Forthbank Wind Energy Development - Partnerships for Renewables

Forthbank Wind Energy Development 

Environmental Statement Volume 1 

November 2010 

Working in partnership with Clackmannanshire Council



Environmental Statement 

Volume 1 – Written Statement 

November 2010 

RPS 

November 2010 

Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2010 ©


Preface 

This Environmental Statement (ES) reports the outcome of a formal environmental impact assessment 

(EIA) of the proposed Forthbank wind energy development. It has been prepared to accompany a 

planning application to Clackmannanshire Council by PfR (Forthbank) Limited (PfR) to construct and 

operate a wind energy development on a site located immediately south east of Alloa, 

Clackmannanshire (national grid reference E289102, N691085). 

The EIA has been undertaken by the following project team: 

Table 1 Project Team 

Consultant Company Topic 

Steve Newlands/ Esther Villoria RPS Preparation of the ES, Project Management 

Michael Fenny RPS Legislative and Policy Context 

Garron Owen/ Dominica Baird RPS Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology/ FRA 

Helen Riley/ Thomas Goater RPS Ornithology 

Catarina Rei/ Thomas Goater RPS Ecology 

Dan Slatcher RPS Cultural heritage and Archaeology 

Luke Regan RPS Traffic, Access and Transport 

Katharine Blythe RPS Socio-Economics, Tourism and Land-Use 

Esther Villoria RPS Shadow Flicker and Climate Change 

Kerttu Ots/ Corinna Demmar RPS Landscape and Visual 

Matthew Cand/Ben Carlyle Hoare Lea Noise 

The ES comprises four separately bound parts: 

1. Non-Technical Summary (NTS) – summarising the findings of the EIA in a non-technical language 

2. Volume 1: Written Statement – reporting the findings of the EIA. 

3. Volume 2: Technical Appendices – technical material to support the main text presented in Volume 

1. 

4. Volume 3: Figures – the figures to accompany the text. 

Printed copies of the non-technical summary and ES (including figures and appendices) may be 

obtained from: 

Partnerships for Renewables 

12 Melcombe Place, 

Station House, 

London, 

NW1 6JJ 

Email: Info@pfr.co.uk 

Telephone: +44 (0) 207 170 7000 

The non-technical summary is available free of charge, and a limited number of hard copies of the ES 

are available for £250 per hard copy. A limited number of CDs containing adobe acrobat files of the ES 

are available for £15 per CD. These charges are necessary to cover administrative costs. Alternatively, 

these documents can be downloaded from our website http://www.pfr.co.uk/forthbank. 

November 2010 



Copies of the ES may also be consulted (during normal working hours) at the following locations: 

• The Clackmannanshire Council Planning Department, Kilncraigs, Greenside Street, Alloa, 

FK10 1EB. 

In addition to the above, the application is accompanied by a Planning Statement, which has been 

submitted in support of the application but which does not form part of the ES. 

November 2010 



Contents 

Volume 1 - Written Statement 

1. Introduction 

2. Environmental Impact Assessment Process 

3. Scheme Development, Scoping and the Environmental Impact Assessment 

4. Description of the Proposed Development 

5. Planning Policy Overview 

6. Climate Change and Atmospheric Emissions 

7. Traffic, Access and Transport 

8. Noise 

9. Landscape and Visual 

10. Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 

11. Ecology 

12. Ornithology 

13. Hydrology, Hydrogeology, and Geology 

14. Shadow Flicker 

15. Socio-Economics, Tourism and Land Use 

Volume 2 - Technical Appendices 

Volume 3 - Figures 

November 2010 



Glossary 

Acid grassland 

Above Ordnance Datum 

(AOD) 

Amber list species 

Ambient Noise 

Amenity value 

Aquifer 

Assessment 

Attenuation 

Biodiversity 

Borrow pit 

Breeding site 

Broadleaved woodland 

Catchment 

Coniferous woodland 

Contaminated land 

Conservation Area 

Contractor 

Controlled Activity 

Regulations (Scotland) 2005 

Culvert 

Grassland that occurs on acidic soils (pH less than 5.5) which are 

often species-poor. 

The mean sea level at Newlyn (UK) used as a base measurement on 

Ordnance Survey Maps for contours. 

Populations in moderate decline or previously in severe decline but 

are recovering. 

The all encompassing sound at any point in time. 

Defined as the relative pleasantness of a journey and relates in 

particular to the exposure of pedestrians and others to traffic. 

A body of rock through which appreciable amounts of water can flow. 

An umbrella term for description, analysis and evaluation. 

Increase in duration of flow hydrograph with a consequent reduction in 

peak flow. 

Biological diversity, or richness of living organisms present in 

representative communities and populations. 

An area where soil, sand or gravel has been dug up for use 

elsewhere. 

Term used to describe an area of land, or open water and land, large 

enough to provide a breeding otter with security from disturbance, one 

or more potential natal den sites, play areas for cubs, no risk of 

flooding and access to a good food supply. 

An area of woodland with predominantly deciduous tree species (less 

than 10% coniferous trees in the canopy). 

The area contributing flow to a point on a drainage system. 

An area of woodland with predominantly coniferous tree species (less 

than 10% deciduous trees in the canopy). 

The ‘Environment Protection Act 1990’ defines Contaminated Land as 

‘any land which appears to the local authority as to be in such 

condition, by reason of substances, on or under the land, that 

significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of 

such harm being caused; … or pollution of controlled water is being, 

or likely to be caused’. 

Area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or 

appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. 

Designated under Section 61 Planning (Listed Buildings and 

Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. 

The successful tenderer in the construction process. 

Controls all engineering activity in or near watercourses. 

A metal, wooden, plastic, or concrete conduit through which surface 

water can flow under or across roads. 

November 2010 



Decibel (dB) 

Effect 

EIA directive 

Electric fishing 

Environmental Impact 

Assessment (EIA) 


(ES) 

European Commission (EC) 

European Union (EU) 

Eutrophication 

Groundwater 

Habitat 

Habitats Directive 

Impact 

Improved grassland 

LA10 

LA90 

LAeq 

The range of audible sound pressures is approximately 0.00002 Pa to 

200 Pa. Using decibel notation presents this range in a more 

manageable form, 0 dB to 140dB. 

Mathematically: 

Sound pressure level (d) = 20 log (pt/pO) 

Where p) = 2 x 10-5 Pa 

The result of change or changes in specific environmental resources 

or receptors. 

Directive 85/33/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public 

and private projects on the environment, as amended by DIRECTIVE 

97/11/EEC and applied by the Environmental Impact Assessment 

(Scotland) Regulations. 

Fishing method using electricity to attract fish. 

The process by which information about the environmental effects of a 

project is evaluated and mitigation measures are identified. 

Document provided by the Developer to the Competent Authority, 

containing environmental information required under Article 5 of 

Directive 85/337/EEC as amended. 

Embodies and upholds the general interest of the European Union. 

The Commission is the driving force in the Union’s institutional 

system. 

Union of European States. 

The process where water bodies receive excess nutrients that 

stimulates excessive plant growth, resulting in the reduction of 

dissolved oxygen in the water which can kill other organisms. 

Water below the surface of the ground in the saturation zone and in 

direct contact with the ground or subsoil. 

Term most accurately meaning the place in which a species lives, but 

also used to describe plant communities or agglomerations of plant 

communities, as used, for example in a Phase 1 Habitat Survey. 

EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of 

wild fauna and flora. 

Any changes attributable to the proposed scheme that have the 

potential to have environmental effects (i.e. the causes of the effects). 

Grasslands that have been so modified by fertilizers, drainage or 

grazing that they have lost most of the species expected in 

unimproved grassland. They contain a very limited number of grasses 

and a few common forbs. 

The A-weighted noise level exceeded for 10% of the measurement 

period. A unit generally used in the assessment of road traffic noise. 

The A-weighted noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement 

period. This unit is generally used to describe the background noise 

climate. 

Equivalent Continuous Sound Level. A notional steady sound level 

which would cause the same A-weighted sound energy to be received 

as that due to the actual, possibly fluctuating, sound level over a given 

period of time. 

November 2010 



Landform 

Landscape 

Land take 

Listed Building 

Made ground 

Magnitude 

Marginal 

Mitigation 

Native 

Combination of slope and elevation producing the shape and form of 

the land surface. 

Human perception of the land, conditioned by knowledge and identity 

with a place. 

Acquired land which is necessary to construct the scheme and 

associated infrastructure and to undertake the essential environmental 

mitigation measures. 

Building included on the list of buildings of special architectural or 

historic interest and afforded statutory protection under the ‘Planning 

(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997’ and 

other planning legislation. Classified categories A – C(s). 

Material deposited by man i.e. not natural. 

Size, extent, scale and duration of an impact. 

Vegetation at the waters edge. 

Term used to indicate avoidance, remediation or alleviation of adverse 

impacts. 

A species occurring naturally, in its normal geographic range. 

Neutral grassland Grassland communities that grow on neutral soils (pH 5.5 – 7). 

Peatland 

Phase 1 Habitat Survey 

Plantation woodland 

Red list species 

Riparian habitat 

Roost 

Runoff 

Scheduled Ancient Monument 

(SAM) 

Scrub 

Semi-improved grassland 

Semi-natural woodland 

Land where plants decompose only partially and accumulate to form 

brown to black organic material called peat; two main types bogs and 

fens. 

This identifies the different habitats that are contained within or make 

up a site, and the key plant species for each of those habitat types. 

Woodland or any age that obviously originated from planting. 

Population in severe decline. 

Natural home for plans and animals occurring in a thin strip of land 

bordering a stream or river. 

Any resting site used by bats including maternity roosts which are 

used by females and their young, hibernacula which are used during 

winter hibernation and transitional roosts which may be used at any 

time. 

Water that flows over the ground surface to the drainage system. This 

occurs if the ground is impermeable or if permeable ground is 

saturated. 

A monument which has been scheduled by the Scottish Ministers as 

being of national importance under the terms of the ‘Ancient 

Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979’. 

Climax vegetation dominated by locally native shrubs, usually less 

than 5m tall. 

Grassland that has been modified by fertilizers, drainage or intensive 

grazing. Contain less species diversity than unimproved grasslands. 

Woodland that does not obviously originate from planting. The 

distribution of species will generally reflect the variations in the site 

and the soil. Planted trees must account for less than 30% of the 

canopy composition. 

November 2010 



Sites of Special Scientific 

Interest (SSSI) 

Special Area of Conservation 

(SAC) 

Special Protection Areas 

(SPA) 

Sustainable Drainage 

Systems (SuDS) 

Theoretical zones of visual 

influence 

Threshold 

Turbid 

Water Framework Directive 

(WFD) 

Water quality 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 

1981 (WCA) 

Yearling 

Areas of national importance. The aim of the SSSI network is to 

maintain an adequate representation of all natural and semi-natural 

habitats and native species across Britain. The site network is 

protected under the provisions of Sections 28 and 19 of the Wildlife 

and Countryside Act 1981 as well as the Amendment Act 1985 and 

the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 

An area designated under the EC Habitats Directive to ensure that 

rare, endangered or vulnerable habitats or species of community 

interest are either maintained at or restored to a favourable 

conservation status. 

An area designated under the Wild Birds Directive (Directive 

74/409/EEC) to protect important bird habitats. Implemented under 

the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Under the Habitats Directive, 

all SPAs will be proposed Special Area of Conservation. 

A sequence of management practices and control structures designed 

to drain surface water in a more sustainable fashion than some 

conventional techniques. 

Area of land over which a development may be visible, as determined 

by analysis of OS data and field survey. 

The minimum intensity or value of a signal etc that will produce a 

response or specified effect. 

High concentrations of suspended sediment and particulates in the 

water column. 

Wide-ranging European environmental legislation (2000/60/EC). 

Addresses inland surface waters, estuarine and coastal waters and 

groundwater. The fundamental objective of the WFD is to maintain 

“high status” of waters where it exists, preventing any deterioration in 

the existing status of waters and achieving at least “good status” in 

relation to all waters by 2015. 

The chemical and biological status of various parameters within the 

water column and their interactions, for example dissolved oxygen, 

indicator metals such as dissolved copper, or suspended solids (the 

movement of which is determined by hydrological process and forms 

geomorphological landforms). 

Principal mechanism for wildlife protection in the UK. 

An animal that is between one and two years old. 

Other technical terminology is described in the relevant chapters or technical appendices. 

November 2010 



Abbreviations 

% Percent 

AADT 

Annual Average Daily Traffic 

AGLV 

Area of Great Landscape Value 

ALS 

Area of Landscape Significance 

AOD 

Above Ordnance Datum 

ASFB 

Association of Salmon Fisheries Boards 

ASPT 

Average Species Per Taxa 

AWI 

Ancient Woodland Inventory 

BAP 

Biodiversity Action Plan 

BBS 

Breeding Bird Survey 

bgl 

Below Ground Level 

BGS 

British Geological Survey 

BHMP 

Bird Hazard Management Plan 

BMWP 

Biological Monitoring Working Party 

BS 

British Standard 

BSBI 

Botanical Society of the British Isles 

BTO 

British Trust for Ornithology 

BWEA 

British Wind Energy Association 

CA 

Conservation Area 

CO 2 

Carbon Dioxide 

CAR Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 

CBC 

Common Birds Census 

CDM Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 

CEIA 

Comparative Environmental Impact Assessment 

CEL:LfN 

Cost Effective Landscapes: Learning from Nature 

CIRIA 

Construction Industry Research and Information Association 

CITES 

Convention of the International Trade of Endangered Species 

CLVA 

Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment 

dB 

Decibel 

dB(A) 

A-weighted Decibel Level 

EAC 

East Ayrshire Council 

EALP 

East Ayrshire Local Plan 

EC 

European Commission 

EcIA 

Ecological Impact Assessment 

ECoW 

Ecological Clerk of Works 

EEC 

European Economic Committee 

November 2010 



EIA 

ELC 

ES 

ESA 

FCS 

FDP 

FREDS 

FWAG 

GDL 

GI 

GIS 

GLVIA 

ha 

HAP 

HGDLs 

HGV 

HMSO 

HRSG 

IEEM 

IEMA 

IMP 

IUCN 

km 

L A10 

L A90 

L Aeq 

LBAP 

LCA 

LCT 

LGV 

LRBI 

LVA 

m 

m/s 

m 2 

m 3 

MOD 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

European Landscape Convention 


Environmentally Sensitive Areas 

Forestry Commission Scotland 

Forestry Development Plan 

Forum for Renewable Development in Scotland 

Fisheries and Wildlife Advisory Service Scotland 

Garden and Designed Landscape 

Ground Investigation 

Geographic Information System 

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 

Hectares 

Habitat Action Plan 

Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes 

Heavy Goods Vehicles 

Her Majesty’s Stationary Office 

Highland Raptor Study Group 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management 

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 

Integrated Monitoring Programme 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature 

Kilometre 

10 Percentile Noise Indicator 

90 Percentile Noise Indicator 

A-weighted Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure 

Local Biodiversity Action Plan 

Landscape Character Assessment 

Landscape Character Type 

Large Goods Vehicle 

Lowland Raised Bog Inventory 

Landscape Visual Assessment 

Metre 

Metres per second 

Square metre 

Cubic metre 

Ministry of Defence 

November 2010 



mph 

Miles per hour 

MW 

Megawatt 

NBN 

National Biodiversity Network 

NCSA Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 

NMRS 

National Monuments Record of Scotland 

NOx 

Oxides of Nitrogen 

NPF 

National Planning Framework 

NPPG 

National Planning Policy Guidelines 

NSA 

National Scenic Area 

NSR 

Non Statutory Register 

NTS 

Non-Technical Summary 

NVC 

National Vegetation Classification 

OS 

Ordnance Survey 

PAN 

Planning Advice Note 

PBA Protection of Badgers Act (1992) 

PCB 

Polychlorinated biphenyls 

PIP 

Pollution Incident Plan 

PPG 

Pollution Prevention Guidance 

PPM 

Power Performance Mast 

PPP 

Pollution Prevention Plan 

PWS 

Provisional Wildlife Site 

RCAHMS 

Royal Commission of the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland 

RES 

Renewable Energy Systems Group 

RHS 

Rivers Habitat Survey 

RIGS 

Regional Important Geological Sites 

ROS 

Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 

ROW 

Right of Way 

RSA 

Regional Scenic Areas 

RSPB 

Royal Society Protection of Birds 

RTA 

Road Traffic Accident 

SA 

Scenic Area 

SAC 

Scottish Agricultural College 

SAC 

Special Area of Conservation 

SAM 

Scheduled Ancient Monument 

SCADA 

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

Scotways 

Scottish Right of Way and Access Society 

SEPA 

Scottish Environment Protection Agency 

November 2010 



SINS 

SLCA 

SLG 

SMR 

SNH 

SO 2 

SOV 

SPA 

SPG 

SPP 

SRF 

SSSI 

SWT 

TMP 

UKBAP 

VER 

VEM 

WCA 

WFD 

WoSAS 

WOV 

WWF 

WWT 

ZTV 

ZVI 

Site of Importance to Natural Science 

Sensitive Landscape Character Area 

Strategic Locational Guidance 

Scottish Monuments Record 

Scottish Natural Heritage 

Sulphur Dioxide 

Sites of Ornithological Value 

Special Protection Area 

Supplementary Planning Guidance 

Scottish Planning Policies 

Short Rotation Forestry 

Site of Special Scientific Interest 

Scottish Wildlife Trust 

Traffic Management Plan 

UK Biodiversity Action Plan 

Valued Ecological Receptor 

Visual Envelope Mapping 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 

Water Framework Directive 

West of Scotland Archaeology Service 

Waterbodies of Ornithological Value 

World Wildlife Fund 

Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust 

Zone of Theoretical Visibility 

Zone of Visual Influence 

November 2010 



1 Introduction 

1.1 Purpose of this Environmental Statement (ES) 

1.1.1 This Environmental Statement (ES) reports the outcome of a formal environmental impact 

assessment (EIA) of the proposed Forthbank wind energy development (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘proposed wind energy development’). It has been prepared to accompany a planning 

application by the PfR (Forthbank) Limited (hereafter referred to as ‘PfR’) to Clackmannanshire 

Council to construct and operate a wind energy development on a site located immediately 

south east of Alloa, Clackmannanshire (Figure 1.1). An EIA is required to accompany the 

planning application under European 1 and Scottish EIA Regulations 2 for projects of this nature. 

Schedule 2 (3)(i) of the Scottish regulations specifically describes the need for EIA where wind 

energy developments of a particular scale and/or where they are likely to result in significant 

environmental effects. A full description of the EIA process is discussed further in Chapter 2 

(The EIA Process). 

1.1.2 The ES provides some of the information that will be used by Clackmannanshire Council and 

others to inform the process of determining the planning application for permission to build and 

operate the proposed wind energy development. 

1.2 Structure of the Environmental Statement 

1.2.1 The ES comprises the following stand-alone documents: 

• The Non-Technical Summary (NTS) summarises the key information presented in 

the ES in a non-technical manner; 

• Volume 1: The Environmental Statement reports how the EIA process has been 

applied to this scheme; describing the proposed development and how it has 

evolved and reporting the EIA´s findings on each of the environmental topics 

identified through the Scoping process; 

• Volume 2: Technical Appendices – technical mater to support the text presented 

in Volume 1; 

• Volume 3: Figures – the figures to accompany the text in Volume 1 and Volume 2; 

and 

• Confidential Appendix: containing sensitive ecological information which, as a 

matter of law, cannot be made available to the public. 

1.2.2 The ES is structured as follows: 

• Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 describe the background to the project, EIA process and 

methodology, the scheme development and scoping and legislative and policy 

context respectively; 

November 2010 Chapter 1 Page 1 



• Chapters 6 - 15 detail the technical assessments of the potential environmental 

impacts of the development, the proposed/adopted mitigation measures to reduce 

any negative effects, on-going consultation and monitoring; and 

• A glossary of terms and a list of abbreviations are provided at the front of the ES. 

Planning Statement 

1.2.3 Although not part of the ES, a Planning Statement (PS) is also submitted as a supporting 

document to the application. The PS assesses the wind energy development proposal in the 

context of adopted and emerging planning policies and other material considerations, setting 

out the arguments for and against the proposed wind energy development, and concluding 

with recommendations about the overall acceptability of the proposals in relation to the 

planning context. 

1.3 Overview of Proposed Development 

1.3.1 PfR was established to facilitate renewable projects on land controlled by public sector bodies. 

In partnership with Clackmannanshire Council it has established the viability of a site at 

Forthbank for a wind energy development. 

1.3.2 The proposed wind energy development site is located on the outskirts of Alloa, 

Clackmannanshire principally within the former Clackmannanshire Council landfill site located 

on the bank of the Firth of Forth at NGR E289102, N691085 (Figure 1.1). The application 

boundary encompasses an area of approximately 37.9ha (hereafter referred to as the 

‘application area’), of which 2.6ha will be utilised for the development infrastructure. The 

application area is shown on Figure 1.2. An aerial view of the site is shown in Figure 1.3 and 

Figure 1.4 shows the site, surroundings and environmental designations. 

1.3.3 Following a range of technical and environmental investigations and after extensive 

consultation, a scheme has been submitted for planning approval comprising of: 

“the erection, 25 year operation and subsequent decommissioning of four wind 

turbines, each with a maximum overall height (to vertical blade tip) of up to 125m, 

together with new and upgraded access tracks, temporary works, hard standing 

areas, a control and metering building, cabling and an anemometry mast”. 

1.3.4 The proposed wind energy development is described in further detail in Chapter 4, Project 

Description. In brief , the proposal comprises the following elements: 

• four variable pitch (three-bladed) wind turbines each with a hub height of 80m and 

blade length of 45m. Each turbine is likely to generate up to 2.5MW of renewable 

energy, providing an overall installed capacity of 10MW; 

• one reinforced concrete ‘gravity’ foundation and three deep piled foundations 

typically up to 20m in diameter; 

• crane hard-standing/laydown areas adjacent to each wind turbine; 




• a single storey, pitched roof site control building; 

• new and upgraded existing on-site access tracks; 

• a temporary hard-cored construction compound; 

• underground electrical and SCADA 3 cabling linking each wind turbine with the site 

control building; and 

• a permanent 80m metrological mast – to include weather recording equipment, 

complete with electrical supply and reinforced concrete. 

1.3.5 The final choice of turbines will follow competitive tender but if the proposed four 2.5MW 

turbines are constructed they are expected to generate approximately 26,28GWh of renewable 

energy per year. This is equivalent to the amount of energy used annually by approximately 

5,710 households and avoids 11,300 tonnes of CO 2 equivalent emissions per year. Chapter 6 

provides the basis for calculating the household energy and CO 2 emission figure noted. 4 

1.3.6 The proposed wind energy development will require a connection to the local electricity 

network to export electricity. The grid connection for the proposed wind energy development 

will be subject to a separate application under the Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. 

1.3.7 The proposed layout has evolved during an iterative design process over the duration of the 

EIA and is described in more detail in Chapter 3 (Scheme development and Scoping the EIA). 

Consultation has been undertaken throughout. 

1.3.8 It is proposed that the proposed wind energy development would generate electricity for 25 

years after which time it would be removed or an application made for further planning 

permission to extend the duration of operation at the site in accordance with a scheme to be 

agreed with Clackmannanshire Council. 

1.4 The Applicant - Partnerships for Renewables Ltd 

1.4.1 Partnerships for Renewables was set up by the Carbon trust in 2006 to develop, construct and 

operate renewable energy projects on public sector land. 

1.4.2 The public sector can play a significant part in the effort to increase renewables capacity in the 

UK (over one million hectares) and thousands of buildings. 

1.4.3 The aspiration of the public sector to develop renewable energy has been hampered by a lack 

of funds and the desire to avoid diverting financial resources from frontline services towards 

the development of potential sites. 

1.4.4 Partnerships for Renewables works in partnership with public sector bodies throughout the 

entire development process and covers all development costs. 

1.4.5 Focused on a development process tailored to the specific needs of the public sector, 

Partnerships for Renewables provides a way for public sector bodies to access the economic 




and environmental benefits associated with renewables energy and contribute towards the 

fight against climate change without diverting public resources away from frontline services. 

1.4.6 As well as working with Clackmannanshire Council, Partnerships for Renewables is currently 

working with a variety of public sector bodies across the UK including the Forestry 

Commission, British Waterways, the Environment Agency, the Ministry of Justice, the Coal 

Authority, Oxford City Council, Caerphilly County Borough Council and University of Reading. 

1.5 Clackmannanshire Council 

1.5.1 Clackmannanshire Council is committed to reducing the emission of greenhouse gases which 

contribute to climate change through a range of initiatives such as improved energy efficiency, 

the development of a green travel plan and reduction of waste and increased recycling. 

1.5.2 In January 2007, the Council signed Scotland's Climate Change Declaration. Through the 

Declaration, Clackmannanshire Council has committed to contribute to the delivery of the 

Scottish and UK Climate Change Programmes, and produce a Climate Change Action Plan for 

Clackmannanshire with clear targets and timescales to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 

the authority's own operations. 

1.6 The EIA Project Team 

PfR 

1.6.1 PfR has managed the development of the project through site selection, feasibility and layout 

design. 

RPS 

1.6.2 The EIA team compiled for this project has extensive experience in both EIA and in the 

development of wind farm proposals. The EIA team worked closely with PfR, who also has 

extensive experience in wind farm design, construction and operation. 

1.6.3 RPS Planning and Development (RPS) has prepared the ES, managed the EIA process and 

has undertaken the following technical assessments in the EIA, including: 

• Legislative and Policy Context; 

• Climate Change and Atmospheric Emissions; 

• Traffic, Access and Transport; 

• Landscape and Visual; 

• Cultural Heritage and Archaeology; 

• Ecology and Ornithology; 




• Hydrology, Hydrogeology, and Geology; 

• Shadow Flicker; and 

• Socio-economics, Tourism and Land Use. 

1.6.4 The noise assessment was prepared by Hoare Lea Acoustics. 

1.6.5 The specialist consultants commissioned for the ES were largely consistent with those 

previously involved in the project, in order to retain the site specific knowledge and experience. 

1.7 References 

1 The European Directive 85/337/ECC (as amended) on the assessment of the effects of 

certain public and private projects on the environment. 

2 The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999. 

3 Wind Turbine ‘System Control and Data Acquisition’. 

4 The environmental benefit figures are based on one, 2.5 megawatt turbine, operating with a 

30% capacity factor; average household electricity use of 4,602kWh per annum (Digest of UK 

Energy Statistics – 2010, (http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/publications/ecuk/269- 

ecuk-domestic-2010.xls); and the electricity generated displacing electricity generated from 

CCGT/average fuel mix – approx. 430gCO 2 /kWh (Defra environmental reporting guidelines – 

July 2005). 




2 Environmental Impact Assessment Process 

2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment 

Overview 

2.1.1 Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a systematic procedure that must be followed for 

certain categories of project (see paragraph 2.1.4) before they can be given development 

consent. It aims to assess a project’s likely significant environmental effects. This helps to 

ensure that the importance of the predicted effects and the scope for reducing them are 

properly understood by the public and relevant determining authority before it makes its 

decision. 

2.1.2 The information on the development and its environmental effects are presented in an 

environmental statement (ES). The EIA process that culminates in the submission of the ES 

has a number of key characteristics: 

• it should be systematic, comprising a sequence of tasks defined both by 

regulation and by practice; 

• it should be analytical, requiring the application of specialist skills from the 

environmental sciences; 

• it should be impartial, its objective being to inform decision-making rather than to 

promote the project; 

• it should be cumulative, with provision being made for obtaining information and 

feedback from interested parties including local authorities, members of the public 

and statutory and non statutory agencies; and 

• it should be iterative, allowing opportunities for environmental concerns to be 

addressed in during the planning and design of a project. 

2.1.3 Typically, a number of design iterations take place in response to environmental constraints 

identified during the EIA process (in effect, incorporating mitigation measures to avoid, reduce 

or compensate for identified adverse effects). Further details of such measures in this case are 

presented in the corresponding environmental topic chapters, a summary of all measures are 

included in the Chapter 4. 

EIA Regulations 

2.1.4 Directives 85/337 and 97/11 of the European Commission require that certain plans and 

projects should be subjected to EIA. They further provide that certain projects may need 

environmental impact assessment depending on the nature, scale and location of the 

development (and the potential for significant environmental effects). 




2.1.5 These Directives have been implemented in Scotland under the Environmental Impact 

Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (with subsequent amendments) – Hereafter termed 

the EIA Regulations - which cover developments requiring decisions under the Town and 

Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 

2.1.6 Schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations lists those developments for which an EIA will always be 

required. Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations lists developments for which the need for an EIA 

is determined on a case-by-case basis (i.e. if significant environmental effects are likely), whilst 

Schedule 3 describes indicative thresholds to be used to determine if a Schedule 2 

development is an “EIA development”. Where an EIA is required, environmental information 

must be provided by the applicant in an ES. Schedule 4 specifies the information that must or 

may be provided in the ES. 

2.1.7 Most wind energy developments fall within Schedule 2 and where the need for EIA is not 

certain the developer can apply to the determining authority for a screening opinion. 

2.1.8 Given the size of the proposed wind energy development at Forthbank, PfR recognised that an 

EIA would be needed. PfR also recognises that the EIA process can play an important role in 

developing the design of the proposals to minimise adverse environmental effects and to 

realise the environmental benefits. 

2.1.9 While it has been determined that the proposal has the potential for significant environmental 

effects, this does not mean that a significant effect is the ultimate conclusion of the EIA. The 

EIA process identifies the potential for adverse effects and then encourages environmental 

measures to be incorporated into the design of the development, or the method of construction 

and operation that may reduce or eliminate any negative effects or further enhance positive 

effects. 

2.1.10 As the generating capacity of the proposed wind energy development will be less than 50MW 

the application for consent is made to the relevant Local Planning Authority (Clackmannanshire 

Council) and is considered under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as 

amended). 

Topics to be Addressed 

2.1.11 Schedule 4 of the Regulations specifies that the ES should describe those “aspects of the 

environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular 

population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the 

architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter relationship between the 

above factors.”. 

2.1.12 Establishing which aspects of the environment and associated issues are relevant for a 

particular project is captured in an EIA scoping process. For the Forthbank site this is 

described in more detail in Chapter 3 of this ES. 




The Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Process 

2.1.13 Scoping is the process of identifying those of the environment and associated issues that need 

to be considered when assessing the potential effects of a particular development proposal. 

This recognises that there may be some environmental elements where there will be no 

significant issues or likely effects resulting from the development and hence where there is no 

need for further investigation to be undertaken. 

2.1.14 Scoping is undertaken through consulting organisations and individuals with an interest in and 

knowledge of the site, combined with the professional judgement and experience of the EIA 

team. It takes account of the published guidance, the effects of the kind of development under 

consideration and the nature and importance of the environmental resources that could be 

affected. 

Spatial Scope 

2.1.15 In the broadest sense, the spatial scope is the area over which changes to the environment 

would occur as a consequence of the development. In practice, an EIA should focus on those 

areas where these effects are likely to be significant. 

2.1.16 The spatial scope varies between environmental topic areas. For example, the effect of a 

proposed wind energy development on the landscape resource and visual amenity is generally 

assessed within a zone of up to 30km from the site boundary and (70km for cumulative 

effects), whilst noise effects are assessed within a much smaller area encompassing the worst 

affected properties close to the site. 

2.2 Assessment Methodology 

2.2.1 Following the identification of the scope of the EIA, individual environmental topics are subject 

to survey, investigation and assessment, and individual topic chapters are prepared for the ES. 

The assessment methodologies are based on recognised good practice and guidelines specific 

to each topic area, and details are provided in the appropriate chapter. 

2.2.2 In general terms, the technical studies undertaken for each topic area and chapter includes: 

• Collection and collation of existing baseline information about the receiving 

environment and original surveys to fill any gaps in knowledge or to update any 

historic information, along with identification of any relevant trends in, or evolution 

of, the baseline; 

• Consultation with experts and relevant consultees to define the scope of the 

assessment and study area and subsequent consultation in response to emerging 

study findings; 

• Consideration of the potential effects of the development on the baseline, followed 

by identification of design changes to seek to avoid or reduce any predicted 

adverse effects; 




• Engagement with other technical topic specialists and engineers/designers in a 

design iteration process seeking to optimise the scheme for the differing 

environmental effects; 

• Assessment of the final scheme design and evaluation of significant effects, 

together with an evaluation of any residual significant effects after mitigation 

measures have been implemented; 

• Compilation of the ES chapter. 

2.2.3 In reality, many of the effects are relevant to more than one environmental topic area, and 

careful attention has been paid to interrelationships to avoid overlap or duplication between 

topic chapters. For example, the assessment of effects on cultural heritage features will be 

aided by the assessment in the landscape and visual chapter. Similarly, secondary effects on 

ecological resources arising from hydrological change would be considered in the ecology 

chapter with a cross-reference to the relevant direct effect in the hydrology chapter. 

2.2.4 The following format has been adopted for the presentation of information within the ES. In 

some cases, technical data and analysis has been moved to a Technical Appendix that is 

bound separately from the main ES. 

• Introduction setting the scene for the topic, the nature of the receptors to be 

considered, and how the proposals might cause change; 

• Methodology describing how receptors were identified through a scoping 

process, along with the specific methods used for data gathering, predicting 

effects and evaluating significance of effects; 

• Baseline describing the current state and circumstances of the receptors and 

changes that might in any case be expected in advance of the development being 

implemented; 

• Assessment of Effects the effects predicted to arise as a result of the 

construction, operation and de-commissioning of the final design of the project; 

• Cumulative an assessment of effects that arise from incremental changes caused 

by past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the proposed 

wind energy development; 

• Mitigation identification of non-embedded ‘design’ measures which may be 

necessary to control or manage identified significant environmental effects; 

• Residual Effects an assessment of any significant effects remaining after nonembedded 

mitigation measures have been employed for construction, operation 

and de-commissioning; 

• Summary of Effects a table summarising the significance of identified effects; 

• Monitoring; 




• Statement of Significance; and 

• References. 

2.3 Defining Significance of Effects 

2.3.1 Development proposals affect different environmental elements to differing degrees and not all 

of these are of sufficient concern to warrant detailed investigation or assessment within the EIA 

process. The EIA Regulations identify those that warrant investigation as those that are “likely 

to be significantly affected by the development”. 

2.3.2 Conclusions about significance are derived with reference to available information about the 

project description and the environmental receptors (or ‘receiving environment’), and to 

predictions about the potential changes that the proposed development would cause to the 

affected receptors. 

2.3.3 In each of the environmental topic chapters, professional judgement is used in combination 

with relevant guidance to assess the interaction of the receptor’s sensitivity (this may be 

defined in terms of importance, value, rarity, quality) against the predicted magnitude of 

change to identify a level of effect. In general terms, and in order to assist consistent 

interpretation of the final results of the EIA, receptor sensitivity, magnitude of change and level 

of effect for each environmental topic are categorised as shown in Table 2.1. 

2.3.4 The type of categorisation illustrated in Table 2.1 provides a guide only, and may be 

moderated by the professional that undertakes the assessment in accordance with judgement 

and experience. In particular, the divisions between categories of receptor sensitivity, 

magnitude of change, and level of effect should not be interpreted as definitive (and indeed 

different definitions for each category may be applied by different professionals), and the lines 

that represent the boundaries between categories should in many cases be considered as 

‘blurred’. In some cases, the judgement can be guided by quantitative values, whilst in other 

cases qualitative descriptions are used. The significance of the effect may also need to be 

qualified with regard to the scale over which it may apply (e.g. local, regional, national and 

international). 

Table 2.1 Establishing the Level of Effect 

Importance of Receptor 

HIGH MEDIUM LOW NEGLIGIBLE 

Magnitude of Change 

LARGE 

VERY 

SUBSTANTIAL 

SUBSTANTIAL 

MODERATE 

MEDIUM SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANTIAL MODERATE 

SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SLIGHT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NEGLIGIBLE 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 

NOT 

SIGNIFICANT 




2.3.5 Having defined a level of effect, professional judgement in combination with guidance and 

standards are then applied to identify which of those levels of effect are then considered to be 

equivalent to significant effects when discussed in terms of the EIA Regulations. The level at 

which a significant effect in EIA terms arises for each topic area is set out in the methodology 

section of each chapter. 

2.3.6 A definition of how the terms are derived for each topic is set out in the corresponding chapter 

along with the relevant explanation and descriptions of receptor sensitivity, magnitude of 

change and levels of effect that are considered significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

Type of Effect 

2.3.7 The EIA Regulations require consideration of a variety of types of effect, namely direct/indirect, 

secondary, cumulative, positive/negative, short/medium/long-term, and permanent/temporary. 

In this ES, effects are considered in terms of how they arise, their valency (i.e. whether they 

are positive or negative) and duration. Each will have a source originating from the 

development, a pathway and a receptor. 

2.3.8 Most predicted effects will be obviously positive or negative, and will be described as such. 

However, in some cases it is appropriate to identify that the interpretation of a change is a 

matter of personal opinion, and such effects will be described as ‘subjective’. 

2.3.9 The temporal scope of environmental effects is stated where known. Effects are typically 

described as: 

• Temporary – these are likely to be related to a particular activity and will cease 

when the activity finishes. The terms ‘short-term’ and ‘long-term’ may also be used 

to provide a further indication of how long the effect will be experienced; 

• Permanent – this typically means an unrecoverable change. 

2.3.10 Effects are generally considered in relation to the following key stages of the development: 

• Construction – effects may arise from the construction activities themselves, or 

from the temporary occupation of land. Effects are often of limited duration 

although there is potential for permanent effects. Where construction activities 

create permanent change, the effects will obviously continue into the operational 

period; 

• Operation – effects may be permanent, or (as is typical with wind power 

developments) they may be temporary, intermittent, or limited to the life of the 

development until de-commissioning; and 

• De-commissioning - effects may arise from the de-commissioning activities 

themselves, or from the temporary occupation of land. The effects would generally 

be temporary and of limited duration and additional permanent change (unless 

associated with restoration) would normally be unlikely. 




Identification of Mitigation Measures 

2.3.11 Mitigation is defined as measures envisaged through the consideration of alternatives, physical 

design, project management or operation to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any 

significant adverse effects on the environment. This definition takes cognisance of Planning 

Advice Note (PAN) 58 (Scottish Executive, 1999). PAN 58 presents mitigation as a hierarchy of 

measures ranging from prevention of environmental effects by avoidance, to measures to 

offset any effects that cannot be remedied. 

2.3.12 Generally two types of mitigation measures are considered during the EIA process: 

• measures identified and adopted during the design stage of the proposed wind 

energy development in order to avoid effects wherever possible and ensure that the 

development achieves the best possible fit into its environment; and 

• measures identified during the EIA process and adopted during the construction, 

operation and de-commissioning phases of the proposed wind energy development 

in order to avoid or minimise possible significant adverse environmental effects of 

transportation, construction, operational and de-commissioning activities. 

2.3.13 Mitigation has been considered as an integral part of the overall design strategy of the 

proposed wind energy development, including ‘embedded’ mitigation (e.g. altering and refining 

the site layout to avoid fixed microwave links interference) as well as during the construction 

and post-construction stages of the proposed wind energy development to prevent or reduce 

significant environmental effects. The final design of the wind energy development has 

therefore been refined over the project cycle, systematically being optimised in response to 

increasing knowledge of the site and potential environmental effects, described in Chapter 3. 

2.3.14 Where complete avoidance of potential effects was not feasible during refinement of the site 

design, additional measures are identified in the individual assessments to reduce effects. 

These include a range of mitigation proposals such as the use of construction methods, 

avoidance of sensitive habitats, landscaping, and site operation activities. Mitigation measures 

follow standard techniques and best practice and are therefore considered to be effective for 

the purposes of assessment. 

Identification and Assessment of Residual Effects 

2.3.15 Following incorporation of mitigation measures, the reassessment of the effects of the 

proposed wind energy development, considers these remaining “residual effects”. As the 

environmental effects as reported in this ES take into account best practice and all proposed 

mitigation, they are therefore residual effects. 

Proposed Monitoring 

2.3.16 Monitoring is a potentially useful tool to measure the actual environmental effects of a wind 

energy development in comparison to what was predicted by the EIA. They also ensure that 

any mitigation measures perform as expected. Proposed monitoring procedures are specified 

where appropriate in each technical assessment chapter in this ES and will be normally 




incorporated in the construction and post-construction phases of the proposed wind energy 

development. 

Cumulative Effects 

2.3.17 In accordance with the EIA Regulations, the assessment has considered 'cumulative effects'. 

By definition these are effects that result from incremental changes caused by past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions together with the proposed wind energy development. For the 

cumulative assessment, two types of effect have been considered: 

• the combined effect of individual effects, for example noise, airborne dust or traffic 

on a single receptor; and 

• the combined effects of several developments that may on an individual basis be 

insignificant but that cumulatively, may have a significant effect. 

2.3.18 For the purpose of these assessments, in particular the landscape and visual impact 

assessment (LVIA) (Chapter 9), the cumulative assessment considers other built or consented 

wind farms, and wind farms subject to an application with a likelihood of intervisibility. The 

other projects considered were identified in consultation with SNH. 

2.4 Consideration of Alternatives 

2.4.1 The EIA Regulations require the ES to include “an outline of the main alternatives studied by 

the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for his choice” 1 . 

2.4.2 National planning and energy policy makes it clear that there is no requirement for renewable 

energy developments to demonstrate an overall need for new renewable generation or a need 

to be located in a specific location. The Energy Review of 2006 and the White Paper of 2007 

both contained a Renewables Statement of Need which states: “Renewable energy as a 

source of low-carbon, indigenous electricity production is central to reducing emissions and 

maintaining the reliability of our energy supplies at a time when indigenous fossil fuels are 

declining more rapidly than expected”. 

2.4.3 The 2007 Energy White Paper provides further clarification stating at section 5.3.67: 

“Recognising the particular difficulties faced by renewables in securing planning 

consent, the Government is also: 

• Underlining that applicants will no longer have to demonstrate either the overall 

need for renewable energy or for their particular proposal to be sited in a 

particular location” 

2.4.4 The 2010 planning policy statement SSP Scottish Planning Policy also emphasises that point, 

in Paragraphs 182-184, stating (in paragraph 182) that: 

“Planning authorities should support the development of a diverse range of 

renewable energy technologies, guide development to appropriate locations and 




provide clarity on the issues that will be taken into account when specific proposals 

are assessed.” 

2.4.5 The planning policy statement SPP (Renewable Energy Section) supports the approach that 

wind turbines should be developed wherever commercially and environmentally acceptable, 

i.e. the requirement is only to demonstrate that this is a suitable site rather than that it is the 

highest ranked in any form of sequential testing. 

2.4.6 The clear policy context is therefore that there is neither a requirement to justify the viability of 

a wind energy proposal nor the need for it to be located in a particular location. Nevertheless, 

the Scheme Development chapter of this ES does describe the site identification process and 

design criteria. In EIA terms, the requirement is only to report on alternatives that have been 

considered. The examination of alternatives in this ES is therefore restricted as appropriate to 

alternative design solutions that were considered for the site in question in terms of factors 

such as site layout/design/turbine height and turbine numbers, and the environmental effects of 

the options considered. 

2.5 Guidance 

2.5.1 The preparation and production of this ES has been conducted in accordance with the EIA 

Regulations, and in accordance with Good Practice Guidance including: 

• Scottish Planning Series Planning Circular 8-2007: The Environmental Impact 

Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999, Scottish Executive, 2007; 

• Scottish Planning Policy (February 2010) - replacing (SPP) 6 Renewable Energy 

(2007); 

• Planning Advice Note (PAN) 58 – Environmental Impact Assessment, September 

1999; 

• PAN 45 – Renewable Energy Technologies (revised 2002, 2006 and 2008); 

• A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, (Scottish Natural Heritage 

(SNH) 2005); 

• Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (Institute of Environmental 

Management and Assessment 2004, updated 2005 and 2006); 

• PAN 81 - Community Engagement Planning with People (2007); and 

• PAN 68 – Design Statements (2003). 

2.5.2 Other relevant guidance has been used to inform the various technical chapters and is 

referenced within those chapters. 




2.6 Assumptions and Limitations 

2.6.1 A number of assumptions have been made during preparation of this ES, which are set out 

below. Assumptions specific to certain environmental aspects are discussed in the relevant 

chapters of the ES. 

2.6.2 It has been assumed that the principal land uses adjacent to the application area remain as 

they are at the time of the ES submission, and information provided by third parties, including 

publicly available information and databases is correct at the time of publication. 

2.6.3 The assessment has been subject to the following limitations: 

• baseline conditions have been assumed to be accurate at the time of the physical 

surveys but, owing to the dynamic nature of the environment, conditions may 

change during the site preparation, construction, operational and de-commissioning 

phases; and 

• the assessment of cumulative effects has been reliant on the availability of 

information on other developments. 


1 Circular 02/1999 DETR. Annex C, Part 1 (2) 

HMSO (1989). The Electricity Act 1989. 

IEMA (2005). Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment. Institute of Environmental 

Management and Assessment. 

Scottish Executive (1999). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 58: Environmental Impact 

Assessment. Scottish Executive. 

Scottish Executive (2000). Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) 

Regulations 2000. 

Scottish Executive (2007). Circular 8/2007 The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) 

Regulations 1999. Scottish Executive. 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2005) A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment. SNH. 




3 Scheme Development and Scoping the EIA 

3.1 Site Selection 

3.1.1 This Chapter describes the approach taken by PfR in the scheme development, site selection, 

scoping and consultation process for the proposed wind energy development. 

3.1.2 PfR’s internal site selection process is designed to identify potential wind farm sites that are 

economically and technically viable, environmentally acceptable, most likely to obtain planning 

approval and will make meaningful contributions to Scotland’s targets for renewable energy 

generation. 

3.1.3 The EIA process started when PfR began investigating the feasibility of locating a wind energy 

development on land owned by Clackmannanshire Council in 2008. The first step was an 

initial screening process that involved a desktop assessment of Clackmannanshire Council’s 

land holdings, investigating issues such as the proximity of housing, environmentallydesignated 

areas and wind speed. The Forthbank site was identified as having good potential 

to support a wind energy development and was progressed to a more detailed feasibility study 

that included: 

• collection of wind speed information from the NOABL database and preliminary wind 

analysis; 

• grid connection options and arrangements; 

• a planning policy review to assess the location of the site in relation to the preferred 

areas in the structure and local plan; 

• preliminary turbine delivery route assessment and detailed review, including swept 

path analysis (SPA) for typical turbine delivery vehicles (with loads); 

• preliminary landscape and visual feasibility studies; 

• preliminary Conceptual Site Model (CSM) to assess the potential contaminative and 

environmental risks associated with the proposed development of the site; 

• preliminary consultation with the Coal Authority to identify the location and status of 

two disused adits on the site; 

• preliminary noise modelling and an ETSU-R-97 assessment; 

• preliminary consultation with Ofcom to identify fixed links and further consultation 

with the Joint Radio Company (JRC), Orange, Arqiva, Vodafone, National Grid 

Wireless, O2, Cable and Wireless and BT; 

• preliminary consultation with the Ministry of Defence, Civil Aviation Authority and the 

NATS En-route mapping tool; 




• preliminary consultation with the following operators: the Health and Safety 

Executive, Scotland Gas Networks, Scottish Power, Scottish Water, Scottish Police 

Services Authority, Central Scotland Fire and Rescue and Scottish Ambulance; 

• preliminary consultation with the BBC web based tool to identify potential for TV 

interference; 

• preliminary sites of cultural significance desk-top studies; 

• a plan detailing the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to 30km; 

• preliminary flood risk studies; and 

• preliminary consultation to collect ecological and ornithological features of the site, 

extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and ornithological walkover. 

3.1.4 This feasibility study indicated that the site was potentially technically, environmentally and 

financially viable for a wind energy development, but that further assessment and clarification 

was needed. 

3.1.5 This initial exercise allowed early identification of key technical, environmental and planning 

issues associated with the site. 

3.1.6 Finally, wind speed analysis and assessments of planning constraints and the grid connection 

were completed. 

3.2 Scheme Development 

3.2.1 PfR has established a scheme development process that integrates the activities required for 

EIA within a structured, holistic, approach to confirming the technical and economic viability of 

a particular development proposal. 

3.2.2 Following the feasibility study, PfR undertook a broadly sequential three stage process 

designed to investigate and resolve/avoid the key risks to the development of the site and any 

potentially significant environmental effects in a structured manner. The purpose of this 

process was to identify any irresolvable issues which would make the site inappropriate for 

development. The exact scope and order of task investigation in the different stages was 

determined using professional judgement and experience taking account of the site’s unique 

combination of technical and environmental factors as well as other seasonal factors. The 

following paragraphs outline this three stage process. 

Development Phase 1 (DP1) March 2009 – September 2009 

3.2.3 Following the completion of the feasibility study, this development phase is designed to 

investigate and understand the basis of any objections received from consultees during 

feasibility (such as the Ministry of Defence or telecommunications operators) during initial 

discussions, and to verify that fundamental practical issues such as grid connection and 

access would not be likely to affect the economic or technical viability of the site. 




3.2.4 In summary the DP1 work included the following: initial feasibility work on – grid connection, 

transportation and access, the development of initial Conceptual Site Models and an economic 

appraisal of the design costs, early stage assessments relating to noise, ecology /ornithology 

and investigations into the implication of the proposed wind energy development on 

communication links. 

3.2.5 Where it was concluded that any concerns could reasonably be expected to be overcome 

through design development, and that the site was still economically and technically viable, the 

site was then progressed to DP2. 

Development Phase 2 (DP2) September 2009 – May 2010 

3.2.6 The objectives of this phase was to fully costs the civil engineering works necessary to 

construct the wind turbines, to verify further the economic and technical viability of the site, and 

to work with key statutory consultees and others to resolve any outstanding objections, where 

possible. Scoping of the EIA was undertaken at this stage in order to verify the key constraints 

and initial activities were progressed to establish whether these were capable of resolution e.g. 

bird monitoring was started in September 2009. A scoping opinion was issued by 

Clackmannanshire Council in March 2010 following submission of a scoping report on 22 

December 2009. 

3.2.7 DP2 also included the erection of the temporary wind mast in February 2010 following approval 

of the application on 21 January 2010. Ecological surveys started in DP1 (July 2009) 

continued into DP3, with final bat surveys undertaken in September 2010. 

3.2.8 On concluding this stage, it was established that concerns could be overcome through further 

design development or via the incorporation of environmental measures into the scheme. The 

site was then progressed to DP3. 

Development Phase 3 (DP3) June 2010 – October 2010 

3.2.9 This stage took the site through the remaining technical and environmental investigations 

concluding with the submission of the planning application with supporting information (this 

ES). 

3.2.10 Following internal assessment and confirmation that the site would be taken forward for 

development, PfR has engaged in a comprehensive consultation exercise. Details of the 

scoping and consultation undertaken for the proposed wind energy development are presented 

in Section 3.4 below. 

3.3 Design Criteria 

3.3.1 The design solution for a site crosses all development phases and is based on the considered 

application of the following technical, economic and environmental criteria across all 

development phases as more information becomes available: 




Technical Objectives 

• Siting of turbines at regular intervals to allow a balanced layout and avoid wake 

effects and interference between turbines, which may lead to a reduction of energy 

generation; and 

• Suitable gradients for turbine foundations, access tracks and control building. 

Environmental Objectives 

• Siting of turbines to take into consideration landscape character and visual impact; 

• Minimise impacts to the existing land uses (economic or recreational); 

• Avoid designated sites, known bat flight paths and activity areas and minimise 

impacts on areas of ecological value such as hedgerows; 

• Avoid designated sites of archaeological importance and minimise impacts on areas 

of undesignated archaeological interest and areas with archaeological potential; 

• Avoid surface and groundwater resources and minimise indirect effects on these 

features; 

• Utilise existing access and minimise lengths of new access tracks to reduce impacts 

and material requirements; 

• Protect noise amenity of residential properties; 

• Avoid impinging on aviation safety; and 

• Avoid interference with telecommunication links. 

3.4 The Scope of the EIA for the Forthbank Wind Energy Development 

Screening 

3.4.1 At the outset the developer needs to establish whether the project requires an EIA. This 

process is called screening. 

3.4.2 The proposed wind energy development falls under Schedule 2 (section 3i), which includes: 

Installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms) 

(when) (i) The development involves the installation of more than 2 turbines; or (ii) 

the hub height of any turbine or height of any other structure exceeds 15 metres. 

3.4.3 As the proposed wind energy development is for up to four turbines, and each turbines will be 

125m in height, the Planning Authority may be required to determine whether there are likely to 

be significant environmental impacts arising as a result of the proposed wind energy 




development. In this case, PfR did not ask for Clackmannanshire Council’s screening opinion 

on this matter, as it is accepted that there may be potential for local environmental effects, and 

therefore will submit this ES to accompany the planning application for the proposed wind 

energy development. 

Scoping 

3.4.4 Scoping was undertaken according to the guidance provided in Planning Advice Note (PAN) 

58: Environmental Impact Assessment (Scottish Executive, 1999). A request for a scoping 

opinion in the form of a scoping report was also formally submitted to Clackmannanshire 

Council on 22 December 2009. Clackmannanshire Council issued its formal scoping opinion 

on 22 March 2010. 

3.4.5 The scoping report included the information specified in the EIA Regulations – namely an 

indication of the site location, an outline description of the proposed wind energy development 

and an indication of its possible effects on the environment. In addition, the report included the 

methodology proposed for the various technical assessments for input and comment on these. 

3.4.6 The proposed EIA scope was formulated by the project team, based on desk-based and fieldbased 

knowledge of the site and prior experience of other wind energy development EIAs. 

The scoping report described a scheme with four turbines. 

3.4.7 This report was submitted to the Council and statutory consultees for comment, to initiate the 

process of consultation with them. In addition, non-statutory consultees were consulted, to 

provide input into the EIA process. Consultees were invited to comment on the EIA approach, 

to specify issues that need to be addressed, to supply information pertinent to the site and to 

recommend technical assessment methodologies where appropriate. 

3.4.8 The purpose of scoping and pre-application consultation was to: 

• ensure that statutory consultees and other bodies with a particular interest in the 

environment are informed of the proposal and provided with an opportunity to 

comment at an early stage in the EIA process; 

• obtain baseline information regarding existing environmental site conditions; 

• establish key environmental issues and identify potential effects to be considered 

during the EIA; 

• identify those issues which are likely to require more detailed study and those which 

can be justifiably excluded from further assessment; and 

• provide a means of confirming the most appropriate methods of assessment. 

3.4.9 Responses of consultees to the scoping process (in addition to other consultation responses) 

are provided in Table 3.1 below. The incorporation of these comments into the EIA process is 

discussed in Chapters 6-15 within this ES. 




The Agreed Scope of the EIA 

3.4.10 A scoping matrix is presented in Table 3.1 which provides a summary of the responses. 

Further specific details of the consultation responses are included in Table 3.2, and Chapters 

6-15 of the ES. The Scoping Report and full responses are held in Appendix 3.1. The 

comments provided by consultees during the feasibility studies, scoping period and community 

engagement were considered where relevant. 

Table 3.1 Responses from Consultees Matrix 

Airth Paris Community Council X 

Alloa Centre Community Council X 

Alva Community Council X 

Arqiva X 

BAA X 

BBC 

No response received 

No issues raised/no objections 

Air and Climate 

Archaeology/Cultural Heritage 

Aviation 

Construction works 


Ecology 

Excavation of Borrow Pits 

Forest Clearance 

Hydrology/Geology 

Landscape and Visual 

Land Use 

Noise 

Ornithology 

Policy Consideration 

Recreation/Tourism 

Safety/Risk 

Socio-economic 

Transport, access and traffic 

Telecom/communications 

Water Environment 

Waste Management 

Operational Works 

X 

Botanic Society of the British Isles X 

(BSBI) 

BT X 

Cable and Wireless X 

Central Scotland Bat Group X 

Central Scotland Fire and Rescue X 

Central Scotland Raptor Study Group X 

(CSRSG) 

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) X 

Clackmannanshire Council X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Clackmannan Community Council X 

Cowie Community Centre X 

CSS Spectrum Management X 

Dollar Community Council X 

Falkirk Council X X X X 

Fife Airport X 

Fife Council X X X 

Five X 

Forestry Commission X 

Forth District Salmon Fisheries Board X 

Glasgow Airport X 

Health and Safety Executive X 

Historic Scotland X X 

JRC 

X 

Kincardine Community Centre X 

Linesearch X 

Menstrie Community Council 

MOD (Defence Estates) X 

Muckhart Community Council X 

National Air Traffic Authorities (NATS) X 

National Biodiversity Network (NBN) X 

online 

NATS En-Route Limited X 

National Grid Wireless X 

O2 X 

Ofcom 

Orange 

RSPB (Central Scotland) X 

X 

X 




No response received 

No issues raised/no objections 

Air and Climate 

Archaeology/Cultural Heritage 

Aviation 

Construction works 


Ecology 

Excavation of Borrow Pits 

Forest Clearance 

Hydrology/Geology 


Land Use 

Noise 

Ornithology 

Policy Consideration 

Recreation/Tourism 

Safety/Risk 

Socio-economic 

Transport, access and traffic 

Telecom/communications 

Water Environment 

Waste Management 

Operational Works 

Scottish Ambulance Service X 

Scottish Badgers X 

Scottish Enterprise X 

Scottish Environmental Protection 

X X X X X X X X X 

Agency (SEPA) 

Scotland Gas Networks 

X 

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Argill 

X X X X X X 

and Stirling Office 

Scottish Police Services Authority X 

Scottish Power-Energy Networks 

X 

Scottish Rights of Way and Access X 

Society (ScotWays) 

Scottish Water Horizons X 

Scottish Wildlife Trust X 

Stirling Archaeology Services X 

Stirling and Clackmannan 

X 

Constabulary 

Stirling Community Centre X 

Stirling Council X X 

Sustrans X 

The Coal Authority 

Tillicoultry Community Council X 

Tmobile X 

Transport Scotland 

X 

Tullybody, Cambus & Glenochil X 

Community Council 

Visit Scotland X 

Vodafone X 

Table 3.2 Summary of Responses from Consultees 

Consultee Response Chapter where 

Response is 

Alva Community 

Council 

Arqiva 

BAA 

BBC 

BT 

10/05/10 - Confirmed that it was raised at meeting, and if one had an 

issue to contact Keith Johnstone at Clackmannanshire Council. 

08/07/09 - Arqiva is satisfied that there is sufficient distance between 

its links and the proposed turbines. 

It requests to be informed of any change of location or additional 

turbines. 

10/09/08 -The proposed wind farm lies 30km north west from the 

Aerodrome Reference Point for Edinburgh Airport. The assessment 

shows that the turbines would not be visible to the radars at either 

Edinburgh or Glasgow airports. They will be visible to the radar at 

Kincardine but this will not have an adverse impact on the safe and 

efficient operations of either Edinburgh or Glasgow airports. Therefore 

an objection would not be raised. 

12/07/10 – The BBC Wind Farm Tool suggests that there is likely 

potential for the following transmitters to be affected: Black Hill Ch5, 

Craigkelly Ch5, Black Hill and Craigkelly. At this stage it is difficult to 

quantity effects until analogue signals are turned off and the digital 

switchover is implemented. PfR envisages that digital TV will 

dramatically reduce any potential interference with TV signals. It is 

proposed that once the turbines are operational if any complaints are 

received these would be investigated by an independent engineer to 

verify if the turbines are the cause and if so rectify the problem. 

08/08/08 - BT concluded that the proposed wind energy development 

should not cause interference to its current and presently planned 

Addressed 

N/A 

Chapter 3 – 

Scheme 

Development etc 








Response is 

Addressed 

radio networks. 

Civil Aviation 14/08/08 - CAA recommended contacting BAA and NATS. Planning Statement 

Authority (CAA) 

Cable and Wireless 

(C&W) 

07/08/08 - C&W responded with no objections. It does not have any 

operations in this area. 


Central Scotland 

Fire and Rescue 

Services 

Clackmannanshire 

Council (EHO) 


Council (Planning) 

Falkirk Council 

Fife Council 

(Planning) 

Health and Safety 

Executive (HSE) 

Historic Scotland 

Joint Radio 

Commission (JRC) 

28/08/08 - Confirmed that it does not have infrastructure/services in 

the area that could be affected by the proposed wind energy 

development. 

12/01/10 - Food & Licensing Officer, Safety, Health & Environment (no 

objections), Safety, Health & Environment (take cognisance of the 

current guidance at that time in regards to noise and shadow flicker), 

Contaminated Land (request an environmental/human health risk 

assessment) and Trading Standards (no objections). 

14/06/10 - Given the proximity of the site to the administrative 

boundaries of Falkirk, Stirling and Fife Councils, the ES should 

consider any relevant development plan or supplementary planning 

guidance produced by these Councils. 

The developer should liaise with the Council’s Roads and 

Transportation Unit before the application is submitted to establish that 

the intended access route for components and construction materials 

has been satisfactorily assessed and suitable for the intended traffic. 

A Construction Traffic Management Plan should be produced. 

The assessment should consider the potential impacts of the 

development on employment, local community initiatives, tourism and 

recreation and land use in Falkirk and Stirling Councils’ area. 

The Council notes that the repeater station at Kincardine related to 

Prestwick Airport, the impact of the development on TV reception and 

potential safety risks from damage to blades or ice forming on blades 

should be investigated. 

13/01/10 - Falkirk Council notes that there are two small settlements 

on its side of the Forth from which the site is visually prominent, South 

Alloa and Dunmore, Dunmore Pineapple is a tourist attraction, and 

there are a few listed buildings and conservation areas which lie in the 

ZTV. Consideration should be taken of any noise sensitive properties 

or uses on the south side of the river within Falkirk Council’s area. It 

also recommends Airth Parish Community Council be added to the list 

of consultees. 

02/02/10 - Fife Council has concerns in relation to the proposed route 

of the transportation of the turbines between their manufacturing 

location and the proposed site. Fife Council proposes the new 

Clackmannanshire Bridge as a more direct route. 

As part of the ZVI appraisal it is considered that the views from 

Kincardine and the entrance points to Clackmannanshire from Fife are 

both of critical importance. 

Fife Council notes that the airports at Edinburgh, Dundee, Fife and 

Glasgow as well as RAF Leuchars should be consulted. 

29/07/08 - HSE responded with a list of pipelines in the area which 

may encroach on the development site. HSE recommended consulting 

the pipeline operator. 

03/02/10 - Historic Scotland has concerns about the potential adverse 

impact of this development proposal on the setting of Clackmannan 

Tower. In addition, it is considered that there may be an indirect 

impact on other historic environment assets in the surrounding area, 

therefore the ES should also assess the level of impact on these 

assets. 

14/07/09 - JRC has objected to the turbine locations on behalf of 

Scotia Gas Networks on the basis that the turbines are within 1km of a 

scanning telemetry link. A “Full Impact Assessment” performed by the 

JRC, will provide investigation into potential mitigation solutions. 

Mitigation has been subsequently agreed. 


Chapter 8-Noise, 

Chapter 14- 

Shadow flicker and 

Chapter 13- 

Hydrology, 

Hydrogeology and 

Geology 

Chapter 5- 

Legislative and 

Policy Context, 

Chapter 7-Traffic, 

Access and 

Transport, Chapter 

10-Cultural 

Heritage and 

Archaeology and 


Chapter 8- Noise, 

Chapter 9- 

Landscape and 

Visual and Chapter 

10-Cultural 

Heritage and 

Archaeology 

Chapter 7- Traffic, 

Access and 

Transport, Chapter 

11-Ecology and 



Chapter 10- 

Cultural Heritage 

and Archaeology 

Chapter 3 – 

Scheme 


Linesearch 05/08/10 - Details of the development were entered into Planning Statement 

www.linesearch.org. The results showed that the enquiry was not in 

the zone of interest for any of the listed members. 

MOD (Defence 29/08/08 - MOD has no concerns with the proposal. Planning Statement 

Estates) 

NERL 

Safeguarding 

21/06/10 - NERL has no safeguarding objection to the proposal. Planning Statement 





Response is 

Addressed 

(NATS) 

National Grid 

Wireless 

28/07/08 - Recommended to contact Ofcom and BBC Research 

Department. 


O2 

Ofcom 

01/08/08 - O2 confirmed that there will be no electromagnetic 

interference to its telecommunications infrastructure and therefore O2 

has no objections. 

25/07/08 - Stated that there were 5 microwave fixed links found within 

the site, and there should be further consultation with the related 

providers (Arqiva, Vodafone and Orange). 

Contact details for scanning telemetry systems were also provided by 

Ofcom. These were CSS Spectrum Management Services Ltd (CSS) 

and the Joint Radio Company (JRC). 

The providers were contacted directly. 

20/09/10 – Reconsultation. Ofcom stated that no new links had been 

installed since the previous consultation. 

Chapter 3 – 

Scheme 


Chapter 3 – 

Scheme 


Orange 14/10/10 - Orange responded with no objection to the new layout. Chapter 3 – 

Scheme 

RSPB 

Scotland Gas 

Networks 

Scottish 

Ambulance Service 

Scottish Police 

Services Authority 

Scottish Power 

Energy Networks 

Scottish Water 

Horizons 

Scottish Wildlife 

Trust 

SEPA 

SNH 

Stirling Council 

26/04/10 - Given that the location of the wind farm site is next to a 

SPA, SSSI and Ramsar site, a 2 nd year of migratory and wintering data 

may be required. 

29/07/08-01/08/08 - Scotland Gas Networks provided details of high 

pressure gas transmission pipelines in the vicinity of the site. 

28/07/0 - Responded with no objections as they do no not have sites 

in the area. 

06/08/08 - Confirmed that this installation will have no impact on force 

communications, CCTV or IT systems. 

13/08/08 - Responded with a copy of its records showing approximate 

position of all known Scottish Power apparatus in the area specified. 

30/07/0 - Scottish Water Horizons responded with plans indicating the 

approximate position of Scottish Water’s existing public infrastructure. 

27/07/10 - Concerns about the following potential issues at the 

Forthbank amenity site of the Forth: The Black Devon Wetlands Area 

plays an integral part of the Upper Forth Estuary's International 

importance for birdlife, potential impact on breeding birds, movements 

of wintering migrants along the Forth between Kincardine and 

Cambus, winter residents, spring passage migrants and raptors. 

18/01/10 - Addresses areas which should be considered in ES, though 

some could be scoped out of detailed consideration. Areas include 

sustainable waste management (a site specific site waste 

management plan to be developed), air quality (potential nuisance to 

adjacent land users during the construction and decommissioning), 

site drainage strategy (detailing methods for the collection and 

treatment of all surface water runoff), flood risk assessment (the site 

should be assessed for flood risk from all sources), engineering 

activities in the water environment (site survey of existing water 

features, map of location, table detailing the justification for the activity 

and how any adverse impact will be mitigated and photographs, 

environmental management (construction environmental management 

plan), pollution prevention (including water quality monitoring), 

proposals, storage of fuel and oil (detailed scheme), land excavation/ 

borrow pits (detailed investigations), and regulatory advice. 

20/01/10 - SNH’s comments on issues to include in ES. Areas include 

Strategic Locational Guidance (Zone 2 of the SLG), Nature 

Conservation Designations (Firth of Forth SPA/SSSI/Ramsar site and 

Gartmorn Dam SSSI), Landscape and Visual (specific issues for the 

LVIA to address, cumulative effects, effects on designated landscapes 

and key views), Ecology (impacts on habitats and impacts on 

species), Ornithology (recommendation of contact local RSPB office 

and local Raptor Study Group), Soil and Water (areas of 

peatland/peatland soils) and Recreation and Access (Ochil Hills). 

06/05/10-SNH agreed that bird surveys undertaken for a period of one 

full year only would be adequate. 

27/01/10 - The proposed turbines would be significantly visible from 

areas within the Council area, and more distantly, have potential 

cumulative visual impacts with other developments in the vicinity, and 


Chapter 12- 

Ornithology 





Chapter 13- 

Hydrology, 


Geology 

Chapter 12- 

Ornithology 

Chapter 13 – 

Hydrology, 


Geology 

Chapter 4 – Project 

Description 

(pollution 

prevention) 

Chapter 11- 

Ecology, Chapter 

12-Ornithology, 

Chapter 9- 

Landscape and 

Visual, Chapter 13- 

Hydrology, 


Geology and 

Chapter 10-Cultural 

Heritage and 

Archaeology. 

Chapter 9- 

Landscape and 

Visual and Chapter 





Response is 

Addressed 

be within the view from places such as Stirling Castle and the Wallace 

Monument. There will also be potential ecological impacts because of 

11-Ecology 


Vodafone 

Further Evolution of the Scope 

the site’s proximity to the Firth of Forth SPA/SSSI. 

26/01/10 - Advised that Amey Infrastructure Services (AIS) are 

consulted as to the feasibility of transportation of construction loads to 

the site. 

10/07/09 - Vodafone finds the new co-ordinates acceptable. It has 

requested to be kept informed of any further changes to the site 

layout. 

Chapter 7- Traffic, 

Access and 

Transport 

Chapter 3 – 

Scheme 


3.4.11 The process of consultation is important for the development of a comprehensive and 

balanced ES. Views of the key statutory and non-statutory consultees serve to focus the 

environmental studies and to identify key specific issues that may require further investigation. 

3.4.12 A range of statutory bodies and non statutory bodies were consulted as part of the EIA process 

in addition to that undertaken for the scoping process. For example, bodies were consulted for 

specific information held on wildlife interests in the area. 

3.4.13 On-going consultation was maintained to provide an iterative input to the EIA process, 

discussing specific aspects of the proposals to resolve potential issues. This included 

telephone discussions, written correspondence and/or meetings with Clackmannanshire 

Council and other consultation bodies 1 , including Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). 

3.5 Other Projects with Possible Cumulative Effects 

3.5.1 In line with standard practice, projects which have been the subject of a full and validated 

planning application have been included in the consideration of potential cumulative effects 

with the assumption that they are successful. 

3.5.2 Other projects substantially in the public domain either by virtue of a scoping report or indeed a 

consultation into a specific national infrastructure project may be included if there is sufficient 

information available to the development team. In the case of other wind farm developments, 

key information is required about the number, location and size of turbines for a full 

assessment of cumulative effects assessment to be carried out. The cumulative effects of the 

Beauly-Denny transmission line were also considered along with the proposed wind energy 

development at Forthbank. Figure 12.11 shows its proposed route, albeit the precise location 

of the pylons is not yet available. 

3.5.3 Individual technical topic chapters describe the methods by which cumulative effects are 

assessed as appropriate. 

3.5.4 In respect of potential cumulative effects with other schemes, the consultations undertaken 

highlighted potential cumulative effects relating to ecology, ornithology, landscape and visual 

and hydrology/hydrogeology. Specific cumulative considerations were identified by SNH, 

Clackmannanshire Council and SEPA. The identified sites and cumulative impacts are 

considered within each topic chapter as appropriate. 




3.6 Approach to Public Consultation 

3.6.1 Public consultation is a key element of the environmental assessment process; therefore as 

part of the wider consultation process, attention was given to community engagement, in 

conformity with PAN 81: Community Engagement – Planning with People. Local Community 

Councils were contacted during development of the proposal. 

3.6.2 As it is proposed that the capacity of the proposed wind energy development will be up to 

10MW, it is not classed as a major development under The Town and Country Planning 

(Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, as it will not exceed 20MW. 

Therefore, formal pre-application consultation with communities is not required. However, PfR 

is committed to working together with local communities as part of the community engagement 

process and has aimed to ensure that they were consulted with and informed of developments 

during the EIA wind energy development process via public exhibitions, meetings and 

circulars. 

3.6.3 PfR and its consultants have undertaken extensive discussions with statutory and nonstatutory 

consultees, the local community and Clackmannanshire Council with the 

accumulated findings all having an influence over the evolution of the design and the scope of 

the EIA. 

3.6.4 Consultation begins at the earliest stage of development to establish feasibility and progresses 

right through the application. 

3.6.5 Primary methods of engaging the community were as follows: 

• Public Exhibitions; 

• Dedicated project microsite; 

• Community telephone number and email; 

• Community websites such as Clacksweb ; 

• Personal Meetings; 

• Presentations; 

• Phone calls; 

• Emails; 

• Letters; and 

• Local Publications. 

3.6.6 Public Information Exhibitions were held on 3 November 2009 (14.00 to 20.00) and 8 July 2010 

(16.00 to 20.00) at the Bowmar Community Centre, as well as 17 September 2010 (16.00 to 

20.00) at the Airth Community Hall to provide information regarding the proposed wind energy 

development to local residents, and to gain feedback on the proposals. The events were 




advertised in the local press and through local networks such as Community Councils, 

Clacksweb, local resident groups and other groups who had responded to previous information 

such as the scoping document. 

3.6.7 The information available included plans of the proposed layout, information boards explaining 

the key potential environmental effects, and photomontages to illustrate anticipated views. 

Representatives of Clackmannanshire Council and PfR project team were also available to 

provide additional information and answer queries. Comments from attendees were used to 

provide input into the iterative EIA process. 

3.6.8 Approximately 50 people attended the Public Exhibitions. The feedback received contained 

both positive comments (relating to the necessity of wind power and the consideration that the 

proposed design of the proposed wind energy development was sympathetic to the visual 

amenity of the area) and raised issues of concern, including potential landscape and visual 

effects, the noise impact and potential effects on the local road network from construction 

vehicles and the delivery of the turbines to site. As the public events are attended by project 

team members, any comments made by attendees can be addressed immediately although 

some queries have required further investigation and follow up. 

3.6.9 Ongoing enquires from members of public were handled promptly via the community telephone 

line and email by members of the project team. 

3.6.10 The local communities were updated on the proposal as it developed via the website and local 

press and were also advised as to submission of the application to Clackmannanshire Council. 

3.7 Summary of Site Design and Consideration of Alternatives 

3.7.1 Further to the approach set out in Section 2.4, the alternatives considered throughout the 

design process of the wind energy development were restricted to alternative design solutions 

considered for this site. Design solutions in this case include mitigation measures built-in to 

the scheme design as well as the selection and arrangement of infrastructure and the final 

turbine locations. Mitigation measures considered are both physical interventions/ 

enhancements and operational controls. The assessment and design of the proposed wind 

energy development has been iterative. This approach has allowed the findings of the EIA to 

guide the evolution of the proposed wind energy development design and has allowed the 

plans for the development to be modified in order to avoid, reduce or mitigate the potentially 

negative effects as far as reasonably practicable. Consultation has been involved at all stages 

in this process. This approach is considered to be best practice and is preferable to carrying 

out a one-off post-design environmental appraisal. 

3.7.2 The provision of environmental information through an ES involves the compilation, evaluation, 

and presentation of all potential significant environmental effects of a proposed development. 

This, together with the post-application consultation responses from statutory consultees and 

the public, assists the determining authority in considering and determining the application. It is 

important to note that consultation has been incorporated at all stages of the project design. 




3.7.3 The design solution for a site crosses all development phases and is based on the considered 

application of the following technical, economic and environmental criteria across all 

development phases as more information becomes available. 

3.7.4 The main design changes resulting from the consultation and design process are summarised 

below with reasons for the change. The final proposed number, size and location of the 

turbines, access tracks and other site infrastructure is considered to be the ‘best environmental 

fit’ in relation to the identified environmental constraints (see proposed layout in Figure 1.2). 

Turbine Layout Design Process 

3.7.5 Key stages of the design iteration process are shown in Figure 3.1. The initial design of the 

proposed wind energy development layout comprising four turbines and associated 

infrastructure was established after an iterative process which lasted approximately 4 months. 

3.7.6 An initial list of the constraints present on the proposed site was identified in the DP1 site 

screening report. The purpose of the turbine layout design process was to maximise the 

installed capacity within the constraints of the proposed site. It was based primarily on 

technical requirements such as topography and preliminary environmental constraints known 

at the time. Turbines were positioned at sufficient downwind and crosswind separation 

distances to ensure that turbines do not negatively affect the productivity of each other. 

3.7.7 Through correspondence and consultation with Ofcom, communication signals and scanning 

telemetry links operated by companies within close proximity to the proposed turbine locations 

were located. Contact details of the link operators were provided for further consultation who 

subsequently responded. Table 3.3 below summarises the key responses. 

Table 3.3 Summary of Consultee Responses in Relation to Communications Companies 

Consultee 

Response 

Arqiva 

08/07/09: Arqiva is satisfied that there is sufficient distance between its links and the proposed 

turbines. It requests to be informed of any change of location or additional turbines. 

BT 

08/08/08: BT concluded that the proposed wind energy development should not cause 

interference to its current and presently planned radio networks. 

Cable & Wireless 07/08/08 C&W responded with no objections. They do not have any operations in this area. 

(C&W) 

CSS Spectrum No response to date. 

Management 

Five 

No response to date. 

Joint Radio 

Commission (JRC) 

14/07/09: JRC has objected to the turbine locations on behalf of Scotia Gas Networks on the 

basis that the turbines are within 1km of a scanning telemetry link. A “Full Impact Assessment” 

performed by the JRC, will provide investigation into potential mitigation solutions. 

National Grid 28/07/08: Recommended to contact Ofcom and BBC Research Department. 

Wireless 

O2 01/08/08: O2 confirmed that there will be no electromagnetic interference to its 

telecommunications infrastructure and there O2 has no objections. 

Ofcom 

25/07/08: Stated that there were 5 microwave links found within the site, and there should be 

further consultation with the related providers (Arqiva, Vodafone and Orange). 

Contact details for scanning telemetry systems were also provided by the JRC. The providers 

were contacted directly. 

20/09/10: Reconsultation. Ofcom stated that no new links had been installed since the previous 

consultation. 

Orange 

14/10/10: Orange responded with no objection to the new layout. 

Tmobile 

No response to date. 

Vodafone 

10/07/09: Vodafone finds the new co-ordinates acceptable. It has requested to be kept informed 

of any further changes to the site layout. 

3.7.8 Following completion of the pre-application consultation process and the establishment of 

further environmental baseline data at the site, a number of potential environmental constraints 




were identified. Working closely with consultees, these constraints resulted in a reworking of 

the layout design. The following changes were made to the initial turbine layout: 

• Further to a response received from Vodafone on 1 August 2008 with an “initial 

objection“ to the proposed wind energy development due to Turbine 2 being located 

38m from the centre of one of their links, Turbine 2 was relocated 60m to the 

southwest of its original location. As a result of the relocation of Turbine 2 (and its 

respective 5 x 3 rotor diameter wake separation ellipse), Turbine 3 had to be 

relocated 70m to the east. No changes were made to Turbines 1 & 4. 

• Vodafone and Arqiva responded by email to confirm that they were satisfied that 

there is sufficient distance between its link and the proposed turbines. However, 

Orange responded on 4 May 2010 with “an initial objection” to the proposed wind 

energy development due to Turbine 3 being located 40m away from one of its links. 

Turbine 3 was relocated 10m further north of its original location. No changes were 

made to Turbine 1, 2 & 4. 

• JRC also objected to the turbine locations, on behalf of Scotia Gas Networks, on the 

basis that the proposed wind energy development is located within 1km of a 

scanning telemetry link (JGTLB04). A Full Impact Assessment was commissioned 

from the JRC to investigate mitigation options. The Full Impact Assessment 

concluded that the proposed wind energy development will affect the link JGTLB04 

at Alloa Pressure Reduction Station (PRS). The installation of a satellite Remote 

Terminal Unit (RTU) at Alloa PRS is considered a viable mitigation option by JRC. 

Any measures will be discussed with the JRC and Scotia Gas Networks, and 

mitigation, including the installation of a satellite RTU will be carried out by PfR. 

3.7.9 PfR also met with Scottish Power (SP) Energy Networks on 20 August 2010 to discuss 

appropriate standoff distances from the existing pylons line which cross the site. A minimum of 

topple distance + 10% was agreed. All turbines are located at least 200m from the power 

cables. 

3.7.10 For wake separation distance PfR will undertake studies to demonstrate that the operation of a 

wind turbine placed within 3 rotor diameters from the nearest conductor on the overhead line 

will not have a detrimental effect on the overhead line. Alternatively PfR will agree with SP 

Energy Networks to fund implementation of acceptable mitigation measures prior to wind 

turbine coming into operation. 

3.7.11 During the scheme development process design refinements were made by PfR and RPS as a 

consequence of information arising from the EIA and consultation exercises. The objective 

was to refine the initial design wind turbine layout based on information received through 

consultation and environmental information obtained by the environmental consultants’ desk 

and field-based research. 

3.7.12 Turbine access tracks across the site were the subject of several design iterations to both 

accommodate different turbine layouts and also in response to predicted effects on ecology, 

and hydrology and were also designed as far as possible to utilise existing tracks. 




3.7.13 The final turbine locations were selected after all the above constraints were taken into 

consideration and it is shown in Figure 1.2. The layout seeks to draw a reasonable 

compromise between the differing technical and environmental priorities on site. The 

assessments presented in the specialist chapters take into account the mitigation incorporated 

as part of the scheme. 

3.7.14 It is probable that during the post planning consent design process a small degree of flexibility 

regarding precise turbine location will be required. As such, a +/-30m radius around each 

turbine is requested by the applicant. This will allow any previously unknown on-site 

constraints to be avoided by micro-siting the turbine. This request is being made on the 

understanding that certain areas of the site will not be available for micro-siting - for example 

on flight paths of certain species, within a 20m buffer of watercourses or onto certain areas of 

priority habitat. Any micro-siting will be agreed with Clackmannanshire Council and Scottish 

Natural Heritage. It should be note that some micro-siting constraints have already been 

identified associated with communication company requests. 

‘No-Project Alternative’ 

3.7.15 The ‘no- project’ alternative would leave the landholding of the Forthbank site in its current 

restored landfall form. 

3.7.16 Without the Forthbank wind energy development, and other wind energy developments, 

Scotland will be less likely to meet its targets of producing 80% of its electricity from renewable 

sources by 2020 and more beyond. 


1 In terms of the EIA Regulations, the consultation bodies include: 

• Any adjoining planning authority where the development is likely to affect land in their 

area; 

• Scottish Natural Heritage; 

• The water and sewerage authority or authorities for the area in which the development is 

to take place; 

• The Scottish Environment Protection Agency; 

• The Health and Safety Executive; and 

• The Scottish Ministers. 

HMSO (1989). The Electricity Act 1989. 

IEMA (2005). Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment. Institute of Environmental 

Management and Assessment. 




Scottish Executive (1999). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 58: Environmental Impact 

Assessment. Scottish Executive. 

Scottish Executive (2000). Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) 

Regulations 2000. 

Scottish Executive (2007). Circular 8/2007 The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) 

Regulations 1999. Scottish Executive. 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2005) A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment. SNH. 




4 Description of the Proposed Development 

4.1 Introduction 

4.1.1 The planning application is for “the erection, 25 year operation and subsequent 

decommissioning of four wind turbines, each with a maximum overall height (to vertical blade 

tip) of up to 125m, together with new and upgraded access tracks, temporary works, hard 

standing areas, a control and metering building, cabling and an anemometry mast”. 

4.1.2 It is proposed that after generating electricity for 25 years the proposed wind energy 

development will be removed or an application made for further planning permission to extend 

the duration of operation at the site in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with 

Clackmannanshire Council. 

4.1.3 The proposed wind energy development will require a connection to the local electricity 

network to export electricity. The connection will likely be made at Kelliebank substation. 

Scottish Power (SP) Energy Networks has confirmed that a viable grid connection can be 

made. The target date for completion is March 2012. The grid connection for the proposed 

wind energy development will be subject to a separate application under Section 37 of the 

Electricity Act 1989. 

4.2 Scheme Layout 

4.2.1 The proposal is to construct and operate a wind energy development at the Forthbank site 

comprising: 

• four variable pitch (three-bladed) wind turbines each with a hub height of 80m and 

blade length of 45m. Each turbine is likely to generate up to 2.5MW of renewable 

energy, providing an overall installed capacity of 10MW; 

• one reinforced concrete ‘gravity’ foundation and three deep piled foundations 

typically up to 20m in diameter; 

• crane hard-standing/laydown areas adjacent to each wind turbine; 

• a single storey, pitched roof site control building; 

• new and upgraded existing on-site access tracks; 

• a temporary hard-cored construction compound; 

• underground electrical and SCADA 1 cabling linking each wind turbine with the site 

control building; and 

• a permanent 80m metrological mast – to include weather recording equipment, 

complete with electrical supply and reinforced concrete. 




4.2.2 These features are described in further detail in sections 4.5 to 4.8 and presented in Figures 

4.1 to 4.9. 

4.2.3 The layout of the proposed wind energy development and immediate geographical context of 

the site is shown on Figure 1.2, with the approximate grid reference for the centre of the 

turbine cluster being E289102, N691085. 

4.2.4 The total operational land take (development footprint) as a result of the development (i.e. the 

area occupied by turbine bases, new access tracks and control building) is 2.6ha. The red-line 

boundary for the purposes of the planning fee however includes the wider site increasing the 

total to 37.9ha. 

4.2.5 Detailed descriptions of the site and its surrounds are included in the relevant environmental 

topic chapters, with general site setting information provided below and in Figure 1.4. 

4.3 Site Setting 

4.3.1 The proposed wind energy development is to be located on the outskirts of Alloa, 

Clackmannanshire. The national grid reference for the site is E289102, N691085. Its location 

is shown in Figure 1.1. 

4.3.2 The proposed wind energy development is to be located within the site of the former 

Clackmannanshire Council landfill site, located on the banks of the River Forth. The landfill 

was closed in 2004 and restored in 2005. The application area consists of two main areas. An 

area to the south-east which comprises the main body of the closed landfill and an associated 

restored area to the north-west. The north-west and the south-eastern sites are connected by 

a road which runs adjacent to the Firth of Forth. 

4.3.3 The elevation of the site is 0m to 7m above ordnance datum (AOD). The majority of the site is 

raised (where the main body of the landfill was located). The application area is devoid of any 

substantial vegetation, with most of the site covered by rough grassland and a number of small 

trees and bushes growing along the fenced boundaries. Two large high voltage power lines 

pass through the eastern tip of the site, and there are a number of additional pylon mounted 

cables in the near vicinity. A recycling facility exists in the north-western area, near the site 

entrance immediately outwith the application boundary. North of the application area, 70m upstream 

from the site boundary is a sewage works operated by Scottish Water, and several 

industrial buildings. The surrounding landscape is flat, exposed and generally farmed. Large 

industrial areas (Grangemouth refinery and Longannet Power Station) are visible from within 

the boundary. 

4.3.4 The application area is bound by the Firth of Forth to the southwest and by the Black Devon 

River to the south and east (a small tributary river that flows into the Forth). To the north of the 

site there are reconstructed wetlands. These wetlands were created by Clackmannanshire 

Council following use of some of the clays and soils from the area as capping and final 

restoration layers on the landfill post closure. 

4.3.5 The Firth of Forth SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site is immediately adjacent to the application area 

and Craigmad Wood SSSI is situated approximately 6km to the east of the application area. 




4.3.6 The vegetation on the remainder of the application area and the landscape surrounding the 

site are discussed in more detail in Chapter 11 (Ecology) and Chapter 9 (LVIA), respectively. 

Nearest Residential Properties 

4.3.7 The nearest residential properties to the proposed turbine sites are within Riverside View 

(Alloa), which lie approximately 460m to the north of Turbine 1. 

4.3.8 The distances of the closest residential properties to the proposed wind energy development 

are detailed in Table 4.1 below. 

Table 4.1 Nearest Residential Properties 

Property 

Position Relative 

to Site 

Nearest Turbine Distance to Site 

Boundary (m) 

Distance to Nearest 

Turbine (m) 

Riverside View (Alloa) North 1 170 468 

Park Farm East 3 280 833 

Inch of Ferryton Southeast 4 710 902 

Craigrie Northeast 3 770 1,190 

Arns East 4 870 1,330 

Parkmill North 1 910 1,100 

Dunmore Home Farm Southwest 2 940 1,030 

South Kersie West 1 1730 1,820 

4.3.9 The nearest settlements are Alloa (0.17km north of the application boundary), South Alloa 

(0.95km west of the site), Clackmannan (approximately 1.1km east of the site at its nearest 

point, and 1.45km to the main street), and Dunmore (0.9km south). Further afield are Kennet 

(2km southeast), Kincardine (3.8km southeast at its closet point), Airth (2.4km southwest), and 

Throsk (3.15km west). 

4.4 Purpose and Objective 

4.4.1 As identified in Chapter 1, the purpose of the scheme is the generation of electricity. If four 

2.5MW turbines are constructed they are expected to generate approximately 26.28GWh of 

renewable energy per year. This is equivalent to the amount of energy used annually by 

approximately 5,710 average households and avoids 11,300 tonnes of C0 2 equivalent 

emissions per year. Chapter 6 provides the basis for calculating the household energy and 

CO 2 emission figures noted. 

4.5 Candidate Wind Turbines 

4.5.1 The final selection of a turbine type will be subject to a competitive tendering exercise following 

the grant of planning permission (a diagram illustrating the structure of a typical wind turbine is 

shown as Figure 4.1). The site has been designed to accommodate turbines of approximately 

2.5MW. 

4.5.2 For the purposes of this assessment a turbine of the horizontal axis type with a rotor consisting 

of three blades, each approximately 45m in length. Figure 4.1 illustrates the dimensions of the 

turbine. The blades are mounted to the wind turbine nacelle, at a height of approximately 80m, 

thus giving a maximum height to vertical blade tip of 125m. Accordingly, the landscape and 

visual assessment was based on these parameters. For the purposes of the noise modelling, 




the Nordex N90 turbine has been selected as the candidate turbine model. The turbine 

selected will be required to be within the scale parameters noted above and comply with or 

perform better than the noise performance characteristics of the turbine on which modelling 

has been based. 

4.5.3 Each turbine requires its own transformer to change the voltage to one that is appropriate for 

transmission around the site. Transformers may be housed externally within a small kiosk 

adjacent to each tower base, depending on the eventual model of turbine selected. The 

external kiosks will be a maximum of 6m x 4m x 3m in size, located close to towers and 

coloured appropriately for the site. Due to their relatively small size they are generally 

indistinct from the tower base unless viewed close up or in silhouette against the skyline at 

greater distances. 

4.5.4 The turbine towers will be of tapering tubular steel construction and the blades will be made of 

fibreglass with lightning protection, to protect the entire turbine. Turbines will be finished in a 

pale grey/off-white colour (industry standard) with a semi-matt finish, subject to agreement 

under condition with Clackmannanshire Council and other consultees. 

4.5.5 For the candidate turbine model, blades will rotate at approximately 9 to 19 revolutions per 

minute, generating power for all wind speeds between about 3m/s and 25m/s (9-56mph). At 

wind speeds greater than 25m/s (56mph) the turbines will shut down for self-protection. These 

high wind conditions are expected to occur for about 1% of the year. 

4.5.6 Table 4.2 below identifies the grid reference of each of the proposed turbines. The proposed 

turbine locations have been the subject of an extensive design process, as described in 

Chapter 3 (Scheme Development and Scoping). However, a +/-30m radius of micro-siting 

flexibility around each turbine is requested by the applicant. This will allow further on-site 

constraints that may be identified during intrusive ground investigations to be avoided by 

micro-siting the turbine. All micro-siting will be agreed with Clackmannanshire Council and 

other consultees. It should however be noted that there are some already identified micrositing 

restrictions on some of the turbines associated with the communication link operators. 

Table 4.2 Proposed Turbine Grid Reference 

Turbine x y 

1 288888 691484 

2 289375 690845 

3 289695 690820 

4 289743 690502 

Turbine Monitoring and Control Including Meteorological Mast 

4.5.7 All turbines are controlled by a ‘supervisory control and data acquisition’ (SCADA) system, 

which will gather data from the turbines and provide the facility to control them from a central 

remote location. Communication cables connecting to each turbine will be routed in the 

electrical cable trenches. 

4.5.8 Wind conditions will be monitored by a free standing anemometry mast (i.e. not supported by 

guy wires), the location of which is shown in Figure 1.2. The height will match the turbine hub 

height. The exact design of this structure is yet to be determined, and may be of either lattice 

or tubular steel. An example of a lattice type design is shown in Figure 4.2. 




4.6 Electrical Connection 

Off-Site Grid Connection 

4.6.1 The proposed wind energy development will be connected into the local distribution system. 

Analysis and discussions with the local distributed network operator (DNO) (SP Energy 

Networks) indicate that a viable grid connection can be made to Kelliebank Primary Substation 

by underground cable at 11kV. The target date for completion is March 2012. 

4.6.2 Details of this connection are currently being confirmed by SP Energy Networks. The grid 

connection for the proposed wind energy development will be subject to a separate application 

to the Scottish Government Energy Consent Unit (including consideration of the environmental 

effects) under the Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 and as such is not discussed in detail 

in this ES. Figure 4.9 provides the indicative connection route at this stage (approximately 

1.955km). 

Control Building and Electrical Substation 

4.6.3 The proposed wind energy development will be connected through suitable switchgear to be 

installed in a small control building on-site. The control building compound will comprise a 

hard standing with maximum dimensions of 40m x 30m, and a single storey building 

approximately 5m x 15m x 3.81m which will house switchgear and metering, protection and 

control equipment and also welfare facilities. The building will be finished in a render which 

matches the colour of existing buildings in the area. Figure 4.3 and 4.4 provide an illustration 

of a control building plan and elevation respectively. The proposed location of the control 

building and compound is shown in Figure 1.2. 

4.6.4 The control building will also contain a single toilet and hand wash facility. The water for 

flushing the toilet will come from a rainwater collection tank located within the compound. It is 

likely that waste materials will be disposed of to a septic tank. The appropriate CAR 

registration will be sought from SEPA. This is discussed further in Chapter 13 (Hydrology, 

Hydrogeology and Geology). 

Electric Connections On-Site 

4.6.5 Wind turbines produce electricity at 690v which is typically transformed to 11kV or 33kV via the 

turbine transformers located outside the turbine bases. 

4.6.6 Underground cables will link the turbines to the on-site control building. Detailed construction 

and trenching specifications will depend on the ground conditions encountered at the time, but 

typically cables will be laid in a trench 1000mm deep and 400mm to 1200mm wide. To 

minimise ground disturbance, cables will be routed alongside the access tracks wherever 

practicable and if not, the total footprint of construction activity will be stated. Where the trench 

is laid in the landfill cap, construction details will be agreed with SEPA to maintain the cap 

integrity and limit surface water ingress into the landfill. Approximately 2.245km of cable 

trenches will be required on-site to connect the turbines to the on-site control building. Figure 

4.5 shows a typical cable trench detail. 




4.7 Site Access 

Off-Site Highway Access Works and HGV Delivery Route 

4.7.1 Due to abnormal size and loading of wind turbine delivery vehicles, it is necessary to review 

the public highways that will provide access to the site to ensure they are suitable, and to 

identify any modifications required to facilitate access for delivery vehicles. A preliminary 

access study and site visits were therefore undertaken to review potential access routes to the 

site from the M876 Motorway. Consultations were undertaken with Transport Scotland, Fife 

Council and Clackmannanshire Council in respect of the proposed route. 

4.7.2 The findings of this access study and the results from subsequent swept path analysis 2 led to 

the identification of the preferred route for construction and operations access to be as follows: 

• abnormal loads/HGV’s – these will require the use of specialised heavy transport 

vehicles and will follow the following route: 

north-east on A876 to roundabout at Higgins’ Neuk; 

left fork at roundabout on to Clackmannanshire Bridge; 

north on Kincardine bypass to roundabout with A977; 

left turn and north on A977 to roundabout with A907; 

left turn on to A907 to Shillinghill Roundabout in Alloa; 

left turn on to Greenside Street and left onto Devon Road; 

continue on to Forth Crescent/Bowhouse Road to access road; and 

left turn into access road to site. 

• light vehicles and private cars may approach the site from a variety of routes 

depending on their point of origin, finally using the A907 and Forth 

Crescent/Bowhouse Road to access the site. 

4.7.3 Some upgrading of the private access road will be required to accommodate oversized turbine 

delivery vehicles. This will include works at the junction with Bowhouse Road and a series of 

bends in the road along its length. The assessments also identified the requirement for 

infrastructure improvements along the length of the site access road at its junction with 

Bowhouse Road. The following improvements were identified as required: 

• Street Furniture may be required to be temporarily removed; 

• Parking along may be restricted for certain periods during delivery of infrastructure 

components; 

• Access road requires some upgrading (currently this is a private road not adopted); 

and 

• Junction of Bowhouse Road and Access road – additional land needed to negotiate 

junction and reinforcement of verge required. 

4.7.4 Further details relating to the movement of traffic to and from the site are reported in the traffic 

and transport Chapter 7. 




4.8 Civil Works 

Wind Turbine Foundations 

4.8.1 Foundation construction design will be finalised at the detailed design engineering stage. 

However, a typical foundation design for the candidate turbine is shown in Figure 4.6. Prior to 

construction, detailed intrusive ground investigations, will be undertaken at each turbine 

location and, depending on the information derived from these investigations, modifications 

could be made to the foundation designs. 

4.8.2 The wind turbines are likely to be installed on reinforced concrete foundations, established on 

suitable load bearing strata (following excavation) or on deep piled foundations depending on 

ground conditions. The proposed type of foundation for the three turbines located on the 

landfill area will require a reinforced concrete slab, pile cap and deep piled foundations. The 

piles will be required to penetrate through the waste mass and the superficial deposits and be 

socketed into the underlying rock. The reinforced concrete foundations measure typically up to 

20m in diameter and have a depth of approximately 1.5m. A working area around the concrete 

foundations will be restored following construction of the foundation and the tower. 

4.8.3 It is assumed that the construction of the turbine foundations will require the excavation of 

subsoil to a suitable bearing strata and landfill material prior to installation of deep piles and 

pile cap of a suitable form that will maintain adequate containment of leachate within the 

landfill. Clay is expected to be present beneath the landfill material. Turbine founding in the 

north-eastern part of the site will be located (micro-sited) to avoid the two disused adits in the 

area. 

4.8.4 Excavated material from Turbine 1 (if appropriate) will be reused for access track construction. 

Construction of Crane Pads 

4.8.5 Each wind turbine requires an area of hard standing to be built adjacent to the turbine 

foundation. This provides a stable base on which to lay down turbine components ready for 

assembly and erection, and to site the two cranes necessary to lift the tower sections, nacelle 

and rotor into place. The crane hard standing will be left in place following construction in 

order to allow for the use of similar plant should major components need replacing during the 

operation of the proposed wind energy development. These could also be utilised during decommissioning 

at the end of the proposed wind energy developments life. The total area of 

hard standing at each turbine location, including the turbine foundations and the crane pad will 

be approximately 1240m 2 (maximum 20m width x 62m length). Approximately a third of this 

area will be dressed back with topsoil and landscaped into the surrounding area upon 

completion of turbine erection. 

4.8.6 A typical crane hard standing is illustrates in Figure 4.7. 




On-Site Tracks 

4.8.7 Wind turbine towers, blades and nacelles are likely to be transported via trailers with selfsteering 

rear axles. The tower sections and other turbine components will be stored either at a 

designated laydown area or at each turbine hardstanding until turbine erection commences. 

4.8.8 The site will be accessed from the Forth Crescent/Bowhouse Road onto the existing access 

track. This track was previously used for transport operations at the former landfill and is 

adequate to accommodate the large vehicles required for turbine transport. The detailed 

design and specification of the upgraded track will include additional strengthening where it 

traverses the landfill cap, if required. 

4.8.9 Further details relating to the movement of traffic to and from the site are reported in Chapter 7 

Traffic, Access and Transport. 

4.8.10 To access the site and the site infrastructure, approximately 50m of new access track will be 

constructed and 2245m of existing track will be upgraded (but not widened). The existing 

access track has in the main tarmac surface and is in good condition and will be suitable for 

construction traffic. Smaller gravel tracks surround and cross the former landfill site for access 

to monitoring boreholes. These tracks are overgrown in places and may require some 

modifications. 

4.8.11 Figure 1.2 illustrates the proposed new and existing access track layout. The completed tracks 

will generally be 6m wide, ranging from 400mm to 700mm in depth, assuming a CBR 3 of 

between 1% and 3% (averaging at 1.5%). The location of the site access roads are shown in 

Figure 1.2, and typical track cross sections are shown in Figure 4.8. 

4.8.12 There are various factors and constraints that have influenced the track layout design: 

• track length is kept to a minimum to reduce environmental impact, construction time 

and material quantities; 

• gradients are kept to less than 14% to accommodate the requirements of delivery 

vehicles and also to allow construction plant to move safely round the site; 

• avoidance of sensitive ecological, archaeological and hydrological features; 

• existing cable, pipe or electricity infrastructure is avoided; and 

• use of suitable existing crossing /access points where possible. 

4.8.13 At bends, the tracks will be widen as appropriate depending on bend radius and to a maximum 

of approximately 13m. Additionally, temporary passing places, measuring 15m by 5m, will be 

provided every 300m (or as required) to facilitate traffic movement. The edges of the tracks 

will be encouraged to re-vegetate after construction, while maintaining a suitable width of 

approximately 5m for maintenance vehicles throughout the operational period. All new tracks 

will be unpaved and constructed from material sourced from off-site quarries. 




4.8.14 The access tracks will bear directly on to the underlying strata. Should softer ground be 

encountered and where the track is on the landfill cap, it may be necessary to strengthen the 

road locally. In order to reduce the thickness of the general road construction, and hence 

reduce the quantity of imported stone by up to 30%, a geogrid reinforcement layer will be 

incorporated into the road construction. 

4.8.15 Water crossings have been avoided in the site layout as the majority of the access tracks 

almost exclusively follow existing tracks. 

4.8.16 The need for drainage will be established on-site during construction by observation. Where 

ground conditions are of a permeable nature, swales will be utilised for drainage to allow 

natural filtering of surface water into the ground. Where areas are less free draining, land 

drains or drainage ditches will be installed where the topography and ground conditions 

dictate. Drainage filters will be installed at suitable locations to filter silts out and reduce flow 

rates on steeper section of track. If required, cut off drains will be installed at points to redirect 

surface water to minimise washout of roads and/or construction areas. 

4.8.17 Drainage is discussed further in Chapter 13 (Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology). 

Site Accommodation and Temporary Works 

4.8.18 One temporary construction compound approximately 50m x 50m is proposed. The location is 

shown on Figure 1.2. The construction compound will accommodate all the required welfare 

facilities. Other temporary fenced compound areas may be established on turbine craneage 

areas as appropriate for security of plant in remote parts of the site. These will not require any 

additional hard standing to that proposed for the craneage areas. 

4.8.19 Within six months of the proposed wind energy development becoming operational, all 

portacabins, machinery and equipment will be removed and the laydown area fully restored. 

Stone and Concrete Requirements and Sourcing 

4.8.20 Stone and sand materials for site tracks, laydown areas, crane hard standings and cable 

trenches are expected to be sourced from local quarries. Approximately 10,500t of stone and 

7,400t of sand will be required. 

4.8.21 Approximately 3,000m 3 of concrete will be imported to site from ready mix plants for 

construction of the turbine foundations and control building. 

4.8.22 As noted above, existing on-site tracks will be upgraded and utilised where possible in order to 

minimise the amount of stone that is required to be imported to site. 

Borrow Pits 

4.8.23 No borrow pits are required or proposed on the site. 




4.9 Construction of the Proposed Wind Energy Development 

Principal Site Operations and Indicative Programme 

4.9.1 The construction period for the wind energy development will last approximately 6 months and 

will comprise the following activities: 

• upgrading of existing tracks and passing places, inter-linking the turbine locations 

and control building; 

• upgrading of the existing access junction; 

• formation of site compound including hard standing and temporary site office 

facilities; 

• construction of crane hard standing areas; 

• construction of culverts (if required) under roads to facilitate drainage and maintain 

existing hydrology; 

• construction of turbine foundations; 

• construction of site control building; 

• construction of met mast foundation; 

• excavation of trenches and cable laying adjacent to site roads; 

• connection of on-site distribution and signal cables; 

• delivery and erection of wind turbines; 

• delivery and erection of permanent meteorological mast; 

• commissioning of site equipment; and 

• site restoration. 

4.9.2 Where possible, operations will be carried out concurrently (thus minimising the overall length 

of the construction programme) although they will occur predominantly in the order listed. In 

addition, development will be phased such that, at different parts of the site, the civil 

engineering works will be continuing whilst wind turbines are being erected. The specific 

construction programme will consider mitigation measures as identified elsewhere within the 

ES e.g. avoiding key months in respect of ornithological issues. Site restoration will be 

programmed and carried out to allow restoration of disturbed areas as early as possible and in 

a progressive manner. 

4.9.3 All construction activities will adhere to pollution control measures which will be detailed in an 

Environmental Management Plan drawn up in consultation with SEPA and other relevant 




stakeholders prior to construction. Further details are provided in Chapter 13 Hydrology, 

Hydrogeology and Geology. 

4.9.4 Enabling works will be required prior to the commencement of the main construction works. 

These works will be phased in the pre-construction period, and include: 

• detailed site investigation works; 

• identification of the aggressiveness of the leachate; 

• waste classification; 

• surface and groundwater monitoring; and 

• consultation with the appropriate authorities regarding turbine deliveries. 

Programme 

4.9.5 An indicative programme for construction activities is shown in Table 4.3. The starting date for 

construction activities is largely a function of the date that consent might be granted and 

subsequently the programme will be influenced by constraints on the timing and duration of 

any mitigation measures confirmed in the individual technical chapters or by the planning 

decision. Following planning consent, a more detailed programme of works will be produced 

with the appointed construction contractors and agreed with Clackmannanshire Council. 

Table 4.3 Indicative Construction Programme 

Construction Operations 

Clearance of land 

Access tracks 

Construction compound 

Lay-down area 

Control building 

Crane hardstandings 

Turbine foundations 

Turbine erection 

Grid connection (underground cabling) 

Landscaping 

Construction Works and Delivery Times 

Month 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

4.9.6 For the purposes of this ES, construction activities have been assumed to take place between 

07:00-19:00 hours on week days and 07:00 and 16:00 on Saturdays. Work outside these 

hours is not usual, though if it was required to meet specific demands (e.g. during foundation 

pours, and some activities are highly weather dependent e.g. low wind speeds for turbine 

tower erection), permission for short-term extensions to these hours would be sought from 

Clackmannanshire Council as required. 

4.9.7 Quiet on-site working activities such as electrical commissioning have been assumed to extend 

outside these times where required. 




Predicted Traffic Movements During Construction 

4.9.8 Traffic movements predicted within the construction period are provided and assessed within 

Chapter 7, Traffic, Access and Transport. 

Working Practices 

4.9.9 The proposed wind energy development will be constructed in accordance with industry 

standard techniques and best practice, and suitably experienced contractors will be appointed 

to design, construct and commission the proposed wind energy development. The 

construction works are expected to be monitored by an independent Owner's Engineer, who 

will also liaise with the various environmental and other advisers who will have input into the 

project. 

4.9.10 A contractors’ working area will be made available, and the location will be clearly delineated 

on-site to ensure that no unnecessary disturbance is caused to any sensitive areas. 

4.9.11 Particular attention will be given to the storage and use of fuels for the plant on-site. Drainage 

within the temporary site compound, where construction vehicles will park and where any 

diesel fuel will be stored, will be directed to an oil interceptor to prevent pollution if any spillage 

occurred. Storage of diesel fuel will be within a bunded area or self-bunded tank in 

accordance with SEPA pollution prevention guidelines. 

4.9.12 The foundation concrete will be a high strength structural grade, which is not prone to the 

leaching of alkalis. 

4.9.13 A water supply will be provided at a suitable location should wheel-washing be necessary for 

vehicles going off-site. Dust suppression will also be utilised if necessary. 

4.9.14 All work will be undertaken to relevant Health and Safety legislation. The project will be 

supervised in accordance with the revised Construction Design and Management Regulations 

2007 (CDM). Risk Assessments will be undertaken for each work package prior to activities 

taking place. 

Dust and Air Quality 

4.9.15 In the absence of appropriate mitigation, there would be potential for an increase in dust during 

construction. Given the adoption of the environmental measures that are outlined below, it is 

not expected that the change in air quality in relation to dust will be significant. Air quality 

effects arising from exhaust emissions from construction plant will also be insignificant. 

4.9.16 As dust control measures form a well-established and effective measure of construction in 

wind energy developments, the assessments undertaken within the ES proceed on the basis 

that the dust mitigation measures will be in force rather than predicting and assessing likely 

dust levels in the absence of these controls. 




4.9.17 The main options for mitigation of dust effects that will be utilised as necessary are: 

• Adequate dust suppression facilities. These will include water bowsers with sufficient 

capacity and range to dampen down all areas that may lead to dust escape from the 

site. 

• Any on-site storage of aggregate or fine materials will be properly enclosed and 

screened so that dust escape from the site is avoided. Adequate sheeting will also 

be provided for the finer materials that are prone to ‘wind whipping’. 

• HGVs entering and exiting the site will be fitted with adequate sheeting to cover 

totally any load that has the potential to be ‘wind whipped’ from the vehicle. 

• Wheel wash facilities for vehicles entering and exiting the site. Such facilities will 

automatically clean the lower parts of HGVs by removing mud, clay, etc from the 

wheels and chassis in one drive-through operation. 

• Good housekeeping or ‘clean up’ arrangements so that the site is kept as clean as 

possible, including daily inspections of the working areas and immediate surrounds 

to ensure that any dust accumulation or spillages are cleaned up as soon as 

possible. 

• A site liaison person to investigate and take appropriate action where complaints or 

queries about construction issues arise. 

Construction and Operational Wastes 

4.9.18 Any surplus topsoil material generated by excavation of foundations or from scraping back the 

surface under access track routes is expected to be re-used to encourage re-vegetation or reuse 

on the working areas. Some subsoil material may not be suitable for disposal in this way 

and would be disposed off-site in line with relevant waste disposal regulations, most likely for 

re-use as an inert fill material. 

4.9.19 Construction waste is expected to be restricted to normal materials such as off cuts of timber, 

wire, fibreglass, cleaning cloths, paper and similar materials. These will be sorted and recycled 

if possible, or disposed of to an appropriately licensed landfill by the relevant contractor. 

4.9.20 Operational waste will generally be restricted to very small volumes of materials associated 

with machinery repair and maintenance. It will be disposed of by the maintenance contractors 

in line with normal waste disposal practices. 

4.9.21 Further information on waste management is provided within Chapter 13 and Appendix 13.2. 

4.10 Site Restoration After Construction 

4.10.1 The main site restoration activity will occur at the edges of any working areas, principally 

alongside access tracks, crane pads and turbine foundations. Most excavated material from 

Turbine 1 will be disposed of around these locations (if deemed suitable following analysis), 




being used to dress back working areas to facilitate re-vegetation or agricultural use. Existing 

vegetation will be scraped off and stored separately with the topsoil prior to re-use as the top 

layer of any restored areas. This approach will maximise the potential for natural re-vegetation 

from the seed bank. Vegetation and soils will be stored in accordance with best practice. In 

the majority of cases (alongside tracks), restoration will occur within a few days of the removal 

of vegetation, so desiccation will be unlikely. Restoration within the main landfill area will be 

subject to specific agreement with SEPA and Clackmannanshire Council. 

4.11 Operation of the Proposed Wind Energy Development 

4.11.1 The power output from a wind energy development largely depends on the strength of the wind 

blowing across the site. Wind turbines start to generate electricity at a wind speed of about 

3m/s. Output increases with wind speed up to the maximum rated power at a wind speed of 

about 15m/s. As the wind speed increases further, the output is limited to the maximum until 

the wind speed reaches 25m/s when the wind turbine shuts down automatically in order to 

protect components from excessive wear. 

4.11.2 The proportion of time that the turbines will be generating electricity is therefore dependent on 

the time that the wind speed is between 3m/s and 25m/s. Generation output from a wind 

energy development is also seasonally dependent, such that approximately two thirds of the 

total annual energy yield from the wind energy development is expected to be delivered in the 

six months between October and March, with the remaining six months delivering the 

remaining third. 

Meteorological Effects 

4.11.3 Although wind turbines are designed to stop generating electricity at wind speeds over 25m/s, 

they are built to withstand very high wind speeds, and are normally certified against structural 

failure for wind speeds up to 60m/s (in excess of 120mph). 

4.11.4 Lightning generally has no effect on turbines, though as with all structures there is a risk of 

damage if hit directly by lightning. Turbines are fitted with a lightning protection system as part 

of their design. 

4.11.5 Snow does not generally pose problems other than with access to the site. Occasionally very 

heavy snow and ice may affect the anemometer or aerodynamics of the turbine blades 

resulting in temporary automatic shutdown. The wind turbine will restart automatically after 

accumulations have naturally thawed. Modern turbines have sensitive blade balance controls 

which detect accretion on the blades (e.g. ice) and do not begin operation until it is safe to do 

so. The following points provide a summary of the key protection measures: 

• The ice detector is installed on the roof of the nacelle. It measures the temperature 

and the relative air humidity of the environment. If certain values are exceeded the 

turbine is stopped by the control system of the turbine. The meteorological values 

are determined from "Deutschen Wetterdienst" or national weather institutes. 

• In any error state, the turbine is secured against autonomous restart so that the 

projection of ice can be excluded. 




• Turbine shutdown and restart are logged in the alarm list of the turbine control and 

are held available for subsequent verification. After shutdown due to icing the 

turbine can be restarted only manually on-site. 

General Servicing 

4.11.6 Routine maintenance or servicing of turbines is carried out twice a year, with a main service at 

12 monthly intervals and a minor service at 6 months. In year 1, there may also be an initial 3- 

month service after commissioning. The turbine being serviced is switched off for the duration 

of its service. 

4.11.7 Teams of two people with a 4 x 4 vehicle would carry out the servicing. It takes two people (on 

average) 1 day to service each turbine. 

Extended Services 

4.11.8 At regular periods through the project life, oils and components will require general 

maintenance, which will increase the service time on-site per machine. Gearbox oil changes 

are required approximately every 18 months. Changing the oil and worn components will 

extend each turbine service by one day. Blade inspections will occur as required (somewhere 

between every 2 and 5 years) utilising a ‘Cherry Picker’ or similar, but may also be performed 

with a 50T crane and a man-basket. It could take 2 or 3 weeks to inspect the turbines on the 

whole site. 

4.11.9 Repairs to blades would utilise the same equipment. Blade inspection and repair work is 

especially weather-dependent. Light winds and warm, dry conditions are required for blade 

repairs. Hence mid-summer (June, July and August) is the most appropriate period for this 

work. 

Unscheduled Operations 

4.11.10 The following factors could have significant effects on the duration of unscheduled operations: 

• weather-dependent crane operations; 

• availability of spares; 

• stage in component life cycle; and 

• track maintenance. 

4.11.11 Frequency of track maintenance depends largely on the volume and nature of the traffic using 

the track. Weathering of the track surface may also have a significant effect. Ongoing 

maintenance will generally be undertaken in the summer months when the tracks are dry. 

However, maintenance can be carried out as required. 




Land Management 

4.11.12 It is anticipated that land management practices will continue unaffected by the proposed wind 

energy development with normal landfill monitoring practices continuing unimpeded. 

Predicted Traffic Movements During Operation 

4.11.13 Traffic movements predicted within the operational period are provided and assessed within 

Chapter 7, Traffic, Access and Transport. 

4.12 De-commissioning 

4.12.1 The proposed wind energy development is designed to have an operational life of 25 years. At 

the end of this period, if the operational period is not extended, the wind energy development 

will be de-commissioned and the site reinstated as approved by Clackmannanshire Council 

and relevant statutory consultees. 

4.12.2 The turbines would be dismantled and removed from the site in a manner similar to that of their 

erection. Where possible turbine components would be recycled. Turbine foundations will be 

broken out to below ground level. Typically this will involve the removal of the upstand plinth to 

the top surface of the main foundation base. The removal of the turbine components may or 

may not generate a number of abnormal loads during de-commissioning. However, it is 

expected that the number of loads would be equivalent or lower than the number of 

movements generated during the construction period. 

4.12.3 Demolition of the control building will involve removal of the internal equipment, followed by 

demolition and removal of the building. Access tracks will be left for use by the landowner or 

covered with topsoil. No stone will be removed from the site. 

4.12.4 The cables will be cut at depth below ground level and left in the ground. This approach is 

considered to be less environmentally damaging than completely removing foundations and 

cables. 

4.12.5 The de-commissioning works are estimated to take six months. Information relating to decommissioning 

will be outlined within the De-commissioning Plan, which will be submitted to 

the appropriate authorities prior to cessation of operations and de-commissioning. This would 

set out how the turbines and other infrastructure would be removed and the site restored. 

Alternatively, a Planning Application could be made to extend the duration of the wind energy 

development or to replace the turbines with a new turbine model to take advantage of changes 

in technology. Any new Planning Application would be subject to further environmental 

appraisal. 

4.13 Mitigation 

4.13.1 Mitigation measures have been outlined in the technical assessments in this ES. The majority 

of mitigation has been “built in” to the design of the proposed wind energy development. Other 

mitigation measures will involve use of “best practice” in construction and site management. 




Proposed mitigation measures identified in the ES are summarised in Table 4.4 below, 

grouped according to the aspect of the development mitigation will address. 

Table 4.4 Summary of Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 

Chapter/Topic 


Ecology 

Ornithology 

Hydrology, Geology and 

Hydrogeology 

Cultural Heritage 

Noise 

Traffic and Transport 

Proposed Mitigation 


Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2010 © 

The layout and individual sitting of the turbines has been considered as 

part of the design iteration to reduce landscape and visual effects. 

Landscape and visual assessment has been a key issue during design of 

the project, to ensure layout design relates well to landscape character 

and achieves a sympathetic, balanced composition in views from the 

surrounding areas. Consideration has been given to the appropriate 

number of turbines on-site as well as to a number of alternative layout 

options based on a range of turbine specifications. 

Pre-construction surveys are proposed to enable refinements to be made 

to turbines locations to avoid impacts on VER’s. 

Translocation of Cornflower plants. 

Control of on-site invasive species during site preparation/construction. 

Construction best practice measures will be employed to minimise the 

impacts on wildlife species identified within or potentially within the 

surrounding areas (covering trenches, pits, excavations etc to prevent 

animals entering these holes; provision of methods of escape; no 

construction to take place at night time hours, reduced vehicles speeds 

on-site; the presence of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW)). 

The layout of the proposed wind energy development has incorporated 

specific mitigation measures into the design, to account for the presence 

of specific sensitive species within the site boundary. 

Best practice measures on-site will include agreement with SNH and 

RSPB of timing of certain works to avoid disturbance of specific bird 

species at periods associated with breeding and of high concentrations. 

Pre-construction surveys will also be undertaken in the breeding season. 

Buffers zones set by SNH will be excluded from operations during the 

breeding season. 

Visual screening - It is suggested that the chain-link fence could be 

replaced by an opaque structure such as slatted wooden fence or similar 

(e.g. a natural ‘living willow’ fence) or in the long term through planting of 

scrub vegetation to screen any low level visual stimuli from birds located 

on the estuary. 

Post consent bird monitoring will be carried out as stipulated by SNH 

(Monitoring is not proposed as a mitigation measure but as a means of 

assessing the actual impacts of the wind energy development on birds). 

A number of mitigation measures will be employed incorporated into the 

EMP for the site including general site pollution control measures, waste 

management measures, drainage design, geotechnical design. More 

specific details are provided within Chapter 13. 

The site design considered direct and indirect impacts on cultural heritage 

features and to the likely effect on below ground archaeology. Therefore 

no further mitigation is proposed. 

Standard construction measures would be implemented as part of the 

construction management plan to minimise noise and vibration effects. 

A transport management plan would be drawn up and agreed with 

Clackmannanshire Council Roads Department. The following mitigation 

measures are proposed: 

• Traffic Effects: phasing of concrete and stone deliveries, traffic 

management (signs warning other road users of turbine 

movements) and parking restrictions. Where appropriate, 

abnormal loads would be restricted to 09:30-15:00 Monday to 

Friday to minimise disruption to the local road network; 

• Noise and Vibration: timing of deliveries and abnormal loads and 

traffic management; 

• Dust and dirt: arrangements for road maintenance and cleaning, 

wheel cleaning and dirt control arrangements at key stages of 

construction; and 

• Air pollution: All vehicles used would be adequately maintained 

to ensure that exhaust emissions comply with relevant standards, 

drivers would be instructed to switch off engines when vehicles 

are stationary and the use of minibuses and car-sharing for 

construction operatives would be encouraged. 

In order to safeguard the interests of other users of the road network, 

such as visitors to the area, walkers and cyclists, measures would be put 

in place to ensure that these parties are aware of the presence of


Shadow Flicker 

Socio-Economic 

Supporting Information (Appendix 1) 

increased traffic, such as: the use of notices and leaflets in local Tourist 

Information Centres and visitor facilities; temporary signage; providing 

information to appropriate organisations (e.g. Sustrans, The Ramblers’ 

Association) and requesting this information to be made available through 

their websites; and temporary diversions, if necessary. 

Some upgrading of the private access road will be required to 

accommodate oversized turbine delivery vehicles. This will include works 

at the junction with Bowhouse Road and a series of bends in the road 

along its length. In addition, some infrastructure improvements will be 

required along the length of the site access road and the Bowhouse Road 

Junction (as detailed in Chapter 7). 

A road condition survey will be undertaken for the proposed construction 

access route to ensure the road is returned to its pre-development 

condition following the construction of the proposed wind energy 

development. 

Once the location and turbine parameters are defined, the periods during 

which shadow flicker can occur are predictable. Therefore, if following a 

complaint to the planning authority and following investigation by the 

operator, shadow flicker is confirmed to result in a loss of amenity at any 

location, then mitigation would be implemented. Effective forms of 

mitigation will vary to suit the specific circumstances but may include: 

window screening (with shutters, curtains or blinds); planting or 

constructing garden screening; or operational controls. 

In the case of operational controls, a specific turbine (or turbines) could 

be programmed to shutdown at specific times when the sun is bright 

enough to cast nuisance shadows. Solar sensors will be fitted on the 

nacelles of the turbines to monitor the light intensity to facilitate this 

function. There is not specific UK guidance regarding what level of light 

is sufficient to cause a shadow flicker event. However, the actual light 

level which would trigger a turbine shutdown can be manually configured 

on-site following installation, to reflect local conditions. 

As far as practicable, local companies will be engaged in undertaking 

proposed works ensuring as much local employment benefit as possible. 

The proposed wind energy development has been designed to minimise 

landscape effects as far as possible, which is expected to have some 

tourist benefit, as well as being of benefit to local residents. 

PfR is committed to habitat management where practical. It is proposed 

to carry out site restoration at the edges of any working areas, principally 

alongside access tracks, crane pads and turbine foundations. This will 

ensure minimal impacts on the existing land use of the site and 

surrounding areas. 

Digital television signals will be assessed in advance of the turbines 

becoming operational. Problems with television reception attributable to 

the proposed turbines will be investigated and rectified through 

implementation of such measures as the provision of an alternative 

distribution system or reorienting affected aerials away from the proposed 

wind energy development to another transmitter. 

Management and Restoration Plans 

• Construction Management Plan – Construction Method Statements will be prepared 

in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of Clackmannanshire Council, SEPA and 

SNH. These will ensure that the pre-construction quality of freshwater courses are 

maintained during and post construction to protect otters, water vole and protected 

aquatic species. In addition, best practice measures to minimise noise during 

construction will be provided. A “geotechnical risk register” will inform the 

Construction Management Plan. This will show the degree of risk attached to 

various elements of the proposed wind energy development construction and 

operation. The purpose of the register is to provide and outline a description of the 

hazards, identify the likely cause, describe the consequence or impact of the hazard 

and identify the design and construction controls to be implemented in order to 

reduce the probability to a tolerable level. The overall application of the risk register 

will allow the management of geotechnical risk. 




• Environmental Management Plan (EMP) – see section 4.14. 

• Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) – see Chapter 13 for details and Appendix 

13.2 (Draft SWMP). 

4.14 The Environmental Management Plan 

4.14.1 PfR has identified the environmental management scheme described above as being an 

integral part of the proposals. It is expected that this scheme will be captured within the 

consent description and any associated conditions should the application be approved. The 

following are expected to apply to ensure that the scheme is implemented throughout 

construction and operation. 

Construction 

4.14.2 The contract between PfR and the company contracted to construct the wind energy 

development will specify the measures to be taken to reduce or mitigate the environmental 

impact of the construction process. These measures will consist of three main types: 

• conditions to be adhered to under the planning permission; 

• any requirements of SEPA; and 

• any other relevant mitigation measures identified in this ES. 

4.14.3 A copy of any conditions associated with the planning permission will be incorporated into the 

contract with the company constructing the wind energy development, and the company will be 

required to adhere to these. Selection of the construction contractor will be based partly upon 

the contractor’s record in dealing with environmental issues, and on its provision of evidence 

that it has incorporated all environmental requirements into its method statements, and its 

staffing and budgetary provisions. PfR will retain the services of specialist advisers, for 

example on archaeology and ecology, to be called on as required to provide advice on specific 

issues, including micro-siting4. More detailed information on the role of such specialist 

advisors during construction is provided in the relevant technical sections, where appropriate. 

4.14.4 To ensure all mitigation measures outlined within this ES are carried out, contractors will be 

required to develop and adhere to the following documents throughout the construction 

process: 

• Environmental Management Plan (including pollution prevention measures and 

construction method statements); 

• Traffic Management Plan (see Chapter 7, Traffic Access and Transport); and 

• Waste Management Plan (see Chapter 13, Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology 

and Appendix 13.2. Site Waste Management Plan). 




4.14.5 The Environmental Management Plan and Traffic Management Plan will be agreed with the 

relevant statutory bodies and Clackmannanshire Council prior to commencement, and 

monitored by the Construction Project Manager. The Environmental Management Plan will 

comply with SEPA’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines and best practice as advocated by CIRIA. 

Operation 

4.14.6 The site will be managed by a team of wind energy engineers whose duties will include 

compliance with statutory environmental requirements. 

4.14.7 PfR’s wind energy developments are operated in accordance with documented environmental 

procedures, which ensure compliance with applicable environmental legislation and best 

practice. 

4.14.8 Where potential environmental hazards are identified, a site specific risk assessment is 

completed, and control measures implemented to ensure that the risks are minimised as far as 

possible. For example, refuelling of contractors’ plant is an area of potential risk to the 

environment. PfR will therefore ensure that in addition to oil being stored in accordance with 

the Prevention of Pollution (Oil Storage) Regulations 2001, contractors will have working 

procedures in place that consider the location of refuelling areas in relation to environmental 

receptors, that physical protection is provided for areas at risk, and that fuel deliveries and 

refuelling activities are monitored to minimise the risk of human error or equipment failure. 

4.14.9 Effective communication underpins the whole system of environmental management, ensuring 

appropriate information passes between PfR staff and the consultants and contractors whom 

they engage. This ensures that environmental considerations are fully integrated into the 

management of the wind energy development throughout construction, the operation and 

maintenance of the completed project and ultimately to de-commissioning. The following best 

practice measures will be employed to minimise any potential effects: 

• Fuel and oil stores will be sited on impervious bases in accordance with SEPA 

guidance within a secured bund of 110% of the storage capacity. Spill kits will be 

readily available on-site to absorb any minor oil or fuel leaks or spills. 

• Silt fences and/or other suitable measures will be located along and adjacent to 

water courses as required. In order to prevent direct discharge to watercourses, 

drainage pathways will be identified during construction operations and silt fences, 

settlement lagoons, sediment entrapment matting and straw bales installed as 

necessary. 

• As part of a Sustainable Urban Drainage system (SUDs) scheme, settlement 

lagoons will be created where required, to provide any required attenuation of flows 

and to facilitate settlement of suspended solids. 

• The storage of diesel fuel for the on-site plant, including the use of an oil receptor as 

appropriate, will be in accordance with SEPA guidelines. 

• Where vehicles carrying concrete and other equipment require to be washed out onsite, 

the runoff will be directed to a specially constructed wash out facility. 




• The contractor will adopt measures to ensure that public access and roadways are 

kept clean and free of debris or to provide diversions where necessary. Wheel 

cleaning facilities will be installed, if required, at appropriate points within the site. 

Should conditions arise where site generated dust could become a nuisance, 

measures such as watering the site access tracks will be taken to prevent this 

situation occurring. 


1 Wind Turbine ‘System Control and Data Acquisition’. 

2 

Swept Path Analysis uses computer modelling to simulate the trafficking of abnormal loads at 

sections of roads where there may be issues with the existing road geometry. The results give 

an indication of any remedial works required to accommodate the delivery vehicles. 

3 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) - is an expression of subgrade strength, which is the principal 

factor in designing the track. In designing the track the number of standard axles is also 

considered. 

4 The term micro-siting refers to the precise locating of turbines at the construction stage to 

avoid environmental or technical constraints identified on the ground. 

CIRIA (2005). Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) (2005): 

C650: Environmental Good Practice on Site. 

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) (2007). Office of Public Sector 

Information (OPSI). http://www.opsi.gov.uk. 

The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) Regulations (Scotland) 2005. Office of Public 

Sector Information (OPSI). http://www.opsi.gov.uk. 




5 Legislative and Policy Context 


5.1.1 This chapter identifies the European Union, United Kingdom and Scottish Government’s 

climate change and renewable energy targets which provide the context for the proposed wind 

energy development. The main driver for these targets has been the need to reduce 

greenhouse gases in order to combat climate change, and the requirement to fill the resulting 

energy gap with renewable energy alternatives, including wind energy. 

5.1.2 This chapter also identifies the development plan policies and material considerations relevant 

to the determination of the planning application for the proposed wind energy development. 

These policies and material considerations provide the context for the more detailed topic 

analysis as set out in Chapters 6 to 15 of this ES. It is not the intention of this chapter to 

assess the proposed wind energy development against the development plan and material 

considerations, as this is contained in the separate Planning Statement. 

5.2 Climate Change and Renewable Energy Targets 

International Context 

5.2.1 At the Kyoto conference in December 2007, developed countries agreed to reduce emissions 

of the six principal man-made greenhouse gases overall to 5.2% below 1990 levels over the 

period 2008 to 2012. The European Community agreed jointly to undertake an 8% reduction 

at Kyoto, with the UK agreeing to take on a reduction target of 12.5%. 

European Union Context 

5.2.2 Based upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings, the European 

Commission’s analysis shows that global emissions will have to be stabilised by around 2020, 

then reduced by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050, with developed countries collectively 

cutting their emissions to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 60-80% by 2050. The European 

Union has unilaterally agreed a new Climate and Energy Package which aims to deliver cuts in 

emissions of 20% by 2020 which will be increased to 30% cuts in the event of a global deal. 

5.2.3 In April 2009 the European Commission adopted a new European Renewables Directive (RD) 

which sets the ambitious target of obtaining 20% of all the EU’s energy (not just electricity) to 

come from renewables sources by 2020. The RD was negotiated on this 20% target basis and 

resulted in country “shares” of this target. For the UK, the share is that 15% of all final energy 

consumption should be accounted for by energy from renewables sources. 




United Kingdom Context 

5.2.4 The UK’s Energy White Paper 2007 states that “we are determined to become a low carbon 

economy” (DTI, 2007) and reaffirms the UK Government’s four energy priorities as reducing 

CO 2 emissions, maintaining energy security, promoting sustainable growth and tackling fuel 

poverty. Turning to the first of these objectives, the UK Government has set a goal of reducing 

CO 2 emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 and in 2006 launched the UK Climate 

Change Programme. 

5.2.5 The Climate Change Act 2008, which received Royal Assent on 26 November 2008, 

established a system of 5 year carbon budgets to manage the trajectory of UK emissions to a 

target of 80% cuts by 2050. It also allowed for the establishment of the Committee on Climate 

Change to provide advice to the UK Government and devolved administrations on the setting 

of carbon budgets and other climate change issues. 

5.2.6 In December 2008, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) proposed a set of ‘interim’ 

carbon budgets covering the five year periods 2008-12, 2013-17, and 2018-22. These budgets 

would see the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 fall to at least 34% below their 1990 

level. The Committee also proposed stretching ‘intended’ budgets which would see emissions 

reduce by 42% by 2020. In April 2009 the UK Government announced that it would set its 

carbon budgets based on the Committee’s interim budgets. 

5.2.7 The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (UKRES) was issued by the Department of Energy and 

Climate Change (DECC) in July 2009. The UKRES sets out what needs to happen and when 

for the UK to meet the EU’s legally binding target that 15% of all energy is to come from 

renewables sources by 2020. The UKRES also presents a lead scenario that involves more 

than 30% of electricity to be generated from renewables (compared to around 5.5% today), 

with onshore wind to play a major role in achieving this target. 

5.2.8 The Renewables Obligation (RO) was introduced into the UK in April 2002 and is the principal 

mechanism by which the UK aims to reach its targets for renewable energy. The RO requires 

licensed electricity suppliers to source a specific and annually increasing percentage of the 

electricity they supply from renewable sources. The percentage target began at 3% in 2003 

and is set to rise progressively to 15.4% by 2015. Under the scheme, one Renewables 

Obligation Certificate (ROC) is issued for each megawatt hour (MWh) of eligible renewable 

output generated. The ROCs can be used by suppliers to demonstrate compliance with the 

RO and can also be sold (traded) to suppliers so that they may fulfil their obligation. In 2009, 

power generation from renewable sources eligible under the Renewables Obligation stood at 

4.9% (BERR, 2008), indicating that further significant development in renewable energy 

sources is needed to meet this target. 

Scottish Context 

The Climate Change (Scotland) Bill 

5.2.9 The Scottish Government began consultation on a Climate Change Bill in 2008. In August 

2009, the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill received Royal Assent. The Act requires Scotland’s 




greenhouse gas emissions to be at least 80% lower in 2050 compared with 1990 levels (known 

as the “2050 target”). An interim target also requires emissions to be at least 42% lower by 

2020 compared with 1990 levels. The Act also requires the Scottish Government to act: 

• to reduce greenhouse gas emissions year on year, every year from 2011 to 2050; 

• to increase the rate of reduction from 2020 onwards to at least 3% per year; and 

• to specify more detailed annual targets in 2010, for each year to 2022. 

The Climate Change Delivery Plan (2009) 

5.2.10 The Scottish Government issued the Climate Change Delivery Plan, entitled ‘Meeting 

Scotland’s Statutory Climate Change Targets’ in June 2009. The Plan sets out the high level 

measures required in each sector to meet Scotland’s statutory climate change targets to 2020 

as set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the work to be done over the next 

decade to prepare for the more radical changes needed by 2030 if the 80% emission reduction 

target is to be achieved. 

5.2.11 For the electricity sector, targets have been set for the percentage of electricity demand which 

should be met from renewable energy sources by 2020. The current target is for 80% of 

Scotland’s electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2020. This 80% target 

(which is not a cap) translates into a requirement for some 13.4GW of installed renewable 

energy capacity compared with the 2009 capacity of 8.4GW. 

5.2.12 Paragraph 3.20 of the Plan notes that the requirement on the UK to meet EU renewable 

targets by 2020, equating to 15% of all energy use from renewable sources, will lead to strong 

demand from elsewhere in the UK for Scottish renewable electricity. 

The Scottish Renewables Action Plan (2009) 

5.2.13 The Scottish Government issued the Renewables Action Plan (RAP) in June 2009. The RAP 

identifies what needs to happen in the renewables sector and by when in order to meet the 

Scottish Government’s renewable energy targets, with a particular focus on actions needed 

over the immediate 24 month period. 

5.2.14 The RAP identifies collective actions by government, its agencies and partners, to ensure that 

20% of Scotland’s energy use comes from renewable sources by 2020. Key renewables 

objectives as set out in the RAP include: 

• to maximise the economic, social and environmental potential of Scotland’s 

renewable resource, across different technologies; 

• to establish Scotland as a UK and EU leader in the field; 

• to ensure maximum returns for the Scottish domestic economy; and 




• to meet targets for energy from renewables, and for emissions reductions, to 2020 

and beyond. 

5.2.15 The RAP refers to Scottish and UK structures and makes it clear that the Scottish Government 

is continuing to engage very closely with the UK Government on the shape and scope of 

renewable energy legislation and the financial incentives that they create. There is reference 

to the Renewables Obligation (RO) mechanisms and the RAP states that Scottish Government 

is working with “UK colleagues on the further changes to the RO required to align it with the 

demands of the EU 20% target.” 

5.2.16 Section 4 of the RAP highlights that each of the technology sectors will have its own part to 

play in helping Scotland meet its energy targets “and ministers are committed to a diverse 

renewables mix to maximise the scope to match supply with demand and to enhance security 

of supply.” 

5.2.17 Although seeking to use a range of renewable technologies, the RAP recognises that given the 

proven status of the technology, onshore wind is expected to provide the majority of capacity in 

the timeframe for the Scottish Government’s interim and 2020 renewable electricity targets. 

5.3 Scottish Planning Policy 

5.3.1 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is the statement of the Scottish Government’s policy on 

nationally important land use planning matters. SPP was published on the 4 February 2010 

and replaces all of the previous topic-based SPPs (which are now revoked) into a single 

consolidated document. The SPP does not represent any review or change of policy, but 

presents policy in a more simplified form. 

5.3.2 In this instance, the SPP subject policies on renewable energy are of particular relevance and 

provides key guidance, given that the adopted Development Plan predates Scottish Planning 

Policy 6 (SPP6): Renewable Energy (2007) and its replacement SPP which provide the most 

recent expression of Scottish Government planning policy on renewable energy. 

5.3.3 Paragraph 182 outlines the Scottish Ministers’ commitment to increasing the amount of 

electricity generated from renewable sources in response to climate change and the need to 

ensure and diversify energy supplies. It identifies that Scottish Ministers have set a target of 

generating 50% of Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and confirms that this 

target should not be regarded as a cap. To meet this target, the intention of the SPP is that 

this renewable energy should be met by a range of renewable technologies. However, this 

paragraph recognises that onshore wind power is currently making the most significant 

contribution and that this is expected to continue. 

5.3.4 Paragraph 187 establishes that planning authorities should support the development of wind 

farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and cumulative impacts can be 

satisfactorily addressed. It states that development plans should provide a clear indication of 

the potential for development of wind farms of all scales, and should set out the criteria that will 

be considered in deciding applications for all wind farm developments. It also states that the 

criteria will vary depending on the scale of the development and its relationship to the 

characters of the surrounding area, but are likely to include: 




• landscape and visual impact; 

• effects on the natural heritage and historic environment; 

• contribution of the development to renewable energy generation targets; 

• effect on the local and national economy and tourism and recreation interests; 

• benefits and disbenefits for communities; 

• aviation and telecommunications; 

• noise and shadow flicker; and 

• cumulative impact. 

5.3.5 Paragraph 188 clarifies that when considering cumulative impacts, planning authorities should 

take account of existing wind farms, those which have permission and valid applications for 

wind farms which have not been determined. The weight that planning authorities attach to 

undetermined applications should reflect their position in the application process. 

5.3.6 Other relevant subject policies of the SPP are identified in Table 5.1 below. 

Table 5.1 SPP Subject Policies 

Subject 

Economic Development 

Coastal Planning 

Historic Environment 

Landscape and Natural 

Heritage 

Transport 

Flooding 

5.4 Development Plan 

Policy Objective 

Outlines that the planning system should provide strong support for economic 

development. 

Outlines that the identification of coastal locations which are suitable development should 

be based on a clear understanding of the physical, environmental, economic and social 

characteristics of the coastal area and the likely effects of climate change. 

Seeks to ensure that the special qualities of the historic environment are protected, 

conserved and enhanced. 

Requires that Planning Authorities have full regard to the protection and enhancement of 

the local landscape character and the natural heritage (in particular designated or 

protected sites and species) when determining planning applications. 

Seeks to reduce the need to travel and ensure that new developments avoid or mitigate 

adverse environmental impacts. 

Seeks to prevent developments which would be at significant risk of being affected by 

flooding and to prevent developments which would increase the probability of flooding 

elsewhere. 

5.4.1 The Development Plan for the application area comprises the Clackmannanshire and Stirling 

Structure Plan 2002 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Structure Plan’) and the Clackmannanshire 

Local Plan 2004 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Local Plan’). 

5.4.2 The Structure Plan was approved in March 2002 with subsequent alterations in June 2004 

(Renewable Energy), August 2004 (Indicative Forest Strategy) and June 2009 (Housing Land). 

The Local Plan was adopted in December 2004. 

5.4.3 The Structure Plan sets out policies in relation to renewable energy and wind energy 

developments. The Local Plan does not contain any renewable energy or wind energy 

policies. 




5.4.4 The Development Plan Policies relevant to the proposed wind energy development are set out 

in Table 5.2 below. 

Table 5.2 Development Plan Policies 

Policy Topic Structure Plan Local Plan 

Sustainability 

SD1 

Nature Conservation ENV1 EN1 

Landscape and the Countryside ENV2 and ENV3 EN18 

Environmental Enhancement ENV5 EN11 

Contaminated Land 

EN14 

Historic and Built Environment ENV6 EN6, EN7 and EN9 

Water Resources ENV9 EN4 

Renewable Energy 

ENV14 and ENV16 

Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan 

5.4.5 The Structure Plan provides the framework for the development of the area until 2017. It aims 

to bring positive social and economic change whilst making sure that the environment is 

protected and that the quality of life is improved for those living and working in the area. 

Sustainability 

5.4.6 All policies in the Structure Plan are predicated on the Plan’s sustainability objectives as set 

out in the Plan’s strategy of “Working Towards Sustainable Development”. 

5.4.7 Policy SD1: Key Principles lists the key principles against which development proposals will 

be assessed. The criteria relative to this assessment are: 

• That full account has been taken of impact on the environment. 

• The Precautionary Principle will apply whenever the environmental implications of 

development are unclear, or inconclusive, but where there is potential for irreversible 

environmental damage. 

• That the potential of the development to contribute to the enhancement of the quality 

and distinctiveness of the built and natural environment has been addressed. 

• That in appropriate circumstances the reuse of suitable brownfield sites including 

derelict, disused and contaminated sites and buildings within settlements has been 

sought in preference to greenfield sites. 

• The potential of the development to contribute towards the enhancement of 

employment opportunities, social inclusion, community safety and, where relevant, 

urban and rural regeneration. 

• That the potential of the development to promote efficient use and re-use of 

resources including energy, materials, land, buildings and infrastructure has been 

addressed. 

• Appropriate mitigation and compensatory measures will be required from developers 

if a potential adverse impact on the community or the environment has been 

identified. 




Nature Conservation 

5.4.8 The Structure Plan seeks to sustain and enhance the natural heritage through the protection of 

natural heritage designations, with the greatest level of protection afforded to those of 

international and national importance. 

5.4.9 Policy ENV1: Nature Conservation states: 

“The protection and conservation of wildlife, wildlife habitats and other natural 

features will be supported as follows: 

1. Development which will impact adversely upon the identified conservation 

interest of a designated or proposed area of international or national importance 

for nature conservation will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the 

objectives of designation and overall integrity of the area will not be damaged or 

that there is no alternative solution and there are overriding public interest 

imperatives. 

2. Development which may affect a site of local importance for nature 

conservation (including non designated sites, and habitats and features listed in 

Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive) will only be permitted if it can be 

demonstrated that it will have no significant adverse impact on the conservation 

interest of the site, habitat or feature. 

3. All development proposals will be considered in the light of the 

recommendations and findings of the Local Biodiversity Action Plans (and 

related Habitat Action Plans and Species Action Plans). Where there is, in the 

planning authority's opinion, a potential adverse effect upon local biodiversity, 

an ecological appraisal of the development will be sought and considered 

before the proposal is determined. 

4. Where opportunities are available a development proposal which is supported 

under the terms of 1 - 3 above will be required to provide a net environmental 

benefit through enhancement of the nature conservation interest. By 

agreement this may be at off-site locations.” 

Landscape and the Countryside 

5.4.10 The Structure Plan recognises that large parts of Stirling and Clackmannanshire are covered 

by national and regional landscape designations, and that priority must be given to protecting 

landscape quality within these areas. 

5.4.11 Policy ENV2: Protected Landscapes provides that in Areas of Great Landscape Value 

(AGLV’s) development will only be permitted if it satisfies the requirements of Policy ENV3 and 

can be accommodated without adversely affecting the overall quality of the designated 

landscape. 




5.4.12 Policy ENV3: Development in the Countryside provides that in areas of countryside 

development will only be permitted where the proposed development is dependent upon a 

countryside location. The policy also states that proposals should, both in function, siting and 

design, be suitable for its particular location, and should respect and preserve features 

contributing to local character. 

Environmental Enhancement 

5.4.13 The key principles of Policy SD1 include the achievement of environmental and community 

benefits through new development. 

5.4.14 Policy ENV5: Environmental Enhancement provides that the Councils will seek to secure 

environmental enhancement through new development and that particular attention will be 

given to enabling enhancement of the Forth Estuary, areas of environmental degradation and 

other areas and feature identified within Local Plans. 

Historic and Built Environment 

5.4.15 The Structure Plan also promotes the protection of the built environment and cultural heritage. 

This can be defined as Conservation Areas, historically and architecturally important buildings, 

Scheduled Ancient Monuments, archaeological locations and landscapes, and Historic 

Gardens and Designed Landscapes. 

5.4.16 Policy ENV6: The Historic and Built Environment provides that the Councils will seek to 

ensure that cultural heritage resources are recognised, recorded, protected and enhanced as 

appropriate, and that new development respects and contributes to the character and quality of 

the area. 

Water Resources 

5.4.17 The Structure Plan recognises that extensive parts of Clackmannanshire and Stirling are areas 

of flood plain and that consequently flooding issues need to be taken into account when 

decisions about locating development are made. 

5.4.18 Policy ENV9: Water Resources Management provides that development proposals in areas 

of known significant flood risk will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that no 

suitable alternative locations exist, and if a flood risk assessment indicates that the risk can be 

satisfactorily mitigated by works which will not lead to increased flood risk elsewhere or 

unacceptable habitat loss. 

Renewable Energy 

5.4.19 The Structure Plan encourages renewable energy developments in locations where there 

would be no significant loss of amenity, and the setting and integrity of features of importance 

for their scenic, conservation and heritage value would not be harmed. However, it states that 

this generally supportive approach will not be at the expense of the environment. 




5.4.20 Policy ENV14: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficient Development provides that the 

Councils will, in the interests of sustainable development, support developments required for 

the generation of energy from renewable sources subject to conformity with other relevant 

Structure and Local Plan policies. 

5.4.21 Policy ENV16: Wind Energy provides that individual proposals for wind energy development 

will be assessed against four key principles, namely: 

1. A presumption against development in areas shown on the Structure Plan 

Renewable Supplementary Key Diagram as “Exclusion Areas” to safeguard areas of 

overriding landscape character, built heritage and natural heritage resources. 

2. Other areas outwith the “Exclusion Area” are within an “Area of Search”. 

3. Within the “Area of Search” and “Exclusion Area”, the Local Plan should set out 

detailed policy considerations. 

4. The relationship of new proposals to established and approved developments and 

those that are currently the subject of undetermined applications. Proposals will not 

normally be acceptable where they would result in an adverse effect upon amenity, 

or features of scenic and/or heritage value, by reason of cumulative visual impact. 

5.4.22 The accompanying text to Policy ENV16 states that the Policy has been prepared taking 

account of national guidance in National Planning Policy Guideline (NPPG) 6: Renewable 

Energy (2000) and Planning Advice Note (PAN) 45: Renewable Energy Technologies (2002), 

the strategic locational guidance on onshore wind farms produced by SNH and local technical 

and environmental factors. It is noted that NPPG 6 no longer represents the most recent 

expression of Scottish Government planning policy on renewable energy and has been 

replaced by SPP (as discussed above). 

Clackmannanshire Local Plan 

5.4.23 The Local Plan provides a strategy at a local level for development in Clackmannanshire. The 

policies within the Local Plan focus primarily on the allocation of housing land and have little 

detail in relation to the development of renewable energy, instead relying upon the policies 

contained in the Structure Plan itself. The Structure Plan thus provides the main Development 

Plan policy framework on renewable energy and wind farm developments. 

5.4.24 The aim of the Local Plan is to work towards sustainable development in Clackmannanshire 

through a local land use framework that facilitates positive social and economic development 

whilst maintaining and enhancing environmental quality. 

Nature Conservation 

5.4.25 The Local Plan nature conservation policies rely on the policies of the Structure Plan for the 

protection of sites of international and national importance and instead place greater emphasis 

on the protection of sites of local ecological importance. 




5.4.26 Policy EN1: Sites of Local Ecological Importance provides that the Council will not support 

development which may have a detrimental impact upon the ability to achieve the objectives of 

the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) unless clear evidence is provided that negative 

biodiversity impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated. It also requires that development 

proposals have due regard to the importance of non-designated sites of local nature 

conservation or biodiversity importance and should minimise negative impacts on the integrity 

of the nature conservation resource, of priority habitats and of priority species. 


5.4.27 The Local Plan policies on water resources reaffirm those of the Structure Plan with regard to 

flooding but also support the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). 

5.4.28 Policy ENV4: Water Resources provides that all planning applications will be assessed for 

flood risk and states that generally, where a site is determined as being at flood risk, 

permission for new development will not be granted. It also requires that SUDS solutions to 

surface water management will be required and sets out a presumption against canalisation 

and/or culverting of any watercourse as part of development. 

Historic and Built Environment 

5.4.29 The Local Plan policies on the historic and built environment reinforce those of the Structure 

Plan with regard to the protection of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Gardens and 

Designed landscapes and other valuable elements of the built heritage. 

5.4.30 Policy EN6: Listed Buildings provides that when determining planning applications that affect 

a listed building or its setting, the Council will seek to ensure the preservation of the building 

and its setting. 

5.4.31 Policy EN7: Archaeological or Historic Sites sets out a general presumption against 

development proposals which would adversely affect a SAM or other important archaeological 

or historic site or their setting. 

5.4.32 Policy EN9: Nationally Important Gardens and Designed Landscapes states that any 

development which would adversely affect a Garden of Designed Landscape will not normally 

be permitted. 

Environmental Enhancement 

5.4.33 The Local Plan identifies that all new development brings an opportunity to improve 

environmental quality and provides for specific environmental enhancement along river valleys. 

5.4.34 Policy EN11: Enhancing Environmental Quality sets out criteria for assessing development 

proposals in terms of making a positive contribution to its immediate environment. Most of the 

criteria relate to built developments in the urban area and do not therefore apply to wind farm 

proposals. However, those criteria of relevance include: 




• integrating well with the built form and landscape character of its immediate 

surroundings; 

• ensure that the form, scale, layout and materials reflect and, where possible, 

enhance the character of the surrounding area; and 

• protecting and enhancing the landscape, woodland, habitat and watercourse 

resources within and around the site. 

Contaminated Land 

5.4.35 The Local Plan encourages and promotes the re-use of contaminated sites where appropriate. 

5.4.36 Policy EN14: Contaminated Land provides that the Council will only permit development on, 

or in the vicinity of land that is known to be, or may be, unstable, contaminated, or affected by 

landfill gas where the Council is satisfied that the actual or potential risk can be overcome. 

Landscape and the Countryside 

5.4.37 The Local Plan identifies that Clackmannanshire’s countryside is important in landscape, 

wildlife, recreational and employment terms and is sensitive to change. 

5.4.38 Policy EN18: Development in the Countryside restricts new development in the countryside 

to necessarily rural based activities which should then be assessed against a number of 

criteria that require to be met including: 

• where the proposed new use would not have a significant adverse impact on nearby 

uses or be adversely affected by existing nearby uses; 

• the design, scale and siting of the new development respects the character of the 

surrounding countryside; and 

• there is no harm to the amenities of adjacent land users. 

5.5 Summary 

5.5.1 This chapter has set out the relevant EU, UK and Scottish climate change and renewable 

energy policy framework and identified the relevant planning policies and material 

considerations relevant to the determination of the proposed wind energy development. A 

detailed assessment of the acceptability of the proposed wind energy development in line with 

these policies is contained within the separate supporting Planning Statement which 

accompanies the planning application. 




6 Climate Change and Other Atmospheric Emissions 


6.1.1 Local, national and global effects on air and climate have been assessed for the construction, 

operation and de-commissioning of the proposed wind energy development. 

6.2 Policy Background 

6.2.1 The EU, UK and Scottish governments have recently published significant amounts of new 

policy and legislation to support the urgent and pressing need to reduce carbon emissions. In 

brief these are: 

• In March 2007, the European Union member states agreed to adopt a binding target 

of 20% of EU energy consumption to come from renewables by 2020 (Directive 

2009/28/EC). This target includes all energy consumption and is not restricted to 

electricity. The contribution which will come from the UK (i.e. the target level for the 

UK) has been set at 15%. 

• The UK Government has also set a domestic goal of reducing CO 2 emissions to 

20% below 1990 levels by 2010 and in 2006 launched the UK Climate Change 

Programme. This programme outlines the target areas and policies through which it 

aims to achieve this domestic target. 

• Following the assent of the UK Climate Change Act 2008 on 28 October 2008, the 

Scottish Government has now passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 

17) which puts into statute the Scottish Government proposals aiming for an 80% 

reduction in Scotland’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, including an 

interim target of a 50% reduction by 2030 compared to 1990 levels for CO 2 (Climate 

Change (Scotland) Act 2009). 

• On 26 November 2008 the UK Energy Act 2008 received Royal Assent. The new 

Act implements the UK energy policy that emerged out of the Energy Review 2006 

and the Energy White Paper 2007, namely to tackle climate change, reduce CO 2 

emissions and ensure secure, clean and affordable energy. Amongst a suite of 

measures this Act introduces new legislative requirements that will affect all areas of 

energy investment in the UK from oil and gas to nuclear and renewable energy. 

• Of additional significance in this Act is ‘banding’ to existing ‘Renewables Obligations’ 

on all UK electricity suppliers. This requires a supplier to provide 10% of their 

electricity from new renewable sources by 2010 and 15% by 2015. The Energy Act 

2008 introduces banding to strengthen the existing regime and support different 

renewable technologies in the UK. Generators that fail to meet their targets will be 

forced to pay a 'buy-out price', which is effectively a financial penalty. The primary 

purpose of this obligation is to assist the UK to meet its National and International 




targets for reductions of greenhouse gases, which are the main causes of climate 

change. It also helps to promote a secure, diverse, competitive energy supply 

market, stimulates the UK renewables energy industry and makes a contribution to 

rural development. The banding regime came into effect in April 2009. 

• This requirement is implemented under the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 

(ROS) on all licensed electricity suppliers in Scotland. In addition, The Scottish 

Government has recently set a target for the supply of 80% 1 of Scotland's electricity 

from renewable sources by 2020, recognising the extent of Scotland's important 

renewables resource, with an interim milestone of 31% by 2011. 

6.2.2 These policies are implemented through the planning system by the Scottish Planning Policy 

(SPP). SPP was published in February 2010 and replaces all of the previous topic-based 

SPPs (which are now revoked) into a single consolidated document. The SPP does not 

represent any review or change of policy, but presents policy in a shorter, clearer and more 

focused form. 

6.2.3 The SPP subject policies on renewable energy (paragraphs 182 to 199) set out how the 

planning system should manage the process of encouraging, approving and implementing 

renewable energy proposals when preparing development plans and determining planning 

applications. 

6.2.4 A detailed assessment of the relevant EU, UK and Scottish climate change and renewable 

energy policy framework is contained within Chapter 5 and the separate supporting Planning 

Statement which accompanies the planning application. 

6.3 Methodology and Baseline 

6.3.1 There is no specific guidance or policy for evaluating the effects of renewable energy schemes 

on climate change and energy generation. Therefore the approach that has been adopted 

combines a quantitative evaluation of the operational benefits of the scheme, in terms of the 

level of electrical generation anticipated and the reduction in level of emissions of CO 2 this has 

the potential to avoid compared with other generation sources, with a qualitative assessment of 

the significance of this contribution towards meeting regional targets. A qualitative approach 

has also been adopted to evaluate the effects of the scheme during construction and decommission. 

6.3.2 Information on the average electricity usage of households is taken from The Digest of Energy 

Statistics (2010) 2 . 

6.3.3 The conversion of this to a level of CO 2 emissions avoided is made by combining the expected 

average annual generation of electricity from the site with a level of emissions avoidance per 

kWh. The CO 2 avoidance level used is that endorsed by the Advertising Standards Authority 

in September 2008 3 based on the assumption that the energy generated by the wind turbines 

displaces Combined Cycle Gas Turbines and an average mix generation of 430gCO 2 /kWh. 

6.3.4 The level of CO 2 emissions avoided is dependant on the scale of the scheme proposed. The 

evaluation of the benefit is presented in terms of the scheme output relative to current regional 




renewable energy generation targets and a subjective professional judgement applied as to 

whether that constitutes a significant effect. 

6.3.5 A carbon balance assessment has also been undertaken as part of the Assessment of Effects 

in accordance with the Scottish Government recommended methodology: Calculating carbon 

savings from wind farms on Scottish peat lands – A new approach (Nayak et al. 2008). 

6.4 Predicted Effects of the Scheme 

Construction 

6.4.1 During the construction of the proposed wind energy development the movement of vehicles 

and on-site plant will generate exhaust emissions. Given the short-term nature of the 

construction period, and the limited area to be developed within the context of the large-scale 

nature of the site, effects on local air quality are likely to be negligible. 

6.4.2 Construction activities, such as excavation of turbine foundations, also have the potential to 

generate dust during dry spells, which may adversely affect local air quality. However, given 

the scale and nature of construction activities, compared with the distances between the 

construction areas and the nearest residential properties, it is considered that dust from 

construction is unlikely to cause a nuisance during most weather conditions. 

6.4.3 There exists the potential to generate odours from previously landfilled waste being excavated 

and also odours from landfill gas during the excavation of the turbine foundations at the southeast 

of the site. This might affect local air quality. However, given the scale and nature of 

construction activities, compared with the distances between the construction areas and the 

nearest residential properties, it is considered that odours from construction is unlikely to cause 

a nuisance. 

6.4.4 During dry, windy conditions, if the potential for dust and odours nuisance at nearby properties 

exists, water sprays will be used to dampen down and control dust and deodorant sprays to 

control the odours. Such working practices will be set out in the appropriate construction 

method statements. 

6.4.5 A detailed pre-construction intrusive site investigation will be undertaken which will identify the 

ground and waste conditions to greater inform foundation design and any potential required 

mitigation measures. 

Operation 

Renewable Electricity Generation 

6.4.6 The Digest of UK Energy Statistics (2010) gives 2009 domestic electricity consumption as 

122,543 4 terawatt-hours (TWh). When taken with the 26,625,800 5 households in UK, the 

domestic average electricity consumption per year per household can be calculated thus: 

122,543,000,000kWh/26,625,800= 4,602kWh 




6.4.7 Due to natural variations in wind speed it has been estimated that the output from a wind farm 

is approximately 30% 6 of the maximum output. The energy output from the proposed wind 

energy development would therefore be approximately 26.28GWh per annum based on four 

2.5MW turbines. This figure is derived as follows: 

10,000kW (4 x 2.5 MW turbine) x 8,760 hours/year x 0.3 (capacity factor) = 26,280,000kWh 

6.4.8 Based on the 4,602kWh figure and the assumption that the wind energy development annual 

output is 26.28GWh, it is estimated that the yearly output from the proposed wind energy 

development will be able to provide electricity for approximately 5,710 households. In 2009, 

there were approximately 23,000 households in the Clackmannanshire Council Area 7 ; 

therefore the equivalent of approximately 25% of households in Clackmannanshire could have 

their annual electricity consumption supplied by the proposed wind energy development. This 

percentage may decrease slightly during the lifetime of the proposed wind energy development 

due to predicted population growth in Scotland as a whole 8 . However, there is also the strong 

possibility that domestic electricity consumption may reduce due to energy efficiency measures 

that are currently being proposed the Scottish Government 9 . Although these figures are open 

to variation, in principle they show that the proposed wind energy development will provide a 

substantial proportion of electricity used in the local area. 

Reductions in Atmospheric Emissions of CO 2 

6.4.9 It is widely accepted that electricity produced from wind energy has a positive benefit with 

regard to reducing CO 2 emissions. In estimating the actual saving, it is important to consider 

the mix of alternative sources of electricity generation, for example coal powered and gas 

powered, and there has been much debate about the amount of CO 2 emissions that could 

potentially be saved as a result of switching to wind generation. In September 2008, the 

Advertising Standards Authority endorsed a figure of 430gCO 2 /kWh, based on the assumption 

that the energy generated by the wind turbines displaces Combined Cycle Gas Turbines and 

an average mix generation (430gCO 2 /kWh). On this basis, and on the assumption that the 

wind energy development annual output is 26.28GWh, a wind energy development of this 

scale is expected to avoid 11,300 tonnes of CO 2 emissions per year being emitted to 

atmosphere. This figure is derived as follows: 

26,280,000kWh x 430gCO 2 /kWh = 11,300 tonnes CO 2 

De-commissioning 

6.4.10 During the de-commissioning of the proposed wind energy development the movement of 

vehicles and on-site plant will generate exhaust emissions. Given the short-term nature of this 

period, and the limited area affected within the application area, effects on local air quality 

during the de-commissioning phases are likely to be negligible. 

Carbon Payback 

6.4.11 As mentioned in paragraph 6.4.9 above it is widely recognised that wind farms save carbon 

emissions during operation when compared to fossil fuel energy generation. However, carbon 




losses and gains during the construction and operation of the proposed wind energy 

development need to be evaluated on a site specific basis. 

6.4.12 Protecting and retaining the substantial reserves of carbon held in Scottish soils is an issue 

recognised by the Scottish Government. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) produced a 

Technical Guidance Note in 2003 for calculating carbon ‘payback’ times for wind farms. Nayak 

et al. updated this guidance in 2008 6 and 2009 and devised a carbon balance tool for wind 

farms being constructed on peat and which considers the impacts of wind farms during 

construction and operation on soil stability and long-term greenhouse gas emissions. Although 

the proposed wind energy development is not located on peat, the calculator can be used to 

give an indication of the amount of carbon emitted through the lifetime of the site, including 

from the construction and operation (maintenance, etc) of the wind turbines. 

6.4.13 The tool by Nayak was used to calculate the carbon balance (sum of the carbon losses and 

gains) for the proposed wind energy development. However, some amendments were made 

to the calculator to reflect the fact that disturbance would be to primarily mineral soil rather than 

peatland – therefore the risk of carbon loss from draining the soils is avoided, which is a major 

factor increasing payback time on peatlands 10 . The benefit of the calculator is that it allows for 

the payback time to be calculated including the carbon involved in the construction and 

erection of the turbines (steel construction, transport, concrete in foundations and hardstanding 

etc) reflecting that the carbon “benefit” of the project is not immediate – though the payback 

time is shorter than on a peaty site. 

6.4.14 Table 6.1 shows the calculated carbon payback time associated with the proposed wind 

energy development. A breakdown of the input values and total carbon losses and gains 

associated with the proposed wind energy development are shown in Appendix 6.1. 

Table 6.1 Proposed Wind Energy Development Carbon Balance and Payback 

Carbon Gains (t CO 2 eq) Carbon Losses (t CO 2 eq) Overall Carbon Balance 

(t CO 2 eq) 

Total Payback Time 

(months)** 

0 * 8638 8638 6 

*There will be no improvement of degraded bogs, felled forestry or restoration of peat from borrow pits. 

**The carbon payback time of the proposed wind energy development is calculated by comparing the loss of carbon 

from the site due to wind farm construction with the carbon savings achieved by the wind farm (against fossil fuel 

counterfactual) during a 25 year operating period. 

6.4.15 The estimated total carbon payback time of the proposed wind energy development, based on 

carbon losses and gains compared with fossil fuel generation, is 6 months. This is increased to 

9 months against the current mix of electricity generation, which includes other renewable 

electricity sources and the payback is decreased to 5 months compared with coal-fired 

electricity generation. It should be noted that although the CO 2 emitted during wind farm 

construction is taken into account in this calculation, that produced from construction of the 

other forms of power stations is not – therefore, in some ways this calculation is biased against 

the wind generation. 

6.4.16 Therefore, when considering the 25 year operational period of the proposed wind energy 

development, the CO 2 payback time is very short in comparison. 

6.4.17 It should be noted that these figures have been calculated based on "reasonable worst-case" 

assumptions in the absence of site specific information, and the results are therefore likely to 

be conservative. 




Renewable Energy Production on a Regional Basis 

6.4.18 The Scottish Government issued the Climate Change Delivery Plan, entitled ‘Meeting 

Scotland’s Statutory Climate Change Targets 11 ’ in June 2009. The Plan sets out the high level 

measures required in each sector to meet Scotland’s statutory climate change targets to 2020 

as set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the work to be done over the next 

decade to prepare for the more radical changes needed by 2030 if the 80% emission reduction 

target is to be achieved. 

6.4.19 For the electricity sector, targets have been set for the percentage of electricity demand which 

should be met from renewable energy sources by 2020. The current target is for 80% of 

Scotland’s electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2020. This 80% target 

(which is not a cap) translates into a requirement for some 13.4GW 12 of installed renewable 

energy capacity. 

6.4.20 The proposed 10MW scheme at Forthbank has the potential to meet approximately 0.1% of 

the target of renewable energy generation in Scotland. 

6.5 Cumulative Effects 

6.5.1 Potential cumulative effects have been considered, however no further cumulative effects have 

been identified. 

6.6 Assessment of Significance Effects 

6.6.1 The potential for adverse effects on local air quality during the construction and decommissioning 

phases is considered to be minor and temporary, and therefore not significant. 

6.6.2 An operational wind farm produces no notable atmospheric emissions. The operation of the 

proposed wind energy development will therefore have no discernible adverse effects on local 

or national air quality. 

6.6.3 In summary, it can be concluded that the energy generated by the operation of the proposed 

wind energy development could supply the equivalent electricity need for a significant number 

(5,710) of homes and would have a significant positive effect on reducing CO 2 emissions. In 

addition, the proposed wind energy development has the potential to meet a proportion of the 

wind energy target for Scotland (approximately 0.1% of the target). 

6.6.4 This is considered to be a positive effect that is substantial, and therefore significant in terms of 

the EIA Regulations. 


1 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/09/23134359 

2 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/dukes/ 




3 http://www.bwea.com/edu/calcs.html 

4 http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/source/electricity/dukes5_1_2.xls 

5 

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/publications/ecuk/269-ecuk-domestic-2010.xls 

(Table 3.3) 

6 

Nayak, D.R., Miller, D., Nolan, A., Smith, P., and Smith, J (June, 2008). Calculating Carbon 

Savings from Wind Farms on Scottish Peat Lands – A New Approach. Scottish Government: 

www.scotland.gov.uk (updated Dec 2009) 

7 http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/council-areas-map/clackmannanshire.html 

8 General Register Office for Scotland, http//:www.gro-scotland.gov.uk 

9 

Scottish Government, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Action/ 

energy-efficiency-policy/ActionPlan 

10 Summary of the CLAD-hosted Carbon Calculator Meeting (Friday 7 th May 2010) – minutes of 

meeting 

11 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/276273/0082934.pdf 

12 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/06/18103720/4 




7 Traffic and Transportation 


7.1.1 This chapter identifies and assesses the increase in local road traffic likely to arise as a result of 

the construction and operation of the proposed wind energy development, the significance of the 

potential effect and the need for mitigation measures. It is based on a series of assessments 

carried out by RPS and Entec on behalf of PfR, which are available as a separate Technical 

Appendix 7.1 to this Environmental Statement as appropriate. 

It considers: 

• the selection of suitable routes for construction traffic accessing the site; 

• the requirement for modifications to the existing public road infrastructure in order to 

accommodate delivery of turbine components; 

• the number of vehicle movements arising as a result of the proposed wind energy 

development; 

• the potential environmental impacts that may arise from the construction traffic 

passing through towns and villages; and 

• potential conflicts between construction traffic and the interests of other users of the 

local public road network. 

7.1.2 The chapter concludes by assessing the significance of the predicted increases in traffic 

numbers in light of the recognised thresholds of significance. 

7.2 Methodology 

7.2.1 The general approach to the assessment of effects outlined in Chapter 2 and required by the 

Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 has been followed. 

7.2.2 Baseline conditions have been established through desktop study and consultation. Potential 

effects of the proposed wind energy development have been identified and assessed and where 

relevant, mitigation measures have been identified. 

7.2.3 The significance of potential effects has been assessed in light of recognised thresholds of 

significance from published guidance (as discussed below). 

Guidance 

7.2.4 The transport and traffic issues described in the following planning advice and guidance 

documents have been taken into account in this assessment: 




• Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) Transport (Paragraphs 165-181); 

• Planning Advice Note (PAN) 75: Planning for Transport, Scottish Executive 

(August 2005); 

• Transport Assessment and Implementation: A Guide, Scottish Executive (August 

2005); and 

• Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, Institute of 

Environmental Assessment, 1993. 

7.2.5 Paragraph 168 of SPP states that: 

‘A transport assessment should be carried out where a change of use or new 

development is likely to result in a significant increase in the number of trips. The 

output from transport assessments can also identify potential cumulative effects of 

development which need to be addressed. Planning permission should not be 

granted for significant travel generating uses in locations which would encourage 

reliance on the private car and where: 

• direct links to walking and cycling networks are not available or cannot be made 

available, 

• access to public transport networks would involve walking more than 400m, 

• it would have a detrimental effect on the capacity of the strategic road and/or rail 

network, or 

• the transport assessment does not identify satisfactory mechanisms for meeting 

sustainable transport requirements. 

Recent developments, sites allocated for development in existing plans and 

unimplemented planning permissions should not set a precedent for the allocation of 

development sites in unsustainable locations.’ 

7.2.6 Paragraph 6.3 of Transport Assessment and Implementation: A Guide provides the following 

guidance on requirements: 

“Transport Assessment concerns person trips, not car trips. Transport Assessment 

applies therefore to new developments and changes or intensifications requiring 

planning permission that alter the transport features of the site. Transport 

Assessment focuses on the development site within a catchment area determined 

by the nature of the development, and assesses accessibility of the site to the 

catchment by different modes of travel” 

7.2.7 A formal Transport Assessment under the terms of the above guidance is not required for the 

proposed wind energy development, as the Transport Assessment guidance principally relates 

to developments that generate significant increases in travel as a direct consequence of their 

function, for example, retail parks. However, in providing the information required to be 

presented in this ES, this chapter addresses the local transport impacts of the development 

during construction and operation and therefore addresses the issues that would be assessed 

within a formal Transport Assessment. 




Consultation 

7.2.8 Traffic and transport consultation responses with regard to the proposed wind energy 

development have been received from three public bodies. The bodies comprise Fife Council, 

Clackmannanshire Council and Transport Scotland. A summary of the comments is included 

below. 

Fife Council 

7.2.9 Fife Council has raised concerns that the turbine delivery route should use the recently 

constructed Clackmannanshire Bridge and therefore avoid the requirement to travel over the 

Kincardine Bridge and through Kincardine. 

Clackmannanshire Council 

7.2.10 Clackmannanshire Council has requested that delivery route from the M876 would travel north 

over the Clackmannanshire Bridge rather than through Kincardine. Details of a road condition 

survey of the route needs to be agreed with the council. 

7.2.11 A Construction Traffic Management Plan should be produced that mitigates the impact of 

construction related traffic on the public road network. This includes the areas closest to the 

residential area at Bowhouse Road, Forth Crescent etc. 


7.2.12 Overall there will be a minimal increase in traffic on the trunk road and the proposed wind 

energy development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the operation of the trunk road 

network. 

7.3 Baseline Assessment 

7.3.1 The access studies carried out on behalf of the developer by Entec and RPS have examined the 

suitability of the road access route to accommodate construction traffic including oversized 

turbine delivery vehicles. The studies included site visits and preliminary assessment of 

possible suitable access routes to the site from the M876 Motorway. 

7.3.2 A formal route access study including vehicular swept path assessment was undertaken to 

examine the proposed access route and identify specific problem areas of road where 

temporary measures will need to be put into place. 




Baseline Conditions 

Site Access Provision 

7.3.3 Site access would be obtained from a private access road which leads into the site from 

Bowhouse Road. Bowhouse Road forms a continuation of Forth Crescent. 

7.3.4 Some upgrading of the private access road will be required to accommodate oversized turbine 

delivery vehicles. This will include works at the junction with Bowhouse Road and a series of 

bends in the road along its length. 

Proposed Construction Access Route 

7.3.5 RPS undertook a site visit to examine the preliminary Entec identified route for construction 

delivery vehicles. Following comments received as part of the pre-application consultation 

process, one significant change is proposed to the Entec route. The route would use the 

Clackmannanshire Bridge which crosses the River Forth to the west of the Kincardine Bridge 

and negates the need to travel through Kincardine. 

7.3.6 The proposed route from the M876 Motorway is shown in Figure 7.1 and is as follows: 

• north-east on A876 to roundabout at Higgins’ Neuk; 

• left fork at roundabout on to Clackmannanshire Bridge; 

• north on Kincardine bypass to roundabout with A977; 

• left turn and north on A977 to roundabout with A907; 

• left turn on to A907 to Shillinghill Roundabout in Alloa; 

• left turn on to Greenside Street and left onto Devon Road; 

• continue on to Forth Crescent/Bowhouse Road to access road; and 

• left turn into access road to site. 

7.3.7 During construction local contractors and other deliveries would approach the site from a variety 

of routes depending on their point of origin. The assessment of the increase in traffic will 

therefore consider the worst-case scenario of all traffic approaching from the same direction. All 

traffic would ultimately use the A907 and Forth Crescent/Bowhouse Road to access the site, 

resulting in the greatest increase of traffic occurring on these roads. 

Assessment Locations 

7.3.8 The impact of the proposed wind energy development related construction traffic has been 

calculated at the following locations: 




• A907 immediately west of the Gartarry Roundabout; 

• Clackmannan Road (A907) immediately east of the Shillinghill Roundabout; and 

• Forth Crescent. 

7.3.9 The assessment has been limited to the above locations as this is the route that would 

experience the greatest increase in traffic flow as described above. It is accepted that smaller 

increases may occur on alterative routes which link with the A907. However, these increases 

are expected to be insignificant. 

Base Traffic Survey Data 

7.3.10 Baseline traffic survey data on the local road network was obtained by Streetwise Services 

Limited on behalf of RPS at the end of August 2010 during academic term time. 

7.3.11 7 day week, 24 hour traffic count data for the A907, Clackmannan Road (east of the Shillinghill 

Roundabout) and Forth Crescent was collected using automatic traffic count (ATC) equipment 

between 23 and 29 August 2010 (inclusive). 

7.3.12 2009 annual average daily traffic (AADT) flows on the A907 west of the Gartarry Roundabout 

was obtained from Clackmannanshire Council. Due to the wider current economic climate and 

the resultant impact on traffic growth, the 2009 flows are considered to be representative of 

current (2010) background traffic conditions. 

7.3.13 A summary of existing background traffic levels is presented below as Table 7.1. 

Table 7.1 Existing Background Traffic Flows (2010, two-way flows) 

Location 5 Day Average Flow (24 Hour) 7 Day Average Flow (24 Hour) 

A907 (west of Gartarry Roundabout) 15,353 14,413 

A907 (Clackmannan Road) 18,656 17,514 

Forth Crescent 692 594 

7.4 Assessment of Effects 

Road Infrastructure Requirements 

7.4.1 Assessments of the proposed road route to the proposed wind energy development site from 

the M876 Motorway have been undertaken by Entec and RPS. The assessments identified the 

requirements for infrastructure improvements along the length of the site access road at its 

junction with Bowhouse Road. 

7.4.2 The road infrastructure requirements along the site access road and the Bowhouse Road 

junction are set out below in Table 7.2. 

Table 7.2 Infrastructure Requirements – Site Access Road and Bowhouse Road Junction 

Issue 

Street Furniture 

Parking along roads on access route 

Access Road to site 

Junction of Bowhouse Rd and Access Road 



Comment 

Street furniture may obstruct lorry movements 

Parked cars along route may obstruct lorry access 

Access road is not an adopted road 

Additional land is needed to negotiate junction 

Reinforcement of verge required


7.4.3 Detailed design work for all appropriate road improvement will be undertaken following the grant 

of planning permission. The required road works will be consented separately under Section 96 

of The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. 

7.4.4 A road condition survey for the proposed construction access route will be undertaken and the 

affected road will be restored to the same (or an improved) condition following the completion of 

the construction works. Full details of the condition survey will be agreed with 

Clackmannanshire Council. 

Assessment of Significance 

7.4.5 The temporary increase in traffic levels resultant from the construction of the proposed wind 

energy development has been calculated by comparing maximum average predicted 

construction period vehicle numbers with existing baseline traffic conditions on the local road 

network that will be used to access the site. 

7.4.6 Traffic increases have been expressed as actual vehicle increases and as percentages. The 

significance of these increases has been assessed in accordance with accepted environmental 

assessment criteria as described below. 

7.4.7 The Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (Institute of Environmental 

Assessment: Guidance Notes No.1 – Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road 

Traffic) suggest that two broad rules of significance can be used as a screening process to 

delimit the scale and extent of the assessment. These are: 

• Rule 1 - Include road links where traffic flows would increase by more than 30% (or 

the number of HGVs would increase by more than 30%); and 

• Rule 2 - Include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows would 

increase by 10% or more. 

7.4.8 Where the predicted increase in traffic flow is lower than these thresholds, the significance of 

the effects are considered to be low or insignificant and further detailed assessments are not 

deemed to be necessary. 

7.4.9 These guidelines are intended for the assessment of the environmental impact of road traffic 

associated with major new developments. The assessment is therefore more pertinent to the 

operational phase of the proposed wind energy development than the construction phase. 

However, in the absence of alternative guidance they are used here to assess the short-term 

construction phase. 

Preliminary Construction Programme 

7.4.10 It is anticipated that the construction of the proposed wind energy development will be 

undertaken against a six month programme. A summary of the preliminary construction 

programme is included below as Table 7.3. 




Table 7.3 Preliminary Construction Programme 

Construction Operations 

Clearance of land 

Access tracks 

Construction compound 

Lay-down area 

Control building 

Crane hardstandings 

Turbine foundations 

Turbine erection 

Grid connection (underground cabling) 

Landscaping 

Month 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Table 7.4 Construction Traffic Movements (two-way) 

Construction Traffic 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total 

Heavy Goods Vehicle Movements (including abnormal turbine deliveries) 

General Manning 154 154 154 154 154 154 924 

Engineering Plant 92 231 231 231 138 0 923 

Fuel 2 4 4 4 4 2 20 

Waste Materials 0 66 66 66 66 66 330 

Cabins and Amenities 0 0 3 5 5 3 16 

Cabling 0 0 30 45 45 30 150 

Cranes 0 0 3 3 3 1 10 

Turbine Delivery 0 0 38 38 38 13 127 

Switchgear 0 24 24 24 24 0 96 

Imported Material 194 388 388 388 388 194 1940 

Sub Total 442 867 941 958 865 463 4536 

Light Goods Vehicles 

Personnel 132 132 132 132 132 132 792 

Monthly – All Vehicles 574 999 1073 1090 997 595 5328 

Maximum Average Daily 26 45 49 50 45 27 

Vehicles 

7.4.11 The construction traffic estimates presented above as Table 7.4 makes the following 

assumptions: 

• there will be approximately 20 construction workers per day on-site during the 

construction period that will travel to the site in one minibus and two cars. This 

equates to a total of six daily traffic movements; and 

• the estimate of maximum average daily vehicles assumes that the site will operate a 

five and a half day working week which equates to 22 working days per month. 

7.4.12 The busiest month in terms of construction traffic movements is expected to be month four 

during which there are expected to be a total of 1090 traffic movements. This equates to a total 

of 50 daily traffic movements based upon 22 working days over the month. However, in the 

unlikely event that technical constraints require the concrete for an individual turbine foundation 

to be delivered and poured in one day, a short but disproportionate impact would result. 

7.4.13 An intensive period of concrete pouring may for example, result in up to 24 movements (12 in 

and 12 out) per hour over the working day and has therefore been considered separately from 

the impact of the other traffic movements which would be suspended on the four concretepouring 

days. 




7.4.14 It is expected that each turbine will generate up to eight oversized abnormal delivery loads 

arriving at the site. Based upon a total of four turbines this equates to around 32 deliveries 

which would be made on extendable trailer turbine delivery vehicles. 

Construction Traffic Effects on Base Traffic Flows 

7.4.15 Table 7.5 below summarises the increase in traffic flow during the busiest month of the 

construction programme on the A907 and Forth Crescent compared with existing baseline 5-day 

average daily (24 hour) two-way traffic flows. 

Table 7.5 Construction Traffic Flows (2010, two-way flows) 

Location 

5 Day Average 

Flow (24 Hour) 

Maximum 

Average Daily 

Construction 

Traffic 

Percentage 

Increase 

Significance 

A907 (west of Gartarry Roundabout) 15,353 50 0.3% Not Significant 

A907 (Clackmannan Road) 18,656 50 0.3% Not Significant 

Forth Crescent 692 50 7.2% Not Significant 

7.4.16 Based upon the environmental impact significance criteria set out previously in paragraphs 7.4.7 

and 7.4.8 the temporary construction traffic increases are not significant increases. 

Furthermore, as noted previously in Section 7.3 the traffic increases tabulated above are a 

worst-case scenario as it assumes that all traffic will travel to and from the site on the same 

route. 

7.4.17 Month four of construction is predicted to have the highest concentration of daily construction 

traffic flows. Anticipated construction traffic levels in the remaining five months of the 

construction programme are likely to be lower. Therefore the calculated traffic increases are 

short-term and temporary. 

Potential Environmental Effects of Construction Traffic 

7.4.18 The guidelines for the Environment Assessment of Road Traffic identifies the following potential 

environmental effects: 

• Noise; 

The existing and forecast traffic noise levels as influenced by the volume of traffic, 

percentage of heavy goods, and the distance from source. 

• Vibration; 

Possible damage to property and airborne vibration caused by an increase in lorry 

traffic, especially on poor quality road surfaces. 

• Visual Impact; 

Obstruction and visual intrusion as a result of a blocking of views or the subjective 

impact by traffic. 




• Severance; 

The perceived division that can occur within a community when it becomes 

separated by a major traffic artery; being either the difficulty of crossing a heavily 

trafficked road or a physical barrier created by the road itself. 

• Driver Delay; 

Traffic delays to non-development traffic as a result of additional turning movements 

or additional vehicles on the roads. 

• Pedestrian Delay; 

Changes in the volume, composition or speed of traffic may affect the ability of 

people to cross roads. 

• Pedestrian Amenity; 

Relative pleasantness of a journey, considered to be affected by traffic flow, traffic 

composition, and pavement width/separation from traffic. 

• Accidents and Safety; 

The likely increase or decrease in the number of accidents resulting from changes 

in traffic flows and composition. 

• Hazardous Loads; 

Specialist loads which might be involved in the construction or de-commissioning 

stages of development. 

• Air Pollution; 

Airborne emissions as a result of the volume, speed, operating characteristics, and 

distance from source of traffic. 

• Dust and Dirt; 

Arising from the operations of certain types of development, notably quarrying and 

the transport of quarried materials. 

• Ecological Impact; 

The removal of hedgerow and habitats as part of any highway improvement 

scheme. 

• Heritage and Conservation Areas; 

Any areas of conservation and heritage value that could be affected by noise 

intrusion and severance. 

7.4.19 Of the effects listed above, noise, vibration and dust and dirt are relevant to the proposed wind 

energy development in terms of traffic and transportation, as these are most likely to affect local 




residents. In addition, the increased traffic on the road network may also result in temporary air 

pollution. These effects are described in greater detail in Chapter 8. Noise and Chapter 6. 

Climate Change and Other Atmospheric Emissions. The other environmental effects are not 

deemed significant to the construction, operation, or de-commissioning phases of the proposed 

wind energy development. 

7.4.20 The presence of increased numbers of heavy goods vehicles also has the potential to cause 

some localised air pollution, due to exhaust emissions. However, based on the construction 

period it would not produce long term pollution and any effects would be temporary in nature, as 

any emission would naturally disperse. 

Potential Operational Effects 

7.4.21 During the operational phase of the proposed wind energy development, only very low levels of 

traffic associated with operation and maintenance would be generated. 

7.4.22 Turbines are generally serviced twice a year. A major service is carried out once a year and a 

minor one six months later. The major service would usually take one day per turbine, whereas 

the minor would take approximately half a day per turbine. 

7.4.23 If circumstances should arise where it becomes necessary to replace wind turbine components, 

agreement would be sought with the local roads authority over the routing and timing of vehicles 

movements. 

7.4.24 Effects of operational traffic are considered to be insignificant due to the low number of vehicles 

involved. 

Potential De-commissioning Effects 

7.4.25 Prior to de-commissioning, a further traffic impact assessment would be carried out and 

appropriate mitigation measures agreed with the local roads authority. However it should be 

noted that it is likely that traffic movements associated with de-commissioning would be fewer 

than those occurring during construction. In particular, it is unlikely that all of the imported 

material brought to the site during the construction stage would be removed during decommissioning. 

7.4.26 With regards to turbine component removal this may or may not generate a number of abnormal 

loads during de-commissioning. However, it is expected that the number of loads would be 

equivalent or lower than the number of movements generated during the construction period. 


7.5.1 RPS has examined cumulative impacts relating to construction traffic increases associated with 

the possible construction of other wind energy developments in the region. 




7.5.2 All potential wind energy development sites (comprising those with planning consent, current 

planning applications, pre-application and refused) within a 70km distance to the site have been 

considered. 

7.5.3 It is concluded that there would be no significant construction traffic cumulative impacts on the 

proposed construction access route described previously in Section 7.3 if any of the alternative 

wind energy sites were to be brought forward at the same time as the proposed wind energy 

development. 


Construction Effects 

7.6.1 A transport management plan (TMP) would be drawn up and agreed with Clackmannanshire 

Council Roads Department. A draft TMP is provided in Appendix 7.2. The following mitigation 


• Traffic Effects: phasing of concrete and stone deliveries, traffic management (signs 

warning other road users of turbine movements) and parking restrictions. Where 

appropriate, abnormal loads would be restricted to 0930-1500 Monday to Friday to 

minimise disruption to the local road network; 

• Noise and Vibration: timing of deliveries and abnormal loads and traffic 

management; 

• Dust and dirt: arrangements for road maintenance and cleaning, wheel cleaning and 

dirt control arrangements at key stages of construction; and 

• Air pollution: All vehicles used would be adequately maintained to ensure that 

exhaust emissions comply with relevant standards, drivers would be instructed to 

switch off engines when vehicles are stationary and the use of minibuses and carsharing 

for construction operatives would be encouraged. 

7.6.2 In order to safeguard the interests of other users of the road network, such as visitors to the 

area, walkers and cyclists, measures would be put in place to ensure that these parties are 

aware of the presence of increased traffic, such as: 

• the use of notices and leaflets in local Tourist Information Centres and visitor 

facilities; 

• temporary signage; 

• providing information to appropriate organisations (e.g. Sustrans, The Ramblers’ 

Association) and requesting this information to be made available through their 

websites; and 

• temporary diversions, if necessary. 




7.6.3 In order to mitigate the disruption, delay, noise and vibration, which may be caused by the 

movement of turbine components, the following measures are proposed: 

• an appropriate escort would accompany movement of turbine components; 

• timings of turbine deliveries would be agreed with the local roads authorities; 

• traffic control measures would be used as appropriate during turbine movements; 

and 

• warning signs. 

Operational Effects 

7.6.4 As the numbers of vehicles required for normal operation and maintenance of the proposed 

wind energy development are insignificant, no mitigation measures are required. 

7.6.5 In the unlikely event that it becomes necessary to replace turbine components, or carry out any 

other major works during the operational phase of the proposed wind energy development, 

appropriate traffic management measures would be agreed with the local roads authority prior 

to work commencing. 

De-commissioning Effects 

7.6.6 Prior to de-commissioning, a traffic assessment would be carried out and appropriate mitigation 

measures agreed with the local roads authority. 

7.7 Residual Effects 


7.7.1 The proposed mitigation measures would serve to limit the timing of construction traffic on the 

local roads in the vicinity of the site and to minimise the effects on other road users and local 

residents. The effects of the construction traffic on Forth Crescent although considered nonsignificant 

will be the most intensive in terms of percentage increases, however the mitigation 

measures will further reduce the temporary residual effects. 

7.7.2 The impact of noise and vibration due to traffic on residents of properties in the residential area 

around Forth Crescent is non-significant, and the mitigation measures will further reduce the 

significance of the temporary impact. 

7.7.3 Appropriate control measures should ensure that the impact of air pollution, dust and dirt is not 

significant. 





7.7.4 No significant residual effects are anticipated during the operation of the proposed wind energy 

development. 


7.7.5 Mitigation measures that will be agreed with the local roads authority prior to de-commissioning 

should prevent significant residual effects during this process. 

7.8 Summary of Effects 

7.8.1 Table 7.6 below summarises the traffic and transport related environmental effects associated 

with the proposed wind energy development. 

Table 7.6 Summary of Effects 

Temporary Potential Effect Mitigation Residual Effect 

Construction 

Traffic Effects – not significant on the A907 Timing and phasing of deliveries, traffic control Not significant 

Traffic Effects – not significant on Forth measures, warning signs, parking restrictions, Not significant 

Crescent 

escorts for abnormal loads 

Noise and vibration – potentially significant Timing for deliveries and escorts for abnormal Not significant 

effects on residential area around Forth 

Crescent 

loads 

Dust and dirt – potential significant effects on Road maintenance and cleaning, wheel cleaning Not significant 

A907 and Forth Crescent 

Air pollution – temporary local air quality Natural dispersion of emissions, vehicle 

Not significant 

impacts 

maintenance 

Operation 

Not significant None required Not significant 


Potentially significant 

Traffic management plan to be agreed with local 

roads department prior to de-commissioning 

7.8.2 Based upon the traffic flow assessment presented in this chapter it is concluded that: 


• the effect of construction traffic on the A907 and Forth Crescent would not be 

significant; 

• noise and vibration effects from construction related traffic would not be significant 

on residential properties around Forth Crescent; 

• the impact of dust and dirt during construction would not be significant; and 

• traffic generated during the de-commissioning would not be significant. 




8 Noise Impact Assessment 

8.1 Introduction and Overview 

8.1.1 This chapter presents an assessment of the potential construction and operational noise effect 

of the proposed wind energy development on the residents of nearby dwellings. The 

assessment considers both the proposed wind energy development’s construction and its 

operation and also the likely effect of its de-commissioning. 

8.1.2 Noise and vibration which arises from the construction of a wind farm is a factor which should 

be taken into account when considering the total effect of a proposed wind farm. However, in 

assessing the effect of construction noise, it is accepted that the associated works are of a 

temporary nature. The main works locations for construction of the turbines are distant from 

nearest noise sensitive residences and are unlikely to cause a significant effect. The 

construction and use of access tracks may, however, occur at lesser separation distances. 

Assessment of the temporary effects of construction noise is primarily aimed at understanding 

the need for dedicated management measures and, if so, the types of measures that are 

required. 

8.1.3 Once constructed and operating, wind farms may emit two types of noise. Firstly, aerodynamic 

noise is a more natural sounding ‘broad band’ noise, albeit sometimes with a characteristic 

modulation, or ‘swish’, which is produced by the movement of the rotating blades through the 

air. Secondly, mechanical noise may emanate from components within the nacelle of a wind 

turbine. This is a less natural sounding noise which is generally characterised by a tonal 

character. Traditional sources of mechanical noise comprise gearboxes or generators. Due to 

the acknowledged lower acceptability of tonal noise in otherwise ‘natural’ noise settings such 

as rural areas, modern turbine designs have evolved to ensure that mechanical noise 

radiation from wind turbines is negligible. Aerodynamic noise is usually only perceived when 

the wind speeds are fairly low, although at very low wind speeds the blades do not rotate or 

rotate very slowly and so, at these wind speeds, negligible aerodynamic noise is generated. In 

higher winds, aerodynamic noise is generally masked by the normal sound of wind blowing 

through trees and around buildings. The level of this natural ‘masking’ noise relative to the 

level of wind turbine noise determines the subjective audibility of the wind farm. The primary 

objective of this noise impact assessment is therefore to establish the relationship between 

wind turbine noise and the naturally occurring masking noise at residential dwellings lying 

around the proposed wind energy development and to assess these levels of noise against 

accepted standards. 

8.1.4 An overview of environmental noise impact assessment and a glossary of noise terms are 

provided in Appendix 8.1. 





General Planning Policy and Advice Relating to Noise 

8.2.1 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (Scottish Executive, 2010) 1 provides advice on how the 

planning system should manage the process of encouraging, approving and implementing 

renewable energy proposals including onshore wind farms. SPP does not provide specific 

guidance regarding noise associated with wind farm developments, but Planning Advice Note 

45 (PAN 45) 2 (Scottish Executive, 2002) provides further advice on this subject (see below). 

8.2.2 Planning Advice Note PAN56 3 provides general advice on the role of the planning system in 

preventing and limiting the adverse effects of noise without prejudicing investment in 

enterprise, development and transport. 

8.2.3 PAN56 provides general advice on a range of noise related planning matters, including 

references to noise associated with both construction activities and operational wind farms. In 

relation to operational noise from wind farms, Section 34 of PAN56 states that: 

‘Good acoustical design and siting of turbines is essential to ensure there is no 

significant increase in ambient noise levels as they affect the environment and any 

nearby noise-sensitive property.’ 

Specific Planning Policy and Advice Relating to Construction Noise 

8.2.4 Sections 40 and 41 of PAN56 note that construction noise control can be achieved through 

planning conditions that limit noise from temporary construction sites, or by means of the 

Control of Pollution Act (CoPA) 1974 4 . The CoPA provides two means of controlling 

construction noise and vibration. Section 60 provides the Local Authority with the power to 

impose at any time operating conditions on the development site. Section 61 allows the 

developer to negotiate a prior consent for a set of operating procedures with the Local 

Authority before commencement of site works. 

8.2.5 For detailed guidance on construction noise and its control, PAN56 refers to British Standard 

BS 5228 5 ‘Noise control on construction and open sites’, Parts 1 to 4. This standard has been 

updated since PAN56 was published. The most recent update was published in January 2009 

and consolidates all previous parts of the standard into BS 5228-1:2009 6 (BS 5228-1) for 

airborne noise and BS 5228-2:2009 7 (BS 5228-2) for ground borne vibration. These updated 

standards supersede all previous versions, and have therefore been adopted as the relevant 

versions upon which to base this assessment. 

8.2.6 BS 5228-1 provides guidance on a range of considerations relating to construction noise 

including the legislative framework, general control measures, example methods for 

estimating construction noise levels and example criteria which may be considered when 

assessing effect significance. Similarly, BS 5228-2 provides general guidance on legislation, 

prediction, control and assessment criteria for construction vibration. 




Specific Planning Policy and Advice Relating to Operational Wind Farm Noise 

8.2.7 Planning Advice Note PAN45 provides further guidance relevant to planning issues for 

renewable energy technologies. Sections 65 to 68 provide detailed advice on wind farm 

operational noise, and states that the recommendations of ‘The Assessment and Rating of 

Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97 8 ) can be regarded as relevant guidance on good 

practice. 

8.2.8 The recommendations contained in ETSU-R-97 provide a robust basis for assessing the noise 

implications of a wind farm. ETSU-R-97 has become the accepted standard for such 

developments within the UK. This methodology has therefore been adopted for the present 

assessment and is described in greater detail below. 

Methodology for Assessing Construction Noise Effect 

8.2.9 Construction works include both moving sources and static sources. The moving sources 

normally comprise mobile construction plant and Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). The static 

sources include construction plant temporarily placed at fixed locations and in some instances 

noise arising from blasting activities where rock is to be worked through. 

8.2.10 The analysis of construction noise effect has been undertaken in accordance with BS 5228-1 

which provides methods for predicting construction noise levels on the basis of reference data 

for the emissions of typical construction plant and activities. These methods include for the 

calculation of construction traffic along access tracks and haul routes and also for construction 

activities at fixed locations such as the bases of turbines, site compounds or sub stations. 

8.2.11 The BS 5228-1 calculated levels are then compared with absolute noise limits for temporary 

construction activities which are commonly regarded as providing an acceptable level of 

protection from the short term noise levels associated with construction activities. 

8.2.12 Separate consideration is also given to the possible noise effects of construction related traffic 

passing to and from the site along local surrounding roads. In considering potential noise 

levels associated with construction traffic movement on public roads, reference is made to the 

accepted UK prediction methodology provided by ‘Calculation of Road Traffic Noise’ 9 (CRTN). 

8.2.13 The nature of works and distances involved in the construction of a wind farm are such that 

the risk of significant effects relating to ground borne vibration are very low. Occasional 

momentary vibration can arise when heavy vehicles pass dwellings at very short separation 

distances, but again this is not sufficient to constitute a risk of significant effects in this 

instance. Accordingly vibration effects do not warrant detailed assessment and are therefore 

not discussed further in this assessment. 

Methodology for Assessing Wind Farm Operational Noise Effect 

8.2.14 The ETSU-R-97 assessment procedure specifies that noise limits should be set relative to 

existing background noise levels at the nearest properties and that these limits should reflect 

the variation in both turbine source noise and background noise with wind speed. The wind 

speed range which should be considered is between the cut-in speed (the speed at which the 




turbines begin to operate) for the turbines and 12m/s (43.2km/h), where all wind speeds are 

referenced to a 10 metre measurement height. 

8.2.15 Separate noise limits apply for the daytime and night-time. Daytime limits are chosen to 

protect a property’s external amenity and night-time limits are chosen to prevent sleep 

disturbance indoors. Absolute lower limits, different for daytime and night-time, are applied 

where the line of best fit representation of the measured background noise levels equates to 

very low levels (


noise inside a bedroom and an assumed difference between outdoor and indoor noise levels 

with windows open. In the time since ETSU-R-97 was released, the WHO guidelines were 

revised to suggest a lower internal noise level, but conversely, a higher assumed difference 

between outdoor and indoor noise levels. Notwithstanding the WHO guideline revisions, the 

ETSU-R-97 limit remains consistent with current national planning policy guidance with 

respect to night-time noise levels. In addition, following revision of the night-time WHO criteria, 

ETSU-R-97 has been incorporated into planning guidance for Wales, England and Scotland 

and at no point during this process was it felt necessary to revise the guidance within 

ETSU-R-97 to reflect the change in the WHO guideline internal levels. The advice contained 

within ETSU-R-97 remains a valid reference on which to continue to base the fixed limit at 

night. 

8.2.19 The exception to the setting of both the daytime and night-time lower limits on the criterion 

curves occurs where a property occupier has a financial involvement in the wind farm 

development. Where this is the case then, if the derived criterion curve based on 5 dB(A) 

above the measured background noise level falls below 45 dB(A), the lower noise limit at that 

property may be set to 45 dB(A) during both the daytime and the night-time periods alike. 

8.2.20 To undertake the assessment of noise effect in accordance with the foregoing methodology 

the following steps are required: 

• specify the number and locations of the wind turbines; 

• identify the locations of the nearest, or most noise sensitive, neighbours; 

• measure the background noise levels as a function of site wind speed at the nearest 

neighbours, or at least at a representative sample of the nearest neighbours; 

• determine the day-time and night-time criterion curves from the measured 

background noise levels at the nearest neighbours; 

• specify the type and noise emission characteristics of the wind turbines; 

• calculate the noise immission levels due to the operation of the wind turbines as a 

function of site wind speed at the nearest neighbours; and 

• compare the calculated wind farm noise immission levels with the derived criterion 

curves and assess in the light of planning requirements. 

8.2.21 The foregoing steps, as applied to proposed wind energy development are set out 

subsequently in this assessment. 

8.2.22 Note that in the above, and subsequently in this assessment, the term ‘noise emission’ relates 

to the sound power level actually radiated from each wind turbine, whereas the term ‘noise 

immission’ relates to the sound pressure level (the perceived noise) at any receptor location 

due to the combined operation of all wind turbines on the proposed wind energy development. 




Construction Noise Effect Criteria 

8.2.23 BS 5228-1 indicates a number of factors are likely to affect the acceptability of construction 

noise including site location, existing ambient noise levels, duration of site operations, hours of 

work, attitude of the site operator and noise characteristics of the work being undertaken. 

8.2.24 BS 5228-1 informative Annex E provides example criteria that may be used to consider the 

effect significance of construction noise. The criteria do not represent mandatory limits but 

rather a set of example approaches intended to reflect the type of methods commonly applied 

to construction noise. The example methods are presented as a range of possible approaches 

(both facade and free field noise levels, hourly and day-time averaged noise levels) according 

to the ambient noise characteristics of the area in question, the type of development under 

consideration, and the expected hours of construction activity. In broad terms, the example 

criteria are based on a set of fixed limit values which, if exceeded, will result in a significant 

effect unless ambient noise levels (i.e. regularly occurring levels without construction) are 

sufficiently high to provide a degree of masking of construction noise. 

8.2.25 Based on the range of guidance values set out in BS 5228-1 Annex E, and other reference 

criteria provided by the World Health Organization (WHO), the following effect significance 

criteria have been derived. The values have been chosen in recognition of the relatively low 

ambient noise typically observed in rural environments. The presented criteria have been 

normalised to free-field day time noise levels occurring over a time period, T, equal to the 

duration of a working day on site. BS 5228-1 Annex E provides varied definitions for the range 

of day time working hours which can be grouped for equal consideration. The values 

presented in Table 8.1 have been chosen to relate to daytime hours from 07:00 to 19:00 on 

weekdays, and 09:00 to 16:00 on Saturdays. 

Table 8.1 Free-field Noise Criteria against which Construction Noise Effects are 

Assessed 

Significance 

Major 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

Condition 

Construction noise is greater than 72 dB L Aeq,T for any part of the construction works or exceeds 

67 dB L Aeq,T for more than 4 weeks in any 12 month period 

Construction noise is less than or equal to 67 dB L Aeq,T throughout the construction period. 

Construction noise is generally less than or equal to 60 dB L Aeq,T , with periods of up to 67 dB L Aeq,T 

lasting not more than 4 weeks in any 12 month period 

Construction noise is generally less than or equal to 55 dB L Aeq,T , with periods of up to 60 dB L Aeq,T 

lasting not more than 4 weeks in any 12 month period 

Operational Noise Effect Criteria 

8.2.26 The acceptable limits for wind turbine operational noise are clearly defined in the ETSU-R-97 

document and these limits should not be breached. Consequently, the test applied to 

operational noise is whether or not the calculated wind farm noise immission levels at nearby 

noise sensitive properties lie below the noise limits derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97. 

Depending on the levels of background noise the satisfaction of the ETSU-R-97 derived limits 

can lead to a situation whereby, at some locations under some wind conditions and for a 

certain proportion of the time, the wind farm noise may be audible. However, noise levels at 

the properties in the vicinity of the proposed wind energy development will still be within levels 

considered acceptable under the ETSU assessment method. 




Consultation 

8.2.27 Prior to undertaking the background surveys a summary of the proposed monitoring locations 

was forwarded to the Environmental Health Department of Clackmannanshire Council for 

comment, and was subsequently agreed to be representative for the purpose of an 

ETSU-R-97 assessment. As some potential sensitive residences are located within Falkirk 

Council, Hoare Lea requested that the Environmental Health Department of 

Clackmannanshire Council consult Falkirk Council with details of the proposed wind energy 

development. Subsequently Falkirk Council expressed no concerns. The consultations were 

based on a preliminary project layout which was of a similar form to the layout currently 

proposed. The agreed noise monitoring locations are shown on the plan in Figure 8.1. Further 

information about the equipment used and pictures of the locations are presented in Appendix 

8.2. 

8.3 Baseline information 

8.3.1 The proposed wind energy development will cover an area extending approximately 1000 m 

north to south and 850 m west to east. The proposed wind energy development is located in 

an area of relatively low population density. The noise environment in the surrounding area is 

generally characterised by ‘natural’ sources, such as wind disturbed vegetation, birds and 

farm animals. Other sources of noise include distant traffic and agricultural vehicle 

movements in the area. For further detail refer to Chapter 4. Project Description of this ES. 

Sources of Data 

8.3.2 A total of three noise monitoring locations were agreed with the Environmental Health 

Departments of Clackmannanshire and Falkirk Councils as being representative of the 

background noise environment around the proposed wind energy development. These 

locations were selected as being representative of the noise environment for the nearest 

residences to the proposed wind energy development. The three locations are shown on the 

plan in Figure 8.1 and listed in Table 8.2. 

Table 8.2 Background Noise Monitoring Locations (approximate Easting/Northing) 

No. Property Easting Northing 

1 Dunmore Home Farm 288655 690090 

2 Park Farm 290485 690979 

3 12 Riverside View 288874 691985 

8.3.3 The assessment has considered the effect of the proposed wind energy development at the 

monitoring locations noted above as well as other residential properties located further away 

from the proposed wind energy development. The range of assessment locations are listed in 

Table 8.3. In some instances the results obtained from the survey positions have been used to 

represent the background environment expected to occur at other nearby assessment 

locations. The use of the data in this way is justified by the relatively flat nature of the terrain 

and the dominant influence of ‘natural’ sources on background noise levels throughout the 

area (particularly at increased wind speeds). This approach is consistent with the guidance 

provided by ETSU-R-97. Locations where such representations have been made, and the 

source of the representations, are represented in Table 8.3. It is noted that where such 

representations have been made, the distance between the assessment location and nearest 




turbine is comparable to, if not greater than, the distance between the reference monitoring 

location and the nearest turbine. 

Table 8.3 Assessment Properties in the Vicinity of the Proposed Wind Energy 

Development 

Property 

Easting Northing Approximate Distance Closest 

Survey Location 

(Table 8.2) 

(* denotes involved) 

to Closest Turbine (m) Turbine (ID) 

Park Farm 290485 690979 811 3 2 

Dunmore Home Farm 288655 690090 1046 2 1 

13 Riverside View 288885 691912 435 1 3 

Inch of Ferryton 290427 689987 860 4 2 

Craigrie 290477 691592 1109 3 2 

Dunmore East 289177 689805 900 4 1 

Dunmore Town 289378 689610 967 4 1 

Bowhouse Gardens 288725 691933 484 1 3 

South Alloa 287884 691843 1069 1 3 

12 Riverside View 288874 691985 507 1 3 

8.3.4 The background noise monitoring exercise was conducted over a period of just over two 

weeks between 22 July and 9 August 2010. This is in excess of the ETSU-R-97 stated 

minimum of 1 week. The equipment used for the survey comprised three Rion NL-32 logging 

sound level meters. All meters were enclosed in environmental cases with battery power to 

enable continuous logging at the required 10 minute averaging periods. Outdoor windshield 

systems were used to reduce wind induced noise on the microphones and provide protection 

from rain. These windshield systems were supplied by the sound level meter manufacturer 

and maintain the required performance of the whole measurement system when fitted. The 

environmental enclosures provided an installed microphone height of approximately 1.2m 

above ground level. 

8.3.5 The sound level meters were located on the proposed wind energy development side of the 

property in question where possible, never closer than 3.5m from the façade of the property 

and as far away as was practical from obvious atypical localised sources of noise such as 

running water, trees or boiler flues. Details and photographs of the measurement locations 

are presented in Appendix 8.2. 

8.3.6 All measurement systems were calibrated on their deployment on 22 July 2010 and upon 

collection of the equipment on 9 August 2010. No significant (>0.5 dB(A)) drifts in calibration 

were found to have occurred on any of the systems. This equates to a total ETSU-R-97 

analysis period of at least 18 days for each location. 

8.3.7 All measurement systems were set to log the L A90,10min and L Aeq,10min noise levels continuously 

over the deployment period. The internal clocks on the sound level meters were all 

synchronized with Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) by the use of a Global Positioning System 

(GPS) receiver. The clock on the met mast from which wind data was subsequently collected 

for the analysis of the measured background noise as function of wind speed was also set to 

GMT. Details of the equipment used, the calibration dates and calibrations are provided in 

Appendix 8.2. 

Current Conditions 

8.3.8 The ETSU-R-97 method requires correlation of the noise data with wind speed data at a 10m 

height which can either be derived from measured 10m wind speeds or by calculation from 




measurements at other heights, the appropriate choice being determined by practitioner 

judgement and the available data sources. Since the publication of ETSU-R-97, the change in 

wind speed with increasing height above ground level has been identified as a potential 

source of variability when carrying out wind farm noise assessments, and subsequently 

influences the choice of method used to derive 10m height wind speed data. 

8.3.9 The effect of wind shear can be addressed by implementing the ETSU-R-97 option of deriving 

10m height reference data from measurements made at taller heights. It is this method that 

has been used in the noise assessment for the proposed wind energy development to account 

for the potential effect of site specific wind shear by correlating measured baseline noise data 

with taller height wind speed data that enables hub height wind speed estimates to be made. 

This method is consistent with the provisions of ETSU-R-97 and a recent article in a UK 

Institute of Acoustics Bulletin 11 which provided recommendations on a range of subjects 

relating to wind farm noise assessment including wind shear. 

8.3.10 Specifically, wind speeds were measured on a 70m height meteorological mast located within 

the boundary of the proposed wind energy development (approximate location NS 288992 E, 

691487 N). The wind shear between the 70m and 30m anemometers was determined for 

each 10 minute period in order to calculate the 80m height wind speed (corresponding to the 

proposed turbine hub height), which is then calculated at 10m using a standardised roughness 

length of 0.05m. This procedure is described in detail in Appendix 8.5. 

8.3.11 Figures 8.3.A and 8.3.B reproduced at Appendix 8.3 show the range of wind conditions 

experienced during the noise survey period. During the quiet day-time and night-time periods, 

wind speeds were typically less than 8m/s. The wind was observed to be directed from the 

south west for the majority of the survey period, consistent with the typical prevailing wind 

direction for the UK. 

8.3.12 Figures 8.4.A to 8.4.F of Appendix 8.4 show the results of the background noise 

measurements at each of the locations. The background noise data are presented in terms of 

L A90,10min background noise levels plotted as a function of 10m height wind speed. Two plots 

are shown for each location, one for quiet day-time periods and the other for night-time 

periods, both derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97. 

8.3.13 Data from all survey locations were inspected to identify periods which may have been 

influenced by extraneous noise sources, giving rise to atypical and elevated levels. 

ETSU-R-97 suggests that any data that may have been affected by rainfall be excluded from 

the analysis. A rain gauge was installed at one of the noise monitoring locations during the 

noise survey period; data from this gauge were therefore used to exclude those periods where 

rain was indicated. 

8.3.14 In addition to the effect noise on surrounding vegetation and the sound level meter itself, in 

some environments rainfall can result in appreciable changes in background sound levels. 

Observations whilst on-site indicated traffic noise to be a negligible influence on background 

sound levels, and thus the possible effect of increased tyre noise from wet roads is not 

considered relevant to the survey locations. In terms of water flow noise, the site is generally 

flat and there were no significant water courses in the vicinity of the monitoring locations. The 

monitoring locations were also positioned as far as practically possible from any residential 

drainage systems to minimise any associated noise influence. Based on the above, rainfall is 




considered to have a limited affect on background sound levels. Inspection of the data 

generally tends to support this, given the absence of any identifiable clear data trends that are 

normally characteristic of a site affected by rain related background sound levels (such as flat 

clusters of data on the noise versus wind plot, or sharp increases in noise followed by a 

progressive decrease with time). Notwithstanding this, the possibility exists that some of the 

measured background noise data at low wind speeds may have been increased by 

extraneous or rain related influences. Time-histories of the noise levels at each survey 

location were inspected to look for any atypical relationships when compared to the wind 

speeds present during that time. Any elevated levels found in this way were excluded. The 

trend of the data when plotted against wind speed was also inspected to look for atypical 

relationships or outliers within the data-set which were excluded. 

8.3.15 Any data removed from the analysis in the ways described above is indicated on the charts as 

red circles, as detailed in Appendix 8.2. 

8.3.16 Following removal in particular of rain-affected periods, the range of wind speeds considered 

in this analysis was effectively restricted to wind speeds of up to 8m/s. The background noise 

is thought likely to generally continue increasing with rising wind speeds, based on experience 

of similar environments. Nonetheless, the limits derived in this report have been limited to a 

constant value from the highest measured wind speeds. Similarly, when the data trendline 

appeared to increase at the lowest wind speeds, the limit was kept constant as this was 

considered more representative. 

8.3.17 Following the removal of the excluded data points due extraneous noise, the best-fit lines 

were generated using a polynomial fit of a maximum of 4 th order. These lines of fit were then 

used to derive the noise limits required by ETSU-R-97 that apply during the day-time and 

night-time periods up to 12m/s. The corresponding ETSU-R-97 noise limits are summarised in 

Tables 8.4 and 8.5. The noise limits have been set either at the prevailing measured 

background level plus 5 dB, or at the relevant fixed lower limit, whichever is the greater. The 

derivation of the relevant fixed lower limit value used for day-time periods is described in 

paragraph 8.2.16. 

Table 8.4 Daytime L A90,T Noise Limits (dB) Derived from the Baseline Noise Survey 

According to ETSU-R-97 

Property 

Wind Speed at 10m Height, m/s 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Park Farm 35.0 35.4 37.5 40.2 43.4 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 

Dunmore Home Farm 36.9 38.3 40.8 44.3 48.0 50.1 50.1 50.1 50.1 50.1 

13 Riverside View 40.6 42.3 43.9 45.2 46.3 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 

Inch of Ferryton 35.0 35.4 37.5 40.2 43.4 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 

Craigrie 35.0 35.4 37.5 40.2 43.4 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 

Dunmore East 36.9 38.3 40.8 44.3 48.0 50.1 50.1 50.1 50.1 50.1 

Dunmore Town 36.9 38.3 40.8 44.3 48.0 50.1 50.1 50.1 50.1 50.1 

Bowhouse Gardens 40.6 42.3 43.9 45.2 46.3 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 

South Alloa 40.6 42.3 43.9 45.2 46.3 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 





Table 8.5 Night-time L A90,T Noise Limits (dB) Derived from the Baseline Noise Survey 

According to ETSU-R-97 

Property 


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Park Farm 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 




Craigrie 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 

Dunmore East 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 

Dunmore Town 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 


South Alloa 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 


Trends and Projected Future Baseline 

8.3.18 The baseline background noise environment is not expected to change significantly in the 

absence of the proposed wind energy development. 

Information Gaps 

8.3.19 No significant information gaps were encountered and the survey undertaken was in line with 

the ETSU-R-97 recommendations. 

8.4 Topic Specific Design Evolution 

Scheme Layout Response to Potentially Significant Effects 

8.4.1 A preliminary wind energy development layout was developed based on a set of constraints 

that included a minimum separation distance of 350m between any turbine and any residential 

property. The layout of the proposed wind energy development has been iteratively 

developed from this initial layout with the aim of achieving an acceptable noise impact on local 

residential amenity, whilst maintaining as far as possible the generation capacity of the 

development (in addition to other design considerations). Specifically, the process involved 

the calculation of noise levels for the original outline scheme configuration and comparing 

these against limits derived according to the ETSU-R-97 methodology. When non-compliance 

was predicted, advice was provided to the design team and used by the site designers to 

adjust the turbine positioning in order to reduce noise impacts. 

8.5 Predicted Significant Effects of the Scheme 

Predicted Construction Noise Levels 

8.5.1 The level of construction noise that occurs at the surrounding properties will be highly 

dependent on a number of factors such as the final site programme, equipment types used for 

each process, and the operating conditions that prevail during construction. It is not practically 

feasible to specify each and every element of the factors that may affect noise levels, 




therefore it is necessary to make reasonable allowance for the level of noise emissions that 

may be associated with key phases of the construction. 

8.5.2 In order to determine representative emission levels for this study, reference has been made 

to the scheduled sound power data provided by BS 5228-1. Based on experience of the types 

and number of equipment usually associated with the key phases of constructing a wind farm, 

the scheduled sound power data has been used to deduce the upper sound emission level 

over the course of a working day. In determining the rating applicable to the working day, it 

has generally been assumed that the plant will operate for between 75 and 100% of the 

working day. In many instances, the plant would actually be expected to operate for a reduced 

percentage, thus resulting in noise levels lower than predicted in this assessment. 

8.5.3 In order to relate the sound power emissions to predicted noise levels at surrounding 

properties, the prediction methodology outlined in BS 5228-1 has been adopted. The 

prediction method accounts for factors including screening and soft ground attenuation. The 

size of the site and resulting separation distances to surrounding properties allows the 

calculations to be reliably based on positioning all the equipment at a single point within a 

particular working area (for example, in the case of turbine erection, it is reasonable to 

assume all associated construction plant is positioned at the base of the turbine under 

consideration). In applying the BS 5228-1 methodology, it has been conservatively assumed 

that there are no screening effects, and that the ground cover is characterised as 50% 

hard/soft. 

8.5.4 Table 8.6 lists the key construction activities, the associated types of plant normally involved, 

the expected worst case sound power level over a working day for each activity, the property 

which would be closest to the activity for a portion of construction, and the predicted noise 

level. It must be emphasised that these predictions only relate the noise level occurring during 

the time when the activity is closest to the referenced property. In many cases such as access 

track construction and turbine erection, the separating distances will be significantly greater for 

the majority of the construction period and the predictions are therefore the worst case periods 

of the construction phase. 

Table 8.6 Predicted Construction Noise Levels 

Task Name Plant/Equipment Upper 

Collective 

Sound 

Emission 

Over 

Working Day 

Construct 

temporary site 

compounds 

Construct site 

tracks 

Construct Sub- 

Station 

Construct crane 

hard standings 

Construct 

turbine 

foundations 

excavators/dump 

trucks/tippers/rollers/delivery 

trucks 

excavators/dump trucks/tippers/ 

dozers/vibrating rollers 

excavators/concrete 

trucks/delivery trucks 

L WA,T 

Nearest 

Receiver 

120 13 Riverside 

View 


View 


View 

excavators/dump trucks 120 13 Riverside 

View 

piling rigs/excavators/tippers/ 

concrete trucks/mobile cranes/ 

water pumps/pneumatic 

hammers/compressors/vibratory 

pokers 


View 

Minimum 

Distance 

to 

Nearest 

Receiver 

Predicted 

Upper Day 

Time 

Noise 

Levels 

L Aeq,T 

350 58 

430 56 

430 46 

420 56 

420 56 




Task Name Plant/Equipment Upper 

Collective 

Sound 

Emission 

Over 

Working Day 

Excavate and 

lay site cables 

Erect turbines 

excavators/dump trucks/tractors 

& cable drum trailers/wacker 

plates 

cranes/turbine delivery vehicles/ 

artics for crane movement/ 

generators/torque guns 

L WA,T 

Nearest 

Receiver 


View 


View 

Minimum 

Distance 

to 

Nearest 

Receiver 

Predicted 

Upper Day 

Time 

Noise 

Levels 

L Aeq,T 

420 46 

420 56 

8.5.5 Comparing the above predicted noise levels to the range of background noise levels 

measured around the site suggests that the noisier construction activities would be audible at 

various times throughout the construction phase. However, comparing the level to the effect 

significance criteria presented previously (Table 8.1) indicates that noise generated through 

construction activities will represent a negligible to minor impact. 

8.5.6 In addition to on-site activities, construction traffic passing to on-site haul roads and low 

trafficked public roads will also represent a potential source of noise impact to surrounding 

properties. The traffic assessment for the proposed wind energy development presented in 

Chapter 7 of this ES has identified that the highest volume of traffic generated by construction 

is expected to occur in the 4 th month of construction, with an average of 50 daily vehicle 

movements predicted. These predicted movements include a high proportion of HGVs as well 

as other lighter vehicles such as vans. 

8.5.7 The most sensitive receiver locations in respect of vehicle movements are properties such as 

Bowhouse Gardens which lie adjacent to Forth Crescent Road, at a distance of 6m, and which 

are relatively isolated although they already experience noise from distant traffic on the A907. 

Large vehicles can generate noise levels in the order of L WA 108 dB (sound power level) when 

in motion. However, these types of plant usually pass a receiver location quite quickly. When 

stationary the same vehicles will be operating in idle which significantly lowers the noise 

output to the environment. Based on the prediction methodology in BS 5288 and accounting 

for articulated lorries with a capacity of 23 tonnes and moving at an estimated 15 miles per 

hour, the predicted noise level at those dwellings is of 59 dB L Aeq,T . Comparing this level to the 

effect significance criteria presented previously indicates that noise generated by construction 

traffic at this property will represent a minor effect. 

8.5.8 In addition to on-site activities and track movement occurring low trafficked roads, construction 

traffic passing to and from the site on more heavily trafficked roads will also represent a 

potential source of noise to surrounding dwellings. The traffic assessment presented in 

Chapter 7 of this ES presents predicted future traffic changes that would occur during the 

construction phase of the proposed wind energy development. Specifically, Tables 7.1 and 

7.5 of Chapter 7 have been used to ascertain the following projected traffic flows for scenarios 

with and without the proposed wind energy development. Based on these projected changes 

in traffic flow, the methodology set out in CRTN has been used to determine the associated 

maximum total change in the average day-time traffic noise level at any given location due to 

construction of the proposed wind energy development: see Table 8.7a and 8.7b. 




Table 8.7a Projected Traffic Flows 

Road 

Without the proposed wind energy 

development 

Annual Average 

Daily Traffic 

Flow 

% Heavy Goods 

Vehicles 

With the proposed wind energy 

development 

(maximum during construction 

phase) 

Annual Average 

Daily Traffic 

Flow 

% Heavy Goods 

Vehicles 

A907 (Clackmannan Road) 18236 11 18286 11 

Forth Crescent 679 16 729 21 

A907 (Gartarry Roundabout) 15007 11 15057 11 

Table 8.7b CRTN Predicted Increase In Day-Time Average Traffic Noise Levels 

(L A10,18hour ) 

Road 

Maximum Change in Traffic Noise Level, dB(A) 

A907 (Clackmannan Road)


Table 8.8 Nordex N90/2500HS Wind Turbine Sound Power Levels for a 80m hub height 

WIND SPEED AT 10m HEIGHT (m/s ) SOUND POWER LEVEL (dB L AEQ ) 

3 95.0 

4 99.0 

5 102.5 

6 105.5 

7 106.5 

8 107.0 

9 107.0 

10 107.0 

11 107.0 

12 107.0 

Table 8.9 Octave Band Sound Power Spectrum (dB L Aeq ) for the Nordex N90/2500HS 

Operating in Reference Wind Speed Conditions (v10 = 8 m/s) 

OCTAVE BAND CENTRE FREQUENCY, Hz 

A-WEIGHTED SOUND POWER LEVEL, dB(A) 

63 92.2 

125 96.3 

250 100.7 

500 101.1 

1000 99.6 

2000 98.5 

4000 94.5 

8000 87.2 

Choice of Wind Farm Operational Noise Propagation Model 

8.5.12 Whilst there are several noise propagation models available, here the ISO 9613-2 model 12 has 

been used to calculate the noise immission levels at the selected nearest residential 

neighbours. This model has been identified as most appropriate for use in predicting far-field 

noise radiation from wind turbines in such rural sites. 

8.5.13 The model accounts for the attenuation due to geometric spreading, corresponding to the 

increasing spreading of sound as it propagates away from the source, atmospheric 

absorption, and ground effects. The model offers the ability to account for barrier effects 

however, this has not been included for in this assessment due to the relatively flat ground. All 

attenuation calculations have been made on an octave band basis and therefore account for 

the sound frequency characteristics of the turbines. The ISO 9613-2 algorithm has been 

chosen as being the most robust prediction method based on the findings of a joint European 

Commission research project into wind farm noise propagation over large distances. The title 

of the research project was ‘Development of a Wind Farm Noise Propagation Prediction 

Model’ 13 . 

8.5.14 Whilst it is impossible to specify exact error bands on noise predictions, the ISO 9613-2 model 

was found to be the best available both in flat and complex terrain. This model, like all the 

others, tends to over-estimate the noise at nearby dwellings rather than under-estimate it. The 

only exception to this finding was the general tendency for the ISO 9613-2 model to over 

predict the excess attenuation due to screening by ground features. With this limitation applied 

to the ISO 9613-2 model the over-riding conclusion of the work undertaken as part of the EC 

research study was that the ISO 9613-2 model tended to predict noise levels which would 

generally occur under downwind propagation conditions. The probability of non-exceedence 

of the levels predicted by the ISO 9613-2 model was around 85%. The other important 

outcome of the research was to clearly demonstrate that under upwind propagation conditions 

between a given receiver and the wind farm the noise immission level at that receiver will be 

as much as 10 dB(A) to 1 dB(A) lower than the level predicted using the ISO 9613-2 model. 




8.5.15 For the purposes of the present assessment, all noise level predictions have been undertaken 

using a receiver height of 4m above local ground level, mixed ground (g=0.5) and an air 

absorption based on a temperature of 10°C and 70% relative humidity. These parameters, 

the prediction methodology and type of wind turbine emission data used in this report are 

consistent with best practice in the field as described in a recent IOA Bulletin article 11 . There 

are no screening effects found at the site and therefore this element was excluded from the 

model. 

Predicted Wind Farm Operational Noise Immission Levels 

8.5.16 Table 8.10 shows predicted noise immission levels at each of the selected assessment 

locations for each 10m height wind speed from 3m/s to 12m/s inclusive. All wind farm noise 

immission levels in this report are presented in terms of the L A90,T noise indicator in 

accordance with the recommendations of the ETSU-R-97 report, obtained by subtracting 2 

dB(A) from the calculated L Aeq,T noise levels based on the warranted turbine sound power 

levels presented in Table 8.8 and Table 8.9. 

Table 8.10 Predicted L A90,T Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels (dB) at 4m Height at Each 

of the Noise Assessment Locations as a Function of 10m Height Wind Speed 

Property 


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Park Farm 26.6 30.6 34.1 37.1 38.1 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 




Craigrie 23.7 27.7 31.2 34.2 35.2 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 

Dunmore East 25.5 29.5 33.0 36.0 37.0 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 

Dunmore Town 24.4 28.4 31.9 34.9 35.9 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 


South Alloa 21.8 25.8 29.3 32.3 33.3 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 


8.6 Mitigation Measures 

Construction Noise 

8.6.1 To reduce the potential noise effect of construction noise, the following types of mitigation 


• Those activities that may give rise to audible noise at the surrounding properties and 

heavy goods vehicle deliveries to the site would be limited to the hours 07:00 to 

19:00 Monday to Friday and 09:00 to 16:00 on Saturdays. Turbine deliveries would 

only take place outside these times with the prior consent of the Clackmannanshire 

Council and the Police. Those activities that are unlikely to give rise to noise 

audible at the site boundary will continue outside of the stated hours; 

• All construction activities shall adhere to good practice as set out in BS 5228-1; 

• All equipment will be maintained in good working order and any associated noise 

attenuation such as engine casing and exhaust silencers shall remain fitted at all 

times; 




• Where flexibility exists, activities will be separated from residential neighbours by 

the maximum possible distances; 

• A site management regime will be developed to control the movement of vehicles to 

and from the proposed wind energy development; and 

• Construction plant capable of generating significant noise and vibration levels will be 

operated in a manner to restrict the duration of the higher magnitude levels. 

Operational Noise 

8.6.2 The selection of the final turbine to be installed at the site would be made on the basis of 

enabling the relevant ETSU-R-97 noise limits to be achieved at the surrounding properties. 

8.7 Assessment of Residual Significant Effects 

8.7.1 Figures 8.4.A to 8.4.F (Appendix 8.4) show for each of the three noise monitoring locations, 

the prediction for the corresponding assessment location with the highest predicted levels. 

These predictions correspond to those already presented in Table 8.10, plotted as a function 

of 10m height wind speed. The calculated noise immission levels are shown overlaid on the 

day-time and night-time noise limit criterion curves. These criterion curves have been derived 

by calculating best fit regression lines through the measured background noise data to give 

the prevailing background noise curve required by ETSU-R-97. The noise limits have then 

been set either at the prevailing measured background level plus 5 dB or at the relevant fixed 

lower limit whichever is the greater. 

8.7.2 The ETSU-R-97 noise limits assume that the wind turbine noise contains no audible tones. 

Where tones are present a correction is added to the measured or predicted noise level before 

comparison with the recommended limits. The audibility of any tones can be assessed by 

comparing the narrow band level of such tones with the masking level contained in a band of 

frequencies around the tone called the critical band. The ETSU-R-97 recommendations 

suggest a tone correction which depends on the amount by which the tone exceeds the 

audibility threshold. The turbines to be used for this site will emit noise which contains no 

tones that would incur a penalty when assessed by the method specified in ETSU-R-97; this 

will be included in the tender and warranty agreements for the site and should be included in 

any noise conditions. Therefore no corrections for tones have been included in this 

assessment. 

8.7.3 Table 8.11 & Table 8.12 respectively show that the predicted wind farm noise immission levels 

meet the day and night-time ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits shown in Table 8.4 and 8.5 under 

all wind speeds and at all locations, based on a lower day-time limit of 35 dB(A). 




Table 8.11 Exceedences of the ETSU-R-97 Derived Day-time Criterion Curves by the 

Predicted L A90,T Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels (dB) at Each Noise Assessment 

Location. Exceedences with negative values indicate the immission level is below the limit. 

Property 


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Park Farm -8.5 -4.9 -3.5 -3.1 -5.3 -8.3 -8.3 -8.3 -8.3 -8.3 

Dunmore Home Farm -12.3 -9.7 -8.7 -9.2 -11.9 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 

13 Riverside View -10.8 -8.5 -6.6 -5.0 -5.0 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1 

Inch of Ferryton -10.0 -6.4 -5.0 -4.7 -6.9 -9.9 -9.9 -9.9 -9.9 -9.9 

Craigrie -11.3 -7.7 -6.3 -6.0 -8.2 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2 

Dunmore East -11.4 -8.8 -7.8 -8.3 -11.0 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 

Dunmore Town -12.5 -9.9 -8.9 -9.4 -12.1 -13.7 -13.7 -13.7 -13.7 -13.7 

Bowhouse Gardens -11.8 -9.5 -7.6 -6.0 -6.1 -6.2 -6.2 -6.2 -6.2 -6.2 

South Alloa -18.8 -16.5 -14.6 -13.0 -13.0 -13.1 -13.1 -13.1 -13.1 -13.1 


Table 8.12 Exceedences of the ETSU-R-97 Derived Night-time Criterion Curves by the 

Predicted L A90,T Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels (dB) at Each Noise Assessment 

Location. Exceedences with negative values indicate the immission level is below the limit. 

Property 


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Park Farm -16.5 -12.5 -9.0 -6.0 -5.0 -4.5 -4.5 -4.5 -4.5 -4.5 

Dunmore Home Farm -18.4 -14.4 -10.9 -7.9 -6.9 -6.4 -6.4 -6.4 -6.4 -6.4 


Inch of Ferryton -18.0 -14.0 -10.5 -7.5 -6.5 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 

Craigrie -19.3 -15.3 -11.8 -8.8 -7.8 -7.3 -7.3 -7.3 -7.3 -7.3 

Dunmore East -17.6 -13.6 -10.1 -7.1 -6.1 -5.6 -5.6 -5.6 -5.6 -5.6 

Dunmore Town -18.7 -14.7 -11.2 -8.2 -7.2 -6.7 -6.7 -6.7 -6.7 -6.7 

Bowhouse Gardens -14.3 -10.3 -6.8 -3.8 -2.8 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3 

South Alloa -21.2 -17.2 -13.7 -10.7 -9.7 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 


8.7.4 Tables 8.13 to Table 8.15 respectively show that the predicted wind farm noise immission 

levels at Dunmore East, Park Farm and 13 Riverside View meet the day and night-time 

ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits in under all wind speeds, based on a lower day-time limit of 

35 dB(A). 

Table 8.13 Dunmore East Predicted Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels, ETSU-R-97 

Day-time and Night-time Limits Derived from Dunmore Home Farm, and the Associated 

Immission and Limit Margins (negative margins indicate the immission level is below the 

limit). All levels L A90,T 

Description 


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Predicted noise 25.5 29.5 33.0 36.0 37.0 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 

Day-time limit 36.9 38.3 40.8 44.3 48.0 50.1 50.1 50.1 50.1 50.1 

Night-time limit 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 

Day-time limit margin -11.4 -8.8 -7.8 -8.3 -11.0 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 

Night-time limit margin -17.6 -13.6 -10.1 -7.1 -6.1 -5.6 -5.6 -5.6 -5.6 -5.6 

Table 8.14 Park Farm Predicted Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels, ETSU-R-97 Daytime 

and Night-time Limits, and the Associated Immission and Limit Margins (negative 

margins indicate the immission level is below the limit). All levels L A90,T 

Description 


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


Day-time limit 35.0 35.4 37.5 40.2 43.4 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 







Table 8.15 13 Riverside View Predicted Wind Farm Noise Immission Levels, ETSU-R-97 

Day-time and Night-time Limits Derived from 12 Riverside View, and the Associated 

Immission and Limit Margins (negative margins indicate the immission level is below the 

limit). All levels L A90,T 

Description 


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


Day-time limit 40.6 42.3 43.9 45.2 46.3 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 




8.7.5 The ETSU-R-97 fixed part of the limit during the day time should lie within the range from 35 

dB(A) to 40 dB(A). The factors to be used to determine where in this range have been 

discussed above. Although the area is generally of a rural character, all dwellings were found 

to be of a relatively exposed character, with background noise levels clearly increasing with 

wind speeds. Furthermore, there would be relatively little number of properties affected by 

noise. However, given the relative scale of the development and the limited effect that having 

a limit at the lower end of this range would have on the number of turbines installed, it is 

considered appropriate to set the limit at the lower end of the range. 

Low Frequency Noise and Vibration 

8.7.6 Low frequency noise and vibration resulting from the operation of wind farms, together with 

the often associated subject of blade swish, are all issues that have been attracting an 

increasing amount of attention over recent years. Consequently Appendix 8.1 includes a 

detailed discussion of these topics. In summary of the information provided therein, the 

current recommendation is that ETSU-R-97 should continue to be used in its present form for 

the assessment and rating of operational noise from wind farms. 

Evaluation of Effects 

Table 8.16 Summary Table of Effects 

Potential Effect 

Construction Noise 

Operational Noise 

8.8 Monitoring 

Evaluation of Effect 

Noise levels have been predicted using the methodology set out in BS 5228-1. Based on 

effect assessment criteria derived and supported by a range of noise policy and guidance, 

the overall effect of construction noise is considered to represent a negligible to minor effect. 

Noise criteria have been established in accordance with ETSU-R-97. It has also been 

shown that these criteria are achievable with a commercially available turbine suitable for the 

site. The basis of the ETSU-R-97 method is to define acceptable noise limits thought to offer 

reasonable protection to residents in areas around wind farm developments. Operational 

noise immission levels are acceptable in terms of the guidance commended by planning 

policy for the assessment of wind farm noise, and therefore considered not significant in EIA 

terms. 

8.8.1 It is proposed that if planning consent is granted for the proposed wind energy development, 

conditions attached to the planning consent should include the requirement that, in the event 

of a noise complaint, noise levels resulting from the operation of the proposed wind energy 

development are measured in order to demonstrate compliance with the conditioned noise 

limits. Such monitoring should be done in full accordance with ETSU-R-97 and include 

penalties for any tonal characteristics of the noise. 




8.9 Summary of Key Findings and Conclusions 

8.9.1 This report has presented an assessment of the effect of construction and operational noise 

from the proposed wind energy development on the residents of nearby dwellings. 

8.9.2 A number of residential properties lying around the proposed wind energy development have 

been selected as being representative of the closest located properties to the proposed wind 

energy development. The minimum separation distance between the nearest turbine and the 

closest located residential property is approximately 435 m. Noise impact assessments have 

been undertaken at these properties by comparing predicted construction and operational 

noise levels with relevant effect assessment criteria. In the case of construction noise, relevant 

effect assessment criteria is in the form of absolute limit values derived from a range of 

environmental noise guidance. In relation to operational noise, the limits have been derived 

from the existing background noise levels at three surrounding properties, as derived from 

measurements made over 18 days at each location. 

8.9.3 The construction noise assessment has determined that associated levels are expected to be 

audible at various times throughout the construction programme, but remain with acceptable 

limits such that their temporary effects are considered negligible to minor. 

8.9.4 Operational noise from the proposed wind energy development has been assessed in 

accordance with the methodology set out in the 1996 DTI Report ETSU-R-97, ‘The 

Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind farms’. This document provides a robust basis for 

assessing the operational noise effect of a wind farm as recommended by PAN45. 

8.9.5 To undertake the assessment of noise effect in accordance with the foregoing methodology 

the following steps have been undertaken: 

• measure the existing background noise levels at the nearest neighbours as a 

function of site wind speed; 

• determine the day-time and night-time criterion curves from the measured 

background noise levels at the nearest neighbours; 

• specify the type and noise emission (the sound power actually emitted by the 

turbines) characteristics of the wind turbines; 

• specify the number and locations of the wind turbines; 

• identify the locations of the nearest, or most noise sensitive, neighbours; 

• calculate the noise immission levels (the noise levels resulting at a particular 

location some distance away from the source of noise) due to the operation of the 

wind turbines as a function of site wind speed at the nearest neighbours; and 

• compare the calculated wind farm noise immission levels with the derived criterion 

curves. 




8.9.6 The above steps have been applied to the proposed wind energy development with the noise 

impact assessment being undertaken at a total of 10 locations comprising residential 

properties lying in the vicinity of the background noise monitoring locations. 

8.9.7 Applying the ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits at the assessment locations it has been 

demonstrated that both the day-time and night-time noise criterion limits can be satisfied at all 

properties across all wind speeds. Specifically, this assessment has determined that the most 

stringent noise limits of ETSU-R-97 are achieved under normal wind shear conditions. This 

assessment has been based on the use of the manufacturer’s warranted sound power data for 

the Nordex N90/2500HS wind turbine which is representative of the type and size of turbine 

which may be considered for this site, and assuming worst case downwind propagation. 

8.9.8 In summary, the overall effect of construction noise is considered to represent a negligible to 

minor effect; operational noise immission levels are acceptable in terms of the guidance 

commended by planning policy for the assessment of wind farm noise, and therefore 

considered not significant in EIA terms. 


8.10.1 The other operating, approved and/or proposed wind energy developments identified in the 

area are located at distances of more than 5 km from the proposed wind energy development, 

and therefore considered to generate negligible cumulative operational noise effects, and 

were not considered further. 


1 

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), Scottish Executive, February 2010. 

2 Planning Advice Note 45 (PAN 45) Renewable Energy Technologies. Scottish Executive, 

2002. 

3 Planning Advice Note 56 (PAN 56): Planning & Noise, 1999 

4 Control of Pollution Act, Part III, HMSO, 1974. 

5 BS 5228 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites 

6 

BS 5228-1:2009 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open 

sites – Part 1: Noise’. 

7 BS 5228-2:2009 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open 

sites – Part 2: Vibration’. 

8 ETSU-R-97, the Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, Final ETSU-R-97 

Report for the Department of Trade & Industry. UK Noise Working Group, 1997. 

9 Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, HMSO Department of Transport, 1988. 




10 Environmental Health Criteria 12 – Noise. World Health Organisation, 1980. 

11 Prediction and assessment of wind turbine noise – agreement about relevant factors for 

noise assessment from wind energy projects. D Bowdler, AJ Bullmore, RA Davis, MD Hayes, 

M Jiggins, G Leventhall, AR McKenzie. Institute of Acoustics, Acoustics Bulletin, Vol 34, No 2 

March/April 2009. 

12 ISO 9613-2 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: 

General method of calculation’, International Standards Organisation, ISO 9613-2, 1996. 

13 JOR3-CT95-0091 ‘Development of a Wind Farm Noise Propagation Prediction Model’, Bass 

J H, Bullmore A J, Sloth E, Final Report for EU Contract JOR3-CT95-0051, 1998. 




9 Landscape and Visual Assessment 


9.1.1 This Chapter of the ES describes the process and findings of the landscape and visual impact 

assessment (LVIA) for the proposed Forthbank wind energy development (herein after referred 

to as ‘the proposed wind energy development’ or ‘the proposal site’). The purpose of 

landscape and visual impact assessment is to identify and assess potential impacts from the 

proposed wind energy development on these landscape resources and visual amenity. 

Cumulative effects, arising from the effect of the proposed wind energy development in 

conjunction with other wind energy developments, are also considered. 

9.1.2 The assessment has been prepared and reviewed by chartered landscape architects at RPS in 

Edinburgh who undertook the work following a commission from PfR. 

9.1.3 Working graphics for the purpose of scheme assessment and design evolution, together with 

all figures and visualisation graphics, have been prepared by RPS. 

9.1.4 The proposal site location is shown in Figure 1.1 and the Site boundary and layout is illustrated 

in Figure 1.2. 

9.1.5 This assessment covers the construction, operational phase and de-commissioning of the wind 

energy development. The proposed wind energy development will consist of four variable 

pitch (three bladed) wind turbines with associated infrastructure, including access tracks, 

meteorological mast, and substation building. The landscape and visual assessment is based 

on a turbine which has a hub height of up to 80m and a blade length of 45m, giving a 

maximum blade tip height of 125m. Details of the proposed wind energy development are 

provided in Chapter 4. 

9.1.6 The landscape and visual assessment covers a study area of 35 kilometres (km) radius from 

each of the outermost turbines of the proposed development in all directions. A 35km radius is 

considered to be the maximum radius within which a significant effect could occur given the 

height of the turbines to be used, and was based on recommendations in current best practice 

guidance for turbines of 101m to 130m to blade tip (p.39, para 61 Visual Assessment of 

Windfarms: Best Practice SNH 2002). 

9.1.7 The study area is not intended to provide a boundary beyond which the wind energy 

development will not be seen, but rather to define the area within which the wind energy 

development may have a significant landscape or visual effect. A significant effect is, in reality, 

very unlikely to occur towards the edges of the study area. The 35km study area is shown in 

Figure 9.1 and more locally, a 10km study area in Figure 9.2. 

9.1.8 The LVIA is presented in six broad parts, each of which is further subdivided into sections. 

These six parts are: 

• methodology; 




• baseline conditions; 

• assessment of effects; 

• cumulative effects; 

• summary of effects; and 

• statement of significance. 

9.1.9 The landscape resource and the visual resource are separate but interconnected. Established 

guidance makes a distinction between landscape effects and visual effects, the latter being 

considered a specific subset of the former. By assembling and presenting information in a 

systematic and comprehensive manner, the assessment provides an understanding of the 

individual landscape and visual effects of the proposal, and gives an insight into the overall 

effects from the proposed wind energy development. 

9.1.10 There are eleven Appendices to this Chapter: 

• Appendix 9.1: Legislative background 

• Appendix 9.2: Figures 9.2.1/16 to Figures 9.2.16/16 present the Zone of Theoretical 

Visibility from hub height within the 35km study area. 

• Appendix 9.3: Figures 9.3.1/16 to Figures 9.3.16/16 present the Zone of Theoretical 

Visibility from upper arc of blade tip (125m) within the 35km study area. 

• Appendix 9.4: Table 9.4-1 presents the Landscape Character Classification System 

corresponding Landscape Character Types and units within the 35km Study Area. 

• Appendix 9.5: Table 9.5-1 and Table 9.5-2 present the baseline description and 

assessment of landscape character units which were considered to be less, or not 

affected. 

• Appendix 9.6: Table 9.6-1 presents the effects on settlements and routes which 

were considered to be affected. 

• Appendix 9.7: Table 9.7-1 presents a summary of landscape and visual effects. 

• Appendix 9.8: Table 9.8-1 presents cumulative wind energy developments within 

35km Study Area and Table 9.8-2 presents cumulative wind energy developments 

within 35km to 70km Study Area. 

• Appendix 9.9: Table 9.9-1 presents cumulative wind energy developments distances 

from the representative viewpoints within 35km Study Area. 

• Appendix 9.10 presents the assessments of cumulative effects of individual wind 

energy developments within 35km Study Area. and 




• Appendix 9.11 Figures CZTV 9.32 to Figures 9.55 present the Cumulative Zone of 

Theoretical Visibility of Forthbank proposal with cumulative wind energy 

developments within the 35km to 70km study area. 


Guidance 

9.2.1 The landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) has been based on the following best 

practice guidance: 

• Landscape Institute and Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment, 

(2002), Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2nd Edition, edited 

by the Landscape Institute and Institute for Environmental Management and 

Assessment, London and New York; and 

• Carys Swanwick Department of Landscape University of Sheffield and Land Use 

Consultants, (2002), Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and 

Scotland, Countryside Agency in conjunction with Scottish Natural Heritage, 

Gloucestershire and Edinburgh. 

9.2.2 The LVIA also takes account of advice within the following best practice documents: 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, (Version 2 revised April 2005),Guidance on the 

Cumulative Effects of Windfarms, Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh; 

• Brendan Turvey, (6 th of December 2007), Natural Heritage Guidance and 

Information, Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh; 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, (update March 2009), Strategic Locational Guidance for 

Onshore Windfarms in respect of the Natural Heritage, Policy Statement No. 02/02, 

Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh; 

• Horner + Maclennan and Envision, (29.03.2006), Visual Representation of 

Windfarms Good Practice Guidance, Report No: FO3 AA 308/2 prepared for 

Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Renewables Forum and Scottish Society of 

Directors of Planning, Inverness and Edinburgh; 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, (2001), Guidelines on the Impacts of Windfarms and 

Small Scale Hydroelectric Schemes, Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh; 

• University of Newcastle, (2002), Visual Assessment of Windfarms: Best Practice, 

Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA303A; 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, (December 2009), Siting and Designing windfarms in the 

landscape Version 1, Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh. 




9.2.3 In accordance with current best practice, the study area for the landscape and visual effects 

extends to 35km from the outer turbines. To assess the likely cumulative effects of the wind 

energy development the study area has been extended to 70km radius. These figures are 

based on the recommended distance of Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) as provided by 

‘Visual Assessment of Windfarms: Best Practice’, (p.58, para. 6.1.8) University of Newcastle 

2002. 

9.2.4 Planning policy is set out in Scottish Planning Policy document (SPP) and Planning Advice 

Notes (PANs) from the Scottish Government, and Structure Plans and Local Plans produced 

by Councils. In these documents, there are policies that relate to the environment and in 

particular to the landscape. 

• SPP: Scottish Planning Policy (2010); 

• PAN45: Renewable Energy Technologies, Scottish Executive (Revised 2002); and 

• PAN60: Planning for Natural Heritage (2000). 

9.2.5 Scottish Natural Heritage (2005) Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Windfarms in 

Respect of the Natural Heritage, contains guidance with regard to the sensitivity of Scotland in 

terms of its natural heritage, based on a desktop assessment of landscape and natural 

heritage designations. Areas of high, medium and low sensitivity are identified across 

Scotland, as well as intermediate areas (hatched areas on Map 5: Zones of Natural Heritage 

Sensitivity (SNH 2009) of the document). The proposed wind energy development site lies in 

an area of low sensitivity. 

Consultation 

9.2.6 Consultations were undertaken with statutory consultees through a ‘request for a formal 

scoping opinion’ in connection with the proposed wind energy development. Consultations 

have been carried out with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Stirling Council, Falkirk Council 

and Clackmannanshire Council. Consultation has focussed on the selection of viewpoints and 

cumulative wind energy developments to be considered in this assessment. The current SNH 

WindFarm GIS mapping dataset was consulted in order to identify other wind energy 

developments which would need to be included in the cumulative impact assessment. 

Table 9.1 Consultation 

Consultees 

SNH 

Discussion 

In SNH’s letter of 19 July 2010 the scoping advice for the LVIA’s first 12 viewpoints selected by 

RPS were agreed. 

A88 Bellsdyke viewpoint was excluded as on a level of 7m AOD the proposed wind energy 

development remained hidden by the Hill of Airth which rises up to a level of 30m AOD. 

Additional viewpoints were requested from the Ochil Hills, Clackmannanshire Bridge, Falkirk 

Wheel and routes for assessment of sequential/cumulative effects (M9, A811, A907, A84 and 

A873). 

SNH provided up to date data about cumulative wind energy developments and which wind 

energy developments the cumulative assessment should focus on. 

On the meeting on 19 August 2010 it was agreed to check for additional viewpoints at Tomtain 

Hill, Earl’s Hill, Cairnpapple and Saline Hill and to take a 360 degree view from Ben Cleuch for 

the cumulative assessment. 

SNH advised to focus the CLVIA on the likely significant impacts of the proposal in combination 

with wind energy developments such as: 

Forthbank + Braes of Doune; 

Forthbank + Craigengelt/Earlsburn/Earlsburn Extension/Muirpark; 

Forthbank + Burnfoot; and 




Consultees 

Falkirk Council 



Council 

Discussion 

Forthbank + Greenknowes. 

In their email from 9 July 2010 Falkirk Council agreed with chosen viewpoints and requested 

some additional viewpoints to be included into the assessment (South Alloa, Shieldhill, Falkirk 

Wheel) and provided up to date data about cumulative wind energy developments within 

Falkirk Council area. 

In their email from 20 July 2010 Stirling Council agreed with the chosen viewpoints and they 

suggested additional viewpoints in the Ochil Hills (Dumyat) and routes for assessment of 

sequential/cumulative effects (M9, A91, A873, A84, A811, A905). 

In their email from 19 Sep 2010 Clackmannanshire Council gave suggestions with regard to the 

viewpoints: VP1 – Papermill to be replaced by a view from the new section of the A876. As it 

would duplicate the view from VP2 – Kennet Pans the replacement viewpoint was taken from 

the A977 to the north; VP 13 - Ben Ever was replaced by Ben Cleuch; VP17 - Wee Torry was 

replaced by the summit of Dumyat; the VP4 - Alloa Tower should be supplemented by a view 

form the residential area to the south south-east of the Tower. 

The Council asked the development team to consider viewpoint from Castle Campbell, Dollar 

or the housing area to the north of Dollar eg Tarmangie Drive and from the M9 west of Junction 

8 from where there are views towards the Ochil Hills. 

In terms of the proposed layout Clackmannanshire Council highlighted that the Council owns 

the land to the north of the site that would contain the proposed group of 3 turbines. 

“Given the EIA process includes the consideration of alternatives, the potential availability of 

part or all of this land may be an issue that needs to be addressed.” Council would be 

interested in whether the proposed layout may have been different if the land on the attached 

plan had been in the control of the Council when the scheme was first designed. 

9.2.7 The relevant scoping advice and opinion letters from SNH and local authorities are presented 

in the Appendix 3.1 Scoping Report and Responses. 

Desktop Study 

9.2.8 A preliminary appraisal of the baseline landscape and visual characteristics of the site and 

study area was carried out through a desktop study. The following sources were reviewed in 

this process. 

Technical Information 

9.2.9 Baseline technical information supplied by PfR and Project Team relating to the proposal, such 

as proposed turbine models; operations during construction and de-commissioning; location 

and form of the substation etc has been used. A detailed project description is included in 

Chapter 4; ‘Project Description’. 

Ordnance Survey Maps 

• Explorer Map (scale 1:25 000) No 366 Stirling & Ochil Hills West; 

• Explorer Map (scale 1:25 000) No 367 Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy & Glenrothes South; 

• Explorer Map (scale 1:25 000) No 348 Campsie Fells; and 

• Explorer Map (scale 1:25 000) No 349 Falkirk, Cumbernauld & Livingstone. 

Landscape Character Assessments 

• ASH Consulting Group, (1998), Clackmannanshire landscape character 

assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 96; 




• ASH Consulting Group, (1999), Central Region landscape character assessment, 

Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 123; 

• David Tyldesley and Associates, (1999), Stirling to Grangemouth landscape 

character assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 124; 

• David Tyldesley and Associates, (1999), Fife landscape character assessment, 


• ASH Consulting Group, (1998), The Lothians landscape character assessment, 

Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 91; and 

• Land Use Consultants, (1999), Glasgow and the Clyde Valley landscape 

assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 116. 

Graphics and Visualisations 

Visibility Maps 

9.2.10 Computer generated Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) maps have been generated using 

WindFarm computer software to demonstrate the number of turbines that may theoretically 

be seen from any point in the study area. 

9.2.11 There are two ZTVs; the first, shown in Figure 9.7, indicates the number of turbines with hubs 

that are theoretically visible across the 35km radius while the second, shown in Figure 9.8 

indicates the number of turbines with blade tips that are theoretically visible across a 35km 

radius. 

9.2.12 These maps are based on a ‘bare ground’ model (Ordnance Survey (OS) Landform Panorama 

data based on a 50m grid terrain model derived from 1:50,000 scale mapping). This 

information is limited by the detail of the digital terrain model data used and this should be 

borne in mind in the consideration and use of the ZTVs. 

9.2.13 The ZTV maps do not take into account that areas within the ZTV zone can compromise 

woodland, hedgerows and built urban form or other local features that may prevent or reduce 

visibility. The ZTV maps do not take account of the orientation of a viewer, such as the 

direction of travel and while they do allow for factors such as earth curvature and atmospheric 

refraction there is no allowance for attenuation of visibility with distance, weather or light. 

Localised subtleties of the landform may not be picked up by this dataset and as such the 

resulting ZTV calculation does not include the subtle effects of localised landform variations. 

9.2.14 The ZTV maps do not indicate the amount of each wind turbine that can be seen, simply that 

part of it which is potentially visible. 

9.2.15 These limitations mean that the ZTV maps tend to overestimate the extent of the influence on 

the landscape and visibility of the proposal. It should be considered as a tool to assist in 

assessing the theoretical visibility of the proposal and not a measure of the visual impact. 




Visualisations 

9.2.16 The survey of the study area also included the viewpoint photography for the visual 

assessment, according to Visual Analysis of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance. 

Photographs were taken with a digital SLR camera (Canon EOS 5D) using a 21 million pixel 

image taken at 50mm focal length. All photography was taken using a tripod mounted camera 

at a viewing height of approximately 1.7m, and location data recorded with a hand-held GPS. 

9.2.17 The viewpoint analysis is illustrated with photographs and wireframes, with selective 

viewpoints additionally supported with a photomontage. Wireframes have been produced 

using the GPS data and WindFarm computer software, based on OS Landform Panorama 

data. All of the photographs, wireframes and photomontages have been produced to record a 

75 degree angle of view which is considered to represent the maximum angle of view that is 

seen at one time by a static viewer. 

9.2.18 For this assessment, the visualisations have been presented with a comfortable viewing 

distance from the page. Panoramas, wireframe views and photomontages are presented with 

a 300mm viewing distance (curved projection) at 395 x 130mm print dimensions. 

9.2.19 The photomontages relate to specific viewpoints and they assess the change in views from 

those locations. These receptors were chosen either to assess the significance of change 

from specific sensitive receptors, or as a representative view from a group of potential 

receptors. 

Field Survey 

9.2.20 The limitations of the ZTV mean that while the ZTVs are used as a starting point in the 

assessment, providing an indication of where the development will theoretically be visible, they 

do not provide a completely accurate or representative impression of the visibility of the wind 

energy development. Site survey is used to gain a more detailed, localised impression of 

visibility of the wind energy development. 

9.2.21 The field survey informs various parts of the assessment, including landscape effects, visual 

effects, sequential effects, and cumulative effects. 

9.2.22 An initial field survey was undertaken in April 2010, and further field survey work has been 

undertaken for this assessment over a number of months from May 2010 until the finalisation 

of the LVIA Report in September 2010. The study area was travelled extensively during the 

field study to verify the extent of the ZTV maps. The dates when the study area was explored 

and viewpoints taken are as follows: 29 April, 30 April, 3 May, 4 May, 9 May, 13 July, 23 July, 

25 July, 1 August, 19 August, 22 August, 27 August, 30 August, and 2 September. 

9.2.23 The site visit days were chosen to coincide with good visibility (15km to 25km) forecast, 

however it still proved difficult to achieve high quality photography due to the haze on the 

horizon and quickly moving clouds and sudden rain showers. Therefore several viewpoints 

had to be revisited to gain an acceptable standard of photography. 




9.2.24 The field survey allowed an appreciation of the scale, extent, prominence and distance from 

the proposed wind energy development to be experienced. 

9.2.25 The field survey is essential to inform the sequential impact assessment. The landscape 

characteristics of the route corridors and the views which can be gained throughout a journey 

can be understood, and how they are likely to be affected by the proposal. Similarly, the field 

survey is essential to the cumulative impact assessment, both in terms of assessing the 

combined impact of the various wind energy developments under consideration, and in terms 

of considering the overall capacity of the receiving landscape for wind energy development. 

The Influence of Weather 

9.2.26 Changing weather patterns and local climatic conditions will influence the visibility of the wind 

energy development in terms of the extent of view, the colour and contrast of the turbines and 

the number of turbines visible and thus the perceived visual impact. There will be periods of 

low visibility (sea mist, fog, low cloud and warm conditions that are accompanied by the haze 

of temperature inversions) as well as periods of high visibility in clear weather. Differing 

weather conditions would have an effect on how the proposed wind energy development may 

be seen. In some instances it may be ‘back-lit’ (appearing darker in colour during 

sunset/sunrise and periods of pale or white blanket cloud) and ‘up-lit’ during stormy periods 

that combine dark clouds and bright sunshine. The assessment assumes conditions of fine 

weather, and therefore is a reasonable worst case scenario. 

Identifying Effects 

The Type and Duration of Effects 

9.2.27 The assessment of landscape and visual effects is based on identifying the elements of the 

proposal, which are likely to have a significant effect. The three main stages of the 

development are: 

• Construction: temporary and of a short duration; 

• Operational: the proposed operational phase of the wind energy development is 

time-limited (25 years); and 

• De-commissioning: temporary and of a short duration. 

Nature of Effects 

9.2.28 The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) describe the nature of 

effects as follows: 

…Effects can be negative (adverse) or positive (beneficial); direct, indirect, 

secondary or cumulative and be either permanent or temporary (short, medium or 

long term). They can also arise at different scales (local, regional or national) and 

have different levels of significance (local, regional or national). (p.84, para 7.6) 




9.2.29 The guidance does not provide further detail or definitions of these effects. The nature of effect 

is therefore one that requires subjective interpretation and, where applied, this involves 

reasoned professional opinion. 

9.2.30 The landscape and visual resource of an area can be affected both directly and indirectly. 

Visual impacts are always direct because when an object is not in view by implication there 

can be no impact; impacts on visual amenity also depend on visibility and are therefore also 

direct. Landscape impacts on the other hand can be either direct or indirect. 

9.2.31 Change which affects onsite physical features (i.e. vegetation, buildings and landform), or the 

character area/unit in which the site is located, is a direct landscape impact, whereas an 

impact arising on the character of surrounding landscape character areas/units is indirect. It is 

assumed that indirect impacts would be intrinsically less significant than direct ones. 

9.2.32 In general, the scope of landscape and visual impact is either direct or indirect. Direct 

(primary) describes effects on the landscape fabric and character of the site, and on views and 

visual amenity. Indirect (secondary) describes effects on the surrounding landscape character. 

9.2.33 Wind energy developments generate a variety of responses ranging from strongly adverse to 

strongly positive. This depends on the type of effect and the perception/opinion of the 

observer. Experience of individual responses to proposed wind turbine development is that 

opinions can differ not only between close (i.e. adjacent) neighbours but also between 

members of the same family living in the same house. 

9.2.34 It is important to note that judgements in this LVIA are impartial and based on professional 

experience and opinion informed by best practice guidance. Whatever the judgement made 

(whether adverse or beneficial) by either of the polarised camps in the wind energy 

development debate, there will be a contrary judgement which, provided it is founded on 

reliable information and genuinely held, will be legitimate and should therefore be afforded 

respect. 

Duration and Reversibility of Effects 

9.2.35 The effects of the wind energy development are of variable duration, and are assessed as 

short-term or long-term, and permanent or reversible. 

9.2.36 It is proposed that the operational life of the wind energy development will be 25 years, and the 

turbines, access tracks, the permanent meteorological mast and substation will be apparent 

during this time. These effects are considered to be long-term. Other infrastructure and 

operations such as the temporary compounds will be apparent only during the construction and 

initial operating period of the wind energy development, and are considered to be short-term 

effects. 

9.2.37 The reversibility of effects is also variable. The major effects on the landscape and visual 

resource, which result from the presence of the turbines, are reversible as the turbines will be 

removed on de-commissioning. The effects that will occur during the six month construction 

period and six month de-commissioning of the site, such as the use of tall cranes and heavy 

machinery, are also reversible. 




9.2.38 Permanent effects are those that will remain following the de-commissioning of the proposed 

wind energy development. The access tracks will have a permanent effect. It should be noted 

that the majority of the access tracks already exist on the site. Underground cabling and 

turbine foundations will be left in-situ, below ground, but will have no permanent landscape and 

visual effects following the restoration of ground cover following de-commissioning. Any 

removal of mature trees or loss of landscape features is considered permanent within the 

timeframe of 25 years. 

9.2.39 Where significant effects arise these will most likely be as a result of the turbines. The 

significant effects which occur in relation to the turbines will be long-term and reversible. To 

avoid repetition, the duration and reversibility of effects are not reiterated throughout the 

assessment. 

Landscape Effects 

9.2.40 “Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape which may give rise to 

changes in its character and how this is experienced. This may in turn affect the perceived 

value ascribed to the landscape” (para. 2.14, GLVIA 2002). 

9.2.41 The physical effects on the landscape are the direct effects from the proposed wind energy 

development on the site, which can alter the land cover, landscape features and the landscape 

character of the site. In addition, the operational activities associated with the proposal, 

including the movement of vehicles within the construction, operation and de-commissioning 

phases, can extend the direct physical effects beyond the immediate site area. 

9.2.42 There are also perceptual changes to the landscape within the study area, from the effects of 

the proposed wind energy development on the landscape character. These effects are 

determined through an assessment of the existing character of the landscape, and how this is 

likely to be altered by the proposed wind energy development. 

Visual Effects 

9.2.43 “Visual effects relate to the changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result 

of changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the change, and to the overall effects 

with respect to visual amenity” (para. 2.15, GLVIA, 2002). 

9.2.44 The assessment of visual effects has been made through the in-depth analysis of agreed 

viewpoints, selected to represent the range of views and viewer types from where the 

proposed development is theoretically visible and to determine whether the effects are likely to 

be significant. 

9.2.45 The viewpoint locations cover individual residences and settlements; main transport routes; 

main visitor locations; areas of cultural significance; the range of landscape character types 

within the study area; and the cumulative effects of the proposal in combination with other 

existing or proposed wind energy developments in the study area. 




Static Effects 

9.2.46 The assessment of static visual effects is through analysis of individual viewpoints, considered 

representative of the range of views within the study area. 

Sequential Effects 

9.2.47 Individual viewpoints are selected on the basis of where the proposal is theoretically visible 

from and where it is likely to have a significant effect. This can create a slightly misleading 

impression when assessing a number of viewpoints along a route. The sections of the route 

from where the proposal is not visible tend not to be represented through viewpoints. 

9.2.48 The assessment of the proposed wind energy development’s potential effects on the 

motorways is based on the analysis of the experience recorded during the field study. It is 

prohibited to stop on these roads and a lower speed limit is set in order to preserve normal 

flow. Due to the speed and the orientation of these roads it is difficult to gain a constant long 

view. The direction of the view is determined as straight forward and brief glimpses to the side 

are not considered in the assessment. 

9.2.49 The assessment of sequential effects is therefore undertaken partly through the analysis of 

viewpoints along main transport routes, partly through an assessment of the existing 

characteristics of the route, and partly through analysis of other visualisation tools such as the 

Zone of Theoretical Visibility and OS maps. 


9.2.50 The assessment of cumulative effects describes the effects of each individual wind energy 

development (installed, approved, in planning) within 70 km of the proposed Forthbank wind 

energy development that interacts with the wind energy development, including supporting 

graphics such as cumulative ZTVs and cumulative visualisations. 

9.2.51 Cumulative effects on visual amenity can be experienced either from static viewpoints, where 

two or more developments can be seen from a single location (combined visibility); or 

sequentially, where in the process of moving along a route, two or more proposals are visible. 

9.2.52 Combined visibility is experienced either in combination, where more than one wind energy 

development is visible within the same field of view, or in succession, where only by turning to 

face another direction is any other wind energy development visible. 

9.2.53 The proposed turbines in this instance are over 100m height to which the cumulative 

assessment guidance recommends a search area of 70km. 

9.2.54 An initial list of all wind energy developments within 70km of the proposed wind energy 

development was prepared based on information derived from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) 

and the Renewable UK (formally the British Wind Energy Association). Falkirk Council 

supplied information concerning the wind energy developments such as Rullie, Burnhead, 

Callander Estates and a Community project near Torwood. 




9.2.55 Cumulative assessment methodology is discussed later in the section 9.5 Cumulative 

Landscape and Visual Effects. 

Assessment Criteria 

9.2.56 The objective of the assessment process is to identify and evaluate the predicted significant 

effects arising from the proposed wind energy development. The assessment informs the 

layout in an effort to prevent, reduce or offset the significant effects. This process has 

embedded primary mitigation measures within the design of the proposal. 

9.2.57 The assessment then identifies and evaluates the residual effects within the finalised design. 

In order to provide a level of consistency and transparency to the assessment, and allow 

comparisons to be made between the various landscape and visual receptors, the assessment 

of significance is based on pre-defined methodology and criteria. 

9.2.58 Significance is not graded in bands, and a degree of informed judgement is required. Even 

with the application of pre-defined criteria, interpretation may differ between individuals, but 

this allows the process of reaching these conclusions to be transparent. 

Sensitivity of Receptor 

9.2.59 The sensitivity of a landscape or a view to change varies according to the nature of the existing 

resource and the nature of the proposed change. Considerations of value, integrity and 

capacity are all relevant when assessing sensitivity. For this purpose, these terms are defined 

as follows: 

Value 

9.2.60 The value or importance attached to a landscape for its scenic or aesthetic qualities, or cultural 

associations, can be recognised through national, regional or local designation. A viewpoint 

that is marked on tourist maps, signposted, or otherwise recognised may have a greater 

importance, and this may be increased if facilities for the enjoyment of the view such as a 

viewpoint indicator, benches or footpaths are provided. Conversely, a viewpoint located on a 

minor road may have a more limited importance. A viewpoint that is visited or used by a large 

number of people will tend to have greater importance than one gained by very few people, 

although this is not always the case. The greater the importance of the viewpoint, the greater 

its sensitivity is likely to be. 

Integrity 

9.2.61 The degree to which the value has been retained, the condition and integrity of the landscape 

or the view. The integrity/quality of a landscape character receptor is a reflection of its 

attributes, such as sense of place and scenic quality, and the extent to which these attributes 

have remained intact. A landscape with consistent, intact and well-defined, distinctive 

attributes is generally considered to be of higher quality and, in turn, higher sensitivity, than a 

landscape where the introduction of inappropriate elements has detracted from its inherent 

attributes. However, there are instances when the quality of a landscape may have been 




degraded to an extent whereby it is considered to be in a fragile state and therefore a 

degraded landscape may have a higher sensitivity to wind energy development. 

Capacity 

9.2.62 The ability of a landscape or view to accommodate the proposed change while retaining the 

essential characteristics which define it. The existing landscape character determines the 

degree to which the receptor may accommodate the influence of the proposed wind energy 

development. For example, a landscape that is of a particularly remote character may have a 

higher sensitivity to the influence of the wind energy development due to the contrast that the 

wind energy development would have with the landscape whereas a developed, industrial 

landscape, where built elements and structures are already part of the landscape character, 

may have a low sensitivity. 

9.2.63 When assessing sensitivity, values currently placed on the landscape, in terms of policy or 

designation, are considered. This chapter identifies whether the policies themselves have 

been developed though landscape character assessment. 

9.2.64 Objectives are often set at a county or local level for each landscape character type. These 

include conservation, enhancement, maintenance or restoration of existing character and 

creation of a new character. The ability of a development to fit with the objectives can also be 

taken into account in determining the landscape’s sensitivity. 

9.2.65 The level of sensitivity of each receptor is a product of the specific combination of value, quality 

and existing landscape character as evaluated for that receptor. The combination of these 

three criteria and the resulting level of sensitivity to the proposed wind energy development are 

described in the evaluation of sensitivity for each receptor. The following table defines the 

criteria, which have guided the judgement as to the Sensitivity of the Receptor. 

Table 9.2 Sensitivity of Receptor 

Landscape Sensitivity Criteria 

High 

Medium 

Low tolerance to change. 

Nationally designated/valued countryside and 

landscape features; strong/distinctive landscape 

character; absence of landscape detractors. No 

incongruous features. 

Best examples of a particular landscape type. 

These landscapes may be open or exposed with a 

remote character and an absence of man-made 

features. They are often highly visible from adjacent 

landscapes and exhibit a high density of sensitive 

landscape features. 

Medium tolerance to change. 

Locally designated/valued countryside and landscape 

features; with moderate strength of character; some 

distinctive landscape characteristics; few landscape 

detractors; may have suffered some decline and may 

feature occasional incongruous features. 

These landscapes may have some enclosure, or be 

affected by some man-made features, or have little 

inter-visibility with adjacent landscapes and exhibit a 

moderate density of sensitive landscape features. 



Degrees of Sensitivity for Visual Receptors to 

this type of development 

Public views from: Designed vistas or viewpoints; 

Settlements or groups of dwellings; Public open 

space; 

Motorways and A class roads; National Trails or 

named recreational paths; Designated Tourist 

Routes; 

Outdoor recreational and tourism 

spaces/activities; 

Navigable waterways; Private views from 

residential properties. 

Observer’s attention very likely to be focused on 

landscape. 

People experiencing views from important 

landscape features of physical, cultural or historic 

interest, beauty spots and picnic areas. 

Public views from: B class and local distributor 

roads; 

Main railways; Local railways; Other public 

footpaths/bridleways. 

Observer’s attention may be focused on 

landscape, such as road or rail users, users of 

secondary footpaths, and people engaged in 

outdoor sport or recreation. e.g. fishing, water 

sports, golf 

Low High tolerance to change. Public views from: Low usage roads; Little used


Landscape Sensitivity Criteria 

Undesignated countryside and landscape features; 

absence of distinctive landscape characteristics; 

presence of landscape detractors; with poorly defined 

character, often fragmented; and/or featuring 

significant atypical or discordant features. 

Bland or degraded landscapes that have no local 

associations and very few or no locally valued 

features. 

These landscapes are likely to have a strong sense 

of enclosure that reduces visual sensitivity, are likely 

to be already affected by man-made features, have 

reduced tranquillity, are likely to have little intervisibility 

with adjacent landscapes and exhibit a low 

density of sensitive landscape features. 

Degrees of Sensitivity for Visual Receptors to 

this type of development 

footpaths; 

Private views from: Commercial properties; 

Industrial properties; Agricultural land. 

Views from work places, main roads and 

undesignated countryside/landscape features. 

Observer’s attention not focused on landscape, 

observers in vehicles or people involved in daily 

activities. 

Magnitude of Change 

9.2.66 The magnitude of change is an expression of the scale of the change that will result from the 

addition of the wind energy development to a view. The magnitude of change has been 

assessed according to these parameters, which are largely quantifiable. The following 

considerations relating to the appearance of the wind energy development and its relationship 

with the landscape are relevant when evaluating the magnitude of change. 

Distance 

9.2.67 The distance between the receptor and the development. Generally, the greater the distance, 

the lower the magnitude of change as the wind energy development will constitute a less 

apparent component of the view. 

Extent 

9.2.68 The extent of the proposal, which is visible. Visibility may range from one blade tip to all of the 

turbines. Generally, the more of the wind energy development that can be seen, the higher the 

magnitude of change will be. 

Unity 

9.2.69 The relationship of the turbines to each other affects whether the wind energy development 

reads as a cohesive entity or appears to be fragmented. Turbines overlapping can also 

produce a distracting and uncomfortable visual effect. It is virtually inevitable that from some 

angles this will occur, but the extent to which this happens, and the importance of the views 

from where this takes place has an influence on the significance of the effect. Other vertical 

elements, such as pylons, can also detract from the unity of the proposal and add to a sense of 

visual confusion. 

Proportion 

9.2.70 The arc of view occupied by the wind energy development in proportion to the overall field of 

view. A panoramic view, where the wind energy development takes up a small part of it, will 




generally be of lower magnitude than a narrow, focussed view, even if the arc of view occupied 

by the proposal is similar. 

Duration 

9.2.71 The duration of the effect. An effect experienced in a single location over an extended period 

of time is likely to result in a higher magnitude of change than an effect which is of a short 

duration, such as a glimpsed view from a road. 

Orientation 

9.2.72 The angle of the view in relation to the main receptor orientation. If the wind energy 

development is seen in a specific, directional vista, the magnitude of change will generally be 

greater. The more oblique the angle of the view, the lower the magnitude is likely to be, as the 

traveller has to make an increasing effort to see the site, and may not be aware of it at all. 

Context 

9.2.73 The elements, which in combination provide the setting and context to the proposal. In 

particular, vertical man-made structures within the context can decrease the magnitude of 

change. 

Scale 

9.2.74 The scale of the landform and the patterns of the landscape, the existing land use and 

vegetation cover, and the degree and type of development and settlement seen in the view will 

all be relevant. In general, the large scale of the turbines tends to be better accommodated in a 

large scale and relatively simple landscape. In addition, uncomfortable comparisons of scale 

can be created where the turbines are seen in the context of elements of a more domestic 

scale such as housing. 

Background 

9.2.75 Turbines seen against a single backdrop, e.g. sky or moorland, will generally be more coherent 

than those viewed against a variety of backdrops. Where one particular backdrop 

predominates, the selection of an appropriate colour and texture to the turbines can help 

mitigate the effects by reducing their visibility against this backdrop. 

The Setting 

9.2.76 The setting of the view in terms of the foreground, middle ground and backdrop. Setting also 

relates to the complexity or simplicity of the landscape or view, the sense of remoteness or 

development, which provides the context for the proposal. Views of the wind energy 

development that are gained directly over water, with no foreground and no middle ground and 

with the site forming the backdrop, are likely to have a higher magnitude of change than those 




with ‘layers’ of landscape that form the foreground and middle ground. This is because the 

lack of intervening landscape gives the wind energy development more influence than it would 

have if it was seen in the context of a more detailed foreground and middle ground, which 

would distract the eye away from the relatively distant landscape of the site. 

Reasoning 

9.2.77 Experience from recent wind energy development and planning appeals in the UK indicates 

that 100m high plus wind turbines are perceived as ‘prominent’ features in the landscape at 0- 

3km and are ‘present’ from 3-10km, with the degree of ‘presence’ diminishing with distance. 

Beyond 10km the presence of the wind turbines would gradually reduce as they are perceived 

more and more as part of the landscape at large. The perception of wind energy 

developments which are more than 100m in height (blade tip) will depend on distance as 

follows: 

Table 9.3 Reasoning 

Range Distance Reasoning 

threshold 

Close Up to 3 km At close range the proposal would appear as ‘prominent’ features and visual receptors would 

tend to experience high to medium/low magnitude of change when compared with existing view. 

Medium Between 

3 – 10 km 

In medium range views the proposals would appear as ‘present’ features and visual receptors 

would tend to experience medium/low to negligible/low magnitude of change compared to the 

existing situation. 

Conspicuous, noticeable element in the wider landscape, only prominent in clear visibility, 

movement of blades perceptible to casual observer. 

Long 

More than 

10 -20 km 

In long range views the proposals would read as part of the landscape and visual receptors 

would tend to experience a low to negligible magnitude of change compared to the existing 

situation. 

Apparent, visible element of a wide landscape, turbines begin to be perceived as a group 

forming a wind energy developments rather than individual elements, blade movement only 

perceptible in clear conditions 

Far 20–30 km Inconspicuous, slight element of a wide landscape composition, only seen in very clear visibility, 

movement of blades generally unclear 

9.2.78 Whilst it is evident that visibility varies according to weather conditions, season, time of day, 

direction of view, the number of turbines and their compositional qualities, it does provide a 

useful initial guide. 

Table 9.4 Magnitude of Change 

Criteria for Magnitude of Landscape Change 

Criteria for Magnitude of Visual Amenity 

Change 

High Total loss of/very substantial loss of key landscape 

elements/features/patterns of the baseline i.e. pre 

development landscape and/or introduction of 

totally uncharacteristic elements with the attributes 

of the receiving landscape. 

Complete or very substantial change of view over 

a very extensive area: 

change very prominent involving complete or very 

substantial obstruction of existing view or complete 

change in character and composition of baseline, 

i.e. pre development, view through removal of key 

elements or addition of uncharacteristic elements. 

Medium Partial loss of/moderate alteration to one or more 

key elements/features/patterns of the baseline i.e. 

Moderate change of view in a localised area: 

which may involve partial obstruction of existing 

pre development landscape and/or introduction of view or partial change in character and 

elements that may not necessarily be substantially 

uncharacteristic with the attributes of the receiving 

landscape. 

composition of baseline, i.e. pre development, 

view through the introduction of new elements or 

removal of existing elements. Change may be 

prominent but will not substantially alter scale and 

character of the surroundings and the wider 

setting. Composition of the views will alter. View 

character may be partially changed through the 

introduction of features which, though 

uncharacteristic, may not necessarily be visual 

discordant. 

Low Minor loss of/alteration to one or more key Minor change in baseline, i.e. pre development 




Negligible 

Criteria for Magnitude of Landscape Change 



elements that may not be uncharacteristic with the 

surrounding landscape. 

Very minor loss of/alteration to one or more key 



elements that are not uncharacteristic with the 

surrounding landscape approximately the ‘nochange’ 

situation. 

Criteria for Magnitude of Visual Amenity 

Change 

view – change will be distinguishable from the 

surroundings whilst composition and character will 

be similar to the pre change circumstances. 

Very slight change in baseline i.e. pre 

development view – change barely distinguishable 

from the surroundings. Composition and character 

of view substantially unaltered. 

9.2.79 There may also be intermediate levels of magnitude of change where the degree of change 

falls between two of the definitions. 

Significance of Effect 

9.2.80 The purpose of a LVIA is to determine, the likely significant environmental effects of a project. 

It is accepted that, due to the nature and scale of development, a proposed wind energy 

development could potentially give rise to some significant visual and landscape effects. 

However, it should be stressed that, not all landscape and visual effects arising would be 

significant in LVIA terms. Furthermore, a significant effect would not necessarily mean that the 

effect is unacceptable in planning terms. What is important is that the likely effects are 

transparently assessed and understood in order that the determining authority can bring a 

balanced, well-informed judgement to bear when making the planning decision. 

9.2.81 The significance of effects on landscape, views and visual amenity are evaluated according to 

a five-point scale: Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible or None. A description of the significance 

criteria is provided in Table 9.5 below. 

Table 9.5 Significance of Effect 

Significance Landscape Resource 

of Effects 

Major Where the proposed changes would be 

uncharacteristic and/or would significantly alter a 

valued aspect of the landscape. 

Moderate Where proposed changes would be noticeably out 

of scale or at odds with the character of an area. 

Minor 

Where proposed changes would be at slight 

variance with the character of an area. 

Negligible Where proposed changes would have an 

indiscernible effect on the character of an area. 

None Where the proposal would be in keeping with the 

landscape character of the area and/or would 

maintain landscape quality, or where the benefits 

of proposed mitigation would balance adverse 

impacts. 

Visual Resource/Amenity 

Where the proposed changes would be 

uncharacteristic and/or would significantly alter a 

valued view or a view of high scenic quality. 

Where proposed changes to views would be 

noticeably out of scale or at odds with the 

existing view. 

Where proposed changes to views, although 

discernible, would only be at slight variance with 

the existing view. 

Where proposed changes would have a barely 

noticeable effect on views/visual amenity. 

Where proposal would retain existing views, or 

where on balance the proposed mitigation would 

maintain the quality of views (i.e. adverse 

impacts are balanced by beneficial effects). 

9.2.82 Temporary changes, i.e. those during construction and de-commissioning, may have higher 

rating than the ‘significance of effects’ assessment would suggest. This is due to their 

temporary nature. 

9.2.83 The significance of the landscape and visual effects are assessed through a combination of the 

sensitivity of the receptor with the magnitude of change. This information is assimilated to 

assess whether or not the wind energy developments will have an effect that is significant or 

not significant. The variables considered in the evaluation of the sensitivity of each view and 




the magnitude of the change upon it are not utilised in matrices, but are considered holistically 

in order that the relevant considerations can be individually assessed, and the attribution of 

ratings or formulae is avoided. 

Table 9.6 Categories for Significance of Effect 

Landscape And Magnitude Of Change 

Visual Sensitivity High Medium Low Negligible 

High Major Moderate to Major Moderate to minor Minor 

Medium Major to Moderate Moderate Minor to moderate Negligible to minor 

Low Moderate Moderate to minor Minor Negligible 

9.2.84 The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact assessment (2002) (GLVIA) states “the 

relationship between the two axis (sensitivity and magnitude) is not linear. The axis (in the 

matrix) is also likely to have different weightings, as the nature and scale of effects are largely 

derived from objective data, while the sensitivity and value of a landscape resource is largely 

derived from subjective judgements” (GLVIA para. 7.47). 

9.2.85 The landscape and visual effects which are classified as Major or Major to Moderate are 

considered by the assessor to be equivalent to the likely significant effects referred to in the 

Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999. 

9.2.86 Significance can vary depending on individual circumstances and the baseline situation, for 

example the presence of landscape designations and/or visual detractors. This is particularly 

true of the effects on landscape resources for instance in assessing whether (or not) a 

proposed development would a) give rise to a new landscape character type in its own right 

where the proposed development would be the defining landscape characteristic and/or b) give 

rise to a new landscape sub-type in which the proposed development would be major 

contributory element in defining character. In the first case the resulting effect would normally 

be significant. In the second case the assessor must use professional judgement to determine 

if the effect is significant or not. 

9.2.87 A conclusion that an effect is 'significant' should not be taken to imply that the proposed 

development is unacceptable. Significance of effect needs to be considered with regard to the 

scale over which it is experienced. 

9.3 Baseline Conditions 

9.3.1 This section sets out the existing conditions in relation to the site and surrounding area. The 

process of this survey helps to gain an understanding of what makes the landscape distinctive, 

and what its important components or characteristics are. The baseline study is instrumental 

in the identification of the landscape character receptors, views and visual receptors to be 

included in the assessment. 

9.3.2 The baseline study is presented in five sections: 

• landscape-related planning designations; 

• landscape character types and units; 

• the proposal site and surrounding Landscape Context; 




• the ZTV of the proposed wind energy development; and 

• principal visual receptors and representative viewpoints. 

Landscape Related Planning Designations 

9.3.3 The proposed wind energy development site itself is not covered by any international, national 

or regional landscape-related planning designations. Various nationally and regionally 

designated areas are, however, found elsewhere in the study area and these have been 

considered. The designated areas that are relevant to the assessment are shown on Figure 

9.3 ‘Landscape Designations’ and are described below. 

9.3.4 Appendix 9.1 identifies policies relevant to landscape. 

9.3.5 There are three ways in which such designations can be relevant to the landscape and visual 

assessment: 

• the presence of a designation can give an indication of a recognised value that may 

increase the sensitivity of a landscape character receptor, viewpoint or visual 

receptor, and may therefore influence the significance of the effect on that receptor; 

• the presence of a relevant designation can lead to the selection of a representative 

viewpoint within the designated area, as the viewpoint will provide a representative 

outlook from that area; and 

• designated areas may be included as landscape character receptors so that the 

effects of the proposed wind energy development on these features of the 

landscape that have been accorded particular value can be specifically assessed. 

Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) 

9.3.6 Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV); a range of regional areas identified as being of 

scenic importance. Designated by Local Authorities and protected in Development Plans 

(Structure and Local Plans). Areas of Great Landscape Value are identified in the 

Development Plan as areas of high landscape quality with strong and distinctive characteristics 

which make them particularly sensitive to development. The AGLVs and associated policies 

are determined by the individual planning authorities. While the common purpose of the 

designation is to protect AGLVs from potentially harmful development, the policies can differ in 

their intent both between regions and between adopted and emerging plans. 

9.3.7 There are a large number of AGLVs across the study area. These tend to cover the more rural 

hills of a landscape and are mostly defined by a particular landscape character. The Areas of 

Great Landscape Value (AGLV) within the ZTV are as follows: 

• The Ochil Hills (the Lowland Hills landscape character unit) is entirely designated as 

an AGLV. The Ochil Hills dominate the landscape of Clackmannanshire and provide 

a backdrop for the town of Stirling. The Ochil Hills play an important role in 




recreational access, nature conservation value and water supply to local residents 

and visitors. 

• Bridge of Allan is entirely designated as an AGLV and falls within the ZTV. Bridge of 

Allan is a largely residential settlement nestled between the Allan Water and the 

substantially wooded western end of the Ochil Hills. The high quality of the built 

environment is reflected in the extensive Bridge of Allan Conservation Area, which 

covers the majority of the area to the west of Stirling University. 

• The Abbey Craig is the hill upon which the Wallace Monument stands, at 

Causewayhead, just to the north of Stirling. The Abbey Craig falls within the ZTV. 

• The Black Devon Valley (Devon/Forth landscape character unit of the Lowland River 

Fringe) has extensive areas of broadleaved woodland on relatively unspoilt, gently 

undulating grasslands. It is designated an AGLV. The ZTV covers the eastern 

boundaries of Alloa and Clackmannan. 

• A modest range of hills in South Fife, the Cullaloe Hills 1.5km south southwest of the 

Mossmorran gas fractionation plant and 3km northwest of Aberdour, are designated 

as Cullaloe Hill/The Binn AGLV. The Cullaloe Hills are outwith the ZTV and therefore 

no further assessment was required. 

• Upland Igneous and Volcanic Hills such as, the Cleish Hills, Benarty Hill and 

Lomond Hills are designated as AGLV. The Cleish Hills extends to a 15-25km radius 

and the Lomond Hills a 30-35km radius in an east direction within the study area. 

The Cleish Hill Slopes (Saline Hill and Knock Hill) fall within the ZTV. Benarty Hill 

and Lomond Hills remain outwith the ZTV and no further assessment was 

considered necessary. 

• The Lowland Hills such as Touch Hills, Campsie Fells and Gargunnock Hills are 

designated as AGLV. These Lowland Hills extend in the west part of the study area. 

The ZTV indicates potential visibility from the Touch Hills. 

• The Pentland Hills extend along the study area’s southern boundary. There is 

sporadic ZTV cover over the Pentland Hills’ northern fringe. 

• The part of the Avon Valley and Slamannan Plateau which is designated as an 

AGLV remains outwith the ZTV and no further assessment was considered 

necessary. 

• The Bathgate Hills and River Avon Valley AGLV sits between the towns of 

Livingston and Bathgate to the south, Linlithgow to the north, Broxburn to the east 

and the village of Torphichen to the west. The ZTV extends between Livingston and 

Bathgate to the 18-20 km radius in a south direction within the study area. 

• The area to the west of South Queensferry along the Forth shore and areas of land 

around Cramond Kirk, the River Almond Valley and Cramond Island are also 

designated as AGLVs and fall within the ZTV. 




• The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs AGLV flows over the study area to a 30-35km 

radius in between Glen Artney and Mentheith Hills. The foothills of Mentheith Hills 

are within the ZTV. 

Regional Scenic Area (RSA) 

9.3.8 A Regional Scenic Area (RSA) is an area of land considered to be important on a regional level 

on the basis of their outstanding scenic interest. North Lanarkshire Local Plan finalised Draft 

2009 shows that the Rugged Moorland Hills–the Kilsyth Hills are contained within a Regional 

Scenic Area. The Kilsyth Hills possess visual prominence, scenic quality, value and sensitivity 

and are a dominant feature of this Regional Scenic Area. The ZTV indicates potential visibility 

of the proposed wind energy development from the peaks of the Kilsyth Hills, such as Tomtain 

Hill, Cock Hill, Castle Hill and Meikle Bin. 

National Scenic Areas (NSA) 

9.3.9 A National Scenic Area (NSA) is an area of land considered to be important on a national level 

on the basis of its outstanding scenic interest or unsurpassed attractiveness which must be 

conserved as part of the country’s natural heritage. NSAs are also recognised at the national 

level through policy guidance issued by the Scottish Government, particularly National 

Planning Policy Guidance 14, Natural Heritage. 

9.3.10 The River Earn (Comrie to St. Fillans) NSA, on the northern edge of the study area remains 

outwith the ZTV and is therefore not assessed further. 

Sites of Special Landscape Importance (SSLI) 

9.3.11 “Sites of Special Landscape Importance (SSLI) have been identified for the contribution that 

they make to the quality of life for those who live, learn, work and play within the Glasgow City. 

Conversely, their loss or erosion would reduce the attractiveness of the City to both citizens 

and visitors.” National Planning Policy Guideline 14: Natural Heritage (NPPG 14) makes it 

clear that planning policies have an important role to play in encouraging the further 

enhancement of landscapes and amenity in an urban area.’ (City Plan-Part2-Development 

Policies-Section9-Greenspace-Landscape and Environment; ENV8 SSLI) 

9.3.12 The SSLI on the south west edge of the study area remains outwith the ZTV and therefore is 

not assessed further. 

Natural and Cultural Heritage Designations 

Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park 

9.3.13 The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs AGLV flows over the study area to a 30-35km radius in 

between Glen Artney and Mentheith Hills. The foothills of Mentheith Hills are within the ZTV. 

Within the study area it overlaps with Loch Lomond and the Trossachs AGLV and is shown in 

Figure 9.4. 




Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes 

9.3.14 The Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes includes private gardens, parks, policies 

in country estates and botanical gardens. There is an obligation on planning authorities to 

consult with Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland on any development in these sites. 

These designated sites, although not protected by legislation, are recognised formally within 

the planning system. 

9.3.15 There are several inventory-listed Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes in the study 

area. Nine of which fall within the ZTV of the proposed wind energy development, these are 

listed in Table 9.7 below. 

9.3.16 Table 9.7 Gardens and Designed Landscapes 

10km radius ZTV zone 

Dunmore Park Proposed refurbishment of Grade B Listed Dunmore Park House and Stables to provide 

dwellings, with additional new build residential development. 

The area is surrounded by woods. 

The Pineapple Standing a mile north of the village of Airth, the Pineapple was built by the 4th Earl of Dunmore, 

John Murray, in 1761, in the form of a pavilion from which to view the walled gardens of Dunmore 

Park. 


Viewpoint 10 is taken from the public footpath which leads to Dunmore woods. 

Tulliallan 

Tulliallan Castle is a large house in Kincardine. The building is now used as the administrative 

head of the Scottish Police College. 


Dunimarle Dunimarle Castle is located 1 km west of the centre of the village of Culross in Fife. 


Airthrey Castle Airthrey Castle lies just to the east of Bridge of Allan, 3 km northeast of Stirling, and today forms 

the administrative centre for the University of Stirling, lying at the centre of a 134 ha parkland 

campus. 


20km radius ZTV zone 

Callendar Park Extensive park surrounding Callendar House, open all year. 

The ditch of the Antonine Wall can be seen in the grounds of Callendar Park. 


Touch House A-listed mansion house on the northeastern edge of the Touch Hills. Touch House lies 1¼ miles 

(2 km) west of Cambusbarron and 4 km west of Stirling. Set within picturesque parkland. 

Keir House Keir House stands on high ground looking out over the Carse of Lecropt, 5 km northwest of 

Bridge of Allan. 


Blair Drummond Blair Drummond lies a mile to the south of Doune and 6 km northwest of Stirling. Today over 

1500 acres of the policy lands at Blair Drummond are given over to Scotland's only Safari and 

Leisure Park established in the 1970s. 


9.3.17 The Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes are shown in Figure 9.4 and have been 

included in the assessment both as specific receptors and as factors to be considered in the 

sensitivity of landscape character receptors, views and visual receptors. 

World Heritage Site – Antonine Wall 

9.3.18 The Antonine Wall is a stone and turf fortification built by the Romans across what is now the 

Central Belt of Scotland, between the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde. The Antonine Wall 

was listed as an extension to the World Heritage Site "Frontiers of the Roman Empire" on 7 

July 2008. Though the Antonine is mentioned in text, it makes no appearance on the map of 

UNESCO's map of world heritage properties. The Antonine Wall falls within the ZTV between 

Bonnybridge and Bo’ness. The Antonine Wall is shown in Figure 9.4. 




Landscape Character Types and Units 

Landscape Character Classification System of the Study Area 

9.3.19 Landscape character information is based on the relevant SNH Character Assessment (LCA) 

documentation, verified on site by RPS. The 35km study area comprises the following reviews: 

• ASH Consulting Group, (1998), Clackmannanshire landscape character 

assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 96; 

• ASH Consulting Group, (1999), Central Region landscape character assessment, 


• David Tyldesley and Associates, (1999), Stirling to Grangemouth landscape 

character assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 124; 

• David Tyldesley and Associates, (1999), Fife landscape character assessment, 


• ASH Consulting Group, (1998), The Lothians landscape character assessment, 

Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 91; and 

• Land Use Consultants, (1999), Glasgow and the Clyde Valley landscape 

assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 116. 

9.3.20 These landscape character assessments are based on a common methodology, as defined by 

Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland, Countryside Agency in 

conjunction with Scottish Natural Heritage (2002). 

9.3.21 It is important to recognise that there are local variations within the regional scale Landscape 

Character Types (LCT) described, and that there have been changes to the landscape since 

the LCAs were published, including the construction of wind energy developments. 

9.3.22 The boundaries of the landscape character types are available as GIS Datasets from SNH, 

based on the published landscape character assessments. Initial assembly of this data for the 

study area identified 52 different character types (LCT) which are shown on Figure 9.5. 

9.3.23 The study area is covered by six landscape character assessment studies which do not 

overlap completely or fit with the SNH GIS dataset. In order to obtain a baseline assessment of 

landscape character that was consistent across the study area and to make it compatible with 

a map of each Landscape Character Area, the landscape classification system was developed. 

9.3.24 All six Landscape Character Assessments were subsequently correlated with landscape 

character types of the Scottish Natural Heritage ‘Natural Heritage Zones: A National 

Assessment of Scotland’s Landscapes’ using similarities within the character to correspond 

with the 12 main landscape character types. 




9.3.25 Table 9.4-1 in Appendix 9.4 presents the Landscape Classification System and corresponding 

Landscape Character Types (LCT) and Landscape Character Units (LCU) within 35km Study 

Area. The landscape character types and sub-character units are shown on Figure 9.6. 

Landscape Character Types (LCT) 

9.3.26 This section contains a detailed description of the character of the landscape types together 

with an evaluation of their sensitivity to landscape change. Through a filtering process LCTs 

that might be affected by the proposed wind energy development were identified. This process 

was carried out through a desktop study and site survey which examined the visibility of the 

proposed wind energy development from the landscape character types around the study area, 

using the ZTV and wirelines. 

9.3.27 A description of the landscape character types within the study area and within the ZTV, which 

were considered not to be impacted significantly by the proposed wind energy development, 

are presented in Appendix 9.5. Table 9.5-1 presents the LCUs which have ZTV cover but it is 

expressed as discrete scattered patches for the most part a long distance from the proposed 

wind energy development site. These LCUs were not considered to have the potential to 

experience a significant effect and have not been assessed further. 

9.3.28 Table 9.5-2 lists the rest of the LCUs which remain outwith the ZTV and therefore will not be 

impacted upon by the proposed wind energy development. 

9.3.29 This filtering process has indicated that 6 landscape character types and 9 related landscape 

character units have the potential to undergo significant effects as a result of the proposed 

wind energy development. These are: 

• Lowland Hills: Ochil Hills 

• Lowland Hill Fringes: East Touch Fringe 

• Lowland River Valleys: Carse of Forth 

Falkirk/Denny Urban Fringe 

• Lowland Valley Fringes: Devon/Forth 

• Lowland Plateaux: Slamannan Plateau 

• Coastal Margins: Grangemouth Bo’ness Flats, 

The Bo’ness Coastal Hills 

Kincardine Coastal Flats 

9.3.30 These landscape character types and sub-character units are described below. 

9.3.31 The sensitivity ratings of the landscape character units are based on the relevant Landscape 

Character Assessments. The same applies to the landscape character descriptions, which are 

summarised in the tables below but the original wording is preserved. 




Landscape Character Type: LOWLAND HILLS/UPLAND IGNEOUS AND VOLCANIC HILLS 

Landscape Character Area: Ochil Hills 

Extent within the LCT extends to a 5-35km radius in a north east direction within the study area. 

study area 

The prominent mass of the Ochil Hills forms an abrupt northern boundary to the Forth Valley, 

stretching eastwards from Dunblane and Bridge of Allan and continuing to spread north and 

east into Perth and Kinross District. 

According to the Clackmannanshire LCA and the Central Region LCA the south facing lower 

part of the Ochil Hills belongs to the Lowland Hills LCT. According to the Tayside LCA the 

rest of the hills are classified as Upland Igneous and Volcanic Hills. 

The ZTV covers the south facing foothills and spreads unevenly upwards to higher levels. It 

also covers the pathway to Dumyat, the pointed view of Nebit and there are some sporadic 

ZTV patches over the Ben Cleuch. 

Representative VP13 – Ben Cleuch and VP16 – Dumyat. 

viewpoints 

Wind energy 

Installed/Approved: Burnfoot, Greenknowes, Lochelbank. 

developments 

Key Characteristics/ 


Water 

Land Cover/Use 

Settlements/Roads 

Other Features 

Experience 

Internal/External 

visibility 

Scale 

Diversity 

Visual detractors 

Designations 

Key Landscape 

Issues 

LCA Sensitivity 

Forming the highest ground within the Lowlands of Central Region, the hills reach a peak in 

Ben Cleuch (721m). The escarpment line is punctuated by prominent north-south tending 

steep-sided glens. 

The hills are drained by a large number of short burns and small rivers, flowing northwards 

into Strathearn and Strathallan and southwards into the Loch Leven basin. 

Across the rolling upper hill summits, peaty ground and extensive stretches of grass and 

heather moorland. 

Predominantly uninhabited landscape. Farms and hamlets concentrated in main glens such 

as Glen Devon. 

Several tracks and walking routes penetrate the hill-mass, accessed along the glens from the 

Devon Valley below. 

Towards the western edge of the hills, a number of coniferous shelterbelts and plantations 

intrude in overly geometric in form. The thick coniferous woodland which clothes the hills 

above Dollar also appears incongruous. 

Generally open landscape of almost conical summits dominated by grass moorland. 

INTERMITTENT Valley features lead to locally restricted views. 

Locally HIGH on plateau margins. 

MEDIUM (Locally small to intimate). Distinctive large-scale topography of rounded upper 

slopes and hill summits, with rolling grassy or peaty ridges and braes. 

SIMPLE 

Masts and aerials are already prominent features; 

Localised visual intrusion from forest edges, pylon lines, operating wind energy 

developments; 

Quarry at Tillicoultry; 

Hill tracks, particularly at Alva Glen and Silver Glen, constitute prominent visual scars in 

views from south. 

Ochil Hills AGLV. 

Designed landscape: Castle Campell. 

Popular walking routes, e.g. Ben Cleuch (pointed view), Dumyat and The Nebit (pointed 

view). 

To conserve and enhance open hill character. Intensive recreational use. 

Medium to High 

The south-facing slopes, one of the most visually sensitive areas in Scotland. Visual impact 

of escarpment is accentuated by broad, flat floodplain, giving a landscape experience which 

is unique in Scotland. 

The value of the landscape is medium to high due to its location within the regionally 

designated AGLV. Clackmannanshire LCA state that “The landscape has a strong sense of 

place, notable scenic qualities and relatively intact and uncompromised character, which 

remains largely unaffected by inappropriate land uses and development. “ 

Landscape Character Type: LOWLAND HILL FRINGES 

Landscape Character Area: East Touch Fringe 

Extent within the LCT extends to a 5-15km radius in a west direction within the study area. 

study area 

The eastern boundary of the Touch Hills is demarcated by the rugged, crag-edged dolerite 

outcrops of Gillies Hill and Lewis Hill. These denote the edge of a broad swathe of strongly 

rolling, occasional hummocky farmland, which forms a transition in height and form from west 

to east between the Touch Hill Slopes and the wide flat valley of the Forth Estuary. To the 

south the area is bounded by the steep gorge of the Carron Glen and the broad industrialised 

expanse of the adjoining lower Carron River and Bonny Water. 

Representative VP18 – Cowie. 

viewpoints 


Scoping: Rullie, Community project near Torwood. 

developments 






Water 




Experience 


visibility 

Scale 

Diversity 


Designations 

Key Landscape 

Issues 


Rugged, elevated, craggy rock outcrops of dolerite above strongly rolling, pronounced hills 

sloping more gently to the Forth Valley floodplain. Dolerite sill outcrop, culminating in the 

focal point of Gillies Hill, forms a strong unifying topographical feature in western, higher part 

of area. Distinctive conical shape of Hills of Dunipace form significant landmark feature. 

Lochs, reservoirs, many east flowing burns and deep gorge of River Carron. 

Rough and semi-improved grassland with gorse scrub on higher ground changing to 

improved pasture with some arable on lower ground; 

Industrial villages and urban expansion on low ground, scattered steadings and estate 

houses on slopes; 

Biggest settlements are the mining village of Plean and the old weaving and spinning village 

of Cambusbarron. Others: Dunipace, Cowie, Larben. 

The area is bisected and bound by the M80 and M9 motorways and the main A872 and A9 

roads. 

Smaller farm and estate roads and tracks wind across the slopes, often following detours due 

to the impeding motorway routes. 

Extensive coniferous and mixed plantations (Tor Wood), broadleaved woodlands, policies, 

shelterbelts and avenues. 

The transitional character of this area is accentuated by the infiltration of urban and industrial 

elements towards the eastern edge, which appears more degraded and suffering from 

decline that the intimate farmland and woodland mix which characterises the western 

perimeter. 

Views of the surrounding dense settlement, and the restraining influence of major transport 

corridors, are more evident to the east. 

INTERMEDIATE 

The embankments and bridging structures of which fragment the landscape, and restrict 

many views. 

MEDIUM 

Variety of manmade features 

Many roads, including motorways, and railways and overhead lines on lower ground. 

Motorways with large scale embankments, cuttings and junctions. 

Dismantled railway tracks and the operative line from Edinburgh to Stirling. 

Some coniferous plantations planted many years ago are poorly designed. 

Industrial and commercial development particularly close to motorway. 

Touch/Campsie/Gargunnock Hills AGLV. 

Historic buildings and features throughout area. Estates and designed landscapes such as 

Touch House, Sauchieburn House, and Polmaise Castle. 

Urban expansion of development with anonymous character. Significant pressure for further 

residential expansion particularly on lower slopes. 

Large industrial developments in villages with conspicuous gaseous plumes. 

Medium to Low - variable capacity to absorb change, related to the degree of diversity of 

landform, land cover and visual sensitivity. Landscape value in south-eastern sector 

diminished by concentration of power lines and urban fringe influences. 

Landscape Character Type: LOWLAND RIVER VALLEYS 

Landscape Character Area: Carse of Forth 

Extent within the LCT extends from the centre of the study area to a 35km radius in a north west direction 

study area 

following the course of the River Forth. 

This Character Area constitutes part of a larger unit which extends westwards into Stirling 

District and southwards across the Forth into Falkirk District. 

The immensely broad floodplain of the River Forth cuts a dramatic swathe from the Highland 

Boundary Fault in the west towards its confluence with the sea in the east. 

To the north, it merges with the related carselands of the Lower Devon, to the east lie the 

coastal flats of Kincardine. 

Representative 

viewpoints 


developments 



Water 



The proposal site is located on this LCA on northern shore of the River Forth. 

VP3 – Clackmannan Public Park, VP4 – Alloa Tower, VP5 – Wallace Monument, VP6 – 

Stirling Castle, VP7 Fallin Village, VP8 – the A905, VP9 – Dunmore Village, VP10 – Public 

Path close to the Pineapple, VP11 – Airth Village and VP19 – South Alloa. 

Scoping: Rosehill 

The topography is strikingly flat, (predominantly below 10 m AOD), reflecting its estuarine 

origin, relief features being confined to raised beaches and related fossil shorelines. 

The vigorously meandering river Forth is fed by a number of visually insignificant tributaries, 

many of which have been straightened into field-side ditches. 

The lowest reaches of the Devon also flow through this unit, joining the Forth near Cambus. 

The fertile soils of the valley floor, derived from marine and estuarine clays and silts, support 

a network of large, mostly arable fields of barley, oats, and timothy grass. 

The urban areas of Alloa and Tullibody are the dominant settlements in the area. Also 

scattered across the carselands are traditional stone or white-washed farmsteads, dotted 

throughout the farmland and linked by the straight lines of several minor roads. 

Villages are absent from the carselands, being restricted to the peripheral slopes of the valley 





Experience 


visibility 

Scale 

Diversity 


Designations 

Key Landscape 

Issues 


and on the edges of the floodplain. The colliery village of Fallin is now a sizeable settlement 

close to the river with a prominent bing with a wooded fringe. 

The A907 Stirling-Dunfermline trunk route bisects the unit, connecting with the A91 and a 

network of secondary routes serving the urban areas. 

The parallel routes of the A84 and A811 trunk roads run along the northern and southern 

perimeters of the valley floor, blending with the backdrop of adjacent higher ground. 

The valley is notable for its lack of woodland. 

Flatness, accentuated by predominantly open agricultural land cover, and consequent 

dramatic contrast with hills to north and south. 

The extent of the valley prevents any real feeling of enclosure, instead permitting panoramic 

views of the surroundings. Panoramic views across open, large scale, simple, horizontal, 

busy landscape with varied textures and colours, regular, planned and organised patterns. 

LARGE 

The degree of visual diversity is modest, relating primarily to features of the built 

environment, and variation in arable cropping. 

Views locally dominated by power stations and stacks, flues, flares, buildings and clutter of 

large scale industrial installations. Prominent are major power lines originating from 

Longannet and Kincardine power stations immediately to the east of the area. 

A very large group of bonded warehouses east of Tullibody (west of Alloa) form an important 

feature. 

Motorways and other noisy, heavily trafficked, trunk roads; 

The Abbey Craig AGLV. Important as landscape setting of Stirling Castle and Wallace 

Monument both for inward and outward views. 

Threat to views into and out of Stirling and to its setting. 

Built development expanding beyond urban limit on fringes of Stirling, Alloa, Clackmannan 

etc.; 

Loss of existing tree belts and hedgerows; 

Agricultural change out of permanent grassland; 

New or extended mineral workings and waste disposal/waste water treatment sites. 

Highly sensitive to change due to openness, heritage significance, and large viewing 

population. 

The degree of man modification including power lines and built features within this locality 

would reduce the sensitivity at local level. 

Visual character is also very strongly influenced by the widespread evidence of human 

settlement, built development, and intensive agricultural land-management. 


Landscape Character Area: Falkirk/Denny Urban Fringe 

Extent within the LCT extends to a 7-15km radius in a south direction within the study area. It stretches 

study area 

between the slopes of the Touch Hills and Denny Muir to the west and the floodplain of the 

River Forth to the east. 

Representative VP14 - Falkirk Wheel. 

viewpoints 


Installed/Approved: ASDA depot 

developments 



Water 




Experience 


visibility 

A wide swathe of low, gently rolling land. To the north and south the ground rises gradually, 

the broad valley basin being cupped by the fringes of the east Touch Hills and the 

Slamannan Plateau. 

The lower stretches of the River Carron and its major tributary, the Bonny Water, run 

eastwards through the shallow, relatively flat open valley. The coils and meanders of the 

river-courses are paralleled in their east-west route by the line of the Forth and Clyde Canal, 

and the smaller stretch of the Union Canal. 

A mixture of pasture and arable fields lies on the edges of settlement, often cut through by 

roads, resulting in scattered patches of scrub and areas of waste ground. 

This densely settled, industrialised area consists of a mix of new residential development, 

business parks, and factories and other industries on the outskirts of the older centres of 

Falkirk, Larbert, Bonnybridge, Longcroft, Denny and Dunipace. Sprawling across the valley, 

the settlements create the effect of near-continuous development. 

The close, often parallel, spacing of motorways, trunk roads, various minor roads, and 

operational and dismantled railway lines combines to form a chaotic, busy transport network. 

Throughout the agricultural parts of the landscape, several isolated areas of mature 

deciduous woodland lie close to the rivers, and fragmented lines of beech and ash stretch 

along roadsides and hedgerows. 

The spreading western edge of Falkirk has engulfed surrounding farmland and settlements. 

The visual attraction and interest of ancient, well-preserved Roman remains, large 

farmsteads, thick belts of mature woodland, a concentration of watercourses, and fertile 

farmland, have been swallowed up by development. 

Within this inharmonious landscape, views are frequently blocked and diverted by the harsh 

edges and physical division of road embankments, and often rambling industrial and 

residential areas, giving way to filtered glimpses of the nearby hills and the neighbouring 




Scale 

Diversity 


Designations 

Key Landscape 

Issues 


petrochemical plant at Grangemouth. 

Grangemouth petrochemical developments and the Ochil Hills form important backdrop to 

many views. 

MEDIUM 

Views locally dominated by power stations and stacks, flues, flares, buildings and clutter 

of large scale industrial installations. 

Remnant derelict land, motorway and road corridors, power lines, industrial sites. 

Antonine Wall and Rough Castle Roman remains. The ramparts of Rough Castle, are visually 

diminished by the surrounding more recent development. 

Fragmentation and lack of unity due to isolation of individual landscape features; 

Further urban expansion, especially housing and industrial/commercial development in 

countryside around towns and on remaining open space areas; 

Loss of landscape context, traditional settlement patterns and identity of settlements; 

Further new or improved roads/railways in transport corridors; 

Increasing traffic, noise and movement; 

Further masts and overhead lines; 

Canal related development. 

Low - Landscape has a high capacity to absorb landscape and visual change. 

Sense of fragmentation and lack of unity. 

Landscape Character Type: LOWLAND VALLEY FRINGES 

Landscape Character Area: Devon/Forth 

Extent within the 

study area 

LCT extends to a 2-10km radius in an east direction within the study area. 

The valley of the Devon Water to the north is separated by this broad area of elevated, 

strongly rolling ground from the Forth estuary and adjacent plains to the south. 

Representative VP1 – the A977 

viewpoints 


None identified 

developments 

Key Characteristics/ Strongly rolling ground. Series of low, rounded hills and valleys associated with the burns. 


Water 

The Black Devon River, which meanders through a small, narrow valley. 

Land Cover/Use The farmland of the area is varied, the undulating fields including rough grassland, lusher 

pasture and crops. 

Settlements/Roads Farmsteads and outbuildings are dotted throughout the area along several minor roads and 

tracks, and along the B9140 and the A977 trunk road which run across the farmland to north 

and south. Several small villages, lying on the north of the ridgeline edging the Devon Valley, 

contain simple rows of 18 th and 19 th century miners' cottages such as at Devon Village, 

Fishcross and Coalsnaughton. 

Other Features Several large coniferous blocks, integrated within the undulating landform, merge with fringes 

of mixed woodland, farm woodlands and tree clumps, and several areas of policy landscape. 

Field boundaries include clipped, well-maintained hedgerows, scattered hedgerow trees, 

post-and-wire fences and neat stone walls. 

Experience 

The notable variation between the estate landscapes, rough pasture and conifers, arable 

farmland, and the broad expanse and fen vegetation of Gartmom Dam is emphasised by the 

appearance of small mining villages and working mines towards the western and southern 

periphery. 


visibility 

Scale 

Diversity 


Designations 

Key Landscape 

Issues 

LCA Sensitivity to 

the wind energy 

development 

Frequent visual juxtapositions of high quality natural landscape settings within built features 

of cultural heritage value, as at Clackmannan Tower, just outwith the LCU. Panoramic views 

can be obtained of the sprawling floodplain of the Forth and dominant thrust of the Ochils to 

the north. 

MEDIUM: Distinctive narrow enclosed valley at Black Devon. 

Rich diversity of features. 

Visual features of extractive mining industries spoil heaps, brickwork chimneys. 

Black Devon Valley AGLV. 

Gartmom Dam Country Park forms a focus of informal recreational activity, and is also of 

heritage and nature conservation value. 

Cumulative impact of existing pressures may shortly threaten the integrity of existing 

landscape character: 

Pressure for further opencast mining development; 

Pressure for infrastructure expansion; 

Pressure for release of sites for waste disposal use; 

Further loss of native woodland; 

Degraded urban fringe character at gateway to Gartmom Dam Country Park. 

Medium to Low 

The extent of settlements and roads, as well as existing and former industrial sites, all 

establish development as a key component of the baseline situation. 

At a local level it does present a valuable rural character that counters the pervasive 

character of the more developed parts, rich diversity of features contributes to a high 

landscape value. 




Landscape Character Type: LOWLAND PLATEAUX 

Landscape Character Area: Slamannan Plateau 

Extent within the LCT extends to a 13-20km radius in a south direction within the study area. 

study area 

A large expanse of elevated (200m AOD), open undulating plateau lies south of the dense 

band of industry and settlement which lines the Bonny and Carron valleys west of Falkirk. 

The ZTV confines only the northern periphery of the LCA. 

Representative VP15 Shieldhill 

viewpoints 


Scoping: Callander Estate, Burnhead 

developments 

Key Characteristics/ Large expanse of elevated, open, undulating plateau. 


Water 

Between the flattened higher ridges, raised bogs, and plateau-type expanses, lie numerous 

streams and small river-courses - including the River Avon - which wind through shallow, 

visually unobtrusive valleys. Set within hollows in higher ground to the southern and eastern 

peripheries are the small-to-medium sized water bodies of Black Loch and Loch Ellrig. 

Land Cover/Use A grid of improved and semi-improved fields of grassland is interrupted by open tracts of 

heather and grass moorland and bog vegetation. 

Settlements/Roads The plateau is criss-crossed by a relatively uniform network of sometimes straight, 

sometimes winding B-roads, minor country roads and farm access tracks. Dwellings and 

farmsteads, often sheltered by small blocks of woodland, are dotted throughout the farmland. 

The mining villages of Slamannan, Limerigg, Avonbridge and Shieldhill lie to the south and 

east. The small, stone workers' cottages of the village centres have become encircled by 

more modern housing, usually in a seemingly colourless beige-brown. 

Other Features Scattered birch trees, Scots pine and scrubby thickets pepper the moorland areas, which 

grade into rough grassland, tumbledown stone walls and coarse boggy rushstippled fields. 

Hawthorn and beech hedgerows are common in many parts, but often broken and 

intermittent, and infilled by post-and-wire fencing. 

Throughout the farmland, several open-cast coalmines are located, in varying stages of 

operation or restoration, the disruptive visual influence of which is exacerbated by the 

dominant zigzagging pylon lines to the north of the area. 

Experience 

The influence of peat extraction and scattered working and restored coalmines upon the 

expanses of moorland and pasture lands lends a somewhat denuded featureless appearance 

to certain parts of the farmland. The decline of the mining settlements and often dilapidated 

or remnant field boundaries contribute further to a faint atmosphere of neglect. 


visibility 

Scale 

Diversity 


Designations 

Key Landscape 

Issues 


Many views are internalised within the area by the pronounced topographical folding of the 

landform. 

Rolling plateau landform gives generally introverted visual character, but with sharp contrast 

on northern edge where dramatic views are available across Forth carselands. 

LARGE expanse of elevated, open, undulating plateau. 

Low 

Obtrusive major overhead power lines on northern margins; 

Radio masts at Wester Glen transmitter station are widely visible; and 

Visual features of extractive mining industries spoil heaps, brickwork chimneys. 

This landscape is not covered by any scenic landscape designations and it has few unique 

qualities that merit special protection. 

To restructure original damaged landscape framework. 

Low 

At a local level it does present a valuable rural character that counters the pervasive 

character of the more developed parts and a rich diversity of features contributes to a high 

landscape value. 

Landscape Character Type: COASTAL MARGINS 

Landscape Character Area: Grangemouth Bo’ness Coastal Flats 

Extent within the LCT extends to a 5-15km radius in a south direction within the study area. 

study area 

Bounded by the Kincardine Bridge and the M 876 in the north west, and the M9 to the south 

west and Bo'ness to the east, this area of low lying coastal flats is dominated by the town of 

Grangemouth, the docks and by large-scale petrochemical and other industrial installations. 

Representative VP20 –Clackmannanshire Bridge 

viewpoints 


Scoping: Grangemouth 

developments 

Key Characteristics/ Extensive, open, low-lying, flat, horizontal coastal flats landscape of arable farmland. 


Water 

The mouth of the Almond marks the eastern boundary of the area. West of the Almond 

catchment, streams flow north-eastward feeding the Midhope Burn system. 

Land Cover/Use The predominant land cover of arable ground merges with smaller areas of improved pasture 

on higher ground or along parts of the coast. 

Between the M876 and the River Carron, which forms a distinct urban edge to Grangemouth, 






Experience 


visibility 

Scale 

Diversity 


Designations 

Key Landscape 

Issues 


lies an area of flat coastal farmland of mainly arable cultivation in large scale rectilinear fields 

with few hedges and several steadings linked by minor roads. 

The flats at Kinneil I Bo'ness are on land claimed from the saltmarsh of the Forth and 

dominated by the extensive landraising operation north of East Kerse Mains and by the 

petrochemical works to the west. 

Grangemouth is on the Firth of Forth, 3 miles east of Falkirk. 

Dense transport route network 

Several extensive wooded estates have a major influence on the landscape character, 

through an abundance of deciduous and mixed woodlands, shelterbelts, and mature parkland 

trees. 

Dominance of urban development, docks and major industrial installations. 

Wide-reaching views of the coast 

LARGE scale, open and exposed. 

Low 

Views locally dominated by power stations and stacks, flues, flares, buildings and clutter; 

Motorways and busy, noisy roads on perimeter; 

Large scale of industrial installations; 

Intense glow, flares and lights over Grangemouth at night and on dark days; 

A few prominent remaining oil-shale bings. 

This landscape is not covered by any scenic landscape designations and it has few unique 


Urban and industrial expansion. 

Further land claim from Firth of Forth; 

Major infrastructural projects - pipelines, overhead lines, roads, bridges, engineering works. 

Reduce impacts of major industrial developments with structural planting, retain remaining 

open character and sustain ecological and landscape values of the mudflats. 

North of the River Carron, seek to avoid the spread of further development and sustain the 

distinct edge to the urban area 

Low 

The tranquil, wide-reaching views of the coast are almost always dominated by the striking 

structures of the road and rail bridges. 


Landscape Character Area: Kincardine Coastal Flats 

Extent within the LCT extends to a 5-7km radius in an east direction within the study area. 

study area 

From the Coastal Braes and Hills, the Flats are seen as encroachments into the estuary. 

Representative VP2 – Kennet Pans (PFP, NCR). 

viewpoints 



developments 

Key Characteristics/ Flat, low-lying, open, large-scale, exposed coastal landscapes at sea level. 


Water 

The Coastal Flats generally do not rise above 10m AOD, and are drained by a series of small 

burns or straight man-made drainage ditches. 

Land Cover/Use Protected by flood banks the areas are dominated by industrial or dock or port related 

development, power stations and associated lagoons or arable farmland with large, 

geometric field patterns divided by fences. 

Settlements/Roads Historically, settlements on the south coast have been located at the foot of the Coastal 

Braes, on the wave cut platforms and raised beaches. 

Other Features Often straight or slightly curving or angular roads, with fences, overhead wires and, in places, 

drystone dykes, are characteristic and noticeable features. 

Experience 

Where the Coastal Flats are more confined, either by buildings or vegetation, experiences 

tend to be of a smaller-scale landscape that is more diverse, rough and discordant, busier 

and more disturbed . 

Internal/External A coastal landscape where the character is always influenced by the River Forth estuary and 

visibility 

can be particularly affected by the weather conditions and views of the sky and the estuary. 

Scale 

LARGE scale, open and exposed. 

Diversity 

Low 

Visual detractors All buildings and other structures are prominent in views across the Flats and from the Firth 

and the intertidal areas. 

The power stations at Kincardine and the dock yards at Rosyth are prominent features across 

the Firth of Forth. 

High voltage power lines are dominant features in the Kincardine area radiating from the 

power stations and even crossing the Firth itself. 

Noticeable features tend to be the chimneys, stacks, towers and cranes of the power 

stations, factories and docks on the industrial areas. On the agricultural land the steadings 

are conspicuous features, so too are the few remaining trees. 

Designations This landscape is not covered by any scenic landscape designations and it has few unique 





Key Landscape 

Issues 


The potential threat of the sea is present and will not be diminished by rising sea levels. 

Declining field hedgerows and stone dykes and scrub invasion of embankments and ditches 

indicate that these landscapes are vulnerable to changes in management as well as to 

changes in land use through development pressures. 

Medium 

The tranquil, wide-reaching views of the coast are almost always dominated by the striking 

structures of the road and rail bridges. 


Landscape Character Area: The Bo’ness Coastal Hills 

Extent within the LCT extends to a 13-20km radius in a south east direction within the study area. A series of 

study area 

rolling, coastal hills about 100 to 150m ADD with a general down-slope to Bo'ness and the 

Firth of Forth. The town of Bo'ness lies mainly on the rising land of the hills which are topped 

by a golf course. The hills are crossed by the M9 and other major roads and railways. 

Representative VP12 – Bo’ness 

viewpoints 



developments 

Key Characteristics/ Rolling hill landforms. 


Water 

The area drains partly to the River Avon, which cuts a sinuous well wooded channel through 

the hills and partly direct to the Forth, in a few small, north flowing burns. 

Land Cover/Use The hills are predominantly open arable and grassland in medium to large fields bounded by 

beech and hawthorn hedges. 

Settlements 

The town of Bo'ness lies mainly on the rising land of the hills which are topped by a golf 

course. Steadings tend to be set prominently on hill tops. 

The hills are crossed by the M9 and other major roads and railways. 

Other Features Woodland and policies are rare but there are frequent lines of trees along the roadside and in 

narrow shelterbelts. 

Experience 

Large-scale, open, rolling, simple, balanced, well-tended landscape with seasonal colours, 

varied textures and regular, organised patterns. 


visibility 

Scale 

Diversity 


Designations 

Key Landscape 

Issues 


Wide-reaching views of the coast. A coastal landscape where the character is always 

influenced by the sea and can be particularly affected by the weather conditions and views of 

the sky and the sea. 

LARGE scale 

Balanced, well-tended landscape with varied textures. 

Local disturbance and intrusion of motorway/railway; 

Visual sprawl of development on edge of Bo'ness; 

Industrial works at Whitecross. 

There are many historical and archaeological features ranging from Roman camps and parts 

of the Antonine Wall to Blackness Castle and the Union Canal. 

Urban expansion of Bo'ness; 

New housing in countryside; 

Conversion/development of steadings; 

Decline of hedges and shelterbelts owing to inadequate management; 

Major road and other infrastructure improvements; 

Canal related development. 

MEDIUM 

The wide-reaching views of the coast are almost always dominated by the striking structures 

of the Longannet Power Station and Grangemouth Oil Refinery. 

The Proposal Site and Surrounding Landscape Context 

9.3.32 The proposed wind energy development is to be located approximately 0.17km south of Alloa 

and 1.1km west of Clackmannan on a northern shore of the River Forth at the level 1m AOD. 

The site is within the Carse of Forth local landscape character unit which belongs to the 

Lowland River Valleys Landscape Character Type. 

9.3.33 The application boundary encloses an area of approximately 37.9ha. The application boundary 

is shown on Figure 1.2. 

9.3.34 The national grid reference for the site is E289102, N691085. The elevation of the site is 0m to 

7m above ordnance datum (AOD). Its location is shown in Figure 1.1. 




9.3.35 The site boundary consists of two main areas. The main area to the south-east is a closed 

landfill. The majority of this area is raised, with some tree cover. The site is bound by the Firth 

of Forth on the southwest and the Black Devon River to the south and east (a small tributary 

river that flows into the Forth). To the north of the road adjacent to the site, there are 

reconstructed wetlands. Immediately north of the site is a sewage works operated by Scottish 

Water, and several industrial buildings. 

9.3.36 The surrounding landscape is flat, exposed and generally farmed. The site is devoid of any 

substantial vegetation, with most of the site covered by rough grassland and a number of small 

trees and bushes growing along the fenced boundaries. Two large high voltage power lines 

pass through the site, and there are a number of additional pylon mounted cables in the near 

vicinity. 

9.3.37 The landscape environment in a 10km radius proximity to the proposed wind energy 

development site is characterised by one of the most prominent topographic features in 

Scotland - the contrast between the high ground of the Ochil Hills and the flat carselands of the 

Devon and Forth valleys. Low rolling farmland and the faint horizon-line of hills and mountains 

to the north together with the closely encroaching craggy mass of the Gargunnock and Touch 

Hills to the west, confine the wide extent of the flatlands. The River Forth valley is punctuated 

in the east by the volcanic crags of Stirling Castle and Abbey Craig, which rise abruptly from 

the plain and are backed by the blunt edge of the Ochils’ escarpment. 

9.3.38 The vigorously meandering River Forth is fed by a number of visually insignificant tributaries, 

many of which have been straightened into field-side ditches. The Ochil Hills themselves, 

which rise to 721m at Ben Cleuch, are characterised by gently undulating upper slopes, 

dissected by minor watercourses mainly draining southwards through steep glens to the 

Hillfoot villages and thence to the River Devon. Rising on the northern slopes of the Ochils in 

Perth and Kinross, the Devon forms a broad lowland corridor through the central part of the 

District, merging southwards with the more extensive flatlands of the Forth. The Forth and 

Devon valleys are separated by a low interfluve of strongly undulating relief rising to over 60m, 

drained by the Black Devon. 

9.3.39 Lying entirely below the 50m contour, the estuarine flatlands of the River Forth form the 

southern margin of Clackmannan. The landcover of the area is predominantly agricultural, but 

the area is also characterised by high degree of urbanisation and its heavily wooded nature. 

Industrial developments have occupied much of the land close to the Forth estuary. Beyond 

Stirling and the great abbey of Cambuskenneth on the river’s bank, the Forth starts to widen 

dramatically and is bordered by rich pastureland known as the ‘Links of Forth’. Alloa stands on 

its northern shores just before the estuary broadens out below Kincardine. 

9.3.40 Evidence of the rapid industrialisation of the estuary becomes apparent with the expansive oil 

refinery at Grangemouth and the chemical plants at Bo’ness, both on the south bank of the 

River Forth. Various industrial activities with associated chimney stacks lie immediately to the 

north of the site, in the Alloa. The 380kV Forth Crossing pylon line runs alongside the River 

Forth and passes the site’s eastern boundary. 

9.3.41 The surrounding pylons, although not as high as the turbines are notable vertical elements in 

landscape, as is the large chimney associated with the Longannant Power Station and the 

chimneys associated with the Alloa Works. 




The Zone of Theoretical Visibility of the Wind Energy Proposal 

9.3.42 The proposed wind energy development is located on the lower level on the River Forth 

floodplain, the ZTV pattern stretches from Highlands (north-west) over the flat Lowlands to the 

Uplands (south-east). This low-lying location greatly reduces their prominence across the 

surrounding landform. This can be seen in the contained extent of the ZTV as shown in Figure 

9.7 (hub height) and Figure 9.8 (blade tip). 

9.3.43 ZTVs within 10km study area, in 1:80,000 scale from upper arc of blade tip is presented in 

Figure 9.9. 

9.3.44 ZTVs within 35km study area, in 1:50,000 scale both from hub height and from upper arc of 

blade tip are presented in Appendix 9.2 and Appendix 9.3 respectively. 

9.3.45 The pattern of the landform on which the Ochil Hills’ ridges run in a north to north east direction 

has added to the limited visibility by screening extensive areas to the north that lie outwith the 

immediate range of the valley landscape. Lowland Hills (Touch Hills and Kilsyth Hills) contain 

the visibility to the west. Upland Hills (Cleish and Benarty Hills) prevent any increase to the 

visibility line to the east. 

9.3.46 The ZTV pattern draws out the spread of the low flat carseland of the River Forth from the 

north-west to the south-east direction across the study area. The ZTV cover over the carseland 

of the River Forth is expressed by steady (homogenous) intense pattern, which begins to break 

as the landscape begins to increase in height above the River Forth Valley floor. All other main 

river corridors (River Carron, Devon Water, Allan Water and the River Teith) remain outwith the 

ZTV in the study area. 

9.3.47 Potential visibility immediately to the north of the proposed wind energy development site is 

indicated in long bands running along the southern foothills of the Ochil Hills. The volcanic 

outcrops of the Campsie Fells and Gargunnock, Touch, Fintry and Kilsyth Hills form an abrupt 

boundary to the west of the study area, reaching a height of almost 600m in places. The ZTV 

cover to the west on these Lowland Hills is scattered along the high tops and their slopes. To 

the east the ZTV captures the Upland Foothills and Slopes. The ZTV stretches along the 

northern boundary line of the Slamannan Plateau above the River Avon. The rise of the 

plateau landform obstructs theoretical visibility further to the south and south west. 

9.3.48 The ZTV shows the theoretical visibility of the proposed wind energy development. Field 

surveys have been undertaken to verify potential views on the ground and to appraise the 

overall actual visibility of the proposed wind energy development. 

Visual Assumptions and Limitations 

Earth Curvature and Refraction of Light 

9.3.49 The Visual Analysis of Windfarms: Good Practice Guidance (Technical Appendix F1) explains 

“OS co-ordinates are not fully 3-Dimensional. The northing and easting define a point on a 

plane corresponding to the OX transverse Mercator map projection and the altitude above OS 

datum is measured above an equipotential surface passing through the OS datum point at 




Newlyn. In reality, the earth is round, so a correction has to be made in order to position 

geographical features correctly in three dimensions for ZTV calculation and for visualisation” 

and “In the absence of the Earth’s atmosphere, a simple allowance for curvature would be 

sufficient”… “in the practice, rays of light representing sightlines over long distances are also 

curved downwards, allowing one to see slightly beyond the expected horizon.” 

9.3.50 The distance from some viewing points to the turbines means that the limitations of normal 

sight would also affect visibility, as explained below. 

Acuity of Eye 

9.3.51 The Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment (GSA) discusses the limitations of the 

acuity of the human eye on an object similar to that of a turbine. The guidance (para. 2.4 

Difficulties of scale and distance) states that: “At a distance of 1 kilometre in conditions of good 

visibility a pole of 100mm diameter will become difficult to see, and at 2 kilometres a pole of 

200mm diameter will similarly be difficult to see. In other words there will be a point where an 

object whilst still theoretically visible will become too small for the human eye to resolve. Mist, 

haze or other atmospheric conditions may significantly exacerbate that difficulty.” 

Consequently when visible in favourable conditions, a slim object approximately 3m in width 

will be at the limit of perception by the human eye at a distance of 30km. 

Principal Visual Receptors and Representative Viewpoints 

9.3.52 The landscape and visual amenity of the study area was surveyed to establish the general 

characteristics of both static and dynamic views, from a selection of receptors likely to 

experience views of the proposed wind energy development. 

9.3.53 Visual effects are those changes to views that result from the proposed wind energy 

development. The evaluation of views is carried out in two parts: 

• the potential views from principal visual receptors, which are the settlements and 

routes found throughout the study area; and 

• the potential views from a series of viewpoints that have been selected to represent 

visibility from around the study area. 

9.3.54 The assessment of effects on principal visual receptors and representative viewpoints is 

presented in section 9.4 ‘Assessment of Effects’. 

Settlements and Road Network 

9.3.55 There are a number of settlements and travel routes in the study area that need to be identified 

and considered in the assessment as views from them may be affected by the wind energy 

development. These features are referred to as ‘principal visual receptors’ in the assessment. 

The principal visual receptors and the basis for their inclusion are described briefly below. 

9.3.56 The size and distribution of settlements varies throughout the study area. The pattern of 

settlement across the study area closely follows the topography, with larger and more frequent 




settlements on areas of lowland. This is particularly evident where the Lowlands River Valleys, 

along the River Carron and River Forth Estuary are relatively densely settled. 

9.3.57 The major centre of population is the wider Falkirk area, which includes nearby towns such as 

Grangemouth, Larbert and Stenhousemuir and interspersed with a great number of smaller 

towns has a population of 97,180 making it the 5 th largest urban area in Scotland, after 

Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee. The town lies at the junction of the Forth and 

Clyde Canal and the Union Canal. 

9.3.58 Stirling occupies a strategic gateway position at the point where the flatter although largely 

undulating Scottish Lowlands meet the rugged slopes of the Highlands along the Highland 

Boundary Fault. Stirling stands on the Forth at the point where the river widens and becomes 

tidal. 

9.3.59 On the Carse of Forth following the course of the River Forth run main transport rotes such as 

the railway, the M9, the A9, the A905, the A84, the A873, the A811 following the course of the 

River Forth from south east to north west across the study area. As identified above, the Carse 

of Forth falls fully within the ZTV cover. The A9 changes its course beyond Stirling heading in a 

north easterly direction to Strathallan and then emerges from the ZTV cover. 

9.3.60 The A905 runs between Grangemouth and Stirling alongside the River Forth on its floodplain. 

This route passes through small villages such as Airth and Fallin. 

9.3.61 On the northern shore of the River Forth the A907 runs between Dunfermline and Stirling. This 

route goes through small settlements such as Clackmannan and Alloa and Tullibody. 

9.3.62 The A811 runs on the bottom of the River Forth valley. It begins on the A84 next to the fire 

station and in the shadow of Stirling Castle (this is the slip road from the M9). After a new 

roundabout, to meet with the B8051 Ring Road, it crosses over the M9, and heads in a 

succession of long, straight lines for almost ten miles, interrupted only by a roundabout on the 

B822. The section between the roundabout B822 and crossing with the B8075 falls within the 

ZTV. 

9.3.63 The A84 runs on the valley floor of the River Teith. It links the city of Stirling with 

Lochearnhead, running for approximately 28 miles. It is within the ZTV cover in the section 

where it crosses the River Forth to the north of Stirling and then heads to the north-west until it 

splits to the A873. The A873 begins on the A84 8km west of Stirling and then heads to the 

west where it ends at the A81, having some sporadic ZTV patches over its course. 

9.3.64 The low lying landform of the study area has led to the evolution of an extensive network of 

routes. There are numerous route corridors traversing the study area, many of which are 

associated with urban development, while others provide access to the wider countryside. 

While originally many of these routes evolved in response to the pattern of the landform, more 

recent infrastructure developments have overridden this pattern. 

9.3.65 What is remarkable about this extensive network of routes is that they are proportionally well 

hidden by the surrounding vegetation and therefore the structures which indicate 

industrialisation are well screened from viewers. 




9.3.66 There are three strong infrastructure development lines crossing the southern part of the study 

area. One where Glasgow’s north east stretching conurbation meets with the River Forth 

industrial urban spread. The ZTV cover on this line begins from Cumbernauld where the A80 

heads to the north eastwards and splits in to the M80 and the M876. The M80 (with the A872) 

runs northwards through Denny to link with the M9. (There is no ZTV cover over the settlement 

and communication corridor.) The M876 runs north eastwards, crosses the M9 and leads to 

the River Forth crossing. 

9.3.67 The M9 runs along the Forth estuary coastal margins from the south east boundary of the 

study area. The ZTV cover over the M9 begins from Polmont and follows the M9 to the north to 

its end beyond Stirling. Settlements around Falkirk in the loop of the M9 and, the M876 are 

within the ZTV. Grangemouth and Bo’ness on the southern shore of the River Forth fall within 

the ZTV. 

9.3.68 The other heavily developed infrastructure lines in the southern part of the study area, such as 

the M8, the A89 and the A71 routes remain outwith the ZTV and were therefore not assessed 

further. 

9.3.69 Elsewhere within the study area, however, settlements are limited to villages or small towns 

along river valleys or at junctions of rivers. As the road network, discussed above, also follows 

these valleys, settlements and major road junctions coincide together with the valley junctions 

and river crossing points. 

9.3.70 The most rural areas are the Ochil Hills in the north of the study area and the Gargunnock Hills 

in the west of the study area where parts of the hill mass are uninhabited. Potential visibility is 

indicated in long ZTV bands running along the southern foothills of the Ochil Hills. Settlements 

alongside the A91 such as Menstrie, Alva, Tillicoultry and Dollar are positioned on the bottom 

of the River Devon valley. The ZTV band touches the northern higher level of these 

settlements. 

9.3.71 The developed nature of the study area means that there are many roads and recreational 

walking and cycling routes that need to be considered in the assessment and these are listed 

below. 

National Cycle Routes (NCR): 

Table 9.8 National Cycle Routes 

NCR No 

NR 1 

NR 76 

NR 754 

NR 764 

NR 765 

The Long Distance Way 

Where the NCR runs 

between Edinburgh and Aberdeen via Dunfermline, Auchtermuchty. 

between Dunbar and Kirkcaldy. This route runs on both side of the River Forth estuary via Stirling. 

between Kirkintilloch and Edinburgh via Bonnybridge, Falkirk, Linlithgow 

the West Fife Way between Alloa and Dunfermline via Clackmannan. 

between Stirling and Callander via Dunblane. 

9.3.72 The Devon Way is a relatively easy walk from Alloa to Dollar mainly along the route of the old 

railway line. The route is well used by dog walkers, cyclists, runners, horse riders and those 

just out for a gentle walk. The route circles the Sterling Mills Shopping Village and crosses the 

Moss Road at Devonvale Hall before carrying on to Dollar. The route between Tillicoultry and 




Dollar is fairly flat with lots of vegetation along the way. The River Devon is close by at various 

points. 

The Core Paths 

9.3.73 The Core Paths Plans identify a network of paths that gives people reasonable (nonmotorised) 

access throughout the Councils’ areas. As highlighted within national guidance, 

Core Paths Plans - a guide to good practice, 2005, core paths are of particular importance 

close to where people live. The need for each local authority to produce a Core Paths Plan is 

detailed in sections 17 - 23 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The duties and powers 

enshrined in this Act are expanded upon in the Scottish Executive publication Part 1 Land 

Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, Guidance for Local Authorities and National Park Authorities, 

2005. Core paths do not have to have any sort of previous designation e.g. right of way and 

can comprise of a variety of different path types, ranging from natural grassy swards, to highspecification 

constructed paths, to satisfy the needs of all users. Although the whole path 

network should provide for a range of recreational access - walking, cycling, horse riding, 

canoeing, etc - and for all abilities of use, not every individual path caters for every type of 

user. 

9.3.74 The core paths networks of Clackmannanshire Council, Stirling Council and Falkirk Council 

areas fall within the ZTV and are assessed within the 10km radius Local Study Area in section 

9.4 ‘Assessment of Effects’. 

Representative Viewpoints 

9.3.75 The assessment of landscape and visual effects is informed by a series of 22 viewpoints. The 

viewpoint locations are shown on Figure 9.12, and are illustrated in Figures VP1a – VP22b 

where a photograph of each view is accompanied by a computer-generated wireline and, for a 

number of the views, a photomontage is created. 

9.3.76 The viewpoints within the 10km local study area are shown in Figure 9.11 on a scale 1:125, 

000. 

9.3.77 The viewpoints are selected to cover points of specific importance such as recognised 

viewpoints, designated landscapes, settlements, important routes and attractions, and to 

inform the likely extent of significant visual effects arising from the proposed wind energy 

development. A variety of landscape character types and points from different directions and 

distances have also been represented in the selected views. 

9.3.78 The viewpoint assessment is used to inform and illustrate the assessment of effects on 

landscape character and the assessment of effects on views. The viewpoint assessment is 

contained within section 9.4 ‘Assessment of Effects’. 

9.3.79 Table 9.9 below lists the viewpoints and provides information on their location and distance 

from the site. 




Table 9.9 Viewpoints 

VP 

No. 

Location Grid Ref. Bearing Elevation Distance to 

nearest Turbine 

1 A977 NS 933 915 261 41m AOD 3.72km 

2 Kennet Pans PFP NS 915 895 305 º 1m AOD 2.01km 

3 Clackmannan Public Park NS 911 916 255º 30m AOD 1.60km 

4 Alloa Tower NS 889 925 164º 40m AOD 1.02km 

5 Wallace Monument NS 809 957 120º 159m AOD 8.99km 

6 Stirling Castle NS 791 941 107º 105m AOD 10.1km 

7 Fallin Village NS 841 914 94º 20m AOD 4.77km 

8 A905 NS 888 895 20º 10m AOD 1.38km 

9 Dunmore Village NS 894 895 1º 6m AOD 1.03km 

10 Path Pineapple NS 892 882 4º 15m AOD 2.33km 

11 Airth Village NS 902 878 345º 7m AOD 2.70km 

12 Bo’ness NT 008 814 310º 24m AOD 14.30km 

13 Ben Cleuch NN 903 006 186 721m AOD 9.25km 

14 Falkirk Wheel NS 853 800 20º 62m AOD 11.42km 

15 Shieldhill NS 898 768 358º 182m AOD 13.71km 

16 Dumyat NS 836 977 221 426m AOD 8.16 km 

17 Saline Hill NT 033 931 262 272m AOD 13.82 km 

18 Cowie NS 839 894 74º 44m AOD 5.42km 

19 South Alloa NS 876 915 105º 12m AOD 1.28km 

20 Clackmannanshire Bridge NS 920 872 325º 17m AOD 4.15km 

21 Cairnpapple NS 987 717 334 312m AOD 20.78km 

22 Tomtain Hill NS 722 814 299 438m AOD 19.45km 

9.3.80 The first step in the assessment of effects on the representative viewpoints is through the 

evaluation of the existing view, the receptor type, the visibility of the proposal site, all visual 

detractors and potential constraints in terms of stated designations. The level of sensitivity of 

each viewpoint is evaluated as a combination of these categories. Table 9.2 defines the 

criteria, which have guided the judgement as to the Sensitivity of the Receptor. 




Viewpoint 1: A977 Gartarry Wood 

Figure Number: VP-1 

Grid Reference NS 933 915 Elevation 41m AOD 

Bearing 261º Direction of View: west 

LCT: Lowland Valley Fringes LCU: Devon/Forth 

Distance to nearest 3.72km 

Existing Cumulative Craigengelt WF 

Turbine: 

visibility: 

Earlsburn WF 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the A977(T) road in a westerly direction. The viewpoint is situated 3.72km to the east of 

the site at an elevation of 40m AOD. 

Context: 

Kincardine Bridge and Kincardine remain at a 4.5km distance to the south where the A977 crosses the bridge. To the 

east lies rising ground covered by the Gartarry Woods. The A977(T) runs northwards into the Forest, crosses the 

Black Devon and then on to the Cleish Hills. 

Receptor Type: 

This viewpoint is selected as being representative of road users who are going to cross the Kincardine Bridge to head 

southwards and to join with the A907 to Clackmannan. The potential view from the road is in the direction of the 

proposed site. 

Existing View: 

The view is an open panorama over the large arable fields with Clackmannan on King’s Seat Hill on the short horizon. 

The Clackmannan Tower and the church are visible landmarks on the hill. The ridge of Lowland Hills rises above the 

Kennet woodland canopy on the left side of Clackmannan. All four tops of the highest of pylons of the 380kV Forth 

Crossing are visible on the backdrop of Lowland Hills. Four working turbines of the Craigengelt wind energy 

development are clearly visible on the Craigengelt Hill (Lowland Hills) in the vegetation gap in Kennet Woods. Some 

rotating blades of the Earlsburn wind energy development are distinguishable on Hart Hill on the right of Craigengelt 

wind energy development. All turbines and blades are visible above the skyline. 

The distinctive shape of the Wallace Monument is perceivable above the tree canopy to the right of Clackmannan. 

On the right side of the view the Ochil Hills form the skyline beyond the fields and some blue tinted summits of 

Highland mountains are visible. 

The visibility of the proposal site: 

The proposal site is not visible from the viewpoint. Its approximate location is identifiable by the tops of four high pylons 

which are seen on the left side of Clackmannan. 

Visual detractors: 

Four top parts of pylons of the 380kV Forth Crossing are visible to the left of Clackmannan. Telecommunications wires 

and posts cross the fields. Chimney of the disused Slag Heap is visible on the right of the view on the backdrop of the 

Ochil Hills. 

Landscape Designations: 

None identified. 

Viewpoint Sensitivity to the proposed wind energy development: 

The landscape sensitivity of this location is considered to be low. 

The visual sensitivity of this location is considered to be low. 




Viewpoint 2: Kennet Pans PFP 



Bearing 305º Direction of View: north west 

LCT: Coastal Margins LCU: Kincardine Coastal Flats 



Turbine: 

visibility: 

Earlsburn WF 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the access road to the Kennet Pans. The VP is located close to the cross where the 

access road links with the minor road which runs between Clackmannan and Kincardine. The viewpoint is situated 

2.01km to the south east of the site at an elevation of 1m AOD. 

Context: 

Kennet Pans is an area of saltmarsh and mudflat located on the northern shore of the Forth Estuary. This area is 

currently used for storage and grazing livestock and has coastal defence embankments along its western and southern 

boundaries. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of local road users between Clackmannan and Kincardine, local 

farmers and recreational users of the landscape and National Cycle Route No 76 users. 


The foreground of the view consists of the flat fields of the River Forth floodplain. Several farm buildings are situated 

on this flatland. This low elevation is well expressed by the height of the 380kV Forth Crossing pylons which run 

alongside the minor road and cross the River Forth to its southern shore. Nearest pylons to the viewpoint break the 

skyline above the Ochil Hills. The Alloa Works’ chimneys and Alloa Tower itself are visible straight ahead in the view 

on the backdrop of the Ochil Hills. The Ochil Hills dominate the skyline on the right side of the view. The setting of 

Clackmannan: King’s Seat Hill with Clackmannan Tower and church are visible on the right side of the view behind the 

pylon. 

The middle ground of the view is formed by a dark vegetation line which forms the short horizon. Single trees spring up 

and their canopies are seen against the sky. The faded summits of the Highland hills are perceivable on the further 

horizon. 

On right hand side of the view the peak of the Lowland Hills (Touch Hills) is perceivable above the dense vegetation. 

Craigengelt wind energy development is clearly visible on Hart Hill above the Dunmore Woods. 


The proposal site remains behind the vegetation line which runs on the middle ground of the view forming field 

boundaries. Alloa Work’s chimneys indicate its approximate location. 


The 380kV Forth Crossing; Alloa Works’ chimneys 


Public footpath, National Route No 76 

Viewpoint Sensitivity to the proposed wind energy development: : 


The visual sensitivity of this location is considered to be medium. 




Viewpoint 3: Clackmannan Public Park 




LCT: Lowland River Valley LCU: Carse of Forth 



proposed turbine: 

visibility: 

Earlsburn WF 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the edge of the Clackmannan Public Park. The viewpoint is situated 1.60km to the east of 


Context: 

Clackmannan Public Park is located opposite Clackmannan School on the southern edge of the town. Clackmannan 

sits at a higher position on the River Forth valley. The Black Devon binds it to the north and west and merges 

downwards to join with the River Forth. The Public Park sits on the same line as the Clackmannan Tower which is in a 

north west direction. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of Clackmannan Park visitors, local residents and tourists and 

recreational users of the landscape. 


The view is elevated and panoramic. The eye is drawn over the River Forth valley floor towards the Lowland Hills in 

the long distance horizon. Eight turbines of Craigengelt wind energy development are clearly visible on top of 

Craigengelt Hill. 

In the foreground, sprawls the low carseland of the River Forth with several Farm buildings dotted around its rich 

pastureland. 

On the right side of the view the water of the Forth is open in some rare spots as the course of the river convolutes 

close to Alloa. This gives an impression of far stretching large green fields up to the point where the river valley 

landscape meets the Lowland Hill Fringes. 

Settlements are perceivable on higher fringes above the river valley vegetation. Cowie is recognisable by its Work’s 

chimneys. Close to South Alloa a row of pylons of the 380kV Forth Crossing crosses the river although the pylons do 

not break the skyline. 

Stirling Castle rises against the subtle backdrop of Highland mountains, and the chimneys of the Alloa Works break 

the skyline on the very edge of the right side of the view. 

The water of the river is visible on the left side of the view in between Airth and Dunmore villages. In this section 

Slamannan Plateau with woodlands forms the skyline above the river valley. 


The proposal site is visible in its full length from this viewpoint position. 


Craigengelt wind energy development is dominant, positioned directly in the view. The 380kV Forth Crossing runs 

alongside the River Forth although the pylons do not break the skyline. 


National Cycle Route No 76 passes the park’s entrance and then heads down to the River Forth valley floor where it 

takes its course along the coastline. 







Viewpoint 4: Alloa Tower 



Bearing 164º Direction of View: south west 





visibility: 

Earlsburn WF 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the top platform of the Alloa Tower. The viewpoint is situated 1.02km to the north west of 


Context: 

Alloa is 7 miles to the east of Stirling, on the north bank of the River Forth. Alloa Tower is the most notable visible 

landmark in Alloa. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of Alloa Tower visitors, local residents and tourists. 


The view is elevated and panoramic. It is a wide panorama stretching between Longannet Power Station and the Alloa 

Works, along the course of the River Forth. 

In the foreground is seen the southern edge of Alloa indicated by the rooftops of residential buildings. Across the flat 

carseland of the River Forth, the Lowland Hills rise on the horizon. Eight turbines of Craigengelt wind energy 

development are clearly visible on top of Craigengelt Hill. The chimneys of Alloa Works rise over the peak of the Hills 

on the right side of the view. 

The 380kV Forth Crossing runs along the River Fort shore line, then crosses the river close to the Alloa Works and 

heads up to the Lowland Hills. Some pylons close to the Alloa Tower break the skyline. 




Longannet Power Station; The 380kV Forth Crossing; Grangemouth Oil Refinery chimneys, Craigengelt wind energy 

development, chimneys of Cowie and Alloa Works. 


Alloa Tower (Completed by 1497, with later alterations). One of Clackmannanshire's four medieval towers and manor 

houses. 







Viewpoint 5: Wallace Monument 



Bearing 120º Direction of View: south east 


Distance to nearest 


8.99km 

Existing Cumulative 

visibility: 

Craigengelt WF 

Earlsburn WF 

Braes of Doune WF 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the summit of Abbey Craig on the platform of the Wallace Monument. The viewpoint is 

situated 8.95km to the north west of the site at an elevation of 159m AOD. The Wallace Monument Tower’s height is 

67m. 

Context: 

Abbey Craig is a hilltop near Stirling, a volcanic crag above Cambuskenneth Abbey where the monument sits. Abbey 

Craig is covered by woodland and there are three trails available for walks. The Craig stands in close proximity to the 

Ochil Hills where it meets the carseland of the River Forth. The Abbey Craig with the Wallace Monument forms a 

recognisable landmark above the Lowland River Valley landscape. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of local/international tourists and recreational users of the 

landscape. 


It is an elevated open panorama with an almost infinite horizon over the River Fort estuary. On the right side of the 

view, above the Slamannan Plateau the Pentland Hills are visible on the horizon and on the left side the Cleish Hills 

with Knock Hill rise on the horizon. The Slamannan plateau blends through upland fringes into the uplands. 

In the foreground large arable fields sprawl over the River Forth floodplain. 

The most eye catching feature of this flat landscape, are the light coloured flat roofs of the Bonded Warehouses which 

cover almost 100 hectares. Tullibody’s built up area adjacent to the warehouses appears as a more organic part of the 

landscape. 

The route of the A907 towards Tullibody is clearly seen between the fields. The A91 runs across the foreground of the 

view in between the Ochil Hills and Stirling. Both A roads are well lined by vegetation. 

The vertical features do not stand out in this elevated view. The chimneys of Alloa Works and Longannet Power 

Station are distinguishable. Grangemouth Oil Refinery on the backdrop of the Slamannan Plateau is identifiable by the 

smoke from its chimneys. 

The 380kV Forth Crossing crosses the River Forth close to Alloa, another row of pylons crosses the river close to the 

warehouses and a third line of pylons runs parallel with the A91 across the foreground. 

Not one of these vertical manmade features breaks the skyline. 


The River Devon flows into the River Forth and binds the site to the east. This area is visible as a brown field which 

marks the site’s location in this view. 

The proposal site alongside the river is visible in its full length and size. 


Bonded Warehouses Longannet Power Station; Kincardine high block building, the 380kV Forth Crossing; 

Grangemouth Oil Refinery chimneys, chimneys of Cowie and Alloa Works, lattice towers. 


Craigs Abbey AGLV and Wallace Monument is a National Landmark. 


The landscape sensitivity of this location is considered to be medium. 

The visual sensitivity of this location is considered to be high. 




Viewpoint 6: Stirling Castle 







10.1km 


visibility: 


Earlsburn WF 


Greendykeside 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the summit of Stirling Craig on the entrance platform of Stirling Castle. The viewpoint is 

situated 10km to the north west of the site at an elevation of 105m AOD. 

Context: 

The city of Stirling is clustered around a large fortress and medieval old-town beside the River Forth. Positioned on the 

main route into the Highlands from the south, Stirling occupies a strategic position at the point where the flatter, largely 

undulating Scottish Lowlands meet the rugged slopes of the Highlands along the Highland Boundary Fault. The 

starkness of this contrast is evidenced by the many hills and mountains of the lower Highlands such as Ben Vorlich 

and Ben Ledi which can be seen to the northwest of the city. Just above Stirling the Allan Water comes in from 

Dunblane and the river Teith enters the Forth from Callander and the Braes of Doune. 

In contrast the Carse of Stirling, stretching to the west and east of the city, is one of the flattest and most agriculturally 

productive expanses of land in the whole of Scotland. 

Stirling stands on the Forth at the point where the river widens and becomes tidal. 



landscape. 


It is an elevated panorama with the Cleish Hills on the horizon. In the foreground lies Stirling’s Riverside development 

on the loop of the River Forth. The Forth’s twists and loops are visible in the landscape. Stirling’s large Industrial Estate 

is hidden behind the vegetation in this view. Otherwise it is clearly visible near to the River Forth. 

Behind Stirling’s built up area a sprawl of large arable fields on the River Forth floodplain is visible on the middle 

ground of the view. The shrub vegetation marks the river’s convolutions 

This viewpoint is 55m lower than the Wallace Monument, therefore the Bonded Warehouses are no longer the main 

feature in the view. Behind the Warehouses the ground rises from the Lowland River Valley to the Lowland Valley 

Fringes (Devon-Forth LCA) up to a level of 62m AOD. Tullibody is clearly visible on the higher ground of the Devon 

Valley fringe. 

Alloa is distinguishable by the chimneys of Alloa Works adjacent to the River Forth. Behind Alloa the ground rises up to 

110m AOD. The dark lines of the Forest Plantations mark the rolling low hills of the Lowland Valley fringes. This view 

represents a visible change in the landscape character from the Lowland River Valley to the Uplands. 

On right side of the view the Pentland Hills are visible on the horizon above the Slamannan Plateau. 

The vertical features do not stand out in this elevated view. Most visible are the floodlights of the Forthbank Stadium. 

The chimneys of Alloa Works and Longannet Power Station are visible. Grangemouth Oil Refinery on the backdrop of 

the Slamannan Plateau is identifiable by the smoke from its chimneys. 

The 380kV Forth Crossing crosses the River Forth close to Alloa, smaller pylons’ line crosses the river close to the 

Bonded Warehouses and the third line of pylons is visible behind the Cambuskenneth Abbey running parallel with the 

A91. 

None of these vertical manmade features breaks the skyline other than the chimney of Longannet Power Station. 

The left side of the view is dominated by the Ochil Hills. On the bottom of The River Devon valley the ‘Hillfoots’ 

settlements are visible. 


The proposal site is not visible from the viewpoint. Its approximate location is identifiable by Alloa Works’ chimneys. 


Bonded Warehouses, Longannet Power Station; Kincardine high block building, the 380kV Forth Crossing; 



Stirling Castle is a National Landmark 







Viewpoint 7: Fallin Village 



Bearing 94º Direction of View: East 



Existing Cumulative none 


visibility: 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the A905 on the edge of Fallin village. The viewpoint is situated 4.77km to the west of the 

site at an elevation of 20m AOD. 

Context: 

The A905 runs through the village.. 

The River Forth binds Fallin village to the north. 

The National Route No 76 passes the village’s southern boundary. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of residents of Fallin village and A905 users who are heading east. 

The viewpoint represents the view which would be achieved by National Route No 76 users. 


The view is enclosed and at a low elevation. There is a small green field in the foreground and, a treebelt crosses the 

view and forms the short distance skyline. Bandeath Industrial Estate is hidden behind this treebelt. The tops of the 

Alloa Sewage Works’ chimneys appear above the tree-canopy. 

On left side of the view the Ochil Hills rise above the vegetation line and form the skyline at a distance of 5km 

The view is monotonous and lacks any landscape features. 


The proposal site is not visible from the viewpoint. Its approximate location is identified by Alloa Works’ chimneys. 


The tops of Alloa Works’ chimneys. 







Viewpoint 8: A905 


Bearing 20º Direction of View: North east 





visibility: 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the lay-by of the A905 on the eastern edge of Dunmore Park. The viewpoint is situated 

1.38km to the south west of the site at an elevation of 10m AOD. 

Context: 

The A905 runs between Stirling and Grangemouth alongside the River Forth. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of A905 road users. At this point road users heading in both 

directions would achieve a view of the site. 

The viewpoint represents the view which would be achieved by National Route No 76 users. 


The view presents an open panorama between Alloa and Clackmannan. The Ochil Hills form a backcloth to the 

countryside landscape. Above the River Forth valley rises the King’s Seat Hill which houses the Clackmannan Tower. 

Clackmannan church is visible on the foothill of the King’s Seat Hill. 

The water of the River Forth is not visible therefore the middle ground of the view appears as a large flat green field 

marked by hedgerows and trees. 

Alloa’s built up area is visible on the left side of the view. As the ground rises the highest level on which Alloa sits is 

69m. The section of the town which is expected to be visible is only that part which is close to the coastline. Most of 

Alloa is obscured from view by the vegetation. 


The River Devon flows into the River Forth and binds the proposal site to the east. This area is visible as a brown field 

which marks the site’s location in this view. 

The length of the site area covers 2/3 of the view. 


The 380kV Forth Crossing runs between Alloa and Clackmannan. The trees on the middle ground, when they have 

leaves, will block views of these pylons. 


None identified, although the viewpoint is on the edge of the Dunmore Park boundary. 







Viewpoint 9: Dunmore Village 



Bearing 1º Direction of View: north 





visibility: 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the grounds of the residential property which is at the end of the row of buildings just some 

metres from the waterfront. The Dunmore stream flows into the River Forth at this point. 

The viewpoint is situated 1.03km to the south of the site at an elevation of 5m AOD. 

Context: 

Dunmore is a prime example of a 19th century model village which was built to house estate workers and is located 

within an area of good quality agricultural land. 

Dunmore contains an attractive group of stone cottages which surround three sides of a village green, the northern 

side being bordered by the River Forth. Access to the village is from the A905. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of residents of Dunmore village. 

The route of the Forth Foreshore Footpath passes through Dunmore and will provide an opportunity for visitors to 

experience this attractive village. 


It is a short distance view over the River Forth to its opposite shore. The Ochil Hills form the skyline and backdrop for 

the view as they are situated between Alloa and Clackmannan. 

The large white coloured industrial complex of Alloa is conspicuous on the left side of the view on the backdrop of the 

Ochil Hills. 

Directly across the River Forth floodplain is King’s Seat Hill with Clackmannan Tower on its top. Clackmannan church, 

one of the local landmarks, is visible on the foothill of King’s Seat Hill. Two pylons on the shore of the River Forth are 

equivalent in height to King’s Hill at this point. Clackmannan Public Park is marked by the tall line of poplars. 

Behind Clackmannan the dark strips of the Forest plantations are visible on the Lowland Valley Fringes. Gently 

undulating rounded low hills with large areas of plantations form the skyline on the right side of the view. Pylons break 

the skyline above the plantations. 



marks the site’s location in this view. 

The proposal site alongside the river is visible in its full length and size. 


The 380kV Forth Crossing runs alongside the northern shore of the River Forth. Several large outbuildings of farms 

(Park Farm, Inch of Ferryton, Loanside, Kennet Pans) are in the shoreline view. Alloa Works’ chimneys and other 

industrial structures are located close to the River Forth. 


Dunmore Village was designated as a Conservation Area in 1977 in order to protect and enhance its special 

architectural quality. All of the dwelling houses which face on to the village green are listed buildings and many of the 

mature trees in the village are covered by a Tree Preservation Order. 







Viewpoint 10: Public Path Pineapple 








visibility: 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the public Path at a point where it joins with the access road to the Dunmore Pineapple. 


Context: 

This Public Path heads through the field to Dunmore Woods. Airth Castle is just 1.2km to the south. Some hundred 

metres northwards sits the Dunmore Pineapple. 

Both estates are accommodated on the higher grounds of the River Forth Valley at a level of 30m AOD. 

The turn off from A905 to the B9124 leads to the access gate to the Dunmore Pineapple. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of walkers and recreational users of the landscape. It also 

represents visitors to Dunmore Pineapple for whom it is an access view. 


It is a short distance view over the green field. The view is edged by the dense vegetation belt which joins with the 

Dunmore Woods on the left side of the view. The peak of the Ochil Hills rises above this vegetation line. On this 

elevation of 15m AOD the Ochil Hills appear as low elevation hills. The treebelt breaks the skyline above the Ochil 

Hills. 

The view opens on the right side where the town of Clackmannan is in view over the River Forth. The A905 which runs 

parallel to the River Forth is also visible. 

On the backdrop of the Ochil Hills the dark line of the Forest plantations marks the Lowland Hills and Valley’s 

undulating landmass. 


The proposal site is not visible from the viewpoint. Its approximate location is identifiable by the settlement of 

Clackmannan. 


No visual detractors on the 75 degree view are seen. However in 95 degree views the row of pylons which run along 

the shore are visible on the right side of the view. 


None identified although the viewpoint is close to the Designed landscape of the Dunmore Pineapple. 







Viewpoint 11: Airth Village 








visibility: 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the grounds of the residential property on the northern edge of Airth Village. 


Context: 

The village of Airth lies on the A905 which runs parallel to the south bank of the River Forth from Stirling to 

Grangemouth. It is 1.6km north of the junction from which are access roads to the nearby Clackmannanshire Bridge. 

Airth Castle (now functioning as a hotel) sits on the top of the Hill of Airth in wooded grounds on the west boundary of 

the village. Airth Castle is accessible from the A905 in Airth. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of Airth village residents and the A905 road users who are heading 

in the direction of Stirling. 


It is a wide panorama over the River Forth floodplains to the Ochil Hills which form the horizon at a distance of 10km . 

In the foreground large arable fields sprawl over the River Forth floodplain. The River Forth’s water is not visible, 

therefore a strong contrast with the flat carselands of the Forth valley and the high ground of the Ochil Hills is felt. 

The vegetation of the fields’ boundary and riverside form the dense and green middle ground of the view. 

The gently rising King’s Seat Hill along with the Clackmannan Tower are distinguishable but the peak of Kings Seat is 

almost on an equal elevation as the Lowland Hills and Valleys’. The ridge of low rounded hills with large dark areas of 

plantations on top of it is visible to the east of Clackmannan. 

The settlements of Alloa and Clackmannan do not stand out in the view as they are well screened by the intervening 

vegetation. 

The 380kV Forth Crossing runs between Alloa and Clackmannan. The tops of pylons break the skyline above the low 

hills on the right side of the view. 




The 380kV Forth Crossing runs between Alloa and Clackmannan; Alloa Works’ chimneys. 


None identified. 







Viewpoint 12: Bo’ness 



Bearing 310º Direction of View: North west 

LCT: Coastal margins LCU: The Bo’ness Coastal Hills 


Existing Cumulative Earlsburn WF 


visibility: 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the grounds of the public open space (Victoria Park) of Bo’ness. The viewpoint is situated 

13.72km to the south east of the site at an elevation of 54m AOD. The viewpoint is between Bo’ness Town Centre 

Conservation Area and Grange Terrace Conservation Area. 

Context: 

Bo’ness lies on a hillside on the south bank of the Firth of Forth therefore its grounds slope down to the River Forth. 

The town is developed in the form of terraces. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of residents of Bo’ness. 


The elevated position of the viewpoint affords a panoramic long distance view with the Highlands on the horizon. The 

chimney of the Longannet Power Station breaks the skyline above the misty peaks of the Highlands. The chimney is 

the centre focal point of the view, over the River Forth water on the middle ground and over the rooftops of Bo’ness in 

the foreground. 

On the right side of the view the Ochil Hills rise on the skyline. Above the River Forth water rise the Lowland Valley 

Fringes low, rounded hills with large dark areas of plantations on the top of them. The Ochil Hills form a light backdrop 

for the dark plantation line covering the ridge of low hills. 

On the left side of the view the eastern boundary of the Touch Hills forms the skyline. Broad swathes of hummocky 

farmland form a transition in height and form from west to east between the Touch hill-slopes and the wide flat valley 

of the Forth Estuary. The blade tips of the Craigengelt wind energy development are visible over the Touch Hill 


Grangemouth Oil Refinery is on the opposite position to the Longannet Power Station on the backdrop of the Touch 

Hills landform. 

The River Forth estuary on the middle ground dominates the view. On the east side of Grangemouth, the River Avon 

joins with the River Forth and on its west side the River Garron flows into the River Forth. 


The proposal site is not visible from the viewpoint. It remains behind the undulating landform adjacent to Longannet 

Power Station. 


Longannet Power Station; the pylons; Grangemouth Oil Refinery chimneys, Craigengelt wind energy development, 

lattice towers close to Kincardine Bridge. 

Landscape Designations: Conservation area. 







Viewpoint 13: Ben Cleuch 



Bearing 186º Direction of View: south 

LCT: Lowland Hills LCU: Ochil Hills 



9.25km 


visibility: 


Earlsburn WF 


Burnfoot WF 

Greenknowes WF 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the peak of Ben Cleuch. The viewpoint is situated 9.25km to the north of the site at an 

elevation of 721m AOD. 

Context: 

The route to Ben Cleuch begins in the car park of the Ochil Hills Woodland Park, which is accessed from the A91 

immediately to the east of Alva. The path rises through the woodland and heads into the upper reaches of Silver Glen 

to emerge on the ridge of Ben Ever which is on the way to Ben Cleuch. 


The hill is a popular climb with tourists and visitors to the Stirling area. 


The high position of the viewpoint affords a 360 degree landscape view. The view towards the proposed site is a high 

elevated open panorama with an almost infinite horizon over the Lowland plateau. On the left side of the view, above 

the Slamannan Plateau the Pentland Hills are visible on the horizon and on the right side the Lowland Hills rise on the 

horizon. Craigengelt wind energy development layout is visible in the view on top of Craigengelt Hill. The turbines 

appear on the dark background of the Fintry Hills. Only the blades of the Earlsburn wind energy development are seen 

in the view. 

The landform of Ben Cleuch with its grass and heather moorland forms the foreground of the view. On the middleground 

of the view sprawls the River Forth floodplain. The drop in the levels is conspicuous .The water of the River 

Forth and its meandering shape, more convoluted above Alloa, forms the focus of this view. The built up area of Alloa 

and Tullibody spreads alongside the shore of the River Forth. The light coloured Bonded Warehouses catch the eye 

beyond Tullibody. 

On the other side of the river the light towerblocks of Falkirk on the dark backdrop of the woodland are perceivable. 

Cowie and Grangemouth are distinguishable by their chimneys. Throughout the agricultural parts of the landscape, 

several isolated areas of woodland indicate the course of rivers. The Dunmore Woods are in the view opposite to Alloa 

on the southern shore of the River Forth. 

The vertical features do not stand out in this elevated view. The Longannet Power Station and Kincardine Bridge are 

prominent against the River Forth water in the view. The four highest pylons of the 380kV Forth Crossing protrude 

close to the River Forth and direct the attention to the row of pylons running alongside the coastline and to the lattice 

towers which stand on both sides of the Clackmannanshire Bridge. These vertical manmade features do not break the 

skyline. 



marks the site’s location in this view. The proposal site alongside the river is visible in its full length and size. The four 

highest pylons of the 380kV Forth Crossing indicate the site’s location in the view. 


Bonded Warehouses Longannet Power Station; Kincardine high block building, the 380kV Forth Crossing; 


Operating and installed wind energy developments such as Craigengelt and Earlsburn. 


The viewpoint is within the AGLV of the Ochil Hills. 







Viewpoint 14: Falkirk Wheel 




LCT: Lowland River Valley LCU: Falkirk/Denny Urban 

Fringe 



11.42km 


visibility: 



Earlsburn WF 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the higher point of the Falkirk Wheel where the rotating boat lift is connected to the Union 

Canal. The viewpoint is situated 11.42km to the south west of the site at an elevation of 62m AOD 

Context: 

The Falkirk Wheel is a rotating boat lift connecting the Forth and Clyde Canal with the Union Canal. It is 35m high. 

Situated in a natural amphitheatre outside Falkirk, this remarkable lift is the only structure of its kind in the world. The 

Forth & Clyde Canal pass the Falkirk Wheel en route. 



landscape. 


The elevated position of the viewpoint affords a panoramic long distance view with the Ochil Hills forming the straight 

skyline. Scarp slopes of the Ochil Hills form the backdrop to the carseland of the Lowland River Valley landscape. 

The woodland on the foreground hides the Forth and Clyde Canal. The vegetation line behind large industrial buildings 

marks the course of the River Garron. Above the vegetation the sprawl of Larbert’s built up area can be seen. 

The tower of the Larbert Church rises above the River Garron vegetation. The church lies in the heart of 

Stenhousemuir, which is the larger of the two villages. This tower is recognisable as a local landmark and can be seen 

from higher elevations in Falkirk. 

Over the Lowland River Valley the shape of the King’s Seat Hill is distinguishable above the dark river valley 

vegetation. The range of the Ochil Hills runs in a north east direction. Further to the right of the view the Upland Hills 

form the skyline. In between these high landmasses roll the Lowland Valley Fringes low, rounded hills with large dark 

areas of plantations on top. The Kincardine block building is visible on the dark backdrop of the plantations. The top 

parts of the lattice towers break the skyline above the Lowland Valley Fringes. 

On the left side of the view the Craigengelt wind energy development is visible on the top of Craigengelt Hill. The view 

looks over the Lowland Hill Fringes’ broad swathes of hummocky farmland visible on the other side of the Falkirk 

Wheel construction. 


The proposal site is not visible from the viewpoint due to the distance and the undulating landform and the screening 

vegetation. 


Large industrial buildings of Lochlands are directly in the view. 

The tops of the lattice towers (barely perceptible) break the skyline above the Lowland Hills and Valleys’ ridge. 

Some pylons of the row running on the River Carron valley are seen although they do not stand out in the view. 

Extensive road and rail network of this flatland area is hidden by vegetation. 









Viewpoint 15: Shieldhill 




LCT: Lowland Plateaux LCU: Slamannan Plateau 


Existing Cumulative Braes of Doune WF 


visibility: 


Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the B8028 which runs through Shieldhill. At this point the B8028 forms the main street of 

Shieldhill. The viewpoint is situated 13.71km to the south of the site at an elevation of 182m AOD. 

Context: 

The B8028 runs through Shieldhill and turns up to the higher levels of Slamannan Plateau. Shieldhill is one of the 

towns near Falkirk. Polmont Station and M9 are in close proximity being just 3.4km to the north west and Falkirk 

Station 2.3km to the north. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of Shieldhill residents and B8028 road users who are heading 

towards Falkirk. 


The elevated position of the viewpoint on Slamannan Plateau affords a panoramic long distance view with the 

Highland hills on the horizon. Straight in the view is Braes of Doune wind energy development in its full size layout. It is 

visible at a distance of approximately 37km.. 

In the foreground is a residential open space area and also Shieldhill properties. The ground drops down towards the 

River Carron valley where the settlement of Falkirk spreads. 

The settlement’s sprawl is bisected by the woodland strips which form the middle ground of the view. Beyond Falkirk 

the Lowland Hills Fringe landscape cuts into the flat Lowland River Valley landscape. 

On the right side of the view the Ochil Hills form the skyline and the scarp slopes of the Ochil Hills form the backdrop 

to the carseland of the Lowland River Valley landscape. On the left side of the view the Lowland Hills Fringe rises up 

to the Touch Hills where the Craigengelt wind energy development layout is visible. The view looks over the Lowland 

Fringe’s broad swathes of hummocky farmland visible beyond Falkirk’s urban sprawl. 

Callander Wood’s dark canopy line is visible above Glen Village on the southern edge of Falkirk. Langlees Woodland 

canopy is visible above the built up area of Falkirk. Further down on the River Forth floodplain the white chimneys of 

the Alloa Works are barely perceptable above the canopy of the Dunmore Woods. 

The water of the River Forth and both of the bridges which cross it are in the view near to Kincardine. The Kincardine 

tower block building is visible on the backdrop of dark plantations. 


The proposal site is not visible from the viewpoint. Its location is identified by the white chimneys of the Alloa Works 

which are distinguishable above the canopy of the Dunmore Woods. 

Due to the elevation and the distance of the view the King’s Seat Hill (another local landmark) is not distinguishable 

against the River Forth floodplain. 


Two lattice towers are clearly visible near to the Clackmannanshire Bridge although they do not break the skyline. 

Three rows of pylons meet between Denny and Larbert (Bonnybridge and Falkirk). Some of them are visible on the 

backdrop of woodland. 









Viewpoint 16: Dumyat 







8.16km 


visibility: 


Earlsburn WF 


Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the summit of Dumyat Hill. The viewpoint is situated 8.16km to the north west of the site at 

an elevation of 426m AOD. 

Context: 

Dumyat is a hill at the western extremity of the Ochil Hills. The characteristic shape of the hill forms an important part 

of the distinctive scenery of the Stirling area, and it is often depicted in combination with the nearby Abbey Craig. 


The hill is a popular climb with tourists and visitors to the Stirling and Trossachs area, due to the historical nature of 

Stirling and the proximity of the Wallace Monument. 


It is an elevated, almost 360 degrees open panorama over the River Forth floodplain and Slamannan Plateau to the 

Pentland Hills on the horizon. Cleish Hills with Knock Hill rise above the Lowland Fringes landscape and form the 

skyline to the east of the view. Higher landmasses of the Ochil Hills block the views to the north east. To the north and 

north west the Highland summits rise above the Knaik Hills on the horizon. To the west the Lowland Hills form the 

skyline. 

The view does not have a distinctive foreground because it drops down to the flat Lowland River Valleys’ landscape. In 

the middle ground on the Middle Devon Carseland some of the Ochil Hills Foothill’s settlements such as Menstrie and 

Alva are visible. The water of the River Forth and its meandering shape, more convoluted above Alloa, form the focus 

of this view. The built up areas of Alloa and Tullibody spread alongside the shore of the River Forth. The light coloured 

Bonded Warehouses catch the eye beyond Tullibody. 

On the other side of the river the light towerblocks of Falkirk on the dark backdrop of the woodland are perceivable. 

Cowie and Grangemouth are distinguishable by their chimneys. Throughout the agricultural parts of the landscape, 

several isolated areas of woodland lie indicating the course of rivers. 

The most eye catching feature of this flat landscape are the light coloured flat roofs of the Bonded Warehouses which 

cover an area of almost 100 hectares. 

The vertical features do not stand out in this elevated view. The chimneys of Alloa Works and Longannet Power 

Station are distinguishable. Grangemouth Oil Refinery on the backdrop of the Slamannan Plateau is identifiable by the 

smoke from its chimneys. These vertical manmade features do not break the skyline. 


The River Devon flows into the River Forth and binds the site to the east. This area is visible as a brown field beyond 

the Alloa Works chimneys. The proposal site alongside the river is visible in its full length and size. 


Bonded Warehouses, Longannet Power Station, Kincardine high block building, the four highest pylons of the 380kV 

Forth Crossing, Grangemouth Oil Refinery chimneys, chimneys of Cowie and Alloa Works, lattice towers, Craigengelt, 

Earlsburn and Braes of Doune wind energy developments. The cluttered composition with an overly dense and 

confused appearance and the frequent overlapping of turbines of the Braes of Doune is the main visual detractor in 

contrast to the attractive view of the Highlands. 


AGLV of the Ochil Hills 







Viewpoint 17: Saline Hill 




LCT: 

Upland Igneous and LCU: 

Cleish Hills 

Volcanic Hills 




visibility: 


Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the foothill of Saline Hill. The viewpoint is situated 13.82km to the east of the site at an 


Context: 

Saline is a village in Fife approximately 8 km to the north-west of Dunfermline. The village is dominated to the eastnorth-east 

by Saline Hill, 359 meters AOD, with a hill fort on its eastern summit. There is no marked footpath to the 

summit of Saline Hill. 


The viewpoint represents receptor views towards the proposed site from the east. 


The view towards the proposed site is an elevated open panorama with Highland Summits on the far horizon. The 

Ochil Hills form the skyline to the right of the view and Lowland Hills to the left side of the view. The view stretches over 

the broad and rolling grounds of the Lowland Fringes landscape. Several large coniferous blocks and mixed woodlands 

are integrated within the undulating landform. 

All settlements are well concealed by woodland. Saline village is seen on the bottom of the foothill of Saline Hill. 

Clackmannan is barely perceptible between the Devilla Forest and the Forest plantations. 

The River Forth is not visible in the direct view, but its water comes into the view to the south where the flare stacks of 

Grangemouth and the Longannet Power Station chimney are also visible. 

The Greenknowes turbines are visible to the north in the view on the Ochil Hills and above the skyline. 

The rotating turbine blades of Craigengelt wind energy development are distinguishable on the Lowland Hills in the 

west. 


Due to the distance the proposal site is not visible from the viewpoint. As it is hard to distinguish the location of 

Clackmannan therefore it is even more difficult in the case of the proposed site which remains behind Clackmannan. 


Longannet Power Station; Grangemouth Oil Refinery chimneys, Craigengelt and Greenknowes wind energy 

developments. 


Upland Igneous and Volcanic Hills AGLV 







Viewpoint 18: Cowie 




LCT: Lowland Hill Fringes LCU: East Touch Fringe 


Existing Cumulative Braes of Doune WF 


visibility: 


Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the public open space near to the Community Centre in Cowie. The viewpoint is situated 


Context: 

Cowie is one of the three 'Eastern Villages' of Stirling Council Area, Cowie is situated to the southeast of Bannockburn. 

The B9124 goes through Cowie and joins with A91 to the west close to Bannockburn. It also allows access to Gowie 

from the south where it links with the A9. Cowie is also accessible by the minor road which joins with the A905 to the 

north. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of Cowie residents. 


It is an open panorama with the Ochil Hills dominating the skyline. The elevated position allows views over the 

northern part of Cowie’s built up area forming a distinct foreground of the view. The River Forth Floodplain is hidden 

behind the buildings and the rolling landform. 

On the left side of the view the Ochil Hills rise direct above the rooftops of Cowie, only a strip of vegetation is visible 

between the hills and the roofs. 

On the right side of the view the horizon is further away. Some peaks of the Uplands rise above the Lowland Hills and 

the Lowland Valley Fringes. This ridge of low rounded hills with large dark areas of plantations on top of it runs to the 

east of Clackmannan. 

The gently rising King’s Seat Hill (with Clackmannan Tower on top of it) is distinguishable as its open non-vegetated 

foothill contrasts with the surrounding dark plantations. 


The proposal site is not visible from the viewpoint. The River Forth water and floodplain are not visible from this 

viewpoint. The location of the proposal site is indicated by the King’s Seat Hill which can be seen above the proposal 

site.. 


The 380kV Forth Crossing next to the Alloa Works’ chimneys. Cowieshall Quarry is seen in the right side of the view. 









Viewpoint 19: South Alloa 



Bearing 105º Direction of View: east 




1.28km 


visibility: 


Earlsburn 

Braes of Doune 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the core path (010/71) running parallel with the Ferry Road alongside the River Forth and 

both converge at the slipway on the River Forth. The viewpoint is situated 1.28km to the west of the site at an 


Context: 

South Alloa lies on the banks of the River Forth. It is at the point where the river convolutes and the village is situated 

on a peninsula. South Alloa has developed in a linear form along one side of Ferry Road, incorporating a number of 

two storey and non-traditional single storey Local Authority housing, modern privately built dwellinghouses of varied 

character and various large industrial/business buildings. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of South Alloa residents and workers of its industrial site. 


This view does not have a distinct foreground, middle ground or background. The eye is drawn to the Ochil Hills which 

form the skyline, at a relatively short distance of 5km. The foreground of the view is filled by the riverside path and its 

boundary vegetation. The Ferry Road runs parallel with the path on its right side. The tops of the Alloa Works’ 

chimneys break the skyline above the Ochil Hills. Alloa Tower is clearly visible adjacent to the chimneys. 

On the right side of the view the River Forth water is open to view. On the southern shore of the River Forth, Alloa’s 

large light coloured industrial buildings are in the view. The woodland of the Lowland Valley Fringes is seen above 

these buildings, softening the appearance of the industrial area in this view. 

On right side of the view South Alloa’s industrial buildings and pylons of the 380kV Forth Crossing are located at a 

short distance against the skyline. Through a gap in the buildings the Clackmannan Tower is visible. 


The proposal site is not visible from the viewpoint. The Alloa Works chimneys are in the view; in a gap between the 

industrial buildings the Clackmannan Tower is visible. The location of the proposal site between Alloa and 

Clackmannan is indicated by these above named landmarks. 


The 380kV Forth Crossing next to the Alloa Works’ chimneys. 









Viewpoint 20: A876 to Clackmannanshire Bridge 




LCT: Coastal margins LCU: Kincardine Coastal Flats 


Existing Cumulative Earlsburn 


visibility: 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the National Cycle Way on the Clackmannanshire bridge. The viewpoint is situated 


Context: 

The bridge crossing, designed to alleviate traffic pressure on the Kincardine Bridge includes an extensive network of 

new cycleways and footpaths and provides transport links between Clackmannanshire, Falkirk and Fife. 


This viewpoint is selected as being representative of A876 road users who are heading to the Clackmannanshire 

Bridge in a north east direction. The viewpoint represents the general view that would be seen crossing the bridge on 

foot or by bicycle as the high railings of the bridge block views for vehicle users. 


It is a wide panorama over the River Forth flood plain and its water to the Ochil Hills which at a distance of 10km form 

the skyline. On the left side of the view the Highlands faded summits rise behind the Ochil Hills. The lower horizon is 

formed by the dark vegetation line. Dunmore village buildings are distinguishable through the riverside vegetation. 

The distinguishable shape of Abbey Craig with the Wallace Monument on top of it appears above the vegetation line 

on the background of the Highland Summits. 

The light coloured Alloa industrial development lies directly in view on the northern shore of the River Forth. Alloa 

Works chimneys and the highest four pylons are clearly visible. The most conspicuous vertical elements are two lattice 

towers, one on each side of the bridge. The lattice towers break the skyline above the Ochil Hills. 

The King’s Seat Hill with Clackmannan Tower and church are visible on the right side of the view on a backdrop of the 

Ochil Hills. The run of pylons of the ‘Forth Crossing’ is clearly seen alongside the shore of the River Forth. The pylons 

extend over the riverside vegetation and the landform of King’s Seat Hill. 


The proposal site is not clearly visible from the viewpoint. The Alloa Works chimneys are in the view and the 

Clackmannan Tower is visible. The location of the proposal site between Alloa and Clackmannan is indicated by these 

above named landmarks. Part of the site remains behind the dark line of the riverside vegetation. 


Both lattice towers rise above the Ochil Hills and break the skyline. The 380kV Forth Crossing runs along the northern 

shore of the River Forth towards Alloa where it crosses the river. Alloa Works’ white chimneys and industrial buildings 

are clearly visible on the darker backdrop of the Ochil Hills. 









Viewpoint 21: Cairnpapple Hill 




LCT: Lowland Hills LCU: Bathgate Hills 



20.78km 


visibility: 


Earlsburn WF 

Black Hill WF 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from the Cairnpapple Hill on top of the concrete dome. The viewpoint is situated 20.78km to the 

south of the site at an elevation of 312m AOD. Cairnpapple Hill is just 1.2km north of Bathgate, near to Edinburgh. 

Context: 

Cairnpapple was used from about 3,000 BC to 1400 BC firstly as a ceremonial site then several centuries later as a 

burial site. It is situated on the summit of Cairnpapple Hill with views over central Scotland, and as far as Arran to the 

west and to the Bass Rock in the east on a clear day. 


The hill is popular with tourists, ‘Beecraigs and Cairnpapple Hill’ Cycle Route users from Linlithgow 


The high position of the viewpoint affords an almost 360 degree landscape view. The view northwards towards the 

proposed site is a high elevated open panorama with the Ochil Hills on the horizon. To the north east can be seen the 

arches of the Forth Bridge, the Firth of Forth with the Southern Highlands on the horizon. To the south the Pentland 

Hills are visible on the far horizon. To the south west and the west is the large expanse of the open, undulating 

Lowland Plateaux. To the north west the Lowland Hills rise on the horizon. 

The gently sloping terrains of the Bathgate Hills with large scale coniferous woodlands running along hilltops are 

prominent features on the foreground view. The Lochcote Reservoir is seen on the slope of Cow Hill in direct view. 

Beyond the elevated foreground the flame stacks of Grangemouth focus the view. The floodplain of the River Forth 

spreads behind stretching to the Ochil Hills. Longannet power Station stands out as a recognizable landmark beside 

the river. The dense band of settlements of the Falkirk-Denny Urban Fringe is distinguishable to the west of 

Grangemouth. 


Due to the distance the proposal site is not visible from the viewpoint. The Alloa Work’s chimneys as the reference 

features are not visible. 


Longannet Power Station; Grangemouth Oil Refinery chimneys, Radio Station Mast on Cairnpapple Hill 


Cairnpapple is a monument of national importance. 

The Bathgate Hills and River Avon valley AGLV. 







Viewpoint 22: Tomtain Hill 




LCT: Lowland Hills LCU: Kilsyth Hills 



19.45km 


visibility: 



Earlsburn WF 

Greendykeside WF 

Location: 

The viewpoint is taken from a foothill of Tomtain Hill. The viewpoint is situated 19.45km to the south west of the site at 

an elevation of 438m AOD. 

Context: 

The route to Tomtain begins from the minor road which runs from Kilsyth to Carron Bridge. The small hamlet of Carron 

Bridge lies at the east end of the Carron Valley Reservoir. On the road is the Tack Ma Doon pointed viewpoint at a 

level of 322m AOD. 

From the summit this is probably one of the best viewpoints in Scotland looking north to Perthshire, Callander, Stirling, 

the Wallace Monument, West to Glasgow, the Isle of Arran, South to Coatbridge, the Borders area and East to 

Grangemouth, Edinburgh the Forth Bridges and the Kingdom of Fife. 


The Kilsyth Hills are an inhabited area but are excellent for hill walking. Kilsyth is one of only two official “Walkers 

Welcome” towns in Scotland. Therefore this viewpoint represents mainly one of hill walkers’ interests. 


It is an elevated, 280 degrees wide open panorama with an almost infinite horizon over the Lowland Valley Fringes’ 

gently rolling low hills in a north east direction. The ridges of the Upland Hills appear above the Lowland Fringe 

landscape. The Ochil Hills rise on the horizon to the north east and the peaks of the Southern Highlands form the 

horizon to the north above the Touch Hills. To the east the Pentland Hills are visible on the far horizon. Even the shape 

of the Forth Bridge is distinguishable. The River Forth water appears above the urban sprawl of Falkirk and 

Grangemouth. Longannet power Station stands out as a recognizable landmark beside the river. 

To the south, the view stretches over the Lowland Plateaux where the urban sprawl of Cumbernauld is visible and two 

turbines of Greendykeside rise above this relatively flat area. 

The Denny Muir landform which is covered by the plantations dominates on the foreground of the view before 

descending to the Carron Valley. The Loch Coulter Reservoir and Stirling’s Industrial Estate beyond it stand out on the 

middle ground of the view. The distinctive shape of the Wallace Monument on the Abbey Craig is perceivable beyond 

the Lewis Hill escarpment on the backcloth of the Ochil Hills. 

The broad flat floodplain of the River Forth contrasts with the Ochil Hills beyond Denny Muir on the far middle ground 

of the view. The settlements pattern is not clearly visible and the Alloa Works chimneys are not distinguishable in 

locating the proposed wind energy development’s site. 

The importance of the close visual interrelationship with neighbouring lowland areas, in connection with the adjoining 

hill mass to the north; the open character and absence of settlement creates a refuge of remoteness in close proximity 

to densely settled areas. 


The proposal site is not visible from the viewpoint. The settlements pattern on the Lowland River Valley is not clearly 

visible and therefore the approximate location of the proposed site is identified by Cowie Works chimneys. 


Most of the visual detractors remain at a long distance and therefore they are barely perceptible in the view. 

Craigengelt and Earlsburn wind energy developments are visible to the north of the viewpoint. Braes of Doune wind 

energy development’s cluttered layout is in the view behind Craigengelt. Some blades of Earlsburn wind energy 

development break the skyline, otherwise all turbines and blades are seen against the backdrop of Lowland and 

Highland landforms. 


The viewpoint is within the AGLV Kilsyth Hills. 








9.4.1 The landscape and visual assessment is intended to determine the effects that the proposed 

wind energy development will have on the landscape and visual resource. The assessment is 

presented in two sections: 

• the phases of the proposed wind energy development; and 

• potential effects on the landscape and visual resource 

9.4.2 Effects of the proposed wind energy development on the landscape and visual resource will 

arise from the construction, operation and de-commissioning of the wind turbines, access 

tracks, substation compound and building. While the principal effects result from the turbines, 

other aspects of the wind energy development such as access tracks are also likely to have 

some effect, but this will generally be more limited. A description of the proposed wind energy 

development phases is contained in Chapter 4. 

9.4.3 The temporary construction facilities, such as cranes, construction vehicles, construction 

compounds, laydown areas and delivery vehicles required during the construction of the wind 

energy development will have effects on the landscape and visual resource. It is anticipated 

that construction of the proposed wind energy development will take approximately 6 months, 

under phases described in Chapter 4 of the ES. The construction effects assessed in this 

section are therefore predicted to occur during this period and end at the start of the 

operational stage. 

9.4.4 All construction works will be confined to the immediate surroundings of the site. The works 

would individually and cumulatively give rise to landscape and visual effects. These effects 

would however be temporary and would mainly arise through vehicle movements, construction 

of access tracks and erection of the turbines. The effects arising from other operations, 

including the excavation of turbine foundations, cable trenches and the construction compound 

would be localised, with attention being drawn to the area through vehicle movements and 

plant rather than the physical changes arising from the work. 

9.4.5 The final layout reflects a design which aims to minimise visual impacts on and around the site, 

while maximising the turbines’ exposure to the prevailing wind resource. The landscape and 

visual effects of the construction phase are considered below. 

Site access, Wind Turbine Foundations and Cable Routes 

9.4.6 Ground disturbance would be restricted to the existing and new site access tracks, excavation 

for wind turbine bases, underground cable routes and temporary works associated with the site 

compound. Ground disturbances would be fully reinstated where possible, as described in 

Chapter 4, Section 4.8 ‘Civil Works’. Figure 1.2 illustrates the new and existing access track 

layout. 




Temporary Site Compound 

9.4.7 A temporary construction compound 50m x 50m has been sensitively located (Figure 1.2). 

The construction compound will accommodate all the required welfare facilities. Other 

temporary fenced compound areas may be established on turbine craneage areas as 

appropriate for security of plant in remote parts of the site. These will not require any additional 

hard standing to that proposed for the craneage areas. Within six months of the proposed wind 

energy development becoming operational, all portacabins, machinery and equipment will be 

removed and the laydown area fully restored. 

HGV Deliveries to Site and Movement of Vehicles on Site 

9.4.8 During the construction period, vehicle movements would consist of construction plant, 

aggregates movements and the delivery and erection of wind turbine components. Further 

information on anticipated vehicle movements is provided within Chapter 7. 

Erection of the Wind Turbines 

9.4.9 The wind turbines would be erected by use of two heavy lift mobile cranes. The appearance of 

the crane in views of the site would be of short duration. 

Potential Construction Effects on Landscape 

9.4.10 During the construction of the proposed wind energy development, the main construction 

activities would take place in a combination of restored ground and open fields and would 

result in the temporary loss of approximately 2.6 hectares of semi-improved grassland and a 

number of small trees and bushes growing along the fenced boundaries. The fabric of this 

landscape has been previously disturbed as part of the site is a former landfill site and is 

therefore considered to be of low sensitivity to the construction activities. The loss in 

landscape fabric during the construction stage would be minor, relative to the extensive 

agricultural fields in the vicinity. The application area is devoid of any substantial vegetation, 

with most of the site covered by rough grassland. The effects on landscape fabric would be 

short-term and good site management plus reinstatement at the end of the construction phase 

will minimise the extent and duration of these effects. The presence of invasive species such 

as Japanese knotweed, located within the eastern arm of the application area and giant 

hogweed, identified at the western end of the application area, reduces significantly the 

landscape value of the site. 

9.4.11 Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed are invasive weeds controlled by legislation 

concerning the way in which it is treated and disposed of due to its damaging ability to spread 

aggressively if mishandled. Both plants are listed under Schedule 9 to the Wildlife and 

Countryside Act 1981 with respect to England, Wales and Scotland. As such it is an offence to 

plant or otherwise cause this species to grow in the wild. Under the Environmental Protection 

Act 1990, Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed are also classified as controlled waste. 

Failure to follow the guidelines set out by this legislation and not to have the correct licenses in 

place can lead to prosecution under this extensive legislation. 




9.4.12 The effects on the character of the landscape during the construction phase would result 

primarily from the activity and movement of large construction vehicles on the site and on the 

network of minor roads in the surrounding areas. The landscape character of the site and its 

surroundings is considered to have a low sensitivity to temporary construction traffic. The 

effects of this on the character is considered to be medium/high in magnitude; however the 

effects would be temporary, of short duration and limited in extent. 

9.4.13 Accordingly the significance of the temporary construction effects on the character of the 

landscape is considered to be moderate due to the limited extent and duration. 

Potential Construction Effects on Visual Amenity 

9.4.14 The flat topography of Lowland River Valley landscape would limit the visibility of construction 

operations to an extent, reinforced by the riverside and roadside vegetation in some areas. The 

visual effects during the construction period would be predominantly limited to ‘close-range 

views’ of the erection, dismantling and movement of the crane, layout areas, temporary 

compound, control building and construction vehicles using the site access track and entrance. 

The visual effects of the activities during the construction phase would be temporary and 

intermittent and will be minimised by good site management and a relatively short construction 

programme (see Chapter 4 Description of the Proposed Development). 

9.4.15 Vehicle movements to and from the site would be visible and would give rise to an increased 

perception of activity. However, the majority of vehicle movements would take place within the 

site, generally screened from view from the settlements within the study area. The described 

activity would be visible from some sections of the A905 road and from a few individual 

properties within the close vicinity. The construction works will also be seen from settlements 

such as: Dunmore village, Clackmannan, Alloa and Airth. It should be noted that the view to 

the proposal site is possible only from the edge of the above named settlements. 

9.4.16 The excavation of turbine foundations, formation of access tracks and the installation of 

underground cables and grid connection would have local effects only. 

Operational Phase 

9.4.17 It is anticipated that the proposed wind energy development will be in operation for 

approximately 25 years. On completion of its operational life the site may be re-commissioned 

following further planning approvals or will be decommissioned. 

9.4.18 The operational elements with the potential to affect the landscape and visual amenity of the 

study area are: 

• Wind turbines 

• Permanent meteorological mast 

• Switchroom/control building; and 

• Access tracks. 




9.4.19 These features are described in detail in sections 4.5 to 4.8 and presented in Figures 4.1 to 

4.9. 

Wind Turbines 

9.4.20 The proposed wind energy development will consist of four wind turbines with a maximum hub 

height of 80m and a maximum blade tip height of 125m. These dimensions are known as the 

turbine ‘envelope’. The turbine towers will be of tapering tubular steel construction and the 

blades will be made of fibreglass with lightning protection, to protect the entire turbine. 

Turbines will be finished in a pale grey/off-white colour with a semi-matt finish, subject to 

agreement of Clackmannanshire Council and other consultees. The turbines are described in 

detail in Chapter 4.5 ‘Candidate Wind Turbine’. 

9.4.21 Each turbine requires its own transformer to change the voltage to one that is appropriate for 

transmission around the site. Transformers will be housed externally within a small kiosk 

adjacent to each tower base, depending on the eventual model of turbine selected. The 

external kiosks will be a maximum of 6m x 4m x 3m in size, located close to towers and 

coloured appropriately for the site. Due to their relatively small size they are generally 

indistinct from the tower base unless viewed close up or in silhouette against the skyline at 

greater distances. 

Meteorological Masts 

9.4.22 The proposed wind energy development includes the erection of a permanent free standing 

metrological mast, to include weather recording equipment, complete with electrical supply and 

reinforced concrete pad foundation. The height will match the turbine hub height. The exact 

design of this structure is yet to be determined, and may be of either lattice or tubular steel. An 

example of a lattice type design is shown in Figure 4.2 and the location is shown in Figure 1.2. 

The tower would be retained throughout the operating life of the wind energy development to 

monitor meteorological parameters such as wind speed and direction, as required for efficient 

monitoring and control purposes during the operation of the wind energy development. The 

structure would have an effect on landscape and views, but one which would be subsumed by 

the greater overall effect of the wind turbines. 

9.4.23 It is assumed that the meteorological mast will be removed in subsequent de-commissioning 

phase. 

Switchroom/Control Building 

9.4.24 The control building compound will comprise a hard standing with maximum dimensions of 

40m x 30m, and a single storey building approximately 5m x 15m x 3.81m which will house 

switchgear and metering, protection and control equipment and also welfare facilities. The 

building will be finished in a render which is in keeping the colour of existing buildings in the 

area. Figure 4.3 and 4.4 provide an illustration of a control building plan and elevation 

respectively. The proposed location of the control building and compound is shown in Figure 

1.2. 




9.4.25 The single storey, pitch roof control building, comprising control room, switch room, metering 

room, auxiliary transformer and welfare facilities is not considered to have any significant 

residual effects on the landscape and visual amenity of the area, as a result of appropriate 

siting, scale and design, and thus has not been considered in any further detail in this 

assessment. The assessment which follows has therefore been based on the potential 

residual effects of the wind turbines. 

Access Tracks 

9.4.26 The site will be accessed from the Forth Crescent/Bowhouse Road onto the existing access 

track. This track was previously used for transport operations at the former landfill and is 

adequate to accommodate the large vehicles required for turbine transport. The existing 

access track has a tarmac surface and is in good condition and will be suitable for construction 

traffic. 

9.4.27 To access the site and the site infrastructure, approximately 50m of new access track will be 

constructed and 2245m of existing track will be upgraded (but not widened). The existing 

access track has in the main tarmac surface and is in good condition and will be suitable for 

construction traffic. Smaller gravel tracks surround and cross the former landfill site for access 

to monitoring boreholes. These tracks are overgrown in places and may require some 

modifications. Access tracks are not uncommon within the site and surrounding landscape. 

9.4.28 Figure 1.2 illustrates the proposed new and existing access track layout. The location of the 

site access roads are shown in Figure 1.2, and typical track cross sections are shown in Figure 

4.8. 

9.4.29 Further details relating to the movement of traffic to and from the site are reported in Chapter 7 

Traffic, Access and Transport. 


9.4.30 The expected operational life of the wind energy development is approximately 25 years from 

the date of commissioning. When the wind energy development is decommissioned the 

turbine components, associated infrastructure and control building would be removed. It is 

envisaged that conditions attached to any planning consent for the wind energy development 

would stipulate the work required for the reinstatement of the site. 

9.4.31 There would be a short-term temporary impact associated with the removal of structures during 

the de-commissioning stage of the project; however this would have a minimal effect on the 

locality and has not been considered further as part of this assessment. 

9.4.32 In the circumstances that a development would result in an alteration to an environment whose 

attributes can be quickly recovered, then judgements concerning the significance of effects 

should be considered in this light. Landscape and visual effects, whether regarded as positive 

or adverse, can be reversed and following de-commissioning there would be no residual 

effects. 




Mitigation Measures 

9.4.33 Mitigation measures have been outlined in the technical assessments in this ES. The majority 

of mitigation has been “built in” to the design of the proposed wind energy development. Other 

mitigation measures will involve use of “best practice” in construction and site management. 

9.4.34 The layout and individual siting of the turbines has been considered as part of the design 

iteration to reduce landscape and visual effects. Landscape and visual assessment has been 

a key issue during design of the project, to ensure layout design relates well to landscape 

character and achieves a sympathetic, balanced composition in views from the surrounding 

areas. Consideration has been given to the appropriate number of turbines on-site as well as 

to a number of alternative layout options based on a range of turbine specifications. 

9.4.35 The number of turbines and the site layout has been determined by the size and shape of the 

plot available. The high voltage powerline in close proximity to the proposal site sets limits on 

the distance to the turbine location from the power lines. Landscape mitigation is limited on this 

particular site from these reasons. 

Potential Effects on the Landscape and Visual Resource 

9.4.36 For the purpose of assessment, the potential effects on the landscape and visual resource are 

grouped into four categories: physical effects, effects on landscape character, effects on 

views, and cumulative effects, each of which is briefly described below. 

9.4.37 Physical effects: physical effects are restricted to the area within the site boundary, and are 

the direct effects on the fabric of the site, such as the removal or addition of trees and 

alteration to ground cover. This category of effects is made up of landscape elements, which 

are the components of the landscape such as vegetation that may be physically affected by the 

development of the site. 

9.4.38 Effects on landscape character: landscape character is the distinct and recognisable pattern 

of elements that occurs consistently in a particular type of landscape, and the way that this 

pattern is perceived. Effects on landscape character arise either through the introduction of 

new elements, or removal of existing elements, that physically alter this pattern of elements, or 

through visibility of the wind energy development, which may alter the way in which the pattern 

of elements is perceived. 

9.4.39 Effects on views: the assessment of effects on views is an assessment of how the 

introduction of the proposed wind energy development will affect views throughout the study 

area. The assessment of effects on views is carried out in two parts; 

• an assessment of the effects that the proposed wind energy development will have 

on views from principal visual receptors, which are the designated areas, 

settlements and routes found throughout the study area (as ascertained through the 

baseline study, described subsequently in this section); and 




• an assessment of the effects that the wind energy development will have on a series 

of viewpoints that have been selected to represent visibility from around the study 

area (more information is given subsequently in this Chapter). 

9.4.40 Cumulative effects: cumulative effects arise where the study areas for two or more wind 

energy developments overlap so that both of the wind energy developments are experienced 

at proximity where they may have a greater incremental effect. This means that the addition of 

the wind energy development to a situation where other wind energy developments are 

apparent may result in a greater effect than where the wind energy development is seen in 

isolation. 

Assessment of Physical Effects 

9.4.41 Those aspects of the wind energy development that will have a physical effect on the 

landscape include the access road and the four turbines. The physical effects therefore relate 

to the construction of the turbines and the additional road to access the turbines. This will 

involve the disturbance of the ground below and around these elements. 

9.4.42 Changes to landscape fabric can occur where there would be direct or indirect physical 

changes to the landscape. In this instance, direct changes to the landscape fabric would only 

occur within the application boundary during the construction phase. Potential Construction 

Effects on Landscape were described and assessed above. 

9.4.43 The principal physical effect of the wind energy development will be on the grassland that 

covers most of the site. Within the setting of the proposed wind energy development, there 

would be long-term, but reversible effects on the landscape fabric of the site during the 

operational life of the development as a result of the loss of the ground vegetation. However 

the losses would be small and fully reversible once the proposed wind energy development is 

de-commissioned. 

Assessment of Effects on Landscape Character Types 

9.4.44 The effects of the proposed wind energy development can vary widely across such a 

landscape character type. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on landscape 

character largely depends on: the key characteristics of the receiving environment; the degree 

to which the proposed wind energy development may be considered to be consistent with or at 

odds with them; and, how the proposal would be perceived within its setting, with perceptions 

being influenced by: 

• distance to the site; 

• weather conditions; and 

• appearance and ‘fit’ of the proposed turbine. 

9.4.45 It is acknowledged there is an overlap between perception of change to landscape character 

and visual amenity, but it should be remembered that landscape character in its own right is 

generally derived from the combination and pattern of landscape elements within the view. 




The effects of the proposed turbines on landscape character would arise from its relationship 

to these combinations and patterns. The most important aspect of the proposed wind energy 

development would be the turbines. It is considered that the access tracks, control building, 

external transformers, met mast and grid connection would be read as subsidiary and 

generally subsumed within the large scale context of the proposed turbines. 

9.4.46 The first stage in the assessment of these landscape character types is a filtering process to 

ascertain which of the landscape character types in the study area have potential to be 

significantly affected by the wind energy development. This process was carried out through a 

desktop study and site survey which examined the visibility of the wind energy development 

from the landscape character types around the study area, using the ZTV and wirelines. The 

landscape character types are shown in Figure 9.6 and in conjunction with the ZTV in Figure 

9.10. 

9.4.47 This filtering process has indicated that 6 landscape character types with related 9 landscape 

character units have the potential to undergo significant effects as a result of the proposed 

wind energy development. These are: 

• Lowland Hills: Ochil Hills 

• Lowland Hill Fringes: East Touch Fringe 

• Lowland River Valleys: Carse of Forth 

Falkirk/Denny Urban Fringe 

• Lowland Valley Fringes: Devon/Forth 

• Lowland Plateaux: Slamannan Plateau 

• Coastal Margins: Grangemouth Bo’ness Flats, 

The Bo’ness Coastal Hills 

Kincardine Coastal Flats 

9.4.48 The effect on each of these landscape character receptors is assessed below. 

9.4.49 Other landscape character types within the study area were found to not have the potential to 

undergo a significant effect. These are presented in Appendix 9.5. Table 9.5-1 presents the 

LCTs which have ZTV cover but it is expressed as discrete scattered patches for the most part 

a long distance from the proposed wind energy development site. Table 9.5-2 lists the LCTs 

which remain outwith the ZTV and therefore will not be impacted upon by the proposed wind 

energy development. These LCTs were not considered to have the potential to experience a 

significant effect and have not been assessed. 

9.4.50 It should be noted that levels of magnitude of change on landscape character types are 

generally found to be slightly lower than the magnitude of change on viewpoints that lie within 

these landscape character types. This means that if a viewpoint is assessed to undergo a 

medium-high magnitude of change it does not necessarily follow that the landscape character 

type would also undergo a medium-high magnitude of change, but may undergo a medium 

magnitude of change instead. This is because the effects on viewpoints are assessed within 

the context of a 75-degree view over the site and are usually specifically selected to gain a 

direct view over the site. The main or direct orientation of a visual receptor or viewpoint will 




often be towards the site as this is why it has been included in the assessment. The landscape 

character of an area is not, however, determined so specifically by the outlook over the wind 

energy development, and there are many other considerations, both visual and perceptual, that 

combine to give an area its landscape character. This means that the degree of influence of 

the wind energy development will generally be less on landscape character than on a specific 

view. Viewpoints are referred to in this assessment as they do give a useful indication of the 

appearance of the proposed wind energy development from the landscape types, but the level 

of magnitude of change may vary between the viewpoint assessment and the landscape 

character assessment. 

9.4.51 This is particularly true of areas that lie slightly further away from the site. In the close vicinity 

of the site the magnitude of change on viewpoints and landscape character is likely to be 

similar, but beyond this, the magnitude of change on landscape character is found to often 

diminish more rapidly as the influence of the turbines is subsumed in the many other influences 

on landscape character. 

9.4.52 Direct effects on landscape character and fabric are related to the Lowland River Valley 

landscape type and the Carse of Forth sub character unit only. 




Assessment of Landscape Character Receptors - Summary Tables 

Landscape Character Type: LOWLAND HILLS/UPLAND IGNEOUS AND VOLCANIC HILLS 

Landscape Character Area: Ochil Hills 

Extent within LCT extends to a 5-35km radius in a north east direction within the study area. 

the study area The prominent mass of the Ochil Hills forms an abrupt northern boundary to the Forth Valley, 

stretching eastwards from Dunblane and Bridge of Allan and continuing to spread north and east into 

Perth and Kinross District. 

According to the Clackmannanshire LCA and the Central Region LCA the south facing lower part of 

the Ochil Hills belongs to the Lowland Hills LCT. According to the Tays LCA the rest of the hills are 

classified as Upland Igneous and Volcanic Hills. 

The ZTV covers the south facing foothills and spreads unevenly upwards to higher levels including 

the pathway to Dumyat, the pointed view of Nebit and there are some sporadic ZTV patches over 

Ben Cleuch. 

Representative VP13 – Ben Cleuch and VP16 – Dumyat 

viewpoints 

Wind energy Installed/Approved: Burnfoot, Greenknowes, Lochelbank 

developments 


Magnitude of 

change 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Nature of 

impact 

Significance of 

Effect on LCT 

as a whole 

Views from this landscape are generally extensive and the turbines would be visible at distances of 

between 7km and 10km in the context of wide panoramic views over the Lowland River Valley. 

Where theoretical visibility does occur, and the landscape open, clear views will be gained of all four 

turbines. Views of the turbines would be against the background landscape. 

Where Glens woods screen views, actual views of the wind energy development will not be possible. 

The overall magnitude of change would be Medium to low 

Visibility is largely concentrated across the most elevated parts; the hilltops, the ridgeline of the Ochil 

Hills. The ZTV covers approximately one third of the LCU. Approximately two thirds of the landscape 

will gain no visibility of the wind energy development, and this will result in a negligible magnitude of 

change in these areas. 

As an external influence, the wind energy development will affect a very small proportion of the 

setting to the Ochil Hills, with all other parts of the setting remaining unaffected. This is particularly 

true where panoramic views are gained from the landscape, as the wind energy development will 

affect a very limited proportion of such views. All of the other external influences that contribute to 

the character of the Ochil Hills, namely the extent of the Lowland Hills landscape to the west, north 

west and north draw the eye of walkers on the Ochil Hills. 

Other forms of industrial developments alongside the River Forth shores are also seen from the Ochil 

Hills and these influences ensure that the wind energy development will not be seen as an entirely 

new, contrasting external feature. 

The landform of the Ochil Hills rises above the Lowland River Valley where the wind energy 

development is located. This gives it less visual importance, and therefore less influence, than if it 

rises above the viewer. The turbines have less vertical impact in this situation, and this is further 

reduced by the containment of the turbines below the skyline. 

The combination of these considerations will result in the wind energy development having a 

medium to low magnitude of change on those parts of the Ochil Hills from where it is visible. 

It is notable that the wind energy development will not introduce an entirely new influence into the 

character of the Ochil Hills. The Lowland Hills accommodate operating wind energy developments: 

Braes of Doune, Craigengelt and Earlsburn, which are already visible from this landscape and have 

some influence on its character. The installed Burnfoot and operating Greenknowes do not set a 

precedent for wind energy development as a component of the character of the Ochil Hill or reduce 

the sensitivity of the landscape to wind energy development, but they do ensure that wind energy 

development characteristics are not an entirely new external influence. 

Neutral/Indirect 

No significant effect 

The level of effect is considered to be of medium to low magnitude and in the context of the high 

sensitivity of the LCU, would be of moderate and not significant. 

Where there is visibility, and therefore influence, of the wind energy development, the effect will be 

not significant, as the wind energy development will not have a definitive effect on the character of 

this landscape and the landscape character will continue to be defined principally by its baseline 

characteristics despite its high sensitivity. 




Landscape Character Type: LOWLAND HILL FRINGES 

Landscape Character Area: East Touch Fringe 

Extent within LCT extends to a 5-15km radius in a west direction within the study area. 

the study area The eastern boundary of the Touch Hills is demarcated by the rugged, crag-edged dolerite outcrops 

of Gillies Hill and Lewis Hill. These denote the edge of a broad swathe of strongly rolling, occasional 

hummocky farmland, which forms a transition in height and form from west to east between the 

Touch hill-slopes and the wide flat valley of the Forth Estuary. To the south the area is bounded by 

the steep gorge of the Carron Glen and the broad industrialised expanse of the adjoining lower 

Carron River and Bonny Water. 

Representative VP18 - Cowie 

viewpoints 

Wind energy Scoping: Rullie, Community project near Torwood 

developments 


Magnitude of 

change 

Existing 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Nature of 

impact 


Effect on LCT 

as a whole 

The nature of the views would vary due to mixed topographical elements and also the level of tree 

cover and generally there will not be open views towards the proposed wind energy development 

from higher ground. Visibility would be predominantly of blade tips with a high likelihood of 

intervening screening. Views of the turbines would be predominantly against the background of the 

Ochil Hills landmass. 

The overall magnitude of change is considered to be Low. 

Most of the LCU is outside of the ZTV cover. Only the eastern side of the foothill of Touch Hill has 

bands of the ZTV cover. Within the ZTV there also falls an undulating landform on the eastern side of 

the M80 transport corridor, sloping more gently towards the Forth Valley floodplain. 

The landform of Lowland Hills Fringe rises above the Lowland River Valley where the wind energy 

development is located. This gives it less visual importance, and therefore less influence, than if it 

rises above the viewer. The turbines have less vertical impact in this situation, and this is further 

reduced by the containment of the turbines below the skyline. 

The presence of existing operating wind energy developments which are located on higher levels 

would remain more predominant. 

The VP 18 from Cowie represents the worst case scenario effect on the East Touch Fringe LCU. The 

viewpoint is located in the transitional zone where the East Touch Fringe meets the Carse of Forth. 

It is notable that the wind energy development will not introduce an entirely new influence into the 

character of East Touch Fringe. The Lowland Hills accommodate operating wind energy 

developments: Braes of Doune, Craigengelt and Earlsburn, which are already visible from this 

landscape and have some influence on its character. These wind energy developments do not set a 

precedent for wind energy development as a component of the character of the East Touch Fringe or 

reduce the sensitivity of the landscape to wind energy development, but they do ensure that wind 

energy development characteristics are not an entirely new external influence. 



The Forthbank wind energy development will have an apparent but minor effect on the character of 

this landscape. 

The level of effect is considered to be of low magnitude and in the context of the low sensitivity of 

the LCU, would be of no significant effect. 





Landscape Character Area: Carse of Forth 

Extent within LCT extends from the centre of the study area to a 35km radius in a north west direction following 

the study area the flow of the River Forth. 

This Character Area constitutes part of a larger unit which extends westwards into Stirling District 

and southwards across the Forth into Falkirk District. 

The immensely broad, flat floodplain of the River Forth cuts a dramatic swathe from the Highland 

Boundary Fault in the west towards its confluence with the sea in the east. 

To the north, it merges with the related carselands of the Lower Devon, to the east lie the coastal 

flats of Skinflats and Longannet. 


viewpoints 


developments 


Magnitude of 

change 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Nature of 

impact 


Effect on LCT 

as a whole 

VP3 – Clackmannan Public Park, Vp4 – Alloa Tower, VP5 – Wallace Monument, VP6 – Stirling 

Castle, VP7 Fallin Village, VP8 – the A905, VP9 – Dunmore Village, VP10 – Public Path close to the 

Pineapple, VP11 – Airth Village and VP19 – South Alloa. 

Scoping: Rosehill 

Views locally dominated by vertical manmade structures: chimneys, stacks, flues, flares, buildings 

and clutter of large scale industrial installations such as warehouses. 

The location of four turbines within the LCU means that they will still be seen as large-scale, vertical 

elements from a large proportion of the LCU. The proximity of the turbines to existing small scale 

features will give rise to some uncomfortable comparisons of scale, which may in some instances 

increase the perceived scale of the turbines. The towers will be readily visible and further increase 

the prominence of the turbines in the landscape. 

From close locations as illustrated in Viewpoints 3, 4 8 and 9 the visibility of the turbines would be 

high and the introduction of large vertical elements would represent a major change in the landscape 

character of the site and its immediate context. Within close proximity, the proposed turbines would 

become a principal determining element of landscape character. 

The small number of turbines means that they read easily as a group, and with their close spacing 

and comparable height, sit comfortably together. They also occupy only a small extent of the wider 

horizontal landscape, especially from the more distant parts of the LCU. 

As the most prominent feature in the immediate surrounding landscape are currently pylons, the 

turbines would not re-define its character and the turbines would not become the defining element of 

landscape character in the vicinity. 

Beyond the immediate vicinity, the turbines would give rise to a local characterising influence on 

landscape character but would not be the key element that determines character. At distances up to 

2, 3km from the site, the turbines would be viewed in the context of a medium to large-scale 

landscape with a combination of open floodplain and the 380kV Forth Crossing pylons. 

At distances of between 3km – 8km potential views of the proposed turbines would be predominantly 

screened by a combination of topography and shelterbelts/hedgerows/woodland and would not be 

considered significant. 

While these factors will to some extent reduce the magnitude of change, especially from more distant 

ranges, the proximity of the turbines to the close range context will lead to a high magnitude of 

change. This will occur in an area of no greater than a 3km radius from the wind energy 

development, defined to the north by the boundary of the LCU, to the south by the M876, to the east 

by Clackmannan village, and to the west by Dunmore Woods. From the remaining, and more 

distant, parts of the Carse of Forth the magnitude of change will be medium to low/negligible. 

The cumulative effect would occur only at the top of the craigs (Stirling Craig and Abbey Craig) which 

rise over the floodplain of the River Forth and on the higher banks of the river valley where the Carse 

of Forth Lowland River Valley transforms into the Lowland Valley Fringes and Lowland Hills fringes. 

Direct 

Moderate and significant effect. 

The presence of the turbines would not affect the character of this landscape substantially. This 

effect is considered to be of medium magnitude. There would be a locally significant effect on the 

Carse of Forth LCU at close range distance up to 2km area therefore the overall effect on this 

landscape is considered to be moderate and significant. 





Landscape Character Area: Falkirk/Denny Urban Fringe 

Extent within LCU extends to a 7-15km radius in a south direction within the study area. The LCU stretches 

the study area between the slopes of the Touch Hills and Denny Muir to the west and the floodplain of the Forth to - 

the east. 

Representative VP14 - Falkirk Wheel. 

viewpoints 

Wind energy Installed/Approved: ASDA depot 

developments 

Visual Effects It is an urban character area where the views are locally dominated by buildings and clutter of large 

scale industrial installations and roads. 

Magnitude of 

change 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Nature of 

impact 


Effect on LCT 

as a whole 

Potential views to the Forthbank turbines would be possible only from higher ground such as in the 

case of Falkirk Wheel. The proposed wind energy development would assume a lesser presence 

and increasingly become a minor element in the pattern of landscape elements. The magnitude of 

change on the landscape character would range from minor to negligible and would not be 

considered significant. 

From higher level receptors such as the Falkirk Wheel the cumulative effect would occur with 

operating wind energy developments such as Braes of Doune, Craigengelt and Earlsburn. ASDA 

depot turbine would be visible within the LCU and attract attention. 



The level of effect is considered to be of negligible magnitude and in the context of the low sensitivity 

of the LCU, would be of no significant effect. 

Landscape Character Type: LOWLAND PLATEAUX 

Landscape Character Area: Slamannan Plateau 

Extent within LCT extends to a 13-20km radius in a south direction within the study area. 

the study area A large expanse of elevated (200m AOD), open undulating plateau lies south of the dense band of 

industry and settlement which lines the Bonny and Carron valleys west of Falkirk. 

The ZTV confines only the northern periphery of the LCU. 

Representative VP15 Shieldhill 

viewpoints 

Wind energy Scoping: Callander Estate, Burnhead 

developments 


Magnitude of 

change 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Nature of 

impact 


Effect on LCT 

as a whole 

The views from this landscape are generally extensive distant views across other landscape types. 

Views of the turbines are predominantly in the context of open and panoramic views of the River 

Forth valley, the proposed wind energy development appearing beyond the built up environment of 

Falkirk as illustrated in Viewpoint 15. The position of the turbines in the bottom of the River Forth 

Valley has the effect that the turbines will most often be seen against the backdrop of the Ochil Hills, 

which sit to the north east. The scale of these hills is sufficient to act as a backcloth to the turbines 

and this will help to reduce their prominence as well as their perceived scale. 

The overall magnitude of change is considered to be Negligible. 

Most of the LCU is outside of the ZTV cover. Only the northern edge of the plateau falls within the 

ZTV. The views are generally open and expansive from this landscape and the magnitude of change 

has been adjudged to be low. 

The presence of existing operating wind energy developments which are located on higher levels 

would remain more predominant. 

The cumulative view would occur with the operating/approved wind energy developments which are 

located on higher levels on the Lowland Hills such as: Braes of Doune, Craigengelt and Earlsburn. 



The level of effect is considered to be of low magnitude and in the context of the low sensitivity of the 

LCU, would be of no significant effect. 




Landscape Character Type: LOWLAND VALLEY FRINGES 

Landscape Character Area: Devon/Forth 

Extent within LCU extends to a 2-10km radius to the east within the study area beyond the borderlines of Alloa 

the study area and Clackmannan. 

The ZTV spreads over the LCU, mapping out the course of the River Devon and Brothie Burn, both 

remain outwith the ZTV. Coatsnaughton village remains outwith the ZTV. 


viewpoints 


developments 


Magnitude of 

change 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Nature of 

impact 


Effect on LCT 

as a whole 

VP1 – the A977 


The views of the proposed wind energy development would be achievable from the A907 in a section 

between Alloa and Clackmannan. Sauchie is situated behind Alloa’s built up area and views from its 

southern edge are blocked by the Post Hill. 

The view from the A977 proves how efficient the screening provided by the vegetation is. 

The overall magnitude of change is considered to be Negligible. 

Several large coniferous blocks and mixed woodlands are integrated within the undulating landform. 

The magnitude of the change is considered to be low. The road views are transient and oblique as 

the A907 is not directed towards the site. 

Due to the woodland blocks and the undulating landform most of the views of the proposed wind 

energy development would be screened. 


located on higher levels on Lowland Hills such as: Craigengelt and Earlsburn. 




LCU, would be of No significant effect. 


Landscape Character Area: COASTAL FLATS Grangemouth Bo’ness Flats 

Extent within LCT extends to a 5-15km radius in a south direction within the study area. 

the study area Bounded by the Kincardine Bridge and the M876 in the north west, and the M9 to the south 

west and Bo'ness to the east, this area of low lying coastal flats is dominated by the town of 

Grangemouth, the docks and by very large-scale petrochemical and other industrial installations. 

Representative VP20 – A876 to Clackmannan Bridge 

viewpoints 

Wind energy Scoping: Grangemouth 

developments 

Visual Effects Views of the Forthbank wind energy development would be possible from the A876 in a short section 

when it is heading towards the Clackmannan Bridge. Views from these low lying grounds are 

restricted by two elevated bridge structures. Inside Grangemouth the views are blocked by buildings 

and the industrial developments of the oil refinery. 

The 30m high knoll where Airth Castle is situated blocks views from the A905 which is heading 

northwards and is orientated to the north towards the proposed Forthbank development. 

Magnitude of 

change 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Nature of 

impact 


Effect on LCT 

as a whole 

The overall magnitude of change would be low. 

The visual effect of proposed wind energy development would be localised in the vicinity of the A876 

The magnitude of change has been adjudged to be minor. 


located on higher levels on the Lowland Hills such as: Craigengelt and Earlsburn. 









Landscape Character Area: COASTAL FLATS Kincardine 

Extent within LCT extends to a 5-7km radius in an east direction within the study area. 

the study area From the Coastal Braes and Hills, the Flats are seen as encroachments into the estuary. 

Representative VP2 – Kennet Pans (PFP, NCR) 

viewpoints 

Wind energy None identified 

developments 

Visual Effects The potential visual effect would occur over a limited area, mainly remaining related to the A876. 

Magnitude of The overall magnitude of change would be low. 

change 

As visual effect of proposed wind energy development would be localised in the vicinity of the A876 

the magnitude of change has been adjudged to be medium. 

The extent of visibility is related to the orientation of view. The views from the A876 are not 

orientated towards the proposed Forthbank development. 

Kincardine’s low level position, intervening riverside vegetation, Harkhill woods and the elevated 

structure of the Clackmannanshire bridge, all contribute to the screening of views to the Forthbank 


Cumulative The cumulative view would occur with the operating/approved wind energy developments which are 

Effects 

located on higher levels on Lowland Hills such as: Craigengelt and Earlsburn. 

Nature of Indirect 

impact 


Effect on LCT 

as a whole 





Landscape Character Area: The Bo’ness Coastal Hills 

Extent within LCT extends to a 13-20km radius in a south east direction within the study area. A series of rolling, 

the study area coastal hills about 100 to 150m ADD with a general down-slope to Bo'ness and the Firth of Forth. 

The town of Bo'ness lies mainly on the rising land of the hills which are topped by a golf course. The 

hills are crossed by the M9 and other major roads and railways. 

Representative VP12 – Bo’ness 

viewpoints 

Wind energy None identified 

developments 

Visual Effects This LCU affords extensive views across the Forth and its strong coastal character. 

Magnitude of 

change 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Nature of 

impact 


Effect on LCT 

as a whole 

The overall magnitude of change would be negligible. 

The southern periphery of the LCU is outwith the ZTV. The main effects could be found therefore 

close to the coastline. 

The visual effect of the proposed Forthbank wind energy development would be localised in the 

vicinity of the River Forth’s southern shore where the magnitude of change has been adjudged to be 

low. Inside Bo’ness the views are blocked by buildings and the sparse high level locations afford long 

distance views over the built up urban area. Bo’ness itself restricts views to the outside area. 

The blades would be viewed against the backdrop of the Ochil Hills landmass and would not break 

the skyline. They will stand in view next to the Longannet Power Station chimney, amongst the 

pylons. Any visibility will however be experienced in a context in which large scale pylons and the 

Longannet Power Station are readily apparent features. This context will reduce the perceived scale 

of the turbines. The more distant range reduces the scale at which the turbines will be seen and 

therefore also their prominence. 

The Lowland Hills accommodate operating wind energy developments: Craigengelt and Earlsburn, 

which are already visible in this landscape and have some influence on its character. The main 

visual influence is caused by Longannet Power Station and Grangemouth Oil Refinery facilities. The 

proposed Forthbank and the operating ones are equivalent to the size of pylons in the view. Also the 

prevailing presence of clouds conceals the operating wind energy developments. 



The level of effect is considered to be of negligible magnitude and in the context of the low sensitivity 

of the LCU, would be of no significant effect. 




Assessment of Effects on Designated Areas 

9.4.53 No international/national designated landscapes are located within the study area. Apart from 

the AGLV, other designated areas (RSA, NSA, SSLI) were found not to have the potential to 

experience significant effects as a result of their location outwith the ZTV and therefore the 

effects on these landscape resources are not significant. The relevant designated areas are 

shown in Figure 9.3. 

Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) 

• The Ochils AGLV is identified as the only designated landscape directly affected by 

the proposed development and therefore it has the potential to undergo a significant 

effect. The potential visual effects to the Ochil Hills (the Lowland Hills landscape 

character unit) are described and assessed in the previous section of Assessment of 

Effects on Landscape Character Types. The static effects from the Ochil Hills’ 

viewpoints are described and assessed in the following section through Viewpoint 

13 - Ben Cleuch and Viewpoint 16 - Dumyat. 

• The Bridge of Allan is considered not to be affected by the proposal due to its 

extensive areas of broadleaved woodland which restricts the potential views. 

• The Wallace Monument upon the Abbey Craig is not considered to become affected 

by the proposal due to the distance and the low elevation of the proposed turbines. 

The static effects from the Wallace Monument are described and assessed in the 

following section through the Viewpoint 5 Wallace Monument. 

• The Black Devon Valley is not considered to become affected by the proposed wind 

energy development due to its extensive areas of broadleaved woodland which 

restricts the potential views. 

• The Cleish Hills are considered not to become affected by the proposed wind 

energy development due to the distance, the low location of the proposed site and 

densely forested Lowland Valley Fringes which are between Lowland River Valley 

and Upland Hills. The static effects from the Cleish Hills foothills are described and 

assessed in the following section through the Viewpoint 17 - Saline Hill. 

• The eastern end of the Touch/Campsie/Gargunnock Hills AGLV is considered to 

undergo a minor change and not significant effect. The potential visual effects to the 

Touch/Campsie/Gargunnock Hills AGLV (the Lowland Hills landscape character 

unit) are described and assessed in the previous section of Assessment of Effects 

on Landscape Character Units. 

• The Pentland Hills and Bathgate Hills in the south are considered not to become 

affected by the proposed wind energy development due to the distance and the low 

elevation of the proposed wind energy development site. 




• The area to the west of South Queensferry along the Forth shore is considered not 

to become affected by the proposed wind energy development due to the distance 

and the orientation of the view. 

• The Mentheith Hills (Loch Lomond and the Trossachs AGLV) is considered to be not 

affected by the proposed wind energy development due to the distance. 

Regional Scenic Area (RSA) 

• It is not considered that the Campsie Fells RSA would be affected by the proposed 

wind energy development due to the distance from, and the low position of, the 

proposed wind energy development. The representative viewpoint is taken from the 

Tomtain Hills which is described and assessed in the following section through 

Viewpoint 22 - Tomtain Hill. 

Natural and Cultural Heritage Designations 

9.4.54 The designated areas, which include landscape-related planning designations and designated 

features such as gardens and designed landscapes that have been identified in the baseline 

study. Such receptors frequently have a particular character that may have contributed to their 

designation, and this character can be influenced by the introduction of the proposed wind 

energy development. The relevant natural and heritage designated areas are shown in Figure 

9.4. 

Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park 

9.4.55 The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs AGLV overlaps with Loch Lomond and the Trossachs 

AGLV within the study area. The Mentheith Hills (Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National 

Park) is considered to be not affected by the proposed wind energy development due to the 

distance. 

Assessment of Effects on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes 

9.4.56 The Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes are shown on Figure 9.4 and listed on Table 

9.7 in section 9.3 ‘Review of Landscape-related Planning Designations’, and have been visited 

and assessed during the field study. All 5 Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes within 

the 10 km radius ZTV zone were considered not to become affected by the proposed wind 

energy development due to the surrounding woods which restrict views to the outside. The 

remaining four Designed landscapes within the 20km radius ZTV zone, which fall within the 

ZTV cover, due to the surrounding woods and distance, the expected effects were considered 

not significant. 

9.4.57 Effects on the settings of Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes are covered by the 

Chapter 10 Cultural Heritage. 




Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 

9.4.58 The Mentheith Hills (Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park) within the ZTV is 

considered not to be affected by the proposed wind energy development due to its long 

distance from the proposal site. 

World Heritage Site – Antonine Wall 

9.4.59 The Antonine Wall does not belong to the landscape designations although during the field 

surveys potential views of the proposed wind energy development were studied. It is not 

considered that The Antonine Wall would be affected by the proposed wind energy 

development due to the distance and its location within a built up area (within the ZTV). 

Assessment of Principal Visual Receptors and Representative Viewpoints 

9.4.60 Effects on views are the changes to views that result from the proposed wind energy 

development. The assessment of effects on views is carried out in two parts as they were 

evaluated in section 9.3 in the section ‘Principal Visual Receptors and Representative 

Viewpoints’: 

• An assessment of the effects that the wind energy development will have on views 

from principal visual receptors, which are the settlements and routes found 

throughout the study area; and 

• An assessment of the effects that the wind energy development will have on a series 

of viewpoints that have been selected to represent visibility from around the study 

area. 

9.4.61 Each of these parts of the assessment of effects on views has been carried out through 

comprehensive site survey along with wirelines, photomontages and the ZTV, following the full 

methodology described in section 9.2. 

Assessment of Effects on Settlements and Routes 

9.4.62 The section 9.3 ‘Landscape Character Types’ describes the character of the landscape units 

together with an evaluation of their sensitivity to landscape change. Through the filtering 

process the Landscape Character units are selected which would possibly have a visual effect 

caused by the proposed wind energy development. The settlements and roads network 

associated with the landscape character units are represented in the tables referred to above 

in the section 9.3. 

9.4.63 The effects on each of the landscape character units are assessed in section 9.4 ‘Assessment 

of Effects’. The effects on settlements and routes on these selected Landscape Character units 

which would possibly have a visual effect caused by the proposed wind energy development, 

is assessed in Table 9.6-1 in Appendix 9.6. Several settlements were specifically represented 

in the selection of viewpoints as is indicated in the table. 




9.4.64 The assessment was carried out through a desktop study and site survey which examines the 

visibility of the wind energy development from the landscape character types around the study 

area, using the ZTV and wirelines. As expected, there is a divergence in the patterns of 

potential visibility illustrated by the ZTV map and the real landscape situation. 

9.4.65 Visibility from a settlement is not uniform across the settlement. This is because views of the 

surrounding landscape from within the settlement are inevitably obscured by the buildings, 

structures, trees and vegetation of the settlement itself. The reality is that the outer edges of 

these settlements potentially have views, but that views from within the areas would not be 

available or would be very limited, as they would be screened by these ‘outer’ properties. 

Similarly residences may be screened by vegetation between the receptor and the proposed 

wind energy development. Where the ZTV indicates theoretical visibility within settlements, 

upper storey windows of buildings are more likely to have views than locations at ground level. 

9.4.66 The sensitivity of views from settlements is judged to be high because of the high numbers of 

resident and visitor viewers. Although settlements are not generally identified as locations for 

viewing the wider landscape, they are places where people congregate and spend time. 

9.4.67 There is the potential for significant effects on individual properties, or small groups of 

properties, which lie within the ZTV at closer range. Of those settlements and individual 

properties within a 3km radius from the proposed wind energy development have the potential 

to be significantly affected in LVIA terms. 

9.4.68 It is considered that major effects would occur on the settings of Dunmore village due to the 

proximity of the turbines to what is perceived as their tranquil and rural setting. 

9.4.69 The high magnitude of change would occur on the closest farms such as Park Farm, Arns farm 

and Inch of Ferryton Farm. The view is orientated to the Gargunnock Hills, not the Ochil Hills, 

and the turbines are viewed amongst the many pylons. 

9.4.70 The assessment of visual impacts on settlements has found that moderate/major effects 

would occur at Clackmannan and Alloa which are located within 2km of the site. The turbines 

would introduce four dominant, man made and moving elements to the landscape which would 

relate to existing industrial landscape of pylons in views from both settlements. 

9.4.71 Due to the low elevation of the proposed wind energy development site, the vegetation and/or 

built form close to the receptors would afford an efficient level of screening. Therefore the 

magnitude of the effect is medium in the close proximity villages such as South Alloa and 

Airth village from where the view of the proposed wind energy development would be 

achieved only on its northern edge. 

9.4.72 The effect on Cowie was considered to be moderate as the view to the proposed wind energy 

development would be achieved only from a small number of areas of north east facing higher 

ground within the village. 

9.4.73 The visual effect in all other settlements within the ZTV coverage in the study area is 

considered to be not significant. All the other settlements which sit on a low level on the river 

valley have restricted views due to the screening of vegetation or built forms. All the other 




settlements which are sited above the river valley are at a distance which reduces the 

magnitude of the potential effects. 

9.4.74 The visual effects on the roads within the ZTV cover in the study area are not considered to be 

significant. The general magnitude of the effect to the routes remains negligible. Although 

there is potential for views towards the proposed wind energy development from roads in the 

local area, much will depend on local circumstances including the extent to which the roadside 

vegetation and urban environment filter or obstruct views towards the site. In general, the 

same visual format for settlements applies to the roads: All the roads which sit on a low level 

on the river valley have restricted views due to the screening of vegetation or built forms. All 

the roads which are sited above the river valley are at a distance which reduces the magnitude 

of the potential effects. The main factor reducing the potential for significant visual effects is the 

direction in which the roads run. No routes head straight towards the site apart from one minor 

local road running between the B9124 and the A905. 

9.4.75 The view from the A977 heading towards the site is presented in VP1 – the A977. The 

assessment shows that impacts on views from the A977 would not be significant due to the 

vegetation screening. 

9.4.76 It was considered that, due to the extent of cuttings and track side vegetation, there would be 

only a very few, glimpsed views from the railway and this has not been assessed. 

Assessment of Effects on National Cycle Routes 

9.4.77 The potential effect of the proposed wind energy development on each of these routes is 

assessed in Table 9.10 below. 

Table 9.10 Effects on National Cycle Routes 

NCR No NCR location Theoretical Visibility 

NR 1 Between Edinburgh and 

Aberdeen via Dunfermline, 

Auchtermuchty. 

The route remains outwith the ZTV cover. 

No change. 

NR 76 

NR 754 

Between Dunbar and 

Kirkcaldy (Stirling and St 

Andrews). This route runs 

on both coast sides of the 

River Forth estuary via 

Stirling. 

Between Kirkintilloch and 

Edinburgh via Bonnybridge, 

Falkirk, Linlithgow 

NR 764 The West Fife Way between 

Alloa and Dunfermline via 

Clackmannan. 

NR 765 

Between Stirling and 

Callander Via Dunblane. 



The route falls within the ZTV cover within the Carse of Forth and the 

Kincardine Coastal Flats LCU. 

The proposed wind energy development would be visible in some sections 

of the route. The effect is assessed at static viewpoints as follows: 

VP2 - Kennet Pans PP & NCR 

VP3 - Clackmannan Public Park, 

VP7 - Fallin Village 

VP8 - A905 

VP10 - Path Pineapple 

The magnitude of the change in the views would be minor. The 

magnitude is reduced further because most of the LCU is outside of the 

ZTV cover. The local effect is considered to be minor due to the low level 

of the route which limits the extent of the visibility and affords good 

screening due to the vegetation and slight landform undulations. 

Some sections of the route are within the ZTV cover between Bonnybridge 

and Linlithgow. 

Due to the distance, intervening vegetation and the close built 

environment, the views to the proposed development are hardly 

achievable. 

The effect is considered to be negligible. 

The sections of the route between Alloa and Clackmannan fall within the 

ZTV cover. It overlaps in this section with the route No 76. Due to the 

existing landform, intervening vegetation and built up environment the 

views to the proposal site are not possible. 

The effect is considered to be negligible. 

The route remains outwith the ZTV cover. 

No change.


9.4.78 Long Distance Ways: The Devon Way remains generally outwith the ZTV coverage. Only the 

section in Alloa within the built up area falls within the ZTV. Therefore the effect is considered 

to be negligible. 

Assessment of Effects on Core Paths 

9.4.79 Throughout the study area a minor number of public paths, Rights of Way and draft core paths 

would undergo changes due to the presence of the operational Forthbank wind energy 

development. 

9.4.80 The core path and cycle ways network is assessed in close proximity (2km) to the proposed 

site and are shown in Figure 15.2 Chapter 15 Socio-economics, Tourism and Land Use. 

9.4.81 For the assessment the Clackmannanshire Council Core Paths Plan (September 2010) was 

reviewed (http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/document/2345.pdf). Also the Falkirk Council Core 

Paths Plan (2010) was studied (http://www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/development/planning_and_ 

environment/outdoor_access/PDFs/core_path_docs/core_paths_plan.pdf ). 

9.4.82 There is a potential for views towards the proposed wind energy development from core paths 

in the Local Study Area, where much will depend on local circumstances including the extent to 

which pathside vegetation and urban environment filter or obstruct views towards the site. In 

general the same visibility pattern as for the roads applies to the core path network. Therefore 

the overall visual effect to core paths is considered not to be significant. 

9.4.83 Where the visual effect on the views will result in a significant change is on the core path 

010/71 which runs alongside the coastline of the river Forth on its southern shore between 

South Alloa and Dunmore village. Although the Ochil Hills provide a backcloth to the industrial 

part of Alloa alongside the River Forth, to the south east the view opens over the River Forth 

estuary with the Clackmannanshire Bridge on the close horizon with the lattice towers and 

Longannet Power Station and the large number of pylons breaking the skyline. 

9.4.84 Several core paths run on the northern shore of the River Forth on its floodplain close to the 

site. The row of pylons runs alongside the northern coast of the river and crosses it next to 

South Alloa. The low elevation of the potential receptors and close proximity to the pylons 

results in views where the pylons break the skyline above the Ochil Hills and overhead 

powerlines traverse the sky. The reduction in perceived scale and the number of pylons in the 

view reduces the prominence of the turbines. The presence of the chimney stacks and pylons 

ensures that the turbines are seen in a context where large-scale, man-made vertical elements 

are an established feature of the baseline situation. The close proximity of views to the 

turbines causes the high magnitude of the change. 

9.4.85 The viewpoint VP8 - the A905 represents the view from Core Path 010/96 crossing the A905 

towards Dunmore Home Farm. The magnitude of the visual effect is high in this section of the 

path. However, the view experienced is not constant for the full length of the path as most of it 

runs through the Dunmore Woods where no visual change would occur. 

9.4.86 VP10 Path to Pineapple is taken at the core path 010/69 and represents ‘no change’ view. 

This path runs just approximately one kilometre south of the core path 010/96. 




9.4.87 VP20 Clackmannanshire Bridge represents the view from the core path 010/100. The 

magnitude of the change is considered to be medium as the closeness to the heavy traffic and 

the presence of an amount of industrial elements on the surrounding landscape reduces the 

magnitude of the change. 

9.4.88 There are several core paths going up to the Ochil Hills. The core path No 55 in Alva Glen 

affords views through the glen towards the River Forth on several levels. The proposed 

turbines would be visible rising above the floodplain of the River Forth. The turbines will 

appear well below the skyline when seen from this elevated receptor. The elevation of the 

landscape is such that much of it rises above the proposed wind energy development and this 

gives it less visual importance, and therefore less influence. The turbines have less vertical 

impact in this situation, and this is further reduced by the containment of the turbines below the 

skyline. Alloa’s built up area spreads over the middle ground of the view reducing the impact of 

the proposed wind energy development. The presence of a large number of industrial units 

alongside the River Forth shoreline reduces the unfamiliarity of proposed turbines within this 

open flat river valley landscape. It is notable that the wind energy development will not 

introduce an entirely new influence into the view. The magnitude of change is considered to be 

low because the proposed wind energy development appears in the view only at certain points 

on the way while not being in the view for the full duration of the path. 

9.4.89 VP16 Dumyat represents a similar case to the one as previously described for core path no.55. 

The core path 907Lg/02 runs to the top of the Dumyat Hill Memorial. The overall magnitude of 

the change is considered low, less than in the representative Viewpoint 16 – Dumyat, because 

the proposed wind energy development would not be visible for the full length of the path while 

on the path’s higher level the eye is drawn towards objects which are on an equal or higher 

level. Panoramic views of almost 360 degrees can be seen from the higher levels of the path 

and therefore within this range the magnitude of the expected visual effect of the proposed 

wind energy development is minimised. 

Assessment of Effects on Representative Viewpoints 

9.4.90 In section 9.3 section ‘Representative Viewpoints’ the first step in the assessment of effects on 

the representative viewpoints was taken through the evaluation of the existing view, the 

receptor type, the visibility of the proposal site, all visual detractors and potential constraints 

which guided the evaluation of the level of sensitivity of each viewpoint. 

9.4.91 The following viewpoint assessment informs and illustrates the visual effects on landscape 

character and the expected magnitude of change on views. The level of significance of each 

viewpoint is evaluated as a combination of the categories defined in Table 9.6 ‘Categories for 

Significance of Effect’ which have guided the judgement of the significance of the effect. 

9.4.92 The requirements for photomontages for viewpoints within 15km are set out in SNH guidance 

Visual Representation of Windfarms (2007 which states that "their production will usually be of 

most value for views within 15km of a windfarm site". Photomontages are produced for almost 

all sensitive (higher number of visitors) and important viewpoints as follows: 

• Viewpoint 3: Clackmannan Public Park 




• Viewpoint 4: Alloa Tower 

• Viewpoint 5: Wallace Monument 

• Viewpoint 6: Stirling Castle 

• Viewpoint 9: Dunmore Village 

• Viewpoint 13: Ben Cleuch 

• Viewpoint 14: Falkirk Wheel 

• Viewpoint 16: Dumyat Hill 

• Viewpoint 18: Cowie 

• Viewpoint 20: Clackmannanshire Bridge 

9.4.93 The landscape and visual effects of the proposed wind energy development have been 

assessed in detail from a range of viewpoints below. 

Viewpoint 1: A977(T) Gartarry Wood 

Figure Number: VP-1a Existing View; VP-1b Wireframe 





Turbine: 

3.72km 


visibility: 


Earlsburn WF 

Number of Hubs 

4 Number of turbines with 4 

theoretically visible: 

blades theoretically visible: 

Visual Effects: 

Medium range view. Only turbine no.1 is visible on its blade height through a gap in the vegetation. The other three 

turbines are hidden behind the vegetation. 

The view proves that at a distance of 3km it would be difficult to view the Forthbank turbines when travelling on the 

A977 especially when the roadside vegetation or landform is intervening. 

Cumulative Effects: 

In direct view 4 turbines of the Craigengelt wind energy development are visible on top of the Craigengelt Hill, rising 

above the skyline. 

7 blades of Earlsburn wind energy development above the ridge of the Touch Hills are barely perceptible against the 

skyline. 

Magnitude of Change: Negligible 

While the ZTV and wireline show that all four turbines are theoretically visible from this viewpoint, screening by 

localised landform and tree cover contains the visibility. 

Nature of impact 

Indirect/Neutral 


Negligible 





Figure Number: VP-2 a Existing View; VP-2b Wireframe 



LCT: Coastal Margins LCA: Kincardine Coastal Flats 


Turbine: 

2.01km Cumulative visibility: Craigengelt WF 

Earlsburn WF 






All four turbines will be readily visible from a close range distance of 2km. All turbines are visible in their full height and 

break the skyline above the Lowland Knaik Hills. Turbines will appear as large scale elements within the floodplain of 

the River Forth. On the right side of Forthbank turbines the 380kV Forth Crossing pylons break the skyline above the 

Ochil Hills. 


In a 90 degree view 7 turbines of the Craigengelt wind energy development are visible on top of the Craigengelt Hill, 

rising above the skyline. 

Earlsburn wind energy development’s blade tips above the Touch Hills ridge are barely perceptible. 

Magnitude of Change: High 

The hubs and blades of the Forthbank wind energy development will be seen above the skyline and the movement of 

their blades will add to their prominence. 

The perceived scale of the turbines will be less than their actual scale in this view. This is on account of the turbines 

appearing to be located at a similar range to the pylons, while in fact they are located at a slightly more distant range. 

As a result this makes the scale of the turbines appear comparable with the scale of the chimney stacks and pylons, 

when in actual fact the turbines are bigger. This reduction in perceived scale and the number of pylons in the view 

reduces the prominence of the turbines. 

The presence of the chimney stacks and pylons ensures that the turbines are seen in a context where large-scale, 

man-made vertical elements are an established feature of the baseline situation. In this view the pylons remain the 

dominating features. 


Direct 


Major to moderate 


Figure Number: VP-3 a Existing View; VP-3b Wireframe; VP3-c Photomontage 



LCT: Lowland River Valley LCA: Carse of Forth 


Turbine: 


Earlsburn WF 






All four turbines will be readily visible from the relatively close range distance of 1.5km with the Lowland Hills in the 

background. The hubs and blades will be seen above the skyline and the movement of their blades will add to their 

prominence. Their blades would break the skyline above the Lowland Hills which form the skyline of this view. 


Craigengelt wind energy development is clearly visible on the Craigengelt Hill between the proposed turbines number 

1 and number.2. 

Earlsburn wind energy development’s blades are barely perceptible above the Touch Hills’ ridge. 


In this view the turbines dominate, rather than the pylons. The turbines appear on the landscape as new vertical 

architectural structures. They will appear as large scale elements within the River Forth valley landscape. The layout of 

turbines is such that turbine no.1 is at an approximately 800m distance from the others. 

The presence of the Alloa Works’ chimney stacks and pylons ensures that the turbines are seen in a context where 

large-scale, man-made vertical elements are an established feature of the baseline situation. These existing elements 

surround the turbines on either side, so that the turbines are not extending the influence of this type of development in 

any direction. 


Direct 









Bearing 164º Direction of View: South west 


Distance to nearest 1.02km Cumulative visibility: Craigengelt WF 

Turbine: 

Earlsburn WF 






All four turbines will be readily visible from the relatively close range distance of 1km. The turbines are seen at their 

full height. They are alternating with pylons which break the skyline above the flat River Forth floodplain. Turbines will 

appear as large scale elements within the flat river valley landscape. 


In a 90 degree view Craigengelt wind energy development is clearly visible on Hart Hill rising between Cowie Works 

and Alloa works chimneys. Earlsburn wind energy development’s blades are hardly perceivable to the eye above the 

Lowland Hills. 

The cumulative effect with the pylons is prevailing in this view. 


The hubs and blades of the Forthbank wind energy development will be seen above the skyline and the movement of 

their blades will add to their prominence. 

The perceived scale of the turbines will be less than their actual size in this view. This is on account of the turbines 

appearing to be located at a similar range to the pylons, while in fact they are located slightly further away. Only the 

turbine no.1 which is closest to the viewpoint and at a distance of 800m from the group of three others, offers the focal 

point for the view extending above the close skyline. As a result this layout makes the scale of the turbines appear 

comparable with the scale of the chimney stacks and pylons, when in actual fact the turbines are bigger. This 

reduction in perceived scale and the number of pylons in the view reduces the prominence of the turbines. 


man-made vertical elements are an established feature of the baseline situation. These existing elements surround 

the turbines on either side, so that the turbines are not extending the influence of this type of development in any 

direction. In this view the above named industrial elements are located close to the viewpoint and therefore their 

presence dominates. 

The positive visual effect is seen by the turbines breaking the monotonous appearance of pylons by appearing as new 

vertical architectural structures. 


Direct 












Turbine: 


Earlsburn WF 







This is a medium range view. All four turbines are visible in their full length on a background of the Devilla Forest. It is 

not easy to distinguish the Alloa Works white chimneys and pylons in the view. The visual appearance of turbines 

would be slightly stronger than that of the Alloa Works white chimneys. 


The Wallace Monument affords 360 degree views to the surrounding landscape and therefore Craigengelt, Earlsburn 

and Braes of Doune wind energy developments are coming in to the view when walking around the monument’s 

platform. The high level position of these cumulative wind energy developments together with the high level of the 

viewpoint, which brings the wind energy developments visually close to the higher level receptor and gives them more 

of a visual prominence in comparison with the Forthbank wind energy development which sits in a low river valley. 

Magnitude of Change: Low 

Wallace Monument affords 360 degree views to the surrounding landscape therefore the variety of directions of the 

views reduces the single value of the River Forth floodplain view to the south. The views towards the Ochil Hills to the 

east, to the Gargunnock Hills to the west and to the Highlands to the north are more attractive in nature than the River 

Forth floodplain view. 

From a range of 9km the turbines will be seen as relatively small objects within a wider landscape setting. The 

location of the turbines in the low-lying valley reduces their prominence as the hills establish the scale of the view at a 

height well above the turbine tips. In addition to this the turbines are set below the horizon which reduces the visible 

height of the towers. The turbines will not form a conspicuous addition to the view. 

The closeness of the A91 in the foreground and the larger scale warehouses in the middle ground will reduce the 

impact of the Forthbank wind energy development. There is a limited horizontal extent of the wind energy 

development which means it will only occupy a limited section of the wider 360 degree view. 

The turbines will appear well below the skyline when seen from this elevated viewpoint. From this range the turbines 

will appear as small scale elements and their blade movements will be noticeable. Although the vertical form of the 

turbines will not be pronounced due to the partial or complete containment below the skyline, they will have some 

vertical impact in contrast to the horizontal landscape in which they are seen. 


man-made vertical elements are an established feature of the baseline situation. 




Moderate to minor 










Turbine: 


Earlsburn WF 







This is a long range view. All four turbines are visible and the tips of their blades break the skyline above the Devilla 

Forest. It is not easy to distinguish the Alloa Works white chimneys and pylons in the view. It is considered that the 

visual appearance of turbines would be slightly more obvious than the Alloa Works white chimneys. 


Stirling Castle affords 360 degree views to the surrounding landscape and therefore Craigengelt, Earlsburn and Braes 

of Doune wind energy developments come in to the view when walking around the Castle platform. The high level 

position of these cumulative wind energy developments together with the high elevation of the viewpoint, brings the 

wind energy developments visually close to the higher level receptor and gives them more of a visual prominence in 

comparison with the Forthbank wind energy development which sits in a low river valley. The difference in the visual 

effect is noticeable in comparison with Craigengelt wind energy development which is almost at the same distance as 

the Forthbank wind energy development from the viewpoint. 


Stirling Castle affords 360 degree views to the surrounding landscape therefore the variety of directions of the views 

reduces the single value of the River Forth floodplain view to the south. The views towards the Ochil Hills to the east, 

to the Gargunnock Hills to the west and to the Highlands to the north are more attractive in nature than the River Forth 

floodplain view. 

From a range of 10km the turbines will be seen as relatively small objects within a wider landscape setting. The 

location of the turbines in the low-lying valley reduces their prominence as the hills determine the scale of the view at a 

height well above that of the turbine tips. The turbines will not form a conspicuous addition to the view. 

The built up density of the foreground of the viewpoint where Stirling expands will reduce the impact of the Forthbank 

wind energy development. There is a limited horizontal extent to the wind energy development which means it will 

occupy only a minimal section of the wider view 

From this range the turbines will appear as noticeable vertical elements and their blade movements will be seen. 

Although the vertical form of the turbines will not be pronounced due to their partial or complete containment below the 

skyline, they will have some vertical impact in contrast to the horizontal landscape in which they are seen. 


man-made vertical elements are an already established feature of the baseline situation 








Bearing 94º Direction of View: East 


Distance to nearest 4.77km Cumulative visibility: None 

Turbine: 






Medium range view. Only the tips of the blade of turbine no.1 would be visible over the dark vegetation line. Existing 

woodland further conceals the three turbines on the right so that only the blades are visible. 

This viewpoint represents views from the roads which run on the River Forth floodplain, which are well screened by 

existing vegetation and slight undulations of the landform. 

Cumulative Effects: None 

The cumulative visibility is restricted due to the low elevation of the viewpoint which allows containment of views to the 

outside. Slight undulation of the landform, vegetation and buildings have sufficient height so as to restrict views to the 

outside. 



localised landform and tree cover contains the visibility. 




Negligible 










Turbine: 






All four turbines will be visible from the relatively close range distance of 1.4km. The turbines rise as strong 

architectural vertical features on the landscape. Turbine no.1 does not break the skyline on the backdrop of the Ochil 

Hills as, being further away from the group of three, it is seen as the smallest in this angle of the view. The blades of 

three turbines will rotate against the skyline. The turbines no.2 and 3 will be potentially screened behind the hedgerow 

trees when these have leaves. 


The cumulative visibility is restricted due to the low level position of the viewpoint which allows containment of views to 

the outside. In this case Dunmore Hill with its Woods blocks all views towards the Gargunnock Hills where there are 

operating wind energy developments such as Craigengelt and Earlsburn. 


Turbines will appear as large scale elements within the valley landscape against the Ochil Hills. The hubs and blades 

will be seen above the skyline and the movement of their blades will add to their prominence. The pylons do not stand 

out on the backdrop of the Ochil Hills and do not compete with the prominent form of the turbines. 

The very close proximity of the turbines to the viewpoint means that they will appear as immediately apparent 

components in the view. While a high magnitude of change is inevitable from such a close range, there are some 

factors that reduce the overall extent to which this view will be altered. The turbines will be seen in a context in which 

the movement and noise of traffic has a direct influence on the character of the road. The movement of the blades will 

therefore not form such a notable change as they would from a static and less busy viewpoint. 


Direct 









Turbine: 






Close range distance of 1km. It is the closest view for local residents of the Dunmore conservation village although not 

all residents would be able to see the view other than if walking along the shore of the River Forth. All four turbines 

would contrast against the Ochil Hills and their blades would be seen above the skyline. Turbines will appear as large 

scale elements within the river valley landscape. 


The cumulative visibility is restricted due to the low level position of the viewpoint which allows containment of the 

views to the outside. In this case Dunmore Hill with its woods blocks all views towards the Gargunnock Hills where 

wind energy developments such as Craigengelt and Earlsburn are operating. Inside the village the buildings block the 

views outside. 


The wind turbines would be perceived as new, vertical elements, and the turbines would become a defining element of 

the local landscape character, due to the proportion of horizontal angle of view which they would occupy. 

The hubs and blades will be seen above the skyline and the movement of their blades will add to their prominence. 

The very close proximity of the turbines to the viewpoint means that they will appear as immediately apparent 

components of the view. While a high magnitude of change is inevitable from such close range, there are some factors 

that reduce the overall extent to which this view will be altered. 

The ‘Forth Crossing’s’ pylons establish large scale man-made vertical elements which are a familiar feature in the 

view. The visual effect of the turbines when viewed from this location is to establish new vertical architectural 

structures along the River Forth shoreline. The pylons reduce the overall prominence of the turbines and their 

unfamiliarity in this view. Apart form the landform of the Ochil Hills there are several industrial elements along the 

River Forth’s northern shore such as Alloa Works, Longannet Power Station, lattice towers and farm outbuildings. 


Direct 






Viewpoint 10: Path Pineapple 



Bearing 4º Direction of View: North 



Turbine: 






Close range distance of 2.3km. All turbines are screened by the vegetation which runs along the Pineapple borders. 

Slight blade movement would be perceivable through the vegetation in seasons when the trees do not have leaves. 


The cumulative visibility is restricted by the Dunmore Woods which blocks all views towards the Gargunnock Hills 

where there are operating wind energy developments such as Craigengelt and Earlsburn. 



localised landform and tree cover reduces visibility to the turbines. 




Negligible to minor 




Bearing 345º Direction of View: North 



Turbine: 






Close range distance of 3km. Three turbines are visible against the grand landmass of the Ochil Hills. Turbine no.3 

remains behind turbine no.4 in this angle of the view giving an appearance of one vertical element. The turbine no.1 

which is further away from the group of three therefore looks smaller in the view. The turbines do not break the skyline 

above the Ochil Hills but would appear taller than the row of pylons which run alongside the River Forth’s northern 

shore. 


The cumulative visibility is restricted due to the low level position of the viewpoint which contains the views to the 

outside. In this case Airth Castle Hill and Dunmore Hill with its Woods block all views towards the Gargunnock Hills 

where there are operating wind energy developments such as Craigengelt and Earlsburn. In Airth village the views to 

the outside are contained by its buildings. 

Magnitude of Change: Medium 

At a range of 2.7km to the nearest turbine they will still appear as largescale moving elements forming an eye catching 

feature. 

Turbines are viewed within the context of the industrial elements which have already extensively altered the landscape. 

Despite the accumulation of the industrialisation the strong contrast of the low flat river valley landscape and the 

landmass of the Ochil Hills reduces the scale of vertical elements added to the landscape. 

The containment well below the skyline also helps to reduce the perceived scale of the turbines. 


Direct 


Moderate 








LCT: Coastal margins LCA: The Bo’ness Coastal Hills 


Turbine: 

Earlsburn WF 






It is a long range view where the three turbines would be visible over the River Forth on the backdrop of the dark 

landmass of the Ochil Hills. Turbine no.3 remains at this angle of view behind turbine no.4. In the view the turbines rise 

amongst the pylons next to the Longannet Power Station. The chimney of the Power Station focuses the eye as it is 

seen above the skyline. 


The blades of the Earlsburn wind energy development are perceivable above the range of the Gargunnock Hills. The 

Craigengelt wind energy development is concealed behind the vegetation. 

Two blade tips of Burnfoot or Greenknowes would be visible by the wireframe. In reality it would be difficult to notice 

these within the undulation of the landmass of the Ochil Hills. 


From a range of 14.3km the turbines will be seen as relatively small objects within a wider landscape setting. The built 

up density of the foreground of the viewpoint where Bo’ness spreads out will reduce the impact of the Forthbank wind 

energy development. There is limited horizontal extent to the wind energy development which means it will only 

occupy a limited section of the wider view. The turbines will be not seen to their full height, only the top part of turbine 

towers is perceivable above the vegetation line. 

From this range the turbines will appear as noticeable vertical elements and their blade movements will be seen, 

although the vertical form of the turbines will not be pronounced due to their complete containment below the skyline. 

Their vertical impact is limited due to the strong form of the Longannet Power Station chimney which contrasts with the 

horizontal landscape. The close proximity of the turbines to the chimney creates the impression of their being a part of 

this large utilitarian development. 

The presence of the Power Station and Grangemouth Oil Refinery chimneys and pylons ensures that the turbines are 

seen in a context where large-scale, man-made vertical elements are an established feature of the baseline situation. 

These existing elements surround the turbines on either side, so that the turbines are not extending the influence of 

this type of development in any direction. In this view the above named industrial elements are located closer to the 

viewpoint than the Forthbank wind energy development therefore their presence dominates. 












LCT: Lowland Hills LCA: Ochil Hills 


Turbine: 

9.25km 


visibility: 


Earlsburn WF 


Burnfoot WF 







All four turbines will be readily visible from the medium range distance of 9km. The turbines would be visible rising 

above the River Forth’s flat floodplain. The turbines will appear well below the skyline when seen from this elevated 

viewpoint. Alloa’s built up area is in the middle ground of the view. 


Craigengelt and Earlsburn wind energy development turbines appear on the dark background of the Fintry Hills. Due 

to the long range distance (22km) and the atmospheric conditions they are difficult to distinguish. 

The cluttered composition with an overly dense and confused appearance and the frequent overlapping of turbines of 

the Braes of Doune appears against the attractive Highlands view when the receptor turns to the north west. 

Installed turbines of Burnfoot stand on a slope between Ben Cleuch and Ben Buck, at a close distance of 2.3km to the 

north. 

Greenknowes’ turbines on Rowantree Craig are visible at a medium range distance of 10km to the north east. 

All turbines of cumulative wind energy developments’ are contained below the skyline due to the high location of the 

receptor. 


The elevation of the landscape is such that much of it rises above the wind energy development and this gives it less 

visual importance, and therefore less influence, than if it rises above the viewer. The turbines have less vertical impact 

in this situation, and this is further reduced by the containment of the turbines below the skyline. 

The presence of the industrial units alongside the River Forth shoreline reduces the unfamiliarity of the proposed 

turbines within this open flat river valley landscape. 

The presence of the transmission poles and pylons reduce the unfamiliarity of these vertical elements within this 

predominantly open landscape. It is notable that the wind energy development will not introduce an entirely new 

influence into the view. 

The very strong, inherent character of the Ochil Hills is also an important consideration. The landmass gives two 

aspects to the view from the top of it, the open view being over the landmass of the Ochil Hills and secondly over the 

open flat river valley underneath. 

As an external influence, the wind energy development will affect a very small proportion of the 360 degree view that is 

available from the viewpoint. There is limited horizontal extent of the wind energy development which means it will only 

occupy a limited section of the wider view. 

From this range the turbines will appear as noticeable vertical elements and their blade movements will be seen 




Indirect 









LCT: Lowland River Valley LCA: Falkirk/Denny Urban 

Fringe 


Turbine: 







All four turbines will be visible from the long range distance of 11km against the Ochil Hills landmass. 

The turbines will appear well below the skyline which is formed by the Ochil Hills when seen from this elevated 

viewpoint. 


When the viewer turns to the north the full layout of the Braes of Doune is visible against the dark backdrop of the 

Knaik Hills. 

The row of eight turbines of Craigengelt wind energy development rises above the skyline to the north west on top of 

the Craigengelt Hill. 


From a range of 11km the turbines will be seen as relatively small objects within a wider landscape setting. 

The built up density of the middle ground of Falkirk with its large warehouse buildings visible on its periphery will 

reduce the impact of the Forthbank wind energy development. 

There is limited horizontal extent to the wind energy development which means it will only occupy a limited section of 

the wider view. The bases of the turbines are screened by the intervening landform and woodland, which will greatly 

reduce the perceived scale of the turbines. 

From this range the turbines will appear as noticeable vertical elements although the vertical form of the turbines will 

not be pronounced due to their complete containment below the skyline. They will however have some vertical impact 

in contrast to the horizontal landscape context in which they are seen. 

The presence of the pylons and operating turbines ensures that the Forthbank turbines are seen in an environment 

where large-scale, man-made vertical elements are an established feature of the baseline situation. Two lattice towers 

compete with the height of turbines in this view and pylons are in close range in the view. 

The turbines will not form a notable addition to the view especially when people are pre-occupied with the Falkirk 

Wheel attraction. 


Indirect 










LCT: Lowland Plateaux LCA: Slamannan Plateau 




Turbine: 

visibility: 







All four turbines will be barely perceptible from the long range distance of 13.7km against the Ochil Hills landmass. 

The blades will appear well below the Ochil Hills’ skyline when seen from this elevated viewpoint. 


When the receptor turns to the north the full layout of the Braes of Doune wind energy development is perceivable on 

the backdrop of the Knaik Hills. The view demonstrates that, due to their large number, the 65 turbines could be visible 

at a distance of 38.3km. 

Craigengelt’s layout of turbines is in the view when the viewer turns to the north east with the turbines rising above the 

skyline. Both wind energy developments are on a higher level position and easily detected by the eye which is drawn 

towards the Highlands. 


From a range of 13.7km the turbines will be seen as relatively small objects within a wider landscape setting. 

The buildings of Shieldhill in the foreground and Falkirk’s built up area spreading over the middle ground will reduce 

the impact of the Forthbank wind energy development. 


available from Slamannan plateau. There is limited horizontal extent to the wind energy development which means it 

will only occupy a limited section of the wider view. The bases of the turbines are screened by the intervening 

woodland, which will greatly reduce the perceived scale of the turbines. 


visual importance, and therefore less influence, than if it rises above the viewer. The turbines have less vertical impact 

in this situation, and this is further reduced by the containment of the turbines below the skyline. 

The presence of the pylons and operating turbines ensures that the Forthbank turbines are seen in a context where 

large-scale, man-made vertical elements are an established feature of the baseline situation. Two lattice towers 

compete with the height of turbines in this view. It is notable that the wind energy development will not introduce an 

entirely new influence into the view. 








Viewpoint 16: Dumyat Hill 







8.16km 


visibility: 


Earlsburn WF 


4 


4 Number of turbines with 




All four turbines will be visible from the medium range distance of 8.1km. The turbines would be visible rising above the 

floodplain of the River Forth. Turbine no.3 remains behind turbine no.1 in this angle of the view giving an appearance 

of one vertical element. 

The turbines will appear well below the skyline when seen from this elevated viewpoint. Alloa’s built up area is visible 

in the middle ground of the view with its large warehouse buildings on its periphery. 


Earlsburn wind energy development rises on the top of the Touch Hill ridge, breaking the skyline in the view to the 

west. The wind energy development is at the far range distance of 20.2km. 

Craigengelt’s turbines are hard to identify against the backcloth of the Fintry Hills due to the atmospheric conditions. 

The wind energy development is at a distance of 17.4km. 

The scattered layout of Braes of Doune’s turbines is clearly visible in the north. 



visual importance, and therefore less influence. The turbines have less vertical impact in this situation, and this is 

further reduced by the containment of the turbines below the skyline. 

Alloa’s built up area spreads over the middle ground of the view reducing the impact of the Forthbank wind energy 

development. 

The presence of the industrial units alongside the River Forth shoreline, reduce the unfamiliarity of proposed turbines 

within this open flat river valley landscape. It is notable that the wind energy development will not introduce an entirely 

new influence into the view. 

The very strong, inherent character of the Ochil Hills is also an important consideration. The landmass gives two 

aspects to the view from the top of it, the open view being over the landmass of the Ochil Hills and secondly over the 

open flat river valley underneath. 


available from the viewpoint. There is a limited horizontal extent to the wind energy development which means it will 

only occupy a limited section of the wider view. 

From this range the turbines will appear as noticeable vertical elements and their blade movements will be seen, 




Indirect 






LCT: 


Cleish Hills 




13.82km 


visibility: 


Earlsburn WF 


Black Law 

4 






The visual effect caused by the proposed wind energy development is barely perceptible due to the distance. 


The Greenknowes turbines are visible to the north in the view on the Ochil Hills, rising above the skyline. Turbines are 

at the long range distance of 15km. 

The rotating blades of Earlsburn are distinguishable above the Touch Hills ridge to the west. 

Craigengelt wind energy development is difficult to distinguish on the backcloth of Touch Hill landform. 

It is possible to perceive Black Law wind energy development (67 turbines) looking to the south at a distance of 

approximately 40km. 





Negligible 








LCT: Lowland Hill Fringes LCA: East Touch Fringe 




Turbine: 

visibility: 







All four turbines will be visible from the medium range distance of 5.42km above Cowie’s built up area rooftops, seen 

against the backdrop of the Upland Hills. The blade tips of three turbines will marginally break the skyline as the 

turbines are backed by the Lowland Hills and Valleys’ ridge of low, rounded hills with large dark areas of plantations on 

top of them. 

The grand form of the range of the Ochil Hills draws the eye in the view. The appearance of the Forthbank wind energy 

development beyond the Ochil Hills makes it of secondary value in the view. 


The Craigengelt and Braes of Doune wind energy developments become visible when the viewer moves 100m to the 

north towards the local school play area. When the viewer moves to the south east, at the Community Centre open 

space area, the Braes of Doune wind energy development becomes visible. 


The position of turbines in relation to the foreground buildings may give rise to awkward comparisons of scale. While 

the more distant Benarty Hill offers some enclosure to the view, the turbines do not sit above the skyline and as a 

result increase the ability of the background hills to backcloth the view. Cowie’s built up area spreading over the 

foreground and middle ground in the view will reduce the impact of the Forthbank wind energy development. All four 

turbines will be visible although they will be seen as a single and relatively compact group. 

From this range the turbines will appear as noticeable vertical elements and their blade movements will be seen 



man-made vertical elements are an established feature of the baseline situation. 


Direct 


Moderate 







Turbine: 

1.28km 


visibility: 


Earlsburn WF 


4 






This is a close range view. All turbine towers will be concealed by the riverside vegetation and industrial buildings. 

Only the movement of blades would be seen against the skyline. 


The Craigengelt wind energy development is visible on top of the Craigengelt Hill, rising above the skyline. Earlsburn 

wind energy development blade tips above the Touch Hills ridge are barely perceptible. 


Pylons dominate this view. The chimneys of Alloa Works are seen in the 95 degree view in the left side of the view. 

The chimneys break the skyline above the Ochil Hills and the pylons’ height exceeds that of the top of the blade tips. 

The buildings in South Alloa are orientated to the north where opens the view over the River Forth towards Stirling. 

This view is spectacular with the craigs rising above the floodplain of the River Forth and with the Highlands on the 

horizon. 



Direct 

Minor 




Viewpoint 20: Clackmannanshire Bridge 







Earlsburn WF 


visibility: 






All four turbines will be visible from the medium range distance of 4.15km on the backdrop of the Ochil Hills adjacent to 

the Alloa Works’ chimneys. 


Craigengelt wind energy development is screened by the Hill of Airth landform and associated vegetation. 

Earlsburn wind energy development blade tips above the Touch Hills ridge are barely perceptible. 


Two high lattice towers are the dominating features of this view rising above the Ochil Hills and visually they give the 

impression of being several times the size of the turbines. 

From this medium range the turbines will appear as noticeable vertical elements and their blade movements will be 

seen, although the vertical form of the turbines will not be pronounced due to their complete containment below the 

skyline. 

The presence of the chimney stacks and pylons and lattice towers ensures that the turbines are seen in a context 

where large-scale, man-made vertical elements are an established feature of the baseline situation. These existing 

elements surround the turbines on either side, so that the turbines are not extending the influence of this type of 

development in any direction. 

Turbines are viewed within the context of the industrial elements which have already extensively altered the 

landscape. 


Direct 


Moderate 








20.78km 


visibility: 


Earlsburn WF 

Greendykeside WF 

Black Hill WF 

4 






The visual effect caused by the proposed wind energy development is barely perceptible due to the distance. 


Craigengelt and Earlsburn wind energy developments’ turbines would be perceivable on the ridge of Touch Hills with 

an excellent visibility at the far range distance of 30km. 

Two turbines of Greendykeside are distinguishable above the Lowland Plateaux at a distance of 17.5km to the west. 

Turbines of Black Hill wind energy development’ are visible above the skyline with perfect visibility approximately at a 

distance of 20km to the south. 





Minor 











19.45km 


visibility: 



Earlsburn WF 

Greendykeside 

4 






The visual effect caused by the proposed wind energy development is barely perceptible due to distance. 


Craigengelt’s turbines are direct in the view to the north at a distance of 5km. Braes of Doune wind energy 

development’s layout is clearly visible behind Craigengelt at a 29.3km distance. 

Some blades of Earlsburn wind energy development break the skyline, otherwise all turbines and blades are seen 

against the backdrop of the Lowland Hills’ landmass. 

Greendykeside’s two turbines rise above the Lowland Plateaux landscape in the south. At a 14.3km distance they are 

clearly visible elements in the landscape. 

The Beauly- Denny transmission line would potentially be seen from this viewpoint because the view is orientated to 

the east where the Beuly-Denny transmission line would run between Cowie and Denny. These 400kV pylons would 

be not perceivable at the distance of 12km beyond Denny’s built up area. 





Negligible 

9.4.94 Table 9.7-1 in Appendix 9.7 lists the viewpoints and summarises the assessment information 

of all 22 viewpoints. 


Introduction 

9.5.1 The purpose of the cumulative assessment is to ascertain how the addition of proposed 

Forthbank wind energy development will contribute to the cumulative effects of wind energy 

developments on the landscape and visual resource within the study area. 

9.5.2 Cumulative effects may arise where a landscape character receptor or view is affected by 

more than one wind energy development, which occurs where the study areas for two or more 

wind energy developments overlap so that they are experienced at proximity where they may 

have an incremental effect. 

9.5.3 Three types of cumulative visual impact are considered in the assessment: combined, 

successive and sequential (Guidance taken from Cumulative Effect of Wind energy 

developments, Scottish Natural Heritage, issued 13/04/051). Combined and successive 

impacts are from static viewpoints, whereas sequential impacts relate to viewers who are 

moving. 

• Combined effects occur where a static observer is able to see two or more 

developments from one viewpoint within the observer’s arc of vision at the same 

time. 

• Successive effects occur where two or more wind energy developments may be 

seen from a static viewpoint but the observer has to turn to see them. 




• Sequential effects occur when the observer has to move to another viewpoint, for 

example when travelling along a road or footpath, to see the different developments. 

Sequential effects may range from frequent (the features appear regularly and with 

short time lapses between, depending on speed and distance) to occasional (long 

time lapses between appearances due to a lower speed of travel and/or longer 

distances between the viewpoints. 

The Scope of the Cumulative Assessment 

9.5.4 Two or more wind energy developments are required for the occurrence of a cumulative visual 

effect. This assessment has therefore considered the development of the Forthbank wind 

energy development in addition to other wind energy development sites in the landscape in 

order to test the landscape capacity of the area and provide conclusions for the CLVIA relevant 

to this proposal. 

9.5.5 The cumulative assessment covers the potential cumulative effects on landscape character 

receptors and views. Cumulative effects on landscape elements are not included in the 

cumulative assessment as they cannot be assessed without detailed knowledge of the other 

wind energy development sites. 

9.5.6 The assessment of cumulative effects comprises: 

• The scope of the cumulative assessment; 

• Methodology; 

• Cumulative Zone of Visual Influence - an overview of the wind energy development 

capacity of the study area, based on field observations and the cumulative ZTVs; 

and 

• Cumulative Effects on views and Visual Amenity - consideration of the potential 

cumulative effects on views from 22 representative viewpoints. 

9.5.7 The study area for cumulative impacts is 70km to reflect the advice in the SNH Guidance. The 

assessment covers all wind energy developments that are constructed, have consent or are 

sufficiently advanced in the planning process to be considered in this assessment. Wind 

energy developments in scoping have not been considered in this assessment, although 

presented on wireframes, because until an application has been submitted to the local 

planning authority the final layout and height to tip of the proposed turbines cannot be known, 

both of which form fundamental factors in the assessment of cumulative effects. 

9.5.8 It should be noted that wind energy developments in scoping within the 35km are left out 

according to Scottish Natural Heritage, (Version 2 revised 13 April 2005) Guidance on the 

Cumulative Effects of Windfarms, Paragraph 19 which states: ”In some cases it may be 

thought desirable to include more speculative proposals in the assessment (e.g. where a 

formal scoping opinion has been provided and thus the principle of a proposal is within the 

public domain). Nonetheless inclusion of such projects would render the assessment less 

certain. …..Therefore, cumulative assessment should normally be limited to the categories set 

out in paragraph 18. However, pre-application proposals could be regarded as a material 




consideration, especially where the proposals are already in the public domain as a result of 

developer publicity or a formal request for a scoping opinion, and where they are well 

articulated in terms of location and scale. The weight to be accorded to such speculative 

proposals is a matter for the decision-making authority. “ 

9.5.9 The data available on wind energy developments in scoping is presented in Appendix 9.8 in 

Table 9.8-1 and 9.8-2. Using the data the wind energy developments which are in scoping are 

added to the cumulative wireframes and their locations are shown within the 70km study area 

in Figure 9.13 and within 35km study area in Figure 9.14. 

9.5.10 The list of wind energy development sites to be included in the assessment has been compiled 

from known wind energy development planning applications and formal requests for scoping 

opinions held by SNH, Falkirk Council and Stirling Council. 

9.5.11 At the time of this assessment there were 7 wind energy developments or individual wind 

turbines currently built, 1 under construction, 7 approved, 8 applied for and 9 at an earlier 

stage of planning (in scoping), that may contribute to cumulative effects with Forthbank wind 

energy development. The locations of wind energy developments within 70km of Forthbank 

wind energy development are shown on Figure 9.13 together with an indication of their status 

and size in Tables 9.8-2 Appendix 9.8. Some schemes include more than one phase of 

development and this is noted in the table. 

9.5.12 This assessment takes detailed cognisance of the following wind energy developments within 

35km in combination with the proposed wind energy development at Forthbank which are 

listed in Tables 9.11 and illustrated on a plan in Figures 9.14. 

Table 9.11 Wind Energy Developments within 35km 

No 


development 

LCU 

Grid Ref. 

(approx.) 

Distance to 

Forthbank 

(approx.) 

No. of 

turbines 

Installed 

1 Braes of Doune Knaik Hills NN 723 112 25km 35 100 

2 Greenknowes Ochil Hills NN 968 075 17km 18 95 

3 Greendykeside Plateau Moorland NS 812 700 23km 2 100 

4 Earlsburn Fintry, Gargunnock and NS 703 897 20km 14 115 

Touch Hills 

5 ASDA depot, New 

Denny/Falkirk Urban Fringe NS 901 820 11km 1 120 

Bankside Ind' Estate 

6 Braiden Hill Plateau Farmland NS 743 665 30km 1 100 

7 Craigengelt Fintry, Gargunnock and NS 724 866 18km 8 125 

Touch Hills 

8 Burnfoot Hill Ochil Hills NN 905 035 11km 13 102 

Approved 

9 Lochelbank Ochil Hills NO 116 136 31km 24 91 

10 Little Raith Cullaloe Hills NT 190 915 30km 9 100 

11 Pates Hill North West Pentlands NS 965 605 36km 7 110 

Fringe 

12 Tormywheel North West Pentlands NS 952 582 35km 15 100 

Fringe 

13 Earlsburn North Fintry, Gargunnock and NS 703 897 21km 9 115 

Touch Hills 

14 AG Barr Factory, 

Rolling Farmland NS 715 725 27km 1 126 

Lanarkshire 

15 FMC Technologies, Fife Coastal Flats NT 101 853 22km 1 100 

Application 

16 Muirpark Fintry, Gargunnock and NS 736 875 16km 11 127 

Touch Hills 

17 Blacklaw Extension North West Pentlands 

Fringe 

NS 911 565 36km 21 127 

Height 

to tip 

(m) 




No 


development 

LCU 

Grid Ref. 

(approx.) 

Distance to 


(approx.) 

No. of 

turbines 

18 Hartwood Plateau Farmland NS 838 604 33km 14 139 

19 Bracco Plateau Moorland NS 829 659 27km 29 125 

20 Greengairs Plateau Moorland NS 791 692 25km 9 125 

21 Standingfauld (formerly Knaik Hills NN 875 133 21km 8 100 

Greenbog) 

22 Birnie Hill Plateau Farmland NS 822 605 33km 3 120 

77 Westfield Lowland Valley Fringes – 

Dunfermline 

NT 213 984 32km 5 110 

Height 

to tip 

(m) 

9.5.13 Eight of the above noted wind energy developments are already installed and therefore have 

already been recognised within the assessment of landscape and visual effects, as they are 

existing features in the landscape, which have an existing effect on the character of the 

landscape and of views. Their visual effects have also been described in section 9.4 ‘Potential 

Effects on the landscape and visual resource’. 

9.5.14 The cumulative assessment assumes that all the wind energy developments listed in Table 

9.11 will be present in the landscape alongside the proposed Forthbank Wind energy 

development, although not all have been approved or commenced construction at the time of 

writing. Equally other wind energy developments which are not yet formally within the planning 

system may come forward in advance of the decision for Forthbank. 

Methodology for Cumulative Assessment 

9.5.15 The SNH Guidance issued in April 2005 set out the methodology used in this cumulative 

impact assessment. This Guidance advocates in paragraph 35 that: “Cumulative effects are 

those which occur, or may occur, as a result of more than one wind energy development 

project being constructed. The degree of cumulative impact is a product of the number of, and 

distance between, individual windfarms, the interrelationship between their Zones of Visual 

Influence (ZVI)[equivalent to a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV)], the overall character of the 

landscape and its sensitivity to windfarms, and the siting and design of the windfarms 

themselves. It is important to recognize that cumulative effects consist of both those upon 

visual amenity as well as effects on the landscape.” 

9.5.16 The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment refer to the changes to 

landscape or visual amenity caused by the proposed development in conjunction with other 

developments, or with actions which occurred in the past, present or are likely to occur in the 

foreseeable future. The Guidelines go on to state in paragraph 36 that: “Such cumulative 

effects on landscape and visual amenity may also have a bearing on enjoyment of the natural 

heritage. While wind turbines may provide a focus of interest in some landscapes, in others 

they may be in conflict with attributes such as remoteness or wildness sought by 

recreationalists.” 

9.5.17 The methods and guidance used for defining landscape character, quality, value, condition and 

sensitivity are the same as those used in the LVIA, as set out above in the Assessment 

Methodology. The criteria for the assessment of visual effects, including the definitions of 

magnitude of change and receptor sensitivity, as well as the methods for assessing the 

degrees of visual amenity impact significance are also the same as those employed in the 

LVIA. 




9.5.18 As stressed above, cumulative effects on landscape elements are not included in the 

cumulative assessment as they cannot be assessed without detailed knowledge of the other 

wind energy development sites. 

9.5.19 However, despite cumulative impacts on landscape and visual amenity having been assessed 

following the same methodology, the key factors determining the magnitude of cumulative 

change include: 

• the number of existing, consented and/or proposed wind energy developments 

visible; 

• the distance to each of the existing, consented, and/or proposed wind energy 

developments; 

• the direction of each wind energy development in relation to the viewpoint, or 

landscape or visual receptor; and 

• the horizontal angle occupied by each wind energy development in relation to the 

viewer and the other wind energy developments in the view. 

9.5.20 This cumulative assessment makes no judgements as to the appropriateness or acceptability 

of the planned, constructed or consented turbines considered in this cumulative assessment 

other than the proposed Forthbank wind energy development turbines. 

9.5.21 An assessment of the significance of the impacts can be made, by combining the magnitude of 

change predicted and the sensitivity of the visual amenity or landscape character, to that 

particular type of change. Those effects that are defined as being moderate to substantial or 

greater are judged to be significant. 

9.5.22 A significant cumulative effect will occur where the addition of the wind energy development 

to other existing and proposed wind energy developments will result in a landscape character 

or view that is defined by the presence of more than one wind energy development and is 

characterised primarily by wind energy developments so that other patterns and components 

are no longer definitive. 

9.5.23 If the wind energy development itself is assessed to have a significant effect on landscape 

character receptor or view, it does not necessarily follow that the cumulative effect will also be 

significant. If the joint effect of the two or more wind energy developments does not result in 

the perception of a wind energy development-defined landscape, the cumulative effect will be 

not significant, even if the effect of the wind energy development itself is significant. 

9.5.24 As with the assessment of effects of the wind energy development in isolation, the significance 

of cumulative effects is determined through a combination of the sensitivity of the landscape 

receptor or view and the magnitude of change upon it. The sensitivity of landscape receptors 

and views is the same in the cumulative assessment as in the assessment of the wind energy 

development in isolation. However, the cumulative magnitude of change is assessed in a 

different way. 




9.5.25 The cumulative magnitude of change is an expression of the degree to which landscape 

character receptors and views will be changed by the addition of the proposed wind energy 

development to wind energy developments that are already existing, consented or proposed. 

This is dependent on a number of variables detailed in the table below. 

Table 9.12 Cumulative Magnitude of Change 

The location of the 

wind energy 

development in 

relation to other wind 

energy developments. 

The extent of the 

developed skyline 

The number and scale 

of the developments 

seen simultaneously, 

successively, or 

sequentially. 

The context in which 

the wind energy 

developments are 

seen. 

The distance of the 

wind energy 

development from the 

viewpoint or receptor. 

The magnitude of 

change of the wind 

energy development 

as assessed in the 

main assessment. 

If the wind energy development is seen in a part of the view that is not affected by another 

development, this will generally increase the cumulative magnitude of change as it will 

extend the wind energy development influence into an area that is currently unaffected. 

Conversely, if the wind energy development is seen in the context of other sites, the 

cumulative magnitude of change may be lower as it is not extending development to hitherto 

undeveloped parts of the outlook. This is particularly true where the scale and layout of the 

wind energy development is similar to that of the other sites, as where there is a high level of 

integration and cohesion with an existing site, the various wind energy developments may 

appear as a single site. 

If the wind energy development will add notably to the developed skyline in a view the 

cumulative magnitude of change will tend to be higher, as the nature of the skyline has a 

particular influence on both views and landscape receptors. 

Generally, the greater the number of visible developments, the higher the cumulative 

magnitude of change will be. Furthermore, the addition of the wind energy development to a 

view where a greater number of smaller developments are apparent will usually generate a 

higher cumulative magnitude of change than a view of one or two large developments as 

this can lead to the impression of a less co-ordinated or strategic approach. 

If all of the wind energy developments are seen in a similar landscape context, the 

cumulative magnitude of change is likely to be lower due to visual integration and cohesion 

between the sites. If wind energy developments are seen in a variety of different landscape 

settings, this can lead to a perception that wind energy development is haphazard and 

unplanned, affecting a wide range of landscape characters. 

As in the assessment of the site itself, the greater the distance, the lower the cumulative 

magnitude of change will tend to be. 

The lower this is assessed to be, the lower the cumulative magnitude of change is likely to 

be. Where the wind energy development itself is assessed to have a negligible magnitude of 

change on a view or receptor there will not be a cumulative effect as the contribution of the 

wind energy development will equate to the ‘no change’ situation. 

9.5.26 Definitions of cumulative magnitude of change are applied in order that the process of 

assessment is made clear in the Table 9.13 below. 

Table 9.13 Significance of Cumulative Effects 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Negligible 

where the addition of the wind energy development will make an immediately apparent contribution to 

the cumulative situation in a landscape receptor or view, and will result in the landscape receptor or view 

being perceived as a ‘wind energy development landscape’. 

where the addition of the wind energy development makes a notable contribution to the cumulative 

situation, and its addition is readily apparent. 

where the addition of the wind energy development will make a minor contribution to the overall 

cumulative situation, and its addition may be missed; and 

where the addition of the wind energy development will make a negligible contribution to the cumulative 

situation and its addition equates to a ‘no change’ situation. 

9.5.27 There may also be intermediate levels of magnitude of change where the change falls between 

two of the definitions. 

Cumulative Zone of Visual Influence 

9.5.28 As not all areas with potential views, have been visited, the assessment of the visual effects 

have been identified using the computer aided cumulative ZTVs and wireframes. Cumulative 

ZTVs are illustrated in Figures CZTV 9.1 – CZTV 9.77 within 35km and Figures CZTV 9.32 – 

CZTV 9.55 in Appendix 9.11 for wind energy developments between 35km and 70km. Each 

ZTV has been calculated to blade tip based on the turbine dimensions and available layouts at 




the time of this assessment. The cumulative ZTVs help build up a picture of the potential or 

theoretical extent of visibility, but do not take into account vegetation and built form that would 

otherwise screen the development from view. 

9.5.29 The Combined Visibility of all wind energy developments within 35km indicates there are 

substantial areas from which one or more wind energy developments could be visible. 

Correspondingly, there are areas where views of wind energy developments may be 

insignificant due to the distance involved, as stated in PAN 45 that wind energy developments 

between ‘15-30km away will only be seen in very clear visibility as a minor element within the 

landscape.’ 

9.5.30 In Table 9.11 cumulative wind energy developments are listed as installed, approved and on 

application. The cumulative assessment assumes that all the wind energy developments listed 

in Table 9.11 will be present in the landscape alongside the proposed Forthbank wind energy 

development and therefore the cumulative wind energy developments are grouped in the Table 

9.14 by the landscape character types to which they belong. 

9.5.31 Grouping the cumulative wind energy developments by landscape character types in Table 

9.14 below gives a reference to their locations with regard to the directions of the proposed 

wind energy development site. Distributing the wind energy developments by the point of the 

compass gives a number of wind energy developments and concurrently how many turbines 

should be expected to be seen in a certain direction. 

9.5.32 The grouping of wind energy developments provides for several initial explicit conclusions for 

the further assessment. From Table 9.14, it is apparent that Group 2, Group 4, Group 6 and 

Group 7 remain at a far range distance. Whilst it is evident that visibility varies according to 

weather conditions, the season, the time of day, the direction of view, the number of turbines 

and their compositional qualities, the distance provides a useful initial guide. The direction 

provides the second key variable. 

Table 9.14 Wind Energy Development Groups Within 35km 

No. Wind energy development Status Direction 

from the 

Distance to 


(approx.) 

No. of 

turbines 


Group 1 - Lowland Hills: Ochil Hills 

2 Greenknowes Installed North 17km 18 95 

8 Burnfoot Hill Installed North 11km 13 102 

9 Lochelbank Approved North-East 31km 24 91 

Group 2 – Lowland Hills: Knaik Hills 

1 Braes of Doune Installed North-West 25km 35 100 

21 Standingfauld (formerly Greenbog) Application North 21km 8 100 

Group 3 - Lowland Hills: Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Hills 

4 Earlsburn Installed West 20km 14 115 

7 Craigengelt Installed West 18km 8 125 

13 Earlsburn North Approved West 21km 9 115 

16 Muirpark Application West 16km 11 127 

Group 4 - Lowland Plateaux 

3 Greendykeside Installed South-West 23km 2 100 

6 Braiden Hill Installed South-West 30km 1 100 

14 AG Barr Factory, Lanarkshire Approved South-West 27km 1 126 

18 Hartwood Application South-West 33km 14 139 

19 Bracco Application South-West 27km 29 125 

20 Greengairs Application South-West 25km 9 125 

22 Birnie Hill Application South-West 33km 3 120 

Group 5 - Lowland River Valleys: Denny/Falkirk Urban Fringe 

5 ASDA depot, New Bankside Ind' Estate Installed South 11km 1 120 

Height 

to tip 

(m) 




No. Wind energy development Status Direction 

from the 


Distance to 


(approx.) 

No. of 

turbines 

Group 6 - Uplands: North West Pentlands Fringe 

11 Pates Hill Approved South 36km 7 110 

12 Tormywheel Approved South 35km 15 100 

17 Blacklaw Extension Application South 36km 21 127 

Group 7 –Coastal Flats/Cullaloe Hills/Lowland Valley Fringes – Dunfermline 

15 FMC Technologies, Fife Approved East 22km 1 100 

10 Little Raith Approved East 30km 9 100 

77 Westfield Application North-East 32km 5 110 

Height 

to tip 

(m) 

9.5.33 In the Appendix 9.10 the potential visual effect of the individual cumulative wind energy 

developments in groups are assessed within 35km. 

9.5.34 The assessment considers the potential for cumulative effects within a 35km radius from the 

centre of the proposed site. The theoretical cumulative ZTV comprises those parts of the 

35km ZTVs for the other wind energy developments which overlap with the 35km ZTV for 

Forthbank. In theory the extent of the ZTVs’ overlap is in correlation with the magnitude of the 

predicted effect. To test the statement in turn the individual cumulative ZTVs were overlapped 

by the viewpoint locations plan. All twenty two viewpoints appeared within the ZTVs overlap 

zone at least in the case of three wind energy developments. Therefore the third key variable 

which is introduced is the potential visibility of the individual wind energy development from the 

representative viewpoints. 

9.5.35 The magnitude of the predicted effect according to the number of viewpoints within the 

individual wind energy development’s CZTV is collated with the visibility data from the certain 

viewpoint where the assessment draws retrospectively in the field study experiences and the 

viewpoints’ studies. 

9.5.36 Table 9.9-1 in Appendix 9.9 shows the distances from viewpoints for every installed, approved, 

on application and scoping wind energy development within the 35km study area. The table 

also highlights the viewpoints which fall within the ZTVs’ overlap zone of the proposed and 

cumulative wind energy development. 

9.5.37 The number of wind energy developments presented in cumulative views and their distance is 

used as an indicator of the magnitude of the overall cumulative visual effect. The significance 

of the overall combined and successive cumulative impacts is evaluated by reference to the 

following assessment in Appendix 9.10 and the results are presented in Table 9.15. 

Table 9.15 Significance of Cumulative Effect within 35km 

No. Wind energy development Magnitude of change Significance of Effect 

Group 1 - Lowland Hills: Ochil Hills 

2 Greenknowes low negligible 

8 Burnfoot Hill low negligible 

9 Lochelbank negligible negligible 

Group 2 – Lowland Hills: Knaik Hills 

1 Braes of Doune high major 

21 Standingfauld (formerly Greenbog) negligible negligible 

Group 3 - Lowland Hills: Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Hills 

4 Earlsburn high Major/moderate 

7 Craigengelt high major 

13 Earlsburn North medium minor 

16 Muirpark high major 

Group 4 - Lowland Plateaux 

3 Greendykeside negligible negligible 

6 Braiden Hill negligible negligible 

14 AG Barr Factory, Lanarkshire negligible negligible 




18 Hartwood negligible negligible 

19 Bracco negligible negligible 

20 Greengairs negligible negligible 

22 Birnie Hill negligible negligible 

Group 5 - Lowland River Valleys: Denny/Falkirk Urban Fringe 

5 ASDA depot, New Bankside Ind' Estate medium minor 

Group 6 - Uplands: North West Pentlands Fringe 

11 Pates Hill negligible negligible 

12 Tormywheel negligible negligible 

17 Blacklaw Extension negligible negligible 

Group 7 –Coastal Flats/Cullaloe Hills/Lowland Valley Fringes – Dunfermline 

15 FMC Technologies, Fife negligible negligible 

10 Little Raith negligible negligible 

77 Westfield negligible negligible 

Cumulative Visual Effects 

9.5.38 Of the viewpoints that were analysed within section 9.4 ‘Assessment of Effects’ 17 were found 

to have views of the cumulative operating wind energy developments. These viewpoints form 

the basis of the cumulative impact assessment. 16 of the viewpoints were identified as having 

potential views of the proposed wind energy development in combination with at least one 

other of the approved wind energy developments and 17 of the viewpoints having potential 

views of the application wind energy developments. Therefore the wireframes have been 

undertaken to illustrate the cumulative effect that the wind energy developments might have on 

every viewpoint. 

9.5.39 The cumulative effect is illustrated for all 22 viewpoints by four wireframes (one in each 

compass direction) – see Figures CW9.1-a to CW9.22-b. Wind energy developments over 

35km away are not shown on the cumulative wireframes as they are regarded to be barely 

perceptible. 

9.5.40 Cumulative panorama (photograph) is taken from Ben Cleuch viewpoint and presented in 

Figure CP9.13 a-f showing the complete 360 degrees view. The cumulative 360 degree 

panorama is supported by wireframes which show every installed, approved, on application 

and scoping wind energy development within the 35km study area. 

9.5.41 The cumulative visual effects of individual viewpoints are described and assessed below. 




Viewpoint 1: A977(T) Gartarry Wood 

Figure Number: CW-1a; CW – 1b 





Assessed Magnitude of Negligible 

Turbine: 

Change: 

Cumulative effect with Craigengelt WF 

Cumulative effect with Earlsburn North WF 

operating WF: 

Earlsburn WF 

approved WF: 

Cumulative effect with Muirpark Cumulative effects: Combined visibility 

application WF: 


In direct view 4 turbines of the Craigengelt wind energy development are visible on top of the Craigengelt Hill, rising 

above the skyline. 

7 blades of Earlsburn wind energy development above the ridge of the Touch Hills are barely perceptible against the 

skyline. 

Earlsburn North would not add a visible effect to the view. 

Muirpark’s turbines would be visible next to the Craigengelt turbines, the blades only breaking the skyline. 

No schemes to the north, east are currently proposed within the 35km study area. 

Magnitude of Cumulative Change: Negligible 

Due to the long distance the cumulative wind energy developments are seen as minor elements in the view. 

Due to the existing vegetation screening most of the turbines would not be visible. 

Potential increase in developed skyline in the view is minimal. 

No successive views of cumulative wind energy developments possible. 

Significance of the Effect: 

Negligible 





LCT: Coastal Margins LCA: Kincardine Coastal Flats 


Assessed Magnitude of HIGH 

Turbine: 

Change: 


Cumulative effect with Earlsburn North 

operating WF: 

Earlsburn WF 

approved WF: 




In a 90 degree view 7 turbines of the Craigengelt wind energy development are visible on top of the Craigengelt Hill, 

rising above the skyline. 

Earlsburn wind energy development blade tips above the Touch Hills ridge are barely perceptible. 


Some of Muirpark’s turbines would be visible next to the Craigengelt turbines, the blades only breaking the skyline. 

The ASDA depot turbine shown on the wireframe in the south is not visible due to the screening vegetation and 


Magnitude of Cumulative Change: High 



The cumulative wind energy developments are positioned on a higher level on the Lowland Hills while the proposed 

turbines are on the floodplain of the River Forth therefore the view is focused to the proposed turbines. 

Cumulative turbines would be in the view in the 90 degree view but would be far apart from the proposed turbines. 

The riverside vegetation screens the potential views to the outside. 


Significance 

of Effect: 

Medium - where the addition of the wind energy development makes a notable contribution to the 

cumulative situation, and its addition is readily apparent. 










Assessed Magnitude of High 

Turbine: 

Change: 



operating WF: 

Earlsburn WF 

approved WF: 




Craigengelt wind energy development is clearly visible on the Craigengelt Hill between the proposed turbine numbers 

1 and.2. 

Earlsburn wind energy development blades are barely perceptible above the Touch Hills’ ridge. 


Some of Muirpark’s turbines would be visible next to the Craigengelt turbines while some would be staggered between 

the Craigengelt turbines. 

The ASDA depot turbine shown on the wireframe in the south is not visible due to the screening vegetation and 


Magnitude of Cumulative Change: Medium 

Cumulative turbines would be in direct view with the proposed turbines and therefore easily identified. 

Due to the long distance to the cumulative wind energy developments they are seen as minor elements in the view. 

Craigengelt wind energy development forms an evident skyline element but it does not form the main visual focus of 

the view. 

Potential increase in developed skyline would be apparent. 

The cumulative wind energy developments are positioned on a higher level on the Lowland Hills while the proposed 

turbines are on the floodplain of the River Forth, therefore the view is focused to the proposed turbines. 


Significance 

of Effect: 






Bearing 164º Direction of View: South west 



Assessed Magnitude of Medium 

Turbine: 

Change: 



operating WF: 

Earlsburn WF 

approved WF: 

Cumulative effect with Muirpark Cumulative effects: successive visibility 



No cumulative visual effects appear in the 75 and 90 degree views. 

In a 120 degree view 8 turbines of the Craigengelt wind energy development are clearly visible on the Craigengelt Hill 

rising in between Cowie Works and Alloa works chimneys. 

Earlsburn wind energy development blades are perceivable above the Touch Hills’ ridge behind the Alloa Works’ 

chimneys. 

Earlsburn North blade tips would be difficult to identify above the Touch Hills’ ridge and therefore will not add a visible 

effect to the view. 

Muirpark turbines would be visible next to the Craigengelt turbines, only the blades breaking the skyline. 

The ASDA depot turbine shown on the wireframe in the south is not visible as it is screened behind the Hill of Airth and 

associated woodland. 


Due to the long distance to the cumulative wind energy developments they are seen as minor elements in the view. 


the view. 

Potential increase in developed skyline is minimal in successive visibility. 

The visible cumulative wind energy developments are positioned on a higher level on the Lowland Hills while the 

proposed turbines are on the floodplain of the River Forth, therefore the view is focused to the proposed turbines. 

Cumulative turbines would be visible in the 120 degree view but would be far apart from the proposed turbines. 

No combined views of cumulative wind energy developments possible. 

The cumulative effect with the pylons is prevailing in this view. 

Significance 

of Effect: 












Turbine: 

8.99km 

Assessed Magnitude of 

Change: 

LOW 

Cumulative effect with 

operating WF: 


Earlsburn WF 



approved WF: 

Earlsburn North 




The Wallace Monument affords 360 degree views to the surrounding landscape and therefore Craigengelt, Earlsburn 

and Braes of Doune wind energy developments come into the view when walking around the monument’s platform. 

Earlsburn wind energy development blades are perceivable above the Lowland Hills. 

Earlsburn North blade tips would be hard to identify above the Lowland Hills and therefore will not add a visible effect 

to the view. 

Muirpark’s turbines would be visible next to the Craigengelt turbines, only the blades breaking the skyline. 

Braes of Doune’s full layout is clearly visible in the north. 

ASDA depot single turbine’s blade tip would be barely perceptible within this busy view. 


The high level position of these cumulative wind energy developments together with the high level of the viewpoint, 

brings the wind energy developments visually close to the higher level receptor and gives them more of a visual 

prominence in comparison with the Forthbank wind energy development which sits in a low river valley. 


the view. 

Potential increase in developed skyline would be noticeable as the Muirpark turbines appear next to the Craigengelt 

turbines and are also staggered between them. 

Wallace Monument affords 360 degree views to the surrounding landscape therefore the variety of directions of the 

views reduces the single value of the River Forth floodplain view to the south. 


Significance 

of Effect: 

Low - where the addition of the wind energy development will make a minor contribution to the 

overall cumulative situation, and its addition may be missed. 







Turbine: 

10.1km 


Change: 

LOW 


operating WF: 


Earlsburn WF 



approved WF: 





Stirling Castle affords 360 degree views to the surrounding landscape and therefore Craigengelt, Earlsburn and Braes 

of Doune wind energy developments come in to the view when walking around the Castle platform. 

Muirpark turbines would be visible next to the Craigengelt turbines, breaking the skyline. 

Earlsburn wind energy development’s blades are perceivable above the Lowland Hills. 

Earlsburn North blade tips would be hard to identify above the Lowland Hills and therefore will not add a visible effect 

to the view. 

ASDA depot’s single turbine would be barely perceptible within this busy view. 


The high elevation of these cumulative wind energy developments together with the high elevation of the viewpoint, 

brings the wind energy developments visually close to the higher elevation viewpoint and gives them more of a visual 


Craigengelt and Braes of Doune wind energy developments form an evident skyline element but it does not form the 

main visual focus of the view. 

Potential increase in developed skyline would be noticeable as the Muirpark turbines appear next to the Craigengelt 

turbines and are also staggered between them. 

The difference in the visual effect is noticeable in comparison with Craigengelt wind energy development which is 

almost at the same distance as the Forthbank wind energy development from the viewpoint. 

Stirling Castle affords 360 degree views to the surrounding landscape therefore the variety of directions of the views 

reduces the single value of the River Forth floodplain view to the south. 

Significance Low - where the addition of the wind energy development will make a minor contribution to the 

of Effect: overall cumulative situation, and its addition may be missed. 





Figure Number: CW-7a; CW –7b 





Assessed Magnitude of no change 

Turbine: 

Change: 



the outside. 

Magnitude of Change: No change 

While the ZTV and wireline show that the Group 3 - Lowland Hills’ wind energy developments are theoretically visible 

from this viewpoint, screening by localised landform, built form and tree cover blocks the visibility. 

Significance of Effect: 

No change 




Bearing 20º Direction of View: South east 



Assessed Magnitude of HIGH 

Turbine: 

Change: 



the outside. In this case Dunmore Hill with its wooded areas blocks all views towards the Group 3 Lowland Hills’ wind 

energy developments. 

Magnitude of Cumulative Change: No change 

While the ZTV and wireline show that the Group 3 Lowland Hills’ wind energy developments are theoretically visible 

from this viewpoint, screening by localised landform and tree cover block the visibility. 


No change 







Turbine: 

1.03km 


Change: Cumulative 

visibility: 


The cumulative visibility is restricted due to the low level position of the viewpoint which allows containment of the 

views to the outside. In this case Dunmore Hill with its wooded areas blocks all views towards the Lowland Hills where 

wind energy developments such as Craigengelt and Earlsburn are operating. Inside the village the buildings block the 

views to the outside. 

Magnitude of Change: No change 




No change 

HIGH 

Viewpoint 10: Path Pineapple 






Assessed Magnitude of negligible 

Turbine: 

Change: 


The cumulative visibility is restricted by the Dunmore Woods which blocks all views towards the Gargunnock Hills 

where the Group 3 Lowland Hills’ wind energy developments would be visible by wireframe. 





No change 










Assessed Magnitude of MEDIUM 

Turbine: 

Change: 


The cumulative visibility is restricted due to the low level position of the viewpoint which contains the views to the 

outside. In this case Airth Castle Hill and Dunmore Hill with its woods blocks all views towards the Lowland Hills. Inside 

Airth village the views to the outside are contained by its buildings. 





No change 





LCT: Coastal margins LCA: The Bo’ness Coastal Hills 


Turbine: 

14.30km 


Change: 

Low 


operating WF: 


Earlsburn WF 


approved WF: 


FMC Technologies 

Little Raith 

Cumulative effect with Muirpark Cumulative effects: combined visibility 



The blades of the Earlsburn wind energy development are perceivable above the range of the Touch Hills. The 

Craigengelt wind energy development is concealed behind the vegetation. 

Two blade tips of Burnfoot are visible on the wireframe. In reality however it would be difficult to notice these within the 

undulation of the landmass of the Ochil Hills. 

Earlsburn North would not add any visible effect to the view. 

Potentially the turbine of FMC would be visible as it rises above the Coastal Flats at a distance of 10.2km. It would be 

difficult to perceive the blades of Little Raith at a distance of 20.7km. 



No potential increase in developed skyline in the view. 



Effect: 










LCT: Lowland Hills LCA: Ochil Hills 


Turbine: 

9.25km 


Change: 

LOW 


operating WF: 


Earlsburn WF 



ASDA depot 

Muirpark 

Standingfault 


approved WF: 


Little Raith 



Cumulative effects: combined visibility 


successive visibility 


Craigengelt’s and Earlsburn’s turbines appear on the dark background of the Fintry Hills. Due to the long range 

distance (22km) and the atmospheric conditions they were difficult to distinguish. 

Muirpark’s turbines would be visible in front of Craigengelt at a distance of 21km. 

The ASDA depot single turbine would be difficult to distinguish from the Falkirk-Denny busy environment at a distance 

of 18.6km. 

The cluttered composition with an overly dense and confused appearance and the frequent overlapping of turbines of 

the Braes of Doune appears against the attractive Highlands view when the receptor turns to the north west. 

Installed turbines of Burnfoot stand on a slope between Ben Cleuch and Ben Buck, at a close distance of 2.3km to the 

north. 

Standingfault would be clearly visible beyond Burnfoot at a distance of 12.8km. 

Greenknowes’ turbines on Rowantree Craig are visible at a medium range distance of 10km to the north east. 

Lochelbank would be visible beyond Greenknowes at a 25km distance. 

Little Raith’s 9 turbines would be visible at a distance of 20.7km on the Cullaloe Hills in the east. 

The single turbine of FMC would be hard to distinguish at a distance of 10.2km within the busy landscape of the 

Rosyth Coastal Flats. 

All turbines of cumulative wind energy developments’ are contained below the skyline due to the high elevation of the 

viewpoint. 


It should be pointed that the elevation of the viewpoint at 721m AOD extends the measured distance between the 

receptor and the objects at very low elevations.. 

No potential increase in developed skyline in the view. 

The high elevation position of the cumulative wind energy developments together with the high elevation of the 

viewpoint, brings the wind energy developments visually close to the higher elevation receptor and gives them more of 

a visual prominence in comparison with the Forthbank wind energy development which sits in a low river valley. 

Ben Cleuch affords 360 degree views to the surrounding landscape therefore the variety of directions of the views 

reduces the single value of the River Forth floodplain view to the south. 

The Highlands view in the north west attracts and focuses the viewing receptor in comparison with the views to the 

other points of the compass. 

Due to the large number of turbines clearly visible in the landscape the magnitude of the visual effect is increased. 


Effect: 










LCT: Lowland River Valley LCA: Falkirk/Denny Urban 

Fringe 


Assessed Magnitude of LOW 

Turbine: 


operating WF: 


Earlsburn WF 


ASDA depot 

Change: 


approved WF: 




When the viewer turns to the north the full layout of the Braes of Doune wind energy development is visible against the 

dark backdrop of the Knaik Hills. 

The row of eight turbines of Craigengelt wind energy development rises above the skyline to the north west on top of 

the Craigengelt Hill. 

The blade tips of Earlburn’s turbines are barely perceptible and would not add any visible effect to the view. 

Some Muirpark turbines would be visible next to Craigengelt wind energy development, the blades breaking the 

skyline. 

The ASDA depot single turbine will be visible at a 110 degree view to the east between the Longannet Power Station 

chimney and Grangemouth’s Industrial area. The blade tip of the single turbine would meet the skyline at almost the 

same height as the chimney. The Height of the Longannet Power Station chimney is 183m and it is approximately 4km 

distance from ASDA’s turbine further. These two high vertical elements would be prominent in this view. 


The high level position of cumulative wind energy developments together with the high level of the viewpoint, brings 

the wind energy developments visually close to the higher level receptor and gives them more of a visual prominence 

in comparison with the Forthbank wind energy development which sits in a low river valley at a long distance range.. 

Craigengelt wind energy development forms an evident skyline element and together with Braes of Doune’s turbines 

forms the eye catching visual focus of the view. Muirpark’s turbines would appear as a natural extension of 

Craigengelt In this view. 

Potential increase in developed skyline in the view would be noticeable where ASDA’s single turbine rises above the 

Falkirk-Denny urban Fringe. 


Significance Low - where the addition of the wind energy development will make a minor contribution to the 

of Effect: overall cumulative situation, and its addition may be missed. 








LCT: Lowland Plateaux LCA: Slamannan Plateau 


Turbine: 

13.71km 


Change: 

negligible 


operating WF: 



Earlsburn WF 

ASDA depot 


approved WF: 





When the receptor turns to the north the full layout of the Braes of Doune wind energy development is perceivable on 

the backdrop of the Knaik Hills. The viewpoint proves that, due to their large number, the 35 turbines could be visible 

at a distance of 38.3km. 

The Craigengelt layout of turbines is in the view when the receptor turns to the north east with the turbines rising 

above the skyline. Both wind energy developments are on a higher level position and easily detected by the eye which 

is drawn towards the Highlands. 

Some Earlsburn turbines would be visible next to Craigengelt’s turbines, the blades breaking the skyline. 

Eight turbines at Muirpark would be visible next to Craigengelt and in this angle of the view the Muirpark turbines stand 

beside, but at a closer distance, than Craigengelt. 

The ASDA’s single turbine would be in the direct view rising above the Falkirk-Denny Urban Fringe at a distance of 

5.2km. The turbine remains below the skyline and also below the Ochil Hill’s foothill which will not therefore form a 

backcloth to the turbine. 

The proposed turbines remain far behind ASDA’s turbine in combined visibility. 


Due to the long distance the Braes of Doune wind energy development is seen as a slight element in a wide landscape 

composition. 

Craigengelt forms an evident skyline element but it does not form the main visual focus of the view. 

The single ASDA turbine remains in the focus of the view. 

Due to the large number of turbines clearly visible in the landscape the magnitude of the visual effect is increased. 

Significance 

of Effect: 



Viewpoint 16: Dumyat Hill 







8.16km 


Change: 

LOW 


operating WF: 



ASDA depot 


approved WF: 






Earlsburn wind energy development turbine rises on the top of the Touch Hill ridge, breaking the skyline in the view to 

the west. The wind energy development is at the far range distance of 20.2km. Earlsburn North’s blades would be 

visible above the ridge against the skyline. 

Craigengelt’s turbines are hard to identify against the backcloth of the Fintry Hills due to the atmospheric conditions. 

The wind energy development is at a distance of 17.4km. 

Muirpark’s turbines would be visible next to the Craigengelt turbines while some would be staggered between the 

Craigengelt turbines. 

The layout of Braes of Doune’s turbines is clearly visible in the north. 

The ASDA depot single turbine would be difficult to distinguish from the Falkirk-Denny busy environment at the 

distance of 17km, therefore it will not add any visible effect to the view. 



The high level position of these cumulative wind energy developments together with the high level of the viewpoint, 

brings the wind energy developments visually close to the higher level receptor and gives them more of a visual 


Earlsburn wind energy development forms an evident skyline element but it does not form the main visual focus of the 

view. 

Slight potential increase in developed skyline in the view by Earlsburn North. 

Dumyat Hill affords almost 360 degree views to the surrounding landscape therefore the variety of directions of the 

views reduces the single value of the River Forth floodplain view to the south. 


Effect: 










LCT: 


Cleish Hills 




13.82km 


Change: 

LOW 


operating WF: 



ASDA depot Greenknowes 

WF 


approved WF: 






The Greenknowes turbines are visible to the north in the view on the Ochil Hills, rising above the skyline. Turbines are 

at the long range distance of 15km. 

The rotating blades of Earlsburn are distinguishable above the Touch Hills ridge to the west. Earlsburn North’s blades 

would be barely perceptible above the Touch Hill ridge next to the Earlsburn turbines. 

Craigengelt and Muirpark are difficult to distinguish on the backcloth of Touch Hill landform. 


distance of 17.3km, therefore will not add any visible effect to the view. 

It is possible to perceive Black Law’s row of 67 turbines looking to the south at a distance of approximately 40km. 

Magnitude of Cumulative Change: Low 

There would be no potential increase in developed skyline in the view apart from the Earlsburn blades at a long range 

distance. 

Due to the distance only Greenknowes’ turbines are clearly visible. 

The cumulative magnitude is reduced because the proposed wind energy development remains almost screened 

behind Clackmannan and the undulating landform on which the village lies. 


Effect: 

Negligible - where the addition of the wind energy development will make a negligible 

contribution to the cumulative situation and its addition equates to a ‘no change’ situation 





LCT: Lowland Hill Fringes LCA: East Touch Fringe 


Turbine: 

5.42km 


Change: 

LOW 


operating WF: 





approved WF: 

Cumulative effect with Muirpark Cumulative effects: sequential visibility 



The Craigengelt and Braes of Doune wind energy developments become visible when the receptor moves 100m to the 

north towards the local school play area. When the receptor moves to the south east, at the Community Centre open 

space area, the Braes of Doune becomes visible. 

Some of Muirpark’s turbines would be visible next to the Craigengelt turbines with some staggered between 

Craigengelt’s turbines. In this angle of the view the Muirpark appears beside, but at a closer distance, than Craigengelt. 


Due to the long range distance the cumulative wind energy developments are seen as minor elements in the view. 

No potential increase in developed skyline in the view to the east. To the west Muirpark’s turbines will increase the 

developed skyline next to Craigengelt. No combined views of cumulative wind energy developments possible. 

Significance 

of Effect: 












Assessed Magnitude of LOW 

Turbine: 

Change: 



operating WF: 

Earlsburn WF 

approved WF: 




The Craigengelt wind energy development is visible on top of the Craigengelt Hill, rising above the skyline. 

Some of Muirpark’s turbines would be visible next to Craigengelt’s turbines with some which are staggered between 

Craigengelt’s turbines. 



Magnitude of Cumulative Change: Minor 

Due to the long range distance the cumulative wind energy developments are seen as minor elements in the view. 

No potential increase in developed skyline in the view to the east. To the west Muirpark’s turbines will increase the 

developed skyline next to Craigengelt. 


Significance 

of Effect: 



Viewpoint 20: Clackmannanshire Bridge 







4.15km 


Change: 

LOW 


operating WF: 



Earlsburn WF 

ASDA depot 


approved WF: 





Craigengelt, and potentially Muirpark turbines, are screened by the Hill of Airth landform and associated vegetation. 



The ASDA depot’s single turbine would be potentially visible, rising over the Langlees Woods. 

Magnitude of Cumulative Change: Low 

Due to the long distance and the screening effect of the Hill of Airth, the Earlsburn blades are seen as minor elements 

in the view. 


Cumulative turbines would appear in the 90 degree view but would be far apart from the proposed turbines. 



Effect: 

Minor- where the addition of the wind energy development makes a notable contribution to the 












20.78km 


Change: 

negligible 


operating WF: 



Earlsburn WF 


WF 


approved WF: 






Craigengelt and Earlsburn turbines would be perceivable on the ridge of Touch Hills with excellent visibility at the far 

range distance of 30km. 

Two turbines of Greendykeside would be visible with excellent visibility, rising above the Lowland Plateaux at a 

distance of 17.5km to the west. 

Black Hill’s turbines would be visible above the skyline with perfect visibility approximately at a distance of 20km to the 

south. Pates Hill and Tormywheel would be seen next to Black Law but at a closer distance of 13km and 14km 

respectively. 


There would be a potential increase in the developed skyline to the south where Pates Hill and Tormywheel would 

appear. These wind energy developments are closest to the viewpoint. 

The magnitude is considered to be low as the wind energy developments are not clearly visible due to the distance. 

The cumulative magnitude is reduced because the proposed wind energy development remains at the far range 

distance and would be barely perceptible due to its low location. 


Effect: 


contribution to the cumulative situation and its addition equates to a ‘no change’ situation. 










Assessed Magnitude of Negligible 



operating WF: 





Earlsburn WF 


WF 

Greendykeside 

Braiden Hill 

Muirpark 

Greengairs 

Bracco 

Change: 


approved WF: 

Cumulative effects: 


Pates Hill 

Tormywheel 

combined visibility 



Craigengelt turbines are direct in the view to the north at a distance of 5km. Braes of Doune wind energy 

development’s layout is clearly visible behind the Craigengelt at a 29.3km distance. Muirpark’s turbines would be 

visible next to the Craigengelt wind energy development. 

Earlsburn and Earlsburn North would be visible at the distance of 7.6km and 9.2km respectively. Some blades of 

Earlsburn wind energy development break the skyline, otherwise all turbines and blades are seen against the backdrop 

of the Lowland Hills’ landmass. 


distance of 17.9km, therefore will not add any visible effect to the view 

Greendykeside’s two turbines rise above the Lowland Plateau landscape in the south. At a 14.3km distance they are 

clearly visible elements in the landscape. Greengairs 9 turbines and Bracco’s 29 turbines would be visible next to 

Greendykeside at the distance of 14.1km and 18.8km respectively. 

The single Braiden Hill turbine at the distance of 15km would be visible in the Lowland Plateau. 

Pates Hill and Tormywheel wind energy developments are at the far range distance 35.7km and 32.7km and therefore 

would be barely perceptible. 

All these wind energy developments remain below the skyline on a backcloth of the large flat plateau landscape. 

The Beauly-Denny transmission line would be seen potentially from this viewpoint because the view is orientated to 

the east where the Beauly-Denny transmission line would run between Cowie and Denny. These 400kV pylons would 

be not perceivable at the distance of 12km beyond Denny’s built up area. 


No Potential increase in developed skyline in the view. 

The magnitude is considered to be high due to the large number of turbines at the medium range distance being 

clearly visible. 

The cumulative magnitude is reduced because the proposed wind energy development remains at the far range 

distance and would be barely perceptible due to its low location. 


Effect 


contribution to the cumulative situation and its addition equates to a ‘no change’ situation 




Table 9.16 Assessment of Cumulative Effects from Viewpoints 

Nr Viewpoint Cumulative 

Effect 

1 A977(T) Gartarry 

Wood 

Combined 

Cumulative effect 


Earlsburn WF 


Muirpark 

2 Kennet Pans PFP Combined Craigengelt WF 

Earlsburn WF 


Muirpark 

3 Clackmannan Public 

Park 

Combined 


Earlsburn WF 


Muirpark 

4 Alloa Tower Successive Craigengelt WF 

Earlsburn WF 


Muirpark 

Assessed 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Magnitude of 

Cumulative 

Change 

Significance 

of Effect 

Negligible Negligible Negligible 

High High Medium 

High Medium Medium 

Medium Medium Medium 

5 Wallace Monument Successive Craigengelt WF Low Medium Low 

Earlsburn WF 


Muirpark 


ASDA depot 

6 Stirling Castle Successive Craigengelt WF Low Medium Low 

Earlsburn WF 


Muirpark 


ASDA depot 

7 Fallin Village none none No change No change No change 

8 A905 none none High No change No change 

9 Dunmore Village none none High No change No change 

10 Path Pineapple none none Negligible No change No change 

11 Airth Village none none Medium No change No change 

12 Bo’ness Combined 

Successive 

13 Ben Cleuch Combined 

Successive 

14 Falkirk Wheel Combined 

Successive 

15 Shieldhill Combined 

Successive 

16 Dumyat Combined 

Successive 


Earlsburn WF 


Muirpark 


Little Raith 


Earlsburn WF 



ASDA depot 


Little Raith 


Muirpark 

Standingfault 


Earlsburn WF 


Muirpark 


ASDA depot 


Earlsburn WF 

Muirpark 


ASDA depot 


Earlsburn WF 


Muirpark 


ASDA depot 

Low Negligible Low 

Low High Low 

Low Medium Low 

Negligible Medium Low 

Low Medium Low 

17 Saline Hill Successive Braes of Doune Low Low Negligible 




Nr Viewpoint Cumulative 

Effect 

Cumulative effect 


ASDA depot 



Muirpark 

18 Cowie Successive Craigengelt WF 

Earlsburn WF 


Muirpark 


19 South Alloa Successive Craigengelt WF 

Earlsburn WF 

Muirpark 

20 Clackmannanshire 

Bridge 

Successive 



Earlsburn WF 


Muirpark 


ASDA depot 

21 Cairnpapple Successive Braes of Doune 


Earlsburn WF 

ASDA depot 


Muirpark 


22 Tomtain Hill Successive Braes of Doune 


Earlsburn WF 

ASDA depot 


Greendykeside 

Braiden Hill 


Pates Hill 

Tormywheel 

Muirpark 

Greengairs 

Bracco 

Assessed 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Magnitude of 

Cumulative 

Change 

Significance 

of Effect 

Low Medium Medium 

Low Low Low 

Low Low Minor 

Negligible Negligible Negligible 

Negligible High Negligible 

Cumulative Sequential Effects 

9.5.42 This section below sets out the sequential cumulative visual assessment of views of wind 

energy developments potentially obtainable from selected motorways within 20km of the 

proposed wind energy development. The study area was determined by the dominating 

visibility of the Craigengelt turbines from the main roads. (Craigengelt is located 17km from the 

proposed wind energy development to the west). 

9.5.43 Table 9.6-1 in Appendix 9.6 presents the effects on all routes which were considered to be 

affected from the proposed wind energy development. In section 9.4, it was stated that the 

visual effects on the individual roads within the ZTV coverage was not likely to be significant. 

The general magnitude of the effects to the routes remains negligible. The main factor 

reducing any likelihood of significant effects occurring is the direction in which the roads run. 

No main routes head straight towards the site. 

9.5.44 From the above mentioned assessment, the following routes were chosen for the sequential 

cumulative assessment: 

• M9 between junction 7 and 9; 




• A876 crossing the Clackmannanshire Bridge; and 

• A905 between Fallin and Airth. 

9.5.45 Apart from the field survey the cumulative sequential effects are tested by the combined 

cumulative baseline ZTVs drawn over the main roads as shown on Figure 9.15. The 

cumulative ZTV presents the potential visibility that applies to views from the main routes, 

taking account of the effects of operational (Craigengelt and Earlsburn) and approved (ASDA 

depot) wind energy developments within the 20km study area. Craigengelt and Earlsburn are 

shown as a group with reference to Table 9.14 ‘Wind Energy Development Groups Within 

35km’. Burnfoot and Greenknowes wind energy developments are not included in the 

cumulative sequential assessment because they are not visible from the selected routes. 

9.5.46 The potential cumulative effect of the ASDA depot single turbine is assessed in Appendix 9.10 

(Group 5 – Lowland River Valleys: Denny/Falkirk Urban Fringe) where it is stated that the 

CZTV pattern of the ASDA depot/Forthbank is almost identical to the pattern of 

Craigengelt/Forthbank CZTV. Due to the location of the ASDA depot single turbine at a 9km 

distance to the south of the proposed wind energy development at a low elevation within the 

urban sprawl of Falkirk it would be difficult to achieve a cumulative view from the selected 

roads. 

9.5.47 The additional effects that could potentially arise as a result of the Forthbank wind energy 

development are described below. In assessing potential visibility, views from a route have 

been assessed as those available in the direction of travel and up to 90° towards the proposed 


The M9 

9.5.48 The M9 follows the course of the River Forth in a south east to north west direction and 

therefore there would be no views directly towards the site. An oblique view of the proposed 

turbines with blades visible above the Dunmore Woods canopy is possible to achieve within a 

short section after the M9 emerges from the M876 and crosses the railway to head towards 

Stirling. 

9.5.49 Heading on the M9 to the north the Craigengelt turbines appear frequently straight ahead in 

the view. The additional effect of the proposed turbines is considered negligible. The 

magnitude of the effect of the proposed Forthbank wind energy development to the M9 was 

considered negligible (Table 9.6-1 in Appendix 9.6). While the Craigengelt turbines are straight 

ahead in the view, the proposed Forthbank turbines would be barely perceptible in an oblique 

view for those travelling on the M9. 

The A876 

9.5.50 The A876 emerges from the A977 on the north shore of the River Forth, crosses the 

Clackmannanshire Bridge to the south and joins the M876 which heads to Denny to the west. 

The proposed wind energy development would be in an oblique view when crossing the bridge 

in both directions. 




9.5.51 The proposed turbines will appear in the view approximately 1km before crossing the bridge on 

the A876 on the northern shore of the River Forth. More conspicuous in the view are 

Craigengelt turbines positioned on a high level in comparison with the proposed turbines on 

the low floodplain of the River Forth. The magnitude of the effect of the proposed wind energy 

development to the A876 is considered medium in Table 9.6-1 in Appendix 9.6. The proposed 

Forthbank wind energy development is assessed in the context of an environment where there 

are existing operating wind energy developments such as Craigengelt and Earlsburn. 

Therefore the additional effect of the proposed Forthbank turbines is considered to be medium 

too. The Craigengelt turbines and the proposed turbines are both in the oblique view. 

The A905 

9.5.52 The A905 runs between Grangemouth and Stirling alongside the River Forth on its southern 

shore floodplain. This route goes through small villages such as Airth and Fallin. The overall 

magnitude of the visual effect on the A905 is considered to be minor. The view from the road is 

transient, oblique and the proposed turbines are visible in their entire size only on a short 

section of the A905. 

9.5.53 According to the cumulative ZTV both operating wind energy developments Craigengelt and 

Earlsburn would be visible from the A905. In reality both of them are screened by the 

undulation of the landform and by the roadside vegetation. Therefore on the A905 the 

cumulative effect would not occur. 

9.5.54 The approved ASDA depot single turbine is located 9km to the south from the proposed wind 

energy development. The cumulative ZTV indicates its visibility 

9.5.55 It is considered that the cumulative sequential visual effects on the roads within the ZTV cover 

in the study area to be not significant. 

Cumulative effects of Beauly-Denny replacement transmission line 

9.5.56 Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Ltd (SHETL) and Scottish Power Transmission Ltd 

(SPTL) have gained consent to replace the existing 132 kilovolt (kV) electricity transmission 

line from Beauly to Denny with a 400kV overhead line. The consent was granted by Scottish 

Ministers on 6 January 2010. The Braco to Denny 30km section crosses the Allan Water and 

A9 and runs across moorland on the Ochil Hills and the flat valley of the River Forth, 

terminating at the new substation north-east of Denny. 

(http://www.sse.com/SSEInternet/uploadedFiles/Media_Centre/Project_News/Beauly/BeaulyD 

ennyBooklet.pdf). 

9.5.57 The upgraded line will comprise approximately 600 towers, a quarter fewer than at present. 

The average height will be 53 metres, compared to the current 815 towers of an average 

height of 33 metres. The spacing between towers on the upgraded line will average 360 

metres, compared to a current average spacing of 250 metres 

(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/01/06141510). 

9.5.58 The 400kV pylons will each be up to 53 to 66 metres in height, which means approximately 

20m higher than the existing 132kV pylons. 




9.5.59 The existing 132kV overhead power line appears in the view of assessment viewpoint 5 (VP5) 

- Wallace Monument as running parallel with the A91 across the foreground. When the existing 

pylons would be replaced with higher ones the magnitude of the visual impact of the lines and 

pylons will consequently rise. The magnitude of the visual effect is evaluated to be low from the 

viewpoint. The 400kV pylons would appear more conspicuous vertical features from the 

viewpoint as they will be within 1km of the Wallace Monument but the proposed wind energy 

development remains at a distance of 9km. Even 66m high pylons will remain below the 

skyline as viewed from this location. The cumulative magnitude added by the replacement 

Beauly-Denny transmission line is considered to increase to medium. The visual sensitivity is 

high at the Wallace Monument viewpoint and therefore the cumulative effect is major to 

moderate which indicates that the effect would be significant. 

9.5.60 The replacement pylon line is altered from its original route when crossing the River Forth to its 

southern shore. Instead of running to the west of Cowie and Plean the new route turns close to 

Fallin to the east and runs to the south, passing Cowie and Plean on the east side. 

9.5.61 The described change of the route would add an additional cumulative effect from assessment 

viewpoint 18 (VP18 – Cowie). The 66m tall 400kV pylons close to the settlement would be 

seen rising over the rooftops of Cowie and the proposed wind energy development would be 

seen beyond in the background. Due to the close distance to Cowie the pylons would be seen 

as being the same height as the proposed turbines. 

9.5.62 The magnitude of the visual effect of the proposed wind energy development is evaluated as 

medium from assessment viewpoint 18 (VP18 – Cowie). Therefore the cumulative effect added 

by the Beauly-Denny transmission line is considered to have a high magnitude. The landscape 

sensitivity from this viewpoint was evaluated as low. The cumulative effect is considered to be 

moderate and therefore not significant. 

9.5.63 The Beauly-Denny transmission line would be seen potentially from the viewpoint 14 (VP14 

Falkirk Wheel) where it would appear in front of the row of eight turbines of Craigengelt wind 

energy development. The top fractions of the existing 132kV pylons are possible to see at 

present. The added 20m height to the replacement 400kV pylons would make them high 

vertical structures in the view but still not breaking the skyline. This view would be possible for 

the receptor turning in a north-west direction. The proposed wind energy development will be 

seen in the north east direction. The predicted cumulative effect would be sequential as the 

400k transmission line and the proposed wind energy development will not be visible in direct 

combined view. 


low from assessment viewpoint 14 (VP14 – Tomtain Hill). The cumulative effect added by the 

Beauly-Denny transmission line is considered to increase this to a medium magnitude. The 

landscape sensitivity from this viewpoint was evaluated as medium. The cumulative effect is 

considered to be moderate and therefore not significant. 

9.5.65 The view from the viewpoint 22 (VP22 – Tomtain Hill) from the Tomtain Hill is orientated 

towards the proposal site and to the Beauly-Denny transmission line which would run between 

Cowie and Denny. By the representative view in Figure VP22 the conclusion is made that the 

transmission line would be not perceivable at the distance of 12km. 





negligible from assessment viewpoint 22 (VP22 – Tomtain Hill). Therefore the cumulative 

effect added by the Beauly-Denny transmission line is considered to have a negligible 

magnitude. The landscape sensitivity from this viewpoint was evaluated as medium. The 

cumulative effect is considered to be negligible and therefore not significant. 

9.5.67 The cumulative effects of the Beauly-Denny replacement transmission line are not included in 

the Statement of Significance as the precise location of pylons is not as yet available but the 

expected distance between the pylons will be increased. Therefore the visualisation and the 

significance of the effects remain speculative. 

Conclusions 

9.5.68 The assessment data of the cumulative magnitude and significance of the predicted visual 

effect is presented in table 9.16. The outcome shows that the highest cumulative effects 

appear in viewpoints closest to the proposed wind energy development while the viewpoints 

which do not have any cumulative visual effect are also those that are closest to the proposed 

wind energy development. This contradiction is conditional and dependant on the low 

elevation of these viewpoints and the proposed wind energy development site. The low 

elevation position on the floodplain of the River Forth establishes the high magnitude of the 

predicted effect when the turbines are at a close range distance and the view is not restricted. 

On the other hand the low level position of both the receptor and the proposed development 

makes available efficient screening of views due to the slight undulation of the landform and 

vegetation and intervening buildings. 

9.5.69 The cumulative effect comes from the Group 3 wind energy developments on the Touch Hills 

which are the closest to the viewpoints referred to. The high level position of the cumulative 

wind energy development and the low level of the viewpoint, gives them more of a visual 

prominence in comparison with the Forthbank wind energy development which sits in a low 

river valley. 

9.5.70 In visual terms it is considered that the potential for significant cumulative effects on residential 

amenity to increase with the Forthbank wind energy development would occur in the closest 

settlements such as Cowie, Alloa and Clackmannan. 

9.5.71 Significant effects on the visual amenity of local residents may arise from the wind energy 

developments individually but the potential for significant combined or successive cumulative 

effects are considered to be limited given the different orientation and different topographical 

levels of the developments as confirmed by field survey observations. 

9.5.72 The cumulative visual effects on main roads would be confined to short sections of the A876 

as it crosses the Clackmannanshire Bridge. The instances of experiencing cumulative effects 

on roads would be limited by local topography, tree cover and intervening buildings. 

9.5.73 This conclusion associated with these routes would be variable to the local path network and 

National Cycle Routes within 2km. There would be several opportunities to see Group 3 - 

Lowland Hills: Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Hills wind energy developments and the 




proposed wind energy development. As the Group 3 remains at a long distance range, the 

magnitude of the visual cumulative effect is not high. 

9.5.74 The cumulative magnitude appears higher from high level viewpoints due to the scale of the 

open view and the extent of the view. This position enables the viewer to see more cumulative 

wind energy developments. The increased magnitude is dependent on the numbers of turbines 

visible but this does not mean that the cumulative effect would be significant when the 

proposed wind energy development is added to the view. 

9.5.75 It was demonstrated in several viewpoints in the case of the Braes of Doune and Black Law 

wind energy developments that the large number of turbines could increase significantly the 

magnitude of the effect. 

9.5.76 The cumulative effect is not increased in the viewpoints such as VP5 – Wallace Monument, 

VP6 – Stirling Castle, VP13 Ben Cleuch, VP14 – Falkirk Wheel and VP16 – Dumyat where the 

views are experienced by significant numbers of people. 


Landscape Effects 

9.6.1 The proposed Forthbank site is well located for wind energy development due to its absence of 

landscape designations, which apply to the site and the immediate surrounding area. There 

are no international/national designated landscapes located within the study area. However, 

local landscape designations such as Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) were identified. 

The study concluded that the identified AGLV´s would not experience significant effects as a 

result of the proposed development. 

9.6.2 There are 9 nationally designated Gardens and Designed Landscapes (Figure 9.4) which fall 

within the ZTV in the 35km study area. The proposed wind energy development shall have no 

effects over these properties and curtilages due to the surrounding vegetation intervening 

landscape and distance. 

9.6.3 Regional Scenic Areas (Figure 9.3) of the Kilsyth Hill and the Campsie Fells situated to the 

west of the proposed wind energy development range from negligible for the Kilsyth Hill to no 

change for the Campsie Fells. 

9.6.4 Local landscape designations (Figure 9.3) comprise Areas of Great Landscape Value. Of these 

only the Ochil Hills AGLVs is expected to have minor effects. The proposed wind energy 

development is therefore considered not to have any significant effects on any landscape 

designations. 

9.6.5 Further, the existing wind energy developments within the study area demonstrate how any 

wind energy development proposal will modify the existing character of the landscape through 

the introduction of new and large-scale elements. However the large scale and open character 

of the landscape is capable of accommodating substantial change, while retaining the essential 

characteristics, which define the area. In appropriate locations, turbines can be accommodated 




without creating uncomfortable comparisons of scale or introducing new patterns which conflict 

with existing patterns in the landscape. 

9.6.6 It is considered that the landscape within the immediate and surrounding area (within 

approximately 3km), which face the Carse of Forth LCU on which the wind energy 

development is sited, there would be a significant effect on the landscape character and how 

this is perceived by people. 


9.6.7 The Forthbank wind energy development is located on the floodplain of the River Forth, the 

shores of which are populated by industrial developments. 

9.6.8 Often the places most valued for their landscape qualities are those with ‘unspoilt’ qualities, 

valued precisely because they are undeveloped. However at the site-specific level of a 

Landscape and Visual Assessment as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment, a much 

greater degree of understanding can emerge regarding the existing visual character of the 

landscape and the effect from the proposals on that character. 

9.6.9 The ZTV (Figure 9.8) for the proposal suggests that it would be visible from the majority of the 

settled valley floor. The ZTV for existing wind energy developments suggest a lower level of 

visibility. During the site specific survey the experience in the landscape was not one of 

constantly viewing wind turbines. 

9.6.10 The magnitude of change within the Ochil Hills LCU and Carse of Forth LCU changes from 

negligible to medium and to high within the Carse of Forth. These are the LCUs which make 

available close and medium range views of the proposed wind energy development. Both LCU 

are rated as medium to high sensitive. The Ochil Hills are also designated as the AGLV (Figure 

9.3) and the Carseland of the River Forth is sensitive to change due to openness, heritage 

significance, and large viewing population. The magnitude of visual effects is reduced due to 

views from both landscape units experiencing a large number of manmade structures: 

chimneys, stacks, flues, flares, buildings and clutter of large scale industrial installations such 

as warehouses. 

9.6.11 The installed and operating wind energy developments do not set a precedent for wind energy 

development as a component of the character of the Carse of Forth and Ochil Hills or reduce 

the sensitivity of the landscape to wind energy development, but they do ensure that wind 

energy development characteristics are not an entirely new external influence. 

9.6.12 The location of four turbines within the Carse of Forth LCU means that they will still be seen as 

large-scale, vertical elements. The proximity of the turbines to existing small scale features will 

give rise to some uncomfortable comparisons of scale, which may in some instances increase 

the perceived scale of the turbines. The towers will be readily visible and further increase the 

prominence of the turbines in the landscape. 

9.6.13 As with the effects on landscape character, it tends to be those locations within three 

kilometres of the proposed wind energy development site that are likely to experience 




significant effects on the visual resources. These viewpoints are generally residential 

receptors and view the turbines breaking the skyline. 

9.6.14 From locations in close proximity as illustrated in Viewpoints: (VP2 Kennet Pans, VP3 - 

Clackmannan Public Park, VP4 - Alloa Tower, VP8 -A905 and VP- 9 Dunmore Village and 

VP11– Airth), the visibility of the turbines would be of high magnitude and the introduction of 

large vertical elements i.e. turbines, would represent a major change in the landscape 

character of the site and its immediate context. 

9.6.15 The high magnitude of change would occur on the closest farms such as Park Farm, Arns farm 

and Inch of Ferryton Farm. The view is orientated to the Gargunnock Hills, not the Ochil Hills, 

and the turbines are viewed amongst the many pylons. 

9.6.16 It should be noted that the average height of the Forth Crossing pylons is between 53.6m to 

57.8m, and four pylons at the crossing point of the River Forth are 78m tall. The two lattice 

towers, one on each side of the river, extend almost to 90m in height. 

9.6.17 Within close proximity, the proposed turbines would become a principal determining element 

of landscape character which is rated as a high magnitude of effect. 

9.6.18 The other close range viewpoints on the Carse of Forth such as: VP7 - Fallin Village VP10 - 

Path Pineapple, VP19 - South Alloa on the other hand illustrate the negligible magnitude of 

predicted visual effect which is reduced by the screening provided by vegetation, built form and 

slight undulation of the landform. 

9.6.19 The visual effect in all other settlements within the ZTV coverage in the study area is 

considered to be not significant. All the other settlements which sit at a low level on the river 

valley have views due to the screening of vegetation or built forms. All the other settlements 

which are sited restricted above the river valley are at a distance which reduces the magnitude 

of the potential effects. 

9.6.20 Throughout the study area a minor number of roads, rights of way and core paths (draft) would 

experience changes from the presence of the wind energy development in the view. These 

views are transient in nature and limited in extent due to the roadside’s high embankments and 

hedgerows which prevent any sideways views. Within this inharmonious landscape, views are 

frequently blocked and diverted by the harsh edges and physical division of road 

embankments, and often rambling industrial and residential areas, giving way to filtered 

glimpses of the nearby hills and the neighbouring petrochemical plant at Grangemouth. 

9.6.21 The visual effects on the roads within the ZTV cover in the study area are not considered to be 

significant. The general magnitude of the effect to the routes remains negligible. Although there 

is potential for views towards the proposed wind energy development from roads in the local 

area, much will depend on local circumstances including the extent to which the roadside 

vegetation and urban environment filter or obstruct views towards the site. In general the same 

visual format for settlements applies to the roads. All the roads which are at a low elevation on 

the river valley have restricted views due to the screening of vegetation or built forms. All the 

roads which are sited above the river valley are at a distance which reduces the magnitude of 

the potential effects. The main factor reducing any possible occurring visual effect is the 




direction in which the roads run. No routes head straight towards the proposed wind energy 

development site. 

9.6.22 There is potential for views towards the proposed wind energy development from core paths in 

the Local Study Area, where much will depend on local circumstances including the extent to 

which pathside vegetation and urban environment filter or obstruct views towards the site. In 

general the same visibility pattern as for the roads applies to the core path network. Therefore 

the overall visual effect to core paths is considered not to be significant. 

9.6.23 Visibility is largely concentrated across the most elevated parts; the hilltops, the ridgeline of the 

Ochil Hills, and on the craigs of the Carse of Forth. The landform of the Ochil Hills rises above 

the Lowland River Valley where the proposed wind energy development is located. This exerts 

on the proposed wind energy development less visual importance, and therefore less 

influence, than if it was to rise above the viewer. The turbines have less vertical impact in this 

situation, and this is further reduced by the containment of the turbines below the skyline. 

9.7 Statement of Significance 

9.7.1 The objective of this Chapter has been to determine if the proposed wind energy development 

will have significant effects on the landscape elements, landscape character and visual 

resource within the study area of the site. Windfarms are, as stated in PAN 45, ‘likely to be 

highly visible’ and it is ‘normally…unrealistic to conceal them’. It may be assumed, therefore, 

that the development of a wind energy development will inevitably result in effects on the 

landscape character and visual resource that are assessed to be significant. The assessment 

of the proposed wind energy development has determined there will be significant effects, as 

well as not significant effects, in relation to both the baseline condition and the cumulative 

situation. The aim of this conclusion is to form an overview based on the extent of significant 

and not significant effects in order to aid decision makers in their determination of the relative 

acceptability of the wind energy development, in landscape and visual terms. 

9.7.2 The magnitude of change was predicted as a deviation from the established baseline 

conditions for the operational phase only. The IEMA Review Criteria recommend that each 

phase of the proposal is assessed. However, the magnitude of change resulting from 

construction and de-commissioning phases has not been assessed in any detail as the 

assessment considers that the short duration of the effects of the construction and decommissioning 

phases will not cause any significant effects. 

9.7.3 Factors that have influenced the assessment of effect, include the suitability of the site and 

context in accommodating the wind energy development; the scale, size and layout of the wind 

energy development in relation to the site and its context; and the limited visibility of the wind 

energy development within the study area. 

9.7.4 In landscape terms this is considered to be an appropriate location for wind energy 

development. The simple and large-scale landscape of the site and surrounding area is an 

appropriate receiving environment for a small scale wind energy development, which in the 

main, avoids any uncomfortable comparisons of scale with local features. The site location 

also means that there are no significant impacts on any designated landscapes. The 

surrounding pylons, although not as high as the turbines, do form a notable vertical scale to the 




context. The extent of the pylon lines and the effect of perspective, result in the turbines 

appearing comparable in scale from much of the surrounding area. This is true also of the 

higher lattice towers, the ‘Forth Crossing’ pylons. 

9.7.5 In the majority of views the turbines are seen in the River Forth Floodplain alongside the ‘Forth 

Crossing’ pylons. This lowers the overall perception of the height of the turbines allowing the 

Lowland Hills to the west and the Ochil Hills to the east and distant southern highlands to the 

north, to dominate. The proposed wind energy development is viewed as a compact and 

unified composition from the wider landscape. 

9.7.6 It is concluded that the wind energy development can be accommodated within the existing 

scale and character of the landscape resulting in an acceptable change or evolution to the 

landscape character and views. 

9.7.7 The proposed wind energy development will have an effect on landscape character units such 

as the Carse of Forth and the Ochil Hills. However, the views from these landscapes are 

already characterised by large scale industrial developments. 

9.7.8 The prominence of the turbines is further reduced by the scale of the setting against the 

Lowland hills which form a strong sense of enclosure to the Lowland River Valley. The key 

association of this landscape is its contrasting relationship with the surrounding hills. These 

greatly contribute to the character and identity of the Lowland River Valley by creating 

enclosure and providing a focus for views. The valley location of the proposed wind energy 

development means that it will have no direct effect on this relationship and that it will not 

appear as a prominent feature, when viewed from much of this Lowland River Valley. 

9.7.9 The closest range views will be gained from the River Forth shoreline in which the turbines will 

be seen as relatively large scale elements. Without the enclosure of the surrounding hills the 

turbines will break the skyline when seen from low elevations in most views on the River Forth 

floodplain, and well below the skyline when seen from more elevated areas. They will 

generally all be at least partly visible, with their towers increasingly screened by the intervening 

vegetation and undulations in the landform. 

9.7.10 The consequences of this are that from the immediate area 0.5-2km there are anticipated to be 

some significant visual effects, where the proposal is visible. These effects tend to be limited 

to individual farmsteads and local roads and the settlements of Alloa, Clackmann, Fallin, Airth, 

Cowie, South Alloa and Dunmore. The limited area, which experiences significant effects from 

the proposal in the wider area also mean that there are limited significant cumulative effects, 

anticipated with existing and proposed wind energy developments. 

9.7.11 From a minimum distance of around 3km away, the turbines will appear as apparent vertical 

elements. The movement of the blades serves to draw attention towards the proposed wind 

energy development in close views. However, the low level of the proposed wind energy 

development will reduce the overall perception of scale. Any visibility will be experienced in a 

context in which large scale pylons and chimneys are already apparent features. This is a 

landscape that already contains vertical structures and the presence of these elements helps 

to reduce the perceived scale of the proposed turbines. 




9.7.12 From a distance of around 13km, the turbines will be minor but visible elements in views from 

the landscape. The vertical form of the turbines will not be pronounced due to their complete 

containment below the skyline. 

9.7.13 The effect from the viewpoints which are national tourism centres such as Stirling Castle and 

the Wallace Monument would not be significant due to the distance and existing vertical 

manmade features amongst which the new proposed wind energy development will appear. In 

addition, the orientation of viewing interest is not focused on the proposed wind energy 

development. 

9.7.14 While visibility is shown to be continuous along the southern shore of the River Forth, its 

northerly orientation makes the focus of views towards the Ochil Hills, rather than the proposal 

site, which sits at an oblique angle to this orientation. Where more direct views can be gained 

from the northern shores, the more distant range reduces the scale at which the turbines will 

be seen and therefore also their prominence. 

9.7.15 The existing character of the site and its surroundings are largely defined by past and present 

industrial land uses on and around the site. This forms a landscape context in which the 

addition of turbines will not result in such a notable landscape character alteration. 

9.7.16 The reasons stated above demonstrate the suitability of this site for wind energy development. 

The very low site elevation reduces their visible height and in the majority of views sets them 

below the skyline. In most instances where visibility does occur, all four turbines are visible. 

This makes the wind energy development more readily recognisable as a single unit. 

9.7.17 The layout of four turbines means that the extent of the horizontal visibility is also limited. Their 

close grouping means that their horizontal extent within views is relatively well contained and 

there are fewer incidents of outliers or cluttering that would perhaps occur with a larger layout. 

Their similar elevation also enables them to be viewed as part of the same wind energy 

development. 

9.7.18 Where visibility does occur, the small number of turbines and their compact layout ensures a 

limited influence within the wider landscape owing to the limited horizontal extent. The turbines 

even spacing and base height means they form a neat and well composed feature from much 

of the surrounding landscape. 

9.7.19 The assessment has confirmed in section 9.4 that in all cases the predicted significant effects 

of the proposed wind energy development relate to the turbines and are therefore long-term, 

lasting the life-time of the wind energy development, but reversible, such that following the decommissioning 

these significant effects will cease to exist. 

9.7.20 The acceptability of the proposed wind energy development is largely due to the containment 

of significant effects within a localised area and the limited effects on the rest of the study area. 

Wind energy developments are, of all the renewable technologies, likely to have the greatest 

visual and landscape effects. There are very few existing or proposed wind energy 

developments that will not have significant effects on the landscape and visual resource, and it 

may be assumed that the wind energy development will result in such effects. In respect of the 

proposed wind energy development these significant effects are acceptable, with acceptability 

being an expression of how well the wind energy development fits into the landscape and 




forms an acceptable component in the visual experience of that landscape. The proposed 

wind energy development achieves both these criteria. 




10 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 


10.1.1 This chapter provides an overview of the extent of known archaeological features and the 

wider cultural heritage present within and surrounding the application area based on currently 

available data. Furthermore, it aims to assess the significance of the effect of the proposed 

wind energy development on the cultural heritage resource. Cultural Heritage resources 

include: 

• Scheduled Monuments; 

• Other archaeological sites; 

• Listed Buildings; 

• Other buildings of historic or architectural importance and recorded on the Sites and 

Monuments maintained by Fife Archaeology Service; and 

• Conservation Areas and Designed Landscapes. 

Key Issues 

• Assessment and where appropriate, mitigation, of direct impacts on the cultural 

heritage resource. Direct impacts are considered to constitute physical damage to, 

or complete removal of, the cultural heritage resource; and 

• Assessment and where appropriate, mitigation of indirect impacts on the cultural 

heritage resource. Indirect impacts consist of changes to the setting and/or the 

context of the cultural heritage resource. 


Consultations 

10.2.1 Historic Scotland and the Local Authority Archaeologists for Falkirk, Fife, Stirling and 

Clackmannanshire were contacted, as statutory consultees. 

10.2.2 Historic Scotland responded on 3 February 2010 and noted that there are no scheduled 

monuments, listed buildings or gardens and designed landscapes within the application area. 

They noted that a number of scheduled monuments, category A listed buildings and gardens 

and designed landscapes are located in the vicinity of the application area as follows: 




Scheduled Monuments 

• Clackmannan Tower (Index number 90073) 

• Clackmannan Tollbooth (Index number 628) 

• Parkmill, cross slab 460m N of (Index number 3016) 

• Kennetpans Distillery, Clackmannan (Index number 5012) 

Category A Listed Buildings 

• Alloa Tower (HB no. 20959) 

• Clackmannan Tower (HB no. 1946) 

• Dunmore Park, The Pineapple (HB no. 2109) 

Gardens and Designed Landscapes (GDL) 

• Dunmore Park 

• The Pineapple 

10.2.3 Historic Scotland also provided descriptions of certain key assets including Clackmannan 

Tower, Dunmore Park and the Pineapple. Historic Scotland noted that it wished to see 

photomontages looking south and west from Clackmannan Tower and from the entrance drive 

to Dunmore Park/The Pineapple designed landscapes. These photomontages are provided 

within this chapter with the exception of a view looking west from Clackmannan tower. This has 

been replaced by a view looking towards Clackmannan Tower from Stirling Castle which 

provides an indication of the setting of Clackmannan Tower in this direction. 

10.2.4 Clackmannanshire Council responded on 14 June 2010. The Council noted that the ES should 

address the comments made by Historic Scotland in its scoping response of 3 February 2010. 

In addition, it recommended early pre-application consultation with Historic Scotland and the 

Regional Archaeologist at Stirling Council. The Council also noted that the Scottish Historic 

Environment Policy (SHEP) should be considered. 

10.2.5 Fife Council responded on 2 February 2010. It made no comment on cultural heritage. 

10.2.6 Falkirk Council responded on 9 February 2010. It noted that Dunmore Pineapple is a Category 

A listed building and that there are several B listed buildings at South Alloa, Dunmore Park and 

in Dunmore village, which is also a Conservation Area, all of which lie in the Zone of 

Theoretical Visibility (ZTV). Further south at Airth there is another Conservation area, further 

listed buildings and two scheduled monuments. 

10.2.7 Stirling Council responded on 27 January 2010 and noted that the proposed wind energy 

development would be in the view from Stirling Castle and the Wallace Monument. 




10.2.8 Scottish Natural Heritage responded on 20 January 2010 and noted that Historic Scotland 

were now the statutory consultee with regard to Inventory–listed Gardens and Designed 

Landscapes. 

Legislation and Guidance 

10.2.9 The following were referenced during the preparation of this chapter: 

Legislation 

• Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) provides Scheduled 

Monuments (SAMs) with protection. Scheduling is administered by Historic 

Scotland, which maintains a list of all SAMs and enforce the protection. Scheduled 

Monument Consent is required for works that affect or alter SAMs, with the 

exception of some agricultural activities. 

• Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. A list of 

buildings of special architectural or historic interest is maintained by Historic 

Scotland. Development affecting the character of such designated features is 

subject to listed building consent via the Planning Authority under the Act. 

• The Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland list is compiled by 

Historic Scotland. The purpose of the Inventory is to identify sites of national 

importance at the time of designation. Such designation is not the same as 

affording statutory protection. Under Article 15 of the Town and Country Planning 

(General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992, [as amended April 2007], 

planning authorities must consult with Historic Scotland on any proposed 

development that may affect a site contained in the Inventory. 

Planning Guidance 

• Scottish Planning Policy, February 2010 (SPP). SPP has superseded and 

consolidated Scottish Planning Policy 23 (SPP23) Planning and the Historic 

Environment. The policy recognises that the historic environment is a key part of 

Scotland’s cultural heritage and it enhances national, regional and local 

distinctiveness. SPP sets out to ensure that planning authorities safeguard historic 

assets. The historic environment comprises statutory and non-statutory 

designations that are material considerations when determining planning 

applications. The policy recognises that the historic environment can be adapted to 

accommodate new uses whilst retaining its special character. 

• The Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) 2009 complements and has the 

same authority as the Scottish Planning Policy series and other Ministerial policy 

documents. The SHEP is a relevant document in the statutory planning, 

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment 

(SEA) processes. It has been prepared and was published in parallel with the 

former SPP23. 




• Planning Advice Note (PAN) 42: Archaeology, The Planning Process and Scheduled 

Monument Procedures (1994) provides advice on the handling of archaeological 

matters within the planning process. 

• Planning Advice Note (PAN) 45: Renewable Energy Technologies (rev. 2002) 

provides advice on the likely visibility of wind farms in the wider area. 

Baseline Studies 

Approach 

10.2.10 For buried archaeological sites that are recorded on the Sites and Monuments Record but not 

otherwise designated, the study area is a 1.5km buffer zone around the application area (as 

defined by the black line boundary on Figure 10.1). This forms the Core Study Area. Whilst 

there is no potential for direct effects on cultural heritage features outside this study area, it is 

considered that information from the study area may inform the assessment of the sensitivity of 

the application site and the archaeological resources within it. 

10.2.11 For designated historic environment resources of regional and local significance the study area 

is a circle of 3km radius centred on the application area (as defined by the red line boundary 

on Figure 10.5). This forms the Inner Study Area. The study area has regard to the advice on 

the perception of turbines in Figure 8 of PAN 45, to the nature and extent of the proposed 

development. It is not considered that the potential for likely significant environmental effects 

on a cultural heritage resource of regional or local importance would exist beyond 3km. Only 

those receptors that fall within the ZTV have been identified and described. 

10.2.12 For designated cultural heritage resources of international and national significance the study 

area is primarily a circle of 10km radius centred on the application area (as defined by the blue 

line boundary on Figure 10.6). This forms the Outer Study Area. A precautionary approach is 

employed where more distant cultural heritage features of international and national 

significance are included in the initial stages of assessment, these only being discounted after 

a detailed assessment of their setting has been made. The study area is demonstrably robust 

to ensure that any likely significant environmental effects can be identified. Furthermore, the 

study area is consistent with the advice given in Figure 8 of PAN 45, which advises on the 

general perception of turbines within the landscape at certain distances. Given these 

distances, and having regard to the nature and scale of the proposed wind energy 

development, and experience it is considered that the potential for likely significant adverse 

effects will be confined to resources within 10km. 

Desk Assessment 

10.2.13 The desk assessment was based on a preliminary, office-based, assessment of the likelihood 

of the application area to contain archaeological remains and to provide an indication of what, 

if any, further work would be required with regard to archaeology. 

10.2.14 The primary information resource was the Sites and Monuments Records (SMRs), 

supplemented by relevant published documentary and cartographic material, as appropriate. 




Information on Scheduled Monuments, listed buildings, Inventoried Gardens and Designed 

Landscapes etc was obtained from Historic Scotland. The assessment determined how likely 

it is that any archaeological/cultural heritage feature may occur at the site, what it is and its 

historical importance/relevance to the area 

10.2.15 Information on Scheduled Monum ents, Listed Buildings, Inventoried Gardens and Designed 

Landscapes etc was obtained from Historic Scotland. 

10.2.16 A site visit and walkover survey was undertaken to: 

• establish the presence of above ground archaeology, whether or not previously 

recorded; 

• assess and validate data collected as part of the desk-based assessment; 

• assess the topography and geomorphology of the application area; and 

• inform an assessment of the site’s context within the wider historic landscape. 

10.2.17 The site visit was also intended to provide an indication of the suitability of any further survey 

technique. 

10.2.18 For the purposes of the assessment, archaeological periods are defined as follows: 

• Prehistoric [comprising Lower Palaeolithic (pre 30,000 BC), Upper Palaeolithic 

(30,000 - 10,000BC), Mesolithic (10,000 - 3,500BC), Neolithic (3,500 - 2,000BC), 

Bronze Age (2,000 - 700BC) and Iron Age (700BC - AD43)]; 

• Roman (AD43 - AD450); 

• Medieval (AD450 - AD1540); and 

• Post Medieval (AD1540 onwards). 

Assessment of Resource Importance (Value) – Archaeological Remains 

10.2.19 There are no national government guidelines for evaluating the importance or significance (and 

hence the 'value') of cultural heritage resources. 

10.2.20 Clearly a high degree of professional judgement is necessary, guided by acknowledged 

standards, designations and priorities. It is also important to understand that buried 

archaeological remains may not be well-understood at the time of assessment, and can 

therefore be of uncertain value. 

10.2.21 The most recent guidance from any national agency regarding cultural heritage and 

Environmental Impact Assessment is from the Highways Agency, and is expressed in 

Guidance Note 208/07 (August 2007) that now forms part of the Design Manual for Roads and 

Bridges (DMRB, Volume 11, section 3, part 2). Guidance Note 208/07 provides the following 

table as a guide for assessing the value of archaeological resources: 




Table 10.1 Factors for Assessing the Value of Archaeological Assets 

Very High • World Heritage Sites 

• Assets of acknowledged international importance 

• Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international research objectives 

High • Scheduled Monuments 

• Undesignated assets of schedulable quality and importance 

• Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research objectives 

Medium • Designated or undesignated assets that contribute to regional research objectives 

Low • Undesignated assets of local importance 

• Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations 

• Assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research objectives 

Negligible • Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest 

Unknown • The importance of the resource cannot be ascertained 

Assessment of Resource Importance (Value) - Historic Buildings 

10.2.22 For historic buildings, assessment of importance is usually based on the designations used in 

the Listed Building process. However, where historic buildings are not listed, or where the 

listing grade may be in need of updating, professional judgement will be required. 

10.2.23 The criteria used in establishing the value of historic buildings within the listing procedure 

include architectural interest, historic interest, close historic association (with nationally 

important people or events), and group value. Age and rarity are also taken into account; in 

general (where surviving in original or near-original condition) all buildings of pre-1700 date are 

listed, most of 1700-1840 date are listed, those of 1840-1914 date are more selectively listed, 

and thereafter even more selectively listed. 

10.2.24 At a local level, buildings may be valued for their association with local events and people or 

for their role in the community. 

10.2.25 Guidance Note 208/07 provides the following table as a guide for evaluating the value of 

historic buildings: 

Table 10.2 Guide for Establishing the Value of Historic Buildings 

Very High • Standing buildings inscribed as of universal importance as World Heritage Sites 

• Other buildings of recognised international importance 

High • Scheduled Monuments with standing remains 

• Category A Listed Buildings 

• Other listed buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical 

association not adequately reflected in the listing grade 

• Conservation Areas containing very important buildings 

• Undesignated structures of clear national importance 

Medium • Category B Listed Buildings 

• Historic (unlisted) buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or 

historical association 

• Conservation Areas containing important buildings 

• Historic Townscape or built-up areas with historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. 

including street furniture and other structures) 

Low • Category C(S) Listed Buildings 

• Historic (unlisted) buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical association 

• Historic Townscape or built-up areas of limited historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings 

(e.g. including street furniture and other structures) 

Negligible • Buildings of no architectural or historic note; buildings of an intrusive character 

Unknown • Buildings with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic significance 




Assessment of Resource Importance (Value) - Historic Landscape 

10.2.26 The sub-topic of Historic Landscape is recognised as having significant overlaps with other 

topics such as Landscape and Townscape, and a multi-disciplinary approach to assessment is 

required. This is partially to avoid double-counting, and also to avoid duplication of effort. 

There are also significant overlaps with the other Cultural Heritage sub-topics; Archaeological 

Remains and Historic Buildings. The elements that are considered within those two sub-topics 

can make significant contributions to the historic landscape, and this latter subtopic should 

concentrate on the overall historic landscape character and its value rather than the individual 

elements within it. 

10.2.27 All landscapes have some level of historic significance, as all of the present appearance of the 

urban and rural parts of Britain is the result of human or human-influenced activities overlain on 

the physical parameters of climate, geography and geology. 

10.2.28 There are number of designations that can apply to historic landscapes, including World 

Heritage Sites (inscribed for their historic landscape value), Inventoried Gardens and Designed 

Landscapes, and Conservation Areas. Some local plans include locally designated Historic 

Landscape Areas, and Historic Parks and Gardens (or similar). 

10.2.29 A model has been produced by the Council for British Archaeology whereby the historic 

landscape can be divided up into units that are scaled, from smallest to largest, as follows: 

• Elements - individual features such as earthworks, structures, hedges, woods etc; 

• Parcels - elements combined to produce, for example farmsteads or fields; 

• Components - larger agglomerations of parcels, such as dispersed settlements or 

straight-sided field systems; 

• Types - distinctive and repeated combinations of components defining generic 

historic landscapes such as ancient woodlands or parliamentary enclosure; 

• Zones - characteristic combinations of types, such as Anciently Enclosed Land or 

Moorland and Rough Grazing; 

• Sub-regions - distinguished on the basis of their unique combination of interrelated 

components, types and zones; and 

• Regions - areas sharing an overall consistency over large geographical tracts. 

10.2.30 The model described above can be used as the principal part of the overall assessment 

usually known as Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC). However, there is no significant 

guidance or advice regarding the attribution of significance or value to identified historic 

landscape units. 

10.2.31 The Historic Land-use Assessment, jointly sponsored by Historic Scotland and the Royal 

Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, is an analysis of past and 

present land-use. Fifty-five Historic Land-Use types have been defined, characterised by their 




period of origin, as well as form and function. The land use types were considered in compiling 

the assessment. 

10.2.32 Guidance Note 208/07 in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB, Volume 11, 

Section 3, part 2, Annex 7) provides the following table as a guide for evaluating the value of 

historic landscape units: 

Table 10.3 Guide for Evaluating Historic Landscape Character Units 

Very High • World Heritage Sites inscribed for their historic landscape qualities 

• Historic landscape of international sensitivity, whether designated or not 

• Extremely well-preserved historic landscapes with exceptional coherence, time-depth, or other 

critical factor(s) 

High • Designated historic landscapes of outstanding interest 

• Undesignated landscapes of outstanding interest 

• Undesignated landscapes of high quality and importance, and of demonstrable national sensitivity 

• Well-preserved historic landscapes exhibiting exceptional coherence, time-depth, or other critical 

factor(s) 

Medium • Designated special historic landscapes 

• Undesignated historic landscapes that would justify special historic landscape designation, 

landscapes of regional sensitivity 

• Averagely well-preserved historic landscapes with reasonable coherence, time-depth, or other 

critical factor(s) 

Low • Robust undesignated historic landscapes 

• Historic landscapes with specific and substantial importance to local interest groups, but with limited 

sensitivity 

• Historic landscapes whose sensitivity is limited by poor preservation and/or poor survival of 

contextual associations 

• Robust historic landscapes 

Negligible • Landscapes with little or no significant historical interest 

Assessment of Impact Magnitude - Archaeological Remains 

10.2.33 The magnitude of effect is assessed without regard to the value of the resource. In terms of 

the judgement of the magnitude of effect, this is based on the principle (first established in 

NPPG5) that preservation of the resource is preferred, and that total physical loss of the 

resource is the least preferred. 

10.2.34 It is not always possible to assess the physical effect in terms of percentage loss, and 

therefore it can be important in such cases to try to assess the capacity of the resource to 

retain its character following any effect. Similarly, effects on the setting of archaeological 

remains may also be more difficult to assess as they do not involve physical loss of the 

resource and to subsist for the life/presence of the development and thus be reversible. 

10.2.35 Impact scales are defined (as in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Annex 5) thus: 

Major 

Change to most, or all, key archaeological elements, such that the 

resource is totally altered. 

Comprehensive changes to setting (such changes would 

fundamentally change the setting of the archaeological element such 

that its ability to be understood was severely compromised). 

Moderate 

Changes to many key archaeological elements, such that the 

resource is clearly modified. 




Material changes to setting (such changes would change the setting 

materially but not fundamentally, such that its ability to be understood 

would be moderately compromised). 

Minor 

Changes to key archaeological elements, such that the asset is 

slightly altered. 

Slight changes to setting (such changes would be detectable but 

would not fundamentally or materially compromise the ability to 

understand the setting). 

Negligible 

No change 

Very minor changes to elements or setting (such changes would be 

barely perceptible and would not affect the ability to understand the 

setting). 

No change. 

10.2.36 Additional methodology regarding the assessment of effects on settings is provided below. 

Assessment of Impact Magnitude - Historic Buildings 

10.2.37 The magnitude of effect is assessed without regard to the value of the resource, so the total 

destruction of an insignificant building would have the same degree of effect as the total loss of 

a high value building. In terms of the judgement of the magnitude of effect, this is based on the 

principle that preservation of the resource and its setting is preferred, and that total physical 

loss of the resource is the least preferred. 

10.2.38 Effects on the setting of historic buildings may include vibration, noise and lighting issues as 

well as visual effects, and may be reversible. Additional methodology regarding the 

assessment of effects on settings is provided below. 


Major 

Change to key historic building elements such that the resource is 

totally altered. 

Total change to the setting (where the scope or extent of the change 

is so fundamental that the ability to understand the setting of the 

historic building is severely compromised). 

Moderate 

Change to many key historic building elements, such that the 

resource is significantly modified. 

Changes to the setting of an historic building, such that it is 

significantly modified (such changes would change the setting of the 

historic building materially but not fundamentally, such that its ability 

to be understood would be moderately compromised). 




Minor 

Changes to key historic building elements, such that the asset is 

slightly different. 

Change to the setting of an historic building, such that it is noticeably 

changed (such changes would be detectable but not fundamentally or 

materially change the setting or its ability to be understood). 

Negligible 

No change 

Slight changes to historic buildings elements or setting that hardly 

affect it (such changes would be barely perceptible and would not 

affect the ability to understand the setting). 

No change to fabric or setting. 

Assessment of Impact Magnitude - Historic Landscape 

10.2.40 Historic landscapes cannot be destroyed or damaged by wind energy developments but effects 

on them can change their character. Effects should be assessed using evaluated historic 

landscape character units, not the elements/parcels/components that contribute towards the 

character (see above). There may be effects on the setting of identified units, especially with 

regard to designated historic landscapes. Additional methodology regarding the assessment 

of effects on settings is provided below. 


Major 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

No change 

Change to most or all key historic landscape elements, parcels or 

components; extreme visual effects; gross change of noise or change 

to sound quality; fundamental changes to use or access; resulting in 

total change to historic landscape character unit. 

Changes to many key historic landscape elements, parcels or 

components; visual change to many key aspects of the historic 

landscape; noticeable differences in noise or sound quality; 

considerable changes to use or access; resulting in moderate 

changes to historic landscape character. 

Changes to few key historic landscape elements, parcels or 

components; slight visual changes to few key aspects of historic 

landscape; limited changes to noise levels or sound quality; slight 

changes to use or access; resulting in limited changes to historic 

landscape character. 

Very minor changes to key historic landscape elements, parcels or 

components; virtually unchanged visual effects; very slight changes in 

noise levels or sound quality; very slight changes to use or access; 

resulting in a very small change to historic landscape character. 

No change to elements, parcels or components; no visual or audible 

changes; no changes arising from amenity or community factors. 




Significance of Effects 

10.2.42 The significance of effects is a combination of the value of the resource or asset and the 

magnitude of effect on that resource or asset. Effects can be adverse or beneficial. Beneficial 

effects are those that mitigate existing effects and help to restore or enhance heritage assets, 

therefore allowing for greater understanding and appreciation. In line with Guidance Note 

208/07 (DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Annex 7) the following matrix is used for all three subtopics. 

Table 10.4 Cultural Heritage: Significance of Effects Matrix 

Value 

Sensitivity 

Very High Neutral Slight Moderate/Large Large or Very Large Very Large 

High Neutral Slight Moderate/Slight Moderate/Large Large/Very Large 

Medium Neutral Neutral/Slight Slight Moderate Moderate/Large 

Low Neutral Neutral/Slight Neutral/Slight Slight Slight/Moderate 

Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral/Slight Neutral/Slight Slight 

No Change Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT 

10.2.43 Where the matrix provides a split in the significance of effects, e.g. Moderate/Slight, the 

assessor will exercise professional judgement in determining which of the levels of significance 

is more appropriate. 

10.2.44 Moderate or greater effects are considered to be significant for the purposes of the EIA 

Regulations. 

10.2.45 The table below, based on Figure 8 of PAN 45 (entitled General Perception of a Wind Farm in 

an Open Landscape), with an additional comment on the maximum potential magnitude of 

effect, generalises the relationship between distance and magnitude of effect, without taking 

into account the sensitivity of receptors, or environment/visibility. It is very possible that the 

maximum potential effect is not reached in most cases, given that most receptors will only 

have a partial view of the proposed wind energy development. 

Table 10.5 Relationship Between Distance and Wind Farm Visibility 

Distance Description Maximum potential 

magnitude of effect 

To 2km The wind farm is a prominent feature within the landscape High 

2km-5km The wind farm is a relatively prominent feature within the landscape High 

5km-15km Prominent in clear visibility and as part of the wider landscape Medium 

15km-30km Only prominent in very clear conditions and as a minor element within the Low 

landscape 

Settings 

10.2.46 The identification of the 'setting' of cultural heritage features, and the nature and magnitude of 

effects and consequently effects on such 'settings', has been subject to much recent debate 

within the historic environment profession. Legislation and guidance make reference to the 

desirability of preserving or not adversely affecting 'settings', but the term has never really 

been clearly defined. 

10.2.47 It is noteworthy that there are no agreed guidelines on the identification of the setting of cultural 

heritage features. SHEP (paragraph 1.2) notes that “The context or setting in which specific 

historic features sit and the patterns of past use are part of our historic environment. The 

historical, artistic, literary, linguistic, and scenic associations of places and landscapes are 




some of the less tangible elements of the historic environment. These elements make a 

fundamental contribution to our sense of place and cultural identity” 

10.2.48 In defining setting, an Annexe entitled ‘Assessment of Impact on the Setting of the Historic 

Environment Resource – some general considerations’, issued by Historic Scotland (2009) 

recognises that “the archaeological/historic context, the visual appearance and the aesthetic 

qualities of a site’s surroundings play an important role in modern perceptions of the site and 

that the alteration of those qualities has the potential to impact upon its character and value.” In 

addition, the Institute for Archaeologists has recently established a working party to address 

this issue. On the basis of the above, Colcutt’s (1999) definition of setting, as summarised in 

Lambrick (2008, below) is used as follows: 

• intrinsic visual interest and listing visual qualities; 

• topographic setting, identifying visual relationships to topography and natural 

features that can be linked with the function of the site or the reason for placement 

of the site in the landscape; 

• landuse setting, identifying whether the landuse is sympathetic to the site’s 

intellectual understanding; 

• group setting including both contemporary and diachronic groupings or patterning, 

listing other sites, above or below ground that could assist with creating a network of 

relationships. This should acknowledge any spatial element. 

10.3 Baseline Description 

Core Study Area 

10.3.1 All known cultural heritage resources were identified within a 1.5km radius of the application 

area as defined by the black line boundary on Figure 10.1. 

10.3.2 An assessment of the records held by the National Monuments Record of Scotland (NMRS) 

was undertaken. These records consist of a computer database of all the known 

archaeological sites and monuments in Scotland, with associated oblique aerial photographs 

where appropriate. This assessment provided information on the range of known monuments 

within 10km of the application area. 

10.3.3 An assessment of the records provided by the Fife Sites and Monuments Record and the 

Stirling and Clackmannanshire Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) was undertaken. 

10.3.4 An examination of early cartographic sources and relevant Ordnance Survey editions was 

undertaken to identify potential cultural heritage features within and outwith the application 

area. Geological maps of the study area supplied by Landmark mapping were also consulted. 

10.3.5 A site visit and inspection was carried out to assess the potential survival of any visible 

archaeological monuments within the core study and their condition and extent, where 

appropriate. 




10.3.6 Relevant aerial photographic coverage of the core study area held by the Royal Commission 

on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) was considered during the 

assessment. 

Site Survey 

10.3.7 A site walkover was carried out on 30 June 2010, in clear weather conditions. The main (south 

eastern) part of the application area comprises a former landfill site closed in 2004. The 

northwestern part of the site comprises land subject to historical mining, now grassed. 

Sites Within the Application Area 

10.3.8 There are no Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas or sites recorded in 

the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes within the application area. 

10.3.9 There is one site listed in the Historic Environment Record within the application area. This is 

Stirling SMR number 6673. The Stirling SMR notes that “The British Caudron Company (of 

Cricklewood and Alloa) was established in 1916. The airfield adjoining the factory was used for 

test flights and the factory opened in 1916.” 

10.3.10 The large aircraft factory buildings themselves were located outside the application area on the 

shoreline and are shown on the Ordnance Survey 1:2500 edition of 1922. A series of smaller 

buildings, presumably accommodation and/or offices, arranged around four squares are also 

shown. A small number of these are located within the application area. The larger buildings 

were used as a glass works by 1951 according to the Ordnance Survey 1:2500 edition of that 

year. The smaller range of buildings arranged in a rough square around a central open space, 

and located within the application area, are shown on aerial photographs dating to 8 November 

1945, held by the RCHAMS. By this time they had been demolished but survived as a distinct 

series of earthworks. By 24 April 1952 mining operations had removed the earthworks. The 

Ordnance Survey 1:2500 edition of 1975 shows the refuse destructor built in that location. The 

site visit indicated that there were no visible standing remains of the buildings on the ground. 

10.3.11 The whole of the proposed wind energy development is within an area that has been 

previously disturbed through mining and/or landfill activities. On this basis the potential for 

previously undiscovered archaeological remains is considered to be negligible. 

10.3.12 There is no Non-Statutory Register for Clackmannan and no Non-Statutory Register Sites 

within the application area. 

10.3.13 There are several Historic Landscape Character Areas (HCLA) within the application area. 

The south-eastern area is characterised as a former landfill, the centre as an access road to 

the landfill and the northern-western area as grass land. 

10.3.14 Table 10.6 below provides an indication of the sites within the application area and within the 

ZTV. 

Table 10.6 Recorded Sites Within the Application Area and Within the ZTV 

HER Number Site Name Site Type Importance/Sensitivity 

6673 British Caudron Aircraft Factory Buildings (demolished) Local/Low 




Sites Within 1.5km of the Application Area 

10.3.15 There are a number of recorded sites within 1.5km of the application area. 

10.3.16 There are seven Scheduled Monuments within 1.5km of the application area and within the 

ZTV. 

10.3.17 There are six Category A Listed Buildings within 1.5km of the application area. These are 

Clackmannan Tower (HB number 1946, also a scheduled monument, SAM 90073), Star 

house, 25 Kirkgate, Alloa (HB number 20955), Northern Glass Cone, Alloa Glass Works, 

Glasshouse Loan (HB number 21008, and also a scheduled monument, SAM3746), Greenside 

Street, Kilncraigs (HB number 20956, Alloa tower (HB number 20959) and Greenside Street, 

Kilncraigs Despatch Warehouse (HB number 49975). 

10.3.18 There are 59 Category B listed buildings within 1.5km of the application area and within the 

ZTV. These are mainly located within the historic cores of Alloa and Dunmore with a single 

category B listed building, Clackmannan Parish Church, within Clackmannan. 

10.3.19 There are 11 Category C listed buildings located within 1.5km of the application area. 

10.3.20 Part of Dunmore Park Garden and Designed Landscape is located within 1.5km of the 

application area. No other Gardens and Designed Landscapes are located within 1.5km of the 

application area. 

10.3.21 Four Conservation Areas are located within 1.5km of the application area and within the ZTV. 

These are Old Alloa, Alloa Glebe, Clackmannan and Dunmore. 

10.3.22 Tables 10.7 to 10.12 below provide an indication of the sites within 1.5km of the application 

area and within the ZTV and they are shown on Figures 10.1 to 10.4. 

Table 10.7 Scheduled Monuments Within 1.5km of the Application Area and Within ZTV 

SAM no Site Name Importance/Sensitivity 

628 Clackmannan Tolbooth National/High 

632 Clackmannan, Mercat Cross & Clackmannan Stone National/High 

625 Alloa,old parish church National/High 

3016 Parkmill,cross slab 460m N of National/High 

3746 Northern Glass Cone, Alloa Glass Works, Glasshouse Loan National/High 

6914 Hawk Hill cairn National/High 

90073 Clackmannan Tower National/High 

Table 10.8 Category A Listed Buildings Within 1.5km of the Application Area and Within 

ZTV 

HB number Site Name Importance/Sensitivity 

1946 Clackmannan Tower. National/High 

20955 25 Kirkgate (Star House) National/High 

21008 Northern Glass Cone, Alloa Glass Works, Glasshouse Loan National/High 

20956 Greenside Street, Kilncraigs National/High 

20959 Alloa Tower National/High 

49975 Greenside Street, Kilncraigs Despatch Warehouse National/High 




Table 10.9 Category B Listed Buildings Within 1.5km of the Application Area and Within 

ZTV 

HB Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

number 

160 The Smithy And Bankside Dunmore Village Regional/Medium 

1944 Clackmannan Parish Church, High Street Regional/Medium 

1949 Royal Oak Hotel, Main Street Regional/Medium 

2089 Strath-Earn (3 Dwellings) Dunmore Village Regional/Medium 

2114 Ivy Cottages (2 Dwellings), Dunmore Village Regional/Medium 

2115 Rose Cottages, Dunmore Village (2 Dwellings) Regional/Medium 

2116 Forth View And Viewfield, Dated 1840 Dunmore Village Regional/Medium 

20958 Gatepiers, Formerly Of Alloa House, Lime Tree Walk Regional/Medium 

20965 17, 19, 21 High Street Bank Of Scotland Building Regional/Medium 

20968 19 Mar Street YMCA Building (Original Front House Block Only) Regional/Medium 

20972 Moncrieff House 72 Drysdale Street Regional/Medium 

20975 Ochil House Marshill And Mar Street Regional/Medium 

20976 Town Hall, Marshill Regional/Medium 

20977 Marshill, Marchill House (Regional Offices) Regional/Medium 

20981 25, 27 Bank Street With Returns To Union Street And Coalgate, Former Meadow Regional/Medium 

Brewery And Union Club 

20982 Bank Street Coalgate And Stripehead Former Gas Showroom Regional/Medium 

20983 Former Chalmers Church, Bank Street Junction With Mill Street Regional/Medium 

20992 9, 9a Bedford Place Old West Manse Regional/Medium 

20994 11 Bedford Place Fenton House Regional/Medium 

20997 St Mungo's Parish Church Bedford Place Regional/Medium 

20999 14 Bedford Place Regional/Medium 

21004 St John's Rectory, Grange Road Regional/Medium 

21009 Primrose Street And Primrose Place, Former Public Baths And Gymnasium Regional/Medium 

21026 East Vennel And Old Bridge Street, Thistle Brewery Regional/Medium 

21030 6-10 (Even Nos) Mar Street, Hope Bakers, With Ovens Regional/Medium 

49859 17 Mar Street, Job Centre (Former Co-Operative Society Headquarters) Regional/Medium 

20998 12 Bedford Place Including Garden Walls And Gate Regional/Medium 

1948 Clackmannan Mercat Cross Regional/Medium 

20963 41-45 Mill Street And 2 High Street Regional/Medium 

20966 1,3 Mar Street And 31 Mill Street, Former Bank Of Scotland Building Regional/Medium 

20967 13, 15 Mar Street Former Liberal Club Regional/Medium 

20970 County And Police Buildings, Mar Street And Drysdale Street Regional/Medium 

20978 Marshill, Marcelle (Regional Offices) Regional/Medium 

20987 Mercat Cross At 16 Bank Street Regional/Medium 

20993 Alloa West Church Bedford Place And Ludgate Regional/Medium 

1947 Clackmannan Tolbooth Regional/Medium 

20980 19, 21, 23 Bank Street Regional/Medium 

20995 13 Bedford Place Bedford House (Regional Council Offices) Regional/Medium 

2088 5 Dwellings Dunmore Village Regional/Medium 

20952 Old Parish Church Of St Mungo, Alloa Old Kirkyard, Kirkgate Regional/Medium 

20953 Mar And Kellie Mausoleum, Alloa, Old Kirkyard, Kirkgate Regional/Medium 

20954 Alloa Old Kirkyard, Kirkgate Regional/Medium 

20957 St John's Episcopal Church Limetree Walk Regional/Medium 

20960 Stable Block Of Former Alloa House Regional/Medium 

20996 Former Alloa Burgh School (St Mungo's Infant Department) Bedford Place Regional/Medium 

21003 4, 5 Grange Road Regional/Medium 

21027 Bedford Place, K6 Telephone Kiosk At Former General Post Office Regional/Medium 

46269 Claremont, South African War Memorial Regional/Medium 

4264 Dunmore Village, Four Dwellings Dated 1854 Regional/Medium 

20969 21 Mar Street Regional/Medium 

20973 Moncrieff Uf Church Drysdale Street Regional/Medium 

20989 War Memorial Gusset Of Bank Street And Church Street Regional/Medium 

21000 16 And 16a Bedford Place, Westray Regional/Medium 

21002 3 And 3a Grange Road Regional/Medium 

20971 Former County Offices, 70 Drysdale Street Regional/Medium 

20974 Mar Place House Mar Place Regional/Medium 

21001 1, 1a And 2 Grange Road Regional/Medium 

21005 13 Grange Road Regional/Medium 

1984 Clackmannan, Cross, Hawk Hill West of Former East Lodge To Alloa House Regional/Medium 




Table 10.10 Category C Listed Buildings Within 1.5km of the Application Area and 

Within ZTV 

HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

1945 Clackmannan Manse, Port Street Local/Low 

20962 1, 3 Coalgate Local/Low 

20979 9, 11 Bank Street Clydesdale Bank Local/Low 

20984 Crown Hotel Bank Street Local/Low 

20985 Old Post Office and Savings Bank (Upper Floors Now Part of Social Security Offices Local/Low 

Etc) Bank Street 

20986 Former Social Security Offices, 16 Bank Street Local/Low 

20988 18-22 Bank Street Local/Low 

20990 Former Library and Museum Hall (Now Weir Pumps), Church Street Local/Low 

20991 Royal Oak Hotel and 3, 5 Bedford Place Local/Low 

21006 40, 40a Grange Road Local/Low 

49851 Former St Mungo's Parish Hall, 10 Bedford Place, (1-8) St Mungo's Wynd Including 

Boundary Wall and Gatepiers 

Local/Low 

Table 10.11 Gardens and Designed Landscapes Within 1.5km of the Application Area 

and Within ZTV 

Number Site Name Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

156 Dunmore Park National/high 

Table 10.12 Conservation Areas Within 1.5km of the Application Area and Within ZTV 

Site Name 

Old Alloa 

Alloa Glebe 

Clackmannan 

Dunmore 

Inner Study Area 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

Regional/Medium 




Sites Between 1.5km and 3km of the Application Area 

10.3.23 There are a number of recorded sites located between 1.5km and 3km of the application area 

(Figure 10.5). There are two Scheduled Monument between 1.5km and 3km of the application 

area. 

10.3.24 Kennetpans Distillery (SAM5012) is located some 2.1km southeast of the southeasternmost 

boundary of the application area. The monument comprises the roofless remains of a large 

distillery built during the 1770s to supply malt spirit to the London gin distillers. Airth Market 

Cross (SAM1756) is located in the High Street and is surrounded by the buildings of the centre 

of the settlement. 

10.3.25 There are three Category A Listed Buildings between 1.5km and 3km of the application area. 

These are HB number 21016 Clackmannan, The Gean House, (Including Terraces, Forecourt, 

Walled Garden and Summerhouse), Tullibody Road And Claremont, HB number 2109 Falkirk, 

Garden Wall and Pineapple, Dunmore Park and HB number 21019 Clackmannan, Inglewood, 

Tullibody Road. 

10.3.26 There are 22 Category B Listed Buildings between 1.5km and 3km of the application area. 

These are mainly located within settlements. 




10.3.27 There are 19 Category C Listed Buildings between 1.5km and 3km of the application area. 

Many of these are located within settlements. 

10.3.28 The inventoried Pineapple Garden and Designed Landscape is located within the wider 

Dunmore Garden and Designed Landscape, but is inventoried separately and is considered in 

this section because its nearest point lies greater than 1.5km from the application area. 

10.3.29 There are two Conservation Areas between 1.5km and 3km of the application area. These are 

Kennet and Airth. 

10.3.30 Tables 10.13 to 10.18 below provide an indication of the sites located between 1.5km and 3km 

of the application area and within the ZTV. 

Table 10.13 Scheduled Monuments Between 1.5km and 3km of the Application Area and 

Within ZTV 

SAM 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

5012 Kennetpans Distillery National/High 

1756 Airth, Market Cross National/High 

Table 10.14 Category A Listed Buildings Between 1.5km and 3km of the Application 

Area and Within ZTV 

HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

21016 Clackmannan, The Gean House, (Including Terraces, Forecourt, Walled Garden and National/High 

Summerhouse), Tullibody Road And Claremont 

2109 Falkirk, Garden Wall and Pineapple, Dunmore Park National/High 

21019 Clackmannan, Inglewood, Tullibody Road National/High 

Table 10.15 Category B Listed Buildings Between 1.5km and 3km of the Application 


HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

159 Falkirk’ Captain's House (No 44 Paul Drive) Regional/Medium 

1952 Clackmannan, Kennet House Lodge Regional/Medium 

2093 Falkirk, Dunmore Park Regional/Medium 

2100 Falkirk, Logan Lea (No 18 Shore Road) Regional/Medium 

2112 Falkirk, The Parsonage, Dunmore Regional/Medium 

2113 Falkirk, Lodge, Dunmore Park (East Lodge) Regional/Medium 

21010 Clackmannan, Greenfield House (Now District Council Offices) Regional/Medium 

2107 Falkirk, Kersie Mains Regional/Medium 

1967 Clackmannan, Arnsbrae House Including Terrace Regional/Medium 

2096 Falkirk, View Villa Regional/Medium 

2099 Falkirk, House In Shore Road (No 16 Shore Road) Regional/Medium 

2110 Falkirk, Dunmore Stables and Dovecot Regional/Medium 

21007 Clackmannan, Grange School (Excluding Recent Hall Block) Grange Road Regional/Medium 

1953 Clackmannan, Kennet 1-20 Regional/Medium 

1955 Clackmannan, Kilbagie House and Garden Walls Regional/Medium 

21025 Clackmannan, Sunnyside Road, Alloa Co-Operative Sports Pavilion Regional/Medium 

21017 Clackmannan, Gean House North Lodge to Tullibody Road Regional/Medium 

1950 Clackmannan, Clackmannan House Regional/Medium 

2087 Falkirk, North Church, Airth Regional/Medium 

2098 Falkirk, School House, (Rosebank) Regional/Medium 

21028 Clackmannan, Ludgate, Alloa North Parish Church Regional/Medium 

49529 Clackmannan, Sauchie, Fairfield Road (At Corner Of Mar Place), Sauchie War 

Memorial 





Table 10.16 Category C Listed Buildings Between 1.5km and 3km of Application Area 


HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

1951 Broadcarse Farmhouse Local/Low 

1954 Kennetpans Local/Low 

1957 Kilbagie Mill House (Personnel Dept Gestetner Papers Ltd) Local/Low 

1969 Arnsbrae House Lodge Local/Low 

1982 Sauchie Parish Church New Sauchie Local/Low 

1983 Keilarsbrae House Local/Low 

2097 Elphinstone Inn Local/Low 

2101 Rothesay Villa Local/Low 

2108 South Kersie Local/Low 

2111 Tower, Dunmore Park Local/Low 

21011 Stirling Road, Cowden Park Local/Low 

21012 33 Claremont Local/Low 

21013 35 Claremont, Craigmyle Local/Low 

21014 Claremont House, Claremont Local/Low 

21015 The Gean House South Lodge Local/Low 

49530 Sauchie, Fairfield Road (At Corner Of Mar Place), Sauchie Public Hall Including Local/Low 

Boundary Wall To South And East 

49852 Bridge Over The Black Devon, Clackmannan, including Wing Walls Local/Low 

49983 Parkhead Road, Sauchie Hospital Lodge ,Including Gatepiers And Boundary Walls Local/Low 

50151 21 Claremont, Claremont Grove Including Outbuildings, Summerhouse, Boundary 

Walls And Gatepiers And Garden Features 

Local/Low 

Table 10.17 Gardens and Designed Landscapes Between 1.5km and 3km of the 

Application Area and Within ZTV 

Importance/ 

Number Site Name 

Sensitivity 

364 The Pineapple National/high 

Table 10.18 Conservation Areas Between 1.5km and 3km of the Application Area and 

Within ZTV 

Site Name 

Kennet 

Airth 

Outer Study Area 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 



Sites Between 3km and 10km of the Application Area 

10.3.31 There are a number of recorded sites located between 3km and 10km of the application area 

(Figure 10.6). There are 43 Scheduled Monuments and 42 Category A Listed Buildings, 

between 3km and 10km of the application area. 

10.3.32 There are three Gardens and Designated Landscapes between 3km and 10km of the 

application area. These are Dunimarle, Airthrey Castle and Tulliallan. 

10.3.33 There are four Conservation Areas between 3km and 10km of the application area. These are 

Kincardine, Letham, Tillicoultry and Dollar. 

10.3.34 Tables 10.19 to 10.22 below provide an indication of the sites located between 3km and 10km 

of the application area and within the ZTV. 




Table 10.19 Scheduled Monuments Between 3km and 10km of the Application Area and 

Within ZTV 

SAM 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

630 Tullibody,old bridge 1600m W of National/High 

629 Sauchie or Devon Tower National/High 

736 Tulliallan Castle National/High 

885 Kincardine, market cross National/High 

1730 Airthrey Castle,standing stone 280m SE of National/High 

1754 Stirling,town walls & bastions National/High 

1731 Carr's Hill,fort,Torwood National/High 

1732 Common Hill,homestead National/High 

1738 Torwood or Tappoch,broch National/High 

1746 Camelon,Roman forts National/High 

2217 Tor Wood,Roman road National/High 

2228 Airth Old Church,church,Airth Castle National/High 

2328 Tillicoultry House,tombstone National/High 

2182 Castle Law,fort 400m SW of summit of Dumyat National/High 

2542 Abbey Craig,fort National/High 

2798 Logie Old Church,Bridge of Allan National/High 

2801 Logie Old Church,tombstone National/High 

3284 Devon Colliery,pumping engine house National/High 

2279 Stirling market cross National/High 

2997 Stirling,Kirk Wynd,church,belfry & two tombstones National/High 

2531 Bruce's Castle National/High 

2246 Windyhill,tombstone 450m N of National/High 

2562 Carron House,dovecot 290m S of National/High 

2794 James Bruce Monument, 30m SSW of Larbert Old Church National/High 

4151 West Plean Colliery No.3 Pit,coke ovens National/High 

3948 Gallamuir,enclosure 300m SE of National/High 

4381 Castleton,cup & ring marked rocks NW of National/High 

4163 Windmill,dovecot,New Sauchie National/High 

3741 Cambus,iron bridge over River Devon National/High 

4259 Lochlands Roman camps National/High 

6929 Doghillock, dun 700m N of National/High 

6481 Plean Farm,ring ditch 800m SE of National/High 

6482 Plean Farm,palisaded enclosure 150m NE of National/High 

7018 Darnbogue, palisaded enclosure 200m SW of National/High 

6480 Plean Cottages,palisaded enclosure 350m SSE of National/High 

8264 Stirling, remains of former bridge to N of Stirling Old Bridge National/High 

90063 Castle Campbell National/High 

90286 Stirling,Argyll Lodging,house National/High 

90287 Stirling,Bothwell House National/High 

90289 Stirling, Mar's Wark, uncompleted residence National/High 

90290 Stirling Old Bridge National/High 

90291 Stirling Castle National/High 

90055 Cambuskenneth Abbey National/High 

Table 10.20 Category A Listed Buildings Between 3km and 10km of the Application Area 


HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

1956 Clackmannan, Brucefield National/High 

1985 Clackmannan, Iron Bridge over River Devon At Cambus National/High 

2025 Clackmannan, Menstrie Castle, 1-4 Castle Court National/High 

3962 Falkirk, Torwood Castle National/High 

15277 Stirling, Bannockburn House National/High 

16585 Fife, Tulliallan Castle (Scottish Police College) National/High 

17144 Fife, Old Tulliallan Castle National/High 

21031 Clackmannan, Alva-Johnstone Mausoleum, Alva Churchyard National/High 

41084 Stirling, Church of the Holy-Rood Churchyard National/High 

41086 Stirling, Cambuskenneth Abbey National/High 

41095 Stirling, St Ninians Old Parish Kirk Kirk Wynd National/High 

41110 Stirling, 35, 37 Broad Street, Jail Wynd and 32 St John Street, Tolbooth National/High 

41118 Stirling, Wallace Monument Abbey Craig National/High 

41126 Stirling, The Old Town Cemeteries National/High 

41129 Stirling, Stirling, Old Bridge National/High 




HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

41131 Stirling, Stirling Railway Station, Station Road, with North wnd Middle Signal Boxes National/High 

wnd Associated Semaphore Signals 

41133 Stirling, Academy Road, Stirling Highland Hotel, Old High School National/High 

41466 Stirling, St Mary's Wynd John Cowane's House National/High 

41484 Stirling, 56 Spittal Street, Glengarry Lodge or Darrow Lodging National/High 

49860 Stirling, Bannockburn, Rotunda, Memorial Cairn, Flagpole and Statue of King Robert I National/High 

10461 Stirling, Blairlogie Castle National/High 

41100 Stirling, 2 Spittal Street and 65, 67 King Street, Athenaeum National/High 

41246 Stirling, 16 Broad Street, East Section of James Norrie's Lodging National/High 

10503 Falkirk, Stenhousemuir, Church Street, Parish Church of Stenhouse And Carron, National/High 

Former Maclaren Memorial Church, Church Of Scotland 

34041 Falkirk, Dundas Church Bo'ness Road National/High 

10487 Falkirk, Carronvale Road, 'Carronvale' (Boy's Brigade Hq) National/High 

10496 Falkirk, Old Parish Church Churchyard and Monument to James Bruce of Kinnaird National/High 

and Mary Dundas 

41101 Stirling, Cowane's Hospital (Now Guildhall) including Adjoining Terrace to Bowling National/High 

Green 47, 49 St John Street And Lampstands 

41104 Stirling, 31 St John Street, Stirling Old Town Jail (Former Military Prison) with 

National/High 

Boundary Walls, Gatepiers And Gates 

41112 Stirling, Back Walk, Town Wall And Bastion, Boundary of Municipal Buildings, 27-33 National/High 

(Odd Nos) Spittal Street and Old High School 

41255 Stirling, Castle Wynd Argyll Lodging (Including Garden Wall.) Now Youth Hostel. National/High 

41348 Stirling, Mar Place Mar's Wark National/High 

41464 Stirling, 39 And 41 St John Street, Bruce Of Auchenbowie's House National/High 

1977 Clackmannan, Tullibody Old Bridge Over River Devon, Bridgend National/High 

41096 Stirling, St. Ninians Old Parish Kirk Kirkyard National/High 

41111 Stirling, Back Walk, Town Wall, South Boundary of Erskine Marykirk and St John National/High 

Street Housing Development to Academy Street 

41113 Stirling, Town Wall Public Library to 16 Dumbarton Road Being S Boundary Of 16 National/High 

Dumbarton Road, 2, 4 Back Walk, 51 King Street 15 And 19 Corn Exchange Road 

41239 Stirling, 16 (Part) and 18 Bow Street, Erskine Of Gogar's House (Commonly Known National/High 

As Darnley's House) 

41240 Stirling, 16 Bow Street (Part, Within Close), Moir Of Leckie's House National/High 

50078 Fife, Kincardine Bridge National/High 

10481 Falkirk, Royal Scottish National Hospital, Principal Block (Private House) With 

National/High 

Boundary Walls And Gatepiers 

41083 Stirling, Church of The Holy Rood St John Street National/High 

Table 10.21 Gardens and Designed Landscapes Between 3km and 10km of the 

Application Area and Partly Within ZTV 


Sensitivity 

153 Dunimarle National/High 

10 Airthrey Castle National/High 

376 Tulliallan National/High 

Table 10.22 Conservation Areas Between 3km and 10km of the Application Area and 

Within ZTV 

Site Name 

Kincardine 

Letham 

Tillicoultry 

Dollar 

Sites Beyond 10km of the Application Area 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 





10.3.35 There is one World Heritage Site (WHS) located between 10km and 15km from the application 

area. This is the Antonine Wall WHS. 




Table 10.23 World Heritage Sites Beyond 10km of the Application Area and Partly Within 

ZTV 

Site Name 

Antonine Wall 


Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

National/Very High 

Potential Effects 

Core Study Area 

Sites Within the Application Area 

10.4.1 There is one site listed in the Historic Environment Record within the application area. This is a 

former airfield and aircraft factory. (Stirling SMR number 6673, (NMRS number NS89SE 238). 

The Stirling SMR notes that “The British Caudron Company (of Cricklewood and Alloa) was 

established in 1916. The airfield adjoining the factory was used for test flights and the factory 

opened in 1916.” 

10.4.2 The large aircraft factory buildings themselves were located outside the application area on the 

shoreline. They have been removed and there would be no direct or indirect impact on them. A 

series of smaller buildings, presumably accommodation and/or offices, arranged around four 

squares were also shown on early OS maps. They had been demolished by the end of 1945 

but survived as a distinct series of earthworks. By 1952 mining operations removed the 

earthworks and the area was later built over by the refuse destructor. The site visit indicated 

that there were no visible standing remains of the buildings on the ground. 

10.4.3 The site is of local importance. The proposed wind energy development would have a neutral 

impact and the significance of effect would be neutral. 




10.4.5 There are no Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas or sites recorded in 

the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes within the application area. There would 

be no direct or indirect impact on any other site within the application area. 

10.4.6 There are several Historic Landscape Character Areas (HCLA) within the proposed wind 

energy development area (Figure 10.7). The south-eastern area is characterised as a former 

landfill, the centre as access roads to the landfill and the northern-western area as grass land. 

10.4.7 The HLCAs are of local importance. The magnitude of impact would be minor adverse. The 

significance of effect of the proposed wind energy development would be slight adverse. 




Table 10.24 Recorded Sites Within the Application Area 

HER Number Site Name Importance/Sensitivity Significance of effect post 

mitigation 

6673 British Caudron Aircraft Factory Local/low Neutral 

Sites Within 1.5km of the Application Area 

10.4.8 There are seven Scheduled Monuments within 1.5km of the application area and within the 

ZTV. 

10.4.9 Parkmill Cross Slab 460mN of (SAM3016, NMRS number NS99SW 11) is located adjacent to 

a tree on the south side of the A907 road. The cross is also a Category B listed building (HB 

number 1984).The NMRS notes that the slab was known as the "Stone Cross" and is set up on 

a knoll 200 yards south of the main road between Alloa and Clackmannan. There is a Celtic 

cross incised on both sides. Recent development of the A907 road has seen the creation of a 

traffic island so that the road is approximately 50m north of the SAM. From this point there are 

views towards the proposed wind energy development across the roofs of houses and through 

electricity pylons. 

10.4.10 The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the SAM and a 

minor adverse impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on 

the SAM would be slight adverse. 

10.4.11 Northern Glass Cone, Alloa Glass Works, Glasshouse Loan (SAM 3746, NMRS number 

NS89SE 49.01), is also a Category A listed building (HB number 21008) located approximately 

1km north-west of the application area. The monument comprises a conical brick structure, 

built in c. 1825. The NMR indicates that the cone houses a modern glass furnace, although this 

no longer appears to be the case. The monument is adjacent to large scale industrial 

infrastructure, including a gas holder and a hopper with associated conveyors. 

10.4.12 The SAM lies within the ZTV. Although a tall structure the SAM is not accessible above ground 

floor level and was not intended to be so. There would be no views from ground level to the 

proposed wind energy development. The proposed wind energy development would have no 

physical impact on the site and the magnitude of impact on its setting would be no change. The 

effect of the proposed wind energy development on the SAM would be neutral. 

10.4.13 Clackmannan Tower (SAM 90073) is also listed at Grade A (HB number 1946). The 

monument comprises a substantial tower house probably begun in the mid 14 th century with 

later alterations and additions, including a late 16 th century mansion, all located on a hill top to 

the west of Clackmannan. The tower is substantially complete but its ancillary structures have 

been removed. The monument lies within the Clackmannan conservation area, which extends 

to the base of the hill on its southern side. The Historic Scotland website indicates that public 

access is available to the exterior of the monument only. 

10.4.14 In its scoping response of 3 February 2010, Historic Scotland note that the setting of this 

monument is partially defined by topography; it sits atop an open hilltop in an otherwise flat 

landscape commanding sweeping views across the Firth of Forth and beyond. Its key views 

are towards Stirling Castle to the West, to Alloa Tower and other castles in Clackmannanshire 

to the West and North, to its former port on a tributary of the Forth to the South West and to 

Clackmannan itself. 




10.4.15 The view towards Clackmannan Tower from Stirling Castle, some 10km to its west is shown in 

a Photomontage (Figure 10.10). From this viewpoint Clackmannan Tower is very difficult to 

discern. The proposed wind energy development would appear in the view and the view from 

this viewpoint would change. Given the difficulty of seeing Clackmannan Tower in this view 

however, there would be little impact on the setting of Clackmannan Tower. 

10.4.16 Views from Clackmannan Tower to Alloa Tower (a structure of similar date towards which 

views from Clackmannan Tower may have been intended) would be unchanged by the 

proposed wind energy development. 

10.4.17 Views towards other castles in Clackmannanshire to the west and north would be unchanged 

by the proposed wind energy development, as would views towards Clackmannan. 

10.4.18 Clackmannan’s former port (represented by HER number 2592) is located at the mouth of the 

Black Devon, a tributary of the Forth to the south west of Clackmannan Tower. A 

photomontage (Figure 10.9) shows the view from the base of the tower looking south west 

towards the proposed wind energy development. The view, which is representative of views to 

the west and south west from Clackmannan Tower is framed by mature trees. Views in this 

direction from the top of the tower are likely to be similar but to be less clearly framed by trees 

and to cover a wider area, thus reducing the scale of the proposed wind energy development 

within them. The location of the former port, of which nothing now apparently survives, is at the 

southeastern end of the proposed wind energy development. The north bank of the Black 

Devon has been excavated and land filled at this point and the original ground profile has been 

lost. The southern bank presumably retains its natural form. Views from Clackmannan Tower 

to this point would be changed through the construction of the proposed wind energy 

development, although the ability to understand this part of the setting of the monument would 

remain unchanged. 

10.4.19 Views over the Forth Valley provide a general indication of the siting of the monument. These 

views would be changed by the proposed wind energy development. Nevertheless the ability to 

understand this part of the setting of the monument would remain unchanged. 

10.4.20 Views from the Clackmannan Tower towards Clackmannan itself would remain unchanged. 

The proposed wind energy development would not be visible in views towards the tower when 

approached along the signposted track from Clackmannan to the east. 



the SAM would be moderate adverse. 

10.4.22 Clackmannan Tolbooth (SAM 628), also listed at Category B (HB number 1947) is located on 

Main Street, near the junction with Kirk Wynd. The list description notes that the building dates 

from the late 17 th century. Only the tower and west gable survive. The tower is rubble built with 

quoins. The primary setting of the monument is the surrounding historic core of Clackmannan, 

in particular the wider part of Main Street. It is unlikely that there would be any views of the 

proposed wind energy development from the tollbooth, particularly at ground level. The 

proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the site and the 

magnitude of impact on its setting would be no change. The effect of the proposed wind energy 

development on the SAM would be neutral. 




10.4.23 Clackmannan, Mercat Cross (also listed at Category B, HB number 1948) & Clackmannan 

Stone (SAM 632) are located adjacent to Clackmannan Toolbooth, but are separately 

designated. The mercat Cross dates from the 17 th century. It comprises an octagonal shaft with 

moulded capital, shield. The stepped base is modern. The Clackmannan Stone is of uncertain 

origin and has probably been reset. It is unlikely that there would be any views of the proposed 

wind energy development from the tollbooth, particularly at ground level. The proposed wind 

energy development would have no physical impact on the site and the magnitude of impact 

on its setting would be no change. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on the 

SAM would be neutral. 

10.4.24 Alloa, old parish church (SAM 625, NMRS number NS89SE 6.00) is located on the south 

side of Kirkgate, Alloa. The NMRS notes that the original kirk was in existence by 1401, rebuilt 

in 1680 (by Tobias Bauchop) with the additional Mar Aisle to the north. The church was 

condemned as unsafe in 1816, and the stones were used in the construction of the new church 

(Bedford Place, St Mungo's Parish Church). 

10.4.25 The remains of the church are located within the churchyard, which is bounded to the south by 

trees and which forms the primary setting of the church. Beyond the trees, when looking in the 

direction of both the southern and northern southern parts of the proposed wind energy 

development site the housing estate bounded by Bowhouse Road intervenes in the view and 

forms the limit of the setting of the SAM in that direction. 

10.4.26 The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the site and the 



10.4.27 Hawk Hill cairn (SAM 6914) comprises the remains of a prehistoric burial mound, now grass 

covered. The monument is located on a south west facing slope and is surrounded by mature 

trees, providing a degree of screening. The setting of the monument is constrained by modern 

housing to its south. 



the SAM would be slight adverse. 

10.4.29 There are six Category A Listed Buildings within 1.5km of the application area and within the 

ZTV. 

10.4.30 Northern Glass Cone, Alloa Glass Works, Glasshouse Loan, (HB number 21008), also a 

Scheduled monument (SAM 3746) is considered in paragraphs 10.4.11 and 10.4.12, above. 

10.4.31 Clackmannan Tower (HB number 1946, also a scheduled monument, SAM 90073) is 

considered in paragraphs 10.4.13 to 10.4.21 above. 

10.4.32 Star House, 25 Kirkgate, Alloa (HB number 20955) was built in 1695 by Tobias Bauchop for 

himself. The building is of ashlars, of 2-storeys with a 4 window elevation with a central door 

on the ground floor. 




10.4.33 The listed building is located on the north side of Kirkgate diagonally opposite Old Alloa Kirk. 

Views from the listed building towards the proposed wind energy development are obscured by 

modern development on the south side of Kirkgate. 

10.4.34 The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the listed building 

and a negligible impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on 

the listed building would be neutral. 

10.4.35 Kilncraigs Despatch Warehouse, Greenside Street (HB number 49975) was built in 1936 but 

contains fabric dating from 1924 fabric in the basement and ground floors and a later link. The 

building is of 6-storeys with a basement. The structure is of whitewashed reinforced concrete 

with a steel superstructure over coursed and snecked dressed red sandstone with dressed 

margins and rusticated quoins (except to the link), and some brick at ground floor level, in the 

International Modern style 

10.4.36 The listed building was a despatch warehouse attached to the 1903 Office Block of 1903 (this 

latter building is listed separately at Grade A HB number 20956). 

10.4.37 The Kilncraigs building, Greenside Street (HB number 20956) was built in 1903 and altered 

and converted to office units by LDN Architects in 2003-04. 

10.4.38 The building is of four storeys with an attic. It has an L-shaped plan in the English-Baroque 

style. The office building formerly included factory premises. 

10.4.39 The immediate setting of this group of listed buildings is the Tesco store to their north east, 

while to the north of the listed buildings the area north of Greensdie Street is used as car parks 

and there are a number of modern and recently refurbished buildings. Alloa Tower, itself listed 

at Grade A is clearly visible to the south east and can be seen in conjunction with the listed 

buildings when looking from the north. This view, recently created through demolition of 

structures associated with the listed buildings, would constitute an important part of their 

setting. 

10.4.40 The settlement boundary forms the limit of the setting of the listed buildings. The proposed 

wind energy development would have no physical impact on the listed buildings and a 

negligible impact on their setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on the 

listed buildings would be neutral. 

10.4.41 Alloa Tower (HB Number 20959) comprises a tower house dating from the 15 th century and 

altered during the 16 th , 17 th and late 18 th centuries. The listed building has four-storeys and an 

attic, and is of coursed rubble. There is a stepped and crenellated parapet with a parapet walk, 

with corbelled rounds at angles and at the centre of the north wall. Alloa Tower is the ancestral 

home of the Earls of Mar and Kellie and is in the care of the National Trust for Scotland. 

10.4.42 Views from Alloa Tower to Clackmannan (a structure of similar date towards which views from 

Alloa Tower may have been intended) would be unchanged by the proposed wind energy 

development. 

10.4.43 Views towards other castles in Clackmannanshire and Stirlingshire to the west and north would 

be unchanged by the proposed wind energy development. 




10.4.44 The view towards the proposed wind energy development is shown in Photomontage VP4c. 

The proposed wind energy development would appear in the view. This view would be 

changed by the proposed wind energy development, although it is noted that the current view 

contains visual intrusion in the form of electricity pylons. The proposed wind energy 

development would add to the visual intrusion, although the ability to understand this part of 

the setting of the monument would remain unchanged. 

10.4.45 Views from the Alloa Tower towards Alloa itself would remain unchanged. The proposed wind 

energy development would not be visible in views towards the tower when approached along 

the signposted track from the car park at Earn Court to the east. 

10.4.46 The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the listed building 

and a minor adverse impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy 

development on the listed building would be moderate adverse. 

10.4.47 There are 59 Category B Listed Buildings within 1.5km of the proposed wind energy 

development and within the ZTV. These are mainly located within the historic cores of Alloa 

and Dunmore with four category B listed buildings, within Clackmannan. 

10.4.48 HB numbers 20963, 20965, 20966, 20967, 20968, 20969, 20970, 20971, 20972, 20973, 

20974, 20975, 20976, 20977, 20978, 20980, 20981, 20982, 20983, 20987, 20989, 20992, 

20993, 20994, 20995, 20996, 20997, 20998, 20999, 21000, 21001, 21002, 21003, 21004, 

21005, 21009, 21026, 21027, 21030 46269 and 49859 are located within the Alloa Glebe 

Conservation Area and are assessed there. 

10.4.49 HB numbers 20952, 20953, 20954, 20957, 20958 and 20960 are located within the Old Alloa 


10.4.50 HB numbers 160, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2088, 2089 and 4264 are located within the Dunmore 


10.4.51 Four Category B listed buildings, Clackmannan Parish Church (HB number 1944), the Royal 

Oak Hotel, Main Street (HB 1949), Clackmannan Mercat Cross (HB number 1948) and 

Clackmannan Tollbooth (HB number 1947) are located within the Clackmannan Conservation 

Area. The latter two are assessed with their respective Scheduled Monuments in paragraphs 

10.4.23 and 10.4. 22, above. 

10.4.52 One Category C listed building, Clackmannan Manse, Port Street (HB number 1945) is located 

within the Clackmannan Conservation Area and is assessed there. 

10.4.53 Nine Category C listed buildings, HB numbers 20962, 20979, 20984, 20985, 20986, 20988, 

20990, 20991 and 49851 are located within the Alloa Glebe Conservation Area and are 

assessed there. 

10.4.54 One Category C listed building, HB number 21006, 40, 40a Grange Road, is located within the 

historic core of Alloa, immediately west of the Alloa Glebe Conservation Area. The listed 

building dates from c.1830 and comprises a 2-storey 3-window ashlar fronted house with a 

Roman doric column doorpiece and a slate roof. There would be no views of the proposed 

wind energy development form the listed building. The proposed wind energy development 




would have no physical impact on the listed building and the impact on its setting would be no 

change. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on the Conservation Area would 

be neutral. 

10.4.55 Dunmore Park Garden and Designed Landscape is mostly located between 1.5km and 3 

km of the application area, but is considered here because small parts of the designed 

landscape lie within 1.5km of the application area. The Park is located on the south side of the 

Forth and is bounded by the A905 to the north and east of the Park and by woodlands to the 

south and west. 

10.4.56 The early history of the Park is not well understood, but Dunmore Tower had been 

incorporated into a romantic designed setting by 1810 when it was painted as surrounded by 

fine parkland trees 

10.4.57 The Park contains a number of listed buildings, including the Mansion House, listed at 

Category B is a ruined Tudor gothic design by William Wilkins, built c.1820. 

10.4.58 The Stables, date from the 19th century, are listed at Category B and have been adopted for 

farm use. Dunmore Tower, of 15 th -16 th century origin, was restored in the 19th century and is 

listed at Category C(S). The East Lodge is listed at Category B. 

10.4.59 Since the estate was broken up in 1968, the Park area has been farmed, but traces of the 

former design remain in the field pattern and tree plantings. The designed landscape and 

architectural features of the Park have been neglected in the past and left to deteriorate. 

10.4.60 The parkland is currently farmed, the outer fields being used for arable agriculture. The roundel 

plantings remain, as does the lime avenue along the main drive to the house. Most of the 

individual parkland trees been removed, along with some of the buildings associated with the 

Park. 

10.4.61 Those open parts of the Park to the northeast of the woodland planting around Dunmore 

Tower have had their individual 19 th century parkland tree planting largely removed are now 

rather degraded. It is difficult to obtain good views of the proposed wind energy development 

from the driveway leading from the park to Dunmore, which appears to have been the main 

19 th century drive. A photomontage (Figure 10.11) shows the view from just south east of the 

modern entrance to the estate. 

10.4.62 The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the garden and 

designed landscape and a minor adverse impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind 

energy development on the garden and designed landscape would be slight adverse. 

10.4.63 No other Gardens and Designed Landscapes are located within 1.5km of the application area. 

10.4.64 Four Conservation Areas are located within 1.5km of the application area and within the ZTV. 

These are Old Alloa, Alloa Glebe, Clackmannan and Dunmore. 

10.4.65 Clackmannan Conservation Area is located to the north of the proposed wind energy 

development and comprises Kings Seat Hill, to the west of Clackmannan, and the historic core 

of the town itself, containing a number of buildings and structures of medieval and later origin. 




10.4.66 There are several listed buildings within the conservation Area. Four Category B listed 

buildings, Clackmannan Parish Church (HB number 1944); the Royal Oak Hotel, Main Street 

(HB 1949), Clackmannan Mercat Cross (HB number 1948) and Clackmannan Tollbooth (HB 

number 1947) are located within Clackmannan. The latter two are assessed with their 

respective Scheduled Monuments in paragraphs 10.4.23 and 10.4. 22, above. Clackmannan 

Tower, a Category A listed building (HB number 1946, also a scheduled monument, SAM 

90073) is considered in paragraphs 10.4.13 to 10.4.21 above. There is also a Category C 

listed building, Clackmannan Manse, Port Street (HB number 1945). 

10.4.67 Within the built settlement the Conservation Area is enclosed and there is little visibility towards 

the proposed wind energy development. From Kings Seat Hill looking south a photomontage 

(Figure 10.9) shows the view from the base of Clackmannan Tower looking south west towards 

the proposed wind energy development. The view is framed by mature trees. Construction of 

the proposed wind energy development would change this view, although the ability to 

understand this part of the setting of the Conservation Area would remain largely unchanged. 

10.4.68 The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the Conservation 

Area and a minor adverse impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy 

development on the Conservation Area would be slight adverse. 

10.4.69 Alloa Glebe Conservation Area is located on the south side of Alloa and covers much of the 

western part of the town centre. 

10.4.70 There are 41 listed buildings within the Conservation Area. Category A listed buildings have 

been individually assessed and Category B and C listed buildings are assessed here. Category 

B listed buildings are HB numbers 20963, 20965, 20966, 20967, 20968, 20969, 20970, 20971, 

20972, 20973, 20974, 20975, 20976, 20977, 20978, 20980, 20981, 20982, 20983, 20987, 

20989, 20992, 20993, 20994, 20995, 20996, 20997, 20998, 20999, 21000, 21001, 21002, 

21003, 21004, 21005, 21009, 21026, 21027, 21030, 46269 and 49859. Category C listed 

buildings are 20962, 20979, 20984, 20985, 20986, 20988, 20990, 20991 and 49851. 

10.4.71 The Conservation Area includes the Georgian and Victorian residential expansion of the town 

from the key period of industrial growth and the listed buildings largely reflect this pattern. The 

Conservation area is largely inward looking with few views outwards and its setting is small. 

There may be glimpses of the proposed wind energy development from parts of St Mungos 

Wynd but these would have little, if any impact on the setting of the Conservation Area. 




10.4.73 Old Alloa Conservation Area is located in the south eastern part of the town and shares a 

boundary with the Alloa Glebe Conservation Area. The Old Alloa conservation Area includes 

Kirkgate and Alloa Old Parish church (SAM 625, assessed in paragraphs 10.4.24 to 10.4.26, 

above) and extends to Alloa Tower and beyond in the east and along Broad Street to 

Forthbank Industrial Estate in the south. 




10.4.74 There are a number of listed buildings within the Conservation Area. Category A listed 

buildings have been individually assessed and Category B listed buildings are assessed here. 

These are HB numbers 20952, 20953, 20954, 20957, 20958, and 20960. 

10.4.75 The Conservation Area includes the medieval and post medieval core of Alloa in the north, 

while Broad Street marks the boundary of built development of the historic core of the town. 

The Forthbank Industrial Estate represents the site of the Old Wet Dock (NMRS number 

NS89SE 235), part of the towns harbour. 

10.4.76 The northern part of the Conservation Area is bounded by mature trees which limit views 

towards the proposed wind energy development. The southern part of the Conservation Area 

is bounded by public housing to its east, this together with nearby power lines reduce views 

from the Conservation area in the direction of the proposed wind energy development and 

effectively limit the setting of Old Alloa Conservation Area. 




10.4.78 Dunmore Conservation Area is located on the south bank of the Forth and comprises the 

whole of the built area of Dunmore. The northern boundary of the Conservation Area is marked 

by the low water mark of the Forth. There are a number of listed buildings within the 

Conservation Area and they are assessed here. The listed buildings are HB numbers 160, 

2114, 2115, 2116, 2088, 2089 and 4264. 

10.4.79 A consultative draft Conservation Area Appraisal was produced by Falkirk Council in 

November 2009. The Conservation Area Appraisal notes that the centrepiece is the former 

estate worker houses set around a central green (para 1.1.1). It goes on to note that the village 

is set about a roadway linking the A905 (Grangemouth to Stirling) and the waterfront, passing 

through the central common green (para 2.2.1). In addition, the central rectangular green 

enclosed by formally linked sandstone cottages provides a striking focus to the village, 

contrasting with the more modest, informal, detached houses elsewhere (para 2.2.2). The 

Conservation Area appraisal also notes that the north western edges are well contained by a 

dense tree screen from the countryside whilst the southern boundaries are more open, 

affording glimpses of the picturesque hamlet from the Airth road (para 2.2.4). 

10.4.80 There is little consideration or note given to the relationship between the Conservation Area 

and the Forth in the Conservation Area Appraisal. The Conservation Area is largely inward 

looking, with the buildings, mostly listed at Category B set around the village green and there is 

a sense of enclosure when inside the Conservation Area. The proposed wind energy 

development would be visible when looking north from the A 905 road. In addition it would be 

visible from the shore in the northern part of the Conservation Area. The proposed wind energy 

development would have no physical impact on the Conservation Area and a minor adverse 

impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on the Conservation 

Area would be slight adverse. 

10.4.81 There are a number of sites recorded on the HER and NMRS within 1.5km of the application 

area. The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on any of these 




sites and the impact on them is assessed as being neutral. The effect of the proposed wind 

energy development on the sites would be neutral. 

10.4.82 Tables 10.25 to 10.30 below provide an indication of the significance of effect on those sites 

located within 1.5km of the application area and within the ZTV. 

Table 10.25 Scheduled Monuments Within 1.5km of the Application Area and Within ZTV 

SAM 

no 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

Significance of effect 

Post Mitigation 

628 Clackmannan Tolbooth National/High Neutral 

632 Clackmannan, Mercat Cross & Clackmannan Stone National/High Neutral 

625 Alloa,old parish church National/High Neutral 

3016 Parkmill,cross slab 460m N of National/High Slight Adverse 

3746 Northern Glass Cone, Alloa Glass Works, Glasshouse National/High Neutral 

Loan 

6914 Hawk Hill cairn National/High Slight Adverse 

90073 Clackmannan Tower National/High Moderate Adverse 

Table 10.26 Category A Listed Buildings Within 1.5km of the Application Area and 

Within ZTV 

HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 



1946 Clackmannan Tower National/High Moderate Adverse 

20955 Clackmannan Alloa, 25 Kirkgate, Star House National/High Neutral 

21008 Northern glass cone, Alloa Glass works, Glasshouse Loan National/High Neutral 

20956 Greenside Street, Kilncraigs National/High Neutral 

20959 Alloa Tower National/High Moderate Adverse 

49975 Greenside Street, Kilncraigs Despatch Warehouse National/High Neutral 

Table 10.27 Category B Listed Buildings Within 1.5km of the Application Area and 

Within ZTV 

HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

160 The Smithy And Bankside Dunmore Village Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

1944 Clackmannan Parish Church, High Street Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

1949 Royal Oak Hotel, Main Street Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2089 Strath-Earn (3 Dwellings) Dunmore Village Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2114 Ivy Cottages (2 Dwellings), Dunmore Village Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2115 Rose Cottages, Dunmore Village (2 Dwellings) Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2116 Forth View And Viewfield, Dated 1840 Dunmore Village Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20958 Gatepiers, Formerly Of Alloa House, Lime Tree Walk Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20965 17, 19, 21 High Street Bank Of Scotland Building Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 



20968 19 Mar Street YMCA Building (Original Front House Block Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Only) 

20972 Moncrieff House 72 Drysdale Street Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20975 Ochil House Marshill And Mar Street Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20976 Town Hall, Marshill Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20977 Marshill, Marchill House (Regional Offices) Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20981 25, 27 Bank Street With Returns To Union Street And Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Coalgate, Former Meadow Brewery And Union Club 

20982 Bank Street Coalgate And Stripehead Former Gas 

Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Showroom 

20983 Former Chalmers Church, Bank Street Junction With Mill Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Street 

20992 9, 9a Bedford Place Old West Manse Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20994 11 Bedford Place Fenton House Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20997 St Mungo's Parish Church Bedford Place Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20999 14 Bedford Place Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

21004 St John's Rectory, Grange Road Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

21009 Primrose Street And Primrose Place, Former Public Baths Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

And Gymnasium 

21026 East Vennel And Old Bridge Street, Thistle Brewery Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

21030 6-10 (Even Nos) Mar Street, Hope Bakers, With Ovens Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

49859 17 Mar Street, Job Centre (Former Co-Operative Society 

Headquarters) 





HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 



20998 12 Bedford Place Including Garden Walls And Gate Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

1948 Clackmannan Mercat Cross. Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20963 41-45 Mill Street And 2 High Street Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20966 1,3 Mar Street And 31 Mill Street, Former Bank Of 


Scotland Building 

20967 13, 15 Mar Street Former Liberal Club Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20970 County And Police Buildings, Mar Street And Drysdale Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Street 

20978 Marshill, Marcelle (Regional Offices) Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20987 Mercat Cross At 16 Bank Street Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20993 Alloa West Church Bedford Place And Ludgate Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

1947 Clackmannan Tolbooth Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20980 19, 21, 23 Bank Street Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20995 13 Bedford Place Bedford House (Regional Council Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Offices) 

2088 5 Dwellings Dunmore Village Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20952 Old Parish Church Of St Mungo, Alloa Old Kirkyard, Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Kirkgate 

20953 Mar And Kellie Mausoleum, Alloa, Old Kirkyard, Kirkgate Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20954 Alloa Old Kirkyard, Kirkgate Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20957 St John's Episcopal Church Limetree Walk Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20960 Stable Block Of Former Alloa House Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20996 Former Alloa Burgh School (St Mungo's Infant Department) Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Bedford Place 

21003 4, 5 Grange Road Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

21027 Bedford Place, K6 Telephone Kiosk At Former General Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Post Office 

46269 Claremont, South African War Memorial Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

4264 Dunmore Village, Four Dwellings Dated 1854 Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20969 21 Mar Street Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20973 Moncrieff Uf Church Drysdale Street Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20989 War Memorial Gusset Of Bank Street And Church Street Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

21000 16 And 16a Bedford Place, Westray Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

21002 3 And 3a Grange Road Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20971 Former County Offices, 70 Drysdale Street Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

20974 Mar Place House Mar Place Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

21001 1, 1a And 2 Grange Road Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

21005 13 Grange Road Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

1984 Clackmannan, Cross, Hawk Hill West of Former East 

Lodge To Alloa House 


Table 10.28 Category C Listed Buildings Within 1.5km of the Application Area and 

Within ZTV 

HB number Site Name Importance/ 



Sensitivity 

1945 Clackmannan Manse, Port Street Local/Low Slight Adverse 

20962 1, 3 Coalgate Local/Low Slight Adverse 

20979 9, 11 Bank Street Clydesdale Bank Local/Low Slight Adverse 

20984 Crown Hotel Bank Street Local/Low Slight Adverse 

20985 Old Post Office and Savings Bank (Upper Floors Local/Low 

Slight Adverse 

Now Part of Social Security Offices Etc) Bank Street 

20986 Former Social Security Offices, 16 Bank Street Local/Low Slight Adverse 

20988 18-22 Bank Street Local/Low Slight Adverse 

20990 Former Library and Museum Hall (Now Weir Pumps), Local/Low 


Church Street 

20991 Royal Oak Hotel and 3, 5 Bedford Place Local/Low Slight Adverse 

21006 40, 40a Grange Road Local/Low Neutral 

49851 Former St Mungo's Parish Hall, 10 Bedford Place, (1- 

8) St Mungo's Wynd Including Boundary Wall and 

Gatepiers 

Local/Low 





Table 10.29 Gardens and Designed Landscapes Within 1.5km of the Application Area 





Sensitivity 

156 Dunmore Park National/high Slight Adverse 

Table 10.30 Conservation Areas Within 1.5km of the Application Area and Within ZTV 

Site Name Importance/ 

Sensitivity 



Old Alloa Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Alloa Glebe Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Clackmannan Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Dunmore Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Inner Study Area 

Sites Between 1.5km and 3 Km of the Application Area 

10.4.83 There are a number of recorded sites located between 1.5km and 3km of the application area 

(Figure 10.5). 

10.4.84 There are two Scheduled Monuments between 1.5km and 3km of the application area and 

within the ZTV. 

10.4.85 SAM 5012 is Kennetpans Distillery, located some 2.1km southeast of the south-eastern 

boundary of the application area. The monument comprises a large distillery with ancillary 

buildings and a small harbour, built during the 1770s to supply the London gin distillers with 

malt spirit. The principal building is three storeys in height and roofless. The ancillary buildings 

are lower in height but similarly roofless. The mouth of the adjacent creek is also scheduled. 

The buildings are very overgrown with trees and other vegetation. 

10.4.86 The primary setting of the SAM is functional and comprises its relationship with the River Forth 

along which malt spirit was shipped. An area of woodland to the southwest of the buildings 

reduces or removes any views towards the proposed wind energy development from the 

scheduled part of the creek. The buildings are located on the east side of the access road 

leading to them and views towards the proposed wind energy development are limited by the 

adjacent garden centre buildings and trees and belt planting to the northwest. 


negligible impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on the 

SAM would be slight adverse. 

10.4.88 SAM 1756 is Airth Market Cross. This is located in the High Street and is surrounded by the 

buildings of the centre of the settlement. It is unlikely that in practice there would be any 

intervisibility with the proposed wind energy development. 

10.4.89 The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the SAM and the 



10.4.90 There are three Category A Listed Buildings between 1.5km and 3km of the application area 

and within the ZTV. These are: 




10.4.91 HB number 21016 Clackmannan, The Gean House, (Including Terraces, Forecourt, Walled 

Garden and Summerhouse), Tullibody Road and Claremont, comprises a large English style 

mansion of the late 16 th to early 17 th Century. 

10.4.92 The listed building is enclosed by mature planting and any views towards the proposed wind 

energy development would be limited. 



development on the listed building would be neutral. 

10.4.94 HB number 2109 Falkirk, Garden Wall and Pineapple, Dunmore Park. This is considered with 

the Inventoried Garden and Designed Landscape in paragraphs 10.4.113 to 10.4.116, below. 

10.4.95 HB number 21019 Clackmannan, Inglewood, Tullibody Road comprises a large asymmetrical 

mansion house of c. 1900, by Sidney Mitchell & Wilson. 

10.4.96 The listed building is enclosed by mature planting and modern development and any views 

towards the proposed wind energy development would be limited. 



development on the listed building would be neutral. 

10.4.98 There are 22 Category B Listed Buildings between 1.5km and 3km of the application area. 

These are mainly located within settlements. 

10.4.99 HB numbers 159, 2100, 2096, 2099, 2087 and 2098, are located with the Airth Conservation 

Area and are assessed there at paragraphs 10.4.120 to 10.4.121, below. 

10.4.100 HB numbers 21010, 1967, 21007, 21017, 21025, 21028 and 49529 are located within the built 

settlement of Alloa, which provides an effective visual screen. The proposed wind energy 

development would have no physical impact on the listed buildings and a minor adverse 

impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on the listed 

buildings would be slight adverse. 

10.4.101 HB numbers 1950 and 1952 are located in Clackmannan, the settlement providing an 

effective visual screen. The proposed wind energy development would have no physical 

impact on the listed buildings and a minor adverse impact on their settings. The effect of the 

proposed wind energy development on the listed buildings would be slight adverse. 

10.4.102 HB number 1953 is located within the Kennet Conservation Area and is assessed there at 

paragraphs 10.4.118 and 10.4.119, below. 

10.4.103 HB number 1955 is located near Kilbagie Paper Mill. Woodland would provide an effective 

visual screen. The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the 

listed building and a minor adverse impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind 

energy development on the listed building would be slight adverse. 




10.4.104 HB numbers 2093, 2110, 2112 and 2113 are located within Dunmore Park and are assessed 

there at paragraphs 10.4.113 to 10.4.116, below. 

10.4.105 HB number 2107, Kersie Mains, is located on the south side of the Forth, south of South 

Alloa. Built development would provide a degree of screening from the wind energy 

development. The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the 

listed building and a minor adverse impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind 

energy development on the listed building would be slight adverse. 

10.4.106 There are 19 Category C Listed Buildings between 1.5km and 3km of the application area and 

within the ZTV, which are mainly located within settlements. 

10.4.107 HB numbers 2097 and 2101 are located with the Airth Conservation Area and are assessed 

there at paragraphs 10.4.123 and 10.4.124, below. 

10.4.108 HB numbers 1969, 21011, 21012, 21013, 21014, 21015 and 50151 are located within the built 

settlement of Alloa, which provides an effective visual screen. The proposed wind energy 

development would have no physical impact on the listed buildings and a minor adverse 

impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on the listed 

buildings would be slight adverse. 

10.4.109 HB numbers 1982, 1983, 49530 and 49983 are located in Sauchie, the settlement providing 

an effective visual screen. The proposed wind energy development would have no physical 

impact on the listed building and a minor adverse impact on its setting. The effect of the 

proposed wind energy development on the listed building would be slight adverse. 

10.4.110 HB number 49852 is located on the north side of Clackmannan, the settlement providing an 

effective visual screen. The proposed wind energy development would have no physical 

impact on the listed building and a minor adverse impact on its setting. The effect of the 

proposed wind energy development on the listed building would be slight adverse. 

10.4.111 HB number 2111 is located within Dunmore Park and is assessed there at paragraphs 

10.4.116 to 10.4.119, below. 

10.4.112 HB number 1954 is located adjacent to the SAM at Kennetpans and is assessed there at 

paragraphs 10.4.85 to 10.4.87, above. 

10.4.113 HB number 1951, Broadacarse Farmhouse is located to the northwest of Kennetpans. There 

is little screening between the listed building and the proposed wind energy development, 

although the existing electricity pylons tend to dominate the landscape and provide a degree of 

visual instruction to which the proposed wind energy development would make relatively little 

impact. The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the listed 

building and a minor adverse impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy 

development on the listed building would be slight adverse. 

10.4.114 HB number 1957 is Kilbagie Paper Mill. The adjacent A876 road, built on an embankment 

severs the listed building from the landscape to its west and would provide an effective visual 

screen. The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the listed 




building and a minor adverse impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy 

development on the listed building would be slight adverse. 

10.4.115 HB number 2108, South Kersie, is located on the south side of the Forth, south of South 

Alloa. There is little screening for views towards the proposed wind energy development, 

although any such views would be through the prism of existing electricity pylon. The proposed 

wind energy development would have no physical impact on the listed building and a minor 

adverse impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on the 

listed building would be slight adverse. 

10.4.116 The inventoried Pineapple Garden and Designed Landscape is located within the wider 

Dunmore Garden and Designed Landscape, but is inventoried separately and is considered in 

this section because its nearest point lies greater than 1.5km from the application area. 

10.4.117 The Inventory Description notes that the Pineapple was built as a garden retreat in the north 

wall of the walled garden at Dunmore Park……….. It was designed to have extensive views 

out and particularly across the Firth of Forth but is sheltered and screened by woodland today. 

The ornamental gardens extend around The Pineapple over some 4 ha (10 acres), including 

the walled garden. The walled garden is surrounded by woodland and shrubbery, with a small 

loch to the west of the walls feeding into the canal. 

10.4.118 Screening is produced by an area of woodland, comprising deciduous and evergreen species, 

located to the east of the proposed wind energy development and designed views over the 

Forth are no longer available. A Photomontage (Figure 10.12) shows the view from the path to 

the Pineapple looking towards the proposed wind energy development. 

10.4.119 The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the Garden and 

Designed Landscape and the magnitude of impact on its setting would be no change. The 

effect of the proposed wind energy development on the Garden and Designed Landscape 

would be no change. 

10.4.120 There are two Conservation Areas between 1.5km and 3km of the application area. These 

are: 

10.4.121 Kennet Conservation Area is located almost due east of the proposed wind energy 

development and comprises the whole of the built area of Kennet. There are a number of 

listed buildings within the Conservation Area and they are assessed here. The listed buildings 

are all recorded under HB number 1953, the row of miner’s cottages comprising much of the 

built development of the settlement Conservation Area, with the trees to the south comprising 

the remainder. 

10.4.122 The woodland belt provides an effective screen for the Conservation Area. There would be 

views of the proposed wind energy development from the southern boundary of the 

Conservation Area. The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact 

on the Conservation Area and a minor adverse impact on its setting. The effect of the 

proposed wind energy development on the Conservation Area would be slight adverse. 

10.4.123 Airth Conservation Area is located on the south bank of the Forth and comprises the centre 

of the built area with part of the northern part of the settlement. There are a number of listed 




buildings within the Conservation Area and they are assessed here. These include HB 

numbers 159, 2100, 2096, 2099, 2087 and 2098, listed at Category B. HB numbers 2097 and 

2101 are listed at Category C. 

10.4.124 Much of the Conservation Area is enclosed, although there may be some visibility of the 

proposed wind energy development from the northwesternmost part of the Conservation Area. 

The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the Conservation 




located between 1.5km and 3km of the application area and within the ZTV. 

Table 10.31 Scheduled Monuments Between 1.5km and 3km of the Application Area and 

Within ZTV 

SAM 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

5012 Kennetpans Distillery National/High Slight Adverse 

1756 Airth,market cross National/High Neutral 



Table 10.32 Category A Listed Buildings Between 1.5km and 3km of the Application 

Area and within ZTV 

HB Site Name 

number 

21016 Clackmannan, The Gean House, (Including Terraces, 

Forecourt, Walled Garden and Summerhouse), Tullibody 

Road And Claremont 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

National/High 

2109 Falkirk, Garden Wall and Pineapple, Dunmore Park National/High Neutral 

21019 Clackmannan, Inglewood, Tullibody Road National/High Neutral 



Neutral 

Table 10.33 Category B Listed Buildings Between 1.5km and 3km of the Application 


HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

159 Falkirk’ Captain's House (No 44 Paul Drive) Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

1952 Clackmannan, Kennet House Lodge Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2093 Falkirk, Dunmore Park Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2100 Falkirk, Logan Lea (No 18 Shore Road) Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2112 Falkirk, The Parsonage, Dunmore Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2113 Falkirk, Lodge, Dunmore Park (East Lodge) Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 



21010 Clackmannan, Greenfield House (Now District Council Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Offices) 

2107 Falkirk, Kersie Mains Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

1967 Clackmannan, Arnsbrae House Including Terrace Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2096 Falkirk, View Villa Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2099 Falkirk, House In Shore Road (No 16 Shore Road) Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2110 Falkirk, Dunmore Stables and Dovecot Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

21007 Clackmannan, Grange School (Excluding Recent Hall Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Block) Grange Road 

1953 Clackmannan, Kennet 1-20 Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

1955 Clackmannan, Kilbagie House and Garden Walls Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

21025 Clackmannan, Sunnyside Road, Alloa Co-Operative Sports Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Pavilion 

21017 Clackmannan, Gean House North Lodge to Tullibody Road Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

1950 Clackmannan, Clackmannan House Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2087 Falkirk, North Church, Airth Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

2098 Falkirk, School House, (Rosebank) Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

21028 Clackmannan, Ludgate, Alloa North Parish Church Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

49529 Clackmannan, Sauchie, Fairfield Road (At Corner Of Mar 

Place), Sauchie War Memorial 





Table 10.34 Category C Listed Buildings Between 1.5km and 3km of the Application 


HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

1951 Broadcarse Farmhouse Local/Low Slight Adverse 

1954 Kennetpans Local/Low Slight Adverse 

1957 Kilbagie Mill House (Personnel Dept Gestetner Papers Local/Low 


Ltd) 

1969 Arnsbrae House Lodge Local/Low Slight Adverse 

1982 Sauchie Parish Church New Sauchie Local/Low Slight Adverse 

1983 Keilarsbrae House Local/Low Slight Adverse 

2097 Elphinstone Inn Local/Low Slight Adverse 

2101 Rothesay Villa Local/Low Slight Adverse 

2108 South Kersie Local/Low Slight Adverse 

2111 Tower, Dunmore Park Local/Low Slight Adverse 

21011 Stirling Road, Cowden Park Local/Low Slight Adverse 

21012 33 Claremont Local/Low Slight Adverse 

21013 35 Claremont, Craigmyle Local/Low Slight Adverse 

21014 Claremont House, Claremont Local/Low Slight Adverse 

21015 The Gean House South Lodge Local/Low Slight Adverse 

49530 Sauchie, Fairfield Road (At Corner Of Mar Place), 

Sauchie Public Hall Including Boundary Wall To South 

And East 

49852 Bridge Over The Black Devon, Clackmannan, including 

Wing Walls 

49983 Parkhead Road, Sauchie Hospital Lodge ,Including 

Gatepiers And Boundary Walls 

50151 21 Claremont, Claremont Grove Including Outbuildings, 

Summerhouse, Boundary Walls And Gatepiers And 

Garden Features 

Local/Low 

Local/Low 

Local/Low 

Local/Low 







Table 10.35 Gardens and Designed Landscapes Between 1.5km and 3km of the 

Application Area and Within ZTV 


Sensitivity 

364 The Pineapple National/High Neutral 



Table 10.36 Conservation Areas Between 1.5km and 3km of the Application Area and 

Within ZTV 

Site Name 

Importance/Sens 



itivity 

Kennet Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Airth Regional/Medium Slight Adverse 

Outer Study Area 

Sites Between 3km and 10km of the Application Area 

10.4.126 There are a number of recorded sites located between 3km and 10km of the application area 

(Figure 10.6). 

10.4.127 There are 43 Scheduled Monuments between 3km and 10km of the application area. 

10.4.128 The SAMs are assessed in Table 10.37, below. The proposed wind energy development 

would have no physical impact on any SAM and a negligible impact on its setting. The effect 

of the proposed wind energy development on the SAMs would be slight adverse. 

10.4.129 There are 42 Category A Listed Buildings between 3km and 10km of the application area. 

10.4.130 The listed buildings are assessed in Table 10.38, below. The proposed wind energy 

development would have no physical impact on any listed building and a negligible impact on 




its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on the listed buildings would 

be slight adverse. 

10.4.131 There are 3 Gardens and Designed Landscapes between 3km and 10km of the application 

area. 

10.4.132 The Gardens and Designed Landscapes are assessed in Table 10.39, below. The proposed 

wind energy development would have no physical impact on any Garden and Designed 

Landscape and a negligible impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy 

development on the Gardens and Designated Landscapes would be slight adverse. 

10.4.133 There are four Conservation Areas between 3km and 10km of the application area. The 

Conservation Areas are assessed in Table 10.40, below. The proposed wind energy 

development would have no physical impact on any Conservation Area and a negligible 

impact on its setting. The effect of the proposed wind energy development on the 

Conservation Areas would be neutral. 


located between 3km and 10km of the application area and within the ZTV. 

Table 10.37 Scheduled Monuments Between 3km and 10km of the Application Area and 

Within ZTV 

SAM 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 



630 Tullibody,old bridge 1600m W of National/High Neutral 

629 Sauchie or Devon Tower National/High Slight Adverse 

736 Tulliallan Castle National/High Slight Adverse 

885 Kincardine, market cross National/High Neutral 

1730 Airthrey Castle,standing stone 280m SE of National/High Slight Adverse 

1754 Stirling,town walls & bastions National/High Slight Adverse 

1731 Carr's Hill,fort,Torwood National/High Slight Adverse 

1732 Common Hill,homestead National/High Slight Adverse 

1738 Torwood or Tappoch,broch National/High Neutral 

1746 Camelon,Roman forts National/High Neutral 

2217 Tor Wood,Roman road National/High Neutral 

2228 Airth Old Church,church,Airth Castle National/High Slight Adverse 

2328 Tillicoultry House,tombstone National/High Neutral 

2182 Castle Law,fort 400m SW of summit of Dumyat National/High Slight Adverse 

2542 Abbey Craig,fort National/High Slight Adverse 

2798 Logie Old Church,Bridge of Allan National/High Neutral 

2801 Logie Old Church,tombstone National/High Neutral 

3284 Devon Colliery,pumping engine house National/High Neutral 

2279 Stirling market cross National/High Neutral 

2997 Stirling,Kirk Wynd,church,belfry & two tombstones National/High Slight Adverse 

2531 Bruce's Castle National/High Slight Adverse 

2246 Windyhill,tombstone 450m N of National/High Slight adverse 

2562 Carron House,dovecot 290m S of National/High Neutral 

2794 James Bruce Monument, 30m SSW of Larbert Old National/High Neutral 

Church 

4151 West Plean Colliery No.3 Pit,coke ovens National/High Neutral 

3948 Gallamuir,enclosure 300m SE of National/High Neutral 

4381 Castleton,cup & ring marked rocks NW of National/High Neutral 

4163 Windmill,dovecot,New Sauchie National/High Slight Adverse 

3741 Cambus,iron bridge over River Devon National/High Neutral 

4259 Lochlands Roman camps National/High Neutral 

6929 Doghillock, dun 700m N of National/High Neutral 

6481 Plean Farm,ring ditch 800m SE of National/High Neutral 

6482 Plean Farm,palisaded enclosure 150m NE of National/High Neutral 

7018 Darnbogue, palisaded enclosure 200m SW of National/High Slight Adverse 

6480 Plean Cottages,palisaded enclosure 350m SSE of National/High Neutral 




SAM 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 



8264 Stirling, remains of former bridge to N of Stirling Old National/High Neutral 

Bridge 

90063 Castle Campbell National/High Slight Adverse 

90286 Stirling,Argyll Lodging,house National/High Neutral 

90287 Stirling,Bothwell House National/High Neutral 

90289 Stirling, Mar's Wark, uncompleted residence National/High Neutral 

90290 Stirling Old Bridge National/High Neutral 

90291 Stirling Castle National/High Slight Adverse 

90055 Cambuskenneth Abbey National/High Neutral 

Table 10.38 Category A Listed Buildings Between 3km and 10km of the Application Area 


HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

1956 Clackmannan, Brucefield National/High Neutral 

1985 Clackmannan, Iron Bridge over River Devon At Cambus National/High Neutral 

2025 Clackmannan, Menstrie Castle, 1-4 Castle Court National/High Neutral 

3962 Falkirk, Torwood Castle National/High Neutral 

15277 Stirling, Bannockburn House National/High Neutral 

16585 Fife, Tulliallan Castle (Scottish Police College) National/High Slight Adverse 

17144 Fife, Old Tulliallan Castle National/High Slight Adverse 





21031 Clackmannan, Alva-Johnstone Mausoleum, Alva 

National/High Neutral 

Churchyard 

41084 Stirling, Church of the Holy-Rood Churchyard National/High Neutral 

41086 Stirling, Cambuskenneth Abbey National/High Neutral 

41095 Stirling, St Ninians Old Parish Kirk Kirk Wynd National/High Neutral 

41110 Stirling, 35, 37 Broad Street, Jail Wynd and 32 St John National/High Neutral 

Street, Tolbooth 

41118 Stirling, Wallace Monument Abbey Craig National/High Slight Adverse 

41126 Stirling, The Old Town Cemeteries National/High Neutral 

41129 Stirling, Stirling, Old Bridge National/High Neutral 

41131 Stirling, Stirling Railway Station, Station Road, with North National/High Neutral 

wnd Middle Signal Boxes wnd Associated Semaphore 

Signals 

41133 Stirling, Academy Road, Stirling Highland Hotel, Old High National/High Neutral 

School 

41466 Stirling, St Mary's Wynd John Cowane's House National/High Neutral 

41484 Stirling, 56 Spittal Street, Glengarry Lodge or Darrow National/High Neutral 

Lodging 

49860 Stirling, Bannockburn, Rotunda, Memorial Cairn, Flagpole National/High Neutral 

and Statue of King Robert I 

10461 Stirling, Blairlogie Castle National/High Neutral 

41100 Stirling, 2 Spittal Street and 65, 67 King Street, 

National/High Neutral 

Athenaeum 

41246 Stirling, 16 Broad Street, East Section of James Norrie's National/High Neutral 

Lodging 

10503 Falkirk, Stenhousemuir, Church Street, Parish Church of National/High Neutral 

Stenhouse And Carron, Former Maclaren Memorial 

Church, Church Of Scotland 

34041 Falkirk, Dundas Church Bo'ness Road National/High Neutral 

10487 Falkirk, Carronvale Road, 'Carronvale' (Boy's Brigade Hq) National/High Neutral 

10496 Falkirk, Old Parish Church Churchyard and Monument to National/High Neutral 

James Bruce of Kinnaird and Mary Dundas 

41101 Stirling, Cowane's Hospital (Now Guildhall) including National/High Neutral 

Adjoining Terrace to Bowling Green 47, 49 St John Street 

And Lampstands 

41104 Stirling, 31 St John Street, Stirling Old Town Jail (Former National/High Neutral 

Military Prison) with Boundary Walls, Gatepiers And 

Gates 

41112 Stirling, Back Walk, Town Wall And Bastion, Boundary of National/High Neutral 

Municipal Buildings, 27-33 (Odd Nos) Spittal Street and 

Old High School 

41255 Stirling, Castle Wynd Argyll Lodging (Including Garden National/High Neutral 

Wall.) Now Youth Hostel. 

41348 Stirling, Mar Place Mar's Wark National/High Neutral 

41464 Stirling, 39 And 41 St John Street, Bruce Of 

Auchenbowie's House 

National/High Neutral


HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 



1977 Clackmannan, Tullibody Old Bridge Over River Devon, National/High Neutral 

Bridgend 

41096 Stirling, St. Ninians Old Parish Kirk Kirkyard National/High Neutral 

41111 Stirling, Back Walk, Town Wall, South Boundary of National/High Neutral 

Erskine Marykirk and St John Street Housing 

Development to Academy Street 

41113 Stirling, Town Wall Public Library to 16 Dumbarton Road National/High Neutral 

Being S Boundary Of 16 Dumbarton Road, 2, 4 Back 

Walk, 51 King Street 15 And 19 Corn Exchange Road 

41239 Stirling, 16 (Part) and 18 Bow Street, Erskine Of Gogar's National/High Neutral 

House (Commonly Known As Darnley's House) 

41240 Stirling, 16 Bow Street (Part, Within Close), Moir Of National/High Neutral 

Leckie's House 

50078 Fife, Kincardine Bridge National/High Slight Adverse 

10481 Falkirk, Royal Scottish National Hospital, Principal Block National/High Neutral 

(Private House) With Boundary Walls And Gatepiers 

41083 Stirling, Church of The Holy Rood St John Street National/High Neutral 

Table 10.39 Gardens and Designed Landscapes Between 3km and 10km of the 

Application Area and Partly Within ZTV 

HB 

number 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

153 Dunimarle National/High Slight Adverse 

10 Airthrey Castle National/High Slight Adverse 

376 Tulliallan National/High Slight Adverse 



Table 10.40 Conservation Areas Between 3km and 10km of the Application Area and 

Within ZTV 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

Kincardine Regional/Medium Neutral 

Letham Regional/Medium Neutral 

Tillicoultry Regional/Medium Neutral 

Dollar Regional/Medium Neutral 

Sites Beyond 10km of the Application Area 



10.4.135 There is one World Heritage Site (WHS) located between 10 and 15 km from the application 

area. This is the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site. Parts of the WHS are located within the 

ZTV of the proposed wind energy development. Much of the WHS is located to the south of the 

large settlements on the south side of the Forth and these and other infrastructure reduce 

views to the north. 

10.4.136 The proposed wind energy development would have no physical impact on the World 

Heritage Site and the magnitude of impact on its setting would be negligible. The effect of the 

proposed wind energy development on the World Heritage Site would be slight adverse. 

Table 10.41 World Heritage Sites Beyond 10km of the Application Area and Partly Within 

ZTV 

Site Name 

Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

Antonine Wall National/Very High Slight Adverse 




10.5.1 There are a number of wind energy developments, either in planning, consented or 

operational, that have been identified as having the potential to create cumulative impacts 

when combined with the application area. Wind energy developments within a maximum radius 




of 20 kilometres have been considered as beyond this distance cumulative effects are unlikely 

to be significant. Advice from Scottish Natural Heritage Guidance on the Cumulative Effects of 

Windfarms 2005 notes that An assessment of cumulative effects associated with a specific 

development proposal should be limited to the effects of the proposal in combination with: 

• existing development, either built or under construction; 

• approved development, awaiting implementation; and 

• proposals awaiting determination within the planning process, and thus for which 

design information is in the public domain. Proposals and design information may be 

deemed to be in the public domain once an application has been lodged, and the 

decision-making authority has formally registered the application. 

10.5.2 The guidance (paragraph 19) goes on to note that cumulative assessment should normally be 

limited to the categories set out in paragraph 18. 

10.5.3 On this basis, wind energy developments (excluding those in scoping) within a 20 kilometres 

radius of the proposed wind energy development are assessed and shown in Table 10.42, 

below: 

Table 10.42 Wind Energy Developments within 20km of the Application Area 


development 

LCU 

Grid Ref. 

(approx.) 

Distance to 


(approx.) 

No. of 

turbines 

Installed 

Greenknowes Ochil Hills NN 968 075 16km 18 95 

Earlsburn Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Hills NS 703 897 20km 14 115 

ASDA depot, New Denny/Falkirk Urban Fringe NS 901 820 9km 1 120 

Bankside Ind' Estate 

Craigengelt Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Hills NS 724 866 17km 8 125 

Burnfoot Hill Ochil Hills NN 905 035 10km 13 102 

Application 

Muirpark Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Hills NS 736 875 16km 11 127 

Height 

to tip 

(m) 

10.5.4 Greenknowes is located some 16 kilometres north of the proposed wind energy development. 

The combined ZVI with the proposed Greenknowes development is shown on Figure CZTV 

9.2. This indicates that none of the area within 3 kilometre radius and little of the area within a 

10 kilometre radius of the proposed wind energy development would lie within the combined 

ZTV. The combined the cumulative effect is likely to be negligible. 

10.5.5 Earlsburn is located some 20 kilometres west of the proposed wind energy development. The 

combined ZVI with the proposed Earlsburn development is shown on Figure CZTV 9.4. This 

indicates that much of the area within a 3 kilometre radius of the proposed wind energy 

development would lie within the combined ZTV. Given the distance between the proposed 

Earlsburn development and the proposed wind energy development however, the cumulative 

effect is unlikely to be significant. 




10.5.6 ASDA depot, New Bankside Industrial Estate, is located some 9 kilometres south of the 

proposed wind energy development. The development comprises a single turbine on a site 

with intervening development between it and the proposed wind energy development. Although 

a number of cultural heritage features are located within the combined ZTV, it is unlikely that 

there would be a significant cumulative effect on the settings of cultural heritage features. 

10.5.7 Craigengelt is located 17 kilometres south west of the proposed wind energy development. 

The combined ZVI with the proposed Craigengelt development is shown on Figure CZTV 9.7. 

This indicates that the area within a 3 kilometre radius of the proposed wind energy 


Craigengelt development and the proposed wind energy development, the cumulative effect is 

unlikely to be significant. In addition it is noted that although Bannockburn Battlefield, part of 

which lies within a conservation area, is located within the combined ZTV, in practice 

intervening development means that the cumulative effect is unlikely to be significant. 

10.5.8 Burnfoot Hill is located some 10.2 kilometres north of the proposed wind energy development. 

The combined ZVI with the proposed Burnfoot Hill development is shown on Figure CZTV 9.8. 

This indicates that none of the area within a 10 kilometre radius of the proposed wind energy 

development would lie within the combined ZTV. The combined the cumulative effect is likely 

to be negligible. 

10.5.9 Muirpark is located some 16 kilometres west of the proposed wind energy development. The 

combined ZVI with the proposed Muirpark development is shown on Figure CZTV 9.16. This 

indicates that much of the area within a 3 kilometre radius of the proposed wind energy 


Muirpark development and the proposed wind energy development, the cumulative effect is 

unlikely to be significant. 





10.6.2 Mitigation measures for the proposed wind energy development have been incorporated into 

the site design. The turbine layout has considered both direct and indirect impacts on cultural 

heritage features while the locations of access tracks, the construction compound etc. has 

given to consideration the likely effect on below ground archaeology. 


10.7.1 Any direct effect on cultural heritage features, including identified and unidentified on-site 

archaeology would be permanent and non-reversible. No such effects are predicted. 

10.7.2 Any effect on the settings of cultural heritage features would be temporary and reversible 

following the end of use and de-commissioning of the proposed wind energy development. 





10.8.1 Significant effects are noted on two cultural heritage receptors (which are in effect different 

designations of the same site).These are: 

Table 10.43 Summary of Significant Effects 

Identification 

Number 

Site Name Site Type Importance/ 

Sensitivity 

Significance of Effect Prior to 


90073 Clackmannan Tower SAM National/High Moderate Adverse 

1946 Clackmannan Tower Cat A listed Building National/High Moderate Adverse 

10.8.2 These effects would begin during the construction stage of the project and continue through 

the operational stage. 

10.8.3 Following de-commissioning, the effect of the proposed development on cultural heritage 

features would revert to its current status. 

10.8.4 Other than those stated above, no significant effects on the settings of cultural heritage 

features requiring mitigation have been identified, as summarised in Table 10.43, above. 

10.9 Proposed Monitoring 

10.9.1 No monitoring is warranted or proposed. 


10.10.1 The proposed wind turbines are located on previously disturbed ground and avoid direct 

impacts on any above ground cultural heritage receptors or below ground archaeological 

features within the application area. 

10.10.2 No mitigation measures against direct impacts are necessary or proposed within the 

boundaries of the proposed wind energy development. 

10.10.3 Other than those stated above in Table 10.43, no significant effects have been identified 

requiring mitigation and no mitigation measures against direct impacts are necessary or 

proposed within the boundaries of the proposed wind energy development. It is noted that in 

each case, effects are a function of the sensitivity of the receptor, rather than a great 

magnitude of impact. Effects would subsist for the lifetime of the turbines. 

10.10.4 Following de-commissioning, the effect of the proposed wind energy development on cultural 

heritage features would revert to its current status. 


Anon. 2007 An Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. Vol. I & II Historic Scotland 

Historic Scotland (2009). Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP). 

HMSO (1979). Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act. 




HMSO (1997). Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act. 

IFA. (1999). Policy and guidance for archaeological desk-based assessment, Institute of Field 

Archaeologists. 

Lambrick, G. 2008 Setting Standards: A Review, IFA Working Group on the Setting of Cultural 

Heritage Features. 

Scottish Executive (2002). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 45, Renewable Energy Technologies. 




11 Ecology 


11.1.1 This chapter describes the existing ecological characteristics within the application area and 

the wider environment, up to 10km from the application area. It examines the predicted effects 

of the proposed wind energy development on sites designated for their nature conservation 

importance as well as legally protected and notable habitats and species of flora and fauna 

during the construction, operation and de-commissioning phases of the project. Where 

potentially adverse effects are predicted, mitigation measures are proposed in order to avoid or 

reduce these effects. 

11.1.2 The assessment is based on information on the important wildlife interests within the study 

area which has been gathered through a combination of desktop study, consultation and 

specially commissioned field surveys. Details of the existing information, consultation, survey 

methods and results are provided below followed by an ecological assessment of effects on 

Valued Ecological Receptors (VER’s), identification of mitigation and enhancement measures 

and explanation of any residual ecological effects on any important habitats and species 

arising from the proposed wind energy development. 

11.1.3 Given the influence of underlying geology, landform and hydrology on habitats, detailed 

consideration has also been given to these features to inform habitat interpretation and 

impacts on aquatic/riparian wildlife. These are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 13: 

Hydrology, Geology and Hydrogeology. 

11.1.4 Description and assessment of bird interests at the application area are covered separately in 

Chapter 12: Ornithology. 

Key Factors 

11.1.5 The following key factors have been addressed in this chapter: 

• the existing wildlife interests of the site (i.e. the baseline conditions); 

• European and UK protected species (other than birds) on and in the vicinity of the 

site; 

• other notable habitats and species of nature conservation importance (e.g. local 

BAPs and Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL)); 

• habitats, including EU Habitats Directive Annex I and UK Biodiversity Action Plan 

(BAP) Priority Habitats on and in the vicinity of the site; 

• present land use and recent land use history on the site; and 

• designated sites near to the site. 





11.2.1 This assessment has involved the following: 

• reference to relevant legislation, policy and guidance; 

• consultation with relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies; 

• detailed desktop studies and site surveys to establish the existing important wildlife 

interests on-site, and in its immediate surroundings; 

• evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed wind energy development on 

current wildlife interests both direct and indirectly; 

• evaluation of the significance of these effects by consideration of the sensitivity of 

these interests, the potential magnitude of these effects and the probability of these 

effects occurring; 

• consideration of the extent, magnitude, duration, timing, frequency and reversibility 

of potential impacts; 

• identification of appropriate measures to avoid and mitigate against any potential 

adverse effects resulting from the proposed wind energy development; and 

• the evaluation of residual significance of the predicted effects following mitigation. 


11.2.2 This assessment takes into account the requirements of the following legislation, regulations 

and other guidance, in addition to that discussed in Chapter 5 (Legislative and Policy Context): 

• Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora 

and Fauna (the "Habitats Directive"); 

• Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (the "Habitats Regulations"); 

• Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007; 

• Scottish Government (2010) Guidance Notes for Application for a licence for 

European protected species. V 3.2 April 2010; 

• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; 

• Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004; 

• Protection of Badgers Act 1992; 

• Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms and Small Scale 

Hydroelectric Schemes 1 ; 




• Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom 2 ; 

• Eurobats Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Wind Farm Projects 3 ; 

• Natural England Guidance on Bats and onshore wind turbines 4 ; 

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP); 

• Scottish Biodiversity List; and 

• the Clackmannanshire, Fife, Stirlingshire and Falkirk Local Biodiversity Action Plans 

(LBAPs). 

Protected Species Legislation 

11.2.3 European protected species are those that are protected by the EC Habitats and Species 

Directive 92/43/EEC. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 translates 

this European legislation into UK law while The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) 

Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007 provides further specification on the classification of 

an offence in respect of disturbance to a European Protected Species. 

11.2.4 This legislation makes it an offence to deliberately or recklessly disturb European protected 

species. Their places of shelter are fully protected, and it is an offence to damage, destroy or 

obstruct access to or otherwise deny the animal use of a breeding site or resting site, whether 

deliberately or not. It is also an offence to disturb a European protected species in a manner 

that is, or in circumstances which are likely to, significantly affect the local distribution or 

abundance of the species, or impair its ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or rear or 

otherwise care for its young. Examples of species which are covered by this legislation include 

all bat species, otter and great crested newt. Any activity which is likely to affect these species 

requires prior consultation with the relevant statutory nature conservation organisation. In 

Scotland, this means that Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) should be consulted. 

11.2.5 A licence from the Scottish Government is required in case of potential disturbance of 

European Protected Species or damage or destruction of a resting site as a result of work 

activities. With regard to the proposed wind energy development, under Regulation 44 2(e) of 

the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 licences may be granted for: 

• preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding 

public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial 

consequences of primary importance for the environment. 

11.2.6 Importantly, under Regulation 44 (3), in order for a licence to be successful, two tests must be 

satisfied: 

• there is no satisfactory alternative (including retaining the status quo); and 

• the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of 

the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. 




The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 

11.2.7 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides protection to a range of species and habitats. 

The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act in 

Scotland. 

11.2.8 Section 9 of the Act provides protection to certain animal species. Enhanced protection is 

provided for species listed in Schedule 5. Those species potentially present in close proximity 

to the proposed wind energy development include water vole. 

11.2.9 It is an offence to recklessly kill, injure or take animals listed in Schedule 5, with the exception 

of water vole. Water voles are protected in respect of section 9(4) only, meaning that water 

vole habitat is protected, although the animals themselves are not. 

11.2.10 It is also an offence to recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place used for 

shelter or breeding. Any works which may potentially cause disturbance to these species 

requires prior consultation with SNH. 

11.2.11 Section 13 provides protection to wild plants. It is an offence to uproot or posses or offer for 

sale certain species listed in Schedule 8. It is also an offence to allow or encourage certain 

species such as Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed to grow in the wild. 

11.2.12 Part two of the Wildlife and Countryside Act provides protection for certain areas which are 

considered to be of special interest for their flora, fauna, geology or physiographical features. 

It is an offence to damage any sites designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 

Any works which may potentially cause disturbance to these sites requires prior consultation 

with SNH. 

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 

11.2.13 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 provides full legal protection to badgers and their resting 

places. In Scotland, this legislation was updated by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 

2004. 

11.2.14 It is an offence to recklessly take, injure or kill a badger, or destroy or cause disturbance to 

their setts. SNH interprets the legislation in such a way that any sett within an active badger 

territory is afforded legal protection, whether it shows signs of recent use or not. In addition, 

badgers are afforded protection from cruel ill-treatment. This has been defined to include 

preventing badgers access to their setts as well as causing the loss of significant foraging 

resources within a badger territory. 

11.2.15 Licences are available for the disturbance or destruction of setts. SNH must be consulted prior 

to any works which could cause disturbance to badgers. 

Consultations 

11.2.16 To ensure comprehensive coverage of ecological issues, key conservation organisations and 

statutory bodies were contacted during the consultation and scoping process. The purpose of 




the consultation was to establish requirements for new ecological surveys and provide 

consultees with the opportunity to offer guidance and advice on survey methodologies, identify 

potential development design modifications that might address ecological sensitivities and 

identify preferred mitigation and enhancement. The consultation process also sought to 

identify and obtain relevant existing ecological data and determine any notable information 

gaps. A summary of the key points raised by consultees is given in Table 11.1. Any ecological 

information provided during the consultation process (e.g. protected species records) is 

presented in the Baseline Conditions (Section 11.3). 

Table 11.1 Scoping Responses 

Organisation 

Scottish Natural 

Heritage (SNH) 

Scottish 

Environment 

Protection Agency 

(SEPA) 

Royal Society for the 

Protection of Birds 

(RSPB Scotland) 


Council 

Fife Council 


Scottish Badgers 

Central Scotland Bat 

Group 

Fife and Kinross 

Scotland Bat Group 

Response 

27 January 2010 - Matthew Topsfield (Renewable Energy Casework Advisor) recommended 

checking the NBN gateway website and contacting the local Biological Records Centre for 

plant and animal species records that might exist for the area. The requirement for a Phase 1 

Habitat Survey was outlined as well as a more detailed National Vegetation Classification 

(NVC) survey should any important semi-natural habitats be identified on-site. Protected 

mammal surveys for otter, bats and badger were also advised, and links to SNH’s online 

guidance in respect to otters and development projects 5 

and Natural England’s guidance 

regarding bats and onshore wind farms 4 was also provided. In addition, a survey buffer of 

500m was stipulated in respect to badgers. It was also mentioned that the RSPB is currently 

seeking to acquire the wetland habitat adjacent to the proposed wind energy development site 

as a reserve. 

8 June 2010 - Colin Castle (Area Officer) informed that SNH was satisfied with the proposed 

approach to bat surveys and that this should be sufficient to inform the assessment of impacts 

on bats. A query was raised regarding the potential suitability of a refuse destructor building to 

the north of the site. 

18 January 2010 - Sean Caswell (Planning Unit Manager) requested full consideration of 

pollution prevention issues and highlighted SEPA’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs) 

which are available on its website. 

4 September 2009 - Yvonne Boles (Central Scotland Conservation Officer) highlighted that 

RSPBs main concerns relate to birds (see Ornithology: Chapter 12). It was confirmed that 

RSPB is currently seeking to acquire the Forthbank wetland as a reserve. 

22 March 2010 - Keith Johnstone (Planning Officer) was satisfied that the general approach 

regarding ecology was acceptable. With regard to protected species it was requested that the 

application site and a buffer of 500 metres around it should be surveyed. It was also noted 

that the assessment should; 

• account for species included in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and the Biodiversity Action 

Plans for Clackmannanshire and Fife, Falkirk and Stirling Councils; and, 

• make reference to the local wildlife sites outlined in the Clackmannanshire Local Plan as 

well as any UK/Scottish priority habitats in close proximity to the site. 

2 February 2010 - Angus Dodds (Planning Officer) concluded that the approach proposed in 

the Scoping Report was reasonable and identified the main ecological issues. 

27 January 2010 - David Throughgood (Planning Officer) made no comments in relation to 

ecological issues in Stirling Council’s response. 

16 July 2009 - Ian Hutchison (Species Protection Officer) strongly recommended that a full 

badger survey was conducted to inform any impact assessment. 

No response received. 


11.2.17 In addition the following nature conservation organisations were contacted for any information 

on non-statutory designated sites and/or records of legally protected or notable species that 

they may hold within 2km of the application area: 

• Scottish Badgers; 

• Central Scotland Bat Group; 

• Fife and Kinross Bat Group; 

• Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT); 




• Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI); 

• Clackmannanshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan Officer; 

• Clackmannanshire Countryside Ranger Service; and 

• Falkirk Local Biodiversity Action Plan Officer. 

11.2.18 Details of the information provided by these consultees is presented in the Baseline Conditions 

(Section 11.3). 

Desktop Study 

11.2.19 A desktop study was undertaken to identify statutory designated sites within 10km of the 

application area (Figure 11.1) and search for records of, and suitable habitat for, protected 

species within 2km. 

11.2.20 Designated sites were identified using MAGIC Map 6 and SNH’s designated site datasets 7 while 

information on these sites was gathered from SNH’s Sitelink website 8 . Meanwhile, historical 

records of protected species were searched for on the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) 

gateway database 9 . In addition, aerial photography and base maps were used to identify any 

habitat features of note within the site and surrounding environs and assess their suitability for 

various relevant protected species. Other sources of existing information were also collated 

from consultee records. 

11.2.21 In addition, the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) 10 , Scottish Biodiversity List 11 and 

Clackmannanshire Local BAP 12 were checked to identify priority species which were likely to 

be present within the study area. At the request of Clackmannanshire Council (see Table 11.1. 

Scoping Responses) the LBAPs of Falkirk 13 , Stirlingshire 14 and Fife 15 were also checked for 

priority species which may be present within the study area. 

Field Surveys 

Extended Phase 1 Surveys 

11.2.22 An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was conducted in July 2009 16 . The survey followed the 

methodology described in JNCC (2003) 17 and included the application area and immediately 

adjacent areas. The purpose of the 2009 study was to: 

• identify the dominant habitat types within the survey area; and 

• record sightings, field evidence and suitable habitat for protected or notable species 

of flora and fauna. 

11.2.23 The Phase 1 Habitat Survey did not identify any important semi-natural habitats on-site. 

Therefore, the requirement for a more detailed NVC survey, as suggested by SNH in their 

Scoping Response (see Table 11.1), was not considered to be necessary. 




Protected Species Surveys 

11.2.24 Based on the recommendations of consultees, information collected during the desktop study 

and the identification of suitable habitat during the extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, the 

following protected species surveys were undertaken to inform this assessment; 

• Bat Surveys (scoping, roost activity and foraging activity); 

• Otter (Lutra lutra) Survey; and 

• Badger (Meles meles) Survey. 

11.2.25 These surveys were undertaken by RPS during 2010 to determine the nature and extent of the 

species’ activity within and surrounding the application area. 

11.2.26 Other protected species considered during the course of the baseline study included great 

crested newt (Triturus cristatus) and water vole (Arvicola terrestris). 

11.2.27 The survey area for each of the ecological items covered in this chapter takes into 

consideration the need for micro-siting of proposed wind turbine locations. 

11.2.28 The combination of desktop study results and existing data on the site ensured the necessary 

level of information was available to establish a reasonable understanding of the site and its 

current ecological characteristics. 

11.2.29 The methodologies for the various protected species surveys and descriptions of the relevant 

survey areas are described below: 

Bat Survey: Methodology 

11.2.30 Bat mortality has been identified as a potential risk, from direct collisions and from ‘barotrauma’ 

in the wake of the blades 18 . 

11.2.31 An initial desktop study was undertaken prior to surveys, using basemaps and aerial 

photographs to assess the potential value of the site and its surroundings for bats and inform 

the initial design of survey methods. 

11.2.32 The desktop study also involved identifying bat species known to occur locally, using various 

published sources such as ES's from nearby developments, consultee data, the National 

Biodiversity Network, the Bat Atlas 19 and Scottish Bats 20 . 

11.2.33 Four species present in the area (NBN data) are considered at medium or high risk from wind 

turbines 4 : soprano pipistrelle, common pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle and noctule. The latter 

three species are seldom likely to be encountered at the site, due to their scarcity and the low 

suitability of the habitats present while soprano pipistrelle is a common and widespread 

species throughout the UK. Thus, the site is unlikely to be of high importance for bats. 

11.2.34 Informed by this background data, an initial constraints survey was undertaken on site (20 April 

2010) to check the habitats present and any structures of value or potential value to bats. This 




assessment of bat roost potential was undertaken following the guidelines published by 

English Nature 21 and the Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines 22 . 

11.2.35 The initial surveys carried out in April and early June, involving a dusk commuting watch and 

walked transects, revealed only low levels of bat activity at the site. 

11.2.36 Following the initial assessment, as noted in Table 11.1, SNH was consulted on and agreed to 

the bat survey aims, rationale and methodology described below. 

11.2.37 The survey aims were: to identify any high risk species present on site in the key periods 

during maternity and during mating/dispersal/migration; assess their activity level; locate roosts 

at significant risk of disturbance; and investigate the potential risk level of each species. 

11.2.38 The methodology for the surveys is adapted from the most recent Natural England and 

Eurobats guidelines 3,4 . Walked transect survey routes were designed based on the desktop 

study results and the initial site walkover to cover the habitats within the application area. 

Dawn and dusk surveys were used to monitor for commuting routes across the site and to 

indicate the presence of any significant nearby roosts. Control surveys were undertaken offsite 

during driven transect surveys to provide comparison of bat activity levels in some 

comparable nearby habitats, and these survey locations are shown in Figure 11.2. Passive 

monitoring using Anabat detectors was undertaken for periods of 2 weeks in the maternity 

season (between 15 and 28 July 2010) and again in the dispersal season (between 30 August 

and 15 September 2010), covering the development area. 

11.2.39 The survey routes and point count stops are marked on Figure 11.2. Point surveys of five 

minutes duration were undertaken along the route, at the proposed turbine locations and at 

representative areas of the habitats on site. 

11.2.40 Subsequent to the initial assessment visit in April, the site was visited on six separate 

occasions: 28 April, 01 June (delayed May visit), 24 June, 27 July, 29 August and a final visit 

on 20 September 2010. Transects were walked by experienced bat surveyors using Duet bat 

detectors and Zen MP3/WAV recording devices. 

11.2.41 Dusk commuting watches were undertaken at two vantage point locations (Figure 11.2) prior to 

the start of walked transects. The surveys started 30mins before sunset and had duration of 

1hour – 1.5hours depending on weather conditions. 

11.2.42 Driven transects and points, with the engine turned off to reduce disturbance, were undertaken 

on 1 June, 24 June, 29 August and 20 September 2010 during which bat passes were 

recorded by a bat surveyor out of the window of a slow driving car (15m/h) as recommended in 

the BCT Good Practice Guidelines 22 Error! Bookmark not defined., using a Duet bat detector 

and a Zen MP3/WAV recording device. The driven transect route is shown in Figure 11.2. 

11.2.43 Recordings from transects and dusk commuting watches were analysed with specialised 

software (BatSound, Wavesurfer, Analook) to determine/confirm bat species present. 




Otter Survey: Methodology 

11.2.44 The otter survey was undertaken by two RPS ecologists on 7 May 2010. The survey involved 

systematically searching for otter field signs (see below for details) and included all areas of 

suitable habitat (e.g. watercourses, waterbodies, coastal margins and associated terrestrial 

habitats) within 500m of the application area as requested by Clackmannanshire Council 23 . 

This survey distance exceeds the standard 250m survey area advised by SNH in its on-line 

otter survey guidance 5 . 

11.2.45 The only exceptions to the coverage of the survey were; 

• the exclusion of habitats on the eastern side of the Black Devon (the opposite side 

of the watercourse from the proposed wind energy development site); and, 

• areas of dense, tussocky grassland located over 100m from the northern boundary 

of the proposed wind energy development site. 

11.2.46 The reasoning for these exceptions is explained below. 

11.2.47 The land on the opposite side of the Black Devon is dominated by an open landscape of arable 

fields with occasional minor drainage ditches situated behind the protective coastal defence 

embankments of the Forth Estuary and the Black Devon. Although it was considered likely 

that otters would occupy this side of the river, the habitat was largely considered to be suboptimal 

for otters, particularly in terms of the availability of suitable habitat for resting sites (e.g. 

holts). In addition, this part of the survey area was considered to be sufficiently segregated 

from the development site such that otters would be unlikely to be affected by any proposed 

works. Furthermore, the few areas which were considered to provide suitable habitat for 

resting sites (e.g. isolated scrub) were located over 50m from the application area and 

therefore beyond the maximum critical distance within which a European Protected Species 

licence for otters would be required from the Scottish Government. 

11.2.48 With regard to the dense, tussocky grassland to the north of the application area, the density 

and extent of this expansive grassland habitat was such that it was considered extremely 

unlikely that any otter evidence, let alone potential resting sites (i.e. couches, the suitability and 

potential for holts to be present was negligible) would be discovered. Therefore, the survey 

focussed on all areas located within 100m of the northern boundary of the application area. 

This was considered sufficient since any resting sites located beyond this survey area would 

be beyond the critical 50m distance for which a European Protected Species licence for otters 

would be required from the Scottish Government. 

11.2.49 The otter survey area is shown in Figure 11.3. 

11.2.50 During the survey, evidence of otter presence and activity was recorded and mapped. Otter 

field signs are described in Bang & Dahlstrøm 24 and SNH (2008) 5 , and include: 

• holts; 

• couches; 




• prints; 

• spraints; and, 

• feeding remains. 

11.2.51 Any of these field signs are diagnostic of the presence of otters although spraints are the most 

reliably identifiable evidence of the presence of this species. Where resting sites were 

discovered, then an indication of their importance was recorded. This was undertaken by 

evaluating spraint freshness, prints and paths or niche availability and quality of the feature. It 

should be noted, that it is often not possible to identify couches with confidence unless other 

field signs (e.g. spraints) are also present. 

11.2.52 Otter surveys in coastal locations should be conducted on the low tide thereby allowing safe 

access along the upper foreshore where otter activity is most likely to be evident. Surveys 

should also be conducted in fine weather conditions and should not follow periods of heavy 

rain which could wash away any otter field evidence. The survey of 7 May 2010 was 

conducted in fine weather conditions during the retreating/low tide. 

Badger Survey: Methodology 

11.2.53 The badger survey was undertaken by two RPS ecologists on 26 April 2010 and was 

completed on 7 May 2010. The survey involved searches for badger field signs (see below for 

details) and included all areas of suitable habitat (e.g. woodland, scrub and field margins) 

within 500m of the application area as requested by SNH 25 and Clackmannanshire Council 23 . 

11.2.54 The only exception to the coverage of the survey was the exclusion of habitats on the eastern 

side of the Black Devon; the opposite side of the watercourse from the proposed development 

site. This area is dominated by arable fields as described above and while this habitat can be 

suitable for badgers this part of the survey area was considered to be sufficiently segregated 

from the development site such that any badgers present on this side of the river would be 

unlikely to be affected by any proposed works. Furthermore, the few areas which were 

considered to provide suitable habitat for sett excavation were located over 30m from the 

application area boundary and therefore beyond the maximum critical distance within which a 

development licence for badgers would be required from SNH. 

11.2.55 The badger survey area is shown in Figure 11.3. 

11.2.56 During the survey, evidence of badger presence and activity was recorded and mapped. 

Badger field signs are described in Neal & Cheeseman 26 , Bang & Dahlstrøm 24 in SNH (2001) 27 

and include; 

• setts (including main, subsidiary and outlier setts); 

• latrines (dung pits used as territorial markers); 

• prints; 

• foraging signs (snuffle holes); and, 




• guard hairs snagged on wire fencing. 

11.2.57 Any of these field signs are diagnostic of the presence of badgers. 

Other Statutory Protected or Legally Controlled Species 

11.2.58 An assessment (both desktop and field observations) was made for the suitability of habitats to 

support great crested newts and water voles. 

Great Crested Newt 

11.2.59 Great crested newts require fairly large, deep ponds with a good cover of aquatic vegetation 

and a low density of fish and bird predators. They also require an availability of suitable 

terrestrial foraging and hibernating habitat within the surrounding area. 

11.2.60 The only areas of standing water within 250m of the application area are the series of shallow, 

recently-created wetland lagoons which lie approximately 100m to the north of the former 

landfill site. However, the habitat conditions provided by these lagoons were considered 

unsuitable for supporting great crested newts. The water depth within the lagoons was very 

shallow and below the optimal 1.0m-3.5m maximum central depth 28 and they possess 

negligible aquatic vegetation on which newts could lay their eggs. 

11.2.61 Furthermore, these wetlands were specifically created to provide a refuge for waterfowl and 

wading birds from the adjacent Forth Estuary, some of which (e.g. grey heron) are likely to 

predate great crested newts. 

11.2.62 Finally, the nearest known great crested newt colony is located at Comrie Colliery, Fife, 

approximately 9km away. This distance greatly exceeds the known natural dispersal limits of 

the species; thought to be approximately 1km from breeding ponds 29 . 

11.2.63 Consequently, it is considered that the lagoon habitat is unsuitable for great crested newts and 

that the species is unlikely to be present within or adjacent to the application area. As such, 

specific surveys for this species were not considered necessary for this assessment. 

Water Vole 

11.2.64 Optimal habitat for water voles typically includes freshwater streams and rivers and wellestablished 

pools with a depth of at least 0.5m, burrowable earth banks and an abundance of 

suitable foraging vegetation. 

11.2.65 The lagoons to the north of the restored landfill were considered to be unsuitable for water 

voles, being shallow and supporting a limited variety of suitable forage vegetation. 

11.2.66 Meanwhile the nearby River Black Devon which flows past the eastern edge of the site is also 

considered to be relatively unsuitable for water voles on account of its width, tidal nature and 

brackish conditions at high tide. 




11.2.67 No pre-existing records of water vole were provided either through the consultation responses 

or through a search of the National Biodiversity Network gateway database. 

11.2.68 Consequently, it is considered that the habitat within and adjacent to the application area is 

unsuitable for water voles and that the species is unlikely to be present. As such, specific 

surveys for this species were not considered necessary for this assessment. 

Invasive Plant Species Subject to Legal Control 

11.2.69 During the various field surveys, evidence of any invasive plant species subject to legal control 

(e.g. giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) or Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica)) 

were recorded. 


11.2.70 The section above describes the methods used to establish the baseline conditions (i.e. 

important nature conservation features on site). This section explains how the significance of 

effects on these wildlife interests is assessed. 

11.2.71 Assessing the significance of impacts on ecological interests is a staged process based on the 

2006 IEEM guidelines 30 . Although these guidelines do not provide a matrix to aid the 

determination of effect significance, a standard matrix designed for this purpose has been 

produced by RPS. This matrix is presented in Table 11.4 below and takes into consideration 

the nature conservation value of the feature which is likely to be affected along with the 

magnitude of the effect as detailed in the sections below and in Tables 11.2 and 11.3 

respectively. This use of this matrix is for reasons of clarity and does not prevent the use of 

the 2006 guidelines to determine significance through reasoned argument. 

Determining Nature Conservation Value 

11.2.72 Determining the nature conservation value of the ecological interests within the study area is 

undertaken in a systematic way using criteria that determines whether there is international, 

national, regional, local or negligible significance. The term for the ecological receptors 

affected at the site is 'Valued Ecological Receptors' (VERs). The approach to valuing the 

nature conservation level of each ecological receptor is outlined in Table 11.2. 

Table 11.2 Approach to Evaluating Nature Conservation Value of the Ecological 

Receptors at the Site 

Conservation 

Value 

International 31 

National 

Examples 

Habitats or species that form part of the cited interest within an internationally protected site, such as 

those designated under the Habitats Directive (Special Areas of Conservation - SACs) or other 

international convention (e.g. Ramsar site). 

A feature (e.g. habitat or population) which is either unique or sufficiently unusual to be considered 

as being one of the highest quality examples in an international/national context, such that the site is 

likely to be designated as a site of European importance (e.g. SAC). 

Habitats or species that form part of the cited interest within a nationally designated site, such as a 

Special Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI), or a National Nature Reserve (NNR). 


as being one of the highest quality examples in a national/regional context for which the site could 

potentially be designated as an SSSI. 




Conservation 

Value 

Regional 

Local 

Negligible 

Examples 

Presence of UKBAP habitats or species, where the action plan states that all areas of representative 

habitat, or individuals of the species should be protected. 

Habitats or species that form part of the cited interest of a Local Nature Reserve, or some local-level 

designated sites depending on specific site conditions. 


as being of nature conservation value up to a district or county context. 

Presence of LBAP habitats or species, where the action plan states that all areas of representative 

habitat, or individuals of the species should be protected. 

Habitats or species that form part of the cited interest of a local-level designated site and may be 

designated as a non-statutory Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) or the equivalent, 

e.g. Local Wildlife Site, Ancient Woodland designation. 

A feature (e.g. habitat or population) that is of nature conservation value in a local context only, with 

insufficient value to merit a formal nature conservation designation. 

Common place feature of little or no habitat/historical significance. Loss of such a feature would not 

be seen as detrimental to the ecology of the area. 

Determining Magnitude of Effect 

11.2.73 The potential effects are determined through understanding how each VER responds to the 

proposed wind energy development. The elements used to define the scale of the effect of a 

wind farm include determining: 

• the potential duration, whether short-term (95%), probable (50%-95%), unlikely (5%-50%), or extremely unlikely (



11.2.74 Any potential cumulative effects arising from other wind farms or other relevant development 

proposals are also considered. The distance considered for cumulative assessments depends 

on the existence of ecological and hydrological connectivity in the area and the species 

assessed. For this assessment a distance up to 10km was considered for designated sites 

and bats and 2km for the other VERs. 

Determining Significance of Effect 

11.2.75 The significance of the potential effects on each VER is determined by considering the value of 

each nature conservation interest and the degree to which it may be affected (the effect 

magnitude) by the proposed wind energy development, i.e. by using the Tables 11.2 and 11.3 

above. These are described as Major, Moderate, Minor and Negligible. This is presented as a 

matrix (Table 11.4). 

Table 11.4 Significance of the Effects Defined by the Relationship Between the Nature 

Conservation Value and Effect Magnitude 

Effect 

Nature Conservation Value 

Magnitude International National Regional Local Negligible 

Total/near total Major Major Major Moderate Minor 

High Major Major Major- Moderate Moderate Minor 

Medium Major Major -Moderate Moderate Moderate - Minor Minor 

Low Moderate -Minor Moderate - Minor Moderate - Minor Minor Minor 

Neutral 

No/Negligible Effect 

11.2.76 The significance of effects can be either adverse or beneficial. 

11.2.77 Effects or residual effects are considered to be significant under the Environmental Impact 

Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (EIA Regulations) if they are at a level of Moderate 

or Major significance (i.e. “a likely significant effect”). These are coloured in red and orange in 

Table 11.4 above. 

11.2.78 Some combinations of nature conservation value and effect magnitude may vary in the level of 

significance effects depending on the circumstances, which is why some of the cells in Table 

11.4 have two levels within them. This allows for professional judgement to be applied when 

identifying the level of significance. 

11.2.79 Effects/residual effects determined as negligible or minor are not considered to be significant 

with regard to the EIA Regulations. 

11.3 Baseline Conditions 

Consultation and Desk Study 

11.3.1 Table 11.5 presents a summary of the information received from consultees during the 

consultation process. Further details relating to the information provided is presented below. 




Table 11.5 Ecological Information and Records Received 

Organisation 



Scottish Badgers 

Central Scotland Bat 

Group 

Fife and Kinross Bat 

Group 

Scottish Wildlife Trust 

(SWT) 

Botanical Society of the 

British Isles (BSBI) 


Council 

Clackmannanshire Local 

Biodiversity Action Plan 

Officer 


Countryside Ranger 

Service 

Falkirk Local Biodiversity 

Action Plan Officer 

Designated Sites 

Response 

4 August 2009 - Mark Moore (Regional Manager) advised that SNH holds no records of 

any protected species on the proposed site. 

2 June 2010: Colin Castle (Area Officer): confirmed that SNH hold a number of pipistrelle 

bat roosts records for houses in Alloa and Clackmannan, approximately 2km away. 

16 July 2009 - Ian Hutchison (Species Protection Officer) confirmed that Scottish Badgers 

hold no records of the species for the site, or within a 1km buffer of it. However, it was 

noted that this probably reflects a lack of recording activity in the area rather than a 

complete absence of badgers. 



4 August 2009 - Gill Calder identified three recognised wildlife sites within 2km of the 

Forthbank site (Alloa Inches SWT Reserve, Pond Wood and Dunmore Moss and Wood) 

and provided information on the wildlife interests of the former two. 

August 2009 - Liz Lavery (BSBI plant recorders for Vice-County 87 (including 

Clackmannanshire)) provided a report identifying rare and important plants and habitats 

which were known or likely to occur within or surrounding the application area. 

22 March 2010 - Keith Johnstone (Planning Officer) identified that there was no known 

badger activity in the locality of the site. 

No response received to date. Position understood to be recently vacated (see 

Clackmannanshire Countryside Ranger Service response below). 

16 June & 28 July 2010 - Lisa Ford (Countryside Ranger) provided information on Black 

Devonmouth Lagoons Local Wildlife Site. She also informed that there were no known 

records for the search area and that the Clackmannanshire LBAP Officer position had 

recently been vacated. 

22 July 2010 (e-mail) - Anna Perks (Biodiversity Officer) provided detailed information on 

Dunmore Moss and Wood as well as providing available records of protected species 

although none of these were within the 2km search area. 

Statutory Designated Sites 

11.3.2 All statutory designated sites within 10km of the application area are listed below (Table 11.6) 

and shown in Figure 11.1. 

Table 11.6 Statutory Designated Sites Within 10km of the Application Area 

Site Name Distance from Site Reason for Designation 

Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar Sites 

Firth of Forth SPA, Approx. 720m to This site is of international importance for its wintering waterfowl 

Ramsar Site 

the south and assemblage and for nationally and/or internationally important 

approx. 1km to the populations of some of these species. Given its ornithological 

west 

importance further details regarding this site are provided in Chapter 

12: Ornithology. 

River Teith SAC 9.6km (west) This site is designated for the nationally important populations of sea 

lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis), 

brook lamprey (L. planeri) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) which it 

supports. 

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 

Firth of Forth SSSI 

Gartmorn Dam 

SSSI 

Less than 1km to 

the south 

3.5km (north east) 

This SSSI is notified for its coastland and grassland habitats, botanical 

species, population of wintering wildfowl and waders, breeding birds, 

and invertebrates. Due to its ornithological importance further details 

regarding this site are provided in Chapter 12: Ornithology. 

A large area of open water surrounded by marginal vegetation, reed 

swamp and areas of broadleaved woodland. The site is also used as a 

wintering area for waterfowl. 

Linn Mill SSSI 3.6km (north east) This site consists of relatively undisturbed long-established mixed valley 

woodland with dwarf shrub heath ground flora and areas of alder 

swamp. 

Wester Moss SSSI 4.8km (west) A large and relatively undisturbed active raised bog which supports a 

variety of representative floral species. 




Site Name Distance from Site Reason for Designation 

Craigleith & Myreton 

Hill SSSI 

6.3km (north) The slopes of Craigleith and Myreton Hill comprise a range of habitats 

including remnant ash woodland, neutral and basic grasslands, bog and 

wet flushes which support a variety of associated species. 

Craigmad Wood 

SSSI 

6.1km (east) 

Designated for its woodland and heathland habitats, this site comprises 

areas of long-established semi-natural mixed valley woodland, acid 

oakwood and lowland dwarf shrub heath. Lowland heath is a rare and 

declining habitat throughout Central Region and Craigmad contains the 

largest example of this habitat in Clackmannanshire. On drier acid 

ground are areas of mature long-established oak woodland with a 

characteristic ground flora. 

Mill Glen SSSI 7.1km (north) Designated for its geological features - not relevant. 

Balquhidderock 

Wood SSSI 

7.8 km (east) A small remnant of mixed deciduous wet woodland comprising alder 

and oak which, despite its size, has a naturally diverse structure and 

supports an exceptionally large number of vascular plant species. 

Carron Dams SSSI 7.8km (south) The fenland habitat of this site supports rich associated floral 

communities which are locally rare and represents one of the most 

extensive areas of its kind in Central Scotland. Along with the 

associated open water and woodland habitats the site also supports 

breeding and wintering birds. 

Abbey Craig SSSI 8.3km (north west) A diverse mixed broad-leaved woodland dominated by ash and 

sycamore located on the basaltic slopes of a volcanic rock outcrop near 

Stirling, one of the largest examples of this type of woodland in that 

area. The site also supports an outstanding fauna of beetles. 

Lockshaw Mosses 

SSSI 

8.4km (east) 

This site consists of a series of raised lowland mires which support a 

variety of associated floral communities and invertebrate species 

including some locally and nationally rare species. 

Alderwood and mixed alderwood with ash, birch and willow with 

characteristic ground flora. 

Damhead Wood 8.9km (north east) 

SSSI 

Dollar Glen SSSI 9.9km (north) A deep, narrow, steep-sided gorge, supporting long-established, seminatural 

deciduous woodland and acid grassland. 

11.3.3 There are no statutory designated sites within the application area. The closest is the Firth of 

Forth SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI which lies approximately 720m from the application area 

boundary at its closest point. This complex of sites is primarily designated for their bird 

interests and as such their habitats and qualifying features are discussed in more detail in 


Non-Statutory Designated Sites & Nature Reserves 

11.3.4 The following provides details of all non-statutory designated sites identified within 2km of the 


Black Devonmouth Lagoons Wildlife Site 

11.3.5 This complex of freshwater and slightly brackish lagoons is located within 100m to the north of 

the application area. The wetland was created between the late 1990s and early 2000s to 

provide high tide roosting habitat for waterfowl and wading birds from the adjacent Forth 

Estuary. Further details relating to the bird interests of this site are provided in Chapter 12: 

Ornithology. 

Pond Wood Wildlife Site 

11.3.6 This SWT assessed wildlife site is located approximately 775m to the north of the application 

area and is situated along the River Black Devon. It consists of semi-natural broadleaved 

woodland dominated by sycamore, elm, ash and birch, conifer (spruce) plantation and an 

associated pond. 




Dunmore Moss and Wood Wildlife Site 

11.3.7 Dunmore Moss and Wood Wildlife Site is located approximately 1.8km due south of application 

area on the opposite side of the Forth Estuary. Dunmore Moss consists of degraded raised 

bog habitat, much of which is drained and heavily colonised by dense birch, while Dunmore 

Wood is dominated by coniferous plantation along with small areas of plantation and seminatural 

deciduous woodland and scrub. 

Alloa Inches SWT Reserve 

11.3.8 Alloa and Tullibody Inches consist of two small, low lying islands located on a large bend in the 

tidal section of the River Forth approximately 1.1km upstream of the application area. 

11.3.9 The smaller, Tullibody Inch (11ha) which is covered by common reed (Phragmites australis), is 

surrounded by deep soft mud, and is regularly inundated by the tide. 

11.3.10 Alloa Inch (39ha), which formerly consisted of productive agricultural land, is also frequently 

inundated by the tide following a breach in the seawall in 1983. This has lead to the 

establishment of the largest area of pioneer saltmarsh communities in the Forth Estuary 

including extensive areas of sea aster. There are few other relatively undisturbed upper 

estuarine fresh water/salt water transition marshes in Britain, the nearest significant examples 

being the reedbeds in the Tay and Humber Estuaries. 

11.3.11 The site has particular importance for waterfowl, particular reference to which is provided in 


Protected and Notable Habitats and Species Records 

11.3.12 The following information on protected and notable habitats and species was provided through 

consultation and desktop study searches, most notably the NBN gateway database conducted 

on 21 July 2010. 

Habitats 

11.3.13 BSBI identified that the following important habitats may occur within the application area; 

• saltmarsh (e.g. along the margins of the Forth Estuary); 

• natural deciduous woodland; 

• unimproved grassland; 

• tall fen and riparian grassland (e.g. along the River Black Devon); and, 

• area of disturbed waste ground with rare ruderal plant species. 




11.3.14 The potential presence of several habitats listed on the Clackmannanshire local BAP (e.g. 

coastal lagoons, rivers and burns, mudflats and saltmarsh and neutral grassland) was also 

mentioned. 

Otter 

11.3.15 Records provided on the NBN gateway database indicate that otters have been recorded 

historically in the area, with four records along the River Black Devon near Clackmannan 

dating back to the early to mid-1990s. The closest of these records is within approximately 

1km of the application area. 

Bats 

11.3.16 There were numerous records of soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) and common 

pipistrelle (P. pipistrellus) within 2km of the application area on the NBN gateway database. 

These records corresponded with the information provided by SNH. The NBN gateway 

database also held records of noctule bat (Nyctalus noctula) derived from national bat 

monitoring surveys, with one record c. 1km from the application area, and one c. 2.5km away. 

Great Crested Newt 

11.3.17 There were no records of great crested newt within 2km of the application area. 

Badger 

11.3.18 No records of badger were provided within 2km of the application area during the desktop 

study. 

Water Vole 

11.3.19 There were no records of water vole within 2km of the application area. 

Red Squirrel 

11.3.20 There were several records of red squirrel within Pond Wood, situated approximately 500m 

north east of the nearest part of the application area, on the NBN database. However, Pond 

Wood is the nearest tract of suitable woodland habitat to the proposed wind energy 

development and therefore red squirrels are highly unlikely to occur any closer to the 

application area than this. 

Brown Hare 

11.3.21 While there were no specific records of brown hare for the application area, there were 

historical records of this species within the wider area. Given the habitat suitability within and 




surrounding the application area there is a potential for brown hare to occur within the 


Flora 

11.3.22 BSBI provided a list of rare plant species and indicator species for the important habitats listed 

above which may occur within the application area. The potential presence of the invasive 

plant species giant hogweed and rhododendron was also highlighted. 

UK, Scottish and Local Biodiversity Habitats and Species 

11.3.23 Based on information gathered during the consultation and desktop study process, the 

following UK BAP, local BAP and Scottish Biodiversity List priority habitats and non-avian 

species are known, or have the potential, to be present within and immediately adjacent to the 

application area; 

Habitats 

• coastal saltmarsh (UK, Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, Fife); 

• intertidal mudflats (UK, Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, Fife); 

• rivers (UK); and 

• saline lagoons (UK, Clackmannanshire, Falkirk). 

Species 

• otter (UK, Scottish, Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, Stirling); 

• badger (Scottish); 

• water vole (UK, Scottish, Falkirk, Fife, Stirling); 

• soprano pipistrelle bat (UK, Scottish, Fife, Stirling); 

• common pipistrelle bat (UK, Scottish, Falkirk, Fife, Stirling); 

• noctule bat (UK, Scottish, Fife); 

• brown long-eared bat (UK, Scottish, Fife); 

• Daubenton’s bat (Scottish, Fife); 

• Natterer’s bat (Scottish, Fife); 

• Whiskered bat (Scottish, Fife); 




• brown hare (UK, Scottish, Falkirk, Stirling); 

• common toad (UK); and 

• roe deer (Scottish). 

Existing Land Use and Local Land Use Context 

11.3.24 The application area is located to the south of Alloa and is situated on the north shore of the 

Inner Forth Estuary (upstream of the Kincardine and Clackmannanshire Bridges) (see Figure 

1.1. Site Location Plan). 

11.3.25 Given its lowland, coastal location, the site lies within the characteristically wide, open 

floodplain of the lower reaches of the River Forth catchment where the predominant land use 

in the wider area surrounding the site is arable farming. The south eastern site of the 

application area is situated on a former landfill site as discussed in Chapter 1 (Introduction) 

which was capped on de-commissioning and has since been colonised by grassland and 

associated flowering plants (see habitat descriptions below). 

11.3.26 The western end of the application area is located on the south-eastern periphery of Alloa. 

Immediately south of the site is the Forth Estuary. Due to the depth of the channel at this 

location and the presence of the two bridges approximately 3km downstream, this part of the 

estuary is not accessible to any large ships and is rarely navigated by small craft. 

11.3.27 The eastern boundary of the application area is marked by the lower, tidal reaches of the River 

Black Devon. This is a minor watercourse and is not a commercially or industrially used 

waterway. Beyond the river is a flat, open area of arable fields. 

11.3.28 Finally, to the north of the application area is an area of open grassland amongst which lie 

three freshwater and slightly brackish lagoons which are part of the Clackmannanshire Council 

managed Black Devon Wetland Wildlife Site. These wetlands which have been created and 

enhanced over the last 10-15 years through local biodiversity initiatives are primarily of 

importance for waterfowl. As such, this site is the focus of potential future management 

interest from RSPB as stated in the summary of consultation responses (Table 11.1). 

Field Survey Results 

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 

11.3.29 The following provides summary descriptions of the habitats found within and immediately 

surrounding the application area. Figure 11.4 presents a Phase 1 Habitat Map of the site 

which illustrates the dominant habitat types within and immediately adjacent to the application 

area. It also identifies the location of key ecological features of interest via a series of target 

notes, descriptions for which are provided in the following text and within “Other Legally 

Protected or Invasive Species” section below. This map has been produced from information 

collected during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey with updates from subsequent ecological site 

visits (e.g. protected species surveys). 




Habitats Within the Application Area 

11.3.30 The application area consists of two open areas of relatively species-poor, semi-improved 

neutral grassland dominated by tufted hair grass (Deschampsia cespitosa) and other 

frequently occurring grasses including false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), Yorkshire-fog 

(Holcus lanatus) and common bent (Agrostis capillaris). The two grassland areas are 

connected by a rough access track (see Figure 11.4), which enters the site via a recycling 

facility at the north-western end. The track runs parallel to the Forth Estuary behind a sea 

defence embankment which is also dominated by semi-improved neutral grassland, before 

circumnavigating the larger of the two grassland areas; the site of the former landfill site. 

11.3.31 In addition to these areas of open grassland is an area to the far east of the site which also 

consists of semi-improved neutral grassland with scattered broom (Cytisus scoparius) and 

hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) scrub, occasional mature poplar (Populus sp.) trees and 

temporary wet areas. 

11.3.32 The most notable plant species located at the site was the locally rare and nationally scarce 

Cornflower (Centaurea cyanus) of which three specimens were found (see Target Note 1, 

Figure 11.4). 

11.3.33 No nationally rare plant species with a high level of legal protection were identified within the 


11.3.34 During subsequent ecological survey visits to the site in 2010, several stands of Japanese 

knotweed and giant hogweed were identified on site. Further details relating to these invasive 

species which are subject to legal control are provided below (Other Legally Protected or 

Invasive Species). 

Habitats Within 500m of the Application Area 

The Coastal Fringe of the Forth Estuary 

11.3.35 The land along the majority of the site’s coastal boundary (i.e. to the south and west of the site) 

is protected from the sea by a steep to moderate sloping embankment which is reinforced by 

sections of fitted boulders and gabion baskets topped with earth. However, around the central 

section of the site’s coastal boundary the estuarine fringe is dominated by a narrow strip of 

saltmarsh habitat approximately 5m-10m wide. 

11.3.36 The tidal range along this stretch of the coast is limited to a narrow strip of soft intertidal mud 

generally no more than 20m wide. 

The River Black Devon 

11.3.37 The eastern boundary of the application area runs roughly parallel with the Black Devon. At its 

confluence with the Forth Estuary the river is highly tidal and is characterised by a relatively 

wide (10m-15m), deep (>2m) channel consisting of soft intertidal mud which is surrounded by 




a reasonably wide, saltmarsh-dominated ‘floodplain’ flanked on both sides by flood 

embankments. 

11.3.38 Further upstream the watercourse becomes progressively less tidal, narrower (4m-5m) and 

less deep (ca. 1.5m), with a channel bed consisting of a mixture of silt and boulders. The 

watercourse itself is enclosed within steeply sloping silt and earth flood embankments which 

are frequently lined with dense, narrow bands of salt-tolerant common reed (Phragmites 

australis) and occasionally topped with scattered scrub. 

Terrestrial Habitats 

11.3.39 To the north of the site is a relatively large, expansive area of dense and tussocky, semiimproved 

neutral grassland dominated by tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa) and three 

recently created freshwater/slightly brackish wetland lagoons ranging in size from 

approximately 1ha to 8ha (see Figure 11.4). 

11.3.40 To the east and northeast of the site, on the opposite side of the Black Devon, the landscape is 

dominated by arable farmland with occasional minor drainage ditches situated behind the 

protective coastal defence and flood embankments of the Forth Estuary and the Black Devon. 

There are several inhabited and derelict farm buildings in this area, the closest of which is a 

derelict cottage located at Powside, less than 50m from the application area. There is also a 

small area of arable farmland to the far north of the site. 

11.3.41 To the west of the site the land is taken up with buildings and infrastructure of southeast Alloa. 

These include the recycling facility, a sewage works, a derelict factory and office and 

residential buildings. 

Bat Survey 

11.3.42 Surveys on-site have been analysed by season, with maternity season comprising the results 

collected between April and June, and dispersal/migration/mating season the data collected in 

August and September. 

11.3.43 A full technical report is included in Appendix 11.1, with a summary of results presented below. 

Walked Transect Surveys 

11.3.44 A minimum of three species were recorded during the surveys, with common and soprano 

pipistrelle bats recorded in the maternity season, and soprano pipistrelle and Myotis bats 

recorded in the dispersal/migration/mating season. The overall bat activity recorded is shown 


11.3.45 Soprano and common pipistrelle bats together accounted for 92% of the bat contacts recorded 

during the walked transect surveys: 80% soprano pipistrelle; 8% common pipistrelle; 12% 

pipistrelle species (which includes all those with call frequencies between soprano and 

common). Pipistrelles were recorded along all transect routes. No Nathusius’ pipistrelles were 

encountered during walked transects. 




11.3.46 Myotis bat calls accounted for 3% of the calls recorded during the transect surveys. These 

were recorded by the northern-most pond during the September transect walk. The calls were 

considered most likely to be Daubenton’s bat, given the flight behaviour observed and call 

features recorded, but this could not be confirmed. 

11.3.47 A small proportion (approximately 5%) of recorded bat calls could not be identified to species 

level. These calls were classified as pipistrelle bat (likely to be soprano or common pipistrelle), 

Myotis species, or unidentified bat species. Brown long-eared bats may also been visually 

observed on site during the July transect, based on observed flight behaviour, but no calls 

were heard or recorded and so their identity could not be confirmed. 

Driven Transects 

11.3.48 The driven transects recorded a low level of bat activity, with soprano pipistrelle being the only 

species recorded 

Dusk Commuting watches 

11.3.49 The dusk commuting watches revealed a very low level of bat activity throughout the six 

months of survey work. 

11.3.50 No commuting routes were evident; and no noctule bats were encountered. 

Automated ANABAT Recording Surveys 

11.3.51 The results from the Automated Anabat Recording Survey confirm the transect survey results 

regarding species using the site as well as usage of the site by these species, however the 

average activity levels recorded were lower than during transect surveys. 

11.3.52 The two Anabats on site in the maternity season (between 15 and 28 July) show similar 

species composition and activity level. Activity at the Anabat placed in the north of the site 

starts earlier than at the Anabat placed in the south of the site (Figure 11.2) which could 

indicate that a seasonal roost site could be near the north of the site. 

11.3.53 The data recorded by the two Anabats (C and D) during the dispersal period (30 August to 14 

September) shows a similar species composition for the site, but with slightly more activity of 

Myotis bats. However the overall bat activity appears to be much higher than during the 

maternity season, which may reflect the increased bat population once the young of the year 

are able to fly. However, it is considered that the higher levels of recording by Anabat C may 

simply reflect one or two individual bats which made regular foraging passes by the detector. 

Such behaviour was observed by surveyors during walked transect surveys, with an individual 

bat flying in repeated loops by small trees or scrub for many continuous minutes. 




Otter Survey 

11.3.54 The following provides an overview of the otter field survey results. Figure 11.6, presents the 

Otter Survey Map which illustrates the relevant features of interest via a series of target notes, 

description for which are provided in the following text. 

11.3.55 No confirmed otter evidence was detected within the application area. Indeed, the habitats 

within the application area were largely considered to be unsuitable for otters, especially the 

open semi-improved grassland which provides negligible shelter or foraging opportunities for 

the species. 

11.3.56 Otter evidence, including spraints and prints, was detected along the edge of the Forth 

Estuary, the most notable of which was a series of prints in the intertidal mud (Target Note 1, 

Figure 11.6). These appeared to connect to a narrow mammal path within the adjacent 

saltmarsh. The path ran across the saltmarsh to the site’s access track and continued on the 

opposite side towards the largest of the three freshwater lagoons (see Target Note 2, Figure 

11.6). Although there was no definitive evidence to suggest that otters use this path (i.e. 

spraints or prints) it is considered highly likely that they would. Coastal otters require a source 

of freshwater to desalinate their coats in order to maintain their insulative properties and this 

path provides direct connectivity between the estuary and the freshwater/mildly saline lagoon. 

11.3.57 Otter evidence was found along the entire survey reach of the Black Devon including 

systematic sprainting, footprints, mammal paths and an otter slide (where an animal had slid 

down the mud embankment of the Black Devon). Otter paths, confirmed by the presence of 

spraints, were detected connecting the Black Devon to the two smaller lagoons (Target Note 3 

and Target Note 4, Figure 11.6) reinforcing the importance of these freshwater habitats for 

local otters. 

11.3.58 The presence of otters along the Black Devon was further confirmed following the observation 

of a single dog otter on 14 August 2010 at Target Note 5 (see Figure 11.6) during 

ornithological surveys conducted in associated with this project. 

11.3.59 However, despite the abundance of otter evidence, no otter resting sites were located within 

250m of the application area. The only potential resting site was located approximately 500m 

from the application area. 

11.3.60 The lack of resting sites within the survey area, in contrast with the abundance of otter 

evidence, suggests that the habitats within and surrounding the application area are used 

primarily for commuting, foraging and cleaning. Resting sites are more likely to be situated 

within the wooded, riparian habitat of the Black Devon, located upstream of the survey area 

(e.g. Pond Wood, see Figure 11.3) with otters only venturing down to the Forth Estuary to 

forage. 

Badger Survey 

11.3.61 No evidence of badgers was detected within the application area or within the 500m buffer. 

The habitat located within the application area was largely sub-optimal for badgers and while 




the semi-improved grassland and scrub in the eastern part of the site represented the most 

suitable habitat for badgers, no evidence was found. 

11.3.62 Elsewhere, the survey also focussed on a small area of gorse scrub located to the south of the 

recycling facility, the grassland along the seawall embankment and western flood embankment 

of the Black Devon, the grassland habitat within 100m of the application area’s northern 

boundary and the small area of Pond Wood located approximately 450m to the north of the 

application area. However, no evidence of badgers was detected in any of these areas. 

11.3.63 Based on these findings and the thoroughness of this badger survey it is confidently concluded 

that badgers are not present within the application area or the surrounding habitats within 

500m of the application area. Therefore, badgers will not be considered further in this 

assessment. 

Other Legally Protected or Invasive Species 

11.3.64 Two stands of Japanese knotweed are located in the area of semi-improved grassland and 

scrub in the eastern part of the site (see Figure 11.4). The first stand (Target Note 2, Figure 

11.4) is approximately 8m x 5m in area, while the second, smaller stand (Target Note 3, Figure 

11.4) covers an area approximately 3m x 3m. 

11.3.65 A narrow stand of giant hogweed, approximately 5m x 15m in area is located along the seawall 

embankment near to the site entrance, to the south of the recycling facility (Target Note 4, 

Figure 11.4). In addition to this several individual plants of giant hogweed are located in the 

area of semi-improved grassland to the southeast of the recycling facility (Target Note 5, 

Figure 11.4). 

Data Coverage 

11.3.66 Data on important wildlife within the study area was obtained through a combination of 

scoping/consultation, desktop studies to collate existing information, and newly commissioned 

field surveys. The resulting information provides ecological context to the site and is 

considered comprehensive, with no notable shortfalls or information gaps. 

11.4 Evaluation of VERs and Assessment of Effects 

11.4.1 This section provides an assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed wind 

energy development on the Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) identified within the search 

area. For each VER, the potential effect is assessed against impacts which are predicted to 

occur during the construction, operation and de-commissioning phases of the proposed wind 


11.4.2 The investigation of the baseline data and current condition of the site was used to inform the 

selection of appropriate VERs. Assessments were made for those species or habitats which 

were considered potentially vulnerable to significant effects as identified in Table 11.7. 




Assessment of VER Conservation Value Identified from Baseline Studies 

11.4.3 A summary of the habitats and species identified as Valued Ecological Receptors within and 

adjacent to the application area is given in Table 11.7, together with the legislation and 

guidance defining their value. 

Table 11.7 Summary of Conservation Value of VERs Identified Within the Study Area 

Valued Ecological 

Receptor 


Firth of Forth SPA 

& Ramsar Site 


Black Devon 

Wetlands Wildlife 

Site 

Alloa Inches SWT 

Reserve 

Habitats 

Semi-improved 

Neutral Grassland 

Saltmarsh 

Intertidal Mudflat 

River Forth and 

River Black Devon 

Species 

Bats 

Otter 

Covering Legislation and Guidance 

Located approximately 720m from the application area (at its closest point), 

the intertidal habitats of the Forth Estuary are Internationally designated for 

supporting important populations of waterfowl, wading birds and seabirds. 

Note: the ornithological interests associated with the Firth of Forth SPA and 

Ramsar site complex is conducted in Chapter 12: Ornithology. 

The underlying National designation for the Firth of Forth SPA, this site is 

designated for its coastal and estuarine habitats as well as associated 

populations of wetland birds. 

Note: the ornithological interests associated with this site are assessed in 


Located within 100m of the application area, Black Devon Wetlands 

comprises a series of freshwater/mildly saline lagoons and surrounding 

grasslands and is primarily of ornithological interest. 



Located within the channel of the River Forth approximately 1.1km upstream 

of the application area, Alloa Inches comprises a variety of characteristic 

estuarine habitats and is also important for wetland birds. 



This habitat which dominates the application area is common and widespread 

and is not included in any biodiversity lists. 

Saltmarsh is a UK priority and local BAP habitat and is also included in the 

Scottish Biodiversity List. However, the extent of this habitat in relation to the 

site is limited to narrow strips along the Forth Estuary foreshore and along the 

lower reaches of the Black Devon and does not represent a prime example of 

this habitat type in the context of the wider Forth Estuary. 

Mudflat is a UK priority and local BAP habitat and is also included in the 

Scottish Biodiversity List. However, the extent of this habitat type which exists 

adjacent to the application area is limited to a very narrow strip which runs 

adjacent to the site. This stretch of mudflat does not represent a prime 

example of this habitat type in the context of the wider Forth and is not part of 

the Firth of Forth SPA. 

These watercourses, and in particular the River Forth, are connected to the 

Firth of Forth SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI. Rivers are also a UKBAP priority 

habitat. 

All Scottish bat species are listed on Annexe II of the Habitats Directive. 

Noctule, soprano pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats are UK BAP priority 

species, but all Scottish bat species are listed as Scottish priority species on 

the SBL. Bats are also targeted with Action Plans with the Clackmannanshire, 

Fife, Stirlingshire and Falkirk LBAPs. 

Although the application area is used by foraging bats, there are no roosts on 

site and no significant commuting activity was observed to cross the 

application area. Furthermore the majority of the bats recorded on site were 

soprano pipistrelle, which is the most common species in this part of UK. It is 

considered that the site is of value to bat populations at a local level. 

Otter is listed on Annexe II and IV of the Habitats Directive. A Species Action 

Plan is included in the UKBAP and it is listed in the Clackmannanshire, Fife, 

Stirlingshire and Falkirk LBAPs. Otter is protected under Schedule 2 of the 

Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations, 1994 (as amended). 

Evidence of otter was recorded adjacent to the application area along the 

River Black Devon and along the Forth estuary foreshore. However, this 

species is known to be relatively common around the Forth Estuary and 

associated watercourses. Therefore, otter is considered to be of local value. 

Conservation 

Value 32 

International 

National 

Local 

Local 

Negligible 

Local 

Local 

National 

Local 

Local 




Valued Ecological 

Receptor 

General wildlife of 

local conservation 

importance 

Cornflower 

Covering Legislation and Guidance 

This broad category includes species listed on the local Biodiversity Action 

Plans and Scottish Biodiversity list, examples of which include brown hare and 

roe deer. 

Cornflower, examples of which were found within the application area, has a 

specific action plan within the UK and Clackmannanshire BAPs. Cornflower is 

a locally rare and nationally scarce species. 

Conservation 

Value 32 

Local 

Regional 

Predicted Effects 

Construction 

11.4.4 The construction programme is detailed in Chapter 4: Project Description. From the 

information provided in that Chapter, the key activities which are likely to result in ecological 

effects include the following; 

• permanent and temporary loss of habitat through the installation of turbines, the 

on-site control building, access tracks and the construction compound; 

• visual, auditory (noise) and vibration disturbance or accidental mortality of 

wildlife within and immediately adjacent to the application area generated by 

activities involved in the installation of turbines, buildings and associated 

infrastructure; and, 

• potential contamination of the River Forth, Black Devon and local waterbodies 

through accidental spillage of chemicals or fuels. 


11.4.5 Consideration has been given to the potential effects of the proposed wind energy 

development on all designated sites identified in the Baseline Conditions (Section 11.3). 

Statutory Sites 

11.4.6 Of the statutory designated sites, only the Firth of Forth SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI has the 

potential to be affected by the proposed wind energy development, being located within 1km of 

the application area. The potential impacts specifically related to the bird interests for which 

these sites are designated is addressed in the Ornithology Chapter (Chapter 12). Therefore, 

since the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site are designated entirely for their bird interests 

these sites will not be considered further in this assessment. Therefore, only the potential 

impacts on the habitats notified on the Firth of Forth SSSI will be assessed here. 

11.4.7 The construction of the proposed wind energy development will not result in the direct loss of 

any habitat from the Firth of Forth SSSI. However, given the relatively short distance of 

separation between the application area and the Firth of Forth SSSI (720m), the habitats, 

particularly the sensitive intertidal mudflats, could be indirectly affected by pollution in the event 

of a fuel or chemical spillage on site. 




11.4.8 The effects of construction on the waterbodies and watercourses located adjacent to the 

application area are discussed in further detail in Chapter 13: Hydrology, Geology and 

Hydrogeology. The ecological effects of potential pollution events vary with the severity of the 

pollution incident. They may range from minor, small scale spillages with very limited and 

discrete effects of low-neutral magnitude, to large scale incidents resulting in significant longterm 

damage particularly to aquatic habitats and associated species, the unmitigated effect of 

which would be of high magnitude. 

11.4.9 However, it is extremely unlikely that any particularly hazardous or highly polluting substances 

will be required during construction of the proposed wind energy development. Any such 

incidents are more likely to involve spillages of less potent contaminants such as fuel or wet 

concrete which are only likely to result in effects of low magnitude. Therefore, given the 

national importance of the Firth of Forth SSSI, the effects of such an unmitigated pollution 

incident are predicted to have an adverse effect of moderate significance. It should be noted 

however, that even without mitigation the likelihood of such an event is considered to be 

extremely low. 

11.4.10 All other statutory designated sites are considered extremely unlikely to be affected by the 

proposed wind energy development by virtue of either their respective designated features, the 

distance separating them from the application area (i.e. all are located over 2km) and the lack 

of connectivity between them and the site. 

11.4.11 Consequently, the no other statutory designated sites will be considered further in the 

assessment of effects. 

Non-Statutory Sites 

11.4.12 With regard to non-statutory designated sites, due to their distance of separation (all over 

500m from the application area) and lack of connectivity and/or segregation from the 

application area there are not predicted to be any direct or indirect impacts on Pond Wood 

Wildlife Site or Dunmore Moss and Wood Wildlife Site as a result of the construction of the 

proposed wind energy development. Consequently, these sites will not be considered further 

in this assessment. 

11.4.13 In contrast, Black Devon Wetlands Wildlife Site is located within 100m of the application area 

while Alloa Inches SWT Reserve is approximately 1.1km up the River Forth from the 

application area. Although there will be no direct loss of habitat from the construction of the 

wind energy development on either of these sites, their sensitive wetland habitats (e.g. lagoons 

and intertidal mudflats) could be indirectly affected by contamination in the event of a fuel or 

chemical spillage on site (see Chapter 13: Hydrology, Geology and Hydrogeology for further 

details). 

11.4.14 With regard to potential contamination of these two sites by a pollution incident, the likelihood 

of such an event occurring is considered to be extremely low and would be extremely unlikely 

to involve any particularly hazardous or highly polluting substances as discussed above. 

However, given the local importance of these two sites and taking a worst case scenario, the 

effects of an unmitigated pollution incident are predicted to have an adverse effect of moderate 

significance. 




Habitats 

Saltmarsh and Intertidal Mudflat 

11.4.15 The loss of habitat associated with the construction of the proposed wind energy development 

will be confined to the terrestrial habitats within the application area. Consequently, there will 

be no loss of saltmarsh or intertidal habitats associated with the adjacent Forth Estuary and 

River Black Devon. 

11.4.16 Although the likelihood of a moderate scale on-site fuel or chemical spillage is unlikely, the 

effects of such an event could result in the degradation of the adjacent saltmarsh and intertidal 

mudflat habitats in the short-medium term. Contamination of the mudflats in particular would 

likely result in the loss and/or modification of benthic invertebrate communities which the 

habitat supports, which in turn would result in the loss of available foraging resource for fish 

and wading birds. Therefore, despite these two habitat types only being of local conservation 

value, the effects of an unmitigated moderate scale pollution event are expected to have an 

adverse effect of minor-moderate significance. 

Semi-Improved Neutral Grassland 

11.4.17 The installation of the four turbines will result in the permanent loss of several small isolated 

plots of relatively species-poor, semi-improved neutral grassland (


these waterbodies, the effects of an unmitigated moderate scale pollution incident is predicted 

to have an adverse effect of moderate significance. 

Other Semi-Natural Habitats 

11.4.22 With regard to other habitats located within the application area these are limited to the 

occasional scattered scrub and small trees, the loss of which is considered to have an impact 

of negligible significance. 

Species 

Bats 

11.4.23 No roosts will be lost and the overall habitat loss will be minimal as a result of the proposed 

wind energy development construction (as detailed above). The construction phase is 

therefore considered to have an impact of negligible significance on bats. 

Otter 

11.4.24 No otter resting sites were detected within the application area or within at least 100m of the 

application area. Consequently there is not predicted to be any loss or disturbance of otter 

resting sites as a result of the construction of the proposed wind energy development and its 

associated infrastructure. 

11.4.25 However, field surveys confirmed that otters do occupy the habitats immediately surrounding 

the application area with evidence indicating that they patrol the River Black Devon as well as 

utilising the habitats of the Forth Estuary and Black Devon Wetlands. Consequently there is a 

potential for otters to be disturbed by activities associated with the construction of the proposed 

wind energy development. However, otters are typically crepuscular (most active during dusk 

and dawn) therefore it is considered extremely unlikely that any animals will be active within or 

immediately adjacent to the site during construction working hours 33 . As such any impacts of 

disturbance are expected to be of negligible significance. 

11.4.26 Despite the prediction that it is extremely unlikely that otters will be active during construction 

working hours there is a very low potential risk of otters being run over and killed or injured by 

construction vehicles on site. Field surveys identified that otters were likely to use a mammal 

path which connects the Forth Estuary to the lagoons of Black Devon Wetlands across the site 

access track. However, while the fatality of an otter could have an effect on the local 

population the likelihood of such an event is considered to be so low that the impact is 

predicted to be of negligible significance. 

11.4.27 Although no evidence was detected to suggest that otters pass within the wider areas of the 

application area (with the exception of the access track crossing) it is possible that they could 

in order to commute directly between parts of the Black Devon, the Forth Estuary and the 

lagoons. Consequently there is a low potential risk of otters being incidentally killed or injured 

as a result of becoming trapped in open trenches, pits or pipes. However, as with potential 




fatalities caused by vehicles, the likelihood of an otter becoming trapped and killed is 

considered to be so low that the impact is predicted to be of negligible significance. 

Wildlife (General) 

11.4.28 Other species of wildlife such as brown hare (UKBAP) and roe deer (SBL) which are known or 

likely to be present within and surrounding the application area are likely to experience visual 

and auditory disturbance as a result of construction activities. However, such disturbance is 

only expected to affect animals within 100m or so from the construction works. Given the 

availability of alternative suitable habitat in the wider area it is expected that these animals will 

simply be temporarily displaced to less disturbed areas during the construction programme. 

Consequently, the impact of disturbance on such species is predicted to be of negligible 

significance. 

11.4.29 There is also a potential, albeit extremely low risk of such animals entering the works areas 

and being injured or killed as a result of becoming trapped in open trenches, pits or pipelines. 

However, as mentioned for otter above, the likelihood of any animal becoming trapped and 

killed is considered to be so low that the impact is predicted to of negligible significance. 

Cornflower 

11.4.30 Three plants of the locally rare and nationally scarce Cornflower (Centaurea cyanus) were 

detected along the coastal stretch of the site access track during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat 

Survey (see the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Report 16 and Target Note 1, Figure 11.4) The 

location of these plants was sufficiently close to the margins of the access track that there is a 

potential for them to be dug up and permanently lost should widening of the track be required. 

Given its regional importance, the predicted total loss of this UK and local BAP listed species 

from the site is predicted to be of major significance. 

Japanese Knotweed 

11.4.31 The two stands of Japanese knotweed are located within the eastern arm of the application 

area directly beneath and/or in close proximity to the overhead powerlines which traverse this 

part of the site (see Target Note 2 and Target Note 3, Figure 11.4). No wind turbines or 

associated infrastructure is located in this area, the closest being approximately 300m and 

150m respectively from the nearest stand. However, access to this part of the site is still 

possible and therefore there is a low potential risk of vehicles or site personnel coming into 

contact with Japanese knotweed and spreading it to other uncontaminated areas of the site. 

11.4.32 Japanese knotweed is a tall growing shrub with large leaves which outcompetes other plants 

for light ultimately leading to a decline in the diversity of underlying ground flora. Although the 

floral diversity of the semi-improved grassland which dominates the surrounding area is 

generally considered to be low, the spread of Japanese knotweed across the site would result 

in a gradual deterioration in the extent and diversity of this semi-natural habitat. As such, the 

spread of Japanese knotweed, from an ecological point of view is predicted to be of minor 

significance. 




11.4.33 Advice regarding the legal issues and the avoidance or control of Japanese knotweed is 

presented in Section 11.5. Mitigation. 

Giant Hogweed 

11.4.34 The two areas where giant hogweed was identified to be growing are located at the western 

end of the application area, near to the recycling facility and site entrance. One of these 

stands is located along the seawall immediately adjacent to the site access track, while the 

other is situated in the proposed location of turbine no.1 (see Target Note 4 and Target Note 5, 

Figure 11.4). As such, is extremely likely that uncontrolled site preparation works for the 

installation of this turbine and the widening of the access track would result in the movement of 

contaminated soils spreading this invasive plant to unaffected areas of the site. 

11.4.35 Like Japanese knotweed, giant hogweed also affects the underlying ground flora by depriving it 

of light the spread of which would lead to degradation of the floral diversity of the surrounding 

semi-improved grassland. Consequently the spread of giant hogweed from an ecological point 

of view is predicted to be of minor significance. 

11.4.36 Advice regarding the legal issues and the avoidance or control of giant hogweed is presented 

in Section 11.5. Mitigation. 

Operation 

11.4.37 Once it has been constructed, the effects on ecological receptors associated with the operation 

of the proposed wind energy development are expected to be limited to the following; 

• low level visual and /or auditory disturbance or accidental mortality of wildlife 

through the operation of the turbines (i.e. the sweeping rotor blades) and routine 

maintenance operations; and, 

• potential collision of non-avian flying animals (i.e. bats) with the turbines 

(particularly the sweeping rotor blades). 

11.4.38 The following provides an assessment of the likely effects of these impacts on the various 

ecological receptors identified in the study area. 


11.4.39 Issues relating to the disturbance and collision risk of birds associated with the Firth of Forth 

SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI, Gartmorn Dam SSSI and other sites designated for their wetland 

bird populations will be discussed in Chapter 12. Ornithology. 

11.4.40 No other impacts are predicted to affect any of the designated sites (statutory or non-statutory) 

within 2km during the operation of the proposed wind energy development. 




Habitats 

11.4.41 There are not anticipated to be any adverse impacts on habitats during operation of the wind 

energy development. If anything, some small parts of the habitats temporarily lost or disturbed 

during the construction phase (e.g. semi-improved neutral grassland) may be expected to 

improve as plants from the adjacent, unaffected areas naturally recolonise. 

Species 

Bats 

11.4.42 Common and soprano pipistrelle accounted for the vast majority of the calls recorded on-site 

(at least 92%). These species are known to fly in excess of 40m in height and therefore may 

be at risk of mortality from turbines; European studies have recorded widely varying levels of 

pipistrelle mortality, though turbines in open landscapes present significantly lower risk 

(calculated rates range from 0.18 to 5 bats/turbine/year in open sites 18 ). Soprano pipistrelles 

typically forage over water bodies and commute along woodland edges and similar linear 

features. Common pipistrelles appear to forage more widely, with less reliance on aquatic 

habitats. The low levels of bat activity observed in the open habitats of this site suggest that 

mortality would be at the lower end of the scale. 

11.4.43 Myotis bats (including Daubenton’s) are considered to be at low risk from wind turbine collision, 

while common and soprano pipistrelle have been placed in the medium risk category 4 . 

However, the populations of all three species identified as present on-site are considered to be 

at low risk of wind turbine mortality. Furthermore, the more sheltered habitats along the Pond 

Wood to the northeast of the site and the ponds just outside the site (to the northeast) are 

more likely to provide better feeding resources (as well as roosting opportunities in the 

woodland) then the open land where the turbines are to be sited. 

11.4.44 The overall predicted effect magnitude is low and the resulting significance of effect minor. 

Otters 

11.4.45 It is anticipated that otters will quickly habituate to the presence of the wind turbines at the 

proposed wind energy development. Therefore, visual and auditory disturbance generated 

through the operation of the wind turbines is expected to be negligible. Furthermore, 

disturbance created during routine maintenance works (e.g. general human activity and 

operation of handheld power tools) is expected to be infrequent, of low intensity and conducted 

during daylight hours when otters are not active. As such, the effect of disturbance on otters is 


11.4.46 If, as is predicted, otters do cross the access track when commuting between the Forth Estuary 

and the Black Devon lagoons, it is expected that they will continue to do so during the 

operation of the proposed wind energy development. However, given the species 

crepuscular/nocturnal behaviour it is extremely unlikely that otters would occur on-site during 

daylight, working hours. Therefore the likelihood of an otter being run over and killed or injured 




by maintenance vehicles on site is considered to be extremely low. As such the effect is 


Wildlife (General) 

11.4.47 As with otters, it is anticipated that other locally occurring wildlife will quickly habituate to the 

presence of the wind turbines at the proposed wind energy development. Therefore, visual 

and auditory disturbance generated through the operation of the wind turbines routine 

maintenance works (e.g. general human activity and operation of handheld power tools) is 

expected of negligible significance. 


11.4.48 De-commissioning effects would be of similar or of lower magnitude to the construction phase 

effects with an overall positive effect resulting from restoration. 


11.5.1 The assessment of cumulative effects from other development projects in-combination with 

those associated with the proposed wind energy development on ecological receptors 

considers all developments types with the potential to have an effect. 

11.5.2 The search area for this assessment will extend to 2km from the application area for all 

ecological receptors, with the exception of bats which will be considered up to a distance of 

10km. The assessment includes projects which are completed, under construction or 

approved, as well as those which are in the planning application or scoping process. 

11.5.3 There are no other wind farm developments within 2km of the proposed wind energy 

development. Indeed, the nearest are Rosehill Wind Farm, Stirlingshire (Scoping) and Asda 

Depot, New Bankside Industrial Estate, Falkirk (Installed, 2 turbines) at 5.6 km southwest and 

8.4km south respectively (see Ornithology Chapter Figure 12.2 for distribution of wind farms in 

wider area). Given the distances between these existing/proposed wind farms and that 

proposed wind energy development, there are not expected to be any significant cumulative 

impacts between these developments on any ecological receptors. 

11.5.4 Consideration of cumulative impacts also considers the potential for significant additive 

impacts over the 25-year operational life of the project. No significant potential impacts are 

anticipated except for bats, as these species have a slow breeding rate and thus may be 

sensitive to increases in overall population mortality. Over the life of the project, the trees on 

site will grow taller and may attract somewhat higher levels of bat activity. However, the 

turbines are located in open habitats on the site, which are not likely to become significantly 

more attractive to foraging bats. Furthermore, the species most likely to be affected are the 

two commonest species in the UK: soprano and common pipistrelle. Thus it is not considered 

that the annual mortality at this site is likely to cause significant cumulative impacts. 





11.6.1 A range of VER habitats and VER species have been assessed as being potentially affected 

by the construction, operation or de-commissioning of the proposed wind energy development. 

Appropriate mitigation measures have therefore been proposed or have been incorporated into 

the design of the proposed wind energy development in order to address the potential effects 

on these VERs. 

Design Measures 

11.6.2 The proposed wind energy development structures were placed away from watercourses and 

areas of standing water (i.e. Black Devon Wetlands) using a 20m to 50m buffer depending on 

the size of the watercourse. These measures were adopted in order to reduce potential water 

contamination/siltation which in turn would affect associated species. 

11.6.3 VERs were avoided where possible via appropriate design of the construction footprint. 

Turbine locations are over 50m from woodlands and trees, as per Natural England guidance 4 . 

Prior to Commencement Measures 

Pre-Construction Surveys 

11.6.4 Prior to commencement of works on-site, pre-construction surveys based on existing data for 

protected species will be carried out ahead of construction to check for changes in baseline 

conditions. This will enable any refinements to be made (if necessary), to micrositing and/or 

the construction programme to take into account any up-dated distribution or presence of 

species. 

11.6.5 Survey should be undertaken within 6 months of the commencement of works in order to 

obtain as accurate a representative of the baseline conditions as possible. Should this period 

of time elapse between the pre-construction surveys and the commencement of works then the 

surveys may need to be repeated. 

Construction Method Statements and Management Plans 

11.6.6 All relevant mitigation measures will be implemented through Construction Method Statements 

which will be prepared in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of Clackmannanshire 

Council, SEPA and SNH. Further details of Method Statements relating to pollution prevention 

are given in Chapter 13. Hydrology, Geology and Hydrogeology. 

11.6.7 A detailed Environmental Management Plan will be prepared prior to construction which will 

address all hydrological and hydrogeological issues that have potential to impact upon aquatic 

species and water quality. 

11.6.8 A Habitat Management Plan will also be completed prior to construction, to the satisfaction of 

SNH, SEPA, RSPB Scotland and Clackmannanshire Council. The plan will include measures 




to mitigate potential effects on potentially sensitive habitats (e.g. the adjacent wetland 

lagoons), and to secure protection and where possible enhancement of these habitats. The 

aims of the plan will also contribute to delivery of the objectives of the Clackmannanshire 

Biodiversity Action Plan. 

Translocation of Cornflower Plants 

11.6.9 In order to avoid the loss of cornflower from this site the three plants identified adjacent to the 

site access track will be translocated to an area which will not be affected by the construction 

of the proposed wind energy development. 

11.6.10 The receptor site for the translocated plants will be selected based on characteristics which 

complement the donor site (e.g. soil type, exposure, drainage etc.). However, it is anticipated 

that much of the application area will be compatible and hence a suitable site should not be 

difficult to identify. 

11.6.11 In order to safeguard the translocated plants, the receptor site will be surrounded by fencing to 

ensure that no site personnel or vehicles are able inadvertently pass through and disturb the 

ground. 

11.6.12 If these measures are followed it is anticipated that this species will be retained at the 


Avoidance or Control of Invasive Plant Species (Japanese Knotweed and Giant Hogweed) 

11.6.13 The legislation regarding the spread of Japanese knotweed or giant hogweed is presented in 

Section 11.2. Methodology (Legislation and Guidance). 

Japanese Knotweed 

11.6.14 Since there are no stands of Japanese knotweed within the 100m of any of the proposed 

turbine locations or associated infrastructure there is no requirement for there to be any control 

of this species. However, measures should be taken to avoid the risk of spreading this plant to 

other, unaffected parts of the site. As such, it is recommended that the two stands identified 

on the Figure 11.4 (Target Note 2 and Target Note 3) are surrounded by exclusion fencing 

(e.g. heras fencing) to stop any site personnel or vehicles/machinery from incidentally passing 

through these areas and disturbing the contaminated ground. The fenced off areas should be 

identified with signage to demonstrate the environmental protection purpose (e.g. 

‘Environmental Hazard: Japanese knotweed’). 

11.6.15 Should any additional stands of Japanese knotweed become established prior to the 

commencement of works an ecologist should be contacted for advice to determine the risk of 

spread and contamination based on its location in relation to the proposed footprint of works. 




Giant Hogweed 

11.6.16 The small, scattered stands of giant hogweed which were identified in the immediate vicinity of 

the proposed location of turbine no.1 (see Target Note 4, Figure 11.4) are likely to be directly 

affected by the wind energy development construction works through the site preparation 

and/or turbine installation works. Consequently, measures will need to be implemented to 

avoid the spread of this legally controlled species. 

11.6.17 In contrast, it is less certain whether the nearby section of seawall which is contaminated with 

giant hogweed (Target Note 5, Figure 11.4) will be directly affected by the construction works. 

However, given the close proximity of this stand to the access track and taking a precautionary 

approach it should be considered likely that the ground where the plants are growing may be 

disturbed as part of any track widening works. It is also likely that individual plants will be 

disturbed by passing vehicles thereby potentially spreading seeds indirectly to other, 

unaffected parts of the site. 

11.6.18 Consequently, a Method Statement detailing the control of giant hogweed at this site should be 

prepared to avoid the potential for this invasive and legally controlled species to be spread 

across the site. The Method Statement should be prepared by a competent ecological 

consultant and implemented or supervised by a contractor experienced in giant hogweed 

control prior to construction works commencing. 

11.6.19 The control of giant hogweed can involve mechanical and chemical methods. Mechanical 

methods range from temporary control by cutting of the plants to more permanent attempts to 

dig out and remove the entire stand. Meanwhile chemical control involves the spraying of 

glyphosphate, the only herbicide known to control giant hogweed and which is approved for 

use adjacent to watercourses. 

11.6.20 As an indication of the possible alternative options for giant hogweed control at this site the 

following example approaches are provided. 

11.6.21 Given that the ground where the stand which is in the vicinity of the proposed turbine no.1 

(Target Note 5, Figure 11.4) will be excavated in preparation of the turbine stand foundations, it 

is proposed that controlled excavation and soil removal be undertaken at this part of the site. 

This measure should ensure the eradication of giant hogweed at this particular location. 

11.6.22 Soil excavation and removal is also recommended for the giant hogweed located along the 

seawall (Target Note 4, Figure 11.4). However, depending on the proposals to widen the 

access track at this location it may not be necessary to control it in this way. Indeed there may 

be issues involved in excavating parts of the seawall defences. Instead, this stand could be 

sprayed with herbicide to kill the plants before any construction activities commence, thereby 

avoiding the potential to spread the plants. 

During Construction Works Measures 

11.6.23 Field evidence and historical records indicate that otters and other species of wildlife (e.g. 

brown hare, roe deer) are known or likely to inhabit the areas within and surrounding the 

application area and are thought likely to occasionally pass through the site. Therefore, best 




practice measures for minimising potential effects on these species, particularly otter, will be 

necessary as described by SNH 34 . These include measures such as; 

• covering all trenches, trial pits, excavations and pipelines to prevent animals 

entering these holes; 

• provision of a method of escape (e.g. a plank) where such excavations cannot be 

closed or filled on a nightly basis; 

• no construction works to be conducted at night time hours. 

11.6.24 Vehicle speeds will be restricted to 20mph across the site in order to minimise the risk of 

collision with animals. This should be reduced to 15mph within 25m either side of the mammal 

path which is likely to be used by otters and which crosses the site access track. This is not 

predicted to be problematic as wind farm site vehicle speeds are typically regulated. 

11.6.25 A pollution incident response plan will be prepared to minimise potential pollution effects. 

11.6.26 Micro-siting of turbines will ensure a separation of at least 50m between turbine blades and 

trees, following the methodology described by Natural England 4 , taking into account the 

predicted growth height over the project lifespan, and thus minimising potential for bat mortality 

to a non-significant level. 

11.6.27 An Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) will be present on site to oversee enabling works and 

construction. They will be a suitably experienced individual, approved by SNH and 

Clackmannanshire Council, whose role will ensure works are carried out in accordance with all 

relevant Construction Method Statements, the Environmental Protection Plan and to ensure 

compliance with international and national legislation. They will also review results of 

protected species searches prior to commencement of works in different areas within the site 

and contribute to all relevant Construction Method Statements. Once works are underway, 

their role will be to work on site providing ecological and pollution control advice and 

supervision for all relevant mitigation measures. 

11.6.28 The mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 13. Hydrology, Geology and Hydrogeology, for 

protecting watercourses and waterbodies will ensure that the pre-construction quality of 

freshwater courses are maintained during and post construction. 

Operation Phase Measures 

11.6.29 The vehicle speed restrictions stipulated above should also be implemented during the 

operation of the proposed wind energy development. 

11.6.30 Vehicles coming on site will be periodically checked for oil leaks to avoid risk of pollution. 

De-commissioning Phase Measures 

11.6.31 Best practice measures as described in the construction stage will be followed. New guidance 

available at the de-commissioning phase would be adopted if appropriate. 




Restoration and Enhancement 

11.6.32 Although there are no specific ecological enhancement measures for the site it is considered 

that some very simple measures could be taken to enhance the biodiversity value of the site 

without affecting the impact of the proposed wind energy development on the ecology. For 

example it is recommended that the floral diversity of the semi-improved neutral grassland, 

particularly the large open area surrounding the cluster of 3 turbines, could be enhanced by 

sowing a species-rich grass and wild flower seed mixture consisting of natural and locally 

occurring species. The establishment of a more diverse botanical community would in turn 

encourage the colonisation of a wider variety of invertebrates to the site, thus enhancing its 

overall biodiversity value. 

11.6.33 With regard to the post-operational restoration and enhancement of the application site, this 

will be planned prior to the de-commissioning of the wind energy development. Such plans 

should be in line with the relevant guidance at that time and consistent with the habitats and 

ecological features associated with the site. 

Residual Effects 

11.6.34 The mitigation measures described above are expected to reduce residual effects for all VERs 

to negligible significance in the short and long term. 

11.6.35 Providing the mitigation measures proposed are fully implemented, it is predicted there will be 

no long-term negative effects on any of the locally occurring habitats or species of importance. 


Table 11.8 Summary of the Potential Effects on the Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) 

and Residual Effects Following Mitigation 

VER 

Construction 


Black Devon 


Site 

Alloa Inches SWT 

Reserve 

Semi-improved 


Saltmarsh 

Intertidal Mudflat 

River Forth and 

River Black Devon 

Otter 

Potential 

Effects 

Pollution, 

contamination. 

Pollution, 


Pollution, 


Pre-Mitigation 

Effect 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Mitigation 

Preparation and implementation of 

Method Statements detailing pollution 

prevention measures 







Residual 

Effects 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Habitat loss Negligible None Negligible 

Pollution, Minor 

Preparation and implementation of Negligible 




Pollution, 


Pollution, 


Pollution, 


Negligible 

Negligible 

Moderate 










Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Disturbance Negligible None Negligible 

Collision Negligible Implementation of on-site vehicle Negligible 




VER 

Potential 

Effects 


Effect 

Mitigation 

Residual 

Effects 

mortality/injury 

speed restriction 

Incidental on-site Negligible Implementation of standard 

Negligible 


construction site ecological best 

practice measures 

Bats Habitat loss Negligible None Negligible 

General wildlife of Negligible Negligible Implementation of on site vehicle Negligible 


importance 

speed restrictions and standard 

construction site ecological best 

practice measures 

Cornflower 

Total loss from 

site 

Major 

Translocation to suitable, unaffected 

on-site location 

Negligible 

Japanese 

knotweed 

Giant hogweed 

Operation 

Designated sites 

(e.g. Firth of Forth 

SSSI, Black Devon 


Site) 

Semi-improved 


Other semi-natural 

habitats (e.g. 

saltmarsh, 

watercourses) 

Otter 

Spread and 

contamination of 

unaffected 

Spread and 

contamination of 

unaffected areas 

Minor 

Minor 

Exclusion of site personnel and 

machinery from affected areas 

Controlled removal/treatment of 

affected areas 

Negligible 

Negligible 

None None None None 

Recolonisation 

of areas affected 

during 

construction 

Minor positive None Minor positive 

None None None None 

Disturbance Negligible None Negligible 

Collision 

Negligible Implementation of on-site vehicle Negligible 


speed restriction 

Bats Collision risk Minor None Minor 

General wildlife of Disturbance Negligible None Negligible 


importance 

De-commissioning: Similar range of effects, mitigation measures and residual outcomes as construction 

phase 


11.8.1 Monitoring the implementation of best practice measures for works in VER habitats, and 

around watercourses, for VER species should be undertaken through routine checks during 

construction as part of the role of the ECoW. 


11.9.1 This chapter has assessed the likely significance of effects of the proposed wind energy 

development with regard to habitats and species at the site. By applying effective mitigation 

measures, mainly through the design process, and through the activities of an Ecological Clerk 

of Works, the residual effects of the proposed wind energy development are assessed as 

being minor or negligible and therefore not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 





1 Scottish Natural Heritage (2001) Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Windfarms and 

Small Scale Hydroelectric Schemes. SNH Natural Heritage Management Series, Perth. 

2 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006). Guidelines for Ecological 

Impact Assessment in the UK. IEEM, Winchester 

3 Rodrigues L., Bach L., Doubourg-Savage M.-J., Goodwin J., and Harbush C. (2008). 

Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Wind Farm Projects. Eurobats Publication Series no. 3 

(English version). 

4 Natural England (2009) Bats and onshore wind turbines, Interim Guidance, 1 st Edition, TIN 

051. 

5 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2008), Otters and Development Scottish Wildlife Series. 

(http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/wildlife/otters/default.asp). 

6 

The Multi Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website 

(www.magic.gov.uk). 

7 

Scottish Natural Heritage Information service website (Natural Spaces), 

(http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/pls/htmldb_ddtdb1/f?p=101:1:191363832301708266). 

8 Scottish Natural Heritage Information service website, (Sitelink), (http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/ 

portal/page?_pageid=53,910284,53_920284&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL). 

9 National Biodiversity Network gateway website (http://www.nbn.org.uk). 

10 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan website: (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/). 

11 

The Scottish Biodiversity List website: (http://www.biodiversityscotland.gov.uk/ 

pageType2.php?id=35&type=2&navID=92). 

12 Clackmannanshire Biodiversity Partnership website: (http://biodiversity.clacksweb.org.uk/). 

13 Falkirk Biodiversity Action Plan website: (http://www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/development/ 

planning_and_environment/biodiversity/falkirk_area_biodiversity_action_plan.aspx). 

14 Biodiversity Action Reporting System website (Stirling Council Area): (http://www.ukbapreporting.org.uk/plans/lbap_plans.asp?LBAP=%7BE3C3F12E%2DE482%2D4FA7%2DB99C% 

2D64A08F9CB384%7D&CO=). 

15 

Fife Biodiversity Action Plan website: (http://www.fifecoastandcountrysidetrust.com/ 

view_Local-Biodiversity.aspx). 

16 

The Proposed Forthbank Wind Farm: A Consideration of Possible Ecological and 

Ornithological Constraints. RPS, 2009. 




17 

JNCC (2003) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 

Peterborough. 

18 Rodrigues, L., Bach L., Dubourg-Savage M.-J., Goodwin J. & Harbusch C. (2008) 

Guidelines for consideration of bats in wind farm projects. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 

3. UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 

19 Richardson, P. (2000) Distribution atlas of bats in Britain and Ireland 1980-1999. Bat 

Conservation Trust. 

20 

Haddow, J.F. and Herman, J.S. (2000) Recorded distribution of bats in Scotland. Scottish 

Bats, vol.5, ISBN 0952018241. 

21 

Mitchell-Jones, J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. 

22 

Bat Conservation Trust (2007). Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation 

Trust, London. 

23 Clackmannanshire Council Scoping Response letter (Keith Johnstone, 22 nd March 2010). 

24 

Bang, P & Dahlstrøm, P. (2001) Animal Tracks and Signs. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

25 Scottish Natural Heritage Scoping Response letter (Matthew Topsfield, 20 January 2010), 

see Table 11.1. 

26 Neal, E. & Cheeseman, C. (1996). Badgers. Poyser Natural History, London. 

27 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2001), Scotland’s Wildlife: Badgers and Development. 

(http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/wildlife/badgersanddevelopment/default.asp). 

28 Langton, T.E.S., Beckett, C.L., and Foster, J.P. (2001), Great Crested Newt Conservation 

Handbook, Froglife, Halesworth. 

29 English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, ISBN 1 85716 568 3. 

30 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006). Guidelines for Ecological 

Impact Assessment in the UK. IEEM, Winchester. 

31 

Note: Assessment of Special Protection Areas, which are designated for their bird interests 

are dealt with separately in the Ornithology Chapter (Chapter 12). 

32 Defined in Table 11.2 

33 It should be noted that it is recognised that coastal otters can often be more active during the 

day being more influenced by the tidal cycle than the time of day. However, the otters which 

occur in proximity to the application area are not considered to be true coastal otters (such as 

those of the west coast of Scotland for example) and are more likely to be associated with the 

local watercourses which feed into the Forth Estuary rather than the estuary specifically. 




34 SNH 2008 Otters and Development online publication, http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/ 

on-line/wildlife/otters/default.asp 




12 Ornithology 


12.1.1 This Chapter assesses the effects of the proposed wind energy development on birds. 

Together with Chapter 11 (Ecology) it completes the assessment of the effects of the proposed 

wind energy development on the natural heritage. 

12.1.2 The assessment uses: data from specifically commissioned surveys in 2009-2010; pre-existing 

information from other bird surveys on the site and adjacent areas; and information and data 

from organisations and individuals with local knowledge who responded to consultations on the 

proposed wind energy development. Bird names used in this chapter follow the vernacular 

names recommended by the British Ornithologists’ Union 1 . 

12.1.3 The location of the proposed wind energy development is shown in Figure 1.1 (Site Location 

Plan). 

Predicted Key Issues 

12.1.4 The key ornithological issues associated with the proposed wind energy development are likely 

to relate to its potential to adversely affect the: 

• site integrity of the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (SPA; EU Wild Birds 

Directive 79/409/EEC) and Ramsar Site (Convention on Wetlands of International 

Importance), classified for passage and wintering populations of waterfowl, waders 

and seabirds; 

• conservation status of bird species given the highest level of statutory protection 

through inclusion in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive and/or Schedule 1 of the 

Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended); 

• notified features of the Firth of Forth Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); 

• conservation status of geese and other waterfowl due to the risk of turbine collisions 

if they fly through the proposed wind energy development area on migration or while 

commuting between local feeding and roosting areas; 

• conservation status of local breeding and wintering birds through habitat loss, 

disturbance, displacement and collisions with turbines; and 

• ornithological interests of local sites designated for bird species. 





12.2.1 The methodologies used are summarised here with more details provided in the relevant 

sections below. The assessment involved: 

• reference to relevant legislation, policy and guidance; 


• detailed desk studies and collation of existing material; 

• site surveys to establish the existing important ornithological interests within the site, 

and in its immediate surroundings; 

• evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed wind energy development on 

important bird interests both direct and indirectly; 


the relevant bird interests, the potential magnitude of these effects and their 

probability of occurring; 

• identification of appropriate measures to avoid and mitigate against any potential 


• consideration of the residual significance of the predicted effects following 

mitigation. 

12.2.2 Data on important birdlife within the study area was obtained through a combination of 

scoping/consultation, desktop studies to collate existing information, and newly commissioned 

field surveys. The resulting information provides ornithological context to the site and is 

considered comprehensive, with no notable shortfalls or information gaps. 


12.2.3 This assessment takes into account the requirements of the following legislation, regulations 

and guidance, in addition to that discussed in Chapter 5 (Legislative and Policy Context): 

• EU Directive 2009/147/EC (the codified version (updated to incorporate the original 

act and all amendments) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC) on the Conservation of 

Wild Birds (The “Birds Directive”); 

• EU Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and 

Fauna (the "Habitats Directive"); 

• Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (the "Habitats Regulations"); 

• Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007; 

• Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004; 




• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; 

• Guidelines on survey methods and collision risk calculation for assessing the 

impacts of wind farms on bird communities 2 ; 

• Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom 3 ; 

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) 4 ; 

• Scottish Biodiversity List 5 ; and 

• the Clackmannanshire Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) 6 . 

Consultations 

12.2.4 To ensure comprehensive coverage of ornithological issues, key conservation organisations 

and statutory bodies were contacted during the consultation and scoping process. The 

purposes of the consultation were: to establish requirements for new bird surveys and provide 

consultees with the opportunity to offer guidance and advice on survey methodologies; to 

identify potential development design modifications that might address ecological sensitivities; 

and to identify preferred mitigation and enhancement. The consultation process also sought to 

identify and obtain relevant existing bird data and determine any notable information gaps. A 

summary of the key points raised by consultees is given in Table 12.1. Any ornithological 

information provided during the consultation process (e.g. species records) is presented in the 

Baseline Assessment (Section 12.3). 

Table 12.1 Scoping and Consultation Responses 

Organisation 



Royal Society for 

the Protection of 

Birds (RSPB) 

Response 

20/01/2010 (letter) - Matthew Topsfield, Renewable Energy Casework Advisor, provided 

information on SNH policy and guidance for onshore wind farms. It was noted that the proposed 

development is located within an area identified as having high bird sensitivity. Nature 

conservation sites that should be considered are the Firth of Forth SPA/SSSI/Ramsar site 

(within 1km) and Gartmorn Dam SSSI (3.5km), both designated for bird interests. SNH is of the 

view that the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying 

interests of the Firth of Forth SPA and that an Appropriate Assessment is required. 

06/05/2010 (email) - Matthew Topsfield responded to a draft report to inform an appropriate 

assessment for the proposed wind energy development and the Firth of Forth SPA 7 . Matthew 

Topsfield indicated that the bird survey work, assessment and appropriate assessment 

provided appeared to be in accordance with published SNH guidance and that he was satisfied 

that the approach was likely to provide an adequate assessment of the likely impacts of the 

proposed wind energy development. Further that bird surveys undertaken for a period of one 

full year only would be adequate. He advised that the in-combination/cumulative assessment 

should consider other wind farms that are constructed, consented, or with an application yet to 

be determined as well as other sources of mortality to the SPA population. 

12/08/2010 (telephone) - Matthew Topsfield advised that the scope of the cumulative/incombination 

assessment should be extended to cover wind farm proposals within 20km of the 

Firth of Forth SPA. It is understood that this is based on the SPA connectivity distance identified 

by SNH for pink-footed geese, which may travel up to 20km between roosting and feeding 

areas. 

30/09/2010 (email) - Matthew Topsfield provided some comments and supplementary 

information on a list of wind developments within 20km of the Firth of Forth SPA. In particular 

he advised on a number of sites where SNH would conclude no likely significant effect on the 

Firth of Forth SPA and which would fall out of the in-combination/cumulative assessment. 

03/11/201 (meeting with PfR and RPS) – Matthew Topsfield provided comments on a draft of 

the ornithology chapter and report to inform an appropriate assessment (Appendix 12.2). He 

advised that SNH was generally content with the survey effort, the assessments undertaken 

and the conclusions. 

04/09/2009 (letter) - Yvonne Boles (Central Scotland Conservation Officer) highlighted RSPB 

concerns relating to the proximity of the proposed wind energy development to the Firth of 

Forth SPA, Ramsar Sites and SSSI. RSPB Scotland is considering leasing land overlapping 




Organisation 


Council 

Response 

with and adjacent to the development (the Black Devon Wetlands) as a nature reserve. The 

proposed wind energy development will influence whether or not RSPB proceed with the 

reserve proposal as they have concerns about enhancing habitat for birds in close proximity to 

wind turbines. 

26/04/2010 (email): Yvonne Boles (Central Scotland Conservation Officer) noted that she had 

no additions to the proposed survey work. RSPB is interested in the movements of birds 

between pools adjacent to the proposed wind energy development and the Forth Estuary, 

especially at high tide. As the development is next to an SPA, RSPB suggested that a second 

year of data on migratory and wintering birds may be appropriate to give some indication of 

year-to-year variation in the use of this part of the estuary by birds. 

09/06/2010 (Meeting with PfR): Yvonne Boles (Central Scotland Conservation Officer) 

requested that the Beauly Denny Line should be included as part of a cumulative assessments 

and pointed out that there was no collision risk for wigeon included within the preliminary report 

to inform an Appropriate Assessment. 

01/10/2010 (meeting with PfR and RPS): RPS presented a summary of the ornithological 

impact assessment and appropriate assessment. RSPB indicated that their main concern 

related to collision risk for pink-footed goose, at Forthbank and in combination with other 

developments. They recognise the uncertainty about the avoidance rates used in collision risk 

calculations and welcomed proposals for post-construction monitoring. RSPB are in 

negotiations to lease the Black Devon Wetlands and manage as a bird reserve and are 

concerned about possible adverse publicity in relation to the proposed wind energy 

development and birds. 

22/03/2010 (e-mail) - Keith Johnstone (Principal Planner) alluded to the known presence of 

breeding barn owls within 2km of the proposed wind energy development site and advised that 

surveys to identify their presence should be conducted. 

Baseline Studies 

Target Species 

12.2.5 The desk study, field surveys and impact assessment all focused on a group of target bird 

species identified on the basis of their conservation value in accordance with SNH guidance 2 . 

For the proposed wind energy development these were as follows: 

• qualifying waterfowl species of the Firth of Forth SPA 8 (refer to Table 12.8); 

• other waterfowl 9 not listed as qualifying interests of the Firth of Forth SPA which are 

likely to be affected by a wind energy development; 

• raptors listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive 10 and/or Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & 

Countryside Act (1981) (as amended) 11 ; 

• other species listed on the Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern 12 ; and 

• priority species under the UK 4 and Clackmannanshire Biodiversity Action Plans 6 and 

the Scottish Biodiversity List 5 . 

Desk Study 

12.2.6 Ornithological data and details of protected areas for birds located within the development site 

and surrounding areas was sought from a range of sources including SNH, RSPB, Scottish 

Wildlife Trust (SWT) and the Central Scotland Raptor Study Group (see consultations above). 

In addition WeBS data for the upper Forth Estuary and the Firth of Forth SPA was requested 

from the British trust for Ornithology (BTO). Information sources are listed in Table 12.2 below. 




Table 12.2 Information Sources Used 

Topic 

Firth of Forth SPA, 

Ramsar Site and 

SSSI 

Estuarine bird data 

Field Surveys 

Nature and Source of Information 

SPA citation and conservation objectives 

Ramsar citation 

SSSI citation 

SNH information service http://www.snh.org.uk/snhi/ 

British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) data including; 

• High Tide Core Count data (2004/05 - 2008/09) for count sectors South Alloa to Cambus 

(44407) and Kincardine Bridge to Alloa (84406); and 

• Low Tide Counts (2003/04) for sectors BF005, BF006 and BF007. 

12.2.7 The following bird surveys were carried out between September 2009 and August 2010. An 

overall schedule of survey timings is included in Table 12.3 below. Further details of the timing 

of survey visits are given in Appendix 12.1. 

Winter Walkover 

12.2.8 The winter walkover surveys were designed to assess the use of terrestrial habitats of the 

proposed application site, as well as surrounding estuarine and other freshwater and wetland 

sites within at least 500m, by birds during the non-breeding season. Particular focus was paid 

to qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA although all other wetland and non-wetland 

‘terrestrial’ species were also recorded. 

12.2.9 The surveys involved a programme of six counts within the survey area between late 

September 2009 and late March 2010. The survey method involved making counts of wetland 

birds using the Forth Estuary from the seclusion of the landward side of the seawall 

embankment which stretches along much of the wind energy development site’s coastal 

boundary. In addition, a circuit was walked within the application site and nearby wetland 

areas during which all birds, (wetland and terrestrial) were recorded. 

12.2.10 All bird observations were plotted on to maps and transferred to a GIS system. Weather 

conditions (wind speed using the Beaufort Scale, cloud cover estimated as eighths or oktas of 

the sky, visibility and temperature) were also recorded. 

12.2.11 The survey area is illustrated in Figure 12.1 while information on the dates, timing and weather 

conditions of winter walkover visits is given in Appendix 12.1, (Ornithology Technical Appendix) 

Table 12.1.1. 

Estuary Zone Counts 

12.2.12 Estuary zone counts were undertaken to assess the use of intertidal habitats of the Forth 

Estuary immediately adjacent to the site by SPA qualifying bird species. Although counts of 

estuarine birds are undertaken annually in this area as part of the WeBS core counts scheme, 

these only comprise a single high tide count each month 13 . Low tide counts of birds are also 

made under the WeBS scheme but these are conducted much less frequently, with individual 

estuaries normally counted every 6 years. Consequently, RPS concluded that there was a 

requirement for more detailed and up-to-date information on the numbers, distribution and 

behaviour of SPA-qualifying species on the mudflats next to the proposed wind energy 




development site. Therefore a series of monthly estuarine counts was undertaken between 

November 2009 to August 2010 with the aim of covering all stages of the tidal cycle (the time 

between two successive high tides, of approximately 12 hours duration) over the survey 

period. 

12.2.13 Surveys were conducted by an experienced ornithological surveyor from a single point on the 

south-western shore of the Forth Estuary (adjacent to the proposed wind energy development 

site) at Dunmore Home Farm (NS 8869 9041) overlooking the estuary. Coverage extended to 

1km upstream and downstream of the proposed wind energy development site. 

12.2.14 The survey area was split into six Zones (A-F). These are illustrated in Figure 12.1. Fiveminute 

counts were undertaken in each zone in sequence and repeated over a period of 

approximately 3hrs. All target species of conservation concern were recorded by entering 

count totals for each species during each five-minute observation period in a particular zone on 

to fieldwork forms. Bird behaviour was recorded as either ‘feeding’ or ‘non-feeding’ and the 

number of birds observed for each category was recorded separately. 

12.2.15 Table 12.1.2, Appendix 12.1, presents a record of the dates, times and timings in relation to 

the tide when the individual estuary zone counts were conducted. 

Breeding Bird Surveys 

12.2.16 Breeding bird surveys were carried out in the spring and summer of 2010 following an adapted 

version of the BTO’s Common Bird Census methodology 14 15 with five visits completed 

between April and June inclusive. The survey area included the proposed wind energy 

development site plus a surrounding buffer of 500m as illustrated in Figure 12.1 while 

information on the dates, timing and weather conditions of each survey is given in Table 

12.1.3, Appendix 12.1. 

Barn Owl Surveys 

12.2.17 Potential barn owl nest sites within 1km of the proposed wind energy development site were 

checked during an initial visit on 16 February 2010. Information from the Central Scotland 

Raptor Study Group (see Table 12.1, Scoping and Consultation Responses) was used to 

inform the search for potential nest and roost sites. 

12.2.18 A follow up visit to check for occupancy was made on 2 July 2010. Surveys were based on the 

methods set out in Hardey et al. (2009) 16 . The coverage of the barn owl surveys is illustrated 


Flight Activity (Vantage Point) Surveys 

12.2.19 These surveys are designed to record bird flight activity over the application site. The data 

gathered from these surveys allows an estimation of the numbers of each bird species passing 

through the airspace as well as providing an indication of their spatial and temporal use of that 

airspace. 




12.2.20 The surveys, which used the vantage point methodology advocated by SNH 2 , extended from 

September 2009 and to August 2010 inclusive and aimed to record the flights of all target 

species of conservation concern within 500m of the proposed turbine array. Only one vantage 

point was necessary to cover the site. This was situated on the western flood embankment of 

the River Black Devon (NS 8959 9128), located due north of the proposed wind energy 

development site (see Figure 12.1). 

12.2.21 The flight activity surveys covered three seasons which included the autumn migration (July to 

October), overwintering (November to February) and spring migration periods (March to June). 

These represent the periods when bird numbers, and hence flight activity, are highest around 

the estuary. A minimum of 36 hours survey effort was conducted for each season as 

recommended in the guidance 2 . In addition, the survey time was split between dawn, day and 

dusk and covered all stages of the 12 hour tidal cycle in order to collect data which fully 

represented bird flight activity at the site. 

12.2.22 In total, 141 hours of flight activity surveys were carried between 18 September 2009 and 15 

August 2010, thus covering each month within a full calendar year. For the purposes of data 

collection, the year was divided into three periods of four months covering the autumn 

migration or passage period (July to October), the winter (November to February) and the 

spring migration period (March to June), and between 45 and 51 hours of effort were 

conducted in each period (see Table 12.1.7, Appendix 12.1). The amount of fight activity 

survey effort conducted each month is presented in Table 12.1.4, Appendix 12.1 along with 

details of the distribution of effort in relation to the tide and period of the day (Tables 12.1.5 and 

12.1.6, Appendix 12.1). 

12.2.23 A map showing the flight lines for each target species was compiled in a Geographic 

Information System (ArcView v.9.3 GIS), with each flight line linked to its associated flight 

duration and height information which was held in a Microsoft Access database. 

12.2.24 The information collected on key target species flying over the proposed wind energy 

development site and the adjacent airspace was used to estimate the number of individuals 

per species predicted to collide with the turbine rotors. These figures were obtained by 

estimating from the survey data, the number of flights of each of these species during a 

particular period of interest (such as breeding season, non-breeding season, or whole year) 

and entering these estimates into an appropriate collision risk model. The collision risk 

modelling methods used were in accordance with the Band Model recommended by SNH. 

Table 12.3 Schedule of bird survey timings for Forthbank 

Survey 

Month 

Winter 

Walkover 

Estuary Zone 

Counts 

Breeding 

Birds 

Barn Owl 

surveys 

Flight Activity 

(Vantage Point 

September 2009 

October 2009 

November 2009 

December 2009 

January 2010 

February 2010 

March 2010 

April 2010 

May 2010 

June 2010 

July 2010 

August 2010 




Collision Risk Modelling & Defining the Risk Zone 

12.2.25 Collision Risk Modelling (CRM) (SNH 2000 1 ; Band et al. 2007 17 ) was applied to the flight 

activity data collected during the Forthbank vantage point surveys to estimate the potential 

collision rates of birds with wind turbines. 

12.2.26 For each target species, an annual or where relevant, seasonal collision rate was predicted 

using either a directional or non-directional (random) collision risk model. For the purposes of 

collision risk modelling, the flight activity data was split into breeding (May-July inclusive) and 

non-breeding seasons (passage and winter) (August - April inclusive) and the choice of 

modelling method was based on the flight behaviour of a given species within the proposed 

wind energy development area. 

12.2.27 The “directional model” is normally appropriate for species which move through the wind farm 

area in a particular direction. This type of flight behaviour is characteristic of species on 

migration or making regular movements between feeding and roosting sites. SNH advocates 

the use of this directional method for groups such as divers, geese, swans and ducks. 

12.2.28 A “non-directional model” is more appropriate where the flights of a particular species are less 

predictable. This is usually the case for birds moving around within a breeding or hunting 

territory that is wholly or partly within the site of interest. This approach, which assumes that 

the direction of flights is random, is usually appropriate for breeding and non-breeding raptors 

and waders. 

12.2.29 The main difference between the directional and non-directional methods concerns whether it 

is more appropriate to consider collision risk to be influenced by either: 

• a two-dimensional “risk window” in front of a bird as it flies towards the wind farm 

area with the intention of continuing on in the same direction (directional model); or 

• within a three-dimensional “risk volume” as a bird flies around within the wind farm 

area, in no consistent direction (non-directional model). 

12.2.30 The risk window or risk volume, within which birds were considered to be at risk of collision 

was based on the area enclosed by the tips of the outermost turbine rotors, plus a 

precautionary 200m buffer to allow for a degree of surveyor error when mapping flightlines. 

This definition is in line with SNH guidance. 

12.2.31 Full details of the collision risk modelling process are given in Appendix 12.1. 

Assessment of the Significance of Impacts 

12.2.32 Assessment of the significance of impacts on ornithological interests was broadly based on the 

staged process outlined in guidelines from the Institute of Ecology and Environmental 

Management (IEEM); most recent version from 2006 18 ). 

12.2.33 The stages in the assessment are as follows: 




• determine the nature conservation value of the ornithological interests present within 

the study area; 

• identify the potential impacts based on the nature of the proposed development; 

• determine the scale and magnitude of those effects; 

• determine the significance of those effects based on the magnitude and duration of 

the effects on the nature conservation value of the bird populations affected; 

• identify and assess mitigation measures required to address significant adverse 

effects; and 

• determine the significance of any residual effect once the benefits of the prescribed 

mitigation measures have been assessed. 

12.2.34 Evaluation of the ornithological resources identified by the baseline studies as ‘Valued 

Ornithological Receptors’ (VORs) has been guided by the 2006 revision of the IEEM 

Guidelines 18 . In accordance with these Guidelines, the importance of each VOR has been 

assessed in relation to the conservation status of the species over the full range of 

geographical scales as listed below (Table 12.4). 

12.2.35 It should be noted that these criteria are intended as a guide and are not definitive. Attributing 

a value to a receptor is generally straightforward in the case of designated sites, as the 

designations themselves are normally indicative of a value level. For example, a moorland 

designated as an SPA under the Habitats Directive is implicitly of European (i.e. International) 

importance. Professional judgement is important when attributing a level of value to a 

particular species or individual habitat. In these cases, reference has also been made to 

national guidelines for the selection of SSSIs 19 in order to determine which level of significance 

should be applied. Social and economic factors are also considered when valuing receptors. 

Table 12.4 Approach to Classifying Nature Conservation Value of the Ornithological 

Receptors at the Site 

Value 

International 

National 

Regional 

District 

Local 

Negligible 

Examples 

An internationally designated site (e.g. SPA) as designated under the Birds Directive or Ramsar 

(wetland sites designated under the Ramsar Convention), candidate sites, qualifying features 

connected to a nearby SPA (e.g. pink-footed geese), or an area meeting the criteria for an international 

designation. 

A regularly occurring, nationally important population of any internationally important species listed 

under Annex I of the Birds Directive, or regularly occurring migratory species connected to an SPA 

designated for this species under the Birds Directive. 

A nationally designated site, or area meeting criteria for national level designations (e.g. SSSI). 

A regularly occurring, regionally important population of any nationally important species listed as a UK 

BAP priority species and species listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act or Annex I 

of the Birds Directive. 

A regularly occurring, locally important population of any nationally important species listed as a UK 

BAP priority species and species listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act or Annex I 

of the Birds Directive. 

Sites which exceed the local authority-level designations but fall short of SSSI selection guidelines. 

Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation or equivalent sites selected on local authority criteria (e.g. 

SWT Reserves). 

Local Nature Reserves (LNRs). 

Other species of conservation concern, including species listed under the Local BAP (LBAP) and the 

UK Birds of Conservation Concern. 

All other species that are widespread and common and which are not present in locally, regionally or 

nationally important numbers which are considered to be of low or poor ecological value (e.g. UK Birds 

of Conservation Concern Green List species). 

Commonplace species of little or not conservation significance. Loss of such a species from the site 




Value 

Examples 

would not be seen as detrimental to the ecology of the area. 

12.2.36 The potential effects are determined through understanding how each VOR is affected by a 

development. The elements used to define the scale of the effect of a development include 

determining: 

• the potential duration of the effect (as detailed in Table 12.5); 

• the scale/magnitude of the effect (as detailed in Table 12.6); and 

• whether there are any cumulative impacts that may affect the long-term integrity of 

the ecosystem(s) at the site. 

Table 12.5 Criteria for Defining the Duration of Effects 20 

Duration Definition 

Permanent Effects continuing indefinitely beyond the span of one human generation (taken as approximately 25 

years), except where there is likely to be substantial improvement after this period (e.g. the 

replacement of mature trees by young trees which need >25 years to reach maturity, or restoration of 

ground after removal of a development. Such exceptions can be termed “very long term effects”) 

Temporary Long term (15 - 25 years or longer - see above) 

Medium term (5 - 15 years) 

Short term (up to 5 years) 

Table 12.6 Criteria for Describing Spatial Magnitude 

Magnitude 

Total/neartotal 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Neutral 

Description 

Would cause the loss of a major proportion or whole feature/population, or cause sufficient damage to 

a feature to immediately affect its viability. Irreversible. 

Major effects on the feature/population, which would have a sufficient effect to irreversibly alter the 

nature of the feature in the short-to-long term and affect its long-term viability, for example more than 

20% habitat loss or damage. 

Effects that are detectable in short and long-term, but which should not alter the long-term viability of 

the feature/population, for example between 10 - 20% habitat loss or damage. 

Minor effects, either of sufficiently small-scale or of short duration to cause no long-term harm to the 

feature/population, for example less than 10% habitat loss or damage. 

A potential impact that is not expected to affect the feature/population in any way; therefore no effects 

are predicted. 

12.2.37 It has also been established whether the identified effects are: 

• direct, indirect, and/or cumulative; 

• positive or negative; 

• short, medium or long-term; and 

• permanent or temporary. 

12.2.38 The significance of a potential effect on each VOR was determined by considering the duration 

and magnitude of the effect (Tables 12.5 and 12.6) in relation to the conservation importance 

of the VOR (Table 12.4). Significance is described as Major, Moderate, Minor or Negligible, or 

within a range (e.g. Major - Moderate) as given in Table 12.7. 

12.2.39 Effects or residual effects are considered to be significant under the relevant Environmental 

Impact Assessment Regulations if they are at a level of Moderate or Major as described in 

Table 12.7. Where the assessment criteria arrives at an impact of variable significance (i.e. 

major - moderate or moderate - minor) then the outcome is defined either by taking a 

precautionary, worst case scenario approach or where possible by applying professional 




judgement taking into consideration specialist knowledge of the receptor in question and 

confidence in the prediction. Impacts assessed as being neutral or slight, are not considered 

to be significant in the sense used in the Regulations. 

Table 12.7 Significance of the Effects as Defined by the Relationship Between the 

Nature Conservation Value and Effect Magnitude 

Effect Magnitude Nature Conservation Value 

International National Regional Local Negligible 

Total/near total Major Major Major Moderate Slight 

High Major Major Major - Moderate Moderate Slight 

Medium Major Major - Moderate Moderate Moderate - Minor Minor 

Low Moderate - Minor Moderate - Minor Moderate - Minor Minor Minor 

Neutral 

No/Negligible Effect 

12.2.40 Following the application of mitigation and enhancement measures, the magnitude of change 

needs to be re-established and the significance values reassessed. The significance criteria 

listed in Table 12.7 have also been used to predict the residual significance of each potential 

effect following mitigation and enhancement. 


Consultation and Desk Study 

12.3.1 Table 12.8 presents a summary of the ornithological information received from consultees 

during the scoping and consultation process. Further details relating to the information 

provided are presented below. 

Table 12.8 Ornithological Information and Records Received 

Organisation 

RSPB Scotland 

BTO 

Scottish Wildlife 

Trust (SWT) 


Council 


Countryside 

Ranger Service 

Central Scotland 

Raptor Study 

Group 


Response 

22/07/2009 (e-mail): Clare Bunyard (Administration Manager) informed RPS that a data search 

did not produce any relevant information they were able to give out. However, she advised 

that records for the area do exist from the 2007 Important Bird Areas survey, while 2006 

Breeding Bird Survey records will be held by the BTO. 

10/07/2010 (e-mail): Neil Calbrade (BTO WeBS Co-ordinator) provided high (core count) and 

low tide data for the relevant count sectors located within 1km of the proposed wind energy 


04/08/2009 (e-mail): Gill Calder (Biodiversity Data Manager) provided a summary of the wildlife 

interests at three recognised wildlife sites within 2km of the proposed wind energy 

development site. Of these, Alloa Inches SWT Reserve (1.45km to the north west) was the 

only one with specific ornithological interests. 

22/03/2010 (e-mail): Keith Johnstone (Principle Planner) alluded to the known presence of 

breeding barn owls within 2km of the proposed wind energy development site. 

16/06/2010 & 28/07/2010 (e-mails): Lisa Ford (Countryside Ranger) provided information on 

Black Devonmouth Lagoons Local Wildlife Site and also informed that barns owls known to 

use buildings in the surrounding area. Information regarding barn owls is treated as 

confidential and is presented in the Confidential Appendix (Appendix 12.3. 

22/09/2009 (email): Mike Steward (Regional Recorder) provided information on known and 

potential barn owl nest and roost sites in the vicinity of the proposed development. Information 

regarding barn owls is treated as confidential and is presented in the Confidential Appendix 

(Appendix 12.3). 

12.3.2 The locations of all statutory and non-statutory designated sites in close proximity of the 

proposed wind energy development site (within 5km) are illustrated in Figure 12.2. 




Statutory Designated Sites 

12.3.3 All statutory designated sites within 10km of the proposed wind energy development site which 

are designated for ornithological interests are listed in Table 12.9. The citations and full details 

of the qualifying interests for these sites are available on SNHs Sitelink website 8 . 

Table 12.9 Statutory Designated Sites with Ornithological Interests within 10km of the 

proposed wind energy development site 

Site Name Distance from Reason for Designation 

Site 

Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar Sites 

Firth of Forth 

SPA and 

Ramsar Site 

Approx. 720m 

to the south 

and approx. 

1km to the west 

(Alloa Inches) 

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 

Firth of Forth 

SSSI 

Gartmorn 

Dam SSSI 

Carron Dams 

SSSI 

Approx. 720m 

to the south 

and approx. 

1km to the west 

(Alloa Inches) 

3.5km (north 

east) 

7.8km (south) 

The Firth of Forth SPA is of importance for regularly supporting wintering and postbreeding 

populations of several wetland bird species of European importance 

(Annex 1 species). The SPA is also important for supporting wintering populations 

of both European and international importance for several migratory wetland bird 

species. In addition the Firth of Forth is also classified as a SPA for regularly 

supporting a wintering waterfowl assemblage of European importance: over 

20’000 birds. The full list of qualifying species for which the SPA is classified is 

presented in Appendix 12.2 (Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment), Table 

12.2.1. 

The sites Ramsar designation also related to its importance for overwintering 

waterfowl and is recognised for regularly supporting over 20,000 wintering 

waterfowl including internationally important populations of several species. The 

bird interests of the Ramsar site are the same as those for the SPA. 

This SSSI has both biological and geological notified features. The biological 

features are its coastland and grassland habitats, botanical species, winter 

wildfowl and waders, breeding birds, and invertebrates. In terms of ornithology, the 

Firth of the Forth is the second most important estuarine area for wintering birds in 

Scotland, with internationally and nationally important numbers of wintering and 

moulting wildfowl and waders. The SSSI is also notified for nationally important 

breeding concentrations of eider (centred on Aberlady Bay), shelduck (Aberlady 

Bay, Alloa Inch and Skinflats) and ringed plover (Gullane to Briadsands, Skinflats 

and Tyningham); as well as important breeding colonies of common, little and 

Arctic tern (Aberlandy and Tyninghame). 

A large area of open water surrounded by marginal vegetation, reed swamp and 

areas of broadleaved woodland. The site is also used as a wintering area for 

waterfowl. 

The open water, woodland and fenland habitats associated with this site support a 

variety of breeding and wintering birds. 

12.3.4 There are no statutory designated sites within the proposed wind energy development site. 

12.3.5 The closest statutory designated site (or complex of sites) to the proposed wind energy 

development site is the Firth of Forth SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI which lies approximately 

720m to the south at its nearest point. 

12.3.6 The Firth of Forth SPA is of international importance for its wintering waterfowl 21 assemblage 

and for nationally and/or internationally important populations of some of these species. The 

Firth of Forth SPA is a mosaic of estuarine and coastal habitats extending from the coast at 

Fife and East Lothian upstream to Alloa. 

12.3.7 The SPA extends for over 100km and includes a suite of habitats including intertidal flats, 

rocky shores, saltmarsh, lagoons and sand dunes. Several large urban areas, including the 

city of Edinburgh, are situated adjacent to the site and these include several areas of heavy 

industry. In addition the Forth is one of the most important shipping areas in Scotland. In 

general the eastern portion (downstream of the Forth Road and Rail Bridges) comprises more 

maritime habitats with a different mixture of species than the western, estuarine part (upstream 

of the Forth Bridges). Many of the SPA qualifying species with more marine habitat 

preferences do not occur in significant numbers within the Forth Estuary. 




12.3.8 The full list of qualifying species for which the SPA is classified is presented in Appendix 12.2, 

Table 12.2.1. 

12.3.9 The Firth of Forth’s designation as a Ramsar site also relates to the important populations of 

overwintering waterfowl which the area supports. The SSSI designation, which is for both 

biological and geological features, includes wetland bird species and coastal and estuarine 

habitats (see Table 12.9 above). 

Non-Statutory Designated Sites & Nature Reserves 

12.3.10 The following provides details of all non-statutory designated sites identified within 2km of the 

proposed wind energy development site with ornithological interests. 

Black Devonmouth Lagoons Wildlife Site 

12.3.11 This complex of freshwater and slightly brackish lagoons is located within 100m to the north of 

the proposed wind energy development site. The wetland was created between the late 1990s 

and mid-2000s to provide high tide roosting habitat for waterfowl and wading birds from the 

adjacent Forth Estuary. In winter they regularly support flocks of shelduck, curlew, 

oystercatcher and redshank as well as attracting passage migrant wading birds. 

Alloa Inches SWT Reserve 

12.3.12 Alloa and Tullibody Inches consist of two small, low lying islands located on a large bend in the 

tidal section of the River Forth approximately 1.1km upstream of the proposed wind energy 


12.3.13 The smaller, Tullibody Inch (11ha) is surrounded by deep soft mud and is regularly inundated 

by the tide. It is entirely covered by reedbeds and is an important autumn roost for swallows. 

12.3.14 Alloa Inch (39ha) is also frequently inundated by the tide following a breach in the seawall in 

1983. This has lead to the establishment of the largest area of pioneer saltmarsh communities 

in the Forth Estuary of which the extensive areas of sea aster represent an important winter 

food source for flocks of twite. Alloa Inch also regularly supports between 2000-3000 pinkfooted 

geese during the spring when the first flush of saltmarsh grasses provide rich food 

before their northward migration. This island is also a nationally important breeding site for 

shelduck. 

Historical Bird Data 

Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) Data 

High Tide (Core Count) Data 

12.3.15 Mean peak counts for 2004/05–2008/09 are presented for two count sectors which overlap 

with the estuary zone count survey area for Forthbank are shown in Table 12.10. For SPA 




species, the mean peak count for each sector is given as a percentage of the population 

quoted on the SPA citation for the Firth of Forth. Locations of WeBS Core Count Sectors in 

relation to the estuary survey area for Forthbank are shown in Figure 12.3. 

Table 12.10 Summary of WeBS High Tide Core Count Data for the Forthbank Area 

2004/05–2008/09 

Species (including qualifying South Alloa to Cambus 

Kincardine Bridge to Alloa 

population for SPA species) Mean Peak % of SPA population Mean Peak % of SPA population 

Count* 

at classification Count* 

at classification 

SPA Qualifying Species 

Golden plover (2949) 5*


12.11 below. These data are for the winter of 2003/04. The boundary of this count sector is 

shown in Figure 12.3. 

Table 12.11 WeBS Low Tide Count Data for the Forthbank Area (Count Sector BF005) 

2003/04 

Species (including qualifying 

population for SPA species) 

Mean density in 

Firth of Forth (birds 

per hectare) 

Peak count Peak count Peak density 

(individuals) as % of SPA (birds per 

population hectare) 


Cormorant (682) 6


12.3.22 Over the course of the winter walkover survey programme a total of 37 species were recorded. 

These included 13 wetland bird species, 12 qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA and 12 

terrestrial species. The distribution of registrations for species of nature conservation 

importance is illustrated in Figure 12.4. 

Table 12.12 Birds Recorded During the Forthbank Winter Walkover Surveys 2009/10 

Species 

No. of 

visits 

recorded 

(/6) 

No. of 

registrations 

recorded 

Cumulative 

total 

Single 

survey 

peak 

count 

Comments (including general 

distribution, habitat usage and activity 

within the survey area) 


Bar-tailed godwit 2 2 33 21 Forth Estuary 

Cormorant 3 6 35 30 Forth Estuary 

Curlew 6 11 111 41 Forth Estuary mudflats, Black Devon 

Wetlands and surrounding fields 

Goldeneye 2 2 3 2 Forth Estuary 

Lapwing 2 2 4 3 Flying over Forth Estuary and proposed 

wind energy development site 

Mallard 6 17 148 53 Forth Estuary, Black Devon Wetlands and 

Black Devon 

Oystercatcher 2 4 41 37 Forth Estuary 

Pink-footed 

goose 

5 12 1595 955 Predominantly flying over the proposed 

wind energy development site with only 

occasional flocks present within the survey 

area 

Redshank 5 11 31 12 Forth Estuary, Black Devon Wetlands and 

Black Devon 

Red-breasted 

merganser 

3 7 26 18 Forth Estuary and flying over proposed 


Shelduck 3 5 22 12 Forth Estuary and Black Devon Wetlands 

Wigeon 3 9 369 223 Forth Estuary and Black Devon 

Non-SPA Qualifying Wetland Species 

Black-headed gull 5 11 949 650 Forth Estuary and Black Devon Wetlands 

Barnacle goose 1 1 4 4 Fields surrounding proposed wind energy 

development site 

Canada goose 1 1 4 4 Forth Estuary 

Goosander 1 1 1 1 Forth Estuary 

Greenshank 1 2 2 2 Black Devon 

Gannet 2 3 10 8 Flying over Forth Estuary 

Herring gull 4 7 84 55 Forth Estuary and Black Devon Wetlands 

Kingfisher 1 1 1 1 Black Devon 

Mute swan 5 6 13 4 Black Devon Wetlands 

Snipe 5 10 12 4 Black Devon Wetlands and flying over 


Shoveler 1 1 1 1 Black Devon Wetlands 

Teal 6 13 184 96 Forth Estuary, Black Devon Wetlands and 

Black Devon 

Tufted duck 1 1 4 4 Black Devon Wetlands 

Non-wetland ‘Terrestrial’ Species 

Buzzard 4 4 4 1 Flying over Black Devon Wetlands 

Crossbill 1 1 1 1 Flying over proposed wind energy 


Dunnock 4 13 13 5 Scrub within and surrounding proposed 


Grey partridge 2 2 6 5 Habitats within and surrounding proposed 


Kestrel 4 4 5 2 Habitats within and surrounding proposed 


Linnet 1 2 2 2 Habitats within proposed wind energy 


Peregrine 1 1 1 1 Flying over Black Devon Wetlands 

Reed bunting 6 24 26 7 Habitats within and surrounding proposed 


Skylark 4 14 24 9 Grassland within and surrounding 


Short-eared owl 1 1 1 1 Flying over grassland within proposed 





Species 

No. of 

visits 

recorded 

(/6) 

No. of 

registrations 

recorded 

Cumulative 

total 



Single 

survey 

peak 

count 

Comments (including general 

distribution, habitat usage and activity 

within the survey area) 

Song thrush 3 9 13 9 Scrub within and surrounding proposed 


Yellowhammer 2 7 17 16 Habitats within and surrounding proposed 


Estuary Zone Counts 

12.3.23 Table 12.13 presents the monthly peak counts for target species recorded during the Estuary 

Zone counts which were undertaken between 11 November 2009 and 8 August 2010. 

12.3.24 These figures represent the maximum count for each species recorded across the six count 

zones during each monthly 3 hours survey period. As each zone was counted individually at 5 

minute intervals, species totals were not summed across zones in order to avoid doublecounting 

of birds which may have moved between zones. 

12.3.25 Peak counts for each species over the entire survey period are highlighted in bold. For SPA 

qualifying species, these figures presented as a percentage of the species’ respective SPA 

qualifying populations as listed on the SPA citation. 

12.3.26 In total, 31 waterbird species were recorded throughout the survey programme, of which 27 

were target species, including 15 qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA. 

12.3.27 Not-surprisingly the majority of waterfowl and wading bird species were recorded in their 

highest numbers during the winter months. With regard to SPA qualifying species, peak 

counts representing more than 1% of their respective qualifying populations were recorded for 

bar-tailed godwit, cormorant curlew, mallard, red-breasted merganser, Sandwich tern and 

wigeon during this time. All other SPA qualifying species were recorded in comparatively low 

numbers. 

Table 12.13 Forthbank Estuary Zone Count Data 2009/10 (overall peak counts in bold) 

Species 

Peak counts per monthly visit 

11/11/09 

04/12/09 

20/01/09 

18/02/10 

27/03/10 

16/04/10 

25/05/10 

10/06/10 

23/07/10 

08/08/10 

Peak 

count as 

% of SPA 

qualifying 

population 


Bar-tailed godwit 1 - 33 - - 13 - - - 1 1.7 

Cormorant 10 6 - 4 - - - - 2 - 1.5 

Curlew 41 - 73 31 47 8 1 1 8 17 3.8 

Dunlin - - - - 4 - - - - -


Species 

Peak counts per monthly visit 

11/11/09 

04/12/09 

20/01/09 

18/02/10 

27/03/10 

16/04/10 

25/05/10 

10/06/10 

23/07/10 

08/08/10 

Peak 

count as 

% of SPA 

qualifying 

population 

Canada goose 2 2 - - - - - - - - N/A 

Common sandpiper - - - - - - - - 12 10 N/A 

Common tern - - - - - - - - 4 1 N/A 

Goosander 1 - - 1 - - - - - - N/A 

Greenshank - - - - - - - - 2 - N/A 

Greylag goose - - - 8 - - - - - - 

Herring gull - - - - - 110 15 6 - 5 N/A 

Mute swan 2 - 2 - - - - - - - N/A 

Teal 34 70 150 25 65 6 - - - - N/A 

Tufted duck - - 8 - - - - - - - N/A 

12.3.28 With regard to non-qualifying species, only teal and herring gull were recorded in large 

numbers within the estuary count survey area. 

12.3.29 Outside of the winter period the number of most species recorded was generally very low, with 

numbers showing a general trend of gradually declining throughout the spring passage period 

before reaching their lowest levels during the summer with many species being completely 

absent at this time. 

12.3.30 Several species which typically occur around the Forth Estuary during the postbreeding/autumn 

passage period were recorded in the survey area in the late summer months. 

These included greenshank, common sandpiper, common tern and sandwich tern, the latter of 

which is of note as it is an SPA qualifying species and the peak count of 22 represents over 

1% of this species qualifying population. The number of common sandpiper recorded was also 

of note. However, all other species were recorded in low numbers. 


12.3.31 Table 12.14 presents the list of birds of conservation concern and other target species along 

with the number of breeding territories which were recorded for these species within the 

proposed wind energy development site (application site) and wider survey area during the 

2010 breeding bird surveys. The approximate central location of these territories is show in 

Figures 12.5 and 12.6. A full list of the species recorded during these surveys is presented in 

Appendix 12.1, Table 12.1.9. 

12.3.32 A total of 70 species were recorded during the breeding season, of which 33 were species of 

conservation concern/target species (i.e. those included in Table 12.13). These included 8 

SPA qualifying species, 2 Annex I, 3 Schedule 1, 14 UK BAP species and 13 red listed 

species. 

Table 12.14 Birds of Conservation Concern Recorded During the Forthbank 2010 


Species 

Conservation Status 

Number of territories/pairs 

Within the survey 

area (to 500m) 

Within proposed 

wind energy 


Curlew SPA; UK BAP; SBL P - 

Lapwing SPA, Red-listed; UKBAP; LBAP; SBL 2 - 

Mallard SPA 5 P 

Oystercatcher SPA 1 - 

Pink-footed goose SPA - (flying over) - 




Species 

Conservation Status 

Number of territories/pairs 

Within the survey 

area (to 500m) 

Within proposed 

wind energy 


Redshank SPA 1 - 

Shelduck SPA 3 - 

Wigeon SPA P - 

Common tern Annex I P - 

Kingfisher Annex I, Schedule 1 P - 

Black-tailed godwit Schedule 1; Red-listed P - 

Whimbrel Schedule 1; Red-listed P - 

Grasshopper warbler Red-listed; UKBAP 9 - 

Grey partridge Red-listed, UKBAP P P 

Herring gull Red-listed; UKBAP; SBL 1 - 

House sparrow Red-listed; UKBAP 7 P 

Linnet Red-listed; UKBAP; LBAP; SBL 4 2 

Skylark Red-listed; UKBAP; LBAP 13 6 

Song thrush Red-listed: UKBAP; LBAP; SBL 3 1 

Starling Red-listed; UKBAP P P 

Tree sparrow Red-listed, UKBAP; LBAP 1 - 

Yellowhammer Red-listed; UKBAP; LBAP; SBL 7 2 

Dunnock UKBAP 15 2 

Reed bunting UKBAP; SBL 14 4 

Goldfinch LBAP 5 3 

Black-headed gull SBL P P 

Swift SBL P P 

Robin SBL 2 - 

Gadwall 1 - 

Greylag goose - (flying over) - 

Mute swan 1 - 

Shoveler P - 

Teal P P 

Tufted duck P - 

P = present on-site but no evidence of breeding; 

LBAP = Species action plan in Clackmannanshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan; 

SBL = Scottish Biodiversity List 

Barn Owl Surveys 

12.3.33 The results of the barn owl surveys are provided in the Appendix 12.3. 

12.3.34 A single barn owl was flushed from the known roost site identified to RPS during the 

consultation exercise (see Table 12.8). The presence of numerous pellets at this location was 

also noted indicating that there was a history of use by barn owl at this site. 

12.3.35 Several other locations were visited during this first visit, on both the north and south side of 

the River Forth. However, no other locations with evidence of barn owl were identified. 

12.3.36 On the follow-up survey of 2 July 2010, no evidence of barn owl was detected at any of the 

potential roosting or nesting locations within the survey area, including at the known roost site 

where no signs of recent occupation were discovered. 

Flight Activity/Vantage Point Surveys 

12.3.37 Twenty-eight target species were recorded during the flight activity surveys undertaken 

between 18 September 2009 and 15 August 2010 as identified in Table 12.15. Full details of 

the bird flights recorded during these surveys is presented in Appendix 12.1,Table 12.1.10, 

while maps illustrating the flight activity (flight lines) for these species are presented in Figures 

12.7 - 12.10. 




12.3.38 Table 12.15 presents the total number of flight events and constituent number of birds for each 

species which were recorded during the entire programme of flight activity survey. The table 

also provides a break down of the data in relation to the number of birds which were recorded 

passing over the Wind Farm Polygon (WP) and at Potential Collision Height (PCH) (35-125m 

above ground level). 

12.3.39 Of the target species recorded during the flight activity surveys collision risk modelling was 

generally only undertaken for those for which more than 3 independent flight events occurred 

throughout the entire survey period or relevant season, as it was considered that reliable 

predictions of collision risk were not likely through fewer events. Birds were considered to be 

“at risk” if they were recorded flying over the WP and at PCH. 

12.3.40 The species highlighted in bold in Table 12.15 are those for which collision risk modelling was 

undertaken. 

Table 12.15 Summary of Bird Flight Activity Recorded at Forthbank (September 2009 - 

August 2010) 

Species 

Total no. 

of flight 

events 

Total 

time in 

flight 

(secs) 

Total 

no. of 

birds 

No. of 

birds 

at 

PCH 

No. of 

birds at 

PCH 

within 

WP 

No. of 

independent 

flight events 

for CRM 

Peak 

Count 

Month of 

Peak 

Count 


Cormorant 31 2415 48 42 18 14 6 Nov & Aug 

Curlew 36 6585 176 82 82 13 48 Nov 

Goldeneye 1 60 2 2 2 1 2 Feb 

Golden plover 1 1350 45 45 0 0 45 Apr 

Lapwing 36 20940 264 84 84 11 130 Sept 

Mallard 91 13140 311 147 147 29 47 Aug 

Oystercatcher 10 1230 26 7 2 2 10 Apr 

Pink-footed goose 154 1545315 18218 17350 5970 66 1100 Dec 

Redshank 1 60 2 0 0 0 2 May 

Red-breasted 9 330 15 1 1 1 3 Dec 

merganser 

Shelduck 39 2265 70 20 20 10 7 Apr 

Sandwich tern 17 2295 41 24 6 4 12 Jul 

Wigeon 6 1590 58 4 4 1 24 Dec 

Non-SPA Qualifying SPA Wetland Bird Species 

Black-tailed godwit 1 30 2 0 0 0 2 Jun 

Barnacle goose 1 480 4 4 0 0 4 Apr 

Common tern 1 30 1 0 0 0 1 Jul 

Common sandpiper 7 150 10 0 0 0 4 Jun 

Goosander 1 45 3 0 0 0 3 Apr 

Greylag goose 10 12135 141 130 32 5 40 Aug 

Greenshank 1 15 1 0 0 0 1 Aug 

Glossy ibis 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Nov 

Mute swan 16 1100 24 4 4 2 2 Various 

Snow goose 1 30 1 1 0 0 1 Mar 

Snipe 8 810 22 4 4 2 5 Aug & Sept 

Teal 8 2205 57 2 2 1 30 Nov 

Tufted duck 14 2070 52 34 34 11 13 May 

Raptors 

Peregrine 12 735 12 12 7 7 1 Various 

Short-eared owl 5 195 5 0 0 0 1 Apr 

Note: PCH = potential collision height (35-125m); WP = windfarm polygon (the area enclosed by a line on the map 

joining the outermost turbine rotors of the wind farm plus a 200m buffer); CRM = collision risk modelling. 




Collision Risk Modelling 

12.3.41 Of the target species recorded during the flight activity surveys, at least 3 statistically 

independent flight events (see Appendix 12.1) which might be at risk of turbine collision within 

the wind energy development per year were recorded for 10 species (Table 12.15). These 

included seven qualifying wetland bird species of the Firth of Forth SPA, two non-qualifying 

wetland species, and one raptor species. There was considered to be insufficient information 

(i.e. fewer than 3 statistically independent flight events) to enable robust collision risk 

predictions for these species however, it follows that the infrequency of “at risk” flight activity 

for the other target species means that their risk of turbine collisions should be low. 

12.3.42 The flight activity data for the 10 species was extrapolated, for each period of interest, to give 

estimates of their total flights through the Risk Window or Risk Volume, respectively 23 . These 

totals were then entered into a collision risk model to generate estimates of the frequency of 

turbine collisions for each species during the period of interest. Tables 12.1.11 to 12.1.24, 

Appendix 12.1 detail each stage of the collision modelling process. Collision risk modelling 

estimates the number of collisions that would occur if birds take no avoiding action to fly 

around turbines. An avoidance rate is then applied based on available evidence for the 

tendency of birds to take avoiding action, for example an avoidance rate of 99% indicates that 

during 99 out of 100 flights a bird of a given species would be expected to take avoiding action 

when flying towards a wind turbine. Results of the collision risk modelling for the proposed 

wind energy development are presented for a range of avoidance rates (Table 12.16). Based 

on the most recent guidance from SNH (September 2010) 24 , the recommended avoidance rate 

is 98% for most bird species (a change from previous SNH advice that a default avoidance rate 

of 95% should be applied), and 99% for geese. 

Table 12.16 Predicted Collision Risk Mortality for Target Species with “At Risk” Flights 

at Forthbank 

Species (and season) Predicted collision risk mortality rates (birds per year) under different avoidance 

rates (mortality rates in bold represent the avoidance rate recommended by SNH 24 for 

a given species) 

No avoidance 95% 98% 99% 


Cormorant (annual) 11.73 0.59 0.23 0.12 

Curlew (annual) 40.58 2.03 0.81 0.41 

Lapwing: breeding 16.15 0.81 0.32 0.16 

Lapwing: non-breeding 25.10 1.26 0.50 0.25 

Mallard: breeding 36.10 1.81 0.72 0.36 

Mallard: non-breeding 89.90 4.49 1.80 0.90 

Pink-footed goose (annual) 5485 - - 55 

Shelduck: breeding 3.6 0.18 0.07 0.04 

Shelduck: non-breeding 14.6 0.73 0.29 0.15 

Sandwich tern 12.0 0.60 0.24 0.12 

Non-SPA Qualifying Wetland Bird Species 

Greylag goose 31 - - 0.31 

Tufted duck (breeding) 31.2 1.56 0.62 0.31 

Raptors 

Peregrine: breeding 2.05 0.10 0.04 0.02 

Peregrine: non-breeding 0.53 0.03 0.01



Evaluation of Ornithological Receptors 

12.4.1 Each bird species recorded within the proposed wind energy development survey area was 

considered to be a potential Valued Ornithological Receptor (VOR) if it met any of the following 

criteria: 

• a qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA 8 ; 

• a species listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive 10 ; 

• a species listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981) (as 

amended) 11 ; 

• a species for which the UK supports an internationally important population; 

• a priority species of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan 4 ; 

• a species with an action plan under the Clackmannanshire Local Biodiversity Action 

Plan 6 or listed on the Scottish Biodiversity List 5 ; 

• a species included on the red list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) in the 

UK 12 ; 

• a waterfowl species which is likely to be affected by a wind energy development; 

• a species with a population in the survey area sufficiently large to be deemed as of 

national importance. 

12.4.2 Of the potential VOR species, several which are identified on conservation and biodiversity 

lists are still relatively common and widespread in the UK despite their conservation status. 

For example grey partridge, linnet, song thrush, tree sparrow, herring gull, house sparrow and 

starling, all of which were recorded during the Forthbank surveys, are priority species within 

the UKBAP, and/or are red-listed BoCC. However, their conservation status reflects a decline 

in numbers rather than rareness. Furthermore, some of the species recorded within the 

Forthbank survey area which are included on the Scottish Biodiversity List are also common 

throughout the UK including robin, swift, black-headed gull and kestrel. Consequently the 

importance of the site to these species was considered to be at the local level and therefore no 

significant impacts are predicted on any of these species. As such they will not be considered 

further in this assessment. 

12.4.3 A total of 42 VOR species are presented Table 12.17. The list of species is arranged in order 

of conservation significance within which they are listed in alphabetical order and includes 16 

SPA qualifying species, 10 Annex I species, 7 Schedule I species, 14 UKBAP/red-listed 

species, 5 Clackmannanshire LBAP species and 22 Scottish Biodiversity List species. These 

are discussed in turn below. The VOR table also presents a summary of the survey findings 

for each species along with their assigned conservation value as a species and in relation to 




the proposed wind energy development site for which a statement of justification is also 

provided. 




Table 12.17 Valued Ornithological Receptors (VORs) at the Proposed Wind Energy Development Site 

VOR 


Bar-tailed godwit 

Qualifying population 

= 1974 

Cormorant 


= 682 

Curlew 


= 1928 

Recorded Presence at Forthbank 

(Vantage Point (VP), Winter Walkover (WW), Breeding Bird 

Surveys (BBS), Estuary Count (EC), and Barn Owl (BO) Surveys) 

VP Surveys: 

• Not recorded 

WW Surveys: 

• Recorded on 2 of 6 visits. Peak count 21 = 1.1% of the Firth of 

Forth SPA qualifying population. 

BBS: 


EC Surveys: 

• Recorded on 4 of the 10 visits. Peak count 33 birds = 1.7% of 

the Firth of Forth SPA qualifying population. 

VP Surveys: 

• 10 flight events comprising 48 birds of which 14 flight events 

comprising 18 birds were “at risk”. 

• Peak count 6 = 1%), the site is also considered to be 

of International importance. 

As a qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA cormorant is of 

International importance. 

Given the close proximity of the application site to this SPA, and 

the fact that on occasion the site supports a significant proportion 

of the SPA population (i.e. >1%), the site is also considered to be 


As a qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA curlew is of 

International importance. 

Given the close proximity of the application site to this SPA, and 

the fact that on occasion the site supports a significant proportion 

of the SPA population (i.e. >1%), the site is also considered to be 


Species Conservation 

Value (Sp) and Level 

of Importance at 

Forthbank (Site) 

Sp: International 

Site: International 








VOR 

Dunlin 


= 9514 

Goldeneye 


= 3004 

Golden plover 


= 2949 

Grey plover 





• Recorded on 9 of 10 visits. Peak count 73 = 3.8% of the Firth of 


VP Surveys: 

• Not recorded. 

WW Surveys: 


BBS: 


EC Surveys: 

• Recorded on 1 of 10 visits. Peak count 4 =


VOR 




= 724 WW Surveys: 


BBS: 


EC Surveys: 

• Recorded on 1 of 10 visits. Peak count 1 =


VOR 


= 7846 

Pink-footed goose 


= 10852 

Red-breasted 

merganser 


= 670 





• Peak count 10 =


VOR 

Redshank 


= 4341 

Sandwich tern 


= 1617 

Shelduck 


= 4509 




EC Surveys: 

• Recorded on 4 of 10 visits. Peak count 40 = 6% of the Firth of 


VP Surveys: 

• 1 flight event comprising 2 birds. 

• Peak count 2 =


VOR 

Wigeon 


= 2139 

Annex 1 Species 

Glossy ibis 

Kingfisher 





BBS: 

• Not recorded within the proposed wind energy development site. 

Three pairs/territories recorded within the wider BBS area (see 

Figure 12.6). 

EC Surveys: 

• Recorded on 7 of 10 visits. Peak count 18 = 1%), the site is also considered to be 


Being listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, glossy ibis is a 

species of International importance. 

The only record of glossy ibis was of two flights of a single bird 

recorded during the flight activity surveys. Both sightings, 

probably of the same bird, were recorded outside of the application 

site. Glossy ibis is a rare vagrant to Scotland and as such the site 

is considered to be of negligible importance for this species. 

Being listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, kingfisher is a 


Kingfisher was not recorded within the application site, and was 

only occasionally recorded within the survey area (e.g. along the 

Black Devon). However, the lower coastal stretches of 

watercourses are often important foraging grounds for kingfisher 

during the winter months. Therefore, the site is considered to be 








Site: Negligible 


Site: Local 




VOR 

Peregrine 

Barnacle goose 

Common tern 

Short-eared owl 




Present in the BBS area but with no evidence of breeding. 

EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 

• 12 flight events comprising 12 birds of which just 7 flight events 


• Peak count 1. 

WW Surveys: 

• Recorded on 1 of 6 visits. Peak count 1. 

BBS: 


EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 

• 1 flight event comprising 4 birds. This was not considered to be 

“at risk”. 


WW Surveys: 


BBS: 


EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 

• 1 flight event comprising 1 bird. This was not considered to be 



WW Surveys: 


BBS: 



EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 

• 5 flight events comprising 5 birds. No flight events were ”at risk”. 

Conservation 

Designation 

1981 (as 

amended); and 

• Scottish 

Biodiversity List. 

• Annex 1 of the 

EU Birds 

Directive; 

• Schedule 1 of the 

Wildlife and 

Countryside Act 

1981 (as 

amended); and 

• Scottish 



EU Birds 

Directive; and 

• Scottish 



EU Birds 


• Scottish 



EU Birds 

Comments 

of local importance for this species. 

Being listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, peregrine is a 


Thirteen records of single peregrine(s) were recorded flying within 

and adjacent to the application site. The frequency of this species 

presence is considered to be low with birds most likely coming to 

the site to make opportunistic hunting forays. As such, the site is 

considered to be of local importance for peregrine. 

Being listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, barnacle goose 

is a species of International importance. 

Barnacle goose was not recorded within the application site and 

was only recorded twice during the Forthbank surveys, with two 

separate records of four individuals, both occurring during the 

spring passage period. Given the infrequent presence and low 

abundance of this species, the site is considered to be of 

negligible importance for barnacle goose. 

Being listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, common tern is 

a species of International importance. 

Small numbers of common tern were occasionally recorded within 

the survey area (e.g. along the River Forth) during the summer 

months. These birds were most likely foraging along the river, 

although this part of the Forth Estuary is not known to be 

particularly important as a tern foraging ground. As such, the site 

is considered to be of negligible importance for common tern. 

Being listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, short-eared owl 

is a species of International importance. 






Site: Local 










VOR 

Schedule 1 Species 

Barn owl 

Black-tailed godwit 

Crossbill 





WW Surveys: 


BBS: 


EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 


WW Surveys: 


BBS: 


EC Surveys: 


BO Surveys: 

• Not recorded within the proposed wind energy development 

site. 

• One individual recorded during the Feb 2010 survey at roost 

site within 1km of the proposed wind energy development site. 

No recordings made during the July 2010 survey. 

VP Surveys: 

• 1 flight event comprising 2 birds. This was not considered to be 



WW Surveys: 


BBS: 



EC Surveys: 

• Recorded on 2 of the 10 visits. Peak count 19. 

VP Surveys: 

• N/A. 

WW Surveys: 


Conservation 

Designation 


• Scottish 



Wildlife and 


1981 (as 

amended); and 

• Scottish 



Wildlife and 


1981 (as 

amended); 

• Red-listed BoCC; 

• UKBAP Priority 

Species; and 

• Scottish 



Wildlife and 


1981 (as 

Comments 

Six records of an individual short-eared owl were recorded within 

the application site, although five of these were recorded on the 

same day and were thus probably of the same bird. 

Lowland/coastal open grasslands such as those in the Forthbank 

area and along the fringes of the wider Forth Estuary are important 

wintering grounds for short-eared owl 25 . However, the infrequent 

presence and low abundance of this species suggests that the site 

is of negligible importance for short-eared owl. 

As a Schedule 1 protected species barn owl is a species of 


Although barn owl was not recorded during any of the broad bird 

surveys (e.g. VP, WW, BBS or EC surveys), a single bird was 

recorded at a known roost site within 1km of the application site 

during the specific barn owl surveys. Although the survey 

identified evidence of historic use of this site no breeding was 

recorded at this location and there are no records to suggest that it 

has been used as such in the past. However, despite the lack of 

sightings it is likely that barn owl is regularly present at Forthbank. 

As such, the site is considered to be of local importance for this 

species. 

As a Schedule 1 protected species black-tailed godwit is a species 

of national importance. 

Black-tailed godwit were recorded infrequently during the surveys 

and were generally present in very low numbers. The exception to 

this was the peak count of 19 which was recorded in April during 

the spring passage period. The 5-year (2004/05-2008/09) peak 

mean for black-tailed godwit within the Forth Estuary is 391 26 of 

which the peak count from the Forthbank surveys represents 4.9% 

of this district level population. However, numbers of this size are 

considered to be an infrequent occurrence at Forthbank and as 

such the site is assessed as being of negligible importance for 

black-tailed godwit. 

As a Schedule 1 protected species crossbill is a species of 


Crossbill was only represented in the surveys by a single bird 

which was observed flying over the site. Crossbill predominantly 

occurs in coniferous woodland of which there is none within, or in 





Sp: National 

Site: Local 

Sp: National 


Sp: National 





VOR 

Greenshank 

Whimbrel 




BBS: 


EC Surveys: 

• N/A. 

VP Surveys: 

• 1 flight event comprising 1 bird. This was not considered to be 



WW Surveys: 


BBS: 


EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 


WW Surveys: 


BBS: 



EC Surveys: 


UK BAP/Red Listed Species 

Dunnock 

VP Surveys: 

• N/A. 

WW surveys: 


BBS: 

• Fifteen pairs/territories recorded in the BBS area, 2 of which were 

in the proposed wind energy development site (see Figure 12.5). 

EC Surveys: 

• N/A. 



Conservation 

Designation 

amended). 


Wildlife and 


1981 (as 

amended). 


Wildlife and 


1981 (as 

amended); and 

• Red-listed BoCC. 


Species. 

Comments 

close proximity to the application site. As such, the site is 

considered to be of negligible importance to crossbill. 

As a Schedule 1 protected species greenshank is a species of 


Greenshank was recorded infrequently and in very low numbers 

during the surveys. However, greenshank is a scarce passage 

migrant and winter visitor to the Forth Estuary, the 5-year 

(2004/05-2008/09) peak mean within the Forth Estuary being just 

16 24 . Therefore the peak of 2 birds recorded during the Forthbank 

surveys represents 12.5% of this district level population. Despite 

this, the low abundance and infrequent occurrence of this species 

at Forthbank suggests that the site is of negligible importance for 

greenshank. 

As a Schedule 1 protected species whimbrel is a species of 


Whimbrel was only recorded during the breeding bird surveys and 

even then was only identified as being present in the wider survey 

area and not breeding. Considering the infrequent occurrence of 

this species at Forthbank the site is assessed as being of 

negligible importance for whimbrel. 

As a UK BAP species dunnock is of regional importance. 

Dunnock was present within the study area throughout the year 

with two territories identified within the application site during the 

breeding season and a further thirteen located in the wider survey 

area. Although it is a species of conservation concern due to 

historical population decline, dunnock is not a seriously threatened 

species and remains widespread and relatively common in many 

areas of the UK. The most recent Scottish estimates are for 

215,000-305,000 pairs 23 . 

Although there are no known population data available at the 

regional or district levels, the fifteen pairs identified at Forthbank 

are highly unlikely to represent a significant proportion (≥1%) of 

the district breeding population. Consequently, the site is 

considered to be of local importance for dunnock. 





Sp: National 


Sp: National 


Sp: Regional 

Site: Local 

Grasshopper VP Surveys: • UKBAP Priority As a red-listed and UK BAP species grasshopper warbler is of Sp: Regional


VOR 

warbler 

Reed bunting 

Skylark 




• N/A. 

WW Surveys: 


BBS: 

• Nine pairs/territories recorded with territories in the BBS area, 

none of which were within the proposed wind energy 

development site (see Figure 12.5). 

EC Surveys: 

• N/A. 

VP Surveys: 

• N/A. 

WW surveys: 


BBS: 

• Fourteen pairs/territories recorded in the BBS area, 4 of which 

were in the proposed wind energy development site (see Figure 

12.5). 

EC Surveys: 

• N/A. 

VP Surveys: 

• N/A. 

WW Surveys: 


BBS: 

• Thirteen pairs/territories recorded within the BBS area, six of 

which were in the proposed wind energy development site (see 

Figure 12.5). 

EC Surveys: 

• N/A. 

Conservation 

Designation 

Species; and 

• Red-listed BoCC 


Species; and 

• Scottish 



Species; 

• Red-listed BoCC; 

• LBAP species on 

the 

Clackmannanshir 

e Local Plan; and 

• Scottish 


Comments 

regional importance. 

Nine grasshopper warbler territories identified within the survey 

area, however, none of these were located within the application 

site. Grasshopper warbler is a thinly distributed summer migrant 

breeder in Scotland with an estimated 900 to 3,700 pairs 23 . 


regional or district level, the nine pairs identified at Forthbank 

represents 1% of the lower estimate of the Scottish breeding 

population. Consequently the site is considered to be of regional 

importance for grasshopper warbler. 

As a UK BAP species reed bunting is of regional importance. 

Reed bunting was present within the study area throughout the 

year with four territories identified within the application site during 

the breeding season and a further ten located in the wider survey 


historical population decline, reed buntings are not seriously 

threatened and remain widespread and relatively common in many 

areas. The most recent Scottish estimates are for 15,000-30,000 

pairs 23 . 


regional or district levels, the fifteen pairs identified at Forthbank 

are considered likely to represent a significant proportion (≥1%) of 

the district breeding population. Consequently, the site is 

considered to represent a population of district importance. 

As a red-listed and UK BAP species skylark is of regional 

importance. 

Skylark was present within the study area throughout the year with 

six territories identified within the application site during the 

breeding season and a further seven located in the wider survey 


historical population decline, skylarks are not seriously threatened 

and remain widespread and common in many areas with the 

Scottish population estimated to be in the region of 280,000 

pairs 23 . 


regional or district levels, it is likely that the thirteen pairs identified 

at Forthbank represent a significant proportion (i.e. ≥1%) of the 

district breeding population. Consequently, the site is considered 

to be of district importance for skylark. 





Site: Regional 

Sp: Regional 

Site: District 

Sp: Regional 


Yellowhammer 

VP Surveys: 

• N/A. 


Species; and 

As a red-listed and UK BAP species yellowhammer is of regional 

importance. 

Sp: Regional 





VOR 

Other Target Species 

Common sandpiper 

Gadwall 

Gannet 




WW Surveys: 


BBS: 

• Seven pairs/territories recorded within the BBS area, two of 

which were in the proposed wind energy development site (see 

Figure 12.5). 

EC surveys: 

• N/A. 

VP Surveys: 

• 7 flight events comprising 10 birds. No flight events were 

considered to be “at risk”. 


WW Surveys: 


BBS: 


EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 


WW Surveys: 


BBS: 

• One pair/territory recorded in the BBS area, but not within the 

proposed wind energy development site (see Figure 12.6). 

EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 


WW Surveys: 


Conservation 

Designation 

• Red-listed BoCC. 

Comments 

Yellowhammer was also present within the study area throughout 

the year. Two territories were identified within the application site 

during the breeding season with a further five located in the wider 

survey area. Although it is a species of conservation concern due 

to historical population decline, yellowhammers are not seriously 

threatened and remain widespread and common in many areas 

with the Scottish population estimated to be between 140,000 and 

220,000 pairs 23 . 


regional or district levels, it is likely that the seven pairs identified 

at Forthbank represent a significant proportion (i.e. ≥1%) of the 

district breeding population. Consequently, the site is considered 

to be of district importance for yellowhammer. 

The highest conservation status afforded to common sandpiper is 

its inclusion on the amber-list of BoCC 12 which reflects a population 

decline or a range contraction of 25‐49% during the last 25 years. Given 

this mid‐priority national conservation status common sandpiper is 

considered to be of regional importance. 

Common sandpiper is a common spring and autumn passage 

migrant 23 and was only recorded at Forthbank during these 

periods, predominantly autumn. There are no known population 

data available at the regional or district levels. However, the peak 

count of twelve birds at Forthbank is considered unlikely to 

represent a significant proportion (≥1%) of the regional breeding 

population. Consequently, the site is considered to represent a 

population of district importance. 

Gadwall is also included on the amber list of BoCC (see common 

sandpiper above for definition). As such gadwall is considered to 

be of regional importance. 

Gadwall was only recorded during the breeding bird surveys with a 

single pair identified as breeding outside of the application site. 

However, given the otherwise infrequent occurrence of this 

species at Forthbank the site is assessed as being of local 

importance for this species. 

Gannet is also included on the amber list of BoCC (see common 

sandpiper above for definition). As such gannet is considered to 


Gannets were only recorded at Forthbank during the autumn 

passage period with birds flying along the river channel of the 





Sp: Regional 


Sp: Regional 

Site: Local 

Sp: Regional 





VOR 

Greylag goose 

Mute swan 

Shoveler 




BBS: 


EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 

• 10 flight events comprising 141 birds, of which 5 flight events 

comprising 32 birds were ”at risk””. 


WW Surveys: 


BBS: 

• Only recorded flying over the BBS area. 

EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 

• 16 flight events comprising 21 birds of which 2 flight events 



WW Surveys: 


BBS: 

• One pair/territory recorded in the BBS area, but not within the 

proposed wind energy development site (see Figure 12.6). 

EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 


WW Surveys: 


BBS: 

• Present in the BBS area but no evidence of breeding, and no 

recordings in the proposed wind energy development site. 

EC Surveys: 

Conservation 

Designation 

Comments 

Forth Estuary during which the peak count was of just 2 birds (e.g. 

September winter walkover). Given the infrequent occurrence and 

low abundance of this species, the site is considered to be of 

negligible importance for gannets. 

Greylag goose is found in internationally-important numbers in the 

UK and qualifies as an SPA species under Article 2.1 of the EU 

Birds Directive at sites which regularly hold populations of 

international importance. As such this species is considered to be 


Greylag geese were recorded infrequently at Forthbank, with 

sporadic sightings only occurring during the winter and autumn 

passage months during which the peak count of 40 was recorded. 

Greylag geese are relatively common in Scotland during the winter 

with a population of over 85,000 birds 23 of which an average of 

1306 occur within the Forth Estuary (5-year (2004/05-2008/09) 

peak mean 24 . Thus the peak count recorded at Forthbank 

represents approximately 3% of this regional district. Furthermore, 

the species conservation status is considered to be is considered 

to be favorable 27 . Therefore, the site is only considered to be of 

local importance for this species. 

Mute swan is common and widespread throughout the UK and is 

not a species of high conservation concern. Consequently this 

species is considered to be of International importance. 

Mute swan was recorded for much of the year and a single pair 

was identified as breeding outside of the application site. Mute 

swan is a familiar and widespread resident species in Scotland 

with at least 1012 breeding pairs and a wintering population of 

between 5000 and 8000 birds 23 . Therefore, given the low 

abundance of this species at Forthbank the site is only assessed 

as being of local importance. 

Shoveler is also included on the amber list of BoCC (see common 

sandpiper above for definition). As such shoveler is considered to 


Shoveler was only recorded infrequently and in very low 

abundance both during the winter and breeding bird surveys and 

was not identified as breeding. Considering the infrequent 

occurrence of this species at Forthbank the site is assessed as 

being of negligible importance for whimbrel. 







Sp: Local 

Site: Local 

Sp: Regional 





VOR 

Snipe 

Snow goose 

Teal 





VP Surveys: 




WW Surveys: 


BBS: 


EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 

• 1 flight event comprising 1 bird. This flight was not considered to 

be “at risk”. 


WW Surveys: 


BBS: 


EC Surveys: 


VP Surveys: 

• 8 flight events comprising 57 birds, of which only 1 flight event 

comprising 2 birds was “at risk”. 


WW Surveys: 


BBS: 

• Present in the BBS area but no evidence of breeding, also 

present in the proposed wind energy development site with no 

evidence of breeding. 

EC Surveys: 


Conservation 

Designation 

Comments 

Snipe is also included on the amber list of BoCC (see common 

sandpiper above for definition). As such snipe is considered to be 

of regional importance. 

Snipe was frequently recorded within the Forthbank survey area 

during the winter and passage period but was only present in low 

numbers of no more than 5 birds. Snipe are common on coastal 

and lowland wetlands during winter with the Scottish wintering 

populations being 10,000 to 30,000 birds 23 . Given this, the peak 

count of 5 at Forthbank represents a fraction of the regional and 

expected district populations. However, owing to the presence of 

this species throughout the winter and passage period the site is 

considered to be of local importance. 

Snow goose is a rare vagrant to Europe and the UK and as such is 

not considered to be a species of importance at the national or 

European/International level (negligible). 

The only record of snow goose was of a single bird recorded 

during the flight activity surveys recorded outside of the application 

site. This bird was amongst pink-footed geese and was most likely 

to be one of the few winter vagrants which occur in Scotland each 

year. Given the infrequent presence and low abundance of this 

species, the site is considered to be of negligible importance for 

snow goose. 

Teal is also included on the amber list of BoCC (see common 

sandpiper above for definition). As such teal is considered to be of 

regional importance. 

Teal were recorded within the Forthbank survey area throughout 

much of the year. Unsurprisingly the highest counts were 

recorded during the winter months, the peak being 150. The 5- 

year (2004/05-2008/09) peak mean for teal within the Forth 

Estuary is 2110 24 , of which the peak count from the Forthbank 

surveys represents 7.1% of this district level population. 

Therefore, given the abundance and frequent occurrence of teal at 

Forthbank the proposed wind energy development site is 

assessed as being of district importance for this species. 





Sp: Regional 

Site: Local 

Sp: Negligible 


Sp: Regional 


Tufted duck 

VP Surveys: 


Tufted duck is also included on the amber list of BoCC (see 

common sandpiper above for definition). As such tufted duck is 

Sp: Regional 

Site: Local 




VOR 






WW Surveys: 


BBS: 

• Present in the BBS area but no evidence of breeding, and no 

records in the proposed wind energy development site. 

EC Surveys: 


Conservation 

Designation 

Comments 

considered to be of regional importance. 

Tufted duck were generally recorded infrequently and in low 

abundance although a number of flights were observed during the 

VP surveys, during which the peak count of 13 was recorded. 

Tufted duck is a widespread and locally common breeding resident 

(2,250 to 2,700 pairs) and widespread winter visitor (11,000) in 

Scotland 23 . Given these population figures the peak count from 

the Forthbank surveys represents less than 1% of these National 

level populations and although no regional or district population 

figures are available, it is not expected to represent a significant 

proportion of these populations either. Therefore, the site is 

assessed as being of local importance for this species. 








SPA Qualifying Species Not Recorded at Forthbank 

12.4.4 The following qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA were not recorded at Forthbank 

during any of the ornithological surveys undertaken for this assessment; red-throated diver, 

Slavonian grebe, turnstone, knot, ringed plover, great crested grebe, scaup, eider, long-tailed 

duck, common scoter and velvet scoter. All of these species are more typically associated with 

either coastal/marine environments or the more expansive intertidal habitats found elsewhere 

within the Forth Estuary and wider Firth of Forth. 

12.4.5 Given their absence from the surveys, the importance of the site for these species is 

considered to be negligible and as such any impacts from the proposed wind energy 

development on them are expected to be not significant. 


12.4.6 This section outlines the potential effects of the proposed wind energy development on birds 

along with the impact these may have on the conservation status of each species. The 

potential effects and impacts are discussed in relation to the three main phases of the 

proposed wind energy development: construction, operation and de-commissioning. 

12.4.7 The key potential effects of wind farm developments on birds are considered to be: collision 

mortality, displacement due to disturbance, causing a barrier to movements and habitat loss or 

change 28,29 . 


12.4.8 The programme for construction is outlined in Chapter 4. Project Description. 

Habitat Loss 

12.4.9 Direct land take for the installation of the proposed wind energy development infrastructure 

(turbine bases, sub-stations, access tracks etc.) would result in the loss only 2.6ha of semiimproved 

neutral grassland. For the target species, the potential for a direct effect resulting 

from such limited land take is largely considered to be negligible given that the majority are 

wetland birds. Consequently, any impacts are expected to be not significant under the terms 

of the EIA Regulations. 

Disturbance/Displacement 

12.4.10 Disturbance caused by construction operations may directly displace birds from breeding, 

roosting or foraging sites which may subsequently affect their breeding success and winter 

survival. The species most likely to be affected are those which are present in the greatest 

numbers close to the proposed wind energy development, both in absolute terms and in 

relation to the proportion of the SPA population which uses this area of the Forth Estuary. 

Construction disturbance will be confined to the construction period and any effects will 

therefore be temporary. Mitigation measures may be applied to reduce the impacts of 




disturbance on birds, for example erecting screening fencing and avoiding noisy activities 

during particularly sensitive times of year. 

Legal Issues Associated with Breeding Birds 

12.4.11 In addition to the potential impacts of habitat loss and disturbance on individuals and 

populations, any construction work undertaken during the bird breeding season (March to July, 

inclusive) carries a risk of illegal destruction, damage or disturbance to occupied bird nests. 

The nests of nearly all bird species are protected by the law and it is necessary to take 

measures to ensure compliance with the appropriate legislation. 

12.4.12 Details of the law protecting nesting birds and the best practice measures to be adopted to 

ensure compliance are given in Section 12.6: Mitigation. 


Habitat Loss 

12.4.13 There will be no further loss of habitat during the operational phase of the proposed wind 


Disturbance/Displacement 

12.4.14 The operation of turbines and the associated human maintenance activities has the potential to 

cause disturbance and displacement of birds from the wind energy development area. 

However, disturbance effects will be far less intensive at this stage compared to during the 

construction phase. Review studies have shown that in general, species are not disturbed 

beyond 800m from turbines and in some cases, birds have not been disturbed at all 30, 31, 32 . 

Consequently it is likely that some birds will habituate to the presence of the turbines and that 

the proposed wind energy development will at most have only minor effects on the use of the 

Forth Estuary and adjacent habitats by wetland birds. 

Barrier Effects 

12.4.15 While birds may become habituated to the presence of the wind energy development and any 

disturbance generated by it, individual turbines, or the wind energy development as a whole 

may still displace birds by presenting a barrier to their movement restricting or displacing birds 

from much larger areas. If birds regularly have to fly over or around obstacles or are forced 

into suboptimal habitats, this may result in greater energy expenditure. By implication, this will 

reduce the efficiency with which they accumulate energy reserves, potentially affecting their 

survival or breeding success. 

12.4.16 The effect this would have on a population is subtle and difficult to predict with any certainty 

but is most likely to affect those species which frequently fly through the WP (i.e. between the 

Forth Estuary and Black Devon Wetlands or nearby arable fields). However, given the 

relatively small size of the proposed wind energy development (an area of approximately 14ha 




enclosed by the 4 turbines) it is unlikely that birds will have to make large detours in order to 

avoid the development and so no increase in energy expenditure is expected 33 . 

12.4.17 Furthermore, although some birds may avoid flying through the operational wind energy 

development, given the configuration of the four turbines (i.e. a cluster of three to the south 

east of the site and a single isolated turbine located approximately 800m to the north east, see 

Figure 1.1 (Site Location Plan) and Figure 1.2 (Site Layout)), it is likely that many will still be 

able to commute safely between the Forth Estuary and adjacent habitats through this corridor. 

Even assuming an avoidance distance of 100m from the nearest turbines this would still leave 

a corridor of over 500m. 

12.4.18 Consequently, it is considered that the proposed wind energy development is unlikely to 

present a significant barrier to the movement of birds in the vicinity of the wind energy 

development. 

Collision 

12.4.19 Collision of a bird with the turbine rotors is almost certain to result in the death of the bird. The 

impact of an individual loss on a population is influenced by several characteristics of the 

affected population, notably its size, density, recruitment rate (additions to the population 

through reproduction and immigration) and mortality rate (the natural rate of losses due to 

death and emigration). 

12.4.20 In general, the impact of an individual lost from the population will be greater for species that 

occur at low density, are relatively long-lived and reproduce at a low rate. Such species 

include wildfowl and the larger raptors. Conversely, the impact will often be insignificant for 

short-lived species with high reproductive rates found at high densities, including most 

passerines (e.g. skylark). 

12.4.21 In broad terms, the number of collisions during a given period (e.g. a year) is the product of 2 

factors: 

• The number of birds flying through the rotors during the period (the number of rotor 

transits). The number of rotor transits is influenced by the frequency with which a 

species flies through the wind farm area and, crucially, the probability that any bird 

on a collision course will take avoiding action (the avoidance rate); and 

• The probability that a bird will be struck by the rotors on any given transit. The 

probability of collision for a bird passing through the rotors is mainly determined by 

the size of the bird, its mode of flight (flapping or gliding) and its flight speed, along 

with the dimensions of the rotors and the speed at which they rotate. 

12.4.22 Collision risk is perceived to be higher in birds that spend much of the time in the air, such as 

foraging raptors and those that have regular flight paths between feeding and 

breeding/roosting grounds (e.g. divers and geese). Vulnerability to collision is also influenced 

by factors such as the flight manoeuvrability of a species and its tendency to fly in conditions of 

reduced visibility (e.g. at night or in fog). 




12.4.23 The size and location of the turbine array in relation to local topography can also influence 

collision rate greatly. However, the proposed wind energy development site at Forthbank 

contains no topographical factors that are likely to increase the risk of bird collision. 

12.4.24 It should be noted that operational disturbance and collision risk effects are mutually exclusive 

in a spatial sense (i.e. a bird that avoids the wind energy development area cannot be at risk of 

collision with the turbine rotors at the same time). However, they are not mutually exclusive in 

a temporal sense; a bird may initially avoid the wind energy development, but habituate to it, 

and would then be at risk of collision. The estimated collision risk figures presented in the 

discussion of potential impacts below were calculated under the assumption that flight activity 

during the operational phase will be similar to pre-development levels. 

12.4.25 Full details of the methodology used in the collision risk calculations are given in Appendix 

12.1. 


12.4.26 Potential disturbance effects associated with de-commissioning are assumed to be the same 

as those identified for construction. This assumes that there is no permanent displacement of 

birds from the proposed wind energy development due to disturbance effects. 

12.4.27 Given the similarities between the impacts of construction and de-commissioning the effects at 

de-commissioning are not considered separately for each species. 

Factoring In Future Land Use Change over the Lifetime of the Proposed Wind Energy 

Development 

12.4.28 The proposed wind energy development site is located to the south east of Alloa and is 

situated on the north shore of the Inner Forth Estuary (upstream of the Kincardine and 

Clackmannanshire Bridges) (see Figure 1.1). 

12.4.29 Given its lowland location within the wide, open floodplain of the lower reaches of the River 

Forth the predominant land use in the wider area surrounding the application site is arable 

farming. This area has historically been dominated by farming and therefore the use of this 

land is not expected to change over the lifetime of the proposed wind energy development. 

12.4.30 The application site itself is situated on a former landfill site as discussed in Chapter 4: Project 

Description. Since being closed the land has had no use and has become colonised by neutral 

grassland which is of low ecological value. Other than the installation of the proposed wind 

energy development, assuming it is consented, there is expected to be no change in the use of 

this site. 

12.4.31 Given the above it is expected that there will be not other changes in the land use over the 

lifetime of the proposed wind energy development that would influence this ornithological 

impact assessment. 




Potential Impacts on Designated Sites 

Firth of Forth SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI 

12.4.32 For an assessment of effects on the Firth of Forth SPA (and by default the Ramsar Site), 

please refer to Section 12.8: Impacts on the Firth of Forth SPA, presented later in this Chapter. 

12.4.33 The above assessment is also considered to deal with impacts of the proposed wind energy 

development on the over-wintering bird interest of the Firth of Forth SSSI. 

12.4.34 Of the breeding bird species for which the Firth of Forth SSSI is notified (eider, shelduck, 

ringed plover and common, Arctic and little tern; see Table 12.9), only shelduck was recorded 

breeding in the vicinity of the proposed wind energy development site. The SSSI is notified for 

a nationally important breeding population of shelduck (assuming the qualifying level is 1% of 

the national population, this means at least 106 pairs based on the latest estimate of the British 

breeding population of 106,000 pairs 34 ) concentrated at Aberlady Bay, Alloa Inch and 

Skinflats 35 . On this basis, potential impacts of construction and operation of the proposed wind 

energy development on the small breeding population in the Black Devon Wetlands, within 

500m of the site boundary (3 pairs in 2009; Table 12.14, Figure 12.6) are considered nonsignificant. 

Gartmorn Dam SSSI 

12.4.35 Gartmorn Dam SSSI is located approximately 3.5km northeast of the proposed wind energy 

development site. Given this distance there will be no loss of habitat from this designated site 

and none of the features for which it is notified will be disturbed directly by the proposed wind 


12.4.36 The reservoir at Gartmorn Dam supports a regionally important assemblage of waterfowl 

during the winter months including whooper swan, mute swan, greylag goose, wigeon, 

pochard, goldeneye, teal, tufted duck and mallard 36 , although no population data were 

available for these species. Of these species, large numbers of mallard, teal and wigeon in 

particular were recorded at Forthbank and given the relatively short distance between the Forth 

Estuary and Gartmorn Dam it is likely that there is some movement of the birds between these 

two sites. Indeed, the estuary is recognised as an important alternative feeding ground for 

those birds which typically occur at Gartmorn Dam during harsh winters when the reservoir 

freezes over 37 . Consequently, given the proposed wind energy development’s location on the 

north bank of the Forth Estuary, there is a potential for it to present a barrier to the movement 

of birds between these two sites. Of the bird flights observed passing due north east from the 

survey area (i.e. in the direction of Gartmorn Dam) during the flight activity surveys most were 

notified species of Gartmorn Dam SSSI, particularly mallard, mute swan, greylag goose and 

tufted duck (see Figures 12.7 and 12.8). However, these flights only accounted for a very 

small proportion of the total number of flights observed for these species. Furthermore, most 

of the flights were undertaken by birds flying from Black Devon Wetlands rather than 

originating from the Forth Estuary or indeed further south. Therefore, given the above and 

considering the small scale of the proposed wind energy development, it is reasonable to 

assume that the proposed wind energy development will not present a significant barrier to the 




movement of birds between Forthbank and the surrounding area including Gartmorn Dam 

SSSI. 

12.4.37 With regard to the potential collision risk associated with the notified species of Gartmorn Dam 

SSSI, this is discussed in detail in the Assessment of Potential Effects (Table 12.18) below. 

Given the outcomes of the relevant species’ collision risk assessments the impact on the 

populations associated with Gartmorn Dam are predicted to be non-significant. 

12.4.38 Consequently, the impacts of the proposed wind energy development on Gartmorn Dam SSSI 

are predicted to be non-significant. 

Carron Dams SSSI 

12.4.39 Carron Dams SSSI is located approximately 7.8km due south of the proposed wind energy 

development site. Given this distance there will be no loss of habitat from this designated site 

and none of the features for which it is notified will be disturbed directly by the proposed wind 


12.4.40 Although Carron Dams supports a variety of breeding and wintering birds this site is not 

recognised for attracting large numbers of waterfowl and wading birds such as those which 

occur at Forthbank. As the movement of overwintering birds between the Forth estuary and 

Carron Dams is expected to be infrequent, the proposed wind energy development is not 

predicted to have a barrier effect on the movement of birds to and from Carron Dams SSSI, 

nor will it pose a significant collision risk to the species which typically occur there. 

12.4.41 Consequently, the impacts of the proposed wind energy development on Carron Dams SSSI 

are predicted to be non-significant. 

Black Devon Wetlands Wildlife Site (WS) 

12.4.42 Potential impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed wind energy 

development on Black Devon Wetlands Wildlife Site are addressed in Chapter 11: Ecology. 

Predicted effects of the proposed wind energy development on the bird species which occur at 

this site are discussed in Table 12.18. 

Alloa Inches SWT Nature Reserve 

12.4.43 Potential impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed wind energy 

development on Alloa Inches Nature Reserve are addressed in Chapter 11: Ecology. 

Predicted effects of the proposed wind energy development on the bird species which occur at 

this site are discussed in Table 12.18. 

Potential Impacts on Valued Ornithological Receptors 

12.4.44 Table 12.18 presents the assessment of impacts on the VORs identified in Table 12.17 during 

both the construction and operational phases of the proposed wind energy development. The 




table presents each species in turn and addresses the likely significance of the key potential 

effects typically associated with the proposed wind energy development as identified above. 




Table 12.18 Assessment of the potential effects of Forthbank Wind Energy Development on Valued Ornithological Receptors (VORs) 


Value at 



Bar-tailed International 

godwit 

Cormorant 

International 

Effect Construction Significance Operation Significance 

Habitat Loss No loss of habitat which is of value to the species (neutral). Not significant N/A at operation N/A 

Disturbance & 

Displacement 

Bar-tailed godwit were recorded inconsistently throughout the 

winter and passage periods with numbers ranging from a 

single bird to the peak count of 33 (January estuary zone 

count) which represented 1.7% of the SPA qualifying 

population. However, numbers of this size were not 

frequently recorded and the majority of birds were observed 

on the opposite (southern) side of the Forth Estuary, over 

500m from the application site. Given the above, the potential 

impact of short-term construction related disturbance on bartailed 

godwit is predicted to be of low magnitude. 

Minor Considering the infrequent presence and general low 

abundance of bar-tailed godwit at Forthbank the proposed wind 

energy development area is not considered to be of great 

importance to this species. Furthermore, given that the 

majority of the survey area does not include the Firth of Forth 

SPA, and considering the availability of suitable alternative 

foraging and roosting grounds in the surrounding area (e.g. 

intertidal mudflats and arable fields) it is considered highly 

unlikely that birds will be displaced entirely from the Forth 

Estuary. Indeed, any displaced birds are likely to remain within 

Upper Forth Estuary. Given the above, such an effect is 

predicted to be of low magnitude. 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Given that no bar-tailed godwit flights were recorded and that 

observations of the species were restricted to the Forth Estuary 

it is reasonable to assume that the proposed wind energy 

development will not act as a significant barrier to the 

movement of this species (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A No bar-tailed godwit flights were recorded during the flight 

activity surveys while those birds which were recorded during 

the other surveys were only observed within the Forth Estuary. 

Consequently it is reasonable to assume that this species 

rarely flies through the proposed wind energy development and 

that the collision risk to this species is negligible (neutral). 


Disturbance & 


Displacement 

Cormorant were recorded throughout the winter and passage 

periods and sighting were largely restricted to the river 

channel of the Forth Estuary. The peak count of 30 

(September winter walkover) represented 4.4% of the SPA 

qualifying population. Despite this one off large count 

cormorant was generally low in abundance (≤10) and is 

considered to be a species which is reasonably resilient to 

disturbance, often being associated with industrial ports and 

waterways. Therefore, the potential impact of short-term 

construction related disturbance on cormorant is expected to 

be of negligible magnitude and is not predicted to result in 

significant displacement of the species away from the 

Forthbank area (neutral). 

Given that cormorant were predominantly recorded within the 

Forth Estuary this is considered to be the habitat of primary 

importance for this species at Forthbank. Consequently, any 

disturbance associated with the operation and maintenance of 

the turbines and which is expected to be of low intensity is not 

predicted to adversely affect birds foraging, roosting and 

commuting along the river channel. Even if it does initially, 

birds may become habituated to the presence of the turbines 

(neutral). 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Curlew 

Conservation 

Value at 


International 


Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 31 recorded cormorant flights at least 8 (26%) passed 

directly through the proposed wind energy development area 

(the area enclosed by a line on a map joining the outermost 

turbine rotors of the wind farm), between the Forth Estuary and 

the Black Devon Wetlands or beyond. However, given the 

small scale of the proposed wind energy development it is likely 

that birds will continue to commute between these habitats 

simply passing around or over the wind energy development to 

avoid the turbines. Furthermore, there is the possibility that 

birds may still pass through the corridor between turbines 1 and 

2. Consequently, it is concluded that the proposed wind energy 


movement of cormorant (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Of the 31 flights recorded within and adjacent to the application 

site, 14 (18 birds) were “at risk”. The collision risk modelling 

produced a collision estimate of between 1 bird every 1-2 years 

(95% avoidance) and 1 bird every 8-9 years (99% avoidance). 

Taking the precautionary 95% avoidance rate prediction, this 

would result in approximately 15 collisions over the 25 year 

lifespan of the proposed wind energy development. However, 

the annual collision rate of 1 bird every 1-2 years would 

represent 0.3% of the SPA qualifying population. 

Consequently, the collision risk for cormorant is considered to 

be well within acceptable limits and thus will not significantly 

affect the SPA qualifying population (neutral). 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 


Disturbance & 

Minor 

Moderate 

Displacement 

Curlew were recorded throughout the winter and passage 

periods. The peak count of 73 (January estuary zone count) 

represented 3.8% of the SPA qualifying population. However, 

numbers of around 20-40 birds were more usual although 

these still represented over 1% of the SPA population. Birds 

were often distributed near the mouth of the Black Devon, 

both at the estuary and on the adjacent arable fields, and 

within 500m of the application site. Groups of curlew were 

also found along the south side of the Forth Estuary, between 

500m and 1km from the application site. Studies of birds at 

roosting and feeding grounds in Holland found that curlew 

were displaced by operational turbines by up to 500m 38 . On 

the basis of this information, a precautionary displacement 

range of 500m is considered for construction also. Given that 

flocks of curlew were often found within 500m of the 

application site it is likely that wintering birds will be displaced 

from the foraging and roosting grounds if construction 

As previously mentioned, many of the curlew recorded during 

the ornithological surveys were present within 500m of the 

application site (the precautionary displacement range for this 

species). Consequently there is a reasonably high likelihood 

that a significant proportion (i.e. ≥1%) of the curlew Firth of 

Forth SPA qualifying population will be displaced from 

traditional foraging and roosting grounds located within this 

distance throughout the lifespan of the proposed wind energy 

development due to the presence of the turbines. However, 

given that the majority of the survey area does not include the 

Firth of Forth SPA, and considering the availability of suitable 

alternative foraging and roosting grounds in the surrounding 

area (e.g. intertidal mudflats and arable fields) it is considered 

highly unlikely that birds will be displaced entirely from the 

Forth Estuary. Indeed, any displaced birds are likely to remain 

within Upper Forth Estuary. Given the above, such an effect is 

predicted to be of low magnitude although the impact 




Species 

Conservation 

Value at 



activities are undertaken at this time. However, it is important 

significance is predicted to be on the higher end of the scale. 

to reiterate that the majority of this stretch of the Forth Estuary 

which lies within the survey area is not part of the Firth of 

Forth SPA; the closest point being located 720m due south. 

The exclusion of this stretch demonstrates that it is not 

recognised as an area of key importance for any of the 

qualifying species, even though birds may still occur there. 

Much more suitable alternative foraging and roosting grounds 

are located in the surrounding area both within and 

immediately adjacent to the Forth Estuary (e.g. intertidal 

mudflats and arable fields), most notably the areas which lie 

within the SPA boundary. Consequently, it is expected that 

birds will only be displaced a short distance to these 

alternative, and most likely recognised, foraging and roosting 

grounds, rather than departing the Forth Estuary altogether. 

Therefore, the overall impact of on curlew is predicted to be of 

low magnitude. 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 36 recorded curlew flights approximately 27 (75%) 

passed directly through the proposed wind energy development 

site (the area enclosed by a line on a map joining the outermost 

turbine rotors of the wind farm), between either the Forth 

Estuary and the Black Devon Wetlands or other habitats in the 

surrounding area. However, given the small scale of the 

proposed wind energy development it is likely that birds will 

continue to commute between these habitats simply passing 

around or over the wind energy development to avoid the 

turbines. Furthermore, there is the possibility that birds may 

still pass through the corridor between turbines 1 and 2. 

Consequently, it is concluded that the proposed wind energy 


movement of curlew (neutral). 



produced a collision estimate of between 1 bird every 6 months 





the annual collision rate of 1 bird every 6 months would 

represent 0.1% of the SPA qualifying population per year. 

Consequently, the collision risk for curlew is considered to be 

well within acceptable limits and thus will not significantly affect 

the SPA qualifying population (neutral). 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Dunlin 

Goldeneye 

Conservation 

Value at 


Negligible 

Negligible 



Disturbance & 


Displacement 

The only record of dunlin at Forthbank was of just 4 

individuals (March estuary zone count). This peak count 

represents


Species 

Golden 

plover 

Grey plover 

Lapwing 

Conservation 

Value at 


Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 


overall low abundance of this species at Forthbank it is 

reasonable to assume that goldeneye rarely fly through the risk 

window and that the collision risk to this species is negligible 

(neutral). 


Disturbance & 

Displacement 

The only record of golden plover at Forthbank was a flight 

over the proposed wind energy development site. The 

species was not recorded feeding or roosting within the 

survey area and as such is not considered to be important to 

the species. Consequently disturbance and displacement is 

not predicted to significantly affect golden plover (neutral). 


Since golden plover were not recorded feeding or roosting 

within the survey area potential disturbance of this species 

during operation is predicted to be of negligible magnitude. 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Given the overall rare presence and low abundance of golden 

plover at Forthbank it is reasonable to assume that the 

proposed wind energy development will not act as a significant 

barrier to the movement of this species (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Only a single golden plover flight was recorded during the flight 

activity surveys and this did not enter the risk volume. Given 

the overall rare presence and low abundance of this species at 

Forthbank it is reasonable to assume that golden plover rarely 

fly through the proposed wind energy development area and 

that the collision risk to this species is negligible (neutral). 


Disturbance & 


Displacement 

The only record of grey plover at Forthbank was of a single 

bird during the January estuary zone count. This peak count 

represents


Species 

Conservation 

Value at 



SPA qualifying population) although a flock of 130 birds was 

recorded flying over the site on 18 September 2009. 

Meanwhile, two pairs/territories were recorded at Black Devon 

Wetlands during the breeding season, approximately 200m 

from the application site. Despite this, the potential impact of 

short-term construction related disturbance on breeding 

lapwing at these nearby wetlands is expected to be of low 

magnitude and is not predicted to result in significant 

displacement of the species away from the Forthbank area. 

is unlikely to affect the presence or any future breeding 

attempts at this location. Furthermore, given that the majority 

of the survey area does not include the Firth of Forth SPA, and 

considering the availability of suitable alternative foraging and 

roosting grounds in the surrounding area (e.g. intertidal 

mudflats and arable fields) it is considered highly unlikely that 

birds will be displaced entirely from the Forth Estuary. Indeed, 

any displaced birds are likely to remain within Upper Forth 

Estuary. Given the above, such an effect is predicted to be of 

low magnitude. 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 36 recorded lapwing flights approximately 27 (75%) 



turbine rotors of the wind farm),. However, most of these were 

circling flights around Black Devon Wetlands which are 

characteristic of this species when disturbed. Only a few 

recorded flights were of birds commuting between Black Devon 

Wetlands and the Forth Estuary or other habitats in the 

surrounding area. Considering the low proportion of 

commuting flights, the small scale of the wind energy 

development and the possibility that birds may still pass 

through the corridor between turbines 1 and 2, it is concluded 

that the proposed wind energy development will not act as a 

significant barrier to the movement of lapwing (neutral). 


site, 11 (84 birds) were “at risk”. Lapwings were present during 

both the breeding and non-breeding season and therefore 

collision estimates were carried out for both of these seasons. 

During the breeding season the collision risk modelling 



Meanwhile, during the non-breeding season the predicted 

collision rate was between 1 bird every 9-10 months (95% 

avoidance) and 1 bird every 4 years (99% avoidance). Taking 

the precautionary 95% avoidance rate predictions for the two 

seasons combined this would equal 1 bird every six months 

which result in approximately 50 collisions over the 25 year 


this annual collision rate would represent 0.05% of the SPA 

qualifying population per year. Consequently, the collision risk 

for lapwing is considered to be well within acceptable limits and 

thus will not significantly affect the SPA qualifying population 

(neutral). 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Mallard 

Conservation 

Value at 


International 



Disturbance & 

Minor 

Minor 

Displacement 

Mallard were recorded throughout the year at Forthbank and 

were distributed throughout the wetland habitats of the entire 

survey area (i.e. the Forth Estuary, Black Devon Wetlands 

and the River Black Devon). Numbers were highest in the 

winter months during which the peak of 60 was recorded 

(February estuary zone count) representing 2.3% of the SPA 

qualifying population. However, numbers of between 10-40 

birds were more usual and counts in excess of 26 birds (i.e. 

>1% of the SPA population) were often present. In addition, 

five pairs/territories were recorded at Black Devon Wetlands 

during the breeding season, approximately 200m from the 

application site. Studies of birds at roosting and feeding 

grounds in Holland found that mallard were displaced by 

operational turbines by up to 300m 39 . On the basis of this 

information, a precautionary displacement range of 300m is 

considered for construction also. Despite the relatively large 

number of birds recorded at Forthbank however, it is 

noteworthy that the majority of this stretch of the Forth Estuary 

lies outwith the Firth of Forth SPA. Furthermore, it is 

recognised that suitable alternative foraging and roosting 

grounds are available in the surrounding area (i.e. elsewhere 

within the Upper Forth Estuary). Indeed, given this species 

wide use of the available habitats at this site even if 

construction activities were to disturb these birds it is 

considered unlikely that they would be displaced from the 

Forthbank area altogether. Therefore, the magnitude of any 

disturbance effects on this species is predicted to be low. 

Given the wide use of the available habitats at this site by 

mallard as mentioned previously, even if the species was 

displaced beyond 300m from the turbines, it is considered 

unlikely that the species would be displaced from the Forthbank 

area entirely. Taking into consideration also the fact that most 

of the survey area lies outwith the Firth of Forth SPA and that 

there are suitable alternative foraging and roosting grounds 

within the nearby surrounding area the effect of any operational 

disturbance and displacement is thus predicted to be of low 

magnitude. 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 91 recorded mallard flights approximately 53 (58%) 



turbine rotors of the wind farm). A large proportion of the flights 

were of birds flying around between the lagoons of the Black 

Devon Wetlands, although many flights were also observed of 

birds commuting to and from these wetlands from the Forth 

Estuary and other habitats in the wider area (e.g. the River 

Black Devon). Of the recorded flights, the proposed wind 

energy development would only have presented a potential 

barrier to those which passed between the wetlands and the 

Forth Estuary. This relates to approximately 18 flights (20%). 

However, there is the possibility that birds may still pass 

through the corridor between turbines 1 and 2. Indeed it is 

noteworthy that natural path of many of these flights passed 

Minor 




Species 

Oyster 

catcher 

Conservation 

Value at 


Local 


through the ‘corridor’ which would exist between turbines 1 and 

2 and therefore mallard may habitually follow this route 

between the two habitats. In any case, given the small scale of 

the proposed wind energy development it is likely that birds will 

continue to commute between these habitats simply passing 

around or over the wind energy development to avoid the 

turbines. Consequently, it is concluded that the proposed wind 

energy development is unlikely to act as a significant barrier to 

the movement of mallard (low). 


site, 29 (147 birds) were “at risk”. Mallard were present during 




produced a collision estimate of between 1 bird every 6-7 

months (95% avoidance) and 1 bird every 2-3 years (99% 

avoidance). Meanwhile, during the non-breeding season the 

predicted collision rate was between 1 bird every 2-3 months 

(95% avoidance) and 1 bird every year (99% avoidance). 

Taking the precautionary 95% avoidance rate predictions for 

the two seasons combined this would equal 1 bird every two 

months which result in approximately 158 collisions over the 25 

year lifespan of the proposed wind energy development. 

However, this annual collision rate would represent 0.2% of the 

SPA qualifying population per year. Consequently, the collision 

risk for mallard is considered to be well within acceptable limits 

and thus will not significantly affect the SPA qualifying 

population (neutral). 


Disturbance & 

Minor 

Minor 

Displacement 

Oystercatcher were recorded for most the year at Forthbank 

although numbers were highest during the winter and spring 

passage months, with the peak count being of 70 birds 

(February estuary zone count). Birds were typically found 

roosting at the margins of the estuary or foraging out on the 

exposed mudflat. In addition, one pair/territory was recorded 

at Black Devon Wetlands during the breeding season, 

approximately 150m from the application site. Compared to 

the SPA qualifying population however, numbers were low 

with even the peak count representing


Species 

Pink-footed 

goose 

Conservation 

Value at 


International 


Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 10 recorded oystercatcher flights 5 (50%) passed 

directly through the proposed wind energy development (the 

area enclosed by a line on a map joining the outermost turbine 

rotors of the wind farm). However, almost all of the flights were 

of birds commuting up or down the Forth Estuary (or at least 

parallel to it), rather than between the Forth Estuary and 

adjacent habitats. Since the proposed wind energy 

development will not restrict the passage of birds within the 

estuary it is concluded that it will not act as a significant barrier 

to the movement of oystercatcher. With regard to the small 

number of birds passing between the estuary and adjacent 

habitats it is likely that birds will be able to continue to commute 

between these habitats simply passing around or over the wind 

energy development to avoid the turbines. Furthermore, there 

is the possibility that birds may still pass through the corridor 

between turbines 1 and 2. Thus the likely impact is further 

reduced (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Of the 10 recorded oystercatcher flight events only two passed 

through the risk volume and therefore there was insufficient 

information to accurately model the collision risk for this 

species. However, given the low number of recorded flights 

and considering that only a very small proportion of these were 

within the “risk area” it is reasonable to conclude that there is a 

very low risk of this species being significantly affected by 

collisions with the wind turbines (neutral). 


Disturbance & 

Minor 

Minor 

Displacement 

Pink-footed geese were recorded throughout the winter and 

passage months although the vast majority of records were of 

birds passing over and beyond the application site. Flocks of 

pink-footed geese were only very occasionally recorded using 

the habitats of the survey area and although the peak of 955 

birds (three flocks, March winter walkover) equalled 8.8% of 

the SPA qualifying population numbers in excess of 100 birds 

were rarely observed (see Appendix 12.1, Table 12.1.8). On 

the occasions when birds were observed using the habitats of 

the survey area they were either roosting on the exposed 

mudflats of the Forth Estuary (occasionally within 100m of the 

application site) or foraging within the arable fields to the east 

of the application site (within 500m of the application site). 

Studies on the effects of wind turbines on field utilisation by 

pink-footed geese in Denmark found that displacement of 

birds ranged from between approximately 100m and 200m 

depending on the turbine configuration (linear or clustered) 

Given the close proximity of the areas where goose flocks were 

observed to the application site there is a potential for roosting 

and foraging geese to be disturbed and subsequently displaced 

from the Forthbank area during the winter and passage periods 

due to the presence of the operational wind energy 

development. However, given the infrequent presence of large 

pink-footed goose flocks within the survey area and considering 

the displacement distance of 200m any such effect on geese is 

predicted to be minimal. In fact, studies have shown that pinkfooted 

geese can become habituated to wind turbines. Madsen 

and Boertmann (2008) 41 reported reduced avoidance distances 

of foraging geese to within 40 or 50m over periods of between 

eight and ten years following construction. However, even if 

birds are initially displaced during the early operational years or 

if birds did not become habituated to the presence of the 

operational wind energy development, it is likely that pinkfooted 

geese will continue to utilise most of the fields and parts 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Conservation 

Value at 



and the presence of other physical obstacles (e.g. 

powerlines) 40 . On the basis of this information, a 

precautionary displacement range of 200m is considered for 

construction also. Given the close proximity of the areas 

where goose flocks were observed to the application site 

there is a potential for construction activities during the winter 

to disturb pink-footed geese. This could potentially lead to the 

temporary displacement of the birds elsewhere within the 

Upper Forth Estuary and surrounding Forth Valley. However, 

given the infrequent presence of large pink-footed goose 

flocks observed actually foraging or roosting within the survey 

area disturbance of geese during construction is expected to 

be minimal. Furthermore, arable forage fields dominate the 

Forth Valley at this location while the islands of Alloa Inches 

SWT Reserve, located approximately 1.1km upstream of the 

application site, are recognised as a traditional pink-footed 

goose roosting site. Therefore, even if birds are displaced 

beyond the 200m displacement distance there is sufficient 

availability of suitable, and most likely recognised, alternative 

foraging and roosting habitats to which disturbed birds could 

be displaced while still remaining within the Upper Forth 

Estuary. Consequently, the impact magnitude is predicted to 

be low. 

of the Forth Estuary beyond 200m from the turbines in areas 

where they were recorded during the surveys. Furthermore, it 

is considered that there is sufficient availability of suitable 

alternative foraging and roosting habitats within the Upper Forth 

Estuary as previously mentioned. Consequently, the effect of 

any disturbance and displacement of pink-footed geese caused 

by the presence of the operational wind energy development is 

predicted to be of low magnitude. 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 154 recorded pink-footed goose flights, the vast majority 

were of birds commuting up or down the Forth Estuary (or at 

least parallel to it). However, at least 53 flights (34%) passed 

directly through the Wind Energy Development Area (the area 

enclosed by a line on a map joining the outermost turbine rotors 

of the wind farm), ,most of which were of birds commuting 

between the Forth Estuary and habitats in the surrounding area 

(e.g. arable fields to the north east of the site) or beyond as 

opposed to between habitats within or immediately adjacent to 

the application site. Since the proposed wind energy 

development will not restrict the passage of birds along the 

river it is concluded that it will not act as a significant barrier to 

the majority of pink-footed goose flights which followed this 

orientation. Meanwhile, of the flights observed passing over 

the proposed wind energy development, it is expected that 

birds commuting between foraging and roosting grounds in the 

wider area will be able to avoid the proposed small scale wind 

energy development by either passing over or around it. 


development is unlikely to act as a significant barrier to the 

Minor 




Species 

Redbreasted 

merganser 

Conservation 

Value at 


International 


local movement of pink-footed geese (low). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Of the 154 flights recorded within and adjacent to the 

application site, 66 (5970 birds) were “at risk”. The collision risk 

modelling produced a collision estimate of 55 birds per year or 

approximately 1 bird every week for the 99% avoidance rate as 

accepted by SNH. Although the annual collision rate would 

only represent 0.5% of the SPA qualifying population per year, 

this would result in approximately 1375 collisions over the 25 

year lifespan of the proposed wind energy development. The 

Greenland/Icelandic pink-footed goose population, to which the 

British wintering and passage population belongs, has been 

increasing since 1960 with over 360,000 birds wintering in 

Britain in 2009, the highest total ever recorded 42 . In this context, 

it is considered that the loss of 55 birds each year will have a 

negligible effect on either the national or regional wintering 

populations (i.e.


Species 

Redshank 

Conservation 

Value at 


Local 


given the low number of flights recorded it is unlikely that the 

proposed wind energy development will act as a significant 

barrier to the movement of this species. In any case, birds 

passing to and from the wetlands will be able to continue to 

commute between these habitats by simply passing around or 

over the small scale wind energy development to avoid the 

turbines. Furthermore, there is the possibility that birds may 

still pass through the corridor between turbines 1 and 2. Thus 

the likely impact is further reduced (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Of the 9 recorded red-breasted merganser flight events only 

one passed through the risk window and therefore there was 

not enough information to accurately model the collision risk for 

this species. However, given the low number of recorded 

flights and considering that only a small proportion of these 

were “at risk” it is reasonable to conclude that there is a very 

low risk of this species being significantly affected by collisions 

with the wind turbines (neutral). 


Disturbance & 

Minor 

Minor 

Displacement 

With the exception of late summer, redshank were recorded 

throughout the year at Forthbank. However, numbers were 

low in all seasons, with the peak of 21 (November estuary 

zone count) representing


Species 

Sandwich 

tern 

Shelduck 

Conservation 

Value at 


International 

Local 


survey area for much of the year. Furthermore, this flight was 

below PCH. Given the above, it is reasonable to assume that 

redshank rarely fly through the risk volume and that the 

collision risk to this species is negligible (neutral). 


Disturbance & 

Displacement 

Sandwich terns were only recorded at Forthbank during the 

autumn passage period with birds foraging and commuting 

along the river channel of the Forth Estuary. The peak count 

was of 22 birds (August estuary zone count) representing 

1.4% of the SPA qualifying population. The Forth Estuary is 

an important staging ground for post-breeding Sandwich terns 

and the survey results suggest that the Forthbank area 

represents a valuable foraging ground for birds at this time. 

However, even if construction activities were scheduled to 

take place during the autumn months, disturbance associated 

from construction activities is not predicted to adversely affect 

terns concentrated along the river channel. Consequently, the 

effect is predicted to be of neutral magnitude and unlikely to 

result in significant displacement of the species away from the 

Forthbank area. 

Not significant Any disturbance associated with the operation and 

maintenance of the turbines is not predicted to adversely affect 

terns foraging and commuting along the river channel and even 

if it does initially, birds may become habituated to the presence 

of the turbines (neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A All observations of Sandwich tern were recorded within the 

Forth Estuary with birds foraging or commuting along the river. 

No observations were made to suggest that the species 

forages or roosts at Black Devon Wetland or that they would 

ever pass directly through the proposed wind energy 

development. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that 

this species rarely flies through the proposed wind energy 

development and that the development will not have a barrier 

effect on the movement of this species (neutral). 








the annual collision rate of 1 bird every 1-2 years would 

represent 0.1% of the SPA qualifying population. 

Consequently, the collision risk for Sandwich tern is considered 

to be well within acceptable limits and thus will not significantly 

affect the SPA qualifying population (neutral). 


Disturbance & With the exception of late summer, shelduck were recorded Minor Although present for much of the year, the small numbers of Minor 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Conservation 

Value at 



Displacement 

throughout the year at Forthbank. However, numbers were 

low in all seasons, with the peak of 18 (January estuary zone 

count) representing


Species 

Wigeon 

Conservation 

Value at 


International 


the SPA qualifying population per year. Consequently, the 

collision risk for shelduck is considered to be well within 

acceptable limits and thus will not significantly affect the SPA 

qualifying population (neutral). 


Disturbance & 

Displacement 

Wigeon were only recorded at Forthbank during the winter 

and passage periods with counts of over 100 birds being 

regularly recorded during the winter months. The peak count 

of 223 (December winter walkover) represented 10.4% of the 

SPA qualifying population. Birds were found throughout the 

estuarine habitats although the highest concentrations were 

typically found on the south side of the Forth Estuary near the 

South Alloa bend (approximately 500m upstream of the 

application site) and around the mouth of the River Black 

Devon (within 100m of the application site). Although no 

information was found regarding the disturbance of wigeon by 

wind farms this species is known to be particularly sensitive to 

disturbance. Consequently, the disturbance distance is 

predicted to be more than that stated for mallard (300m) and 

is more likely to be similar to that quoted for curlew (500m). 

Given the close proximity of the observed wigeon 

congregating areas to the application site there is a high 

potential for the large winter flocks which occur at Forthbank 

to be disturbed by construction activities if they are 

undertaken during winter months. This has the potential to 

result in the temporary displacement of these birds elsewhere 

within the Forth Estuary. Although the majority of this stretch 

of the Forth Estuary lies outwith the Firth of Forth SPA the 

numbers recorded at Forthbank indicate that parts of the 

survey area of particular importance to the species during at 

least part of the winter. However, wigeon numbers did 

fluctuate quite markedly throughout the winter and therefore it 

is likely that alternative foraging and roosting sites exist 

elsewhere within the Upper Forth Estuary (e.g. Alloa Inches). 

Therefore, the magnitude of any disturbance effects on 

wigeon is predicted to be low. However, the impact 

significance is predicted to be on the higher end of the scale 

because the availability of alternative estuarine roost sites for 

this species is likely to be more restricted than that for species 

such as curlew which may also make use of inland areas such 

as arable fields). 

Moderate 

As previously mentioned, many of the wigeon recorded during 

the ornithological surveys were present within approximately 

500m of the application site (the precautionary displacement 

range for this species). Consequently there is a reasonably 

high likelihood that a significant proportion (i.e. ≥1%) of the 

Firth of Forth SPA population will be displaced from traditional 

foraging and roosting grounds located within this distance 

throughout the lifespan of the proposed wind energy 

development due to the presence of the turbines. However, 

given that the majority of the survey area does not include the 

Firth of Forth SPA, and considering the likely availability of 

suitable alternative foraging and roosting grounds in the 

surrounding area it is considered highly unlikely that birds will 

be displaced entirely from the Forth Estuary. Indeed, any 

displaced birds are likely to remain within Upper Forth Estuary. 

Given the above, such an effect is predicted to be of low 

magnitude, although given the number of birds recorded the 

impact significance is predicted to be on the higher end of the 

scale. 

Moderate 




Species 

Glossy ibis 

Kingfisher 

Conservation 

Value at 


Negligible 

Local 


Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 6 recorded wigeon flights all (100%) passed directly 

through the proposed wind energy development (the area 


of the wind farm) and were all of birds flying between the Black 

Devon Wetlands and the Forth Estuary. Furthermore, all flights 

passed through the ‘corridor’ which would exist between 

turbines 1 and 2. However, given the low number of flights 

recorded it is unlikely that the proposed wind energy 

development will act as a significant barrier to the movement of 

this species. In any case, birds passing to and from the 

wetlands will be able to continue to commute between these 

habitats by simply passing around or over the small scale wind 

energy development to avoid the turbines and given the natural 

path of the 6 recorded flights it is possible that birds will pass 

through the corridor between turbines 1 and 2. Thus the likely 

barrier effect is further reduced (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Of the 6 recorded wigeon flight events only 1 passed through 

the risk volume and so there was insufficient information to 

accurately model the collision risk for this species. However, 

given the low number of recorded flights and considering that 

only a very small proportion of these were “at risk” it is 

reasonable to conclude that there is a very low risk of this 

species being significantly affected by collisions with the wind 

turbines (neutral). 

Habitat Loss No loss of habitat which is of value to the species (neutral). N/A N/A at operation N/A 

Disturbance & 


Displacement 

Glossy ibis was a rare visitor to Forthbank with only two 

records both consisting of just a single individual during the 

autumn passage period. Given the rare presence and very 

low abundance of this species, disturbance and displacement 

is predicted to of negligible (neutral). 

Considering the rare presence of glossy at Forthbank, potential 

disturbance of this species during operation is predicted to be 

of negligible magnitude. 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Given the overall rare presence of glossy ibis at Forthbank it is 

reasonable to assume that the proposed wind energy 



Collision N/A at construction N/A Only two glossy ibis flights were recorded during the flight 

activity surveys, both of which were within the risk volume. 

However, given that glossy ibis is a rare vagrant in Scotland it 

is reasonable to assume that this species rarely flies through 

the proposed wind energy development and that the collision 

risk to this species is negligible (neutral). 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 


Disturbance & A single kingfisher was recorded along the River Black Devon Not significant Despite the close proximity of the River Black Devon to the Not 

Displacement during the winter walkover surveys and was also present 

application site, kingfishers are unlikely to be affected by the significant 




Species 

Peregrine 

Conservation 

Value at 


Local 


during the breeding bird surveys although there was no 

evidence to suggest the species was breeding along the lower 

stretches of the river. Despite the close proximity of the 

application site, kingfishers are unlikely to be affected by the 

construction activities and in any case are not thought to 

occur frequently enough to be adversely affected by the 

works. 

low intensity disturbance associated with the operational wind 

energy development (neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A N/A for this species N/A 

Collision N/A at construction N/A N/A for this species N/A 


Disturbance & 

Displacement 

Other than the 12 flights which were recorded during the flight 

activity surveys (mostly during the late summer/early autumn 

months), peregrine was only recorded once during the winter 

walkover surveys (March) and was represented by a single 

bird. Peregrines require an elevated ledge on which to nest 

and the survey area offers no such suitable opportunities for 

this species. Therefore, peregrines almost certainly occur at 

Forthbank opportunistically to ambush wetland birds using the 

Forth Estuary and Black Devon Wetlands. Given the 

relatively infrequent presence of this species and considering 

that the majority of peregrine sightings were located around 

the Black Devon Wetlands rather than within the application 

site itself, it is considered unlikely that the species will be 

discouraged from coming to this site to hunt by construction 

activities. Indeed, peregrines are considered to be relatively 

tolerant of such disturbance often being found in association 

with busy refineries, power stations and other industrial sites. 

Even if birds are temporarily displaced there is considered to 

be an availability of suitable alternative foraging habitats in the 

wider area (i.e. the wider Forth Estuary and adjacent fields). 

Consequently, any disturbance which might affect this species 

during construction is predicted to be of negligible magnitude 

(neutral). 


Given the relatively infrequent presence of this species and the 

general attraction of this species to the Black Devon Wetlands 

rather than the application site (as previously mentioned) it is 

considered unlikely that the species will be discouraged from 

coming to this site to hunt by the presence of the wind turbines 

and maintenance activities. Even if birds are temporarily 

displaced during the early years of operation there is 

considered to be an availability of suitable alternative foraging 

habitats in the wider area, as previously identified. 

Consequently, the likelihood of disturbance associated with the 

proposed wind energy development leading to the 

displacement of the species is considered to be low and the 

magnitude of any effects are predicted to be negligible 

(neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 12 recorded peregrine flights only 2 (17%) passed 



rotors of the wind farm), with the majority of flights being of 

birds around Black Devon Wetlands, presumably hunting. 

Consequently, given the low number and probable nature (i.e. 

hunting rather than commuting) of flights recorded it is 

considered unlikely that the proposed wind energy 

development will act as a significant barrier to the movement of 

this species (neutral). 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Barnacle 

goose 

Conservation 

Value at 


Negligible 



site, 7 (7 birds) were “at risk”. Peregrine was present during 




produced a collision estimate of between 1 bird every 10 years 

(95% avoidance) and 1 bird every 50 years (99% avoidance). 

Meanwhile, during the non-breeding season the predicted 

collision rate was between 1 bird every 33 years (95% 

avoidance) and less than 1 bird every 100 years (99% 

avoidance). Taking the precautionary 95% avoidance rate 

predictions for the two seasons combined this would equal 

approximately 1 bird every 7-8 years and thus approximately 3 

collisions over the 25 year lifespan of the proposed wind energy 

development, although the collision risk is predicted to be at 

least 3 times higher during the breeding season. The 2007 

Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme Report 44 refers to 35 

reported peregrine home-ranges (70 birds) in the Central 

Scotland region, which includes the Forthbank site. Assuming 

this is a minimal estimate, the loss of three birds would equate 

to the loss of at most 4.3% of this regional breeding population 

over 25 years. In general, results from operational wind farm 

monitoring studies suggest that there appears to be a low risk 

of collision for peregrine, although 2 fatalities have been 

reported in Belgium 45 and Meek et al. 46 reported 1 casualty in 

the Orkney Islands over an 8 year study. In addition, the fact 

that peregrine’s range coincides with large numbers of wind 

farms, yet few collisions are reported, tends to support the view 

that there is a low risk of collision for this species. On this 

combination of evidence and experience to date, it is concluded 

that likelihood of collision and hence the risk to the 

conservation status of the species is negligible (neutral). 


Disturbance & 


Displacement 

Barnacle goose was a rare visitor to Forthbank with only two 

records both consisting of just 4 individuals during the winter 

and passage periods. Given the rare presence and very low 

abundance of this species, disturbance and displacement is 

not predicted to have a significant effect. 

Considering the rare presence of barnacle goose at Forthbank, 

potential disturbance of this species during operation is 

predicted to be of negligible magnitude. 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Considering the rare presence of barnacle goose at Forthbank, 

the proposed wind energy development is not predicted to have 

a barrier effect on the movement of this species. 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Only a single barnacle goose flight was recorded during the 

flight activity surveys, and while this was at PCH it did not pass 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Common 

tern 

Short-eared 

owl 

Conservation 

Value at 


Negligible 


through the proposed wind energy development. The presence 

of barnacle geese at Forthbank was unusual and most likely 

consisted of birds which had become lost and joined up with 

pink-footed geese for security. Consequently, it is reasonable 

to assume that this species rarely flies through the proposed 

wind energy development and that the collision risk to this 

species is negligible (neutral). 


Disturbance & 

Displacement 

Common terns were primarily recorded at Forthbank during 

late summer and early autumn months although the species 

was low in abundance, the peak count being of just 4 birds. 

Several important common tern breeding colonies are located 

in the Firth of Forth (i.e. Forth Islands SPA and Imperial Dock 

Lock, Leith SPA) and the birds which were recorded along the 

Forth River channel during the surveys are likely to have been 

post-breeding adults and fledged young form these colonies, 

taking advantage of available food supplies before 

commencing their southward migration. However, the 

infrequently presence and very low abundance of common 

tern suggests that the Forthbank area does not represent an 

important foraging ground for this species. As such, 

disturbance associated with construction activities is not 

predicted to adversely affect terns along the river channel. 



terns foraging and commuting along the river channel and even 

if it does initially, birds may become habituated to the presence 

of the turbines (neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A All observations of common tern were recorded within the Forth 

Estuary with birds foraging or commuting along the river. No 

observations were made to suggest that the species forages or 

roosts at Black Devon Wetland or that they would ever pass 

directly through the proposed wind energy development. 

Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that this species 

rarely flies through the proposed wind energy development and 

that the development will not have a barrier effect on the 


Collision N/A at construction N/A Only a single common tern flight was recorded during the flight 

activity surveys, and this was not “at risk”. All observations of 

common tern were recorded within the Forth Estuary with birds 

foraging or commuting along the river. Consequently, it is 

reasonable to assume that this species rarely flies through the 

risk volume and that the collision risk to this species is 

negligible (neutral). 

Negligible Habitat Loss Short-eared owl was represented by a single individual during Not significant N/A at operation N/A 

the winter walkover surveys (January) and five flights of what 

was probably the same bird during the flight activity surveys 

(April). Lowland/coastal open grasslands such as those in the 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Conservation 

Value at 



Disturbance & 

Displacement 



Forthbank area are important wintering grounds for shorteared 

owl 23 . During the winter, short-eared owls are highly 

mobile but can come to remain at sites where vole numbers 

(to which their movements can be highly linked) are high, 

sometimes occurring in large numbers where vole populations 

are high. However, the infrequent presence and low 

abundance of this species suggests that the site does not 

represent a key wintering or foraging ground, Furthermore, 

there are considered to be suitable alternative foraging and 

wintering grounds elsewhere along the fringes of the wider 

Forth Estuary such as Carron Lagoons, Kinneil Kerse and 

Lagoon and Valleyfield Ash Lagoons located between 8km 

and 11km southeast of Forthbank as well as the abundance of 

surrounding arable farmland. Consequently the minor loss of 

habitat is predicted to have an effect of neutral magnitude. 

Given the rare presence and low abundance of short-eared 

owl at Forthbank, the likelihood of the short-term construction 

activities having an adverse disturbance effect on this species 

is considered to be negligible. 


There is potential for wintering short-eared owls to be disturbed 

and displaced from the Forthbank area by the presence of the 

proposed wind energy development. However, the rare 

presence and low abundance of this species during the surveys 

suggests that the application site is not an important 

wintering/foraging ground for this species. Consequently, the 

disturbance/displacement effect on short-eared owl is 

considered to be negligible. 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Given the rare presence and low abundance of short-eared owl 

at Forthbank it is reasonable to assume that the proposed wind 

energy development will not act as a significant barrier to the 


Collision N/A at construction N/A Of the 5 recorded short-eared owl flight events none passed 

through the risk volume. Consequently, collision risk modelling 

could not be carried out for this species for this species. 

However, given the low number of recorded flights and that 

none of these were “at risk”, it is reasonable to conclude that 

there is a very low risk of this species being significantly 

affected by collisions with the wind turbines (neutral). 

Barn owl Local Habitat Loss Although the presence of barn owl at Forthbank was Minor N/A at operation N/A 

confirmed during the specific barn owl surveys, the species 

was not identified to be breeding and was never recorded 

during any of the other surveys, despite the flight activity 

surveys covering dawn and dusk periods. However, the 

rough grassland of the application site and adjacent Black 

Devon Wetlands represents suitable foraging grounds for this 

species and therefore it is likely that these areas are still of 

value to barn owls. Consequently the construction of the 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant


Species 

Conservation 

Value at 



Disturbance & 

Displacement 

proposed wind energy development is expected to result in 

the loss of foraging habitat for barn owl. However, it is 

considered that the total amount of habitat loss is negligible in 

the context of the site and that there is an abundance of 

suitable alternative foraging habitat both within and 

surrounding the application site, including the field margins of 

the surrounding farmland. Consequently the loss of habitat is 

predicted to have an effect of low magnitude. 

Since all construction activities will take place during daylight 

hours while the local bird(s) would be at roost, disturbance 

during this phase of the wind energy development is 

considered to have a negligible effect on barn owls (neutral). 


The known barn owl roosting site is located outside of the 

application site and is well over 100m from the nearest turbine. 

Therefore, on the basis of this distance from the disturbance 

source and the nocturnal/crepuscular activity pattern of the 

species, it is considered that both direct disturbance and 

displacement from this roost site will be minimal. In support of 

this, there is abundant evidence of barn owls successfully 

nesting in close proximity to various sources of disturbance. 

From RPS post-construction monitoring of one wind farm in 

south Scotland, there is also evidence of successful breeding 

within 150m of the closest turbine. Consequently, it is 

considered that disturbance/displacement impacts on barn owls 

will be negligible (neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Despite the absence of barn owl records during the ‘wider’ bird 

surveys the habitats within the application site represent 

suitable foraging grounds for this species. However, the 

location of the known barn owl roosting site is outside of the 

application site and the majority of suitable barn owl foraging 

habitat is located in the wider area to the north and east of the 

application site (e.g. the grasslands of Black Devon Wetlands 

and the nearby fields and associated margins). Therefore, 

given the coastal location of the proposed wind energy 

development it is not considered to segregate local birds from 

any part of their foraging grounds. Consequently, the proposed 

wind energy development is not predicted to have a barrier 

effect on the movement of barn owls (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Despite there being suitable foraging habitat for barn owls 

within and surrounding the application site no barn owl flights 

were recorded during the flight activity surveys, (although this is 

more likely to reflect the nocturnal/crepuscular behaviour of this 

species rather than an avoidance of these areas). 

Consequently, collision risk modelling was not carried out for 

this species. However, it is considered that the majority of 

suitable barn owl foraging habitat is likely to be located in the 

wider area to the north and east of the application site as 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Black-tailed 

godwit 

Crossbill 

Conservation 

Value at 


Local 

Negligible 


mentioned above. Furthermore, the collision risk for this 

species is considered to be low given the species propensity for 

low level flight (i.e. below PCH). Therefore, the frequency of 

barn owl flights through the risk volume is considered likely to 

be low. As such, there is considered to be a very low risk of 

this species being significantly affected by collisions with the 

wind turbines (neutral). 


Disturbance & 

Displacement 

Black-tailed godwit were recorded infrequently at Forthbank, 

mostly during the spring passage, and other than the peak 

count of 19, were generally present in very low numbers of 

less than 5 birds. Although the species was present within the 

survey area during the breeding season there was no 

evidence of breeding. Given the above, the likelihood of 

construction activities having an adverse disturbance effect on 

this species is considered to be negligible (neutral). 


Given the infrequent presence and low abundance of blacktailed 

godwit at Forthbank it is reasonable to assume that level 

of disturbance/displacement as a result of the proposed wind 

energy development will be low (neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Only a single black-tailed godwit flight was recorded during the 

flight activity surveys. This flight passed between the Forth 

Estuary and Black Devon Wetlands. Given the low number of 

black-tailed godwit flights recorded and the limited presence 

and abundance of this species it is reasonable to assume that 

birds rarely pass through the proposed wind energy 

development and therefore that the proposed wind energy 



Collision N/A at construction N/A Only one black-tailed godwit flight was recorded during the 

flight activity surveys and this did not pass through the risk 

volume. Consequently, collision risk modelling could not be 

carried out for this species for this species. However, given the 

absence of “at risk” flights, it is reasonable to conclude that 

there is a very low risk of this species being significantly 

affected by collisions with the wind turbines (neutral). 


Disturbance & 


Displacement 

The only record of crossbill was of a single individual flying 

over the site during the September winter walkover survey. 

Crossbill predominantly occurs in coniferous woodland of 

which there is none within, or in close proximity to the 

application site. Consequently disturbance and displacement 

is not predicted to affect this species (neutral). 

Given that the available habitat at Forthbank is sub-optimal for 

crossbill, disturbance and displacement is not predicted to 

affect this species (neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A to this species N/A N/A for this species N/A 

Collision N/A to this species N/A N/A for this species N/A 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 





Value at 


Green-shank Negligible 

Whimbrel 

Negligible 



Disturbance & 


Displacement 

Greenshank were only recorded at Forthbank during the 

autumn passage period and were present both infrequently 

and in very low numbers; the peak count being of just two 

birds (e.g. September estuary zone count). Greenshank 

occur annually within the Forth Estuary during the passage 

period although numbers are typically low 5-year (2004/05- 

2008/09) peak mean within the Forth Estuary = 16 24 . 

However, although the peak count at Forthbank represents 

12.5% of the Forth Estuary population, the infrequent 

presence of this species suggests that disturbance during 

construction is likely to have a negligible effect (neutral). 

Given the infrequent presence and very low abundance of 

greenshank any disturbance and subsequent displacement of 

this species caused by the operation of the proposed wind 

energy development is expected to have a negligible effect 

(neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Although the only recorded greenshank flight was overland 

between the Black Devon Wetlands and the Forth Estuary, 

observations of this species were generally restricted to the 

margins of the Forth Estuary and River Black Devon and it is 

more likely that birds will stay within the confines of these 

channels when commuting between sites. However, the single 

recorded flight indicates that some birds may fly through the 

proposed wind energy development to access the Black Devon 

Wetlands. However, the survey results suggest that the 

number of flights will be negligible and mainly below PCH. 

Furthermore, birds will be able to pass through the corridor 

between turbines 1 and 2. Consequently, the proposed wind 

energy development is not predicted to act as a significant 

barrier to the movement of greenshank (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Only a single greenshank flight was recorded during the flight 

activity surveys and this was below PCH. Given the above, it is 

reasonable to assume that greenshank rarely fly through the 

risk volume and that the collision risk to this species is 

negligible (neutral). 


Disturbance & 


Displacement 

Whimbrel was only recorded as present in the wider survey 

area during the breeding season. Whimbrel breed in upland 

environments and this record is likely to have been of a bird 

on migration to its breeding grounds. Given the rare presence 

of whimbrel, disturbance and displacement is not predicted to 

have a significant effect on this species (neutral). 

Considering the rare presence of whimbrel at Forthbank, 



Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Given the overall rare presence and low abundance of 

whimbrel at Forthbank it is reasonable to assume that the 

proposed wind energy development will not act as a significant 

barrier to the movement of this species (neutral). 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Dunnock 

Grasshopper 

warbler 

Conservation 

Value at 


Local 


Collision N/A at construction N/A No whimbrel flights were recorded during the flight activity Not 

surveys. Given the overall rare presence and low abundance significant 

of this species it is reasonable to assume that whimbrel rarely 

fly through the proposed wind energy development and that the 


Habitat Loss Dunnock were recorded at Forthbank throughout the year 

both within and surrounding the application site. Two 

pairs/territories were recorded within the application site 

during the breeding season with a further thirteen located in 

the wider survey area. There is potential for some of the 

habitat which will be lost through the installation of the 

turbines and associated infrastructure to include areas which 

are used as foraging or feeding grounds by dunnock. 

However, it is considered that the total amount of habitat loss 

is negligible in the context of the site and that there is an 

abundance of suitable alternative habitat both within and 

surrounding the application site. None of the habitat loss is 

expected to affect areas of suitable dunnock breeding habitat 

(e.g. scrub). Consequently the loss of habitat is predicted to 

be negligible (neutral). 

Not significant N/A at operation N/A 

Disturbance & 

Displacement 

Construction of the proposed wind energy development has 

the potential to cause some temporary displacement of 

dunnock from some breeding and feeding sites. However, 

there is considered to be sufficient availability of suitable 

alternative habitat in the wider area (i.e. urban fringe habitats 

and scrub) to support any displaced birds. Consequently, any 

displacement of dunnock is expected to be of negligible 

magnitude and the long-term loss of any significant proportion 

of the local population is considered highly unlikely (neutral). 


All four turbines will be located within open areas of rough 

grassland away from the areas of most suitable habitat for 

dunnock (e.g. scrub). Consequently, given the low intensity of 

disturbance associated with operational wind farms, the effect 

of disturbance and displacement on this species is expected to 

be of negligible magnitude. Furthermore, it is likely that a 

species such as dunnock will become habituated to the 

disturbance, given that they are abundant in urban 

environments and presumably tolerant of disturbance (neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A for this species N/A N/A for this species N/A 

Collision N/A for this species N/A N/A for this species N/A 

Regional Habitat Loss Grasshopper warblers were only recorded at Forthbank during Not significant N/A at operation N/A 

the breeding season. However, of the nine pairs/territories 

which were identified in the survey area none were located 

within the proposed wind energy development site. Although 

grasshopper warbler breeds on or near the ground in dense 

rank grassland and low growing scrub habitats the areas 

which are likely to be affected by habitat loss are unlikely to 

include areas of high quality breeding habitat for the species. 

There is potential for some of the habitat which will be lost 

through the installation of the turbines and associated 

infrastructure to include areas which are used as foraging or 

feeding grounds by grasshopper warbler. However, it is 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Reed 

bunting 

Conservation 

Value at 


District 


Disturbance & 

Displacement 



suitable alternative habitat in the surrounding area (e.g. Black 

Devon Wetlands). Consequently the loss of habitat is 

predicted to have a negligible impact on this species 

(neutral). 



grasshopper warblers from some breeding and feeding sites 

located in close proximity to the proposed wind energy 

development site. However, there is considered to be 

sufficient availability of suitable alternative habitat in the wider 

area to support any displaced birds. Consequently, any 

displacement of any grasshopper warblers is expected to be 

of negligible magnitude and the long-term loss of any 

significant proportion of the local population is considered 

highly unlikely (neutral). 




grasshopper warbler (e.g. dense rank grassland and low 

growing scrub). Consequently, given the low intensity of 



be of negligible magnitude. Furthermore, it is particularly likely 

that small birds such as this will become habituated to the 




Habitat Loss Reed bunting were recorded at Forthbank throughout the year 

both within and surrounding the application site. Four 


during the breeding season with a further ten located in the 

wider survey area. There is potential for some of the habitat 

which will be lost through the installation of the turbines and 

associated infrastructure to include areas which are used as 

foraging of feeding grounds by reed bunting. However, it is 



suitable alternative habitat both within and surrounding the 

application site. None of the habitat loss is expected to affect 

areas of suitable reed bunting breeding habitat (e.g. reeds, tall 

grasses and scrub). Consequently the loss of habitat is 

predicted to be negligible (neutral). 


Disturbance & 


Displacement 


the potential to cause some temporary displacement of reed 

buntings from some breeding and feeding sites. However, 

there is considered to be sufficient availability of suitable 

alternative habitat in the wider area (most notably surrounding 

Black Devon Wetlands) to support any displaced birds. 

Consequently, any displacement of reed buntings is expected 

to be of negligible magnitude and the long-term loss of any 



grassland away from the areas of most suitable habitat for reed 

bunting (e.g. reeds, tall grasses and scrub). Consequently, 

given the low intensity of disturbance associated with 

operational wind farms, the effect of disturbance and 

displacement on this species is expected to be of negligible 

magnitude. Furthermore, it is particularly likely that small birds 

such as this will become habituated to the turbines (neutral). 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Skylark 

Conservation 

Value at 


District 


highly unlikely (neutral). 



Habitat Loss Skylark were recorded at Forthbank throughout the year both Minor N/A at operation N/A 

within and surrounding the application site. Six 


during the breeding season with a further seven located in the 

wider survey area. Some of the habitat which will be lost 

through the installation of the turbines and associated 

infrastructure is likely to include areas which are used as 

foraging or feeding grounds by skylark. Furthermore, some of 

the habitat loss is expected to affect areas of suitable skylark 

breeding habitat (e.g. open, rough grassland). However, it is 

considered that the total amount of habitat loss is relatively 

small in the context of the site and that there is an abundance 

of suitable alternative foraging and breeding habitat both 

within and surrounding the application site. Consequently the 

loss of habitat is predicted to have an effect of low magnitude. 

Disturbance & 

Displacement 

There is evidence that skylarks are relatively unaffected by 

the disturbance associated with wind farms. A study 

reviewing the effects of turbine installation at four coastal sites 

in Germany found no effect on numbers and distribution of 

skylarks 30 . Meanwhile, a review by Pearce-Higgins et al. 

(2009) 32 showed only marginal effects up to 200m for 

breeding skylarks. Potentially as a worst-case scenario, the 6 

pairs breeding within the application site (i.e. up to 200m from 

turbines) may be temporarily disturbed or displaced during the 

construction phase. However, this effect would be limited to 

one breeding season and the birds would be able to 

recolonise these breeding sites the following year. Therefore, 

the effects are likely to be of low magnitude and the long-term 

loss of any significant proportion of the local skylark 

population is considered highly unlikely. 

Minor 

Although skylarks may be relatively tolerant of wind farms, the 

six territories which were identified within the application site 

were all in close proximity to the cluster of three turbines to the 

south east of the site. Consequently, assuming an avoidance 

distance of 200m from turbines the amount of available 

breeding habitat will be significantly reduced within the 

application site. It is therefore likely that several pairs of 

breeding skylark will be displaced from the application site thus 

reducing the number of skylark territories in future years to 

perhaps two or three pairs. However, given this species high 

relative abundance, particularly in areas of suitable habitat such 

as open farmland such as that which dominates the Lower 

Forth Valley, it is unlikely that the displacement and potential 

loss of this number of breeding pairs would represent a 

significant proportion of the regional or district population. 

Furthermore, given the availability of suitable alternative 

foraging and breeding habitat surrounding the application site 

(e.g. Black Devon Wetlands and nearby arable fields), it is 

possible that displaced birds will be able to establish territories 

elsewhere in the surrounding area. Consequently the 

displacement of breeding skylark is predicted to have an effect 

of low magnitude and the long-term loss of any significant 

proportion of the local skylark population is considered highly 

unlikely. 

Minor 




Species 

Yellowhammer 

Common 

sandpiper 

Conservation 

Value at 


District 

District 




Habitat Loss Yellowhammer were mainly recorded at Forthbank during the Not significant N/A at operation N/A 

breeding season. Two pairs/territories were recorded within 

the application site during the breeding season with a further 

five located in the wider survey area, most of which were 

recorded in the scrub along the margins of the River Black 

Devon. There is potential for some of the habitat which will be 

lost through the installation of the turbines and associated 

infrastructure to include areas which are used as foraging of 

feeding grounds by yellowhammer. However, it is considered 

that the total amount of habitat loss is negligible in the context 

of the site and that there is an abundance of suitable 

alternative habitat both within and surrounding the application 

site. None of the habitat loss is expected to affect areas of 

suitable yellowhammer breeding habitat (e.g. scrub). 

Consequently the loss of habitat is predicted to be negligible 

(neutral). 

Disturbance & 


Displacement 



yellowhammer from some breeding and feeding sites. 

However, there is considered to be sufficient availability of 

suitable alternative habitat in the wider area (i.e. arable fields 

and associated scrub/hedgerows) to support any displaced 

birds. Consequently, any displacement of yellowhammers is 

expected to be of low magnitude and the long-term loss of any 


highly unlikely. 



yellowhammer (e.g. arable fields and associated 

scrub/hedgerows). Consequently, given the low intensity of 



be of negligible magnitude. Furthermore, it is particularly likely 

that small birds such as this will become habituated to the 





Disturbance & 


Displacement 

Common sandpiper was only recorded at Forthbank during 

the autumn passage period with sightings restricted to the 

Forth Estuary foreshore and the margins of the River Black 

Devon with the peak count being of 12 birds (July estuary 

zone count). Common sandpiper are common at coastal 

locations during the autumn following departure from their 

breeding grounds 23 

and in the context of the wider Forth 

Estuary, the peak count is not expected to represent a 

significant proportion of the population at the regional level. 

However, although these birds were typically recorded in 

areas within 100m of the proposed application site, these low 

lying areas are largely shielded from the application site by 

Given this species habitat preference and characteristic 

behaviour, as previously mentioned, it is considered that birds 

which occur at Forthbank will almost be segregated from 

disturbance associated with the proposed wind energy 

development. However even if birds are disturbed and 

subsequently displaced by the presence of the proposed wind 

energy development, there is considered to be suitable 

alternative habitat in the wider Upper Forth Estuary including 

the margins of the estuary itself and other small creeks and 

channels. Consequently, taking into consideration also the 

relatively small numbers of common sandpiper which were 

recorded at Forthbank the impact magnitude is predicted to be 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Gadwall 

Conservation 

Value at 


Local 


the coastal defence flood embankments which surround much 

low. 

of the application site. These flood embankments are also 

largely covered in dense scrub. In addition, the characteristic 

flight pattern of this species is very low (e.g.


Species 

Gannet 

Greylag 

goose 

Conservation 

Value at 


Negligible 

District 


between suitable habitats at Forthbank. However, given the 

infrequent presence and low abundance of this species and 

considering that birds may still pass through the corridor 

between turbines 1 and 2, it is predicted that the proposed wind 

energy development will not act as a significant barrier to the 

movement of gadwall (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Although a pair of gadwall was recorded at Black Devon 

Wetlands, no gadwall flights were recorded during the flight 

activity surveys. Consequently it is reasonable to assume that 

this species rarely flies through the risk volume and that the 



Disturbance & 

Displacement 

Gannet were only recorded at Forthbank during the autumn 

passage period with birds flying along the river channel of the 

Forth Estuary. Gannets are known to enter the Forth Estuary 

during the autumn and may even pass overland between the 

Firths of Forth and Clyde 23 . However, given the low number 

of birds recorded during the Forthbank surveys disturbance 

associated from construction activities is not predicted to 

adversely affect gannets passing along the river channel. 

Consequently any effect is predicted to be of neutral 

magnitude. 



gannets foraging or commuting along the river (neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A All observations of gannet were recorded within the Forth 

Estuary with birds foraging or commuting along the river. No 

flights were recorded passing through the proposed wind 

energy development and given this species coastal/marine 

habits it is extremely unlikely that gannets would ever pass 

through the proposed wind energy development. 

Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed 

development will not have a barrier effect on the movement of 

this species (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A No gannet flights were recorded during the flight activity 

surveys. All observations of gannet were recorded within the 

Forth Estuary with birds foraging or commuting along the river. 


rarely flies through the risk volume and that the collision risk to 

this species is negligible (neutral). 


Disturbance & 


Displacement 

Other than the 10 flights which were recorded during the flight 

activity surveys during the winter and passage months, 

greylag goose was only recorded at Forthbank on one 

occasion (February estuary zone count) and was represented 

by 8 birds. Given the infrequent presence and low abundance 

Given the infrequent presence and low abundance of this 

species at Forthbank, as previously mentioned, any 

disturbance and subsequent displacement of greylag geese 

from the operation of the proposed wind energy development is 

predicted to have a negligible effect on this species (neutral). 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Mute swan 

Conservation 

Value at 


Local 


of this species at Forthbank any disturbance from construction 

activities is not predicted to affect this species (neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 10 recorded greylag goose flights 4 (40%) passed 



rotors of the wind farm). However, almost all of the flights were 

of birds either commuting up or down the Forth Estuary (or at 

least parallel to it) or passing over the application site as 

opposed to birds moving between habitats within or adjacent to 

the application site. Since the proposed wind energy 

development will not restrict the passage of birds along the 

river it is concluded that it will not act as a significant barrier to 

greylag goose flights of this orientation. Meanwhile, it is 

expected that birds commuting between foraging and roosting 

grounds in the wider area will be able to avoid the small scale 

wind energy development by either passing over or around it. 



movement of greylag geese (neutral). 



produced a collision estimate of 1 bird every 3 years for the 

99% avoidance rate as accepted by SNH. This would result in 

approximately 8 collisions over the 25 year lifespan of the 

proposed wind energy development. Given the large wintering 

population in Scotland (over 85,000), the species favourable 

conservation status (see Table 12.17) and the fact that it is a 

legitimate quarry species, the loss of 1 bird every three years is 

considered to have a negligible effect on the species at all 

population levels (neutral). 


Disturbance & 


Displacement 

Mute swans were recorded for most of the year at Forthbank. 

However, numbers were low in all seasons, with the peak of 

just 4 birds (October winter walkover). Meanwhile, one 

pair/territory was recorded at Black Devon Wetlands during 

the breeding season, approximately 200m from the 

application site. Despite this, mute swans are considered to 

be relatively tolerant of disturbance occasionally occurring in 

wetlands associated with heavily disturbed industrial sites and 

often being associated with busy urban parks. Consequently, 

the potential impact of short-term construction related 

disturbance on the small numbers of wintering and breeding 

mute swan is expected to be of low magnitude and is not 

Although present for much of the year, the small numbers of 

wintering and breeding mute swans, as detailed previously, 

suggests that the site is not of high importance to the species. 

Indeed, mute swans are reasonably non-specific in their habitat 

preference being found from estuaries and sheltered coastal 

waters to freshwater lochs, ponds and watercourses 23 . 

Consequently, even if the small numbers typically recorded at 

Forthbank are displaced by the proposed wind energy 

development, it is likely that they will find suitable alternative 

habitats elsewhere within the wider Forth Estuary and 

surrounding Forth Valley. Therefore, the impact magnitude of 

any disturbance and subsequent displacement of mute swans 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Shoveler 

Conservation 

Value at 


Negligible 


predicted to result in significant displacement of the species 

is predicted to be low. 

away from the Forthbank area. 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 16 recorded mute swan flights 12 (75%) passed directly 

through the proposed wind energy development (the area 


of the wind farm). Most of these were of birds flying around 

and between the lagoons of Black Devon Wetlands. Only a few 

flights were of birds commuting between Black Devon Wetlands 

and habitats in the wider environment (e.g. the Forth Estuary). 

Therefore, taking into consideration the small scale of the wind 

energy development and the possibility that birds may still pass 

over or around it or through the corridor between turbines 1 and 

2, it is concluded that the proposed wind energy development 

will not act as a significant barrier to the movement of mute 

swans (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Of the 16 recorded mute swan flight events only two passed 

through the risk volume and therefore there was insufficient 

information enough to accurately model the collision risk for this 

species. However, given this low number of “at risk” flights, it is 

reasonable to conclude that there is a very low risk of this 

species being significantly affected by collisions with the wind 



Disturbance & 


Displacement 



Shoveler was only represented by a single individual during 

the winter walkover surveys (September) and was only 

recorded as present in the wider survey area during the 

breeding season. Consequently, given the rare presence of 

shoveler, disturbance and displacement is not predicted to 

have a significant effect on this species. 

Considering the rare presence of shoveler at Forthbank, 



Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Considering the rare presence of snow goose at Forthbank, the 

proposed wind energy development is not predicted to have a 

barrier effect on the movement of this species. 

Collision N/A at construction N/A No shoveler flights were recorded during the flight activity 

surveys. Given the rare presence of this species at Forthbank 

throughout the survey programme it is reasonable to assume 

that shoveler rarely fly through the risk window and that the 


Snipe Local Habitat Loss Snipe were recorded at Forthbank during the winter and Not significant N/A at operation N/A 

passage months, although numbers were low; the peak being 

of just five birds, and while the species was occasionally 

flushed from the grasslands within the application site, most 

birds were recorded around the Black Devon Wetlands. 

Snipe are common on coastal and lowland wetlands during 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant


Species 

Snow goose 

Conservation 

Value at 


Negligible 


Disturbance & 

Displacement 

winter therefore, the number of birds recorded at Forthbank is 

likely to represent a fraction of the expected population 

around the Forth Estuary. Consequently, the minor loss of 

habitat from the application site is expected to have an effect 

of neutral magnitude. 

Given that the majority of snipe observed at Forthbank were 

recorded at Black Devon Wetlands, approximately 150m from 

the application site, it is considered unlikely that disturbance 

associated with the construction activities will be of sufficient 

magnitude to have an adverse effect on this species 

(neutral). 


The low numbers of snipe recorded within the Forthbank survey 

area, as detailed previously, suggests that the habitats within 

and surrounding the application site are not of high importance 

to the species. Even if birds are disturbed and subsequently 

displaced by the presence of the wind energy development, 

there is considered to be an abundance of suitable alternative 

coastal and lowland wetland habitat for this species to occupy 

in the wider Forth Estuary and Lower Forth Valley. 

Consequently, any disturbance and displacement of snipe is 

predicted to have an effect of negligible magnitude (neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 8 recorded snipe flights approximately 6 (75%) passed 



rotors of the wind farm). However, most of these were of flights 

circling around Black Devon Wetlands or moving between the 

three lagoons. Very few of the flights were of birds commuting 

between Black Devon Wetlands and the Forth Estuary or other 

habitats beyond the survey area. Therefore, taking into 

consideration the small scale of the wind energy development 

and the possibility that birds may still pass over or around it or 

through the corridor between turbines 1 and 2, it is concluded 

that the proposed wind energy development will not act as a 

significant barrier to the movement of snipe (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Of the 8 recorded snipe flight events only two passed through 

the risk volume and therefore there were not enough to 


given the low frequency of “at risk” flights, it is reasonable to 

conclude that there is a very low risk of this species being 

significantly affected by collisions with the wind turbines 

(neutral). 

Habitat Loss No loss of habitat which is of value to the species (neutral). N/A N/A at operation N/A 

Disturbance & 


Displacement 

Snow goose was a rare visitor to Forthbank with only one 

record of a single individual during the spring passage period. 

Given the rare presence and very low abundance of this 

species, disturbance and displacement is not predicted to 

have a significant effect (neutral). 

Considering the rare presence of snow goose at Forthbank, 



Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Considering the rare presence of snow goose at Forthbank, the 

proposed wind energy development is not predicted to have a 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Teal 

Conservation 

Value at 


District 


barrier effect on the movement of this species. 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Only a single snow goose flight was recorded during the flight Not 

activity surveys and this did not pass through the risk window. significant 


rarely flies through the risk window and that the collision risk to 

this species is negligible (neutral). 

Habitat Loss Although teal were recorded as present within the application 

site during the breeding season no evidence of breeding was 

recorded and there will be no loss of habitat which is of value 

to the species (neutral). 


Disturbance & 

Displacement 

Teal were recorded at Forthbank during the winter and 

passage periods with counts of up to 150 birds being recorded 

during the winter months (January winter walkover). Birds 

were found throughout the survey area with the largest 

congregations being recorded on the Black Devon Wetlands, 

on the north side of the Forth Estuary upstream of the 

application site and around the mouth of the River Black 

Devon (within 100m of the application site). Given the close 

proximity of some of these congregating areas to the 

application site and considering the proposed autumn/winter 

construction schedule (see Chapter 4: Project Description), 

there is a potential for the large winter flocks which occur at 

Forthbank to be disturbed by construction activities 

undertaken at this time. This could lead to the temporary 

displacement of the flock elsewhere within the Forth Estuary. 

However, it is recognised that suitable alternative foraging and 

roosting grounds are available in the surrounding area (i.e. 

elsewhere within the Upper Forth Estuary). Indeed, given this 

species wide use of the available habitats at this site, even if 

construction activities were to disturb these birds it is 

considered unlikely that they would be displaced from the 

Forthbank area altogether. Consequently the impact 

magnitude is predicted to be low. 

Minor 

Given the wide use of the available habitats at this site by teal 

and considering the availability of suitable alternative foraging 

and roosting grounds within the nearby surrounding area, as 

mentioned previously, even if the species was disturbed and 

subsequently displaced by the operation of the proposed wind 

energy development, it is considered unlikely that the species 

would be displaced from the Forthbank area entirely. 

Consequently the impact magnitude is predicted to be low. 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 8 recorded teal flights approximately 6 (75%) passed 



rotors of the wind farm). Most of the flights were of birds flying 

between the lagoons of Black Devon Wetlands, although three 

were of birds passing between the Black Devon Wetlands and 

the Forth Estuary. However, given the low number of flights 

recorded it is unlikely that the proposed wind energy 

development will act as a significant barrier to the overall 

movement of this species. In any case, birds passing to and 

Minor 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Tufted duck 

Conservation 

Value at 


Local 


from the wetlands will be able to continue to commute between 

these habitats by simply passing around or over the small scale 

wind energy development to avoid the turbines or pass through 

the corridor between turbines 1 and 2. Thus the likely impact is 

further reduced (neutral). 

Collision N/A at construction N/A Of the 8 recorded teal flight events only one passed through the 

risk window and therefore there was insufficient information to 


given this low number of “at risk” flights, it is reasonable to 

conclude that there is a very low risk of this species being 

significantly affected by collisions with the wind turbines 

(neutral). 


Disturbance & 


Displacement 

Tufted ducks were recorded inconsistently at Forthbank. 

During the winter the species was present infrequently and in 

low numbers; the peak count being of just four individuals. 

Meanwhile, during the spring/summer months the species 

was only identified as being present but with no evidence of 

breeding in the wider survey area. Consequently, given the 

low abundance of this species and its infrequent use of the 

habitats within the survey area any disturbance of tufted 

ducks is predicted to be of negligible magnitude (neutral). 

The small numbers and infrequent presence of tufted duck at 

Forthbank during both the winter and breeding season, as 

detailed previously, suggests that the site is not of high 

importance to the species. Indeed, the species is more 

commonly found on small freshwater lochs and ponds rather 

than estuaries and associated backwaters. Given the above, 

any disturbance and displacement of tufted ducks is predicted 

to have an effect of negligible magnitude (neutral). 

Barrier Effect N/A at construction N/A Of the 14 recorded tufted duck flights approximately 7 (50%) 



turbine rotors of the wind farm). However, the majority of these 

were of birds circling around or flying between the lagoons of 

Black Devon Wetlands. Only a few flights were of birds 

commuting between Black Devon Wetlands and the Forth 

Estuary. Given the low number of flights recorded it is unlikely 

that the proposed wind energy development will act as a 

significant barrier to the overall movement of this species. In 

any case, birds passing to and from the wetlands will be able to 

continue to commute between these habitats by simply passing 

around or over the small scale wind energy development to 

avoid the turbines or pass through the corridor between 

turbines 1 and 2. Thus the likely impact is further reduced 

(neutral). 


site, 11 (34 birds) were “at risk”. Tufted duck were 

predominantly present during the breeding season and 

therefore collision estimates were carried out for this season 

only. The collision risk modelling produced a collision estimate 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 




Species 

Conservation 

Value at 



of between 1 bird every 7-8 months (95% avoidance) and 1 bird 

every 3-4 years (99% avoidance). Taking the precautionary 

95% avoidance rate prediction, this would result in 

approximately 39 collisions over the 25 year lifespan of the 

proposed wind energy development. However, the collision 

rate of 1 bird every 7-8 months or 1.56 birds per year would 

represent 0.03% of the Scottish resident breeding population 

(4500 or 2250 pairs, see Table 12.17). Even though this 

excludes the (unmodelled) collision risk during the nonbreeding 

season this is expected to be very low and will not 

contribute significantly to the estimate. Therefore the collision 

risk for tufted duck is considered to be well within acceptable 

limits and is thus considered to have a negligible effect on the 

species at all population levels (neutral). 





12.4.45 Potential effects associated with de-commissioning of the proposed wind energy development 

are assumed to be the same as those identified for construction (e.g. short-term 

disturbance/displacement and minor habitat loss). It is assumed that there will be no 

permanent displacement of birds from the proposed wind energy development due to 

disturbance effects and that birds will return to the Forthbank area following removal of the 

turbines. 

Summary of Effects of VORs 

12.4.46 Table 12.19 presents a summary of the effects on VORs which are predicted to occur during 

construction and operation as well as any mitigation measures which are discussed in more 

detail below. 


12.5.1 In terms of the potential for cumulative effects with the proposed wind energy development, the 

key issue is considered to be potential cumulative effects in relation to other operational or 

proposed wind farms in the vicinity of the Firth of Forth. Because of the small size of the 

proposed development and the distance between the proposed wind energy development and 

other proposed wind farms (the nearest development is about 6km away - see below), the 

construction and operation of the proposed wind energy development is not predicted to cause 

in-combination impacts of disturbance/displacement, barrier effect, or habitat loss for any bird 

species. 

12.5.2 The cumulative assessment focuses on the collision risk for pink-footed goose, as this was the 

species with the highest predicted mortality due to collision at Forthbank. Based on advice 

from SNH, a search has been made for details of other wind farms within 20km of the Firth of 

Forth SPA. It is understood that this is based on the SPA ‘connectivity’ distance for pink-footed 

goose which may fly up to 20km between roosts and foraging areas. The cumulative 

assessment also considers the Beauly to Denny Power Line upgrade. This consented 220km 

long power line passes within 20km of the Firth of Forth SPA and 4km of the proposed wind 

energy development. Collision mortality of pink-footed geese was identified as a likely 

significant effect of the Beauly to Denny Power Line on the Firth of Forth SPA and this issue 

was the subject of a special study, carried out as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment 

and Appropriate Assessment for the power line (further background in Appendix 12.2). 

12.5.3 Locations of all developments found and their status (installed, subject to planning application, 

at scoping stage or planning permission refused) are shown in Figure 12.11. Details of all 

developments (excluding those which have been refused planning permission) are given in 

Appendix 12.2, Table 12.2.8. Information has been sourced from SNH, Local Planning 

Authorities and developers. 




12.5.4 Of the 34 wind farm developments identified, pink-footed goose has been identified as at risk 

of collisions with turbines for eight developments, although this may be an underestimate as 

information on bird species at risk has not been found for all proposals. 

12.5.5 Collision risk predictions for pink-footed geese have been found for six sites only: a negligible 

risk for a single turbine at FMC technologies, and, based on 99% avoidance, 15 birds per 

annum at Earl’s Seat, 21.3 per annum at Standingfauld, 35 per annum at Bracco, 1.3 per 

annum at Carcant and 4.8 per annum at Westfield (Appendix 12.2, Table 12.2.8). In addition 

the estimated mortality from the Beauly to Denny Power Line is 103 birds per winter. 

Combined with the predicted mortality of 55 birds per year at the proposed wind energy 

development, the minimum estimate of annual mortality for pink-footed goose from wind farms 

and the Power Line within 20km of the Firth of Forth is 214.1 birds (214). This excludes the 

predicted mortality for Standingfauld, on the basis of SNH advice that the pink-footed geese 

using this area are associated with the South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA, and that there is no 

likely significant effect for the Firth of Forth SPA (Matthew Topsfield, renewable casework 

energy advisor, 30/09/2010, by email). 

12.5.6 Evidence is presented (Appendix 12.2) that the scale of predicted annual mortality of geese 

from wind farms in the vicinity of the Firth of Forth is likely to be insignificant in relation to the 

annual mortality rate of pink-footed geese wintering in Britain. Thus no cumulative impacts of 

the proposed wind energy development are predicted. 


Construction 

Proposed Construction Works Schedule 

12.6.1 The only significant impact (moderate or above) associated with the construction phase of the 

proposed wind energy development relates to the potential disturbance and displacement of 

wigeon. However, the effect of construction disturbance is only predicted to have an impact on 

this species if the proposed works schedule coincides with the wintering and passage periods 

when the wigeon population (and that of other wetland birds) are at their highest at Forthbank 

and the wider Forth Estuary in general. 

12.6.2 Consequently, it is recommended that the six month construction programme is scheduled to 

take place between April and September (inclusive) thus avoiding the most sensitive periods 

for wigeon (and other wetland birds). Rescheduling the works programme in this way is 

predicted to reduce any impacts of disturbance and displacement on wigeon, and other 

species, to a negligible (not significant) level. 

12.6.3 If the works schedule cannot be altered to extend between April and September then at the 

very least the core winter months of November to February (inclusive), when the largest 

concentrations of wetland birds typically occur, should be avoided. 




Timing of Construction Activities in Relation to Breeding Birds 

12.6.4 While scheduling the works programme to take place between April and September will 

minimise any disturbance impacts on passage and wintering wetland birds, it will mean that the 

works programme will coincide with the breeding bird season (March to July inclusive). 

12.6.5 Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended by the Nature Conservation 

(Scotland) Act 2004, it is an offence with only limited exceptions, to: 

• intentionally or recklessly take, interfere with, damage or destroy the nest of any wild 

bird whilst it is in use or being built; 

• intentionally or recklessly take, interfere with or destroy the egg of any wild bird; 

• intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest 

building, or at (or near) a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent 

young of such a bird. 

12.6.6 Consequently there will be a need to follow best practice during the construction of the 

proposed wind energy development to avoid the possibility of illegal damage, destruction or 

disturbance to occupied bird nests and ensure compliance with the legislation concerning 

disturbance to breeding birds. 

12.6.7 Construction activities are only expected to affect skylark; the only passerine (song bird) 

species which was recorded breeding in the grassland where the proposed turbines and 

subsidiary access tracks are to be located (the main site access track already exists). Skylark 

hold territories from as early as the start of March 25 so site clearance and preparation works 

will aim to be timed to take place as early as possible in March before peak breeding activity 

occurs. 

12.6.8 A pre-construction survey will be undertaken to identify any breeding activity and ascertain if 

any nesting birds are present on-site. If any active nests are found in close proximity to 

imminent construction activity then the work will either have to be re-scheduled or the nest site 

cordoned-off up to 50 metres. Construction operations will then be delayed within the cordon 

until the young have fledged and the nest becomes vacant. However, given that skylarks 

typically only start to nest in April 25 the likelihood of any active nests being present at the 

beginning of March is considered to be extremely low. 

12.6.9 If works are commenced across the site at this early stage, birds will have an opportunity to 

take potential disturbance into account in the process of selecting a nest site and are likely to 

select a site located away from any sources of disturbance. 

12.6.10 Compliance with the law will be achieved by the appointment of a suitably experienced 

ornithologist as Ecological Clerk of Works during the bird breeding season (March to July 

inclusive), to locate any active nests close to construction works shortly before these 

commence. Any active nests found will be cordoned off as described above. There will be a 

clear line of responsibility for ensuring these measures are adhered to. 




Operation 

Visual Screening 

12.6.11 The only impacts associated with the operation of the proposed wind energy development 

relate to the disturbance and potential displacement of wigeon and curlew. 

12.6.12 However, given that wind turbines are considered to be relatively quiet and that any 

maintenance works are expected to be low intensity, it is predicted that any effects during 

operation will mainly be associated with visual disturbance. Consequently, while it will not be 

possible to screen the rotating blades from birds present within the Forth Estuary or Black 

Devon Wetlands, it may be possible to screen disturbance from ground level activities (e.g. 

maintenance operations). The coastal margin of the application site is already lined by a 

protective seawall which is approximately 3m high with a chain-link fence running between the 

existing landfill site and the estuary. It is suggested that the chain-link fence could be replaced 

by an opaque structure such as a slatted wooden fence or similar (e.g. a natural ‘living willow’ 

fence) or in the longer term through planting of scrub vegetation to screen any low level visual 

stimuli from birds located on the estuary. Any such management would be undertaken after 

careful consideration of any possible effects on estuarine birds (e.g. if scrub vegetation might 

be avoided as a potential refuge for predators such as sparrowhawks) and interactions with 

landscape and visual issues. 

12.6.13 A flood embankment also exists along the site’s boundary with the River Black Devon and this 

is largely covered in dense scrub, particularly around the mouth of the river. It is considered 

that the retention of this vegetation would act as an effective natural screen of any disturbance 

within the proposed application site from birds located along the Black Devon. 

12.6.14 Although implementation of these measures will not reduce any disturbance that the rotating 

turbine blades may have it is predicted that they will minimise the overall impacts of 

disturbance to a low (minor) or even negligible (not significant) level. 

Post-Construction Monitoring 

12.6.15 Given the predicted impacts of disturbance and subsequent displacement of various wetland 

bird species (minor-moderate significance) as a result of the operational wind energy 

development it is advised that a period of monitoring will be required to identify any changes in 

the abundance, distribution/habitat usage by these birds. Monitoring is not proposed as a 

mitigation measure but as a means of assessing the actual impacts of the wind energy 

development on birds. 

12.6.16 Such a monitoring programme will be developed in consultation with SNH and RSPB but is 

likely to involve a suite of surveys similar to those carried out for this assessment (e.g. estuary 

zone counts, winter walkover surveys and flight activity surveys). In addition, the proposed 

wind energy development provides an opportunity to assess the predicted avoidance rate of 

pink-footed geese flying in the vicinity of wind farms and it is recommended that searches for 

carcasses from blade-strikes are carried out. Monitoring is likely to be required over a period of 




several years. SNH guidance 48 recommends that surveys are undertaken in post construction 

years 1, 3, 5 and 10 in order to identify any changes over the longer-term. 

12.6.17 As well identifying any changes in species abundance and distribution the monitoring study will 

aim to establish the actual duration and magnitude of any disturbance and displacement 

effects and thus determine the accuracy of the impact significance predicted in this 

assessment. 


12.6.18 The mitigation measures provided for construction are also relevant to the de-commissioning 

of the proposed wind energy development (e.g. avoidance of the core winter and passage 

periods and sensitive timing and best practise measures in relation to nesting birds). If these 

are followed any impacts associated with the de-commissioning phase of the works are 

predicted to be negligible (not significant). 


12.7.1 The residual effects, after taking into account the mitigation measures predicted in Section 

12.6: Mitigation, are presented in the Table 12.19. Summary of Impacts. The effective 

implementation of these measures will ensure compliance with the law and reduce any 

predicted impacts to a negligible (not significant) level. 

12.8 Potential Impacts on the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar Site 

12.8.1 Because of the proximity of the proposed wind energy development to the Firth of Forth SPA, 

SNH have advised that the development is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying 

interests of the SPA and that an Appropriate Assessment is required (letter from Matthew 

Topsfield, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), to Keith Johnstone, Clackmannanshire Council, 

dated 20 January 2010). 

12.8.2 This section provides a summary of a report to inform an appropriate assessment of the 

potential impacts of the development on the SPA, included in Appendix 12.2. 

12.8.3 The Firth of Forth Ramsar site overlaps with the SPA. As the interests of the Ramsar site are 

the same as for the Firth of Forth SPA, any effects on the Ramsar site are addressed as part of 

the Appropriate Assessment. 

12.8.4 The assessment has not identified any potential adverse effects on the SPA conservation 

objectives for any bird species resulting from the construction, operation and decommissioning 

of the proposed wind energy development. In carrying out an Appropriate 

Assessment, mitigation measures, aimed at minimising or avoiding the negative impact of a 

plan or project during or after its completion, may be considered as an integral part of the plan 

or project (EC 2000) 49 . This conclusion takes into account mitigation relating to: 




• the timing of construction and de-commissioning works, which should take place 

between April and September (inclusive), to avoid the period when large numbers of 

passage and wintering birds are present on the Forth Estuary; 

• the use of a combination of wooden fencing (or equivalent, e.g. ‘living willow’) and 

scrub planting to screen birds using the Forth Estuary and River Black Devon from 

ground level disturbance during the operation of the proposed wind energy 

development; and 

• measures to prevent the release of sediment and contaminants into the Forth 

Estuary during construction, operation and de-commissioning, including best 

practice for site pollution control, waste management, and implementation of a 

Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) for surface water run-off. 

12.8.5 Further details of proposed mitigation are given in Section 12.6, and for hydrology, in Chapter 

13. 

12.8.6 Given the uncertainty relating to predicted impacts of disturbance and subsequent 

displacement of some SPA species while the proposed wind energy development is 

operational, monitoring will be required to identify any changes in the abundance, distribution 

and habitat use of birds. A monitoring programme will be developed in consultation with SNH 

and RSPB. 

12.8.7 No development proposals have been identified which are likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the conservation objectives for qualifying species within the Firth of Forth SPA, in 

combination with the proposed wind energy development. A key issue investigated was the 

potential for in-combination mortality to pink-footed geese from collision with wind turbines at 

the proposed wind energy development and other proposed wind farms within 20km of the 

Firth of Forth SPA. Evidence is presented that the predicted annual mortality of geese from 

wind farms in this area is likely to be insignificant in relation to the annual mortality rate of pinkfooted 

geese wintering in Britain. 


12.9.1 An assessment has been made of the likely effects of the proposed wind energy development 

during the construction, operation and de-commissioning stages and their associated impacts 

on Valued Ornithological Receptors (VORs). 

12.9.2 The only significant impact (moderate or above) associated with the construction phase of the 

proposed wind energy development relates to the potential disturbance and displacement of 

wigeon, while during operation the only significant impact relates to the potential disturbance 

and displacement of wigeon and curlew. 

12.9.3 As such, it is recommended that the proposed construction programme will be rescheduled to 

avoid the passage and winter periods when populations of wigeon (and other wetland bird 

specie) are at their highest, thereby reducing the impact significance to a negligible (not 

significant) level. Best practice measures are also provided in relation to breeding birds and 

the legislation protecting them. 




12.9.4 With regard to impacts during operation, it is proposed that the installation of wooden or natural 

‘living willow’ fencing adjacent to the most sensitive areas will reduce the effects of low level 

disturbance such that the impacts will be reduced to a minor or negligible (not significant) level. 

A monitoring programme is also recommended during the operation of the proposed wind 

energy development, to establish whether the development affects any changes in the 

baseline abundance, distribution/habitat usage by the birds recorded at this site. 

12.9.5 Consequently, provided the proposed mitigation measures to avoid disturbance of wigeon 

(during construction and operation), curlew (during operation only) and breeding birds (during 

construction only) are followed it is concluded that there will be no significant (moderate or 

above) impacts on any of the identified VORs. 

12.9.6 In addition, following Appropriate Assessment of the proposed wind energy development on 

the conservation objectives of the Firth of Forth SPA, alone and in combination with other 

projects and plans, it is also considered, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there will be 

no adverse effects on the integrity of this Natura 2000 site. 


Table 12.19 Summary of Effects of the Forthbank Wind Energy Development Site on 

Valued Ornithological Receptors (VORs) 

Potential Impacts 

Bar-tailed godwit 

Loss of habitat 

Disturbance/displacement 

from foraging/roosting sites 

Pre-mitigation Significance Mitigation Required 

Construction Operation Construction Operation 

Not 

significant 

Minor 

Residual 

Effects 

N/A None None None 

Not 

significant 

Works to take 

place between 

April and 

September 

None 

Not 

significant 

Barrier effect N/A Not 

None None None 

significant 

Collision risk N/A Not 


significant 

Cormorant 


Not 


significant 

Disturbance/displacement Not 

Not 


from foraging/roosting sites significant significant 



significant 



significant 

Curlew 


Not 




significant 

Minor Moderate Works to take 

place between 

April and 

September 

Visual 

screening 

Minor/not 

significant 



significant 



significant 

Dunlin 


Not 


significant 


Not 




significant 







Residual 

Construction Operation Construction Operation Effects 



significant 

Goldeneye 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Golden plover 


Not 

Not 


significant significant 


Not 


from foraging/roosting sites significant Significant 



significant 



significant 

Grey plover 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 

Collision risk N/A N/A None None None 

Lapwing 


Not 


significant 



Minor Minor Works to take 

place between 

Visual 

screening 

Not 

significant 

April and 

September 



significant 



significant 

Mallard 


Not 


significant 




place between 

Visual 

screening 

Not 

significant 

April and 

September 

Barrier effect N/A Minor None None Not 

significant 



significant 

Oystercatcher 


Not 


significant 




place between 

Visual 

screening 

Not 

significant 

April and 

September 



significant 



significant 

Pink-footed goose 


Not 


significant 




place between 

April and 

Visual 

screening 

Not 

significant 






Residual 


September 

Barrier effect N/A Minor None None Not 

significant 



significant 

Red-breasted merganser 


Not 


significant 



Not 

significant 

Minor None Visual 

screening 

Not 

significant 



significant 



significant 

Redshank 


Not 

significant 





place between 

April and 

September 


significant 


significant 

Sandwich tern 


Not 



Visual 

screening 

Not 

significant 




significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Shelduck 


Not 




significant 


place between 

April and 

September 

Visual 

screening 

Not 

significant 



significant 



significant 

Wigeon 

Loss of habitat N/A N/A None None None 



Visual 

screening 

Moderate Moderate Works to take 

place between 

April and 

September 



significant 



significant 

Glossy ibis 



Not 





significant 



significant 

Kingfisher 



Not 



Barrier effect N/A N/A None None None 


Negligible/not 

significant




Residual 


Peregrine 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Barnacle goose 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Common tern 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Short-eared owl 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Barn owl 

Loss of habitat Minor N/A None None Not 

significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Black-tailed godwit 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Crossbill 


Not 


significant 


Not 





Greenshank 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 

Collision risk N/A Not None None None 






Residual 


significant 

Whimbrel 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Dunnock 


Not 


significant 


Not 





Grasshopper warbler 


Not 


significant 


Not 





Reed bunting 


Not 


significant 


Not 





Skylark 

Loss of habitat Minor N/A None None Not 

significant 



Minor Minor None None Not 

significant 



Yellowhammer 


Not 


significant 


Not 





Common sandpiper 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Gadwall 


Not 


significant 



Minor Not 

significant 

None None Not 

significant 



significant 



significant 

Gannet 


Not 


significant 



Not 

significant 

Not 

significant 







Residual 




significant 



significant 

Greylag goose 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Mute swan 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Shoveler 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Snipe 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 



significant 

Snow goose 



Not 





significant 



significant 

Teal 


Not 


significant 



Minor Minor Rescheduling of 

works 

Visual 

screening 

Not 

significant 



significant 



significant 

Tufted duck 


Not 


significant 


Not 





significant 


significant 






1 

BOU (British Ornithologists’ Union) (2010). The British List. 

http://www.bou.org.uk/recbristbni.html 

2 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2005). Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of 

onshore wind farms on bird communities. November 2005. 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2000). Windfarms and birds: calculating a theoretical collision risk 

assuming no avoiding action. SNH Guidance note series. 

http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/renewable-energy/onshore-wind/ 


Impact Assessment in the UK. IEEM, Winchester 

4 UK Biodiversity Action Plan website; http://www.ukbap.org.uk/newprioritylist.aspx. 

5 

Scottish Biodiversity List website: http://www.biodiversityscotland.gov.uk/ 

pageType2.php?id=35&type=2&navID=92. 

6 

Clackmannanshire Biodiversity partnership website: http://biodiversity.clacksweb.org.uk/ 

habitats_and_species.html 

7 RPS 2010. Forthbank Wind Farm: Partnerships for Renewables. Preliminary Report to Inform 

an Appropriate Assessment for the Firth of Forth SPA. April 2010. 

8 

Scottish Natural Heritage Information Website (Sitelink): 

(http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=53,910284,53_920284&_dad=portal&_schem 

a=PORTAL&UNIT_ID=&DESIGNATION_ID=21&CONTAINS=Forth&LA_ID=). 

9 ‘Waterfowl’ includes divers, grebes, cormorants, herons, swans, geese, ducks, rails, waders, 

gulls and terns. 

10 JNCC Conservation Designations for UK Taxa website: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3408. 

11 

RSPB Website: http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/wildbirdslaw/birdsandlaw/wca/ 

schedules.asp 

12 Birds of Conservation Concern 2009: http://www.bto.org/psob/index.htm#bocc3 . Note: redlisted 

species have either undergone a population decline of at least 50% or a range 

contraction of at least 50% during the last 25 years. 

13 Holt C.; Austin, G.; Calbrade, N.; Mellan, H.; Thewlis, R.; Hall, C.; Stroud, D.; Wotton, S. and 

Musgrove, S.: Waterbirds in the UK 2008/2009. The Wetland bird Survey. BTO, WWT, RSPB 

& JNCC. 

14 Marchant, J. H. (1983) BTO Common Bird Census Instruction. BTO Tring. 




15 Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W., and Evans, J. (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods. The Royal 

Society for the Protection of Birds. 

16 Hardey, J., Crick, H., Wernham, C., Riley, H., Etheridge, B. & Thompson, D. (2009). 

Raptors: a field guide for surveys and monitoring. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh. 

17 Band, W., Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P. (2007). Developing field and analytical methods to 

assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In, de Lucas, M., Jans, G. & Ferrer, M. (eds), Birds 

and Wind Power. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 


Impacts Assessment in the UK. IEEM, Winchester. 

19 Nature Conservancy Council. 1989 (revised 1998). Guidelines for Selection of Biological 

SSSIs. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough. 

20 Criteria for defining duration and sensitivity are based on tables provided by Mike Madders 

of Natural Research (Projects) Ltd. 

21 Waterfowl in this context includes grebes, divers, cormorants, geese, ducks, and waders. 

22 A registration consists of an individual observation of a single bird or flock. 

23 The Risk Window is the appropriate concept for directional species like pink-footed goose, 

while Risk Volume is the correct concept for species such as peregrine for which the nondirectional 

(or random) approach is used. 

24 

Scottish Natural Heritage 2010. Use of avoidance rates in the SNH Wind Farm Collision Risk 

Model. SNH Avoidance Rate Information and Guidance Note. 

25 Forrester, R. W., Andrews, I. J., McInerny. C. J., Murray, R. D., McGowan, R. Y., Zonfrillo, 

B., Betts, M.W., Jardine, D.C. & Grundy, D.S. (eds) (2007). The Birds of Scotland. The 

Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, Aberlady 

26 Calbrade, N.; Holt, C.; Austin, G.; Mellan, H.; Hearn, R.; Stroud, D. Wotton, S. and 

Musgrove, A.J. 2010. Waterbirds in the UK 2008/09: The Wetland Bird Survey. 

BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC, Thetford. 

27 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/revealed-22-million-birds-shot-each-year- 

411917.html 

28 Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. (2006) Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis, 

148: 29–42. 

29 Scottish Natural Heritage 2000. Windfarms and Birds: Calculating a theoretical collision risk 

assuming no avoiding action. SNH Guidance Note Series. 




30 Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. 2003 Wind farms and birds: an analysis of the effects of 

wind farms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection 

issues. Report by Birdlife International on behalf of the Bern Convention. RSPB, Sandy. 

31 Bright, J., Langston, R., Bullman, R., Evans, R., Gardner, S., and Pearce-Higgins, J. 2006. 

Map of bird sensitivities to wind farms in Scotland: A tool to aid planning and conservation. 

Biological Conservation 141: 2342-2356. 

32 Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L.H., Langston, R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P., & Bullman, R. (in 

press). The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied 

Ecology. 

33 Masden, E.A., Haydon, D.T., Fox, A.D., Furness, R.W., Bullman. R, & Desholm, M. (2009) 

Barriers to movement: impacts of wind farms in migrating birds. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science, 66: 746-753. 

34 

Baker, H., Stroud, D. A., Aebischer, N. J., Cranswick, P. A., Gregory, R. D., McSorely, C. A., 

Noble, D. G. & Rehfisch, M. M. (2006. Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the 

United Kingdom. British Birds, 99: 25–44. 

35 

Citation for the Firth of Forth Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). SNH sitelink. 

(http://www.snh.org.uk/snhi/). 

36 Gartmorn Dam SSSI Site Management Statement (http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/portal/page?_ 

pageid=53,910305,53_910326&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&PA_CODE=678&NEW_WI 

NDOW=false) 

37 Gartmorn Dam Country Park Booklet (2009). (www.clacksweb.org.uk/document/2271.pdf). 

38 Winkelman, J.E. (1992) [The impact of the Sep wind park near Oosterbierum (Fr.), the 

Netherlands, on birds, 2: nocturnal collision risks]. RIN-rapport 92/3. DLO-Instituut voor Bos-en 

Natuuronderzoek, Arnhem, The Netherlands. [Dutch, English summary]. www.alterra.nl. 

39 Winkelman, J.E. (1989) Birds and the wind park near Urk: collision victims and disturbance 

of ducks, geese, and swans]. RIN Rep. 89/15. Rijksinstituut voor Natuurbeheer, arnhem, The 

Netherlands. Dutch, English summary. www.alterra.nl. 

40 Larsen, J. and Madsen, J. (2000). Effects of wind turbines and other physical elements on 

field utilisation by pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus): A landscape perspective. 

Landscape Ecology. Volume 15, Number 8. 

41 Madsen, J. and Boertmann D. (2008). Animal behavioural adaptation to changing 

landscapes: spring-staging geese habituate to wind farms. Landscape Ecol 23:1007 (2008). 

42 Mitchell, C. 2010. Status and distribution of Icelandic-breeding geese: results of the 2009 

international census. Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Report, Slimbridge. 




43 Monitoring Hunting Mortalities of Geese. Scottish Government National Goose Forum paper 

7/99. www.scotland.gov.uk/nationalgooseforum/.../NGF07_99.pdf 

44 Etheridge, B.; Holling, M; Riley, H.: Wernham, C. and Thompson, D. (2010). Scottish Raptor 

Monitoring Scheme Report 2007. 

45 Hötker, H., Thomsen, K.-M. & H. Jeromin (2006): Impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of 

renewable energy sources: the example of birds and bats - facts, gaps in knowledge, demands 

for further research, and ornithological guidelines for the development of renewable energy 

exploitation. Michael-Otto-Institut im NABU, Bergenhusen. 

46 

Meek, E.R., Ribbands, J.B., Christopher, W.B., Davy, P.R., Higginson, I. (1993). The effects 

of aero-generators on moorland bird populations in the Orkney Islands, Scotland. Bird Study 

40: 140-143 

47 Personal observations at wetland sites located adjacent to the Teesport Industrial Estate, 

near Middlesbrough. 

48 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2009). Guidance on methods for monitoring bird populations at 

onshore wind farms. SNH Guidance Note. 

49 EC (European Communities) (2000). Managing Natura 2000 sites. The provisions of Article 

6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. Office for official publications of the European 

Communities, 2000, Luxembourg. 




13 Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology 


13.1.1 The purpose of this chapter is to provide an assessment of the potential hydrological, 

hydrogeological and geological effects associated with the proposed wind energy 

development. 

13.1.2 This chapter details the existing baseline situation in terms of the hydrological, hydrogeological 

and geological conditions present within and adjacent to the proposed wind energy 

development. An assessment of effects has been undertaken for the construction, operation 

and de-commissioning stages of the proposed wind energy development, identifying 

associated activities that have the potential to affect the existing baseline situation. 

13.1.3 Effects on hydrology, hydrogeology and geology may result in secondary ecological effects on 

habitats, or species. Effects on ecological receptors (non-avian) are considered in Chapter 11 

(Ecology). 


Study and Site Areas 

13.2.1 The proposed wind energy development site encloses an area of approximately 37.9ha, of 

which 2.6ha will be utilised for the proposed wind energy development infrastructure. As 

described in Chapter 1 (Introduction) the site is bound by the Firth of Forth to the southwest 

and the Black Devon watercourse to the south and east (a small tributary river that flows into 

the Forth). 

13.2.2 The existing site consists of two main areas, an area to the south-east which comprises the 

main body of the closed landfill and an associated restored area to the north-west. 

13.2.3 Studied catchment areas are shown in Figure 13.1. Other specific waterbodies and wind farms 

developments are considered in order to assess potential hydrological linkages or cumulative 

effects. 

Approach and Methods 

13.2.4 This assessment has involved the following: 


• detailed desk studies and site visits to establish the baseline conditions of the 

proposed wind energy development site; 




• evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed wind energy development and the 

effect these could have on current site conditions; 


the baseline features of the proposed wind energy development site, the potential 

magnitude of these effects and the probability of these effects occurring based on a 

judgement of magnitude; 

• identification of possible measures to avoid and mitigate against any potential 


• the evaluation of the residual significance of the potential effects following mitigation. 


13.2.5 This assessment takes into account the requirements of the following key legislation: the Water 

Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 

2000/60/EC and the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 

(CAR). The key objectives of the WFD relevant to this assessment are: 

• to prevent deterioration and enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems; and 

• to establish a framework for the protection of surface freshwater and groundwater. 

13.2.6 Further details regarding the legislation taken into account during this assessment is provided 

in Chapter 5 (Legislative and Policy Context). Table 13.1 below lists the guidance which has 

been taken into consideration during this assessment: 

Table 13.1 Legislation, Policies, Guidance and Best Practice 

Topic 

SEPA 

Pollution 

Prevention 

Guidelines 

(PPGs) 

SEPA 

Position 

Statements 

(Published) 

Other 

Guidelines 

Sources of Information 

• PPG1 General Guide to the Prevention of Water Pollution 

• PPG2 Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks 

• PPG4 The Disposal of Sewage where no Mains Drainage is Available 

• PPG5 Works in, Near or Liable to Affect Watercourses 

• PPG6 Working at Construction and Demolition Sites 

• PPG8 Safe Storage and Disposal of Used Oil 

• PPG21 Polluting Incident Response Planning 

• PS-06-02 Culverting of Watercourses 

• No.19 Groundwater Protection Policy for Scotland 

• WAT-PS-10-01 Assigning Groundwater Assessment Criteria for Pollutant Inputs, March 2010 

• Forestry Commission, Forest and Water Guidelines 2003 

• CIRIA C502 Environmental Good Practice on Site 

• CIRIA C515 Groundwater Control - Design and Practice 

• CIRIA C521 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and England 

• CIRIA C532 Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites 

• CIRIA C648 Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Projects 

• CIRIA C650 Environmental Good Practice on Site (Expansion of C502) 

• CIRIA R168 Culvert Design Manual 

• SEPA, The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, A Practical 

Guide, Version 5, June 2008 

• Methodology for the Water Framework Directive, Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for 

Environmental Research, Project WFD 28 Final Report 2004 

• Private Water Supplies: Technical Manual, Scottish Executive, 2006 

• Managing River Habitats for Fisheries, SEPA, 2002 

• A Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, SNH, 2005 

• River Crossings and Migratory Fish: Design Guidance, A Consultation Paper, The Scottish 

Executive 




Topic 


• Special Requirements for Civil Engineering Contracts for the Prevention of Pollution, Version 2, 

SEPA, 2006 

• Managing River Habitats for Fisheries, SEPA, 2002 

• A, M, MacDonald, D, F, Ball and B, É, O Dochartaigh (2004), A GIS of aquifer productivity in 

Scotland: explanatory notes, Groundwater Systems and Water Quality Programme Commissioned 

Report CR/04/04/047N 

• UK Technical Advisory Group on the WFD, UK Environmental Standards and Conditions (Phase 2), 

Final, March 2008 

• SEPA, Draft River Basin Management Plan for the Scotland River Basin District 

• SEPA, Engineering in the Water Environment, Good Practice Guide, Temporary Construction 

Methods, 1st Edition, March 2009 

• SEPA, Engineering in the Water Environment, Good Practice Guide, Construction of River 

Crossings, 1st Edition, April 2008 

Consultations 

13.2.7 In line with the approach set out in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact 

Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (the EIA Regulations), a scoping report was 

submitted to Clackmannanshire Council and all statutory consultees on 22 December 2009. 

The scoping report was also circulated to a variety of non-statutory consultees (as described in 

Chapter 3). The comments relevant to this assessment are provided below. Information 

relating to any additional consultations that were carried out as part of the assessment is also 

provided. 

13.2.8 The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) provided comments relating to the 

following topics: 

• sustainable waste management; 

• air quality; site drainage strategy; 

• flood risk management; 

• engineering activities in the water environment; 

• environmental management; 

• pollution prevention; 

• storage of fuel and oil, and; 

• land excavations/borrow pits. 

13.2.9 In summary, the information required by SEPA includes consideration of the impact of the 

development on the water table, any perched leachate and nearby watercourses, 

consideration of the stability of turbines extending through landfill material and the stability of 

the surrounding waste mass, as well as a methodology for the excavation and disposal of 

waste. 

13.2.10 SEPA also provided information on existing and historic flooding issues within and downstream 

of the proposed wind energy development site and requested that a flood risk assessment 

should be carried out to ascertain the level of risk to the proposed control building and turbines. 




13.2.11 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) comments related to soil and water and stated that if any 

remnant areas of peatland or peatland soils are found on-site and used to inform the routing of 

proposed tracks, then these should be clearly mapped (depth, nature, hydrology and condition) 

and used to inform the routing of proposed tracks, and the siting of proposed turbines and 

other infrastructure. 

13.2.12 Clackmannanshire Council required the following to be considered: 

• the effect of excavations, impact on the water table, any perched leachate, the 

release of leachate to nearby watercourses and any suitable mitigation measures 

required in relation to the existing leachate collection system; 

• the effect of the development on the existing waste materials that would have to be 

disturbed or disposed of; 

• the location of the turbines and crane pads and any other constructions in relation to 

their stability and stability of the surrounding waste mass; 

• any impacts due to the proposed development in relation to the effectiveness of the 

conditions on the site for the closed landfill; and 

• assessment of the potential for gas accumulation in ancillary buildings and 

structures and the potential for explosion, as well as the impact of potential release 

of landfill gas to the environment and air ingress to the landfill. 

13.2.13 Clackmannanshire Council also referred to the comments raised by SEPA during scoping. 


13.3.1 A desktop survey to establish the baseline conditions within and adjacent to the site was 

undertaken in order to: 

• collect soil, geological and hydrogeological information; 

• collect information on landfill conditions, leachate and gas levels; 

• account for historical land use at the proposed wind energy development site; 

• describe surface water hydrology, including watercourses and springs; 

• identify existing catchment pressures (e.g. point source and diffuse pollution issues); 

• identify all private drinking water abstractions within 3km of the proposed wind 

energy development site; 

• identify public water supply infrastructure within the proposed wind energy 

development site; 

• identify all flooding risks; 




• describe the hydromorphological conditions of watercourses; 

• collect information relating to recreational and fisheries resources; 

• collate historic hydrological flow and flooding data for the immediate area and main 

downstream watercourses; and 

• confirm surface water catchment areas and watersheds. 

13.3.2 Published information consulted for the baseline survey is outlined in Table 13.2 below. 

Table 13.2 Baseline Information Sources 

Topic 

Landfill Conditions 

Solid Geology 

Drift Geology 


• British Geological Survey (BGS) Digital Data provided at www.emapsite.com 

• BGS borehole logs 

• Ground Investigation, Raeburn Drilling and Geotechnical, October 1997 

• Ground Investigation, Raeburn Drilling and Geotechnical, February 2001 

• Ground Investigation at Black Devon Landfill Site, Alloa, Norwest Holst, March 2004 

• Qualitative Gas Risk Assessment, Black Devon Landfill Site, Babtie, October 2002 

• Waste Management Licence Working Plan, Babtie, January 2003 

• Landfill Gas Pumping Trial, Black Devon Landfill Site, Alloa, TES Bretby, PRO2 Farley 

Services Ltd, October 2005 

Soils • Macaulay Institute, Soil Survey of Scotland, 1:250,000 Sheet 5 

Mining • Coal Authority report 

• Mine Abandonment plans 

Sensitive Surrounding • Envirocheck report 

Land uses 

Historical Plans • Envirocheck report 

Climate • British Geological Survey, Hydrogeological Map of Scotland, 1:625,000, 1988 

• MetOffice - Rainfall data for Edinburgh gauging station from 1971 - 2000 

• Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) CD-ROM 

Topography • 1:25,000 Explorer Map – 366 Stirling & Ochil Hills West 

• 1:50,000 Land Ranger Map - 58 Perth & Alloa 

Surface Hydrology 

Surface Hydrology 

Flooding 

Water Quality and 

Catchment 

Assessment 

• 1:25,000 Explorer Map – 366 Stirling & Ochil Hills West 

• Indicative River and Coastal Flood Map (SEPA) www.sepa.org.uk 

• SEPA, Draft River Basin Management Plans, Web Mapping Application, 

http://gis.sepa.org.uk/rbmp/MapViewer.aspx 

Groundwater • Vulnerability of the Groundwater in the Uppermost Aquifer, SEPA 

• Bedrock Aquifer Map, SEPA 

• Superficial Aquifer Map, SEPA 

• SEPA, Draft River Basin Management Plans, Web Mapping Application, 

http://gis.sepa.org.uk/rbmp/MapViewer.aspx 

• Ground Investigation, Raeburn Drilling and Geotechnical, October 1997 

• Ground Investigation, Raeburn Drilling and Geotechnical, February 2001 

• Ground Investigation at Black Devon Landfill Site, Alloa, Norwest Holst, March 2004 

Water Resources • Private water supply information from Local Authority 

• Public water supply infrastructure information from Scottish Water 

Field Survey Techniques 

13.3.3 A survey was undertaken on 7 July 2009 to help determine the hydrological characteristics of 

the proposed wind energy development site. The survey allowed a visual assessment of the 

surface water features, land use, hydrological regime and to gain an understanding of the site 

topography, geology and soils. The weather condition during the site visit was overcast but 

dry. 





13.3.4 The significance of the potential effects of the proposed wind energy development has been 

defined by taking into account the sensitivity of the receiving environment, and the potential 

magnitude and probability of the effect. The assessment methodology is based on SNH 

guidance (2006) 1 and has been developed by RPS based on its experience of carrying out 

assessments for a range of developments, and also draws on guidance from the Water 

Environment Sub-Objective from Transport Analysis Guidance published by the Department of 

Transport 2 , and the paper by Mustow, Burgess and Walker (2005) 3 . 

Sensitivity of Environment 

13.3.5 The sensitivity of the receiving environment, i.e. its ability to absorb the effect without 

perceptible change, is defined in Table 13.3 which also provides examples of the 

characteristics that define receptor sensitivity based on SNH guidance and informed by the 

Mustow, Burgess and Walker paper. 

Table 13.3 Definition of Sensitivity of the Receiving Environment 

Sensitivity 

Very High 

High 

Medium 

Definition 

High quality and rarity, regional or national scale and limited potential for substitution/replacement. 

This includes the following: 

• Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Special Area of Conservation (SAC); 

• SEPA Water Quality defined as High; 

• Surface Water - large scale industrial abstractions >1000m 3 /day within 2km downstream; 

• Abstractions for public drinking water supply; 

• Private Water Supplies – Surface water abstractions within 0 – 200m and groundwater spring 

abstractions from 0-100m from construction activities; 

• Designated salmonid fishery and/or salmonid spawning grounds present; 

• Watercourse widely used for recreation, directly related to watercourse quality (e.g., salmon fishery) 

within 2km downstream; 

• Conveyance of flow and material, main river >10m wide; 

• Active floodplain area (important in relation to flood defence); 

• Groundwater abstractions >1000m 3 /day (within zone of influence from development); 

• Groundwater - public drinking water supply; 

• Groundwater aquifer vulnerability classed between 4d, 4c, 4b, 4a and 5 in the SEPA vulnerability 

classification scheme; and 

• Geology rare or of national importance as defined by SSSI or Regional Important Geological Site 

(RIGS). 

Receptor with a high quality and rarity, local scale and limited potential for substitution/replacement or 

receptor with a medium quality and rarity, regional or national scale and limited potential for 

substitution/replacement. 


• SEPA Water Quality defined as Good; 

• Large scale industrial agricultural abstractions 500-1000m 3 /day within 2km downstream; 

• Surface water abstractions for private water supply for more than 15 people; 

• Private Water Supplies – Surface water abstractions within 200m – 600m, groundwater spring 

abstractions from 100 – 400m, and groundwater borehole abstractions from 0 – 200m from 

construction activities; 

• Designated salmonid fishery and/or cyprinid fishery (Coarse Fish, including roach, carp, chubb, 

bream etc); 

• Watercourse used for recreation, directly related to watercourse quality (e.g. swimming, salmon 

fishery etc); 

• Conveyance of flow and material, main river >10m wide; 

• Active floodplain area (important in relation to flood defence); 

• Groundwater abstractions 500-1000m 3 /day (within zone of influence from development); 

• Groundwater abstraction for private water supply >10m 3 /day or serves >50 people; and 

• Groundwater aquifer vulnerability classed as 3 in the SEPA vulnerability classification scheme. 

Receptor with a medium quality and rarity, local scale and limited potential for substitution/replacement 

or receptor with a low quality and rarity, regional or national scale and limited potential for 

substitution/replacement. 


• SEPA Water Quality defined as Moderate; 




Sensitivity 

Low 

Definition 

• Industrial/agricultural abstractions 50-499m 3 /day within 2km downstream; 

• Occasional or local recreation (e.g. local angling clubs); 

• Conveyance of flow and material, main river 5m wide; 

• Existing flood defences; 

• Groundwater abstractions 50-499m 3 /day; 

• Private Water Supplies – Surface water abstractions from 600 – >800m, groundwater spring 

abstractions from 400m – 800m and groundwater borehole abstractions from 200m – 600m from 

construction; 

• May be subject to improvement plans by SEPA; 

• Designated cyprinid fishery, salmonid species may be present and catchment locally important for 

fisheries; 

• Watercourse not widely used for recreation, or recreation use not directly related to watercourse 

quality; and 

• Groundwater aquifer vulnerability classed as 2 in the SEPA vulnerability classification scheme. 

Receptor with a low quality and rarity, local scale and limited potential for substitution/replacement. 

Environmental equilibrium is stable and is resilient to changes that are greater than natural fluctuations, 

without detriment to its present character. 


• SEPA water quality defined as Poor or Bad; 

• Industrial/agricultural abstractions


Significance Criteria 

13.3.7 The sensitivity of the receiving environment together with the magnitude of the effect defines 

the significance of the effect prior to application of mitigation measures as outlined in Table 

13.5. 

Table 13.5 Significance Criteria 

Sensitivity 

Magnitude Very High High Medium Low 

Major Major Major Moderate Minor 

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Minor 

Minor Minor Minor Minor Negligible 

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 

13.3.8 Potential effects are therefore concluded to be of major, moderate, minor or negligible. Major 

and moderate represent effects considered to be significant in terms of the EIA regulations. 


13.3.9 This section presents the information gathered on the existing topographical, geological, 

hydrological and hydrogeological conditions at the proposed wind energy development site and 

its immediate surroundings. 

Climate 

13.3.10 The Standard Average Annual Rainfall (SAAR) for the site has been estimated from the Flood 

Estimation Handbook (FEH) CD-ROM as ranging from 823mm-954mm. To put this into 

context, rainfall in Scotland varies from over 3000mm per year in the western Highlands to 

under 600mm per year in some eastern coastal areas. 

13.3.11 Long term, average rainfall data from 1971-2000 is available from the MetOffice rainfall 

gauging station at Edinburgh, which is the station located closest to the site. Based on the 

data collected the long term annual average annual rainfall is 676mm. The monthly average 

rainfall for Edinburgh is shown on Graph 13.1, below, which shows that most rainfall in an 

annual period falls within the autumn and winter months. Edinburgh is located approximately 

38km to the south east of the proposed wind energy development and this possibly accounts 

for the smaller annual rainfall. 




Annual Rainfall from Edinburgh Gauging 

Station (1971 - 2000) 

Rainfall(mm) 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar 

Apr 

May 

Jun 

Jul 

Aug 

Sep 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

Month 

Graph 13.1 Average Monthly Rainfall Data 


13.3.12 This section highlights the designated sites that are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

wind energy development. Information specific to each site has been retrieved from the SNHi, 

SiteLink website (http://www.snh.org.uk/snhi/). The website provides information on 

designated sites across Scotland. 

13.3.13 There are no designated sites located within the application area. The Black Devon River, 

which drains part of the southern area of the site, joins with the River Forth at the southeast 

corner of the site before discharging into the Firth of Forth at Edinburgh. There are around 

twelve designated sites along the River Forth: most of which are a combination of Special 

Protected Areas (SPAs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Ramsar sites, ranging 

from 0.75km to 30km downstream of the proposed site. These are designated for: 

• breeding bird assemblage habitat; 

• aggregations of non breeding birds; 

• coastal geomorphology; 

• salt marshe; 

• sand dunes; and 

• saline Lagoon. 

13.3.14 There are no other identified designated sites which lie within catchments which could be 

affected by impacts from the proposed wind energy development. 




Surface Water Hydrology 

13.3.15 Hydrologically, the proposed site lies within the watershed of the Black Devon and the River 

Forth. The River Forth discharges into the Firth of Forth at Edinburgh, and then flows into the 

North Sea (Figure 13.1). 

13.3.16 The River Forth drains the northern and western parts of the proposed wind energy 

development site both indirectly through drainage channels and directly through surface and 

groundwater flows and can be classed as a large sized, tidal dominated, lowland watercourse 

with a channel approximately 600m wide, in the vicinity of the site. The catchment has its 

headwaters some 30km to the west of the site boundary, in the Loch Lomond & Trossachs 

National Park in the vicinity of Aberfoyle and Loch Ard. 

13.3.17 The eastern and southern parts of the site drain directly into the Black Devon before 

discharging to the River Forth at the site’s southern tip. The Black Devon is also tidally 

influenced in the vicinity of the site, and can be classed as a moderate sized, siliceous, lowland 

watercourse. The Black Devon’s headwaters are located approximately 24km to the north east 

in the vicinity of Park Hill and Knock Hill to the south west of Loch Glow. West of Forest Mill, 

its water is diverted into the Gartmorn Dam Reservoir. The topography of the area in the 

vicinity of the site can be seen in Figure 13.2. 

Hydrological Regime 

13.3.18 The site lies within the catchments of the Black Devon and the River Forth. Peak flows have 

been estimated for these watercourses using the Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) Rainfall - 

Runoff Method for a range of return periods, with the results presented in Table 13.6. 

Catchment descriptors derived from the FEH CD-ROM and FEH Handbook are inserted into 

the ISIS program which calculates the peak flow for the specified return period. 

13.3.19 As both watercourses are tidally dominated, flows could not be calculated directly in the vicinity 

of the site. The River Forth flows were calculated as far downstream as the confluence of the 

River Forth and the River Teith to the north west of Stirling while the Black Devon’s flows were 

calculated for a point located approximately 0.8km upstream from the site′s northern boundary. 

In reality the area draining to the River Forth to the site boundary is approximately 1519.89km 2 , 

based on its sub catchment areas on the FEH CD-ROM. 

Table 13.6 Estimated Q95 and peak flows for site catchments 

Catchment Area Q95 (1) Estimated Peak Runoff (m 3 /s) for each Return Period (years) 

(km 2 ) 

2.33 (QMED) (2) 10 30 50 100 200 

River Forth 443.43 2.87 152.023 249.03 313.75 348.20 390.34 441.5 

Black Devon 59.94 0.066 17.28 27.477 35.32 39.497 44.851 51.11 

(1)Flow (m 3 /s) that is exceeded 95% of the time, (2)(Robson and Reed, 1999) 

13.3.20 River flow information for the Forth River was also available from an NRFA gauging station 

located at Craigforth (NS 7750 9550), as shown below. 




13.3.21 The FEH CD-ROM also provided data relating to the Base Flow Index (BFI) and Standard 

Percentage Runoff for the site catchments. The BFI is a measure of the proportion of a 

catchment's long-term runoff that derives from stored sources, with the BFI ranging from 0.1 in 

relatively impermeable clay catchments to 0.99 in highly permeable catchments. The Standard 

Percentage Runoff values represent the percentage of rainfall that is likely to contribute to 

runoff. 

13.3.22 The BFI for the site catchments range from 0.363 to 0.437 indicating that around a third of the 

catchment's long-term runoff is derived from stored sources. The Standard Percentage Runoff 

for the site catchments range from 38.2 to 42.2, indicating that approximately just over a third 

of the rainfall during an event will contribute to direct runoff rather than be stored. The BFI and 

SPR values show that the site is located on a slowly permeable catchment and is likely to have 

a relatively slow response to rainfall events. 

Pre Development Flood Risk 

13.3.23 A review of SEPA’s flood map indicates that most areas, within the site, are at risk from the 

200 year tidal inundation envelope from the River Forth and from the north, fluvial inundation 

envelope from the Black Devon. As part of the Flood Risk Assessment for the site (Appendix 

13.1), hydraulic modelling was carried out to confirm the extent of the flooding envelope from a 

200 year plus climate change allowance storm with a 15 year return period tidal boundary on 

the Black Devon and from a 1000 year costal flooding event. The only infrastructure shown to 

be at risk from flooding is the met mast, which is considered to be with flood zone 3b. The rest 

of the site was shown to be unaffected and hence is considered to be within flood zone 1 in 




which all development types are acceptable. The met mast will be designed in such a way as 

to make it resistant to flooding and it will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere due to its 

very small land take. The SEPA Flood Zones and acceptable development types are 

explained in Table 13.7. 

Table 13.7 Flood Zones, in SPP land in Scotland is divided into three flood risk zones 

Flood Probability Explanation Appropriate Land use 

Zone 

Zone 1 Low Less than 1 in 1000 All development types generally acceptable 

annual probability of 

river or sea flooding in 

any year (


Groundwater Flooding 

13.3.28 Flooding can also result from high groundwater levels if the water table rises above the ground 

level. Groundwater flooding is difficult to predict as it rarely follows a consistent pattern. The 

response time between rainfall and groundwater flooding is relatively long. 

13.3.29 There is no recorded history or evidence associated with groundwater flooding within the site. 

The site is also raised some 2m above the surrounding topography and therefore it is unlikely 

that groundwater will affect the development. 

Flooding from Artificial Drainage Systems 

13.3.30 The only drainage systems located within the site boundary are those associated with the 

leachate management system of the former landfill. These drains are situated at the toe of the 

landfill cap and should they surcharge will not affect the wind turbines or other critical site 

infrastructure. 

Water Quality 

13.3.31 The Black Devon, as it passes through the proposed wind energy development site, to the 

east, has been classified under SEPA’s current Water Framework Directive (WFD) 

classification scheme as ‘Moderate’. Identified pressures associated with this water body are 

point source pollution related to sewage disposal and diffuse pollution associated with farming 

activities. 

13.3.32 The River Forth, passing by the proposed wind energy development site to the west, has also 

been classified under SEPA’s current WFD classification scheme as being of ‘Poor ecological 

potential’. Identified pressures associated with this water body are abstraction associated with 

farming, point source pollution related to sewage disposal and food production, and 

morphological alterations due to the construction of embankments. 

Soils 

13.3.33 Soils data has been collated from Soil Survey of Scotland maps (Sheet 7, 1:250 000 scale, 

1982). 

13.3.34 Soils in the south-eastern part of the site will have been removed from the landfill footprint. 

Soils may also have been removed from the north-western part of the site during the historical 

development of the site. The distribution of remaining soils is dependent on the geology, 

topography and drainage regime of the area. 

13.3.35 The predominant soil type expected at the site consists of noncalcareous gleys and some 

peaty gleys and peat (map unit 488). The parent materials are listed as estuarine and 

lacustrine raised beach silts and clays. The soil type is associated with arable and permanent 

pastures, rush pastures, sedge mires and blanket bog. 




13.3.36 According to the accompanying notes for the Soil Survey of Scotland Sheet 7 (South-East 

Scotland, Brown and Shipley, 1982) the map unit comprises mainly non-calcareous gleys, with 

some humic and peaty gleys in hollows especially in high rainfall western areas. The soils are 

developed on gently undulating raised beach terraces at about 15 metres above sea level and 

are underlain by thick deposits of grey silty clays. 

Historical Data 

North-West 

13.3.37 The historical plans for the site were obtained from Envirocheck. The site is shown to be 

largely undeveloped until 1924 when an airplane factory is shown on part of the north-western 

area of the site. The surrounding area has become highly industrialised with a saw mill and 

timber yard to the north and a ship building yard to the east. The 1951 historical plan shows a 

tile works and bitumen works to the north and a glass works to the west. 

13.3.38 Forth bank mine and associated railway tracks were noted in the north-western area in 1952 

and a second mine was shown in 1967, when the forth bank yard was present to the northeast. 

The first mine is shown to be disused on the 1967 historical plan. The refuse tip is shown from 

1970 and a refuse destructor is marked on the location of the current waste recycling facility. 

13.3.39 The 1975 plan shows a sewage works to the north east and a disused works to the east. 

13.3.40 The 1990 historical plan has tanks and a sludge tank marked which appear to be associated 

with the refuse destructor. 

13.3.41 Therefore, made ground is expected to be present at the north-west of the site, particularly 

relating to the former airplane factory and refuse destructor. Additionally, underground 

structures including railway tracks, tanks and foundations associated with the refuse destructor 

may be present. 

South-East 

13.3.42 The Envirocheck historical plans of the south-eastern part of the site indicate that the site is not 

developed until 1863, when the Clackmannan Pier is located to the south-east. Saltings are 

also noted on the south-eastern shoreline in 1900. A pylon is noted crossing the track which 

links the two parts of the site on the 1922 plan. A sluice is noted in the 1961 plan. The 1975 

plan shows the current electricity pylons on the site. 

13.3.43 The 1978 historical map shows the south-eastern part of the site marked as mud, and there 

are also indications that the north-eastern part of the site is marshy. 

13.3.44 The 1980 and 1992 historical plans have “refuse” marked on the south-eastern part of the site. 

The 1990 historical plan indicates that the south-eastern part of the site is raised. On the 2000 

historical plan the site is marked as a disused tip. 




Landfill History 

13.3.45 Information on the landfill was provided by Clackmannanshire Council. The south-eastern part 

of the site is situated on the Black Devon Landfill. The Black Devon Landfill was operated by 

Clackmannanshire Council as a waste disposal site from 1979 until April 2004. The site 

formed part of a land reclamation project to reduce the erosion of land at the junction of the 

Black Devon River and the Forth Estuary. 

13.3.46 The site was initially developed to accept the residual waste generated by the former adjacent 

Alloa Incineration Plant and other wastes from local businesses (including sludge cake from 

the adjacent sewage works) and other industrial activity within Clackmannanshire. The site 

also received untreated domestic waste when the incinerator was closed for maintenance. 

After the incinerator was closed, pulverised domestic waste was co-disposed with sewage 

sludge. Sewage sludge continued to be disposed of at the site until the Scottish Water policy 

changed and sewage sludge was treated at the sewage plant. When the incinerator closed in 

1996, the site became the disposal point for Council collected household and commercial 

wastes. 

Landfill Liner 

13.3.47 There is no landfill liner, however the landfill is underlain by clay superficial deposits which 

were noted to be intact at the time of excavation. The clay superficial deposits were also used 

to create bunds to separate out the landfill cells. Initially leachate from the site was discharged 

through flap valve discharge valves into the Black Devon River and the River Forth. However, 

the leachate is now collected in two subterranean tanks and pumped to the sewage treatment 

works. The leachate is believed to be largely confined to the site. Water ingress into the 

former landfill site is also believed to be occurring, as the volumes of leachate removed are 

larger than expected. 

13.3.48 The operational site was closed in April 2004 and restored in 2005. The restoration comprised 

a Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) capped with 0.5m of restoration clays and soils. 

Site Investigation Data 

13.3.49 From intrusive investigations in the south-eastern part of the site, the depth to waste is 

between 5.9m below ground level (bgl) and 8.6m bgl (proven depth), with an unproven depth 

of made ground at one location to 8.8m bgl. It was noted that the majority of locations were 

underlain by superficial deposits of sandy clay, firm brown grey clay or firm brown gravelly clay. 

13.3.50 Made ground deposits typically comprised of household refuse, plastic, metal, wood, wire, 

timber and paving slabs. 

Gas and Leachate Monitoring 

13.3.51 The gas monitoring data shows the typical levels of methane are between 53%v/v and 66%v/v 

and carbon dioxide to range between 0.0%v/v and 34.3%v/v. The most recent records are 

from 2009. 




13.3.52 Landfill gas migration monitoring points were installed off-site to the north of the main landfill 

area. Monitoring records show the maximum concentration of methane recorded was 1.5% 

v/v. The maximum concentration of carbon dioxide was also 1.5%v/v. 

13.3.53 Leachate sampling is currently undertaken on a monthly basis at the landfill and the results are 

held by Clackmannanshire Council. It is of note that leachate is currently extracted from the 

site using a perimeter leachate extraction drain, installed in 1996. The leachate is collected in 

two holding chambers prior to being pumped to the sewage treatment works. 

Superficial Deposits 

13.3.54 According to the BGS digital data provided by emapsite, the south-eastern part of the site and 

access road are both underlain by reclaimed intertidal deposits (see Figure 13.3). The northwestern 

part of the site is underlain by raised tidal flat deposits of Flandrian Age. 

13.3.55 Previous site investigations state that the site is underlain by grey very fine sands, silts, organic 

silty clays and clayey silts, these are locally known as the Carse Clays. These range in 

thickness from 1m to 12m. 

13.3.56 Trial pits extended in the area of the wetlands adjacent to the landfill were also within the 

Carse Clays. This material was used to cap the landfill during the restoration in 2005. 

13.3.57 A thin layer of Sands and Gravels underlie the Carse Clays, generally less than 3m in 

thickness. 

13.3.58 The Sands and Gravels are underlain by a layer of Boulder Clay (glacial till). However, this 

was only noted at some locations on the site to the west of the site adjacent to the River Forth 

and to the north of the main landfill site. 

Solid Geology 

13.3.59 According to the BGS digital data provided by emapsite, the bedrock beneath the site consists 

of Lower Coal Measures. North-east/south-west trending faults are present at the northwestern 

part of the site. The bedrock geology is presented in Figure 13.4. 

13.3.60 However, the coal measures are expected to comprise a repetitive sequence of sandstones, 

siltstones, mudstones and coal seams. The Passage Group sandstones underlie the coal 

measures at depth. 

13.3.61 No bedrock has been encountered in the previous intrusive investigations at the site. 

BGS Data 

13.3.62 Two borehole logs from the site were obtained from the BGS. The boreholes are located 

adjacent to the track to the north of the landfill and on the edge of the site near to the mouth of 

the Black Devon River. 




13.3.63 The borehole located to the north of the landfill recorded 1’ (0.3m) of soil, underlain by 18’ 

(5.5m) of silt and silty sandy clay. This was underlain by 8’ (2.4m) of dense bound sand and 

gravel. Bedrock was encountered at 33’ (10m) and consisted of sandstone. 

13.3.64 The borehole located near the mouth of the river recorded 5m of soft to firm black sandy silt 

underlain by soft grey black silt to termination at 15.9m. Bedrock was not encountered. 

Ground Levels 

13.3.65 There is no available on-site data of the ground level prior to landfilling. The earliest survey 

plans are from 1995, and record an area to the east of the site, adjacent to the Black Devon 

River, which had yet to be landfilled. The levels from this area are therefore indicative of the 

top of the Carse Clays and are in the region of 2.54m Above Ordnance Data (AOD) to 3.03m 

AOD, with an average level of 3m AOD. 

Coal Mining 

13.3.66 There is a history of coal mine workings at the site and the Coal Authority was contacted to 

obtain a Coal Mining report and Mine Abandonment Plans for the area. 

Coal Authority Report 

13.3.67 The Coal Authority Report identifies two disused adits at the north-western area of the site. 

The adits are located in open ground which is now marshy. The Coal Authority was contacted 

for further information about the adits. There is a note on the shaft register that the adits were 

infilled in 1961. The approximate co-ordinates of the adits are 289060 E 691472 N (388691- 

001) and 288174E 691499N (388691-003). 

13.3.68 The information from the Coal Authority indicates that the site is in the likely zone of influence 

from working in five seams of coal. The depth of these five seams ranges from shallow depths 

to 610m below ground level. The coal was last worked in 1990. There are no present 

underground coal workings at the site, however the site is in an area for which a licence to 

remove coal using underground methods was granted in October 1994. 

13.3.69 No notice of the risk of the land being affected by subsidence has been given. There is no 

record of opencast coal mining in the area and no record mine gas emissions. 

13.3.70 The site is not in an area that is likely to be affected at the surface from any planned future 

workings. However, it is noted that reserves of coal exist in the local area which could be 

worked at some time in the future. 

Abandonment Plans 

13.3.71 Mine abandonment plans were also obtained for the site. The plans show the adits were 

entrances to Forth No.1 and No.2 Mines. The workings in the Lower Five Foot mine 

predominantly extended off-site to the east with an area of workings in the north site. From the 

plans, the mining in this seam appears to have been long wall mining. 




13.3.72 A vertical section of Forthbank No.1 Mine shows the rockhead is detailed to be 19.2m bgl, with 

the Mosie Seam at 22.85m bgl, the Lower Five Foot at 32m bgl and the Alloa Splint at 41.14m 

bgl. 

13.3.73 Extensive mine workings are noted to the north of the Turbine 1 location and off-site to the 

east. From this plan, the workings appear to be in the Alloa Splint Coal and consist of room 

and pillar mining. 

Hydrogeology 

Groundwater Bodies 

13.3.74 A search of the SEPA RBMP GIS Database was undertaken to provide information on the 

groundwater body in the region of the site. The database indicates that the site is underlain by 

the Alloa bedrock and localised sand and gravel aquifers groundwater body. The quality of the 

groundwater body has been classified by SEPA as ‘poor’ with a high degree of confidence and 

the quantity of the groundwater has been classified as ‘good’ with a high degree of confidence 

in 2008. Pressure types which exist on the groundwater body are noted as mining and 

quarrying of coal, which is classified as a diffuse pollution source. 

13.3.75 A search of the SEPA RBMP GIS database show that, like much of Scotland, the site is within 

a Drinking Water Protection Area. The site is not within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. 

Hydrogeological Classification 

13.3.76 According to the Hydrogeological Map of Scotland, the site is underlain by an aquifer of limited 

potential and without significant groundwater, referring to the superficial deposits. This is 

expected to be underlain by the Lower Coal Measures, which is expected to be a highly 

productive (but not extensive) aquifer. This aquifer is classified by SEPA as IFH, a highly 

productive aquifer with intergranular flow. 

Groundwater Vulnerability 

13.3.77 The BGS groundwater vulnerability map of Scotland indicates that the site is underlain by 

strata which is moderately permeable, i.e. fractured or potentially fractured rocks that do not 

have a high primary permeability. The aquifers at the site vary in classification from 

Vulnerability Class 1 (Only vulnerable to conservative pollutants in the long-term when 

continuously and widely discarded and leached) to Vulnerability Class 3 (Aquifers are classed 

as being vulnerable to some pollutants) in SEPA vulnerability classification scheme. 

Site Investigation Data 

13.3.78 From the intrusive investigations carried out, it was noted that Carse Clay had horizons of sand 

which are likely to have high permeabilities. Plastic silt (i.e. low permeability silt) was noted to 

be present at some locations. 




13.3.79 The groundwater identified in the Sand and Gravel layer was noted to be under artesian (or 

sub-artesian) pressure. The underlying Boulder Clay will restrict movement of groundwater 

between the bedrock, however if the Boulder Clay is absent in places there may be an 

interconnectivity between the groundwater in the Sand and Gravel and the bedrock. 

13.3.80 The site investigation in 1997 included the installation of boreholes around the perimeter of the 

landfill to monitor groundwater. The hydraulic gradient of the groundwater was determined to 

be towards the south of the site, towards the confluence of the Black Devon River and the 

River Forth. 


Private Water Supplies 

13.3.81 There were no private water supplies identified by Clackmannanshire Council within 3km of the 

site. 

Public Water Supplies 

13.3.82 There is no public water supply infrastructure located at the site, according to information made 

available by Scottish Water. 

Fisheries and Recreation 

13.3.83 As discussed in paragraph 13.3.17-13.3.19 the Black Devon, which drains the eastern part of 

the site, is a tributary of the upper River Forth estuary. The Black Devon catchment is a 

designated salmonid water under the Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC) and Trout, 

Salmon, Eel, Stickelback, Lamprey Larave and Stoneloach have all been observed in its 

waters. 

13.3.84 The Forth District Salmon Fishery Board (http://www.fishforth.co.uk/fdsb/) identifies that the 

River Forth contains salmon, sea trout and Grilse. 

Licences 

13.3.85 The Envirocheck report listed the site licences available for the sites, which are discussed 

individually below. 

• A discharge consent is held by the site, under the authority of SEPA. The discharge 

consent was issued in 1993. 

• The site is a registered landfill and the licence classifies the site as having had a 

medium input rate, equal to or greater than 25,000 tonnes per year and less than 

75,000 tonnes per year. The authorised waste includes commercial waste, gulley 

and street cleaning waste, household waste and industrial waste. Clinical waste 

and special waste was not permitted. 




13.3.86 A number of off-site licences are recorded within a kilometre of the site, the closest being a 

licence for Local Authority Pollution Control, for general incineration processes under 1 tonne 

an hour and a registered waste transfer site, with a maximum input of 10,000 tonnes per year 

just outside the northwest of the application area. There is also a discharge consent for public 

sewage and storm sewage approximately 180m southwest of the site. 

Sensitivity of Receptors 

13.3.87 On the basis of the baseline surveys and available information, Table 13.8 below identifies the 

sensitivity of receptors as outlined in Table 13.3, with justification for their categorisation. 

Table 13.8 Sensitivity of Receptors 

Receptor Sensitivity Comment 

Surface Water 

Water Quality 

Black Devon High SEPA classification ‘Moderate’ but is a designated Salmonid River. Subject to 

embankment protection along its lower course. Used for recreation, such as angling. 

River Forth Medium SEPA classification of ‘Poor ecological status’ but is a designated Salmonid River. 

Constructed embankments present along much of its lower course. Used for 

recreation, such as angling. Tidal dominated by site boundary, large dilution 

capabilities. 

Groundwater Low The water quality of the groundwater body beneath the site has been classified as 

Low with high confidence by SEPA. 

Flood Risk 

Flood Risk Medium Very limited areas of development fall within the flood inundation envelope (met 

mast) but watercourses downstream of development have potential to flood. 

Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology 

Soils Low Much of the soil cover is expected to have been removed by the landfill in the southeastern 

part of the site and the historical development in the north-western part of the 

site. Soils do not support protected habitats; common to area as a whole. 

Geology Medium Reserves of coal exist in the local area which could be worked at some time in the 

future. Two coal adits are present in the north-eastern part of the site. The site is not 

Hydrogeology 

(Superficial 

Deposits) 

Hydrogeology 

(Bedrock) 

Low 

Low - High 

Made Ground 

Made Ground Medium 

(Landfill) 

Made Ground Low 

(Restored 

Area) 


Private Water Low 

Supplies 

Public Water Low 

Supplies 

Key Issues 

designated as a geological SSSI. 

The superficial deposits are classified as an aquifer of limited potential and without 

significant groundwater. Any groundwater resources in the superficial deposits may 

already be impacted by the presence of the landfill at the site. 

Groundwater in the bedrock is dominated by fracture flow, which offers very little 

protection from pollutants. 

The aquifers at the site vary in classification from Vulnerability Class 1 to Vulnerability 

Class 3 in SEPA vulnerability classification scheme. 

Landfill leachate and landfill gas will be disturbed during the excavations for turbine 

foundations. The landfill cap will also be impacted during the excavations. 

Localised disturbance of made ground may occur during construction. 

There are no private water supplies identified within 3km of the site. 

There are no public water supply pipelines identified at the site. 

13.3.88 The following potential issues have been addressed as part of the assessment: 

• pollution risk from disturbance and excavation of landfill material; 

• risk of gas release from disturbance and excavation of landfill material; 

• effects of excavation on landfill cap; 




• changes to existing drainage patterns; 

• effects on baseflow; 

• effects on run-off rates and volumes; 

• effects on erosion and sedimentation; 

• effects on landfill leachate, groundwater and surface water quality; 

• effects on landfill leachate and groundwater levels; 

• effects on water resources (private and public water supplies, and fisheries); 

• effects on impediments to flow; 

• flood risk; 

• effects of coal mine workings on proposed development; and 

• effects on local geology. 



13.4.1 This section describes the potential effects on hydrology, geology and hydrogeology that could 

arise in the absence of mitigation during the following phases of the proposed wind energy 

development: 

• construction; 

• operation; and 

• de-commissioning. 

13.4.2 The assessment of effects has been carried out in a number of stages. Due to the nature of 

the site and the work to be undertaken, a number of effects will be similar for each phase of 

development. 

13.4.3 The first stage of the assessment details the various potential effects on the hydrological, 

geological and hydrogeological environment that may arise as a result of the proposed wind 

energy development, and assesses their potential magnitude. 

13.4.4 The second and final stage reassesses the significance of the potential residual effects 

following the implementation of proposed mitigation measures. 




Potential Construction Effects on Hydrology 

13.4.5 The most significant phase in terms of the potential effects is the construction period. This 

section identifies the effects that are likely to occur on the hydrological, hydrogeological and 

geological environment during construction of the proposed wind energy development. 

13.4.6 The consideration of potential effects takes into account the site conditions, baseline 

sensitivities and construction activities anticipated. 

Chemical Pollution 

13.4.7 A number of chemicals will be stored and used on-site during the construction of the proposed 

wind energy development. These include unset concrete, concrete additives, fuel and oil. 

These pollutants may adversely affect the water quality of the receiving surface water and 

groundwater environment. 

13.4.8 Spillages of concrete may occur during concrete pumping operations into turbine bases, which 

may runoff into surface watercourses. Concrete is highly corrosive and can cause pH changes 

in watercourses. This can have severe or fatal consequences on freshwater ecology. 

13.4.9 Contamination of surface water may also occur as a result of spillages from routine plant 

maintenance, improper storage and accidental spillages. 

13.4.10 Should an unmitigated pollution incident occur, there is a potential for periods of heavy rain to 

increase the volume of surface water runoff with pollutant Ioads such as oils and fuels from 

hardstandings and unset concrete from turbine foundations. 

13.4.11 Chemical pollution may also occur where areas of potentially contaminated soils, such as on 

the historic landfill, are disturbed during the construction phase. Such disturbance may result in 

the discharge of leachate from the landfill to adjacent watercourses. 

13.4.12 Due to the distance from construction activities, requiring the anticipated use of these 

chemicals, to adjacent watercourses on-site, the potential effects associated with chemical 

pollution are considered to have a moderate magnitude. 

Modification to Surface Runoff 

13.4.13 Increases in the rate and volume of runoff can be caused by excavations, exposure of bare 

ground, compaction of soils and poor design of site drainage. As well as increasing the risk of 

downstream flooding, it is also likely that increases in the volume of runoff entering 

watercourses can alter the water quality and hydrological regime of the site. This is considered 

to have a minor magnitude. 

13.4.14 Due to the gently sloping topography and the soils types present a moderate degree of 

infiltration at the proposed site is anticipated. Movement of construction traffic may lead to 

compaction of the soil, reducing soil permeability and rainfall infiltration, which could lead to 

changes in the runoff rates at the site. Runoff can also arise from track dust suppression 

during dry periods. 




13.4.15 The total landtake for site infrastructure associated with the proposed wind energy 

development site will be approximately 2.6ha. The percentage of the main hydrological 

catchments that this constitutes is given in Table 13.9. 

Table 13.9 Proposed landtake as a percentage of catchment area 

Catchment Area (ha) Infrastructure Landtake 

per catchment (ha) 

River Forth 151989 1.269 0.0008 

Black Devon 5994 0.821 0.014 

Erosion and Sedimentation 

% of Catchment Area 

13.4.16 Changes in natural drainage patterns due to runoff from exposed soil, dewatering, stripping of 

vegetation and topsoils may lead to the erosion and transport of sediment into watercourses. 

Increased flow rates due to site drainage can also lead to increased erosion of watercourse 

bed and banks. Sedimentation of watercourses can have a detrimental effect on flood storage 

capacity and water quality. This is considered to be of a minor magnitude. 

13.4.17 Sediment can settle out in slower moving stretches of a watercourse, with the potential to 

smother gravels used for salmonid spawning and hatching, whilst deposits of significant 

quantities of sediment can alter river morphology. 

13.4.18 Sediment can also have effects on the health of aquatic fauna by interfering with respiration 

and increasing stress levels. 

Potential Construction Effects on Soils 

Compaction and Erosion 

13.4.19 The movement of construction traffic throughout the site could cause compaction of soil cover, 

where present. The effects of compaction will be localised to the site tracks infrastructure 

locations, but has the potential to result in a reduction in soil permeability and rainfall 

infiltration, thereby increasing the potential for runoff and erosion. 

13.4.20 During construction, soil stripping will be required for access roads and the turbine foundation 

location in the north-western part of the site, causing soil disturbance. Stockpiled and exposed 

areas of soils could be at risk of desiccation and erosion. 

13.4.21 The magnitude of this impact is considered to be of minor magnitude at the site. 

Potential Construction Effects on Geology 

13.4.22 The excavation of foundations and, if required, the penetration by deep (piled) foundations can 

have adverse effects on the local geological resource, in particular near surface coal seams 

and two adits located in the north-western part of the site. Cast in-situ piles may be required to 

be installed into the bedrock at the turbine locations. It is assumed that these will be socketed 

into the bedrock. 

13.4.23 The magnitude of these impacts is considered to be moderate on this site. 




Potential Construction Effects on Hydrogeology 

13.4.24 The turbine foundations are expected to require the excavation of subsoil and landfill waste 

material in the south-east, as well as potential made ground in the north-west of the site. 

Excavation or penetration by deep (piled foundations) through any low permeability clay to 

bedrock could result in preferential pathways being created, allowing leachate to enter bedrock 

and impact on the bedrock aquifer. Additionally, excavations and/or deep piled foundations 

are likely to disrupt any pore water, leachate and localised shallow groundwater in the 

superficial deposits. 

13.4.25 Dewatering may be required within the landfill and superficial deposits when turbine 

foundations are being installed. Dewatering in the turbine foundations may impact any 

leachate or groundwater levels by lowering the water table in the immediate vicinity of the 

excavation. Leachate collected during any dewatering will need to be either passed through 

the sewage treatment works or treated and disposed appropriately off-site. 

13.4.26 It is noted that artesian conditions may be encountered in sand and gravel superficial deposits, 

which may also require management to ensure that the groundwater does not come into 

contact with leachate from the landfill. 

13.4.27 There is also the potential to mobilise landfill leachate or leachate from any impacted potential 

made ground in the north-west of the site and create a pathway to the underlying bedrock 

during construction works. However it is understood that leachate is currently pumped to the 

sewage works and confined within the site. 

13.4.28 Should cast in-situ piles be required to be installed into the bedrock at the turbine locations, the 

installation of the piles may come into contact with groundwater in the bedrock aquifer and 

have localised impacts on the groundwater regime. 

13.4.29 As the underlying bedrock aquifer is dominated by fracture flow, the leaching of hydrocarbons, 

chemicals, transformer oils and fuel leaks from any spills during construction present a 

potential source of contamination to the site. The low permeability superficial deposits 

(Boulder Clay and Carse Clay) on the site is expected to provide some protection to the 

groundwater in the bedrock, however the low permeability deposits are not continuous across 

the site. 

13.4.30 The magnitude of the above impacts on the groundwater environment is considered to be 

moderate. 



site. Therefore the magnitude of the risk to private water supplies is negligible. 


13.4.32 There was no public water infrastructure identified by Scottish Water on the site. Therefore the 

magnitude of the risk to public water supplies is negligible. 




Potential Construction Effects on Made Ground 

Landfill 

13.4.33 Excavation of the turbine foundations will cause disturbance of both landfill leachate and 

landfill gas at the south-western part of the site, and may result in mobilisation of leachate and 

gas. The excavation of the foundations will also cause damage to the landfill cap. There is the 

potential for both the release of landfill gas and air ingress during construction. 

13.4.34 Excavation of turbine foundations may also have the potential to damage the leachate 

collection system and monitoring boreholes. 

13.4.35 It is expected that landfill material will be removed and exported from the site during 

excavations. Waste classification of material to be removed will be required. Temporary 

works such as levelling of the site at the turbine foundations may also require landfill material 

to be removed and exported from site. 

13.4.36 Disturbance and removal of the landfill material as well as the presence of construction plant 

may impact on the stability of the landfill. The presence of construction plant on the landfill 

may also impact on stability. 

13.4.37 Landfill gas may collect in confined spaces during excavations. 

13.4.38 The magnitude of these impacts on the landfill is considered to be moderate. 

Restored area to the north-west 

13.4.39 Excavation of turbine foundations and any temporary works such as levelling of the site at the 

restored area may encounter made ground and structures associated with the historical land 

uses at this part of the site, which will be removed and exported from the site. 

13.4.40 Excavation of the turbine foundation in potential made ground may result in any contamination 

being mobilised and having the potential to impact on the underlying bedrock. 

13.4.41 The magnitude of these impacts on potential made ground at the restored area is considered 

to be minor. 

Potential Operational Effects 

13.4.42 The following infrastructure will be retained on-site during site operations: 

• access tracks; 

• turning areas; 

• turbine bases; 

• substation (along with site office and welfare facilities); 




• crane hard standings; and 

• cabling. 

13.4.43 The following section identifies the potential effects that are likely to occur on the hydrological, 

geological and hydrogeological environment during the operation of the proposed wind energy 

development. 

Potential Operational Effects on Hydrology 

Chemical Pollution 

13.4.44 The potential risk of pollution is substantially lower during the operational phase because of the 

decreased levels of activity. The majority of potential pollutants will have been removed when 

construction is complete; however, lubricants for turbine gearboxes, hydraulic oils and the 

potential for possible fuel leaks from maintenance vehicles will remain. Such impacts are 

considered to be of minor magnitude. 

Erosion and Sedimentation 

13.4.45 Levels of erosion and sedimentation will also be much lower than during construction as there 

is unlikely to be excavations or bare exposed ground, following post construction restoration. 

Some erosion and sedimentation is still possible on the site tracks, hardstandings and 

drainage ditches as a result of scouring during extreme rainfall events. This can have a 

detrimental effect on the ecology of aquatic plants, fish, and invertebrates. These impacts are 

considered to be of a minor magnitude. 

Impediments to Flows 

13.4.46 During the operational phase, impediments to flows generally only arise should there be any 

blockages to ditches and watercourses resulting from natural vegetation and erosion debris. 

This could cause a localised flood risk to on-site operations should it occur. This is considered 

to have a minor magnitude. 

Modification of Surface Runoff 

13.4.47 Modification of the surface hydrological regime of the site will occur as a result of the presence 

of the proposed wind energy development infrastructure. There are potentially two aspects to 

this, changes to the volume and changes to runoff rate. Drainage of site infrastructure will 

result in increased time to peak and runoff volumes leading to a potential increase in the risk of 

flooding in adjacent water bodies. This is considered to be of a moderate magnitude. 

13.4.48 Drainage will be designed to attenuate flow and any discharges will be limited to the 

predevelopment greenfield runoff rate. Table 13.10 below shows the calculated greenfield 

runoff rates for each catchment containing site infrastructure, along with the anticipated level of 

attenuation storage required to reduce drainage discharge to the pre development conditions. 




Table 13.10 Greenfield Runoff Rates 

Catchment 

Infrastructure Landtake 

per catchment (ha) 

Calculated 2yr Greenfield 

Runoff Rate (l/s) 

Attenuation Storage Required 

(m 3 ) from a 30yr event 

River Forth 1.269 7.4 530 

Black Devon 0.821 5.1 332 

13.4.49 The rates of runoff have been determined using the current ‘industry best practice’ guidelines 

as outlined in the Interim Code of Practice for SUDS 4 . The recommended methodology for 

sites up to 50 hectares in area is the Institute of Hydrology Report 124 method (IoH124) 5 . The 

runoff rates have been calculated using the Micro Drainage WinDes software suite. 

13.4.50 The following parameters have been incorporated into the runoff calculations: 

• Average Annual Rainfall (SAAR): 853mm/year; 

• Soil: 0.40; 

• Paved Area: 0% to best represent Greenfield conditions; and 

• Region No: 2. 

Potential Operational Effects on Soils 

Changes to Soil Interflow Patterns 

13.4.51 The interception of diffuse overland flow by the tracks and their drainage will disrupt the natural 

drainage regime of the site and concentrate flows. This prolonged or permanent alteration to 

the drainage and soil interflow patterns may lead to the soils becoming drier, which can 

ultimately lead to increased erosion. 

13.4.52 These potential impacts on soils during the operational phase are considered to be of minor 

magnitude. 

13.4.53 Levels of erosion and sedimentation will also be much lower than during construction as there 

is unlikely to be excavations or bare exposed ground, following post construction restoration. 

Some erosion and sedimentation is still possible on the site tracks, hardstandings and 

drainage ditches as a result of scouring during extreme rainfall events. 

13.4.54 The magnitude of these impacts is considered to be of a minor magnitude. 

Potential Operational Effects on Geology 

13.4.55 The turbine foundations and the deep (piled) foundations, if required, could have on-going 

adverse effects on the local geological resource, in particular near surface coal seams and two 

adits located in the north-western part of the site. 

13.4.56 Should piled locations be required in coal seams or near adits in the north-western part of the 

site, the stability of the foundations may be impacted during the operation of the wind energy 

development. 




13.4.57 The magnitude of these impacts is considered to be moderate on this site. 

Potential Operational Effects on Hydrogeology 

13.4.58 Should cast in-situ piles be required at the turbine locations, the piles may have localised ongoing 

impacts on the groundwater regime in the bedrock aquifer during the operation of the 

proposed wind energy development. 

13.4.59 During the operational phase of the proposed wind energy development, there will be 

considerably less on-site activity than during construction. As the underlying bedrock aquifer is 

dominated by fracture flow, the leaching of hydrocarbons, chemicals, transformer oils and fuel 

leaks from maintenance still present a potential source of contamination to the site. The low 

permeability superficial deposits on the site (Boulder Clay and Carse Clay) is expected to 

provide protection to the groundwater in the bedrock. 

13.4.60 The potential risk of pollution is substantially lower during the operational phase because of the 

decreased levels of activity. The majority of potential pollutants will have been removed when 

construction is complete; however, lubricants for turbine gearboxes, hydraulic oils and the 

potential for possible fuel leaks from maintenance vehicles will remain. Such impacts are 

considered to be of minor magnitude. 



site. Therefore the magnitude of the risk to private water supplies is negligible. 


13.4.62 There were no public water pipes identified by Scottish Water on the site. Therefore the 

magnitude of the risk to public water supplies is negligible. 

Potential Operational Effects on Made Ground 

Landfill 

13.4.63 Placing foundations through landfill material may result in the stability of the turbines bases 

being impacted during the operational phase. 

13.4.64 The foundations in the landfill may be impacted by aggressive ground conditions, in particular 

the presence of landfill leachate. This may impact on the integrity of the turbine foundations. 

13.4.65 Accumulation of landfill gas may occur at the turbine foundations on the landfill site. Trenches 

for cabling may create preferential pathways for landfill gas migration. This could cause a risk 

of explosion at the site. 




13.4.66 Landfill gas may collect in confined spaces including turbine foundations and services 

trenches. 

13.4.67 The magnitude of these impacts on the landfill is considered to be moderate. 

Restored Area 

13.4.68 The foundations in any made ground in the north-western part of the site may also be impacted 

by aggressive ground conditions. This may impact on the integrity of the turbine foundations. 

13.4.69 The magnitude of these impacts is considered to be moderate. 

Potential De-commissioning Effects 

13.4.70 The proposed wind energy development will be operational for 25 years. Following this period, 

if the operational period is not extended, the proposed wind energy development will be decommissioned 

and the site reinstated as approved by the appropriate authority. 

13.4.71 Potential effects of the de-commissioning phase are expected to be similar in nature but to a 

lesser extent than those of the construction phase, and have not been assessed further. 


13.5.1 32 cumulative sites, within 35km of the site, were considered within Chapter 9 Landscape and 

Visual Impact Assessment. Sites considered were: 

Table 13.11 Cumulative Wind Farms 

Wind Farm Status No. 

Turbines 

Height to 

Tip (m) 

Distance 

(km) 

Bearing 

from Site 

Craigengelt Installed 8 125 17 256 

ASDA depot, New Bankside Ind' Estate Installed 1 120 9 174 

Braes of Doune Installed 35 100 22 318 

Braiden Hill Installed 1 100 28 212 

Earlsburn Installed 14 115 20 265 

Greendykeside Wind Farm Installed 2 100 22 203 

Greenknowes Installed 18 95 16 25 

AG Barr Factory, Lanarkshire Approved 1 126 26 225 

Burnfoot Hill Approved 13 102 10 184 

Earlsburn North Approved 9 115 20 265 

FMC Technologies, Fife Approved 1 100 21 105 

Little Raith Windfarm Approved 9 100 28 88 

Lochelbank Approved 24 91 30 44 

Pates Hill Approved 7 110 33 163 

Tormywheel Approved 15 100 32 170 

Birnie Hill Windfarm Application 3 120 30 194 

Blacklaw Windfarm Extension Application 21 127 33 179 

Bracco Application 29 125 24 194 

Greengairs Application 9 125 22 206 

Hartwood Application 14 139 30 194 

Muirpark Application 11 127 16 102 

Standingfauld (formerly Greenbog) Application 8 100 21 355 

Burnhead (nr Stoneridge) Scoping 12 127 21 182 

Callendar Estates Scoping 10 125 15 198 

Craigannet Scoping 7 125 19 69 

Grangemouth Scoping 5 125 9 145 

Harburnhead Scoping ? ? 34 154 




Wind Farm Status No. 

Turbines 

Height to 

Tip (m) 

Distance 

(km) 

Bearing 

from Site 

Rosehill Scoping 3 100 6 217 

Rullie Scoping 10 130 13 244 

Tochie Burn Scoping 1 125 28 339 

Earlseat Scoping 9 120 42 81 

Westfield Application 5 110 32 77 

13.5.2 None of the sites listed above are situated within the Black Devon catchment. However a 

number of sites are situated within the River Forth’s catchment but either discharge to the 

River Forth as it widens and becomes an estuary proper, downstream from the site, or are 

located a sufficient distance upstream on tributaries of the Forth that any cumulative impact will 

be negligible. This, combined with the fact that any other wind farms would be expected to 

utilise sufficient mitigation measures and best practice guidance, will ensure that any combined 

impact to the watercourses in the vicinity of the site will be minimal. 


13.6.1 A number of design and management measures during the construction and operation of the 

proposed wind energy development have been identified below. 

General Site Pollution Control 

13.6.2 An Environmental Management Plan (EMP), including pollution prevention measures and 

construction method statements will be in place during construction, operation and decommissioning, 

detailing mitigation measures to be put in place and measures to prevent or 

minimise effects on the surface and groundwater environment. During operation it will also 

include an Incident Response Plan. The EMP will be prepared prior to commencement of 

construction at the site, and will include the following: 

• Storage – all equipment, materials and chemicals will be stored at an appropriate 

distance from watercourses. Chemical, fuel and oil stores will be sited on 

impervious bases within a secured bund; 

• Vehicles and Refuelling – standing machinery will have drip trays placed 

underneath to prevent oil and fuel leaks causing pollution. Where practicable, 

refuelling of vehicles and machinery will be carried out in one designated area, on 

an impermeable surface, and well away from any watercourse; 

• Maintenance – undertaken in a designated area within the construction compound, 

where possible, unless vehicles have broken down necessitating maintenance at the 

point of breakdown, where special precautions will be taken; 

• Welfare Facilities – on-site welfare facilities will be adequately designed and 

maintained to ensure all sewage is disposed of appropriately. This may take the 

form of an on-site septic tank with soakaway, or tankering and off-site disposal 

depending on the suitability of the site for a soakaway and prior agreement with 

SEPA; 




• Cement and Concrete – fresh concrete and cement are very alkaline and corrosive 

and can be lethal to aquatic life. The use of wet concrete in and around 

watercourses will be minimised and carefully controlled; 

• Contingency Plans – will ensure that emergency equipment is available on-site i.e. 

spill kits and absorbent materials, advice is available on action to be taken and who 

should be informed in the event of a pollution incident; and 

• Inspections - Silt traps and sediment settlement tanks will be inspected and cleared 

regularly to ensure they remain fully operational and effective. 

Waste Management Plan 

13.6.3 A Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) has been undertaken to address the management of 

waste streams. The SWMP is included in Appendix 13.2 and has addressed the following 

issues: 

• Waste Minimisation; 

• Separation of Waste at Source; 

• Appropriate Storage and Disposal of Waste; 

• Management of Made Ground and Landfill Waste; 

• Management of Leachate; 

• Management of Clay, Sands and Gravels and Soils; 

• Management of Waste Oils, and; 

• Recommendations for Inspection and Maintenance. 

13.6.4 Further details regarding the specific management and mitigation measures that will be 

adopted during the construction, operation and de-commissioning of the proposed wind energy 

development are detailed below. 

Environmental Monitoring 

13.6.5 On-going gas monitoring at the landfill is currently being undertaken at the site and is recording 

elevated methane and carbon dioxide. Existing monitoring points near turbine foundations will 

be protected with concrete rings. Should any monitoring points be lost or damaged during 

construction, these will be replaced. 

13.6.6 It is recommended that the boreholes are extended at the proposed turbine bases and are 

fitted with standpipes to determine the depth and quality of groundwater. It is noted that there 

is the potential for artesian groundwater in the Sands and Gravels underlying the Carse Clays. 

The groundwater in the boreholes should be monitored for at least six months before the 

commencement of any construction works to establish minimum baseline data. 




Drainage 

13.6.7 The implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) as opposed to 

conventional drainage systems on the proposed wind energy development will provide several 

benefits by: 

• reducing peak flows to watercourses and potentially reducing risk of flooding 

downstream; 

• reducing the volumes and frequency of water flowing directly to watercourses; 

• improving water quality by removing pollutants; 

• reducing potable water demand through rainwater harvesting; and 

• replicating natural drainage patterns, including the recharge of groundwater so that 

base flows are maintained. 

13.6.8 Where appropriate, SUDS measures have been incorporated into the water management 

methods discussed in the following sections. 

13.6.9 Where there is a high risk of oil contamination identified by the infrastructure contractor, it may 

be appropriate to integrate an oil separator into any SUDS measure. The implementation of 

the type of SUDS measures will be dependent upon detailed site and hydrological 

investigations. 

13.6.10 On-site artificial drainage serving the development will be carefully placed to prevent damage 

to the soil. 

Geotechnical Design 

13.6.11 Detailed geotechnical design will be undertaken for each turbine location, access track, 

laydown area and the construction compound, and will ensure that the stability of the landfill 

waste is not compromised. This will be based on the location-specific mechanical 

characteristics of the ground conditions and the morphology of the underlying strata (i.e. 

landfill, made ground, superficial deposits or bedrock). Targeted ground investigation will 

therefore inform a detailed design utilising current and location specific geotechnical data. 

13.6.12 During any levelling in the landfill area, the capping material should be separated from landfill 

material and replaced following levelling. Excavations for turbine bases should attempt to 

reduce the need for landfill cap removal. However, where landfill cap removal is unavoidable, 

a clay seal/bentonite will be placed at the base of the excavation. 

Turbine Foundations 

13.6.13 Due to the potential for release of landfill gas and air ingress into the landfill during construction 

and operation intrinsically safe operating plant will be used. The potential for gas accumulation 




in the turbine foundations as well as cable routes and potential for explosion will be assessed 

prior to construction. Site workers must avoid confined spaces and use appropriate PPE. 

13.6.14 Pumping and collection of leachate monitoring is being carried out at the landfill site and the 

leachate is believed to be contained within the site. Excavations for turbine foundations should 

not impact on the existing arrangements for pumping of leachate. All infrastructure associated 

with the leachate management system will be identified prior to construction to ensure that the 

infrastructure is protected and the system is not compromised. 

13.6.15 Information available to date on the leachate indicates that pH and sulphate concentrations are 

unlikely to be of potential concern to construction materials. However, the laboratory analysis 

was carried out some time ago and so further analysis of pH and sulphate concentrations in 

the leachate is recommended. Should elevated concentrations be encountered, the use of 

sulphate resistant concrete may be required. 

13.6.16 Excavations through landfill waste will need to be isolated to ensure that leachate cannot 

impact on groundwater in bedrock. Management of the leachate will also be required in order 

to prevent leachate from entering the excavations. To protect the bedrock aquifer, it is 

proposed that a pile cap be installed in superficial deposits at the base of the landfill. In 

addition, should any contamination in made ground be encountered in the north-western part 

of the site, isolation of potential leachate may also be required. 

13.6.17 Dewatering of the landfill is expected to be required and a coffer dam may be required to 

isolate the landfill leachate. Direct runoff from the excavation of the landfill will be captured and 

treated within the landfills exiting leachate management system, if possible, otherwise 

additional drainage and treatment will need to be installed. 

13.6.18 Permission is likely to be required from the Coal Authority for any excavations or extension of 

boreholes due to the risk of combustion in the coal seams. Additionally, the location of the two 

adits in the north-western area of the site will be accurately positioned prior to construction to 

ensure that the turbine foundations do not impact on the adits. 

13.6.19 Excess runoff, from areas outside the historic landfill, will be drained into an infiltration trench 

or swale. Infiltration trenches create an underground reservoir due to the excavated trench 

being backfilled with clean stone. Runoff directed into the trench will gradually infiltrate back 

into the soil. If infiltration trenches are properly maintained they can significantly reduce the 

volume of suspended solids and pollutants in the runoff. If the volume of runoff exceeds the 

capacity of the infiltration trench or ground conditions are unsuitable, swales will be 

constructed to attenuate and convey the runoff away from the excavation before being treated 

in a settlement lagoon. 

13.6.20 Treated water can also be discharged onto vegetated surfaces and directed away from 

watercourses and drainage ditches to avoid direct entry. For discharge onto rough grasslands 

to be effective the discharge must be spread efficiently, for example using spray irrigation ‘Rain 

Guns’. The latter provides a means of rapid and flexible deployment of discharge points. 

13.6.21 Material removed during the excavation of the turbine foundations will be stored nearby in such 

a manner that it does not cause pollution. This material will be removed from the site and 




dispose appropriately. The gradient at storage locations will be considered to avoid further 

erosion or potential sediment transport into watercourses. 

Site Tracks 

13.6.22 The construction of new tracks will vary depending on the ground conditions. Cut tracks will be 

constructed on harder ground, where possible. 

13.6.23 The tracks will be constructed with sufficient camber or crossfall to minimise ponding of surface 

water on the track surface. Where necessary, surface water runoff will be directed into 

infiltration trenches and/or swales and settlement lagoons. These SUDS measures will treat 

and attenuate the runoff before discharging back into the natural drainage network. If 

permanent infiltration trenches, swales and drainage ditches are to be constructed, they would 

require outlets at frequent intervals to reduce the volume of water collected in a single channel, 

thus reducing the erosive potential and allow runoff from upslope of a track to pass underneath 

the access track. These measures will minimise the risk of erosion of the track surface and the 

subsequent risk of sedimentation. 

13.6.24 Where access tracks are situated on the existing landfill, runoff will be directed to a leachate 

management system before being attenuated and discharged to the adjacent watercourses. 

13.6.25 Where access tracks are constructed across natural areas of drainage such as flushes and 

springs, drainage measures, such as pipe culverts will be installed under the access track to 

allow the run-off to continue to follow its natural course. 

Turbine Hardstandings 

13.6.26 Turbine hardstandings will be designed in such a way to direct flow into infiltration trenches or 

the leachate management system, depending upon where they are located. These measures 

will allow the treatment of runoff before gradually discharging back into the natural drainage 

network. 

On-Site Buildings 

13.6.27 On-site welfare facilities need to be adequately designed and maintained to ensure all sewage 

is disposed of appropriately. This disposal may take the form of a connection to the existing 

sewer network, an on-site septic tank with soakaway, or a closed unit with tankering off-site for 

disposal, depending on the suitability of the site for a soakaway, with authorisation from SEPA. 

13.6.28 Buildings will be designed with SUDS measures to treat and attenuate flows to greenfield 

levels, prior to discharge to the surrounding hydrology. 

13.6.29 The sizing and location of the various elements of the drainage system will be influenced by 

the topography, gradient and catchment runoff characteristics and the volumes of runoff 

intercepted by each drain. These factors will be determined at the detailed design stage. 




Temporary Construction Compound/Laydown Areas 

13.6.30 The measures outlined in the EMP will be implemented to ensure that activities carried out on 

the construction compound and laydown areas do not adversely affect the quality of surface 

and groundwater hydrology. 


13.7.1 Table 13.12 summarise the residual significance of the identified effects following the 

implementation of mitigation measures described above. 

Table 13.12 Residual Construction and Operational Effects 

Receptor Sensitivity Effect Magnitude 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Surface Waters 

Black Devon 

River Forth 

Groundwater 

Soils 

On-site Soils 

Geology 

On-site 

Geology 

Hydrogeology 

Hydrogeology 

(Superficial 

Deposits) 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Low 

Medium 

Low 

Potential chemical 

pollution 

Potential modification 

to surface runoff 

Potential erosion & 

sedimentation 

Potential chemical 

pollution 

Potential modification 

to surface runoff 

Potential erosion & 

sedimentation 

Potential Impediments 

to Flows 

Potential 

contamination from 

oils/fuels/concrete 

pouring 

Potential 

contamination from 

suspended 

solids/erosion and 

sedimentation 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Residual 

Magnitude 

Following 

Mitigation 

Moderate Moderate Minor Minor 

Residual 

Significance 

Following 

Mitigation 

Minor/ Minor/ Negligible/ Negligible/ 


Minor Minor Negligible Negligible 


Minor/ Minor/ Negligible/ Negligible/ 




Minor Minor Minor Negligible 

Minor Minor Minor Negligible 

Disturbance of soil Minor Minor Minor Minor 

Compaction and Minor Minor Minor Minor 

erosion of soils 

Disruption to local 

geological features 

including shallow coal 

seams and adits from 

turbine excavations 

and other excavations 

required for 

construction 

Modification of 

groundwater levels 

through dewatering 

Potential spills and 

leaks from 


pouring 


shallow groundwater 

flow 




Minor Minor Minor Minor 




Receptor Sensitivity Effect Magnitude 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Hydrogeology 

(Bedrock) 

Low - High 

Movement and 

mobilisation of landfill 

leachate or leachate 

from potential made 

ground in the northwestern 

part of the 

site through 

preferential pathways 

into bedrock aquifer 


groundwater levels 

through dewatering 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Residual 

Magnitude 

Following 

Mitigation 


Residual 

Significance 

Following 

Mitigation 


Made Ground 

Made Ground 

(Landfill) 

Made Ground 

(Restored 

Area) 

Medium 

Low 


Public Water Low 

Supplies 

Private Water 

Supplies 

Low 


Potential spills and 

leaks from 


pouring 


bedrock groundwater 

flow 

Disturbance of landfill 

leachate and landfill 

gases, ingress of air, 

accumulation of 

gases 

Impact of construction 

on stability of landfill 

Impact on landfill cap 

during excavation 

Impact of aggressive 

ground conditions on 

turbine bases 

Mobilisation of 

potential leachate 

Impact of aggressive 

ground conditions on 

turbine bases 

There is no public 

water supply 

infrastructure 

identified at the site. 

There are no private 

water supplies 

identified within 3km 

of the site. 

Minor Moderate Minor Minor 

Minor Minor Minor Minor 







Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 

13.8.1 The assessment outlined in this chapter has established that there are a number of sensitive 

receptors in and around the proposed wind energy development site. The following provides a 

summary of residual effects. 

Surface Water Quality 

13.8.2 A number of risks identified included the effects of the proposed wind energy development on 

water quality. The watercourses within and adjacent to the site are considered to have ‘Poor’ 

to ‘Moderate’ baseline classification. 




13.8.3 The impact assessment has taken into account the proposed site’s hydrological regime, 

highlighting that the principal effects on-site hydrology will occur during construction. With the 

implementation of the site specific EMP/PPP and the successful implementation of mitigation 

measures the significance of construction effects on the water quality of the River Forth and 

Black Devon catchments are considered to be negligible to minor. 

13.8.4 The Firth of Forth SSSI, at the mouth of the River Leven is considered to be a sufficient 

distance downstream from the site to be unaffected by the proposed wind energy 

development. 

Flood Risk 

13.8.5 The impact assessment has taken into account the site’s hydrological regime, highlighting that 

the principal effects on-site hydrology will occur during the construction and operation phases. 

The assessment has also determined that the increased landtake as a result of the proposed 

wind energy development will have a negligible to minor effect on the site's runoff rates 

following the implementation of mitigation measures. 

Soils 

13.8.6 Much of the soil cover is expected to have been removed by the landfill in the south-eastern 

part of the site and the historical development in the north-western part of the site. The 

impacts of the proposed wind energy development on the remaining site soils are considered 

to be of minor significance. 

Geology 

13.8.7 The excavation of foundations and, if required, the penetration of deep (piled) foundations may 

have an impact on the local geological resource, in particular near surface coal seams and two 

adits located in the north-western part of the site. The construction of the proposed turbine 

bases will result in permanent alterations to the site geology. The location of the two adits in 

the north-western area of the site will be accurately identified prior to construction to ensure 

that the turbine foundations do not impact on the adits. 

13.8.8 Therefore, the overall impact is considered to be minor. 

Hydrogeology 

13.8.9 The site is underlain by bedrock which is moderately permeable, i.e. fractured or potentially 

fractured rocks that do not have a high primary permeability. The aquifers at the site vary in 

classification from Vulnerability Class 1 (Only vulnerable to conservative pollutants in the longterm 

when continuously and widely discarded and leached) to Vulnerability Class 3 (Aquifers 

are classed as being vulnerable to some pollutants) in SEPA vulnerability classification 

scheme. 

13.8.10 Although the quality of the groundwater body beneath the site has been classified by SEPA as 

‘poor’ with a high degree of confidence, the hydrogeology was considered to be sensitive due 




to the quantity of water which was classified as “good” and the higher vulnerability associated 

with part of the site . 

13.8.11 Mitigation measures include isolation of leachate during construction of the turbines and 

construction of a pile cap at the base of the landfill waste material. 

13.8.12 Following the identification and assessment of the sensitivity of the hydrogeology, a 

comprehensive suite of mitigation measures has been incorporated into the design of the 

proposed wind energy development. In addition, the EMP and specific mitigation techniques 

for the construction, operation and de-commissioning phases will be implemented to protect 

the groundwater from pollution. Following implementation of the mitigation measures, the 

overall impact on hydrogeology is considered to be minor. 

Made Ground 

13.8.13 The south-eastern part of the site comprises a former landfill, and previous site investigations 

have proven the depth of waste to being between 5.9m bgl and 8.6m bgl, with an unproven 

depth of made ground at one location to 8.8m bgl. Made ground is also expected to be 

present at the north-west of the site, particularly relating to the former airplane factory and 

refuse destructor. Additionally, underground structures including railway tracks, tanks and 

foundations associated with the refuse destructor may be present. 

13.8.14 Excavation of the turbine foundations will cause disturbance of both landfill leachate and 

landfill gas at the south-western part of the site, and may result in mobilisation of leachate and 

gas. In addition, the landfill cap will also be impacted during the construction of the wind 

turbines. 

13.8.15 Disturbance and removal of the landfill material, as well as the presence of construction plant 

may also impact on the stability of the landfill. 

13.8.16 Mitigation measures include detailed geotechnical investigation and assessment and 

placement of a clay seal/bentonite at the base of the excavation where the landfill cap is 

impacted. 

13.8.17 Following the identification and assessment of the sensitivity of the made ground, in particular 

the landfill waste, a comprehensive suite of mitigation measures has been incorporated into 

the design of the proposed wind energy development. Following implementation of the 

mitigation measures, the overall impact on made ground is considered to be minor. 

Public and Private Water Supplies 


site and no public water infrastructure identified by Scottish Water on the site. Therefore, the 

impact to private and public water supplies is negligible. 





13.9.1 The monitoring programme will be site-specific and tailored so as to provide a meaningful and 

pragmatic indication of the state of the water environment. Details of the proposed monitoring 

at the former landfill site are detailed in Section 13.6 above. Furthermore, the following 

elements will likely be included within the established water monitoring programme and would 

be agreed with SEPA and the local authority prior to implementation: 

• Regular visual inspection of watercourses during construction and decommissioning 

stages, particularly during periods of high rainfall, in order to 

establish that levels of suspended solids have not been significantly increased by 

on-site activities; 

• Monitoring as required as a condition of discharge consents, abstraction licences or 

other environmental regulation; 

• An Ecological Advisor will be consulted to ensure that measures are being 

implemented effectively; and 

• Ongoing liaison with SEPA as required during construction and de-commissioning. 


13.10.1 Overall, the effects of the proposed wind energy development on the site’s hydrological, 

hydrogeological and geological regime are not significant under the terms of the Environmental 

Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations. 


1 Scottish Natural Heritage, 2006, A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment. 

2 www.webtag.org.uk 

3 Mustow, S.E, Burgess, P.F, Walker, N (2005) Practical Methodology for Determining the 

Significance of Effects on the Water Environment, WEJ, Journal of the Chartered Institution of 

Water and Environmental Management, Volume June 2005 No.2, 100-108. 

4 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, National SUDS Working Group, July 2004, Interim Code 

of Practice for sustainable drainage systems. 

5 Institute of Hydrology (1994) Flood estimation for small catchments. Report no 124. 

SEPA Draft River Basin Management Plan for the Scotland River Basin District, 

http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning.aspx. 

Robson, A. J. and Reed, D. W. (1999) Statistical procedures for flood frequency estimation. 

Volume 3 of the Flood Estimation Handbook. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology - "QMED is 




the median annual maximum flood. It is described as the flood that is exceeded on average 

'every other year'. QMED is formally defined as the middle-ranking value in the series of 

annual maximum floods, where the annual series comprises the largest flow observed in each 

year". 

http://www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_map.aspx. 

SUDS; promoting good practice – A CIRIA Initiative – “If less than 5% of a site is paved or 

compacted, the impact on the quantity if the surface runoff will be negligible”, 

http://www.ciria.com/suds/prevention.htm. 

SEPA Draft River Basin Management Plans, Interactive Map, http://gis.sepa.org.uk/rbmap/ 

MapViewer.aspx. 

Warburton, J., Holden, J., Mills, A.M., 2004. Hydrological Controls of Surficial Mass 

Movements in Peat. Earth-Science Reviews 67, 139-156. 

BGS (1988), Hydrogeological Map of Scotland, 1:625,000. 

A, M, MacDonald, D, F, Ball and B, É, O, Dochartaigh (2004), A GIS of aquifer productivity in 

Scotland: explanatory notes, Groundwater Systems and Water Quality Programme 

Commissioned Report CR/04/04/047N. 

Development of a Groundwater Vulnerability Screening Methodology for the Water Framework 

Directive, Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum For Environmental Research, Project WFD 28 

Final Report 2004. 

SEPA, The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, A Practical 

Guide, Version 4, March 2008 – “If the surface water run-off is from areas constructed after 1 

April 2007, the site must be drained by Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) or if the 

surface water runoff is from a construction site operated after 1 April 2007, the site must be 

drained by a SUDS or equivalent. The only exceptions are if the runoff is from a single 

dwelling and its curtilage, or if the discharge is to coastal water”. 

CIRIA C648 – Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Projects. 

SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines, PPG2: Above ground oil storage tanks. 

SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines, PPG8: Safe storage and disposal of used oils. 

SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines, PPG3: Use and design of oil separators in surface 

water drainage systems. 




14 Shadow Flicker 


14.1.1 Shadow flicker occurs under specific conditions when the sun passes behind the rotating 

blades of a wind turbine and casts a moving shadow over a nearby building. When this 

shadow is viewed through a narrow opening, such as window, the phenomenon is known as 

shadow flicker. 

14.1.2 Shadow flicker within properties occurs if a wind turbine is in close proximity to and of a 

particular orientation with a nearby building. Generally it will not occur where there are trees or 

mature vegetation or other obstructions including buildings and structures between the turbines 

and the building receptor; if windows facing a turbine are fitted with blinds or curtains; or if the 

sun is not shining brightly enough to cause shadows from a turbine. 

14.1.3 The shadows cast by a wind turbine will vary in length according to the sun’s altitude and 

position according to its bearing. The likelihood of shadow flicker occurring and the duration of 

such an effect depend upon the following: 

• The orientation of the building relative to the turbine: in the UK, only properties 

within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to a turbine, can be affected, as 

turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side; 

• Distance from turbine(s): the further the observer is from the turbine, the less 

pronounced the effect would be. At long distances, turbine blades do not completely 

cover the sun, but only partially mask it, resulting in a significantly weaker shadow. 

PAN 45 states that shadow flicker generally only occurs at nearby dwellings within a 

zone of ten rotor diameters from a turbine. 

• Wind direction: the turbine will not always be directed towards the receptor i.e. 

‘square-on’ which is the worst case scenario, therefore the effect will be minimised; 

• Turbine hub-height and rotor diameter; 

• The size of habitable room windows facing the turbine; 

• Time of year; 

• The proportion of day-light hours in which the turbine operates; 

• The frequency of bright sunshine and cloudless skies (i.e. cloudy days reduce the 

likelihood of effects occurring); and 

• The prevailing wind direction. 




14.1.4 An assessment has been carried out to identify whether shadow flicker is likely to occur at 

properties neighbouring the proposed wind energy development, and if so to predict times of 

day and year, and duration of these effects. 

14.1.5 A system is available for use with the candidate turbine’s control system, which can 

automatically shutdown wind turbines to avoid shadow flicker occurring. More details of this 

device are included within the mitigation section of this chapter. 


Guidance 

14.2.1 The following documents provide guidance on the environmental affects of wind farms, and 

have been referenced during this assessment: 

• Planning Advice Note PAN 45 (revised 2002): Renewable Energy; and 

• Planning for Renewable Energy, A Companion Guide to PPS 22. 

Planning Advice Note PAN 45 

14.2.2 PAN 45 provides the following information about shadow flicker (para. 64): 

“Under certain combinations of geographical position, time of day and time of year, 

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

When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the effect is known as 

“shadow flicker”. It occurs only within buildings where the flicker appears through a 

narrow window opening. The seasonal duration of this effect can be calculated from 

the geometry of the machine and the latitude of the potential site. Where this could 

be a problem, developers should provide calculations to quantify the effect. In most 

cases however, where separation is provided between wind turbines and nearby 

dwellings (as a general rule 10 rotor diameters), shadow flicker should not be a 

problem.” 

Planning for Renewable Energy 

14.2.3 In 2004, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published Planning for Renewable Energy, A 

Companion Guide to PPS 22. This document was prepared to provide additional information 

in relation to Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy. Although PPS22 is only 

applicable in England and Wales, the companion guide provides, in its Technical Annexe, 

technical information on a range of renewable energy technologies, including wind power, 

much of which is universally applicable. It expands on the information presented in PAN45 

with regard to shadow flicker, as follows (para. 73-77): 

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

pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring 

properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the effect is 




known as ‘shadow flicker’. It only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears 

through a narrow window opening. The seasonal duration of this effect can be 

calculated from the geometry of the machine and the latitude of the site. Although 

problems caused by shadow flicker are rare, for sites where existing development 

may be subject to this problem, applicants for planning permission for wind turbine 

installations should provide an analysis to quantify the effect. A single window in a 

single building is likely to be affected for a few minutes at certain times of the day 

during short periods of the year. The likelihood of this occurring and the duration of 

such an effect depends upon: 

• the direction of the residence relative to the turbine(s); 

• the distance from the turbine(s); 

• the turbine hub-height and rotor diameter; 

• the time of year; 

• the proportion of day-light hours in which the turbines operate; 

• the frequency of bright sunshine and cloudless skies (particularly at low 

elevations 

• above the horizon); and 

• the prevailing wind direction. 

Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can 

be affected at these latitudes in the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their 

southern side. 

The further the observer is from the turbine the less pronounced the effect will be. 

There are several reasons for this: 

• there are fewer times when the sun is low enough to cast a long shadow; 

• when the sun is low it is more likely to be obscured by either cloud on the 

horizon or intervening buildings and vegetation; and 

• the centre of the rotor’s shadow passes more quickly over the land reducing the 

duration of the effect. 

At distance, the blades do not cover the sun but only partly mask it, substantially 

weakening the shadow. This effect occurs first with the shadow from the blade tip, 

the tips being thinner in section than the rest of the blade. The shadows from the 

tips extend the furthest and so only a very weak effect is observed at distance from 

the turbines. 

Shadow flicker can be mitigated by siting wind turbines at sufficient distance from 

residences likely to be affected. Flicker effects have been proven to occur only 




within ten rotor diameters of a turbine. Therefore if the turbine has 90m diameter 

blades, the potential shadow flicker effect could be felt up to 900m from a turbine. 

Around 0.5 % of the population is epileptic and of these around 5 % are photosensitive. 

Of photo-sensitive epileptics less than 5 % are sensitive to lowest 

frequencies of 2.5-3 Hz, the remainder are sensitive only to higher frequencies. The 

flicker caused by wind turbines is equal to the blade passing frequency. A fastmoving 

three-bladed machine will give rise to the highest levels of flicker frequency. 

These levels are well below 2 Hz. The new generation of wind turbines is known to 

operate at levels below 1 Hz.” 

Baseline 

14.2.4 A study area was initially defined based on a distance of 10 rotor diameters (900m) of the 

proposed wind turbine locations, by mapping the site using GIS (Geographical Information 

Systems) software. This was then further refined to include only areas within 130 degrees 

either side of north of a proposed wind turbine location. Properties within this 900m/130 

degrees area were identified from OS 1:25,000 scale digital map data. Figure 14.1 shows this 

study area and the properties that lie within it. Only residential properties have been 

considered as being potentially sensitive to shadow flicker effects. 

14.2.5 A site visit was carried out to verify the location of sensitive receptors, to establish which 

buildings identified were in residential use, and to determine which facades of the properties 

contained windows. As access to the properties was not available, this was carried out from 

public roads, and it was not always possible to view the full extent of all façades. Conservative 

assumptions have therefore been made with regard to the presence of windows and their 

dimensions (i.e. the entire wall is regarded as a window). 


14.2.6 The dates, times and durations of shadow flicker events have been predicted for each property 

using ReSoft WindFarm software. This programme creates a mathematical model of the 

proposed wind energy development, the surrounding area and the location of properties. The 

following factors are taken into account in the calculation: 

• turbine locations, rotor diameter and hub height; 

• topography; 

• locations of houses/buildings; 

• position, size and orientation of the windows on the buildings; and 

• latitude and longitude of the site (used in calculating the position of sun). 

14.2.7 The software calculates the dates and times when the shadow of a wind turbine’s rotor will fall 

onto a window. The following worst-case assumptions are made throughout the calculation: 




• weather conditions are such that shadows are always cast (i.e. bright/clear/sunny at 

all times of day and throughout the year); and 

• the turbines are facing directly towards the receptor at all times, therefore the 

shadow is always at its maximum possible size and circularity, rather than elliptical 

as would be the case if the turbine were oriented at an angle to the receptor. 

14.2.8 In practice it is likely that shadow flicker effects would occur for considerably less time than the 

worst case predictions described above, for the following reasons: 

• in the UK, sunshine typically occurs for approximately 30% of daylight hours. At 

other times, the wind turbines are unlikely to cast shadows sufficiently pronounced 

to cause shadow flicker effects to occur; and 

• at times when the wind turbine rotor is not oriented directly towards the receptor, the 

duration of shadow flicker effects would be reduced due to the elliptical shape of the 

shadow cast. 

14.2.9 Consequently, the graphics in Appendix 14.3 represent the theoretical worst case of shadow 

flicker calculated by the Resoft WindFarm software programme i.e. the sun is shining and the 

wind blowing every day of the year. 

14.2.10 To provide a more realistic assessment of the effects, historical meteorological data is used to 

calculate de-rating factors for the variable weather conditions, which reduce the number of 

hours of shadow flicker hours to 31% of the hours calculated by Resoft WindFarm software. 

Appendix 14.1 contains sunlight data from the Edinburgh weather station and annual daylight 

hours to support this statistic. 

14.2.11 A potential zone of shadow flicker was established, based on the proposed turbine’s location 

and specification (Figure 14.1). The turbine will have an 80m hub height and a 90m rotor 

diameter. Within this zone OS maps and aerial photographs were used to identify an 

estimated 350 properties. 

14.2.12 Rather than modelling individual windows within the software, each façade of the receptors 

facing the proposed wind energy development have been modelled as ‘windows’. This 

technique provides conservative results and a reduction in the amount of data, simplifying the 

assessment process and aiding comprehension. 

14.3 Baseline 

14.3.1 A site visit was made on 30 August 2010 to establish the existing townscape conditions within 

the potential shadow flicker zone. The topography was found to be generally flat. Mature 

vegetation was noted along remnants of mature hedgerows and along streams separating 

housing developments and in large gardens. Aerial photography and OS mapping were also 

used to provide additional information. 

14.3.2 After undertaking the site visit, some of the buildings were found not to have windows or 

openings in each of the façades which face the proposed turbines. However, this has not been 




taken into account and all the properties have been assessed as having windows in each of 

the facades as a worst case scenario. 

14.3.3 The properties identified within a distance of 900 metres and 130 degrees either side of the 

north of the proposed wind turbine locations were analysed to select a short list of receptors 

which are orientated towards the turbine. Properties were chosen based on their proximity to 

the proposed wind turbine locations and having either open space or wider roads adjacent to 

them, allowing open view towards the turbine location. Properties were also chosen to 

illustrate shadow flicker effects over the short, medium and long range views. 

14.3.4 The location of the assessed receptor properties are shown in Figure 14.1 and detailed in 

Table 14.1 below. 

Park Farm (H1) 

14.3.5 According to the OS Map and from observations made during a site visit there is one 

residential building and farm buildings located at Park Farm to the southeast of the proposed 

turbine locations. All of the façades, apart from the most easterly façade, face the proposed 

turbine locations. 

14.3.6 The property has been modelled as having three façades as detailed below: 

• North façade, orientated at 20° relative to north and measuring as standard, 10m 

wide and 5m high; 

• South façade, orientated at 200° relative to north and measuring, as standard, 10m 

wide and 5m high; and 

• West façade, orientated at 290° relative to north and measuring, as standard, 10m 

wide and 5m high. 

41-51, Bowhouse Gardens (H2) 

14.3.7 According to the OS Map and from observations made during a site visit there is a block of 

flats located to the northwest of the proposed turbine 1 location. All of the façades, apart from 

the most northerly façade, face the proposed turbine locations. 


• East façade, orientated at 90° relative to north and measuring as standard, 10m 









38-48 Bowhouse Gardens (H3) 


flats located to the northwest of the proposed turbine 1 location. All of the façades, apart from 

the most northerly façade, face the proposed turbine locations. 








15-25 Bowhouse Gardens/Riverside View, (H4) 


flats located to the north of the proposed turbine 1 location. All of the façades, apart from the 

most northerly façade, face the proposed turbine locations. 








11-13, Riverside View (H5), 7-9, Riverside View (H6), 3-5, Riverside View (H7) and 1, 

Riverside View (H8) 

14.3.13 According to the OS Map and from observations made during a site visit there is a line of four 

residential buildings located at Riverside View to the north of the proposed turbine 1 location. 

All of the façades, apart from the most northerly façade, face the proposed turbine locations. 











10-11, Earls Court (H9), 12-13, Earls Court (H10) and 14-15, Earls Court (H11) 

14.3.15 According to the OS Map and from observations made during a site visit there is a line of three 

residential buildings located at Earls Court to the northeast of the proposed turbine 1 location. 

All of the façades, apart from the most northerly façade, face the proposed turbine locations. 








15A, Earls Court (H12) 

14.3.17 According to the OS Map and from observations made during a site visit there is a line of 

terrace houses at Earls Court located to the northeast of the proposed turbine 1 location. All of 

the façades, apart from the most northerly façade, face the proposed turbine locations. 








1, Arran Court (H13) 

14.3.19 According to the OS Map there is a line of terrace houses at Arran Court located to the 

northwest of the proposed turbine 1 location. All of the façades, apart from the most northerly 

façade, face the proposed turbine locations. 











11, Shetland Court (H14) 

14.3.21 According to the OS Map there is a line of houses at Shetland Court located to the northeast of 

the proposed turbine 1 location. All of the façades, apart from the most northerly façade, face 

the proposed turbine locations. 








Family Centre, Alloa Park (H15) 

14.3.23 According to the OS Map there is a purpose-built centre situated right opposite to Park Primary 

School located to the northwest of the proposed turbine 1 location. All of the façades, apart 

from the most northerly façade, face the proposed turbine locations. 








67-69, Engelen Drive (H16) 

14.3.25 According to the OS Map there is a line of houses located to the north of the proposed turbine 

1 location. All of the façades, apart from the most northerly façade, face the proposed turbine 

locations. 











47, Leven Court (H17) 

14.3.27 According to the OS Map there is a line of houses located to the northeast of the proposed 

turbine 1 location. All of the façades, apart from the most northerly façade, face the proposed 

turbine locations. 








Powside (H18) 

14.3.29 According to the OS Map and from observations made during a site visit there is a derelict 

cottage located at Powside. It is inhabited and therefore will not be considered further in this 

assessment. 

Inch of Ferryton (H19) 

14.3.30 According to the OS Map and from observations made during a site visit there is one 

residential building and farm buildings located at Inch of Ferryton to the south of the proposed 

turbine locations. However, only the farm buildings are within the shadow flicker zone as 

shown in Figure 14.1. The residential building is outside of the potential zone. Therefore this 

property is not predicted to be affected and was not considered further in this assessment. 

Table 14.1 Summary of Baseline Receptors – Properties 

Receptor ID Property/Building Distance/Direction to 

Modelled Façade 


H1 Park Farm 833m E – T3 North, West and South 

H2 41-51, Bowhouse Gardens 493m N – T1 East, South and West 

H3 38-48, Bowhouse Gardens 516m N – T1 East, South and West 

H4 15-25, Bowhouse Gardens/Riverside View 490m N – T1 East, South and West 

H5 11-13, Riverside View 469m N – T1 East, South and West 




Receptor ID Property/Building Distance/Direction to Modelled Façade 


H6 7-9, Riverside View 466m N – T1 East, South and West 

H7 3-5, -Riverside View 468m N – T1 East, South and West 

H8 1, Riverside View 468m N – T1 East, South and West 

H9 10-11, Earls Court 501m N – T1 East, South and West 



H12 15A, Earls Court 519m N – T1 East, South and West 

H13 1, Arran Court 667m NW – T1 East, South and West 

H14 11, Shetland Court 641m N – T1 East, South and West 

H15 Family Centre (Alloa Park) 853m NW – T1 East, South and West 

H16 67-69, Engelen Drive 826m N – T1 East, South and West 

H17 47, Leven Court 826m NE – T1 East, South and West 

H18 Powside 579m E – T3 N/A 

H19 Inch of Ferryton 902m SE – T4 N/A 


14.4.1 The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 requires that where 

significant effects are identified, mitigation measures are proposed. There is currently no 

agreement in the UK as to what degree of shadow flicker constitutes a significant effect. 

However, experience in Germany indicates that shadow flicker of up to 30 hours per year 

within an occupied building can be regarded as being of no material significance when 

assessing a wind turbine project. 

Potential Effects on Properties 

14.4.2 Table 14.2 details the summary results of the prediction calculation carried out and a summary 

of the findings can be seen below. The full results of the shadow flicker assessment are 

detailed in Appendix 14.2. The times of day and year that effects may occur are also 

illustrated in Charts 1 to 34 (Appendix 14.3). 

Park Farm (H1) 

14.4.3 As can be seen from Table 14.2 below, the south and west facing façades at Park Farm are 

likely to be affected for turbine 3 around 4.4 hours per year and for turbine 4 around 4.6 hours 

per year (approximately 9 hours in total) based on the worst case scenario. These effects 

would occur in March and from September to October in the afternoons between 

approximately 17.00pm and 18.00pm due to turbine 3 and between 15.30pm and 17.00pm due 

to turbine 4 as illustrated in Chart 1, 2, 3 and 4. These effects would last for up to 48 minutes 

per day, with an average duration of 37 minutes. The north facing façade is not predicted to be 

affected. 

41-51, Bowhouse Gardens (H2) and 38-48, Bowhouse Gardens (H3) 

14.4.4 At 41-51, Bowhouse Gardens and 38-48, Bowhouse Gardens, the east and south façades are 

likely to be affected by shadow flicker for turbine 1 for approximately 20 hours per year. This 

would occur from November to February between approximately 10.00am and 12.00pm, as 

shown in Charts 5, 6, 7 and 8, and would last up to 80 minutes per day, with an average of 73 

minutes. The west facing façades are not predicted to be affected. 




15-25, Bowhouse Gardens/Riverside View (H4) 

14.4.5 At 15-25, Bowhouse Gardens/Riverside View the east and south façades are likely to be 

affected by shadow flicker for turbine 1 for approximately 17 hours per year. This would occur 

from November to January between approximately 10.30am and 12.00pm, as shown in Charts 

9 and 10, and would last up to 82 minutes per day, with an average of 72 minutes. The west 

facing façade is not predicted to be affected. 

11-13 Riverside View (H5) and 7-9 Riverside View (H6) 

14.4.6 At these properties the east and south façades are likely to be affected by shadow flicker for 

turbine 1 for approximately 17.5 hours per year. This would occur from November to January 

between approximately 11.00am and 13.00pm, as shown in Charts 11, 12, 13 and 14 and 

would last up to 86 minutes per day, with an average of 74 minutes. The west facing façade is 

not predicted to be affected. 

3-5 Riverside View (H7) and 1 Riverside View (H8) 

14.4.7 At these properties the south and west façades are likely to be affected by shadow flicker for 

turbine 1 for approximately 17 hours per year. This would occur from November to January 

between approximately 11.30am and 13.00pm, as shown in Charts 15, 16, 17 and 18, and 

would last up to 85 minutes per day, with an average of 72 minutes. The east facing façade is 

not predicted to be affected. 

10-11 Earls Court (H9), 12-13 Earls Court (H10), 14-15 Earls Court (H11) and 15A Earls 

Court (H12) 

14.4.8 At these properties the south and west façades are likely to be affected by shadow flicker for 

turbine 1 for approximately 13.5 hours per year. This would occur from November to January 

between approximately 11.30am and 13.00pm, as shown in Charts 19 to 26, and would last up 

to 77 minutes per day, with an average of 65 minutes. The east facing façade is not predicted 

to be affected. 

1 Arran Court (H13) 

14.4.9 At this property the east and south façades are likely to be affected by shadow flicker for 

turbine 1 for approximately 10 hours per year. This would occur from November to January 

between approximately 10.00am and 11.00am, as shown in Charts 27 and 28, and would last 

up to 60 minutes per day, with an average of 52 minutes. The west facing façade is not 

predicted to be affected. 

11 Shetland Court (H14) 

14.4.10 At this property the east and south façades are likely to be affected by shadow flicker for 

turbine 1 for approximately 4 hours per year. This would occur from December to January 







Family Centre, Alloa Park (H15) 

14.4.11 At the Family Centre the east and south façades are likely to be affected by shadow flicker for 

turbine 1 for approximately 2 hours per year. This would occur from December to January 




67-69, Engelen Drive (H16) 

14.4.12 At 67-69, Engelen Drive no façades are predicted to be affected. 

47, Leven Court (H17) 

14.4.13 At this property the south and west façades are likely to be affected by shadow flicker for 

turbine 1 for approximately 2.5 hours per year. This would occur from December to January 

between approximately 13.30pm and 14.30pm, as shown in Charts 33 and 34, and would last 

up to 33 minutes per day, with an average of 26 minutes. The east facing façade is not 


Table 14.2 Predicted Shadow Flicker Effects on Properties 

Receptor 

ID 

H1 

(Park 

Farm) 

H2 

(41-51, 

Bowhouse 

Gardens) 

H3 

(38-48, 

Bowhouse 

Gardens) 

H4 

(15-25, 

Bowhouse 

Gardens/ 

Riverside 

View) 

Façade 

Days 

per 

year 

Max 

minutes 

per day 

Mean 

minutes 

per day 

Total 

Hours 

per year 

Likely 

Hours 

per year 

(31%) 

Period 

likely to 

occur 

Time 

likely 

to 

occur 

North 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

South 37 47 36 13,3 4,1 March, 17:00- 3 

Sept-Oct 18:00 

West 37 48 37 14,1 4,4 March 17:00- 3 

and 

Sept-Oct 

18:00 

North 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

South 41 46 36 14,7 4,6 February 

and Oct- 

Nov 

West 42 45 35 14,8 4,6 February 

and Oct- 

Nov 

15:30- 

17:00 

15:30- 

17:00 

East 88 75 67 59,4 18,4 Nov-Feb 10:00- 1 

11:30 

South 90 80 73 65,7 20,4 Nov-Feb 10:00- 

11:30 

1 

West 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

East 76 72 64 48,3 15,0 Nov-Feb 10:30- 1 

11:30 

South 79 78 69 54,4 16,9 Nov-Feb 10:30- 1 

11:30 


East 76 74 64 49 15,2 Nov-Jan 10:30- 1 

12:00 

South 78 82 72 55,9 17,3 Nov-Jan 10:30- 1 

12:00 


Turbine 

Causing 

Effect 

4 

4 




Receptor 

ID 

Façade 

Days 

per 

year 

Max 

minutes 

per day 

Mean 

minutes 

per day 

Total 

Hours 

per year 

Likely 

Hours 

per year 

(31%) 

Period 

likely to 

occur 

Time 

likely 

to 

occur 

H5 East 74 76 65 48,4 15,0 Nov-Jan 11:00- 1 

(11-13, 

Riverside 

View) 

South 

West 

76 

0 

85 

0 

74 

0 

56,1 

0 

17,4 

0 

Nov-Jan 

NA 

12:30 

11:00- 

12:30 

NA 

1 

NA 

H6 East 74 76 66 48,5 15,0 Nov-Jan 11:30- 1 

(7-9, 

Riverside 

View) 

South 

West 

76 

0 

86 

0 

74 

0 

56,3 

0 

17,5 

0 

Nov-Jan 

NA 

12:30 

11:00- 

13:00 

NA 

1 

NA 

H7 East 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

(3-5, 

Riverside 

View) 

South 

West 

76 

76 

85 

77 

72 

66 

54,9 

50,5 

17,0 

15,7 

Nov-Jan 

Nov-Jan 

11:30- 

13:00 

11:30- 

1 

1 

13:00 

H8 (1, East 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

Riverside 

View) 

South 

West 

76 

76 

85 

77 

72 

66 

54,9 

50,5 

17,0 

15,7 

Nov-Jan 

Nov-Jan 

11:30- 

13:00 

11:30- 

1 

1 

13:00 

H9 (10-11, East 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

Earls 

Court) 

South 

West 

68 

68 

77 

70 

65 

60 

44,3 

40,9 

13,7 

12,7 

Nov-Jan 

Nov-Jan 

11:30- 

13:00 

11:30- 

1 

1 

13:00 

H10 (12- East 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

13, Earls 

Court) 

South 

West 

68 

67 

77 

70 

65 

61 

44 

40,6 

13,6 

12,6 

Nov-Jan 

Nov-Jan 

12:00- 

13:00 

12:00- 

13:00 

1 

1 

H11 (14- East 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

15, Earls 

Court) 

South 

West 

68 

67 

77 

70 

65 

61 

44 

40,6 

13,6 

12,6 

Nov-Jan 

Nov-Jan 

12:00- 

13:00 

12:00- 

1 

1 

13:00 

H12 (15A, East 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

Earls 

Court) 

South 

West 

66 

66 

74 

67 

63 

58 

41,3 

38,3 

12,8 

11,9 

Nov-Jan 

Nov-Jan 

12:00- 

13:30 

12:00- 

1 

1 

13:30 

H13 (1, East 62 60 51 31,7 9,8 Nov-Jan 10:00- 1 

Arran 

Court) South 64 60 52 33,4 10,4 Nov-Jan 

11:00 

10:00- 

11:00 

1 


H14 (11, East 32 40 33 10,5 3,3 Dec-Jan 11:30- 1 

Shetland 

Court) South 36 47 36 12,9 4,0 Dec-Jan 

12:30 

11:30- 

12:30 

1 


H15 East 24 29 23 5,6 1,7 Dec-Jan 10:00- 1 

(Family 

Centre- 

Alloa 

Park) 

South 

West 

28 

0 

33 

0 

26 

0 

7,2 

0 

2,2 

0 

Dec-Jan 

NA 

11:00 

10:00- 

11:00 

NA 

1 

NA 

H16 )67- East 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

69, South 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

Engelen West 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

Drive) 

H17 (47, East 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 

Leven 

Court) 

South 

West 

31 

29 

33 

31 

26 

25 

8,2 

7,3 

2,5 

2,3 

Dec-Jan 

Dec-Jan 

13:30- 

14:30 

13:30- 

14:30 

1 

1 

Turbine 

Causing 

Effect 





14.5.1 Potential cumulative effects have been considered, however no further cumulative effects have 

been identified. The nearest wind farm to the proposed wind energy development is located at 

approximately 6km. 


14.6.1 Shadow flicker events predicted to occur, will be reduced in practice, taking into account 

various factors including times when turbines are not turning, cloud cover and the direction of 

hub and rotors towards the receptor i.e. effect will be minimised when turbine is not facing the 

receptor ‘square-on’. The calculations detailed in Table 14.2 predict the worst case scenario at 

the receptors. 

14.6.2 If shadow flicker effects occur in practice at a particular property, it does not immediately follow 

that additional mitigation is required. Such effects would need to occur in a room that was 

occupied at the time of occurrence and for the duration that caused a nuisance. For example, 

if the effect was predicted to occur for a three week period in the early hours of the morning in 

a room unlikely to be occupied with each occurrence lasting just a few minutes, then it is 

unlikely that additional measures would be needed. 

14.6.3 Once the location and turbine parameters are defined, the periods during which shadow flicker 

can occur are predictable. Therefore, if following a complaint to the planning authority and 

following investigation by the operator, shadow flicker is confirmed to result in a loss of amenity 

at any location, then mitigation would be implemented. Effective forms of mitigation will vary to 

suit the specific circumstances but may include: window screening (with shutters, curtains or 

blinds); planting or constructing garden screening; or operational controls. 

14.6.4 In the case of operational controls, a specific turbine (or turbines) could be programmed to 

shutdown at specific times when the sun is bright enough to cast nuisance shadows. Solar 

sensors will be fitted on the nacelles of the turbines to monitor the light intensity to facilitate this 

function. There is not specific UK guidance regarding what level of light is sufficient to cause a 

shadow flicker event. However, the actual light level which would trigger a turbine shutdown 

can be manually configured on-site following installation, to reflect local conditions. 

14.6.5 A planning condition provides an appropriate form of mitigation to ensure that any complaints 

will be investigated in a reasonable timescale and that the rectification of any shadow flicker 

problem that is substantiated will be implemented promptly and effectively. 


14.7.1 Following adoption of the proposed mitigation measures it is unlikely that any property within a 

distance of 10 rotor diameters (900m) will experience shadow flicker effects. Effects are 

unlikely to occur beyond this distance. 

14.7.2 A programme of monitoring will ensure the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation and allow 

for it to be adapted to allow for any inaccuracies in the calculation. 





Table 14.3 Summary of Effects 

Potential Effect Mitigation Residual Effect 

Shutdowns of appropriate turbine/s 

at the necessary times. 

Potential for shadow flicker to occur at 

properties within a distance of 900m. 


Shadow flicker unlikely to affect any 

properties. 

14.9.1 During the site commissioning process a programme of shadow flicker monitoring will be 

conducted. The details of which will be agreed with Clackmannanshire Council’s 

Environmental Health Department in advance. 


14.10.1 Given the short duration of the predicted events up to 20 hours per receptor per year and 

taking into consideration other factors such as cloud cover, times when turbines are not 

operating, turbines not facing the receptor ‘square-on’, assuming no visual/topographical 

barriers between the residential properties/receptors and the proposed mitigation measures, 

the effects are deemed to be not significant. 




15 Socioeconomics, Tourism and Land Use 


15.1.1 This chapter provides an assessment of the effects of the proposed wind energy development 

on socio-economic activity, tourism and recreation and land use during the construction, 

operation and de-commissioning phases of the development. 

15.1.2 The proposed wind energy development has the potential to impact on the socioeconomic 

structure of Clackmannanshire (employment, economics etc), tourist attractions in the vicinity 

of the site, any nearby recreational areas, such as public rights of way, footpaths and cycle 

routes (as well as the right of the public to access the site under the Land Reform (Scotland) 

Act 2003 (Scottish Outdoor Access Code)), and the existing land use of the area. 

15.1.3 This assessment follows the four stage systematic approach for technical assessments 

outlined in Chapter 2 (EIA Process): 

• description of baseline conditions - using scoping and further consultation 

responses, detailed desk studies and information from a site visit; 

• identification and assessment of potential environmental effect - through 

consultation with relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies and evaluation of 

relevant and updated legislation and guidance relevant to the development 

(including evaluation of the significance of the effect); 

• identification of mitigation measures; 

• assessment of residual effects; and 

• proposed monitoring – if necessary. 

15.1.4 For clarity of presentation, these four stages are dealt with separately for each of the three 

topics in this assessment: socio-economic impacts, tourism impacts and land use impacts. 

Detailed analysis of the impacts on landscape and visual aspects (Chapter 9), cultural heritage 

(Chapter 10), noise (Chapter 8) and traffic (Chapter 7) is contained within other chapters and is 

therefore not covered here. 


15.2.1 The methodologies and information used for each assessment are provided in the relevant 

sections below. 

15.2.2 In general, methodologies for the assessments involved: 

• a review of relevant legislation and guidance; 




• desk studies to establish the baseline conditions of the application area; 


• description of the potential effects of the proposed wind energy development on 

tourism, recreation and the socio-economic environment; 

• an evaluation of the significance of these effects; 

• identification of possible measures to avoid, and mitigate against, any potential 

adverse effects resulting from this development; and 

• the significance of the potential residual effects following mitigation. 

15.2.3 The assessment of significance is based on a professional judgement taking into account the 

potential magnitude of the effects, and the sensitivity of the environment to this effect. In this 

case, the environment is considered to include the local communities around the proposed 

wind energy development, and the regional and national economies, as well as local 

businesses and residents. Effects can be positive, negative or neutral, and of major, moderate 

or minor magnitude. 

15.2.4 In general, a minor effect is one that will primarily impact on few receptors, or primarily benefit 

the local area, moderate effects will be significant on a wider scale (such as in the 

Clackmannanshire Council area, or adjacent authorities, including Falkirk and Stirling Council 

areas), or affect a wider range of people, and major effects will be felt on a national scale. 

While subjective, it is considered that this approach indicates the level of impact of the 

proposed wind energy development on these hard-to-quantify issues. 

15.2.5 Where direct or indirect effects are deemed significant under the EIA Regulations (generally 

moderate or major negative impacts for the purpose of these assessments) mitigation 

measures are proposed. 

15.2.6 The methodologies and information used for each assessment are provided in the relevant 

sections below. 

15.3 Socioeconomic Effects 


15.3.1 The proposed wind energy development has the potential to influence the local economy of the 

area during the construction and operational phases of the development. 

15.3.2 The economic contribution will arise largely through expenditure on the construction and 

operation of the proposed wind energy development. In addition jobs will be created and 

people employed directly in development, construction, operation and de-commissioning 

phases of the project where local suppliers have relevant construction and maintenance 

experience. Although not a material consideration in planning terms, other areas of community 




benefit are also being considered by PfR for the site, which will bring economic benefit to the 

local communities. 

15.3.3 There are no recognised standards or methodologies for assessing socioeconomic effects for 

an EIA. Therefore an assessment has been made based on a professional judgement of the 

degree of change resulting from the proposals. 

15.3.4 This assessment follows the generic methodology of Economic Impact Analysis which 

measures the cumulative impact of a development on the economy. 

15.3.5 This assessment identifies the contribution that the proposed wind energy development can 

make to the economy at five scales – these are shown in Figure 15.1: 

• the area scale covering Clackmannan Census Area Statistic (CAS) Ward of 

Clackmannanshire Council. This area covers the application area, taking in land to 

the south east of Alloa, along the coast to the boundary with Fife Council area, and 

including Clackmannan town in the north; 

• the local scale covering Clackmannanshire Council Area; 

• the regional scale covering the Ochil Scottish Parliamentary constituency – this 

covers all of Clackmannanshire, and land to the east in Perth and Kinross, and land 

to the west in Stirling and Perth and Kinross Council Areas; 

• the wider regional scale – covering Council Areas within 5km of the application area 

– namely Clackmannanshire, Fife, Stirling and Falkirk; and 

• the national scale covering the whole of Scotland. 

15.3.6 Some data was only available for particular geographic areas – where relevant, this is stated in 

the sections below. 

15.3.7 Scoping responses received, relevant to socio-economics, are presented in Table 15.1, and 

Table 15.2 presents the information sources used in the desk-based study, covering local, 

regional and national strategies. 

Table 15.1 Scoping Responses Relevant to Socioeconomics 

Organisation 


Council 

Response 

14/06/10 - Stated that the assessment should include relevant interests in Falkirk and Stirling 

Council areas whose boundaries lie close to the site. 

The ES should consider potential impacts of the development on employment and local 

community initiatives and contain measures to mitigate and enhance these impacts – including 

an examination of the socioeconomic effects the development could have directly or indirectly in 

the local area including the social housing area closest to the site. 

Table 15.2 Information Sources Used in the Socioeconomic Desk Study 

Topic 

Source of Information 

Local employment Nomis – official labour market statistics (nomisweb.co.uk) 

Clackmannanshire Council website (http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/) 

Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics (sns.gov.uk) 

Scrol –Scotland’s Census Results Online (scrol.gov.uk) 

Economic Impact The economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish Tourism, Scottish Government (2008). 

Building Clackmannanshire - Economic Development Framework 2008 – 2018 




Baseline Information 

Population 

15.3.8 In 2008, the mid year estimate of population of Clackmannanshire was 50,500; approximately 

1% of the national population 1 , spread over approximately 22,624 households 2 . The 

population of the wider area comprising Clackmannanshire, Stirling, Fife and Falkirk Council 

areas was approximately 652,400 in the same year. 

15.3.9 Between 2007 and 2008, the population of Clackmannanshire grew by approximately 1.2%, 

which was higher than the Scottish average of 0.5% increase, and the 4 th highest increase in 

Scotland 3 . The neighbouring authorities of Perth and Kinross and Falkirk also had higher than 

average increases. Trends for the future indicate that while the Scottish population may 

increase by 7% up to 2033, Clackmannanshire could see a 24% increase in population – the 

3 rd largest predicted increase after East Lothian and Perth and Kinross 4 . 

15.3.10 The area of Clackmannanshire is 159km 2 , with an average density of 318 people per km 2 in 

2008. This was approximately 5 times higher than Scotland as a whole (66 people per km 2 ). 

Across the wider regional scale (Stirling, Fife, Falkirk and Clackmannanshire) the average 

density was 161 people per km 2 . 

15.3.11 In 2009, the proportion of children (under 16s) was higher in the Clackmannanshire council 

area (18.8%) than in Scotland (17.6%) 5 . In the wider regional area, 18.1% of the population 

was under 16. The proportion of those aged 65 and over in Clackmannanshire (15.6%) was 

lower than Scotland as a whole (16.7%) and in the wider regional area (16.9%). 

15.3.12 This indicates that Clackmannanshire has a growing population, with a high proportion of 

children, and this population will require sources of energy and jobs such as the proposed 

development can create. 

15.3.13 Information for the Clackmannan CAS ward was only gathered for the 2001 census. In this 

census, the population (2,867) was approximately 6% of the Clackmannanshire population 

(48,077). A lower percentage of the population was of working age (61.4%) compared to the 

Clackmannanshire population (62.1%) 6 . Information on population for the Ochil Scottish 

Parliamentary Constituency (Local Area) was not available. 

Employment and Economy 

15.3.14 Between October 2008 and September 2009, 71% of working age people in 

Clackmannanshire were in employment, compared to 74.3% in Scotland. 8% of economically 

active people in Clackmannanshire were unemployed, compared to 6.6% in Scotland 7 . 

15.3.15 In May 2010 the Ochil constituency had a claimant unemployment rate of 4.5% (number of 

claimants of Job Seekers Allowance as a proportion of the resident working age) compared to 

4.2% in Scotland. Clackmannanshire’s rate was slightly higher than the national and regional 

rate, at 5.3%, and the rate in the Clackmannan CSA Ward was 6.6%. This suggests that 

although regionally (on a constituency basis) unemployment was similar to Scotland as a 

whole, the council area has comparatively high unemployment, and the proposed wind energy 




development is located in an area of even higher unemployment. In the 12 months between 

September 2008 and September 2009, Clackmannanshire’s unemployed (people out of work 

and wanting a job) rose by 33.3% 8 - though the Scottish Figure rose by 20.5% over the same 

period. 

15.3.16 The jobs density in Clackmannanshire in 2008 was 0.5 – meaning there was 0.5 jobs for every 

resident of working age. This is a low jobs density, compared to the national figure of 0.84 and 

the wider regional figure of 0.69 9 . 

15.3.17 Table 15.3 shows the employment by occupation statistics for Clackmannanshire (LA), Ochil 

constituency (Ochil), wider region (Clackmannanshire, Fife, Falkirk and Stirling) and Scotland 

between October 2008 and September 2009 10 . Ward data was only available for 2001, so has 

not been included. Data in Table 15.3 shows that the wider region in which the proposed wind 

energy development is located (including the local authority and constituency) had a higher 

proportion of elementary occupations, personal service and sales/customer services 

occupations, as well as more managers and senior officials than Scotland as a whole, but 

fewer plant operators, administrative staff and professionals. No consistent pattern within the 

smaller geographic areas is apparent, though the local authority area has fewer people 

employed in professional occupations and more sales and customer service occupations than 

the constituency and the wider region. 

Table 15.3 Employment by Occupation Statistics for Clackmannanshire, Ochil 

Constituency, Wider Region and Scotland 

Occupation % LA % Ochil % wider region % Scotland 

Managers and senior officials 15.4 17.5 14.8 13.3 

Professional occupations 10.2 11.8 11.3 13.3 

Associate professional and technical 12.9 12.6 14.8 14.7 

Administrative and secretarial 8.3 6.8 9.4 11.2 

Skilled trades occupations 10.8 11.3 10.6 11 

Personal service 10 9.6 10.3 9.1 

Sales and customer services 11.2 9 9.1 8.3 

Process plant and machine operatives 6.8 6.2 6.7 7.2 

Elementary occupations 14.3 15.2 13.1 11.6 

15.3.18 The qualification level in Clackmannanshire in 2008 was different to the Ochil, wider regional 

and national figures, with fewer people with a degree (32% in Clackmannanshire, compared to 

33% in Ochil, 33.6% in the wider region and 33.8% nationally) and more people with no 

qualifications (19% in Clackmannanshire compared to 17% in Ochil, 12.7% in the wider region 

and 12.5% nationally) 11 . 

15.3.19 Median weekly earnings for full time workers in Clackmannanshire in 2009 were £427.40 

(based on people living in the constituency, rather than employers based in the constituency). 

This was lower than the wider regional (£463.80) and Scottish (£472.20) figures. Data was not 

available for the Clackmannan ward or Ochil Constituency. 

15.3.20 Table 15.4 shows the industry of employment statistics in 2008 12 , using the same geographic 

breakdown as in Table 15.3. Again, data for the Clackmannan ward was only available for 

2001, so has not been included. 




Table 15.4 Industry of Employment Statistics (2008) 

Industry of employment % LA % Ochil % wider region % Scotland 

% Manufacturing 12.3 13.8 11.3 8.7 

% Construction 6.7 6.3 6.9 5.9 

% Distribution, Hotels and restaurants 22.2 22.8 23.6 22.2 

% Transport and communications 4 4.2 4.3 5.1 

% Finance, IT and other business activities 12 12.6 13.7 19.1 

% Public administration, education and health 33.9 33.3 32.6 30 

% Other services 7.8 6.3 5.8 5.4 

% Tourism related (from service industries) 7.8 8.5 8.7 8.9 

15.3.21 In 2008 the greatest percentage of people in Clackmannanshire were employed in public 

administration, education and health (33.9%), and distribution, hotels and restaurants (22.2%) 

– the same order as for Scotland as a whole. Manufacturing and Construction were 

comparatively more important industries locally and regionally than nationally. A lower 

percentage of people than nationally (and in the constituency and wider region) worked in 

“transport and communications” and “finance, IT and other business activities”. Tourist related 

industries showed lower employment than nationally across the region, and Clackmannanshire 

had a lower percentage than in either Ochil or the wider region. 

15.3.22 The industries of employment shown in Table 15.4 reflect the importance of manufacturing and 

construction in the economy of the area in which the proposed wind energy development is 

located – as well as the nationally more important industries of public sector employment and 

hotels/restaurants. However, employment in both manufacturing and construction is falling 13 . 

Although historically Clackmannanshire has been known for mining, textiles and brewing, it has 

recently undergone restructuring as a result of the loss of these industries. Between 2001 and 

2006, Clackmannanshire achieved the third highest economic growth rate in Scotland (7.1%) 14 . 

This has been attributed to a high number of small businesses, and extensive business 

infrastructure (office developments etc) attracting businesses of all sizes. 

15.3.23 In March 2009 there were approximately 1200 businesses registered in Clackmannanshire 15 . 

88% of these were small businesses (250 employees in the UK) compared to only 2% nationally. Major businesses and 

employers registered in Clackmannanshire include: 

• Armstrong Printing (printers); 

• Autosonics (vehicle technology); 

• Blyth Construction Utilities (utility infrastructure provider); 

• The Campbell Group (soft furnishings); 

• Greenpower Developments Ltd (energy efficiency development services); 

• G S Lighting (industrial lighting); 

• MCA Group (Scotland) Ltd (housing developers); 

• Mulraney Properties (commercial property development and letting); 




• Oran Group (waste management); and 

• Weir Engineering Services (Minerals, Oil & Gas and Power engineering). 

15.3.24 Public sector employment is slightly higher than nationally and regionally, possibly reflecting 

the small size of the Local Authority, and its requirement to provide the same level of services 

to its inhabitants as larger Local Authorities. 

15.3.25 Improvements in infrastructure have helped to encourage businesses to Clackmannanshire. 

The Stirling - Alloa - Kincardine rail route reopened in May 2008 and is considered to be of 

critical importance to the regeneration of Alloa and Clackmannanshire in general, as well as 

providing a link for coal to Longannet Power Station in Fife. The Clackmannanshire Bridge 

(new Kincardine bridge) opened in November 2008 provides the area with a link into the 

Scottish motorway network at Gartarry. In addition, the A907 Alloa-Stirling road has been 

upgraded and provides links to the west, and there has been significant investment in housing, 

retail developments (including supermarket developments and mixed use developments in old 

brewery complexes) schools and a new hospital 16 . A Business Improvement District covering 

200 companies in 10 business parks allows businesses to benefit from resource efficiency 

improvements, cost savings and performance enhancements. 

15.3.26 The Forth Valley Regional Economic Development Strategy 2008–2012 aims to use the 

advantageous location of the Forth Valley (Clackmannanshire, Falkirk and Stirling) to increase 

its contribution to Scotland’s sustainable economic growth. In particular, it aims to develop a 

growing and sustainable economy, a competitive and productive skills base and an attractive, 

efficient and connected business environment. To meet the aims of this strategy, 

Clackmannanshire is aiming to increase the proportion of its business base in finance and 

business (in line with the rest of Scotland), to increase economic activity and decrease the 

unemployment rate – especially among 16-19 year olds who are not in education, employment 

or training, to increase levels of qualifications among the workforce, to reduce the numbers of 

people living in deprived areas (in 2008, Clackmannanshire had the 5 th most deprived share of 

population living in the 15% most deprived areas) and to attract people to Clackmannanshire 

while maintaining the quality of the natural and built environment. 

Potential Effects Arising 

15.3.27 Economic effects can be expected during the development, construction, operational and decommissioning 

phases of the proposed wind energy development. These effects will differ in 

their scale, duration and geographic coverage. Potential effects can be split into expenditure, 

and direct and indirect employment. 

Expenditure 

15.3.28 The proposed wind energy development is a large construction project, with a considerable 

financial investment. This money will be spent on a range of activities during design, 

development and construction of the proposed wind energy development, including the 

procurement of the principal wind turbine components from suppliers, and placement of 

contracts for the civil and electrical infrastructure works required. 




15.3.29 Local contractors have already been employed in the design process of the proposed wind 

energy development required to take it to the planning application stage. These impacts will 

be primarily concentrated over a timescale of 1-2 years. Other expenditure will include 

business rates and rents. 

15.3.30 This expenditure has the potential to generate additional economic activity within the local 

(ward) and Clackmannanshire Council areas, and more widely. Local and Scottish businesses 

are well placed to be successful in winning work on the project, particularly given the proximity 

of companies such as those mentioned above which could provide construction, engineering or 

infrastructure advice and services to the proposed development. 

15.3.31 The industrial nature of the Forth at this point and proximity to the Grangemouth/Longannet 

complex, as well as industry in Alloa will also provide local expertise in similar energy 

development construction and maintenance. 

15.3.32 Subject to planning permission being granted, PfR would award a contract for the supply of 

turbines. UK companies who assemble turbines or produce major turbine components include 

Repower UK Limited, a joint venture between wind turbine company Repower Systems and 

Cambridgeshire based Peter Brotherhood Limited and Welton Towers Limited factory in 

Campbeltown, Scotland. UK companies will be encouraged to bid for work. However to date 

most turbines erected in UK have been manufactured in Denmark or Germany because 

manufacturing facilities in UK are limited. Criteria for wind turbine selection will be based upon 

price specifications and guarantees to ensure that performance and technical specifications 

are met in full. No certainty can therefore be given to the use of UK companies receiving these 

contracts. 

15.3.33 While it is acknowledged that the provision of money to the local community is not material in 

planning terms, it can be noted that the proposed wind energy development will have the 

potential to contribute to the local economy through provision of a community fund. The detail 

of this will be finalised in discussion with Clackmannanshire Council. 

Employment Impacts 

15.3.34 A report by Fife Council 17 , neighbouring Clackmannanshire, has indicated that 2,000 jobs could 

be created in Fife by firms in the renewable energy sector and companies in the supply chain. 

As well as helping to create new jobs, it is expected that renewable energy will safeguard jobs 

already in Fife, and presumably in neighbouring council areas. Although Fife is well located, to 

benefit from renewable developments (Fife Energy Park has recently been developed in 

Methil, for example), its neighbouring authorities also benefit from the same transport links, 

and a similar workforce, meaning they are also likely to benefit from an increase in renewable 

energy developments in the central belt of Scotland and further afield. 

15.3.35 The design, development, construction, maintenance, monitoring and de-commissioning of the 

proposed wind energy development will generate, and has already generated, employment in 

the area. In addition, it will safeguard existing jobs in those companies directly involved in the 

development. 




15.3.36 Direct employment will be created at the proposed wind energy development, as well as 

employment in other activities associated with the development, such as design and 

development. In particular, a local source for aggregate will be identified to provide rock for 

track and hardstanding construction. 

15.3.37 Indirect employment will also be created; this includes other jobs supported through the supply 

chain for the project, such as the construction of wind turbine components and, for example, 

the use of local recycling facilities during the de-commissioning of the turbines at the end of the 

operational life of the proposed wind energy development. There is also opportunity for 

indirect benefits to occur using supply firms, accommodation establishments and other local 

services (e.g. newsagents, cafes/restaurants, petrol stations etc.) in the district. 

15.3.38 Additional “induced” employment will come through increased economic activity and 

employment in the area around the proposed wind energy development. As local incomes are 

increased, local spending also increases, helping to sustain local shops and services. 

15.3.39 Construction of the proposed wind energy development will include both electrical and civil 

engineering contracts and it is anticipated that a reasonable proportion of the cost of the 

construction work (around 25%) will be spent in the district on civil, electrical and connection 

works. PfR would encourage local firms to tender for the construction works as far as possible. 

This will be achieved through the identification of suitable local contractors during project 

development by means of local contracts and through public exhibitions as well as wideranging 

tender arrangements. Thereafter a database of local contactors will be drawn up for 

use at the actual contracting stage of the project. The process is however subject to 

competitive tender and until any contracts are let it cannot be predicted how many local jobs 

are likely to be created. 

15.3.40 Accurate prediction of the regional and national sourcing of components is not possible at this 

stage. However, given the local expertise present within Clackmannanshire in, for example, 

utilities engineering, and infrastructure development, and the number of people employed 

locally in the construction industry, it is hoped that civil engineering, electrical infrastructure and 

grid connections, - and installation of turbines and design and development can be kept at 

least partly in the local area. 

15.3.41 Throughout the 25 year lifetime of the proposed wind energy development, the establishment 

of a local service team will be promoted. 

15.3.42 An operations manager will oversee day-to-day wind farm operations. Employees from the 

turbine manufacturer and/or suitably qualified contractors will carry out maintenance at regular 

intervals. Turbine maintenance will be carried out, along with any other maintenance required 

by manufacturers’ specifications and will likely include the following: 

• initial servicing; 

• scheduled routine maintenance and servicing; 

• unplanned maintenance or call outs; and 

• blade inspections. 




15.3.43 Employment opportunities will also arise during the de-commissioning process. 

15.3.44 The European Wind Energy Association has found that 15.1 jobs are created in the EU for 

every MW installed, and 0.4 jobs are created per MW of cumulative capacity in operations and 

maintenance and other activities 18 . On this basis, the proposed 10MW would result in the 

creation of approximately 155 jobs for the construction and operational periods of the proposed 


Assessment of Effects 

15.3.45 The increase in employment as a result of the proposed wind energy development is therefore 

considered to be a moderate positive effect during construction and a minor positive effect 

during operation. 

15.3.46 In addition to the creation of employment opportunities, PfR believes that the proposed wind 

energy development should have benefits for the community and will be looking for various 

options to ensure that the proposed wind energy development brings as much benefit to the 

community as possible if planning permission is granted. 

Mitigation 

15.3.47 There are no significant adverse effects, and therefore no requirement for related mitigation 

measures. As far as practicable, local companies will be engaged in undertaking proposed 

works ensuring as much local employment benefit as possible. 

15.4 Tourism and Recreation 


15.4.1 This section provides an assessment of the effects of the proposed wind energy development 

on tourism and recreation – this incorporates findings from the Landscape and Visual 

Assessment (as presented in Chapter 9), and data on tourist facilities within the vicinity, as well 

as consideration of recreational activities such as walking, golfing and fishing. 

15.4.2 A desktop review was undertaken of a range of published documents and internet based 

information. 

15.4.3 The effect of the proposed wind energy development in terms of whether it would discourage 

return visits due to the overall landscape and visual impact on the area has been assessed 

using conclusions from the landscape and visual assessment, and from a series of surveys 

carried out on behalf of tourist organisations. 

15.4.4 Scottish Planning Policy recognises that tourism is an important part of the economy, but also 

that sensitive siting of wind farms can minimise adverse impact, meaning tourism and 

renewable energy developments can be compatible. 




15.4.5 Visit Scotland publishes figures relating to visitor volumes and other aspects of tourism at a 

regional Tourist Board level. Baseline information has been sourced from the Argyll, The Isles, 

Loch Lomond and Forth Valley Tourist Board area. This information has allowed a generic 

snap-shot for the area to be established, with regard to tourist activity from 2008 (the most 

recent figures published). In addition, ClacksTourism website (operated by the Council) was 

consulted. There is no specific tourism and recreation information available in relation to the 

application area itself as it is not a site that provides either tourist or recreational facilities. 

15.4.6 The potential effects on recreation and tourism are closely linked to public attitudes to wind 

turbines in the landscape, which are in turn linked with the landscape and visual assessment of 

the proposed wind energy development detailed in Chapter 9 Landscape and Visual Impact. 

These effects are not further addressed within this chapter, where the criteria employed to 

assess the significance of effects on recreation (and recreational tourism) is based on whether 

there has been a material change to the access or accessibility of facilities, or where proposals 

affect recreational resources that have more than local use or importance. However, 

information sources such as opinion surveys on wind farm development were used to provide 

useful context. 

15.4.7 There is legislation concerning scenery and access rights. National Scenic Areas 19 were 

established under The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Planning etc. 

(Scotland) Act 2006. Statutory access rights to all people over land and inland water 

throughout Scotland were established in The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. This access is 

subject to specific exclusions set out in the Act and as long as people exercising their rights 

behave responsibly. It also introduced very specific duties and powers for local authorities and 

national park authorities for upholding access rights, and for planning and managing access. 

Areas where these rights do not apply include buildings, works and structures and the areas 

around them (curtilages) and land on which or engineering works are being carried out, or 

which is being used for mineral working or quarrying. 

15.4.8 Other legislation and guidance applicable to tourism and recreation (including those relating to 

visual impacts, which are of relevance to tourism) is discussed in Chapter 5 (Legislative and 

Policy Context) and Chapter 9 (Landscape and Visual). 

15.4.9 Table 15.5 presents the scoping responses received relevant to tourism and recreation, and 

Table 15.6 presents the information sources used in the desk-based study. 

Table 15.5 Scoping Responses Relevant to Tourism and Recreation 

Organisation 


Council 


Heritage 

Historic Scotland 

Response 

14/06/10 - The assessment should include relevant interests in Falkirk and Stirling Council areas 

whose boundaries lie close to the site. 

The ES should consider potential impacts of the development on tourism and recreation and 

contain measures to mitigate and enhance these impacts – including an examination of the 

potential to include visitor/educational facilities associated with the development (on or off site) to 

enhance public understanding of climate change, the contribution from wind power to alleviate its 

impacts and the natural heritage and landscape value of the site and its surrounding area, given 

the relative accessibility of the site to centres of population. 

20/01/10 - The ES should assess the effect of enjoyment of any access routes in the area 

(including cumulative impacts), the use of boundary features and essential access controls to 

ensure that these are not a barrier to the general right of access, and any effect of increased 

noise and other changes in experience of the area from its present character. The EIA should 

deal with temporary and permanent effects of the proposal on recreation and access during 

construction and subsequent operation of the proposed wind energy development. 

03/02/10 - Indirect impacts on scheduled monuments, Category A listed buildings and Gardens 

and designed landscapes should be considered, some of which are tourist attractions. 




Falkirk Council – 

Development Plan 

Coordinator 

Dunmore Pineapple is a tourist attraction in the area, managed by National Trust for Scotland 

(NTS). 

Table 15.6 Information Sources Used in the Tourism Desk Study 

Topic 

Tourism 

Paths 

Cycling Routes 

Baseline Information 

Source of Information 

• Clackmannanshire Council website http://www.clackmannanshiretourism.com/; 

http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/visiting/; 

• Visit Scotland website (www.visitscotland.com) - 

http://www.visitscotland.org/research_and_statistics.aspx, 

http://www.visitscottishheartlands.com/; and 

• The economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish tourism, Scottish Government (2008). 

Clackmannanshire Council draft core path plans 

http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/environment/pathmap/ 

Sustrans website (www.sustrans.org.uk) 

Tourism Statistics 

15.4.10 Tourism is one of the biggest business sectors in Scotland worth more than £4 billion a year to 

the economy and employing over 9% of the labour force. Scottish Tourism contributes 11% of 

the Scottish service sector economy compared to 9% for the UK as a whole 20 . Most of this is 

spent within the Highland region and in the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, though other 

areas of Scotland are also visited by tourists 21 . 

15.4.11 In 2008 around 15 million tourists took overnights trips to Scotland, including 17% of these 

being overseas visitors. In the Argyll, The Isles, Loch Lomond and the Forth Valley area, it is 

estimated that UK residents took 1.64m trips in 2008, stayed for 6.12m nights and spent 

£329m in the area. Overseas visitors took 0.29m trips to the area, stayed 1.32m nights, and 

spent £89m in 2008 22 . 

15.4.12 Of the 26 “barometer” visitor attractions recorded by VisitScotland in the Forth Valley Local 

Enterprise region (a selection of attractions used to determine year-on-year attendance), there 

was a 6.4% drop in visitor numbers between 2008 (Jan-Oct) 2009 (Jan – Oct), which was the 

largest drop in all the Scottish regions over the same time period 23 . 

15.4.13 The number of jobs supported by tourism in the area is lower than Scotland as a whole (8.9% 

of jobs). In Clackmannanshire, in 2008, 7.8% of jobs were tourism related (hotels, camp sites, 

restaurants, bars, travel agencies, museums etc, sporting activities and other recreational 

activities), and in the wider regional area (Clackmannanshire, Fife, Falkirk and Stirling), 8.7% 

of jobs were related to tourism 24 . 

Visitor Attractions 

15.4.14 The Forth Valley is recognised as a historic region in Scotland 25 , and is generally visited for its 

historic buildings and scenery. Clackmannanshire was at the forefront of the textile industry of 

the 1800s, powered originally by water from the Ochil Hills in the north of the council area, held 

within Gartmorn Reservoir and then by steam produced from coal from local coalfields. The 

Mill Trail Visitor Centre in Alva, one of the industrial “Hillfoot Villages”, is one of several 

attractions reflecting this industrial heritage. Alloa is also a brewery town. Clackmannan was 




the former county town and a royal residence – the 14 th century Clackmannan Tower (though 

only occasionally open to the public due to mining subsidence), Church and Tollbooth (a sheriff 

“prison”) reflect this aspect of the area’s history, as well as the “Clack of Mannan” standing 

stone, associated with an ancient pagan sea god. 

15.4.15 Older parts of the area’s heritage are ancient tower houses such as Alloa Tower, a 14 th century 

tower house, built by the Erskine family, Hereditary Keepers of Stirling Castle, and Sauchie 

Tower, a 15 th century tower house. Castle Campbell overlooking Dollar and Menstrie Castle, 

the 16 th Century home of Sir William Alexander, linking the area with Nova Scotia in Canada 

are other examples of historic buildings. The area is also developing a more modern image, 

with shopping and leisure facilities, and sculptures by Andy Scott attracting visitors from 

outwith the area 26 . 

15.4.16 The Ochil Hills are frequently visited by walkers, with views possible over much of central 

Scotland from strenuous and more gentle hillside walks. The Ochil Hills Woodland Park in Alva 

features attractive walks, an informative visitor centre and a children’s play area. Gartmorn 

Dam is the oldest man-made reservoir still in use in Scotland, built in 1713 to use water power 

to drive pumps in coal mines. The Dam is now centre to a 370 acre Local Nature Reserve, 

SSSI and the winter home of migratory ducks. Pleasant walks, many wheelchair accessible, 

and brown trout fishing can be enjoyed, and the visitor centre has exhibits of the local wildlife. 

15.4.17 In the surrounding council areas, Stirling was named as a city in 2002, though its castle was 

once the residence of Scottish Kings, and Stirling’s old town is a popular tourist destination, as 

is its Victorian Prison. The Wallace Monument and related Bannockburn Visitor Centre, in 

Stirling are memorials of the gaining of Scottish Independence and are also popular visitor 

attractions. The busy commercial centre of Falkirk was once the northernmost frontier of the 

Roman Empire, and around its outskirts the remains of Antonine’s Wall still stand, as does the 

fifteenth century Blackness Castle, poised above the River Forth. Falkirk’s industrial heritage 

is also shown in Bo’ness, where the Kinneil Steam Railway, the Forth & Clyde and Union 

canals and Birkhill Clay Mine are found. A much more modern attraction, the Falkirk Wheel, 

allows navigability across Scotland using the Forth & Clyde Canal and Union Canal, by 

providing a boat lift across the 35m height difference between the two canals, replacing the 

flight of 11 locks which had been demolished in 1933. This was constructed as a Millennium 

project, along with a visitor centre, and opened in 2003. South of the proposed wind energy 

development, Dunmore Park managed by the National Trust for Scotland, comprises a 

mansion and walled gardens as well as the Dunmore Pineapple, a pineapple shaped folly– 

“the most bizarre building in Scotland” 27 . 

15.4.18 In 2008, the most visited attraction in the Forth Valley (and the Argyll, the Isles, Loch Lomond 

and Forth Valley VisitScotland region) was the Falkirk Wheel Visitor Centre - a free attraction 

with over 0.5m visits in 2008 28 . This is approximately 23km by road south from the application 

area, on the western edge of Falkirk. Stirling Castle with over 375,000 visits in 2008 was the 

next most popular tourist attraction, approximately 15km northwest of the application area by 

road. Seven of the top 10 attractions in the Argyll, the Isles, Loch Lomond and Forth Valley 

VisitScotland region in 2008 were in Falkirk and Stirling. 




15.4.19 Other nearby visitor attractions and places of interest include: 

• Ochil Hills including Dumyat Visitor Centre – a car park and start of walk in the Ochil 

Hills (approximately 9km north of the application area by road, at Menstrie); 

• Wallace Monument : approximately 12km by road north west of the application area; 

• Logie Old Kirk: approximately 15km by road north west from the application area, 

near Stirling University; and 

• Sherrifmuir Battleground –an important location in the 18 th Century Jacobite 

uprisings; approximately 20km by road north west of the application area, east of 

Dunblane. 

15.4.20 Visits were more highly seasonal than Scotland as a whole in 2008, with approximately 45% of 

visits over the year occurring in the 3 month period between July and September, compared to 

approximately 38% occurring in the same months in Scotland 29 . 

15.4.21 Although information on the performance of Clackmannanshire’s visitor attractions over time is 

not available, data from barometer sites indicates that the Forth Valley Local Enterprise area is 

performing less well than other areas 30 . Reasons given for poor performance in summer 2009 

included wet weather, fuel costs, roadworks, reduced opening hours and local competition. 

Promotion of the area by the Councils and VisitScotland centre on its history, association with 

Scottish Independence, industrial past, and, mainly in the north of the area, its scenery and 

countryside, through promotion of country parks and golf courses. Arts and leisure, and its 

good location for exploring other areas of Scotland are also highlighted. 

15.4.22 The application area itself is not primarily a tourist attraction, being located on a disused landfill 

on the outskirts of Alloa. The application area is immediately south of a sewage works and 

numerous industrial buildings. Therefore, an industrial landscape is already present in the 

area, and although turbines will be visible from a greater distance than the existing 

infrastructure, the proposed wind energy development will not be incongruous with the 

industrial nature of the surrounding area. However, the proposed wind energy development is 

close to attractions such as the Dunmore Pineapple (approximately 2km south of the 

application area, directly), Clackmannan Tower 1km to the north, and Alloa Tower 

approximately 700m to the north of the application area in Alloa. Old Tulliallan Castle near 

Kincardine in Fife is approximately 3km south east of the application area, and Gartmorn Dam 

3km to the north east. In 2008, Alloa Tower had approximately 6500 visits 31 - Visitor numbers 

for the other local attractions have not been published by the Councils or Visit Scotland. 

Tourist Accommodation 

15.4.23 Tourist Accommodation is largely centred around the towns in the area, with guest houses and 

hotels in Clackmannan, Alloa, Airth and Dunmore in Falkirk. The Dunmore Pineapple is also 

available as holiday accommodation, rented by the Landmark Trust. No campsites within 3km 

of the application area have been identified. 

15.4.24 The peak demand for tourist accommodation typically occurs between July and August when 

occupancy rates in Argyll, the Isles, Loch Lomond and the Forth Valley. VisitScotland area can 




be as high as 89% in Self catering units, and 77% in guest houses/B&Bs (in 2008) 32 . During 

the off season occupancy rates are considerably lower – less than 20% in January in guest 

houses and hostels. 

Other Recreational Interests in the Area 

15.4.25 There are some paths on Clackmannanshire Core Path Plan and Rights of Way Mapping 

which pass close to the application area, though there are none on the application area itself. 

These are shown on Figure 15.2. Core Path 6 (Riverside View/Craigrie Road) follows a track 

south from Alloa, before tuning sharply to the east, crossing a bridge over the Black Devon and 

heading towards Clackmannan. At its nearest point, this track is approximately 50m outside 

the red line boundary to the application area. A path, though not recorded on the Core Paths 

Plan, is noted to the east of the Black Devon, running north from the Firth of Forth. A network 

of further paths is present around Alloa and Clackmannan. 

15.4.26 It must be noted that although there are no formal designated paths on the application area 

itself, informal paths are marked on OS mapping, including one running south from Core Path 

6, and one running along the shoreline, southeast of the sewage works. There are also 

existing access tracks on the application area (which will be modified for turbine access) 

associated with its past usage as a landfill. In addition, there is a right of access to the 

application area under the Land Reform Act 2003 (as outlined in the Scottish Outdoor Access 

Code). This allows walkers, cyclists and horseriders the right to access any land (with a few 

exceptions – including for safety reasons) as long as access is taken responsibly. Therefore, 

there is potential for people to access the application area under these rights – particularly 

given the coastal nature of the application area, and the proximity to Alloa. 

15.4.27 Additional walking cycling and riding will take place in the Ochil Hills and Campsie Fells and 

around the Gartmorn Dam and other wildlife areas in the vicinity of the application area. 

Birdwatchers in particular may have some interest in the application area, given it’s designation 

as an Important Bird Area, and proximity to Inch Island Farm and the Firth of Forth SPA and 

SAC (though the application area itself is not adjacent to these designations). 

15.4.28 The nearest National Cycle Network is Route 76 (a mixture of on road routes, with traffic free 

sections in urban areas) which is part of the “Round the Forth” route. This runs through Alloa 

and Clackmannan, approximately 700m north and east of the application area. 

15.4.29 The Black Devon was recorded as having moderate water quality in 2008, with moderate 

ecological potential 33 . It is protected for freshwater fish. The Upper Forth Estuary, a Special 

Area of Conservation in parts, though not adjacent to the application area, is recorded as 

having overall poor ecological quality and little fishing interest. However the River Forth at 

Stirling is fished for Salmon, Sea Trout and Brown Trout. Other fishing areas include the 

Gartmorn Dam approximately 3km northeast of the application area which is fished for Brown 

Trout and Rainbow Trout by boat between April and October. The River Devon, north and 

west of Alloa is also a good fishing river, though water quality is generally poor, particularly 

where it flows nearer the application area. The impact on water quality and fisheries is 

considered in Chapter 13 (Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology). Careful environmental 

monitoring during construction and operation of the proposed wind energy development will 

minimise the risk of adverse effects occurring. 




15.4.30 As throughout Scotland, golf is an attraction, though there are no sites within approximately 

3km of the application area. The nearest are approximately 3km to the northeast (Alloa Golf 

Club at Sauchie) and 3km to the northwest (Braehead Golf Club, Cambus, Tullibody). Both 

are located in wooded parkland, with much vegetation screening. 


15.4.31 The potential effects on tourism that could arise from a wind energy development, without 

appropriate mitigation, could result in some tourists being discouraged from visiting the area, 

which could have adverse economic consequences. However, positive impacts could also 

arise. 

15.4.32 The construction period for the proposed wind energy development is estimated as six months. 

During this period construction operations have the potential to affect the following: 

• diversion of pathways, leading to reduced enjoyment of walking in the area; 

• changes in views during construction, leading to changed experience of tourists and 

users of the area; 

• abnormal load movement could disrupt traffic and affect tourists; and 

• increased demand on accommodation for construction workers could limit 

availability for visitors. 

15.4.33 The proposed operational period for the wind energy development is 25 years. Potential 

effects on tourism and recreation are both positive and negative: 

• increase in tourism directly due to the proposed wind energy development being 

seen as an attraction; 

• encouragement of tourists to stop and explore the area as the proposed wind 

energy development serves as a local landmark; 

• landscape and visual effects, affecting visitors’ enjoyment of the scenery; 

• routes of informal pathways and rights of way will run through and close to the 

proposed wind energy development, leading to potentially reduced enjoyment of 

walking in the area; 

• effects on tourist routes, affecting some visitors’ enjoyment of their journey by 

alterations in views; 

• local temporary access diversions to facilitate routine operational and emergency 

maintenance requirements; 

• effects on tourist facilities, affecting some visitors’ enjoyment of their stay or visit to 

that facility, such as by impacting on their views from the facility; and 




• cumulative effects of multiple wind farms, leading to the feeling that an area has 

been over developed with wind farms. 

15.4.34 During de-commissioning the application area will be reinstated as approved by the 

appropriate authority and relevant statutory consultees. Employment opportunities will arise 

during the de-commissioning process. There may be short-term adverse effects on informal 

access to the application area for recreational purposes during the de-commissioning phase 

with regard to walkers, equestrians, and cyclists. Public access may be temporarily restricted 

during this period, however access will be fully restored following the de-commissioning period. 


Tourism and Public Opinions 

15.4.35 Table 15.7 summarises the results of five tourism surveys on wind farms and the Scottish 

landscape. It is acknowledged that the different methodologies used, and different reasons for 

carrying out the surveys have resulted in surveys not being conducted on a like-for-like basis. 

Some of the surveys are also now several years old, which could impact upon their relevance 

now wind farms are a more common feature in the landscape, and the impacts of climate 

change and benefits of renewable energy are more widely accepted by the general public. 

However, the range of surveys does provide an indication of tourist opinions. The March 2008 

Scottish Government survey was carried out in connection with SPP6 (now superseded by 

Scottish Planning Policy) and is the most recent and comprehensive of these surveys. 

Table 15.7 Summary of Surveys on Tourist Opinions of Wind Farms 

Title Date Prepared for Prepared by Method Key Points 

The Visitor Dec 

Experience 2008 

The economic 

impacts of 

wind farms on 

Scottish 

tourism 

The Visitor 

Experience 

Tourist 

Attitudes 

towards Wind 

Farms 

Mar 

2008 

VisitScotland Harris Interactive Visitors recruited whilst 

on holiday then telephone 

interview once returned 

home. Number surveyed 

not specified. 

The Scottish 

Government 

Glasgow 

Caledonian 

University, 

Moffat Centre 

and Cogentsi 



GIS studies, interceptor 

surveys (380 people), 

internet based UK and 

US studies (800 people) 

and economic 

assessment. 

2005 VisitScotland Harris Interactive Visitors recruited whilst 

on holiday then telephone 

interview once returned 

home. Number surveyed 

not specified. 

Sep 

2002 

Scottish 

Renewables 

Forum and 

British Wind 

Energy 

Association 

MORI 

307 tourists interviewed in 

Argyll and Bute. 

Principal highlight is 

scenery and beautiful 

landscapes (24% of those 

surveyed). 

From interceptor study: 

75% felt wind farms had a 

positive or neutral effect 

on the landscape. 68% 

agreed with the 

statement, 'a well sited 

wind farm does not ruin 

the landscape'. 

92% say scenery is 

important in their choice 

of Scotland as a holiday 

destination. 

Tourism and wind energy 

can happily co-exist. Of 

the 40% of tourists aware 

of wind farms, 86% felt 

their presence had a 

positive or neutral effect, 

8% felt it had a negative 

effect, and 6% didn't 

know. 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. 

Investigation 

into the 

potential 

impact of wind 

farms on 

tourism in 

Scotland 

2002 VisitScotland NFO System 

Three 

Telephone and face-toface 

interviews with 

tourist boards, local 

authorities, and tourism 

companies, UK and 

overseas case studies, 

and visitor survey. 

From visitor survey: 29% 

stated wind farms 

detracted from the 

countryside experience. 

18% stated wind farms 

enhanced the experience. 

15.4.36 Table 15.8 summarises three surveys of public attitudes to wind farm developments in 

Scotland. 

Table 15.8 Summary of Surveys on Public Opinion of Wind Farms 


Wind Farms 

Telebus 

(UK) 

Aug 

2006 

British Wind 

Energy 

Association 

GfK NOP 

Public 

attitudes to 

the 

environment 

in Scotland 

Public 

attitudes to 

wind farms 

2005 Scottish 

Executive 

Social 

Research 

2003 Scottish 

Executive 

Social 

Research 

George Street 

Executive 

972 telephone 

interviews of a 

nationally 

representative 

sample 

4000 adults 

interviewed in 

their homes 

MORI 1,810 

telephone 

interviews of 

people living 

within 5km, 5- 

10km & 10- 

20km of a 

wind farm 

76% agreed with the statement, 'wind 

farms are necessary so that we can 

produce renewable energy to help us 

meet current and future energy needs in 

the UK'. This compared to 80% in Sep 

2005, 77% in May 2005, 79% in January 

2005 and 74% in August 2004. 27% 

agreed with the statement, 'wind farms 

are, or would be, ugly and a blot on the 

landscape'. This compares to 27% in 

2005, 28% in May 2005, 30% in January 

2005, and 27% in August 2004. 

59% would be happy to live next to a 

wind farm. 85% felt wind farms should be 

created, with only 2% saying they should 

not. 

0.3% mention wind farms as a negative 

aspect of where they live. 20% feel that 

wind farms have had a broadly positive 

impact on the area, 7% feel a negative 

impact, and 73% were ambivalent. 12% 

say the landscape has been spoiled, 6% 

say there were problems with additional 

traffic and 4% say there was noise or 

disturbance from traffic during 

construction. 

15.4.37 These surveys found that visitors were not significantly deterred from visiting an area because 

of the presence of wind farms. In the more recent surveys, as wind farms have become 

recognised as a beneficial way of reducing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions while producing 

energy, opinion has become more favourable towards them. The proportion of visitors 

regarding them as broadly positive exceeds those who regard them as broadly negative by 

almost 3 to 1. 

15.4.38 Surveys also indicate that many visitors would be interested in visiting a wind farm if 

interpretation facilities were provided representing an opportunity to increase the numbers of 

tourists including a visit to the area in their itineraries. For example, the Whitelee Wind Farm in 

East Renfrewshire, has an exhibition and education centre attached, which opened in 

September 2009. As well as offering a cafe, shop, and exhibits, it gives access to an 82km 

network of paths for cyclists, ramblers and horse riders. The visitor centre is managed by 

Glasgow Science Centre and offers activities for education and community groups 34 . 

15.4.39 The opinions expressed are generally positive and suggests that the negative effect of wind 

farms on tourism is unlikely to be significant. 




Effects on Visitor Attractions 

15.4.40 The proposed wind energy development has the potential to affect views from visitor 

attractions, which could affect the enjoyment of these attractions (an indirect impact). Views 

from some of these attractions (such as the Wallace Monument in Stirling, Alloa Tower and the 

Dunmore Pineapple) were assessed in Chapter 9 (Landscape and Visual Assessment). This 

assessment considered the visual sensitivity of the viewpoint (considered to be high in areas 

visited by large numbers of walkers, and along pathways – as defined by the SNH guidance) 

and the magnitude of the change (generally small to medium). The magnitude of the 

significance is therefore largely weighted by the sensitivity of the area from which the view is 

taken, which is a set factor in the assessment. 

15.4.41 The impact of the proposed wind energy development on views from nearby attractions were 

assessed in Chapter 9 (Landscape and Visual) as follows: 

Viewpoint Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude of Change Effects on Visual 

Significant? 

Amenity 

Alloa Tower Medium High Major to Moderate Yes 

Wallace Monument High Low Moderate to Minor No 

Stirling Castle High Low Moderate to Minor No 

Pineapple Medium Negligible Negligible to Minor No 

Falkirk Wheel High Low Moderate to Minor No 

15.4.42 However, the LVIA does not put any weight on the opinion of the viewer, or the weight that 

they will place on any additional aspect in the view. In addition, the assessment of sensitivity 

does not take into account the existing views achieved, or whether vegetation is currently 

screening views– in the case of the proposed wind energy development, views from many 

nearby visitor attractions will take in the existing industrial infrastructure around the Forth, and 

the former landfill. 

15.4.43 Although views may be seen as the prime reason for some visitors to visit some tourist 

attractions in the area, they are unlikely to be the only reason. Other reasons may include the 

opportunity to visit sites of historical or natural interest, the opportunity for outdoor leisure, or 

the opportunity to spend time with friends and family. Therefore, even if changes in views as a 

result of the proposed wind energy development are perceived to be negative (which is not 

necessarily the case, as shown in Table 15.7 and 15.8), this is unlikely to alter the whole visitor 

experience of the majority of viewers, nor to discourage repeat visits or recommending the 

attraction. 

15.4.44 As a result, the significance of indirect effects of changes in views from tourist attractions is 

considered to be minor. 

15.4.45 During construction of the proposed wind energy development, vehicle movements could 

impact on tourist routes or people attending tourist attractions in the area. As assessed in 

Chapter 7 (Traffic, Access and Transport) the proposed routes of turbines to the site will be 

from the M876 motorway, via the A876, Clackmannanshire Bridge, Kincardine Bypass, A977 

and A907, and then through Alloa. Although there is some possibility that the proposed routing 

will impact on tourists and visitors, it has been designed to minimise disruption on all users of 

the local road network, and any impact will be minor given the short-term nature of the 

construction programme and small number of turbines involved. 




Effects on Walkers and Pathways 

15.4.46 In accordance with the Land Reform Act 2003, chapter 2 part 6(1) (g) (as outlined in the 

Scottish Outdoor Access Code), general public access rights will be removed from the 

construction site for health and safety reasons. However, these effects would be temporary 

and the provision of appropriate signage and information for local users regarding construction 

activity would reduce any effects experienced. There are no Rights of Way crossing the 

application area which will require to be stopped during construction. 

15.4.47 As there are no formal rights of way/core paths in the application area, direct impact on 

walkers during the construction period would consist of temporary closure of the path running 

along the foreshore (access associated with the former landfill) and any access taken under 

the Land Reform Act. 

15.4.48 Access rights would be reinstated after the defined construction period (apart from for some 

periods for essential maintenance) though signage would discourage passing close to the 

turbines. Preferred routes away from the application area will be marked – potentially to follow 

Core Path 6 – approximately 50m north of the application area. This access right would be for 

anyone on foot, cycle or horseback. 

15.4.49 The significance of this direct impact is likely to be negligible, given the small number of 

defined routes passing through the application area, the large number of other routes in the 

area, the potential for users to use the current routes if desired, and the past use of the 

application area as a landfill, reducing its appeal for walkers. 

15.4.50 The landscape and visual effects associated with the proposed wind energy development on 

nearby walking routes, pathways, and areas of land where tourists are likely to observe and 

value the view are considered in Chapter 9 (Landscape and Visual). As indicated in paragraph 

96 above, the LVIA does not put any weight on the opinion of the viewer, or the weight that 

they will place on any additional aspect in the view. In addition, the assessment of sensitivity 

does not take into account the existing views achieved, or whether vegetation is currently 

screening views from the pathway – in the case of the proposed wind energy development, 

views from nearby pathways currently take in surrounding industrial infrastructure on both 

banks of the Forth, and the former landfill. 

15.4.51 Although “views” may be seen by some walkers as the prime reason for walking, the journey 

and experiences other than the view (such as exercise, shared experience with family/friends 

and physical challenges gained from the activity, as well as the benefit of travelling between 

two points) are likely to play an important role in others’ enjoyment of the activity. These will 

not be affected by the presence of the proposed wind energy development. 

15.4.52 Overall, the significance of the proposed wind energy development on walkers in the area is 

therefore considered to be minor, given the fact that the view is unlikely to be the main benefit 

achieved by people enjoying this activity, and any change in view compared to the existing 

state is unlikely to be viewed negatively by walkers. 




Effects on Cycling 

15.4.53 There is likely to be only a minor effect on the National Cycle Network (number 76) and other 

cycle ways in the vicinity of the application area. As for walkers, the views experienced from 

this route are unlikely to be a major factor in the use of the route. The route itself will be 

unaffected. 

Effects on Fishing 

15.4.54 Although the application area is not a key fishing location, given the relatively low background 

water quality in the Forth and Black Devon, any existing fishing interest will not be prevented 

by the proposed wind energy development, as right of access will apply to all legitimate users 

of the application area. The main effects on any nearby areas used by anglers (most notably 

the Gartmorn Dam) are likely to be visual (although, as for walking and cycling, views are 

unlikely to form the main reason for choosing a particular point to fish). Any impacts on 

hydrology during the construction and operation of the proposed wind energy development 

which could have the potential to increase sediment load to the river, and therefore effect fish 

numbers will be mitigated by measures in place on-site as discussed in Chapter 13 (Hydrology, 

Hydrogeology and Geology). 

15.4.55 The close proximity of the application area to the rivers may also result in noise effects upon 

people carrying out fishing activities. Although of a low level, these may be apparent to people 

who value the “quietness” of an area – though the application area is close to major roads, 

towns and industrial activities. There may also be a perception that vibration as a result of 

construction or operation will disturb fish. The effects of noise on the local area are discussed 

in Chapter 8. Although this considers effects on residential receptors, rather than exterior 

receptors, the significance of the effects on the nearest receptors was assessed as being in 

accordance with the recommendations of the ETSU-R-97 report. This is based on a 24hour 

exposure, rather than short-term exposure, as is the case for fishers. The impact of potential 

shadow flicker on nearby receptors, including possible fishers is assessed in Chapter 15. 

15.4.56 Therefore there is likely to be effects of only minor significance as a result of the proposal on 

people undertaking fishing, based on the assessments carried out during the EIA. 

Effects on Golfing 

15.4.57 The proposed wind energy development is approximately 3km from the nearest golf courses – 

Alloa and Braehead. As for other tourist and recreational activities, the views experienced by 

golfers are unlikely to be the prime benefit of using the golf course. The impact on views from 

the golf courses, as for pathways will depend on local circumstances including the extent to 

which vegetation and urban environment filter or obstruct views towards the site. However, the 

sensitivity of the receptor will depend on the opinions of the individual golfers, and the weight 

they place on the current view. However, given that the views are not likely to be the main 

benefit of the course, significance is likely to be minor. 




Effects on Tourist Accommodation 

15.4.58 The peak demand for tourist accommodation typically occurs between July and August when 

occupancy rates in Argyll, The Isles, Loch Lomond and the Forth Valley can be as high as 

89% 35 . During the low season occupancy rates are considerably lower – less than 20% in 

January in guest houses. During the construction phase of the project there is expected to be 

additional demand for accommodation and associated services (restaurants, store services 

etc) throughout the year. 

Mitigation 

15.4.59 Some potential effects on tourism and recreation have been identified, though these are likely 

to be of only minor significance. It is relevant to note that the assessments undertaken on 

walking and pathways, as a result of the LVIA, do not place any weight on the perceived 

importance or value of the views from the individual viewer. The assessment of significance is 

weighted by the fact that pathways and walking areas are seen to be as of high sensitivity, so 

that a “moderate” significance is gained even if there is only a small magnitude of change to 

the view. Whilst this is appropriate for an objective assessment of the landscape and visual 

resource, it is likely to overestimate the significance placed on any change by individual users 

of these recreational pathways. 

15.4.60 The proposed wind energy development has been designed to minimise landscape effects as 

far as possible, which is expected to have some tourist benefit, as well as being of benefit to 

local residents. 

15.4.61 The following mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure any remaining effect is 

minimised as far as possible: 

• turbine parts will be brought in via the M876 motorway, and the Clackmannanshire 

bridge, reducing the potential impact on tourist routes and the need to travel through 

Kincardine; 

• the site will be using an existing access track to the former landfill, and tracks 

associated with the landfill; 

• construction workers will be spread over accommodation in a wider area over the 

peak season to ensure tourist accommodation is still available in any one area for 

visitors; 

• abnormal loads will allow traffic to pass on route to the site – this will be part of the 

proposed Traffic Management Plan to be implemented during construction to 

effectively manage road users (motorists, walkers and cyclists) in the vicinity of the 

development; and 

• incorporation of interpretative material into viewing locations outside of the 

application area could establish it as an attraction, and increase visitor numbers to 

the area. 




15.4.62 As indicated in Chapter 9 (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment), although there may be 

some residual landscape effects arising from the proposal, as indicated by visitor surveys 

contained in Tables 15.7 and 15.8, these will not necessarily be perceived by viewers as 

negative impacts to the area. This will include views from recreational spots, tourist 

attractions, tourist facilities and tourist routes. 

15.4.63 Any residual effect on traffic, such as delays due to abnormal loads, is likely to be minor, as 

indicated in Chapter 7 (Traffic, Access and Transport). The use of local suppliers for 

aggregate for site infrastructure will result in an increase in the vehicle numbers on the local 

roads However, the socioeconomic and environmental benefits of this are considered to 

outweigh the traffic implications, and local suppliers will have a smaller impact on the wider 

network than more distant suppliers. 

15.4.64 The residual effect on accommodation availability is likely to be short-term during the high 

tourist season during the period of construction of the proposed wind energy development. 

Occupancy is likely to be substantially increased by usage of available accommodation by 

workers during the low season. 

15.5 Land Use 


15.5.1 Clackmannanshire Council’s Scoping Opinion commented that the ES should consider 

potential impacts of the development on land use and contain measures to mitigate and 

enhance these impacts. The assessment should include relevant interests in Falkirk and 

Stirling Council areas whose boundaries lie close to the application area. 

15.5.2 There is no specific guidance on the preparation of a land use impact assessment. This 

assessment therefore, has considered total habitat loss and the ecological value of the land 

within the application area and the potential changes in land use. 

15.5.3 This section considers the effect of the proposed wind energy development on the land use of 

the application area - this incorporates findings from the Ecology (Chapter 11) and Ornithology 

(Chapter 12) Assessments. 

15.5.4 Land use has been sourced from visits to the application area and surrounding area, and from 

an examination of Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 Explorer Map (366 – Stirling & Ochil Hills West – 

Alloa & Dunblane). 


15.5.5 The application area covers an area of approximately 37.9ha, and consists primarily of a 

former landfill in the southeast which is largely unvegetated, though with some tree cover. An 

associated restored area exists in the northwestern area, near the site entrance – the rest of 

the site is primarily rough grassland with some small trees and bushes along the fenced 

boundaries. The application area lies to the south of Alloa adjacent to the Upper Forth 

Estuary, and to the west of the Black Devon tributary to the Forth. Access is taken from an 




existing access track to access the restored landfill. The closest settlements are Alloa 

(approximately 0.17km north of the application area at its nearest point), Clackmannan 

(approximately 1.1km east of the application area) and Dunmore (approximately 0.9km south 

of the application area). 

15.5.6 Across the wider area, the landscape surrounding the application area is dominated by 

agricultural farmland, urban areas and woodland. Industry on the Forth at this point is 

substantial, with works at Alloa, Kincardine, Airth and Grangemouth visible. A recycling facility 

exists in the northwestern area, near the site entrance immediately outwith the application 

boundary. North of the application area, 70m up-stream from the site boundary is a sewage 

works operated by Scottish Water, and several industrial buildings. Two large high voltage 

power lines pass through the eastern tip of the site, and there are a number of additional pylon 

mounted cables in the near vicinity. The land around the application area is largely flat, 

exposed and generally farmed, with hills to the north and land rising slightly to the east. 


15.5.7 As a result of the construction of new access tracks, turbine bases and other infrastructure, 

some permanent loss of a small amount of the 37.9ha application area will occur. However, 

areas of important habitat including saltmarsh as discussed in Chapter 11 (Ecology) will be 

conserved and also other suitable areas will identified for habitat enhancement and restoration 

where possible. Of the total application area the overall estimated habitat loss will be 2.6ha of 

relatively species-poor, semi-improved neutral grassland. 

15.5.8 The proposed wind energy development is predicted to have no significant effects on the land 

use of the area during operation. 


15.5.9 The land use changes are considered to be of minor significance locally and nationally due to 

the species types present and the small percentage of habitats actually lost. 

Mitigation 

15.5.10 PfR is committed to habitat management where practical. It is proposed to carry out site 

restoration at the edges of any working areas, principally alongside access tracks, crane pads 

and turbine foundations. Existing vegetation will be scraped off and stored separately with the 

topsoil prior to re-use as the top layer of any restored areas. This approach will maximise the 

potential for natural re-vegetation from the seed bank. Restoration within the main landfill area 

will be subject to specific agreement with SEPA and Clackmannanshire Council. A Habitat 

Management Plan will be produced and SNH, RSPB and Clackmannanshire Council will be 

consulted before finalisation. 

15.5.11 Further to habitat management, PfR is also committed to working with local communities to 

explore ways in which paths and access on-site can be developed, while ensuring Health and 

Safety around the proposed wind energy development is maintained during construction and 

operation. Although maintained tracks will not pass through the wind energy development, it is 




possible that interpretative information can be provided on nearby tracks, or some contribution 

made to upkeep of tracks, through the community fund. In line with the Scottish Outdoor 

Access Code, access for pedestrians (including bird watchers), cyclists and horse-riders to the 

application area will be possible, apart from in some areas of the application area during 

construction (to be agreed with Clackmannanshire Council during the detailed design stage). 

However, an alternative route skirting or close to the application area will be suggested as a 

preferable route for these users. 


15.6.1 As discussed in Chapter 9 (Landscape and Visual), 11 (Ecology), 12 (Ornithology), and 7 

(Traffic, Access and Transport), the existence of other wind farms around the application area 

has the potential for effects to arise that when considered in isolation would be insignificant. 

These have the potential to be both positive and negative form the point of view of 

socioeconomic, tourism and land use factors. 

15.6.2 Cumulative impacts on socioeconomic factors are likely to be positive. For example: 

• economic and employment impacts in Clackmannanshire and surrounding Council 

areas would be increased when two or more wind farms are constructed; 

• accommodation and services in Clackmannanshire will be in greater demand during 

construction; and 

• companies with skills in wind farm construction, development and operational 

maintenance will thrive and expand if Clackmannanshire and the surrounding area 

is established as a hub of wind energy production in the UK and Europe. 

15.6.3 Cumulative impacts on tourist factors are likely to be negligible or minor negative. These are 

discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9 (Landscape and Visual) and Chapter 7 (Traffic, Access 

and Transport). Potential impacts include the following: 

• viewers at tourist facilities or along tourist routes may experience more than one 

wind farm in their view, either leading to a sense of increased “industrialisation” of 

the landscape (though the landscape is already reasonably industrial), or an 

assumption that one farm is not out-of-context in the surrounding landscape. This 

cumulative visual impact is considered in Chapter 9; 

• potential for construction traffic of more than one wind farm to have a cumulative 

impact on local roads, and tourists using these roads. However, there are no wind 

farms in the surrounding area (within 10km) that are currently in the planning stage, 

which could be in the construction stage during the proposed wind energy 

development’s construction, as indicated in Chapter 9 (Landscape and Visual). The 

nearest wind farm that has either been approved or in application is approximately 

10km from the site at Burnfoot Hill (13 turbines). There are 11 additional wind farms 

within 30km of the site. Discussion with the local highways department and the 

relevant developers will take place if any of these will be constructed at the same 

time as the proposed wind energy development, and will use the same transport 




route in part. Therefore no cumulative traffic impacts along the same routes are 

predicted; 

• leisure factors (walking/cycling/golfing etc) will mainly be impacted by changes on 

views as mentioned in Chapter 9. These will be negligible to minor impacts; and 

• fishery interests are unlikely to be affected by cumulative effects from several wind 

farms in a catchment, as site management measures at each will prevent increased 

loads of sediment or contaminants. 

15.6.4 Cumulative impacts on land use factors are discussed in Chapters 11 and 12 (Ecology, and 

Ornithology), and are likely to be generally positive, assuming habitat management at 

individual sites is well considered. Impacts include the following: 

• several wind farms in the area could cause loss of substantial areas of the same 

habitat/land use type across the area. This could impact upon land use, ecological 

habitats and views. However, this is assessed as only a minor impact given the 

ecological paucity of rough grassland – the primary habitat type lost at the proposed 

wind energy development; 

• habitat management at several wind farms will have a positive effect on the ecology 

of the wider area, as ecologically poor areas are managed for their rarer species and 

more diverse habitats; and 

• cumulative impacts on birds are likely to be negligible assuming consideration has 

been given to individual wind energy development design and avoiding disturbance 

and displacement of territories. 

15.6.5 In general, assuming that potentially adverse impacts are mitigated against individual wind 

farm sites (such as impacts on views, ecology, traffic and other construction impacts), 

cumulative impacts with the application area will generally be negligible (from the point of view 

of tourism) or positive, given the increase in positive habitat management and economic 

benefits arising from several wind energy developments in the region. 


15.7.1 Table 15.9 below summarises the predicted socioeconomic, tourism and land use effects of 

the proposed wind energy development during the various phases of construction, operation 

and de-commissioning. 




Table 15.9 Summary of Potential Impact 

Comment 


Impact 

Mitigation 

Construction Phase 

Socioeconomic 

Expenditure Capital cost Minor positive Use of local companies 

with appropriate skills 

where possible, inputting 

expenditure into 

Clackmannanshire. 

Direct and Indirect Local employment and Minor positive Use of local contractors 

Employment education opportunities 

and employees 

Tourism and Recreation 

Tourist Facilities 

Tourist Routes 

Tourist 

Accommodation 

Walking 

Cycling 

Potential impact on 

access and views 

Potential increase in 

abnormal loads 

Potential decrease in 

accommodation available 

for tourists – but overall 

increase in usage of 

accommodation 

Proposed temporary 

closure/diversion of 

paths. 

Some impact on views 

No cycle routes are 

directly affected. Some 

effect on views 

Minor to 

Moderate 

negative 



Design of site and traffic 

control measures 

Residual Impact 

Moderate positive 

Moderate positive 

Minor negative to 

minor positive 

Minor negative Traffic control measures Negligible 

Negligible 

Moderate 

negative 

Minor negative 

Significant use of local 

accommodation and 

services off season during 

construction. 

Liaison with 

accommodation providers 

to spread out contractors 

during peak periods. 

Site design has taken 

views from pathways into 

account 


views from cycleways into 

account 

Minor to 

moderate positive 


negligible 



Fishing 

Effects on views Minor negative Site design has taken 

views from receptors into 

account 

Negligible 

Potential impact on Minor negative Site control measures Negligible 

habitat 

Golfing Effects on views Minor negative Site design has taken Negligible 


account 

Land use 

Habitat loss Removal of grassland Negligible Construction management Minor positive 

programme, and Habitat 

Management Plan 

Cumulative Impact 

Increase in economic 

benefits 

Minor positive 

Additional construction 

impacts and views from 

tourist facilities/footpaths 


Consideration of 

construction routes to be 

used. Consideration of 

timing of construction to 

avoid close by sites. 

Negligible 

Additional habitat loss Minor negative Habitat management Minor positive 

improved across the area 

Operation Phase 

Socioeconomic 

Expenditure Introduction of 

Community fund 

Moderate 

positive 

Direct and Indirect Local employment and Minor positive Use of local employees Minor positive 

Employment education opportunities 

Tourism and Recreation 

Tourist Facilities Potential impact on views Minor negative Design of site Negligible 

(views dependent on 

perception of receptor) 

Tourist Routes Potential impact on views Minor negative Design of site Negligible 

(views dependent on 

perception of receptor) 

Walking 

Proposed suggested 

alternative routing for 

users of site, if necessary. 

Minor negative Design of site Negligible


Cycling 

Fishing 

Comment 


(dependent on perception 

of receptor). 

No cycle routes are 

directly affected 


(dependent on perception 

of receptor). 

Potential disruption of 

activity by vibration/noise 

from operation of 

turbines. Effects on 

views/remoteness 


Impact 

Mitigation 

Residual Impact 

Minor negative Design of site Negligible 




account 

Golfing Effects on views Minor negative Site design has taken 


account 

Land use 

Habitat 

management 

Cumulative Impact 


As construction 

There will be no 

additional habitat loss 

during operation – 

management of the site 

will increase biodiversity. 

Negligible 

Habitat management and 

enhancement 

Cumulative visual impacts Minor negative Cumulative views limited 

by consideration at 

individual sites 

Detailed effects will be 

considered at decommissioning 

stage. 


- - - 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible to 


Negligible 

15.8.1 No monitoring is warranted or proposed. 


15.9.1 Overall, the impact of the proposed wind energy development is considered to be not 

significant in terms of the potential negative impacts on Tourism and Recreation and Land Use. 

There is however likely to be a positive socioeconomic impact, which has the potential to be 

significant upon the local economy and increase local employment. 


1 ONS mid year population estimate based on the 2001 census – www.nomisweb.co.uk 

2 

Household and Dwelling Estimates in Scotland 2008 - http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/ 

document/2294.PDF 

3 Clackmannanshire Mid-year Population Estimates 2008 - http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/ 

document/2184.pdf 

4 http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/population-projections/2008-based-pop-projscottish-areas/08pop-proj-scottishareas-table1.xls 




5 

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/population-estimates/mid-2009/09mype-cahb-alltab.xls 

6 www.nomisweb.co.uk 


8 Clackmannanshire Economic Briefing June 2010 



11 http://www.nomisweb.co.uk 

12 http://www.nomisweb.co.uk 

13 http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/business/employment/ 

14 http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/business/localeconomy/ 

15 

Clackmannanshire Economic Briefing June 2010 - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/ 

Statistics/18389/13044 

16 Building Clackmannanshire - Economic Development Framework 2008 - 2018 

17 Growing Fife’s Future – The Renewable Energy opportunity (November 2009) 

18 http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/factsheets/ 

EWEA_FS-employment.pdf 

19 SPICe briefing Town and Country Planning – www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research 

20 http://www.visitscotland.org/pdf/tourism%20in_aillst_2008-provisional.pdf 

21 The Scottish Government Statistics - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/ 

Tourism-Culture-Sports/Trend ExpenditureVisits 


23 http://www.visitscotland.org/PDF/visitor_attraction_barometer_october_2009.pdf 


25 http://www.visitscottishheartlands.com/areas/stirling/index.cfm 

26 http://www.clackmannanshiretourism.com/art--sculpture/andy-scott-sculpture-tour-.html 

27 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmore_Pineapple 





29 http://www.visitscotland.org/PDF/visitor-attraction-monitor-2008.pdf 

30 http://www.visitscotland.org/PDF/visitor_attraction_barometer_october_2009.pdf 

31 http://www.visitscotland.org/PDF/visitor-attraction-monitor-2008.pdf 


33 River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) Interactive Map http://213.120.228.231/rbmp/ 

34 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8220793.stm 




P 

12 Melcombe Place Station House London NW1 6JJ t: +44 (0)207 170 7000 f: +44 (0)207 170 7020 e: info@pfr.co.uk 

www.pfr.co.uk 

Partnerships for Renewables Development Company Limited Registered in England and Wales, number 06526742 Registered Office: 6th Floor, 5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF

Forthbank Wind Energy Development - Partnerships for Renewables

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?