SG LDP AQUA 1 Supplementary Guidance Aquaculture ... · SG LDP AQUA 1 Supplementary Guidance ‐...

SG LDP AQUA 1 Supplementary Guidance ‐ Aquaculture Development

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

Historic Environment Scotland Scottish Natural Heritage RSPB Scotland Marine Harvest (Scotland) Limited Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO)

Provision of the supplementary guidance to which the issue relates:

SG LDP AQUA 1

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Historic Environment Scotland Response welcomes detailed consideration of historic environment interests and recommends minor changes to correct references to ‘Historic Scotland’ and ‘grade’ of listed buildings. In terms of the SEA the response considers that in light of other existing LDP policy protecting the historic environment the SEA, the impact of this policy on the Historic Environment may be more minor in nature than ‘significant positive’. Scottish Natural Heritage Response advises that it may be appropriate to amend the tables of potential impacts on designated sites, in relation to Special Areas of Conservation, Loch Sween MPA and SSSIs. Response notes that the mapping of seal haul‐out sites in Background Map DC4b does not match the seal haul‐out sites as designated under The Protection of Seals (Designation of Haul‐Out Sites) (Scotland) Order 2014. Response also notes that the data set used for mapping shellfish harvesting and growing areas in Map DC5b is not recent and may therefore contain inaccuracies.

RSPB Scotland DC4 ‐ Priority habitats/species and designated sites for nature conservation Page 31‐33 – Response questions how useful it is to list all designated sites as this information is easily accessed elsewhere, the tables provided in the SG may or may not contain all relevant sites and species, and it will become out of date as new sites are designated. Potential Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation are not listed and there is no reference to potential effects on Priority Marine Features. Habitats and species of conservation interest – Reference should be made to Annex I species under the Birds Directive with particular consideration to coastal nesting species of seabed and raptors which will use coastal nesting sites. Reference should also be made to Annex I habitats and Annex II species under the Habitats Directive.

DC5 – Ecological status of water bodies and biological carrying capacity Maps DC5b and DC5c indicate development potential, however they are not supported by assessment of the entire suite of environmental factors required to define environmental carrying capacity for aquaculture development. Either they should be removed or a caveat is required to state the limitations of these maps and what they seek to indicate. DC6 ‐ Commercial and recreational activities The renewable options presented on Map DC6a are not adopted search areas. Scottish Government has not adopted these as policies which remain in draft form and are unlikely to be amended prior to adoption. They should be removed from the map. Annex B The respondent cannot support the reference to ICZM plans and the Sound of Mull Marine Spatial Plan being used as points of material consideration as these documents do not contain references to the National Marine Plan, MPAs, Priority Marine Features and potential marine designations. These plans are inadequate guides to support spatial locational guidance of development and reference instead should be made to the National Marine Plan and the protected area network. RSPB Scotland/Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation National context Respondents identified that Section 2 of the SG describing the ‘national context’, does not reflect the objectives in the National Marine Plan and that this plan is now adopted by Scottish Government. Marine Harvest (Scotland) Limited Reference to importance of cleaner‐fish Respondent wishes to highlight the importance of cleaner‐fish to the salmon farming industry and the associated development and investment in this field. Reference to finfish aquaculture as purely being salmon or trout is inaccurate in the proposed SG. Benefits of cleaner‐fish for salmon aquaculture are known to be significant and the potential for further improving the sustainability of the industry is also great. Future development of SG It is considered positive that new information can be considered for inclusion in the future, however the elements tabulated in Section 3 should only be included if appropriate. Concern is raised about the incorporation of these without further information and it is queried as to whether there would be an opportunity to comment on the science/evidence when the Council was considering integrating new information. Respondent also expresses importance of new spatial and sensitivity guidance being based on sound science and methodology in relation to specific comments in Section DC4 which considers the potential integration of the RAFTs locational guidance project in future versions of the SG (p38, paragraph 4). Information requirements Respondent notes that modelling and baseline information is provided as standard with planning applications but considers there is scope to streamline the licencing process and provide this information in support of the CAR licence process only.

Marine Harvest (Scotland) Limited; Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO) Isolated Coast Marine Harvest response states that it is important that the wording of the SG (Sections 5 and DC2) enables site specific characteristics and development specific details to be assessed and considered in order that opportunities for development are not blocked unnecessarily. Recognise that wording of guidance in relation to wild land enables site specific assessment and query whether this is also applicable to coastline classified as “isolated”. SSPO response identifies concerns about Isolated Coast, previously raised by member company Marine Harvest during the 2013 consultation on the proposed LDP and SG, which did not result in any change to the SG. These concerns relate specifically to the level of protection afforded to Isolated Coast, the likelihood of more isolated and exposed areas becoming an area of search for new sites and the requirement for the highest standards of design for any development. Potential interactions between wild and farmed fish Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd wishes to highlight that wild fish can be a source of infection and sea lice for farmed fish and this source means we require access to management measures such as cleaner‐fish. The SSPO note their appreciation of changes made to the ‘Wild Migratory Salmonids’ section of the Aquaculture SG following consultation in 2013, but highlight their detailed response on this topic to Highland Council’s consultation on their draft Aquaculture SG and wish Argyll and Bute Council to take this additional information into account. Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation Structure of the SG Respondent notes that the Aquaculture SG is differently structured to the other SG documents. Use of the word policy/scope of SG Respondent considers the use of the terms ‘policy’ and ‘policy framework’ in Sections 1, 3 and 4 to be inappropriate in relation to the requirement for SG to provide only further information or detail, with reference made to the Argyll and Bute LDP Examination Report and the Chief Planner’s letter to Councils dated 15th January 2015. Respondent considers the use of the term ‘policy’ to be inappropriate and suggests the word ‘guidance’ as more appropriate. The respondent also considers that the text in the first part of the sentence of the second paragraph of Section 1 goes beyond ‘information and guidance’. Links with the LDP The text of Policy LDP 5 doesn’t specifically mention aquaculture or fish farming so there needs to be an explanation somewhere of what industries ‘marine and coastal’ covers, which should link to paragraph 4.3.3 in the LDP. Economic data and impact Respondent identifies that more up to date economic figures are available in the report ‐ ‘An Assessment of the Benefits to Scotland of Aquaculture’, than those currently used in the ‘Local Context’ described in Section 1 of the SG. Respondent also identifies that given this economic report provides up to date information on past and predicted future economic impact of the aquaculture industry it should therefore be a key reference document for planners and decision makers when assessing development proposals.

Spatial guidance Respondent questions why other local authorities have either managed to provide spatial guidance in their adopted SG or intend to in new SG, and Argyll and Bute Council have not. If unable, or unwilling to adopt a spatial approach in identifying areas suitable for fish farming to suit industry needs, which is the requirement set out in SPP, the respondent believes the Council should provide a much clearer and more positive steer using words to developers and decision makers on what constitutes an acceptable development. The respondent feels that the current policy wording in the LDP and guidance in the SG does not go far enough in this respect and in the absence of a spatial framework identifying areas suitable for fish farming, the Council should express a far more positive predisposition to the development of fish farms in areas where the industry consider suitable. Marine and coastal plans (Section 5) Respondent states that an explanation of the phrase ‘significant material consideration’, as identified in the ‘Justification’ of the Criteria Based Policy, is needed in the context of the decision making process for planning applications. The way it is written suggests that these non‐statutory plans have a greater weight in the decisions making process that the National Marine Plan or Regional Marine Plans.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning officer:

Historic Environment Scotland In the interest of clarity, identified references to Historic Scotland and ‘grade’ rather than ‘category’ of listed buildings should be corrected. Note comments on the SEA conclusion of the SG in relation to its impact on the historic environment and agree that in light of the protection afforded by other SG policies this impact is likely to be more minor in nature than ‘significant positive’. It is therefore considered appropriate that the SEA assessment table (Appendix 6) is amended to identify the impact of this SG on the Historic Environment as being ‘neutral’. Scottish Natural Heritage The purpose of the designated sites tables is to identify which sites shellfish and finfish aquaculture development is likely to interact with. The suggestions made by SNH provide additional details which are considered useful and appropriate. The Council is aware that the maps in the SG provide a snapshot of data and that this information will change over time. It is therefore intended to promote an online GIS system which will provide the most up to date layers of information used in the background maps throughout the SG. This will either be a standalone system accessible from the Council website or a link to a subset of the existing National Marine Plan Interactive (NMPi) website. Map DC4b will be updated to include the final data layer for designated seal haul‐out sites. Map DC5b ‐ The Shellfish Growing Waters layer has been updated to the most recent date of change to these areas which is 2013. While Shellfish Harvesting Areas are updated regularly by Food Standards Scotland the most recent available GIS dataset is the one already used so no update is possible. RSPB Scotland DC4 ‐ Priority habitats/species and designated sites for nature conservation The aquaculture industry and SNH are supportive of individual designated sites being flagged up in this way as a helpful checklist of interests that need to be considered. Future designated sites will

be added to the online GIS mapping tool which will support this SG and will be flagged up during pre‐application discussion. A consultation on the proposed SAC for Harbour Porpoise commenced 23rd March 2016 and has policy protection from this date so it is considered appropriate to include this proposed SAC in the table and in Map DC4a. The draft SPAs do not currently have policy protection and therefore it is not considered appropriate to include in the relevant table or map but reference will be made to further designation being considered with an web link to the relevant page on the SNH website. Priority Marine Features are included on page 33 of this section and are identified as the main focus for protection of marine biodiversity outside designated sites and protected species. It is not considered necessary to make specific reference to species listed under Annex I of the Birds Directive and habitats and species listed under Annex I & II of the Habitats Directive as protection for these habitats and species is covered by consideration of Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas. It is accepted that there is potential for interaction with seabird and raptor nesting sites, particularly as the industry starts to move to more exposed and isolated coastal locations, and that therefore it is appropriate to make reference to this under the subheading ‘Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981’. DC5 – Ecological status of water bodies and biological carrying capacity Maps DC5b and DC5c indicate development potential in relation to specific criteria which is clearly explained in the supporting text and therefore are not attempting to present overall development potential considering all environmental factors. Text under the heading ‘Shellfish waters’ clearly identifies that Shellfish Waters are the preferred areas for new shellfish farming development in relation to water quality only. Likewise, text relating to ‘Locational Guidelines’ makes clear that these Government guidelines relate solely to nutrient enhancement and benthic impact. It is therefore considered that the Maps read alongside supporting text provide the necessary clarity on what they seek to present. DC6 ‐ Commercial and recreational activities The National Marine Plan states that the ‘Plan Options’ identified in the SG background Map DC6a, are considered the preferred strategic locations for the sustainable development of offshore wind and marine renewables and that this preference should be taken into account by decision makers if alternative development or use of these areas is being considered. It is therefore considered that the identification of the Plan Options areas for renewable development in this Map and its supporting text under the ‘Marine renewables development’ heading are appropriate as currently drafted. Annex B The respondent is correct in the fact that the ICZM Plan and Sound of Mull Marine Plan were published prior to the adoption of the National Marine Plan and designation of Nature Conservation MPAs. This however does not mean that they are not suitable documents to be used as a material consideration for appropriate developments within the plan areas. It is important to realise that the primary planning policy that applications are assessed against is our statutory Local Development Plan and its Supplementary Guidance. The Criteria Based Policy in section 5 of the SG clearly identifies this. It is not proposed to adopt the ICZM/marine plans as statutory SG to the LDP and they will remain non‐statutory planning guidance which will be considered as a material consideration alongside other statutory and non‐statutory policy guidance.

These plans are still considered to be fit for purpose, are consistent with our statutory Local Development Plan and its Supplementary Guidance and provide relevant information which would not be used in isolation but alongside other statutory and non‐statutory guidance. The weight given to these plans as a material consideration will be of diminishing importance as the period without formal review is extended. The National Marine Plan and Protected Area Network themselves do not provide adequate spatial guidance for aquaculture development and the former does not include or make reference to future marine designations. For the reasons discussed above, the views of the respondent are not supported and therefore no change to references to these local ICZM/marine plans being used as non‐statutory planning guidance are considered necessary. RSPB Scotland/Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation National Context Agree that the National Context of the SG would benefit from being updated to reflect that the National Marine Plan is now adopted and specifically reference that this plan identifies objectives for Aquaculture, including support for the industry growth targets. Marine Harvest (Scotland) Limited The importance of cleaner‐fish to the salmon farming industry is noted as is the significant investment being made in this area. The ‘Introduction’ of the proposed SG does not identify finfish aquaculture as being purely salmon or trout, although fresh water farming is identified as being of mainly trout and salmon. The ‘Local Context’ section of the SG focusses mainly on marine development and does not make reference to important onshore infrastructure needed to support the aquaculture industry. It is considered appropriate to make reference to the importance of such infrastructure and that this supports innovative new management such as the use of cleaner‐fish in salmon farming. Future development of SG It is the intention of the Council to further develop and update the SG with new spatial information outputs only where they are considered appropriate. The Council would seek views from industry and other relevant stakeholders on any external project or agency output which it decides to consider and would consult on how it proposes to integrate such outputs and what changes it may make to the SG. If significant changes are made to the SG then it would require formal public consultation. To ensure clarity in this regard it is considered appropriate to add the word ‘appropriate’ to the introductory paragraph in Section 3. In addition as the RAFTs locational guidance project is already referred to in Section 3 it is considered that there is no need to describe this further in Section DC4 and therefore it should be removed. Information requirements It is noted that many finfish farming companies submit modelling and baseline information as standard with planning applications which is considered in detail by SEPA as part of the CAR licencing process. As stated in the proposed SG this information would be requested to support EIA development as an Environmental Statement is required to assess all potential significant environmental effects, including those considered by other consenting processes. The Council is supportive of appropriate measures which will improve and streamline the consenting process for aquaculture and will work with Scottish Government and others to implement agreed actions from the Scottish Aquaculture Consenting Review. No change to the SG is therefore considered necessary.

Marine Harvest (Scotland) Limited; Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO) Isolated Coast (DC2) The Council recognises the potential conflict between isolated coast and the industry interest in moving to more exposed and further offshore locations. Development is not excluded by areas of isolated coast but these areas will be a greater constraint to new development on land than in the sea, immediately adjacent to isolated coast. In response to the representations made it is considered that it would be appropriate to amend the second paragraph under the heading ‘Isolated Coast’ to make clearer the circumstances where development may be considered appropriate on land and that proposals for development in the sea adjacent to isolated coast will be considered in relation to whether their scale and location will adversely impact the isolated and remote character of the coast. Potential interactions between wild and farmed fish Wild fish as a source of infection and sea lice for farmed fish is noted as is the need for new management options for managing sea lice. It is therefore considered appropriate to amend the last paragraph of page 37 to note wild fish as a source of sea lice and update the ‘Information Requirements’ for assessment of effects on wild migratory salmonids to include details of other relevant management proposals and options for managing sea lice, such as the use of cleaner fish. The detailed comments made by the SSPO on Highland Council’s draft Aquaculture SG, in relation to wild migratory salmonids have been reviewed in light of our draft SG, which is not considered to be in conflict with concerns raised. No further change to the ‘Wild Migratory Salmonids’ section is therefore considered appropriate. Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation Structure of the SG The Aquaculture SG is a larger document than the other SG documents as it provides a greater level of background information including maps to support the SG policy, which in itself is not differently structured to other SG policies. There is no requirement for SG to be of the same structure or format. Use of the term policy/scope of SG Circular 6/13 identifies that suitable topics for Supplementary Guidance include: detailed policies where the main principles are already established; local policy designations that do not impact on the spatial strategy of the wider plan area; development briefs and masterplans; exact levels of developer contributions or methodologies for their calculation; forestry and woodland strategies and aquaculture framework documents. Use of the term ‘policy’ and second paragraph of Section 1 is therefore considered appropriate. Links with the LDP While the policy text of Policy LDP 5 doesn’t specifically mention aquaculture, the ‘Justification’ of the policy does identify aquaculture as a key economic growth sector, which although not stated is considered to be a ‘coastal and marine’ growth sector. To provide additional clarification it considered appropriate to make reference to Aquaculture as a key ‘marine and coastal’ economic growth sector in the first paragraph of Section 1 (Introduction) which describes the link to Policy LDP 5.

Economic data and impact It is agreed that more up to date figures are available from the report cited and from other publications including Scottish Government Production statistics and SSPO economic reports. It is therefore considered appropriate to update the economic figures in Section 1 of the SG with 2014 data. It is considered appropriate to make specific reference to the economic report on Aquaculture as a supporting document under section ‘DC7 Economic Impact’, which can be used to inform decision making. Spatial guidance The draft SG identifies that the coastal waters of Argyll and Bute are potentially suitable for aquaculture development, subject to certain criteria being met, and identifies areas where development is unlikely to be approved, or where significant constraints are present. It is therefore strongly refuted that the proposed Aquaculture SG does not provide spatial guidance but it is acknowledged that the SG does not go as far as identifying spatial zones for areas favoured for development and areas considered sensitive to development. Comhairle nan Eilean Siar are the only local authority to have developed a zoned approach to date. The Council has decided not to develop a ‘zoned spatial strategy’ as it is considered that this approach will not provide the best practicable option for providing useful guidance and certainty for developers and communities. This decision was supported by the fish farming companies currently operating in Argyll and Bute, including Kames Fish Farming, Marine Harvest (Scotland), Scottish Salmon Company and Scottish Sea Farms who have expressed support for the current criteria based approach of the aquaculture SG during the consultation on the Proposed LDP and SG in 2013. It is considered that the proposed SG is well‐informed, robust, allows scope for sustainable growth and provides a greater degree of certainty than the previous Local Plan policy or a ‘spatial zoned approach’ would do in Argyll and Bute. The Scottish Government ‘presumption in favour of development’ is identified clearly in the criteria based policy for aquaculture development, both in the policy wording itself and the ‘Explanation of Policy Objectives’. It is therefore considered that no change to the SG is required. Marine and coastal plans (Section 5) Section 5 identifies local ICZM and marine plans as non‐statutory planning guidance which will therefore be a material consideration in determination of aquaculture development proposals within the plan areas. It is noted that the SG text uses the phrase ‘significant material consideration’ and that this is not consistent with the draft SG for Coastal Development which identifies the local ICZM/marine plans as a ‘material consideration’. It is therefore proposed to remove the word ‘significant’ from the phrase ‘significant material consideration’.

Planning officer’s recommendations:

Minor modification to SG The following minor changes to the SG are considered appropriate in the interest of clarity and accuracy. It should be noted that the changes proposed are not to the main policy but to its supporting information.

Section 1

Amend the first paragraph of Section 1 to read: This Supplementary Guidance (SG) provides additional detail to policy LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy, which identifies Aquaculture as a key marine and coastal economic growth sector in Argyll and Bute.

Update economic figures under ‘Local Context’ in Section 1 with 2014 data.

Section 2

Amend Section 2 (National Context) to reflect that the National Marine Plan has been adopted and make reference to its objectives for the aquaculture industry.

Section 2 (Local Context) ‐ Add the following sentence to the third paragraph: In addition to marine sites significant investment is being made in the necessary onshore infrastructure required to support growth and further improve sustainability of aquaculture. This includes processing plants and hatcheries to provide farmed stock but also to support innovative new environmental management such as the use of cleaner‐fish in the salmon farming industry.

Section 3

Section 3 (Further development of SG) – Change the last sentence of the introductory paragraph to read: It is proposed to consider and integrate where possible and appropriate, the following elements where further work by government agencies, the Council, and other stakeholders is planned or underway:

Section 5

Remove the word ‘significant’ from the 5th paragraph of page 19. Section 6 DC2 – Isolated Coast and wild land

Development Criteria DC2 – Amend the second paragraph under the ‘Isolated Coast’ heading, to read: Argyll and Bute Council has identified areas of Isolated Coast across Argyll and Bute which are displayed in Map DC2a. These areas relate to where the ‘Very Sensitive Countryside Zone’, identified in LDP, abuts the coastline. Onshore development within isolated coast will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances as outlined in Policy LDP DM1 which are limited to specific categories of resource based development on appropriate sites. These categories include development directly supporting aquaculture. Aquaculture development proposals in marine waters adjacent to areas of isolated coast will need to consider the impact of the development in terms of its location and scale on the isolated and remote character of the coast.

DC3 – Historic or archaeological sites & their settings

Change references to ‘Historic Scotland’ and Listed Building ‘Grade’ to ‘Historic Environment Scotland’ and ‘Category’ respectively.

DC4 – Priority habitats/species and designated sites for nature conservation

Amend designate site tables for the following sites to identify that shellfish development may be relevant to the qualifying features:

SACs and SSSIs where seals are a notified feature

Loch Sween MPA

Amend Map DC4b so that it matches completely with seal haul out sites as designated under The Protection of Seals (Designation of Haul‐Out Sites) (Scotland) Order 2014 and make clear in map legend that these do not include seal haul‐outs within SACs for seals.

Include ‘Inner Hebrides and the Minches’ proposed SAC in designated sites table and Map DC4a.

Include reference to additional marine SPAs being considered, but not yet designated under section on Special Protection Areas.

Add the following paragraph under the heading ‘Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981’ Where aquaculture development is proposed in close proximity to known coastal nesting sites for seabirds and raptors the protection afforded to relevant wild birds species under the Act will need to be considered.

Amend the third sentence of the last paragraph of page 37 While wild fish can be a source of sea lice to farmed salmon, effective management is required to prevent sea lice from proliferating on a farm and becoming a significant source of infection for wild fish.

Remove fourth paragraph on page 38 (Wild Migratory Salmonids).

Add additional bullet point to Information Requirements for assessment in relation to ‘Wild Migratory Salmonids’. Other management proposals and options for managing sea lice, including the use of cleaner fish;

DC7 Economic impact Add reference (with weblink) to the Marine Scotland report ‘An Assessment of the Benefits to

Scotland of Aquaculture (2014)’ as a supporting document under the existing reference to supporting maps.

Council decision:

SG LDP CST 1 Supplementary Guidance ‐ Coastal Development


Scottish Government Planning Forestry Commission Scotland Historic Environment Scotland Scottish Natural Heritage Mrs Pollok‐Morris South Knapdale Community Council RSPB Scotland Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation


SG LDP CST 1 – Coastal Development


Scottish Government Planning Content guidance complies with policy requirements of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). Forestry Commission Scotland Seeking confirmation that small scale timber facilities would not be automatically excluded on isolated coast, as per respondent’s interpretation of LDP Policy DM 1. Historic Environment Scotland No detailed comments to offer on this policy and are content to agree that significant impacts on historic environment are not likely, and that historic environment issues are adequately covered elsewhere in the LDP. Also welcome the suggestion that a separate SG policy for Marine Protected Areas will be progressed as part of the next LDP, recommending that this includes consideration of Historic MPAs. Scottish Natural Heritage Response is broadly supportive of changes made to the SG and notes a clear audit trail in Environmental Report for the chosen approach to the SG. Response also notes that the adopted LDP was drafted prior to the designation of Nature Conservation MPAs and therefore a role for any future Coastal Development Strategy could be to provide an overview of these sites, but that this should not be in substitute for a more coherent, comprehensive policy approach in the next LDP. Mrs Pollok‐Morris Paragraph 1.1.4 of the ‘Explanation of Policy Objectives’ is considered vague, and could result in arbitrary decision making, with consequent reduction of safeguard of the coastal zone. Similar concerns are raised in relation to Paragraph 1.1.7 that human activity such as reclamation or infill would negate the presumption against development of the foreshore. The respondent’s overall impression of the Revised Guidance is that it is less detailed, more open to interpretation and therefore less protective of the coast.

South Knapdale Community Council Notes that the Supplementary Guidance consultation considers coastal and marine issues and describes the steps the Council will go through in response to applicants wanting to set up new business in coastal areas, but raises concern that it does not say what the Council will be doing to attract applicants, especially young applicants, in the first place. These comments are made in the context of the introduction of new business being vital. RSPB Scotland The ‘Special Coastal Qualities’ part of the policy should include a requirement to consider potential effects on Priority Marine Features (PMF), especially where these are found outwith protected sites. The respondent cannot support the reference to ICZM plans and the Sound of Mull Marine Spatial Plan being used as points of material consideration as these documents do not contain references to the National Marine Plan, MPAs, Priority Marine Features and potential marine designations. These plans are inadequate guides to support spatial locational guidance of development and reference instead should be made to the National Marine Plan and the protected area network. Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation Policy context Respondent states that there should be text explaining the context for the SG, its legislative and policy basis and its overall role in the planning process. Use of the word policy Respondent considers the use of the word ‘policy’ to be inappropriate in relation to the requirement for SG to provide only further information or detail with reference made to the Argyll and Bute LDP Examination Report and the Chief Planner’s letter to Councils dated 15th January 2015. Respondent suggests that the word ‘guidance’ may be more appropriate. In addition, the phrase ‘presumption against’ is considered to signify that the SG is policy and not information and guidance. Status of local ICZM/marine plans Respondent questions whether point (iv)of the ‘Safeguarding Special Coastal Qualities’ part of the SG is correct as it is perceived to elevate the non‐statutory ICZM plans to the same status as policies in the National Marine Plan and any future Regional Marine Plans. Respondent considers there should be a more detailed explanation of the status of the various ‘plans’ identified in paragraph 1.1.11 in terms of the consideration of, and decision making on development proposals.


Scottish Government Planning Response noted. Forestry Commission Scotland The view of respondent is correct in that small scale timber transport facilities could be considered ‘natural resource based management’, and to be development supporting ‘other established activity’, as defined in LDP Policy DM 1. This therefore means that this type of development would not automatically be excluded on isolated coast.

Historic Environment Scotland Note comments and agree that any new SG covering Marine Protected Areas to be taken forward as part of the next LDP should include consideration of Historic MPAs. Scottish Natural Heritage Broad support for changes to SG noted. In relation to Nature Conservation MPAs, the development of an SG policy which fully considers MPAs will be a priority for the next LDP. In the meantime the proposed SG for Coastal Development and Aquaculture Development allow development which has the potential to affect these designations to be considered. In this respect it is important to note that the Council has a duty to consider development proposals in relation to policies of the National Marine Plan which consider MPAs. While the LDP does not present the boundaries of MPAs these designations are incorporated into the Councils Development Management GIS system and their presence will be flagged up where development proposals are within or immediately adjacent to these areas. Mrs Pollok‐Morris The Council considered that it was not appropriate to define a standard inland limit for the coastal zone because the landward extent of the coast varies considerably from one location to the next. For example the landward boundary of the coast can be narrow where edged by cliffs or settlement, but can also broaden to include raised beaches, dunes or more open coastal pasture or machair. Flexibility is therefore necessary in defining the extent of the coast and planning officers will need to make a judgement as to whether this policy applies to a specific development proposal on a case by case basis. Considerations in determining the landward limit of the coastal zone will include the extent to which it is affected by coastal processes, the intervisibility between land and sea, and the potential for development to adversely affect the special qualities of the coast. This necessary, flexible definition of the coast is not considered an impediment to appropriate safeguard of the coastal zone. Paragraph 1.1.7 provides a definition of what is considered to make up the ‘natural foreshore’, an area viewed as sensitive to development. The presumption against development subject to the criteria listed in the policy, seeks to protect areas of foreshore that are in a natural state which therefore excludes area of raised or developed foreshore such as a harbour or raised carpark. This paragraph is therefore not stating that the presumption in favour of development on the natural foreshore does not apply to human activity such as reclamation or infill. Such development would only be granted if the exceptions listed in the policy were met. Changes were made to the Supplementary Guidance (SG) to make it more consistent with other SG and to ensure that it complemented rather than replicate other LDP policies and SG. The focus of the revised SG is now limited to elements not covered elsewhere. As a result it is agreed that the revised Supplementary Guidance is less detailed but not that this will result reduced protection of the coast from inappropriate development as development proposals on the coast will be subject to all relevant LDP and SG policies. South Knapdale Community Council Comments noted. The purpose of Supplementary Guidance is to state how the Council will assess development proposals which require planning permission rather than how the Council proposes to attract business to Argyll and Bute. The latter is the role of the Council’s Economic Development Service which would be implemented through delivery of our Economic Development Action Plan and business support through Business Gateway.

RSPB Scotland It is agreed that the policy would benefit from inclusion of a statement regarding assessment of effects on Priority Marine Features given that this element of species protection or biodiversity protection is not adequately covered by other SG policies. The respondent is correct in the fact that the ICZM Plan and Sound of Mull Marine Plan were published prior to the adoption of the National Marine Plan and designation of Nature Conservation MPAs. This however does not mean that they are not suitable documents to be used as material consideration for appropriate developments within the plan areas. It is important to realise that the primary planning policy that applications are assessed against is our statutory Local Development Plan and its Supplementary Guidance. The Criteria Based Policy in section 5 of the SG clearly identifies this. It is not proposed to adopt the ICZM/marine plans as statutory SG to the LDP and they will remain non‐statutory planning guidance which will be not be used in isolation but considered as a material consideration alongside other statutory and non‐statutory policy guidance. The weight given to these plans will be of diminishing importance as the period without formal review is extended. These plans are still considered to be fit for purpose, provide useful guidance, and are consistent with our statutory Local Development Plan and its Supplementary Guidance. The National Marine Plan and Protected Area Network themselves do not provide adequate spatial guidance for aquaculture development and the former does not include or make reference to future marine designations. For the reasons discussed above, the views of the respondent are not supported and therefore no change to references to these local ICZM/marine plans being used as non‐statutory planning guidance are considered necessary. Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation Policy context It is considered that adequate legislative and policy context for the SG is provided in the LDP and Section 1.1 and therefore no change to the SG is required. Use of the term policy Circular 6/13 identifies that suitable topics for Supplementary Guidance include: detailed policies where the main principles are already established; local policy designations that do not impact on the spatial strategy of the wider plan area; development briefs and masterplans; exact levels of developer contributions or methodologies for their calculation; forestry and woodland strategies and aquaculture framework documents. Use of the term ‘policy’ is therefore considered appropriate. Status of local ICZM/marine plans Point (iv) of the ‘Safeguarding Special Coastal Qualities’ part of the SG is considered appropriate and does not, as suggested by the respondent, make any reference to the status of National Marine Plans, Regional Marine Plans and local non‐statutory marine plans. It is considered that paragraph 1.1.11 provides sufficient details in terms of the status of the local ICZM and marine plans, clearly identifying them as non‐statutory planning guidance which will therefore be a material consideration in determination of coastal development proposals within the plan areas.


Minor modification to SG Amend the point ii) of the ‘Safeguarding Special Coastal Qualities’ part of the policy to read (new text in bold):

ii) To assess the proposal against the conservation objectives of any affected Marine Protected Area and the national status of Priority Marine Features; AND

Add new statement to paragraph 1.1.8 of the ‘Explanation of Policy Objectives’ describing the purpose and policy background for Priority Marine Features.

Council decision:

SG LDP TRAN 8 Supplementary Guidance – Piers and Harbours


Scottish Government Planning Forestry Commission Scotland Historic Environment Scotland Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd. Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation


SG LDP TRAN 8


Scottish Government Planning Response notes support for infrastructure necessary to support positive changes in transport technologies in paragraph 275 of SPP and notes that reference could be made in the policy to the provision of such infrastructure at harbours to support greater use of low carbon fuel options. Response notes and supports clause (B) of the policy which supports marine leisure and recreational purposes. Forestry Commission Scotland Respondent identifies that in relation to Part C (ii) of the policy, that alternative facilities nearby may not always be appropriate and therefore it may be useful to qualify the policy statement to take account of other impacts that use of a nearby facility might bring. Respondent identifies that there can be additional benefits of timber shipment by sea to both local communities and the environment. Historic Environment Scotland Agree with SEA which concludes that this policy is unlikely to have significant impacts on the historic environment. Response welcomes requirement for design, scale and siting of new development to respect the character and appearance of adjacent areas and identifies that it may be helpful for the SG to recognise that many of these areas contain listed buildings, or are located within conservation areas.

Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd. Fully supportive of principle of the policy which encourages the development of new or existing pier and harbour infrastructure. Welcome inclusion of a piers and harbours policy in SG which will provide specific guidance on future development proposals in existing harbour areas and assist in supporting delivery of future development projects in these areas

Response expresses concern that the proposed wording of Part C of the policy, relating to ‘Development outwith existing harbour areas’, does not provide a sufficient level of clarity in terms of what the Council classifies as ‘harbour areas’. As detailed maps of harbour areas have not been defined it is unclear what information Council Planning Officers will use to determine whether proposals accord with this policy. The wording of paragraph 1.1.6 of the Policy Objectives is considered to be ambiguous and have potential to delay the delivery of development projects in harbour areas. In relation to ‘development briefs’ and surveys of harbour areas it does not state who is required to produce the development briefs or what would be considered as ‘major harbour works’. A requirement for surveys of harbour areas could become costly, time consuming and onerous for developers and landowners. As a result of these concerns it is requested that paragraph 1.1.6 is removed from the Supplementary Guidance. Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation Respondent considers the use of the word ‘policy’ to be inappropriate in relation to the requirement for SG to provide only further information or detail with reference made to the Argyll and Bute LDP Examination Report and the Chief Planner’s letter to Councils dated 15th January 2015. Respondent suggests that the word ‘guidance’ may be more appropriate.


Scottish Government Planning Agree that it would be appropriate for policy to express support for infrastructure at harbours to support greater use of low carbon fuel options. This could relate to infrastructure to allow electric charging of road vehicles and hybrid ferries. Forestry Commission Scotland Agree that it is possible that nearby facilities may not offer the best option for timber transport from a particular area and that the wording of the policy may not fully allow the consideration of impacts which may make alternative nearby facilities less favourable than a new development. It is therefore considered appropriate to make minor adjustment to the wording of Part C (ii) of the policy. The ‘Explanation of Policy Objectives’ does recognise that coastal shipping can provide a more environmentally friendly means of moving bulk freight than by road but does expressly identify that timber transhipment can have benefits for local communities and the environment. To provide further clarity it is considered appropriate to amend 1.1.5 of the SG. Historic Environment Scotland Note support for requirement for design, scale and siting of new development to respect character and appearance of adjacent areas, which is intended to relate to the character of listed buildings and conservation areas. While agreed that it might be helpful to recognise that harbour areas may contain listed buildings or are located within conservation areas the specific protection of these historic interests are covered by other SG and therefore it is not considered necessary to state this in the Piers and Harbours SG.

Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd. The aim of the policy is to direct future development in the first instance to areas where infrastructure already exists, but where development is needed at a new location where no infrastructure currently exists, further justification for the need of the development is required. If a planning application is submitted for pier and harbour related development which is immediately adjacent to existing infrastructure then it would be considered an expansion or redevelopment of an existing pier/harbour. In this instance Part A of the policy would apply. If a proposal is submitted for new infrastructure close to, but not immediately adjacent to existing infrastructure or facilities, then it is unlikely to be considered as a redevelopment or expansion and would therefore be required to be consistent with Part C of the policy. It is agreed that use of the term ‘harbour area’ presents difficulties in that these areas have not been mapped by the Council and many piers and harbours do not have designated harbour areas. It is considered impractical to produce maps of defined ‘harbour areas’ for the over 50 harbours and piers in Argyll and Bute as many of these do not have designated harbour areas and would require significant consultation and negotiation to define and agree specific areas. On the basis of the above points it is considered appropriate to make minor changes to the terminology used in Part A and C of the policy to continue the same policy approach but provide greater clarity. It is agreed that wording of paragraph 1.1.6 in the ‘Explanation of Policy Objectives’ lacks clarity in relation in terms of who should undertake Development Briefs or Harbour Surveys and what would be considered ‘major harbour works’. Having considered the representations from CMAL and advice from other Council departments it considered that it is inappropriate for Development Briefs to be a requirement for major harbour developments but it would be important to recognise that the preparation or use of existing Development Briefs and/or Operational Plans for harbours may be useful in informing the acceptability of new proposals. Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation Circular 6/13 identifies that suitable topics for Supplementary Guidance include: detailed policies where the main principles are already established; local policy designations that do not impact on the spatial strategy of the wider plan area; development briefs and masterplans; exact levels of developer contributions or methodologies for their calculation; forestry and woodland strategies and aquaculture framework documents. Use of the term ‘policy’ is therefore considered appropriate.


Minor changes to policy – restructure of order of policy and minor change to terminology but keeping original policy approach. 1. Remove headings above Part A and Part C of Policy and reorder sections so that Part C

becomes Part A; Part A becomes Part B; and Part B becomes Part C.

2. Amend new Parts A and B of SG policy to read:

(A) Pier and Harbour development is encouraged in the first instance at locations where pier and harbour infrastructure already exists. Where proposals for new infrastructure are outwith these locations, support will only be given where proposals can demonstrate: (i) A locational and operational need; AND (ii) That there are no alternative facilities or properties nearby that could be adequately utilised or redeveloped; AND (iii) That they are compatible with the scale of any adjacent settlement. (B) Proposals for redevelopment or expansion of existing piers and harbours will be supported where: (i) The proposal requires a harbour‐side location or is ancillary to activities taking place within the harbour itself; AND (ii) The proposal would not compromise the efficient working of the harbour, including the provision of public or commercial ferry services, freight transport and servicing of the fishing, aquaculture and renewable energy industries; AND (iii) The design, scale and siting of the new development respects, as much as is reasonably possible in an industrial area, the character or appearance of the adjacent area.

3. Change wording of new Part A(ii) to the following:

The applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority, that nearby existing facilities or infrastructure do not satisfy the requirements of the proposed development; AND

4. Add following text to new Part C of policy: ……. recreational purposes and provision of infrastructure to support greater use of low carbon fuel options, will be viewed favourably……..

To support this change, add the following statement to paragraph 1.1.4 of ‘Explanation of Policy Objectives’: Ferry terminals are considered to provide a useful focal point for infrastructure necessary to support greater use of low carbon fuel options, including charging points for electric vehicles and hybrid ferries.

5. Amend paragraph 1.1.4 to the following: Where Development Briefs for harbours exist, they will be an important consideration in the acceptability of new development proposals. Operational Plans for harbours may also be useful informing the acceptability of new proposals.

6. Add the following text to 1.1.5 …. road network, resulting in benefits to local communities and the environment and is therefore….

Council decision:

APPENDIX 2A Supplementary Guidance – Renewable Energy


Scottish Renewables Scottish Power Renewables (SPR)

Provision of the Supplementary Guidance to which the issue relates:

Appendix 2a


There is no reference in the Supplementary Guidance to Appendix 2a, the context for the appendix should be explained in the guidance. Appendix 2a sets out additional considerations for renewable energy development, including Tourism Development Areas. There is no evidence to suggest that tourism and windfarms cannot co‐exist. A study by ClimateXChange showed 83% of Scottish respondents said their decision on where to visit or stay would not be affected by the presence of a wind farm. Research published by Scottish Renewables in 2015 showed that cyclists and runners have clocked up more than 13,000 miles on renewable energy tracks in less than 4 years. The Airport Safeguarding Zones marked on Appendix 2a do not correlate to published CAA or NATS zones further clarity on these is required, furthermore the map should show Aviation Safeguarding Zones in order to identify the range of aviation safeguarding issues. (SPR) If a layer representing indicative “aviation safeguarding routes” is to be included in Appendix 2a then this should only include:

17km aerodrome safeguarding zone (Campbeltown, Islay and Tiree airports)

5km aerodrome safeguarding zone based on Oban airport

The above zones include the safeguarding footprint for NERL’s navigation aids and Air –Ground –Airport links based near Campbeltown and Tiree airports

A wider 15nm (approx. 28 Km) safeguarding zone for NERL’s SSR at Tiree.

Modifications sought by those submitting representation:

There is no reference in the Supplementary Guidance to Appendix 2a, the context for the appendix should be explained in the guidance. If a layer representing indicative “aviation safeguarding routes” is to be included in Appendix 2a then this should only include:

17km aerodrome safeguarding zone (Campbeltown, Islay and Tiree airports)

5km aerodrome safeguarding zone based on Oban airport

The above zones include the safeguarding footprint for NERL’s navigation aids and Air –Ground –Airport links based near Cambeltown and Tiree airports

A wider 15nm (approx. 28 Km) safeguarding zone for NERL’s SSR at Tiree.


Appendix 2a seeks to provide additional information to be used in assessing proposals for wind turbine developments against the criteria of Policy LDP 6 –Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Adopted Local Development Plan. These include Tourism Development Areas and Areas of Panoramic Quality, which have been designated by the Local Development Plan. The Airport Safeguarding Zones are intended to help inform the application of the criteria of the 12th bullet point of Policy LDP 6 and are taken from the Councils database of safeguarding zones.

Officer recommendations :

No Change

Council Decision:

REF Supplementary Guidance – Renewable Energy


Blairghour Windfarm Limited


Renewable Energy SG


Page 63, Para 2.3 – The final sentence in this paragraph notes: “The NPF3 states that the government wants to continue to capitalise on our wind resource and for the country to be a world leader in offshore renewable energy, with onshore wind energy development being overtaken by marine energy including wind wave and tidal”. This reference to paragraph 3.9 of NPF3 is not accurate and it is worded in a way which suggests that there is less government support for onshore wind than offshore renewables, which is not the case. In fact, what Paragraph 3.9 states is that “In time, we expect the pace of onshore wind energy development to be overtaken by a growing focus on our significant marine energy opportunities…”. Therefore, this is the Scottish Governments forecast rather than its desire, or “want”, presumably due to the scale of development which is available in a marine environment. It seems that “expect” has been misinterpreted in this context and we object until a more accurate reflection of paragraph 3.9 of NPF3 is included, as suggested in 5b below.

1) Page 67, Para 3.5 (1) – We object to this paragraph where it states “unacceptable significant adverse effects”. This could be misinterpreted to claim that significant effects are unacceptable in all cases, which is of course, not accurate. Therefore, we would recommend the alterations set out in 5b below.

2) Page 67, Para 3.5 (2) – This paragraph notes that “Consequently, the policy, associated SG and technical documents such as the Argyll and Bute Onshore Wind Energy Landscape capacity Study seeks to deliver the growth of this important industry in a sustainable manner”. At this stage it is unclear what role, if any, the latter document is proposed to have in a policy context. However, we would highlight that page 10 of Spatial Planning for Onshore Wind Turbines – natural heritage considerations Guidance (SNH, 2015) states that "It is important that landscape capacity studies for wind farms are robust and transparent...developed through a transparent process, including an open formal public consultation." To our knowledge this has not taken place for the Argyll and Bute Onshore Wind Energy Landscape capacity Study. In addition, the guidance indicates that Landscape Capacity Studies should be updated every 2‐3 years. The most recent Study carried out by Carol Anderson was published in March 2012 and is therefore outdated. Therefore, we have concerns with the specific reference to this document until a more up‐to‐date assessment which has been subject to public consultation has been made in adherence with SNH guidelines.

3) Page 69, Figure1 – The plan which is provided is at a very low resolution and lacks spatial references other than coastal edges and authority boundaries. Although islands and peninsulas are recognisable, mainland areas of Argyll and Bute are less apparent, particularly around Loch Awe for example, which isn’t mapped as a feature and as such appears as a Group 3 area. Please see 5b for suggested amendments.

4) Page 70, Paragraph 4.3 (1) – This paragraph notes that areas have been mapped showing “community separation distances of 2km around those settlements identified in the Local Development Plan.” This uniform approach is immediately apparent on Figure 1. However, while Group 2 of Table 1 in SPP makes reference to “an area not exceeding 2km around cities, towns and villages identified on the local development plan”, it also states that “the extent of the area will be determined by the planning authority based on landform and other features which restrict views out from the settlement.” This is also set out within paragraph 2.12 of the draft SG 2. Therefore, we object to the blanket 2km approach and make the recommendations set out in 5b in order for the objection to be removed.

5) Page 70, Paragraph 4.3 (2) – We further object to this paragraph in relation to where it states that “these Group 2 areas, are Areas of Significant Protection where any development would be required to demonstrate that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation”. 5b sets out alternative, less onerous wording on the basis that significant effects are not necessarily unacceptable.

6) Page 70, Paragraph 4.4 (1) – The use of “intrusive” in this paragraph is unnecessary and we recommend it is removed in 5b below.

7) Page 70, Paragraph 4.4 (2) – The fourth sentence refers to wild land as a “designation”. This is not the case and should not be treated as such. Wild Land areas are identified in SPP, but are not a statutory designation.

8) Page 70, Para 4.4 (3) – The final sentence which appears to make links to Group 1 and Group 2 areas is superfluous, tenuous and doesn’t offer any ‘guidance’ as such. Therefore, removal is suggested in 5b.

9) Page 70, Para 4.5 – This paragraph states that “peat and carbon rich soils are nationally rare” and also notes that it is “fairly extensive across Argyll” and has a “wide distribution”. It is important to highlight that only areas of deep peat have been identified in SNH draft CPP mapping. Suggested alterations are noted in 5b.

10) Page70, Para 4.7 – this paragraph is intended to highlight that “all group 3 areas are likely to be acceptable, subject to detailed consideration against identified policy criteria”, as set out in SPP. However, Para 4.7 of the draft guidance goes on to state that “local landscape designations” and “Tourist Development Areas” are among these policy criteria. It is accepted that local development plan policy criteria will be applied to wind farm proposals, regardless of which Table 1 grouping they fall within. However, alluding to additional designations/areas within this para is confusing and suggests that they are a Spatial Framework consideration, which they are not. There is no specific mention within the guidance to any of the designations set out in appendix 2a and 2b therefore it is unclear what their significance is? SPP is clear in para 163 where it states: “The approach to spatial framework preparation set out in the SPP should be followed in

order to deliver consistency nationally and additional constraints should not be applied at this stage.” These areas shown in Appendix 2a and 2b are, even by their title, “additional constraints” and don’t fit within this guidance which relates primarily to the Spatial Strategy.

11) Figure 3: Cumulative Impacts on Loch Awe ‐ The areas of blue (areas where additional development could give rise to the extension of cumulative effects in relation to existing and emerging development patterns) are clearly influenced by taking into account the Ardchonnel and Musdale schemes which are now not valid. Therefore it is considered that the area which comprises the proposed Blarghour Wind Farm should be shaded purple (areas where additional development could be sited away from existing patterns of development, but with reduced potential for cumulative effects).

12) General comment: Aside from the preparation of a Spatial Strategy, the draft guidance doesn’t correspond to the policy position in LDP6. It would be useful to have some supplementary guidance on the development criteria set out in this policy.


1) Page 63, Para 2.3 – If the final sentence, if it is to remain it should be altered to: “The

NPF3 states that the government expects to continue to capitalise on our wind resource and for the country to be a world leader in offshore renewable energy, with onshore wind energy development being overtaken by marine energy including wind wave and tidal”.

2) Page 67, Para 3.5 (1) – Where it states “unacceptable significant adverse effects”. This should be altered to read “unacceptably significant adverse effects”.

3) Page 67, Para 3.5 (2) – remove reference in this paragraph to the Argyll and Bute

Onshore Wind Energy Landscape capacity Study. 4) Page 69, Figure1 – The Spatial Framework would benefit from greater detail, including

references such as transport routes, settlements and key physical features such as lochs. Ideally the Group 1 – 3 areas would be overlain on a minimum 1: 250, 000 detail plan(s).

5) Page 70, Para 4.3 (1) – The comprehensive 2km buffer which has been applied to

every settlement with the LDP on Figure 1 should be reviewed to consider features which restrict views from settlements, in order to comply fully with SPP. This would doubtless enable larger areas of Argyll & Bute to fall within Group 3 and hence further realise the renewable energy potential of the area. If this has already been carried out then wording or a technical note should be provided to explain the methods and conclusions of the assessment which has led to the maximum distance being applied to every settlement.

6) Page 70, Paragraph 4.3 (2) – For the reasons set out in 5a, the 5th sentence in this paragraph should be altered to state: “these Group 2 areas, are Areas of Significant Protection where any development would be required to demonstrate that any unacceptably adverse effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation”.

7) Page 70, Paragraph 4.3 (3) – The final sentence should be altered to state: …”no unacceptable adverse effects on the integrity of the site”. Adverse effects are not necessarily unacceptable. For example, in EIA terms a minor adverse effect would not be considered ‘significant’ and certainly not “unacceptable”.

8) Page 70, Paragraph 4.4 (1) – Remove “intrusive” from this paragraph at third sentence.

9) Page 70, Paragraph 4.4 (2) – Remove “designation” from this paragraph at the fourth sentence.

10) Page 70, Paragraph 4.4 (3) – Remove final sentence.

11) Page 70, Paragraph 4.5 ‐ The first sentence should be altered to “carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat are internationally important and distributed fairly extensively across Argyll.”

12) Page70, Para 4.7: Specific reference to APQ’s and Tourism Development Areas when discussing Group 3 areas is considered unnecessary and should be removed. In addition, appendix 2a and 2b have no corresponding text within the guidance and would appear only to serve as additional constraints to those set out in Table 1 of SPP. Paragraph 163 of SPP is clear that this is not acceptable and these should therefore be removed.


1) Page 63, Para 2.3 – The final sentence in this paragraph notes: “The NPF3 states that the government wants to continue to capitalise on our wind resource and for the country to be a world leader in offshore renewable energy, with onshore wind energy development being overtaken by marine energy including wind wave and tidal”. This reference to paragraph 3.9 of NPF3 is not accurate and it is worded in a way which suggests that there is less government support for onshore wind than offshore renewables, ‐The fourth sentence in paragraph 3.9 of NPF3 states “We want to continue to capitalise on our wind resource and for Scotland to be a world leader in offshore renewable energy”.

2) Page 67, Para 3.5 (1) and Page 70, Paragraph 4.3 (2) – We object to this paragraph where it states “unacceptable significant adverse effects”. The test is whether an effect is adverse unacceptable significant merely quantifies this

3) Page 67, Para 3.5 (2) – remove reference in this paragraph to the Argyll and Bute Onshore Wind Energy Landscape capacity Study – This reference reflects the wording of paragraph 4.5.4 of the Adopted Local Development Plan and therefore states the Councils agreed aims .

4) Page 69, Figure1 – The Spatial Framework would benefit from greater detail – The Spatial Framework would benefit from greater detail – The Spatial Framework is available on line and more detail available as GIS shape files on request. Improved base mapping and more detailed smaller scale mapping will be provided for the finalised SG.

5) Page 70, Para 4.3 (1) – The comprehensive 2km buffer which has been applied to every settlement with the LDP on Figure 1 should be reviewed – the 2km buffer reflects the guidance of SPP, test 3 D GIS modeling was applied to a number of settlements in Argyll and Bute however this process did not result in any significant changes to the 2km buffer.

6) Page 70, Paragraph 4.3 (3) – The final sentence reflects the wording used in table 1 of SPP which refers to any significant effects as this is the test which requires to be applied to the international designations included within these areas.

7) Page 70, Paragraph 4.4 (1) – Remove “intrusive” from this paragraph – this the wording used in paragraph 200 of SPP 2014.

8) Page 70, Paragraph 4.4 (2) – Remove “designation” – agree that reference to designation should be removed and replaced with areas of wild land.

9) Page 70, Paragraph 4.4 (3) – Remove final sentence. – This sentence seeks to provide some additional context to wild land in Argyll and Bute, however it is not necessary and can be removed.

10) Page 70, Paragraph 4.5 ‐ The first sentence should be altered to “carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat are internationally important and distributed fairly extensively across Argyll.” Agree that the reference should be to carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat, but consider the remainder of the sentence should remain in order to give wider context to this fairly extensive resource in Argyll and Bute.

11) Page70, Para 4.7: Reference to APQ’s and Tourism Development Areas is considered unnecessary In addition, appendix 2a and 2b have no corresponding text within the guidance and would appear only to serve as additional constraints. – the reference to APQ’s and Tourism Development Areas together with the additional information provided in Appendix 2a and 2b was intended to provide additional information which are relevant to the criteria detailed in Policy LDP 6 of the Adopted Local Development Plan. It is accepted that better referencing and context for these could have been provided and that paragraph 4.16 should be expanded to provide this.

Planning officer’s Recommendations:

Page 63, Para 2.3 – No change

Page 67, Para 3.5 (1) and Page 70, Paragraph 4.3 (2) – No change

Page 67, Para 3.5 (2 – No change

Page 69, Figure1 – The Spatial Framework will be made available digitally and with more detailed smaller scale map base.

Page 70, Para 4.3 (1) – No change Page 70, Paragraph 4.3 (3) – No change Page 70, Paragraph 4.4 (1) – No change Page 70, Paragraph 4.4 (2 – delete “designation” and replace with “areas of wild land” Page 70, Paragraph 4.4 (3) delete last sentence of paragraph 4.4

Page 70, Paragraph 4.5 ‐ The first sentence should be altered to “carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat are internationally important and distributed fairly extensively across Argyll.”

, Para 4.7 recommend that paragraph 4.16 be replaced as follows “ Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Growth of Renewables identifies a criteria based approach for the assessment of wind turbine applications. The additional considerations as set out in Appendices 2a and 2b identify some of the additional considerations which the Council will expect to be addressed when considering applications against the criteria of Policy LDP 6. It should be noted that the information provided in these Appendices is not definitive and additional factors may be required to be taken into consideration when assessing individual applications against the criteria of Policy LDP 6. It should also be noted that development proposals may require to be assessed against other Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance policies as appropriate, the context for this being provided by the framework of Policy LDP 6 and this Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance.”

Council decision:



Ecotricity


Renewable Energy SG


1. Ecotricity is not aware of any publicity and did not receive any notification from the

Council of the Supplementary Guidance 1 and 2 (SG) consultation exercises.

“… community separation distances of 2km around those settlements identified in the LDP” The boundary definition and extent of Local Development Plan (LDP) settlements is unclear.

2. Regarding the 2km separation distance it should be noted that Scottish Planning Policy

2014 (SPP) and its underpinning guidance states that: “the extent of the area will be determined by the planning authority based on landform and other features which restrict views out of the settlement.”

3. 4.4 “… proximity to, and effect on, the visual envelope of the wild land area” Visual envelope is too broad and too unclear a parameter. Reference to proximity is sufficient to capture potential significant impacts. Any potential effect arising as a result of development outwith the wild land area would be ‘indirect’.

4. “ Outwith the group 1 and 2 areas, are the group 3 areas …” The capitalisation of the

word ‘group’ is inconsistent – it should be upper case (i.e. Group) in the context of SPP classification / categories.

5. No rationale for the Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) is provided by the Council with no

information provided setting out its special qualities and reasons for designation. Its boundaries do not appear to follow physical features on the ground as per current Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) guidelines3 and therefore seem arbitrary.

6. The cross references to LWECS in section 4.10‐ 4.11 Landscape and Cumulative Impacts

are incorrect and do not correspond with the Council’s website headings. There is confusion between the LWECS Main Study Report and the Appendix Report.

7. No rationale is provided for figures 2 and 3 (e.g. how the study areas were defined) and

they do not seem to relate to any background information or methodology contained in the draft SG in relation to cumulative assessment. The reference to Section 10 in the legend of both figures is confusing/incorrect – there is no Section 10 in either the draft

SG or LWECS. Also there is no authorship details provided in Section 1 of the draft SG or LWECS.

It is understood that two local designations (APQ and Tourism Development Areas) have informed the study areas of Figure 3 which appears to be based on the LCT7 Craggy Upland boundary. If this is correct it is inappropriate and contrary to guidance in SPP to use these 2 local designations to define the Study Area for this draft SG document (See SPP para 162 and SNH Spatial Planning for Onshore Wind 2015 paras 1.2.1‐8)

8. No evidence is provided to support the claim “half of all renewable installed capacity in

Scotland” in para 5.3. Correct figure is 70%. 9. Figure 1, Appendix 1, 2a, Figure 11 As base map data is absent plan is of limited use.


1. Provide details and dates of the extensive publicity carried out and confirm

consultation procedures accord with Scottish Government and the Council’s own relevant protocols. A list of consultees consulted should also be provided; this could form an annex to the SG

2. Provide a clarity on what settlement boundary was used (i.e. was it the ‘Settlement

Zone’ as per the LDP 2015 Key) from which to measure the 2km separation distance.

State clearly that the 2km buffer is intended as a guide only and that it does not equate to a ban on wind farm development in the identified area, the objective being for a greater emphasis to be placed on sensitive design of wind farms located in the separation areas.

Explain why a 2km buffer has been allocated for each settlement and identify important vistas being protected.

3. Delete reference to visual envelope; add the qualification ‘indirect’ before ‘effect’. 4. Always use upper case for SPP ‘group’ classification / categories i.e. Group 1, Group 2

and Group 3. 5. Provide reasons for designation of the APQ (i.e. its special qualities) with justification of

its extent and clear definition of its boundaries based on physical features as instructed by SNH in best practice guidance.

6. Correct the errors and cross references. 7. Provide an appropriate cumulative assessment rationale/methodology supported by

relevant background report as a publicly available document. Explain the basis of the Figs 2 and 3 study areas and provide a rationale/methodology to support the recommendations in the legend. If this or other evidence base is intended to form part of or underpin the adopted SG (or accompanying LWECS) then it should be explicitly stated in the document and subject to the LDP consultation process.

8. Provide correct figure and sources for “renewable installed capacity” in Scotland. 9. Provide appropriate scale base mapping to all Figures where it is missing, include

Group 3 areas in key to Appendix 1.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

1. The Supplementary Guidance was subject to publicity and consultation arrangements as

required by regulation. Adverts were placed in local newspapers, notices were placed in local libraries, and it was publicised on the Council’s website and the required notification sent to statutory consultees.

2. The settlements and the settlement boundaries as defined in the Adopted Local Development Plan were used as the basis for the 2km community separation for consideration of visual impact as required by SPP. Test 3D GIS modelling was applied to an number of settlements in Argyll and Bute, however this did not result in any significant changes to the areas where visual considerations may be required.

3. Para 4.4 “Effect on, the visual envelope of the wild land area” – agree that reference to

visual envelope should be deleted.

4. The capitalisation of the word ‘group’ is inconsistent – it should be upper case (i.e. Group) in the context of SPP classification / categories. – agree

5. Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) – these areas are designated by the Adopted Argyll and

Bute Local Development Plan, and have been continued from previous development plans. Where the reasons for their designation was accepted by Reporters appointed by Scottish Ministers.

6. Cross referencing to the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study will be

corrected. 7. Figures 2 and 3 refer to the cumulative impact studies carried out for the Council by

Land Use Consultants for the Loch Awe and Kintyre Areas reference to these Technical Notes is made in paragraph 4.14. However, it is recognised that these technical studies on cumulative impacts represent a snapshot in time, and that weight that they may be afforded as a material consideration will vary. Accordingly figures 2 and 3 should be removed from the Supplementary Guidance document, and reference to the Loch Awe and Kintyre Studies as Technical Notes will be made clearer.

8. The reference to onshore wind making up about half of all renewable installed capacity

in Scotland comes from the Argyll and Bute Renewable Energy Action Plan. This was published in 2010 and it is accepted that this figure is now dated. This reference should therefore be removed.

9. Improvements to the base mapping for Figure 1 and Appendix 1 and 2a will be provided

in the finalised Supplementary Guidance, and mapping made available digitally.

Officer recommendations

1. No change.

2. No change. 3. Delete reference to visual envelope in 6th sentence of para 4.4 so that it reads “This level

of protection may extend to wind turbine developments outwith the wild land area , but where impacts of the development could be significant due to proximity to, and effect on, the wild land area.”

4. Upper case to be used when referring to Group , Group 2 and Group 3 areas as set out in

table 1 of SPP. 5. No change. 6. Cross references to Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study to be

corrected. 7. Remove figures 2 and 3 from the Supplementary Guidance and include reference to the

Loch Awe and Kintyre LUC Cumulative Impact Studies in para 4.14 as background technical notes.

8. Delete “and currently makes up about half of all renewable installed capacity in

Scotland” from 2nd Sentence of para 5.3. 9. Smaller scale more detailed base mapping will be provided for Figure 1 and the maps in

Appendix 1 and 2a.

Council Decision



EDF Energy Renewables


Renewable Energy SG


1. There are some serious issues about the methodology and conclusions in the (LUC)

Kintyre Study which has been reviewed in some detail, the cumulative assessment has been based on an erroneous assumption that all new schemes will have turbines of up to 150m in height. The schemes in scoping at the outset of the study have evolved and some have dropped out of the planning system entirely. The LUC Study is no more than a snapshot in time and the background is constantly changing. The conclusions of the LUC Studies and for any sites within those areas will require a meticulous critique of the methodology adopted to justify the conclusions that have been reached.

2 The SG refers to the Council’s Renewable Energy Action Plan of 2010 and its

Economic Development Plan and these show that the Council wishes to place renewable energy in its area at the heart of renewable energy development in Scotland. EDF ER and Dulas fully endorses this but it will mean a proactive approach to the identification of and support for appropriate developments throughout the area, given the extent of seven SPP Group 1 areas where it is improbable that commercial wind energy development will be permitted.

3 In terms of the Spatial Framework, the approach appears to reflect closely the

criteria set out in para 169 of SPP 2014. With regard to the Group 2 peat areas support is expressed for the recognition that more detailed assessment at an individual project based level may be able to demonstrate no actual problem may arise and wind farms may still be appropriate in some circumstances.

4 The Council’s LWECS prepared in 2012, is not in any true sense of the word a

capacity study, but a relative sensitivity study. Without some definition of a specific capacity of development to be met in the ABC area the document could not be anything other than a study of the relative sensitivities of different LCTs to different typologies of wind energy development. As a study carried out to inform the LDP and its then proposed Spatial Framework it has to some extent been overtaken by the SPP 2014 advice. The LWECS is not policy and cannot be used as a specific development control tool in this way, it is another material consideration of varying weight. The LWECS also contains material on cumulative effects throughout the Council area. However, it is important to be clear as to the extent to which any

guidance can be definitive on cumulative effects. It can only be a snapshot in time, changes to the baseline are bound to occur over time, with new schemes emerging, current ones falling away and changes to ones that were only at an early stage in consideration. Changes in technology may also occur. A strategic study, can never replicate the amount of detail that will have to be prepared for an ES for any specific project. In a sense therefore both these two studies were out of date before they had even been published. The draft SG does not provide any further comment on the cumulative issues which are likely to arise in the case of Cruach Brenfield, The LWECS is not capable of providing any definitive guidance on the acceptability in cumulative terms of a specific proposal on a specific site outside the two areas assessed in more detail by LUC. That must remain a matter for the judgement of the decision‐maker based on the comprehensive material that will be made available in an ES.

5. Paragraph 4.15 of the SG flags up an issue which has given rise to a great deal of

debate in recent years. It in addition to assessing the proposal against LDP6, it states that a proposal will also be assessed against every other relevant LDP and Supplementary Guidance policies. The problem that this creates is that there is very little point having a development‐specific policy which is intended to provide all the criteria under which a particular type of development is to be assessed and gives the weighting to be applied, and then seek as well to test the proposals against a range of topic‐specific policies on which there is no such weighting available. The real issue is not that it is necessary to carry out an assessment of a wind farm against, for example, LDP3 on Supporting the protection, Conservation and Enhancement of the Environment, but taking the relevant topics from these various policies into the assessment of LDP6.



With regard to the methodology and conclusions of the (LUC) Kintyre Study, it is recognised that both it and the Loch Awe report are technical studies on cumulative impacts representing a snapshot in time, and that the weight that they may be afforded as a material consideration will vary. Accordingly it is proposed that figures 2 and 3 should be removed from the Supplementary Guidance document, and reference to the Loch Awe and Kintyre Studies as Technical Notes made clearer.

Support noted for Council’s Renewable Energy Action Plan of 2010 and its Economic Development Plan

In terms of the Spatial Framework, the approach appears to reflect closely the criteria set out in para 169 of SPP 2014‐ Support Noted.

The LWECS is a study of relative sensitivities of different landscape typologies and following on from that an assessment of the relative capacity of those different landscape typologies

to accommodate development. As such it can give an indication at a strategic level of the various sensitivities of landscape features within the landscape typologies to different scales of wind turbine development. Any detailed assessment of a particular proposal in a particular location should be expected to address how the proposal fits with this strategic landscape assessment. The LWECS has status as a technical note which has been adopted by the Council to be used in the assessment of planning applications and for the formulation of development plan policy.

The question as to what weight development plan policies should take with regard to each other is one which applies to all types of development and in a variety of circumstances. The convention for dealing with this is well established. In order to help clarify this it is proposed that the last sentence of paragraph 4.16 be amended as follows: “It should also be noted that development proposals may require to be assessed against other Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance policies as appropriate, the context for this being provided by the framework of Policy LDP 6 and this Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance.”

Officer recommendations:

1) Remove figures 2 and 3 from the Supplementary Guidance and include reference to the


2) No change 3) No change 4) No change 5) Amend last sentence of paragraph 4.16 to “It should also be noted that development

proposals may require to be assessed against other Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance policies as appropriate, the context for this being provided by the framework of Policy LDP 6 and this Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance.”

Council Decison:

SPATIAL FRAMEWORK

Supplementary Guidance – Renewable Energy


Iain Wilkie


Spatial Framework


Certain areas where “windfarms are likely to be acceptable” (Group 3 areas) are deemed unsuitable for large turbine development according to the LWCS. My comments relate to areas within or near the Cowal peninsula and particularly 4 areas which are categorised as being of Landscape Character Type 1 (Steep Ridge and Mountains). Part 5 of the LWECS Main Report summarises the sensitivity of this landscape character type as “there is an overall High landscape sensitivity to both the large and medium typologies” and provides the following guidance “There is no scope to accommodate larger typologies (turbines over 50 metres to blade tip) within this landscape without significant effects occurring on a number of key sensitivity criteria”. It should be noted that 2 of the areas referred to are immediately adjacent to the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park, and having the form of indentations into the edge of the National Park they are largely hemmed in by it. Development of larger wind turbines in these areas would be highly visible from the National Park, this would seem an additional reason for re‐classifying them as Group 2 areas.


Those areas categorised as being of Landscape Character Type 1, and which are at present classified as Group 3 in the Spatial Framework, should be reclassified as Group 2.


The categorisation of Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 areas in the Spatial Famework, follows the definition of these areas as set out in table 1 of Scottish Planning Policy 2014. Accordingly it is not possible for the Council to reclassify certain areas in to another Group.

Officer Recommendations:

It is not possible to reclassify certain areas in to another Group.

Council Decision:



Mountaineering Council of Scotland


Renewable Energy


The MCofS recognises that Argyll & Bute Council policy and guidance must comply with the Scottish Government’s NPF3 and SPP2014, and that the Council has little local discretion. Bearing this constraint in mind, the MCofS supports the Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance. We believe that it strikes the right balance between developing low‐carbon energy and local environmental and other considerations. We support the references to The Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study in the Supplementary Guidance. We have some reservations about the conclusions of cumulative impact assessments shown in Figures 2 and 3 on pages 73 and 74. This appears to be based on a pattern that favours extensive spread of wind farms, it is our experience that this leads to very large areas being perceived as ‘developed’ or ‘non‐natural’ landscapes. For example, south Kintyre seen from the Arran hills is characterised by repeated separate clusters of turbines. It is arguable that creating a wide‐reaching visual envelope where turbines are characteristic is less desirable than a pattern of highly intensive development of equal total capacity within a more limited total envelope. Thus it might be argued that infilling (intensification) in South Kintyre would be more desirable than supporting the spread of development to presently turbine‐ free areas. The inclusion of Map Appendix 2a provides useful additional guidance to prospective developers regarding areas where there are important local economic and environmental interests to be taken into account. Para 5.13 is incorrect to state that hydro is the largest single source of renewable energy and makes up 50% of installed capacity. Wind is several times larger both in capacity (c. 3 times) and output (c. 2 times).


1. We suggest that infilling (intensification) of wind farm development in South Kintyre

is more desirable than supporting the spread of development to presently turbine‐free areas.

2. Para 5.13 is incorrect to state that hydro is the largest single source of renewable energy and makes up 50% of installed capacity. Wind is several times larger both in capacity (c. 3 times) and output (c. 2 times).


1. The pattern of wind farm development in South Kintyre is currently characterised by a

cluster and gap approach. This is one of the approaches which can be used in order to reduce the potential for cumulative impacts, by dispersing wind turbine developments over a relatively wide area. To move towards infilling the gaps between existing clusters of development in South Kintyre would result in a significant change, and is one which would be appropriate for consideration at the main issues stage for LDP 2, rather than the current Supplementary Guidance.

2. This statement was taken from the renewable energy action plan and is now dated and should no longer be referred to.


1. No Change, this issue can be considered at the main issues stage for LDP 2.

2. Recommend that the second sentence of paragraph 5.13 be deleted.

Council Decision:



Pat Pollock‐Morris


Renewable Energy SG


I think the revise guidance is much improved in all respects.


None


Support Noted

Officer recommendation:

No changes

Council Decision:



RES Ltd


Renewable Energy SG


1) RES would respectfully suggest that the minimum publicity expectations set out within

Section 22(3)(a) of the Planning Act have not been met. 2) RES has no comment to offer on the Spatial Framework and we consider that this is an

accurate representation of the known potential constraints to wind farm developments as defined within Group 1 and Group 2 locations. Whilst we also welcome the recognition given at paragraph 4.5 of the Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance that a site by site approach to peat and carbon rich soils (which would result in a location that may otherwise be defined a Group 3 location being defined a Group 2 location) is relevant, RES would respectfully suggest that the guidance presented on this subject could be clearer and more direct.

3) Paragraph 4.13 of the Guidance introduces the Cumulative Landscape and Visual

Assessment of Wind Energy Development for the Kintyre and Loch Awe areas. Neither Assessment appears to be available via the Council’s web site and RES only has the Kintyre Assessment because this was circulated as part of the Blary Hill Appeal Inquiry documentation in association with the committee version of the draft Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance (albeit the Kintyre Assessment was withdrawn as a document at the Inquiry given the significant new information it contained and the lack of reasonable time to consider it prior to that Inquiry commencing).

As the Loch Awe Assessment has not been made available, this has not been reviewed. However, it is assumed that same methodology used in the Kintyre Assessment was used and as such many of the points raised with regards to the Kintyre Assessment could also be applied to the Loch Awe Assessment.

Notwithstanding the significant concerns that persist with the Kintrye Assessment, there are some things to welcome in the approach taken, namely a proposed preference for concentrations of wind farm development adjacent to existing wind farm development. This is considered a sensible approach (aligning with SNH’s views on ‘cluster and space’) and which could achieve some consolidation of wind farm development together with the maintenance of an existing foci on the Kintyre peninsula for example. That aspect would be especially important for views from the east and west, where the full length of the peninsula is apparent.

The preparation of the Assessments may reflect SPP at paragraph 162 which states that planning authorities “should identify where there is strategic capacity for wind farms, and areas with the greatest potential for wind development”. However, RES considers there are a number of significant and inherent flaws in the approach taken within the Kintyre Assessment and the findings it has generated as set out in detailed within the attached Annex.

4) Paragraph 5.27 of the proposed Supplementary Guidance stipulates that Solar

Photovoltaic technology in Argyll & Bute has been predominately developed on a domestic scale. While RES welcomes the Council’s recognisance that each commercial photovoltaic development will be considered on its own merits against relevant Policy, RES would welcome wider emerging spatial guidance on large commercial photovoltaic to ensure that the area’s full potential for electricity generation is achieved as outlined in Paragraph 155 of Scottish Planning Policy (2014).

Similarly, the emerging Supplementary Guidance does not include provisions for identifying areas which are weakly or unconnected to the Grid network that can be facilitated by energy storage solutions. Paragraph 168 in Scottish Planning Policy enforces the Scottish Government’s support for such installations in supporting the growth of renewable energy generation and helping to maintain stability of the Grid network in areas where reinforcement is required to manage congestion.


1) A further period of consultation (and publicity) on Supplementary Guidance 2, that

perhaps takes into account those comments received to date, is undertaken prior to submission of the finalised Supplementary Guidance (and associated Regulation 27 Report) to the Scottish Ministers.

2) Paragraph 4.5 should be amended as follows:

Peat and carbon rich soils are nationally rare and internationally important, and are distributed fairly extensively across Argyll. The wide distribution of this resource is considered likely to result in varying levels of interest and depth across the council area. A number of wind farm developments have been accommodated within these areas in the past, and a site by site approach maythereforebemeritedin assessingtheimpactof will be necessary to ensure that wind turbine development on will not affect the integrity of these areas. With careful design and siting it may will be possible to reduce the impact of wind turbine developments in these areas to an acceptable mitigated level, and this could should include a minimisation of peat extraction and, where relevant or necessary, habitat restoration or off site compensatory remedial works.

3) The Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment of Wind Energy Development in

Kintyre is inherently flawed. That Assessment cannot then be referred to within the Guidance until such time that it is comprehensively reviewed and revised. Key issues for consideration in any further review (if the Assessment is to remain part of the Guidance) would include: Updating the baseline assessment to take into account all known projects and their status.

• Updating the methodology to reflect current best practice.

• Redressing the erroneous assumptions on visibility of projects (ZTVs and CZTVs) and classification of Landscape Character Types.

• A thorough review of the findings accordingly.

The updated Assessments must also be made available as part of the Supplementary Guidance to allow the advice they offer to be considered in full and in context as part of any subsequent planning application.

4) Argyll and Bute Council should produce more detailed guidance on the above

technologies to align with National Policy. RES would fully expect these Planning documents to be made available to consultation while this emerging Supplementary Guidance is adopted by the Council.


1. The Supplementary Guidance was subject to publicity and consultation arrangements as

required by regulation. Adverts were placed in local newspapers, notices were placed in local libraries, and it was publicised on the Council’s website and the required notification sent to statutory consultees.

2. Paragraph 4.5 ‐ The first sentence is to be altered to “carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat are internationally important and distributed fairly extensively across Argyll.” As the reference should be to carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat. But consider the remainder of the sentence should remain in order to give wider context to this fairly extensive resource in Argyll and Bute. However, it is considered that the rest of the paragraph should remain unaltered, as the proposed amendments imply greater expectation that wind turbine developments within these areas will be capable of mitigation to acceptable levels of impact in almost every circumstance, where this may not always be the case.

3. The cumulative impact studies carried out for the Council by Land Use Consultants for

the Loch Awe and Kintyre Areas are shown in Figures 2 and 3, with reference to these Technical Notes being made in paragraph 4.14. However, it is recognised that these technical studies on cumulative impacts represent a snapshot in time, and that weight that they may be afforded as a material consideration will vary. Accordingly figures 2 and 3 should be removed from the Supplementary Guidance document, and reference to the Loch Awe and Kintyre Studies as Technical Notes will be made clearer.

4. The development plan provides a framework for assessing all forms of renewable energy

developments, much of the potential for hydro generation has already been realised. Marine, tidal, and photovoltaic generation at a commercial scale are emerging technologies in the context of Argyll and Bute, and are generally supported by the development plan. The need for a spatial framework for these technologies will be kept under review. In relation to grid strength, considerable investment is ongoing in Argyll and Bute to improve connections, in order to realise renewable energy generating capacity, and energy storage schemes can be considered under existing development plan policy.


1. No Change.

2. The first sentence of paragraph 4.5 is to be altered to refer to “carbon rich soils, deep

peat and priority peatland habitat…” The remainder of the paragraph remains unchanged.

3. Remove figures 2 and 3 from the Supplementary Guidance and include reference to the


4. No Change

Council Decision:



RSPB


Renewable Energy SG


Figure 1 Spatial Framework for Wind Turbines over 50m, we recognise that this has been produced in line with Scottish Planning Policy and that as such it is more robust guidance. However we would welcome further guidance relating to ornithological constraints. While the bird sensitivity map is included more detail on the sensitivity of key species and potential cumulative impacts should be provided. Further guidance on avoiding and minimising peatland impacts is required to ensure consistency with SPP. 4.10 ‐4.14 the section on cumulative landscape impacts should be extended to include other cumulative impacts in relation to designated sites, important species and habitats, and including cumulative impact on loss of open ground in areas dominated by forestry plantations. Consideration of landscape cumulative impacts on their own is not appropriate because of potential to influence other cumulative impacts i.e. skew developments to the west side of Kintyre and so increase potential cumulative impact on Greenland White Fronted Geese. 5.5 Small scale (micro) wind may also have biodiversity impacts particularly in or around designated areas. Issues in relation to birds can be considerable, many proposals may require survey work and or planning conditions to monitor impacts on species and habitats which may not necessarily be required elsewhere. 5.6 – 5.11 This section should refer to the National Marine Plan which has specific chapters on renewable energy and relevant policies for consideration of environmental sensitivities. 5.12 ‐5.27 Spatial guidance for other renewable technologies should be provided. In relation to Biomass we have serious concerns regarding the sustainability of fuel sources for large scale biomass plants, as sustainable and local biomass is a limited resource. The Spatial Framework for wind turbines map should define the importance level of peat categories 1 and 2. The Key for Special Protection Areas should be made clearer.


1. 3.6 ‐3.10 Development proposals should be considered against a set of sustainability

guidelines including reference to the Local Biodiversity Action Plan. 2. 4.3 Detail should be added to highlight the importance and sensitivities of key species

and reference made to potential cumulative impact on them. 3. 4.5 Clear guidance should be provided on minimising peat/carbon impacts with a link to

the Scottish Governments latest carbon calculator. 4. 4.10‐4.14 Attention should be drawn to other cumulative impacts. 5. 4.16 The high biodiversity importance of Argyll most of the islands and some areas of

mainland may be unsuitable/problematic for large scale windfarm development. Many proposals may require extensive survey work. Even small scale applications may require survey work and/or EIA and HRA. The SG should include additional text to inform developers of this.

6. 5.5 Biodiversity impacts are relevant even at this scale. Spatial guidance for smaller

scale windfarms in line with the provisions of SPP to inform applications of high biodiversity/bird rich areas.

7. 5.6‐5.11 this section should refer to relevant chapters of the National Marine Plan. 8. 5.12 ‐5.27 Should include spatial guidance and other criteria to guide developers.

Sustainability of large scale biomass should be highlighted as a concern. The Heat map should be improved by identifying areas of demand and potential sources of supply and focus on identifying future opportunities and links into existing networks.

9. Appendix 1 – Definitions of carbon rich soils and peatland importance level 1 and 2

should be provided, and the delineation of SPA should be made more legible.


1., 2., 4., and 5, it is proposed to provide an expanded paragraph 4.16 to highlight the requirement for renewable energy developments to be considered against all other relevant policies of the development plan, including SG LDP ENV1 and our local biodiversity action plan. 3. Agreed reference to the Scottish Governments carbon calculator will be included in paragraph 4.5.

6. Paragraph 5.5 makes clear that all applications for wind turbine developments will be assessed against the relevant policies of the Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance, this would include Policy LDP 6 which refers to effects on natural heritage, including birds and SG LDP ENV 1. This is in line with the SPP which states Development Plans should indicate the minimum scale of onshore wind that their spatial framework is intended to apply to.

7. In relation to off shore wind, and other marine renewable energy developments, the supplementary guidance on Coastal Development (SG LDP CST 1) would be applicable, and it is therefore proposed to cross reference to this at the end of paragraph 5.7 and 5.11. 8. Argyll contains approximately 10% of the United Kingdom’s coniferous plantations, this potentially provides a considerable resource for renewable energy production from biomass. Paragraph 5.17 will be altered to make this clearer, whilst at the same time recognising the need to do this in a sustainable manner by referring to utilising a local resource and reducing the transportation of timber. Further work on heat mapping will be done in connection with the Supplementary Guidance on Climate change, and will be explored further in LDP 2. 9. It is accepted that improvements could be made to the detail mapping of the Spatial Framework, Appendix 1 and Appendix 2a together with an improved key for these maps.


1., 2., 4., and 5, paragraph 4.16 amended to: “ Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Growth of Renewables identifies a criteria based approach for the assessment of wind turbine applications. The additional considerations as set out in Appendices 2a and 2b identify some of the additional considerations which the Council will expect to be addressed when considering applications against the criteria of Policy LDP 6. It should be noted that the information provided in these Appendices is not definitive and additional factors may be required to be taken into consideration when assessing individual applications against the criteria of Policy LDP 6. It should also be noted that development proposals may require to be assessed against other Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance policies as appropriate, the context for this being provided by the framework of Policy LDP 6 and this Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance.” 6. No change 7. Add “ Further guidance on renewable energy developments in coastal waters is provided in SG LDP CST 1.” To the end of paragraphs 5.7 and 5.11. 8. Paragraph 5.17 be altered to read “Argyll and Bute has approximately 10% of the total UK coniferous plantation and consequently this has the potential to provide a significant resource of biomass for use in renewable energy generation”. 9. Smaller scale more detailed base mapping will be provided for Figure 1, and the maps in Appendix 1 and 2a.

Council Decision

REF Supplementary Energy – Renewable Energy


Scottish Government


Renewable Energy


The policy on heat networks seems rather light, the aspirations for policy within development plans is set out in SPP paragraphs 158 to 160 and the online guidance on Planning and Heat (published 2015). Forestry Commission Scotland FCS

FCS would request that the assessment criteria list on Para ‐3.2, page 67 be amended to include forestry. Many windfarms in Argyll and Bute have been proposed within forests. The impacts on these forests can be significant in terms of felling for wind protection zones. Early consideration by developers of the UK Forest Standard and the Scottish Governments ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ is essential in developing a robust plan. 5.15 Biomass‐para 5.16‐ FCS are unable to see reference to a requirement to identify areas capable of accommodating large scale biomass within the SPP. Perhaps this is a dated reference? FCS suggest that wording here more accurately reflect content of the NPF3 wording ‘Biomass has a growing role to play in providing heat. As our forests mature, there will be a need to consider timber transport networks and requirements for processing facilities.’ 5.17 The terminology here is dated referring to ‘waste in the form of brash and small round wood’ There is an active market for small round wood and brash is not considered as a waste product on sites to be restocked.


Further detail on heat networks be provided. The assessment criteria list on Para ‐3.2, page 67 be amended to include forestry. Reference to identifying areas capable of accommodation large scale biomass updated. Reference to small round wood and brash as waste to be removed.


1. Further work on heat networks will be undertaken as part of the review process for

LDP2. 2. The assessment criteria on page 67 are those of Policy LDP 6 of the Adopted Local

Development Plan. It is not possible to add additional criteria at this stage. 3. Reference to SPP in para 5.16 will be updated to reflect NPF 3 as suggested to “Biomass

has a growing role to play in providing heat. As our forests mature, there will be a need to consider timber transport networks and requirements for processing facilities”.

4. First sentence of para 5.17 to be amended to read “ Argyll and Bute has approximately

10% of the total UK coniferous plantation and consequently this has the potential to provide a significant resource of biomass for use in renewable energy generation”.


1. Further work on heat networks and the role they could have in addressing climate

change will be progressed along with the Supplementary Guidance on Climate Change, which is currently on going. No change is proposed to this Supplementary Guidance.

2. No change. 3. Delete paragraph 5.16 and replace with “Biomass has a growing role to play in providing

heat. As our forests mature, there will be a need to consider timber transport networks and requirements for processing facilities”.

4. Change first sentence of para 5.17 to “Argyll and Bute has approximately 10% of the

total UK coniferous plantation and consequently this has the potential to provide a significant resource of biomass for use in renewable energy generation”.

Council Decision:



SNH


LUC Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment


The methodology used in the study has a number of limitations. Figures 2 and 3 require further context/introduction. Concerns are expressed in relation to the timing of the study, the reason for the geographic extent of the study and the lack of guidance as to how to interpret the maps (Figures 2 and 3) in the Supplementary Guidance. Notwithstanding the above they have specific concerns in relation to the identification of the pink/purple area in the north of Kintyre given that the Freasdail application is now consented and has changed the baseline in this location. Concerns are also expressed about the areas of pink/purple in the West Loch Awe area as this would further extend influence of windfarms in the landscape and may impact on sensitive coastal landscapes. In the East Loch Awe area the pink/purple area could extend cumulative impact on the landscape, and concerns are also expressed that the brown area around to A’Cruach to the south extends too far towards the Knapdale National Scenic Area, and that a large concentration of windfarms here would be likely to have a significant cumulative impact on the NSA.


Generally looking for the baseline for the studies to be updated and for additional context to explain the outputs from the studies.


The cumulative impact studies carried out for the Council by Land Use Consultants for the Loch Awe and Kintyre Areas are shown in Figures 2 and 3, with reference to these Technical Notes being made in paragraph 4.14. However, it is recognised that these technical studies on cumulative impacts represent a snapshot in time, and that weight that they may be afforded as a material consideration will vary. Accordingly figures 2 and 3 should be removed from the Supplementary Guidance document, and reference to the Loch Awe and Kintyre Studies as Technical Notes will be made clearer.


Remove figures 2 and 3 from the Supplementary Guidance and include reference to the Loch Awe and Kintyre LUC Cumulative Impact Studies in para 4.14 as background technical notes.

Council Decision:



SNH


Spatial Framework Mapping


Consider layering of data to be in line with SPP and agree with findings. Also that applying them to wind turbines above 50 metre tip height is appropriate. (SHN) The spatial framework map could be improved by re‐drawing more legibly and at larger size, with key features such as coastline, lochs, major settlements and routes shown. Areas of wild land should be replaced with the term Wild Land Areas, it should also be noted that these are not designations as stated in paragraph 4.4. We welcome the inclusion of the SHN/RSPB Bird Sensitivity Map, however it should be noted that it does not cover all golden eagle ranges which may be impacted by windfarm development. It should be noted that the Group 3 areas may contain constraints to development which are not included in the spatial mapping in Figure 1, Appendix 1 and Appendix 2b. This may include but is not limited to smaller areas of deep peat, and parts of golden eagle ranges that are not included in the SNH/RSPB bird sensitivity map. In paragraph 4.7 it would be appropriate to make reference to spatial information in Appendix 2a, 2b,and 3 and how this information will be used to inform decision making for proposals within Group 3 areas.


1. Spatial Framework mapping could be improved with more detailed base mapping and at

larger size.

2. Areas of Wild Land should be replaced with Wild Land Areas, and should not be referred to as designations.

3. It should be noted that the Group 3 areas may contain constraints to development not

included in in Figure 1, Appendix 1 and Appendix 2b, and paragraph 4.7 expanded to make reference to the spatial information referred to above.


1. It is accepted that the Spatial Framework mapping could be improved. This map is

intended to be made available digitally, and smaller scale more detailed map bases are therefore available. The finalised Supplementary Guidance will include a hard copy at smaller scale and with a more detailed map base.

2. Reference to wild land will be updated to Wild Land Areas, and reference to designations will be removed from paragraph 4.4.

3. It is proposed that reference to additional information about further considerations

which may be required within the group 3 areas be included in an expanded paragraph 4.16 rather than an expanded paragraph 4.7 as suggested.

Officer Recommendation:

1. The Spatial Framework will be made available digitally and with more detailed smaller

scale map base.

2. delete “designation” and replace with “areas of wild land” 3. recommend that paragraph 4.16 be replaced as follows “ Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the

Growth of Renewables identifies a criteria based approach for the assessment of wind turbine applications. The additional considerations as set out in Appendices 2a and 2b identify some of the additional considerations which the Council will expect to be addressed when considering applications against the criteria of Policy LDP 6. It should be noted that the information provided in these Appendices is not definitive and additional factors e.g. ornithology, may be required to be taken into consideration when assessing individual applications against the criteria of Policy LDP 6. It should also be noted that development proposals may require to be assessed against other Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance policies as appropriate, the context for this being provided by the framework of Policy LDP 6 and this Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance.”

Council Decision:



SNH


Argyll and Bute Wind Energy Capacity Study (2012)


Welcome link to the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, the clarity that it does not form part of the spatial framework. Support its consideration in formulating and assessing development proposals. Support inclusion of Appendix 3, and suggest reference in this section. However the capacity study tables and maps in Appendix 3 would benefit from some context such as the relevant introductory text from “how to use this study”. Of particular relevance is the text relating to the need to assess impacts on adjoining landscape character types. Also it should be noted that individual character types have potential capacity but with many caveats, and these should be made explicit.


The capacity study tables and maps in Appendix 3 would benefit from some context such as the relevant introductory text from “how to use this study”.


The Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study is referred to in paragraph 4.11 and it would be appropriate to provide a cross reference to appendix 3 here. In addition the introductory text from how to use this study will be added to the start of Appendix 3

Officer conclusions:

Include reference to appendix 3 in paragraph 4.11 and add introductory text to the tables and mapping in Appendix 3.

Council Decison:



South Knapdale Community Council


Renewable Energy SG


1. The plan does not properly face up to the obvious tension between the Regions

landscape and scenic qualities and the impact of renewables (wind turbines) it refers to rate the impact of renewables as neutral in almost all regards. This could be the case if turbines were to be located where their impact on landscape and scenery was limited, and their numbers in sensitive areas were to be controlled in accordance with pre‐planned density levels.

2. Argyll’s enviable reputation for exceptional landscape and scenery is continually re‐

assessed by travellers on coastal routes. Wind turbines should not dominate coastal landscapes or be overly visible on skylines viewed from coastal roads. There are sufficient consented and planned wind farms around West Loch Tarbert and down the west coast of Kintyre to potentially dominate and damage the coastal scenery and views from the A83. The Local Development Plan has to provide a more effective process to achieve a balance between renewable energy generation and preservation of Argyll’s great but vulnerable scenic asset.

3. The Plan underlines the value of the National Scenic Areas and clearly seeks to protect

them, however the plan neglects to recognise the wider setting of an NSA in its surrounding landscape. The Knapdale NSA has amongst its formally declared qualities the statement that it has “a landscape of skylines” . While the plan would probably prevent development within the NSA boundary, it would be just as damaging for such development located 2‐3km outside the boundary and in full view of those viewing skylines from within. Equally the Isle of Arrans scenic qualities are not limited to those within its shores but include those within the mainland of Argyll and Cowal.

4. Concerns are raised about the increasing number of windfarm proposals in Knapdale

and Kintyre, and the potential cumulative effects on landscape and on the wellbeing of people. Communities which have hitherto be tolerant of early windfarm developments are beginning to reject infilling of otherwise well separated windfarms with new windfarms. The Kintyre peninsula is heading towards a form of industrial ribbon development of unprecedented scale. There needs to be a formal forward looking assessment to determine what constitutes a reasonable level of turbine density in our sensitive landscapes.


There needs to be a formal forward looking assessment to determine what constitutes a reasonable level of turbine density in our sensitive landscapes.


1. The Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Supplementary Guidance has to assume

that any wind turbine developments, are developed in accordance with the criteria of Policy LDP 6 of the Adopted Local Development Plan, as well as the Supplementary Guidance, both of which aim to ensure are located where their impact on landscape and scenery was limited, and that their numbers in sensitive areas do not have a significant effect on the qualities for which they were designated.

2. The criteria of LDP 6, and the designation of both Areas of Panoramic Quality and Tourism Development Areas provide criteria against which proposals in most coastal landscapes, and where views from important tourist routes can be assessed, in the context of the overall vision of the Scottish Government as stated in NPF3 to secure a minimum of 30% of overall energy requirements met from renewables by 2020.

3. Wind farms are not permitted in National Scenic Areas. Scottish Planning Policy does

not permit additional constraints to be applied to these in the development plan. Instead it recommends a more detailed and exacting consideration be applied at the development management stage. The criteria of policy LDP 6 seeks to apply these, and this supplementary guidance provided further background information to help inform this process.

4. Cumulative impacts are an important consideration, the Council has approved a number

of studies such as the LWECS and the Kintyre and Loch Awe Cumulative Impact Studies to help inform the consideration of these. These studies are Technical Notes which the Council will have regard to when determining applications for wind farm developments, it consequently also expects any prospective developers to address these fully when considering proposals.

Officer recommendations :

1. No Change

2. No Change 3. No Change 4. No Change

Council Decision:



SSE Burcote Wind Ltd. Good Energy


Renewable Energy SG


The draft SG as presented appears to comply with SPP in terms of setting out a Spatial Framework in accordance with Table 1 of SPP. However, the cumulative mapping provided at Figures 2 and 3 goes beyond the scope of what SPP requires by way of Table 1. They do not accord with paragraph 162 of SPP which advises planning authorities to identify where there is ‘strategic capacity’ and ‘areas with the greatest potential for wind energy development’, nor are they envisaged within the LDP, that requires to set the framework for SG.


Figures 2 and 3, as well as the supporting text that refers to the LUC assessment should be removed from the SG prior to adoption.


1) With regard to the methodology and conclusions of the (LUC) Kintyre Study, it is

recognised that both it and the Loch Awe report are technical studies on cumulative impacts representing a snapshot in time, and that the weight that they may be afforded as a material consideration will vary. Accordingly it is proposed that figures 2 and 3 should be removed from the Supplementary Guidance document, and reference to the Loch Awe and Kintyre Studies as Technical Notes made clearer.

Officer Recommendations:

1) Remove figures 2 and 3 from the Supplementary Guidance and include reference to the


Council Decision:



Scottish Renewables Scottish Power Renewables


Section 4 Wind Energy Developments


Para 4.7 refers to further technical notes, it’s likely that much detail will be contained within these technical notes, it’s important that these be consulted upon with the public and stakeholders prior to adoption. The weight given to the technical notes and supplementary guidance should be clarified. The 2km buffer area is supposed to be not exceeding 2km based on land form and other features, figure 1 indicates a large number of circles around settlements with no discernible evidence that land form or other features have been considered. Figure 2 shows cumulative impacts , we understand that this may come from the Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment of Wind Energy Development s in Kintyre (December 2015) by LUC. This has not been consulted on, it is therefore difficult for stakeholders to review the methodology and come to a view on whether the areas identified are appropriate. It is also our understanding that the LUC study is based on information on onshore wind projects current in spring 2013. This would therefore contain a number of projects which are now known not to have progressed, and may therefore overestimate cumulative impacts. A revised cumulative assessment based on updated project information is recommended.


1. The weight given to the technical notes and supplementary guidance should be clarified. 2. There is no discernible evidence that land form or other features have been considered

in establishing the 2km buffer area around settlements . 3. Figure 2 shows cumulative impacts based on 2013 information, a revised cumulative

assessment based on updated project information is recommended.


1. Supplementary Guidance when adopted will form part of the development plan, the

weight accorded to this is set out in Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The technical notes are non‐statutory, they would constitute a material consideration, and the weight afforded to these, will vary dependent upon the circumstances at the time.

2. The 2km buffer reflects the guidance of SPP, test 3 D GIS modeling was applied to a

number of settlements in Argyll and Bute however this process did not result in any significant changes to the 2km buffer.

3. Figure 2 is from the LUC cumulative impact study for Kintyre, in the interests of clarity, it

is proposed that this Figure is removed from the proposed supplementary guidance.


1. No change

2. No Change 3. Figure 2 to be removed from the Supplementary guidance and its status as a technical

note highlighted.

Council Decision:

SG LDP AQUA 1 Supplementary Guidance Aquaculture ... · SG LDP AQUA 1 Supplementary Guidance ‐...

Documents

Transcript of SG LDP AQUA 1 Supplementary Guidance Aquaculture ... · SG LDP AQUA 1 Supplementary Guidance ‐...