roads and direct access is only taken by scattered


individual properties. There are no other settlements that are considered sensitive to transport impacts.

Construction Phase

Types of Vehicle Traffic

11.47 During the assumed 24 month construction period, the following traffic would require access to the Site:

Staff transport, either cars or staff minibuses;

Timber removal vehicles;

Construction equipment and materials, deliveries of machinery and supplies such as concrete raw materials;

AILs consisting of the wind turbine components and heavy lift crane(s); and

Escort vehicles for AIL deliveries.

11.48 Except for the turbine components, the majority of traffic would be normal construction plant and would include grading tractors, excavators, high capacity cranes, forklifts and dumper trucks. Most would arrive at the Site on low loaders.

11.49 The turbines will be delivered to site in component sections and would be assembled on Site. The nacelle, hub, drive train, blade sections and tower sections are classified as AIL due to their weight and/or length, width and height when loaded.

11.50 The components can be delivered on a variety of transport platforms with typical examples illustrated in Section 9 of Technical Appendix 11.1.

11.51 In addition to the turbine deliveries, up to two high capacity erection cranes would be needed to offload some components and erect the turbines. The cranes are likely to be mobile cranes with a capacity up to 1,000 tonnes that are escorted by boom and ballast trucks to allow full mobilisation on Site. Smaller erector cranes will also be present to allow the assembly of the main cranes and to ease overall erection of the turbines.

Construction Vehicle Movements

11.52 The assessment is based upon information provided by the Applicant and developed from experience of other wind farms of a similar scale which is detailed in Section 6 of Technical Appendix 11.1.

11.53 The candidate turbine used in the Route Assessment (discussed later in this Chapter), represents the most onerous component dimensions likely to be transported to the Site. Due to the length of the blades and hub height now proposed, it is anticipated that the blades and towers will be transported to site in sections. Therefore, the assessment of traffic volumes has assumed that split blades and split towers would be delivered to Site. Examples of the split components are shown in Photographs 2.2 and 2.3 of Technical Appendix 11.1

11.54 Construction of the windfarm will require the removal of timber which will be undertaken towards the start of the construction programme. It is estimated that 11,445 tonnes of


timber will require removal from the site, equating to 458 forestry trucks (916 movements). It is assumed that timber will be removed during the first three months of the construction programme.

11.55 Further, if it is not possible to re-use stump and brash material from harvesting on site, this material would be exported. Assuming a worst-case scenario that all stump and brash material is removed from site, it is estimated that 308 loaded lorries (616 movements) would be generated during the first three months of construction.

11.56 Aggregate will be required to construct the wearing course of the access tracks, crane hardstandings and turning heads, foundations for the temporary construction compounds and electrical control building while ready mix concrete will be required for turbine foundations. A worst-case scenario where all materials are imported was assumed for the purpose of this assessment. It is considered highly likely that the worst-case estimates would be reduced through onsite batching of concrete. The use of on-site borrow pits would also substantially reduce vehicle movements associated with aggregate deliveries.

11.57 To enable comparison of the estimated 2022 Baseline traffic movements with total volumes including predicted construction traffic, average daily two-way movements for each month assuming a 22-day working month for deliveries were determined. Traffic movements were also split by vehicle type in line with the Baseline data and the peak period for construction traffic determined. The final daily construction profile by activity is set out in Appendix B of Technical Appendix 11.1 and summarised in Table 11.7.

Table 11.7: Daily Construction Traffic Movements (Weekday Average Two-way Flows)

Vehicle

Type

Month

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Car/ Light 4 9 9 18 18 27 27 36 36 36 36 36

HGV 84 87 84 61 61 62 63 64 87 87 87 86

Total 88 96 93 79 79 89 90 100 123 123 123 122

Month

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Car/ Light 36 36 36 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 31 22

HGV 86 86 86 30 29 29 30 31 7 6 8 90

Total 122 122 122 70 69 69 70 71 47 46 39 31

11.58 The maximum traffic movements associated with construction of the proposed Development are predicted to occur between months 9 and 11 of the programme. During this month, an average of 87 HGV movements are predicted per day and it is estimated that there would be a further 36 car and light van movements per day to transport construction workers to and from the Site.

Development Traffic Distribution


11.59 The distribution of development traffic on the network would vary depending on the types of loads being transported. The full set of assumptions underlying the construction traffic distributions is set out in Section 6 of Technical Appendix 11.1, they include:

Staff trips and general deliveries will originate from a variety of locations surrounding the Site, with trips likely to affect all routes within the study area;

Imported stone is sourced from local quarries and deliveries will access the site via the A71, B743 and Lambhill Road;

Concrete deliveries will be sourced from local ready mix sites, accessing the site via the A70 east of Muirkirk / B743 south, A71 east of Strathaven / B743 north and A726 north of Strathaven / B743 north; and

AILs would originate from Glasgow and ultimately access the site via the A71, B743 and Lambhill Road. Crane trips would access the Site via the same route as the AILs.

Predicted Effects

11.60 To estimate the total trips through the study area during the peak of the construction phase, construction traffic was distributed through the network and combined with the 2022 Baseline traffic data. The resulting figures were compared with the weekday 2022 Baseline traffic; the percentage change in movements during the peak month of construction is set out in Table 11.8. Table 11.8 also shows the total impact reported in the original planning.

Table 11.8: Percentage Increase in With Development vs Baseline Traffic Flows

Survey Location Cars/

Lights

HGV Total Previous

Submission

Total %

Impact

A70 West of Muirkirk 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2%

A70 East of Muirkirk 0.1% 2.1% 0.3% 0.3%

A71 West of Strathaven 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2%

A71 East of Strathaven 0.1% 14.0% 0.8% 0.8%

A723 North of Strathaven 0.1% 1.5% 0.1% 0.1%

A726 North of Strathaven 0.1% 3.2% 0.1% 0.1%

B743 South of Strathaven 1.7% 132.0% 6.6% 6.6%

Lambhill Road 48.6% 822.3% 145.3% 127.3%

11.61 The results indicate that, total traffic movements are only predicted to increase by more than 10% on Lambhill Road. HGV movements are anticipated to increase by over 10% on the B743 and Lambhill Road. Impacts on Lambhill Road are anticipated to be greater than reported in the previous submission.


11.62 The greatest impact of construction traffic will be experienced on the B743 and Lambhill Road which reflects the low number of trips and particularly HGV trips on these sections of the road network.

11.63 In real terms, the maximum number of additional HGV movements per hour on any link averages less than five within the peak months of construction activity.

11.64 It should be noted that should onsite batching of concrete be progressed, the number of vehicle movements on the external road network associated with the construction of the turbine foundations would be reduced by around a third compared with the import of ready mix concrete. The use of on-site borrow pits would also substantially reduce vehicle movements associated with aggregate deliveries.

11.65 A comparison of the theoretical capacity identified in paragraph 11.24 against the estimated 2022 Total 12-hour flows for the links in the network is illustrated in Graph 11.1.

Graph 11.1: Theoretical Capacity Comparison

11.66 The comparison of development traffic flows with theoretical link capacities indicates that there is considerable spare capacity on the local road network and no link capacity issues associated with the construction traffic would be anticipated.

Impact Significance

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

Theoretical Capacity

2022 Base

2022 Total


11.67 With reference to the IEMA Guidelines, neither total nor HGV traffic movements are predicted to increase by more than 30% on any of the sections of road within the study area except Lambhill Road. The effects are not therefore considered to be of significance and all roads, except Lambhill Road were excluded from further assessment

11.68 As users of Lambhill Road are considered receptors of high sensitivity, this section of the study area was taken forward to further assessment. Table 11.9 summarises the predicted magnitude and significance of the impact of the increase in traffic movements on the various receptors identified in the IEMA Guidelines with no mitigation in place.

Table 11.9: Receptor Review

Receptor Potential

Effect

Magnitude

of Impact

Significance

of Impact

Comment

Users of

Lambhill

Road

Severance Major Large -

significant

Severance relates to the desire to

cross a road. It is not considered

that there is a high pedestrian

crossing demand on Lambhill

Road. However, total traffic

volumes are predicted to change

by over 100%, above the 90%

threshold considered likely to

cause a major change in

severance.

Driver

Delay

Minor Slight – not

significant

Some delay to drivers may occur

during the movement of the

abnormal loads. The road

network is not considered to

experience any operational

difficulties as traffic flows are low.

The change in traffic volumes

would not take the system close

to its capacity limits. Any impact is

therefore considered to be minor.

Pedestrian

Delay

Major Large -

significant

It is not considered that there is a

high pedestrian crossing demand

on Lambhill Road. However, total

traffic volumes are predicted to

change by above the 30%

threshold considered likely to

cause a major change in

severance.

Pedestrian

Amenity

Major Large -

significant

Pedestrian amenity could be

affected where their movements

conflict with that of construction,

and particularly AIL traffic.

Pedestrian flows are noted to be


very low. However, the lorry

component of traffic flows is

anticipated to increase by above

the 100% threshold considered

likely to cause a major change in

pedestrian amenity

Fear and

Intimidation

Major Large -

significant

As total traffic volumes on

Lambhill Road are anticipated to

change by over 100%, the impact

is considered major.

Accidents

and Safety

Minor Slight – not

significant

There is potential for impact on

safety due to driver frustration,

particularly with regards to the

transport of the abnormal loads

and due to potential conflict

between HGVs and pedestrians.

However, as the actual increase

in HGV numbers is anticipated to

be less than an hour and for a

relatively short period, the impact

is assessed to be minor.

Operational Phase

Predicted Impacts

11.69 It is predicted that during the operation of the Site there would be up to 2 vehicle movements per week for maintenance purposes. Also, there may be occasional abnormal load movements to deliver replacement components in the event of a significant component failure.

Impact significance

11.70 In terms of the IEMA Guidelines, such a small number of traffic movements and the associated percentage uplift over Baseline traffic movements are not considered significant.


Predicted impacts

11.71 Prior to decommissioning of the Site, anticipated to be 30 years from commissioning, a traffic assessment would be undertaken and appropriate traffic management procedures followed.

11.72 The decommissioning phase would result in fewer trips on the road network than the construction phase as it is considered likely that elements of infrastructure such as access tracks and electrical connections would be left in place and components may be broken up onsite to allow transport by reduced numbers of standard HGVs.


Impact significance

11.73 As decommissioning would result in fewer vehicle trips on the road network than the construction phase, the significance of any effects would not be greater. It can therefore be assumed that the assessment of the construction phase covers the worst-case scenario.

Micrositing

11.74 No changes are anticipated to the effects described above should any of the turbines (or borrow pits, crane pads, access tracks) be microsited by a maximum distance of 70 metres in any direction.

Cumulative Effects

11.75 The use of NRTF growth factors traffic flows in the estimation of the future year traffic flows is considered to have accounted for normal development within the local area. There are currently no other publicly known major schemes proposed in the area that would coincide with the peak years of construction for the proposed Development. No cumulative effects are therefore anticipated at this stage.

MITIGATION


Mitigation During Construction – General Construction Traffic

11.76 The mitigation measures discussed below would be introduced through a Construction Traffic Management Plan which would be produced prior to commencement of development, once a contractor has been appointed.

11.77 Suitably worded arrangements will be included in the contract with hauliers to ensure that all drivers adhere to the approved arrival and departure routes, timing restrictions and speed limits.

11.78 All drivers would be required to attend an induction to include:

Identification of the specified route;

A safety briefing;

The need for appropriate care and speed control, particularly over the section of Lambhill Road between the B743 and the site access;

Identification of specific sensitive areas; and

The requirement not to deviate from the specified route.

11.79 All materials delivery lorries (dry materials) will be sheeted to reduce dust and stop spillage on public roads.

11.80 Specific training and disciplinary measures will be established to ensure the highest standards are maintained to prevent construction vehicles from carrying mud and debris onto the carriageway.


11.81 The approach road to the site from the junction with the B743 is public road maintained by SLC. To allow safe working of the route, it is proposed that the following actions are undertaken in respect of general construction traffic:

That the site access junction, Lambhill Road and the B743 are signed advising users of “Heavy Plant Crossings” and where possible, the likely times of abnormal load convoys;

That wheel cleaning facilities are provided within the site and that arrangements are made for road sweeping when required on Lambhill Road near the junction to prevent the build-up of dust and mud.

11.82 During busy periods, such as the pouring of the concrete for the turbine bases, deliveries to the site will be staged with drivers given specific time windows for arrival at site. To manage this, communication will be required between the site manager and the source company.

11.83 Where appropriate (for example during the movement of abnormal loads and during busy periods of the construction programme) banksmen will be deployed to assist in the management of HGV construction traffic as follows:

At the site access;

At passing places on Lambhill Road and key junctions; and

Travelling with an abnormal load.

11.84 The mitigation measures would be introduced through a Construction Traffic Management Plan which would be produced at an appropriate stage, once a contractor has been appointed.

Mitigation During Construction – Abnormal Indivisible Loads

11.85 The swept path assessments undertaken as part of the Access Route review (which are included in Appendix D and described in Section 9 of Technical Appendix 11.1) identified remedial works that would be implemented to accommodate the movement of abnormal loads. These include the provision of load bearing surfaces, relocation and / or socketing of street furniture, temporary suspension of parking, trimming of vegetation and reprofiling and retention of areas of verge.

11.86 Before the AILs traverse the route, the following tasks would be undertaken to ensure load and road user safety:

A review of clear heights with utility providers and the transport agencies along the route. The developer would ensure with providers that there is sufficient clearance with an appropriate safety factor, especially with respect to power lines;

Ensure any vegetation which may foul the loads is trimmed back to allow passage;

Confirm there are no roadworks or closures that could affect the passage of the loads;

Check no new or diverted underground services on the proposed route are at risk from the abnormal loads;

Confirm the police are satisfied with the proposed movement strategy; and


The Applicant contacts the appropriate agencies to ensure that the above points are reviewed before the transport of components commences.

11.87 An Abnormal Load Route Assessment for the movement of abnormal loads would be developed to reduce conflicts between abnormal load traffic and other road users. A framework TMP is included within Section 10 of Technical Appendix 11.1

Mitigation During Operation

11.88 No mitigation measures during operation are proposed as it is predicted that there would only be a very small number of vehicle movements per week for maintenance purposes. Consideration may have to be given to the very occasional AIL movement to deliver replacement components, although any required mitigation to allow for this would have to be determined at the time.

Mitigation During Decommissioning

11.89 Given that similar operations are required to decommission the Proposed Development, the mitigation measures would be comparable with those indicated for the delivery and construction period.

RESIDUAL EFFECTS

11.90 An evaluation of the potential effects of the increase in traffic on the local roads to be used as part of the route for construction traffic was undertaken. This considered the traffic effects on different environmental receptors identified in the IEMA Guidelines with no mitigation in place see Table 11.9. Table 11.10 summarises the assessment of residual effects identified in the evaluation with mitigation in place.

Table 11.10: Assessment of Residual Effects Post-Mitigation

Receptor Potential

Effect

Mitigation Magnitude

of Change

Significance

of Residual

Effect

Residual

Significance

Users of

Lambhill

Road

Severance Implementation

of CTMP and

TMP, traffic

management on

road and at site

access,

restricted

delivery hours

Minor Slight Not

significant

Pedestrian

Delay

Implementation

of CTMP and

TMP, traffic

management on

road and at site

access,

restricted

delivery hours

Minor Slight Not

significant


Pedestrian

Amenity

Implementation

of CTMP and

TMP, traffic

management on

road and at site

access,

restricted

delivery hours

Minor Slight Not

significant

Fear and

Intimidation

Appropriate

management of

movement of

AILs, traffic

management

measures along

access route.

Implemented

through TMP

and CTMP

Minor Slight Not

significant


11.91 This chapter assessed the likely significance of effects of the traffic associated with the proposed Development. Based on existing traffic data, the estimated volume of construction traffic, the methodology outlined, the implementation of mitigation measures such as an appropriate CTMP to deliver measures to mitigate the impacts of general construction traffic and Abnormal Load Route Assessment for abnormal load deliveries and suitable liaison with the relevant authorities, an assessment of the residual effects has been made. The residual traffic and transport effects are temporary and have been assessed as having a minor effect which is not significant.


12. AVIATION

This chapter identifies and assess the potential effect that the proposed Development may have on civilian and military aviation and radar operations in the area with reference to the 2016 Consented Scheme.

The assessment has identified that the proposed amendments to the height of the turbines will not alter the effects on civilian and military aviation and radar operations when compared with the 2016 Consented scheme. Therefore the mitigation that has been agreed with Glasgow Airport, NATS and Glasgow Prestwick Airport remains valid. As such there would be no significant additional effects upon civilian and military aviation interests.

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations stipulate that any en-route structure extending 150 m or greater must be fitted with medium intensity steady red, visible aviation lighting at the highest practical point. Therefore all the turbines at the proposed Development will require to be lit with visible aviation lighting.

INTRODUCTION

12.1 This Chapter identifies and assesses any changes to the potential effects that the proposed Development may have on civilian and military aviation and radar operations in the area considering the amendments proposed.

12.2 The assessment has been informed through a review of the assessment undertaken for the original Application, discussions with all stakeholders and completion of a desk-based study, with reference to the appropriate UK aviation legislation and utilising radar Line of Sight (LoS) analysis as required.

ASSESSING IMPACTS

12.3 The original Application identified that the 2014 Proposed Layout had the potential to effect the operations of Glasgow Airport, the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) as a result of the theoretical detectability of the 2014 Proposed Layout by the existing radar infrastructure. In addition, the 2014 Proposed Layout also had the potential to present a physical obstruction in terms of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), UK Low Flying System (UKLFS) and local civil flight operations at Strathaven Airfield.

12.4 Following assessment and in line with responses to the original Application, the possible effects on the UKLFS (subject to lighting) and Strathaven Airfield were considered to be operationally acceptable. This will not change with the amendments to the scheme.

12.5 The identified potential effects of the 2014 Proposed Layout on the operations of Glasgow Airport and NATS were determined to be significant, with a potential marginal impact on the operations of Glasgow Prestwick Airport. Glasgow Airport, NATS and Glasgow Prestwick removed their objections to the original Application following agreement on appropriate technical mitigation solutions.

Glasgow Airport


12.6 Glasgow Airport objected to the original Application on 30 January 2015. A form of mitigation was subsequently agreed with Glasgow Airport which allowed them to lift their objection subject to a suspensive condition being placed in any consent (Letter form Glasgow Airport 11 August 2016).

12.7 The amendments resulting in the proposed Development will have no additional impact on Glasgow Airport and the radar mitigation agreed for the 2016 Consented Layout will continue to be the mitigation for the amended project. Conditions 7 and 8 of the 2016 consent remain valid.

NATS

12.8 NATS removed their objection to the original Application on 10 May 2016 subject to a suspensive condition being placed on any consent.

12.9 The amendments resulting in the proposed Development will have no additional impact on NATS infrastructure and the agreed primary radar mitigation scheme will continue to provide the appropriate level of mitigation. This was confirmed by NATS in their response to the December 2017 Scoping Report (email dated 15 January 2018). Conditions 5 and 6 of the 2016 consent remain valid.

Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA)

12.10 A mitigation agreement was reached with GPA following the submission of the original Application.

12.11 It was agreed that there was a marginal likelihood that 7 of the original turbines could have an impact on the GPA air traffic control (ATC) primary surveillance radar. This was despite GPA having not objected to adjacent windfarms which were more visible and closer to the airport.

12.12 Subsequently and for other project reasons 3 turbines were removed from the scheme with the remaining 15 turbines ultimately consented in 2016. Only 4 of the remaining 15 turbines have a marginal likelihood of being seen by GPA.

12.13 With the proposed increase in turbine heights, it is expected that the impact of the amended scheme will be no greater than that of the 7 turbines which the mitigation agreement was based on.

AVIATION LIGHTING

CAA requirements

12.14 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations stipulate that any en-route structure extending 150 m or greater must be fitted with medium intensity steady red, visible aviation lighting at the highest practical point.

12.15 To satisfy this requirement, the following aviation lighting solution is proposed at Kype Muir Extension:

a) A 2000 candela steady state red visible aviation light on the nacelle of the turbines; and

b) 3 low intensity Type B6 32 candela lights around the turbine tower at an intermediate level of half the nacelle height.


12.16 The lighting proposed at Kype Muir Extension complies with the latest Renewables UK guidance and has been informed by discussions with the CAA.

MOD requirements

12.17 Within their consultation response to the original Application, the MOD requested lighting of the perimeter and cardinal turbines with infra-red and combination lighting.

12.18 We have agreed a lighting scheme with the MOD for the adjacent Kype Muir Wind Farm (which is currently under construction). It is Banks Renewables’ intention to propose infra-red (IR) lights for all perimeter turbines at the proposed Development, other than those adjacent to already IR lit turbines on Kype Muir Windfarm. The infra-red lights will be in addition to the visible aviation lighting required to satisfy the CAA requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

12.19 On-going consultation between the identified Aviation Stakeholders and Banks Renewables will result in suitable resolution and agreement to mitigate any effects, such that there would be no significant effects upon civilian and military aviation interests.


13. SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS, SCHEDULE OF MITIGATION, RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND CONCLUSIONS

MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS

13.1 A summary of the topics presented within this Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR), proposed mitigation and the residual additional effects of the proposed Development compared with the 2016 Consented Layout are contained within table 13.1. The table also includes the mitigation measures set out in chapter 18 of the 2014 ES where still relevant to provide a complete picture of the mitigation associated with the proposed development.

13.2 A set of draft conditions, which are based upon the conditions attached to the 2013 Consent can be found in Technical Appendix 13.1.


Table 13.1: Mitigation and Residual Effects

Topic Assessment in EIA Terms Relevant Condition(s)

Proposed Mitigation Timing Residual Additional Effects

Chapter 4 Landscape and Visual

Landscape and Visual Impact

Mitigation measures have been embedded into the design of the proposed layout by

following the appropriate guidance and feedback from key consultees including South

Lanarkshire Council and SNH.

Incorporated during design process.

Landscape

Character

Not significant

Visual

Receptors

Not significant

Landscape

Designations

Not significant

Night time

impacts

Due to lighting –significant in the Rolling Moorland character type, and significant at Gilmourton.

12. Design and

Operation of

Turbines

51. Aviation

Lighting


Chapter 5 Ornithology

Ornithology The layout and siting of the turbines has been considered as part of the design iteration to include stand-off distances to known nest sites of specially protected species.

There is a commitment to maintain at least a lowest turbine sweep point of 22 m above the ground.

A Bird Protection Plan will be produced prior to construction, which will detail the actions taken by the Applicant, as advised by an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW), should construction or decommissioning work need to occur during the bird nesting season.

During construction and operation.

Not significant.

26.

Environmental

Management

Plan

36. Habitat

Management

Plan

Vantage point watches will be undertaken after construction annually for two to three years between March and May (the period when hen harriers potentially would be displaying) and thereafter every five years.

During operation

Chapter 6 Ecology and Nature Conservation

Blanket Bog Site staff will be made aware of sensitivities and encouraged to stay away from blanket bog habitats. This would be supported by the use of ‘ecological sensitivity’ signage and on-site information.


Not significant. 20.

Environmental

Clerk of Works

22. Otter

Protection Plan

23.

Construction

Method

Statement

Site works will follow standard pollution prevention methods (SEPA, 2013) to ensure habitats are protected from accidental spillages.

During construction.

The creation of blanket bog in areas currently forested, and enhancement of habitat specifically for foraging hen harrier.


GWDTEs The loss of GWDTEs has been minimised as much as the design process will allow. However, it will be possible to reduce the significance of effects further by ensuring hydrological connectivity is maintained wherever possible. In particular, and wherever possible and practicable, porous materials should be used during construction at track and infrastructure locations associated with GWDTEs. This measure will allow the continued movement of groundwater and support existing GWDTE habitats.

Incorporated into design process, During construction and operation.

Pollution prevention measures implemented will reduce the likelihood of significant effects.

Incorporated into design process, During


construction and operation.

25. Post-

construction

26.

Environmental

Management

Plan

36. Habitat

Management

Plan

Otter All water crossings will be designed to support otter passage. This will require sufficient clearance in spate conditions and, potentially, the use of mammal ledges. Designs should be compliant with best practice guidance (Highways Agency, 1999).

Incorporated into design process.

Site works will follow standard pollution prevention methods to ensure watercourses are protected from accidental spillages.


Construction works will be undertaken during hours of daylight to avoid those hours when otter activity is at its highest.


An on-site speed limit will be imposed to reduce potential vehicle collisions with otters.


No construction work will be undertaken within a 30m buffer surrounding the otter layup area located within Auchengilloch Glen

During construction

Bats The establishment of ‘stand-off’ zones to prevent bat collision and barotrauma at wind farm sites.

Maintain a keyhole of at least 50 m + rotor sweep around each turbine where this will involve felling. Dimensions for keyholes will be determined when the turbine blade and hub height configurations have been finalised post-consent, pre-construction, and will be incorporated into the finalised HMP.

Locate turbines at least 50 m + rotor sweep from watercourses. Again, this will be determined when the turbine blade and hub height configurations have been finalised.

Feather turbine blades below cut-in wind speeds

Incorporated into design process & during construction.

Place restrictions on micro-sitting to ensure the following:

Not result in infrastructure within 50m of watercourses;

Not result turbines being closer that 50m + rotor sweep from watercourses;

Incorporated into design

Construction works will be undertaken during hours of daylight to avoid those hours when bat activity is at its highest.


Lighting will be minimised to prevent severance of bat commuting routes, particularly along forest edges and over watercourses.



Inclusion of tree and tree planting along watercourses to increase their foraging and commuting value to bats.

During operation.

Badger A pre-construction update survey for badger will be carried out, and the ECoW will update the survey information throughout the construction period.

Prior to construction & During construction

A speed limit of 15 mph will be established for the Site, and all excavations will be ramped at the end of each working day to prevent the entrapment of animals.


Chapter 7 Ground Conditions and Hydrology

Ground Conditions

The infrastructure layout has been developed to maximise the use of existing access tracks and keep new tracks and watercourse crossings to a minimum. Upgraded watercourse crossings are located at existing watercourse crossings.


Not significant.

14. Ground

Investigations

16. Borrow Pit

Material

17. Borrow Pits

– Scheme of

Works

18. Borrow Pits

– Blasting

19. Borrow Pit

– Operational

Noise

The track layout has also avoided sensitive areas (such as possible peat) and maintained a minimum 50m offset from watercourses and ponds.


A minimum offset of 85 m was implemented between the turbine locations and the faults present on the Site.


There are no Private Water Supplies on or within 250 m of the Site. Incorporated during design process.

Design avoids siting infrastructure within GWDTEs or associated buffers where possible and avoids the steepest slopes minimising cut and fill requirements.


The layout orientates the longest extent of crane pads along contours to minimise cut and fill requirements.


Extend existing borrow pits wherever possible, rather than creating new ones. Incorporated during design process.

Pre-construction drainage will be installed, including interception drains and settlement lagoons to ensure natural drainage pathways are preserved as closely as possible and not mixed with construction drainage.

Incorporated during design process & construction.

Swales will be created during track construction as well as regular cross drains to collect construction drainage and route it through the settlement lagoons before



discharging to natural ground. Swales and interception ditches will generally be shallow to avoid altering the natural groundwater pathways or lowering the groundwater level.

42. Private

Water Supplies

43. Waste

Management

Plan

44. Peat Slide

Risk

45. Peat

Management

Plan

46.

Construction

Temporary and permanent drainage for the Development will be part of a pre-construction Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) design.


Installation of piped culverts and bottomless arch culverts at watercourse crossings.


Pollution from run-off from site access tracks and river crossings will be reduced by brushing or scraping roads to reduce dust and mud deposits and installation of small dams in artificial roadside ditches to retain silt. Where possible work will be conducted from the bank and not in the watercourse.


Installation of turbine foundations and cable trenches will generally be carried out during periods of dry weather. Appropriate construction method statements will be produced to ensure any groundwater ingress is managed appropriately. If required, a sump will be created and groundwater pumped back onto natural ground to maintain the groundwater level and ensure sediment is not transferred to watercourses. Direct discharge of pumped groundwater to watercourses will not be permitted.


Borrow pit locations within the Site and shall be restored on completion. During construction.

Concrete pouring will be sited 10 metres from any watercourse or surface water drain to minimise the risk of runoff entering a watercourse.


In borrow pits any groundwater ingress will be managed on Site by creating a sump area and pumping into a settlement lagoon before discharging to natural ground.


Drainage will be installed at temporary hardstanding areas such as the Site compound and crane pads. In general, drainage from crane pads will discharge via settlement lagoons unless they are located at a significant distance away from watercourses or sensitive receptors. Settlement lagoons will be appropriately sized.


Refuelling areas at the Site compound will be bunded and will discharge via both an oil separator and SuDS; such as a natural soakaway or reed bed located within the construction compound area. All construction equipment is to be equipped with emergency spill kits and the operatives trained as to how to use them.


Ground investigation to confirm rock properties will be undertaken during the detailed design stage once consent for the Development has been obtained. Geotechnical properties for access tracks and other hardstanding construction

Incorporated into design process &


and water crossings design will also be confirmed during the ground investigation. Following detailed ground investigation, turbines and other infrastructure will be micro-sited away from any variable and/or poor ground conditions, taking into account other constraints.

during construction.

Access tracks will be designed such that they do not become a conduit for flow. A cross-fall will shed water to swales on either side of the tracks. Cross drains will be installed at low points and as otherwise required to remove surface water from the tracks. Intermittent maintenance will be carried out during the operational phase as required.

Incorporated into design process & during construction.

Construction of new access tracks have been minimised by utilising existing tracks where possible and significant areas of peat have been avoided.

Incorporated into design process & (3) during construction.

Settlement lagoons will be removed following construction to avoid encouraging birds to the Site to reduce the collision risk. During detailed design an assessment will be made of the most appropriate drainage layout for the operational phase.


Appropriate concrete will be used in the turbine foundations to avoid the risk of residues polluting the groundwater.


Peat Excavations will be prevented from drying out or desiccating as far as possible. This can be achieved by minimising disturbance or movement of the peat once excavated. Consideration will also be given to spraying the peat to keep it moist in appropriate circumstances. Stockpiling of peat will be located in areas of minimal risk from erosion and water quality deterioration, with an appropriate buffer from watercourses. Designated areas for stockpiling/side casting will be generally flat and stable and side casting will be restricted to thin layers of fibrous peat (as encountered during the walkover). Peat will be stockpiled in large amounts, taking due regard to potential loading effects for peat slide risk. Stockpiles will be bladed off at the side to minimise the available drying surface area. Where surface run-off may be encountered, stockpiles will be bunded, whereby bunds will extend above the top level of the stockpile and water quality monitored before discharge.


The peat will be restored as soon as possible after disturbance. During construction of access tracks and crane pads, mitigation can be undertaken as track construction progresses. However, for borrow pits reinstatement cannot be undertaken until extraction is complete.



Mitigation proposed during the decommissioning stage will be very similar to the construction stage. A Decommissioning Management Plan will be prepared and relevant statutory consultees contacted prior to any decommissioning works. The plan will adhere to best practice guidance and legislation in place at that time.

During decommissioning.

Chapter 8 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

Where heritage assets lie in close proximity to one or more construction elements of the Development, they will be avoided to ensure their preservation in situ. Where appropriate, surviving heritage assets will be visibly marked-out to signal their presence to construction workers and to prevent accidental damage occurring to the remains during construction activities in the vicinity.

Throughout the design process, following receipt of consent and during construction.

Not significant. 38. Programme

of

Archaeological

Works

If important discoveries are made during archaeological mitigation works and preservation in situ is not possible, provision will be made for an appropriate level of recording that may include excavation, where necessary, of any archaeological remains encountered. Such provision will also include the consequent production of written reports on the findings, with post-excavation analyses and publications of the results of the works, as appropriate.


Written Guidelines will be issued for use by all construction contractors as part of the Environmental Management Plan which outline the need to avoid causing unnecessary damage to known sites. The Guidelines will contain arrangements for calling upon retained professional support in the event that buried archaeological remains of potential archaeological interest (such as building remains, human remains, artefacts, etc.) should be discovered in areas not subject to archaeological monitoring. The guidance will make clear the legal responsibilities placed upon those who disturb artefacts or human remains.


A decommissioning management plan would be prepared in advance, in line with relevant legislation, guidance and policy at the time.

During decommissioning.

Chapter 9 Forestry


Forestry Compensatory planting will be undertaken to replace the loss of woodland area. During operation Not significant

40. Replanting

of Forestry

40. Forestry

Replanting

Delivery

41. Forest Plan

Chapter 10 Noise

Construction Noise

Consideration will be given to the selection of plant to be used during construction and liaison between the contractors and residents will accord with the Draft Construction Management Plan (refer to Technical Appendix 3.4 of the original ES).


Not significant. 12. Design and

Operation of

Turbines

27.

Construction

Work

28. Noise

Generally, construction activities will be confined to the periods 07:00 – 19:00 weekdays and Saturdays 08:00 - 13:00. Any extension of operating hours to minimise traffic disruptions during the movement of abnormal loads and during large concrete pours will be agreed with the local authority.


The principal contractor will keep local residents informed of the proposed working schedule, where appropriate, including the times and duration of any abnormally noisy activity that may cause concern.


The principal contractor will ensure that any extraordinary site work continuing throughout 24 hours of a day (for example, crane operations lifting components onto the tower) shall be programmed, when appropriate, so that haulage vehicles will not arrive at or leave the site between 7pm and 7am, with the exception of abnormal loads that will be scheduled to avoid significant traffic flows.


The principal contractor will ensure all vehicles and mechanical plant will be fitted with effective exhaust silencers and be subject to programmed maintenance.


The principal contractor will select inherently quiet plant where appropriate - all major compressors will be ‘sound reduced’ models fitted with properly lined and sealed acoustic covers, which will be kept closed whenever the machines are in use.



The principal contractor will ensure all ancillary pneumatic percussive tools will be fitted with mufflers or silencers of the type recommended by the manufacturers.


The principal contractor will instruct that machines will be shut down between work periods or throttled down to a minimum.


The principal contractor will undertake regular maintenance of all equipment used on site, including maintenance related to noise emissions.


The principal contractor will load vehicles carefully to ensure minimal drop heights so as to minimise noise during this operation.


The principal contractor will ensure all ancillary plant such as generators and pumps will be positioned so as to cause minimum noise disturbance and if necessary, temporary acoustic screens or enclosures should be provided.


Operational Noise

The layout has been optimised through the design process to minimise any increase in noise levels and ensure compliance with ETSU-R-97.


Selection of the exact turbine model will ensure operation within the noise limits established in accordance with ETSU-R-97.

Prior to construction.

Chapter 11 Traffic and Transportation

Traffic and Transportation

Access to the Development is proposed from the B743, via the access route already constructed in relation to the consented Kype Muir Wind Farm.

Incorporated into site design.

Not significant.

29. Traffic

Management

Plan

30. Abnormal

Load Route

Assessment

31. Abnormal

Load Route

Assessment

During the construction phase, Banks Renewables would set up a community liaison group to ensure that there is adequate dialogue with the local community allowing the latest information relating to traffic movements associated with vehicles accessing the Site to be communicated through the most appropriate methodology. This would be agreed with the Roads Authority.


All materials delivery lorries (dry materials) would be sheeted to reduce dust and stop spillage on public roads.


Specific training and disciplinary measures would be established to ensure the highest standards are maintained to prevent construction vehicles from carrying mud and debris onto the carriageway.


Wheel cleaning facilities would be established at the Site entrance. During construction.

A detailed abnormal load route assessment to be prepared post-consent would set out measures to help reduce delays encountered with abnormal load transport for drivers. This would include measures such as timing deliveries during off-peak periods. Other measures such as advance warning signs would help drivers consider non-impacted routes as alternatives for their journeys. The abnormal



load route assessment would also address any pedestrian delay and amenity issues that may arise, although none are anticipated.

32. Bridge

Assessment

33. Bridge

Assessment

34. Bridge

Assessment

35. Bridge

Assessment

A road sweeper would also be deployed on Lambhill Road and the sections of the B743 to ensure that the road is kept clean and free running.


The access point onto the public road network (at the B743) would be well-maintained and regularly monitored to ensure that no debris is carried onto public roads by any maintenance traffic, although only a very small number of maintenance trips are predicted.

During operation.

Chapter 12 Aviation

Impact on Glasgow Airport

Prior to the commencement of development, a Radar Mitigation Scheme setting out measures to be taken to prevent the impairment of the performance of aerodrome navigation aids and the efficiency of air traffic control services at Glasgow Airport will be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Scottish Ministers, in consultation with Glasgow Airport Limited. Possible mitigation solutions include; Radar Infill, Resolution Infill and Further Technology Options.


Not significant.

5. Aviation

Radar NATS

6. Aviation

NATS

7. Aviation

Glasgow

Airport

Impact on NATS En-Route – Lowther Hill PSR

A Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme will be agreed with the Operator and approved in writing by the Scottish Ministers in order to avoid the impact of the development on the Primary Radar of the Operator located at Lowther Hill, Cumbernauld and Glasgow and associated air traffic management operations.


Impact on MoD UKLFS

Appropriate resolution and agreement in respect of the MOD lighting requirement will be determined through consultation with the MOD Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO).



Installation of appropriate aviation obstruction lighting. During construction and operation.

8. Aviation

Glasgow

Airport

50. Aviation

Safety

51. Aviation

Lighting

CAA Requirements

Installation of appropriate aviation obstruction lighting:

a) A 2000 candela steady state red visible aviation light on the nacelle of the turbines; and

b) 3 low intensity Type B6 32 candela lights around the turbine tower at an intermediate level of half the nacelle height.


General Information on the location of the turbines will be promulgated throughout the UK Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) and with the Defence Geographic Centre (DGC) such that it can be depicted in appropriate aviation documentation and charts.


Other effects (scoped out of EIA Report for variation application by assessed as part of the 2014 ES)

Utilities & Wireless Services

Impact on Television Reception - It is considered unlikely that mitigation will be required due to the digital switchover, however if unacceptable levels of interference are experienced during operation of the Development, a number of different mitigation measures are available which could be implemented by Banks Renewables, including:

• Reconfiguration of the aerial receiving DTT; or

• Switch to digital satellite or cable service.

During operation.

Access & Recreation

Temporary diversions will be put in place for Core Path EK/3780/1 during the construction and decommissioning phases of the Development.

During construction and decommissioning.

38. Access Management Plan

Site Security Fitting of security equipment and site monitoring including:

All transformer enclosure doors will be locked;

Construction through to decommissioning.


The wind turbines will be remotely monitored using a System Control and Data Acquisitions (SCADA) system that would monitor the individual turbines and would immediately detect any acts of vandalism that would interfere with the operation of the Site;

A wind farm technician would make regular visits to the site during normal working hours;

The substation would have metal security doors to prevent unauthorised access;

An intruder alarm would be installed in the substation building that would be connected to the remote control system; and

The substation will be securely fenced to exclude the public for health and safety reasons. This security fencing will be of the type typically found at substations.

Health & Safety

Adherence to all relevant legislation and guidance to avoid impacts. Design through to decommissioning.

Measures to reduce the risk of ice throw would be incorporated consisting of:

Fitting turbines with vibration sensors which detect imbalance and allow turbines to be shut down;

Specific training for services crews regarding the risk of ice throw and shear;

Monitoring of ice risk conditions by wind farm operational staff; and

Notices placed at the site entrance to alert members of the public accessing the site of the possible risk of ice throw and shear on cold days.

The Construction Design and Management Regulations and industry best practice guidelines will be adhered to.

During operation.


SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS

13.3 An assessment of synergistic effects ensures that the assessments provided in the EIAR for each topic are not considered in isolation. The structure of the EIAR demonstrates this approach with grouping assessments on the biological and the physical environment (LVIA, Ornithology, Ecology and Nature Conservation, Ground Conditions and Hydrology, Cultural Heritage and Hydrology and Forestry) and population and human health (Noise, Traffic and Transport and Aviation). It is acknowledged that there are also some potential overlaps between the physical environment and population and human health.

13.4 This assessment considers the potential synergistic effect of related residual effects during construction, decommissioning and operation of the proposed Development. A synergistic effect during decommissioning is considered to be of similar or less significance than that created during construction and therefore they are discussed together below.

Construction and Decommissioning

13.5 During the construction and decommissioning phases, potential adverse synergistic effects are limited to the proposed Development Area where there will be heavy plant operations, earth works, forestry operations and vehicle movements. These could result in potential synergistic effects upon physical and biological receptors including where there are overlaps between ecology, hydrology and hydrogeology, in particular relation to bats and hen harrier, peat removal, forestry removal and habitat management. These effects would be temporary in nature, will be managed through the proposed CMS, EMP, TMP and Decommissioning Plan, which have all previously been secured through planning conditions and in isolation have been assessed in the EIAR as not significant. These potential effects can also be monitored by an ECoW again as previously required by planning conditions. Given the limited number and extent of receptors, the limited effects predicted and their temporary nature the residual synergistic effects during construction and decommissioning phases are considered not significant.

Operation

13.6 Potential synergistic effects during the operational phase relate primarily to overlaps between physical and human receptors and are limited to areas which are within or close to the proposed Development Area where there may be a combination of potential visual and noise effects. The EIAR predicts that there will be significant effects in isolation for visual impact at night time but not to a level which is considered unacceptable beyond the 2016 consent. There are no predicted significant effects in relation to Noise. It is considered that what might be considered adverse synergistic effects during operation are not significant.

13.7 Conversely the population of the area surrounding the site will benefit from the positive socio-economic effects of the proposed Development over its lifetime.

CONCLUSIONS

13.8 The predicted environmental effects as a result of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the 15 wind turbines and associated infrastructure have been carefully considered throughout the design of the proposed Development. The final design, where possible, has taken into account the view of the statutory consultees,


the local community and their representatives, as well as views of other interested parties of both the 2016 Consented Layout and consultation undertaken as part of the proposed Development. As a result, the final design has sought to minimise adverse effects.

13.9 Where appropriate, additional mitigation measures have been proposed (summarised in Table 13.1). The opportunities for enhancement measures within the Site have also been carefully considered and are set out within Technical Appendix 6.4 (Draft Habitat Management Plan).

13.10 The proposed Development is expected to result in positive socio-economic effects, as detailed in Chapter 2 (The Proposed Development), including49:

a) Positive contribution to generation of renewable energy and Scottish targets;

b) Benefits for local businesses and workers through the support of approximately 216 jobs during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases;

c) Training and employment contracts to be created through the Connect2Renewables scheme;

d) A total estimated spend of £151million on development, construction, operation and decommissioning:

An estimated £58.4million of this will be spent within 30km of the wind farm; and

An estimated £69.1, million within Scotland.

e) Provide local Communities within 10 km of the wind turbines a community benefits funding over the operational lifetime of the wind farm;

The Communities will be provided with 2.5% share in the annual gross combined revenue generated by Kype Muir and Kype Muir Extension Wind Farms. The Communities will receive 1.5% of the revenue from Kype Muir Wind Farm when it becomes operational in 2019. It is estimated that to reach the combined contribution of 2.5%, 4% of the Kype Muir Extension revenue will be shared with the community. 4% is an estimate, and the exact percentage from Kype Muir Extension will be agreed prior to turbine operation, but the percentage will result in the communities receiving a 2.5% share in the combined revenue of Kype Muir and Kype Muir Extension.

The share in the gross annual revenue will be underwritten with a guaranteed minimum payment of £5,000 per installed MW per annum = £9.45 million over the wind farms operation.

This is an increase of £1.8 million compared to the guaranteed minimum associated with the 2016 consented scheme.

13.11 Due to their nature, the development of a wind farm will inevitably result in effects on landscape character and visual amenity and the EIA has identified that the proposed Development would have limited effects on landscape character and visual amenity. A key change to the proposals is the inclusion of aviation lighting. In the host units of the

49 Based on the 4.2MW candidate turbine


Rolling Moorland character type the introduction of lighting to a relatively dark landscape would give rise to significant adverse effects. Overall the landscape and visual impact assessment presented in Chapter 4 (Landscape & Visual Impact) has concluded that the Site is able to accommodate the proposed changes to the 2016 Consented Layout in landscape and visual terms.

13.12 With regards to Ornithology, the EIA has concluded that the likely effects of the proposed Development on all bird species are not significant and the proposed Development would not compromise the conservation objectives underpinning the protection of the qualifying interest of the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA. Modelled mortalities from collision with turbine blades were considered to be insignificant in terms of potential long-term impacts on local bird populations, reiterating the conclusions presented in the 2014 ES for the 2016 Consented Layout that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA. All other effects for construction, operation and decommissioning were assessed in 2014 as being negligible and therefore not significant, across all species, for the proposed Development in isolation and in its contribution to regional cumulative effects.

13.13 An Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) was undertaken for the proposed Development. Where no update surveys were undertaken, assessment material provided in the original Environmental Statement for the 2016 Consented Layout was used. As detailed within Chapter 6 (Ecology & Nature Conservation), following implementation of mitigation, as set out within the Draft HMP (refer to Technical Appendix 6.4), it is concluded that there will be no residual significant negative effects as a result of the Development. In addition, the Draft HMP outlines enhancement measures in relation to the adjacent SPA including the provision of enhanced foraging habitat for hen harrier, merlin and short-eared owl away from turbines.

13.14 Further, the preparation and implementation of the HMP (refer to Technical Appendix 6.4 for a draft version) has the potential to result in a positive effect, at the Site level, on the blanket bog resource by restoring extensive areas of degraded and modified bog habitat.

13.15 As detailed within Chapter 7 (Ground Conditions & Hydrology), the Development has the potential for some ‘Minor’, ‘Short-Term’ and ‘Reversible’ impacts on the watercourses and groundwater. However, these minor risks can be easily controlled with an appropriate SuDS design and construction in accordance with an approved Draft Construction Management Statement (refer to Technical Appendix 2.1). Furthermore, no significant hydrological, geological or hydrogeological effects or residual effects have been identified, provided that the proposed mitigation measures are properly implemented.

13.16 Following the assessment of effects on cultural heritage, as detailed within Chapter 8 (Cultural Heritage & Archaeology), no significant residual effects have been predicted as a result of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed Development.

13.17 With regards to forestry and felling resulting from the proposed Development, the net residual effect is considered to be minimal when compensatory planting is accounted for, as outlined in Chapter 9 (Forestry).

13.18 Following the assessment of noise, the construction and operational noise effects resulting from the proposed Development are deemed to be not significant, as detailed within Chapter 10 (Noise).


13.19 As discussed within Chapter 11 (Traffic & Transportation), the residual traffic and transport effects are temporary and have been assessed as having a minor effect which is not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.

13.20 Banks Renewables acknowledges that the proposed Development is likely to have a significant effect on the Aviation Stakeholders of the MoD, Glasgow Airport and NATS En-Route, with effects on the Glasgow PSR and Lowther Hill PSR systems. However, conditions were agreed for the 2016 Consented Layout to provide for technical mitigation solutions and are expected to remain in place if the proposed Development is consented (Technical Appendix 13.1 Amended Conditions). Subject to these conditions, there would be no significant effects upon civilian and military aviation interests.

13.21 As discussed throughout the EAIR, the proposed Development will contribute significant benefits at local and national levels. The proposed Development will50:

a) Produce up to the equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of approximately 57,000 homes (based on a 4.2 MW turbine) which equates to approximately 39 % of the households in South Lanarkshire;

b) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by harnessing power from the wind, equating to potential CO2 savings of approximately 2,918,434 tonnes (based on a 4.2 MW turbine) over the 30 year lifetime of the proposed Development;

c) Make a positive contribution to Scottish Government renewable energy targets, which set aims for 100 % of Scotland’s electricity consumption to be produced by renewable sources by 2020 and to produce 50 % of Scotland’s energy demand for heat, transport and electricity as well as to increase the productivity of energy use across the Scottish economy by 30 % by 2030;

d) Contribute to the indigenous supply of energy, reducing the reliance on imported energy;

e) Support the renewables industry which currently employs more than 12,000 people across Scotland;

f) A total estimated spend of £151 million on development, construction, operation and decommissioning:

An estimated £58.4 million of this will be spent within 30 km of the wind farm; and

An estimated £69.1 million within Scotland.

Support approximately 216 jobs over the lifetime of the wind farm;

Provide local Communities within 10 km of the wind turbines a community benefits funding over the operational lifetime of the wind farm;

Include a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) which will see the restoration of areas of degraded and modified blanket bog and the provision of enhanced foraging habitat for hen harrier.

50 Benefits listed below are based on a 4.2MW candidate turbine.


13.22 As demonstrated during the construction of Kype Muir and Middle Muir Wind Farms. Banks Renewables are committed to maximising the benefits of our proposed developments in the communities within which they are located. To deliver this aim, Banks Renewables has adopted a Connect2Renewables Charter which includes commitments to:

Maximise contracting opportunities for local firms;

Guarantee “local first” tender lists;

Give “local element” material consideration in awarding contracts;

Provide direct training and employment opportunities for local people on our wind farm projects in South Lanarkshire;

Support improved access to further education and training for local people; and

Target overall minimum economic benefit to local economy of £500,000 per installed megawatt over the life of the Development. This would equate to approximately £31.5 million investment in the local economy.

13.23 These commitments will continue to be applied for Kype Muir Extension.

13.24 The proposed variation of consent for Kype Muir Wind Farm Extension has been subject to an extensive design process involving consultation with key consultees. The proposals have been the subject of an EIA, which has examined in great detail the potential environmental effects of the wind farm.

13.25 Overall, the EIA concludes that there are no unacceptable significant effects for the proposed Development when taking into account the changes from the 2016 Consented layout. The proposed changes to the wind farm would increase the benefits to the local area, as well as contributing to renewable energy generation targets more efficiently with minimal additional impacts.

EIA REPORT - Banks Group · 2018. 7. 11. · PREFACE This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)...

Documents

Transcript of EIA REPORT - Banks Group · 2018. 7. 11. · PREFACE This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)...