evie wind energy project - orkney sustainable · pdf filedevelopment assessment orkney...

Development Assessment

www.orkneywind.co.uk

Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd 6 North End Road Stromness Orkney KW16 3AG

Evie Wind Energy Project

Orkney Sustainable Energy Evie Wind Energy Project December 2008

OSE/2862 1

Evie Wind Energy Project Report OSE/2862 December 2008 Developer: Evie Wind Energy Ltd Applicant: Michael Cursiter Laga Arwick Evie Designer: Richard Gauld IEng MInstMC BSc(Hons) Dip. Design & Innovation Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd 6 North End Road Stromness Orkney KW16 3AG Telephone 01856 850054 Facsimile 01856 851239 Web www.orkneywind.co.uk

Richard Gauld is a professional design engineer, a Member of the Institute of Measurement

and Control, and is registered as an Engineer with the UK Engineering Council.


OSE/2862 2

Evie Wind Energy Project Report OSE/2862


The Evie Wind Energy Project is to be assessed under the revised Orkney Islands

Council Supplementary Guidance for On-Shore Wind Energy Development, and

accordingly the assessment of the impacts has considered the following development

criteria:

Non-Technical Summary


Aviation Interests

Decommission and Reinstatement

Landscape Impact and Cumulative Landscape Impact

Visual Impact and Cumulative Visual Impact

Natural Heritage

Historic Environment

Water Resources

Quality of Life and Amenity

Ancillary Development

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4

SECTION 5

SECTION 6

SECTION 7


OSE/2862 3

Section 1

Non-Technical Summary and Development Assessment


OSE/2862 4

SECTION 1 CONTENTS

SUMMARY 5

1 INTRODUCTION 6

2 DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION 8

2.1 PROPOSED LOCATION 8 2.2 WIND ASSESSMENT 12 2.3 CARBON FOOTPRINT AND EMISSION AVOIDANCE 12 2.4 LANDOWNER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 13 2.5 CONSULTATION AND ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS 13 2.6 PROJECT DESIGN STATEMENT 14 2.7 DETERMINING WIND TURBINE SIZE 15 2.8 TRANSPORTATION 17 2.9 ROADS AND FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION 18 2.10 WIND TURBINE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME 19 2.11 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 19 2.12 DECOMMISSIONING 20

3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND PLANNING ISSUES 21

3.1 ECONOMIC BENEFITS 21 3.2 BENEFITS TO THE ORKNEY ECONOMY: 21 3.3 NATIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT; SPP6 22 3.4 STRUCTURE PLAN CONTEXT 24 3.5 ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN 25 3.6 PLANNING GUIDANCE 28

4 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 29

4.1 VISUAL IMPACT UPON THE LANDSCAPE 30 4.2 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT 34 4.3 POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE TO ARCHAEOLOGY 42 4.4 IMPACT UPON GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL FEATURES 44 4.5 CARBON EMISSIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION 45 4.6 POLLUTION RISK DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE 46 4.7 POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE FROM NOISE 46 4.8 POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE FROM SHADOW FLICKER 48 4.9 POTENTIAL RADIO-COMMUNICATIONS INTERFERENCE 50

5 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION 51

5.1 VISUAL IMPACT MITIGATION 51 5.2 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION 52 5.3 MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON ARCHAEOLOGY 54 5.4 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION AVOIDANCE 55 5.5 MITIGATION OF NOISE DISTURBANCE 55 5.6 MITIGATION OF SHADOW FLICKER NUISANCE 56 5.7 CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION 56 5.8 MITIGATION AGAINST TELEVISION INTERFERENCE 56

6 CONCLUSIONS 57

7 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 58


OSE/2862 5

Summary

The Evie Wind Energy Project is being developed by the landowner, Mr Michael Cursiter, with

project design, co-ordination and environmental assessment by Mr Richard Gauld of Orkney

Sustainable Energy Ltd.

A single wind turbine is proposed for the southern end of the Burgar Hill wind farm in Evie. The

turbine chosen for the development is the Enercon E70, manufactured in Germany, although the

turbine model may change, subject to availability. The electricity generated will be traded to meet the

requirements of the Renewables Order (Scotland) 2002, with the project connecting into the Orkney

system under an innovative RPZ grid management system. The project is a locally-owned community

renewable energy investment scheme, as promoted by the Scottish Government in Planning Policy

SPP6, with the whole community invited to become participants.

The project was initiated by the landowner, with Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd contracted to

complete the project design, consultation and environmental studies. The project has been designed

following recent guidance published by Orkney islands Council, and also achieves recommendations

provided by Historic Scotland, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Scottish Natural

Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Civil Aviation Authority, National Air

Traffic Services and OFCOM.

As a result of the design process, the project evolved to the Enercon E70 turbine, with the turbine

positioned to fit the layout of existing turbines at Burgar Hill. The turbine position changed during the

course of the project, and to ensure minimal impact upon habitats and species the machine has been

positioned away from any designated areas. Studies have been completed to determine landscape and

visual impacts, potential noise impact and detailed information on the archaeology of the surrounding

area has been sourced from the Orkney archaeologist and The Royal Commission for Ancient and

Historical Monuments. Natural heritage effects have been fully considered, including a habitat survey,

a breeding bird survey, and an assessment of mammals on the site. Analysis of the development

includes a hydrology survey, extensive photomontage modelling, detailed drawings of the

development, a description of the wind turbine and a description of the construction process, leading

to the commissioning, operations and eventual decommissioning.

It is concluded that a locally owned wind turbine is feasible for this part of Orkney, with low impacts

upon ecology and the local community. Strong social and economic benefits can be achieved by

constructing the project, along with the associated climate change benefits resulting from renewable

energy production.


OSE/2862 6

1 Introduction Orkney is an important area for wind energy development; a number of projects have been

established in the islands, primarily as cluster developments on hilltop and moorland

locations. The Evie Wind Energy Project follows this pattern of development and has been

designed as an addition to the development of large scale wind turbines at Burgar Hill. The

project provides diversification for Laga Farm, along with strong economic benefits to the

local community.

The development is a privately funded local wind turbine, providing significant financial

returns to the Evie community and to the members of the greater Orkney community who

wish to participate in the project. This locally-owned project complements the grant-

supported community wind turbines proposed for the outer isles of Orkney, and provides a

direct income stream for participants, thus ensuring strong economic security.

Orkney Sustainable Energy completed preliminary designs and initial consultation in 2006.

Detailed ecological and environmental studies have since been completed, resulting in the

design and development of a single 2.3MW wind turbine.

The Evie Wind Energy Project has been designed around the Enercon E70 2.3MW wind

turbine, and it is not intended that the turbine model will alter. This machine represents the

maximum scale; the site layout and all modelling has used a 58m turbine tower height and a

rotor diameter of 71m. The blade length is 33m, allowing for a 4m diameter hub. A grid

connection application has been accepted by Scottish and Southern Energy, and it is intended

that the turbine will operate under the innovative Registered Power Zone scheme. There is a

33 kV electricity transmission lines in the area, and the turbine is to be connected to the local

distribution system via a switchgear building to the north of the hill.

The average wind speed at the turbine location is predicted to be 10.4 metres per second

(m/s), and based on manufacturer’s predictions, a 2.3MW wind turbine located on this site

will have a capacity factor of around 50% and will produce around 9,000 MWh of renewable

electricity per annum, equivalent to the domestic requirements of 1,750 households.

Electricity produced from renewable resources avoids the emission of pollution, and the

production of 9,000 MWh of wind electricity is projected to avert the production of around

4400 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum(Carbon Trust). The Evie Wind Energy Project provides

a very good contribution towards the Scottish Government renewable energy production and

carbon reduction targets.


OSE/2862 7

This report is presented in eight sections: Section 1 is a project description of the

development, including non technical summaries of the environmental impacts, Section 2 of

the report contains the landscape and visual studies, Section 3 is the ecology report, Section 4

is an archaeology survey, Section 5 is a hydrology and geology report, Section 6 contains the

results of noise and shadow flicker assessment, Section 7 describes transport impacts and

Volume 2 of the report contains the site plans and drawings, maps, wireframe images and

photomontages.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Data, Crown Copyright Reserved. License No. 0100031673

Figure 1.1 Site location and turbine position


OSE/2862 8

2 Development Description This part of the report describes the activities involved in delivering and constructing the Evie

wind turbine at Burgar Hill. The activities considered include civil engineering, transport of

the equipment, installation of the wind turbine, operation and maintenance of the project and

eventual decommissioning of the turbine. A proposed construction schedule is included.

2.1 Proposed location

Burgar Hill is an open moorland landscape hill above the village of Evie in the West

Mainland of Orkney. A single wind turbine is proposed, with the turbine position chosen to

be on hard, stable underlying strata. The wind turbine location and dimensions are shown in

Figures 2.1 to 2.3. The grid references are as listed below, Table 1, with a note of the base

elevation and overall height of each installation above sea level, including maximum wind

turbine blade tip height. There will be a requirement for a switchgear house with floorplan

dimensions of 8m by 4.5m, located next to the overhead cables to the north of the site.

There is a 33kV grid system in this part of Orkney, used for providing power to the north isles

and to accommodate the production of renewable energy from Burgar Hill. The switchgear

house will consist of a building appropriate for the location, and is a simple structure

resembling a garage located near to housing on the north side of Burgar Hill; a schematic is

provided within Volume 2 of the report.

Turbine Easting Northing Position elevation

Tower top elevation

Maximum elevation

T1 E335035 N1025025 155m 213m 248m

Switchgear building

E335385 N1025895 93m -- --

Table 2.1 Wind Turbine Location and Elevation


OSE/2358 9

Figure 2.1 Layout Plan


OSE/2862 10

(A3)

Figure 2.2


OSE/2862 11

Figure 2.3


OSE/2862 12

2.2 Wind assessment Preliminary wind resource has been assessed using NOABL, the national wind speed database,

www.bwea.com. The mean annual windspeed at the summit of the Burgar Hill is predicted to

be 10.4ms-1 at a height of 45m above ground. Assuming this mean windspeed, a single

Enercon E70 wind turbine located on this site will have a capacity factor of around 50% and

will produce around 9,000 MWh of renewable electricity per annum, equivalent to the

domestic requirements of 1,750 households, given an average annual domestic consumption

of 5 MWh per annum.(Boardman et al 1997).

2.3 Carbon footprint and emission avoidance

In the north of Scotland electricity is produced from a mixture of coal, gas, hydro and wind

generation stations. The fuel mixture of Scottish Hydro Electric has above average gas and

renewables content, with only a marginal use of nuclear power. The carbon emission factor

takes into account all generation sources, and is close to the UK average, Figure 2.4.

Electricity produced from renewable resources avoids the emission of pollution, and the

production of 9,000 MWh of wind electricity is projected to avert the production of around

4400 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum(Carbon Trust), based on a carbon emission rate of

0.489kg CO2 per kWh of generation (www.electricityinfo.org); a 2.3 MW wind turbine in this part of

Orkney will therefore avoid the production of the following emissions (Boyle 1996):

• CO2 4400 tonnes per annum (equivalent to 1050 tonnes of carbon per annum)

• SO2 135 to 180 tonnes per annum

• NOx 33 to 45 tonnes per annum

CO2 emissions have been identified as the primary cause of climate change, sulphur dioxide

and nitrogen oxide emissions are a cause of acid rain.

Figure 2.4 – Fuel Mix and carbon emissions by Scottish Hydro – Electric (source: www.electricityinfo.org)


OSE/2862 13

2.4 Landowner and community involvement

The Evie Wind Energy Project has been initiated by the landowner, and will be owned by an

Orkney company once completed. The project is a locally-owned renewable energy

investment scheme, as promoted by the Scottish Government in Planning Policy SPP6, with

the whole community invited to become participants.

Preliminary assessments indicated that the site could accommodate one or two wind turbines,

and the scale of the development has been determined by ensuring the project matches the

existing Burgar Hill turbines and does not dominate the landscape. Orkney Sustainable

Energy Ltd were retained to provide advice to the developer, and have become responsible for

all design, planning, consultation and environmental assessment. The development company

will be responsible for the infrastructure, civil engineering, construction, operations and

ultimately the final decommissioning of the project.

2.5 Consultation and alternative locations

The final layout of the project has evolved throughout the design process, and has followed

advice and guidance provided by an extensive list of statutory and local organisations. From

an initial proposal of 2 x 2.5MW wind turbines located between the existing Burgar Hill

turbines and Hillside Road, the layout and scale of the project has become a single wind

turbine positioned to follow the simple linear layout of the other turbines, providing a total of

2.3MW of renewable energy equivalent to that used by 1750 homes, while at the same time

accommodating environmental and social constraints.

Wind energy development has been encouraged in Orkney; however there are constraints to

be considered. The wind turbines should not be a nuisance to neighbours and should be far

enough away from properties to minimise noise and shadow effects. Other constraints to

consider are impact upon ecological concerns, mainly birds, and to ensure that any

archaeological concerns are identified and impact avoided. Full ornithological and habitat

surveys have been undertaken in line with national guidance, along with a landscape and

visual assessment and a detailed archaeology survey.

The full extent of locations considered for development included all the land owned by the

applicant, however it was felt that a simple extension of Burgar Hill would be the most

appropriate site in this instance, avoiding impact upon nature conservation interests on the


OSE/2862 14

Orkney West Mainland Moors SSSI and SPA to the south and east of the hill. The preferred

development area for the turbine is thus the elevated arable land between Burgar Hill and

Hillside Road in Evie. Other constraints to consider were the need to avoid impact upon

protected bird species and to ensure that the project has negligible impact upon the Neolithic

Heart of Orkney World Heritage Site and the Hoy and West Mainland National Scenic Area.

Having identified an area that was appropriate for development, the final location of the wind

turbine was decided by considering visual and landscape issues, and then maximising

distances to neighbours to ensure noise and shadow impacts are minimised; the objectives of

PAN45 and SPP6 have been achieved.

2.6 Project design statement

The Evie Wind Energy Project has been designed by identifying ecological, social and

technical constraints in the area, then completing a range of detailed studies to ensure that the

site was generally suitable for a wind energy development. Through an iterative process the

turbine size and position was then adjusted to produce an optimum layout; the report

frontispiece and Figure 2.5 below are two of the project photomontages, and represent the

highest magnitude of visual impact from roads and visitor attractions near to the development.

Figure 2.5 – Evie Wind Energy Project from Burgar Hill

Evie wind turbine


OSE/2862 15

The wind turbine is to be positioned at an elevation of 150m, on the elevated moorland

landscape between Evie and Dounby, to the south of the A966. The wind turbine location

consist of an area of hardstanding nominally 30m by 40m, with the turbine foundations

located below ground level. A temporary trench will be excavated to accommodate the

underground high voltage and telecommunications cabling, routed to the north of the project.

The site cabling is underground, ultimately connecting to the grid at a switchgear building,

erected next to the cluster of housing to the north of Burgar Hill. A grid application has been

accepted by Scottish and Southern Energy, allowing the turbines to operate within the

innovative Regional Power Zone proposed for Orkney.

Noise from wind turbines disperses naturally with distance and with atmospheric absorption

and reaches acceptable levels at a distance of around 500m for single wind turbines. The Evie

wind turbine noise levels are low, due to topographical effects and long distances; the sound

levels are 35.2 dB(A) at the nearest neighbours, achieving local and national planning

guidelines.

Cumulative effects have been taken into account. The noise from the existing turbines has

been included in the assessment, with the neighbours of the northern turbines having a greater

impact than the those of the Evie turbine. Note that the turbine proposed for the development

does not have a gearbox and accordingly gear-meshing cannot occur, resulting in a quieter

turbine with little in the way of a tonal element. Similarly, measurements of low frequency

and infra-sonic noise around modern windfarms have shown that levels of such noise are

below accepted thresholds of perception even on the wind farm itself.

2.7 Determining wind turbine size

A range of alternative wind turbine models has been considered, with figure 2.6 showing the

different turbine sizes built and consented in Orkney. It is intended that the project should

attempt to maximise generation within the identified constraints, with ecological and visual

impact, noise impact, transportation and grid capacity all important issues. Although Enercon

turbines have not yet been deployed in Orkney, a range of community projects that propose to

use the Enercon E44 have been consented.


OSE/2862 16

Enercon E44 – 900kW and E70 – 2.3MW

Enercon are a long established German manufacturer of wind turbines, and are concentrating

on the onshore market. Enercon have recently constructed a windfarm of E70 turbines at

Boyndie near Banff, and are looking to establish a presence throughout Scotland, including

Orkney. By using advanced technology, they have produced machines which are relatively

more efficient for the size of the rotor, with the 900kW turbine having a 21m blade rather than

the more typical 25 to 26m, and the E70 has a 33m blade rather than the 38m blade of the

Nordex N80. Noise levels are also low due to the gearbox-less design and different blade

geometry. This machine is an upwind design, and is IEC class 1A.

Vestas V52 – 850kW Vestas has a range of machines available rated from 850 kW to 3 MW. The Vestas V52 is

rated at 850 kW and is part-manufactured in Scotland. This machine is an upwind design,

with a 52m diameter rotor, and variable operational speeds of 14 to 30 rpm. Tower height for

the V52 is 44m to 55m. Noise levels are low, and can be set at 100 dB(A) at a windspeed of 8

m/s. These turbines are IEC class 1A and can be recommended for sites where the annual

mean windspeed reaches 10 m/s. They also recommended for locations requiring low noise

emissions and good power quality; the V52 was chosen for the Burray wind energy project.

Nordex N80 – 2.5MW Nordex are a German/Danish company producing a small range of wind turbines between 1.3

and 2.5MW, primarily for the onshore market. The N80 is a 2.5MW wind turbine, and by

allowing the machine to run slightly faster than competing machines they have been able to

use a 40m blade rather than the more typical 42m. This machine is an upwind design, with an

75m

50m

25m

Enercon E70 35m blade / 57m tower

B:T ratio = 0.614

Vestas V52;26m blade / 45m tower

B:T ratio = 0.577 100m

Enercon E4422m blade / 45m tower

B:T ratio = 0.488

NM92 2.75MW; 46 blade / 70m tower

B:T ratio = 0.657

Figure 2.6 Comparison of Enercon E80 with existing turbines

Richard Gauld

E70


OSE/2862 17

80m diameter rotor, a tower height of 60m, variable speed operation of 15 to 20 rpm. Noise

levels are slightly higher than other equivalent machines due to the higher rotational speeds.

This turbine was used for phase 3 on Burgar Hill, Orkney, with two turbines installed in 2006.

NEG-Micon NM92 – 2.75MW The largest wind turbine operating onshore in the UK is the NEG Micon NM92, a 2.75MW

wind turbine. A 46m blade is used and although considered, the scale of this machine was

deemed to be too large for this type of prominent location, due to access difficulties and visual

impact. This machine is an upwind design, with a 92m diameter rotor and a tower height of

60m. A prototype version of this turbine is in operation at Burgar Hill, with further versions

running on Sanday.

Selection process

Each wind turbine has its own specific application. The Vestas V52 is part-manufactured in

Scotland, and is both very robust and quiet. The Enercon E44 and E70 turbines are also quiet

and robust and each has a good installed cost per kW. The Enercon E70 has similar

dimensions to the NM 1500 on Burgar Hill. The Nordex N80 was a possibility, however this

turbine has higher noise levels. Given the design requirements of maximum power

production within the existing HV network, while avoiding major road construction, reducing

visual impact, and avoiding significant noise impacts on neighbours, the Enercon E70 was

identified as being the most appropriate.

The Enercon E70 provides power similar to that of the Nordex N80 along with a 15%

reduction in rotor size, is a good fit to the site and is in proportion with the hilltop landscape.

Machine availability may change at the time of construction, and accordingly the planning

application has allowed for a standard turbine with a blade radius of 35.5m and a nacelle

height of 58m, giving a maximum overall height of 93.5m.

2.8 Transportation

Section 7 of this report contains an assessment of transportation to site, including analysis of

any corners, turns and bridges. The turbine components will be delivered by sea from the

German factory to Hatston Pier in Kirkwall then delivered by extended trailer along the A965

through Finstown, before turning northwards on the A986 Dounby road.

It is intended that the turbine components will follow the A986 through Dounby to Birsay,

then follow the coastal road through to Burgar Hill. This route has already been established to


OSE/2862 18

allow delivery of the larger turbines to Burgar Hill, and avoids a difficult turn in Finstown.

The manufacturer is experienced in transportation of their wind turbines, and does not foresee

any difficulties in the transportation of the turbine components from Kirkwall to the site.

The turbine access track will be levelled and made 4m wide to accommodate the large

delivery vehicles, and the general construction technique will be to remove vegetation then

create a 4m wide track by filling with as-dug stone directly onto a hard stone strata.

The switchgear building access track is 2m wide, and follows a field boundary from a road

going to two dwellings on the northern side of Burgar Hill.

The delivery of long loads through Finstown and Dounby has the greatest potential for

disruption, with traffic management required. Although there are alternative routes for other

vehicles, the most appropriate time to deliver these components through Finstown is during

the daytime and midweek, when the roads are at their quietest.

Before any wind turbine components are transported to site, the project owners and designers

will consult with Orkney Islands Council Roads Department and the Police to ensure

acceptability of the route to site. Existing public road culverts, bridges, verges and street

furniture will be surveyed by the project developers in conjunction with the Roads

Department. A schedule of loads and a timetable will be prepared and circulated prior to

delivery. Road warning signs and lights will be located at all areas of road works and any

items such as fence posts and road signs that have been temporarily removed will be re-

erected following transportation.

2.9 Roads and foundation construction

Section 5 of the report discusses road and foundation construction. Stone for the site tracks

and hardstandings will be extracted during construction of the turbine foundations and will

also be extracted from existing quarries in Orkney. The foundation construction must be

completed a month in advance of turbine delivery and the track layout has been designed to

minimise visual impact by taking a straight route to the turbine location; the track will not be

visible by any neighbour.

The total volume of concrete required for the foundations will be around 250m3 for the site,

and the stone requirement will be approximately 500m3 of sub-base and bottoming for the

track and hardstanding.


OSE/2862 19

The track is a simple extension of the Burgar Hill track, with the route carrying on from the

most southern of the two NEG Micon turbines. The track will run over an arable field and no

moorland will be disturbed.

2.10 Wind turbine construction programme

The detailed turbine construction programme will be issued at the time of construction, but

can be summarised as follows. Cranes will be needed to offload from the transporters and to

lift and assemble the components, and a large 350T telescopic crane will be required for

assembly:

1 Deliver and install the transformer into the foundation;

2 Erect the lower tower section directly off the trailer onto the foundation;

3 Deliver the upper tower section and the nacelle to the site;

4 Erect the upper tower section and nacelle;

5 Deliver the set of blades to the site and assemble onto a rotor;

6 Lift and install the rotor assembly onto the turbine nacelle.

7 Demobilise all lifting equipment and clear the site.

This would be the optimum and most efficient construction sequence, though it should be

recognised that the weather at the time of construction may impact upon the erection

programme. Full consultation will take place with the local community to minimise

disruption.

2.11 Operation and maintenance

Operations and maintenance will be completed by the manufacturer under the control of

developer. Over the operational lifetime of the project the wind turbine will require periodic

inspection to maintain the condition of the machinery and structures. There will be an initial

period during which it is expected that fault-finding and system fine-tuning will take place on

a weekly basis, leading to a quarterly inspection and maintenance programme. In addition,

there will be an annual service to check and inspect all moving parts, with full overhaul of the

wind turbine completed at this stage.


OSE/2862 20

There is no gearbox in this design of turbine, reducing maintenance and service requirements.

The blade and main brake activation system are under hydraulic control; it is to be expected

that the hydraulic oil will be replaced on a five-yearly sequence.

Modern wind turbines are well engineered and are designed to operate on extreme sites for

over twenty years. Consequently major failure of the turbine components is not predicted

during normal operating conditions and accordingly the possibility of component failure,

including damage to blades or towers, is extremely unlikely to occur. In any event the project

is located well away from housing, with only limited access to the site. The probability of

members of public being at risk of harm from the turbine during normal operations and from

the maintenance programme is therefore extremely unlikely.

2.12 Decommissioning

Wind turbines are temporary structures, and the expected operational lifetime and the period

of the planning application is 20 years from commissioning. At the end of this period the

turbine will be removed from site, although it is likely that Burgar Hill will continue as a

windfarm. Any subsequent development would be subject to the normal planning process.

It is proposed that the stone used to form the hardstanding would be removed, and the

foundations soil covered and landscaped at the end of the project. To ensure that no structure

is visible, the foundations have been designed to be below ground level.

The steel, other metals and oils within the structures will all be recycled. The blades are

classed as standard waste and would be handled through the normal disposal system. The

improved access track is a useful asset for the farm and will be left in place. The cost of

decommissioning the wind turbine is estimated at £8,000, with most if not all of this cost

recovered from the scrap and recycle value of the material itself.


OSE/2862 21

3 Socio-economic benefits and planning issues

3.1 Economic Benefits

Burgar Hill has been an important test and development site since he early 1980’s, and has

latterly been the most productive of the wind sites in Orkney. This site has thus resulted in

the creation of a community of expertise in renewable energy in Orkney; many jobs have been

created in Electrical, Mechanical & Civil Engineering, Project Design, and Environmental

Consultancy. Orkney contractors, suppliers, and service providers have all had the

opportunity to participate in these developments, and Orkney has benefited widely from the

consequential economic activity.

Burgar Hill has an excellent wind regime and it is predicted that the turbine will have a 50%

average capacity factor, and accordingly the annual output of an Enercon E70 turbine sited on

Burgar Hill is estimated to be 9,000 MWh. This equates to a project life-time (20 years)

output of 180,000 MWh, with enough electricity to power 1,750 homes.

The Evie Wind Energy Project has been developed in accordance with the stated aims of the

Orkney Development Plan (The Orkney Structure Plan 2001 & the Orkney Local Plan 2008),

and in the light of the Supplementary Planning Guidance for Onshore Wind Energy

Development published in 2008.

The development is a privately funded local windfarm, providing significant financial returns

to any members of the Orkney community wishing to participate; there are no restrictions to

involvement in the project, with members of the Evie community in particular invited to

participate. This project complements the grant-supported community wind turbines

proposed for the outer isles, and provides a direct income stream for participants.

3.2 Benefits to the Orkney Economy:

Employment i The applicant has been able to employ Orkney based consultants for the planning

process.

ii Local contractors will be employed for all aspects of the construction phase.

iii Project management will be retained in Orkney.

iv This project will complement the community turbines in the outer isles, allowing a sharing of the servicing and maintenance resource.


OSE/2862 22

Investment Opportunities i The Evie Wind Energy Project will allow full participation from the local community,

and it is intended that there should be opportunities for investment in this project by local Investors, large or small.

ii It is proposed that the minimum shareholding in the project should be £500, and that that provision shall be made for local community investment in the project, should that be desired.

iii It is the objective of the Developer that the financial benefits of the project should be retained in Orkney.

iv Orkney Islands Council will be invited to invest in the development on behalf of the greater Orkney community.

Local Benefits to the Evie community i Agricultural Diversification: The project will contribute significantly to the viability of

an important local farm, which will have a lease arrangement in place for the duration of the development, as well as investing directly in the project

ii Community Fund: The project will make a payment of £2,000 per annum, per MW, to a Community Fund to be administered by Evie & Rendall Community Council. This will amount to an annual payment of £4,600.

iii Community Investment: Evie & Rendall Community Council will be encouraged to invest in the project.

3.3 National Planning Context; SPP6

National Guidance

The project has been designed and planned using the recommendations and advice contained

within Best Practice Guidelines for Wind Energy Developments (BWEA), Scottish Planning

Policy SPP6: Renewable Energy(Scottish Government 2007), Planning Advice Notes PAN 45:

Renewable Energy Technologies (Scottish Government 2002), PAN 56: Planning and Noise (Scottish

Government 1999), PAN 58: Environmental Impact Assessment (Scottish Government 1999) and PAN 68:

Design Statements (Scottish Government 2003), the SNH Guidelines on the Environmental Impact of

Projects (SNH Publications), the DTI Final Report on the Assessment of Noise from projects (ETSU

1996) and the Guidelines on Wind Energy and Aviation Interests from the Defence and Civil

Aviation Interests Working Group(ETSU 2002). The project has also considered Scottish

Planning Policy 15: Planning for Rural Development, and PAN 73: Rural

Diversification(Scottish Government 2006).


OSE/2862 23

Diversification The overarching aim of the Scottish Government, as detailed in the above policies and advice

notes is to have a prosperous rural economy, with a stable or increasing population that is

more balanced in terms of age structure, and where rural communities have reasonable access

to good quality services. SPP15 and PAN73 in particular indicate that planning authorities

should take a more welcoming stance to development in rural Scotland and proactively enable

opportunities for development in sustainable locations, and in addition rural diversification

should be embraced to help businesses and farmers start new enterprises in appropriate

circumstances and at an appropriate scale; “There are many activities that make a valuable

contribution to the rural economy that are less immediately obvious such as…quarrying,

waste disposal, hydro-electric schemes and wind turbines” (PAN73). .

SPP6 - Targets In 2007 the Scottish Government published SPP6, showing planning authorities how they

should manage the process of encouraging and approving renewable energy proposals when

preparing development plans and determining planning applications. The Scottish Ministers

have set a target of generating 40% of Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

The importance of using sustainable energy from renewable sources will continue to increase

as a result of global imperatives to tackle climate change and the need to ensure secure and

diverse energy supplies. Scottish Ministers will continue to support renewable generation

technologies to enable Scotland to realise its considerable renewable energy potential.

SPP6 - Local Investment The role of local communities and renewables is discussed in paragraphs 18 and 19 of SPP6;

“There is potential, particularly in rural areas, for communities to invest in ownership of

renewable energy projects or to develop their own local projects for local benefit. Small

scale wind farms, such as those proposed by local communities, may be able to supply

electricity to the local distribution network and more widely on the transmission network.”

SPP6 then goes on: “Planning authorities should put in place positive policies to enable

communities to develop such initiatives in an environmentally acceptable manner.” Local

investment opportunities are further discussed in paragraph 19: “A range of benefits are often

voluntarily provided by some commercial developers to communities in the vicinity of

renewable energy developments. These can include Community Trust Funds which support a

variety of projects, including energy conservation initiatives, within the local community or

opportunities for local communities, as a whole, to invest in developments with local long

term environmental, social and/or economic benefits.”


OSE/2862 24

3.4 Structure Plan context

In December 2001 Orkney Islands Council published the Orkney Structure Plan written

statement (Orkney Islands Council 2001). The Structure Plan sets out the strategic framework for the

development of land in the county over a ten year period. In section 2.3, the strategy explains

that one of the key underlying principles is that of sustainable development, encompassing

social, economic and environmental goals, and states that planning decisions should favour

the most sustainable option, and promote development which safeguards and enhances the

long term needs of the economy, society and the environment.

The provision of renewable energy is discussed in section 10: “To encourage renewable

energy developments where environmentally acceptable”, in section 10.17 the strategy

indicates that “…there is considerable potential in Orkney to harness various sources of

renewable energy, including wind, wave and tidal power.”, and in section 10.19: “Whilst the

renewable energy resource is undoubtedly significant, albeit under utilised, its development

must be reconciled with the need to safeguard the environment, and with the capacity of the

electricity grid system to accommodate additional capacity”.


OSE/2862 25

The following is the relevant extract from the Structure Plan:

3.5 Orkney Islands Council Local Plan

The Local Plan, approved in February 2002, favourably considers renewable energy facilities

provided there are no significant adverse impacts on nature conservation areas, the landscape

character, to neighbours, archaeological, historic or cultural interests and no significant

impact upon aircraft activity and other telecommunication interests. Policy LP/U7 sets out

how the impact of wind power should be considered in Orkney, and the following is the

relevant extract:


OSE/2862 26


OSE/2862 27


OSE/2862 28

3.6 Planning Guidance

Orkney Islands Council have produced a set of guidelines for developers of renewable energy

projects, with draft supplementary planning guidance published in 2005, further revised in

October 2006 and January 2007, then Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (Onshore

Wind Energy Development) published in November 2007. The final draft of the Planning

Guidance recognises the benefits of local and community ownership, although it should be

noted that the recommended development areas do not take into account the island grid

system, nor does it consider the scattered low density housing in the more remote islands.

The Evie Wind Energy Project can be considered a locally owned community development:

“In regard to larger scale projects, developments can be financed in a variety of ways,

including commercial enterprise and locally owned or community based partnerships.

Whether as individual installations or as clusters involving some form of community

involvement through an equity share or a community share in a number of turbines which

make up a larger commercial development, larger forms of production offer communities,

cooperatives, small businesses and local residents the opportunity to harness local energy,

and generate electricity whilst protecting their own environment and stimulating their local

economy. Community based developments can prove useful in rural development, as they can

help alleviate fuel poverty when combined with affordable housing schemes, can provide

extra income, and provide employment opportunities.”(OIC Planning Guidance)

In the context of the guidelines, the Evie Wind Energy Project has no significant adverse

effects on the natural heritage and biodiversity of Orkney, has insignificant effects on the

landscape character of Orkney, has avoided significant visual impact by ensuring the turbine

is of the correct scale for the landscape and the site, has low impacts upon neighbours, has

avoided significant adverse impacts upon the historic environment, has avoided impact upon

hydrological and geological features, has been located well away from any airport or airfield,

and has avoided ancillary development by using existing access tracks wherever possible, and

ensuring all site cabling is buried. It is recognised that the wind turbine is a temporary

structure that will be removed from the hill at the completion of the project. The Developers

also fully recognise the benefits of partnership and community involvement, and consequently

have proposed a structure of local community investment. It is felt that the project fits well

within the aims and vision of Orkney Islands Council, and is a good example of both a

sustainable development, and important rural diversification.


OSE/2862 29

4 Summary of environmental impacts The environmental impacts and benefits of wind energy projects are largely recognised,

however both the specific implications of constructing a further wind turbine at Burgar Hill

require consideration. The Evie Wind Energy Project is located on a moorland hilltop to the

south A966 west of Evie. The wind turbine is positioned at the southern end of the line of

turbines on the hill, with the foundations installed within glacial till and upon the underlying

sedimentary rock.

From the outset the applicant has expressed the desire to minimise the environmental impact

of the project, with independent studies completed as part of the assessment. Consideration of

the Orkney Islands Council supplementary planning guidance indicated that this project can

be considered a locally-owned wind turbine, with the project becoming an integral part of, but

not dominating, the surrounding countryside. Assessment of the ecology across the area has

been completed, including a breeding bird survey, an assessment of mammals and analysis of

soil and bedrock at the turbine location. An assessment of the risk to archaeology has been

conducted, noise impact has been calculated using a cumulative geometric spreading

calculation, and the risk of shadow impact at neighbouring properties has been assessed.

The following potential environmental impacts have been addressed, summarised below, with

the proposed controls and mitigation covered in part 5 of this section of the report:

• visual impact upon the landscape

• ecological impact

• impact on archaeology

• geological and hydrology impact

• carbon emissions during construction

• pollution impact during construction and operation

• disturbance from noise

• shadow flicker nuisance

• radio communications interference

Impact upon sensitive habitats has been avoided, impact upon bird species will not be

adversely significant, and there is no known archaeology in the area. Noise, shadow flicker

and pollution impacts have been quantified and are also insignificant and the wind turbine

model and the windfarm layout has been determined to provide a good and appropriate fit to

the landscape.


OSE/2862 30

4.1 Visual impact upon the landscape

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been completed, Section 2, and to aid

assessment of the visual impact of the development, a series of wireframe images and

photomontages has been produced, Volume 2 of the report. Maps showing the Zone of

Theoretical Visibility of the project have also been produced, showing the locations where the

turbine could be seen from, notwithstanding any visual barriers from buildings. The turbine is

located to ensure a good fit with Burgar Hill, with the project adding to a simple linear

relationship.

The site is not subject to any landscape designations, and the landscape assessment concludes

that the site is well screened from the West Mainland National Scenic Area and from the

Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site.

Impact on Landscape Character

The turbine is to be located upon a moorland hill and have been assessed as having Low and

Medium significant effects on the site landscape elements. There are only very low impacts

upon the Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site, with only a Negligible/Low indirect

impact upon a very small part of the Orkney West Mainland National Scenic Area.

There are three properties in Orkney that are registered as Gardens and Designed Landscapes;

Skaill House in the West Mainland, Balfour Castle on Shapinsay and Melsetter House in

Longhope, Hoy. The maps showing the Zone of Theoretical Visibility demonstrate that there

are no visual effects upon the settings of Skaill House or Melsetter House, with only marginal

indirect impacts upon Balfour Castle and Gardens due to prominent landform barriers.

There is a broad range of Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM) and other

properties in care in this part of Orkney, although none at the windfarm site. There are no

direct impacts upon any Listed Building, SAM or Property in Care. Marginal impacts occur

upon the setting of the Broch of Gurness, with a view of the turbine indistinguishable from

the impact presented by the other Burgar Hill turbines. The Archaeology report considers

these impacts in detail.

Zone of Theoretical Visibility

Zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) diagrams were generated using the Windfarm programme

along with Ordnance Survey gridded topographic ‘Panorama’ data. These show the


OSE/2862 31

theoretical extent of visibility of the project, measured to uppermost tip height, assuming very

clear weather conditions. A 30km boundary has been chosen, in accordance with the

recommendations in ‘Visual Assessment of Projects: Best Practice’ SNH, though it should be

considered that in very clear conditions the site may be seen from areas beyond this boundary.

The ZTV is largely contained within 5 to 10km from the site, with impact mainly upon the

southern side of Rousay and the western part of Mainland Orkney, reflecting the barrier

effects of the moorland hills between Finstown and Evie.

Impact on Visual Resource

The significance of the impact of the development on the area was assessed by establishing a range of viewpoints, by assessing the sensitivity of the viewpoint and assessing the significance of the magnitude of change to the view. Each viewpoint was assessed in turn and graded from Negligible to Very High, taking into account the quality of the landscape, the value of the landscape, the presence of any discordant or prominent features, and the type and number of potential viewers. The viewpoints were selected to reflect a variety of views and to include those experienced by motorists, residents and visitors, across a range of landscape types and at varying distances from the site. Only viewpoints that fall within the ZVI have been used.

Views from the main population centres would be mainly of a distant nature. Field study has confirmed that the most significant views are from the north-western part of the village of Evie and parts of Dounby. There will be no impact upon the communities of Finstown, Firth and Rendall.

The use of a turbine of similar dimensions to the existing machines results in mainly Low and Medium Significance impact at the viewpoints. The Enercon E70 wind turbine is in proportion and fits well with the landscape. In no views does the turbine appear to dominate or diminish the apparent scale of the landscape nor does it adversely affect the quality of views to any significant extent.

Figure 4.1 is a map showing the visual impact of the project upon the various islands of Orkney, and Figure 4.2 is a map showing the locations where the tower and nacelle can be seen; note that the tower is not seen at the Ring of Brodgar, Stones of Stenness and Maes Howe. Cumulative, sequential and successive visual impacts are also explored in the main body of the report, showing the areas where the Evie Wind Energy Project could be seen in conjunction with all other wind energy projects either constructed or in planning in Orkney

.


OSE/2862 32

Figure 4.1 - Zone of Theoretical Visibility


OSE/2862 33

Figure 4.2 – High resolution ZTV


OSE/2862 34

4.2 Ecological Impact

Setting and management of the development site The position of this development is at the southern end of the existing row of turbines on

Burgar Hill, at the top of the hill slopes running up from the Evie shore. It is located on a

largely improved field that encompasses the high point of Burgar Hill, standing at 173m

above sea level. The proposed turbine position is on a shallow slope to the south of this at

about 155m. Access to the turbine position would follow the existing Burgar Hill access,

with only a short stretch of new track required, lying entirely on improved land. The cable

connection would be underground and run across improved land to the switchgear building.

The land uses in the area are for nature conservation, stock grazing and renewable energy

production. The turbine field itself is used for sheep grazing – lightly stocked over winter,

and more heavily during the summer, and has an existing wind turbine at its northern edge.

The land to the southwest is a large expanse of mainly unmodified blanket bog, comprising

part of the West Mainland Moorlands Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is

managed by the RSPB as their Birsay Moors reserve. The area covered by the SSSI to the

north of the Hillside road is also under proposal as an extension to the Orkney Mainland

Moors Special Protection Area (SPA). The boundary of the new SSSI and proposed SPA lies

280m southwest from the proposed turbine position, and the boundary of the original SSSI

and existing SPA lies 330m to the southeast. These designations are primarily for moorland

breeding birds, the key species being Red-throated Diver, Hen Harrier and Short-eared Owl.

Other important birds are the Arctic and Great Skuas, which both have very limited breeding

distributions in the UK, and scarcer birds of prey such as Merlin and Peregrine.

There are no watercourses of any note within 500m of the turbine position and none will be

affected by the development. The only widespread protected mammal in Orkney is the Otter,

and this would not be expected to occur near the development site.

Aims and scale of ecology survey work Survey work was carried out on and around Burgar Hill between April 2006 and March 2008.

Information has been gathered regarding the vegetation and birds, with the following aims:

• to produce a vegetation map; • to survey the breeding birds close to the site; • to document the scarcer raptors and divers that nest in the vicinity; • to gauge the extent to which cited species from the SPA and SSSI, and other

important species, might use or overfly the site


OSE/2862 35

Fieldwork for birds covered a full twelve months from mid-April 2006 to mid-April 2007,

with additional watches specifically for divers in June to August 2007. More than 190 hours

were spent in the field on bird work, with 7 hours dedicated to vegetation survey. The timing

and number of hours spent on each survey are summarised in Table A below.

Table A. Timing and hours for ecological survey work [VP= vantage point]

J F M A M J J A S O N D Hours Vegetation 7

Main VP survey 158 Diver VP 2007 20 Owl work 6

Bird

s

Breeding birds 8 Total fieldwork hours 199

Vegetation The vegetation was surveyed and described based on Phase One Habitat Survey methods.

The field in which the turbine would stand is at the eastern edge of a wide expanse of

moorland, primarily comprised of various bog and mire vegetation types on deep peat. All

along the moorland edge is a mosaic of improved, partially improved, unimproved and

reverting agricultural land. Within the turbine field, damper areas at the western side have

become rush-dominated, with some scattered bog plants remaining. These will not be

affected by any part of the proposed development.

Figure 4.3:Distribution of habitats around the site.


OSE/2862 36

Breeding birds Each of the three SPA species regularly nests at about a kilometre distant from the turbine

position – 1 pair of Short-eared Owls, 1–2 pairs of Hen Harriers and 2–3 pairs of Red-

throated Divers. Between one and two kilometres away there are an additional four pairs of

owls, up to five pairs of harriers and 5–10 pairs of divers.

Merlins breed regularly, and usually successfully, at about 2km with another more

intermittent site at 2km in another direction. The nearest Peregrine eyrie is 6km or more

distant. Of the commoner UK raptors, one or two pairs of Kestrel breed regularly within

2km.

From 3 to 5 pairs of Arctic and Great Skuas breed within about a kilometre, but only one or

two of each at just within 500m. There are higher numbers of both nesting regularly at about

2km – twenty or more pairs of Arctic Skuas are usually there, the largest colony on the

Orkney Mainland. Individuals from all these breeding sites might fly past the development

site en route to foraging areas.

The estimated number of pairs of each species found breeding within 500m of the turbine

position are summarised in Table B below. The Oystercatcher, Lapwing and Redshank were

found mainly on the farmed land, with the other species mostly associated with the moorland.

The Ringed Plover was unusual in utilising the hardstanding of the southernmost existing

wind turbine.

Table B. Brown & Shepherd survey results – breeding species within about 500m of the turbine position, with estimated number of pairs or territories.

Waders Other

Oystercatcher 18 Greylag Goose 2 Ringed Plover 1 Red Grouse 1 Lapwing 2 Arctic Skua 1–2 Snipe 2 Great Skua 1–2 Curlew 11 Common Gull 5 Dunlin 1 Skylark Scattered Redshank 3 Meadow Pipit Scattered

In terms of the importance of the breeding numbers within 500m of the development site

(where 1% of a geographical population is considered as ‘important’), the following apply:


OSE/2862 37

• Dunlin – 1 pair, county importance; • Red Grouse – 1 pair, locally important (West Mainland); • Arctic Skua – 1-2 pairs, locally important (West Mainland); • Great Skua – 1-2 pairs, locally important (West Mainland).

Extending this out to 2km for the more sensitive species, the following importance categories

apply – here the importance of the notified features of designated sites overrides their

geographical importance:

• Red-throated Diver – 10 to 15 pairs on the SPA/SSSI (50% or more of SPA and SSSI breeders);

• Hen Harrier – 3 to 8 females on the SPA/SSSI (up to 15% of SPA and 30% of SSSI breeders);

• Merlin – 1 to 2 pairs, regionally important (Orkney & North Caithness Natural Heritage Zone – ‘NHZ’);

• Kestrel – 1 to 2 pairs; county importance (Orkney); • Golden Plover – up to several pairs, county importance (Orkney); • Whimbrel – up to 12 pairs, regionally important (NHZ); • Dunlin – up to several pairs, county importance (Orkney); • Arctic Skua – twenty or more pairs, regionally important (NHZ); • Great Skua – twenty or more pairs, locally important (West Mainland); • Short-eared Owl – 4 to 5 pairs on the SPA/SSSI (up to 15% of SPA and 25% of SSSI

breeders);

Of particular significance among these species is the Whimbrel, for which the population

within about 2 kilometres of the turbine position comprises almost all of the breeding birds in

Orkney and Caithness.

Birds from vantage point (VP) watches

Target species for VP watches were:

• the three SPA species (Red-throated Diver, Hen Harrier, Short-eared Owl); • any Birds Directive Annex 1 species; • any Wildlife & Countryside Act Schedule 1 breeding species; • the two breeding skuas (Arctic and Great Skuas). • wintering Greylag and Pink-footed Geese;

Table C below summarises the number of observations of each species across the whole

survey area and gives the number of observations and number of birds considered to be at

risk.

Table C. Summary of flight sightings of target species across whole survey area from timed VP watches


OSE/2862 38

Species No. of

obs-erv-

ations

% of wat-ches det-

ected

Main season of

occ-urrence

Hours watch-

ed in season of occ-urrence

Observ-ation int-erval dur-ing season (hours bet-ween obs-ervations)

Range of flock

sizes per obs-

ervation

Total no. bird move-ments

No. birds

at risk

% birds

at risk

Greylag Goose (Icelandic) c.210 51% mid Sep–

Apr 85 0.4 1 – 240 2048 270 13%

Pink-footed Goose 4 5% Sep/Oct,

Apr/May 61 15.2 1 – 12 18 3 17%

Red-throated Diver 150 42% Apr–Aug 118 0.8 1 – 7 217 9 4%

Hen Harrier 179 76% all year 158 0.9 1 – 2 182 1 <1% Osprey 1 1% Apr–Aug 118 118.0 1 1 - 0% Merlin 20 17% all year 241 12.0 1 20 2 10% Peregrine 5 3% all year 241 48.2 1 5 - 0% Golden Plover (breeding) 17 15% late Apr–

Aug 76 4.5 1 – 3 24 6 25%

Golden Plover (non-breeding) 29 14% Sep–

early Apr 82 2.8 1 – 250 1343 24 2%

Dunlin 2 2% Apr–July 68 34.0 1 2 - 0% Whimbrel 12 7% Apr–Aug 118 9.8 1 12 1 8% Arctic Skua 202 39% Apr-Aug 84 0.4 1 – 5 305 33 11% Great Skua 312 54% Apr-Sep 96 0.3 1 – 5 447 50 11% Arctic Tern 7 8% May–Jul 50 7.1 1 – 2 10 2 20% Short-eared Owl 48 20% all year 158 3.3 1 – 2 48 1 2%

Only Hen Harriers were detected from significantly more than half of the watches (76%),

while the next most frequent were the seasonally occurring Icelandic Greylag Goose, Red-

throated Diver, Arctic Skua and Great Skua, each detected on 39–54% of watches.

The Great Skua was the target species with the most recorded flight activity overall (more

than 300 flight observations) and was also the most frequently observed within its season of

occurrence (more than three times per hour). Red-throated Divers, Hen Harriers, Arctic

Skuas and Icelandic Greylag Geese were each detected on over 150 occasions, and each at

rates of more than once per hour in their season. Short-eared Owls and Golden Plovers were

observed in flight once every 3–4 hours, Arctic Tern, Whimbrel, Merlin and Pink-footed

Goose once every 5–15 hours, and Peregrines and Dunlins at lower rates still. There was only

one observation of an Osprey.

In terms of the numbers of individuals observed at risk height close to the turbine position, by

far the most numerous species was the Greylag Goose, which occurred there in groups and

small flocks. The numbers of both Arctic and Great Skuas at risk were noticeably high, given


OSE/2862 39

that they generally flew singly, or sometimes in twos and threes. This is due to their

proximity as breeding birds, plus birds in transit from further afield, and also because many of

their flights were in the risk height band of 20m–100m.

As a proportion of their overall number of sightings, Red-throated Divers, Short-eared Owls

and especially Hen Harriers, had a relatively low likelihood of being at risk height close to the

turbine. This is due to their distributions, flight patterns and flight behaviours. In the case of

the divers several pairs located to the south contributed many flight records, mostly well away

from Burgar Hill. For the harrier and owl, the bulk of their flying time was spent foraging

low, at less than 20m above ground; there are no topographical features close to the turbine to

encourage them to fly higher. Figure 4.4 shows all Hen Harrier flights, the vast majority of

which were foraging birds. The attraction of the rushy strips at the western side of the turbine

field can be clearly seen.

Figure 4.4 All Hen Harrier flights; 250m and 500m radii shown around the turbine position.

The existing wind turbines have an influence on flight activity, and this is shown in Figure 4.5

for the Red-throated Diver in 2006 and 2007. The birds do not appear to have been put off at

all by the additional two turbines in 2007, but became even more concentrated into the

smaller gaps between them.


OSE/2862 40

Figure 4.5 Red-throated Diver flights in 2006 and 2007. Existing turbine positions and 250m & 500m zones around the proposed turbine are shown.

Potential impacts The main potential impacts from an onshore wind farm are habitat loss, disturbance of birds

during construction and decommissioning, displacement of birds from operational turbines

and collision fatalities.

At the Evie Wind Energy Project there would be no loss to, or disturbance of, semi-natural

habitats, other than the laying of a cable through several hundred metres of semi-improved

road verge. Most of this length is already highly disturbed.

Disturbance to birds during construction would probably have a direct effect on various

nesting species: Red-throated Divers, Arctic and Great Skuas, Whimbrel and Dunlin. There

could be an indirect effect on foraging Hen Harriers and Golden Plovers, since these both had

preferred feeding grounds close to the turbine position. This could be particularly significant

for the harrier, where males are often supporting more than one female, and any adverse effect

on the males’ foraging during the critical early part of the season might affect the ability of

several females to come into breeding condition. In the non-breeding season, without nesting

birds present and when foraging harriers can range much more widely, any effect would be of

little or no significance.


OSE/2862 41

Displacement of birds due to the presence of the operational turbine might affect breeding and

foraging birds. This is unlikely to affect farmland foraging birds at Evie because there is little

improved land within 500m of the turbine position on which large flocks could occur. It is

also considered insignificant for foraging raptors, given the large foraging areas used by these

species. It is possible that the closest breeding pairs of Dunlin and Red Grouse might be

displaced from the vicinity of the turbine.

Collision risk workings have been carried out for all target bird species that were observed,

from timed VP watches, flying at risk height within 250m of the turbine position; these are

summarised in Table D below.

The workings depend on how representative the observations were (which might vary

between species), and incorporate various assumptions, such as observer efficiency,

operational efficiency and most critically the avoidance rate (hence ranges of avoidance rates

are shown for most species). These assumptions all work as multipliers within the

calculation. Although the aim has been to use precautionary but reasonable figures, the

resulting collision rates must be seen to be subject to wide/very wide error margins.

Table D. Summary of predicted collision rates for target species, showing the avoidance rate (or range of avoidance rates) used.

Species Relevant level

of legislative or geographical importance at Burgar Hill

No. of birds obs-

erved at risk

Avoid-ance rate used

Predicted no.

fatalities per year

Predicted no. of years

between fatalities

Predicted no. of

fatalities over 20 years

Greylag Goose Local 270 99% 1.15 0.87 23 95% 0.266 3.8 5-6 Red-throated Diver SPA/SSSI 23 97.5% 0.133 7.5 2-3 99% 0.053 18.8 1-2

97.5% 0.008 125.2 0-1 Hen Harrier SPA/SSSI 1 99% 0.003 313.1 0-1

Merlin Regional 2 95% 0.071 14.1 1-2 98% 0.047 21.3 1

Golden Plover (br) County 6 99% 0.024 42.5 0-1 98% 0.163 6.1 3-4 Golden Plover (non-br) Regional 24 99% 0.082 12.3 1-2

Whimbrel Regional 1 98% 0.008 123.0 0-1 98% 0.397 2.5 8 Arctic Skua Regional 33 99% 0.337 3.0 6-7 98% 0.344 2.9 6-7 Great Skua Regional 50 99% 0.172 5.8 3-4

Short-eared Owl SPA/SSSI 1 95% 0.017 58.0 0-1


OSE/2862 42

The actual significance of additional fatalities depends upon their effect on the population as a

whole – a simple comparison may be made to the ‘background’ mortality and survival rates

for each population. It is the percentage changes in these that can then be used in the

assessment of impacts. It may be considered that there will be a negligible effect on any

species where the mortality of the relevant population is increased by less than 1% of its

background value, and this is the case for all species except Red-throated Divers (at low

avoidance rates). The risk to divers is mostly borne by non-breeding or failed breeding birds,

and as such a fatality would not affect the productivity of the breeding population. Even at

the lowest avoidance rate shown, of 95%, the collision rate of one non-breeding bird every 3.8

years is not considered sufficient to adversely affect the integrity of the SPA (in terms of the

numbers and distribution of the divers within it).

Where appropriate, comparisons of additional mortality has been made to more local

populations, resulting in possible significant effects for Arctic Skuas on a smaller scale than

that of the region. The Kestrel was the only non-target species for which collision risk is

thought to present a potentially significant risk.

4.3 Potential disturbance to archaeology

Site Investigations Walkover surveys of the sites and the vicinity were conducted in 2007 and 2008. The

objectives of the surveys were to identify and describe any known archaeological sites and to

anticipate the potential for unknown sites within the immediate environs of this part of the

Burgar Hill ridge, to assess the potential impacts of the developments, and to identify

measures to mitigate any adverse impacts. The following resources were used:

The National Monuments Record of Scotland (NMRS), compiled by the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS), and accessed through the on-line CANMORE database (http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/)

The PASTMAP on-line database of sites and monuments with statutory protection, also compiled by RCAHMS and accessed at http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/

The Orkney Sites and Monument Record (SMR), a paper database accessible at the Orkney Archaeological Trust offices in Kirkwall

Maps, with particular emphasis on the Ordnance Survey 1:10560 County Series first edition of 1882 (accessed at http://www.old-maps.co.uk/), the 1929-30 1:63360 map and the current OS 1:25000 Explorer series map of the area (no. 463, Orkney – West Mainland, revised 2002), and

Other old maps retrieved from the National Library of Scotland (accessed at www.nls.uk/digitallibrary/map), and

Three walkover surveys of the development area and the immediate surroundings.


OSE/2862 43

Observations There is a lack of recorded features in the area, and a complete dearth of named features on

old and current maps, apart from some derelict crofts. Surface indications suggest that the

probability of archaeological features or deposits within the development footprint is

negligible.

Some minor modern features were found close to the summit and the nearest existing turbine,

but have no archaeological significance. A further observation is that there is no sign of any

process which might have led to major concealment or destruction of earlier remains, with

only a modern phase of ploughing to break in the field affecting the main construction area.

The explanation is perhaps derived from the geology and altitude, with post-glacial bedrock

close to the ground surface and conventional topsoil development processes hindered by the

highly exposed location and only low-key land management.

The land uses in the area are for nature conservation, stock grazing and renewable energy

production. The turbine field itself is used for sheep grazing, lightly stocked over winter, and

more heavily during the summer. The land to the southwest is a large expanse of mainly

unmodified blanket bog and will not be encroached upon. The visual indications from the

walkovers confirm this scanty covering, and provide a consequent indication that any

significant deposits or features would show some degree of surface indication. This part of

Burgar Hill does not show any sign of deeper pockets or tranches of peat which might conceal

buried features.

In summary, the sub-surface geology both determines the simple nature of the hill’s terrain

and the subsequent degree of confidence with which the lack of observed features can be

regarded as a true picture.

Conclusions

It is concluded that there is little possibility that groundbreaking work for the Evie Wind

Energy Project would result in the uncovering of unknown archaeological remains. The value

of an archaeological watching brief is thus unlikely, and guidance on this matter from the

Orkney Islands Council Archaeologist would be welcome. Should the groundbreaking work

reveal any underground structures then, depending on the nature of the discovery and its

condition, possible actions would include a quick removal by excavation and recording or a

rerouting to avoid the discovery, leaving it in situ.


OSE/2862 44

4.4 Impact upon Geological and Hydrological features

Solid Geology and Superficial Deposits

An assessment of the geology and the hydrological features of the area was conducted with

reference to the One Inch Geological map of Scotland, sheet 119 produced by the British

Geological Survey. This map identified various layers – artificial, landslip, superficial and

bedrock geology. This part of Orkney has no artificial or landslip aspects to the land,

however the assessment did indicate the extent of peat deposits and boulder clay in the area.

These extend over much of the West Mainland hills, with further peat overlying the boulder

clay covering the coastal basin flagstone bedrock east of the hills.

The basement rocks of Orkney are a mixture of granite, gneiss and schists, which formed part

of the Caledonian mountain chain 400 million years ago. These rocks originally enclosed the

Lake Orcades basin which became the focus of erosion and the deposition over time. This

sediment formed Old Red Sandstone, which now largely obscures the basement rock

complex. Subsequent tectonic activity caused the sediments to become folded and faulted,

creating a range of hills which was then subjected to erosion and submergence; the Orkney

Islands represent the higher remains of these hills. Burgar Hill thus consists of gently sloping

sedimentary rocks, comprising of Stromness and Rousay flagstone.

The solid geology of Orkney was modified by glacial action during the ice ages, the last of

which reached its maximum extent 18,000 years ago. The main effects of ice movement was

generally to smooth out the topography and to deposit glacial till boulder clay, however on the

southern side of Rousay the ice scouring has emphasised terracing in contrast to smoothing

effects elsewhere. Poorer climatic conditions in the post-glacial period has resulted in

deposition of peaty soils, and is identified as mainly glacial till with a thin peaty soil,

overlying a layer of clay with a depth of around 250mm at the higher parts of the hill.

Hydrological features; Risk of Peat Slide

Burgar Hill has a relatively low average rainfall of around 1000mm per annum, similar to that

of the east coast of Scotland; rain volumes are low due to rainshadow effects. There are very

few hydrological features in the area, mainly various field drains that run adjacent to the fields

and tracks on the northern side of the hill.


OSE/2862 45

Peat is a biogenic deposit which when saturated consists of about 90-95% water. The organic

content of the solid part of peat is very high, and is made up of the decayed remains of

vegetation that has accumulated over a timescale of centuries. The fact that peat can absorb

such a high volume of water means that its strength properties can vary greatly between

summer and winter. Peat slides, bog flows and bog bursts are widespread in the uplands of the

British Isles, and these movements are usually triggered by heavy or prolonged rainfall. The

mechanisms of peat slide involve instability of peat deposits over a rock or mineral

subsurface, with slab-like failures involving a shear failure mechanism. Peat slides can result

in significant movement of superficial deposits. After exceptional rainfall in October 2006,

when 83mm of rain was recorded in 26 hours, extensive peat movement occurred on the east-

facing slope of Ward Hill, Orphir. Although little environmental damage resulted, it is

evident that peat slides can and do occur in Orkney, with risk of impact upon ecosystems. The

topography has been an important considerations for the design of the Evie Wind Energy

Project; the site of the turbine has been chosen to have none of the characteristics of an area

at risk of peat slide; there is no risk of any movement of topsoil and superficial deposits.

4.5 Carbon emissions during construction

The maximum volume of topsoil that could be disturbed is approximately 400 m3, consisting

of the access tracks and hard standing area, a total area of 2000 m2 at an average depth of

0.2m. Assuming that the soils in this area have 0.069 tonnes of carbon per cubic metre of soil

Chapman et al, the carbon content of this volume of soil is estimated to be 28 tonnes. The carbon

emission factor of grid electricity is 0.117 T/MWh (Carbon Trust) and a 2.3MW wind turbine on

Burgar Hill provides on average 24 MWh per day, giving a positive carbon balance of 2.8 T

per day; 10 days of generation are required to compensate for the potential carbon released

from the soil. It should be noted that the construction process will retain the integrity of the

soil systems, and all soil will be reused in other parts of the site to avoid the release of carbon.

The foundation manufacture will require approximately 144 m3 of concrete. It is recognised

that the production of concrete is responsible for the emission of CO2, from both the energy

required and from the calcining of limestone when producing cement; 144 m3 of concrete

requires 65T of cement, and assuming 1.25T of CO2 per tonne, IPCC Working Group II, p661, 81.25 T

of CO2 would be released. Using a CO2 avoidance factor of 0.43T CO2/MWh, the wind

turbine provide a positive CO2 balance of 10 T per day; 8 days of generation are required to

compensate for the carbon dioxide released by the production of the foundation concrete.


OSE/2862 46

There will be a small increase in traffic during foundation construction and manufacture of

the track extension, and during mobilisation and installation of the turbine. This will however

only occur over a short period of time. 5 loads of turbine components will be transported to

site, with up to 5 loads of components for a 350T telescopic crane. A length of approximately

350m of access track 4m wide is to be created, requiring 280m3 of stone, with a further 400m3

of stone required for the hard standing construction. It is expected that a large proportion of

this stone will be glacial till and fractured rock recovered during foundation and road

excavation, with the remainder coming from the quarry at Heddle Hill.

4.6 Pollution risk during construction and maintenance

The construction activities during mobilisation and installation of the turbine represents the

greatest potential for pollution. This may be through operational discharges or as the result of

an unplanned or accidental event. Given the nature of the agricultural land surrounding the

site, there is very little risk of the release of any material with the potential to leach into the

soil or water courses. The construction of the extension to the access track at Burgar Hill has

the most significant risk of pollution, due to the proximity of Lowries Water however the

track will not use concrete, nor are there any water crossings, fulfilling guidance provided by

SEPA. All temporary welfare facilities will be located in the turbine field, initially adjacent to

the NM1500 wind turbine to the north. There will not be any pollution discharges during the

construction process, with details of pollution prevention and mitigation measures included in

part 5, below.

4.7 Potential disturbance from noise Section 6 of this report is the Environmental Health Impact Assessment, which addresses

potential noise effects, along with shadow throw and flicker impact. Noise is generated by the

turbine blades passing through the air as the hub rotates, with minimal mechanical noise due

to the characteristics of the chosen turbine. Noise in the environment is measured in decibels

using the dB(A) scale which includes a correction for the response of the human ear to noises

with different frequency content. A 1dB change in noise level is just perceptible, a 3dB

change in noise level is clearly perceptible and a 10dB change in noise level is heard as a

doubling or halving of the perceived level. The noise levels from the Enercon E70 turbines is

100 dB(A) at a windspeed of 8ms-1. This value decreases with distance from the turbine and

with atmospheric absorption. Figure 4.6 shows the predicted impact at the neighbours to the

development along with other indicative noise levels.


OSE/2862 47

Source/Activity Indicative noise level dB (A)

Threshold of hearing 0

Rural night-time background 20-40

Evie Wind Energy Project t bi

35

Quiet bedroom 35

Busy road at 5km 35-45

Car at 65 km/h at 100m 55

Busy general office 60

Conversation 60

Truck at 50kmh at 100m 65

City traffic 90

Pneumatic drill at 7m 95

Jet aircraft at 250m 105

Threshold of pain 140

Figure 4.6 – Indicative noise levels in the environment

The Planning Advice Note on Renewable Energy Technologies, PAN 45 provides

information on noise from wind turbine. Paragraph 65 states: "Well designed wind turbines

are generally quiet in operation". The document goes on to discuss the sources of noise and

the effects of increasing wind speed on wind turbine noise and background noise. It notes that

the report “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms” ETSU-R-97, describes a

framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels thought

to offer a reasonable degree of protection to project neighbours, without placing unreasonable

restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative

burdens on wind farm developers or planning authorities.

The impact of noise from the wind turbine is not adversely significant. The noise levels of the

Enercon E70 are variable, ranging from 100 dB(A) to 104 dB(A), dependent upon windspeed

and power levels. This value decreases with distance from the turbine, with atmospheric

absorption and from ground conditions and barrier attenuation. When considering the impact

from a windfarm, the noise levels from the individual wind turbines that can be seen from the

neighbour must be combined, and the calculations have included the existing adjacent wind

turbines on Burgar Hill. It should be noted that the recently consented turbine at the north end

of Burgar Hill only makes a very marginal contribution to the overall noise impact on the

neighbours at the south end of the site.


OSE/2862 48

The turbine is located 650m from the nearest neighbour to the east, 825m from the nearest

neighbour to the north east and 1.1km from the nearest neighbour to the north; there are no

neighbours south or west of the turbine. Desk-top analysis has been conducted to assess the

potential impact, using a geometric spreading and atmospheric absorption model. The

properties have been chosen to represent the impact upon the different parts of the

community; five properties have been assessed. The open nature of the countryside, the high

moorland nature of the site along with the long distances between the turbines and neighbours

are important considerations. The spacing between turbines and neighbours is large, and as a

consequence cumulative noise impact is low. The spreadsheet used to calculate impact takes

into account geometric divergence of noise, along with atmospheric absorption, to give a

theoretical calculation of sound levels at neighbours; Section 6 of the report contains the full

analysis and assessments. With the neighbours predicted to have sound levels between of

27.7 and 35.2 dB(A), noise emissions achieve the recommendations of the simplified ETSU-

R-97 assessment, these sound levels are well below the permitted amenity hours and night

time noise limits, and are below the 45dB(A) limit recommended for neighbours with a

financial involvement.

4.8 Potential disturbance from shadow flicker

Under certain combinations of geographical position, time of day and time of year, the sun

may pass behind the rotor and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the wind

turbine blades rotate the shadow appears to flick on and off, creating an effect known as

shadow flicker, and is noticeable only in buildings when viewed through narrow window

openings. For the properties in the Evie Wind Energy Project area this would normally occur

at midday in the winter months when the sun is at low elevations..

Planning advice note PAN45 recommends 10 rotor diameter separation between the wind

turbine and the nearby dwellings to avoid shadow nuisance, and the Evie Wind Energy

Project largely achieves this recommendation by a large margin; 10 rotor diameters is 700m

and with the exception of the nearest neighbour, the turbine is 700m or more from all

properties to the north and north-east.

The nearest neighbour is the western most of the Council Houses on the Hillside road, and

although this is within the 700m recommendation, the house is partially gable-end on to the

turbine and should not suffer from any shadow effects. Nevertheless the potential for shadow

effects was checked for a selection of neighbouring properties around the site using the


OSE/2862 49

WINDFARM software tool, regardless of the distance, with full results shown in Section 6. It

has been presumed that windows face directly on towards the turbine to produce worst case

examples. Analysis of the risk from shadow flicker indicates that the impact of the wind

turbine upon neighbouring communities is not significant. The nearest community is Evie

Village, with the shop more than 1.6km from the wind turbine. Due to the relative geometry

of the site only the Council Houses to the east of the site have any degree of impact, with a

maximum theoretical impact over the whole year of 12.9 hours, or 0.15%. In this instance

these properties do not look towards the turbine.

Should the extremely marginal nature of this impact still be felt to be unacceptable, the

turbine can be switched off automatically during the brief periods when a shadow could

occur. This shadow impact control module works independently of the turbine controller, and

uses a photocell to measure sunlight, and only switches off the turbine on sunny days

It should be noted that the new properties at Castlehill and Hull are relatively close to existing

turbines at the north end of Burgar Hill, and are well within the 10 rotor diameter

recommendation. The Evie turbine will have no impact upon these new houses.

Figure 4.7 – Neighbouring properties assessed for noise and potential shadow impact

35.2 dB(A) 28.8 dB(A)

27.7 dB(A)

33.1 dB(A)

34.9 dB(A)


OSE/2862 50

4.9 Potential radio-communications interference

When a wind turbine is positioned near to a radar, radio, television, or microwave transmitter

system, it may reflect some of the electromagnetic radiation in such a way that the reflected

wave interferes with the original signal as it arrives at the receiver; this can cause the received

signal to become distorted. The extent of any electromagnetic interference caused by a wind

turbine depends mainly on the blade materials and the surface shape of the tower.

Electromagnetic interference may also occur if a wind turbine is close to a radio

communications service.

OFCOM, the Radio-communications Agency indicated that there is a commercial microwave

links traversing this part of Orkney, routed from the Keelylang and Wideford transmitters to

receivers at Milldoe and Burgar Hill. The link requires a 200m wide exclusion corridor to

avoid interference, and at the nearest point the clearance between the transmission path and

the turbine is around 320m; no impact will occur.

There is a known risk of interference to conventional analogue television transmissions by

wind turbines; where reception is generally poor, the metal towers and reflective blade

surfaces can sometimes result in ‘ghosting’. Should television reception be found to be poor

around the site, and should interference occur, then there are proven improvement techniques,

principally the use of digital or satellite television services.


OSE/2862 51

5 Environmental management and mitigation

This report has described a proposal to construct an additional wind turbine at the Burgar Hill

wind farm in Orkney, together with an assessment of the related activities. This part of the

report describes the proposed environmental practices and any necessary mitigation measures.

5.1 Visual impact mitigation

The planning advice note on Renewable Energy Technologies, PAN 45, states “Turbines in

wind farms are likely to be tall, frequently located in open land, and therefore likely to be

highly visible” and “It will normally be unrealistic to seek to conceal them. Developers

should seek to ensure that through good siting and design, landscape and visual impacts are

limited and appropriate to the location”, and “Although wind farms may be complex, they

should not appear confusing in relation to the character of the landscape. Ideally they should

be separate from surrounding features to create a simple image”. It is believed that this

additional wind turbine achieves these recommendations.

Burgar Hill falls within Zone 1 of Scottish Natural Heritage’s “Strategic Locational Guidance

for Onshore Windfarms in Respect of Natural Heritage”, defined as the zone of least

sensitivity. The design process determined that a turbine of similar dimensions to the existing

turbines on the site would be appropriate for the moorland landscape; the turbine finally

chosen for the development has a 58m tower and a 70m rotor. The turbine position has also

been selected to ensure a simple linear relationship with the existing turbine, brought together

in a compact linear layout, with 330m between machines. The project is a good fit to the

landscape, the turbine is entirely appropriate for the setting, and it should also be considered

that the shape of the Enercon nacelle was designed by Lord Foster, and is both aesthetically

pleasing and dynamic in form.

The project access track is an extension of the existing access through the Burgar Hill site,

and for the route over the field, the track will be constructed using conventional techniques.

This turbine can have a unique green-banded tower base, which provides visual connection

between the turbines and the surrounding landscape, however this would be incongruous

when considering the adjacent turbines, and will not be installed with this option. All site

cabling is to be positioned underground, and the only additional infrastructure is a small

building, located at some distance from the turbine site. It is therefore felt that the visual

impact of the Evie Wind Energy Project has been well managed and is not adversely

significant.


OSE/2862 52

5.2 Ecological impact assessment and mitigation

Impact assessment and mitigation In line with the most recent IEEM guidelines, the final assessment of impacts classes them as

either significant or insignificant on an affected population, at a relevant geographical scale.

The significant impacts identified, and proposed measures to avoid or mitigate for these, are

summarised in Table E below. There are no significant impacts, at any scale, predicted for

vegetation. The most important potential significant impacts on birds relate to disturbance

during construction or decommissioning (should it take place during the breeding and pre-

breeding season from March onwards); the significance level would be up to that of the SSSI

for harriers. Significant construction disturbance impacts on breeding birds are readily

avoided by timing works to be outside of specific key periods, and for this reason, the

construction of the Evie project would be planned outside the period March to August.

During the operational phase, the displacement of one pair of Dunlins would be regarded as

locally significant. This is considered to be of very low likelihood, but cannot be avoided or

mitigated. The collision risk to Arctic Skuas and Kestrels is of low but uncertain likelihood,

but again cannot be avoided or mitigated.

Table E. Summary of potential significant impacts and residual impacts.

Nature of impact: Impact short term (1) to perm-anent (5)

very local (1) to wide-spread (5)

very un-likely (1) to certain (5)

Valued receptor potentially impacted

significantly

Geographical scale at which

impact considered significant

Avoidance/Mitig-ation pro-

posed

Scale of significance of residual

impact

Habitat loss & disruption 5 2 5 None

Construction disturbance (breeding)

2 3

3 4 5 5 5 5 5

Red-throated Diver Hen Harrier Golden Plover Dunlin Whimbrel Arctic Skua Great Skua

Site only SSSI Site only Site only NHZ W Mainland W Mainland

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

Construction disturbance (non-breeding)

2 3 4 None

Displacement (breeding birds)

4 2 1 Dunlin W Mainland NO W Mainland

Displacement (roosting & foraging birds)

4 2 2 None

Collision fatalities 4 2 2

2 Kestrel Arctic Skua

Site only W Mainland

NO NO

Site only W Mainland


OSE/2862 53

One of the highest levels of calculated collision risk (in relative terms) is to the local breeding

pairs of Arctic Skuas. This is high, partly because of the proximity of breeding birds and also

because of this species’ chasing territorial flights, for which a low avoidance rate has been

used in the calculations. The calculated collision rate of one bird every two to three years

would be expected to have an effect on the numbers closest to the turbine. Because this

species is in sharp decline across its Scottish range, the significance of this increased mortality

is assessed at up to the West Mainland level. Kestrels are also considered to be at some risk

from collision due to the frequency, length and height of their hunting flights around the

turbine position; this might be very locally significant for the one or two pairs closest to the

development.

In summary, after the measures proposed, there are low, or very low, likelihoods of

significant, but localised, impacts on Dunlins (due to displacement from the operational

turbines), and on Arctic Skuas and Kestrels (from collision fatalities).

Cumulative impacts on the SPA and SSSI There are various other proposed wind energy projects in the West Mainland that do, or could

potentially, affect the Orkney Mainland Moors SPA. This proposal will not have any direct

impact on the SPA e.g. in terms of habitat loss on the SPA, foraging displacement on the SPA

or disturbance due to increased public access on to the SPA. These effects would only occur

at Holodyke (near Dounby) where they have been assessed as insignificant; there would be no

significant cumulative impact. There is no predicted displacement of breeding SPA species at

any of the likely development sites. Significant cumulative impact on the SPA species might

be a possibility due to collision fatalities, particularly for Red-throated Divers and Hen

Harriers. The harrier populations to be considered are those of the SPA as a whole and,

separately, the smaller numbers on the West Mainland Moorland SSSI, whereas all the SPA

divers breed on the West Mainland Moorland SSSI.

For Red-throated Divers the highest risk to the SPA population is already present at Burgar

Hill (nearly 80% of the calculated risk). The Evie turbine proposed to the south is calculated

to pose about 7% of the total risk. The cumulative collision risk to Hen Harriers is calculated

at approximately one fatality every three years at 97.5% avoidance and one every seven years

at 99% avoidance. These equate to proportional increases in annual mortality of about 1.0%–

2.5% for the SPA harriers (i.e. from 19.6% to 19.8%–20.1%), which covers the whole year

and would be spread across the population in terms of sex and age. It seems unlikely that

such a small increase in mortality would be significant for the SPA population. By


OSE/2862 54

comparison, the collision risk found to be unacceptable on the SPA at Gruf Hill was one

fatality every five years, but this was calculated on the summer months only (i.e. for the

whole year the number of fatalities could have been doubled) and was thought to impact

largely on breeding males (whose loss would have a much wider effect on the population than

that of a female or a juvenile). For the SSSI the increase in mortality is relatively higher, but

represents reductions in survival of just 0.50%–1.26%. It is perhaps unlikely that such figures

would lead to a significant impact on the SSSI population.

Cumulative impacts – non-SPA/SSSI The low likelihood of displacement of a pair of Dunlins by this proposal is not thought to be

repeated elsewhere in Orkney, so there will be no cumulative impact on this species. As well

as at Evie, a locally significant collision risk has been calculated for Arctic Skuas at

Holodyke. However, the greatest risk to this species probably exists already at Rothiesholm

Head, Stronsay, where there are higher numbers nesting closer to the turbines than at any

other existing, approved or proposed site. No calculations or monitoring have been carried

out at Rothiesholm, but it seems probable that cumulative risk would not be significant at the

Orkney-wide scale. The same would be expected to hold for the Great Skua. Kestrels are

considered to be at some risk from this proposal; risk exists already at Burgar Hill, and

perhaps the highest risk would be at Hammars Hill. These risks would be very localised

around each site, and there would probably be no significant cumulative impact beyond the

local level.

5.3 Mitigation of potential impact upon archaeology

No indications of actual or potentially significant archaeological remains have been identified

within and immediately around the development area. Therefore no mitigation or other

concern is registered for:

• the turbine location;

• the on-site access track route;

• on-site cabling;

• a works compound;

• any off-site road modifications to allow turbine and other construction transport.

A potentially significant aspect for this development is the visual impact it would have on a

number of monuments in the custodianship of Historic Scotland as Properties In Care. While

there will be some degree of visual impact for these sites, the assessment regards them as

insufficient to cause significant concern or to prevent the development.


OSE/2862 55

5.4 Groundwater Management and Pollution Avoidance

The construction of the access track and the areas of hardstanding have the highest likelihood

of pollution, and SEPA’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5, PPG6, PPG8 and

PPG21 have been adopted by the project: www.sepa.org.uk/guidance/ppg/. To combat the

potential risk of run-off from these areas, it is proposed that some of the mechanisms used to

construct Sustainable Urban Drainage systems be adopted, using methodologies

recommended in the Control of Water Pollution guidelines CIRIA C532, C649, C648 and

CIRIA C697 the SuDS Manual.

There are no significant water courses on Burgar Hill, although Lowries Water is a relatively

large lochan. This is around 750m from the wind turbine base, however it should be noted

that there is a watershed between the turbine position and the loch, and consequently there is

no possibility of run-off from the site entering sensitive water systems. Groundworks shall

nevertheless be carried out in the drier months of the year. This will minimise the volume of

water that will be mixed with soils being handled and also reduce the amount of water

liberated from the ground during excavations.

To minimise risk of pollution from oils and fuels during project construction, all work will be

to COSHH regulations and any machinery, equipment or construction material will be located

on areas of hardstanding:

• Fuel storage will be in double-skinned tanks at the NM1500 turbine • No refuelling will take place within 50m of a watercourse • Plant will be regularly inspected for leaks and spillages • All plant will carry absorbent pad spill kits • Any static plant at the substation compound will be bunded or fitted with a drip tray • Self-contained Portaloos and facilities will be located on the site hardstanding.

5.5 Mitigation of noise disturbance

The site has been designed to ensure that the turbine is 650m or more from the nearest houses;

at this distance the cumulative noise from all the Burgar Hill wind turbines will be reduced to

35dB(A) or less, the levels recommended by PAN45 and ETSU-R-97. Turbine noise levels

are attenuated due to geometric divergence, atmospheric absorption, and ground effects. The

project will use a gearless variable speed wind turbine and the operational characteristics of

the machine will ensure that noise levels remain at 35dB LA90 or less at all neighbours,

ensuring that there is no significant loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.


OSE/2862 56

5.6 Mitigation of shadow flicker nuisance The site has been designed to ensure that the wind turbine is ten rotor diameters or more from

almost all neighbours; at this distance any shadow flicker nuisance will be minimal (PAN45).

Moreover only one neighbour has any possibility of shadow effects as the sun is never in a

position to create wind turbine shadows at the other properties.

It should be considered that Burgar Hill is a large open moorland, and clearly the turbine

position can be altered; moving the location by 50m westwards will ensure all neighbours are

more than 10 rotor diameters from the turbine.

Should a shadow flicker impact still occur and is found to be a nuisance, then the developer

will switch off for the turbine for the relevant periods. The shadow control module works

independently of the turbine controller, and uses a photocell to measure sunlight; operations

would stop for 25 minutes on the days in April and December when shadows could occur.

5.7 Construction and transportation impact mitigation

There will be construction noise during the road and foundation manufacture, mainly from

lorries over a 1 month period. The community and authorities will be consulted about

suitable times for lorry movement and a construction schedule will be published. Before any

wind turbine components are transported to site, the Developers will consult with the Scottish

Government, Orkney Islands Council Roads Department and the Police to ensure

acceptability of the route to site. Existing public road culverts, bridges, verges and street

furniture will be surveyed by the project developers in conjunction with the Roads

Department. Road warning signs and lights will be located at all areas of road works and any

items such as fence posts and road signs that have been temporarily removed will be re-

erected following transportation.

5.8 Mitigation against television interference

The potential for interference to non-digital television systems cannot be predicted, but there

is the possibility of interference to analogue receivers if reception in the area is generally

poor. The interference created by wind turbines is very distinctive and readily identifiable;

should interference occur, and is clearly shown to be due to the wind turbines, the owners of

the affected property will be offered a digital or satellite television service. This mitigation

mechanism has already been demonstrated at Burgar Hill, and in any event the analogue

television service for Orkney will be switched off in 2010.


OSE/2862 57

6 Conclusions

This study has described a project to install a final wind turbine on the southern end of Burgar

Hill windfarm in the Evie parish of West Mainland Orkney. The environmental and social

impacts of the project has been considered in detail, with emphasis on visual impact, impact

upon habitats, potential disturbance to birds, archaeology impacts, pollution control and

potential nuisance impact upon neighbours. A life-cycle analysis of the development has

been provided, covering the location, the sustainability of the project, the type and size of

wind turbine to be installed, and the installation, operations and eventual decommissioning of

the site. The study has further addressed the environmental and socio-economic benefits of

the project to Orkney.

The visual impact upon the landscape has been considered in detail and the project has

evolved to become a single wind turbine of similar scale to the existing machines on the site, ,

with overall turbine height of 93m. Although any wind energy project involving modern

wind turbines will be seen from the surrounding area, the installation of a wind turbine on this

site would only have a marginal increase on visual impact significance on the immediate

surroundings, mainly the housing on the Hillside Road south of Evie. Over greater distances

the moorland landscapes become more dominant and the wind turbine becomes subservient,

with only a very marginal impact to the World Heritage site in the West Mainland of Orkney.

Impact upon the ecology of the area has been considered in detail and a fully encompassing

ecological assessment has been completed. The general area for the development was

selected to maximise distances to any ecologically sensitive species, and the turbine has been

located on poor quality drained arable land; the overall potential impact upon habitats,

mammals and bird species is not predicted to be adversely significant.

An archaeology survey and impact assessment has been completed, with no risk of direct

impacts upon any historic sites, and only marginal effects upon the setting of a series of

historic monuments and Properties in Care, all located at a significant distance from the site.

The Evie Wind Energy Project has been designed to respect the environment, and to provide a

commercially viable development, with very strong local economic benefits. The project is

locally-owned and incorporates mechanisms to fully engage with the local community; the

development is a privately funded local wind turbine, providing significant financial returns to

all members of the Orkney community wishing to participate in the project. This project

demonstrates the significant economic benefits of local ownership of renewable energy.


OSE/2862 58

7 References and bibliography

BWEA (1998). Best Practice Guidelines for Wind Energy Developments. Website www.bwea.com/

Boardman, B et al. (1997) 2MtC: Two Million Tonnes of Carbon, Environmental Change Unit, University of Oxford.

Boyle, G (1996). Renewable Energy; Power for a Sustainable Future. Oxford University Press.

British Geological Survey (1955). One-Inch Geological Map of Scotland. Sheet 119 Drift edition.

The Carbon Trust. Guidelines on measuring carbon and CO2 emissions from electricity. http://www.thecarbontrust.co.uk/carbontrust/low_carbon_tech/dlct2_1_6.html

Chapman, S.J., Towers, W., Williams, B.L., Coull, M.C., Paterson, E. (2001) REvie Wind Energy Projectw of the Contribution to Climate Change of Organic Soils Under Different Land Uses. Scottish Government Central Research Unit.

Defence and Civil Aviation Interests Working Group (2002). Wind Energy and Aviation Interests – Interim Guidelines. ETSU W/14/00626/REP

DTI Noise Working Group (1996). The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Projects. ETSU-R-97.

Scottish Planning Policy SPP6 (2007). Renewable Energy. Scottish Government Development Department. ISBN 0 1-84268-684-4

Planning Advice Note PAN 45 (2002). Renewable Energy Technologies. Scottish Government; ISBN 0 7559 0372 2

Planning Advice Note PAN 56 (1999). Planning and Noise. Scottish Government Development Department.

Planning Advice Note PAN 58 (1999). Environmental Impact Assessment. Scottish Government; ISBN 0 7480 8912 8

Planning Advice Note PAN 68 (2003). Design Statements. Scottish Government; ISBN 0 7559 0862 7

Planning Advice Note PAN 73 (2005). Rural Diversification. Scottish Government; ISBN 07559 44259

Scottish Natural Heritage. Guidelines on the Environmental Impact of Projects and Small Scale Hydroelectric Schemes. SNH Publications

Scottish Natural Heritage (1998). Orkney Landscape Character Assessment. SNH Publications

Scottish Planning Policy SPP15 (2005) Planning for Rural Development. Scottish Government Development Department.

SEPA pollution prevention guidelines http://www.sepa.org.uk/guidance/ppg/

SEPA recommendations on drainage systems in Scotland - Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). http://www.sepa.org.uk/publications/leaflets/suds/?lang=_e

Soil Survey of Scotland (1981). Soil, Land Use Capability – Orkney Mainland. The Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, Aberdeen.

evie wind energy project - orkney sustainable · pdf filedevelopment assessment orkney...

Documents