Loganhead Wind Farm · The UK Government announced on June the 18th 2015 that they would end all...

Loganhead Wind Farm

Application Under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

March 2020

Volume One: Main Report

Loganhead Wind Farm Volume One: Main Report

Page | 2


Page | 3

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 8

2 The Proposed Development ...................................................................................................................... 9

3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) ................................................................................................. 13

4 Landscape and Visual .............................................................................................................................. 16

5 Socio-Economics and Tourism ................................................................................................................. 43

6 Ecology .................................................................................................................................................... 47

7 Ornithology .............................................................................................................................................. 53

8 Hydrology, Geology, and Hydrogeology .................................................................................................. 58

9 Cultural Heritage ..................................................................................................................................... 59

10 Noise ........................................................................................................................................................ 65

11 Traffic and Transport ............................................................................................................................... 72

12 Other Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 75

13 Summary and Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 79


Page | 4

Tables

Chapter 2 – The Proposed Development Table 2.1: Consented Turbine Locations and Proposed Development Turbine Heights ........................................ 9 Table 2.2: Energy Generation Comparison ........................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 3 – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Table 3.1: Technical Assessment Team ................................................................................................................ 14 Table 3.2: EIA Report Team – Expertise ................................................................................................................ 15 Chapter 4 – Landscape and Visual Table 4.1: Evaluation of Landscape and Visual Effects ......................................................................................... 17 Table 4.2: Wind Energy Development Included in the CLVIA ............................................................................... 19 Table 4. 3: Summary of Revised Viewpoint Analysis ............................................................................................ 23 Table 4.4: Summary of revised Residential Visual Amenity Assessment .............................................................. 29 Table 4.5: Revised Visual Effects on Views from Transport Routes...................................................................... 30 Table 4.6: Revised Visual Effects on Views from Recreational Routes ................................................................. 31 Table 4.7: Summary and Evaluation of the Predicted Landscape Effects ............................................................. 36 Table 4.8: Summary and Evaluation of the Predicted Visual Effects .................................................................... 38 Chapter 5 – Socio-Economics and Tourism Table 5.1: Development & Construction Expenditure by Contract Type (Consented vs Proposed) .................... 44 Table 5.2: Development & Construction Expenditure by Study Area (Consented vs Proposed) ......................... 44 Table 5.3: Operations and Maintenance Spend by Study Area ............................................................................ 45 Chapter 6 – Ecology Table 6.1: Environmental Statement – Consultation Responses .......................................................................... 48 Table 6.2: Nature Conservation Value of Scoped-in IEFs...................................................................................... 49 Chapter 7 - Ornithology Table 7.1: Environmental Statement – Consultation Responses .......................................................................... 53 Table 7.2: Nature Conservation Value of Scoped-in VORs ................................................................................... 55 Chapter 10 - Noise Table 10.1: Coordinate Locations for Each of the Proposed Wind Turbines ........................................................ 66 Table 10.2: Coordinate Locations for Each of the Proposed Wind Turbines ........................................................ 66 Table 10.3: Receptor Locations ............................................................................................................................ 67 Table 10.4: Consented Daytime Operational Noise Limits, dB LA90 ...................................................................... 67 Table 10.5: Consented Night-time Operational Noise Limits, dB LA90 .................................................................. 68 Table 10.6: Requirement for +3dB penalty for individual turbines at NSRs (indicated by x) ............................... 68 Table 10.7: Predicted Noise Immission Levels, dB LA90 ......................................................................................... 69 Table 10.8: Margin above (+) or below (-) Consented Daytime Noise Level Limited, dB ..................................... 70 Table 10.9: Margin above (+) or below (-) Consented Night-time Noise Level Limited, dB ................................. 70 Chapter 12 – Other Considerations Table 12.1: Telecommunications Consultee Responses ....................................................................................... 78


Page | 5

Figures (Found in Volume 2) Chapter 1 – Introduction Figure V1.1 – Site Location Chapter 2 – The Proposed Development Figure V2.1 – Site Layout Figure V2.2 – Typical Turbine Elevation Figure V2.3 – Typical Turbine Foundation Figure V2.9 – Typical Wind Monitoring Mast Chapter 3 – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Figure V3.1a-d – Comparative Photomontages Chapter 4 – Landscape and Visual Figure V4.2 – Comparative Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to Blade Tip with Viewpoints Figure V4.2a – Detailed Comparative Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to Blade Tip with Viewpoints Figure V4.3 – Comparative Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to Hub Height with Viewpoints Figure V4.3a – Detailed Comparative Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to Hub Height with Viewpoints Figure V4.4 – Detailed ZTV to Blade Tip with Viewpoints Figure V4.5a – Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to Blade Tip with Viewpoints (100,000 Scale) (A0) Figure V4.5b – Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to Blade Tip with Viewpoints (50,000 Scale) (A0) Figure V4.7b – Detailed Landscape Character Figure V4.9 – Gardens and Design Landscapes, Tourist Destinations and National Recreation Routes with ZTV Figure V4.10 – Recreational Routes and Tourist Destinations with 5km Figure V4.11a – Sequential Route Assessment – B709 Figure V4.11b-g – Sequential Route Assessment – B709 Figure V4.11h – Sequential Route Assessment – Calfield Rig Figure V4.11i-j – Sequential Route Assessment – Calfield Rig Residential Viewpoints Figure V4.12a – Residential Properties within 2km Figure V4.12b – Residential Viewpoint 1: Arresgill Cottage Figure V4.12c – Residential Viewpoint 2: Arresgill Farm Figure V4.12d – Residential Viewpoint 3: Old Hopsrig Figure V4.12e – Residential Viewpoint 4: Hopsrig Farm Figure V4.12f – Residential Viewpoint 5: Bombie Cottage Figure V4.12g – Residential Viewpoint 6: Carlesgill (group of 8 properties) Figure V4.12h – Residential Viewpoint 7: Hopsrig Cottage Figure V4.12i – Residential Viewpoint 8: Burn Cottage Figure V4.12j (i) – Residential Viewpoint 9: Westerhall House Figure V4.12j (ii) – Residential Viewpoint 9: Westerhall House Figure V4.12k – Residential Viewpoint 10: South Lodge Figure V4.12l – Residential Viewpoint 11: Rigg Figure V4.12m – Residential Viewpoint 12: Camra Cottages (group of 2 properties) Figure V4.12n – Residential Viewpoint 13: Mid Park Figure V4.12o – Residential Viewpoint 14: Burnfoot (group of 12 properties) Figure V4.12p – Residential Viewpoint 15: Craig Cumulative Figure V4.13b – Cumulative Wind Farms within 35km Figure V4.14a – Cumulative ZTV 1: Loganhead with Ewe Hill, Craig and Extension, Crossdykes, Hopsrig and Little Hartfell Wind Farms


Page | 6

Figure V4.14b – Cumulative ZTV 1: Loganhead with Ewe Hill, Craig and Extension, Crossdykes, Hopsrig and Little Hartfell Wind Farms Figure V4.15a – Cumulative ZTV 2: Loganhead with Existing Wind Farms within 10km Figure V4.15b – Cumulative ZTV 2: Loganhead with Existing Wind Farms within 10km Figure V4.16a – Cumulative ZTV 3: Loganhead with Consented Wind Farms within 10km Figure V4.16b – Cumulative ZTV 3: Loganhead with Consented Wind Farms within 10km Figure V4.17a – Cumulative ZTV 4: Loganhead with Application Wind Farms within 10km Figure V4.17b – Cumulative ZTV 4: Loganhead with Application Wind Farms within 10km Viewpoints Figure V4.18a-g – Viewpoint 1: Calfield Rig Figure V4.19a-d – Viewpoint 2: Bentpath Figure V4.20a-e – Viewpoint 3: B7068 Bloch Farm Figure V4.21a-f – Viewpoint 4: Langholm Monument Figure V4.22a-d – Viewpoint 5: Castle O’er Forest Hill Fort Figure V4.23a-d – Viewpoint 6: Corrie Common Figure V4.24a-d – Viewpoint 7: Kirtleton Figure V4.25a-d – Viewpoint 8: B6357 Milltown Figure V4.26a-d – Viewpoint 9: Waterbeck Figure V4.27a-d – Viewpoint 10: Arkleton Hill Night-time Assessment Figure V4.28a – ZTV Nacelle Lights with Night-Time viewpoints Figure V4.28b – Detailed ZTV Nacelle Lights with Night-Time Viewpoints Figure V4.29a – ZTV Tower Lights with Night-Time Viewpoints Figure V4.29b – Detailed ZTV Tower Lights with Night-Time Viewpoints Figure V4.30 – Cumulative Night-time ZTV Figure V4.31a-d – Viewpoint N2: Bentpath Figure V4.32a-d – Viewpoint N3: B7068 Bloch Farm Chapter 9 – Cultural Heritage Figure V9.1 – Comparative ZTV showing assets within 10km Viewpoints Figure V9.2 – Viewpoint: Calkin Settlement (SM 4396) (ES Figures 9.8a and b) Figure V9.3 – Viewpoint: Calkin Settlement and Terrace (SM 4394) (ES Figure 9.12) Figure V9.4 – Viewpoint: Boyken Burn, township 695m W of Westerhall (SM4385) (ES Figure 9.15) Figure V9.5 – Viewpoint: Westerhall House (LB 16936) (ES Figure 9.17) Chapter 12 – Other Considerations Figure V12.2 – Shadow Flicker Plan


Page | 7

Technical Appendices (Found in Volume 2) Chapter 4 – Landscape and Visual Technical Appendix V4.1 – Methodology and Glossary Technical Appendix V4.2 – Viewpoint Analysis Technical Appendix V4.3 – Residential Visual Assessment Technical Appendix V4.4 – Night-Time Assessment Chapter 10 – Noise Technical Appendix V10.1 – Acoustic Concepts and Terminology Chapter 12 – Other Considerations Technical Appendix V12.1 – NATS Mitigation Email (January 2019) Technical Appendix V12.2 – MoD Email (August 2017) Technical Appendix V13 – Original ES, Addendum and Supporting Documents (Submitted 2016)


Page | 8

1 Introduction

The Applicant Loganhead Wind Farm Limited (hereafter referred to as ‘The Applicant’), a project company of Muirhall Energy Limited (hereafter referred to as ‘The Agent’), is submitting an application to Dumfries and Galloway Council (DGC) under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), to amend the design of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm (the “Consented Development”).

Background The Consented Development (DGC ref: 15/P/4/0273) comprises 8 wind turbine generators with a maximum tip height of 135m, and associated infrastructure including access tracks, a substation building, and temporary construction compounds.

The UK Government announced on June the 18th 2015 that they would end all new subsidies for onshore wind. As Loganhead did not meet the Renewables Obligation subsidy cut off point which was the 31st of March 2017, the project will be reliant solely on electricity generated and sold to the wholesale energy market. Optimisation of the site from an increased generation perspective is therefore essential in to order to remain economically viable, typically requiring consideration of higher capacity turbines with larger rotors and higher tip heights than those which have been installed previously.

The Application The Applicant has reviewed the Consented Development design and is seeking a Section 42 revision to the consent to allow larger turbines, maximising electricity generation whilst ensuring that environmental effects remain acceptable.

The Section 42 application seeks to:

• revise the turbine dimensions to allow turbines up to 180m tip height to be constructed; • increase on-site micrositing from 50m to 100m; • make minor alterations to red line boundary; and • increase the planning consent from 25 to 35 years’ duration.

The development to which the Section 42 application relates to is hereafter refer to as the ‘Proposed Development’.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA-R) has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of the Proposed Development and accompanies the Section 42 application.

Although this EIA report supersedes certain elements of the previously submitted ES, it should be read in conjunction with the submitted ES and Addendum.


Page | 9

2 The Proposed Development

Site Description The Application site lies approximately 4km north west of Langholm and 15km north east of Lockerbie in the Annandale East and Eskdale Ward, of Dumfries and Galloway.

The site is characterised by predominantly steeply sloping valley side topography ranging from 450m AOD at Calkin Rig in the north west to 210m AOD by Arresgill in the south east. The entire project site is currently used for commercial forestry.

The existing 22 turbine Ewe Hill Wind Farm development extends to 0.5km west of the proposal at its nearest point, and is a key characteristic of the landscape. The under construction 10 turbine Crossdykes Wind Farm and consented 12 turbine Hopsrig Wind Farm sit 2km and 1.2km at their nearest points, respectively.

Proposed Revisions to the Consented Development The Proposed Development which is the subject of the current Section 42 application is described below, noting all proposed changes from the Consented Development.

• The Proposed Development comprises 8 wind turbine generators with associated access tracks, substation, and temporary construction compounds.

• The tip height of the consented turbines is 135m. The Proposed Development would comprise 8 turbines with a maximum tip height of 180m.

• Due to the increase in turbine size, the turbine foundations are expected to increase from 24m diameter, to 28m in diameter; and the crane hard standings will increase from 45m x 25m to 50m x 30m.

• Due to the increase in turbine height, the anemometer mast will be required to increase from 85m to 105m.

• No changes to turbine locations are proposed. • No changes to the proposed track layout are proposed • No changes to other site infrastructure is proposed.

The proposed turbine location co-ordinates and tip heights are provided in Table 2.1 below. Figure V1.1 provides a location plan of the Proposed Development and Figure V2.1 illustrates the proposed site layout.

Table 2.1: Consented Turbine Locations and Proposed Development Turbine Heights

Turbine Number* Easting Northing Tip Height

T1 331904 585704 180m T2 331537 586059 180m T3 331432 586499 180m T4 331202 586704 180m T5 (10) 329692 587326 180m T6 (11) 329291 587267 180m T7 (12) 328955 587462 180m

T8 (13) 328587 587480 180m *Original turbine numbering in brackets


Page | 10

Design Rationale for Proposed Revisions The Applicant reviewed the project design to establish the capacity of the site to accommodate larger turbines, maximising electricity generation whilst ensuring that environmental effects remain acceptable.

It was considered desirable to avoid changes to the proposed turbine locations, given that the constraints analysis undertaken for the original application which was consulted upon and consented had previously identified the proposed turbine locations as suitable. The main design change considered by the Applicant (as outlined above) is therefore the size and dimensions of the turbines to be installed.

A meeting was held with the DGC Planning Officers on 20th November 2019 to discuss the potential for an amendment to the Consented Development, and to present preliminary visualisations of the Proposed Development from key viewpoints – Calfield Rig (VP1), Bentpath (VP2), and Langholm Monument (VP4).

The Applicant is of the view that the development site may be able to accommodate turbines with tip heights of 180m, subject to detailed assessment against the Consented Development.

Comparative Wireframes have been produced of the Consented Development and the Proposed Development from four key viewpoint locations – Viewpoints 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Figures V3.1a-d).

Renewable Electricity Generation The total capacity of the site will depend on the final turbine model selection. The candidate turbine used to form the basis of the energy production calculations set out in Table 2.2, is the Nordex N133, which can be accommodated within the 180m tip height parameter. The N133 rated capacity is 4.8MW.

An updated typical turbine elevation drawing is provided in Figure V2.2.

Based on a likely scenario of the site’s capacity being 36 MW, the annual indicative total power output of the site would be around 122.8 Gigawatt Hours. This represents a total, over the Proposed Development’s 35-year project lifespan, of approximately 4,298 Gigawatt Hours.

Based on an average household consumption of 3.729 MWh per year1, the Proposed Development would generate enough electricity to power over 32,931 UK households each year, displacing over 55,260 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually and over 1.9 million tonnes over the proposed 35-year lifetime.2

In comparison to the Consented Development, this would represent an increase of 11,317 UK households being powered per year, and displacing an additional 19,008 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. See Table 2.2 below for comparison between the Consented Development and the Proposed Development.

Due to continuous evolution of turbine technology, the Developer is cognisant of the fact that the candidate turbine and the Maximum Generating Capacity of the turbine is subject to change, albeit the Total Installed Capacity will not exceed that of an application determined under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).

1 Updated annual UK average domestic consumption is 3,729 kWh and updated carbon dioxide per GWh of electricity supplied from ‘fossil fuel’ methods of generation such as coal, oil and gas is 450 tonnes. (Accessed 17.02.2020. Available from URL: http://www.renewableuk.com/page/UKWEDExplained). 2 The calculation uses a site-specific load factor of 36.5%, following wind yield assessment. For reference, average load factor for on-shore wind in the UK in 2018 is 26.4% [Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES): renewable sources of energy – Load Factors for renewable electricity generation (DUKES 6.5) Available from URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/renewable-sources-of-energy-chapter-6-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes

http://www.renewableuk.com/page/UKWEDExplained

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/renewable-sources-of-energy-chapter-6-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/renewable-sources-of-energy-chapter-6-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes


Page | 11

Table 2.2: Energy Generation Comparison

*All Proposed Development figures take into consideration a grid capacity limit of 36MW.

Government Policy

2.5.1 Climate Change Policy There is an increasing public realisation that the threat of impacts of climate change demand urgent attention and this is reflected in Government policy with many recent changes. On 26th June 2019 the UK Government introduced a legally binding net zero target to end the UK’s contribution to global warming entirely by 20505.

More recently, the Scottish Government published ‘Protecting Scotland's Future: the Government's Programme for Scotland 2019-2020’ 6 on 3rd September 2019. It is unequivocal in the language it uses about the size of the threat that Climate Change poses, and the urgency with which action must be taken, stating: “Scotland is facing a climate emergency. Like the rest of the world, we must act to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change on our people and our planet”. The Scottish Government passed legislation on the 25th September 2019 committing Scotland to becoming a net-zero society by 2045 – five years before the rest of the UK7 and stated: “The Scottish Government will also respond to the global climate emergency by adopting an ambitious new target to reduce emissions by 75% by 2030 – the toughest statutory target of any country in the world for this date”8. These are clearly ambitious targets which require further very significant deployment in low carbon technologies and in energy policy in order that they are met.

3 See http://www.renewableuk.com/page/UKWEDExplained for calculation 4 See Footnote 3 5 The Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 (S.I. 2019/1056) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/1056/contents/made 6 Protecting Scotland's Future: the Government's Programme for Scotland 2019-2020 https://www.gov.scot/publications/protecting-scotlands-future-governments-programme-scotland-2019-20/ 7 Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Bills/Climate%20Change%20(Emissions%20Reduction%20Targets)%20(Scotland)%20Bill/SPBill30BS052019.pdf 8 Scottish Government News Published: 25 September 2019. ‘Scotland to become a net-zero society’ https://www.gov.scot/news/scotland-to-become-a-net-zero-society/

Consented Development Proposed Development* Candidate Turbine GE 120 Nordex N133 Max Capacity per Turbine 3.2 MW 4.8 MW Max Capacity of Site 25.6 MW 36 MW (grid limit) Energy Production Turbine (per annum) 10.07 GWh 15.35 GWh Whole Site (per annum) 80.6 GWh 122.8 GWh Turbine (25-year lifetime) 251.87 GWh 383.75 GWh Whole Site (25-year lifetime) 2,015 GWh 3,070 GWh Turbine (35-year lifetime) 352.45 GWh 537.25 GWh Whole Site (35-year lifetime) 2,821 GWh 4,298 GWh Homes Powered3 Turbine (per annum) 2,701 Homes 4,116 Homes Whole Site (per annum) 21,614 Homes 32,931 Homes CO2 Reductions4 Turbine (per annum) 4,531 Tonnes 6,907 Tonnes Whole Site (per annum) 36,252 Tonnes 55,260 Tonnes Turbine (25-year lifetime) 113,275 Tonnes 172,675 Tonnes Whole Site (25-year lifetime) 906,300 Tonnes 1,381,500 Tonnes Turbine (35-year lifetime) 158,585 Tonnes 241,745 Tonnes Whole Site (35-year lifetime) 1,268,820 Tonnes 1,934,100 Tonnes

http://www.renewableuk.com/page/UKWEDExplained

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/1056/contents/made

https://www.gov.scot/publications/protecting-scotlands-future-governments-programme-scotland-2019-20/

https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Bills/Climate%20Change%20(Emissions%20Reduction%20Targets)%20(Scotland)%20Bill/SPBill30BS052019.pdf

https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Bills/Climate%20Change%20(Emissions%20Reduction%20Targets)%20(Scotland)%20Bill/SPBill30BS052019.pdf

https://www.gov.scot/news/scotland-to-become-a-net-zero-society/


Page | 12

2.5.2 Renewable Energy Policy The Scottish Government’s Onshore Wind Policy Statement (OWPS) published in December 20179 states: “In order for onshore wind to play its vital role in meeting Scotland’s energy needs, and a material role in growing our economy, its contribution must continue to grow. Onshore wind generation will remain crucial in terms of our goals for a decarbonised energy system, helping to meet the greater demand from our heat and transport sectors, as well as making further progress towards the ambitious renewable targets which the Scottish Government has set”.

The UK Government announced on June 18th 2015 that they would end all new subsidies for onshore wind. The main subsidy support, the Renewables Obligation, closed to new projects which were not operating by the 31st of March 2017. Therefore, Loganhead Wind Farm will be reliant solely on electricity generated and sold on the wholesale market at prices of approximately 50% of projects qualifying under the Renewables Obligation. This removal of support continues to act as a major and very significant barrier to new onshore wind farms being built. No wind farm without subsidies has been commissioned in this period. Optimisation of the site from an increased generation perspective is therefore essential in to order to become economically viable.

Against the Renewables Obligation closure, the OWPS recognises that there is a need for further cost reductions in the onshore wind sector to allow deployment in a post subsidy era and this will be in the form of larger turbines able to capture more energy. Paragraph 23 states that the Scottish Ministers “acknowledge that onshore wind technology and equipment manufacturers in the market are moving towards larger and more powerful (i.e. higher capacity) turbines and that these by necessity – will mean taller towers and blade tip heights”.

More explicitly in an address to industry in 2016, the Head of the Scottish Government Energy Consents, Frances Pacitti said “We will acknowledge the need for us to be much more realistic in where the onshore wind industry is as a market and how to attract investment into Scotland”. Ms Pacitti outlined Holyrood will work towards “normalcy” around higher tip heights, and that “the dialogue to date has been capped at 132 metres but it’s time to move that on. The discussion is 150 metres-plus for most applications going forward.”10

9 Scottish Government Onshore Wind: Policy Statement. https://www.gov.scot/publications/onshore-wind-policy-statement-9781788515283/ 10 ‘Scotland set to raise roof for turbines’, Renewable Energy News, Issue 346 October 2016, Page 9


Page | 13

3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

EIA Report An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Proposed Development has been undertaken, in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (‘the EIA Regulations’). The EIA process is the systematic process of identifying, predicting and evaluating the environmental impacts of a Proposed Development, and is reported in this EIA Report which accompanies the Section 42 planning application being submitted to Dumfries and Galloway Council (DGC).

A comparative environmental analysis has been undertaken to check whether the proposed amendments will result in any additional significant environmental impacts not identified in the original ES and Addendum (FEI).

The EIA Report is split into two volumes. The potential for, and residual effects are assessed within Volume 1 as follows:

• Chapter 4 assesses the potential and residual effects on landscape and visual amenity; • Chapter 5 assesses the potential and residual effects on socio-economics, tourism and recreation; • Chapter 6 assesses the potential and residual effects on ecology and nature conservation; • Chapter 7 assesses the potential and residual effects on ornithology; • Chapter 8 assesses the potential and residual effects on hydrology, geology and hydrogeology • Chapter 9 assesses the potential and residual effects on archaeology (cultural heritage); • Chapter 10 assesses the potential and residual effects on noise; • Chapter 11 assesses the potential and residual effects on traffic and transport; and • Chapter 12 assesses the potential and residual effects on other considerations such as Shadow Flicker,

Aviation and Telecommunications.

Supporting information and appendices for each of these technical chapters are contained at the back of Volume 2.

Volume 2 contains the figures that inform the EIA Report. A number of revised and new figures are provided for each chapter, and include plans and visualisations of the Proposed Development. For ease of cross referencing with the original ES, Figure references used for this application, have the addition of a prefix ‘V’ (variation).

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 introduced the requirement to consider potential effects on a number of topic areas which were not required to be considered at the time the original ES was prepared. This includes:

• Potential effects on human health; and • Consideration of the vulnerability of projects to major accidents and/or natural disasters and any

implications of this for the likelihood of significant effects on the environment

3.1.1 Human Health The potential effects of the Proposed Development are considered in relation to noise and visual effects and no significant effects on human health are considered likely to arise as a result of the proposed increase in turbine heights. It is also important to note that the wind farm will be constructed and operated in accordance with health and safety legislation (as detailed in Section 3.1.2).


Page | 14

3.1.2 Risk of Major Accidents and Disasters The Proposed Development is not located in an area with a known history of natural disasters such as extreme weather events.

Effects in terms of flooding have been considered within the ES for the Consented Development. The construction methods stated within the original ES will remain the same for the Proposed Development. On this basis, it is not expected the Proposed Development will lead to any significant effects in terms of the risk of major accidents and disasters.

The construction and operation of the Proposed Development will be managed within the requirements of a number of health and safety Regulations, including the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

3.1.3 Statement of Competency The 2017 EIA Regulations state that “In order to ensure the completeness and quality of the EIA report –

(a) The developer must ensure that the EIA report is prepared by competent experts; and (b) The EIA report must be accompanied by a statement from the developer outlining the relevant expertise

or qualifications of such experts.”

3.1.3.1 EIA Team The assessment was undertaken by the following team, with references as appropriate to assessment work previously undertaken as part of the EIA for the Consented Development.

Table 3.1: Technical Assessment Team

Technical Chapter Consultant for ES Consultant for Proposed Development

Landscape and Visual Amenity WOOD (formerly Amec Foster Wheeler)

No Change

Socio-Economics, Tourism and Recreation Muirhall Energy No Change Ecology Cameron Ecology LUC Ornithology Cameron Ecology LUC Hydrology, Geology and Hydrogeology EnviroCentre Muirhall Energy Cultural Heritage (Archaeology) CFA No Change Noise SLR No Change Traffic and Transport Peter Brett Associates Muirhall Energy Aviation and Telecommunications Muirhall Energy No Change Shadow Flicker Muirhall Energy No Change

Technical Appendix 1.1 of the Original ES contains all relevant expertise for the consultancy team used for this EIA report, with the exception of LUC and Muirhall Energy, which have been included in Table 3.2, below.


Page | 15

Table 3.2: EIA Report Team – Expertise

Topic Expertise

Ecology and Ornithology

Steve Jackson-Matthews LUC, Board Director for Ecology Steve is a skilled ecologist with a track record in delivering innovative solutions to ecological challenges. Steve has worked extensively within the planning system, undertaking ecological assessments for a wide range of proposed developments across the UK and Ireland. As a specialist in the planning system, Steve routinely works within the context of EcIA and HRA to assess potential impacts on ecological features. Steve is a founding member of the Association of Environmental and Ecological Clerks of Works (AEECoW) and serves as its Chair. Through AEECoW Steve is particularly involved in developing good practice guidance for planning departments. Steve also acts as an Advisor to wildlife charities in Scotland to whom he provides advice and support in relation to the Planning process. Steve is a founding member of the Association of Environmental and Ecological Clerks of Works (AEECoW) and serves as its Chair. Through AEECoW Steve is particularly involved in developing good practice guidance for planning departments. Steve also acts as an Advisor to wildlife charities in Scotland to whom he provides advice and support in relation to the Planning process.

Socio-Economics, Tourism and Recreation; Hydrology; Traffic and Transport; Aviation and Telecommunications; Shadow Flicker, and Overall Coordination and Quality Assurance

This report has been produced by Jason Morin BSc (Hons) and reviewed by Alastair Yule PIEMA, a registered Practitioner of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.

Availability of the EIA Report The EIA Report will be available to purchase for a cost of £100 (Volume 1) and £200 (Volume 2) for hard copies, or £10 for CD copies, from Muirhall Energy.

A copy of the EIA Report will be available for viewing during opening hours at:

Dumfries and Galloway Council Planning and Building Standards Kirkbank House English Street Dumfries DG1 2DD


Page | 16

4 Landscape and Visual

Introduction The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) for the consented Loganhead Wind Farm has been updated as part of the Section 42 application to take account of a proposed change in turbine dimensions, resulting in an overall height increase of 44.9m, based on a candidate Nordex N133 turbine, as follows:

• Proposed increase in turbine height: - Blade tip height: 179.9m (increased from 135m) - Hub height: 113.4m (increased from 75m) - Rotor diameter: 133m (increased from 120m)

The Nordex N133 turbine dimensions can be accommodated within the maximum 180m blade tip height being applied for; however, it is accepted that the actual turbine to be constructed could be subject to change. All other infrastructure elements would remain the same as the consented Loganhead Wind Farm.

This chapter assesses the landscape and visual effects of the above changes (hereafter referred to as the ‘proposed Development’) as illustrated in Figure V2.1: Site Layout.

The LVIA and cumulative assessment (CLVIA) reported in this chapter has been produced by chartered landscape architects at Wood who undertook the previous assessment in the Environmental Statement (ES) (2015) and Further Environmental Statement (FEI) (2017) of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm. The objective of this assessment has been to determine the landscape and visual effects of the proposed Development on the existing landscape resource and visual amenity. The following landscape and visual receptors have been re-assessed.

• Landscape character, key characteristics, and elements; • Designated landscapes; and • Views and visual amenity experienced by residents, tourists, visitors, and road users.

An additional assessment has been added to assess the potential effects of aviation warning lights.

The assessment process has encompassed the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed Development and has included a re-assessment of the residual effects. The process has sought to achieve the highest energy generation capacity for the Site, whilst balancing this with environmental considerations and achieving an acceptable design in terms of landscape and visual effects.

4.1.1 Appendices and Figures The chapter is supported by 4 Appendices as follows:

• Appendix V4.1: Methodology and Glossary; • Appendix V4.2: Viewpoint Analysis; • Appendix V4.3: Residential Visual Amenity Assessment; and • Appendix V4.4: Night-time Assessment.

A number of revised and new figures are provided to illustrate this chapter and include plans and visualisations of the Proposed Development. For ease of cross referencing with the FEI, Figure number references used in this chapter have been kept the same, with the addition of a prefix ‘V’ (variation).


Page | 17

Methodology The assessment methodology broadly remains as set out in the ES and FEI and conforms to the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (GLVIA). The methodology has been set out in Technical Appendix V4.1 for ease of reference and includes a glossary of terms and abbreviations, used in this chapter.

The methodology for the LVIA and CLVIA has been undertaken in accordance with best practice guidance including, but not limited to, the following (those in italics have been updated since the submission of the FEI in January 2017):

• Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, Landscape Institute and IEMA (May 2013) (GLVIA 3);

• Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape, Version 3a, SNH (August 2017); • Guidance: Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments, SNH (2012); and • Visual Representation of Wind Farms Version 2.2, SNH (February 2017).

4.2.1 Determining the Significance of Effects In accordance with the relevant EIA Regulations it is important to determine whether the predicted effects, resulting from the proposed wind farm, are likely to be significant. Significant landscape, visual and cumulative effects are highlighted in bold in the text and in most cases, relate to all those effects that result in a ‘Substantial’ or a ‘Substantial / Moderate’ effect as indicated in Table 4.1. In some circumstances, Moderate levels of effect also have the potential, subject to the assessor’s opinion, to be considered as significant and these exceptions are also highlighted in bold and explained as part of the assessment, where they occur.

A distinction has also been made between there being a ‘range’ of effects on a receptor, which has been expressed as ‘Moderate to Negligible’ for example, and a situation where the level of effect is intermediate to either of two options, which has been expressed as ‘Moderate - Slight’ for example.

Table 4.1: Evaluation of Landscape and Visual Effects

Magnitude of Change

Landscapes and Visual Sensitivity

High Medium Low Negligible

High Substantial Substantial / Moderate Moderate Slight

Medium Substantial / Moderate Moderate Slight Slight / Negligible

Low Moderate Slight Slight / Negligible Negligible

Negligible Slight Slight / Negligible Negligible Negligible

Zero None / No View None / No View None / No View None / No View

4.2.2 Landscape Planning Policy and Guidance The revised assessment has taken account of national and local planning requirements in relation to wind farm development, as well as the Dumfries and Galloway Council, Local Development Plan, Supplementary Guidance: Part 1 Wind Energy Development: Development Management Considerations June 2017, Wind Energy Development: Development Management Considerations Draft Supplementary Guidance January 2018 and the Dumfries and Galloway Wind Farm Landscape Capacity Study (DGWLCS) in Appendix C.

The proposed Development is located within the Southern Uplands with Forest: West Langholm (LCT 19a) landscape unit and the now adopted DGWLCS was considered in draft form for the FEI in conjunction with the previous DGWLCS (2011). The FEI stated, “Taking account of the advice provided in both studies and the particular characteristics of the West Langholm unit a sensitivity assessment of ‘Medium to Low’ is proposed”.


Page | 18

The adopted DGWLCS now assumes an overall sensitivity of ‘High-Medium’ for very large typology turbines (150m+ in height to blade tip) located within the Southern Uplands with Forest: West Langholm landscape unit, but also considers that the landscape sensitivity in respect of landscape value is ‘Medium to Low’ overall. In addition there are a number of other wind farms located within / close to this landscape unit that also have an effect on sensitivity and the nature of the forestry in this area, located on steep slopes is both indicative of human development and self-limiting in terms of visibility. Taking all of these factors into account the sensitivity applied to this assessment of Southern Uplands with Forest: West Langholm has been increased to Medium, but is not considered to be as high as the overall sensitivity of DGWLCS.

4.2.3 Viewpoint Selection Viewpoint selection was based on the viewpoints identified in the FEI.

Taking a precautionary approach and considering the height of the proposed turbines, a review of all previous 21 viewpoints was undertaken, resulting in a detailed assessment (Appendix V4.2) for viewpoints 1-10. These locations include those viewpoints which were assessed as Low magnitude or greater in the FEI. Other viewpoints (11-21) were assessed as of Negligible or Zero magnitude and considered in the review as unlikely to become significant as a result of the revised proposal.

The viewpoint locations are illustrated on Figures V4.2 and V4.3, and shown as photographs, wirelines and photomontages in Figures V4.18a-d to V4.27a-d (viewpoints 1-10). All of the viewpoint locations were re-photographed in August 2018 and May 2019.

4.2.4 Cumulative Wind Energy Development As part of the revised assessment and drawing from SNH guidance11, the cumulative baseline of all operational and consented wind energy development and other planning applications for wind energy development, within the 35km Study Area, is included in the assessment. This includes wind farms and single turbines above 50m to blade tip height.

Micro-generation turbines less than 50m to blade tip height and single turbines have not been included and in accordance with the SNH guidance projects at pre-planning application stage have also been excluded.

In total 25 wind farm developments are included in the revised cumulative assessment as listed in Table 4.2 and illustrated in Figure V4.13b.

The most relevant wind energy developments to the CLVIA include those sites within 10km and in particular the existing sites of Ewe Hill, Craig (and extension), Solwaybank and Minsca, the consented sites of Hopsrig and Crossdykes and the applications for Little Hartfell and Faw Side wind farms.

11 Scottish Natural Heritage, March 2012, Guidance: Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Onshore Wind Energy Developments.


Page | 19

Table 4.2: Wind Energy Development Included in the CLVIA

Wind Farm Site

Details Approximate distance from proposed Development (m)

No. of turbines

Hub height (m)

Rotor diameter (m)

Tip height (m)

Existing / Under Construction Wind Farm Development

E01. Craig 5 59.5 80 99.5 345

E02. Craig Extension 1 58.5 82 99.5 484

E03. Ewe Hill 22 70 83 111.5 502

E04. Crossdykes (under construction)

10 110 133 176.5 2,160

E05. Solwaybank (under construction)

15 80 93 126.5 6,124

E06. Minsca 16 80 80 120 8,827

E07. Beck Burn 9 80 93 126.5 16,658

E08. Hallburn 6 75 100 125 19,688

E09. Minnygap 10 80 90 125 26,594

E10. Harestanes 68 80 90 125 27,241

E11. Great Orton 6 45 47 68.5 31,985

E12. Orton Park Farm Extension

2 60 52.9 86.45 33,111

E13. Orton Park Farm (Orton Grange)

1 49 32 65 33,544

E14. Dalswinton 15 80 90 125 33,676

E15. Langhope Rig 10 80 82.4 121.2 34,453

Consented Wind Farm Development

C01. Hopsrig 12 89.5 101 140 1,279

C02. Little Hartfell 12 100 120 160 4,534

C03. Windy Edge 9 80 90 125 20,592

C04. Pines Burn 12 80 / 91.4 100 / 117 130 / 149.9 29,273

Wind Farm Application Sites

A02. Faw Side 45 104.5/125 150 179.5 / 200 5,007

Note: Information collected from the local planning authority and developer sources, dated February 2020. This information is complete to the best of our knowledge.


Page | 20

4.2.4.1 Operation Periods for other Existing / Consented Wind Energy Development within 10km Other existing and consented wind farm development within 10km of the proposed Development would have the following operational periods:

• Existing Wind Farms:

o Craig Wind Farm (operational since 2007) and its extension (operational since 2017) would remain operational until 2032 and 2042, respectively, prior to being decommissioned, some 12-20 years ahead of the operational time period for the proposed Development.

o Minsca Wind Farm (operational since 2007) would remain operational until 2032-33, prior to being decommissioned, some 20-22 years ahead of the equivalent operational time period for the proposed Development.

o Ewe Hill Wind Farm (operational since 2017) would remain operational until 2042, prior to be being decommissioned, approximately 12 years ahead of the equivalent operational time period for the proposed Development.

o Solwaybank Wind Farm (under-construction) would operate over a relatively similar time period to the proposed Development, becoming operational in 2020.

o Crossdykes Wind Farm (under-construction) would operate over a relatively similar time period to the proposed Development, becoming operational in 2020.

• Consented Wind Farms:

o Hopsrig and Little Hartfell wind farms are likely be operational in approximately 2 years, by 2022 and their period of operation would be similar to that of the proposed Development.

With the exception of the existing Craig Wind Farm, the closest wind farm developments to the proposed Development are likely to operate over a similar timeframe to the proposed Development. This includes the existing Craig Extension, Ewe Hill, Crossdykes (under-construction) and the consented Hopsrig and Little Hartfell wind farms.

4.2.5 Revised Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and Viewpoint Analysis Revised ZTV maps indicate the areas from where it may be theoretically possible to view all or some of the proposed turbines. Comparative ZTVs have also been used to show the difference in theoretical visibility between the consented Loganhead Wind Farm, (calculated to the maximum proposed turbine height of up to 135m to blade tip, based on the hub heights of 75m and a rotor diameter of 120m) and the proposed Development (calculated to the maximum proposed turbine height of up to 179.9m to blade tip, based on the hub heights of 113.4m and a rotor diameter of 133m). A number of ZTV maps have been provided as follows:

• Figure V4.2: illustrates a comparative ZTV of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm and the proposed Development calculated to blade tip at 1:300,000 scale across the Landscape and Visual Study Area and provides an overview of the theoretical extent of visibility with viewpoints;

• Figure V4.2a: illustrates a detailed comparative ZTV (5km) of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm and the proposed Development calculated to blade tip at 1:50,000 scale and provides an overview of the theoretical extent of visibility with viewpoints;

• Figure V4.3: illustrates a comparative ZTV of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm and the proposed Development calculated to hub height at 1:300,000 scale across the Landscape and Visual Study Area and provides an overview of the theoretical extent of visibility with viewpoints;

• Figure V4.3a: illustrates a detailed comparative ZTV (5km) of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm and the proposed Development calculated to hub height at 1:50,000 scale and provides an overview of the theoretical extent of visibility with viewpoints;


Page | 21

• Figure 4.4: illustrates a detailed ZTV (5km) calculated to blade tip at 1:50,000 scale and provides an overview of the theoretical extent of visibility with viewpoints;

• Figure V4.5a: (A0 fold-out) illustrates the ZTV calculated to blade tip at 1:100,000 scale across the Landscape and Visual Study Area. This figure also illustrates the viewpoint locations; and

• Figure V4.5b: (A0 fold-out) illustrates the ZTV calculated to blade tip at 1:50,000 scale across the Landscape and Visual Study Area. This figure also illustrates the viewpoint locations.

Further cumulative ZTV maps are illustrated in Figures V4.14a to V4.17b indicating the extent of theoretical cumulative visibility in relation to the proposed Development and other existing, consented wind farms and other wind farm applications.

The revised ZTVs show little to negligible increase in theoretical visibility of the proposed Development when compared to the consented Loganhead Wind Farm as follows:

• Total ZTV (to blade tip) coverage increased from 38.4% to 41.63% (less than 3%) of the 35km radius Study Area; and

• Total ZTV (to hub height) coverage increased from 34% to 37.44% (less than 3%) of the 35km radius Study Area.

4.2.5.1 Viewpoint and Cumulative Viewpoint Analysis The viewpoint analysis is set out in Technical Appendix V4.2. The viewpoint analysis has been conducted from 10 locations as illustrated in Figures V4.2 and V4.3 and each of these are illustrated at a 90° and a 53.5° angle or field of view (FoV) in Figures V4.18a-d to V4.27a-d with wirelines and photomontages. Cumulative wind farm development included within the revised cumulative baseline that would be visible within 35km of each viewpoint has been illustrated in the wirelines.

The outer distance from the proposed Development, where significant effects may be likely, has been identified by the viewpoint analysis in respect of the proposed Development. Further, cumulative viewpoint analysis has identified a potential threshold for significant cumulative visual effects that would result from the proposed Development, in addition to, or in combination with other existing and consented wind energy developments and applications.

Potential Threshold for Significant Effects: The proposed Development The viewpoint analysis indicates that significant visual effects would extend out to approximately 1.6km from the nearest turbine locations as indicated by Viewpoint 1: Calfield Rigg, due to the height and scale of the proposed turbines. This extent of significant visual effects is the same as that assessed for the consented Loganhead Wind Farm, although a small (non-significant) increase in the magnitude of change is identified for Viewpoint 3: B7068 / Bloch Farm.

Potential Threshold for Significant Cumulative Effects The proposed Development has also been considered in terms of the additional and combined cumulative visual effects with other existing, consented and application wind farms. that the viewpoint analysis indicates that there would be no new additional or combined cumulative effects as a result of the proposed Development and that the cumulative effects would also extend out to approximately 1.6km from the nearest turbine locations, as indicated by Viewpoint 1.

Further to this the proposed Development can be considered as two separate extensions to the Ewe Hill and Craig wind farms. Where a ‘gap’ or separation already exists between existing and consented wind farms this is maintained from all viewpoints except Viewpoint 5: Castle O’er Hillfort, albeit the Craig Wind Farm is not particularly visible, and the proposed Development appears as part of ‘one’ wind farm group comprising Ewe Hill, Crossdykes and Hopsrig.


Page | 22

Other than Viewpoint 1, there are no further viewpoints where the proposed Development is assessed as a significant contributor to combined cumulative visual effects with other existing, consented and application wind farms. Any other significant cumulative visual effects result from existing wind farms such as Ewe Hill and, Minsca as well as the under construction Solwaybank and Crossdykes, and consented and application stage wind farms, including Hopsrig, Little Hartfell and Faw Side. Significant cumulative effects where this occurs include: Viewpoint 4: Langholm Monument; Viewpoint 5: Castle O’er Forest Hill Fort; Viewpoint 6: Corrie Common; Viewpoint 7: Kirtleton; Viewpoint 9: Waterbeck; and Viewpoint 10: Arkleton Hill. These viewpoints would not be significantly affected by the proposed Development.

This initial indication has been tested further as part of the assessment process but provides some justification for focusing the assessment on the central portion of the Study Area out to approximately 5km radius, as a precaution, from the outermost turbines. Importantly these levels of effect are indicative of a visual effect on a particular viewpoint location and they should not be assumed to translate into visual effects on the overall visual experience, as each of the viewpoints have been specifically located where the sensitivity of the receptor and the views of the proposed Development would be greatest. In this sense they are not typical or representative.

Potential Threshold for Significant Night-time Visual Effects In summary, a potentially significant night-time visual effect is predicted for viewpoint N3: B7068 Bloch Farm at 4.5km distance from the proposed Development. This is due to the number of likely visible aviation warning lights, viewed in the context of an area where there are few / no other visible light sources.

No other existing wind farms in the study area have any aviation warning lights that would be visible on the turbines. The consented Crossdykes (under construction) and Little Hart Fell wind farms would be lit by aviation warning lights visible on the nacelles and turbine towers.

The information set out in Table 4.3 provides a summary of the viewpoint analysis of the effects of the proposed Development on a ‘solus’ and ‘cumulative’ basis. The cumulative analysis considered the effects of proposed Development ‘in addition’ to and ‘in combination’ with other existing and consented wind energy developments and applications, assessing two scenarios in accordance with the methodology in Appendix V4.1.


Page | 23

Table 4. 3: Summary of Revised Viewpoint Analysis

Viewpoint Distance to nearest turbine (m)

Previous Assessment12

LVIA: proposed Development (at 179.9.m to blade tip)

CLVIA: proposed Development (PD) and other wind farms

Level of Effect

Sensitivity Magnitude Level of Effect Magnitude

(Existing and Consented)

Additional Level of Effect

Scenario 1: Combined Level of Effect

Magnitude

(Applications)



1. Calfield Rig 1,651 Substantial / Moderate High High -

Medium Subtantial - Substantial / Moderate Medium

Subtantial - Substantial / Moderate

Subtantial - Substantial / Moderate (PD, Craig, and Ewe Hill)

Low Subtantial - Substantial / Moderate

Subtantial - Substantial / Moderate (PD, Craig and Ewe Hill)

2. Bentpath 3,294 Moderate High Low Moderate Negligible Moderate Moderate Zero No cumulative effect

3. B7068/Bloch Farm 4,501 Slight /

Negligible Medium Medium - Low Moderate - Slight Low Moderate -

Slight Moderate - Slight Negligible Moderate -

Slight Moderate - Slight

4. Langholm Monument 6,111 Moderate High Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Medium Moderate

Substantial / Moderate (Faw Side)

5. Castle O’er Forest Hill Fort

6,886 Moderate High Low Moderate Medium Slight

Substantial / Moderate (Crossdykes, Little Hartfell and Hopsrig)

Medium Slight

Substantial / Moderate (Crossdykes, Hopsrig, Faw Side and Little Hartfell)

6. Corrie Common 7,820 Slight High Negligible Slight High -

Medium Slight

Substantial / Moderate (Ewe Hill, Little Hartfell, Hopsrig and Crossdykes)

Low Slight

Substantial to Substantial / Moderate (Little Hartfell, Ewe Hill, Hopsrig and Crossdykes)

12 Assessment results from the previous assessment, Loganhead Wind Farm Addendum (2017), Chapter 4, Table A4.4 (proposed turbines at 135m to blade tip)


Page | 24

7. Kirtleton 8,161 Slight

High (residents)

Medium (road users)

Negligible Slight (residents)

Slight / Negligible (road users)

Medium Slight to Slight / Negligible

Substantial / Moderate (Solwaybank and Minsca)

Zero

No cumulative effect

8. B6357 Milltown 10, 104

Slight to Slight / Negligible

Medium

Low-Negligible

Slight to Slight / Negligible Low


Moderate / Slight Low-Negligible


Moderate / Slight

9. Waterbeck 10,521 Slight

High (residents)

Medium (road users)

Negligible Slight (residents)

Slight / Negligible (road users)

Medium-Low


Substantial / Moderate to Moderate (Minsca and Solwaybank)

Negligible Slight to Slight / Negligible

Substantial / Moderate to Moderate (Minsca and Solwaybank)

10. Arkleton Hill 10,504 Moderate High Low Moderate Low - Negligible

Moderate to Slight Moderate High Slight Substantial

(Faw Side)

Note: Significant effects are shown in bold and changes to the assessment from the previous FEI are shown in italics.


Page | 25

Baseline Description There has been no change to the baseline information as reported in the FEI, Chapter 4 and a summary of the baseline receptors considered in this revised assessment is provided as follows:

4.3.1 Baseline Landscape Receptors: Landscape Character Landscape Character is described in the DGWLCS and illustrated in Figure 4.7a of the ES and Figure V4.7b of this assessment. The following landscape character types have been included in the revised assessment:

• Southern Uplands with Forest (19a) West Langholm (i) unit (within which the proposed Development is located);

• Southern Uplands (19): Ewe Hill (ii) unit; and • Narrow Wooded Valleys (4): Eskdale unit.

4.3.2 Baseline Landscape Receptors: Landscape Designations The location of the proposed Development is not designated for landscape reasons at either a local or national level. The Langholm Hills Regional Scenic Area (RSA) is the only landscape designation within 5km of the proposed Development and this has been included in the revised assessment.

4.3.3 Baseline Visual Receptors: Settlements and Residential Properties Langholm is the only settlement within 5km identified in the Local Development Plan and this is outwith the ZTV and would have No View of the proposed Development. A smaller ‘settlement’ at Bentpath has been included in the revised assessment. Residential properties within 2km assessed have been re-assessed in Appendix V4.3.

4.3.4 Baseline Visual Receptors: Transport Routes The B709 linking Langholm and Innerleithen via the Eskdale valley and within 5km of the proposed Development has been included in the revised assessment.

4.3.5 Baseline Visual Receptors: Recreational Routes The following recreational routes within 5km (previously assessed as Moderate or greater level of effect in the FEI) have been included in the revised assessment:

• DA33 Capelfoot to Hopsrig; • DA34 Calkin to Boonies; • Corepath 279: Brocklunns Bank to Langholm, over Calfield Rig (overlaps with Langholm Walk 9 / 11); • Corepath 278: between Langholm and Warb Law (overlaps with Langholm Walk 4); • Corepath 282: between Langholm and Whita Hill (overlaps with Langholm Walk 8 and 10); and • Langholm Walk 4: Potholm and Castle Hill.

4.3.6 Baseline Visual Receptors: Recreational and Tourist Destinations Recreational and tourist destinations included in the revised assessment, within 5km are listed as follows:

• Eskdale Prehistoric Trail:

− Point of Interest No.2: Bailiehill Hill Fort; − Point of Interest No.4: Castle O’er Hill Fort; − Point of Interest No.6: Bessie's Hill Fort, Castle O’er Forest; and − Point of Interest No.9: King Schaw's Grave.

• Langholm Monument; and • Arkleton Hill summit, promoted as part of the Langholm Walks Project (Langholm Walk No.6);

http://www.langholmwalks.co.uk/pht/schaw.html


Page | 26

Revised Effects on Landscape Character

4.4.1 Southern Uplands with Forest (19a): West Langholm (i) unit The site location for the proposed Development remains predominantly within and all of the proposed turbines are within the Southern Uplands with Forest: West Langholm unit and close to the boundary with the Southern Uplands: Ewe Hill unit. Considering the nature of the existing forestry, on steep slopes, the existing development in terms of forestry and other wind farms as well as the advice contained within the DGWLCS, the sensitivity of this landscape unit to the proposed Development is judged as Medium.

Considering the proposed Development, there would be a slight increase in the magnitude, geographical extent and duration of the landscape effects, as reported in the FEI of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm, which would remain High, resulting in a significant effect (Substantial / Moderate) on part of the Southern Uplands with Forest: West Langholm unit. Aviation warning lights would also be visible. The significant effects would extend over a limited area to the south within approximately 1-2km (due to the presence of other wind farm development at Ewe Hill and the edge of this unit to the north). These effects would also be limited by existing / retained forestry cover in this area and would not be significant in terms of the overall landscape character. The nature of these effects would be temporary to long-term (reversible) direct and negative due primarily to the height and scale of the turbines and the addition of aviation warning lights. It should be noted that felling and replanting of forestry surrounding the proposed Development has commenced in accordance with the consented Loganhead Wind Farm forestry felling and restocking plans, enabling the establishment and reinstatement of areas of forestry prior to construction.

4.4.1.1 Cumulative Landscape Effects: proposed Development, Existing and Consented Wind Farms Changes to the cumulative baseline within the Southern Uplands with Forest: West Langholm unit since the consented Loganhead Wind Farm include the under construction Crossdykes and consented Hopsrig wind farms, extending into the northeast / northwest of this character unit. There would be locally significant effects on landscape character within 1-2km of these turbines. This landscape character unit hosts two existing wind farms (Craig and Ewe Hill) , one wind farm under construction (Crossdykes) and one consented wind farm (Hopsrig). Collectively wind farm development is a new key characteristic of this landscape character unit. This is illustrated in Figure V4.16b which indicates that theoretical cumulative visibility of the proposed Development with the Crossdykes and Hopsrig developments would occur mostly to the northern and far eastern areas of this landscape character unit – indicating that Crossdykes and Hopsrig wind farms are not uniformly visible across the whole unit. The proposed Development would be seen as closely associated with the existing pattern of wind farm development at the Ewe Hill and Craig wind farms. The combined cumulative effect would remain significant (Substantial / Moderate) extending to within approximately 1-2km of the turbine locations. The additional cumulative effect of the proposed Development would be slightly reduced by the presence of other existing and consented development, although still significant (Moderate). The nature of these effects would be temporary to long-term (reversible), cumulative, direct and negative.

Outside of the Southern Uplands with Forest: West Langholm unit, the consented Little Hartfell Wind Farm is located in the Foothills with Forest: Cast Oer unit at a distance of approximately 4-5km leading to a Low magnitude of change on the Southern Uplands with Forest: West Langholm unit.

4.4.1.2 Cumulative Landscape Effects: proposed Development, Existing, Consented and Application Wind Farms

There are no application wind farms within this landscape character unit. The application Faw Side wind farm is located within the neighbouring Southern Uplands: North Langholm unit approximately 5km north of the proposed Development, leading to a Low magnitude of change on the Southern Uplands with Forest: West Langholm unit. The combined and additional cumulative effect would therefore remain the same as identified above.


Page | 27

4.4.2 Southern Uplands: Ewe Hill unit The proposed Development is located close to the boundary with the Southern Uplands: Ewe Hill unit. Considering the proposed Development and the addition of aviation warning lights, there would be a slight increase to the magnitude, geographical extent and duration of the landscape effects, as reported in the FEI of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm, which would remain significant (Substantial / Moderate) on part of the Southern Uplands: Ewe Hill unit extending within approximately 1-2km of the turbine locations across open, rough grassland as far as Calfield Rig, Black Knowe, Bombie Hill and Shaw Hill. In particular, the proposed Development would appear as an extension to the Craig Wind Farm relating well in terms of composition and integrating in terms of scale, due to the reverse perspective when viewed from the east and south. This effect would not be significant in terms of the overall landscape character. The nature of these effects would be temporary to long-term (reversible) direct and negative due primarily to the height and scale of the turbines. There would, however, be changes to the cumulative assessment as a result of other wind farms, as set out below.

4.4.2.1 Cumulative Landscape Effects: proposed Development, Existing and Consented Wind Farms Parts of the existing Craig Wind Farm and its Extension are located within this landscape (High magnitude) and the existing Ewe Hill Wind Farm would be visible further to the west (Low magnitude) with the under construction Crossdykes Wind Farm and consented Hopsrig and Little Hartfell wind farms occasional visible beyond (Low to Negligible magnitude). The combined cumulative effect would remain significant (Substantial / Moderate) on part of the Southern Uplands: Ewe Hill unit, extending to within approximately 1.5km of the turbine locations. The nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible), cumulative, indirect and negative.


There are no application wind farms within this landscape character unit. The application Faw Side wind farms are located within the neighbouring LCTs approximately 5km west and north of the proposed Development, leading to a Low to Negligible magnitude of change on this character unit. The combined and additional cumulative effect would therefore remain the same as identified above.

4.4.3 Narrow Wooded Valleys (4): Eskdale unit There would be No Change to the magnitude, geographical extent and duration of the landscape effects, as reported in the FEI of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm, on Narrow Wooded Valleys: Eskdale unit which would remain Slight and Not Significant. Aviation warning lights would also be of limited visibility within the Eskdale valley. There would, however, be changes to the cumulative assessment as a result of other wind farms, as set out below.

There are no other wind farm developments within this LCT although there would be increased influence from wind farm development from the existing Craig Wind Farm and its Extension, consented Hopsrig and Faw Side application (all Low to Zero magnitude). The combined cumulative effect would be Moderate to Slight and Not Significant whilst the additional cumulative effect would remain Slight and Not Significant. The nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible), cumulative, indirect and negative.

4.4.4 Revised Effects on Landscape Designations The Langholm Hills RSA is located approximately 300m to the east of the proposed Loganhead Wind Farm at its closest point and extends north and east to cover a large area of the Southern Uplands and associated valleys. Part of the A7 and the B709 are routed through this landscape and the town of Langholm is a focal point. Its special quality lies in the combination of open Southern Uplands and attractive glen and valley landscapes including Eskdale and the Ewes Water valleys.

Part of the Langholm Hills RSA, corresponding with the Southern Uplands: Ewe Hill unit, would already be significantly affected by the Craig Wind Farm, although these effects would be restricted to a small area of the


Page | 28

RSA near its south western boundary. The addition of the proposed Development would overlap with these effects (Moderate effect) and would not significantly affect the special qualities and integrity of the Langholm Hills RSA.

Aviation warning lights would affect this same area and the magnitude of change would be greater as the Craig Wind Farm is not lit. The magnitude would range from High to Medium within approximately 2km of the proposed Development, viewing from higher ground within the RSA and contained to within approximately 2km by the surrounding valleys. This would result in a localised significant effect (Substantial to Substantial / Moderate) on part of the RSA corresponding with the Southern Uplands: Ewe Hill unit. It is not considered that this area would affect the special qualities of the RSA or the overall integrity. Nor would the views from the Langholm Monument be significantly affected, due to the intervening distance. The nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible), cumulative, direct and negative.

4.4.4.1 Cumulative Landscape Effects: proposed Development, Existing and Consented Sites The existing and under construction Craig Wind Farm is located within the RSA and further existing and consented wind farm development would also be visible in the western and southern views out of the RSA, including Ewe Hill, Crossdykes (under construction), Hopsrig, Little Hartfell, Minsca, and Solwaybank. There would be a significant cumulative effect on part of the RSA, affecting the Southern Uplands: Ewe Hill LCA unit (Substantial / Moderate) as a result of the existing Craig Wind Farm and the combined cumulative effects of the proposed Development would overlap with the effects of the existing Craig Wind Farm. The nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible) indirect, cumulative and negative to neutral.


There would be a High magnitude of change from the Faw Side Wind Farm application which would be located within the north-eastern area of the RSA. The combined cumulative effect would be Substantial and Significant (due to Faw Side). The nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible), cumulative, indirect and negative to neutral.

Revised Visual Effects on Views from Settlements The visual effects on the views from the small settlement of Bentpath have been included in this assessment. The proposed Development would result in No Change to the assessment reported in the FEI of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm which would remain Moderate and Not Significant. Viewpoint 2 (Figure V4.19) illustrates the views from Bentpath which is further assessed in Appendix V4.2 and a comparative viewpoint illustration, comparing the consented scheme with the proposed Development is illustrated in Figure 2. Taking account of forestry screening one turbine would be visible from this location along with its associated aviation warning lights. There would be no cumulative effects on this settlement.

4.5.1 Revised Visual Effects on Views from Residential Properties Of the 34 properties included in the assessment none would be affected by the proposed Development in terms of their residential visual amenity. There would be a significant visual effect from a total of 5 properties (side elevation, garden and access track of Arresgill Farm and Cottage, and up to 3 of the properties at Carlesgill (viewing from the garden areas of 2 courtyard properties (d) and the conservatory / garden area of Carlesgill House (g))) as a result of the increased turbine size and proposed aviation warning lights.


Page | 29

Table 4.4: Summary of revised Residential Visual Amenity Assessment

Residential Property No. and Name

Distance from the nearest turbine to property

Previous Level of Effect13

Revised Level of Effect

Comments

Residential properties within 1km

None

Residential properties within 1-2km

1. Arresgill Cottage 1,080m Slight / No View Substantial Change to the assessment with significant effects likely to affect parts of the property.

2. Arresgill Farm* 1,104m Slight / No View Substantial to Substantial / Moderate

Change to the assessment with significant effects likely to affect parts of the property.

3. Old Hopsrig 1,674m Slight Moderate - Slight Change to the assessment

Other properties within the vicinity, beyond 2km

4. Hopsrig Farm 2,139m No View No View No change to assessment

5. Bombie Cottage 2,204m Slight Slight No change to assessment

6. Carlesgill (group of 8 properties)

2,089m Moderate to Slight Substantial / Moderate to Slight

Change to the assessment with significant effects likely to affect the views from 3 properties.

7. Hopsrig Cottage 2,266m Slight / No View Slight / No View No change to assessment

8. Burn Cottage 2,341m Slight Slight No change to assessment

9. Westerhall House 2,644m Slight Moderate Change to the assessment

10. South Lodge 2,588m Slight Slight No change to assessment

11. Rigg 2,681m Moderate Moderate No change to assessment

12. Camra Cottages (group of 2 properties)

2,607m Slight Slight No change to assessment

13. Mid Park 3,170m Slight Slight No change to assessment

14. Burnfoot (group of 12 properties)

3,119m Slight / No View Slight / No View No change to assessment

15. Craig 3,293m No View No View No change to assessment

*Involved Property

4.5.2 Revised Visual Effects on Views from Transport Routes A revised assessment has been undertaken to assess the views from the B709, which is accompanied by a revised sequential route assessment illustrated in Figures V4.11a-g. This reflects minor changes in woodland and forestry removal and changes in cumulative wind farm development.

The route is promoted as part of the ‘Eskdalemuir Prehistoric Trail’ from Eskdalemuir to Bentpath, although none of the visitor attractions along this route are located on the B709. This route also passes through the Langholm Hills RSA from Bentpath to Langholm. The value of the route is therefore assessed as High to Medium. Most of the road users would experience the landscape transiently whilst driving or cycling and experiencing a

13 Loganhead Wind Farm ES Addendum (2017), Chapter 4: LVIA, Table 4.7: Summary of Residential Visual Amenity Assessment


Page | 30

sequence of views, often in one direction focused on the direction of travel (Medium susceptibility). No walkers have been noted along this part of the route during site visits and there is no footpath provision. As a result, the sensitivity of road users on this route has been assessed as High to Medium within the 5km Study Area.

In summary there would be a slight increase in the level of effect to the assessment reported in the FEI of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm from Moderate to Slight and Not Significant to Moderate and Not Significant (affecting approximately 800m of the route between Boyken Craigs and Bombie Cottage where up to 5 turbine hubs and one blade would be visible), and intermittent visibility between Carsgill to Camra Cottages (where up to 4 turbines would be visible), reducing to No View and Not Significant from most of the route along the Eskdale valley between Langholm and Billholm further to the west.

Table 4.5: Revised Visual Effects on Views from Transport Routes

Transport Route

Description of Effect

B709: Langholm and Innerleithen

Approximately 14km of the B709 is routed within 5km between the Eskdalemuir Forest in the west and

through the Eskdale valley as far as Langholm in the east with approximately 5km of this section

overlapped by the blade tip ZTV, indicating theoretical visibility of the proposed Development. Figure V4.11a-g illustrates the sequential assessment with ZTV analysis and photo aligned wirelines from along

the route, demonstrating that the nature of the narrow valley and enclosing topography would reduce

visibility to intermittent views mostly of a Zero or Negligible magnitude. Further site survey of this section

of the route has confirmed that intervening roadside vegetation would screen out most of this theoretical

visibility and a short section of the route (approximately 800m) between Boyken Craigs and Bombie

Cottage would experience views of between 3 turbines including two hubs and one blade (viewpoint 6,

Figure V4.11d) and (more obliquely to the road) 5 turbine hubs and one blade (viewpoint 7, Figure V4.11e). Visibility from viewpoint 7 is likely to reduce over time as foreground vegetation matures to

provide screening. Aviation warning lights would be visible on the hubs. The magnitude of change would

be Moderate - Low and the level of visual effect would be Moderate and Not Significant.

The proposed Development would be visible intermittently between surrounding trees from a short

section of the road as it travels from Carsgill to Camra Cottages (1-4 turbines), approximately 2.3km

northeast of the proposed Development (viewpoints 9 and 10, Figure V4.11f). The proposed

Development would appear as part of the Craig and Craig Extension Wind Farm and turbines 10-13

would not be visible. Aviation warning lights would be visible on turbine hubs. The view would be

experienced by northbound road users, viewing obliquely away from the River Esk valley. The

magnitude of change from this location would be Low to Negligible and the level of effect would be

Moderate to Slight and Not Significant. The nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible)

indirect, and negative to neutral.

Cumulative Assessment: proposed Development + Existing + Consented Sites

The existing Craig, its Extension and Ewe Hill wind farms (all Low to Negligible magnitude) would be

cumulatively visible from the section of road between Boyken Craigs and Bombie Cottage, and between

Carsgill and Camra Cottages. The combined and additional cumulative level of effect would be

Moderate-Slight to No View and Not Significant. The nature of these effects would be long-term

(reversible) indirect, cumulative and negative to neutral.

Cumulative Assessment: Existing + Consented Sites + Applications

There are no other wind farm applications within visible along the 14km section of the route, although

Faw Side Wind Farm is intermittently theoretically visible in places (Negligible magnitude). The combined

and additional cumulative level of effect would be Moderate-Slight to No View and Not Significant. The

nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible) indirect, cumulative and negative to neutral.


Page | 31

4.5.3 Revised Visual Effects on Views from Recreational Routes There would be No Change to the assessment reported in the FEI of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm as a result of the proposed Development but there would be changes to the cumulative assessment as a result of other wind farms, as set out in Table 4.6.

In summary, significant visual effects would affect the views from one Core Path (including Langholm Walk No.9) and one RoW within the 5km Study Area as follows:

• Right of Way DA34: Calkin to Boonies – affecting up to approximately 500m of this route on south facing hill slopes, north of Calkin.

• Core Path No. 279 / Langholm Hill Walk No 9 - affecting up to approximately 1.7km of this route between Naze Hill and Calfield Rig.

Table 4.6: Revised Visual Effects on Views from Recreational Routes

Recreational Route


Right of Way DA33

There would be No Change to the views from Right of Way DA33 as a result of the proposed

Development and would remain Moderate and Not Significant near Bombie (500m of the route where

there would be visibility of up to three hubs with aviation warning lights) to Slight and Not Significant for

the remainder of the route. The effect would not be significant due to the limited visibility of the proposed

Development and extent of other existing wind farms visible in close proximity to the route.


The existing Ewe Hill Wind Farm, under construction Crossdykes and consented Hopsrig and Little

Hartfell wind farms (all High magnitude) would be visible from much of this route which are partly routed

through the edge of the wind farms. Parts of the existing Craig Wind Farm would be visible from the

northern sections of the route (Low magnitude). The combined cumulative level of effect would be

Substantial and Significant to No View and Not Significant (due to Ewe Hill, Crossdykes, Little Hartfell

and Hopsrig). The additional effect of the proposed Development would be Slight to No View and Not

Significant (reduced due to the presence of other wind farms). The nature of these effects would be long-

term (reversible) indirect, cumulative and negative to neutral.

Cumulative Assessment: proposed Development + Existing + Consented Sites + Applications

Faw Side would be visible from northern sections of the route (High to Medium magnitude). The

combined cumulative level of effect would be Substantial and Significant to No View and Not Significant

(due to Ewe Hill, Crossdykes, Hopsrig, Little Hartfell and Faw Side). The additional effect of the proposed

Development would be Slight / Negligible to No View and Not Significant (reduced due to the presence

of other wind farms). The nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible) indirect, cumulative

and negative to neutral.

Right of Way DA34

There would be No Change to the views from Right of Way DA34 as a result of the proposed

Development and would remain Substantial / Moderate and Significant (affecting approximately 0.5km

of this route as it crosses an elevated open area to the north of Calkin where there would be visibility of

up to six hubs with aviation warning lights) reducing to non-significant levels within the Boyken Burn at

Catkin.


Blades from the existing Craig and Ewe Hill Wind Farms would also be visible (Low to Negligible

magnitude) from the south facing hill slopes above the Boykenburn valley. The under construction


Page | 32

Recreational Route


Crossdykes Wind Farm and the consented Hopsrig wind farms would be most notable from this route

(High to Medium magnitude). The combined cumulative level of effect would be Substantial to Substantial / Moderate and Significant to No View and Not Significant (due to the proposed

Development, Crossdykes and Hopsrig). The additional effect of the proposed Development would be

Moderate and Significant to No View and Not Significant (reduced due to the presence of other wind

farms). The nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible) indirect, cumulative and negative to

neutral.


Faw Side would be theoretically visible to the northeast but is likely to be partially screened by forestry

(Low to Negligible magnitude). The combined cumulative level of effect would be Substantial to Substantial / Moderate and Significant to No View and Not Significant (due to the proposed

Development, Crossdykes and Hopsrig). The additional effect of the proposed Development would be

Moderate and Significant to No View and Not Significant (reduced due to the presence of other wind

farms). The nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible) indirect, cumulative and negative to

neutral.

Core Path 279 (overlaps with Langholm Walk 9/11)

There would be a slight increase in the level of assessed effect to the views from these routes as a result

of the proposed Development due to the vertical increase in scale and the visibility of aviation lighting.

The level of assessed effect would increase from Substantial / Moderate and Significant to Substantial – Substantial / Moderate, affecting up to approximately 1.7km of this route affecting the north western

views, which are already affected by the existing Craig Wind Farm) to the west of Naze Hill and at

Calfield Rig, to No View and Not Significant.


The existing Craig Wind Farm (Medium magnitude) and its Extension (Low magnitude) would be visible

from most of this route. Ewe Hill would be visible in the background (Low magnitude). Other wind farms

visible would be more distant and partially screened by intervening landform and / or forestry (Low to

Negligible magnitude). The combined cumulative level of effect would be Substantial – Substantial / Moderate and Significant affecting the northwest section of the view (due to the proposed Development

and Craig) to No View and Not Significant. The additional effect of the proposed Development would be

Substantial – Substantial / Moderate and Significant to No View and Not Significant. The nature of

these effects would be long-term (reversible) indirect, cumulative and negative to neutral.


Faw Side would be theoretically visible to the north (Low magnitude). The combined cumulative level of

effect would be Substantial – Substantial / Moderate and Significant affecting the northwest section

of the view (due to the proposed Development and Craig) to No View and Not Significant. The additional

effect of the proposed Development would be Substantial – Substantial / Moderate and Significant to

No View and Not Significant. The nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible) indirect,

cumulative and negative to neutral.

Core Path 278 (partly overlaps with Langholm Walk 5)

There would be No Change to the views from these routes as a result of the proposed Development and

would remain Moderate to No View and Not Significant. The effect would not be significant due to the

limited visibility of the proposed Development and distance from the route to the proposed turbines.

Aviation lighting would be visible on all turbines from this location.


The existing Craig Wind Farm and Extension, and Ewe Hill wind farms would be visible from Warb Law

(all Low magnitude). Blade tips of the under construction Crossdykes Wind Farm would be visible


Page | 33

Recreational Route


beyond Ewe Hill from Warb Law (Negligible to Zero magnitude). Parts of the consented Hopsrig Wind

Farm would also be visible beyond Ewe Hill to the north (Low to Negligible magnitude). Other wind farms

visible including Minsca would be of Negligible magnitude due to intervening distance. The combined

cumulative level of effect would be Moderate to No View and Not Significant. The additional effect of

the proposed Development would be Moderate to No View and Not Significant. The nature of these

effects would be long-term (reversible) indirect, cumulative and negative to neutral.


Faw Side would be theoretically visible to the northeast (Low to Negligible magnitude). The combined




Core Path 282 (overlaps with Langholm Walks 8 and 10)

There would be No Change to the views from these routes as a result of the proposed Development and


limited extent of visibility of the proposed Development, distance of the routes to the proposed turbines,

and extent of other existing wind farms visible in front of and adjacent to the proposed Development.

Aviation warning lighting would be visible along the route where turbine hubs are visible although the

magnitude of change would be low and the effects not significant due to the intervening distance.


Craig Wind Farm and its Extension (both Low magnitude) would be visible adjacent to the proposed

Development. Ewe Hill Wind Farm would be visible behind and to the left of the proposed Development

(Low magnitude). Solwaybank and Minsca wind farms would also be visible in the distance to the west

(both Low-Negligible magnitude). Hopsrig Wind Farm would be visible to the northwest (Low magnitude).

Other wind farms visible would be of Negligible magnitude due to intervening distance. The combined





Faw Side would be theoretically visible to the north (Medium magnitude). The combined cumulative level

of effect would be Substantial / Moderate and Significant (due to Faw Side) to No View and Not

Significant. The additional effect of the proposed Development would be Moderate to No View and Not

Significant. The nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible) indirect, cumulative and negative

to neutral.

Langholm Walk 4 There would be No Change to the views from this route as a result of the proposed Development and


limited extent of visibility of the proposed Development, distance of the route to the proposed turbines,

and extent of other existing wind farms visible adjacent to the proposed Development. Aviation warning

lighting would be visible along the route where turbine hubs are visible although the magnitude of change

would be low and the effects not significant due to the intervening distance.


Craig Wind Farm and its Extension (both Low magnitude) would be visible in front of and adjacent to the

proposed Development. Ewe Hill Wind Farm would be visible behind the proposed Development

(Negligible magnitude). Solwaybank and Minsca wind farms would also be visible in the distance to the

west (both Low-Negligible magnitude). Hopsrig Wind Farm would be visible to the northwest (Low

magnitude). Other wind farms visible would be of Negligible magnitude due to intervening distance. The


Page | 34

Recreational Route


combined cumulative level of effect would be Moderate to No View and Not Significant. The additional

effect of the proposed Development would be Moderate to No View and Not Significant. The nature of

these effects would be long-term (reversible) indirect, cumulative and negative to neutral.


Faw Side would be theoretically visible to the north (High-Medium magnitude). The combined cumulative

level of effect would be Substantial to Substantial / Moderate and Significant (due to Faw Side) to No View and Not Significant. The additional effect of the proposed Development would be Moderate to No View and Not Significant. The nature of these effects would be long-term (reversible) indirect, cumulative

and negative to neutral.

4.5.4 Revised Visual Effects on Views from Recreational and Tourist Destinations There would be No Change to the assessment reported in the FEI of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm in respect of the proposed Development. The proposed Development would not significantly affect the overall ‘visitor experience’ of any of the features of interest along the Eskdale Prehistoric Trail, the Langholm Monument or Arkleton Hill.

Langholm Monument (Viewpoint 4: Figure V4.21a-d) and Arkleton Hill (Viewpoint 10: Figure V4.27a-d) are assessed in detail in Appendix V4.2 where the effects of the proposed Development would not be significant, however there would be significant cumulative effects associated with the application Faw Side Wind Farm.

The Eskdale Prehistoric Trail is illustrated in Figure V4.10 and follows a route along the B709 along the Eskdale valley and through the Castle O’er Forest. The effects of the proposed Development from the key features along this trail would remain as Moderate and Not Significant (Bailiehill Hill Fort, Castle O’er Hill Fort, Bessies’s Hill Fort and King Shaw’s Grave) to Slight to No View and Not Significant (for the remainder of the route) due to the intervening visibility of other wind farms and in particular the Crossdykes Wind Farm (under construction) and its associated aviation warning lighting. Significant cumulative effects associated with these other schemes are potentially likely as a result of the combined visibility of Crossdykes Wind Farm (under construction) and the consented Hopsrig and Little Hartfell wind farms and the Faw Side application.

Revised Summary of Residual Landscape and Visual Effects A summary of the landscape and visual effects are provided in Tables 4.7 and 4.8.

The information set out in the tables list the main receptors included in this assessment and provides a summary of the landscape and visual effects of the revised proposals as well as the cumulative effects as follows:

• Level of Effect recorded from the Previous Assessment in the FEI (2017).

• Level of Effect: Loganhead Wind Farm:

− Sensitivity: The sensitivity of the receptor is recorded (ranging from high, medium, low, to negligible) in accordance with the methodology in Appendix V4.1.

− Magnitude (Loganhead Wind Farm only): The magnitude of change for the proposed Development as a standalone wind farm is recorded.

− Level of Effect (Loganhead Wind Farm only): The level of effect resulting from the proposed Development as a standalone wind farm is recorded (taking account of the sensitivity and magnitude in accordance with the methodology). Those levels of effect shown in bold relate to significant effects in accordance with the relevant EIA Regulations.


Page | 35

• Cumulative Level of Effect (including Loganhead Wind Farm):

− Magnitude (Existing and Consented Wind Farms): The magnitude of change, taking account of other existing and consented wind farms is recorded (ranging from high, medium, low, negligible, and zero) in accordance with the methodology.

− Additional Level of Effect: Adding the proposed Development to the baseline of existing and consented wind farms.

− Scenario 1 / Cumulative Level of Effect 1: The level of effect, taking account of the other existing, consented / under construction and the proposed Development, is recorded (taking account of the sensitivity and magnitude in accordance with the methodology). Those levels of effect shown in bold relate to significant effects in accordance with the relevant EIA Regulations and the wind farm contributing most to the cumulative effects is recorded in brackets.

− Magnitude (Other Application Wind Farms): The magnitude of change, taking account of other wind applications is recorded (ranging from high, medium, low, negligible, and zero) in accordance with the methodology.

− Additional Level of Effect: Adding the proposed Development to the baseline of existing and consented wind farms and other wind farm applications.

− Scenario 2 / Cumulative Level of Effect 2: The level of effect, taking account of the other existing, consented / under construction, application wind farms and the proposed Development, is recorded (taking account of the sensitivity and magnitude in accordance with the methodology). Those levels of effect shown in bold relate to significant effects in accordance with the relevant EIA Regulations and the wind farm contributing most to the cumulative effects is recorded in brackets.


Page | 36

Table 4.7: Summary and Evaluation of the Predicted Landscape Effects14

Landscape Receptor

Previous Assessment15 LVIA: proposed Development (at 179.9m to blade tip)

CLVIA: proposed Development (PD) and other wind farms

Level of Effect Sensitivity Magnitude Level of Effect Magnitude (Existing and Consented)



Magnitude (Applications)



Direct Landscape Effects on the ‘Host’ Landscape Character Area: Southern Uplands with Forest: West Langholm

Construction Effects:

None increasing to Substantial / Moderate

Medium Zero to High None increasing to Substantial / Moderate

Operational Effects:

Substantial / Moderate (within 1.5km of the proposed turbines)

Medium High Substantial / Moderate (within 1-2km of the proposed turbines)

High Moderate Substantial / Moderate (PD, Craig, Ewe Hill, Hopsrig, Crossdykes)

Low Moderate Substantial / Moderate (PD, Craig, Ewe Hill, Hopsrig, Crossdykes)

Decommissioning Effects:

Slight / Negligible to Negligible

Medium Negligible Slight / Negligible to Negligible

Indirect Landscape Effects on the Surrounding Landscape Character Types within 5km

Southern Uplands: Ewe Hill

Substantial / Moderate (within 1.5km of the proposed turbines)

High Medium Substantial / Moderate (within 1-2km of the proposed turbines)

High Substantial / Moderate

Substantial / Moderate (PD, Craig)

Low Substantial / Moderate

Substantial / Moderate (PD, Craig)

Narrow Wooded Valleys: Eskdale

Slight High Negligible Slight Low Slight Moderate to Slight

Low Slight Moderate to Slight

Indirect Effects on Landscape Designations

Langholm Hills RSA Moderate High Low Moderate High Slight Substantial / Moderate (PD, Craig)

High Slight Substantial (PD, Craig and Faw Side)

14 Note: Significant effects are shown in bold and changes to the assessment from the previous FEI are shown in italics. 15 Assessment results from the previous assessment, Loganhead Wind Farm Addendum (2017), Chapter 4, (proposed turbines at 135m to blade tip)


Page | 37


Page | 38

Table 4.8: Summary and Evaluation of the Predicted Visual Effects

Visual Receptor Previous Assessment16 LVIA: proposed Development (at 179.9m to blade tip) CLVIA: proposed Development (PD) and other wind farms







Visual Effects on Views from Settlements

Bentpath

Moderate High Low Moderate Negligible Moderate Moderate Zero No cumulative effect

Visual Effects on Views from Transport Routes

B709: Langholm to Innerleithen

Moderate to Slight to No View High to Medium

Moderate -Low to Zero

Moderate to No View Low to Zero Moderate to No View

Moderate to No View Low-Negligible to Zero

Moderate to No View

Moderate to No View

Visual Effects on Views from Recreational Routes

DA33 Capelfoot to Hopsrig

Moderate to No View High Low to Zero Moderate to No View High to Zero Slight to No View

Substantial to No View (Ewe Hill, Crossdykes, Little Hartfell and Hopsrig)

High to Medium to Zero

Slight / Negligible to No View

Substantial to No View (Ewe Hill, Crossdykes, Hopsrig, and Faw Side)

DA34 Calkin to Boonies

Substantial / Moderate to No View

High Medium to Zero


High to Medium to Zero

Moderate to No View

Substantial to Substantial / Moderate to No View (PD, Crossdykes and Hopsrig)

Low to Zero Moderate to No View

Substantial to Substantial / Moderate to No View (PD, Crossdykes and Hopsrig)

Corepath 279 Brocklinns Bank to Langholm


High High - Medium to Zero

Substantial - Substantial / Moderate to No View

Medium to Zero Substantial - Substantial / Moderate to No Vi

Substantial - Substantial / Moderate to No View (PD and Craig)

Low to Zero Substantial - Substantial / Moderate to No Vi

Substantial - Substantial / Moderate to No View (PD and Craig)

Corepath 278 between Langholm and Warb Law

Moderate to No View High Low to Zero Moderate to No View Low to Zero Moderate to No View

Moderate to No View Low to Zero Moderate to No View

Moderate to No View

Corepath 282 between Langholm and Whita Hill

Moderate to No View High Low to Zero Moderate to No View Low to Zero Moderate to No View

Moderate to No View Medium to Zero

Moderate to No View

Substantial / Moderate to No View (Faw Side)

Langholm Walk 4 Moderate to No View High Low to Zero Moderate to No View Low to Zero Moderate to No View

Moderate to No View High-Medium to Zero

Moderate to No View

Substantial to Substantial / Moderate to No View (Faw Side)

Visual Effects on Views from Recreational and Tourist Destinations

Eskdale Prehistoric Trail - No.2: Bailiehill Hill Fort

Moderate High Low Moderate High-Medium Slight Substantial / Moderate (Crossdykes, Little Hartfell, Hopsrig, Ewe Hill)

High-Medium Slight Substantial / Moderate (Crossdykes, Hopsrig, Ewe Hill, Little Hartfell, Faw Side)

Eskdale Prehistoric Trail - No. 4: Castle O’er Hill Fort (Vi i t 6)

Moderate High Low Moderate Medium Slight


Medium Slight Substantial / Moderate (Crossdykes, Hopsrig, Faw Side and Little Hartfell)

Eskdale Prehistoric Trail - No.6: Bessie Hill and Hill Fort

Moderate High Low Moderate Medium - Low Slight Substantial / Moderate - Moderate (Little Hartfell)

Medium Slight Substantial / Moderate (Little Hartfell, Faw Side)

Eskdale Prehistoric Trail - No.9: King Shaw’s Grave

Moderate High Low Moderate Medium Slight


Medium Slight Substantial / Moderate (Crossdykes, Hopsrig, Faw Side and Little Hartfell)

16 Assessment results from the previous assessment, Loganhead Wind Farm Addendum (2017), Chapter 4, (proposed turbines at 135m to blade tip)


Page | 39

Visual Receptor Previous Assessment17 LVIA: proposed Development (at 179.9m to blade tip) CLVIA: proposed Development (PD) and other wind farms







Visual Effects on Views from Recreational and Tourist Destinations continued

Langholm Monument (viewpoint 4) Moderate High Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Medium Moderate Substantial / Moderate (Faw Side)

Arkleton Hill (viewpoint 10) Moderate High

Low

Moderate Low to Negligible Moderate to Slight Moderate High Slight Substantial (Faw Side)

Note: Significant effects are shown in bold and changes to the assessment from the previous FEI are shown in italics

17 Assessment results from the previous assessment, Loganhead Wind Farm Addendum (2017), Chapter 4, (proposed turbines at 135m to blade tip)


Page | 40

Summary and Conclusions The LVIA for the consented Loganhead Wind Farm has been updated as part of the Section 42 submission to take account of a proposed change in turbine dimension, increasing up to 179.9m to blade tip.

The LVIA accords with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition18 (GLVIA) and has been undertaken by chartered landscape architects at Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions UK. The assessment process has encompassed the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of the proposed Development and has included a reassessment of all landscape and visual receptors with the potential for likely significant effects.

4.7.1 Revised Assessment Drawing from the Viewpoint Analysis and taking a precautionary approach the scope and geographical extent of the revised assessment has been limited to those landscape and visual receptors within approximately 5km of the proposed turbine positions and / or previously assessed as greater than or moderately affected in the FEI.

The proposed Development continues to concentrate development within the existing pattern of wind farm development within this area as follows:

• Creating a northern extension of 4 turbines to the existing Ewe Hill Wind Farm; and • Creating a southern extension of 4 turbines to the existing Craig Wind Farm and its Extension.

The proposed turbines are positioned on the less sensitive ‘side’ or southwest facing slopes, with each turbine pulled back from the ridgeline hill summits as far as practical to mitigate the potential visual effects visible from the Eskdale valley to the north.

4.7.2 Geographical Extent of Potentially Significant Visual Effects The viewpoint analysis indicates that significant visual effects would extend out to approximately 1.6km from the nearest turbine locations as indicated by Viewpoint 1: Calfield Rigg, due to the height and scale of the proposed turbines. This extent of significant visual effects is the same as that assessed for the consented Loganhead Wind Farm, although a small (non-significant) increase in the magnitude of change is identified for Viewpoint 3: B7068 / Bloch Farm.

The viewpoint analysis also indicates that there would be no new additional or combined cumulative effects as a result of the proposed Development and that the cumulative effects would also extend out to approximately 1.6km from the nearest turbine locations, as indicated by Viewpoint 1.

4.7.3 Revised Landscape and Visual Effects There would be No Change to the number of significantly affected landscape or visual receptors assessed for the proposed Development, on a solus or standalone basis in comparison to those reported in the FEI for the consented Loganhead Wind Farm. However, there would be a slight increase in the assessed magnitude of change and some new significant cumulative effects due to other wind farms including the consented Crossdykes (under construction) and the consented Hopsrig and Little Hartfell wind farms and the Faw Side application.

Significant landscape effects would be limited to part of the Southern Uplands with Forest: West Langholm and the Southern Uplands: Ewe Hill landscape units within approximately 1-2km distance from the proposed turbines and corresponding with part of the Langholm Hills RSA. There would however by no significant effects on the special qualities of the RSA or its overall integrity.

18 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, Landscape Institute and IEMA, 2013.


Page | 41

Significant visual effects would be limited to the views from part of 2 recreational routes (DA34: Calkin to Boonies and Corepath 279: Brocklinns Bank to Langholm) and the views from up to 5 individual residential properties. Additionally, the views from part of the B7068 to the south and southeast near Bloch Farm would also potentially be significantly affected by views of the proposed aviation warning lights.

4.7.4 Conclusions The design of the proposed Development has maintained the geographical footprint of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm and has maintained accordance with the original design objectives for the consented Loganhead Wind Farm. There would be No Change to the numbers of significantly affected landscape or visual effects receptors assessed for the proposed Development, on a solus basis, in comparison to those reported in the FEI for the consented Loganhead Wind Farm. There would however be a slight increase in the magnitude of effects assessed for these receptors and potentially significant visual effects resulting from the proposed aviation warning lights, however it is anticipated that any visual effects could be substantially mitigated by several strategies, which are described in more detail in Section 12.2.3 of Chapter 12.

The proposed Development has taken account of guidance set out in the DGWLCS and the requirements of the DGC’s LDP policies IN2 Wind Energy in respect of landscape, visual and cumulative effects.

References • Anderson C and Grant A, 2011, Dumfries and Galloway Windfarm Landscape Capacity Study. • Anderson C, 2016, Dumfries and Galloway Wind Farm Landscape Capacity Study, Revised and updated

study report. • Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002, Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance

for England and Scotland. • Dumfries and Galloway Council, September 2014, Local Development Plan. • Dumfries and Galloway Council, June 2017, Local Development Plan, Supplementary Guidance: Part 1

Wind Energy Development: Development Management Considerations. • Dumfries and Galloway Council, June 2017, Local Development Plan, Supplementary Guidance: Part 1

Wind Energy Development: Development Management Considerations Appendix 'C' Dumfries & Galloway Wind Farm Landscape Capacity Study.

• Dumfries and Galloway Council, September 2014, Local Development Plan, Technical Paper, Wind Energy Interim Spatial Framework Maps.

• Dumfries and Galloway Council, January 2018, Local Development Plan 2, Technical Paper, Regional Scenic Areas.

• Landscape Institute and IEMA, 2013, Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition.

• Landscape Institute, 2011, Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment, Advice Note 01/11.

• Landscape Institute, Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact assessment, (Technical Guidance Note, 2/19).

• Landscape Institute, March 2017, Visual Representation of Development Proposals, Technical Guidance Note 02/17.

• Land Use Consultants on behalf of Scottish Natural Heritage, 1998, Dumfries and Galloway Landscape Assessment, SNH Review No 94.

• Scottish Government, 2014, National Planning Framework for Scotland. • Scottish Government, 2014, Scottish Planning Policy. • Scottish Natural Heritage, March 2012, Guidance: Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Onshore Wind

Energy Developments.


Page | 42

• Scottish Natural Heritage, February 2017, Visual Representation of Wind Farms: Good Practice Guidance, Version 2.2.

• Scottish Natural Heritage, June 2015, Guidance: Spatial Planning for Onshore Wind Turbines - natural heritage considerations, Version 3a.

• Scottish Natural Heritage, 2001, Guidelines on Environmental Impacts of Windfarms and Small Scale Hydro Electric Schemes.

• Scottish Natural Heritage, 2017, Siting and Design Windfarms in the Landscape, Version 3a. • Scottish Renewables, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and the

Forestry Commission Scotland joint publication, October 2015, Good Practice during Windfarm Construction: Version 3.

• University of Newcastle and Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002, Visual Assessment of Wind Farms: Best Practice.

• University of Sheffield and Land Use Consultants, 2002, Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland, Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage publication.


Page | 43

5 Socio-Economics and Tourism

Introduction This section provides an update to the Socio-Economics chapter which was submitted as part of the Consented Development, to take account of the Proposed Development’s increase in turbine tip heights (and subsequent generating capacity).

Updated Impact on Tourism The Landscape and Visual Chapter (Chapter 4 – specifically sections 4.5.4 and 4.5.5) has assessed the effects on views from Recreational and Tourist Destinations, as well as Recreational Routes, as a result of the increase in turbine tip heights. These sections are supported by Figure V4.9.

In summary, there is no change to the assessment reported in the FEI of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm, in respect of the Proposed Development.

Updated Economic Impact This section provides updated economic figures to that which were provided in the ES.

The expenditure required to construct, operate and decommission the Proposed Development would generate wealth and support employment in Dumfries and Galloway and in Scotland as a whole. These effects are assessed below.

5.3.1 Construction The total development and construction cost was estimated by multiplying the expected installed capacity by the average development and construction costs per Mega Watt (MW). As the Proposed Development is expected to consist of 8 turbines, with a capacity of 4.8 MW each, the combined installed capacity will be 38.4 MW, however this is constrained to 36 MW by grid availability. This is in comparison to the Consented Development which has a combined installed capacity of 25.6 MW.

As outlined in the ES, according to research undertaken by BiGGAR Economics on behalf of the Department for Energy and Climate Change and RenewableUK19, average expenditure on the development and construction of wind farms is £1.5 million per MW. Therefore the total development and construction cost (capex) of the Proposed Development is estimated at £54 million. This is in comparison to the Consented Development which was estimated at £38.4 million.

Development and construction expenditure is split into four main categories. These are

• development and planning; • balance of plant; • turbines; and • grid connection.

The proportion of total development and construction spending that is spent on each of the main categories of contracts was also taken from the DECC research. This found that the largest proportion of expenditure was on turbine related contracts (57.8%), followed by balance of plant (25.6%), development and planning (10.2%) and grid connection (6.3%)

19 BiGGAR Economics (2015), Onshore Wind - Economic Impacts in 2014


Page | 44

The value of these contracts for the Proposed Development was estimated by applying these percentages to the total development and construction expenditure. The values of the contract categories are given in Table 5.1. The value of contracts for the Consented Development have been included, so that comparisons can be made.

Table 5.1: Development & Construction Expenditure by Contract Type (Consented vs Proposed)

% of Capex Consented Value (£m) Proposed Value (£m)

Development and Planning 10.2% 3.9 5.5

Balance of Plant 25.6% 9.8 13.8

Turbine 57.8% 22.2 31.2

Grid Connection 6.3% 2.5 3.5

Total 100% 38.4 54 Source: BiGGAR Economics

The economic impact of the development and construction phase was estimated for Dumfries and Galloway and Scotland. In order to do this it was necessary to estimate the proportion of each type of contract that could be secured in each of the study areas. This analysis was based on the averages from the DECC report and analysis of the industries and professions in each of these study areas. To estimate the expenditure for each contract in each of the study areas these percentages were applied to the estimated size of each component contract.20

In this way it was estimated that £6.2 million could be generated from development and construction contracts in Dumfries and Galloway, and in Scotland, £22.3 million could be generated from these contracts for the Proposed Development. This is an increase of £1.7 million in Dumfries and Galloway, and £6.4 million in Scotland when compared with the Consented Development.

The largest contracts would be Balance of Plant contracts, which could contribute £3.3 million in Dumfries and Galloway and £9.4 million in Scotland, from the Proposed Development. This is an increase of £0.9 million in Dumfries and Galloway, and £2.7 million in Scotland when compared with the Consented Development.

The next largest expenditure in Dumfries and Galloway would be from grid connection, which could contribute £1.4 million, and £3.4 million in Scotland. This is an increase of £0.4 million in Dumfries and Galloway, and £1 million in Scotland, when compared with the Consented Development.

The next largest Scottish expenditure for the Proposed Development would be from the turbines, which could, assuming that the turbine towers were to be manufactured in Scotland, contribute £5.3 million, and development and planning, which could contribute £4.2 million. These could contribute £0.9 million and £0.6 million respectively to the economy of Dumfries and Galloway.

Table 5.2: Development & Construction Expenditure by Study Area (Consented vs Proposed)

Dumfries and Galloway Scotland

% Consented £m

Proposed £m % Consented

£m Proposed

£m Development and Planning 10% 0.4 0.6 77% 3.0 4.2 Balance of Plant 24% 2.4 3.3 68% 6.7 9.4 Turbine 3% 0.7 0.9 17% 3.8 5.3 Grid Connection 40% 1.0 1.4 100% 2.4 3.4 Total 12% 4.5 6.2 42% 15.9 22.3

Source: BiGGAR Economics

20 All figures calculated using research undertaken by Biggar Economics on behalf of the Department for Energy and Climate Change and RenewableUK – BiGGAR Economics (2015), Onshore Wind - Economic Impacts in 2014


Page | 45

5.3.2 Operations and Maintenance The operations and maintenance impact of the Proposed Development was estimated annually as the impact that would persist throughout the 35 year life-span of the Proposed Development.

Annual expenditure on operations and maintenance was estimated by multiplying the installed capacity by the industry average annual expenditure per MW on operations and maintenance. The average annual expenditure per MW was found to be £59,867 in the DECC report.

The Proposed Development is expected to have an installed capacity of up to 36 MW, which implies that the annual operations and maintenance expenditure of the Proposed Development could be £2.2 million. This is in comparison to the Consented Development which would be £1.5 million, i.e. a £0.7 million increase.

In order to estimate the economic impact of the operations and maintenance expenditure in each of the study areas it was first necessary to estimate the proportion of the contracts that could be secured in each of these areas. These assumptions were based data reported in the DECC report about the proportion of contracts secured in each area, and the analysis of the industries present in each of the study areas. Based on this information it was assumed that 50% of the contracts could be secured in Dumfries and Galloway and 75% could be secured in Scotland.

In this way it was calculated that the direct economic impact of operations and maintenance expenditure for the Proposed Development could be £1.1 million in Dumfries and Galloway, and £1.65 million in Scotland. This is in comparison to the Consented Development which would be £0.76 million in Dumfries and Galloway, and £1.15 million in Scotland.

Table 5.3: Operations and Maintenance Spend by Study Area

Dumfries and Galloway Scotland

% Consented £m

Proposed £m % Consented

£m Proposed

£m Operations and Maintenance 50% 0.75 1.1 75% 1.1 1.65

Source: BiGGAR Economics, 2016

Shared Ownership As explained in Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement and Addendum, in line with best practice21, the Developer has made an offer of shared ownership. This has been extended to the six closest community councils and community organisations surrounding the wind farm and comprises an offer to acquire an up to 10% equity share of Loganhead Wind Farm.

In order to help the community surrounding Muirhall Energy’s Crossdykes Wind Farm understand how the shared ownership offering could work there, the Developer employed an established accountancy firm experienced in community ownership on other projects throughout Scotland to produce a prospectus which provides details of the project and a number of illustrative scenarios of how the community could finance their equity share and the likely dividends. The majority of the community councils who have been offered the Crossdykes shared ownership investment, are those who would be involved with investing in Loganhead Wind Farm.

In 2020, a prospectus will be produced for the Loganhead Wind Farm, in order for the Community to have a much better understanding of the specific financial and administrative requirements of the Shared Ownership

21 Scottish Government (2019), Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Onshore Renewable Energy Developments


Page | 46

offering for Loganhead. The Developer hopes that this, in addition to their experience with Crossdykes, will provide the Community with the knowledge and confidence to pursue this offer.

Community Benefit In addition to the shared ownership offering, community benefit will be offered and payable regardless of whether the shared ownership offering is taken up.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the requested tip height variation would increase the energy yield per turbine from 10.07 GWh/annum to 15.35 GWh/annum – an increase of 5.28 GWh/annum.

The Community Benefit associated with the Consented Development is currently £128,000 per annum for local communities, based on £5,000 per installed megawatt per annum (Scottish Government Best Practice22). This equates to £3.2 million over the 25 year lifetime of the Consented Development.

If the larger tip height and resulting ability to generate more electricity is achieved, it will allow the Developer to increase the Community Benefit from £5,000 per installed megawatt per annum, to £7,000 per installed megawatt per annum (index linked for the operational lifetime of the project). This equates to £252,000 per annum for local communities, which, over the Proposed Development’s 35 year lifetime would be £8.82 million.

This is a £5.62 million increase in community benefit, when comparing the Consented Development with the Proposed Development.

To date, the Developer has proposed Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) to the six closest Community Councils.

Summary To conclude, the Proposed Development is highly unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on tourism assets in the surrounding area; however, the construction and operation economic impacts associated with the taller turbines would be significant.

Whilst community benefit is not a material consideration of planning, the increased community benefit of up to an additional £124,000 annually on top of the increased revenue if the shared ownership opportunity is taken up would lead to a significant income stream for communities in the surrounding area which could be used for long term sustainable projects in the area.

22 Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments, p3. Accessed on 10.03.20. Available at URL: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-good-practice-principles-community-benefits-onshore-renewable-energy-developments/


Page | 47

6 Ecology

Introduction This Chapter considers the effects of the proposed tip height increase (and associated infrastructure changes) on the Study Area’s Important Ecological Features (IEFs), as identified in Chapter 6: Ecology, of the 2015 Environmental Statement (ES) and Chapter A6: Ecology, of the 2017 Addendum.

For clarity, the project described and assessed in the 2017 Addendum will hereafter be referred to as the ‘consented development’ and the 2017 Addendum itself referred to as the ‘existing assessment’. The project to which this assessment (the ‘current assessment’) relates to is hereafter referred to as the ‘proposed development’.

The Chapter is based on baseline ecological conditions, assessment methodologies and design details described in the original 2015 ES and its 2017 Addendum. Where additional baseline data has been collected to inform this Chapter, detail is provided below.

Scope of Assessment Proposed changes to the consented development extend to:

• An increase in tip height, from a maximum of 135m to a maximum of 180m. • An increase in turbine foundation diameter, from 24m to 28m. • An increase in crane hard-standing area, from 45m x 25m to 50m x 30m

Given these changes to site infrastructure are relatively minor, potential effects, and their pathways, remain as described in Section 6.6 of the existing assessment. As such, the Scope of this assessment extends to a re-consideration of potential effects on IEFs associated with construction and operation of the wind farm, based solely on the proposed hub height increase. IEFs considered in the existing assessment include:

• Plantation forestry; • Upland habitat mosaics; • Wetlands • Fisheries • Bats • Red squirrel • Pine marten • Otter • Badger

In order that the current assessment and the existing assessment are appropriately comparative, a similar assessment method is applied to both assessments.


Page | 48

Consultation Responses Consultation responses to the original ES are summarised in Table 6.1. Only responses that relate to the IEFs listed above are provided. Detailed consultation responses are provided in the ES.

Table 6.1: Environmental Statement – Consultation Responses

Consultee Consultee Response Assessment Response

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) (October 2015)

SEPA queried the potential effects on GWDTEs. SEPA also noted that three turbines were located in areas of peat.

The potential GWDTEs identified were located within a different hydrological catchment and therefore no effect was anticipated. SPEA accepted this. The three turbines identified were removed from the layout.

SNH SNH (January 2016) had no specific concerns providing mitigation measures detailed in Section 6.7 of the ES were implemented. SNH (2019) were consulted on a potential increase in tip height to 149.9m. SNH commented that proposed approach was acceptable. SNH (January 2020) were consulted regarding the proposed development. SNH advised that bat surveys would need to be redone so that they are in line with the most recent ‘Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines’ guidance.

At the time of submission of the current assessment, detailed discussions were ongoing with SNH regarding the value of undertaking new bat surveys within the Study Area. At the time of writing, the Author’s position is that existing bat survey data is sufficiently robust to inform the current assessment.

Assessment Methodology The existing assessment sets out a detailed approach to the collection of baseline data, the identification of potential effects, the methods used to evaluate significance, and an assessment of the significance of those potential effects. In order that the current assessment is comparative, this chapter follows a similar approach. The assessment method follows guidance detailed by CIEEM23. While CIEEM guidelines were updated in 2018, the assessment processes are broadly comparative; only minor, non-material amendments were made to terminology and report structure.

Original baseline data was collected in 2013 and 2014 and followed best practice methods available at the time. In order that the current assessment was appropriately informed, a ‘ground-truthing’ walkover survey was conducted on 24th July 2019, by an appropriately qualified ecologist. The walkover survey aimed to identify any major changes in land use which may affect the subsequent distribution or condition of habitats or protected species populations.

The current assessment has been prepared by John Allsopp MSc ACIEEM, Senior Ecologist. John has 8 years’ professional ecology experience and has carried out a number of Ecological Impact Assessments for proposed energy generation and transmission schemes. John is considered ‘competent’, as required by EIA Regulations.

Baseline Conditions The following section summarises baseline conditions as they relate to the IEFs under consideration. Where additional baseline was collected during the July 2019 ‘ground-truthing’ walkover, this is also described.

23 CIEEM. (2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial Freshwater and Coastal. 2nd edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.


Page | 49

6.5.1 Desk Studies The detailed findings of desk studies are presented in the ES. No additional desk studies have been undertaken to inform the current assessment.

6.5.2 Field Surveys Details of field survey methodologies and results are included within Technical Appendices 6.1– 6.4 of the original ES and summarised in the chapter itself.

The July 2019 walkover survey confirmed that the land use of the Study Area has not changed significantly since 2013/2014. However, approximately 29% of the coniferous plantation woodland has been felled as part of the current Felling Plan. It is noteworthy that no turbines are located in the areas that have been felled. The survey did not find any other changes in the structure of the habitats within the Study Area. Consequently, for the purposes of the current assessment, it is assumed that current habitat extent/condition and species distribution/viability remains consistent with previous findings.

Important Ecological Features Table 6.2 provides an account of the IEFs, as detailed in the existing assessment of the consented development. The table also lists each IEF’s Nature Conservation Value24, determined during preparation of the existing assessment and considered to be relevant and accurate for the purposes of the current assessment. For clarity, the existing assessment uses the terms ‘IEF’ and ‘Receptor’ interchangeably. For accurate comparison, the table below is loyal to the existing assessment refers to Receptors.

Table 6.2: Nature Conservation Value of Scoped-in IEFs

Receptor Nature Conservation Value

Justification/Comment

Plantation Forestry

Less than Local The plantation forestry habitats within the site are mostly mature, meaning that the ground flora has been shaded out since canopy closure, which presumably occurred 20 years ago or more. As a result, there is very little ground vegetation in these areas, which are exclusively planted with non-native commercial forestry species.

Upland habitat mosaic

Regional The blanket bog and related habitats in the survey area, taken as a whole, are considered to be of regional importance for nature conservation. This is primarily because the survey area includes an extensive area of peatland. This area would fall well short of selection guidelines for sites of special scientific interest because in a national context it is relatively species poor, and lacks rare or notable species that would be associated with higher quality and relatively undisturbed peatlands.

Wetlands Local The range of diversity of wetland features merit inclusion as a specific receptor, ranging from acid flushes in the upper catchment to swamp and fen features in the lower reaches of the survey area. These wetlands are generally small and/or of common or widespread types. For these reasons they are considered to be of local importance for nature conservation.

Salmon and migratory trout in the Border-Esk Catchment

National The population of salmon in the Border Esk catchment as a whole is of national importance. They have economic and cultural value as well as biodiversity value.

24 In 2018 updates of CIEEM’s guidelines ‘Nature Conservation Value’ is re-termed ‘Ecological Importance’. While terminology has changed, the purpose of the valuation persists and is still relevant for the purposes of this updated assessment.


Page | 50

Local bat population

Local The level of bat activity within the site boundary is consistent with there being a pipistrelle bat roost in the vicinity, supporting several individuals.

Red squirrel National Red squirrel is confirmed as present in this woodland. In addition, the woodland has been designated as a priority woodland for red squirrel conservation.

Pine marten National Little is known about the size or breeding activity of what appears to be a recently established population of pine marten in this area, one of three outside a previously known populations outside the Galloway Forest Park. Some of these populations may be being sustained or augmented through unofficial releases of captured or previously injured animals from the well- established populations north of the central belt

Local otter population

Local There is evidence that otter are present on the Logan Water. Defining otter populations is very difficult, but there are likely to be a minimum of two female territories within the zone of influence of the site, likely together with at least one male. A population of this size is considered to be of local importance for nature conservation.

Local badger population

Local Badger evidence suggests that at least one social group of badgers are within the zone of influence of the development. A population of this size is considered to be of local importance for nature conservation.

Design Process – Ecology Input The existing assessment addressed the potential ecological effects in terms of a proposed change in layout (i.e. the deletion of five turbines bringing the number down from 13 turbines (in the original ES) to eight in the Addendum. This layout for the current assessment has not changed from the 2017 Addendum and this layout incorporates design constraints identified in the ES including:

• Habitat and wetland constraints (although no constraints identified) • Design buffers in relation to protected species for example:

o 50m separation distance from blade tip to features considered to be important for bats such as forest edges25;

o 25m minimum buffer of watercourses to protected fish and any undiscovered water vole populations; and

o Forest design measures in relation to red squirrel habitat suitability.

Potential Ecological Effects This section considers whether the proposed tip height, and associated changes to infrastructure, increase affects the conclusions reached in the existing assessment. Following similar assessment methods, consideration is given to whether the existing assessment of significance of potential effects on scoped-in IEFs remains relevant and valid. Unless otherwise stated, effects are considered to occur during construction activity. Note that as the current assessment considers the relevance of the existing assessment, it does not consider unmitigated effects, instead the assessment below is based on the application of mitigation measures set out in the original ES and confirmed in the existing assessment.

25 SNH (2019) Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines: Survey, Assessment and Mitigation. Available online at: https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2019-01/Bats%20and%20onshore%20wind%20turbines%20-%20survey%2C%20assessment%20and%20mitigation.pdf [accessed March 2020].

https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2019-01/Bats%20and%20onshore%20wind%20turbines%20-%20survey%2C%20assessment%20and%20mitigation.pdf

https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2019-01/Bats%20and%20onshore%20wind%20turbines%20-%20survey%2C%20assessment%20and%20mitigation.pdf


Page | 51

6.8.1 Effects on Habitats

6.8.1.1 Effects on Plantation Forestry There has been no change in layout from the consented development. The layout still comprises eight turbines however the increase in tip height requires slightly larger turbine foundations (28m diameter) and crane hardstanding areas (50m x 30m), therefore marginally more forestry will need to be removed to accommodate these. The additional loss of plantation forestry is 0.84 ha26. The assessment of the effects on this receptor remains unchanged from the consented development and the effect is considered not significant.

6.8.1.2 Effects on Upland Habitat Mosaic Given the layout has not changed from the consented development, with the exception of a slight increase in the removal of plantation forestry (to facilitate the larger turbine foundations and crane hardstanding areas), potential effects on this receptor are unchanged and considered not significant.

6.8.1.3 Effects on Wetlands Potential effects on wetlands are unchanged from the consented development and considered not significant.

6.8.2 Effects on Protected Species

6.8.2.1 Effects on Salmon and Migratory Trout Potential effects on these species are predicted during construction, operation and decommissioning. The existing assessment concludes that the significance of effects on these species are unchanged from the original ES. On the basis that the proposed development does not include any further relevant changes to design, this conclusion remains accurate. Effects will not be significant.

6.8.2.2 Effects on Bats The existing assessment identifies mortality as a potential effect on bats during operation. Mortality would be realised through direct collision with turbines, and through barotrauma.

Extensive baseline data was collected in 2015, following best practice guidelines available at the time27. Analysis of the data identified five species, one of which, Nyctalus sp., is considered a ‘high risk’ in a wind farm context. However, the data demonstrated relatively low levels of activity at proposed turbine locations and a higher number of bat passes at forest edge/watercourse habitats, which were assumed as being used for foraging and commuting. No roost sites were identified, although the relatively high number of pipistrelle bats recorded during survey surveys, particularly shortly after sunset, suggested a nearby roost.

The existing assessment highlights embedded design mitigation, which seeks to create a minimum 50m buffer between blade tips and features used by bats, and predicts no significant effects on bats, on the basis of these measures and the generally low levels of bat activity across the Study Area.

The current assessment recognises the fundamental change in tip height, and a corresponding change in blade length. However, by committing to the same 50m buffer between blade tip and suitable features as a design feature, it is predicted that there will be no significant effect on bats during operation.

6.8.2.3 Effects on Red Squirrel Effects on red squirrel were identified during construction, operation and decommission.

26 The Consented Development required 3.29ha of compensatory planting. 27 In 2019, SNH introduced new bat survey guidelines for onshore wind farms. The reader is referred to Technical Appendix 5.4 of the existing assessment, which demonstrates a survey method that provides a robust data set, drawing on a range of methods that exceed requirements of the new 2019 guidance in terms of survey type, duration and seasonal spread.


Page | 52

Due to the increase in forestry removal (albeit it marginal) to accommodate the larger foundations and crane hardstanding area there may be some minor changes to the forest management proposals. There may a slight improvement in habitat quality for red squirrel in the long-term however this is not expected to be significant and the potential effects on red squirrel are unchanged. No significant effects are predicted.

6.8.2.4 Effects on Pine Marten Effects on pine marten were identified during construction and decommission.

Due to the increase in forestry removal (albeit it marginal) to accommodate the larger foundations and crane hardstanding area there may be some minor changes to the forest management proposals. However this minor change is not expected to be significant and the potential effects on pine marten are unchanged. No significant effects are predicted.

6.8.2.5 Effects on Otter Effects on otter were identified during construction and decommission. On the basis that the proposed development does not include any further relevant changes to design, this conclusion remains accurate. Effects will not be significant.

6.8.2.6 Effects on Badger Effects on badger were identified during construction, operation and decommission.

Due to the increase in forestry removal (albeit it marginal) to accommodate the larger foundations and crane hardstanding area there may be some minor changes to the forest management proposals. However this minor change is not expected to be significant and the potential effects on pine marten are unchanged. No significant effects are predicted.

Assessment of Cumulative Effects The existing assessment concludes that there will be no significant cumulative effects on the basis that best practice has been applied to the design, and construction, of the consented development. This assumption is likely to be accurate and valid in relation to the proposed development as identical design parameters and embedded mitigation have been applied. No significant cumulative effect is predicted.

Additional Mitigation No additional mitigation measures, over and above those described in the existing assessment, are required.

Additional good practice measures Since the preparation of the original of the existing assessment, additional guidance has been published in relation to the provision of Environmental Clerks of Works (ECoW)28. The Guidelines will be used in the design of the necessary ECoW scope of works.

Assessment of Residual Effects

6.12.1 Residual Construction, Operational, and Decommissioning Effects There are no significant residual effects associated with the proposed development, during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed development.

6.12.2 Residual Cumulative Effects There are no significant residual cumulative effects associated with the proposed development.

28 Association of Environmental and Ecological Clerks of Works (2017). ECoW: Good Practice Guidelines.


Page | 53

7 Ornithology

Introduction This Chapter considers the effects of the proposed tip height increase (and associated infrastructure changes) on the Study Area’s ornithological interests, as identified in Chapter 7: Ornithology, of the 2015 Environmental Statement (ES) and Chapter A7: Ornithology, of the 2017 Addendum.

For clarity, the project described and assessed in the 2017 Addendum will hereafter be referred to as the ‘consented development’ and the 2017 Addendum itself referred to as the ‘existing assessment’. The project to which this assessment (the ‘current assessment’) relates to is hereafter referred to as the ‘proposed development’.

The Chapter is based on baseline ornithological conditions, assessment methodologies and design details described in the original 2015 ES and its 2017 Addendum. Where additional baseline data has been collected to inform this Chapter, detail is provided below.

Scope of Assessment Proposed changes to the consented development extend to:

• An increase in tip height, from a maximum of 135m to a maximum of 180m. • An increase in turbine foundation diameter, from 20m to 28m. • An increase in crane hard-standing area, from 45m x 25m to 50m x 30m

Given these changes to site infrastructure are relatively minor, potential effects, and their pathways, remain as described in Section 7.5 of the existing assessment. As such, the Scope of this assessment extends to a re-consideration of potential effects on Valued Ornithological Receptors (VORs) associated with construction and operation of the wind farm, based solely on the proposed hub height increase. VORs considered in the existing assessment include:

• Moorland wader assemblage; • Red and amber-listed breeding passerines; • Goshawk; and • Barn Owl.

In order that the current assessment and the existing assessment are appropriately comparative, a similar assessment method is applied to both assessments.

Consultation Responses Consultation responses to the original ES are summarised in Table 7.1. Only responses that relate to the VORs listed above are provided. Detailed consultation responses are provided in the ES.

Table 7.1: Environmental Statement – Consultation Responses

Consultee Consultee Response Assessment Response

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)

January 2016 SNH had a number of technical queries in relation to the collision risk modelling presented in the ES. The majority of these were resolved through post-submission dialogue. One comment remained in relation to the treatment of overlap in visible areas where simultaneous observations had been carried out. SNH agree that this is likely to have only a very


Page | 54

minor influence on the overall findings of the collision risk modelling process in this case. SNH note that the mitigation measures presented in Section 7.7 of the ES should be implemented in full. February 2020 SNH commented that given the layout (of the proposed development) has not changed, an update of the assessment and a recalculation of collision risk would be required.

As per SNH’s comments, the assessment has been updated and collision risk (for goshawk) has been recalculated.

Assessment Methodology The existing assessment sets out a detailed approach to the collection of baseline data, the identification of potential effects, the methods used to evaluate significance, and an assessment of the significance of those potential effects. In order that the current assessment is comparative, this chapter follows a similar approach. The assessment method follows guidance detailed by CIEEM29. While CIEEM guidelines were updated in 2018, the assessment processes are broadly comparative; only minor, non-material amendments were made to terminology and report structure.

Original baseline data was collected in 2012 and 2013 and followed best practice methods for ornithology survey available at the time. In order that the current assessment was appropriately informed, a ‘ground-truthing’ walkover survey was conducted on 24th July 2019, by an appropriately qualified person. The walkover survey aimed to identify any major changes in land use which may affect the subsequent distribution of ornithological features.

The current assessment has been prepared by John Allsopp MSc ACIEEM, Senior Ecologist. John has 8 years’ professional ecology experience and has carried out a number of Ecological Impact Assessments for proposed energy generation and transmission schemes. John is considered ‘competent’, as required by EIA Regulations

Baseline Conditions

The following section summarises baseline conditions as they relate to the VORs under consideration. Where additional baseline was collected during the July 2019 ‘ground-truthing’ walkover, this is also described.

7.5.1 Desk Studies The detailed findings of desk studies are presented in the original ES. No additional desk studies have been undertaken to inform the current assessment.

7.5.2 Field Surveys Details of field survey methodologies and results are included within Technical Appendices 7.1– 7.3 of the original ES and summarised in the chapter itself.

The July 2019 walkover survey confirmed that the land use of the Study Area has not changed significantly since 2012/2013. However, approximately 29% of the coniferous plantation woodland has been felled as part of the current Felling Plan. It is noteworthy that no turbines are located in the areas that have been felled. The survey did not find any other changes in the structure of the habitats within the Study Area that are likely to have an effect on the FOI. Consequently, for the purposes of the current assessment, it is assumed that current habitat extent/condition and species distribution/viability remains consistent with previous findings.

The notable bird species recorded during the walkover survey were buzzard and kestrel, species that were commonly recorded during the ES baseline ornithology surveys.

29 CIEEM. (2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial Freshwater and Coastal. 2nd edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.


Page | 55

Valued Ornithological Receptors Table 7.2 provides an account of the VORs as detailed in the existing assessment of the consented development. The table also shows the Nature Conservation Value30 of each VOR, determined during preparation of the existing assessment and considered to be relevant and accurate for the purposes of the current assessment. For clarity, the existing assessment uses the terms ‘VOR’ and ‘Receptor’ interchangeably. For accurate comparison, the table below is loyal to the existing assessment and refers to Receptors.

Table 7.2: Nature Conservation Value of Scoped-in VORs

Receptor Nature Conservation Value

Justification/Comment

Moorland Wader Assemblage

Local The population of waders within the survey area is not very diverse with only two species (curlew and snipe). This assemblage falls short of criteria for selection as a site of special scientific interest. There are no equivalent criteria for selection of local wildlife sites in Dumfries and Galloway, but it is considered likely that this wader assemblage would not meet the relevant criteria for designation as a local wildlife site. However, the assemblage does support a range of upland waders of conservation concern. This wader assemblage is thus considered to be of local importance for nature conservation.

Red and Amber-listed passerines

Local Two red-listed species are present. Tree pipit and song thrush are present in relatively low numbers. Of the seven amber-listed species, two were recorded during point counts but do not breed within the forest. One is curlew, heard from one of the point count locations near the forest edge; the other is swift, recorded calling overhead from one or two of the point counts, but not breeding on site. The remaining five are dunnock (recorded from only two or three points), grey wagtail (closely associated with the watercourses in the forest), meadow pipit (recorded from forest edges and occasionally from open areas in the forestry), mistle thrush (recorded from several points), and willow warbler (relatively commonly encountered in the forest rides and other edges). Whilst many of these species are relatively common and widespread, the survey area includes good numbers of species of conservation concern such as willow warbler. Whilst there are no prescriptive guidelines for evaluation of bird assemblages of this type, this assemblage of birds is considered to be of local importance for nature conservation.

Goshawk Regional Goshawk has been recorded breeding within the raptor survey area. Full details are provided in Confidential Annex 7.1 of the ES. The current Scottish goshawk population is estimated to be at least 130 pairs31. On this basis a single pair would be of regional importance for nature conservation.

Barn owl Barn owl has been recorded breeding within the raptor survey area. Full details are provided in Confidential Annex 7.1 of the ES. The current Scottish barn owl population is estimated to be between 500 and 1000 pairs31. On this basis a single pair would be of regional importance for nature conservation.

30 In 2018 updates of CIEEM’s guidelines ‘Nature Conservation Value’ is re-termed ‘Ecological Importance’. While terminology has changed, the purpose of the valuation persists and is still relevant for the purposes of this updated assessment. 31 Forrester, R.W., Andrews, I.J., McInerny, C.J. et al. (eds). 2007. The Birds of Scotland. The Scottish Ornithologists Club, Aberlady.


Page | 56

Potential Ornithological Effects This section considers whether the proposed tip height, and associated changes to infrastructure affects the conclusions reached in the existing assessment. Following similar assessment methods, consideration is given to whether the existing assessment of significance of potential effects on scoped-in VORs remains relevant and valid. Unless otherwise stated, effects are considered to occur during construction activity. Note that as the current assessment considers the relevance of the existing assessment, it does not consider unmitigated effects, instead the assessment below is based on the application of mitigation measures set out in the original ES and confirmed in the existing assessment.

Effects on Goshawk

7.8.1 Construction Effects Given there is no change to the layout from the existing assessment it remains the case that no construction activity is proposed within 400m32 of areas in which goshawk breeding activity was recorded during the baseline surveys. Therefore, it is predicted there will be no significant effects on this species during construction.

7.8.2 Operational Effects As noted above, given the layout avoids areas where goshawk breeding activity was recorded during the baseline surveys (by maintaining at least a 400m buffer), it is predicted there will be no significant operational effects on this species.

Nonetheless, as a precautionary approach, collision risk modelling (CRM) for this species was undertaken as part of the ES and was rerun for the existing assessment due to the change in layout. Due to the proposed increase in tip height for the proposed development the CRM has been rerun again, using updated candidate turbine information. Assuming a 98% avoidance rate33 for goshawk, the output of the CRM was 0.045 collisions per year (one collision every 22 years). This is an increase on the existing assessment output which was 0.037 collisions per year (one collision every 27 years). However, it is very similar to the original ES assessment output of 0.043 collisions per year (one collision every 23 years) and, therefore, continues to represent approximately one collision during the lifetime of the proposed development. It is concluded that the existing assessment remains valid; the effect is not considered to be significant.

Regarding the effects of forest management on goshawk, given the layout has not changed, associated effects are unchanged from the existing assessment.

7.8.3 Decommissioning Effects Given the layout has not changed, all decommissioning activities will be more than 500m away from where goshawk breeding activity was recorded therefore, the assessment of decommissioning effects on goshawk remains unchanged from the consented development. No significant effects are predicted.

Effects on Moorland Wader Assemblage Given there has been no change in layout, potential effects on moorland wader assemblages are unchanged from the consented development and considered not significant.

32 400m is the recommended disturbance zone referred to in Petty, S.J. 1996 “Reducing Disturbance to Goshawks During the Breeding Season” Forestry Commission Research Information Note 267: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4952/RIN267.pdf [Accessed March 2020]. 33 SNH (2018) Avoidance Rates for the Onshore SNH Wind Farm Collision Risk Model. https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2018-09/Wind%20farm%20impacts%20on%20birds%20-%20Use%20of%20Avoidance%20Rates%20in%20the%20SNH%20Wind%20Farm%20Collision%20Risk%20Model.pdf [Accessed March 2020].

https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4952/RIN267.pdf

https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2018-09/Wind%20farm%20impacts%20on%20birds%20-%20Use%20of%20Avoidance%20Rates%20in%20the%20SNH%20Wind%20Farm%20Collision%20Risk%20Model.pdf

https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2018-09/Wind%20farm%20impacts%20on%20birds%20-%20Use%20of%20Avoidance%20Rates%20in%20the%20SNH%20Wind%20Farm%20Collision%20Risk%20Model.pdf


Page | 57

Effects on Red and Amber-listed Passerines This receptor is mainly affected through changes to the forest structure. Due to the increase in forestry removal (albeit it marginal) to accommodate larger foundations and crane hardstanding areas there may be some minor changes to the forest management proposals. However, this minor change is not expected to be significant and the potential effects on the red and amber-listed birds recorded are unchanged. No significant effects are predicted.

Effects on Barn Owl Given there has been no change in layout, potential effects on barn owl are unchanged from the consented development and considered not significant.

Other Effects Given there has been no change to the layout, the theoretical risk of collision to hen harrier, mentioned in the existing assessment (but carried through from the ES), remains unchanged and is not considered significant.

Assessment of Cumulative Effects The existing assessment concludes that there will be no significant cumulative effects on valued ornithological receptors as result of the proposed development. The current assessment confirms this conclusion.

Additional Mitigation No additional mitigation measures, over and above those described in the existing assessment, are required.

Additional Good Practice Measures Since the preparation of the original ES and the existing assessment, additional guidance has been published in relation to the provision of Environmental Clerks of Works (ECoW)34. The Guidelines will be used in the design of the necessary ECoW scope of works.

Assessment of Residual Effects

7.16.1 Residual Construction, Operational, and Decommissioning Effects There are no significant residual effects associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed development.

7.16.2 Residual Cumulative Effects There are no significant residual cumulative effects associated with the proposed development.

Summary An assessment has been undertaken to determine the potential effects of a proposed tip height increase on valued ornithological receptors (VORs). Goshawk was identified as a VOR and was the only species from the existing assessment for which collision risk modelling (CRM) was carried out. Despite there being no change in the wind farm layout from the consented development, the increase in tip height has the potential to have effects on goshawk, therefore it was necessary to rerun the CRM. Whilst the output from the CRM showed that collision risk for goshawk increased compared to the existing assessment, the output was very similar to that of the original Environmental Statement (ES) assessment. The potential effect on goshawk is therefore considered not significant.

Significant effects are not predicted on any other VORs. Additionally, the mitigation measures specified in the existing assessment remain relevant.

34 Association of Environmental and Ecological Clerks of Works (2017). ECoW: Good Practice Guidelines.


Page | 58

8 Hydrology, Geology, and Hydrogeology

Statement An assessment of effects on hydrology, geology and hydrogeology arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Proposed Development was undertaken and presented in the original ES, Chapter 8 and ES Addendum.

As outlined in Section 2.2, the turbine foundations are expected to increase from 20m diameter, to 28m in diameter; and the crane hard standings will increase from 45m x 25m to 50m x 30m.

The 2016 ES and Addendum identified that GWDTEs are not present within the main site area (Figure A8.5 of the 2016 ES Addendum) of the Consented Development. Consequently, whilst the turbine foundation and hard standings have increased in dimensions for the Proposed Development, the effects to GWDTEs have not altered and will remain unaffected by the construction of the Proposed Development.

Affects on Habitat are discussed in more detail in Section 6.8.1 of this document.

There are no additional watercourse crossings required for the Proposed Development, compared to the Consented Development.

Additionally, no other hydrological sensitivities were identified within the larger hard standing and foundation areas.

It is therefore considered that the proposed changes to the candidate turbine dimensions will not result in any change to the effects on hydrology, geology and hydrogeology, therefore a full assessment has been scoped out of this application.


Page | 59

9 Cultural Heritage

Introduction This chapter presents the findings of the revised assessment of the potential for effects on the setting of cultural heritage assets which may occur due to the increased tip height of the turbines at Loganhead Wind Farm. The purpose of the assessment is to identify whether the proposed increased tip height would materially alter any of the effects previously identified for the consented development or result in new significant effects.

Approach to Assessment In order to establish whether the proposed increase in tip height is likely to result in any effects on the setting of cultural heritage, the following assessment has been undertaken:

• A review of the blade tip height Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for the proposed increase in tip height from 135m to 180m (Figure V9.1); with assets overlain to establish which assets will now have visibility due to the tip height increase

• Comparative wirelines have been prepared (Figure V9.2 to V9.5) representing the change in visibility arising from the proposed increase in tip height from a selection of assets, identified by Consultees as concerns in responses to the original application (2015), to inform the evaluation of the proposed development

Summary of Previous Assessment Findings The assessments carried out for the Environmental Statement (ES) (Chapter 9) (2015) identified effects of moderate adverse significance on the settings of five Scheduled Monuments, one Listed Building, Boyken Burn Archaeologically Sensitive Area (ASA) and Westerhall House (LB16936) and non-inventory designed landscape (NIDL).

The proposed development was subsequently revised (2016), with the number of turbines reduced from 13 to eight. Those turbines deemed to be having the most significant effect on heritage assets in the Boyken Burn and ASA and on Westerhall House (LB16936) and NIDL (T5, T6, T7, T8 and T9) were removed from the proposed development.

Summary of Previous Responses In their response to the ES (13/11/2015) Historic Environment Scotland (HES) did not object to the proposed development; although they considered that there would be a significant impact on the setting of Calkin, settlement, farmstead and linear earthworks (SM 4396). HES concluded however that “the current presence of operational turbines in the background and periphery of several views towards this monument leads to the conclusion that while the change to setting would be significant, this would not be sufficient to raise issues of national significance such as to warrant objection in this particular case”.

In his response to the ES (06/06/2016) The Dumfries and Galloway Council (DGC) Archaeologist recommended objection to the proposed development on the basis that there would be “significant adverse effects on the Calkin south site, the Boyken Burn ASA and the views from Westerhall and its designed landscape that are contrary to Council policies HE3, HE4 and HE6”.

In response to these comments and the DGC objection, the proposed development was revised, with the number of turbines reduced from 13 to 8; those turbines deemed to be having the most significant effect on heritage assets in the Boyken Burn and ASA and on Westerhall House (LB16936) and NIDL (T5, T6, T7, T8 and T9), being removed from the Proposed Development.


Page | 60

In their response to the proposed changes, HES (23/02/2017) determined that “the removal of the five turbines will result in an improvement to the predicted impact and significance of effects for our historic environment interests as described in the original Environmental Statement”. Specifically, HES considered that “the reduction in the number of turbines will reduce the adverse impact on the setting of the scheduled monument, Calkin settlement (Index No.4396)”. HES concluded that “the revised development proposal does not raise issues of national significance sufficient to warrant an objection for our historic environment interests”.

In his response to the proposed changes, the DGC Archaeologist (06/03/2017) concluded that “the scheme has been through several iterations, and has now reached a stage where, although there are still a number of minor adverse effects on historic environment assets, these do not meet the threshold at which to recommend refusal on historic environment grounds”.

Analysis of the Proposed Development Zone of Theoretical Visibility The current proposed development is an application for eight turbines, in the same locations as those previously consented, with an increased tip height of 180m (an increase of 45m over the consented turbines).

An updated blade tip height ZTV has been prepared and is shown on Figure V9.1. This Figure shows that the increase in visibility due to the increase in tip height, in comparison to the consented scheme, is limited. However, analysis of the revised ZTV shows that three Scheduled Monuments and nine listed buildings, which did not have predicted visibility of the original turbine layout, would fall within the blade tip height ZTV of the modified layout, as a result of the increased turbine height.

Scheduled Monuments

The updated blade tip height ZTV (Figure V9.1) shows that there would be theoretical visibility from three additional Scheduled Monuments due to the increase in turbine height:

• Brieryshaw Hill, fort and settlement (SM4393) lies 7.5km to the northeast of the Proposed Development and it is predicted that there would be theoretical visibility of the turbine tips from this location. Theoretical visibility of the turbines is predicted from only a small portion of the northwestern part of the site and the setting of the fort and settlement, commanding views north and south along the Ewes Water valley, would not be adversely affected by the Proposed Development.

• Cleuchfoot, Farmstead 1500 NE of (SM4687) lies 2km to the south of the Proposed Development and it is predicted that there would be theoretical visibility of the turbine tips from this location. Theoretical visibility of the turbines is predicted from only a very small portion of the northeastern part of the site and the setting of the pre-improvement farmstead, situated on the eastern flank of Tansy Hill, would not be adversely affected by the Proposed Development.

• Wauchope Castle, castle and manse 235m SSW of Springhill (SM12617), a medieval motte and bailey castle, lies 4km to the southeast of the Proposed Development, along the Wauchope Water valley, southwest of Langholm. The revised ZTV indicates that there would be theoretical visibility of the turbine tips from that location but, in practice, visual screening from trees and vegetation in the local landscape surrounding the site would likely obscure the turbines from any visibility from the castle. The setting of the castle, on a promontory between the Wauchope Water and Becks Burn within the Wauchope Water valley, would not be adversely affected by the Proposed Development.

Listed Buildings

The updated blade tip height ZTV (Figure V9.1) shows that there would be theoretical visibility from nine additional Listed Buildings due to the increase in turbine height:


Page | 61

• Two category B listed buildings, Ashley bank Hotel (LB37128) and Tollbar Cottage (LB37135), 5km distant, on the eastern outskirts of Langholm and within the Langholm Conservation Area, are predicted to have theoretical visibility of turbine tips. The increased turbine height of the Proposed Development would result in a very slight, and barely detectable, increase to the degree of theoretical visibility and, in practice, visual screening within the urban environment would most likely entirely obscure the turbine tips from any visibility. The urban settings of these listed buildings within Langholm Conservation Area would not be adversely affected by the Proposed Development.

• Category B listed Wauchope Churchyard (LB9720) and Category C listed Springhill (former Wauchope Manse) (LB9765), 4km to the south of the Proposed Development, are both predicted to have theoretical visibility of the turbines. In practice, visual screening from trees and vegetation would most likely entirely obscure views of the turbines from the site. The roadside setting of the graveyard, on a promontory between the Wauchope Water and Becks Burn, would not be adversely affected by the Proposed Development.

• Category A listed Milnholm Farmhouse and Steading (LB9763), 3.9km to the east of the Proposed Development, is predicted to have theoretical visibility of the turbine tips. In practice, visual screening from trees and vegetation would most likely entirely obscure the turbine tips from any visibility. The present riverside settings of these listed buildings on the west bank of the River Esk would not be adversely affected by the Proposed Development.

• Category A listed Gilnockie Tower (LB3527) and Category B listed Hollows Mill (LB3525), almost 10km distant to the southeast, are predicted to have theoretical visibility of turbine tips. In practice, visual screening from trees and woodland in the local landscape around the Tower would most likely entirely obscure the turbine tips from any visibility, which would in any case be imperceptibly visible at that distance. The present riverside settings of these listed buildings on the west bank of the River Esk would not be adversely affected by the Proposed Development.

• Two other Category B listed buildings, Kirtleton former Stables and Dovecot (LB16954) and Standburn, Hay Barn (LB16917), 7km and 9km distant to the southwest respectively, are predicted to have theoretical visibility of turbine tips. In practice, visual screening from trees and woodland in the local landscape around each of these buildings would most likely entirely obscure the turbine tips from any visibility, which would in any case be imperceptibly visible at that distance. Both are rural farm buildings with localised settings that would not be adversely affected by the Proposed Development.

One Category B Listed Building, Stennieswaterfoot Cottage (LB16934), that was predicted to have visibility previously, and which lies 5km to the north of the Proposed Development, has been de-listed and is no longer designated as a Listed Building.

The increased turbine height of the Proposed Development would result in a slight increase to the degree of visibility from within the Boyken Burn Archaeologically Sensitive Area (ASA).

9.5.1 Review of Effects on Setting Comparative photomontages have been prepared for three scheduled monuments within the ASA and for one Listed Building (Westerhall House (LB16936)) raised as being of importance considerations in the responses to the ES from Historic Environment Scotland and from the Dumfries and Galloway Council Archaeologist. These comparative visualisations are shown in the following figures:

• Figure V9.2: Calkin settlement (SM4396) (ES Figures 9.8a & b) (moderate significance in original ES (13 turbines) – reduced by revised layout (eight turbines) to minor significance)


Page | 62

• Figure V9.3: Calkin settlement and terrace (SM4394) (ES Figures 9.12) (moderate significance in ES (13 turbines) – reduced by revised layout (eight turbines) to minor significance)

• Figure V9.4: Boyken Burn, township 695m W of Westerhall (SM4385) (moderate significance in original ES (13 turbines) – reduced by revised layout (eight turbines) to minor significance)

• Figure V9.5: Westerhall House (LB16936) (ES Figure 9.17) (moderate significance in original ES (13 turbines) – reduced by revised layout (eight turbines) to minor significance)

In each case, the comparative wirelines show that there will be an increase in visibility of the Proposed Development compared with the Consented Development; the change arising from an increase in the hub height and a slightly larger rotor diameter. However, in each case, the change in the appearance of the Proposed Development would not result in an appreciable change to the assessment of the effects on the settings of the heritage assets represented and described in the original ES (for 13 turbines) and reduced as a consequence of the reduction in the number of turbines for the Consented Development (eight turbines).

• Figure V9.2: Calkin settlement (SM4396) shows that seven turbine tips ((two hubs) would be visible from the settlement compared to five tips (two hubs) for the Consented Development. The photomontages show that, from the viewpoint, the proposed change would not give rise to a substantially different impact on the setting of the settlement compared to that arising from the consented scheme. Turbine T4 would be slightly more prominent than in the Consented Development and the hub of T3 would be visible above the skyline. Blade tips would also be slightly more visible above Calkin Rig. Following the methodology in the ES (Chapter 9; Tables 9.1 and 9.5 to 9.8), the effect of the Proposed Development on the setting of Calkin settlement, taken in the round, would be of low magnitude and minor significance (not significant in EIA terms).

• Figure V9.3: Calkin settlement and terrace (SM4394) shows that eight turbine tips (six hubs) would be visible from the settlement compared to six tips (four hubs) for the Consented Development. There would be a slightly greater visual impact from the viewpoint arising from the increased visibility of T10 and the slightly taller turbines (T11 – T13). However, as seen in the photomontage, the proposed change would not give rise to a substantially different impact on the setting of the settlement compared to that arising from the consented scheme. Following the methodology in the ES (Chapter 9; Tables 9.1 and 9.5 to 9.8), the effect of the Proposed Development on the setting of Calkin settlement and terrace, taken in the round, would be of low magnitude and minor significance (not significant in EIA terms).

• Figure V9.4: Boyken Burn, township 695m W of Westerhall (SM4385) shows that six turbine tips (three hubs) would be visible from the township compared to three tips (two hubs) for the Consented Development. There would be a slightly greater visual impact from the viewpoint arising from the increased visibility of the slightly taller turbines (T3, T4 and T10). However, as seen in the photomontage, the proposed change would not give rise to a substantially different impact on the setting of the settlement compared to that arising from the consented scheme. Following the methodology in the ES (Chapter 9; Tables 9.1 and 9.5 to 9.8), the effect of the Proposed Development on the setting of Boyken Burn township, taken in the round, would be of low magnitude and minor significance (not significant in EIA terms).

• Figure V9.5: Westerhall House (LB16936) shows that six turbines, all at hub height or more, would be theoretically visible from Westerhall House (wireline views) compared to six (four hubs) for the Consented Development. There would be a slightly greater theoretical visual impact from the viewpoint mostly arising from the increased hub heights. However, as seen in the photomontage, trees in the foreground within the designed landscape would provide visual screening of the Proposed Development, although T4 would be slightly more prominent than in the Consented Development.


Page | 63

Although screening from trees cannot be relied upon to persist in perpetuity, it is reasonable to suppose that for the lifetime of the Proposed Development these trees, many of which are coniferous specimen trees, would continue to mature and provide screening of the Proposed Development. Some losses may occur due to disease, old age or wind throw, and this could result in more turbines being visible. However, as shown in the baseline photography, the view from the house is mainly focussed on the parkland grounds to the west and includes the small summerhouse within the landscaped park. The open valley of the Boyken Burn is screened by the intervening trees which provide a secluded setting for the House. Taking account of the current setting of the House and grounds, and the screening provided by the intervening parkland trees, the proposed change would not give rise to a substantially different impact on the setting of the House compared to that arising from the consented scheme. Following the methodology in the ES (Chapter 9; Tables 9.1 and 9.5 to 9.8), the effect of the Proposed Development on the setting of Westerhall House and NIDL would be of low magnitude and minor significance (not significant in EIA terms).

Taking into account the viewpoints presented in Figures V9.2 to V9.5, and discussed above, and following the assessment methodology set out in the ES (Chapter 9; Tables 9.1 and 9.5 to 9.8), the effect of the Proposed Development on the Boyken Burn ASA as a whole would be low magnitude and minor significance (not significant in EIA terms).

Based on consideration of the degree of visual change from the Consented Development for the above viewpoints, it is considered that the effect of the Proposed Development on the settings of other heritage assets in the wider ZTV, compared to the Consented Development, would not be so great as to result in any material change to the magnitude of impact predicted for the Consented Development. Consequently, the resulting significance of the effects of the Proposed Development would be no greater than those predicted for the Consented Development.

9.5.2 Cumulative Assessment The only notable changes to the potential cumulative impact assessment, from that carried out in 2015 are the inclusion of the consented Hopsrig and Little Hartfell wind farms into the cumulative development scenario and the consented increase in turbine heights and revised layout at Crossdykes Wind Farm. Where relevant, these cumulative schemes are shown in the comparative wireline visualisations described above and demonstrate that there would be no change to the predicted cumulative impact.

Conclusion The assessment of the effects of the proposed increase in turbine height of the Proposed Development has found that there are three additional Scheduled Monuments and nine additional Listed Buildings from which there is predicted theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development, with an increased tip height, where none was predicted for the Consented Development.

Comparative visualisations have been provided from selected heritage assets representing the change in visibility arising from the proposed increase in tip height from a selection of assets to inform the evaluation of the Proposed Development. The visualisations presented are for those assets that were raised by consultees in response to the original application (for 13 turbines). The effect on the settings of those assets was assessed in the ES as being of moderate significance (significant in EIA terms), but subsequently reduced to minor significance (not significant in EIA terms) as a consequence of the removal of five turbines that were considered by consultees as having the greatest effect on the assets concerned.

In each case, the change in the appearance of the Proposed Development, as a result of the proposed increase in turbine height, would not be so great as to result in an appreciable change to the assessment of the effects on the settings of the heritage assets described. It is concluded that the effects on the settings of heritage assets,


Page | 64

arising from the Proposed Development, would be minor and not significant and would not result in effects that would diminish the cultural significance of the assets or the integrity of their settings.


Page | 65

10 Noise

Introduction Muirhall Energy (Muirhall) has appointed SLR Consulting Limited (SLR) to carry out a noise assessment for a consented wind energy development at Loganhead. The assessment is for the change of turbine type and is required to show compliance with the noise limits imposed within the planning permission for the Consented Development. The predictions in this assessment have been undertaken using a proprietary software-based noise model, CadnaA®, which implements the full range of UK calculation methods. As this report is technical in nature, SLR has provided a glossary of terms at Technical Appendix V10.1 to assist the reader when reviewing this report.

Planning Permission The original development was permitted planning in 2015 through planning application 15/P/4/0273. Condition 27 of the permission relates to noise and states:

“At wind speeds not exceeding 12 m/s as measured or calculated at a height of 10 m above ground level at the wind farm, the wind farm noise immission level at any dwelling existing at the time of this permission shall comply with the following:

a. During night time hours, as defined in ETSU-R-97 as 23.00 to 07.00 on all days, the cumulative wind farm noise immission level shall not exceed 43 dB LA90, 10 min or the ETSU-R-97 derived 'night hours' noise limit based on the measured LA90, 10 min background noise level plus 5dB(A), whichever is the greater.

b. At all other times, the cumulative wind farm noise immission level shall not exceed 40dB LA90, 10 min or the ETSU-R-97 derived 'quiet waking hours' noise limit based on the measured LA90, 10 min background noise level plus 5dB(A), whichever is the greater.

c. The above noise cumulative immission limits may be increased to 45 dB LA90, 10 min or the relevant ETSU-R- 97 derived 'quiet waking hours' or 'night hours' noise limit based on the measured LA90, 10 min noise level plus 5dB(A), whichever is the greater, when measured at any dwelling occupied by persons with financial involvement with the wind farm.

d. Measured background noise levels referred to in this condition shall be those recorded by the regression lines in the Environmental Statement.”

The noise assessment has been undertaken against the noise limits detailed in this condition. The resultant noise limits are presented in Section 10.3.3.


Page | 66

Proposed Turbine

10.3.1 Turbine Location The grid coordinates for the turbines are unchanged from the original assessment and are shown in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1: Coordinate Locations for Each of the Proposed Wind Turbines

Turbine* Co-ordinates

X(m) Y(m) T1 331904 585704 T2 331537 586059 T3 331432 586499 T4 331202 586704 T5 (10) 329692 587326 T6 (11) 329291 587267 T7 (12) 328955 587462

T8 (13) 328587 587480 *Original turbine numbering in brackets

10.3.2 Turbines The candidate turbine for the noise assessment is a Nordex 133 wind turbine with a hub height of 113.5m, with a maximum rate power generation of 4.8MW.

Third octave noise emission (sound power level) data for this turbine has been provided in a technical document supplied by the manufacturer35, for hub height wind speeds.

The corresponding octave band sound power levels, for 10m height wind speeds, have thus been derived from the published hub height wind speed data for the purposes of the operational noise propagation model. This data is presented in Table 10.2. A +2dB correction has been added for measurement uncertainty

Table 10.2: Octave Band Noise Data for Nordex 113, 10m Standardised Wind Speed dB(A)

Octave Band (Hz) 3ms-1 4ms-1 5ms-1 6ms-1 7ms-1 8ms-1 9ms-1 10ms-1

63 75.6 74.6 75.9 79.2 82.4 85.4 87.9 88.6 125 82.1 82.1 83.7 86.8 89.9 92.8 95.4 96.1 250 85.6 86.2 87.8 90.6 93.5 96.1 98.4 99.1 500 84.3 85.0 87.2 90.6 94.0 97.1 99.9 100.8 1000 82.3 82.7 85.3 89.5 93.6 97.2 100.4 101.4 2000 84.5 84.5 86.2 89.4 92.6 95.6 98.1 98.8

4000 83.3 83.0 84.1 86.8 89.5 92.0 94.2 94.8

8000 75.1 74.0 74.5 76.7 79.0 81.2 82.9 83.3

The sound power levels in Table 10.2 include any tonal penalties and any uncertainties as deemed applicable from ETSU-R-97236 and the IOA GPG337.

35 Nordex Energy GmbH (2018), Octave sound power levels Nordex N113/4.8, F008_272_A14_EN 36 ETSU-R-97: The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU for the DTI, 1996 37 A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind turbine Noise, IOA, 2013


Page | 67

10.3.3 Noise Limits The same assessment locations as those used within the original assessment have been utilised and are detailed in Table 10.3 below.

Table 10.3: Receptor Locations

NSR ID Receptor Grid Reference

X Y NSR01 Calkin 330219 588601 NSR02 Old Hopsrig 331486 588351 NSR03 Hopsrig Cottage 332007 588814 NSR04 Bombie Cottage 332031 588735 NSR05 Hopsrig 332269 588626

NSR06 Carlesgill Lodge 333031 588009

NSR07 Whitelaw Cottage 332978 587985

NSR08 Carlesgill Steading 333024 587896

NSR09 Partridge Ghyll 333018 587927

NSR10 The Mill House /The Stable House 333053 587926

NSR11 1 Carlesgill Cottages / Molend 333011 587860

NSR12 Carlesgill House 333039 587838 NSR13 Burn Cotaqge 333251 587956 NSR14 Kemra Bank 333390 588193 NSR15 North Lodge 334296 586891 NSR16 Craigleuch 334374 586832 NSR17 South Lodge 334263 586682 NSR18 Arresgill Farm 331192 584859

NSR19 Arresgill Cottage (Scoor-knowe) 331094 584969

The consented daytime noise limit for the wind farm has been based on a lower fixed limit of 40dB LA90 or 5dB above the amenity background noise level, whichever is greater. The consented night-time limit has been based on a lower fixed limit of 43dB LA90 or 5dB above the night-time background noise level, whichever is greater.

The consented operational noise limits for the wind farm are presented in Table 10.4 and Table 10.5 for the daytime (07:00 – 23:00) and night-time (23:00 – 07:00) periods, respectively, and are referenced within condition 27 of the decision notice (planning application reference 15/P/4/0273).

Table 10.4: Consented Daytime Operational Noise Limits, dB LA90

NSR ID 10m Height Wind Speed, m/s 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NSR01 40 40 40 40 40 41 42 42 NSR02 40 40 40 40 40 41 42 42 NSR03 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49 NSR04 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49 NSR05 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49

NSR06 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49

NSR07 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49

NSR08 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49

NSR09 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49

NSR10 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49

NSR11 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49


Page | 68

NSR12 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49

NSR13 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49

NSR14 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49

NSR15 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49

NSR16 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49

NSR17 40 40 42 44 46 47 49 49

NSR18 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42

NSR19 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42

Table 10.5: Consented Night-time Operational Noise Limits, dB LA90

NSR ID 10m Height Wind Speed, m/s

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NSR01 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 NSR02 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 NSR03 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46 NSR04 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46 NSR05 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR06 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR07 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR08 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR09 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR10 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR11 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR12 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR13 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR14 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR15 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR16 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR17 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46

NSR18 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

NSR19 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

As per Chapter 10 of the Environmental Statement, the assessment of operational noise has considered the effect of the intervening ground profile between the turbines and each NSR, as per the IOA GPG (at paragraph 4.3.9). This has been updated to reflect the revised candidate turbine model, with an increased hub height and tip height for all eight turbines (i.e. T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7 and T8).

Using topographic data at a resolution of 50m, along the location of the turbines and the NSRs, it has been found that the +3dB penalty is applicable for a number of turbines and receptors as detailed in Table 10.6.

Table 10.6: Requirement for +3dB penalty for individual turbines at NSRs (indicated by x)

NSR ID Turbine ID

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 NSR01 x x x NSR02 x X


Page | 69

Assessment The noise predictions in this assessment have been undertaken using the proprietary software-based noise model CadnaA®, which implements the full range of UK calculation methods including ISO 9613-2:1996.

The IOA GPG comments on several recent studies on noise propagation and states (at paragraph 4.1.4), “the outcome of this research has demonstrated that the ISO 9613-2 standard in particular, which is widely used in the UK, can be applied to obtain realistic predictions of noise from onshore wind turbines during the worst-case propagation conditions”. The ISO 9613-2:1996 prediction framework takes into account the distance between the sound sources and the closest receptors and the amount of attenuation due to atmospheric absorption. The methodology also assumes downwind propagation, i.e. a wind direction that assists the propagation of sound from the source to receiver.

The predicted noise levels (LA9038) due to the operation of the wind farm are presented in Table 10.7. These noise levels reflect the revised candidate turbine model and an increased tip height. Noise levels have been predicted for a wind speed range of 3 – 10m/s and include the +3dB penalty for individual turbines where applicable (as per Table 10.6).

Table 10.7: Predicted Noise Immission Levels, dB LA90


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NSR01 24.0 25.5 30.6 34.8 36.1 35.4 35.4 35.4 NSR02 22.4 23.9 28.9 33.1 34.4 33.7 33.7 33.7 NSR03 19.3 20.8 25.8 30.0 31.3 30.6 30.6 30.6 NSR04 19.6 21.1 26.1 30.3 31.6 30.8 30.8 30.8 NSR05 19.5 21.0 25.9 30.1 31.4 30.7 30.7 30.7

NSR06 19.4 20.9 25.9 30.1 31.4 30.7 30.7 30.7

NSR07 19.7 21.2 26.2 30.4 31.7 31.0 31.0 31.0

NSR08 19.8 21.3 26.3 30.5 31.8 31.1 31.1 31.1

NSR09 19.9 21.4 26.4 30.6 31.9 31.2 31.2 31.2

NSR10 19.6 21.1 26.1 30.3 31.6 30.9 30.9 30.9

NSR11 20.0 21.5 26.5 30.7 32.0 31.3 31.3 31.3

NSR12 19.9 21.4 26.4 30.6 31.9 31.2 31.2 31.2

NSR13 18.8 20.3 25.3 29.5 30.8 30.1 30.1 30.1

NSR14 17.7 19.2 24.1 28.3 29.6 28.9 28.9 28.9

NSR15 16.8 18.3 23.1 27.3 28.6 28.0 28.0 28.0

NSR16 16.5 18.0 22.9 27.1 28.4 27.7 27.7 27.7

NSR17 17.1 18.6 23.5 27.7 29.0 28.3 28.3 28.3

NSR18* 27.1 28.6 33.8 38.0 39.3 38.7 38.7 38.7

NSR19* 27.3 28.8 34.1 38.3 39.6 38.9 38.9 38.9 *penalty of +3dB applied for propagation ‘across a valley’ from individual turbines (as per Table 10.6)

The predicted noise levels from Table 10.7 have been compared to the daytime and night-time noise limits in Table 10.4 and Table 10.5 respectively. As both the predictions and operational noise limits are standardised to a height of 10m, they can be compared for the purposes of the assessment.

The results of this assessment are presented in Table 10.8 and Table 10.9, which show the margins above (+) or below (-) the daytime and night-time noise limits respectively for each NSR and each integer wind speed.

38 A correction of -2dB is applied to convert the predicted LAeq level to the LA90 as required by ETSU-R-97 (Chapter 5, page 58 of the ETSU report) and by the IOA GPG (paragraph 4.25).


Page | 70

Table 10.8: Margin above (+) or below (-) Consented Daytime Noise Level Limited, dB


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NSR01 -16.0 -14.5 -9.4 -5.2 -3.9 -5.6 -6.6 -6.6 NSR02 -17.6 -16.1 -11.1 -6.9 -5.6 -7.3 -8.3 -8.3 NSR03 -20.7 -19.2 -16.2 -14.0 -14.7 -16.4 -18.4 -18.4 NSR04 -20.4 -18.9 -15.9 -13.7 -14.4 -16.2 -18.2 -18.2 NSR05 -20.5 -19.0 -16.1 -13.9 -14.6 -16.3 -18.3 -18.3

NSR06 -20.6 -19.1 -16.1 -13.9 -14.6 -16.3 -18.3 -18.3

NSR07 -20.3 -18.8 -15.8 -13.6 -14.3 -16.0 -18.0 -18.0

NSR08 -20.2 -18.7 -15.7 -13.5 -14.2 -15.9 -17.9 -17.9

NSR09 -20.1 -18.6 -15.6 -13.4 -14.1 -15.8 -17.8 -17.8

NSR10 -20.4 -18.9 -15.9 -13.7 -14.4 -16.1 -18.1 -18.1

NSR11 -20.0 -18.5 -15.5 -13.3 -14.0 -15.7 -17.7 -17.7

NSR12 -20.1 -18.6 -15.6 -13.4 -14.1 -15.8 -17.8 -17.8

NSR13 -21.2 -19.7 -16.7 -14.5 -15.2 -16.9 -18.9 -18.9

NSR14 -22.3 -20.8 -17.9 -15.7 -16.4 -18.1 -20.1 -20.1

NSR15 -23.2 -21.7 -18.9 -16.7 -17.4 -19.0 -21.0 -21.0

NSR16 -23.5 -22.0 -19.1 -16.9 -17.6 -19.3 -21.3 -21.3 NSR17 -22.9 -21.4 -18.5 -16.3 -17.0 -18.7 -20.7 -20.7 NSR18* -12.9 -11.4 -6.2 -2.0 -0.7 -1.3 -1.3 -3.3 NSR19* -12.7 -11.2 -5.9 -1.7 -0.4 -1.1 -1.1 -3.1

Table 10.9: Margin above (+) or below (-) Consented Night-time Noise Level Limited, dB


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NSR01 -19.0 -17.5 -12.4 -8.2 -6.9 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 NSR02 -20.6 -19.1 -14.1 -9.9 -8.6 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3 NSR03 -23.7 -22.2 -17.2 -13.0 -11.7 -12.4 -12.4 -15.4 NSR04 -23.4 -21.9 -16.9 -12.7 -11.4 -12.2 -12.2 -15.2 NSR05 -23.5 -22.0 -17.1 -12.9 -11.6 -12.3 -12.3 -15.3

NSR06 -23.6 -22.1 -17.1 -12.9 -11.6 -12.3 -12.3 -15.3

NSR07 -23.3 -21.8 -16.8 -12.6 -11.3 -12.0 -12.0 -15.0

NSR08 -23.2 -21.7 -16.7 -12.5 -11.2 -11.9 -11.9 -14.9

NSR09 -23.1 -21.6 -16.6 -12.4 -11.1 -11.8 -11.8 -14.8

NSR10 -23.4 -21.9 -16.9 -12.7 -11.4 -12.1 -12.1 -15.1

NSR11 -23.0 -21.5 -16.5 -12.3 -11.0 -11.7 -11.7 -14.7

NSR12 -23.1 -21.6 -16.6 -12.4 -11.1 -11.8 -11.8 -14.8

NSR13 -24.2 -22.7 -17.7 -13.5 -12.2 -12.9 -12.9 -15.9

NSR14 -25.3 -23.8 -18.9 -14.7 -13.4 -14.1 -14.1 -17.1

NSR15 -26.2 -24.7 -19.9 -15.7 -14.4 -15.0 -15.0 -18.0

NSR16 -26.5 -25.0 -20.1 -15.9 -14.6 -15.3 -15.3 -18.3

NSR17 -25.9 -24.4 -19.5 -15.3 -14.0 -14.7 -14.7 -17.7

NSR18* -15.9 -14.4 -9.2 -5.0 -3.7 -4.3 -4.3 -4.3

NSR19* -15.7 -14.2 -8.9 -4.7 -3.4 -4.1 -4.1 -4.1


Page | 71

It can be seen that the predicted noise levels do not exceed the consented noise limits during both the daytime and night-time periods. This is applicable for all receptors and across all assessed wind speeds.

The assessment assumes that the turbine to be installed will be the Nordex N113 4.8MW, with hub heights of 113m, and operating in normal mode. In the event that a turbine other than that assessed is selected for installation on site, further noise assessments will be undertaken to demonstrate that the resulting operational noise levels will comply with the planning conditions with respect to noise.

Conclusion Muirhall has appointed SLR to carry out a noise assessment for a consented wind energy development at Loganhead.

The assessment sets out the likely noise emissions generated by the Proposed Development and the potential impact on the nearest noise-sensitive dwellings.

The ETSU-R-97 assessment for the Proposed Development has shown that there would be no exceedances of the noise limits presented in the planning permission of the Consented Development.


Page | 72

11 Traffic and Transport

Introduction An assessment of the traffic and transport effects associated with Loganhead Wind Farm was undertaken and produced as part of the original Environmental Statement(ES) and then updated as part of the Addendum submitted when the number of Loganhead turbines was reduced to 8 from the original 13. This section provides an update to the Traffic and Transport documents and should be read in conjunction with the original Chapter 11 of the Environmental Statement and the subsequent Addendum.

Although this application includes a proposal for larger turbines the traffic and transport assessment has been undertaken on the basis that a turbine model with the option of a split blade would be used and the existing route to site would be viable. This application does not seek to alter the consented route to site and commentary relating to this in the ES and Addendum remain unchanged. It is acknowledged that the Developer has been in discussion with the planning authority regarding alternative access arrangements, suitable for larger blades, however this would be subject to a separate planning application and is not considered as part of this application.

The following points were considered, in relation to the Proposed Development, to have the potential to alter the traffic and transport arrangements and thereby have a bearing on the traffic and transport assessment:

• Turbine components: Size, Weight and Number • Foundations • Onsite access track geometry • Crane hard standings

Each of these points are considered in detail below.

A detailed Traffic Management Plan and Transport Report will be provided, in accordance with Conditions 11 and 12 of the Consented Development, once the precise turbine model has been determined, in consultation with the Local Authority and local communities.

Turbine Components The precise number and type of loads which a turbine is broken down into depends on the specific requirements for each turbine model however these may typically include:

• Towers Sections • Blades • Nacelle • Nose Cone • Generator • Transformer • Foundation ring

The potential for change of each of these are considered below.

11.2.1 Tower Sections The increase in maximum tip height will result in an increase to the overall height and weight of the tower and in order to manage this manage the transport the tower will be broken down into sections.

The transport assessment for the Consented Development was undertaken on the basis that the turbine tower would come in three sections whilst the class of turbines under consideration for this application will come in


Page | 73

four sections. This will increase the number of turbine component delivery loads anticipated by one per turbine for the towers, or eight additional loads total.

The length and weight of tower section components will vary by turbine manufacturer and model however typical size and weight of tower section components would not be expected to be significantly different from those permitted under the Consented Development.

A small increase in the maximum diameter of the base tower section is likely with the increase in turbine size, however such increases are typically very limited due to the constraints of transporting wider loads on public roads, and the shorter length of the base tower section mean that any increase in maximum diameter of the tower loads is unlikely to have any impact on the transport requirements.

11.2.2 Blades For the purposes on this assessment it is assumed that split blade technology will be adopted. This approach will double the number of turbine blade loads for each turbine, from 3 to 6, for a total of 48 loads. An increase of 24

11.2.3 Other Turbine Components Whilst the overall combined weight of loads to be transported will increase, the wind turbines will be broken down into loads that are individually within the parameters already consented. All Turbine components are expected to be transported in a manner which keeps the axle weight below 12 tonnes and will therefore be within the normal operating parameters for use of public roads. No significant additional impact is therefore anticipated from the increase in the size or weight of the turbine components.

The final number, dimensions and weights of turbine components will be subject to the choice of turbine and it is a proposed that a more detailed Traffic Management Plan be submitted once the final details of loads are known.

Foundations The Proposed Development will have larger foundations to support the larger turbine and this will result in additional loads for concrete and steel.

The turbine foundations are expected to be similar in size to those designed for the neighbouring Crossdykes Wind Farm, which are of the same scale of turbine and have 732m3 of concrete in the base. Using the numbers associated with this project, utilising 8m3 mixer wagons and allowing for wastage, it is estimated that 96 loads per turbine base, or 768 in total, will be required.

There is estimated to be 785 tonnes of steel required per turbine, which equates to 6280 tonnes in total, which at 25 tonnes per load results in 251 loads of steel.

Combined this gives a total of 1020 vehicle movement for delivery of concrete and steel.

The figures submitted with the Addendum, in ‘Chapter A11_Appendix 11.1 Updated Construction Programme’, which is the basis of the Current Consent, are that the estimated number of vehicle movements for “Construct 8No. turbines & 2No. Anemometer tower foundations & steel reinforcement” is HGV 1520 vehicle arrivals. On the basis of the numbers calculated above it is suggested that the ES Addendum figures are rather higher than what is now estimated using figures provided by the contractor about the number of loads required to build the foundations at Crossdykes.

Whilst there would be an increase in the number of loads required to build the foundations, on review, it is apparent that the Current Consent already allows for the number of deliveries required for the larger turbines


Page | 74

proposed. There would therefore be no significant change in assessed impact on traffic and transport from loads associated with the increase in turbine foundations.

Onsite Tracks With larger components it can be necessary to revise the curvature and track geometry to accommodate larger loads however as the individual components proposed under this application are not expected to be significantly larger than those proposed under the Consented Development it is not anticipated that revision of the onsite tracks will be required and no change to the on-site track geometry is proposed as part of this application.

No additional vehicle movements for the construction of on site access track are anticipated from the proposed increase in turbine size.

Crane Pad Size The increase in the turbine hub height associated with the increase in proposed turbine size could require a bigger crane which in turn might have had the potential to impact on the size of crane pad required. In practice the Consented Development has crane pads that are 30m x 50m, and this is larger than the crane pads used by the Developer to construct turbines of the same tip height, for example at Crossdykes Wind Farm.

No additional vehicle movements for the construction of crane pads are anticipated from the proposed increase in turbine size.

Conclusion The implications of the Proposed Development for Traffic and Transport have been considered in detail and it can be seen that there would be an increase in the number of HGV loads, with some components potentially heavier than for the Consented Development, however the transport requirements are still within the range assessed as part of the Consented Development.

There will be a total of 88 Abnormal loads, up 32 from 56, associated with the delivery of turbine components. This is one tower section and three blades sections per turbine. This is the only notable change from the Consented Development Traffic and Transport assessment however it is asserted that the increase in generation entailed with the larger turbines proposed would more than justify the short term inconvenience that might arise during the deliveries of the additional components.

No significant additional traffic and transport issues are anticipated from the additional requirements arising from the Proposed Development and it would therefore not alter the conclusion that the traffic and transport impacts are acceptable.

A Traffic Management Plan and Transport Report will be provided, in accordance with Conditions 11 and 12 of the Consented Development, once the turbine model has been finalised, as is required by condition prior to development, with the final Traffic and Transport provisions subject to approval by the Local Authority.


Page | 75

12 Other Considerations

Introduction This Chapter assesses the potential effects of the construction and operation of the Proposed Development on the following issues:

• Aviation; • Telecommunications and Television; and • Shadow Flicker

This section should be read in conjunction with the respective chapter within the original ES and ES Addendum Chapter 12 – Other Considerations. Here, focus will be on any effects of the revised assessment due to variations in the turbine dimensions.

12.1.1 Scoped Out The following aspects were scoped out of further assessment:

• Air Quality – the only appreciable emission to air caused by the Proposed Development would be emissions from construction traffic and dust generation from borrow pit excavations. Due to the distance from residential receptors and the use of industry standard measures to control potential effects on air quality during construction (e.g. dust mobilisation and construction vehicle emissions) through implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), these effects are not considered likely to be significant and were therefore scoped out of further assessment within the EIAR.

• Human Health (see Section 3.1.1) – properly designed and maintained wind turbines and associated infrastructure are safe technologies. The Site location, design and inbuilt buffers from sensitive receptors have minimised the risk to humans from the operation of the Proposed Development. Risks associated with ice build-up, lightning strike and structural failure are removed or reduced through inbuilt turbine mechanisms in modern machines. The combination of best practice construction health and safety methods, the distance of residential receptors from the Proposed Development as well as no significant effects on recreational receptors means there is minimal potential for direct effects on human health and this topic was therefore scoped out of further assessment within the EIAR.

• Major Accidents and Disasters (see Section 3.1.2) – the Proposed Development is not located within an area with a history of natural disasters such as extreme weather events, and the construction and operation of the Proposed Development would be managed within the requirements of a number of health and safety regulations. Potential for any impacts has been assessed in the relevant technical assessment chapters and any predicted effects are reported after relevant mitigation measures have been applied to the identified impact. It is considered there is minimal risk of major accidents and / or disasters occurring as a result of the Proposed Development and this has therefore been scoped out of further assessment within the EIAR.

• Energy Generation – Table 2.2: Energy Generation comparison in Chapter 2 of this document outlines the key changes in Energy Production, Homes Powered, and CO2 Reductions, when comparing the Proposed Development with the Consented Development.


Page | 76

Aviation Chapter 12, Section 12.2 of the Original ES provided an assessment of effects on Aviation infrastructure.

12.2.1 Legislation, Policy and Guidelines The UK statutory requirements for the lighting of en-route obstacles (i.e. those away from the vicinity of a licenced aerodrome) are set out in Article 222 of the UK Air Navigation Order 201639. Article 222 requires, as a general rule, all obstacles over 150 m to be lit with medium intensity (2000 candela) steady red aviation warning lights at regular intervals (less than 52 m) up the obstacle’s full height. Article 222 reflects the provision of ICAO SARPS Annex 14 paragraph 4.2.3 which states “In areas beyond the limits of the obstacle limitation surfaces, at least those objects which extend to a height of 150m or more above ground elevation should be regarded as obstacles, unless a special aeronautical study indicates that they do not constitute a hazard to aeroplanes.”

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Policy Statement on Lighting of Onshore Wind Turbine Generators in the United Kingdom with a Maximum Blade Tip Height At or In Excess of 150 m Above Ground Level40 modifies the strict application of Article 222 to require only the hub to be lit by 2000 candela steady red lights, with a single set of intermediate steady red lights halfway down the tower at a reduced intensity of 32 candela. This CAA Policy also allows the nacelle lights to operate in a lower intensity mode “if the horizontal meteorological visibility in all directions from every wind turbine generator in a group is more than 5 km”. In these circumstances the 2000 candela lights could be operated at “not less than 10% of the minimum peak intensity specified for a light of this type” (200 candela). It also remains open to a structure owner to undertake a special aeronautical study and make the case to the CAA for a further reduction in visible lighting.

12.2.2 Consultation

12.2.2.1 NATS En Route Ltd (NERL) Since the submission of the original ES, NATS have confirmed that suitable radar mitigation is available:

“An agreement has been entered into between NERL and Loganhead WF Limited dated 13.12.2018 for the agreement of suitable planning conditions and the implementation of an identified and defined mitigation solution in relation to the development that will be implemented under agreement. In summary, such mitigation solution will require works to be carried out to NERL's infrastructure and comprises a modification to the radar system.” Full letter from NATS is provided in Technical Appendix V12.1).

Since planning consent 15/P/4/0273 has been granted, the Applicant has been in discussions with NATS with regard to the aforementioned mitigation. The mitigation which has been identified is known as ‘Blanking and Infill’ which is not sensitive to height increase, therefore no further consideration is necessary.

12.2.2.2 Ministry of Defence (MoD) Following submission of the planning application for the Consented Development, the MoD provided their consultation response outlining that the MoD had no objection to the proposal (Technical Appendix V12.2). The increase in turbine height for the Proposed Development will require the MoD to be consulted again.

12.2.3 Aviation Lighting CAA guidance requires that 'en-route obstacles' at or above 150 m above ground level are lit with visible lighting to assist their detection by aircraft. As such, there is potential that parts of the Proposed Development may be visible at night. The effect of the Proposed Development at night would result from visible medium intensity

39 The Air Navigation Order 2016. Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents/made. Accessed on 04 March 2020. 40 The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (June 2017). Policy Statement on Lighting of Onshore Wind Turbine Generators in the United Kingdom with a Maximum Blade Tip Height At or In Excess of 150 m Above Ground Level.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents/made


Page | 77

(2,000 candela) red coloured light fittings located on the nacelles, and low intensity (32 candela) red coloured light fittings at half hub height on the turbine towers, of all proposed turbines.

The visual effect of turbine aviation lighting from the Proposed Development is assessed within Chapter 4: LVIA and specifically within Technical Appendix V4.4, and includes the same 35km radius Study Area used for the LVIA. The night-time assessment also considers the potential effect of aviation lighting on two representative viewpoints. Importantly, the night-time assessment is not a technical lighting impact assessment based on quantitative measurement of light levels, rather the assessment relies on professional judgement of what the human eye can reasonably perceive.

A series of minimisation measures could be employed to minimise the light intrusion into the landscape. The light minimisation strategies being considered include:

• Allowing the lights to be dimmed from 2,000 candela (cd) to 200 cd when visibility is greater than 5km i.e. moderate to excellent visibility as permitted Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2016 (CAP393) Article 223 (8);

• an aviation detection lighting system (i.e. aviation warning lights are only activated when aircraft are detected in the vicinity of the development by a surveillance system), under Article 222 of the ANO;

• focusing the light on the horizontal plane, reducing the intensity of the light outwith regulatory requirements; and

• conducting a specialist aeronautical study for approval by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) making the case for a further reduction in visible lighting, including the use of cardinal or peripheral lights.

The night-time assessment reported in Technical Appendix V4.4 concludes that the threshold for significant landscape effects resulting from aviation warning lights would be restricted to areas within approximately 2km of the Proposed Development, affecting parts of the Southern Uplands with Forest: West Langholm and Southern Uplands: Ewe Hill landscape units. A corresponding part of the Langholm Hills Regional Scenic Area (RSA) would also be affected although this would not affect the special qualities of the RSA or the overall integrity.

Significant visual effects resulting from aviation warning lights would be restricted to views from part of the B7068 to the south and southeast near Bloch Farm at approximately 4.5km distance from the Proposed Development. Additionally, the views from up to 3 individual residential properties within ~2km and 2 recreational routes would be significantly affected, although the latter are unlikely to be frequented at night or during the dusk to dawn period.

It is anticipated that an appropriate condition could be attached to any planning consent, whereby a scheme of Civil Aviation lighting would be agreed with the planning authority, in consultation with the CAA, prior to the erection of any turbines.

Telecommunications and Television Chapter A12, Section 12.4 and 12.5 of the Original ES Addendum provided an assessment of effects on Telecommunications and Television. No conflicts with telecommunications were identified.

The Applicant has since consulted with the operators of telecommunications links and television infrastructure on the Proposed Development and revised turbine specifications, and no objections or requests for further information have been received. Consultee responses are provided below in Table 12.1.


Page | 78

Table 12.1: Telecommunications Consultee Responses

Consultee Date of Response Response

BT Radio Network Protection 09/03/20 No objection. The Project should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network.

Atkins Global

Awaiting response. Due to No previous objections, a similar response is expected.

The Joint Radio Company 04/03/20 No links affected. This proposal *cleared* with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by: Scottish Power and Scotia Gas Networks.

Since the introduction of digital television signals, effects on television reception have substantially reduced. Given the absence of residential properties in close proximity to the Site effects on television reception are considered extremely unlikely. As with the Consented Development, it is expected that the Proposed Development will not result in adverse impacts to television reception. However, if a loss of reception quality is reported, a suitable study will be conducted to assess this. This will allow a suitable mitigation scheme to be identified, which will be implemented to remedy the loss of reception quality.

Shadow Flicker A shadow flicker assessment of the Proposed Development was implemented using the software windPro 3.3, following the same methodology discussed in the ES, Chapter 12. Again, all residential properties within the vicinity of the turbines were considered.

The calculated Shadow Flicker Plan, Figure V12.2, illustrates the worst-case scenario within the recommended 10 times rotor diameter, beyond which shadow flicker is not usually considered to be a problem.

Within 10 rotor diameters (1580 m) from each of the turbines, there are two properties which fall within the area potentially susceptible to Shadow Flicker. The properties are Arresgill Farmhouse and Arresgill Cottage, which have both been assessed as having a theoretical worst-case calculation of zero shadow flickers hours per year.

Although both of these properties should not experience shadow flicker, theoretically, it is still the case that if any of the neighbouring residents experience a loss of amenity due to shadow flicker this will be investigated by the developer and suitable mitigation will be offered in the form of vegetation screening or blackout blinds for the affected window(s). If this does not offer a solution then the wind turbines can be programmed to be constrained during the most sensitive periods.


Page | 79

13 Summary and Conclusions

A systematic comparative environmental analysis between the findings of the previously Consented Development and the Proposed Development has been undertaken with respect to each of the topics where it was considered potential impacts could occur:

Landscape and Visual To conclude, the design of the Proposed Development has maintained the geographical footprint of the consented Loganhead Wind Farm and has maintained broad accordance with the original design objectives for the consented Loganhead Wind Farm.

There would be No Change to the numbers of significantly affected landscape or visual effects receptors assessed for the Proposed Development, on a solus basis, in comparison to those reported in the FEI for the consented Loganhead Wind Farm. There would however be a slight increase in the magnitude of effects assessed for these receptors and potentially significant visual effects resulting from the proposed aviation warning lights; however it is anticipated that any visual effects could be substantially mitigated by several different strategies which have been discussed by the Applicant.

Socio-Economics and Tourism To conclude, the Proposed Development is highly unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on tourism assets in the surrounding area; however, the construction and operation economic impacts associated with the taller turbines would be significant.

Whilst community benefit is not a material consideration of planning, the increased community benefit of up to an additional £124,000 annually (additional £5.62 million over the lifetime of the Proposed Development), on top of the increased revenue if the shared ownership opportunity is taken up, would lead to a significant income stream for communities which could be used for long term sustainable projects in the area.

Ecology An assessment has been undertaken to determine the potential effects of a proposed increase in tip height on important ecological features. There has been no change in the windfarm layout from the consented development, only a marginal increase in the amount of plantation forestry removal to accommodate larger turbine foundations and crane hardstanding areas. As such the predicted effects on site habitats has been assessed to be not significant. Embedded mitigation (particularly relating to bats) means the predicted effects on important ecological features have been assessed to be not significant.

Ornithology An assessment has been undertaken to determine the potential effects of a proposed tip height increase on valued ornithological receptors (VORs). Goshawk was identified as a VOR and was the only species from the existing assessment for which collision risk modelling (CRM) was carried out. Despite there being no change in the wind farm layout from the consented development, the increase in tip height has the potential to have effects on goshawk, therefore it was necessary to rerun the CRM. Whilst the output from the CRM showed that collision risk for goshawk increased compared to the existing assessment, the output was very similar to that of the original Environmental Statement (ES) assessment. The potential effect on goshawk is therefore considered not significant.

Significant effects are not predicted on any other VORs. Additionally, the mitigation measures specified in the existing assessment remain relevant.


Page | 80

Hydrology, Geology and Hydrogeology It is considered that the Proposed Development will not result in any change to the effects on hydrology, geology and hydrogeology,

Cultural Heritage The change in the appearance of the Proposed Development, as a result of the proposed increase in turbine height, would not be so great as to result in an appreciable change to the assessment of the effects on the settings of the heritage assets described.

It is concluded that the effects on the settings of heritage assets, arising from the Proposed Development, would be minor and not significant and would not result in effects that would diminish the cultural significance of the assets or the integrity of their settings.

Noise The updated assessment sets out the likely noise emissions generated by the proposed wind turbines and the potential impact on the nearest noise-sensitive dwellings.

The ETSU-R-97 assessment has shown that there would be no exceedances of the noise limits presented in the planning permission for the previously Consented Development.

Traffic and Transport The implications of the Proposed Development for Traffic and Transport have been considered in detail and it can be seen that there would be an increase in the number of HGV loads, with some components potentially heavier than for the Consented Development, however the transport requirements are still within the range assessed as part of the Consented Development.

Other Considerations The Proposed Development would represent an increase of 11,317 UK households being powered per year, and displacing an additional 19,008 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, when compared with the Consented Development.

There are two properties which fall within the area potentially susceptible to Shadow Flicker. Although both of these properties should not experience shadow flicker, theoretically, it is still the case that if any of the neighbouring residents experience a loss of amenity due to shadow flicker this will be investigated by the developer and suitable mitigation will be offered

Loganhead Wind Farm · The UK Government announced on June the 18th 2015 that they would end all...

Documents

Transcript of Loganhead Wind Farm · The UK Government announced on June the 18th 2015 that they would end all...