PLANNING APPLICATION: 17/01198/EIA

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

THE PROPOSAL

Application for wind farm and associated ancillary infrastructure.

Five, 3-bladed turbines with tapered tubular steel towers and fibreglass blades.

Each turbine to be 130m high (to blade tip) with 85m high hub, 90m rotor diameter (max. 45m blade length) and a rated capacity of up to 3MW. (Note: Final turbine model yet to be selected but not to exceed the stated maximum parameters).

Transformer/switchgear housed in individual kiosks (3m x 2m x 3m) adjacent to each turbine.

Each turbine has reinforced concrete foundations, approximately 20m in diameter, 2m to 3m deep (subject to ground conditions).

Separate hardstanding areas, approx. 50m x 25m with compacted granular fill over a geo-grid, to be located adjacent to each turbine for crane and temporary storage for turbine components (to be left in place for the lifetime of the development to facilitate future maintenance, replacement of major components and decommissioning).

Substation compound, approx. 30m x 20m with hardcore surface/concrete platforms located to the north of turbine 2 (within central area of site) enclosed by security fencing, with 8 parking spaces, an external transformer/generator compound area, and a single-storey substation building, approx. 10m x 15m x 6m with rendered walls and a slate (or equivalent) pitched roof over, to house switchgear and other control systems plus staff welfare facilities. Foul drainage would be collected in a septic tank with soakaway, and water supply for welfare facilities would to be provided via mains supply where available or by water harvesting and ultraviolet filter system (or other drinking water arrangements to be agreed if not suitable).

Temporary construction compound, approx. 50m x 50m formed over a geo-grid base, located to the north of turbine 2 (adjacent to the above mentioned substation compound) enclosed by security fencing, containing temporary site office and staff welfare facilities, stores, parking area, material laydown/storage, refuelling/oil and generator. Foul drainage to be either collected in a holding tank with regular collection/disposal or an on-site septic tank. Areas of compound subject to increased pollution risk, e.g. oil or fuel storage and vehicle refuelling to be bunded and drained into an isolated holding tank for treatment and disposal (details to be confirmed). Drainage would be directed to oil receptor to prevent pollution in the event of spillage. Water supply for welfare facilities to be provided via mains supply (where available) or by bowser/small containers compliant with drinking water arrangements.

Turbines to connect to national grid network with anticipated on-site grid connection taken to existing underground 33kV line located within the site using underground cabling. (If required additional off-site infrastructure to be subject to investigation and separate consent).

On-site electrical and communications cabling between turbines and sub-station laid underground alongside on-site access tracks in trenches approx. 1m deep and up to 1.2m wide.

Approximately 3.43km of access track would be provided on the site for the construction and operation of the proposed development, of which 760m would be new tracks and 2.67km would be upgraded. The tracks would be approx. 5m wide with some additional localised bend widening and an estimated 7 passing places to a maximum length of 12m to 14m. The tracks would be constructed with a compacted stone surface with a level finish or raised slightly above ground level with suitable drainage and lined by topsoil verges (details to be confirmed).

The development site would be accessed from the north via an existing access track (to be upgraded) which joins onto the nearby C4L (Bogmuchals - Berryhillock Road); the access junction onto the C4L is to upgraded and widened.

6 existing water crossings/culverts to be up-graded along the access tracks (detailed design to be confirmed).

No anemometer masts - permanent or temporary - are proposed.

No borrow pits are required/proposed, anticipated that all rock required for construction would be sourced from Blackhillock Quarry.

50m micro-siting allowance for turbines and access tracks sought, to allow flexibility in siting for localised ground conditions.

Proposed development would result in a net loss of woodland area of 12.86ha to wind farm infrastructure i.e. 2ha around each turbine, 10m buffer around each item of infrastructure and 25m to 30m corridor for access tracks. All felling to be carried out during the construction phase, with no other felling proposed during the operational phase. Details of proposed compensatory planting off-site have been submitted with the application.

Construction hours to be within 07:00 - 19:00hrs weekdays and 07:00 - 13:00hrs, Saturdays. Any working outwith stated hours to be subject to prior agreement.

Construction period would be approx. 6 months (weather dependent) post tree felling followed by commissioning and testing.

Proposed development to have a 25-year operational life-span (unless extended or re-powered with new approved turbines) and thereafter to be decommissioned, and site restoration/re-instatement period (details to be agreed).

Application accompanied by supporting documents including an Environmental Statement (ES) [3 volumes plus Non-Technical Summary (NTS)], a Planning Statement (PS), a Pre-Application Consultation Report (Non-Statutory) and Applicant's Response to Consultee Positions and Policy Update.

THE SITE

Land at Lurg Hill located approx. 8.7km to the south of Cullen, 10km to the north-east of Keith, with villages of Berryhillock 2.5km lying to the north and Grange Crossroads 4.6km to the southwest. The B9018 Keith to Cullen road runs north/south approx. 1km to the west of the site. Site also partially borders Aberdeenshire Council area to the northeast.

Development site is located within the Lurg Hill plantation, with the Hill of Inverkindling and Green Hill located to the northeast.

Total site area covers approx. 137ha and comprises plantation woodland, heathland and tracks, with 2.648ha land take for turbines, and associated infrastructure.

Lurg Hill is 313mAOD high, and the turbines will be located on the northern slope of the hill between 170m and 312mAOD. The topography of site is characterised by the summit of Lurg Hill, with much of the land within the development boundary on its northern slope and rising up to meet the summit in a south-westerly direction.

The site is uninhabited. There are 30 individual residential properties or groups of residential properties located within 2km of the site, the closest of these being Little Skeith, Kintywaird, Mid Skeith, Upper Skeith and Backies (at distances ranging between 857m and 992m from the nearest turbine).

The site is not subject to any international, national, regional or local landscape, built environment or nature conservation designations, and there are no known archaeological assets within the site.

The site is not at risk of flooding from rivers. Small parts of the site are subject to low/medium/high risk of surface water flooding, the extent of which is localised.

For renewable energy policy purposes, the proposed turbines at 130m high fall within the "large" wind turbine typology (80-130m) and are located within the Broad Forested Hills and Upland Farmland (8a) Landscape Character Type (LCT), as identified within the Council's Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study (2017) and Moray On-shore Wind Energy Guidance (2017). The proposed turbines are located within an "area likely to be most appropriate for onshore windfarms", however none are located within an area of greatest potential for large typology turbines.

The 'landmark hills' of Bin of Cullen and Knock Hill as identified in the study area lie 6km and 4km to the north-west and south-east respectively (see below).

HISTORY For the site: 15/01340/SCO - Scoping Opinion issued for 6 turbines with tip height up to 130m at Lurg Hill, Deskford - response confirmed that EIA was required and environmental issues and potential impacts to be taken into account were identified. For the area: 09/00763/FUL - Erection of 2 x 2.3 megawatt wind turbines (92.4m to tip) and associated works at Netherton of Windyhills, Grange Crossroads - approved October 2010. These are located 1.4km south-west of the current application site and are constructed and operational. 07/01102/FUL - Install a 50kw wind turbine with a hub height of 50m and blade diameter of 48m (79.6m to tip) at Myreton, Crossroads - approved February 2008. This lies 1.4km to the southwest of the application site and is operational. 09/00247/FUL - Install two 800kw wind turbines (79m to tip) at Myreton, Crossroads - approved/allowed following review by Local Review Body July 2010. These are located 1.5km to the south-west of the application site and are operational. 13/01790/APP - Amend approved wind turbine - reference 12/00928/APP, rotor diameter 23m, (51m to tip) to a turbine with a rotor diameter of 23m (48m to tip) at Langlanburn, Deskford - approved Nov 2013. This lies 1.7km to the north and lapsed in Nov 2016.

12/01165/APP - Erection of 1 no. turbine (80m to tip) at Edingight, Grange, Keith - approval/allowed on appeal by Scottish Ministers in January 2013. This lies 2.1km to the south-east of the application site and is operational. 07/02375/EIA - Construction, operation and decommission of a wind farm comprising 13 wind turbines (12 x 110m high, and 1 x 90m high) and other ancillary development at Aultmore Forest, Drybridge - approved 27.02.2014 and subsequently extended on 28.02.2017 under application 16/01657/APP to vary conditions 1, 18 and 24 of planning permission 07/02375/EIA (extension to time limit and operational period, and noise levels). This proposal lies 3.4km to the west of the application site and has yet to constructed. 04/02472/FUL - Construct 1 no. wind turbine (70m to tip height) at Balnamoon, Crossroads, Keith - approved/allowed on appeal by Scottish Ministers October 2005. This lies 3.5km to the south-west and is operational. 11/01384/APP - Erection of 1 no. wind turbine (56m rotor diameter) with a maximum height of up to 78m and ancillary infrastructure at Followsters, Newmill - approved February 2012. Permission to vary the turbine model (revised nacelle design) was subsequently approved under 13/00479/APP in May 2013. This lies 9.2km south-west of the current application and is operational. 10/02092/EIA - Formation of wind farm comprising 6 wind turbines (125m in height, total capacity up to 21mW) and associated infrastructure including access tracks, control building housing switchgear equipment and buried cables at Edintore, Keith - approved/allowed at appeal by DPEA in 2012. These are located approx. 15km to the southwest of the site, have been constructed and are operational. 02/02099/EIA - Erection of 21 wind turbines (100m to tip) and 2 wind masts at Hills of Towie, Knockan and McHattie's Cairn, Drummuir - approved/allowed on appeal in 2005. These lie 18km to the southwest and have been erected and are operational. 13/02057/S36 - Erection of 16 wind turbines (125m to blade tip) at Hill of Towie Windfarm, known as Hill of Towie II. Located immediately south of the existing Hill of Towie wind farm, this proposal was subject of a Public Inquiry in September 2015 (following objection by the Moray Council to the Scottish Government Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (lodged in 2014)), and subsequently approved in June 2017. This wind farm has yet to be constructed and will lie 20km to the south-west of the current proposal. Aberdeenshire turbines: APP/2009/3565 - Erection of 2 no. wind turbines (99.5m to tip) at Land at Muirake, Cornhill, Banff - approved 2010. These are located 5km to the east and are erected and operational. APP/2012/2786 - Erection of 1 no wind turbine (79m to tip) at Land at Braeside, Fordyce, Banff - approved August 2012. This lies 3.5km to the north-east and has yet to be constructed. APP/2003/1692 - Erection of 7 Wind Turbines at Boyndie Airfield, Banff - approved July 2004. These lie 12km to the north-east and is operational.

POLICY - SEE APPENDIX 1 ADVERTISEMENTS

Advertised as a departure from the development plan.

Advertised under the current EIA Regulations.

Advertised under Schedule 3 of the Development Management Regulations 2013.

Advertised for neighbour notification purposes. CONSULTATIONS Building Standards - Building Warrant required for control building. Development Plans - The main policy guidance to consider this proposal against are:

The Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study 2017, a technical appendix to the above MOWE, but also approved as a material consideration in its own right.

The Moray Onshore Wind Energy (MOWE) 2017 Policy Guidance, which is statutory supplementary guidance.

The Moray Local Development Plan 2015 Policies PP1, ER1 and IMP1, the statutory local development plan for Moray.

Taking these in turn and in reference to the conclusions of the report from the Council's appointed landscape adviser, the following policy response is provided. Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study 2017 The study identifies a number of distinct Landscape Character Types (LCT's) and sets out guidance for development for each. The Lurg Hill proposal is located within LCT8a defined as the Broad Forested Hills within Upland Farmland which is assessed in the study as having a high-medium sensitivity to the large typology (80m - 130m) with very limited scope to accommodate this scale of turbine. Within this LCT there are a number of operational large single turbines in the vicinity of the site and surrounding area, which are highly visible in eastern Moray. The LCT consists predominantly of broader forested hills and upland plateau. The guidance concludes that turbines towards the lower height band of this typology (less than 100m to tip) would minimise effects on adjacent settled landscapes and that turbines should be set well back into the interior of more extensive areas of upland plateau to minimise intrusion on adjacent settled landscapes and to ensure sufficient separation. The study also concludes that potential cumulative effects with the consented wind farm at Aultmore and wind turbines located in the adjacent Upland Farmland LCT are a major constraint to capacity in this LCT.

The Council's appointed landscape adviser has provided detailed comments on the landscape and visual impacts likely to arise from this proposal, which can be summarised as: a) The Landscape Capacity Study concludes that turbines less than 100m high would

be likely to minimise landscape and visual effects. b) Proposal would introduce a small group of larger turbines into an area where a

disparate array of differently sized operational wind turbines is already present. c) Significant adverse effects would occur on the character of the nearby Burn of

Deskford Valley where the proposed 130m high turbines would dominate the scale of buildings, woodlands and farmland.

d) There would also be significant adverse effects on views from settlement and the B9018 in the Kirkton of Deskford to Grange Crossroads area, within approximately 5km of the proposed wind farm site and from Knock Hill and the Bin of Cullen.

e) The contrasts of scale and siting between this proposal and operational wind turbines sited on the lower slopes of Lurg Hill would contribute to these visual effects.

f) Recommend considering using smaller turbines to minimise effects on the Burn of Deskford Valley and cumulative effects with other wind farm developments.

g) Proposed control building should be relocated to minimise intrusion on views from the north.

h) Felling and restocking of woodland to accommodate the proposed wind farm requires more careful design and the woodland on Clune Hill should be retained as a condition of consent.

The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the Landscape Capacity Study. Moray Onshore Wind Energy 2017 Policy Guidance (MOWE) The MOWE was adopted by the Council for use as statutory Supplementary Guidance on 1st November 2017. It includes the (strategic) spatial framework as required by paragraph 161 of Scottish Planning Policy and also includes Policy Guidance Maps identifying constraints as per the requirement of Policy ER1 which states that; "further detail on the above assessment process will be addressed through supplementary guidance to include:

peat mapping once this becomes available

detailed mapping of constraints

guidance on areas with greatest potential for small/medium and large scale wind farms."

The final bullet point addresses the requirement of para 162 of Scottish Planning Policy to identify areas with the greatest potential for wind development, which are defined in the MOWE as areas with the greatest potential for further investigating the feasibility of developing wind farms and these are provided in the MOWE in the form of a series of Policy Guidance maps. None of the proposed turbines are located within an area of greatest potential for the large (80m - 130m) turbines, reflecting the sensitivity of this landscape as set out in the Landscape capacity Study. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the MOWE.

Moray Local Development Plan 2015 Policy ER1 Renewable Energy Proposals: In compliance with the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy, the MLDP2015 sets out a spatial framework following the methodology in SPP to identify areas with potential for wind farm development as required by para 161 of SPP. The spatial framework is very strategic in nature, identifying large parts of Moray as having potential for wind turbine development of 35m and over, but doesn't differentiate between different scales (typologies) of turbines. The site is located in east Moray, in an area which has experienced considerable pressure for wind turbine development. Taking into account the conclusions of the Council's landscape adviser, the guidance set out in the landscape capacity study and the MOWE, then the proposal is considered to be contrary to the terms of policy ER1 b) in terms of;

the proposal does not address the guidance set out in the Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study

the landscape is not considered capable of accommodating the development without significant detrimental impact on landscape character or visual amenity

the proposal is not considered to be appropriate to the scale and character of its setting and doesn't address the potential for mitigation

the proposal would create an unacceptable cumulative impact with the range of operational/consented turbines within the Landscape Character Type.

Policy PP1 Sustainable Economic Growth: While the proposal will contribute towards the transition of Moray towards a low carbon economy, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the latter part of this policy, i.e. it does not safeguard the quality of the natural environment or meet the relevant policy requirements for the reasons outlined above. Policy IMP1 Developer Requirements: The proposal is considered to be contrary to criteria a) and b) of this policy as the scale of the proposal is not in accordance with the Landscape Capacity Study or MOWE, the proposal is considered to have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape for the reasons outlined above and discussed in detail in the Council's appointed landscape adviser's report. Conclusions The proposal as submitted is considered to be contrary to the Landscape Capacity Study, MOWE and policies PP1, ER1 and IMP1 of the Moray Local Development Plan 2015 as it is considered to have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape, both individually and cumulatively. Supplementary comments from Development Plans Section After reviewing the additional submitted information 'Applicant Update on Policy and Consultees Positions' February 2018, I have a number of concerns/comments I wish to highlight:

Paragraph 2.2.2 suggests that a strategic level capacity study should be given less weight than the finer grain of analysis undertaken in the LVIA. Landscape capacity studies are a material consideration and the findings of the Moray LCS are

integrated into the updated 2017 MOWE which is statutory supplementary guidance.

Paragraph 2.2.3 - the applicant suggests that being in a Group 3 area supports the conclusions reached by the applicant. However, the Council contends that the SPP approach produces a broad brush strategic level of spatial mapping for onshore wind farms, which is applicable to all turbines of 35m to blade tip and higher. This results in a spatial framework which identifies areas with potential for wind farm development, which it is estimated covers approximately 60% of Moray. The Council considers that the SPP framework meets the requirements set out in para 161 of SPP which requires planning authorities to "set out" in the development plan a spatial framework identifying those areas that are likely to be most appropriate for onshore wind farms as a guide for developers and communities, following the approach set out in Table 1 of SPP.

However, while the applicant is keen to point out the requirements of Table 1 and the Group 3 area definition, the applicant has omitted any reference to para 162 of SPP, which requires planning authorities to identify areas with the greatest potential for wind development. This is referred to in Policy ER1 of the MLDP 2015 and is actioned through the MOWE Supplementary Guidance Policy mapping. We disagree with the comment in para 2.2.4 that "it is now surprising …….makes no reference whatsoever to the Group 3 status of the application site….". The merits of the SPP Table 1 approach and its limitations have been debated at several Public Local Inquiries and the Moray Local Development Plan 2015 Examination process. The statement quoted in 2.2.4 is a statement of fact, the application when considered against the strategic level guidance is contrary to the MOWE.

While it is agreed that the strategic level of guidance set out in the landscape capacity study has to be supported with consideration of the detailed proposal, this is exactly what the Council has done, by appointing the Council's landscape advisor to carry out a detailed landscape and visual impact assessment of the submission. This detailed evaluation then informs whether there is merit in a departure from the agreed Supplementary Guidance and Policy ER1 of the MLDP 2015.

We are advised to keep our policy responses brief and not to provide a comprehensive list of all policies being applied.

Para 2.27, as explained above the very high level spatial framework which results from Table 1 of SPP results in 60% of Moray being considered as areas with potential. The applicant, understandably, is taking a very one sided view of this interpretation. Clearly this has to be considered as very strategic, with further detail set out in Policy ER1, the MOWE, landscape capacity study, national guidance on renewables and detailed evaluation by the Council's appointed landscape advisor.

Para 2.2.10 - we disagree with the claim that the LCS and MOWE are being "bluntly applied", that is not the case and they are being applied impartially and consistently. In Paras 2.3.4, 2.4.1 and 2.4.8 the Council does not state the wind farm should not be visible, what we are seeking to achieve is a well-designed wind farm of the right scale in the right location.

Renewable Energy Policy Update section 4 - Moray Council are fully aware of the updates. It is unclear what the applicant is alluding to as Moray Council has taken a very positive and proactive approach to promoting renewable energy and will continue to do so. However the applicant should note that the landscape capacity study, and indeed the previous study, identified that at a strategy level, Moray has limited capacity for further large scale wind farms.

The Council's Appointed Landscape Adviser has provided the following comments in response to the additional, 'Applicant Update on Policy and Consultees Positions' February 2018 in relation to Landscape Character and Visual Impacts: Para 2.3.5 - While I agree that the wind farm would relate to the simpler character of forested hills, the upland area within which the development is located is not extensive and avoidance of scale effects on the adjacent settled and more patterned valley, which lies close-by, would be unavoidable. This is acknowledged by OPEN (the applicant’s landscape architect) in Appendix A. I accept that the landscape and visual effects of this proposal would be localised and that there would be no significant effects on designated or similarly valued landscapes, however SPP advises that wind farm sites should be suitable for use in perpetuity and should therefore be designed to ensure impacts are minimised. Para 2.3.7 - A 'clustering' effect would occur in this area due to the number of wind energy developments and their proximity to each other. However, as there is a great range of turbine sizes and variation in turbine design and siting, the clustering of developments cannot be seen as a positive effect as the differences in size, design and pattern of turbines exacerbates existing visual clutter and confusion. Para 2.4.2 - This fails to also note other examples of wind farms which have been refused with decisions informed by landscape capacity studies, for example the Straid wind farm in South Ayrshire, Ardchonnel and Creggan wind farms in Argyll and Bute, amongst others. Para 2.4.5 - The Dersalloch wind farm lies within South Ayrshire not East Ayrshire. The South Ayrshire Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study was issued in 2013, after the inquiry for the Dersalloch wind farm had taken place. Para 2.4.8 - It is agreed that landscape capacity studies provide strategic guidance and detailed information on landscape and visual effects should inform decisions on individual proposals. However, my comments on landscape and visual effects have been informed by review of the detailed information contained in the EIA. Appendix A: Para 3.2 - While acknowledging the drive towards larger and more powerful turbines, the limited extent of this upland area and the complex cumulative context, reduces scope for larger turbines. Para 4.6 - Scale differences between existing/consented developments would principally occur between the smaller single/small groups of 'farm-based' turbines on the lower slopes of Lurg Hill rather than with Aultmore wind farm. Section 3 - mitigation: It is disappointing that the control building cannot be relocated. This section of the report makes no mention of the recommendation to omit or relocate Turbine 3 which was identified in my landscape review of the proposal as being problematic in some key views. It is noted that the woodland on Clune Hill will be retained under continuous cover although no response is made on attaining an improved forest felling and restocking design. Environmental Health - No objections subject to conditions as recommended including levels of noise immissions not to exceed identified levels, and measures to address any

complaints received; a monitoring scheme of noise immissions; a scheme to assist assessment/regulation of amplitude modulation effects; construction activities including vehicle movements permitted only between 07:00 to 19:00 hrs, Monday - Friday and 07:00 to 13:00 hrs, Saturdays unless otherwise agreed; where required, blasting times restricted to specified times; ground vibration not to exceed specified levels, and measures to address complaints received; and installation of a shadow flicker control module to turbines 1 and 5, and measures to address any complaints received regarding shadow flicker. Environmental Health, Contaminated Land - No objection. Environmental Health, Private Water Supplies - No objection subject to condition as recommended requiring notification to the Council and urgent, restorative, remedial work to be undertaken on any supply where negative effect(s) on water quality or quantity caused by any aspect or phase of the project. Environmental Protection/Moray Access Manager - No objections. Public access is mostly along forestry tracks and will still be enjoyed once the development is complete. Public access should be managed during construction in the interests of public safety; tracks can be closed for public access for minimal periods providing clear signage is erected. Transportation Manager - No objection subject to conditions as recommended requiring detailed proposals of abnormal load trial run(s) to be undertaken prior to construction and deliveries to determine additional accommodation works, restrictions, frequency; detailed drawings/construction of 3 passing places on the C4L road (as identified); a Construction Traffic Management Plan; details of upgrading works of the C4L (Bogmuchals - Berryhillock Road)/site access junction including access width, radii, kerbing, visibility splay and drainage; road widening/alterations/verge hardening to be permanent for duration of development; evidence of a signed S96 'Wear and Tear' agreement including a 'before and after' condition video surveys required for delivery and construction traffic routes; etc. Moray Flood Risk Management - No objection subject to conditions regarding submission/approval of a detailed drainage design and SUDs measures as outlined within application, construction surface water management and drainage management plans, and details of stream crossings and all water course engineering. SEPA - No objection subject to conditions as recommended regarding submission/approval of a plan showing how the finalised micro-sited layout has been designed to minimise impacts on and avoid areas of deep peat; a site-specific Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to address all waste management, pollution prevention and environmental management issues; details for all water crossings, to be designed to accommodate 1 in 200 year peak flows (with allowance for climate change of 20% increase in flows) to reduce flood risk; and no borrow pits to be permitted (If conditions not applied, consider response as objection). There are no objections in terms of potential impacts on existing groundwater abstractions or groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. (Note: Response includes additional detailed advice (for applicant) regarding the required authorisation under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR) for any

engineering works in or in the vicinity of inland surface waters or wetlands, adherence to pollution prevention guidelines and other regulatory requirements. Scottish Natural Heritage - Proposal will not impact on any protected areas. The applicant has adequately identified potential impacts on habitats and species that the development poses, which are all found locally and within the wider area. Notes proposed mitigation and enhancement measures within the EIA Report to afford protection and avoid long term negative impacts, and advises their implementation will afford good protection for locally valued habitats and species. RSPB Scotland - Monitoring methodology largely follows SNH guidance; based on the results of the survey work, RSPB Scotland does not anticipate that the proposal itself will have a significant impact on birds in the local area and does not have serious concerns with the proposal. Would recommend, as proposed within the Environmental Statement (Section 13.7.1, paragraph 131), that a goshawk breeding survey is carried out prior to construction or felling. We would be supportive of felling taking place outwith the bird breeding season, to prevent the potential disturbance to Schedule 1 species. Encourages programme for post-construction monitoring to assess impact on birds arising from this and other wind farms, to understand potential issues connected to the build-up of turbines and birds, and inform future responses. Forestry Commission Scotland - No objection subject to a condition requiring implementation of the submitted compensatory planting proposals; the submitted forestry proposals (as amended) address FCS issues raised regarding compliance with the UK Forestry Standard, in relation to the proposed species selection in the restocking plan; provision of a detailed Compensatory Planting Plan; interaction between wind farm forestry felling and restocking in relation to current felling and restocking approvals from Forestry Commission Scotland; extent of felling approved by the plan; Felling Proposals including 1) proximity of felling areas and future age stratification of the forest and 2) size of felling areas; and size of keyhole felling areas. Scottish Executive (for Environmental Statement only) - Notes the submission of the Environmental Statement to the Moray Council, with no further comments to make. Historic Environment Scotland - No objections in terms of statutory remit for world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, category A-listed buildings and their settings, inventory gardens and designed landscapes, and historic battlefields. The proposal does not raise any historic environment issues of national significance. The ES contains sufficient information to allow HES to come to a view on the application and methodology used for the most part is appropriate for HES interests. The conclusions about predicted impacts on nearest affected heritage assets, which include four scheduled monuments and the setting of Cullen House Inventory Garden Designed Landscape are agreed. Transport Scotland - No objection subject to conditions requiring prior approval from the trunk roads authority of the routing of any abnormal loads on the trunk road network, any accommodation measures and additional signing or temporary traffic control measures. Advisory notes for the applicant. Aberdeenshire Council - No objection, please note that we have also consulted the Cornhill & Ordiquhill Community Council and Fordyce, Sandend & District Community Councils but received have no responses from them.

Aberdeenshire Council Archaeology Service - No objection. National Air Traffic Systems - No safeguarding objection. Aberdeen International Airport Ltd - No objection from aerodrome safeguarding perspective. MOD Safeguarding - Objection. The proposed turbines will be detectable by, and cause unacceptable interference to both the ATC (Air Traffic Control) and PAR (Precision Approach) radar at RAF Lossiemouth. Close examination of the proposal has indicated that the proposed turbines would have a significant and detrimental effect on operations and on the provision of air traffic services at RAF Lossiemouth. Research into technical mitigation solutions is currently ongoing and the developer may wish to consider suitable mitigation solutions. If the developer is able to overcome the above stated issues, the MOD will request all turbines be fitted with MOD accredited omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting. (Officer Note - To date no reversal of the MOD’s position has been provided and the applicant has asked that the application be determined on the basis of the current position. The MOD are still considering the latest submissions from the applicant but at the time of writing this report, their previous objection stands). Civil Aviation Authority - No response received at time of report Atkins Global - No objection (but response does not relate to any microwave links operated by Scottish Water). Joint Radio Company (JRC) Windfarms - No fixed links affected (for radio link infrastructure operated by Local Electricity Utility and Scotia Gas Networks). Ofcom - No response received at time of report. Scottish and Southern Energy - No response at time of report. Scottish Water – Based on review of records, a drinking water catchment area to the south of the site which contains a Scottish Water abstraction and other water assets in the wider area may be affected by the development, and will require further on-site investigations by the applicant and separate consultation with Scottish Water to determine its detailed location and whether development activities could impact on the catchment or assets. It is essential that water quality and quantity in the catchment area is protected and that any assets in the wider area are not impacted, and therefore the applicant/developer is asked to take precautions and measures (as specified in the response) to ensure that the development does not affect the protected area or assets. Cullen and Deskford Community Council - No objection. Strathisla Community Council - No response at time of report.

OBJECTIONS-REPRESENTATIONS NOTE: Following the determination of this application, name and address details will be/have been removed (i.e. redacted) in accordance with the Data Protection Act (paragraph 3 of Minute, Planning & Regulatory Services Committee 16 September 2014). 4 letters of objection and 3 letters of support have been received: Letters of Objectors:

Mrs Hilary Morrison, 1 Muir Of Squaredoch, Deskford, Buckie, AB56 5YD

Mr Brian Morrison, 1 Muir Of Squaredoch, Deskford, Buckie, AB56 5YD

Mrs L Gray, Newbigging, Cornhill, Banff, AB45 2AJ

Mr John Canning, Kintywaird, Buckie, AB56 5UT Letters of Support:

Mr James Currie, Newhouse, Berryhillock, Cullen, AB56 5UT

Mr Graeme Christie, Rinnes View, Keith, AB55 5PJ

Mr John Smith, Old Schoolhouse, Deskford, Buckie, AB56 5UA ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS

This site is not accessible from any direction via any major or suitable road network. The proposed route leaving the classified road at Brodiesord starts as a road wide enough for 2 way traffic, quickly reducing to a single track with blind bends throughout its length to the site. Even with the construction of passing places given the predicted volume of construction traffic it is not a suitable route.

The report predicts construction will take some 6 months with levels of construction traffic, which I take to mean HGV's, being approximately 69 2-way movements per day in month 3. This does not include the daily traffic of the site workforce. Given the nature of the road it becomes clearly evident that traffic at this level is not acceptable.

Whilst the main components of the turbines will arrive under escort and supervision the greater worry is that the HGV's carrying the aggregates and cement will not be supervised and as a result will create far more danger over the 6 month period. This road is very little used except by residents and farm related movements.

The report does not seem to recognise that the sudden increase of heavy traffic will be a problem, in fact says "will not be significant".

On the subject of site access, at the top of Greenhill there is an access which is more direct to the site itself and does not pass any residential properties. However there is no mention of this in the report, why has this route not been considered?

The amount of HGV traffic using single track roads and tracks - the local road system and tracks into the proposed site are completely inadequate to take the anticipated level of traffic. This will impact upon road users and residents in the local area.

Comment (PO): The Environmental Statement (ES) contains a detailed assessment of traffic and transport related impacts from the proposal, in short this demonstrates that the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable significant adverse effects in traffic or road safety terms when assessed against relevant IEMA guidelines (see observations section). Following consultation, the Transportation Manager and Transport Scotland have not objected to the development in terms of unacceptable road safety or traffic generation

effects, or the suitability of the road network to accommodate the development, or the disruption and disturbance effects of the proposal. If approved, conditions would be attached to the consent to accommodate, manage and mitigate the transport and traffic arrangements. These would include agreeing arrangements for abnormal load trial run(s) to determine additional accommodation works, restrictions, frequency etc.; signing and temporary traffic control measures; construction of 3 passing places on the C4L road; a Construction Traffic Management Plan; details of upgrading works of the site access junction; road widening/alterations/verge hardening to be permanent for duration of development; evidence of a signed S96 'Wear and Tear' agreement including a 'before and after' condition video surveys required for delivery and construction traffic routes; etc. AMENITY IMPACTS

Noise - the level of noise created during the development of the site followed by the continuous noise made by the turbines will negatively impact upon the peace and quiet of the area and could create difficulties for wild life and also for those residents living nearby.

The traffic generated by the construction on the surrounding small country lanes will be both unsafe and detrimental from a noise and volume of traffic standpoint.

Turbines are too big and too close to houses and will generate both noise and flicker.

Proposal will affect contributor's wellbeing, property is currently surrounded on three sides by forestry with only one side facing clear sky which is going to be blighted by turbines.

Comment (PO): The Environmental Health Manager has not objected to the proposal in terms of adverse noise effects on the locality. Noise limits will be met as recommended in industry-recognised guidance and demonstrated within the ES Noise Assessment. The ES acknowledges that the final choice of turbine model has yet to be made: the noise assessment (as with other matters examined) is based on a 'candidate' turbine model and considers a "worst case" scenario. If approved, conditions would be recommended to confirm the chosen turbine and require it to meet specified noise levels to ensure no adverse amenity (or nuisance) effects occur. Any noise impacts from traffic are not considered significant given the lack of receptors along the construction route and temporary nature and short-term duration of the construction programme. A number of surrounding properties would experience significant unacceptable visual impacts due to the close proximity and height of the proposed turbines, and their elevated position, which would be overbearing and unacceptable for occupants/visitors. This is reflected in the recommendation put to committee. From the ES, four inhabited residential properties to the north are likely to experience potential shadow flicker effects from the two northernmost turbines (1 and 5); in order mitigate these impacts the applicant proposes to install a shadow flicker impact control module to these turbines and also proposes a planning condition to ensure that any complaints are investigated and that any shadow flicker problem is substantiated and rectified promptly. Following consultation, the Environmental Health Manager has not objected to the proposal on the grounds of the unacceptable shadow flicker effects subject to imposition of a condition requiring installation of above mentioned shadow flicker control module, and measures to address any complaints received regarding shadow flicker.

Regarding the final bullet point, any views of the turbines from the property in question (which lies approx. 1.9km to the north-east) will be screened by surrounding forestry, although it is acknowledged that this could be felled at any time. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Impact on the local environment - turbines of the height proposed will have a negative impact upon the local environment both in terms of their visual impact and also that on bird and wildlife within this area of natural beauty.

A number of turbine sites already exist within the locality which is in danger of suffering from turbine overload. The amount of concrete that will be used during the installation of the proposed site begs the question 'how environmentally friendly' can such a development be?

This ridge has enough wind turbines, and they are now a blight on the landscape.

The turbines are far too big and will damage the visual environment. Comment (PO): The proposed siting, location, and height of the turbines would give rise to unacceptable significant adverse landscape and visual effects, including cumulative effects when combined with existing operational and consented wind energy developments in the area and would not integrate sensitively into the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be unacceptable and contrary to development plan and associated supplementary guidance (see considerations below). The ES has assessed the likely effects of the development on ecological and ornithology interests, and predicts no significant adverse impacts subject to mitigation measures identified within the ES being fully implemented. Scottish Natural Heritage has not objected to the proposal and in terms of protected species, including birds advises that that the ES has adequately identified the potential impacts on habitats and species, and that implementation of proposed mitigation and enhancement measures will afford satisfactory protection for local habitats and species. Similarly RSPB Scotland has not objected to the proposal and considers that it is unlikely to have a significant impact on birds in the local area based on the bird surveys carried (and provided a condition is attached requiring a goshawk breeding survey prior to construction or felling). SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT POLICY

Object to government and Council ignoring public opinion. Accept that permission will be given because the Scottish Government target of 100% renewable energy by 2020.

Comment (PO): National policy frameworks strongly favour the use of renewable energy technology and in this case, the 15MW contribution towards national targets would make a helpful contribution towards national objectives to reduce carbon emissions. However, the identified contributions are not considered sufficient to outweigh the unacceptable significant adverse landscape and visual effects (and impacts on aviation safety) that arise from this proposal. SUPPORT PROPOSAL

I am in support of this development. I have been involved in other Windfarms and have seen the benefit to local communities and business not just during construction but also once commissioned. As one of the closest neighbours I am in full support of this project.

Proposal would bring money into the local community.

I have reviewed the application and environmental statement and believe the turbines proposed are appropriate to the local landscape and existing turbines in the area.

I live in the Strathisla Community Council area and have turbines on my farm. The wind farm has allowed me to support and grow my family agricultural business.

I also live within 500m of the turbines and have found no negative impact from them.

There have been far fewer projects of this kind in recent years and I believe the local economy and community benefits greatly when wind turbines can be developed in the correct location.

Comment (PO): These comments are noted but not considered to outweigh the unacceptable significant adverse landscape and visual effects (and impacts on aviation safety) that arise from this proposal. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS The application comprises the following supporting documents/submissions: The Environmental Statement (ES) - This assesses the likely significance of environmental effects of the proposed development in terms of landscape and visual; ecology and ornithology; noise and vibration; geology, hydrology and hydrogeology; archaeology and cultural heritage; transportation and access; economy, tourism and recreation; aviation and telecommunications; and shadow flicker during all stages of the development (construction, operation and decommissioning), including cumulative effects (Chapters 6 - 14 refer). Climate change and atmospheric emissions are also considered (Chapter 5). Mitigation measures are identified within individual topic chapters which aim to reduce or avoid significant adverse effects (referred to as 'embedded mitigation measures') and have been incorporated into the design of the proposed windfarm or are proposed as part of its construction or operational management. The Planning Statement (PS) - This assesses the proposal against development plan policy and other material considerations, and highlights its contribution towards achieving renewable energy targets. The PS includes detailed consideration of the acceptability of the predicted environmental and amenity affects, and compliance of the proposal with the development plan and other material considerations such as national policy, guidance and other local planning policies and guidance. The PS states that it has been demonstrated that all predicted (i.e. Significant and Not Significant) effects would be acceptable due to the careful siting and design of the proposed wind farm, and taking account of localised, site specific matters. It further contends that although the proposal would generate a limited number of significant adverse cumulative effects, these would occur regardless as a result of existing and consented developments in the area, and taking account of localised factors are considered to be acceptable in environmental and planning policy terms. The PS states that the acceptability of the predicted effects would be strengthened by the limited number and localised nature of these effects, when balanced against the important renewable energy and socio-economic benefits of the proposal. In terms of acceptability and planning judgement it states that any reduction in turbine heights and numbers would result in more expensive and sub-optimal renewable energy production, adversely affecting the achievability of renewable energy targets and cost of electricity. It argues

that that the scale of the renewable energy and socio-economic benefits from the current proposal in this case would sufficiently outweigh any predicted localised adverse environmental or amenity effects. In terms of the statutory requirement to determine the planning application in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, the PS asserts that the proposal accords with the development plan (when read as a whole) and relevant material considerations which either support the proposed development or are complied with in this instance. It argues that these demonstrate that the proposal complies with, and should benefit from, the presumption in favour of development which contributes towards sustainable development, as set out within the SPP. The PS concludes that the proposed development would not result in any unacceptable significant adverse impacts and that it accords in full with the development plan and other applicable local and national planning policies and considerations, and on this basis, is considered to be necessary and acceptable in environmental, socio-economic, amenity, legislative and planning policy terms. Community Engagement Report - This provides a record of findings and consultation activities undertaken in the lead up to submission of the current planning application from June 2015 to the time of the report, and has involved an informal an Pre-Application Consultation PAC-based approach (given the project is under the threshold for 'Major' applications), consultation with community councils and an association, resident liaison via letter and door-to-door exercise and public exhibitions. The report highlights the various issues/concerns raised and how the final layout of the proposed development has taken on board this feedback, in terms of ensuring that noise levels can be met and potential landscape and visual impacts minimised. Further information entitled 'Applicant Update on Policy and Consultee Positions' - This sets out a response to the planning policy issues and matters raised by consultees, regarding landscape and visual impacts, aviation matters and forestry. It also includes an update of the renewable energy framework, with key relevant points that the applicant considers should be taken into account when considering the need case for the proposal and overall summary conclusions which support a recommendation of approval. Environmental Impact Assessment matters On 16 May 2017, the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 came into force. The 2017 regulations revoked the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 with certain exceptions. The 2011 Regulations continue to have effect for an application (and any subsequent appeal) for planning permission where a formal Scoping Opinion was issued in connection with the application before 16 May 2017. That was done in this case and therefore this application has been determined in accordance with the 2011 regulations as they applied before 16 May 2017. OBSERVATIONS Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan i.e. the adopted Moray Local Development Plan

2015 (MLDP) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Having regard to the provisions of the development plan the main issues in this case are:

Landscape and visual impact (including cumulative impact);

Aviation/defence safety; and

Contribution to renewable energy targets. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Moray Local Development Plan 2015 The Moray Local Development Plan (MLDP) 2015 and its associated supplementary guidance form the basis for determination of this application and represent the most up-to-date development plan policy and guidance for Moray. The relevant policies and guidance are as follows: Policy ER1 Renewable Energy Proposals gives favourable consideration to all renewable energy proposals where they meet set criteria, including that they safeguard the built and natural environment; and that they avoid or address any unacceptable significant impacts. The policy states that the council is likely to support onshore wind turbine proposals in areas with potential subject to detailed consideration, which includes taking account of the Moray Windfarm Landscape Capacity Study; the landscape being capable of accommodating the development without significant harm to landscape character or visual amenity; the proposal is appropriate to the scale and character of its setting; the proposal addresses cumulative impact; there would be no detrimental impact on communities or on local amenity from noise, shadow flicker, and visual dominance (unless mitigated); that any impacts on aviation/defence interests, natural and historic interests are addressed adequately; and that any site constraints and appropriate provision for decommissioning and restoration are in place. Policy PP1 Sustainable Economic Growth supports development which contributes to the delivery of sustainable economic growth and the transition of Moray towards a low carbon economy where the quality of the natural and built environment is safeguarded. Policy IMP1 Developer Requirements requires new development to be sensitively sited, designed and serviced appropriate to the amenity of the area. The policy requires developments to have a scale, density and character that reflects the surrounding area; and integrates with the surrounding landscape. Other local development plan policies relevant to the proposal are:

Policy E1 Natura 2000 Sites and National Nature Conservation Sites which protects international and national nature conservation sites from development.

Policy E2 Local Nature Conservation Sites and Biodiversity which provides criteria to safeguard sites and species including raised peat bog, wetlands, protected species, wildlife sites and other valuable local habitat.

Policy E3 Protected Species which protects European protected species and nationally protected birds from development.

Policy E4 Trees and Development protects trees/woodland and where this is removed in association with development, the provision of compensatory planting.

Policy BE1 Scheduled Monuments and National Designations protects scheduled ancient monuments and nationally important archaeological sites from

development; and sets criteria to assess any significant impact on locally important archaeological sites.

Policy BE2 Listed Buildings protects listed buildings from proposals which would have a harmful impact on their character, integrity or setting.

Policy BE3 Conservation Areas protects conservation areas from proposals which would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area.

Policy BE5 Battlefields, Gardens and Designed Landscapes rejects proposals which would adversely impact on these designations unless the overall character reasons for designation would not be compromised; or where the impacts could be mitigated and are outweighed by benefits of the proposal.

Policy EP4 Private Water Supplies which seeks to ensure provision of safe water supplies and protecting of existing supplies.

Policy EP5 Surface Water Drainage: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) requires surface water from development to be dealt with in a sustainable manner.

Policy EP6 Waterbodies seeks to ensure that development is designed to avoid adverse impacts upon the water environment.

Policy EP7 Control of Development in Flood Risk Areas directs development away from areas at risk of flooding or where it would materially increase the possibility of flooding elsewhere.

Policy EP8 Pollution only supports proposals which demonstrate no (or mitigated) pollution control (noise, air, water and light emissions).

Policy EP9 Contaminated Land requires proposals to address potential contamination of land by investigation and remediation.

Policy EP10 Foul Drainage requires private foul drainage systems not to pose or add risk to of detrimental effects on the natural environment.

Policy EP12 Air Quality aims to protect air quality and to mitigate the effects of proposals in order to protect human health and wellbeing.

Policy ER2 Woodlands only permits removal of woodland where it can be demonstrated that its loss is clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits at national/regional/local level, and if compensatory planting has been agreed.

Policy ER6 Soil Resources requires proposals to demonstrate no unnecessary disturbance of soils, peat and associated vegetation, which may otherwise lead to release of carbon dioxide.

Policy T1 Transport Infrastructure Improvements promotes improvement of road and rail, with priority being given to dualling of the A96 Aberdeen to Inverness routes, and early delivery of bypasses.

Policy T2 Provision of Access requires proposals to provide safe and suitable access for all end users including mitigation of the existing network where required to address impacts of the development.

Policy T5 requires parking provision in accordance with current parking standards.

Policy T6 advocates use of the road hierarchy to assist assessment of planning applications, in particular to ensure the safety and free flow of traffic and for consideration of road design and traffic management requirements.

Policy T7 Safeguarding and Promotion of Walking, Cycling and Equestrian Networks which promotes the improvement of/and protects the walking, cycling and equestrian networks.

Policy IMP2 Development Impact Studies which requires submission of formal assessments (Environmental, Transport, Noise etc.) to accompany applications, so that impacts can be quantified and appropriate mitigation measures identified.

Policy IMP3 Developer Obligations provides for contributions to be sought from developers where development would have an adverse or negative impact on existing infrastructure, community facilities or amenity.

Supplementary policy guidance consists of the following:

The Moray Onshore Wind Energy Policy Guidance (MOWE) 2017, which is statutory supplementary guidance.

The Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study (MWELCS) 2017, a technical appendix to MOWE, but also approved as a material consideration in its own right;

These supersede the Moray Onshore Wind Energy Guidance (MOWE) 2013 and Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study (MLCS) 2012 guidance, and are the result of a recently completed detailed review of guidance to provide an updated policy framework for determining wind energy proposals in Moray. Also of relevance if the Councils Supplementary Guidance on Trees and Development that supplements the application of policies E4 Trees and Development and policy ER2 Development in Woodlands. Moray Onshore Wind Energy (MOWE) Policy Guidance (2017) The MOWE was adopted by the Council for use as statutory Supplementary Guidance on 1st November 2017 and is a material consideration in the determination of wind energy proposals. It sets out the Council's approach to considering and determining planning applications and the Council's overall strategy for wind turbine development, including spatial frameworks and detailed policy guidance maps for three typologies of turbine development, which has been informed by the MWELCS (2017) (see below). It contains detailed guidance and information requirements for the various issues to be addressed and/or included in any application and expects developers to demonstrate how their proposals can be integrated into the Moray landscape, in accordance with MWELCS/MOWE guidance. The MOWE includes the (strategic) spatial framework identifying areas 'likely to be most appropriate for onshore wind farms', in accordance with paragraph 161 of Scottish Planning Policy and Policy Guidance Maps, identifying constraints in line with Policy ER1. It also identifies 'areas with the greatest potential for wind development', in accordance with paragraph 162 of Scottish Planning Policy. These areas are defined in the MOWE as areas with the greatest potential for further investigating the feasibility of developing wind farms (although this does not imply a presumption in favour of planning consent, page 12 refers) and are provided in the form of a series of Policy Guidance maps. Of the five proposed turbines, three (2, 3 and 4) lie within an area of potential considered suitable for medium typology turbines (50-80m) (MOWE, Map 17 page 92 refers) (with the remaining two (1 and 5) not being located within any identified area). At 130m high none of the current proposed turbines however are located within an area identified as having greatest potential for the large typology turbines (80-130m) (MOWE, Map 16, page 91 refers), reflecting the sensitivity of this particular landscape as outlined in the Landscape capacity Study. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the MOWE. For large scale turbines, the MOWE also identifies requirements for residential safeguarding distances between turbines and towns, villages and rural communities (2km) and rural residential properties (1km). In addition, it requires proposals to meet a 10 times rotor diameter requirement for residential amenity impacts including shadow flicker, and a

safeguarding distance of 1.5 x height of turbine to blade tip to minimise the safety risk to road and rail users. The proposal fails to meet the above requirements as turbine numbers 1 and/or 5 would be located within 1km of five neighbouring residential properties (4 inhabited at time of report), nor would it satisfy the minimum safeguarding distance of 10 times rotor diameter (plus 50m micro-siting allowance) in relation to 2 properties. The close proximity, height and elevated position of the turbines to these properties would give rise to unacceptable significant impacts upon residential amenity contrary to the MOWE (see considerations below). Moray Wind Energy Landscape Capacity Study (MWELCS) 2017 The MWELCS 2017 is an integral part of the MOWE and a material consideration in its own right, requiring applicants to assess their proposals against the study and demonstrate how their proposal can be integrated into the Moray landscape. The MWELCS sets out the methodology for assessing wind turbine developments, including information on landscape character areas and the various turbine typologies. This has involved the production of landscape and visual sensitivity assessments for 15 landscape character types/sub areas (LCTs) within Moray, which consider sensitivity against identified landscape and visual criteria for the different typologies. The sensitivity of each landscape character type/sub-type to the different types of turbine development is based on key landscape and visual characteristics and cumulative landscape and visual effects, and develops an overall sensitivity rating for each character type relative to the four turbine typologies. For each landscape character type, the sensitivity assessment takes account of existing/consented wind farm developments, a summary of the capacity of the landscape type, cumulative issues, constraints, opportunities and guidance on development. As defined, the current proposal for large typology turbines (80-130m) is located within LCT8a defined as the 'Broad Forested Hills within Upland Farmland', where the sensitivity to wind energy development is summarised as follows: "The Broad Forested Hills within Upland Farmland (8a) landscape character type comprises the predominantly forested broader hills and upland plateaux which contain the lower and more settled Upland Farmland (8) which extends across the Isla Valley and its northern tributaries. Although the majority of these upland areas have a simple landform of gentle slopes, broad indistinct summits and rounded ridges, the more defined conical 'landmark' hills of Binn of Cullen and Meikle Balloch also occur and these are highly sensitive to most scales of wind turbine development. These landscapes are very sparsely settled although they are surrounded by well-settled and farmed lowland landscapes increasing sensitivity in relation to wider landscape context and views. While the landmark hills within this character type are visually prominent, forested plateaux and broad ridges form relatively low and even containing skylines to adjacent character types. Sensitivity is increased where parts of these upland areas form the backdrop to Fochabers; the Gordon Castle designed landscape and the Spey." The MWELCS concludes that there would be a high-medium sensitivity to the large typology (turbines 80-130m) with very limited scope to accommodate this size of wind turbine in this landscape character type. It concludes that turbines towards the lower height band of this typology (less than 100m to tip) would minimise effects on adjacent settled landscapes and that turbines should be set well back into the interior of more extensive areas of upland plateau to minimise intrusion on adjacent settled landscapes.

Potential cumulative effects with the consented Aultmore wind farm and wind turbines located in the adjacent Upland Farmland (8) landscape character type are considered to be a major constraint to accommodating additional development in this landscape. The proposal, in terms of siting, location, and height of the turbines is likely to give rise to significant and unacceptable landscape, visual and cumulative impacts contrary to the Landscape Capacity Study (see considerations below). Other Policy Considerations The submitted Environmental and Planning Statements identify various International, EU and national commitments to tackling the effects of climate change and targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Additional submitted information highlights two policy documents recently published by the Scottish Government, the Scottish Energy Strategy (Dec 2017) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement (Dec 2017), which give increased qualified support for onshore wind development along with new targets, stating the need for a balanced approach including consideration of benefits and protection of landscape. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 places a duty on public bodies to act sustainability and meet emissions targets including a requirement to achieve at least an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (over 1990 levels). This figure is likely to increase to 90% by 2050 when the Climate Change Bill, published in June 2017 becomes legislation in 2019. The National Planning Framework 3 (2014) and Scottish Planning Policy (2014) support the expansion of renewable energy capacity. Paragraph 169 of Scottish Planning Policy sets out a number of criteria to consider in relation to energy infrastructure, including net economic impact, the contribution towards renewable energy targets, the effect on greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative impacts, landscape and visual impacts, impacts on the historic environment and impacts on tourism and recreation. These factors are considered in the report below, and it is clear that national policy expects possible impacts on the landscape and visual receptors to be balanced alongside possible environmental and economic benefits. Scottish Planning Policy also outlines a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 29 states that this includes giving due weight to net economic benefit and supporting the delivery of energy infrastructure, but also protecting the landscape. The thrust of national policy is therefore to give due weight to the range of factors contributing to sustainable development. In this case, it is considered that the adverse landscape and visual impacts of the proposal described below outweigh its potential benefits. ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSAL Landscape and Visual Impacts (ER1, IMP1, MOWE, MWELCS and SPP) MLDP Policy ER1 favourably considers renewable energy proposals where they meet set criteria, including inter alia that they safeguard the built and natural environment and avoid or address any unacceptable significant landscape and visual impacts. The policy states that the council is likely to support onshore wind turbine proposals in areas with potential (as identified in the Spatial Framework) subject to detailed consideration through assessment of the details of the proposal, including its benefits and the extent to which it avoids or mitigates any unacceptable significant adverse impact. In relation specifically to landscape and visual impact this includes taking account of the Moray Windfarm Landscape Capacity Study; the landscape being capable of accommodating the

development without significant harm to landscape character or visual amenity; the proposal is appropriate to the scale and character of its setting; the proposal addresses cumulative impact; and that the proposal addresses any detrimental impact to communities or on local amenity from noise, shadow flicker, and visual dominance. Policy IMP1 requires any development to be sensitively sited, designed and serviced, and integrated into the surrounding landscape. The ES (Chapter 9) assesses the predicted landscape and visual effects of the proposed development, including cumulative effects. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) including its methodology and visualisations follows current best practice guidance, and applies reasoned professional judgement. The ES/LVIA predicts that significant landscape effects would occur within 2-3km of the proposed turbines, to the north of the Lurg Hill summit, and along the B9018 corridor to the north and northwest of Lurg Hill (with these effects diminishing with distance from the proposal); however, it considers that effects these would be mitigated by the landscape characteristics of Lurg Hill, which demonstrate a lower sensitivity to wind energy development; namely the simple, broad topography and skylines, forested land cover and relatively low settlement density. The ES/LIVA predicts significant visual effects from viewpoints (1, 2, 3 and 4) within approximately 4km of the nearest turbine locations, views the B9018 road to the north near Kirktown of Deskford, Knock Hill, Berryhillock village and the church hall, and four residential properties in the surrounding area (with a further 8 being assessed as significant, but benefitting from screening effects from intervening vegetation); it concludes however that there would be no 'dominant' or 'overbearing' effects on residential visual amenity. The Planning Statement concludes that the scale, layout and design of the proposed development is appropriate and acceptable, and will not result in unacceptable or detrimental significant adverse landscape, visual or cumulative impacts. It considers that the proposal can be successfully integrated into the landscape and accords with development plan policy, national and other planning policies/considerations. The Council's Appointed Landscape Adviser has carried out an appraisal of the proposal which has included a review of the ES (and additional supporting information) and site visits to the area and key assessment viewpoints. The following assessment is based upon the response and conclusions of the Adviser. Siting and Design Paragraph 132 (page 112) of the ES states that the….' proposed development seeks a turbine height of up to 130 m in line with the revised Moray LCS 2016, which notes that there is some very limited scope identified for the large typology turbines (80-130 m to blade tip)'. The site selection and design section of the ES (paragraph 15, page 17) states that the aim has been to achieve a simple, rational and cohesive design from most viewpoints which would be 'broadly compatible or coexist' with other existing and consented wind energy developments within 5km of the proposed site. Table 3-2 (pg. 17) in this chapter of the ES outlines design considerations, explaining that…."the turbines were moved to the north to achieve a more 'recessive' layout beyond Lurg Hill such that the apparent scale of the turbines would appear compatible with, and 'unify' the existing and consented turbines visible from south of the development site". While the above points are acknowledged, paragraph 132 of the ES fails to additionally note that the MWELCS advises that turbines less than 100m high would be more likely to minimise effects on adjacent settled landscapes. The 130m high turbines proposed in this

location would be sited close to the Burn of Deskford Valley and would dominate the scale of this settled and more richly patterned farmed landscape. Turbines of this size would also result in more pronounced cumulative effects with operational turbines sited on the lower slopes of Lurg Hill. These contrasts in scale (between landscape features and operational turbines) are demonstrated by the visualisations set out in Figures 9.22e and f, and viewpoints 2, 4 and 5 in the ES. While it is noted there is improvement to the siting and design of the proposal from the scoping layout (usefully shown in Figures 9.23a-c) the grouping of turbines has less cohesion in views from the east. This is demonstrated in viewpoint 6 where turbine 3 is noticeably raised above the other 4 turbines. Turbine 3 is also problematic from viewpoint 8 which is similarly located to the east of the wind farm, appearing dislocated from the main grouping of turbines 1-4. It is considered that the siting and design of the proposal has not successfully mitigated conflicts of scale and pattern with the disparate collection of existing single and small groups of wind turbines present on the southern slopes of Lurg Hill and in the Grange Crossroads area. These effects are particularly pronounced in views from the Grange Crossroads and Kirkton of Deskford area (viewpoints 2 and 5) where different sizes and patterns of wind turbines are seen in close proximity. Even in more distant views from the south and east, the contrasting layout and size of turbines is appreciable and this proposal would add to the cluttered appearance of development associated with Lurg Hill and its immediate surroundings. In terms of ancillary development, the proposed control building is prominently sited, and this is particularly evident in viewpoints 2 and 4. The forest felling proposals to accommodate the wind turbines (shown in Figure 9.21) are illustrated in key viewpoints. The design of felling is considered to be particularly poor in elevated views from the Bin of Cullen (viewpoint 7) with boundaries and the felling coupe to accommodate turbine 1 appearing to bear little relationship to landform. Effects on Landscape Character The 'Broad Forested Hills within Upland Farmland' area (LCT8a) in which the proposal lies is and will already be characterised to an extent by the consented Aultmore wind farm to the east and operational turbines to the south. The proposal would consolidate this aspect of character, although there would be adverse effects on the local focus provided by Lurg Hill which is more prominent than other parts of this landscape. Significant adverse landscape effects in particular would arise on the smaller scale valley of the Burn of Deskford, which lies within the Rolling Coastal Farmland (4a) landscape character type identified in the 2016 MWELCS to the north of the proposed development. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility ZTV (ES, Figure 9.5) shows widespread theoretical visibility extending within 5km of the wind farm becoming more broken in extent beyond this distance. Visibility is shielded to some degree to the north-west beyond 6km by the higher ground of Bin of Cullen and to the west beyond 8km through Millstone Hill. 20 representative viewpoints have been selected for the visual assessment. Viewpoints 1-14 focus on an area within approximately 10km from the wind farm site and provide a useful spread of relatively close local views. The Council's Landscape Adviser's appraisal focusses on these local views within Moray where it is considered that significant visual effects are most likely to occur.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) set out in the ES judges that significant effects resulting from the proposed wind farm alone would occur on viewpoints 1, 2, 3 and 4. Significant cumulative effects (where this wind farm is seen in together with operational and consented wind energy developments) would additionally occur from viewpoints 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16 and 17. Although it is considered that the magnitude of change is under-stated in the LVIA in some instances, the Council's Adviser is in general agreement with the overall findings on significance from these viewpoints. The LVIA does not state whether effects would be adverse or beneficial. The Council's Adviser considers that effects on these views would be adverse and has provided the following further commentary on key visual effects. In close views within approximately 5km to the north and south of the proposed development site, the contrast between the 130m high Lurg Hill wind turbines and the operational Netherton of Windyhills and Myreton Crossroads turbines, which are 92m and 80/89m high respectively, is readily appreciated. The disparate siting layout of each of these developments (and in some views also the Balnamoon Grange single turbine) will also contribute to the cluttered appearance of wind turbines and to a lesser degree, transmission lines in this area. Representative viewpoints 2 and 5 demonstrate these effects. Significant adverse effects will also occur in views from the landmark hills of Bin of Cullen and Knock Hill. While the proposal will lie 6.4km from Bin of Cullen, and will not affect key views to the north across the Moray Firth, it will adversely affect views to the landmark feature of Knock Hill by appearing to diminish its scale and prominence. The proposal would lie close to Knock Hill (3.6km) and would have a significant adverse effect on its setting and views from its summit. Both hills are very popular with walkers. Effects on Settlements and Residential Properties Table 9-9 in the ES sets out the assessment of effects on settlements. It concludes that significant effects would occur on the more elevated parts of Kirkton of Deskford and from Berryhillock. The Council's Landscape Advisor notes that the assessment set out in Table 9-9 for these settlements does not provide a consistent description of the other wind energy developments which will be visible simultaneously with the Lurg Hill proposal. There is also no assessment of views from the settlement of Grange Crossroads despite it being of a similar size to Berryhillock. It is considered that there would be likely to be an intensification of cumulative effects of wind energy development experienced from Grange Crossroads. The LVIA and associated Residential Visual Amenity Assessment RVAA (ES, Appendix 9c) identifies 30 residential properties within 2 km of the proposal development, with between 4 and 12 being significantly affected by the proposal (the precise number dependent on the screening provided by woodland). A further 39 properties are identified within 3 km of the proposal. The RVAA predicts that none of the properties assessed would be adversely affected in terms of their residential visual amenity due to intervening distances and combinations of the property setting, orientation and the visual composition and manner in which the proposed wind farm would be experienced, such that the turbines would not overshadow the properties or appear oppressive or surrounding on all sides. Notwithstanding the above findings, from on-site observations it is considered that a number of properties would experience significant visual impacts (from garden ground, accesses and/or windows) due to the close proximity and height of the proposed turbines,

and their elevated position, which would be overbearing and unacceptable for occupants/visitors. Trees seen in the context of the proposed turbines (as a scale indicator) would further emphasise the overwhelming vertical scale of the turbines from these locations. The affected properties include Upper Skeith (967m from nearest turbine), Mid Skeith (962m), Kintywaird (920m), Clochmacreich (1152m), Langlanburn (1364m), Backies (992m) and Craibstone Cottages (1310m); although the latter two properties were unoccupied at the time of the report. Effects on the B9018 The assessment of sequential cumulative effects on the B9018 is well-presented with detailed ZTV maps, photographs and visualisations providing useful and clear information. The Council's Adviser disagrees however within the LVIA that effects will not be significant between Ardoch and Berryhillock, where both Lurg Hill, Netherton of Windyhills and Aultmore will be visible and between Mains of Paithnick to Myreton, where this proposal will exacerbate the already cluttered appearance of operational wind turbines. Summary of Landscape and Visual Impacts The proposal is located within the Broad Forested Hills within Upland Farmland (8a) landscape character type identified in the 2017 MWELCS. The MWELCS judges that there is some limited scope to accommodate the large typology of wind turbine (80-130m high) within this landscape character type although constraints to development include the proximity of smaller scale settled landscapes and cumulative effects with other operational and consented wind energy development. The guidance set out in the MWELCS for this landscape character type concludes that turbines less than 100m high would be likely to minimise landscape and visual effects. This proposal would introduce a group of noticeably larger turbines into an area where a disparate array of differently sized operational wind turbines is already present. The consented Aultmore wind farm would add further wind energy development close by, although the siting of this particular development in the interior of a broad and relatively low forested hill and the use of 90/110m high turbines reduces its prominence from surrounding settled areas and cumulative effects with single and small groups of large farm turbines sited in the Grange Crossroads area. Significant adverse effects would occur on the character of the nearby Burn of Deskford Valley where the proposed 130m high turbines would dominate the scale of buildings, woodlands and farmland. There would also be significant adverse effects on views from settlement and the B9018 in the Kirkton of Deskford to Grange Crossroads area, within approximately 5km of the proposed wind farm site and from Knock Hill and the Bin of Cullen. The contrasts of scale and siting between this proposal and operational wind turbines sited on the lower slopes of Lurg Hill would contribute to these visual effects. A number of inhabited properties within the immediate surrounding area would also experience significant visual impacts due to the close proximity and height of the proposed turbines, and their elevated position, which would be overbearing and unacceptable for occupants/visitors. Trees seen in the context of the proposed turbines (as a scale indicator) would further emphasise the overwhelming vertical scale of the turbines from these locations. From the above considerations and identified significant adverse landscape character, visual, cumulative and amenity impacts the proposal is unacceptable and contrary to Policy ER1, PP1 and IMP1, as it would not provide for a sensitive development of

renewable energy nor integrate into the surrounding landscape the proposal. It would also be counter to relevant advice and guidance as contained in the MOWE and MWELCS. Further Information During the course of the consideration process, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to reduce the landscape, visual and cumulative effects of the proposal, by considering various amendments suggested by the Council. These included giving consideration to opting to use smaller turbines (and lowering or omitting turbine 3), relocating the proposed control building, designing more sensitive felling and restocking of woodland arrangements to better accommodate the proposed wind farm and retention of screening woodland on Clune Hill 5km to the south of the site to avoid impact on the Cullen House Inventory listed designed landscape. The applicant, in response, has submitted additional information, 'Appendix A, Applicant's Response to Consultees Position and Policy Update, February 2018', which essentially contends that permission should be granted, citing compliance with local and national planning policy and other appeal decisions. It concludes that the contrast in turbine scales between existing and consented turbines and the proposal would not jar unacceptably and that whilst it would contribute to the influence of wind turbines as a characteristic element within the 'Broad Forested Hills within Upland Farmland (8a)' LCT its impact would be localised, and that the clustering of turbines across Lurg Hill would protect the wider landscape. This further information whilst noted does not address the concerns raised. The upland area in which the proposal is located is not extensive in area, and coupled with the cumulative context, reduces scope for larger turbines similar to those currently proposed. Although the landscape and visual effects may be localised, SPP advises that wind farm sites should be designed to ensure that impacts are minimised. Furthermore, contrary to the views outlined the clustering of developments cannot be seen as a positive effect in this case as the differences in size, design and pattern of turbines exacerbates existing visual clutter and confusion. The Council's Landscape Adviser has provided further comments in response which are outlined within the Consultations Section above. The applicant has further advised that the control building cannot be moved due to environmental constraints identified within the ES which limit any relocation to similarly visible locations. The applicant has however confirmed that the woodland at Clune Hill will be managed as continuous cover, and whilst thinned will remain a screening element in views from the north. Impacts on Natural Heritage (Ecology and Ornithology) (ER1, E1, E2, E3, IMP1, MOWE) MLDP 2015 Policy ER1 favourably considers renewable energy proposals where they inter alia are compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance the natural environment, and avoid/address any unacceptable significant adverse impacts, including ecological impacts. Policy E1 Natura 2000 Sites and National Nature Conservation Sites permits development where, after appropriate assessment, there is no adverse effect on the integrity of the designation and its objectives are not compromised. Policy E2 Local Nature Conservation Sites and Biodiversity provides criteria to safeguard sites and species including raised peat bog, wetlands, protected species, wildlife sites and other valuable local habitat. Except in certain circumstances, Policy E3 Protected Species indicates that proposals having adverse effects on protected species will not be approved and together with a species survey, proposals should identify mitigation to address impacts. Policy IMP1 h)

requires developments to achieve conservation and where possible, enhancement of natural environmental resources. There are no statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designations with the application site. The closest internationally designated site Reidside Moss SAC and SSSI is designated for its active raised bog priority feature and lies approx. 8.5 km to the east. Sheilwood Pastures SSSI is located approx. 5.1 km to the south and is designated for its biological features. Chapter 13 of the ES assesses the effects of the development on ecological and ornithology interests both on and around the site, and has been informed by a desk study, consultation exercise/previous experience, and habitat, bird and protected species surveys. This predicts no significant effects or adverse impacts, including cumulative effects subject to mitigation measures identified within the ES being fully implemented. For terrestrial and aquatic habitats, no significant effects are predicted due to the general poor mix of habitats present on site which is mainly commercial forestry plantation (at various stages of felling/replanting) and absence of any nearby nationally or internationally protected habitats. With regard to protected species, a small number of signs of badger and pine martin, and bat flights were recorded. In each case, no signs of breeding were found, although the ES acknowledges that this cannot be entirely dismissed due to access being restricted by forestry (felling) activities and the density of the standing conifers. The assessment also predicts no significant effects upon ornithological interests or designated sites. Bird surveys including breeding, overwintering and activity (flight) surveys and species information recorded was typical of that found within commercial forestry plantation. Flight activity surveys recorded a limited number of species of notable nature conservation interest, including pink footed geese, greylag goose, short eared owl, peregrine falcon and goshawk; however, none were recorded in such numbers at heights and locations to be considered a discernible collision risk. The assessment also identifies that the proposal would have no adverse effects on any Special Area of Protection or SSSI due to the distances from these sites. A range of mitigation and enhancement measures, adopted within the design of the proposal, are identified in the ES to minimise pollution impacts and enhance habitats. These include (where possible) use of existing rather than form new access tracks, to reduce habitat loss and disturbance; applying a 50m buffer from watercourses and waterbodies to reduce the likelihood of water contamination/siltation (which in turn would affect associated species); applying a 50m buffer from blade tip to forest edge to ensure protection of bat species using the area; pre-construction surveys; micro-siting to reflect up-dated distributions and presence of species; preparation of an Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to address working practices and pollution controls; appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works; and use of 'best practice' to reduce/prevent pollution incidents. Following consultation, Scottish Natural Heritage has advised that the proposal will not impact on any statutory protected areas; in terms of protected species, including birds SNH advises that that the ES has adequately identified the potential impacts on habitats

and species, and that implementation of proposed mitigation and enhancement measures within the ES will afford satisfactory protection for local habitats and species. Similarly RSPB Scotland considers that the proposal itself (based on the bird surveys) is unlikely to have a significant impact on birds in the local area and recommends, as proposed within the Environmental Statement (Section 13.7.1, paragraph 313), that a goshawk breeding survey is carried out prior to construction or felling. It also is supportive of felling taking place out with the bird breeding season, to prevent the potential disturbance to Schedule 1 species and recommends a programme for post-construction monitoring to assess impact on birds arising from this and other wind farms, to understand potential issues connected to the build-up of turbines and birds, and inform future responses. From the above considerations and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable significant adverse effects on nature conservation (ecological and ornithological) interests), and would accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance. Impacts on Built Heritage (Archaeology and Cultural Heritage) (ER1, BE1, BE2, BE3, BE5, IMP1, MOWE) MLDP 2015 Policy ER1 favourably considers renewable energy proposals where they inter alia are compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance the natural environment, and avoid or resolve impacts on the historic environment and cultural heritage. From Policy BE1, BE2, BE3 and BE5 proposals will be refused where they adversely affect Scheduled Monuments and local archaeological sites, Garden and Designed Landscapes, listed buildings and Conservation Areas unless, for the former, the effect on the qualities of the designation are outweighed by other benefits of national importance and any significant adverse effects can be mitigated. Policy IMP1 h) requires any proposal to demonstrate conservation of built environmental resources. Chapter 10 of the ES assesses the impact of the proposed development upon archaeology and cultural heritage on and around the site, including direct effects on assets within the site and indirect effects upon the setting of heritage assets in the wider area. The methodology for the assessment follows the staged approach to EIA as set out in Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting (Historic Environment Scotland (HES), 2016) and includes three study areas (1km, 5km and 10km), a Zone of Theoretical Visibility plan, visualisations and analysis of effects on identified assets. The assessment predicts no significant adverse impacts on the historic environment and confirms that no mitigation is required. For the former, there are no designated assets recorded on the site, therefore no significant effects are identified. Given the characteristics of the site, as a commercial forestry site and as a result of previous ploughing, the ES further outlines that there is a low potential for previously unrecorded archaeological features to be present. In terms of the wider area, twelve historic assets have been identified which could be subject to significant indirect effects, requiring further consideration. These are located predominantly to the north and northeast of the site, and include four Scheduled Monuments, six Listed Buildings (2 Category A, (Deskford Church, Sacrament House and Tower of Deskford, and Letterfourie House) and 4 Category B), Conservation Areas at Cullen and Fordyce, and the Cullen House Inventory garden and designed landscape. The detailed assessment shows that although the proposal is likely to be visible in some

views from these assets, their key archaeological, historic or architectural interests would not be impacted upon negatively due to a range of factors including intervening distance to the turbines, topography, woodland cover, trees/vegetation and/or orientation. On this basis the ES concludes that the proposal would not result in any significant or negative indirect effects. Following consultation, Historic Environment Scotland (HES) has not objected to the proposed development and has advised that for the most part the methodology used is appropriate for assessment purposes. It notes that the proposal would have an effect on the setting of four scheduled monuments however it does not consider that the integrity of the setting of these monuments would be adversely affected to an extent that would raise issues of national importance. Historic Environment Scotland is also content that there would not be a significant effect on the setting of Cullen House Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape. The Council's Archaeological Advisor has reviewed the ES, raised no objection to the proposal and is satisfied that no further archaeological mitigation is required in this instance. The Council's Landscape advisor has highlighted the importance of the screening properties of the coniferous plantation woodland on Clune Hill which lies 5km to the north of the application site, and which should be retained to avoid impact on the Cullen House Inventory listed designed landscape (viewpoint 9). This would require adoption of continuous cover management and is achievable as the proposed wind farm site and this woodland fall within the same ownership. The applicant has confirmed that the woodland will be managed as continuous cover, and whilst thinned will remain a screening element in views from the north. This matter would be covered by a planning condition in the event of approval being granted. From the above observations and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal would not have unacceptable significant adverse effects on built heritage (archaeological and cultural) interests and would be considered to comply with relevant development plan policy and guidance. Impacts on Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology (ER1, EP4, EP5, EP6, EP7, EP8, EP9, EP10, ER6, IMP1, IMP2, MOWE) Policy ER1 favourably considers renewable energy proposals where they avoid or address any unacceptable significant adverse effects on watercourse engineering and peat land hydrology. Policy EP4 seeks achievement of a wholesome and adequate private water supply and consideration of environmental and pollution impacts. Policy EP5 requires surface water to be addressed in a sustainable manner, avoid pollution and promote habitat enhancement and amenity with consideration of SUDs during construction and operation of the development. Policy EP6 requires proposals to be designed to avoid adverse impacts on the water environment and identify opportunities for restoration with any impact adequately mitigated. From Policy EP7, new development should not occur if it would be at significant risk of flooding from any source or materially increase the possibility of flooding elsewhere. Policy EP8 and EP9 require proposals to demonstrate how any significant pollution can be appropriately mitigated and address potential contamination of land by investigation and remediation. Policy EP10 requires private foul drainage systems not to pose or add to risk of detrimental effects on the natural environment. Policy ER6 only permits renewable energy proposals where demonstrated that unnecessary disturbance of soils including peat is avoided; on

undisturbed areas of deep peat (over 1m) that the benefits of the proposal outweigh any potential detrimental effect on the environment including the release of C02; and that there is no viable alternative together with a peat survey and peat management plan. Policy IMP1 requires proposals to d) provide acceptable water and drainage arrangements including SUDs; i) avoid areas at risk of flooding; j) avoid any potential risk of pollution including groundwater contamination; k) mitigate any contaminated land issues; and m) make acceptable arrangements for waste. IMP2 requires proposals to be supported by appropriate assessments to confirm compatibility of the proposal. Chapter 12 of the ES assesses the effects of the proposed development upon the hydrology, hydrogeology and geology/peat for the area of the development, including surface and ground water bodies, and activities/habitats that are dependent on those water bodies (abstractions, private water supplies and Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems)) during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases. Assessment methodology has involved collection/interpretation of data from published material, consultations relating to the local/wider hydrological environment with statutory bodies, a walkover survey, site investigations, a geotechnical desk study including a peat probing survey, a Ground Water Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystem (GWDTE) Assessment and Private Water Supply Risk Assessment. The assessment predicts that the proposal would not have any significant or adverse effects on hydrology; hydrogeology or geology/peat due to environmental measures embedded in the design, and proposed mitigation measures to be applied during construction and construction best practice. The proposal is located within the catchments of the Deskford Burn and Burn of Croft (a tributary of the River Isla), in an elevated commercially forested area with limited extents of peat and underlain by aquifers of low productivity. The site is not at risk of flooding from rivers based on SEPA flood mapping, although small parts of the site are subject to surface water flooding. One private water supply source, for 'Mid Skeith' is identified as being located within the development site. Generally most potential effects from the proposed development are expected to occur during the construction phase, at or adjacent to areas where infrastructure is proposed, with more limited effects during the operational and decommissioning phases. These range from impacts on surface water run-off characteristics and water quality, soil erosion, accidental spillages/concrete pollution/sedimentation entering the ground water and surface water environments, to effects on private water supplies and abstractions, de-watering/change in flow-patterns affecting abstraction yields, increased flood risk, damage to peat or GWDTE's and acidification (via forestry clearance). Where possible, these have been mitigated by environmental measures incorporated within the design of the scheme itself, and where initial impacts (of negligible, slight and moderate significance) are not alleviated, through additional proposed mitigation measures. Proposed design and mitigation measures (amongst others) include use of existing tracks where practicable to reduce the level of new track construction within the layout, to minimise disturbance to the water environment in terms of flows and water quality; construction of appropriate drainage arrangements and water crossings (upgraded culverts) to accommodate peak flows and minimise flood risk; applying a 50m buffer zone around all watercourses where construction activities will be excluded (with the exception of forestry) to reduce the risk of water contamination/pollution/erosion; adopting 100m buffer zones (for tracks, excavations) and 250m zones (for turbine foundations) around spring and boreholes serving private water supplies in line with SEPA guidelines to minimise potential impacts of construction activities on water features; and a proposed

layout which minimises peat excavation from tracks and turbine infrastructure and avoids areas of deep peat (with further micro-siting if required). A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and specific Construction Method Statements (CMS) will also be prepared to identify measures to prevent or minimise effects on the environment including pollution prevention and environmental monitoring arrangements, to include site pollution control measures (including fuel storage, re-fuelling, cement and concrete, and contingency plans etc.); a site waste management plan; environmental monitoring (of ground and surface water and ground movement); drainage including use of SUDs; a Forestry Management Plan; appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works; and adoption of 'best practice guidance' to reduce/prevent pollution incidents ad. The ES also proposes further consideration being given to the design and drainage details for the on-site building, water crossings, site tracks and turbine foundations and further geo-technical design work to inform the detailed design of the development. The Private Water Supply Assessment of the ES (Appendix 12b) has identified 17 private water supplies and 9 wells within the surrounding area; this confirms that the majority are unlikely to be affected and are located outwith the site, with the exception of one water supply, known as 'Mid Skeith' which lies within the site and 50m from the proposed wind farm infrastructure. To address any potential adverse impacts from construction the ES proposes mitigation measures and a monitoring programme of this source to detect any changes to water quality and allow further mitigation to be put in place if necessary. The ES concludes that the site does not contain any 'true' Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems, despite early assessment indicating otherwise. (The GWTDE assessment (ES Appendix 12a) found five areas of potentially groundwater dependent communities however these were subsequently assessed to be of Low actual groundwater dependence). In terms of flood risk the ES also concludes that the proposed development would not result in increased flood risk both on and off the site, due to its location outwith any fluvial flood risk area, site characteristics and proposed on site drainage arrangements. From consultation, SEPA has not objected to the development in terms of its key interests (ground water abstractions, peat management, engineering activities in the water environment, pollution prevention and environmental management, borrow pits and GWDTE), subject to imposition of conditions as recommended covering the following; a requirement for further plans showing that the finalised micro-sited layout has been designed to minimise impacts on and avoid areas of deep peat; a site-specific Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to address all waste management, pollution prevention and environmental management issues; details for all water crossings, to be designed to accommodate 1 in 200 year peak flows (with allowance for climate change of 20% increase in flows) to reduce flood risk; and no borrow pits to be permitted. Scottish Water has advised that a catchment area to the south of the site which contains a Scottish Water abstraction (Drinking Water Protected Area) and other water assets in the wider area may be affected by the development, and will require further on-site investigations by the applicant and separate consultation with Scottish Water to determine its detailed location and whether development activities could impact on the catchment or assets. It further confirms that it is essential that water quality and quantity in the catchment area is protected and that any assets in the wider area are not adversely

impacted, and highlights the necessary precautions and measures (as specified in the response) for the applicant/developer to follow. The Council's Contaminated Land Service and Moray Flood Risk Management Section have not objected to the proposal in terms of contaminated land and/or flooding and drainage impacts although the latter has recommended conditions requiring further information including details of surface water management arrangements, a construction surface water management plan, and details of stream crossings and all water course engineering. Likewise the Council's Private Water Section has not objected, subject to a condition requiring notification to the Council and urgent, restorative, remedial work to be undertaken on any supply where negative effect(s) on water quality or quantity caused by any aspect or phase of the project. From the above and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects on hydrology, hydrogeology and geological (including drainage, flooding, pollution prevention, contamination and peat) interests and would be accorded with relevant development plan policy and guidance. Impacts on Transportation and Access (ER1, T1, T2, T5, T6, T7, EP12, IMP1, IMP2, MOWE) MLDP 2015 Policy ER1 favourably considers renewable energy proposals where they inter alia avoid or address any unacceptable significant adverse traffic effects. Policy T1 promotes improvement of road and rail, with priority being given to dualling of the A96 Aberdeen to Inverness routes, and early delivery of bypasses. Policy T2 requires proposals to provide safe and suitable access for all end users including mitigation of the existing network where required to address impacts of the development. Policy T5 requires parking provision in accordance with current parking standards. Policy T6 advocates use of the road hierarchy to assist assessment of planning applications, in particular to ensure the safety and free flow of traffic and for consideration of road design and traffic management requirements. Policy T7 promotes the improvement of walking, cycling and equestrian networks but does not permit proposals having unacceptable impacts on access rights and core paths, etc. that cannot be adequately mitigated. Policy EP12 requires proposals which adversely impact upon air quality to a level causing harm to health or the natural environment, to demonstrate how such impacts will be mitigated. Policy IMP1 C) required road, foot, cycling and public transport to be provided at a level appropriate to the development. Chapter 7 of the ES considers the likely traffic related effects of the proposed development on the road network, taking into account traffic levels that would be generated during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases, with the construction phase being the main focus when most traffic is generated. Assessment methodology has entailed scoping of routes and traffic, a data gathering exercise, consultation with the relevant Roads authorities, the carrying out of an Abnormal Indivisible Load (AIL) Access Study (ES, Appendix 7a) and analysis of the likely effects, along with mitigation measures to avoid, minimise, mitigate or compensate for any remaining effects. The assessment predicts no significant or adverse effects (including cumulative effects) on the road network in EIA terms, and recommends mitigation and enhancement measures to reduce the potential for effects as far as reasonably possible. The development site will be accessed from the north via an existing access track which is to be modified for the proposed development. Other offsite road modifications (passing

places etc.) to be agreed in consultation with relevant Roads Authorities are likely to required. Most traffic effects would occur during the construction phase programme which is anticipated to last approximately 6 months, with substantially reduced levels during subsequent operational/maintenance phases. Traffic effects during decommissioning are also predicted to be not significant but further assessment would be undertaken to ensure relevant standards applicable at that time are met. The cumulative traffic effects of the development associated with other developments which could progress in the area are also considered to be not significant. For the construction phase, road stone for the access tracks and hardstandings, and concrete required for construction would be sourced from the Blackhillock Quarry, located approx. 29km to the south via the A96, A95, A9022 and C5L roads. General construction traffic (staff LGVs and cars) is anticipated to come from Keith, via the A95, A9022 and C5L roads. Based upon the submitted Abnormal Indivisible Load (AIL) Access Study, the delivery route for the turbine components would be from the Port of Inverness - A9-A96-A97- Aberchirder bypass access road, A9022 and C5L roads. According to the ES deliveries of road stone will take place during the first 3 months, the highest number being in month 3 with an average of 69 daily HGV movements (over 14 days). For concrete deliveries, the highest numbers would be made during months 3, 4 and 5 (average 31 daily movements, over 8 days per month), whilst for abnormal load deliveries, the highest number would be during months 4 and 5, equating to 10 convoys per month. This increase in HGV traffic on the C5L and A9022 roads (74% and 53% respectively) triggered further assessment in accordance with relevant guidelines Environment Assessment of Road Traffic (Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) 1993), taking into account factors such as severance; driver and pedestrian delay; pedestrian amenity; accidents and safety; fear and intimidation; and dust and dirt. This concludes that effects in respect of each factor would not be significant however given the lack of sensitive receptors (e.g. schools/hospitals) located along the construction route, the rural location of the site with a low population, lack of pedestrian infrastructure and the temporary nature and short-term duration of the construction programme. With no significant traffic effects predicted to occur, the ES concludes that no mitigation is required but, as an enhanced measure, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared. The timings of escorted abnormal loads will be agreed with the road and police authorities to minimise environmental effects occurring. Following consultation, Transport Scotland and the Council's Transportation Manager have raised no objection to the development subject to conditions to address impacts on the trunk and local road networks; these include agreeing arrangements for abnormal load trial run(s) to determine additional accommodation works (temporary and permanent), restrictions, frequency etc.; signing and temporary traffic control measures; drawings/construction of 3 passing places on the C4L road; a Construction Traffic Management Plan; details of upgrading works of the C4L (Bogmuchals - Berryhillock Road)/site access junction including access width, radii, kerbing, road widening, visibility splay and drainage; road widening/alterations/verge hardening to be permanent for duration of development; evidence of a signed S96 'Wear and Tear' agreement including a 'before and after' condition video surveys required for delivery and construction traffic routes; etc. In addition to information outlining various requirements under related Roads

(Scotland) Act 1984 the Transportation Manager has also advised that on the basis of current indicative access routes the following routes are unsuitable for use by construction vehicles - C7L Craibstone - Fordyce Road; U57al Oathillock Road; U57I Main Road/Kirkton Road and C62L Clue - Ardiecow. From the above and subject to conditions requested by consultees in the event of approval, the proposal would not be considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects in traffic (transportation and access) terms, and would accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance. Impacts on Noise (ER1, EP8, IMP1, IMP2, MOWE) MLDP 2015 Policy ER1 favourably considers renewable energy proposals where inter alia they avoid or address any unacceptable significant adverse noise impacts including any detrimental impact on communities and local amenity, and the potential for associated mitigation. Policy EP8 requires developments that may cause significant (noise) pollution to be subject to assessment and demonstrate how such pollution can be appropriately mitigated. Policy IMP1) requires proposals to address any potential risk of pollution. Chapter 8 of the ES assesses noise and vibration effects from the proposed development during the construction, operation and decommissioning stages of the development. The adopted methodology follows relevant guidance and good practice for assessing noise from windfarms (the Energy Technology Support Unit Guidance), and has involved consultation with the Moray Council (Environmental Health Section), data gathering, noise monitoring from five locations, assessment of predicted operational noise levels from the 14 nearest noise sensitive receptors in the area surrounding the site and proposed mitigation/enhancement measures. The assessment predicts no significant noise effects on surrounding properties and recommends mitigation and enhancement measures. No significant cumulative operational noise effects are predicted to occur when the proposal is considered in addition to other wind farm developments in the area. Due to the separation distances between the areas of construction, access routes and surrounding properties (and as no borrow pits or blasting is proposed) the potential for vibration effects is also considered unlikely. Construction noise effects from traffic are not considered to be significant given their temporary and transient nature, and the level of traffic generated. Noise from construction activities on the site is also not considered to be significant due to the attenuation provided from the relatively large separation distances between the turbines and surrounding properties, and adherence to standard industry practices for site noise control as confirmed in the ES. In terms of operational noise, whilst the final turbine choice has yet to be made and could differ slightly from the representative 'candidate' turbine model, the ES confirms that it would comply nonetheless with the noise criterion levels which have been established for the development site within the noise assessment. In addition to five locations selected as being representative of background noise levels, predicted operational noise levels and noise limits were assessed from 14 locations. The analysis concludes that predicted levels of turbine noise would not exceed noise limits as specified in relevant ETSU noise guidance for either quiet daytime or night-time periods at any location, and therefore that no significant noise levels are predicted for all receptors. The ES discusses low frequency noise and vibration, infrasound and Enhanced Amplitude Modulation (EAM) effects due to wind farms, and notes that there is currently no evidence

to support the assertion that this causes potential adverse effects. The ES further notes that work is ongoing to review methods to quantify and assess EAM in wind turbine noise, and until such time that this is agreed, current Scottish Government advice and ETSU applies which indicates that no specific consideration for EAM is required as part of the planning process, as other remedies are available to Local Authorities under Environmental Legislation (statutory nuisance). With no significant noise effects predicted to occur, the ES concludes that no mitigation is required however, in order to comply with general guidance for its control in BS5228-1:2009+A1:2014, and as good practice a range of mitigation measures regarding construction noise would be implemented; these include restrictions on hours of working for most HGV movements to avoid sensitive periods, and for work outside these periods prior agreement required from the local planning authority; construction activities to be undertaken in accordance with good practice; various noise control measures to minimise noise effects. Following consultation the Environmental Health Manager has not objected to the development subject to conditions recommended by them in the event of approval specifying levels of noise immissions not to be exceeded, and measures to address any complaints received; a monitoring scheme of noise immissions; a scheme to assist assessment/regulation of amplitude modulation effects (notwithstanding the abovementioned assertions regarding EAM); construction activities including vehicle movements permitted only between 0700 to 1900 hours, Monday - Friday and 0700 to 1300 hours, Saturdays unless otherwise agreed; where required, blasting times restricted to specified times; ground vibration not to exceed specified levels, and measures to address complaints received and installation of a shadow flicker control module to turbines 1 and 5, and measures to address any complaints received regarding shadow flicker. From the above and subject to conditions where recommended the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects on noise including effects on the amenity of any nearby noise sensitive receptors and would accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance. Impacts on Telecommunications and Electromagnetic Interference, Utilities and Infrastructure (ER1, MOWE) MLDP 2015 Policy ER1 favourably considers renewable energy proposals where they inter alia avoid or address any unacceptable significant adverse effects on electromagnetic disturbance. Chapter 6 of the ES assesses the potential impacts of the development upon wireless communications and television signals in the vicinity of the site, including interference through reflection and shadowing of electromagnetic radio waves upon terrestrial fixed microwave and radio telemetry links, and television broadcast signals. It also assesses impacts on infrastructure and utilities. Assessment methodology has included consultation with relevant system and utilities operators, data gathering, analysis of impacts and mitigation proposals. The ES concludes that no significant adverse effects would occur upon communications links and television broadcast signals, including cumulative effects. The turbines are located outwith the zone of influence for known communication links and therefore no impacts are predicted or require mitigation. Following consultation fixed link network operators have not objected to the development.

Design iteration has also ensured that the turbines are sufficiently distant from residential dwellings in the surrounding area (as recommended by Ofcom 2009) to reduce the likelihood of interference with television signals. The ES proposes to investigate any complaint received on impact on television signals and where required, mitigate the impact by up-grading existing antenna or replacement by a satellite dish, etc. In terms of infrastructure and utilities an overhead 11kV electric power line has been identified which runs adjacent to and crosses the access track to the development site which is likely to require undergrounding in consultation with the operator. An underground 33 kV electric power line which runs across the southern part of the site, but this would not be affected by the proposal. Following consultation SSE has not provided comments. From the above considerations and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects upon telecommunications infrastructure and assets and electromagnetic interference, and would accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance. However, as a precaution and in the event of any complaint(s) being received regarding interference to television signals or other telecommunication fixed link systems, a condition would be recommended requiring the applicant/developer/wind turbine operator to investigate and rectify any adverse effect. This would not be time-limited to an initial 12-month investigation period as suggested by the ES. Impacts on Aviation Activity (ER1, MOWE) MLDP 2015 Policy ER1 favourably considers renewable energy proposals provided they inter alia address any impacts from turbines located within an area subject to potential defence constraints including flight paths and radar. Chapter 6 of the ES considers the effects of the development on both civilian and military aircraft activity, including air safeguarding and radar interests. The assessment predicts that effects to Ministry of Defence (MOD) radar systems at RAF Lossiemouth are likely to occur which will require mitigation. No other impacts on civilian aviation interests are anticipated. In terms of civil aviation interests, National Air Traffic Systems and Aberdeen Airport have not objected to the proposal as having unacceptable or significant adverse effects on aircraft activity. The Civil Aviation Authority has been consulted but has not provided comments. For military aviation, the ES identifies that the proposed development is likely to be visible from both the RAF Lossiemouth ATC (Air Traffic Control) and PAR (Precision Approach Radar) and is in an area which the MOD has previously considered as sensitive to Lossiemouth operations. It acknowledges that both impacts are likely to require mitigation, but anticipates that the MOD will accept a planning condition requiring a mitigation scheme, which is consistent with their recent position on other projects in the UK with the potential to impact PAR. The ES also highlights that the MOD has an ongoing ATC radar mitigation scheme, targeting the removal of objections from wind farm proposals affecting ATC radars including at RAF Lossiemouth, and anticipates that the proposed development will participate in this programme by proposing a suitable radar mitigation scheme acceptable to the MOD (which can be covered by planning condition).

Following consultation the MOD has objected on the grounds that the proposed turbines will be detectable by, and cause unacceptable interference to both the ATC and PAR radar at RAF Lossiemouth, and the turbines would have a significant and detrimental effect on operations and on the provision of air traffic services at RAF Lossiemouth. In response, the applicant has submitted further information outlining details of the radar mitigation scheme submitted to the MOD, and that the delivery of this mitigation can be secured by an appropriately worded planning condition, citing government guidance, various appeal decisions and planning permissions as justification. It further argues that there is no legal presumption against the use of a suspensive planning condition in this case and that it would be unreasonable for planning permission to be refused simply because the MOD has lodged an objection. This information has been forwarded onto the MOD for consideration however it has not altered its position, and as such its objection currently remains in place. Whilst the above comments are noted, these are not sufficient to outweigh the aviation and air safety concerns raised nor do they justify use of a condition without the agreement of the primary consultee in this matter, the MOD which has the requisite expertise to assess radar matters. Moreover, in the absence of an agreed technical solution or mitigation scheme and/or removal of the objection by the MOD at this time, the request for this matter which has fundamental implications for air safety to be dealt with by condition is considered unreasonable in itself given the lack of agreement or further response from the MOD. The appeal cases and conditional planning permissions cited are not directly comparable with the current proposal. From the above consideration the current proposal would therefore result in unacceptable significant adverse effects on military (and civilian) aviation activity and would be contrary to relevant planning policy and guidance. These concerns shall form the basis of a further refusal reason. Impact of Shadow Flicker and Ice Throw (ER1, MOWE, SPP) MLDP 2015 Policy ER1 favourably considers renewable energy proposals provided they address any detrimental impact on communities and local amenity including the impacts of shadow flicker and the potential for associated mitigation. Chapter 14 assesses the impact of the development upon the amenity of neighbouring property, in terms of shadow flicker and ice throw. The assessment modelling predicts the potential for significant effects on residential amenity to occur at one property as a result of shadow flicker, which will require mitigation measures, with reduced effects to a further 4 properties. No effects from ice throw are predicted. Shadow flicker is the optical effect caused by intermittent obstruction of a light source by a moving object which occurs under certain combinations of geographical position, time of day and year and only buildings within 130 degrees of either side of north can be affected. Both MOWE and Scottish Government renewables guidance require that any turbine be no nearer to residential property and/or all regular occupied buildings respectively than 10 rotor diameters. In this case, with a maximum rotor diameter of 90m (plus 50m micrositing allowance), a minimum separation distance of 950m between turbine and property is required. (Although a study area of 970m has been assessed based on the rotor diameter being up to 92m, the applicant has subsequently confirmed in writing that this will not exceed 90m). The assessment confirms that 5 residential properties are located within or adjacent to this

zone of potential shadow flicker, and that based on worst-case scenario, turbines 1 and 5 have potential to cause shadow flicker impacts at four properties (ES, Table 14-4), with one in particular, 'Little Skeith' experiencing significant effects from turbine 5 for an average of 36.6 minutes per day between mid-November and mid-January. This exceeds the limit in current guidance of 30 minutes per day or 30 hours per year. Although the other identified properties are likely to experience shadow flicker effects from these turbines, the duration for this to occur would be less and considered not significant in EIA terms. The assessment shows that turbines 2, 3 and 4 do not have the potential to cause any shadow flicker. In order to address the above impacts the ES proposes to install a shadow flicker impact control module (turbine shut down system at certain times of day) prior to operation, to turbines 1 and 5 to mitigate any unacceptable shadow flicker on the nearby properties. In addition the ES proposes further mitigation in the form of a planning condition to ensure that any complaints are investigated and that any shadow flicker problem is substantiated and rectified promptly. Following consultation, the Environmental Health Manager has not objected to the proposal on the grounds of the unacceptable shadow flicker effects subject to imposition of a condition requiring installation of a shadow flicker control module to turbines 1 and 5, and measures to address any complaints received regarding shadow flicker. Ice Throw can occur under certain climatic conditions (for example, temperature changes or winds) or where turbine movement and vibration causes ice build-up on turbine components to fall or be thrown from the turbines. MOWE sets out a safeguarding distance of 1.5 x height to blade tip of the turbines, which in this case equates to a distance of 195m. The Planning Statement concludes that as there are no residential properties within 195m of the proposed turbines, and as these would be programmed to shut down when ice is detected on the blades, the risk of ice throw occurrence and potential for injury is low and unlikely to result in unacceptable or significant adverse effects. From the above and subject to conditions where recommended, the proposal is not considered to give rise to unacceptable or significant adverse shadow flicker or ice throw and effects and would accord with relevant development plan policy and guidance. Impacts on Socio-economic, Recreation and Tourism Interests (ER1, T2, T7, IMP1, MOWE) MLDP 2015 Policy ER1 favourably considers renewable energy proposals where inter alia they avoid or address unacceptable significant adverse impacts on tourism and recreational interests, including core paths, visitor centres, tourist trails and key scenic routes. For recreational interests, Policy T2 requires proposals to maximise connections and routes for pedestrians and cyclists. Policy T7 promotes the improvement of walking, cycling and equestrian networks but does not permit proposals having unacceptable impacts on access rights and core paths, etc. that cannot be adequately mitigated. Policy IMP1 requires provision for all transport modes and that core paths, long distance footpaths and national cycle routes must not be adversely affected. The MOWE and SPP require proposals to take account of impacts on recreation and tourism. Chapter 11 of the ES assesses the potential impacts of the development upon socio-economic, tourism and recreation interests. The assessment is informed by data gathering, research and the conclusions of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

(Chapter 9) which lists recreational and tourism destinations and transport routes located within a 35km Study Area. Following assessment the ES predicts no significant adverse effects (including cumulative) in these respects, and in economic terms, that positive benefits will occur. Economic Interests The ES identifies a positive benefit arising in terms of expenditure and local employment. It estimates the construction cost of the project to be approximately £19.8m, with between £2.11m and £4.32m being spent locally and supporting up to 31 local jobs (full time equivalent) during the construction phase, and between 1 and 6 jobs per year during its operational phase. The ES acknowledges that indirect effects to create further employment opportunities down the supply chain may occur. Whilst the level of employment may be limited in benefitting the local economy, additional economic benefits to local business may occur in terms of use of local contractors and accommodation requirements for specialist construction workers with consequent positive effects on local services, although it acknowledges that these cannot be quantified accurately. The ES concludes whilst that the proposed development is unlikely to give rise to significant economic and employment effects, the proposal would result in temporary, beneficial economic effects at the local level during the construction phase, with more limited effects during the subsequent operational and decommissioning phases. Recreational Interests As the site is not currently used for formal outdoor access purposes the proposal would have a minimal effect on public access during the construction period with any impact being temporary during the construction phase. By improving access to the site and the surrounding area with access tracks being formed and upgraded, no significant adverse impacts would arise during the operational period. The ES lists 14 Core Paths or promoted Core Paths located within 10km of the development site; of these it concludes that walkers using the Promoted Path1: Knock Hill may experience significant visual (including cumulative) effects from the summit of Knock Hill 3 2km to the south-east, however based on degree of visibility, intervening distance and the promotion of the path taking account of existing/consented wind energy development the recreational assessment considers that the predicted visual effects would not be unacceptable or detract overall from the recreational value of the path. The assessment predicts no other significant impacts upon recreation interests. Notwithstanding the above conclusions, the close proximity of the proposal to Knock Hill (3.2km) would give rise to significant adverse effects upon its setting and views from its summit. This is clearly demonstrated in viewpoint 3. As the hill is popular with walkers this effect in turn would detract from the recreational value of the path, although it is acknowledged that perceptions towards turbines vary; as to some, turbines may be visually intrusive yet to others they can be an attraction which also promotes access opportunities and employment. Following consultation, the Moray Access Manager has not objected to the proposal, noting that public access is mostly along forestry tracks and will still be enjoyed once the development is complete. The Moray Access Manager further advises that public access should be managed during construction in the interests of public safety and that tracks can be closed to the public for minimal periods providing clear signage is erected.

Tourism Interests The ES highlights the importance of tourism to the local economy and reference is made to published studies which demonstrate that for the majority of tourists, wind turbines are not a major factor in their decision to visit an attraction. Whilst the turbines would be theoretically visible in views from a number of tourist attractions within 10km of the site, no significant negative impacts are predicted to occur, although the ES does acknowledge that significant visual effects will be experienced from the nearby B9018 Cullen and Davoch of Grange road albeit for intermittent periods which it considers would not detract from the overall visitor experience for tourist users. As outlined within the report above (Landscape and Visual Impacts), and acknowledged in the ES significant adverse effects on views would occur from surrounding settlements and the B9018 in the Kirkton of Deskford to Grange Crossroads area, within approximately 5km of the proposed wind farm site. Although these effects could potentially impact the visitor experience for tourist users travelling past the site, this is difficult to quantify or show, particularly as perceptions towards turbines differ between individuals. Impact upon Woodland (ER2, E4, MOWE, Trees and Development SG, Moray Woodland and Forestry Strategy SG and Scottish Government Control of Woodland Removal Policy) Policy ER2 Woodlands (in line with the Scottish Government policy) permits removal of woodland where it can be demonstrated that its loss is clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits at national/regional/local level, and if compensatory planting has been agreed. Policy E4 Trees and Development protects trees/woodland and where this is removed in association with development, the provision of compensatory planting (also supported by the MOWE). The Council's Supplementary Guidance 'Trees and Development' (2015) confirms that compensatory planting should be provided on a like for like basis and will be required for development proposals resulting in the loss of woodland exceeding 0.1ha. Recently adopted supplementary guidance 'Moray Woodland and Forestry Strategy (2017)' contains further advice in this regard and seeks to protect and enhance the woodlands in Moray. Chapter 4 of the ES 'The Proposed Development' outlines that there would be a loss of 12.86 of forestry plantation as a result of the proposal, which equates to 4.1% of the total forestry plantation of 309 ha. In order to meet the above requirements compensatory planting is proposed for an equivalent area within the applicant's surrounding landholding, the details and location of which are outlined within additional supporting information (Updated Forestry Replanting Specifications, March 2018). As justification for the woodland removal the ES highlights the need for renewable energy developments as set out in overarching national targets and policies, which along with the proposed compensatory planting ensures compliance with the development plan and the above relevant material considerations. Following consultation, although Forestry Commission Scotland initially raised concerns regarding lack of information, these have been addressed by the submission of the aforementioned additional supporting information. Forestry Commission Scotland has assessed these details and now raises no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring implementation of the submitted compensatory planting proposals.

From the above and subject to conditions if approved, the proposal is not considered to have unacceptable significant adverse effects on forestry and as such the proposal would be considered to accord with development plan policy and guidance. Other Considerations including Carbon Balance and Developer Obligations (IMP3, MOWE) Chapter 4 of the ES includes a carbon balance assessment to identify potential carbon losses and savings taking into account all elements of the proposal. The assessment (Table 3.3, ES Appendix 4c, Volume 3) of the calculated payback time of the development, based on carbon losses and gains compared with grid-mix generation, is expected to be 1.5 years, with a minimum and maximum payback time of 1.3 and 1.7 years respectively. With an expected installed capacity of 15MW, the proposed wind farm is likely to produce approx. 35,478MWh of electricity per year (based on an estimated capacity factor of 27%), equivalent to supplying the approximately annual domestic needs of up to 8,701 Moray households per annum. It is expected to displace approximately 15,823 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year or 400.000 tonnes over its 25 year operational life. The ES considers this therefore to be a valuable contribution towards the decarbonisation of the electricity generation sector across Scotland and the wider UK, and an important material consideration in the determination of this application. MLDP Policy IMP3 provides for contributions to be sought from developers where a development would have an adverse or negative impact on existing infrastructure, community facilities or amenity. The Moray Council agreed to cease seeking developer contributions from wind turbine developments and to require "community benefit funds" to be negotiated independently of the planning process (Minute, Planning & Regulatory Services Committee, 18th October 2011). As a result no developer contributions have been assessed or sought as this is not a material planning consideration. The ES confirms that in accordance with the Scottish Government's Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments document (2013, revised 2015), the applicant will provide community funding. Arrangements for Decommissioning (ER1, MOWE) MLDP Policy ER1 and MOWE require wind energy proposals to make appropriate provision for decommissioning and site restoration at the end of their operational life, in this case 25 years unless otherwise extended. Unless the operational life is extended, the ES predicts the effects of decommissioning to be less to those expected during construction. From the ES (Chapter 4, 4.6) the proposal will be decommissioned in accordance with best practice available at the time. This is anticipated to involve removal of all above ground infrastructure i.e. turbines dismantled/removed; the crane hardstandings, control building and compound areas will be demolished/removed; turbine foundations broken out to below ground level; and the land re-instated and spread over with topsoil, etc. The access tracks may be left in situ or the ground re-graded and re-instated, and all electrical and communications cabling will be cut off/disconnected, with consideration given to recovery/recycling based on best practice at that time. The actual decommissioning arrangements including infrastructure removal and site restoration/re-instatement will be set out in a Restoration and Decommissioning Plan, to be prepared/submitted towards the end of the operational life of the development but prior to decommissioning works commencing on site.

To address this, and as adopted in other wind turbine developments, planning conditions would be recommended requiring a detailed restoration plan to be prepared/implemented together with a financial bond or similar to be in place, to ensure sufficient funds are available to cover all costs of site decommissioning and re-instatement, the latter to be reviewed at regular intervals during the lifetime of the development to ensure it remains sufficient to meet the costs of decommissioning. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION National policy gives qualified support to renewable energy development. For this 15MW development, identified benefits include helpful contributions towards renewable energy generation targets and the local economy, together with reductions in carbon emissions and opportunities to facilitate greater access to Lurg Hill. Although mitigation and enhancement measures for the development are proposed and/or required, no further mitigation of landscape, visual or residential amenity effects of the development is possible or proposed beyond that already "embedded" into the current scheme layout. Significant adverse landscape and visual effects, and impacts on residential amenity are predicted to arise from the current proposal. Adverse impacts upon the Ministry of Defence (MOD) radar systems at RAF Lossiemouth requiring mitigation have been identified, but have not been addressed at the time of writing this report. Local planning policy presumes in favour of wind energy developments provided they meet a range of criteria as set out in Policy ER1 and that the proposal inter alia integrates sensitively into the surrounding environment. A number of other policies inform the consideration of the proposal. In this case following detailed assessment and subject to conditions to avoid or mitigate any significant impacts, the proposal would satisfy a number of criteria relating to the natural and built environment, the water environment, transport, noise, etc. but not in relation to landscape, visual and amenity considerations and aviation safety where significant adverse effects, including cumulative effects occur. Whilst the proposal is located within an area identified as having the greatest potential for further investigating the feasibility of developing wind farms, this does not extend to large-scale turbines (80-130m) as currently proposed. It is also located within an LCT having 'very limited scope' to accommodate this proposed large-scale turbine type. However, in terms of its siting, location, number and height of turbines the proposal would not be sensitively sited nor integrated into the surrounding area and it would result in unacceptable significant adverse landscape, visual and cumulative effects. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy ER1 and IMP1 and associated supplementary guidance MOWE and MWELCS. In this case the identified benefits of the proposal are not considered to outweigh the unacceptable significant adverse landscape, visual effects that occur. Policy PP1 may indicate support for a development which contributes towards the transition to a low carbon economy but it requires the quality of the natural and built environment to be safeguarded. This would not be achieved here in terms of the number, height and siting/location of the turbines and the resultant unacceptable and significant adverse landscape, visual and amenity impacts to the surrounding locality.

It is recommended that planning permission be refused. Author/Contact

Officer:

Richard Smith

Senior Planning Officer

Ext: 01343 563256

Beverly Smith Manager (Development Management)

APPENDIX POLICY Adopted Moray Local Development Plan 2015 Primary Policy PP1: Sustainable Economic Growth The Local Development Plan identifies employment land designations to support requirements identified in the Moray Economic Strategy. Development proposals which support the Strategy and will contribute towards the delivery of sustainable economic growth and the transition of Moray towards a low carbon economy will be supported where the quality of the natural and built environment is safeguarded and the relevant policies and site requirements are met. Policy ER1: Renewable Energy Proposals All Renewable Energy Proposals All renewable energy proposals will be considered favourably where they meet the following criteria: i) They are compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance the built and natural

environment ii) They do not result in the permanent loss or damage of agricultural land iii) They avoid or address any unacceptable significant adverse impacts including: • Landscape and visual impacts • Noise impacts • Electromagnetic disturbance • Impact on watercourse engineering • Impact on peat land hydrology • Electromagnetic disturbance • Impact on watercourse engineering • Traffic Impact • Ecological Impact • Impact on tourism and recreational interests Onshore wind turbines In addition to the assessment of impact outlined above the following considerations will apply: a) The Spatial Framework Areas of Significant Protection*: where the council will apply significant protection and proposals will only be appropriate in circumstances where any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design and other mitigation.

Areas with Potential: where the council is likely to support proposals subject to detailed consideration. * This protection will also apply to areas with carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat. This constraint is not currently included on the spatial strategy mapping but will be addressed through Supplementary Guidance once the relevant data becomes available. b) Detailed Consideration The proposal will be determined through assessment of the details of the proposal, including its benefits, and the extent to which it avoids or mitigates any unacceptable significant adverse impact. Detailed assessment** of impact will include consideration of the extent to which: Landscape and visual impact: • The proposal addresses the Guidance set out in the Moray Windfarm Landscape

Capacity Study • The landscape is capable of accommodating the development without significant

detrimental impact on landscape character or visual amenity • The proposal is appropriate to the scale and character of its setting, respects the

main features of the site and the wider environment and addresses the potential for mitigation.

Cumulative Impact • Any detrimental impact from two or more wind energy developments and the

potential for mitigation is addressed. Impact on local communities • The proposal addresses any detrimental impact on communities and local amenity

including the impacts of noise, shadow flicker, visual dominance and the potential for associated mitigation.

Other • The proposal addresses any impacts arising from location within an area subject to

potential aviation and defence constraints including flight paths and aircraft radar. • The proposal avoids or adequately resolves other impacts including on the natural

and historic environment, cultural heritage, biodiversity; forest and woodlands; and tourism and recreational interests- core paths, visitor centres, tourist trails and key scenic routes.

• The proposal addresses any physical site constraints and appropriate provision for decommissioning and restoration.

** Further detail on the above assessment process will be addressed through supplementary guidance to include: • Peat mapping once this becomes available • Detailed mapping of constraints

• Guidance on areas with greatest potential for small/medium and large scale wind farms. Biomass Proposals for the development of commercial biomass facilities will be supported if the following criteria are met. • Proposals should confirm which form of biomass will fuel the plant and if a mixture of biomass is proposed then what percentage split will be attributed to each fuel source. • Proposals can demonstrate that they have taken account of the amount of supply

fuel over the life of the project. • When considering woody biomass proposals the scale and location of new

development is appropriate to the volume of local woodfuel available. • The location must have suitable safe access arrangements and be capable of

accommodating the potential transport impacts within the surrounding roads network. • A design statement should be submitted, which should include photomontages from

viewpoints agreed by the Council. • There should be a locational justification for proposals outwith general employment

land designations. The proposed energy use, local heat users and connectivity of both heat users and electricity networks should be detailed. Proposals which involve potential or future heat users will not be supported unless these users can be brought online in conjunction with the operation of the plant.

• Details of the predicted energy input and output from the plant demonstrating the

plant efficiency and utilisation of heat should be provided. • Where necessary appropriate structural landscaping must be provided to assist the

development to integrate sensitively. • The criteria set out in relation to other renewables should also be met. The Council will consult with the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) to help predict potential woodfuel supply projections in the area. Policy ER2: Development in Woodlands All woodlands Development which involves the loss of woodlands will be refused where the development would result in unacceptable adverse effects on the amenity, landscape, biodiversity, economic or recreational value of the woodland or prejudice the management of the forest. Woodland removal will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the impact on the woodland is clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national, regional and local importance, and if a programme of proportionate compensatory planting has been agreed with the Planning Authority.

Protected Woodlands Woodland removal within native woodlands, ancient semi natural and woodlands within sites protected under the terms of policies E1 and E2 will not be supported. Tree surveys and new planting Development proposals must take account of the Council's Trees and Development supplementary guidance. The Council will require the provision of compensatory planting to mitigate the effects of woodland removal. Where appropriate the Council will seek opportunities to create new woodland and plant native trees in new development proposals. If a development would result in the severing or impairment of connectivity between important woodland habitats, mitigation measures should be identified and implemented to support the wider green network. Policy ER6: Soil Resources Where peat and other carbon rich soils are present disturbance to them may lead to the release of carbon dioxide contributing to the greenhouse gas emissions. Developers should assess the likely effects associated with any development work and aim to mitigate any adverse impacts arising. For major developments, minerals and large scale (over 20MW) renewable energy proposals, development will only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that unnecessary disturbance of soils, peat and any associated vegetation is avoided. Evidence of the adoption of best practice in the movement, storage, management and reinstatement of soils must be submitted along with any relevant planning application, including if necessary measures to prevent the spread of invasive non-native species. Major developments, minerals and large scale renewable energy proposals on undisturbed areas of deep peat (defined as 1.0m or more) will only be permitted for these uses where: a) the economic, social and/or environmental benefits of the proposal outweigh any

potential detrimental effect on the environment (in particular with regard to the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere); and

b) it has been clearly demonstrated that there is no viable alternative. Where development on undisturbed peat is deemed acceptable, a peat depth survey must be submitted which demonstrates that the areas of deepest peat have been avoided. Where required, a peat management plan must also be submitted which demonstrates that unnecessary disturbance, degradation or erosion of peat is avoided. Large scale commercial peat extraction will not be permitted. Policy E1: Natura 2000 Sites and National Nature Conservation Sites

Natura 2000 designations Development likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site which is not directly connected with or necessary to its conservation management must be subject to an appropriate assessment of the implications for its conservation objectives. Proposals will only be approved where the appropriate assessment has ascertained that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site. In exceptional circumstances, proposals that could affect the integrity of a Natura site may be approved where; a) there are no alternative solutions; and b) there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest including those of a social

or economic nature, and c) if compensatory measures are provided to ensure that the overall coherence of the

Natura network is protected. For Natura 2000 sites hosting a priority habitat or species (as defined in Article 1 of the Habitats Directive), prior consultation with the European Commission via Scottish Ministers is required unless either the imperative reasons of overriding public interest relate to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment. National designations Development proposals which will affect a National Park, Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or National Nature Reserves will only be permitted where: a) the objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be

compromised; or b) any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the site has been

designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance.

Policy E2: Local Nature Conservation Sites and Biodiversity Development likely to have a significant adverse effect on Local Nature Reserves, native woodlands identified in the Native Woodland Survey of Scotland, raised peat bog, wetlands, protected species, wildlife sites or other valuable local habitat or conflict with the objectives of Local Biodiversity Action Plans will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that; a) local public benefits clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site, and b) there is a specific locational requirement for the development

Where there is evidence to suggest that a habitat or species of importance exists on the site, the developer will be required at his own expense to undertake a survey of the site's natural environment. Where development is permitted which could adversely affect any of the above habitats or species the developer must put in place acceptable mitigation measures to conserve and enhance the site's residual conservation interest. Development proposals should protect and where appropriate, create natural and semi natural habitats for their ecological, recreational and natural habitat values. Developers will be required to demonstrate that they have considered potential improvements in habitat in the design of the development and sought to include links with green and blue networks wherever possible. Policy E3: Protected Species Proposals which would have an adverse effect on a European protected species will not be approved unless; • there is no satisfactory alternative; and • the development is required to preserve public health or public safety, or for other

reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; and the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of species concerned at a favourable conservation status of the species concerned.

Proposals which would have an adverse effect on a nationally protected species of bird will not be approved unless; • There is no other satisfactory solution • The development is necessary to preserve public health or public safety • The development will not be detrimental to the conservation status of the species

concerned. Proposals which would have an adverse effect on badgers or their setts must be accompanied by a Badger Protection Plan to avoid, minimise or compensate for impacts. A licence from Scottish Natural Heritage may be required as well as planning permission. Where a protected species may be affected a species survey should be prepared to accompany the application to demonstrate how any offence under the relevant legislation will be avoided.

Policy E4: Trees and Development The Council will serve Tree Preservation Orders (TPO's) on potentially vulnerable trees which are of significant amenity value to the community as a whole, or trees of significant biodiversity value. Within Conservation Areas the Council will only agree to the felling of dead, dying, or dangerous trees. Trees felled within Conservation Areas or subject to TPO protection should be replaced, unless otherwise agreed with the Council. Woodland removal will only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits. Where woodland is removed in association with development, developers will generally be expected to provide compensatory planting. The Council may attach conditions on planning consents ensuring that existing trees and hedges are retained or replaced. Development proposals will be required to meet the requirements set out in the Council's Trees and Development Supplementary Guidance. This includes carrying out a tree survey to identify trees on site and those to be protected. A safeguarding distance should be retained between mature trees and proposed developments. When imposing planting or landscaping conditions, native species should be used and the Council will seek to promote green corridors. Proposals affecting woodland will be considered against Policy ER2. Policy BE1: Scheduled Monuments and National Designations National Designations Development Proposals will be refused where they will adversely affect Scheduled Monuments and nationally important archaeological sites or their settings unless the developer proves that any significant adverse effect on the qualities for which the site has been designated are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance. Local Designations Development proposals which will adversely affect sites of local archaeological importance or the integrity of their settings will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that; a) Local public benefits clearly outweigh the archaeological value of the site, and b) There is no suitable alternative site for the development, and c) Any adverse effects can be satisfactorily mitigated at the developer’s expense Where in exceptional circumstances, the primary aim of preservation of archaeological features in situ does not prove feasible, the Council shall require the excavation and researching of a site at the developers expense.

The Council will consult Historic Scotland and the Regional Archaeologist on development proposals which may affect Scheduled Monuments and archaeological sites. Policy BE2: Listed Buildings The Council will encourage the protection, maintenance, enhancement and active use of listed buildings. Development proposals will be refused where they would have a detrimental effect on the character, integrity or setting of the listed building. Alterations and extensions to listed buildings or new developments within their curtilage must be of the highest quality, and respect the original structure in terms of setting, scale, materials and design. Enabling development may be acceptable where it can be shown to be the only means of retaining a listed building(s). The resulting development should be of a high design quality protecting the listed building(s) and their setting and be the minimum necessary to enable its conservation and re-use. No listed building should be demolished unless it can be clearly demonstrated that every effort has been made to retain it. Where demolition of a listed building is proposed it must be shown that; a) The building is not of special interest; or b) The building is incapable of repair; or c) The demolition of the building is essential to delivering significant benefits to

economic growth or the wider community; or d) The repair of the building is not economically viable and that it has been marketed at

a price reflecting its location and condition to potential restoring purchasers for a reasonable price.

New development should be of a comparable quality and design to retain and enhance special interest, character and setting of the listed building(s). Buildings which are allowed to fall into a state of disrepair may be placed on the Buildings at Risk Register and remedial works to buildings in disrepair may be enforced in the public interest. Proposals should be in accordance with guidance set out in the Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) and the Managing Change in the Historic Environment guidance note series. Policy BE3: Conservation Areas Development proposals within Conservation Areas will be refused if they adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in terms of scale, height, colour, detailed design, use and siting. All development within the Conservation Area should preserve or enhance the established traditional character and appearance of the area. Given the importance of assessing

design matters, applications for planning permission in principle must be accompanied by sufficient information to allow an appraisal of the potential impact on the Conservation Area. Development proposals involving the demolition of buildings within a Conservation Area will be refused unless the building is of little townscape value, if its structural condition rules out retention at a reasonable cost, or its form or location make its re-use extremely difficult. Where redevelopment is proposed, consent to demolish will only be granted where there are acceptable proposals for the new building. Minor works in Conservation Areas including boundary walls, fences, external fixtures and advertisements can adversely affect its character. Proposals of this nature will be assessed in line with Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes. Windows Replacement windows shall match the original windows in proportions and appearance and shall open in a traditional sash manner (or by means of an approved sliding and tilting mechanism) or be in the form of casements whichever is appropriate. UPVC or metal framed windows will not normally be considered acceptable. Signage Signage obscuring architectural details will not be permitted. Signage should be timber or etched glass; synthetic materials are not considered appropriate. Signage should also harmonise with the colour of the shop front and lettering should be individual and hand painted. Projecting signage shall be traditional timber design. Illumination of signage shall be by discreet trough lighting, internal illumination is not considered to be acceptable. Policy BE5: Battlefields, Gardens and Designated Landscapes Development proposals which adversely affect Battlefields or Gardens and Designed Landscapes or their setting will be refused unless; a) The overall character and reasons for the designation will be not compromised, or b) Any significant adverse effects can be satisfactorily mitigated and are clearly

outweighed by social, environmental, economic or strategic benefits. The Council will consult Historic Scotland on any proposal which may affect Inventory sites. EP4: Private Water Supplies All proposals to use a private water supply must demonstrate that a wholesome and adequate supply can be provided. Applicants will be required to provide a National Grid Reference for each supply source and mark the supply (and all works associated) e.g. the source, holding tank and supply pipe, accurately on the application plan. The applicant will also be required to provide information on the source type (e.g. well, borehole, spring). This information is necessary to enable the appropriate authorities to advise on the

environmental impact, adequacy, wholesomeness, capacity of supply for existing and proposed users and pollution risks. Policy EP5: Surface Water Drainage: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Surface water from development should be dealt with in a sustainable manner that has a neutral effect on the risk of flooding or which reduces the risk of flooding. The method of dealing with surface water should also avoid pollution and promote habitat enhancement and amenity. All sites should be drained by a sustainable drainage system (SUDS). Drainage systems should contribute to enhancing existing "blue" and "green" networks while contributing to place-making, biodiversity, recreational, flood risk and climate change objectives. Specific arrangements should be made to avoid the issue of permanent SUD features becoming silted-up with construction phase runoff. Care must be taken to avoid the introduction of invasive non-native species during the construction of all SUD features. Applicants must agree provisions for long term maintenance of the SUDS scheme to the satisfaction of the Council in consultation with SEPA and Scottish Water as appropriate. A Drainage Assessment (DA) will be required for developments of 10 houses or more, industrial uses, and non-residential proposals of 500 sq metres and above. The Council's Flood Team will prepare Supplementary Guidance on surface water drainage and flooding. Policy EP6: Waterbodies Proposals must be designed to avoid adverse impacts upon water environment and should seek opportunities for restoration. The Council will only approve proposals impacting on water features where the applicant provides a satisfactory report that demonstrates that any impact (including cumulative) on water quality, water quantity, physical form (morphology), river hydrology, sediment transport and erosion, nature conservation, fisheries, recreational, landscape, amenity, and economic and social impact can be adequately mitigated. The report should consider existing and potential impacts up and downstream of the development particularly in respect of potential flooding. The Council operates a presumption against the culverting of watercourses and any unnecessary engineering works in the water environment. A buffer strip of at least 6m between any new development and all water features is required. These should be designed to link with blue and green networks and can contribute to open space requirements. Developers may be required to make improvements to the water environment as part of the development. Policy EP7: Control of Development in Flood Risk Areas New development should not take place if it would be at significant risk of flooding from any source or would materially increase the possibility of flooding elsewhere. Proposals for development in areas considered to be at risk from flooding will only be permitted where a flood risk assessment to comply with the recommendations of National Guidance

and to the satisfaction of both the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Council is provided by the applicant. This assessment must demonstrate that any risk from flooding can be satisfactorily mitigated without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Due to continuing changes in climatic patterns, the precautionary principle will apply when reviewing any application for an area at risk from inundation by floodwater. The following limitations on development will also be applied to take account of the degree of flooding as defined in Scottish Planning Policy; a) In areas of little to no risk (less than 0.1%) there will be no general constraint to

development. b) Areas of low to medium risk (0.1% to 0.5%) will be considered suitable for most development. A flood risk assessment may be required at the upper end of the probability range (i.e. close to 0.5%), and for essential civil infrastructure and most vulnerable uses. Water resistant materials and construction may be required. Areas within this risk category will generally not be suitable for civil infrastructure. Where civil infrastructure must be located in these areas or is being substantially extended, it should be designed to be capable of remaining operational and accessible during extreme flooding events. c) Areas of medium to high risk (0.5% or above) may be suitable for: • Residential, institutional, commercial and industrial development within built up areas

provided flood protection measures to the appropriate standard already exist and are maintained, are under construction, or are a planned measure in a current flood management plan;

• Essential infrastructure within built up areas, designed and constructed to remain

operational during floods and not impede water flow; • Some recreational, sport, amenity and nature conservation uses, provided

appropriate evacuation procedures are in place and • Job related accommodation e.g. for caretakers or operational staff. Areas within these risk categories will generally not be suitable: • Civil infrastructure and most vulnerable uses; • Additional development in undeveloped and sparsely developed areas, unless a

location is essential for operational reasons, e.g. for navigation and water based recreation, agriculture, transport or utilities infrastructure (which should be designed to be operational during floods and not impede water flow), and

• An alternative, lower risk location is not available and • New caravan and camping sites. Where development is permitted, measures to protect against or manage flood risk will be required and any loss of flood storage capacity mitigated to achieve a neutral or better

outcome. Water resistant materials and construction should be used where appropriate. Elevated buildings on structures such as stilts are unlikely to be acceptable. Policy EP8: Pollution Planning applications for developments that may cause significant pollution in terms of noise (including RAF aircraft noise), air, water and light emissions will only be approved where a detailed assessment report on the levels, character and transmission of the potential pollution is provided by the applicant. The assessment should also demonstrate how the pollution can be appropriately mitigated. Where the Council applies conditions to the consent to deal with pollution matters these may include subsequent independent monitoring of pollution levels. Policy EP9: Contaminated Land Development proposals on potentially contaminated land will be approved provided that: a) The applicant can demonstrate through site investigations and risk assessment, that

the site is in a condition suitable for the proposed development and is not causing significant pollution of the environment; and

b) Where necessary, effective remediation measures are agreed to ensure the site is

made suitable for the new use and to ensure appropriate disposal and/or treatment of any hazardous material.

The Council recommends early contact with the Environmental Health Section, which can advise what level of information will need to be supplied. Policy EP10: Foul Drainage All development within or close to settlements (as defined in the Local Development Plan) of more than 2,000 population equivalent will require to connect to the public sewerage system unless connection to the public sewer is not permitted due to lack of capacity. In such circumstances, temporary provision of private sewerage systems may be allowed provided Scottish Water has confirmed investment to address this constraint has been specifically allocated within its current Quality Standards Investment Programme and the following requirements apply: • Systems shall not have an adverse impact on the water environment; • Systems must be designed and built to a standard which will allow adoption by

Scottish Water. • Systems must be designed such that they can be easily connected to a public sewer

in the future. Typically this will mean providing a drainage line up to a likely point of connection.

All development within or close to settlements (as identified in the Local Development Plan) of less than 2000 population equivalent will require to connect to public sewerage system except where a compelling case is made otherwise. Factors to be considered in such a case will include size of the proposed development, whether the development would jeopardise delivery of public sewerage infrastructure and existing drainage

problems within the area. Where a compelling case is made, a private system may be acceptable provided it does not pose or add risk of detrimental effect, including cumulative, to the natural and built environment, surrounding uses or amenity of the general area. Consultation with Scottish Environment Protection Agency will be undertaken in these cases. Where a private system is deemed to be acceptable (within settlements as above or small scale development in the countryside) a discharge to land (either full soakaway or raised mound soakaway) compatible with Technical Handbooks (which sets out guidance on how proposals may meet the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004) should be explored prior to considering a discharge to surface waters. Policy EP12: Air Quality Development proposals, which, individually or cumulatively, may adversely affect the air quality in an area to a level which could cause harm to human health and wellbeing or the natural environment must be accompanied by appropriate provisions (deemed satisfactory to the Council and Scottish Environment Protection Agency as appropriate) which demonstrate how such impacts will be mitigated. Some existing land uses may have a localised detrimental effect on air quality, any proposals to locate development in the vicinity of uses and therefore introduce receptors to these areas (e.g. housing adjacent to busy roads) must consider whether this would result in conflict with the existing land use. Proposals which would result in an unacceptable conflict with existing land use and air quality will not be approved. Policy T1: Transport Infrastructure Improvements The Council will promote the improvement of road, rail, air and sea routes in Moray and priority will be given to: a) dualling the A96 Aberdeen to Inverness route with early delivery of bypasses for

settlements prioritised. b) improving the A95 (Keith to Grantown) route. c) Improving A941 (Lossiemouth to Elgin to Craigellachie) and A98 (Fochabers to

Cullen) routes. Proposals must avoid or address any adverse effect on the integrity of Loch Spynie SPA or the River Spey SAC including hydrological and water quality impacts on habitat or disturbance to species.

d) improving the Aberdeen to Inverness railway for passengers and freight by providing

route and service enhancement. e) improving harbour facilities for freight and leisure including the diversification of the

commercial harbour at Buckie for offshore renewables. Harbour improvement works must avoid or address any adverse effect on the integrity of the Moray Firth Special Area of Conservation through noise or vibration disturbance to bottlenose dolphins, cumulative increase in vessel movements, or through dredging and disposal operations.

f) improving access to air facilities, at Aberdeen and Inverness, in particular through public transport, and the establishment of a railway station at Dalcross.

g) improving the transport network within Elgin where there is evidence of positive

economic benefits including release of sites designated in the local development plan.

Proposals that compromise the implementation of these priorities will not be acceptable. Policy T2: Provision of Access The Council will require that new development proposals are designed to provide the highest level of access for end users including residents, visitors, and deliveries appropriate to the type of development and location. Development must meet the following criteria: • Proposals must maximise connections and routes for pedestrian and cyclists,

including links to active travel and core path routes, to reduce travel demands and provide a safe and realistic choice of access.

• Provide access to public transport services and bus stop infrastructure where

appropriate. • Provide appropriate vehicle connections to the development, including appropriate

number and type of junctions. • Provide safe entry and exit from the development for all road users including

ensuring appropriate visibility for vehicles at junctions and bends. • Provide appropriate mitigation/modification to existing transport networks where

required to address the impacts of new development on the safety and efficiency of the transport network. This may include but would not be limited to, the following measures, passing places, road widening, junction enhancement, bus stop infrastructure and drainage infrastructure. A number of potential road improvements have been identified in association with the development of sites the most significant of these have been shown on the Settlement Map as TSPs.

• Proposals must avoid or mitigate against any unacceptable adverse landscape or

environmental impacts. Developers should give consideration to aspirational core paths (under Policy 2 of the Core Paths Plan) and active travel audits when preparing proposals. New development proposals should enhance permeability and connectivity, and ensure that opportunities for sustainable and active travel are protected and improved. The practicality of use of public transport in more remote rural areas will be taken into account however applicants should consider innovative solutions for access to public transport. When considered appropriate by the planning authority developers will be asked to submit a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.

Significant travel generating proposals will only be supported where: • Direct links to walking and cycling networks are available; • Access to public transport networks would involve walking no more than 400m; • It would not have a detrimental effect on the capacity of the strategic road and/or rail

network; and • A Transport Assessment identifies satisfactory mechanisms for meeting sustainable

transport requirements and no detrimental impact to the performance of the overall network.

Access proposals that have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape and environment that cannot be mitigated will be refused. Policy T5: Parking Standards Proposals for development must conform with the Council's current policy on parking standards. Policy T6: Traffic Management There is a presumption against new accesses onto a trunk road, and Transport Scotland will consider the case for such junctions where nationally significant economic growth or regeneration benefits can be demonstrated. There will also be a presumption against new direct access onto other main/key routes (the A941 and A98) except where required to support the provisions of the development plan. Moray Council will consider the case for such junctions where significant regional economic growth benefits can be demonstrated. Consideration will be given to the traffic impact, appropriate road design and traffic management requirements. Policy T7: Safeguarding & Promotion of Walking, Cycling, & Equestrian Networks The Council will promote the improvement of the walking, cycling, and equestrian networks within Moray. Priority will be given to the paths network including Core Paths and the wider Moray Paths Network. There are several long distance routes that cross Moray including the Speyside Way, Dava Way, Moray Coastal Trail and Aberdeen to Inverness National Cycle Route. Development proposals that would have an unacceptable impact on access rights, core paths, rights of way, long distance routes and other access routes that cannot be adequately mitigated will not be permitted. Where a proposal will affect any of these, proposals must: • incorporate the route within the site layout and the routes amenity value must be

maintained or enhanced; or • provide alternative access that is no less attractive and is safe and convenient for the

public to use.

Policy IMP1: Developer Requirements New development will require to be sensitively sited, designed and serviced appropriate to the amenity of the surrounding area. It should comply with the following criteria a) The scale, density and character must be appropriate to the surrounding area. b) The development must be integrated into the surrounding landscape c) Road, cycling, footpath and public transport must be provided at a level appropriate to the development. Core paths; long distance footpaths; national cycle routes must not be adversely affected. d) Acceptable water and drainage provision must be made, including the use of

sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) for dealing with surface water. e) Where of an appropriate scale, developments should demonstrate how they will

incorporate renewable energy systems, and sustainable design and construction. Supplementary Guidance will be produced to expand upon some of these criteria.

f) Make provision for additional areas of open space within developments. g) Details of arrangements for the long term maintenance of landscape areas and

amenity open spaces must be provided along with Planning applications. h) Conservation and where possible enhancement of natural and built environmental

resources must be achieved, including details of any impacts arising from the disturbance of carbon rich soil.

i) Avoid areas at risk of flooding, and where necessary carry out flood management

measures. j) Address any potential risk of pollution including ground water contamination in

accordance with recognised pollution prevention and control measures. k) Address and sufficiently mitigate any contaminated land issues l) Does not sterilise significant workable reserves of minerals or prime quality

agricultural land. m) Make acceptable arrangements for waste management. Policy IMP2: Development Impact Assessments The Council will require applicants to provide impact assessments in association with planning applications in the following circumstances: a) An Environmental Assessment (EA) will be required for developments that are likely

to have significant environmental affects under the terms of the regulations.

b) A Transport Assessment (TA) will be sought where a change of use or new development is likely to generate a significant increase in the number of trips being made. TAs should identify any potential cumulative effects which would need to be addressed. Transport Assessments should assess the effects the development will have on roads and railway infrastructure including stations and any crossings. Transport Scotland (Trunk Roads) and Network Rail (Railway) should be consulted on the scoping of Transport Assessments. Moray Council's Transportation Service can assist in providing a screening opinion on whether a TA will be sought.

c) In order to demonstrate that an out of centre retail proposal will have no

unacceptable individual or cumulative impact on the vitality and viability of the identified network of town centres, a Retail Impact Assessment will be sought where appropriate. This may also apply to neighbourhood shops, ancillary retailing and recreation/tourism retailing.

d) Where appropriate, applicants may be asked to carry out other assessments (e.g.

noise; air quality; flood risk; drainage; bat; badger; other species and habitats) in order to confirm the compatibility of the proposal.

Policy IMP3: Developer Obligations Contributions will be sought from developers in cases where, in the Council's view, a development would have a measurable adverse or negative impact upon existing infrastructure, community facilities or amenity, and such contributions would have to be appropriate to reduce, eliminate or compensate for that impact. Where the necessary contributions can be secured satisfactorily by means of planning conditions attached to a planning permission, this should be done, and only where this cannot be achieved, for whatever reason, the required contributions should be secured through a planning agreement. The Council will prepare supplementary guidance to explain how the approach will be implemented in accordance with Circular 3/2012 on Planning Obligations. This will detail the necessary facilities and infrastructure and the scale of contributions likely to be required. In terms of affordable housing, developments of 4 or more units will be expected to make a 25% contribution, as outlined in policy H8.