Supporting documents - Renfrewshire Council

een GLENLORA WIND TURBINE 

Environmental Statement 

Tom Coakley 

December 2009 

© Green Cat Renewables Ltd Z:\projects\C0111-080 Glenlora\Planning\ES\ES 

Final.doc


Final.doc

Environmental Statement 

Prepared By: 

Gavin Catto 

Cameron Sutherland 

Robert Beck 

Andrew Johnston 

Ife Thompson 

Jacqueline Marshall 

Stephanie Woods 

Covington Mill 

Thankerton 

Biggar, South Lanarkshire 

ML12 6NE 

Tel: 01899 309100 

Fax: 01899 309105 

z:\projects\c0111‐080 glenlora\planning\es\es final.doc 

Checked By: 

Approved By: 

GLENLORA WIND TURBINE 

TOM COAKLEY 

December 2009 


Final.doc 

Date: 

Date:


Final.doc

Preface 

This Environmental Statement seeks to address the local environmental effects of 

the proposed Glenlora wind turbine. This is an Environmental Statement for the 

purposes of the Planning EIA Regulations (the Environmental Impact Assessment 

(Scotland) Regulations 1999) covering what are believed to be the major 

environmental effects arising from this proposal. 

A wind project is (in the terminology of the 1999 regulations) a schedule 2 

development which would “require an EIA if it is likely to have significant 

environmental effect because of factors such as its nature, size or location”. 

Renfrewshire Council have determined in their Screening Opinion that the proposed 

single wind turbine of 800kw requires an EIA due to the perceived “likelihood of it 

having significant environmental effects within the scope of the Environmental 

Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999”. 

A request for a scoping opinion in respect of the proposed turbine was assessed by 

Renfrewshire Council and has been determined as follows: 

“The Council is of the opinion that the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment 

to accompany an application for planning permission for the erection of a wind 

turbine should concentrate on assessing the potential impacts arising from matters 

of Ecology/Fauna, Landscape and Visual Impact, Noise, Cultural 

Heritage/Archaeology, Existing Infrastructure and Recreational Access. The 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment should have regard to the ‘Landscape 

Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Guidelines for 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2 nd Edition 2002. The impact of an on‐site 

borrow pit and construction of access roads should be appraised as part of the 

overall impact of the scheme including impact on water and groundwater”. 


Final.doc


Final.doc

Table of Contents 

1 Description of Development ....................................................................... 9 

1.1 Background ................................................................................................. 9 

1.2 The Proposed Development ..................................................................... 14 

1.3 Planning and Environmental Policy Context ............................................. 24 

2 Alternatives Considered ............................................................................ 37 

2.1 Site Selection ............................................................................................. 37 

3 Environmental Studies .............................................................................. 39 

3.1 Climate Change ......................................................................................... 39 

3.2 Local Economic Benefit ............................................................................. 43 

3.3 Ecology/Fauna ........................................................................................... 51 

3.4 Landscape and Visual Impact .................................................................... 79 

3.5 Noise ....................................................................................................... 105 

3.6 Cultural Heritage/Archaeology ............................................................... 110 

3.7 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology ..................................................... 127 

3.8 Existing Infrastructure, Telecommunications, Television, Aviation and 

Electromagnetic Safety ........................................................................... 140 

3.9 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................... 145 

3.10 Safety ...................................................................................................... 146 

3.11 Items Scoped Out of Environmental Assessments ................................. 155 

Appendix 1 ‐ Ecology/Fauna ..................................................................................... 156 

Appendix 2 ‐ Landscape and Visual Impact .............................................................. 157 

Appendix 3 ‐ Cultural Heritage and Archaeology ..................................................... 172 

Appendix 4 ‐ Surface and Groundwater Hydrology .................................................. 173 


Final.doc


Final.doc

© Green Cat Renewables Ltd 


1 Description of Development 

1.1 Background 

This project comprises a single turbine project on the Glenlora Estate, Corsefield Road, 

Lochwinnoch. Glenlora Estate comprises of a combination of areas of semi‐improved 

grass pasture for grazing cattle and sheep, rough grazing land and mixed woodland. 

Mr Tom Coakley, director of the Glasgow based ‘Coakley Group’ property developers 

are looking at the opportunity of constructing a single wind turbine on his private 

estate. Every year the proposed turbine would generate sufficient electricity to satisfy 

the requirements of the private estate and existing infrastructure. Mr Coakley is keen 

to diversify to wind generation in order to provide an additional income stream to help 

offset fluctuations in energy prices incurred in the running of the estate as well as 

reduce the ‘carbon footprint’ of current operations. 

The majority of developments that Mr Coakley is involved in both personally and 

commercially have a ‘green footprint’. Recently Pro‐Active Energy (one of Mr Coakley’s 

operating companies) have been granted planning permission for the Uk’s largest 

biogas facility to be constructed on the new M74 Eco Park. From a personal 

perspective and for the benefit of the local area an anaerobic digester plant 

(09/0417/PP) and alterations to existing shed (with associated infrastructure and 

landscaping works) as well as a small scale hydro plant is proposed on the Glenlora 

Estate. 

A number of potential locations across the estate were investigated and this location 

was identified as the most suitable as it meets all of the technical requirements and 

has a relatively low environmental impact. The key factors used in identifying these 

potential sites are listed below: 

1. Wind Speed – The NOABL database of wind speeds indicates that the resource 

is potentially very good in this area with 7.9m/s at 45 agl. 

2. Grid Connection – An application for a grid connection has been issued and a 

formal offer from Scottish Power is imminent. 

3. Access – It is intended that the turbines would be landed at Grangemouth and 

transported southwest via the following transport networks: A904, M9, M876, 

M80, M8, A737 and A760. 

4. Civil and Military Aviation – The BAA, CAA, NATS and the MoD have been 

consulted and one response has been received to date. Although the site is 

located outside of the physical Aerodrome Safeguarding area for Glasgow 

Airport an objection has been raised by BAA as there may be a potential effect 

on the radars. An independent radar expert has been consulted and discussions 

with BAA to determine the most appropriate means of mitigation are 

underway. Recent discussions (December 2009) with Colin Cragg, Head of 

Aerodrome Safeguarding, BAA have been positive in terms of highlighting 

feasible mitigation options (including blanking) and a meeting with the 

Safeguarding team is proposed in January to agree a satisfactory solution for all 

parties. 

Page 9 of 173



5. EMI – Ofcom and the main microwave link operators have been consulted. The 

regulator has found no links crossing the immediate area of the proposed 

turbine location; therefore no issue can be anticipated in terms of interference 

with existing telecommunication infrastructures. 

6. Planning – An open dialogue with Renfrewshire Council planners and SNH has 

been carried out throughout the development process. The key planning issues 

identified have been: 

a. The site is located in a green belt area and is within the boundaries of 

Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park where windfarm development have 

generally been resisted due to the landscape impacts implications. 

Given the small scale of the development and client’s commitment to 

‘green energy’ projects it is hoped that a balanced and pragmatic view 

will be taken by consultees. 

b. Ecology –The site is relatively close (~1.8km to the southeast and ~700m 

to the northwest) of Renfrewshire Height SPA/SSSI, however extensive 

bird surveys of the site have/ have not identified significant use or 

overflight of the site by qualifying species. 

c. Noise – Turbines will be in excess of 500m to the nearest property 

(owned by Glenlora Estate). Assessments carried out demonstrate that 

noise levels will be acceptable following the implementation of suitable 

planning conditions. 

Considering all these factors a suitable site and layout was identified, see Figure 1.1.2 

Page 10 of 173

1.1.1 Wind Energy 



The UK is widely recognised as having over 40% of Europe’s wind resource. This 

natural benefit, resulting from the UK’s position on the western edge of the continent, 

significantly increases the contribution that the development of wind energy projects 

can make to the UK’s energy generating portfolio. 

The UK’s first operational wind farm was commissioned in 1991. As of October 2009, 

~2636 wind turbines operate throughout the UK, contributing to the Government’s 

targets to increase the use of renewable energy and to reduce the emission of 

greenhouse gases. As a result of the growth in the use of wind energy, the 

understanding of the issues involved has improved markedly. 

Wind power in Scotland is an area of considerable activity, with over 1550 MW of 

installed capacity as at November 2009. Wind power is the fastest growing of the 

renewable energy technologies in Scotland and the world's largest wind turbine 

generator (5 MW) is currently undergoing testing in the North Sea, 15 miles off the 

east coast. There are numerous large wind farms as well as a number, both planned 

and operating, which are in community ownership. The siting of turbines is sometimes 

an issue, but surveys have shown high levels of community acceptance for wind power 

in Scotland. There is further potential for expansion, especially offshore, given the high 

average wind speeds. 

The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 introduces ambitious, world‐leading 

legislation to reduce emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050, and will drive new 

thinking, new solutions and new technologies putting Scotland at the forefront of 

building a sustainable low carbon economy. The majority of this is likely to come from 

wind power. 

1.1.2 Public Attitudes to Wind Power 

Surveys of public attitudes to wind farms consistently show strong support for wind 

energy (typically between 70 and 80% in favour). The Mori poll conducted on behalf of 

the Scottish Executive (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/08/18049/25579) is 

typical of findings across the UK over the past decade. The survey targeted residents 

living close to existing wind farms and consistent with previous targeted studies found 

that the majority of residents were more positive towards the projects once they were 

built than before. 

1.1.3 The Rural Economy – Farm Diversification 

Government renewable energy policy includes a specific aim of promoting the 

interests of the rural economy. Those interests include the farming industry. 

Every wind farm in a rural area contributes to the farming economy with the provision 

of additional income. However, a project like this where the rural business is the 

developer rather than simply a landlord, has an even greater benefit to the local 

economy. 

Page 11 of 173



Wind turbines provide a source of income whilst coexisting with the previous farming 

practices, arable or pastoral. Organisations such as the NFU “are in favour of the use of 

renewable energy and see wind farming, and other types of renewable energy such as 

energy crops, as an opportunity for farmers”. 

1.1.4 Noise 

Wind turbines, by their very nature, do generate some noise, mostly from the blades 

passing through the air. However, the level of noise is often exaggerated in the press 

and by those opposed to wind energy. It is because of this that people are usually 

surprised at how quiet modern wind turbines are, when they visit them. It is useful to 

consider the low noise levels attributable to modern wind turbines at the sorts of 

distances separating nearest residential properties and wind turbines ‐ usually at least 

400m. This is illustrated in the Table 1.1.1 below: 

Source / Activity Indicative noise level (decibels – dBA) 

Threshold of pain 140 

Jet aircraft at 250m 105 

Pneumatic drill at 7m 95 

Truck at 30mph at 100m 65 

Busy general office 60 

Car at 40mph at 100m 55 

Wind farm at 350m 35‐45 

Quiet bedroom 35 

Rural night‐time background 20‐40 

Threshold of hearing 0 

Table 1.1.1 – Typical Noise Levels 

Planning Advice Note 45 (revised 2002) – “Renewable Energy Technologies” 

1.1.5 Wind Energy in Renfrewshire 

Although Renfrewshire Council do not currently have a Renewable Energy Strategy; in 

February 2007 the Council made a commitment with councils across Scotland to 

reduce the effects of climate change. The Council has signed the Scottish Climate 

Change Declaration which brings together the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, 

Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Executive in a commitment to work with 

others to lessen the effects of climate change. 

The site is located within the Glasgow & Clyde Valley Green Belt and the Clyde 

Muirshiel Regional Park which are subject to specific planning and development 

policies. Based on the above policy context, we believe that it is demonstrated in the 

following sections that this single turbine project is appropriate to the location and 

that its nature and advantages would outweighs a continued protection of the private 

estate that it is situated in. 

Page 12 of 173



To date there have not been a significant number of wind farm or single turbine 

developments in Renfrewshire. Projects we are currently aware of include a small 

single turbine constructed on Craigend Hill behind St John Bosco Primary School. 

A number of medium and large scale wind farm developments have been granted 

planning permission in neighbouring local authority areas. The intervisbility between 

this proposal and several of the built projects and other projects should they be built 

will be discussed further in Section 3.4. 

There will of course be other projects that are not yet in the public domain or that are 

currently on hold but may be revived in the future. It is clear that Renfrewshire has 

not had the attention from large wind farm developers that many other regions of 

Scotland have. However, there is now considerable interest in smaller single turbine 

projects usually being developed by educational, commercial establishments or private 

landowners. 

There are a number of reasons why Renfrewshire has not been targeted by 

developers, notably the Structure Plan describes the area as an area of Strategic 

Environmental Resource. In Schedule 7 of the Structure Plan the area is described as 

having Ecological Resources: SAC’s, SPAs, SSSIs, NNRs, RSPB and SWT reserves, and 

species or habitats protected by national or international legislation or recognised in 

the Local Plan. 

Another potential constraint to wind farm development in the Renfrewshire area is the 

proximity to Glasgow Airports Radar safeguarding zone. Taking this into account all 

wind turbine proposals within 30km of any of British Airport Authority (BAA) airports 

have to be assessed by BAA’s extental consultants National Air Traffic Services (NATS). 

1.1.6 The Energy Contribution of Wind Power 

In the UK (BWEA October 2009) there are currently ~2,690 turbines at 250 wind farms 

with a capacity of ~3,898MW; with a further ~2,100MW at 35 wind farms under 

construction; and over ~6,800MW of projects with consent, including ~3,300MW 

onshore. Assuming that most of the consented projects get built in the next couple of 

years there will be ~12,700MW of capacity. There is a further ~9,400MW currently in 

the planning system, including ~7,400MW onshore. 

Although it is recognised that wind energy is inherently an intermittent source of 

electricity, its variable nature poses no special problems for power system operation. 

Indeed the Renewable Energy Advisory Group (REAG) Report (1992) shows that the 

national grid can readily accommodate beween 10‐20% of its input from intermittent 

sources. In western Denmark the grid system typically accepts 16‐17% penetration 

from wind turbines, with peak hourly penetration rates of up to 78%. 

Despite the variability of wind conditions at wind farm sites, turbines in Scotland 

typically have a capacity factor in the order of 30‐45%, and generate electricity for 60‐ 

85% of the time, in a year of average winds. 

Page 13 of 173



1.1.7 The Energy Balance of Wind Turbines 

Wind turbines have a positive energy balance, and therefore produce many times 

more energy than that required for their manufacture, installation and maintenance. 

Specific research into the Vestas V80 onshore wind turbine indicates that they recover 

all the energy used in their manufacture, installation, maintenance, decommissioning 

and disposal within 8 months of operation on an average site. This figure is dependent 

on the wind speed (and hence energy generation) at a site, but is clearly a much 

shorter period than a wind turbine's operational life of over 25 years. This fact is 

central to wind energy’s contribution to sustainable energy supplies. 

1.2 The Proposed Development 

The proposed development at Glenlora Estate, near Lochwinnoch would comprise the 

installation and operation of a single 800kW wind turbine no greater than 85m to 

blade tip. 

The Enercon E48 wind turbine is in the company’s medium‐class power range and is 

the most profitable system within it’s class. With a maximum rated power of 800kw 

and a capacity of 7000 megawatt hours per annum expected it is the ideal choice for a 

‘private’ estate. The green form of energy will result in huge carbon savings per year 

over the turbines expected 25 year lifespan which in line with Policy REN1 of the 

Renfrewshire Local Plan which is generally supportive of an increase in the proportion 

of electricity produced from renewable sources. 

The proposed development is located on Glenlora Estate near Lochwinnoch, ~25km 

west of Glasgow city centre, as shown in Figure 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 below. The proposal is 

located within the Glasgow & Clyde Valley Green Belt and the Clyde Muirshiel Regional 

Park which are subject to specific planning and development policies. The turbine 

position and site boundary are shown in Figure 1.1.2. 

Page 14 of 173

Figure 1.1.1 – Site Location 


Site Location 

Figure 1.1.2 – Turbine layout and site boundary 


Turbine under construction National Grid Coordinates 

T1 E232597 N659104 

Table 1.1.2 – Turbine location (NGC) 

Page 15 of 173 

Proposed turbine location 

Land ownership boundary 

Nearest properties +500m exclusion zone



The single turbine proposed is positioned at location 1 in Figure 1.1.2 above. National 

grid coordinates for the turbine are detailed in Table 1.1.2 above. 

1.2.1 Site Layout 

Every effort has been made to ensure that the project and associated infrastructure 

are positioned to take account of the assessments identified in this report notably 

ecology, landscape/visual effects and noise. 

The planning application layout has been finalised following a design development 

process which has balanced the need to capture the greatest energy from the wind at 

the site while respecting any site specific constraints identified and engineering 

considerations. 

As the project involves a single turbine any undesirable clustering effects will be 

avoided. 

Glenlora Estate extends to circa 100 acres and comprises garden grounds which are 

well maintained with the capacity to house grazing animals. The area taken by the 

proposed project is small and it is therefore anticipated that the existing land use 

would continue around the wind turbines and associated infrastructure. 

1.2.2 Project Detailed Design 

It is intended that this project will be let as either a single Engineer Procure Contract 

(EPC) with a ‘turnkey’ supplier or a pair of back to back EPC contracts with a turbine 

supplier and an engineering contractor. As such the detailed design will not be 

completed until the turbine supplier and the contractors have been selected. Further, 

some aspects of the design cannot be completed until intrusive ground investigations 

have been carried out. 

The following project description sets out the conceptual design in sufficient detail that 

the project can be understood and assessed from a planning perspective. It is 

anticipated that some of the more detailed aspects that have not yet been fully 

evaluated will be handled as planning conditions. 

The EPC contract(s) will be competitively let, however, local contractors or contractors 

who sub‐contract work locally will be favoured. 

1.2.3 Specification of Wind Turbines 

The proposed turbine within the Glenlora Estate would comprise the installation of a 

medium sized 800kW wind turbine. A diagram of the principal dimensions of a typical 

turbine in this size range is shown in Figure 1.1.3 below. 

Page 16 of 173



Figure 1.1.3 – Enercon E48 (800kW) wind turbine showing principal dimensions 

The wind turbine at Glenlora would have an overall height to blade tip of up to 85 

metres. The turbine would be of a modern, quiet design, incorporating tapered 

tubular towers and three blades attached to a nacelle housing containing the 

generator, gearbox and other operating equipment. The transformer for each turbine, 

depending on the final selection of wind turbine used, may be contained inside the 

tower base. The turbine operation would be fully independent and automatic. It is 

proposed that the finish of the wind turbine, tower and blades will be semi‐matt and 

pale grey in colour. 

In line with all modern wind turbines the machine would start generating when wind 

speeds rise to the ‘cut‐in’ wind speed of 2 m/s. The level of generation would increase 

with wind speed to the rated wind speed (16 ‐ 32rpm, approx 13 m/s), and generation 

would then be limited to that rated level at higher wind speeds. In the event of 

extreme wind speeds, in excess of those that the turbine can operate at (typically 10 

minute averages of 25 m/s or a top value of 30m/s), the turbines would shut down 

until the wind speed has dropped to a level where it can safely start operating again. 

Page 17 of 173



Once erected the wind turbines would operate automatically, requiring visits to the 

site by maintenance staff. These visits would typically involve two to four visits per 

month in light commercial vehicles, vans, Land Rovers or similar. This would include 

longer visits for scheduled servicing every six months. In normal conditions the wind 

cluster would be operated and monitored remotely. 

1.2.4 Access from the Public Highway 

It is intended that the turbines would be landed at Grangemouth, transported 

southwest via the A904, M9, M876, M80, M8 and onto the A737. The route then takes 

the 2 nd exit at Roadhead Junction on the A760. The route then turns west onto 

Corsefield Road and enters the Glenlora Estate via an access track located on the 

eastern side of Glenlora House. 

At this stage a level of minor road works with minimum removal of trees and 

hedgerows is anticipated. 

1.2.5 Site Tracks 

The construction of new on‐site tracks would be required for the purposes of providing 

access from the existing road to the wind turbines. This new stretch of track will likely 

have a total length of approximately 800m. The tracks would be typically 4.0m wide 

with 0.5m shoulders on each side and made up of crushed stone to an average depth 

of up to 500mm. On corners, it will be necessary to construct wider areas of track (up 

to 5.5m) to reflect the minimum bend‐radii for the longest construction loads (the 

blades). 

Construction of the site tracks would involve the removal of the vegetation and top soil 

to a depth of approximately 200mm. This would be stored adjacent to the tracks for 

later, partial reinstatement. Where necessary, a geotextile layer would be placed 

directly onto the exposed subsoil upon which the crushed rock would be placed. 

Appropriate drainage requirements would be incorporated where the site specific 

conditions make this necessary. If any areas of softer ground are encountered, the 

depth of crushed rock may need to increase to approximately 700mm and a layer of 

geotextile material embedded within the structure would be used. 

Construction of site tracks will utilise stone brought in from a nearby quarry. In 

addition to the site tracks themselves, a temporary working area of 450m 2 (30m by 

15m) would be required at each of the wind turbine positions. This area is additional to 

three areas of hardstanding (30m by 20m) to support the cranes (including outriggers) 

used for the erection of the wind turbines. The precise shape of the temporary 

working area will be refined to reflect construction and environmental factors at the 

turbine location. The construction of these areas of hardstanding will be similar to the 

construction of site tracks. Indicative layouts are shown in Figure 1.1.4 below: 

Page 18 of 173

Figure 1.1.4 – Indicative hardstanding 



Reinstatement of the track verges and the areas of hardstanding would be undertaken 

following construction. As there would be a continuing need to use the site tracks, the 

tracks will be left in place for the duration of the project. 

Running surfaces would be suitably profiled to reduce surface drainage flows. Any 

surface water drainage for the tracks and hardstanding will be designed to comply with 

the principals of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). 

The design of drainage and mitigation measures for control of surface waters will be 

carried out to: 

CIRIA Guideline C697 ‘The SUDS Manual’. 

CIRIA Guideline C698 ‘Site Handbook for Construction of SUDS’. 

The concept of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) is to minimise the effects and 

impact of development on waterways, namely flooding and pollution. This can be 

achieved through a system that tries to copy natural drainage of a site by using 

Page 19 of 173



different techniques to treat pollution and to slow down or reduce flows. These 

techniques can utilise the features of vegetation to improve habitats of wildlife. The 

aim of C697 is to summarise current knowledge, apply best practice to design and 

construction and to improve knowledge in the areas of hydrology, hydraulics, 

structural aspects, water quality and ecology of various SuDS. 

A permanent drainage solution for the site could be a swale running alongside the 

roads and hardstanding if ground conditions are appropriate. If this is not practical 

then drains will be installed along the length of the tracks which will then feed into a 

soakaway. See Figure 1.1.5 below (reproduced from the CIRIA web site). The final 

design will be carried out by the civil contractor once the ground investigations have 

been carried out and will be agreed with the planning authority/SEPA at that time. 

Figure 1.1.5 ‐ Potential SuDS Drainage Solutions 

1.2.6 Construction Compound 

The main ground works will be carried out by a local contractor who will use the 

existing small compound on the site for site offices, welfare facilities and storage of 

tools etc. During the one to three weeks construction period this compound would be 

located near to the site entrance/start of new access track. It is not intended to store 

any oils or chemicals on the site. There will be a small temporary site office, toilets and 

mess facilities for the duration of the project. Toilets would be self contained ‘port‐a‐ 

loo’ type to avoid any discharges into local water courses. Following construction any 

debris on the site will be removed. 

1.2.7 Turbine Foundations 

The wind turbine requires foundations which are covered by topsoil when construction 

is complete, leaving a plinth of about 5.5m in diameter at the surface level upon which 

Page 20 of 173



the turbine would be bolted. The foundation would require an excavation with a 

diameter of up to 18m and a depth of 1.7m. The foundation would typically have a 

diameter of up to 16m, giving an additional metre all around to allow shuttering 

access, with the shuttering positioned and supported. The foundation would comprise 

up to 170 cubic metres of concrete and 17 tonnes of reinforced steel bar. All of these 

sizes are conservative as they are for a buoyant foundation, a larger type of foundation 

that is required when the groundwater table is higher than the base of the foundation. 

If the groundwater table is lower than the base of the foundation a standard, or non‐ 

buoyant, foundation will be used. 

Much of the material removed during excavation would be replaced following the 

construction of the foundation to leave only the plinth at the surface with the turbine 

bolted on to it. The original excavated area would be reinstated to ground level 

following the construction of the foundation, with the removed topsoil replaced and 

reseeded. 

1.2.8 Site Cable Runs 

The wind turbines envisaged for use on this site produce electricity at 400 volts. This 

would be transformed to 11kV using a transformer adjacent to the turbine. From the 

transformer, underground cable runs will link the turbine to a substation building. 

Excavated material from the trench would be stored alongside the trench and replaced 

during back‐filling. Topsoil would be stored separately and fully reinstated over the 

trench following construction. 

1.2.9 Grid Connection 

An application for a grid connection has been issued and a formal offer from Scottish 

Power is awaited. The project will utilise a new sub‐station and a grid connection to 

the existing 11kv network will be established. 

Subject to consultation with Scottish Power, a small building is likely to be required to 

house the necessary metering and protection equipment; provision for this is included 

in this application. The building would be single storey and approximately 2.5m by 5m 

in size and a drawing of the type of building proposed is included as Figure 1.1.6. 

Page 21 of 173



Figure 1.1.6 – Control, Metering and Protection Building 

1.2.10 Construction Programme 

The main construction period would last for approximately 3 to 5 months, from 

commencement of construction through reinstatement at the end of the construction 

period. Construction would consist of the following phases: 

Construction of site track for access to the turbine location including the excavation 

of cable trenches and the laying of electricity and communication cables. 

Construction of turbine foundations. 

The delivery and erection of turbine towers, nacelles and blades. 

Commissioning of the wind turbines. 

Site reinstatement. 

Measures to prevent contamination of the ground during the construction period 

would be implemented and continue throughout the life of the project. Including the 

following measures: 

Concrete: The foundation concrete specified would be of high strength structural 

grade which is not prone to leaching of alkalis. 

Page 22 of 173



Coolants: The transformers that will be used in the development are sealed units 

containing non‐toxic cooling oil. These units are similar to those used elsewhere in 

the UK and leakage is negligible. 

There will be no long term storage of lubricants or other petrochemical products on 

the site. 

1.2.11 Construction Traffic 

Wind turbine components would be delivered to the site on articulated lorries. 

Extended trailers would be used to deliver the turbine blades which are up to 24m in 

length. Typically a 500 tonne and a 100 tonne mobile crane would be required for the 

erection of the turbine. A typical 500 tonne crane would have a travelling weight of 

120 tonnes on ten axles with a maximum axle load of 12 tonnes and would have 

steering on all axles to help navigate bends. 

It is proposed that the road stone for the site tracks would come from a nearby quarry, 

using an internal road. This is anticipated to require approximately 60 lorry loads of 

aggregates in total. It is estimated that approximately 40 deliveries of concrete would 

be required together with 2 articulated trailer lorries carrying reinforcement steel for 

the foundation. Approximately 1 articulated low loader delivery for the turbine would 

be required to deliver the tower, the nacelle and the blades and a further lorry‐load 

would be required to transport the necessary cabling to the site. 

Further traffic movements would be required for the relevant personnel employed in 

the construction of the project, amounting to an average of some 6‐10 cars/vans per 

day at peak times. 

1.2.12 Decommissioning 

At the end of the project’s operational life the wind turbine would be 

decommissioned, the principal elements removed, and the site restored leaving little if 

any visible trace. This is a process which is easily achievable within a short period of 

time, unlike many other forms of electricity generation. 

The wind turbine would be removed from the site and the foundations and site track 

not required for ongoing farming activities would be covered over with topsoil and 

reseeded. The cables would be de‐energised and left in place, with any cables marker 

signs removed. The electrical substation building would be removed and the building 

demolished to ground level with the foundation covered with topsoil and reseeded. 

The decommissioning process would take approximately two months to complete. A 

decommissioning programme would be agreed with the relevant authority prior to the 

commencement of decommissioning works. 

Page 23 of 173



1.3 Planning and Environmental Policy Context 

The National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 (NPF2) 2009, expresses the spatial 

aspect of the Governments Economic Strategy and confirms the importance of 

renewable energy to Scotland’s energy mix. This 2 nd National Planning Framework for 

Scotland, ‘takes forward the spatial aspects of the Scottish Government’s policy 

commitments on sustainable economic growth and climate change, which will see 

Scotland move towards a low carbon economy’. It is stated that the ‘Government is 

committed to establishing Scotland as a leading location for the development of 

renewable energy technology and an energy exporter over the long term’ and that ‘the 

aim of national planning policy is to develop Scotland’s renewable energy potential 

whilst safeguarding the environment and communities.’ 

An application for the development of a wind project should be assessed in the context 

of national policy and guidance; the local planning authority development plan; and 

supplementary planning guidance. It was considered useful to summarise the relevant 

planning guidance and policies here to inform the process of defining the scope of 

assessments required for this project. 

1.3.1 National Planning Policy Guidance 

National planning policy for Scotland is currently expressed through seventeen 

separate Scottish Planning Policies (SPPs) and National Planning Policy Guidelines 

(NPPGs). This series is being rationalised into a single statement of national planning 

policy: Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). The first part of this consolidated Scottish 

Planning Policy (SPP) was published in October 2008, superseding SPP 1 of the existing 

SPP series. The final part of the SPP, which covers community engagement, sustainable 

development, the subject policies and the outcomes of the planning process is 

currently a consultative draft (April 2009) with the final version due to be published 

late 2009. 

Until the final part of the consolidated SPP is published a number of SPP/NPPGs are 

material and relevant to the determination of this application: 

SPP 6 (2007) Renewable Energy: relating to renewable energy in general and 

wind energy in particular. 

SPP 15 (February 2005) Planning for Rural Development: which examines how 

the statutory land‐use planning system can assist rural areas to diversify and 

achieve sustainable development. 

NPPG 14 (1999) Natural Heritage: relating to understanding, enhancement and 

enjoyment of Scotland’s unique environment. 

Other Relevant National Policy Documents 

Circulars 

10/1999 Planning and Noise; and 

8/2007 The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999. 

Page 24 of 173



PANs 

PAN 42: Archaeology – The Planning Process and Scheduled Ancient Monument 

Procedures; 

PAN 45: Renewable Energy Technologies; 

PAN 56: Planning and Noise; 

PAN 58: Environmental Impact Assessment; and 

PAN 60: Planning for Natural Heritage. 

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 

The first part of the consolidated Scottish Planning Policy (SPP, October 2008) covers 

the core principles, aspirations and expectations for the planning system. ‘The Scottish 

Government believes that a properly functioning planning system is essential to 

achieving its central purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth.’ 

In Paragraph 7 under ‘The Purpose of Planning’ it is stated that: 

‘Planning has a critical balancing role to play when competing interests emerge in the 

consideration of future development. It is essential to recognise that planning issues, by 

their very nature, will often bring differing interests into opposition and disagreement 

and the resolution of those issues one way or another will inevitably disappoint some 

parties. Planning cannot be expected to satisfy all interests all of the time. It should, 

however, enable speedy decision making in ways which are transparent and 

demonstrably fair.’ 

It is emphasised that there should be a ‘genuinely plan led system’ and that 

development plans have a statutory duty to contribute to sustainable development. 

‘Development Management’ is recognised as a ‘key part of the planning system and 

must operate in support of the Government’s central purpose’: Sustainable economic 

growth. 

In Paragraph 25 it is stated that the ‘planning system operates in the long term public 

interest.’ 

The proposal, which involves the production of energy from a clean and renewable 

source and which leaves no lasting effect on the landscape or environment for future 

generations, accords with the principles of sustainable development. 

SPP 6: Renewable Energy 

SPP 6 seeks to encourage more electricity generation from renewable sources and is 

regarded as a vital element of both the UK and Scottish Climate Change Programmes. 

It further recognises the ability of renewable energy to contribute to secure and 

diverse energy supplies and its potential to support economic growth, by: 

“setting out the national planning policies for renewable energy developments that planning 

authorities should consider when preparing development plans and when determining planning 

applications. It identifies the issues that Scottish Ministers will take into account when 

Page 25 of 173



considering renewable energy policies in development plans, and when considering applications 

for planning permission which come before them on appeal or call‐in.” 

The 2010 target was achieved before the publication of SPP 6 in 2007 and it was the 

intention of SPP 6 to facilitate successful achievement of the 2020 target, quantified as 

6 GigaWatts (GW) of installed renewables capacity and it was confirmed that this 

target should not be regarded as a cap. In November 2007 the Scottish Government 

announced an increase in the 2020 target to 50%, with an interim target of 31% by 

2011. 

The SPP states that support for renewable energy and the need to protect and 

enhance Scotlands natural and historic environment should be considered as 

compatible goals. Further it states that: 

‘The planning system has a significant role to play in resolving conflicts so that progress towards 

the 2020 target continues to be made in a way that affords appropriate protection to the 

natural and historic environment without unreasonably restricting the potential for renewable 

energy development’. 

The SPP reinforces the primacy of the development plan in the planning process and 

provides a general policy background to support the development plan. 

The SPP contains a set of guiding principles to ensure the planning system plays its part 

in supporting the Government’s commitment to the climate change programme: 

“The Scottish Ministers expect planning authorities to make positive provision for 

renewable energy developments by: 

supporting a diverse range of renewable energy technologies including 

encouraging the development of emerging and new technologies; 

recognising the importance of fully engaging with local communities and other 

stakeholders at all stages of the planning process; 

guiding development to appropriate locations and providing clarity on the 

issues that will be taken into account when assessing specific proposals; and 

maximising environmental, economic and social benefits; 

while, at the same time: 

meeting international and national statutory obligations to protect designated 

areas, species and habitats and protecting the historic environment from 

inappropriate forms of development; and 

ensuring impacts on local communities and other interests are satisfactorily 

addressed. Such interests will vary from technology to technology.” 

The SPP notes that, particularly in rural areas, there is the potential for community 

projects where local projects are developed for local benefit. Small scale wind farms 

are particularly identified as an opportunity in this respect. It goes on to stress that: 

Page 26 of 173



“The top priority of the Scottish Executive is to grow Scotland's economy. This includes 

the start up and growth of Scottish business, encouraging and supporting key 

manufacturing industries and supporting innovation and technology transfer to grow 

high value and high skills businesses with the potential for expansion. “Going for Green 

Growth: a Green Jobs Strategy for Scotland” sets out how this priority should be 

delivered through sustainable economic development.” 

And, to state: 

“The Scottish Ministers believe that a thriving renewables industry in Scotland has the 

potential to develop new indigenous industries, particularly in rural areas; to provide 

significant export opportunities and to enhance Scotland's manufacturing capacity. The 

planning system has a key role in supporting Scotland's economic competitiveness and 

employment market. The scope for developments to contribute to national or local 

economic development priorities should be a material consideration when considering 

policies and decisions. 

With respect to clarifying the planning process and providing certainty, it states; 

“Planning authorities should use the development plan process to set the framework 

for considering proposals for all renewable energy developments in their areas. Plans 

should support the development of all technologies, regardless of scale, whilst ensuring 

that an area’s renewable energy potential is realised in a way that is compatible with 

other development plan policies and objectives. Plans should also ensure that individual 

proposals are assessed against clear policies so that clarity is provided to the industry, 

local communities and others on the potential for the development of renewable 

technologies throughout the area. This should be done, where appropriate, through 

spatial policies supported by broad criteria identifying the issues that must be 

satisfactorily addressed to enable development to take place.” 

Specifically with respect to wind, the SPP states: 

“During the lifetime of this SPP, onshore wind power is likely to make the most 

substantial contribution towards meeting renewable targets. Scotland has considerable 

potential to accommodate this technology in the landscape although, increasingly, 

careful consideration must be given to the need to address cumulative impacts. 

Development plans should set out a spatial framework, supported by broad criteria, for 

the consideration of wind farm proposals over 20 megawatts. Annex A sets out the 

considerations that should be taken into account when undertaking this work. This 

framework should not be used to put in place a sequential approach to determining 

applications. 

The extent to which considerations set out in Annex A are relevant to proposals below 

20 megawatts will be dependent on the scale of development proposed, whilst 

recognising that the design and location of any development must reflect the scale and 

character of the landscape. This should be recognised in development plans but the 

existence of natural heritage designations and other constraints should not be 

incompatible with the need to encourage smaller‐scale wind developments, particularly 

Page 27 of 173



community and decentralised energy schemes or those within urban and industrial 

settings. 

In all instances, applications should be assessed in relation to criteria based policies to 

provide clarity on the issues that must be addressed to enable development to take 

place. This criteria will vary depending on the scale of development and its relationship 

to the characteristics of the surrounding area but are likely to include impacts on 

landscapes and the historic environment; ecology (including birds), biodiversity and 

nature conservation; the water environment, communities; aviation; 

telecommunications; noise; shadow flicker; and any cumulative impacts that are likely 

to arise.” 

With respect to cumulative impact, the SPP states: 

“Planning authorities should ensure that, where relevant, applicants adequately 

address the cumulative impact that their proposal would have on the area. This will 

apply primarily to larger scale developments although it should be recognised that 

smaller community developments may also contribute to a cumulative effect, 

particularly if poorly sited. In reaching decisions on individual applications, planning 

authorities should take account of those projects in the vicinity that have been built, 

those which have permissions and those that are currently the subject of valid but 

undetermined applications. Where relevant, the views of neighbouring authorities 

should be taken into account. Decisions should not be unreasonably delayed because 

other schemes in the area are at a less advanced stage in the consideration process 

and, in such circumstances, the weight that planning authorities should attach to 

undetermined applications should reflect their position in the application process.” 

In Appendix A the SPP sets out a spatial framework for wind farms over 20MW. The 

Annex goes on to set out the criteria that should be used in developing spatial 

strategies. The key elements that are identified where spatial policies should be used 

to identify areas to be afforded significant protection are: 

areas designated for their national or international natural heritage value; 

green belts; and 

areas where cumulative impacts may be an issue. 

In other areas it identifies the key constraints that should be considered and how 

development plan policies should be developed to clearly set out the criteria by which 

proposals should be assessed. 

SPP 15: Planning for Rural Development 

As the proposal is located in a rural area, a number of the provisions of SPP 15 are of 

relevance. 

In setting out how the land use planning system can assist sustainable development in 

rural areas, the guidance considers a number of factors which should be considered 

when dealing with planning applications and in the preparation of development plans. 

Paragraph 9 notes that: 

Page 28 of 173



“...Rural diversification should be embraced to help businesses, land managers and 

farmers expand or start new enterprises in appropriate circumstances and at an 

appropriate scale. New development must be carefully planned if the character and 

quality of the countryside is not to be undermined. One of the Scottish Ministers’ 

objectives for the planning system is to assist in promoting a strong, diverse and 

competitive economy by providing land in sufficient quantity and quality to meet 

demand. The planning system helps to bring stability so that investment decisions are 

not undermined by inappropriate development. It is important therefore for planning 

authorities to be aware of new trends, pressures and opportunities and be ready to 

react positively but sensitively.” 

and, in paragraph 15, that: 

“Many landowners, including farmers, have already diversified some of their activity 

away from traditional farming and forestry. Many other rural businesses are also 

expanding into new areas. Further diversification of the rural economy should be 

encouraged and there is enormous scope to exercise initiative and creativity. Planning 

policy has to be in tune with this fundamental economic reality. Planning authorities 

along with others can support diversification in ways that benefit the economy and lead 

to good development on the ground. The LECs have a good idea of the type of business 

development likely to succeed in an area and where there may be market potential for 

further development. Planning authorities should liaise closely with these organisations 

to help promote and support targeted business opportunities in their development 

plans” 

NPPG 14: Natural Heritage 

NPPG 14 defines Government guidance on how the implementation of policies for the 

conservation and enhancement of Scotland’s natural heritage should be reflected 

within the land use planning system. Specifically the NPPG: 

“sets out national planning policy considerations in relation to Scotland’s 

natural heritage; 

summarises the main statutory obligations in relation to the conservation of 

natural heritage; 

explains, as part of a wider framework for conservation and development, how 

natural heritage objectives should be reflected in development plans; 

describes the role of the planning system in safeguarding sites of national and 

international importance; 

provides guidance on the approach to be adopted in relation to local and non‐ 

statutory designations; and 

draws attention to the importance of safeguarding and enhancing natural 

heritage beyond the confines of designated areas.” 

The document defines the statutory (and non‐statutory), framework for habitat 

protection which has emerged in Scotland and stresses the requirement to continue to 

conserve, safeguard and where appropriate, enhance habitats and ecosystems as well 

as the opportunities for enjoying and learning about the natural environment of 

Page 29 of 173



Scotland. It includes regional and local designations and the role which Scottish 

Natural Heritage has to play in providing advice in the implementation of policy. 

Advice is also provided on the role of both structure and local plans in delivering 

natural heritage guidance through policy frameworks at a more local level. 

1.3.2 Local Planning Policy 

The proposed Glenlora Wind turbine is located in the Renfrewshire administrative area 

which is included in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan along with seven 

other councils. The key local development plans are: 

The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan, 2006. 

The Renfrewshire Local Plan 2006. 

The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan, 2006 

The Scottish Ministers issued their final modifications to the plan on 25 th April 2008, 

with the structure plan becoming operational from 29 th April 2008. This sets out an 

agenda for sustained growth as the basis for a twenty year planning and development 

strategy for Glasgow and Clyde Valley. It is based on a vision which will contribute to 

the renaissance of Scotland by providing a framework for growth and regeneration 

based upon care for the environment. 

The Structure Plan has been prepared by the Joint Committee on behalf of the eight 

councils of East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, Glasgow City, Inverclyde, North 

Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire. It maintains a 

long tradition in the west of Scotland which recognises that communities of the 

conurbation are interdependent and that a shared vision is required to tackle the 

major economical, social and environmental challenges that we all face. In meeting 

these challenges the plan takes account of the diversity of the area reflected in the 

variety of towns, villages and their diverse roles. 

The overall goal of the Structure Plan is to promote the balanced and sustainable 

development of the area by: 

Setting the land use framework for sustainable development; 

Encouraging economic, social and environmental regeneration; and 

Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the natural heritage and built 

environment. 

Scottish Planning Policies set out a framework of action for the Structure Plan in 

meeting this goal (ref: Appendix 1 of the Structure Plan), promoting sustainable 

development within a settlement strategy which has a twenty‐year horizon whilst 

protecting and enhancing environmental resources. These national requirements 

underpin the Structure Plan policies and proposals. 

Page 30 of 173

The Renfrewshire Local Plan 2006 



Renewable Energy in Renfrewshire 

While there has been a low level of interest to date in new renewable energy 

developments in Renfrewshire, there may nevertheless be increasing interest from 

developers in the future, particularly in wind power. 

Objective 

To reflect the Government’s policy of increasing the proportion of electricity produced 

from renewable sources, and the Structure Plan’s support for wind farm 

developments, while ensuring that this is not achieved at the expense of unacceptable 

damage to the environment and amenity. 

The Council’s approach is in accordance with national planning guidance on renewable 

energy, which requires the planning system to make positive provision for renewable 

energy developments through the development plan system. 

The Council’s strategy is also in accordance with the Structure Plan, which deals with 

renewable energy under the heading of Sustainable Development of Natural 

Resources. In relation to wind energy, it identifies preferred and intermediate areas 

which will be used for evaluating proposals. There are, however, no such areas within 

Renfrewshire. There will be a presumption against wind farm developments in 

sensitive areas, i.e. locations covered by various environmental designations. In 

relation to biomass production, the Indicative Forestry Strategy identifies 

opportunities for biomass energy crops within certain areas of under‐used land, of 

which there are three within Renfrewshire, i.e. to the south and north of Paisley and in 

the vicinity of Lochwinnoch. 

The Council has approved a Draft Local Agenda 21 Strategy 2000‐2010 which has been 

submitted to the Scottish Executive. Under the theme of “Waste”, it is stated that the 

Council will minimise the amount of waste for disposal by, among other things, 

recovering energy from waste residue. Local Agenda 21 matters will now be 

progressed through the Community Planning process. 

In seeking to accommodate renewable energy development, it is essential to ensure 

that this is not achieved at the expense of unacceptable damage to the environment 

and amenity. In addition, all of Renfrewshire is covered by the Glasgow Airport 

consultation zone for wind power. All proposals for wind turbines will therefore be 

considered under POLICY AIRPORT 4. 

Page 31 of 173



POLICY 

POLICY Ren 1: Criteria for Assessing Proposals for Development of 

Renewable Energy Sources 

The Council is supportive of an increase in the proportion of electricity produced from 

renewable sources, but will require proposals for development of renewable energy 

sources to meet the following criteria:‐ 

(a) there is no unacceptable impact on the amenity of nearby residents, in terms of 

statutory air quality objectives, noise or other nuisances; 

(b) visual intrusion within the landscape in terms of scale, location, design, etc. has 

been minimised; 

(c) during the process leading to the selection of the proposed site, consideration was 

also given to alternative sites, and the selection of the proposed site can be justified; 

(d) the cumulative impact of the proposed development along with any other existing 

and approved similar developments will not lead to an unacceptable impact on the 

environment and amenity; 

(e) arrangements are in place to ensure restoration of the site to an acceptable 

standard after the operation has ceased.paras 12.3‐12.6 

Greenbelt 

The Local Plan will protect and enhance the countryside environment by defining a 

Greenbelt boundary drawn tightly around the existing towns and villages; by strictly 

limiting the types of development permissible within the Greenbelt area; and by 

applying strict criteria when considering proposals for those forms of development 

which are considered appropriate. Most forms of development will therefore be 

directed to the towns and villages, in accordance with the plan’s sustainable 

settlement strategy. 

The Greenbelt policy has been a long standing key element in the development plan 

for Renfrewshire. Not only does the Greenbelt policy protect the countryside around 

our towns, it also directs development to the built‐up area and thereby contributes to 

the renewal of our urban areas in a sustainable way. The policy was embodied in the 

Renfrew District Local Plan and the Structure Plan; it has been shown to be robust and 

the Council has consistently supported it in defence of the Greenbelt against 

inappropriate development. In view of the long‐established commitment to it which 

has been shown by the Council, and the importance given to it in the Structure Plan 

and National Policy, it is important that the robust and successful policy approach to 

Green Belt policy should continue. 

Page 32 of 173

Objectives 



To define a Green Belt boundary within the framework of Structure Plan 

policyand Government guidance which: 

delineates the limits of the built‐up areas and the extent of 

thecountryside within which encroachment of development will 

be resisted; and 

compliments the development strategy for Renfrewshire by 

directing development away from greenfield sites beyond the 

built‐up areas towards brownfield sites within the built‐up areas. 

To provide a positive planning framework within which acceptable countryside 

uses including access and informal recreation can be encouraged, whilst 

unacceptable uses are resisted. 

To indicate clearly the planning criteria against which proposals for 

development within the Greenbelt will be considered. 

The main source of guidance on national policy on the Greenbelt is the Scottish 

Development Department Circular 24/1985 ‐ “Developments in the Countryside and 

Greenbelts.” This specifies that local plans are to define the precise boundaries of the 

Greenbelt. Towns and villages should not be allowed to expand beyond the limits 

established by the Greenbelt boundary. 

In accordance with national guidance the Structure Plan defines the general location of 

the Greenbelt. Almost all of the land outside the boundaries of the towns and villages 

in Renfrewshire lies within the Greenbelt area indicated in the Structure Plan. 9.7 In 

respect of the Greenbelt the main thrust of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure 

Plan remains the same as in the previous Structure Plan, requiring the continued 

designation and safeguarding of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Greenbelt, with 

Local Plans defining the detailed boundaries and policies to safeguard the Greenbelt. 

Clear guidance on the types of development which are considered appropriate to a 

Greenbelt location, the circumstances under which the specific proposals might be 

acceptable and the detailed criteria against which such proposals ‐ and development 

proposals not listed as acceptable categories of development ‐ will be assessed, is 

required to ensure that the Council’s land use strategy for the Greenbelt is robust and 

easily understood. 

POLICY 

POLICY GB1: Greenbelt 

The Council will protect the Glasgow & the Clyde Valley Greenbelt within Renfrewshire 

as defined on the Proposals Map. Acceptable forms of development in the Greenbelt 

will be limited to those falling into the categories 1 to 13 listed below, subject to their 

meeting the relevant specified conditions and the specified criteria in PANEL GB1. All 

other development proposals will be considered to be contrary to Green Belt Policy 

Page 33 of 173



and will be assessed against the specific need for that development to have a Green 

Belt location and the criteria in PANEL GB1. 

Acceptable forms of development:‐ 

1. Housing: 

(a) New Dwellings: Will only be permitted where the applicant can clearly demonstrate 

that it is required to maintain and support a viable agricultural, horticultural or forestry 

activity, that it is necessary for the dwelling to be located outwith a settlement and 

that an existing structure cannot be converted for the purpose. Where these 

requirements can be met, consent will be limited initially to temporary 

accommodation until a bona fide agricultural or forestry use, which requires 

associated permanent residential accommodation, has been established. 

(b) Conversion: 

The conversion and rehabilitation of redundant buildings in the 

countryside to residential use. 

(c) Extensions: 

Extensions to existing dwellings, where the original building will require to form the 

dominant part of the final overall development. 

(d) Replacement Dwellings: 

Will only be permitted where (i) a dwelling has suffered serious accidental damage to 

the extent that its re‐instatement is unviable; or, (ii) it is shown, by means of a 

structural survey, that refurbishment of an existing dwelling to habitable standards as 

defined in the Housing Acts is not economically and practically possible, due to 

condition, age and form of construction. The replacement dwelling should be of a 

similar scale, character and massing to the dwelling it is to replace, and should be 

constructed as nearly as possible within the same footprint. 

2. Industry: 

The extension of existing industrial and business premises; the expansion of existing 

business and industry operations; and the conversion of redundant buildings to 

smallscale industrial and business use.paras 9.1‐9.12 

3. Hotel/Leisure Complex: 

The change of use of existing buildings to hotel use, and associated outdoor and indoor 

recreation facilities. This may include extension to the building to facilitate the proper 

functioning of the facility: the original building is to remain the dominant feature of the 

overall development. 

4. Holiday Caravan/Chalet/Lodge parks. 

5. Outdoor Recreational Facilities. 

6. Riding Stables/Boarding Kennels. 

Page 34 of 173



7. Residential institutional use (Class 8): 

The conversion of existing redundant buildings to residential institutional use. 

8. Re‐use/redevelopment of Institutional premises.Where residential Institutional 

premises in the Green Belt: 

(i) become redundant, and it can be demonstrated that conversion and/or adaptation 

of existing buildings is not practicable, or will not suffice to allow a new use to operate; 

or: 

(ii) are subject of rebuild/expansion proposals; consideration will be given to an 

element of redevelopment or extension which can be demonstrated as necessary for 

the effective functioning of the new or existing use, subject to the approval by the 

Council of a comprehensive Master Plan designed to ensure the protection and 

enhancement of the Green Belt, subject to the original building(s) forming the 

dominant part of the final development. Where a Master Plan has been approved, any 

subsequent proposals will be assessed against the Master Plan. 

9. Mineral Extraction: subject to the provisions of POLS M1 & M2. 

10. Disposal of Waste: subject to the provisions of POL W1. 

11. Cemeteries. 

12. Telecommunications Development: subject to provisions of POL Tel 1. 

13. Renewable Energy Developments: subject to provisions of POL Ren1. 

Other Local Policy Documents 

• Renfrewshire Core Paths Plan, Renfrewshire, February 2009; and 

• Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire Local Biodiversity Plan, April 

2004. 

1.3.3 Summary 

It is clear from current national renewable energy policy that the Scottish Government 

through the recent passing of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act, 2009; the publication 

of the 2 nd National Planning Framework for Scotland (NPF2) June 2009; and the 

Scottish Climate Change Programme is committed to tackling climate change, moving 

towards a zero‐waste Scotland and increasing the use of renewable energy. 

In summary the Government’s renewable energy policy can be considered as having 

five key aims: 

• To assist the UK to meet national and international targets for the 

reduction of emissions including greenhouse gases; 

• To help provide secure, diverse, sustainable and competitive energy 

supplies; 

Page 35 of 173



• To stimulate the development of new technologies to provide the basis for 

continuing growth of the contribution from renewables into the longer 

term; 

• To assist the UK renewables industry to become competitive in home and 

export markets and, in doing so, provide employment; and 

• To make a contribution to rural development. 

The proposal is located within the Glasgow & Clyde Valley Green Belt and the Clyde 

Muirshiel Regional Park which are subject to specific planning and development 

policies. 

Page 36 of 173

2 Alternatives Considered 

2.1 Site Selection 



Our client, Mr Tom Coakley is currently involved in a number of renewable energy 

developments across the South Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire Council areas. He is keen 

to diversify to wind generation in order to provide an additional income stream to help 

offset fluctuations in energy prices incurred in the running of the estate as well as 

reduce the ‘carbon footprint’ of current operations. 

The key factors used to assess the site are listed below. 

Figure 2.1.1 Initial scoping layout 

The landholding and initial scoping layout, shown in Figure 2.1.1 above, was subjected 

to a rigorous screening process which considered: 

Wind resource 

Noise 

Access 

Ecology 

Cultural heritage 

Electromagnetic interference 

Wind Resource 

The proposed turbine was designed to respect the environmental constraints 

identified and also to allow the turbine to operate as ‘efficiently’ as possible. In the 


Proposed turbine location 

Land ownership boundary 

Nearest properties +500m exclusion zone



absence of measured wind data this part of the landholding was chosen as it had a 

reasonable NOABL windspeed. While we accept that the NOABL gives only a rough 

guide it is clear that when site specific constraints such as proximity to dwellings and 

forestry are considered, the turbine site chosen are in the best locations. 

Noise 

In order to minimise the risk of noise nuisance from turbine, it was located so that 

predicted noise levels would have the least impact on residential receptors. 

Access 

The access from the public road to the crane hardstanding was designed to respect the 

environmental constraints identified and to minimise the length of new track required 

while following existing field boundaries where possible to minimise any adverse visual 

impacts. 

Landscape and Visual 

The turbine has been situated to minimise visibility from the Regional Park to the 

northwest. 

Ecology 

The turbine site and the access track have been situated to minimise the potential 

disturbance to mammals or bird species using the site. 

Cultural Heritage 

The turbine layout and access track avoids any direct impact on any feature of cultural 

heritage. The potential for development to encounter previously unrecorded features 

is considered to be low, being limited by the small extent of intrusive works associated 

with the proposed development. 

A desk based assessment and walkover was carried out by Headland Archaeology Ltd 

in November 2009 at the site of the proposed wind turbine. The desk assessment 

identified a number of known archaeological features within a 1km study area around 

the site, most of which are post‐medieval in date and agricultural or domestic in 

function. It was concluded by Headland Archaeology Ltd that no known sites will be 

directly affected by the development. The walkover survey did not identify any 

previously unknown archaeological features. 

Following an assessment of the impact of the project on cultural heritage features 

within a 10km radius the significance of impact on cultural heritage features was found 

to be low. 

Electromagnetic Interference 

The turbine has been situated to minimise the potential for any electromagnetic 

interference. 

Page 38 of 173

3 Environmental Studies 

3.1 Climate Change 



This section considers the impact of the proposed wind turbine on climate change. 

3.1.1 Potential Impacts 

There are two distinct aspects of wind turbine development that could have an impact 

on climate change: 

Wind turbine manufacture, construction and decommissioning; and 

Wind turbine operation. 

The wind turbine construction and decommissioning phases will lead to the emission 

of greenhouse gases, while the operation phase will offset greenhouse gases that 

would be emitted by generating the equivalent amount of energy via a conventional 

energy source. Thus, in assessing the overall impact of the project on climate change, 

the full lifecycle of the wind turbine are considered. 

The main greenhouse gas pollutants associated with conventional power stations 

include: carbon dioxide (CO2); sulphur dioxide (SO2); and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). 

3.1.2 Guidance 

This section has been written with reference to the following technical guidance: 

SNH Technical Guidance Note, ‘Windfarms and Carbon Savings’, SNH, 2003. 

‘Calculations for wind energy statistics’, http://www.bwea.com/edu/calcs.html 

British Wind Energy Association (Accessed: October 2009) 

Guidance on the emissions saved by wind power generation relative to conventional 

sources can be found from the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) who assert that 

‘The average wind farm in the UK will pay back the energy used in its manufacture 

within three to ten months, and over its lifetime a wind turbine will produce over 30 

times more energy that was used in its manufacture.” 1 . 

The UK and Scottish Governments have developed targets for tackling climate change. 

The UK Government in the 2008 Climate Change Act made a commitment to reduce 

the UK’s emissions of CO2, the most significant greenhouse gas, by 34% of 1990 levels 

by 2020 and 80% by 2050. While the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 sets in 

statute the Government Economic Strategy target to reduce Scotland’s emissions of 

greenhouse gases by 80 % by 2050 with an interim target of at least 42%. 

The Scottish Government has developed a Climate Change Programme which sets a 

goal of increasing the use of renewably produced electricity to 50% of the total by 

2020 with an interim target of 31% by 2011 2 . 

1 BWEA website ‐ Calculations for energy statistics, 

http://www.bwea.com/edu/calcs.html, accessed November 2008 

2 Climate Change in Scotland, Annual Report 2008‐09, The Scottish Government, June 2009 

Page 39 of 173



In the Climate Change Programme, the Scottish Government outlines its vision for 

Scotland: ‘We want Scotland to become recognised as the best small country in the 

world and one of the ways we can do that is through our actions to tackle climate 

change. The Scottish Executive is committed to playing its part in full, encouraging 

others to do likewise … we have a moral responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint 

....” 

3.1.3 Baseline Data 

The SNH Technical Guidance Review suggests that carbon dioxide savings associated 

with any wind project development in the UK should be calculated assuming that wind 

energy displaces carbon emissions produced per unit of electricity generated from 

fossil fuel sourced grid mix. The new guideline explains that wind power does not 

displace renewable and nuclear generation and therefore that the counterfactual 

factors to use should be the fossil fuel mix factor rather than the grid mix. 

The annual carbon dioxide emissions saving of a wind turbine are estimated as: 

CO2 emissions saving = total electricity generation expected [MWh] x Emission 

Factor of Displaced Generation [tCO2/MWh] 

Capacity Factor 

In calculating the total electricity generation expected, a wind project capacity factor 

has to be determined. This is the ratio of the actual energy generated to the 

theoretical amount that the machine would generate if running at full rated power 

during a given period of time. The average capacity factor observed for the onshore 

windfarms in the UK between 2003 and 2007 is 27.3% 3 . The Scottish average is 

believed to be better thanks to higher wind speeds blowing more frequently. The SNH 

Technical Guidance Review suggests that a 30% utilisation rate should be used in the 

absence of wind data for the actual site. It is believed that, for this location, this figure 

represent a realistic estimate when accounting for the carbon emissions due to back‐ 

up sources of electricity as suggested in the new SNH Guidelines. The new approach 

presented also suggests including CO2 emissions from peatland potentially disturbed. 

The immediate area of proposed turbine locations and access track is rough grazing. 

This area includes areas improved grassland, unimproved grassland and acid flushes 

interspersed with conifer shelter belts. 

No significant volume of peat disturbance would be involved and therefore no further 

reduction of the capacity factor has been applied. 

Project CO2 emission savings 

The calculation was carried out following the new approach as presented in the 

Appendix 2 of the SNH Guidance Review. This suggests that the carbon saving from the 

wind project should be calculated using the fossil fuel sourced grid mix as the 

3 DUKES Annual tables ‐ Capacity of, and electricity generated from, renewable sources (DUKES 7.4) 

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/energy/statistics/source/renewables/page18513.html, accessed 

November 2008 

Page 40 of 173



counterfactual. At the present time, it is thought that discussion is ongoing between 

the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) and the Advertising Standard industry 

(ASA) regarding updated values to publish. The emissions factors used for this 

application have been published in the SNH guidance review and are commonly used 

in the industry. 

Power Generation Characterisitcs 

Number of turbines 1 

Turbine Capacity 0.8MW 

Capacity Factor 

30% 

Lifetime (conservative) 

25 years 

Annual Energy Output ~2,100 MWh/yr 

Counterfactual Emissions Factors 

Fossil fuel mix generation 0.607 tCO2 /MWh 

Project estimated CO2 emission savings over: 

Fossil fuel mix generation ~1,280 tCO2 /yr 

Assuming 1 tCO2 = 0.27 tC: 

Total Project Estimated Carbon saving over: 

Fossil fuel mix generation ~8,600 tC /25yr 

Carbon balance 

Generally, the total Carbon loss from a wind project can be expressed as: 

Ltot = Llife + Lback+ Lfix + Ldirect + Lindirect+ LDOC + Lforest + Limprovement 

Where, 

Ltot is the total loss of Carbon from a windfarm development in tonnes. 

Llife is the total loss of CO2 emission savings due to production, transportation, erection, 

operation and dismantling of the wind farm. In the absence of a specific life cycle 

assessment for the turbine, the SNH Technical Guidance Review recommends using 

the following equation: 

Llife = 138 + (286xCturbine), where Cturbine is the capacity of the machine. 

The lifecycle CO2 emissions of the turbine can be estimated to be 370 tonnes which 

corresponds to a payback time of around 3.5 months against the fossil fuel mix 

generation. 

Lback is the total loss of CO2 emission savings due to backup power generation. The SNH 

Technical Guidance Review indicates that carbon loss from wind farms due to backup 

generation requirements become relevant if wind power contributes more than 20% 

to the national grid. It is estimated in the guidelines that the contribution of wind 

Page 41 of 173



power to the national grid will not exceed 20% until 2038, therefore no additional CO2 

loss from back up generation requirements can be attributed to the project. 

Lfix is the loss of CO2 fixing potential of peat land 

Ldirect is the loss of CO2 from removed peat 

Lindirect is the loss of CO2 due to drainage 

LDOC is the loss of CO2 due to leaching of dissolved organic carbon 

Lforest is the loss of CO2 due to forestry clearance 

Limprovement is the loss of CO2 emissions due to habitat improvement 

All the above losses are due to various effects on peat land or forestry. Given that the 

peat disturbance due to the development would be negligible, and no commercial 

forestry will be affected the losses above are deemed to be negligible and therefore 

have not been included for the calculations. 

Other Polluting Gas Emissions Savings 

Other gas emissions resulting for fossil fuel sourced electricity generation are sulphur 

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NOx), responsible for acid rains. Emissions savings 

relating to the project can be calculated using the BWEA guidance. This suggests that 

the SO2 and NOx emissions savings are, respectively, 10 and 3 kg per MWh. This 

translates to emissions factors of 0.01 and 0.003 [tonnes/MWh] respectively. 

Project total emission savings of: 

SO2 

~525 tonnes /25yr 

NOx ~160 tonnes /25yr 

3.1.4 Mitigation 

As the development as a whole is expected to have a beneficial effect on climate 

change in terms of offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, no mitigating actions are 

suggested. 

3.1.5 Assessment of Significance 

It is concluded from the above that the turbine would have an overall positive effect 

in reducing UK greenhouse gas emissions. The project will displace, year on year, CO2 

produced through the UK generation mix and will provide a positive energy payback 

after life cycle considerations have been taken into account. Therefore, the 

development is assessed to have a significant, positive impact on climate change. 

Page 42 of 173

3.2 Local Economic Benefit 

3.2.1 Introduction 



Any wind project may give rise to a range of socio‐economic and community impacts. 

This section considers these impacts associated with the proposed Glenlora wind 

turbine. 

The key objectives of the assessment are: 

to determine the nature of the local economy, including the economic use of 

the site and surrounding area; 

to determine existing recreational provision and use within the proposed 

development site and the surrounding area (facilities, footpaths, cycle ways 

etc.); 

to establish what direct and indirect impacts wind project may have on existing 

economic activities, local businesses and the local population; 

to identify any impacts on recreational activities (including direct impacts on 

access and indirect impacts on users from visual impacts and traffic movements 

etc.); 

to consider any impacts on public safety; 

to evaluate the magnitude and significance of any identified impacts; and, 

to highlight any residual impacts that cannot be mitigated. 


As with any large development there are potentially some local economic impacts both 

direct, such as generation of employment and local contracts, and indirect, such as 

changes to recreational use of the site and adjacent land. 

3.2.3 Methodology 

An assessment of the nature of the local economy and existing land use in the vicinity 

of the site was undertaken to establish the existing social and economic conditions of 

the area. The assessment was undertaken by means of a desk‐based study. An 

assessment of existing recreation provision and use was carried out to establish what 

forms of recreational activity take place in the vicinity of the scheme. This was also by 

means of a desk‐based study. 

The desk‐based study included a review of the following information sources to 

establish current social and economic conditions in the area and to identify areas 

which are currently used for recreation (footpaths and cycle routes): 

The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan, 2006. 

The Renfrewshire Local Plan 2006. 

Page 43 of 173



Summary of the 2008 Mid Year estimates (MYES) for population and 

households Renfrewshire Council 2009. 

Demographic changes in Renfrewshire and the potential impact on Council 

Services. 

Renfrewshire Council website (http://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk) 

Ordnance Survey Landranger Maps. 

Ordnance Survey Pathfinder Maps. 

Various tourist promotional material. 

Scotland Office Website http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk. 

Renfrewshire Core Paths Plan, Renfrewshire, February 2009. 

Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire Local Biodiversity Plan, April 2004. 


Renfrewshire is the ninth largest of the 32 local authority areas in Scotland with a 

population of 169,800 and covers a predominantly rural area of 270 square kilometres. 

Renfrewshire borders the south‐west of Glasgow and contains many of Glasgow's 

commuter towns and villages. Renfrewshire also has boundaries with North Ayrshire, 

East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and West Dunbartonshire. Although by area one of 

Scotland's smallest unitary authorities (excluding the cities), it is one of the country's 

most populous areas, being the fifth largest unitary authority and the ninth largest 

including the city authorities. 

Over the past number of years, the projected change in both the absolute population 

and the age of the population in Scotland has been increasingly important in 

determining the policy direction of the Scottish Government (and the Scottish 

Executive). It is widely established and accepted that Scotland is facing a declining and 

ageing population (immigration increases the population in the medium term), with a 

range of reactions evident from both private and public sectors. The majority of these 

reactions are negative – increased costs of social care for the elderly; a reduced 

workforce to support these increased costs; the capacity of public services to cope 

with increased demand; reduced economic competiveness and so on. Broadly 

speaking, Renfrewshire’s population projections are consistent with the national 

position, although they are slightly more pessimistic with a population change of ‐3.4% 

recorded between 1991 and 2008. 

Unemployment 

The claimant count unemployment figures in 2009 for Renfrewshire, Scotland and the 

UK is shown in Table 3.2.1 below. It highlights that the unemployment rate for 

Renfrewshire is low in comparison with the rate for Scotland and the UK. 

Area Amount 

Renfrewshire 4,888 (4.6%) 

Scotland 192,000 (7.1%) 

UK 1,523,482 (7.9%) 

Table 3.2.1 – Claimant count unemployment, October 2009, Source: Scotland Office 

http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk 

Page 44 of 173

Existing Recreational Provision 



Renfrewshire Leisure 

There are currently eight leisure centres located within Renfrewshire which aim to 

provide opportunities for all through a wide range of sports and leisure programmes 

and activities. 

Renfrewshire Council is committed to providing high quality and affordable sports and 

leisure facilities across the area. The Playing Field Strategy for Renfrewshire has been 

produced following extensive data collection and analysis, including an assessment of 

the quality and capacity of existing playing fields. 'Playing fields' are defined as areas 

where people can play organised pitch sports such as football, rugby, hockey, cricket, 

American football and softball. It is understood that Renfrewshire Council consulted on 

this strategy through a series of meetings and an online survey which has since closed. 

Renfrewshire council’s vision is “to encourage and enable more people in Renfrewshire 

to become more active”. It will be realised through continued partnership and by 

increasing opportunities for the people of Renfrewshire to become more active. 

Renfrewshire Council have implemented ‘The Active Renfrewshire Strategy’ which is 

the result of a shared vision across the Community Planning Partnership, developed in 

consultation with local people, community based groups and national governing 

bodies for sport. It is supported by sportscotland, members of local and national 

sporting organisations, Renfrewshire Leisure Limited and Clyde Muirshiel Park 

Authority. 

Renfrewshires Core Paths Plan 

Renfrewshire council adopted its Core Paths Plan in February 2009. This was one of the 

duties that the Council had to carry out under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. 

The plan has been developed over a number of years and has been led largely as a 

result of public consultation. It identifies the paths and routes that the public feel are 

the most important in the area for providing access by non motorised means. 

The plan shows routes that are surfaced paths, dirt tracks, grass paths, pavements and 

minor roads. Access points have been shown to the National Cycle Network and to 

rivers and lochs in the area. Over the whole network there are routes for walkers, 

cyclists, horse riders and people with disabilities. Dr Kate Cuthbert, Renfrewshire 

Councils Access Officer was consulted on the 24 th November 2009 in relation to the 

impact the proposed turbine may have on recreational pursuits around the Glenlora 

Estate. A response was received on the 30 th November 2009 confirmed that no Right 

of Way is recorded on the Council’s register of Rights of Way for Glenlora Estate nor 

have there been any core paths designated within the area. There are, however, three 

designated core paths close to the Glenlora Estate which are shown in Figure 3.2.1 

below, reproduced from Map 8, Core Paths Plan, Renfrewshire Council, 2009. 

Page 45 of 173

Council 

Boundary 


Turbine 

Location 


Figure 3.2.1 ‐ Core Paths Plan 

NB – Plan not to scale – Reproduced from map 8, Core Paths Plan, Renfrewshire Council, 2009. 

Path 21 utilises the track to the west of the estate and runs approximately 133m from 

the proposed turbine at it’s closest point. Paths Loch 22 and Loch 23 are both minor 

public roads which have been designated as core paths. Loch 22 runs along the south 

eastern boundary and Loch 23 is 70m from the site boundary at its closest point. 

Under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 the public have a statutory right of 

responsible non motorised access to most land and inland water in Scotland, subject to 

certain specified exempted categories of land, and to rights reserved to have other 

areas of land exempted from access rights. Under this legislation access is not 

restricted to paths and tracks. To date Renfrewshire Council has not exercised its rights 

under the Act to exclude from the public’s rights of access, to any part of the Glenlora 

Estate. 

Current Land Use 

The immediate landuse in the locality of the proposed turbine and the turbine site 

itself is predominantly agriculture. The proposed turbine and associated access track 

will take up a very small area and it is expected that the current use will continue 

undisturbed. 

Page 46 of 173

3.2.5 Predicted Impact 



Construction Phase Impacts 

The construction of the proposal would represent a moderate investment in the local 

area. The installed cost of a wind turbine of the capacity proposed is approximately 

£1,500,000. Of this sum, about 20% £300,000 would typically be spent in the locality of 

the project, with a range of contracts being placed with electrical and civil engineering 

companies to fencers and hoteliers. 

Public safety 

Under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, site‐specific 

safety and emergency procedures will be initially addressed as part of the Pre‐Tender 

Health and Safety Plan for the project. This will be prepared by the Principle Planning 

Supervisor. The contractor will then be required to prepare a Construction Phase 

Health and Safety Plan and to forward information to the Planning Supervisor during 

the works to enable the Health and Safety File to be completed. 

Any deep excavations will be fenced off for safety reasons during construction. 

Impacts on public safety during construction are therefore considered to be 

insignificant. During the operation of the site no areas will need to be fenced off with 

the exception of the substation. 

Noise impacts 

Any increased noise levels during construction could affect peoples’ recreation 

experience. However, given that the site currently has limited recreational 

opportunities, it is considered that few people would be affected by noise levels on 

site. Therefore, the impact of noise during construction on recreation is considered to 

be negligible. 

Operation Phase Impacts 

Once the wind turbine starts to supply electricity into the local electricity network, the 

landowner/developer directly involved in the project would benefit from reduced 

electricity bills and income from electricity sales payments, thus presenting a viable 

diversification opportunity, helping maintain the viability of a significant local business. 

When the landowner payments are combined with local authority rates, community 

benefit payments and other ongoing site maintenance expenses, this project would 

represent a substantial long term investment in the local area. 

Noise and Safety Impacts 

The noise impacts of the wind turbine are considered in the noise assessment detailed 

in Section 3.5. This concludes that no significant impact is expected on the 

surrounding area due to noise. 

Wind turbines are designed to operate to a high standard of safety. Worldwide there 

are approximately 50,000 large wind turbines in operation and although malfunctions 

and design faults can occur, there have been very few cases where wind turbines have 

shed a whole or part of a blade. 

Page 47 of 173



The few cases of injury reported have been confined to operational staff and have 

generally been caused by a failure to observe manufacturers’ and operators’ 

instructions. Also, there have been a number of cases in Germany where driver 

distraction caused by turbines suddenly coming in to view have been cited as a 

contributory factor to a road traffic accident. This factor is not considered to be 

relevant to this development. See Section 3.10 for a detailed consideration of the 

safety issues of wind turbines. 

Tourism 

The impact of wind farms on tourism is uncertain. There have been a number of 

surveys carried out with a variety of conclusions with as many surveys finding a 

positive effect as negative. A MORI poll carried out in 2002 provides evidence that 

wind farms do not adversely affect tourism (conducted for the Scottish Renewables 

Forum and the British Wind Energy Association) 4 . This study involved 307 face‐to‐face 

interviews with tourists in five locations in Argyll, Scotland. Two of the main findings 

of the report follow: 

“When asked whether the presence of wind farms had a positive or negative effect, 

two in five (43%) maintained that it had a positive effect, while a similar proportion felt 

it was equally positive and negative. Less than one in ten (8%) felt that it had a 

negative effect”; 

And 

“When asked whether the presence of wind farms in Argyll made any difference to the 

likelihood of them visiting the area, the majority, (91%), maintained that it made no 

difference.” 

Figure 3.2.2 Photographs from ‘The impact of wind farms on the tourist industry in the UK’ Prepared 

by the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) forthe All‐Party Parliamentary Group on Toursim May 

2006 

4 MORI Scotland (2002) “Tourist Attitudes towards Wind Farms – Summary Report”, September 2002 

Page 48 of 173



There is also evidence that, where provision is made, wind farms can prove to be 

tourist attractions. During the 1990s the Delabole Wind Farm in Cornwall attracted 

some 14,000 paying visitors each year. 

A more recent study on ’The impact of wind farms on the tourist industry in the UK’, 

prepared by the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) for the All‐Party 

Parliamentary Group on Tourism, May 2006, confirms the findings of the 2002 MORI 

poll and the ‘Eco‐Tourism’ potential of wind turbines: 

‘People are fascinated by wind turbines. When new wind farms are built, the plans 

often specify the construction of lay‐bys so passing traffic can pull over and watch the 

turbines.’ 

At the consented Arecleoch wind farm in South Ayrshire, Scottish Power is ‘working 

with the local community to develop an access strategy, linking the wind farm to the 

Southern Upland Way and the Carrick Way making the local village a major hub for 

walking in south west Scotland.’ 

The NFO System Three, ‘Investigation into the potential impact of wind farms on 

tourism in Scotland’, for VisitScotland, 2002, found that: 

‘Concerns that some visitors might find wind farms offputting were counterbalanced by 

positive reactions, and by arguments that wind power could be used to promote 

Scotland’s reputation as a ‘green’, environmentally‐friendly country. Far more tourists 

associated wind farms with clean energy than with landscape damage, although all 

regarded sensitive siting as critical.’(Extract from ‘Green on Green: Public perceptions 

of wind power in Scotland and Northern Ireland’ Journal of Environmental Planning and 

Law, November 2005.) 

Potential Recreation Impacts 

There are no rights of way on the site that might be directly affected and the nearest 

core path is located between 70m to 133m from the proposed turbine location at it’s 

nearest point and screened by woodland. However, any excavations left open will be 

fenced off for safety reasons. Fencing may also be necessary during reinstatement of 

vegetation. 

Visual impacts on recreational users 

The visual impacts of the wind turbine are considered in the landscape and visual 

impact assessment detailed in Section 3.4. 


Overall the economic impacts from this development are considered to be positive 

which will result in a demand for local services during the construction phase. 

The wind turbine will provide an additional income stream for Glenlora Estate which 

will help offset fluctuations in the substantial energy costs incurred in the day to day 

Page 49 of 173



running of the estate; and also reducing the carbon footprint. Thus improving the long 

term viability of a private estate which dates back to the 1900’s and securing jobs. 

No adverse impacts are predicted on local recreation and tourist interests. 

Page 50 of 173

3.3 Ecology/Fauna 




This section considers the potential effects of the proposed wind turbine on the nature 

conservation interests on and around the proposed site and sets out the scope of 

assessments carried out and the evaluation of significance that has been made based 

on these assessments. 

The general methodology of this ecological impact assessment pays explicit regard to 

the requirements of, and the advice given in the following documents: 

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (the “Birds 

Directive”); 

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild 

fauna and flora (the “Habitats Directive”); 

The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 

2007 (the “Habitats Regulations”, which translates the Birds Directive and 

Habitats Directive into UK law); 

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended; 

Nature Conservation (Scotland ) Act 2004; 

‘National Planning Policy Guideline (NPPG) 14: Natural Heritage’, The Scottish 

Office, 1999; 

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP); 

Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan 

(LBAP); and 

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1988) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat 

survey – a technique for environmental audit. JNCC, Peterborough. 

The impact of the proposed wind project on birds has been assessed with specific 

regard to the guidance provided in the following documents: 

Guidelines on Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms and Small Scale Hydro 

Electric Schemes, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2001; 

Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of onshore windfarms on bird 

communities, Scottish Natural Heritage, November 2005; 

Windfarms and birds: Calculating a theoretical collision risk assuming no 

avoiding action, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2000; and 

Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at wind 

farms, Band et al, in press. 

The ecological impact assessment has been carried out according to current guidance 

published by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006), which is 

recognised as best practice. 

Page 51 of 173

3.3.2 Site Background and Context 



This section considers the potential effects of the proposed turbine on the nature 

conservation interests on and around the proposed turbine location. 

Glenlora Estate is a combination of semi‐improved grass pasture for grazing beef cattle 

a sheep, rough grazing and mixed woodland. This comprises approximately 30% 

grazing and 70% woodland. The land area below Glenlora consists of mainly silage and 

hay and has provision for sheep and cattle grazing. 

The scope of this Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) was derived from preliminary 

investigations of the site, knowledge of the issues affecting the site, and an 

understanding of the potential for nature conservation receptors to be significantly 

affected. This was supported by a consultation exercise, whereby Scottish Natural 

Heritage (SNH) were consulted at various stages to review the proposed methodology 

for assessing ecological issues and a scoping report was submitted to Renfrewshire 

Council. 

The results of the consultation, together with the guidance highlighted above, have 

been used to define the scope of the assessment. As a result the EcIA encompasses the 

following elements: 

A description of the habitats and vegetation, based on a Phase 1 habitat survey, 

and an assessment of how they will be affected by the proposed development; 

Consideration of how the development would affect nearby sites with statutory 

and non‐statutory nature conservation designations, and the species using 

those sites; 

An assessment of the presence and distribution of protected species and other 

species of conservation concern, and how they will be affected; and 

Presentation of mitigation measures designed to minimise the impact of the 

development on those protected species or habitats present within or adjacent 

to the site. 

3.3.3 Methodology of Assessment 

The following outlines the scope of the assessments that have been carried out to 

assess the potential impact on ecology and fauna. 

An ornithological and habitat scoping report was written by Dr Eric Donnelly in March 

2009. This document was aimed at designing the scope of work required for 

assessment of the potential impact of the erection of a single wind turbine at Glenlora 

Estate, through habitat loss, displacement or collision risk on ornithological and 

ecological interests at a local to international level. 

Information from desk based studies, reconnaissance visits and initial ornithological 

and habitat surveys on and around the site was considered, with potential impacts and 

suitable survey methodologies proposed for habitats and birds. 

Page 52 of 173



Bird and habitat surveys were carried out by Dr Eric Donnelly in March and November 

2009 while bat and mammal survey work was carried out by Thomas Donnelly in June 

and July 2009. 

Dr Donnelly has worked on many ornithological research projects and as a consultant 

on wind farm developments, including three years on the Joint Raptor Study and a 

season on the hen harrier supplementary feeding Study at Langholm, researching ring 

ouzels in Galloway and wader surveys for RSPB, as a senior ecological consultant for 

two Edinburgh consultancies working on projects across the Highlands of Scotland. For 

the last three years Eric has worked as a self‐employed ecologist across Scotland on 

sites from Galloway to Thurso, including VP and/or breeding surveys of many upland 

bird species such as eagles and other Scedule 1 species, divers, greenshank, black 

grouse and migratory geese for RPS Ltd, NRP Ltd, SKM Ltd, MBEC, NES Ltd, Atmos and 

of course Greencat Renewables Ltd. 

Dr Donnelly’s habitat/ vegetation experience covers bracken ecology (MSc and PhD 

thesis) and Phase 1/NVC surveys for 8 proposed/in construction wind farm sites 

(including detailed survey of montane heath and blanket bog) and for six borrowpit 

applications. He has also been sub‐contracted to carry out Betula nana surveys in the 

mountains above Glen Affric and has been contracted to carry out annual tree seedling 

surveys in Glenfeshie for Deer Commission Scotland. 

Mr Thomas Donnelly has a wide range of conservation/survey experience which 

includes walkovers, common bird census, view point watches, collision risk analysis 

and mitigation planning over a range of project types. Thomas is currently employed as 

an Area Officer with Scottish Natural Heritage involved in the surveying of birds, 

mammals and amphibians. Mr Thomas Donnelly has a wide range of experience 

surveying birds on a voluntary basis for RSPB, BTO and SOC. He has also held a 

peregrine falcon Schedule 1 licence for 15 years, formerly for monitoring of nest sites 

and laterally for his role as SNH area officer/casework officer. Thomas has also worked 

as a consultant carrying out bird surveys on proposed wind farm sites across Scotland 

as well as a proposed forestry site in Dumbartonshire. 

Desk Study 

An initial desk based search was carried out by Dr Eric Donnelly in March 2009. This 

included designated sites and associated and protected species and habitats at a local 

and regional level. Further scoping was carried out in July 2009 to form a more 

complete assessment of potential impacts and survey requirements. This included 

discussions with and/or formal scoping requests from: 

Scottish Natural Heritage; 

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB); 

Local bird recorders; and 

Local Raptor Study Group. 

Page 53 of 173

Walkover Survey 



An initial walkover survey was carried out by Dr Eric Donnely on 30 th March 2009. 

Habitats, birds and animals observed were noted. 

Habitats 

Background information 

This site does not have any habitat conservation designations on or within a 

reasonable distance, which could be impacted on by this proposed development. 

The proposed site (centred at NS 326 520), extending to around 0.5 km 2 100‐200m 

above sea level is located at Glenlora, a private estate near Lochwinnoch, 

Renfrewshire. Land on this site includes improved grassland, unimproved grassland 

and acid flushes interspersed with conifer shelter belts. A loch is also found on the 

west side of the site. 

Unimproved grassland is a Renfrewshire Council LBAP habitat, but is unlikely to be 

impacted on due to this turbine placement. The immediate area of proposed turbine 

placement is semi improved grassland. Apart from supporting breeding birds, this 

grazing area has no significant conservation value due to its improvement. 

It is understood that the conifer woods close to the proposed turbine location are due 

to be felled, due to trees blown over in high winds. 

Survey requirements for habitats 

Any species or habitats of particular interest were mapped and presented as target 

notes. Further requirements for NVC level survey of any important features were also 

carried out. 

Birds of conservation interest and survey requirements 

Site visit records 

During a site visit carried out by Dr Eric Donnely on the 30th March 2009, few species 

of conservation concern were recorded. Only one lapwing was noted off site to the 

east. Two designated sites are recorded within the vicinity of the site. 


Desk Study 

Designated Sites 

Renfrewshire Heights Special Protection Area (SPA) comprises a large area of upland 

moorland south of Greenock (see Figure 3.3.3). The area is mainly covered by blanket 

mire, wet and dry heaths, and rough grassland. Much of the heath and mire is 

dominated by dwarf shrubs, especially heather Calluna vulgaris. Renfrewshire Heights 

SPA lies around 1km to the northwest of the Glenlora Estate. 

Page 54 of 173



Renfrewshire Heights SPA qualifies under Article 4.1 by regularly supporting a breeding 

population of European importance of the Annex 1 species hen harrier Circus cyaneus 

(an average of 10 breeding females annually between 1998 and 2004, 2% of Great 

Britain, SNH 2009). 

Hen harriers are likely to hunt over the proximity of this ground in both winter and in 

summer, although of course the frequency is unknown. This would depend on the 

distance to the nearest breeding female. Suitable nesting habitat at the edge of the 

SPA was noted during the walkover, so until harrier nest sites are known (from survey 

and Raptor Study Group information), a regime of 12 hours per month (two days) of 

vantage point surveys was recommended. 

The boundaries of the SPA are coincident with those of the Renfrewshire Heights SSSI. 

Renfrewshire Heights is of national and international importance for its population of 

breeding hen harrier Circus cyaneus. The area regularly supports 10 breeding pairs of 

hen harriers, which represents approximately 2% of the breeding population of Great 

Britain. The hen harrier, amongst other bird species that are considered vulnerable or 

rare, is listed on Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds 

(the Birds Directive). As such, the Government is required to take special conservation 

measures to ensure the hen harrier’s survival and reproduction. Due to the numbers of 

hen harrier breeding on the SSSI, the site qualifies as a Special Protection Area under 

Article 4 of the Birds Directive. Besides breeding hen harriers, the site has other 

animals and plant communities that add to its natural heritage interest but do not 

qualify as protected natural features of the SSSI. These include a wide variety of upland 

breeding birds, with others listed on Annex I to the Birds Directive such as short‐eared 

owl Asio flammeus, merlin Falco columbarius, peregrine Falco peregrinus and golden 

plover Pluvialis apricaria. Numerous other birds – such as red grouse, lapwing, curlew 

and snipe – breed on the high ground, while black grouse are known to inhabit the 

moorland fringe. Otters are known to use watercourses within the site. 

Page 55 of 173

Figure 3.3.3 – Renfrewshire Heights SPA 

Source: SNH 2009 



Approximate site location 

Castle Semple and Barr Lochs Strathclyde & Ayrshire SSSI is partly designated for 

breeding and wintering birds. This SSSI is located around 2km to the southeast of this 

site. 

The Barr Loch and Aird Meadow marshland vegetation and fringing woodland areas 

provide nesting habitat for a wide range of bird species, including great‐crested grebe, 

teal, shoveler, tufted duck and water rail. The wintering bird population is also of 

interest, with regionally important concentrations of tufted duck and pochard on the 

open water areas. Geese and swans are also found around the lochs over the winter. 

Although these species are unlikely to feed on this site, there is a possibility that these 

species might fly between here and other sites over winter. Geese and swans roosting 

on the lochs might also fly over the site in winter. 

Potential impacts on species of conservation concern 

Moorland on the SPA is potential breeding and hunting areas for Schedule 1 species 

and other species of conservation concern, include hen harrier, merlin, goshawk, red 

kite, and barn owl. Breeding waders might also be located on the moorland and 

farmland, including curlew and lapwing. 

Peregrine falcons are known to hunt nearby, although the location of the nest site has 

not been gained from the local bird surveyors. Peregrines are schedule 1 species and if 

they are found hunting over or near the site will require additional VP effort (up to 12 

hours per month during the breeding season). 

Page 56 of 173

3.3.5 Survey Techniques 

Bird Survey Techniques 



A variety of bird survey techniques were utilised during the Environmental Impact 

Assessment for the proposed wind turbine due to the potential presence of sensitive 

Schedule 1 and Annex I/II species. 

Ornithological surveys on and around the site were designed to assess potential 

impacts of birds throughout the year, which could arise due to: 

Potential loss, fragmentation and degradation of bird habitats arising from the 

construction of the turbin base, crane pad, access track, a sub‐station and 

temporary construction compound; 

Potential displacement of hunting or migrating birds through avoidance of 

turbines, work staff and machinery; 

Disturbance to hunting and/or breeding birds due to noise from operating 

turbines; 

Potential disturbance to nesting birds (for example, displacement of birds from 

breeding habitats) resulting from the construction activities; and 

Potential for birds to collide with turbine blades. 

Information gained from these surveys was used to assess potential adverse impacts 

from turbine placement and for potential mitigation against any possible detrimental 

impacts of the potential wind turbine through: 

Assessment of placement, number of and height of turbine; 

The adjustment of construction timing; 

Realignment of access track and other construction related structures; 

habitat management to mitigate for possible negative impacts; and 

Other possible mitigation measures, e.g. shutting off turbine, dawn and dusk 

during autumn migration. 

Bird survey requirements and methodology 

General Vantage Point (VP) survey methods 

Data from VP surveys are utilised as part of the assessment of potential impacts, 

including species presence, density, distribution and behaviour. One vantage point was 

considered to be sufficient on this site. It was positioned at NS 326 594, looking south 

with a 270 0 arc. This VP allows coverage of the entire site, part of the Renfrewshire 

Heights SPA, the Lochs and the general area to the southeast. The viewpoint position 

Page 57 of 173



allowed flights of moorland birds to be recorded during the breeding season (in 

relation to the SPA) and winter bird flights over the whole area. 

Breeding season VPs ran from March – August 2009. Minimal VP time according to 

Scottish Natural Heritage guidelines is for six hours per month during this period. 

However, until the location of breeding harrier and merlin are known, 12 hours per 

month was considered to be suitable. If hunting was recorded this would continue. 

VPs in early winter (late‐September – November 2009) were recommended to be 

carried out with migratory movements of geese as the primary focus, twelve hours per 

month. From December to mid May, six hours was anticipated to be covered with a 

possible increase in hours of wintering birds are noted over or near the site. 

Winter VPs involve the completion of dawn and dusk VPs. Morning VPs normally start 

one hour before sunrise and two hours after, and evening VPs normally start two 

hours before sunset and one hour after. 

During the VPs, flight data for all target species are recorded. These include all geese, 

swans, ducks, Schedule 1 raptor, black grouse and other species of high conservation 

concern. Flight line data includes the species and number of each, the flight line taken 

by the bird(s), the height of flight (Banded 0‐10m, 10‐90m and 90m+) and the time at 

each height each 15 seconds, marked on each section of flight line. Other behavioural 

information is also recorded. 

Secondary species (other raptors and red list species) are recorded every five minutes. 

Weather aspects are also be recorded every hour, including wind speed (Beaufort 

scale), wind direction, cloud cover (eights) and precipitation. Dawn and dusk VPs take 

place in all weather, including low cloud, to assess impact of poor weather on geese 

movements on and around the site. 

Winter walkover surveys 

Winter walkover surveys were recommended to be undertaken three times during the 

winter and all birds of conservation interest were recorded. 

Breeding birds surveys 

Breeding bird surveys were recommended to be carried out in April, May and June and 

to include common bird census methods and woodland point counts. This included a 

250m buffer outside the site. 

The site and an area of 2km out‐with the site boundary was surveyed for raptors and 

owls. For raptors, this involved searching all areas to within 250m in open ground and 

walking forest edges, four times between late‐March and August. Survey of barn owls 

included searching sheds and barns and survey for Tawny owls involves transecting the 

site with taped calls. 

Page 58 of 173

Mammals 



No signs of badger, otter, watervoles or bat were recorded during initial walkovers, 

although a suitable habitat was observed. Signs and sightings of mammals were 

recorded during the breeding bird surveys, separately from the specialist mammal 

surveys to be carried out. 

Field Survey 

Phase 1 Survey 

The habitat survey of the site and approximate buffer of 250m was carried out on the 

10th November 2009 by Dr Eric Donnelly. Although this survey was completed outside 

the preferred period through the summer, the surveyor considered that there were 

enough plants present and identifiable to allow assessment to Phase 1 level and in 

some cases NVC level. 

Phase 1 habitat survey categories (NCC 1988) were assigned to all areas of the site, 

with NVC classifications (Averis et. al., 2004) defined in areas of conservation 

significance. For NVC classification of habitats, the presence of all plant species and 

their relative dominance were recorded within 2m 2 quadrats at points with visibly 

different vegetations types. 

Bird Surveys 

Breeding birds 

Breeding bird surveys (inc. common bird census methods and woodland point counts) 

included a 250m buffer outside the site were carried out by Dr Eric Donnely in April, 

May and June 2009 

The site and an area of 2km out‐with the site boundary were surveyed for raptors and 

owls. For raptors, this involved searching all areas to within 250m in open ground and 

walking forest edges, four times between late‐March and August. Survey of barn owls 

included searching sheds and barns and survey for tawny owls involved transecting the 

site with taped calls. 

Each survey involved walking transects around the site and recording bird locations 

and behaviour. Birds were considered to be breeding if singing, displaying or carrying 

nest material; if nests or young were found; if adults repeatedly alarmed; if there was 

disturbance display; if adults were seen carrying food; or if there were territorial 

disputes. These data were subsequently analysed to create a map of breeding bird 

activity, see Figure 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 of Confidential Annex 3.3. 

Common bird Census (CBC) 

CBC were carried out on the 3 rd May, 14 th of may and 4 th of July 2009 up to 30 minutes 

before sunrise. All points of the site and 250m buffer were surveyed to within 50m by 

experienced surveyors. All birds in open areas were recorded, numbers summarised in 

Page 59 of 173



Table 3.3.1 and locations summarised in Figure 3.3.4 of Confidential Annex 3.3. Birds 

in the woodland were also recorded during the CBC, in case any species were missed 

during woodland point counts. Species not found during the woodland point counts 

are also included in Figure 3.3.4 of Confidential Annex 3.3. 

Woodland point counts 

Woodland point counts were carried out as part of the CBC surveys, starting up to 30 

minutes before sunrise. CBC surveys were carried out on the 3 rd June, 14 th June and 4 th 

July 2009 by Dr Eric Donnely, covering all of the site to within 50m excluding woodland 

areas. Woodland point counts were also completed, assessing woodland bird species 

and densities. 

Tawny owl survey 

As the site was identified as potential owl habitat, tawny owl surveys were carried out 

by Dr Eric Donnely on the 24 th May and 3 rd July 2009. Surveys began at dusk, with the 

surveyor using a taped male call to attract the attention of breeding males. 

Vantage Point (VP) Surveys 

To assess the potential for collision or displacement of feeding by birds from the 

location of the proposed turbine location, vantage point watches were carried out. 

Vantage point methods 

One vantage point location was used on this site at NS 326 594, looking south with a 

270 0 arc. This VP allows coverage of the entire site, part of the Renfrewshire Heights 

SPA and the Lochs and general area to the south‐east. 

During the VPs, the area was continually scanned using binoculars and scope and flight 

data for all target species was recorded, including all geese, ducks, Schedule 1 raptors. 

Flight line data includes the species and number of each, the flight line taken by the 

bird(s), the height of flight (Banded 0‐10m, 10‐50m, 50‐100m, 100‐150m and 150m+) 

and the time at each height each 15 seconds, marked on each section of flight line. 

Other behavioural information was also recorded. 

Secondary species (other raptors and red list species) were recorded every five 

minutes. 

Weather aspects were also recorded every hour, including wind speed (Beaufort 

scale), wind direction, cloud cover (eights) and precipitation. 

Breeding season VP methods 

Renfrewshire Heights Special Protection Area (SPA) lies around 1km to the northwest 

of the Glenlora site. This SPA is designated for breeding hen harrier density, at around 

an average of 10 breeding females each year, or 2% of the British breeding population. 

For this reason, a total of 73 hours of VP time was undertaken through the breeding 

season from the 29 th of April to the 21 st of August 2009, (Table 3.3.2). 

Page 60 of 173



Date Time Hours 

29/04/2009 1600 3 

29/04/2009 1200 3 

10/05/2009 1150 3 

10/05/2009 1550 3 

12/05/2009 1100 3 

12/05/2009 1500 3 

13/05/2009 1100 3 

13/05/2009 1500 3 

14/05/2009 0730 3 

15/05/2009 1200 3 

15/05/2009 1600 3 

24/05/2009 1630 2 

24/05/2009 1900 2 

14/06/2009 1215 3 

25/06/2009 1345 3 

25/06/2009 1725 2 

27/06/2009 1315 2 

27/06/2009 1530 2 

27/07/2009 1615 3 

27/07/2009 1215 3 

04/08/2009 0600 3 

04/08/2009 1000 3 

05/08/2009 1200 3 

05/08/2009 0800 3 

21/08/2009 1215 3 

21/08/2009 1615 3 

Table 3.3.2 ‐ Dates and times of breeding season VPs 

Autumn migration VP methods 

VPs in early winter were carried out from the 26 th of September to the 29 th of 

November 2009 with migratory movements of geese as the primary focus. A total of 

36 hours of VP time was undertaken (Table 3.3.3). Autumn migration VPs covered 

dawn and dusk periods due to the increased movement of wintering birds to and from 

roost sites and feeding grounds. Dawn VPs started one hour before sunrise and 

finished two hours after, and dusk VPs started two hours before sunset and finished 

one hour after. 

Page 61 of 173



Date Time Hours Dawn/Dusk 

26/09/2009 0600 3 Day 

26/09/2009 1700 3 Dusk 

03/10/2009 0630 3 Dawn 

03/10/2009 1650 3 Dusk 

15/10/2009 1610 3 Dusk 

17/10/2009 0645 3 Dawn 

02/11/2009 1430 3 Dusk 

08/11/2009 1425 3 Dusk 

08/11/2009 0635 3 Dusk 

28/11/2009 0715 3 Dawn 

28/11/2009 1355 3 Dusk 

29/11/2009 0715 3 Dawn 

Table 3.3.3 ‐ Dates and times of autumn migration VPs 

During the VPs, flight data for all target species were recorded, including all Special 

Protection Areas (SPA) qualifying species, Schedule 1 raptors and owls, waders, 

wildfowl and swans. 

Flight lines are detailed in Figures 3.3.5 to 3.3.7 of Confidential Annex 3.3. 

Schedule 1 raptor survey 

A schedule 1 raptor search of the area out to 2km was undertaken by Dr Eric Donnely 

in May and June 2009. 

3.3.6 Bird Survey Findings 

Common Bird Census (CBC) 

All birds in open areas were recorded, numbers summarised in Table 3.3.4 and 

locations summarised in Figure 3.3.4 of Confidential Annex 3.3. Birds in the woodland 

were also recorded during the CBC, in case any species were missed during woodland 

point counts. Species not found during the woodland point counts are also included in 

Figure 3.3.4. 

Most of the birds listed were found in the buffer zone around the site on moorland, 

with no breeding birds found in the field proposed for turbine location. A number of 

the species are red listed species, including cuckoo, grasshopper warbler, linnet, reed 

bunting, skylark and yellowhammer. It is unlikely that this turbine would impact on any 

of these species. No waders were located during CBC surveys. 

Page 62 of 173



Species Number Population status 

Cuckoo 1 red list 

Dunnock 3 amber list 

Goldfinch 3 green list 

Grasshopper warbler 2 red list 

Linnet 3 red list 

Meadow pipit 5 amber list 

Pied wagtail 2 green list 

Reed bunting 1 red list 

Skylark 10 red list 

Wheatear 2 amber list 

Yellowhammer 1 red list 

Table 3.3.4 ‐ Species, number and conservation status of birds located during CBC surveys 

Woodland point counts 

Six locations were visited and the surveyor located the point using GPS, then waited 

quietly for five minutes to allow birds to settle. All woodland birds heard were then 

recorded for five minutes to assess species and number to within 30 metres of the 

surveyor. Bird species and number are summarised in Table 3.3.5. 

One song thrush was located at point No. 6. This species is red listed. As the proposed 

turbine location is around 300m away from this point, it should be considered unlikely 

that this turbine would impact on song thrush populations locally. Willow warblers 

were located at all of the points. This species is amber listed. Willow warblers might fly 

between woodland areas, but at a height below that of the blade sweep for this size of 

turbine. 

Page 63 of 173

Poin 

t No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Table 3.3.5 – Woodland Point count results 



Species 

Grid 

referenc 

e 

NS 32967 

Date Time B C WW WP Gt Ch Bt St S R G W 

59030 03/05/2009 0550 1 2 1 1 1 1 

14/05/2009 0520 2 3 2 3 

04/07/2009 0920 4 2 

NS 32748 

59125 03/05/2009 0610 2 2 1 1 2 

14/05/2009 0540 2 1 2 

04/07/2009 0845 3 1 2 3 

NS 32578 

59159 03/05/2009 0628 4 1 2 2 

14/05/2009 0840 1 2 3 

04/07/2009 0750 1 1 

NS 32395 

59538 03/05/2009 0713 1 2 2 2 1 

14/05/2009 0740 1 2 2 2 

04/07/2009 0655 2 5 2 1 

NS 32394 

59179 03/05/2009 0730 1 1 

14/05/2009 0710 2 1 1 

04/07/2009 0610 3 2 2 2 

NS 32671 

58724 03/05/2009 0800 1 2 1 1 1 1 

14/05/2009 0710 2 3 3 1 1 4 

04/07/2009 0535 1 3 3 

Notes: 

B – Blackbird, C‐ Chaffinch, WW‐ Willow Warbler, WP‐Wood Pigeon, Gt‐Great tit, Ch‐Chiffchaff, Bt‐Blue tit, St‐Song thrush, S‐Siskin, R‐ 

Robin, G‐Goldcrest, W‐Wren 

VP Results 

Breeding Season 

Peregrine falcon flights were recorded on nine occasions (See Figure 3.3.5 of 

Confidential Annex 3.3). Most of these flights were short where the bird was seen 

diving over the hillside outside the site boundary, typically above surrounding 

moorland. 

Only one flight was recorded over the site itself (27/07/09), a flight lasting 150 

seconds, of which 75 seconds were at collision risk height. In this case, the female was 

hunting over the site and passed directly through the proposed turbine location. From 

this small amount of flight time over the site in over one breeding season it should be 

concluded that the impact of a single turbine on this species would be low. 

No hen harriers were seen from this VP during the breeding season. From this data 

over one breeding season it should be concluded that the impact of a single turbine on 

this species would be low. 

Page 64 of 173



Two greylag geese were recorded crossing the site within 250m of the propose turbine 

location on the 15 th of May 2009 (Figure 3.3.6), at collision risk for 46 seconds only. It 

is unlikely that this turbine would have any impact on greylag geese. 

Autumn migration 

No geese were recorded from the vantage point location during autumn migration. 

From this data it should be considered that the proposed turbine would have little 

impact on geese populations during the autumn migration period. 

Three goosanders (Figure 3.3.7) were recorded crossing the site from north to south 

on the 2 nd of November 2009, at collision risk height for 13 seconds. From this small 

number of flights, it should be considered that this turbine would have little or no 

impact on goosander populations. 

Secondary species 

Secondary species seen from the VP were those species found during CBC and 

woodland point counts, with the addition of herring gull, greater black‐backed gull, 

raven and other corvids, sparrowhawk, kestrel and buzzard. 

Schedule 1 raptor search surveys 

The area of 2km around the site was surveyed for breeding Schedule 1 on the 24 th of 

May and 2 nd and 14 th of July. All areas within 250m were covered over these days, with 

short vantage point watches carried out at intervals. 

No Schedule 1 breeding activity was recorded. Only two Schedule 1 raptors were 

recorded during these surveys, a female harrier passing through the site hunting on 

24 th may and a male harrier flying over the moorland to the northwest on the 2 nd of 

June. From this data it should be considered that the proposed turbine would have 

little impact on schedule 1 raptors (inc. hen harriers). 

3.3.7 Mammal surveys – Methodology and Findings 

Bats 

Methods 

Bat surveys were carried out by Thomas Donnelly on 22nd June and 3rd July 2009 

using a Pertesen D230 bat detector. Weather conditions were always at times of low 

wind conditions, Beauford scale 3 or less. The observations began 30 minutes before 

dusk and continued until 2.5hrs after dusk. All bat passes and species of bat were 

recorded. 

A reconnaissance visit was carried out during the first visit to assess the habitats on 

and around the site to help establish the local bat population in the area. Twenty 

stations at possible roost or feeding areas in areas in and around the site were also 

selected (See Figure 1, Glenlora Mammal Survey Report, Confidential Annex 3.3). 

During the first visit, each station was visited by car for five minutes, with the number 

Page 65 of 173



of bat passes recorded. Areas between these stations were also surveyed, looking and 

listening for bats using the bat detector. Only the stations on the site and 500m buffer 

were surveyed during the second visit. 

Site assessment 

Glenlora Estate is a combination of semi‐improved grass pasture for grazing beef cattle 

a sheep, rough grazing and mixed woodland. This is divided into approximately 30% 

grazing and 70% woodland. The land area below the site consists of mainly silage and 

hay and grazing for sheep and cattle. The field boundaries are mainly hedges with 

some large trees and dykes, which offer a potential suitable habitat for insects 

required by feeding bats. 

The farm steading and houses provide possible roosting opportunities for bats. 

Results 

The results for the stations during the drive around surveys are shown in Table 3.3.6 

and Table 3.3.7 below. 

55 bat passes were recorded during the first visit, the majority of which were soprano 

pipistrelle. These bats were located mainly on the lower ground well away from the 

proposed turbine location, the closest being at Station 10, 11, 12 and 17, around 500m 

away from the nearest turbine. 

Only one bat pass was recorded during the second survey at Station 17. The species 

was a soprano pipistrelle and was observed more than 500m away from the turbine 

locations. 

None of the bats found were considered to be near enough or certainly not at a height 

that would endanger bats. Added to the safety distance, the height on the hill itself 

plus the height of the turbines allows a generous safety margin should any bats stray 

into that zone. For the above reasons bats are not considered to be an issue on this 

site. 

Site Glenlora Date 03.07.09 Sunset 

(time) 

Surveyor(s) Bat Passes Heard 

Station Time Common Soprano Myotis or 

No 

pipistrelle pipistrelle long‐eared 

1 2200 

2 2215 

3 2223 2 

4 2237 1 7 

5 2254 28 

6 2303 2 4 

7 2311 2 

8 2324 1 


22:10 Weather W‐6/10. F1 

west 

Large bats. 

(noctule, 

serotine, 

Leisler’s) 

Other

9 2337 

10 2345 1 3 

11 0005 1 

12 0014 1 

13 0027 

14 0043 

15 0055 

16 0115 

17 0127 2 

18 0148 

19 0203 

20 0220 



Table 3.3.6 ‐ Results of Station surveys in the area outside the proposed site, 22th June 2009 

Site Glenlora Date 22.6.9 Sunset 

(time) 

Surveyor(s) Bat Passes Heard 

Station No Time Common Soprano Myotis or 

pipistrelle pipistrelle long‐eared 

10 1012 

11 1027 

12 1052 

13 1111 

14 1128 

15 1144 

16 1206 1 

17 1217 

18 1233 

19 1252 

20 0124 

Table 3.3.7 ‐ Results of Station surveys in the area outside the proposed site, 4 th July 2009 

Otters (Lutris lutris), 

Methods 

An otter and water vole survey was carried out on 5th August 2009 by Thomas 

Donnelly. 

Where access was possible, the bank side of each watercourse was closely searched 

for signs of otter activity. All bank sides were slowly walked looking for signs of otter 

activity including spraint, food remains, tracks, slides, haul outs, couches and holts. 

Searches for access points under fences, trees and dense scrub were also carried out. 

Where access was not possible due to dense scrub, a judgment of presence or 

otherwise was made using best estimate based on available information. The walkover 

route of otters and watervole is shown in Figure 3.3.9 below. 


22:30 Weather W‐4/10. F2 

west 

Large bats. 

(noctule, 

serotine, 

Leisler’s) 

Other



Available Habitat 

There are two small watercourses running through the site, the Lora Burn and an 

unnamed burn to the north of the site. The Lora Burn arises outwith the footprint of 

the site and passes through to the east below Glenlora House. The second burn arises 

from a spring near Dunconnel Hill and passes through to a point some 100m to the 

north of the end of the farm track. 

The Lora Burn in particular is heavily modified with dense scrub cover at least 50% of 

its length. The unnamed burn is also heavily modified mainly due to trampling by 

cattle. Consequently neither watercourse was considered to provide an ideal otter 

habitat. 

There is also a small man‐made loch for fishing. It is not known if it is stock but any fish 

observed appeared to be very small. 

At the loch, a search of the banksides was made including scanning the Equesetum 

beds that stretch out some two to three metres on all side using close focusing 

binoculars to look for signs of animals leaving a track through this soft vegetation. No 

physical signs were found of any description nor were there any signs of access around 

the loch or through the Equesetum. 

Results 

No otters were found nor were any signs found that suggested the presence of this 

species. 

Conclusion 

Currently otter are not present at Glenlora. In the unlikely event that this should 

change and an otter is found on the construction site, it is recommended that all work 

must stop and SNH be contacted. The majority of the watercourses at Glenlora are not 

considered to be suitable for this species. The banks are considered to be too steep 

and are solid rock over at least 50% of the watercourses or too heavily wooded. 

Watervoles (Arvicola terrestris) 

The preferred habitat for water vole comprises well‐vegetated mosaics of sedge, rush, 

grass and ericoids adjacent to slow flowing, shallow burns with penetrable banks and 

relatively gentle bank angles (SNH 2005). 

The areas covered by the otter survey were also surveyed for signs of watervoles, 

including the voles themselves or closely cropped 'lawns' in narrow strips that appear 

similar to pavements and signs of grass and reed clippings and a network of tunnels 

'runways' in dense grass in the bank sides of the watercourse. 

Results 

No watervoles or signs of water voles were found. 

Conclusion 

Currently water voles are not present at Glenlora. The majority of the watercourses at 

Glenlora are not considered to be suitable for this species. The banks are considered to 

Page 68 of 173



be too steep and are solid rock over at least 50% of the watercourses or too heavily 

wooded. 

Figure 3.3.9 ‐ Route walked for Otter and Watervole surveys 

Badgers (Meles meles) 

Background 

Badgers live in setts which can vary in size and use depending on the number of 

badgers in the group and the time of season. Group size is generally between 4‐ 6 

adults but this varies depending on the availability of suitable habitat and food. They 

are very territorial creatures. The group will have a number of setts which individuals 

within the group will move between depending on its use. The main sett is usually the 

breeding sett and can have a large number of holes. Annexe setts are close to main 

setts (



for badgers. The loss of such feeding areas can have a significant impact on the 

viability of a social group. 

A number of foraging areas may be found although badgers seldom forage together 

(Kruuk, 1989). 

It is thought that badgers move to other setts to avoid the build up of parasites 

amongst the group which is usually the species specific flea Paraceras melis (Butler & 

Roper, 1996). The flea reacts to carbon dioxide produced by the badger (Cox et al, 

1999). Badgers avoid this build up in flea infestation by either enlarging their main sett 

or by building new ones, including annex, subsidiary or outlier setts. 

Up to ¾ of a badgers time (mainly juveniles) can be spent in an outlier sett and mainly 

during the summer months (Roper et al, 2001). 

Methodology 

Badgers surveys were carried out by Thomas Donnelly on the 6th August 2009. 

All woodland edges were slowly walked looking for signs of badger activity including 

setts, single outlier tunnels, tracks, diggings, latrines and access points under fences, 

trees and dense scrub. Where signs of activity was found the area was further 

searched for evidence of badgers and setts. Where access was not possible due to 

dense scrub, a judgment of presence or otherwise was made using best estimate 

based on available information. The route taken for the badger survey is shown in 

Figure 3, Glenlora Mammal Survey Report in Confidential Annex 3.3. 

Results 

Various signs of badgers were found around the site. 

For the purpose of this report the turbine is depicted as T1. The badger sett locations 

are depicted as S1 and S2. S1 being closest to farm buildings located to the northeast 

of Glenlora House. 

T1 is some 350m from S1 and 200m from S2. 

Sett 1 appears to be an animal run out from a hole under the stock fence that 

surrounds woodland large enough for badgers to use. This track leads across to an area 

of recently deposited soil which would provide a valuable and easy source of food 

items for badgers. However during the survey there were no visible signs such as 

footprints or scratching/digging due to the recent very heavy rain. 

Beyond the hole in the fence into the woodland a number of obvious signs of 

scratching and a strong smell of badger was observed. It was not possible to find an 

actual sett due to the presence of very dense undergrowth. More signs of digging for 

food both in the woodland and also along the edge of the field were noted. 

Based on the above observations there is no doubt that a badger sett exists in this 

woodland. 

Page 70 of 173



Sett 2 is located approximately 200m from sett 1 in dense undergrowth. As with sett 

one, there was evidence of scratching and diggings for food and also a strong smell of 

badger. At this distance these setts are considered to be be related and are most likely 

to be separate parts of the same clan. It is likely that one sett may a breeding sett and 

the other for general use. 

Mitigation 

Based on the above findings the proposed turbine is not considered to have a 

detrimental impact on badgers. No areas of their territory will be lost to the 

development nor will there be any impact on any well established paths used to travel 

between setts and feeding areas in the woodland. 

3.3.8 Field Survey 

Phase 1 Habitat Survey 

The results of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey are described below. For clarity the 

descriptions have been divided up into the broad habitat types that have been 

identified within the site. 

Habitat Types 

A map of vegetation types on the proposed site are shown in Appendix 1, Figure 3.3.8. 

The site is based around a country estate with livestock grazing and mixed woodland. 

The majority of woodland around the site is characterised as broad‐leaved plantation 

woodland (A1.1.2). This woodland consists predominantly of Acer pseudoplatanus, 

Betula pendula, Picea sitchensis, Corylus avellana, Sorbus aucuparia, Fagus sylvatica 

and Querus petraea. Understory vegetation in these areas is typical of the area of open 

ground next to them. On the higher areas, Juncus effusus, Vaccinium myrtilus, Ulex 

auropeaus, Deschampsia flexuosa, Deschampsia cespitosa, Rhytididelphus squarosus 

and other moorland plants. In the lower areas, plants such as Rubus Chamaemorus, 

Rubus ideaus, Utrica dioica, Bellis perennis, Rannunculus repens, Anthriscus sylvestris 

and Dryopterisis dilatata. Rhododendron ponticum was present in many areas of the 

broad‐leaved woodland. 

Coniferous plantations (A1.2.2) are located near to the proposed turbine location on 

the higher ground of the site (Picea sitchensis and Pinus sylvestris) and above the site 

on the hill ground named ‘The Ward’ (Larix deciduas). 

Mixed plantation woodland (A1.3.2) is also found on the west of the site with a 

mixture of Pinus sylvestris, Larix decidua, Picea sitchensis, and Acer pseudoplanatus. 

Rhododendron ponticum was present in the mixed plantation woodland. The 

understory vegetation here includes species found in upland acid grassland and acid 

flush. Some open areas are found in these woodlands. 

Areas of scrub (A2) with Ulex europaeus are found in the 250m buffer zone to the west 

of the site. This area was found growing on Semi‐improved acid grassland (B1.2). The 

gorse in these areas was not continuous. 

Page 71 of 173



Unimproved acid grassland (B1.1) U4a Festuca ovina‐Agrostis capillaris‐Galium saxatile 

grassland is found on the upper slopes on thinner soils, leading in to Semi‐improved 

acid grassland (B1.2) lower down the slopes. These areas would have originally have 

been acid heath (NVC classification H12) and acid grassland, but through grazing (for 

B1.1) and both grazing and fertilisation (for B1.2) the species composition has been 

changed with Ericoids removed. As well as the species noted in the NVC classification, 

other species present in B1.2 areas included Galium saxatile, Potentilla erecta, Nardus 

stricta, Rhytidiadelphus loreus, Cirsium arvense, Plantago lanceolata, Rannunculus 

repens, Deschampsia flexuosa, Pleurozium schreberi, Rumex acetosella and Carex 

nigra. B1.1 areas included sections of Polytrichum commune, Juncus squarossus and 

Nardus stricta, and Vaccinium myrtilus. 

Semi‐improved neutral grassland (B2.2) MG10a Holcus lanatus‐Juncus effuses rush‐ 

pasture was associated with acid flush E2.1 M23a,b Juncus effuses‐Galium palustre 

rush‐pasture and was found on mid sections of the site in the form of poorly drained 

permanent pastures. As well as Holcus lanatus and Juncus effusus, MG10a contains 

Dactylus glomerata, Trifolium repens, Agrostis capillaris, Rannunculus repens and 

Rumex acetosella. 

Improved grassland (B4) is present within the lower areas of the site and 250m buffer, 

mainly utilised for grazing. These enclosed fields were dominated by Lolium perenne 

and Phleum pratense with some coverage of Rannunculus repens, and Bellis perennis. 

Marshy grassland (B5) MG9 Holcus lanatus‐Deschampsia cespitosa grasslands was 

found on the west and northern edges of the pond (G1) found on the western edge of 

the site. In this area Deschampsia cespitosa was dominant but the species composition 

in this area was not assessed for safety reasons. 

Wet heath/acid grassland mosaic (D6) is found on one area in the boundary to the 

north of the site. Sphagnum magellanicum and Sphagnum cuspidatum were found in 

the wet heath areas, but the lack of other wet heath species due to grazing made 

identification of the NVC classification difficult. The acid grassland was U4a Festuca 

ovina‐Agrostis capillaris‐Galium saxatile grassland. 

Acid flush (E2.1) M23a,b Juncus effuses‐Galium palustre rush‐pasture was found on 

wetter areas among areas of MG10a, flatter areas and next to slow moving 

watercourses. M23a was the more species rich sub‐community of this classification, 

with Juncus acutiflorus the dominant Juncus species, with other species including 

Cirsium arvense, Pleurozium schreberi, Potentilla erecta, Epilobium palustre, Valeriana 

officinalis, Ranunculus flammula,Angelica sylvstris, myosotis sylvatica, and Geum 

rivale. M23b areas of acid flush were typically species poor, Juncus effuses was the 

most common species, with Holcus lanatus, Ranunculus repens, Deschampsia cespitosa 

and occasional Festuca ovina, Galium palustre, Epilobium palustre and Rumex 

acetosella. 

Various boundaries are located across the site; including Intact hedge (J2.1), mainly 

formed by planted Crataegus mongyna and Fagus sylvatica. Hedgerows with trees 

Page 72 of 173



(J2.3) were also present, with trees species including Betula pendula, Quercus robur, 

Acer pseudoplatanus, Rhododendron ponticum, Fagus sylvatica and Crataegus 

mongyna. Understory vegetation in some areas was rich, including Geranium 

robertanum, Rubus Chamaemorus, Rubus ideaus, Utrica dioica, Bellis perennis, 

Rannunculus repens, Anthriscus sylvestris and Dryopterisis dilatata. 

Dry stone walls (J2.5) are also found on the higher ground. 

Open water (G1) was found in the form of a pond in the south‐west of the site. 

Bare ground (J4) was located in the south of the site on an area excavated for building 

on. 

The full Phase 1 habitat survey report and survey target notes are included Appendix 

1. 

3.3.9 Outline Assessment of Effects and Mitigation 

Constraints on Study Information 

No constraints were identified during the survey. All parts of the site could be fully 

accessed during the surveys. All survey work was carried out at an appropriate time of 

the year and in suitable weather conditions. 

Legislation 

Section 1 of the Nature Conservation Scotland Act 2004 states that ‘It is the duty of 

every public body and office‐holder, in exercising any functions, to further the 

conservation of biodiversity so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those 

functions’. To assist with this objective Section 2(4) of the Act sets out the 

requirement to publish a list of flora and fauna considered to be of principal 

importance in Scotland. This list has now been published and includes a diverse range 

of habitats and species. The measures required to protect these species and habitats 

are set out in the document ‘Scotland's Biodiversity: It's in Your Hands ‐ A strategy for 

the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland’ (Scottish Executive, 

2004). 

The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations, 1994; the Conservation (Natural 

Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations, 2006; and the Nature Conservation 

(Scotland) Act 2004, are the three key pieces of wildlife legislation that set out the 

framework for the protection of certain species, habitats and sites in Scotland. 

Potential Impacts – Construction Phase 

The erection of a wind turbine presents certain challenges, both with respect to 

transporting materials to the site and creating appropriate foundations and access 

tracks to service the development. 

Page 73 of 173



The construction phase of the proposed development will involve a number of 

elements, all of which will have the potential to impact upon the ecological interest of 

the site. The construction elements that are most likely to result in an ecological 

impact include: 

construction of an access track across the site; 

construction of turbine foundation and crane pad; 

installation of electrical cabling etc; 

establishment of a construction compound and a materials lay‐down area; and 

erection and commissioning of the wind turbine. 

The impact of all of the above construction processes are considered further within 

this section. 

Impacts on Habitats and Vegetation 

Ecological Appraisal and Impact Assessment 

Areas of woodland are important for nesting birds of prey, owls and other species. A 

survey of the exact track route is recommended to be undertaken if going through 

tress to assess whether any trees of conservation value will be felled, potentially 

rerouting the track. In most cases, planting of new trees can be used as mitigation for 

this. 

Unimproved acid grassland (B1.1) is listed as a habitat which a plan has been produced 

as part of the Renfrewshire LBAP, and so should not be constructed on. This is unlikely 

as this habitat is above the proposed turbine location. 

Improved acid grassland (B1.1) and improved grassland (B4) are a potentially 

important habitat for nesting skylarks Alauda arvensis and other ground nesting birds, 

when harvesting regimes are suitably timed and grazing pressure is low. These habitats 

are all found off site. Construction of tracks and placement of turbine bases on this 

habitat should be limited as much as possible. 

Acid flush (E2.1: M23a) is of conservation significance due to the amount of insects, 

mammals and birds which forage and breed in and around them. These habitats are 

not found within the vicinity of the proposed turbine. Construction activities on this 

area are likely to be of low impact. 

Mitigation and Recommendations: 

i. Movement of site vehicles should be restricted to a narrow marked working 

corridor from the start of surveying, in order to limit disturbance to adjacent 

habitats. If possible this should be carried out when the ground is reasonably 

dry. 

Page 74 of 173



ii. No refuelling of machinery or tree cutting machinery should take place within 

10m of watercourses and a bund should be placed around specific refuelling 

areas to avoid contamination of soil, ground water and watercourses. 

iii. Before the commencement of construction activities, consultation with SEPA 

will be carried out to agree a ‘ground water protection plan’ for the site and all 

operations. 

iv. It is recommended that soil removal and restoration should not take place 

during wet or frosty conditions. The movement of soil during heavy rain should 

also be avoided as excessive erosion is likely to occur, increasing the risk of 

water course pollution. 

Impacts on Breeding Birds 

No species of conservation concern recorded around the immediate turbine area 

during the breeding bird surveys. Construction in this area however is likely to deter 

any breeding birds from nesting close to the turbine and roads. Due to the availability 

of other areas for nesting birds it is concluded that this development will have a low 

significance of impact. 

Impact on Tawny Owls 

Male and female were observed during both surveys within the field located to the 

south of the turbine (~250m). Tawny Owls do not tend to fly at collision risk height, as 

they hunt voles and mice. Given this, the overall impact on owls is assessed as low. 

Impacts on Schedule 1 Raptors 

No breeding schedule 1 raptors have been noted during the raptor searches carried 

out within a 2km radius around the proposed turbine locations. 

Hen Harrier 

Hen Harriers have been occasionally observed flying over the Glenlora Estate area and 

surrounding areas over the autumn and winter time for hunting. Only a flight of one 

hen harrier was noted across the site and within 500m of the propsed turbine. Given 

the low numbers of hen harriers observed and small development footprint of the 

project it is not considered likely that the project would have a considerable adverse 

impact on the local population of Hen Harriers and the significance of impact would be 

low. In this regard no further survey work was considered to be necessary. 

Peregrine Falcon 

Peregrine Falcon is also a schedule 1 species that has been occasionally observed flying 

over the Glenlora Estate area and surrounding areas. One pair (male/female) flying 

together is the most common observation over the year. Since April, only a flight of a 

single hen harrier was noted across the site and 500m boundary. 

Page 75 of 173



Given their flying ability and the relatively small footprint of the development, it can be 

expected that any Peregrines will adapt their flight behaviour and avoid the turbine. 

There is one recorded fatality for this species in peer reviewed papers in the UK (Meek, 

E.R et al. 1993). Considering that there are few recorded mortalities of Peregrines and 

similar falcons in ornithological literature and they are generally also recognised as 

being at low risk of collision with wind turbines (Madders, M., et al. 2006); it is very 

unlikely that mortality will occur at a sufficiently significant rate to have an adverse 

impact on the local or national population. Therefore the magnitude of impact of the 

project is more likely to be low and the significance of impact is considered as low 

overall. 

Impacts on Bats 

The proposed development is surrounded by semi‐improved grazed grassland which is 

not a favoured foraging habitat for bats. The footprint area of the proposed 

development is sited on wet heath/acid grassland mosaic which is not suitable for 

foraging bats. 

Common pipistrelle and Soprano pipistrelle bats were observed during the survey 

period. 

No myotis/long eared or larger bats such as noctule or serotine leislers were observed 

during the survey period. 

Pipistrelle bats are low flying species which tend to follow along tree lines, hedgerows, 

dykes and water courses to forage and do not tend to feed over wide open land. Due 

to their foraging and flight patterns they are unlikely to be affected by the proposed 

turbine (Natural England 2008). 

The risk to Pipistrelle bat populations from this proposed development is assessed to 

be low due to the unsuitability of foraging habitat. 

Impacts on Otters and Watervoles 

As no suitable habitat was found for otter or water vole within the survey area, it is 

unlikely that the proposed development would affect either species. The risk to otter 

and watervole populations from this proposed development is assessed to be low due 

to the unsuitability of foraging habitat. 

Impacts on Badgers 

A single turbine development is unlikely to disturb the badgers. 

No areas of their territory will be lost to the development nor will there be any impact 

on any well established paths used to travel between setts and feeding areas in the 

woodland. As a result no mitigation measures are proposed as the risk to badger 

populations from this proposed development is assessed to be low. 

Page 76 of 173

3.3.10 Summary of Main Conclusions 



It is proposed to construct a single wind turbine and associated infrastructure on an 

area of semi‐improved grassland located at Glenlora Estate. A range of breeding bird 

species have been identified within the site and there is no evidence that protected 

species will be affected by the development. When accounting for mitigating factors 

the overall significance of impact of the proposal is assessed as being acceptable. 

3.3.11 Ecology Reports 

A copy of the following ecology reports are contained in Confidential Annex 3.3. 

a) Glenlora Ecology Scope Outline, March 2009; 

b) Glenlora Mammal Surveys, June‐August 2009; 

c) Glenlora Habitat Survey, November 2009; 

d) Glenlora Ecology Report April‐July 2009; 

e) Glenlora Bird Summary Report, November 2009. 

3.3.12 References 

Averis, A., Averis, B., Birks, J., Horsfled, D., Thompson, D. and Yeo, M. (2004) An 

illustrated guide to British Upland Vegetation. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 

Bat Conservation Trust Species Information leaflet, Pipistrelle Bat, 2005 

Bat Conservation Trust Species Information leaflet, Noctule Bat, 2005 

Bat Conservation Trust Species Information leaflet, Leislers Bat, 2005 

Brown, A.F. & Shepherd, K.B. 1993. A method for censusing upland breeding waders. 

Bird Study 40: 89–195. 

Butler J. M. & Roper t. J., 1996: Ectoparasites and sett use in European badgers. 

Animal Behaviour., 52: 621.629. 

Harris, S. Creswell, P. and Jeffries, D.J. (1989) “Surveying Badgers”. The Mammal 

Society, London. 133. 

Kruuk, H. 1989. The Social Badger. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Press, 

Meek, E.R., Ribbands, J.B., Christer, W.G., Davy, P.R., and Higgingson, I., (1993) The 

Effects of Aero‐generators on Moorland Bird Populations in the Orkney Islands, 

Scotland. Bird Study 40: 140 – 143. 

Page 77 of 173



Madders, M. & Whitfield D.P. Upland Raptors and the Assessment of Wind Farm 

Impacts, 2006 British Ornithologists’ Union, Ibis, 148, 43‐56. 

Nature Conservation Council (1988) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey. 

Peterborough, NCC. 

Natural England; Bats and onshore wind turbines: Interim guidance note, May 2008 

P Chanin, 1987. Otters. The Mammal Society, London. 

SNH. The ecology and conservation of water voles in upland habitats. Commissioned 

Report No. 099 (ROAME No. F99AC320), 2005 

R. Cox, P. D. Stewart and D. W. Macdonald, 1999. The Ectoparasites of the European 

Badger, Meles meles, and the Behavior of the Host‐Specific Flea, Paraceras melis 

Roper, T.J., Ostler, J.R., Schmid, T.K., Christian, S.F., 2001. Sett use in European Badger 

Meles meles. 

Page 78 of 173

3.4 Landscape and Visual Impact 




A landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA), including an outline cumulative LVIA, 

has been undertaken for this project in accordance with the relevant EIA Regulations. 

This section reports on the potential landscape and visual effects of the proposed 

Glenlora wind development, which will comprise of a single turbine, 84m to blade tip, 

and associated infrastructure. 

The aims of the assessment process are to promote the best “environmental fit” for 

the development through consideration of the existing landscape resource, the 

potential landscape and visual effects, design alternatives and any mitigation that 

might be possible. The assessment process refers to landscape value and, in particular, 

landscape designations and related planning policy, as well as landscape character and 

capacity for wind turbine development at this site. 


The methodology for the landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) and the 

cumulative landscape and visual assessment (CLVIA) has been undertaken in 

accordance with the methodology set out below and conforms with The Guidelines for 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second Edition (Landscape Institute and 

IEMA, 2002). 

Additional guidance has been taken from the following publications: 

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Landscape Assessment, SNH Review No. 

116, Land Use Consultants, 1999; 

Guidelines on Environmental Impacts of Wind farms and Small Scale 

Hydro Electric Schemes, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002; 

Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance, prepared 

by Horner + Maclennan and Envision for Scottish Natural Heritage, The 

Scottish Renewables Forum and the Scottish Society of Directors of 

Planning, February 2007; 

Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland 

Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage publication, 

prepared by the University of Sheffield and Landuse Consultants 2002; 

Guidance: Cumulative Effects of Wind Farms, Scottish Natural Heritage 

Advisory Service, Version 2, 13/04/05; 

Guidelines on Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA Second 

Edition), Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental 

Management and Assessment, 2002; 

Page 79 of 173



Visual Assessment of Wind Farms: Best Practice, University of 

Newcastle, Scottish Natural Heritage Report No. F01AA303A, 2002. 

Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms in Respect of 

the Natural Heritage, Scottish Natural Heritage, Policy Statement 

No.02/02, March 2009. 

3.4.3 Assessment Methodology 

Defining the Study Area 

An overall Study Area of 25km radius from the site centre has been established based 

on SNH guidance. The study area was further defined for each part of the assessment 

process as follows: 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) – the study area was 

restricted to the application site, access routes, and the potential Zone 

of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) from where there may be a view of the 

development at up to 25km distance from the site centre. 

Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (CLVIA) ‐ 

considered existing wind energy development, proposals that have 

permissions, and those that are currently the subject of undetermined 

applications within a 50km radius of the site centre. Some pre‐ 

application wind energy development proposals have been 

considered, but not all, as information about them may be confidential 

and details are likely to change as the assessment progresses. 

The assessment has been accompanied by analysis of a computer model of the 

proposed wind turbine and existing landform (DTM) to produce ZTV graphics (zone of 

theoretical visibility), wireframes and photomontages of the proposed development. 

These graphics provide an indication of the proposed wind turbine as it would appear 

in the landscape, once constructed. 

The ZTV was calculated using the ReSoft © WindFarm computer software to produce 

areas of potential visibility of any part of the proposed wind project calculated to blade 

tip and hub‐height. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development 

and vegetation, which can significantly reduce the area and extent of actual visibility in 

the field and as such provides the limits of the visual assessment study area. 

Figure 3.4.3 illustrates the ZTV for 84m to blade tip at 1:250,000 scale, Figure 3.4.4 

illustrates the ZTV to a hub height of 60m at this scale, while Figures 3.4.5a‐c illustrate 

the blade tip ZTV at a more detailed scale. 

Consultation and Scope 

Consultation was undertaken with statutory consultees through a ‘screening opinion’. 

Further consultation was conducted with representatives from Renfrewshire Council 

and SNH to agree the scope of the Landscape and Visual assessment, choice of 

assessment viewpoints, design options, and mitigation. SNH agreed the proposed 

viepoints were acceptable and sensible given the size of the proposed development. 

The manager of Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park was also contacted (10/11/09) in order 

Page 80 of 173



to confirm the suitability of the viewpoints, although no reply was received at the time 

of writing. 

The scope of the assessment (Table 3.4.1) has been established on the basis of 

consultation process and professional judgement. 

Landscape Issues Description 

Landscape Character The effects of the proposed development on the landscape character and 

quality of the site area, as defined by the Renfrewshire Landscape 

Assessment and site survey. 

Landscape Elements Direct or physical effects on landscape elements. 

Visual Issues Description 

Local Community Views from the local rural community, particularly from sensitive receptors 

near the site and from local settlements which lie within the ZTV. Views 

from roads and popular tourist / walker destinations and hilltops will also be 

taken into consideration. 

Landscape 

Designations 

Views from the Areas of Landscape Significance, Historic Gardens and 

Designed Landscapes as well as views from other areas of landscape 

character as perceived by people. 

Tourist Destinations Views from popular outdoor tourist destinations which entail an 

appreciation of the landscape, and the setting of features and the visitor 

experience. 

Major Transport 

Routes and 

Recreational Paths. 

Transport routes including the A760 and the A737. 

Cumulative 

Assessment 

The cumulative assessment includes viewpoint assessment within the Study 

Area where simultaneous and/or successive views of more than one wind 

turbine may be achieved, and sequential cumulative assessment, where 

more than one wind turbine may be viewed along transport routes 

(simultaneous or successive). 

Table 3.4.1 ‐ Scope of the landscape and visual assessment 

Describing the Baseline Landscape Resource 

This part of the LVIA refers to the existing landscape character, quality or condition and 

value of the landscape and landscape elements on the site and within the surrounding 

area, as well as general trends in landscape change across the study area. A brief 

description of the existing land use of the area includes reference to settlements, 

transport routes, vegetation cover, as well as landscape planning designations, local 

landmarks, and tourist destinations. 

Assessing Landscape Effects 

Landscape Effects are defined by the Landscape Institute as “changes to landscape 

elements, characteristics, character, and qualities of the landscape as a result of 

development”. The potential landscape effects, occurring during the construction and 

operation period, may therefore include, but are not restricted to, the following: 

Changes to landscape elements: the addition of new elements or the 

removal of trees, vegetation, and buildings and other characteristic 

elements of the landscape character type. 

Page 81 of 173



Changes to landscape quality: degradation or erosion of landscape 

elements and patterns, particularly those that form characteristic 

elements of landscape character types. 

Changes to landscape character: landscape character may be affected 

through the incremental effect on characteristic elements, landscape 

patterns and qualities and the cumulative addition of new features, 

the magnitude of which is sufficient to alter the overall landscape 

character type of a particular area. 

Cumulative landscape effects: where more than one wind farm may 

lead to a potential landscape effect. 

Development may have a direct (physical) effect on the landscape as well as an indirect 

effect or effect perceived from outwith the landscape character area. 

Sensitivity 

According to the GLVIA, the sensitivity of the landscape resource is defined as: 

‘The degree to which a particular landscape type or area can accommodate change 

arising from a particular development, without detrimental effects on its character 

[which] will vary with existing land use; the pattern and scale of the landscape; visual 

enclosure/openness of views , and distribution of visual receptors; the scope for 

mitigation, which would be in character with the existing landscape; the value placed 

on the landscape…The determination of the sensitivity of the landscape resource is 

based upon an evaluation of each key element or characteristic of the landscape likely 

to be affected.’ 

Magnitude 

To assess the scale or magnitude of landscape effects, the GLVIA suggests: 

‘…it may be helpful to rank or quantify individual effects within a series of levels or 

categories, indicating a gradation from high to low…There is no standard methodology 

for the quantification of the scale or magnitude of relative effects. However, it is 

generally based on the scale or degree of change to the landscape resource, the nature 

of the effect and its duration including whether it is permanent or temporary. It may 

also be appropriate to consider whether the effects are reversible.’ 

The following general criteria outlined in Tables 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 below, have been used 

in the assessment of significance and magnitude of any direct or indirect impact on 

landscape components: 

Page 82 of 173

Sensitivity Landscape 

Component 


Definition 


High Scale Enclosed or small scale diverse landscapes. 

Quality Where the landscape is largely intact, coherent and 

balanced. 

Value Valued landscape character with important components 

of a particular character that are susceptible to small 

changes: small exceptional landscapes; flat or rolling, 

smooth or sweeping, high moorlands; remoteness; is in 

excellent or good condition with valued and/or 

distinguished features; and/or considered attractive and 

valued nationally e.g. National Park and National Scenic 

Areas; and locally e.g. Green Belt and public open space 

within settlements. 

Cultural Heritage Landscape contains Category ‘A’ listed buildings, 

Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Non‐statutory List of sites 

likely to be of national importance, Historic Gardens and 

Designed Landscapes. 

Level of Intrusion Landscape contains no or very few intrusive or discordant 

features. 

Medium Scale Medium scale landscape 

Quality Where the landscape is no longer intact and coherent 

and/or may have evidence of alteration, degradation or 

erosion. 

Value Landscape of moderately valued characteristics, 

reasonably tolerant of change; areas in good condition 

with some distinguished or valued features; and/or with 

local importance e.g. Areas of Landscape Significance; 

landscapes which in a local context are unique or rare. 

Cultural Heritage Landscape contains Category ‘B’ and ‘C’ (S) listed 

buildings; are/or sites listed on the Scottish Sites and 

Monuments Record and the National Monuments Record 

of Scotland or regional and local importance. 

Level of Intrusion Landscape contains a number of confusing, discordant or 

intrusive features. 

Low Scale Large scale landscape. 

Quality Where the landscape is of low quality and may be 

despoiled or degraded. 

Value Landscape is relatively unimportant, not valued locally, the 

nature of which is potentially tolerant to substantial 

change e.g. of poor condition, with weak landscape 

structure and few valued or distinguished features, large 

scale intervention i.e. tree felling or mineral extraction. 

Cultural Heritage Landscape contains archaeological sites of lesser 

importance and/or non‐inventory gardens and designed 

landscapes. 

Level of Intrusion The landscape contains many confusing, discordant or 

intrusive elements. 

Table 3.4.2 ‐ Sensitivity of existing landscape components 

Page 83 of 173



Magnitude Definition 

High Where the project may result in a major change, which is easily discernible to key 

features/elements of the baseline conditions such that a noticeable change to the 

landscape components results. Change: noticeable. 

Medium Where the project may result in a moderate, but still discernible change, loss or 

alteration to one or more key features/elements of the base line conditions such 

that the underlying landscape components are partially changed. Change: partial. 

Low Where the project may result in a minor loss/alteration to some of the 

elements/features of the baseline conditions. The landscape components would 

be largely intact and similar to pre‐development circumstances/patterns. Change: 

distinguishable. 

Negligible Where the project may result in a very slight loss/alteration to the baseline 

conditions. Change: barely distinguishable. 

Table 3.4.3 ‐ Magnitude of impact 

The level of an effect is determined by the combination of sensitivity and magnitude of 

change. The following matrix, Table 3.4.4, is based on the general principles of The 

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Second Edition 2002, by the 

Landscape Institute. 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Sensitivity 

High Medium Low 

High High High Medium 

Medium High Medium Low 

Low Medium Low Negligible/Positive 

Negligible Low Negligible/Positive Negligible/Positive 

Key: Significant in terms of the EIA Regulations 

Not Significant 

Table 3.4.4 ‐ Magnitude and sensitivity matrix for assessing overall level of effect 

Assessing Visual Effects 

Visual effects are recognised by the Landscape Institute as a subset of landscape 

effects and are concerned wholly with the effect of the development on views, and the 

general visual amenity. The visual effects are identified for different receptors 

(people) who will experience the view at their places of residence, during recreational 

activities, at work, or when travelling through the area. These may include: 

Visual effect: a change to an existing view, views or wider visual amenity as 

a result of development or the loss of particular landscape elements or 

features already present in the view. 

Cumulative visual effects: the cumulative or incremental visibility of similar 

types of development may combine to have a cumulative visual effect. 

Page 84 of 173



o Simultaneously: where a number of developments may be viewed 

from a single fixed viewpoint simultaneously, within the viewer’s 

field of view without moving. 

o Successively: where a number of developments may be viewed from 

a single viewpoint successively by turning around at a viewpoint, to 

view in other directions. 

o Sequentially: where a number of developments may be viewed 

sequentially or repeatedly from a range of locations when travelling 

along a route. 

o Perceived: where the knowledge that certain developments exist has 

an effect on the receptor whether or not the developments can be 

seen. 

The general principles adopted for the assessment of visual effects were taken from 

The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Second Edition, produced 

by the Landscape Institute, 2002. The following specific visual assessment criteria in 

Tables 3.4.5 and 3.4.6 below have been used to assess the sensitivity of visual quality 

and magnitude of visual impact. 

Sensitivity Definition of The View 

High Good quality, distinctive and valued nationally. 

Contains very few intrusive features. 

Visible by sensitive visual receptors such as: strategic or significant recreational 

footpaths; community path networks; important landscape features; beauty 

spots; picnic areas; built and cultural heritage buildings/structures; valued views 

enjoyed by the community; and residential properties. 

Medium Attractive and valued locally. 

Visible by less sensitive visual receptors such as: land recreational users where the 

landscape adds to their enjoyment; secondary footpaths; road users; or travellers 

on trains or other transport routes. 

Low Unattractive and not valued locally. 

The setting of built and cultural heritage buildings/structures would not be 

affected. 

Contains a number of discordant or intrusive elements. 

Visible by visual receptors of low sensitivity such as: land/water recreational users 

that do not rely on the appreciation of the landscape; and views from places of 

work. 

Table 3.4.5 ‐ Visual sensitivity 

Magnitude Definition of Visual Impact 

High A major or easily discernible change to key elements of the baseline conditions. 

Introduction of uncharacteristic elements. 

Noticeable change to visual components. 

This change in view is very prominent involving substantial obstruction of existing 

view. The project would be conspicuous and distinct, and would dominate or 

control the view. 

Medium A moderate (partial loss/alteration) but still discernible change to one or more key 

elements of the baseline conditions. 

Introduction of prominent but not uncharacteristic elements. 

Partial change to visual components where the change may be prominent but not 

substantially different in scale and character from the surroundings and the wider 

setting. 

Page 85 of 173



This change in view may involve partial obstruction of the existing view, as the 

development may be an obvious feature in the landscape/townscape. 

Low A minor, but still discernible change to some elements of the baseline conditions. 

Introduction of elements that may not be uncharacteristic with the surrounding 

landscape/townscape. 

Visual components would be left largely intact 

This change in view would be slightly distinguishable, but the development would 

be less apparent. 

Negligible A change of indiscernible nature such that the baseline conditions remain almost 

or completely unchanged. 

This change in view would be barely distinguishable from its surroundings. The 

development would be inconspicuous and not obvious. 

Table 3.4.6 ‐ Magnitude of visual impact 

Pan 45 recognises that ‘the visual effect of turbines will be dependent on the distance 

over which a wind farm may be viewed’. It provides a general guide to the effect which 

distance has on the perception of the development in an open landscape, Table 3.4.7: 

Perception 

Up to 2km Likely to be a prominent feature 

2‐5km Relatively prominent feature 

5‐15km Only prominent in clear visibility – seen as part of the wider landscape 

15‐39km Only seen in very clear visibility – a minor element in the landscape 

Table 3.4.7 ‐ General perception of a wind farm in an open landscape 

Regardless of the visual sensitivity and the potential degree of change, the visual 

composition of a view from a given viewpoint location may be enhanced or marred by 

the proposed design of the development. A key factor to consider will be the opinion 

of the viewers. Public opinions as to the perception of wind farms and their effects on 

the existing landscape resource are varied. The results of research into public opinions 

of wind farms consistently finds that the majority of people do not find wind turbines 

visually unsightly, however, letters to local newspapers clearly show that a minority of 

people find them extremely unsightly. 

In the context of this project, the visual effects during operation are always direct and 

long term (reversible after 25 years), with the exception of any perceived cumulative 

effects, which are indirect. Effects may also be non‐cumulative or cumulative. Despite 

the majority of people’s positive or neutral attitudes toward wind developments 

generally, none of the visual effects relating to this project have been considered 

positive in order to present a worst case view of any effects. 

Viewpoint Analysis Method 

Viewpoint analysis is used to assist the LVIA from selected viewpoints within the study 

area. The purpose of this is to assess both the level of visual impact for particular 

receptors and to help guide the assessment of the overall effect on visual amenity and 

landscape character. The assessment involves visiting the viewpoint location; viewing 

wireframes and photomontages prepared for each viewpoint location, with fieldwork 

carried out in good weather. Illustrated turbines always face the viewer to give a 

worst case impression of the development under consideration. 

Page 86 of 173



Methodology for Production of Visualisations 

With the views selected, the locations were confirmed and photographed with a digital 

SLR camera set to produce photographs equivalent to that of a manual 35mm SLR 

camera with a fixed 50mm focal length lens. Panoramic images were produced from 

these photographs to record a 76 angle of view illustrating a typical extent of view 

that would be experienced by a viewer at the viewpoint when facing in one direction 

and also provides an indication of the visual context of the proposed development. 

Viewpoint assessments also accounted for the wider context of views outside the 76, 

with photographs and wirelines of this wider context produced for a number of the 

cumulative viewpoints. 

Each view was illustrated using a panoramic photograph, a wireframe and, in some 

cases, a photomontage. Wirelines and photomontages were produced using Resoft© 

WindFarm software and utilizing OS dtm height data covering the study area. A 

viewing distance of 30cm was adopted for the A3 visualizations, which conforms to the 

SNH guidance (Visual Representation of Windfarms – Good Practice Guidance, 2007). 

Visual Assessment of Cultural Heritage Features 

An assessment of the visual effects likely to be experienced by people visiting cultural 

heritage features may differ from an assessment of effects on the setting of that 

feature made by an archaeologist because the focus of the assessment is the visual 

receptors or people in those locations and their ability to enjoy and appreciate those 

features which may or may not include the cultural heritage value. 

The assessment of sensitivity follows the methodology for visual assessment and 

particular consideration is given to whether the feature is publicly accessible, the 

location, and context of the view (in terms of landscape value, quality, and capacity), 

the visitor experience, and the importance or popularity of the view. Consideration is 

also given to the type of feature (such as an upstanding scheduled ancient monument, 

Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes, and listed buildings) and its relationship to 

the surroundings or ‘setting’. In the case of Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes 

for example, the location of buildings would often have been chosen to be ‘set’ with a 

particular landscape context and to relate to particular features or views in the wider 

landscape, which was often under the control or landownership of the original owner. 

In order to have a setting a feature must usually be upstanding and recognisable above 

ground. 

Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment 

In addition to the Landscape Institute methodology for LVIA, the viewpoint analysis has 

considered the emerging guidance from Scottish Natural Heritage’s Guidance: 

Cumulative Effects of Wind Farms, Scottish Natural Heritage Advisory Service, Version 

2, 13/04/05. 

Predicting Cumulative Landscape Effects 

The assessment considers the extent to which the proposed development, in 

combination with others, may change landscape character through either incremental 

effect on characteristic elements, landscape patterns and quality, or by the cumulative 

Page 87 of 173



addition of new features. Identified cumulative landscape effects are described in 

relation to each individual Landscape Character Area and for any designated landscape 

areas that exist within the study area. 

Predicting Cumulative Visual Effects 

The assessment of cumulative visual effects involves reference to the cumulative 

visibility ZTV maps and the cumulative viewpoint analysis. Cumulative visibility maps 

are analysed to identify the residential and recreational locations and travel routes 

where cumulative visual effects on receptors (e.g people) may occur as a result of the 

proposed development. 

With potential receptor locations identified, cumulative effects on individual receptor 

groups are then explored through viewpoint analysis, which involves site visits 

informed by wireframe illustrations that include other wind turbine developments. 

Travel routes are driven to assess the visibility of different wind developments and 

inform the assessment of sequential cumulative effects that may occur along a route 

or journey. 

Cumulative Viewpoint Selection 

Cumulative viewpoints are selected to illustrate: 

The relationship of the proposed development to other wind energy 

development within the same or adjacent Landscape Character Areas; 

Viewpoints in sensitive or designated landscapes where more than one wind 

energy development may be visible; 

Locations where more than one wind energy development may be visible 

simultaneously; 

Locations where different wind energy development may be visible 

successively. 

Evaluation of Cumulative Landscape and Visual Effects 

The level and significance of cumulative landscape and visual effects is determined in 

the same manner as the main LVIA, using Table 3.4.4. The additional criteria required 

to evaluate cumulative effects relate to the certainty of any effects of currently built 

projects; the likely effects of approved but not built projects; and the uncertain effects 

of known proposed wind farms currently within the planning system. 

Locations of existing, planned and proposed wind farms were obtained within a 50km 

radius of the Glenlora site. A map showing these can be found on Figure 3.4.6. This 

map formed the basis for the assessment of cumulative effects. 

3.4.4 Landscape Design Considerations 

Project Description 

The proposed Glenlora wind turbine would comprise the installation and operation of 

a single wind turbine to the west of Glasgow, near Lochwinnoch. 

Page 88 of 173



The project will include a single turbine with a maximum turbine height of 84m and an 

expected rated capacity of 800kW. 

Landscape Design Considerations 

In accordance with SNH’s Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms, 

updated March 2009, the site location would lie on the border between a Zone 1 and 

Zone 2 area, which are described as follows: 

Zone 1: Lowest natural heritage sensitivity identifies areas at the broad scale 

with least sensitivity to wind farms, with the greatest opportunity for 

development, within which overall a large number of developments could be 

acceptable in natural heritage terms, so long as they are undertaken sensitively 

and with due regard to cumulative impact. 

Zone 2: Medium natural heritage sensitivity identifies areas with some 

sensitivities to wind farms. However, by careful choice of location within these 

areas there is often scope to accommodate development of an appropriate 

scale, siting and design (again having regards to cumulative effects) in a way 

which is acceptable in natural heritage terms. 

However, this above assessment is the result of a broad based study and provides an 

indication only. The Glenlora site has been subject to LVIA in accordance with the 

relevant EIA Regulations. 

Turbine Selection 

The LVIA has been assessed on the basis of a turbine up to a maximum height of 84m 

to tip. The candidate turbine is the Enercon E48 which has a sleek modern 

appearance; a balanced rotor to tower ratio; and a tapered tower that minimises the 

appearance of the tower by giving it a more ‘refined’ shape. 

Site Entrance and Access Tracks 

Access to the Glenlora turbine would be along a new section of road ~450‐550m from 

Glenlora house to the turbine location. An area of hardstanding will be required 

adjacent to the turbine. At this stage, it is intended that all aggregates will be sourced 

from an on‐site borrow pit. 

The construction phase will require a site construction compound for laydown of the 

turbine components, and portacabins and welfare facilities for the construction 

workers. These will be positioned near the access to the site and will remain in place 

for the duration of the construction. 

Site Substation and Electrical Cables 

It is intended that the new substation cubical would be located just off the access track 

near the turbine. Electrical cables will be laid in trenches alongside the access track 

from the turbine to the substation. 

Grid Connection 

Page 89 of 173



The project will be connected to the local grid network operated by Scottish & 

Southern. It is expected to involve a connection to the existing 11kV overhead line. 

Reducing Landscape and Visual Effects: Construction 

Potential landscape and visual effects, likely to occur during the construction period, 

may result from the visibility of construction activity, use of temporary laydown and 

erection of site compounds, loss of land to development and up‐grading of the existing 

access road: 

i) The construction phase will require a site construction compound for laydown 

of turbine components, and portacabins and welfare facilities for the 

construction workers. These will be positioned near the access to the site and 

will remain in place for the duration of the construction. 

ii) Permanent land‐take in terms of hard standing and access roads will be 

minimised. 

iii) The access track has been designed to be the shortest practical distance and 

routed to extend, by ~450‐550m in total from the existing minor road. Best 

practice will be adopted in the design and construction to avoid erosion and 

creation of unsightly tracks. It is not proposed to fence off the wind turbine 

and existing land management practice is expected to continue around the 

turbine. 

iv) The proposed grid connection, will be by underground cable from the turbine 

to the onsite substation building, and then by buried cable or wooden pole 

11kV overhead line to the existing 11kV line. The switchgear housing will be 

located adjacent to the access track and will be designed to avoid landscape 

and visual impacts particularly with regard to location, colour of materials and 

reinstatement works. 

All disturbed areas resulting from the construction (around turbine bases, access tracks 

and on site compounds and lay‐down areas) will be restored upon completion of the 

construction period. 

Reducing Landscape and Visual Effects: Operation 

The main potential landscape and visual effects to be considered during operation 

include effects on landscape character, visual amenity and views caused by the 

presence of the turbine (introducing movement to the landscape), a new access track 

and associated switchgear building: 

v) A Modern turbine will be used that has a simple and balanced appearance 

with three blades and tapered, tubular towers. 

vi) The turbine will be semi‐matt and light or pale grey in colour to reduce its 

contrast with the background sky. 

vii) A single turbine is proposed. This should be easily accommodated within the 

landscape. 

Page 90 of 173



viii) The turbine will be located within relative proximity of electricity users and as 

such the design will appear appropriate and rational within its landscape 

setting. 

ix) Access tracks will be partially reinstated to reduce their width to 3‐4 m and 

the verges reseeded to help soil stabilisation and to minimise the visual 

impact. 

x) The turbine is located a sufficient distance away from settlements and 

residences to avoid the appearance of the development over impinging upon 

these in general views and / or obstructing or blocking views from these 

properties. 

Decommissioning 

All of the visible, above ground structures (turbine, transformers, sub station and grid 

connection) will be removed upon decommissioning, thus rendering the landscape and 

visual effects of the development as reversible. There would therefore, be no 

landscape and visual effects remaining after decommissioning. 

3.4.5 Existing Landscape Resource 

Information on the existing landscape resource has been collected by reference to 

Local Plans, OS maps and relevant literature, including the National programme of 

landscape assessment for Renfrewshire as well as information gathered from field 

surveys. 

The proposed site location and surrounding landscape types are illustrated in Figure 

3.4.1 (in the Landscape Figures document). 

Broad Landscape Context 

Within the Clyde Valley area ten Regional Character Areas (RCA’s) have been 

identified. The Glenlora project is located in the Clyde Basin Farmlands area. 

‘This RCA comprises much of the lowland area of the Clyde Basin surrounding the 

Glasgow conurbation. It includes the plateau farmlands that form the transition from 

the enclosing moorlands; the rolling farmlands lying over glacial and fluvio‐glacial 

deposits and the remaining floodplain farmlands on fluvial deposits. This is the most 

settled area within the study area and has the greatest density of designed landscapes. 

Urban areas, focused on the Glasgow conurbation, occupy the central part of the zone. 

Green corridors and urban greenspace are found within the urban area. Areas within 

this RCA have been subject to mineral working and industrial development, resulting in 

areas of derelict or damaged land.’ 

There are further classifications to describe landscape character areas and individual 

landscape units. Within this further classification Glenlora lies in Area 10: broad valley 

lowland: 

‘These open valleys are underlain by a variety of rocks, principally millstone grits and 

limestones. These have proved to be less resistant to erosion than the harder basalts 

Page 91 of 173



which form the moorlands between the Clyde Valley and Ayrshire and the Kilsyth 

Hills/Campsie Fells. These harder rocks stand as steep escarpments and slopes along 

the north‐west side of the upper valley of the Black Cart and along the north side of 

Strathkelvin. Both valleys include igneous intrusions and dykes, creating the craggy hills 

to the south west of Johnstone, and Bar Hill and Croy Hill, to the south of Kilsyth.’ 

‘Glacial erosion has created broad, relatively flat bottomed breach valleys. The upper 

Black Cart valley forms part of a lowland corridor between the Clyde basin and the 

Ayrshire basin, while Strathkelvin forms a lowland route between the Clyde and the 

Forth at Grangemouth. The low‐lying valleys are often wet, as evidenced by lochs, 

drainage channels and occasional flooding incidences. Barr Loch and Castle Semple 

Loch, in particular, comprise important landscape features. They are also of nature 

conservation (particularly for birds) and recreation importance, as recognised by the 

establishment of the RSPB Reserve at Lochwinnoch.’ 

‘Woodland cover in these areas is generally limited to policy woodland (e.g. at 

Twechar) or narrow broadleaf woods along the short, steep burns which drain the 

valley sides. The River Calder, draining into Lochwinnoch is one of the best examples of 

these burns. Agricultural land use is dominated by improved grassland with some 

arable cultivation on the valley floors, grading into rougher grassland on the valley 

slopes’ 

‘The valleys’ communication function is reflected in the presence of the Forth‐Clyde 

Canal along the southern side of Strathkelvin, railways (both existing and disused) and 

important road corridors. The valleys also provide lowland routes for electricity pylons. 

Other modern features include communication masts on the valley slopes. While 

settlements such as Lochwinnoch, and Kilsyth have experienced some growth, this has 

been limited by steep slopes, on the one hand, and wet valley floors on the other. 

Within Strathkelvin, there has been a history of shallow mining for coal and ores along 

the valley sides and many of the bings are visible in the otherwise agricultural 

landscape. Urban influences grow as these valleys approach the urban area, with 

extensive areas of housing around the north and south‐western edges of Glasgow.’ 

Other landscape characters covered by the Renfrewshire Landscape Assessment in the 

vicinity of the project are Area 6: Rugged upland farmland, to the north and south, and 

Area 20: Rugged moorland hills, to the north‐west. 

Rugged upland farmland: 

‘North and west of Newton Mearns, the smooth plateau farmlands and higher plateau 

moorlands give way to a more rugged farmland landscape, forming a transition to the 

rugged moorland area further north‐west.’ 

‘These landscapes are, for the large part underlain by millstone grits and carboniferous 

limestone with peripheral, higher areas of basalt. They are characterised, to a greater 

or lesser degree, by a rugged, hummocky landscape of steep, craggy bluffs interspersed 

with more gentle farmland. Many of the troughs and valleys are flooded, providing 

Page 92 of 173



reservoirs for urban areas to the north. The area south of Gleniffer Braes is more gentle 

and plateau‐like. 

‘Woodland cover is relatively extensive, with many of the rugged hillocks covered in 

stands of beech or pine. The more hospitable areas are mostly improved pasture 

(mainly given over to sheep farming). Beech hedgerow trees are a distinctive feature in 

many parts of this landscape, often associated with past estates. Farms and villages 

tend to be concentrated in more sheltered areas, particularly near the northern edge of 

these areas.’ 

‘Although this area does not include urban areas, influences include electricity 

infrastructure and masts, particularly around Gleniffer Braes, some forestry, isolated 

suburban development, settlement expansion and the aural impact of aircraft 

approaching or leaving Glasgow Airport. From the northern part of this area fine views 

are possible over the Glasgow conurbation (and well beyond).’ 

Rugged moorland hills: 

‘The hills share a common geology, being underlain by basalts which are more resistant 

than surrounding rocks and have withstood glacial and fluvial erosion to stand as 

rugged uplands around the north western part of the Clyde Basin. The southern edge of 

the Campsie Fells/Kilsyth Hills is defined by the Campsie Fault, creating the escarpment 

slopes along the edge of the Kelvin Valley. Summits range in height between about 400 

metres in the Kilpatrick Hills, to 500 metres in the Renfrew Heights and 580 metres in 

the Campsie Fells.’ 

‘Landcover on these hills is dominated by moorland plant communities including 

heather (particularly on the Renfrew Heights and Kilpatrick Hills) and rough grasslands. 

Extensive areas of peatland are found on the Renfrew Heights. Fields, enclosed within 

walls and hedges push onto some of the slopes around the edges of these hills. Some of 

these have been abandoned and are becoming invaded by bracken or rushes, while 

their boundaries decline. The hills include area of nature conservation interest, 

including those associated with small stream, burns and wetlands.’ 

‘Commercial conifer plantations are found in all three areas. Within the Renfrew 

Heights they are concentrated in the shallow headwater valley of the River Gryfe. In the 

Kilpatricks, coniferous plantations are found mainly on the rolling plateau area, though 

woodland does extend down the slope towards Bowling on the north side of the Clyde. 

Within the Campsie Fells/Kilsyth Hills, extensive coniferous woodland is limited to the 

plateau and, with the exception of a number of much smaller blocks, does not impinge 

upon the south facing escarpment.’ 

‘Settlement in these exposed upland areas is generally very sparse. However, all three 

areas of moorland include reservoirs which were constructed to supply nearby urban 

areas with water. The uplands are also of recreational importance for the Glasgow 

conurbation. The hills provide long views across the Glasgow conurbation, emphasising 

the contrast between the remote upland and the developed lowlands.’ 

Page 93 of 173



Landscape Guidelines 

The main issues affecting the broad valley lowland landscape type are summarised as 

follows: 

Development pressures associated with settlements within, or bordering the 

valleys; 

Pressures to upgrade or improve transport infrastructure, particularly roads 

and concerns that this could result in the loss of important local landscape 

features and characteristic qualities, introduce modern engineering structures 

into the valley landscape, and modify people’s perceptions of the landscape; 

The importance of conserving historic sites and their context, and encouraging 

awareness and appreciation of them; 

The need to maintain field boundaries (hedges, walls, field boundary trees), 

particularly on the higher slopes where there has been a decline or loss; 

The importance of minimising the impact of mineral working on the valley 

landscapes; 

The need to strike a balance between the reclamation of mineral sites and the 

conservation of industrial archaeology; 

The importance of encouraging water management which is sensitive to the 

character of these naturally low‐lying and wet valley landscapes; 

The importance of maintaining nature conservation interest, particularly 

related to the valley lochs. 

There are no specific landscape guidelines for each of the different character areas, 

within Renfrewshire, only for the area as a whole. The guideline appropriate to wind 

energy states: 

‘The landscape impact of wind farms reflects a variety of factors. Most significant, 

perhaps, is the size of individual turbines (the blade tip of largest being some 100 

metres above the ground), the vertical, modern and industrial appearance and the 

movement that they introduce to the landscape. Opinions vary with some considering 

the turbines to be dramatic almost sculptural landscape features. Others argue that 

turbines can appear incongruous and intrusive, particularly in a sparsely developed 

upland or coastal location. Clearly, the effects increase with the number and density of 

turbines in any single wing farm development. Associated infrastructure, including 

buildings and service roads can also be visible features. Factors which are likely to 

affect a scheme’s landscape impact may include: 

‐ Height of turbines and number and length of blades; 

‐ The relationship between individual turbines within a development (linear, 

clustered, dispersed); 

‐ The relationship between turbines and the skyline, particularly when viewed 

from sensitive locations; 

‐ The noise generated and the proximity/likely proximity of people to hear it; 

‐ The nature o the local landform and landcover and the scope for full or partial 

screening; 

‐ The dominant alignment of key landscape features – a wind farm will normally 

be most obvious in a landscape dominated by horizontal rather than vertical 

elements; 

Page 94 of 173



‐ The complexity and diversity of the landscape and its real or apparent 

‘wildness’.’ 

‘Cumulative impact where more than one wind farm in visible from a particular 

location or where travellers encounter two or more in close succession are a key 

concern (sequential impact). This can change perceptions of the landscape in question, 

three thresholds may be identified in considering the impact of wind farm, or similar 

developments on the landscape: 

‐ Where a wind farm is introduced into a landscape where none other currently 

exists. Although there may be specific visual impacts (i.e. effects for particular 

viewpoints or groups of people) it may be that the development can be 

accommodated as a feature without altering significantly the intrinsic character 

of the landscape in question; 

‐ Where the number of wind farms in a given landscape (not necessarily all visible 

from a single location) means that this form of development becomes a factor 

in influencing the character of the landscape in question. 

‐ Where the number of wind farms in a given landscape (again, not necessarily 

visible from a single location) means that this form of development becomes the 

dominant influence on the character of the landscape in question, the result is a 

wind energy landscape.’ 

‘The present level of wind power development in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley is low, 

although some prominent and distinctive landscapes have been targeted in the past, 

e.g. the Campsie Fells. There is much interest in adjacent hill areas in Ayrshire and 

Dumfries and Galloway. With growing concerns about carbon dioxide emissions, and 

many farmers and landowners looking to boost rural incomes, it is likely that these 

pressures will increase in the future. It is conceivable, therefore, that wind farm 

developments in neighbouring local authority areas (i.e. outside the Structure Plan 

Area) could compound the visual impacts of any permitted within the study area and 

that the cumulative effect could be significant, particularly in the south west. This 

scenario demands close liaison between planning officials in neighbouring authorities.’ 

‘The Strathclyde structure plan (Strathclyde Regional Council, 1995) identified Preferred 

and Intermediate Areas for wind farms. Within Glasgow and the Clyde Valley, these 

areas are concentrated on the moorland plateau dividing the Clyde and Ayr Basins. 

Given the open and simple character of these uplands, the capacity of the landscape to 

absorb a number of wind farms may be limited. However, the tendency for transport 

routes to run across the hills, rather than along them, and their concentration within 

valley corridors, may help to reduce cumulative and sequential impacts in these areas.’ 

Landuse, Landscape Change and Visual Context 

The project is sited on the south side of Lairdside Hill, looking down over the town of 

Lochwinnoch and Castle Semple Loch. Scattered across the landscape are a large 

number of mostly deciduous shelter belts, and some of the turbines of the built 

projects of Ardrossan and Dalry Community can be seen to the south‐west. 

Page 95 of 173



The nearest properties are the farmsteads and houses of Gillsyard and Fairhills to the 

south‐east, Cockston to the south‐west and Glenlora farmhouse to the south. Other 

farms with associated traditional style houses and a variety of farm buildings 

consistent with modern farming practice are scattered in the near vicinity in most 

directions. 

The nearest settlements to the proposed scheme are the towns of Lochwinnoch (~2km 

to the east‐south‐east), Kilbirnie (~4km to the south‐west) and Beith (~5km to the 

south). The main transport routes in the area are the A760 ~2.1km to the south‐east 

and the A737 ~4.2km to the south‐east, which are all mainly used for day‐to‐day 

business and for commuters to and from the city of Glasgow. 

Due to its elevated position, there are some fairly long distance views available from 

the site, particularly to the Renfrewshire Heights though the undulations in the 

landscape significantly restrict views. The views are generally a mixture of agricultural, 

semi‐rural and urban with a frequent scattering of trees in shelter belts breaking up 

the views. 

Landscape Planning Designations 

Section 1.3.2 provides a description of the Planning Policy context for the area. The 

proposed site is not located in an area with any particular planning designations. 

However, a number of landscape designated areas and cultural heritage features fall 

within the blade tip ZTV illustrated in Figures 3.4.3 to 3.4.5. They may be indirectly 

affected in terms of their landscape character, visual amenity and views. 

i) Areas of Landscape Significance: 

The development site is within the Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park, on the 

eastern slopes of the Renfrewshire Heights which is characterised as an area 

of rugged Moorland Hills (Area 20) in the SNH Landscape Character 

Assessment report produced for Glasgow & Clyde Valley, 1999. 

The project will be observed from the Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park, the 

extent of the visibility is concentrated to a small section of the south‐eastern 

part of the park. The project will not be visible over the majority of the park 

area. 

ii) Scheduled Ancient Monuments: 

The ruin of Larabank Castle is the closest scheduled ancient monument within 

at~580m away from the proposed development. This monument consists of a 

natural hill, scarped to form a motte‐like‐mound. The ruin has an overall 

theoretical visibility to the turbine. This is dealt with in greater detail in 

Section 3.6 Cultural Heritage/Archaeology. 

iii) Listed buildings: 

The closest A‐listed building to the proposed scheme is Ladyland House, 

~1.2km to the south‐east. This A‐listed building comprises a private dwelling 

Page 96 of 173



which has recently been extended. It is predicted to experience an overall 

theoretical visibility of the site. This is dealt with in greater detail in Section 

3.6 Cultural Heritage/Archaeology. 

iv) Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes (HGDLs): 

The closest HGDL, Duchai and Kelburn Castle are situated ~9‐10km northwest 

and southwest of the site. The turbine is likely to be screened from these 

locations by topography, buildings/structures and tree cover. This is dealt with 

in greater detail in Section 3.6 Cultural Heritage/Archaeology. 

3.4.6 Assessment of Landscape Effects 

The proposed development will add a single turbine to an area of farmland that forms 

part of the ‘Broad Valley Lowland’ character type, which is part of the broad landscape 

character, ‘Clyde Basin Farmlands’. This project will add a single turbine to this 

landscape character type. 

Using the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment criteria for 

evaluating landscape sensitivity, the following detailed in Table 3.4.8 is deemed to 

apply to the local area surrounding Glenlora: 

Landscape Property Sensitivity Rating 

Scale: The local Clyde Basin Farmlands is a ‘medium scale 

landscape (e.g. valley – rugged and semi enclosed mountain 

moorland and farming complex) 

Medium 

Quality: ‘Landscape of moderately valued characteristics, Medium 

reasonably tolerant of change (e.g. …agricultural 

lowlands)…and/or of value locally (e.g. Areas of Landscape 

Significance).’ 

Features of Cultural Heritage: No archaeological sites were 

identified at the location of the wind turbine and a desk 

based assessment has shown that there is a low level of 

archaeological features within a 1km radius of the turbine. 

Sites identified outwith 1km within the wider study area 

were assessed as having a low to medium sensitivity rating. 

There is an A‐listed building approximately 1.2km from the 

site with predicted views of the project. 

Medium 

Level of Intrusion: The landscape character area contains a 

few intrusive elements, and is indirectly affected by other 

wind projects in the area, such as Ardrossan and Dalry 

Community. 

Medium 

Overall Landscape Sensitivity 

Table 3.4.8 ‐ Sensitivity of local landscape character 

Medium 

The magnitude of effect on the local landscape character is assessed below: 

Page 97 of 173



Landscape Property Magnitude of Effect 

Change to landscape character: As a single turbine in this 

landscape character type, the overall character of the 

landscape will experience a moderate change ‘such that the 

underlying landscape character, composition and quality 

will be partially changed’. The landscape character is 

already quite patchwork in nature, which may allow the 

turbine to fit in better. 

Low/Medium 

Change to landscape composition: While there may be 

some locally significant change, the overall effect on the 

landscape composition is less significant. 

Low 

Change to landscape quality: There may be a ‘moderate, Medium 

but still discernible change to one or more key 

features/elements of the baseline conditions.’ 

Overall Magnitude of Landscape Effect 

Table 3.4.9 ‐ Magnitude of effect on local landscape character 

Low/Medium 

As the local landscape character is expected to be affected by the project to a 

low/medium extent and has medium sensitivity to such impacts, it is considered that 

the significance of the turbine on the character of the landscape would be 

low/medium. 

Effects of Landscape Elements 

During construction some minor works will be undertaken to upgrade the existing 

minor road and extend this existing access to the turbine site. The new track will be a 

permanent feature. Although the landscape effects of this work are not considered to 

be significant, appropriate care and design consideration will be taken to preserve the 

existing landscape quality of this area. 

Cumulative Effects on the Landscape 

There are a number of existing wind projects within the study area in the Clyde Basin 

Farmlands character type: the small scale projects of Myres Hill and Sainsbury’s and 

the larger scale projects of Whitelee and Earlsburn. The projects of Whitelee 

extension, Over Enoch and Ardoch and Blantyre Muir have been consented in this 

character type. In addition, projects in planning: Harelaw Renewable Energy Park, 

Middleton, Cathkin Braes, Earlsburn North, Ballindalloch Muir and Waterhead Moor 

would be located in the same character type as the Glenlora project. 

In one of the nearby character types, Plateau Moorlands, there are two existing wind 

projects: Dalry Community and Ardrossan, with Kelburn Estate approved and the 

Millour Hill project in planning. 

Using the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment criteria for 

evaluating landscape sensitivity to cumulative impact, the same criteria apply as for 

landscape impact. Therefore, the sensitivity to cumulative landscape impact remains 

medium. 

Page 98 of 173



Using Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment criteria for evaluating 

magnitude of cumulative landscape effects, the following is deemed to apply for 

Glenlora: 

Landscape Property Magnitude of Effect 

Change to landscape character – due to the fairly large Low 

scale of the landscape type and the existence of two 

developments in the study area on this character type, 

which are of a greater scale than Glenlora, Glenlora is not 

expected to create more than a minor change to the 

landscape character. 

Change to landscape composition – the scale of the turbine Negligible 

proposed is similar to those already built and those 

proposed. 

Change to landscape quality – Glenlora is expected to Low 

create ‘a minor, but still discernible change’ relative to 

other built and planned projects. 

Overall Magnitude of Landscape Effect Low 

Table 3.4.10 ‐ Magnitude of effect of cumulative impact on the local landscape character 

As the local landscape character is expected to be affected cumulatively to a low 

extent and has low/medium sensitivity to such impacts, it is considered that the 

significance of cumulative effect on the character of the landscape is negligible/low. 

3.4.7 Assessment of Visual Effects 

ZTV and Visual Receptors 

A blade tip ZTV (Zone of Theoretical Visibility) is illustrated in Figures 3.4.3 to 3.4.5 and 

is representative of the potential visibility of the wind turbine, assuming bare ground 

conditions i.e. taking no account of screening from buildings, hedgerows, plantations 

etc. 

From within the landscape it is clear that much of the computer generated ZTV is 

actually screened by existing buildings and vegetation. 

Town/Village Distance Comments 

Lochwinnoch ~2km Theoretically visible 

Kilbirnie ~4km Theoretically visible 

Beith ~5km Theoretically visible 

Glasgow ~7km Theoretically visible in the west of the city 

Bridge of Weir ~8km No visibility predicted. 

Dalry ~9km Theoretically visible in the north and west of the village 

Houston ~10km No visibility predicted. 

Kilmacolm ~10km No visibility predicted. 

Uplawmoor ~11km No visibility predicted. 

Largs ~11km No visibility predicted. 

Fairlie ~12km No visibility predicted. 

Dunlop ~12km Theoretically visible 

Greenock ~14km No visibility predicted. 

Neilston ~14km No visibility predicted. 

Page 99 of 173



Kilwinning ~15km Limited theoretical visibility 

Langbank ~15km No visibility predicted. 

Skelmorlie ~15km No visibility predicted. 

Stewarton ~16km No visibility predicted. 

West Kilbride ~16km No visibility predicted. 

Millport ~16km No visibility predicted. 

Bishopton ~16km Limited theoretical visibility 

Wemyss Bay ~16km No visibility predicted. 

Erskine ~17km Limited theoretical visibility from the south and west of town 

Ardrossan ~17km No visibility predicted. 

Dumbarton ~17km No visibility predicted. 

Inverkip ~17km No visibility predicted. 

Irvine ~18km Limited theoretical visibility 

Cardross ~18km No visibility predicted. 

Hawkhead ~18km No visibility predicted. 

Kilmaurs ~19km No visibility predicted. 

Waterfoot ~20km No visibility predicted. 

Springside ~20km Limited theoretical visibility 

Fenwick ~20km No visibility predicted. 

Innellan ~21km No visibility predicted. 

Kilmarnock ~21km Limited theoretical visibility from the north of town 

Helensburgh ~22km No visibility predicted. 

Kilcreggan ~22km No visibility predicted. 

Rothesay ~22km No visibility predicted. 

Crosshouse ~23km Theoretically visible 

Dunoon ~23km No visibility predicted. 

Table 3.4.11 Population centres within the study area. 

In summary, the proposed scheme is expected to be visible from a small number of 

settlements, mostly located to the south and east of the site. It has to be noted that in 

practice, the visibility is likely to be significantly reduced due to local screening (i.e 

trees, buildings etc.) 

In addition to the centres of population there are a large number of dispersed houses, 

farms and small hamlets that will be able to see the development. 

Cumulative ZTV Study 

The cumulative visual impact has been assessed for all known wind projects within 

50km of the site using 25km ZTV radii for each wind project. Cumulative ZTVs were 

produced, indicating where simultaneous or successive visibility may theoretically 

occur between Glenora and other projects (built, under construction, approved, in 

planning and scoping). As there were a number of projects within a 50km radius from 

Glenlora, separate cumulative ZTVs were produced to show: 

Cumulative impact with built projects (Figures 3.4.7 to 3.4.10) 

Cumulative impact with projects under construction or approved (Figures 

3.4.11 to 3.4.16) 

Cumulative impact with projects in planning (Figures 3.4.17 to 3.4.20) 

Cumulative impact with all projects within 10km (Figure 3.4.21) 

Page 100 of 173



These ZTVs suggest that, if all currently proposed projects were built, views of multiple 

projects (including Glenlora) may be fairly widespread. 

Table 3.4.12 below summarises the other projects within 50km of Glenlora. We have 

defined their scale purely based on turbine number, with a ‘cluster’ being 2‐3 turbines, 

a ‘small‐scale’ wind farm being 4‐9 turbines, a ‘medium scale’ project having 10‐20 

turbines, and a ‘large scale’ wind farm containing 21 or more turbines. 

Development Name Scale of Project (Single turbine, Distance to Project 

PROJECTS BUILT 

cluster, small, medium or large) (approx. in km) 

Ardrossan Medium 15 

Cruach Mhor Large 39 

Dalry Community Small 10 

Earlsburn Medium 48 

Myres Hill Cluster 27 

Sainsbury’s Single turbine 32 

Whitelee Large 22 

PROJECTS APPROVED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION 

Blantyre Muir Cluster 36 

Kelburn Estate Medium 8 

Lochhead Farm Cluster 47 

Over Enoch and Ardoch Small 26 

Whitelee ext. 

PROJECTS IN PLANNING 

Large 24 

Ballindalloch Muir Small 39 

Bankend Rig Medium 41 

Cathkin Braes Cluster 28 

Dungavel Hill Medium 41 

Dunoon Small 26 

Earlsburn North Small 49 

Harelaw Renewable Energy Park Large 16 

Knoweside Medium 46 

Lochhead Farm ext. Cluster 47 

Middleton Small 17 

Millour Hill Small 8 

Neilston Community Cluster 14 

Waterhead Moor Large 6 

Table 3.4.12 ‐ Summary of wind projects in Glenlora’s cumulative study area 

There are, overall, twenty‐five projects within a 50km radius of Glenlora, seven of 

which have been built to date, five of which have been approved and thirteen of which 

are in planning. 

Viewpoint Assessment 

Our assessment has considered views from dwellings; key transport corridors; 

significant natural heritage sites; and significant cultural heritage features. 

An outline viewpoint assessment has been conducted from particular viewpoints and 

visual receptors within the study area. The viewpoints were chosen based on the 

following criteria: 

Viewpoints should be representative of the likely impacts; 

Viewpoints should show a range of different types of views; 

Viewpoints should be representative of a range of different receptor groups; 

Page 101 of 173



Viewpoints should be representative of a range of distances; 

Viewpoints should be representative of the varying image of the wind turbine 

in the landscape. 

The viewpoint locations are shown in Figures 3.4.3 to 3.4.5 and the viewpoints are 

illustrated in Figures 3.4.22 to 3.4.30. Our assessment has considered the following 

views: 

A760 south of site 

Lochwinnoch 

Kilbirnie 

A760/A737 junction 

Beith 

Dalry 

M8, junction 29 

Misty Law 

These represent a typical range of setting, directions and distances from the project 

and are believed to give a good overview of the context that the project will sit within. 

If a viewpoint represents a view from a location near the project, or looking generally 

in a single direction, then it is accompanied by a computer generated wireline, a 

photographic record of the site and photomontage. If the viewpoint represents a 

more open view, perhaps from the top of a hill for example, then it is accompanied by 

a photographic record of the site and a computer generated wireline, split up to look in 

every direction where there are open views and also highlight the location of other 

wind projects within the study area to show potential cumulative impact. In either 

case, the baseline conditions for each assessment include any already built turbines 

that can be seen from the viewpoint. 

A description of each of the viewpoints is contained in Appendix 2, including a table at 

the end showing which of the projects considered for cumulative impact can be seen 

from each location. A summary of the significance of impact is outlined in Table 3.4.13 

below: 

Viewpoint Dist. (km) Sensitivity Magnitude Significance 

VP01 – A760 south of 

site 

2.7 Medium Low/Medium Low/Medium 

VP02 – Lochwinnoch 3.0 High 

Medium High 

VP03 – Kilbirnie 

4.1 Medium/High Low/Medium Medium 

VP04 – A760/A737 

Junction 

4.2 Low/Medium Low 

Negligible/Low 

VP05 – Beith 

2.7 Medium Low 

Low 

VP06 – Dalry 

9.2 Medium Negligible Negligible 

VP07 – M8, junction 29 15.1 Low 

Negligible Negligible 

VP08 – Misty Law 

4.5 Medium Low 

Low 

Table 3.4.13 Summary of significance of impact on views 

Page 102 of 173

Cumulative Visual Impact on Views 



An analysis of the sensitivity and overview of the cumulative visual impact of each 

project in the study area for each viewpoint is detailed in Table 3.4.16 presented in 

Appendix 2. 

With a baseline including already built projects, the contribution that Glenlora makes 

to cumulative visual impact is often significantly less than the wind farms of Dalry 

Community project and Ardrossan. In all the viewpoints there was no significant visual 

coalescence with other built projects. In some cases Glenlora would introduce a 

turbine in a direction where previously none could be seen. 

With the addition of approved and under construction projects, only the Kelburn 

Estate project would appear relatively close to Glenlora. This project would be close to 

the built project of Dalry Community and will visually coalesce from some viewpoints. 

The project is easily distinguishable from Glenlora, though the addition of the 

proposed turbine may put strain on nearby views where a number of projects may be 

seen. These are particularly evident in the area around Kilbirnie. 

With the addition of projects in planning the number of turbines visible across 

Renfrewshire significantly increases, with some larger scale projects visible at 

Waterhead Moor and Harelaw Renewable Energy Park. In general, Glenlora’s 

contribution to cumulative visual impact will not be affected for close in views, and is 

likely to be reduced for further away, or wide, open views. 

Sequential Cumulative Visual Effects 

An outline sequential assessment was carried out from the A760 (Largs to Roadhead 

roundabout) and from the A737 (Irvine to Paisley) and was assessed from the 

perspective of road users. The wind turbine was considered in detail with respect to 

the other projects potentially visible along this route within 50km of Glenlora. 

The assessment is contained within Appendix 2. A summary of significance of impact is 

outlined in Table 3.4.17 below: 

Viewpoint Sensitivity Magnitude Significance 

A760 

Medium 

Certain 

Low 

Low 

Likely 

Low 

Low 

Uncertain 

A737 

Low 

Low 

Certain Low 

Low 

Negligible 

Likely 

Low 

Negligible 

Uncertain 

Low 

Negligible 

Table 3.4.17 ‐ Summary of significance of impact on major routes within study area 

Perceived Cumulative Visual Effects 

No specific perceived effects were noted in relation to this project. 

Page 103 of 173

3.4.8 Summary and Conclusions 



From the outline assessment of landscape effects it is considered that the landscape 

will readily absorb the proposed development of a single turbine without any 

significant adverse effects on the existing, intrinsic landscape character, composition 

and quality of the area. The landscape impact within the character areas surrounding 

the site is considered to be of low significance. 

From the above brief assessments of visual effects it has been found that, the Glenlora 

wind turbine may have a moderate visual impact on a few nearby views due to the 

number of residential, i.e. high sensitivity, receptors that would experience these 

views. However, as a single 84m tall turbine sitting on the southern slopes of a hill in 

an area of rolling farmland, the development would be a simple, discrete feature 

within the local landscape, without being dominant or overbearing on receptors. From 

further away viewpoints, the visual impact of the turbine is significantly reduced, both 

due to the distance to the project and visibility to the projects of Dalry Community and 

Ardrossan that already exists in some of the views. On balance, then, the visual impact 

within the study area is considered to be of low significance. 

Overall, it is concluded that the landscape and visual effects of the Glenlora wind 

turbine would be of low significance. 

From the outline assessment of cumulative landscape effects it is considered that the 

landscape has a high capacity to absorb the proposed single turbine development 

without significantly increasing cumulative effects already influencing the existing, 

intrinsic landscape character, composition and quality. 

From the assessment of combined and successive cumulative visual effects relating to 

static viewpoints, it has been found that the Glenlora wind turbine is likely to 

contribute a minor level of cumulative impact to views. From the assessment of 

sequential cumulative visual effects relating to key transport routes in the area, it is 

concluded that there may be some low/negligible cumulative effects due to Glenlora 

on users of the A760 and the A373. No specific perceived cumulative effects were 

noted in relation to the project. 

Overall, it is concluded that the cumulative landscape and visual effects due to the 

Glenlora wind turbine would be of low significance. 

Page 104 of 173

3.5 Noise 




This section considers the potential noise impacts and effects associated with the 

operation of the proposed Glenlora wind turbine. 


Noise can have an effect on the environment and on the quality of life enjoyed by 

individuals and communities. The impact of noise can therefore be an important 

consideration in the determination of planning applications. Noise impacts can arise 

from three distinct areas of the wind farm development. 

The construction of the wind turbine; 

During operation of the wind turbine; and 

Resulting from increased traffic flow during the construction and operation 

stages. 

Given the relatively small scale of the development, construction noise will be short 

term and in the most part will not increase background noise levels beyond the 

recommended limits set out by the World Health Organisation and the former 

Department of the Environment. As such it s not considered that it should be 

necessary to assess the construction phase noise. 

3.5.3 Terminology 

The symbols used for noise levels in this report are: 

LWA is the A‐weighted sound power level – a measure of the total sound energy 

emitted by a source of noise. 

LA,eq is the A‐weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level, which is a 

measure of the total ambient noise at a given place at a given time. 

LA90,10min is the A‐weighted sound pressure level exceeded for 90 percent of the 

time in the averaging time period specified – in this case 10 minutes – and is 

the normal index used for background noise level measurements. 

The wind speeds referred to in this report: 

v10 are wind speeds measured at 10m height above ground level and used to 

determine the correlation between wind speed and noise levels. 

 


Guidance for assessing operational noise from wind farms is given in: 

1. ‘ETSU‐R‐97: the Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (1997), The 

Department of Trade and Industry. (usually referred to as the Noise Working 

Group Recommendations) 

Page 105 of 173



Whilst this remains the most authoritative guidance document on assessing noise from 

wind farms, recent changes in the World Health Guidelines on acceptable night‐time 

noise levels have led to a slight tightening of the accepted night‐time noise levels. The 

Noise Working Group methodology but with the reduced night‐time noise level have 

been followed. 

3.5.5 Baseline 

Overview of Assessment Procedure for a single turbine 

Wind projects need to be designed such that the noise levels from the proposed 

turbine will not exceed the noise limits set out in the Noise Working Group 

Recommendations at surrounding properties. 

Six key noise sensitive properties have been identified within about 1km of the turbine 

representing the worst case scenario for properties in all directions, the closest of 

which is the landowner’s property (H1) at ~520m away from the proposed wind 

turbine. 

Operational noise predictions have been run using RESoft WindFarm software which 

uses the model as prescribed by the Danish Ministry of the Environment ‘Statutory 

Order from the Ministry of the Environment No. 304 of May 14 1991, Noise from 

Windmills’. This model predicts noise levels at the identified receptors discussed 

above and creates a noise contour map, and tabulated results, illustrating the 

predicted noise levels surrounding the proposed site. 

At this stage it is assumed that the turbine is an Enercon E48 800kW turbine, as this is 

the most likely candidate to be used at the site. Warranted noise levels for the E48 

turbine operating at its loudest setting at a wind speed of 10m/s at 10m height 

(102.5dB(A)) have been used to calculate the noise contour map shown in Figure 3.5.6. 

The propagation model has been run for warranted broadband noise levels of an E48 

wind turbine running at full power (102.5dB(A)). An atmospheric attenuation of 0.005 

has been used, corresponding to typical temperature and humidity conditions, as 

suggested by the Danish noise model described bwlow. 

Choice of Propagation Model and application of guidance 

The Danish model used, as implemented by ReSoft WindFarm software, assumes that 

ground conditions are hard and no barriers are present between the turbine and the 

receptors. Therefore, the prediction of turbine noise should be an overestimate. 

The ETSU‐R‐97 guidelines also indicate that for single turbines or for turbines located a 

considerable distance away from the nearest properties, a simplified approach can be 

taken. 

If it can be demonstrated that the noise levels due to the turbine would exceed 

35dB(A) LA90,10min at the nearest sensitive receptors with 10ms ‐1 wind speed in 10m 

height then further protection of amenity for the receptor would not be required. 

Page 106 of 173



In the low noise environments expected here, the ETSU guidelines recommend that 

the wind turbine noise should be limited to an absolute lower limit, in this case 

35dB(A) [LA90,10min] for quiet daytime periods and 43dB(A) for night-time periods, or 

5dB(A) above the background noise levels, whichever the greater. The night-time 

period lower limit was set to the more stringent 38dB(A) level to reflect the World 

Health Organisation guidelines on sleep disturbance. 

3.5.6 Predicted Impacts & Effects 

The Danish model computes noise levels using the LA,eq measure shown in Figure 3.5.1, 

which is also what the warranted noise data for the turbine is derived from, whereas 

the ETSU Guidelines noise limits are based on the LA90,10min measure. The Noise 

Working Group Recommendations indicate that the LA90,10min level is typically found to 

be 1.5-2.5dB(A) lower than the LA,eq noise level and suggest that 2dB(A) can be 

deducted from LA,eq measurements to equate to LA90,10min levels. The LA90,10min levels 

are shown in Table 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 below. 

Figure 3.5.1 – Warranted sound power level calculation 

Page 107 of 173 

Land Boundary



House ID House Name Easting Northing Altitude Turbine LAeq 

[m] Distance[m] [dB(A)] 

1 Glenlora 1 232990 658764 133 520 37.6 35.5 

2 Glenlora 2 233011 658797 137 520 37.7 35.6 

3 Glenlora Cottage 233140 658868 142 590 36.1 34.1 

4 Lonabank 232781 658554 158 580 36.4 34.4 

5 Cockston 231974 658549 200 830 31.9 29.9 

6 North Fairhills 233608 659039 127 1010 29.3 27.3 

Table 3.5.1 ‐ Predicted noise levels 

3.5.7 Mitigation 

Page 108 of 173 

LA90,10min 

As can be seen from the table above, predicted noise levels at the identified properties 

H1 and H2 are predicted to be above the 35dB(A) indicative threshold using this 

simplified approach with all other properties expected to be able to meet the 

indicative constraint. Furthermore, the noise levels calculated by the model are 

conservative for a number of reasons, the key ones being outlined below: 

While the warranted turbine noise levels have been used to compute the noise 

emissions of the turbine, the noise levels of this type of turbine are, to a 

degree, controllable, and so the 102.5dB(A) represents the maximum noise 

level for the standard operation of the turbine which could be adjusted 

downwards to meet particular constraints. 

The model assumes that noise emissions from the turbine are truly 

hemispherical, when in reality they will be somewhere between hemispherical 

and spherical. 

 

Table 3.5.2 below shows the noise level at Glenlora 1 and 2 (H1 and H2) after ground 

attenuation has been considered, using the ISO 9612 Part 2 method for calculating 

ground attenuation over semi‐soft ground, which is representative of typical farmland. 

Due to these effects, it is expected that a reduction of sound of ~1dB(A) at Glenlora 1 

(H1) and Glenlora 2 (H2) which are owned by the landowner (developer) would be 

experienced. 

House House Name Easting Northing Altitude(M) Turbine 

ID 

distance(M) 

1 Glenlora 1 232990 658764 133 520 36.5 34.5 

2 Glenlora 2 233011 658797 137 520 36.5 34.5 

Table 3.5.2 – Noise levels at receptors 

LAeq[dB(A)] LA90, 10min 

When the above factors are taken into account, it is our considered opinion that 

predicted noise levels demonstrate that noise levels encountered at H1 and H2 which 

are owned by landowner (developer) would be comfortably below the ETSU‐R‐97 

indicative threshold. 

3.5.8 Evaluation of Effects 

In view of all of these factors, it is concluded that a single Enercon E48 turbine located 

at this site would be able to meet the simplified ETSU‐R‐97 constraint at all the 

considered noise sensitive receptors and that noise would have a negligible level of 

effect on the surrounding properties.



All the properties are in a fairly quiet rural areas expected to have a low background 

noise environment. Other specific mitigation noted in relation to background noise 

levels are the dense line of trees surrounding properties H1 and H2. 


It is concluded that this project would have a negligible noise impact on surrounding 

properties when mitigating factors are taken into account. 

3.5.10 Conclusions 

It has been demonstrated that the project could meet the simplified ETSU‐R‐97 

constraint, with mitigating factors considered, at all surrounding noise sensitive 

receptors. On this basis, noise would have a negligible effect on any sensitive 

receptors. 

Page 109 of 173

3.6 Cultural Heritage/Archaeology 



This section considers the potential effects of the proposed wind farm on the cultural 

heritage interests of the application site and surrounding landscape. 

Cultural heritage is represented by a wide range of features, both above and below 

ground, which result from past human use of the landscape. These include standing 

buildings, many still in use, sub‐surface archaeological remains and artefact scatters. 

These also include earthwork monuments as well as landscape features such as field 

boundaries and industrial remains. 

3.6.1 Methodology 

In the preparation of this assessment, a range of historical and technical data was 

collected and analysed. It is becoming normal practice to include a review of other 

potential issues that fall under the umbrella term of cultural heritage, such as historic 

buildings and landscapes, in addition to purely archaeological factors. The following 

sources were consulted: 

Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) 

National Monuments Record Scotland (NMRS); 

Aerial photograph collection held by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and 

Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS); 

National Library of Scotland (Map Library). 

In order to help place the site within its local context and assess the potential for 

previously unrecorded sites of cultural heritage interest the searches included all land 

within the proposed application boundary, and all land within 1km of the proposed 

turbine location. 

The setting of ‘B’ listed buildings were considered up to 3km from the project while 

highly sensitive receptors such as ‘A’ listed buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments 

and HGDLs, were considered up to 10km away (see Figures 3.6.1, 3.6.2 and 3.6.3). 

Analysis of a computer model of the proposed wind turbines and existing landform 

(DTM) to produce a zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) was used to assess the potential 

predicted theoretical views of the proposed turbines. 

Assessment Criteria 

The following general criteria detailed in Tables 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 have been used in the 

assessment of significance of any direct or indirect impact on any site of cultural 

heritage importance. While the matrix of magnitude of effect and sensitivity detailed 

in Table 3.6.3, has been used to define the significance of impact of the project. 

Page 110 of 173



Sensitivity Definition 

High Category A listed building 

Scheduled Ancient Monument 

Non‐statutory List of sites likely to be of national importance 

Historic Designed Gardens and Landscapes 

Medium Category B & C(S) listed building 

Archaeological sites on the Sites and Monuments Record (of regional and local 

importance) 

Conservation Areas 

Low Archaeological sites of lesser importance 

Non‐Inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes 

Table 3.6.1 ‐ Sensitivity: Built and cultural heritage on the site 

Magnitude Definition 

High Any number of wind turbines and/or ancillary development that would result in: 

the removal or partial removal of key features, areas or evidence important to the 

historic character and integrity of the site, which could result in the substantial loss 

of physical integrity; and/or 

a substantial obstruction of existing view by the addition of uncharacteristic 

elements dominating the view, significantly altering the quality of the setting or the 

visual amenity of the site both to and from. 

Where the mechanical or aerodynamic noise from any number of wind turbines (or 

from other neighbouring wind energy developments) that are likely to detract from 

site amenity of a popular built or cultural heritage site managed as a visitor 

attraction adjacent to a wind energy development. 

Medium Any number of wind turbines and/or ancillary development that would result in: 

the removal of one or more key features, parts of the designated site, or evidence at 

the secondary or peripheral level, but are not features fundamental to its historic 

character and integrity; and/or 

a partial obstruction of existing view by the addition of uncharacteristic elements 

which, although not affecting the key visual and physical relationships, could be an 

important feature in the views, and significantly alter the quality of the setting or 

visual amenity of the site both to and from. 

Where the noise intrusion (mechanical or aerodynamic) from any number of wind 

turbines (or from other neighbouring wind energy developments) may detract from 

the amenity of a built or cultural heritage site adjacent to a wind energy 

development. 

Low Any number of wind turbines or ancillary developments that may result in: 

a partial removal/minor loss, and/or alteration to one or more peripheral and/or 

secondary elements/features, but not significantly affecting the historic integrity of 

the site or affect the key features of the site; and/or 

an introduction of elements that could be intrusive in views, and could alter to a 

small degree the quality of the setting or visual amenity of the site both to and from. 

Where the noise intrusion (mechanical or aerodynamic) from any number of wind 

turbines (or from other neighbouring wind energy developments) is unlikely to 

detract from the amenity of a built or cultural heritage site adjacent to a wind energy 

development. 

Negligible Any number of wind turbines or ancillary developments that may result in: 

a relatively small removal, and/or alteration to small, peripheral and/or unimportant 

elements/features, but not affect the historic integrity of the site or the quality of 

the surviving evidence; and/or 

an introduction of elements that could be visible but not intrusive in views, and the 

overall quality of the setting or visual amenity of the site would not be affected both 

to and from. 

Where he noise intrusion (mechanical or aerodynamic) from any number of wind 

Page 111 of 173



turbines (or from other neighbouring wind energy developments) would not have 

any noticeable affect on the amenity of a built or cultural heritage site adjacent to a 

wind energy development. 

Table 3.6.2 ‐ Magnitude of built and cultural heritage effects 

Sensitivity 

Magnitude High Medium Low 

High High High Medium 

Medium High Medium Low 

Low Medium Low Negligible or positive 

Negligible Low Negligible or positive Negligible or positive 

Table 3.6.3 – Matrix of magnitude of effect and sensitivity used to test the significance of impact 


A phased approach was adopted to the assessment of cultural heritage receptors. All 

known cultural heritage sites within 1km of the proposed turbine were considered first 

as these were considered to be at the greatest risk of direct impact or ‘high’ magnitude 

indirect impact. Then all ‘B’ listed buildings and ‘high’ sensitivity sites were considered 

out to 3km from the site centre point. It was considered that according to the 

assessment criteria above, the impact in this zone could be ‘medium’ and hence the 

impact ‘significant’ on a ‘high’ sensitivity receptor. Beyond 3km and out to 10km the 

magnitude was unlikely to be greater than ‘low’ and as such only ‘high’ sensitivity sites 

that were considered to be likely to be particularly susceptible to changes in long 

distance views such as HGDLs , ‘A’ listed buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments 

were considered. Beyond 10 km the magnitude would be ‘negligible’ on all receptors. 

3.6.3 Features of Historical Significance within 1km 

At the request of the West of Scotland Archaeological Society a desk based assessment 

and walkoverwas carried out by Headland Archaeology Ltd. This assessmen identified 

a number of known features within a 1km study area around the site. 

Archaeological desk based assessment 

A scoping response was received from Renfrewshire Council on the 26 th October 2009. 

A consultation response from West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) 

recommended that: 

“the applicant be directed to include the results of an archaeological walkover survey”. 

A desk based assessment and walkover was carried out by Headland Archaeology Ltd 

by Jamie Humble on the 16 th November 2009. The desk based assessment identified a 

number of known archaeological features within a 1km study area around the site, 

most of which are post‐medieval in date and agricultural or domestic in function. 

Methodology 

The study was intended to provide an assessment of all readily available and relevant 

archaeological and historical records within the proposed development area and a 

study area based on a radius of roughly 1km from the site boundary. Records from 

Page 112 of 173



further afield were also studied to allow for significant sites located just outside the 

1km boundary. The objective was to determine the likely presence of known or 

unknown archaeological sites within the development area. It was designed to provide 

a summary assessment of the implications for the development site, not as an 

exhaustive historical discussion. 

For the purposes of this assessment within the immediate study area around the 

development, all features pre‐dating Ordnance Survey 1 st edition mapping were 

considered to be potentially of cultural heritage significance. 

The following sources were consulted: 

National Monuments Record of Scotland (NMRS) 

West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) SMR 

Historic Scotland Schedule of Ancient Monuments and List of Listed Buildings 

Vertical air photos held by RCAHMS 

Maps held by the National Library of Scotland and 

Other readily accessible published sources 

The information was collated in a gazetteer, cross‐referenced to a map showing the 

location and extent of all features of cultural heritage interest. (Figure 1, 

Archaeological desk based assessment report). 

A walkover survey was also carried out in order to assess the character of the site, its 

current land use and condition. Further to this, any sites not previously noted would be 

identified and recorded. 

Results – Desk based assessment 

No archaeological sites were identified at the location of the wind turbine. A number 

of sites were however identified within the study area. The following is a summary of 

the archaeological evidence identified during the desk study, a gazetteer of all 

identified sites, including figures (HA) are included in the Archaeological desk based 

assessment report). 

Sites with Statutory designation 

Two listed buildings exist within the study area. Glenlora House and bridge (HA9) and 

stables (HA8) both constructed circa 1840 and are category B and C listed respectively. 

The ruin of Larabank Castle (HA2) is the only scheduled ancient monument within the 

study area. This monument consists of a natural hill, scarped to form a motte‐like 

mound. No evidence of masonry or other evidence of a building is now evident. 

Undesignated sites 

Prehistoric 

There is a single prehistoric monument within the study area, that of Dunconnel Hill 

(HA1) a small circular structure, probably a fortified homestead. Material recovered 

after a hill fire in 1955 suggests a Late Iron Age date. 

Page 113 of 173



Medieval and Post‐medieval 

A single site of medieval origin exists within the study area. The scheduled ancient 

monument of Larabank Castle (HA2) may have subsidiary settlement around the 

mound. 

Sites of post‐medieval date are of domestic and agricultural in nature with farmsteads 

at Cockston and Barnbeth Hill (HA4 & HA7. There is also a sheepfold at Corsefield Road 

(HA5) and an unroofed structure at Garpel Burn (HA6). 

Cartographic evidence 

The earliest available mapping of the area is Pont’s 1583‐96 map of Renfrewshire. This 

shows the castle at Larabank however there are as yet no buildings at Glen Lora. The 

castle at Larabank appears to remain as the principal residence in the area until 

Ainslie’s 1800 Map of the county of Renfrew. At this time the castle at Larabank no 

longer appears and Glen Lora house has yet to be built. 

The forestry surrounding the turbine location appears on the 1 st edition Ordnance 

Survey mapping of the area of 1863, which is also the first time that Glen Lora House is 

depicted. 

Walkover survey 

No further sites were identified during the walkover survey, in which the turbine 

location and a possible access track were investigated. The site is in upland rough 

grazing in a landscape with frequent small rocky outcrops. 

Additional details 

A consultation response was received from Historic Scotland as part of Renfrewshire 

Councils scoping response received on 26 th October 2009. This stated that the: 

‘scheduled monument known as ‘Larabank Castle, motte (index no 5644) lies within the 

site boundary. It lies approximately 500m south east of the proposed turbine site. It is 

recommended that the EA considers the likely impact of the development on the setting 

of the scheduled monument’ 

Taking the findings from the above assessment into account and the fact that there is 

now no evidence of masonry or other evidence of a building present in the vicinity of 

the area where Larabank Castle is recorded overall impact is deemed to be low and no 

further assessment is considered to be necessary. 


Historical features identified within the 3km study radius are located in Figures 3.6.1 

and 3.6.2 below. Also identified on Figure 3.6.1 is Larabank Castle (SAM 1) and 

Glenlora House (LB 1) that formed part of the desk based assessment carried out by 

Headland Archaeology Ltd. 

Page 114 of 173



Figure 3.6.1 ‐ Extract from Pastmap web site, study area to 3km 

The listed and scheduled features identified in Figure 3.6.1 are described below. A 

large number of listed buildings are located in Lochwinnoch. These are identified 

within the Lochwinnoch detailed area in Figure 3.6.3 below. 

LB 2 – Ladyland House, ‘A’ listed 

HBNUM: 7532 Map sheet: NS35NW 

Ladyland House is an ‘A’ listed, classical mansion house dating from 1816. It is set in 

extensive wooded grounds. See Photograph 1 of Figure 3.6.2 below. 

LB 3 – Ladyland House Sun Dial. ‘A’ listed 


The Ladyland House sun dial, ‘A’ listed dates from 1673. Described as ‘polygonal stone 

dial on stepped plinth with recessed heart and circular shapes, and several dials 

mounted on 4‐sided baluster, with curved base and egg and dart cornice’. It is situated 

to the front of Ladyland House. 

Page 115 of 173



LB 4 – Ladyland Castle and Garden Walls, & Walled Garden, ‘B’ listed 


Ladyland Castle, garden walls and walled gardens are ‘B’ listed and situated ~1.5km 

from the project. Dating from 1609, the castle was demolished in 1815. Fragments of 

wall remain and they are incorporated in the later, 19 th century, garden wall. 

LB 5 – Ladyland Garden Sundial, ‘B’ listed 


The Ladyland garden sundial is ‘B’ listed and dates from 1821. It is a facet headed 

stone sundial, mounted on fluted baluster, pedestal with stylised Ionic scrolled capital. 

It is situated within a walled garden. 

LB 6 – Ladyland Stables, ‘B’ listed 

HBNUM: 7500 Map sheet: 

The ‘B’ listed stables comprise a single storey u‐plan stable block dating from 1817. It is 

rubble built, lime washed with painted margins. 

Listed buildings 2 to 5 described above are all situated ~1.5km south‐south‐west of the 

proposed wind turbine. The ZTV study predicts theoretical visibility however mature 

woodland within the Ladyland estate will provide a substantial element of screening to 

ground level views. 

Figure 3.6.2 – Photographs of Ladyland House and Glengarnock Castle 

LB 7, SAM 2 – Glengarnock Castle, ‘B’ 

HBNUM: 7491 Index no.: 318 Map sheet: NS35NW 

Glengarnock Castle, is ’B’ listed and a Scheduled Ancient Monument. It is situated 

~2.5km south‐west of the proposed turbine on a promontory overlooking the River 

Garnock. Dating from the 15 th , early 16 th century, it was stabilised in the mid‐19 th 

century and a sizeable ruin remains today. No theoretical views are predicted. 

LB 8 – Nervelstone House steading and walled garden, ‘B’ listed 


Page 116 of 173



Nervelstone House steading and walled garden is situated ~2.6km south of the project. 

The ‘B’ listed house dates from 1835 and has two storeys and 3 bays. The walled 

garden is to the west. Theoretical views are predicted. 

LB 9 – Calderbank Mill, ‘B’ listed 


Calderbank Mill is situated ~2.6km north‐east of the project. Category ‘B’ listed, the 

mill dates from the late 18 th /early 19 th century and comprises the surviving blocks of 

the former Calderbank Bleachfield. Outwith ZTV, therefore no theoretical views are 

predicted. 

The locations of listed buildings 10 to 34 (one of which is also a SAM) and SAM 4 are 

identified in the Lochwinnoch detailed map below in Figure 3.6.3. Lochwinnoch is 

located ~3km east of the project and 8km west of Paisley. The village is situated on the 

banks of the River Calder and being a conservation area much of its character has been 

maintained. 

Figure 3.6.3 ‐ Lochwinnoch detailed inset 

LB 10– Burnfoot House, Lochwinnoch, ‘B’ listed 


Page 117 of 173



Burnfoot House is situated ~2.5km east of the project. Dating from the early 19 th 

century it is 2 storeys, 3 bays, with an additional single storey bay to the east and a 

single storey rear wing. It is predicted that the proposed turbine will be visible. 

LB 11 – Bridgend Bridge, ‘B’ listed 


The 18 th century Bridgend Bridge is a single semi‐circular arched bridge over the River 

Calder. It is described as ‘recessed ashlar arch-ring and coursed, tooled and 

squared rubble abutments. Corbelled, droved ashlar parapet, balustraded 

above between central and terminal piers’. 

LB 12 – Caul near to Bridgend Bridge, ‘B’ listed 


The Caul is situated upstream from Bridgend Bridge and was built late 18 th or early 19 th 

century during a major period of Lochwinnoch’s industrial development. 

LB 13, SAM 3 – Barr Castle, ‘B’ listed 

HBNUM: Index no.:1650 Map sheet: NS35NW 

Barr Castle comprises the remains of an early 16 th century, rectangular‐plan keep. 

Rubble built with ashlar dressings, walls survive up to the level of corbelling. 

The 3 ‘B’ listed buildings, LB 11, 12 and 13 (SAM 3), described above are situated 

~2.5km east of the project. All three are within the ZTV and theoretical views of the 

turbine are predicted. 

LB 14 – Loch Bridge, ‘B’ listed 

HBNUM: 12646 Map sheet: NS35NE 

Loch Bridge over Loch Water dates from the early 1800’s. It is a single segmental‐span 

bridge, of droved ashlar and polished ashlar arch‐ring. 

LB 15 – Calder Bridge, ‘B’ listed 


Calder Bridge over the River Calder, dates from the early 19 th century. Described as 3 

segmental arches with triangular cut‐waters; droved ashlar, with ashlar buttresses, 

piers and parapet coping, and bullfaced voussoirs. 

The two ‘B’ listed bridges, LB14 and 15, described above are situated ~3km east of the 

project to the south‐east of Lochwinnoch. Lying within the ZTV, theoretical views of 

the proposed turbine are predicted. 

The ZTV study has predicted that the proposed turbine will be theoretically visible 

from 19 ‘B’ listed buildings, LB 16 to LB 34, identified within Lochwinnoch and shown in 

Figure 3.6.3 above. However the ZTV assessment uses a bare earth model that does 

not account for any existing natural and built features. Due to their location within 

Lochwinnoch these listed buildings will be screened from the project and no ground 

level views are expected. A list of LB 16 – LB 34 is contained in Appendix 3, Table 3.6.4. 

Page 118 of 173




Within the 10km study radius 9 ‘A’ listed buildings (1 also a Sam), 1 HGDL and 7 further 

SAMs have been identified. 

Figure ‐ 3.6.4 ‐ Features of Historical Significance (within 10km) and Theoretical Visibility 

LB 35 – Woodside House, ‘A’ listed 


Woodside House is situated 4km south‐south‐east of the project. The original tower 

house dates from 1551, while various additions and alterations have taken place over 

the years mainly around 1759. It is described as ‘baronial detailed 2‐storey, attic and 

basement 7‐bay mansion’. The site is within the ZTV however the house is set in 

extensive wooded grounds that will provide a substantial element of ground level 

screening. 

LB 36 – Kilbirnie Auld Kirk & Cemetry Walls, ‘A’ listed 

HBNUM: 7492 Map sheet: NS35SW 

Kilbirnie Auld Kirk is situated in the village of Kilbirnie ~6km south of the project. 

Original parts of the building date from 1470, with later additions and alterations 

spanning into the 20 th century. Although within the ZTV, the Kirk’s location within 

Kilbirnie will screen ground level views of the project. 

Page 119 of 173



LB 37 – Swindridgemuir, ‘A’ listed 


Swindridgemuir is situated ~10km south of the project. Dating from 1815 it is 

described as a ‘2 storey over basement, with attic, 3‐bay classical house’. It is within 

the ZTV, however wooded grounds to the north of the house provide screening; and 

given its distance from the proposed turbine, there will be negligible impact on its 

setting or visual amenity. 

LB 38 – Caldwell House, ‘A’ listed 


Caldwell House is situated ~ 10km south‐east of the project. It is a castellated 3‐storey 

and basement, symmetrical mansion house of rectangular plan dating from 1771. Lying 

outwith the ZTV, the turbine will not be visible. 

LB 39, SAM 5 – Castle Semple, Collegiate Church, ‘A’ listed 

HBNUM: 12667 Index no.: 90067 NGR: 375601 

Castle Semple, ‘A’ listed and Scheduled, dates from 1504 and is situated ~5km east of 

the project. It is a rectangular‐plan church with debased Gothic detailing and a 4‐ 

storey square tower at the west gable. Lying outwith the ZTV, no views of the turbine 

are predicted. 

LB 40 ‐ Garthland Bridge, over Black Cartwater, ‘A’ listed 

HBNUM: 13842 Map sheet: NS36SE 

Garthland Bridge is a stone built, single span bridge with stone parapets extending as 

curved approach walling. Dating from 1767 it is situated ~7km from the proposed 

turbine. Lying outwith the ZTV, no views of the turbine are predicted. 

LB 41 – Kilbarchan Steeple & steeple buildings, ‘A’ listed 


Kilbarchan Steeple and buildings consists of a square clock‐tower dating from 1755 and 

a two storey village hall of 1782. In niche is a bronze statue 1922 (replica of a wooden 

one of 1822) of Habbie Simpson (1550‐1620) who was the piper of Kilbarchan. 

LB 42 – Weavers Cottage, The Cross, ‘A’ listed 


Weavers Cottage dates from 1723. It is one and two storeys, rubble built and slated; 

with a steep roof of ‘cruck’ construction. 

Both LB 40 and LB 41 described above are located in the town of Kilbarchan, ~8.5km 

from the project. Lying outwith the ZTV, no views of the turbine are predicted from 

either building. 

LB 43, HGDL 1 – Duchal House, ‘A’ listed 


Duchal House and HDGL is situated 9.5km north of the project. It is described as a 

relatively modest country house of 3‐storeys and basement, with original parts dating 

from 1710. The main garden area is located to the north‐west of the house, with the 

Page 120 of 173



walled garden one of the principle components of the HGDL. Lying outwith the ZTV, no 

ground level views of the turbine are predicted from either Duchal House or its estate. 

SAM 4 – Tower House, Castle Semple Loch, 

Index no.: 7146 NGR: NS361587 

This SAM is situated ~4km east of the project and comprises the masonry ruins of a 

small tower house, named ‘Peel Tower’. It stands on a wooded causeway between 

Castel Semple Loch and the Aird Meadow RSPB reserve. It can only be viewed from the 

Loch. No land access is available. Lying within the ZTV, theoretical views of the turbine 

are predicted. 

SAM 6 – Cuff Hill Plantation, long cairn 

Index no.: 303 NGR: NS 386551 

This SAM is situated ~7.5km south‐east of the project. Described as a chambered long 

cairn, its scheduled area measures a maximum of 50m by 50m. Lying outwith the ZTV, 

no views of the proposed turbine are predicted. 

SAM 7 – Walls Hill, fort 


Walls Hill fort, is situated on the summit of a steep sided plateau ~8.5km east of the 

project. The remains of the fort is contained within a scheduled area measuring a 

maximum of 700m x 400m. The proposed turbine is predicted to be visible but given 

the distance from the project the visual impact on the setting of this SAM is assessed 

to be low. 

SAM 8 – Ranfurly Castle 


Ranfurly Castle comprisies a medieval tower about 6m square and related domesetic 

buildings within a scheduled area measuring 31m x 32m. 

SAM 9 – Castle Hill, motte, Ranfurly 


Castle Hill motte comprises medieval motte 30m in diameter, surrounded by a ditch. 

Both SAM 8 and 9 are located ~8km north‐east of the project and are outwith the ZTV. 

No views of the turbine are predicted. 

SAM 10 – Duchal Castle 


SAM 10 comprises the remains of Duchal Castle, an extensive 13 th century fortified 

site. The maximum scheduled area measures 90m x 40m. Situated ~9.5km north of 

the project, this site is also outwith the ZTV and no views of the turbine are predicted. 

SAM 11 – Aitnock Fort, dun, Hindog Glen 


Aitnock Fort is situated in Hindog Glen ~9.5km south‐south‐east of the project. It 

consists of a rocky knoll protected on the east by a vertical drop and on the north by 

steep natural slopes. Lying outwith the ZTV, no views of the turbine are predicted. 

Page 121 of 173



3.6.6 Mitigation Incorporated into the Proposed Development 

Planning guidance (PAN 42) states that there is a presumption in favour of preserving 

in situ archaeological sites of national importance. There is no evidence that any of 

these exist within the potential development sites. 

Where there are known features of cultural heritage interest of less than national 

importance within or near the potential development sites it is appropriate for 

significant effects to be mitigated by a programme of archaeological field investigation 

and preservation by record, if their destruction is unavoidable. The project has been 

designed such that the features identified by this assessment lie outside the sites 

identified for potential development. 

Permanent Land‐take and Operation 

Current proposals indicate that the turbine locations, road routes and other aspects of 

development avoid the locations of known features of cultural heritage interest. 

Likewise there may be indirect effects on the Scheduled Ancient Monuments and listed 

buildings identified in Figures 3.6.1, 3.6.2 and 3.6.3 above. No mitigation is proposed. 

While this assessment has found no indication of the survival of any archaeological 

features or deposits that are not visible above ground level, it is nevertheless possible 

that such features do exist within the application area. 

Restoration 

No restoration measures are currently proposed. 

3.6.7 Predicted Impacts and Effects 

Summary of Predicted Impacts 

No direct impact has been identified on any feature of cultural heritage interest, 

according to current proposals. There may be indirect visual impacts on the setting of 

a number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings and HGDL in the study 

area. 

Permanent Land‐take and Operation 

The permanent land‐take associated with the proposed development would be 

expected to remove any presently unrecorded features of cultural heritage that may 

be present in those areas. 

Page 122 of 173




Direct Effects 

Effect Probability Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Comment 

Direct effects 

on known 

features within 

the site 

Direct effect on 

presently 

unrecorded 

archaeology 

Unlikely High Negligible Low Site design has avoided direct 

effects on any known features of 

Cultural Heritage Significance. 

Unknown Unknown Low Low The small area of intrusive works are 

unlikely to have a significant effect 

on archaeological remains. An 

archaeological watching brief as 

surface layers are removed from the 

site should allow any finds 

encountered to be avoided by 

micro‐siting or recorded as 

appropriate 

Table 3.6.4 ‐ Effects and evaluation of significance: Direct effects 

Indirect Effects within 1km 

The desk assessment undertaken by Headland Archaeology in November 2009 has 

shown that there is a low level of archaeological features within the 1km study area. 

These are all located on the lower ground in the south‐eastern half of the study area. 

There are solitary examples of prehistoric and medieval features within the study area. 

The majority of the sites identified in the assessment are post‐medieval domestic and 

agricultural structures. 

The potential for unidentified archaeology to be present at the turbine site is 

considered to be low. This area of upland grazing has seen little activity that would 

destroy upstanding archaeological remains, therefore it is to be expected that any 

archaeological sites with a surface expression would have been identified previously. 

Certain types of archaeological sites, such as timber structures, however would not be 

expected to present surface remains but to survive purely as below ground 

archaeology and these would not have been identified. 

Indirect Effects 

Name Distance Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Comment 

LB 1 – Glenlora House, 

‘B’ listed 

SAM 1 – Larabank 

Castle 

~520m Medium Medium Medium Within ZTV. Ground level 

views screened by woodland 

to the north‐east of house. 

~540m High Low Medium Within ZTV. Very little 

remains of Castle above 

ground. Woodland to north 

will provide screening. 

Table 3.3.5 – Effects and evaluation of significance: Indirect effects on features within 1km 

Page 123 of 173





LB 2 – Ladyland 

House, ‘A’ listed 

LB 3 –Ladyland House 

sun dial, ‘A’ listed 

LB 4 – Ladyland Castle, 



garden sun dial, ‘B’ 

listed 


Stables, ‘B’ listed 

LB 7, SAM 2 – 

Glengarnock Castle, 


LB 8 –Nervelstone 

House Steading, ‘B’ 

listed 

LB 9 – Calderbank Mill, 


LB 10 – Burnfoot 

House, ‘B’ listed 

LB 11 – Bridgend 

Bridge, ‘B’ listed 

LB 12 – Caul near 

Bridgend Bridge, ‘B’ 

listed 

LB 13, SAM 3 – Barr 

Castle ‘B’ listed 

LB 14 – Loch Bridge, 


LB 15 – Calder Bridge, 


LB 16 – 34, ‘B’ listed 

buildings,Lochwinnoch 

~1.5km High Low Medium Turbine may be visible. 

Wooded grounds will 

provide substantial ground 

level screening. 





~1.5km Medium Low Low Turbine may be visible. 












~2.5km High Negligible Low Turbine may be visible. 





~2.6km Medium Negligible Negligible No visibility predicted. 

~2.5km Meduim Low Low Turbine may be visible. 





~3km Medium Low Low Turbine may be visible. 

~2.7 ‐3.2km Medium Negligible Negligible Turbine may be visible. But 

substantial ground level 

screening exists from built 

environment of 

Lochwinnoch. 

Table 3.6.6 ‐ Effects and evaluation of significance: Indirect effects features within 3km 

Page 124 of 173





LB 35 – Woodside House, 

‘A’ listed 

LB 36 – Kilbirnie Auld Kirk, 


LB 37 – Swindridgemuir, ‘A’ 

listed 

LB 38 – Caldwelll House, ‘A’ 

listed 

LB 39, SAM 5 – Castle 

Semple, ‘A’ listed 

LB 40 – Garthland Bridge 

LB 41 – Kilbarchan Steeple, 


LB 42 – Weavers Cottage, 


LB 43, HGDL 1 – Duchal 

House, ‘A’ listed 

SAM 4 – Peel Tower, Castle 

Semple Loch 

SAM 6 –Cuff Hill Plantation, 

long cairn 

SAM 7 – Walls Hill, fort 

SAM 8 – Ranfurly Castle 

SAM 9 – Castle Hill, motte 

SAM 10 – Duchal Castle 

SAM 11 – Aitnock, dun 

~4km High Negligible Low Potential ground level 

visibility. Substantial 

screening from 

surrounding wooded 

estate. 

~6km High Negligible Low Potential views, 

however built up area 

of Kilbirnie screens any 

ground level view of 

turbine. 

~10km High Negligible Low Potential views. 

Wooded grounds 

surrounds site. 

~10km High Negligible Low Outwith ZTV. No 

visibility predicted. 





~8.5km High Negligible Low Outwith ZTV. No 






~4km High Low Medium Potentiall visibility. 

~7.5km High Negligible Low Outwith ZTV. No views 

predicted. 

~8.5km High Negligible Low Potentiall views 

predictedfrom parts of 

the scheduled area. 

~8km High Negligible Low Outwith ZTV. No views 

predicted. 

~8km High Negligible Low Outwith ZTV. No views 

predicted. 


predicted. 


predicted. 

Table 3.6.7 ‐ Effects and evaluation of significance: Indirect effects features within 10km 

3.6.9 Effects and Evaluation of Significance 

Direct Impacts 

No direct impacts on any features of cultural heritage have been identified. The 

potential for development to encounter previously unrecorded features is considered 

to be low being limited by the small extent of intrusive works associated with the 

proposed development. 

Indirect Impacts 

Within 1km of the site the significance of impact on the ‘B’ listed Glenlora House and 

the Scheduled Ancient Monument, Larabank Castle; is assessed as being medium. Both 

Page 125 of 173



of these sites lie to the south of woodland and benefit from the screening provided. No 

ground level view of the turbine is predicted for Glenlora House. 

Within the 3km study a number of the ‘B’ listed buildings identified, LB 16 – 34, are 

screened at ground level from the project by the built up area of Lochwinnoch. This is 

confirmed through a comprehensive review of available data and photographic 

appraisal of the local area and surroundings. The project is assessed to have a 

negligible impact on these buildings. 

The 2 ‘A’ listed features within this study radius, namely Ladyland House and Ladyland 

House Sundial, are surrounded by mature woodland. Taking account of this effective 

screening no ground level views are predicted and the significance of impact is 

assessed as being medium. 

Two Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Barr Castle and Peel Tower, are predicted to have 

views of the proposed turbine. Although ‘magnitude’ of impact of the project is 

predicted to be low; given their ‘high’ sensitivity, ‘significance’ of impact is assessed to 

be medium. 

Conclusion 

Overall the indirect visual impact of the proposed wind turbine at Glenlora Estate, on 

the setting and integrity of the archaeological and cultural heritage features identified 

in the surrounding area are assessed to be low. 

Page 126 of 173



3.7 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology 

3.7.1 Introduction and Background 

This chapter presents the impact assessment of the proposed development on water 

quality, resources and flooding. The assessment has considered the development 

impacts on the water environment in addition to drainage and flood risk. 

Hydrological and drainage baseline conditions have been reviewed to inform the 

assessment of impacts which are predicted to occur during the construction and 

operational stages of site development and as a result of the permanent development 

of the site. Mitigation measures have been proposed to alleviate and prevent 

predicted impacts on site. 

The study is mainly concerned with the site area, but the water environment within a 

buffer zone of approximately 1km out with the site has been included. It is taken that 

the life‐span of the development is 25 years. 

Understanding surface and groundwater environments is critically important to 

designing a successful project. Surface water includes watercourses, water bodies and 

runoff. Groundwater includes all water stored in permeable underground strata (or 

aquifers). In any construction project it is important to understand both where and 

how they relate to each other so that the project can be designed to minimise the risk 

of pollution or any other impact. 

Surface water provides important water resources for potable and other supply, 

amenity, aesthetic value, conservation and ecological environments and importantly, 

recharge to ground water systems. Key pollution concerns for surface water from a 

project like this are; sediment erosion and contaminated silty runoff, chemical spill 

from activities such as refueling, contaminated groundwater from any dewatering 

activities, and modification or destruction of habitats. 

Groundwater is also an important resource, providing more than a third of the potable 

water supply in the UK. In addition it provides essential baseflow to rivers and wetland 

areas, often supporting important ecological systems. Key pollution concerns for 

ground water are; chemical spill and creation of new pollution pathways through, for 

example, excavation or piling. 

3.7.2 Methodology and Approach 

The methodology of this assessment is based on the collection of data and information 

from published material as well as consultations with statutory bodies, principally 

SEPA, Renfrewshire Council, as well as the land owners own knowledge of the site. 

Although hydrological issues are likely to be relatively minor at this site, the risk of 

pollution of watercourses, groundwater bodies and, most importantly, private water 

Page 127 of 173



sources within or near the site needs to be assessed and appropriately mitigated 

where necessary. 

Assessment Methods 

The assessment methods adopted to assess impacts on the water environment were: 

‐ Determination of the baseline hydrological conditions and the sensitivity of the 

site and adjacent receptors; 

‐ Review of the proposed development to determine the predicted impacts 

posed by the development itself and any restriction to the construction and 

operational stages; and 

‐ Evaluation of the significance of predicted impacts taking into account impact 

magnitude (before and after mitigation) and baseline environmental sensitivity. 

Information Sources 

A baseline desk study of existing drainage features on the site and surrounding 

watercourses was undertaken, including a review of the main legislation and policy 

guidance relating to water quality, resources and flooding: 

Legislation 

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 

Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 

Town & Country Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 

Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 

Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 

1992 

Guidance 

‐ Drainage Assessment ‐ Notes for Guidance (Renfrewshire Council) 

‐ SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs): 

‐ PPG 1: General guide to the prevention of water pollution; 

‐ PPG 5: Works in, near of liable to affect watercourses; 

‐ PPG 6: Working at construction and demolition sites; and 

‐ PPG 21: Pollution incident response planning. 

‐ 

‐ National Planning Policy Guidelines (NPPGs): 

‐ NPPG 10: Planning and Waste Management 

‐ Scottish Planning Policies (SPPs): 

‐ SPP7: Planning and Flooding 

Planning Advice Notes (PANs): 

Page 128 of 173



‐ PAN 50: Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral 

Workings; 

‐ PAN 69: Planning and Building Standards Advice on Flooding; 

‐ PAN 61: Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. 

The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 and The Water 

Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005. 

SEPA Water quality classification interactive database (2009 data). 

Other Sources: 

‐ Ordnance Survey mapping at 1.10,000 scales; 

‐ British Geological Survey (BGS) Hydrogeological Map of Scotland Scale 

1:625,000; 

‐ Glenlora Estate Wind Turbine Scoping Report (Green Cat Renewables Ltd, 

August 2009); and 

‐ Consultation with statutory and non statutory organisations 

The Water Framework Directive 

The requirements and implications of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) are key 

considerations for the project and it is important to ensure that the development 

proposals support the WFD objectives of achieving good ecological status of 

watercourses (i.e. Maich Water). In order to achieve these objectives, SEPA regulates 

engineering activities in and around watercourses under the Water Environment 

(Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (CAR). 

A CAR authorisation is intended to control impacts on the water environment including 

the mitigation of effects on other water users. Given the nature and scale of 

development and distance to the nearest watercourse a CAR authorisation was not 

considered to be necessary. 

Consultation 

The assessment has taken into consideration the issues raised in the consultation 

feedback received from the organisations in response to a request for a Scoping 

opinion registered by Renfrewshire Council on 21/08/09. A scoping response was 

received from Renfrewshire Council on the 26 th October 2009 which referenced SEPAs 

consultation response. Consultation responses relevant to water resources, quality and 

flooding are summarised in Table 3.7.1. 

Page 129 of 173



Consultee Consultation Response Consideration in 

Environmental Report 

Scottish 

Environment 

Protection 

Agency 

(SEPA) 

Table 3.7.1 ‐ Assessment of Effects 

The impact of having an on‐site 

borrow pit (including dust, blasting, 

and impact on water) should be 

appraised as part of the overall 

impact of the scheme. 

Possible threat of water pollution 

may arise due to the release of 

sediment from exposed surfaces and 

accidental spillage. This would apply 

to both the initial construction works 

and future decommissioning of the 

site. 

Page 130 of 173 

Pollution prevention for the 

water environment is assessed 

in this chapter. 

Scope and Limitations of Assessment 

Intrusive site investigations have not been specifically undertaken as part of the impact 

assessment on the water environment. Historical data, including previous site 

investigations and desk studies, where available, have been used to inform the 

assessment. The assessment of impacts on the water environment is based on the 

most up to date development plan for the site made available. Any changes to other 

aspects of the site may have environmental consequences and would therefore need 

additional assessment to determine. 

Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) features have been described from a conceptual 

perspective only and are subject to further technical verification and detailed design. 

3.7.3 Baseline conditions 

This section presents an overview of the baseline water environment at the site, 

including the location and quality of surface and groundwater resources, drainage and 

flood risk. An assessment of impacts at the various stages of the turbine development 

is presented in the following section, section 3.7.4. 

Surface Waters 

There are two small watercourses on and within close proximity to Glenlora Estate, the 

Lora Burn and an unnamed burn. The Lora Burn arises outwith the boundary of the site 

and passes through to the east to the southern side of Glenlora House. The second 

watercourse arises from a spring near Dunconnel Hill and passes through to a point 

100m to the northwestern end of a farm track located on the eastern boundary of the 

site. A small manmade loch is located within the western portion of the site.



Lora Burn 

As it flows through the site in a northwesterern to southeastern direction, the Lora 

Burn is approximately 0.5‐1.0m wide and fast flowing. The banks are predominantly 

dense scrub cover across approximately half of it’s length. This feature is shown in 

Figure 3.7.1 below: 

Figure 3.7.1 ‐ Lora Burn 

Unnamed Burn 

As it flows in a northwesterern to southeastern direction, the unnamed burn is 

approximately 0.5m wide and of moderate flow speed. Similarly the banks comprise 

dense scrub cover across approximately half of it’s length. This feature is shown in 

Figure 3.7.2. below: 

Figure 3.7.2 ‐ Unnamed burn 

Page 131 of 173



Loch 

The small manmade loch for fishing is approximately 45 x 45m 2 and located within the 

western portion of the site. The banks are densely vegetated. This feature is shown in 

Figure 3.7.3 below: 

Figure 3.7.3 ‐ Loch 

Watercourse classification 

All water features on the site and immediate surrounds are currently unclassified 

under the SEPA River Classification Scheme (2009). The closest SEPA classified surface 

watercourse is the Maich Water which is classified as being of a High quality. 

Existing Site Drainage and Topography 

The proposed turbine is located at one of the highest points on the landholding at an 

elevation of approximately 210m above sea level and comprises semi‐improved grass 

pasture and rough grazing. This area is predicted to drain in a southern and 

Page 132 of 173



southwesterly direction towards the Lora Burn (~450m) and the Loch (~450m). The 

approximate gradient of the hill is 1:6. 

The turbine location is shown in Figure 3.7.4 below: 

Figure 3.7.4 Turbine location 

Field drains 

There are no field drains within the vicinity of the turbine. 

Springs/Wells 

The nearest spring and well are located ~460m (spring) and 550m (well) in a 

northeasterly and southeasterly direction from the proposed turbine. None of these 

springs/wells appear to be in use as private water supplies. 

The turbines are not located in the immediate proximity of any other existing surface 

water feature or drainage systems. Hydrological features can be seen on Figure 3.7.5, 

Appendix 4. 

Flooding 

According to the SEPA Floodmap (2009) the turbine location is not located within 

1000m of an area at risk of flooding from rivers, the sea, or from both rivers and the 

sea. 

Private Water Supplies 

Glenlora House is connected to the public water supply system which is understood to 

be maintained and managed by Scottish Water. No network engineering drawings 

Page 133 of 173



have been consulted as part of this assessment and no further assessment of utilities 

infrastructure has been made. 

The 2006 private water supply regulations distinguish between Type A and Type B 

supplies. Type A supplies are commercial supplies and include all those premises with 

holiday accommodation and dairy farms. Type B supplies are domestic supplies. 

Renfrewshire Council were contacted on the 25 th November to establish if any private 

water supplies were located within the vicinity of the turbine. A response was received 

from Heather Connoly, Renfrewshire Council on the 30 th November 2009. This 

confirmed that there are a few private water supplies (Type B supplies only) registered 

for properties in the area; at Lorabank, Glenlora Cottage and The Stables all located 

within Corsefield Road. As shown in Figure 3.7.5 these properties are all located in 

excess of 500m from the proposed turbine. 

Hydrogeology 

SEPA does not attribute a groundwater resource classification to the aquifers in 

Scotland. The BGS 1:625,000 scale Groundwater Vulnerability Map of Scotland (1995) 

indicates that the strata beneath the site are classified as weakly permeable. These are 

formations of generally low permeability that do not widely contain groundwater in 

exploitable quantities. However, some formations can locally yield water supplies in 

sufficient quantities for private/domestic use. This is considered equivalent to the 

Environment Agency (England and Wales) classification of a Secondary Aquifer, with 

the under lying bedrock also representing a Secondary Aquifer. 

Secondary Aquifers are described as ‘…being able to provide modest amounts of 

water, but the nature of the rock or the aquifers structure limit their use’. 

The BGS Hydrogeological Map of Scotland indicates that the strata beneath the site is 

classified as extrusive rocks which comprise regions underlain by impermeable rocks, 

generally without groundwater except at shallow depth. 

Intrusive ground investigations will be completed to gain site specific information such 

as groundwater levels and geology. This will be done prior to any final construction 

design and any mitigation measures will be implemented if required. 

3.7.4 Impact Appraisal 

This section presents an assessment of impacts on the water environment which are 

predicted to occur during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases 

of the project. Mitigation measures are outlined and an assessment of residual 

impacts is made. 

The potential impact of the wind turbine on water quantity is minimal, so the 

mitigation measures focus on preventing water pollution. The major potential risk to 

the water environment is from erosion of exposed ground and consequent suspended 

solid pollution during construction. There is also a smaller risk from chemical pollution 

from, for example, oil, or fuel spills and concrete. 

Page 134 of 173



Further relevant information may be found within Section 2 – ‘The Proposed 

Development’ and Section 12 – ‘Safety’ of this report. 

Predicted Impacts ‐ Construction Phase 

The majority of potentially significant negative impacts on the water environment are 

predicted to occur in the short term during the construction stage. Therefore, in this 

section, predicted temporary construction impacts on the water environment are 

assessed. Land‐based construction activities that are likely to have the most significant 

impacts on water quality and may include: 

‐ Site clearance, including removal of vegetation; 

‐ Earthworks, including ground re‐profiling; 

‐ Possible increases in the volume of surface water runoff caused by the 

construction of turbine base, crane pad, substation building and temporary 

compound (impermeable areas); 

‐ Construction materials handling, including the storage and use of fuels and oils, 

excavated materials and other potentially polluting construction materials, 

including hydrocarbons; 

‐ Handling of potentially polluting silt‐laden runoff; Accidental spillage or 

uncontrolled release of potentially polluting material such as diesel, oil or 

hydraulic fluid, concrete or chemicals; 

‐ Construction works in the ground, including laying of services, particularly 

electricity infrastructure, at depth, which may introduce new drainage 

pathways which could generate silt laden runoff; and 

‐ Construction of approximately 550m of track to turbine from existing 

infrastructure (inc. provision for surface water drainage), which may introduce 

new drainage pathways which could generate silt laden runoff. 

‐ Soil compaction is predicted to occur as a result of construction vehicles and 

plant passing over unsurfaced land. Soil compaction can cause a reduction in 

water permeating to the ground, resulting in increased silt laden runoff and a 

change in the drainage characteristics and flows across the site. 

Surface runoff containing silt, particularly during and after rainfall events, has the 

potential to enter watercourses. Silty water is predicted to arise from excavations, 

exposed ground, , plant, and run‐off from site tracks and roads. Silt laden runoff has 

the potential to block drains in and around the site and to impact on water quality of 

receiving watercourses and affect habitats and species through smothering of river 

gravels and increasing turbidity. Ecological impacts are considered in more detail in 

Section 3.3. 

Pollutants such as construction chemicals or fuel may be mobilised and carried in 

drainage if they are spilled or leak from plant and storage facilities. Unless managed 

Page 135 of 173



appropriately, the pollutants could be washed into nearby watercourses, causing 

hydro chemical impacts with implications for aquatic ecology and habitats. 

3.7.5 Mitigation Measures 

This section presents mitigation measures which would be adopted to manage the 

predicted impacts at the site during the construction phase. 

The following mitigation measures are recommended with regard to predicted 

construction impacts at the site: 

‐ All earth moving works or similar operations will be carried out in accordance 

with BSI Code of Practice for Earth Works BS6031:1981; 

‐ During construction of the track, drainage will be controlled by placing 

excavated soils on the uphill slopes with lateral drainage ditches on the 

downhill slopes; 

‐ Track running surfaces would be suitably profiled to reduce surface drainage 

flows. Any surface water drainage for the track and hard standing will be 

designed to comply with the principals of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) 

which will promote natural infiltration. The SuDS network will be kept separate 

from the existing field drain network to avoid any potentially contaminated 

runoff from the new infrastructures to be discharged into the local water 

courses. If this is not practical then drains will be installed along the length of 

the tracks which will then feed in to a soakaway via a silt trap. A possible 

drainage layout solution is shown on Figure 3.7.5; 

‐ Construction will be carried out according to SEPA and CIRIA guidance for site 

works. 

‐ Construction traffic will use specified roads and parking areas at all times, 

where practicable, to reduce compaction and associated run‐off in the wider 

area. Appropriate temporary control measures such as drainage ditches will be 

installed to intercept run‐off from haul roads and other compacted areas prior 

to its discharge to existing watercourses or surface drains; 

‐ 

‐ To minimise disturbance impacts, cables will be laid in small trenches along the 

side of the access tracks as far as possible. Trenches will be dug during drier 

periods, if possible, and spoil material will be temporarily placed on the uphill 

slope to reduce the likelihood of runoff entering the excavations. The electric 

cables will be laid quickly and backfilled to minimise water ingress to the 

trenches. Turbine and substation location is shown on Figure 3.7.5; 

‐ All fuel and other chemicals will be stored and managed in accordance with 

best practice procedures, including at a safe distance from existing 

watercourses and in appropriate impermeable bunded containers/areas. Best 

practice included in SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidance Notes (PPGs); 

Page 136 of 173



‐ All earth bunds and soil and waste material storage areas will be located as far 

as possible from site watercourses and will be well managed to minimise runoff 

and erosion; 

‐ Any contaminated material encountered during construction would be dealt 

with according to environmental best practice, following suitable chemical 

analysis, and will be contained, treated or disposed of following best practice to 

a suitably licensed disposal facility; 

‐ Drainage on site will be developed in line with the guidance given in Drainage 

Assessment – Notes for Guidance (Renfrewshire Council). 

‐ The turbine foundation design minimises excavation requirements and 

encourages some re‐vegetation after construction. High grade concrete which 

does not leach alkalis will be used where required. 

‐ A pollution incidence response plan will be developed in accordance with SEPA 

PPG 21. Spill response measures will be put in place to ensure that any 

accidental spillages at the surface can be contained and quickly removed from 

site. 

In accordance with SEPA PPG 21 the following mitigation measures are relevant to 

controlling erosion and runoff from turbine bases/crane pad construction: 

- Scheduling construction activities to minimise the area and period of time that 

soil will be exposed, particularly during winter periods; 

- Installation of cut‐off drains around the working areas to intercept 

uncontaminated surface runoff and divert it around the works; 

- Minimise the stockpiling of materials and locating essential stockpiles as far 

away as possible from watercourses, and 

- Re‐vegetation of foundation and crane pad working areas as soon as possible 

after construction. 

The mitigation measures noted above will be built in to the tendering process so that 

all contractors are obliged to follow the agreed methods of pollution control. 

Appropriate clauses will be incorporated within contractual documents to ensure that 

appropriate measures are taken. 

The site induction for contractors will include a specific section on environmental risks, 

including water pollution from construction activity. There will be no storage of oils 

and diesel on site. Where oils and diesel are brought on to site for refuelling or 

maintenance, these operations will be carried out in designated areas of hard standing 

located at least 20m from the nearest watercourse or drain. Standard methods will be 

adopted within these designated areas that minimise the risk of spillage. Contingency 

plans will also be in place for dealing with any spillage that may occur. 

Page 137 of 173

3.7.6 Predicted Impacts 



Construction Impacts 

Even with mitigation measures in place, minor volumes of sediment eroded from 

access tracks may enter local watercourses. This is most likely during heavy rain, 

although the dilution potential of the watercourses is also at its greatest during these 

periods. During low flow periods it is very unlikely that silt could reach a watercourse. 

No impact on the potential fisheries interest of the streams is therefore envisaged. 

The laying of track and hardstanding on otherwise vegetated surfaces will change the 

runoff characteristics of the land used. However, the tracks and hard standings 

represent a small area of the site and no change in flood risk or channel erosion is 

predicted as a result. 

The cable trenches are small, temporary features and as such their potential impact on 

the water environment is low. Their actual impact in terms of creation of new 

drainage pathways or damage to soil profile is likely to be negligible provided the best 

practice methods are followed. 

The foundations are large structures and will require substantial excavations. There is a 

small risk of minor surface water pollution from the construction activities or the 

temporary spoil heaps. However, provided the best practice construction methods are 

followed this risk should be very low. Once construction is complete and the soil has 

been replaced over the foundation and reseeded, the change to surface water runoff 

and risk of pollution is considered to be negligible. 

The substation building and temporary compound will cause a minor change in the 

hydrological response of the area affected, with locally increased runoff rates. 

However the area affected will be very small in the context of the site and the 

temporary compound will be recovered and reseeded at the end of the construction 

period. 

The ongoing risk of pollution on the site after construction is considered to be very 

low. 

The proposed mitigation for the construction of the access roads will continue to 

function through the life of the project. Methods incorporated are designed to be 

sustainable and to cope with storm events. Only routine maintenance is envisaged to 

be required for the roads and all such maintenance will be carried out in summer 

months when the tracks are dry. 

There will be a few on‐site activities during operation of the wind turbine relating to 

regular maintenance or repair of the turbines. During these activities there will be a 

need to bring small quantities of oil and greases and other materials on to the site. 

Operational best practice procedures will continue to be adopted. 

Operational Impacts 

Even with mitigation the access track will result in localised changes to the surface 

water hydrology. The cambered tracks will shed water more quickly than an 

Page 138 of 173



equivalent area of farmland. During heavy rainfall events there is therefore the 

potential for the erosion of track surfaces and excavated spoil material, which could 

lead to sediment being carried with the runoff. However adoption of Sustainable 

Drainage Systems making use of vegetation to slow water flows and filter sediments is 

predicted to minimise the risk of such sediments reaching watercourses. The risk of 

pollution of watercourses due to sediment runoff is considered low. 

The small scale of site works during operation means that any spillages or leaks are 

likely to be small and easily dealt with. The risk of water pollution from such activities 

is therefore considered to be negligible. 

Decommissioning Phase 

The potential impacts during decommissioning will be similar to those during 

construction. 

However, as the tracks and below ground foundations will be left in place the amount 

of machinery and time spent on site will be less, with a commensurate reduction in the 

risk. Mitigation similar to that during construction (updated to take account of the 

current legislation) is anticipated. 


The evaluation of significance of effects is based on a combination of an assessment of 

likelihood and sensitivity. The assessment of the effects is summarised in the Table 

3.7.2 below. 

Effect 

Probability Magnitude Sensitivity Significance Comments 

Erosion of track surfaces Low Medium Low Low Suitable mitigation will 

producing silt laden runoff 

minimise this risk 

Disruption of natural flow High Low Low Low In most areas the track is 

paths 

either located near the highest 

point or is already existing 

Increased runoff volumes High Low Low Low Surface area is small so 

effect will be small 

Generation of runoff during Low Medium Low Low Best practice procedures will 

foundation construction 

be used to minimise this risk 

Accidental spillage or Low Medium Low Low Best practice procedures will 

uncontrolled release of 

potentially polluted 

materials 

be used to minimise this risk 

Contamination of 

Low Medium Medium Low Suitable mitigation will 

groundwater environment 

minimise this risk 

Table 3.7.2 ‐ Assessment of Effects 

3.7.8 Summary 

The majority of potentially significant negative impacts on water quality are only 

predicted to occur in the short term through potential increased sedimentation and 

construction pollution during the construction phase. It is anticipated that the 

adoption of best practice management and control procedures by all site personnel 

and the implementation of the mitigation methods proposed will bring these risks 

down to acceptable levels. 

Page 139 of 173



3.8 Existing Infrastructure, Telecommunications, Television, 

Aviation and Electromagnetic Safety 


This part of the report looks at the proposed turbine at Glenlora Estate in the 

context of possible effects on existing telecommunications, television, aviation and 

electromagnetic safety. This is necessary as a wind turbine can interfere with any 

communications networks utilising electromagnetic signals, in common with all 

structures of that size. 


Guidance for assessing EMI from wind farms is given in: 

Scottish Executive, 2002. Planning Advice Note (PAN) 45: Renewable Energy 

Technologies. 

3.8.3 Approach 

A list of consultees with telecommunications and television interests in the area 

were identified based on advice given in PAN 45. The consultees pertinent to this 

report are listed in Table 3.8.1 below: 

Consultee Response Received Objection 

Arqiva / National Grid Wireless (NGW) 

BBC 

CSS 

Ofcom 

Orange 

BT 

Joint Radio Company (JRC) 

CAA 

Prestwick Airport 

BAA 

NERL Safeguarding 

MoD 

NATS 

Page 140 of 173 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Table 3.8.1 ‐ Consultations Made With Respect To Existing Telecommunications and Television 

Reception 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No response received 

No response received

3.8.4 Initial Responses 



Arqiva/National Grid Wireless (NGW) 

A response was received from NGW by email on the 8 th May 2009. This stated that 

the proposed turbine is unlikely to affect any UHF Re‐Broadcast feeds. 

CSS 

A response was received from CSS by email on the 15 th June 2009. This stated that 

there was no objection to the proposed turbine in relation to UHF Radio Scanning 

Telemetry communications used by their client in that region. It was made clear in 

the response that this no objection was not in relation to any Microwave Links 

operated by Scottish Water. 

Ofcom 

A response was received from Ofcom by email on the 17 th April 2009. This stated 

that there are no fixed link ends within or fixed link paths crossing the 750m radius 

around the site centre. It was also stated that this assessment is based on the Ofcom 

fixed links database status as of the 16 th April 2009, which may vary before the 

windfarm project implementation. Also, they identified CSS Spectrum Management 

Services and JRC as interested parties. These operators, along with the main 

communication providers have been consulted and the responses received are 

summarised in the following sections. 

While television transmission is the joint responsibility of the BBC and Ofcom, the 

following was given in Ofcom’s response to the initial co‐ordination request: 

‘Regarding assessment with respect to TV reception, the BBC has an online tool 

available on their website: http://windfarms.kw.bbc.co.uk/. Ofcom do not forward 

enquiries to the BBC.’ 

Orange 

A response was received from Orange by email on the 27 th May 2009. This stated 

that Orange’s Network Planning teamhave assessed the proposal and there are no 

Orange microwave links affected. 

BT 

A letter response was received from BT dated 8 th May 2009. This stated that they 

“have studied this initial proposal with respect to EMC and related problems to BT 

point‐to‐point microwave radio links and satellite. The conclusion is that, the Wind 

farm Project indicated should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently 

planned radio networks.’ 

JRC 

A response was received from JRC by email on 24 th April 2009. This stated that “in the 

case of this proposed wind energy development, JRC does not foresee any potential 

problems based on known interference scenarios and the data you have provided. 

However; if any details of the wind farm change, particularly the disposition or scale 

of any of the turbines, it will be necessary to re‐evaluate the proposal”. 

Page 141 of 173



CAA 

A response was received from CAA by email on the 19 th May 2009. This stated that 

Glasgow and Prestwick Airport may be affected by the proposal and therefore should 

be consulted accordingly. 

Prestwick Airport 

A response was received from Prestwick Airport by email on the 20 th May 2009. This 

stated that “the proposed turbine is located approximately 33 km from the primary 

surveillance radar at Glasgow Prestwick Airport at a bearing of approximately 350 

degrees. Based on the information with which you have supplied us, the proposed 

turbine will be entirely terrain shielded (and therefore not visible) to our radar. 

Therefore, we would not be minded to object to its construction.” 

BAA 

A letter response was received from BAA dated 17 th June 2009. This stated that should 

a full planning application be submiited an objection would be raised by Glasgow 

Airport. This response is cited further in the Scoping Opinion response letter from 

Renfrewshire Council dated 26 th October 2009. 

BAA responded to say that: 

“The proposed development lies 16.7km in a South Westerly direction from the 

Aerodrome Reference Point (ARP) for Glasgow Airport. This area is outside the physical 

Aerodrome Safeguarding area and therefore the only concern for the airport will be 

that of the potential effect on the radars.” 

“ Assessment shows that the proposed turbine will be in line of sight to the Glasgow 

Primary Radar. The siting of this wind turbine would cause clutter in a location that 

would affect 99% of the operations into Glasgow Airport and would be a significant 

problem that is impossible to alleviate for Glasgow NATS and BAA. Neither routeing 

through or around the clutter caused by this turbine is an option as this would 

compromise the safety of all aircraft in and out of Glasgow. It would involve a 

significant heading change at the most critical point of an aircrafts flight (just before 

landing and just after take off) and would also mean breaking the noise abatement 

rules”. 

NERL Safeguarding 

The Scoping Opinion response letter from Renfrewshire Council dated 26 th October 

2009 states that NERL Safeguarding were consulted but did not have any comments to 

make. 

MoD 

At the time of writing no response had been received from MoD. 

NATS 

At the time of writing no direct response had been received from NATS. However it is 

understood that BAA have consulted with NATS on our behalf. 

Page 142 of 173



3.8.5 Impacts, Issues and Mitigating Actions 

Issues requiring mitigation are discussed below and summarised in Table 3.8.2. 

Telecommunications 

Future Fixed Link Telecommunications Traffic 

In relation to the potential impacts on future fixed links for the telecommunications 

industry, the proposed wind turbine, given permission, will become an established 

element within the area. It will not be possible to establish a new fixed link through 

the site with the wind turbine in situ. If a new link is required in the area it should 

not be an insurmountable problem to find alternative routes around the proposed 

turbines. 

Public Service Telecommunications Users 

No serious issues regarding public service telecommunication users are expected if 

the proposal is consented. 

Television 

The proposed turbine locations are not in close proximity to a television transmitter. 

However, wind turbines have the potential to interfere with television reception. 

Television Reception 

Although the proposed wind turbine will be situated in a fairly sparsely populated 

area, the BBC’s online tool predicted television reception problems ‘…would be likely 

to affect no homes for whom there is no alternative off‐air service. In addition, you 

may affect up to 2330 homes for whom there may be an alternative off‐air service.’ 

The transmitters likely to be affected are: Black Hill CH5, Lochwinnoch, Darvel, 

Lanarkshire, Darvel CH5 and Black Hill. 

It will be the responsibility of the developer to rectify these problems. 

Most television reception problems can be dealt with by improving the receiving 

aerials or providing the affected households with an alternative signal source. This 

alternative source could be a different transmitter, existing cable system (though 

unlikely to be suitable for this location) or a satellite. Where these workarounds are 

not possible, an investigation may have to be made to implement and provide 

customised distribution systems to the affected households. 

As potential television reception problems are difficult to predict and identify, 

assurance that the developer will rectify any problems is often given in the form of a 

planning agreement, which is now fairly standard practice with approved wind farm 

applications. 

Page 143 of 173

BAA/NATS 



All wind turbine proposals within 30km of any of BAA airports are assessed by BAA’s 

external consultants National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and it is generally their 

advice that drives any decision. 

“This area is located outside the physical Aerodrome Safeguarding area and 

therefore the only concern for the airport will be that of the potential effect on the 

radars. Initial assessment shows that turbines of 84m high in this location would be 

visible to the radars of Glasgow Airport. It is possible that the proposed turbine will 

cause operational problems for air traffic control at the airport.” 

On receipt of the above objection a highly regarded independent radar expert (Ian 

Fletcher – Wind Business Support) was consulted in relation to the application to 

open up dialogue with BAA and NATS in the hope of discussing mitigation options at 

an early stage. 

Following dialogue with Ian Fletcher, Colin Cragg and Lesley Duggan (BAA 

Safeguarding); it is understood that there is ongoing work with the integration of the 

SPE3000 processing system to Glasgow Radar, which is expected to offer improved 

capability to mitigate certain wind turbines. As the next phase of this integration will 

run from October 2009 to May 2010 it is presumed that from a safeguarding 

perspective any new filtering techniques are not expected to be available until early 

next year and as a result the objection would stand until then which would coincide 

with the application being dealt with through the planning process. 

Recent discussions (December 2009) with Colin Cragg, Head of Aerodrome 

Safeguarding, BAA have been positive in terms of highlighting feasible mitigation 

options (including blanking) and a meeting with the Safeguarding team is proposed 

in January 2010 to agree a satisfactory solution for all parties. 

Page 144 of 173



Table 3.8.2 - Mitigation Summary Table: Existing Telecommunications and Television Reception 

Impact / Issue Mitigation Predicted 

success of 

mitigation 

Television 

Not likely to affect any 

homes for whom there 

is no alternative off‐air 

service. 

Potential to affect up to 

2330 homes for whom 

there may be an 

alternative off‐air 

service 

MoD 

The turbine is unlikely 

to have an effect on any 

MoD radar. 

BAA/NATS 

The turbines may cause 

unacceptable impact on 

NATS/BAA operations 

Key to predicted success of mitigation: 

Re‐tuning the TV to an alternative transmitter may 

overcome possible interference. 

NR NR NR 

At the time of writing no response had been received 

from the MoD. 

The turbine is not located within the highest point of 

the estate and have been positioned in an area to 

minimise visibility. 

The turbine would be visible 

Initial assessment shows that turbines of 84m 

high in this location would be visible to the radars 

of Glasgow Airport. 

There are a number of technical ‘fixes’ being 

developed with the integration of the SPE3000 

processing system to Glasgow Radar that would 

allow the radar to filter (blank) out the wind turbine. 

Fully ‐ Impact fully mitigated and no effects predicted. 

Substantially ‐ Mitigation would be largely successful at reducing impact, though 

some effects are possible. 

Partially ‐ Mitigation would be successful at reducing impacts, but some effects 

likely. 

Page 145 of 173 

Mitigation method 

Fully Planning Agreement 

Fully Negotiation with the 

MoD 

Fully Negotiation with 

NATS/BAA (January 

2010) 

No other significant EMI impacts are expected to occur from this development. 

3.9 Summary and Conclusions 

For the wind turbine at Glenlora Estate to have a disruptive effect on civil or military 

air operations/safeguarding, telecommunications or television service could be 

unacceptable. If the mitigating actions suggested are taken, then no unacceptable 

degradation of telecommunications or television services is expected from the 

building of the proposed wind turbine.

3.10 Safety 

3.10.1 Background 



Wind turbines have a proven track record for safety. A very small number of turbines 

have been known to lose parts of the rotor assembly through accidental damage 

such as lightning or mechanical failure. There is no record of a member of a member 

of the public being injured by an operational wind turbine in the UK. 

Nonetheless aspects of a project of this nature still have the potential to create 

hazards to contractors and the general public. The greatest hazards occur during the 

scope of each life phase of a wind farm: 

Site Development and Planning; 

Design, Specification, Manufacture & Assembly; 

Construction, Commissioning (and demolition); and 

Operation And Maintenance 

3.10.2 Legislation and Standards 

In October 2008 The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) produced Health and 

Safety guidance specifically for wind projects. Health & Safety procedures would take 

into account BWEA guidance along with the most relevant statutory (i.e. legal, 

requirements) and best practice guidelines. 

The following acts, regulations and standards are relevant to UK health & safety 

legislation for wind turbines: 

Acts or Regulations 

The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 (HASWA) 

Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSW) 

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM) 

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 

The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 (2007 will come into 

force in December 2009) 

Health & Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 

The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 

1995 (RIDDOR) 

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 

Personal Protective Equipment at Work (PPE) Regulations 

The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) 

Lifting Operations & Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) 

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) 

Page 146 of 173



The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 

The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 

Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 

Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 

Driving at Work Regulations 1997 

The Health & Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations 1996 

Relevant British & European Standards 

There are a number of British and European Standards which have been published or 

are in draft which may impact the health safety of a wind farm/turbine. 

The following Standards have been identified as being relevant to this development: 

BSEN 50308:2004 ‐ Wind turbines – protective measures – Requirements for 

design, operation and maintenance. 

BSEN 61400‐1:2005 ‐ Wind turbines, Design requirements 

BSEN 61400‐2:2006 – Design requirements for small wind turbines 

BSEN 61400‐11:2003 – Wind turbine generator systems. Acoustic noise 

measurement terchniques 

BSEN 61400‐12:1998 ‐ Wind turbine generator systems. Wind turbine power 

performance testing. 

DD IEC TS 61400‐13:2001 ‐ Wind turbine generator systems. Measurement of 

mechanical loads. 

BS EN 61400‐21:2002 – Wind turbine generator systems. Measurement and 

assessment of power quality characteristics of grid connected wind turbines. 

DD IEC TS 61400‐23:2002 ‐ Wind turbine generator systems. Full scale 

structural testing of rotor blades. 

PD IEC/TR 61400‐24:2002 ‐ Wind turbine generator systems. Lightning 

protection. 

BS EN 61508 – Functional safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable 

Electronic Safety‐related systems. 

This is by no means an exhaustive list of the guidance, legislation and standards. 

3.10.3 Risk Assessment 

The Wind Turbines 

Modern wind turbines are designed and built to established safety standards and 

have an excellent safety record. 

Turbine control and monitoring systems operate with several levels of redundancy to 

protect the plant from damage. In the case of faults arising, including over‐speed of 

the blades, over‐power production or loss of grid connection, turbines shut down 

automatically via fail‐safe braking mechanisms. In addition, turbines are fitted with 

Page 147 of 173



vibration sensors so that if a blade was damaged, or unbalanced due to the 

formation of ice on blades, the turbine would automatically shut down. 

The Construction and Decommissioning Phases 

Throughout the design, construction and decommissioning phases of the 

development the relevant statutory requirements would be adhered to including 

CDM Regulations. All potentially hazardous areas would be fenced off and all 

unattended machinery would be stored in the temporary site compound or 

immobilised to prevent unauthorised use. It is not intended that any hazardous 

material will be stored on the site, however, should this change then appropriate 

bunding would be incorporated to limit the horizontal spread of any spillage and an 

impervious membrane would be located within the bund to prevent leaching of 

potentially hazardous materials into the ground. 

Construction or Maintenance Related Fatal Accident 

The vast majority of accidents related to wind power occur during construction, 

commissioning, major repair or decommissioning. This is perhaps not surprising 

considering that in addition to the standard construction risks of working with large 

machinery there is considerable amount of working at height, lifting operations often 

in unpredictable weather and working with high voltage electricity. 

There have been very few fatal accidents worldwide relating to wind energy projects. 

The majority of accidents that have occurred have been related to falls from height, 

many of them where proper procedures have not been followed. According to the 

BWEA and the World Wind Energy Association (WWEA) in October 2009 there were 

2636 operational wind turbines in the UK and at the end of 2008, worldwide 

nameplate capacity of wind‐powered generators was 121.2 gigawatts (GW) which 

equates to approximately 100,000 machines. 

Most construction related accidents can be avoided through strict adherence to 

Health and Safety procedures. The Construction Design and Management (CDM) 

regulations have been instrumental in reducing construction related accidents in the 

UK in recent years. This project will come under the CDM regulations and as part of 

the tendering process for this project we will ensure that only manufacturers with a 

good safety record on relevant projects will be selected to tender. 

The CDM Regulations identify clear responsibilities for all parties associated with a 

project and ensure that clients, designers, contractors and sub‐contractors are 

represented by competent individuals and familiar with their individual 

responsibilities. CDM Coordinator and Principal Contractor roles have been 

established specifically to manage the health and safety at various stages of a 

project. 

The Operational Phase 

Modern wind turbines are designed to operate to high standards of safety and 

reliability, and have an excellent safety record. The wind turbine type proposed 

Page 148 of 173



would carry certification by an internationally renowned organisation, such as 

Germanischer Lloyd. 

Of the tens of thousands of wind turbines that are operating world‐wide, there has 

been no recorded incident of death or injury to members of the public, directly 

caused by wind turbines, passing close to or underneath them. It may therefore be 

concluded that the risk to public safety is virtually non‐existent. 

There have been a small number of road accidents where driver distraction due to 

wind turbines has been cited as a contributory factor. Problems with driver 

distraction seem to be specific to certain conditions where turbines suddenly come 

into the driver’s field of view at close range near to some other form of hazard, such 

as a major junction. This project comprises a single wind turbine and will be a 

considerable distance from any major public roads so it is unlikely to ‘suddenly come 

into view’ significantly mitigating this risk. Further there are a number of examples 

of wind turbines being located adjacent to major highways in the UK where there do 

not appear to have been any problems with driver distraction. 

Structural Failure During Operation 

This is an issue that is increasingly being raised by wind farm objectors. In order to 

understand the risks presented by the different forms of structural failure that are 

possible it was considered useful to separate causes of failure from the 

consequences so that the likelihood and significance, and hence the overall risk, can 

be understood. 

A summary risk assessment is detailed in Table 3.10.1 below which identifies the 

significance of the development based on existing conditions, potential impacts and 

effects and sensitivity of receptors for issues such as: electrical risk; mechanical risk; 

projectile risk; aircraft risk (inc. primary and secondary radar); road and lightning risk. 

If significant adverse effects are identified mitigation measures will be put in place to 

prevent the occurrence and severity. 

Page 149 of 173



Risk 

Table 3.10.1 ‐ Potential structural failure related risks 

Hazard Probability Mitigation Significance 

Lightning strike ‐ Lightning can strike wind Blade Disintegration ‐ The most common Low Warning Signs ‐ Signs will be set up at the site Negligible 

turbines, so modern wind turbines are fitted symptom of a massive lightning strike is the 

access point to advise people not to enter the wind 

with a lightning conductor system which damage to a turbine blade. This is caused by large 

cluster area during weather conditions where 

carries the lightning safely to earth causing electric currents travelling down the GRP blade 

lightning may occur. 

no damage to the turbine. Lightning material vaporising small pockets of moisture. This 

protection is usually designed to safely deal causes the fabric to break apart, causing areas of 

with over 99% of lightning strikes. However, the blade to shatter into relatively small strips of 

on very rare occasions high energy strikes can glass fibre and packing foam. This is extremely 

overwhelm the protection and cause unlikely to cause injury. Properties are located too 

structural damage including blade far from the turbines to be affected by falling 

disintegration and fire. 

debris and staff and visitors would not tend to visit 

the site during periods of severe lightning storms. 

Fire – Another risk from lightning is fire. If a fire 

does start in the nacelle any loose oil will ignite 

and burn quickly. The nacelle housing itself is 

generally made from flammable materials. The 

blades often survive fires as they will be positioned 

upwind of the nacelle such that the wind blows the 

flames away from the blades. If the blades are 

destroyed they would fall to the ground near the 

turbine. Properties are located too far from the 

turbines to be affected by falling debris and staff 

and visitors should not stand close to a burning 

turbine. 

Page 150 of 173 

Low Maintenance – Lightning strikes require flammable 

material to be subjected to the effect of the 

lightning strike. Ensuring that the machines are well 

maintained and loose oil is not allowed to 

accumulate in the nacelle will minimise this risk. 

Warning Signs – as above, warning signs to limit use 

of the site during lightning conditions would further 

reduce the risk of injury to any member of the 

public. 

Negligible

Structural failure ‐ The complete failure of a 

foundation, tower or yaw ring or blade 

leading to the nacelle, blade or tower 

collapsing, triggered by a design flaw, 

multiple simultaneous component failures or 

freak weather event is extremely rare. 

Failures such as this tend to be associated 

with prototype machines or exceptional 

weather conditions. 



Total Collapse ‐ where a major collapse has 

occurred the turbine has tended to fall as one 

complete unit and the danger area is therefore 

limited to a radius of little over the tip height. 

Some elements of the device will clearly be 

smashed and some wind blown debris may be 

caused by the impact as it lands, but as this debris 

starts from ground level it only travels a shorter 

distance. 

Properties are located too far from the turbines to 

be affected by falling debris and staff and visitors 

would not tend to visit the site during periods of 

sever wind speed which would cause such an 

incident. 

Blade Breaking Off ‐ A complete blade or 

substantial portion of a blade could conceivably 

brake loose due to a manufacturing flaw or 

assembly error in the hub, pitch bearing, or ‘root’ 

of a blade. Simple projectile calculations indicate 

that even from the worst case failure condition 

from a 65m tall tower a significant part of the 

blade is unlikely to travel more than 200m and 

even allowing for some extra distance due to a 

certain amount of tumbling as it lands, this only 

increases to ~250m. 

Properties are located too far from the turbines to 

be affected by falling debris and staff and visitors 

would not tend to visit the site during periods of 

sever wind speed which would cause such an 

incident. 

Page 151 of 173 

Negligible Turbine Selection and Contractor Selection – The 

turbine will be selected from a reputable 

manufacturer and the foundation will be designed 

and manufactured by a reputable contractor with 

experience of wind projects in Scotland in 

accordance with the relevant European and British 

Standards. 

Low As Above 

Negligible 

Negligible

Runaway ‐ Runaway is where the turbine’s 

two independent braking systems fail 

simultaneously and the turbine is accelerated 

up to a speed significantly in excess of the 

design speed and mechanical failure follows. 

The most common form of this type of failure 

is where the primary braking system fails and 

for some reason the control system fails to 

deploy the back‐up braking system. This is 

most common in prototype machines where 

insufficient effort has been put in to 

debugging the control software, although it 

can happen in more ‘mature’ machines. 

Electrical Fault ‐ Electrical faults are probably 

one of the most common types of fault that 

occur in wind turbines. Some of these will 

have been instigated by lightning and some 

may have been due to human error or 

material failure. 

Sabotage ‐ Whilst there have been incidents 

of vandalism and sabotage against small 

machines and anemometer masts it is 

difficult to imagine how such an act could 

lead to a major failure. 



Total Collapse – See Above 

Blade Breaking Off ‐ See Above 

Fire – If a fire does start in the nacelle any loose oil 

will ignite and burn quickly. The nacelle housing 

itself is generally made from flammable materials. 

The blades often survive fires as they will be 

positioned upwind of the nacelle such that the 

wind blows the flames away from the blades. If 

the blades are destroyed they would fall to the 

ground near the turbine. Properties are located 

too far from the turbines to be affected by falling 

debris and staff and visitors would tend not to 

stand close to a burning turbine. 

Page 152 of 173 

Negligible As Above 

Negligible 

Low As Above Negligible 

Low Maintenance – As with lightning strikes electrical 

fires require flammable material to be readily 

available to instigate a fire. Ensuring that the 

machines are well maintained and loose oil is not 

allowed to accumulate in the nacelle will minimise 

this risk. 

Negligible 

No identified Hazard Negligible N/A Negligible

3.10.4 Other Risks 



Ice Throw 

Ice throw is where ice builds up on the turbine blades and then breaks off when the 

turbine is rotating. The usual scenario is that the turbine has been stopped during a 

winter calm with sub‐zero temperatures and ice has formed on the blades, then 

when the turbine starts to rotate the ice breaks off and is thrown from the blades. 

This has primarily been a problem in continental Europe, particularly Germany, 

where the conditions for forming ice are more common than the UK and turbines 

tend to be located much closer to dwellings. Modern wind turbines are fitted with 

vibration sensors which can detect ice breaking loose, so that if an ice throwing 

event starts to happen the machine is shut down immediately. This will generally 

happen long before the turbine gets up to speed, limiting the danger area to a small 

area around the base of the turbine. Even if the turbine was allowed to reach full 

speed, simple projectile physics suggests that it would only be thrown ~150m. This 

seems to tie well with reports of ice shedding from Germany where ice throw has 

been reported to 140m. 

The probability of this occurring in the UK is low but signs will be set up at each 

access point to the site advising people not to enter the wind cluster area during 

weather conditions where ice formation may occur to further mitigate this. 

Aircraft 

All wind turbine proposals within 30km of any of BAA airports are assessed by BAA’s 

external consultants National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and it is generally their 

advice that drives any decision. An initial assessment by BAA stated that the 

proposed turbine will be in the line of sight to the Glasgow Primary Radar and that 

the proposed location of this wind turbine would cause clutter in a location that 

would effect 99% of the operations into Glasgow Airport and would be a significant 

problem that is impossible to alleviate for Glasgow NATS and BAA. 

As detailed in Section 3.8, on receipt of the above objection a highly regarded 

independent radar expert (Ian Fletcher – Wind Business Support) was consulted in 

relation to the application to open up dialogue with BAA and NATS in the hope of 

achieving a mitigation solution. 

3.10.5 Assessment of Risk Significance 

Construction and Decommissioning 

If the mitigation detailed above is followed the likelihood of any accidents happening 

is low. However, given that accidents often lead to fatalities the magnitude is high. 

The overall significance is judged to be medium. 

Operational Phase 

The risk of a major turbine failure is low and the risk of such a failure leading to a 

public injury or fatality is negligibly low. The overall significance is judged to be 

negligible. 

Page 153 of 173



The risk of an ice shedding event happening during the life of the project is low, and 

the risk of this causing serious injury to a member of the public is very low. The 

overall significance is therefore judged to be negligible. 

The risk of interference to Glasgow Airport radar occurring during the life of the 

project is considered to be low as such effects would be appropriately mitigated. 

3.10.6 Construction Best Practice 

Construction Best Practice would be adopted to maintain site safety and protect the 

interests of ecology and hydrology. 

All personnel working on the site would undergo an induction covering topics 

including health & safety, environmental protection and pollution prevention, 

control and response. 

A project Health, Safety and Environmental Plan would be developed to ensure a 

coordinated approach. This plan would highlight the health, safety and 

environmental considerations related to the proposed works and define the controls 

to be implemented to ensure a safe system of work. 

A scoping response was received from Renfrewshire Council on the 26 th October 

2009. At the time of writing a scoping consultation response had not been received 

from the Health & Safety Executive. 

Page 154 of 173


3.11 Items Scoped Out of Environmental Assessments 

3.11.1 Shadow Flicker 

PAN45 5 suggests that shadow flicker should not pose problems beyond 10 rotor 

diameters (480m). As no sensitive receptors have been identified within 480m of 

the turbine location no further assessment or mitigation in relation to shadow flicker 

was considered necessary with the overall level of impact would be negligible or 

zero. 

5 

Scottish Executive Planning Advice Note, PAN45 (revised 2002): Renewable Energy Technologies, 

Wind Power, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/pan/pan45‐04.asp, para. 64, 01/11/05 


Page 155 of 173

Contents 

Appendix 1 ‐ Ecology/Fauna 

Figure 3.3.8 Habitat Types 



Remaining ecology information is provided in Confidential Annex 3.3. 

Page 156 of 173



Appendix 2 ‐ Landscape and Visual Impact 

Viewpoint Analysis 

Viewpoint 1 – View from A760 – South of the site 

Viewpoint 1 is taken from E233584 N656622 looking north‐north‐west towards the 

site which is located ~2.7km away. The view was selected to represent what 

motorists on the closest major route to the site (A760) would see of the proposed 

development, as the closest major route to the site. 

The foreground of the view is dominated by the A760 beyond this the landscape 

opens out to rolling farmland. The topography of the land is reasonably flat into the 

middle distance, sloping gently upwards to rolling hills in the background. The view 

feels somewhat constrained due to the presence of various trees and bushes 

concentrated in the middle distance, screening from view the hills in the 

background. The trees in the centre of the view are slightly shorter and so the view 

opens up to the background, showing patches of dense plantations across the hills 

which are otherwise bare topped. 

A few signs of development are evident from this viewpoint. Buildings and dwellings 

can be seen amongst the trees, largely screened from view. Where the view opens 

up to the background, a line of large electricity pylons marches across the scene, 

piercing the horizon. 

Sensitivity 

Receptors: Receptors of this view would primarily be commuters 

on the A760. 

Quality: The view is mainly constrained to a couple of low lying 

hills, with no obvious features except for the electricity lines 

running along their tops. 

Value: The view is not thought to be valued locally and the 

landscape is thought to be reasonably tolerant to change. 

Page 157 of 173 

Medium 

Low/Medium 

Low/Medium 

Scale of Landscape: The surrounding landscape is medium scale, Medium 

with the local topography allowing long range views in some 

directions while being restricted in others. 

Overall: Medium 

Magnitude 

Distance: Receptors of this view are located at approximately 

2.7km from the proposed turbine location. 

Extent: The turbine would occupy a very modest portion of the 

view shown. The change in view is likely to be noticeable at this 

close distance. 

Degree of Contrast: The turbine would breach the horizon, but is 

in scale with the electricity pylons which also cross this view. 

Medium 

Low/Medium 

Low



Overall: Low/Medium 

Overall Visual Impact 

The overall visual impact is judged to be of low/medium significance. 

Viewpoint 2 – View from Lochwinnoch 

Viewpoint 2 is taken from E235555 N658922 approximately 3km east of the 

proposed turbine location, and is representative of the view for residents of the 

village of Lochwinnoch. 

The view is taken from a street in the southern part of the town where the views are 

more open to the west. As a result of the location of the viewpoint the view feels 

constrained, bounded by houses and buildings intermingled with mature trees and 

shrubbery, opening out slightly towards the site where the rolling farmland 

landscape appears topped by moorland and frequent shelter belts of trees. 

The view is well developed; houses sit in rows parallel to the road. A church spire 

breaks the horizon to the south‐west of the town, partially screened by trees. 

Numerous lampposts and other street furniture may be observed at intervals along 

the pavements and verges of the streets of Lochwinnoch. A line of large electricity 

pylons runs along the background hills, while occasional telecommunications masts 

can also be seen stretching skyward. 

Sensitivity 

Receptors: Receptors of this view would be the residents of High 

Lochwinnoch. 

Quality: The view is pleasant, but not particularly distinctive. Medium 

Value: This scene is likely to be valued by high sensitivity High 

receptors. 

Scale of Landscape: The view from the street is fairly High 

constrained by buildings, only allowing visibility in a few 

directions, which may make it more sensitive to change. 

Overall: High 

Magnitude 



Extent: The turbine takes up a moderate portion of the extent of 

the scene 

Page 158 of 173 

Medium 

Medium 

Degree of Contrast: The turbine may cause a ‘moderate, but still Medium 

discernible change to one or more key elements/features of the 

baseline conditions’. 

Overall: Medium




The overall visual impact is judged to be of high significance. 

Viewpoint 3 – View from Kilbirnie 

Viewpoint 3 is taken from E232458 N655038 looking in a north‐easterly direction 

towards the site located ~4.1km away. The view is taken from the outskirts of the 

town of Kilbirnie and is representative of the view that residents of the town would 

have of the proposed development. 

The view looks out across a mixture of open farmland and well developed residential 

areas. The topography is fairly flat in the foreground, rolling gently downwards 

towards a mixture of private landholdings, farmhouses and cottages to the south‐ 

west and undulating upwards becoming hilly in the background, stretching right 

round to the north‐east towards the site. A hedgerow lines the side of the road, 

making the view feel slightly constrained, beyond this the middle distance is strewn 

with tall deciduous trees and electricity pylons 

A number of signs of development are evident: the town of Kilbirnie sits in a dip 

between hills; The A760 winds its way out of the town lined with marker posts and 

other street furniture; large electricity pylons criss‐cross the scene; and some 

telecommunications masts are also evident. Beyond Kilbirnie two significant wind 

farms can be made out, the closest being Dalry Community wind farm, with 

Ardrossan on a more distant hill. A scattering of houses may be observed around the 

hills in the middle distance. 

Sensitivity 

Receptors: Receptors of this and similar views would primarily High 

be the local residents in the area. 

Quality: The view is fairly attractive but contains a number of Medium 

intrusive elements. 

Value: This scene is likely to be valued by high sensitivity High 

receptors. 

Scale of Landscape: The view is fairly open across rolling hills in Medium 

all directions. 

Overall: Medium/High 

Magnitude 

Distance: Receptors of this view are located at approximately Medium 


Extent: At this distance, the turbine occupies a minor proportion Low 

of a wide ranging view. 

Degree of Contrast: The blades of the turbine would breach the Low/Medium 

horizon, but the scale is comparable to nearby electricity pylons. 


Page 159 of 173




The overall visual impact is judged to be of medium significance. 

Viewpoint 4 – View from A760/A737 Junction 

Viewpoint 4 is taken from E236586 N657774 looking north‐west to the site ~4.2km 

away. The view is representative of motorists on the A760 and the A737, which are 

both popular and frequented commuter routes. 

The landscape appears broadly to consist of rolling farmland. The topography of the 

land slopes gently away to the middle distance before gaining height and forming 

moorland topped, rolling hills which serve as a backdrop to the view. As such, the 

view feels rather open, particularly to the west. The presence of large deciduous 

trees, forming a small wooded area towards the middle distance, partially screens 

views of the far distance. 

There are numerous signs of development in this view. Houses sit nestled amongst 

the trees by the side of the road. The road is lined with various street furniture. A 

post‐and‐wire fence marks the border of a field. Beyond this field, on the far distant 

hill, the wind development of Dalry Community is visible, impinging upon the 

horizon. Lines of large electricity pylons can just be discerned running along the 

background hills and telecommunications masts are also occasionally visible. 

Sensitivity 

Receptors: Receptors of this and similar views would primarily Medium 

be users of the A‐roads, which are important commuter routes. 

Quality: The view is moderately attractive, but is no longer intact Medium 

and signs of development are evident. 

Value: This scene and similar ones along this stretch of road Low 

have no particular value attributed to them. 

Scale of Landscape: The views are open and far reaching across Low 

rolling hills, particularly to the south‐west. 


Magnitude 


4.2km from the proposed Glenlora turbine location. 

Extent: As a single turbine within a fairly open view, the turbine 

would occupy a negligible proportion of the visible area. Its 

vertical extent would easily be accommodated by the local 

landform. 

Degree of Contrast: The turbine would be seen, partly because it 

would breach the horizon and introduce movement. However, 

other features in the view, such as the road and the other wind 

farms, would tend to distract attention away from Glenlora. The 

turbine proposed is of a size that could be readily 

Page 160 of 173 

Medium 

Negligible 

Low



accommodated by the scale of local landform. 

Overall: Low 


The overall visual impact is judged to be of negligible/low significance. 

Viewpoint 5 – View from Beith 

Viewpoint 5 is taken from E234569 N654634 ~2.7km south‐south‐east of the 

proposed development. The view is representative of those available to the 

residents of Beith and is taken on the outskirts of town, by the cemetery, where the 

most open views of the site are available. 

The land rolls away from the viewer, and then gently undulates into the distance 

before gradually rising upwards to hills in the background. This creates an open feel 

to the view which is supported by the rolling farmland character of the landscape. 

Tall trees and other vegetation sit in clusters around the scene, occasionally 

observed bordering fields or roads. 

A post‐and‐wire fence crosses the view, in the foreground. A small, unclassified road 

can be seen winding its way from Beith. Sitting beside the road are a number of 

dwellings, which stand out against the autumnal colours of the woods behind. Large 

buildings of the industrial estate to the west can be seen, though these are fairly well 

camouflaged against the landscape. Atop hills in the distance are the wind farms of 

Dalry Community and Ardrossan. Single dwellings and buildings can be seen around 

the countryside in addition to the larger settlement of Kilbirnie to the north‐west. 

Sensitivity 

Receptors: Receptors of this view would primarily be the 

residents of Beith. 

Page 161 of 173 

High 

Quality: The view is fairly pleasant though there are a few Medium 

intrusive elements visible from the town in this area, particularly 

the wind farms on the distant hills and the lines of large 

electricity pylons trooping across the scene. 

Value: This view is likely to be valued by high sensitivity High 

receptors. 

Scale of Landscape: The views are far reaching across rolling hills Low 

in all directions. 


Magnitude 

Distance: Receptors of this view are located at approximately Medium 


Extent: The turbines would occupy a minor proportion of the Low 

view. 

Degree of Contrast: Despite being relatively close by, the turbine Negligible/Low



would sit below the horizon and other, larger, vertical elements 

are visible above the horizon from this location. 

Overall: Low 


The overall visual impact is judged to be of low significance. 

Viewpoint 6 – View from Dalry 

Viewpoint 6 is taken from E228868 N650716 looking north‐north‐east towards the 

site approximately 9.2km away. This viewpoint was selected to represent the view 

that residents of Dalry would have of the Glenlora wind project. 

The view looks out onto rolling farmland, through a clearing in some trees. The land 

is flat out to the middle distance then gains height beyond this, rising gradually to 

the far distance. The view to the north‐east is more open, looking down to the valley 

of Lochwinnoch. 

An avalanche of differently sized electricity pylons stretch down into the valley, 

frequently breaching the horizon. Farm houses and outbuildings, surrounded by 

trees, sit on the nearby hillside. The view appears quite developed, looking out 

towards Beith and Kilbirnie in the north‐east. 

Sensitivity 

Receptors: Receptors of this view would primarily be the 

residents of Dalry. 

Page 162 of 173 

High 

Quality: The view has its attractions but is marred by the Low 

frequent presence of large pylons, as well as containing 

significant areas of developed countryside. 

Value: This view is likely to be valued by high sensitivity High 

receptors. 

Scale of Landscape: Views from this location appear to be of a Medium 

medium scale landscape. 


Magnitude 



Extent: The single turbine would take up a negligible proportion 

of the view. 

Low 

Negligible 

Degree of Contrast: Although breaching the horizon, the scale of Negligible 

the turbine would be comfortably accommodated by the 

surrounding landform. With pylons and other large structures 

immediately apparent close by, the turbine would be barely 

noticeable. 

Overall: Negligible




The overall visual impact is judged to be of negligible significance. 

Viewpoint 7 – View from M8, Junction 29 

Viewpoint 7 is taken from E246262 N665346 looking south‐west towards the site 

which is located ~15.1km away. The photograph was taken to represent the views of 

the large number of road users on the M8 to and from Glasgow. 

The view is very open with the land sloping down away from the viewer, offering 

long range views out across the surrounding landscape. In the far‐distance the 

topography becomes more undulating and hilly. The landscape is predominantly 

urban, surrounded by open farmland. Some screening of the numerous towns and 

roads is offered by large deciduous trees. 

The A737 branches off from the M8. It is visible to the left of the scene lined with 

lampposts and road signs, it may be observed stretching into the distance, 

connecting the towns to the south‐west of Glasgow. 

Sensitivity 

Receptors: The M8 is used by a large number of motorists for 

various purposes. 

Quality: The view is heavily developed, and arguably degraded 

by the motorway itself, large industrial estates, electricity pylons 

and communications masts. 

Page 163 of 173 

Medium 

Low 

Value: This view is unlikely to have any value attached to it. Low 

Scale of Landscape: The views are long range and open. Low 

Overall: Low 

Magnitude 

Distance: Receptors of this view are located at approximately Negligible 


Extent: The turbine would take up a negligible proportion of the Negligible 

longer distance view. 

Degree of Contrast: The Glenlora development would cause an Negligible 

almost indiscernible change to the baseline conditions. 

Overall: Negligible 


The overall visual impact is judged to be of negligible significance. 

Viewpoint 8 – View from Misty Law 

Viewpoint 8 is anticipated to be taken from E229490 N661933 looking south‐east to 

the site which is located approximately 4.5km away. The viewpoint was selected to 

represent the view that walkers of the hill would have of the proposed development.



A photograph is not available of this view, however a wireline has been produced of 

a 360° view from the hill to show the project with cumulative impact of all built, 

approved and planned projects in the surrounding area. 

Sensitivity 

Receptors: The view is expected to be visible by less sensitive 

receptors using the land for recreational purposes. 

Quality: The view is fairly pleasant though there are a few 

intrusive elements visible from the hill in this area, particularly 

the wind farms on the distant hills. 

Value: The view is likely to be valued by recreational users of the 

land. 

Page 164 of 173 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Scale of Landscape: The views are long range and open. Low 


Magnitude 



Extent: As a single turbine within a fairly open view, the turbine 

would occupy a negligible proportion of the visible area. Its 

vertical extent would easily be accommodated by the local 

landform. 

Medium 

Negligible 

Degree of Contrast: The turbine would be seen, partly because it Negligible 

would breach the horizon and introduce movement. However 

the number of other wind farms visible, would tend to distract 

attention away from Glenlora. The turbine proposed is of a size 

that could be readily accommodated by the scale of local 

landform. 

Overall: Low 


The overall visual impact is judged to be of low significance. 

Cumulative Visual Impact – Viewpoints 

For each viewpoint, an assessment of impact significance has been carried out for 

the Glenlora project, taking account of all other built, approved, planned and scoped 

projects within a 50km radius cumulative study radius. To allow the information to 

be displayed as concisely as possible the, following key has been used to represent 

high, medium, low sensitivity and high, medium, low & negligible magnitude, the 

descriptions of which can be found in Tables 3.4.5 and 3.4.6 in the main report. Each 

project will be assessed cumulatively with the baseline for its status and other 

projects at the same stage e.g. assessment of the cumulative impact of a planning 

project will consider built, approved and under construction and other planning 

projects, but not those in scoping.



Table 3.4.14 – Key for Sensitivity 

Heading Meaning Code Description 

R Receptors 1 Visible by low sensitivity receptors. 

2 Visible by medium sensitivity receptors. 

3 Visible by high sensitivity receptors. 

Q Quality 1 View is of low quality. 

2 View is of medium quality. 

3 View is of high quality. 

V Value 1 View is of low value. 

2 View is of medium value. 

3 View is of high value. 

S Scale 1 View is of large scale. 

2 View is of medium scale. 

3 View is of small scale. 

Table 3.4.15 – Key for Magnitude 

Heading Meaning Code Description 

D Distance ‐ Project not visible. 

1 Project is >15km away. 

2 Project is 5‐15km away. 

3 Project is 2‐5km away. 

4 Project is



Whitelee ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Approved or Under Construction Wind Energy Development 

Blantyre Muir ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Kelburn Estate 2 2.5 2.5 2 1.5 1.5 2 3.5 3.5 2 2.5 2 

Lochhead Farm ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Over Enoch and Ardoch ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Whitelee ext. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Proposed Wind Energy Development with Planning Application Submitted 

Ballindalloch Muir ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Bankend Rig ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Cathkin Braes ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Dungavel Hill ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Dunoon ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Earlsburn North ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Harelaw ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1.5 1.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Knoweside ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Lochhead Farm ext. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Middleton ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Millour Hill 2 3 3 2 2.5 2.5 2 3.5 3.5 2 2.5 2.5 

Neilston Community ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Waterhead Moor ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Wind Energy Site VP05 VP06 VP07 VP08 

Sensitivity R Q V S R Q V S R Q V S R Q V S 

3 2 3 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 

Overall Sensitivity Low Negligible Negligible Low/Medium 

Magnitude D E C D E C D E C D E C 

Existing Wind Energy Development 

Ardrossan 2 2.5 2.5 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Cruach Mhor ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Dalry Community 2 3 3 3 3.5 3.5 1 1.5 1.5 2 3 3 

Earlsburn ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Myres Hill ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 

Sainsbury’s ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 

Whitelee ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 


Blantyre Muir ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 

Kelburn Estate 2 3.5 3 3 3.5 3 1 1.5 1.5 2 3.5 3.5 

Lochhead Farm ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 

Over Enoch and Ardoch ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 

Whitelee ext. ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 


Ballindalloch Muir ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 

Bankend Rig ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 

Cathkin Braes ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1.5 1.5 1 1 1 

Dungavel Hill ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 

Dunoon ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1.5 2 

Earlsburn North ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Harelaw ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2.5 2 

Knoweside ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 

Lochhead Farm ext. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 2 

Middleton ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1.5 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2 2 

Millour Hill 2 3.5 3.5 4 4 4 1 2 1.5 2 3 3 

Neilston Community ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1.5 1.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1.5 1.5 

Waterhead Moor 2 1 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 3.5 3.5 

Page 166 of 173

Cumulative Route Analysis 

(All routes assume a typical travelling speed of 80kmph) 

A760 Description 

Section and 

Approx. Time 

1. 

0–7mins 

2. 

7–12mins 

3. 

12–17mins 

4. 

17‐19mins 



Travelling in a general easterly direction along the A760 from Largs to Roadhead roundabout 

The A760 heads out of Largs in a south‐easterly direction, continuing past houses on the outskirts of town and 

winding its way up a hill through a densely wooded area. Atop the hill the view opens up to open farmland. The 

road winds its way around the side of a large hill and comes into the valley between two hills. Muirhead Loch 

appears into view and the road travels along the banks, on the left hand side. 

The wind turbine at Glenlora is not predicted to be visible through this section. 

The road continues along the banks of Muirhead Loch before zigzagging its way through rolling farmland, passing 

farm buildings and dwellings on either side along with numerous wooded and forested areas. The view becomes 

more built up and signs of development more evident as the road turns towards Kilbirnie. The A760 goes through 

the centre of the town, passing the local school and playing fields on the left hand side, before turning into a 

roundabout. 

Glenlora comes into view as the road comes into Kilbirnie and the views open up to the north‐east. Some 

screening of the project is likely as the road passes through the centre of Kilbirnie. 

Taking the first exit on the roundabout the road continues east out of Kilbirnie with views out over Kilbirnie Loch 

to the south. The landscape is relatively flat through this section, although hills are visible to the north, in the 

distance. The road cuts through agricultural farmland, passing farmhouses and other associated buildings. The 

road comes close to Loch Barr, which becomes screened from view as it enters a wooded area before turning into 

Lochwinnoch. 

Glenlora is theoretically fully visible throughout this section directly ahead of the driver, passing close to the 

turbine site at 2km away. 

The road by‐passes the town of Lochwinnoch and turns south‐east past the north‐eastern shores of Loch Barr and 

looking out across Castle Semple Loch and the town of Lochwinnoch to the north‐east. The road then crosses over 

the railway line, with Lochwinnoch station visible to the right. Passing by a few farmhouses, the road ends at the 

Roadhead roundabout – turning onto the A737. 

Glenlora is fully visible throughout this section, looking in the opposite direction beyond the town of Lochwinnoch. 

Sensitivity The A760 is a significant commuter route, connecting the towns of Largs, Kilbirnie and Lochwinnoch. The views 

from the road are predominantly over open farmland and a series of Lochs. A number of wind developments may 

be observed whilst travelling along this route, most evident are the projects of Dalry Community and Ardrossan. 

On balance, then, the sensitivity to cumulative effects is deemed to be medium. 

Magnitude of Effect 

Wind Energy Site Sections 

where 

visible 

Direction Dist. 

away 

(km) 

Comments 

Glenlora 2,3,4 NE,NW 2‐6 The most significant period of predicted visibility is between 

Kilbirnie and Lochwinnoch, when the road passes in close 

proximity to the project. 


Ardrossan 3,4 SW 10‐17 Most evident on the road out of Kilbirnie 

Cruach Mhor ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Page 167 of 173



Dalry Community 2,3,4 SW 3‐12 Significant views of the project as the road passes in close. 

Earlsburn ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Myres Hill 2 SE 27‐30 Visible on the approach to Kilbirnie 

Sainsbury’s ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Whitelee 1,2,3 SE 20‐30 Full visibility through section 2, briefly visible on the road out of 

Kilbirnie. 

In the sections on which Glenlora is visible, other projects may also be visible, alleviating the visual impact of the single turbine 

development near to the road. Glenlora is expected to make a low/medium contribution to cumulative visual impact along the A760. 


Blantyre Muir ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Kelburn Estate 1,2,3,4 SE,S,SW 1‐10 Visibility predicted along the whole route, slightly limited 

towards Lochwinnoch. 

Lochhead Farm ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Over Enoch and Ardoch ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Whitelee ext. 2 SE 22‐25 Visibility of the project predicted on the road to Kilbirnie. 

The addition of the above projects will not have a significant impact on views from the A760 since most will not be seen from the road. 

The Kelburn estate project that may be observed will be closer to the road than Glenlora, as such the cumulative visual impact of 

Glenlora from the A760 is considered to be low. 


Ballindalloch Muir ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Bankend Rig 1,2 SE 40‐46 The project is unlikely to be noticeable at this distance. 

Cathkin Braes ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Dungavel Hill 1,2 SE 40‐46 The project is unlikely to be noticeable at this distance. 

Dunoon 1 NW 20‐21 The project may be glimpsed on the road out of Largs. 

Earlsburn North ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Harelaw 1,2,3 SE 13‐22 Mainly visible on the road to Kilbirnie. 

Knoweside 2 S 40‐41 Unlikely to be noticeable at this distance. 

Lochhead Farm ext. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Middleton 2,3 E 16‐20 Direct views predicted on approach to Kilbirnie. 

Millour Hill 2,3,4 SW 2‐10 As the road passes close to the project, views are likely to be 

significant. 

Neilston Community 2 W 14‐17 Noticeable on the approach to Kilbirnie. 

Waterhead Moor 1 N 4 The project may be glimpsed to the north. 

The addition of projects in planning is unlikely to affect Glenlora’s contribution to sequential cumulative visual impact, which remains 

low. 

Overall Visual 

Impact 

The overall cumulative visual impact is judged to be of low significance when considered for existing, approved, 

planning or scoping projects. 

Page 168 of 173

A737 Description 

Section and 

Approx. Time 

1. 

0–5mins 

2. 

5–11mins 

3. 

11–20mins 



Travelling in a general north‐easterly direction along the A737 from Irvine to Paisley 

The A737 slips off the A78 at the Eglington Interchange, continuing in a northerly direction. An industrial estate is 

visible on the left hand side of the road, on the opposite side of the river that comes in close to the road. The 

views are open across fields to the right, but further along the road the landscape becomes more built‐up and 

developed. Approaching the outskirts of Kilwinning, the road passes houses and some recreational park land. The 

road follows the line of the river heading into the centre of Kilwinning, eventually crossing it and turning in the 

opposite direction. 

The wind turbine at Glenlora is predicted to be obliquely intermittently visible through this section, though it is 

likely to be largely screened by buildings and at this distance, is unlikely to be noticeable. 

The A737 continues out of Kilwinning heading north. Beyond the town the landscape becomes open farmland 

with occasional farm buildings. Sections of the road pass through wooded areas of deciduous trees. The river is 

once again visible and the road passes close to it on several occasions. The terrain is relatively flat throughout this 

section. Turning the corner into Dalry, the view is screened by houses and buildings. 

As the road passes out of Kilwinning, it is expected that there will be full visibility of the Glenlora turbine. 

Passing through Dalry, the road heads north‐east. The road crosses over a railway line and continues out through 

farmland, consisting of open fields. The A737 passes by a number of small settlements and industrial type 

buildings as it heads towards Beith. On the approach to Beith, the A737 bypasses the town on the south east side. 

Houses on the outskirts of town may be observed from this ring road. 

Glenlora is theoretically fully visible throughout this section. 

Page 169 of 173

4. 

20‐25mins 

5. 

25‐29mins 

6. 

29‐37mins 



The road continues north‐east past Dalry. Views out over Barr Loch and Castle Semple Loch may be observed 

whilst looking north‐east. In the distance the topography of the landscape appears hilly. The road turns into the 

Roadhead roundabout, where the A760 turns off towards Lochwinnoch. 

Glenlora is obliquely fully visible throughout this section, passing close to the turbine site at 4km away 

Taking the second exit on the roundabout, the A737 passes close in to Castle Semple Loch. The terrain gently 

undulates in the middle distance, becoming hillier beyond this. Forests of coniferous trees are spread around the 

countryside in plantations. As the road approaches Howwood, signs of development become more evident. 

Glenlora is predicted to be visible along most of this section, looking in the opposite direction. Towards Howwood, 

visibility becomes more restricted. 

The A737 by‐passes the town of Howwood and passes briefly through a section of farmland and open fields. 

Quickly, the landscape becomes more industrial and urban, passing the towns of Kilbarchan, Johnstone and 

Linwood. Beyond Linwood the view opens up slightly and across the open fields Barochan Moss forest is visible to 

the north. To the south the houses and buildings of Paisley come into view. Glasgow airport appears into view 

ahead of the driver. The A737 turns into the M8 and ends. 

Glenlora is predicted to be intermittently visible along most of this section, with more consistent visibility beyond 

Linwood. 

Sensitivity The A737 is a major commuter route, connecting towns in the south‐west to the city of Glasgow. The road passes 

through open farmland between towns and becomes more industrial towards the north‐eastern end of the road. 

A number of wind developments may be observed along this road, most significant are the projects of Dalry 

Community and Ardrossan 

On balance, then, the sensitivity to cumulative effects is deemed to be low. 

Magnitude of Effect 

Wind Energy Site Sections 

where 

visible 

Direction Dist. 

away 

(km) 

Comments 

Glenlora 1,2,3,4,5,6 NE,N,W,SW 4‐17 The most significant period of predicted visibility is between 

Dalry and Howwood, as the road passes to the south of the 

proposed turbine location. 


Ardrossan 1,2,3,4,5,6 NW,W,SW 6‐29 Easily discernible, especially in the first half of the route. 

Cruach Mhor ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Dalry Community 1,2,3,4,5,6 NW,W,SW 4‐24 Visible along the whole route 

Earlsburn ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Myres Hill 1,2,3 NE,E,SE 23‐27 Visible along the first half of the route. 

Sainsbury’s ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Whitelee 1,2,3,6 E,SE 17‐22 Predicted visibility most significant along the first half of the 

route. 

Page 170 of 173



The visibility of other projects, particularly Dalry Community, distracts from the visibility of Glenlora along this route, as such Glenlora 

is expected to make a low/medium contribution to cumulative visual impact along the A737. 


Blantyre Muir 6 SE 38‐39 Possibly visible for a brief period on the road past Johnstone. 

Kelburn Estate 1,2,3,4,5,6 NW,W,SW 6‐25 Theoretically visible over the whole route, likely to be less 

noticeable towards Glasgow due to the distance. 

Lochhead Farm ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Over Enoch and Ardoch 6 SE 20 Predicted visibility towards the end of the section. 

Whitelee ext. 1,2,3 NW,W,SW 19‐22 Theoretically visible along the first half of the route, particularly 

between Irvine and Kilwinning. 

With the addition of the above projects, many more projects would be visible from the road, with some having a major impact on 

views from the road. As Glenlora is a single turbine project, the cumulative impact is mitigated by larger schemes which are visible, 

making its contribution to cumulative visual impact from the A737 low. 


Ballindalloch Muir ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Bankend Rig 1,2,3 SE 34‐36 Theoretically visible along the first half of the route, particularly 

between Irvine and Kilwinning, but it is unlikely to be 

noticeable at this distance. 

Cathkin Braes 6 SE 16‐19 Theoretically visible along the latter half of section 6, though it 

is likely to be heavily screened by buildings in this built up area. 

Dungavel Hill 1,2,3 SE 33‐36 May be observed in the same general view as Bankend Rig. 

Dunoon ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Earlsburn North ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Harelaw 1,2,3 NW,W 10‐18 Oblique views predicted. 

Knoweside 1,2,3 S,SW 28‐41 Mainly visible along the first half of the route. 

Lochhead Farm ext. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 

Middleton 1,2,3 NE,E 13‐20 Disappears from view for a period close to Dalry. 

Millour Hill 1,2,3,4,5,6 NW,W,SW 3‐23 Likely to be seen in the same views as Dalry Community and 

Kelburn Estate. 

Neilston Community 1,2,3 NW,W 9‐18 Brief visibility in the first two sections, more consistent in the 

third. 

Waterhead Moor 1,2,3,4 NW 11‐21 It is likely that the project will be significantly screened. 

The addition of projects in planning is unlikely to affect Glenlora’s contribution to sequential cumulative visual impact, which remains 

low. 

Overall Visual 

Impact 

The overall cumulative visual impact is judged to be of negligible significance when considered for existing, 

approved, planning or scoping projects. 

Page 171 of 173



Appendix 3 ‐ Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 

Table 3.6.4 – Listed buildings LB 16 ‐34, Lochwinnoch 

Number Description HBNUM Listing 

LB 16 Calderhaugh House 12621 ‘B’ 

LB 17 Calderhaugh Mill 12620 ‘B’ 

LB 18 United Free Church 12656 ‘B’ 

LB 19 United Free Church Manse 12657 ‘B’ 

LB 20 Ladeside House 12655 ‘B’ 

LB 21 27 High Street 12610 ‘B’ 


LB 23 K6 Telephone Kiosk 12632 ‘B’ 

LB 24 Parish Hall 12654 ‘B’ 

LB 25 23‐25 High Street 12609 ‘B’ 

LB 26 1 Main St/ 2 Church St 12618 ‘B’ 


LB 28 1 Harvey Sq/21‐27 Church St 12618 ‘B’ 


LB 30 St. Winnock’s Church 12622 ‘B’ 

LB 31 5 Johnshill 12616 ‘B’ 

LB 32 East End Knapdale 12658 ‘B’ 

LB 33 East End Manse 12659 ‘B’ 

LB 34 Johnshill Crookside 12617 ‘B’ 

Page 172 of 173



Appendix 4 ‐ Surface and Groundwater Hydrology 

Figure 3.7.5 Hydrological Context of Site 

Page 173 of 173

Supporting documents - Renfrewshire Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?