Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application · turbine (T16) at the approved Aikengall IIa...

Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application Environmental Report

Environmental Report

Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application

June 2019

Ref: 044-190523-3118


This page has intentionally been left blank


Community Windpower Ltd

1st Floor, 2 Parklands Way Maxim Business Park Eurocentral Motherwell ML1 4WR Tel: 01698 209084 Fax: 01698 209101 www.communitywindpower.co.uk www.begreencentres.co.uk Document History

CONFIDENTIALITY (Confidential or not confidential):Not confidential

Project Number: 044 Project Name Aikengall IIa – Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application

Report Title: Environmental Report

Reference Number: 044-190604-3118

Issued by: Community Windpower Limited

Unit Approval Name Signed Date

Author: Julie Turner 05/06/2019

Checked: Rob Fryer

06/06/2019

Approved: Rob Fryer

12/06/2019

The content of this document remains the property of Community Windpower Ltd and, unless agreed in writing by

Community Windpower Ltd, no other party may use, make use of or rely on any contents of the report.


Contents

1 Introduction 5

2 Variation Description and Evaluation 5

Assessments

3 Noise 11

4 Ornithology 14

5 Aviation 15

6 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 16

7 Conclusion 25

Figures

Figure 1 - Site Layout 6

Figure 2 - Regional Location 7

Figure 3 - Proposed Variation 8

Figure 4 - Wind Farms Overview 9

Figure 5 - Agreed Infra-Red Warning Lighting Locations 15

Figures 6.1 – 6.31 Landscape & Visual Assessment Comparative Wirelines 24

Appendices

Appendix A - Proposed Variations to Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the Consent for Aikengall IIa

Wind Farm as part of the S36C Application to Vary Single Turbine (T16). 26


1 Introduction

1.1 This document details the Environmental Report (ER) completed for the proposed variation of one single

turbine (T16) at the approved Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm. This proposed variation is to align all

the approved 19 turbines of Aikengall IIa to a tip height of 145m. The only affected turbine (T16) was

previously consented at 125m as part of a Section 36 approval.

2 Variation Description and Evaluation

2.1 Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm is situated on the border of East Lothian and Scottish Borders,

approximately 12.5 kilometres (km) south of Dunbar, 6.6 km south of Innerwick and 6 km northeast of

Cranshaws.

2.2 The Regional Location of the site is shown on Figure 2.

2.3 Community Windpower Limited (’CWL’) currently have the benefit of section 36 consent and deemed

planning permission to construct and operate Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm, a 19 turbine wind farm

which will have a generating capacity in excess of 50MW.

2.4 The scheme was granted consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and deemed planning

permission under section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 by on 19th October

2017 by the Scottish Ministers. The consented layout comprises 18 turbines at a 145m tip height and a

sole turbine (T16) at 125m tip height.

2.5 The consented scheme is shown on Figure 1, this is taken directly from the consent notice issued by the

Scottish Ministers.

2.6 This consent followed the application and Environmental Statement (submitted on 11 February 2014) and

Further Environmental Information (submitted on 10 December 2014) and was subject to 34 Conditions.

2.7 The Environmental Statement combined with the Further Environmental Information described the

consented scheme. They evaluated the scheme and drew conclusions on the suitability and acceptance of

the development. The document considered many aspects and were divided into various sections for easy

reading.

2.8 These sections were;

Section 1: Introduction

Section 2: Detailed Project Description

Section 3: Site Selection and Evolution

Section 4: Planning and Policy

Section 5: Socio-Economic and Community Involvement

Section 6: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Section 7: Ornithology

Section 8: Ecology

Section 9: Cultural Heritage Assessment

Section 10: Hydrology, Geology and Hydrogeology

Section 11: Noise

Section 12: Transport Assessment

Section 13: Forestry

Section 14: Other Considerations, including Aviation

2.9 Whilst developing this scheme for delivery it has become apparent that the single consented turbine at

125m to tip would be difficult if not impossible to procure. Therefore, CWL wish to procure all 18 turbines

at 145m height to blade tip to expedite implementation of the consent. Such a variation could also realise

additional renewable energy benefits and assist in meeting national climate change targets.

2.10 The proposed variation and Environmental Report follows this similar section approach. However, the

variation only affects the tip height of one turbine (T16).

2.11 The proposed variation is shown on Figure 3, noting that this is based upon the consented layout, with

only T16 varied to align with the other 18 consented turbines.

2.12 The location of T16 and its associated infrastructures; access roads, hardstands and the like, remain

unchanged from the consented scheme. Therefore, several of the sections from the consented documents

would remain similarly unchanged.

2.13 On reviewing each section within these consent documents, it was considered that only the following

sections should be revisited to take into account the minor variation in the single turbine (T16) tip height.

2.14 The four sections that were revisited are:-

Section 11: Noise

Section 7: Ornithology

Section 14: Aviation

Section 6: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

2.15 Each of these sections is revised in this Environmental Report. Given that the location of the varied turbine

(T16) is unchanged, it is considered that there is no requirement to complete an Environmental Impact

Assessment to cover this variation as previous Environmental Information has been submitted and

consented by the Scottish Ministers.

2.16 The closest operational third party wind farm to the consented Aikengall IIa scheme is Crystal Rig Wind

Farm, which is located to the northwest of the proposed site. A number of other third party consented

schemes are located within 5 km of the consented Aikengall IIa site including Ferneylea, Hoprigshiels,

Quixwood, Neuk Farm and Penmanshiel. These are shown on the Figure 4 – Wind Farm Overview and set

the consented scheme and proposed variation in context with the surrounding wind farms


Assessments


3 Noise

3.1 As part of the environmental review it was considered that the ‘Noise’ section of the Environmental Statement

should be revisited, due to the proposed variation of turbine (T16) tip height. Therefore, the Noise Consultant,

ACIA, for the consented scheme was commissioned to review its findings, reassess and prepare conclusions

with the varied T16 turbine in situ. The following pages are those findings and conclusions.

Report number: 4664.09

COMMUNITY WINDPOWER LTD

AIKENGALL IIa COMMUNITY WIND FARM

PROPOSED VARIATION TO TURBINE T16

IMPACT ON NOISE ASSESSMENT

Prepared for: Community Windpower Ltd Godscroft Lane Frodsham Cheshire WA6 6XU

Ian F Bennett BSc CEng MIOA

8 May 2019


1 INTRODUCTION

ACIA was commissioned by the applicant and developer, Community Windpower Ltd to provide acoustical consultancy services in connection with the Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm. The wind farm consists of 19 turbines which was reduced from a previous submitted scheme of 27 turbines through a Further Environmental Information submission. The project received planning consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and deemed planning permission under section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 following a Public Local Inquiry held on 5-7 October 2016. The approved scheme is subject to conditions including limits for noise immission levels and the procedures to be followed in the event of a complaint about noise from the operational wind farm.

The matrix of consented turbines consists of 18 turbines with a maximum tip height of 145m (referred to as ‘type 1’ in the noise impact assessment) and a single turbine with a maximum tip height of 125m (type 2) at the location designated T16. The developer now proposes to vary the tip height of T16 to 145m, so all the turbines comprising the development will be identical ‘type 1’ turbines.

This report assesses the effects on noise immission levels resulting from the change of turbine type and tip height. The results are assessed against the guidelines available for wind energy developments, including PAN45 and the 2011 web-based guidance in Scotland, the ETSU-R-97 report The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms and the Institute of Acoustics’ Good Practice Guide on the application of ETSU-R-97, May 2013 together with the supplementary guidance published in 2014. The same best practice guidelines had been used to derive the noise limits in the extant planning permission. 1

2 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

2.1 Noise limits

A development of this type is assessed using the DTI ETSU-R-97 report The assessment and rating of noise from

wind farms: the web-based guidance prescribes this approach. The DTI report describes a framework for the

measurement of wind turbine noise and indicates desirable noise levels, so that without placing unreasonable

restrictions on wind energy developments, neighbouring residential properties can be protected from

excessive noise.

A primary objective of the report was to suggest noise limits in a form suitable for adoption as planning

conditions. The Noise Working Group that produced the report considered that absolute noise limits

regardless of wind speeds were not suited to wind energy schemes in the UK, and that it was more appropriate

in the majority of cases to set noise limits relative to background noise.

The background noise levels are to be measured over a range of wind speeds so that the impact of turbine

noise, which is also wind-speed dependant, can be evaluated. The parameters to be measured include the

equivalent continuous noise level and the 90% exceedance level. One of the most important recommendations

in the ETSU-R-97 report is that the statistical index LA90,10min should be used for both the background noise and

the wind farm noise. This allows reliable measurements to be made without them being corrupted by louder,

transitory noise events from other sources, which would be unavoidable in the countryside. The report notes

that for the typical wind turbine, the LA90,10min is between 1.5 and 2.5 dB lower than the LAeq over the same

measurement period. In the present assessment, a constant difference of 2dB between the LA90,10min and the

LAeq is assumed.

A methodology is provided for the measurement of background noise levels under various wind conditions. A

curve is then fitted to the raw data (having discarded doubtful measurements) in order to determine the

typical variation in background noise level with wind speed. The exercise is carried out for ‘quiet’ daytime

amenity periods and night-time periods, defined as follows. Daytime amenity periods are from 18.00h to

23.00h on weekdays, 13.00h to 23.00h on Saturdays, and all day Sunday. Night-time is between 23.00h and

07.00h daily. All other periods (weekdays and Saturday mornings) are defined as normal daytime, when it

would be expected that the ambient noise levels may be somewhat elevated because of human activity,

distant road traffic, and natural noise sources. Two sets of receptor-specific noise limits are then derived, these

are annexed to planning condition 17: Table 1 applies to ‘night-time’ between 23.00h and 07.00h and Table 2

applies at all other times.

The day-time level of the LA90,10min of the wind farm noise is 40dB or 5dB above the derived background noise

curve, whichever is the greater. This offers a reasonable degree of protection to the neighbours of wind

turbines without placing unreasonable restrictions on developments. A lower fixed limit of 43dB (a higher

figure) is often set for night-time. Both the daytime and night-time lower fixed limits are increased to 45dB to

provide a greater margin above background where the occupier of the property in question has a financial

interest in the project.

2.2 Turbine noise emission characteristics

The consented wind farm consists of 18 ‘type 1’ turbines with a tip height of 145m and a single ‘type 2’ turbine with a tip height of 125m. The warranted noise emission characteristics of the two types were provided in the noise assessment (Section 11) of the Further Environmental Information dated 5 December 2014 and are reproduced below.

TABLE 1: Turbine sound power levels LwA dB for standardised wind speeds at 10m height

V10 m/s 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Type 1 95.1 99.7 104.5 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0

Type 2 99.0 102.0 104.1 106.0 107.0 107.0 107.0 107.0 107.0

TABLE 2: A-weighted octave band frequency spectra at v10 = 8m/s for candidate turbines

Hz 63 125 25-0 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Overall

Type 1 91.9 94.5 97.8 100.0 100.0 99.1 95.7 86.3 106.0

Type 2 81.8 93.7 100.4 100.4 100.4 92.5 81.6 78.3 107.0

2.3 Turbine locations

The turbine coordinates are unaffected by the current proposals and the coordinates used for previous

modelling of noise impacts are still current.


3 RESULTS AND ASSSESSMENT

The type 1 turbine has a slightly lower overall noise emission, despite its greater tip height. This is in part

because the noise data in either case are warranted, and thus include the manufacturers’ allowances for

uncertainty. Nevertheless, the input data to the model are ‘worst case’ within the meaning of the Good

Practice Guide.

The change in noise immission levels at the various receptor locations resulting from the change of turbine

T16 from a type 2 to a type 1 turbine is between zero and -0.2dB, with the proposed type 1 always being the

quieter.

The results of the solus and cumulative noise immission levels when rounded to the nearest whole decibel, as

in Tables 5 (solus) and 14 (cumulative) in Section 11 of the Further Environmental Information dated 5

December 2014, are unaltered. It is therefore concluded that the proposed change of turbine tip height and

type to turbine T16 will result in no change to the residential amenity.

Ian F Bennett BSc CEng MIOA

Partner

ACIA Engineering Acoustics 39 Garners Lane Stockport SK3 8SD

tel: 07977 441334 e-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


4 Ornithology

4.1 As part of the environmental review it was considered that the ‘Ornithology’ section of the Environmental Statement

should be revisited, due to the proposed variation of turbine (T16) tip height. Therefore, the Ecological Consultants,

Starling Learning, for the consented scheme were commissioned to review their findings, reassess and prepare

conclusions with the varied T16 turbine in situ. The following pages are those findings and conclusions

Comment on the Effect on Ornithology interests of the proposed Increase in height of Turbine 16 (T16),

Aikengall IIa Wind Farm

Aikengall IIa is an approved 19 turbine scheme comprising 18 turbines with a tip height of 145m and a single

turbine with a tip height of 125m. The developer, Community Windpower, is proposing to vary the tip height of

the single 125m turbine (T16) to match the other approved turbines at 145m to tip.

The potential impacts of this minor change on ornithology are commented as follows.

Within the original environmental statement in Section 7 on Ornithology a collision risk analysis was included.

This was, however, calculated on the original 27 turbine scheme and not the consented 19 turbine scheme. No

further collision risk analysis was carried out for this reduced scheme as it was accepted that the risks would have

been less due to the omission of turbines. Therefore it is correct to assume that the proposed increase in tip

height of T16 will still result in a lower risk than original calculated and presented in the original 27 turbine

scheme, which was approved as part of the reduced 19 turbine scheme. The number of birds predicated to collide

over a period of 25 years was as follows based on the original 27 turbine scheme:

Species Collision risk over 25 years

(number of birds)

Hen Harrier 0.10

Peregrine 2.78

Merlin 0.14

Goshawk 2.22

Golden Plover 2.16

Curlew 0.79

Snipe 1.11

Pink-footed Goose 7.84

Greylag Goose 18.38

From the original submitted flight lines only Snipe, Greylag Goose, Pink-footed Goose and a single Curlew flight

flew within a 500m buffer of the T16 position. The adverse impacts of collision risk are therefore considered to

be of low magnitude or negligible and not significant; this was accepted by the various consultees.

It is, therefore, the professional opinion of Starling Learning that the proposed tip height increase of T16 will

have no significant adverse impacts on the ornithological interests of this site.

Yours sincerely Starling Learning

2 Braehead

Liz Parsons Lochwinnoch

Renfrewshire PA12 4AS

Tel 01505 843849

8 May 2019 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


5 Aviation

5.1 As part of the environmental review it was considered that the ‘Aviation’ section, within the Other

Considerations Section of the Environmental Statement should be revisited, due to the proposed variation of

turbine (T16) tip height, which may alter any potential affects the turbines could have on aviation assets.

5.2 However, in reviewing the Planning Conditions, relating to aviation assets or matters namely; Condition 5 (Air

Defence Radar Mitigation Scheme), Condition 6 (Infra-Red Warning Lighting) and Condition 29 (Aviation

Safety) it was concluded that a variation in tip height of one single turbine to align it with the other consented

turbines would not alter the requirements within those conditions.

5.3 Condition 5 (Air Defence Radar Mitigation Scheme) is currently being finalised with the Ministry of Defence

(MOD) and relates to the number and location of the turbines, rather than the tip heights. Therefore, a varying

the tip height of a single turbine (T16) to align with the other consented turbines would not alter the mitigation

scheme.

5.4 Condition 6 (Infra-Red Warning Lighting) has been discharged by the Scottish Ministers following consultation

with the MOD. The Condition related to which turbines were fitted with Infra-Red Warning Lighting; T16 was

not a turbine that was agreed to have an Infra-Red lighting system fitted. See Figure 5 for the agreed IR lighting

locations. Therefore, varying the tip height of a single turbine (T16) to align with the other consented turbines

would not affect the agreed IR lighting locations.

5.5 Condition 29 (Aviation Safety) is a requirement to notify the Planning Authorities, MOD, Defence Geographic

Centre and NATS various information relating to the turbine locations, heights and heights of construction

equipment. This will be provided prior to commencement of development and will include the finalised height

of T16.

Figure 5 – Agreed Infra-Red Warning Lighting Locations


6 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

6.1 As part of the environmental review, it was considered that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’

section, of the Environmental Statement should be revisited, due to the proposed variation of turbine (T16)

tip height, which may alter any potential effects the turbines could have on Landscape and Visual Impact.

6.2 Therefore, the Landscape Consultant, Optimised Environments (OPEN), for the consented scheme were

commissioned to review their findings, reassess and prepare conclusions with the varied T16 turbine in situ.

The following pages are those findings and conclusions.

Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm Section 36C Application

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

1. Introduction

In February 2014, Optimised Environments (OPEN) produced a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) for

Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm as part of the Environmental Statement (ES) that accompanied the original

application for 27 turbines. In December 2014, Further Environmental Information (FEI) was submitted, which

assessed a reduced layout of 19 turbines. This reduced layout was consented in October 2017 after an Inquiry

process.

The consented layout for the proposed development has 18 turbines with a tip height of 145m and one turbine

(Turbine 16) with a tip height of 125m. It is now proposed to vary the tip height of Turbine 16 to 145m in order to

be consistent with the other 18 turbines and to enhance the effectiveness of the wind generation capability of the

approved scheme.

In May 2019, OPEN was commissioned by Community Windpower Limited to undertake a review of the December

2014 FEI in order to identify any changes to its findings that may arise as a result of the proposed alteration to the

consented height of Turbine 16.

The proposed increase in height of Turbine 16 is the only proposed alteration to the consented layout, with all other

turbines remaining at 145m to blade tip, and all turbine locations remaining as per the consented scheme.

The assessment carried out in this report is based on a comparative review of the proposed revised Aikengall IIa

Community Wind Farm with the consented Aikengall IIa Community Wind Farm. The comparative assessment,

figures and visualisations serve to illustrate the difference between the two schemes rather than a full assessment

of the proposed revised scheme, given that the principle of a wind farm on the site has already been established

through the granting of consent in 2016.

2. Methodology

The purpose of this report is to assess the effects that may arise from the proposed change in the height of Turbine

16 and ascertain whether or not this proposed revision would alter the findings of the December 2014 FEI (which

assessed the landscape and visual effects of the consented layout).

The February 2014 LVIA and December 2014 FEI were informed by a series of 34 viewpoints that were chosen in

agreement with East Lothian Council, Scottish Borders Council and Scottish Natural Heritage to represent the views

of the proposed development that may be gained from around the study area. In this report, the assessment of the

proposed revision to Turbine 16 is carried out in relation to these 34 viewpoints, with graphic productions as

described in Section 3 below.

The ES viewpoints were selected to represent the key landscape and visual receptors that may be affected by the

proposed development. This means that the findings of the revised viewpoint assessment are considered to reflect

the overall implications of the proposed change to Turbine 16, and conclusions in relation to potential effects on

other landscape and visual receptors can be drawn from the revised viewpoint assessment.

The revised viewpoint assessment is in Section 4 below.


3. Illustrations

A number of figures have been produced to illustrate this report, including Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV)

diagrams, wirelines and photomontages.

Two ZTVs have been produced, one for the proposed revised layout and one that shows a comparison between the

visibility of the consented layout and the proposed revised layout.

The February 2014 LVIA and December 2014 FEI were informed by a series of 34 viewpoints that were chosen to

represent the views of the proposed development that may be gained from around the study area. In this report,

comparative wirelines have been produced for those of the ES viewpoints that lie within a 15km radius of the

proposed development and gain visibility of Turbine 16 (a total of 24 viewpoints). Viewpoints that gain no visibility

of Turbine 16 are not included as they will not be affected by the proposed revision, while those that lie beyond

15km from the proposed development are not illustrated as the proposed variation in height of Turbine 16 is

unlikely to be discernible from these more distant locations.

While the majority of viewpoints are illustrated by wirelines, which clearly show the consented and proposed

revised Turbine 16, supplementary photomontages have been produced for the four viewpoints where Turbine 16

constitutes a relatively close-proximity and apparent element in the outlook.

The February 2014 LVIA and December 2014 FEI included a Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA), which

described and illustrated (with wirelines) the potential theoretical visibility of the proposed development from

residential properties that lie within a 2km radius of the proposed development. For this review, comparative

wirelines have been produced for the residential properties that gain theoretical visibility of Turbine 16.

The baseline photographs and wirelines that accompanied the February 2014 LVIA and December 2014 FEI were

produced prior to the full adoption of current SNH visualisation guidance, and covered a field of view of 72-degrees

on an A3 sheet. Given the relatively minor nature of the change proposed in this application, and in order that the

wirelines for the current revised proposal can be directly compared with these earlier documents, the wirelines that

accompany this report have also been set up on A3 sheets to cover a 72-degree field of view. For each viewpoint, a

wireline showing the consented layout is shown on the upper part of each page, and a wireline showing the layout

with the proposed revised Turbine 16 on the lower part of each page. This allows a direct comparison to be made

between the consented Turbine 16 and the proposed revised Turbine 16. Where the proposed development covers

more than 72-degrees of the view, the wireline is spread over the required number of pages.

The February 2014 LVIA and December 2014 FEI included photomontages for a number of viewpoints. These were

produced with a field of view of 72-degrees, in the same format as the wirelines, and also with an enlargement to

a 45-degree field of view on a separate page. The original format of 72-degree and 45-degree photomontages has

been replicated in this report in order that a direct comparison with the previous visualisations can be made.

Given the localised nature of the proposed revision, it is not considered necessary to update the most recent

cumulative assessment, which was carried out at the request of the Reporter as FEI in September 2015, prior to the

Public Local Inquiry. Cumulative wind farms, other than the phases of Aikengall Community Wind Farm, are

therefore not shown on the wireline views.

The figures that accompany this Report are as follows:

Figure 6.1 – ZTV for the Revised Layout (with Viewpoints)

Figure 6.2 – Comparative ZTV for the Consented Layout and Revised Layout (with Viewpoints)

Figure 6.3 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 1 (Wester Dod)

Figure 6.4 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 2 (Crichness Farm)

Figure 6.5 – Comparative Wireline and Photomontage for Viewpoint 3 (Minor road to south of site)

Figure 6.6 – Comparative Wireline and Photomontage for Viewpoint 4 (Dunglass Common)

Figure 6.7 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 5 (Ecclaw)

Figure 6.8 – Comparative Wireline and Photomontage for Viewpoint 6 (Minor road near Ecclaw Hill)

Figure 6.9 – Comparative Wireline and Photomontage for Viewpoint 7 (Southern Upland Way)

Figure 6.10 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 8 (Cockit Hat, Oldhamstocks)

Figure 6.11 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 9 (Blackcastle Hill)

Figure 6.12 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 11 (Cockburnspath (old A1))

Figure 6.13 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 12 (Cockburnspath (SUW))

Figure 6.14 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 15 (John Muir Way near Torness)

Figure 6.15 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 16 (Brunt Hill)

Figure 6.16 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 17 (Edin’s Hall broch)

Figure 6.17 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 18 (Cockburn Law)

Figure 6.18 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 19 (A6112 near Berryhill cottage)

Figure 6.19 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 20 (A6112 north of Preston)

Figure 6.20 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 21 (Old Cambus to Grantshouse road)

Figure 6.21 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 22 (Wether Law)

Figure 6.22 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 24 (Dirrington Great Law)

Figure 6.23 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 25 (Middle Rig)

Figure 6.24 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 26 (Duns Law)

Figure 6.25 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 27 (Twin Law)

Figure 6.26 – Comparative Wireline for Viewpoint 29 (St Baldred’s Cradle)

Figure 6.27 – Comparative Wireline for Middle Monynut/ Middle Monynut Cottage

Figure 6.28 – Comparative Wireline for The Star (Shepherd’s Cottage), Dunglass Common

Figure 6.29 - Comparative Wireline for Paitshill Farm/ Paitshill Cottage

Figure 6.30 – Comparative Wireline for Luckieshiel Farmhouse

Figure 6.31 – Comparative Wireline for Bushelhill/The Cottage, Bushelhill


4. Revised Viewpoint Assessment

Table 1 below lists the 34 viewpoints that were illustrated and assessed in the February 2014 ES and the December

2014 FEI. For each of these viewpoints, the table describes the likely implication of a variation to the blade tip height

of Turbine 16 from its consented height of 125m to 145m.

The boxes where text is shown in grey rather than black indicate those viewpoints where turbine 16 is not visible,

and no further comment is required. These viewpoints are not illustrated by wirelines due to the lack of visibility of

Turbine 16.

The boxes shaded in green indicate those viewpoints/properties where Turbine 16 is visible, and the level of

visibility/proximity to turbine 16 means that the proposed variation requires to be assessed. These viewpoints are

illustrated by comparative wirelines and photomontages.

The remaining boxes, with standard black text and no shading, are those viewpoints where Turbine 16 is visible but

the proposed revision to this turbine is unlikely to be readily discernible. These viewpoints are illustrated by

comparative wirelines

Table 1 Viewpoint Review

Viewpoint OS Grid reference and distance to nearest turbine

Visibility of turbine 16? Further assessment required?

1. Wester

Dod

Grid ref:

371174/668158

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 1.44km

Yes: but a minor

component in the view,

seen from approx. 2.5km

away and in the context of

Aikengall II – Wester Dod -

and other turbines in the

proposed development

No: the proposed variation is

unlikely to be readily

discernible

The effect of the proposed

development will remain

significant

2. Crichness

Farm

Grid ref:

368197/666277

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 1.88km

Yes: but a minor


seen as a blade only from

approx. 4.6km away, behind

other turbines in the




discernible



significant

3. Minor

road to

south of site

Grid ref:

372729/664878

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 0.91km

Yes: an apparent


seen at full height from

approx. 1.5km away

Yes: due to the level of

visibility of T16

The proposed increase in the

height of T16 may be

perceived in relation to the

adjacent T20. However, T16 is

not the closest turbine and

will be no more apparent than

a number of other consented



turbines. Its elevation/tip

height above ground will also

be considerably lower than

other turbines.

The magnitude of change will

remain high and the effect of

the proposed development

will remain significant

4. Dunglass

Common

Grid ref:

374183/666551

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 1.36km

Yes: an apparent


seen at nearly full height

from approx. 1.4km away


visibility of T16









height above ground will be

similar to that of T20, which is

the closest turbine.


remain high and the effect of

the proposed development

will remain significant

5. Ecclaw Grid ref:

375789/668142

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 3.23km

Yes: but a minor


lying approx.

3.5km away with the tower

screened by landform and

the hub/ blade likely to be

largely screened by trees on

the skyline



discernible



significant

6.Minor road

near Ecclaw

Hill

Grid ref:

376109/666915

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 3.27km

Yes: an apparent



approx. 3.3km away


visibility of T16













lower than that of other

turbines.


remain medium-high and the

effect of the proposed


significant

7. Southern

Upland Way

Grid ref:

376451/665212

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 3.80km

Yes: an apparent

component in the view, the

nearest turbine to the

viewpoint


visibility of T16



perceived in relation to T15,

which lies immediately

behind. However, T16 will be

no more apparent than a

number of other consented

turbines and its elevation/tip


lower than that of T15 as well

as other consented/

operational turbines.





significant

8. Cockit

Hat,

Oldhamstock

s

Grid ref:

374235/670837

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 3.73km

Yes: but a minor


lying approx.

4.7km away with the tower

screened by landform and

the hub/ blade likely to be

screened by woodland



discernible



significant

9.

Blackcastle

Hill

Grid ref:

371902/

671387

Distance to

nearest

Yes: but a minor



away, in the context of




discernible





turbine: 3.96km proposed development; the

proposed variation will be

beneficial in the integration

of T16 with surrounding

turbines in the proposed

development in terms of

scale

significant

10.

Cranshaws

Grid ref:

369126/661807

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 4.52km

No visibility of T16 No


development will remain not

significant

11.Cockburn

s- path (old

A1)

Grid ref:

377771/670088

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 5.79km

Yes: but a minor








discernible



significant

12.

Cockburns-

path (SUW)

Grid ref:

377825/671215

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 6.42km

Yes: but a minor



approx. 6.9km away and

likely to be screened by

woodland



discernible



significant

13.A1107 at

Pease Bay

junction

Grid ref:

379530/670195

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 7.44km




significant

14. A1

Bilsdean

Grid ref:

375967/673025

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 6.48km




significant

15. John

Muir Way

near Torness

Grid ref:

375211/674968

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 7.92km

Yes: but a minor



approx. 9km away and likely

to be partly screened by

woodland



discernible



significant




16. Brunt Hill Grid ref:

368709/674413

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 6.91km

Yes: but a minor



approx.9km away and

behind a turbine in

Aikengall II – Wester Dod



discernible



significant

17. Edin’s

Hall broch

Grid ref:

377304/660248

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 7.39km

Yes: but a minor








discernible



significant

18. Cockburn

Law

Grid ref:

376574/659741

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 7.32km

Yes: but a minor





proposed development and

Aikengall II – Wester Dod;

the proposed variation will

be beneficial in the

integration of T16 with

Aikengall II – Wester Dod in

terms of tip height



discernible



significant

19. A6112

near

Berryhill

cottage

Grid ref:

380674/663856

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 8.23km

Yes: but a minor


seen from 8.23km away

(T16 is the nearest turbine

to the viewpoint), in the

context of other turbines in

the proposed development/

Aikengall II – Wester Dod,

and behind Quixwood Wind

Farm



discernible



significant

20. A6112

north of

Preston

Grid ref:

379454/659481

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 9.48km

Yes: but a minor





proposed development/

Aikengall II – Wester Dod,



discernible



significant



and behind the Weirburn

turbines; the proposed

variation will be beneficial

in the integration of T16

with the proposed

development/ Aikengall II –

Wester Dod in terms of tip

height

21. Old

Cambus to

Grantshouse

road

Grid ref:

383176/667463

Distance to

nearest

turbine:

10.36km

Yes: but a minor





proposed development; the

proposed variation will be

beneficial in the integration

of T16 with other turbines

in the proposed

development in terms of tip

height



discernible



significant

22. Wether

Law

Grid ref:

365498/660694

Distance to

nearest

turbine: 7.54km

Yes: but a minor



away with the lower tower

screened, in the context of





discernible



significant

23. Moss Law Grid ref:

360656/664669

Distance to

nearest

turbine:

9.52km




significant

24.

Dirrington

Great Law

Grid ref:

369812/654930

Distance to

nearest

turbine:

10.78km

Yes: but a minor








discernible



significant

25. Middle Grid ref: Yes: but a minor No: the proposed variation is




Rig 372388/654338

Distance to

nearest

turbine:

11.24km







discernible



significant

26. Duns

Law

Grid ref:

378600/654762

Distance to

nearest

turbine:

12.60km

Yes: but a minor


seen from approx. 13km


turbines in Aikengall II –

Wester Dod



discernible



significant

27. Twin Law Grid ref:

362480/654798

Distance to

nearest

turbine:

14.04km

Yes: but a minor







unlikely to be discernible



significant

28. Dunbar

Harbour

Grid ref:

368121/679355

Distance to

nearest

turbine:

11.89km




significant

29. St

Baldred’s

Cradle

Grid ref:

363817/681296

Distance to

nearest

turbine:

14.96km

Yes: but a very minor


seen as a blade tip only

from approx. 17.4km away,

in the context of other


development





significant

30.

Whitekirk

Golf Club

Grid ref:

360196/682293

Distance to

nearest

turbine:

17.57km




significant

31. Lammer

Law

Grid ref:

352365/661812

Distance to



seen as a hub and blade






nearest

turbine:

18.28km

from approx. 21km away, in

the context of other


development


significant

32. A1 near

Ayton

Grid ref:

391056/661727

Distance to

nearest

turbine:

18.80km




from 18.80km away (T16 is

the nearest turbine to the

viewpoint), in the context

of other turbines in the

proposed development and

Aikengall II – Wester Dod





significant

33.

Whitsome

Grid ref:

386347/650632

Distance to

nearest

turbine:

20.59km




from approx. 20.70km away



development and Aikengall

II – Wester Dod





significant

34. North

Berwick Law

Grid ref:

355630/684220

Distance to

nearest

turbine:

21.85km



seen as a blade tip only

from approx. 24.8km away,



development





significant

The assessment carried out in Table 1 above indicates that at the great majority of viewpoints the proposed revision

to Turbine 16 will not be readily discernible/discernible. There are four viewpoints – Viewpoints 3, 4, 6 and 7 –

where Turbine 16 is likely to be a more notable component in the view due to its proximity to the viewpoint, but

even here the proposed revision will not notably alter the appearance of the proposed development in the view,

and the findings of the viewpoint assessment in the December 2014 FEI will not be altered.

On the basis of the revised viewpoint assessment, it may therefore be concluded that the proposed revision to

Turbine 16 will not alter the findings of the December 2014 FEI in respect of any landscape and visual receptors or

viewpoints.


5. Revised Residential Visual Amenity Assessment

Table 2 below lists the properties that were considered in the RVAA in both the February 2014 ES and December

2014 FEI and describes the likely implication of a variation to the blade tip height of turbine 16 from its consented

height of 125m to 145m.

The boxes where text is shown in grey rather than black indicate those properties where Turbine 16 is not visible,

and no further comment is required. These viewpoints are not illustrated by wirelines due to the lack of visibility of

Turbine 16.

The boxes shaded in green indicate those properties where Turbine 16 is visible, and the level of visibility/proximity

to Turbine 16 means that the proposed variation requires to be assessed. These viewpoints are illustrated by

comparative wirelines.

The remaining boxes, with standard black text and no shading, are those viewpoints where Turbine 16 is visible but

the proposed revision to this turbine is unlikely to be readily discernible. These viewpoints are illustrated by

comparative wirelines.

Table 2 Revised Residential Visual Amenity Survey

Property Distance to nearest turbine


1. Upper

Monynut

(financially

involved)

Distance to

nearest turbine:

0.48km




significant

2. Middle

Monynut/

Middle

Monynut

Cottage

(financially

involved)

Distance to

nearest turbine:

0.71km

Yes: but a lesser


seen from approx.

1.5km away with the

lower tower screened



discernible



significant

3. The Star

(Shepherd’s

Cottage),

Dunglass

Common

Distance to

nearest turbine:

1.61km

Yes: an apparent


seen as an upper tower,

hub and blades from

approx. 1.63km away


visibility of T16


height of T16 is likely be

perceived due to its proximity

to the property and screening

of the lower tower. However,

T16 is not the closest turbine

and will be no more apparent

than a number of other

consented turbines. Its

elevation/tip height above

ground will be similar to that



of T20, which is the closest

turbine.


remain medium/medium-high

and the effect of the proposed


significant

4. Nether

Monynut/Net

her Monynut

Cottages

Distance to

nearest turbine:

1.31km




significant

5. Paitshill

Farm/ Paitshill

Cottage

Distance to

nearest turbine:

1.85km

Yes: an apparent



approx. 1.9km away


visibility of T16


height of T16 is likely be

perceived due to its proximity

to the property. However, T16

is not the closest turbine and

will integrate in terms of scale

and proximity with other

consented turbines. Its


ground will be lower than that

of T20, which is the closest

turbine to the property.





significant

6. Luckieshiel

Farmhouse

Distance to

nearest turbine:

2.10km*

Yes: an apparent


seen from 2.10km away

(T16 is the nearest

turbine to the property)

Yes: due to the proximity of

T16 (it should be noted that at

the time of the December

2014 FEI, visibility was

screened by coniferous

woodland around the

property, and this appears to

remain in place)

Should the forestry be felled,

the proposed increase in the


perceived in relation to T19,

which lies adjacent. However,




T16 will be no more apparent

than a number of other

consented turbines and its


ground will be similar to that

of T14 as well as other

consented/ operational

turbines.


remain low with forestry in

place (medium/medium-high

if the forestry is felled) and

the effect of the proposed


significant (significant if

forestry is felled)

7. Crichness

Farmhouse/

Crichness

Farm Cottage

Distance to

nearest turbine:

1.77km





forestry is felled)

8. Bushelhill/

The Cottage,

Bushelhill

Distance to

nearest turbine:

1.84km

Yes: but a lesser


seen from approx.

2.5km away, in the

context of other


development



discernible




forestry is felled)

9.Aikengall/ Park Cottage (both financially involved)

Distance to nearest turbine: 3.06km* (not visible)

No visibility of T16 No The effect of the proposed development will remain not significant

*these properties are included in the Residential Visual Amenity Assessment despite lying outwith a 2km radius of

the nearest turbine in the proposed development. This is because they lay within a 2km radius of the nearest turbine

in the original (February 2014) 27-turbine layout of the proposed development.

The assessment carried out in Table 2 above indicates that at the majority of residential properties the proposed

revision to Turbine 16 will not be readily discernible/discernible. There are three properties– The Star, Paitshill

Farm/Paitshill Cottage and Luckieshiel Farmhouse – where Turbine 16 is likely to be a more notable component in

the view due to its proximity to the property, but even here the proposed revision will not notably alter the

appearance of the proposed development in the view, and the findings of the RVAA in the December 2014 FEI will

not be altered.

6. Summary and Conclusions

This short report has assessed the likely effects that would arise from the proposed revision to the dimensions of

one turbine – Turbine 16 – from its consented height of 125m to a tip height of 145m. This change would bring

Turbine 16 in line with the other 18 turbines in the proposed development, all of which have a consented tip height

of 145m. This assessment is based on the theoretical visibility of the proposed revised height of Turbine 16 as seen

from the 34 representative viewpoints that were used to inform the February 2014 LVIA and December 2014 FEI.

The revised assessment of effects on the viewpoints has indicated that the proposed change to Turbine 16 will be

theoretically visible at 28 of the 34 viewpoints, with no change to visibility of the proposed development at the

remaining six viewpoints (Viewpoints 10, 13, 14, 23, 28 and 30) as Turbine 16 is not visible at these locations. The

revised assessment has concluded that at the 28 viewpoints where Turbine 16 is theoretically visible, the proposed

change will not result in any variation to the findings of the December 2014 FEI. This is due to the fact that the

proposed revisions will bring Turbine 16 in line with all of the other consented turbines in the proposed

development and its resultant integration with surrounding turbines, the limited height increase, and distance from

the proposed development.

The assessment has also considered the effect that the proposed change to the height of Turbine 16 would have on

residential visual amenity. Of the nine residential receptors that were considered in the RVAA in the February 2014

LVIA and the December 2014 FEI, four will gain no visibility of Turbine 16 and so will not be affected by the proposed

revision. The assessment has concluded that at the five residential receptors where Turbine 16 is theoretically

visible, the proposed change will not result in any variation to the findings of the December 2014 FEI. As with the

viewpoint assessment, this is due largely to the fact that the proposed revisions will bring Turbine 16 in line with all

of the other consented turbines in the proposed development and its resultant integration with surrounding

turbines.

The viewpoints are intended to represent the key landscape and visual receptors that may be affected by the

proposed development. This means that while the revised assessment has not considered each individual landscape

and visual receptor, the findings of the revised viewpoint assessment are considered to reflect the overall

implications of the proposed change to the height of Turbine 16. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed

change to Turbine 16 will not result in any material changes to the effects on the landscape and visual receptors as

assessed and reported in the December 2014 FEI.


This page has been intentionally left blank

!

!!!! ! !

!! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!! !

!!

!

!!

!! ! !

!

! ! !

EAST LOTHIAN

MIDLOTHIAN

NORTHUMBERLAND

SCOTTISH BORDERS

34

33

3231

30

28

23

14

13

10

98

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

29

27 2625

24

22

21

20

19

1817

1615

12

11

330000 340000 350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000

63

00

00

64

00

00

65

00

00

66

00

00

670

00

06

80

00

06

90

00

070

00

00

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2019.

Figure 6.1ZTV for the Revised Layout

(with Viewpoints)

Ref No:

28/05/2019

0 5 102.5

Kilometres [

1:280,000

Coordinate System:

Scale: Drawing Size:

Created By: Rev No:

Date:A3

2TH130559

BNG OS GB 1936 Datum

Legend

! Aikengall IIa Turbines

! Aikengall I & II Operational Turbines

Aikengall IIa 5km Distance Bands

Aikengall IIa 35km Study Area Boundary

Local Authority Boundary

Aikengall IIa Blade Tip ZTV (145m)

No. of Theoretically Visible Turbines

1 - 4

5 - 8

9 - 12

13 - 16

17 - 19

This ZTV was created in ESRI ArcGIS 10.6 using OS Terrain 50 DTM data.

No surface features, such as trees or buildings, are included in this analysis.

1 Wester Dod 18 Cockburn Law

2 Crichness Farm 19 A6112 near Berryhill cottage

3 Minor road south of site 20 A6112 (North of Preston)

4 Dunglass Common 21 Old Cambus to Grantshouse road

5 Ecclaw 22 Wether Law

6 Minor road near Ecclaw Hill 23 Moss Law B6355

7 Southern Upland Way 24 Dirrington Great Law

8 Cockit Hat, Oldhamstocks 25 Middle Rig

9 Blackcastle Hill 26 Duns Law

10 Cranshaws 27 Twin Law (SUW)

11 Cockburnspath Old A1 28 Dunbar Harbour

12 Cockburnspath SUW 29 St Baldreds cradle

13 A1107 at Pease Bay Junction 30 Whitekirk Golf Club

14 A1 Bilsdean 31 Lammer Law

15 John Muir Way near Torness 32 A1 near Ayton

16 Brunt Hill 33 Whitsome

17 Edins Hall broch 34 North Berwick Law

S36c Application

!.Viewpoints that are not illustrated in thisReport

!.Viewpoints that are illustrated withcomparative wirelines in this Report

AIKENGALL IIa WIND FARM

!

!!!! ! !

!! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!! !

!!

!

!!

!! ! !

!

! ! !

EAST LOTHIAN

MIDLOTHIAN

NORTHUMBERLAND

SCOTTISH BORDERS

34

33

3231

30

28

23

14

13

10

98

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

29

27 2625

24

22

21

20

19

1817

1615

12

11

330000 340000 350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000

63

00

00

64

00

00

65

00

00

66

00

00

670

00

06

80

00

06

90

00

070

00

00

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2019.

Figure 6.2Comparative ZTV for the Consented

Layout and Revised Layout (with Viewpoints)

Ref No:

28/05/2019

0 5 102.5

Kilometres [

1:280,000

Coordinate System:

Scale: Drawing Size:

Created By: Rev No:

Date:A3

2TH130559

BNG OS GB 1936 Datum

Legend

! Aikengall IIa Turbines

! Aikengall I & II Operational Turbines

Aikengall IIa 5km Distance Bands

Aikengall IIa 35km Study Area Boundary

Local Authority Boundary

This ZTV was created in ESRI ArcGIS 10.6 using OS Terrain 50 DTM data.

No surface features, such as trees or buildings, are included in this analysis.

1 Wester Dod 18 Cockburn Law

2 Crichness Farm 19 A6112 near Berryhill cottage

3 Minor road south of site 20 A6112 (North of Preston)

4 Dunglass Common 21 Old Cambus to Grantshouse road

5 Ecclaw 22 Wether Law

6 Minor road near Ecclaw Hill 23 Moss Law B6355

7 Southern Upland Way 24 Dirrington Great Law

8 Cockit Hat, Oldhamstocks 25 Middle Rig

9 Blackcastle Hill 26 Duns Law

10 Cranshaws 27 Twin Law (SUW)

11 Cockburnspath Old A1 28 Dunbar Harbour

12 Cockburnspath SUW 29 St Baldreds cradle

13 A1107 at Pease Bay Junction 30 Whitekirk Golf Club

14 A1 Bilsdean 31 Lammer Law

15 John Muir Way near Torness 32 A1 near Ayton

16 Brunt Hill 33 Whitsome

17 Edins Hall broch 34 North Berwick Law

!.Viewpoints that are not illustrated in thisReport

!.Viewpoints that are illustrated withcomparative wirelines in this Report

Visibility of both Aikengall IIa ProposedVaried Development & Aikengall IIa

Visibility of Aikengall IIa ProposedVaried Development only

S36c Application

AIKENGALL IIa WIND FARM


Page 26

Appendix A

Proposed Variations to Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the Consent for Aikengall IIa Wind Farm as part of the S36C Application to Vary Single Turbine (T16).


Page 27

Proposed Variations to Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the Consent for Aikengall IIa Wind Farm as part of the S36C Application to Vary Single Turbine (T16).

Proposed variation as completed as ‘tracked changes’ for ease.

Annex 1 Description of the Development

The Aikengall lIa wind farm with a generating capacity which exceeds 50 MW, comprising a 19 turbine wind-powered electricity generating station, located on land approximately 12.5KM south of Dunbar 6.6KM south of Innerwick and 6KM North East of Cranshaws crossing the border between Scottish Borders Council planning area and East Lothian Council as described in the application and Environmental Statement (submitted on 11 February 2014), and Further Environmental Information (submitted on 10 December 2014) and S36C Variation application (Submitted in June 2019). This is subject to the conditions in Annex 2.

The principal components and ancillary development of the wind farm comprise:

The development consists of 19 wind turbines, with18 of which will be a maximum of 145 metres to blade tip (hub height 90 metres); and 1turbine of up to 125 metres to blade tip (hub height 74.5 metres) as shown on the attached plan, with a total generating capacity of over 50MW;

approximately 6.9 kilometres of new access tracks, typically five metres wide, with cable trenches alongside;

two borrow pits of approximately 10,000 square metres to provide about 135,000 cubic metres of rock for construction purposes;

a temporary construction compound near Heart Law;

a permanent meteorological mast, 90 metres high, at the southern end of the site.

Access to the site for construction and maintenance along the minor public road which runs south-westwards from the A1 trunk road past Thurston Mains and through the narrow valley of the Aikengall Water

all as more particularly shown on the plans provided in the Environmental Statement (submitted on 11 February 2014), and Further Environmental Information (submitted on 10 December 2014) and S36C Variation application (submitted in June 2019).

Annex 2

Part 1 - Conditions attached to Section 36 Consent.

All Condition to Remain as Consented Part 2 -Conditions attached to Deemed Planning Permission

The Following Conditions are proposed as amended, all others to Remain and Consented; 8. Implementation in accordance with approved plans and requirements of this permission

Except as otherwise required by the terms of this permission, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the application, including the drawings shown in the Environmental Statement dated February 2014, as amended by the Further Environmental Information dated December 2014 and S36C Variation application (Submitted June 2019), and other documentation lodged in support of the application.

Reason: to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

9. Design and operation of the wind turbines

There shall be no commencement of development unless full details of the proposed wind turbines (including, but not limited to, the power rating and sound power levels, the size, type, external finish and colour which should be non-reflective pale grey semi-matt), any anemometry masts and all associated apparatus have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authorities. The wind turbines shall be consistent with the candidate turbine or range assessed in the Environmental Statement, and the tip heights shall not exceed 125 metres (Turbine 16) and 145 metres (all other wind turbines) above ground level as shown in Figure 2.1A of the Further Environmental Information dated December 2014. The development shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the approved details and maintained in the approved colour, free from external rust, staining or discolouration, until such time as the wind farm is decommissioned. All wind turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction.

Reason: To ensure that the environmental impacts of the wind turbines forming part of the development

conform to the impacts of the candidate turbine assessed in the environmental statement and in the

interests of the visual amenity of the area.

Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application · turbine (T16) at the approved Aikengall IIa...

Documents

Transcript of Single Turbine (T16) Variation. S36C Application · turbine (T16) at the approved Aikengall IIa...