PLANNING APPLICATION: 14/01087/EIA

In the event that a recommendation on this planning application is overturned the Committee is reminded of the advice contained on the front page of the agenda for Reports on Applications

THE PROPOSAL

Application for planning permission (as amended) for a wind farm with 6 turbines and associated ancillary infrastructure.

Six (6) variable speed, 3-bladed turbines are proposed, each to be finished in a semi-matt grey colour (details to be agreed).

Each turbine is 126.5m high (to blade tip) (80m hub height, 93m rotor diameter) with the proposed (candidate) turbine model (Seimens SWT-2.3-93) having a maximum rated capacity of 2.3MW, or 13.8MW for the total development. (Final turbine choice subject to procurement process but submission based on "worse case" scenario using the identified turbine parameters).

For each turbine, a transformer and switchgear unit is required. Dependent on turbine choice, transformer to be located inside or outside of the turbine (and if the latter, a 5 x 3 x 3m kiosk is assumed (no details included).

Each turbine to be located on reinforced concrete foundations, approx. 21m in diameter and 3 - 4m deep dependent on bedrock depth.

A crane pad, approx. 40 x 22m and separate assembly area approx. 40 x 15m are proposed alongside each turbine, formed by an aggregate material surface laid over a geotextile membrane or similar.

1 permanent anemometer mast to be erected (to north-west of turbine 6), 80m high and of steel lattice construction set on a reinforced concrete foundation.

1 temporary anemometer mast to be erected (to west of turbine 5), 80 m high and of single pole construction with support guy wires.

Substation compound with control building to be located adjacent to access track and north of existing overhead power lines. Compound area, approx. 55 x 25m to be enclosed by 3m high security fencing. Control building, approx. 25 x 7.5 x 6m (max) to include electrical plant, telecommunications equipment, staff welfare and parking facilities, etc. External switchgear equipment may also be located within the compound (design details to be agreed).

Temporary construction compound, approx. 100 x 100m with aggregate surface laid over a geotextile membrane to be located approx. midway between site access and turbine 6, to include site offices, staff welfare accommodation, storage and laydown areas for construction vehicles, equipment and materials, oil and fuel storage, aggregate recycling and concrete batching facilities, etc.

Turbines to connect to national grid network via underground cabling to substation and thereafter, to the existing Dallas substation.

New up-graded junction to be formed at site entrance onto B9010.

Approx. 6.6km of access track to be provided (approx. 1.4km of up-graded track and 5km of new access track) with approx. 5.5m wide with 45 x 5m passing places provided at regular intervals and formed using crushed stone (sourced from on-site borrow pits or locally, if shortfall in material). Tracks routed to avoid areas of deeper

peat or ground instability, but "floating tracks" may be required (subject to pre-construction ground investigations).

Approx, "j"-shaped track layout connects all turbines and the permanent wind mast, off which two spurs lead to turbines 2 and 4, and 5 respectively.

Proposed drainage system to include SUDS with swales and cross drains for access tracks and settlement lagoons adjacent to turbine pads and watercourses.

2 existing watercourse crossings to be up-graded and 5 new crossings to be constructed (design details to be agreed).

2 borrow pits proposed within the site, to provide majority of aggregate materials required together with on-site use of mechanical plant to crush rock. One borrow pit (BP01, to south-east of turbine 1) is approx. 73 x 70 x 2m deep and the other pit (BP02, to north of turbine 4 and 5) is approx. 185 x 84 x 2m deep (detailed specifications including re-instatement to be agreed).

Construction hours to be within 07:00 - 19:00 hrs, Mondays - Fridays, and 07:00 - 13:00 hours, Saturdays and no Sunday/Public Holiday working. Any working outwith stated hours to be with prior agreement.

A micro-siting tolerance of 50m is sought for turbine locations and access tracks to accommodate design modifications due to unforeseen ground conditions.

Construction phase expected to last approx. 18 months after which all temporary facilities removed but crane pads and access tracks to remain during operation of wind farm (for maintenance and/or replacement of turbine components).

Development to have 25 year operational life and thereafter decommissioned in accordance with a restoration and decommissioning plan (details to be agreed).

With a total generating capacity of 13.8MW, the development will contribute to national renewable energy targets, producing approx. 33.7GWh of electricity per year, equivalent to an average electricity consumption of over 8,088 homes, with a potential energy saving of 520,849 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over 25 years, equivalent to emissions from electricity from fossil fuel mix to approx. 7,127 homes.

During the construction phase, temporary workforce of approx. 20 people will be employed (equivalent to 2 full-time equivalents) and during operation, job opportunities reduce with only irregular maintenance and repair visits required.

Application accompanied by various supporting documents including Environmental Statement (ES) (5 volumes, including Non-Technical Summary); Addendum to Environmental Statement (November 2014) (Addendum I, 9 turbines); Addendum to Environmental Statement (March 2015) (Addendum II, 6 turbines); Planning Statement (PS); Design and Access Statement (DAS); and Pre-application Consultation report (PAC). A Construction Method Statement is also included (subject to review).

THE SITE

Approx. 510ha site with all turbines located in the southern part of the site, on and between the side slopes of Meikle Hill (288 mAOD) to the west and Mill Buie (342 mAOD) to the east.

Turbines located between approx. 245 and 270 mAOD (turbine 2 and 6 respectively). Turbine 1 is the southernmost turbine located close to the southern boundary, defined by a Right of Way and woodland which also extend along part of the eastern boundary. Turbine 6 and 5 are most northerly and westerly located turbines respectively.

The topography across the area of the turbines is gently sloping. The most elevated (southern) part of the site comprises mainly upland moorland with some forestry plantation to the north-west on Meikle Hill and Hillockhead (235 mAOD), the latter forming a backdrop to Dallas.

To the north/north west, the land slopes down towards Dallas and to agricultural land extending along the River Lossie valley and the B9010 road located along the northern boundary of the site.

Beyond the site to the south and west there is a mix of agricultural and wooded land. To the south and east the land cover is moorland and forestry, on which the existing 40-turbine Rothes I and II wind farm development [the Rothes development] is located immediately to the south-east of the site.

The nearest settlements, Dallas and Kellas are approx. 2km distant from the site boundary, with Elgin and Forres approx. 13.5km and 13km to the north east and north west respectively.

Individual properties and farmsteads are located around the outer margins of the site including Blackhills, Park and Tombeck to the north, Scottlackleys and Ballachcraggan to the south west, and Aultahuish to the south.

Water courses including Back Stripe and Cold Burn etc drain the site towards the River Lossie to the north.

The B9010 road bounds the site to the north and the minor Dallas - Kellas road forms part of the western boundary of the site.

An existing access onto the B9010 and access track leading to Blackhills will be up-graded and used for access to the site, including construction traffic. South of Blackhills, a new section of access track will be formed across agricultural land and moorland to/from the turbines.

The proposal is not located within any national or local landscape designation nor within any international or national cultural heritage or nature conservation designation although the Pluscarden Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and the Kellas Oakwood SSSI are located to the north and outwith the site.

The site lies within a local (non-statutory) environmental designation, the Moss of Birnie Site of Interest to Natural Science (SINS) and there are archaeological interests within the site.

For renewable energy policy purposes and as amended, all 6 turbines are located within an Area of Search and within the Upland Moorland and Forestry Landscape Character Area/Type (see below).

HISTORY 12/02125/APP - Erect 80m high wind measurement mast at Meikle Hill - granted 7 February 2013 for limited period expiring 31 January 2018. 13/00867/SCO - Comments issued (5 July 2013) from the Moray Council in response to formal Scoping Opinion submitted to Scottish Ministers for a proposed Section 36 (S.36) application to erect 26 wind turbines at a maximum height of 126.5m to blade tip at Meikle Hill. The Scoping Opinion, issued by Scottish Ministers (23 September 2013), includes the comments made by the Moray Council. (Note: this S.36 application was not progressed). 13/00987/PAN - Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) for erection of up to 26 turbines and associated infrastructure for wind farm development at Meikle Hill - response (5 June

2013) identifies requirements for consultation with the local community based upon the 'hypothetical' consideration of a proposed S.36 application being submitted to and determined by the Moray Council. 13/01181/PAN - Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) for erection of up to 26 turbines and associated infrastructure for wind farm development at Meikle Hill - response (8 July 2013) confirms requirements for consultation with the local community based upon the 'hypothetical' consideration of a proposed S.36 application being submitted to and determined by the Moray Council. 13/01862/PE - Proposed wind farm (for 10 turbines and associated infrastructure) at Meikle Hill - following a pre-application meeting, the response (13 October 2013) identifies information requirements for any formal application for planning permission and recommends further pre-application consultation with consultees. 13/01915/PAN - Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) for proposed wind farm comprising 10 turbines and associated infrastructure at Meikle Hill - response (22 October 2013) identifies requirement for consultation with the local community and supersedes earlier PAN responses. 23 May 2014 - Draft Processing Agreement prepared/issued to applicant/agent who, in response, declined to make the current application subject to a processing agreement based on uncertainty surrounding timeframes associated with the removal of likely MoD and HIAL objections. 1 April 2015 - Processing Agreement signed by applicant and the Council to manage and progress of the further modification of the application (Addendum II) to its determination. For Rothes wind farm (to the south-east): 01/02056/SCO - Construct and operate wind powered electricity generating station (28 turbines and ancillary works) at Cairn Uish Rothes Estate - consent granted under S.36 of the Electricity Act 1989 by Scottish Ministers for turbines 100m high to blade tip, 82 m rotor diameter (Rothes I). 07/02800/S36 - Extension of wind farm at Rothes Wind Farm - consent granted under S.36 of the Electricity Act 1989 by Scottish Ministers for 18 turbines, 125m high to blade tip, 80m rotor diameter (Rothes II). For Kellas wind farm (to the north-east): 13/00615/EIA - Erection of eight wind turbines (110m high to blade tip (70m hub height, rotor diameter 80m)) and associated infrastructure at Kellas House - application amended to 4 turbines and approved 12 November 2014. POLICY - SEE APPENDIX 1

ADVERTISEMENTS For planning application and/or the Environmental Statement and Addendum I and II

Advertised as a departure from the development plan

Advertised for neighbour notification purposes

Advertised in accordance with the current EIA Regulations. CONSULTATIONS (Note: responses refer to consideration of Addendum II unless otherwise indicated) Building Standards - Building Warrant required (for control building works). Development Plans - The removal of four turbines has resulted in further improvement and mitigation of effects from some viewpoints. Although previously suggesting that all turbine heights should be lowered, the Council's Landscape Advisor considers that the latest revision is an improvement in design and overall appearance of the scheme. Whilst significant effects would still occur and remain in some views and on the landscape character from the Dallas-Knockando minor road, the proposal, when balanced against the wider policy objectives for renewable energy, would be considered acceptable in landscape, visual and cumulative terms. Environmental Health - Previous comments apply i.e. no objections subject to conditions as recommended including level of noise immissions not to exceed specified values; power production wind speed and wind direction to be logged continuously; in event of complaints, levels of noise immissions to be assessed (with rating level of noise immissions to be in accordance with agreed protocol, etc); construction hours (as specified); blasting times to be restricted (as specified); ground vibration not to exceed peak particle velocity (as specified); and following complaint(s) regarding vibration and/or shadow flicker, developer to investigate and instigate appropriate mitigation measures. Environmental Health, Private Water Supplies - No objection but from original proposal (as discussed with the applicant), condition recommended for effective ultra-violet and pre-filtration treatment for any private water supply used for human consumption during construction and operation of the development. Environmental Health, Contaminated Land - No comment/no further action required. Environmental Protection/Moray Outdoor Access Manager - No objection, and previous comments apply i.e. condition recommended for Access Management Plan or similar to manage public access across the site during all stages of the development and to maximise all opportunities to enhance public access, to include details of specific access controls such as gates at main access points; access provisions for horse riders, cyclists, pedestrians and the less able; a new link path from the vehicle track near turbine 1 to the Right of Way; and signage/map-board information to highlight access opportunities. Moray Flood Risk Management - No objection in terms of flood risk and drainage. Transportation - No objection subject to conditions as previously recommended requiring further details of proposed trial runs and delivery of abnormal, including indivisible loads; a

Construction Traffic Management Plan; proposals for widening of B9010 to 5.5m; design details including visibility splay requirements for site access junction onto the B9010 (as specified), etc. A separate "wear and tear" agreement for the delivery route is required to monitor and address construction and delivery traffic impacts on the road networks, to include before and after condition surveys. Abnormal load trail runs and works to accommodate such loads, road widening, surfacing of access and provision of the visibility splay, etc to be provided prior to commencement of construction or deliveries. There are limited locations where HGV's can pass along the B9010, which is narrower than 5.5m wide along much of its length. The use of the B9010 west towards Forres is considered unacceptable for the proposed construction traffic. The initial routing arrangement for abnormal loads could not be made acceptable and would have caused unacceptable disruption. The revised routing for turbine blade components will be eastbound from the A96, via South Street turning left onto Northfield Terrace and then turning left back onto the A96 High Street in a westbound direction. In principle, this route is acceptable subject to dry runs and details of temporary works to be carried out. From the vertical profile assessment (for Palmerscross Rail Bridge, Palmers Cross Bridge and Pittendreich Bridge), the profiles for a tower section, blade and the nacelle give an expected minimum clearance of between 1.5 and 15cm. The 1.5cm clearance for nacelles does not provide an appropriate margin for error hence further discussion required about the actual vehicles to be used, modifications to the vertical alignment, and a dry run with an unladen vehicle to ensure the route is achievable. Transport Scotland - (response provided by term consultants, JMP Consultants Limited) - No objection in terms of environmental impacts on the trunk road and subject to conditions recommended requiring details of the proposed route for abnormal loads on the trunk road network and additional signing or temporary traffic control measures deemed necessary. In terms of the access strategy, including abnormal load movements, the preferred delivery route for turbine components from the port of Inverness to the site via the A96 (T) is generally viable. The increased level of traffic generation on the trunk road does not trigger the need for further assessment of environmental impacts nor result in significant impacts on air quality and noise. Once operational, the level of traffic will be negligible when personnel undertake routine maintenance. Historic Scotland - No objection and earlier comments still stand i.e. no comments in relation to scheduled monuments, category A listed buildings and their settings, inventory gardens and designed landscapes and historic battlefields, etc. because none are likely to be significantly affected. However, unscheduled and unrecorded/unknown archaeology could be discovered in previously undisturbed ground. Scottish Government (for ES Statement and Addendum I and II only) - Interested parties within Scottish Government have been requested to forward comments. Aberdeenshire Archaeology Services - No objection subject to condition as recommended regarding a programme of archaeological works to be implemented in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to address ES recommendations for mitigation (as outlined in the ES) including micro-siting of infrastructure away from known archaeological features where possible, protection of known archaeological features by

fencing to protect them from accidental damage during construction, and archaeological recording of features that will be directly impacted upon. SEPA - No objections subject to conditions as recommended regarding watercourse crossings to be designed to convey the 1 in 200 year design flow with no land raising to occur during formation of access roads and watercourse crossings; borrow pits; further investigation/justification required for not using existing tracks on site and creating new access tracks which will have higher impact overall on volume of wet heath habitat loss; information to demonstrate that all track bases are made permeable to shallow groundwater flows where construction through wet heath (M15) and other groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs); and submission/approval of a site-specific construction environmental management plan (CEMP). (If recommended conditions are not applied then SEPA's response constitutes an objection). Scottish Water - No response received but in response to original proposal, there were no public sewers or public water mains in the vicinity of the site, and a totally separate (surface water) drainage system may be required. Scottish Natural Heritage - For Addendum II, amendments do not affect previous advice on designated sites, protected species and habitats which remain unchanged. The revisions have achieved some improvement and mitigation of impacts but some significant but localised cumulative landscape and visual impacts remain with the addition of these turbines to the Rothes development. Nature Conservation: No significant effects (direct and/or indirect) likely on international and national designated sites, hence no "appropriate assessment" is required. The Kellas Oakwood SSSI is adjacent to the site but with no connectivity, no adverse impact occurs. Given the respective distances involved, the proposal will not affect interests of other SSSIs. Overall, the potential impact upon protected species - including birds - is unlikely to be significant. As identified mitigation measures for protected species should be adopted and implemented in full including species and breeding bird protection plans; adoption of buffer areas and measures to further reduce risk of disturbance to bats at Blackhills. Overall, the impacts on habitats are unlikely to be significant. The habitat management plan, to restore areas of blanket bog and wet heath and improve areas for golden plover, should help off-set any impact on these interests. A peat management plan should be developed. The proposed compensatory tree planting will off-set any impacts from tree felling necessary for the proposal. An invasive non-native species (INNS) protocol for the Dallas/Kellas area taking account of giant hogweed and skunk cabbage should be prepared as part of any CEMP or similar. SNH also support the iterative design approach undertaken to safeguard natural heritage interests and the intention to employ an Environmental Clerk of Works during the construction period. Any micro-siting tolerance sought must not undermine the identified/proposed mitigation measures nor encroach into the required buffer areas and stand-off distances for bats. Landscape and visual: Significant but localised landscape and visual including cumulative impacts occur. The proposal directly impacts upon part of the Upland Moorland and Forestry LCT. The extensive change to the landscape character of the immediate site would be significant when set within the context of the existing Rothes development and heightened in sensitivity due to its location on a transition between

different character types whereas the Rothes development is set back from this transition and sited more within the moorland plateau. Located marginally further north, the turbines increase the level of impact cumulatively as the development extends closer to this transition, hence the localised significant impact. The ZTVs illustrate relatively constrained visibility to the north and east where visibility is more fragmented and limited (including only partial views of the development from Elgin) whereas almost continuous blade tip and hub height visibility is predicted in areas to the west, south and south-east over a distance between 5 and 7 km. The ZTVs illustrate the cumulative visual relationship of Meikle Hill in association with the Rothes development with overlapping areas of visibility, either in combination as part of one larger turbine group location or as two separate but adjacent groups of turbines. The additional turbines at Meikle Hill locally introduce additional visibility to turbines, along the north facing slopes of Meikle Hill and Mill Buie, and along the B9010 corridor, incurring significant (localised) cumulative impacts in a localised area, in particular to the north of the site and from locations within the River Lossie valley and along sections of the B9010 and Dallas to Knockando road. Removal or repositioning of turbines 8 and 10, which typically appear more prominent in the grouping and are located in the north of the wind farm layout, could achieve further improvements to the layout but this is unlikely to significantly improve the wind farm composition in views or reduce the levels of significance as assessed. Ancillary elements (buildings and tracks) will result in direct landscape and visual impacts upon the Rolling Farmland and Forests with Valleys LCT. Whilst not significant, these impacts should be minimised where possible, for example, with design and materials sympathetic to the local vernacular. RSPB Scotland - No comments on Addendum II and previous comments apply i.e. no objection with no major or serious concerns associated with the proposal in isolation. However, the cumulative impact of this development in combination with others has not been addressed adequately, hence a post-construction monitoring program integrated with monitoring of other nearby windfarm sites is recommended to inform future responses and understand potential issues connected to the build up of turbines. In terms of the attrition of habitats by wind farms, concerns about individual wind developments rarely merit objection, but cumulative habitat deterioration is a worry, hence the need for better quality and enforceable habitat management to obviate the danger of overseeing the attrition to the moorland and bog habitats over the whole 25 km ridge from Paul's Hill to Brown Muir. The habitat management plan should include black grouse and upland breeding bird surveys; enhancement of habitats for golden plover and curlew, longer-term measures including monitoring and management of disturbance to leks, moorland management and compensatory planting including native pinewood to provide benefits for black grouse. Forestry Commission Scotland - If the development is deemed appropriate, a condition is recommended requiring a compensatory planting plan. The proposal involves modest (8ha) deforestation with a net loss of woodland but currently it does not comply with current guidance or policy, hence more information should be provided about how the proposal will compensate for the scale of woodland loss. Ministry of Defence, Defence Infrastructure Organisation (MoD) - Following consideration, conditions recommended for a technical proposal to mitigate the

unacceptable affects of the proposed development on the ATC radar at RAF Lossiemouth; lighting to be installed (to specified candela level) on cardinal and perimeter turbines; and for detailed information to be provided regarding date(s) of construction, maximum height of construction and co-ordinates of turbines. The MoD is unaware of any proposed mitigation schemes within the military ATC environment which have been successfully implemented to date. To pro-actively seek a solution, and working with some mitigation solution provider(s), a pilot project is proposed to prove a technical solution that will meet MoD requirements for mitigating wind turbines on ATC radars, which can be subsequently implemented at a number of sites. National Air Traffic Systems Safeguarding - No safeguarding objection to the proposal. Civil Aviation Authority - From original submission, Defence Geographic Centre should be informed of locations, heights and lighting status of turbines and meteorological masts; dates of construction; and maximum height of any construction equipment for inclusion on aviation charts, for safety purposes. There is no CAA requirement for the turbines to be lit, the structures being less than 150m high, but if an aviation stakeholder made a request for lighting, the CAA would likely support such a request. Aberdeen International Airport - No objections from aerodrome safeguarding perspective. Highlands & Islands Airport Ltd (HIAL) - No objections. For Addendum I and after consideration of a line of sight analysis assessing the impact on radar systems, HIAL withdrew their objection to the development. Ofcom - No fixed link operators found within co-ordination area. Further consultation with Atkins Ltd and JRC recommended together with use of BBC online tool to assess TV reception. Atkins Global - No objection (does not include any microwave links operated by Scottish Water) JRC - No fixed links affected (for radio link infrastructure operated by Local Electricity Utility and Scotia Gas Networks). Health & Safety Executive - From original submission, the proposal does not fall within any HSE consultation zone. Scottish Southern Energy - No objection but from Addendum I, a tower line spans the access route, therefore care must be taken when transporting turbines to the site. All works in close proximity to overhead lines must be carried out in accordance with Health and Safety Guidance Note GS6. There is also a high voltage underground cable within the site and care must be taken to ensure all works are carried out in accordance with the Health and Safety Guidance Note HS (G) 47. Heldon Community Council - No response but from Addendum I, there has been on-going consultation with the community, with every effort made to accommodate any reservations, hence the widespread approval of the scheme. The company has given considerable help in setting up a community development fund which is now up and running, and considerable long-term benefits for the community are envisaged. (On the

original submission, it was stated that consultation between PNE Wind UK Ltd and Dallas Community has been excellent). Dallas Hall Committee - No objections. For Addendum I, it was stated that members of the Hall Committee are generally supportive but this should not be taken as representing the overall opinion of the wider community in Dallas. Planning Obligations Unit - No developer obligations required/sought. OBJECTIONS-REPRESENTATIONS NOTE: Following the determination of this application, name and address details will be/have been removed (i.e. redacted) in accordance with the Data Protection Act (paragraph 3 of Minute, Planning & Regulatory Services Committee 16 September 2014). Following notification/advertisement procedures associated with the original, Addendum I and Addendum II submissions, the total numbers of representations as received were:

In SUPPORT In OBJECTION Original (10 turbines) 4 17 Addendum I (9 turbines) 42 4 Addendum II (6 turbines) 19 Total 65 21

a) ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (10 turbines)

i) 4 representations in SUPPORT received from

Mrs M Sutherland Easter Kellas, Kellas, Elgin

Mrs M Mackellar Glen Lossie Craigroy Dallas by Forres

Mr D Ramsay Pinewood Dallas Forres

Mrs S Richards Blackmyre Farm Dallas The main points of the representations are:

site ideally suited to make the most of renewable energy potential. Located in an area of search, it sits well with the existing Rothes development with turbines at an appropriate distance from property and the village. The overall visual impact will be minimal given its proximity to existing wind installations.

much effort put into minimising disturbance of local flora and fauna, with plans changed to accommodate various species.

developer has actively involved the local community most directly affected by the proposal, which has been modified it in response to concerns of Dallas villagers.

project will bring much needed investment to area. The economic benefits (including opportunities for employment and local businesses to tender for contracts) and indirect benefits for accommodation, catering and other facilities far outweigh any perceived negative environmental impacts, help deliver vital renewable energy, and ensure the success of surrounding communities for many years to come.

with positive financial benefits to the local area, the community fund will significantly aid and empower local community groups and organisations, and provide opportunities for rural re-generation.

project helps deliver vital renewable energy targets without significantly imposing on the surrounding area.

Comment (Applicant): The pre-application consultation process canvassed the views of the local community on an iterative design process which sought to avoid/reduce environmental impacts where possible. The development is located in an Area of Search for large scale wind farms. It will contribute to renewable energy targets together with economic benefits of direct and indirect opportunities for local businesses and suppliers. A dedicated community trust fund for the development will be established and include two community groups (Heldon Community Council and Dallas Hall Committee). Annually, the applicant will invest £5,000/MW into a community fund, ensuring that the local community benefits from the development through local projects promoting rural regeneration including improvements to the local environment and wildlife habitat; green tourism; education and training within local schools and community groups; benefits in kind; sponsorship and community ownership.

Comment (PO): The proposed contribution to any community fund, as disclosed by the applicant, is not a material consideration in the determination of this application. Whilst predicted to occur, the economic benefits are not fully quantified nor guaranteed. Contrary to the expressed views, the original 10-turbine development was not wholly located within an Area of Search. Significant (localised) adverse landscape and visual including cumulative effects were predicted to occur from the intrusive siting and location of the 10-turbine development along and above the Lossie valley, and the B9010 and Dallas - Knockando roads.

ii) 17 representations in OBJECTION received from

Mr A Park, 31 West High Street Elgin

Mr A Moore, 5 Kirkhill Drive, Lhanbryde Elgin

Mr C Herraghty, 52/3 Ashley Terrace Edinburgh

Mr G Herraghty, Lothlorien Lhanbryde Elgin

Mr R Thain, 8 Strathspey Avenue Aviemore

Mr W Wilson, 2 Kirkton Cottages Alves Elgin

Mr S Young, Dunmore Dunnet Thurso

Mr R Tarttelin 20 Kirkhill Drive Lhanbryde Elgin

Mrs L Ward, Darach Brae Beauly

Mrs D Davis, White House Ardblair Invernesshire

Mr C Davis Hillhouse Maryhill Orton Fochabers

Mr J Craib, 5 Rashcrook Walk, New Elgin Elgin IV30 6EZ

Ms J Donnelly The Kennels Glen of Rothes Aberlour

Mr D Ross Birchfield Crossing Glen of Rothes Aberlour

Mrs M Ross Birchfield Crossing Glen of Rothes Aberlour

Mr T Gough Parkhead Farmhouse Marypark Ballindalloch

Mr and Mrs R & J Matthews Tioga Dallas Forres IV36 2SA The main points of the representations are:

Noise

Activity at unsociable hours/behaviour

Dust

Litter

Affect natural environment

Drainage

Contrary to local plan

Height of proposed development

Procedures not followed correctly

Inadequate plans

Inappropriate materials/finishes

Lack of Landscaping

Poor Design

Overdevelopment of the site

View affected

Precedent

Road Safety

Traffic

Comment (Applicant): Noise impacts at selected locations will meet prescribed day and night time noise limits. The construction and operation stages of the development are not predicted to give rise to significant levels of noise. Construction activity would not be unsociable. Through adoption of good working practices, including damping down and careful location and management of stock-piled excavated materials, impacts from dust can be effectively mitigated. To ensure waste materials are appropriately disposed of, a Site Waste Management Plan will be adhered to. Impacts on the natural environment (ecology, ornithology, ground conditions and water resources) are not predicted to be significant. SEPA supports the principles of the outline drainage design, to mitigate potential drainage impacts by attenuating and managing surface water run-off. Construction traffic flows generated by the development will not significantly affect existing traffic flows. A Traffic Management Plan will be implemented to manage vehicle movements to, from and within the application boundary. The development is located within an Area of Search and is broadly consistent with the aims and provisions of both national and local planning policy. The height of the turbines and their impact on the landscape has been considered as part of an iterative design process. PNE WIND UK has correctly followed relevant planning procedures with plans and visualisations prepared in accordance with the relevant guidance to illustrate the development. Where possible, construction materials will be sourced locally and the sub-station and control building will be constructed in the local vernacular in order to ensure that they effectively integrate into their surroundings. Landscaping is proposed at the substation and control building to help screen it in views from the north. A robust design process has been followed, integrating a number of environmental, engineering and technical considerations. Landscape and visual considerations have been taken into account to ensure that the wind farm layout is simple in form, reflects the scale of the landscape and achieves a balanced composition of turbines against the landscape, skyline and other wind farms. The proposal is not considered to result in the over-development of the site. The visual impact of the development has been assessed from 30 viewpoints, 11 residential properties, 10 settlements, and a number of roads and long distance footpaths. Of these, significant visual impacts are limited to 4 viewpoints (and an additional viewpoint 31 north-west of Dallas included in Addendum I) and 5 residential properties (reduced to 4 in Addendum I). Comment (PO): When submitting comments online it is possible to select comments from a pre-defined list. Further comment on the issue may not always be made, hence it may not possible to consider and comment fully on the matters identified. The applicant's

responses draw largely upon the ES (and Addendum I) conclusions. As noted, and unlike the 6-turbine development as now amended, the original 10-turbine development was not located wholly within an Area of Search. IMPACT ON LANDSCAPE

the beauty of Moray is being gradually eroded and ruined by inefficient, inconsiderate and unsightly wind farms which are a blot on the landscape.

wind turbines are not appropriate in open landscape regions. These giant industrial turbines are completely out of scale with their pastoral surroundings and have no place in this quiet, beloved, unspoilt, rural landscape of Moray, which belongs to all the people of Moray and beyond. As part of our inherited birth-right to enjoy and pass on to our children, let us treasure its natural beauty and keep it that way.

development is close to the unsightly Cairn Uish [Rothes] wind farm which has a devastating effect on the beautiful landscape of Moray.

as another industrial development in a beautiful landscape, proposal will further destroy the local rural environment, resulting in further loss of Moray's natural wild land and habitats for flora and fauna.

development further destroys the natural environment in an area already saturated with wind turbines. Lying close to an AGLV, the height of turbines towering above this area desecrate its landscape value.

Comment (Applicant): From the ES, the development is not considered to result in significant impacts upon the physical landscape and landscape character. It has been significantly scaled back from 26 to 10 turbines, to reduce landscape and cumulative impacts with the Rothes development. The reduction to 9 turbines, to address aviation impacts, also reduces landscape impacts. The development is located within an Area of Search, which does not imply a presumption in favour of wind farms, however such locations are generally considered suitable for wind energy development. Impacts on the Pluscarden AGLV formed a key consideration in the design with the turbines carefully positioned so that, viewed from the Pluscarden Valley, they appear set back from the ridgeline forming the southern horizon, thus reducing their apparent vertical scale and dominance that they might otherwise have had on the valley sides and on the pattern of the landscape in the valley below. A moderate not significant adverse effect on the Pluscarden AGLV is predicted and changes to the AGLV occur within the context of the existing Rothes development where this proposal introduces components (turbines) which are not uncharacteristic of the area. Comment (PO): The site is not located in any designated wild land area but upon land which is upland moorland and forestry in character. Given the status of the land, the physical extent of encroachment and a location alongside the Rothes development (itself located on land of similar character), an adverse but not significant impact (effect) will occur upon this landscape. Unlike the amended proposal, the original proposal was not wholly located within an Area of Search. Within the identified landscape character type (LCT) as defined, there is limited scope to accommodate further development of turbines over 80m. The siting of the original development does not reflect advice about where turbines should be sited in this LCT. With turbines located towards the ridgeline and outer edge of this LCT as it transitions with the adjoining LCT area to the north, the turbines would be prominent and dominant in views above and along the Lossie valley below, resulting in (localised) significant landscape and visual effects as identified by the applicant, SNH and the Council's Landscape Architect.

VISUAL IMPACT

unacceptable adverse visual impact with yet more turbines next to Cairn Uish, clearly visible for miles around and the much-loved view from Ben Rinnes is being systematically eroded.

once erected, the visual amenity of the landscape is spoiled for all, for the commercial benefit of the few. Think about the artists who paint Scotland's landscape, photographers who come to express their passion for its beauty, hill-walkers who experience it first hand, and people who choose to put down their roots in this landscape.

unacceptable adverse visual impact on local people, businesses and the surrounding area with turbines clearly in view of houses in Main Street Dallas.

Comment (Applicant): The visual impact of the development from Ben Rinnes (viewpoint 16) is not significant. With the existing Rothes development located visually within the same part of the panorama, the development would appear as an extension to the west of the Rothes grouping, be located at a similar distance and of similar scale and spacing as this existing cluster, thus fitting well with the pattern of existing development. The visual impact of the development was assessed from viewpoints, settlements, properties and sequential routes including roads, cycle and long distance paths. No significant visual impacts are predicted or would be experienced except from 4 out of 30 viewpoints, confined to those within less than 5km from the development i.e. viewpoints 1 (B9010, near Skelly Rock); 2 (Dallas to Knockando Road, near Bridge of Aultahuish); 3 (Dallas); and 29 (Dallas to Upper Knockando Road, near Yellowbog) (and later, from an additional viewpoint 31 (North West of Dallas)). Significant visual impacts were predicted to occur at 5 out of 11 individual properties within 2km of the development (later reduced to 4 properties as a result of the modifications within Addendum I). For Dallas, intervening trees on the slopes of Hillockhead provided substantial screening to views from Dallas with small tips of turbines 9 and 10 visible above the intervening trees (and by removing turbine 10 and reducing the blade tip height of turbine 8 and 9, visibility will decrease further (Addendum I)). Comment (PO): With Addendum I, turbines would not be perceived above Dallas, reducing the earlier identified significant adverse effect to negligible not significant. The ES indicates that turbines will be visible from Ben Rinnes alongside those of the Rothes development but over distance the significance of the effect of the development is mitigated. The ES, SNH and the Council's Landscape Advisor acknowledge that significant (localised) visual effects associated with the 10-turbine development occur from some viewpoints within the Lossie valley, and along the B9010 and Dallas - Knockando roads where turbines appear prominent and visible on the skyline and introduce additional turbines into and along parts of the Lossie valley where none are currently visible. Apart from omitting further turbines (Addendum II) no other mitigation is proposed to address these impacts beyond that already embedded in the design layout of the development. CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF TURBINES

Moray has its fair share (and more) of wind farms/turbines. Being so well-provided for by turbines, no further developments should be permitted.

Adding 10 more wind turbines to an already crowded Moray landscape would be a scandal. Other developments already mar our beautiful countryside, the cumulative impact with this proposal would be simply unacceptable. Enough is enough.

cumulative effects of constructed, consented and yet to be built wind farms are now totally unacceptable including 40 turbines at Cairn Uish and more at Paul's Hill, near Ben Aigan and Hill of Maud extending east-west along the Moray skyline.

Cairn Uish plus other turbines mushrooming all around Moray mean an unacceptable cumulative impact. The area is blighted already and trashing it with more turbines is hardly a good environmental argument. The Lossie Valley will be over-shadowed by turbines.

proposal is in effect an extension of the existing Cairn Uish wind farm, which has already been extended. Being close to it, the cumulative impact is unacceptable, turning the area into an industrial zone rather than an area for rural living, farming, fishing and tourism.

gross over-provision of wind generation capacity with no balancing provision of necessary alternative generation sources for when the wind is either not available or too light to generate power.

Comment (Applicant): No significant cumulative landscape and/or visual impacts are predicted. Account of potential cumulative impacts, in particular with the Rothes development was a key consideration in the design process. The applicant has sought to reduce cumulative impacts through the layout of wind farm with a turbine type in keeping with adjacent wind farms. The considerable contribution that the Moray region makes to renewable energy targets through wind farms is recognised. This development can further this contribution in both a regional and national context, support Scottish Government's aims for Scotland to become a net exporter of electricity and remain consistent with the broad aims of the development plan. Comment (PO): A previous request for a moratorium on wind development in Moray was declined by Scottish Ministers. Regardless of consideration and availability of other technology and generation sources, the Council is required to determine the application as submitted. Although not described as an extension to the Rothes development, this proposal will likely be seen as such given its close proximity to that existing development. Depending on the location of any viewpoint, these additional turbines have the potential to be read either as part of the wider Rothes development or as a separate development, with the additional turbines being visible and introduced into areas where no turbines currently exist, thus appearing to extend turbines along the skyline. IMPACT ON NATURE CONSERVATION AND MIGRATORY BIRDS

devastation of fragile, upland ecosystem and carbon peat store completely negates the dubious green claims made by developers.

disruption to flight paths of ospreys and migratory birds, including geese.

research from around the world indicates horrific bird mortality rates. When will the wind industry tell us the Scottish figures?

construction work likely to displace curlews nesting on the moorland edge (within 1 km of the proposed turbines) as occurred at Cairn Uish. Breeding curlews at Meikle Hill are going to be displaced, most likely onto farmland where eggs and chicks will be at risk from agricultural operations.

Comment (Applicant): The development is designed so that it does not affect blanket bog habitat. Infrastructure is located at least 250m outwith blanket bog areas. Existing

wet heath and modified bog areas within the site are already degraded by loss of surface vegetation and erosion and exposure of peat. The (10-turbine) development will not result in a significant loss of wet heath and modified bog (and affect 2.4% and 0.58% of the area of such habitats present within the site respectively). A Habitat Management Plan is proposed with the aim of preserving and enhancing these habitat types. Following assessment of impacts on ornithological interests, including the flight paths of various bird species and a bird collision risk assessment, no significant impacts are predicted upon the target bird species considered. Breeding territories for curlew are identified with minimal displacement of breeding birds predicted. Comment (PO): SNH agree that the proposal will not have any adverse effect on any international and national designated site nor have a significant adverse effect on breeding birds and other protected species. However, SNH recommend adoption of mitigation measures identified in the ES including breeding bird and species protection plans to safeguard the impact upon relevant species. RSPB Scotland has not objected in terms of any significant adverse effect upon bird populations. IMPACT ON LOCAL TOURIST ECONOMY

as a gateway, the picturesque Dallas - Knockando road is used by visitors to travel through and access Speyside and its attractions. For an area dependent on tourism, wind energy developments are completely inappropriate with limited benefits and considerable negative effects, including places ruined by turbines and their infrastructure. Visitors can choose where they go but tourism businesses cannot simply up and move.

the impact on the tourism industry will be detrimental as visual impacts of on- and off- shore turbines destroy Moray's attraction for tourists who put money into the local economy on a long-term basis. Wind farms provide only short-term gains for the few local people which might be employed.

Comment (Applicant): The ES recognises the well-established tourism industry in Moray, the relationship between tourism/outdoor activities and landscape/ scenery, and it assesses tourism features and attractions which lie within the zone of theoretical visibility of the development. Published research and surveys into the impacts of wind farms on tourism (including reports submitted to the Scottish Government) conclude "that there has been no measurable economic impact, either positively or negatively, of wind farms on tourism" and that "findings from both primary and secondary research relating to the actual and potential tourism impact of wind farms indicate that there will be neither an overall decline in the number of tourists visiting an area nor any overall financial loss in tourism-related earnings as a result of a wind farm development." The development is not considered likely to deter substantial numbers of potential tourists nor cause an overall decline in the number of tourists visiting Moray and associated expenditure, nor result in a significant impact on tourism interests in Moray. Comment (PO): The representations do not include evidence to support the contention that this development/windfarms in general have a demonstrable and significant adverse effect on tourism and the local economy. The ES takes into account key viewpoints and visitor attractions likely to be used by tourists. The research as identified by the applicant reflects earlier studies about attitudes to windfarms and the extent to which their presence may affect choices to visit attractions within an area: to some, wind farms may deter tourist activity yet to others, turbines may not affect the decision to experience the available attractions.

NOISE AND HEALTH CONCERNS

Dallas residents must be protected as noise from this development will impact on local people and businesses. In certain conditions, noise is already experienced from existing Rothes wind farms.

evidence of serious health concerns caused by the close proximity of large wind turbines. The Waubra Foundation recommends at least 10 km (min) siting distance between the turbines and habitation, to avoid risk of serious health problems.

Comment (Applicant): A noise impact assessment was undertaken in accordance with industry recognised guidance. At representative noise sensitive receptors, day- and night- time noise limits (as recommended in that guidance) will be met. Comment (PO): Noise impacts have been assessed. Following consideration, the Environmental Health Manager has not objected to the development as having an adverse effect on the amenity of the area. Conditions are recommended to ensure that the required/stipulated noise levels are observed at all times and where received, to address complaints regarding noise, etc. IMPACT ON PROPERTY

proximity to noise from turbines constitutes an invasion of privacy, a radical change to the environment and probable loss of value to property.

Comment (Applicant): The turbines are at least 2.5km from the nearest settlements (Dallas and Kellas). The noise assessment concludes that, at nearest representative noise sensitive receptors, the (recommended) day- and night- time noise limits will be met.

Comment (PO): As recommended by the Environmental Health Manager, noise associated with operation of the turbines is required to meet prescribed noise levels in order to safeguard and avoid unacceptable effects on residential amenity. The proposal also meets various "buffers" relative to settlements and rural residential property to safeguard residential including visual amenity although for a limited number of individual residential property along the B9010 and the Dallas - Knockando roads, the ES predicts a significant visual amenity impact. Loss of property value is not a material planning consideration. PLANS

plans are misleading where, by having a wide angle view of 90 degrees, the turbines appear distant and almost insignificant. The developers are following guidelines but the human eye typically sees 40 degrees and this is what should be used.

Comment (Applicant): The method used to produce the visualisations are described within the ES and follows recommended SNH guidance. Comment (PO): Whilst the quality of reproduced images varies between individual visualisations, SNH and the Council's Landscape Advisor have not objected to the methodology used to undertake the landscape and visual impact assessment, including the specifications used to prepare visualisations.

PROCEDURES

developer has submitted their plans when they hope the Moray public will be away on holiday and not be able to respond. Moray Council should insist on an extension to allow those affected sufficient time to comment.

Comment (Applicant): The application was submitted and registered in June 2014. Prior to this, the applicant engaged with the local community, as part of statutory pre-application consultation procedures, and encouraged all parties to respond to the consultation on the application in order that their views are considered in determining the application. Comment (PO): Decisions about when to submit an application rest with the applicant. Whilst the timing of submission may not suit all parties, the Council cannot decline to accept an application because one or more persons may not be available to comment on the proposal. With the original and Addendum proposals, the development has been subject to three 'rounds' of formal advertisement procedures (occurring at different times of the year, and on each occasion for a 28-day period), thus affording opportunity for interested parties to comment. Whilst expressing concern about the timing of the original submission, this has not precluded the objector from commenting on other aspects of the development. RESEARCH

from research (by the Renewable Energy Foundation) the economic life/ performance of onshore turbines could be far less than that predicted by the industry. [From a website link provided, and depending on wind speed and site characteristics, the research indicates that output declines substantially as the turbines get older and by year 10, the contribution to electricity demand declines by a third, meaning it will be uneconomic to operate wind farms for more than 12 - 15 years rather than the proposed 20 - 25-year lifespan. In response, the renewables industry describes these findings as "misleading".]

Comment (Applicant): Wind energy generation is recognised by the UK and Scottish Governments as a cost-effective and proven renewable energy generation technology. It will provide the majority of the country's renewable energy capacity and progress towards 2020 targets. Recent research by Imperial College (2014) reports that wind turbines will operate effectively for at least 25 years and that more modern turbines could operate effectively beyond the 25 year lifespan. Comment (PO): Considerations about the lifespan and economic performance of turbines are matters outwith the scope of the planning process. If approved, turbines could be replaced on a like-for-like basis within the terms of the permission but where the design parameters of the turbine change, further application(s) for planning permission would be needed. OTHER COMMENTS

during cold spells of weather, turbines frequently stand idle generating absolutely nothing. Turbines also require a back-up so we pay dearly for electricity with extortionate energy bills which subsidise foreign multinationals and millionaire landowners who to trash the finest landscapes in Western Europe. Given subsidies

available for windfarms, the cost to each household is increased electricity bills, with the poor suffering the most.

what about the 14,000 abandoned turbines, rusting in the Californian Desert? This grossly inefficient, discredited, and outdated technology is clearly not fit-for-purpose. With approval of the Beatrice wind farm in the Moray Firth do we need any more onshore?

Why ruin quiet rural lives just to line the pockets of a few? We should consider tourists and those who make their living in the area above wind developers and landowners whose sole aim is to reap the excessive subsidies on offer.

with miles of bulldozed tracks, tons of peat removed and tons of concrete being carted uphill by smoke-belching lorries, can this really be considered a green policy? What sort of green policy actually destroys the very environment it is supposed to be protecting?

the claim that wind generation is a green method for producing energy is controversial and not proven, yet developers are allowed to go ahead and ruin the landscape of Scotland, arguably the country's principal asset.

with the Scottish Government's energy policy, thousands of turbines are sitting awaiting scrutiny. Planning officers do not have time to look at wind farm applications as closely as they should yet turbines impact on people's lives and livelihoods. If this wind farm is approved we have every right to ask whether we actually have a planning system!

Scottish Government (including the Energy Minister, when asked) has no idea how many wind turbines are awaiting scrutiny or how many wind turbines are needed to meet energy targets. Before any more wind farms are permitted, considered or submitted, we must tally-up what we have in planning, consented, and under-construction stages.

objection means nothing more than a number amongst many - 'the fors' vs 'the againsts'. Scottish Government does not believe that local people, or the nation should have any say in planning matters. This diabolical, intrusive, over-whelming, insensitive and money-making folly should be refused. It cannot be excused by saying that it will be seen as an extension of the Rothes wind farm.

presentations (by PNE) start by telling local inhabitants about the money the village will receive annually if the development were approved. Surely this constitutes bribery and is similar to "slush funding" in big business?

Comment (Applicant): Wind energy has key role to play as part of a diverse energy supply mix and as a major contributor to renewable energy, it forms a key part of the UK and Scotland's renewable energy policy underpinning the approach to combating climate change and reducing carbon emissions as well as diversifying and securing the country's energy supplies and promoting economic growth. Wind energy generation is recognised by the UK and Scottish Governments as a cost-effective and proven renewable energy technology. It will provide the majority of the country's renewable energy capacity and progress towards 2020 targets. The ES has considered the impacts on residents and tourists, as well as assessing visual, noise, construction traffic and cumulative impacts including consideration of wind farms in planning, consented, and under-construction. Notwithstanding the predicted limited significant visual effects, confined to within 5km of the development, the proposal is broadly consistent with the provisions of the development plan and associated guidance. Whilst the development is proposed within an Area of Search this does not imply a presumption in favour of wind developments located in these areas and regard must be had for the development plan and other guidance wherein, it establishes a key

consideration in the determination of this application where the development is considered to represent one of the "limited opportunities" for large scale wind turbine proposals. Whilst not proposed as an extension to the existing Rothes development, its proximity to that development means that this proposal will generally be seen as an extension of it. This is consistent with guidance which recognises that there is "limited opportunities for expansion of existing large scale wind farms". The establishment of community funds is a recognised approach to ensuring that local communities benefit from renewable energy projects in their areas. The applicant will establish a dedicated community trust for Meikle Hill Wind Farm, and annually invest £5,000/MW into a community fund thereby ensuring that the local community benefits from the development through local projects promoting rural regeneration, etc. Comment (PO): The extent of the proposed community benefit, as disclosed by the applicant, is not a material consideration in the determination of this application. Wider concerns about other available energy technology, the availability and merits of subsidy and national green policy are beyond the scope of this current application. Given the proposed scale of the development it will make a positive but small and limited rather than significant contribution to national energy targets (see below). The extent and level of contribution will reduce following modifications made to reduce the number of turbines on the site. b) ADDENDUM I (9 turbines)

ii) 42 representations in SUPPORT received from

Mr R Christie, 5 Commerce Street Elgin

Mr D Dunbar-Naismith, Glen of Rothes Rothes AB38 7AG

Christine Watt, Broomhill Cottage, Dallas IV 36 2RW

Neil Sutherland, Park, Dallas Forres IV36 2RP

I Sutherland, Morinver Dallas IV36 2SA

G Sutherland, Easter Kellas, Kellas IV30 8TS

J Fielding, Camascollie, Dallas, Forres IV36 2SA

J E Mountford, Home Farm Cottage Dallas

R McKenzie, Berbice House, Dallas nr Forres IV36 2SA

L McKenzie, Berbice House, Dallas nr Forres IV36 2SA

H MacKellar, Craigroy Farm Dallas Moray IV36 2 RZ

Lorna Kinloch, The Cottage Dallas by Forres IV36 2SA

L Ingram, Quarryridge, Dallas IV36 2RW

K A Ingram, Quarryridge, Dallas IV36 2RW

E Garrow, Timaru Dallas IV36 2SA

D Garrow, Timaru Dallas IV36 2SA

R Fraser, 4 County Houses Mannochmore, Dallas IV36 2SB

Denise Frankland, Ellangowan Dallas IV36 2SA

T Dey Gowanlea, Dallas IV36 2SA (3 letters)

C A Brown, Valley View Dallas IV36 2SA

I Austin, 2 Struan Grove Dallas IV36 2RZ

Jill Anderson, 4 Struan Grove Dallas IV36 2RZ

S J Adam, I Struan Grove Dallas

Ms S Nicolson, An Teallach Archiestown Aberlour

Mr F Marshall, Birchwood Birnie Elgin

M Thain, 35 High Street Archiestown Aberlour AB38 7QZ

Mr A Stephen Hatton, Cottage Dallas IV36 2RW

W R Smith, Aldivonie Knockando Aberlour AB38 7SG

C Ross, Fern Cottage Dallas IV36 2SA

V S Oliver, Burnroy House Archiestown Aberlour AB38 7QZ

G Ogg, Garradale South Lane Archiestown

C Mackenzie, Lower Kirdelbea Blacksboat Ballindalloch AB37 9BS

I Hyndman, Leslie Cottage Dallas IV36 2SA

J Havinnen, Garlinemore KnockandoAB38 7SF

Mrs P Gerrie, Sonas Dallas IV36 2SA

J Fraser, Knockanrioch Knockando Aberlour AB38 7 SG

S Dey, The Schoolhouse Dallas by Forres

F Dey, The Schoolhouse Dallas by Forres

V M Anderson, Benview Knockando AB38 7RY

Mr B Wyper, Collie Crossing Fochabers The main points of the representations are:

the proposal is well-sited and well thought through, a sensitively developed scheme well-removed and at an appropriate distance from the majority of residential properties.

through its remote nature, the proposal avoids significant impact on surrounding settlements, it sits well within the local landscape having a low and limited visual impact, and minimal impact on the local environment and wildlife.

this is an opportunity for the area to use its renewable energy potential, gain important environmental, community and long-term social and economic benefits and bring in much needed investment.

Proposal will boost the local economy with opportunities for local contractors, local spending on food and accommodation, and bring employment and income.

with PNE's commitment, the proposal contributes to a sustainable economy through training and employment. This needs to continue and deserves support.

assurance sought that community benefit fund for this and other wind developments will be better managed to provide community funding for the whole of Moray. Other organisations are struggling but lie outwith the shadow of the wind developments.

proposal will have a huge financial benefit to the community, which was recently flooded. The knowledge that there could be a fund to help get the community back to a normal state, which takes time, would be beneficial.

the proposal will support renewable energy ambitions to provide carbon free electricity and help fight against climate change. By developing wind power in a suitable location it will make a meaningful, valuable and significant contribution to Scottish and UK renewable energy targets, ensuring that Scotland continues its green energy revolution.

new development investment including renewable energy developments should be welcomed. Moray stands to gain from developments which have a double benefit of reducing carbon emissions and delivering community investment.

balancing the impact of this development against its benefits, the proposal should be supported. The Council should not let this opportunity to slip by.

Comment (Applicant): PNE has conducted an extensive public consultation process to ensure that local people have been kept well-informed and are able to contribute to a rigorous design process that has sought to minimise environmental impacts of the

proposal. PNE agree with the majority of respondents that the benefits of the development considerably outweigh the limited and contained impacts. From the original and Addendum I proposals, the majority of representations record support for the application, a majority that originates from within the local vicinity, in particular within 5km from the proposal. Considerably fewer negative representations were received and in contrast these, on the whole, originate from Elgin and further afield, including addresses outside of Moray. The total number of representations received in support (46) exceed those in objection (21). All 46 representations in support originate from within Moray with 33 and 44 representations originating within 5km and 10km of the site respectively. For the 21 representations in objection, 15 originate within Moray with 3 and 7 representations originating within 5km and 10km of the site respectively, and the majority (8) originate beyond 10km. Comment (PO): Any assurance sought about the management and availability of any community benefit fund should be directed to the Trust who administer the fund. Representations which consider the proposal to be well-sited also require to be balanced against any identified significant adverse, notably landscape and visual effects that also occur to the area. Whilst positive, the level of contribution towards renewable energy targets is not significant but rather, is small and limited (and further reduced with fewer turbines/generating capacity now proposed). The extent of likely economic benefits is not quantified. The identified level of job opportunities is 2 full-time equivalents during construction reducing to job opportunities (unspecified) during operation of the development. ii) 4 representations in OBJECTION received from

Mr A Chadderton, Tapp Farm Dallas Forres IV36 2RZ

Miss S Machin Tapp Farm, Dallas Moor Dallas Forres

Mrs Jacqueline Scoular, Wester Hardslacks Farm Hatton Peterhead

Mr Stephen Thomas Dunrobin Burnside Road Lhanbryde The main points of the representations are:

Activity at unsociable hours/behaviour

Affect natural environment

Drainage

Height of proposed development

Lack of Landscaping,

Litter

Loss of Privacy (being overlooked)

Noise

Overdevelopment of the site

Parking

Permitted Development

Precedent

Road Access

Road Safety

Traffic

View affected

Comment (PO): As noted above, when submitting comments online it is feasible to select comments from a pre-defined list. Further comment on the issue may not always be made, hence it may not possible to consider and comment fully on the matters identified. The range of matters identified are similar to those received on the original proposal. IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT including removal of forestry and upon amenity

Meikle Hill was planted some years ago and the development entails removal of the majority of those trees. Replacement with turbines seems a negative step in terms of the natural beauty of the area, which attracts locals and tourists.

Why are so many of these wind developments are not visible from the land owners' residence?

over the last decade turbines have been erected with forestry around property inhibiting direct sighting of turbines but now that forestry is subject to felling, every open vista now carries turbines which are unavoidably intrusive.

Property will effectively and visibly be surrounded by turbines, with obvious impact upon amenity and turbines marked by red signals at night offer no respite 24/7.

as an extension of the Rothes development, the proposal essentially turns the east side of Oakhill [Dallas - Knockando] Road into an industrial development on a massive scale. This would be wholly inappropriate to the nature of the area and impact on wildlife and amenity. The impact and multiplication of turbines is simply not in keeping with this beautiful area.

Comment (Applicant): In terms of forestry effects, the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) has accepted the proposal. Aviation lighting on cardinal wind turbines is a requirement of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) with a low intensity of 25 candela employed. The development is located within an Area of Search. Potential ecology and ornithology effects have been considered with no significant effects predicted. From consultation, SNH and RSPB have raised no concerns. Comment (PO): The proposal will remove approx. 8ha of pine saplings to accommodate 4 of the 9 turbines. FCS has not objected to the development subject to a compensatory planting scheme to replace the woodland affected by the development. The objector's property is located outwith and beyond any required safeguarding "buffer" hence no acceptable or significant adverse effects are identified as occurring upon the amenity of the objector's property. IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUE

with growth of the Rothes site and increasing visibility of turbines from property as trees come down, likely financial implication on the value of property.

Comment (PO): The impact of turbine development upon the value of property is not a material consideration. TRAFFIC and ACCESS

the local roads are simply not designed for this use. Despite efforts by the Rothes developers, the Oakhill Road from their access gate north to the old ruin at Yellow Bog is in a poor state, with verges churned up and prone to flooding - none of which occurred previously. Traffic struggles to pass at the mid-point and is forced to slip onto the verge, increasing wear and tear on vehicles and raising safety concerns.

The proposal will likely result in further deterioration of road conditions. Forestry operations compound the damage.

vehicle trespass has increased with the Rothes development. Upgraded tracks encourage 4x4 and off-road motor bike traffic, increasing wear on the access track and leading to difficulties in gaining access to property.

Oakhill Road is narrow and dangerous with not enough passing places. Should yet another development take place, more accidents will occur on this road.

elsewhere (for example, on M74) substantial turbine development occurs close to the road and their rotation creates a distraction. This proposed development runs close to the Oakhill Road, a winding, narrow roadway, hence the risk of distraction.

Comment (Applicant): The transportation proposals have been developed in close consultation with The Moray Council (Transportation Section). All site deliveries and construction traffic will utilise approved access routes to access to the sole proposed access point on the B9010. Both Transport Scotland and the Council's Transportation Department advise that the proposals are acceptable. The site entrance will be secured to prevent vehicular trespass.

Comment (PO): Both national and local road authorities have not objected to the development in terms of the use and/or condition of the surrounding road network, or in terms of any rotating blades representing a risk of distraction to road users. The safeguarding distance requirements are met, as identified in the Council's guidance to minimise risk of turbines to road (and rail) users. Access to the site is to be managed by implementation of a traffic management plan. Separately, the Transportation Manager requires a wear and tear agreement to redress any damage caused to the public roads in the vicinity of the site attributable to the development. Issues of damage attributed to the Rothes development operations are outwith the scope of this proposal. RISK OF FIRE

a Lanarkshire turbine caught fire in high winds in a field. Meikle Hill is substantially peat and heather. What will be the impact should a turbine fail?

Comment (PO): An obvious impact of a turbine on fire would be the potential risk of fire damage to the surrounding moorland area. This risk has not formed a determining factor sufficient to warrant rejection of wind proposals elsewhere, including the Rothes development which occupies a similar moorland area. Adoption of regular maintenance and control warning systems or equivalent could form part of a managed approach to minimise any such risks occurring. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY

the area is sparsely populated, the Dallas shops, garage and pub have gone and the primary school is under repeated threat. When Aultahuish came up for sale it was bought by Dallas Estate under pre-emption and has remained empty ever since. Has that property been removed from the potential housing pool and is it linked to the proposal?

Comment (Applicant): The results of the public consultation process, and a Telephone Survey commissioned by the applicant, demonstrate that the majority of local people - particularly those in the Dallas area - support of this application. Comment (PO): From the ES (Chapter 7, 7.4.18) the owners of Aultahuish have a financial involvement in the development. The applicant's telephone survey involved

contacting residences within a 10km buffer of the site between 12 and 18 December 2014. From 319 calls, 186 surveys were completed with 51% supportive, 32% opposed and 17% undecided about the proposal. From 26 surveys for property within the vicinity of Dallas, 77% supported and 23% opposed the development. FLOODING and DRAINAGE

Dallas suffered heavily from flooding this year, a recurring issue. As well as a major carbon capture resource, peat is an excellent 'sponge' but concrete foundations, tracks and infrastructure have a major impact upon peat. The risk of water run-off being materially increased has been under-estimated/calculated.

with removal of peat, trees and other natural soak-ups, the impact of flooding will worsen. Concrete foundations and tracks, etc will have a negative impact on water run-off and this will not be good for the village. As much of the local 'sand' in this area is silt, this will significantly increase turbidity in local water courses and negatively impact on the eco-system.

groundwater wells that service many communities will be adversely affected by silt, the impact of increased heavy vehicle using unsuitable roads and tracks.

Comment (Applicant): The ES assesses effects on hydrology, hydrogeology and water resources, including surface run-off, water contamination risk and flood risk with no significant effects predicted for any of these issues. Both the Moray Council Flood Risk Management and SEPA consider the application acceptable.

Comment (PO): The basis upon which run-off is considered to be under-estimated/ calculated is not explained. Neither SEPA nor Moray Flood Risk Management has objected to the development in terms of adverse risk of pollution, drainage and flooding. Detailed arrangements to manage these (and other) risks during construction will be addressed through a site specific construction environmental management plan. EXTENT OF DEVELOPMENT including cumulative impact

given the extant numbers of turbines in the area, the development is already out of balance. Dallas and the surrounding area already contribute more than their fair share for these "eco-"developments and should not be used as a dumping ground for yet more turbines. Enough is enough.

wind developments blight and ruin the landscape with little gains and affect the health and quality of life of poor souls unlucky enough to live near them.

relative to other counties, Moray bears an unacceptable number of wind turbine applications. If the need for this "green" power lies much further south, let the developers target those "power hungry" areas for wind developments and see how the southern population like it!

the site bounds an already vast array of these monstrous rotating leviathans. Adding just another 10 turbines to the skyline will have a little or a large visual effect and when viewed from the northern coastline of Moray, in particular Lossiemouth, the skyline is already littered with 3 turbine sites visible comprising over 50 turbines. A 13 turbine development approved for the hills overlooking Buckie will add further monstrosities to the skyline.

Comment (Applicant): The 9 turbines are located entirely within the Area of Search and there are localised visual effects associated with the development. From the support that the application has received including the public within 5km and 10km of the site

boundary, it appears that those who will live with these effects on a daily basis are content that the proposal is acceptable. Comment (PO): The ES and Addendum I conclude that no significant adverse effects occur. Viewed over distance, these turbines often appear in context with the Rothes development either as part of the wider grouping of turbines or as a separate development. Whilst acknowledging that significant (localised) effects occur within 5km, SNH and the Council's Landscape Advisor indicate that these effects occur as a result of additional visibility of the proposed turbines intruding above and along the skyline and into an area where turbines do not exist. c) ADDENDUM II (6 turbines)

i) 19 representations in SUPPORT received from

Margaret Wilson, Achmelvich Pluscarden Elgin

David Watson, Craigroy 22 Mannochmore Thomshill Elgin IV30 8GZ

Alison Watson, 22 Mannochmore Thomshill Elgin IV30 8GZ

B G Sewell, Hallanbrae Dallas Forres IV36 2 RW

Mrs L Reid, Hidden Hills, Rafford Forres IV36 2SJ

L Ramsay, Pinewood Dallas IV36 2SA

D G Ramsay, Pinewood Dallas IV36 2SA

A Newlands, High Tor Dallas Forres IV36 2RW

S Marshall, Birchwood Birnie Elgin IV30 8SW

Jasmine Leith, 8 Ballatine Circle Miltonduff Elgin IV30 8TH

G Kirton, Old Overton Pluscarden Elgin IV30 8TZ

A Kirton, Old Overton Pluscarden Elgin IV30 8TZ

Claire M James, Bognie Farm Rafford Forres IV36 2RN

Mr & Mrs Gray, Westerlea Rafford by Forres

Harry Graham, 3 Ballantine Circle Miltonduff

C Gerrie, Sonas Dallas

Murray Franklin, Tigh na Girann Main Street Dallas IV36 2SA

K G Burnett, 1 Miltonduff Farm Cottage Miltonduff IV30 8TG

J Brand, Ptarmigan Lochiepots Road Miltonduff IV30 8TG The main points of the letters are:

after balancing the impact of the development against the benefits, the proposal should be supported given the benefits in delivering community investment, producing locally generated green and clean carbon free electricity and energy, and reducing national carbon emissions.

plans make a meaningful, significant and valuable contribution to ambitious national renewable energy targets by developing wind power in a suitable location.

overall positive impact from delivery of environmental and economic benefits, including significant local benefits to the local community, and important local economic contributions including opportunities for local contractors.

long-term community fund is welcomed and will benefit the local economy.

proposal has double benefit in reducing carbon emissions and delivering community investment.

Comment (Applicant): All 65 representations in support originate within Moray of which 39 and 59 representations originate within 5km and 10km of the site respectively. For the 21 representations in objection, 15 originate within Moray and 3 and 7 representations

originate within 5km and 10km of the site respectively, and the majority (8) originate beyond 10km. Comment (PO): The representations on Addendum II raise similar issues identified in support of Addendum I, hence previous comments apply. The amount and extent of any contribution, whilst positive, will have diminished as a result of Addendum II reductions in the number turbines/generation capacity.

OBSERVATIONS Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended required applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan i.e. the approved Moray Structure Plan 2007 (MSP) and the adopted Moray Local Plan 2008 (MLP) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main issues are considered below. Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan i.e. the approved Moray Structure Plan 2007 (MSP) and the adopted Moray Local Plan 2008 (MLP) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main planning issues are considered below. AMENDMENTS TO APPLICATION The development was originally envisaged as a Section 36 application under the Electricity Act, 1989, to be determined by Scottish Ministers. However, prior to any formal submission and after consideration of a range of technical, environmental, planning and commercial factors, the development and its generating capacity were was reduced from 26 to 10 turbines and from 59.7MW to 23MW respectively, resulting in a major development with a 10-turbine development then submitted for determination to this Council. Following consideration and to address aviation interests, the proposal was amended to 9 turbines (with turbine 10 omitted and turbines 8 and 9 reduced in height from 126.5m to 115m and 110m (to blade tip) respectively), resulting in a formal Addendum (to the Environmental Statement (ES)) [Addendum I]. Turbine 8 was later reduced in height from 115m to 110m (to blade tip) to allow an objection from HIAL to be withdrawn. To further reduce landscape and visual impacts, the development was further revised to 6 turbines (with turbines 7, 8, and 9 (and 10) omitted), resulting in a formal Addendum (to the ES) [Addendum II]. With this revision, the proposal is now a local development, the total electricity generating capacity (13.8MW) being less than 20MW. The proposal is being determined on the basis of the development as defined in Addendum II i.e. for 6 turbines. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS The original (10-turbine) proposal was subject to pre-application discussion (13/01862/PE), and consultation with the local community, the latter in accordance with a Proposal of Application Notice (13/01915/PAN). The Pre-application Consultation Report (PAC) narrates the outcome of the public consultation exercise, identifies issues raised about design and layout, landscape and visual, noise, traffic, property value, and community benefit, etc, and outlines the actions taken in response to such feedback. According to the PAC, these comments helped to progress the project design with amendments made where necessary. The Design and Access Statement (DAS) explains that the layout was revised/ reduced from 26 to 10 turbines (all at 126.5m high (to blade tip)) following an iterative design process, informed by planning considerations, environmental constraints and impacts (effects), technical and engineering studies and assessments and an extensive public and stakeholder consultation exercise. According to the DAS, the turbines are positioned "in

the available unconstrained land to maximise potential wind yield whilst reducing environmental impacts, in particular landscape and visual impacts". The Environmental Statement (ES) assesses the environmental effects of the (10-turbine) development in term of effects (impacts) on landscape and visual (LVIA); noise; ecology; ornithology; water resources, hydrology hydrogeology and geology; archaeology and cultural heritage; land-use, recreation, socio-economics and tourism; traffic, transport and access, infrastructure, telecommunications and shadow flicker; aviation and air safeguarding; and forestry (Chapters 6 - 16 refer) during all stages of the development (construction, operation and decommissioning), including cumulative effects. Generally, the ES follows a similar methodological approach to that used in other EIA developments. With few exceptions, it identifies (predicts) that no