Camilty Wind Farm - Partnerships for Renewables

Camilty Wind Farm 

Environmental Statement Volume 1 - Report 

March 2013


Quality Management 

Prepared by: 

Name: Katharine Blythe Title: Senior Environmental 

Consultant, RPS 

Signature: 

Authorised by: 

Name: Mike Kelly Title: EIA Director, RPS 

Signature: 

Current Status: 

Final 

Issue Date: 22 March 2013 

Revision 

Number: 

- 

Revision Notes: - 

Project File Path: 

W:\7154SAE - PfR, Camilty Wind Farm, EIA\admin\Reports\ES 

FINAL\Chapters\Camilty - Vol 1 ES Cover Contents Preface.doc 

This report has been prepared within the RPS Planning and Development Quality Management 

System to British Standard EN ISO 9001 : 2008 

COPYRIGHT © RPS 

The material presented in this report is confidential. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of 

Partnerships for Renewables and shall not be distributed or made available to any other company or person 

without the knowledge and written consent of Partnerships for Renewables or RPS. 

March 2013 i Environmental Statement: Volume 1: Written Statement 

Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©


Contents 

1 Introduction 

2 The Environmental Impact Assessment and Scoping Process 

3 Design Evolution 

4 Description of the Proposed Development 

5 Planning Policy Overview 

6 Climate Change and Atmospheric Emissions 

7 Traffic and Transport 

8 Noise 

9 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 

10 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 

11 Terrestrial Ecology 

12 Ornithology 

13 Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions 

14 Shadow Flicker 

15 Socioeconomics, Tourism, Recreation and Land Use 

16 Summary of Effects and Mitigation 

March 2013 ii Contents 



Preface 

This Environmental Statement (ES) reports the outcome of a formal Environmental Impact Assessment 

(EIA) of the proposed Camilty Wind Farm. It has been prepared to accompany a planning application to 

West Lothian Council by Camilty Wind Farm LLP, wholly owned by Partnerships for Renewables Ltd 

(PfR) to construct and operate a wind farm at Camilty, West Lothian. The EIA has been undertaken by 

RPS. 

The ES comprises four separately bound parts: 

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

Volume 1: Written Statement – reporting the findings of the EIA; 

Volume 2: Figures – the figures to accompany the text; and 

Volume 3: Appendices – technical material to support the main text presented in Volume 1. 

Printed copies of the NTS and ES (including figures and appendices) may be obtained from the 

following address: 

Partnerships for Renewables 

Station House 

12 Melcombe Place 

London 

NW1 6JJ 

Tel: 0800 731 7395 

Email: info@pfr.co.uk 

The Non-Technical Summary is available free of charge, and a limited number of hard copies of the 

Environmental Statement are available for £500 per copy. CDs containing PDF files of the 

Environmental Statement are available for £15 per CD. Alternatively, these electronic files can be 

downloaded from our website at http://pfr.co.uk/camilty 

Copies of the ES may be consulted at the following locations during normal opening hours: 

West Lothian Council Harburn Golf Club West Calder Library 

Planning and Building Standards West Calder Main Street 

County Buildings West Lothian West Calder 

High Street EH55 8RS EH55 8BQ 

Linlithgow 

EH49 7EZ 

March 2013 iii Preface 



CEL:LfN 

CIRIA 

CITES 

CLVA 

dB 

dB(A) 

EC 

EcIA 

ECoW 

EEC 

EIA 

ELC 

ES 

ESA 

FCS 

FDP 

FREDS 

FWAG 

GDL 

GI 

GIS 

GLVIA 

ha 

HAP 

HGDLs 

HGV 

Cost Effective Landscapes: Learning from Nature 

Construction Industry Research and Information Association 

Convention of the International Trade of Endangered Species 

Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment 

Decibel 

A-weighted Decibel Level 

European Commission 

Ecological Impact Assessment 

Ecological Clerk of Works 

European Economic Committee 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

European Landscape Convention 

Environmental Statement 

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 

March 2013 v Abbreviations 



HMSO 

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 

mph 

MW 

NBN 

Her Majesty’s Stationary Office 

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 

Miles per House 

Megawatt 

National Biodiversity Network 

NCSA Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 

NMRS 

NOx 

National Monuments Record of Scotland 

Oxides of Nitrogen 

March 2013 vi Abbreviations 



NPF 

NPPG 

NSA 

NSR 

NTS 

NVC 

OS 

PAN 

PAC 

National Planning Framework 

National Planning Policy Guidelines 

National Scenic Area 

Non Statutory Register 

Non-Technical Summary 

National Vegetation Classification 

Ordnance Survey 

Planning Advice Note 

Pre-Application Consultation 

PBA Protection of Badgers Act (1992) 

PCB 

PIP 

PPG 

PPM 

PPP 

PWS 

RCAHMS 

RES 

RHS 

RIGS 

ROS 

ROW 

RSA 

RSPB 

RTA 

Polychlorinated biphenyls 

Pollution Incident Plan 

Pollution Prevention Guidance 

Power Performance Mast 

Pollution Prevention Plan 

Provisional Wildlife Site 

Royal Commission of the Ancient and Historical Monuments of 

Scotland 

Renewable Energy Systems Group 

Rivers Habitat Survey 

Regional Important Geological Sites 

Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 

Right of Way 

Regional Scenic Areas 

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 

Road Traffic Accident 

March 2013 vii Abbreviations 



SA 

SAC 

SAC 

SAM 

SCADA 

SEPA 

SINS 

SLA 

SLCA 

SLG 

SMR 

SNH 

SO 2 

SOV 

SPA 

SPG 

SPP 

SRF 

SSSI 

SWT 

TMP 

UKBAP 

VER 

VEM 

WCA 

WFD 

Scenic Area 

Scottish Agricultural College 

Special Area of Conservation 

Scheduled Ancient Monument 

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

Scottish Environment Protection Agency 

Site of Importance to Natural Science 

Sensitive Landscape Character Area 

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 

March 2013 viii Abbreviations 



WOV 

WWF 

WWT 

ZTV 

ZVI 

Waterbodies of Ornithological Value 

World Wildlife Fund 

Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust 

Zone of Theoretical Visibility 

Zone of Visual Influence 

March 2013 ix Abbreviations 



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 

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’. 

Conservation Area 

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) 

March 2013 x Glossary 



(Scotland) Act 1997. 

Contractor 

Controlled Activity 

Regulations (Scotland) 

2005 

Culvert 

Decibel (dB) 

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. 

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 

Effect 

EIA Directive 

Electric fishing 

Environmental Impact 

Assessment (EIA) 

Environmental Statement 

(ES) 

European Commission 

(EC) 

European Union (EU) 

Eutrophication 

Groundwater 

Habitat 

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 

March 2013 xi Glossary 



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

Habitats Directive 

Impact 

Improved grassland 

LA 10 

LA 90 

LAeq 

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. 

Landform 

Landscape 

Land take 

Listed Building 

Made ground 

Magnitude 

Marginal 

Mitigation 

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. 

March 2013 xii Glossary 



Native 

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 Monument 

(SM) 

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. 

Sites of Special Scientific 

Interest (SSSI) 

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. 

March 2013 xiii Glossary 



Special Area of 

Conservation (SAC) 

Special Protection Area 

(SPA) 

Sustainable Drainage 

Systems (SuDS) 

Theoretical zones of visual 

influence 

Threshold 

Turbid 

Water Framework 

Directive (WFD) 

Water quality 

Wildlife and Countryside 

Act 1981 (WCA) 

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. 

March 2013 xiv Glossary 



1 Introduction 

1.1 Purpose of this Environmental Statement 

1.1.1 This Environmental Statement (ES) reports the outcome of an Environmental Impact 

Assessment (EIA) of the proposed Camilty Wind Farm (hereafter referred to as the ‘proposed 

wind farm’). It has been prepared to accompany an application for planning permission in full 

to West Lothian Council to construct and operate a wind farm comprising six turbines at 

Camilty Plantation (approximate grid reference NT 0561 5932). 

1.1.2 The site of the proposed wind farm is located approximately 2 km south of Harburn and 

approximately 4 km south-east of West Calder. The A70 runs along the southern boundary 

of the site broadly fro east to west. The B7008 forms the western boundary of the site, 

intersecting with the A70 on the south eastern tip of the site. The site location is shown on 

Figure 1.1. 

1.1.3 The site is owned by Scottish Ministers and managed by the Forestry Commission Scotland 

(FCS). The site is part of the Scottish Lowlands Forest District. 

1.1.4 The proposed wind farm will comprise six turbines, an anemometry mast, associated 

infrastructure and ancillary development including access tracks and a control compound. 

The proposed layout of the wind farm and its main infrastructure components is shown on 

Figure 1.2. 

1.1.5 The applicant is Camilty Wind Farm LLP, which is the legal entity set up for the sole purpose 

of developing the Camilty Wind Farm. Camilty Wind Farm LLP is wholly owned by 

Partnerships for Renewables Ltd (hereafter referred to as ‘PfR’), who act as, and will be 

referred to as the developer for this project. 

1.1.6 The proposed wind farm must be the subject of an EIA, the rationale for which is provided in 

Chapter 2: The Environmental Impact Assessment and Scoping Process. Environmental 

effects of the proposed wind farm have been studied systematically through an iterative 

process and the results are presented within this ES. The ES informs readers of the nature 

of the development, predicted significant environmental effects and the measures proposed 

to protect and enhance the environment during construction, operation and decommissioning. 

The statutory requirement for an EIA is discussed further in Chapter 2. 

1.1.7 This Environmental Statement comprises four parts: 

• Non-Technical Summary (NTS) – summarises the findings of the EIA in an 

accessible way using non-technical language; 

• ES Volume 1: Written Statement - detailing how the EIA process has been applied 

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

reporting the findings of the EIA on each of the environmental topics identified through 

the Scoping process; 

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

• ES Volume 3: Technical Appendices – technical material to support the text 

presented in Volume 1. 

March 2013 1-1 ES Chapter 1 

Introduction 



1.1.8 Volume 1 of the ES is structured as follows: 

• Chapters 1 to 6 describe the background to the project, scoping process, 

methodology and outcome, EIA process and methodology, site selection and design, 

the project as proposed, the legislative and policy context, and climate change and 

atmospheric emissions respectively; 

• Chapters 7 - 15 detail the technical assessments of the predicted environmental 

effects of the development, the proposed or in-built mitigation measures to reduce any 

negative effects, ongoing consultation and monitoring; 

• Chapter 16 presents a summary of effects and a schedule of proposed mitigation and 

enhancement measures. 

1.1.9 A glossary of terms used in the ES is presented at the front of the document. 

1.1.10 Although not part of the ES, a suite of other documents accompanies the application for 

planning permission and should be read in conjunction with the ES. These are: 

• Planning Statement (PS), which assesses the proposed wind farm in the context of 

adopted and emerging planning policies and other material considerations, setting out 

the planning and policy arguments for and against the proposed wind farm, and 

concluding with recommendations about the overall acceptability of the proposals in 

relation to the planning and policy context. The PS also includes a description of non- 

EIA topics such as telecommunications and aviation impact. 

• A Pre Application Consultation (PAC) Report, which details the consultation 

undertaken and summarises the key comments from consultees and how these have 

been considered within the project design at various stages. 

• A Design and Access Statement (DAS) which explains the design principles and 

concepts that have been applied to the development and how issues relating to 

access for traffic and pedestrians (including disabled people) have been dealt with 

where relevant, so as to bring forward proposals for an inclusive environment and the 

creation of a sustainable approach to access. 

• An Aviation Report by Osprey which provides technical evidence to support the use of 

a suspensive condition relating to aviation, in accordance with advice from the 

Scottish Government. 

• A Health Impact Assessment as required by West Lothian Council. This summarises 

findings of the EIA that have an impact on human health. 

1.2 Overview of the Proposed Development 

1.2.1 PfR was established to facilitate renewable energy projects primarily on land controlled by 

public sector bodies. PfR has been working in partnership with FCS for over two years to 

establish the viability of the site at Camilty for a wind farm of this scale. 

1.2.2 The project is described as: 

“Application for planning permission for the erection, 25 year operation and subsequent 

decommissioning of a wind energy development comprising six wind turbines, each with 

a maximum overall height (to vertical blade tip) of up to 132 meters, and ancillary 

development including new access tracks, modification to existing tracks and improved 


Introduction 



site access, temporary construction compound, hard standing areas, control building and 

cabling, anemometry mast and other works and development ancillary to the main 

development." 

1.2.3 A key objective of the proposed wind farm is to generate approximately 46.46 gigawatt-hours 

(GWh) of renewable energy per year (assuming a 26% capacity factor), thereby preventing 

approximately 20,000 tonnes of CO 2 being emitted each year and producing enough energy 

to supply up to 10,891 average households in Britain (see Chapter 6: Climate Change and 

Atmospheric Emissions). 

1.2.4 In summary, the proposed wind farm comprises the following elements, which are described 

in more detail in Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development. The site layout is 

presented in Figure 1.2, and the main elements of the proposed wind farm are presented in 

Figures 4.1 to 4.8. 

• Six variable pitch (three-bladed) wind turbines each to a maximum of 132 m to tip and 

a generating capacity of up to 3.4 MW; 

• Six circular reinforced concrete foundations typically up to 21 m diameter; 

• Crane hard-standing areas adjacent to each wind turbine (approximate dimensions 

45 m x 25 m); 

• Underground electrical and SCADA 1 

substation switchroom; 

cabling linking each wind turbine with the 

• A single-storey, pitched roof substation switchroom comprising 2 switchrooms, 

SCADA room, meter room and store/ welfare facilities (typical dimensions are 6.3 m x 

16.3 m x 5.5 m height). This would be located in a substation compound of 25 m x 12 

m; 

• One permanent anemometry mast at a height equivalent to the maximum hub height 

depending on the selected turbine (see Section 4.3), therefore of up to 85 m high; 

• Approximately 3.858 km of permanent access tracks (5 m wide) from the site entrance 

to the turbines and ancillary development (of which 0.297 km is existing forest track); 

• Four 40 m long passing places (8.5 m wide) in the order of 500 m apart, and forestry 

crossing points along the access tracks to allow forestry workers to cross the access 

tracks; 

• A temporary hard-cored construction compound (approximately 50 m x 50 m to locate 

a refuelling area, materials storage, batching facility and welfare facilities); 

• Creating 2 watercourse crossings (see Appendix 13.3). 

1.2.5 The final choice of turbine for this site will depend on which turbine models are available in 

the UK market and the outcome of a competitive tendering exercise if planning permission is 

granted. The site has been designed to accommodate turbines with an installed capacity of 

3.4 MW. PfR has identified a number of possible turbine models with an ‘installed capacity’ of 

up to 3.4 MW which are potentially suitable (‘installed capacity’ is the theoretical maximum 

amount of electricity which can be produced at any one time), and has therefore assumed the 

1 Wind Turbine ‘System Control and Data Acquisition’. 


Introduction 



“worst case” turbine dimensions or characteristics to inform those technical assessments that 

are based specifically upon the characteristics of the turbines. This is explained further in 

Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development. 

1.3 The Applicant 

Partnerships for Renewables 

1.3.1 PfR was set up by the Carbon Trust in 2006 to develop, construct and operate renewable 

energy projects primarily on public sector land. The public sector can play a significant part in 

the effort to increase renewables capacity, as public sector bodies own approximately 10 % 

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

1.3.2 Carbon Trust Enterprises remains PfR’s single largest shareholder with backing from two 

major private sector shareholders (the InfraRed Environmental Infrastructure Fund (formerly 

the HSBC Environmental Infrastructure Fund) and OP Trust, a Canadian public sector 

pension fund). 

1.3.3 PfR works primarily in partnership with public sector bodies throughout the entire 

development process and covers all development costs. Focused on a development process 

tailored to the specific needs of the public sector, PfR provides a way for public sector bodies 

to access the economic and environmental benefits associated with renewable energy 

projects. 

1.3.4 In addition to FCS, PfR is currently working with a variety of public sector bodies across the 

UK including the Environment Agency, the Ministry of Justice, British Waterways, the Coal 

Authority, Clackmannanshire Council and a number of other local authorities and education 

establishments. PfR has achieved development consent for three onshore wind energy 

projects to date, at Standford Hill, Boddington and Oakdale. 

1.3.5 Further information about PfR and its public sector partners can be found at www.pfr.co.uk. 

Forestry Commission Scotland – Scottish Lowlands Forest District 

1.3.6 Forest Enterprise Scotland is the Forestry Commission Scotland’s operating arm delivering 

the Scottish Forest Strategy on the National Forest Estate. Scottish Lowlands Forest District 

is working with PfR to assist in the delivery of its economic and climate change objectives set 

by Government and the Forestry Commission as described below. 

1.3.7 The Scottish Forestry Strategy (Scottish Executive, 2006) sets out the Government’s aims 

and objectives for all forestry in Scotland. It describes how forestry will deliver diverse 

benefits to the people, economy and environment of Scotland. The strategy describes at 

Outcome 3 that in helping to tackle climate change, forest managers should “encourage other 

appropriate [..] renewable energy projects on forest land”. This is reinforced in the National 

Forest Estate Strategic Plan 2009 – 2013 (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2009a) and the 

Forestry Commission’s Climate Change Action Plan 2009 – 2011 (Forestry Commission 

Scotland, 2009b) where one of the key actions is to: 

“In co-operation with other organisations working to develop the use of renewable energy, 

promote the use of forest land for all forms of renewable energy production, subject to 

appropriate environmental and planning safeguards.” 


Introduction 



1.3.8 The Scottish Lowlands Forest District Strategic Plan 2009 - 2013 (Forestry Commission 

Scotland, 2009c) describes the principal methods of delivering its renewable energy 

objectives within the national policy framework and industry standards for sustainable forest 

management. Key themes 1 - Climate Change and 3 – Business Development state that the 

Forest District will: 

• SL 1.01 – Maximise the potential for wind farms and other renewable energy projects 

with regard to landscape, biodiversity, public access, community and economic values 

(key theme 1); 

• SL 3.13 – Seek the best and most reliable returns from developments to support our 

objectives locally and nationally, supported by expert help and well trained staff (key 

theme 3). 

1.3.9 By developing renewable energy projects, the Forestry Commission is helping to limit and 

adapt to the effects of climate change, reduce dependency on fossil fuels and help develop a 

low-carbon economy. It is also securing economic benefits for the Forestry Commission and 

local communities. These economic benefits are both directly identified as income to the 

Forestry Commission and local communities as well as indirect benefits to the rural economy. 

1.3.10 For further information on the Forestry Commission Scotland visit: 

www.forestry.gov.uk/Scotland and for further information on renewables on Forestry 

Commission land visit the forest renewables website http://www.forestry.gov.uk/windhydro. 

Working in Partnership – FCS and PfR 

1.3.11 The proposed wind farm is being developed by PfR in partnership with FCS. The partnership 

runs over two forestry districts, Scottish Borders and Lowlands. Initial screening of the two 

districts identified over a dozen sites with potential ranging from single turbine projects to 

strategic scale developments. It is expected that the portfolio of sites will deliver around 250 

MW of installed capacity. 

1.3.12 This working relationship ensures optimal compatibility between forest management and 

benefits and wind energy production. The projects are carefully designed to work well with 

existing forestry operations, provide opportunities to enhance biodiversity and encourage 

local communities to build a real stake in projects that are local to them. 

1.3.13 The structure of the partnership involves a staged approach of development, where the 

existing Forest Design Plan informs the wind farm design and acceptability of wind turbines 

and associated infrastructure, notwithstanding that the existing forest management is part of 

an overall set of constraints that affect the design of the proposal. 

1.3.14 FCS’s extensive knowledge of the Camilty area in terms of environmental and technical 

issues has been key in understanding the characteristics of the development site. 

1.3.15 Chapter 3: Design Evolution of this ES describes how the existing Forest Design Plan and 

forest management have informed the design of the proposed wind farm. Chapter 4: 

Description of the Proposed Development describes in more detail the existing Forest Design 

Plan and the proposed amendment to the Forest Design Plan. 


Introduction 



1.4 The Environmental Impact Assessment Team 

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

undertook the technical assessments in the EIA. 

1.4.2 The EIA team has extensive experience in both EIA and in the development of wind farm 

proposals across the UK and working closely with both PfR and FCS to prepare the ES and 

carry out the technical assessments. RPS is a quality mark registered consultancy under an 

accreditation scheme run by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 

(IEMA) the principal professional body for EIA in the UK. 

1.4.3 The ES was reviewed by FCS and DWF Biggart Baillie. 

1.5 References 

• Forestry Commission Scotland (2009a), The National Forest Estate Strategic Plan 

2009- 2013, Forestry Commission Scotland. Available at: 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/StrategyPlanInteractivePDFreduced.pdf/$FILE/Strategy 

PlanInteractivePDFreduced.pdf 

• Forestry Commission Scotland (2009b), Climate Change Action Plan 2009 – 2011, 

Forestry Commission Scotland. Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/ccapscotland 

• Forestry Commission Scotland (2009c), Scottish Lowlands Forest District Strategic 

Plan 2009 – 2013, Forestry Commission Scotland. Available at: 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ScottishLowlandsIPDF.pdf/$FILE/ScottishLowlandsIPD 

F.pdf 

• Scottish Executive (2006), The Scottish Forestry Strategy, Forestry Commission 

Scotland. Available at: 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/SFS2006fcfc101.pdf/$FILE/SFS2006fcfc101.pdf 


Introduction 



2 The Environmental Impact Assessment and Scoping 

Process 

2.1 Overview 

Background 

2.1.1 EIA is a systematic process that must be followed for certain categories of project before they 

can receive development consent. EIA aims to identify the significant environmental effects 

of a project. This helps to ensure that the importance of the predicted effects and the 

measures proposed to address them are properly understood by the public, and the local 

authority before it makes a decision. 

2.1.2 Information describing the development and its environmental effects are presented in an ES. 

The EIA process that culminates in the completion 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; 

• Analytical, requiring the application of specialist skills from the environmental 

sciences; 

• Impartial, its objective being to inform decision-making rather than to promote the 

project; 

• Consultative, 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 

• Iterative, allowing opportunities for environmental concerns to be addressed 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 (i.e. incorporating mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, 

offset or compensate for identified adverse effects or conversely creating opportunities for 

positive effects or enhancements). The design evolution process that has been followed in 

order to take account of environmental constraints and build-in appropriate mitigation to the 

proposed wind farm is described fully in Chapter 3: Design Evolution. Further topic-specific 

mitigation measures are presented in the corresponding topic chapters and summarised in 

Chapter 16: Summary of Effects and Mitigation. 

EIA Regulations 

2.1.4 Schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations 1 lists those developments for which an EIA is mandatory. 

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 

1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. 


The EIA and Scoping Process 



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

or may be provided in the ES. 

2.1.5 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. Due to 

the scale and nature of the proposed wind farm, a screening exercise was not carried out as 

the need for an EIA was not considered to be in doubt. PfR also recognised that the EIA 

process can play an important role in developing the design of the proposals to minimise 

adverse environmental effects and to maximise environmental benefits, and was therefore 

committed to proceeding with the EIA and scheme evolution. 

2.1.6 Whilst it is considered that the proposed wind farm 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 promotes the identification of potential adverse effects and 

incorporation of environmental measures 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. 

Topics to be Addressed 

2.1.7 Schedule 4 of the 2011 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.” 

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

particular project is captured through the EIA Scoping process which is described further in 

Section 2.2. 

Spatial Scope of the EIA 

2.1.9 In its 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. 

2.1.10 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 35 km from the site boundary, whilst noise effects 

are assessed within a much smaller area encompassing the most affected properties close to 

the proposed site. Where necessary, the required spatial scope for individual topic 

assessments are provided in the specialist chapters. 

Temporal Scope of the EIA 

2.1.11 The timescale of the proposed development is assumed to run from the intended start of 

construction through the intended 25 year operational life of the wind farm. The construction 

period is estimated to be around 6 months (anticipated to commence in 2016). 

2.1.12 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 decommissioning; and 

• Decommissioning – effects may arise from the decommissioning 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. 

Definition of the Baseline 

2.1.13 The environmental assessment process does not merely consider the effects of the proposed 

wind farm against the conditions as they are now, but instead makes the assessment against 

what is described as the “Do-minimum” scenario; that is, what could be reasonably expected 

to have occurred over the same timescale if the development did not go ahead. 

2.1.14 As the site is a commercial forestry plantation, the environmental baseline is not fixed, and it 

is therefore necessary to determine changes that are predicted to take place between the 

time of site surveys for the EIA and the time of construction commencement. Definition of the 

forestry baseline used in the EIA is discussed further in Chapter 4: Description of the 

Proposed Development. 

2.2 Scoping 

Overview 

2.2.1 Scoping is the process of identifying those aspects 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. 

2.2.2 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 published guidance, the likely effects of the kind of 

development under consideration and the nature and importance of the environmental 

resources that could be affected. 

2.2.3 Regulation 7 of the EIA Regulations sets out the procedures required to obtain a formal 

scoping opinion from the determining authority, in this case West Lothian Council. 

2.2.4 The purpose of scoping is 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; 

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

Scoping Report 

2.2.5 The initial proposed EIA scope was formulated based on desk-based and field-based 

knowledge of the site and prior experience of other wind farm EIAs. A Scoping Report, 

setting out the proposed scope, was prepared by RPS and submitted to West Lothian Council 

in July 2012 (see Appendix 2.1) together with a request for a formal Scoping Opinion. To 

expedite the scoping process, at the request of West Lothian Council this was also submitted 

directly to local Community Councils whose boundaries were closest to the site – namely 

West Calder and Harburnhead Community Council, Kirknewton Community Council and East 

Calder and Wilkieston Community Council. 

2.2.6 Murieston Community Council was also provided with a direct opportunity to comment on the 

Scoping Report at their request, at a later date. 

The Scoping Opinion 

2.2.7 The formal Scoping Opinion from West Lothian Council was issued on 7 September 2012. 

The responses from the following consultees were included: 

• SNH; 

• SEPA; 

• Historic Scotland; and 

• RSPB. 

2.2.8 A copy of scoping responses received from consultees, and the official West Lothian Council 

scoping opinion is presented in Appendix 2.2. 

The Agreed Scope of the EIA 

2.2.9 The way in which the scoping opinion and responses from the above consultees, together 

with additional consultations undertaken as part of the EIA process, have been addressed in 

the ES is set out in Table 2.1 below. The scoping process enabled a continued dialogue with 

consultees. 

Table 2.1 Scoping / Consultation Summary Table 

Consultee Response Where and How Addressed 

Scoping Responses 

West Lothian 

Council (7 

Sept 2012) 

The report states that the estimated capacity will 

be 47.6 MW therefore the application will 

be classified as 'major' under The Town and 

Country Planning (Hierarchy of 

Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. 

The estimated capacity of the 

wind farm for scoping was 

based on 14 turbines. This 

application is for 6 x 3.4MW 

turbines, therefore with an 

estimated capacity of up to 

20.4MW, (46.46GWh assuming 

a 26% capacity factor) as 

discussed in Chapter 4. 






The council is satisfied with the methodology and 

assumptions made in the ES. 

West Lothian 

Council Flood 

Prevention 

Officer (17 

August 2012) 

In terms of cumulative assessment, the council is 

satisfied that the projects identified are acceptable 

at this time. Pearie Law noted as being in 

planning rather than in scoping. 

EIA must have sufficient information to assess 

whether the proposal is likely to have a significant 

affect on the qualifying interests of any Natura 

2000 sites. 

The depth of the peat across the site must be 

identified in addition to distribution. 

Requests that additional viewpoints are added 

and that some that have been included are 

omitted. It is therefore suggested that the 25 

viewpoints used in the EIA for the Harburnhead 

Windfarm section 36 application are used, due to 

the proximity of the site. 

A methodology for noise assessment has been 

agreed with the Council’s Noise specialist. 

Further detail required on the proposed 

watercourse crossings 

Type of crossing and estimated clearance should 

be provided. 

Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) 

Should be submitted with application to detail 

measures proposed to deal with quantity and 

quality of surface and ground water, pre and postdevelopment 

(storm event) and include impact of 

construction on rural housing in site boundary. 

Evaluation of the existing drainage system should 

be carried out to assess its current condition and 

level of operation. 

The report has deemed that a flood risk 

assessment is not likely to be required 

The proposal should evaluate the effect of 

construction on the surrounding watercourses and 

assess whether they have the capacity to deal 

with additional runoff. The level of tree felling 

within the proposed site will contribute to this 

additional runoff and will therefore have to be 

included in the evaluation. Saturation excess will 

have to be accounted for as the surrounding area 

consists of wet, marshy grasslands. 

Details of long-term management risks 

Clarify the level of maintenance for the 

watercourses, water crossings and drainage 

system planned for the development. The 

Noted 

This is provided in Chapters 11 

(Terrestrial Ecology) and 12 

(Ornithology) 

This is considered in Chapter 13 

(Hydrology, Hydrogeology and 

Ground conditions) 

Viewpoint selection is 

considered in Chapter 9 

(Landscape and Visual), and 

follows discussion with West 

Lothian Council and SNH who 

requested different viewpoints. 

This is discussed in Chapter 8 

(Noise) 

Provided in the watercourse 

crossing survey in Appendix 

13.3 

This is assessed in Chapter 13 


Ground Conditions) (section 

13.8) 


(Section 13.8) 








potential impacts of climate change over the 

developments lifespan should also be assessed. 

Off site impacts 

Impact of additional ground and surface water on 

watercourses and properties further downstream 

of the proposed development must be evaluated. 



SEPA (24 Aug 

2012) 

Following key issues should be addressed in the 

EIA process. Any justification for scoping out of 

specific issues should be set out within the 

Environmental Statement (ES). 

Disruption to wetlands including peatlands 

ES should demonstrate how the layout and 

design of the proposal, including any associated 

borrow pits, hard standing and roads, avoid 

impact on such areas. 

Phase 1 habitat survey should be carried out for 

the whole site. National Vegetation Classification 

should be completed for any wetlands identified, 

and guidance used to identify if they are 

groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems, 

and infrastructure considered in relation to these. 

Impacts that should be considered include those 

from drainage, pollution and waste management, 

including impacts on peat. 

Any mitigation proposals should also be detailed 

within the Construction Environmental 

Management Document. 

Disturbance and re-use of excavated peat 

Detailed map of peat depths and information on 

peat present should be submitted. 

Disruption of peat should be minimised to avoid 

generation of surplus peat. 

Application should detail the likely volumes of 

surplus peat that will be generated, including 

quantification of catotelmic and acrotelmic peat, 

and the principles of how the surplus peat will be 

reused or disposed of. Info on peat disposal / 

reuse provided. 

Forest removal and forest waste 

Keyholing generally preferred to large scale 

felling, apart from to manage peat-forming 

habitats. 

Waste hierarchy should be considered with 

relation to felling proposals (chipping/ mulching/ 

spreading etc), and proposed restoration 

practices. 

Information relating to the use of forest material / 

waste wood on peatland sites provided. 

Chapter 13 (Hydrology, 

Hydrogeology and Ground 

conditions) contains the 

assessment of peat depth, and 

Chapter 3 (Design Evolution) 

explains the modification of the 

layout and design. 

Chapter 11 (Terrestrial Ecology) 

considers GWDTEs 

Draft structure of CEMD 

(Health, Safety and 

Environmental Management 

System – HSEMS) provided in 

Appendix 4.4 



conditions) contains the 

assessment of peat depth 

Chapter 4 (Description of the 

Proposed Development) 

outlines how the proposed 

development will fit into the 

working plantation. 






Existing groundwater abstractions 

A list of groundwater abstractions within a radius 

of 100 m from roads, tracks and trenches and 250 

m from foundations should be provided. The route 

or location of engineering operations should avoid 

this buffer area or further information and 

investigations will be required to show that 

impacts on abstractions are acceptable. 

Engineering activities in the water 

environment 

Engineering activities such as culverts, bridges, 

watercourse diversions, bank modifications or 

dams should be avoided unless there is no 

practicable alternative. 

Where a watercourse crossing cannot be 

avoided, bridging solutions or bottomless or 

arched culverts which do not affect the bed and 

banks of the watercourse should be used. 

If the engineering works proposed are likely to 

result in increased flood risk to people or property 

then a flood risk assessment should be submitted 

in support of the planning application . 

A site survey of existing water features and a map 

of the location of all proposed engineering 

activities in the water environment should be 

included in the ES. 

A systematic table detailing the justification for the 

activity and how any adverse impact will be 

mitigated should also be included. The table 

should be accompanied by a photograph of each 

affected water body along with its dimensions 

Improvements to the water environment 

encouraged to avoid or offset environmental 

impacts. 



conditions) contains information 

on groundwater abstractions. 

The site design minimises 

engineering activities in and 

near watercourses, as 

described in Chapter 13 


Ground conditions) 

A watercourse crossing survey 

is provided in Appendix 13.3 

and methods and plans 

proposed in Chapter 13. 

A summary table of mitigation 

proposed is in Table 13.18, and 

the watercourse crossing survey 

in Appendix 13.3 provides 

photographs of the affected 

water bodies. 

Enhancement of the riparian 

habitat is proposed. 

Water abstraction 

ES should detail whether public or private source, 

and contain requested information on source, 

location, volume etc. Cumulative impact should 

also be considered. 

Pollution prevention and environmental 

management 

All aspects of site work that might impact upon 

the environment and potential pollution risks 

associated with the proposals should be 

identified, along with the principles of preventative 

measures and mitigation. A draft Schedule of 

Mitigation should be produced as part of this 

process. Information provided on SEPA website. 

Recommend that the principles of the 

Construction Environmental Management 

Document are set out in the ES outlining how the 

draft Schedule of Mitigation will be implemented. 

Reference to best practice guidance. 



conditions) contains information 

on water abstractions. 

Draft Schedule of Mitigation 

provided in Chapter 16 

(Summary of Effects and 

Mitigation). 

Draft structure of CEMD 

(Health, Safety and 


System) provided in Appendix 

4.4 






Borrow pits 

Detailed investigations in relation to the need for 

and impact of such facilities should be contained 

in the ES. 

No borrow pits are proposed 

Flood risk 

The site should be assessed for flood risk from all 

sources in line with Scottish Planning Policy 

(Paragraphs 196-211). If a flood risk is identified 

then a Flood Risk Assessment should be carried 

out following SEPA guidance 

Carbon balance 

The ES should include preventative/mitigation 

measures to avoid significant drying or oxidation 

of peat. 

Flood risk is considered in 



conditions) 

A carbon balance calculation is 

provided in Appendix 6.1. 

Measures to avoid peat drying 

and oxidation are provided in 

Section 13.9. 

Regulatory advice for the applicant 

Details of regulatory requirements and good 

practice advice provided. 

Noted 

SNH (28 Aug 

2012) 

Issue to be scoped in Importance 

Landscape and visual impacts (incl. local 

designations and cumulative impacts) - High 

importance 

Agree with LVIA process, though parameters are 

dependent on siting of turbines and infrastructure, 

which may alter. Land to the south of the A70 

should be considered in terms of the Harrow's 

Law reporter's response (Pentland Hills AGLV) - 

including use of this land for infrastructure during 

construction. 

Study area of 35km acceptable for 130 m 

turbines. Viewpoints discussed at meeting and 

revised viewpoints suggested. 

Removal of trees as a result of cumulative 

schemes should be assessed and included in 

visualisations. 

Viewpoints should be microsited to give worst 

case scenario 

Management of forestry should be considered - 

short rotation forestry may increase impact on 

landscape - clear felling may have reduced 

impact. LVIA should show how proposal fits within 

"forest mosaic with small wind farm 

developments". 

Cumulative issues will be central to application, 

particularly relating to existing pattern of 

Justification for siting of turbines 

etc included in Chapter 3 

Viewpoint list prepared following 

meeting with SNH (24 July 

2012). Viewpoints at Harburn 

and Harburn house still 

considered relevant. Account 

taken of other additions/ 

removals. 

Discussed in Chapter 9 

(Landscape and Visual) – future 

baseline visualisations 

Acknowledged and discussed in 

Chapter 9 

Forestry management has been 

considered by FCS and PfR in 

forest design plan as discussed 

in Chapter 3 (Design Evolution) 

and 4 (Description of the 

Proposed Development) 

Chapter 9 (Landscape and 

Visual) contains a 






development including no of turbines and their 

height. Most relevant schemes will be 

Harburnhead, Fauch Hill, Pates Hill, Muirhall 

(existing); Tormeywheel (consented); and Pearie 

Law (application). Planning authorities should be 

contacted for up to date lists. Clarification/ 

correction of some cumluative sites listed in 

scoping report is provided. Projects at scoping 

stage wihtin 5km of Camilty should be included. 

Recommend that projects up to day of submission 

should be included in cumulative assessment to 

ensure assessment is as comprehensive as 

possible. 

LVIA should be conducted with particular 

reference to users of the Pentland Hills Regional 

Park (2 km), Harperrig Reservoir pLNR and 

potential effects on the qualities of the Pentland 

Hills AGLV. Assessment should include 

consideration of potential alterations to the 

scheme which may reduce identified impacts 

within both sites. Consideration should be made 

of the Pentland Hills as the setting of and the 

backdrop to large numbers of settlements in the 

Central Belt. Views towards the hills and their 

distinctive skyline are important to both residents 

and visitors. 

SNH’s responses to existing and proposed 

developments in the area and Reporters findings 

to Harrows Law (attached to response) should be 

considered. 

comprehensive cumulative 

assessment. The list of 

cumulative schemes has been 

updated to include schemes at 

scoping within 5km. 

Revised design (as outlined in 

Chapter 3 (Design Evolution)) 

has taken into account identified 

impacts and aimed to reduce 

them from Pentlands AGLV and 

Regional Park (RP). 

Noted and addressed in 

Chapter 3 (Design Evolution) 

and Chapter 9 (Landscape and 

Visual). 

Westwater Special Protection Area (SPA) and 

Firth of Forth SPA - High importance 

As surveys are still underway, there is insufficient 

information to determine whether the proposal is 

likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying 

interests of Westwater SPA and Firth of Forth 

SPA (Habitats Regulations). Should initial surveys 

demonstrate that there is connectivity with 

Westwater SPA or Firth of Forth SPA and 

therefore that the proposal is likely to have a 

significant effect on qualifying interests, an 

appropriate assessment will be required. 

Breeding birds (nonSPA) - High to moderate 

importance 

In general the approach taken so far accords with 

SNH's best practice guidance. Survey results 

should also be presented in accordance with best 

practice guidance. Content with methodology in 

scoping report. 

Survey data is assessed in 

Chapter 12 (Ornithology) and 

the Ornithology technical report 

(Appendix 12.1) 

Data is presented in Chapter 12 

(Ornithology) in accordance with 

best practice guidance. 

European Protected Species (EPS) - High to 

moderate importance 

Welcome proposed scope of survey for EPS. 

Licence may be required to allow construction to 

take place should protected species be found. 

No Nathusius pipistrelle present 






Bat survey methodology discussed through 

previous correspondence. If Nathusius Pipistrelle 

is found on site 100 m standoff from blade tip will 

be needed. 

as discussed in Chapter 11 

(Terrestrial Ecology) 

Otter survey methodology acceptable. 

Great Crested Newt - standoff of 300m from 

ponds on site is acceptable. 

Protected species -e.g. badgers - Moderate 

importance 

Welcome proposed scope of survey for protected 

species. Licence may be required to allow 

construction to take place should protected 

species be found. 

Water vole surveyed spring to early autumn, 

including buffer of 100m from site boundary. 

Badger surveys, including buffer of 100m outside 

site. 

General mitigation proposed to protect habitats 

and species is appropriate. 

Habitats and soils on site -Moderate 

importance 

Content that the phase 1 habitat assessment will 

be reviewed and updated in the ES and National 

Vegetation Classification (NVC ) survey of blanket 

bog and grassland will be carried out 

Surveys undertaken according 

to these methods as described 

in Chapter 11 (Terrestrial 

Ecology - Section 11.2.15 

onwards) and Appendix 11.4. 

(Terrestrial Ecology Survey 

Report (excluding bats)) 

Extended Phase 1 carried out in 

October 2011, habitat 

categories of potential 

importance (Annex 1 bog and 

grassland) revisited during NVC 

survey in June 2012. Clear fell 

operations have since been 

recorded and implemented into 

the dataset. 

Designated sites (SSSIs and SACs) within 

10km, with the inclusion of Westwater SPA - 

Low importance 

Due to the nature of the designated sites 

(Cobbinshaw Moss and SACs) it is considered 

unlikely that the proposal will adversely affect the 

notified features. 

Some of the guidance mentioned has been 

revised or is no longer in use - eg use March 

2012 Assessing the Cumulative Impact of 

Onshore Wind Energy Developments. 

Some concerns about some aspects of the 

proposal - especially landscape and visual in 

combination with other wind farm proposals. 

Noted. Updated guidance used. 

Acknowledged. Cumulative 

landscape and visual effects are 


RSPB (24 

August 2012) 

Satisfied that the ornithological surveys have 

been or will be carried out according to SNH 

guidelines. 

Reference should be made to South East 

Scotland Bird Atlas. Species with declining 

population or range should be subject of 

appropriate mitigation. 

Noted – best practice guidance 

has been followed in Chapter 12 

(Ornithology). 






Historic 

Scotland (5 

Sep 2012) 

West Water Reservoir SPA is approx 7 km south 

east of Camilty Plantation. Bird numbers vary 

(pink footed geese), but data should allow a 

representative picture of their attendance and 

movements in respect of the proposed 

development. Direction and height of bird 

movements to roost under local conditions should 

be determined. 

Likely that an Appropriate Assessment will be 

needed. 

Pink-footed geese may also roost at Cobbinshaw 

Reservoir, though the population has declined. 

Fieldwork should assess current use and potential 

impact of proposal. 

Ensure turbines and associated infrastructure 

avoid areas of deep peat to ensure the lowest 

possible carbon footprint. Peat management 

scheme should be included in ES. 

Removal of all stocked conifers from plantation 

would contribute to biodiversity interests and 

allow restoration of peat habitats. Planting 

shouldn't take place on peat over 50 cm. 

Ornithologist should determine presence and 

activity of crossbills prior to felling on site. 

Felling of plantation trees should take place 

outwith bird breeding season (April to July 

inclusive). 

Cumulative effect in terms of cumulative collision 

risk and displacement of birds should be 

considered. 

Development proposal in this location raises 

significant issues because of the potential 

adverse impact on cultural heritage features in the 

vicinity, particularly on the scheduled monument 

termed Camilty Hill, Roman fortlet, Castle Greg 

(Index No. 1933), Harburn House Inventory 

designed landscape and the category A listed 

Linhouse Mansion (HB Num 14156). 

No indicative turbine layout provided - therefore it 

is uncertain what the level of concern is at this 

stage. Would be happy to provide clearer advice 

as more information becomes available. 

Data to provide this information 

has been collected, as 


Data to inform this is provided in 

Appendix 12.1 

Data to provide this information 

has been collected, as 


This is described in Chapter 3 

(Design Evolution) 

The proposed wind farm is 

located within an operational 

commercial forest, managed by 

FCS. The Forest Design Plan 

has been amended to 

incorporate the proposed wind 

farm as discussed in Chapter 4 

(Description of the Proposed 

Development). 

Discussed in Chapter 12. 

Felling will be undertaken in line 

with the Forest Design Plan. 


and Appendix 12.1 

Site visit undertaken with 

Historic Scotland and 

information on evolving layout 

provided and advice sought. 






Direct impacts and indirect impacts (e.g. those 

proposals impacting upon on the way in which the 

surroundings of a cultural heritage feature 

contribute to how it is experienced, understood 

and appreciated) should be assessed. 


(Cultural Heritage and 

Archaeology) 

Provides links to information and guidance. 

ZTV suggests that a number of sites are likely to 

be intervisible with the development. 

Camilty Hill, Roman fortlet, Castle Greg (Index 

No. 1933) - concerned that any layout would 

surround and dominate the monument. Consider 

that the turbines will appear at full or nearly full 

height in relation to the monument and will be 

visually dominant, disrupting the landscape 

relationship of the monument to the south and 

east and drawing views away from an 

appreciation of the topographic location of the 

monument. Due to the scale, dominance and 

location of these turbines, the development would 

become a dominant feature in this landscape 

setting and will reduce the monument’s elevated 

position in this landscape. Important for any 

assessment to include visualisations (e.g. 

wireframes and photomontages) to demonstrate 

potential impacts on the monument. 

All monuments considered in 

Chapter 10 (Cultural Heritage 

and Archaeology). 

Layout design has minimised 

impact on these monumenst, as 

discussed in Chapter 3 (Design 

Evolution). 

Camilty Hill, enclosure (Index No. 1165) - 

located in very close proximity to the development 

site boundary so any assessment should consider 

impacts on the monument. 

Linhouse Mansion (HB Num 14156) - Category 

A listed building c. 2.5 km northwest of the 

development site boundary. Assessment should 

consider the potential impact on the mansion from 

ground level and the upper levels - particularly the 

roof top viewing platform which looks south 

towards the Pentland Hills. It will be important for 

any assessment to support this with visualisations 

(e.g. wireframes and photomontages). 

Harburn House Inventory garden and 

designed landscape - A number of mature trees 

within the policy woodlands have recently been 

lost, and there is also the potential for others to be 

lost because of their declining condition. 

Therefore, views out from the designed landscape 

which are not currently available could open up in 

future and the potential impact of the 

development may be increased. Recommend that 

two viewpoints are included in the ES: (a) a 

photomontage and wireframe taken from Harburn 

House, and (b) a photomontage and wireframe 

taken from the NE entrance of the designed 

landscape. 

A number of other monuments located in the 

vicinity of the development proposal as listed in 

the scoping report should be assessed. 

Content with the assessment methodology and 

assumptions which have informed the ES content 


(Landscape and Visual) as well 

as Chapter 10. 

Acknowledged and considered 

in Chapter 10 






and coverage, and that the relevant policies and 

guidance are referenced in the scoping report. 

Tarbrax and Cobbinshaw is a proposed 

scheduled monument (a candidate for scheduling 

by Historic Scotland, although the case is 

ongoing) c. 1.6 km southwest of the development 

site boundary. 

Given the other proposed and consented wind 

farm developments in the vicinity, it will be 

particularly important to address the potential 

cumulative impact of this scheme. 


in Chapter 10 


in Chapter 10 

Other Consultations 

SNH (4 Oct 

2011) 

SNH (5 March 

2012) 

SNH (14 

March 2012) 

Response to ecological scoping report 

The site has historical records of badger setts and 

SNH recommended that a badger walkover 

surveys be included in the scope of ecology 

surveys. 

SNH welcomed the proposal to survey using 

extended Phase 1 methodology. This should be 

followed by NVC survey of habitats of 

conservation interest if any of these are found on 

site. 

The area around the site hosts deep peat soils, 

often over 6m depth. As the depth of soils on the 

site will affect siting of turbines and construction 

methodology, SNH recommended that surveys 

include full peat depth survey and peat slide risk 

assessment. Details of the latter assessment can 

be found in Chapter 13. 

SNH confirmed that they are content with the 

scope and methodologies outlined. 

Response to Bat scoping letter 

SNH were generally happy with the proposed bat 

methodology statement and provided details of 

recent records of Nathusius' pipistrelles from the 

nearby proposed wind farm at Fauch Hill. Due to 

the proximity of theseobservations to Camilty, 

SNH advised the species presence on the 

application site could not be ruled out and that 

sufficient effort should be undertaken to establish 

presence or absence. 

Response to Great Crested Newet Scoping 

letter 

Agreed that instead of carrying out a full scale 

monitoring programme at a cluster of ponds 

unlikely to support great crested newts, an 

alternative approach would be sufficient. A 

design alteration was implemented by using a 300 

m buffer zone around all seven ponds, which will 

be a no-go zone for turbines, infrastructure and 

any associated kind of built up structures. 

Badger Survey included in 

Appendix 11.4 

NVC survey in Appendix 11.2 

Discussed in Chapter 13 


Ground Conditions) and 

Appendix 13.2 (Peat Slide Risk 

Assesssment) 

Bat survey provided in Appendix 

11.4. RPS increased the survey 

effort for this species and 

included remote Anabat 

recording at height throughout 

the survey season. 

Great Crested Newts not further 

assessed, as 300 m buffer built 

into design. 






Botanical 

Society of the 

British Isles (3 

Dec 11) 

Lothian and 

Borders 

Raptor Study 

Group (3 Mar 

11) 

Scottish 

Badgers (21 

Nov 11) 

Wildlife 

Information 

Centre for 

Lothians and 

Borders 

Historic 

Scotland (31 

May 2012) 

Historic 

Scotland (10 

Dec 2012) 

Provided records of protected vascular plant 

species and protected sites in the area 

Provided confidential data on breeding raptors in 

the area, including peregrine, merlin, hen harrier, 

osprey, goshawk, long eared owl, barn owl, tawny 

owl, buzzard and red kite (including where no 

records were available for particular species). 

Provided confidential information regarding road 

kills and known badger setts in the area. 

Provided information on bat roosts, notable 

species, SWT wildlife sites, SSSIs and SACs. 

Site Visit (based on initial 14T site layout) 

Asked what material HS wished to see before we 

submitted an ES. Setting of Camilty Roman fortlet 

is the primary issue, the other SMs in the area are 

less of a consideration, but must be assessed. 

Setting of designed landscape at Harburn House 

– there are designed views along the drives, one 

from the south and the other from the northeast. 

Believed that designed view does not look 

towards proposed wind farm. Would like to see 

visualisations from within the park. 

Indication that although there will be adverse 

effects they will not necessarily be unacceptable 

and cause an objection, due to the nature of the 

turbines. 

Historic Scotland has objected to Harburnhead 

Wind Farm on the basis of the effect on the 

Roman fortlet. The visual lines from the Roman 

fortlet which generally speaking go north-south 

and Harburnhead is fully within the southern view. 

The developer of Harburnhead Wind Farm had 

not consulted with HS. 

Response to consultation on 6T site layout 

(visualisations from fortlet, Harburn House 

and Linhouse Mansion) 

Camilty Fortlet 

Although the monument’s setting has been 

comprised to a degree by forestry, nevertheless, 

consider that the proposed development will have 

an adverse impact on its setting. The turbines will 

appear at full or nearly full height in relation to the 

monument. Turbine 3, in particular, will be visually 

dominant and will disrupt the landscape 

relationship of the monument. 

These have been taken into 

account in Chapter 11 


Discussed in the Confidential 

Ornithology Appendix 

This is considered in the 

Confidential Appendix 

These have been taken into 

account in Chapter 11 


Harburn House considered as 

Viewpoint 1 in Chapter 9 

(Landscape and Visual) 

Turbine 3 is located behind 

retained forestry as shown in 

Chapter 10. 

Consider the turbine would reduce capacity to 






understand and appreciate this monument in its 

setting. 

Significant concerns that the proposals, and in 

particular, the location of turbine 3 would 

adversely affect the setting of the fortlet. 

Linhouse Mansion 

SNH (2 Oct 

12) 

The estate itself, and lower levels of the building, 

are enclosed by woodland and the wind farm is 

unlikely to significantly impact on its wider setting. 

However, there is likely to be an impact on upper 

levels, from the rooftop viewing platform which 

looks south towards the Pentland Hills. All 6 

turbines will be theoretically visible from this 

location. 

Consider that the impact on the wider views from 

the viewing platform should be considered as a 

significant effect on this element of Linhouse’s 

setting. 

Harburn House Inventory designed landscape 

From the upper levels of Harburn House all 6 

turbines are likely to be theoretically visible, but 

existing trees will largely screen these from view 

when in full leaf. Must consider that changing 

environmental factors and seasonal changes may 

increase the potential impact of the development. 

Concerns about the potential significant impact on 

the designed landscape, including the potential 

cumulative impact. 

Would also welcome a photomontage and 

wireframe taken from the NE entrance of the 

designed landscape in the ES. 

Meeting to discuss 6T layout 

Comment on location of viewpoint 3 (A70 to NE of 

site) - would have expected same location as in 

Harburnhead ES. 

Commented that the revised scheme is more in 

keeping with the scale of other wind farms in the 

area, but overlapping turbines from 3 VPs causes 

some visual confusion. 

Proposed turbine height of 132m to tip larger than 

other turbines in the area – particularly the 107m 

Pates Hill turbines. However, the recently 

approved Muirhall Extension allows for turbines of 

up to 145m to tip. The potential difference in 

visual effect may be limited due to the distance 

between the relevant wind farms – this will be 

considered in the LVIA, and viewed on the 

photomontages to be produced. 

Cobbinshaw reservoir to be included as 

viewpoint. 

It was acknowledged that the proposed wind farm 

would be located within an actively managed 

forest, so forest management should not 

necessarily form a part of the assessment – 



Archaeology) 



Archaeology) and Chapter 9 

(Landcape and Visual) 

This is provided as viewpoint 1 

(Figure 9.14/1) 

As discussed in Chapter 9 

(Landscape and Visual) the 

chosen location provides a 

“worst case” showing the wind 

farm in full view. The location of 

Harburnhead’s viewpoint puts 

the wind farm behind a group of 

trees. 


Included as VP07 






unless it was being modified as a result of the 

wind farm construction (for example, felling of 

coupes not otherwise scheduled for felling in the 

Forest Design Plan, and felling of trees for 

keyholes etc). 

BBC 

Windfarms 

Tool (15 Nov 

2011) 

Ofcom (15 

Nov 2011) 

Everything 

Everywhere 

(29 Nov 12) 

BT (26 Nov 

12) 

JRC (10 Dec 

12 

Atkins Ltd (16 

Nov 12) 

Scotland Gas 

Networks (13 

Oct 11) 

Scottish 

Power (17 Oct 

11) 

Consultation on proposed 6T layout 

Not likely to affect any homes for whom there is 

no alternative off-air service. May affect up to 92 

homes for whom there may be an alternative offair 

service. The transmitters likely to be affected 

are: Black Hill Ch5, Craigkelly Ch5, Angus, Black 

Hill, Craigkelly. 

Consultation on proposed 6T layout 

Highlighted 4 fixed links (based on 1km radius 

from centre NGR NT0565059350 (plus additional 

500m) - 3 BT, 1 Everything Everywhere 

There are no Orange m/w links affected by this 

application. 

The project should not cause interference to BT’s 

current and presently planned radio networks 

(electromagnetic and point-to-point microwave 

radio links). 

Cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure 

operated by Scottish Power and Scotia Gas 

Networks 

No objection to proposal 

Scotland Gas networks has no gas mains in the 

area. 

Records showing positions of known Scottish 

Power apparatus provided. No apparatus was 

present in the main body of the site – but a mast 

and some cabling follows the proposed access 

track in the west of the site, from the B7008. 

Acknowledged – this aspect is 

not assessed further, due to the 

predicted small level of effect. 

Any issues arising on the 92 

homes can be addressed on a 

case-by-case basis, through 

post-construction consultation 

with owners of any affected 

properties. Mitigation methods 

could include upgrading the 

existing aerial systems, 

sourcing the signals from a 

different transmitter, using an 

existing cable system or 

receiving signals via a satellite. 

The most appropriate mitigation 

will be discussed with Ofcom 

and the broadcasters should it 

be required Potential effects on 

TV reception will be investigated 

for affected properties for up to 

one year after the proposed 

wind farm becomes operational. 

These operators were consulted 

as below. 

This information was taken 

account of in site design. 






Scottish and 

Southern 

Energy Power 

Distribution (3 

Oct 11) 

Scottish 

Water 

Ministry of 

Defence 

NATS 

No network records in the area. 

Scottish Water – provided maps showing waste 

water and water infrastructure. No equipment 

present in site boundary. 

No response received to date on 6T scheme. 

NATS has been consulted throughout the project 

design process – the site is within the line of sight 

of radar at Edinburgh Airport and Kincardine 

Airport (Lowther Hill). 

A report providing technical 

evidence for an aviation solution 

is provided to accompany the 

planning application. This is not 

addressed as part of the EIA. 

2.2.10 In addition to scoping, throughout the assessment process the relevant consultees have been 

consulted by those conducting the relevant aspects of the EIA. Further consultation has 

been undertaken by PfR as detailed in the Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report 

submitted in support of the application for planning permission. A key part of that 

consultation has been meetings held with relevant authorities and the hosting of public events 

to gauge opinion. The following lists the key meetings and events: 

Public Engagements 

• Meeting - 11 Jan 2012 - West Calder & Harburn CC representatives; 

• Meeting - 26 Jan 2012 - Kirknewton Community Development Trust and CC 

representatives; 

• Meeting - 5 July 2012 - West Calder & Harburn CC representatives; 

• Meeting - 30 July 2012 - Kirknewton Community Development Trust; 

• Public Exhibition - 20 September 2012 - West Calder Community Centre; 

• Meeting - 5 July 2012 - Murieston CC representatives; 

• Public Exhibition - 20 February 2013 - Harburn Village Hall; 

• Public Exhibition - 21 February 2013 - West Calder Community Centre; and 

• Public Exhibition - 28 February 2013 - Kirknewton Village Hall. 

Statutory Consultee Meetings 

• Historic Scotland – 31 May 2012; 

• West Lothian Council – 31 May 2012; 

• West Lothian Council & SNH – 17 July 2012; 

• SNH – 2 October 2012; 

• Historic Scotland – 7 March 2013. 





2.2.11 On the basis of the scoping exercise and the professional judgement of the assessment 

team, the following technical assessments have been undertaken and are reported in this ES. 

• Chapter 6 Climate Change and Atmospheric Emissions; 

• Chapter 7 Traffic and Transport; 

• Chapter 8 Noise; 

• Chapter 9 Landscape and Visual; 

• Chapter 10 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology; 

• Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology; 

• Chapter 12 Ornithology; 

• Chapter 13 Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions; 

• Chapter 14 Shadow Flicker; and 

• Chapter 15 Socio-economics, Tourism, Land Use and Recreation. 

2.2.12 A summary of all proposed mitigation measures and a summary of environmental effects is 

presented in Chapter 16: Summary of Effects and Mitigation. 

2.3 Assessment Methodology 

2.3.1 Following the identification of the scope of the EIA, individual technical studies are 

undertaken in each discipline including survey, investigation and assessment, and individual 

ES chapters are prepared. The assessment methodologies are based on recognised good 

practice and guidelines specific to each topic area, and details are provided in the appropriate 

chapter. 

2.3.2 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; 

• Ongoing consultation with experts and relevant consultees in response to emerging 

study findings; 

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

identification of design changes and mitigation measures 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 the significance of any 

residual effects; and 

• Compilation of the es chapter. 

2.3.3 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, visual effects including those affecting cultural heritage features 

are addressed in the landscape and visual chapter, with cross-references in the cultural 

heritage chapter as appropriate. 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 water chapter. 

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

some cases, technical data and analysis is contained within a Technical Appendix that is 

bound separately from the main ES. 

• Introduction and overview – 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 information – describing the current state and circumstances of the 

receptors and changes that might be expected in advance of the development being 

implemented and during its 25 year operational lifetime; 

• Topic specific design evolution – describing how the scheme has been designed 

considering a particular receptor or effect, for example incorporating planting to 

provide a particular habitat on site or screening for a particular view which forms part 

of the scheme design; 

• Potential significant effects of the scheme prior to mitigation – an assessment of 

the nature of the effects likely to arise as a result of implementing the development as 

set out in Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development; 

• Mitigation and enhancement measures – identifying topic specific measures which 

would be implemented in order to avoid, reduce, control, manage or compensate 

potential significant effects. It is expected these measures would be secured via a 

planning condition. These do not include measures required to comply with legal 

requirements, as these are part of the scheme as set out in Chapter 4: Description of 

the Proposed Development. Enhancement measures are also identified; 

• Assessment of residual effects – an assessment of the significance of the effects 

likely to arise as a result of implementing the final design of the project after the 

mitigation measures have been employed, considering the 25 year operational lifetime 

of the project. A table summarising the likely significant environmental effects after 

mitigation is presented in this section; 

• Cumulative effects – identifying potentially significant effects arising from the 

proposed project alongside other major developments in the planning process but not 

yet built, such as other wind farm developments; and 

• References. 

Defining Significance of Effects 

2.3.5 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”. 

2.3.6 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 wind farm would cause to the 

affected receptors. 

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

with relevant guidance to assess the interaction of the receptor’s value (importance or 

sensitivity) against the predicted magnitude of change to identify the overall level of effect. In 

some cases, the judgement can be guided by quantitative values, whilst in other cases 

qualitative descriptions are used. 

2.3.8 In general terms, and in order to assist interpretation of the final results of the EIA, receptor 

value, magnitude of change and level of effect for each environmental topic are described 

consistently throughout the ES, as shown in Table 2.2. A definition of how the terms are 

derived for each topic is set out in the specialist topic chapters. Where this approach is 

inappropriate, the relevant explanation and amended descriptions of receptor importance, 

magnitude of change and significance of effect are provided. 

2.3.9 The approach to establishing the level of effect is derived from a variety of sources including 

industry and professional guidance, codes of practice, advice from statutory consultees and 

other stakeholders, as well as expert judgement of the EIA practitioners undertaking the 

technical assessments. 

2.3.10 One of three methods to determining the level of effect is employed depending on the 

assessment topic: matrix (as shown in Table 2.2), criteria (as shown in Table 2.3), and 

descriptor (as identified in paragraph 2.3.14). 

2.3.11 Where sufficient information exists to value a receptor and to understand the magnitude of 

change, the assessment methodology often uses a matrix to determine the level of the effect. 

In this approach the effect is determined by a combination of the value of the receptor being 

affected and the magnitude of change resulting from the proposed development. This is the 

case for example with ecological and cultural heritage designations which have clear relative 

values (e.g. a site designated at a national level is valued more highly than one that is 

undesignated or designated at a local level). 

2.3.12 Each topic assessment has been carried out using the effect levels and associated criteria 

derived from relevant guidance for that topic. Where possible topic chapters have aligned 

their levels of effect to the criteria set out in Tables 2.2 and 2.3 and this is set out in the 

methodology section of each assessment topic chapter. 

2.3.13 In the absence of a recognised assessment methodology general levels of effect using 

criteria defined in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) 2 Volume 11: 

Environmental Assessment (2009) are frequently employed (Table 2.3 is based on 

significance criteria set out in the DMRB). 

2 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, 2009 





2.3.14 For some topics where it is very difficult to value an asset and/or quantify the magnitude of 

the effect (e.g. socio-economics or waste) a simple descriptor – beneficial, neutral or adverse 

is used to describe the significance of the effect. 

Table 2.2 Establishing the Level of Effect 

Importance or Sensitivity of Receptor 

HIGH MEDIUM LOW NEGLIGIBLE 

Magnitude of Change 

LARGE 

MEDIUM 

Very substantial 

or substantial 

Substantial or 

moderate 

SMALL Moderate or slight Slight 


moderate 

Moderate or 

slight 

Negligible 

Moderate Slight Negligible 

Slight or 

negligible 

Negligible 

NEGLIGIBLE Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 

Table 2.3 Generic Level of Effect Criteria 

Level of Effect 


Substantial 

Moderate 

Slight 

Negligible 

Criteria 

Only adverse effects are assigned this level of importance as they represent key 

factors in the decision-making process. These effects are generally, but not 

exclusively, associated with sites and features of international, national or 

regional importance that are likely to suffer a most damaging effect and loss of 

resource integrity. A major change at a regional or district scale site or feature 

may also enter this category. 

These beneficial or adverse effects are likely to be very important considerations 

at a local or district scale and, if adverse, are potential concerns to the scheme 

and may become material in the decision making process. 

These beneficial or adverse effects while important at a local scale are not likely 

to be key decision making issues. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of such 

issues may influence decision making if they lead to an increase in the overall 

adverse effects on a particular area or on a particular resource. 

These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local factors but are 

unlikely to be of critical importance in the decision making process. Nevertheless 

they are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the Scheme and 

consideration of mitigation or compensation measures. 

No discernible effect within the normal bounds of variation or within the margin of 

forecasting error. Not normally considered by the decision maker. 

2.3.15 While effects are considered to fall into one of five effect categories ranging from ‘negligible’, 

‘slight‘, ‘moderate’, ‘substantial’ and ‘very substantial’ in the effects matrix presented in Table 

2.2, it is generally only those effects that fall into the ‘moderate’, ‘substantial’ or ‘very 

substantial’ category that are considered to be the significant environmental effects 

arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the development. It 

should however be noted that different specialist topics within the ES may use a different 

approach to identifying which level of effects are significant. 





2.3.16 The use of the categories of ‘slight’ or ‘negligible’ is used in acknowledgement that there may 

be a range of effects and it is also used to assess where, cumulatively, several effects of 

moderate or less could be deemed to combine to be a substantial or greater effect. Further 

guidance is contained within paragraph 94 of Circular 3, 2011, The Town and Country 

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(Scotland) Regulations 2011 which states: 

“Whilst every ES should provide a full factual description of the development, the emphasis of 

Schedule 4 is on the ‘main’ or ‘significant’ environmental effects to which a development is 

likely to give rise. Other impacts may be of little or no significance for the particular 

development in question and will need only very brief treatment to indicate that their possible 

relevance has been considered.” 

2.3.17 Although the approach to EIA followed in this ES establishes a ‘level’ for all effects identified, 

from negligible through to very substantial, it should be emphasised that the 2011 EIA 

Regulations (Schedule 4) only require the likely significant environmental effects to be 

described. Individual assessment chapters therefore establish on a topic by topic basis which 

‘levels of effect’ are deemed to be significant. The summary tables at the end of each 

assessment chapter therefore clearly state for each effect identified, whether it has been 

found to be ‘significant’ or ‘not significant’. 

Type of Effect 

2.3.18 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. 

2.3.19 Predicted effects will be adverse/negative or beneficial/positive; direct or indirect; secondary 

or cumulative; temporary or permanent; and, short, medium or long term. The nature of each 

of these effects is defined in Table 2.4, with further discussion relating to cumulative effects 

provided in the section below. 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’. 

2.3.20 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; and 

• Permanent – this typically means an unrecoverable change. 

Table 2.4 Types of Environmental Effects 

Effect 

Direct 

Indirect 

Description 

Effects arising directly as a result of the construction, operations or 

decommissioning of the proposed development e.g. removal of ground 

vegetation to facilitate construction. 

Effects not caused directly as result of the construction, operations or 

decommissioning of the proposed development, but arising as a consequence 

of it. 





Effect 

Secondary 

Temporary 

Permanent 

Cumulative 

Short-term 

Medium-term 

Description 

Additional effects resulting as a consequence of one or more direct effects e.g. 

changes to hydrochemistry of a watercourse having a secondary effect on 

aquatic species of animal and plant. 

Effects which cause a change to the baseline for a limited period of time. 

Effects causing an irreversible change to the baseline. 

Effects which arise from multiple types of effect on a particular receptor. These 

may overlap spatially or temporally. 

These temporal scales are defined within each topic assessment at levels 

appropriate to the receptor being assessed. 

Long-term 

Beneficial/Positive 

Adverse/Negative 

Effects having a beneficial influence on the environment. 

Effects having an adverse influence on the environment. 

Cumulative Effects 

2.3.21 According to the Guidelines for Cumulative Effects Assessment prepared for the European 

Commission (EC) by Hyder in 1999, cumulative effects are defined as “impacts that result 

from incremental changes caused by other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions 

together with the project”. 

2.3.22 Major developments that should be considered for the cumulative effects assessment are 

identified within the following categories: 

• Built and operational development; 

• Development under construction; 

• Application(s) permitted but which are not yet implemented; 

• Submitted applications not yet determined, and which, if permitted, would affect the 

proposed development in the scoping request; and 

• Development identified in the adopted and emerging development plan (with 

appropriate weight being given as they move closer to adoption) recognising that 

much information on any relevant proposals will be limited. 

2.3.23 Not all of the cumulative developments identified would necessarily have a cumulative effect 

in respect of any particular assessment topic. Where cumulative effects are potentially 

relevant, each assessment topic chapter has determined which of the developments listed 

should be considered. 

2.3.24 A detailed discussion of the cumulative developments taken into account is provided in the 

respective chapters of the ES. 





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” (Sch.4(1) 

para.2). 

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 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act as amended by The Planning etc (Scotland) 

Act 2006 does not, expressly or otherwise, require planning authorities to consider alternative 

sites in the determination of the application. Instead, the emphasis of the Act is on the 

consideration of the particular application in question. 

2.4.5 Planning Advice Note 58 (PAN 58) states in paragraph 70 that: 

“In presenting alternatives, applicants and planning authorities need to recognise the 

constraints of commercial confidentiality and the potential for creating blight, especially 

where a development is part of a programme and the alternatives are projects which may 

come forward in due course.” 

2.4.6 PAN 58 continues in paragraph 71 that: 

“The [EIA] Regulations do not require the applicant to ‘invent’ alternatives where none 

has been considered (although the lack of alternatives should be explained). It is 

accepted that the alternatives available will be constrained by economic and operational 

reasons. The planning authority should determine the planning application on the merits 

of the proposal before them and not on the merits of potential alternatives (for some 

projects however the existence or otherwise of a feasible alternative may be a material 

consideration in the determination of the application).” 

2.4.7 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) does not identify in the criteria for determining wind farm 

applications the requirement to consider alternative sites. However it provides, in paragraph 

187 that “planning authorities should support the development of wind farms in locations 

where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can 

be satisfactorily addressed.” 

2.4.8 The policy context if therefore clear 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, Chapter 3: Design Evolution of this ES describes 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 Micro-siting 

2.5.1 Following submission of the application, elements of the proposed wind farm may be subject 

to further, minor refinement, known as ‘micro-siting’, within the site boundary. Micro-siting 

reflects the need to: 

• Take into account statutory and non-statutory consultee responses received during 

the planning application determination process; 

• Reflect the findings of post-application and post-consent ground investigations; and 

• Reflect any minor relocation required for ecological or archaeological reasons. 

2.5.2 In permitting a micro-siting allowance it is important to note that no development will be 

undertaken that would increase the potential level of effect on sensitive receptors and other 

constraints identified in this ES. For example, the stand-off distances identified in Chapter 3: 

Design Evolution would be maintained. 

2.5.3 In the event that West Lothian Council is minded to grant consent for the proposed wind farm, 

the applicant respectfully requests a planning condition that, subject to the prior written 

approval of West Lothian Council, allows the micro-siting of elements of the scheme up to 

50 m from the location shown on approved plans except: 

• Where this allowance encroaches outside of the red line boundary; and 

• Where such a change would infringe upon the buffers used in the constraints mapping 

process shown on Figure 3.1. 

2.6 Decommissioning 

2.6.1 The proposed wind farm would have an operational life of approximately 25 years. 

Decommissioning would be carried out in accordance with legislative requirements at that 

time. However, if market conditions at that time indicate that it would be appropriate to 

extend the life of the wind turbine, then decommissioning could be deferred to a later date 

subject to the relevant statutory approvals. 

2.6.2 Decommissioning this far into the future is not an event that can be accurately assessed at 

this time due to changes in policy, legislation and technology. The assessment of the 

decommissioning phase is therefore limited to how the design of the proposed wind farm and 

use of materials would enable a minimum of disruption to be achieved and the restoration of 

the site to its former use. The predicted effects from the decommissioning phase are likely to 

be similar to those likely during construction and this is the approach taken by the topic 

chapters. 





2.7 EIA Assumptions 

2.7.1 The following assumptions have been made in undertaking the EIA: 

i) All legislative requirements will be met. 

ii) The design, construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind turbine will be in 

accordance with the description given in Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed 

Development. 

iii) The potential environmental effects of the construction phase will be controlled 

through a Health, Safety and Environmental Management System (HSEMS) as 

referred to in Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development, the draft outline of 

which is included in Appendix 4.4. 

2.7.2 Where further assumptions have been made for individual topic assessments these will be 

identified within the relevant topic chapters. 


• Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Environmental 

Assessment, 2009 

• European Commission (1985), Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 

97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC. European Commission 

• Guidelines for Cumulative Effects Assessment prepared for the EC, 1999 

• HMSO (2000), The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) 

Regulations 2000, Scottish Executive 

• Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2004 (with updates in 2005 

and 2006)), Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment, Institute of 


• Scottish Executive (1999), PAN 58 – Environmental Impact Assessment, Scottish 

Executive 

• Scottish Executive (2000), Guidance on the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact 

Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000, Scottish Executive 

• Scottish Executive (2003), PAN 68 – Design Statements, Scottish Executive 

• Scottish Government (2010a), Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Government 

• Scottish Government (2010b), Planning Advice Note (PAN) 3/2010 – Community 

Engagement, Scottish Government 

• Scottish Government (2011), Scottish Government Web Based Renewables Advice – 

Onshore Wind Turbines, Scottish Government 

• Scottish Natural Heritage (2009), A Handbook on Environmental Assessment 3rd 

Edition, Scottish Natural Heritage 





3 Design Evolution 

3.1 Introduction 

3.1.1 As a potential development site, Camilty Plantation presents a range of environmental 

factors, visual impact issues and engineering constraints, which need to be considered and 

balanced during the overall design of the site layout. 

3.1.2 Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) 

(Scotland) Regulations 2011 (the EIA Regulations) also requires “an outline of the main 

alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for his 

choice”. 

3.1.3 There are also requirements under the Controlled Activities (Scotland) Regulations 2005 to 

ensure that an assessment of alternatives is undertaken (e.g. Engineering in the Water 

Environment Good Practice Guide Construction of Rover Crossings First Edition, April 2008, 

document reference WAT-SG-25). 

3.1.4 This chapter functions as a design statement and outlines the site selection process 

undertaken by PfR and provides an overview of the site design considerations, key 

characteristics of the site and the evolution of the proposed wind farm layout in response to 

physical, technical and environmental constraints and requirements. 

3.1.5 The site selection process, the initial stage of the scheme development process, is 

undertaken on the basis of screening against high-level characteristics such as wind 

resource, site capacity, designated areas, site access, proximity to settlements and proximity 

to the electricity grid. 

3.1.6 Once a site has been screened on these high-level characteristics as potentially suitable to 

accommodate a wind farm, a more detailed analysis of the site is carried out. This includes 

factors such as consideration of relevant planning policy and taking into account the sitespecific 

characteristics and constraints, including environmental constraints,, gathered 

through both desk-based and site survey work. These are then used to inform and constrain 

the location of turbines and associated infrastructure within the site as part of the design 

evolution process, or to discount the site should environmental constraints be considered to 

make the site unfeasible. 

3.1.7 This approach has enabled the environmental site specific characteristics and constraints to 

guide the evolution of the proposed wind farm layout. It has also allowed the site design to be 

modified in order to avoid, reduce or mitigate potentially negative environmental effects as far 

as possible during the design process. Feedback from consultation at all stages of the EIA 

process, as outlined in Chapter 2: The Environmental Impact Assessment and Scoping 

Process, has also fed into the design evolution. Therefore although the assessment reported 

herein is of the final design, in reality environmental considerations have been taken into 

account from the outset of the site selection and design process, and the final design is 

considered the optimal use of the site to minimise environmental effects while maximising 

use of the wind resource. 


Design Evolution 



3.2 Planning Policy Context 

Scottish Planning Policy 

3.2.1 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (Scottish Government, 2010) provides advice on renewable 

energy development. This is relevant to site selection as planning authorities are encouraged 

to support the development of renewable energy technologies and to guide development to 

appropriate locations. Planning authorities should support communities and small 

businesses in developing such initiatives in an environmentally acceptable way. 

3.2.2 As stated in paragraph 187 of SPP, factors relevant to the consideration of applications will 

depend on the scale of the development and its relationship with the surrounding area, but 

are likely to include: 

• Landscape and visual impacts; 

• Effects on the natural heritage and historic environment; 

• Contribution of the development to renewable energy generation targets; 

• Effects on the local and national economy and tourism and recreation interests; 

• Benefits and disadvantages for communities; 

• Aviation and telecommunications; 

• Noise and shadow flicker; and 

• Cumulative impacts. 

3.2.3 Planning authorities should set out in the development plan a spatial framework for onshore 

wind farms of over 20 MW generating capacity (paragraph 189). Authorities may incorporate 

wind farms of less than 20 MW generating capacity in their spatial framework if considered 

appropriate. The spatial framework should identify: 

• Areas requiring significant protection because they are designated for their 

international or national landscape or natural heritage value, are designated as green 

belt or are areas where the cumulative impact of existing and consented wind farms 

limits further development; 

• Areas with potential constraints where proposals will be considered on their individual 

merits against identified criteria; 

• Areas of search where appropriate proposals are likely to be supported subject to 

detailed consideration against identified criteria. 

3.2.4 When identifying areas with potential constraints on wind farm development, planning 

authorities should consider the following (paragraph 190): 

• The historic environment; 

• Areas designated for their regional and local landscape or natural heritage value; 

• Tourism and recreation interests; 

• Likely impacts on communities, including long term and significant impact on amenity; 





• Impact on aviation and defence interests, particularly airport and aerodrome 

operation, flight activity, tactical training areas, aviation and defence radar and 

seismological recording; 

• Impact on broadcasting installations, particularly maintaining transmission links. 

3.2.5 Paragraph 190 of SPP, relating to identification of areas with potential constraints to wind 

farm developments notes that “ the existence of these constraints on wind farm development 

does not impose a blanket restriction on development. and ..(Development plans).. should be 

clear on the extent of constraints and the factors that should be satisfactorily addressed to 

enable development to take place. Planning authorities should not impose additional zones of 

protection around areas designated for their landscape or natural heritage value”. 

Scottish Government Planning Advice - Onshore Wind Turbines 

3.2.6 SPP should be read with Scottish Government Planning Advice ”Onshore Wind Turbines” 

(2011 - last updated 24 October 2012); which contains some detailed planning advice and 

technical information which has further assisted in the site selection process. This online 

advice is not site specific, but is intended to provide a user-friendly resource offering 

guidance on new technologies and processes, with clarification of the roles of planning 

authorities, consultees and developers in enabling development. 

3.2.7 In considering the landscape impacts of wind farms when determining planning applications, 

the guidance recognises that the receiving landscape features and the design of the 

development can play a significant role in ensuring the proposals are integrated into the 

landscape setting. It states that “the ability of the landscape to absorb development often 

depends largely on features of landscape character such as landform, ridges, hills, valleys 

and vegetation. This can also be influenced by careful siting and the skills of the designer.” 

3.2.8 Other criteria identified in the guidance to be assessed in the determination of wind farm 

proposals include impacts on communities (as a result of shadow flicker, noise, electromagnetic 

interference and ice throw), aviation and other defence matters, road traffic impacts 

and cumulative impacts. These issues should also be considered by Planning Authorities 

when drafting Development Plan Policy and throughout the planning process. 

Development Plan Policy 

3.2.9 Development Plan policies relevant to site selection and design include West Lothian Local 

Plan (WLLP) Policies NWR29, which identifies preferred areas for wind farm developments in 

West Lothian and NWR26 which provides that in determining any proposal for a wind farm, 

the council shall have specific regard to specific site planning considerations, including 

turbine colour schemes and other design issues. 

3.2.10 In addition, West Lothian Council has produced a Landscape Capacity Study for Wind 

Energy Development in West Lothian, which is currently at Consultative Draft stage. The 

primary purpose of the study is to advise West Lothian Council on the best strategic 

approach for accommodating future wind energy developments within the context of West 

Lothian’s landscape and settlement pattern. Once approved, this landscape capacity study 

will underpin the council’s interim planning guidance for wind energy developments and 

subsequent policy inclusion in the emerging Local Development Plan. The landscape 

capacity study for wind energy development is limited to landscape and visual amenity issues 

only. 





3.3 Site Identification and Selection 

3.3.1 The initial site selection process for the Camilty development proceeded in three stages as 

follows. 

3.3.2 PfR originally investigated over 30 Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) sites in the Borders 

and Lowlands Districts. The partnership between FCS and PfR is described in section 1.3 of 

this ES. These sites were screened against a number of set criteria, such as: 

• Indicative wind speed from the NOABL database; 

• Proximity to residential areas; 

• Proximity to grid; 

• Site access; 

• Available land area; and 

• Potential aviation issues. 

3.3.3 After the bulk screening, the sites were classified ‘good’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’, and ‘good’ sites 

were then screened further by using a Geographical Information System (GIS), and taking 

into account initial environmental considerations (such as avoiding designated sites and 

Ancient Woodland) and classified as having ‘best’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’ potential. 

3.3.4 Following the process above, a short list was created which prioritised development based on 

its potential for wind farm development. Camilty was part of the group with the best potential, 

as, for instance, the indicative wind speed was estimated as 7.6 m/s at 45 m, (extrapolated to 

8.31 m/s at 80 m hub height - A wind speed of 6.0 m/s at 45 m is generally considered to be 

the minimum for a commercial wind energy development), main residential areas are at a 

sufficient distance, the available land area was very large and site access is deemed feasible. 

3.3.5 The second stage of the process was to carry out feasibility to confirm the site selection. This 

included a more detailed screening of the site, to include landscape and visual potential, 

potential cultural heritage issues, above-mentioned technical constraints, and a political 

overview. Key risks were also identified, including aviation and telecommunications 

constraints. Further detail on the feasibility can be found in Section 3.5 below and the key 

constraints within 35 km and 10 km of the proposed site are shown in Figures 3.7 and 3.8 

respectively. 

3.3.6 The feasibility identified that Camilty Plantation has good potential for a wind farm, with key 

constraints identified as potential landscape and visual, noise, geotechnical (peat), aviation, 

cultural heritage and policy issues. 

3.3.7 The third stage, PfR’s first Project Development Phase (DP1), consists of mitigating key 

impacts before proceeding towards the next phase, which encompasses detailed 

environmental survey work and EIA. The identified constraints were mitigated in DP1 

through consultation with the aviation, natural heritage and cultural heritage stakeholders and 

identifying key landscape areas within the site. 

3.4 Design Criteria 

3.4.1 The design solution for a site is based on consideration of the following criteria across all 

development phases, as more detailed information becomes available. 





Technical Criteria 

3.4.2 A number of technical considerations are key to the site design process from the initial 

design, feeding through to the final design. These are set out below: 

• The NOABL UK Wind Speed Database confirmed that the wind speed on the site at a 

height of 80 m averaged at approximately 8.31 m/s, which is considered favourable in 

terms of locating a proposed wind farm. 

• There is a temporary anemometry mast currently installed on the site which has been 

monitoring wind speed from March 2012. The data has confirmed suitable wind 

speeds for locating a wind farm. 

• Considering the proposed location and specification of turbines must also take into 

account the height at which each will sit as, the higher the turbine, the higher the 

power output. 

• Optimising the layout to maximise the energy extraction from the wind is an important 

consideration. This is largely achieved by placing turbines at minimum distances 

apart in order to ensure adequate wind flow around turbines, minimise losses and 

avoid excessive wear and tear on the machinery. The prevailing wind direction is 

used to align the orientation of the turbines. An elliptical airflow buffer is placed 

around each proposed turbine equivalent to six times the rotor diameter in the down 

wind direction and four times the rotor diameter in the crosswind direction based on 

the assumed worst-case turbine rotor diameter of 104 m (52 m blade length). Overlap 

of these ellipses was minimised to ensure maximum output from the turbines. 

• A key consideration when siting turbines is the steepness of the terrain on site. This 

affects not only the turbine siting but also the design of access tracks between the 

turbine locations. It is therefore important to consider this factor for reasons of health 

and safety and viability of the development in terms of construction and operation. 

• Complying with likely noise limits and protecting the noise amenity of residential 

properties. 

• Potential impacts of shadow flicker on residential and other properties. 

• Avoiding radar visibility and any potential influence on aviation safety. 

• Avoiding interference with telecommunication links and existing service infrastructure. 

Environmental Criteria 

3.4.3 The following environmental considerations are also taken into account in the design 

process: 

• Existing land uses; 

• Avoiding designated nature conservation sites and minimising impacts on areas of 

ecological value; 

• Minimising impacts on areas of ornithological value; 

• Avoiding designated sites of archaeological importance and minimise impacts on 

areas of undesignated archaeological interest and areas with archaeological potential; 

• Minimising direct and indirect impacts on surface and groundwater resources and 

features; and 





• Utilising existing access and minimising lengths of new access tracks to reduce 

impacts and material requirements. 

Forest Design Plan Criteria 

3.4.4 The current Forest Design Plan (FDP) for Camilty Plantation was taken into consideration 

during the site design process. Turbine locations were chosen to fit in the amended FDP 

coupes, (blocks of trees to be harvested together within the FDP) where possible. 

3.4.5 FCS will agree practices such as Short Rotation Forestry and Early Felling, as explained in 

Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development, with PfR based on the current turbine 

positions and layout, and to manage the forest with the wind farm in the most optimal way 

while ensuring compliance with and retention of UK Woodland Assurance Standard 

(UKWAS) certification where applicable. Areas included for felling within the planning 

application cannot be UKWAS certified. 

3.4.6 Further details of the FDP are provided within Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed 

Development. 

Landscape and Visual Criteria 

3.4.7 The Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Guidance Siting and Designing Windfarms in the 

Landscape (SNH, 2009) was taken into account during the design process. The Guidance 

seeks to ensure that wind farms are sited and designed well and identifies that the layout of a 

wind farm should relate to the specific characteristics of the landscape. Many landscape and 

visual sensitivities can be addressed through good design in wind farm layout. 

3.4.8 The Guidance indicates a number of variables relating to key characteristics of wind farm 

design, which were taken into account in the design of the proposed wind farm. These 

include: 

• Layout and number of turbines; 

• Size, design and proportion of wind turbines; 

• Route and design of access tracks; 

• Location and design of temporary borrow pits (though these were not required at 

camilty) and temporary construction compounds; 

• Location and size of wind monitoring masts; 

• Land management changes; and 

• Layout and number of wind turbines. 

3.4.9 The importance of good design has been included as an integral part of the proposed wind 

farm so as to avoid, minimise and, where necessary, compensate for potential adverse 

effects. The specific landscape and visual design criteria used to inform the site design 

process for the proposed wind farm were as follows; 

• To establish a simple and compact form which has a unified appearance; 

• Avoidance of outlier turbines and visual stacking; 

• Relationship of the wind farm to the character, scale, pattern and composition of the 

landscape; 

• Potential conflicts with sense of remoteness; 





• Relationship of turbines with backdrop and horizon; 

• Relationship with turbine size, scale and layout of other existing wind farms. 

3.4.10 Other design considerations were taken from Reporters’ findings and statutory responses to 

other applications for wind farms in the area. In particular, during consultations in relation to 

proposed wind farm, SNH drew attention to the Harrow’s Law Appeal Decision Notice. The 

detail of this is considered in Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual, but in summary it stresses 

the importance of the A70 ‘Lang Whang’ road providing a boundary from the “empty and 

iconic” Pentland landscape to the south, and of preserving the views from the hill summits in 

the Pentlands and comparative scale of the landscape. It also refers to the effects of 

cumulative wind farm development in the area, with the Pentlands massif representing an 

important separating and contrasting feature within that context. 

3.4.11 SNH’s recent objection to Harburnhead Wind Farm referred to the importance of ensuring 

that the current pattern and scale of wind development in the area is considered in design. In 

particular, other wind farm developments within approximately 25 km currently reduce in 

scale and size from west to east, approaching the Pentlands. This pattern is reflected in 

Black Law (54 operational turbines and 23 turbine consented extension), Tormywheel (15 

turbines consented) Pates Hill (7 operational turbines) and Muirhall (6 operational turbines). 

Any acceptable wind farm in the area would need to be compact to be in keeping with 

landscape character and visual amenity whilst also fitting with the existing pattern of 

developments in the area to avoid impacting unacceptably on the views and visual amenity of 

users of the Pentland Hills. 

3.4.12 In addition to turbine layout the location of wind farm infrastructure was also considered in the 

design process. 

3.4.13 The integration of the wind farm in a landscape of commercial forestry and the potential for 

enhancement of the conifer plantations through diversification of species and structure forms 

part of the ongoing, long-term management of the forestry by the FCS. 

3.5 Design Evolution 

Introduction 

3.5.1 Following selection of the site, and employing the design criteria outlined above, the layout of 

the proposed wind farm evolved over a period of a year. This included the characteristics of 

the site and surrounding area, the predicted environmental impacts emerging from the 

technical assessments being undertaken, and the technical requirements of turbine efficiency 

and output maximisation. 

3.5.2 Although a number of different changes were made to the turbine layout, the layout evolved 

over three main iterations which have been referred to in the remainder of this chapter as: 

1. Initial Design – a 14 turbine layout including the forestry block to the west of the 

B7008; 

2. Intermediate Design– an 8 turbine layout; 

3. Final Design – a 6 turbine layout. 





Initial Design 

3.5.3 At this stage in the project the proposed site boundary encompassed forest blocks to the 

south east of the A70 and to the west of the B7008 as well as the main body of Camilty 

Plantation. 

3.5.4 Within this boundary, the bulk site screening work carried out by PfR identified an initial 

design layout for the site. A feasibility study was then carried out to consider the potential of 

the site in more detail. The initial design layout and feasibility study identified that the site 

could accommodate up to 21 turbines of up to 3 MW. However, subsequent to the feasibility 

study, it was decided that land within the boundary to the south east of the A70 should be 

excluded from development due to landscape and policy sensitivities. This led to 7 turbines 

that were located to the south east of the A70 being removed, leaving up to 14 turbines on 

the remainder of the site. 

3.5.5 In order to inform the layout of these potential 14 turbines information was gathered through a 

combination of desk-based study, including information from FCS records, and consultation. 

The exercise included: 

• Collection of wind speed data information from the NOABL UK Wind Speed Database; 

• Desk Based review of site constraints including ecology, ornithology and cultural 

heritage and associated consultation with the Forestry Commission Scotland; 

• Consideration Of likely grid connection options and arrangements; 

• Preliminary turbine delivery route assessment; 

• Provision of an indicative track and infrastructure layout; 

• Consideration of relevant planning policy; 

• Preliminary consultation with fixed link providers to identify fixed and microwave links; 

• Initial consultation with the Ministry of Defence (MOD), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), 

NATS En-Route Limited (NERL) mapping tool and Edinburgh and Kincardine Airport; 

• Preliminary noise modelling and an initial ETSU-R-97 assessment; 

• Preliminary consultation with the following infrastructure operators: Scottish Power, 

Scotland Gas Networks and the Health and Safety Executive; 

• Preliminary consultation with SNH to determine proposed methodology for bat and 

protected species surveying; 

• A preliminary peat probing survey of the site; and 

• A preliminary Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to 35 km radius and landscape 

capacity study. 

3.5.6 This facilitated the creation of a constraints plan within which a potential developable area 

could be identified. This is discussed further below. 

Constraints Plan and Developable Area 

3.5.7 A constraints plan was prepared showing the location and extent of known/recorded 

environmental constraints present on the site and its environs. Appropriate clearance buffers 

were applied to constraints where necessary in order to mitigate for potential direct impacts 

during the design process. The constraints were identified and refined throughout the EIA 





process, through consultation with stakeholders, desk-based research, relevant guidance, 

site visits and survey works (including Extended Phase 1 Habitat Surveys, ornithology 

surveys and cultural heritage site walkovers). 

3.5.8 Environmental constraints that were considered during the design of the proposed wind farm 

are identified in Table 3.1 below and shown on Figure 3.1. 

Table 3.1 Constraints 

Constraint 

Residential Receptors 

Ancient Woodland 

Camilty Hill Roman Fortlet 

Scheduled Ancient Monument and 

Camilty Enclosure SAM 

Core Paths/ROWs 

Natural Heritage Designations (SPA/ 

SAC/ SSSI) 

Sensitive ecological constraints: 

Marshy grassland, Broadleaved 

woodland, Wet Dwarf Shrub heath, 

Blanket Bog etc 

Peat 

Known watercourses as shown on 

1:25,000 OS Mapping 

A70 and B7008 

Overground/Underground Services 

Radar 

Fixed links 

Justification 

To reduce the likelihood of unacceptable noise and amenity 

impacts. 

Avoid encroachment on Ancient Woodland. 

Avoidance of direct impacts on the SM. 

Seperation distance from Core Path/Public Right of Way for 

safety reasons and to avoid blade oversailing and blade tip 

fallover distance. 

Avoidance of direct impacts on the designations. 

Ecologically sensitive areas were mapped and these areas 

removed from the potential development area. 

Avoidance of known pockets of deeper peat. 

Avoidance of works in close proximity to watercourses and 

sensitive habitats adjacent to watercourses. Minimisation of 

watercourse crossings. 

Seperation distance for safety reasons and to avoid blade 

oversailing and blade tip fallover distance. 

Seperation distance from services for safety reasons and to 

avoid blade oversailing and blade tip fallover distance. 

Portions of the site are within the line of site of Edinburgh and 

Lowther Hill Radars. Consultation has been ongoing with 

NATS to agree a technical solution to mitigate this. Therefore, 

these areas were not excluded from development. 

Areas constrained from development associated with fixed link 

coverage 

Slope Avoid all areas with slope over 50% 

3.5.9 The constraints plan was then used to determine the site area potentially suitable for 

development, referred to as the ‘Developable Area’. The Developable Area was considered 

to be land which may be suitable to locate turbines and other wind farm components, and is 

shown in Figure 3.2. As can be seen within Figure 3.2, as the design of the wind farm 

progressed and the site boundary was amended, the developable area was also accordingly 

amended. 





3.5.10 The initial 14 turbine layout as shown in Figure 3.5 was prepared based only on physical 

spacing within the developable area using the requisite turbine separation distances. As 

discussed above, turbines originally located in the “developable area” to the south east of the 

A70 were excluded as, although not significantly physically constrained, it was assessed that 

landscape and policy constraints would preclude development in this area. 

3.5.11 Following the formulation of the initial design, a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) was 

generated in order to identify the extent of visibility of the scheme and to identify viewpoints 

from which the effects of the wind farm could be assessed and the design of the wind farm 

refined. 

Intermediate Design 

Overview 

3.5.12 Following the establishment of the Initial Design, a scoping report, as described in Chapter 2: 

The EIA and Scoping Process, was submitted to West Lothian Council. The scoping report 

included the intermediate developable area shown in Figure 3.2 which had been adjusted 

from the Initial Design boundary to exclude the scheduled ancient monuments (SAMs) on site 

and, whilst the suggested turbine layout was not included, it was stated that it was intended 

for “up to 14 turbines” to be developed on the site i.e. the Initial Design layout. 

3.5.13 It was intended that, where relevant, the results of consultations with relevant authorities 

(primarily SNH, Historic Scotland and West Lothian Council) would inform the next stage of 

design, along with an initial assessment of the constraints on site and design workshop 

focussed on defining an optimum Final Design. These are discussed further below. 

Initial Risk Assessment 

3.5.14 The work in DP1, as described in Section 3.3 above, included assessment of constraints that 

could potentially, and significantly, affect development on the Camilty site. The following 

constraints were considered key to the design process: 

• Cultural Heritage/Archaeology – two Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) were 

located within the site, and other areas of archaeological interest were located on the 

site; 

• Noise – due regard would need to be paid to nearby noise sensitive receptors (NSRs) 

with additional consideration of potential cumulative noise impacts in combination with 

other wind farms in the vicinity; 

• Landscape / Visual – potential visual impacts of the turbines on the visual and 

landscape character perspective of the Pentlands AGLV/ Regional Park; 

• Policy – the Pentlands is designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value and 

Regional Park and therefore heavily protected by policies within the Development 

Plan; 

• Peat – ground stability risks and a peat managed e.g. minimising the need for peat 

extraction would be key considerations; 

• Ecology – the potential for impacts on nearby Craigengar Special Area of 

Conservation (SAC) / Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and 4 other SSSIs 

within 3 km of the site would need to be considered; 





• Ornithology – the potential for impacts on species from Westwater Special Protection 

Area (SPA), Ramsar site and SSSI and Firth of Forth SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI 

would need to be considered; 

• Aviation – part of the site is located within the line of sight of Edinburgh Airport Radar 

and Lowther Hill radar. Consultation with NATS has been undertaken from the outset 

of development to agree a technical solution – this is discussed in the aviation report 

submitted alongside the planning application. 

3.5.15 All these constraints were considered in the process of developing the design, particularly 

during the Design Workshop described below. However, the key constraint considered at 

this stage was identified as the SAMs contained within the Initial Design boundary and the 

proximity of turbines to them. Consequently, one turbine located very close to Camilty Hill 

Roman Fortlet SAM was removed, resulting in a 13 turbine layout. The site boundary was 

also redrawn to exclude this area to indicate a standoff from the two SAMs “within” the initial 


Consultation 

3.5.16 The results of scoping and discussions held primarily with SNH, Historic Scotland and West 

Lothian Council and based on the 14 and 13 turbine layouts, established the following key 

principles in terms of design: 

• Potential impacts on the setting of the SAMs would be of paramount importance to 

Historic Scotland. During a site meeting with Historic Scotland (31 May 2012), it was 

made clear that turbines which appeared dominant relative to the SAMs would not be 

acceptable within the context of the setting of the SAMs. Historic Scotland defined the 

setting of the SAMs as predominantly along an east - west axis i.e. broadly parallel to 

the course of the A70, and within the limited extent of visibility defined by the existing 

forestry clearing i.e. recognising the significant screening afforded from distant views 

by existing forestry. 

• Potential impacts on the setting of the Harburn House HGDL to the north of the site 

would also be of paramount importance to Historic Scotland. 

• The proposed development should respect the pattern of development broadly from 

the west to east within West Lothian with large-scale wind farm developments not 

considered by West Lothian Council as suitable for the area within which the 

proposed wind farm is proposed. 

• The proposed development should respect the scale and size of other consented 

schemes in the vicinity of the site. SNH also stressed the need to develop a design 

that showed sufficient separation from the consented schemes and avoided stacking 

of turbines from key viewpoints as far as practicable. 

• The proposed development should seek to avoid direct impacts upon the Pentland 

AGLV and also avoid significant impacts from within. 

3.5.17 Together with the key risks identified by the project team, these principles were used to 

inform the progression of the design from Initial Design to Intermediate Design and, 

ultimately, Final Design. This was achieved through the holding of a design workshop, as 

described below. 





Design Workshop 

3.5.18 The 13 turbine layout developed during the initial assessment was used as the basis for a 

design workshop held on 26 July 2012. 

3.5.19 It was intended to reduce the number of turbines to create a more compact scheme and to 

follow the pattern of reducing wind farm size from west to east, from Black Law eastwards, in 

line with SNH and West Lothian Council consultations. 

3.5.20 The first layout revision within the workshop considered “statutory” issues, which had not 

been reflected in the developable area “screen”. These included potential environmental 

effects which could not be avoided on a “presence/ absence” or “buffer” basis – but rather 

considered a “sliding scale” of effect. 

3.5.21 This considered effects caused by: 

• Cultural Heritage – turbines were moved as far as practicable from Camilty Hill 

Roman Fortlet SAM to ensure that if they were visible from the monument, they would 

not be dominant. One turbine in the north of the site was removed as an initial 

visualisation of the site showed that it would dominate the view from the Fortlet. 

• Noise – Preliminary noise modelling indicated that potential noise levels at the nearest 

noise sensitive receptor (Harburnhead (residence)) were approaching recommended 

limits as a result of the 13 turbine layout, as discussed in Chapter 8: Noise. 

Therefore, two further turbines in the north of the site were removed to ensure noise 

levels at Harburnhead remained within acceptable limits. 

• Peat – turbines to the west of the B7008 were located in deep peat as identified on 

the site through peat probing (refer to Chapter 13: Hydrology, Hydrogeology and 

Ground Conditions) (Figure 3.4). Therefore the two turbines in the north were 

removed from this area to minimise the depth of peat required to be excavated as part 

of development. 

3.5.22 Following review of these site constraints and other issues identified above a layout of 8 

turbines was identified as the Intermediate Design (Figure 3.5). This layout was progressed 

through further assessments during the workshop, as outlined below, to provide the optimal 

final design. 

Final Design 

3.5.23 The final design was determined following Landscape and Visual assessment within the 

design workshop. 

3.5.24 Interactive wirelines from key visual receptors were run during the workshop to assess and 

then modify the turbine layout to reduce impacts in terms of overall visibility, as well as 

turbine overlap. Four “design viewpoints” were selected - one from the Pentland Hills (West 

Cairn Hill), 2 from the A70 (one south-west and one north-east of the site) and from Harburn 

House. Each iteration was run from these viewpoints, as well as assessing “overall” visibility. 

This process resulted in a number of iterations to the layout. Figure 3.3 shows comparative 

wirelines from the design viewpoints used during the design process. Relevant visual issues 

associated with cultural heritage (including the setting of Camilty Hill Fortlet Scheduled 

Ancient Monument) and residential amenity were also considered as part of this assessment 

(refer to Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Chapter 10: Cultural 

Heritage and Archaeology). 





3.5.25 The two turbines located to the west of the B7008 were considered to be viewed as a 

separate grouping from the A70 – particularly from the property “Crosswoodburn” south of the 

proposed wind farm, and also from some elevated viewpoints in the Pentland Hills. This was 

considered to give the development a disunified appearance (as discussed in Chapter 9: 

Landscape and Visual). 

3.5.26 Removal of these turbines resulted in a 6 turbine scheme which appeared more compact and 

coherent from the design viewpoints and wider visibility. The layout also minimised 

overlapping turbines, and created an appearance of more equal turbine spacing from a 

greater number of viewpoints. 

3.5.27 Removal of the remaining turbines west of the B7008 also distanced the development away 

from Craigengar SSSI to the south west of the site, and allowed a greater degree of 

separation from the consented wind farms in the vicinity of the site. 

3.5.28 The remaining 6 turbines were reassessed within the developable area from the design 

viewpoints, and Camilty Hill SAM. 

3.5.29 The views from the SAM were considered to be acceptable as the final scheme ensured that 

the majority of turbines were hidden behind trees (which it is proposed to retain as part of 

FCS’s Forest Design Plan) and turbines which were visible were reduced in scale due to their 

distance from the monument. This is discussed in Chapter 10 : Archaeology and Cultural 

Heritage. 

3.5.30 Further considerations on the final 6 turbines included: 

• Site Infrastructure – Maximising the use of existing tracks within the site boundary and 

minimising new watercourse crossings (refer to Chapter 13: Hydrology, Hydrogeology 

and Ground Conditions). In addition, turbines were sited to avoid steep terrain as far 

as possible to minimise constraints to access track construction, and minimise the 

need for extensive design solutions. 

• Forestry – FCS preferred turbine locations were considered in line with the emerging 

amendment to the FDP. This process enabled the creation of a layout sensitive to the 

requirements of ongoing forestry operations and responding to the FDP in relation to 

minimising unnecessary removal of coupes or compromising the wind firmness of 

remaining forest blocks. 

• A shadow flicker plan was prepared to ensure no inhabited properties fell within the 

zone of potential shadow flicker (refer to Chapter 14: Shadow Flicker). 

• The MOD, CAA and fixed link providers were re-consulted on the Final Design layout 

and confirmed no objection. 

Infrastructure Design 

3.5.31 Following definition and acceptance of the Final Design in terms of turbine layout, the 

infrastructure design was developed. Infrastructure features were similarly sited and routed 

to avoid environmental constraints as well as optimising the use of slope for constructability 

and safety of construction traffic within the site. 

3.5.32 Access to the site was informed by a number of factors including sufficient turning radii and 

utilisation of existing tracks. In designing the access tracks the following objectives were 

taken into account: 





• Minimising the number of watercourse crossings required; 

• Avoiding environmental constraints identified during the early design and eia process; 

• Maximising the use of existing access tracks; 

• Minimising ground disturbance by using the shortest route possible; and 

• Ensuring gradients are suitable for vehicular access. 

3.5.33 The route and alignment of the new access tracks took land stability and topography into 

account. 

3.5.34 A buffer was also put in place around all infrastructure, including the provision of turbine 

keyholes of 86 m, to indicate removal of forestry required specifically for the wind farm. This 

buffer reflects the requirements of the Natural England Guidance (Natural England, 2009) for 

protection of bats, which requires an offset of 50 m between the forest edge and the blade tip. 

This assumed a turbine with an 80 m hub and 52 m blade, and standoff from a 25 m tree. 

This is explained in Appendix 11.5 in the Terrestrial Ecology chapter. 

3.5.35 This Final Design (including infrastructure) was confirmed as the basis of the application and 

EIA and the design frozen accordingly. The design was then provided to FCS and the 

proposed amendment to the FDP was updated to align with the layout. 


• David Tyldesley and Associates (2011) Consultative Draft Landscape Capacity Study 

for Wind Energy Development in West Lothian, Final December 2011, [online[. 

Available 

at: 

http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/downloaddoc/1799514/1841832/1875738/23305 

56/LCS_windenergyinWL 

• Natural England (2009). Natural England Technical Information Note TIN051. Bats 

and Onshore Wind Turbines Interim Guidance 

• ODPM (2011). Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) 

(Scotland) Regulations 2011 

• ODPM (2011). The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 

2011Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/209/contents/made 

• Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2008). Engineering in the Water 

Environment Good Practice Guide Construction of Rover Crossings First Edition 

• Scottish Government (2010). Scottish Planning Policy. Available at 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/300760/0093908.pdf 

• Scottish Government (2011). On-line Renewables Advice. Available at 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National-Planning- 

Policy/themes/renewables 

• Scottish Natural Heritage (2009), Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape. 

Available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A317537.pdf 

• West Lothian Council (2009) West Lothian Local Plan, [online]. 

http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/downloaddoc/1799514/1849418/2083838/adopt 

edwllp 





4 Description of the Proposed Development 


Overview 

4.1.1 This chapter describes the proposed development including the main development 

components, associated infrastructure and details of construction methods and timescales. 

4.1.2 It also provides detailed consideration of the forest environment at Camilty and initial 

consideration of the likely forest related impacts associated with the wind farm proposal as 

described in this chapter. 

4.1.3 The key objective of the proposed development is to generate approximately 46.46 gigawatthours 

(GWh) of renewable energy annually (applying a 26% capacity factor), thereby 

preventing approximately 20,000 tonnes of CO 2 being emitted each year and producing 

enough energy to supply up to 10,891 average households in Britain (see Chapter 6: Climate 

Change and Atmospheric Emissions). 

Main Scheme Components 

4.1.4 The layout of the proposed wind farm is shown on Figure 1.2. The proposed wind farm 

includes the following key components: 

• Six variable pitch (three-bladed) wind turbines each to a maximum of 132 m to tip and 

a generating capacity of up to 3.4 MW (see Figure 4.1); 

• Six circular reinforced concrete foundations of up wind turbine (approximate 

dimensions 45 m x 25 m) (Figure 4.3); 

• 3.858 km of permanent access tracks (5 m wide) from the site entrance to the turbines 

and ancillary development (of which 0.297 km is existing forest track which will require 

to be upgraded to meet the loading requirements of construction vehicles). This will 

result in 3.561 km of new track for construction of the wind farm (see Figure 4.4 for 

cross section drawings of track design options); 

• A temporary hard-cored construction compound (approximately 50 m x 50 m to locate 

a refuelling area, materials storage, batching facility and welfare facilities) (Figure 4.5); 

• A single-storey, pitched roof substation switchroom comprising 2 switchrooms, 

SCADA room, meter room and store/ welfare facilities (typical dimensions are 6.3 m x 

16.3 m x 5.5 m height). This would be located in a substation compound of 25 m x 12 

m (Figure 4.6); 

• One permanent anemometry mast at a height equivalent to the maximum hub height 

depending on the selected turbine (see Section 4.3), therefore of up to 85 m high 

(Figure 4.7); 

• Four 40 m long passing places (8.5 m wide) in the order of 500 m apart (Figure 4.8), 

and forestry crossing points along the access tracks (at typically 250 m intervals) to 

allow forestry workers to cross the access tracks; 


Description of the Proposed Development 



• Underground electrical and SCADA 1 

substation switchroom; 

cabling linking each wind turbine with the 

• Creating a total of 2 watercourse crossings (see Appendix 13.3). 

4.1.5 The actual footprint of each key development component is identified in Table 4.1 below. 

Table 4.1 Development Component Footprint 

Component 

Area (ha) 

Turbine and anemometry mast bases 0.0927 

Crane hard standing areas 0.675 

Substation compound 0.03 

Access roads including upgrades of existing track 2.75 

Temporary construction compound 0.25 

Anemometry mast laydown area 0.1425 

Turbine blade oversail area not covered by the development components 3.92 

4.2 Site Description and Context 

Site Context 

4.2.1 The site of the proposed wind farm is located within Camilty Plantation, approximately 2 km 

south of Harburn and 4 km south east of West Calder in West Lothian. The site is centred at 

approximate grid reference NT 0561 5932, on Camilty Hill, as shown in Figure 1.1. The site 

is owned by the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). 

4.2.2 The elevation of the site varies between approximately 241 m AOD (along the Crosswood 

Burn) and 289 m AOD (at the eastern edge, south of the A70). In general, the land rises from 

the Crosswood Burn gently to the north and west, and more sharply to the east, where the 

plantation crosses over the A70. The area within the proposed wind farm application 

boundary comprises approximately 173.8 ha. 

4.2.3 The majority of the site consists of plantation forest – commercially stocked Sitka spruce 

plantation interspersed with large open clear felled areas. Some of this plantation has 

recently been and is currently being felled as part of the current Forest Design Plan (as 

shown in Appendix 4.1). A number of recently felled areas have been restocked with both 

coniferous and broadleaved species. 

4.2.4 The A70 forms the southern boundary of the site, and the B7008 the western boundary, apart 

from where it is adjacent to Camilty Hill Roman Fortlet SAM (which is excluded from the site 

boundary). The site is bounded to the north-east, north-west and south-west by plantation 

forest and to the south and south-east by open hill area associated with Crosswoodburn 

Farm. 



Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 © 

Description of the Proposed Development


4.2.5 There are several isolated properties to the north of the site, set within forest to the south of 

Harburn. There are also properties along the A70 to the east and south of the site, and farms 

on the hill area to the south and east of the site. The closest properties to the site are shown 

in Table 4.2, and on Figure 8.1 in the Noise chapter. 

Table 4.2 Residential Properties 

Property Nearest Turbine Distance from 

Nearest Turbine (km) 

Distance from site 

boundary (km) 

Crosswoodburn 1 0.88 0.52 

Crosswood 1 0.88 0.69 

Aberlyn 1 0.87 0.50 

High Camilty 6 1.24 0.85 

Halfway House 5 1.25 0.80 

Brookbank 5 1.25 0.95 

Harburnhead 2 1.27 0.73 

Harburn House 5 1.52 1.10 

Camilty Lodge 6 1.58 1.05 

Parkview Cottages 6 1.69 0.97 

Whistle Lodge 6 1.80 1.00 

Over Williamston 6 1.97 1.36 

4.2.6 Access to the site will be gained from the A70, along an improved existing forestry track, and 

it is likely that vehicles carrying abnormal loads to the site will travel from Junction 4 of the 

M8, the A801, the A706 through Whitburn, the A721 and the A70. A second existing forestry 

track will also be upgraded to allow access to the site from the B7008 – however, this access 

will be an alternative access for cars and light vehicles during the operational stage of the 

proposed wind farm. No vehicles will enter the construction site using this second access, 

and it will not be used by HGVs or abnormal loads. 

4.2.7 Camilty Plantation is open to public access under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act (2003) and 

the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. It has a small car park with an informal network of paths 

and tracks. 

4.2.8 Camilty is drained by a number of burns which flow through the site including Crosswood 

Burn and its tributaries Shear Burn, Powfastle Burn and Kelly Syke. The site largely drains 

into the Crosswood Burn either directly or from its tributaries. In addition to these main 

watercourses, water is drained from the wider site via minor channels, which are shallow 

troughs, most of which run parallel to the forest tracks. There are also a number of 

ponds/water collection pools immediately surrounding the site. 

Designations 

4.2.9 The site itself is not the subject of any international or national designations. 





4.2.10 There are several historic environment assets of national importance within 10 km of the site. 

Towards the west of the site, there are two Scheduled Ancient Monuments directly outside 

the site boundary. These are SAM 1933 Camilty Hill, Roman Fortlet, Castle Greg, 

(approximately 0.4 km from the nearest turbine) and SAM 1165, Camilty Hill, Enclosure, 

Harburn (approximately 0.59 km from the nearest turbine). These are discussed further in 

Chapter 10 – Cultural Heritage and Archaeology. 

4.2.11 Cobbinshaw Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is south west of the site, 

approximately 0.91 km from the nearest turbine. This site is notified for its blanket bog habitat 

and associated floral community. Other designated sites include Craigengar Special Area of 

Conservation (SAC) approximately 4 km to the south of the site boundary, and Westwater 

Special Protection Area (SPA) and Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar Site) 

approximately 7.8 km to the south east of the site boundary. There are 4 other SSSIs 

between 2.6 and 3.2 km from the site boundary. The SSSIs and SACs are discussed further 

in Chapter 11 – Terrestrial Ecology and the SPAs in Chapter 12 - Ornithology. 

4.2.12 The site is located adjacent to Pentland Hills Regional Park to the south of the site boundary, 

designated in 1986 under the Wildlife and Countryside (Scotland) Act 1981. Regional park 

are extensive areas of the countryside where existing land uses continue, but also allow for 

public access and informal recreation and protection of local landscapes. Local Authority 

proposals for the establishment of Regional Parks are designated upon the confirmation by 

Scottish Ministers. The Pentland Hills are also designated as an Area of Great Landscape 

Value (AGLV) in the West Lothian Local Plan (2009). 

4.2.13 A number of Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes (HGDLs) which are included in 

Historic Scotland’s national inventory are within the surrounding area of the site, including the 

Harburn House HGDL, the boundary of which is located approximately 730 m to the northwest 

of the site boundary (1.18 km from the nearest turbine), as well as several others 

located further afield. Harburn House HGDL is within the ZTV, albeit established tree cover 

surrounding the house is likely to at least partially screen views towards the proposal site. 

4.2.14 Designations in the vicinity of the proposed site are shown on Figure 3.7 (within 35 km) and 

Figure 3.8 (within 10 km). 

History of the Forest 

4.2.15 Camilty Forest Plantations are managed by FCS. The Forestry Commission (FC) was set up 

in 1919 by the UK Government to ensure a timber reserve following the First World War. The 

UK less than 4% of land under woodland and the Forestry Commission was tasked with 

increasing the area and volume of available timber to the UK and reducing its reliance on 

overseas imports. 

4.2.16 Camilty is planted to commercial standards and densities as part of the strategic reserve. The 

land was open ground up to the early 1960’s. The OS plans from 1957 (Lanarkshire 

1:10,560) show Camilty Moss but only scattered plantings to the north. By 1963 the OS plan 

(Lanarkshire 1:10,000) for the site shows plantations very much as they are today. 

4.2.17 The vast majority of trees planted are coniferous: predominantly Sitka Spruce (Picea 

sitchensis), as it is a fast growing tree from the western coast of the United States. It 

provides timber suitable for paper, pallet, fencing and high quality construction timber as well 

as increase use as woodfuel. 





4.2.18 Camilty Plantation is managed according to the United Kingdom Woodland Assurance 

Standard (UKWAS)’ which aims “to own, interpret, develop and promote a certification 

standard for forest management in the United Kingdom on behalf of United Kingdom forestry 

and environmental communities, and bodies which represent the interests of people working 

in woods and forests or using them for the purpose of recreation, for the general benefit of 

people”. This standard ensures that the forest is managed to reflect the requirements set out 

in the governmental UK Forestry Standard, and required by certification schemes – the 

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest 

Certification schemes (PEFC). It provides a way to inform customers that timber products 

come from responsibly managed sources. There is broad scope within the certification 

standard for owners and managers to decide on appropriate objectives for their woodland. 

The certification standard generally prescribes what must, overall, be achieved but leaves it 

to the owner/manager to decide how this is best done in each situation. 

4.2.19 FCS manages its woodlands according to a site-specific Forest Design Plan (FDP) as 

discussed in section 4.2.30 below. This goes through extensive stakeholder and public 

consultation before gaining statutory approval. Camilty has an approved plan that is focusing 

on the restructuring, diversification of the crop, appropriate habitat works, and management 

of important statutory features. The management options are limited by the soils, climate, 

aspect and species choices. This results in a predominantly non-thin, clear fell regime of 

commercial conifer crops. 

4.2.20 Since 2002 all forestry matters are devolved to Scottish Ministers. 

Current Forest Strategy 

4.2.21 Since the early demands of forest policy to provide a strategic reserve of timber, Scottish 

Ministers Scottish Forestry Strategy 2006, highlights a changing role for forestry and the 

purpose of the National Forestry Estate. Forests are now considered to be an important 

national resource that provides numerous benefits to the local, regional and national 

communities. Some of these benefits are easily quantifiable (business development, timber 

production, recreation, etc.) others less so (health, well being, etc.). This recognition of the 

wider importance of forests has greatly influenced the way in which woodlands are now 

managed, and particularly the decision making processes involved in their management. 

4.2.22 The Scottish Lowlands Forest District Strategic Plan 2009-2013 contains the framework for 

decision making and management of the forest district and guides the regional forest policies. 

4.2.23 The strategic plan recognises the importance of forestry in the natural environment and the 

contribution it makes to the local communities. Many of the forests in this region are near 

local communities, and Camilty and its surrounding plantations are visited by recreational day 

visitors on a regular basis. 

4.2.24 The strategy also recognises that the role of forests should be to develop business 

opportunities and provide employment not only inside forestry but the industries that develop 

around it. 

4.2.25 Climate change and renewable energy production is a key theme that is developed in the 

strategy. The potential for wind farm development and wood fuel energy projects will reduce 

the impacts of carbon emissions. The need for the development of wind farms in the district is 

clearly identified in the Renewable Energy section of Key Theme One: Climate Change in 

which it states: 





‘Scot Low 1.01 - Maximise the potential for windfarms and other renewable energy 

projects with regard to landscape, biodiversity, public access, community and economic 

values. We have three active sites with two pending at Whitelee and Murdostoun, and 

working with partnership for renewables (PfR) on 20 other sites.’ 

4.2.26 Camilty has presented various constraints to forest development, these are mainly a 

combination of soils and exposure. The wind firmness of the site has been a particular 

challenge to the management of the forest. Once the trees have established and reached a 

reasonable height they have been subject to wind throw. Many of the recently felled areas 

were subject to wind blow. The predicted rotation length set out in the Forest Design Plan 

also indicates approximately 45 years between planting and clear felling. This rotation period 

is greatly influenced by predicted forest terminal heights based on tree size, soils and 

exposure. 

4.2.27 Further areas of wind blow were noted within the remaining older trees along the Crosswood 

and Burns during a site survey completed by Brian Wallis (RPS Arboriculturalist) in January 

2013. 

4.2.28 There is a direct correlation between the age (and therefore height) of the trees and the 

windblown sections. The short period in which the forest was planted along with the limited 

species diversity has resulted in the current period where large areas are now being 

restocked as part of the rotational cycle and the areas that are being retained to reduce the 

visual impact of forest felling will need to be cleared before the onset of wind blow. 

4.2.29 Much of the current forest management of Camilty is driven by the crop conditions and this 

current period of felling and restocking is related to the age and height of the trees. Their 

wind firmness is dictating the management of the forest and will continue to do so over the 

coming decade. Although changes in species and compartment sizes should help create 

better forest dynamics over the coming rotations. 

Forest Design Plan 

4.2.30 As noted above, the FCS produces a FDP for each of its forest areas. The FDP covers the 

forest rotation period, is approved at a ten-year basis and is reviewed at five-year intervals. It 

details felling and replacement patterns during the period, and is based on the current 

principles of management produced in the Lowland District Strategy document. The current 

plan (Appendix 4.1) and restocked compartment shapes and sizes show the move towards 

reduced compartment sizes and less hard boundaries to the compartments. All FDP’s 

conform to the UKWAS. The current FDP was originally approved in 2003 and is due to be 

updated in 2013. 

4.2.31 The FDP is a dynamic plan that can be altered and adjusted through its period as required. It 

is an important planning tool but is not definitive as it is dealing with a growing medium that is 

subject to climatic and economic impacts. 

4.2.32 An important influencing factor that could in the future have a major influence on forest crops 

on Camilty and other similar forests is that of tree pests and diseases. Recent years have 

seen greater concerns about the impacts of diseases such as Phytophthora ramorum on 

forest tree species. This fungal pathogen, which affects all species to varying degrees, has 

been responsible for large areas of Larch being felled in many other parts of the UK and 

could spread to the area in the future. Dothistroma Needle Blight (DNB) previously known as 

Red Band Needle Blight is also now becoming of great concern to forest mangers as it was 

originally thought to only affect Corsican Pine, but has now been known to affect Scots Pine. 





4.2.33 The restocking plan shows a much greater proportion of Larch and Scots Pine being used 

within Camilty than was previously the case. Changes in species from the previously 

preferred monoculture of Sitka spruce has followed the Forestry Commission policy to create 

greater species diversity and to improve the landscape and visual quality within individual 

forests. Subject to the status of the diseases noted in 4.2.32 substitutions for affected species 

will be made as necessary, at the time of restocking to ensure the establishment of a 

successful crop. Currently Alaskan Lodgepole Pine a species which has shown resistance to 

DNB, is being planted in place of Scots Pine. 

4.2.34 Appendix 4.2 shows the wind farm layout with appropriate buffers, superimposed on the 

restocking plan of the FDP. This is the “with-development” scenario incorporating the 

infrastructure footprint for the proposed wind farm. This includes turbine positions, access 

roads, met mast position and passing places, and the extent of recent and potential felling at 

Camilty. The loss of forest due to the wind farm footprint is a total of approximately16.56 ha 

(of the total footprint of 20.95). This will be the area required for compensatory planting, as 

indicated in Appendix 4.1. The Forest Plan restocking figure is approximately 594 ha, 

covering the whole forest block. It is assumed that the entire forest loss as a result of the 

proposed infrastructure (including buffers around the turbines and other infrastructure) will 

remain for the lifetime of the proposed wind farm. 

4.2.35 Early Felling is proposed in 2 coupes (as shown in Appendix 4.1) as a result of the proposed 

wind farm. This would involve coupes originally planned to be felled in 2018 and 2024 

respectively, as part of the management proposed in the FDP. Short Rotation Forestry is not 

deemed necessary in this scheme as adjustments to the felling regime to improve 

performance of the wind farm can be taken into account and revised as part of the Design 

Plan review and renewal process. 

4.2.36 If the proposed wind farm is consented, FCS will submit a Forest Design Plan amendment 

which includes the wind farm footprint and the agreed early felling areas. 

4.2.37 Appendix 4.3 provides an assessment of the effect of the proposed development on the 

current plantation, as discussed further in Section 4.10 below. 

4.3 Energy Generation and Anemometry 

Candidate Wind Turbine Model 

4.3.1 The proposed wind farm will consist of six variable pitch (three bladed) wind turbines with a 

maximum tip height of 132 m. The final choice of turbine will be dependent on the wind 

analysis, turbine economics and available technology at the time of construction. As the 

turbine choice has not been finalised, assumed maximum dimensions have been used within 

the ES to ensure that a worst case scenario is assessed. It is anticipated that the turbines 

will have a maximum 85 m hub height and 52 m blade radius resulting in a turbine tip height 

not exceeding 132 m (that is, for example a hub of 80 m would be coupled with a blade of up 

to 52 m, or a hub of 85 m with a blade of up to 47 m). Where directly relevant to the technical 

assessments in this ES, each chapter states the assumed turbine parameters used. 

Indicative models are generally not named herein, but a “worst case” provided – which may 

require parameters from more than one turbine model being used. 

4.3.2 The maximum rating of each turbine will be 3.4 MW of renewable energy, providing a total 

installed capacity of up to 20.4 MW. 





4.3.3 The candidate turbines all comprise of the following main components: rotor blades (three), 

nacelle (containing gearbox and generator), tower (in three sections), base ring, blade hub 

and foundation. Table 4.3 outlines the assumed technical parameters of the turbines and 

Figure 4.1 illustrates the maximum dimensions of the turbine. 

Table 4.3 Assumed Turbine Parameters 

Parameter 

Value 

Number of Turbines 6 

Maximum height to blade tip (m) 132 

Maximum hub height (m) 85 

Maximum blade diameter (m) 104 

Turbine rated capacity (MW) 3.4 

Maximum site rated capacity (MW) 20.4 

Number of blades per turbine 3 

Tower style 

Tapered tubular 

4.3.4 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 with a semi-matt finish, subject to agreement with West Lothian 

Council and other consultees. 

4.3.5 Depending on the eventual model selected, turbines will generate electricity in wind speeds 

between 2/4 m/s and 25 m/s and will be computer controlled to ensure that they face directly 

into the wind for optimum efficiency. At wind speeds that exceed 25 m/s the turbines will shut 

down automatically for self-protection. 

4.3.6 Wind turbine towers, blades and nacelles are likely to be transported to the site via trailers 

with self-steering rear axles. The tower sections and other turbine components will be stored 

either at a designated lay down area or at each turbine hard standing until turbine erection 

commences. 

4.3.7 There will be a transformer located outside each turbine base. 

4.3.8 In line with a requirement for aviation lighting stipulated by Defence Estates, the turbines will 

be fitted with an appropriate form of lighting which is proposed to be infrared subject to 

agreement with Defence Estates and other relevant consultees. 

4.3.9 The proposed turbine locations have been the subject of an extensive design iteration 

process, taking into account visual, environmental, and ground stability constraints as well as 

consultee and public feedback, as described in Chapter 3: Design Evolution. However, up to 

a maximum of 50 m radius of micrositing flexibility around each turbine is requested by the 

applicant to allow further on site constraints that may be identified during intrusive ground 

investigations to be avoided. All micrositing will be agreed in advance with West Lothian 

Council and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). 





Anemometry Mast 

4.3.10 An anemometry (met) mast is proposed to be in place for the life of the wind farm. This will 

have a maximum height of 85 m (the maximum hub height of the selected turbine model). 

This will be a free standing lattice tower mast feeding information to the wind farm control 

centre. 

4.4 Electrical Connection 

Off-site Grid Connection 

4.4.1 The proposed wind farm will require a connection to the electrical distribution network. The 

connection is likely to be made at Livingston substation approximately 7 km from the site. It is 

expected that the connection will be made via one underground cable at 33 kilovolt (kV). The 

underground cable does not form part of the application for the proposed wind farm is 

therefore not described in further detail within the ES PfR is in the process of investigating 

this further and will seek an Offer of Connection from Scottish Power Energy Networks at the 

appropriate time. 

4.4.2 The grid connection for the proposed wind farm may be the subject of a separate application 

under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 in case of an overhead line connection and is 

therefore not described in further detail within this ES. 

Substation Switchroom 

4.4.3 Figure 1.2 shows the location of the substation switchroom and Figure 4.6 illustrates the 

relevant technical parameters. 

4.4.4 The single storey substation switchroom building will have a pitched slate (or slate substitute) 

roof. The building will be finished in a render appropriate to the surrounding area, to be 

agreed in advance with West Lothian Council. 

4.4.5 The substation switchroom will be approximately 16.3 m x 6.3 m x 5.5 m high. The 

substation switchroom will comprise 2 switchrooms, SCADA room, meter room and store/ 

welfare facilities. The SCADA system will allow turbine operations to be monitored and 

controlled from a central location, either on or off site to ensure early reporting and 

rectification of any faults that may occur. The substation switchroom will have fire and 

closed-circuit television (CCTV) detection systems. 

4.4.6 The substation switchroom will be located in a substation compound (25 m x 12 m) with 

parking for four vehicles. Any external signage will be agreed with West Lothian Council. 

There will be no external illumination of the substation switchroom except for a small motion 

sensitive floodlight above the front entrance. 

Electrical Transformer and On Site Electrical Connections 

4.4.7 Electrical transformers will be located outside the turbine towers bases, linked to the on-site 

control building by underground cables. The cables will run parallel to access tracks, where 

practicable. 





4.5 Civil Engineering Works 

Wind Turbine Foundations 

4.5.1 Foundation construction design will be finalised at the detailed design and engineering stage. 

However, a typical foundation design is shown in Figure 4.2. The dimensions and 

engineering design of the foundation will vary according to the turbine model chosen, and the 

ground conditions. However, although the indicative foundation in Figure 4.2 should not be 

assumed to be to scale, the diameter (maximum 21 m) and depth (maximum 6 m) shown 

have been assumed within this ES as a reasonable worst case. Prior to construction, 

detailed intrusive ground investigations will be undertaken at each turbine location and, 

depending on the information derived from these investigations, modifications may be made 

to the foundation designs. 

4.5.2 Construction of the turbine foundations will generally require excavation to expose suitable 

bearing strata. The depth of the excavation will depend on the depth to the suitable bearing 

strata or pile cap. This will depend on peat/ soil depth on site – as discussed in Appendix 

13.2, turbines will not be placed on areas of peat deeper than 3 m. Depending on the terrain, 

the foundations will typically be constructed at a depth of approximately 3 to 6 m. 

4.5.3 The sides will be ‘battered’ back to ensure that they remain stable during construction. 

4.5.4 The excavated area will be back-filled with compacted layers of graded material from the 

original excavation, and capped with soil. Around the turbines, the finished surface will be 

capped with crushed aggregate to allow for safe personnel access around the base of the 

turbine. 

4.5.5 If appropriate, excavated material will be reused for access track construction, to supplement 

locally imported rock. 

4.5.6 A 5 m radius of hard standing will be laid around the turbine base, above the foundation, to 

allow for vehicular access to the turbine for maintenance purposes. 

Crane Pads 

4.5.7 A crane pad of approximately 45 m x 25 m will be required adjacent to each turbine base to 

accommodate the cranes required for construction and to provide a laydown area adjacent to 

each turbine location. Figure 4.3 illustrates a typical crane hard standing area. All hard 

standings will be formed with crushed rock over geotextile membranes. 

4.5.8 Hard standings will be sufficiently level to ensure the safe operation of the cranes. The 

turbine foundation will then be completed and backfilled as described above. The final detail 

of the crane hard standing will depend on the exact specification of the cranes selected by 

the contractor. A large crawler or wheeled/mobile crane will be required for turbine erection, 

with one smaller pilot crane assisting with the lift procedure. 

4.5.9 Crane hard standing areas will be allowed to naturally re-vegetate during operation of the 

wind farm, though will not be replanted. 

Site Access 

4.5.10 The existing access routes, in the form of forest tracks and roads, would be upgraded within 

the site and new routes to each turbine location created where necessary. Typical cross 

sections across the proposed upgraded internal access tracks are illustrated in Figure 4.4. 





4.5.11 Access into the site itself would be taken via an upgraded junction from the A70, at the 

location indicated in Appendix 7.1. 

4.5.12 The proposed site access is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7: Traffic and Transport. 

Onsite Tracks 

4.5.13 FCS intends to maximise integration between forestry activities and wind farm construction, 

and upgrade existing forestry tracks where possible. The majority of the access tracks onsite 

will be new, and include turning points between the “spurs” of the track and the turbines. 

4.5.14 A total internal track length of 3.858 km will be required (measured from the site entrance) to 

access the turbines, of which approximately 0.297 km will be upgraded FCS tracks and 

3.561 km will be new track construction. The proposed access track configuration is 

illustrated on Figure 1.2. 

4.5.15 Access tracks will be approximately 5 m wide, with a 2.5 m strip adjacent to the tracks for 

cabling. The track depth will depend on ground conditions encountered, however, initial site 

investigations indicate it is unlikely to be greater than 0.5 m in most areas. On areas where 

deeper tracks are required (for example, on deep areas of peat), floating tracks will be 

developed. It is anticipated that 477 m of the new tracks would be developed as floating 

track. A typical cross section of access track is shown in Figure 4.4. 

4.5.16 The access tracks will be used by construction vehicles and will be retained throughout the 

lifetime of the proposed wind farm for use by maintenance vehicles. 

4.5.17 The edges of the access tracks will be reinstated at the end of the construction period and 

vegetation growth will be encouraged on verges or retained for future use by the landowner 

and/or use for countryside recreational purposes. 

4.5.18 During operation, access tracks will be gated with galvanised farm gates to discourage 

unauthorised vehicle access but to allow pedestrian access under the terms of the Scottish 

Outdoor Access Code. Any signage will be discrete, fixed to the gate or gateposts and 

agreed in advance with West Lothian Council. The requirements of the Scottish Outdoor 

Access Code will be adhered to throughout the construction and operation of the wind farm, 

with pedestrian access to much of the site remaining open and usable. 

4.5.19 Forestry crossing points are provided along the internal access tracks at approximately 250 

m intervals to enable forestry operations to continue. Passing places are also provided. 

These are illustrated in Figure 4.8 and are anticipated to be 40 m long, 8.5 m wide (including 

the width of the access track) and located approximately 500 m apart. 

Temporary Construction Compound 

4.5.20 During the construction period, a temporary hardcore construction compound area will be 

required in the location indicated in Figure 1.2. The compound will comprise a hard standing 

of approximately 50 m x 50 m to provide space for: 

• A refuelling area; 

• Materials storage; 

• Temporary site office cabins and welfare facilities for contractors. 

4.5.21 The location for the temporary construction compound has been selected on the basis of its 

practicality, low habitat value and limited visual impact. Once the use of the compound is 

complete the area will also be fully restored. 





4.5.22 The compound will be constructed using a geogrid base, or similar, to facilitate removal and 

reinstatement. Within six months of the proposed wind farm becoming operational, all 

temporary cabins, machinery and equipment will be removed and the laydown area fully 

restored. 

Stone and Concrete Requirements and Sourcing 

4.5.23 As indicated in Appendix 13.1 (Geotechnical desk study) no areas suitable for borrow pits 

were identified on site. It is therefore intended to use rock from an existing FCS quarry to 

develop roads and other infrastructure on site, subject to the relevant permissions. 

4.5.24 A concrete batching plant will be located in the construction compound. The plant will 

combine sand, site-sourced aggregate, cement, water, and other additives to produce 

concrete. The concrete produced in the concrete batching plant will be used for the 

foundations of the turbines, buildings, paving material for roads and parking areas, pipes 

surrounds and precast concrete components. Cement and suitably graded sand will be 

imported to produce construction concrete. This will reduce the imported material to less 

than a third of the required tonnage of concrete. 

4.5.25 Settlement lagoons will be provided to prevent cement and concrete washing out into 

groundwater or surface water. These measures are described in more detail in Chapter 13: 

Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions. 

Site Drainage 

4.5.26 Drainage trenches will be required adjacent to the proposed access tracks to control the flow 

of water around and across them. Drainage pipes flowing perpendicular to the track will be 

installed at maximum intervals of 50 m to prevent ponding and ensure the existing site 

hydrology is largely maintained. This action will also preserve the structural integrity of the 

access road. As far as reasonably practicable, artificial drainage pipes will coincide with 

naturally occurring drainage channels or other low-lying areas. Where the track slopes 

downhill, cross drains or 'waterbars' will be placed to prevent excessive surface water flow 

along the track. 

4.5.27 Detailed track drainage proposals will be presented to West Lothian Council and key 

consultees prior to works commencing for each relevant track section. 

4.5.28 Drainage is discussed further in Chapter 13: Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground 

Conditions. 

Watercourse Crossings 

4.5.29 The alignment of the new site access tracks has been optimised to avoid the need for stream 

crossings where possible. As a consequence of this, it is proposed that only two new 

watercourse crossings will be developed. 

4.5.30 The location of the proposed crossings on site are shown in Figure 1.2. A watercourse 

crossing survey was undertaken and results are presented in Appendix 13.3. 

4.5.31 Confirmation of the level of any CAR authorisations required for the new stream crossings will 

be confirmed with SEPA, and secured in advance of construction. 

4.5.32 The new crossing structures will not form a barrier to river flows and aquatic fauna, and will 

be designed and constructed with respect to relevant guidance and best practice. For 

example, the crossing over the Crosswood Burn (x2 on Figure 1.2) will be constructed using 





a bridge structure spanning the river channel and the floodplain. The crossing over the 

Powfastle Burn will be constructed using a single span structure such as a bottomless arch 

structure. 

4.5.33 Where access tracks cross artificial drainage ditches, simple pipe structures will be installed. 

The pipe invert levels will be installed slightly below upstream and downstream bed levels to 

ensure that barriers for fish passage and sediment transport are minimised. 

4.5.34 Streams, crossings and drainage ditches will be inspected and cleared regularly to prevent 

blockages and remove the risk of flooding throughout the construction and operational life of 

the proposed wind farm. 

4.6 Construction of the Proposed Wind Farm 

4.6.1 The proposed wind farm will be constructed in accordance with relevant health and safety 

legislation including the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. All site based activities will be 

conducted in accordance with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, 

which implement parts of the EU Mobile and Temporary Construction Sites Directive. 

4.6.2 All construction activities will adhere to pollution control measures which will be detailed in a 

Health, Safety and Environmental Management System (HSEMS, see Section 4.11 and 

Appendix 4.4) drawn up in consultation with West Lothian Council and other relevant 

stakeholders prior to construction. Adherence to the requirements of the HSEMS will be a 

contractual obligation placed upon the contractor. 

Principal Site Operations 

4.6.3 The principal construction activities will include: 

• Clearance of forestry and other land for wind farm development and associated 

infrastructure (approximately 21 ha) – it is anticipated that all felling will have taken 

place prior to wind farm construction activities with the exception of keyhole felling 

which can only take place after the tracks towards the keyholes are in place; 

• Construction of temporary construction compound; 

• Upgrading of existing access track and construction of new access tracks; 

• Creation of watercourse crossings; 

• Access track passing places and forestry crossing points; 

• Construction of turbine foundations and associated hard standings; 

• Construction of a turbine laydown area; 

• Excavation of trenches and laying of overhead electrical cables; 

• Construction of a substation switchroom (and substation compound) and electrical 

equipment; 

• Erection and commissioning of wind turbines; 

• Reinstatement of the temporary construction compound. 

4.6.4 The buffer around the turbines was based on the principal outlined in Appendix 11.5. This is 

based on guidance provided by Natural England (2009) to ensure a 50 m stand off from the 

rotor swept area of the turbine. This principle was agreed with SNH following confirmation 





through bat surveys that Nathusius’ pipistrelle was not present on the site, which could have 

required a greater standoff – as discussed in Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology. The diameter 

of the buffer depends upon the height of the surrounding trees, and the hub height and blade 

length of the turbine under focus. The buffer selected for this project was 86 m radius – 

based on a 52 m blade, 80 m hub and 25 m canopy height. 

4.6.5 Work will commence with the clearance of forestry and land, construction of the entrance to 

the construction compound access road and the formation of the temporary construction 

compounds. Construction of the access to the turbine tracks, turbine foundations, associated 

infrastructure and subsequent erection of the wind turbines will then be carried out in a 

sequential basis, progressing through the site. Table 4.4 shows the typical construction 

sequence. 

4.6.6 Enabling works will be required prior to commencement of the main construction works. 

These works will be phased in the pre-construction period, and include: 

• Detailed site investigation works; 

• Surface and groundwater monitoring; 

• Consultation with the appropriate authorities regarding turbine deliveries. 

4.6.7 The temporary construction compound will be constructed to provide a secure area for 

storage of materials, plant maintenance and refuelling, concrete batching, welfare facilities 

and vehicle parking. Temporary utilities connections, in the form of electrical supply and 

potable water supply, will be established. The compound will be formed from compacted 

hardcore laid over a geo-membrane, and will be enclosed by post and chain-link fencing. 

4.6.8 The existing forest access tracks will be upgraded to provide access for the wind farm 

construction by widening to approximately 5 m. New tracks, also 5 m wide, will lead to each 

turbine location. 

4.6.9 Passing places will be provided to facilitate the safe movement of traffic. The passing places 

are designed to be suitable for the anticipated large turbine delivery vehicles and lifting 

cranes as well as the forestry maintenance vehicles. 

4.6.10 As peat is present over the majority of the site, turbines and access tracks will take account 

of this. Turbine foundations will be excavated through the peat until a suitable formation is 

exposed. This will either be natural compact mineral soil or weathered rockhead. From the 

peat probing survey (see Appendix 13.2) it is anticipated that the excavation will be no 

greater than 5 m. The concrete foundation will be formed and backfilled with excavated soil 

and/or suitably sized rock aggregate. The excavated peat will be used to reinstate the 

disturbed area around this turbine. 

4.6.11 Hard standings will be formed adjacent to each turbine along with turbine laydown area to 

facilitate the erection of the turbine mast, nacelle and blades using high lift cranes. 

4.6.12 Trenches will be excavated parallel and adjacent to the access track for turbine power, 

control and monitoring cables. All electrical transformers (except the turbine transformers 

which are located outside the turbine bases) and control equipment will be installed in the 

substation switchroom. 





Indicative Construction Programme 

4.6.13 Construction of the proposed wind farm is estimated to take approximately 6 months, 

including commissioning and site reinstatement. Table 4.4 below provides an indicative 

schedule of construction activities. This programme is indicative only and could vary 

depending on when construction is started. Subject to achieving consent, it is currently 

anticipated that construction would commence not earlier than Quarter 2 of 2016. A more 

detailed programme of works will be produced with the appointed construction contractors 

and agreed with West Lothian Council in advance of construction. 

Table 4.4 Indicative Construction Programme 

Site preparation 

Main access tracks 

Temporary construction compound 

Hardstanding installations 

Met mast installation 

Substation Switchroom 

Control and Switchgear 

Wind turbine foundation installation 

Turbine erection 

Onsite cabling 

Commissioning 

Final works 

2016 

April May June July August Sep 

4.6.14 A breakdown of delivery loads to site is provided in Table 4.5. 





Table 4.5 Breakdown of Delivery Loads to Site 

Item 

Number 

Dimensions 

(area m 2 ) 

Dimensions 

(approximate 

depth m) 

Approximate 

m 3 of Material 

HGV 

Deliveries 

Two-way 

HGV 

Movements 

Light 

vehicles 

Two-way 

light vehicle 

Movements 

Initial Site Works and layout construction 209500 4 8 20 40 

Earthworks Plant 13 111 221 0 0 

Construction compound 7 1125 0.50 563 10 20 19 38 

Access track 15,015 0.3 - 0.5 7,337 367 734 62 124 

Water crossings 2 250 1 250 13 25 16 32 

Substation compound 1 300 0.50 150 9 17 14 28 

Substation control building 1 50 5.5 317 7 14 28 56 

Substation Electrical Fitout 1 9 18 124 248 

Turbine pre-development surveys 5 10 20 40 

Turbine foundation excavations 6 0 0 24 48 

Crane hardstanding 6 70.00 0.50 3,375 181 362 60 120 

Turbine foundation construction 6 314.159 2.25 4350 137.25 275 186 372 

Turbine installation 6 78 156 144 288 

Met mast (including associated cabling) 505 0.50 280 16 32 81 162 

Cabling (trenching, installation and substation 

connection) 

5000 1.5 21 42 201 402 

Landscaping/ reinstatement including waste removal 42 84 32 64 

Fuel delivery 29 58 2 4 

Total vehicles 1039.25 2076 1033 2066 



Description of the Proposed Development


Construction Working Hours 

4.6.15 Construction activities will be carried out between the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 during the 

week days and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays considering non-peak hour traffic. In the event 

that construction will be required outwith these hours, e.g. for delivery of abnormal loads, 

consent will be agreed in advance with West Lothian Council. 

Materials and Waste Management 

4.6.16 Construction practices will be implemented to minimise the use of raw materials and 

maximise the use of secondary aggregates and recycled or renewable materials. In addition, 

waste material generated by the proposed development will be reduced and re-used or 

recycled on site as appropriate. Methods to incorporate best practice waste management 

techniques and consideration of the waste hierarchy into all aspects of the site management 

are identified in the following section and will be incorporated into the Health, Safety and 

Environmental Management Plan (HSEMS, see Section 4.11 and Appendix 4.4). 

4.6.17 A Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) will be required as part of the HSEMS to ensure 

building materials and any waste material is managed in accordance with best practice 

through recycling, reuse and recovery where appropriate. By implementing a SWMP the site 

is expected to reduce waste arisings and associated costs. 

Waste Streams 

Construction 

4.6.18 A number of potential waste streams have been identified in the construction phase. Wastes 

likely to arise during the construction phase of the wind farm development include the 

following: 

• Wastes from excavation, peat, gravel, tailings and crushed rocks; 

• Oil wastes including hydraulic oils, engine gear and lubricating oils; 

• Wastes from metal degreasing and machinery maintenance, including solvents; 

• Packaging, including absorbents, wiping cloths, filter materials and protective clothing; 

• Miscellaneous waste including batteries and accumulators, welfare facility waste; 

• Mixed construction waste including concrete waste. 

4.6.19 Management of wastes during will include the following: 

• Waste Resulting From Excavations - Likely to comprise excavated peat, stone, rock 

and gravel. It is proposed to recycle this as aggregate in roads or fill where suitable. 

Smaller size class of aggregate can be crushed, screened and then used as backfill 

for cable trenches, if required, to minimise sand requirements. Generally, materials 

generated from these activities will be re-used or recycled where appropriate on-site. 

All topsoil and subsoil (where present and requiring removal) will be reused where 

possible. Where peat is excavated this will be used to restore trenching, track edges 

and crane hardstandings and the construction compound after the construction period 

etc where possible, within the Forest Design Plan. A peat management plan will form 

part of the HSEMS (Appendix 4.4). Peat extraction has been minimised through site 

layout design, and floating roads will be used where tracks require to cross over deep 

peat. 





• Oil Wastes - Disposal of oil and any accumulation of fuel residues in the bunded 

refuelling area will be disposed of in accordance with the Environmental Protection 

(Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 (as amended) (Duty of Care Regulations) by a 

suitably licensed or permitted facility. 

• Packaging - Most packaging materials will be returned to manufacturers, including 

cable drums and pallets. 

• Wastes Not Otherwise Specified - Any septic tank systems will be emptied by licensed 

carriers in line with Duty of Care requirements. 

4.6.20 In addition, the contractor will be obliged to comply with a number of guiding principles in 

relation to the effective management of wastes: 

• Storage and handling of waste site - Operatives will segregate different waste types to 

maximise potential for re-use. Waste containers will be clearly marked with intended 

content. Only containers suitable for contents will be used to minimise risk of 

accidental spillages and leaks. Covers and bunds will be provided to prevent 

evaporation and spillage of wastes, and to ensure that wastes cannot be blown away. 

• Care will be taken to dispose of waste arising in accordance with the Environmental 

Protection Act 1990 (as amended) and the Duty of Care Regulations (as amended). 

Waste leaving the site will be accompanied by a waste transfer note or special waste 

consignment note that records the description of the waste, its current holder, the 

person collecting it and its destination. 

• Reducing, reusing and recycling - Operative will reuse and recycle wastes generated 

on-site whenever possible. 

Operation 

4.6.21 Wind turbines produce very limited pollutants or waste emissions. However, there will be a 

small amount of waste associated with the operation of the proposed wind farm. This is likely 

to be restricted to waste associated with the substation compound from employees and 

visiting contractors, storage of chemicals/ fuel, septic tank sludge and waste oils from, for 

example, gearbox maintenance. 

4.6.22 Sludge from one closed on-site septic tank will be collected by an authorised carrier and 

disposed of at a consented wastewater treatment works. 

Decommissioning 

4.6.23 It is anticipated that waste generated during decommissioning will be similar to that 

generated during construction. However, the decommissioning and disposal of end-of-life 

turbines will generate a greater amount of waste. Many of the components of end-of-life 

turbines are likely to be recyclable. 

4.6.24 The-end-of-life scenario for turbine disposal cannot be accurately predicted. However, 

turbines will be disposed of in accordance with industry best practice at the time. If there is 

potential for recycling components, these will be clearly identified in the decommissioning 

plan. 

Soils and Peat 

4.6.25 Some soils and peat will be extracted from the access route track, hardstanding areas, cable 

trenches and turbine bases (up to 3 m at the turbine bases as in Appendix 13.2). In addition 





there will be a temporary construction compound and a wind farm substation switchroom that 

will require soil stripping. A full soils survey and soils balance assessment will be carried out 

prior to development. A peat management plan will be included in the HSEMS. 

4.6.26 All necessary waste transfer licences will be acquired for any soil movement. Where 

possible, recycled or reprocessed waste soils will be used. At all stages, development will 

follow the developer’s Duty of Care, the waste hierarchy and waste licensing regulations and 

exemptions to these regulations. 

4.7 Site Restoration after Construction 

4.7.1 The location for the temporary construction compound has been selected on the basis of its 

practicality, low habitat value and limited visual impact. Once the use of the compound is 

complete the area will be restored. 

4.7.2 The temporary construction compound will be reinstated once all construction activity is 

complete. The compound will be constructed using a geogrid base, or similar, to facilitate 

removal and reinstatement. Within six months of the proposed wind farm becoming 

operational, all temporary cabins, machinery and equipment will be removed and the laydown 

area fully restored. The reinstatement will be carried out by removal of all plant and 

accommodation, and then the removal of the compacted hard surface before replacing 

topsoil and then seeding or planting as appropriate to facilitate the re-establishment of 

vegetation. 

4.7.3 The buffers developed around the infrastructure during construction would be left unplanted 

for the life of the proposed wind farm in order to facilitate maintenance. 

4.8 Operation of the Proposed Wind Farm 

4.8.1 Wind turbines are extremely reliable, requiring minimal intervention and maintenance during 

operation. They are designed and constructed to withstand extreme wind and weather 

conditions. The turbines selected for this site will have a proven record in terms of safety and 

reliability. In addition, all power transmission at the proposed wind farm will be in compliance 

with the relevant UK guidelines and legal requirements. 

4.8.2 Employees from the turbine manufacturer and/or suitably qualified contractors employed 

locally will carry out maintenance at regular intervals across the 25 year operational life of the 

proposed wind farm. Routine maintenance and servicing is carried out twice per year. In 

addition, there is an initial service three months after commissioning. 

4.8.3 The following turbine maintenance will be carried out, along with any other maintenance 

required by manufacturers’ specifications: 

• Initial service; 

• Routine maintenance and servicing; 

• Blade inspection. 

4.8.4 Servicing will include tasks such as maintaining bolts to the required torque, adjusting blades, 

inspecting blade tip brakes, inspecting welds in the tower and re-lubricating moving 

components. Blade inspections are carried out as required (normally somewhere between 

every two and five years). 





4.8.5 The likelihood of major operational failures such as fire, collapse or blade throw is extremely 

low. The Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system provides monitoring 

information, which can detect and provide warning of abnormal operating conditions to allow 

automatic shut down and intervention before emergency situations occur. 

4.8.6 Should unexpected events occur, on-site appropriate maintenance works will be carried out. 

In some situations cranes may need to be deployed which will constitute an abnormal load 

and will be subject to the consent of the relevant roads authority in respect of delivery. 

Therefore, the crane pads adjacent to turbines will be retained for this purpose. 

4.8.7 Ongoing track maintenance will generally be undertaken in the summer months when tracks 

are likely to be drier. Safe access will be maintained all year round. 

4.8.8 A small sensor activated external floodlight will be located at the entrance to the substation 

switchroom building to ensure the safety of operators accessing this building. 

4.8.9 A number of information signs will be required at the site during construction and operation of 

the proposed wind farm. Signage will be agreed with West Lothian Council and will include: 

• Panel signs indicating the presence of the site entrance; 

• Signage on each turbine, indicating the turbine number, potential hazards and an 

emergency contact telephone number; 

• Substation switchroom building signage with health and safety information and an 

emergency contact telephone number; and 

• Other operational signage as required (e.g. Buried High Voltage (HV) Cable Route, 

Turbine Locations, etc). 

4.8.10 Fencing will be erected around the substation switchroom. It is anticipated that this will be 

permanent 2.4 m high palisade fencing. 

4.9 Decommissioning of the Proposed Wind Farm 

4.9.1 At the end of the 25 year operational life of the proposed wind farm, if the operational period 

is not extended the proposed wind farm will be decommissioned and the site reinstated as 

approved by the appropriate authority and relevant statutory consultees at that time, and in 

agreement with FCS. 

4.9.2 Decommissioning will involve: 

• Dismantling and removal of the wind turbines and underground electrical equipment; 

• Removal of turbine foundations to 1 m below ground level; 

• Demolition and removal of the substation switchroom and compound; 

• Removal of access tracks, unless required for forestry activities by FCS: 

• Reinstatement of land affected in accordance with best practice at the time; 

• Electrical cables will be cut off below ground level, de-energised and left in the 

ground. 

4.9.3 The turbines will be dismantled and removed from the site in a manner similar to that of their 

erection. Where possible turbine components will 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 will 

not result in abnormal loads such as those required for construction. Wherever possible, the 

components will be reduced to a size that will be manageable on standard HGVs. 

4.9.4 Demolition of the substation switchroom will involve removal of the internal equipment, 

followed by demolition and removal of the building. Access tracks will be reinstated in 

accordance with best practice at the time of decommissioning and in line with the 

requirements of FCS. 

4.9.5 Information relating to decommissioning will be outlined within the Decommissioning Plan, 

which will be submitted for approval to the appropriate authorities prior to cessation of 

operations and decommissioning. This will set out how the turbines and other infrastructure 

will be removed and the site restored. Alternatively, an application may be made for 

permission to extend the duration of the proposed wind farm or to replace the turbines with a 

new turbine model to take advantage of changes in technology. Any new application would 

be subject to the requisite further environmental appraisal at the appropriate time. 

4.9.6 Decommissioning activities will be carried out in accordance with relevant Health and Safety 

Regulations and Construction Regulations at the time of decommissioning. 

4.10 Impact of Wind Farm on Forestry Operations 

Overview of Forestry Issues and Wind Farm Development 

4.10.1 The development of a wind farm within the forest will be carefully managed to minimise the 

impact on forestry operations. In the case of Camilty Forest the positioning of the turbines 

has been considered to allow for this impact to be, in most cases, of little significance. 

4.10.2 Some area will be lost to forestry completely (turbine bases, roads, crane pads, etc) whilst 

other areas will be managed in a way to reduce its availability for use for wood production 

during the life of the wind farm. 

4.10.3 An assessment of the current compartments adjacent to the keyholes, timescale for felling 

within the current FDP and potential growth rates based on Yield Class 12, Sitka Spruce 

obtained from the Forestry Commission Booklet 34, Forest Management Tables (Forestry 

Commission, 1971) has been carried out. The results are shown in Appendix 4.3 Forestry 

Impacts Analysis Tables. 

4.10.4 The areas most affected are the turbine keyholes that will be maintained as relatively open 

areas for their radius (86 m –as described in Appendix 4.5. In addition, road access to the 

turbine positions will need to be created where required. 

4.10.5 Internal track widening and creation of stream or burn crossings are necessary to take the 

increased vehicle weight needed and are considered to be an improvement to the internal 

forest roads. 

4.10.6 Infrastructure including the met mast, construction compound and passing places will have 

an impact on the available forest area. 

4.10.7 These impacts are considered below and broken down into various degrees, either temporary 

or permanent in Appendix 4.3. 





Proposed Wind Farm and Forest Impacts Analysis 

4.10.8 The current total productive forest found within the development boundary at Camilty is 

approximately 173.3 hectares. An amended FDP will be proposed to restructure the forest to 

reduce the impacts of felling as a result of the plantations being planted within a short time 

frame. The current amendment to the FDP includes the recent clear felling and windblow. 

4.10.9 Wind damage is increasing throughout the forest as the terminal height is reached (height at 

which wind blow will have a high probability in severe storms). As the felling of sections of the 

forest occur then sheltered forest edges will be subject to greater wind loading particularly 

from the west. This will ensure that the majority of the remaining forest will be felled within the 

next 20 years. 

4.10.10 Baseline impacts from the development of the wind farm relate predominantly to the removal 

of certain areas of land from productive forestry to facilitate wind farm infrastructure. Loss of 

forestry as a direct result of the wind farm equates to approximately 16.56 ha (of the total 

footprint of 20.95), of which approximately 13.25 ha will be taken out of production to 

accommodate the keyhole area and will be maintained as mostly clear open spaces. This 

land can, however, revert back to forest once the turbines are removed. 

4.10.11 The majority of proposed turbine locations are within areas of restocking or current 

windblown areas (five of the six turbines are located in restocking areas). This has been a 

very deliberate exercise through the design evolution process in order to minimise any 

unnecessary removal of non-mature forestry to facilitate wind farm infrastructure. 

4.10.12 Roads will need to be widened and additional passing places constructed and this will result 

in improved access for future forestry operations. 

4.10.13 In line with the Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal (Forestry 

Commission Scotland, 2009), the net loss of forest cover (3.28 ha) will be compensated for 

by replanting either within Camilty forest, or within the adjacent forest blocks. The temporary 

loss of forest production in addition can be mitigated for by additional planting or as an 

acceptable increase in open space within Camilty Forest and the habitat diversity these 

would result in. 

4.11 Securing Environmental Management – the Health, Safety and 

Environmental Management System 

4.11.1 The appointed contractor will have overall responsibility for environmental management on 

the site. The services of specialist advisors will be retained as required and may include, for 

example, an archaeologist and/or ecologist to advise on specific issues, such as any further 

surveys required (pre-construction surveys), any liaison required with statutory bodies and 

ensuring that any requirements of planning conditions are undertaken correctly. The Project 

Manager will ensure construction and decommissioning activities are carried out in 

accordance with the mitigation measures outlined in this document. 

4.11.2 To ensure all mitigation measures outlined within this Environmental Statement (ES) are 

carried out, contractors will be required to develop and adhere to a Health, Safety and 

Environmental Management System (HSEMS) throughout the construction process. An 

indicative outline structure of the HSEMS is included in Appendix 4.4, and the contractor will 

be required to develop this to include site specific details in the form of a Pollution Prevention 

and Emergency Response Plan, Traffic Management Plan, Noise Management Plan, Site 





Waste Management Plan and Peat Management Plan. The HSEMS will be agreed with West 

Lothian Council and all relevant statutory bodies prior to commencement, and will be 

monitored by the Construction Project Manager and the Environmental Clerk of Works 

(ECoW). The HSEMS will be drafted to comply with SEPA’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines 

(PPG) and best practice as advocated by the Construction Industry Research and 

Information Association (CIRIA). 

4.11.3 In line with the Pollution Prevention and Emergency Response Plan, contractors will be 

required to adhere to the following in order to reduce or mitigate the environmental effect of 

the construction process: 

• Conditions to be adhered to under the planning permission; 

• Requirements of SEPA; 

• Any other relevant mitigation measures identified in this ES. 

4.11.4 A copy of any conditions associated with the planning permission will be incorporated into 

tender documents and contracts. The selection criteria for the construction contractor will 

include their record in dealing with environmental issues and provision of evidence that they 

have incorporated all environmental requirements into their method statements. 

4.11.5 A range of general best practice measures will be incorporated into the HSEMS and 

employed on site to minimise any potential effects. 

4.11.6 Where specific measures are proposed in response to a potential impact identified this is 

included in the appropriate section of this ES and a summary of all proposed mitigation 

measures is presented in Chapter 16: Summary of Effects and Mitigation. 


• 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 

• Forest Enterprise Scotland (2008) The National Forest Estate, Strategic Plan 2009- 

2013. 

• Forest Research (2006). Forest Mensuration: A Handbook for Practitioners 

• Forestry Commission Scotland (2008). Scottish Lowlands Forest District Strategic 

Plan 2009-2013 

• Forestry Commission Scotland (2009). Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of 

Woodland Removal 

• Forestry Commission (1981). Yield Models for Forest Management - Management 

Handbook, P.N. Edwards and J.M. Christie, ISBN0855380926 

• Forestry Commission (1971). Forest Management Tables (Metric) – Forestry 

Commission Booklet 34, G.J. Hamilton and J.M. Christie, ISBN11 710013 7 

• Interdepartmental Forestry Devolution Review Group (2002). Forestry Devolution 

Review: Interdepartmental Group Report 





• Natural England (2009) . Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines Interim Guidance. 

Technical Information Note TIN051 (11 February 2009) 

• The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) Regulations (Scotland) 2011. Office of 

Public Sector Information (OPSI). http://www.opsi.gov.uk 





5 Planning Policy Overview 

5.1 Introduction to Planning Guidance and Context 

5.1.1 This chapter identifies the European Union, United Kingdom and Scottish Government’s 

climate change and renewable energy targets. 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 The chapter also identifies the Development Plan policies and material considerations 

relevant to the determination of the planning application for the proposed wind farm. These 

policies and material considerations provide the context for the more detailed topic analysis 

as set out in Chapters 7 to 15 of this Environmental Statement (ES). 

5.1.3 It is not the purpose of this chapter to provide an assessment of the proposed wind farm 

against planning policy. It sets out the context in which development proposals will be 

considered. The detailed assessment of the proposed wind farm against the development 

plan and material considerations is contained within a separate supporting Planning 

Statement (PS) which accompanies the planning application 

5.2 International and National Context 

Climate Change and Renewable Energy Targets 

European Union Context 

5.2.1 Based upon the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 

Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 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. 

5.2.2 In 2008, in order to address the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) findings, 

the European Union (EU) unilaterally agreed a Climate and Energy Package which aims to 

deliver cuts in emissions of 20 % by 2020. The EU has committed to strengthening this 

target to 30 % provided other industrialised countries commit to a comparable effort and 

developing countries contribute adequately to global action. 

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 based on this 

20 % target 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 renewable sources. 

This 15 % target equates to approximately 230 gigawats (GW) of installed capacity. 

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 


Planning Policy Overview 



poverty. Regarding the first of these objectives, the UK Government 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 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 Roadmap was published by the Department of Energy and 

Climate Change (DECC) in July 2011 and sets out a comprehensive action plan of how the 

UK Government plans to accelerate the UK’s deployment and use of renewable energy in 

order to meet the EU’s legally binding target that 15 % of all energy is to come from 

renewable sources by 2020. The Roadmap focuses on the eight key renewable energy 

technologies (including onshore wind) which are particularly significant to meeting the 15 % 

target due to their cost effectiveness, potential level of deployment, and importance to the 

UK’s 2050 energy mix. The Roadmap identifies that these eight key renewable energy 

technologies can deliver approximately 90 % of the generation necessary to meet the 15 % 

target, with onshore wind identified as having the potential to generate approximately 13 GW 

by 2020 (compared to around 4 GW today). Achieving this 9 GW increase would require an 

annual growth rate in the UK of onshore wind of 13 % over the next decade. 

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, 

as of July 2012, 0.9 Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) are 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. While the future of the RO depends very much on the 

outcome of the current electricity market reform proposals, in 2012 power generation from 

renewable sources eligible under the RO indicated that further significant development in 

renewable energy sources is needed to meet this target. 

Scottish Context 

The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 

5.2.9 The Climate Change (Scotland) 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. 

5.2.10 The Scottish Government recognises that the displacement of fossil fuel heat and power 

generation is important to reducing emissions. 

The Climate Change Delivery Plan (2009) 

5.2.11 The Scottish Government issued the Climate Change Delivery Plan, entitled ‘Meeting 

Scotland’s Statutory Climate Change Targets’ in June 2009. The Climate Change Delivery 

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 

2050 if the 80 % emission reduction target is to be achieved. 

5.2.12 For the electricity sector, targets have been set for the percentage of electricity demand, 

which requires to be obtained from renewable energy sources by 2020. The current target, 

which was set by the Scottish Government in May 2011, is for 100 % of Scotland’s gross 

annual electricity consumption to be generated from renewable sources by 2020. This 100 % 

renewables target roughly equates to approximately 14 to 16 GW of installed capacity 

(compared to around 4.8 GW installed today) and is the most ambitious target in Europe. 

5.2.13 Paragraph 3.20 of the Climate Change Delivery 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) 

5.2.14 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 which 

were needed over the immediate 24-month period. 

5.2.15 The RAP identifies collective actions by government, its agencies and partners, to ensure 

that 20 % (this has now been increased to 30 %) 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. 

5.2.16 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 the 





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.” 

5.2.17 Section 4 of the RAP highlights that each of the technology sectors will have its own part to 

play in helping Scotland to 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.” 

5.2.18 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. 

2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland (2011) 

5.2.19 The 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland was published in July 2011 and 

updates and extends the RAP to reflect the challenge of the Scottish Government’s new 

targets for renewable energy. 

5.2.20 The Routemap for Renewable Energy identifies that the Scottish Government has committed 

to meeting the EU’s 2020 renewable energy target of 20 % by setting a new target to source 

30 % of energy demand from renewables by 2020. This is further broken down into 100 % 

electricity; 11 % heat; and 10 % transport fuels. This 20 % target goes beyond the legally 

binding 15 % target that the EU has set for the UK and reflects the higher level of potential 

and the Scottish Government’s greater ambition for renewables in Scotland. 

5.2.21 The Routemap for Renewable Energy identifies that in order to meet the Scottish 

Government’s renewable energy targets for 2020, a further increase in consenting and 

deployment rates will be required. 

5.2.22 Sectoral routemaps are provided for each of the key renewables technologies that are 

anticipated will contribute towards achieving the 2020 targets. With regard to onshore wind, 

the ambition is “that by 2020, onshore wind developments ranging from small and 

community-scale to large power utility scale maximise engagement with communities; 

contribute electricity to renewables targets; and through displacement of fossil fuel 

generation, help to reduce fossil fuel consumption.” 

5.2.23 It continues that “onshore wind is a mature and relatively low cost renewable technology with 

a large supply chain already established. It is capable of being deployed at a high rate. 

Onshore wind turbines can make a very large contribution to the progress to Scotland’s 

renewable electricity target, and help establish Scotland’s reputation as rapidly becoming the 

green powerhouse of Europe.” 

5.2.24 Table 5.1 and 5.2 below provide a summary of EU, UK and Scottish targets for the use of 

energy from renewables and for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions respectively. 

Table 5.1 2020 Targets for Use of Energy from Renewables (%) 

Renewable Usage EU Target UK Target Scottish Target 

ENERGY 20 % 15 % 30 % 

ELECTRICITY - 30 % 100 % 





Table 5.2 Targets for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (%) 

By Date EU Obligation UK Target Scottish Target 

2020 20 % 34 % 42 % 

2050 - 80 % 80 % 

5.3 Development Plan 

5.3.1 Section 25(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that “where, in 

making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development 

plan, the determination is, unless materials indicate otherwise, to be made in accordance with 

that plan…”. Section 37(2) states that “in dealing with the application made to a planning 

authority for planning permission, the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the 

development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material 

considerations.” 

5.3.2 The Development Plan in this instance comprises: 

• the Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015 (ELSP) (approved 2004) 

• the West Lothian Local Plan 2009 (WLLP) (adopted 2009). 

5.3.3 The Development Plan policies of relevance to the proposed wind farm are set out in Table 

5.3 below. These policies are then summarised in the following paragraphs on a policy 

subject basis, focusing firstly on those policies specific to renewable energy developments 

and latterly on generic policies applicable to all developments. 

Table 5.3 Relevant Development Plan Policy 

Policy Subject ELSP WLLP 

Renewables ENV6 NWR20 to NWR29 

Site Specific ENV3 NWR29 

Landscape and Visual ENV1D NWR22, NWR27, ENV19, ENV20, 

ENV24 

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ENV1C, ENV1D NWR24, HER2, HER12, HER15 

Ecology and Ornithology 

Forestry 

ENV1A, ENV1B, 

ENV1D, ENV1F 

NWR21, NWR23, NWR26, ENV2, 

ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6 

ENV11, ENV12 

Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Geology and Soils ENV1D, ENV12 ENV8, ENV15a, ENV16 

Noise 

Access and Transportation 

NWR25, NWR26 

TRAN2, TRAN3 

Socio-Economic, Tourism and Recreation ENV1D NWR22, NWR26, ENV24, ENV28 

Other 

NWR26, NWR28 





Renewable Energy 

5.3.4 The ELSP policies on renewable energy were prepared in the context of National Planning 

Policy Guideline 6 (NPPG 6) Renewable Energy (revised 2000). NPPG 6 was replaced by 

Scottish Planning Policy 6 (SPP 6) Renewable Energy 2007 (2007) and its subsequent 

replacement Scottish Planning Policy (2010). 

5.3.5 ELSP Policy ENV6: Renewable Energy provides that “development of renewable energy 

resources will be supported where this can be achieved in an environmentally acceptable 

manner.” It states that “local plans should set out the specific criteria against which 

renewable energy developments will be assessed.” 

5.3.6 WLLP Policy NWR20 complements ELSP Policy ENV6 and provides that “the council 

supports the development of renewable energy schemes provided that the schemes are 

environmentally acceptable and the criteria set out in [the WLLP] can be met.” Those criteria 

specific to renewable energy developments are set out in Policies NWR21 to NWR29 and are 

discussed below on a policy subject basis. 

Site Specific 

5.3.7 The site of the proposed wind farm lies within countryside as defined in the WLLP. The 

ELSP seeks to strike a balance between protecting the character of the countryside from 

development pressures whilst allowing some appropriate development. 

5.3.8 ELSP Policy ENV3: Development in the Countryside provides that “development in the 

countryside will be allowed where it has an operational requirement for such a location that 

cannot be met [elsewhere] and is compatible with the rural character of the area.” 

5.3.9 WLLP Policy NWR29 identifies the preferred areas for wind farm developments in West 

Lothian. The site of the proposed wind farm lies outwith a preferred area, the nearest 

preferred area being located within the Woodmuir Plantation and Pates Hill forestry plantation 

to the south of Breich and west of the Addiewell to Cobbinshaw Road. 

Landscape and Visual 

5.3.10 The site of the proposed wind farm is located partly within the Pentland Hills Area of Great 

Landscape Value (AGLV) and adjacent to the western boundary of the Pentland Hills 

Regional Park. Both the ELSP and the WLLP seek to protect these regional and local 

designations and their setting. The WLLP also seeks to ensure that developments do not 

result in unacceptable visual impact from important local viewpoints or road corridors. 

5.3.11 ELSP Policy ENV1D: Regional and Local Natural and Built Environment Interests 

provides that development affecting Conservation Areas, AGLV and the Pentland Hills 

Regional Park or their settings will only be permitted where the objectives and overall integrity 

of the designated area will not be compromised or the social or economic benefits to be 

gained from the proposed development outweigh the interest of the site. 

5.3.12 WLLP Policy NWR22 provides that “the council will resist any proposal for renewable energy 

development that will affect the character [or] visual integrity ... of both the Pentland Hills 

Regional Park and the wider area of the Pentland Hills in West Lothian.” 

5.3.13 WLLP Policy NWR27 provides that “the council will resist windfarm developments that will 

give rise to unacceptable cumulative effects”. It presumes against any development that 





contributes to the unacceptable concentrations of windfarm developments when viewed from 

key vantage points in any one settlement or road corridor. 

5.3.14 WLLP Policy ENV19 presumes against development which would undermine the landscape 

and visual qualities for which the Areas of Great Landscape Value were designated. 

5.3.15 WLLP Policy ENV20 provides that “development proposals outwith an AGLV which would 

affect its setting from important viewpoints will be subject to detailed visual appraisal and will 

not be supported if it adversely affects the designated area.” 

5.3.16 WLLP Policy ENV24 provides that development which is visually intrusive and impairs the 

appearance of the countryside from key transport corridors will be resisted. Key transport 

corridors are defined as the M8, M9, A89, A706, A70, A71, A801 and railways. 

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 

5.3.17 The ELSP and WLLP identify that West Lothian enjoys a rich cultural heritage and promotes 

the protection of the historic environment. 

5.3.18 ELSP Policy ENV1C: International and National Historic or Built Environment 

Designations provides that development which would harm the character, appearance and 

setting of World Heritage Sites, Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and sites 

listed in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes should be resisted. 


provides that development affecting sites of archaeological interest or their settings will only 

be permitted where the objectives and overall integrity of the designated area will not be 

compromised or the social or economic benefits to be gained from the proposed development 

outweigh the interest of the site. 

5.3.20 WLLP Policy NWR24 requires that “proper regard is given to the effects of the renewable 

energy developments on the built heritage and that the siting of any turbine or access track 

must take into account the results of a full archaeological assessment of the site.” 

5.3.21 WLLP Policy HER2 seeks to protect listed buildings and provides that in considering 

proposals for development within the vicinity of listed buildings, the Council will have 

particular regard to the setting of the listed building. 

5.3.22 WLLP Policy HER12 provides that “development [proposals] which would adversely affect 

the historic interest, character and setting of scheduled monuments will not be approved.” 

5.3.23 WLLP Policy HER15 provides that “significant archaeological sites will be protected from 

development which will have a detrimental effect on the sites or their settings.” 

Ecology and Ornithology 

5.3.24 The ELSP and the WLLP identify that any proposal that requires planning permission which 

affects the integrity or quality of any designated nature conservation site will be subject to 

particular scrutiny. Where development may affect priority habitats or species or other non 

statutory nature conservation designations, the WLLP identifies that an appropriate level of 

environmental or biodiversity assessment will be required. 

5.3.25 ELSP Policy ENV1A: International Natural Heritage Designations provides that 

“development which would have ... adverse effect on the conservation interests for which a 

Natura 2000 site has been designated should only be permitted ... [when] there is no 

alternative solution ... and there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest.” 





5.3.26 ELSP Policy ENV1B: National Natural Heritage Designations provides that “development 

which would affect national designations ... will only be permitted where it can be 

demonstrated that ... the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity will not be 

compromised ... or [alternatively] any significant adverse effects on the qualities [of the 

designation] are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance.” 


provides that “development affecting [local nature reserves] will only be permitted where ... 

the objectives and overall integrity of the designated area will not be compromised ... or the 

social or economic benefits to be gained from the proposed development outweigh ... the 

interest of the site.” 

5.3.28 ELSP Policy ENV1F: Environmental or Biodiversity Assessments provides that 

“development proposals that would affect any designated ... priority habitat[s] or species or 

other important non-statutory locations will require an appropriate level of environmental or 

biodiversity assessment.” It continues that “where development is permitted, proposals must 

include measures for mitigation and, where appropriate, enhancement to reduce any adverse 

impact and/or to provide for sustainable habitat replacement.” 

5.3.29 WLLP Policy NWR21 provides that “the council will not support any proposal for renewable 

energy development that could undermine the qualities of any site identified by [any natural 

heritage designations in either] West Lothian or in an adjoining local authority area.” It 

provides that “in assessing such effects, the council will have particular regard to the 

precautionary principle.” 

5.3.30 WLLP Policy NWR23 presumes against the development of renewable energy proposals in 

or adjacent to areas that are designated either nationally or locally for their natural heritage 

importance, or because of the area’s role to retain undeveloped countryside. 

5.3.31 WLLP Policy NWR26 provides that “in determining any proposal for a windfarm, the council 

shall have specific regard to the specific site planning considerations set out in paragraphs 

11.81 to 11.88 [of the WLLP].” Paragraph 11.86 provides that the council will assess wind 

farm proposals taking into account matters including the impact on migratory and nesting 

birds and the potential for bird strike. 

5.3.32 WLLP Policy ENV2 presumes against “development that will put at risk habitats and key 

priorities identified in the West Lothian Local Biodiversity Action Plan.” 

5.3.33 WLLP Policy ENV3 provides that “development proposals within or affecting [the integrity of 

Natura 2000 sites] ... will not be permitted unless it can be ascertained that it will not 

adversely affect the integrity of a Natura site or there are no alternative solutions and there 

are imperative reasons of over-riding national public interest.” 

5.3.34 WLLP Policy ENV4 presumes against “developments within, or affecting areas classified as 

sites of national importance, including National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special 

Scientific Interest, ... unless it can be demonstrated that ... it will not compromise the 

objectives or integrity of the designation or there is an overriding national public interest that 

outweighs the designation interest.” 

5.3.35 WLLP Policy ENV5 presumes against “development affecting areas of regional or local 

importance, or their settings, unless it can be clearly shown that the objectives and integrity of 

the area will not be compromised or that the social or economic benefits to be gained from 

the development outweigh the conservation interest of the site.” Designations are Local 





Nature Reserves (LNR), Wildlife Sites (WS), peatland and Regionally Important Geological 

Sites (RIGS). 

5.3.36 WLLP Policy ENV6 requires an appropriate level of environmental or biodiversity 

assessment for any proposed development which could affect the areas subject to policies 

ENV3, ENV4 and ENV5. 

Forestry 

5.3.37 The proposed wind farm lies within Camilty Plantation, a large commercially stocked Sitka 

spruce plantation interspersed with large open clear felled areas. The WLLP identifies that 

such plantations will provide a sustainable resource in the future, through restructuring, to 

provide new recreation and biodiversity opportunities as well as timber. 

5.3.38 WLLP Policy ENV11 presumes against “development[s] affecting woodlands and trees 

unless there is a proven locational need and where a sustainable environmental gain through 

replacement and additional tree planting appropriate to the areas is provided.” 

5.3.39 WLLP Policy ENV12 provides that “woodland planting and the sustainable management of 

existing woodlands and groups of trees ...will be required for development proposals in the 

countryside which are acceptable in planning terms.” 

Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Geology and Soils 

5.3.40 The ELSP and the WLLP seek to ensure that new developments do not result in adverse 

effects on the water environment. 


provides that “development [affecting peatland and water supply catchment] areas, or their 

settings, will only be permitted where ... [t]he objectives and overall integrity of the designated 

area will not be compromised ... or the social or economic benefits to be gained from the 

proposed development outweigh the conservation or other interest of the site.” 

5.3.42 ELSP Policy ENV12: Water Management and Flooding provides that “[d]evelopment, 

individually and/or cumulatively, that may lead to a significant increase in the risk of flooding, 

or that may itself be at risk of flooding, should not be permitted.” 

5.3.43 WLLP Policy ENV8 requires a soil assessment on all Greenfield development sites over 1 

hectare in relation to their sustainable re-use for landscape, habitat creation and open space 

provision and for their capacity to absorb water. 

5.3.44 WLLP Policy ENV15a presumes against “development which could result in the deterioration 

of a water body below the status required by the [Water Framework] Directive.” 

5.3.45 WLLP Policy ENV16 requires that opportunities for biodiversity enhancement and landscape 

creation are addressed in Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) for large 

development sites. 

Noise 

5.3.46 WLLP Policy NWR25 requires that “if, following the commissioning of any windfarm 

development there remains ... a residual noise intrusion at any dwellinghouse, the council will 

expect that further remediation measures are taken to protect the residential amenity of 

affected properties.” 






shall have regard to the specific site planning considerations set out in paragraphs 11.81 to 

11.88 [of the WLLP].” Paragraph 11.86 provides that the council will assess proposals for 

wind farm developments taking into account the potential for noise impacts. 

Access and Transportation 

5.3.48 WLLP Policy TRAN2 provides that “development will only be permitted where transport 

impacts are acceptable.” It states that “[t]his will be established through a Transport 

Assessment which covers all modes of transport and has been approved by the council.” 

5.3.49 WLLP Policy TRAN3 requires developers to “provide, or contribute towards, the provision of 

travel improvements including traffic and environmental management measures, road 

network improvements and measures to promote trips by public transport where these would 

be justified as a result of new development.” 

Socio-Economic, Tourism and Recreation 


provides that “[d]evelopment affecting [defined core and local path networks] ... , or their 

settings, will only be permitted where ... [t]he objectives and overall integrity of the designated 

area will not be compromised ... or the social or economic benefits to be gained from the 

proposed development outweigh the conservation or other interest of the site.” 

5.3.51 WLLP Policy NWR22 provides that “the council will resist any proposal for renewable energy 

development that will affect the ... recreational qualities of both the Pentland Hills Regional 

Park and the wider area of the Pentland Hills in West Lothian. Proposals that are located 

outwith the Regional Park or the wider Pentland Hills but nevertheless undermine the 

landscape and outdoor recreational qualities of those areas will not normally be supported 

unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that the integrity of the landscape and outdoor 

recreational qualities are not adversely affected.” 


shall have regard to the specific site planning considerations set out in paragraphs 11.81 to 

11.88 [of the WLLP].” Paragraph 11.86 provides that the council will assess proposals for 

wind farm developments taking into account impacts upon public access. 

5.3.53 WLLP Policy ENV24 provides that “development which is visually intrusive and impairs the 

appearance of the countryside from key transport corridors will be resisted.” Key transport 

corridors are defined as the M8, M9, A89, A706, A70, A71, A801 and railways. 

5.3.54 WLLP Policy ENV28 provides that “core paths ... will be protected from development, though 

exceptions may be considered where ... an alternative path [is provided] that satisfies the 

council in terms of specifications and routing after public consultation.” 

Other Considerations 

5.3.55 WLLP Policy NWR26 provides that in determining any proposal for a windfarm, the council 

shall have specific regard to the specific site planning considerations set out in paragraphs 

11.81 to 11.88 of the WLLP. 

5.3.56 Paragraph 11.81 of the WLLP provides that “the council will expect developers to be 

receptive to appropriate [turbine] colour schemes ... during the determination of the proposal.” 





5.3.57 Paragraph 11.82 of the WLLP provides that “following the approval of any [wind farm] 

proposal, the council will wish to discuss detailed micro-siting issues prior to the 

commencement of construction.” 

5.3.58 Paragraphs 11.83 and 11.84 of the WLLP provide that the council will expect developers to 

have full regard to airport safeguarding and the need to mitigate any interference with 

telecommunications networks and civil or military radio communications. “The Council will 

consult the Civil Aviation Authority and British Airports Authority on all applications for 

planning permission for wind farm development. Where it can be proven that television 

interference is attributable to a wind farm development, then the council will expect operators 

to implement acceptable compensatory measures to remedy such occurrences in 

consultation with and to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority”. 

5.3.59 Paragraph 11.85 provides that “the council will expect any [planning] consent ... to have full 

regard to the dismantling of the development and the reinstatement of the site.” 

Consequently, it requires that the developer provides “an indicative restoration strategy as 

part of the determination of the planning application, setting out the overall decommissioning 

objectives which shall include the removal of all turbines, concrete bases, cables, ducts and 

access tracks.” 

5.3.60 Paragraph 11.87 provides that “the area occupied by any wind farm development will, as a 

rule, incorporate large areas of open land surrounding each turbine.” It continues that 

“[a]pplications will require to be accompanied by method statements setting out the means of 

land management that will secure biodiversity objectives. A habitat management plan will 

require to be an integral part of any application for windfarm development and the means of 

implementing this plan, and monitoring its effects shall be set out in the application.” 

5.3.61 Paragraph 11.88 provides that, in the determination of the planning application, the council 

will have “particular regard to the environmental impact of the construction of the site, 

including the sources for aggregate and concrete required to be imported from off-site.” 

5.3.62 WLLP Policy NWR28 requires the operators of renewable energy development to “finance 

the appointment, by the council, of a compliance officer to monitor the site during the 

currency of the planning permission.” 

5.4 Other Material Considerations 

National Planning Framework 2 (NPF2) 

5.4.1 National Planning Framework 2 (NPF2) was approved by the Scottish Parliament in 2009 and 

sets out the national spatial strategy for Scotland’s development to 2030. Core parts of the 

strategy relate to the realisation of the potential of Scotland’s renewable energy resources. 

Paragraph 155 states that “the Government is committed to establishing Scotland as a 

leading location for the development of renewable energy technology and an energy exporter 

over the long term. The aim of national planning policy is to develop Scotland’s renewable 

energy potential whilst safeguarding the environment and communities.” 

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 

5.4.2 SPP was published in February 2010 and is a statement of Scottish Government policy on 

land use planning. The SPP subject policies on renewable energy (paragraphs 182 to 195) 

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. 

5.4.3 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 % (this target has now been increased to 100 %) of Scotland’s electricity from 

renewable sources by 2020 and confirms that this target should not be regarded as a cap. 

5.4.4 The intention of the SPP is that this renewable energy target should be met by a range of 

renewable technologies. However, this paragraph recognises that hydro-electric and 

onshore wind power are currently making the most significant contribution and that this is 

expected to continue in the short to medium term. 

5.4.5 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 provides 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 

including extensions. It 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 dis-benefits for communities; 

• Aviation and telecommunications; 

• Noise and shadow flicker; and 

• Cumulative impact. 

5.4.6 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 guidance provides that 

decisions should not be unreasonably delayed because other schemes in the area are at a 

less advanced stage in the application process. The weight that planning authorities attach to 

undetermined applications should reflect their position in the application process. 

Scottish Government Web Based Advice on Onshore Wind Turbines 

5.4.7 In February 2011, the Scottish Government introduced the first tranche of web based 

renewables advice which replaces PAN 45 – Renewable Energy Technologies (revised in 

2002) and its supporting Annex 2: Spatial Frameworks (2008). The on-line advice is intended 

to be more succinct and to provide a user-friendly resource offering guidance on new 

technologies and processes, with clarification of the roles of planning authorities, consultees 

and developers in enabling development. 





5.4.8 The guidance (last updated 24 October 2012) provides that the suggested areas of focus for 

planning authorities should include: 

• “Provide greater clarity on where groups of wind turbines can be located by ensuring 

that a spatial framework for wind farms >20 MW has been set out in the development 

plan and addressing the potential below 20 MW where appropriate; 

• Detail criteria to be applied in assessing wind turbine applications; ... and 

• Ensure that planning conditions and agreements for wind turbine approvals are 

reasonable and proportionate.” 

5.4.9 In considering the landscape impacts of wind farms when determining planning applications, 

the guidance recognises that the receiving landscape features and the design of the 

development can play a significant role in ensuring the proposals are integrated into the 

landscape setting. It states that “the ability of the landscape to absorb development often 

depends largely on features of landscape character such as landform, ridges, hills, valleys 

and vegetation. This can also be influenced by careful siting and the skills of the designer.” 

5.4.10 In replacing PAN 45 the advice dispenses with advice on the effect which distance has on the 

perception of a wind farm by simply stating that “In considering wind farm visibility it should 

be noted that in some locations and clear weather, turbines may be visible over long 

distances, though this will depend on elevation, the angle of the sun and other factors.” 

5.4.11 In relation to the impacts on wildlife and habitats, the guidance, although recognising the 

potential for adverse impacts, also identifies the beneficial effects that wind farm proposals 

may have. It states that “Wind turbine developments have the capacity to have both positive 

and negative effects on the wildlife, habitats, ecosystems and biodiversity of an area. For 

example, the effects of climate change are known to have damaging effects on wildlife, 

habitats, ecosystems and biodiversity, and the production of renewable energy counters this. 

There are also many opportunities for wind turbine developments to introduce environmental 

improvement through land management, land restoration and habitat creation, as part of a 

development scheme.” 

5.4.12 Other criteria identified in the guidance to be assessed in the determination of wind farm 

proposals include impacts on communities (shadow flicker, noise, electromagnetic 

interference and ice throw), aviation and other defence matters, road traffic impacts and 

cumulative impacts. 

PAN 60 - Planning for Natural Heritage 

5.4.13 PAN 60 does not specifically address wind farm developments but does provide general 

guidance on the siting and design of development in relation to Scotland’s natural 

environment. 

5.4.14 The general principle, as stated in paragraph 52, is that ‘while inappropriate development can 

detract from scenic quality or adversely affect particular habitats, species or earth heritage 

interests, well designed and carefully sited development can complement the landscape and 

substantially increase natural heritage interest’. NPPG 14 (now revoked) stresses that the 

scale, siting and design of new development should take full account of the character of the 

landscape and the potential impact on the local environment (paragraph 15) (now 

encompassed within Paragraph 127 in the SPP). Landscape character assessment can play 





a valuable role in informing the development of a policy framework for the siting and design of 

new development. 

PAN 1/2011 – Planning and Noise 

5.4.15 PAN 1/2011 provides guidance on how noise issues should be considered and addressed in 

relation to development proposals; including the use of planning conditions relating to noise. 

5.4.16 With regard to wind farms, Paragraph 29 states that “good acoustical design and siting of 

turbines is essential to minimise the potential to generate noise.” 

Strategic Development Plan for Edinburgh and South East Scotland (SESplan) 

5.4.17 The Edinburgh and South East Scotland Strategic Development Planning Authority (SDPA), 

which comprises West Lothian, City of Edinburgh, East Lothian, Midlothian, Fife and Scottish 

Borders, is currently preparing the SESplan under the requirements of the Planning etc 

(Scotland) Act 2006. The SESplan, once completed and approved, will replace the existing 

ELSP. 

5.4.18 The Proposed Plan was published in November 2011 and has been submitted to the Scottish 

Ministers for approval. It is currently the subject of an Examination in Public understood to be 

due for completion during July 2013. 

5.4.19 The Proposed Plan identifies that in order to meet the Scottish Government’s 2020 targets for 

renewable energy generation, there is a continued need for further development of renewable 

energy resources. With specific regard to onshore wind, paragraph 124 states that 

consideration of location, landscape, environmental quality and community impacts will be 

required. 

5.4.20 Policy 10 of the Proposed Plan states that the Strategic Development Plan seeks to promote 

sustainable energy sources. It provides that Local Development Plans will, amongst other 

matters, set a framework for the encouragement of renewable energy proposals, taking into 

account economic, social, environmental and transport considerations. 

Consultative Draft Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development in 

West Lothian 

5.4.21 David Tyldesley and Associates were commissioned in 2011 jointly by West Lothian Council 

and SNH to carry out a landscape and visual capacity study for wind energy development. 

The primary purpose of the study is to advise West Lothian Council on the best strategic 

approach for accommodating future wind energy developments within the context of West 

Lothian’s landscape and settlement pattern. Once approved, this landscape capacity study 

will underpin the council’s interim planning guidance for wind energy developments and 

subsequent policy inclusion in the emerging Local Development Plan. 

5.4.22 The landscape capacity study for wind energy development is limited to landscape and visual 

amenity issues only. The study does not take account of nationally or locally designated 

landscapes, nor does it take into account natural and built heritage considerations. The study 

does also not take into account technical factors such as wind speed, grid capacity or 

aviation constraints. 

5.4.23 The capacity study is a regional-scale, strategic study which identifies potential areas of 

search following a broad assessment of landscape and visual sensitivity and capacity only. It 

recognises that further more detailed assessment of each wind energy proposal within these 





areas will be required in order to enable consideration of all likely landscape and visual 

effects. 

5.4.24 The consultative draft study identifies the Upland Hill Fringes unit 2(ii) within which the 

proposed windfarm is located as a medium sensitivity where some wind energy development 

could be acceptable. Landscape accommodation is considered the most appropriate 

objective (rather than landscape protection or landscape change), where suitably designed 

wind energy developments which generally fit within the landscape could potentially be 

accommodated even though they may have an impact on the landscape locally. Unit 2 (ii) is 

assessed as having medium / low capacity. The key considerations for wind energy 

developments within unit 2 (ii) are identified as cumulative effects with Blacklaw (including 

approved extension), Pates Hill, Muirhall and possibly Tormywheel wind farms as well as 

impacts on views from the A706 and the Fauldhouse Rail Core Path. 

5.5 Conclusions 

5.5.1 This Chapter has set out the relevant EU, UK and Scottish climate change and renewable 

energy policy framework. It has identified the planning policies and material considerations 

relevant to the determination of the proposed Camilty Wind Farm. A detailed assessment of 

the acceptability of the proposed wind farm, in relation to the policies contained within this 

chapter, is the subject of a separate supporting Planning Statement which will accompany the 

planning application. 


• BERR (Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) (2008), UK Energy 

in Brief, [online]. Available at: 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46983.pdf 

[Accessed 3 January 2013] 

• City of Edinburgh Council, East Lothian Council, Midlothian Council, West Lothian 

Council (2004), Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015, [online]. Available 

at: http://www.elsp.gov.uk/Downloads/ELSP_Approved_Complete_doc.pdf [Accessed 

3 January 2013] 

• David Tyldesley and Associates (2011) Consultative Draft Landscape Capacity Study 

for Wind Energy Development in West Lothian, Final December 2011, [online[. 

Available 

at: 

http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/downloaddoc/1799514/1841832/1875738/23305 

56/LCS_windenergyinWL [Accessed 3 January 2011] 

• DECC (2011), UK Renewable Energy Roadmap, [online]. Available at: 

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/renewableenergy/2167-uk-renewable-energy-roadmap.pdf 


• DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2007), Meeting the Energy Challenge: A 

White Paper on Energy, [online]. Available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file39387.pdf 


• Edinburgh and South East Scotland Strategic Development Planning Authority (2011), 

Proposed Plan, [online]. Available at: 





http://www.sesplan.gov.uk/assets/files/docs/proposed-plan/Proposed%20Plan.pdf 


• IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007), Fourth Assessment 

Report (AR4), [online]. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/#tabs-3 [Accessed 3 January 

2013] 

• Scottish Government (2008) Planning for Natural Heritage: Planning Advice Note 60, 

[online]. 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2000/08/pan60-root/pan60 


• Scottish Government (2009) Climate Change Delivery Plan, [online]. Available at: 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/276273/0082934.pdf [Accessed 3 January 

2013] 

• Scottish Government (2009), National Planning Framework for Scotland 2, [online]. 

Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/278232/0083591.pdf 


• Scottish Government (2009), Scottish Renewables Action Plan, [online]. Available at: 


2013] 

• Scottish Government (2010), Scottish Planning Policy, [online]. Available at: 


2013] 

• Scottish Government (2011), 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland, 

[online]. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/917/0118802.pdf 


• Scottish Government (2011), Onshore Wind Turbines, [online]. Available at: 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00405870.pdf [Accessed 3 January 2013] 

• Scottish Government (2011), Planning and Noise: Planning Advice Note 1/2011, 

[online]. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/343210/0114180.pdf 


• West Lothian Council (2009) West Lothian Local Plan, [online]. Available at: 

http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/downloaddoc/1799514/1849418/2083838/adopt 

edwllp [Accessed 3 January 2013] 





6 Climate Change and Atmospheric Emissions 

6.1 Introduction and Overview 

6.1.1 This chapter considers the proposed wind farm in relation to the expected renewable energy 

generation and associated reductions in atmospheric emissions of CO 2. This chapter also 

considers the carbon payback associated with the proposed wind farm. 

6.2 Justification for the Development 

Current Issues 

Climate Change 

6.2.1 There is now unequivocal evidence of climate change associated with human activity, from 

observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting 

of snow and ice and rising global average sea level (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, 2007). The effects of climate change are widely recognised as being one of the 

greatest global environmental challenges facing the world today. 

6.2.2 A major cause of climate change is a rise in the concentration and volume of green house 

gases (GHG) in the atmosphere. This increase affects the way the earth retains heat and the 

world’s leading environmental scientists have concluded this process is leading to an 

increase in the earth’s average temperature, causing climate change. 

6.2.3 The main human influence on global climate is emissions of key greenhouse gases, 

specifically: Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ), Methane (CH 4 ) and Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O) – for ease of 

reference, these are generally expressed as a “carbon equivalent” – that is, equivalent tonnes 

of CO 2 . 

6.2.4 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of United Nations scientists 

which monitors studies examining the effects of climate change, reported an increase in 

atmospheric CO 2 concentration from a pre-industrial value of about 280 parts per million 

(ppm) to 379 ppm in 2005. About two-thirds of the observed increased atmospheric carbon 

concentration is believed to be due to the carbon emissions released from the burning of 

traditional fossil fuels (notably coal and oil), to generate power. 

Finite Fuel Sources 

6.2.5 In addition to the issue of climate change, concerns currently exist about the long-term 

viability of the use of fossil fuels to generate energy, due to the finite nature of the fuel. Owing 

to political instability, there are also concerns that too heavy a reliance on imported fuels 

could threaten the UK’s security of supply even in the relatively short-term future. 

6.2.6 The European Commission’s Green Paper: ‘Towards a European Strategy for the Security of 

Energy Supply’, highlights the importance of diversity of energy supply and of energy 

generation within the European Union, along with an emphasis on increasing energy from 

renewable sources (European Commission, 2000). 

The Advantages of Renewable Energy and Wind Power 

6.2.7 The primary benefits of renewable sources of energy (including wind, solar, hydro, tidal, and 

geothermal) to generate electricity over conventional fuels are: 


Climate Change and Atmospheric Emissions 



• Conservation of finite resources - Renewable sources of energy are those that are not 

based on finite reserves stored within the earth. Using wind to generate electricity is 

non-consumptive. 

• Reduction in pollutant emissions - Using wind to generate electricity produces no 

operational derived gases or other by-products and therefore does not contribute 

directly to local air pollution. In contrast, burning fossil fuels produces pollutants 

including oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) and sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ). 

• Reduction in greenhouse gas emission/energy use over the lifetime of the facility - 

The comparison of the energy used during the manufacture and construction of a 

power station or wind farm with the energy generated during its operation is known as 

its energy balance. The energy balance can be expressed in terms of energy “payback” 

time or carbon pay-back time, which is the time needed to generate the 

equivalent amount of energy/carbon used in manufacturing and constructing the 

facility. It is generally accepted that carrying out such a calculation indicates that wind 

power has a much shorter pay-back time than other non-renewable generators, 

typically taking only a few months of operation for a wind turbine to pay for itself in 

energy terms (Welsh Assembly Government, 2003). It has been estimated that the 

energy invested in manufacturing a wind turbine is typically paid off within less than a 

year of operation, though this will vary according to the nature of the site (Vestas Wind 

Systems, 2005). Scottish Government published a Technical Note: Calculating 

Potential Carbon Losses & Savings from Wind farms on Scottish Peatlands in 2011 

for calculating carbon ‘payback’ times for wind farms on Scottish peatlands (Scottish 

Government, 2011a), following up on Nayak, Smith et al (2011) updated carbon 

calculator for wind farms on peat and forestry. This considers the effects of wind 

farms during construction and operation on soil stability and long-term greenhouse 

gas emissions. The estimated carbon payback time for the proposed wind farm is 

presented below in Section 6.5 of this chapter. 

• Production of a more secure and long-term energy supply (DEFRA, 2011) - wind 

power creates an effectively infinite source of power by harnessing energy generated 

from natural resources. Therefore the development of a diverse range of electricity 

generating technologies contributes to reducing the risks related to the supply and 

cost of electricity. 

• Use of a freely available resource - Improvements in technology and rises in fossil fuel 

costs have resulted in the cost of wind power falling close to those of conventional 

sources of electricity. Wind is therefore both the most abundant and one of the 

cheapest of the UK's renewable energy resources (Sustainable Development 

Commission, 2005). As the UK is one of the windiest countries in Europe (BWEA, 

2005), it is well placed for the harnessing of wind energy. Scotland in particular has a 

significant wind resource, according to a report on the regional renewable energy 

assessments commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry (OXERA, 

2002). 

• Source of jobs - Given the recent investment into renewable energy and wind power, 

particularly in Scotland, the emerging sector is recognised as a growing source of jobs 

in the medium to long term. 





6.2.8 The report Scotland's Renewable Resource (Scottish Executive, 2001) considered a range of 

available renewable energy technologies, examining associated development constraints and 

costs. The key conclusion referring to onshore wind development was that the resource is 

widespread and is the cheapest of the technologies considered. On the basis of cost, 

onshore wind energy can be expected to contribute to the bulk of near-term government 

targets. 

6.2.9 Therefore, wind power is considered to have many benefits over conventional energy 

sources. 

Policy Drivers for Renewable Energy Development 

6.2.10 In addition to these environmental and economic benefits, as discussed in Chapter 5: 

Planning Policy Overview renewable energy is supported by national policy (in particular the 

Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and Scottish Planning Policy) and by a range of 

international and national targets. 

6.2.11 The EU, UK and Scottish governments have published policy and legislation to support the 

need to reduce carbon emissions. Details of these are provided in Chapter 5: Planning 

Policy Overview. A brief summary of recent policy and legislation relevant to Scotland is 

provided below. 

6.2.12 The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 requires Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions to 

be at least 80 % lower in 2050 compared with 1990 levels (known as the “2050 target”), 

including an interim target that requires emissions to be 42 % lower by 2020 compared with 

1990 levels. 

6.2.13 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. 

6.2.14 For the electricity sector, targets have been set for the percentage of electricity demand, 

which requires to be obtained from renewable energy sources by 2020. The current target, 

which was set by the Scottish Government in May 2011, is for 100 % of Scotland’s gross 

annual electricity consumption to be generated from renewable sources by 2020. 

6.2.15 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.. 

6.2.16 The 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland was published in July 2011 and 

updates and extends the Scottish Renewables Action Plan to reflect the challenge of the 

Scottish Government’s new targets for renewable energy. The Routemap identifies that the 

Scottish Government has committed to meeting the EU’s 2020 renewable energy target of 20 

% by setting a new target to source 30 % of energy demand from renewables by 2020. This 

is further broken down into 100 % electricity; 11 % heat; and 10 % transport fuels. This 20 % 

target goes beyond the legally binding 15 % target that the EU has set for the UK and reflects 

the higher level of potential and the Scottish Government’s greater ambition for renewables in 

Scotland. 





6.2.17 SPP was published in February 2010 and is a statement of Scottish Government policy on 

land use planning. The SPP subject policies on renewable energy (paragraphs 182 to 195) 

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. 

6.2.18 The UK Government and the Scottish Government are therefore committed to ensuring that 

an increased proportion of electricity is generated from wind power and other renewable 

energy sources. Government policy is to set targets for the generation of electricity from 

renewable energy sources by reference to the installed capacity of the proposed source of 

generation. Two significant targets to note are: 

• An interim target of a 42 % reduction in Scotland’s GHG emissions by 2020, rising to 

an 80 % reduction by 2050 (based on 1990 GHG emissions), as defined by the 

Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009; 

• In May 2011, the Scottish Government set a target for the supply of 100 % (Scottish 

Government, 2011c) of Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020, 

recognising the extent of Scotland's important renewables resource. 

6.2.19 However, it is important to note that these targets are not fixed “ceilings”, and the Climate 

Change Act in particular requires frequent revisions of targets and more stringent emissions 

reductions over time. 

6.2.20 A detailed assessment of the relevant EU, UK and Scottish climate change and renewable 

energy policy framework is contained within Chapter 5: Planning Policy Overview and the 

separate supporting Planning Statement which accompanies the planning application. 

6.3 Methodology 

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 anticipated electricity generation and the associated reduction in emissions of 

CO 2. with a qualitative assessment of the significance of this contribution towards meeting 

regional targets. 

6.3.2 Information on the average electricity usage of households is taken from the Sub-National 

Local Authority Electricity Consumption Statistics 2005 to 2010 (DECC 2012). 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 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. 

6.3.3 The level of CO 2 emissions avoided is dependent 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. 

6.3.4 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. 

2011). 

6.4 Expected Energy Yield and Associated Avoidance of Carbon Dioxide 

Emissions 

Renewable Electricity Generation 

6.4.1 Taking into account the candidate turbine for the site, it is expected that six turbines with a 

total installed capacity of 20.4 MW could generate up to 46.46 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of 

renewable electricity per year based on a capacity factor of 26 % informed by site studies. In 

Scotland, the most recent information available shows that the average capacity factor 

measured between 1998 and 2004 was 30% (DTI, 2006, Energy Trends, March 2006). 

These figures are derived as follows (using a 26 % capacity factor): 

20,400kilowatts kW (6 × 3.4 MW turbine) × 8,760 hours/year × 0.26 (capacity factor) = 

46,463,040 kilowatt hours (kWh) or 46.46GWh 

6.4.2 The DECC Excel Spreadsheet of Sub-National Local Authority Electricity Consumption 

Statistics 2005 to 2011 (DECC, 2012) gives 2011 UK domestic electricity consumption (sales 

per household) as 4,266 kWh per household. This is a higher consumption figure than that 

used by Renewables UK who advocate 3,300 kWh based on data from Ofgem (Ofgem, 

2011). Based on the more conservative 4,266 kWh household figure and the predicted 

electricity generation of up to 46.46 GWh it is estimated that the yearly output from the wind 

turbines will be equivalent to the approximate domestic electricity needs of up to 10,891 

average households in Britain (46,463,040 ÷ 4,266 = 10,891). It should be noted that using 

the average domestic electricity consumption figure for households in West Lothian of 4,143 

kWh (DECC 2012), the development is expected to generate sufficient electricity for 11,215 

homes (46,463,040 ÷ 4,143 = 11,215). 

6.4.3 In 2011, there were approximately 73,439 households in the West Lothian Council area 

(National Records of Scotland, 2011); therefore the proposed wind farm alone could supply 

approximately 14.8 % of the annual electricity demand for West Lothian. This percentage 

may decrease slightly during the lifetime of the wind farm due to predicted population growth 

in Scotland as a whole. However, there is also the strong possibility that domestic electricity 

consumption may reduce due to energy efficiency measures proposed by the Scottish 

Government (2011b). Although these figures are open to variation, in principle they show 

that the proposed wind farm will provide a proportion of electricity used in the local area. 

Reductions in Atmospheric Emissions of CO 2 

6.4.4 It is widely accepted that electricity produced from wind energy has a positive effect 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. 

6.4.5 In September 2008, the Advertising Standards Authority endorsed a figure of 430 gCO 2 /kWh, 

based on the assumption that the energy generated by the wind turbines displaces Combined 

Cycle Gas Turbines and an average mix generation (430 gCO 2 /kWh). This number is 

endorsed by Renewables UK (2012). 





6.4.6 On this basis, and on the assumption that the proposed wind farm’s annual output is 

46.46GWh, a wind energy development of this scale is expected to displace approximately 

19,979 tonnes of CO 2 emissions per year being emitted to atmosphere. These figures are 

derived as follows: 

46,463,040 kW (output) × 430 gCO 2 /kWh ÷ 1,000,000 = 19,979 tonnes CO 2 

or to replicate the Renewables UK calculation (assuming full capacity) 

(20.4 MW x 0.26 x 8760 x 430)/1000 = 19,979 tonnes CO 2 

6.5 Carbon Payback 

6.5.1 A key environmental benefit of the proposed wind farm is the generation of electricity from a 

renewable energy source that will reduce or avoid the use of fossil fuels through the 

displacement of electricity generated from other sources of energy. 

6.5.2 It is widely recognised that wind farms save carbon emissions during operation when 

compared to fossil fuel energy generation, as shown above. However, carbon losses and 

gains during the construction and operation of the wind farm need to be evaluated on a sitespecific 

basis. 

6.5.3 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 and devised a carbon balance tool for wind farms being 

constructed on peat and forestry which considers the effects of wind farms during 

construction and operation on soil stability and long-term greenhouse gas emissions. 

6.5.4 The carbon balance of the proposed wind farm was calculated in accordance with the 

Scottish Government recommended methodology: Calculating Carbon Savings from Wind 

Farms on Scottish Peat Lands – A New Approach (Nayak et al. 2011). 

6.5.5 Where possible, site-specific information was used to populate the parameters of the Carbon 

Calculator. In order to inform the requirement for site-specific information a sensitivity 

analysis of each of the main parameters in the carbon calculator was undertaken. This 

process established which of the parameters has the greatest influence on the payback time 

(i.e. the most sensitive) and therefore those parameters for which it would be preferable to 

obtain site-specific data. 

6.5.6 Appendix 6.1 provides full details of the sensitivity analysis carried out for the carbon balance 

assessment. In some instances it was not feasible to obtain site-specific information due to, 

for example, timescales required to obtain data. In this case publicised data was used to 

populate the calculator in accordance with the Carbon Payback Calculator: Guidelines on 

Measurements available from the Scottish Government (2011d). Two alternative turbine 

models were run, to allow for a “worst case” and “best case” in terms of energy generated 

compared to land take. However, the Payback time remained the same for both models, due 

to differences in capacity factor of the turbine models. 

6.5.7 Table 6.1 shows the calculated payback time associated with the proposed wind farm. The 

results of the carbon calculator are presented in full within Appendix 6.1. 





Table 6.1 Proposed Wind Farm Carbon Balance and Payback (assuming 3.4 MW 

turbine) 

Payback 

Time 

Carbon 

Gains 

(t CO 2 eq) 

Carbon 

Losses 

(t CO 2 eq) 

Net 

Emissions 

of CO 2 

(t CO 2 eq) 

Total 

Payback 

Time (Coal 

Fired) 

Total 

Payback 

Time 

(Grid-Mix) 

Total 

Payback 

Time (Fossil 

Fuel) 

Expected -71 49519 49448 1.2 2.4 1.7 

Minimum 3 21377 20550 0.4 0.8 0.6 

Maximum -827 132920 132923 3.9 8.0 5.8 

6.5.8 The estimated total carbon payback time of the proposed wind energy development, based 

on carbon losses and gains compared with fossil fuel generation, is expected to be 1.7 years, 

with a minimum payback time of 0.6 years and a maximum payback time of 5.8 years. 

6.5.9 This is increased to an expected 2.4 years against the grid mix of electricity generation, which 

includes other renewable electricity sources and the payback is decreased to an expected 

1.2 years compared with coal-fired electricity generation. 

6.5.10 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 wind generation. 

Therefore, when considering the 25 year operational period of the proposed wind energy 

development, the CO 2 payback time is very short in comparison. 


• BWEA (2005), Power of the wind blows away myths, Available at: 

http://www.bwea.com/media/news/141105.html 

• DECC (2012), Excel Spreadsheet of Sub-National Local Authority Electricity 

Consumption Statistics 2005 to 2011. Available at: 

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/energy_stats/regional/electricity/elect 

ricity.aspx) 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49418/4 

820-subnat-auth-electricity-cons-2005-2010.xls 

• DEFRA (2011), Sustainable Products and Consumers, Available at: 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/what/index.htm 

• European Commission (2000), Towards a European Strategy for the Security of 

Energy Supply, European Communities, Italy 

• National Records of Scotland (2011), West Lothian Council Area – Demographic 

Factsheet, Available at: http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/council-area-datasheets/west-lothian-factsheet.pdf 

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), AR4 Climate Change 2007 

Synthesis Report, Geneva, Switzerland 





• Nayak, D.R., Miller, D., Nolan, A., Smith, P., and Smith, J (2011), Calculating Carbon 

Savings from Wind Farms on Scottish Peat Lands – A New Approach, Scottish 

Government 

• Ofgem (2011), Typical domestic energy consumption figures – Factsheet 96 18.01.11. 

Available 

at: 

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/FactSheets/Documents1/domestic%20energy%20con 

sump%20fig%20FS.pdf 

• OXERA (2002), Regional Renewable Energy Assessments, 2002, OXERA Consulting 

Ltd 

• Renewables UK (2012) http://www.bwea.com/edu/calcs.html 

• Scottish Executive (2001), Scotland's Renewable Resource 2001, Garrad Hassan and 

Partners Limited 



• Scottish Government (2011a), Calculating Potential Carbon Losses and Savings from 

Wind Farms on Scottish Peatlands, Technical Note version 2.0.1, Scottish 

Government 

• Scottish Government (2011b), Energy Efficiency Action Plan, Available at: 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Action/energy-efficiencypolicy/ActionPlan 

• Scottish Government (2011c), Renewables Revolution Aims for 100%, Available at: 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/05/18093247 

• Scottish Government (2011d), Carbon Payback Calculator: Guidelines on 

Measurements, Available at: 


• Sustainable Development Commission (2005), Wind Power in the UK - A guide to the 

key issues surrounding onshore wind power development in the UK 

• Vestas Wind Systems (2005), Life Cycle Assessment of Offshore and Onshore sited 

wind power plants based on Vestas V90-3.0 MW Turbines, Vestas Wind Systems A/S 

• Welsh Assembly Government (2003), Review of Energy Policy in Wales. HMSO, 

London 





7 Traffic and Transport 


7.1.1 This chapter considers the likely significant effects of the proposed wind farm on the strategic 

and local transport network. 

7.1.2 The chapter begins by describing the assessment methodology used to determine the 

impacts of the proposed wind farm. This is followed by a description of baseline traffic 

conditions which currently exist within the vicinity of the proposed wind farm and 

surroundings. Potential traffic related effects and their significance during the construction, 

operation and decommissioning phases of the project are then discussed followed by the 

mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects 

identified. The chapter finally predicts the likely significant residual effects that remain 

assuming the mitigation measures have been implemented. 

7.1.3 The location of the proposed wind farm and the surrounding road network is shown on Figure 

1.1. All construction traffic associated with the proposed wind farm would route to the site 

from the A70 from the north and south. It is expected that the wind turbine components 

would travel to the proposed wind farm from Grangemouth. 

7.1.4 The route from Grangemouth would route onto the M9 at Junction 6 from the A904 to 

Junction 1, turning onto the westbound M8. From Junction 4 of the M8, the abnormal loads 

would route onto the A801 and A706 southbound through Whitburn and Forth and onto the 

eastbound A721 and A70. At Carnwath, the abnormal loads would route north along the A70 

to the site access. This route is shown on Figure 7.1. 

7.1.5 Access to the site would be taken from the north-western side of the A70 and new routes to 

each turbine location would be created (see Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed 

Development). During operation, the turbines would only require occasional access for 

maintenance. The layout design for the main junction from the A70 into the site is attached 

at Appendix 7.1. 


Relevant Guidance 

7.2.1 As a matter of best practice, this assessment has been undertaken based on current relevant 

guidance for assessing the environmental effects of traffic. This is set out within The Institute 

of Environmental Assessment (IEA) (now the IEMA) publication ‘Guidance Note Number 1: 

Guidelines on the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’, 1993. 

Methodology 

7.2.2 The IEMA Guidelines recommend two rules to be considered when assessing the impact of 

development traffic on a road link: 

• Rule 1: Include highway (road) links where traffic flows will increase by more than 

30 % (or the number of heavy goods vehicles will increase by more than 30 %); and 


Traffic and Transport 



• Rule 2: Include any other specifically sensitive areas where total traffic flows have 

increased by 10% or more. 

7.2.3 The above guidance is based upon knowledge and experience of environmental effects of 

traffic. The 30% threshold is based upon research and experience of the environmental 

effects of traffic, with less than a 30% increase generally resulting in imperceptible changes 

in the environmental effects of traffic. At a simple level, the guidance considers that 

projected changes in total traffic flow of less than 10% creates no discernible environmental 

effect, hence the second threshold as set out in Rule 2. 

7.2.4 In cases where the thresholds are exceeded, Column 3 in Table 2.1 of the IEMA guidelines 

set out a list of environmental effects which should be assessed for their magnitude of 

change. 

7.2.5 Definitions of each of the potential effects identified in the IEMA guidelines are summarised 

below along with explanatory text relating to assessment criteria. It is on this basis that the 

assessment in this Chapter has been undertaken. It is acknowledged at paragraph 2.4 of the 

IEMA guidelines that not all the effects listed in Column 3 of Table 2.1 would be applicable to 

every development. A detailed inspection of the surrounding road network incorporating the 

current geometric layout of the road, traffic management and regulation orders and general 

observations of existing road user movements has been undertaken to assist with the 

assessments. 

Noise and Vibration 

7.2.6 The potential effects relating to noise and vibration as a result of construction traffic and 

abnormal loads is set out in Chapter 8: Noise (Section 8.5). 

Visual Effects 

7.2.7 The visual effect of traffic is complex and subjective and includes both visual obstruction and 

visual intrusion. The IEMA guidelines acknowledge that in the majority of situations the 

changes in traffic resulting from a development will have little effect. 

7.2.8 Concerns are also often expressed over the visual effects of the wind turbines on traffic itself, 

whereby drivers may be distracted by the turbines and the movement of the blades. These 

effects are considered in the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) 

publication ‘Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22’, December 

2004. Although this guidance document does not specifically relate to Scotland and has 

since been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), its evidence 

base remains a solid area to consider the effects of ‘driver distraction’. 

7.2.9 The guidance document sets out that drivers are faced with a number of varied and 

competing distractions, such as advertising hoardings, which are deliberately designed to 

attract attention. 

7.2.10 It states that drivers are required to take reasonable care to ensure their own and others’ 

safety at all times. Therefore, wind turbines should not be treated any differently from other 

distractions a driver must face and should not be considered particularly hazardous. 

7.2.11 The guidance document concludes that there are a large number of wind farms adjoining or 

close to road networks and there has been no history of accidents at any of them. As stated, 

this evidence base remains sound. There has been no guidance published since and there 

has been no subsequent evidence or research published or undertaken that suggests driver 





distraction of wind farms could be hazardous. On this basis, no assessment is necessary to 

assess the visual effects of the wind turbines themselves upon driver distraction. 

7.2.12 Where relevant, the visual effects of traffic are considered within this chapter. The visual 

effects of the scheme as a whole are considered in Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual Impact 

Assessment. 

Severance 

7.2.13 Severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it becomes 

separated by a major traffic artery. The term is used to describe a complex series of factors 

that separate people from places and other people. Severance can also result from difficulty 

in crossing a heavily trafficked road (IEMA, March 1993). 

7.2.14 The guidance indicates that severance effects are considered ‘slight’, ‘moderate’ and 

‘substantial’ with changes in traffic flows of 30 %, 60 % and 90 % respectively. 

7.2.15 Where relevant, effects on severance are considered within this chapter. 

Driver Delay 

7.2.16 Where roads affected by new development are at or near capacity, the traffic associated with 

new development can cause or add to vehicle delays. Other sources of delay for nondevelopment 

traffic can include: 

• At the proposed wind farm entrance where there will be additional turning movements; 

• On the roads passing the proposed wind farm where there is likely to be additional 

traffic; 

• At other key intersections along the road which might be affected by increased traffic; 

and 

• At junctions where the ability to find gaps in the traffic may be reduced, thereby 

lengthening delays. 

7.2.17 Where relevant, the effects on driver delay are considered within this chapter. 

Pedestrian Delay 

7.2.18 Highly trafficked roads and changes to the volume or speed of traffic may affect the ability of 

people to cross roads. Studies have shown that pedestrian delay is perceptible or 

considered significant beyond a lower delay threshold of 10 seconds, for a link with no 

crossing facilities. A 10 second pedestrian delay in crossing a road broadly equates to a twoway 

link flow of approximately 1,400 vehicles per hour (IEMA, March 1993). 

7.2.19 Where relevant, the effects on pedestrian delay are considered within this chapter. 

Pedestrian Amenity 

7.2.20 The term pedestrian amenity is broadly defined as the relative pleasantness of a journey. It is 

considered to be affected by traffic flow, speed and composition as well as footway width and 

the separation/protection from traffic. It encompasses the overall relationship between 

pedestrians and traffic, including fear and intimidation which is the most emotive and difficult 

effect to quantify and assess. There are no commonly agreed thresholds for quantifying the 

significance of changes in pedestrian amenity, although the IEMA guidelines refer to a useful 





study which could be referenced when considering any effect. These thresholds are 

replicated in Table 7.1. 

Table 7.1 Example of Fear and Intimidation 

Degree of Hazard 

Average Traffic Flow over 

18 hour day (veh/hour) 

Total 18 hour heavy 

goods vehicle flow 

Average Speed over 18 

hour day (mile/hour) 

Extreme 1,800 + 3,000 + 20 + 

Great 1,200–1,800 2,000–3,000 15-20 

Moderate 600–1,200 1,000–2,000 10-15 

7.2.21 Where relevant, the effects on pedestrian amenity are considered within this chapter. 

Accidents and Safety 

7.2.22 It is possible to estimate the effects of increased traffic on accidents and safety from existing 

accident records, national statistics, the type and quantity of traffic generated, journey lengths 

and the characteristics of the routes in question. 

7.2.23 Where relevant, the effects on accidents and safety are considered within this chapter. 

Hazardous Loads 

7.2.24 Some developments may involve transporting hazardous loads by road such as special 

wastes, toxic materials and chemicals. Where appropriate, the risks associated with 

accidents on such movements are identified or quantified within this chapter. 

Dust and Dirt 

7.2.25 Certain types of development, particularly construction sites, can give rise to deposition of 

dust and dirt on surrounding roads. The overall impact of this phenomenon normally 

depends to a large extent on the management practices adopted at the site in question, such 

as vehicle sheeting and wheel washing. Problems with dust and dirt are unlikely to occur at 

distances greater than 50m from the road (IEMA, March 1993). 

7.2.26 Where relevant, the effects relating to dust and dirt are considered within this chapter. 

Assessment of Significance 

7.2.27 The approach to the assessment of significance of effects follows that as set out in Chapter 

2: The Environmental Impact Assessment and Scoping Process and is summarised in Table 

7.2 and Table 7.3 below, adapted from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) 

HA 205/08. This takes into account the duration, magnitude, direction and location of each 

effect as well as the sensitivity of the receptor. Where any of the above potential effects 

define any specific criteria to determine effects, these will be assessed in conjunction with 

Table 7.2 and Table 7.3 to establish the level of effects. Effects of moderate significance or 

above are considered significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 





Table 7.2 Establishing the Level of Effects 

Sensitivity/Importance of Receptor 

Magnitude of Change/Effect 

LARGE 

MEDIUM 





moderate 

SMALL Moderate or slight Slight 


moderate 

Moderate or 

slight 

Negligible 


Slight or 

negligible 

Negligible 


Table 7.3 Generic Significance Criteria 

Significance level 


Substantial 

Moderate 

Slight 

Negligible 

Criteria 







These beneficial or adverse effects are likely to be very important considerations 

at a local or district scale and, if adverse, are potential concerns to the scheme 

and may become material in the decision making process. 





These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local factors but are unlikely 

to be of critical importance in the decision making process. Nevertheless they are 

of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the Scheme and 

consideration of mitigation or compensation measures. 

No effect or an effect which is beneath the level of perception, within normal 

bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error. Such effects are not 

normally considered by the decision maker. 

7.2.28 In accordance with the above IEMA guidance, the assessments are based upon the relative 

change between the baseline conditions and the baseline plus construction / development / 

decommissioning conditions. The effect along key road links of the adjacent road network 

where any development traffic is predicted to be routed and could result in an environmental 

effect will be assessed in accordance with the above methodology. 

7.2.29 The proposed traffic flows associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning 

of the proposed wind farm are assessed against a range of local sensitive locations. 

7.2.30 Paragraph 2.5 of the IEMA Guidelines explains that locations which may be sensitive to 

changes in traffic conditions could be people at home, people in work places, sensitive 

groups such as children, the elderly or the disabled, sensitive locations such as hospitals, 





churches, schools or historical buildings, people walking or cycling, open spaces, recreational 

sites, shopping areas, sites of ecological/nature conservation value and sites of tourist/visitor 

attraction. 

7.2.31 As set out below, it is considered that sections of the A70 through the built up areas of Currie 

and Balerno may be sensitive to changes in traffic conditions due to the fronting residential 

properties. The change in traffic flows at these sections will therefore be assessed against 

the ‘Rule 2’ threshold (‘include any other specifically sensitive areas where total traffic flows 

have increased by 10 % or more’) with the other links being assessed against the ‘Rule 1’ 

threshold. 

7.2.32 Where these thresholds are exceeded, each of the potential effects set out above will be 

assessed at that location to determine the magnitude of change and level of effect (and 

therefore significance in terms of the EIA Regulations - see Chapter 2), in conjuction with 

Table 7.2 and Table 7.3. 

7.3 Baseline Information 

Sources of Data 

7.3.1 The traffic and transport baseline has been established through obtaining traffic flows and 

Personal Injury Accident data from the road authorities and through a site visit to identify the 

location of any sensitive receptors. 

7.3.2 The datasets and information gathered have informed a baseline position, against which the 

proposals can be assessed and any significant transport effects established. 

Planning Policy Review 

7.3.3 EIA is not planning policy driven; rather, its aim is to assess the likely significant effects upon 

the environment. A detailed assessment of the proposed wind farm against the development 

plan and material considerations is contained within a separate supporting Planning 

Statement (PS) which accompanies the planning application. 

7.3.4 The relevant Development Plan documents which provide a context for undertaking EIA as 

part of this Chapter with relevant Policies are set out below: 

• Edinburgh and the Lothian’s Structure Plan (approved 2004) (hereafter referred to as 

the ELSP); 

• West Lothian Local Plan (approved 2009) (hereafter referred to as the WLLP). 

7.3.5 The ELSP seeks to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development and, in relation to this 

proposal, paragraph 5.1 aims to: 

• “...Encourage the movement of freight by rail and sea or, where road freight is 

dominant, along the strategic road network; ... and 

• Ensure that development caters for its transport needs.” 

7.3.6 The WLLP identifies the area as being strategically located within the Central Belt. 

Paragraph 8.60 later describes the area as being at the centre of the Scottish motorway 

network which enables employers to recruit skilled staff from a wide catchment area. 

Paragraph 8.61 of the WLLP goes on to identify the M8 as a principal artery and links it to 

providing economic opportunities in the area. 





7.3.7 The WLLP also seeks to encourage sustainable development, in accordance with national 

policy and the ELSP. 

7.3.8 Policy Tran 2 of WLLP sets out that development will only be permitted where transport 

impacts are acceptable. The below assesses the environmental effects of traffic generated 

by the proposals and concludes that no significant environmental impacts are predicted. 

Baseline Conditions 

Local Road Network 

7.3.9 The site in context to the local road network is shown on Figure 1.1. The site takes access 

from the A70 which, in the vicinity of the site, routes south-west from Edinburgh through 

Currie and Balerno into Carnwath. At Carnwath, the A721 forms an east-west route to the 

Border towns in the east and Carluke and Wishaw in the west, whilst the A70 continues 

south-west to Junctions 11 and 12 of the M74 and Ayr. The A70 is a single carriageway road 

of varying widths, geometries and speed restrictions. 

7.3.10 In the vicinity of the site access, the A70 is typically 6.0m to 6.5m wide with grass verges on 

its northern and southern sides and fences or vegetation set further back to delineate the 

road boundary. There is no street lighting and the A70 is derestricted, being subject to the 

national speed limit of 60mph. 

7.3.11 To the north east of the site, the A70 routes through Balerno, Currie and Baberton, has street 

lighting and is subject to a 30mph speed restriction. There is frontage access to a number of 

residential properties and varied parking restrictions. North-east of Currie, the A70 continues 

into Edinburgh to Haymarket. The A720 City of Edinburgh Bypass is accessed via the B701 

Wester Hailes Road at Baberton and the A71 Calder Road. 

7.3.12 The A70 forms the northern and western arms of a three arm mini-roundabout junction with 

the A721 at Carnwath, through which the carriageway is of varying width with varying parking 

restrictions and on-street parking arrangements. There are generally footways on both sides 

of the carriageway, street lighting and a 30mph speed restriction. 

7.3.13 The B7008 straddles the site and provides a link between the A70 in the south and the A71 

at West Calder in the north. The B7008 is a single carriageway road, typically 6.0m wide with 

narrow grass verges, vegetation close to the edge of the carriageway and a number of tight 

bends. It is derestricted, being subject to the national speed limit of 60mph, and there is no 

street lighting. 

7.3.14 Although some construction staff may make use of the B7008 to travel to and from the site, it 

is not expected that any construction delivery vehicles would utilise this road. 

7.3.15 As explained below in Section 7.5, it is envisaged that construction staff vehicles and 

construction Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) would utilise the A70 road network, as described 

above, to access and egress the site. It is envisaged that Grangemouth Port will be used as 

the port of entry for the turbine components. Abnormal loads transporting these components 

will then route along the following sections of the road network: 

• Onto the A904 Earl’s Road; 

• Route south west onto Junction 6 of the M9; 

• Route south east along the M9 to Junction 1; 

• Turn westbound onto the M8 to Junction 4; 





• Turn northbound onto the A801; 

• Turn westbound onto the A706 to Whitburn and continue south through Forth; 

• Turn eastbound onto the A721 and A70; 

• Turn northbound along the A70 at Carnwath; and 

• Turn left into the site access. 

7.3.16 The physical geometric ability of the network to accommodate the loads are set out in a 

Swept Path Analysis (RPS Report Ref JNY7370-02) which accompanies this application. 

Baseline Traffic Counts 

7.3.17 Traffic flow data has been obtained from South Lanarkshire Council, West Lothian Council 

and the City of Edinburgh Council for key locations along the A70. The weekday 12 hour and 

24 hour traffic flows are set out in Table 7.4. 

Table 7.4 Observed Weekday Traffic Flows 

Link Location Year of 

Count 

24 Hour Traffic 

Flow 


Flow 

Total HGV Total HGV 

1 A70 Crosswood Reservoir (Between 

B7008 and Carnwath) 

2 A70 Wester Causewayend (Harperigg 

Reservoir) 

2009 2,042 62 1,723 55 

2005 1,996 60 1,684 53 

3 A70 Lanark Road (Currie / Balerno) 2010 16,020 485 12,878 411 

7.3.18 The construction of the proposed wind farm is likely to take place for six months with peak 

activities and traffic movements during month four. The commencement of construction is 

not yet known and hence the construction year is unknown at this stage. Given that the 

environmental assessment of road traffic is based upon the change in traffic flows relative to 

a baseline position, a greater effect would occur from a low baseline traffic flow in 

comparison to a higher baseline traffic flow. The application of traffic growth rates to 

estimate future year traffic flows generally results in an increase in background traffic flow 

year on year. Therefore, if the current year of 2013 is used to represent the construction 

year, then this would cover all possible years of construction whilst representing a worst case 

assessment. On this basis, whilst construction is predicted to commence in 2016, a 

construction year of 2013 has been assumed and it is assumed that the peak construction 

month (month four) would also be during 2013. 

7.3.19 It follows that, to enable the likely effects during construction to be assessed, traffic growth 

factors have been used to predict the growth in the base flows to this peak construction year 

of 2013. 

7.3.20 The Trip End Model Presentation Programme (TEMPRO) has been used with the observed 

traffic flow data to predict the likely level of traffic which will be using the road network in 

2013. 

7.3.21 TEMPRO is produced by the Department for Transport (DfT) and uses a wide range of data 

so that accurate localised traffic growth projections can be predicted. As such, the use of 





TEMPRO for predicting the growth in existing traffic flows for future baseline traffic 

assessment years for the proposed wind farm is considered to provide the most accurate 

prediction of baseline traffic flows for the wind farm peak construction year. 

7.3.22 Given that the A70 routes through South Lanarkshire, West Lothian and the City of 

Edinburgh administrative areas, the TEMPRO growth rates for all three areas have been 

inspected. This determines that the South Lanarkshire area has the lowest growth 

predictions. 

7.3.23 Given that the above IEMA guidance is based upon calculating the change in traffic flows 

from a baseline position, it is evident that the greatest change would result from a lower 

baseline traffic flow. On this basis, if the lowest growth rate was applied to calculate a future 

year baseline traffic flow, then this would result in a worst case scenario. The South 

Lanarkshire growth rates have therefore been applied to traffic flows on all locations on the 

A70 to ensure a robust assessment is undertaken. 

7.3.24 The 2005, 2009 and 2012 to 2013 growth rates calculated by TEMPRO for the South 

Lanarkshire areas are 1.055, 1.031 and 1.029 respectively. 

7.3.25 The relevant growth rate has been applied to the observed traffic flows set out in Table 7.4 

and the resultant 2013 baseline traffic flows are set out in Table 7.5. 

Table 7.5 2013 Weekday Baseline Traffic Flows 

Link Location Future 

Year 


Flow 


Flow 

Total HGV Total HGV 

1 A70 Crosswood Reservoir (Between 

B7008 and Carnwath) 

2 A70 Wester Causewayend (Harperigg 

Reservoir) 

2013 2,105 64 1,776 57 

2013 2,106 63 1,777 56 

3 A70 Lanark Road (Currie / Balerno) 2013 16,485 499 13,251 423 

Personal Injury Accident Statistics 

7.3.26 Personal Injury Accident (PIA) statistics have been obtained from South Lanarkshire Council, 

West Lothian Council and the City of Edinburgh Council, for the surrounding road network 

over the latest available 36 months (3 years) between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2012. 

Accidents occurring on the A70 between Carnwath and the B701 Wester Hailes Road have 

been plotted in terms of location and severity on Figure 7.2. 

7.3.27 There were 52 injury accidents during this three year period, 11 of which resulted in serious 

injury and 41 of which resulted in only slight injury. There were no fatal injury accidents. 

7.3.28 Three of the injury accidents involved HGVs, six involved pedal cyclists, six involved 

motorcyclists, two involved pedestrians and three involved buses. These were predominantly 

on the outskirts of Edinburgh within the built up areas of Currie and Balerno. 

7.3.29 There was a cluster of six injury accidents on a bend southwest of the Harperrig Reservoir, in 

the vicinity of Wester Causewayend Farm. Two of these resulted from drivers losing control 

of their vehicle whilst travelling south-westbound around the left hand bend. One of these 

resulted from striking standing water and both had contributory factors of driving too fast for 





the road conditions. Four of the injury accidents involved vehicles travelling north-east bound 

around the right hand bend. One of these resulted from a vehicle striking a parked car on the 

bend after not having enough time to react. The remaining three resulted from drivers losing 

control of their vehicle, two of which had contributory factors of driving too fast for the road 

conditions. 

7.3.30 Of the six injury accidents at this location, three appear to have been a result of drivers losing 

control of their vehicles whilst travelling in the north-eastbound direction and one appears to 

have been a result of drivers losing control of their vehicles whilst travelling in the southwestbound 

direction. All four of these had contributory factors of vehicles travelling too fast 

for the road conditions. 

7.3.31 Weather and/or road surface conditions were a factor, with over 75% of the accidents in 

South Lanarkshire and West Lothian occurring on a wet or icy road. 

Information Gaps 

7.3.32 The above data covers the proposed access route and has been obtained from South 

Lanarkshire Council, West Lothian Council and the City of Edinburgh Council. The data is 

considered to be representative and reflective of baseline conditions. It is therefore 

considered that there are no ‘information gaps’ in the baseline data. 

7.4 Topic Specific Design Evolution 

7.4.1 A preliminary design access junction has been designed and is shown at Appendix 7.1. This 

design has been progressed taking due consideration of the road geometries, the adjacent 

road boundaries and the construction vehicle access requirements. 

7.4.2 Requisite visibility splays of 2.4 m x 215 m to the left and right can be achieved from the 

access for the 60mph de-restricted A70. Given the undulating nature of the horizontal and 

vertical alignment of the road and given the carriageway geometrics, these visibility splays 

are considered suitable, particularly given these will maintain the current nature of the road 

and be in-keeping with its surroundings. 

7.4.3 The access has been designed to accommodate the swept path of the abnormal loads within 

the extent of surfaced road without any reliance upon any verge use and is also shown on 

the drawing. 

7.5 Potential Significant Effects of the Scheme Prior to Mitigation 

Effects During Construction Phase 

Abnormal Loads 

7.5.1 It is expected that abnormal loads will access the proposed wind farm from Grangemouth 

Port. This route has been used before for the delivery of abnormal loads to a number of 

operational wind farms in the local area. 

7.5.2 An abnormal load movement is defined by Transport Scotland in the Abnormal Load 

Movements 2007 guide as a vehicle that has any of the following: 

• A weight of more than 44 tonnes; 

• A width of more than 2.9 metres; or 





• A length of more than 18.3 metres. 

7.5.3 Depending on the width, length or weight of the vehicle different notice periods have to be 

provided to the Road & Bridge Authorities and the police, this can vary between 2 and 5 

days. 

7.5.4 Some of the turbine components will qualify as abnormal loads. The vehicles used to 

transport turbine components would constitute abnormal loads only on the delivery phase of 

the journey since the extendible trailers are retracted to the size of a standard articulated 

vehicle (16.5 metres) during the return leg. Each delivery of turbine components therefore 

consists of one abnormal load movement on the inbound journey to the proposed wind farm 

and one articulated HGV movement on the return journey. 

7.5.5 It is expected that abnormal load vehicles will access the proposed wind farm from 

Grangemouth via the M9, M8, A801, A706 and the A70, as shown on Figure 7.1 and as 

described below: 

• Abnormal loads will access onto the A904 Earl’s Road; 

• Route south west onto Junction 6 of the M9; 

• Route south east along the M9 to Junction 1; 

• Turn westbound onto the M8 to Junction 4; 

• Turn northbound onto the A801; 

• Turn westbound onto the A706 to Whitburn and continue south through Forth; 

• Turn eastbound onto the A721 and A70; 

• Turn northbound along the A70 at Carnwath; and 

• Turn left into the site access. 

7.5.6 The turbine assumed for this assessment was the Repower 3.4M104, which would involve 

the transport of the longest potential turbine component (50.8 m blade). A Swept Path 

Analysis has been undertaken using vehicles suitable of transporting these turbine 

components and is submitted as part of this application. The vehicles used in the Swept 

Path Analysis are set out at Appendix 7.2. A report outlining the proposed route and carrying 

out preliminary analysis of this vehicle is contained in Appendix 7.4. 

Construction Traffic and Access 

7.5.7 Given the layout of the adjacent road network, it is expected that all HGVs and cars 

associated with the construction phase would route to the proposed wind farm, via the A70 

from the north-east and the south-west. This is likely to be an approximate 50% north-east 

and 50% south-west split. 

7.5.8 Given the geometric layout of the B7008, it is not expected that any construction delivery 

vehicles would utilise this road and all would travel via the A70. Some construction staff cars 

may travel via the B7008, however, this is expected to be minimal in comparison to the 

proportion utilising the A70. Therefore, to ensure a robust assessment, all vehicles have 

been assigned onto the A70 to maximise the number of vehicle movements along this road. 

7.5.9 On this basis, all abnormal load vehicles will arrive at the site from the A70 south-west of the 

site. For simplicity, it is assumed that the return HGV (no longer an abnormal load) would 





also travel via the A70 south-west of the site. All construction HGVs, construction light 

delivery vehicles and vans and construction staff have been assigned with 50% along the 

A70 north-east of the site and 50% along the A70 south-west of the site. 

7.5.10 As set out above, a preliminary design access junction has been designed and is shown at 

Appendix 7.1, which has taken due consideration of the existing road geometries, the 

adjacent road boundaries and the swept path of the abnormal loads within the extent of 

surfaced road without any reliance upon verge use. 

Construction Traffic Trip Generation 

7.5.11 The construction of the six turbines is predicted to be over a six month programme and is 

summarised in Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development. 

7.5.12 The likely traffic generation resulting from the process can be split into the following 

elements: 

• Low loaders containing wind turbine components; 

• HGVs to deliver and remove necessary equipment and materials to and from the 

proposed wind farm; and 

• Cars/vans containing members of the construction workforce. 

7.5.13 The estimated traffic generated during the construction phase for each of these elements is 

attached at Appendix 7.3 and summarised below. 

Abnormal Load Trip Generation 

7.5.14 An abnormal load movement is defined by Transport Scotland as a vehicle in excess of 

18.3m in length or 2.9m in width or 44 tonnes in weight. The hubs, nacelles, blades and 

foundation plates will be placed on articulated vehicles which exceed these dimensions 

7.5.15 The vehicles used to transport turbine components would constitute abnormal loads only on 

the delivery phase of the journey since the extendible trailers are retracted to the size of a 

standard articulated vehicle (16.5m) during the return leg. Each delivery of turbine 

components therefore consists of one abnormal load movement on the inbound journey to 

the proposed wind farm and one HGV movement on the return journey. 

7.5.16 Turbine deliveries are predicted to take place during the third, fourth and fifth months of the 

six month construction process. During that period up to 78 abnormal loads of wind turbine 

components would be delivered to the proposed wind farm, including blades, tower sections, 

transformers, nacelles and cranes and components for the six turbines. 

7.5.17 Based on the construction programme this equates to a maximum of 26 abnormal load 

deliveries per month. 

Heavy Goods Vehicle Trip Generation 

7.5.18 It is estimated that 960 construction HGVs will access the proposed wind farm over the six 

month construction period (1,920 two-way HGV movements). This number of HGV 

movements is partly due to aggregate being sourced off-site and being transported to the 

site. It is noted that the abnormal loads contract to a typical HGV size when departing the 

site. With the inclusion of these, the total number of construction HGVs (non abnormal loads) 

over the six month construction period equates to 1,998 two-way HGV movements. The 





construction breakdown and timeline is shown at Appendix 7.3 and shows that this equates 

to between four and nine HGV arrivals per day. 

Construction Worker / Vans / Light Good Vehicles Trip Generation 

7.5.19 It is expected that the construction process will require a maximum of up to 219 light vehicle 

movements per month (construction staff and light vehicle deliveries). Over the six month 

period, there would be a maximum of 1,033 light vehicle arrivals, equating to 2,066 two-way 

light vehicle movements, as set out at Appendix 7.3. 

7.5.20 Based on a five day working week this equates to up to 10 arrivals per day during this period 

(20 two-way light vehicle movements a day). 

Total Construction Generated Vehicles 

7.5.21 Table 7.6 shows the estimated daily vehicle movements generated in line with the 

construction programme and based on a five day working week. It should be noted that some 

construction activity may occur during Saturdays (see Chapter 4), however, assuming a 5 

day construction period for each week is considered as providing a worst case scenario 

assessment i.e. a greater number of movements per day will be assumed. 

7.5.22 These have been calculated by taking the maximum number of vehicle movements during a 

single month and calculating the average number of daily vehicle movements during this 

period. Table 7.6 sets out the number of vehicle movements on an average day during the 

busiest month of the construction process. 

Table 7.6 Daily Construction Traffic Flows 

Construction HGV 

(excl abnormal 

loads) * 

Abnormal loads 

Construction 

Workers / Light 

Goods Vehicles 

Total Vehicle Trips 

In 

Out 

Two 

Way 

In 

Out 

Two 

Way 

In 

Out 

Two 

Way 

In 

Out 

Two 

Way 

Apr-13 9 9 18 0 0 0 6 6 12 15 15 30 

May-13 8 8 16 0 0 0 6 6 12 14 14 28 

Jun-13 8 9 17 1 0 1 10 10 20 19 19 38 

Jul-13 8 9 17 1 0 1 10 10 20 19 19 38 

Aug-13 7 8 15 1 0 1 9 9 18 17 17 34 

Sep-13 4 4 8 0 0 0 7 7 14 11 11 22 

* Includes departing abnormal loads as a standard HGV 

7.5.23 Over the entire construction period, it is expected that the daily HGV movements (excluding 

abnormal loads) would be between eight and 18 two-way movements per working day. The 

number of vehicle movements generated by construction workers and vans would be 

between 12 and 20 two-way light vehicle movements per working day. 

7.5.24 With consideration to all vehicles, the total number of vehicle movements would be between 

22 and 38 two-way movements per working day. 





7.5.25 As set out above, these daily vehicle movements have been calculated based upon a five 

day working week. If construction activity was to occur on a Saturday morning then the 

calculation should be made over a five and a half day working week and would reduce the 

number of vehicle movements. Therefore, assuming a five day working week, for 

assessment purposes only, ensures a robust assessment. 

7.5.26 The above daily vehicle movements have been calculated based upon the entire peak 

monthly vehicle movements. It is likely that the abnormal loads would travel in a number of 

convoys, however, the above calculation assumes they are spread throughout the peak 

month. Due to rounding of numbers, the spread equates to one abnormal load movement 

per day, however, is actually 26 movements per month (78 movements over the three month 

period). 

Potential Significant Effects 

7.5.27 The construction traffic flows have been assigned onto the network in accordance with the 

distribution above (Construction Traffic and Access) and the maximum number of daily 

construction vehicle movements are set out in Table 7.7. 

Table 7.7 Construction Vehicle Movements per Day by Road Link 

Link Location Construction 

HGVs * 

Construction 

Worker/Vans/ 

Light Goods 

Vehicles 

Abnormal 

Loads 

Total Vehicles 

All 

Vehicles 

(HGVs) 

1 A70 Crosswood Reservoir 

(Between B7008 and 

Carnwath) 

2 A70 Wester 

Causewayend (Harperigg 

Reservoir) 

3 A70 Lanark Road (Currie 

/ Balerno) 

9 10 1 20 (10) 

8 10 0 18 (8) 

8 10 0 18 (8) 

* Includes departing abnormal loads as a standard HGV 

7.5.28 These have been assessed against the 2013 baseline traffic flows in accordance with the 

IEMA guideline in order to determine their increase in Table 7.8. 





Table 7.8 Construction Vehicle Effect 

Link 

Location 

2013 Weekday Baseline 

Traffic Flows 

Development Weekday Traffic Flows 

24 Hour 

Traffic Flow 

12 Hour 

Traffic Flow 

12 Hour 

Traffic Flow 

24 Hour 

Increase 

12 Hour 

Increase 

Total HGV Total HGV Total HGV Total HGV Total HGV 

1 A70 

Crosswood 

Reservoir 

(Between 

B7008 and 

Carnwath) 

2 A70 Wester 

Causewayend 

(Harperigg 

Reservoir) 

2,105 64 1,776 57 20 10 0.9% 12.5% 1.1% 14.0 

% 

2,106 63 1,777 56 18 8 0.9% 15.9% 1.1% 17.9 

% 

3 A70 Lanark 

Road (Currie / 

Balerno) 

16,485 499 13,251 423 18 8 0.1% 2.0% 0.2% 2.4% 

7.5.29 Table 7.8 shows that the percentage increases as a result of the construction vehicles along 

the A70 are all well within the IEMA thresholds and the construction traffic generated by the 

proposals will therefore result in imperceptible effects. 

7.5.30 Indeed, the predicted increases in total vehicle movements over a 12 hour working day is 

1.1% along the A70 between the B7008 and Carnwath and at Wester Causewayend and 

0.2% through Currie and Balerno. Corresponding HGV increases of 14.0%, 17.9% and 2.4% 

are predicted at each of these locations respectively. 

7.5.31 In accordance with the IEMA guidance, it is therefore considered that the construction traffic 

generated by the proposals would result in a negligible magnitude of change. In accordance 

with Table 7.2, the significance of effect would be negligible. 

7.5.32 The construction traffic flows during a Saturday morning would be proportionately similar to 

the baseline traffic flows as those set out above. Therefore, the effect on a Saturday morning 

would be similar to the above (negligible). In accordance with Table 7.2, the significance of 

effect would be negligible during all periods. 

7.5.33 Although the above has set out that the traffic generated during the construction phase would 

not result in any significant environmental effects, it is noted that the movement of abnormal 

loads sometimes requires separate consideration. 

7.5.34 In order to ensure a robust assessment, it is therefore appropriate to consider the possible 

effects of the abnormal loads below. Given that the above assessments show there would 

be no significant effects as a result of the total construction traffic, and that the Swept Path 

Analysis (RPS Report Ref JNY7370-02), which accompanies this application, shows that the 

abnormal loads can be accommodated on the existing road network, the effects below have 

been considered in general terms for abnormal loads along the entirety of the access route. 

This assessment is provided for completeness only. 





• Disruption and driver delay – Any effects of delay to other road users would only be 

apparent during the movement of abnormal loads as a result of their large size and 

low speed rather than their numbers. The A801, A706 and A70 are single 

carriageway roads, the police and any other escort personnel would ensure that driver 

delay is minimised by identifying locations ahead of the abnormal load where it could 

stop safely to allow vehicles to pass. There would be 78 abnormal loads over the 

entire turbine delivery period and efforts will be made to undertake these outside of 

peak traffic hours in order to prevent any disruption or delay during these periods. 

It is considered that some driver delay could occur as a result of the abnormal loads, 

however the temporary nature and safe escorting of vehicles should be borne in mind. 

It is considered that the magnitude of change would be small to medium and the 

significance of effect of disruption and driver delay as a result of the abnormal loads 

upon receptors along the route would be slight to moderate. 

• Increased risk of accidents - There is a potential for effects on safety as a 

consequence of driver frustration related to the movement of abnormal loads. 

However, all abnormal loads will be under police escort who will not only assist the 

abnormal loads but will control any oncoming vehicles or vehicles following the 

abnormal load. This should minimise driver frustration and reduce the risk of 

accidents. It is therefore considered any magnitude of change would be negligible 

and the significance of effect of accidents and safety as a result of abnormal loads 

upon receptors along the route would be negligible. 

• Severance, Intimidation and Pedestrian Delay - An increase in vehicle numbers, 

particularly HGVs through towns and villages, could result in additional delays to 

pedestrians wishing to cross the road i.e. severance. HGV traffic, particularly 

abnormal loads, can reduce the amenity of pedestrian routes in towns and villages to 

the extent that pedestrians feel intimidated by the traffic. 

There would be 78 abnormal loads which could result in intimidation or pedestrian 

delay, however, these movements would be spread over the construction period and 

any effect would be infrequent. On this basis, it is therefore considered any 

magnitude of change would be negligible and the significance of effect of severance, 

intimidation and pedestrian delay as a result of the abnormal loads upon receptors 

along the route would be negligible. 

• Dust and dirt - HGVs have the potential to distribute dust and dirt from the proposed 

wind farm construction site onto the local road network and is mostly pronounced in 

the immediate vicinity of proposed wind farms access. All access roads would be 

constructed and surfaced in an appropriate manner and, combined with on-site 

construction management, it is therefore considered any magnitude of change would 

be negligible and the significance of effect of dust and dirt as a result of the abnormal 

loads upon receptors along the route would be negligible. 

• Visual effects - The movements of high-sided vehicles during the construction period 

could be considered visually intrusive. Any effect would be short-term and only occur 

during the movement of abnormal loads. 

In terms of driver distraction relating to the movement of abnormal loads, such loads 

would not be travelling at any great speed and drivers within their proximity would 

likely slow down, and on occasion even stop, whilst passing. Given these reduced 





vehicle speeds, it is considered that the effect of driver distraction relating to the 

movement of abnormal loads would not result in any road safety concerns. It is 

therefore considered any magnitude of change would be negligible and the 

significance of effect as a result of the abnormal loads upon receptors along the 

routes would be negligible. 

Summary of Construction Effects 

7.5.35 The maximum number of vehicle movements generated during the construction of the 

proposed turbines over a day is estimated at 38 two-way movements per day, 10 of which 

will be HGVs. 

7.5.36 The greatest increase in total traffic is predicted to be on the A70 between the B7008 and 

Carnwath where an increase of 1.1 % on the 12 hour baseline traffic flows is predicted. In 

accordance with the IEMA guidance, the traffic generated during the construction phase 

along the adjacent road network is likely to result in a negligible magnitude of change and the 

significance of effect would be negligible. 

7.5.37 Notwithstanding this conclusion, consideration has also been given to the movement of 

abnormal loads. This assessment showed that the movement of abnormal loads is generally 

likely to result in a negligible magnitude of change and the significance of effect would be 

negligible, with the exception of disruption and driver delay where the magnitude of change 

would be small to medium and the significance of effect would be slight to moderate. 

Effects During Operation Phase 

7.5.38 During the operational phase of the development, there will be no permanent staff based at 

the wind farm and only the occasional routine maintenance which is carried out using a 4x4 

vehicle will be required on site. It is therefore not considered necessary to assess the 

environmental effects of the traffic generated by the operational phase of the proposed wind 

farm. 

7.5.39 As above, the evidence base which informed the DCLG publication ‘Planning for Renewable 

Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22’, December 2004, has informed the conclusion that 

drivers would not be distracted by the turbines or the movement of the blades. 

Effects During Decommissioning Phase 

7.5.40 The levels of traffic associated with decommissioning are anticipated to be similar or lower 

than those required during construction, therefore the construction phase assessment of 

effects is broadly relevant to that for decommissioning. 

7.6 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 

7.6.1 Although the above assessments demonstrate that there is no requirement for any mitigation 

measures, a Traffic Management Plan (‘TMP’) will be prepared and agreed with the Road 

Authority as an enhancement measure prior to construction. The TMP will provide the 

following information: 

• Approved access routes and any necessary restrictions; 

• Temporary signage in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm warning of construction 

traffic; 

• Temporary signage warning other users of abnormal load turbine movements; 





• Arrangements with police for escort of abnormal loads; 

• Ground preparation, including protection of services; 

• Arrangements for road maintenance and cleaning; 

• Timing of deliveries – construction hours will be outside of peak traffic hours, subject 

to agreement with the road authorities; and 

• Wheel cleaning arrangements and regular road sweeping runs. 

7.6.2 Abnormal loads will be escorted, from the port of entry (currently envisaged being 

Grangemouth) with timings agreed with the road authorities and police as appropriate. 

7.6.3 These measures will assist in minimising any environmental effects associated with the 

construction traffic generated by the proposed wind farm. 

7.6.4 In order to further reduce traffic effects associated with the construction of the proposed wind 

farm, construction personnel will be encouraged to car-share where practicable. 

7.6.5 The assessment has considered each construction worker arriving at the proposed wind farm 

in an individual vehicle. This is considered a robust assessment as construction personnel 

typically show car occupancy levels of greater than one person per vehicle. 

7.7 Assessment of Residual Effects 

7.7.1 Although the enhancement measures described above are not required to reduce the level of 

significance with respect to the effects identified, they are included as measures to manage 

and control the residual effect resulting from HGV deliveries and abnormal loads. Table 7.9 

summarises the effects. 





Table 7.9 Summary of Effects 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 


(and 

significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 


(and 

significance) 

after Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Increase in Traffic 

Volume 

Construction Low Negligible 

Negligible 

(Not Significant) 

- 

Traffic 

Management Plan 

including signage. 

Negligible 


Temporary 

Disruption and Driver 

Delay from Abnormal 

Loads 

Construction 

Low 

Small / 

Medium 

Slight / 

Moderate 


Traffic 


and Police escort. 

- 

Slight 


Temporary 

Road Users 

along Route 

Increased Risk of 

Accidents from 

Abnormal Loads 

Construction High Negligible 

Negligible 


- 

Traffic 



Negligible 


Temporary 

Severance, Intimidation 

and Pedestrian Delay 

from Abnormal Loads. 


Negligible 


- 

Traffic 



Negligible 


Temporary 

Dust and Dirt from 

Abnormal Loads. 


Negligible 


- 

Traffic 



Negligible 


Temporary 

Visual Effects from 



Negligible 


- 

Traffic 



Negligible 


Temporary 



Traffic and Transport


7.7.2 This Chapter of the ES concludes that the environmental effect of the construction of the 

proposed wind farm would be negligible and would be further minimised with appropriate 

traffic management. 

7.8 Cumulative Effects 

7.8.1 Any major developments in the area or along the access route that may arise at the same 

time as construction of the proposed wind farm could result in a cumulative increase in traffic 

flows on the routes. In this regard, it is noted that the increases resulting from the 

construction of the proposed wind farm are small relative to the baseline traffic flows which 

results in negligible (not significant) effects. 

7.8.2 In the event that the above total construction traffic flows were to increase nine-fold then the 

increase would still remain within the thresholds identified by IEMA, which suggests that 

imperceptible effects would still be predicted. 

7.8.3 In terms of the movement of abnormal loads, such movements from any other development 

are highly unlikely to occur at the exact same time and location as those for this application 

since their movement would be co-ordinated with the police, who would also co-ordinate with 

any other such movements. Therefore, there would be no cumulative assessment in relation 

to these. 

7.8.4 It is also noted that the above is based upon the single month which generates the largest 

number of construction vehicles. During other months, the number of construction vehicle 

movements generated will be far less. 

7.8.5 On this basis, there is an opportunity for a number of other wind farm developments to 

proceed and generate traffic similar to that for the proposed windfarm and the resultant 

cumulative effect would be negligible. Larger wind farm proposals to this would not generate 

significantly more construction vehicle movements to those set out above as the construction 

period is spread over a longer number of months. Furthermore, given the temporary nature 

of the construction effect it is unlikely that the peak construction traffic above would coincide 

with another development and therefore no significant cumulative effect should be 

forthcoming. Indeed, the above suggests that the above total construction traffic flows could 

increase nine-fold and the traffic increases would still remain within the thresholds identified 

by IEMA whereby imperceptible effects would still be predicted. 

7.8.6 It should also be noted that the local access roads, once off the strategic road network, are 

specific to each wind farm and not every site will generate construction traffic along the local 

roads assessed for the proposed wind farm. 


• The Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) (now IEMA), (1993) Guidance Note 

No. 1. Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic 





8 Noise 


8.1.1 This chapter assesses the potential noise and vibration effects of the proposed wind farm 

with respect to construction, operation and decommissioning. 

8.1.2 The chapter describes the methods used to gather baseline data representative of the closest 

identified noise sensitive receptors, likely construction, operational and decommissioning 

effects, mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse 

effects predicted, and the significance of any residual effects after these measures have been 

implemented. 

8.1.3 This chapter is necessarily technical in nature; a glossary of acoustic terms is presented as 

Appendix 8.1. Background information on wind turbine noise is provided in Appendix 8.2. 


Policy and Guidance 

Planning Policy and Legislative Context 

8.2.1 The following policy and guidance documents have been referred to for the purposes of this 

assessment: 

• The Control of Pollution Act (CoPA) 1974, Part III; 

• Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011;Planning and Noise; 

• The Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines The Assessment & Rating of Noise 

from Wind Farms (ETSU-R-97) (1996); 

• Institute of Acoustics (IoA) Bulletin article Volume 34 No. 2, March / April 2009; 

• IoA consultation paper July 2012 A good practice guide to the application of ETSU-R- 

97 for wind turbine noise assessment. 

8.2.2 These documents are described in more detail below. 

The Control of Pollution Act 1974, Part III 

8.2.3 Section 60, Part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (CoPA) refers to the control of noise 

on construction sites. It provides legislation by which local authorities can control noise from 

construction sites to limit noise disturbance. 

8.2.4 Section 72, Part III of the CoPA refers to best practicable means (BPM). It defines BPM as 

reasonably practicable, having regards among other things to local conditions and 

circumstances, to the current state of technical knowledge and to the financial implications, 

whilst Means refers to the design, installation, maintenance and manner and periods of 

operation of plant and machinery, and the design, construction and maintenance of buildings 

and acoustic structures. 


Noise 



Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011 Planning and Noise 

8.2.5 This Planning Advice Note provides advice on the role of the planning system in helping to 

prevent and limit the adverse effects of noise. Information and advice on noise impact 

assessment methods is provided in the associated Technical Advice Note Assessment of 

Noise. It is considered to reflect current advice from the Scottish Government. 

8.2.6 PAN1/2011 and the associated TAN refer the assessor to the guidance set out in ETSU-R-97 

to determine the effect of wind energy developments on nearby sensitive receptors. The TAN 

makes reference to summary findings of the IoA Bulletin paper (see below) concerning 

recommended methodology for assessing local wind shear and the propagation of sound 

from operational turbines. It also refers to the agreement amongst the authors of the paper 

that there is no robust evidence of the adverse effects of low frequency sound, infrasound 

and ground borne vibration from operational turbines. 

The Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines The Assessment & Rating of Noise 

from Wind Farms (ETSU-R-97) 

8.2.7 ETSU-R-97, published in September 1996, was the result of deliberations of the Working 

Group on Noise from Wind Turbines, which was set up in 1993 by the Department of Trade 

and Industry (DTI) to derive guidelines for assessing noise from wind turbines. It provides a 

recognised and accepted method for assessing wind turbine noise and, in particular, for 

setting external noise limits to protect residential amenity and prevent sleep disturbance. 

8.2.8 The assessment considers predicted levels of operational turbine noise in relation to derived 

limits across the relevant range of wind speeds, typically considered to be wind speeds up to 

12m/s. The limit at each wind speed, when corrected to 10m above local ground height, is 

derived in relation to prevailing background noise level. For quiet daytime periods, the limit 

should be in the range of 35 – 40dB L A90,10min or 5dB(A) above measured background, 

whichever is the greater. For night time periods, the limit should be 43dB L A90,10min or 5dB(A) 

above measured background, whichever is the greater. 

8.2.9 ETSU-R-97 allows for an increased lower fixed limit where residents are financially involved 

with the wind farm development (page 66). There are no financially involved properties with 

respect to the proposed wind farm. 

8.2.10 The prevailing background noise level across the relevant range of wind speeds is 

determined as the best-fit regression curve when the measured background noise values, in 

10-minute periods (L A90,10min ), are plotted against concurrent average wind speed 

standardised to 10 m above local ground height, also in 10-minute periods. 

8.2.11 The quiet daytime periods are chosen to reflect times when people might be outside in their 

gardens and are defined as: 

• All weekday evenings from 6 pm to 11 pm; 

• Saturday afternoon and evenings from 1 pm to 11 pm; and 

• All day Sunday 7 am to 11 pm. 

8.2.12 For the quiet daytime periods, the limit selected between 35 and 40 dB L A90,10min should 

depend on: 

• The number of dwellings in the neighbourhood of the wind farm; 

• The effect of noise limits on the number of kWh generated; and 


Noise 



• The duration and level of exposure. 

8.2.13 For the purposes of this assessment, a quiet daytime fixed lower limit of 35dB L A90,10min has 

been selected. For reference, the quiet daytime fixed lower limit selected for the neighbouring 

proposed Harburnhead Wind Farm is 40dB(A) and 38dB(A) for Fauch Hill Wind Farm. 

8.2.14 It should be noted that the limit derived from the quiet daytime periods of the baseline noise 

survey, as defined in ETSU-R-97 and described in paragraph 8.2.11 above, should be 

applied to the whole daytime period (0700 – 2300h) and should not be interpreted as allowing 

higher operational noise levels outwith these hours. 

Institute of Acoustics (IoA) Bulletin Article Volume 34 No. 2, March / April 2009 

8.2.15 In the March/April 2009 issue of Acoustics Bulletin, published by the IoA, a group of acoustic 

consultants considered specialists in their field produced a paper which aimed to standardise 

certain elements of the assessment of noise from operational wind farms. The paper 

addressed three main issues: 

• To address local wind shear, measured background noise levels should be correlated 

with derived and not measured wind speeds at 10 m above local ground height. A 

methodology is described which has been applied for the purposes of this 

assessment; 

• The preferred method of prediction for the propagation of operational turbine noise is 

ISO 9613-2. Particular attention is drawn to establishing whether the manufacturer’s 

data obtained is warranted or otherwise which has an effect on the ground absorption 

selected for the model. Guidance on assumed atmospheric conditions and assumed 

barrier attenuation from topography is also provided; and 

• There is agreement among the authors that there is currently no robust evidence that 

low frequency sound, infrasound or ground borne vibration from operational turbines 

adversely affect neighbouring sensitive dwellings. 

8.2.16 The recommendations made in this article have been taken into account in this chapter; the 

document is referred to throughout as the ‘IoA Bulletin article’. 

British Standard 5228 (2009) Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on 

Construction and Open Sites Part 1: Noise 

8.2.17 BS 5228 Part 1: Noise provides guidance, information and procedures on the control of noise 

and vibration from construction sites. It includes a comprehensive best practice guide to 

minimising the adverse effects of noise from construction sites and a database of plant and 

activity noise levels for undertaking predictive assessments. 

Construction and Decommissioning Noise and Vibration 

8.2.18 Potentially noisy activities relating to wind farm construction include formation of access 

tracks, crane pads, the construction compound and turbine foundations, erection of turbines, 

site cabling and installation of the substation building/transformer. 

8.2.19 Due to the transient and necessary nature of the works and large distances between the 

development area and the closest identified dwellings, significant impacts are unlikely. A 

qualitative assessment has therefore been presented which considers the implementation of 

Best Practicable Means, as defined in the Control of Pollution Act (CoPA) (1974) to ensure 

that noise associated with the works is minimised in so far as is reasonably practicable. It is 


Noise 



anticipated that West Lothian Council (WLC) would also require their own controls over the 

works (e.g. by limiting working hours). 

8.2.20 The potential effects of construction vibration have been scoped out of this assessment as 

the separation distances are considered too large to result in any perceptible effects. 

Operational Noise 

8.2.21 Operational noise from the development has been predicted and assessed in accordance 

with the guidance set out in ETSU-R-97 The assessment and rating of noise from wind farms 

and other relevant advice. 

8.2.22 Operational noise both from the proposed scheme as an individual entity and cumulatively, 

considering the effects of other proposed wind energy schemes in the vicinity, has been 

considered in this Chapter. 

8.2.23 For the purposes of this assessment the following significance criteria have been adopted: 

• Predicted scheme or cumulative wind turbine noise levels that comply with the ETSU- 

R-97 derived quiet day and night time limits are considered not to be significant; 

• Predicted scheme or cumulative wind turbine noise levels that exceed the ETSU-R-97 

derived quiet day and night time limits are considered to be significant. 

8.2.24 Only those likely effects considered significant are material to this assessment. 

Operational Vibration 

8.2.25 Due to the large distances between the turbine locations and the closest identified noise 

sensitive dwellings, the potential effects of operational vibration have been scoped out of this 

assessment. 

8.3 Baseline 

Consultation 

8.3.1 Consultation has been undertaken with the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) for West 

Lothian Council (WLC). 

8.3.2 This consultation was particularly important for the purposes of agreeing standards and 

methodology for assessment, including establishing baseline conditions at the closest 

identified dwellings to the proposed development. 

8.3.3 Environmental Statements (ES) for Harburnhead and Fauch Hill wind farms have previously 

been submitted to WLC. These wind farms are in close proximity to the proposed wind farm, 

lying to the west and south east respectively. The baseline noise surveys for these two 

proposed developments have a significant degree of overlap with the area to be considered 

for the proposed wind farm at Camilty. It was therefore agreed with the EHO that the 

prevailing quiet day and night time levels used to inform these ES chapters and derived from 

the baseline noise surveys at the following properties would be adopted against which to 

assess the operational effects of the proposed wind farm at Camilty: 

• Harburnhead to the west (Harburnhead ES); 

• Aberlyn to the south (Harburnhead ES); 

• Halfwayhouse to the east (Fauch Hill ES). 


Noise 



8.3.4 The benefit of this approach is that is allows the determining authority to directly compare the 

effects of each scheme against the same baseline for those properties where there is an 

overlap of influence. 

8.3.5 Where data has been extracted from the Harburnhead or Fauch Hill ES Chapters, reference 

has been made to the original figures. The methodology for gathering of baseline data 

employed in both of the other assessments is discussed in more detail below (section 8.3.18 

onwards). 

8.3.6 WLC has also been consulted on the subject of a representative monitoring location for those 

properties to the north of the proposed development, which have not been represented in the 

other wind farm ES documents. Representative measurements for dwellings in this area were 

undertaken at Parkview Cottages. WLC has agreed that this is an acceptable proxy location. 

8.3.7 Measurement data from these four locations (i.e. Harburnhead, Aberlyn, Halfway House and 

Parkview Cottages) has therefore been used to assess each of the identified Noise Sensitive 

Receptors (NSR) in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm. 

8.3.8 With respect to setting appropriate limits against which to assess the predicted operational 

noise levels, WLC indicated that the lower fixed portion of the quiet daytime limit should be as 

close to 35dB(A) as possible or else measured background +5dB(A), whichever is the greater 

as recommended in ETSU-R-97. For night time, the lower fixed limit should be 43dB(A), or 

else measured background +5dB(A), whichever is the greater. These limits should be applied 

both to the scheme and cumulative assessments. 

8.3.9 It was further agreed that the assessment would consider a candidate turbine which would 

reflect the worst possible case within the parameters of turbine hub height and power 

generation. For the purposes of this assessment, both the Vestas V-90 3MW and Nordex 

N100 2.5MW were initially considered, both of hub height 80m. The final assessment is 

based on the Nordex N100 2.5MW as it has a higher proportion of low frequencies than the 

Vestas, which are less well absorbed by atmospheric conditions. 


8.3.10 The 6 turbines comprising the proposed wind farm are to be located in Camilty Plantation 

which lies approximately 2 km to the south of the settlement of Harburn. The land is managed 

by the Forestry Commission Scotland and there are scattered dwellings around the perimeter 

of the proposed development site. 

8.3.11 A large portion of land to the north-east of the proposed development area forms Harburn 

Estate which is used for various events and leisure activities. There is a cluster of dwellings 

including High Camilty and Camilty Lodge immediately to the north adjacent to the boundary 

with Harburn Estate. Parkview Cottages lies immediately to the west of these dwellings. The 

B7008 transects the site from east to south west and there are 2 dwellings (Halfwayhouse 

and Brookbank) which are adjacent to the road to the east of the proposed wind farm 

development area. To the south, there is another cluster of dwellings including Aberlyn, 

Crosswood and Crosswoodburn. There are no dwellings to the west within 1.5 km. 

Harburnhead, a dwelling and associated stables lies to the north west adjacent to the 

boundary with Harburn Estate. 

8.3.12 West Colzium to the south east was found to be derelict and has not been considered in this 

assessment. 


Noise 



8.3.13 Generally, ambient noise levels are fairly low and the noise climate consists of occasional 

proximal vehicle movements and distant road traffic, birdsong, wind through foliage etc. 

8.3.14 A representative selection of the closest dwellings (referred to as NSRs) to the proposed 

wind farm were identified based on geographical distribution. A site plan detailing all 

dwellings within 2 km from the turbines is presented as Figure 8.1. Only those dwellings 

within 2 km have been considered for the purposes of this assessment, with the exception of 

Colzium (NSR3 on Figure 8.1) which is just over 2 km, but considered important in terms of 

cumulative effect (from Fauch Hill Wind Farm). 

8.3.15 The operational noise levels for the proposed wind farm and cumulative position have been 

predicted at each of these locations. This selection is not intended to be exhaustive within a 

2 km radius of the edge of the turbines – rather, where there are groups of dwellings, one or 

two have been selected as it is anticipated that noise immissions will be very similar at 

properties in the immediate vicinity of each other. 

8.3.16 This is particularly true, given that the operational noise model does not include for the effects 

of local topography, an approach taken to avoid overcompensating for the barrier effects of 

topographical features as recommended in the IoA Bulletin paper discussed above. 

8.3.17 The following Table 8.1 describes the location of each of the identified NSR which have been 

considered in the assessment of operational wind turbine noise. For each NSR, the source of 

the baseline data against which the predicted levels have been assessed is also stated. 

Table 8.1 Identified Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSRs) 

NSR 

Ref 

Name 

Approximate 

distance to closest 

turbine (m) 

Representative Baseline 

Monitoring Location 

1 Aberlyn 870 Aberlyn (Harburnhead ES 1 ) 

2 Camilty Lodge 1580 Parkview Cottages 

3 Colzium 2440 Halfwayhouse (Fauch Hill ES 2 ) 

4 Crosswoodburn / Crosswood 880 Aberlyn (Harburnhead ES) 

5 Halfwayhouse / Brookbank 1250 Halfwayhouse (Fauch Hill ES) 

6 Harburn House 1520 Harburnhead (Harburnhead ES) 

7 Harburnhead 1270 Harburnhead (Harburnhead ES) 

8 High Camilty 1240 Parkview Cottages 

9 Over Williamston 1970 Parkview Cottages 

10 Parkview Cottages 1690 Parkview Cottages 

11 Whistle Lodge 1800 Parkview Cottages 

1 Harburnhead Windfarm ES Table 12.4 

2 Fauch Hill Windfarm ES 9.4 Baseline Conditions and Technical Appendix 9.3 Table 1 


Noise 



Baseline Noise Monitoring – Harburnhead and Fauch Hill Wind Farms 

8.3.18 Assessment of the noise aspects of the Harburnhead ES and Fauch Hill ES were undertaken 

by Arcus Ltd. and Mouchel Ltd. respectively. Both ES chapters and associated technical 

appendices give clear descriptions of the methodology applied to the baseline noise surveys. 

8.3.19 All surveys were undertaken in accordance with the recommendations set out in ETSU-R-97 

and with regard to the additional guidance in the IoA Bulletin article. Both proposed 

development sites have full height temporary anemometry masts, the data from which has 

been paired up with the L A90,10min noise measurements at each representative noise 

monitoring location. Wind speed data has been gathered simultaneously at two heights 

allowing adjustment for local wind shear as recommended in the IoA bulletin article. 

8.3.20 Scatter charts have been provided for all three representative NSR selected against which to 

assess the Camilty scheme (Harburnhead and Aberlyn from the Harburnhead ES and 

Halfwayhouse from the Fauch Hill ES). All charts have formulae for the line of best fit which 

has been applied and these have been used to calculate the prevailing background for quiet 

day and night time at each location. 

8.3.21 The relevant chapters and technical appendices have been provided as Appendix 8.6 for 

reference purposes. 

Baseline Noise Monitoring – Camilty Wind Farm 

8.3.22 As previously described, baseline noise monitoring was undertaken at one location only (see 

paragraphs 8.3.3 to 8.3.6), in accordance with the methodology described in ETSU-R-97 and 

with reference to the supplementary guidance in the IoA Bulletin article. 

8.3.23 Free-field measurements were undertaken in the communal garden area of Parkview 

Cottages between 30 th November 2012 and 3 rd January 2013. 

8.3.24 The noise survey was carried out using a Rion NL-31 Class 1 Sound Level Meter (serial 

number 00203727) with ½ inch condenser microphone (serial number 316393). The sound 

level meter was calibrated at the beginning and end of the measurement period using an 

acoustic calibrator, which had itself been calibrated against a reference system traceable to 

National and International Standards. No drift in calibration was observed. 

8.3.25 The microphone was fitted with a wind shield specification conducive to environmental noise 

monitoring for wind farms as described in ETSU-R-97. 

8.3.26 Background noise measurements of 10 minutes duration (L A90,10min ) were undertaken 

continuously throughout the monitoring period. 

8.3.27 A synchronised rain gage was also installed at this location; data coinciding with periods of 

significant rainfall have been excluded from the assessment. 

Meteorological Data 

8.3.28 ETSU-R-97 requires correlation of each L A90,10min measurement with the concurrent average 

10 minute wind speed derived to 10m above local ground height to determine prevailing 

background noise levels at each wind speed. 

8.3.29 Meteorological data was provided by Sgurr Energy from the anemometry mast installed in 

Camilty Plantation (305294,659582). Wind speed and direction measurements were provided 

at 30, 50 and 70m above local ground height for each 10 minute period. 


Noise 



8.3.30 A wind shear analysis has been undertaken by RPS to derive standardised 10 m wind speed 

data (refer to Appendix 8.4 for technical details of the wind shear assessment). This analysis 

has been undertaken with reference to the guidance set out in the IoA Bulletin article. The 10 

minute average wind speed at the proposed maximum turbine hub height (80m) has been 

calculated using the ratio of wind speeds measured simultaneously at anemometer heights of 

30 m and 70 m on the anemometry mast. A standardised extrapolation to 10 m has been 

undertaken using a standard roughness length of 0.05 m. 

8.3.31 It should be noted that the relative heights of the anemometers in relation to maximum hub 

height do not match exactly the requirements of the methodology set out in the IoA Bulletin 

article, which requires one anemometer to be at 40-50% of hub height and a second at 

greater than 60% of hub height. These specific requirements were not taken into account in 

the anemometry mast design. It is considered, however, that the calculation undertaken 

provides adequate assessment of any local wind shear effects, given that the lower height 

(30 m) is representative of 38% hub height, which is close to the requirement for 40%. The 

higher height (70 m) meets the IoA Bulletin recommendation of greater than 60% of hub 

height. The full procedure for wind shear analysis is included within Standard IEC-61400-11 

Wind turbine generator systems – Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques. 

Measured Baseline Noise Levels at Parkview Cottages 

8.3.32 Charts 8.1 and 8.2 below present the results of the baseline noise survey at Parkview 

Cottages for quiet day and night time periods. The charts show the measured L A90,10min 

background levels correlated with the synchronous wind speed, derived to 10m above local 

ground height as previously described. 

8.3.33 For each data set, the prevailing background noise level at each wind speed has been 

ascertained by applying a best fit curve. Both charts have had a second order polynomial line 

applied as it is considered that this is the most appropriate curve for the shape of the data 

sets. The formula for each curve is shown on the chart. 

8.3.34 ETSU-R-97 suggests that atypical data points should be removed from the scatter plot prior 

to ascertaining the best fit line which is representative of prevailing background during quiet 

day and night time periods. 

8.3.35 Atypical data may include ‘periods of significant rainfall’ or points which sit outwith the main 

body of data for no apparently obvious reason – this may have been due to other noise 

events in the acoustic environment of the monitoring location which are sporadic and do not 

form part of the typical environment (e.g. car engine idling / grass cutting / persistent alarm 

etc.). This is common in such long unattended surveys. 

8.3.36 For the data set presented below, no obvious atypical data outwith those removed for periods 

of significant rainfall were present and so all other points remain in the data set. 


Noise 



Chart 8.1: Parkview Cottages Quiet Daytime LA90,10min (dB) against wind speed (m/s) 

70 

60 

y = 0.1076x 2 + 0.3749x + 27.429 

R 2 = 0.6783 

50 

LA90,10min (dB) 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 

Wind speed (m/s) 



Noise


Chart 8.2: Parkview Cottages Night time LA90,10min (dB) against wind speed (m/s) 

70 

60 

y = 0.1535x 2 + 0.1434x + 24.043 

R 2 = 0.7094 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 




Noise


Prevailing Background Noise Levels at all Properties to be used as Proxies 

8.3.37 Tables 8.2 and 8.3 respectively summarise the results of the quiet daytime and night time 

baseline noise monitoring (L A90,10min ) undertaken at Parkview Cottages (Charts 8.1 and 8.2 

above) as well as the quiet daytime and night time prevailing background noise levels at each 

wind speed for Harburnhead 3 , Aberlyn 4 and Halfwayhouse 5 extracted from the Harburnhead 

and Fauch Hill ES Chapters (Appendix 8.6). 

Table 8.2 Prevailing Quiet Daytime Background Noise Levels (LA90,10min) (dB) 

Derived from Baseline Noise Surveys 

Monitoring 

location 

Wind speed (m/s) derived to 10 m above local ground height 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Parkview Cottages 31 32 34 35 37 40 42 45 47 

Harburnhead 28 30 32 35 38 41 44 46 48 

Aberlyn 33 35 38 42 46 47 47 47 47 

Halfwayhouse 34 34 34 36 37 40 43 47 51 

Table 8.3 Prevailing Night Time Background Noise Levels (LA90,10min) (dB) Derived 

from Baseline Noise Surveys 

Monitoring 

location 

Wind speed (m/s) derived to 10 m above local ground height 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


Harburnhead 23 25 28 32 35 39 43 46 49 

Aberlyn 28 30 34 39 44 47 47 47 47 

Halfwayhouse 28 30 32 34 37 39 41 42 42 

8.3.38 These prevailing quiet day and night time background noise levels have been used to derive 

appropriate operational noise limits at each wind speed, against which the predicted scheme 

and cumulative operational noise levels have been assessed. This assessment is discussed 

in detail later in this chapter. 


8.4.1 As described in Chapter 3: Design Evolution, an initial buffer of 750 m was placed on all 

identified residential properties in order to minimise the likelihood of potential NSRs 

experiencing significant noise effects from the operational turbines. 

3 Harburnhead Windfarm ES Table 12.5 Prevailing background noise levels 

4 Harburnhead Windfarm ES Table 12.5 Prevailing background noise levels 

5 Fauch Hill Windfarm ES Figures 9.6 & 9.7 


Noise 



8.4.2 The proprietary noise modelling software SoundPLAN was used to predict scheme 

operational noise levels at each of the identified NSR (Table 8.1) at a height of 4 m above 

local ground height; no topographical information was incorporated into the model and a 

ground absorption value of G=0 was assumed. The noise immission modelling for Camilty 

wind farm considers a candidate wind turbine, the Nordex N100 2.5MW of hub height 80 m. 

8.4.3 Agreement was reached with WLC on standards for assessment and methodology, 

particularly with respect to establishing prevailing background noise levels. 

8.4.4 A technical workshop was held on 26 July 2012, which incorporated all the views and 

assessment requirements of the appointed EIA specialists (landscape, cultural heritage, 

ecology, hydrology and ornithology as well as noise), the purpose of which was to refine the 

proposals to satisfy all requirements. 

8.4.5 This workshop considered not only the environmental effects associated with the proposed 

scheme but also the cumulative effects of other proposed wind energy development in the 

vicinity of Camilty wind farm, specifically Harburnhead and Fauch Hill wind farms. 

8.4.6 It was found that, at the Harburnhead NSR, the proposed wind farm could comply with the 

derived limits in isolation. However, it was clear that all three schemes were unlikely to be 

able to operate simultaneously and meet the limits derived from the baseline information. 

This cumulative issue was discussed with WLC and it was agreed that the scheme and 

cumulative information should be presented separately to allow direct comparison between 

the proposals for each of the 3 adjacent wind farms. This is discussed in more detail later in 

this Chapter. 


8.5.1 The proposed development comprises 6 wind turbines, a control building and substation, an 

anemometry mast, a temporary construction compound and amended vehicular access on to 

site. A description of the proposed development is presented in Chapter 4: Project 

Description. 

8.5.2 The following sections assess the likelihood of significant effects associated with noise during 

the construction and operational phases of the development. 

Construction Effects 

Construction Traffic 

8.5.3 Abnormal loads transporting turbine components (wind turbine blades, nacelles and tower 

components) will follow a predefined route to the site (see Chapter 7: Traffic and Transport 

for a description of the abnormal load route). Turbine components will be transported to the 

site by a specialist heavy haulage contractor. 

8.5.4 As identified in Chapter 7: Traffic and Transport, there would be up to 78 abnormal loads 

transporting turbine components to the proposed wind farm site over the course of the 

construction period. Although it is inevitable that these heavy vehicle pass-by events will be 

noticeable in comparison to the composition of existing typical traffic flows, they will be rare 

and necessary events which will be scheduled along specific routes. On this basis, it is 

considered that these events will not result in any significant adverse noise effects. 


Noise 



Construction on Site 

8.5.5 The construction works will follow a 6 month programme. During this period, noise from 

construction is likely to arise during: 

• Construction of access tracks and crane pads; 

• Construction of lay down area; 

• Construction compound and turbine foundations; 

• Erection of turbines; 

• Site cabling; and 

• Substation installation. 

8.5.6 Construction activities will not involve piling or blasting, which are the activities generally 

considered to have the greatest potential for significant construction noise effects. 

8.5.7 It is inevitable that, with the construction of any new development, there will be some 

disturbance caused to those nearby during the construction phases. However, disruption due 

to construction is a localised phenomenon and is temporary in nature. In general, only 

people living within a hundred metres or so of a construction site have the potential to be 

seriously bothered by noise. The distances between sources of construction noise and the 

closest identified NSR are significantly more than this. 

8.5.8 Although there are techniques available to predict the likely noise and vibration effects from 

construction operations, such as those contained within BS5228 Code of practice for noise 

and vibration control on construction and open sites Part 1: Noise, they are necessarily based 

on quite detailed information on the type and number of plant being used, their location and 

the length of time they are in operation. Such precise details are not available at this stage. 

8.5.9 A pragmatic approach should be adopted when considering likely noise levels from works 

such as these. Under typical conditions, the impacts from construction activities as a whole, 

providing they are properly managed, would be expected to be negligible or, at worst, slight 

adverse. It is also important to recognise that the proportion of the works which will generate 

‘worst case’ noise levels at any given receptor will be very small. 

8.5.10 It therefore follows that the inevitability of occasional noise impacts associated with the 

construction works should be addressed through the practices adopted and equipment 

utilised by the Contractor and controlled by the requirements of WLC Department of 

Environmental Health, for example, by restricting hours of noisy activity on the site. 

8.5.11 The onus should be upon the Contractor to reduce construction noise levels in so far as is 

reasonably practicable through the implementation of Best Practicable Means; guidance in 

this respect is set out in CoPA. This is discussed in more detail in the Mitigation section of 

this chapter. 

Operational Effects – Proposed Wind Farm 

8.5.12 This section addresses noise associated with the operational turbines of the proposed wind 

farm at the closest identified NSR. 

8.5.13 It is common practice to use candidate turbines when assessing the noise effects of a wind 

farm as the final turbine choice is often only made when the developer enters into commercial 

contract negotiations with a range of turbine manufacturers. The choice of candidate turbine 


Noise 



represents the ‘worst case’ in terms of noise immission levels at NSR, that is to say the final 

turbine choice will have noise emissions not exceeding those of the candidate turbine. 

8.5.14 Noise immissions from the operational scheme should therefore be controlled by a suitably 

worded planning condition, rather than by specifying a single turbine type. 

8.5.15 For the purposes of this assessment, the Nordex N100 2.5MW turbine has been used to 

determine the likely operational noise effects of the proposals. This turbine has a hub height 

of 80 m. 

8.5.16 Manufacturer’s measured noise emission data (A – weighted sound power levels) have been 

used in the prediction process, and are summarised in Table 8.4 below. These data 

constitute apparent sound power levels - they are not warranted or guaranteed. 

Table 8.4 Nordex N100 2.5MW - Manufacturer’s Apparent Sound Power Level Data 

Windspeed/ms -1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

LWA (dB) 98.8 101.1 104.4 105.8 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 

8.5.17 Where audible tones are present in the wind turbine noise spectrum, ETSU-R-97 

recommends that a tonal penalty should be added, based on the level of the tone above the 

masking noise. 

8.5.18 The manufacturer’s data sheet for the Nordex N100 states that the specified sound power 

levels include for potential tonal penalties. No further correction is therefore necessary. 

8.5.19 The A-weighted sound power levels above show that 8m/s is the wind speed at which the 

noise emission levels from the turbine are greatest. It is at this wind speed therefore that the 

predictive calculations for the scheme and cumulative assessment have initially been carried 

out. 

8.5.20 The following Table 8.5 presents the sound power levels at the centre frequency of each 

octave band at wind speed 8m/s which have been incorporated into the SoundPLAN model. 

This information is also not warranted or guaranteed by the manufacturer. 

Table 8.5 Nordex N100 2.5MW – Manufacturer’s Octave Band Centre Frequency Data 

(8m/s) 

Octave band centre 

frequency (Hz) 

63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

Lw (dB(A)) 87.1 92.8 99.6 101.4 99.5 94.9 93.2 85.2 

8.5.21 SoundPLAN has been used to predict noise immission levels from the operational scheme at 

the closest identified NSR, applying the propagation methodology set out in ISO 9613-2 as 

recommended in the IoA Bulletin article. Full details of the modelling procedure are given in 

Appendix 8.3. Predictions across the full range of relevant wind speeds (4 – 12m/s) have 

been undertaken based on the manufacturer’s data presented in Table 8.4 above. 

8.5.22 In order to comply with the recommendations for prediction of environmental noise 

immissions from wind farms, no topographical layer has been incorporated into the model, 

assuming an effectively flat site, and a ground absorption factor of G=0 has been applied due 

to the lack of warranty or guarantee relating to the manufacturer’s data. 


Noise 



8.5.23 These conservative modelling assumptions suggest that the model is more likely to overpredict 

noise immission levels at any NSR than to under-predict. Additionally, the ISO 9613- 

2 method predicts noise levels likely to occur under conditions favourable for noise 

propagation, i.e. downwind or under a moderate ground-based temperature inversion (which 

usually occurs in the evening or at night). 

8.5.24 No correction for prevailing wind conditions has been applied throughout the operational 

noise predictions, including the cumulative assessment presented in Section 8.8 below 

although the potential for reduced noise immission levels at an upwind NSR is discussed in 

more detail later in this Chapter. 

8.5.25 The following Table 8.6 presents the predicted noise immission levels from the operational 

scheme only, at each of the identified NSR. 

Table 8.6 Camilty Wind Farm - Predicted Operational Noise Immission Levels (Nordex 

N100 2.5MW) (L A90,10min (dB)) 

NSR 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Aberlyne 31.0 33.3 36.6 38.0 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 

Camilty Lodge 26.7 29.0 32.3 33.7 33.9 33.9 33.9 33.9 33.9 

Colzium 23.4 25.7 29.0 30.4 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 

Crosswoodburn 31.0 33.3 36.6 38.0 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 

Halfway House 30.2 32.5 35.8 37.2 37.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 

Harburn House 26.8 29.1 32.4 33.8 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 

Harburnhead 28.8 31.1 34.4 35.8 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 

High Camilty 29.0 31.3 34.6 36.0 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 

Over Williamston 24.7 27.0 30.3 31.7 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 

Parkview Cottages 26.4 28.7 32.0 33.4 33.6 33.6 33.6 33.6 33.6 

Whistle Lodge 25.7 28.0 31.3 32.7 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 

8.5.26 In accordance with the guidance set out in ETSU-R-97, maximum operational noise limits 

applicable to each NSR have been derived for wind speeds between 4 – 12m/s. Separate 

limits for day and night time have been derived. These limits are based on the prevailing 

background noise levels (L A90,10min ) presented in Table 8.2 and 8.3. 

8.5.27 The following Tables 8.7 and 8.8 present the derived operational noise limits at each wind 

speed at each NSR for daytime and night time periods respectively. 


Noise 



Table 8.7 Derived Daytime Operational Noise Limits (L A90,10min (dB)) 

NSR 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Aberlyne 38 40 43 47 51 52 52 52 52 

Camilty Lodge 36 37 39 40 42 45 47 50 52 

Colzium 39 39 39 41 42 45 48 52 56 

Crosswoodburn 38 40 43 47 51 52 52 52 52 

Halfway House 39 39 39 41 42 45 48 52 56 

Harburn House 35 35 37 40 43 46 49 51 53 

Harburnhead 35 35 37 40 43 46 49 51 53 

High Camilty 36 37 39 40 42 45 47 50 52 

Over Williamston 36 37 39 40 42 45 47 50 52 


Whistle Lodge 36 37 39 40 42 45 47 50 52 

Table 8.8 Derived Night Time Operational Noise Limits (L A90,10min (dB)) 

NSR 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Aberlyne 43 43 43 44 49 52 52 52 52 

Camilty Lodge 43 43 43 43 43 43 46 49 53 

Colzium 43 43 43 43 43 44 46 47 47 

Crosswoodburn 43 43 43 44 49 52 52 52 52 

Halfway House 43 43 43 43 43 44 46 47 47 

Harburn House 43 43 43 43 43 44 48 51 54 

Harburnhead 43 43 43 43 43 44 48 51 54 

High Camilty 43 43 43 43 43 43 46 49 53 

Over Williamston 43 43 43 43 43 43 46 49 53 


Whistle Lodge 43 43 43 43 43 43 46 49 53 


Noise 



8.5.28 The following Charts 8.3 to 8.13 present the predicted operational scheme noise levels 

against the prevailing background and derived limits for quiet day and night time. 

Chart 8.3: Aberlyne - Operational noise assessment 

55 

50 

45 


40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

Operational noise 

Prevailing background (Quiet Daytime) 

Prevailing background (Night time) 

Operational limits (Quiet Daytime) 

Operational limits (Night time) 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


Chart 8.4: Camilty Lodge - Operational noise assessment 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 



Noise 



Chart 8.5: Colzium - Operational noise assessment 

60 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 







Chart 8.6: Crosswoodburn - Operational noise assessment 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 



Noise 



Chart 8.7: Halfwayhouse - Operational noise assessment 

60 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


Chart 8.8: Harburn House - Operational noise assessment 

60 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 



Noise 



Chart 8.9: Harburnhead - Operational noise assessment 

60 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


Chart 8.10: High Camilty - Operational noise assessment 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 



Noise 



Chart 8.11: Over Williamston- Operational noise assessment 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


Chart 8.12: Parkview Cottages - Operational noise assessment 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 



Noise 



Chart 8.13: Whistle Lodge - Operational noise assessment 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


8.5.29 Tables 8.9 and 8.10 present the differential between the predicted noise immission levels 

from the operational scheme and the derived day and night time operational noise limits 

respectively. 

Table 8.9 Differential between Predicted Scheme Noise Immission Levels and Derived 

Day Time Operational Noise Limits (dB(A)) 

NSR 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Aberlyne -7 -6.7 -6.4 -9 -12.8 -13.8 -13.8 -13.8 -13.8 

Camilty Lodge -9.3 -8 -6.7 -6.3 -8.1 -11.1 -13.1 -16.1 -18.1 

Colzium -15.6 -13.3 -10 -10.6 -11.4 -14.4 -17.4 -21.4 -25.4 

Crosswoodburn -7 -6.7 -6.4 -9 -12.8 -13.8 -13.8 -13.8 -13.8 

Halfway House -8.8 -6.5 -3.2 -3.8 -4.6 -7.6 -10.6 -14.6 -18.6 

Harburn House -8.2 -5.9 -4.6 -6.2 -9 -12 -15 -17 -19 

Harburnhead -6.2 -3.9 -2.6 -4.2 -7 -10 -13 -15 -17 

High Camilty -7 -5.7 -4.4 -4 -5.8 -8.8 -10.8 -13.8 -15.8 

Over Williamston -11.3 -10 -8.7 -8.3 -10.1 -13.1 -15.1 -18.1 -20.1 

Parkview 

Cottages 

-9.6 -8.3 -7 -6.6 -8.4 -11.4 -13.4 -16.4 -18.4 

Whistle Lodge -10.3 -9 -7.7 -7.3 -9.1 -12.1 -14.1 -17.1 -19.1 


Noise 



Table 8.10 Differential between predicted scheme noise immission levels and Derived 

Night Time Operational Noise Limits (dB(A)) 

NSR 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Aberlyne -12 -9.7 -6.4 -6 -10.8 -13.8 -13.8 -13.8 -13.8 

Camilty Lodge -16.3 -14 -10.7 -9.3 -9.1 -9.1 -12.1 -15.1 -19.1 

Colzium -19.6 -17.3 -14 -12.6 -12.4 -13.4 -15.4 -16.4 -16.4 

Crosswoodburn -12 -9.7 -6.4 -6 -10.8 -13.8 -13.8 -13.8 -13.8 

Halfway House -12.8 -10.5 -7.2 -5.8 -5.6 -6.6 -8.6 -9.6 -9.6 

Harburn House -16.2 -13.9 -10.6 -9.2 -9 -10 -14 -17 -20 

Harburnhead -14.2 -11.9 -8.6 -7.2 -7 -8 -12 -15 -18 

High Camilty -14 -11.7 -8.4 -7 -6.8 -6.8 -9.8 -12.8 -16.8 

Over Williamston -18.3 -16 -12.7 -11.3 -11.1 -11.1 -14.1 -17.1 -21.1 

Parkview 

Cottages 

-16.6 -14.3 -11 -9.6 -9.4 -9.4 -12.4 -15.4 -19.4 

Whistle Lodge -17.3 -15 -11.7 -10.3 -10.1 -10.1 -13.1 -16.1 -20.1 

8.5.30 The results of the assessment show that the predicted noise immission levels associated with 

Camilty wind farm alone do not exceed the day or night time limits at any NSR. No significant 

effects are therefore anticipated as a direct result of operational noise from the proposed 

wind farm. 

Decommissioning Effects 

8.5.31 Noise from decommissioning of the proposed development is likely to be similar to that 

generated during the construction period. It is also subject to the same controls. Noise 

impacts from these activities are therefore predicted to be of similar scale to that described 

for construction. 

8.5.32 The mitigation measures for construction suggested in the following section are also 

applicable to decommissioning. 


Construction Phase 

8.6.1 As described in Section 8.5 above, noise generated during the construction works may 

occasionally be of slight significance at certain times and locations, albeit of short duration. It 

is therefore recommended that consideration should be given to the available measures to 

reduce the levels of noise that will arise during the works in so far as is reasonably 

practicable. 


Noise 



8.6.2 Several safeguards exist to minimise the effects of construction noise and it is suggested that 

these should operate during the construction of the new development. These safeguards 

include: 

• The various EU Directives and UK Statutory Instruments that limit the noise emissions 

of a variety of construction plant; 

• The guidance set out in BS 5228: Part 1 (2009) which covers noise control on 

construction sites; 

• The powers that exist for local authorities under sections 60 and 61 of the CoPA and 

section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act (1990) to control environmental noise 

and pollution on construction sites. 

8.6.3 It is suggested that the contract documents supplied to contractors should require, through a 

condition of the planning permission, that the effects of environmental noise are considered 

during the design and execution of the works. Such an assessment could result in a noise 

control plan that provides a noise management system tailored to the specific needs of the 

construction works, the site and the surrounding area. As a minimum, any noise control plan 

should cover: 

• Procedures for ensuring compliance with statutory or other identified noise control 

limits; 

• Procedures for ensuring that all works are carried out according to the principle of 

Best Practicable Means, as defined in the CoPA; 

• General induction training for site operatives and specific training for staff having 

responsibility for particular aspects of controlling noise from the site; 

• Liaison with WLC and the existing local community; and 

• Provision of a contact telephone number and responsible person to whom any 

complaints or concerns with regard to noise, vibration and other environmental issues 

should be put as a first port of call. This affords the Contractor the opportunity to 

address any issues prior to WLC involvement. 

8.6.4 The adoption of Best Practicable Means is usually the most effective way of controlling noise 

from construction sites and should be enforced rigorously. In order to demonstrate the 

adoption of Best Practicable Means to control noise emissions from the site, the following 

conditions and measures could be imposed on the construction works. 

8.6.5 As far as is reasonably practicable, the contractors should bring to site and employ on the 

works only the most environmentally acceptable and quietly operating plant and equipment 

compatible with the safe and efficient execution of the works. Equipment should be well 

maintained and fit for purpose. The noise emitted by any plant item should not exceed the 

limits quoted in either the relevant EC Directive / UK Statutory Instrument and should be no 

greater than the relevant values quoted in the current version of BS 5228. All items of plant 

operating on the site in intermittent use should be shut down in the intervening periods 

between uses. 

8.6.6 In particular: 

• All pneumatic tools should be fitted with silencers or mufflers; 


Noise 



• Deliveries should be programmed to arrive during daytime hours only. Care should 

be taken when unloading vehicles to minimise noise. Where possible, delivery 

vehicles should be routed so as to minimise disturbance to local residents. Delivery 

vehicles should be prohibited from waiting on the highway or within the site with their 

engines running. 

8.6.7 All plant items should be properly maintained and operated according to manufacturers 

recommendations in such a manner as to avoid causing excessive noise. All plant should be 

sited so that the noise impact at nearby noise sensitive properties is minimised. Local 

hoarding, screens or barriers should be erected as necessary to shield particularly noisy 

activities. 

8.6.8 Problems concerning noise from construction works can sometimes be avoided by taking a 

considerate and neighbourly approach to relations with the local residents. Works should not 

be undertaken outside of the core daytime hours, unless absolutely necessary. 

8.6.9 All neighbours potentially affected by the works should be informed well in advance of such 

works using a leaflet drop giving full details of the hours during which the works are to be 

undertaken and also providing an appropriate contact name and number to whom complaints 

should be addressed. 

8.6.10 Providing that measures to control construction noise in so far as is reasonably practicable 

are enforced, then the residual noise impact after mitigation during construction will be 

negligible. 

Operational Phase 

8.6.11 No mitigation measures are required. 

Decommissioning Phase 

8.6.12 Noise from decommissioning is likely to be similar to that generated during construction. 

Given the longevity of the development, however, a noise assessment should be undertaken 

prior to the commencement of decommissioning works and appropriate noise control 

measures at the time identified and agreed with the relevant authority. 


8.7.1 Potential noise effects during construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed 

wind farm have been assessed. 

8.7.2 During construction and decommissioning, effects at all nearby receptors are predicted at 

worst to be slightly adverse. It is considered that adopting the principles of Best Practicable 

Means will provide sufficient mitigation to render any residual effects negligible and, as such, 

not significant under the terms of the EIA Regulations. 

8.7.3 Noise from operation of the proposed wind farm as an individual entity would comply with the 

requirements of ESTU-R-97 at all residential locations and, as such, operational wind farm 

noise is considered not significant under the terms of the EIA Regulations. Cumulative levels 

are discussed in the following section. 


Noise 




Receptor Effect Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement Significance 


Nature of 

Effect 

Residential Noise 

Sensitive Receptors 

Temporary Construction High N/A Slight Adopting Best 

Practicable 

Means 

N/A Negligible Temporary 

Permanent 

Operation 

(scheme only) 

High N/A Negligible N/A N/A Negligible Permanent 

Temporary Decommissioning High N/A Slight Adopting Best 

Practicable 

Means 

N/A Negligible Temporary 



Noise



8.8.1 There are 2 proposed wind energy developments in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm 

which have been considered in terms of their potential cumulative effects due to their relative 

proximity to the proposed wind farm and the relevant NSRs. These are described in Table 

8.12 below. It is considered that any other wind turbines at greater separation distances 

would not contribute significantly to the cumulative assessment and have therefore not been 

included. The information regarding each wind farm has been extracted from the relevant ES 

Chapters as previously described and full details may be found therein. The ES Chapters and 

Technical Appendices are attached as Appendix 8.6. 

Table 8.12 Cumulative Schemes 

Wind Farm Status Position 

relative 

to 

Camilty 

scheme 

No. 

Turbines 

Turbine Type 

Used in 

Assessment 

Hub 

Height 

(m) 

Modelled 

Ground 

Type 

Harburnhead Section 36 

application 

recommended 

for refusal – 

conjoined 

inquiry/appeal 

pending 

West 22 Enercon E82 

2.3MW (full power 

except 8 & 9 

which are to 

operate on 

constrained 

mode) 

85m, 

except 

Turbine 

s 8 & 9 

which 

are 78m 

G=0.5 

Fauch Hill Section 36 

application 

recommended 

for refusal – 

conjoined 

inquiry/appeal 

pending 

South 

east 

23 Enercon E-82 

3MW 

85m, 

except 

Turbine 

19 

which is 

75m 

G=0 

8.8.2 For the purposes of the cumulative operational noise assessment, the candidate turbine data 

for Harburnhead and Fauch Hill Wind Farms including specification, hub height and grid 

reference has been extracted from the ES chapters and modelled using SoundPLAN. The 

contribution for each of the three schemes has then been integrated to calculate the likely 

cumulative noise immission level at each NSR. 

8.8.3 The following Charts 8.14 to 8.24 present the results of the cumulative noise assessment at 

each of the identified NSR. Cumulative noise effects have been assessed against the same 

limits derived for the scheme assessment which are detailed in Tables 8.7 and 8.8 above. 

The cumulative assessment presents the results of Camilty wind farm operating 

simultaneously with both Fauch Hill wind farm and Harburnhead wind farm. 


Noise 



Chart 8.14: Aberlyne - Cumulative operational noise assessment 

55 

50 

45 


40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

Cumulative operational noise 





4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


Chart 8.15: Camilty Lodge - Cumulative operational noise assessment 

55 

50 

45 


40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 



Noise 



Chart 8.16: Colzium - Cumulative operational noise assessment 

60 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


Chart 8.17: Crosswoodburn - Cumulative operational noise assessment 

55 

50 

45 


40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 



Noise 



Chart 8.18: Halfway House - Cumulative operational noise assessment 

60 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


Chart 8.19: Harburn House - Cumulative operational noise assessment 

60 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 



Noise 



Chart 8.20: Harburnhead - Cumulative operational noise assessment 

60 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


55 

Chart 8.21: High Camilty - Cumulative operational noise assessment 

50 

45 


40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 



Noise 



Chart 8.22: Over Williamston - Cumulative operational noise assessment 

55 

50 

45 


40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


55 

Chart 8.23: Parkview Cottages - Cumulative operational noise assessment 

50 

45 


40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 



Noise 



Chart 8.24: Whistle Lodge - Operational noise assessment 

55 

50 

45 


40 

35 

30 

25 

20 






4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


8.8.4 The results of the assessment show that, at most locations, the cumulative noise levels will 

not exceed the derived operational day and night time limits. The only exception to this is at 

the NSR Harburnhead during the daytime. 

8.8.5 The closest turbines of the Harburnhead wind farm are in close proximity to this NSR and 

therefore the daytime limits at wind speeds around 7-8m/s are predicted to be almost 

exclusively taken up by the Harburnhead scheme. Therefore, the daytime limit is exceeded 

by the cumulative prediction at these wind speeds. This is the case regardless of whether the 

fixed part of the quiet daytime limit is taken to be 40dB(A), as selected by the author of the 

Harburnhead ES chapter, or 35dB(A) as selected for the assessment of the Camilty 

proposals. 

8.8.6 The Harburnhead Wind Farm assessor has set a quiet daytime limit of 40dB(A) at 7m/s. The 

predicted Harburnhead wind farm scheme operational level at this location is 39.9dB(A). In 

order not to exceed this limit cumulatively, the proposed Camilty wind farm could add only 

23.6dB(A), as opposed to the 35.8dB at 7m/s predicted. As Harburnhead is one of the closest 

properties to the proposed wind farm at Camilty, this limited contribution is not achievable. 

8.8.7 The following Chart 8.25 explores the difference in cumulative noise levels at Harburnhead 

should either a combination of Harburnhead wind farm and Camilty wind farm or Fauch Hill 

wind farm and Camilty wind farm be consented as opposed to all 3 schemes operating 

simultaneously. 


Noise 



Chart 8.25: Harburnhead - Cumulative scenario analysis 

60 

55 

50 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

Camilty plus Fauch Hill 

Camilty plus Harburnhead 



4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


8.8.8 It can clearly be seen that the combination of Camilty wind farm with Fauch Hill wind farm 

does not exceed the derived daytime limits at Harburnhead, however the combination of 

Camilty wind farm with Harburnhead wind farm results in an exceedence. 

8.8.9 It should be noted, however, that that the cumulative calculations assume that each NSR is 

simultaneously downwind of all wind energy schemes considered. No correction has been 

made for prevailing wind direction. This means that the model is likely to over predict and, as 

such, should be regarded as a ‘worst case’ assessment. 

8.8.10 It has become increasingly common for assessors to attempt to take account of the prevailing 

wind direction in cumulative ES calculations, in order to limit overestimation of noise 

immission levels. 

8.8.11 In the Harburnhead ES, the cumulative assessment applies an adjustment derived from a 

noise impact assessment undertaken by Dick Bowdler of New Acoustics in September 2007 

(Clocaenog Forest, SSA wind farms). 

8.8.12 In July 2012, the consultation paper “A good practice guide to the application of ETSU-R-97 

for wind turbine noise assessment” was circulated for comment to the acoustics community. 

Although this document has not yet been published formally and retains its consultation 

status, it contains useful information in respect of assessing directivity, particularly with 

regard to cumulative assessments. 

8.8.13 The consultation paper suggests a method for undertaking an assessment, although it warns 

that the methodology is not established and as such should be applied with care. 

8.8.14 It suggests: 

“Based on evidence from the Joule project in conjunction with advice in BS8233 and 

ISO 9613-2, it seems reasonably conservative to assume that for a range of headings 

from directly downwind (0°) up to 10 degrees from crosswind (80°), there may be little or 

no reduction in noise levels; once in cross wind directions (90°) then the reduction may 

be around 2dB(A) and when upwind the reduction would be around 10dB(A)” 


Noise 



8.8.15 Chart 8.26 shows the distribution of wind directions coinciding with the noise monitoring at 

Parkview Cottages. Chart 8.27 displays the proportion of data which falls into each of the 

broad categories (or ‘headings’) described in the extract from the Good Practice Guide 

consultation paper above. 

Chart 26: Wind Rose 

Wind rose 

NNW 

20% 

N 

NNE 

15-25m/s 

NW 

15% 

NE 

10-15m/s 

5-10m/s 

0-5m/s 

10% 

WNW 

ENE 

5% 

W 

0% 

E 

WSW 

ESE 

SW 

SE 

SSW 

SSE 

S 

Chart 27: Noise reduction proportions (wind direction related) 

0 to 80 degrees (little or no 

reduction) 

80 to 90 degrees (c. 2dB(A) 

reduction) 

90 to 180 degrees (up to 10dB(A) 

reduction) 

180 to 270 degrees (up to 10dB(A) 

reduction) 

270 to 280 degrees (c. 2dB(A) 

reduction) 

280 to 360 degrees (little or no 

reduction) 


Noise 



8.8.16 It can clearly be seen that the prevailing wind direction is between 180 to 270 degrees, or 

southerly, south westerly and westerly. 

8.8.17 Re-examination of the proposed wind farm reveals that certain properties lie at angles greater 

than 90° relative to the turbines, assuming a prevailing south westerly wind. These include 

Aberlyne, Crosswood and Harburnhead. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the noise 

immission contribution from Camilty wind farm will be less than predicted in this Chapter 

under prevailing conditions. 

8.8.18 It is also reasonable to conclude that the operational noise contribution received from each 

wind farm at each NSR will vary with changing wind conditions, depending upon the position 

of the turbines relative to the NSR. 

8.8.19 Taking the potential influence of prevailing wind direction into account it is possible that the 

projected cumulative impact is likely to be less in reality than that calculated as a worst case 

scenario. Moreover, it should be noted that neither of the two projects considered 

cumulatively with the proposed wind farm are consented or indeed sure to be given consent. 

It is considered, therefore, that whilst cumulative effects must be considered in combination 

with these two projects as a matter of best practice, the weight that should be attributed to the 

related potential effects should not be the same as that would be attributed to such effects in 

combination with consented or operational wind farms. 


• The Control of Pollution Act 1974, Part III 

• Environmental Protection Act 1990 

• Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011;Planning and Noise 

• Scottish Government Factsheet Onshore Wind Turbines; Available at: 


• British Standard 5228 (2009) Code of practice for noise and vibration control on 

construction and open sites Part 1: Noise 

• The Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines The Assessment & Rating of Noise 

from Wind Farms (ETSU-R-97) (1996) 

• Bowdler, D., Bullmore, AJ., Davis, RA., Hayes, MD., Jiggins., Leventhall, G., and 

McKenzie, AR (2009), Prediction and assessment of wind turbine noise – agreement 

about relevant factors for noise assessment from wind energy projects, Acoustics 

Bulletin Vol 34 No. 2 

• International Electrotechnical Commission (2006), Standard IEC-61400-11 Wind 

turbine generator systems – Part 11: Acoustic Noise Measurement Techniques, 

Available at: http://www.asugards.net/dbpics/uploads/iec61400- 

11%7Bed2.1%7Den.pdf 


Noise 



9 Landscape and Visual 


9.1.1 This chapter identifies the existing character and features of the landscape, as well as the 

existing visual resources of the surrounding area. It details the changes that may result as a 

consequence of construction of the proposed wind farm and considers the potential 

significance of effects arising as a result. 

9.1.2 The key elements of the proposed wind farm likely to result in effects on the receiving 

landscape include construction and operation of wind turbines and associated structures, 

buildings and access tracks and the felling of trees on Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) 

land. These elements may also affect sensitive visual receptors in the area. 

9.1.3 There is a clear distinction between effects on landscape resources and visual effects. 

Landscape receptors include physical elements, features and characteristics, or areas 

defined by a designation, which may be affected by the proposal. Visual receptors include the 

public or community at large, residents and visitors to the area. The effect on the setting of 

historic monuments (including Listed Buildings) is considered in Chapter 10: Cultural 

Heritage and Archaeology, of this ES. 

9.1.4 The significance of effect on a receptor can be established by identifying the sensitivity of the 

receptor to change, in combination with the magnitude of change that would occur as a result 

of the proposed wind farm. Within this chapter, effects are defined as 'significant' in EIA 

terms. 

9.1.5 A description of the proposed wind farm is provided in Chapters 3 and 4 of this ES. 

9.1.6 The planning policy overview for the proposed wind farm is set out in Chapter 5 of the ES. 

Relevant landscape and visual guidance and policy are detailed below in section 9.2. 


Study Area 

9.2.1 The study area for the proposed wind farm is defined by a 35 km radius from the closest wind 

turbine (see Figure 9.1), as recommended for wind turbines over 100m, as set out in ‘Visual 

Representation of Windfarms’, Good Practice Guidance, Scottish Natural Heritage (2007). It 

measures approximately 12,100 square kilometres incorporating several council regions 

within Scotland. Although the proposals would theoretically be visible over greater distances 

in periods of very good visibility, it was considered unnecessary to extend the study further 

because at 35 km the limit (acuity) of the human eye is being approached. 

Consultation 

9.2.2 Before the submission of the proposed wind farm application, consultation was carried out 

with West Lothian Council (WLC), South Lanarkshire Council (SL), North Lanarkshire Council 

(NL), Scottish Borders Council (SB), Midlothian Council (ML) Falkirk Council (FK), City of 

Edinburgh (CE), Perth and Kinross Council (PK), Fife (F) and Scottish Natural Heritage 

(SNH) in order to determine sensitive receptors, representative viewpoints and cumulative 

wind farm developments. 





9.2.3 A plan within the Scoping Report of July 2012 illustrating a preliminary zone of theoretical 

visibility (ZTV) based on a 130m blade tip height for a 14 turbine scheme and 25 candidate 

viewpoint locations provided the basis for the consultation. The assessment has 

subsequently been based on a maximum 132m high turbine as a worst case scenario 

discussed further in Chapter 4. SNH suggested new viewpoints at Harburn House, Five 

Sister’s West Calder, and the B8084 south of Armadale. SNH also suggested replacing the 

viewpoint at East Cairn Hill for West Cairn Hill and replacing Dechmont Low with Howden 

House Livingston. WLC was content with the choice of viewpoints. 

9.2.4 A final list of 26 candidate viewpoints was established following the consultation process. The 

locations were visited and photography undertaken to establish their relevance within the 

assessment process. 

9.2.5 Other specific issues raised by SNH include: 

• Consideration should be given during the design phase to existing, consented and 

planned wind farms in the vicinity. 

9.2.6 This LVIA addresses the main issues of concern raised by WLC, as determining authority, 

and statutory consultees during the pre-application consultations. 

9.2.7 There has been ongoing public consultation on the emerging design of the proposed wind 

farm through public exhibitions, local meetings and meetings with individual local residents. 

Published Guidance 

9.2.8 As a matter of best practice, this assessment has been undertaken based on published 

guidance on landscape and visual assessment. This includes: 

• Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 

(2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2 nd Edition; 

• Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Landscape Character 

Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland; 

• Landscape Institute, Advice Note 01/11 Photography and Photomontage in 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. 

9.2.9 There is also a range of best practice guidance specifically for the assessment of wind farms. 

The following documents, amongst others, have been taken into consideration: 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, Visual Representation of Wind Farms: Good Practice 

Guidance (dated 2006, published 2007); 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Onshore Wind 

Energy Developments, (March 2012); 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape (Dec. 

2009); 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, The Special Qualities of the National Scenic Areas (2010); 

• ASH Consulting Group, (1998), The Lothians Landscape Character Assessment, 

Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 91; 

• Scottish Government web-based renewables advice (superseded PAN 45); 

• PAN 68 – Design Statements; 





• The Scottish Government Scottish Planning Policy SPP. (February 2010); 

• Sustainable Development Commission, Wind Power in the UK – A guide to the key 

issues surrounding onshore wind power development in the UK (2005). 

9.2.10 The principal objectives of the assessment are: 

• To describe, classify and evaluate the existing landscape and visual resources / 

receptors likely to be affected by the proposed construction, operation and 

decommissioning phases of the project; and 

• To assess the significance of the effects of the proposals on the landscape resource 

visual receptors, taking into account the measures proposed to mitigate any effects 

identified. 

Positive and Negative Effects 

9.2.11 Wind energy development, wherever it occurs, is usually visible, i.e. wind farms require an 

exposed position, generally an upland location or, alternatively, a large area of generally level 

and open landscape. It also tends to have a characterising effect upon the landscape, 

depending upon the scale of the proposal and the character of the environment into which it 

is placed. The proposed wind farm would have the following general attributes typical of most 

wind farms: engineered, large scale, simple in form, smooth texture, monochrome/muted 

colour and strong vertical form. Responses by people to wind farms can vary from ‘beautiful’ 

to ‘offensive’, with respondents perceiving wind turbines as potentially rhythmic, unusual, 

safe, interesting, invigorating, majestic and spiritual on the one hand and degrading, jarring, 

overbearing, industrial, clashing and ugly on the other. Wind energy development thus gives 

rise to a spectrum of responses from individuals and organisations who perceive its effects 

ranging from strongly adverse to strongly positive. 

9.2.12 The likely significant effects should be described covering type (i.e. direct, indirect or 

cumulative), temporal nature (short, medium and long term, permanent or temporary), and 

valency (positive and negative or adverse). Accordingly, judgements as to valency of the 

effect should be given and justified in an explicit and transparent manner since they are 

inevitably subjective. 

9.2.13 The heading ‘valency’, originally used in the Durham County Council Impact Assessment 

Matrices (unpublished, 1996) but now much more widely recognised, is an important one and 

provides scope to recognise that change of whatever type and scale within a landscape can 

be viewed positively or negatively by different individuals. For the purposes of this 

assessment, effects have been defined based on the scenario of an individual who may 

perceive the wind farm as a negative addition to the landscape or view. Effects are therefore 

defined as adverse throughout the assessment; but may in fact be seen as positive by large 

numbers of viewers. An individual who perceives wind farms as a positive addition to the 

landscape or view may consider the same effects to be beneficial or neutral in nature. Further 

definition of valency and public attitudes to wind energy development can be found at 

Appendix 9.1. 

Baseline Information (Baseline and Cumulative Schemes) 

9.2.14 The baseline for EIA purposes is taken as being the existing situation at submission of the 

application ( 2013), including operational wind farms and those under construction. The 

site is located within an area of commercial forestry managed by FCS. The ongoing 





management of this forest is defined within the FDP. Management operations include felling 

and replanting of trees progressively within the site change the baseline situation. However, 

the changes are considered to be on a relatively small scale and would not justify the 

identification of an interim, future baseline situation, in 2016 when construction of the scheme 

would commence, against which the proposal would be assessed. The baseline includes any 

other commercial wind farms that are either operational, consented, or formally in the 

planning system at the time of submission of the application. However, those for which a 

planning application has been submitted and have since been withdrawn without any 

assurances that a revised or modified application is known to be pending, are not included in 

the assessment. 

9.2.15 The cumulative effects of two or more wind farm schemes should include the effects of all 

those wind farms within 60 km. The assessment concentrates on cumulative wind farms 

within a 35 km radius of the site; and, more specifically, those developments which are likely 

to influence the decision making process. 

Nature and Scope of Effects 

9.2.16 Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape, which may give rise to 

changes to its palette of key characteristics and thus its character and how this is 

experienced. This may in turn affect the perceived value ascribed to the landscape. 

9.2.17 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 changes and to the overall effects 

with respect to visual amenity. 

9.2.18 Standard practice treats landscape and visual effects separately and, as a matter of 

convention, landscape effects have been dealt with first within this chapter. 

Assessment Process 

9.2.19 The assessment of landscape effects for the project has followed a recognised process set 

out below: 

• Identify the baseline landscape resource (e.g. individual landscape elements and 

landscape character) and its value; 

• Identify forces for change in the landscape of the surrounding area; 

• Evaluate the sensitivity of the landscape resource to the type of development 

proposed; 

• Identify potential landscape effects of the project through review of initial plans; 

• Develop measures to avoid, reduce and ameliorate adverse effects; 

• Identify scale or magnitude of change proposed; 

• Assess the significance of effects of the project on the landscape, taking into account 

the mitigation measures proposed; and 

• Report the findings of the assessment. 

9.2.20 The assessment of visual effects followed a recognised process set out below: 

• Identify potential visual receptors of the project (i.e. people who will have views of the 

development); 





• Select an appropriate number of representative or sensitive viewpoints to reflect the 

full range of different views towards the project; 

• Describe the nature of the baseline views towards the project for each representative 

viewpoint; 

• Identify forces for change in the visual amenity of the surrounding area; 

• Evaluate the sensitivity of the visual receptors represented by the viewpoints; 

• Identify potential visual effects of the project through review of initial plans; 

• Develop measures to avoid, reduce and ameliorate adverse effects; 

• Identify the scale or magnitude of the proposed changes; 

• Assess the significance of effects on the view from representative viewpoints, taking 

into account the visual context of the development and the mitigation measures 

proposed; 

• Assess the significance of effects on overall visual amenity; and 

• Report the findings of the assessment. 

9.2.21 The assessment of representative viewpoints has been supplemented by the inclusion of 

specific visual receptors within 2 km of the proposals and selected additional site visits to 

various locations in the vicinity to determine visual effects upon those likely to be affected to 

the greatest degree. 

Views, Visual Receptors and Viewpoints 

Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) 

9.2.22 Areas from which views of the proposed wind farm would be theoretically possible have been 

determined by means of ZTV analysis (as described in Appendix 9.2). These are shown on 

Figures 9.3 and 9.4 and show areas within the 35 km study area from which views to the top 

of the turbine towers and blade tips would be theoretically visible assuming a “bare-earth” 

scenario. A 10 km radius area shows the ZTV in more detail at Figures 9.5 and 9.6. 

9.2.23 The ZTV was created using 10 m DSM profile data. This data uses terrain/landform only and 

does not take into account the screening effect of buildings, structures and vegetation. It 

therefore represents a worst-case visibility scenario, in which a single blade tip may trigger a 

visibility reading. For the purposes of this assessment, the extent of the ZTV is assumed to 

be broadly the same for the construction phase and the operational phase. 

Field Surveys 

9.2.24 Field surveys have been undertaken by RPS over a number of months between July 2012 

and February 2013, providing a good understanding of the site and study area. 

9.2.25 The landscape character types for the study area, as noted in the relevant SNH Landscape 

Character Assessments, were reviewed and the key characteristics of the landscape were 

identified. This provided an overview of the character types of the study area and how these 

areas might be affected by the proposed wind farm. 

9.2.26 The visual amenity of the study area was surveyed by RPS as part of the field surveys to 

note the general characteristics of both static and sequential views, from a selection of 

receptors likely to experience views of the proposed wind farm. The range of views covered a 





variety of viewing distances, aspects, elevations and extents and included individual 

residential properties, settlements, tourist and recreational destinations and routes. 

Photography was undertaken at each of the visual receptor viewpoint locations and provides 

the basis for the photomontages. 

9.2.27 The study area was traversed extensively during the field study to verify the extent of the ZTV 

maps in the form of a ground truthing exercise. This has provided a more detailed and 

accurate understanding of the theoretical visibility of the proposal. The field survey allowed 

an appreciation of the scale, extent, prominence and distance of the receptor from the 

proposed wind farm, to be experienced. 

9.2.28 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 farms under consideration, and in terms of considering 

the overall capacity of the receiving landscape for wind farm development. 

Static Effects 

9.2.29 The assessment of static visual effects is through analysis of individual viewpoints that are 

considered representative of the range of views within the study area. 

Sequential Effects 

9.2.30 Individual viewpoints are selected on the basis of where the proposed wind farm 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. 

9.2.31 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 and 

proposed characteristics of the route, and partly through analysis of other visualisation tools 

such as the ZTV. 

9.2.32 Throughout the study area users of a small number of roads, rights of way, core paths and 

railway would experience changes from the introduction of the proposed wind farm in the 

view. Receptors assessed as part of the sequential assessment are shown in Figure 9.20. 

Further assessment of other wind farms within the 35 km radius study area has been 

considered in the cumulative sequential assessment section of this chapter. 

9.2.33 The sensitivity of occupiers of vehicles on roads as visual receptors varies in this 

assessment, according to whether they are: 

• Principal local routes on which the relatively high speed and volume of traffic reduces 

the road's sensitivity as a viewpoint to medium or low sensitivity; 

• Other 'A' and 'B' roads - medium sensitivity; 

• Minor roads and lanes with generally low speeds and traffic volumes. May be used as 

recreational routes by walkers or riders – high or medium sensitivity; 

• Main tourist routes - high sensitivity. 





9.2.34 The potential for effects to occur in views from roads, railways and rights of way is restricted 

to views that occur when travelling towards the proposed wind farm. Although there is 

potential for views towards the proposed wind farm from roads and the railway in the local 

area, much will depend on local circumstances including the extent to which roadside/rail 

side vegetation or forestry filter or screen views towards the site. 

9.2.35 The roads assessed in the sequential assessment are the A70 between Windy Green and 

Camilty Plantation and between Auchnnon and Camilty Plantation, the B7008 between West 

Calder and the A70 and the A70 and the Roman Fortlet adjacent to the site, the Lockerbie to 

Livingston railway between Auchengray and Harburn and Livingston and Harburn and The 

Cauldstane Slap/Old Drove Road/Thieves Road path. Occupiers of vehicles and trains in 

these locations would be receptors of medium sensitivity. Walkers using the footpaths would 

be of high sensitivity to sequential effects on views. 

Cumulative Effects 

9.2.36 Cumulative effects are the effects of the proposed wind farm in combination with other 

existing and proposed wind farms in the study area. 

9.2.37 As with the assessment of landscape effects, cumulative landscape effects can either be 

directly on the physical fabric of the landscape, or indirectly on the character of the 

landscape. 

9.2.38 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. 

9.2.39 Combined visibility is experienced either in combination, where more than one wind farm is 

visible within the same field of view, or in succession, where only by turning to face another 

direction is any other wind farm visible. The proposed turbines in this instance are over 100 

m high, for which the SNH cumulative assessment guidance of March 2012 recommends a 

minimum study area of 60 km radius, with a detailed assessment to focus on schemes within 

a 35 km radius. 

9.2.40 The assessment of cumulative effects uses the same visualisation tools available for the 

assessment of landscape and visual effects. ZTVs, wireframes, and photomontages have all 

been used as part of this assessment. Detailed cumulative methodology for the assessment 

is discussed later in this Chapter from paragraph 9.9.1 onwards, given the detailed and 

discrete nature of the assessment. 

9.2.41 An initial list of all proposals within 60 km of the proposed wind farm was prepared based on 

information derived from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and RenewableUK (RUK) (formerly 

BWEA) and the local authorities listed above. This was sent to the various council regions in 

which the proposals are based for comment. 

9.2.42 The assessment of cumulative effects describes in detail the effects of each individual wind 

farm proposal within 35 km of the proposed wind farm, and with which it interacts, including 

supporting graphics such as cumulative ZTVs. Cumulative wireline visualisations include all 

schemes within 35 km. The study of the detailed 35 km radius area (Figure 9.3) includes a 

discussion of the overall capacity of the receiving landscape to accommodate wind farm 

development. 





9.2.43 In assessing the cumulative effects of wind farms within 35 and 60 km (Figure 9.15), the 

assessment has focused on proposals relating to geographic distribution and their interaction 

with the proposed wind farm, particularly from popular hill top destinations in the study area. 

Combined and successive views and sequential views from transport routes have also been 

assessed. 

Relevant Considerations 

9.2.44 There are a number of relevant considerations relating to the appearance of the proposed 

wind farm and its relationship with the landscape, which also inform the assessment. These 

include: 

• Backdrop: 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 for the turbines can help mitigate the effects by reducing their visibility against 

this backdrop; 

• Scale: the scale of the receiving landscape has an effect on its ability to 

accommodate particular proposals. 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; 

• Focus: specific viewpoints may focus in a particular direction. The location of the 

proposed development site in relation to this focus can affect the significance of the 

effect, particularly as individual turbines and wind farms can form vertical focal points 

within the landscape; 

• Unity: the relationship of the turbines to each other affects whether the wind farm 

reads as a cohesive entity or as fragmented. Turbines overlapping can also produce a 

distracting and uncomfortable visual effect. It is 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; 

• Movement: the movement of an object in a landscape that provides distraction or 

interest including the rotation of a turbine’s blades. This can relate to landscapes 

which are relatively still and static and landscapes which contain other movements 

and are constantly changing and transient; and 

• Setting: the combination of landform, foreground, background and features within a 

view, which provide the landscape setting, influences the nature of the effect of a wind 

farm. Setting also relates to the complexity or simplicity of the landscape or view and 

the sense of remoteness or development, which provide the context for the proposal. 

Visualisations 

9.2.45 Photomontages of the proposed wind farm were prepared for selected viewpoints with 

reference to methodology recommended in Visual Representation of Wind Farms; Best 

Practice Guidance, Scottish Natural Heritage (2007), and as set out at Appendix 9.3. The 





viewpoint locations are shown on Figures 9.3 to 9.6 and the visualisations (all showing 

photomontages and wirelines) on Figures 9.14, sets 1a to 26c. 

9.2.46 The majority of the photographs were taken in favourable conditions and clear visibility. 

Where this was not possible, the computer generated wind turbine images have been 

adjusted to achieve enough contrast to aid visibility. 

9.2.47 The blade movement and yaw angle of the wind turbines both vary depending on wind speed 

and direction. This assessment assumes that the wind turbine blades would be in motion and 

facing the viewer. It should be noted that there would be occasions when the rotors would be 

stationary and viewed from the side or obliquely, both of which would reduce the magnitude 

of change to visual receptors. 

Assessment of Landscape Effects 

9.2.48 The starting point for any assessment is a desk based study of published landscape 

assessments. A description and evaluation of the landscape of the area over which change is 

likely to be experienced has been based on these assessments. The assessment of effects is 

based on this baseline information and also takes into account landscape sensitivity. 

Value 

9.2.49 The assessment, in addition to covering landscape character, seeks to identify landscapes or 

parts of the landscape resource whose attributes are or may be valued. This may be 

determined in the first instance through the presence of designations. It should be noted that 

in virtually all circumstances, landscapes are valued, sometimes highly valued in the local 

context by various, if not all, sectors of the community. In the absence of established 

consensus as to a landscape’s value or the value of different parts of the landscape 

resource, it may be necessary for the assessor to define and apply her/his definition of value. 

Within this assessment value has been predominantly based on designations, published 

landscape character assessments and findings from field surveys undertaken by RPS. 

9.2.50 With respect to value, the following definitions have been used in this assessment: 

Table 9.1 Landscape Value (expressed through designation) 

Value Designation Example 

High National Very attractive or attractive scenic quality, high or good landscape 

quality, no or limited potential for substitution. 

E.g. National Park, NSA or key elements within them. 

Medium Regional/Local Positive character, typical or in part unusual scenic quality, ordinary 

landscape quality, potential for substitution. 

E.g. Regionally or locally designated (RSA/AGLV/SLA) or 

undesignated but value expressed through literature and cultural 

associations or through demonstrable use. 

Low Local Dull, degraded or damaged scenic quality, poor landscape quality, can 

be readily substituted. 

E.g. Undesignated. Certain individual landscape elements or features 

may be worthy of conservation, and landscape either identified or 

would benefit from restoration or enhancement. 





Condition 

9.2.51 The evaluation of condition is based on judgements about the physical state of the landscape 

resource. It reflects the state of repair of individual features and elements, as indicated by the 

categories within the scale below, or can be applied to the intactness of the resource as a 

whole outlined by the corresponding descriptions: 

Table 9.2 Landscape Condition 

Condition 

Very Good 

Good 

Ordinary 

Poor 

Example 

Strong structure; very attractive with distinct features worthy of conservation; strong 

sense of place; no detracting features. 

Recognisable structure; attractive with many features worthy of conservation; 

occasional detracting features. 

Distinguishable structure; common place with limited distinctiveness and features 

worthy of conservation; some detracting features. 

Weak structure; evidence of degradation; lacks distinctiveness and sense of place; 

frequent detracting features. 

Very Poor Damaged structure; evidence of severe disturbance or dereliction; no 

distinctiveness; detracting features dominate. 

9.2.52 With respect to the assessment of effects, it is necessary to establish in the first instance, 

whether, and to what extent, the proposed change would exert a locally characterising effect. 

In essence, it asks the question “would the introduced element become the principal 

element/feature which determines landscape character?” In these circumstances, the 

element would be dominant with the surrounding landscape elements being sub-dominant or 

incidental in comparison. Moving outwards and away from the proposed introduction, the 

element would exert a lessening effect on landscape character with the surrounding context 

increasing in influence and becoming co-dominant in a mixed landscape sub-type. Farther 

afield, the introduced element would become a noticed, then increasingly incidental element, 

with the original balance of elements reasserting their original dominance. 

9.2.53 Appendix 9.4 sets out a series of examples illustrating the potential landscape effects arising 

from wind farm development and, at the same time, illustrates part of the relationship 

between landscape effects and visual effects. 

9.2.54 Significance in landscape character terms is defined as the extent to which new landscape 

types/character areas and/or sub-types/areas would be established. This will be determined 

by considering the key characteristics of the receiving landscape in combination with the 

magnitude of change arising and the extent to which the key characteristics are felt to be 

affected locally and over the broader landscape character area/type. 

9.2.55 With respect to sensitivity, the GLVIA states that: 

‘The sensitivity of the landscape to change is reflected in the degree to which a 

landscape is able to accommodate change (due to a particular development or land use 

change) without adverse effects on its character. This may be influenced by the extent of 

existing or new landform and/or existing vegetation or new planting. These and other 

factors determine the visibility of the proposed development and therefore influence the 

extent of its effect on the perceived character and visual amenity of the surrounding 





landscape’ (para2.27). Landscapes vary in their capacity to accommodate different forms 

of development. Sensitivity is thus not absolute but is likely to vary according to the 

existing landscape, the nature of the proposed development and the type of change 

being considered. Sensitivity is not therefore part of the landscape baseline, but is 

considered during the assessment of effects’ (para 2.28). 

9.2.56 With regard to sensitivity the following is also derived from GLVIA, p.87, paragraph 7.16 and 

7.17: 

‘The degree to which a landscape type or area can accommodate change arising from a 

particular development without detrimental effects upon its character will vary with 

existing land use, the pattern and scale of the landscape, visual enclosure/ openness of 

views, and distribution of visual receptors, the scope for mitigation (which would be in 

keeping with the existing landscape) and the value placed on the landscape…. The 

determination of the sensitivity of the landscape resource is based upon an evaluation of 

each key element or characteristic of the landscape likely to be affected. The evaluation 

will reflect such factors as its quality, value, contribution to landscape character, and the 

degree to which the particular element or characteristic can be replaced or substituted’. 

9.2.57 As described above, landscape sensitivity is influenced by a number of factors including 

value, condition and the type of change brought about by the project. In order to assist with 

bringing these factors together, the following four-point scale has been used. However, this 

table can only illustrate general categories; and there is scope for the landscape resources to 

be categorised differently, depending on the specific proposals. The assessment of absolute 

sensitivity will be determined as part of the overall assessment process. 

Table 9.3 Landscape Resource Sensitivity 

Resource Rationale Sensitivity 

Nationally designated / valued 

countryside and landscape features; 

strong / distinctive landscape character; 

absence of landscape detractors. 

Low tolerance to change. 

Sense of tranquillity or remoteness 

specifically noted in Landscape Character 

Assessment. High sensitivity to disturbance 

specifically noted in Landscape Character 

Assessment. 

High 

Locally designated / valued countryside 

and landscape features; some distinctive 

landscape characteristics; few landscape 

detractors. 

Undesignated countryside and landscape 

features; absence of distinctive landscape 

characteristics; presence of landscape 

detractors. 

Landscape integrity is low. Landscape in 

poor condition or a degraded character 

Undesignated landscape. 

Many landscape detractors. Degraded 

character in poor condition. 

Medium tolerance to change 

High tolerance to change 

High tolerance to change 

Medium 

Low 

Negligible 





9.2.58 Magnitude of landscape effect (i.e. effect upon the landscape resource or its constituent part) 

is defined as large, medium, small or negligible as follows: 

Table 9.4 Magnitude of Change – The Landscape Resource 

Magnitude of Effect 

Large 

Medium 

Small 

Negligible 

Example 

Total loss of/ very substantial alteration to key elements/ features/characteristics 

of the baseline i.e. pre-development landscape and/or introduction of elements 

totally uncharacteristic with the attributes of the receiving landscape which would 

give rise to a different characterising effect. 

Partial loss of/moderate alteration to one or more key elements/features/ 

characteristics of the baseline i.e. pre-development landscape and/or 

introduction of elements that may be prominent, but may not necessarily be 

substantially uncharacteristic with the attributes of the receiving landscape, but 

which could co-characterise parts of the landscape, or introduction of elements 

within the surrounding landscape which may give rise to a different 

characterising effect. 

Minor loss of/alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics of 

the baseline i.e. pre-development landscape and/or introduction of elements that 

may not be uncharacteristic with the surrounding landscape or may not lead to a 

characterising or co-characterising effect. 

Very minor loss of/alteration to one or more key elements/features/ 

characteristics of the baseline i.e. pre-development landscape and/or 

introduction of elements that are not uncharacteristic with the surrounding 

landscape or which do not have any materially characterising effect - 

approximating the ‘no-change’ situation. 

Assessment of Visual Effects 

9.2.59 The assessment of visual effects is based on the magnitude of the change and the relative 

sensitivity of the receptors (viewers). 

9.2.60 To assess the significance of effects, magnitude is considered together with sensitivity. The 

GLVIA states at paragraph 7.31, that the sensitivity of the receptor will depend on a number 

of factors: 

• The location and context of the viewpoint; 

• The expectations or activity of the receptor; 

• The importance of the view (which may be determined with respect to its popularity or 

numbers of people affected, its appearance in guide books, on tourist maps, and in 

the facilities provided for its enjoyment and references to it in literature or art). 

9.2.61 Those living within view of the proposed wind farm are most likely to be included in the 

highest sensitivity group along with those engaged in outdoor pursuits and for whom 

landscape experience is the primary objective. For assessment purposes, the sensitivity 

levels listed in Table 9.5 are considered appropriate, with assessment being concentrated on 

the two groups of potentially highest sensitivity (residents and those engaged in outdoor 

landscape experience recreation). 





Table 9.5 Receptor Sensitivity 

Visual Receptor Sensitivity 

Sensitivity 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Negligible 

Receptor 

Occupiers of residential properties. 

Walkers, hikers and riders on National Trails, public rights of way or access land. 

Occupiers of vehicles on main tourist routes. 

People experiencing views from important landscape features of physical, 

cultural or historic interest, beauty spots and picnic areas. 

Large numbers of viewers and/or location in highly valued landscapes could 

elevate viewer sensitivity to highest level. 

Site or activity focussed recreation e.g. Golf, football, fishing. 

Occupiers of vehicles enjoying the countryside. 

Occupiers of vehicles 

Users of indoor recreational facilities 

Employees within commercial/industrial properties with limited outlook. 

9.2.62 The magnitude of the change to an existing view is determined by a number of interrelated 

factors such as the distance from the project to the receptor; the proportion of the 

development visible, as well as the absolute visibility of the scheme; the height of the 

development relative to the receptor, with reference also to the scale of other features in the 

view; and the number and character of elements which would be lost from or added to the 

view. 

9.2.63 The magnitude of likely effects is categorised as follows: 

Table 9.6 Magnitude of Change - Visual Receptors 

Magnitude of Effect 

Large 

Medium 

Small 

Negligible 

Example 

Complete or very substantial change in view: Proposed development will be 

dominant, 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, 

which may or may not be visually discordant. 

Moderate change in view: which may involve partial obstruction of existing view 

or partial change in character and composition of baseline i.e. pre development 

view through the introduction of new elements or removal of existing elements. 

Proposed development will be prominent, but not substantially different in scale 

and character from the surroundings and the wider setting. Composition of the 

view will alter. View character may be partially changed through the introduction 

of features which, though new, may not necessarily be visually discordant. 

Minor change in baseline i.e. pre development view – proposed development will 

be distinguishable from the surroundings whilst composition and character of the 

view (although altered) will be similar to the pre-change circumstances. 

Very slight change in baseline i.e. pre-development view - proposed development 

will be barely distinguishable from the surroundings. Composition and character 

of view substantially unaltered. 





Significance of Effects 

9.2.64 With regard to significance’ the GLVIA states the following: 

“Significance is not absolute and can only be defined in relation to each development and 

its location. It is for each assessment to determine the assessment criteria and the 

significance thresholds, using informed and well-reasoned judgement supported by 

thorough justification for their selection and explanation as to how the conclusions about 

significance for each effect assessed have been derived.” (GLVIA 2nd Ed, para 7.38, 

p92). 

9.2.65 Significance of landscape and visual effects are derived from magnitude of change and 

sensitivity. The GLVIA notes that: 

“The two principal criteria determining significance are the scale or magnitude of effect 

and the environmental sensitivity of the location or receptor. A higher level of 

significance is generally attached to large-scale effects and effects on sensitive or highvalue 

receptors; thus small effects on highly sensitive sites can be more important than 

large effects on less sensitive sites. It is therefore important that a balanced and wellreasoned 

judgement of these two criteria is achieved” (para 7.39). 

“Thus significance cannot be defined in any context independent of the proposal under 

consideration and in its geographical context. That is, significance is unique for each 

proposal…” Box 7.3 of the GLVIA. 

“In the context of EIA ‘significance’ varies with the type of project and the topic under 

assessment, in the assessment of landscape and visual effects “…the assessor must 

clearly define the criteria used in the assessment for each project using his or her skill 

based on professional judgement” (para 7.42). 

Table 9.7 Landscape and Visual Effects: Significance Criteria 

Significance 

of Effects 

Landscape Resource 

Visual Resource / Amenity 

Substantial 

Major 

Where the proposed changes would be 

uncharacteristic and would compromise the 

integrity of a landscape or objectives of a 

designation. 


uncharacteristic and/or would significantly 

alter a valued aspect of landscape 

character 

Where the proposed changes would form 

the dominant feature to which other 

elements become subordinate, markedly 

affecting and substantially changing the 

overall character of the scene. 


uncharacteristic and/or would significantly 

alter a valued view or a view of high scenic 

quality. 

Moderate Where proposed changes would be 

noticeably out of scale or at odds with the 

character of an area. 

Where proposed changes to views would 

be noticeably out of scale or at odds with 

the existing view 

Slight 

Where proposed changes would be at 

slight variance with the character of an 

area or could be accommodated without 

significant adverse effects on character. 

Where proposed changes to views, 

although discernible, would only be at 

slight variance with the existing view. 

Negligible 

Where proposed changes would have an 

indiscernible effect on the character of an 

area. Where proposals would be in keeping 

with the landscape character of an area 

Where proposed changes would have a 

barely noticeable effect on views/visual 

amenity. Where proposals would retain 

existing views, or where on balance the 





Significance 

of Effects 

Landscape Resource 

Visual Resource / Amenity 

and/or would maintain quality, or where the 

benefits of proposed mitigation would 

balance adverse impacts. 

proposed mitigation would maintain the 

quality of the views. 

9.2.66 EIA is a means of drawing together, in a systematic way, an assessment of a project’s likely 

significant environmental effects. It is accepted from the outset that wind farm development 

could potentially give rise to significant effects. However, not all landscape and visual effects 

arising would be significant in EIA terms. The table below sets out in matrix form the main 

correlations between magnitude and sensitivity for both landscape and visual effects and 

forms a variation of the generic matrix at Table 2.2 of Chapter 2 of the ES to enable topicspecific 

effects to be more accurately assessed. 


Sensitivity of Receptor 


Magnitude of Change/Impact 

LARGE Substantial Major or 

Moderate 

MEDIUM 

SMALL 

NEGLIGIBLE 

Major or 

Moderate 

Moderate or 

Slight 

Slight or 

Negligible 

Moderate or 

Slight 

Slight or 

Negligible 


Slight Slight Negligible 

Negligible Negligible Negligible 

9.2.67 In the assessment of visual effects, for the purposes of the Landscape and Visual Impact 

Assessment (LVIA), those effects indicated as being of ‘Substantial’ or ‘Major’, significance 

(as derived through the application of the methodology set out above) may be regarded as 

significant effects in EIA terms. An accumulation of individual ‘Moderate’ effects may also be 

regarded as significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. Where the sensitivity or magnitude is 

of the highest level i.e. High or Large respectively, the matrix offers the choice of two 

potential significances of effect. The assessor is then required to use professional judgement 

to define the level of significance in these most important scenarios. 

9.2.68 With respect to the assessment of landscape effects, areas over which the proposed wind 

farm is likely to give rise to new landscape types / character areas and/or where sub-types/ 

areas would be established, are most likely to be deemed significant in EIA terms. However, 

significance can vary depending on individual circumstances and the baseline situation, for 

example the presence of landscape designations and/or detractors. This is particularly the 

case 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 a major contributory element in defining character. In 

the first case, the resulting effect would normally be significant. In the second case, the 

assessor has used professional judgement to determine if the effect is significant or not. 





Types of Effect 

9.2.69 The landscape and visual resource of an area can be affected both directly and indirectly. 

Visual effects are always direct, because when an object is not in view, by implication, there 

can be no effect. Landscape effects on the other hand can be either direct or indirect. 

Change that affects onsite physical features (e.g. vegetation, buildings and landform), or the 

character area/type in which the site is located, is a direct landscape effect; whereas an 

effect on the character of the surrounding landscape character areas/type is indirect. It is 

generally assumed that indirect effects would be intrinsically less significant than direct ones. 

However, this is not necessarily the case and is dependant on the nature of the proposal and 

the landscape in which it is situated. The effect on the cultural setting of a particular 

designated site or object is considered further within Chapter 10: Cultural Heritage and 

Archaeology. 

9.2.70 In general the scope of landscape and visual effect is: 

a) Direct effects on the landscape fabric and character of the site, and on views and 

visual amenity; and 

b) Indirect effects on the surrounding landscape character. 

View Ranges 

9.2.71 Experience from recent wind farm projects and planning appeals in the UK indicates that 100 

m high plus wind turbines are perceived as ‘prominent’ features in the landscape at 0-3 km; 

and are ‘present’ from 3-10 km, with the degree of ‘presence’ diminishing with distance. 

Beyond 10 km, the presence of the wind turbines would gradually reduce as they are 

perceived more and more as part of the landscape at large. For the purposes of this 

assessment, views have been classified according to three distance ‘ranges’ as follows: 

Table 9.9 View Ranges 

Range 

Distance threshold Reasoning 

Close Less than 3 km At close range the proposals would appear as ‘prominent’ features 

and visual receptors would tend to experience large to small / medium 

magnitude of change when compared with existing views 

Medium 

Between 3 km and 

10 km 

In medium range views the proposals would appear as ‘present’ 

features and visual receptors would tend to experience small / 

medium to negligible/ small magnitude of change compared to the 

existing situation 

Long More than 10 km In long range views the proposals would read as part of the landscape 

and visual receptors would tend to experience a small to negligible or 

lower magnitude of change compared to the existing situation 

Terminology and Definitions 

9.2.72 ‘Visual amenity’ is understood to be the visual benefit or pleasantness provided by the 

environment as enjoyed in views with the emphasis on residential properties and public 

recreation resources. The visual resource of a particular area is made up of both views and 

general visual amenity. These two elements are assessed together from specific viewpoints. 

9.2.73 For the purposes of this assessment, consideration has been given as to whether a ‘wind 

farm landscape type’ is likely to be created up to 1 km from the proposed wind farm, 

depending on the extent of the ZTV and intervening land form, land cover and landscape 





character. Where the landscape baseline has already been developed to varying degrees or, 

the presence of visual detractors is significant, this distance threshold may be less. The same 

determining factors apply to the creation of a ‘wind farm landscape sub-type’, which may 

occur up to 2 km from the proposed wind farm. The mechanics of how and when these wind 

farm types and sub-types are formed, is explained at Appendix 9.4 with the aid of diagrams. 

Climate and Weather Conditions 

9.2.74 In addition to the physical features of the landscape, climate and weather conditions affect 

perception and experience of the landscape. Changes in perception affect people’s 

responses to the landscape and may influence the perceived effect of the proposal. 

9.2.75 The main climatic influences are exposure, sunshine, precipitation and day length. Generally, 

Scotland is fairly cloudy, due to the frequency of low-pressure systems from the Atlantic 

Ocean. In addition, day length varies with the seasons. Precipitation (rainfall and snowfall) in 

Scotland is very variable and is determined by topography and geographic location. The area 

with the highest precipitation is the Western Highlands, and the driest area is the east coast. 

The proposed wind farm site and study area has significantly more cloudy days and annual 

rainfall than areas at lower elevation to the east of the country. 

9.2.76 Views from a number of peaks within the study area are influenced by the weather 

conditions. These influence the number of clear days when views can be experienced. 

9.2.77 Scotland can also have periods of excellent visibility, as the greater part of the country is 

remote from the more industrial and populous areas of Great Britain and mainland Europe, 

free from air pollutants. These conditions however, are generally experienced for a limited 

time, due to the prevailing climatic influences across the north. Notwithstanding this, whilst 

not necessarily typical of the prevailing climatic conditions associated with the site and 

surroundings, the assessment of effects of the proposed wind farm is based on a “worst 

case” scenario of excellent visibility experienced during clear atmospheric conditions and 

bright or sunny weather. The valency issue noted above, is clearly relevant to this aspect. 


Description of the Site and Surrounding Area 

Introduction 

9.3.1 A detailed landscape and visual resources assessment has been undertaken for a local zone 

of 2 km radius from the site boundary within the wider 35 km radius study area. This has 

allowed all visual receptors to be identified and the baseline conditions and potential effects 

to be established in the immediate vicinity of the proposals, where significant effects may be 

more likely to occur. 

Overview of the Proposal Site 

9.3.2 The proposal site lies within the relatively flat landscape that lies at the base of the northern 

side of the Pentland Hills. This area of lowland is crossed by many rivers and watercourses 

which flow into the Firth of Forth. The valley of the Crosswood Burn cuts through the gently 

shelving landform of the site. The lowest point within the site is where the burn flows under 

the A70 in the south at approximately 241 m AOD. The land rises to the east to 

approximately 280 m AOD at the A70 and to the west to approximately 289 m AOD at 

Camilty Hill. To the south east, the smooth and open profiles of the Pentland Hills rise up to 





approximately 560 m AOD forming a distinct contrast to the gently rolling, settled river plains 

and plateau which extend to the north and west. 

Land Use 

9.3.3 The current land use of the proposals site is commercial forestry, owned and managed by the 

FCS. The land is divided into a broad mosaic of large scale geometric woodland blocks of 

different aged trees, interspersed with open areas which have been clear felled. A network of 

intersecting tracks provide vehicular access within the site. These features together with 

linear breaks between plantations and post and wire mesh fencing further define the site 

within this managed landscape. The Crosswood Burn cuts through the dense forestry as a 

sinuous opening in the trees. 

Vegetation 

9.3.4 The majority of vegetation on site comprises coniferous tree species planted for commercial 

timber production. Species include predominantly Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) with small 

blocks of European larch (Larix decidua). In areas where trees have been felled, a mix of 

rough grassland and ruderal weeds has become established. Adjacent to the A70 and 

B7008, on the fringes of the site, lies an intermittent strip of grass with clumps of native 

deciduous trees and shrubs providing a contrast with the confer plantations. Species include 

predominantly Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), Silver birch (Betula pendula) and Mountain 

Ash (Sorbus aucuparia). 

Communications 

9.3.5 The B7008 passes along the south west corner of the site linking the A70 to the settlement of 

Harburn. The A70 lies along the south east boundary of the site. 

Settlement 

9.3.6 There are no towns or villages adjacent to the proposal site. The small settlement of Harburn 

lies on the edge of the 2 km radius local study area. 

Core Paths and Access 

9.3.7 There are no core paths within the site. 

Designated Landscapes 

9.3.8 A distinction has been made between designations for amenity and landscape, active 

conservation management designations and cultural heritage designations. Designations for 

species and special habitats are dealt with in Chapter 6: Terrestrial Ecology. Where any of 

these designations also function as visitor destinations, these have been assessed 

additionally as landscape and visual receptors. Landscape designations are illustrated within 

Figures 9.10 to 9.12. Other designation types are assessed in Chapters 11: Terrestrial 

Ecology and 10: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology. 

International Designations 

9.3.9 The European Landscape Convention (ELC), also known as the Florence Convention, is the 

first international convention to focus specifically on landscape with respect to designations. 

The convention promotes the protection, management and planning of European 

landscapes. The ELC was ratified by the UK Government in November 2006 and came into 

force in March 2007. 





9.3.10 Although the convention does not contain policies on landscape protection or management, 

nor designate specific areas based upon their landscape and visual amenity, it does provide 

aims to ensure that policies are put into place by those involved in managing the landscape. 

National Designations 

National Scenic Areas 

9.3.11 There are 40 National Scenic Areas (NSAs) in Scotland, one of which lies within the study 

area. NSA's were identified in 1978 by the Countryside Commission for Scotland and were 

established by Order of the Secretary of State in 1981, and can be summarised as follows: 

‘…areas of land and water which represent the very best of Scotland’s renowned 

scenery. They are of such outstanding natural beauty and amenity that they should be 

safeguarded and enhanced as part of the national heritage.’ 

9.3.12 Furthermore, the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 gives a statutory basis to NSAs through 

an addition to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which was brought into 

force through The Town and Country Planning (National Scenic Areas) (Scotland) 

Designation Directions 2010. This recent legislation defines a NSA as an area ‘of outstanding 

scenic value in a national content’. 

9.3.13 The Upper Tweeddale NSA lies within the study area approximately 20 km south east of the 

site. The area’s special qualities are described by SNH as follows: 

• Diverse scenery of great charm and soft beauty; 

• The historical continuity of settlement; 

• Green, intimate pastoral valleys; 

• Expansive, open hills with panoramic views; 

• The variety of woodlands and trees; 

• The large, geometric fields; 

• The distinctive vernacular buildings; 

• Tranquil riverine landscapes. 

9.3.14 The most relevant aspect of the NSA for this project are the hill tops and peaks which are the 

only part of the landscape which coincide with the ZTV. A viewpoint at Pykstone Hill, within 

the Upper Tweeddale NSA, has been chosen to identify landscape and visual effects as part 

of the assessment. 

Regional Designations 

Areas of Great Landscape Value 

9.3.15 Within Scotland, Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLVs) were historically designated to 

protect small, local areas of scenic and recreational value. These designated landscapes lie 

outside of, and complement, the NSAs. AGLV’s are currently under review and will be 

replaced by Candidate Special Landscape Areas (CSLA). 

9.3.16 The site is located adjacent to the Pentland Hills AGLV, which extends up to the A70 to the 

south east of the site. The landscape designation extends south west from the edge of 

Edinburgh covering approximately two thirds of the Pentland Hills. 





9.3.17 To the north of the site between Livingston and Linlithgow is the Avon Valley and Devon Hills 

AGLV, which includes the Bathgate Hills. There are eight AGLV’s within Edinburgh. The 

designation covering Holyrood Park and Arthur’s Seat coincides with the most significant 

section of ZTV. 

9.3.18 More distant AGLV’s lie to the north of the Forth of Firth including the Broomhall/Belleknowes 

AGLV which incorporates Charlestown and Limekilns and the Cullaloe Hills/The Binn AGLV. 

9.3.19 Some viewpoints have been chosen which coincide with AGLV’s within the study area and 

help to illustrate landscape character and views. Views are illustrated in photomontages at 

Figures 9.14 1a to 26c. 

Local Designations 

9.3.20 Local landscape designations are a well-established and valued approach to protecting areas 

of landscape importance. In contrast to nationally designated landscapes, regional 

designations are often identified within development plans and their boundaries are defined 

and kept under review within local plans. In that respect, regional designations can also be 

taken as local landscape designations. 

Regional Parks 

9.3.21 The Pentland Hills Regional Park is a nationally designated (1986) and internationally 

recognised protected landscape managed jointly by the City of Edinburgh, Midlothian and 

West Lothian Councils. The Park covers some 10,000 hectares of land which is an important 

recreational resource. 

9.3.22 The aims of the Pentland Hills Regional Park as set out in its designation order are: 

• To retain the essential character of the hills as a place for the peaceful enjoyment of 

the countryside; 

• Caring for the hills so that the landscape and the habitat is protected and enhanced; 

• Within this caring framework to encourage responsible public enjoyment of the hills; 

• Co-ordination of these aims so that they co-exist with farming and other land uses 

within the Pentland Hills Regional Park. 

Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes 

9.3.23 The Inventory of Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes is a growing and evolving 

record of nationally important gardens and designed landscapes across Scotland maintained 

by SNH and Historic Scotland. These gardens and landscapes are valuable assets at 

national, regional and local levels. Sites listed in the inventory are not statutory designations, 

but are protected through policies in structure plans and would have at least medium 

sensitivity to change. 

9.3.24 A garden included in the Inventory does not have legal protection, but it is nonetheless a 

material consideration in the planning process (as addressed in SPP, see Chapter 5 of the 

ES), and it is to be expected that the information included in the Inventory will inform the 

planning decision maker. Information regarding these listings is contained in web based links 

at Appendix 9.6. 

9.3.25 The 65 Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes identified within the area of search are 

shown on Figures 9.10 to 9.12. The following 10 sites coincide with the ZTV: 





• Harburn House 

• Newliston 

• Dundas Castle 

• House of the Binns 

• Craigiehall 

• Palace of Holyrood House 

• Fordell Castle 

• St Colme 

• Culross Abbey House 

• Valleyfield 

• Pittencrieff Park 

9.3.26 The Harburn House estate lies approximately 700 m to the north west of the proposal site 

boundary and forms the closest designed landscape. Mature belts of mixed coniferous and 

deciduous woodland and mature specimen trees around the house provide a high level of 

screening. However, framed views out to the Pentland Hills in the vicinity of the proposals 

can be gained from locations within the grounds and from the upper floors of the house. 

9.3.27 The remaining sites are located between 13 and 30 km from the site. The presence of 

extensive mature woodland and tree planting which forms part of the designed landscape at 

nine of these locations, is likely to obscure most views of the wind farm proposal. Seven of 

these properties are located on the banks of the Firth of Forth, which forms the main context 

of the landscapes and the focus for views. The designation for the Palace of Holyrood House 

incorporates the peak of Arthur’s Seat. The open elevated nature of this landscape allows 

distant views out towards the site, which are addressed as part of the visual baseline at 

viewpoint 23. No significant effects are predicted on the character of these nine designed 

landscapes, their settings or views from them. The potential for significant effects on the 

character of the landscapes, their settings or views from them is unlikely. 


National Planning Policy 

National Planning Framework 

9.3.28 The Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 requires the National Planning Framework to be taken 

into account in the preparation of strategic and local development plans. The National 

Planning Framework (NPF) is the Scottish strategy for long-term development in Scotland’s 

towns, cities and countryside. NPF2, published in June 2009 replaces the first NPF published 

in 2004, and outlines the spatial strategy for Scotland’s development to 2030. 

Scottish Planning Policy 

9.3.29 Previous Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) 

series have been replaced by a single, consolidated Scottish Planning Policy 2010 (SPP), 

and in doing so national planning policy for Scotland has been rationalised. Paragraphs 125 

to 148 of the SPP (2010) outline the approach to Landscape and Natural Heritage and 





paragraphs 187 to 191 refer to specific issues to be considered in relation to the design and 

assessment of wind farm developments. 

Onshore Wind Farm Planning Guidance (August 2011) 

9.3.30 PAN 45: Renewable Energy Technologies and Annex 2 Spatial Frameworks and 

Supplementary Planning Guidance for Wind Farms has been replaced with web based 

renewables advice, which contains typical planning considerations relevant to landscape and 

visual resources. 

Structure Plan Policy 

9.3.31 Relevant landscape planning policy is contained within the following Structure Plans: 

• Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan 2015 (Approved June 2004); 

• Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan (2006); 

• Scottish Borders Council Structure Plan (Approved September 2002); 

• Fife Council Structure Plan (Approved 2002); and 

• Falkirk Council Structure Plan (2002). 

Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan 

9.3.32 The policies of the Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan, in which the site lies, are set out 

as follows: 

Policy ENV 1B: National Natural Heritage Designations 

“Development which would affect national designations, including Sites of Special 

Scientific Interest not designated as international sites, will only be permitted where it can 

be demonstrated that: 

a) the objectives of designation and overall integrity of the site will not be compromised; 

or 

b) any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been 

designated are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national 

importance. 

Local plans should include policies and, where appropriate, proposals for their protection 

and enhancement.” 

Policy ENV 1C: International and National Historic or Built Environment Designations 

“Development which would harm the character, appearance and setting of the following 

designated built or cultural heritage sites, and/or the specific features which justify their 

designation, should be resisted: 

• World Heritage Sites; 

• Listed Buildings; 

• Scheduled Ancient Monuments; 

• Royal Parks; 

• Sites listed in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. 





Local plans should include policies, and where appropriate proposals for their protection 

and enhancement.” 

Policy ENV 1D: Regional and Local Natural and Built Environment Interests 

“Development affecting the following regional or local areas of natural heritage and built 

environmental interest, or their settings, will only be permitted where it can be 

demonstrated that: 

a) The objectives and overall integrity of the designated area will not be compromised; 

or 

b) The social or economic benefits to be gained from the proposed development 

outweigh the conservation or other interest of the site: 

• Conservation Areas; 

• Areas of Great Landscape Value or other local landscape designations; 

• Defined in Local Plans; 

• Pentland Hills Regional Park; 

• Country Parks; 

• Defined core and local path networks; 

• Local Nature Reserves; 

• Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Features; 

• Sites of archaeological interest; 

• Designated wildlife sites; 

• Peatland; 

• Prime agricultural land; 

• Water supply catchment areas; 

• Areas of significant open space within urban areas. 

Local plans should define the extent of these interests and include policies and where 

appropriate proposals, for their protection and enhancement.” 

Policy ENV 4: Landscape 

“Local plans should take account of landscape designations in accordance with new 

guidance produced by Scottish Natural Heritage.” 

Policy ENV 6: Renewable Energy 

“The development of renewable energy resources will be supported where this can be 

achieved in an environmentally acceptable manner. Local plans should set out the 

specific criteria against which renewable energy developments will be assessed, 

including cumulative impact. They should also consider whether it is appropriate to define 

broad areas of search, or specific sites, suitable for wind or other renewable energy 

developments.” 





West Lothian Local Plan (2009) 

9.3.33 The Local plan policies which are relevant to this chapter of the ES are as follows: 

Policy ENV 19 

“Within the six AGLVs shown on the proposals map there is a presumption against 

development which would undermine the landscape and visual qualities for which the 

areas were designated.” 

Policy ENV 20 

“Development proposals outwith an AGLV which would affect its setting from important 

viewpoints will be subject to detailed visual appraisal and will not be supported if it 

adversely affects the designated area.” 

Policy ENV 21 

“The council will protect the six Areas of Special Landscape Control shown on the 

proposals map from intrusive development in order to retain their landscape character. 

The council will promote opportunities to enhance the six Areas of Special Landscape 

Control and their accessibility to the public for recreational and educational purposes in a 

manner that does not undermine their landscape character and biodiversity value.” 

Policy NWR 22 

“The council will resist any proposal for renewable energy development that will affect the 

character, visual integrity or recreational qualities of both the Pentland Hills Regional 

Park and the wider area of the Pentland Hills in West Lothian. Proposals that are located 

outwith the Regional Park or the wider Pentland Hills but nevertheless undermine the 

landscape and outdoor recreational qualities of those areas will not normally be 

supported unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that the integrity of the landscape 

and outdoor recreational qualities are not adversely affected”. 

9.3.34 The general aim of these structure and local plan policies is to protect the objectives and 

integrity of landscape designations. Potential effects on landscape and visual resources 

within the plan areas as a result of wind farm developments will form a key consideration. 

WLC are supportive of wind energy, subject to the protection of valued designated 

landscapes and their visual integrity, particularly the Pentland Hills Regional Park. 

Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development in West Lothian 

9.3.35 David Tyldesley and Associates was commissioned in January 2011 jointly by WLC and SNH 

to carry out a landscape and visual capacity study for wind energy development. The primary 

aim of the study is to determine the overall capacity of the West Lothian area to 

accommodate wind farms and where the least adverse landscape and visual impacts would 

occur. At the time of the study the seven installed or approved wind farms which were under 

consideration included the following: 

• Blacklaw 

• Blacklaw extension 1 

• Muirhall 

• Tormywheel 





• Pateshill 

• Greendykeside 

• Torrance Farm 

9.3.36 Over 20 other wind farms awaiting decision, refused/withdrawn or in scoping were also taken 

into consideration in the preparation of the study. 

9.3.37 The first stage of the study included an initial review of The Lothians Landscape Character 

Assessment, 1998 (LLCA). A set of new revised character types and units was created. 

Table 9.10 shows the inter-relationship of these two studies. 

Table 9.10 

Landscape Types 

in The LLCA 1998 

Landscape 

Character Areas in 

the LLCA 1998 


in this WL-LCA 

2011 

Landscape Units in this WL- 

LCA 2011 

Uplands 4 Pentland Hills 1 Upland Hills 1(i) Western Pentland Hills 

Upland Fringes 

5 North-West 

Pentland Fringe 

2 Upland Hill 

Fringes 

2(I) North-West Pentland Fringe 

2(ii) Gladsmuir / Woodmuir / 

Camilty Fringe 

2(iii) Harburn / Hartwood Fringe 

Lowland hills & 

Ridges 

17 Bathgate Hills 3 Lowland Hills 7 

Valleys 

3(i) Bathgate Hills 

Lowland Plateaux 

19 West Lothian 

Plateau 

4 Broad Valley 

Lowlands 

4(i) Almond Valley 

4(ii) Couston Valley 

5 Lowland Plateaux 

5(i) Polkemmet Moor 

5(ii) Armadale / Bathgate 

Plateau 

5(iii) Livingstone / Blackburn 

Plateau 

20 Slamannan 

Plateau 

5(iv) Avonbridge to Armadale 

Plateau Edge 

5(v) Blackridge Heights 

Lowland Plains 

21 Lower Almond 

Farmlands 

6 Lowland Plains 

6(i) Kirknewton Plain 

6(ii) East Calder / Livingston / 

Broxburn Plain 

6(iii) Winchburgh / Niddry Plain 

7 Lowland River 

Corridors 

7(i) Avon Valley 

7(ii) Murieston / Linhouse / 

Camilty Waters 






in The LLCA 1998 

Landscape 

Character Areas in 

the LLCA 1998 


in this WL-LCA 

2011 

Landscape Units in this WL- 

LCA 2011 

7(iv) West Calder Burn / Breich 

& Harwood Waters 

Coastal Margins 26 Linlithgow / 

Queensferry 


8 Lowland Hill 

Fringes 

9 Coastal Margins 

8(i) Linlithgow Fringe 

8(ii) Bathgate Fringe 

9(i) West Lothian Coastal 


9(ii) West Lothian Coastal Hills 

9.3.38 The capacity study divides the North-West Pentland Fringe character area identified in the 

LLCA into three separate units including 2(ii) Upland Hill Fringes 

Gladsmuir/Woodmuir/Camilty Fringe in which the site is located. 

9.3.39 The second stage of the study identified the sensitivity of the landscape character areas to a 

variety of wind farm development scenarios including the following; 

Table 9.11 

Turbine Group 

Single Turbine 

Small Wind Farm 

Medium Wind Farm 

Large Wind Farm 

Extensions to existing wind farms 

1 turbine 

2-7 turbines 

8-20 turbines 

21+ turbines 

Turbine Heights 

51-80 m approximately 

81-100 m approximately 

101-130 m+ approximately 

9.3.40 The second stage was divided into six steps as follows: 

Step One 

9.3.41 The identification of landscape units of the highest sensitivity included qualities of wildness/ 

tranquillity/remoteness, extremely limited evidence of development, the presence of 

important cultural heritage features and landscapes with rare or unusual characteristics. 

Step Two 

9.3.42 An assessment of the sensitivity of all other landscape units included landscape criteria of 

scale, openness, landform and landcover and variety. 

9.3.43 Following the assessment of landscape character in Steps one and two, units were assigned 

a level of sensitivity to wind energy development. Unit 2(ii) in which the site is located was 

assigned an overall Medium level of sensitivity, which is the lowest level identified within the 

study. 

Step Three 

9.3.44 This included the identification of landmark landscape features considered important in West 

Lothian and the area representing the key setting of each feature which should be protected. 

The proposed wind farm site does not lie within either of the two features or their defined 





settings; however, it does lie adjacent to the setting of the Pentland Hills Uplands landmark 

landscape feature. 

Step Four 

9.3.45 The key ‘gateway’ or tourist routes of high amenity value in West Lothian were identified as 

part of this step including 14 roads, four footpaths and two cycleways. The most relevant 

principle sensitive routes identified within the vicinity of the proposal site include two sections 

of the A70 to the north and south of the site: 

• A70 ‘Lang Whang’ at the southern West Lothian boundary, with views northwards 

across Cobbinshaw Reservoir towards the Bathgate Hills; 

• A70 ‘Lang Whang’ between Harperrig Reservoir and the eastern West Lothian 

boundary, with views southwards and eastwards to the Pentland Hills. 

Step Five 

9.3.46 This step involved the identification of ‘iconic’ viewpoints. The viewpoints should satisfy two 

criteria: 

• ‘the viewpoint should be a major ‘destination’ in its own right, not merely a viewpoint 

where passers-by may stop to enjoy a view; 

• the viewpoint should be representative of the West Lothian or Lothian landscape, a 

‘post-card’ type view. 

9.3.47 Field validation included the identification of visual cones or compartments for each 

viewpoint. Nine viewpoints were identified including West Cairn Hill ‘representing the highest 

point within the Pentland Hills in West Lothian and readily accessible from the footpath route 

through the Cauldstane Slap from a parking area off the A70 at Little Vantage’. The 

maximum radius of 10km was identified around the viewpoint, within which the proposal site 

is located. The study states that ‘the distance is considered appropriate within which wind 

energy development would create significant adverse visual effects and would impair the 

visual experience having climbed to the summit via the Cauldstane Slap footpath route or 

other routes from within the Pentland Hills Regional Park’. 

Step Six 

9.3.48 The final step of the assessment brings together all the previous steps to identify areas 

potentially suitable in landscape and visual terms for wind energy development. The study 

identifies two areas that are considered to have potential for wind energy developments in 

landscape unit 2(ii). These are a small extension to the western side of the Pates Hill Wind 

Farm and an area in the Woodmuir Plantation which is only considered to have potential if 

the adjacent Tormywheel wind farm is not constructed. Several further potential development 

areas are shown in the band of settled landscape, which extends across the centre of the 

West Lothian area. 


Landscape Character 

9.3.49 As mentioned in the Methodology section, the landscape character of the study area was 

assessed as part of a national programme of landscape character assessment, carried out by 

SNH in partnership with local authorities and other agencies. 





9.3.50 In order that the baseline assessment of landscape character is consistent across the study 

area, and is considered at a level of detail appropriate to the location and scale of the 

proposed wind farm, a degree of synthesis has been necessary. This process, undertaken by 

RPS, has been informed by SNH, the local authority and other agencies as well as field study 

over a number of months. 

9.3.51 The 35 km radius study area for the development is covered by the following assessments: 


Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 91; 

• ASH Consulting Group, (1998), The Borders landscape assessment, Scottish Natural 

Heritage Review No 112; 

• David Tyldesley and Associates, (1995), Dunfermline District Landscape Assessment: 

a landscape assessment of Dunfermline District, including part of Kirkcaldy District 

lying in the West Fife Woodlands Initiative Area, Natural Heritage Review No 19; 

• Ironside Farrar, (Nov 2010), South Lanarkshire Landscape Character Assessment; 

• Land Use Consultants, (1999), Glasgow and the Clyde Valley landscape assessment, 

Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 116; 

• 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; and 

• David Tyldesley and Associates, (1999), Stirling to Grangemouth Landscape 

Character Assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 124. 

9.3.52 At a more detailed scale, the differences within each of these character areas become 

apparent during research of the baseline conditions. The areas have been identified, located 

and described based on desk study and field observation by RPS. 

9.3.53 The SNH Landscape Character Assessments identify 68 generic character types within the 

35 km radius area of search. Following a review of the descriptions within the text by RPS, it 

is considered that some of the character types within different SNH assessments are 

equivalent. As the site lies within West Lothian, the landscape character types within The 

Lothians Landscape Character Assessment have been used as the basis for all character 

types within the eight districts of the study area. These were subsequently correlated using 

similarities within the character to correspond with a manageable assessment of 8 character 

types designed by RPS under the following titles: 

• Upland Fringes 

• Upland 

• Lowland Plateaux 

• Lowland Plains 

• Lowland Hills 

• River Valley 

• Coastal 





• Urban 

9.3.54 The eight generic landscape character types within the study area can be further broken 

down to identify individual landscape character areas. Table 9.12 below describes the 26 

specific Landscape Character Areas within the 35 km Study Area where the proposed wind 

farm will be visible (according to the ZTV maps produced). These areas are assessed in 

paragraphs 9.5.4 to 9.5.11 and 9.5.44 to 9.5.60. Figure 9.9 illustrates the combined 

Character areas. 

Table 9.12 Landscape Character Types and Areas 

LCT/LCA 

Landscape Character Area - Description and extent within the study area 

UPLAND FRINGES TYPES 

North West 

Pentland 

Fringe 

(contains the 

proposal site) 

Prominent 

Isolated 

Hills – Tinto 

Hills 

Foothills – 

Tinto Hills 

Rolling 

Farmland - 

Lanark 

This large-scale landscape sweeps along the western parts of the Pentland Hills. 

Characterised by broad gentle slopes, the ground occasionally swells into small hills 

where igneous extrusions have been exposed through the sedimentary bedrock. The 

valleys of many small streams cut shallow courses through the slopes. 

The area is distinguished by a number of reservoirs of varying scale and prominence, 

the largest being Cobbinshaw, Harperrig, and Crosswood in the west, and Threipmuir 

and Harlaw further east. 

Westwards from Harperrig Reservoir, which feeds the infant Water of Leith in its open, 

flat bottomed valley, both mature and more recently-planted coniferous plantations are 

the dominant land cover, their angularity occasionally softened by broadleaved edges. 

Interspersed with the plantations of the upper slopes, remnant heather moorland and 

poor-quality rough grassland are dotted with marshy, rush-stippled depressions. The 

remaining hill-slopes are clothed with stretches of improved grassland, divided into a 

large-scale field pattern by hedgerows, fences and numerous mixed and coniferous 

shelterbelts. Throughout the more open areas of rougher pasture, hedgerow trees and 

shelterbelts are often over-mature remnants and walls are gappy. However, significant 

areas of new shelterbelt planting have occurred across the lower ground. The Harbum 

and West Harwood area has a notable concentration of shelterbelts. 

Contrasting with the smooth landform, several active and disused quarries at the 

western end of the area form craggy visual intrusions. 

The simple landscape of reservoirs, grassland and plantations across the higher 

ground is modified by industrial development, transport corridors and pylon lines to the 

north and west. Backed by the dominant ridgeline of the Pentland Hills, views are 

focused northwards across the gentle smooth slopes towards the settled lowlands. 

A number of hills form particular landmarks, Tinto Hill is perhaps the best known and 

most prominent of these, rising to over 700 metres on the western side of the Clyde. 

Further east, the Black Mount rises to over 520 metres, forming an elongated hill on 

the same orientation as the Southern Uplands Fault. Smaller hills are also significant. 

Quothquan Law (325 m) is an isolated hill on the eastern side of the Clyde, mirrored 

by the lower Castle Hill (261 m) to the south. 

The Foothills form the transition between the Southern Uplands and the Plateau 

Moorlands and Plateau Farmlands. They lie to the north west of the Southern Uplands 

Fault. The transition to neighbouring areas of plateau moorland and farmland is very 

gentle. A larger number of minor valleys cuts into the foothills, creating a dissected 

landform of valleys between rounded ridges summits. Frequently these have a slightly 

conical form with long shoulder slopes. 

An undulating upland fringe landscape of large-scale fields, with mixed arable and 

pastoral land use. This rather diverse landscape type is found on the margins of the 

Tweed Lowlands, and also in a broad synclinal depression which forms a fringe of the 

Midland Valley, lying between the Southern Upland Fault and the Pentland Hills. It is 

distinguished by a characteristic topography of rolling undulations, becoming steeper 

and more pronounced towards the uplands and more gentle at the lowland fringes. 





LCT/LCA 

Pronounced 

Volcanic 

Hills and 

Craigs – 

Cullaloe 

Hills 

Upland 

Foothills – 

Cleish Hills 


Agriculture is the predominant land use in the Rolling Farmlands landscape type. 

The Cullaloe Hills comprise a series of hills generally falling towards the coast, with a 

steep sided, densely wooded ridge along its western edge (Cullaloe Woods). The 

ridge generally extends from around 170m to up to 219m AOD at its highest. Ground 

levels in between the ridge and the coast vary between 35m AOD and 175m at Hawk 

Hill to the east. 

Cullaloe leish Foothills extend to the east of Dunfermline. 

The Cleish foothills are a complicated series of peaks, ridges and valleys covering an 

extensive area between the lowlands and uplands. They comprise generally gradually 

sloping hillsides, from around 150m AOD but rising occasionally very steeply to up to 

245m. 

Cleish Foothills extend to the north and north-west of Dunfermline. 

UPLAND TYPES 

Pentland 

Hills/ Old 

Red 

Sandstone 

Hills 

Disected 

Plateau 

Moorland – 

Pentland 

Hills 

Although of modest height, rising to just under 580m at the highest summit, by virtue 

of their dominant location and visual prominence, the Pentlands assume primary 

importance as a landscape feature in the Lothians. The hills extend south-westwards 

for more than 15 miles from the edge of Edinburgh over the boundary with the Scottish 

Borders and South Lanarkshire. 

At their northern edge, the hills form a north-facing escarpment overlooking the city, 

continuing southwards as two parallel ridge lines separated by a deep internal valley 

containing the Glencorse and Loganlea reservoirs, draining to the North Esk System. 

To the west of the main watershed, the hills drain to the Water of Leith, and feed a 

series of reservoirs including Bonaly, Torduff and Clubbiedean. 

Above the limit of enclosure, around 300m, the slopes are dominated by rough 

grazing and grouse moor, while below lie improved fields of pasture, often bounded by 

drystone dykes, shelterbelts, and small woodland features. 

The hill mass itself is sparsely populated, with the main settlement concentrated along 

the fringing roads to the east and west. Several farms are however located within the 

valleys and lower slopes, the main internal access road being along the Flotterstone 

valley upstream to Loganlea reservoir. Traces of more ancient occupation of the hills 

is evident in cairns, forts and enclosures scattered throughout the area. In addition to 

agriculture and water catchment, military training and recreation are the chief land 

uses on the hills. The Ministry of Defence landholdings are located in the north of the 

range between Dreghorn and Flotterstone Glen, and include a firing range at 

Castlelaw Hill. 

The hills have Regional Park status in part, and contain two country parks, at Bonaly 

and Hillend. Other important recreation locations are Flotterstone, Swanston, 

Threipmuir and Harlaw. A network of footpaths and a few minor tracks, some following 

the routes of old drove roads, link the most important access points. Hillend Country 

Park contains an important dry-ski facility which has a major visual impact on the 

northern slopes both during the day and when floodlit at night. 

The visual importance of the Pentlands stems from their prominence as a backdrop in 

external views, the panoramic outlook from their summits and ridges, and the 

perceived tranquillity and isolation of the interior areas. The proximity of the city 

fringes, the settled river valleys, and the encircling main roads emphasise the 

importance of the Pentlands as a rural landscape resource at the regional level. 

An upland plateau landscape characterised by level-topped hills of heather and 

coarse grassland, dissected by distinct steep sided valleys. 

Plateau 

Outliers – 

An upland plateau landscape characterised by hills and ridges covered by a mosaic of 

coarse grassland, heather and forestry, clearly separated from adjoining types by 





LCT/LCA 

Broughton 

Heights and 

Eddleston/ 

Lyne 

Interfluve 

Southern 

Uplands 

with 

Scattered 

Forest – 

Broadlaw 

Group 

Southern 

Uplands 

The Uplands 

– Cleish 

Hills 


major river valleys. This landscape type ranges mainly between 200m and 570m. It is 

distinguished chiefly by its isolation from the main plateau units and by its more 

pronounced relief. The landform is characterised by smooth ridges and dome shaped 

hills which are occasionally interrupted by rock outcrops and scree. The plateau 

outliers are bounded by the major valleys of the Tweed, Clyde and Lyne Water. 

Valleys are steeply incised and typically V-shaped, enlarged in places by glacial 

erosion. Large coniferous plantations are a prominent feature of this landscape. 

Immediately south of the Southern Upland Fault lie a number of bold upland areas 

which have a character very different to the lower moorlands and hills to the north and 

west. 

This character is derived from the hills' height (up to 575 m AOD), characterised by 

steep, smooth slopes rising to rounded summits. Cut into the uplands are a series of 

distinctive glacial valleys, with U-shaped cross sections, sometimes with precipitous 

side slopes, hanging valleys, waterfalls, crags and screes. 

The combination of these features, and the contrast with lower moorlands and the 

lowlands to the north, gives an impression of uplands which are more extensive, 

remote and higher than is actually the case. 

Southern uplands with forests comprises a subset of this landscape type. Its character 

is, however, considerably different due to the dominant forestry land cover. 

Areas of Southern Uplands where the visual influence of commercial forestry plays a 

prominent role in the landscape. This often takes the form of bold geometric forms. 

The main areas are to the east and south of the Clyde. 

Cleish Hills are located on the northern edge of the study area to the north-west of 

Dunfermline. The upland areas average between 250m and 300m in height, although 

the highest point reach 379m in the Cleish Hills. 

LOWLAND PLATEAUX TYPES 

West 

Lothian 

Plateau 

Slamannan 

Plateau 

A heavily-modified lowland plateau landscape which shelves gently eastward to merge 

gradually with the farmland plain of the lower Almond. The valley of the Almond barely 

registers as a topographic feature in this broadly undulating and predominantly open 

terrain. However a number of its southbank tributaries, including the Linhouse Water, 

Breich Water, Murieston Water and West Calder Burn form narrow and deeply-incised 

features which link. the upland fringe of the Pentlands to the Lowland Plain. 

The land cover of the area consists almost entirely of improved pasture, divided by a 

mixture of fences, thin fragmented hedgerows, small shelterbelts and broken lines of 

hedgerow trees. 

The remaining bings, the most prominent of which is the Five Sisters near West 

Calder, provide visible reminders of the oilshale industry, forming distinctive 

landmarks. 

The minor roads and access tracks which once served the area have been overlain by 

a highly prominent and often visually intrusive transport and communications network 

consisting of parallel and intersecting major roads, a railway line, the M8 motorway 

and associated structures and pylon lines. 

Despite being an open landscape, the visual horizon is often dominated by modern 

architectural or infrastructural features. 

South of the dense band of industry and settlement which lines the Bonny and Carron 

valleys west of Falkirk lies a large expanse of elevated, open, undulating plateau. 

Between the flattened higher ridges, raised bogs, and plateau-type expanses, lie 

numerous streams and small rivercourses - including the River Avon - which wind 

through shallow, visually unobtrusive valleys. 

The plateau is criss-crossed by a relatively uniform dispersal of sometimes straight, 

sometimes winding B-roads, minor country roads and farm access tracks. The mining 

villages of Slamannan, Limerigg, Avonbridge and Shieldhill lie to the south and east. 





LCT/LCA 

Plateau 

Moorland – 

Forestry/ 

Windfarm/ 

Open Cast 

Mining 

Plateau 

Farmland 


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. 

The A89 runs along the edge of the southern slopes, and through the linear villages of 

Blackridge and Westrigg, former mining communities. 

The topography is comparatively level with extensive plateau basins rising to soft 

contoured ridges. The landscape is of an open, exposed and rather wild character 

despite occasional isolated hill farms, and sheep and cattle grazing. A series of 

important transport corridors linking Glasgow and Edinburgh cross the plateau. The 

moorlands provide long views across the Glasgow conurbation, emphasising the 

contrast between the remote upland and the developed lowlands. 

• Landscape character influenced by areas of afforestation such as at Forth. This 

impact upon colour, textures and the lengths of view possible. 

• Landscape character strongly influenced by the presence of large scale windfarms 

such as Blacklaw. 

• Landscape character strongly influenced by the presence of opencast works such 

as Broken Cross 

The LCT occurs on the lower slopes of the Plateau Moorland areas encircling 

Glasgow and the Conurbation. The LCT is characterised by its transitional location 

between the sheltered landscapes of Rolling Farmlands and Broad Valley Upland, and 

exposed uplands and moorlands. 

The few existing settlements are extremely prominent in the landscape because of the 

height of the land and the lack of sheltering/screening landform. Hamilton, Motherwell, 

Larkhall and Carluke, for example, are visible over a wide area. The lack of complex 

landform makes these plateau areas easier to build on. Transport and communication 

routes also tend to favour this uniform and accessible landscape and it houses major 

roads, rail lines, pylons and telegraph poles, all of which have considerable impact in 

the exposed landscape. 

LOWLAND PLAINS TYPES 

Lowland 

Plains – 

Lower 

Almond 


This LCA stretches westward from the periphery of the City of Edinburgh and rises 

gradually to the south, reaching a high point at Dalmahoy Hill (246m). Both the River 

Almond and the Water of Leith cut steeply incised sections of valley north-eastward 

through the area, forming conspicuous local variations in character. Their steep slopes 

are accentuated by woodland cover, or by relatively unproductive poor grassland. 

The linear village of Currie and the nearby village of Balerno are situated on the main 

A70 road on the banks of the Water of Leith. To the north, the A89 is straddled by the 

settlements of Uphall and Broxbum. Elsewhere, the area is liberally scattered with 

small villages or hamlets, townhouses and mansions, farmsteads, cottages and other 

dwellings. 

Important designed landscapes include the extensive estate of Dalmahoy, with its 

parkland, woodlands, golf courses and prominent boundary wall, and Newliston, set 

within a dense framework of shelterbelts. In addition to the development pressures on 

the western outskirts of Edinburgh, where the landscape is dominated by the airport 

and nearby industrial estates and commercial centres, the M8 motorway and several 

parallel major roads sever, and further lessen the integrity of, the farmland. 

Further disruption is added by numerous pylon lines and several visually prominent 

bings and quarries. The complex network of road, railway and canal routeways has 

led to the building of numerous aqueducts, viaducts, and road and rail bridges of 

various ages and styles. 

As well as being an important landscape in their own right, the Lower Almond 

Farmlands are visually very important in providing the setting of the city from the 

western aspect. In addition, high quality expansive views to the nearby landscapes of 

coast and hills are possible from the higher ground, becoming confined within the river 

valleys and lower slopes. However, industrial, residential and transport development 





LCT/LCA 


pressures are slowly denuding the farmed landscape of its characteristic features and 

increasing the sense of fragmentation of undisturbed rural landscape. 

LOWLAND HILLS TYPES 

Lowland 

Hills and 

Ridges – 

Bathgate 

Hills 

Lowland 

Hills and 

Valleys 

A highly distinctive landscape with characteristics reminiscent of a true upland, formed 

by a grouping of interlocking hills of varying topography between 200m and 300m in 

height. Smoothly contoured lower hill-slopes contrast with the more uneven higher 

ground, which is often distinguished by rugged, broken slopes and rocky outcrops. 

Minor watercourses occur frequently throughout the hills, creating locally-incised 

valleys. The River Avon, flowing in a steep-sided wooded valley, forms a sharplydemarcated 

western boundary to the area. 

Several medium and large-scale coniferous woodlands, the most significant being 

within Beecraigs Country Park, are prominent features, particularly where they run 

along hilltops. 

The area is rich in ancient artefacts, including refuge and standing stones, forts, ruined 

towers and castles, the most prominent being the well-preserved prehistoric centre of 

worship and burial which caps Cairnpapple Hill, Cockleroy Fort, and the medieval 

preceptory at Torphichen. A winding minor road network links scattered farms and 

settlements of mixed vernacular and modern origin. 

Several footpaths track across the hillsides to viewpoints and monuments, and further 

low-key recreational facilities including a visitor centre and camping/caravan site are 

sited within Beecraigs Country Park. 

Spectacular panoramic views can be obtained from the open hilltops, northwards 

across the Forth to the Southern Highlands, and southwards to the Pentlands. 

This extensive landscape type is representative of the majority of the Dunfermline 

landscapes, extending across the whole District in a wide band between the upland 

slopes, foothills, volcanic hills, coastal hills and coastal braes. The landform of this 

extensive LCT is very variable but typically consists of gently undulating, rounded low 

hills often with relatively large areas of plantations, and policy planting associated with 

large estates. 

RIVER VALLEY TYPES 

Braod 

Valley 

Upland 

The valley is partially enclosed to the west and north by the foothills, and to the south 

east by the steep wall presented by the Southern Uplands. At about 200 metres AOD, 

the basin is comparatively elevated and exposed. This is reflected in the broadleaved 

and mixed zhelterbelts and small conifer plantations which are very common on the 

lower valley sides and along the edge of the basin. 

This is a comparatively settled though very rural landscape, with a dense network of 

roads, farms and small villages. The A73 and the West Coast Mainline pass through 

the valley. 

COASTAL TYPES 

Coastal 

Margins – 

Linlithgow/ 

Queensferry 


Extending along the coast from the western edge of Edinburgh and inland towards 

Linlithgow, the gently rolling lowland terrain is interrupted by higher hills and ridges of 

which the most significant areas lie on the southern fringes of Linlithgow, where the 

strong ridgelines rise to merge with the Bathgate Hills, and east of Queensferry, where 

Mons Hill rises up from the coastal plain. The coastline west of the Forth Bridges is 

fringed with mudflats, backed by wooded slopes with areas of raised beach above. To 

the east, the piers and bridges of Queensferry give way to a sequence of small rocky 

headlands culminating in Hound Point, where the shoreline swings south-eastward. 

The predominant land cover of arable ground merges with smaller areas of improved 

pasture on higher ground or along parts of the coast. Several extensive wooded 

estates, notably Dalmeny, Hopetoun, Dundas Castle and the Binns, have a major 

influence on the landscape character, through an abundance of deciduous and mixed 





LCT/LCA 

Coastal 

Braes – 

Charlestown 

, Limekilns, 

Rosyth, 

North 

Queensferry 

, Inverkeith, 

Dalgety Bay, 

Aberdour 

and 

Bruntisland 

Coastal Hills 


woodlands, shelterbelts, and mature parkland trees. 

The dominant east-west route of the M9 motorway, and the main Edinburgh to 

Glasgow railway line, which bisect the area are part of a busy transport network which 

disrupt the rural character of the farmland and estate landscapes. 

Towards the southern edge of the area plateautopped shale bings which lie between 

the brick cottages of Winchburgh and Broxburn will remain powerful visual features. 

The tranquil, wide-reaching views of the coast are almost always dominated by the 

striking structures of the road and rail bridges. 

The prominent, steep sided coastal braes are mainly wooded, giving the unusual 

appearance, from a distance, of wooded cliffs. At the foot of the braes there are raised 

beaches or wave cut platforms which form long, linear strips of land above the 

beaches, some with small peninsulas of open space projecting seaward. 

A series of hills, mainly located above the coastal braes, which slope gradually 

towards the Firth of Forth offering panoramic views of the estuary. Characterised by 

large, regular, open, arable landscapes with linear shelterbelts and policy plantings 

and some fine designed landscapes these hills have a strong coastal character and 

mark the transition between coastal and landward areas of the District sharing the 

characteristics of both. 

URBAN TYPES 

Livingston 

Edinburgh 

Today, the city of Edinburgh lies contained between the Firth of Forth to the north and 

the Pentland Hills to the south, whilst it slowly expands into its fertile farmed hinterland 

to the east and west. The long streets, gently rising and falling across the rolling 

ridges, provide extensive views out from the city to distant Fife and the Pentland Hills. 

These fine aspects create a strong sense of openness, reinforced by the many parks 

and gardens woven into the refined and formal fabric of the townscape. Edinburgh’s 

city centre demonstrates this in microcosm, with Arthur’s Seat, the Castle Rock and 

Calton Hill forming prominent focal points, while Princes Street Gardens create a most 

generous and gracious open space. 

Dunfermline 

Visual Receptors 

Zone of Theoretical Visibility 

9.3.55 In order to determine available views and hence assess visual receptors and the visual 

amenity, a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) has been mapped. The ZTV is the theoretical 

area from which part or all of the proposed wind farm would be potentially visible and broadly 

defines the study area for both the character and visual assessment. The proposed ZTV is 

presented in Figures 9.3 to 9.6 and at a larger scale in combination with landscape 

designations within Figure 9.12 sheets 1 to 30. 

9.3.56 The ZTV for the proposal is relatively limited due to the presence of significant upland areas 

in the south and south eastern sections of the study area. The linear ridge of the Pentland 





Hills lies to the south east of the proposal site, extending north east towards Edinburgh. The 

ZTV extends up to the series of peaks on the north western side of the Pentland Hills 

approximately 4 km from the site, whilst the landscape to the south east of the hills lies 

largely outwith the ZTV. Approximately 4 km to the north east of the site, Corston Hill and 

Auchinoon Hill within the Pentlands define the main limit of the ZTV. A narrow corridor of 

lower lying land between these hills and the main Pentland ridge allows fragments of the ZTV 

to extend as far as Edinburgh and Arthur’s Seat. To the north, the ZTV fans out over the 

lower lying settled landscape of shallow river valleys and across the Firth of Forth to the 

landscape around Dunfermline. The Bathgate Hills and the rising land south of Falkirk form 

the limits of the ZTV to the north. To the south west, the ZTV extends as a more fragmented 

area over the gently undulating landscape around Forth and Lanark, terminating at the 

uplands of the Tinto Hills approximately 27 km from the site. There are some small, isolated 

areas of ZTV associated with peaks within the Upper Tweeddale Hills, 20 to 35 km to the 

south. 

9.3.57 A ZTV was produced for the wind turbine blade tips to establish an area of study within the 

35 km radius search area. Potential viewpoints and receptors were identified throughout this 

area and are shown on Figure 9.3. The methods and technical specifications used to 

generate the ZTV are detailed at Appendix 9.2. The ZTV illustrates the topography, which 

may have a potential screening effect of the proposals from many parts of the study area. 

Local Level Study Area 

9.3.58 A local level study area has also been established to identify broadly where all of the visual 

receptors within a radius of approximately 2 km of the site lie. 

Residential Properties 

9.3.59 The photomontages relate to specific viewpoints and they illustrate 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. There are individual properties (outside the villages and towns) that might also 

have potential views. However, as with the other potential receptors, not all have been visited 

and assessed in the field. Within towns or villages, although much of the area may have 

theoretical views based on the ZTV, the reality is that the outer edges of these settlements 

might have potential views, but that views from within the areas would not be available, as 

they would be screened by these ‘outer’ properties. Similarly, residences may be screened 

by vegetation between the receptor and the wind farm. Occupiers of individual properties 

within a 2 km radius from the proposed wind farm may be significantly affected in EIA terms 

depending on a variety of mitigating factors. Properties within a 2 km radius are therefore 

identified on Figure 9.13, which is a bare-ground blade tip ZTV. 

9.3.60 Residential receptors which may be afforded views of the proposed wind farm during 

construction, operation or decommissioning, include locations at the following 21 properties; 

Crosswoodburn and Crosswood are two storey detached properties in woodland at 

Crosswood Reservoir 550 m and 700 m respectively to the south of the site boundary 

(approximately 0.9 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 1 )). A single storey 

property on the driveway to Crosswood Reservoir known as Aberlyn is located approximately 

500 m south of the site boundary (approximately 0.9 km from the nearest proposed turbine 

(Turbine 1)). Mid Crosswood is a two storey house located in woodland approximately 1.3 km 





south of the site boundary (approximately 1.7 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 

1 )). These four properties are located within the Pentland Hills AGLV. 

9.3.61 The Harburn estate lies to the north west of the proposal site and contains a number of 

individual residential properties. Harburn House lies within the centre of the estate and 

comprises a large four storey property within extensive designed parkland and gardens 

approximately 1.1 km north west of the site boundary (approximately 1.5 km from the nearest 

proposed turbine (Turbine 2)). South Lodge and Harburnhead are both single storey 

properties and lie within woodland approximately 750 m north west of the site boundary 

(approximately 1.2 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 2)). Haymains forms a 

courtyard of single and two storey properties within woodland 1 km to the north of the site 

(approximately 1.5 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 2)). Whistle Lodge lies in 

woodland on the eastern side of the estate approximately 1 km to the north of the site 

(approximately 1.8 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 2)). 

9.3.62 A group of three properties known as Parkview cottages, including a pair of two storey semi 

detached houses and a single storey house, lie within woodland approximately 0.9 km to the 

north of the site (approximately 1.7 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 6)). On 

the same lane to the north, lies the two storey farmhouse at Over Williamston, within an 

extensive complex of buildings approximately 2 km north of the site (approximately 1.4 km 

from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 6)). The neighbouring single storey property of 

Over Williamston Cottage lies approximately 1.2 km north from the site (approximately 1.9 

km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 6)). A single storey cottage lies opposite 

Camilty Lodge approximately 950 m north of the site (approximately 1.6 km from the nearest 

proposed turbine (Turbine 6)). Camilty Lodge comprises two detached single storey buildings 

approximately 1 km north of the site (approximately 1.6 km from the nearest proposed turbine 

(Turbine 6)). Camilty Mill Cottage is a single storey property within a garden setting 

approximately 1.3 km north of the site (approximately 1.8 km from the nearest proposed 

turbine (Turbine 6)). High Camilty is a large two storey property within a courtyard complex of 

outbuildings approximately 850 m north east of the site (approximately 1.3 km from the 

nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 6)). 

9.3.63 Two single storey properties which lie to the east of the site on the A70 include Halfway 

House and Brookbank, which are 800 m and 950 m respectively from the site (approximately 

1 km and 1.2 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 5)). 

Public Rights of Way, Access Land and Public Viewpoints 

9.3.64 Forest tracks within the Camilty Plantation are accessible to walkers from lay-bys on the A70. 

A track follows the north east boundary of the site from the A70 travelling north through 

plantations to High Camilty. The majority of this route lies within mature conifer woodland. 

Framed and fragmented views through gaps in vegetation and between groups of conifers 

can be gained towards the site as a frequent series of views. A second footpath lies to the 

south of the local study area. The path follows the access track to Crosswood Reservoir from 

the A70. The path travels south through open landscape near Mid Crosswood and continues 

south over the ridge of the Pentland Hills. The nearest viewpoints would be approximately 

500 m from the site boundary. 

Dynamic Views 

9.3.65 The A70 follows the south eastern boundary of the proposal site and the B7008 follows the 

south western boundary of the site. The sequential effects on occupiers of vehicles using 





these routes are discussed in more detail at para. 9.5.124 to 9.5.136 and illustrated in Figure 

9.20. 

Existing Views from Viewpoints 

9.3.66 Photographs have been taken from all viewpoints, which are representative of views gained 

by visual receptors. Figures 9.3 to 9.6 show the location of the photograph viewpoints, with 

the associated photographs provided at Figure 9.14. 

Viewpoint 1. Harburn House Estate 

9.3.67 This is a near, relatively enclosed view approximately (2.3 km) looking south east from the 

driveway at the northern entrance to the estate. The driveway forms a sweeping curve across 

a broad expanse of grass and through a break in the narrow tree belt, that forms the focus of 

the view. Mature beech trees with an underplanting of rhododendrons and shrubs follow the 

alignment of a series of ponds along a stream that form a naturalistic water feature. A 

secondary belt of mainly coniferous trees lies beyond, partially visible through the deciduous 

planting. The designed landscape provides a picturesque parkland setting for Harburn House 

at the heart of the estate, which is a Designated Park and Garden. The gently undulating 

ridgeline of the Pentland Hills rises just above the tree tops to the left of the view. Camilty 

Plantation in the vicinity of the site is obscured beyond the woodland in this view. 

9.3.68 There are no visible light sources at night within this view. 

Viewpoint 2. A70 North East of Site 

9.3.69 This is a mid-distance open view approximately (2.5 km) looking south west from a location 

beside the A70 near the farmstead at Wester Causewayend. The land slopes down gently in 

the foreground over rough grazing land to a broad expanse of moorland in the middle 

distance. The A70, with safety barriers, signage and fencing is prominent in the foreground to 

the left. Sporadic trees line this transport corridor as the land gently undulates into the 

distance. The landform rises to the left over a grazed pasture field at the base of the Pentland 

Hills. Dark geometric shaped blocks of conifer plantation merge together as a line on the 

horizon. Part of this forestry comprises the Camilty Plantation in the vicinity of the site. 

Overhead power lines are prominent in the foreground of the view and Pates Hill Wind Farm 

is visible in the centre of the view rising above plantations in the middle distance. Colours are 

muted and textures smooth, with contrast provided by conifer plantations. 

9.3.70 Traffic using the A70 would form the most prominent source of light at night. The aviation 

warning lights on turbines at the Pates Hill scheme would be visible in the centre of the view. 

Viewpoint 3. A70 South West of Site 

9.3.71 This is a near open view approximately (1.5 km) looking north east from the verge at the side 

of the A70. The foreground and middle distance comprise a gently undulating landform of 

grazing fields sub-divided by post and wire mesh fencing. The road forms a prominent 

transport corridor that cuts through this landscape, disappearing over a low ridge in the 

middle distance. In the middle distance, the landform becomes more undulating and rises to 

form the base of the ridge of the Pentland Hills. Conifer plantations form a series of 

significant blocks of vegetation, breaking the skyline and defining the otherwise open 

landscape. The Camilty Plantation is prominent in the centre of the view. Overhead power 

lines form strong vertical elements in the foreground and middle distance. The colours in the 





landscape are muted greens and browns with contrasting dark conifers. Textures are 

relatively smooth and uniform. 

9.3.72 Traffic using the A70 would form the only source of light at night. 

Viewpoint 4. Crosswood Reservoir/ Fishery 

9.3.73 This is a near open view approximately (1.5 km) looking north from a footpath near the 

northern edge of Crosswoodburn Reservoir. Moorland and rough grazing land slope down 

gently to the course of the Green Burn, which flows parallel to the A70. The blocks of 

woodland within the Camilty Plantation at the site sit prominently in the centre of the view, 

flanked by small, more dispersed plantations to the left and right. The B7008 is visible cutting 

through the forestry on the proposed site boundary. Where the landform dips slightly to the 

right of Camilty Plantation distant views to a backdrop of hills beyond the Firth of Forth are 

revealed. There is a contrast between colours and textures in this landscape, defined by dark 

forestry and smooth moorland. 

9.3.74 Traffic on the A70 and B7008 would produce the most prominent sources of light in an 

otherwise dark rural landscape. 

Viewpoint 5. Tarbrax 

9.3.75 This is an open, mid-distance view approximately (4.2 km) looking north east from the edge 

of the village. Low lying rough grassland and moorland either side of the Greenfield Burn 

occupies the majority of the foreground. Belts of mixed woodland at Crosswoodhill lie on the 

horizon to the right of the view, revealing a distant glimpse of the peak of West Cairn Hill 

within the Pentland Hills regional Park. To the left of the view the tops of trees within conifer 

plantations at Harburnhead Hill are visible on the horizon. This is a simple, exposed rural 

landscape. 

9.3.76 Lights from traffic using the A70 may be visible through the intervening trees at night in this 

dark rural landscape. 

Viewpoint 6. Woolfords Cottages 

9.3.77 This is an open, mid-distance view approximately (5 km) looking north east from in front of 

the row of cottages which line this road. The foreground comprises rough grassland and 

moorland in a relatively flat landscape. A narrow band of mature pine trees crosses the view, 

following the alignment of the railway, which is located in cutting in this location. A large block 

of coniferous plantation at Pearlie Law lies to the left of the view, obscuring the landscape 

beyond. A gap between these two areas of vegetation allows a narrow view through to a 

glimpse of the Pentland Hills in the distance. 

9.3.78 There would be no significant light sources visible at night in this dark landscape. 

Viewpoint 7. Cobbinshaw Reservoir 

9.3.79 This is an open, mid-distance view approximately (4 km) looking north east across 

Cobbinshaw Reservoir through a gap in the shoreline vegetation. The wide expanse of 

smooth water forms the dominant element of the view stretching from the foreground into the 

mid-distance. The water provides a strong reflective surface for the bold cloud formations. 

The land forms a narrow element of the view between water and sky. Land on the eastern 

shoreline is open grazing fields divided by field boundaries of dense belts of mature trees. 

The dark undulating edge of conifer plantation at Harburnhead Hill stretches across the 





centre and left hand side of the view. The steep domed profiles and tapering ridges of the 

Pentland Hills rise up to the right of the view as a distant focus. Boats and buoys form minor 

elements within the reservoir. 

9.3.80 There are no visible light sources at night within this view. 

Viewpoint 8. West Calder 

9.3.81 This is an intermittent, mid-distance view approximately (4.5 km) looking south east from the 

residential edge of West Calder. Farmland extends up to the boundaries of properties 

providing a rural setting for the village. Rough grazing land occupies the foreground, with an 

intermittent row of mature trees scattered along the post and wire fence boundary. The trees 

frame fragmented views of the rising arable farmland beyond. Over the brow of the hill, the 

land descends to the valley of the Harward Water. Small blocks of deciduous woodland form 

a backdrop in the centre and to the left of the view. Two overhead power lines cross the view 

in the foreground and middle distance. The agricultural view is typical of the lowland farmed 

landscape in the vicinity. 

9.3.82 Traffic using the B7008 would form the only light sources at night. 

Viewpoint 9. Five Sisters 

9.3.83 This is a mid-distance open view approximately (6 km) looking south east from the conical 

landforms which rise steeply from the surrounding relatively flat landscape. The tree lined 

course of Briech Water defines the foreground of the view. Pasture fields contained by 

hedgerows and trees surround the small linear settlement of Burnbrea and the larger town of 

West Calder beyond. Strong features of tree belts and hedgerows define the landscape in the 

middle distance, contrasting with the smooth profiles of the Pentland Hills on the horizon. The 

view comprises a diverse landscape of rural and urban areas with rough textures and 

relatively uniform colours in shades of green. The Pates Hill Wind Farm is visible on the 

horizon to the right of the view. 

9.3.84 The majority of light sources visible at night would be street lights located in West Calder. 

Traffic using the road network and scattered properties in the middle distance would also be 

visible. 

Viewpoint 10. Corston Hill 

9.3.85 This is an open, mid-distance view approximately (5 km) looking south west from the trig 

point at the summit of the hill. The low rounded profiles of Corston and Auchnoon Hills create 

overlapping landforms in the foreground. The expanse of grassland allows extensive views 

over the contrasting landscapes of the Pentland Hills and settled lowlands. Corston and 

Auchnoon Hills form a small part of the Pentland Hills regional Park designation, which 

crosses to the north of the A70. The overhead power line is prominent in the foreground in 

the valley of Morton Brook between the two hills. A landscape dominated by numerous 

geometric blocks of coniferous plantations extends into the distance over the gently 

undulating lowlands. The smooth profile of the steeply undulating ridge of the Pentland Hills 

rises up to the left of the view. The cluster of turbines at Pates Hills Wind Farm are visible 

breaking the horizon to the right of the view, with Blacklaw beyond. 

9.3.86 Street lights and properties within settlements and traffic using roads would form visible light 

sources at night. Aviation warning lights on turbines at Pates Hill Wind Farm would be visible 

in the distance. 





Viewpoint 11. Harperrig Reservoir 

9.3.87 This is an open mid-distance view approximately (5 km) looking west from the Old Drove 

Road right of way beside Harperrig Reservoir. Grazing land divided by post and rail fences 

and stone walls surrounds the reservoir and extends throughout the foreground. Properties at 

Harperrig and Baad Park nestle within clumps of deciduous and coniferous trees on the 

shores of the water body. Together with blocks of coniferous woodland, these features 

combine to form an attractive scene within the Pentland Hills Regional Park. Larger scale 

forests of commercial conifers are visible beyond, forming dark bands within the landscape, 

out of which rise the turbines of Pates Hill Wind Farm. 

9.3.88 Lighting at properties on the edge of the reservoir would form the most prominent features at 

night. Aviation warning lights on turbines at Pates Hill Wind Farm would be visible in the 

distance. 

Viewpoint 12. West Cairn Hill – Pentland Hills 

9.3.89 This is an open, mid-distance, elevated view approximately (4.5 km) looking west from the 

peak within the Pentland Hills on the Cauldstone Slap footpath. The moorland and grassland 

habitat of this upland location falls away steeply in the foreground, continuing across the 

undulating base of the hills to the A70. The smooth profiles and open nature of the hills 

combined with the muted colours and gradual transitions in tone of the vegetation create a 

unified landscape. By contrast the dark, geometric blocks and strips of commercial forestry 

plantation form a mosaic of shapes which extend from the West Cairns Plantation to the site 

a Camilty and beyond to Harburnhead Hill, Pearie Law and Woodmuir Plantation. These 

plantations form the dominant land use in the middle distance. The cluster of properties and 

belts of vegetation at Colzium are prominent in the foreground at the base of West Cairn Hill. 

The large silvery water bodies at Crosswood Reservoir and Cobbinshaw Reservoir are also 

prominent land marks, contrasting with the surrounding dark masses of conifer plantations. In 

the distance to the left of the view, the landscape is predominantly rural, comprising grazing 

land within a network of minor roads linking small settlements and blocks of forestry. In the 

distance to the right and in the centre of the view the landscape is more heavily subdivided 

by small woodland blocks and field systems with a more extensive network of roads, villages 

and the fringes of the more extensive settlement of Livingston. In the far distance, the 

outlines of peaks within the Ochil Hills, and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 

are visible in very clear conditions. Wind farms at Muirhall, Pates Hill and Black Law form 

recognisable features in the middle distance. 

9.3.90 Extensive lighting associated with the many settlements and roads within the valley 

landscape of the middle distance would form the most prominent sources of nighttime lighting 

within the view. Red warning lights on the turbines at Pates Hill and Black Law Wind Farms 

would also be visible at night. 

Viewpoint 13. Craigengar 

9.3.91 This is a mid-distance open view approximately (5 km) looking north west from the 

Craigengar peak on the ridge of the Pentland Hills. The smooth textures and uniform colours 

of the exposed moorland covers the steeply sloping hillside as it descends to the valley 

below. Dark blocks and strips of conifer plantation are located near the edge of the Regional 

Park and signal a change in land use and landscape character. Post and wire fences in the 

foreground are a reminder that this is a managed landscape. A complex mosaic of forestry 

plantation, mature field boundaries, farmlands and settlements stretch into the distance 





towards the Firth of Forth. The pale slivers of open water at Crosswood and Cobbinshaw 

reservoirs provide further contrast in the landscape, whilst the strong vertical forms of 

turbines at Pates Hill Wind Farm are visible to the left of the view. 

9.3.92 Street lights and light sources at properties within settlements within the valley landscape 

would form the most prominent sources of night time lighting within the middle distance of the 

view. Red aviation warning lights at Pates Hill and Black Law Wind Farms would also be 

visible at night. 

Viewpoint 14. Addiewell 

9.3.93 This is a mid-distance open view approximately (6.5 km) looking south east from the A71 

south of the village of Addiewell. A gently undulating agricultural landscape of grazing 

pasture subdivided by sporadic unmanaged hedgerows occupies the foreground and middle 

distance. Farmsteads and large farm buildings are scattered throughout this landscape and 

overhead power lines are prominent vertical elements to the left of the view and on the 

horizon. The higher peaks of the Pentland Hills at East and West Cairn hills provide a 

distinctive backdrop to the view. Colours and textures contrast between the smooth pale 

expanses of the grassland and the dark, textured bands of vegetation. 

9.3.94 There are no significant sources of light that would be visible at night in this dark rural 

landscape. 

Viewpoint 15. Howden House - Livingston 

9.3.95 This is an open, distant view approximately (8 km) looking south west from parkland within 

Livingston. The public open space forms a high point within the settlement, allowing views 

out over the urban area to the landscape beyond. Groups of mature deciduous trees within 

mown lawns provide an attractive foreground to the view. A mix of commercial and residential 

development extends from the edge of the park into the middle distance. Large scale, 

colourful buildings form a complex urban grain. Tree tops within the surrounding farmland 

beyond provide a visual barrier between the urban and rural districts. The southern end of the 

Pentland Hills are visible to the left of the view, partially obscured by a rolling landscape in 

the mid-distance. Conifer plantations in the vicinity of the site are visible as a narrow strip of 

dark vegetation on the skyline. 

9.3.96 There are numerous sources of light associated with the extensive urban area of Livingston 

in the view. Wind farms at Pates Hill and Muirpark would be visible as distant clusters of red 

lights. 

Viewpoint 16. Knock Viewing Point – Bathgate Hills 

9.3.97 This is a distant open view approximately (13 km) looking south east from the Knock viewing 

point north of Bathgate. Rough grazing land slopes down to the broad open valley below. 

Mature conifer woodland forms a block to the right of the view. The large scale Tesco depot 

forms a prominent white development in the centre of the view on the edge of Livingston. 

Arable farmland with a strong hedgerow and tree belt structure defines the middle distance to 

the left of the view. The mosaic of farmland, tree belts and settlements continues into the 

distance, where large scale forestry becomes the dominant land use, visible as dark blocks of 

woodland at the base of the Pentland Hills. The steeply undulating ridge of peaks and 

smooth sinuous moorland cover provides a contrast and a defining change in the landscape. 

The Pates Hill Wind Farm is visible on the horizon to the right of the view with the peaks of 





the Tinto Hills in the distance. The predominantly green and muted colours of the rural 

landscape are in stark contrast to the bright white and crisp architecture of the urban fringe. 

9.3.98 Lighting at the Tesco site would highlight the white building and distribution yard in the 

landscape. Light sources at Livingston beyond and traffic on the road network would also be 

visible. 

Viewpoint 17. Black Hill – Pentland Hills 

9.3.99 This is an open, distant view approximately (13 km) from an elevated location looking west 

from a peak within the Pentland Hills Regional Park. The smooth profiles of the moorland 

covered chain of peaks which form the spine of the Pentland Hills are visible extending to the 

south west on the left hand side of the view. The peaks at West Cairn Hill and East Cairn Hill 

form prominent landmarks as the highest points within this range. Colours are soft and muted 

in a subtle, but intricate mosaic. The topography levels out to the right of the view across the 

various river valleys, which cross the landscape. The rounded forms of Auchinoon Hill and 

Corston Hill are also visible in the middle distance. The landscape in front of these landmarks 

is defined by a geometric network of mixed woodland belts dividing up pasture fields. This 

farmland forms a strong contrast with the simple open landscape of the Pentland Hills. The 

open water at Harperrig Reservoir is visible in the centre of the view. The landscape beyond 

is defined by large scale blocks of conifer plantation in which the site is located. The Pates 

Hill Wind Farm is visible in the distance against the dark backdrop of forestry. 

9.3.100 Street lighting within the extensive range of settlements within the broad valley landscape 

would be visible in the distance. Lighting on turbines at the Pates Hill Wind Farm would be 

recognisable in the distance. 

Viewpoint 18. Thriepmuir Reservoir 

9.3.101 This is a distant open near view approximately (14 km) looking west from a footpath in the 

fringes of the Pentland Hills Regional Park. The foreground of mixed pasture and arable 

fields divided by stone walls extends up to a belt of mixed woodland in front of the reservoir. 

The distinctive profiles of East Cairn Hill and West Cairn Hill frame the view to the left. The 

topography slopes down to the right where Auchinoon Hill and Corston Hill form two further 

recognisable landmarks on the horizon. The proposal site is obscured beyond intervening 

topography and vegetation. 

9.3.102 There are unlikely to be any visible light sources at night in this view. 

Viewpoint 19. Allermuir Hill – Pentland Hills 

9.3.103 This is an open, distant view approximately (18 km) from an elevated location within the 

Pentland Hills looking south west. The series of peaks within the Regional Park form parallel 

ranges of hills extending into the distance to the south west. The upland landscape is open, 

exposed and smooth in texture. Colours are soft and muted and highlight the key 

characteristics of the park. In the distance to the right of the view, the contrasting lowland 

landscape of river valleys and farmland extend into the distance towards the Firth of Forth. 

The intricate pattern of woodland belts and blocks, roads, settlements and fields define this 

landscape. Conifer plantations at the Camilty site and in the immediate vicinity are barely 

perceptible in the distance. 

9.3.104 Street lighting within the many settlements of the broad valley landscape would be visible in 

the distance. 





Viewpoint 20. Forth 

9.3.105 This is a distant open view approximately (11.5 km) looking north east from open space at 

the Forth Sports and Community Centre on the edge of the village. Formal lawns and 

naturalistic meadows slope down to a timber fence on the boundary of the space. A belt of 

mixed deciduous and coniferous woodland frames the view to the left. Rough grassland and 

a belt of mature trees on the edge of the village of Rootpark lie beyond in the middle 

distance. Undulating moorland and conifer plantations extend into the distance where the 

Pentland Hills rise up as a distinctive ridge on the skyline. The vertical profiles of turbines at 

Muirhall Wind Farm are visible to the right of the view. Textures vary throughout the view 

from rough to smooth, whilst colours are muted in a range of green to brown. 

9.3.106 Limited lights within properties at Rootpark would form the only night time sources of light in a 

rural landscape. 

Viewpoint 21. Fauldhouse 

9.3.107 This is a distant open view approximately (11 km) looking east from the edge of the town of 

Fauldhouse. Derelict land occupies the foreground, contrasting with the prominent rounded 

forms of the mature tree canopies, which cross the view. The landform rises to the right of the 

view towards the moorland of Millers Moss and forestry clad hills of Woodmuir Plantation. 

The brighter green and geometric dark shapes contrast with the landscape in the remaining 

view. The turbines of the Black Law Wind Farm are visible on the horizon above this ridge. In 

the centre of the view the range of hills within the Pentland Regional Park form a distant 

focus. 

9.3.108 There are unlikely to be any visible light sources at night in this view. 

Viewpoint 22. A706 Longridge 

9.3.109 This is a distant open view approximately (10.5 km) looking east from the southern edge of 

the settlement beside the A706. The broad river valley plain of a relatively flat farmed 

landscape contrasts with the undulating ridge of the Pentland Hills in the distance. Rough 

grassland divided by unmanaged hedgerows occupies the foreground, giving way to more 

extensive woodland belts and forestry in the mid-distance and particularly to the right of the 

view. The wind farm at Pates Hill rises up from this conifer plantation, visible against the 

skyline to the right. The linear and geometric shapes of this landscape change rapidly to the 

steep ridges and peaks of smooth moorland within the Pentland Hills, forming an attractive 

focal point beyond. Housing, agricultural infrastructure and power lines are scattered 

throughout the lowland landscape. The site within the Camilty Plantation is visible at the base 

of the hills. 

9.3.110 Lighting within settlements would be visible at night in the context of a relatively dark rural 

landscape. The lights on turbines at Pates Hill Wind Farm would be distinctive on the skyline 

to the right of the view. 

Viewpoint 23. Arthur’s Seat - Edinburgh 

9.3.111 This is an open, distant view approximately (25 km) looking south west from the popular peak 

within the heart of Edinburgh. The rocky summit allows panoramic views over the cityscape 

that spreads out below. The dense urban areas and green spaces provide a diverse pattern 

and texture that dominates the view. Beyond the fringes of the city, the landscape rapidly 

changes to woodland, farmland and golf courses around the base of the Pentland Hills. The 





land continues to rise to form the characteristic range of peaks within the Regional Park to 

the left of the view. To the right of the view the lowland river valley landscape of farmland, 

small settlements and field pattern provide a more complex range of textures and colours. 

Within the centre of the view, the conifer plantations of the site are not clearly visible beyond 

the intervening undulating landform. 

9.3.112 Street lights, properties and traffic within Edinburgh would form an extensive and well lit 

expanse of streetscape visible from this elevated location. 

Viewpoint 24. Pykestone Hill – Upper Tweeddale 

9.3.113 This is a distant open view approximately (30 km) looking north from the peak of Pykstone 

Hill within the Upper Tweeddale NSA. The rounded crest of smooth grassland moorland in 

the foreground slopes down to reveal a series of steep sided ridges. The distinctive ridge of 

the Pentland Hills lies beyond, stretching from the centre to the right of the view. The low 

cloud base almost obscures the peaks. To the left of the view an extensive tract of moorland 

punctuated by small blocks of conifer plantation forms the dominant characteristic. Distant 

views to the Firth of Forth merge into the atmospheric haze. Textures in this upland 

landscape are smooth, with muted colours and a subtle mosaic of forms. 

9.3.114 There are unlikely to be any significant light sources that are visible at night in this view. 

Viewpoint 25. Tinto Hills 

9.3.115 This is a distant open view approximately (26.5 km) looking north east from the peak within 

the Tinto Hills SLA. The smooth moorland and grassland of the hills slope down steeply to 

the gently undulating plain below. The patchwork of mixed arable and pasture fields divided 

by hedgerows and walls, and interspersed with dark blocks of coniferous and deciduous 

woodland create a diverse landscape, which extends into the distance. Roads, settlements, 

farmsteads and rivers provide diversity in this view and add to the fine grain and texture of 

the landscape. The Pentland Hills rise up to the right of the view as a series of linked peaks. 

Wind farms at Black Law to the left and Pates Hill and Muirpark in the centre of the view are 

clearly visible in the very clear conditions. The repeated patterns of green and brown fields 

with dark woodland create a diverse, but uniform landscape. 

9.3.116 Street lighting within the extensive range of settlements and traffic on roads within the broad 

valley landscape would be visible in the distance. Lighting on turbines at Black Law, Pates 

Hill and Muirpark Wind Farms would be recognisable in the distance. 

Viewpoint 26. B8084 South of Armadale 

9.3.117 This is a mid-distance open view approximately (13 km) looking south east across a rolling 

landscape of open farmland. Rough grazing land is visually contained to the left and right of 

the view by mature tree belts and clusters of trees around properties. In the centre of the 

view, a gap in the vegetation allows framed views over the landscape to the Pentland Hills 

beyond. The intervening landscape of farmland and commercial forestry provides a contrast 

in colour and texture with the relatively simple foreground and the distant smooth hills. The 

distinctive undulating ridge of the Pentlands provides a familiar backdrop to the centre and 

left of the view. To the right glimpses over the more open plains and Pates Hill Wind Farm 

can be gained above the tree tops. Rooftops of small settlements are visible nestled in the 

trees of the plains. 





9.3.118 Lights at rural properties would potentially be visible through gaps in trees in the foreground. 

Lights within settlements and on the turbines at Pates Hill would also be visible at night in a 

largely dark rural landscape. 

Sequential Views 

9.3.119 Four routes were identified to undergo assessment for potential sequential effects through 

consultation with SNH and WLC during a meeting on 17 th July 2012. See Figure 9.20. 

Windygreen to Camilty Plantation Travelling North on the A70 

9.3.120 The ZTV coincides with approximately 10 km of a 14 km long section of this route and 

indicates views of the proposed wind farm may be possible. 

9.3.121 The A70 crosses Scotland from Ayr to Edinburgh and would enter the ZTV approximately 11 

km to the south of the site. The landscape is steeply undulating and predominantly 

agricultural. Mature conifer plantations line the right hand side of the road as a dense swathe 

of vegetation for many kilometres, obscuring all views. Open grassland subdivided by small 

blocks of conifers lies to the left of the road. The woodland is sufficiently dispersed to allow 

far reaching views over the landscape towards the site. This type of landscape and view 

continues sporadically for the next 7 km. At this point the views open up to the right of the 

road as well, where plantations diminish and grazing land predominates. Post and wire 

fencing and some low stone walls beside the road allow open views across the landscape. 

The tops of the Pentland Hills begin to appear above the foreground undulations in the fields. 

Wind farms at Muirhall, relatively close to the road and Pates Hill in the middle distance are 

also visible in the open landscape. These views continue for approximately 1 km until the 

landform dips and views are concealed for approximately 2 km. 

9.3.122 As the road rises near the junction for Tarbrax, the landscape opens up once again allowing 

far reaching views over grazing land and blocks of deciduous woodland. Views are generally 

directed to the left as the rising landform on the right conceals distant views. Where the 

woodland boarders the road the view is contained and channelled along the road corridor. 

For a distance of approximately 2 km, the view is repeatedly concealed and then revealed 

due to the changing locations of roadside vegetation. 

9.3.123 Within approximately 2 km of the site, the landscape becomes more open again. Grazing 

land continues to dominate with roadside stone walls and wire fencing. Large blocks of 

mainly coniferous woodland obscure distant views on the right. At the junction with the B7008 

at the southern end of the site, a belt of deciduous planting within Camilty Plantation provides 

an attractive foreground to views. Grazing land and conifer plantations at the base of the 

Pentland Hills define the view to the right. As the road follows the southern boundary of the 

site, fragmented views through boundary vegetation across blocks of varying ages of 

commercial forestry extend over a relatively flat landscape to the horizon. To the right of the 

road dense blocks of conifers obscure views beyond the road corridor. Views straight ahead 

along the road focus on Corston Hill in the distance. This route is represented by the adjacent 

location at viewpoint 3, described at paragraphs 9.5.24 and 9.5.75 to 76 below. 

Auchinoon to Camilty Plantation Travelling South on the A70 

9.3.124 The ZTV coincides with a 6 km long section of this route and indicates views of the proposed 

wind farm may be possible. 





9.3.125 As the road travels south west around the base of Auchinoon Hill the smooth profiles of 

grazing land and moorland open up to reveal distant views over the broad expanse of 

Harperrig Reservoir at the base of the Pentland Hills which rise as a series of peaks beyond. 

Small blocks of deciduous and coniferous woodland lie in the middle distance, partially 

obscuring views towards the site and the turbines at the Pates Hill Wind Farm. The rising 

land of Auchinoon Hill obscures views to the right. The Pentland Hills form the focus for views 

throughout this section of the road. As the road bends sharply to the left at Causewood 

mature woodland belts obscure views towards the site. Low stone walls and grazing land to 

the left of the view allow the distant peaks of the Pentland Hills to remain the focus of the 

view. The road turns sharply to the right at Wester Causewayend passing through further 

deciduous tree belts and trees within the agricultural landscape. Views towards the site are 

obscured. As the road continues approximately 1 km to the south, the view opens up as 

vegetation in the landscape decreases. Distant views towards the site within a landscape of 

grazing land and large expanses of coniferous plantation define the scene. The Pates Hill 

Wind Farm is visible emerging from forestry to the right of the view. The peaks within the 

Pentland Hills are largely obscured by the roiling foothills within the regional park. This open 

scenery continues either side of the road, visible beyond low stone walls, to within 

approximately 0.5 km of the site. At this point conifer plantations increase either side of the 

road limiting views out across the landscape. As the road passes by the southern edge of the 

site views to the left and the Pentland Hills are screened by mature stands of commercial 

conifers. Views over the site comprise blocks of conifers of different ages within the Camilty 

Plantation. The geometric shapes are visible through a narrow roadside belt of deciduous 

woodland. The tops of turbines at Pates Hill are visible above the tree tops to the right of the 

view. This route is represented by the adjacent location at viewpoint 2, described at 

paragraphs 9.5.34 and 9.5.73 to 74 below. 

The B7008 Travelling South from West Calder to the A70 

9.3.126 The ZTV indicates that approximately 6 km of this road would provide a potential location for 

views of the proposals. However, roadside trees and woodland obscure many views. From 

the edge of West Calder, views from the road are filtered through mature field boundary trees 

in pasture towards a back drop of a wooded low ridge. Over head power lines cross the view 

on the skyline. Travelling south the road enters the wooded Harwood Water valley, curtailing 

distant views towards the site. Between the river and the northern edge of Harburn, the 

landscape is traditional pastoral agricultural and attractive in nature. Views are restricted to 

occasional glimpses between blocks of woodland and roadside trees and hedgerows to the 

Pentland Hills in the distance. West of Harburn the road follows the perimeter of the Harburn 

House estate for a distance of approximately 2 km. Mature trees and belts of woodland and 

conifer plantation line the sides of the roads in many locations preventing significant views 

out. In areas where pasture boarders the road some distant views across woodland towards 

the site can be gained. As the road approaches the site boundary, the conifer plantation at 

Camilty is set back from the road around the Roman Fortlet site. The grassland allows open 

views over forestry to the tops of the Pentland Hills in the distance. Adjacent to the site 

boundary the road is either completely contained by mature plantation or set within large 

areas of recently planted trees which provide contrasting types of views for occupiers of 

vehicles. 





The B7008 Travelling North from the A70 to the Roman Fortlet 

9.3.127 A 1.3 km length of road lies within the ZTV. The road crosses a gently undulating landscape 

contained by varying levels and ages of conifer plantation at Camilty to the right and 

Harburnhead Hill to the left. At the junction with the A70, the Camilty site is fringed by a 

narrow band of deciduous tree planting, framing views of the recently planted plantation 

beyond. As the road continues north the open land in which the Roman Fortlet is located 

boarders the road and opens up views across the northern part of the site. 

The Lockerbie to Livingston Railway Travelling North from Auchengray to Harburn 

9.3.128 The ZTV indicates that approximately 8 km of this railway line would provide a potential 

location for views of the proposals. The railway line crosses most of this very gently 

undulating landscape in a series of shallow cuttings. Large scale pasture fields with field 

boundary trees, tree belts and blocks of deciduous woodland line both sides of the railway. 

Where the railway is at grade or on embankment lengthy views can be gained over the 

landscape towards the site. These limited locations occur north of the road bridge at 

Auchengray, south of Woolfords cottages, Cobbinshaw Reservoir and south west of Harburn. 

The total length of line from which views towards the site can be gained is approximately 1.25 

km. This route is represented by adjacent locations at viewpoints 1, 6 and 7, described at 

paragraphs 9.5.23, 9.5.71 and 72, 9.5.81 and 82 and 9.5.83 and 84 below. 

The Lockerbie to Livingston Railway Travelling South West from Livingston to Harburn 

9.3.129 The ZTV indicates that approximately 6 km of this railway line would provide a potential 

location for views of the proposals. The railway line follows the course of the Linhouse Water 

in a relatively flat landscape. The line alternates between cuttings, embankments and at 

grade throughout this section providing a series of changing views within the landscape. On 

the edge of Livingston where the line drops down to the Linhouse Water views out to the 

south across open farmland rise up over forestry land near the site to a distant backdrop of 

the Pentland Hills. In the base of the river valley views south along the course of the river are 

largely screened in this riparian landscape. West of Linhouse and north east of Harburn 

where the railway lies on embankment distant views over grazed farmland and distant conifer 

plantations towards a back drop of the Pentland Hills can be gained. Overhead power lines 

cross the railway twice within this landscape forming distinct features within the journey. The 

total length of line from which views towards the site can be gained is approximately 1 km. 

This route is represented by the adjacent location at viewpoint 1, described at paragraphs 

9.5.23 and 9.5.71 and 72 below. 

The Cauldstane Slap/Old Drove Road/Thieves Road Heritage Footpath 

9.3.130 This footpath links the A70 north of Harperrig Reservoir, south towards the village of West 

Linton, crossing the ridge of the Pentland Hills. Approximately 2.5 km of this 13 km route lies 

within the ZTV. Walking either north or south on this route, receptors can gain oblique views 

to the west towards the landscape in the vicinity of Camilty Plantation. Near the highest point 

of the path as it passes through the Cauldstane Slap pass between East and West Cairn 

Hills, open elevated views north west can be gained over moorland to forestry and farmland 

beyond and the settled valley in the distance. As the path descends to the base of the 

Pentland Hills views are obscured by intervening landform, only partially opening up east of 

Harperrig Reservoir where views of Camilty Plantation can be gained beyond the expanse of 

water. This route is represented by the adjacent location at viewpoint 11, described at 

paragraphs 9.5.91 and 92 below. 






Overview of Design Development 

9.4.1 The site selection process and general site design considerations which defined the evolution 

of the proposed wind farm can be found within Chapter 3: Design Evolution. The following 

section concentrates on the specific landscape and visual resource issues, which helped to 

establish the 6 turbine scheme assessed within this ES. The scheme layout has evolved over 

three main iterations: 

• Initial Design – a 14 turbine layout including the forestry block to the west of the 

B7008; 

• Intermediate Design – an 8 turbine layout; 

• Final Design – a 6 turbine layout. 

Initial Design 

9.4.2 An initial site identification and selection process investigating FCS land resulted in the 

further consideration of the site at Camilty Plantation. The initial site boundary extended, for 

design testing purposes only, south east of the A70 into the Pentland Hills AGLV and 

partially into the Regional Park area. It also extended south west of the B7008. A maximum 

of 21 turbines provided a theoretical starting point for this initial area and subsequently 

reduced to 14 turbine ‘Initial Design’ when the seven turbines on land within the Pentland 

Hills were removed to avoid direct effects on the AGLV designation. Environmental 

constraints mapping was undertaken to define a ‘Developable Area’ at Camilty Plantation. 

9.4.3 As part of the Initial Design stage, some preliminary input to define key landscape and visual 

considerations was undertaken to inform the potential layout for a 14 turbine scheme. 

Intermediate Design 

9.4.4 Key environmental constraints that were considered at this stage of the process included 

potential significant effects on the Roman Fortlet SAM, effects on noise receptors and effects 

on deep peat. Following consideration of these issues the developable area was refined and 

the number of potential turbines reduced to 8. Through consultation, which included SNH, 

and a design workshop key landscape and visual considerations emerged which included: 

• The need to reflect the established pattern of wind farms within the study area, 

particularly West Lothian; 

• The need to respect the scale of other consented schemes in the vicinity of the 

proposal site, providing sufficient separation between wind farms and avoiding visual 

stacking of turbines; 

• The need to avoid significant effects on the landscape character of the Pentland Hills 

AGLV/Regional Park and views out from the hills. 

9.4.5 Key viewpoint locations were identified following the preparation of a blade tip ZTV: 

• The A70 north east and south west of the site. The scheme has been designed to limit 

adverse effects on occupiers of vehicles travelling past the site; 





• Harburn (north west of site) In the vicinity of residential properties at the closest 

settlement. The scheme has been designed to limit adverse effects on sensitive 

receptors in this location; 

• Harburn House (north west of the site). Harburn estate forms the closest receptor to 

the proposed wind farm. The scheme has been designed to limit adverse effects on 

residents of and visitors to the House and the character of the listed historic Park and 

Garden; 

• West Cairn Hill (south east of site). This is the highest peak in the vicinity of the site. 

The elevated location allows unhindered views of the landscape context, including 

Pates Hill, Muirhall and Blacklaw wind farms and has enabled the design to be 

adapted to respond to the context and limit effects on the AGLV/Regional Park; 

• Corston Hill (north east of site). A local high point in the Pentland Hills AGLV which 

forms the edge of the ZTV; 

• Harperrig Reservoir (north east of site), walkers accessing the Pentland Hills near a 

local landmark. The scheme has been designed to limit adverse effects on sensitive 

receptors in this location. 

9.4.6 The viewpoint locations are in relatively close proximity to the site or in elevated locations 

and allow open views of the turbine layout to be analysed. Viewpoints at West Cairn Hill, 

Corston Hill and Harperrig Reservoir are located in the Pentland Hills AGLV and are 

important locations to determine effects on visual receptors within this designated landscape. 

The turbines have been located to be as discrete as possible in the landscape. 

Final Design 

9.4.7 A series of layouts using the eight intermediate design turbines were examined through an 

iterative design process as part of a design workshop. The design criteria used to inform the 

process were as follows: 

• A simple and compact form which has a unified appearance. Turbines have been 

designed to have a similar spacing within the wind farm, to avoid a random 

appearance; 

• Avoidance of outlier turbines and visual stacking. The organised composition of the 

wind farm prevents single turbines appearing as separated from the main cluster. 

Straight lines have been avoided to prevent views of several turbines on the same 

axis, which is often discordant in the landscape; 

• Relationship of the wind farm to the character, scale, pattern and composition of the 

landscape. The scale of the wind farm and its shape have been designed to relate 

well to the scale and shape of the forestry plantation; 

• Potential conflicts with a sense of remoteness; 

• Relationship with existing wind farm turbine size, scale and layout. Turbine size would 

be consistent with nearby schemes at Pates Hill and Muirhall and the wind farm scale 

would be similar to these schemes. The visual separation between the three schemes 

would be maintained. 

9.4.8 The two potential turbines to the south west of the B7008 were removed at this stage to avoid 

a disjointed layout when viewed from the south east in the Pentland Hills and from the north 





west. This concentrated on the most desirable developable area, which would support a 

balanced layout of six turbines and would avoid likely significant effects on key landscape 

and visual receptors. The final, six-turbine scheme was fixed and assessed. The layout of the 

wind farm is cohesive and the size and scale is compact in the landscape, particularly when 

viewed together with existing wind farms at Pates Hill and Muirhall. 

9.4.9 In addition to the turbine layout, the location of wind farm infrastructure has also been 

considered in the design process. The felling of trees to accommodate the turbines, access 

tracks and borrow pits have been incorporated into the Forest Design Plan prepared by FCS. 

The integration of the wind farm in a landscape of commercial forestry and the potential for 

enhancement of the conifer plantations through diversification of species and structure would 

form part of the ongoing, long term management of the forestry. 

9.5 Potential Effects of the Scheme 

Construction 

Activities Associated with the Construction Phase 

9.5.1 The construction phase of the proposed wind farm is likely to take approximately 6 months. 

The following construction phase activities have been considered as part of the assessment: 

• Felling of trees within Forestry Commission land to accommodate wind farm 

infrastructure; 

• Preparation of the temporary construction compound and erection of temporary site 

portable buildings; 

• Upgrading of existing site entrance and access tracks and construction of new access 

tracks between the wind turbines, control building and construction compound; 

• Construction of crane hard standing areas; 

• Excavation of wind turbine foundations and construction of wind turbine bases; 

• Excavation of cable trenches and laying of power and instrumentation cables; 

• Construction of control building and installation of electrical equipment; 

• Erection and commission of wind turbines; 

• Reinstatement works to access tracks, crane hard standings and temporary 

construction compound; and 

• Re-grading of levels to accommodate wind turbine foundations. 

Effects on Landscape Resources During the Construction of the Wind Farm 

Methodology 

9.5.2 The assessment of construction effects is based on the methodology detailed in Section 2 of 

this chapter. In summary, the value of the landscape resource (based on designations) and 

its sensitivity to the proposed construction operations is considered in relation to the 

magnitude of the proposed change to the landscape resource’s fabric and character. The 

importance of the change to the landscape resource can then be assessed. The construction 

phase of the wind farm is considered to be temporary in nature. The matrix at Table 9.8 is 

used to establish a preliminary level of effect based on sensitivity and magnitude. The effects 





are then generally downgraded to reflect their temporary nature and to provide a comparison 

with the permanent operational effects of the development. The effects on the individual 

character areas are set out in detail at Appendix 9.5. 

Landscape Character: Direct Effects 

9.5.3 The proposed wind farm would be located within the ‘North West Pentland Fringe’ character 

area. The creation of the construction site and activities that would take place within it would 

result in direct short-term effects on the character of the landscape. Felling operations 

associated with the clearance of conifer plantation to accommodate the turbines, crane pads, 

access tracks and met mast would involve the removal of a typical feature of the landscape 

character area. These works would be typical practices within a commercially managed 

forest. The high-level turbine erection activities and the presence of cranes would be 

discordant within the landscape. Although conspicuous within the landscape of the character 

area within the vicinity of the Camilty Plantation, the construction activities would be 

temporary. The sensitivity of the landscape during this period would be medium and the 

magnitude of change also medium, resulting in a Slight effect during the day, which is not 

significant for the purpose of EIA. 

9.5.4 There would be no significant lighting requirements at the site during the construction phase. 

The night-time effects would be negligible in magnitude and thus not significant. This 

assessment also holds true for all other character types; and so is not assessed further 

below. 

Landscape Character: Indirect Effects 

9.5.5 The ‘Upland Hills/Old Red Sandstone Hills/Dissected Moorland Plateau’ character areas 

collectively form the Pentland Hills, which lie immediately to the south east of the character 

area in which the site is located. This upland landscape provides an important context to the 

proposal. The construction site and activities would form a prominent feature in the context of 

these landscape character areas, which would have an influence over the attractive 

landscape character. Turbine erection, cranes, ground level infrastructure construction, site 

traffic and tree felling operations would combine to form a prominent and discordant addition 

to the landscape in the short term, in close proximity to the edge of the character areas. The 

sensitivity of the ‘Upland Hills/Old Red Sandstone Hills’ landscape areas would be high and 

the magnitude of change medium, resulting in a ‘Moderate’, non-significant effect. The 

sensitivity of the Dissected Moorland Plateau character area is also high, although its location 

predominantly on the opposite site of the ridge to the proposals site would result in a 

magnitude of change of small and a Slight effect, which is not significant. 

9.5.6 The ‘West Lothian Plateau’, ‘Slamannan Plateau’, ‘Plateau Moorland Forestry/Wind 

Farm/Open Cast Mining’ and ‘Plateau Farmland’ and ‘Lowland Plains Lower Almond 

Farmlands’ character areas lie adjacent to the northern edge of the ‘North West Pentland 

Fringe’ or nearby to the north west. These settled and farmed landscapes form a series of 

broad character areas that link Glasgow and Edinburgh. The construction activities would be 

theoretically visible from relatively large areas of these landscapes, however, the presence of 

significant vegetation within these landscapes and intervening areas in views would limit 

available views. The sensitivity of these ‘Lowland Plateau and Plains’ landscapes would 

generally be low and the magnitude of change would be small, leading to a Slight effect, 

which is not significant. 





9.5.7 The ‘Bathgate Hills’ character area, which is designated as an AGLV and lies approximately 

10 km to the north west, provides an elevated location for views out to the south east and the 

Pentland Hills. The high level construction activities would be visible in the context of this 

rural character area with a backdrop of the Pentland ridge. The sensitivity of this character 

area would be high and the magnitude of change would be small. The effect on the character 

of the Bathgate Hills would be Slight, which is not significant. 

9.5.8 The ‘Tinto Hills Prominent Isolated Hills’ character area forms an area of relatively wild and 

remote uplands within an AGLV and candidate SLA approximately 25 km to the south west of 

the site. The landscape of plateau and plains on the fringes of the Pentland Hills forms a wide 

panorama visible from the peaks of the hills. The construction activities would form a very 

minor element in the context of the hills. The sensitivity of this landscape would be high and 

the magnitude of change due to the influence of the proposals over the landscape would be 

small, resulting in a Slight effect, which is not significant. 

9.5.9 The ‘Livingston Urban’ character area lies approximately 6 km to the north of the site. The 

high level construction activities and cranes would be a minor temporary addition in the 

context of this large settlement. The sensitivity of the area is negligible and the magnitude of 

change would be small. The urban context of the character area during the day would not be 

significantly affected by the Negligible effects. 

9.5.10 The remaining 15 character areas lie within the study area at a distance of between 10 km 

and 35 km from the proposed wind farm. These character areas would be either located at 

distance from the construction site or would coincide with relatively little of the ZTV, limiting 

the intervisibility between the character areas and the construction activities. The areas 

include Uplands and Fringes, Lowland Hills, River Valleys, Coastal and Urban character 

areas. The sensitivity of these areas range from low to high, although the magnitude of 

change would be negligible for all of them. The resulting temporary effect would be Negligible 

for all of the 15 character areas, which is not significant. 

Effects on Visual Receptors During the Construction of the Wind Farm 

9.5.11 The extent of visibility of the existing site would increase considerably during the construction 

phase of the wind farm due mainly to the introduction of high level cranes and turbine 

erection activities at the site. The cranes would be visible above the surrounding trees and 

woodland which screens the majority of the existing site area. 


9.5.12 Residential visual receptors within a radius of approximately 2 km form a local level study 

area and are all defined as being of high sensitivity (see Figure 9.13). The effect on their 

views is described below. A residential amenity assessment has not been undertaken for 

these properties as it is considered that sufficient detail regarding effects on the views of 

occupiers has been taken into consideration and that no overbearing or oppressive effects 

are likely to occur. Reference to the Planning Statement, which accompanies this ES, 

provides further justification for this approach. 

9.5.13 There would be no significant lighting requirements at the site during the construction phase. 

The night time effects would be negligible in magnitude and thus not significant. This 

assessment also holds true for all other visual receptors and so is not assessed further 

below. 






9.5.14 A cluster of four residential properties is located to the south of the site in the vicinity of 

Crosswood Reservoir. Views from the two storey house at Crosswoodburn would include 

turbine erection activities, cranes, tree felling activities and access track construction on the 

right side of the oblique views, partially obscured by mature trees at the property, particularly 

in the summer when in leaf. The activities would form a discordant and short term change in 

view which would be medium in magnitude. The effect on receptors would be Moderate, 

which is not significant. Occupiers of Aberlyn would gain near open views of the construction 

activities from the front of the property, which is orientated directly towards Camilty 

Plantation. The temporary works would form a discordant addition to the existing views of 

commercial forestry and moorland. The erection of turbines and the use of cranes would form 

dominant elements within views. The magnitude of change would be large, resulting in a 

Major effect, which is significant in terms of the ES methodology. Properties at Crosswood 

and Mid Crosswood are located within mature woodland, which would obscure most views 

out to the construction activities. Effects on receptors would be no more than Negligible in 

the short term, which is not significant. 

9.5.15 The Harburn Estate lies adjacent to the north west boundary of the site and contains six 

residential properties with potential views of the construction activities. The estate is 

designated as a Historic Garden and Designed Landscape and the six properties are listed 

buildings which are assessed further within the Cultural Heritage Chapter 10. Harburn House 

is a three storey property which lies at the centre of the estate. The rear of the property is 

orientated towards the proposal site and the Pentland Hills beyond. Mature specimen trees 

in lawns and mixed woodland belts within two grounds would obscure most views of the 

construction phase. The tops of turbines and cranes would potentially be visible, filtered 

through trees, from the second floor and to a lesser degree the first floor. The magnitude of 

change in view would be negligible, leading to a Negligible effect, which in the short term is 

not significant. 

9.5.16 The five other properties at Harburn Estate include Harburnhead, South Lodge, Haymains, 

Whistle Lodge and Park view Cottage. The high level construction activities and cranes 

would potentially be visible, filtered through the canopies of mixed deciduous and coniferous 

trees within the estate. The magnitude of change would be negligible, resulting in Negligible 

temporary effects, which are not significant. 

9.5.17 The farmhouse at Over Williamston lies on Parkview Lane. Views from first floor windows 

over intervening outbuildings in the courtyard complex would extend over intervening 

commercial conifer forest to the proposal site beyond. High level construction activities would 

potentially be visible as a discordant addition to the view above tree tops, against a backdrop 

of the Pentland Hills. The temporary change would have a medium magnitude of impact on 

residents, resulting in a Moderate effect, which is not significant. Views from Over 

Williamston Cottage would be heavily filtered by intervening vegetation. The negligible 

magnitude of change in view would lead to a Negligible effect on receptors, which is not 

significant. 

9.5.18 For the northern property in a pair of single storey houses at Camilty Lodge, views of high 

level activities across a foreground of open farmland and a middle distance of commercial 

forestry would be gained by residents. The activities would form a slightly discordant element 

in a largely rural view. The magnitude of change would be medium and the temporary effects 





would be Moderate, which is not significant. Views from the neighbouring property at Camilty 

Lodge and the nearby cottage would be screened by mature conifer hedges and tree belts 

adjacent to the properties. There would be no change in view for residents due to the 

construction activities. 

9.5.19 High level construction activities and cranes would potentially be visible from the single 

storey property and gardens at Camilty Hill Cottage. Mature boundary woodland at this 

property and commercial forestry within the intervening view would obscure or filter most 

views. Similar views would be gained from the two storey property at High Camilty. The 

magnitude of change in view due to the introduction of the slightly discordant construction 

activities would be small, leading to a Slight effect for residents, which is not significant. For 

Halfway House and Brook Bank single storey properties located on the A70, mature trees in 

close proximity would screen views in the summer when in leaf and heavily filter views in the 

winter. The turbine erection, cranes, tree felling and access track construction would be 

partially visible as a very minor change in view which would be barely perceptible. The 

magnitude of change would be negligible, resulting in short term Negligible effects on 

residents, which is not significant. 

Core Paths, Access Land and Public Viewpoints 

9.5.20 Forest tracks within the Camilty Plantation are accessible to walkers from lay-bys on the A70. 


plantations to High Camilty. Near views through gaps in mature conifer woodland of all 

aspects of the construction activities would be gained from the majority of this route. The 

temporary activities would form the dominant element within the view. The high sensitivity 

receptors would experience a large magnitude of change in view, leading to a Major effect, 

which would be significant in terms of the methodology. The footpath which links the A70 

south to the ridge of the Pentland Hills via the access track to Crosswood Reservoir and Mid 

Crosswood passes through relatively open countryside. The nearest viewpoints would be 

approximately 500 m from the site boundary from which walkers would gain open views over 

grassland and moorland of the construction activities, including tree felling, on the edges of 

the site and the high level activities emerging from the forestry. The activities would 

temporarily dominate these views resulting in Major effects, which would be significant. 

Viewpoint Analysis 

9.5.21 The visual impact assessment has concentrated deliberately on receptors of the highest 

sensitivity to change, including occupiers of residential properties and users of public access 

land and rights of way within a 35 km radius of the site. The significance of effect on these 

receptors of the construction phase activities at the wind farm site is dealt with in relation to 

26 specific viewpoint locations described at paragraphs 9.5.23 to 9.5.31 below. The likely 

effects on these visual receptors during the construction phase are also summarised in table 

form at Appendix 9.6. 

Near Views 

9.5.22 In views from the parkland at Harburn House, where Viewpoint 1 is located, the mature 

plantings of mixed coniferous and deciduous tree species would be sufficiently tall and dense 

to obscure all but the highest level construction activity and the tops of cranes. All views of 

the construction site, tree felling and infrastructure construction would be screened. 

Residents and visitors within this listed Designed Landscape would be receptors of high 

sensitivity. The temporary introduction of the construction activities into this view would lead 





to a small magnitude of change and a Slight effect, which is not significant. Viewpoint 4 is 

located on the grassy slopes at Crosswood Reservoir. The slightly elevated nature of the 

location and its close proximity to the proposals would enable receptors to gain open views of 

all of the main construction activities at the site including turbine erection with cranes, 

clearance of commercial forestry, construction of access tracks and borrow pits. The 

activities would introduce a series of discordant and dominant elements into a view that 

currently comprises commercial forestry and farmland. Walkers in this location are of high 

sensitivity to a large magnitude of change. The temporary nature of the effects would be 

Major, which is significant. 

9.5.23 Views from the A70 at Viewpoints 2 and 3 would be gained by occupiers of vehicles travelling 

either south west or north east on the main road. The construction site at Camilty Plantation 

would be visible in both views, together with tree felling operation, access track and low level 

infrastructure construction and turbine erection and cranes. The construction activities would 

be prominent in transient views from vehicles in relatively close proximity to the site. The 

works would form prominent elements in open, rural views. Receptors would be of medium 

sensitivity to the medium magnitude of change resulting in Slight effects during the day and 

Negligible at night, which is not significant. 

Mid-distance Views 

9.5.24 In views from locations at Viewpoints 5 Tarbrax and 15 Howden House only the high level 

construction activities to erect the turbines, including cranes, would be visible above either 

intervening trees or development. At Viewpoint 9, the Five Sisters and Viewpoint 10 Corston 

Hill the elevated locations also enable lower level construction activities to be seen however, 

the clearing of forestry and the construction of tracks and other low level infrastructure would 

be barely perceptible at these distances of 5 to 6 km. The construction activities would form 

minor, although immediately recognisable, temporary elements in views that would be slightly 

discordant with the character of the receptors of high sensitivity. The magnitude of the short 

term change in views would be small, leading to Slight effects on receptors, which is not 

significant. 

9.5.25 Receptors at Viewpoint 6 Woolford Cottages, 11 Harperrig Reservoir, 12 West Cairn Hill and 

13 Craigengar are all receptors of high sensitivity. The residents at Woolfords Cottages and 

walkers on the footpath near Harperrig would gain views of mainly high level construction 

activities at Camilty Plantation in rural locations. Viewpoints 12 and 13 are from peaks within 

the range of Pentland Hills. The elevated location would allow all aspects of the construction 

activities to be seen including tree felling and access track construction, albeit in the middle 

distance. The temporary construction works would form prominent and slightly discordant 

additions to views from these four viewpoints. The magnitude of change would be medium 

and the effect would be Moderate, which is not significant. 

9.5.26 Residents within properties on the edge of West Calder at Viewpoint 8 and Addiewell at 

Viewpoint 14 would experience a barely perceptible change in view during construction due 

to the presence of intervening mature vegetation. The high sensitivity of these receptors and 

the short term negligible magnitude of change in view would lead to a Negligible effect, 


9.5.27 Views from Cobbinshaw Reservoir at Viewpoint 7 to the west of the site would include high 

level turbine erection activities and cranes beyond the large expanse of water. The 

temporary works would be slightly discordant in the context of the Pentland Hills immediately 





to the right of the view. Recreational users of the reservoir are of medium sensitivity, 

experiencing a medium magnitude of change that would lead to a Slight effect on receptors, 


Distant Views 

9.5.28 Distant views of the site are generally from more elevated locations to enable views over 

intervening vegetation to be gained. At the Knock in the Bathgate Hills at Viewpoint 16, 

Black Hill in the Pentlands at Viewpoint 17 and the edge of Fauldhouse at Viewpoint 21 the 

turbine erection activities, including the cranes, would form the visible aspects of the 

construction phase activity at the Camilty Plantation. These works would be visible as very 

minor, although recognisable elements on the fringes of the Pentland Hills landscape. Low 

level activities at the plantation would be barely discernible at these distances. The receptors 

are of high sensitivity and would temporarily experience a small magnitude of change. The 

effect on views would be Slight, which is not significant. 

9.5.29 At Viewpoint 18 Thriepmuir Reservoir, 19 Allermuir Hill, 20 Forth, 23 Arthur’s Seat, 24 

Pykestone Hill and 25 Tinto Hills the construction activities would form barely discernible 

temporary elements in the view either due to the distance at which they would be 

experienced or the screening qualities of intervening vegetation. Most of these views are 

from upland areas, characterised by wide tracts of rural landscape. The proposals would 

form a very minor change in these views that may be easily missed by the observer. Walkers 

or residents in the location are all of high sensitivity and would notice a negligible magnitude 

of change in view. The short term effects on receptors would be Negligible, which is not 

significant. 

9.5.30 Occupiers of vehicles at Viewpoint 22 the A706 at Longbridge and Viewpoint 26 at the B8084 

south of Armadale would be of medium sensitivity. The distant transient views gained whilst 

travelling on these roads would be predominantly of the high level construction activity which 

would form minor elements in the overall view of a rural landscape with a backdrop of the 

Pentland Hills. The construction phase would form a slightly discordant addition to views. 

The magnitude of change would be small, resulting in a Slight effect on receptors, which is 


Operation 

Activities Associated with the Operational Phase 

9.5.31 The operational phase of the wind farm for the purposes of this assessment is considered to 

last for a period of twenty-five years. The following structures have been considered: 

• Wind turbines; 

• Met Mast; 

• Substation/control building; 

• Access tracks; 

• Movement of wind turbine blades; and 

• Aviation warning lights. 

9.5.32 In line with a requirement for aviation lighting stipulated by Defence Estates (see Chapter 2 

Table 2.1), the turbines will be fitted with an appropriate form of lighting, which is proposed to 

be infrared, subject to agreement with Defence Estates and other relevant consultees. As 





the form of lighting is still to be agreed, visible lighting has been assumed for the purposes of 

this assessment, to present a worst case scenario. However, if infrared lighting is adopted, 

which is not visible to the human eye at distances of more than 500 m, the proposals would 

not result in any effects on visual receptors or landscape character. 

9.5.33 The appearance of the turbines will vary according to wind direction, meteorological 

conditions and distance. The paragraphs below have taken into account the effects of these 

variables on the views available to visual receptors, although the photomontages all show 

turbines facing the viewer and blade tips rotated to show above intervening vegetation and 

landform as the worse case scenario. 

Effects on Landscape Resources During the Operation of the Wind Farm 

Methodology 

9.5.34 The detailed methodology used in assessing the significance of effects is as set out in 

section 2, and is the same as that used in assessing the construction effects. The value of 

the landscape resource (based on designations) and its sensitivity to the proposed 

development is considered in relation to the magnitude of the proposed change. The 

importance of the change to the landscape resource can then be assessed. Unlike the 

temporary nature of the construction phase, the effects of the operational phase are 

considered (for the purposes of this assessment) to be permanent. Consideration has been 

given as to whether the proposed wind farm would become the key landscape characteristic: 

that is, whether the wind farm would establish a ‘wind farm landscape type’ and further away 

from the site, a ‘wind farm landscape sub-type’; or whether it would be perceived only as a 

landscape element within another landscape type or sub-type. The effects on the landscape 

fabric and character during the operation of the wind farm are set out in detail at Appendix 

9.7. 

Effects on Designated Landscapes 

9.5.35 Landscape character types which coincide with the landscape designations are illustrated on 

Figure 9.9. An assessment of effects on their character can be found at Appendix 9.7. 

Areas of Great Landscape Value 

9.5.36 The site is located adjacent to the Pentland Hills AGLV, which extends over an area of 

uplands to the south east of the site. The alignment of the A70 forms the edge of the 

designation and forms the south east boundary of the proposal site. The area is designated 

for it scenic quality and protected at a local level. The proposed wind farm would form a 

prominent development in the immediate context of the AGLV, and would have an influence 

over the character of this upland landscape. The proposal would form the closest of a linear 

group of other wind farms extending away from the AGLV, and sits within a commercial 

forestry setting. The proposal would result in an indirect effect on a landscape of high 

sensitivity, leading to a small magnitude of change and a Moderate effect, which is not 

significant. The Moderate effects are particularly localised within the AGLV, extending to 

approximately 5 km from the site. The majority of the AGLV, which extends north east 

towards Edinburgh, is located up to 18 km from the application site and would be significantly 

less influenced by the proposal. Effects on the character of this part of the AGLV would range 

from Slight to Negligible. Viewpoints 4, Crosswood reservoir (Figure 9.14/4), 11, Harperrig 

Reservoir (Figure 9.14/11), 12 West Cairn Hill (Figure 9.14/12), 13 Craigengar (Figure 

9.14/13), 17 Black Hill (Figure 9.14/17), 18 Thriepmuir Reservoir (Figure 9.14/18)and 19 





Allermuir Hill (Figure 9.14/19) have been chosen to identify landscape and visual effects as 

part of the assessment. 

9.5.37 To the north of the site between Livingston and Linlithgow is the Avon Valley and Devon Hills 

AGLV, which includes the Bathgate Hills. The proposed development would form a distant, 

although still recognisable, addition to a landscape, approximately 10 km from this 

designated landscape. The influence over the character of the AGLV would result in a small 

magnitude of change to a landscape of medium sensitivity. The effects would be Slight, 

which is not significant. Viewpoint 16, Knock Viewing Point Bathgate Hills, illustrated in 

Figure 9.14/16, has been chosen to identify landscape and visual effects as part of the 

assessment. 

9.5.38 The AGLV designation covering the large area of Holyrood Park and Arthur’s Seat coincides 

with the only area of ZTV within the group of eight AGLV’s in Edinburgh. The wind farm 

would be barely perceptible at this distance and would have very limited influence over the 

character of the landscape. The sensitivity of the landscape is medium and the magnitude 

would be negligible, leading to a Negligible effect, which is not significant. Viewpoint 23, 

Arthur’s Seat, illustrated in Figure 9.14/23, has been chosen to identify landscape and visual 

effects as part of the assessment. 

9.5.39 More distant AGLV’s lie to the north of the Forth of Firth, including the 

Broomhall/Belleknowes AGLV, which incorporates Charlestown and Limekilns and the 

Cullaloe Hills/The Binn AGLV. The effects on these designations would all be Negligible, 


Regional Park 

9.5.40 The Pentland Hills Regional Park covers some 10,000 hectares of land forming an important 

recreational resource that extends up to the A70 on the boundary of the site as a narrow 

finger of land. The majority of the land within the Pentland Hills to the south east of the site 

does not lie within the Regional Park, although this is included in the AGLV designation. The 

proposed wind farm would have an indirect effect on the character and qualities of the park 

and the areas used as a recreational resource. The scheme would extend the influence of 

existing wind farms in the landscape up to the park boundary. Areas of the park that are 

currently intervisible with wind farms at Blacklaw, Pates Hill and Muirhall would also be 

influenced by the new, closer scheme. The sensitivity of the landscape is high and the 

magnitude of change would be small, resulting in a Moderate effect, which is not significant. 

The majority of the park, which extends north to the fringes of Edinburgh, would be less 

influenced by the proposal. Viewpoints 11, Harperrig Reservoir (Figure 9.14/11), 12 West 

Cairn Hill (Figure 9.14/12), 17 Black Hill (Figure 9.14/17), 18 Thriepmuir Reservoir (Figure 

9.14/18) and 19 Allermuir Hill (Figure 9.14/19) have been chosen to identify landscape and 

visual effects as part of the assessment. 

National Scenic Areas 

9.5.41 The Upper Tweeddale NSA lies within the study area, approximately 20 km south east of the 

site. The hill tops and peaks allow far reaching views north beyond the Pentland ridge to the 

proposal. The turbines would be barely perceptible in the context of this attractive upland 

landscape. The sensitivity of the landscape is high and the magnitude of change would be 

negligible, resulting in a Negligible effect, which is not significant. Viewpoint 24 at Pykstone 

Hill, illustrated in Figure 9.14/24, has been chosen to identify landscape and visual effects as 

part of the assessment. 





Landscape Character: Direct Effects 

9.5.42 The likely effects on the landscape fabric and character during the operational phase are 

described in tables at Appendix 9.7. 

9.5.43 The proposed wind farm would lie within the North West Pentland Fringe Character Area, 

which comprises a diverse landscape of commercial forestry, small scale farmland and 

upland moorland. The wind farm would be located in an area of commercial forestry near the 

eastern edge of the character area. Forestry as a land use is a significant landscape feature 

of the character area, extending as a series of geometric blocks from the base of the 

Pentland Hills at West Cairn Plantation in the east, via the Camilty Plantation; and then west 

in a relatively continuous band through Harburn Hill, Woodmuir Plantation and Blacklaw. 

Conifer plantations are a typical feature within the North West Pentland Fringe Character 

Area and although distinctive, do not increase the scenic quality of the landscape. Wind 

farms are also a prominent existing feature of the landscape of the character area. Schemes 

at Pates Hill and Blacklaw are associated with this band of commercial forestry and provide 

an established part of the landscape. The proposed wind farm would provide a repetition of 

these features in the landscape, by locating a further scheme at the eastern end of this 

forestry, resulting in an intensification of an existing characteristic of the character area. 

9.5.44 The area of landscape to the north of the site comprises farmland enclosed by an extensive 

network of dense hedgerows and tree belts, forming a relatively complex and intimate mosaic 

of spaces. There would be no direct effect on the features and elements of this part of the 

North West Pentland Fringe. However, the large scale of the turbines and their close 

proximity would have an influence over the small scale of the landscape pattern, which would 

be slightly uncharacteristic of this landscape. 

9.5.45 To the north east of the site the area defined as the North West Pentland Fringe Character 

Area extends further into the Pentland Hills Regional Park, including more of the upland 

moorland landscape. This area includes landscape features at Corston Hill, Harperrig 

Reservoir and the base of peaks at Hare Hill and Mid Hill. The proposed wind farm would 

form a prominent new element in the landscape beyond the fringes of these upland areas of 

the North West Pentland Fringe. The development would have an influence over the more 

remote parts of this upland landscape, forming an intensification of the ‘forestry with wind 

farms landscape’, which exists to the west and forms the existing context to this part of the 

character area. 

9.5.46 The turbines would be arranged in a cluster within the Camilty Plantation. Areas of conifer 

plantation would be felled to accommodate the turbines and wind farm infrastructure. The 

necessary work to the woodland would be incorporated into the ongoing Forest Management 

Plan and would be typical of practices within a commercially managed forest. The strategic 

felling of trees would offer the opportunity to break up the mass and scale of the geometric 

blocks of monoculture conifers, introducing less regular shapes and a mosaic of colours, 

textures and habitats into the landscape. 

9.5.47 The proposed wind farm although prominent, would not be of sufficient scale to result in the 

creation of a wind farm landscape character sub type within the North West Pentland Fringe 

Character Area. Direct effects would be confined to loss of commercial forestry. Areas of the 

highest scenic quality would not be directly affected by the proposals. The condition of the 

character type is good and the value, based on the local importance of the AGLV and the 





Regional Park, is medium. The sensitivity would be medium and the magnitude of change 

also medium, resulting in a Moderate and non-significant effect. 

9.5.48 The night-time effect of aviation warning lights on proposed turbines in a relatively dark rural 

landscape would be Slight adverse within the character type. 

Landscape Character: Indirect Effects 

9.5.49 The Pentland Hills comprising the ‘Uplands/Old Red Sandstone Hills/Dissected Moorland 

Plateau’ lie immediately south east of the site and form the important landscape context to 

the ‘North West Pentland Fringe’ Character Area. The range of hills form an upland ridge at 

the heart of the Pentland Hills Regional Park. The landcover of smooth open moorland 

contrasts with the forestry and enclosed farmland of the ‘North West Pentland Fringe’ to the 

north west where the scheme would be located. Wind farms do not form part of these 

character areas, although the existing near schemes at Muirhall and Pates Hill and the more 

distant wind farm at Blacklaw provide an established context in the neighbouring landscape. 

The proposed wind farm would form a prominent new feature in the context of this landscape 

character area, which would have an influence over the landscape character. It would form 

the closest wind farm in a loose grouping of three other wind farms and an intensification of 

existing conditions. The Pentland Hills form a distinctive landscape feature and backdrop to 

views from the Lowland Plains and Plateaux landscape to the north west. The proposals 

would form an additional wind farm visible against this backdrop, that would slightly diminish 

the prominence of the range of hills in the landscape from some locations within the wider 

landscape context. The condition of these landscapes is good and their value is medium due 

to their location partially within the Regional Park, AGLV or candidate SLA. The sensitivity of 

the landscapes would be high and the magnitude of the indirect effects small, resulting in a 

Moderate effect, which is not significant. 

9.5.50 Night time effects of warning lights on turbines in the context of existing turbine lighting, traffic 

on roads and settlements within the neighbouring character area would be Slight and not 

significant. 

9.5.51 An assessment of effects on landscape character has been undertaken for identified 

character areas, together with landscape designations. Character areas in the vicinity of the 

site include the ‘Uplands/Old Red Sandstone Hills/Dissected Moorland Plateau’, which also 

coincide with the Pentland Hills AGLV and partially with the Regional Park. These receptors 

have all been assessed as potentially experiencing Moderate effects, whilst they are 

essentially the same piece of landscape, with three layers of designations/character 

assessment attached. A landscape resource can only be affected once and not three times. 

To avoid double or triple counting of effects, the accumulation of a series of Moderate effects 

in these circumstances should not be considered as a significant effect on the Pentland Hills. 

9.5.52 The ‘West Lothian Plateau’, ‘Slamannan Plateau’, ‘Plateau Moorland Forestry/Wind 

farm/Open Cast Mining’ and ‘Plateau Farmland’ and ‘Lowland Plains Lower Almond 

Farmlands’ character areas lie adjacent to the northern edge of the ‘North West Pentland 

Fringe’ or nearby to the north west. These settled and farmed landscapes form a series of 

broad character areas, which link Glasgow and Edinburgh. While the wind farm would be 

theoretically visible from relatively large areas of these landscapes, the presence of tree belts 

and woodland would in fact considerably limit views. The proposed wind farm would often be 

visible in combination with existing wind farms in the same character area. The sensitivity of 





these Lowland Plateau and Plains landscapes would be generally low and the magnitude of 

change would be small, leading to a Slight effect, which is not significant. 

9.5.53 The effects of the new aviation warning lights on the turbines in the context of existing lighting 

in settlements and on roads would be Slight. 

9.5.54 The ‘Bathgate Hills’ character area covers an attractive landscape of lowland hills that are 

designated as an AGLV. The proposed wind farm would be visible in the distance, rising out 

of forestry plantation in front of the Pentland Ridge in the context of existing wind farms. The 

sensitivity of this character area would be high and the magnitude of change would be small. 

The effect on the character of the Bathgate Hills would be Moderate, which is not significant. 

9.5.55 At night the lighting associated with the wind farm could be visible beyond the well lit urban 

context of Livingston. The effect on the character area would be Slight. 

9.5.56 The 'prominent isolated hills’ of the Tinto Hills character area form an attractive upland 

landscape within an AGLV and candidate SLA, approximately 25 km to the south west of the 

site. The open moorland peaks are relatively wild and remote and allow open views out over 

the landscape of the study area, including existing wind farms in the distance in the vicinity of 

the site. The sensitivity of this landscape would be high and the magnitude of change 

following the development would be small, resulting in a Moderate effect, which is not 

significant. 

9.5.57 The settled landscape of the Lowland Plateaux and Plains would form the well-lit night time 

context for the warning lights at the wind farm. The proposal would extend the pattern of 

existing wind farms within the Pentland Fringes. The night time effect on the character of the 

Tinto Hills would be Slight. 

9.5.58 The ‘Livingston Urban’ character area lies approximately 6 km to the north of the site. The 

turbines would be prominent in the context of this large settlement. The sensitivity of the area 

is negligible and the magnitude of change would be small. The urban context of the character 

area during the day and at night would not be significantly affected by the Negligible effects. 

9.5.59 The remaining 15 character areas lie within the study area at a distance of between 10 km 

and 35 km from the proposed wind farm. These character areas would be either located at 

distance from the site or would coincide with relatively little of the ZTV limiting the 

intervisibility between the character areas and the proposed wind farm. The areas include 

‘Uplands and Fringes’, ‘Lowland Hills’, ‘River Valleys’, ‘Coastal’ and ‘Urban’ character areas. 

The sensitivity of these areas range from low to high, although the magnitude of change 

would be negligible for all of them. The resulting effect during the day and at night would be 

Negligible for all of the 15 character areas, which is not significant. 

Effects on Visual Receptors During the Operation of the Wind Farm 

9.5.60 The effects of the operational phase of the proposed wind farm on visual receptors is 

summarised at Appendix 9.8. 


9.5.61 Visual receptors within a radius of approximately 2 km form a local level study area and are 

of high sensitivity (see Figure 9.13). The effect on their view is described below. 






9.5.62 Four properties at Crosswoodburn, Crosswood, Aberlyn and Mid Crosswood are all located 

within the Pentland Hills Regional Park. Crosswood is a two-storey detached property located 

in woodland at Crosswood Reservoir. Views from Crosswood would be obscured by the 

mature woodland planting. 

9.5.63 Crosswoodburn is also a two story detached property. Oblique views of the proposals framed 

by trees would be gained from this house. Turbines 1, 2 and 3 would be visible on the 

extreme right of the view, forming a prominent addition. The magnitude of change in view 

would be medium resulting in a Moderate effect, which is not significant. The effect would not 

be Major due to the angle of the view and the partial screening provided by trees. 

9.5.64 Aberlyn is a single storey property south of the site boundary on the driveway to Crosswood 

Reservoir, approximately 0.9km from the nearest turbine. The front of the property is 

orientated north towards the wind farm and occupiers would gain open views, between 

mature trees around the property, of the turbines as dominant new elements in the context of 

a landscape of commercial forestry from this elevation of the property. The magnitude of 

change in view would be large and the effect would be Substantial, which is significant in 

terms of the methodology. The property also has windows on the east and south facing 

elevations from which the wind farm would not be visible. Mature trees and garden vegetation 

to the sides and rear of the property would also heavily filter these views. The effects on 

occupiers would be when using rooms at the front of the property and the front garden. In 

views from rooms at the rear and sides of the property and from the rear garden the wind 

farm would not be visible. Sufficient views from the property would remain unaffected by the 

wind farm that the overall residential amenity of the property and the occupiers would not be 

significantly affected. 

9.5.65 Mid Crosswood lies in a small clump of woodland. The main façade of the building is 

orientated to the south east away from the site. Heavily filtered, oblique views of turbines 

from the other main façade would be gained through surrounding mature trees and over 

intervening woodland. The magnitude of change would be small leading to a Slight effect. 

9.5.66 The following six properties at Harburn House, South Lodge, Harburnhead, Haymains and 

Whistle Lodge are located within Harburn Estate, which is listed in the inventory of Historic 

Gardens and Designed Landscapes. An assessment of effects on the historically important 

garden and listed buildings is contained within the Cultural Heritage Chapter 10. Harburn 

House lies north west of the site boundary. Views of the proposed wind farm from the ground 

floor of this property are likely to be obscured by mature trees within the estate. Views from 

the second floor windows would continue to focus on the gardens and woodland within the 

estate, however, glimpses of turbine blades may be visible during the winter when deciduous 

trees are not in leaf. The magnitude of effect on views would be negligible, leading to a 

Slight effect, which is not significant. Views from first floor windows could be categorised in a 

similar way to either ground floor or second floor windows, depending on the extent of 

intervening vegetation within the view. 

9.5.67 South Lodge and Harburnhead are both single storey properties and lie within woodland. 

Haymains forms a courtyard of single and two storey properties within woodland. Whistle 

Lodge lies in woodland on the eastern side of the estate. Glimpsed views of turbines through 

deciduous trees in winter and blade tips visible above tree tops throughout the year may also 

be gained from these properties within Harburn Estate. The magnitude of effect would range 





from negligible to small resulting in effects, which would range from Negligible to Moderate, 

which would not be significant. 

9.5.68 A group of three properties known as Parkview Cottages, including a pair of two storey semi 

detached houses and a single storey house, lie within woodland. The extent of views from 

these properties is largely dependant on the maturity of the trees within the conifer plantation 

immediately in front of the houses. When these trees are more than a few metres high, all 

potential views of the wind farm would be obscured. When trees have been felled, the view 

would be opened up to reveal the turbines as prominent new additions to a view of conifer 

plantation. When the forestry has been felled the magnitude of change in view would be 

medium resulting in a Major effect, which would be significant. When trees within the 

plantation are over 3m high there would be no view of the turbines and no effect on 

receptors. 

9.5.69 On the same lane to the north, lies the two storey farmhouse at Over Williamston within an 

extensive complex of buildings. Views from ground floor windows would be obscured by 

single storey buildings within the courtyard. Views from first floor windows would extend over 

the rooflines of intervening buildings, across a landscape of commercial forestry to the 

proposed wind farm as a prominent new addition to the view, in front of a backdrop of the 

Pentland Hills. The magnitude of change would be medium and the effect Major, which is 

significant in terms of the ES methodology. 

9.5.70 For the neighbouring single storey property of Over Williamston Cottage, conifer woodland, 

shelter belts and hedgerows would obscure most views of the turbines from this property. 

Heavily filtered glimpses of moving blades may be visible in the winter when vegetation is not 

in leaf. The magnitude of change would be negligible leading to a Negligible effect on 

receptors, which is not significant. 

9.5.71 A single storey cottage lies opposite Camilty Lodge north of the site. This property has a 

band of mature conifer trees around its boundary that screens all views out over the 

landscape. Camilty Lodge comprises two detached single storey buildings north of the site. 

Occupiers of the northern property would have open views across the landscape of farmland 

and conifer plantations to the proposed wind farm in the middle distance. The turbines would 

form prominent additions to the view, visible on the skyline above forestry woodland. The 

magnitude of change would be medium, resulting in a Major effect, which is significant in 

terms of the ES methodology. The southern property of the pair is located behind a tall dense 

conifer hedge that would block views out over the landscape. 

9.5.72 Camilty Mill Cottage is a single storey property within a garden setting north of the site. 

Mature mixed deciduous and coniferous woodland surrounds formal lawns and gardens at 

this property. Potential exists for views out from the house and the gardens. Turbine blade 

tips may be visible above the surrounding woodland as a prominent new element in the view. 

The magnitude of change would be small and the effect would be Moderate, which is not 

significant. 

9.5.73 High Camilty is a large two storey property within a courtyard complex of outbuildings north 

east of the site. Views of the tops of turbines above intervening forestry planting would be 

gained through foreground mature trees at the property. The magnitude of change in view 

would be small and the significance of effect Moderate and not significant. 

9.5.74 Two single storey properties which lie close to each other to the east of the site on the A70 

include Halfway House and Brookbank. Occupiers of both properties would have heavily 





filtered views through mature mixed deciduous and coniferous vegetation of the turbines 

rising out of conifer plantations. The views would only be possible in winter when trees 

around the houses would not be in leaf. The magnitude of change would be negligible, 

leading to a Negligible effect on views. 

Core Paths, Access Land and Public Viewpoints 

9.5.75 Forest tracks within the Camilty Plantation are accessible to walkers from laybys on the A70. 


plantations to High Camilty. Near views through gaps in mature conifer woodland of turbines 

rising up from the plantation and access tracks would be gained from the majority of this 

route. Typically, areas of felled trees would also be visible, as part of a commercially 

managed forest. The turbines would form the dominant element within the view. The high 

sensitivity receptors would experience a large magnitude of change in view, leading to a 

Substantial effect, which would be significant in terms of the methodology. 

9.5.76 The footpath which links the A70 south to the ridge of the Pentland Hills via the access track 

to Crosswood Reservoir and Mid Crosswood passes through relatively open countryside. The 

nearest viewpoints would be approximately 500 m from the site boundary from which walkers 

would gain open views over grassland and moorland of the turbines emerging from the 

plantation. Areas of forest clearance would also be visible, although most views of access 

tracks are likely to be obscured by the retained trees around the fringes of the plantation. The 

proposed development would form a dominant new element in the landscape. The high 

sensitivity receptors using both of these paths would experience a large magnitude of change 

in view, leading to a Substantial effect, which would be significant in terms of the 

methodology. 

Dynamic Views 

9.5.77 Dynamic views from moving vehicles would be experienced when travelling along the A70 

and the B7008. The effects on occupiers of vehicles in the local level study area have been 

assessed within the sequential effects section at paragraphs 9.5.124 to 9.5.133. 

Viewpoint Analysis 

9.5.78 Viewpoint locations are illustrated in Figure 9.3; and photography and photomontages are 

provided in Figures 9.14 1a to 26c. 

Viewpoint 1. Harburn House 

9.5.79 The parkland at Harburn House would continue to provide the dominant component of this 

view towards the proposed wind farm. The blade tips of four of the nearest turbines and the 

anemometry mast would be visible above the tops of the mature trees. These would provide 

distinct new elements in the view. Turbines 1 and 2, which are furthest from the viewpoint, 

would be partially visible when rotating, although heavily filtered through deciduous tree 

planting in the winter. This viewpoint represents the most open location within the estate 

where receptors would gain views of the proposed wind farm. Intermittent views to the 

Pentland Hills would remain largely unaffected by the wind farm. The sensitivity of residents 

and visitors to Harburn House within this designated landscape would be high and the 

magnitude of the change due to the introduction of a new form of development into the view 

would be small. The nature of the permanent operational change would result in a Moderate 

effect, which is not significant. Views of the turbines from within the estate would also be 





visible above intervening trees and heavily filtered through bare trees in winter from the upper 

floors of the south east facing windows of Harburn House. 

9.5.80 At night, warning lights on turbines would be largely obscured by trees within the estate. 

Some filtered views of lights may be visible in water, when deciduous trees are not in leaf, 

against a dark, unlit landscape. Effects on receptors would be Slight, which is not significant. 

Viewpoint 2. A70 North East of the Site 

9.5.81 The proposed wind farm would form a prominent addition to this mid-distance view across 

rough grazing land and moorland. The turbines and anemometry mast would be clearly 

visible rising out of cleared areas within the commercial plantation in the middle distance. 

Access tracks and low level infrastructure are likely to be screened by vegetation retained 

within the site. The corridor of the A70 would remain prominent in the foreground of the view. 

The new development would be visible in the context of the existing wind farm at Pates Hill in 

a similar landscape context, to the right of the view. The sensitivity of occupiers of vehicles 

travelling towards the site would be medium. The magnitude of change on the transient views 

would be medium, resulting in a Moderate effect, which is not significant. 

9.5.82 This assessment of effects is based on a single point on the A70. Occupiers of vehicles 

would generally experience a sequence of transient views within a journey. Sequential effects 

as assessed at paragraphs 9.5.133 to 9.5.146 

9.5.83 The aviation warning lights at the proposed development would be visible in the context of 

the lights at Pates Hill and traffic on the A70, in a relatively dark rural context. The effect on 

views at night would be Slight. 


9.5.84 Views from this point on the A70 represent the first open views of the proposed wind farm 

when travelling north east. The proposed wind farm would form a prominent addition to the 

view directly ahead on the same alignment as the road. The gently dipping landform in the 

middle distance and the mature conifers within the plantation would partially conceal the 

bases of the turbines. The turbines and anemometry mast would be seen against the open 

skyline as large scale features and a new focus in the view. Low level infrastructure at the 

site in felled areas of forestry would be either concealed or barely perceptible in the view. 

Occupiers of vehicles on this road would be of medium sensitivity to a medium magnitude of 

change. The effect on transient views would be Moderate, which is not significant. 

9.5.85 This assessment of effects is based on a single point on the A70. Occupiers of vehicles 

would generally experience a sequence of transient views within a journey. Sequential effects 

as assessed at paragraphs 9.5.133 to 9.5.146. 

9.5.86 The aviation warning lights at the proposed development would be visible in the context of 

traffic on the A70, in an otherwise dark rural context. The effect on views at night would be 

Slight. 

Viewpoint 4. Crosswood Reservoir 

9.5.87 This near view would contain a new focus following the development of the proposed wind 

farm. All six turbines and the anemometry mast would be clearly visible as prominent new 

elements of development against the skyline, rising out of mature conifer plantation and 

recently felled/replanted areas of plantation. The turbines would be well spaced within the 

view, avoiding obstruction and allowing views through to the landscape beyond on the right 





hand side of the wind farm. The blocks and strips of woodland which would need to be felled 

to accommodate the turbines and access tracks would be barely perceptible in this view due 

to the extensive area of retained forestry. Access tracks to turbines 2 and 3 would be visible 

as a very minor addition to the infrastructure of Camilty Plantation. The sensitivity of walkers 

at this location is high and the magnitude of change in view they would experience would be 

large. The nature of the permanent operational change would result in a Substantial effect, 

which is significant in terms of the assessment methodology. 

9.5.88 Warning lights on turbines would be visible against a dark sky above vehicles lights using the 

A70 and B7008, all of which would be prominent in a dark landscape. Lights within 

settlements in the Lowland Plateaux and Plains beyond may provide some distant night time 

context for the proposals. Effects on receptors would be Moderate. 

Viewpoint 5. Tarbrax 

9.5.89 In this open view from the edge of the settlement all six turbines would be partially visible 

above the shallow plateau of moorland and the intermittent clumps of trees on the horizon. 

The ridge of the Pentland Hills is sufficiently distant to the right of the view for the proposed 

wind farm to avoid any interference with views of the landmark feature. The turbines and 

anemometry mast would appear to sit in a moorland landscape beyond forestry at the fringe 

of the Regional Park. The wind farm would encroach into this view as a new type of 

development. However, the overall rural character would be maintained. Occupiers of 

residential properties within the village would be receptors of high sensitivity who would 

experience long term effects which would be small in magnitude. The change in view would 

result in a Moderate effect which is not significant. 

9.5.90 Lighting on the hubs of some of the turbines would be visible on the horizon. Vehicle lights on 

the A70 may be intermittently visible through trees to the right of the view, providing a 

partially lit context in an essentially dark rural landscape. Effects on receptors at night would 

be Slight, which is not significant. 


9.5.91 The proposed wind farm would be partially visible in the distance above intervening 

vegetation at the railway line. Blocks and belts of mature conifers either side of the view 

would obscure two of the turbines and the anemometry mast. The proposed wind farm would 

be visible against the backdrop of the Pentland Hills. It would form a minor although 

recognisable addition to the view which would not change the overall character of the view, 

which would still be largely rural. Residents at Woolfords Cottages are receptors of high 

sensitivity and would experience a small magnitude of change. The effect on receptors would 

be Moderate, which is not significant. 

9.5.92 The warning lights on the turbines would be barely discernible above the intervening trees, 

forming a very limited change in the view. The effect on receptors at night would be Slight, 


Viewpoint 7. Cobbinshaw Reservoir 

9.5.93 The proposed wind farm would be visible as a prominent addition to this open view across 

the reservoir. The turbines and the anemometry mast would form a new focus within the 

backdrop to the view, potentially visible reflected in the water’s surface. The six turbines 

would be visible immediately to the left of the Pentland Hills ridge and although not 

overlapping, or directly interfering within the view to them, the proposed wind farm would 





slightly diminish the prominence of the distinctive landscape feature from this viewpoint. 

Receptors at this location would predominantly be engaged in recreational activities, reducing 

their sensitivity to medium. The magnitude of change in view would be medium leading to a 

Moderate effect which is not significant. 

9.5.94 Warning lights on turbines would be visible on the horizon in an essentially dark, unlit 

landscape. Effects on receptors would be Slight, which is not significant. 

Viewpoint 8. West Calder 

9.5.95 Mature deciduous woodland along the Harward Water valley would obscure all but the blade 

tip of turbine 2 in views of the proposed wind farm in the summer when trees are in leaf. 

During the winter when trees are bare, fragmented views of the turning turbine blades may 

be visible as barely perceptible new elements in this view. Residents in properties on the 

edge of this settlement are receptors of high sensitivity. The magnitude of change and 

resulting significant of effect would be Negligible, which is not significant. 

9.5.96 At night, views out from the lit context of the village would potentially include the warning 

lights, heavily filtered through trees in the winter only. The lights would be barely perceptible, 

resulting in Negligible night time effects on views. 

Viewpoint 9. Five Sister’s West Calder 

9.5.97 The proposed wind farm would be visible in the middle distance emerging from the extensive 

blocks of conifers at Camilty Plantation at the base of the Pentland Hills. The turbines would 

be visible as a prominent, although minor addition to the view, against the smooth slopes of 

the Pentlands. The turbine blades would break the skyline becoming a new focus within the 

view of the landscape at the southern end of the Regional Park landform. The slender lattice 

construction of the anemometry mast would be barely perceptible at this distance. Sufficient 

open views to the distinctive peaks of the Pentlands would be retained to ensure the hills 

remain the key backdrop from this location. The existing wind farm at Pates Hill and the 

presence of settlements in the foreground provide a partially developed context in which 

views are gained. Walkers at the summit of the landform of the five sisters are receptors of 

high sensitivity. The wind farm would result in a small magnitude of change in view during its 

operation. The effects on receptors would be Slight, which is not significant. 

9.5.98 The extensive, well-lit urban areas within the plain would provide the most significant light 

sources in the view. Warning lights on the turbines would be visible in the distance in the 

wider context of lights on turbines at the Pates Hill Wind Farm. These would be visible 

although relatively insignificant in the overall view. Effects on receptors would be Negligible, 



9.5.99 This view from the lower hills on the fringes of the Pentlands, is directed over the forested 

and farmed landscape of the Lowland Plateaux and Plains. The turbines of the proposed 

wind farm would be prominent in this landscape located within the mature trees and recently 

felled area of commercial forestry in the middle distance. The blades would break the 

horizon, visible against the sky and similar in proportion to the Pates Hill Wind Farm to the 

right of the view. The anemometry mast would be barely perceptible at this distance. 

Together with the prominent line of overhead power lines in the foreground, this view would 

contain a significant collection of strong vertical elements of energy infrastructure. The 

pattern and scale of the landscape would not be disrupted by the proposals. Walkers at 





Corston Hill would be receptors of high sensitivity to a small magnitude of change in view. 

The long term impacts would result in a Slight effect, which is not significant. 

9.5.100 Lighting within farmsteads, settlements and on turbines at Pates Hill Wind Farm would form a 

night time context for views of the warning lights on the proposed wind farm turbines. The 

effects on receptors would be of Negligible significance. 

Viewpoint 11. Harperrig Reservoir 

9.5.101 This viewpoint is located near the edge of the Pentland Hills Regional Park and provides one 

of the few publically accessible locations where near views over the reservoir can be gained. 

The proposed wind farm turbines would be visible as a backdrop to the reservoir, together 

with the Pates Hill Wind Farm. The proposed turbines would form a prominent addition to the 

view, although characteristic of the existing view and landscape features within the landscape 

of commercial forestry beyond the boundaries of the park. The slender anemometry mast 

would be barely perceptible against the sky at this distance. Clumps of trees and groups of 

buildings surround the water body, partially concealing the proposed turbines, which create a 

similar pattern in the landscape. Walkers on the historic path over the Pentland Ridge are 

receptors of high sensitivity. The magnitude of change which would result from the wind farm 

is small, leading to a long term Moderate effect, which is not significant. 

9.5.102 Lighting within properties in the foreground and on turbines at Pates Hill would form a 

relatively low level of night time lighting, in which the proposed warning lights on the 

proposed wind farm turbines would be visible. The level of effect of these additional lights in a 

relatively dark rural landscape would be Slight. 

Viewpoint 12. West Cairn Hill 

9.5.103 The proposed wind farm would be visible within the sprawling landscape of commercial 

forestry which extends from the base of the Pentland Hills west into the distance. The 

geometric blocks and strips of dark coniferous planting provide the dominant landscape 

pattern, out of which the turbines would rise, together with the Pates Hill scheme beyond. 

The scale and layout of the turbines respond well to the scale and pattern of the managed 

forestry, to which it would most strongly relate. The presence of the Muirhall and Blacklaw 

Wind Farms to the left of the view reinforce the characteristic of wind farms in this landscape, 

which lies beyond the Pentland Hills Regional Park. The blocks and strips of woodland, which 

would need to be felled to accommodate the turbines and access tracks, would be visible in 

this view although the overall pattern of the trees remaining at the Camilty Plantation would 

not be unacceptably disrupted. The sensitivity of walkers at the summit of this popular peak 

would be high. The magnitude of change in view would be medium in the long term, resulting 

in a Major effect, which is significant in terms of the assessment methodology. 

9.5.104 Lighting at farmsteads, settlements and on the road network throughout this wide expanse of 

landscape and the warning lights at the three existing wind farms would provide a relatively 

well lit context at night, into which the warning lights on turbines within the proposed wind 

farm would be placed. The level of effect on night time views would be Slight. 

Viewpoint 13. Craigengar 

9.5.105 The rounded profile of the Pentland Hills ridge in this location obscures much of the middle 

distance in this view, directing the eye to the proposed wind farm and existing Pates Hill Wind 

Farm beyond the fringes of the Regional Park. The proposed wind farm would extend the 

pattern of development established by the Pates Hill Wind Farm in its context of commercial 





forestry. The proposed wind farm would form a prominent addition to the view, visible 

against the dark backdrop of the landscape, however, it is characteristic of this location. The 

settled landscape of numerous interlinked towns and villages within the plains beyond 

provide a backdrop to the proposals. The sensitivity of receptors in the built up location is 

high and the magnitude of change experienced during the operational phase of the wind farm 

would be medium. The effect on views would be Major, which is significant in terms of the 

assessment methodology. 

9.5.106 Lighting at farmsteads, settlements and the road network throughout this wide expanse of 

landscape and the warning lights at Pates Hill Wind Farm would provide a relatively well lit 

backdrop at night, in front of which the warning lights on turbines within the proposed wind 

farm would be seen. The level of effect on night time views would be Slight. 

Viewpoint 14. Addiewell 

9.5.107 The tips of the turbine blades would be visible beyond intervening hedgerows and landform in 

the foreground farmland. The proposed wind farm would be partially visible against a 

backdrop of part of the Pentland Hills ridge. The proposed wind farm would form a minor 

addition to the view and be seen in combination with the significantly larger and more 

prominent pylon towers in the foreground. The sensitivity of residential receptors in this 

location would be high and the magnitude of long term change would be negligible. The 

resulting effect on views would be Negligible, which is not significant 

9.5.108 The turbine nacelles would be located at or below the level of foreground tree tops, obscuring 

views of lights at night. The potential exists for heavily filtered views of warning lights during 

the winter when vegetation is not in leaf, in a relatively dark rural context. 

Viewpoint 15. Howden House Livingston 

9.5.109 The proposed wind farm would be visible on the horizon beyond the town of Livingston. The 

various blocks of dark conifer plantation merge into a single mass, which extends across 

most of the view. The turbines would be prominent against the sky, rising out of this planting. 

The extensive development within the settlement would continue to dominate this view, 

however the proposed wind farm would provide a distant new focus. It would be viewed with 

a sufficient separation from the ridge of the Pentland Hills for this distinctive landscape 

feature to remain intact and to avoid visual conflict. The turbines would form a new cluster of 

vertical structures alongside the pylons, which cross the view on the sky line. Receptors in 

this park would be of high sensitivity to a small magnitude of change. The operational effect 

would be Slight, which is not significant. 

9.5.110 The numerous light sources within the urban area of Livingston would provide a well lit 

context in which the warning lights at the proposed wind farm would be visible. The level of 

effect would be Slight. 

Viewpoint 16. Knock Viewing Point Bathgate Hills 

9.5.111 The proposed wind farm would be visible against a backdrop of the Pentland Hills, sitting 

below the horizon. The dark mass of conifer plantation at the base of the hills and the 

adjoining low undulating landscape defines the land use out of which the turbines would rise. 

The larger scale white depot buildings in the middle distance would continue to dominate this 

view, providing a highly developed foreground to the proposals. The distinctive ridgeline of 

the Pentland Hills would remain uninterrupted by the wind farm. The turbines would be 

recognisable at this distance, although would form a very minor addition to the overall view, 





in the context of the Pates Hill scheme to the right. The diverse mix of urban, rural and wild 

landscapes would remain a feature of the view. Walkers at this poplar viewing point are 

receptors of high sensitivity. The magnitude of change in view would be small leading to a 


9.5.112 The extensively lit existing urban context of this view would remain dominant in night time 

views. The warning lights on the new turbines would form very minor additions to the view in 

the distance. The level of effect would be Slight. 

Viewpoint 17. Black Hill 

9.5.113 The wild upland landscape of the Pentland Hills Regional Park occupies the majority of this 

view. This character would remain largely unaltered following the inclusion of the proposed 

wind farm. The turbines would form a cluster to the left of the Pates Hill scheme and in front 

of the distant Black Law Wind Farm. These wind farms are located in the adjoining landscape 

of commercial forestry in a gently undulating plain. The new turbines would not be 

immediately recognisable at this distance from this open hill top location. The hills and 

moorland mosaic would remain the focus of the view and their prominence due to their scale 

and mass would be undiminished. The proposed wind farm, in addition to the two existing 

wind farms, would form a concentration of development at one specific point of orientation in 

this view. Walkers within the Pentland Hills are receptors of high sensitivity. The long term 

change would be small in magnitude, resulting in a Slight effect which is not significant. 

9.5.114 At night time, the landscape within the view would be predominantly dark, with some 

clustering of light sources in settlements and along mains roads; and the warning lights on 

turbines at Pates Hill in particular. The addition of lights at the proposed wind farm would be 

recognisable within the view as an intensification of existing effects, although not prominent 

in the view. The level of effect on walkers would be Slight. 

Viewpoint 18. Thriepmuir Reservoir 

9.5.115 Due to the presence of conifer woodland in the landscape beyond the reservoir the 

theoretical view of the proposed wind farm would be almost completely obscured. Blade tips 

of some turbines may be visible above the tree tops and, if the trees were felled in the future, 

the view of turbines would be opened up. Receptors are of high sensitivity to a potential 

negligible magnitude of change, leading to a Negligible level of effect. 

9.5.116 At night the warning lights on turbine nacelles would be completely obscured by trees, 

resulting in no change in view. 

Viewpoint 19. Allermuir Hill 

9.5.117 The series of undulations which form the distinctive double ridgeline of the Pentland Hills 

would continue to dominate the view from this peak, following the development of the 

proposed wind farm. The turbines would be recognisable in the distant lowland landscape 

beyond the fringes of the hills, forming a concentration of schemes with Pates Hill and Black 

Law beyond. The turbines would be visible rising from blocks of commercial forestry, which is 

largely associated with this lowland landscape, in contrast to the open moorland of the hills in 

the foreground. The scale and pattern of this forested landscape associates well with the 

size and spacing of the turbines when viewed from this elevated location. Receptors are of 

high sensitivity in this Regional Park and would experience a negligible magnitude of effect. 

The level of effect would be Slight. 





9.5.118 At night the lights on turbines would be seen in addition to existing lights at Pates Hill Wind 

Farm to the wider glow of lights within settlements within the lowland landscape. The effect 

on views gained by walkers at night would be Negligible. 

Viewpoint 20. Forth 

9.5.119 The proposed wind farm would be potentially visible above intervening groups of mature 

trees and conifer plantation on rising ground beyond. Turbines 1 and 4 would be visible to 

the left of West Cairn Hill, which forms the visible edge of the Pentland Hills ridge from this 

location. The proposed wind farm would not overlap with the landform and would exert little 

influence over the distinctive landscape feature. The addition of the proposed wind farm to 

the landscape would repeat the pattern of the Muir Park Wind Farm to the right. The 

proposed wind farm would form a barely discernible addition to the view in an open, largely 

rural landscape. Occupiers of residential properties on the edge of the village are receptors of 

high sensitivity. The magnitude of change would be negligible, resulting in a Negligible level 

of effect. 

9.5.120 At night the lights on turbines at Camilty would be obscured behind the intervening conifer 

plantation. There would be no change in view. 

Viewpoint 21. Fauldhouse 

9.5.121 The proposed wind farm would be visible against the backdrop of the distinctive undulating 

ridge of the Pentland Hills. The turbine towers and nacelles of all but turbine 2 would be 

obscured by intervening forestry clad hills. The blades of the turbines would slightly conflict 

with views of the distant landscape feature, disrupting the focus of the view. The proposed 

wind farm would extend the presence of turbines in the landscape established by the Black 

Law Wind Farm visible on the skyline to the right of the view. The proposed wind farm would 

not be uncharacteristic in the landscape of this view. The proposals would be visible to 

receptors of high sensitivity in homes on the fringes of Fauldhouse, within the attractive 

backdrop to a foreground of disturbed land and fly tipping. The magnitude of the long term 

change would be small and the level of effect Slight.. 

9.5.122 At night the warning light on turbine 2 would form a very minor, although recognisable 

addition to a predominantly dark baseline landscape with a cluster of lights associated with 

the Black Law scheme. The nacelles of the five other turbines are likely to be below the level 

of the tree tops in the mid-distance. The minor change in view would result in a Slight level of 

effect. 

Viewpoint 22. A706 Longridge 

9.5.123 The proposed wind farm would be visible within a landscape of extensive conifer plantations 

in front of the Pentland Hills immediately beyond. The dark blocks of forestry combine to form 

a wooded band out of which the turbines would rise, whilst blade tips would remain below the 

distinctive undulating horizon. The proposed wind farm would reflect the strong vertical 

structures of the existing Pates Hill Wind Farm and the overhead power lines visible on the 

skyline to the right of the view. The broad extent of the Pentland ridge would remain 

unhindered by views of wind farms and this would ensure that the overall effects on views of 

this locally characteristic landscape feature are not unacceptably compromised. The 

sensitivity of people within vehicles on this road is medium and the change in view would be 

of a small magnitude. The level of effect would be Slight. 





9.5.124 At night the new lights on the proposed turbines would be visible in a landscape context 

which currently contains turbine lights at the Pates Hill Wind Farm and lights within 

farmsteads and properties scattered throughout the foreground landscape. The lights would 

form a recognisable, although minor addition to the view, resulting in a Slight level of effect 

at night. 

Viewpoint 23. Arthur’s Seat Edinburgh 

9.5.125 The elevated view of the extensive and visually complex cityscape of Edinburgh would 

remain the focus of this view. The northern end of the Pentland Hills Regional Park would 

form a distinct, backdrop to the left. The proposed wind farm would form a distinct but barely 

discernible new development on the right of the hills partially obscured by interviewing 

landform. The wind farm would have very little influence over views of the city or the hills. The 

sensitivity of visitors to this popular viewpoint is high, however, the magnitude of change and 

the level of effect on receptors would be Negligible and not significant.. 

9.5.126 At night, the lights on turbines would be barely perceptible beyond the numerous light 

sources and sky glow generated by Edinburgh in the foreground. The effect on views would 

be Negligible. 

Viewpoint 24. Pykestone Hill 

9.5.127 The view from Pykestone Hill would continue to be characterised by the upland landscapes 

of the Upper Tweedale Hills and the Pentland Hills beyond. The proposed wind farm would 

form a barely discernible new development beyond the ridge of the Pentlands, in the context 

of existing schemes at Pates Hill and Muirpark. Walkers in the National Scenic Area are 

receptors of high sensitivity. The distance to the proposed wind farm would limit the 

magnitude of change and level of effect to Negligible. 

9.5.128 At night, the lights on the turbines would be barely discernible in the context of existing lights 

at wind farms, resulting in a Negligible level of effect on receptors. 

Viewpoint 25. Tinto Hills 

9.5.129 The panoramic view over the gently undulating plain below from this elevated location 

reveals a landscape of complex patterns and colours. The existing wind farms at Blacklaw, 

Pates Hill and Muirpark form a line of development, which would be continued through the 

addition of the proposed wind farm. The proposed wind farm would form a distant, although 

recognisable addition to the view and similar in scale and pattern to the existing schemes 

immediately to the left in this view. The scheme would not visually conflict with the Pentland 

Hills, which lie to the right of the view, defined by their landform and change in land cover 

from forestry/farmland to open moorland. The addition of the proposed wind farm to this view 

would result in a negligible magnitude of change for receptors of high sensitivity. The level of 

effect would be Negligible. 

9.5.130 At night, the new turbine lights would be barely discernible at this distance and would be 

visible in the context of numerous light courses scattered throughout the low lying landscape. 

Walkers would experience a Negligible level of effect on views at night. 

Viewpoint 26. B8084 South of Armadale 

9.5.131 The proposed wind farm would be visible within a landscape of conifer plantations against a 

backdrop of the Pentland Hills immediately beyond. The blade tips would lie just below the 

undulating ridge of the hills providing a slight conflict with views of the southern end of the 





hills, although the majority of the Pentland ridge would remain unhindered by views of wind 

farms. The overall views of this distinctive landscape feature would not be unacceptably 

compromised. The sensitivity of occupiers of vehicles on this road is medium and the change 

in view would be of a small magnitude. The level of effect would be Slight. 

9.5.132 At night, the warning lights on turbines would be seen in the context of existing lights at 

properties and settlements in the landscape and the Pates Hill Wind Farm to the right of the 

view. The level of effect on night time views would be Slight. 

Sequential Effects 

9.5.133 Sequential receptors are illustrated in Figure 9.20. 

Windygreen to Camilty Plantation Travelling north on the A70 

9.5.134 Potential views of the proposed wind farm would be gained from approximately 7 km of this 

road which lies within the ZTV. 

9.5.135 Sporadic views through gaps in roadside vegetation and dips in the landform from the road 

towards the proposed wind farm would be gained between 11 km and 4 km from the site. The 

turbines would form a distant to mid-distance new element in these views, often in 

combination with the Pates Hill Wind Farm to the left of the view. Within 4 km of the site, the 

views are more open and would enable the proposed wind farm to be seen rising out of 

conifer plantations beyond the fringes of the Pentland Hills Regional Park. Over a 2 km 

stretch of this road the view is alternately revealed and then concealed by mature roadside 

planting. Views of the proposed wind farm would be glimpsed through vegetation and not 

immediately apparent in the landscape. The sensitivity of the receptor is medium and the 

magnitude of change in view would be small, resulting in a Slight effect, which is not 

significant. 

9.5.136 Within 2 km of the site, the views open out again and would allow the turbines to be seen in 

close proximity, as dominant new additions to the largely rural view. As the road follows the 

southern boundary of the site, fragmented views through boundary vegetation across blocks 

of varying ages of commercial forestry extend over a relatively flat landscape to the horizon. 

The proposed wind farm would form a dominant feature in the view, whilst allowing views 

through to the landscape beyond. To the right of the road, dense blocks of conifers obscure 

views to the Pentland Hills. The magnitude of change in view from this section of the road 

would be large resulting in a Major to Moderate effect, which would be significant. 


9.5.137 Potential views of the proposed wind farm would be gained from approximately a 4 km long 

section of this route. 

9.5.138 As the road travels south west around the base of Auchinoon Hill, beside Harperrig 

Reservoir, the proposed wind farm would become visible ahead in the middle distance above 

intervening groups of trees. Turbines at the Pates Hill Wind Farm would be visible to the right 

of this group and the Pentland Hills would form the focus of the view to the left. The 

magnitude of change would be medium resulting in a Moderate effect on receptors, which is 


9.5.139 Where the road doglegs to the south at Wester Causwayend, roadside trees, properties and 

the orientation of the road would prevent most views of the proposed wind farm. The view 

opens up again approximately 0.5 km to the south west, where it is directly aligned on the 





site. Mid-distance views towards the proposed wind farm as a prominent new element within 

a landscape of grazing land and large expanses of coniferous plantation define the scene. 

The Pates Hill Wind Farm is visible emerging from forestry to the right of the view. The 

turbines at the Camilty Wind Farm would become more dominant in the view as the road 

approaches the site boundary. The magnitude of change would be large resulting in a Major 

effect on views, which is significant 

9.5.140 As the road passes by the southern edge of the site near views of the turbines would 

continue to provide the focus in the landscape of commercial forestry. Views to the left are 

screened by mature stands of conifers. The tops of turbines at Pates Hill are visible above 

the tree tops to the right of the view. The change in view would result in a Major, and thus 

significant, effect for occupiers of vehicles on this stretch of road. 


9.5.141 Roadside trees and woodland would limit views out from this road to a length of 

approximately 2 km. For a distance of approximately 2 km from West Calder to the site 

boundary, views are restricted to occasional glimpses of turbines between blocks of 

woodland and roadside trees and hedgerows to the Pentland Hills in the distance. The 

magnitude of change would be small leading to a Slight effect, which is not significant. 

9.5.142 As the road approaches the site boundary, the conifer plantation at Camilty is set back from 

the road around the Roman Fortlet site. The tops of turbines would form a prominent addition 

to the view, with a backdrop of the distant Pentland Hills. The magnitude of change would be 

medium, resulting in a Moderate significance of effect, which is not significant. 


9.5.143 Views of the proposed wind farm would be possible from less than 0.5 km of this route beside 

the site. At the junction with the A70, the proposed wind farm would be partially visible 

through deciduous roadside vegetation, mainly in the winter. Where the road passes open 

land in which the Roman Fortlet is located, open, oblique views of turbines rising out of the 

forestry beyond would be gained. The magnitude of change would be medium, resulting in a 



9.5.144 In the limited locations where the railway is at grade or on embankment lengthy views would 

be gained over the landscape towards the proposed wind farm. These limited locations occur 

north of the road bridge at Auchengray, south of Woolfords cottages, Cobbinshaw Reservoir 

and south west of Harburn. The turbines would be visible in a landscape of commercial 

forestry beyond a foreground of open grazing land and a backdrop of the Pentland Hills ridge. 

The total length of line from which views of the proposed wind farm would be gained, is 

approximately 1.25 km. Receptors would be of medium sensitivity to a medium magnitude of 

change in view, resulting in a Moderate effect. The accumulation of a series of Moderate 

effects over the length of the journey would result in a significant effect overall for receptors. 


9.5.145 The total length of line from which views towards the site can be gained is approximately 1 

km. On the edge of Livingston, where the line drops down to the Linhouse Water and west of 

Linhouse and north east of Harburn, where the railway lies on embankment, distant views 

over grazed farmland conifer plantations towards the proposed turbines at Camilty would be 





gained. The proposed wind farm would be seen as a distinct addition to the landscape, with a 

backdrop of the Pentland Hills. The magnitude of change in these transient views would be 

medium, leading to Moderate effects. The accumulation of these sequential effects within 

this journey would be significant in terms of the methodology. 


9.5.146 Views of the proposed wind farm would be possible from approximately 2.5 km of this route 

as it descends from the ridge of the Pentland Hills. The most elevated views over the 

landscape would be gained from near the ridge as the path passes through the Cauldstane 

Slap pass between East and West Cairn Hills. The turbines would be visible in the landscape 

of conifer forests and farmland beyond the fringes of the regional Park. As the path 

descends, the foreground of steeply undulating moorland rises up to the left to conceal all but 

the tips of blades in most views of the proposed wind farm. Views partially open up east of 

Harperrig Reservoir, where the turbines would be visible beyond the expanse of water. The 

sensitivity of walkers would be high and the magnitude of change in view would be medium, 

leading to a Major effect, which is significant in terms of the ES methodology. 

Summary of Effects 

9.5.147 Occupiers of four of the 18 residential properties within the local study area of approximately 

2 km of the proposed wind farm would experience Moderate to Substantial adverse effects 

during the day, , which are considered to be significant. Walkers using core paths from the 

A70 to High Camilty and the A70 to the Pentland Hills would also experience significant 

effects. Occupiers of vehicles travelling in either direction on the A70 in close proximity to the 

site would experience significant adverse sequential effects during the day. Occupiers of 

trains travelling in both directions on the Lockerbie to Livingston railway would experience 

significant adverse sequential effects during the day. Significant sequential effects would also 

be experienced by walkers using the Cauldstane Slap/Old Drove Road/Thieves Road 

Heritage Footpath. Receptors at three of the 26 viewpoints assessed within the study area 

would experience significant adverse effects during the day. No visual receptors would 

experience significant night time effects on views. In addition, no significant adverse effects 

on landscape character would occur within the study area, including designated landscapes. 

Table 9.13 below identifies the 12 receptors, which would experience significant adverse 

effects. 





Table 9.13 Summary of Level of Effects (and Significance) 


Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 


(and 

significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation Enhancement Level of 

Effect (and 

significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect (i.e. 

temporary/ 

permenant/ 

direct etc) 

Occupiers of residential 

properties at Aberlyn 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High 

Large 

Major (significant) - - Major 

(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 

Substantial 

(significant) 

- - Substantial 

(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 


properties at Parkview 

Cottages 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Operation 

High 

Medium 

Moderate (not 

significant) 

- - Moderate (not 

significant) 


(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Permanent 

Direct 


properties at Over 

Williamston Farm 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High 

Medium 

Moderate (not 

significant) 


significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 


(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 


properties at Camilty Lodge 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High 

Medium 

Moderate (not 

significant) 


significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 


(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 

Walkers using Core Path 

A70 to High Camilty 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High 

Large 


(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 

Substantial 

(significant) 


(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 



Landscape and Visual



Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 


(and 

significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect (and 

significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect (i.e. 

temporary/ 

permenant/ 

direct etc) 

Walkers using Core Path 

A70 to Pentlands 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High 

Large 


(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 

Substantial 

(significant) 


(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 

Viewpoint 4: Crosswood 

Reservoir 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High 

Large 


(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 

Substantial 

(significant) 


(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 

Viewpoint 12: West Cairn 

Hill 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High 

Medium 

Moderate (not 

significant) 


significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 


(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 

Viewpoint 13: Craigengar 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High 

Medium 

Moderate (not 

significant) 


significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 


(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 

Occupiers of vehicles 

travelling north east and 

south west on A70 between 

Windygreen and Auchinoon 

Sequential 

effects 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Operation 

Medium 

Large 

Moderate (not 

significant) 


significant) 


(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Permanent 

Direct 






Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 


(and 

significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect (and 

significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect (i.e. 

temporary/ 

permenant/ 

direct etc) 

Occupiers of trains travelling 

north east and south west 

on Lockerbie to Livingston 

railway 

Sequential 

effects 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Operation 

Medium 

Medium 

Moderate (not 

significant) 

Major (an 

accumulation of 

Moderate effects. 

Significant) 


significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Permanent 

Direct 

Walkers using Cauldstane 

Slap/Old Drove 

Road/Thieves Road 

Heritage Footpath between 

A70 and Pentland Ridge 

Sequential 

effects 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Operation 

High 

Medium 

Moderate (not 

significant) 


significant) 


(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Permanent 

Direct 





Analysis of the Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development in West 

Lothian 

9.5.148 The site of the proposed wind farm lies within character type 2(ii) Upland Hill Fringes 

Gladsmuir/Woodmuir/Camilty Fringe. This area is defined within the objectives of the 

Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development in West Lothian as suitable for 

‘Landscape Accommodation’. The study defines this as ‘where some wind energy 

development could be acceptable as long as overall landscape character and visual amenity 

is retained. Rather than seeking to protect the landscape with this objective there may be 

important landscape related constraints in terms of the siting and scale of wind energy 

development, but suitably designed wind farms which generally fit with the landscape could 

potentially be accommodated even though they may have an impact on the landscape 

locally. The landscape is a landscape with wind energy development’. 

9.5.149 Unit 2(ii) in which the site is located, is assigned an overall Medium level of sensitivity, which 

is the lowest level identified within the study. Although the character type is considered to 

have potential to accommodate wind farm development, the presence of the 10 km buffer 

around the West Cairn Hill ‘iconic viewpoint’ indicates that the study considers significant 

adverse effects on visual receptors at this location would occur if a wind farm is developed in 

this area. The assessment in this chapter has identified that the proposed wind farm would 

form a prominent addition to views from this summit within the Pentland Hills Regional Park. 

The turbines would form a new focus in the view, whilst low level wind farm infrastructure 

would be less easily discernible and the felled areas of forestry would not be uncharacteristic 

in a commercially managed plantation. The blocks and strips of trees removed as part of the 

proposed wind farm would provide the opportunity to create a more visually diverse mosaic of 

forms and habitats to enhance the appearance of the dark, geometric blocks of conifers in 

the landscape. The proposed wind farm would also be visible in the context of existing wind 

farms at Black Law, Muirhall and Pates Hill, providing a continuation of established features 

and patterns. The separation between schemes would be maintained, providing a series of 

well defined wind farms in forestry. Although prominent and generating a significant effect on 

receptors at the peak of West Cairn Hill, as previously identified within this chapter at 

paragraphs 9.5.93 to 9.5.94, the receptors’ ability to enjoy the scenic quality of the Pentland 

Hills would not be diminished to such an extent that the special features, qualities and 

characteristics of the landscape could no longer be understood or appreciated. The 

designated landscape would remain intact beside a neighbouring landscape in which wind 

farms are located.. 

9.5.150 The study identifies principal sensitive routes, the most relevant of which within the vicinity of 

the proposed wind farm include two sections of the A70 to the north and south of the site. To 

the south of the site important views are considered to be northwards across Cobbinshaw 

Reservoir towards the Bathgate Hills. The proposed wind farm would not interrupt this view of 

the hills. The turbines would be visible to the right of the view rising out of forestry. Occupiers 

of vehicles would experience Moderate effects on transient views. To the north of the site, 

important views are considered to occur between Harperrig Reservoir and the eastern West 

Lothian boundary, with views southwards and eastwards to the Pentland Hills. The proposed 

wind farm would lie to the south west in these views and would not be visible behind the 

reservoir or in front of the Pentland Hills. The view would not be directly affected, although, 

the tops of turbines would be intermittently visible above intervening trees and woodland to 





the right of the view. There would also be a Moderate effect on occupiers of vehicles from 

this section of the A70. 

Effects on Landscape Resources and Visual Receptors at Decommissioning 

9.5.151 The anticipated effects on landscape and visual resources associated with the 

decommissioning phase are expected to be broadly similar to those identified for the 

construction phase. 


9.6.1 The scheme design and mitigation measures described in Chapter 3 and section 9.4 ‘Topic 

Specific Design Evolution’ have been included as an integral part of the scheme, so as to 

avoid, minimise and, where necessary, compensate for potential adverse effects. No further 

landscape mitigation is proposed. 


9.7.1 No further secondary mitigation measures are proposed and so the residual effects of the 

scheme on receptors are considered to be the same as those reported above. 

9.8 Assessment of Effects on Potential Future Receptors 

9.8.1 No future potential landscape or visual receptors have been identified which are likely to 

experience significant adverse effects as a result of the proposed wind farm. Changes in the 

composition of the Camilty Plantation due to the felling of trees as part of the FDP have been 

taken into consideration during the preparation of this chapter of the ES. 


9.9.1 The preceding sections have addressed the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed 

wind farm within an existing baseline, which contains operational wind farms, particularly the 

nearby schemes at Pates Hill and Muirhall. Legislation requires EIA also to address the 

cumulative impacts of a proposal together with other developments under development or 

planned in the area. The Scottish Executive’s web based advice ‘Onshore wind turbines’ 

(Feb.2011), which replaces PAN 45, highlights the likelihood that cumulative impacts may 

result in an eventual limit to the extent of onshore wind development ‘In areas approaching 

their carrying capacity the assessment of cumulative effects is likely to become more 

pertinent in considering new wind turbines, either as stand alone groups or extensions to 

existing wind farms. In other cases, where proposals are being considered in more remote 

places, the thresholds of cumulative impact are likely to be lower, although there may be 

other planning considerations’. The guidance also states that ‘In assessing cumulative 

landscape and visual impacts, the scale and pattern of the turbines plus the tracks, power 

lines and ancillary development will be relevant considerations. It will also be necessary to 

consider the significance of the landscape and the views, proximity and inter-visibility and the 

sensitivity of visual receptors’. 

9.9.2 Cumulative effects of wind farms are considered where the presence of other wind farms in a 

given area (usually within 60 km radius) in combination with the proposed wind farm may 





have an effect on the perception of the landscapes character or on views gained by sensitive 

receptors. 

9.9.3 As with the assessment of landscape effects, cumulative landscape effects can either be 

directly on the physical fabric of the landscape, or indirectly on the character of the 

landscape. 

9.9.4 A comprehensive search has been undertaken to identify other wind farms that are 

operational, under construction, consented or proposed, through various means of 

consultation. As a result, 190 other commercial wind farms within a 60 km radius of the 

proposed wind farm at the time of submission of this ES have been identified and reviewed 

(see Figure 9.16). The 95 relevant wind farms, excluding those in scoping, which lie within 35 

km of the proposed wind farm, have been assessed in detail. A table of these cumulative 

schemes and the landscape character type in which they are located is found in Appendix 

9.9. 

Cumulative Effects on Landscape Character 

Area of Great Landscape Value 

9.9.5 The proposed wind farm would lie adjacent to the boundary of the Pentland Hills AGLV and 

RSA. There are currently no operational or approved wind farms in the AGLV. Muirhall Wind 

Farm is located near the boundary of the RSA, in South Lanarkshire; and its extension will 

extend the wind farm closer to the designation boundary. Pates Hill Wind Farm is located 

approximately 4 km from the boundary of the AGLV. These two schemes provide distinctive 

elements of the Upland Fringes and Plateau Moorland character types, which provide the 

context to the Pentland Hills and are visible when looking to the north west from the hills. The 

schemes in planning at Fauch Hill and Beddingsgill Gamekeepers Cottage would be located 

within the AGLV to the south east of the proposed wind farm. These schemes would extend 

the characteristic of wind farms from the landscape type adjacent to the AGLV, into the 

landscape designation. Schemes at Harburnhead, Pearie Law and Benthead Farm are 

located outside of the AGLV, in the vicinity of existing wind farms at Pates Hill and Muirhall. 

The five schemes in planning would create a more prominent collection of wind farms within, 

adjacent and near to the AGLV, and a more developed context into which the proposed wind 

farm would be placed. In this context, the introduction of the proposed wind farm in the 

AGLV as a landscape of high sensitivity would result in a small magnitude of change. The 

additional cumulative, indirect effect on the landscape character of the AGLV would be 

Moderate, which is not significant. 

9.9.6 Appendix 9.9 identifies the generic landscape character types in which the cumulative wind 

farms lie. Only 18 of the 46 character types in the study area would contain at least one of 

the 95 wind farms. These character types are as follows: 

• Dissected Plateau Moorland – 3 wind farms; 

• Fragmented Farmlands – 1 wind farm; 

• Lowland Hill Fringes – 2 wind farm; 

• Lowland Hills and Valleys – 4 wind farms; 

• Lowland Plains 1 - wind farm; 

• Lowland Plateaux – 4 wind farms; 





• Lowland River Valleys – 1 wind farms; 

• Plateau Farmland – 33 wind farms; 

• Plateau Moorlands – 29 wind farms; 

• Pronounced Volcanic Hills and Craigs – 3 wind farms; 

• Rolling Farmland – 2 wind farm; 

• Southern Uplands with Scattered Forest – 1 wind farms; 

• Upland Foothills – 1 wind farms; 

• Upland Fringes – 4 wind farms in addition to the proposed Camilty wind farm; 

• Uplands – 1 wind farms; 

• Upland River Valleys – 2 wind farms; 

• Urban – 2 wind farms. 

9.9.7 The proposed wind farm would be located in the North West Pentlands Fringe character type. 

Two existing or consented schemes at Pates Hill and Tormywheel also lie within this 

character type, which is predominantly located in the West Lothian area. These schemes are 

well spaced in the landscape and small to medium in scale. Two further schemes in planning 

would also lie within this area; the small scale Pearie Law Wind Farm and the much larger 

Harburnhead scheme. These schemes have the greatest potential to result in direct 

cumulative effects on the character type. The four cumulative schemes together with the 

proposed wind farm would be located in areas of mainly coniferous plantation with some 

areas of moorland. The cumulative loss of landscape features would mainly relate to 

commercial forestry, which although characteristic of the area, is not a highly valued aspect 

of the Upland Fringes. However, there would be a direct adverse cumulative effect on the 

character of the Upland Fringes character type. The five schemes would form a series of 

wind farms in a corridor of mainly commercial forestry that extends west from the base of the 

Pentland Hills towards the settlement of Fauldhouse. Apart from the Harburnhead Wind 

Farm, which is much larger than the other four schemes, the wind farms would be relatively 

well related to each other in terms of size and scale in the open rolling landscape. The 

proposed wind farm would lie at the eastern end of the line of wind farms, nearest the base of 

the Pentland Hills, reflecting the diminishing scale of schemes from west to east. The 

sensitivity of the character type is medium and the magnitude of change would be medium. 

The additional cumulative effect on character following the development of the proposed wind 

farm would be Slight, which is not significant. 

9.9.8 The Fauch Hill Wind Farm lies just outside the North West Pentland Fringe character area 

and would be located within the Pentland Hills Upland character area. This would be closely 

associated with the Harburnhead Wind Farm in the landscape, appearing as an extension to 

the line of existing, consented and schemes in planning. The larger scale of the Harburnhead 

and Fauch Hill Wind Farms would disrupt the pattern of schemes which currently decreases 

in scale from west to east and would encroach on the uplands of the Pentland Hills, resulting 

in a significant cumulative effect on landscape character. The combination of the five 

cumulative wind farms would create a landscape with wind farms sub-type, which would flow 

over the two separate character areas. The erection of the proposed Camilty Wind Farm and 





the additional cumulative effect on landscape character would ne Slight, which is not 

significant. 

9.9.9 The remaining 91 cumulative schemes do not lie within the same character type as the 

proposed wind farm. There would be no direct cumulative effect on the landscapes of the 

other 15 character types as a result of the development of the proposed wind farm. 

9.9.10 There is the potential for cumulative indirect effects on generic landscape characteristics and 

features that are common to more than one character types within the study area. Some of 

the attributes of remoteness and wild character occur within the upland and hills character 

types in this locality, notwithstanding the proximity of other developments. The Uplands, Old 

Red Sandstone and Dissected Plateau Moorland character types of the Pentland Hills, the 

Foothills and Prominent Isolated Hills character types of the Tinto Hills, the Southern Uplands 

with Scattered Forest of the Upper Tweeddale and the Lowland Hills and Ridges of the 

Bathgate Hills form the upland and hills character context of the proposed wind farm. The 

open nature of the peaks and ridges within these areas, allowing extensive views over the 

study area result in a sense of remoteness. The 13 operational wind farms within the 35 km 

radius study area would all be visible from at least one of these areas of upland or hills. The 

developments form part of the landscape character baseline. The 29 approved wind farms 

that have had applications submitted would significantly increase the extent of development 

in the area and reduce the sense of remoteness of this part of the landscape. The additional 

cumulative effect on the sense of remoteness of the upland landscapes of the Pentland Hills 

in the vicinity of the site, following the development of the proposed wind farm would result in 

a small magnitude of change which would lead to a Slight effect, which is not significant. The 

proposal would be added to an established area of wind farms, which would be more 

extensive in nature than the proposed wind farm. The addition of the proposed wind farm 

would extend the series of wind farms in a forestry landscape up to the boundary of the 

Pentland Hills Regional Park and AGLV forming the most prominent development in views 

from the hills. 

9.9.11 The Bathgate Hills provide a vantage point for views south towards the Pentland Hills. The 

existing wind farms at Pates Hill and Muirhall are currently visible against the southern end of 

this upland ridge. The addition of a further three cumulative schemes, including the approved 

Muirhall extension, Upper Haywood and Tormywheel within the context of this upland 

landscape in the same field of view would increase the presence of wind farms in the 

surrounding landscape. Five further wind farms are proposed in the vicinity of this group of 

three schemes, overlapping with the ridge of the Pentland Hills. The wind farms would slightly 

disrupt views of this landscape feature, which would form a backdrop to the view. The 

addition of the proposed wind farm to this group in a location in front of the Pentland Hills 

would intensify development in this area. The sensitivity of the Bathgate Hills, Lowland Hills 

and Ridges character area is high; and the magnitude of change following the addition of the 

proposed wind farm would be small, resulting in a Moderate cumulative significance of effect. 

Cumulative Effects on Visual Receptors 

Cumulative Zones of Theoretical Visibility 

9.9.12 Cumulative ZTV’s are found at Figures 9.18, 1 to 95. Cumulative effects on visual amenity 

can be experienced either from static viewpoints, where two or more developments can be 

seen from a single location or from a series of points along a route experienced during a road 

or rail journey. This can be ‘combined visibility’, where the developments are visible in a 





single 75º arc of view; or ‘successively’, where the observer needs to turn to experience a 

wider arc of view; or ‘sequentially’, where in the process of moving along a route, two or more 

proposals are visible separately, one after the other. 

9.9.13 The ZTV’s have been generated based on the maximum blade tip height of turbines at each 

of the cumulative schemes and the proposed Camilty wind farm. The topographical model is 

a ‘bare earth’ wire frame and does not take into consideration visually significant vegetation 

or urban development. A single blade tip is sufficient to trigger the presence of a ZTV within 

the figures. The figures therefore represent a ‘worst case scenario’ for the purposes of the 

assessment in this chapter. 

Pates Hill Wind Farm 

9.9.14 There would be significant overlap between the blade tip ZTV’s of the two schemes, due to 

their close proximity in the same fringe landscape of the Pentland Hills. The cumulative blade 

tip ZTV is concentrated around the plateau and plains landscape of West Lothian, the north 

facing slopes of the Pentland Hills, the peaks and upper slopes of the Tinto Hills and Upper 

Tweeddale, mainly in South Lanarkshire, the Bathgate Hills, the southern shores of the Firth 

of Forth near Queensferry and the landscape of Fife 

9.9.15 Three further wind farms, which are at the application stage, would have similar cumulative 

blade tip ZTV’s to the Pates Hill Wind Farm. 

Muirhall and Extension, Blacklaw and Extension, Tormywheel and Upper Haywood Wind 

Farms 

9.9.16 There would be significant overlap between the ZTV of the proposed wind farm and the six 

cumulative schemes to the south west of the site. The cumulative ZTV’s occur within the 

plateau and plains landscape of West Lothian, concentrated in the fringes of the Pentland 

Hills and the higher land around the Bathgate Hills, pockets of land on the north facing slopes 

and peaks of the Pentland Hills, the upper slopes of the Tinto Hills in South Lanarkshire and 

peaks within Upper Tweeddale, the shores of the Firth of Forth near Queensferry and 

Dunfermline. 

9.9.17 Six further wind farms, which are at the application stage, would have similar cumulative 

ZTV’s to the six wind farms described above. 

Wester Hassock, Greendykeside, Bartlett, Glenhead Farm, Nether Bracco and Land East of 

Easter Glentore, Wind Farm 

9.9.18 There would be moderate overlap between the ZTV of the proposed wind farm and those for 

the six cumulative schemes to the west of the site. The cumulative ZTV’s occur as strips 

associated with ridges within the plateau and plains landscape of West Lothian and Falkirk, 

concentrated in the fringes of the Pentland Hills near the site and the higher land around the 

Bathgate Hills, the north facing slopes of the Pentland Hills, the peaks of the Tinto Hills in 

South Lanarkshire and parts of Firth west of Dunfermline. 

9.9.19 Seven further wind farms, which are at the application stage, would have similar cumulative 

ZTV’s to the seven wind farms described above. 

Bowbeat Hill and Carcant Wind Farms 

9.9.20 There would be very limited overlap between the ZTV for the proposed wind farm and the two 

cumulative wind farms in the Moorfoot Hills south east of the site. Small pockets of land 





associated with peaks within Upper Tweeddale, the Tinto Hills and the southern fringes of the 

Pentland hills. There would also be some very limited areas of ZTV at the peaks of the 

Pentland Hills and hills within the city of Edinburgh. 

FMC Technologies, Mossmoran and Little Raith Wind Farms 

9.9.21 There would be a small amount of overlap between the ZTV for proposed wind farm and the 

ZTV’s for three schemes to the north of the site within Fife. Land on the north facing slopes of 

the Pentland Hills and the hill fringes in the vicinity of the site, the plains around Livingston 

and the landscape of Fife. 

9.9.22 Four further wind farms, which are at the application stage, would have similar cumulative 

ZTV’s to the three wind farms described above. 

Lochhead and Extension, Yonderton, Auchnotroch Farm, Site North of Rosti Factory, 

Larkhall, Field South of Marshill Farm, Auchren Farm, Letham Farm and Dykehead Road 

Wind Farms 

9.9.23 There would be a limited amount of overlap between the ZTV for the proposed wind farm and 

the ZTV’s for the 10 cumulative schemes located to the south west of the site in South 

Lanarkshire. Peaks within the southern end of the Pentland Hills and higher land within North 

and South Lanarkshire,, including the Tinto Hills would lie within the cumulative ZTV’s. 

9.9.24 Twenty further wind farms, which are at the application stage, would have similar cumulative 

ZTV’s to the 10 wind farms described above. 

Glenkerie Wind Farm 

9.9.25 There would be a limited amount of overlap between the ZTV’s for the two schemes. The 

Glenkerie scheme is located to the south of the site in the Scottish Borders. Small pockets of 

land on the southern end of the Pentland Hills and the fringes of the plains within South 

Lanarkshire would lie within the ZTV together with peaks within the Upper Tweeddale area. 

Braiden Hill, Damhead Farm, Bellestane Farm and Burnbrae Farm Wind Farms 

9.9.26 There would be very limited overlap between the ZTV for the proposed wind farm and the 

four cumulative wind farms west of the site within North Lanarkshire. Some very small areas 

of the ZTV would be located near Cumbernauld and higher land along the M74 corridor in 

South Lanarkshire. 

9.9.27 One further wind farm, which is at the application stage, would have a similar cumulative ZTV 

to the two wind farms described above. 

Netherton Farm, Torrance Farm and Burnhead Moss Wind Farms 

9.9.28 There would be moderate overlap between the ZTV of the proposed wind farm and the three 

cumulative schemes to the north west of the site. The cumulative ZTV’s occur within the 

plateau and plains landscape of West Lothian and Falkirk concentrated in the fringes of the 

Pentland Hills and the higher land around the Bathgate Hills, land on the north facing slopes 

of the Pentland Hills, the upper slopes of the Tinto Hills and the landscape in Firth north west 

of Dunfermline. 

Asda New Bankside Depot, Kirkton Farm and Todhill Farm Wind Farms 

9.9.29 There would be a limited amount of overlap between the ZTV of the proposed wind farm and 

the ZTV’s for the three cumulative schemes located to the north of the site within Falkirk. 





Small pockets of land on the north facing slopes of the Pentland Hills in the vicinity of the site 

and to the north near Edinburgh would be affected. Scattered pockets of land within Fife 

would also lie within the cumulative ZTV. 


to the three wind farms described above. 

Clyde Wind Farm 

9.9.31 There would be a limited amount of overlap between the ZTV’s for the two schemes. The 

Clyde Wind Farm will be located to the south on the fringes of the 35 km study area. High 

land on the southern fringes of the Pentland Hills, the Tinto Hills, Upper Tweeddale and 

higher land along the corridor of the M74 and around Forth in South Lanarkshire. 


to the wind farm described above. 

Other Wind Farms at Application Stage 

9.9.33 Several further wind farms at application stage are located within the study area and would 

have cumulative ZTV’s with the proposed development, which are different to the schemes 

described above. 

9.9.34 The Baddinsgill Gamekeepers Cottage scheme is located to the south east of the proposal 

site within the Pentland Hills. The location of the wind farm between the two main parallel 

ridges would limit the ZTV to some peaks within the Pentland Hills, Upper Tweeddale, Tinto 

Hills and upland areas within South Lanarkshire and a small area of Fife. 

9.9.35 The Ormiston Wind Farm would be located north of Corston Hill on the fringes of Livingston 

to the north east of the proposal site. The cumulative ZTV would extend over the plateau and 

plains of West Lothian and Edinburgh to the shores of the Firth of Forth, areas of Fife and the 

north facing slopes of the northern half of the Pentland Hills. 

9.9.36 A cluster of six wind farms to the south west of the site in South Lanarkshire would result in a 

moderate amount of ZTV overlap. The broken area of cumulative ZTV would coincide with 

peaks and southern fringes of the Pentland Hills, higher land around Lanark and the Tinto 

Hills and peaks within hills extending east to the Upper Tweeddale area. 

9.9.37 The area of the landscape which lies within an overlap of the greatest number of ZTV’s are 

the plains and plateau landscapes of West Lothian, the peaks and north facing slopes of the 

Pentland Hills and higher land within South Lanarkshire including the Tinto Hills. 

Cumulative Viewpoint Analysis 

9.9.38 Cumulative visual effects have also been assessed based on eight key viewpoints of the 26 

locations taken through the assessment stage (see Figures at 9.19, 1 to 32). The cumulative 

wind farm schemes would be visible in combination with the proposed wind farm either in the 

same field of view or successively if the receptor turns through 360 degrees. 

Viewpoint 2. A70 North East of Site 

9.9.39 In this near view travelling on the A70, the only existing visible wind farm would be at Pates 

Hill, which would form a very minor element in the view to the west above the conifer 

plantations. Other existing and consented wind farms to the west and north west are more 

distant; and are likely to be largely obscured by intervening vegetation. The addition of 

schemes in planning at Harburnhead and Pearie Law to the west, visible behind the Camilty 





Plantation, would form prominent new developments in the view. Fauch Hill would be located 

to the south west on the slopes of the Pentland Hills, extending wind farms from the plateau 

and upland fringes landscapes into the open moorland of the uplands. The Fauch Hill 

scheme would be particularly prominent and uncharacteristic in this context. The established 

pattern of wind farms in the landscape of West Lothian would be disrupted by the relatively 

large schemes at Harburnhead and Fauch Hill. Wind farms would occupy approximately 60º 

of the view. Other planned wind farms to the west and north west are more distant and are 

likely to be largely obscured by intervening forestry planting. The proposed wind farm would 

form the closest visible scheme, sitting in front of the Harburnhead Wind Farm and forming 

an intensification of development in a distinct cluster with Pates Hill and Pearie Law. The 

horizontal spread of cumulative schemes within the view would not be significantly increased 

through the addition of the proposed wind farm. The magnitude of change would be small 

and the additional effect of the proposed wind farm would be Slight, which is not significant. 


9.9.40 At this second viewpoint on the A70, near views gained whilst travelling would include the 

existing wind farm at Pates Hill to the west as the most prominent scheme beyond forestry. 

Black Law would be potentially visible in the distance and only the blade tips of Muirhall 

would be visible on the horizon to the south west. Consented schemes at the Black Law 

Extension, Tormywheel and Muirhall Extension would also be potentially visible on the 

horizon between blocks of conifer plantation to the west. These schemes would occupy 

approximately 55º of the view. Schemes in planning would include Harburnhead beyond 

forestry planting to the north west. This would form a prominent, large scale development 

near to the viewpoint. Fauch Hill would also be prominent in the view to the east rising up the 

slopes of the Pentland Hills in a relatively open landscape, visible against the backdrop of the 

distinctive ridge. These two proposals would significantly increase the influence of wind farms 

in the landscape and unbalance the established pattern, scale and spacing of wind farms in 

the landscape. Other distant schemes in planning to the south west would be obscured 

beyond commercial forestry. The cumulative schemes would extend over approximately 180º 

of the view. The proposed wind farm would be visible to the north east between the 

Harburnhead and Fauch Wind Farms, at a similar distance to the two schemes. The proposal 

would be seen as an additional scheme, which continues the existing pattern of wind farms 

across the landscape. The proposed wind farm would increase the spread of wind farms in 

the view by less than 10º. The magnitude of change would be small and the additional effect 

of the proposed wind farm would be Slight, which is not significant. 


9.9.41 The mid-distance views from residential properties would include Pates Hill Wind Farm as a 

prominent scheme, close to the viewer, rising up beyond forestry and farmland to the north 

west. The Muirhall scheme would be less visible in the mid-distance to the south through 

intermittent tree belts. The Extension to Muirhall would slightly intensify the development in 

this part of the view. These schemes would combine to occupy approximately 50º of the 

overall view. Schemes in planning at Harburnhead, Pearie Law and Fauch Hill would form an 

extensive grouping of wind farms to the north east in the near to mid-distance, combining to 

form an uncharacteristically large group of turbines. The wind farms would be partially 

concealed beyond forestry, although would form a prominent addition to the view. A single 

turbine at Benthead Farm would be partially visible through trees to the south. The 

combination of these schemes would result in potentially 130º of the view including wind 





farms. The proposed wind farm would be largely obscured beyond intervening forestry and 

the Harburnhead scheme. Blades would be visible between turbines in the foreground. There 

would be no additional extension in the spread of visible turbines through the inclusion of the 

proposed wind farm in the view. The proposal would result in a slight intensification of the 

existing situation. The magnitude of change would be negligible and the additional effect of 

the proposed wind farm would be Negligible, which is not significant. 

Viewpoint 9. Five Sister’s, West Calder 

9.9.42 From this elevated viewpoint, cumulative schemes would be visible concentrated in the 

landscape in a broad arc to the south west. Pates Hill would be prominent on the horizon to 

the south, whilst clusters of schemes at Black Law and the consented extension and 

Tormywheel would be visible in the middle distance to the south west and a further cluster of 

schemes at Netherton Farm, Torrance Farm and Burnhead Moss to the west, would form the 

main schemes in the distance. These existing and consented proposals would extend across 

approximately 50º of the horizon. The three wind farms at Harburnhead, Pearie Law and 

Fauch Hill would form an extensive group in the middle distance to the south east, visible 

against a backdrop of the southern end of the Pentland Hills. These schemes would create 

an unbalanced grouping near the Pentland Hills, which is out of character with the series of 

existing and consented wind farms in the landscape. The Black Law Extension and Damside 

to the south west and Torrance Farm Extension to the west would intensify existing clusters 

in these locations. These schemes, which are in planning, would increase the extent of the 

view, which contains wind farms to approximately 100º. The proposed wind farm would be 

visible in front of the Fauch Hill scheme. Although closer to the viewer, these turbines would 

not be immediately apparent in the overall view and would represent a very minor increase in 

the density of development in this location. There would be no increase in the horizontal 

spread of the schemes. The magnitude of change would be negligible and the additional 

effect of the proposed wind farm would be Negligible, which is not significant. 


9.9.43 From this elevated location on the edge of the Pentland Hills AGLV, the Pates Hill Wind Farm 

would be visible rising out of forestry in the middle distance as a minor element in the view to 

the south west. Black Law is barely perceptible in the distance beyond. Muirhall Wind Farm 

forms a very minor feature to the left of this, to the south west. The Extensions to Muirhall 

and Black Law and the nearby scheme at Tormywheel would increase these clusters of 

turbines. The Netherton Farm, Torrance Farm and Burnhead Moss schemes to the west 

would also form a very distant cluster. These existing and consented wind farms would 

extend over approximately 25º of the view in the upland fringes and plateau landscapes. The 

Harburnhead and Pearie Law schemes would be more prominent in the middle distance of 

this view, visually linking clusters of schemes at Muirhall and Pates Hill to the south west, 

creating an excessively large cluster of turbines near the eastern end of this series of existing 

and consented wind farms. Black Law Extension Phase 2, Damside and Hartwood would 

extend this distant grouping of schemes to the west. The Fauch Hill Wind Farm would form a 

separate development to the left of this grouping rising up the foothills of the Pentland ridge 

in an Uplands character context which is different to the other schemes. The Torrance Farm 

Extension would increase the density of this cluster in the distance, to the west of the view. 

The single turbine at Ormiston Farm would form a relatively near scheme to the north in an 

otherwise wind farm free landscape. The combined spread of wind farms across this view 

would be approximately 80º. The proposed wind farm would form a minor addition to the view 





to the south west, partially overlapping with the Harburnhead and Muirhall schemes, 

intensifying the development at this location. There would be no increase in the horizontal 

spread of the schemes. The magnitude of change would be small and the additional effect of 

the proposed wind farm would be Slight, which is not significant. 

Viewpoint 12. West Cairn Hill 

9.9.44 This peak in the Pentlands provides a location for panoramic views over the landscape of the 

study area, with wind farms concentrated in the western quadrant. Pates Hill, Black Law and 

Muirhall are the most visible existing schemes within the commercial forests and moorland of 

the upland fringes and plateau. Greendykeside and Lochead to the west and Clyde, 

Glenkerie, and Bowbeat Hill to the south and south east would be barely perceptible due to 

distance from the viewpoint. The Muirhall and Black Law Extensions would add to these 

existing schemes; and Tormywheel would also extend this cluster to the west. Several more 

distant schemes to the west would be barely perceptible and are unlikely to add to the visual 

baseline. These wind farms would occupy approximately 50º of the view. Schemes in 

planning include Fauch Hill, which is the most prominent in views to the west. The turbines 

would form a large scale development near to the viewpoint on the lower slopes of the 

Pentland Hills. Harburnhead, Pearie Law and Hartwood Wind Farms would form further 

schemes beyond Fauch Hill; and together with Pates Hill, would form a significant cluster 

extending from the foreground into the mid-distance. This grouping of turbines would appear 

excessively large either within, or in the context of, the Pentland Hills AGLV and Regional 

Park, disrupting the existing pattern of wind farms. Further, more distant schemes, which 

primarily include Easterton, Greengairs, Greengairs East, Torrance Farm Extension, Black 

Law Extension Phase 2, Broken Cross and Easteniel, would be barely perceptible in the 

distance, in the western quadrant of this view, providing a slightly more intensively developed 

backdrop to the view. The top of the single turbine at Baddinsgill Gamekeepers Cottage 

would form a near development in the heart of the Pentlands to the south. Schemes to the 

north would be distant and dispersed, being barely perceptible in the view. The cumulative 

effect of schemes within the view would extend over approximately 90º. The proposed wind 

farm would be visible in the middle distance in the fringes of the Pentland Hills beyond Fauch 

Hill and in front of Pearie Law. The turbines would slightly increase the density of wind farms 

in this grouping to the west, although, they would not increase the horizontal extent of the 

view affected. The magnitude of change would be small and the additional effect of the 

proposed wind farm would be Slight, which is not significant. 

Viewpoint 15. Howden House Livingston 

9.9.45 Groups of mature trees within Howden Park would partially obscure many of the cumulative 

schemes, which would otherwise be theoretically visible from this location. The main existing 

scheme would be Pates Hill to the south west. The Black Law Extension and Tormywheel 

would potentially be visible to the right of this; whilst Netherton Farm, Torrence Farm and 

Burnhead Moss may be visible to the west. These schemes could potentially extend over 

approximately 15º of the view, although this is likely to be much reduced due to the existing 

vegetation. The Fauch Hill Wind Farm would be the most prominent scheme in planning, as it 

would sit within the centre of the view. Harburnhead and Pearie Law would form a relatively 

large cluster to the right, near Pates Hill. Black Law Extension 2 and Damside would add to 

the cluster to the south west; and Torrance Farm Extension would add to this cluster to the 

west. The schemes would collectively occupy up to approximately 40º of the view although, 

this is likely to be significantly reduced by the intervening mature trees. The proposed wind 





farm would be visible, partially overlapping to the right of the Fauch Hill scheme, extending 

this cluster and occupying more of the horizon beyond Livingston. There would be no 

significant increase in extent of view affected by wind farms. The magnitude of change would 

be small and the additional effect of the proposed wind farm would be Slight, which is not 

significant. 

Viewpoint 16. Knock Viewing Point Bathgate Hills 

9.9.46 The view from this range of lowland hills is focused to the south. Existing schemes at Pates 

Hill and Muirhall would be recognisable in the distance to the south with the larger cluster of 

turbines at Black Law visible in the distance to the south west. Extensions to Muirhall and 

Blacklaw would increase these clusters, together with Tormywheel, which would lie between 

the two. The wind farms would occupy approximately 25º of the view. The planned Fauch Hill 

Wind Farm would be recognisable in the middle distance to the south east, with Harburnhead 

and Pearie Law visually overlapping as a separate group to the right. Black Law Extension 2 

and Damside would add to the intensity of development in the vicinity of Black Law to the 

south west. The wind farms would be visible as a chain of developments stretching across 

the landscape of the plateau and upland fringes, with Fauch Hill and Harburnhead creating 

an unbalanced group of turbines, which is at odds with the existing pattern of developments 

in the landscape. The total extent of the cumulative schemes within this view would be 

approximately 50º. The magnitude of change would be small and the additional effect of the 

proposed wind farm would be Slight, which is not significant. 

Cumulative Sequential Visual Effects 

9.9.47 Figures 9.21 and 9.22 illustrates the routes and the cumulative wind farm schemes 

considered within the cumulative sequential assessment. 

Windygreen to Camilty Plantation Travelling North on the A70 

9.9.48 Potential views of the existing and consented cumulative schemes within 15 km of the 

proposal site include Pates Hill, Muirhall and Extension, Tormywheel and Upper Haywood. 

These schemes would theoretically be visible in combination with proposed wind farm from 

the majority of the cumulative ZTV, which is approximately 7 km of this road. Mid-distance 

views between 15 km and 4 km of the site would generally be through gaps in roadside 

vegetation and dips in the landform. The Muirhall Wind Farm, in particular, would be visible in 

near views approximately 8 km from the site, where it would form the dominant element in 

transient views. Within 4 km of the site, the existing and consented wind farms would no 

longer be visible when travelling north east. 

9.9.49 Views of Harburnhead, Pearie Law and Fauch Hill Wind Farms, which are in planning,, lie in 

close proximity to the proposal site and would be visible from similar locations to the existing 

and consented schemes whilst travelling on this road. Within 4 km of the site, Harburnhead, 

Pearie Law and Fauch Hill Wind Farms would collectively form a dominant addition to the 

view extending from the landscape of commercial forestry to the left of the view, across the 

A70 to the base of the Pentland Hills. Open views of the three schemes would be visible until 

the site is reached, where only Fauch Hill would be visible to the right against a backdrop of 

the distinctive Pentland ridge. The cumulative baseline for sequential effects on occupiers of 

vehicles would include a significant number of schemes, which would be glimpsed through 

vegetation throughout a journey from Windygreen to Camilty Plantation. The small to medium 

magnitude of change due to the addition of the proposed wind farm would lead to a Slight to 





Moderate additional cumulative effects, which would be significant for close views of the 

proposals, within 4 km of the site. 


9.9.50 Potential views of the existing and consented cumulative schemes within 15 km of the 

proposal site include primarily Pates Hill, Muirhall, Tormywheel and Upper Haywood. These 

schemes would theoretically be visible in combination with the proposed wind farm from the 

majority of the cumulative ZTV, which is approximately 4 km of this road. The Muirhall 

Extension would be visible from approximately half of this section of the road. Mid-distance 

views towards the wind farms as, sometimes, minor new elements within a landscape of 

grazing land and large expanses of coniferous plantation define the scene. Pates Hill Wind 

Farm forms the most easily recognisable scheme in these views. 

9.9.51 Schemes at Harburnhead, Pearie Law and Fauch Hill are in planning and lie in close 

proximity to the proposed wind farm. These wind farms would be more prominent in views 

from similar locations to the existing and consented schemes whilst travelling on this road. 

The turbines would become more dominant in the view as the road approaches the site 

boundary. The Fauch Hill Wind Farm in particular would be dominant in views of the Pentland 

Hills, which form the main focus for views within this road journey. 

9.9.52 The proposed wind farm would form a prominent addition to views from the road within 

approximately 2 km of the site. The small to medium magnitude of change due to the 

inclusion of the proposed wind farm would lead to a Slight to Moderate additional cumulative 

effects, which would be significant for occupiers of vehicles on this stretch of road. 


9.9.53 The Pates Hill, Upper Haywood and Tormywheel existing and consented wind farms would 

potentially be glimpsed through road side vegetation and blocks of conifer plantation between 

West Calder and south of Harburn. The planned schemes of Pearie Law and Harburnhead, 

which lie closer to this road, would potentially be more prominent in views from this length of 

the road. As the B7008 continues south past the proposal site, the Harburnhead scheme 

would continue to be visible above intervening conifer plantation and roadside hedges. The 

Fauch Hill Wind Farm would also become more visible through and over vegetation where it 

is located on higher land within the Pentland Hills. 

9.9.54 The proposed wind farm would be visible from the B7008 mainly to the south of Harburn and 

adjacent to the site boundary, where turbine blades would be visible above conifer plantation 

with Fauch Hill beyond. The addition of the proposed wind farm into the view in combination 

with other schemes would result in a medium magnitude of change and a Moderate effect, 

which as an accumulation of sequential effects, would be significant. 


9.9.55 The main cumulative visual effects experienced by occupiers of vehicles on this road would 

be associated with the Harburnhead scheme, which lies in close proximity to the west. 

Turbines at this wind farm would be glimpsed through gaps in trees within this 0.5 km length 

of road. Similar views of the proposed wind farm turbines would be gained to the east within 

the same journey, although not in the same view. The additional magnitude of change would 

be medium, resulting in a Moderate effect, which as a sequence of views would be 

significant. 






9.9.56 Views from the train at the southern end of this journey would theoretically include the 

existing or consented schemes at Pates Hill, Muirhall and Extension, Upper Haywood, 

Tormywheel and Black Law Extension. These wind farms would be visible in a landscape of 

commercial forestry. Where Pates Hill and Muirhall are relatively close to the railway, these 

schemes would become more prominent in views. As the train approaches Harburn, no 

further views of wind farms would be gained. 

9.9.57 Schemes in planning at Pearie Law and Harburnhead lie immediately adjacent to the railway 

and would be dominant in some views, both to the north and south of the railway. The 

Camilty proposed wind farm would be visible through the Harburnhead scheme as an 

intensification of development. Fauch Hill would be prominent as a backdrop to these views. 

The total length of line from which views of the wind farm in combination with at least one 

other cumulative scheme would be gained, is approximately 1.25 km. The small magnitude of 

change would result in a sequence of Slight effects, which over the length of the journey 

would not be significant. 


9.9.58 Views of the existing and consented schemes at Pates Hill and Tormywheel would be gained 

for a large part of this section of the railway. Muirhall and Upper Haywood would be less 

visible in the landscape due to landform and vegetation. Pearie Law, Harburnhead and 

Fauch Hill would form a prominent series of wind farms stretching across the forestry 

landscape to the base of the Pentland Hills. These schemes would be visible for a relatively 

small amount of the journey. The proposed wind farm would be visible in combination with 

primarily the three schemes in planning, with which it would be closely associated. The 

scheme would visually fill the gap between Harburnhead and Fauch Hill when viewed from 

the north. The visibility of the proposed wind farm, in combination with at least one of the 

cumulative schemes, would be limited to approximately 1km of the railway between 

Livingston and Harburn. The magnitude of change in these transient views would be small, 

leading to Slight effects, which is not significant. 


9.9.59 Views from this path as it descends the Pentland Ridge focus on the landscape to the north. 

Oblique views of existing and consented schemes at Pates Hill and Tormywheel would be 

possible from large parts of this section of the footpath. The schemes in planning at Fauch 

Hill, Harburnhead and Pearie Law would also be visible in closer proximity to the viewer. The 

Fauch Hill scheme in particular would be prominent on the lower slopes of the Pentland Hills, 

extending wind farm development from the adjacent landscape into the upland landscape. 

The proposed wind farm would be visible between Fauch Hill and Harburnhead and, together 

with at least one other cumulative scheme, views would be possible from approximately 2.5 

km of this route. The sensitivity of walkers using this path would be high and the magnitude 

of change in view would be small, leading to a Moderate effect. An accumulation of 

moderate effects throughout the walk would be significant in terms of the ES methodology. 

Cumulative Effects of Wind Farms 35 to 60km from the Proposal Site 

9.9.60 Cumulative wind farms within a zone between 35 km and 60 km from the proposal site total 

95 schemes, with a further 15 schemes in scoping (see Figure 9.16). The majority of these 

schemes are located to the south west of the site within South Lanarkshire, south of 





Glasgow. A smaller number of schemes can be found in a band of the study extending 

around to Fife. Another smaller cluster is focussed in the northern part of the Scottish 

Borders. The Pentland Hills are relatively central within the study area and would provide the 

best vantage point for panoramic views towards more distant schemes in South Lanarkshire. 

However, the viewers’ ability to see these distant turbines would be limited by the presence 

of a large number of schemes within the intervening landscape. The northern end of the 

Pentland Hills would provide an elevated viewing point for walkers to gain views south east 

towards cumulative schemes in the Scottish Borders. There is potential for successive 

cumulative effects on views from these hills. The proposed wind farm would form a barely 

perceptible element in views from this location; and its addition to the cumulative baseline 

would not result in significant effects. 

Summary of Cumulative Effects on Visual Receptors 

9.9.61 It is anticipated that the greatest number of potential views of cumulative wind farms, whether 

in combination with the proposal, or successively if the receptor turns through 360 degrees, 

would be attained within the Pentland Hills. Cumulative visual effects have been assessed 

based on eight key viewpoints of the 26 taken through the assessment stage. No significant 

cumulative effects have been identified for the viewpoints assessed above at paragraphs 

9.9.39 to 9.9.46. The cumulative baseline is a significantly more developed landscape than 

the existing baseline. This is largely due to the large number of schemes in planning which lie 

in close proximity to the proposal site. Placing the proposed wind farm into a more developed 

context would result in a lower magnitude of change and a lower level of effect compared 

with seeing the wind farm in a relatively undeveloped context. 

9.9.62 Four routes have been assessed for sequential cumulative effects. Significant effects have 

been identified for occupiers of vehicles using the A70 and B7008 in close proximity to the 

proposal site and for walkers using the Cauldstane Slap/Old Drove Road/Thieves Road 

Heritage Footpath. 

Overall Summary of Landscape and Visual Effects 

9.9.63 The 35km radius study area comprises 26 landscape character areas which coincide with the 

ZTV for the proposal. None of these character areas would experience significant adverse 

effects as a result of the Camilty Wind Farm proposal. Effects on landscape character relate 

to the direct effects on the ‘North West Pentland Fringe’ character area in which the proposal 

would be located. Areas of commercial conifer plantation would form the only feature which 

would be removed or changed as a result of the development. The direct effect on the 

landscape of this area would lead to Moderate adverse effects on character. The proposals, 

in combination with existing wind farm schemes in the vicinity would create a ‘landscape with 

wind farms’ subtype, rather than a ‘wind farm landscape’ character area. Four further 

character areas associated with the Pentland Hills, Bathgate Hills and Tinto Hills would also 

experience Moderate effects. These character areas coincide with either AGLV’s or RSA’s 

and are of high scenic quality. The Camilty Wind Farm would have an influence over the 

character of these relatively wild upland areas, in the context of a landscape with existing 

wind farms as typical, although prominent features. The remaining 21 landscape character 

areas within the study area would experience either Slight or Negligible indirect effects on 

character, which would not be significant. 

9.9.64 The effects on visual receptors at the 26 viewpoints have been assessed within this chapter. 

Significant adverse effects have been identified for walkers at Crosswood Reservoir, West 





Cairn Hill and Craigengar, all within the Pentland Hills. Receptors at eight viewpoints would 

experience Moderate levels of effect, receptors at eight viewpoints would experience Slight 

levels of effect and receptors at seven viewpoints would experience Negligible effects, none 

of which would be significant. Views of the proposals would usually be seen in the context of 

other existing schemes in the wider landscape. 

9.9.65 Visual receptors in close proximity to the site who would experience significant effects on 

views would include occupiers of residential properties at Aberlyn, Parkview Cottages, Over 

Williamston Farm and Camilty Lodge. Fifteen further properties within the local vicinity would 

either have no view of the proposals or the proposals would not lead to a significant change 

in view. Receptors in the local area who would also experience significant effects on 

sequential views within a journey include walkers using core paths between the A70 and 

High Camilty and the A70 and the Pentlands, walkers using the Cauldstane Slap to the 

Pentland Ridge, occupiers of vehicles on the A70 between Windy Green and Auchinoon and 

occupiers of trains on the Lockerbie to Livingston railway. 


• Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 

(2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2 nd Edition 

• Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Landscape Character 

Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland 

• Landscape Institute, Advice Note 01/11 Photography and Photomontage in 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, Visual Representation of Wind Farms: Good Practice 

Guidance (dated 2006, published 2007) 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, Cumulative Effects of Wind Farms, Guidance Note (v2, 

2005) 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Onshore Wind 

Energy Developments, (March 2012) 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape (Dec. 

2009) 

• Scottish Natural Heritage, The Special Qualities of the National Scenic Areas (2010) 

• David Tyldesley and Associates, Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy 

Development in West Lothian (January 2011) 

• Scottish Government web-based renewables advice (superseded PAN 45) 

• PAN 68 – Design Statements 

• The Scottish Government Scottish Planning Policy SPP. (February 2010) 

• Sustainable Development Commission, Wind Power in the UK – A guide to the key 

issues surrounding onshore wind power development in the UK (2005) 

• Durham County Council Impact Assessment Matrices (unpublished, 1996) 





• Topic Paper 9: ‘Climate Change and Natural Forces – the Consequences for 

Landscape Character’ (The Countryside Agency, 2003) 

• The Town and Country Planning (National Scenic Areas) (Scotland) Designation 

Directions 2010 

• Environmental Resources Management (2002) (Review of the role of the National 

Scenic Area and other landscape designations in the Scottish planning system, SNH 

Review No 134) 

• Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan 2015 (Approved June 2004) 

• Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan (2006) 

• Scottish Borders Council Structure Plan (Approved September 2002) 

• Fife Council Structure Plan (Approved 2002) 

• Falkirk Council Structure Plan (2002) 

• Stirling Council Supplementary Planning Guidance: Interim Locational Policy and 

Guidance for Renewable Energy Development (Wind Turbines) 


Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 91 

• 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 

• ASH Consulting Group, (1998), The Borders landscape assessment, Scottish Natural 

Heritage Review No 112 

• David Tyldesley and Associates, (1995), Dunfermline District Landscape Assessment: 

a landscape assessment of Dunfermline District, including part of Kirkcaldy District 

lying in the West Fife Woodlands Initiative Area, Natural Heritage Review No 19 

• Ironside Farrar, (Nov 2010), South Lanarkshire Landscape Character Assessment 

• Land Use Consultants, (1999), Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Landscape Character 

Assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 116 





10 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 


10.1.1 This chapter considers the direct and indirect effects of the proposed wind farm on the 

cultural heritage of the area, including buried archaeological sites, historic buildings and 

historic landscapes. It aims to identify all effects on these 'historic assets' - in terms of the 

potential for direct physical disturbance and indirect visual effects on setting - and to assess 

the overall effect and significance of these predicted effects. 

10.1.2 The following stages of the proposed wind farm are likely to affect the historic environment: 

• Construction - this would be the phase where direct physical effects on any buried 

archaeology are most likely to occur; 

• Operation - this is the phase during which visual effects on the settings of surrounding 

historic assets would occur; 

• Decommissioning - this is the phase during which the components of the wind farm 

would be removed. 

10.1.3 The construction of the tracks, turbine foundations, crane pads, construction compounds etc. 

all involve significant groundworks and have the potential to disturb buried archaeological 

remains. 

10.1.4 A thorough desk assessment of the area of the proposed wind farm (see Figure 10.1), 

followed by a site walkover in May 2012, forms the basis for the assessment of the potential 

for known and unknown remains on the site to be physically disturbed by the proposed wind 

farm. This information was fed into the design process and the final proposals have, to the 

greatest extent possible, avoided direct effects on known archaeological sites. 

10.1.5 The proposed wind farm consists of six variable pitch (three bladed) wind turbines, each with 

a maximum tip height of 132 m. Other components of the wind farm development include: 

• Crane hard-standing areas adjacent to each wind turbine; 

• Underground electrical and scada 1 

substation building; 

cabling – linking each wind turbine with the 

• A substation building; 

• Site access from the existing A70; 

• Permanent access tracks onto the site and between turbines; 

• One permanent anemometry mast; and 

• Temporary construction compound for materials storage and welfare facilities. 

10.1.6 Mitigating the potential effects of the proposed development has largely been addressed 

through the design evolution process. In particular, by carrying out a full and detailed 

assessment of the location of historic assets within the core study area it has been possible 



Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 



largely to avoid direct physical effects on known archaeological sites and to minimise effects 

on the settings of designated assets. 

10.1.7 The chapter is structured as follows: 

• Methodology; 

• Baseline Information; 

• Topic Specific Design Evolution; 

• Potential Significant Effects of the Scheme; 

• Mitigation and Enhancement Measures; 

• Assessment of Residual Effects; and 

• Cumulative Effects. 


10.2.1 This section includes the following topics: 

• Consultation; 

• Baseline survey methodology (desk-based assessment, walk-over); 

• Assessment methodology (criteria used to assess levels of direct and indirect, visual 

effects). 

Consultation 

10.2.2 Initial consultation has been carried out with West of Scotland Archaeology Service in the 

form of an exchange of emails. An email from WoSAS dated 14th June 2012 noted that “the 

ES should include a fairly high number of wireframes and photomontages, illustrating the 

effect of the proposal on the setting of the scheduled sites surrounded by the windfarm. I 

would consider that both types of illustration should be included, as photomontages can 

illustrate the effect of the turbines if fringes of forestry are retained, while wireframes can 

provide an indication of their visibility if the landscape were cleared of intervening vegetation. 

In relation to scheduled sites, I would also note the presence of the scheduled Five Sisters 

shale bing and a scheduled cairn at Harperrig, just outside the 5km buffer. Given that a 

number of other wind farms have been proposed in areas adjacent to this, any assessment of 

its effect on the setting of more distant sites should also consider the issue of cumulative 

impact.” 

10.2.3 A scoping report has been issued outlining the methodology to be used. The comments 

received from that process are detailed in Chapter 2 and have been taken account of within 

this assessment. 

10.2.4 Extensive consultation has also been undertaken with Historic Scotland with respect to 

designated assets. This is more fully described at paragraph 10.4.1 et seq, below. 

Baseline Survey Methodology 

Study Area 

10.2.5 Four main study areas have been defined for the purposes of gathering baseline data and 

completion of the assessment for the proposed wind farm. These are discussed below. 





Application Area 

10.2.6 The application area is formed by the site boundary of the proposed wind farm (see Figure 

10.1). 

Core Study Area 

10.2.7 The Core Study Area is formed by a radius of 1.5 km around the boundary of the proposed 

wind farm (see Figure 10.1). Figure 10.4 shows historic landscape character areas within the 

core study area. 

Inner Study Area 

10.2.8 The Inner Study Area is formed by a radius of between 1.5 and 5 km around the boundary of 

the proposed wind farm (see Figure 10.2). For buried archaeological sites that are recorded 

on the WoSAS Historic Environment Record (HER) but not otherwise designated and for 

those designated historic environment resources of regional and local significance, the study 

area is a circle of 5 km radius centred on the proposed wind farm. A small area within this 

radius to the south-east of the proposed wind farm is located within the Scottish Borders 

Council Area. It is not considered that the potential for likely significant environmental effects 

on a cultural heritage asset of regional or local importance would exist beyond 3 km and on 

this basis, and on the basis of a review of Pastmap, data for this area has not been 

requested. Only those receptors that fall within the ZTV for the proposed wind farm have 

been identified and described. 

Outer Study Area 

10.2.9 The Outer Study Area is formed by a radius of between 5 and 10 km around the boundary of 

the proposed wind farm (see Figure 10.3). Having regard to the nature and scale of the 

proposed wind farm, and experience of similar developments, it is considered that the 

potential for likely significant adverse effects on designated cultural heritage assets of 

international and national significance would be confined to resources within 10 km of the 

proposed wind farm. A review of internationally significant assets outside this area has been 

undertaken, however. 

Desk Assessment 

10.2.10 The desk 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. 

10.2.11 The assessment was based on a preliminary, desk-based, assessment of the likelihood of 

the proposed wind farm site to contain archaeological remains and to provide an indication of 

what, if any, further work would be required with regard to archaeology. 

10.2.12 The primary information resource was a review of the Historic Environment Record. This was 

supplemented by relevant published documentary and cartographic material, as appropriate, 

including an examination of early cartographic sources and relevant Ordnance Survey 

editions, undertaken to identify potential cultural heritage features within and outwith the 

application area. Geological maps of the study area were also consulted. 

10.2.13 Information on World Heritage Sites (WHS), Scheduled Monuments (SMs), listed buildings, 

Inventoried Gardens and Designed Landscapes (GDL) and Inventoried Historic Battlefields 

was obtained from Historic Scotland. 





10.2.14 An assessment of the records held by the National Monuments Record of Scotland (NMRS) 

was also 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 around the application area. 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. 

10.2.15 A site visit and walkover survey was undertaken by a qualified archaeologist in May 2012 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. 

10.2.16 The site visit was also intended to provide an indication of the suitability of any further survey 

technique. 

Assessment Methodology 

10.2.17 This section sets out the methodology used for assessing physical effects on any buried 

archaeology on the proposed wind farm site and on the settings of historic assets in the wider 

landscape, in line with the overall EIA methodology presented in Chapter 2: The 

Environmental Impact Assessment and Scoping Process. The criteria used to assess 

potential direct effects on cultural heritage are initially discussed followed by the criteria used 

to assess effects on setting. 

Historic Asset Importance 

Assessment of Resource Importance (Value) – Archaeological Remains 

10.2.18 There are no national government guidelines for evaluating the importance or sensitivity (and 

hence the value) of cultural heritage resources. 

10.2.19 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, therefore their 

value can be uncertain. 

10.2.20 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). This 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 importance of archaeological assets: 





Table 10.1 Factors for Assessing the Importance of Archaeological Assets 

Asset Importance 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Negligible 

Unknown 

Example 

World Heritage Sites 

Assets of acknowledged international importance 

Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international research 

objectives 

Scheduled Monuments 

Undesignated assets of schedulable quality and importance 

Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research 

objectives 

Designated or undesignated assets that contribute to regional research 

objectives 

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 

Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest 

The importance of the resource cannot be ascertained 

Assessment of Resource Importance (Value) - Historic Buildings 

10.2.21 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 category may be in need of updating, professional judgement is required. 

10.2.22 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. 

10.2.23 At a local level, buildings may be valued for their association with local events and people or 

for their role in the community. 

10.2.24 DMRB Guidance Note 208/07 provides the following table as a guide for evaluating the 

importance of historic buildings: 





Table 10.2 Guide for Establishing the Importance of Historic Buildings 


High 

Medium 

Low 

Negligible 

Unknown 

Example 

Standing buildings inscribed as of universal importance as World Heritage Sites 

Other buildings of recognised international importance 

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 category 

Conservation areas containing very important buildings 

Undesignated structures of clear national importance 

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) 

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) 

Buildings of no architectural or historic note; buildings of an intrusive character 

Buildings with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic significance 

Assessment of Resource Importance (Sensitivity) - Historic Landscape 

10.2.25 Annexe 7 of the DMRB Guidance Note 208/07 notes that the sub-topic of Historic Landscape 

is recognised as having significant overlaps with other topics such as Landscape and 

Townscape, therefore 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 the historic landscape sub-topic should 

concentrate on the overall historic landscape character and its value rather than the individual 

elements within it. 

10.2.26 All landscapes have some level of historic significance, as all of the present appearance of 

the urban and rural parts of Britain are the result of human or human-influenced activities 

overlain on the physical parameters of climate, geography and geology. 

10.2.27 There are a number of designations that can apply to historic landscapes, including World 

Heritage Sites (inscribed for their historic landscape value), Inventoried GDL, and 

conservation areas. Some local plans include locally designated Historic Landscape Areas, 

and Historic Parks and Gardens (or similar). 





10.2.28 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 the smallest to the largest, as 

follows: 

• Elements - individual features such as earthworks, structures, hedges and woods; 

• 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; 

• Regions - areas sharing an overall consistency over large geographical tracts. 

10.2.29 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. 

10.2.30 The Historic Landuse 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. 55 Historic Landuse types have been defined, characterised by their 

period of origin, as well as form and function. The landuse types were considered in 

compiling the assessment. 

10.2.31 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 the Importance of Historic Landscape Character Areas 


High 

Example 

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, timedepth, 

or other critical factors. 

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, timedepth, 







Medium 

Low 

Negligible 

Example 

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, timedepth, 


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. 

Landscapes with little or no significant historical interest. 

Assessment of Effect Magnitude - Archaeological Remains 

10.2.32 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 

NPPG 5) that preservation of the resource is preferred, and that total physical loss of the 

resource is the least preferred. 

10.2.33 It is not always possible to assess the physical effect in terms of percentage loss, and 

therefore it is 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 they 

only apply for the life/presence of the development and thus are reversible in most cases. 

10.2.34 Impact magnitude is adapted from that defined in the DMRB (Volume 11, Section 3, Annex 5) 

as: 

Large 

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). 

Medium 

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). 

Small 

Changes to key archaeological elements, such that the resource 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 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 No change. 

10.2.35 Additional methodology regarding the assessment of effects on settings is provided below in 

the section on ‘setting’. 

Assessment of Effect Magnitude - Historic Buildings 

10.2.36 The magnitude of effect is assessed without regard to the value of the resource, so the total 

loss of a less significant 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. 

10.2.37 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 in the section on ‘setting’. 

10.2.38 Effect magnitude is adapted from that defined in the DMRB (Volume 11 Section 3, Annex 6) 

as: 

Large 

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). 

Medium 

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). 

Small 

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 Slight changes to historic building 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 No change to fabric or setting. 

Assessment of Effect Magnitude - Historic Landscape 

10.2.39 Historic landscapes cannot be destroyed or damaged by wind energy development but 

effects on them can change their character before the wind farm is decommissioned. Effects 

should be assessed using evaluated historic landscape character units, not the 

elements/parcels/components that contribute towards the character (paragraph 10.2.28). 

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. 

10.2.40 Effect magnitude is adapted from that defined in DMRB (Volume 11, Section 3, Annex 7) as: 

Large 

Medium 

Small 

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. 

Negligible 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 No change to elements, parcels or components; no visual or audible changes; 

no changes arising from amenity or community factors. 

10.2.41 The level 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, and temporary or 

permanent. Beneficial effects are those that mitigate existing effects and help to restore or 

enhance heritage assets, allowing for greater understanding and appreciation. Temporary 

effects are those that cause a change to the baseline for a limited period of time, as opposed 

to permanent effects, which will not cease when the activity in question does, causing an 

irreversible change to the baseline.. In line with Guidance Note 208/07 (DMRB Volume 11, 

Section 3, Annex 7) the following matrix shown in Table 11.5 is used for all three sub-topics. 

Table 10.4 Cultural Heritage: Level of Effects Matrix 

Importance or Sensitivity of Receptor 


Magnitude of Change 

LARGE 

MEDIUM 




moderate 


moderate 

Moderate or 

slight 

Negligible 


SMALL Moderate or slight Slight Slight or 

negligible 

Negligible 


NO CHANGE None None None None 





10.2.42 Where the matrix provides a split in the level of effects, e.g. Moderate/Slight, the assessor will 

exercise professional judgement in determining which of the levels is more appropriate. 

10.2.43 Moderate or greater effects are considered to be significant for the purposes of the EIA 

Regulations. As indicated above, however, the level of effect resulting from a particular 

combination of magnitude and sensitivity is subject to a degree of professional judgement 

taking into account site-specific considerations. 

Setting 

10.2.44 The Scottish Historic Environment Policy (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”. 

10.2.45 In addition, Historic Scotland has published a guidance note on setting entitled ‘Managing 

Change in the Historic Environment – Setting’ (Historic Scotland, 2010). 

10.2.46 This guidance notes that: “Setting should be thought of as the way in which the surroundings 

of a historic asset or place contribute to how it is experienced, understood and 

appreciated…Monuments, buildings, gardens and settlements were not constructed in 

isolation. They were often deliberately positioned with reference to the surrounding 

topography, resources, landscape and other monuments or buildings. These relationships 

will often have changed through the life of a historic asset or place…Setting often extends 

beyond the immediate property boundary of a historic structure into the broader landscape”. 

10.2.47 The setting of a historic asset can incorporate a range of factors, not all of which will apply in 

every case. These include: 

• Current landscape or townscape context; 

• Visual envelope, incorporating views to, from and across the historic asset or place; 

• Key vistas, framed by rows of trees, buildings or natural features that give an asset or 

place a context, whether intentional or not; 

• The prominence of the historic asset or place in views throughout the surrounding 

area; 

• Character of the surrounding landscape; 

• General and specific views including foregrounds and backdrops; 

• Relationships between both built and natural features; 

• Aesthetic qualities; 

• Other non-visual factors such as historical, artistic, literary, linguistic, or scenic 

associations, intellectual relationships (e.g. to a theory, plan or design), or sensory 

factors; 

• A ‘Sense of Place’: the overall effect formed by the above factors. 

10.2.48 There are three stages in assessing the effect of a development on the setting of a historic 

asset or place: 

• Stage One: identify the historic assets that might be affected by a proposed change; 





• Stage Two: define the setting by establishing how the surroundings contribute to the 

ways in which the historic asset or place is understood, appreciated and experienced; 

• Stage Three: assess how any change would affect that setting. 



10.3.1 A number of data sources were consulted for the purposes of this assessment, principally: 

• Data on designated historic assets from Historic Scotland’s website; 

• The Historic Environment Record (HER) held by West of Scotland Archaeology 

Service; 

• The archives of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of 

Scotland (RCAHMS) (aerial photographs and National Monuments Record); 

• Pastmap website http://jura.rcahms.gov.uk/PASTMAP/start.jsp; 

• The National Library of Scotland. 


National Planning Policy and Guidance 

10.3.2 The legislative framework provides protection for the historic environment while planning 

policy guidance provides advice concerning how the historic environment should be 

addressed within the planning process. 

10.3.3 The UK is a signatory of the Valletta Convention (Council of Europe, 1997) which requires 

legal protection of the archaeological heritage. 

10.3.4 Statutory protection for archaeology is principally enshrined in the Ancient Monuments and 

Archaeological Areas Act (1979) as amended. Nationally important archaeological sites are 

listed in a Schedule of Monuments and are accorded statutory protection. 

10.3.5 For other components of the historic environment, the Planning (Listed Buildings and 

Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 provides statutory protection to listed buildings and 

their settings and present measures to designate and preserve the character and appearance 

of Conservation Areas. 

10.3.6 Section 11 of the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2011 inserted a new 

sections 32A and 32B in the 1979 Act which created a new statutory duty for Scottish 

Ministers to compile and maintain an inventory of gardens and designed landscapes and an 

inventory of battlefields which are in their view of national importance. The Inventory of 

Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland and the Inventory of Historic Battlefields are 

compiled by Historic Scotland. 

10.3.7 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (February 2010) is a statement of Scottish Government policy 

on land use planning. SPP recognises that the historic environment is a key part of 

Scotland’s cultural heritage and that 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. 

10.3.8 These policy documents are supported by PAN 2/2011, ‘Planning and Archaeology’, 

published in July 2011. This sets out the responsibilities of planning authorities to protect 

archaeological remains, balancing “the benefits of the development against the importance of 

archaeological features”. It states the need for Historic Scotland to be consulted when 

Scheduled Monuments are directly affected. In paragraph 14, it further states that the 

objective of planners “should be to assure the protection and enhancement of monuments by 

preservation in situ in an appropriate setting (perhaps with a degree of interpretation)”. 

10.3.9 When considering the effects of wind farms on the settings of historic assets, the key 

guidance is Historic Scotland’s guidance on setting published in October 2010, previously 

referenced. This provides general guidance on how to define setting and assess the effects 

of development proposals on the settings of historic assets. 

Local Planning Policy 

West Lothian Council 

10.3.10 The policies set out below were published in the West Lothian Local Plan adopted in 2009. 

These are discussed and analysed further within the Planning Statement (PS) produced to 

support the application for the proposed wind farm. 

10.3.11 Policy HER10 - Additional Controls will be introduced to protect the setting of listed buildings 

where they are under threat from development. 

10.3.12 Policy HER12 - Proposals for development which would adversely affect the historic interest, 

character and setting of scheduled monuments will not be approved. 

10.3.13 Policy HER14 - Where appropriate the council will introduce special controls to protect 

scheduled monuments and their settings from unsympathetic development. 

10.3.14 Policy HER15 - Significant archaeological sites will be protected from development which will 

have a detrimental effect on their settings. 

10.3.15 Policy HER 16 - Applicants will be required to provide an archaeological assessment in 

advance of determination of a planning application where the council considers this 

appropriate. Where preservation of archaeological remains proves unfeasible, archaeological 

investigation and recording to the highest professional standards will be required at the 

developer’s expense, prior to the implementation of the development. 

10.3.16 Policy HER19 - An application for planning permission or listed building consent for works 

affecting a conservation area must contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the 

character and appearance of the area and will require appropriate high standards of design, 

materials, siting and implementation. Full consideration will be given to the character of the 

area, the guidance provided in the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and 

Conservation Areas and planning guidance issued by the Scottish Government. 

10.3.17 Policy HER22 - The special architectural and historic character and features of historic 

gardens and designed landscapes will be considered sympathetically and receive full 

protection in the consideration of proposals for development within or adjacent to them. 






10.3.18 A brief summary of the baseline is provided below. Further details are contained in Appendix 

10.1. Numbers following the description of the cultural heritage assets in the text below relate 

to Figure 10.1. 

Application Area (within boundary of proposed wind farm) 

10.3.19 There are no World Heritage Sites (WHS), Scheduled Monuments (SMs), Inventoried 

Gardens and Designed Landscapes (GDL), Listed Buildings, conservation areas or 

Inventoried Battlefields within the boundary of the proposed wind farm. 

10.3.20 There are several entries recorded on the HER within the application area, including a 

possible enclosure at Camilty Moss (HER number 17933), the site of a possible Cromwellian 

fortress in the area (HER number 17943) and the line of a possible Roman Road from 

Craiglockhart via Castle Greg to Castledykes (HER number 18248) 

10.3.21 Other historic features not recorded on the HER, but marked on historic mapping of the area 

include a sheep shelter marked on the first edition OS six-inch map of 1853 at the confluence 

of the Powfastle and Crosswood Burns (RPS1). 

10.3.22 A further sheep shelter is marked on the first edition OS six-inch map of 1853 in the eastern 

part of the proposed wind farm. (RPS2), and ‘keystones’, are marked to the southwest of this 

sheep shelter (RPS3). In addition, a footbridge is marked crossing the Powfastle Burn 

(RPS4). 

10.3.23 The Harburn Tile Works (HER number 50332) is shown on the first edition six-inch OS map 

of 1853. 

Core Study Area (up to 1.5 km outside boundary of proposed wind farm) 

10.3.24 There is a low level scatter of prehistoric artefacts known in the vicinity of the proposed wind 

farm. A flint scraper was found in a location immediately south of the A70 road (HER number 

17937), while a barbed-and-tanged flint arrowhead was found at Brookbank, some 390 

metres east of the boundary of the proposed wind farm (HER number 17938). In addition, a 

small, worn Middle Bronze Age flanged axe or chisel has been found while metal detecting 

immediately south of the A70 road (HER number 18284). 

10.3.25 There are 3 SMs within 1.5 km of the proposed wind farm and within the ZTV. All three are 

immediately adjacent to the boundary of the proposed wind farm. They are: 

• SM 1933 Camilty Hill, Roman fortlet, Castle Greg; 

• SM 1165 Camilty Hill, enclosure, Harburn; and 

• SM 11245 Crosswood, cairn 750 m SE of. 

10.3.26 There are 4 Category B listed buildings within 1.5 km of the proposed wind farm and within 

the ZTV. There are no Category A or Category C Listed Buildings within this radius. The 

category B listed buildings comprise a group within the Garden and Designed Landscape at 

Harburn House, as described in Appendix 10.1. 

10.3.27 There is one Garden and Designed Landscape, Harburn House, located some 730 metres 

north of the northern boundary of the proposed wind farm at its nearest point, and within the 

ZTV. 





10.3.28 There are no Conservation Areas within 1.5 km of the proposed wind farm, either within or 

outside the ZTV. 

Inner Study Area (1.5 to 5 km of the boundary of proposed wind farm) 

10.3.29 There are 6 SMs between 1.5 and 5 km of the proposed wind farm boundary and within the 

ZTV. 

10.3.30 There are 2 Category A, 23 Category B and 8 Category C Listed Buildings between 1.5 and 5 

km of the proposed wind farm and within the ZTV. These are described in Appendix 10.1. 

10.3.31 There are no Gardens and Designed Landscapes or Conservation Areas between 1.5 and 5 

km of the proposed wind farm, either within or outside the ZTV. 

Outer Study Area (between 5 and 10 km of the boundary of the proposed wind farm) 

10.3.32 There are 10 SMs between 5 and 10 km of the proposed wind farm and within the ZTV. 

10.3.33 There are 5 Category A and 27 Category B Listed Buildings between 5 and 10 km of the 

proposed wind farm and within the ZTV. These are described in Appendix 10.1. 

10.3.34 There are no Gardens and Designed Landscapes between 5 and 10 km of the proposed wind 

farm within the ZTV. There are no Registered Battlefields or World Heritage Sites within 10 

km of the proposed wind farm, either within or outside the ZTV. 

10.3.35 The World Heritage Site at New Lanark is located some 22 km southwest of the proposed 

wind farm at its nearest point. It lies almost entirely outside the ZTV. 

Previous Effects 

10.3.36 A key issue to be taken into account when considering effects on buried archaeology, the 

setting of historic assets and the wider historic landscape in the vicinity of the proposed 

development is the effect that the commercial forestry plantation has already had on these 

aspects of the historic environment. 

10.3.37 The intensive use of deep ploughing and/or mechanical plant across the entire area of the 

proposed wind farm for the planting of trees is highly destructive as far as almost all 

categories of buried archaeology are concerned. In particular, it cannot be expected that 

relatively ephemeral remains – such as buried ancient land surfaces with associated 

prehistoric remains – would survive in any recognisable form. Generally, only sites that have 

left significant upstanding remains – such as prehistoric banked enclosures, medieval mottes 

or post-medieval field boundaries and agricultural and industrial buildings – would survive to 

any significant degree. Even then, unless the forestry planting has avoided direct effects on 

the asset, they are likely to be substantially damaged, while their landscape setting is likely to 

have been very largely degraded, not only by the (temporary) screening effect of the 

surrounding forest but also by the effect of planting on contemporary features in the vicinity. 

Information Gaps 

10.3.38 There were no restrictions on access to information and therefore no gaps within the baseline 

presented. 


10.4.1 The original design for the proposed wind farm consisted of up to 14 variable pitch (three 

bladed) wind turbines. 





10.4.2 The most significant effects of a wind farm in this location are likely to be on the setting of 

historic assets in the area, given that any buried remains will have been severely disturbed by 

the planting of trees. On this basis, most attention was given to this aspect in relation to 

avoiding significant effects through the development of the layout during the design evolution 

(see Chapter 3). 

10.4.3 The historic assets most sensitive to the proposed wind farm are Camilty Hill Roman Fortlet, 

Castle Greg (SM number 1933), Harburn House Garden and Designed Landscape and 

Linhouse Mansion (HB number 14156). 

10.4.4 A meeting was held on site with Historic Scotland on 31 May 2012 to discuss whether the 

level of effect of the proposals, at that time for a 14 turbine scheme, on the settings of these 

designated historic assets was acceptable. Before this meeting, visualisations showing the 

proposals from Camilty Hill Roman Fortlet were provided to Historic Scotland demonstrating 

the visual effect of the proposals on this asset. 

10.4.5 As a consequence of this meeting, the number of turbines was reduced to six and the 

proposed wind farm was redesigned to mitigate as far as possible effects on the setting of 

these assets. Revised visualisations showing the proposals from Camilty Hill Roman Fortlet 

were provided to Historic Scotland on 9 September 2012 (see Figure 10.5). Further 

visualisations showing views from Linhouse Mansion and the designed landscape at Harburn 

(see Figure 10.6 and Figure 9.14/1) and a copy of the Forestry Commission Felling Plan were 

provided to Historic Scotland on 31 October. 

10.4.6 Historic Scotland responded by letter dated 10 December 2012 (Appendix 10.2). This noted 

concerns over the location of Turbine 3 in respect of the setting of Camilty Hill Roman Fortlet. 

In addition, it noted the likely significant effect on an element of the setting of Linhouse 

Mansion and on the designed landscape at Harburn. 

10.4.7 A further meeting was held with Historic Scotland on 7 March 2013. It was agreed to produce 

a wireline showing the view from the south-eastern corner of Camilty Hill Roman Fortlet 

further to assess the likely effect of the proposed development on the setting of the SM. This 

is included as Figure 10.7. 

10.5 Potential Significant Effects of the Scheme 

Construction: Direct Physical Effects 

10.5.1 When considering the potential effects of the proposed development upon buried 

archaeology it is necessary to consider the extent and degree of disturbance to buried 

remains that would be caused by the development. As discussed in Section 10.3, the actual 

degree of survival of any buried archaeology in any of the location affected is likely to be very 

low. There are no World Heritage Sites (WHS), Scheduled Monuments (SMs), Inventoried 

Gardens and Designed Landscapes (GDL), listed buildings conservation areas or Inventoried 

Battlefields within the boundary of the proposed wind farm. This being the case and on the 

basis that remains of non-designated historic sites and features have been substantially 

destroyed by forestry plantation, the overall significance of effect on buried archaeology 

would be at most slight adverse given that the importance of all assets within the forestry is at 

most low. 





10.5.2 Notwithstanding this, there are several entries recorded on the Historic Environment Record 

(HER) within the boundary of the proposed wind farm and these are discussed in specific 

detail below. 

10.5.3 A possible enclosure at Camilty Moss (HER number 17933) was represented by a low oval 

bank and ditch shown enclosing an area of some 25 m by 12 m. The proposed access track 

between Turbines 2 and 6 would pass approximately 10 m to the south of the presumed 

location of this asset. 

10.5.4 The enclosure has been extensively disturbed by forestry and is no longer visible above 

ground. The asset is of low importance. The magnitude of effect of the proposed wind farm 

would be no change and the effect on the asset would be none. 

10.5.5 Antiquarian records indicate that there was a Cromwellian fortress in the area. However, 

there is no evidence for a site in the location indicated by the HER and it is likely that the 

record refers to a similar site located within the grounds of Harburn House (HER number 

17943). 

10.5.6 The access track from the B7008 road to the proposed met mast laydown area, which is 

already existing, would pass approximately 5 m to the south of the presumed location of this 

asset. However, as indicated through site evidence, and confirmed at the site visit, the site of 

the fortress does not appear to be in this location. The asset is therefore considered to be of 

negligible importance. The magnitude of effect of the proposed wind farm would be no 

change and the effect on the asset would be none. 

10.5.7 The line of a possible Roman Road from Craiglockhart via Castle Greg to Castledykes (HER 

number 18248) may run through the proposed wind farm. It is further referred to at paragraph 

10.5.15, below. Within the proposed wind farm the asset is likely to cross the line of the 

existing forest track leading from the B7008 road to Harburn. The line of the road is not 

recorded in this location. The asset, if it runs on this alignment, has been damaged by 

forestry and is of low importance. The magnitude of effect of the proposed wind farm would 

be no change and the effect on the asset would be none. 

10.5.8 A sheep shelter is marked on the first edition OS six-inch map of 1853 at the confluence of 

the Powfastle and Crosswood Burns (RPS1). The area has been densely planted and 

nothing is now visible above ground. The asset has been damaged or removed by forestry 

and is of negligible importance. None of the proposed wind farm infrastructure would be sited 

in this location. The magnitude of effect of the proposed wind farm would be no change and 

the effect on the asset would be none. 

10.5.9 A further sheep shelter is marked on the first edition OS six-inch map of 1853 in the eastern 

part of the proposed wind farm (RPS2), while ‘keystones’ is marked to the southwest of this 

sheep shelter (RPS3) The area containing these two features is in recently planted forest and 

no remains were obvious on the ground during the site visit. The assets have been damaged 

or removed by forestry and are of negligible importance. None of the proposed wind farm 

infrastructure would be sited in this location. The magnitude of effect of the proposed wind 

farm would be no change and the effect on the assets would be none. 

10.5.10 A footbridge is marked on the first edition OS six-inch map of 1853 in the eastern part of the 

proposed wind farm crossing the Powfastle Burn (RPS4). This is of negligible importance. 

None of the proposed wind farm infrastructure would be sited in this location. The magnitude 





of effect of the proposed wind farm would be no change and the effect on the asset would be 

none. 

10.5.11 The Harburn Tile Works (HER number 50332) is shown on the first edition six-inch OS map 

of 1853 and again on the edition of 1864. The site was located on the north side of the A70 

road near its junction with the B7008 road to Harburn. Post Second World War editions of the 

OS show the pits as being a marshy area with small ponds. Other than these features, 

nothing is now visible above ground. 

10.5.12 The existing forestry track to be used for the construction of the proposed wind farm crosses 

the location of the Harburn Tile Works Buildings, while the proposed construction compound 

is located at the location of the former pits. The site is of low importance. The magnitude of 

effect of the proposed wind farm would be small and there would be a slight adverse effect on 

the asset. 

Effects on the Site During Operation: Indirect Visual Effects on the Setting of 

Historic Assets 

Core Study Area (1.5 km outside boundary of proposed wind farm) 

Artefacts 

10.5.13 There is a low level scatter of prehistoric artefacts known in the vicinity of the proposed wind 

arm. A flint scraper was found in a location immediately south of the A70 road (HER number 

17937), while a barbed-and-tanged flint arrowhead found at Brookbank, some 390 m east of 

the boundary of the proposed wind farm (HER number 17938). In addition, a small, worn 

Middle Bronze Age flanged axe or chisel has been found while metal detecting immediately 

south of the A70 road (HER number 18284). These assets are of low importance. The 

magnitude of effect of the proposed wind farm would be no change and the effect on the 

assets would be none. 


10.5.14 There is a total of 3 SMs within 1.5 km of the proposed wind farm and within the ZTV. All 

three are immediately adjacent to the boundary of the proposed wind farm. They are, 

SM1933 Camilty Hill, Roman fortlet, Castle Greg, SM1165 Camilty Hill, enclosure, Harburn 

and SM 11245 Crosswood, cairn 750m SE of. 

Camilty Hill, Roman Fortlet, Castle Greg 

10.5.15 SM1933, HER number 17932, Camilty Hill, Roman fortlet, Castle Greg represents the 

remains of a small Roman fortlet, probably of Flavian (c. AD95-AD105) date (Frere 1989: 

271). The Roman fortlet SM is of high importance. 

10.5.16 The Roman fortlet is located just below the summit of the hill at Castle Greg, on its south 

side. In a scoping response letter of 5 th September 2012, Historic Scotland notes that the 

fortlet appears to be positioned to command views to the NE and E; it sits on the crest of a 

NE facing slope and the single entrance to the fortlet faces this direction. 

10.5.17 An examination of local topography and consultation with Historic Scotland has indicated that 

the likely major route would have been along the line of the current A70 road, although the 

Roman road system in the area is poorly understood, largely due to lack of surviving or 

available evidence. 





10.5.18 A possible Roman road from Craiglockhart to Castle Greg to Castledykes is associated with 

the Roman fortlet (HER number 18248) and in the vicinity of the fortlet unsuccessful attempts 

have been made to locate it running from the southwest to north-east past the south-eastern 

corner of the fortlet. This road is not visible on recent aerial photographs and could not be 

traced within the adjacent forestry plantation. 

10.5.19 The fortlet was probably located to protect the either the possible Roman road following the 

alignment of the current A70 and/ or the possible associated road running from the fort’s 

southwest to north-east and/or to provide security to the wider area. 

10.5.20 The setting of the SM is currently constricted by the surrounding plantation woodland, in 

particular to the north and east, although there is a view towards the Pentland Hills towards 

the southeast. The current setting seems unlikely to reflect that at the time of the forts 

construction and does not make a major contribution to the importance of the SM. A series of 

photomontages (Figure 10.5a-d) show the current and proposed position. 

10.5.21 To the north the setting of the SM is effectively constrained by the plantation woodland some 

150 metres away. Views from the SM to the north would remain unchanged in the proposed 

view. 

10.5.22 To the northeast, the setting of the SM is constricted by plantation woodland some 20 metres 

away and there are no distant views. The blades of Turbine 2 would be visible in the 

proposed view to the northeast. 

10.5.23 To the east there is currently a restricted view of the Pentland Hills through a ride through the 

woodland. This view is mostly obtained over further woodland, depending on the position of 

the viewer. The blades of Turbine 3 and the blades and the upper part of the tower of Turbine 

4 would be visible in the proposed view in this direction when the viewer was positioned in 

many parts of the SM. The blades and the upper part of the tower of Turbine 3 would be 

visible in the view when the viewer was positioned in the south-easternmost part of the SM. 

The woodland coup to the east of the SM is to be retained and is designated for delayed 

felling in an amendment to the Forest Plan. 

10.5.24 To the south, the existing view is relatively open and looks across the B7008 road towards 

plantation woodland. The view is towards the alignment of the possible Roman road from 

Craiglockhart to Castle Greg to Castledykes. The blades of one turbine (Turbine 1) would be 

visible at the eastern edge of the proposed view on the basis of present forestry cover, while 

the blades and the upper part of the tower of Turbine 1 would be visible in the proposed view 

after 2018 and would be similar in scale to Turbine 4. 

10.5.25 To the west, views are currently relatively open. These views would remain unchanged in the 

proposed view. 

10.5.26 There would be no physical effect on the SM. The proposed wind farm would result in visual 

changes. These changes would alter the setting of the SM. These changes would apply only 

to views towards the east and south-east. In these directions turbines, or parts of turbines 

would be visible and screening through the retention of forestry would minimise the visibility 

of turbines. The visual changes would affect the setting of the SM materially but not 

fundamentally, in that turbines would not screen any currently available views. On this basis 

the ability of the setting of the SM to be understood would be moderately compromised. 

10.5.27 The level of effect is therefore assessed as medium, but towards the lower end of that range. 

The effect of the proposed wind farm on the SM is moderate adverse. 





Other SMs 

10.5.28 SM1165 Camilty Hill, enclosure, Harburn is a circular enclosure formed by a turf bank and 

located some 90 m north of Castle Greg Roman fortlet. The enclosure measures 

approximately 12 m in diameter. While it may be associated with the fort, it seems likely that it 

represents a post-medieval stock pen (HER number 17946, Forestry Commission 2010b). 

The SM is of high importance. 

10.5.29 Whether or not the enclosure is contemporary with the Roman fortlet, the setting of the SM 

comprises the Roman fortlet and surrounding open ground. There would be no physical effect 

on the SM, but there would be an effect on its setting. The change in setting would be 

detectable but would not fundamentally or materially compromise the ability to understand the 

setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as small. The effect of the proposed wind 

farm on the SM is slight adverse. 

10.5.30 SM 11245 Crosswood, cairn 750 m SE of (HER number18243), is located approximately 1.5 

km south of the proposed wind farm. The SM is a cairn representing a funerary monument 

dating to the Neolithic and/or Bronze Age. It is visible as a turf-covered mound, lying on a 

slight rise in rough pasture at 302 m AOD. The cairn measures some 8 m in diameter and is 

approximately 0.5 m high. The cairn is located on the lower part of Torweaving Hill, 

overlooking Crosswood Burn. At least two other cairns are located in this area, HER numbers 

18251 and 18252, neither of which are scheduled. In addition a cup and ring stone is 

recorded nearby (HER number 20758). Viewpoint 4 (Figure 9.14/4a-c) shows the existing 

and proposed views from Crosswood Reservoir/ fishery, close to the SM. 

10.5.31 Although the turbines would be visible in this view, the setting of the SM primarily comprises 

its relationship with the other prehistoric assets on the lower slope of Torweaving Hill. There 

would be no physical effect on the SM, but there would be an effect on its setting which would 

be detectable but would not fundamentally or materially compromise the understanding of the 

SM or its setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as small. The effect of the 

proposed wind farm on the SM is slight adverse. 

Listed Buildings 

10.5.32 There are 4 Category B listed buildings within 1.5 km of the proposed wind farm and within 

the ZTV. There are no Category A or Category C Listed Buildings within this radius. The 

category B listed buildings comprise a group within the GDL at Harburn House which is 

accordingly assessed below. 

Garden and Designed Landscape 

10.5.33 Harburn House is a Garden and Designed Landscape located some 730 m north of the 

northern boundary of the proposed wind farm at its nearest point. 

10.5.34 The setting of the listed buildings within the GDL primarily comprises the geographical extent 

of the GDL. There appear to be few designed views looking outside the GDL. The setting of 

the GDL is relatively constrained by planting. 

10.5.35 Figure 9.14/1 (Viewpoint 1 in Chapter 9) shows the existing and proposed view from the front 

of Harburn House, probably the key view in the GDL, given that the GDL is constructed 

around the house. The existing view shows that trees and parkland planting screen Camilty 

Hill. The proposed view indicates that existing planting both within the lawn to the south of the 

house and denser areas at the south of the park would screen the turbines from this location. 





During the winter it may be possible to see blade tips from this location, although these would 

be filtered through existing planting. 

10.5.36 In more open locations within the GDL one or more of the proposed turbines would be visible 

from the GDL. Figure 9.14/1 represents the most open location within the estate and shows 

the existing and proposed view from the northern entrance to the parkland. The existing view 

shows the road in the foreground leading towards Harburn House. Trees and other planting 

following a series of ponds across the northern part of the parkland. The Pentland Hills are 

visible above the trees to the left of this view. In the proposed view, the blade tips of four 

turbines would be visible from this location. In addition the anemometry mast would be 

visible. 

10.5.37 The GDL is of high importance. There would be no physical effect on the GDL. The effect on 

its setting would result in a visual change to many key aspects of the historic landscape in 

that a number of turbine blades and other elements of the proposed wind farm would be 

visible, although this would apply only to views towards the south and the proposed turbines 

would not screen any views. The level of effect is therefore assessed as moderate, but is 

considered to be towards the “lower end” of that range. The effect of the proposed wind farm 

on the GDL is moderate 

10.5.38 There are no Conservation Areas within 1.5 km of the proposed wind farm, either within or 

outside the ZTV 

Inner Study Area (1.5 to 5 km from the boundary of the proposed wind farm) 


10.5.39 There are 6 SMs between 1.5 and 5 km of the proposed wind farm boundary and within the 

ZTV. 

10.5.40 SM6194, HER number 18011 Corston Hill, cairn is located on the north-western ridge of 

Corston Hill, some 4.5 km to the north-east of the boundary of the proposed wind farm, at 

around 320 m AOD. The cairn has extensive views in all directions except to the east, where 

the view is blocked by the summit of Corston Hill. It is surmounted by a modern cairn. 

Landscape viewpoint 10 (Figure 9.14/ 10a-c) shows the existing and proposed views from the 

summit of Corston Hill. When looking towards the proposed wind farm the turbines would be 

visible through a group of existing electricity pylons. 

10.5.41 There would be views from the SM towards the cairns on both East and West Cairn Hill (see 

paragraphs 10.5.67 and 10.5.38) and this interrelationship primarily comprises the setting of 

the SM. There would be no physical effect on the SM. There would be an effect on its setting 

which would be detectable but would not fundamentally or materially compromise the ability 

to understand the setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as small. The effect of the 


10.5.42 SM2980 Harperrig, cairn, West Cairn Hill is located at the Summit of West Cairn Hill, some 

4.3 km to the south-east of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. The cairn is represented 

by a circular grass covered stone mound (Forestry Commission 2010c). Landscape viewpoint 

12 (Figure 9.14/ 12a-c) shows the existing and proposed views from the summit of West 

Cairn Hill. From this point the turbines would be visible in the middle distance when looking 

towards the proposed wind farm. The setting of the SM primarily comprises its relationship 

with the similar cairns on East Cairn Hill (see paragraph 10.5.67) and Corston Hill (see 

paragraph 10.5.36), although views towards the proposed wind farm are obtainable. The SM 





is of high importance. There would be no physical effect on the SM. There would be an effect 

on its setting. The change would be detectable but would not fundamentally or materially 

compromise the ability to understand the setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as 

small. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the SM is slight adverse 

10.5.43 SM7254 Old West Calder Church, West Calder is located in the centre of West Calder, some 

4.6 km to the north-west of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. The structure is also a 

listed building, listed at Category B (HB number 14212). The effect of the proposed wind farm 

on the SM is considered with the listed building, at paragraph 10.5.44, below. 

10.5.44 Cairns Castle is located at the south-west corner of Harperigg Reservoir, some 2.75 km to 

the east of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. This is also a listed building (HB number 

47559). The effect of the proposed wind farm on the SM is considered with the listed building, 

at paragraph 10.5.59, below. 

10.5.45 SM11210 West Harwood, burial mound 720 m SSE of is located on the edge of the woodland 

at West Harwood, some 3.4 km to the north-west of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. 

The setting of the SM is contained by the extensive woodland planting, including on its southeast 

side. The SM is of high importance. There would be no physical effect on the SM. The 

effect on its setting would be detectable but would not fundamentally or materially 


small. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the SM is slight adverse. 

10.5.46 SM1207 Murieston Castle, Wester Murieston, West Calder is located at Murieston Castle 

Farm, some 3.2 km to the north of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. This is also a 

listed building (HB number 18441). The effect of the proposed wind farm on the SM is 

considered with the listed building, at paragraph 10.5.54, below. 


10.5.47 There are 2 Category A, 23 Category B and 8 Category C Listed Buildings between 1.5 and 5 

km of the proposed wind farm and within the ZTV. 

Linhouse Mansion and Associated Buildings 

10.5.48 Linhouse Mansion (HB number 14156) is located some 2.7 km north-east of the boundary of 

the proposed wind farm, on the north side of Linhouse Water. The building comprises two 

square towers attached at one corner only and is of three-storeys and a garret. There is an 

unusual viewing platform above the original stair tower, with views towards the south. The 

structure is listed at Category A (HB number 14156). The Doocot at Linhouse is listed at 

Category B (HB number 14157). 

10.5.49 The setting of the doocot comprises the mansion and surrounding grounds. The setting of the 

mansion is primarily formed by its surrounding grounds and woodland, which provide 

significant screening. The mansion also has views to the south-east, from the viewing 

platform at roof height. These views are designed and form part of the setting of the listed 

building. 

10.5.50 Figure 10.6 provides the existing view and an indication of the likely proposed view from . 

The existing view shows trees in the foreground with a view of Camilty Hill over them. Pylons 

associated with power lines running along the south side of Morton Burn are visible in the 

middle ground. In the proposed view, six turbines would be visible, in four groups. The 





turbines would be located between the existing pylons and would appear lower against the 

skyline. There would be little screening of the turbines from this viewpoint. 

10.5.51 Linhouse mansion is of high importance. There would be no physical effect on the listed 

building. Much of the buildings setting would remain unchanged. The effect on its setting 

would result from a change to the view towards the proposed wind farm in which turbines 

would become visible. The change in this view would affect the setting of the listed building 

materially but not fundamentally, in that turbines would be visible but would not screen any 

currently available views. On this basis the ability of the setting of the listed building to be 

understood would be moderately compromised. The level of effect is therefore assessed as 

medium, but towards the lower end of that range. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the 

listed building is moderate adverse. 

Other Listed Buildings 

10.5.52 The Railway Viaduct, Linhouse Water was built in 1842 and comprises six segmental arches 

with dressed stones. The structure is listed at Category A (HB number 7365). 

10.5.53 The setting of the listed railway viaduct primarily comprises the valley of the Linhouse Water 

over which it passes and the corridor of the railway of which it is a part. Woodland on the 

south-west side of the viaduct would minimise views towards the proposed wind farm. The 

listed building is of high importance. There would be no physical effect on the listed building. 

The effect on its setting would be detectable but would not fundamentally or materially 


small. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the listed building is slight adverse. 

10.5.54 There are a number of listed buildings within the built area of West Calder. These include HB 

numbers 14210, West Calder 13-19 (Odd Nos) Main Street, Former West Calder Co-Op, 

14211 West Calder East End, Library, 14212 Old West Calder Kirk is (also a SM, number 

7254) and 19677 West Calder Station, including Cast-Iron Footbridge to E. These buildings 

are all listed at Category B, while HB number 51118 43 Main Street, Railway Inn is listed at 

Category C. 

10.5.55 The listed buildings are grouped around Main Street, with Old West Calder Kirk just to the 

south on Kirkgate and the Library at its junction with Harburn Road. Although the listed 

buildings lie within the ZTV, the built development around Main Street is inward looking with 

few views outwards towards the proposed wind farm. Landscape viewpoint 8 (Figure 9.14/8ac)shows 

the view from the B7008 road at the southern extremity of West Calder towards the 

proposed wind farm. From this viewpoint, the proposed wind farm would be difficult to discern 

even in winter. The settings of the listed buildings primarily comprise each other and the 

remainder of the built development of central West Calder. The assets are of medium and 

high importance. There would be no physical effect on the assets, nor any effect on their 

setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as no change. The effect of the proposed 

wind farm on the assets is none. 

10.5.56 Hermand House (HB number 14219) and Hermand Coachhouse and Stables (HB number 

14220) are listed at Category B are located to the east of the built development at West 

Calder. The front of the house looks to the south-east, away from the proposed wind farm. 

Both the main house and the coach house are located in an area which is shown on the OS 

twenty-five inch edition of 1894 as being parkland, with a wooded drive (now removed) 

leaving to the east from the main house. A considerable amount of mature woodland 

remains, which would provide screening. 





10.5.57 The listed buildings are of medium importance. The settings of the listed buildings primarily 

comprise each other and the nearby buildings. The assets are of medium importance. There 

would be no physical effect on the assets, nor any effect on their setting. The level of effect is 

therefore assessed as no change. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the assets is 

none. 

10.5.58 There are a number of listed buildings within the built area of Polbeath. These include HB 

number, 14221 Limefield House, listed at Category B, and HB numbers 14222 Bridge 1, near 

Limefield House and 14223 Bridge 2, Limefield Glen, both listed at Category C. Limefield 

House looks south-east, away from the proposed wind farm, into woodland planting. 

10.5.59 The listed buildings are of medium to low importance. The settings of the listed buildings 

primarily comprise each other and the parkland in which they are located. The assets are of 

medium importance. There would be no physical effect on the assets, nor any effect on their 



10.5.60 Listed buildings within the built area of Brucefield and Newpark include HB number 14160 

Brucefield Farmhouse and Steading, listed at Category B and HB numbers 14143 Newpark 

House and 44584 Bellsquarry, 30 Calder Road with Boundary Walls, listed at Category C. 

10.5.61 Although these listed buildings lie within the ZTV, nearby built development offers few views 

outwards towards the proposed wind farm. The settings of the listed buildings primarily 

comprise the built development of Brucefield and Newpark. The assets are of low and 



wind farm on the asset is none. 

10.5.62 Listed buildings within the built area of Murieston include HB numbers 14134 Murieston 

House, Easter Murieston and 18833 Bridge Murieston House, both listed at Category B. 

10.5.63 Although nominally within the ZTV, these listed buildings lie within an area of woodland and 

there would be few if any views towards the proposed wind farm. The front of the main house 

looks north-east, away from the proposed wind farm and the settings of the listed buildings 

primarily comprise each other and the surrounding woodland. The assets are of medium 

importance. There would be no physical effect on the assets, nor any effect on their setting. 

The level of effect is therefore assessed as no change. The effect of the proposed wind farm 

on the asset is none. 

10.5.64 At Skivo HB number 14135 Skivo Farm (Skivo Kennels), listed at Category C, is located 

within the built area, while to its south-west HB number 18441 Murieston Castle is listed at 

Category B and is also a SM (Number 1207). Some 570 m to the north-west of Murieston 

Castle is HB number 18442, Westfield House, also listed at Category B. 

10.5.65 Views towards the proposed wind farm from Skivo Farm are obscured by woodland to the 

south and the setting of the listed building is restricted in this direction. The setting of 

Murieston Castle is restricted to its south by farm buildings. The assets are of low and 



wind farm on the asset is none. 

10.5.66 The setting of Westfield House largely comprises the surrounding farm buildings and 

enclosed gardens. The asset is of medium importance. There would be no physical effect on 





the asset. There would be an effect on its setting which would be detectable but which would 

not fundamentally or materially compromise the ability to understand the setting. The level of 

effect is therefore assessed as small. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the listed 

building is slight adverse. 

10.5.67 There is a group of listed buildings at Wester Causewayend. These include HB numbers 

14158 The Old Schoolhouse Causewayend Kirknewton, 14159 Stables, The Old 

Schoolhouse, Causewayend Kirknewton and 18980 Wester Causewayend Farmhouse and 

Steading, all listed at Category B. 

10.5.68 Landscape Viewpoint 2 (Figure 9.14/2a-c) taken from a point approximately 100 metres west 

of this group of buildings shows that the turbines would be clearly visible in the middle 

distance visible from here. The setting of the group of listed buildings at Wester 

Causewayend largely comprises their relationship with the main road. The farmhouse looks 

south across the road towards West Cairn Hill, away from the proposed wind farm. The 

assets are of medium importance. There would be no physical effect on the assets. There 

would be an effect on their setting which would be detectable but which would not 

fundamentally or materially compromise the ability to understand their setting. The level of 


buildings is slight adverse. 

10.5.69 Some 800 m south-east of Wester Causewayend is Cairns Castle (HB number 47559), listed 

at Category B and also a SM (1193). Although within the ZTV, planting would obscure any 

views towards the proposed wind farm. The asset is of high importance. There would be no 

physical effect on the asset, nor any effect on its setting. The level of effect is therefore 

assessed as no change. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the asset is none 

10.5.70 Easter Colzium is located some 2 km south-east of the proposed wind farm and is listed at 

Category C (HB number 43570). The listed farm is surrounded by the remains of rig and 

furrow cultivation, probably better preserved on the north side. Belt planting surrounds the rig 

and furrow. 

10.5.71 The setting of the listed building primarily comprises its relationship with the surrounding rig 

and furrow fields. The setting is constrained by the belt planting and the house looks towards 

the south-east, to the Pentland Hills. The listed building is of low importance. There would be 

no physical effect on the asset. The effect on its setting would be detectable but would not 

fundamentally or materially compromise the ability to understand its setting. The level of 


building is slight adverse. 

10.5.72 HB number 14213, Harwood Farm-house, is located some 4.2 km north-west of the proposed 

wind farm and is listed at Category B. 

10.5.73 The farmhouse faces north and the setting of the listed building primarily comprises its 

relationship with the traditional and modern farm buildings to its south and west. The farm 

buildings constrain the setting of the house. The listed building is of medium importance. 

There would be no physical effect on the asset. There would be an effect on its setting which 

would be detectable but which would not fundamentally or materially compromise the ability 

to understand its setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as small. The effect of the 

proposed wind farm on the listed building is slight adverse. 





10.5.74 Some 5 km north-west of the boundary of the proposed wind farm is Hartwood House, listed 

at Category C (HB number 14214). The setting of the listed building primarily comprises its 

relationship with its grounds to the north and south, views from which would be restricted by 

woodland and the traditional and modern farm buildings to its south and west. The listed 

building is of low importance. There would be no physical effect on the asset. There would be 

an effect on its setting which would be detectable but which would not fundamentally or 

materially compromise the ability to understand its setting. The level of effect is therefore 

assessed as small. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the listed building is slight 

adverse. 

10.5.75 There are no GDL or Conservation Areas between 1.5 and 5 km of the proposed wind farm, 

either within or outside the ZTV. 



10.5.76 There are 10 SMs between 5 and 10 km of the proposed wind farm and within the ZTV. 

10.5.77 SM1153 Harperrig, cairn, East Cairn Hill is located at the summit of East Cairn Hill, some 5.7 

km to the south-east of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. 

10.5.78 The setting of the SM primarily comprises its relationship with the similar cairn on West Cairn 

Hill and that on Corston Hill (see paragraphs 10.5.31 and 10.5.33), although views towards 

the proposed wind farm are obtainable. The SM is of high importance. There would be no 

physical effect on the SM. There would be an effect on its setting which would alter the 

setting of the SM. The change would be detectable but would not fundamentally or materially 


small. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the SM is slight adverse. 

10.5.79 SM6254 Five Sisters, shale bing SE of Mid Breich, is located some 5.8 km to the north-west 

of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. The bing was not designed to have a setting and 

its current setting is unintentional. The setting of the SM primarily comprises its relationship 

with the former Westwood Mine offices and workshops. Views towards the proposed wind 

farm are obtainable, as indicated in landscape viewpoint 9 (Figure 9.14/9a-c). This shows 

that the turbines would be visible as an addition to the southern view, against the northern 

slopes of the Pentland Hills. The SM is of high importance. There would be no physical effect 

on the SM. There would be an effect which would alter the setting of the SM. The change 

would be detectable but would not fundamentally or materially compromise the ability to 

understand the setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as small. The effect of the 


10.5.80 SM9684 Haywood, deserted mining village is located some 8.5 km to the west of the 

boundary of the proposed wind farm and comprises the remains of the deserted colliery 

village of Haywood, dating from the mid nineteenth century. 

10.5.81 The village was probably not designed to have a setting and its current setting is 

unintentional. The mines for which was constructed have apparently been subject to opencasting 

and there is no longer any trace on the ground. The setting of the SM primarily 

comprises its relationship with the former railway and the road towards Forth, although views 

towards the proposed wind farm are obtainable. The SM is of high importance. There would 

be no physical effect on the SM. There would be an effect on its setting. The change would 

be detectable but would not fundamentally or materially compromise the ability to understand 





the setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as small. The effect of the proposed 

wind farm on the SM is slight adverse. 

10.5.82 SM9700 Tashieburn, horse engine platform 50 m NE of, is located on the northern side of 

Tashieburn Road, at about 265 m AOD, some 9.8 km west of the western boundary of the 

proposed wind farm. The SM comprises the remains of an early 19th century horse-engine 

platform associated with Tashieburn Coal Mine, visible as an upstanding feature. The 

platform represents the remains of a horse-gin. 

10.5.83 The horse gin was not designed to have a setting and its current setting is unintentional. The 

setting of the SM primarily comprises its relationship with the adjacent former coalpit. Views 

towards the proposed wind farm are obtainable. The SM is of high importance. There would 

be no physical effect on the SM. There would be an effect which would alter the setting of the 

SM. The change would be detectable but would not fundamentally or materially compromise 

the ability to understand the setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as small. The 

effect of the proposed wind farm on the SM is slight adverse. 

10.5.84 SM11227 Woodmuir Farm, coke ovens and reservoir 600 m SSE of is located at Woodmuir 

Plantation, some 7.9 km to the west of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. The 

monument comprises a bank of coke ovens and associated reservoir and chimney situated 

alongside a former mineral railway. 

10.5.85 The complex was not designed to have a setting and its current setting is unintentional. The 

setting of the SM is restricted by being located in plantation woodland. Views towards the 

proposed wind farm are unobtainable. The SM is of high importance. There would be no 

physical effect on the SM and no effect on its setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed 

as no change. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the asset is none. 

10.5.86 A group of hut circles and Cairns is located at Hare Law, including SM11230 Hare Law, cairn 

730 m SSE of Wester Yardhouses, located some 9.6 km to the south-west of the boundary of 

the proposed wind farm, SM11231 Wester Yardhouses, cairn 630 m S of, located some 9.7 

km to the south-west of the boundary of the proposed wind farm, SM11232 Craigiehall, hutcircle 

630 m ESE of, located some 9.9 km to the south-west of the boundary of the proposed 

wind farm, SM11233 Wester Yardhouses, hut-circle 470 m SSE of, located some 9.45 km to 

the south-west of the boundary of the proposed wind farm and SM11236 Wester 

Yardhouses, hut-circles and cairns 270 m SSW of, located some 9.4 km to the south-west of 

the boundary of the proposed wind farm. 

10.5.87 The setting of the SMs is primarily their relationship with each other. Views towards the 

proposed wind farm obtainable. The SM is of high importance. There would be no physical 

effect on the SMs. There would be an effect on their setting. The change would be detectable 

but would not fundamentally or materially compromise the ability to understand the setting. 

The level of effect is therefore assessed as small. The effect of the proposed wind farm on 

the assets is slight adverse. 


10.5.88 There are 5 Category A and 27 Category B Listed Buildings between 5 and 10 km of the 

proposed wind farm and within the ZTV. 

10.5.89 HB number 14209, Loganlea House is listed at Category B and located some 6.9 km northwest 

of the proposed wind farm within the built development of Loganlea. 





10.5.90 The house is located at the edge of the built development at Loganlea which forms its setting. 

The listed building is of medium importance. There would be no physical effect on the listed 

building. There would be an effect on its setting. The change would be detectable but would 

not fundamentally or materially compromise the ability to understand the setting. The level of 

effect is therefore assessed as small. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the asset is 

slight adverse. 

10.5.91 HB number 13648 Auchenhard Tower is located on the north side of Breich Water, north of 

Addiewell, some 6.3 km north-west of the boundary of the proposed wind farm and listed at 

Category A. The listed building is grouped with HB number 49089 Auchenhard House 

including Summerhouse and Gatepiers and HB number 49185 Auchenhard Farmhouse 

including Boundary Wall and Gatepiers, all listed at Category B. 

10.5.92 The setting of the group of listed buildings is restricted by being located within an adjacent to 

woodland. Views towards the proposed wind farm are unlikely to be obtainable in practice, 

and in any event the proposed wind farm would at most be seen as a minor addition behind 

the prominent pylons located south of the listed buildings.. The listed buildings are of high 

and medium importance. There would be no physical effect on the listed buildings and no 

effect on their setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as no change. The effect of 

the proposed wind farm on the assets is none. 

10.5.93 HB number 7420 (also listed as HB number 14020) Blackburn Village Bridge, River Almond 

is listed at Category B and located some 8.6 km north-west of the boundary of the proposed 

wind farm at the edge of the built development of Blackburn. 

10.5.94 The listed bridge is located at the southern end of Blackburn and carries the road from 

Blackburn to Addiewell over the River Almond. 

10.5.95 The setting of the listed bridge primarily comprises the built development at Blackburn, in 

particular the ribbon development along the A705 road, the adjacent fields and the River 

Almond. Views towards the proposed wind farm would be obtainable when looking or 

travelling south. The listed building is of medium importance. There would be no physical 

effect on the listed building. There would be an effect on its setting. The change would be 

detectable but would not fundamentally or materially compromise the ability to understand the 

setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as small. The effect of the proposed wind 

farm on the listed building is slight adverse. 

10.5.96 HB number 7419 Blackburn House is located south of the A705 road, some 7.6 km northwest 

of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. The listed building is an 18 th century house. 

The building is listed at Category A. 

10.5.97 The listed building is located within an equestrian centre, comprising a number of steel portal 

sheds, itself within pasture fields and it is this that comprises its setting. Views towards the 

proposed wind farm are obtainable from the main A705 road, although the Five Sisters Bing 

is located in the middle distance of this view. The listed building is of high importance. There 

would be no physical effect on the listed building. There would be an effect on its setting. The 

change would be detectable but would not fundamentally or materially compromise the ability 

to understand the setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as small. The effect of the 

proposed wind farm on the listed building is slight adverse. 





10.5.98 HB number 14224, Gavieside Farmhouse, is a plain square farmhouse of two storeys located 

to the north of the built development at Polbeath at Gavieside, some 5.9 km north of the 

proposed wind farm. The building is listed at Category B. 

10.5.99 The setting of the listed building largely comprises the surrounding farm buildings. The asset 

is of medium importance. There would be no physical effect on the asset There would be an 

effect on its setting which would be detectable but which would not fundamentally or 

materially compromise the ability to understand the setting. The level of effect is therefore 

assessed as small. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the listed building is slight 

adverse. 

10.5.100 HB numbers 7415 Old Toll-House, Long Livingston, 7416 Knightsridge House, 7417 Moss 

Houses, 7418 Newyearfield Farmhouse and Steading, 7421 Livingston Mill Farm and 14162 

Howden House are all listed at Category B and are located within the built development of 

Livingston. Also within the built development of Livingston Village. There are a number of 

listed buildings within Livingston Village conservation area, including HB numbers 7409 

Livingston Village, Livingston Parish Kirk, 7410 Livingston Manse and 7413 Livingston Inn, 

also all listed at Category B. Livingston Village Conservation Area is located some 6.8km 

north of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. The conservation area comprises the 

historic core of the settlement, centred on Main Street and includes the crossing of the River 

Almond to the south of the village. Much of the built development within the conservation 

area comprises one or one and a half storey houses. 

10.5.101 The listed buildings are located within the ZTV. However surrounding built development 

restricts views towards the proposed wind farm. The settings of the listed buildings primarily 

comprise each other and the remainder of the built development of Livingston Village, both 

within and outside the conservation area. The assets are of medium importance. There would 

be no physical effect on the assets, nor any effect on their setting. The level of effect is 

therefore assessed as no change. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the assets is 

none. 

10.5.102 HB numbers 18443 Alderston House, with Offices and 18444 Alderston Park, Doocot are 

listed at Category B and are located within the built development of Almondvale. 

10.5.103 Although nominally within the ZTV, the listed buildings are surrounded by built development. 

There would be few, if any views towards the proposed wind farm. The setting of the listed 

buildings primarily comprise the built development of Almondvale. The assets are of medium 

importance. There would be no physical effect on the listed buildings, nor any effect on their 

settings. The level of effect is therefore assessed as no change. The effect of the proposed 


10.5.104 HB Number 19672, Bankton House, is listed at Category B and located within the built 

development of Bellsquarry, some 5.5 km north of the proposed wind farm. 

10.5.105 Although nominally within the ZTV, the listed building is surrounded on three sides by built 

development. On the fourth, south side, there are well wooded gardens and few, if any views 

outwards towards the proposed wind farm. The setting of the listed building primarily 

comprises the built development of Bellsquarry. The asset is of medium importance. There 

would be no physical effect on the listed building, nor any effect on its setting. The level of 

effect is therefore assessed as no change. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the asset 

is none. 





10.5.106 HB number 14144 Mid Calder Parish Kirk (St. John's Church) Main Street is located in the 

built area of Mid Calder, some 7.3 km north-east of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. 

HB number 14153 Calder House is located in the built area of Mid Calder, some 7.2 km 

north-east of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. HB number 14155 Gateway, Calder 

Estate, West Calder Road is located in the built area of Mid Calder, some 7.15 km north-east 

of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. These buildings are listed at Category A. HB 

numbers 14145 Brewery House, 70 Main Street, 14147 29 Bank Street, 14149 41, 43, 47 

Bank Street, 14150 Torphichen Arms Hotel, Bank Street and 14154 Calder Steading are all 

listed at Category B and are similarly located within the built development of Mid Calder. All 

but the last of these listed buildings are located within the Mid Calder conservation area and 

are considered with the conservation area at paragraph 10.5.101 et seq, below. 

10.5.107 HB Number 7366, St Cuthbert’s Church, East Calder Village and HB 13647 Merivil Cottage 

are located within the built development of East Calder Village. HB number 7369, South 

Gate-Way Almondell Park is located 8.5 km north-east of the boundary of the proposed wind 

farm at the eastern edge of the built development of East Calder. The buildings are listed at 

Category B. 

10.5.108 The listed buildings are located within the built development of East Calder. The settings of 

the listed buildings primarily comprise each other and the remainder of the built development 

of East Calder. The assets are of medium importance. There would be no physical effect on 

the assets, nor any effect on their setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as no 

change. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the assets is none. 

10.5.109 HB number 7363, Anville Farmhouse is located some 5.9 km north-east of the boundary of 

the proposed wind farm on the north side of the A 70 road at Little Vantage. The building is 

listed at Category B. 

10.5.110 The setting of the listed building largely comprises the farm buildings located to the west and 

north-west and those located some 70 m to the north-east. The farmhouse looks southwards, 

towards the Pentland Hills and away from the proposed wind farm. The asset is of medium 

importance. There would be no physical effect on the asset There would be an effect on its 

setting which would be detectable but which would not fundamentally or materially 


small. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the listed building is slight adverse. 

Conservation Area 

10.5.111 There is one conservation area containing very important buildings between 5 and 10 km of 

the proposed wind farm and within the ZTV. 

10.5.112 Mid Calder Conservation Area is located some 6.3 km north-east of the proposed wind farm 

and covers the older part of the settlement and the surrounding woodland in the area of the 

confluence of Linhouse Water and the River Almond. 

10.5.113 Mid Calder conservation area contains a number of listed buildings including HB number 

14144 Mid Calder Parish Kirk (St. John's Church) Main Street, which is located in the built 

area of Mid Calder, some 7.3 km north-east of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. HB 

number 14153 Calder House is located in the built area of Mid Calder, some 7.2 km northeast 

of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. HB number 14155 Gateway, Calder Estate, 

West Calder Road is located in the built area of Mid Calder, some 7.15 km north-east of the 

boundary of the proposed wind farm. These buildings are listed at Category A. 





10.5.114 HB numbers 14145 Brewery House, 70 Main Street, 14147 29 Bank Street, 14149 41, 43, 47 

Bank Street, 14150 Torphichen Arms Hotel, Bank Street and 14154 Calder Steading are all 

listed at Category B and are also located within the built development of Mid Calder. All but 

the last of these listed building are located within the Conservation Area. 

10.5.115 Although the listed buildings nominally lie within the ZTV, the built development around them 

is inward looking with few views outwards towards the proposed wind farm. The settings of 

the listed buildings primarily comprise each other and the remainder of the built development 

of Mid Calder. The assets are of medium and high importance. There would be no physical 

effect on the assets, nor any effect on their setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed 

as no change. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the listed buildings is none. 

10.5.116 There is a considerable amount of built development around the Mid Calder conservation 

area. This and its relatively well wooded nature constrains its setting and would restrict views 

outwards towards the proposed wind farm. The setting of the conservation area primarily 

comprises the reminder of Calder Wood and the built development of the wider area. Given 

that it contains a number of very important buildings, the asset is of high importance. There 

would be no physical effect on the asset There would be an effect on its setting which would 

be detectable but which would not fundamentally or materially compromise the ability to 

understand the setting. The level of effect is therefore assessed as small and at the low end 

of that scale. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the conservation area is slight adverse. 

Other Designations 

10.5.117 There are no GDLs between 5 and 10 km of the proposed wind farm within the ZTV 

10.5.118 There are no Registered Battlefields or World Heritage Sites within 10 km of the proposed 

wind farm, either within or outside the ZTV. 

10.5.119 The World Heritage Site at New Lanark is located some 22 km south-west of the proposed 

wind farm at its nearest point. It lies almost entirely outside the ZTV. The small parts of the 

WHS within the ZTV are located near Bonnington Mains, some 23 km south-west of the 

boundary of the proposed wind farm, and Parkhead on the west side of the river valley, some 

25 km south-west of the boundary of the proposed wind farm. 

10.5.120 In practice, much of the area nominally within the ZTV at Parkhead would not have views of 

the proposed wind farm because of belt planting in the field boundaries. The area near 

Bonnington Mains is more open, although intervening woodland would reduce views towards 

the proposed wind farm. 

10.5.121 The WHS is of high importance. There would be no physical effect on the asset. There would 

be an effect on its setting but it would be virtually unchanged. The level of effect is therefore 

assessed as negligible. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the WHS is assessed as 

being negligible. 


10.5.122 Decommissioning would not result in any significant additional effects on the historic 

environment other than removing the operational effects described above. 

10.5.123 Table 10.5 provides a summary of potential significant effects (in terms of the EIA 

Regulations) on the historic environment. In addition, Table 10.6 provides a more detailed 

summary of effects. 





Table 10.5 Summary of Potential Significant Effects (in terms of the EIA Regulations) 

of Proposed Wind Farm on Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 

Potential Effect 

Effects on the setting of SM1933, Camilty Hill, Roman fortlet, Castle Greg 

Effects on the setting of Linhouse Mansion (HB number 14156), 

Effects on the setting of Harburn House GDL 


Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 


10.6.1 The most significant effects of the proposed wind farm on the historic environment are its 

effect on the setting of the three assets listed in Table 10.5, above. The mitigation approach 

has been focussed on diminishing and offsetting these effects. 

10.6.2 A number of design changes are referred to in Section 10.4. In addition and following 

consultation with Forestry Commission Scotland, it has been proposed to modify the felling 

plans for the area to retain the screening woodland around the turbines to reduce the effect of 

the proposed wind farm on the assets at Camilty Hill Roman Fortlet, where the retention of 

the trees removes Turbines 5 and 6 entirely from the view as well as providing significant 

screening for Turbines 2 and 3 and at Harburn House, where Turbine 1 would be screened. 

Felling and restocking would involve retaining a screen of the existing trees to screen the 

proposed turbines and replanting with Sitka spruce and larch. 

10.6.3 Mitigation for effects on buried archaeological assets would include a scheme of 

archaeological monitoring of soil stripping near the Harburn Tile Works (HER number 50332) 

and the possible enclosure at Camilty Moss (HER number 17933). 


10.7.1 Based on the information and discussion set out above, the only assets that could experience 

a significant effect from the proposals are Camilty Hill Roman Fortlet, Harburn House and 

Linhouse Mansion. The mitigation strategies presented, including through the design 

evolution process described in Section 10.4, have reduced the potential overall effect of the 

proposed wind farm on these assets to moderate. 


10.8.1 A total of 47 proposed or existing wind farms are located within a distance of 20 kilometres 

from the proposed wind farm (see Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual). This shows the 

distance and direction of the cumulative sites from the proposed wind farm, and whether they 

are in scoping, planning, at appeal, consented, under construction or operational. 

10.8.2 Of the above cumulative sites, most are located at a distance greater than 5 km from the 

proposed wind farm. Although in many cases the ZTV indicates that these wind farms would 

be visible from designated assets within 5 km of the proposed wind farm, in practice and 

given the plantation woodland in and around the proposed wind farm visibility of both the 

proposed wind farm and the additionally proposed or existing wind farms is likely to be either 

very restricted or unobtainable. 





10.8.3 On this basis, although there may be some cumulative effects on assets within 5 km of the 

proposed wind farm including SM1933 the Roman fortlet at Castle Greg and the GDL at 

Harburn House, the level of any such effect would not differ from the effect created by the 

proposed wind farm alone. For similar reasons, there would be little if any effect on other 

assets further from the proposed wind farm. 

10.8.4 Of those wind farms within a distance closer than 5 km from the proposed wind farm, the 

nearest turbine at Fauch Hill would be located some 530 m south-east of the southern 

boundary of the proposed wind farm. Fauch Hill has been refused planning permission 

(though on landscape rather than archaeological grounds) and is at appeal. 

10.8.5 The ZTV (Figure 9.17/43) indicates that both the proposed wind farm and Fauch Hill wind 

farm would be visible from SM1933 the Roman fortlet at Castle Greg, SM1165 Camilty Hill, 

enclosure, the listed building at Linhouse Mansion (HB number 14156) and the GDL at 

Harburn House. Visualisations with viewpoints at SM1933 the Roman fortlet at Castle Greg 

(Figure 10.5), the listed building at Linhouse Mansion, HB number 14156 (Figure 10.6) and 

the GDL at Harburn House (Figure 9.14/1) have been produced showing the views of the 

proposed wind farm from these receptors. In addition, a wireline was produced for the Fauch 

Hill wind farm ES from a viewpoint at the Roman fortlet at Castle Greg (Figure 10.7 in the 

Fauch Hill wind farm ES – included in Appendix 10.3) and a photomontage from Harburn 

House (Figure 5.13 in the Fauch Hill wind farm ES – included in Appendix 10.3). These 

indicate that Fauch Hill wind farm would, if built, not be visible from the listed building at 

Linhouse Mansion (HB number 14156), nor the HGDL at Harburn House and would either 

not be visible or at most be difficult to see from either of the other two assets. The level of 

any cumulative effect on these assets would not differ from the effect created by the 

proposed wind farm alone. 

10.8.6 In addition, the ZTV (Figure 9.17/43) indicates that both the proposed wind farm and Fauch 

Hill wind farm would be visible from SM 11245 Crosswood, cairn 750 m SE of. The setting of 

the SM primarily comprises its relationship with the other prehistoric assets on the lower 

slope of Torweaving Hill. The effect of the proposed wind farm on the SM is slight adverse. . 

The ES for the Fauch Hill wind farm assessed the effect of that development on the SM as 

being moderate adverse. On this basis, it is clear that cumulative effects on the SM would 

arise from the construction of Fauch Hill wind farm and not from the proposed wind farm. The 

level of any cumulative effect on the SAM would therefore be at most moderate adverse. 

10.8.7 The nearest turbine at Harburnhead wind farm would be located approximately 720 m west of 

the western boundary of the proposed wind farm. Harburnhead wind farm has been refused 

planning permission and is at appeal. 

10.8.8 The ZTV (Figure 9.17/44) indicates that both the proposed wind farm and Harburnhead wind 

farm would be visible from SM1933, the Roman fortlet at Castle Greg, SM1165 Camilty Hill, 


Harburn House. 

10.8.9 Visualisations with viewpoints at SM1933 the Roman fortlet at Castle Greg (Figure 10.5), the 

GDL at Harburn House (Figure 9.14/1) and a wireline of the listed building at Linhouse 

Mansion, HB number 14156 (Figure 10.6) have been produced showing the views of the 

proposed wind farm from these receptors. In addition, a visualisation showing the proposed 

view of Harburnhead wind farm from SM1933, the Roman fortlet at Castle Greg, was 

produced as part of the ES for that application (Harburnhead Wind Farm ES Figure 8.3 – 





included in Appendix 10.3). A further visualisation showing the proposed view of 

Harburnhead wind farm from Harburn House was produced as part of the ES for that 

application (Harburnhead Wind Farm ES Figure 8.4 - included in Appendix 10.3). 

10.8.10 The visualisation with a viewpoint at SM1933, the Roman fortlet at Castle Greg (Figure10.5) 

and the visualisation from near the same location produced as part of the ES for that 

application (Harburnhead Wind Farm ES Figure 8.3) indicate that it is likely that turbines from 

Harburnhead wind farm, should it be built, would be visible in the view looking west. Should 

Harburnhead wind farm be constructed, the turbines would be visible from the SAM and the 

current setting substantially altered. The evidence from visualisations makes it clear that 

cumulative effects on the SAM would arise from the construction of Harburnhead wind farm 

and not solely from the proposed wind farm. The level of any cumulative effect on the SAM 

would, however, be large adverse. 

10.8.11 The visualisation with a viewpoint at the listed building at Linhouse Mansion (Figure 10.6) 

indicates that it is likely that turbines from Harburnhead wind farm, should it be built, would 

be visible in this view. Although further turbines would be visible, the level of any cumulative 

effect on the listed building would be essentially the same as that from either wind farm being 

constructed alone; and the cumulative effect is assessed as being moderate adverse. 

10.8.12 The visualisation with a viewpoint at the GDL at Harburn House (Figure 9.14/1) and the 

visualisation showing the proposed view of Harburnhead wind farm from Harburn House 

produced as part of the ES for that application (Harburnhead Wind Farm ES Figure 8.4 

included in Appendix 10.3) indicate that it is likely that turbine blades and tips from the 

Harburnhead wind farm, should it be built, would be visible in the view. With respect to the 

proposed wind farm, in more open locations within the GDL, one or more of the proposed 

turbines would be visible from the GDL. Although further turbines would be visible, the level 

of any cumulative effect on the GDL would be essentially the same as that from either wind 

farm being constructed alone; and the cumulative effect is assessed as being moderate 

adverse. 

10.8.13 There would be little if any cumulative effect on other assets. 

10.8.14 Moss-side Turbine, located some three km southeast of the proposed wind farm, is in 

scoping. Although located between the proposed wind farm and SM2980 Harperrig, cairn, 

West Cairn Hill, the setting of the SM primarily comprises its relationship with the similar 

cairns SM1153 Harperrig, cairn, on East Cairn Hill and SM6194, HER number 18011 

Corston Hill, cairn on Corston Hill. This relationship only peripherally involves either the 

proposed wind farm or Moss-side Turbine. There would be little if any cumulative effect on 

other assets and the level of any cumulative effect from Moss-side Turbine would be slight 

adverse. 

10.8.15 A planning application has been made for Pearie Law, located some 3.6 km west of the 

proposed wind farm. . 

10.8.16 The ZTV (Figure 9.17/45) indicates that both the proposed wind farm and Pearie Law wind 

farm would be visible from SM1933, the Roman fortlet at Castle Greg, SM1165 Camilty Hill, 


Harburn House. 





10.8.17 A visualisation with viewpoints at SM1933, the Roman fortlet at Castle Greg (Figure 10.5) has 

been produced. This indicates that Pearie Law wind farm would, if built, not be visible from 

this asset, nor from SM1165 Camilty Hill, enclosure. 

10.8.18 Further turbines may be visible from the listed building at Linhouse Mansion (HB number 

14156). The level of any cumulative effect on the listed building would be essentially the 

same as that from either wind farm being constructed alone; and the cumulative effect is 

assessed as being moderate adverse. 

10.8.19 Turbines at Pearie Law may be visible in glimpsed views from the GDL at Harburn House. 

However, the level of any cumulative effect on the GDL would be essentially the same as 

that from either wind farm being constructed alone and the cumulative effect is assessed as 

being moderate adverse. 

10.8.20 In addition, the ZTV indicates that both the proposed wind farm and Pearie Law wind farm 

would be visible from SM11210, West Harwood, burial mound 720 m SSE of. The setting of 

the SM is contained by the extensive woodland planting, including on its southeast side. 

10.8.21 This setting only peripherally involves either the proposed wind farm or Pearie Law wind 

farm. There would be little if any cumulative effect on other assets; and the level of any 

cumulative effect from Pearie Law wind farm would be slight adverse. 

10.8.22 A planning application has been made for Baddinsgill Gamekeepers Cottage, located some 

4.9 km southeast of the proposed wind farm The proposal is for a single turbine. The ZTV 

(Figure 9.17/46) indicates that both the proposed wind farm and Baddinsgill Gamekeepers 

Cottage wind turbine would be visible from SM1153 Harperrig, cairn, on East Cairn Hill. 

10.8.23 Although located between the proposed wind farm and SM2980 Harperrig, cairn, West Cairn 

Hill, the setting of the SM primarily comprises its relationship with the similar cairns SM2980 

Harperrig, cairn, West Cairn Hill, and SM6194, HER number 18011 Corston Hill, cairn on 

Corston Hill. This relationship only peripherally involves either the proposed wind farm or 

Baddinsgill Gamekeepers Cottage wind turbine. There would be little if any cumulative effect 

on other assets and the level of any cumulative effect from Baddinsgill Gamekeepers 

Cottage wind turbine would be slight adverse. 







Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation Enhancement Level of Effect 

(and 

Significance) 

after mitigation 

Nature of Effect 

Effects on 

buried 

archaeological 

remains 

Disturbance of 

buried remains. 

Construction 

Negligible to 

Low 

None-Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Programme 

of fieldwork 

- Slight(not 

significant) 

Possible further 

disturbance of 

buried remains 

already 

damaged by 

forestry planting. 

Scheduled Monuments (n.b. no Scheduled Monument shown on Figures 10.1-10.3 would have a greater than slight (not significant) adverse effect other than those listed below) 


SM 1930 


Hill,Roman 

fortlet,Castle 

Greg 

Effect on 

setting. 

Operation High Medium Moderate 

(significant) 

- Screen planting 

remaining 

Moderate 

(significant) 

Moderate 

negative effect 

Total of 2 

further SMs. 

See Appendix 

10.1 for details 

Effect on 

setting. 

Operation High Small Slight (not 

significant) 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Slight negative 

effect 


Total of six SMs 

See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 


significant) 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 



Cultural Heritage and Archaeology



Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

prior to 

mitigation 


(and 

Significance) 




Total of 10 SMs 

See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 


significant) 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 

Listed Buildings(nb no listed building shown on Figures 10.1-10.3 would have a greater than slight (not significant) adverse effect other than those listed below) 


Total of 4 

Category B 

listed buildings. 

See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 


(significant) 

- Moderate 

(significant) 

Moderate 



Linhouse HB 

number 14156, 

Category A 

Effect on 

setting. 


(significant) 

- Moderate 

(significant) 

Moderate 


Total of 1 

further 

Category A 

listed building. 

See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 


significant) 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 

Total of 23 

Category B 


See Appendix 

Effect on 

setting. 



Operation Medium Small Slight (not 

significant) 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 




Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

prior to 

mitigation 


(and 

Significance) 




Total of 8 

Category C 


See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 

Operation Low Small Slight (not 

significant) 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 


Total of 5 

Category A 


See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 


significant) 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 

Total of 27 

Category B 


See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 

Operation Medium Small Slight (not 

significant) 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 

Inventoried Gardens and Deigned Landscapes 

Harburn House 

Effect on 

setting. 


(significant) 

Moderate 

(significant) 

Moderate 

negative effect. 

Conservation Areas 

Mid Calder 

Effect on 

setting. 

High Small Slight (not 

significant) 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect. 






• AMEC 2012 Pearie Law Wind Farm Environmental Statement 

• Arcus 2011 Harburnhead Environmental Statement 

• Fauch Hill Sustainable Energy 2012 Fauch Hill Environmental Statement 

• Forestry Commission (2010a) Camilty Hill Roman Fortlet (Castle Greg) 1933 


• Forestry Commission (2010b) Camilty Hill Enclosure 1165 Management Plan 

• Forestry Commission (2010c) Harperrig Cairn 2980 Management Plan 

• Frere, S S (1989) 'Roman Britain in 1988. I Sites explored', Britannia, vol.20 Page(s): 

271 

• Institute for Archaeologists (2012) Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment 

Desk-based Assessments, Institute for Archaeologists. 

• Landscape Institute/ Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. (2002). 

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) 

• Highways Agency (2008) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges HMSO 

• Historic Scotland. (2011). Scottish Historic Environment Policy 

• Historic Scotland. October (2010). Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting 

• Historic Scotland. (2011). Inventory of Battlefields 

• Scottish Government. (2010), Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Government 

• Scottish Government. (2011), PAN 2/2011. Planning Advice Note: Planning and 

Archaeology. 

Historic Mapping 

• Greenwood (1828) Map of the County of Edinburgh 

• Ordnance Survey (1853) (1st Edition) Edinburghshire - Sheet XVI. 6” to 1 mile 

• Ordnance Survey (1895) (2nd Edition) Edinburghshire - Sheet XVI. 6” to 1 mile 

• Roy, W 1747-55 Military Survey of Scotland. 

• http://maps.nls.uk/ 





11 Terrestrial Ecology 


11.1.1 This chapter identifies and assesses the ecological effects of the proposed Camilty wind 

farm. The assessment outlines the methodologies used to assess potential effects on 

internationally, nationally, regionally and locally protected habitats, flora and fauna (nonavian). 

An assessment of the significance of these potential effects is given along with 

necessary appropriate mitigation measures and subsequent residual effects. The potential 

for cumulative effects with other associated developments is also taken into account. 

11.1.2 The assessment uses a comprehensive combination of baseline data. This comprises data 

gathered via desk study and consultation, and specifically commissioned vegetation and 

protected species surveys completed between October 2011 and September 2012 in 

accordance with current guidance. These data were also used to highlight ecological 

constraints and subsequently inform the iterative layout design process of the wind farm. 

11.1.3 The main assessment is supported by the following appendices: 

• Appendix 11.1 – Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report; 

• Appendix 11.2 – National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey Report; 

• Appendix 11.3 – Bat Survey Technical Report; 

• Appendix 11.4 – Terrestrial Ecology Survey Report (excluding bats); 

• Appendix 11.5 - Calculation of Minimum Bat Turbine Buffer Distances; 

• CONFIDENTIAL Appendix – Protected Species Confidential Appendix. 

11.1.4 Ornithological interests at the proposed wind farm are covered separately in Chapter 12: 

Ornithology. 

The Potential for Effects on Ecological Features 

Project Characteristics 

11.1.5 The nature of the potential effects of the development (as described in Chapter 4: 

Description of the Proposed Development) are outlined in this section, in relation to the three 

main project phases: construction, operation and decommissioning. In addition, cumulative 

effects are also considered. 

11.1.6 In general, the main aspects of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the 

proposed wind farm which have the potential to effect upon terrestrial ecological interests 

associated with the site are: 

• Construction and dismantling of the construction compound, laydown areas, crane 

pads, and other temporary structures; 

• Construction, operation and decommissioning of wind turbines, substation switchroom 

and substation compound, anemometry mast, connecting roads and associated 

permanent infrastructure; and 

• Construction and decommissioning of electrical cable connections. 


Terrestrial Ecology 



11.1.7 The potential effects of these activities have been reduced, as far as possible, through the 

careful design of the proposed wind farm and site infrastructure, through a joint approach 

with the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS), to minimise the requirement for new road 

infrastructure and through the use of best-practice construction techniques in the design. 

Key Issues 

11.1.8 The key potential ecological issues relating to the wind farm are: 

• The potential effects on designated sites due to pollution through accidental spillages 

of chemicals or fuel and/or increased sedimentation; 

• The potential effects on habitats, including annex 1 and uk priority habitats, through 

habitat loss or change; 

• The potential effects on european and uk protected species (other than birds) through 

disturbance, displacement, habitat fragmentation and risk of injury; and 

• The potential effects on other priority habitats and species. 

Terminology 

11.1.9 The following terms are referred to throughout the document and are defined below for 

clarity, and shown on Figure 11.1: 

• The application site, site or site boundary – the area within the red-line boundary as 

shown in Figure 11.1; 

• Ecology data search area (excluding bats and designated sites) – a 1 km buffer from 

the extent of the site boundary (the area within the brown-line boundary); 

• Bat data search area (excluding high risk bats such as Noctule bat [Nyctalus noctula] 

and Nathusius’ pipistrelle [Pipistrellus nathusii] – a 5 km buffer from the extent of the 

site boundary as shown in pink; 

• High risk bat data search area – a 10 km buffer from the extent of the site boundary 

(not shown on Figure 11.1 for clarity with the other areas); 

• Designated sites data search area – a 5 km buffer from the extent of the site boundary 

(the area within the pink-line boundary); 

• The habitat survey area – a 250 m buffer around the site boundary and shown in 

green; 

• The protected mammal survey area – a 250 m buffer around the site boundary (as 

shown in green); 

• The survey area for the Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Assessment (HSA) – 

all ponds within 250 m of the site boundary (as shown in green); 

• The bat survey area – a 500 m buffer around the site boundary as shown in blue on 

Figure 11.1. In addition, driven transects were in operation, extending at least 1 km 

beyond the site boundary as discussed in Appendix 11.3, and shown in Figure 11.6. 






Guidance 

11.2.1 This assessment takes into account the requirements of the following legislation, regulations 

and other guidance: 

• Badger Protection Act (1992); 

• Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora 

and Fauna (the "Habitats Directive") (1992); 

• Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (the "Habitats Regulations"); 

• Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007; 


• Eurobats Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Wind Farm Projects (2008); 

• Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) Guidelines for Ecological 

Impact Assessment (EIA) in the United Kingdom (2006); 

• Natural England Guidance on Bats and onshore wind turbines (2009); 

• Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004; 

• Planning Advice Note 58 Environmental Impact Assessment (1999); 

• Planning Advice Note 60 Planning for Natural Heritage (2000); 

• Scottish Biodiversity List (2005); 

• Scottish Executive Interim Guidance on European Protected Species Development 

Sites and the Planning System (2001); 

• Scottish Planning Policy (2010); 

• Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind 

Farms and Small Scale Hydroelectric Schemes (2001); 

• SNH, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), FCS Good practice during 

wind farm construction (2010); 

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) (1994); 

• West Lothian Council Local Biodiversity Action Plan (2004); 

• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); and 

• Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 (WANE Act). 

Consultation 

11.2.2 In October 2011 relevant consultees were each sent an Scoping letter and asked to provide 

comments on: 

• Ecological issues relating to the proposed development; and 

• Suitability of the proposed baseline survey, analysis and assessment methods 

proposed. 





11.2.3 Details of the consultation responses that involved specific feedback on ecology, and further 

consultation arising from this, are provided in Table 11.1. 

11.2.4 Additional consultation with consultees as part of the EIA Scoping process was also 

undertaken in July 2012, as discussed in Chapter 2: The Environmental Impact Assessment 

and Scoping Process. 

Table 11.1 Summary of Consultations and Responses 

Consultee 

Date of 

Consultation 

Summary of Response 

Scottish 

Natural 

Heritage 

(SNH) 

04/10/2011 The site has historical records of badger setts and SNH 

recommended that a badger walkover survey be included in the scope 

of ecology surveys. 

SNH welcomed the proposal to survey using extended Phase 1 

methodology and suggested that this should be followed by NVC 

survey of habitats of conservation interest if any of these are found on 

site. 

The area around the site hosts deep peat soils, often over 6m depth. 

As the depth of soils on the site will affect siting of turbines and 

construction methodology, SNH recommended that surveys include 

full peat depth survey and peat slide risk assessment. Details of the 

latter assessment can be found in Chapter 13. 

SNH confirmed that they are content with the scope and 

methodologies outlined in the Scoping Report. 

SNH 05/03/2012 SNH were generally happy with the proposed bat methodology 

statement and provided details of recent records of Nathusius' 

pipistrelles from the nearby proposed wind farm at Fauch Hill. Due to 

the proximity of these observations to Camilty, SNH advised the 

species presence on the application site could not be ruled out and 

that sufficient effort should be undertaken to establish presence or 

absence. 

RPS increased the survey effort for this species and included remote 

Anabat recording at height throughout the survey season. 

SNH 14/03/2012 During consultation with SNH it was agreed that instead of carrying 

out a full scale monitoring programme at a cluster of ponds unlikely to 

support great crested newts, an alternative approach would be 

sufficient. A design alteration was implemented by using a 300 m 

buffer zone around all seven ponds, which will be a no-go zone for 

turbines, infrastructure and any associated kind of built up structures. 

West Lothian 

Council 

Royal Society 

for the 

Protection of 

Birds (RSPB) 

Scottish 

Environmental 

Protection 

Area (SEPA) 

07/09/2012 Confirmed that the scoping report was largely satisfactory, subject to 

the detailed advice included in the consultation responses. The EIA 

must have sufficient information to assess whether the proposal will 

have a significant effect on the qualifying interest of any Natura 2000 

sites. The depth of the peat across the site must be identified in 

addition to distribution. 

24/08/2012 The layout of the wind farm should minimise the destruction or 

disturbance to peat habitats. 

24/08/2012 Noted that the following key issues should be addressed in the EIA 

process: 

• Disruption to wetlands including peatlands 





Consultee 

Date of 

Consultation 

Summary of Response 

• Disturbance and re-use of excavated peat 

• Forest removal and forest waste 

• Existing groundwater abstractions 

• Engineering activities in the water environment 

• Water abstraction 

• Pollution prevention and environmental management 

If there are peatland or mire systems present, the ES or planning 

submission should demonstrate how the layout and design of the 

proposal, including any associated borrow pits, hard standing and 

roads, avoid impact on such areas where possible. For areas where 

avoidance is impossible details of how impact is minimised and 

mitigated should be provided, including a detailed map of peat depth 

for all construction elements that affect peatland habitats. Details of 

the peat assessment can be found in Chapter 13. 

A Phase 1 habitat survey should be carried out for the whole site and 

the guidance 'A Functional Wetland Typology for Scotland’ (currently 

available for free download on the SNIFFER website) used to help 

identify all wetland areas. National Vegetation Classification should be 

carried out for any wetlands identified. Results of these findings 

should be included in the ES, including appropriate maps with the 

location of infrastructure clearly marked. If any groundwater 

dependent terrestrial ecosystems are located within a radius of (i) 100 

m from roads, tracks and trenches or (ii) 250 m from borrow pits and 

foundations the likely impact of these features will require further 

assessment. 

Desk Study 

11.2.5 The preparatory work in providing a robust assessment of potentially significant ecological 

effects involved interpreting a detailed set of baseline information gathered from various 

sources. Ecological data on the site itself and its surroundings were collated from a range of 

data sources, primarily: Scottish Badgers; SNH; Wildlife Information Centre for Lothians and 

Borders; Lothian Bat Group; Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT); Scottish Environment Protection 

Agency (SEPA); Lothian Amphibian and Reptile Group (LARG) and the Botanical Society of 

the British Isles (BSBI). The relevant data search areas are outlined in Section 11.1 of this 

chapter, and shown on Figure 11.1. 

11.2.6 A summary of the results of the desk study are also provided in the appropriate sections 

within the ecological baseline descriptions. 

11.2.7 In addition to the data requests, the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) was searched for 

additional information within the relevant 10 km grid squares centred on the site. With 

regards to bats, other published distribution data sources were searched including, the Bat 

Atlas (Richardson 2000), Scottish Bats (Haddow & Herman 2000), and Joint Nature 

Conservation Committee (JNCC) Article 17 Species Status Assessments (JNCC 2007). 

11.2.8 A search was also made for all sites with a European, National or Local Authority designation 

with an ecological interest that could be affected by the development. Data on designated 

sites was gathered from SNH’s Sitelink website (from the areas shown in Figure 11.1). 

Aerial photography and base maps were used to identify any habitat features of note within 

the site and surrounding environs and to assess their suitability for various relevant protected 

species and habitats. 





Ecological Sensitivity Survey 

11.2.9 An ecological sensitivity survey was undertaken on 23 February 2011 by an RPS ecologist 

who was accompanied by a PfR representative as well as two FCS staff. The site visit 

involved an identification of the broad habitat types present in the immediate vicinity of the 

proposed indicative turbine locations (at the time a 14 turbine scheme, as described in 

Chapter 3: Design Evolution) and along the existing and proposed access routes, and an 

appraisal of their potential to support legally protected species. 

Habitat Surveys 

11.2.10 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey was undertaken on 4 October 2011 and the range of 

semi-natural habitats within the vegetation survey area as defined in Section 11.1 and shown 

in Figure 11.1 were mapped, according to the techniques and definitions described in the 

Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2010). The results of this survey provide 

descriptions of the key habitat features across the site (Appendix 11.1). 

NVC Surveys 

11.2.11 A targeted NVC survey was undertaken using the results of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey to 

identify areas most likely to contain habitats listed on Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive and 

wetland habitats. The site was visited on 14 June 2012, and areas of marshy grassland, wet 

heath and blanket bog within the vegetation survey area (blue line boundary, Figure 11.1) 

were classified and mapped using the NVC system (Rodwell 1991 et seq.) to NVC subcommunity 

level wherever possible. NVC polygons and their associated NVC proportions for 

the site are listed in Appendix 11.2 and shown in Figure 11.4. 

11.2.12 Some areas within the site did not fit into the NVC nomenclature and, where this occurred, 

the area was either given a habitat code using the JNCC Phase 1 Survey methodology 

nomenclature (JNCC, 2010), or a prefix for the community and the assemblage of species 

noted. 

11.2.13 Notes were also made about the locations of any plant species of special interest found 

during the survey. 

11.2.14 Scientific names for flora and fauna are given when the species is first mentioned in the text 

but not thereafter. Latin binomial system for vascular plants follows the nomenclature of 

Stace (2007). 

Protected Species Surveys 

European Protected Species 

Otter (Lutra lutra) 

11.2.15 Otter surveys were carried out on 23 April 2012 and covered all areas of suitable habitat 

(e.g. watercourses, waterbodies and associated terrestrial habitats) within the site and a 250 

m buffer zone of the proposed development (Figure 11.1 –Protected mammal survey area 

shown in green). 

11.2.16 During the survey, evidence of otter presence and activity was recorded and mapped. Otter 

field signs are described in Bang and Dahlstrøm (2001) and Sargent and Morris (2003). 





Bat Species 

11.2.17 A series of field surveys were carried out to determine the presence of bat species, 

abundance, and the level of usage (flight activity) of the site by the bat species. The surveys 

carried out are listed below. A detailed description of the survey methodology and dates can 

be found in Appendix 11.3. 

Site Walkover 

11.2.18 A daytime site walkover was undertaken on 19 February 2012 within the survey area (Figure 

11.1 – Bat survey area within the blue-line boundary). The aim of this survey was to check 

and assess the potential value of habitats, features and structures present for roosting, 

foraging and commuting bats. 

Roost Surveys 

11.2.19 All buildings identified within the bat survey area with the potential to support roosting bats 

were inspected externally by an experienced bat ecologist in good weather. This included 

seven structures that were all inspected on 2 July 2012, as shown on Figure 1 in Appendix 

11.3. 

11.2.20 The site predominantly contains coniferous plantation woodland with a mix of different age 

stands. The mature stands are predominantly Sitka spruce with a dense canopy and offer 

little potential for roosting bats. As no trees supporting, or with the potential to support 

roosting bats were identified, no further tree surveys were deemed necessary. 

Dusk Commuting Watch Surveys 

11.2.21 Eight dusk commuting watches were undertaken between May and October 2012 (as 

indicated in Appendix 11.3) to assess the level of commuting activity to or across the site and 

to record early emerging, high risk species such as noctule bats (Nyctalus noctula). A single 

Vantage Point (as shown in Figure 1 in Appendix 11.3) was located on elevated ground near 

likely commuting routes in a habitat of greater suitability for bats. 

11.2.22 The surveys started 30 minutes before sunset and had a duration of 1 hour – 1.5 hours 

depending on weather conditions; longer if the night was bright and might delay bat 

emergence. Surveyors recorded the flights of any bats observed commuting to/over the site. 

Walked Transect Survey 

11.2.23 Eight walked transect surveys (Figure 11.6) were carried out between May and October 

2012 in order to cover the following key activity periods for bats: 

• April-May (spring dispersal); 

• June-July (maternity season); 

• September-October (mating/dispersal season); and 

• October-November (dispersal season). 

11.2.24 Transects were walked from 45 to 60 minutes after sunset for approximately 2 hours. Point 

surveys lasting 5 minutes were made along the route. This allowed for an assessment of bat 

commuting, foraging and roosting activity during the dispersal and mating seasons (Natural 

England, 2009). Routes and directions varied each month to ensure full coverage of the site 

and important habitats, and to minimise temporal bias in the results. 





Driven Transect Survey 

11.2.25 Driven transect surveys were undertaken following the walked transect or vantage points 

surveys between May and October, to gain an overview of bats using the site and wider 

area. 

11.2.26 The transect routes (Figure 11.6) were driven with a maximum speed of not more than 

15 mph, while an experienced bat surveyor held a Duet bat detector out of the open window 

to record any bat passes and species. 

Automated Anabat Passive Detector Surveys 

11.2.27 Two remote recording bat detectors (Anabats) were positioned at two different locations on 

site during both the maternity and mating/dispersal periods to monitor bat activity (Table 

11.2). Chosen locations reflected the habitat configuration within the survey area. A third 

Anabat was positioned at height (approximately at 65m) on the temporary met mast on site 

as Nathusius pipistrelle had been recorded in the area. Anabat detectors were programmed 

to record all bat activity starting at least one hour before sunset until at least one hour after 

sunrise. The location of the Anabat recording devices are shown in Figure 1 in Appendix 

11.3. 

Table 11.2 Location and Recording of Deployed Anabats 

Anabat 

Grid 

reference 

Description Dates deployed Number of 

days 

1 306277 

659516 

Open habitat, part clear-fell, part 

coniferous replant 

25/05-12/06 2012 18 

10/07-20/07/2012 10 

13/08-03/09/2012 21 

2 304851 

658378 

In forest plantation edge, near 

network of rides and open areas of 

coniferous replant 

26/09-10/10/2012 14 

25/05-12/06 2012 18 

10/07-20/07/2012 10 

13/08-03/09/2012 21 

26/09-10/10/2012 14 

Metmast 

304900 

659400 

Installed at 65 m height on met 

mast 

May to October 2012 85 

Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) 

11.2.28 The great crested newt Habitat Suitability Assessment (HSA) was undertaken by two RPS 

ecologists with experience of great crested newt ecology and HSAs on 28 September 2011. 

The assessment focussed on all ponds within 250 m of the Camilty site boundary. 

11.2.29 Ponds were identified prior to going to site using aerial plans (e.g. the Google Maps 1 and 

Bing Maps 2 websites) and OS maps. The HSA was carried out using the Habitat Suitability 

1 

Google Maps (http://maps.google.co.uk). 





Index (HSI) developed by Oldham et al. (2000) and as described in ARG UK Advice Note 5 

(2010). Each criterion is scored according to its suitability and the resulting HSI scores, 

which are between 0 and 1 3 , provide an indication as to the likelihood of a pond’s potential to 

support great crested newts. In general, ponds with high scores are more likely to support 

great crested newts than those with low scores. 

UK Protected Species 

Water Vole (Arvicola aquaticus) 

11.2.30 Water vole surveys were undertaken on 23 April 2012 within the protected mammal survey 

area (Figure 11.1). 

11.2.31 Field signs of water vole were searched for using standard methodology, as described in 

Strachan and Moorhouse (2010), in areas of potential water vole habitat, e.g. watercourses. 

Badger (Meles meles) 

11.2.32 Badger surveys were carried out on 4 May 2012 within all accessible areas of suitable 

habitat (e.g. woodland, scrub and field margins) within the protected mammal survey area 

(Figure 11.1). 

11.2.33 Badger field signs were searched for systematically within these areas. Field signs of 

badgers are described in Neal and Cheeseman (1996), Bang and Dahlstrøm (2001) and 

SNH (2001). 

Reptiles 

11.2.34 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey considered reptile habitat potential in the application 

site and 250 m buffer. Although no targeted surveys for these species groups were 

undertaken, surveyors were instructed to record all incidental observations during other 

surveys. 

Limitations of Assessment 

11.2.35 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was conducted on 4 October 2011 which is relatively 

late in the season and when most flowering plants are dying back. As such, many plant 

species only displayed a limited presence of key identifying features such as leaves or 

flowers. However, the timing of the survey was sufficient for enabling the identification of the 

dominant habitat types within the survey area (one of the main aims of the survey), and 

consequently these timings are not considered to have posed a significant constraint to the 

objectives of the survey. 

11.2.36 The baseline ecological surveys used to identify relevant Valued Ecological Receptors 

(VERs) and to inform the impact assessment are considered to be of an appropriate level of 

detail to allow the undertaking of a robust assessment. All seasonally dependent surveys 

were undertaken at appropriate times of the year. 

2 

Bing Maps website (www.bing.com/maps). 

3 

HSI scores are calculated as the geometric mean of the ten individual habitat suitability scores. 





The Assessment Process 

Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) 

11.2.37 This section details how the significance of effects on ecological receptors is assessed. This 

is a staged process based on the IEEM guidelines (IEEM 2006). 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 and is presented in Table 11.5. This 

is for reasons of clarity and does not prevent the use of the 2006 guidelines to determine 

significance through reasoned argument. 

11.2.38 The choice of VERs for the site is described in the Evaluation of VERs section (Section 11.5) 

and in consideration of the baseline conditions. 

Evaluating Biodiversity Assets 

11.2.39 Determining the sensitivity of ecological receptors within the study area is undertaken in a 

systematic way using criteria that determine their significance. The term used for the flora 

and fauna of ecological importance that are affected at the site is ‘Valued Ecological 

Receptor’. The approach to determining the nature conservation level of each ecological 

receptor is outlined in Table 11.3. 

11.2.40 In accordance with the IEEM guidelines (2006), the value of habitats is also measured 

against published selection criteria. These include size (extent), diversity, naturalness, rarity, 

fragility, recorded history, position in an ecological or geographical unit, current condition and 

potential value. 

11.2.41 When assigning a level of value to a species or habitat, its distribution and status, including a 

consideration of trends based on available historical records, are considered. Rarity is 

considered because of its relationship with threat and vulnerability, although rarity in itself is 

not necessarily an indicator of value. A species that is rare and declining will be assigned a 

higher level of importance than one that is rare but known to be stable. 

Table 11.3 Approach to Evaluating Ecological Receptor Sensitivity 

Conservation 

Sensitivity 

High 

Geographic 

Frame of 

Reference 

International 

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 (e.g. 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 SSSI, or a National Nature 

Reserve (NNR). 

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 a national / regional context for which the site 

could potentially be designated as a SSSI. 





Conservation 

Sensitivity 

Geographic 

Frame of 

Reference 

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. 

Medium Regional Habitats or species that form part of the cited interest of a Local 

Nature Reserve (LNR), or some local-level designated sites 

depending on specific site conditions. 

A feature (e.g. habitat or population), which is either unique or 

sufficiently unusual to be considered as being of nature conservation 

value up to a district or county context. 

Presence of Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) habitats or 

species, where the action plan states that all areas of representative 

habitat or individuals of the species should be protected. 

Low Local Habitats or species that form part of the cited interest of a local-level 

designated site and may be designated as a non-statutory 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. 

Negligible Negligible 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. 

11.2.42 The potential effects are determined through understanding how each VER responds to the 

proposed wind farm. The elements used to define the scale of the effect of a wind farm 

include: 

• The potential duration, whether short-term (< 5years), medium-term (5-15 years) or 

long-term (15-25 years or longer); 

• Reversibility; whether the effects will be reversible in the short to medium term; and 

• Whether there are any direct or indirect cumulative effects. 

11.2.43 Taking account of these elements, Table 11.4 defines the magnitude of effect for VERs. 

Table 11.4 Defining the Magnitude of Effects on Valued Ecological Receptors 

Magnitude 

Very Large 

Large 

Medium 

Small 

Negligible 

Definition 

Would cause the loss of all, or a major proportion of, a habitat or numbers of species’ 

population, or cause sufficient damage to immediately affect long-term viability. 

Major effects on the feature / population which would have a sufficient effect to alter the 

nature of the feature in the short- to long- term and affect its long-term viability. 

Effects that are detectable in short and medium-term, but which should not alter the 

long-term viability of the feature / population. 

Minor effects, either of sufficiently small-scale or of short duration to cause no long-term 

harm to the habitat / population. 

A potential effect that is not expected to affect the habitat / population in any way. 





Assessment of Level of Effects 

11.2.44 The level 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 magnitude 

of effect) by the proposed wind farm, i.e. by using Tables 11.3 and 11.4 above. These are 

described as ‘very substantial’, ‘substantial’, ‘moderate’, ‘slight’ and ‘negligible’. This is 

presented as a matrix in Table 11.5. 

Table 11.5 Level of Effects Matrix 

Magnitude 

of Effect 

Sensitivity 

High Medium Low Negligible 

Very Large Very substantial Substantial Moderate Negligible 

Large 

Very substantial or 

substantial 


moderate 

Moderate or slight 

Negligible 

Medium Substantial or moderate Moderate Slight Negligible 

Small Moderate or slight Slight Slight or negligible Negligible 

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 

11.2.45 Some combinations of receptor sensitivity and effect magnitude may vary in the level of 

effect 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 effect. 

11.2.46 Effects/residual effects (effects remaining once mitigation has been applied) determined as 

‘slight’ or ‘negligible’ are not considered to be significant with regard to the EIA Regulations. 



11.3.1 Data on the important habitats, flora and fauna within the study area were obtained from a 

combination of scoping/consultation, desk studies, and field surveys conducted in 2011 and 

2012. 


Designated Sites in the Area 

11.3.2 Table 11.6 gives details of all the designated areas within 5 km of the site boundary and the 

locations are shown in Figure 11.2. Consideration has been given to the potential 

development effects on all these sites. 

11.3.3 Further information on designated interests, citations and management statements for 

designated sites are available on the SNH SiteLink website (http://www.snh.org.uk/snhi/). 





Table 11.6 Designated Sites for Ecological (excluding avian) Interest within 5 km of 

the Site Boundary 

Site Name and 

Designations 

Distance from Site 

Reason for Designation 

Statutory Designated Sites 

Craigengar 

SAC and SSSI 

Cobbinshaw 

Moss SSSI 

Cobbinshaw 

Reservoir SSSI 

Hermand 

Birchwood 

SSSI 

Craigengar 

SSSI 

Linhouse Valley 

SSSI 

The SSSI is 

approximately 3.2 

km south of site 

boundary and the 

SAC 4 km 

Approximately 600 

m south-west of 

site boundary at 

nearest point 

3.2 km south-west 

of site boundary at 

nearest point 

2.7 km north-west 

of site boundary 

3.2 km south of site 

boundary 

3.2 km north of site 

boundary 

Designated for European dry heath, species rich Nardus 

grassland and the Annex II Marsh Saxifrage (Saxifraga 

hirculus) for which the site is the largest colony in Scotland 

and the largest in the UK outside the North Pennines. 

This 494 ha site is an intermediate bog and exhibits 

characteristics of both blanket bog and raised bog. It is the 

largest of a string of bogs along the south-western edge of the 

Pentlands' watershed. 

The site is designated for fen, marsh and swamp habitats, and 

its wildfowl interest. 

Hermand Beechwood is classified in the Ancient Woodland 

inventory as Long Established Woodland of Plantation Origin 

and was originally planted in the late 18th century. 

This 328 ha site holds three characteristic upland habitats: dry 

upland heath, blanket bog and flush communities within hill 

cleughs. It forms part of the Craigengar SAC (see above). 

This site is designated for its acid and neutral grasslands, 

woodland and valley Fen 

Non-statutory Designated Sites 

Crosswood 

reservoir 

SWT Wildlife 

Site 

Linhouse water 

SWT Wildlife 

Site 

Murieston 

Water 

SWT Wildlife 

Site 

800 m south of site 

boundary 

Within site 

boundary 

2 km north west of 

site boundary 

n/a 

This site encompasses the Crosswood Burn flowing through 

the site, leading to Crosswood Reservoir 

n/a 

Habitats and Flora 

Legal Protection 

11.3.4 Several of the habitats present within the survey area are protected under Annex I of the EC 

Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regulations 1994 (as amended) and/or a UK BAP 

Priority Habitat; these are listed below in Table 11.7. 





Table 11.7 Priority NVC Communities found within the survey area 

Annex 1 

Biotope 

Code 

Annex 1 

Biotope 

NVC 

Code 

NVC Community 

UK BAP 

Priority 

Habitat 

Present on 

the Scottish 

Biodiversity 

List 

H4030 

European 

dry 

heaths 

H18a 

Vaccinium myrtillus-Deschampsia 

flexuosa heath, Hylocomium splendens- 

Rhytidiadelphus loreus sub-community 

Upland 

heathland 

Yes 

H7130 

Blanket 

bogs 

M17a Trichophorum germanicum – 

Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire, 

Drosera rotundifolia-Sphagnum spp. 

sub-community 

Blanket 

bog 

Yes 

H7130 

Blanket 

bogs 

M19a 

Calluna vulgaris-Eriophorum vaginatum 

blanket mire, Erica tetralix subcommunity 

Blanket 

bog 

Yes 

H7130 

Blanket 

bogs 

M19b 

Calluna vulgaris-Eriophorum vaginatum 

blanket mire, Empetrum nigrum ssp. 

nigrum sub-community 

Blanket 

bog 

Yes 

H7130 

Blanket 

bogs 

M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire Blanket 

bog 

Yes 

H7130 

Blanket 

bogs 

M25a 

Molinia caerulea-Potentilla erecta mire, 

Erica tetralix sub-community 

Blanket 

bog 

No 

H7130 

Blanket 

bogs 

M25b 

Molinia caerulea-Potentilla erecta mire, 

Anthoxanthum odoratum sub-community 

Blanket 

bog 

No 

11.3.5 The West Lothian Biodiversity Action Plan (WLBAP) 2004 lists the following relevant habitats 

and species with action plans: 

• Otter; 

• Badger; 

• Red squirrel; 

• Brown long-eared, pipistrelle, daubentons and natterer’s bats; 

• Rivers and burns; 

• Lowland raised bog; 

• Heather moorland; and 

• Woodland. 

Desk Study 

11.3.6 Consultation with BSBI and a search of the NBN database for the NST05 and NT06 10 km 

grid squares covering the site and surrounding area found the following notable plants with 

the potential to be on the site as identified in Appendix 2 in Appendix 11.1. 

11.3.7 Five UKBAP species have been found in the area (cornflower Centaurea cyanus, lesser 

butterfly orchid Platanthera bifolia, marsh saxifrage Saxifraga hirculus, Mountain scurvy 

grass Cochlearia micacea, shepherds needle Scandix pecten-veneris). 





11.3.8 There were 28 species on the Scottish Biodiversity List ( a lichen Arctomia delicatula, black 

bind weed Fallopia convolvulus, black grass Alopecurus myosuroides, bluebell 

Hyacinthoides non-scripta, charlock Sinapis arvensis, chicory Cichorium intybus, corn mint 

Mentha arvensis, cornflower Centaurea cyanus, dwarf bladder moss Physcomitrium 

sphaericum, Good-King-Henry Chenopodium bonus-henricus, Greater Broomrape 

Orobanche rapum-genistae, Greater Butterfly-orchid Platanthera chlorantha, Hairy Buttercup 

Ranunculus sardous, harebell Campanula rotundifolia, Heath Cudweed Gnaphalium 

sylvaticum, heather Calluna vulgaris, Large-flowered Hemp-nettle Galeopsis speciosa, 

Lesser Butterfly-orchid Platanthera bifolia, Marsh Saxifrage Saxifraga hirculus, Shetland 

Mouse-ear-hawkweed Pilosella flagellaris, Short-beaked Aloe-moss Aloina brevirostris, 

Spreading Earth-moss Aphanorhegma patens, Sun Spurge Euphorbia helioscopia, White 

Mustard Sinapis alba, White Ramping-fumitory Fumaria capreolata, Wild Pansy Viola 

tricolour, Wood Bitter-vetch Vicia orobus Yellow Bartsia, Parentucellia viscose. 

Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results 

11.3.9 The Phase 1 Habitat Survey types are mapped in Figure 11.3 along with specific features 

(Target Notes – TN) (see Appendix 11.1). Table 11.8 lists the broad Phase 1 Habitat types 

present within the proposed survey area in order of approximate area of cover and habitat 

type. 

Table 11.8 Habitat Categories present within the Survey Area and Site 

Phase 1 Habitat 

Survey Area 

Covered (Ha) 

Area of Site 

Covered (Ha)* 

% of Site 

Covered (Ha) 

Broadleaved woodland - semi-natural 0.65 - - 

Broadleaved woodland - plantation 14.43 0.08 0.05 

Coniferous woodland - plantation 459.98 149.17 86.82 

Mixed woodland - plantation 5.16 - - 

Coniferous woodland - recently felled 54.67 16.93 9.86 

Acid grassland - semi-improved 35.71 2.52 1.47 

Neutral grassland - semi-improved 1.61 - - 

Marsh/marshy grassland 105.62 1.34 0.78 

Poor semi-improved grassland 16.32 - - 

Wet dwarf shrub heath 7.37 - - 

Blanket sphagnum bog 31.11 - - 

Wet modified bog 13.16 1.66 0.96 

Dry modified bog 6.59 - - 

Flush and spring - acid/neutral flush 0.69 - - 

Standing water 1.68 - - 





Phase 1 Habitat 

Survey Area 

Covered (Ha) 

Area of Site 

Covered (Ha)* 

% of Site 

Covered (Ha) 

Cultivated/disturbed land - amenity grassland 2.01 - - 

Bare ground 1.21 - - 

Other habitat 0.87 - - 

Road 7.44 0.12 0.07 

Total 766.27 171.82 100.00 

*includes entire site as covered by red line boundary, not just area covered by proposed wind farm 

Coniferous Plantation Woodland 

11.3.10 The survey area and site is dominated by coniferous plantation woodland containing a mix of 

different aged stands. The predominant species within the survey area are Sitka spruce 

(Picea sitchensis) and lodge-pole pine (Pinus contorta), with occasional stands of Scot’s pine 

(Pinus sylvestris). 

11.3.11 Several areas have been recently planted as a second rotation crop and the canopy has not 

yet reached the thicket stage. Within these areas a number of acid and marshy grassland 

species such as wavy hair-grass (Deschampsia flexuosa), tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia 

cespitosa), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), purple moor grass (Molinea caerulea), sheep’s 

and red fescue grasses (Festuca ovina/rubra), and sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum 

odoratum) have been able to recolonise. The wetter areas, such as the forestry drains, have 

been recolonised by rush species including soft rush (Juncus effusus) and sharp-flowered 

rush (Juncus acutiflorus). 

11.3.12 The forest ride and track systems throughout the survey area consist of a mixture of marshy 

grassland and mire habitats dependent on the topography, drainage, and soil type of the 

particular area. 

Broadleaved Plantation Woodland 

11.3.13 As with the coniferous plantation woodland, there are a number of areas within the survey 

boundary which have been felled and restocked with broadleaved species such as silver 

birch (Betula pendula), downy birch (Betula pubescens), rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), and 

alder (Alnus glutinosa). The majority of these areas are in the north of the site, with the 

forestry crop still being relatively young, thus allowing marshy grassland species to coexist 

within the broad-leaved crop. 

Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland 

11.3.14 Throughout the survey area there are numerous mature and immature broadleaved trees, 

including beech (Fagus sylvatica), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), alder, silver birch, 

downy birch, ash (Fraxinus excelsior), sessile oak (Quercus petraea), penduculate oak 

(Quercus robur), and rowan. 

Grassland and Field Boundaries 

11.3.15 The south of the survey area is dominated by areas of marshy grassland interspersed with 

areas of semi-improved acid grassland. The marshy grassland is dominated by tussocks of 

soft rush with abundant purple moor grass, and tufted hair-grass between the rush tussocks. 





11.3.16 Marshy grassland areas are also common within the rides containing drains and burns 

across the site. These areas are dominated by a soft rush sward often containing a high 

percentage cover of purple moor grass. A number of areas within Camilty Plantation have 

been recently felled with marshy grassland species regenerating between the brash lanes 

left from forestry activities (TN15). These areas are currently still classified as recently felled 

under the Phase 1 nomenclature. 

11.3.17 The areas of semi-improved acid grassland in the southeast of the site (TN37) are 

dominated by species such as sheep’s fescue and sweet vernal grass, with abundant heath 

bedstraw (Galium saxatile) and mosses such as Rhytideadelphus loreus within the sward. 

Due to the grazing that appears to take place within these areas, the additional nutrients 

have allowed the introduction of species such as creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and 

Yorkshire fog which otherwise would be unable to exist. Heath rush (Juncus squarrosus) is 

also occasionally present throughout these acidic areas. 

11.3.18 There are a number of poor semi-improved fields in the south of the survey area surrounding 

Crosswoodburn Farm. 

Heath and Mire 

11.3.19 Throughout the survey area there are few areas of heath present, as the majority of the 

survey area has a peat depth greater than 50 cm. There are no areas of wet heath in the site 

boundary. An area of wet heath (TN35) is present in the south east of the survey area 

bordering the plantation forestry before areas of acid and marshy grassland become 

dominant. This wet heath area is dominated by heather (Calluna vulgaris) and bilberry 

(Vaccinium mrytillus), with abundant purple moor grass present throughout the ericoid 

(heath, or heath-like) sward. The peat depth within the area is less than 50cm. 

11.3.20 Areas of blanket bog are present across the survey area where afforestation has not taken 

place. Two such examples are in the north west of the survey area (e.g. around TN28) and 

the south of the survey area (TN22) where Cobbinshaw Moss SSSI joins the survey area 

boundary. These areas have a peat depth greater than 50cm, containing a sward dominated 

by ericoid species such as heather, cross-leaved heath, and bilberry, with a ground layer 

containing Sphagna such as S. capillofolium, S. fallax, S. tenellum, S. cuspidatum, and S. 

subnitens. Only a small area (1.66 ha) of wet modified bog is present in the site boundary, 

along rides in the east of the site – these were included as a constraint during the site design 

process described in Chapter 3: Design Evolution. 

11.3.21 Both the wet heath and blanket bog areas are recognised as Annex 1 Biotope types under 

the EC Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regulations 1994 (as amended), and as UK 

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats. They are also listed on the Scottish 

Biodiversity List as of conservation importance for Scotland. 

Watercourses and Waterbodies 

11.3.22 The watercourses within the Phase 1 survey area include the Otter Burn, Powfastle Burn, 

Shear Burn, Crosswood Burn, Kelly Syke, Green Burn and Black Burn. These burns drain 

the survey area flowing from the southwest to the northeast, passing through the site and 

ultimately discharging into the Camilty Water in the northeast of the survey area. The 

majority of the burns are narrow, between 0.5 m and 1.5 m in width, often choked with soft 

rush, running between a mixture of mineral soil or peat banks generally between 0.5 m and 

1 m in height. 





11.3.23 Within the survey area there are numerous small forestry drains, many of which are choked 

with either soft rush, brash from felling activities, or Sphagnum mosses. These have not 

been mapped for the purpose of this survey. 

11.3.24 All major waterbodies are present in the north of the survey area (TN4, TN10). These are 

drainage pools from previous forestry activities, with two main systems being linked by a 

single drain running through a gulley containing banks of semi-improved neutral grassland 

(TN9). The pools contain areas of open water fringed by emergent vegetation dominated by 

soft rush, with scattered willow scrub (Salix spp.) and silver birch saplings surrounding these 

areas. The pools in the wider context are surrounded by areas of marshy grassland 

dominated by soft rush and tufted hair grass. 

NVC Field Survey Results 

11.3.25 In general, the habitats within the Camilty site are of low to moderate nature conservation 

importance being dominated by continuous, coniferous plantation woodland and felled 

coniferous woodland, with areas of marshy grassland and mire habitats within forest rides. 

However, sections of the survey area surrounding the site boundary are more ecologically 

diverse than those within the site, containing areas of Annex 1 Biotope and UK BAP priority 

habitat such as blanket bog and wet heath. These include parts of Cobbinshaw Moss SSSI 

to the south west of the site. 

11.3.26 An NVC survey was carried out to classify habitats of potentially high conservation value 

(Annex 1 and UKBAP) into more detailed vegetation communities. 

11.3.27 Table 11.9 lists the dominant NVC communities present within the survey area, with Figure 

11.4 providing an overview of location and surface areas of the relevant polygons. The 

proportions of each habitat per survey polygon are listed in Appendix 11.2. 

Table 11.9 Dominant NVC Communities Within the Vegetation Survey Area 

NVC 

Code 

NVC Type 

Area 

(ha) 

Survey 

Polygons 

community 

was found 

in 

Annex 1 

Biotope 

UK 

BAP 

Priority 

habitat 

Scottish 

Biodiversity 

List 

SEPA 

GWDTE’s 

MG1a 

MG9a 

Arrhenatherum 

elatius grassland, 

Festuca rubra subcommunity 

Holcus lanatus- 

Deschampsia 

cespitosa 

grassland, Poa 

trivialis subcommunity 

20.01 17 - - - N 

15.69 4 - - H1, H3, SO1 N 

H18a 

Vaccinium 

myrtillus- 

Deschampsia 

flexuosa heath, 

Hylocomium 

splendens- 

Rhytidiadelphus 

loreus subcommunity 

15.67 7 European 

dry 

heaths 

Upland 

heaths 

H1, H3, SO1 N 





NVC 

Code 

NVC Type 

Area 

(ha) 

Survey 

Polygons 

community 

was found 

in 

Annex 1 

Biotope 

UK 

BAP 

Priority 

habitat 

Scottish 

Biodiversity 

List 

SEPA 

GWDTE’s 

M6c 

Carex echinata- 

Sphagnum 

fallax/denticulatum 

mire, Juncus 

effusus subcommunity 

13.85 2, 6, 9, 16, 

23, 26, 27, 

28 

- Upland 

flush, 

fen and 

swamp 

- N 

M17a 

Trichophorum 

germanicum – 

Eriophorum 

vaginatum blanket 

mire, Drosera 

rotundifolia- 

Sphagnum spp. 

sub-community 

9.37 28 Blanket 

bogs 

Blanket 

bog 

- N 

M19a 

Calluna vulgaris- 

Eriophorum 


mire, Erica tetralix 

sub-community 

5.78 1, 4, 10, 14, 

15, 16, 28 

Blanket 

bogs 

Blanket 

bog 

H1, SO1 Y 

M19b 

Calluna vulgaris- 

Eriophorum 


mire, Empetrum 

nigrum ssp. 

nigrum subcommunity 

4.8 14 Blanket 

bogs 

Blanket 

bog 

- N 

M20 

Eriophorum 


mire 

4.34 10, 15, 16, 

22, 23, 26 

Blanket 

bogs 

Blanket 

bog 

- N 

M23a 

Juncus 

effusus/acutiflorus- 

Galium palustre 

rush-pasture, 

Juncus acutiflorus 

sub-community 

2.98 24 - - - N 

M23b 

Juncus 

effusus/acutiflorus- 

Galium palustre 

rush-pasture, 

Juncus effusus 

sub-community 

2.03 12, 19, 25, 

26, 27, 29 

- - H3, SO1 N 

M25a 

Molinia caerulea- 

Potentilla erecta 

mire, Erica tetralix 

sub-community 

1.71 10, 13 Blanket 

bogs 

Blanket 

bog 

H1, H3, SO1 N 

M25b 

Molinia caerulea- 

Potentilla erecta 

mire, 

Anthoxanthum 

odoratum sub- 

1.44 8, 18, 22 Blanket 

bogs 

Blanket 

bog 

H1, SO1 Y 





NVC 

Code 

NVC Type 

Area 

(ha) 

Survey 

Polygons 

community 

was found 

in 

Annex 1 

Biotope 

UK 

BAP 

Priority 

habitat 

Scottish 

Biodiversity 

List 

SEPA 

GWDTE’s 

community 

S9 

U4a 

Carex rostrata 

swamp 

Festuca ovina- 

Agrostis capillaris- 

Galium saxatile 

grassland, typical 

sub-community 

1.26 11, 25 - Fens - N 

1.04 23 - - - Y 

U4b 


Agrostis capillaris- 


grassland, Holcus 

lanatus-Trifolium 

repens subcommunity 

0.37 3, 7, 19, 21, 

22, 27 

- - - N 

U4JE 



grassland, Juncus 

effusus non-NVC 

sub-community 

0.32 3, 7, 18, 21, 

22 

- - - N 

European Protected Species 

11.3.28 This section of the chapter describes the results of the surveys to assess the likely presence 

of European Protected Species (EPS). The UK and Scottish governments have a 

responsibility to maintain populations of such species in favourable conservation status). 

Otter Survey 


11.3.29 Otters are protected through inclusion in Annex IV of the EC Habitats Directive as translated 

into UK law by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) as 

an EPS. This species is further highlighted as a priority species within the UKBAP and listed 

within the West Lothian LBAP (2004). 

Desk Study 

11.3.30 The NBN gateway held records of otter in the vicinity of the Camilty site where the A70 

spans the upper reaches of the Crosswood Burn (2002), and a more historical record from 

1991 for the Linhouse Water, of which the Crosswood Burn is a tributary, to the northeast of 

the Camilty site. No records were available from consultees. 

Field Survey Results 

11.3.31 Crosswood Burn is considered to be of sufficient size and quality to support fish such as 

brown trout (Salmo trutta), and use of the Crosswood Burn by otter was confirmed by the 

detection of a fresh otter spraint (dropping) underneath the A70 road bridge during the 

Ecological Sensitivity Appraisal site visit in February 2011. During this visit an otter spraint 





was also detected at the margins of the small forest pools located in the wider Camilty 

Plantation (NT 049599), outside the site boundary. 

11.3.32 During the dedicated otter surveys on 23 April 2012 fresh spraints were found along 

Crosswood Burn, Otter Burn and Shear Burn. Locations are shown on Figure 11.5. No holts 

or couches were recorded. 

11.3.33 During a raptor survey in March 2012 spraints were detected incidentally at several locations 

along the Crosswood Burn. 

Bat Survey 


11.3.34 All UK bat species are European Protected Species (EPS) under the EC Habitats Directive, 

and are the subject of a UK wide Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). They are also protected 

under Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended by the Nature 

Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 

1994 add further protection to all bats and their roosts. 

11.3.35 The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007 and the 

Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Amendment (No.2) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 

amended the offences in regard of disturbance to an EPS, including bats, introducing tighter 

control on disturbance, obstruction of a roost, or disturbance likely to significantly affect 

distribution or abundance and the addition of specific protection for hibernating and migrating 

bats. 

11.3.36 Noctule, soprano pipistrelle and brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus) are also highlighted 

as priority species within the UKBAP. The Scottish Biodiversity List, which identifies priority 

species within Scotland, includes all Scottish bat species, as does the West Lothian LBAP 

(2002). 

Desk Study 

11.3.37 A desk study of published species data show that within the Lothian region the follow species 

are known to range: 

• Soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus); 

• Common pipistrelle (P. pipistrellus); 

• Nathusius’ pipistrelle (P. nathusii); 

• Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii); 

• Natterer’s bat (M. nattereri); 

• Whiskered bat (M. mystacinus); 

• Brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus); and 

• Noctule (Nyctalus noctula). 

11.3.38 Of these 8 species, the soprano pipistrelle is by far the most common, with the next four in 

the list being widespread but present in lower numbers, and the remaining species only 

occasionally recorded and probably rare. 





11.3.39 A targeted data search of the NBN records found the following species, all recorded in 2007 

by the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT); 

• Soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus); 

• Common Pipistrelle (P. pipistrellus); and 

• Brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus). 

11.3.40 Consultation data received from SNH contained recent records of Nathusius’ pipistrelle in 

close proximity to the site (Table 11.1). Nathusius’ pipistrelles are considered a highly 

sensitive species to wind turbines due to their high flight behaviour as well as their scarcity. 

11.3.41 Consultation with SNH provided details of recent records of Nathusius recorded within 5 km 

of the proposed Camilty site. In June, July and August 2011, six passes of Nathusius 

pipistrelle were recorded between 650 m and 2 km from the Camilty application site. 

11.3.42 Data search and desk study did not provide records of hibernation sites within the bat data 

search area. 


11.3.43 The section below summarises the findings of the bat technical report which can be found in 

Appendix 11.3. 

11.3.44 There is one known roost structure within the bat survey area, which is located more than 

500 m from the nearest turbine (Figure 11.6). The property called Scout’s hut is located 

approximately 1,150 m from the closest turbine (Turbine 1) and outside the site boundary. 

11.3.45 During the dusk commuting watches, only one bat was observed. On 10/10/2012 at 18:45, 

twenty minutes after sunset, a single pipistrelle (pipistrellus sp.) was recorded commuting 

south of the vantage point (Figure 1 in Appendix 11.3) heading eastwards. 

11.3.46 The species recorded during the walked transect surveys using the site for foraging and 

commuting were common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle. 

11.3.47 A total of 467 bat passes were recorded along the walked transect routes in all eight transect 

surveys from May to October. Bats were observed by eye during all of the transect surveys. 

Both commuting and feeding activity were recorded over the site, with up to four bats being 

recorded together. 

11.3.48 Overall, soprano pipistrelle calls accounted for 83% of the recorded bat passes along the 

walked transects. Common pipistrelle was far less numerous, making up 8% of bats and 

Daubenton’s bat made up 1% of records. The remaining 8% were categorised as pipistrelle 

species. 

11.3.49 The general trend in species composition remained consistent throughout all walked transect 

surveys. However relative abundances did vary, particularly between surveys carried out in 

the maternity season (late May- July) and the mating/dispersal season (late August-Oct). 

11.3.50 During the listening station surveys a total of 52 bat passes were recorded over a total of 360 

survey minutes (72 x 5 minute counts) between May to October 2012. Both commuting and 

feeding activity was recorded, with up to two bats being recorded together. 

11.3.51 Overall, soprano pipistrelle calls accounted for 47% of the recorded bat passes along the 

walked transects. Common pipistrelle was less numerous making up 13% of bat calls. The 





remaining 38% were categorised as pipistrelle species, with 2% (one pass) recorded as 

Daubenton’s bat. 

11.3.52 A total of 21 bat passes were recorded along the driven transect routes in all five transect 

surveys from May to October. The only species recorded during these surveys were 

common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle. 

11.3.53 The walked transect, driven transect and automated Anabat passive detector surveys 

identified activity levels ranging from moderate to very low. This is to be expected as the site 

is dominated by coniferous woodland and is composed mainly of habitats considered of low 

value to bats. Comparatively higher levels of activity were recorded in the maternity season 

when compared to the mating/dispersal period. 

11.3.54 Surveys for Nathusius pipistrelle included vantage point watches, walked transects, static 

Anabat surveys and driven surveys. Survey effort for the species was further increased by 

using an Anabat recording system at 65 m height in the met mast. The latter was deployed 

continuously for a total of 85 nights from 25/05/2012-04/10/2012 throughout all periods within 

the bat activity season with bats recorded on a total of 8 nights. The total number of files 

containing bat calls recorded on any one night varied between 1 – 14 bppn. A total of 28 files 

were recorded over the entire deployment period. No Nathusius calls were recorded on the 

Anabat deployed at height nor during any of the other surveys throughout the year. 

Great Crested Newt 


11.3.55 Great crested newts are protected through inclusion in Annex IV of the EC Habitats Directive 

as translated into UK law by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as 

amended) as a European Protected Species (EPS). This species is further highlighted as a 

UK BAP priority species and within the Scottish Biodiversity List. Great crested newt is listed 

as a priority species in the West Lothian LBAP (2002). 

Desk Study 

11.3.56 A search of NBN gateway database did not identify records of great crested newt within the 

ecology data search area. The consultation process did not return any records of great 

crested newt within the site or the ecology data search area. 


11.3.57 Seven ponds were identified within 250 m of the Camilty site boundary (referred to as Ponds 

A - G in Figure 11.7), all of which were located over 200 m from the Camilty site boundary. 

The HSI concluded that all of the ponds have no more than average (moderate) potential to 

support great crested newts (assuming the absence of fish) while Pond E is likely to have 

below average (low) potential. 

11.3.58 Given the limited terrestrial habitat suitability, and the potential of the assessed ponds 

ranging from “below average” to “average” it is considered unlikely that the species is 

present. This assertion is further strengthened by the site’s level of isolation, with the 

Pentland hills providing a physical barrier to the east and south, and extensive commercial 

forestry present west of the site. It is considered that as a result, in those areas, connectivity 

with other populations at a landscape context will be minimal or even non-existent. 





11.3.59 In all, given the limited suitability of ponds and terrestrial habitats on site, the distance to 

known (historical) records (up to ten times the likely upper dispersal range of 500 m) and the 

isolated position of the development site in the wider landscape context it is considered 

unlikely that any of the assessed water bodies currently supports great crested newts. 

However, despite the low likelihood of the species presence, it cannot be conclusively ruled 

out that the species is present within, or within the zone of influence of, the proposed Camilty 

development. 

11.3.60 It was agreed in consultation with SNH (Table 11.1) for a design alteration to be 

implemented by using a 300 m buffer zone around all seven ponds, which will be a no-go 

zone for turbines, infrastructure and any associated kind of built up structures (inset in Figure 

11.7 shows the extent of this buffer, with the turbine locations shown). A distance of 300 m is 

used given that the species dispersal range lies predominantly within 250 m from a breeding 

pond (English Nature, 2004). 

11.3.61 In doing so, it is considered that if the ponds supported a great crested newt population, the 

development would be sufficiently far away to avoid any direct impact on the ponds (i.e. 

habitat loss, pollution). In addition, any impact on terrestrial habitat beyond 300 m would be 

negligible given that it consists entirely of Sitka spruce plantation – itself of marginal 

suitability for newts. As such, this species is not considered further within this chapter. 

UK Protected Species 

Water Vole 


11.3.62 Water voles are protected through Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as 

amended), in respect of Section 9(4) only. This species is identified as a priority species 

within the UKBAP, the Scottish Biodiversity List and the West Lothian LBAP (2002). 

Desk Study 

11.3.63 The NBN database held historical records (from 1969) for this species within 10 km of the 

ecology data search area. The consultation process did not return any records of water vole 

within the ecology data search area. 


11.3.64 All watercourses and waterbodies were assessed for their potential to support water vole as 

well as for the presence of this species. 

11.3.65 During the Phase 1 habitat survey possible water vole signs (runs and clippings) were found 

along the Shear Burn (TN18). They were not recent and no burrows or latrines were found. 

In isolation these observations are not considered diagnostic – i.e. they do not prove the 

presence of water voles. No diagnostic signs of the species were found during the dedicated 

water vole surveys. The majority of drainage ditches and watercourses within the survey 

area are considered to be unsuitable habitat for water voles. The drainage ditches along the 

edges of the forest tracks are exposed and devoid of suitable shelter and forage vegetation, 

whilst those running through forestry plantation areas do not provide banks into which water 

voles could establish adequate burrows. 

11.3.66 Consequently, the likelihood of water voles being present on site is considered to be 

negligible. As such this species is not considered further within this chapter. 





Badger 


11.3.67 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 provides full legal protection to badgers. In Scotland, 

this legislation was updated by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. 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. This species is also listed on the 

Scottish Biodiversity List. 

Desk Study 

11.3.68 Records provided on the NBN gateway database show that badgers were recorded within 

10km from the site between 1969-1994. The Scottish Badger Group provided records of 

badger traffic victims along the A70 within 2 km of the site. Information on badger setts was 

also received from SNH, indicating the presence of two historical setts (latest information 

2002 and 2006 respectively) in the area. These details are provided in the Protected Species 

Confidential Appendix. 


11.3.69 During the survey conducted on 4 May 2012, three active setts were found within the survey 

boundary. Locations of these can be found in the Protected Species Confidential Appendix. 

11.3.70 Sett A is an active annex sett, with four active entrances and three disused entrances. Two 

of the active entrances were large and well worn with moderate sized spoil heaps, fresh 

bedding and a latrine was found next to them. There were quite obvious paths between the 

four active entrances leading to a main sett (sett C) approximately 50 m away. 

11.3.71 Sett B is a large active main sett. There are 13 entrances in total. Eleven are well used 

entrances, with large spoil heaps covered in old bedding material. Worn paths connect the 

entrances and lead away from the sett in four directions, including towards the annex sett. 

One entrance is part used and one entrance is disused due to being filled in with logs and 

large stones some time ago. There was a strong badger smell coming from a number of 

larger holes, but no latrine was found. Snuffle holes were found all over the hill the sett is on. 

11.3.72 Sett C has four part-used sett entrances. One is very large with a large spoil heap in a large 

crater in the ground. All four entrances are partly worn but there are no signs of recent use. 

Wind fall covered most of the area making access to and around the entrances difficult. It is 

possible that there may be other entrances under the windfall. All holes are connected by 

lightly worn paths. 

Pine Marten 


11.3.73 Pine marten are protected through Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as 

amended). Any development works which could affect pine marten may require a licence to 

legally proceed. This species is further highlighted as a priority species within the UKBAP. 

Desk Study 

11.3.74 NBN and The Wildlife Information Centre hold no records of pine marten within the ecology 

data search area. 






11.3.75 No signs of pine marten were found during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey although 

the species is notoriously difficult to survey. The dense Sitka spruce dominated woodland is 

considered to be suboptimal for this species as it offers limited opportunities for foraging or 

den sites. In addition to this, pine martens have not been recorded in the region in recent 

years and the site falls out with the current recognised distribution for the species. As such 

this species is not considered further within this chapter. 

Red Squirrel 


11.3.76 Red squirrel is listed on Schedules 5 and 6 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as 

amended) under Section 9 of the Act. The red squirrel is also listed in Appendix III of the 

Bern Convention and is a UK BAP priority species. It is also included on the Scottish 

Biodiversity List and in the West Lothian LBAP(2002). 

Desk Study 

11.3.77 The NBN gateway database was consulted to determine whether any red squirrel records 

had been recorded as present within the vicinity of the site. There are records of red squirrel 

on the NBN gateway from 2005 and 2006 near Polbeth; approximately 5 km to the north of 

the site, and East Calder; approximately 9 km to the north of the site. 


11.3.78 During the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey or any other survey no evidence of red squirrel 

presence was found within the survey area. The coniferous plantation on site is dominated 

by Sitka spruce which is considered to represent a suboptimal food source for red squirrel. 

Consequently, given the absence of field evidence and records of this species at the 

proposed Camilty Wind Farm, the likelihood of red squirrel being present on site is 

considered to be low. As such this species is not considered further within this chapter. 

Reptiles 


11.3.79 All species of reptiles native to the UK are protected through Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & 

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), in respect of Section 9(4) only. The following species 

are identified as priority species on the UKBAP: slow worm (Anguis fragilis), adder (Vipera 

berus) and common lizard (Lacerta vivipara). 

Desk Study 

11.3.80 Neither the search of the records provided on the NBN gateway database nor the 

consultation process identified any recent records of reptiles within the ecology data search 

area. 


11.3.81 Forest edges and wide forest rides provide potential habitat for reptiles, while forest rides can 

also provide good connectivity for reptiles to commute between suitable habitats. No reptiles 

or evidence of their presence (e.g. sloughed skin) was recorded during any of the surveys. It 

is considered that the majority of the survey area offers little potential habitat for reptiles as it 





current landuse is predominantly active commercial forestry. As such these species are not 

considered further within this chapter. 


11.4.1 The following buffers were used when designing the layout of the proposed wind farm in 

order to protect sensitive features: 

• Sensitive habitats (including broadleaved woodland, scattered scrub, marshy 

grassland and blanket bog) - no wind farm infrastructure placed on these habitats; 

• Known watercourses as shown on 1:25,000 OS mapping – 50 m buffer employed and 

where possible number of watercourse crossings minimised; 

• Features used by bats (including watercourses and forest edges) –a buffer was used 

to ensure a 50 m distance from turbine blade tip to features used by bats as per 

Natural England guidelines (2009) (this also applied to forest edges that could be 

created through the removal of forestry to facilitate construction). This corresponded 

to an 86 m radius buffer around turbines as discussed in Chapter 4: Description of the 

Proposed Development and in Appendix 11.5; 

• No construction activities will take place within 300 m of the group of ponds north of 

the site boundary in order to minimise the potential impacts on great crested newts if 

present. 

11.5 Evaluation of Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) 

11.5.1 This section provides an assessment of the nature conservation value of the valued 

ecological receptors (VERs) within the site boundary that would be affected by the proposed 

wind farm (see Table 11.10). An 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 considered potentially vulnerable to significant effects and are 

described in the Assessment of Effects section below. 

Table 11.10 Summary of Conservation Value and Sensitivity of VERs Identified 

Valued 

Ecological 

Receptor 

Covering Legislation and Guidance Summary 

Conservation 

Value 

Sensitivity 

Designated Sites 

Craigengar SAC 

and SSSI 

The SSSI is located approximately 3.2 km south of 

the site and the SAC 4 km, and is designated for dry 

heath, species rich grassland and its marsh saxifrage. 

International 

High 

Cobbinshaw 

Moss SSSI 

This site is located 600 m south-west of the site 

boundary and is designated for its bog habitats. 

National 

High 

Cobbinshaw 

reservoir SSSI 

This site is located 3.2 km south-west of the site 

boundary and is designated for its fen, marsh, swamp 

and wildfowl interest. 

National 

High 

Linhouse valley 

SSSI 

This site is located 3.2km north of the site and is 

designated for its acid and neutral grasslands, 

National 

High 





Valued 

Ecological 

Receptor 


Conservation 

Value 

Sensitivity 

woodland and valley Fen. 

Hermand 

Birchwood SSSI 

2.7 km north-west of site boundary classified in the 

Ancient Woodland inventory as Long Established 

Woodland of Plantation Origin. 

National 

High 

Linhouse Valley 

SSSI 

Crosswood 

reservoir and 

Linhouse Water 

3.2 km north of site boundary. National High 

Passing through site boundary. Local Low 

SWT Wildlife 

Site 

Murieston Water 

SWT Wildlife 

Site 

2 km north west of site boundary. Local Low 

Habitats 

Coniferous 

plantation 

woodland 

This habitat covers approximately 149.17 ha within 

the site boundary and is dominated by Sitka spruce 

and lodge-pole pine with occasional stands of larch 

species (see Chapter 4 Project Description. 

Local 

Low 

Broadleaved 

woodland 

This habitat covers approximately 0.08 ha within the 


Local 

Low 

Wet modified 

bog 



National 

High 

Marshy 

grassland 


site boundary and is common along the rides 

containing drains and burns. 

Local 

Low 

Semi-improved 

acid grassland 



Local 

Low 

Watercourses 

The watercourses within the survey area include the 

Otter Burn, Powfastle Burn, Shear Burn, Crosswood 

Burn, Kelly Syke, Green Burn and Black Burn. 

Local 

Low 

Species 

Otter 

Otters are listed on Annex IV of the Habitats Directive 

and are listed as UK BAP priority species. 

Local 

Low 

Evidence of otter activity was detected on site, the 

majority of the evidence was concentrated on the 

Crosswood Burn and to the west of the site boundary. 

No otter holts or couches were identified. 

Bat species 

(Daubenton’s 

bat, soprano 

pipistrelle and 

common 

All Scottish bat species are listed on Annex II of the 

Habitats Directive. Soprano pipistrelle bats are UK 

BAP priority species. All Scottish bat species are 

listed as Scottish priority species on the Scottish 

Biodiversity List. 

Local 

Low 





Valued 

Ecological 

Receptor 


Conservation 

Value 

Sensitivity 

pipistrelle) 

Under the Natural England guidance, soprano and 

common pipistrelles are classified as medium risk of 

collision with turbines. Scottish and UK populations of 

these species are considered robust. Taking this into 

consideration and the generally low numbers of bats 

detected across the site, it is considered that the site 

is of low value to bat populations. 

Badger 

This species is protected through the Protection of 

Badgers Act 1992. In Scotland, this legislation was 

updated by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 

2004. 

Evidence of badger activity was outside of the site. 

Further details of this can be found in the Protected 

Species Confidential Appendix. 

Local 

Low 


Construction 

11.6.1 The approach used in the assessment of effects has been described in the methodology 

section. There are a number of potential effects arising from activities related to the 

development of the proposed wind farm that may affect the nature conservation interest of 

the area and these are discussed below. 

Pollution of Designated Sites 

11.6.2 The development of the proposed wind farm has limited potential to affect the designated 

sites as the catchment area of the wind farm site does not link with any of the designated 

sites and should thus not affect their hydrology. The site is located within the Linhouse Water 

catchment. The Linhouse Water is a tributary of the River Almond which ultimately drains 

into the Firth of Forth near Cramond, Edinburgh. The majority of the site is drained through 

the Crosswood Burn, a headwater of the Camilty Water. 

11.6.3 The effect of the development on site hydrology and the effects associated with this are 

detailed further in Chapter 13: Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions of this ES. 

The effects below take into consideration the informed design of the development (Chapter 

3: Design Evolution). The potential effect of this pollution is shown below in Table 11.11. 

Table 11.11 Potential Unmitigated Effects and Associated Level of Effects of Pollution 

on Designated Sites 

Designated Site Sensitivity Magnitude Level of Effect (and significance) 

Craigengar SAC and SSSI High Negligible Negligible (not significant) 

Cobbinshaw Moss SSSI High Negligible Negligible(not significant) 

Cobbinshaw reservoir SSSI High Negligible Negligible (not significant) 

Linhouse valley SSSI High Negligible Negligible (not significant) 

Hermand Birchwood SSSI High Negligible Negligible (not significant) 





Designated Site Sensitivity Magnitude Level of Effect (and significance) 

Crosswood reservoir and Linhouse 

Water 

Low Negligible Negligible (not significant) 

SWT Wildlife Site 

Murieston Water 

SWT Wildlife Site 

Low Negligible Negligible (not significant) 

Pollution of Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats 

11.6.4 Pollution can arise in the form of fine sediment dusts and sedimentation of surface water runoff 

associated with earthworks, as well as from the release of environmentally hazardous 

chemicals (e.g. fuels and oils from construction plant). This has the potential to result in the 

loss of vegetation and/or alteration of substrate chemistry, which can result in detrimental 

changes to vegetation communities in the longer-term. Taking into consideration the 

likelihood of this occurring and the limited reach of these possible effects, the potential 

magnitude of this effect is assessed as being of a small magnitude. With habitats on site 

considered to be of low sensitivity (with the exception of wet modified bog of high sensitivity), 

the overall level of effect is considered to be negligible and slight (Table 11.12). 


on Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats 

Terrestrial Habitat Sensitivity Magnitude Level of Effect (and significance) 

Coniferous plantation woodland Low Small Negligible (not significant) 

Broadleaved woodland Low Small Negligible (not significant) 

Wet modified bog High Small Slight (not significant) 

Marshy grassland Low Small Negligible (not significant) 

Semi-improved acid grassland Low Small Negligible (not significant) 

Watercourses Low Small Negligible (not significant) 

Effects of Pollution on Terrestrial Species 

11.6.5 During construction there is the potential for protected species to be affected as a result of a 

variety of pollution incidents. These impacts not only have the potential to damage habitats 

directly, but also to indirectly affect populations of species, such as otters and bats, through 

the alteration of prey resource availability. The potential effect of this pollution on terrestrial 

protected species is shown below in Table 11.13. 

11.6.6 No badger setts were found within the site boundary/turbine envelope, and therefore the 

magnitude of effect is considered to be negligible. 

11.6.7 Otter presence was been noted along water courses running through the site and thus could 

potentially be found throughout the entire site. Pollution effects could be substantial for otter 

if water courses are affected (through e.g. run off of contaminated water into riparian 

habitats) and are considered to be of a medium magnitude. 





11.6.8 Bat activity levels were low across the site, with any impact of pollution predicted to be of a 

small magnitude (e.g. through indirect effects on prey availability) and level of effect and 

significance is predicted to be slight at most. 


on Terrestrial Protected Species 

Species Sensitivity Magnitude Level of Effect (and significance) 

Otter Low Medium Slight (not significant) 

Bat species (soprano pipistrelle, 

common pipistrelle) 

Low Small Slight (not significant) 

Badger Low Negligible Negligible (not significant) 

Damage and Disturbance to Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats 

11.6.9 Other than the habitat loss that will occur to facilitate the operation of the wind farm (dealt 

with separately under operational effects below), the construction of the wind farm will result 

in a degree of habitat disturbance and change in community composition. This can occur 

through physical damage with very wet habitats, including marshy grassland, and habitats 

which occur on very shallow substrates especially sensitive to disturbance. As the presence 

of these sensitive habitats is very limited on site and it is likely that only small amounts of 

habitats around works areas would be affected (see Table 11.16), the overall effect has been 

assessed accordingly. Coniferous plantation woodland will be the habitat exposed to the 

highest level of disturbance and has therefore been assigned a large magnitude of effect, 

with a moderate to slight level of effect predicted. The potential effect of this disturbance is 

shown below in Table 11.14. 

Table 11.14 Potential Unmitigated Effects and Associated Level of Effects of Damage 

and Disturbance on Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats 

Habitat Type Sensitivity Magnitude Level of Effect (and 

Significance) 

Coniferous plantation woodland Low Large Moderate to slight (not significant) 

Broadleaved woodland Low Small Negligible(not significant) 


Marshy grassland Low Small Negligible(not significant) 

Semi-improved acid grassland Low Small Negligible(not significant) 

Watercourses Low Small Negligible(not significant) 

Disturbance, Displacement and Injury of Terrestrial Species during Construction 

11.6.10 Overall, construction related disturbance would be relatively localised and reasonably shortterm 

in nature, lasting approximately 6 months. There is the potential for construction 

activities on the site to cause disturbance to protected mammal species present. This can 

be caused through various activities including, the presence of people on the site causing 

visual and olfactory disturbance, and from noise and vibration caused by the operation of 

construction machinery. Regarding the susceptibility of the receptors to disturbance, otters, 





bats and badgers are predominantly nocturnal and therefore most susceptible to early 

morning and late evening construction activities. This risk is higher during autumn and 

winter when construction activities may overlap with dawn and dusk activity periods of these 

species. 

11.6.11 There is the potential for increased mortality of species such as otter due to construction 

traffic on the site. This risk is predominantly a concern during autumn and winter periods, as 

highlighted above. Wildlife is also at risk of becoming trapped if pipework or excavations are 

left open over night. If a method of escape is not provided this can result in injury or death. 

11.6.12 With regards to otter and badger, the habitat represents suboptimal foraging habitat, with 

more suitable habitat present within the surrounding landscape. As such, the likelihood of 

these species being present in the proposed areas of construction is low. 

11.6.13 The site represents suboptimal habitat for foraging bats. No significant commuting routes 

were identified in the site and the development is assessed as having a negligible effect on 

commuting bats. No roosts were found within 500 m of any proposed turbine location, thus 

the construction phase is predicted to have a negligible effect upon local populations of 

roosting bats. 

11.6.14 The specific details relating to the potential for disturbance and displacement of badgers due 

to the proposed development is dealt with in the Protected Species Confidential Appendix. 

11.6.15 The potential effects of construction-related disturbance and displacement are shown below 

in Table 11.15. 

Table 11.15 Potential Unmitigated Effects and Associated Level of Effects of 

Disturbance, Displacement and Injury on Terrestrial Species During Construction 

Species Sensitivity Magnitude Level of Effect (and significance) 

Otter Low Small Slight or negligible (not significant) 

Bat species (soprano pipistrelle, 

common pipistrelle) 

Low Small Slight or negligible(not significant) 


Habitat Loss 

11.6.16 The turbines and infrastructure associated with the development will result in the loss of 

some areas of habitat. These areas have been calculated in accordance with Chapter 4: 

Description of the Proposed Development and the results are presented below in Table 

11.16. These figures represent direct habitat loss due to the establishment of the 

development infrastructure. Of the dominant NVC communities present within the site 

boundary there are 7 listed as Annex I habitats. Overall, the habitat loss recorded totals 

approximately 16 ha, of the approximate 21 ha area covered by infrastructure. The habitats 

not covered by this calculation (as they will not be directly affected in terms of habitat loss) 

include bare ground, tracks and watercourses). 





Table 11.16 Areas of Habitat Loss Due to Wind Farm Establishment 

Aspect of development Phase 1 

code 

Phase 1 description 

Approximate 

area of loss (m 2 ) 

Turbine foundation (21m 

radius) 

A1.2.2 Coniferous woodland - plantation 612.7 

A4.2 Coniferous woodland - recently felled 306.3 

Met mast (2m x 2m) A1.2.2 Coniferous woodland - plantation 4.0 

New track (7.5m width) 



E1.7 Wet modified bog 186.4 

Existing track (7.5m 

width) 


Track 7.0 

Substation compound A1.2.2 Coniferous woodland - plantation 280.5 

Turning area 



E1.7 Wet modified bog 10.7 

Passing Place A1.2.2 Coniferous woodland - plantation 520.6 

Keyhole 

A1.2.2 Coniferous woodland - plantation 89940 

A4.2 Coniferous woodland - recently felled 38783 

11.6.17 It is important to note that keyholing would not result in the loss of habitat (other than 

plantation forestry) as it comprises only the felling of trees (as would take place as part of the 

managed felling of the plantation). Therefore, although keyholes are shown to cover wet 

modified bog, this habitat would not be lost as a result of operations. 

11.6.18 The effects and associated significance of any loss of the habitats affected by the 

development are set out below in Table 11.17. These are based on the degree of direct loss 

of habitat as detailed in the table above, the generally heavily modified nature of the habitats 

due to contemporary land use as commercial forestry and the context of the habitats within 

the surrounding area. 





Table 11.17 Potential Unmitigated Effects and Associated Level of Effects of 

Development Establishment on Terrestrial Habitats 

Habitat Type Sensitivity Magnitude Level of Effect (and Significance) 

Coniferous plantation woodland Low Large Moderate or Slight (not significant) 

Broadleaved woodland Low Negligible Negligible (not significant) 


Marshy grassland Low Negligible Negligible(not significant) 

Semi-improved acid grassland Low Negligible Negligible(not significant) 

Watercourses Low Negligible Negligible(not significant) 

11.6.19 The potential effects on the hydrology of the site, are dealt with in Chapter 13: Hydrology, 

Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions. 

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation for Terrestrial Protected Species 

11.6.20 The development will not result in the loss of large areas of habitat for the majority of the 

protected species detected on the site. The site contains sub-optimal foraging habitat for 

otter and badger. The loss of coniferous plantation on site may improve the foraging habitat 

for otters on site by providing a larger diversity of habitats in proximity to the water courses. 

11.6.21 Where keyhole felling is employed, this will increase the area of forest edge which may 

enhance the potential for foraging bats on site. 

11.6.22 Where keyhole felling is undertaken around the turbine locations, a buffer of 50 m from the 

proposed rotor blade tips to any feature used by bats has been employed (Appendix 11.5). 

Relevant habitat features are: forestry and woodland canopy edges, water courses, and 

ponds. Given the dimensions of the proposed turbines, the calculated minimum 

recommended distance between feature and turbine base is 86 m, based on a 25 m 

maximum tree height. This is in line with Natural England’s ‘Guidance on Bats and Onshore 

Wind Turbines’ document (2009). It is also recommended that habitats close to turbines 

should be managed to minimise its attractiveness to foraging bats, see mitigation and 

enhancement measures. No significant bat commuting routes were detected on the site and 

as such any impact due to fragmentation and habitat loss for commuting bats is likely to be 

negligible. No roosts were found within 500 m of any proposed turbine location, thus the 

development will have negligible effect upon local populations of roosting bats. 

11.6.23 The potential effect of habitat loss and fragmentation on terrestrial species is assessed in 

Table 11.18 below. 





Table 11.18 Potential Unmitigated Effects and Associated Level of Effects of Habitat 

Loss and Fragmentation on Terrestrial Protected Species 

Species Sensitivity Magnitude Level of Effect (and 

significance) 

Otter Low Negligible Negligible (not significant) 

Bat species (soprano pipistrelle, common 

pipistrelle) 

Low Small Negligible (not significant) 


Operation 

Damage, Disturbance and Pollution of Terrestrial Habitats during Maintenance 

Activities 

11.6.24 There is the potential for temporary damage and disturbance to habitats during maintenance 

operations and emergency works on the site. This may lead to temporary habitat loss and/ 

or permanent habitat degradation. Maintenance operations that require the use of 

machinery could result in a pollution incident which may adversely affect the surrounding 

terrestrial habitats. Due to the infrequent nature of these works, the low likelihood of this 

damage occurring and the likely limited area of any damage, these potential effects are 

assessed as being of small magnitude. With terrestrial habitats on site considered to be of 

low sensitivity, a slight or negligible level of effect is anticipated (Table 11.19). 

Table 11.19 Potential Unmitigated Effects and Associated Level of Effects of Damage, 

Disturbance and Pollution of Terrestrial Habitats during Maintenance Activities 

Habitats Sensitivity Magnitude Level of Effect (and 

significance) 

Coniferous plantation woodland Low Small Negligible (not significant) 

Broadleaved woodland Low Small Negligible (not significant) 


Marshy grassland Low Small Negligible (not significant) 

Semi-improved acid grassland Low Small Negligible (not significant) 

Watercourses Low Small Negligible (not significant) 

Disturbance, Displacement and Injury of Terrestrial Protected Species during 

Maintenance Activities and Operation 

11.6.25 During the operational phase of the wind farm there is the potential for disturbance to 

protected species through human presence on the site during routine maintenance activities. 

This will be at a much reduced frequency and degree compared to the construction phase, 

and is most likely to be ongoing within daylight hours. As the species identified at risk from 

the development are nocturnal, these works are likely to be of a small magnitude. 

11.6.26 The operation of the wind farm is also likely to result in increased levels of noise, vibration 

and traffic. However, due to the low frequency of these disturbances and low levels of 





protected species activity, it is not considered that there would be a significant effect on the 

species present on site. 

11.6.27 Given the low sensitivity of species present on site, disturbance during operation is therefore 

assessed as being of negligible or slight magnitude and negligible or slight level of effect. 

Bat Mortality due to Collision and Barotrauma 

11.6.28 During the operation of the proposed wind farm there is the potential for bat species to be 

impacted by mortality caused by direct collision with the turbine blades, and by barotrauma 

due to the decreased (low) air pressure in the wake of rotating turbine blades (Baerwald, 

2008). This can cause damage to soft tissues, such as the lungs, and result in fatal internal 

bleeding. 

11.6.29 The effects of a single bat death is unlikely to be significant on any population scale, but 

cumulative losses of individual bats could potentially threaten the viability of local or even 

national breeding populations. Different species have different flight patterns, flight heights, 

foraging strategies and echolocation calls and therefore have different risk of collision with 

wind turbines (Baerwald et al. 2009). Over the survey period 99% of the bats recorded were 

pipistrelle species. Approximately 1% of bats recorded were Daubenton’s bat, a species 

which are usually recorded foraging over water bodies. As there are no major water bodies 

within the survey area, any bats recorded would likely be only using the site as a commuting 

route to and from suitable foraging habitat elsewhere. Another possibility is that they may be 

males or non breeding bats forced to use marginal, sub-optimal habitats. 

11.6.30 Natural England (as accepted by SNH), consider both of the pipistrelle species and to be of 

medium risk of collision with wind turbines. Daubenton’s bats are considered to be at low risk 

of collision (Mitchell-Jones and Carlin, 2009). 

11.6.31 Most of the areas of proportionally higher bat activity were outwith the proposed turbine 

layout (Figure 11.6). However two turbines fall within 100 m of bat records (Turbines 2 and 6) 

and all turbines fall within 100 m of likely or known bat foraging habitat, whether it be forest 

edge habitat, forest rides or watercourses. Natural England guidance recommends that wind 

turbine blade tips should be more than 50 m away from features likely to be used by foraging 

and commuting bats, such as scrub, trees and waterbodies. 

11.6.32 Due to the low level of bat activity and low species diversity, it is considered that the potential 

for bat mortality at this site falls within the ‘low’ category described by Rydell et al. (2010), i.e. 

0-3 bats per turbine per year (i.e. up to 18 per annum for the site). The lowest reported 

European mortality rate is 0.1 bat per turbine per year (Jones et al. 2009). It is considered 

that bat activity at the site will remain low, due to the low suitability of existing habitat and the 

continuation of commercial forestry activities, making an increase in habitat suitability beyond 

the baseline level unlikely. Thus it is considered that likely mortality levels will be nearer the 

lower end of the range, i.e. 0 – 1 per turbine per year. With 6 turbines proposed, the total 

annual mortality at the Camilty site is thus estimated to fall between 0 – 6 bats per year. 

11.6.33 This assessment takes into account the considered design of the proposed wind farm as set 

out in Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development with a separation of 50 m from 

the tip of the turbine blade to the forest edge, in line with current SNH accepted guidance 

(Natural England, 2009). Therefore, the risk of collision and barotraumas on these species 

of low sensitivity is assessed as being of small magnitude and thus a slight level of effect. 





Table 11.20 Potential Unmitigated Effects and Associated Significance of Effects of 

Disturbance, Displacement and Injury of Terrestrial Protected Species during 

Maintenance Activities and Operation 

Species Sensitivity Magnitude Level of Effect (and 

significance) 

Otter Low Negligible Negligible (not significant) 

Bat species (soprano pipistrelle, common 

pipistrelle) 

Low Small Slight (not significant) 


Habitat Change 

11.6.34 During the construction of the proposed wind farm infrastructure, habitats may undergo 

change due to soil disturbance where soils are excavated and subsequently restored, such 

as around turbine bases or to create road batters. Areas where temporary construction 

works are proposed, such as in laydown areas, will also undergo some degree of temporary 

disturbance to habitats. As the habitats on site are dominated by commercial forestry, it 

should be taken into account that these habitats are already heavily modified from the 

natural state. Table 11.21 below shows the areas of calculated habitat change taken into 

account in this assessment. 

Table 11.21 Areas of Habitat Change and Temporary Loss Due to Wind Farm 

Establishment 

Aspect of development Phase 1 

code 

Phase 1 description 

Area of habitat 

change (m2) 

Construction compound A1.2.2 Coniferous woodland - plantation 2485.9 

Met mast laydown area A1.2.2 Coniferous woodland - plantation 1331.3 

Tracks 25m buffer 



E1.7 Wet modified bog* 207.2* 

Track 201.6 

Met mast 25m buffer A1.2.2 Coniferous woodland - plantation 1172.8 

Substation compound 25m 

buffer 

Construction compound 5m 

buffer 



Laydown area 5m buffer A1.2.2 Coniferous woodland - plantation 416.8 

* this area is not anticipated to be lost/changed although it forms part of the buffer around the tracks. The purpose 

of the buffer is to keep the area around the tracks free for turbine/ construction movements. It will not be stripped to 

use as a working area. 

11.6.35 As a result of the construction and establishment of infrastructure across the site, including 

turbine bases and access tracks, changes in the hydrological functioning of the site (detailed 





further in Chapter 13: Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions) could result in 

alterations to habitat composition and structure. The result of these changes can include the 

loss of plant species, specifically those adapted to high water levels. The relationship 

between the groundwater requirements of habitats and flora is complex, with limited 

knowledge of this currently available and as such it is not possible to quantify this effect. The 

only Phase 1 Habitat categories of terrestrial habitat considered particularly sensitive to 

hydrological changes present within the site are marshy grassland, wet modified bog and 

heaths and mires. In addition, the NVC survey identified a number of habitats sensitive to 

hydrological changes, including M23a, M23b and S9. However, these are all located outside 

of the application site and will not be directly affected by the construction of the wind farm 

detailed. 


11.6.36 There may be significant changes in the ecological baseline of the proposed wind farm over 

its 25 year operation in comparison to that which currently exists. It is therefore not possible 

to make a full assessment of the likely effects of the decommissioning phase of the works. 

Consequently, this report assumes that similar habitats will prevail and the decommissioning 

effects are judged to be of comparable type and of similar or lower magnitude to the 

construction phase effects. 


Pre-Construction Mitigation 

11.7.1 Prior to commencement of works on site, pre-construction surveys based on existing data for 

protected species will be carried out to check for changes in baseline conditions. This will 

enable any refinements to be made (if necessary) through micro-siting and/or adjustments to 

the construction programme to take into account any up-dated distributions or presence of 

species. 

11.7.2 Surveys will be undertaken within 6 months prior to commencement of the works in order to 

obtain as accurate a representation of the baseline conditions as possible. Should this 

period of time elapse between pre-construction surveys and the commencement of works 

then the need to repeat surveys will be assessed by a suitably experienced ecologist. 

Construction Mitigation 

11.7.3 All relevant mitigation measures will be implemented through the project Health, Safety and 

Environmental Management System (HSEMS) (see Appendix 4.4), which will be prepared in 

consultation with, and to the satisfaction of West Lothian Council, SEPA and SNH. These 

will detail measures such as: 

• Application of SEPA’ Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG’s) delimitation of working 

areas to minimise damage to habitats; 

• A minimum 50 m buffer will be maintained, where possible, between working areas, 

machinery and watercourses in all areas except at watercourse crossing points; 

• A minimum buffer of 300 m around the 7 ponds to the north will be maintained; 

• Pollution prevention measures will be installed and maintained as appropriate, 

including silt interception traps, settling lagoons or mobile silt-trapping units (such as 





Siltbusters or equivalent device), as well as installation of splash boards at 

watercourse crossing points to prevent contamination from track run-off; 

• Chemicals, oils and hazardous materials will be stored in designated areas securely 

at a minimum distance of 50 m from the watercourses; 

• Spillage contingency kits will be provided in all site vehicles and there will be daily 

checks for oil and fuel leaks; 

• Application of best practice in relation to the removal and storage of vegetation turfs 

and soils to ensure effective reinstatement of vegetation wherever possible; 

• Application of best practice techniques of track and turbine base construction to 

ensure that drainage patterns and water quality within the study area are maintained; 

• Application of best practice to ensure materials appropriate to site geology are used in 

construction activities; 

• All habitats within 86 m distance of a turbine (which equals 50 m distance between 

blade tips and habitat) should be maintained in a state which offers poor foraging for 

bats: tree and scrub growth to be controlled and pond formation to be avoided 

(Entwistle et al. 2001). See Appendix 11.5 for details on how keyhole dimensions are 

calculated; 

• Timing of works to avoid periods of heavy rain when the risk of fine sediment being 

transported from earth works is significantly increased. Detailed method statements 

relating to pollution prevention and control will be presented in the HSEMS and are 

discussed further in Chapter 13: Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions. 

11.7.4 Pollution incident response and drainage management measures will be prepared as a part 

of the HSEMS to minimise potential pollution effects. 

11.7.5 A suitably experienced Environmental Clerk of Works (ECoW) will be present on site to 

oversee enabling works and construction, whose role will ensure works are carried out in 

accordance with the HSEMS to ensure compliance with international and national legislation 

and planning conditions. The ECoW will also review results of protected species surveys 

prior to commencement of works in different areas within the site. Once works are 

underway, the ECoW will work on site providing ecological and pollution control advice and 

supervision for all relevant mitigation measures. 

11.7.6 While species such as red squirrel have not been identified within the site boundary, the 

potential remains for them to move into the site due to their highly mobile nature. As such, 

part of the ECoW’s duties will be to provide pre-construction and pre-felling checks for 

protected species. 

11.7.7 Best practice measures for minimising the potential for disturbance and injury to protected 

species will be employed. These will include: 

• Covering all trenches, trial pits, excavation 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; and 

• Vehicle speeds will be restricted across the site in order to minimise the risk of 

collision with animals. 





11.7.8 The mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 13: Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground 

Conditions for protecting watercourses and water bodies will ensure that the pre-construction 

quality of watercourses are maintained during and post construction. Where water crossings 

are to be upgraded, these will be designed to minimise any disturbance to the watercourse 

and geomorphological processes. The structures will not present any significant barriers to 

the passage of migratory fish or other fauna. Further details of the proposed water crossing 

designs can be found in Appendix 13.3. 

11.7.9 Water quality baseline surveys and subsequent monitoring during the construction phase of 

the development will encompass chemical testing, daily visual inspections of waterways by 

the ECoW, and macro-invertebrate sampling to ensure water quality is maintained. 

11.7.10 Where practicable, reinstatement of habitats will be undertaken around infrastructure. This 

will be carried out as the work front progresses, or as soon as is practical after the 

completion of the works. The methods of this will be detailed within the HSEMS. 

Operation Mitigation 

11.7.11 The vehicle speed restrictions stipulated above should also be implemented during the 

operation of the proposed wind farm. 

11.7.12 Vehicles coming on site will be regularly checked for oil leaks to avoid risk of pollution. 

Spillage kits will be available on the site. Best practice methodologies (outlined in the 

HSEMS) will be employed during any maintenance works to ensure the prevention of any 

pollution to habitats or watercourses, along with implementation of the site pollution incident 

response plan and drainage management plan. 

11.7.13 In line with SNH accepted Natural England guidance, all habitats within 50 m of the turbines 

blade tips will be maintained in a state which offers poor foraging for bats. 

Operation Enhancement 

11.7.14 A method statement for post construction monitoring for bat fatalities will be included in the 

site operation procedures as an enhancement (see Table 11.23) in order to increase 

understanding of bats and turbines related issues. 

Decommissioning Mitigation 

11.7.15 Best practice measures, as described in the construction stage, will be followed. New 

guidance available at the decommissioning phase will be adopted if appropriate. 


11.8.1 The mitigation measures described above are expected to reduce residual effects for all 

VERs to acceptable levels (‘slight’ or ‘negligible’ levels of effect) in the short and long term. 

These are detailed for each VER below in Table 11.25. 

11.8.2 Providing the mitigation measures proposed are fully implemented, it is predicted there will 

be no long-term significant negative effects on any of the locally occurring habitats or species 

of importance. 






Potential Sources of Cumulative Effects 

11.9.1 This section considers the assessment of cumulative effects on ecological receptors from the 

proposed wind farm in combination with effects from other proposed development projects 

within the surrounding area. This assessment has considered all development types with the 

potential to affect the VERs. 

11.9.2 The search area for this assessment extends to 5 km from the proposed wind farm site for all 

VERs. This is considered to be sufficient in relation to the mean foraging ranges of badger 

and otter and the average commuting range for the bat species present on site. The 

assessment includes projects which are completed, under construction or approved (Figure 

11.9). 

11.9.3 There are three wind farms within 5 km of the site boundary which have been considered for 

all VERs: 

• Pearie Law Wind Farm (application) Located 3.6 km from the site boundary and 

consists of 6 turbines; 

• Harburnhead Wind Farm (appeal). Located 2.2 km from the site boundary with 22 

turbines proposed; 

• Fauch Hill Wind Farm (appeal). Located 1.9 km from the site boundary with 23 

turbines proposed. 

Potential Cumulative Effects on Designated Sites 

Craigengar SAC and SSSI, Cobbinshaw Moss SSS, Linhouse Valley SSSII and 

Cobbinshaw Water SSSI 

11.9.4 The EIA for Harburnhead wind farm only considered Cobbinshaw Moss macrotope as a 

receptor. This includes the Cobbinshaw Moss SSSI and the whole peat mass in the area. A 

buffer of 130 m will be maintained between the infrastructure and the SSSI. This buffer is 

assessed as providing a margin of safety for the avoidance of any direct hydrological effects 

on the SSSI, and also minimises the risk of other minor potential effects such as dust 

deposition from tracks during construction. 

11.9.5 The EIAs for Fauch Hill and Pearie Law did not consider the Craigengar SAC and SSSI, 

Cobbinshaw Moss SSSI, Linhouse Valley and Cobbinshaw Water SSSI as receptors as they 

are not within the same catchments. 

11.9.6 It is concluded that the proposed Camilty development will not add cumulatively to the 

impacts on the Craigengar SAC and SSSI, Cobbinshaw Moss SSSI, Linhouse valley and 

Cobbinshaw Water SSSI. 

Potential Cumulative Effects on Habitats 

Coniferous Plantation Woodland 

11.9.7 The EIAs for Harburnhead, Fauch Hill and Pearie law did not consider coniferous plantation 

woodland as a receptor. 

11.9.8 It is concluded that the proposed Camilty development will not add cumulatively to the effects 

on this habitat within the surrounding area. 





Semi-improved Acid Grassland 

11.9.9 The EIAs for Harburnhead and Pearie Law do not consider this habitat as a receptor. 

11.9.10 The construction of Fauch Hill will include the permanent loss of 1 ha of acid grassland. A 

further 1.2 ha will be temporarily lost during construction but will be re-instated. It was 

concluded that the loss of this habitat will be adverse and certain, but that it will not result in 

a significant effect relative to biodiversity and nature conservation. 


on this habitat within the surrounding area due to the small area of this habitat to be lost. 

Marshy Grassland 

11.9.12 The EIA for Fauch Hill wind farm indicated the permanent loss of 2.5ha of marshy grassland. 

A further 1.4 ha will be temporarily lost during construction but will be re-instated. It was 

concluded that the loss of this habitat will be adverse but that it will not result in a significant 

effect relative to biodiversity and nature conservation. 

11.9.13 The EIA for Pearie Law considered the proposal would have no significant effect on marshy 

grassland following mitigation as a result of habitat loss. 

11.9.14 The EIA for Harburnhead did not consider marshy grassland as a receptor. 



Heath and Mire 

11.9.16 The EIAs for Harburnhead and Fauch Hill do not consider heaths and mires as a receptor. 

11.9.17 The EIA for Pearie Law considered the proposal would have no significant effect on heaths 

or mires following mitigation as a result of habitat loss. 



Watercourses 

11.9.19 The EIA for Harburnhead does not consider any watercourses as ecological receptors. 

11.9.20 The construction of Fauch Hill will involve the crossing of two watercourses, Crosswood Burn 

and Shear Burn which also run through the Camilty site. Construction of the watercourse 

crossings and of turbine footings, lay-down areas and sections of access track, which are 

located relatively close to existing watercourses could potentially result in the release of 

sediments associated with earthworks into the watercourses. There would also be the 

potential risk that oils, or fuels associated with construction plant and materials including 

concrete/cement could be accidentally released into watercourses. It was concluded that the 

construction after mitigation will not have a significant effect on the quality or nature 

conservation value of watercourses within the site or downstream of the site. 

11.9.21 Vein Syke watercourse runs through Pearie Law wind farm, it lies in the same catchment 

area to the one at Camilty but drains further downstream. Vein Syke has a low ecological 

value as it is overgrazed and cattle poached but provides potential bat commuting habitat 

and links to Calderwood SSSI. It was concluded that after mitigation the construction will not 

have a significant effect on the quality or nature conservation value of watercourses within 

the site or downstream of the site. 







Potential Cumulative Effects on Protected Species 

11.9.23 The 5 km buffer distance takes into account the ranging distances of protected species 

detected on the Camilty site and the context and resource of the habitats recorded within the 

surrounding area. In north-east Scotland, core foraging areas of common pipistrelle have 

been recorded to extend much further from the roost than for soprano pipistrelle (mean of 

1.44 km and 0.69 km respectively) (Harris and Yalden 2008). Otters tend to occupy large 

home ranges with males ranging along approximately 32 km of watercourse length and 

females ranging along 20 km of watercourse length (SNH, 2008). This varies greatly 

depending on the density of waterways within an area and the availability of prey within the 

area. While the habitats within the site boundary were generally assessed as being of low 

potential for otter, the surrounding area contains a number of good quality waterways and 

waterbodies with good foraging potential. Badger territories have been recorded to range 

from c.30 ha (0.3 km 2 ) in optimal habitat to >150 ha (1.5 km 2 ) in marginal habitats (Harris 

and Yalden 2008). 

Otter 

11.9.24 The EIA for Harburnhead Wind Farm assessed that the proposal is not considered to have a 

significant effect on otter. 

11.9.25 No signs of otter were found at Pearie Law wind farm and its construction is not considered 

to have a significant effect on otters. 

11.9.26 The EIA for Fauch Hill wind farm found evidence of otter along the courses of the Crosswood 

Burn, Shear Burn, at a discharge into the Crosswood Reservoir and to the north of the site 

along the upper sections of the Water of Leith west of Colzium. It was concluded that Fauch 

Hill would not have a significant effect on the status or conservation value of otter associated 

with the site during construction. 

11.9.27 While the surrounding wind farms were considered to have a minor or negligible effect on 

otter, if Camilty was to undergo construction as the same time as Fauch Hill wind farm, 

cumulatively, this may result in an increased disturbance and displacement of otter during 

construction. This potential effect is considered to be of small magnitude and slight level of 

effect (not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations). 

Bat Species 

11.9.28 Pearie Law wind farm was considered to have low bat activity across the site, dominated by 

common and widespread species but there were a low number of records for the rarer 

Nyctalus species. It was concluded that the construction after mitigation will not have a 

significant effect on bats within the site. 

11.9.29 Fauch Hill wind farm recorded five species of bats within the site including the rarer 

Nathusius pipistrelle. No roosts were found. Mitigation measures included micro-siting 

turbines and creating woodland edges. It was considered that the project would not have a 

significant effect on the nature conservation value of bats. 

11.9.30 Harburnhead surveys indicated that the area was used very infrequently by brown longeared 

and Myotis bats. The predominant species were common pipistrelle and soprano 

pipistrelle. No bat roosts would be impacted and the impacts would be minimised by 





mitigation. Therefore it was considered that the project would not have significant effect on 

the nature conservation value of bats. 

11.9.31 It is concluded that there would be a cumulative effect on this species within the surrounding 

area with respect to collision risk. This cumulative risk is considered to be of small 

magnitude and slight level of effect within the context of the local bat population. 

Badger 

11.9.32 During the surveys at Pearie Law no badger setts were found but there was evidence of 

badgers using the area. After mitigation the impacts are considered to not be significant. 

11.9.33 No evidence of badger was recorded within the survey area of Harburnhead wind farm, 

however a sett was noted adjacent to the survey area boundary and badgers are known to 

be present in the local area. 

11.9.34 Fauch Hill does not consider badgers as a receptor as part of the assessment. 

11.9.35 Due to the lack of suitable foraging habitat and evidence of badger activity within the site 

boundary it is concluded that the development will not add cumulatively to the effects on this 

species. 

11.10 Summary 

11.10.1 Table 11.22 summarises the potential effects of the proposed wind farm, recommended 

mitigation and enhancement actions and residual significance of the effects. 







Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect and 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


Craigengar 

SAC and 

SSSI 

Cobbinshaw 

Moss SSSI 

Cobbinshaw 

reservoir 

SSSI 

Linhouse 

Valley SSSI 

Hermand 

Birchwood 

SSSI 

Pollution: 

waterborne 

and airborne 

sources. 

The effects of 

impacts on 

groundwater 

systems are 

assessed in 

Chapter 13 

Hydrology, 

Hydrogeology 

and Ground 

Conditions. 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

High/ 

International 

High/ 

National 

High/ 

National 

High/ 

National 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Construction High/ National Negligible Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Preparation and 

implementation 

of a HSEMS 

detailing 

pollution 

prevention 

measures and 

dust controls. 

Considered 

design of 

upgraded 

watercourse 

crossings. 

Water quality 

monitoring 

covering a 

baseline period 

and 

construction 

phase of the 

wind farm. 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Indirect, negative, 

temporary. 


temporary. 


temporary. 


temporary. 


temporary. 

Employment of 

an ECoW on 

the site. 

Crosswood 

reservoir and 

Linhouse 

Water 

SWT Wildlife 

Pollution: 

waterborne 

and airborne 

sources. 

Construction Low/ Local Negligible Negligible 

(not 

significant) 



of a HSEMS 

detailing 

pollution 

prevention 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 



Terrestrial Ecology



Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect and 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


Site 

Murieston 

Water 

SWT Wildlife 

Site 


impacts on 

groundwater 

systems are 

assessed in 

Chapter 13 

Hydrology, 

Hydrogeology 

and Ground 

Conditions. 

Construction Low/Local Negligible Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

measures and 


Considered 

design of 

upgraded 

watercourse 

crossings. 

Water quality 

monitoring 

covering a 


and 

construction 

phase of the 

wind farm. 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 

Employment of 

an ECoW on 

the site. 

All habitats 

excluding wet 

modified bog 

Wet Modified 

Bog 

Pollution of 

terrestrial 

habitats 

through 

airborne and 

waterborne 

sources. 

Construction Low/Local Small Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Construction 

High/ 

International 

Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Application of 

best practice 

guidance and 

techniques. 



of HSEMS 

outlining 

pollution 

prevention 

measures. 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 

Timing of works 

to avoid heavy 



Terrestrial Ecology



Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect and 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


periods of 

rainfall when 

the risk of fine 

sediment being 

transported 

from earth 

works is 

significantly 

increased. 

Otter Pollution of 

habitats and 

Construction Low/Local Medium Slight(not 

significant) 

associated 

prey sources. 

Bat species Construction Low/Local Small Slight(not 

significant) 

Badger 


(not 

significant) 

Application of best practice 

guidance and techniques. 

Preparation and implementation of 

a HSEMS detailing pollution 

prevention measures and dust 

controls. 

Water quality monitoring. 

covering a baseline period and 

construction phase of the wind 

farm. 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 


temporary. 


temporary. 

Employment of an ECoW on the 

site. 

Coniferous 

plantation 

woodland 

Damage and 

disturbance to 

habitats. 

Construction Low/Local Large Moderate to 

slight (not 

significant) 



prevention measures. 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Direct, 

negative,temporary 

Broadleaved 

woodland 

Wet modified 


(not 

significant) 

Construction High/ Small Slight (not 

Employment of best practice 

construction methods and habitat 

restoration techniques. 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Direct, negative, 

temporary. 

Use of micrositing wherever 

necessary under advice of ECoW. Negligible Direct, negative, 



Terrestrial Ecology



Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect and 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

bog International significant) (not 

significant) 


temporary. 

Marshy 

grassland 


(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 

Semiimproved 

acid 

grassland 


(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

N/A 

Watercourses Construction Low/Local Small Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 

Otter Disturbance, 

displacement 

and injury due 

Construction Low/Local Small Slight or 

negligible(not 

significant) 

to 

Bat species construction Construction Low/Local Small Slight or 

activities. 

negligible (not 

significant) 

Badger 


(not 

significant) 

Pre-construction and pre-felling 

checks for protected species to be 

undertaken by the ECoW. 

Specific protection measures for 

protected species (e.g. covering 

trenches, pits and pipelines). 

Demarcation of working zones to 

limit disturbance to species. 

Vehicle speed restrictions on site. 



Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 


temporary. 

N/A 

Coniferous 

plantation 

woodland 

Direct habitat 

loss through 

the installation 

Construction Low/Local Large Moderate to 

Slight (not 

significant) 



of HSEMS 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


permanent. 



Terrestrial Ecology



Phase 

Broadleaved 

woodland 

Wet modified 

bog 

Marshy 

grassland 

Semiimproved 

acid 

grassland 

of wind farm 

infrastructure. 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


(not 

significant) 

Construction 

High/ 

International 

Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 


(not 

significant) 


(not 

significant) 


Effect and 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

detailing habitat 

delimitation to 

limit the 

potential for 

habitat loss, 

and habitat 

restoration 

techniques. 

Use of 

micrositing 

wherever 

necessary 

under advice of 

ECoW. 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 



permanent. 


permanent. 


permanent. 


permanent. 

Watercourses 


(not 

significant) 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

N/A 

Otter Habitat loss Construction Low/Local Negligible Negligible 

and habitat 

(not 

fragmentation 

significant) 

- - Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

N/A 

Bat species Construction Low/Local Small Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Keyhole felling will increase the 

area of suitable habitat. 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


permanent. 

Badger 


(not 

significant) 

- - Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

N/A 



Terrestrial Ecology



Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect and 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


All habitats 

excluding 

Wet Modified 

Bog 

Wet Modified 

Bog 

Damage, 

disturbance 

and pollution 

of terrestrial 

habitats 

during 

maintenance 

activities 

Operation Low/Local Small Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Operation 

High/ 

International 

Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Implementation 

of best practice 

and guidance 

when carrying 

out 

maintenance 

activities. 

Preparation of a 

site pollution 

incident 

response plan. 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 


temporary. 

All terrestrial 

species 

excluding 

bats 

Bats 

Disturbance 

and 

displacement 

due to 

maintenance 

Operation Low/Local Negligible Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

activities Operation Low/Local Small Slight(not 

significant) 

Demarcation of 

working zones 

to limit 


species. 

Vehicle speed 

restrictions. 



and guidance 

when carrying 

out 

maintenance 

activities. 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

N/A 

N/A 

Bat species 

Death of bats 

through 

collision or 

barotrauma. 

Operation Low/Local Small Slight(not 

significant) 

- Implementation 

of postconstruction 

monitoring 

scheme 

Slight (not 

significant) 


permanent. 



Terrestrial Ecology



Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect and 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 



habitats 

(except wet 

modified bog) 

Wet modified 

bog 

Indirect 

changes to 

habitat 

composition 

due to 

changes in 

hydrology and 

soil chemistry. 

Operation Low/Local Small Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Operation 

High/ 

International 

Small 

Slight(not 

significant) 


best practice 

guidance and 

techniques and 

outlined in the 

HSEMS. 

Periodic checks 

of vehicles for 

leaks. 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


permanent. 


permanent. 



incident 


Decommissioning Phase: Of comparable type and of similar magnitude to the construction phase effects 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.10.2 This chapter has assessed the likely significance of effects of the proposed development on 

habitats and species at the proposed wind farm. 

11.10.3 Phase 1 Habitat, NVC and appropriate protected species surveys were undertaken across 

the site and the results used to inform the wind farm design and subsequent effect 

assessment and mitigation measures. 

11.10.4 By applying effective mitigation measures, the residual effects of this development on all 

habitats and species are assessed as being ‘slight’ or ‘negligible’ and therefore are not 

significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 


• Amphibian and Reptiles Groups of the United Kingdom (ARG UK) Advice Note 5 

(2010). Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. (www.arguk.org/.../9-arg-advicenote-5-great-crested-newt-habitat-suitability-index). 

• Averis, A., Averis, B., Birks, J., Horsfield, D., Thompson, D., & Yeo, M.,(2004) An 

Illustrated Guide to British Upland Vegetation. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 

• Baerwald, E.F., J. Edworthy, M. Holder, and R.M.R. Barclay. (2009) A large-scale 

mitigation experiment to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 73: 1077-1081. 

• Bang, P. and Dahlstrøm, P. (2001) Animal tracks and Signs. Oxford University press, 

Oxford. 

• Haddow, J.F. and Herman, J.S. (2000) Recorded distribution of bats in Scotland. 

Scottish Bats, volume 5. 

• English Nature (2004) Great crested newt mitigation guidelines. English nature, 

Peterborough. 

• Haddow, J.F. & Herman, J.S. (2000). Recorded distribution of bats in Scotland. 

Scottish Bats, 5: 35-47. 

• Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological 

Impact Assessment in the UK. IEEM, Winchester. 

• Joint Nature Conservancy Council (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Joint 

Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. 

• Joint Nature Conservancy Council (2007) Article 17: Species Status Assessments. 

JNCC. 

• Joint Nature Conservancy Council (JNCC) (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat 

survey - a technique for environmental audit. JNCC. 

• Jones, Cooper-Bohannon, Barlow and Parsons (2009) Determining the impact of wind 

turbines on bat populations in Great Britain Phase 1 Report, BCT-Bristol University. 

• Mitchell-Jones, A. J. and Carlin, C. (2009) Bats and onshore wind turbines Interim 

guidance, Natural England Technical Information Note TIN051, First edition, 11 Feb 

2009. 

• Natural England (2012) Bats and onshore wind turbines, Interim Guidance, 2nd 

Edition, TIN 051. 





• NBN Gateway Website (http://data.nbn.org.uk/). Accessed at 8 January 2013. 

• Neal, E. & Cheeseman, C. (1996) Badgers. Poyser, London. 

• Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S & Jeffcote M. (2000). Evaluating the suitability 

of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10 

(4), 143-155. 

• Richardson, P. (2000) Distribution atlas of bats in Britain and Ireland 1980-1999. Bat 

Conservation Trust. 

• Rodwell, J.S. (Ed.) (1991 et seq.). British Plant Communities. 5 volumes: Vol. 1 (1991) 

- Woodlands and Scrub; Vol. 2 (1991) - Mires and Heaths; Vol. 3 (1992) - Grasslands 

and montane communities; Vol. 4 (1995) - Aquatic communities, swamps and tallherb 

fens. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

• Rydell, J., Bach, L., Dubourg-Savage, M., Green, M., Rodrigues, L., & Hedenström, A. 

(2010). Bat Mortality at Wind Turbines in Northwestern Europe. Acta Chiropterologica, 

12(2), 261-274. 

• Sargent, G. & Morris, P. (2003) How to find & Identify Mammals. The Mammal 

Society, London . 

• Scottish Natural Heritage Information service website (Sitelink) 

(http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/snhi). Accessed at 8 January 2013. 

• Scottish Natural Heritage (2008) Otters and Development. 

• Scottish Natural Heritage (2001) Natural Heritage Zones: A National Assessment of 

Biodiversity (Habitats). 

• Scottish Environmental Protection Agency SEPA (2011) Landuse Planning System 

Guidance Note 4, Planning Guidance on Windfarm Developments. 

• Stace, C.A. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles, Cambridge University Press, 2nd 

Edition. 

• Strachan, R. and Moorhouse, T. (2010) The Water Vole Conservation Handbook. 

Third Edition. 

• West Lothian Council (2004) West Lothian biodiversity Action Plan. Planning for 

Biodiversity action (2003-2009) 





12 Ornithology 


12.1.1 This Chapter assesses the effects of the proposed wind farm development on birds. 

Together with Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology, it completes the assessment of the effects of 

the six wind turbines and associated infrastructure on the natural heritage. 

12.1.2 The assessment uses data from specifically commissioned surveys in 2011-2012 and 

information and data from organisations and individuals with local knowledge who responded 

to consultations on the proposed wind farm development, to form a comprehensive 

presentation of baseline conditions. Bird names used in this chapter follow the vernacular 

names recommended by the British Ornithologists’ Union. 

Site Description 

12.1.3 The site of the proposed wind farm is located within Camilty Plantation, approximately 2 km 

south of Harburn and 4 km south-east of West Calder in West Lothian. The site, which is 

owned by the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS), is centred at grid reference NT 0561 

5932, on Camilty Hill, as shown in Figure 1.1, and is bound to the south by the A70 and to 

the west by the B7008. Figure 12.1 shows a satellite image of the site in order to give an 

indication of the habitat composition of the site. Access to the site would be gained from 

Junction 4 of the M8, the A801, the A706 through Whitburn, the A721 and the A70. 

12.1.4 The site is bounded to the north-east, north-west and south-west by plantation forest and to 

the south and south-east by open hill area associated with Crosswoodburn Farm. 

12.1.5 There are several isolated properties to the north of the site, set within forest to the south of 

Harburn. There are also properties along the A70 to the east and south of the site, and farms 

on the hill area to the south and east of the site. 

12.1.6 Baseline surveys were undertaken from September 2011 to August 2012 with additional 

surveys undertaken in Autumn 2012 at Westwater Special Protection Area (SPA) and 

Cobbinshaw Reservoir at the request of RPSB Scotland. Survey coverage encompassed the 

turbine layout and site boundary, plus a range of buffer zones that were specific to different 

surveys. Felling operations over the winter period caused a small number of unforeseen 

changes to be made to some survey programmes, specifically the point count surveys (see 

Section 12.2: Methodology). 

Potential Key Issues 

12.1.7 The key ornithological issues associated with the proposed wind farm development are likely 

to relate to its potential to adversely affect the: 

• 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) through habitat loss, disturbance, 

displacement and collisions with turbines; 

• Conservation status of locally-breeding raptors, waders and wildfowl through habitat 

loss, disturbance, displacement and collisions with turbines; 


Ornithology 




• Conservation status of resident and passage raptors, or of passage or wintering 

geese and other waterfowl due to the risk of turbine collisions if they fly through the 

proposed wind farm development area on migration or while commuting between local 

feeding and roosting areas (with the latter an issue of concern, given the proximity to 

the Westwater and Firth of Forth Special Protection Areas (SPAs), both of which are 

important for pink-footed geese); and 

• Ornithological interests of local sites designated for bird species. 

12.2.1 The methods used are summarised here with more details provided in the relevant sections 

below, and in Appendix 12.1. The assessment involved: 

• Reference to relevant legislation, policy and guidance; 

• Consultation with relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies; 

• 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 farm development on 

important bird interests both directly and indirectly; 

• Evaluation of the significance of effects by consideration of the sensitivity of the 

relevant bird interests, the potential magnitude of predicted effects and their 

probability of occurring; 

• Evaluation of cumulative effects of the wind farm and other projects and activities; 

• Identification of appropriate measures to avoid and mitigate against any potential 

adverse effects resulting from the proposed wind farm development; and 

• Consideration of the residual significance of the predicted effects following mitigation. 

12.2.2 Data on important bird populations within the study area were obtained through an extensive 

combination of scoping/consultation, desktop studies to collate existing information from 

sources such as the Lothian and Borders Raptor Study Group, nearby wind farm projects 

(e.g. Fauch Hill and Harburnhead) and newly commissioned field surveys. The resulting 

information provides ornithological context to the site and is considered comprehensive, with 

no shortfalls or information gaps that are likely to significantly affect the robustness of the 

impact assessment. 

12.2.3 The baseline field surveys were undertaken from September 2011 to August 2012. They 

encompassed the preceding 14-turbine layout and site boundary referred to as the Initial 

Design in Chapter 3: Design Evolution – hereafter termed “original site boundary”. All data 

presented from the field surveys refer to the areas within the respective buffers of the 

currently proposed site boundary (hereafter referred to as the “site boundary”), except for 

point count surveys and the breeding raptor survey. For the point count surveys, data from all 

of the original point locations were retained, because this maintained the original sample size 

(i.e. 15 points), whilst few points occurred far outside of the 500m buffer of the site boundary 

and all were in forest habitat typical of that within the site boundary (Appendix 12.1). For the 

breeding raptor survey, the large size of the buffer (2km) meant the additional areas 


Ornithology 



encompassed by basing the buffer upon the original site boundary were small relative to the 

overall area, and made no real difference to the findings (Appendix 12.1). Therefore, the 

assessment of impacts is based on the proposed six turbine scheme. 

Legislation and Guidance 

12.2.4 This assessment takes into account the requirements of the following legislation, regulations 

and other guidance: 

• Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (EU Birds Directive; 

the codified version of Directive 79/409/EEC); 

• Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora 

and Fauna (the "Habitats Directive"); 

• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); 

• Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as regards reserved matters 

in Scotland); 

• Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (the "Habitats Regulations"); 


• Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004; 

• The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) 

Regulations 2011 (EIA Regulations); 

• Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 2000 

(EIA Regulations); 

• Scottish Executive Ecological Advisers Unit Guidance (ref EJ K1-3); 

• Planning Advice Note (PAN) 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2000; 

• Scottish Government National Planning Policy: Renewable energy advice on onshore 

wind turbines (2011, updated October 2012); 

• SNH (2001) Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms and Small Scale 

Hydroelectric Schemes; 

• The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework 1 and the Scottish Biodiversity List 2 ; and 

• West Lothian Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) 2002. 

Consultations 

12.2.5 To ensure comprehensive coverage of ornithological issues, key conservation organisations 

were consulted during the completion of this assessment. 

12.2.6 As part of the feasibility studies for the Camilty site, RPS was commissioned to undertake an 

Ecological Sensitivity Appraisal of the site (RPS, 2011), further details of which are provided 

below. As part of this appraisal the Lothian and Borders Raptor Study Group were consulted 

by letter on 18 February 2011 to request any records they may hold of raptor presence and 

1 

UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework website (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189). 

2 

Scottish Biodiversity List website (http://www.biodiversityscotland.gov.uk/advice-and-resources/scottish-biodiversity-list/). 


Ornithology 



activity, particularly breeding information, for the original proposed Camilty site 3 , plus a 

surrounding buffer of 2 km. 

12.2.7 At the outset of the Ecological Impact Assessment survey programme SNH were consulted 

by letter on 4 October 2011 for their agreement and advice on the proposed survey 

programme and associated methodologies. Vivienne Grey (Lothians Planning Operations 

Officer) responded by letter on 1 November 2011, in which she confirmed that SNH were 

content with the proposed survey programme. She also made reference to SNH’s published 

guidance on ornithological surveys for wind farm developments and provided advice on the 

minimum number of hours effort which should be expended during Flight Activity/Vantage 

Point Surveys to adequately capture bird flight activity at the site through the seasons. 

12.2.8 In July 2012 SNH, RSPB Scotland and West Lothian Council were each sent a Scoping 

Report and invited to comment on the ornithological issues surrounding the proposed 

development and the suitability of the baseline survey, analysis and assessment methods 

proposed, as discussed in Chapter 2: The Environmental Impact Assessment and Scoping 

Process. 

12.2.9 Details of the relevant Scoping consultation responses received and where the points raised 

are addressed within this chapter are presented in Table 12.1. 

Table 12.1 Scoping Consultation Responses 

Consultee Contact Response Section of 

chapter where 

point(s) 

addressed 

Scottish 

Natural 

Heritage 

(SNH) 

28 August 

2012 letter 

from Megan 

Jones, 

Operations 

Officer 

General comments: 

SNH is content with the scope and methodologies 

presented in the Scoping Report. 

All survey results must be clearly presented as per 

SNH guidance, with maps showing flight paths 

presented on separate sheets if the initial map is too 

cluttered for easy interpretation. 

The proposal is approximately 8 km north-west of 

Westwater Special Protection Area (SPA). The SPA 

supports over 20,000 roosting waterfowl in winter 

and an internationally important winter population of 

pink-footed goose. Westwater is also designated as 

a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for its 

waterfowl assemblage and pink-footed goose 

population and as a Wetland of International 

Importance (Ramsar Site). 

The Firth of Forth SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI is 

approximately 19 km north of the proposal site. The 

SPA is also notified for over wintering wildfowl and 

pink-footed geese. The foraging range of the geese 

extends to 20 km, therefore the proposal site is 

within their range. 

Should initial surveys demonstrate that there is 

connectivity with Westwater SPA or Firth of Forth 

SPA and therefore that the proposal is likely to have 

Consideration of 

European 

designated sites is 

given throughout 

this Chapter with 

particular 

coverage in the 

Baseline 

Information (12.3), 

Receptor 

Sensitivity 

(12.3.31 – 

12.3.37) and 

Impact 

Assessment 

(12.7) Sections 

3 

The original Camilty site was larger than that which is currently under consideration – covering the 14 turbine layout (Initial 

Design) in Chapter 3: Design Evolution. 


Ornithology 



Consultee Contact Response Section of 

chapter where 

point(s) 

addressed 

a significant effect on qualifying interests, an 

appropriate assessment will be required. 

15 January 

2013 e-mail 

response 

from Megan 

Jones 

Response to request for advice on Cumulative 

Impact Assessment (CIA) scope; 

With regard to the two main species of interest at 

Camilty (pink-footed goose and goshawk) SNH 

advised that different approaches were adopted for 

each species due to their different behaviours and 

habitat requirements. Regarding pink-footed geese 

the CIA should address potential impacts on the 

Westwater SPA population, while impacts on 

goshawk should be investigated at the relevant 

Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ) level. Weblinks were 

provided to relevant guidance and advice on 

undertaking these assessments. 

The cumulative 

effects of the 

proposed Camilty 

wind farm incombination 

with 

other wind farm 

developments is 

presented in the 

Cumulative 

Impact 

Assessment 

Section (12.8) 

Royal 

Society for 

the 

Protection 

of Birds 

(RSPB) 

Scotland 

24 August 

2012 email 

from Mike 

Fraser 

(Lothian and 

Borders 

Conservation 

Officer) 

Satisfied with the scope of the ornithological 

surveys. 

Reference should be made to the on-going Southeast 

Scotland Bird Atlas project (http://www.thesoc.org.uk/se-atlas/) 

for recent information on the 

distribution and status of species in the region. 

Concern was raised about Westwater Reservoir 

SPA, which is approximately 7 km south-east of 

Camilty and which supports a major roost of pinkfooted 

geese, with maximum counts of 64,000 

recorded in 2005-6, representing 21% of the 

national (UK) population. 

While Camilty may not lie on a recognised major 

flight path between feeding grounds and Westwater, 

it will be important to determine the direction and 

height of movement of birds leaving and returning to 

the roost under a variety of local cropping regimes 

and weather conditions. This will allow an 

assessment of any likely impact of the proposed 

wind farm on the SPA. 

Pink-footed geese may also roost at Cobbinshaw 

Reservoir, just west of Camilty, although numbers 

there have declined since peaking at more than 

5,000 in the early 1980s. Nevertheless, fieldwork 

will also be required to assess fully the birds’ current 

level of use of the reservoir and any potential impact 

on them of the proposed development. 

The ecological effects of the proposed development 

with existing, approved and planned windfarms in 

the area need to be addressed in terms of 

cumulative collision risk and displacement of birds. 


the impacts on 

pink-footed geese 

in relation to 

Westwater SPA is 

presented in the 


(12.3.38 – 

12.3.41.) and 

Impact 

Assessment 

(12.7)Sections. 

Details of roost 

counts at 

Cobbinshaw 

Reservoir are 

provided in 

Baseline 

Conditions (see 

12.3.26). 

West 

Lothian 

Council 

7 September 

2012 Letter 

from Esme 

Clelland 

(Planning 

Officer) 

Stated that the council was satisfied with the 

methodology and assumptions made. 

The EIA must have sufficient information to assess 

whether the proposal is likely to have a significant 

affect on the qualifying interests of any Natura 2000 

sites. 


European 

designated sites is 

given throughout 

this Chapter as 

detailed above. 


Ornithology 



12.2.10 In addition to the above, the Lothian Bird Recorder of the Scottish Ornithologists Club was 

contacted by letter on 28 October 2011 for any records they may hold for protected and 

notable species of conservation interest within the Camilty site and a surrounding buffer of 2 

km. 

Baseline Studies 

Sensitive Receptors 

12.2.11 In accordance with SNH guidance (SNH 2006), the desk study, field surveys and impact 

assessment were all focused on bird species of conservation importance. For the proposed 

wind farm, species were regarded as being of conservation importance if they were at least 

one of the following: 

• Bird species listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive; 

• Bird species listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as 

amended); 

• Bird species that are qualifying features of the conservation designated sites within up 

to 20 km of the proposed development; 

• Regularly-occurring migratory species where the UK holds an internationally-important 

proportion of the European population; 

• Bird species that are Red- or Amber-listed in the UK’s Birds of Conservation Concern 

(BoCC) (Eaton et al. 2009); 

• Bird species identified on the Scottish Biodiversity List; and/or 

• Bird species identified as priorities in the West Lothian LBAP. 

12.2.12 Species which met one or more of the above criteria, and which were identified as being 

associated with the proposed wind farm site (e.g. via the desk study or field surveys), formed 

the group of target species for this assessment. 

Ecological Sensitivity Appraisal 

12.2.13 RPS was commissioned to undertake an Ecological Sensitivity Appraisal of the site as part of 

PfR’s feasibility studies (RPS, 2011). The appraisal was carried out in early 2011 and 

included a site visit undertaken on 23 February 2011, an initial high level desk study exercise 

and consultation with the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) and the Lothian and Borders 

Raptor Study Group, as mentioned above. 

12.2.14 At that very early stage in the assessment process the aim of the appraisal was simply to 

identify nature conservation designated sites within 10 km of the site as well as the presence, 

or likely presence of habitats and species of conservation value. 

12.2.15 During the desk study, designated sites were identified using the Multi Agency Geographical 

Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website 4 and the West Lothian Council’s website 5 , 

while information on these sites including site citations was obtained from Scottish Natural 

4 

The Multi Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website (www.magic.gov.uk). 

5 

West Lothian Council website (http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/). 


Ornithology 



Heritage’s (SNH) Sitelink website 6 . Searches were also carried out for any recent (i.e. within 

the last 10 years) historical records of legally protected and notable species within 2 km of 

the site using the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway database 7 . 

Desk Study 

12.2.16 Ornithological data from the proposed development site and surrounding areas were sought 

from a range of sources including RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Ornithologist’s Club 

Lothian Bird Recorder. 

12.2.17 Further to the information collected during the initial, high level desk study for the Ecological 

Sensitivity Appraisal, a more extensive desk study was carried out to supplement and 

enhance the information already collected. This more detailed desk study searched for 

information on all International/European designated sites designated for their ornithological 

interests (i.e. SPAs and Ramsar Sites) within 20 km of the proposed development (20 km 

being the recognised typical maximum foraging range of geese and based on SNH’s SPA 

connectivity guidance (2012a)). The search also sought to identify national ornithological 

designated sites (e.g. SSSIs) and any other statutory and non-statutory designated sites (e.g. 

National Nature Reserves (NNRs), Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), Local Council Nature 

Sites (LCNS) and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs)) with ornithological 

interests within 5 km of the proposed site boundary. 

Field Surveys 

12.2.18 A range of baseline field surveys were undertaken between September 2011 and August 

2012 to identify the bird populations using the proposed application site and its surrounds, in 

terms of breeding and wintering populations and overall flight activity (see Table 12.2). The 

areas over which the different surveys were undertaken are shown in Figures 12.2a and b 

and 12.3. The following sections provide a summary of the methods used for each survey, 

whilst full details of methods, and timings of visits for each survey are provided in Appendix 

12.1. 

Table 12.2 Schedule of Bird Surveys Undertaken for Camilty Wind Farm 

Survey-type 

Month 

Sept 

2011 

Oct 

2011 

Nov 

2011 

Dec 

2011 

Jan 

2012 

Feb 

2012 

Mar 

2012 

Apr 

2012 

May 

2012 

Jun 

2012 

Jul 

2012 

Aug 

2012 

Flight activity 

Breeding 

raptors 

Moorland 

breeding 

birds 

Forest point 

counts 

Winter 

walkover 

 

 

 

 

6 

SNH Sitelink website 

(http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=53,910284,53_920284&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL). 

7 

National Biodiversity Network Gateway website (http://www.nbn.org.uk). 


Ornithology 



Flight Activity Surveys 

12.2.19 Flight activity surveys were carried out at the site over one full year between 29 September 

2011 and 28 August 2012 and followed the standard guidelines for conducting baseline 

ornithological surveys for onshore wind farms (SNH, 2005). These surveys, which are 

designed to record the flight activity of birds using the airspace over the site and the spatial 

and temporal variation of that usage, were conducted from two suitably elevated vantage 

points (VPs), the details of which are provided in Appendix 12.1. The viewshed coverage of 

these VPs is presented in Figures 12.2a and 12.2b. 

12.2.20 Given the proximity of the site to areas which are of recognised importance to migrating 

waterfowl (e.g. Westwater and Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar Sites) survey effort was 

increased to account for potential increased flight activity during the autumn (September - 

November 2011) and spring (March - mid-May) passage periods in accordance with SNH 

guidance (SNH 2005). As such, a minimum of 36 hours of survey effort from each VP was 

completed in each of the defined seasonal periods, as follows; 

• Autumn 2011 (September - November 2011): 36 hours; 

• Winter 2011/12 (October 2011 - March 2012): 54 hours; 

• Spring 2012 (March - mid-May): 36 hours; 

• Summer 2012 (March-August): 54 hours. 

12.2.21 Overall, this gave a total of 108 hours of survey from each VP over the whole year (noting 

that not all of the 36 hours per VP in autumn was mutually exclusive from the 54 hours per 

VP in winter, as was also the case for the 36 and 54 hours per VP in spring and summer, 

respectively – see Table 12.A.2 in Appendix 12.1 for further details). 

12.2.22 The information collected on key target species flying over the site and the adjacent airspace 

was used to estimate the number of individuals per species, and the spatial and temporal 

activities, of birds flying within this 3-dimensional area. For onshore windfarm EIAs, this 

information is commonly used to undertake collision risk modelling (CRM) for species with a 

sufficient number of flight events recorded, based on the SNH recommended standard Band 

et al. (2007) method, further details of which are provided in Appendix 12.1. 

Breeding Raptor Surveys 

12.2.23 The site plus a 2 km buffer zone (Figure 12.3) was surveyed for all breeding raptor (and owl) 

species in 2012. Target species included any Annex 1 (EU Birds Directive) or Schedule 1 

(Wildlife and Countryside Act) listed species with the list of likely target species being 

informed by information received from the Lothian and Borders Raptor Study Group. Surveys 

were carried out by Schedule 1 licensed ornithologists. 

12.2.24 Species-specific survey protocols followed the guidelines as set out by Hardey et al. (2009). 

Surveys were conducted in areas of suitable habitat within 2 km of the site in mid-March and 

mid-July 2011. Areas of suitable habitat included trees along the forest edge and older 

stands of trees within the forest, heather moor and other areas of open habitat, craggy rock 

faces and cliffs, and steep sided burns. 

12.2.25 Surveyors repeatedly stopped to scan for birds whilst undertaking walkover surveys, and the 

location of any nest sites, or nesting / territorial activity of raptors was recorded. Full details of 

the survey methods are provided in Appendix 12.1. 


Ornithology 



Moorland Breeding Bird Surveys 

12.2.26 Surveys were undertaken in areas of open habitat (e.g. moorland and unforested areas) 

within the proposed development area and a surrounding 500 m buffer. Only very small 

areas of such habitat were present within this area (Figure 11.3). Four survey visits were 

undertaken between mid-May and mid-July and followed the methodology detailed in Brown 

& Shepherd (1993). Full details of the survey methodology are provided in Appendix 12.1. 

Winter Walkover Surveys 

12.2.27 To assess species presence and abundance on and immediately surrounding the site over 

the winter period, three winter walkover surveys were completed between September 2011 

and March 2012 in accordance with the SNH guidance. The area covered included the site 

plus a 500 m buffer as illustrated in Figure 12.3. Full details of the survey methodology are 

provided in Appendix 12.1. 

Breeding and Winter Point Count Surveys 

12.2.28 Point counts were undertaken in order to survey a representative sample of habitats within 

the forestry plantation at Camilty. Using GIS software, a grid of points (200 m apart) was 

generated and laid over the proposed development site area plus a 500 m buffer, giving a 

total of 15 sampling points. However, felling operations meant that two of the originally 

selected points had to be replaced by locations in nearby similar forest habitat at the start of 

the surveys, with these two new points subsequently being replaced for the same reason 

(one from the January survey and the other from the April survey). Five survey visits were 

made to each point (accounting for replacement points); two during the winter season 

(November and January) and three during the breeding season, in April, May and June. 

12.2.29 Counts took place within five hours of sunrise. The duration of each count at each point was 

five minutes, with a two minute settling period before each count began. Birds heard or seen 

during a point count were recorded in one of three distance bands from the observer: 0-50 m, 

50-100 m and > 100 m. 

12.2.30 Point counts undertaken during the breeding season also distinguished whether birds were 

singing, calling or showing other signs indicative of breeding on the site, as opposed to flying 

overhead or being present without showing any behaviour indicative of possible breeding. 

12.2.31 The locations of the point count locations are presented in Figure 12.3, while full details of the 

point count survey methodology are provided in Appendix 12.1. 

Pink-footed Goose Connectivity and Roost Surveys 

12.2.32 To address the concerns raised by RSPB Scotland over potential connectivity between the 

pink-footed geese overflying the proposed Camilty wind farm site and those using the major 

roost at the Westwater SPA, additional surveys were undertaken between late September 

and late November 2012 (which encompasses the period of peak pink-footed goose numbers 

at Westwater, and in southern Scotland more generally – Forrester et al 2007, Mitchell 2011). 

These surveys comprised: 

(i) Eight dawn and eight dusk surveys at Westwater to record the flight directions of pinkfooted 

geese departing to feeding areas from the roost at dawn and returning to the 

roost at dusk; 


Ornithology 



(ii) For a sample of eight of the above ‘Westwater roost surveys’ (four dawn and four 

dusk), simultaneous surveys were undertaken at Camilty to assess the extent of 

coincident pink-footed goose flights. 

12.2.33 All of these surveys were of 2 – 3.5 hours duration and spanned either the dawn or dusk 

periods. Surveys at Westwater were undertaken from an elevated location providing a 

suitable vantage point from which to record incoming and departing geese (Figure 12.4), 

whilst those at Camilty were undertaken from VP1 (Figure 12.2a and b), and followed the 

methods used for the standard flight activity surveys (see 12.2.19-12.2.22 above). 

12.2.34 RSPB Scotland also raised concerns over the extent to which pink-footed geese may use 

Cobbinshaw Reservoir as a roost site. This reservoir lies just over 2km from the north west 

corner of the boundary for the proposed wind farm site, and has been used as a roost by 

pink-footed geese in the past (holding more than 5000 in the early 1980s, although numbers 

declined thereafter – Mike Fraser, RSPB Scotland, pers. comm.). Therefore, eight dusk 

surveys were undertaken between late September and late November 2012 at Cobbinshaw 

Reservoir to record the numbers of pink-footed geese arriving to the site. 

12.2.35 Full details of the methods for the Westwater-Camilty connectivity surveys and the 

Cobbinshaw Reservoir roost surveys are provided in Appendix 12.1. 

Assessment of the Significance of Effects 

12.2.36 Assessment of the significance of effects on ornithological interests follows the general 

Assessment Methodology set out in Chapter 2: The Environmental Impact Assessment and 

Scoping Process, and is also broadly based on the staged process outlined in the ecological 

impact assessment guidelines from the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management 

(IEEM, 2006). 

12.2.37 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 effects based on the nature of the proposed development; 

• Determine the scale and magnitude of those effects; 

• Determine the level (and hence 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 level (and hence significance) of any residual effects once the benefits 

of the prescribed mitigation measures have been assessed. 

12.2.38 Evaluation of the ornithological resources identified by the baseline studies as ‘Valued 

Ornithological Receptors’ (VORs) has been guided by the IEEM (2006) guidelines. 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 12.3). These correspond with the categories of importance defined in the 

level of effects matrix (Table 12.6). 


Ornithology 



12.2.39 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 species designated within an SPA 

under the Habitats Directive is implicitly of European (i.e. International) importance. 

Professional judgement is therefore important when attributing a level of value to a particular 

species or individual habitat in non-designated areas. In these cases, reference has also 

been made to respective national and regional populations, and population trends. 

Table 12.3 Approach to Classifying Nature Conservation Value of the Ornithological 

Receptors at the Site 

Conservation 

Importance 

(Sensitivity) 

High 

Conservation 

Value 

International 

National 

Examples 

An internationally designated site (e.g. SPA) as designated under 

the Birds Directive or Ramsar, candidate sites, qualifying features 

connected to a nearby SPA, or an area meeting the criteria for an 

international designation. 

A regularly occurring, nationally important population of any species 

listed under Annex I of the EU 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 species 

listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act or 

Annex I of the EU Birds Directive, or species represented on the 

Scottish Biodiversity List. 

A nationally-rare species (1 %) of the regional 

population is found within the site. 

Low 

District 

Local 

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 limited conservation importance (e.g. 

UK Birds of Conservation Concern Green List species). 

Negligible Negligible Commonplace species of little or no conservation significance. 

Loss of such a species from the site would not be seen as 

detrimental to the ecology of the area. 


Ornithology 



12.2.40 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 

2011) (the EIA Regulations) require consideration of the types of effect in terms of how they 

arise, whether they are positive or negative, and their duration. The nature of each of these 

effects is defined in Table 12.4. 

12.2.41 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; and 

• Permanent – this typically means an unrecoverable change. 

12.2.42 The potential effects are determined through understanding how each VOR is likely to be 

affected by a development. The elements used to define the scale of the effect of a 

development include determining: 

• the potential types of effect (as detailed in Table 12.4); 

• the scale/magnitude of the predicted effect (as detailed in Table 12.5); and 

• whether there are any cumulative effects that may affect the long-term integrity of the 

ecosystem(s) at the site. 

Table 12.4 Types of Environmental Effects 

Effect 

Direct 

Indirect 

Secondary 

Temporary 

Permanent 

Cumulative 

Short-term 

Medium-term 

Description 

Effects arising immediately as part of the proposed development. 

Effects not caused immediately by the proposals, but arising as a consequence 

of it. 

Additional effects resulting as a consequence of one or more direct effects. 

Effects which cause a change to the baseline for a limited period 

Effects causing an irreversible change to the baseline. 

Effects which arise from multiple types of effect on a particular receptor. These 

may overlap spatially or temporally. 

These temporal scales are defined within each topic assessment at levels 

appropriate to the receptor being assessed. 

Long-term 

Beneficial/Positive 

Adverse/Negative 

Effects having a beneficial influence on the environment. 

Effects having an adverse influence on the environment. 


Ornithology 



Table 12.5 Criteria for Describing Spatial Magnitude 

Magnitude 

Large 

Medium 

Small 

Negligible 

Description 

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 longterm 

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 longterm 

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 effect that is not expected to affect the feature/population in any way; 

therefore no effects are predicted. 

12.2.43 The level of a potential effect on each VOR was determined by considering the type and 

magnitude of the effect (Table 12.4 and Table 12.5) in relation to the conservation 

importance (sensitivity) of the VOR (Table 12.3). The level of effect is described as 

Substantial, Moderate, Slight or Negligible, or within a range (e.g. Substantial - Moderate) as 

illustrated in Table 12.6. 


Conservation Value/Importance of VOR (Sensitivity) 


Magnitude of change/effect 

Large 

Medium 

Small 




moderate 

Moderate or 

slight 


moderate 

Moderate or 

slight 

Negligible 


Slight 

Slight or 

negligible 

Negligible 


12.2.44 An explanation of levels of effect is provided below in Table 12.7. 

Table 12.7 Level of Effect Criteria 



Substantial 

Moderate 

Criteria 







These beneficial or adverse effects are likely to be very important 

considerations at a local or district scale and, if adverse, are potential concerns 

to the scheme and may become material in the decision making process. 




Ornithology 




Slight 

Negligible 

Criteria 



These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local factors but are 

unlikely to be of critical importance in the decision making process. 

Nevertheless they are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the 

scheme and consideration of mitigation or compensation measures. 

No effect or an effect which is beneath the level of perception, within normal 

bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error. Such effects are 

not normally considered by the decision maker. 

12.2.45 The level of effect generated from Table 12.6 was then assessed against the likelihood of 

such predictions occurring, and the confidence level of the effect on a population, based on 

expert judgement and evidence from the existing literature. A scale of confidence, as 

recommended by IPCC (2005) can then be used: 

• Virtually certain: >99% probability of occurrence; 

• Very likely: >90% probability; 

• Likely: >66% probability; 

• About as likely as not: 33-66% probability; 

• Unlikely:


international), which corresponds with SNH policy (2006) which states that: “SNH will not 

normally object to a windfarm proposal on account of purely local impacts, if the impacts are 

not avoidable by reasonable means, if they do not result in any wider impact on the regional 

population, and provided the impacts do not affect populations protected within a designated 

site”. These conditions highlighted by SNH have been considered in the impact assessment 

process so that no potentially significant effects are omitted. 



12.3.1 The predicted effect of the proposed wind farm on VORs was assessed based on information 

in the published scientific literature, literature not subject to peer review and expert 

judgement. 

12.3.2 Estimations of the possible extent and duration of effects are based on studies and key 

review papers in the scientific literature on ornithology and wind farms (e.g. Langston and 

Pullan, 2003; Drewitt and Langston, 2006). Disturbance and displacement distance ranges 

used in this assessment have been based on published reports and papers including 

Ruddock and Whitfield (2007) and Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009). Estimations of regional 

populations have been gathered and interpreted from most recent published reports such as 

Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme annual reports (e.g. Etheridge et al. 2012) and Forrester 

et al. (2007). 


Ecological Sensitivity Appraisal, Desk Study and Consultation 

12.3.3 Between the initial Ecological Sensitivity Appraisal and the more detailed Desk Study several 

sites designated for their nature conservation interests were identified within up to 20 km 

from the Camilty site. Further details of those sites which are designated for their 

ornithological interests are provided below. 

12.3.4 In terms of the ornithological value of the site itself this was generally considered to be low 

and was expected to support a reasonably limited variety of common bird species throughout 

the year. However, the Lothian and Borders Raptor Study Group identified that the woodland 

and immediately surrounding habitats have the potential to support goshawk and short-eared 

owl and that merlin, osprey, peregrine and long-eared owl had been recorded in the wider 

Camilty area in recent years. The appraisal also identified that overwintering waterfowl such 

as pink-footed geese may also pass over the site during migration or when commuting 

between nearby roosting and foraging grounds. 

12.3.5 More recent consultation with Lothian and Borders Raptor Study Group revealed more 

detailed and up to date information about breeding raptors at this site. Further details of 

which is provided in the Confidential Ornithology Appendix. 

12.3.6 Contact was also made with other nature conservation bodies to obtain any relevant data to 

inform the baseline situation of bird usage at Camilty. A summary of this correspondence is 

shown below in Table 12.8. 


Ornithology 



Table 12.8 Desk-based Consultation to Obtain Background Ornithological Data 

Source 

National Biodiversity 

Network (NBN Gateway) 

Stephen Welch, Lothian 

Bird Recorder (Scottish 

Ornithologists’ Club) 

Consultation and information obtained 

Data were downloaded from the Gateway for the surrounding area. These 

data lacked any accurate co-ordinates and breeding evidence. 

Nonetheless they provided an indication of species presence at Camilty, 

thereby informing the survey programme. 

There were no recent records of any specially protected species (i.e. those 

listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive or Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and 

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)) within or in close proximity to the 

Camilty site. There were however historical records of black grouse 

(Tetrao tetrix), short-eared owl (Asio flammaeus) and golden plover 

(Pluvialis apricaria) in the vicinity of the site. In addition, species such as 

barn owl (Tyto alba), hen harrier (Circus cyaneus), peregrine falcon (Falco 

perigrinus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and merlin (Falco columbarius) 

have been recorded as present in the wider area. Other species of note 

included the historical presence of long-eared owl (Asio otus). 

28 October 2011 - The local recorder advised that any records SOC have 

would be associated with the South-east Scotland bird atlas project 

(http://www.the-soc.org.uk/se-atlas/home.htm) and would only be available 

at tetrad level. 

17 July 2012 – On re-examination of the data request the local bird 

recorder confirmed that SOC were not aware of any breeding Schedule 1 

protected or West Lothian local BAP species in the Camilty area but, given 

the habitat at Camilty, did identify that it was likely that crossbills would be 

present at the site. 


12.3.7 There are no statutory ornithological designated sites located within the site boundary. 

12.3.8 There are two International/European designated sites within 20 km of the proposed 

application site. These include the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar Site and Westwater SPA 

and Ramsar site. The Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar Site is designated for the large 

assemblage of overwintering waterfowl and wading birds it supports including important 

populations of several key species, such as pink-footed geese. It is also designated for the 

important population of sandwich terns which it supports during the post-breeding period. The 

Westwater SPA and Ramsar site is designated for its overwintering waterfowl assemblage 

and internationally important overwintering population of pink-footed geese. Both of these 

sites are also designated as SSSIs for their ornithological interests. These designated sites 

and their location in relation to the proposed wind farm site are presented in Figure 12.5. 

12.3.9 There are no statutory or non-statutory nature conservation sites which are designated for 

ornithological interest within 5 km of the application site. 


Ornithology 



Table 12.9 Statutory and Non-statutory Ornithological Designated Sites within up to 

20km of Camilty 

Designated Site 

Westwater SPA, Ramsar site and 

SSSI 

Approximate 

Distance 

8km south-east 

Qualifying features 

Non-breeding waterfowl assemblage and 

pink-footed goose population. 

Firth of Forth SPA 8 , Ramsar site 9 

and SSSI 

19 km north Various overwintering waterfowl and 

wading bird species; Sandwich tern on 

passage; waterfowl assemblage. 


Flight Activity Surveys 

12.3.10 A total of 18 species (plus two records of unidentified goose species flocks and a single 

unidentified swan species) were recorded during the flight activity surveys undertaken at VPs 

1 and 2 between September 2011 and August 2012. Details of these are presented in 

Appendix 12.1. Table 12.10 presents a summary of the flights recorded by these species 

while figures showing the flight activity by the various individual/groups of species are shown 

in Figures 12.6 to 12.10. Note however, that due to the sensitive nature and protection status 

of goshawk, the flight activity information for this species is presented in Figure 12.A2.2 in the 

Confidential Ornithology Appendix. 

12.3.11 Of these 18 species, pink-footed goose had the most recorded flight events (40), with greylag 

goose (27) and goshawk (19) also being frequently recorded during these surveys. All other 

target species recorded fewer than 10 flight events during the surveys. 

12.3.12 Flights were considered in relation to whether they occurred within the wind farm polygon 

(plus surrounding 200 m buffer) and at potential collision height (PCH). There were six 

species with more than three flight events that (on this basis) were appropriate for inclusion in 

CRM. CRM was only undertaken for those species with more than three separate flight 

events over the season of interest, or whole year if relevant, because reliable predictions of 

collision risk were unlikely with fewer events. Also, the collision risk for species with fewer 

flights would be low. Thus, species for which CRM was undertaken were goosander (whole 

year), greylag goose (whole year), pink-footed goose (winter only), mallard (winter only), 

goshawk (whole year) and oystercatcher (summer only). 

8 

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/SPA/UK9004411.pdf 

9 

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/RIS/UK13017.pdf 


Ornithology 



Table 12.10 Flight Activity Data Recorded at the Camilty Wind Farm Site, as Derived 

from Flight Activity Surveys at Camilty (VPs 1 and 2) 

Species Season Total no. 

of Flight 

Events 

(all VPs) 

Total 

Time 

in 

Flight 

(sec) 

Total 

no. 

of 

Birds 

No. 

of 

Birds 

at 

PCH 

No. of 

Birds at 

PCH 

within 

WP 

No. of 

Flight 

Events 

for 

CRM 

Peak 

count 

(month) 

Wildfowl 

Goosander 

Greylag goose 

winter 3 285 8 8 8 3 

summer 1 45 2 2 2 1 

winter 22 4290 284 267 164 12 

summer 5 510 22 22 14 2 

4 (Oct) 

33 (Oct) 

Mallard winter 4 375 14 14 14 4 5 (Dec) 

Pink-footed 

goose 

winter 39 7650 3404 3227 815 13 

350 (Sep) 

Whooper swan winter 2 315 8 8 7 1 7 (Oct) 

Waders 

Curlew 

winter 2 75 8 1 0 0 

summer 5 420 8 8 0 0 

7 (March) 

Golden plover winter 1 60 3 3 0 0 3 (Oct) 

Lapwing winter 4 345 47 47 0 0 31 (Oct) 

Oystercatcher summer 6 645 7 7 5 4 2 (Jun) 

Redshank summer 1 45 2 2 2 1 2 (Apr) 

Snipe 

winter 2 315 3 3 1 1 

summer 2 195 2 2 0 0 

2 (Apr) 

Woodcock winter 1 30 1 1 1 1 1 (Mar) 

Raptors 

Goshawk 

Hen harrier 

Merlin 

winter 18 4515 19 19 15 15 

summer 1 90 1 1 1 1 

winter 2 780 2 2 2 2 

summer 1 135 1 1 0 0 

winter 1 45 1 0 0 0 

summer 1 45 1 0 0 0 

2 (Oct) 

1 (Mar,Jul) 

1 (Oct, 

May) 


Ornithology 



Species Season Total no. 

of Flight 

Events 

(all VPs) 

Total 

Time 

in 

Flight 

(sec) 

Total 

no. 

of 

Birds 

No. 

of 

Birds 

at 

PCH 

No. of 

Birds at 

PCH 

within 

WP 

No. of 

Flight 

Events 

for 

CRM 

Peak 

count 

(month) 

Peregrine winter 1 30 1 1 0 0 1 (Mar) 

White-tailed 

eagle 

winter 1 330 1 1 1 1 

1 (Oct) 

Other 

Gannet winter 1 75 3 3 0 0 3 (Sep) 

Breeding Raptors 

12.3.13 Six species were recorded during the breeding raptor surveys, including three target species; 

goshawk, peregrine and osprey. Of these species, records of goshawk are presented in 

Figure 12.A2.2 as part of the Confidential Ornithology Appendix, while flights and observation 

data of the other two species are presented in Figure 12.11. Buzzard, kestrel and 

sparrowhawk were also recorded on (or within 2 km of) the proposed site. 

12.3.14 Peregrine records consisted of three individual flights each by a single bird (one on 22 June 

2012 and two, by the same bird, on 13 July 2012). Only one of these flights (the second of 

the two consecutive flights by the same bird on 13 July) was over the forest area within the 

site boundary, the first flight being over the woodland to the west of the site. The other flight 

was recorded over the woodland to the north of the site boundary (Figure 12.11). These 

flights were in addition to the single peregrine flight recorded on 2 March 2012 during the 

standard flight activity surveys (Figure 12.6). There was no evidence of nesting by this 

species within the survey area. 

12.3.15 Osprey records consisted of two flight events, both of which occurred on 22 June 2012, and 

an observation of a single bird on 30 April 2012 (Figure 12.6). The flight events involved 

three and two birds each and were of individuals hunting and interacting over Cobbinshaw 

Reservoir. The single observed bird was perched at the woodland edge approximately 500 

m to the west of the proposed Camilty wind farm site and feeding on a fish. There were no 

other records of this species during the baseline surveys and there was no evidence of 

nesting by this species within the survey area. 

12.3.16 No other target raptor species were recorded during the raptor surveys or any of the other 

ornithology baseline surveys. However, an incidental record of short-eared owl was recorded 

adjacent to the B7008 near Camilty Hill (NT049 592) during a badger survey on 4 May 2012. 

12.3.17 Records of buzzard and sparrowhawk during the raptor surveys included confirmation of 

breeding by both species within 2 km of the site. 

Moorland Breeding Birds 

12.3.18 Results show that the open-ground habitat within the proposed Camilty wind farm site (plus 

surrounding 500m buffer) supports some typical moorland and grassland species, as well as 

those typical of woodland edge and scrub-type habitats, with most species holding several 

breeding territories. 


Ornithology 



12.3.19 All species with a conservation designation recorded as holding a breeding territory based on 

the results of breeding bird surveys are presented in Table 12.11. Figure 12.12 shows the 

locations of the approximate centres of breeding territories derived from the breeding 

moorland bird survey for all of these target species. All the breeding bird survey territory 

results, including those for species without any conservation designations, are presented in 

Appendix 12.1. 

Table 12.11 Moorland Bird Survey Results (number of territories) 

Species 

Annex 

1 

Schedule 

1 

BoCC 

Red 

BoCC 

Amber 

SBL LBAP Estimated no. 

of breeding 

territories 

2012 

Dunnock 3 

Meadow pipit* 8/km 2 

Lapwing 1 

Lesser redpoll 2 

Siskin 1 

Skylark 1 

Sedge warbler 2 

Willow warbler 7 

*Meadow pipit are recorded as the number of individuals per km 2 within the area of open-ground habitat, based upon 

the peak count from surveys carried out before June. 

Winter Walkover Surveys 

12.3.20 The winter walkover surveys recorded a bird community that was, not surprisingly, dominated 

by a typical suite of woodland passerines. In total, 39 species were recorded within the site 

boundary plus 500 m buffer (see Table 12.A.14, Appendix 12.1) of which 18 were target 

species. These species are listed in Table 12.12. This included two Schedule 1 species 

(crossbill and fieldfare), of which fieldfare is also red-listed. Three other red-listed species 

(linnet, lesser redpoll and starling) and 12 other amber-listed species (bullfinch, dunnock, 

kestrel, lesser black-backed gull, mistle thrush, mallard, meadow pipit, pink-footed goose, 

reed bunting, snipe, teal and woodcock) were recorded. Of these, several are also 

represented on the Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL), along with siskin. 


Ornithology 



Table 12.12 Winter Walkover Survey Results 

Species 

Peak 

Count 

Number 

of visits 

on which 

recorded 

Annex 

I 

Schedule 

1 

BoCC 

Redlisted 

BoCC 

Amber 

-listed 

SBL 

West 

Lothian 

LBAP 

Bullfinch 1 (Dec) 1 

Crossbill sp. 287 (Dec) 2 

Dunnock 4 (Oct) 2 

Fieldfare 20 (Oct) 2 

Kestrel 4 (Oct) 2 

Lesser blackbacked 

gull 

4 (Feb) 2 

Lesser redpoll 2 (Feb) 2 

Linnet 1 (Oct) 1 

Mallard 30 (Oct) 1 

Meadow pipit 9 (Oct) 1 

Mistle thrush 3 (Dec) 2 

Pink-footed 

goose 

68 (Dec) 1 

Reed bunting 1 (Dec) 1 

Siskin 20 (Oct) 1 

Snipe 1 (Feb) 1 

Starling 20 (Dec) 1 

Teal 2 (Dec) 1 

Woodcock 20 (Oct) 1 

Breeding Season Point Count Surveys 

12.3.21 A total of 34 species were recorded during the breeding season point count surveys, (see 

Table 12.A.12, Appendix 12.1) of which 14 were target species. These are species are listed 

in Table 12.13. Of these 14 species, 11 were considered to be breeding on the site, with the 

remaining three recorded only as overflying. Few species of conservation value were 

recorded as breeding, with no Annex 1 species and crossbill as the only Schedule 1 species. 

Two red-listed species (song thrush and lesser redpoll) and seven amber-listed species 

(bullfinch, curlew, dunnock, mistle thrush, meadow pipit, whitethroat and willow warbler) were 

recorded as likely breeders. Of these, the red-listed species, plus bullfinch, curlew, siskin and 

dunnock are also Scottish Biodiversity List species. 


Ornithology 



Table 12.13 Species of Conservation Value Recorded During the Breeding Season 

Point Count Surveys 

Species Status Peak 

surve 

y 

count 

Relati 

ve 

abund 

ance* 

Annex 

I 

Sched 

ule 1 

BoCC 

Redlisted 

BoCC 

Amber 

-listed 

SBL 

West 

Lothian 

LBAP 

Bullfinch Breeding 1 (Apr) 12% 

Crossbill 

sp. 

Breeding 8 (Apr) 47% 

Curlew Breeding 2 

(May) 

Dunnock Breeding 7 

(May) 

12% 

53% 

Linnet 

Flying 

over 

1 (Jun) 6% 

Lesser 

redpoll 

Breeding 13 

(Apr) 

53% 

Mistle 

thrush 


Meadow 

pipit 

Breeding 18 

(Jun) 

41% 

Siskin Breeding 21 

(Apr) 

76% 

Starling 

Flying 

over 

4 (Jun) 6% 

Swallow 

Flying 

over 

10 

(Jun) 

12% 

Song 

thrush 

Breeding 17 

(Jun) 

82% 

Whitethroat 


Willow 

warbler 

Breeding 20 

(Jun) 

76% 

* the index of relative abundance represents the percentage of points at which each species was recorded across the 

three survey visits 

Winter Season Point Count Surveys 

12.3.22 A total of 30 species were recorded during the winter season point count surveys (see Table 

12.A.13 Appendix 12.1) of which only 10 were target species. These species are listed in 

Table 12.14. No Annex 1 species were recorded although the Schedule 1 species crossbill, 

fieldfare and redwing were present. Fieldfare and redwing were also the only red-listed 

species recorded, whilst there were also seven amber-listed species (bullfinch, dunnock, 

greylag goose, kestrel, mallard, pink-footed goose and woodcock) recorded. Of these, 

several species are also represented on the Scottish Biodiversity List. 


Ornithology 



Table 12.14 Winter Season Point Count Survey Results for Camilty 

Species 

Peak 

survey 

count 

Relative 

abundanc 

e* 

Annex 

I 

Schedule 

1 

BoCC 

Redlisted 

BoCC 

Amber 

-listed 

SBL 

West 

Lothian 

LBAP 

Bullfinch 4 (Nov) 25% 

Crossbill sp. 32 (Jan) 75% 

Dunnock 4 (Nov) 31% 

Fieldfare 40 (Nov) 6% 

Greylag goose 1 (Jan) 6% 

Kestrel 2 (Nov) 19% 

Mallard 4 (Nov) 6% 

Pink-footedgoose 

37 (Nov) 6% 

Redwing 30 (Nov) 6% 

Woodcock 2 (Nov) 13% 

* the index of relative abundance represents the percentage of points at which each species was recorded across the 

three survey visits 

Pink-footed Goose Connectivity and Roost Surveys 

12.3.23 Large numbers of pink-footed geese were recorded at the Westwater roost site between late 

September and late November 2012, with counts peaking at over 20,000 birds (Table 

12.A.15, Appendix 12.1). During the Westwater surveys relatively few of the pink-footed 

geese using this roost departed in the direction of Camilty when leaving the site at dawn, or 

arrived back to the site from the direction of Camilty at dusk. Thus, an average of 3.3% of all 

dawn departures and dusk arrivals were considered to be on flight-lines that were in the 

direction of Camilty (as determined by the proportion of birds recorded within the 45 o arc 

directed towards Camilty), with this value never exceeding 16% on any survey (Table 

12.A.15, Appendix 12.1). 

12.3.24 Numbers of pink-footed geese recorded during the simultaneous surveys at the proposed 

Camilty wind farm site ranged from 0 to c.1200-1300. A variable, but sometimes high, 

proportion of these birds were recorded flying in a direction that was closely aligned with the 

direction to Westwater, but overall the counts during these surveys at Camilty represented a 

small proportion of the counts of departing or returning birds at Westwater, with this being 

less than 3% in five of the seven surveys from which these data could be extracted (Table 

12.A.16, Appendix 12.1). In one other survey, the Camilty count represented c.18% of the 

coincident count at Westwater, whilst in the remaining instance it exceeded the Westwater 

count, occurring as it did in late November, when numbers at Westwater had declined to low 

levels (see Appendix 12.1 for details). 

12.3.25 No pink-footed geese were recorded on, or flying onto, Cobbinshaw Reservoir during any of 

the eight dusk surveys carried out at this reservoir. 


Ornithology 



Collision Risk Modelling 

12.3.26 CRM followed the method described by Band et al. (2007) which is recommended by SNH. 

This involves a three-step process by first using flight activity survey results as a sample to 

estimate the number of flights likely to take place at rotor height during a certain period of 

time (usually either a year or a breeding season), then calculating what proportion of these 

will take place within the total rotor swept area of the wind farm, assuming no avoidance 

actions, thus placing a bird at risk of collision. The next step is then to calculate the 

probability that if a flight does pass within the rotor swept area of a turbine, then that bird will 

be struck by a rotating blade. This probability is multiplied by the number of at-risk flights 

estimated in Stage 1. The final stage is then to account for the birds’ likely ability to avoid 

colliding with turbines in the vast majority of occasions, by behavioural actions either close to 

individual rotors or by avoiding the wind farm as a whole. This avoidance rate (typically at 

least 98% and up to 99% for geese - SNH 2010) is then multiplied by the figure calculated at 

Stage 2 to give an overall estimate of mortality rate. 

12.3.27 For each target species recorded in sufficient numbers (i.e. four or more ‘at risk’ flights as 

defined in Appendix 12.1), an annual collision rate was predicted using either a directional or 

non-directional (random) version of the model. The choice of model for each target species 

was based on its pattern of flight behaviour within the study area. The directional model is 

appropriate when a species tends to move across 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 and SNH advocates using it for groups such 

as geese, swans, divers and ducks. A non-directional model is more appropriate where the 

flights of a particular species are not predominantly in any direction. 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. 

12.3.28 The Risk Zone within which birds were considered to be at risk of collision was taken to be 

the area enclosed by the tips of the outermost turbine rotors, plus a 200 m buffer to allow for 

a degree of surveyor error when mapping flightlines, which is considered to be in line with 

SNH (2005) guidance. 

12.3.29 A summary of the output from the CRM is presented in Table 12.15 below, with full details 

given in Appendix 12.1, together with all VP flight survey data. 

Table 12.15 Summary of Collision Risk Modelling Output 

Species 

Recommended 

avoidance rate 

Number of collisions 

predicted per year using 

recommended avoidance 

rate 

Number of years predicted to 

be required to obtain one 

collision as derived using 

recommended avoidance rate 

Greylag goose 99% 1.66 0.61 (one bird every 7 or 8 

months) 

Goosander 98% 0.15 6.6 

Pink-footed goose 99% 5.90 0.17 (one bird every 2 months) 

Mallard 98% 0.18 5.5 

Goshawk 98% 0.3 3.3 

Oystercatcher 98% 0.09 11.1 


Ornithology 



Receptor Sensitivity 

12.3.30 A total of 39 species met at least one of the target species criteria identified in paragraph 

12.2.11 and therefore constitute the preliminary VORs of the development site. A summary 

of their presence, conservation status and value, and legislative protection is given in Table 

12.16. 

12.3.31 The aim of the ecological impact assessment is to report on “likely” significant effects, based 

on the EIA Regulations guidance, rather than every conceivable effect. As such, a number of 

species were discounted from the assessment as the baseline survey results indicated that 

significant effects were not likely to occur at a regional scale or above (for example if no 

breeding was recorded and site usage was rare). Consequently, such effects do not require 

assessment under the terms of the EIA Regulations and SNH (2006) guidelines. 

12.3.32 Species that were scoped in or out of the assessment are shown in Table 12.16. Although a 

number of the species that have been scoped out are represented on the Scottish 

Biodiversity List, West Lothian LBAP and/or are Red or Amber-listed species of conservation 

concern (Eaton et al. 2009), and would therefore generally be considered of regional 

conservation value (see Table 12.), their conservation status reflects a decline in numbers 

rather than rarity or a concentration of population in a few sites when in fact they remain 

relatively common and widespread in the UK. Even though these species (e.g. linnet, 

dunnock, skylark, song thrush) were identified as breeding or at least being present within the 

study area, they occurred in very low numbers (absolutely and/or relative to national and 

regional populations) in an area of limited habitat suitability. 

12.3.33 SNH (2006) states that “the inclusion of a species within an LBAP should not lead to SNH 

objecting to a proposal because of local impacts on that species, unless in SNH’s judgement 

the status of the species regionally or nationally could be compromised by the development”. 

This can be reasonably expanded to include Scottish Biodiversity List or red-listed species 

that are included in their respective classification based on a relative decline in numbers from 

a high baseline rather than an inherent rareness at a national level. These species were 

therefore omitted from the impact assessment. 

12.3.34 Furthermore, fieldfare and redwing which appear on the red-list of birds of conservation 

concern and are specially protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 

(1981), are so listed because the UK is at the edge of their breeding range and has very 

small breeding numbers. However, they are very common winter visitors in the UK occurring 

in numbers of tens of thousands nationwide. Indeed no breeding evidence by either of these 

species was recorded in the study area and therefore both were omitted from the impact 

assessment. 

12.3.35 With regard to all omitted species of conservation value, it was concluded that based on 

population estimates in Murray et al. (1998) and Forrester et al. (2007), none were found in 

regionally-important numbers within the study area, and are at most of district conservation 

value. 

12.3.36 Table 12.16 therefore shows that three species will be considered individually, with the 

remainder of breeding species not being of regional or greater significance alone, but are 

considered as part of the overall breeding bird assemblage within the application site 

boundary. The following VORs were therefore subject to impact assessment, and 

correspond with selection guidelines in SNH (2006): 


Ornithology 



• Goshawk; 

• Pink-footed goose; and 

• Greylag goose. 


Ornithology 



Table 12.16 Valued Ornithological Receptors at Proposed Camilty Wind Farm Site 

Species 

Recorded 

presence 10 

UK conservation 

status and level of 

protection 

International 

conservation 

status 11 

NHZ/Regional 

population (Murray et 

al. 1998), unless 

otherwise stated 

Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 

Bullfinch BPC: peak = 1. 

WWO: peak = 6. 

WPC: peak = 4. 

BoCC Amber list; SBL 

Legal protection: 

general, under WCA. 

Non-SPEC (Species 

of European 

Conservation 

Concern) (secure - 

not concentrated in 

Europe). 

2,240-3,360 pairs OUT Part of breeding and winter bird assemblage 

at no more than District level importance. 

Crossbill 

sp. 

BPC: peak = 8 

WWO: peak = 272 

WPC: peak = 32 

LBAP 


Schedule 1. 

Non-SPEC (secure, 


Europe). 



Curlew 

FA: 7 flights, 0 ‘atrisk’, 

peak = 7 

MBS: min. 1 territory 

BPC: peak = 2 

Qualifying species of 

Firth of Forth SPA 

(assemblage only), 

Ramsar and SSSI. 

BoCC Amber List; SBL 


general under WCA, 

Annex II/B. 

SPEC 2 – declining 

(concentrated in 

Europe). 

11,450 pairs OUT Although a qualifying species of the Firth of 

Forth SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI, it is 

unlikely that the birds observed during the 

surveys will have been associated with the 

designated site. Justification for this 

conclusion is provided below in relation to 

connectivity to Designated Sites. 

The survey data suggests that the species is 

part of breeding bird assemblage and is of no 

more than District level importance 

Dunnock MBS: min. 3 

territories 

BoCC Amber List: SBL. 


Non-SPEC (secure - 

concentrated in 

Europe). 

63,000 pairs OUT Part of breeding and winter bird assemblage 


10 

FA=flight activity survey, BRS=breeding raptor survey, MBS=moorland bird survey, BPC=breeding point count, WPC=winter point count, WWO=winter walkover 

11 

The SPEC (Species of European Conservation Concern) classification summarises the conservation status of species with an unfavourable conservation status in Europe. From BirdLife 

International (2004). 



Ornithology


Species 

Recorded 

presence 10 



protection 

International 

conservation 

status 11 

NHZ/Regional 




Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 

WWO: peak = 4 


BPC: peak = 7 

WPC: peak = 4 

Fieldfare WWO: peak = 100 


BoCC Red List 


Schedule 1. 



Europe). 

>5 pairs OUT Part of winter bird assemblage at no more 

than District level importance. 

Gannet 


peak = 3 

BoCC Amber List Non-SPEC (secure - 


Europe). 

39,751 nests (confined 

to Bass Rock, East 

Lothian, over 50 km 

from Camilty) 

OUT 

Non-breeder – rarely present onsite. 

Golden 

plover 

FA: 1 flight, 0 ‘at-risk’, 

peak = 3 


Firth of Forth SPA, 

Ramsar and SSSI. 

BoCC Amber List 


Annex I. 

Non SPEC 

(Concentrated in 

Europe but with a 

Favourable 

Conservation 

Status.) 








The survey data suggests that the species 

does not breed at Camilty and is rarely 

present onsite. 

Goshawk 


peak = 2 

BRS: 3 flights and 

presence 

observations (see 

Confidential 

Ornithology 


Schedule 1. 

Non-SPEC (secure). 

28 pairs Lothian and 

Borders* 

IN 

Regular usage of airspace within site 

boundary presents theoretical collision risk, 

plus reported breeding in close proximity to 

the site by this species of high conservation 

concern. 



Ornithology


Species 

Recorded 

presence 10 



protection 

International 

conservation 

status 11 

NHZ/Regional 




Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 

Appendix;) 

Greylag 

goose 


peak = 33 

WPC: peak = 1 

Species of European 

Conservation Concern, 

UK Species of 

Conservation 

Importance. 

Non-SPEC (Secure, 


Europe). 

1,364 individuals** IN Regular usage of airspace within site 

boundary presents theoretical collision risk. 

BoCC Amber List; 

Legal Protection: 

Annex II Schedule II 

Hen 

harrier 


peak = 1 

BoCC Red List, SBL; 

LBAP 


Annex I, Schedule 1. 

SPEC 3 (depleted, 

large historical 

decline). 

2 pairs Lothian & 

Borders* 

OUT 

Non-breeder – only occasionally present 

onsite. 

Herring 

gull 


peak = 9 

BoCC Red List; SBL 



Non-SPEC – 

Concentrated in 

Europe but with a 

Favourable 

Conservation Status. 

15,650 pairs OUT Non-breeder – presence limited to very 

occasional flights over the site. 

Kestrel WWO: peak = 5 

WPC: peak = 2 


SPEC 3 (Not 


Europe but with an 

Unfavourable 

Conservation Status. 

1,200 pairs OUT Non-breeder – regularly present on site. 

Lapwing 



peak = 31 




Ramsar and SSSI; 

SPEC 2 (vulnerable, 


Europe). 








Ornithology


Species 

Recorded 

presence 10 



protection 

International 

conservation 

status 11 

NHZ/Regional 




Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 

BoCC Red List; SBL 




part of breeding bird assemblage and is of no 

more than District level importance. 

Lesser 

blackbacked 

gull 

WWO: peak = 4 BoCC Amber List. Non-SPEC (Secure, 


Europe). 

4,500 pairs OUT Non-breeder. Part of breeding and winter 

bird assemblage at no more than District level 

importance. 

Linnet WWO: peak = 1 

BPC: peak =1 

BoCC Red List; SBL. SPEC 2 – 

Concentrated in 

Europe and with an 

Unfavourable 

Conservation Status 



Mallard 


peak = 5 


WPC: peak = 4 





BoCC Amber List. 



Europe). 









does not breed at Camilty and is simply part 

of the bird assemblage and is therefore of no 

more than District level importance. 

Meadow 

pipit 

MBS: peak = 25 

BPC: peak = 18 





Europe). 





Ornithology


Species 

Recorded 

presence 10 



protection 

International 

conservation 

status 11 

NHZ/Regional 




Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 

Merlin 


peak = 1 

BoCC Amber List, SBL, 

LBAP 



Borders * 

OUT 

Non-breeder – rarely present onsite. 



Mistle 

thrush 

WWO: peak = 3 

BPC: peak = 1 




Europe). 



Osprey BRS: 2 flights and 1 

observation 




SPEC 3 

(Unfavourable 

conservation status 

in Europe, not 


Europe). 


Borders* 

OUT 


onsite. 

Oystercatcher 


peak = 2 





BoCC Amber List; 

West Lothian LBAP. 





Europe). 











Peregrine 


peak = 1 

BRS: 3 flights, peak = 

1. 

SBL; LBAP 





Borders* 

OUT 


onsite. 



Ornithology


Species 

Recorded 

presence 10 



protection 

International 

conservation 

status 11 

NHZ/Regional 




Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 

Pinkfooted 

goose 


peak = 350 




Westwater and Firth of 

Forth SPA, Ramsar 

and SSSIs; BoCC 

Amber List; UK 

population is 

internationally 

important. 



Europe). 

36,258 individuals** IN A qualifying species of both Westwater SPA, 

Ramsar Site and SSSI and the Firth of Forth 

SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI with regular 

passage of flocks through/over the site in 

winter. 


Annex II/B, Schedule 2. 

Lesser 

Redpoll 

MBS: min. 3 

territories 

WWO: peak = 2 

BoCC Red List; SBL. 





Europe). 




Redshank 


peak = 2 


Firth of Forth SPA, 


BoCC Amber List 

SPEC 2 660 pairs OUT Although a qualifying species of the Firth of 







The survey data suggests that the species 



Redwing WWO: peak = 40 


BoCC Red List. 


Schedule 1 (breeding). 



Europe). 

No breeding records OUT Part of winter bird assemblage at no more 

pairs nationally # 

for SE Scotland. 4-80 

than District level importance 



Ornithology


Species 

Recorded 

presence 10 



protection 

International 

conservation 

status 11 

NHZ/Regional 




Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 

Reed 

bunting 

WWO: peak = 1 BoCC Amber List; SBL. Non-SPEC (secure, 


Europe). 

>1,700 pairs OUT Non-breeder – rarely present onsite . Part of 

winter bird assemblage at no more than 

District level importance. 

Sedge 

warbler 

MBS: min. 2 

territories 

BoCC Amber List. 3,200-3,600 pairs OUT Part of breeding bird assemblage at no more 


Skylark MBS: min. 9 

territories 

WWO: peak = 1 




SPEC 3 (depleted - 


Europe). 



Snipe 


peak = 2 


WWO: peak = 2 



general under WCA, 

Annex II/1. 

SPEC 3 - declining 2,320-3,725 pairs OUT Part of breeding and winter bird assemblage 


Song 

thrush 

MBS: min. 2 

territories 


BoCC Red List; SBL; 

LBAP. 





Europe). 



Starling WWO: peak 20 

BPC: peak = 4 




SPEC 3 - (moderate 

continuing decline 



Swallow BPC: peak = 10 BoCC Amber List. SPEC 3 - (moderate 

continuing decline 

Teal WWO = peak 2 BoCC Amber List. Non SPEC (Secure, 


6,000-8,500 pairs OUT Non-breeder – regularly present onsite. 

78-138 pairs OUT Part of winter bird assemblage at no more 




Ornithology


Species 

Recorded 

presence 10 



protection 

International 

conservation 

status 11 

NHZ/Regional 




Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 

Europe) 

Whitetailed 

eagle 


peak = 1 



SPEC 1 (Species of 

global conservation 

concern) 

0 known pairs. OUT Non-breeder – rarely present onsite. 

Observed bird likely to have been released 

through the East Scotland Sea Eagles 

Project. 

Whitethroat 

BPC: peak = 1 BoCC Amber List. Non SPEC E 6,200 pairs OUT Part of breeding bird assemblage at no more 


Whooper 

swan 


peak = 7 

BoCC Amber List; SBL; 

UK population is 

internationally 

important UK Species 

of Conservation 

Importance. Legal 

protection: Annex I 

(migratory) 



Europe). 

50-300 individuals 

(based on census 

count of 188 

individuals)*** 

OUT 

Part of winter bird assemblage at no more 


Willow 

warbler 

MBS: min. 14 

territories 





Europe). 

112,000 pairs OUT Part of breeding bird assemblage at no more 


Woodcock 


peak = 1 

WWO: peak = 2 

WPC: peak = 2 

BoCC Amber List; SBL. SPEC 3 (declining) 1,400-1,500 pairs OUT Part of breeding and winter bird assemblage 


*Etheridge et al. (2012); ** Mitchell (2012); ***Hall et al (2012); #Forrester et al. (2007). 



Ornithology



12.3.37 The statutory ornithological designated sites in proximity to the proposed development site, 

as outlined in Table 12.9 and presented in Figure 12.5 are also considered in the preliminary 

list of VORs. 

12.3.38 Westwater SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI, which is designated for its overwintering waterfowl 

assemblage and specifically the pink-footed goose population which it supports, is located 

approximately 8 km south east of the proposed development site. Although this is within the 

recognised foraging range of pink-footed geese from their roost sites (i.e. up to 20 km - SNH, 

2012a), the surveys conducted at Westwater and at the proposed Camilty wind farm site in 

autumn 2012 provided no evidence of any strong association between the geese overflying 

the proposed wind farm site and those using the Westwater SPA. These findings are in 

accord with earlier studies that examined the direction of incoming pink-footed goose flights 

to Westwater at dusk over the autumn/winter periods of 2004/05 to 2006/07 (Brown & Brown 

2007). In these earlier studies, less than 2% of all returning birds were recorded as flying in 

from the north west (i.e. the direction to Camilty), with no birds recorded from this direction in 

two of the three autumn/winter periods covered. Furthermore, the main feeding areas used 

by pink-footed geese from the Westwater roost lie to the south west and to the east of 

Westwater, in South Lanarkshire and around West Linton, respectively (Brown & Brown 

2007). As such, there is little reason to expect birds departing from, or arriving to, Westwater 

to overfly the proposed Camilty wind farm site. In relation to the concern raised by SNH over 

connectivity with the Weswater SPA qualifying interest, the evidence from the current survey 

work, together with that from previous studies, strongly suggests that there is little 

connectivity between the proposed Camilty wind farm site and the Westwater SPA in terms of 

the pink-footed goose population. Nevertheless, it remains feasible that some of the pinkfooted 

geese recorded over the proposed Camilty wind farm site were associated with the 

Westwater roost and part of the qualifying interest of the SPA. Therefore, any impacts on 

pink-footed geese will need to be assessed in relation to the SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI as 

well as on the species itself. 

12.3.39 The Firth of Forth SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI, which is also designated for its overwintering 

waterfowl assemblage, as well as internationally and nationally important populations of 

several wading and waterfowl bird species, is located approximately 19 km north of the site. 

Several wading bird species that are qualifying interests of the Firth of Forth SPA were 

recorded at the proposed Camilty wind farm site, including redshank, golden plover, lapwing, 

oystercatcher and curlew. However, it is considered extremely unlikely that any of the 

individuals observed from these species will have been directly associated with the Firth of 

Forth SPA. This is because these particular species are unlikely to range this far from their 

known SPA roosting and foraging areas. Combined with the fact that these species were 

generally only recorded rarely and were only present in low numbers, it is reasonable to 

conclude that the proposed development site is of no more than district importance for these 

species, as presented in Table 12.16, and that any potential impacts would be negligible. 

12.3.40 Of the waterfowl species recorded at the proposed Camilty wind farm site, two are qualifying 

interests of the Firth of Forth SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI; pink-footed goose, which qualifies 

through the internationally important population that the SPA supports; and mallard which 

qualifies as a representative of the SPA assemblage. With regard to mallard, it is unlikely 

that the individuals observed will have been directly associated with the suite of designated 


Ornithology 



sites for the same reasons given above in relation to wading bird species. However, at a 

distance of 19 km from the SPA, the proposed development is located within the 20 km 

foraging range of pink-footed geese. Therefore the birds observed flying over the site during 

flight activity surveys could potentially have been associated with the designated site. 

However, the core pink-footed goose roosting sites of the Firth of Forth (Skinflats, and 

Aberlady Bay) are located over 25 km and 40 km from the site respectively. Consequently, 

while some of the birds observed may have frequented these roosts at some point over the 

winter, it is unlikely that they will have commuted such distances to travel between these 

roost sites and foraging grounds in the vicinity of the proposed development. Therefore, in 

relation to the concerns raised by SNH over issues of connectivity, the likelihood of there 

being any connectivity between the Firth of Forth SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI and the 

proposed Camilty wind farm site is low. As such, potential impacts on this suite of 

designated sites will not be considered any further in this assessment. 

12.3.41 With regard to the notified ornithological interests of Easter Inch Moss and Seafield Law LNR 

(short-eared owl and reed bunting), only reed bunting was recorded at the proposed Camilty 

wind farm site during the entire bird survey programme and even then the species was 

represented only by a single individual during one of the winter walkover surveys. 

Consequently, the survey data strongly indicates that there is no evidence of any 

connectivity between this LNR and the site. As such, potential impacts on this site will not be 

considered any further in this assessment. 

Reference Populations and Conservation Status 

12.3.42 As described in the Assessment of the Significance of Effects section (12.2.35 onwards), the 

level of a potential effect on each VOR was determined by considering the magnitude, extent 

and duration of the effect in relation to the conservation importance (sensitivity) of the VOR 

within the context of the reference population. 

12.3.43 According to SNH (2006), an effect is judged to be of concern where it would “adversely 

affect the favourable conservation status of a species, or stop a recovering species reaching 

favourable conservation status, at international or national level, or regionally”. This is likely 

to be the case where a substantial or moderate adverse effect, not likely to be tolerable, is 

predicted using the matrix procedure, although expert judgement is applied in all cases. 

12.3.44 The term ‘favourable conservation status’ (as articulated within the Habitats Directive) is 

defined by SNH (2006) as “the sum of influences acting on it which may affect its long-term 

distribution and abundance, within the geographical area of interest (which for the purposes 

of the Directive is the EU)”. This interpretation has become increasingly common in court 

cases within the context of the Birds Directive. Conservation status is favourable where: 

• Population dynamics indicate that the species is maintaining its population size on a 

long-term basis as a viable component of its habitats; 

• The natural range of the species is not being reduced, nor is likely to be reduced for 

the foreseeable future; and 

• There is (and will probably continue to be) a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its 

populations on a long-term basis. 

12.3.45 The conservation status of each VOR is therefore considered at the international, national 

and/or regional scale, depending on whether the population is breeding, migratory or 


Ornithology 



overwintering. For non-breeding or migratory species, consideration at a national scale is 

more appropriate than at regional level or lower. 

12.3.46 For breeding birds, the regional scale equates to SNH’s Natural Heritage Zones (NHZ) 12 , 

where there is high biogeographical coherence within each zone. In this case, the proposed 

Camilty wind farm site just lies within the West Central Belt (NHZ 17) but is within 500 m of 

the Border Hills (NHZ 20) and 2 km of the Eastern Lowlands (NHZ 16). The extent of these 

NHZs and the location of the proposed wind farm site within/between them is presented in 

Figure 12.5. However, given the site’s location at the foot of the Pentland Hills, it is 

considered that the Border Hills NHZ more closely reflects the upland moorland and 

plantation habitat within and around the development site, and so is used as the primary 

reference population. Other populations (e.g. Scottish Raptor Study Group survey areas) will 

however be considered where appropriate. 

12.3.47 With regard to overwintering migratory species (e.g. pink-footed geese and greylag geese), 

SNH consider the national or migratory flyway population to be the most relevant 

geographical scale upon which to assess impacts in such species (SNH, 2006). 

12.3.48 In order to determine whether the conservation status of a species’ population will be 

adversely affected, it is necessary to obtain the best data on each VOR’s current population 

and recent trends. These are presented below. 

Goshawk 

12.3.49 Goshawk is listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, although it is greenlisted 

in the latest BoCC report (Eaton et al. 2009) due to its expansion since the mid 20th 

century. There are thought to be approximately 400 pairs in the UK (Robinson, 2005), with at 

least 130 pairs in Scotland (Forrester et al. 2007). The population is slowly expanding from 

two main population clusters, one in the Borders and one in northeast Scotland (Marquiss et 

al. 2003). Further expansion is predicted in these areas due to the apparent abundance of 

breeding habitat in the wider area, mainly coniferous forests which are relatively undisturbed 

and free from persecution (Forrester et al. 2007). 

12.3.50 In Lothian and Borders (the most representative regional reference area to the Border Hills 

NHZ) during 2010, surveys by the Raptor Study Group found a total of 28 out of 58 known 

home ranges which were occupied by pairs. Breeding success in the 28 occupied home 

ranges was around 2.0 fledged young per nesting pair. This productivity figure is slightly 

higher than the Scottish average of 1.9 young per nesting pair (from 97 pairs checked), which 

although reasonably high at 82% success, was down on the previous three years recorded 

by the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme. 

12.3.51 A further 11 home ranges were identified which showed signs of occupancy by at least one 

bird (Etheridge et al. 2012). The NHZ breeding population is therefore at least 28 pairs. 

However, population estimates of goshawk are likely to be underestimates (Forrester et al. 

2007) based on the species’ elusive behaviour (Murray et al. 1998). Therefore, given that the 

Lothian and Borders Raptor Study Group surveys will undoubtedly have missed some 

unknown breeding pairs, the breeding population is estimated to be in the region of 28-35 

pairs. The total population is thus likely to be between 65-85 individual birds. 

12 SNH Natural heritage Futures website (http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-snh/what-we-do/nhf/nhf-downloads/). 


Ornithology 



12.3.52 In summary, based the above information, goshawk is assessed as being a VOR of Regional 

conservation value and is considered to have a favourable conservation status at a national 

and regional (NHZ) level. 

Pink-footed Goose 

12.3.53 Pink-footed goose is an internationally-important species in the UK as at least 20% of the 

non-breeding population is found here, of which at least 50% are found in 10 or fewer sites. 

As such, pink-footed goose is recognised as an amber-listed species of conservation concern 

(Eaton et al. 2009). 

12.3.54 More importantly, however, pink-footed goose is a qualifying species of the Westwater SPA, 

Ramsar Site and SSSI which is located approximately 8 km from the proposed Camilty wind 

farm site, as detailed above. The qualifying population documented on the Westwater SPA 

citation of 29,600 individuals is based on a five-year average of peak counts made between 

1986/87-1990/91. However, more recent counts from the period 2006/07-2010/11 have 

identified an average population of 35,054 individuals (Holt et al. 2012). 

12.3.55 Scotland is a key wintering ground for pink-footed geese from Iceland and Greenland with 

large flocks occurring in eastern and central parts of the country in autumn and winter. 

Approximately 200,000 individuals pass through traditional Scottish sites during the autumn 

with between 100,000-150,000 remaining throughout the winter (Forrester et al. 2007). The 

most recent census data available from 2011 indicated that the British population comprised 

at least 246,725 individuals (Mitchell, 2012). Compared to population estimates in 2010 

(Mitchell 2011), the 2011 figure represents a decrease in the population of 17.2%. Although 

this may be attributable to higher than average winter mortality during the exceptionally harsh 

winters of 2009/10 and 2010/11 and poor breeding success in 2011, this reduced population 

estimate should be accepted with caution as it may well be an underestimate (Mitchell, 

2012). 

12.3.56 Regionally, the traditional roosting sites within the Lothian and Borders area held between 

4056 and 36258 birds over the winter of 2010/11 (October-February), with the most birds 

being present in October and November (Mitchell 2012). Most of these birds will have been 

associated with Westwater SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI. 

12.3.57 Despite the apparent recent declines in the pink-footed goose population, the long term trend 

has been a marked increase and numbers remain high indicating that as a migratory species 

of international conservation value, it has a favourable conservation status at a national level. 

In terms of the importance of the Camilty site for pink-footed geese, neither the site nor the 

immediately surrounding habitat represents important foraging or roosting habitat for the 

species, whilst the peak flock size recorded flying over the application site represented < 1% 

of the regional population. Thus, the site is considered to be of negligible importance for 

pink-footed geese. However, given the close proximity of the site to Westwater SPA, Ramsar 

Site and SSSI and the possibility that birds observed passing over the proposed development 

were associated with this suite of designated sites, pink-footed goose is considered to be a 

VOR of international importance. 

Greylag Goose 

12.3.58 Greylag goose is an amber-listed species, but is internationally-important within the UK as at 

least 20% of the Icelandic-breeding population is found here during the non-breeding season. 

Of these, at least 50% are found in 10 or fewer sites (Eaton et al. 2009). 


Ornithology 



12.3.59 Although some local feral birds may have been present during surveys, with the large 

majority of greylag goose flight activity recorded during autumn and winter migration periods 

(22 out of 27 flights), the birds recorded flying over the proposed Camilty wind farm site are 

likely to be part of the Icelandic-breeding population which winters in the UK. The most 

recent census data available from 2011 indicated that the British population reached 119,915 

individuals (Mitchell, 2012). Compared to population estimates in 2010 (Mitchell 2011), the 

2011 figures represent an increase of 8.1% in the greylag goose population, reflecting the 

species long-term trend of continued growth. The traditional roosting sites within the Lothian 

and Borders area held between 1018 and 1364 birds over the winter of 2010/11 (October- 

February) with the most birds being present in October and December. 

12.3.60 Although there has been a redistribution of greylag geese across the UK in recent years, with 

more northerly areas now favoured, numbers remain high, indicating that as a migratory 

species of international conservation value, it has a favourable conservation status at a 

national level. Greylag goose is a widespread migratory species, and although the peak flock 

size of 33 individuals over the application site represents > 1% of the regional population, 

these were recorded simply overflying the site and neither the site nor the immediately 

surrounding area represent important foraging or roosting habitat for the species. As such, 

the site is at most of local conservation value (low importance) for the species. 


12.4.1 The design process for the proposed wind farm is described in Chapter 3: Design Evolution. 

Preliminary ornithological results at the time of the Design Workshop were used to ensure 

turbines and infrastructure were not located in areas of importance to birds, where possible. 

Given the forested nature of the majority of the site, areas of most importance were outwith 

the site – such as the ponds to the north, Crosswood reservoir to the south, and surrounding 

moorland. The process of moving turbines/ site boundary away from the north, south east 

and west of the site ensured that the core site and proposed turbines avoided areas of 

particular importance to birds –particularly moorland birds and raptors. 


12.5.1 This section presents an evaluation of changes predicted during construction, operational 

and decommissioning activities against the criteria outlined in the Assessment of the 

Significance of Effects section (12.2.35 onwards). The nature of the potential effects of the 

development are considered in turn for each VOR. 

Establishing the Baseline Situation 

12.5.2 As recommended by IEEM (2006), consideration must be given to what the baseline situation 

will be at the time of project construction, as it may not be the same as the conditions at the 

time of the impact assessment. In order to determine this, it is necessary to try to predict any 

changes that will alter conditions prior to the start of the proposed construction. 

12.5.3 As the site lies within an area of commercial forestry, a phased felling strategy by FCS is in 

place until at least 2047, and therefore will likely cover the whole lifespan of the wind farm. 

Phase 1 felling (2013-2017), which includes a large area within the centre of Camilty 

Plantation has been concluded within this management block. There are several other large 

areas out with this block in peripheral coupes that are still due to be felled within this period . 


Ornithology 



Given that the Phase 1 felling is almost compete the loss of potential nesting habitat as a 

result of these operations already represents the baseline conditions of the site. Conversely 

however, the new habitat (open clear fell, young plantation and forest edges) may provide 

feeding and nesting opportunities for the same, or slightly different suite of species. 

12.5.4 Subsequent felling phases may coincide with the construction and operational activities of the 

wind farm, resulting in potential cumulative disturbance or displacement events. 

12.5.5 The most realistic baseline situation will therefore be similar in nature to that which exists at 

present with forestry being cleared and replaced on a rotational basis, albeit different areas 

within the application site will be affected at particular times. 

Consideration of Potential Effects 

12.5.6 Effects are considered for the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the 

proposed development. The different potential effects to be considered are described below 

for each of these phases, with the assessment of the different effects presented on a species 

by species basis for each of the three VORs that have been scoped into this assessment 

(Table 12.16). 

Construction 

Habitat Loss 

12.5.7 Direct habitat loss through wind farm construction may result in loss or fragmentation of 

nesting or foraging habitat for particular species. In the context of wind farms, this is 

generally considered to be of low magnitude, as construction usually only involves small 

losses of land associated with turbine bases, access tracks and other infrastructure 

compared to the overall foraging extent of many key species (Drewitt and Langston, 2006). 

An exception to this may be, for example, where the felling of a tree would result in the loss 

of a traditional raptor nest. 

12.5.8 With respect to birds, in most cases physical land take is likely to be considerably less than 

any effective habitat loss due to displacement from the wind farm site. Effects may be more 

widespread if developments interfere with hydrological patterns of wetland or peatland sites 

(Drewitt and Langston, 2006). 

12.5.9 Habitat at the proposed Camilty wind farm site is generally not considered of high value for 

birds at a regional or larger scale as suggested in the original Ecological Sensitivity Appraisal 

(RPS, 2011). The predominant Phase 1 habitat is conifer plantation which is of low 

conservation value for most VORs, either for breeding or foraging. 

Disturbance 

12.5.10 Disturbance caused by construction operations may directly displace birds from breeding 

sites and/or foraging areas (although the actual habitat quality remains the same) for the 

duration of activities, thus potentially affecting breeding success or survival. In addition to 

these possible effects on individuals and populations, any wind farm construction work 

undertaken during the bird breeding season (mid-March to August, inclusive) carries a risk of 

destruction or damage to occupied bird nests, as well as disturbance to Schedule 1 protected 

species, if mitigation measures are not followed. The active nests of nearly all bird species 

(with the exception of some ‘pest’ species under certain conditions) are protected by the law 

and it is necessary to take measures to ensure compliance with the relevant legislation (see 

Mitigation and Enhancement Measures section). 


Ornithology 



12.5.11 As identified in Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development, the main construction 

period is likely to last for a total of six months, although the precise month or season in which 

the works will begin will depend on a number of factors, including the timing of any planning 

permission and the discharging of any suspended planning conditions (estimated April 2016). 

12.5.12 This section presents an evaluation of changes predicted during operational activities against 

the criteria outlined in the Evaluation Criteria section (section 12.2.35 onwards). The nature 

of the potential operational effects of the development are considered for each VOR. 

Operation 

Disturbance/Displacement 

12.5.13 The displacement effects attributable to wind farms are site-specific and vary according to 

species and season. . As displacement effectively leads to exclusion from areas of suitable 

habitat, it can be regarded as being similar to habitat loss in its effect on birds, although often 

of greater extent. For breeding birds, the displacement from nesting habitat can lead to 

abandonment of the territory; the loss of foraging habitat may lead to a reduction in food 

supply, which in turn, can lead to reduced breeding success and/or survival rates or 

abandonment of the territory. The implications of such displacement at the population scale, 

in terms of the effect on the viability of the population, depends on the importance of the area 

from which birds are displaced and the capacity of alternative habitats to support displaced 

birds. 

12.5.14 Noise and visual disturbance to birds due to operational wind farms is considered to be of a 

much lower intensity than during construction/decommissioning phases, and is limited to brief 

maintenance activities as well as low-level normal operational turbine activity. 

Collisions with Turbines 

12.5.15 Collision of a bird with the turbine rotors usually results in the death of the bird. The effect 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. In general, the effect 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 (e.g. 

larger raptors and geese). Conversely, the effect will often be insignificant for short-lived 

species with high reproductive rates found at high densities, including most passerines. 

12.5.16 At Camilty, 132 flights in total were recorded for 18 target species. However, almost two 

thirds of flights (86) were undertaken by just three species; pink-footed goose (40), greylag 

goose (27) and goshawk (19). For these and three other species (goosander, mallard and 

oystercatcher), there were a sufficient number ‘at risk’ flights (i.e. four or more flights as 

explained in Section 12.3.27) to allow accurate modelling of collision risk to be undertaken. 

For the remaining 14 species there were fewer than four ‘at risk’ flights recorded and 

therefore too few flights to allow robust collision risk predictions to be made. As such these 

species were not included in the modelling process. 

12.5.17 Of the six species for which collision risk modelling was undertaken only the predictions for 

pink-footed goose, greylag goose and goshawk produced theoretical collision mortality 

estimates which were of concern (i.e. when taking into account the predicted frequency of 

collisions in relation to each species regional population and conservation status). The 

following sections include an assessment of the effects of collision mortality for each of these 


Ornithology 



three VORs (i.e. 12.5.47 – 12.5.55 for goshawk and 12.5.66 – 12.5.72 for the two goose 

species). 

Barrier Effects 

12.5.18 Individual turbines or the proposed wind farm as a whole may present a barrier to the 

movement of birds, restricting or displacing birds from much larger areas. Birds may avoid 

flying through or over wind farms by altering local flight paths or migration flyways. 

12.5.19 The effect this would have on a population is subtle, and difficult to predict with any certainty. 

If birds regularly have to fly over or around obstacles or are forced into sub-optimal habitats, 

this may result in greater energy expenditure (Drewitt and Langston 2006). This will reduce 

the efficiency with which they accumulate reserves, potentially affecting their survival or 

breeding success. During the lifetime of the proposed wind farm, there is evidence that some 

birds may habituate to the presence of turbines (e.g. Madsen and Boertmann, 2008), and so 

this effect is likely to be greatest in the short-term. 


12.5.20 Potential disturbance effects associated with decommissioning are presumed to be the same 

as those identified for construction, albeit taking place over a shorter timescale at the end of 

the operational lifetime of the proposed wind farm. This assumes that there is no permanent 

displacement of birds from the wind farm due to disturbance effects, although activities will be 

subject to the same legal restrictions to avoid the destruction of nest sites, or disturbance to 

protected species. 

12.5.21 Given the similarities between the effects of construction and decommissioning, the effects of 

decommissioning are not considered separately for each species. 

Goshawk 

12.5.22 Due to the sensitive nature of the information associated with goshawk, some of the 

information relating to the assessment of effects on this species is presented as confidential 

information in the Confidential Ornithology Appendix. 

Construction – Habitat Loss 

Nesting Habitat 

12.5.23 Details of the two known nest sites (from different years) of goshawk within the vicinity of the 

proposed Camilty wind farm are provided in the Confidential Ornithology Appendix. Both of 

these occurred outwith the development site boundary, with one having been felled along 

with much of the forest coupe in which it was located, as part of the standard felling cycle. 

12.5.24 The proposed development will therefore not result in the loss of any known goshawk nesting 

sites. Consequently, the effects of nest site loss are considered to be of negligible magnitude 

on a VOR of medium conservation importance and, by implication, any effects are concluded 

to be of a Negligible level on the population at both a local and regional level, and therefore 

not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

12.5.25 While it is possible that other nest sites may be established within, or in close proximity to the 

proposed development site between now and the commencement of works, it is difficult to 

predict where such nest sites are likely to be located. Goshawks usually nest in large trees 

over 20 m in height and typically in areas of coniferous forest (often preferring larch trees) 

which have a high density of reasonably well-spaced (2.4-3.8 m) mature trees and well 


Ornithology 



developed canopy cover surrounded by relatively open woodland (Hardey et al., 2009). This, 

however, does not correspond closely with the habitat associated with the known nest sites in 

the vicinity of the proposed Camilty wind farm site (both of which were located within dense 

coupes of sitka spruce-dominated plantation forestry, no more than 15 m in height). This 

implies that the nesting habitat used in recent years at Camilty plantation is sub-optimal. 

12.5.26 However, it is representative of the remaining areas of as yet unfelled mature/semi-mature 

forestry which exists within and immediately surrounding the proposed development site, as 

well as of much of the forest habitat in the wider area which is likely to be within the local 

goshawk’s core home range (typically 3 km, but up to 10 km, from the nest, or between 1500 

ha and 5000 ha of suitable habitat - Rutz, 2006, Hardey et al. 2009, SNH, 2012a). 

Consequently, it is reasonable to assume such plantation forest represents the most suitable 

nesting habitat available to local birds and is likely to be used for potential nesting attempts in 

the future. Therefore, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that goshawks may establish a nest in one 

of the remaining areas of unfelled forestry which exists within and immediately surrounding 

the proposed development site. 

12.5.27 Of the six turbines, only Turbine 6 and an approximately 200 m section of its associated 

access track will require the felling of mature/semi mature trees resulting in the loss of 

approximately 2.6 ha of potential goshawk nesting habitat from the commercial plantation 

(from the approximate 21 ha footprint of the proposed wind farm which will be lost to 

commercial forestry over the life time of the wind farm – most of this has recently been felled 

or replanted, so will not involve felling mature trees). However, there is at least 1500 ha of 

suitable alternative nesting habitat for goshawk in the wider Camilty area, within 3 km of the 

2011 and 2012 nest sites (Figure 12.A2.3). Therefore, the likelihood that a future nest would 

be established in the footprint of Turbine 6 between now and the commencement of works is 

considered to be extremely unlikely. Nonetheless, if this were to occur then this theoretical 

nest site would be permanently lost. 

12.5.28 Considering the loss of a previous nest site and the potential establishment of new sites 

(which may occur in part as a result of the rotational felling practice which will have been in 

operation at the site in the three or four years prior to construction), it is anticipated that this 

would result in an effect of small magnitude, particularly given the availability of suitable 

alternative nesting habitat in the wider area. The regional importance of the site for goshawk 

(medium conservation importance) means that such an effect is expected to result in a level 

of effect that would be Slight, which is not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

Foraging Habitat 

12.5.29 With regard to foraging habitat, the vast majority of the proposed wind farm (i.e. Turbines 1-5 

and over 90% of the wind farm infrastructure) will be located within the clear-fell and recently 

restocked areas of the site. Although goshawks may still forage over and within these open 

areas, the scale of habitat modification through construction (relative to the wider availability 

of foraging habitat within the home range of these birds) is considered likely to represent an 

effect of negligible magnitude only, and hence the level of any effects is likely to be 

Negligible. 

12.5.30 Only Turbine 6 (which will be installed by key-holing within the forestry), and an 

approximately 200 m section of its associated access track will require the felling of trees. 

This will result in the loss of approximately 2.6 ha of potential goshawk habitat. Whilst 

several of the recorded goshawk flights passed within 100 m of this location (Figure 12.A2.2), 


Ornithology 



there is an abundance of alternative and equally suitable goshawk foraging habitat in the 

wider Camilty area (at least 1500 ha within 3 km of the recent nest sites, as detailed above). 

In this context the loss of potential goshawk foraging habitat during construction would be 

very minor and therefore expected to have a negligible effect on the local goshawk 

population resulting in a Negligible level of effect, which would not be significant in terms of 

the EIA Regulations. 

Construction - Disturbance 


12.5.31 It is feasible that construction works could cause disturbance to goshawk nesting in the 

currently used location, or elsewhere within, or near to, the proposed Camilty wind farm site 

should there be a future change in nesting site. 

12.5.32 A survey of expert opinion identified that goshawks in Europe had a reasonably high level of 

tolerance to human disturbance and human-altered landscapes (Ruddock and Whitfield 

2007). Evidence suggested that disturbance during the breeding season was found to elicit 

responses ranging from static (e.g. alarm calling) to active (e.g. taking flight) up to 750 m 

from a nest and that nest abandonment was likely to occur when the disturbance source was 

within 100 m of a nest site. Disturbance free zones of 400 m during the nest building and 

incubation period, reduced to 200 m once the young are at least 10 days old, have been 

advocated in several studies, although an upper disturbance free zone of 300-500 m is a 

more widely accepted precautionary range. 

12.5.33 The currently used goshawk nest site lies beyond these distances of the proposed Camilty 

wind farm site. Furthermore, the previously used nest site in this area occurred within 

approximately 20 m of a forestry track which was used by dog walkers, motorcycles and 

forestry vehicles and was approximately 230 m from the A70 road (FHSE, 2012). Successful 

breeding occurred at this site, at least in 2011. Therefore, it is likely that birds occupying this 

territory are relatively tolerant of disturbance and less likely to be affected by construction 

activities. Consequently, if the existing nest site continues to be used, construction 

disturbance from the proposed development is expected to result in at most a small 

magnitude of effect on the population at both a local and regional scale. Combined with the 

medium conservation importance of this VOR, this would produce a Slight level of effect, 

which is not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

12.5.34 While other nest sites may be established within, or in close proximity to, the proposed 

development site between now and the commencement of construction of the proposed 

development, the likelihood of this is considered to be very low given the availability of 

suitable alternative nesting habitat in the wider Camilty area, as detailed above (see 12.5.27). 

Nonetheless, if a nest site were to be established in close proximity to the proposed 

development site then there would be potential for the nesting birds to be disturbed by the 

construction works. 

12.5.35 In the event of a shift from the current nest site, the worst case scenario is that nesting 

occurs within 300 - 500m of construction-related activities on the proposed development site, 

which could result in the permanent loss of any eggs or young which had been produced and 

the short-term displacement to other locations in the surrounding area. Given the relatively 

small size of breeding goshawk population in south-east Scotland (28 pairs - Etheridge et al. 

2012), the resulting breeding failure could be expected to have an effect of medium 

magnitude, leading to a Moderate level of effect. However, this is considered a highly unlikely 


Ornithology 



scenario. Any change in nesting locations is more likely to result in nesting being at distances 

greater than 300 - 500m from construction-related activities on the proposed development 

site, so that the level of effect would be at most Slight (as for construction disturbance effects 

predicted at the currently used nest site – see 12.5.33). 


12.5.36 As mentioned above, the vast majority of the proposed wind farm (over 90%) will be located 

within the clear-fell and recently restocked areas of the site. Although goshawks may still 

forage over and within these open areas there is considered to be an abundance of 

alternative and equally suitable goshawk foraging habitat in the wider Camilty area (at least 

1500 ha within 3 km of the recent nest sites – see 12.5.27). Therefore, any birds which may 

be dissuaded from foraging over and within the proposed development site or the 

immediately surrounding area will simply be displaced to these other areas. Goshawks are 

also known to be relatively tolerant of human disturbance (Ruddock and Whitfield, 2007) and 

therefore foraging birds are unlikely to be significantly affected by ongoing construction 

works. Consequently, the effects of disturbance during construction are likely to be of 

negligible magnitude on the local goshawk population and therefore the level of effect is 

anticipated to be Negligible which is not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

Operation - Disturbance/Displacement 


12.5.37 As detailed above (12.5.33), the existing goshawk nest site is located sufficiently far from the 

proposed development site that disturbance from the proposed wind farm (either during 

construction or operation) is unlikely to affect nesting. Consequently, if the existing nest site 

continues to be used, operational disturbance from the proposed development is expected to 

result in at most a small magnitude of effect on the population at both a local and regional 

scale. Combined with the medium conservation importance of this VOR, this would produce a 

Slight level of effect, which is not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations 

12.5.38 As argued above (12.5.34) it is unlikely that there will be a change in goshawk nest site that 

results in the establishment of a new site within 300 – 500m of the proposed turbine locations 

prior to the start of the operational phase. However, if this were to occur, then disturbance 

from the operational activities could (as a worst case scenario) lead to abandonment of the 

(theoretical) nest site, with an alternative site having to be established elsewhere within the 

1500+ ha of potentially suitable nesting habitat in the wider Camilty area (and within 3km of 

the known recently occupied nest sites). 

12.5.39 Given that this is what happened to the 2011 nest site as a result of the Phase 1 felling 

operations (and that the birds are nesting within a forest habitat in which there is a rotational 

felling cycle), it is anticipated that the local goshawks are relatively habituated to such 

displacement. Therefore, the worst case scenario effects are predicted to be of no more than 

small magnitude on VOR of medium conservation importance. In some circumstances, this 

displacement could result in a moderate to slight level of effect considering the regional 

importance of the goshawk population. However, the local goshawks have bred successfully 

in close proximity to felling operations (estimated to be in the region of 300-500 m) in both 

2011 and 2012. It is therefore considered that any effects of disturbance and displacement 

on nesting goshawks will be no more than slight, which is not significant in terms of the EIA 

Regulations. 


Ornithology 



12.5.40 It is expected that the proposed wind farm will be surrounded by restocked forestry. These 

areas are either already replanted or are expected to be planted within the next five or six 

years and thus should be reaching maturity (approximately 30 years old) towards the end of 

the wind farm’s life span (approximately 2042, assuming the proposed wind farm is 

operational by 2017 and has a lifespan of 25 years). In the long-term, these areas are likely 

to represent potentially suitable goshawk nesting habitat within the operational life of the wind 

farm. Operational disturbance could prevent goshawks from establishing nest sites within 300 

– 500m of the turbines, but this effect is expected to be of small magnitude only because of 

the extent of potentially suitable nesting habitat in the surrounding area (12.5.27). Also, if 

goshawks do establish a nest site near to the wind farm it would be evidence their tolerance 

of the wind farm’s presence and any disturbance associated with it. Consequently any 

effects in the long-term are predicted to be of small to negligible magnitude and hence the 

level of any effects will be at most slight (and not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations). 


12.5.41 As mentioned above, it is envisaged that the proposed wind farm will be surrounded by 

restocked forestry, the vast majority of which is expected to be reaching maturity towards the 

end of the wind farm’s life span. In the short- to medium-term (10-15 years) these areas will 

comprise saplings and young conifers, no more than 10 m in height. Although unsuitable as 

nesting habitat, goshawks may still forage over and within these more open and establishing 

afforested areas. 

12.5.42 In the medium- to long-term (15-25 years), the trees will be semi-mature to mature and 

around 15-20m in height. This is more representative of the forestry which is currently 

present across much of the Camilty plantation and which the goshawks currently hunt over. 

12.5.43 No literature was found on displacement of goshawks by wind farms specifically. However, 

and as a worst case scenario, based on the 300 - 500 m disturbance limit for goshawk 

(Ruddock and Whitfield 2007), it is reasonable to assume that the worst case scenario is that 

birds would avoid the turbines up to this distance. This would result in the effective loss of 

between 179 ha and 291 ha (i.e. the convex polygon encompassing the six turbines with a 

50m buffer, plus an additional 300m and 500m buffer, respectively) of potential foraging 

habitat through displacement, although this loss would occur during the operational life span 

of the wind farm only. This would correspond to the effective loss of between 12% and 19% 

of the available goshawk foraging habitat in the wider Camilty area (at least 1500 ha within 

the species minimum core home range). 

12.5.44 Compared to other activities (e.g. forestry felling, as evidenced at Camilty in 2012), the 

operational development would constitute a relatively predictable disturbance source. 

Therefore, there is a reasonably high likelihood that goshawks would habituate to the 

presence of the turbines to an extent. As explained above (12.5.32), goshawks are known to 

be relatively tolerant of human disturbance and human-modified landscapes (Ruddock and 

Whitfield, 2007). Therefore, goshawks might be more likely to forage within the 300m and 

500m ‘disturbance limit’ and as such the effective habitat loss through displacement would be 

at the lower end of the scale (i.e. between 10% and 15%, equivalent to displacement 

distances of 300 – 400m around the convex polygon, with 50m buffer, encompassing the 

turbines). 

12.5.45 The effects of displacement may be further reduced by the fact that there is an abundance of 

alternative and equally suitable foraging (and nesting) habitat in the wider area to which birds 


Ornithology 



may be displaced – i.e. within and immediately around the area defined by a 3km radius of 

the known nest sites (Figure 12.A2.3, Confidential Ornithology Appendix). For instance, to 

the west of Harburnhead Hill (the western extent of the assumed Camilty goshawks’ 

minimum range) there are several extensive and interconnecting tracts of coniferous 

plantation forestry associated with Pearie Law, Pate’s Hill, Woodmuir Plantation and Worm 

Law totalling approximately 2300 ha. Although the Scottish Raptor Study Group records 

were not reviewed for these areas, the available information (e.g. Forrester et al. 2007) 

suggests that goshawk numbers in these more central parts of southern Scotland are low, 

indicating that the likelihood of displaced birds from Camilty being excluded through intraspecific 

competition from birds already established in these areas is low. 

12.5.46 Consequently, and in the context of the regional/NHZ population, the displacement of the 

goshawks by the operation of the proposed wind farm is anticipated to be of no more than 

small magnitude. This is particularly the case given the extent of similar plantation forest 

habitat within the wider area (see 12.5.45 above), together with the fact that the rotational 

management of these commercial plantations will mean that felling activities will frequently 

cause displacement of the local goshawks, so that they are likely to relatively habituated to 

displacement effects. Considering the regional importance of the goshawk population 

(medium conservation importance), this would result in a slight level of effect from 

displacement associated with the wind farm, which is not significant in terms of the EIA 

Regulations. 

Operation – Collisions with Turbines 

12.5.47 Before discussing the risk of goshawks colliding with the wind turbines, it is important to note 

that goshawks are remarkably elusive and often go unrecorded (Murray et al. 1998). 

Furthermore, SNH accepts that it is unlikely that vantage point surveys will detect and 

adequately represent the true levels of goshawk flight activity at a site due to the fact that a 

large proportion of goshawk flight activity is spent below tree canopy level (SNH, 2010). 

Therefore, the flight activity recorded at collision height is likely to be an overestimation 

compared to overall flying time by the species, although this is unlikely to affect estimates of 

collision risk because the total amount of estimated flight time at potential collision height is 

unaffected. 

12.5.48 Goshawk flights were recorded across the entire proposed Camilty wind farm site throughout 

the year, although most flights (13 out of 19) were observed during the post-breeding season 

in the autumn and early winter months of 2011 (see Table 12.10; Appendix 1 in Appendix 

12.1). At least three (and most possibly substantially more) of the 19 flights were of juveniles, 

with these three flights occurring in late October to mid November and accounting for c.22% 

of the recorded flight activity time. The majority of flights which passed directly over the clearfelled 

areas of the proposed wind farm site were straight (directional) flights, although several 

of these developed into more characteristic circling (non-directional) flights once they 

reached the adjacent mature forestry coupes which surround the site (Figure 12.A2.2 in the 

Confidential Ornithology Appendix). Most of the flights over the intact forestry surrounding 

the site were circling flights. Of the six flights which were recorded during the breeding 

season (taken to be from March to August) around half were directional flights which passed 

over the site, while the other half involved circling flights mainly to the east and north east of 

the site. 


Ornithology 



12.5.49 Based on the observed flight activity, the collision risk model estimates 0.3 goshawk 

collisions every year (as calculated using the recommended 98% avoidance rate for this 

species – SNH 2010). This equates to one goshawk mortality approximately every three 

years and four months and between seven and eight mortalities over the 25-year operational 

life span of the proposed wind farm. 

12.5.50 At the national level, the predicted annual collision rate would represent just 0.2% of the 

breeding population (assuming all collisions were of breeding adults) and no more than 0.1% 

of the total population (at least 130 pairs / 260 individuals - Etheridge et al. 2012) every three 

and a third years. 

12.5.51 At the regional (Border Hills NHZ) level, this collision rate would represent the loss of 

approximately 0.5% (0.42%-0.54%) of the estimated Lothian and Borders breeding 

population (28-35 pairs - Etheridge et al. 2012), if it is assumed that all collisions are of 

breeding adults, and between 0.35% and 0.46% of the total estimated regional population 

(65-85 individuals) every year. Over the life span of the wind farm, this would equate to 

between 11% and 13% of the current Lothian and Borders breeding population and between 

9% and 12% of the current total population (assuming maintenance of a stable population 

across the region and the continued presence of a resident pair of goshawks in the Camilty 

area over this period, the latter of which will depend on replacement of the breeding adults 

that die, whether from collisions or other causes). In relating the level of predicted collision 

mortality over the life span of the wind farm to the current population size, it is important to 

bear in mind that goshawks are not particularly long-lived birds (see 12.5.52 below), so there 

would be substantial natural turnover in the population during this period. 

12.5.52 With regards to how this compares to natural mortality rates, Kenward (2006) reviewed 

several population studies from Scandinavia, Europe and North America and found 

background mortality rates to be 15%-21% in adults, 31%-35% in second year birds and 

40%-42% in juveniles. The Border Hills NHZ estimated population of breeding birds of 

between 28 and 35 pairs (56-70 individuals) would therefore be expected to have a natural 

adult mortality rate of between one bird approximately every month or between 10 and 13 

birds per year (based on an average adult mortality rate of 18%). This equates to between 

33 and 42 deaths through natural mortality over the same period of time that it is predicted 

that one mortality would occur through collision with the wind turbines at the proposed 

Camilty wind farm (i.e. every three years and four months). Over the course of the life span 

of the wind farm, this would be between 250 and 315 mortalities by natural causes, 

compared to an estimated seven to eight mortalities through turbine collisions. If it is 

assumed that all collisions at Camilty would be of breeding adults, this equates to an 

increase of between 2.5% and 3.0% of the adult natural mortality rate. However, the 

additional mortality of breeding adult birds from collisions is likely to be less than this because 

some of the flight activity recorded at Camilty was of juvenile birds (see 12.5.48 above). The 

additional mortality will have a proportionately smaller impact on the juvenile age class, given 

the expected higher natural mortality rates amongst juveniles than amongst older age 

classes. 

12.5.53 It is considered that the number of goshawk mortalities caused through collisions with the 

wind turbines of the proposed development would represent a small to moderate proportion 

of the population at a regional/NHZ scale, compared to the background mortality rates. Any 

effects on the population are therefore predicted to be of at most of medium magnitude, and 


Ornithology 



to be of moderate level of effect, considering the regional importance of the goshawk 

population. 

12.5.54 However, three other factors need to be considered in assessing the level of effect. First, little 

evidence from elsewhere has emerged to suggest that goshawks are vulnerable to collision 

mortality with wind turbines and there is a total of only five collisions reported from across 

Europe (http://www.mugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.312579.de, as at 18 

December 2012). Second, it is recognised from the species’ known regional distribution in 

Scotland (e.g. Forrester et al. 2007, Murray et al. 1998) that the Camilty goshawks are at the 

edge of the core, Southern Scotland (i.e. Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway) 

population. Therefore, any mortality of goshawks at Camilty will be of birds at the periphery 

of the species’ regional range, rather than individuals from the core population. If, 

hypothetically, the breeding pair at Camilty were to be lost through collision mortality and, 

again hypothetically, the birds were not replaced, or at least were not immediately replaced, 

by individuals from the core population, then the number of birds killed over the course of the 

wind farm’s life span would be much less. Third, the changing nature of the forest habitat 

within the proposed development site, resulting from the standard forest management cycle, 

is likely to reduce the levels of goshawk flight activity over this area, at least for part of the 

proposed wind farm’s life span. This is because substantial parts of the coupes have been 

felled recently, or will be in the near future, whilst remaining stands have not yet reached a 

stage at which they are likely to provide suitable goshawk habitat. Thus, over the period of 

the wind farm’s life span the average level of goshawk flight activity is likely to be less than 

that recorded during the course of the baseline surveys (with a consequently lower overall 

collision risk). As such, any subsequent effect on the regional population in the long-term 

would be slight. 

12.5.55 Based on the argument presented above it is therefore predicted that collision mortality will 

represent an effect of small magnitude on this VOR of medium conservation importance, and 

therefore the level of effect of collision mortality on the regional/NHZ goshawk population 

would be no more than Slight, which is not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

Operation – Barrier Effects 

12.5.56 Given the location of the current and previously known goshawk nest sites (Figure 12.A2.1, 

Confidential Ornithology Appendix), it would be reasonable to assume that the proposed 

Camilty wind farm site represented a central part of the local goshawk territory. Within the 

species’ minimum 3km radius core home range, this territory is expected to include 

approximately 100ha of felled/restocked and intact coupes of coniferous forestry plantation 

(excluding the wind farm envelope and a surrounding buffer of 300 m, taking the lower end 

goshawk disturbance distance into consideration) from within the Camilty plantation, plus a 

further 1230ha of woodland and forest habitat (largely coniferous plantation but with some 

areas of broadleaved woodland). These areas are shown in Figure 12.A2.3, Confidential 

Ornithology Appendix. 

12.5.57 It can be seen from Figure 12.A2.3 that this forestry habitat is relatively elongate in its 

configuration, with the proposed wind farm site located between adjacent parts of this swathe 

of potentially suitable foraging and nesting habitat. When the location of the 57ha wind farm 

envelope (i.e. the convex polygon encompassing the six turbines, with a 50m buffer to 

account for blade sweep) is considered in combination with the potential 300 – 500m 

disturbance zone for the species (Ruddock and Whitfield 2007, see 12.5.37 – 12.5.46 


Ornithology 



above), then connectivity between the adjacent areas of woodland appears to be relatively 

restricted in some areas. 

12.5.58 To the north east of the proposed wind farm site for instance, where the extent of adjacent 

habitat-connecting woodland is greatest at approximately 610 m, the width of this corridor 

reduces to between 310 m and 110 m for the lower (300 m) and upper (500 m) disturbance 

ranges respectively. At the upper, 500 m disturbance range, this effect is made more 

significant by the fact that the wind farm’s effective ‘area of influence’ would be located close 

(less than 250 m) to a narrow section in the woodland corridor, approximately 400 m wide by 

750 m long, which connects Camilty Plantation to West Cairns Plantation (i.e. at NT0759). 

As a result, connectivity between West Cairns Plantation and the local goshawk’s wider 

territory to the north and west would be limited to a narrow corridor approximately 1.5 km in 

length and between 110 m and 400 m in width. Taking this as a worst case scenario, 

although connectivity would not be severed completely, the presence of the wind farm could 

limit the movement of goshawks between these areas, thus exerting a partial barrier effect on 

the local breeding pair and potentially leading to exclusion of West Cairns Plantation from 

their foraging range. 

12.5.59 This may not necessarily result in a significant adverse effect on the local goshawk 

population, as the birds may simply be displaced to other areas of equally suitable foraging 

and nesting habitat in the wider area. For example, to the west of the assumed Camilty 

goshawks’ minimum core territory there are several extensive and interconnecting tracts of 

coniferous plantation forestry which would be located within the species maximum 10 km 

home range distance (SNH, 2012a). These include areas of forestry associated with Pearie 

Law, Pate’s Hill, Woodmuir Plantation and Worm Law and which total approximately 2300 ha 

of forest habitat. As described above (see 12.5.45), the available information suggests that 

goshawk numbers in these more central parts of southern Scotland are low, so that it is 

unlikely that displaced birds from Camilty would be excluded through intra-specific 

competition from birds already established in these areas. 

12.5.60 Furthermore, it is important to also consider the effects of forestry activities on the 

connectivity of goshawk habitat. In terms of FCS’s current felling plan it is expected that by 

the time the proposed wind farm could become operational (late 2016 or 2017) the woodland 

habitat along the connective corridor to the east and north east of the site would be reduced 

to fragmented stands of mature woodland interspersed by felled and recently restocked 

coupes. Consequently, it is anticipated that West Cairns Plantation will have become 

partially segregated from Camilty Plantation and the wider habitat to the west prior to the 

influence of the wind farm’s presence having taken any effect. With all of the forestry 

activities which have taken place in the last year and which are scheduled to take place in the 

years prior to operation, it is likely that the local goshawks’ use of the habitat will have altered 

substantially. 

12.5.61 Therefore, should the goshawk be excluded and displaced from West Cairns Plantation any 

effect on the population is expected to be of small magnitude, resulting in slight level of 

effect, given the regional importance of the goshawk population. 

12.5.62 As explained above (12.5.44), in relation to disturbance and displacement, it is likely that 

goshawks would continue to fly between 300 m and 500 m and therefore the extent of the 

habitat-connecting woodland corridor to the north east of the wind farm site would more likely 

be in the region of 200 m - 300 m in width. Although the proposed wind farm would limit (but 


Ornithology 



not completely sever) direct connectivity between West Cairns Plantation and other areas of 

forest, goshawks would still be able to access these areas by flying around the wind farm via 

the woodland areas around Harburn House Estate. Considering the relatively small scale of 

the proposed 6-turbine development (approximately 57ha, based upon the convex polygon 

described in 12.5.57 above), it is anticipated that any increases in energy expenditure by 

goshawks would be of negligible magnitude. Any barrier effects posed by the wind farm on 

the movement of goshawks through/within their territory are, therefore, expected to be of no 

more than a slight level of effect, which is not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

Pink-footed Goose and Greylag Goose 

Construction – Habitat Loss 

12.5.63 All pink-footed goose and greylag goose records were of flocks of birds using the airspace 

above the site. There is no evidence to suggest that either of these species utilise the habitat 

within the application site boundary or any other areas within 500 m of the site for feeding, 

roosting or breeding. The coniferous forestry and marshy grassland habitats present within 

and immediately surrounding the site are generally considered to be unsuitable for these 

species. As such, the effects of habitat loss to pink-footed geese (a VOR of high 

conservation importance) and greylag geese (a VOR of low conservation importance) are of 

negligible magnitude, and thus the level of effect from construction of the proposed wind farm 

is predicted to be negligible. 

Construction - Disturbance 

12.5.64 As stated above (12.5.63), all pink-footed goose and greylag goose records were of flocks of 

birds using the airspace above the site. There is no evidence to suggest that either of these 

species utilise the habitats within the site boundary or any other areas within 500 m of the 

site for feeding, roosting or breeding. As such, effects of disturbance on pink-footed geese 

and greylag geese during the construction of the proposed wind farm are of negligible 

magnitude and are predicted to produce a negligible level of effect, which is not significant in 

terms of the EIA Regulations. 

Operation - Disturbance/Displacement 

12.5.65 As stated above (12.5.63), in relation to construction, all pink-footed goose and greylag 

goose records were of flocks of birds using the airspace above the site. There is no evidence 

to suggest that either of these species utilise the habitats within the site boundary or any 

other areas within 500 m of the site for feeding, roosting or breeding. As such, any effects of 

disturbance on pink-footed geese and greylag geese during the operation of the proposed 

wind farm are predicted to be of negligible magnitude, producing a negligible level of effect, 

which is not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

Operation – Collisions with Turbines 


12.5.66 Of the 40 flights recorded passing over and adjacent to the proposed site, 13 (815 birds) 

were “at risk”. The collision risk modelling produced a collision estimate of 5.9 birds per year 

which is approximately 1 bird every two months at the 99% avoidance rate as accepted by 

SNH (SNH 2010). This would result in approximately 147.5 collisions over the 25 year 

lifespan of the proposed wind farm. 


Ornithology 



12.5.67 The most recent estimate for the over-wintering population of Greenland/Icelandic pinkfooted 

geese in Great Britain is 246,725 birds (Holt et al. 2012). Based on this figure, the 

predicted annual collision rate would represent less than 0.01% of the national and migratory 

flyway population (which is the geographical scale relevant to the assessment of migratory 

species, according to SNH, 2006). 

12.5.68 With regard to impacts on the species as a qualifying interest of Westwater SPA, Ramsar 

Site and SSSI, this collision rate would represent 0.02% of the official qualifying population 

per year (29,600, Westwater SPA site citation) and less than 0.02% of the most up to date 

population estimate for this designated site (35,054, Holt et al. 2012). Furthermore, as 

detailed above (12.3.23, 12.3.24 and 12.3.38), there is considerable evidence to suggest that 

there is little connectivity between the birds flying over the proposed Camilty wind farm site 

and those associated with the Westwater SPA. Therefore, these figures will considerably 

overestimate the impact that the estimated collision rate represents to the Westwater SPA 

population. 

12.5.69 Although the Greenland/Icelandic pink-footed goose population has declined in recent years 

as discussed in the Regional Populations and Conservation Status Section above, in general 

it has been increasing since 1960 with the 2009 population of 360,000 being the highest ever 

recorded. As such, the species is considered to be in favourable conservation status at a 

national level. It is considered that the loss of 5.9 birds each year and 147.5 birds over the 

operational life span of the proposed wind farm will have a negligible effect on either the 

national or regional or Westwater SPA qualifying pink-footed goose populations (i.e.


Operation – Barrier Effects 

12.5.73 There was no evidence from the bird survey data that Camilty lies on an important route for 

pink-footed geese and greylag geese or any other migratory birds (e.g. other geese, swans 

or flocks of passerines). This includes the arrival or departure of pink-footed geese from 

Westwater SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI as only a very small proportion of the 40 flights 

recorded during flight activity surveys followed an obvious flight path in the general direction 

to/from Westwater Reservoir (see 12.3.24 above). Therefore, the proposed development is 

unlikely to present a significant barrier to the migration of any species. 

12.5.74 With regard to the movements of locally occurring birds, the proposed 6-turbine development 

is relatively small in scale, covering an area of approximately 57ha, and so is considered 

unlikely to present a significant barrier to the local commuting movements of more widely 

ranging species such as pink-footed geese and greylag geese. This also includes the 

movements of pink-footed geese which may be associated with Westwater SPA, Ramsar 

Site and SSSI since only a small number of flights recorded passing over the site appeared 

to show an obvious association with Westwater Reservoir. 

12.5.75 Therefore, pink-footed geese and greylag geese will not need to make large detours, should 

they choose to avoid flying through the proposed development, in order to follow traditional 

migration routes, or to access known foraging or roosting grounds. . As such any increase in 

energy expenditure by these species is expected to be of negligible magnitude, and hence 

the level of any associated effects are predicted to be Negligible. 


12.6.1 Whilst the above impact assessment does not predict any effects of greater than slight level, 

the predictive nature of the assessment means that if no mitigation measures were 

incorporated into the final design of the development, then significant effects on some VORs 

found within the study area cannot necessarily be ruled out. Mitigation measures have 

therefore been identified to minimise any construction, operational or decommissioning 

effects. These measures are discussed below. 

Best Practice: Breeding Birds 

12.6.2 There is a need to follow best practice during the construction of the proposed wind farm to 

ensure compliance with the legislation concerning disturbance to breeding birds. 

Legislative Protection 

12.6.3 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; or 

• 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. 

12.6.4 Adherence to best practice will be necessary to reduce the possibility of damage, destruction 

or disturbance to occupied bird nests during the construction and decommissioning phases 


Ornithology 



(or during any maintenance work in the operational phase). The best practice measures 

outlined below will be adopted in order to minimise or avoid any of the predicted adverse 

effects on birds. 

Environmental Clerk of Works 

12.6.5 Compliance with the law (for example to avoid intentional nest destruction of any species) will 

be supported by the appointment of a suitably experienced ornithologist as ECoW to carry 

out pre-construction surveys and locate any active nests close to construction works shortly 

before these commence. There will be a clear line of responsibility to ensure all mitigation 

measures are adhered to by all parties, including the appointed contractor, which will be 

specified in the Health, Safety and Environmental Management System (HSEMS) as outlined 

in Appendix 4.4. 

Pre- and Mid-construction Goshawk Surveys and Consultation 

12.6.6 Prior to the commencement of felling for the purposes of the wind farm construction and the 

construction works themselves, a pre-construction raptor/goshawk survey of the site and a 

surrounding buffer of at least 1km will be carried out. The survey will follow the methods 

detailed in Hardey et al. (2009) and will involve a combination of vantage point surveys and 

more intensive forest checks. The vantage point surveys will include the late winter/early 

spring months when the species engages in display flight activity and may help to target 

certain areas during the forest searches. A detailed survey protocol will be prepared and 

agreed with SNH prior to the commencement of surveys to ensure appropriate intensity and 

coverage by the survey. 

12.6.7 Ideally, this survey will be undertaken in the breeding season immediately preceding the 

commencement of construction works. The purpose of this survey will be to identify the 

presence of goshawks (any other specially protected raptor species which may be present) in 

the vicinity of the proposed Camilty wind farm site, establish whether any breeding pairs are 

present and where the current nest sites (if any) are located. This survey will be 

supplemented by consultation with the Lothian and Borders Raptor Study Group and Forestry 

Commission Scotland who may hold information on any other goshawk (or other raptor) 

nesting activity which may have taken place in the intervening years between the submission 

of this ES and the commencement of works. 

12.6.8 The results of this survey will allow for any potential impacts associated with habitat loss or 

disturbance and displacement on goshawks during construction to be more accurately 

identified and mitigated. For example, in the unlikely event that goshawks were to establish a 

nest site within 500 m of the proposed development footprint between now and the 

commencement of works, it may be possible to fell this nest site outside of the breeding 

season so as to avoid any conflicts during the breeding season. It may also allow early 

identification for the requirement and extent of any associated works exclusion zones and 

assist the contractor to schedule the works more appropriately to avoid impacts on nesting 

goshawks, with minimal delays to the construction programme. 

12.6.9 If the construction works are scheduled to coincide with the goshawk breeding season (mid- 

February to August inclusive), then a further goshawk survey should be undertaken during 

the course of the breeding season in order to identify any potential nesting attempts during 

the construction works and any constraints that they may pose to the construction 

programme. Surveys would be of the same method as those detailed above. 


Ornithology 



Timing of Construction Activities and Pre-construction Checks 

12.6.10 Site clearance and construction activities will be timed to take place outside the main 

breeding season so as to avoid nest destruction and disturbance to nesting birds. The 

breeding season is taken to extend from March to August inclusive; but for the majority of 

birds the main breeding season extends from mid-March to at least the end of July 

(depending on the species concerned). However, with regards to goshawk, young recently 

fledged birds may still be present around the nest into August and the presence and potential 

disturbance of these dependent young must be taken into consideration given the species 

Schedule 1 protection status. 

12.6.11 It should also be noted that breeding by crossbills (most likely common crossbills), which are 

also a Schedule 1 protected species and which were recorded in the forestry areas at 

Camilty, is determined by the availability of conifer seeds and therefore nesting may take 

place during the winter months (Forrester et al. 2007; Currie & Elliott 1997). These birds may 

breed in the remaining intact areas of woodland within and immediately adjacent to the 

development footprint. 

12.6.12 Based on the current felling plan, it is expected that the vast majority of the proposed wind 

farm (i.e. Turbines 1-5 and over 90% of the wind farm infrastructure) will be located within the 

clear-fell and recently restocked areas of the site. These areas are expected to be of low 

value to nesting birds. Only Turbine 6 (which will be installed by key-holing within the 

forestry), and an approximately 200 m section of its associated access track will require the 

felling of mature trees which are more likely to support nesting birds. Therefore, the amount 

of potential bird nesting habitat to be removed is considered to be small. 

12.6.13 SNH (2011) recognises that avoiding construction work within the breeding season for birds 

may not be possible, as the season coincides with the best weather for construction. 

Therefore, should it not be possible to limit construction works to the non-breeding season 

then certain precautionary measures will need to be taken. For instance, attempts should be 

made to at least start the works before mid-March. This allows the birds the opportunity to 

take potential disturbance into account in the process of selecting a nest site, and those birds 

with a choice of nest sites may select an alternative area where disturbance is less intrusive 

in which to nest for that season. 

12.6.14 During the breeding season, pre-felling / pre-construction checks will be made ahead of the 

works in all areas of potential bird nesting habitat by the ECoW, or other suitably qualified 

ecologist, in order to check for the presence of nesting birds. Any active nests found will be 

cordoned off to a suitable distance for the species concerned (up to 20 m for woodland and 

scrub nesters and up to 50 m for open-ground nesting species) and all site personnel would 

be made aware of the works exclusion zone through toolbox talks presented by the ECoW. 

Construction operations will be delayed within the cordon until the young have fledged and 

the nest becomes vacant. This will be confirmed by the ECoW prior to the recommencement 

of construction. 

12.6.15 In the unlikely event that goshawks, or any other specially protected Annex 1 of Schedule 1 

bird species should establish a nest site in close proximity to the proposed development 

footprint (see Pre-construction Surveys - section 12.6.6 onwards), then a buffer zone would 

be established around that nest site and no works would be permitted within that area. 

Senior site personnel would be made aware of the species presence, its protection status 

and the associated works exclusion zone, through toolbox talks presented by the ECoW, 


Ornithology 



while all other site personal would be made aware of the exclusion zone only. The upper 

limit of the relevant species disturbance range, as presented by Ruddock and Whitfield 

(2007), would be established in the initial instance, in consultation with SNH. 

12.6.16 The nesting site will be regularly monitored by the ECoW or other suitably-qualified ecologist 

to check on the progress of the nesting attempt and identify whether the birds were 

displaying any signs of distress through disturbance associated with the construction works. 

As the breeding season progresses, it may be feasible to reduce the extent of the works 

exclusion zone based on increased tolerance or reduced susceptibility to disturbance and the 

nature of the disturbance source. Further details of such reduced buffer zones are provided 

for a variety of species, including goshawk, in Ruddock and Whitfield (2007). 

12.6.17 All such restrictions regarding the protection and best practise measures relating to nesting 

birds will be specified in the HSEMS (as drafted in Appendix 4.4). 

Use of Deterrents 

12.6.18 In areas which are considered to be particularly attractive for nesting birds, deterrents may be 

placed within a restricted area well in advance, so that birds may be deterred from choosing 

that area to nest in. Examples of deterrents include bird scarers, reflective tape or ribbons on 

posts or physical removal of habitat (e.g. removing trees or turf from access track routes etc 

to deter birds from breeding there) (SNH, 2011). Physical alteration to the habitat prior to the 

bird breeding season is SNH’s least favoured option due to the direct and indirect effects it 

may have on other interests, and would therefore only be used should no other options be 

viable. 

12.6.19 The appropriateness and application of such methods will be detailed in the HSEMS. 


12.7.1 A summary of the residual effects on ornithology discussed in this section is presented in 

Table 12.20. 

Goshawk 

12.7.2 At worst, it is predicted that the construction and operation of the proposed wind farm would 

result in short- and long-term effects of no more than Slight level (not significant) on the 

regional/NHZ goshawk population including: 

Construction 

• Potential loss of a ‘theoretical’ nest site (assumes a worst case scenario in the 

unlikely event of a new nest site being established within the footprint of Turbine 6 and 

its associated access track where trees are to be felled); 

• Potential disturbance of a ‘theoretical’ nest site (assumes a worst case scenario in 

the unlikely event of a new nest site being established in close proximity (i.e. Within 

200-500 m) of the development footprint). 

Operation 

• Potential disturbance of a ‘theoretical’ nest site (assumes a worst case scenario in 

the unlikely event of a new nest site being established in close proximity (i.e. Within 

300-500 m) to the wind farm site); 


Ornithology 



• Potential disturbance and displacement of birds from part of their current foraging 

range, the severity of which is likely to be reduced by the availability of suitable 

alternative habitat in the wider area and habituation to such effects through 

commercial felling operations; 

• Predicted mortality of up to one bird every three years and four months and between 

seven and eight birds over the course of the wind farm’s 25 year life span, 

representing an increase of at most 8% to 10% of the natural adult mortality rate 

(although in reality this is likely to be less as the estimated collision mortality 

incorporates flight activity by juveniles as well as adults, whilst the standard forest 

management cycle is likely to reduce habitat suitability for goshawk (and hence 

expected flight activity and collision risk) for at least part of the proposed wind farm’s 

life span); and 

• Partial barrier effect posed by the presence of the wind farm and its associated ‘area 

of influence’ potentially leading to the segregation of the local goshawk’s from part of 

their home range territory, the severity of which is reduced by the availability of 

suitable alternative habitat in the wider area. 

12.7.3 There will be a need to carry out pre- and mid-construction goshawk surveys and to continue 

to consult with the Lothian and Borders Raptor Study Group and the FCS District 

Environment Team about the current location of any goshawk nest sites in order to better 

predict and minimise or even avoid any effects of disturbance on the species during 

construction. In particular, if goshawks establish a nest site within or in close proximity to the 

proposed development footprint, this could be removed by tree-felling during the nonbreeding 

season (September-January/early February) to avoid disturbance to nesting birds 

during the breeding season. Any effects of this would not be mitigated, other than by putting 

up nest platforms elsewhere in the forest (as has been carried out previously for nest felling 

during scheduled felling operations). Such nest loss would be no different to the nest loss 

which the local goshawks have experienced and may experience in the future as a result of 

scheduled felling operations. Under such circumstances, it is anticipated that the birds will 

simply establish a new nest site elsewhere (as has occurred previously in this area), which 

may be facilitated by the establishment of platforms elsewhere within the forest, . 

12.7.4 Discouraging birds from nesting in close proximity to turbines during operation by removing 

suitable trees will not be feasible since the areas immediately surrounding the proposed wind 

farm site will be replanted as part of the FCS restocking plan. 

12.7.5 Targeted mitigation and habitat enhancement measures are not considered to be required to 

maintain the conservation status of goshawk at the regional/NHZ scale because the level of 

any adverse impacts are predicted to be no more than slight, so that any residual effects will 

also be (at most) Slight. Thus any impacts will not be significant in terms of the EIA 

Regulations. 

Pink-footed Goose and Greylag Goose 

12.7.6 There are not predicted to be any significant effects at any level (i.e. substantial, moderate or 

slight) on either pink-footed geese or greylag geese, therefore no specific mitigation 

measures are required for these species. The predicted residual effects remain at a 

Negligible level, which is not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 


Ornithology 




Background Guidance 

12.8.1 The above sections have considered the implications of the proposed wind farm on VORs in 

isolation from potential effects of other projects and activities. The EIA Regulations also 

require the potential for cumulative effects to be assessed. 

12.8.2 According to the latest SNH guidance (SNH, 2012b), an assessment of cumulative effects 

associated with a specific development proposal should encompass the effects of the 

proposal in combination with: 

• Existing developments, either built or under construction; 

• Approved developments, awaiting implementation; and 

• Proposals awaiting determination within the planning process with design information 

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. 

Species to be Considered 

12.8.3 SNH (2012b) stipulates that “the key principle for all cumulative impact assessments is to 

focus on the likely significant effects and in particular those which are likely to influence the 

outcome of the consenting process”. SNH therefore only seeks cumulative impact 

assessments “where it is considered that a proposal could result in significant cumulative 

impacts which could affect the eventual planning decision”. 

12.8.4 A list of protected species potentially at risk of effects from onshore wind farms (Annex C, 

SNH, 2012b) includes the following VORs at the proposed Camilty wind farm site: goshawk, 

pink-footed goose and greylag goose. None of the other species present in lower numbers at 

the proposed Camilty wind farm site are likely to be at risk of cumulative effects due to very 

low site usage (raptors such as osprey, peregrine and merlin) or high regional populations 

(common passerines). 

12.8.5 Predicted greylag goose collision rates are negligible compared to the population size 

(representing 0.001% of the population that overwinters in Great Britain), and so it is 

considered very unlikely that this will materially contribute to an overall significant NHZ or 

national cumulative collision risk in any way. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest 

that greylag geese utilise the habitats within the application site boundary or any other areas 

within 500m of the site for feeding, roosting or breeding, nor was there any evidence to 

suggest that the proposed Camilty wind farm would present a barrier to the movement of 

migratory or locally occurring greylag geese. Consequently, it is concluded that the effects of 

the proposed Camilty wind farm on greylag geese are minimal and not significant and they 

are not anticipated to contribute cumulatively to the impacts associated with other wind farms 

on the species. As such, greylag goose is excluded from the cumulative assessment. 

12.8.6 The predicted effects of habitat loss, disturbance/displacement, barrier effect and collision 

mortality from the proposed Camilty wind farm on pink-footed geese are also considered to 

be negligible and thus very unlikely to materially contribute to a significant cumulative impact 

on the population at the NHZ or national level. However, as a qualifying species of 



Ornithology


Westwater SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI it is necessary to asses the cumulative impact of 

collision mortality on this designated site’s population. 

12.8.7 With regard to goshawk, it is important to establish whether the slight adverse residual effects 

of habitat loss, disturbance/displacement, collision mortality and barrier effect which are 

predicted for this species could be exacerbated through the cumulative effects of other 

developments in the wider area to a higher level of significance. 

12.8.8 Consequently, the following cumulative impact assessment will consider impacts on pinkfooted 

geese and goshawk. 

Scope of Projects and Activities 

12.8.9 For wind farms which do not have an effect on designated sites, SNH (2006) guidance 

highlights the relevance of the NHZ as the basis for the geographical range selection of 

cumulative effects. Such a scope of work however may be extensive in nature and so SNH 

recognises that “it is unrealistic to insist on a cumulative assessment if the relevant 

information is not reasonably available”. Given that the relevant population level in the 

assessment of impacts on pink-footed geese is that of the Westwater SPA, Ramsar Site and 

SSSI, despite this assessment concluding that there is little connectivity between Camilty and 

Westwater Reservoir, the assessment of cumulative impacts on pink-footed geese will be 

made in relation to the SPA. 

12.8.10 As such, only the cumulative impact assessment for goshawk has been conducted in relation 

to the NHZ population. In this case, the proposed wind farm lies within the West Central Belt 

(NHZ 17) but is within 500 m of the Border Hills (NHZ 20) and 2 km of the Eastern Lowlands 

(NHZ 16). The extent of these NHZs and the location of the proposed wind farm site 

within/between them is presented in Figure 12.5. Given the site’s location at the foot of the 

Pentland Hills, it is considered that the Border Hills NHZ more closely reflects the upland 

moorland and plantation habitat within and around the development site, and so is used as 

the primary reference population. Therefore, the cumulative impact assessment for this 

species has taken into account the effects of all other wind farm developments (constructed, 

consented or proposed, but excluding any at the scoping stage) within the Border Hills NHZ. 

These are shown in Figure 12.13, which focuses on the Border Hills NHZ (and the wind 

farms locations therein), and indicates the location of the proposed Camilty wind farm site in 

relation to this. 

12.8.11 With regard to the cumulative impact assessment on pink-footed geese, this has taken into 

account the effects of all other wind farms within 20 km of the Westwater SPA (20 km being 

the species recognised maximum foraging range (SNH, 2012a)). 

12.8.12 After a desk-based research exercise, it was concluded that the only development types of 

significant scale to potentially affect pink-footed geese and goshawk (collision risk) were 

other wind farms. The latest available Wind Farm Footprint Map of Scotland 13 on the SNH 

website (August 2012 version) as well as information from the West Lothian, Scottish Borders 

and other nearby local council’s websites was used to identify all other wind farm projects 

within this potential zone of influence. Results showed that there are 31 wind farm projects at 

all stages of development (but exclusive of those at scoping) within the Border Hills NHZ and 

50 within 20 km of Westwater SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI. Fifty-six wind farm projects at all 

13 

SNH Wind Farm Footprint Map of Scotland (August 2010) (http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A763435.pdf).. 


Ornithology 



stages of development (but exclusive of those at scoping) were identified within the West 

Central Belt NHZ. 

12.8.13 As no readily-accessible dataset was available on other wind farms, to refine the assessment 

to a manageable level, wind farms with three or fewer turbines (classified as small-scale wind 

energy projects by SNH, 2011) were excluded due to the very low likelihood that they will 

materially contribute to a cumulative significant effect on ornithology at a NHZ level. 

12.8.14 Proposed wind farms that have been rejected by the competent authority or withdrawn by a 

developer (but not understood to be at appeal) are also not included in the cumulative 

assessment as any future amended layout would have different ornithological effects. For 

projects at the scoping stage of the EIA process, baseline ornithological surveys are either 

ongoing or have not become publically available to date. Potential effects are therefore 

unknown, and so these projects have also been excluded from the cumulative assessment. 

Goshawk 

Wind Farm Information from Within the Border Hills NHZ 

12.8.15 Within the Borders NHZ, there are ten wind farms that are operational (Bowbeat Hill, Carcant, 

Crystal Rig, Crystal Rig 2, Dun Law, Dun Law Extension, Glenkerie, Longpark, Minsca and 

Toddleburn); two that are under construction (Clyde and Fallago Rig); four that have been 

approved (Keith Hill, Longhope Rig Muirhall Extension and Pogbie Farm), four in the 

application process (Brunta Hill, Clyde Extension, Newfield and Shaw Park) and one at 

appeal (Fauch Hill). 

12.8.16 Of these, no information could be found for Bowbeat Hill, Crystal Rig and Crystal Rig 2, Dun 

Law and Dun Law Extension, Longpark, Fallago Rig, Pogbie Farm, Brunta Hill, Newfield or 

Shaw Park Wind Farms, whilst the full document was not available for Muirhall Extension. A 

summary of goshawk activity recorded and presented in the Environmental Statements for 

the remaining sites is provided below (Table 12.17). 

Table 12.17 Goshawk Records from Wind Farm Sites Within the Border Hills NHZ 

Wind Farm 

Glenkerie 

Clyde 

Clyde 

Extension 

Keith Hill 

Longhope Rig 

Carcant 

Fauch Hill 

Details of Recorded Goshawk Activity 

No mention of goshawk records in ES 

No mention of goshawk records in ES. 

In 2009, single male goshawk observed entering Fall Cleuch Wood; further 

searches of wood revealed no signs of breeding. 

In 2010, two sightings of goshawk during raptor surveys, as well as five flights 

during flight activity surveys (three during winter, of which none were at PCH, and 

two during the breeding season, of which one was at PCH). Searches of suitable 

wooded areas revealed no evidence of nesting. 



In June 2003, a single male goshawk recorded flying along upper edge of a conifer 

plantation on the southern side of the site. No other records in either 2003 or 2004. 

Recorded in 2010 and 2011 breeding seasons, and in 2010/11 non-breeding 

season. Bred on the proposed wind farm site, c.350m from nearest proposed 

turbine. Also, probably previous nest sites identified close to known nest site. 


Ornithology 



Habitat Loss 

12.8.17 Given that breeding by goshawks was established at only one other of the wind farm, and 

proposed wind farm, sites for which adequate information could be accessed, and that birds 

were recorded at just a further two of these sites, it seems highly unlikely the cumulative 

habitat loss from wind farm construction will cause more than a small magnitude of effect on 

the regional goshawk population. Therefore, the cumulative level of effect is predicted to be 

slight, and not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 


12.8.18 As for 12.8.17 above, the infrequent occurrence of goshawks at the other wind farm, and 

proposed wind farm, sites for which adequate information could be accessed, strongly 

suggests that the cumulative effects of construction disturbance and operational disturbance 

and displacement on nesting and/or foraging goshawks are unlikely to have more than small 

magnitudes of effect. Therefore, the cumulative level of effect is predicted to be slight, and 

not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

Cumulative Collision Mortality 

12.8.19 The effect of collision risk to goshawks due to the proposed wind farm alone was not 

considered significant on the regional or national scale. However, when considered in 

conjunction with other sources of potential mortality, especially from other wind farms, it is 

possible that the combined additional mortality may be sufficient to initiate a population 

decline that cannot be reversed unless the adverse effect is removed. 

12.8.20 When assessing cumulative mortality from multiple developments, SNH (2012b) notes that 

simply summing collision mortality across all developments may overestimate cumulative 

mortality, as once a bird has been removed from a population due to collision with one 

development, it cannot collide again. This is particularly pertinent where population sizes are 

small and mortality can represent a significant proportion of the population. 

12.8.21 For those wind farm and proposed wind farm sites at which goshawks were recorded, 

collision risk estimates were given as follows: 

• Carcant: Predicted to be 0.03 individuals/year with no avoidance, so that over 25 

years with a 95% avoidance rate this would be 0.04 individuals, at 99% 0.01 

individuals (and by extrapolation 0.02 individuals at the SNH (2010) recommended 

98% avoidance rate); 

• Clyde Extension: No estimates as too few ‘at risk’ flights to justify collision risk 

modelling; 

• Fauch Hill Wind Farm: Predicted to be 0.04 individuals/year with 98% avoidance, 

which would be the equivalent of one bird colliding every 23.4 years. 

Conclusions 

12.8.22 Within the Border Hills NHZ there are ten operational, two under-construction and three 

planned wind farms that may contribute to a cumulative collision risk. From collision risk 

modelling predictions in respective Environmental Statements (as indicated in 12.8.21 

above), a total annual mortality of 0.36 birds per year from collisions was predicted for the 

goshawk population occurring within (or close to) the Border Hills NHZ (Table 12.18). 

Therefore, in addition to the predicted collisions at the proposed Camilty wind farm, two other 


Ornithology 



wind farms are also predicted to contribute to the collision mortality that may affect the 

goshawk population within this NHZ. 

Table 12.18 Cumulative Goshawk Collision Risk Predictions 

Wind Farm Number of Turbines Predicted Annual Collision Rate (98% Avoidance) 

Camilty 6 0.3 

Carcant 3 0.02 

Fauch Hill 23 0.04 

TOTAL 32 0.36 (or one bird approximately every 2 years and 9 

months) 

12.8.23 This cumulative collision rate would represent the loss of between 1% and 1.3% of the 

estimated Lothian and Borders breeding population (28-35 pairs (Etheridge et al. 2012)) 

every year which is a very slight increase on the predicted mortality rate predicted for the 

proposed wind farm on its own (approximately 1 bird per year). In relation to the total 

estimated regional population however (65-85 individuals), this would represent between 

0.42% and 0.55% which is a marginal increase only compared to the mortality rate predicted 

for the proposed Camilty wind farm on its own. 

12.8.24 Over the 25 year lifespan of these wind farms, these proportions would increase to between 

13% and 16% of the current Lothian and Borders breeding population and between 11% and 

14% of the total population (assuming maintenance of a stable population across the region 

and the continued presence of goshawks at the sites for which collision risk estimates have 

been produced, which would depend upon replacement of the breeding adults that die, 

whether from collisions or other causes). 

12.8.25 With regards to how this compares to natural mortality rates, based on an average adult 

mortality rate of 18%, the natural mortality rate of goshawks in the Border Hills NHZ is 

predicted to be close to one bird every three to four month or between 10 and 13 birds per 

year (as described in the discussion of collision risk impacts from the proposed Camilty wind 

farm alone (12.5.52). Over the course of the proposed wind farms’ life spans this would be 

between 250 and 315 mortalities through natural causes, compared to nine mortalities 

through cumulative turbine collisions over the life time of the wind farms. This equates to an 

increase of between 3% and 4% in the natural mortality rate amongst adult birds. 

12.8.26 Although the predicted cumulative collision rate is very slightly higher than that predicted for 

the proposed wind farm on its own, the overall additional effect on the population is virtually 

the same (i.e. it compares to an increase of between 2.5% to 3.0% of the natural mortality 

adult rate). Consequently, as explained in the discussion of collision risk impacts from the 

proposed Camilty wind farm alone (12.5.47 – 12.5.55 above), it is predicted that the 

cumulative effect of collision mortality on the regional/NHZ goshawk population would 

similarly be of slight level and not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

Cumulative Barrier Effects 

12.8.27 As for 12.8.17 above, the infrequent occurrence of goshawks at the other wind farm, and 

proposed wind farm, sites for which adequate information could be accessed, strongly 

suggests that the cumulative effects of barrier effects on the regional goshawk population is 


Ornithology 



unlikely to have more than a small magnitude of effect. Therefore, the cumulative level of 

effect is predicted to be slight, and not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 


Habitat Loss 

12.8.28 There was no evidence to suggest that pink-footed geese utilise the habitats within the 

application site boundary or any other areas within 500 m of the site for feeding, roosting or 

breeding. Therefore, the proposed development is not considered to materially contribute to 

a significant cumulative habitat loss impact on the Westwater SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI 

population or on the species at the NHZ level. 


12.8.29 There was no evidence to suggest that pink-footed geese utilise the habitats within the site 

boundary or any other areas within 500m of the site for feeding, roosting or breeding. 

Therefore, the proposed development is not considered to materially contribute to a 

significant cumulative disturbance/displacement impact on the Westwater SPA, Ramsar Site 

and SSSI population or on the species at the NHZ level. 

Cumulative Collision Mortality 

12.8.30 The effect of collision risk to pink-footed geese due to the proposed wind farm alone was not 

considered significant on the regional or national scale. However, when considered in 

conjunction with other sources of potential mortality, especially from other wind farms, the 

combined additional mortality may be sufficient to initiate a population decline that cannot be 

reversed unless the adverse effect is removed. 

12.8.31 When assessing cumulative mortality from multiple developments, SNH (2012b) notes that 

simply summing collision mortality across all developments may overestimate cumulative 

mortality, as once a bird has been removed from a population due to collision with one 

development, it cannot collide again. This is particularly pertinent where population sizes are 

small and mortality can represent a significant proportion of the population. As a qualifying 

species of Westwater SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI it is important to asses the cumulative 

impact of collision mortality on pink-footed geese. 

12.8.32 Within 20 km of Westwater SPA, there are four wind farms in proximity to Camilty that are 

operational (Black Law, Bowbeat Hill, Muirhall and Pates Hill), four that have been approved 

(Black Law Extension Phase 1, Tormywheel and Muirhall Extension), two in the application 

process (Pearie Law and Lampits Farm) and two at appeal (Fauch Hill and Harburnhead). 

12.8.33 Of these, no information could be found for Bowbeat Hill, Muirhall or Muirhall Extension and 

there was no mention of pink-footed goose activity in the Ornithology Chapters of the 

Tormywheel and Lampits Farm Wind Farm Environmental Statements. A summary of activity 

at the remaining sites is provided below. 

Black Law Wind Farm and Extension 

12.8.34 The 23 turbine Black Law Extension is an approved extension to the operational 54 turbine 

Black Law Wind Farm. The original site is approximately 22 km west of Camilty, and the 

extension is approximately 20 km west. 

12.8.35 The Black Law Extension ES provides a summary of pink-footed goose activity at both this 

site and the original Black Law Wind Farm site. 


Ornithology 



12.8.36 Surveys at Black Law Extension concluded that the site did not appear to be located on a 

regularly used migration route or corridor used for local movements. A small number of 

migratory movements by pink-footed geese occur each spring and autumn. In winter 

2004/05, the existing windfarm was regularly over flown by pink-footed geese roosting at 

Springfield Reservoir, where a peak of at least 300 birds occurred in late December. The 

directions of goose movements in 2004/05 and 2006/07 did not suggest that birds from either 

Cobbinshaw Reservoir SSSI or Westwater SPA were involved. 

12.8.37 During the surveys for the extension a flock of 11 pink-footed geese flew over the eastern 

part of the survey area at a height of approximately 150 m on 29 September 2006. The flock 

was observed to alter flight direction to avoid passing over the existing turbines. During the 

spring surveys a flock of 26 pink-footed geese flew northwest over the proposed windfarm 

extension at a height of more than 150 m above ground during a generic VP watch on 25 

April 2007. 

12.8.38 Due to the low number of recorded flights, no collision risk modeling was carried out. 

Pates Hill 

12.8.39 The results of the winter flight activity surveys at Pates Hill confirmed that the proposed site 

was not on a flight path for wintering geese. A total of four goose flights were recorded 

throughout the winter period with none transiting the proposed site. Two of these flights 

involved 16 pink-footed geese, which passed approximately 4 km to the south of the site. The 

two remaining flights, of 16 and 33 pink-footed geese, were recorded approximately 750 m to 

the east and 1.2 km to the west of the site respectively. No CRM was carried out for this 

species. 

Pearie Law Wind Farm 

12.8.40 This six turbine wind farm which is located 12 km from proposed Camilty wind farm site, is at 

appeal. The ES showed that pink-footed geese were recorded at Cobbinshaw Reservoir in 

2011 during the winter walkover surveys. VP surveys recorded a total of 29 pink-footed 

goose flights, with 256 individuals passing through the collision-risk volume. Pink-footed 

goose flight activity peaked in late September and late January and was otherwise 

infrequent. The majority of the flights followed a north-south axis. 

12.8.41 Collision risk calculations predicted 2.57 individuals, which constitutes approximately 0.0008- 

0.02% of the regional population and 0.008% of the Westwater SPA population. 

Fauch Hill 

12.8.42 This proposed 23-turbine wind farm lies immediately to the south of Camilty and is 

approximately 6.5km north west of Westwater SPA. Flight activity over the site by pink-footed 

geese was recorded for two years and the collision risk modelling produced a predicted 

mortality level of 6.84 individuals/year, which equates to approximately 171 

individuals/lifespan. 

12.8.43 Using information from these surveys the assessment concluded that there would be no 

significant effect on the large and expanding pink-footed goose population. It was concluded 

that pink-footed geese associated with the Westwater SPA would not be impacted by the 

project. 


Ornithology 



Harburnhead Wind Farm 

12.8.44 Collision risk modelling was undertaken for pink-footed geese and was assessed as not 

significant. Collision risk calculations predicted 6.59 individuals/year, which constitutes 

approximately 164 individuals/lifespan. 

Conclusions 

12.8.45 Within the 20 km foraging range of birds that may use the airspace over the proposed wind 

farm, there are four operational and four planned wind farms that may contribute to a 

cumulative collision risk. From collision risk modelling predictions in respective 

Environmental Statements, a total annual mortality of 21.9 birds per year was predicted 

(Table 12.19). This represents a theoretical estimate of the cumulative collision mortality, in 

the sense that some of the contributory wind farms have yet to be approved. 

Table 12.19 Cumulative Pink-footed Geese Collision Risk Predictions 

Wind Farm Number of Turbines Predicted Annual Collision Rate (98% Avoidance) 

Camilty 6 5.9 

Pearie law 6 2.57 

Fauch Hill 23 6.84 

Harburnhead 22 6.59 

TOTAL 57 21.9 

12.8.46 With regard to cumulative impacts on the species as a qualifying interest of Westwater SPA, 

Ramsar Site and SSSI, this combined collision rate would represent 0.07% of the official 

qualifying population per year (29,600, Westwater SPA site citation) and 0.06% of the most 

up to date population estimate for this designated site (35,054, Holt et al. 2012). At the 

national and migratory flyway population level (246,725 birds, Holt et al. 2012) the predicted 

cumulative annual collision rate would represent less than 0.01% of the Greenland/Icelandic 

population. 

12.8.47 Based on these figures, it is considered that the contribution of 5.9 birds per year to the total 

cumulative loss of 21.9 birds each year will have a negligible effect on Westwater SPA 

qualifying pink-footed goose populations (i.e.


considered to materially contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the Westwater SPA, 

Ramsar Site and SSSI population or on the species at the NHZ level. 

12.9 Summary of Effects 

12.9.1 The baseline surveys conducted to inform the EIA have identified an ornithological 

assemblage within the vicinity of the development that is typical of plantation and upland 

habitats of Central/South-east Scotland, with usage within the application site boundary being 

confined mainly to relatively common breeding passerines and raptors. Although a number 

of species were identified as being of conservation concern, most were not considered 

significant within the context of their respective regional or national populations, and further 

consideration was not required within the EIA. This left three VORs to be taken into account 

in the impact assessment: goshawk, pink-footed goose and greylag goose. 

12.9.2 The impact assessment identified that there would be no effects of habitat loss, disturbance, 

displacement or barrier effects on either pink-footed geese or greylag geese. Regarding 

collision mortality, although the proposed wind farm was predicted to result in the mortality of 

a small number of individuals from each of these species per year, the mortality rates were 

predicted to be well within acceptable levels when compared to regional population figures. 

12.9.3 Importantly, survey data collected at both the proposed Camilty wind farm site and at the 

Westwater SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI (for which pink-footed goose is the qualifying feature) 

indicated that few of the pink-footed geese flying over Camilty were associated with the 

Westwater population. This, in conjunction with data from previous studies at Westwater, 

strongly suggests that there is little connectivity between the proposed Camilty wind farm site 

and the Westwater SPA for this qualifying feature. 

12.9.4 With regard to goshawk, the impact assessment identified that the proposed wind farm would 

result in the potential loss of foraging and nesting habitat, disturbance and displacement of 

birds from suitable habitat associated with the general area of the proposed wind farm, and 

could potentially pose a barrier to the movement of locally occurring goshawks within their 

range. However, when considering the ongoing effects of forestry activities that the local 

goshawks have apparently adapted to, such effects were anticipated to have no more than 

slight adverse impacts on the regional goshawk population, which is considered to be not 

significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. With regard to collision mortality, the proposed 

wind farm was predicted to result in the collision of approximately one bird every three years. 

This predicted collision rate is thought to be precautionary and does not necessarily reflect 

the species typical below-canopy flight behaviour. However, when compared to background 

natural mortality figures this predicted collision rate was considered to have a level of effect 

of no more than slight on the regional goshawk population, and hence was not considered to 

be significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

12.9.5 With regard to cumulative effects in combination with other wind farm developments it was 

concluded that any impacts on pink-footed geese or greylag geese would be of negligible 

level, whilst those on goshawk were of a slight level of effect. 


Ornithology 




Receptor 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 


(and Significance) 

Prior to Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance 

) after 

Mitigation 


Goshawk 

Regional 

Habitat loss 

(nesting) 

Construction 

Small (worst 

case scenario) 

Slight 

(not significant) 

Removal 

(felling) of nest 

site prior to 

construction 

and outside of 

the breeding 

season 

N/A 

Slight 

(not 

significant) 

Assumes 

theoretical loss of a 

nest site in the 

unlikely event that 

one is established 

within the 

development 

footprint 

Habitat loss 

(foraging) 

Construction Negligible Negligible 


None N/A Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

None predicted 

Disturbance/ 

Displacement 

(nesting) 

Construction 

Small (worst 


Slight 


Pre- and midconstruction 

surveys to 

identify any 

goshawk nests 

and 

establishment 

of work 

exclusion zones 

where 

necessary 

N/A 

Slight 

(not 

significant) 

Assumes 

theoretical 

disturbance of a 




within the 

development 

footprint 

Disturbance/ 

Displacement 





(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

displacement to 

alternative foraging 

areas 



Ornithology


Receptor 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 




Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance 

) after 

Mitigation 


Disturbance/ 

Displacement 

(nesting) 

Operation Small Slight 


None N/A Slight 

(not 

significant) 

Assumes 

theoretical 





in close proximity 

to the proposed 

wind farm site 

Disturbance/ 

Displacement 





(not 

significant) 

Minor 



areas 

Collision 

Mortality 




(not 

significant) 

Predicted mortality 

not anticipated to 

significantly affect 


at NHZ level. 

Barrier Effect Operation Small Slight 



(not 

significant) 

Partial barrier 

effect which is 

unlikely to 

significantly 

increase energy 

expenditure but 

could possibly lead 

to habitat 

segregation, the 

impact of which is 

reduced by the 

availability of 

suitable alternative 



Ornithology


Receptor 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 




Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance 

) after 

Mitigation 


habitat in the wider 

area to which birds 

are likely to be 

displaced 

Pink-footed 

Goose 

International 

Habitat loss Construction Negligible Negligible 



(not 

significant) 


Disturbance/ 

Displacement 




(not 

significant) 


Disturbance/ 

Displacement 

Operation Negligible Negligible 



(not 

significant) 


Collision 

Mortality 




(not 

significant) 


Barrier Effect Operation Negligible Negligible 




(not 

significant) 

Greylag 

Goose 

Regional 

Habitat loss Construction Negligible Negligible 



(not 

significant) 


Disturbance/ Construction Negligible Negligible None N/A Negligible None predicted 



Ornithology


Receptor 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 




Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance 

) after 

Mitigation 


Displacement (not significant) (not 

significant) 

Disturbance/ 

Displacement 




(not 

significant) 


Collision 

Mortality 




(not 

significant) 


Barrier Effect Operation Negligible Negligible 



(not 

significant) 




Ornithology



• Band, W., Madders, M. and 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 

• Brown, A.F. & Shepherd, K.B. (1993) A method for censusing upland breeding 

waders. Bird Study 40: 189-195 

• Brown, A.W. and Brown, L.M. (2007) West Water Reservoir SSSI Pink-footed Goose 

Study 2004-05 to 2006-07. Unpubl. report to SNH 

• Currie, F. and Elliott, G. (1997). Forests and Birds: a Guide to Managing Forests for 

Rare Birds. Forestry Authority, Cambridge, and Royal Society for the Protection of 

Birds, Sandy, UK 

• Drewitt, A. L. and Langston, R. H. W. 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on 

birds. Ibis, 148: 29-42 

• Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn, R., Aebischer, N.J., 

Gibbons, D.W., Evans, A. and Gregory, R.D. (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 

3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle 

of Man. British Birds 102 (http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u12/bocc3.pdf) 

• Etheridge, B., Riley, H., Wernham, C., Holling, M. Stevenson, A. and Thompson, D. 

(2012). Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme Report 2010. Scottish Raptor Study 

Groups 

• Fauch Hill Sustainable Energy (FHSE) Ltd. (2012). Fauch Hill Wind Farm 

Environmental Statement. Natural Research Projects Ltd. for FHSE Ltd 

• Forrester, R. W., Andrews, I. J., McInerny. C. J., Murray, R. D., McGowan, R. Y., 

Zonfrillo, B., Betts, M.W., Jardine, D.C. and Grundy, D.S. (eds) (2007). The Birds of 

Scotland. The Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, Aberlady 

• Hall, C., Glanville, J.R., Boland, H., Einarsson, O., McElwaine, G., Holt, C., Spray, C. 

and Rees, E. (2012). Population size and breeding success of Icelandic Whooper 

Swans Cygnus cygnus: Results of the 2010 international census. Wildfowl 62: 73–96. 

Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Report, Slimbridge 

• Hardey, J., Crick, H.Q.P., Wernham, C., Riley, H., Etheridge, B., Thompson, D. 

(2009). Scottish Natural Heritage Raptors a field guide for surveys and monitoring 

(2nd Edition). The Stationery Office Edinburgh 

• Holt, C., Austin, G., Calbrade, N., Mellan, H., Hearn, R., Stroud, D., Wotton, S. & 

Musgrove, A. (2012). Waterbirds in the UK 2010/11: The Wetland Bird Survey. 

BTO/RSPB/JNCC, Thetford 

• Hotker, H., Thomsen, K-M., and Jeromin, H. (2006) Impacts on biodiversity 

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. NABU Report, Germany 

• IEEM (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK. Institute of 

Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester 


Ornithology 



• IPCC (2005). Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment 

Report on Addressing Uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

July 2005 

• Kenward, R.E. (2006) The goshawk. Poyser/Black, London 

• Langston, R.H.W. and 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. BirdLife International report to the Bern Convention on the 

Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, 59 pp 

• Madsen J., and Boertmann, D. (2008). Animal behavioural adaptation to changing 

landscapes: spring-staging geese habituate to wind farms. Landsc Ecol 23:1007–11 

• Marquiss, M. et al. (2003). Contrasting population trends of the northern goshawk 

(Accipter gentiles) in the Scottish/English borders and north-east Scotland. In: D.B.A. 

Thompson et al., eds. Birds of Prey in a changing environment. Scottish Natural 

Heritage. The Stationary Office 

• Mitchell, C. (2012). Status and distribution of Icelandic-breeding geese: results of the 

2011 international census. Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Report, Slimbridge 

• Mitchell, C. (2011). Status and distribution of Icelandic-breeding geese: results of the 

2010 international census. Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Report, Slimbridge 

• Murray, R., Holling, M., Dott, H. and Vandome, P. (1998). The Breeding Birds of 

South-east Scotland: A Tetrad Atlas 1988-1994. Scottish Ornithologist’s Club, 

Edinburgh 

• Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Bullman, R. 

(2009). The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 46 (6): 1323 - 1331 

• Robinson, R.A. (2005) BirdFacts: profiles of birds occurring in Britain & Ireland (BTO 

Research Report 407). BTO, Thetford (http://www.bto.org/birdfacts, accessed 

29/03/2012) 

• RPS (2011). Camilty Ecological Sensitivity Appraisal, Partnerships for Renewables 

• Ruddock, M. and Whitfield, D.P. (2007). A Review of Disturbance Distances in 

Selected Bird Species. A report from Natural Research (Projects) Ltd to Scottish 

Natural Heritage 

• Rutz, C. (2006). Home range size, habitat use, activity patterns, and hunting 

behaviour of urban-breeding Northern Goshawks Accipiter gentilis. Ardea94(2):185- 

202 

• SNH (2005). Survey Methods for Use in Assessing the Impacts of Onshore Wind 

Farms on Bird Communities. Scottish Natural Heritage. Revised December 2010. 

(http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/C278917.pdf) 

• SNH (2006). Assessing Significance of Impacts from Onshore Wind farms on Birds 

Outwith Designated Areas. Scottish Natural Heritage, July 2006. 

(http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/renewable/Significance%20of%20bird%20impact 

s%20July%2006.pdf) 


Ornithology 



• SNH (2010). Use of Avoidance rates in the SNH Wind Farm Collision Risk Model. 

Scottish Natural Heritage, September 2010. 

(http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B721137.pdf) 

• SNH (2011). Guidance note on construction and breeding birds. 

(http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A514967.pdf) 

• SNH (2012a). Assessing Connectivity with Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Scottish 

Natural Heritage, March 2012 (http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A675474.pdf) 

• SNH (2012b). Assessing the Cumulative impact of Onshore Wind Energy 

Developments. Scottish Natural Heritage, March 2012 

(http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A675503.pdf) 


Ornithology 



13 Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions 


13.1.1 This chapter assesses the potential hydrological, hydrogeological and geological effects 

associated with the proposed wind farm. It details the existing baseline situation in terms of 

hydrological, hydrogeological and geological conditions present within and adjacent to the 

proposed site boundary. An assessment of effects has been undertaken for the construction, 

operation and decommissioning stages of the proposed wind farm, identifying associated 

activities that have the potential to affect the existing baseline situation. 

13.1.2 Effects on hydrology, hydrogeology and geology have the potential to result in secondary 

ecological effects on habitats or species. Effects on ecological receptors (non-avian) are 

considered in Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology. 

Key Issues 

13.1.3 The following potential issues have been addressed as part of this assessment: 

• Effects on surface runoff characteristics; 

• Effects on river flow and flooding; 

• Effects on peat hydrological regime; 

• Effects of erosion and sedimentation; 

• Effects of contamination from oils, fuels, concrete etc on surface water quality; 

• Effects on local geology; 

• Effects on groundwater levels and hydrological regime; 

• Effects of contamination from oils, fuels, concrete etc. on groundwater quality; 

• Effects on water resources (private and public water supplies). 

Study Area 

13.1.4 The study area includes the area occupied by the proposed wind farm as well as surrounding 

areas. These areas include the catchments associated with all rivers and waterbodies within 

the site, including the Linhouse Water and tributaries or headwaters, namely, Camilty Water, 

Crosswood Burn, Powfastle Burn, Black Burn and Bents Burn, as shown in Figure 13.1. 

Additionally, other areas and developments have been considered where hydrological 

linkages exist or cumulative effects may arise. 


Approach 

13.2.1 In order to effectively assess any potential effects arising due to the construction, operation or 

decommissioning of the proposed wind farm on the hydrology, hydrogeology and ground 

conditions both within and adjacent to the site, the following activities are undertaken: 

• Consultation with relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies; 

March 2013 

13-1 


Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions


• Establishing baseline conditions on site via a detailed desk study, site visits and 

investigation of ground conditions at the proposed site; 

• Evaluating the sensitivity of the baseline conditions to change; 

• Evaluating the magnitude of the potential effects of the proposed wind farm and how 

these might affect the site baseline conditions; 

• Evaluating the significance of potential effects through consideration of the sensitivity 

of baseline features, the magnitude of potential effects and the probability of the 

effects occurring; 

• Identifying suitable measures to avoid, reduce or offset any potentially significant 

adverse effects resulting from the proposed wind farm, including the implementation 

of design measures; 

• Evaluating any residual significance of the potential effects following mitigation. 

Baseline Methodology 

Desk Study 

13.2.2 The purpose of the desktop study is to establish the baseline conditions within the study area 

in order to: 

• Identify the key surface water hydrological features, including watercourses, lochs, 

reservoirs and springs; 

• Collate historic hydrological flow and flooding data for the immediate area and main 

downstream watercourses; 

• Establish the hydromorphological conditions of watercourses; 

• Identify the extent of river catchment areas; 

• Identify any existing catchment pressures (e.g. point source and diffuse pollution 

issues); 

• Identify any flood risks; 

• Establish the type and characteristics of soils and geology present; 

• Establish the hydrological regime; and 

• Identify any private drinking water abstractions and public water supplies within a 

2 km radius. 

Establishing Sensitivity 

13.2.3 Once the above information is collected and assessed, it is used to establish the sensitivity of 

the baseline environment. This allows for key receptors to be identified and informs the next 

stage of the adopted approach, the Impact Assessment. 

13.2.4 The sensitivity of the receiving environment, i.e. its ability to absorb the effect without 

perceptible change, is defined in Table 13.1, along with examples of characteristics that 

define receptor sensitivity. 

March 2013 

13-2 




Table 13.1 Criteria for Defining Sensitivity of the Receiving Environment 

Sensitivity 

Definition 

High High quality and rarity, regional or national scale and limited potential for 

substitution/replacement. This includes: 

• International Designations (e.g. Special Area of Conservation); 

• SEPA Water Quality defined as High; 

• Surface Water - large scale industrial abstractions >1000 m 3 /day within 2 km 

downstream; 

• Abstractions for public drinking water supply; 

• Private Water Supplies – Surface water abstractions within 0–100 m and groundwater 

spring abstractions from 0–100 m 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 2 km downstream; 

• Conveyance of flow and material, main river >10 m wide; 

• Active floodplain area (important in relation to flood defence); 

• Groundwater abstractions >1000 m 3 /day (within zone of influence from development); 

• Groundwater - public drinking water supply; 

• Groundwater aquifer vulnerability classed 5 in the SEPA vulnerability classification 

scheme; 

• Geology rare or of national importance as defined by SSSI or Regional Important 

Geological Site (RIGS). 

Medium 

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. This includes: 

• National Designations (e.g. Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)) 

• SEPA Water Quality defined as Good; 

• Large scale industrial agricultural abstractions 500–1000 m 3 /day within 2 km 

downstream; 

• Surface water abstractions for private water supply for more than 15 people; 

• Private Water Supplies – Surface water abstractions within 100–600 m, groundwater 

spring abstractions from 100–400 m, and groundwater borehole abstractions from 0– 

200 m 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 >10 m wide; 

• Active floodplain area (important in relation to flood defence); 

• Groundwater abstractions 500–1000 m 3 /day (within zone of influence from 

development); 

• Groundwater abstraction for private water supply >10 m 3 /day or serves >50 people; 

• Groundwater aquifer vulnerability classed as 4d, 4c, 4b, 4a in the SEPA vulnerability 

classification scheme. 

March 2013 

13-3 




Sensitivity 

Low 

Negligible 

Definition 

Receptor with a low quality and known to exist in reasonable abundance at local, regional 

or national scale, with limited potential for substitution/replacement. This includes: 

• Local designated sites (e.g. Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC)) 

• SEPA Water Quality defined as Moderate; 

• Industrial/agricultural abstractions 50–499 m 3 /day within 2 km downstream; 

• Occasional or local recreation (e.g. local angling clubs); 

• Conveyance of flow and material, main river 5 m 

wide; 

• Existing flood defences; 

• Groundwater abstractions 50–499 m 3 /day; 

• Private Water Supplies – Surface water abstractions from > 600 m, groundwater spring 

abstractions from 400–800 m and groundwater borehole abstractions from 200–600 m 

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; 

• Groundwater aquifer vulnerability classed as 2 and/or 3 in the SEPA vulnerability 

classification scheme. 

Receptor with 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. This includes: 

• SEPA water quality defined as Poor or Bad; 

• Industrial/agricultural abstractions


13.2.6 Effects are identified by comparing the baseline hydrological, hydrogeological and ground 

conditions and how these would change over time without the project occurring (the “donothing”) 

scenario and how the baseline would likely change as a result of the development. 

Effects can be either positive (improving the baseline scenario) or adverse (detrimental to the 

baseline scenario). 

13.2.7 Having identified and characterised the potential effects that may arise during the 

construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind farm, the significance of effect can 

be assessed by taking into consideration the magnitude of effect predicted in relation to the 

sensitivity of the baseline. 

13.2.8 To determine the likely magnitude of effects, it is necessary to consider the timing, scale, size 

and duration of the potential activities. For the purposes of this assessment the magnitude 

criteria are defined as follows in Table 13.2. 

Table 13.2 Criteria for Defining Magnitude of Effect 

Magnitude Criteria Description and Example 

Large 

Medium 

Small 

Negligible 

Results in loss of 

attribute 

Affects integrity of 

attribute or partial 

loss of attribute 

Results in minor 

effect on attribute 

Results in an effect 

on attribute but of 

insufficient 

magnitude to affect 

the use/integrity 

• Fundamental (long term or permanent) changes to geology, 

hydrology, water quality and hydrogeology; 

• Loss of designated Salmonid Fishery; 

• Loss of national level designated species/habitats; 

• Changes in WFD water quality status of river reach; 

• Loss of flood storage/increased flood risk; and 

• Pollution of potable source of abstraction compared to predevelopment 

conditions 

• Material but non-fundamental and short to medium term 

changes to the geology, hydrology, water quality and 

hydrogeology; 

• Loss in productivity of a fishery; 

• Contribution of a significant proportion of the discharges in the 

receiving water, but insignificant enough to change its water 

quality status; and 

• No increase in flood risk. 

• Detectable but non-material and transitory changes to the 

geology, hydrology, water quality and hydrogeology; and 


• No perceptible changes to the geology, hydrology, water 

quality and hydrogeology; 

• Discharges to watercourse but no reduction in quality, fishery 

productivity or biodiversity; and 


13.2.9 Once the magnitude of any potential effects are assessed, the results can be compared with 

the sensitivity of the baseline environment and used to define the Level of the effect as 

outlined in Table 13.3. 

March 2013 

13-5 




Table 13.3 Establishing the Level/ Scale of Effects 

Magnitude 

Sensitivity 


Large 

Very substantial or 

substantial 


moderate 


Negligible 

Medium 


moderate 


Small Moderate or slight Slight Slight or negligible Negligible 


13.2.10 Potential effects are therefore assessed of being either of negligible, slight, moderate, 

substantial or very substantial scale. Where the scale/ level of the effects is determined to be 

moderate or greater, it is considered that these represent significant effects that require 

mitigation. 

13.2.11 The results of the effect assessment are then used to identify what mitigation measures and 

monitoring schemes are required to ensure that effects are minimised and that action is taken 

or changes are made to the mitigation in place, if and when required. 

13.2.12 The aim of the mitigation measures is to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy the significant 

adverse effects identified. The mitigation measures identified here will be carried through to 

the Health, Safety and Environmental Management System (HSEMS), an outline structure of 

which is included at Appendix 4.4. 


Data Sources 

13.3.1 Published information sources consulted for the baseline survey are identified in Table 13.4 

below. 

Table 13.4 Baseline Information Sources 

Baseline Survey 

Data Source 

Designations • SNHi information service, Site Link 

(http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/index.jsp) 

• SEPA, River Basin Management Plans, Web Mapping Application, 

http://gis.sepa.org.uk/rbmp/MapViewer.aspx 

Climate • BGS, Hydrogeological Map of Scotland, 1:625,000, 1988 

• Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) CD-ROM 

Topography 

Surface Hydrology 

and Flooding 

• Ordnance Survey topographic maps, scales 1:10,000; 1:25,000; and 

1:50,000 

• NextMap digital terrain model (DTM) 

• Ordnance Survey maps as above 

• Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (SEPA) www.sepa.org.uk 

March 2013 

13-6 




Baseline Survey 

Geology, Solid and 

Drift 

Data Source 

• Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) CD-ROM 

• British Geological Survey (BGS) Digital Data provided at www.emapsite.com 

• British Geological Survey (1992a) Sheet 31W (Scotland) Airdrie, Solid 

Geology 1:50,000 Scale 

• British Geological Survey (1992b) Sheet 31W (Scotland) Airdrie, Drift 

Geology 1:50,000 Scale 

• British Geological Survey (1985) British Regional Geology: The Midland 

Valley of Scotland 

Soils and Peat • Macaulay Institute, Soil Survey of Scotland, 1:250,000 Sheet 24 

• See Appendix 13.2 for further baseline information sources, used to inform 

the peat depth survey 

Hydrogeology 

Surface Water and 

Groundwater 

Quality 

Water Resources 

• Scottish Environment Protection Agency, (2004a). Bedrock Aquifer Map of 

Scotland 

• Scottish Environment Protection Agency, (2004b). Groundwater Vulnerability 

of the Uppermost Aquifer Map of Scotland 

• SEPA, Draft River Basin Management Plans, Web Mapping Application, 

http://gis.sepa.org.uk/rbmp/MapViewer.aspx 

• Infrastructure and asset information from Scottish Water 

• Private Water Supply (PWS) information from West Lothian Council 

• Controlled Activity Regulations (CAR) information from SEPA 

Consultations 

13.3.2 The formal Scoping Opinion (see Chapter 2: The Environmental Impact Assessment and 

Scoping Process and Appendix 2.2) included a range of comments relevant to this 

assessment and these are summarised in Table 13.5 below. A full review of the comments 

raised and how these have been responded to in the ES is presented in Table 2.1 in Chapter 

2. 

Table 13.5 Consultation Responses 

Consultee 

SEPA 

Response 

• Disruption to wetland and peat bogs should be minimised 

• Re-use of excavated peat should be maximised. 

• Forest removal and generation of forest waste should be minimised. 

• Impacts on existing groundwater abstractions should be avoided or reduced to 

acceptable levels. 

• Engineering activities near the water environment should be fully justified and 

constructed according to environmental best practice methods. 

• Details of any required water abstraction should be provided. 

• Pollution prevention measures should be fully documented and adopted. 

• Details of material borrow areas should be provided. 

• Flood risk should be assessed. 

March 2013 

13-7 




Consultee 

SNH 

Scottish 

Water 

West 

Lothian 

Council 

Response 

• The potential loss of carbon storage in peat bogs should be considered in the design. 

• No comments relevant to hydrology, hydrogeology and ground conditions. 

• No scoping response received. Detailed water supply and sewerage infrastructure 

drawings were requested and have been supplied. 

• Details of watercourse crossings should be provided. Crossings should minimise 

obstruction to river flows. 

• Impact on runoff and drainage should be assessed both within and beyond the site. 

• Long-term impacts should be assessed and long-term water management and 

maintenance provisions should be clarified. 

Legislation, Policies and Guidance 

13.3.3 Table 13.6 presents all of the relevant legislation, policy and guidance that has been taken 

into account in undertaking this assessment. A full discussion of relevant planning policy is 

presented in Chapter 5: Planning Policy Overview and consideration of compliance with 

relevant policies is presented in the Planning Statement. 

Table 13.6 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidance 

Source 

European 

Legislation 

Scottish/UK 

Legislation 

Scottish 

Government policy 

and advice 

documents 

SEPA policy and 

guidance 

documents 

Relevant legislation, policy or guidance 

• Freshwater Fish Directive 2006/44/EC 

• Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC 

• Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 

• Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 

(CAR) 

• The Quarries Regulations 1999 

• Planning Advice Note (PAN) 61: Planning and SuDS, 2001 

• PAN 79: Water and Drainage, 2006 

• Scottish Government (2006) Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessments, 

Best Practice Guide for Proposed Electricity Generation Developments 

• Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2010 

• Scotland River Basin Management Plan 

• PPG 1 General Guide to the Prevention of Pollution 

• PPG 2 Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks 

• PPG 3 Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems 

• PPG 4 Treatment and disposal of sewage where no foul sewer is available 

• PPG 5 Works and maintenance in or near water 

• PPG 6 Working at Construction and Demolition Sites 

• PPG 8 Safe Storage and Disposal of Used Oil 

• PPG 13 Vehicle Washing and Cleaning 

• PPG18 Managing Fire Water and Major Spillages 

• PPG 21 Polluting Incident Response Planning 

March 2013 

13-8 




Source 

Other guidance 

documents 

Relevant legislation, policy or guidance 

• Special Requirements for Civil Engineering Contracts for the Prevention of 

Pollution, Version 2, SEPA, 2006 

• Temporary Construction Methods, WAT-SG-29, 2009 

• Engineering in the water environment: good practice guide; River crossings, 

2010 

• The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011; 

A practical guide, 2011 

• Groundwater Protection Policy for Scotland, v3, 2009 

• Culverting of Watercourses, WAT-PS-06-02, 2006 

• Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) 

• SEPA Flood Risk and Planning Briefing Note, 2011 

• Flood risk position statement, 2009 

• Technical flood risk guidance for stakeholders, SS-NFR-P-002, 2010 

• SEPA Regulatory Position Statement – Developments on peat, 2010 

• Environmental Standards for River Morphology, WAT-SG-21, 2012 

• Managing River Habitats for Fisheries, 2002 

• Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites, CIRIA C532 

• Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Projects, CIRIA C648 

• The SuDS Manual, CIRIA C697 

• Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and 

Northern Ireland, CIRIA C521 

• Environmental Good Practice on Site, CIRIA C502 

• Environmental Good Practice on Site (Expansion of C502), CIRIA C650 

• Culvert Design and Operation Guide, CIRIA C689 

• Groundwater Control - Design and Practice, CIRIA C515 

• A Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, SNH, 2009 

• Good Practice During Windfarm Construction, Scottish Renewables (SR), 

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), SEPA and Forestry Commission Scotland 

(FCS) 2010 

• Forestry Commission Scotland, (2010). Agreed Standards for the Design and 

Construction of the Carron Valley Wind Farm Access 

• Floating Roads on Peat, SNH and FCS August 2010 

• Methodology for the Water Framework Directive, SNIFFER (Scotland and 

Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research), Project WFD 28 Final 

Report 2004 

• A GIS of aquifer productivity in Scotland: explanatory notes, Groundwater 

Systems and Water Quality Programme Commissioned Report 

CR/04/04/047N. A, M, MacDonald, D, F, Ball and B, É, O Dochartaigh (2004) 

• Private Water Supplies: Technical Manual, Scottish Executive, 2006 

• River Crossings and Migratory Fish: Design Guidance, A Consultation Paper, 

The Scottish Executive. 2000 

• Forests and water; UK Forestry Standard Guidelines. Forestry Commission 

2011. 

March 2013 

13-9 




Site Walkover Survey 

13.3.4 A walkover survey was undertaken on 15 August 2012 to help determine the hydrological and 

geological characteristics of the proposed wind farm site and ground-truth the findings of the 

desk study. The survey allowed for a visual assessment of the surface water features, land 

use, hydrological regime and an increased understanding of the site topography, geology and 

soils. The weather conditions during the survey were dry and sunny and rainfall levels prior to 

the survey were approximately 40-50% above the long-term monthly average values based 

on Met Office data at Paisley. 

13.3.5 A watercourse crossing assessment was undertaken to confirm the locations at which the 

access tracks cross on-site streams, and any requirement to upgrade these crossings to 

facilitate wind farm construction. The watercourse crossing assessment has been included in 

Appendix 13.3 and includes the following information: 

• Crossing survey maps; 

• Photographs across, upstream and downstream of the crossing point; 

• Information relating to hydromorphology of the stream crossing and riparian zone; 

• Outline design for proposed extension to existing drainage pipes; and 

• The level of CAR authorisation likely to be required. 

Designated Areas 

13.3.6 There are no international designated conservation areas within the site. 

13.3.7 The designated areas relevant to the hydrology, hydrogeology and ground conditions within 

the site are shown in Table 13.7 below and illustrated on Figure 3.7 in Chapter 3: Design 

Evolution. 

Table 13.7 Designated Areas 

Site Designated Features Distance from the Site (Measured Along 

Rivers) 

Cobinshaw Moss SSSI Intermediate blanket bog Less than 200 m south west and upstream of 

site. 

Craigengar SSSI Blanket bog More than 5 km upstream 

Climate 

13.3.8 The long-term annual average rainfall at the proposed site has been estimated using Flood 

Estimation Handbook (FEH) data (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 2009) using the 

Standard Average Annual Rainfall (SAAR) parameter. The annual rainfall ranges between 

960 and 1,000 mm. To put this into context, rainfall in Scotland varies from over 3,000 mm 

per year in the western Highlands to under 600 mm in some eastern coastal areas. 

13.3.9 Rainfall depths during storm events at the proposed site could reach up to 78 mm per day for 

a 3.3 % (1/30) annual probability event or 112 mm per day for a 0.5 % (1/200) annual 

probability event. 

March 2013 

13-10 




Land-use and Topography 

13.3.10 The site is located within the Camilty Plantation which is owned by the Forestry Commission 

Scotland (FCS). The Camilty Plantation is used for active commercial forestry. 

13.3.11 The site is characterised by low gradient topography with ground level predominantly sloping 

in north and eastern direction. 

13.3.12 The maximum elevation within the site is approximately 289 mAOD towards the south 

eastern boundary. Ground levels fall to 241 mAOD approximately within the Crosswood Burn 

valley at the north eastern site boundary. 

Surface Water Hydrology 

13.3.13 The site is located within the Linhouse Water catchment. The Linhouse Water is a tributary of 

the River Almond which ultimately drains into the Firth of Forth near Cramond, Edinburgh. 

The majority of the site is drained through the Crosswood Burn, a headwater of the Camilty 

Water and its tributary the Powfastle Burn (see Figure 13.1). Areas near the north western 

site boundary drain into the Black Burn, a tributary of the Camilty Water. 

Flow Regime 

13.3.14 River levels and flows are monitored by SEPA along the River Almond and its tributaries at 

various locations. The nearest gauging station downstream from the site is along the River 

Almond at Almondell (NT 086 686). Another gauging station near the site is downstream of 

the Cobbinshaw Reservoir, approximately 3 km west of the site. This station is not within the 

catchments draining the site. In the absence of river flow data representative of the 

development site, RPS has utilised data from the FEH to analyse the hydrological regime. 

13.3.15 The FEH Base Flow Index (BFI) indicates the proportion of runoff that derives from stored 

sources. For example, BFI of 0.1 might represent a relatively impermeable clay catchment 

whereas BFI of 0.99 might represent a highly permeable chalk catchment. BFI at the 

development site is between 0.32 and 0.33 approximately. 

13.3.16 The Standard Percentage Runoff (SPR) parameter, also provided by FEH, represents the 

typical percentage of precipitation that drains over the surface towards open watercourses 

during a storm. SPR at the development site is approximately 47%. 

13.3.17 Overall, the FEH parameters suggest that the development area, compared with other 

Scottish catchments, will respond quickly to rainfall events. However, annual and storm 

rainfall and therefore runoff rates are relatively low compared with other areas in Scotland. 

13.3.18 Low flow rates have been estimated for the Black Burn and the Camilty Water at the 

confluence with the Black Burn. Table 13.8 below shows the average flow rate as well as the 

Q95 low flow rate, being the flow rate (or smaller) occurring on average 5% of the time which 

corresponds to 18 days per year. 

Table 13.8 Low Flow Estimations 

Location 

Drainage Average flow Low flow (Q 95 ) 

area 

(km 2 ) (m 3 /day) (l/s) (m 3 /day) (l/s) 

Camilty Water at confluence with Black Burn 23.62 33,000 380 3,200 37 

Black Burn 2.56 3,300 38 342 4.0 

March 2013 

13-11 




Flood Risk 

13.3.19 In the context of planning and development, the government has defined a number of flood 

risk zones or levels as shown in Table 13.9 below. The table also shows government policy 

on whether development is acceptable in each zone. 

Table 13.9 Flood Risk Zones (Scottish Government, 2010) 

Risk zone 

Annual flooding 

probability 

Appropriate land use 

Little or no risk area < 0.1% All development types generally acceptable. 

Low to medium risk 

area 

Medium to high risk 

area, within areas 

already built-up 

Medium to high risk 

area, undeveloped 

and sparsely 

developed areas 

0.1%–0.5% Most development types are generally acceptable unless 

site specific conditions indicate otherwise. A flood risk 

assessment may be required at the upper end of the 

probability range (i.e. close to 0.5 %) or where the nature of 

the development or local circumstances indicate heightened 

risk. 

> 0.5% Areas already built up may be suitable for residential, 

institutional, commercial and industrial development 

provided flood prevention measures to the appropriate 

standard already exist, are under construction or are 

planned as part of a long term development strategy in a 

structure plan context. Land raising may be acceptable. 

> 0.5% Undeveloped and sparsely developed areas are generally 

not suitable for additional development, including 

residential, institutional, commercial and industrial 

development. Exceptions may arise if a location is essential 

for operational reasons, e.g. for navigation and water-based 

recreation uses, agriculture, transport or some utilities 

infrastructure, and an alternative lower risk location is not 

achievable. Land raising may be acceptable. 

13.3.20 The Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) (Scottish Environment Protection 

Agency, 2010a) does not indicate any significant flood extent within the development site. 

This does not mean that there is no risk of flooding as the drainage areas of some streams 

within the site are less than 3 km 2 . Such rivers are not included in SEPA’s flood map. 

Flooding is shown to be limited to areas directly adjacent to the river channels, due to the 

incised nature of the watercourse within the site. 

Overland Flooding 

13.3.21 Various degrees of overland flood risk exist in many areas in Scotland, including rural and 

urban areas. Overland flooding is caused by ponding of surface water, for example due to 

fully saturated soils, followed by flowing of water to lower lying areas. This flood risk can be 

highly localised in nature depending on the topography (including small details such as road 

kerbs etc) and the extent of natural or man-made drainage systems (including drainage 

ditches etc). 

13.3.22 Due to the moderately sloping topography covering the majority of the site it is likely that 

overland flow could occur in various places. This may be the case, for example, in areas with 

low permeability soils or in steeper sloping parts of the site. It is unlikely that these overland 

flows would accumulate to the extent required for significant flooding to occur. 

March 2013 

13-12 




Groundwater Flooding 

13.3.23 Groundwater flooding results from water rising up from the underlying rocks or from springs. 

Groundwater flooding is most likely to occur in low-lying areas underlain by permeable 

bedrock. 

13.3.24 Generally, the topography of the site may suggest that groundwater could be drained 

effectively towards the rivers crossing the site. The flatter parts of the site include deep peat 

bogs where groundwater is likely to be permanently near the surface. During winter, 

groundwater may appear at or just above the surface depending on the local topography and 

the presence of forestry drains. 

13.3.25 Localised groundwater flooding may occur within the limited floodplains along the Crosswood 

Burn. 

Artificial Drainage System Flooding 

13.3.26 Due to the presence of active commercial forestry throughout the majority of the site, there 

are numerous artificial networks draining water from the site. 

13.3.27 Where systems are not maintained (e.g. build up of sediment or blockages are not removed), 

the effectiveness and capacity of such drainage systems may become compromised and 

flooding could occur. 

Surface Water and Groundwater Quality 

13.3.28 The Linhouse Water and Camilty Burn are monitored by SEPA under the Water Framework 

Directive (WFD) for water quality and ecological status. The most recent classifications based 

on data collected in 2010 are shown in Table 13.10 below. 

Table 13.10 Surface Water Quality Classifications 

River 

Overall 

status 

Overall 

ecological 

status 

Key pressures 

Linhouse Water / 

Camilty Burn 

Poor Poor • Livestock farming (diffusion pollution) 

• Barriers to fish passage 

• Abstractions for public water supplies 

13.3.29 The site is also underlain by two groundwater classification units, which are also assessed 

and monitored by SEPA under the WFD for water quality and water resource status. The 

most recent published classification results are from 2008 and are shown in Table 13.11 

below. 

Table 13.11 Groundwater Quality Classifications 

Groundwater unit 

Water 

quality 

status 

Water 

resource 

status 

Designations 

Key pressures 

Edinburgh and 

Livingston bedrock 

and localised sand 

and gravel aquifers 

Poor Poor Drinking Water 

Directive 

Groundwater 

• Mining and quarrying (diffuse 

source pollution) 

• Livestock farming and 

manufacturing (abstractions) 

March 2013 

13-13 




Soils and Peat 

13.3.30 The Soil Survey of Scotland map indicates that the site soils are dominated by peaty gleys of 

the Rowanhill soil association with the parent materials comprising drift deposits from 

Carboniferous geologies (sandstone, shale and limestone). The vegetation and landscapes 

characterised by the Rowanhill association include blanket bog and heather moorlands. 

13.3.31 In addition to the Rowanhill association, in the far southeast of the site the Humbie/Biel 

association extends onto the site from the southeast. This association comprises a mix of 

peaty gleys, humic gleys, peaty podzols and peat with parent materials consisting of drifts 

derived from Lower Carboniferous geologies. The landscapes and vegetation characterised 

by the Humbie/Biel association are dominated by bog, blanket bog and moist heather 

moorland. Details of the soil types at the site are included in Table 13.12. 

Table 13.12 Soil Types 

Map 

unit 

Soil 

association 

Component 

soils 

Parent material Landforms Vegetation 

470 Humbie / Biel Peaty gleys, 

humic gleys, 

some peaty 

podzols and 

peat 

Drifts derived 

from Lower 

Carboniferous 

and Upper Old 

Red Sandstone 

sediments and 

lavas 

Undulating 

lowlands and 

uplands with 

gentle and 

strong slopes 

Moist Atlantic 

heather moor; 

rush pastures 

and sedge 

mires; blanket 

bog 

450 Rowanhill Peaty Gleys 

(very poorly 

drained) 

450 Rowanhill Peaty Gleys 

(poorly drained) 

Drifts derived 

from 

Carboniferous 

sandstones, 

shales and 

limestones 

Undulating 

foothills with 

gentle and 

strong slopes 

Blanket bog; 

moist Atlantic 

heather moor 

13.3.32 Initial peat assessments and depth surveys were undertaken at the feasibility stage and 

during the initial design stages. Surveys were undertaken in December 2011, March 2012 

and September 2012 by RPS staff and included a survey of peat depth using probing. 

13.3.33 A detailed map of peat depth for deposits of peat located within the site is included in Figure 

TA13.2.5 in Appendix 13.2. The peat within the site is deep towards the centre of the site, 

north of the Crosswood Burn. In this area the maximum peat depth is approximately 7 m. In 

other areas of the site the peat depth is generally much shallower or absent with depths 

varying between 0 and 3 m approximately. Areas with no peat or peat shallower than 1 m 

account for almost 60 % of the site area. The distribution of peat depths within the surveyed 

areas is shown in Table 13.13 below. 

March 2013 

13-14 




Table 13.13 Distribution of Peat Depth 

Peat depth range (m) Area percentage (%) 

0.0–0.5 39 

0.5–1.0 20 

1.0–2.0 15 

2.0–4.0 20 

4.0–7.2 (max) 6 

Total 100 

13.3.34 Further details on the peat surveys are included in Appendix 13.2. A peat slide risk 

assessment was undertaken to determine the risk of peat stability within this site and is 

presented in Appendix 13.2. 

Superficial Geology 

13.3.35 Digital drift geological maps were sourced from the British Geological Survey (BGS) and 

reviewed to provide geological information for the site of the proposed wind farm. 

13.3.36 The superficial lithology of the site is shown to be dominated by peat overlying Devensian 

diamicton till which is exposed in some areas. Small areas of undifferentiated alluvium and 

river terrace deposits (of gravel, sand, silt and clay) are identified along the Crosswood 

Burn/Camilty Water. 

13.3.37 Figure 13.3 shows the superficial geology from the BGS. 

Solid Geology 

13.3.38 Digital solid geological maps were sourced from the BGS and reviewed to provide geological 

information for the site of the proposed wind farm. 

13.3.39 BGS data shows that the underlying solid geology is dominated by the Calders Member 

(Sedimentary Rock Cycles) of the Strathclyde Group. 

13.3.40 Figure 13.4 shows the bedrock geology from the BGS. 

Coal Mining 

13.3.41 There is a coal field immediately to the west of the site, which could extend under part of the 

western side of the site however there are no records of any workings located beneath the 

site (see Appendix 13.1 Geotechnical Desk Study) and therefore issues related to coal 

mining have not been considered further within this assessment. 

13.3.42 There are records that the Oil Shale has been worked in the vicinity of the site however it is 

unlikely to have extended beneath the site (see Appendix 13.1 Geotechnical Desk Study) and 

therefore issues related to Oil Shale Workings have not been considered further within this 

assessment. 

Hydrogeology 

13.3.43 The site is underlain by impermeable extrusive igneous strata. These rocks have very limited 

groundwater flow or storage capacity. SEPA’s Bedrock Aquifer map shows that the site is 

March 2013 

13-15 




located on bedrock within which flow is dominated by intergranular fracture flow with a 

moderate productivity (IF M). 

13.3.44 There may be more localised movement of groundwater through the superficial deposits due 

to the presence of sand and gravel within the glacial deposits and till, but these will be limited. 

The drift aquifer is mostly unclassified or absent with some areas having intergranular flow 

with low productivity. 

13.3.45 In accordance with the SNIFFER Guidance (2004), under which Class 1 is the least 

vulnerable and Class 5 is the most vulnerable, the majority of the site has a vulnerability 

classification of 2 or 3), with 4d within northern and south eastern areas of the site. 

13.3.46 This classification reflects the moderate productivity of the igneous bedrock combined with 

the thin superficial deposits present across the majority of the site. 

Private Water Supplies 

13.3.47 Information on the location and nature of private water supplies was requested from West 

Lothian Council’s Environmental Health department. In total, 10 supplies within 3 km of the 

site boundary were identified and assessed as shown in Table 13.14 and Figure 13.2. Note 

that the information on Type B supplies in Table 13.14 may be less accurate as this is largely 

based on historic information provided to the council. This is the only available register of 

private water supplies. 

Table 13.14 Private Water Supplies within 3 km of Site Boundary (see Figure 13.2 for 

locations) 

Ref Name Properties Served Source Source 

location 

PWS 

type 

WLO23 Crosswoodhill Crosswoodhill Farm; Wester 

Crosswoodhill; The Beeches, 

Crosswoodhill; The Steading 

Spring NT 042 556 A1 

WLO24 Mid Crosswood Mid Crosswood Spring NT 055 570 B 

WLO25 Crosswoodburn Crosswoodburn Farm; Aberlyn Spring NT 039 557 B 

WLO27 Crosswood Reservoir Crosswood Reservoir Aqueduct NT 058 579 B 

WLO28 Causewood Farm Causewood Farm Spring NT 083 612 B 

WLO29 Colzium Colzium Farm; Colzium Farm 

Cottage 

Aqueduct NT 084 583 B 

WLO31 

Cairns 

House/Causewayend 

Cairns House; The Old 

Schoolhouse 


WLO33 Brookbank Brookbank Cottage Spring NT 073 598 B 

WLO34 Halfway House Halfway House Spring/ 

well 

NT 074 597 

B 

WLO38 Causewayend Berry Knowe Cottage; Wester 

Causewayend; The Puddocks; 

Rashiedene; East Steading; 

West Steading; West Cairns 

Cottage; The Owl Barn; West 

Barn 


March 2013 

13-16 




Public Water Supplies 

13.3.48 Scottish Water provided detailed drawings showing the location of their water supply and 

sewerage infrastructure near the proposed site. 

13.3.49 Raw water mains are shown to the south of the site. One of these starts at Crosswood 

Reservoir and runs in a north easterly direction. At its closest point, the main is at least 170 m 

from the proposed site boundary and 380 m from proposed wind farm infrastructure. 

13.3.50 An abandoned or isolated water supply main runs along parts of the western site boundary. 

The nearest distribution main is located to the north west of the proposed site at a minimum 

distance of 750 m from the proposed site boundary. 

13.3.51 There is no water supply infrastructure within the proposed site boundary. There is also no 

sewerage infrastructure within or in the vicinity of the proposed site. 

Abstractions and Discharges 

13.3.52 Nearby abstractions and discharges, as licensed under the Controlled Activities Regulations 

(CAR), were supplied by SEPA and are shown in Table 13.15. 

Table 13.15 Licensed Discharges within 3 km of the Site (see Figure 13.2 for locations) 

Ref 

CAR licence 

number 

Name 

Licensed activity 

1 CAR/R/1086170 New dwelling at West Torphin Farm, West 

Calder 

Sewage (Private) 

2 CAR/R/1021558 Coalheugh Head Cottage Sewage (Private) 

3 CAR/R/1060408 East Torphin House Sewage (Private) 

4 CAR/R/1081811 3, 4 ,5 & 6 Harburn, West Calder Sewage (Private) 

5 CAR/R/1010266 Northwood Harburn West Calder Sewage (Private) 

6 CAR/R/1054959 Crosswoodhill Farmhouse, West Calder Sewage (Private) 

7 CAR/R/1068231 Orlege, Crosswoodhill, West Calder Sewage (Private) 

8 CAR/R/1094228 Marquee at Harburn House Estate, West Calder Sewage (Private) 

9 CAR/S/1083937 Crosswoodhill, West Calder West Lothian Sheep Dip onto Land 



12 CAR/R/1068189 Steading Cottage, Crosswoodhill, West Calder Sewage (Private) 

13 CAR/S/1083934 Wester Crosswoodhill Farm, West Calder Sheep Dip onto Land 


15 CAR/R/1068182 Beeches, Crosswoodhill, West Calder Sewage (Private) 

16 CAR/R/1054965 New House, Near Mid Crosswood, West Calder Sewage (Private) 

March 2013 

13-17 




Ref 

CAR licence 

number 

Name 

Licensed activity 

17 CAR/R/1068173 Midcrosswood, Crosswoodhill, West Calder Sewage (Private) 

18 CAR/R/1085709 1 Crosswood, West Calder, West Lothian Sewage (Private) 

19 CAR/R/1095330 High Camilty, West Calder Sewage (Private) 

20 CAR/S/1018134 Cairns Farm, Kirknewton, West Lothian Sheep Dip onto Land 




24 CAR/R/1021565 Colzium House, Kirknewton Sewage (Private) 

25 CAR/R/1021563 Shepherd's Keep Cottage Sewage (Private) 

26 CAR/R/1078073 West Barn (+2) Wester Causewayend, 

Kirknewton 

Sewage (Private) 

27 CAR/R/1021566 Colzium Farm Cottage, Kirknewton Sewage (Private) 

28 CAR/R/1072938 Rashiedene Cottage, Kirknewton, West Lothian Sewage (Private) 


30 CAR/R/1055522 Cairns House, Kirknewton Sewage (Private) 

13.3.53 As shown in Table 13.15 there are 30 licensed discharges within 3 km of the site boundary 

and there are no licensed abstractions. The discharges include private sewage outfalls 

(typically from septic tanks) and discharges from sheep dips. Some of these discharges are 

located upstream from the site and may adversely affect the water quality along the rivers 

within the site. 

Fisheries 

13.3.54 The River Almond is designated salmonid water under the Fresh Water Fish Directive. The 

baseline assessment and impact assessment with regard to aquatic ecology are described in 

Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology. 

Baseline Receptor Sensitivity 

13.3.55 The sensitivity of the relevant receptors have been assessed based on the criteria in Table 

13.1 and are presented, along with their justification, in Table 13.16. 

March 2013 

13-18 




Table 13.16 Sensitivity of Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Soils Receptors 

Receptor Sensitivity Justification 

Watercourses Low Narrow rivers of poor water quality and flow regime affected by 

abstractions for public water supplies. 

Groundwater Low Poor water quality status and groundwater vulnerability generally 

between 2 and 3. 

Soils and peat Medium Deep peat present in some areas within the site, however not 

designated. 

Superficial 

geology 

Bedrock 

geology 

Private water 

supplies 

Public water 

supplies 

Abstractions 

and discharges 

Low 

Low 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Comprised diamicton till and alluvium deposits. No designated sites. 

No designated sites. 

Not further assessed as the nearest supply is more than 500 m from 

the proposed site boundary and not within an area 

hydro(geo)logically linked with the proposed site. 

Not further assessed as there is no water supply infrastructure within 

the proposed site. 

Not further assessed as there are no abstractions within or near the 

proposed site. All discharges unaffected and nearest discharge more 

than 600 m from the proposed site boundary. 

Summary of the Baseline Conditions 

13.3.56 The proposed site is characterised by its generally low-gradient topography and is crossed by 

a small river, the Crosswood Burn and its tributary the Powfastle Burn. 

13.3.57 There are two statutorily designated sites near the proposed site with relevance to the 

hydrology, the Cobinshaw Moss SSSI and the Craigengar SSSI. Both sites are designated 

for blanket bog. 

13.3.58 The natural hydrological regime of the proposed site has been disturbed by the presence of 

active commercial forestry, forestry tracks and the introduction of artificial drainage. 

13.3.59 The average peat depth at the site is approximately 1.4 m with a maximum peat depth of 

approximately 7 m in parts. 


13.4.1 During the design evolution process, a buffer of 50 m was established around all natural 

watercourses indentified on the 1:25,000 OS map of the area. All proposed infrastructure is 

kept outwith this buffer zone except for two watercourse crossings. 

13.4.2 The number of watercourse crossings was kept to the absolute minimum necessary. The 

location, alignment and structure design were developed to minimise the impact on river 

flows and geomorphology. 

13.4.3 The results of initial peat probing were used to locate the turbines away from deep peat, or 

from peat altogether. Following detailed peat depth surveys and an initial peat slide risk 

March 2013 

13-19 




assessment, the layout of all tracks was further improved to avoid areas of deep peat and 

areas which may be prone to peat slides. 


13.5.1 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 

farm: 

• Construction; 

• Operation; 

• Decommissioning. 

13.5.2 Due to the nature of the site and the nature of the proposed development, a number of 

construction and decommissioning effects are predicted to be similar. 

13.5.3 The assessment of potential effects has been carried out for the proposals without any 

mitigation measures in place as well as considering a range of mitigation measures. In each 

case the potential magnitude is assessed. 


13.5.4 The most significant phase in terms of the potential effects is the construction period. This 

section identifies the effects that are likely to occur in the hydrological, hydrogeological and 

geological environment during construction of the proposed wind farm. 

Effects on Surface Runoff Characteristics 

13.5.5 Localised increases in the rate and volume of surface runoff could potentially be caused by 

excavations, keyhole felling, exposure of bare soils, compaction of soils and poor design of 

site drainage. As well as increasing the risk of downstream flooding, this could also alter the 

water quality and hydrological regime of the site. 

13.5.6 Track and turbine foundation construction works have the potential to alter the drainage 

mechanisms within the site, for example through: 

• Diversion of surface runoff away from natural drainage routes; 

• Collection of runoff and rainfall within excavations; 

• Reduction of rainfall interception in areas felled to accommodate construction; 

• Reduction or increase in infiltration or percolation to groundwater; and 

• Ponding of surface water through obstructions of flow paths, etc. 

13.5.7 Compaction of soils may be caused by the movements of construction traffic and machinery. 

This would reduce the soil permeability and therefore rainfall infiltration, and potentially lead 

to higher catchment runoff rates, in particular during high rainfall. 

13.5.8 Although tracks and hard standing areas will be constructed using granular material, surfaces 

are likely to become compacted which is likely to limit infiltration through the track and hard 

standing area bases. The total surface area that may be compacted has been calculated and 

compared with the various catchments in which the infrastructure is located, as presented in 

Table 13.17 below. 

March 2013 

13-20 




Table 13.17 Comparison of Areas with Potential Reduced Permeability and Drainage 

Areas (see Figure 13.1 for locations) 

Location Drainage area (ha) Additional 

infrastructure area (ha) 

Percentage of 

drainage area (%) 

Crosswood Burn 2,472 3.28 0.13 

Black Burn 248 0.00 0.00 

13.5.9 The potential effects on runoff and infiltration are considered to have a medium magnitude, 

and the sensitivity of the rivers and drainage areas affected is considered to be low, resulting 

in a slight level of effect without mitigation. 

Effects on River Flows and Flooding 

13.5.10 Inadequately designed watercourse crossings could restrict watercourses flow regimes within 

the site. This may lead to increased water levels upstream and result in localised increases of 

flood risk. 

13.5.11 Additionally, poorly designed crossing structures could lead to localised erosion and 

sedimentation. Not only could this have an effect on the stability of the structure, but this 

could also have a detrimental effect on water quality caused by a higher than normal 

sediment load. 

13.5.12 Sudden changes in bed levels or flow regimes (for example hydraulic jumps) could potentially 

occur at in-bank structures if not adequately designed. This could lead to the impediment of 

fish migration. 

13.5.13 Effects on river flows and flooding are considered to be of small magnitude and as the rivers 

are of low sensitivity, this results in an effect that is slight or negligible without mitigation. 

Effects on Peat 

13.5.14 Disturbance of peat deposits might occur during construction activities on the site which could 

result in loss of carbon storage, generate waste peat materials from excavations and may 

affect the hydrology of peat. 

13.5.15 The peat slide risk assessment (see Appendix 13.2) concludes that, without mitigation, a 

medium risk exists in relation to peat stability. 

13.5.16 Where the tracks or foundations are near deep peat, the construction may locally lower the 

groundwater table within peat deposits. In the long-term, this could then lead to degrading of 

the bog and a reduction in peat depth. Additionally, tracks intersecting with overland or 

groundwater flow paths, could lead to increased drainage or lead to blockage of flows. 

13.5.17 The potential effect on peat bogs with medium sensitivity is considered to be of large 

magnitude and a substantial or moderate level of effect. 

Erosion and Sedimentation 

13.5.18 Changes in natural drainage patterns due to runoff from exposed soil, dewatering, felling, 

stripping of vegetation and topsoils may lead to the erosion and transport of sediment into 

watercourses. Increased flow rates due to changes in 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. 

March 2013 

13-21 




13.5.19 Where sediment-laden waters are allowed to pond in areas where bedrock is at or near the 

surface, including borrow pits, there is a risk that the contaminated waters may flow through 

fractures in the bedrock, into local groundwater and into local watercourses. 

13.5.20 An assessment of the effects on aquatic habitats is presented in Chapter 11: Terrestrial 

Ecology. 

13.5.21 The effects from erosion and sedimentation on the surface water bodies downstream of the 

site, which have low receptor sensitivity, are considered to be of a large magnitude and 

moderate or slight scale without mitigation. 

Water Quality 

13.5.22 A number of chemicals may be stored and used on-site during the construction of the 

proposed wind farm. 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. 

13.5.23 Spillages of concrete may occur during concrete pouring operations into turbine bases, which 

may runoff into surface watercourses or seep into groundwaters. An assessment of the 

effects of changes to water quality on aquatic habitats is presented in Chapter 11: Terrestrial 

Ecology. 

13.5.24 Contamination of surface water may also occur as a result of spillages from routine plant 

maintenance, improper storage and accidental spillages. 

13.5.25 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 loads such as oils and fuels from 

hardstandings and unset concrete from turbine foundations. 

13.5.26 Due to the potential use of the chemicals adjacent to watercourses on-site, the potential 

effects associated with chemical pollution on the water quality of the surface waters (low 

sensitivity), any releases of chemicals are likely to be of a large magnitude and therefore 

have a moderate or slight effect without mitigation. 

Soils 

13.5.27 During construction, some excavations may require temporary sub-surface water controls, 

such as physical cut-offs or dewatering. Cut-off drains divert flows away from construction 

activities, while dewatering temporarily lowers the water table in the vicinity of the excavation. 

13.5.28 Changes to soil flow patterns can be caused by the movement of construction traffic that may 

lead to compaction of the soil, reducing soil permeability and rainfall infiltration. 

13.5.29 The effects of construction on drainage patterns on the medium sensitivity soils are 

considered to be of a medium magnitude and moderate level of effect. 

Superficial Deposits 

13.5.30 The excavation of foundations can have adverse effects on the superficial deposits (glacial till 

etc). The magnitude of this effect is considered to be small and the sensitivity of superficial 

deposits is low, and therefore the level of predicted effects would be slight or negligible. 

Bedrock Geology 

13.5.31 The excavation of foundations for turbines may effect on the bedrock and have adverse 

effects on the local geological resource. 

March 2013 

13-22 




13.5.32 The site is not within a geologically designated area and the sensitivity of bedrock within the 

proposed development area is therefore considered to be low. As such, the magnitude of 

effect is considered to be negligible and the level of effect negligible. 

March 2013 

Modifications to Hydrogeological Regime 

13.5.33 Any dewatering required for turbine foundation excavations, as well as other construction 

activities, is likely to have a minimal effect due to the low permeability of the bedrock and 

superficial deposits. However, excavations such as those needed for the turbine bases are 

likely to disrupt any shallow groundwater systems within superficial deposits and upper 

bedrock. Temporary groundwater controls such as dewatering or physical cut-offs may be 

required to prevent the excavations filling with water, which would be likely to result in the 

lowering of groundwater levels in the immediate vicinity of the excavation. Cable trenches 

can also provide preferential flow pathways for groundwater, especially if cut to the soil/drift 

bedrock interface. 

13.5.34 The magnitude of these potential effects on the groundwater environment at the proposed 

site is considered to be medium and the sensitivity of the groundwater is considered to be 

low. The level of this effect prior to mitigation is therefore assessed as slight. 

Chemical Pollution of Groundwater 

13.5.35 The leaching of hydrocarbons, chemicals, transformer oils and fuel from any spills during 

construction presents a potential source of contamination to underlying groundwater. The 

glacial till and moraine deposits present within the site are expected to provide protection to 

the limited groundwater in the bedrock where present and would not be removed as part of 

the construction works. The magnitude of this effect is therefore considered to be medium 

and the sensitivity of the groundwater is considered to be low. The scale of this effect prior to 

mitigation is therefore assessed as slight. 

Private Water Supplies 

13.5.36 Private water supplies are not affected as they are located more than 500 m from the 

proposed wind farm. 

Public Water Supplies 

13.5.37 Public water supply infrastructure is not affected as all active infrastructure is located more 

than 400 m from the proposed wind farm. 


13.5.38 The following section identifies the potential effects that could occur on the hydrological, 

hydrogeological and geological environment during the operation of the proposed wind farm. 


13.5.39 The proposed infrastructure, including turbine foundations and access tracks, could 

potentially affect the surface runoff and drainage characteristics in nearby areas. The 

presence of impermeable surfaces could potentially lead to a quicker catchment response 

with increased peak runoff rates. However, given the very small percentage of area used for 

infrastructure, this is unlikely to be significant. Additionally, the proposed infrastructure is 

sparse and surrounded by large areas of undisturbed fields, peat bogs and forestry. 

13.5.40 Access tracks have the potential to intercept surface runoff and alter drainage paths. For 

example, when tracks are constructed along hill slopes, runoff from the upslope gradient may 

13-23 




March 2013 

be intercepted and could cause flooding of the track in the absence of mitigation measures. 

Tracks could potentially become preferential drainage paths where runoff is channelled away 

from natural flow paths. This could lead to substantial overland flows and could cause erosion 

and a reduction in surface water infiltration. 

13.5.41 The forestry within the proposed wind farm is currently drained through a large number of 

artificial drains. It is, therefore, expected that any effect on runoff and drainage due to the 

proposed access tracks is not as significant as it would be if the drainage within the site had 

not already been altered. 

13.5.42 The potential effect on runoff and infiltration on the low sensitivity rivers and drainage areas is 

considered to have a medium magnitude and therefore a slight level of effect without 

mitigation. 


13.5.43 Effects on river flows and flood risk are similar to those expected during the construction 

phase. This is considered to have a small magnitude and low sensitivity, resulting in a 

negligible to slight or negligible level of effect without mitigation. 


13.5.44 Effects on peat are considered to be lower than during the construction phase as there is no 

further disruption and risk of instabilities. This is therefore considered to have a medium 

magnitude and peat is assessed as being of medium sensitivity, resulting in an effect of 

moderate level without mitigation. 


13.5.45 Levels of erosion and sedimentation are likely to be much lower than during the construction 

phase as there are no 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. Similarly there 

could be some minor erosion and sedimentation around new and upgraded stream crossings 

as watercourses find a new equilibrium. Potential effects on the ecology of aquatic species 

and habitats are discussed further in Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology. Hydrological effects on 

the low sensitivity rivers are considered to be of small magnitude and slight or negligible 

level without mitigation. 

Water Quality 

13.5.46 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. 

13.5.47 The effects on the downstream low sensitivity water bodies arising from these activities are 

considered to be of small magnitude and slight or negligible level without mitigation. 

Soils 

13.5.48 The presence of the concrete turbine foundations, tracks and cable trenches may cause 

obstructions for natural drainage and flow patterns within the local soils. 

13.5.49 The potential effects of these changes during the operation phase on the medium sensitivity 

soils are considered to be of small magnitude and slight level. 

13-24 




Superficial Deposits 

13.5.50 No excavations of superficial deposits will occur during the operational phase. Therefore, the 

magnitude of effect on superficial deposits will be negligible and the sensitivity is assessed as 

low, resulting in effects that will be of a negligible level. 

Bedrock Geology 

13.5.51 No excavations of bedrock will occur during the operational phase. Therefore, the magnitude 

of effect on bedrock is assessed as negligible and the sensitivity low, resulting in effects that 

will be of negligible level. 

Modification to Hydrogeological Regime 

13.5.52 Cut tracks and their drainage may alter the water table within superficial deposits and the 

upper bedrock aquifer. Backfilled cable trenches may provide preferential flow pathways for 

groundwater. The above effects are considered to be of medium magnitude and the 

sensitivity of groundwater is considered to be low, resulting in an effect of slight level prior to 

the implementation of mitigation. 

Chemical Pollution of Groundwater 

13.5.53 During the operational phase of the proposed wind farm there will be considerably less onsite 

activity than during construction. However, leaching of contaminants from chemicals 

stored on site and maintenance activities could still be a source of pollution to underlying 

groundwater. The glacial till is expected to provide protection to the groundwater in the 

bedrock where it is present but there are areas of the site where it is absent. The above 

effects are considered to be of medium magnitude and the sensitivity of groundwater is 

considered to be low, resulting in an effect of slight level prior to the implementation of 

mitigation. 



13.5.54 The potential effects of the decommissioning works on surface runoff within the local fluvial 

system are similar as during the construction phase although of a smaller magnitude. During 

the decommissioning, the turbine and track foundations are left in place and top-soils will be 

restored above the foundations. There is therefore a smaller risk of changes to runoff flow 

paths and drainage in general. As the receptor is considered to be of low sensitivity and the 

effect to have a small magnitude, the effect is assessed to be of a slight or negligible level. 


13.5.55 The decommissioning of the proposed wind farm is not likely to have any adverse effect on 

river flows and flooding on the site’s fluvial systems. As the receptor is of low sensitivity, the 

effect is therefore considered to have negligible magnitude and negligible level. 


13.5.56 Potential effects of the decommissioning of the wind farm are neutral as there will no 

additional disturbance of the peat. Tracks and other underground infrastructure will remain in 

place and covered with peat or topsoil. The magnitude of this effect is considered to be 

negligible. As the peat receptor is of medium sensitivity, the scale of this effect is negligible 

March 2013 

13-25 




March 2013 


13.5.57 Erosion or sedimentation may occur as a result of general earth works as part of the 

decommissioning and landscaping works. Considering the low sensitivity surface water 

bodies downstream of the site, and that the magnitude of this effect is likely to be small (less 

than the construction phase) the level of the effect will be slight or negligible without 

mitigation. 

Water Quality 

13.5.58 The effect on water quality and the potential for chemical pollution of the sensitive surface 

water bodies down stream of the site is similar to those arising during the construction phase 

and is considered to have a large magnitude and a moderate or slight level without 

mitigation. 

Soils, Superficial Deposits, Geology and Hydrogeology 

13.5.59 The effects are expected to be the same, and no worse, than those of the construction 

phase. 

13.6 Mitigation Measures 

13.6.1 A number of design and management measures during the construction, operation and 

decommissioning of the proposed wind farm have been identified below. Mitigation measures 

are in accordance with the “Good practice during windfarm construction” guidance publication 

(Scottish Renewables et al., 2010), SEPA’s regulatory position statement “Developments on 

peat” (2010b) and the “Forests and Water” guidance document (Forestry Commission, 2011). 

13.6.2 These measures are designed to reduce the significance of the effects predicted in section 

13.5, as summarised in Table 13.18. The mitigation measures are grouped in the following 

paragraphs by different “strands” of measures rather than addressing each effect and 

corresponding mitigation measure individually. This is because hydrological, hydrogeological 

and ground measures typically mitigate a range of effects. 

Construction Pollution Control 

13.6.3 A Health, Safety and Environmental Management System (HSEMS), including pollution 

prevention measures, specifically aimed at the water environment, and construction method 

statements, will be in place during construction, operation and decommissioning. An outline 

structure of the document is presented in Appendix 4.4. The HSEMS will include the 

mitigation measures to be implemented to prevent or minimise effects on the surface and 

groundwater environment, and will also include a bespoke Incident Response Plan. 

13.6.4 The timing of the works will be planned to avoid construction of tracks and other potentially 

polluting activities during periods of high rainfall as far as reasonably practicable. 

13.6.5 The HSEMS will address the following issues: 

• Storage: all equipment, materials and chemicals will be stored in designated locations 

at an appropriate distance from watercourses. Chemical, fuel and oil stores will be 

sited on impervious bases within a secured bund in accordance with relevant 

guidance and best practice. 

• Vehicles and Refuelling: standing machinery will have drip trays placed underneath to 

prevent oil and fuel leaks causing pollution. Drip trays will have minimum capacity of 

13-26 




110% of the fuel tank. Where practicable, refuelling of vehicles and machinery will be 

carried out in one or potentially two designated areas, on an impermeable surface, 

and well away from any watercourse. Drip trays will also be used during refuelling and 

spill kits will be stored in vehicles on site, at designated refuelling areas and where 

chemicals are stored. Site staff will be trained in their use. 

• Maintenance: where vehicles or plant require maintenance, this will be undertaken in 

a designated area within the construction compound where reasonably practicable, 

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 that all wastewater and sewage is disposed of appropriately. 

This may take the form of an on-site septic tank with soakaway, or offsite 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 avoided or, where essential, carefully controlled by provision of an agreed 

construction method statement prior to construction. 

• Contingency Plans: will ensure that emergency equipment will be available on-site i.e. 

spill kits and absorbent materials, addition pumps, information on where and from 

whom to seek advice, and who should be informed in the event of a pollution incident. 

• Inspections – All mitigation measures put in place, e.g. silt traps and sediment 

settlement tanks, will be inspected regularly and will be suitably maintained to ensure 

they remain fully operational and effective. Where failures or shortfalls within 

mitigation measures are noted, these will be recorded. Suitable action will be 

identified and undertaken within a suitable timeframe. 

Construction Waste Management 

13.6.6 The production of waste will be minimised throughout the works, including wastes from peat 

and this has been taken into account in the design process to avoid, where possible, areas of 

deeper peat. Where waste is generated, this will be reused and recycled where possible. 

13.6.7 A Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) will be produced to address the management of 

waste streams. The SWMP is typically incorporated into the HSEMS and will address the 

following issues: 

• Waste minimisation; 

• Separation of waste at source; 

• Appropriate storage and disposal of waste taking account of stability and pollution 

prevention; 

• Management of peat, superficial deposits and bedrock; 

• Re-use of peat where possible on site; 

• Management of waste oils; and 

• Recommendations for inspection and maintenance. 

March 2013 

13-27 




13.6.8 Consultation with SEPA will be required for any intended re-use of peat on the site. 

Environmental Monitoring 

13.6.9 A groundwater and surface water monitoring programme will be implemented to obtain 

baseline data, as well as data during construction works. The scope will be agreed with 

SEPA and West Lothian Council prior to implementation. 

Surface Water Monitoring 

13.6.10 A surface water monitoring scheme will be implemented to ensure that there is no detrimental 

impact on the water quality of downstream watercourses as a result of the construction 

activities. This allows, for example, the effectiveness of the settlement lagoons to be 

monitored and could highlight additional needs for water quality treatment. 

13.6.11 The monitoring network will be established a minimum of six months prior to construction 

works. The monitoring network will consist of control monitoring points upstream of 

construction works as well as monitoring points downstream of the works. The network will 

include monitoring points downstream of the borrow pits. 

13.6.12 In addition to surface water monitoring, regular visual inspection of surface water 

management features such as drainage pipes and receiving watercourses will be carried out 

in order to establish whether there are increased levels of suspended sediment, erosion or 

deposition. It is likely that there will be an ongoing need to maintain these structures, for 

example by the removal of debris, to ensure they continue to function as designed. 

13.6.13 Regular visual inspection of watercourses will also be required during construction and 

decommissioning stages, particularly during periods of high rainfall but also during low flow 

conditions, in order to establish that levels of suspended solids have not been significantly 

increased by on-site activities. 

13.6.14 Monitoring will also be required as a condition of any discharge consents, abstraction 

licences or other environmental regulations. 

13.6.15 A preliminary design for the water monitoring regime recommended for the site is provided 

within Appendix 13.4. 

Groundwater Movement Monitoring 

13.6.16 As the access tracks are being constructed, the appearance of the track and surrounding 

land will be monitored for increased rate of sinking or tilting or a rise in water levels. 

13.6.17 A line of surveyed and levelled pegs and visual monitoring is an acceptable method of 

monitoring movement adjacent to roads. 

13.6.18 During and immediately after periods of heavy rainfall, earthmoving activities will be reviewed 

with temporary restrictions where necessary. 

Drainage 

13.6.19 The implementation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) as opposed to conventional 

drainage systems on the proposed wind farm 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; 

March 2013 

13-28 




• 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 

local base flows are maintained. 

13.6.20 Where appropriate, SuDS principles have been incorporated into the water management 

methods discussed in the following sections. 

13.6.21 Where there is a high risk of oil contamination identified by the appointed construction 

contractor, and subsequently by the site operator, it may be appropriate to integrate an oil 

separator into any SuDS measures. The implementation of the type of SuDS measures will 

be dependent upon detailed site and hydrological investigations. 

Geotechnical Design 

13.6.22 Detailed geotechnical design will be undertaken for each turbine location, access track, hard 

standing areas and the construction compound. This will be based on the location-specific 

mechanical characteristics of the peat and ground conditions and the morphology of the 

underlying strata (i.e. superficial deposits or bedrock). Further targeted ground investigation 

will therefore inform a detailed design utilising current and location specific geotechnical data. 

Peat Stability Risk 

13.6.23 The Peat Stability Risk Assessment report included in Appendix 13.2 has identified a medium 

to high baseline qualitative risk of peat stability for the site. The semi-quantitative assessment 

has identified that under the loaded scenario, the Factor of Safety (FOS) would be less than 1 

in the vicinity of turbine 6, indicating that construction in this area which loads peat may be 

unacceptable. The report identifies a number of basic mitigation measures required to 

minimise the peat stability risk, including measures to stabilise the risk of peat slide during the 

construction of the track and foundation at turbine 6. Full details are provided in Appendix 

13.2. 

Turbine Foundations 

13.6.24 Bunds or cut-off drains will be placed around turbine foundations to direct any overland flow 

away from open excavations. Drainage ditches will be constructed to attenuate and convey 

the runoff away from the excavation before being treated in a settlement lagoon. All drainage 

around the foundations will be removed on completion of the construction phase. 

13.6.25 Water derived from all dewatering activities during the construction phase will be treated via 

settlement lagoons before being discharged to groundwater or surface water. 

13.6.26 Treated water can also be discharged onto vegetated surfaces and directed away from 

watercourses and drainage ditches to avoid direct entry into watercourses. For discharge 

onto rough grasslands to be effective the discharge must be spread efficiently. 

Turbine Hardstanding Areas 

13.6.27 Turbine hardstandings will be designed in such a way that surface water will infiltrate through 

the relatively permeable surface or will discharge into the associated road drainage .This 

means that overall runoff rates remain close to greenfield conditions. 

March 2013 

13-29 




Site Tracks 

13.6.28 The construction depths of new tracks will vary depending on the ground conditions 

encountered. A cut track construction method will be used on firm granular formation surface 

and existing tracks will be used near the permanent met mast. 

13.6.29 Tracks alignments have been developed to avoid areas of deep peat where possible. The 

only area where the track is within an area of deep peat is between turbines 2 and 6. The 

alternative solution to connect the tracks between turbines 3 and 6 was also considered. 

However, this could have led to de-stabilising of the entire peat bog within the centre of the 

site. Therefore, the track alignment between turbines 2 and 6 has been adopted. This track 

crosses the peat bog over a as short as possible distance and will be constructed using a 

floating road technique. This techniques typically involves laying of a geogrid or membrane 

on the peat surface followed by layers of graded crushed bedrock. Design and construction of 

such roads will follow the guidance document “Floating roads on peat” (Forestry Civil 

Engineering and SNH, 2010) 

13.6.30 In general, tracks will be constructed with sufficient camber or crossfall to minimise ponding 

of surface water on the track surface (as indicated in guidance documents such as that 

produced by Scottish Renewables et al 2010). Any surface water not infiltrating through the 

access track base will be directed into infiltration trenches and/or drainage ditches prior to 

being discharged into settlement ponds. These SuDS measures will treat and attenuate the 

runoff before discharging back into the natural drainage network. Infiltration trenches and 

drainage ditches will be constructed with outlets at frequent intervals to limit the volume of 

water collected in a single channel, thus reducing the erosive potential and allowing 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. 

13.6.31 Where the access tracks are constructed across natural areas of drainage such as flushes 

and springs, drainage measures in the form of drainage pipes will be installed under the 

access track to allow the run-off to continue to follow its natural course. Where required, 

existing field drains will be reconfigured to ensure an effective drainage of the area and to 

prevent surface water ponding behind tracks. Track and construction area drainage systems 

will be in all cases separated from the surrounding drainage systems and watercourses by 

settlement lagoons and silt traps. 

13.6.32 The SuDS proposed as part of the access tracks and other infrastructure are predicted to 

reduce any potential effect on runoff characteristics to baseline conditions. This is due to: 

• The sparse distribution of the proposed infrastructure, without large continuous 

impermeable areas. The total surface area of proposed infrastructure does not exceed 

0.13% in the catchments; 

• Access tracks and hard standing areas will be constructed using graded bedrock 

allowing some surface water infiltration and drainage through adjacent soils; 

• Where drainage ditches are required, outfalls will be distributed along the ditches to 

minimise runoff rates and to allow infiltrate into adjacent soils. 

13.6.33 Where tracks are situated near deep peat, drainage systems will be adapted to ensure that 

the water table in the adjacent peat is not affected or only affected over a short distance. For 

example, drainage ditches along the track will be as shallow as possible sufficient to drain 

rainfall from the track surface and to prevent runoff flooding the track. The track surface will 

March 2013 

13-30 




March 2013 

be near the adjacent peat surface and cross-drains will be installed at or just below the track 

surface. These measures will ensure that runoff within the upper peat layer (acrotelm) is not 

blocked by the track. The track base will be constructed using suitably permeable graded 

material such that the slow movement of water in the deeper peat layers is not significantly 

affected by the track. 

Stream Crossings 

13.6.34 The location of the proposed stream crossings on site are shown in Figure 13.1. The 

alignment of the new site access tracks has been optimised to avoid the need for stream 

crossings where possible. As such, only 2 new stream crossings will be required. A stream 

crossing survey was undertaken and results are presented in Appendix 13.3. 

13.6.35 Confirmation of the level of any CAR authorisations required for the new stream crossings will 

be confirmed with SEPA in advance. 

13.6.36 The new crossing structures will not form a barrier to river flows (low flows and flood flows) 

and aquatic fauna, and will be designed and constructed with respect to relevant guidance 

and best practice. For example, the crossing over the Crosswood Burn (x2) will be 

constructed using a bridge structure spanning the river channel and the floodplain. The 

crossing over the Powfastle Burn (x1) will be constructed using a single span structure such 

as a bottomless arch structure. 

13.6.37 Where access tracks cross artificial drainage ditches, simple pipe structures will be installed 

in accordance with the Forests and Water guidance document. The pipe invert levels will be 

installed slightly below upstream and downstream bed levels to ensure that barriers for fish 

passage and sediment transport are minimised. Any potential effects arising from the artificial 

drainage on aquatic habitats is presented in Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology. 

13.6.38 Streams, crossings and drainage ditches will be inspected and cleared regularly to prevent 

blockages and remove the risk of flooding throughout the construction and operational life of 

the wind farm. 

On-site Buildings 

13.6.39 On-site welfare facilities will be adequately designed and maintained to ensure all wastewater 

and sewage is disposed of appropriately. This disposal is likely to take the form of either a 

closed on-site septic tank with tankering offsite for disposal or a suitable on-site treatment 

system with discharge to soakaway. Design of the final system will require further 

consultation with and authorisation from SEPA. 

13.6.40 Rainfall on roofs will be collected in a rainwater tank for re-use within the building. Any 

excess rainwater will be discharged to groundwater or surface water. 

13.6.41 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. 

Cables 

13.6.42 Where cables are required to be buried, the following mitigation shall be put in place: 

• Excavations for trenches will be of minimal size necessary to undertake works; 

• Cable trenches will be dug, cables laid and filled in sections to minimise the areas of 

active excavation open at any one time; 

13-31 




• Bunds will be placed along the route of the buried cable route to prevent the creation 

of a preferential pathway for groundwater arising along the path of the cable; and 

• All cables will be marked above and below ground to ensure there is no danger to 

human health or the environment during maintenance or earth works within the vicinity 

of the cable routes. 

Concrete Pouring 

13.6.43 When concrete is being poured shutters will be used and, if being poured into an excavation, 

only into an area free from standing water. Pumps should be used to keep excavations dry if 

required. 

13.6.44 Concrete pouring will not be undertaken during heavy rainfall. 

13.6.45 No concrete will be placed within 0.5 m of an open water channel unless the area can be fully 

isolated from the stream, for example through bunding and lining. 

13.6.46 Concrete batching will be undertaken on-site only in the construction compound. 

Traffic 

13.6.47 Site traffic will be kept to clearly designated tracks, in line with a site-specific traffic 

management plan. 

13.6.48 Barriers and/or netting will be used to prevent vehicle movements in sensitive areas as per 

CE Handbook specifications. 

13.6.49 Where vehicle movements are required to take place off-track, e.g. on soft ground during 

construction phase, these will be limited to the absolute minimum and where excessive offtrack 

vehicle movements are required, temporary tracks (e.g. geotextile overlain with 

aggregate) or peat-boards should be used to prevent damage to the soil and creation of 

sediment laden runoff. Such tracks will be removed upon completion of the works. 

13.6.50 If there is a requirement to wash vehicles on-site or as they enter, or leave site, this activity 

should be undertaken in a designated area that is bunded to prevent uncontrolled runoff or 

release of water from the washing process. All water and runoff arising from vehicle washing 

will be controlled and treated prior to discharge back into any watercourse. 

13.7 Enhancement Measures 

13.7.1 No specific hydrological, hydrogeological or ground condition enhancement measures are 

proposed. 


13.8.1 Table 13.18 presents a summary of the predicted effects identified in this chapter and an 

assessment of the residual significance of effects following the implementation of mitigation 

measures identified in the previous section. 

March 2013 

13-32 






phase 

Sensitivity / 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

of change 

Scale of 

effect (and 

significance) 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Scale of 

effect (and 

significance) 

after 

mitigation 

Nature of 

effect 

Watercourses 

Effects on surface 

runoff 

characteristics 

Construction Low Medium Slight (not 

significant) 

Construction drainage system 

(SuDS) 

Slight or 


significant) 

Temporary 

Operation Medium Slight (not 

significant) 

Track design including permeable 

paving. 

Removal of drainage around 

foundations 

Slight or 


significant) 

Permanent 

Decommission Small Slight or 


significant) 


(SuDS) 

Slight or 


significant) 

Temporary 

Effects on river 

flow and flooding 

Construction Small Slight or 


significant) 

Working buffers around streams. 

Negligible (not 

significant) 

Temporary 

Operation Small Slight or 


significant) 

Stream crossing design. 


significant) 

Permanent 

Decommission Negligible Negligible (not 

significant) 

Working buffers around streams. 


significant) 

Temporary 

Erosion and 

sedimentation 

Construction Large Moderate or 

slight 

(significant) 


(SuDS). 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Temporary 

Operation 

Small 

Slight or 


Landscaping and vegetation 

restoration. 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Temporary 






phase 

Sensitivity / 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

of change 

Scale of 

effect (and 

significance) 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Scale of 

effect (and 

significance) 

after 

mitigation 

Nature of 

effect 

significant) 



significant) 


(SuDS) 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Temporary 

Effects on water 

quality 

Construction 

and 

decommission 

Large 

Moderate or 

slight 

(significant) 

SuDS water quality treatment. 

Pollution prevention and construction 

best practices. 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Temporary 




significant) 

Operation and maintenance pollution 

prevention and best practice 

measures. 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Temporary 

Groundwater 

Modification of 

hydrogeological 

regime 

Construction 

and 

decommission 

Low 

Medium 

Slight (not 

significant) 


(SuDS) 


significant) 

Temporary 

Operation Negligible Negligible (not 

significant) 

None 


significant) 

Temporary 

Chemical pollution 

of groundwater 

Construction 

and 

decommission 

Medium 

Slight (not 

significant) 

SuDS water quality treatment. 

Pollution prevention and construction 

best practices. 

Slight or 


significant) 

Temporary 


Operation 

Medium 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Operation and maintenance pollution 

prevention and best practice 

measures. 

Slight or 


significant) 

Temporary 






phase 

Sensitivity / 

importance 

of receptor 

Magnitude 

of change 

Scale of 

effect (and 

significance) 

prior to 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Scale of 

effect (and 

significance) 

after 

mitigation 

Nature of 

effect 

Soils and peat 

Effect on peat 

hydrology 

Construction Medium Large Substantial or 

moderate 

(significant) 

Minimise excavation by layout 

design. 

Floating roads over deep peat. 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Permanent 

Maintain hydrological regime through 

drainage provisions and adequate 

construction materials. 

Operation Medium Moderate 

(significant) 

Effective permanent drainage 

provisions. 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Temporary 


significant) 


restoration. 


significant) 

Permanent 

Effects on soil 

erosion and 

drainage 

Construction 

and 

decommission 

Medium 

Moderate 

(significant) 


(SuDS). 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Temporary 

Operation 

Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 


restoration. 


significant) 

Temporary 

Superficial 

geology 

Excavation of 

superficial 

deposits 

Construction 

and 

decommission 

Low 

Small 

Moderate or 

slight 

(significant) 

Minimising excavations. Re-use of 

excavated materials. 


significant) 

Permanent 

Operation 

Negligible 


significant) 

None 


significant) 

Permanent 

Bedrock 

geology 

Excavation of 

bedrock 

Construction, 

operation and 

decommission 

Low Negligible Negligible (not 

significant) 

Minimising excavations. Re-use of 

excavated materials. 


significant) 

Permanent 





13.9 Summary of Residual Effects 

13.9.1 Table 13.18 shows that all potential effects are effectively mitigated. All residual effects are of 

a slight or negligible scale which is not significant in terms of the EIA regulations. 

13.9.2 Key mitigation measures which will be implemented include a construction site and 

permanent SuDS drainage scheme incorporating flow attenuation (slowing down) and water 

quality treatment systems. Construction best practices and pollution control measures will 

also be implemented to prevent pollution of streams and groundwater. Impact on peat is 

minimised through the track alignment design and construction methods including a floating 

track above areas of deep peat. 


13.10.1 RPS has identified 113 proposed or under construction wind farm developments within 35 km 

of the proposed site with which there is the potential for cumulative effects to arise, as 

referred to in Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual Assessment, Figure 9.15). Other proposed 

developments within the vicinity of the wind farm include individual properties or property 

extension and similar small scale developments. These are not considered to contribute to a 

cumulative hydrological, hydrogeological or geological effect. 

13.10.2 All 113 proposed wind farms are located outwith the Linhouse Water catchment and are 

therefore not expected to lead to a cumulative effect. 

13.10.3 The wind farms are more than 5 km away from the proposed development except for Pearie 

Law Wind Farm (6 turbines) and the Moss Side single turbine (at scoping stage). The Pearie 

Law Wind Farm is located approximately 3.5 km to the west of the site and the Moss Side 

turbine is located approximately 3.1 km to the east-southeast. Both wind farms are outwith 

the Linhouse Water (including the Crosswood Burn and the Powfastle Burn) catchment. 

There are therefore no hydrological linkages between these sites and the proposed Camilty 

wind farm. Also cumulative geological or soil and peat effects are not expected due to the 

distance. 

13.10.4 All other developments in Figure 9.15 are either outwith the same catchments and/or at such 

a distance that any cumulative hydrological, hydrogeological or geological effect is not 

considered likely to result. 


• Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 2009. FEH CD-ROM 3. Wallingford. 

• Forestry Civil Engineering, SNH, 2010. Floating roads on peat. Scottish Natural 

Heritage, Inverness. 

• Forestry Commission, 2011. Forests and water; UK forestry standard guidelines. 

Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. 

• Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2010a. Indicative River & Coastal Flood 

Map (Scotland). 

• Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2010b. SEPA Regulatory Position 

Statement; Developments on Peat. 


Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions 



• Scottish Government, 2010. Scottish Planning Policy. 

• Scottish Renewables, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Environment Protection 

Agency, Forestry Commission Scotland, 2010. Good practice during windfarm 

construction. Scottish Natural Heritage. 


Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions 



14 Shadow Flicker 


14.1.1 Shadow flicker is the effect caused when rotating blades of a wind turbine cause a shadow to 

be cast on neighbouring properties and receptors. As the blades rotate, shadows on the 

ground or nearby properties move, resulting in a flicker effect. The effect occurs under 

certain combinations of factors, including geographical position and time of day and can 

occur inside buildings, where the flicker appears through a window opening. 

14.1.2 The likelihood and duration of effects depends on: 

• The position of the observer in relation to the turbine(s) – In the UK, only properties 

within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines, are likely to 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. Due to factors such as shadow duration and focus, 

shadow flicker effects have been proven to occur only at distances up to ten times the 

turbine rotor diameter; 

• 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 height and rotor diameter – The turbine height and rotor diameter can effect 

the distances at which shadow flicker can occur; 

• Time of year and day – The intensity of the sunlight can be diminished depending on 

the time of year, for example the sun does not shine brightly enough at certain periods 

of the year (e.g. winter months) to create the necessary contrast; and 

• Weather conditions – Cloud cover diminishes the intensity of sunlight. 

14.1.3 An assessment has been carried out to identify whether shadow flicker is likely to occur at 

properties neighbouring the proposed wind farm, and if so, to predict times of day/year and 

duration of these potential effects. 

14.1.4 It should be noted that, due to the design of the proposed wind farm layout in relation to 

potentially sensitive receptors, there is not considered to be the potential for significant 

shadow flicker effects to arise. However, in recognition of the interest in this potential effect, 

this chapter has been retained within the ES to provide information on the way in which 

potential shadow flicker effects were assessed and addressed through the design evolution 

process (see Chapter 3: Design Evolution). 


14.2.1 A study area was initially defined based on a distance of ten times the maximum proposed 

turbine rotor diameter and mapped using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) software 

(based upon Scottish Government advice – see below). The study area is then further 

refined to only include areas within 130 degrees either side of north of each turbine location 


Shadow Flicker 



(as shown on Figure 14.1). This study area is referred to as the zone of potential shadow 

flicker. 

14.2.2 Where habitable properties lie within the refined study area the dates, times and durations of 

shadow flicker events are then predicted for each property within the zone of potential 

shadow flicker using ReSoft WindFarm software. This software creates a mathematical 

model of the proposed wind farm, the surrounding area and the location of properties. 



14.3.1 Data was obtained through site visits, stakeholder consultation and desk based review of OS 

base mapping. 


14.3.2 The following documents provide guidance on the environmental effects of wind turbines and 

have been referenced during this assessment. 

• Scottish Government On-line Renewable Advice – Onshore Wind Turbines (Scottish 

Government, 2011); 

• Planning for Renewable Energy – A Companion Guide to PPS 22 (Office of the 

Deputy Prime Minister, 2004); 

• Supporting information required for Wind Turbine Applications that do not require 

Environmental Impact Assessment (West Lothian Council 2012). 

Scottish Government On-line Renewable Advice 

14.3.3 Scottish Government information and planning advice on the technologies for renewable 

energy is available in the form of a series of web-based advice documents. The document 

“Onshore Wind Turbines” is applicable to the proposed wind farm. 

14.3.4 In respect of shadow flicker, the document states: “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. 

However, there is scope to vary/reduce the height of the turbines in extreme cases.” 

Planning for Renewable Energy – A Companion Guide to PPS 22 

14.3.5 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 (PPS22). Although PPS22 is 

only applicable in England and Wales, the companion guide provides, in its Technical Annex, 

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 Scottish 





Government Planning Advice - Onshore Wind Turbines with regard to shadow flicker within 

Technical Annex 8, paragraph 73 – 77 of the Companion Guide. 

West Lothian Council Supporting information required for Wind Turbine Applications 

that do not require Environmental Impact Assessment 

14.3.6 There is no mention of shadow flicker in the West Lothian Local Plan (2009). However, West 

Lothian Supporting information required for Wind Turbine Applications that do not require 

Environmental Impact Assessment indicates that planning applications should take: 

• Consideration of any potential impacts of shadow flicker. 


14.3.7 A study area of ten times the maximum proposed turbine rotor diameter of 104 m, totalling 

1040 m, was applied to each turbine location and mapped using GIS software. The study 

area was then further refined to only include areas within 130 degrees either side of north of 

each turbine location to obtain the zone of potential shadow flicker as presented on Figure 

14.1. 

14.3.8 No residential properties were identified within the zone of potential shadow flicker as shown 

on Figure 14.1, the nearest being “Halfway house” on the A70. 

14.4 Design Evolution 

14.4.1 The location of residential properties was identified early in the design process. This allowed 

any properties with the potential to be affected by shadow flicker to be identified during 

successive iterations of the layout, as described in Chapter 3: Design Evolution. 

14.4.2 The shadow flicker model was re-run throughout the design iteration process to ensure that 

any properties within the zone of potential shadow flicker were highlighted. The final 6 

turbine wind farm layout as proposed does not result in any potentially sensitive receptors 

located within the zone of potential shadow flicker. 


14.5.1 As no inhabited properties were identified within the zone of potential shadow flicker, no 

significant effects have been identified. 


14.6.1 No mitigation measures are required. 

14.6.2 However, should residential properties just outwith the potential shadow flicker zone 

experience problems with shadow flicker once the wind farm is operational (for example, 

should micrositing of a turbine shift a property into the zone), a reassessment of the potential 

for shadow flicker will be made. 

14.6.3 Until the turbine locations and parameters are precisely defined (following micrositing and the 

turbine selection process), and the wind turbines are operating, neither the requirement for, 

nor exact details of mitigation can be finalised. Some potential solutions are set out below. 

14.6.4 If shadow flicker effects occur in practice at a particular property, it does not immediately 

follow that mitigation is required. Such effects will need to occur in a room that was occupied 





at the time of occurrence and for a 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 will be needed. 

14.6.5 Once the location and turbine parameters are defined, then 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 will 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 and/or operational controls. 

14.6.6 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. There is 

no specific UK guidance regarding what level of light is sufficient to cause a shadow flicker 

event. However, the actual light level which will trigger a turbine shut down can be manually 

configured on-site, following installation, to reflect local conditions. 

14.6.7 A planning condition provides an appropriate form to secure mitigation, ensuring 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. It is 

worth noting that ‘Mitigation measures which have been employed to operational wind farms 

such as turbine shut down strategies, have proved very successful, to the extent that shadow 

flicker can not be considered to be a major issue in the UK’ (DECC, 2011). 


14.7.1 No residual effects are anticipated in relation to shadow flicker. 


14.8.1 No cumulative effects are anticipated in relation to shadow flicker. 


• Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004). Planning for Renewable Energy, A 

Companion Guide to PPS 22 



• Scottish Government (2011). On-line Renewables Advice. Available at 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National-Planning- 

Policy/themes/renewables 

• West Lothian Council (2012) Supporting information required for Wind Turbine 

Applications that do not require Environmental Impact Assessment. Available at 

http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/downloaddoc/1799514/1846293/2231535/WindT 

urbineApps-not-requireEIA 





15 Socio-Economics, Tourism, Land Use and Recreation 


15.1.1 This chapter provides an assessment of the potential socio-economic, tourism, land use and 

recreation effects of the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the 


15.1.2 In particular, this chapter examines: 

• Effects on employment and the economy; 

• Effects on land use and the economy; 

• Effects on tourism and perceptions of visitors; and 

• Effects on recreation and outdoor access. 

15.1.3 It is noted that the effects upon land use, tourism, recreation and outdoor access may have 

wider effects on the economy and employment and this is taken into account within the 

assessment. 


Assessment Methodology 

15.2.1 There is no prescribed methodology or standard guidance for assessing socioeconomic and 

related effects in EIA. The method adopted is therefore one of determining the existing 

circumstances (the baseline conditions) through desk based analysis. The potential effects 

of the proposed wind farm on this baseline are then identified and, where relevant, mitigation 

measures proposed. Professional judgement is then applied to determine the significance of 

any predicted residual effects. 

15.2.2 Determining the significance of predicted effects is a function of the magnitude of the 

predicted effect and the sensitivity of the receptor. Whether the predicted effect is considered 

to be positive or negative is also influential in determining the significance of effects. 

Effect Magnitude 

15.2.3 Criteria for determining the magnitude of predicted effects are presented in Table 15.1. 

Table 15.1 Determining Magnitude of Predicted Effects 

Criteria for Magnitude of Effects 

Receptor Large Medium Small Negligible 

Employment 

and the 

economy 

A fundamental 

change to baseline 

business / 

employment 

/economic 

conditions. 

A detectable but not 

fundamental change 

to baseline business 

/ employment / 

economic conditions. 

Little change to 

baseline business 

/ employment / 

economic 

conditions. 

No discernible 


business / 

employment / 

economic 

conditions. 

Land Use 

A fundamental 

change to the 




baseline 

No change to 

baseline 


Socio-Economics, Tourism, Land-Use and Recreation 



Criteria for Magnitude of Effects 

Receptor Large Medium Small Negligible 

baseline 

economic/public 

benefits provided 

by the existing land 

use. 

to the baseline 


benefits provided by 

the existing land use. 



by the existing 

land use. 



by the existing land 

use. 

Tourism 

A fundamental 

change in the 

number of visitors 

to a tourism 

resource. 



to visitor numbers to 

a tourism resource. 


visitor numbers to 

a tourism 

resource. 

No change to 

visitor numbers to 

a tourism resource. 

Recreation 

and Outdoor 

Access 

Permanent or long 

term effects on the 

access / recreation 

resource. 

Longer term but 

temporary effects on 

the access / 

recreation resource. 

Short term 

temporary effects 

on the access / 

recreation 

resource. 

No effects on the 

access / recreation 

resource. 

Sensitivity of Receptor 

15.2.4 Criteria for determining the sensitivity of receptors are presented in Table 15.2. 

Table 15.2 Determining Sensitivity of Receptor 

Sensitivity Criteria 

Receptor High Medium Low Negligible 

Employment 

and the 

economy 

The business / 

employment / 

economic 

conditions would 

have a low capacity 

to accommodate 

the predicted 

change. 


employment / 

economic 

conditions would 

have some 

tolerance to 

accommodate the 

predicted change. 


employment / 

economic 

conditions would be 

generally tolerant of 

the predicted 

change. 


employment / 

economic 

conditions would be 

entirely tolerant of 

the predicted 

change. 

Land Use 

The land use would 



the predicted 

change. 


have some 

tolerance to 




be generally 

tolerant of the 



be entirely tolerant 

of the predicted 

change. 

Tourism 

The tourism 

resource would 



the predicted 

change. 

The tourism 

resource would 

have some 

tolerance to 



The tourism 

resource would be 

generally tolerant of 

the predicted 

change. 

The tourism 

resource would be 

entirely tolerant of 

the predicted 

change. 

Recreation 

and Outdoor 

Access 

The access / 

recreation resource 

would have a low 

capacity to 



The access / 


would have some 

tolerance to 



The access / 


would be generally 



The access / 


would be entirely 







Assessment of Significance 

15.2.5 Using the above criteria, the significance of predicted effects is determined using the matrix in 

Table 15.3 below. Effects that are predicted to be very substantial, substantial or moderate 

are deemed to be significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

Table 15.3 Determining the Level of Effect 

Sensitivity / Importance of Receptor 


Magnitude of Change/Effect 

LARGE 

MEDIUM 

SMALL 




moderate 

Moderate or 

slight 


moderate 

Moderate or 

slight 

Negligible 


Slight 

Slight or 

negligible 

Negligible 


15.3 Baseline Conditions 

Data Sources 

15.3.1 Information was obtained from the following sources: 

• Forestry Commission Scotland (www.forestry.gov.uk/scotland); 

• National Records of Scotland (http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/); 

• Scottish Government (www.scotland.gov.uk); 

• Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics (www.sns.gov.uk); 

• Scrol – Scotland’s Census Results Online (www.scrol.gov.uk); 

• Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics (www.sns.gov.uk); 

• Sustrans (www.sustrans.org.uk); 

• VisitScotland (www.visitscotland.org); 

• Visit West Lothian (www.visitwestlothian.co.uk); and 

• West Lothian Council (www.westlothian.gov.uk). 

Scoping Responses 

15.3.2 There are no scoping responses received relevant to this chapter. 

Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance 

15.3.3 Although now superseded by web based renewables advice, paragraph 46 of the Scottish 

Government’s (2008a) Planning Advice Note 45: Annex 2: Spatial Frameworks and 

Supplementary Planning Guidance for Windfarms indicated the range of issues that planning 

authorities may wish to consider in order to minimise adverse local effects that could impact 

on tourism and recreation. These include: 





• “The location [of the proposed wind farm] in relation to tourist routes, including 

designated walking and cycling routes; 

• The relative scale of recreation and tourism in the area (i.e. local and national); 

• Views from accommodation in the area; 

• The potential positive tourism issues associated with the development; 

• The views of tourist organisations; 

• The visitor population whose recreational interests may be affected; 

• Consider likely significant effects within an environmental impact assessment.” 


Population 

15.3.4 The site of the proposed wind farm falls within the Breich Valley 2003 Census Area Statistic 

(CAS) ward (see Figure 15.1) which lies within West Lothian local authority. 

15.3.5 Mid-year population estimates for local authority areas in Scotland are produced each year 

by the National Records of Scotland (NRS). In 2011, the total population of West Lothian 

was estimated to be 172,990. This represents an increase of 0.5 % since the 2010 mid year 

population estimate of 172,080. By comparison, the population of Scotland is estimated to 

have increased by 0.6 % since the 2010 mid year population estimate of 5,222,100 (NRS, 

2011) 

15.3.6 By 2035, the population of West Lothian is projected to be 205,345, an increase of 19.3 % 

compared to the population in 2010. By comparison, the population of Scotland is projected 

to increase by 10.2 % between 2010 and 2035 (NRS, 2011). West Lothian’s projected 

population change is different from most other local authorities and the Scottish average in 

that most of this projected change is estimated to be through natural change – the birth rate 

being higher than the mortality rate. 

15.3.7 According to the 2001 census, Breich Valley has a total population of 5,273. This represents 

3 % of the total population of West Lothian. This consisted of 2,601 males and 2,672 

females. There are no reliable estimates for this ward area since the 2001 census figures. 

However, based upon small area population estimates at datazone level from Scottish 

Neighbourhood Statistics, it is estimated that the current population levels will have increased 

within this ward at a similar rate to those within West Lothian. 

15.3.8 According to the 2001 census, Breich Valley had a population density of 1.17 persons per 

hectare. The figure for West Lothian is 0.27 persons per hectare and for Scotland is 1.54 

persons per hectare. 

15.3.9 Table 15.4 highlights the age structure of Breich Valley and places it in the context of West 

Lothian and Scotland. The age structure of Breich Valley is similar to the Scottish population 

as a whole. In Breich Valley, persons aged 65 and over made up 13 % of the total population 

compared to 11 % for West Lothian and 16 % for Scotland. This reflects the fact that both 

Breich Valley and West Lothian have a relatively young population, providing more young 

people who are in the age bracket to have children. 





Table 15.4 Age Structure of Population 

Age Group Breich Valley West Lothian Scotland 

0-15 21 % 22 % 19 % 

16-19 5 % 5 % 5 % 

20-34 21 % 21 % 20 % 

35-49 22 % 23 % 22 % 

50-59 13 % 13 % 13 % 

60-64 5 % 5 % 5 % 

65-74 7 % 7 % 9 % 

75 and over 5 % 5 % 7 % 

Total 5,273 158,714 5,062,011 

Source: GROS, 2001 Census of Population, Table UV04 Age 

Employment and Economic Activity 

15.3.10 Table 15.5 shows the economic activity of all persons aged 16 to 74 years in Breich Valley, 

West Lothian and Scotland in the 2001 Census. 

Table 15.5 Economic Activity of Persons Aged 16-74 Years 

Breich Valley West Lothian Scotland 

Employees Part-time 10 % 11 % 11 % 

Employees Full-time 44 % 48 % 40 % 

Economically Active 

Self-employed 7 % 5 % 7 % 

Unemployed 4 % 4 % 4 % 

Full time students 2 % 2 % 3 % 

Total economically active 66 % 71% 65 % 

Retired 11 % 11 % 14 % 

Student 2 % 2 % 4 % 

Economically Inactive 

Looking after home/family 6 % 5 % 6 % 

Permanently sick/disabled 9% 7 % 7 % 

Other 5 % 3 % 4 % 

Total economically inactive 34 % 30 % 35 % 

All people aged 16-74 3,907 116,387 3,731,079 

Source: GROS, 2001 Census of Population, Table KS09a Economic Activity 





15.3.11 The economic activity of all persons aged 16-74 years in Breich Valley in the 2001 Census 

was 66 %, significantly below the average for both West Lothian of 71 % but slightly above 

the Scottish average of 65 %. The percentage of Breich Valley population in employment 

(employee or self employed) was 60 %, significantly below West Lothian’s rate of 65 % but 

slightly above Scotland’s rate of 58 %. The number of retired in Breich Valley was 11 % 

compared to 14 % nationally. 

15.3.12 The most recent unemployment statistics for between July 2011 and June 2012 show that 

there were an estimated 6,300 unemployed residents with West Lothian, 6.9% of all residents 

aged between 16 to 64, lower than the Scottish average of 7.9 % (ONS, 2012). 

15.3.13 Table 15.6 shows the industries of employment of all persons in employment in the 2001 

Census. 

Table 15.6 Industries of Employment of All Persons Aged 16-74 in Employment 

Breich Valley West Lothian Scotland 

Agriculture, hunting and forestry 4 % 1 % 2 % 

Fishing 0 % 0 % 0 % 

Mining and quarrying 1 % 0 % 1 % 

Manufacturing 23 % 20 % 13 % 

Electricity, gas and water supply 1 % 1 % 1 % 

Construction 9 % 7 % 7 % 

Wholesale and retail trade, repairs 14 % 14 % 14 % 

Hotels and restaurants 4 % 4 % 6 % 

Transport, storage and 

communications 

7 % 7 % 7 % 

Financial intermediaries 4 % 7 % 5 % 

Real Estate, renting and business 

activities 

Public administration and defence, 

social security 

8 % 11 % 11 % 

4 % 6 % 7 % 

Education 5 % 6 % 7 % 

Health and social work 11 % 10 % 12% 

Other 6 % 6 % 5 % 

Total 2,406 77,664 2,261,281 

Source: GROS, 2001 Census of Population Table KS11a Industry of Employment 

15.3.14 The above table demonstrates the significant importance of agriculture and forestry to Breich 

Valley with 4 % of all employed persons aged 16 to 74 employed in these sectors compared 

to 1 % for West Lothian and only 2 % nationally. Within Breich Valley there is a significantly 





high proportion of people employed in manufacturing, with 23 % of all employed persons 

aged 16 to 74 employed in this sector compared to 20 % for West Lothian and 13 % 

nationally. 

15.3.15 In terms of supply of skills, the travel to work origins of individuals working in West Lothian 

shows that the labour market is quite contained. According to the Annual Population Survey 

2012 (ONS, 2012), of the employed residents living in West Lothian, 60 % live and work in 

the area whilst 40 % commute to other parts of Scotland. 

15.3.16 According to the 2011 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ONS, 2011b), the median 

gross weekly earnings for full time employees in West Lothian in 2011 was £479 per week, 

lower than the Scottish average of £490.60. This reflects the fact that the working age 

population within West Lothian is generally less qualified. According to the Annual 

Population Survey 2011 (ONS, 2011a) 30 % of the working age population have a NVQ4 or 

above level qualification (degree level or above), compared with the 37 % average of 

Scotland’s working age population. 

Socio-Economic Indicators 

15.3.17 The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) is a composite measure of deprivation 

based on a range of indicators including employment, income, health and education. The 

local area geography adopted by the Scottish Government for this measure is data zones. 

These zones are based on groups of census output areas and have populations of between 

500 and 1,000 household residents. There are 6,505 data zones in Scotland. 

15.3.18 The SIMD provides a relative ranking of 6,505 data zones across Scotland from the most 

deprived (ranked 1) to the least deprived (ranked 6,505). The site of the proposed wind farm 

falls wholly within data zone S01006296. In 2012, this data zone had an overall rank of 4,910 

of 6,505. This rank places data zone S01006296 in the 75 th percentile, well outwith the 

generally accepted range of “deprived” areas of the worst 20%. However, closer examination 

of the individual domain rankings shows that the area is disadvantaged in terms of 

geographic access to services and also housing for which data zone S01006296 is ranked 

amongst the worst 9 % of data zones in Scotland (see Table 15.7). 

Table 15.7 Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2012 – Data Zone S01006296 

Rank 

Percentile 

Current income domain 5,418 83% 

Empoyment domain 3,825 59% 

Health domain 2,999 46% 

Education, skills and training domain 3,627 56% 

Geographic access domain 574 9% 

Crime domain 3,792 58% 

Housing domain 574 9% 

Overall SIMD 4,910 75% 

Source: Scottish Government, Scottish Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2012 





Land Use 

15.3.19 The proposed wind farm is located within the Camilty Forest, a commercial forestry plantation 

which is currently managed by Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) as part of the National 

Forest Estate on behalf of Scottish Ministers. Camilty Forest lies within the Scottish 

Lowlands Forest District. 

15.3.20 Forestry and wood processing contributes some £650 million per year to the Scottish 

economy, and the wood chain sustains some 20,000 jobs (FCS, 2006, 2008a). Woodlands 

are also important for tourism. Overall, it is estimated that forest-related tourism contributes 

some £165 million to the economy (FCS, 2008b). However, woodlands can also provide a 

wide range of non-market benefits to society, for example opportunities for healthy exercise 

and habitats for plants and animals. 

15.3.21 The Scottish Forestry Strategy (SFS) (Scottish Executive, 2006) sets out the Scottish 

Government’s vision for Scottish woodlands 1 and identifies seven key themes that will help 

achieve the vision: 

• Using forestry to mitigate the effects of climate change; 

• Maximising the benefits of the timber resource; 

• Supporting sustainable economic growth through the business development of the 

Scottish woodland sector; 

• Supporting community development to improve quality of life and wellbeing; 

• Improving access to woodlands, to help improve the health of Scotland; 

• Protecting environmental and scenic quality; and 

• Helping to conserve and enhance Scotland’s biodiversity. 

15.3.22 The vision set out in the SFS includes the ambition to increase woodland cover to 25 % of 

land area by the second half of the century and emphasises the need to integrate woodland 

with other land uses. It identifies that expansion of well managed woodlands can help ensure 

that Scotland is: 

• Wealthier & Fairer – by, for example, underpinning a sustainable forest products 

industry, reducing the reliance of the UK on wood imports, and supporting the 

development of the rural economy; 

• Healthier – by providing a setting for informal recreation that encourages regular 

exercise and improves physical and mental wellbeing; 

• Smarter – by providing a focal point for outdoor education activity, an inspiring 

environment in which to learn for those who find formal education difficult, and 

opportunities for people to volunteer, improve their skills and enhance their 

employability; 

• Safer & Stronger – by improving the quality of the environment in deprived and 

regeneration areas, contributing to the development of green networks and natural 

1 

‘Woodland’ is defined by the FCS as all areas of land, larger than 0.25 hectares, where trees are growing. ‘Forestry’ is used by 

FCS to refer to the science, art and practice of managing woodland. 





flood management, and by providing a focus for community involvement and 

community projects; 

• Greener – by conserving biodiversity, restoring lost habitats, helping species adapt to 

climate change, and mitigating the effect of climate change by acting as a carbon 

store, a source of carbon neutral building materials, and as a source of renewable 

heat and energy. 

15.3.23 A portfolio analysis of the National Forest Estate was conducted by FCS in 2006. The aim of 

the analysis was to assess the current condition of the estate to determine which forest 

blocks are best delivering economic and non-market public benefits. This analysis 

demonstrates that Camilty Forest is delivering significant strong economic benefits from 

harvesting operations (greater than £5/tonne profit based on 2006 market conditions) and 

some non-market benefits from recreation (11,000 to 50,000 visitors per annum) (FCS, 

2009). 

15.3.24 FCS manages the forestry operations at Camilty under the guidance of a Forestry Design 

Plan (FDP) that provides a five year management plan for the individual blocks of forest and 

looks at the complete forest over the next forty plus years. The FDP directs forestry 

operations, both felling and planting. However the plan is under periodic review as the 

vagaries of weather, disease and markets can drive changes to the plan. 

15.3.25 The woodland structure of Camilty Forest is dominated by Sitka spruce and lodge-pole pine 

containing a mix of different aged stands. This woodland structure is a legacy of the historic 

nature of planting in the area. A programme of restructuring this woodland is currently 

underway and this has created large open clear felled areas which are being restocked with 

both coniferous and broadleaved species. Details of the proposed harvesting and restocking 

of this woodland can be found in the approved Forest Design Plan (FDP) for Camilty Forest 

(see Appendix 4.1). It is proposed within the FDP that the Camilty Forest will continue to be 

managed as commercial productive woodland, whilst also having regard to environmental, 

recreational, aesthetic and other objectives which, as outlined above in paragraphs 15.3.21 to 

15.3.23, are as important to FCS as timber production. 

15.3.26 However, at Camilty wind blow caused by severe storms has meant that FCS has undertaken 

a review of the FDP. It has brought forward the felling of some compartments and further 

wind blow was identified within the forest that will result in early fellings of some 

compartments. This type of felling operation is not uncommon, although unpredictable, and is 

normally absorbed by FCS. 

15.3.27 As well as commercial timber production, the Camilty Forest is used for some limited outdoor 

access and recreational uses. These are discussed later in this chapter. 

Tourism Attractions 

15.3.28 Tourism is vitally important to the Scottish economy. According to VisitScotland around 16 

million tourists took overnight trips to Scotland in 2011, contributing over £4.5 billion to the 

Scottish economy. Tourism related employment in 2009 supported about 10 % of total 

employment in Scotland (VisitScotland, 2011b). The Scottish Government’s ambition is to 

grow tourism by 50 % by 2015. 

15.3.29 The 2011 Scotland Visitor Survey (VisitScotland, 2011a) confirms the most important factor in 

determining the choice of Scotland as a holiday destination is its scenery (58 %), followed by 

a desire to learn about the country’s history and culture (31 %). 





15.3.30 Tourism from GB residents in Edinburgh and the Lothians is estimated by VisitScotland in 

2011 to be worth £616 million to the economy (20 % of the total value of tourism in Scotland), 

derived from 2.75 million visits (21 % of all trips). Tourism from overseas visitors in the 

Lothians (excluding Edinburgh) is estimated by VisitScotland in 2011 to be worth £13 million 

to the economy (1% of the total value of tourism in Scotland), derived from 0.051 million trips 

(2 % of all trips) (VisitScotland 2011c). 

15.3.31 The total revenue generated by tourism with West Lothian between January to September 

2012 was estimated to be around £118.03 million, comprising £90.44 million spent directly 

and £27.59 million spent indirectly. Visitors spent their money on a variety of things. 

Between January to September 2012, £23.39 million was directly spent on transport, £22.83 

million spent directly on food and drink, £10.10 million spent directly on shopping, £10.08 

million spent directly on accommodation and £8.98 million spent directly on recreation. This 

revenue accounted for 2,817 full time equivalent jobs (STEAM Report, 2012). 

15.3.32 Tourists are drawn to West Lothian for a variety of reasons. The Livingston Designer Outlet 

and the Centre is the focus for the retail offering, whilst the wide range of heritage assets of 

national and regional interest is also a major draw for tourists. West Lothian also has a 

number of outdoor resources, including its country parks. 

15.3.33 The West Lothian Council Visitor Survey (Visit West Lothian, 2012) is a comprehensive 

survey of 401 visitors to West Lothian between August to October 2012. The survey 

identifies that: 

• 70 % of visitors to West Lothian are from elsewhere in Scotland, 7 % from elsewhere 

in the UK and 24 % from outside the UK. Of those from elsewhere in Scotland, 18 % 

were from Edinburgh City Council, 17 % from Midlothian Council, 12 % from Glasgow 

City Council, 11 % from Falkirk Council, 10 % from North Lanarkshire Council, 8 % 

from Fife Council, 6 % from East Lothian Council and 6 % from South Lanarkshire 

Council; 

• The overwhelming majority of visitors to West Lothian (67 %) were on a day trip from 

a home location, with 12 % on a day trip as part of a longer break; 

• The most common reasons to visit West Lothian were to visit an attraction (20 %) and 

because people have been recommended to visit by friends or relatives (20 %). 15 % 

chose to visit West Lothian because they already knew the area well, whilst 10 % 

visited because of family connections; 

• The most important factors in choosing West Lothian were for shopping opportunities 

(33 %), value for money (22 %), the number of things to see and do (22 %), ease of 

travel (16 %) and family connections to West Lothian (16 %); 

• The average daily spend of parties to West Lothian on food and drink, leisure and 

entertainment (including attractions and activities), shopping, transport and other 

items is £84.65; 

• 72 % of those interviewed would definitely recommend West Lothian as a destination 

whilst 23 % would probably recommend it. 





15.3.34 Key tourism attractions within 20 km of the proposed wind farm are shown on Figure 15.2 

and include (but are not limited to): 

• Pentland Hills Regional Park – located adjacent to the east of the proposed wind 

farm at its nearest point, this popular 10,000 ha regional park includes approximately 

100 km of paths for hill walking and mountain biking. It also contains several large 

reservoirs popular for fishing; 

• Harperrig Fishery – located approximately 2.81 km to the east of the proposed wind 

farm, this fishery is the only brown trout fishery in the Lothians; 

• Five Sisters Zoo – located approximately 5.44 km to the north of the proposed wind 

farm near West Calder, the zoo is the only wildlife attraction centre in West Lothian 

and contains a collection of over 100 different species of animal, birds and reptiles. In 

2012 the zoo attracted 96,920 visitors; 

• Morton Clay Targets and Fishery – located approximately 5.48 km to the north east 

of the proposed wind farm, the venue offers purpose built facilities for clay target 

shooting and plays host to major competitions; 

• Livingston Designer Outlet and The Centre – positioned in the heart of Livingston 

approximately 6 km to the north of the proposed wind farm, these two indoor shopping 

centres contain a variety of shops, restaurants and a cinema; 

• Almondell & Calderwood Country Park – located approximately 6.08 km to the 

north east of the proposed wind farm, this popular 220 acre country park offers 

woodland and riverside walks, picnic areas and a visitor centre. The country park 

attracted 128, 972 visitors in 2012; 

• Almond Valley Heritage Centre – located approximately 7 km to the north of the 

proposed wind farm, the centre contains a museum and traditional farm buildings 

home to farm animals; 

• Polkemmet Country Park – located approximately 12.78 km to the north west of the 

proposed wind farm, the park is a popular 68 hectare visitor attraction which also 

contains an owl centre and a 9 hole golf course; 

• Edinburgh International Climbing Arena – located approximately 12.78 km to the 

north east of the proposed wind farm near Ratho, this venue is Europe’s largest 

indoor climbing arena; 

• Cairnpapple Hill – located approximately 13.28 km to the north west of the proposed 

wind farm, the summit of this hill enables extensive views over Central Scotland. In 

2012, a total of 1,186 visitors were recorded visiting the hill; 

• Beecraigs Country Park – located approximately 13.93 km to the north west of the 

proposed wind farm, this popular country park contains extensive woodland walks and 

trails, an outdoor play area, animal attractions, a camping and caravan site and 

flyfishing on Beecraigs Loch; 

• Torpichen Preceptory – located approximately 15.04 km to the north west of the 

proposed wind farm, it comprises the tower and the two transepts of a church 

associated with the Preceptory of the Knight Hospitaller of the Order of St John of 

Jerusalem; 





• Linlithgow Canal Centre – located approximately 17.4 km to the north of the 

proposed wind farm, the centre offers opportunities to take a boat trip along the canal 

and also contains a museum and tea rooms. The centre attracted 10,376 visitors in 

2012; 

• Linlithgow Palace – located approximately 17.74 km to the north west of the 

proposed wind farm. This 15 th century ruin was the birthplace of Mary Queen of Scots 

and is located in a large parkland overlooking Linlithgow Loch; 

• House of the Binns – this 17 th century house located approximately 17.92 km to the 

north of the proposed wind farm contains a unique collection of porcelain, paintings 

and furniture; 

• Hopetoun House – located approximately 18.8 km to the north east of the proposed 

wind farm, this stately home is set in acres of parkland overlooking the River Forth. 

Hopetoun House and grounds attracted 61,889 visitors in 2012; 

• Blackness Castle – situated on the banks of the River Forth, this 15 th century castle 

located approximately 19.73 km from the proposed wind farm attracted 15,110 visitors 

in 2009. The castle attracted 15,451 visitors in 2012. 

15.3.35 There are no recent visitor counts or visitors surveys available for Camilty Forest. The FCS 

portfolio analysis from 2006 estimates that Camilty Forest receives between 11,000 to 50,000 

visitors per annum (FCS, 2009). However, more recent FCS estimates suggest that visitor 

numbers to Camilty Forest have decreased in recent years and are now likely to be far lower. 

15.3.36 Of those who do visit, the majority are likely to be from the local area (Harburn, West Calder, 

Addiewell and Livingston) rather than from further afield. This reflects its relatively remote 

location and the fact that there are a number of well developed outdoor access resources 

within West Lothian and neighbouring local authorities, for example the Pentland Hills 

Regional Park. 

15.3.37 The majority of visitors to Camilty Forest are likely to come for outdoor access opportunities, 

relaxation and bird watching. The most popular destinations include: 

• The main car park on the A70 at Shear Bridge which provides parking for 

approximately 10 cars and has recently been upgraded. The grass area next to the 

car park is used in the summer time as a picnic spot; 

• The short waymarked circular trail from the Shear Bridge car park which extends for 

approximately 330 m alongside Crosswood Burn; 

• Camilty Hill and Castle Greg Roman Fortlet (a Scheduled Ancient Monument), a 

Roman earthwork comprising two concentric ditches and a rampart. However, this 

SAM is not well signposted and there is no information about the monument at the 

site. 

Tourism Routes 

15.3.38 There are no signed tourist routes within West Lothian and no scenic road routes shown on 

any motoring or tourist maps. However, the Consultative Draft of the Landscape Capacity 

Study for Wind Energy Development in West Lothian (West Lothian Council and SNH, 2011) 

does identify a number of principal tourist and amenity routes within West Lothian. These 

principal tourist and amenity routes are shown on Figure 15.3 and include: 






boundary, with views southwards and eastwards to the Pentland Hills; 

• A70 ‘Lang Whang’ at the southern West Lothian boundary, with views northwards 

across Cobbinshaw Reservoir towards the Bathgate Hills; 

• A706 south of Whitburn, with views northwards to the Blackridge Heights and 

Bathgate Hills and south-eastwards towards the Pentland Hills; 

• A704, with views northwards across the Breich Valley and Almond Valley towards the 

Bathgate Hills; 

• A706 south of Longridge and B7010 west of Longridge, with views southwards to 

Leven Seat and the Gladsmuir Hills; 

• A706 from close to the junction with the A704, with panoramic views northwards 

across Polkemmet Moor and the Bathgate Hills to the Ochils in the distance; 

• A705 between Livingston and Seafield, with views principally southwards across the 

Almond Valley towards the Pentland Hills; 

• A899 Livingston ‘spine road’, with views southwards to Auchinoon Hill, Corston Hill 

and the Pentland Hills; 

• A89 between Blackridge and Armadale, with views northwards to the Blackridge 

Heights; 

• A800 and A801, with views eastwards to the Bathgate Hills and southwards towards 

the Pentland Hills; 

• B8046 at Tar Hill in the Bathgate Hills, directly north of Ecclesmachan, with panoramic 

views southwards towards the Pentland Hills; 

• M9 west of junction 2, with views westwards to Airngath Hill and towards the hills of 

Falkirk and Stirlingshire beyond; 

• M9 west of junction 1a, eastbound, with views southwards to the Pentland Hills; and 

• A904 between Newton and Queensferry, with views principally northwards across the 

Firth of Forth to the iconic Forth bridges and the Ochil Hills beyond. 

Tourism Accommodation 

15.3.39 Tourism has grown rapidly in West Lothian in recent years as demonstrated in the Edinburgh 

and Lothians Tourism Accommodation Audit (2006) which shows that the number of serviced 

rooms in West Lothian has grown by 65 % in six years (from 569 rooms in 1999 to 937 rooms 

in 2005). Including non-serviced accommodation there were 1,242 rooms in West Lothian 

and 163 pitches at holiday/touring parks in 2006. 

15.3.40 Tourists using serviced accommodation in West Lothian between January to September 

2012 generated an estimated £50.96 million, whilst those staying in non-serviced 

accommodation generated an estimated £6.87 million. This revenue supported 995 full time 

equivalent jobs in serviced accommodation providers and 119 full time equivalent jobs in nonserviced 

accommodation providers (STEAM Report, 2012). 

15.3.41 Table 15.8 shows the estimated number of tourists staying within serviced and non-serviced 

accommodation in West Lothian between January to September 2012 (later figures in 2012 





were not available at the time of writing). Tourist numbers for both serviced and non-serviced 

accommodation show a marked increase between January and April, with the peak period 

being in June, July and August. Occupancy statistics for Edinburgh and the Lothians suggest 

that occupancy rates for hotel accommodation are high but that non-hotel accommodation is 

much more prone to seasonal variations with occupancies being significantly lower in the 

winter months. 

Table 15.8 Tourist Numbers by Accomodation Type January to September 2012 

Month 

Serviced Accomodation 

(thousands) 

Non Serviced Accomodation 

(thousands) 

January 16.4 4.8 

February 18.4 4.5 

March 20.9 4.1 

April 24.0 6.6 

May 26.9 9.2 

June 28.8 11.7 

July 29.7 20.1 

August 32.5 24.9 

September 27.5 8.4 

October - - 

November - - 

December - - 

TOTAL 225,000 94,000 

Source: West Lothian Council STEAM Report, 2010 

15.3.42 The focus on tourism accommodation in West Lothian is predominantly upon enabling people 

to access the three main areas of interest in Scotland (Glasgow, Edinburgh and the 

Highlands). 

15.3.43 Within the local area, the majority of visitor accommodation is located within the towns and 

villages of Livingston, Uphall, East Calder and Bathgate. Visitor accommodation in the 

vicinity of the proposed wind farm is in very limited supply and comprises: 

• Crosswoodhill Farm Holiday Cottages (4 self catering cottages) located approximately 

4 km to the south west of the proposed wind farm; 

• Hillycow wigwams – a camping park to the south west of Kirkliston, approximately 6.5 

km to the north east of the proposed wind farm; 

• A Room in the Country – a bed and breakfast (sleeps 4) to the south of Kirkliston, 

approximately 7.8 km to the north east of the proposed wind farm. 





Access and Recreation 

15.3.44 There are two long distance promoted paths in West Lothian: 

• The River Avon Heritage Trail, which spans approximately 13 km between 

Avonbridge in Falkirk and Linlithgow in West Lothian, following the route of the River 

Avon for most of its length. An extension of the trail to the shores of the River Forth at 

Grangemouth is proposed; 

• The Union Canal Towpath, which spans approximately 56 km from Edinburgh 

through West Lothian via Linlithgow to Falkirk where it joins the Forth and Clyde 

Canal. The path is 23 km long within West Lothian. The path is popular for walkers, 

runners and cyclists. 

15.3.45 In addition these existing promoted paths, a planned extension to the John Muir Way in East 

Lothian to Helensburgh is being proposed. Although the details of this proposed route are 

still to be finalised, it is anticipated that the trail will run through West Lothian via Blackness 

and Bo’ness. 

15.3.46 The National Cycle Network (NCN) is a network of routes suitable for bicycles, promoted by 

SUSTRANS. There are three existing National Cycle Route (NCR’s) and NCN’s in West 

Lothian, namely: 

• NCR 75, which travels through West Lothian on its way from the Clyde Coast and 

Glasgow to Edinburgh via Armadale, Bathgate, Blackburn and Livingston. The path is 

37 km long within West Lothian; 

• NCR 754, which runs from Port Dundas to Edinburgh through West Lothian via the 

Union Canal; 

• NCN 76, which runs from Black Burn just to the east of Blackness through Hopetoun 

House to Port Edgar and South Queensferry. The West Lothian section of this path is 

7.2 km long. 

15.3.47 The majority of promoted shorter distance paths and Core Paths in West Lothian (see Figure 

15.3) are predominantly confined to settlements and do not penetrate into the more rural 

areas of the district such as the area around Camilty. Examples of this include: 

• West Calder to Polbeth, a 0.8 km path which begins in West Calder and terminates 

at the railway underpass on the south side of Polbeth; 

• Murieston Trail, a 2.2 km path that begins near Livingston South Railway Station and 

heads westwards towards Murieston; 

• Linhouse Circular, a 3.4 km circular trail near Murieston Road, Livingston. 

15.3.48 A network of ‘other paths’ is also identified in the Draft West Lothian Core Path Plan. These 

comprise a mixture of asserted rights of way, established and signposted tracks and some 

quiet rural roads. Those in the vicinity of Camilty Forest include: 

• A 1.69 km circular track which extends westwards from the B7008 at Harburnhead; 

• A 3.95 km track from the A70 at Crosswoodburn which runs south eastwards into the 

Pentland Hills towards Bawdy Moss and Henshaw Hill; and 





• A 5.5 km trail from the car park on the A70 near Little Vantage that runs south 

westwards into the Pentland Hills to the east of Harperrig Reservoir toward 

Cauldstane Slap. 

15.3.49 There are no public rights of way or long distance paths or cycle routes crossing or passing 

through the site, although public access to the area in general for recreational purposes is 

afforded by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. However, the relatively isolated nature and 

poor accessibility of this site is such that outwith the short way-marked circular trail from the 

Shear Bridge car park there would appear, in practice, to be little public access to the site and 

its immediate surroundings at present. 

15.3.50 Within the wider study area, West Lothian contains a number of countryside parks, including 

the Almondell and Calderwood Countryside Park, Polkemmet Country Park and Beecraigs 

Country Park, all of which contain extensive woodland walks. 

15.3.51 Furthermore, as identified earlier in this chapter, the Pentland Hills Regional Park lies 

adjacent to the east of the proposed wind farm and has an established importance for access 

and recreation. The Regional Park covers some 50 square miles of upland countryside and 

provides over 100 km of paths. The only promoted ‘Pentland Path’ within West Lothian is the 

5.5 km trail from Little Vantage to Cauldstane Hill. Just outwith the West Lothian boundary 

also lies a 6.95 km track from Bore Stane to East Haugh which is also a promoted ‘Pentland 

Path’. 

15.3.52 The Pentland Hills Visitor Survey (TNS, 2006) contains a comprehensive survey of over 800 

visitors to the Pentland Hills Regional Park between June 2005 to June 2006. The survey 

identifies that: 

• Around seven in ten visitors (72 %) to the Park are from the Edinburgh area, with only 

around one in five from the rest of the Lothians (17%). Just around one in ten visitors 

(11 %) came from outside Edinburgh and the Lothians. This reflects the importance 

of the Pentland Hills as a local resource; 

• The majority of respondents (47 %) visited the Park once a week. Smaller numbers 

visited the Park at least once a month (13 %) and two to three times in a month (17 

%). The remaining 22 % visited less than once a month; 

• The most popular activities undertaken were walking without a dog (48 %), walking 

with a dog (36 %) and hill walking (14 %). Other popular activities included bird 

watching (7 %), mountain biking (6 %), running (4 %), cycling (4 %), fishing (2 %) and 

horse riding (1 %); 

• The most popular visited areas of the Park is the area to the south east of Balerno 

which includes Harlaw Ranger and Visitor Centre, with 41 % of respondents 

identifying this area when asked which area they had visited or intended to visit on the 

day they were interviewed. Around one in three respondents stated the area towards 

the north east of the Park (32 %) and around a quarter the area around Flotterstone 

(26%). The least popular area was the area to the far west of the Park from 

Listonshiels westwards; 

• The most popular walking route is the walking route from the outskirts of Balerno up to 

Threipmuir Reservoir, with around one in three visitors (31 %) using or intending to 

use this route on the day they were interviewed. The next most popular route is the 

route from Old Kirk Road at Flotterstone over Turnhouse Hill (18 %). The least 





popular routes were those to the far west of the Park, namely the route to the west of 

Harperrig Reservoir (1 %) and the route from Bore Stane to East Haugh (1 %). 


Employment and the Economy 

15.4.1 The construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the proposed wind farm may 

have an effect on the following elements of the local and/or regional economies: 

• Expenditure – financial investment for a number of organisations who will be 

supplying services and goods for the construction and decommissioning of the 

proposed wind farm; 

• Employment – direct construction, operation and decommissioning employment, and 

indirect and induced employment further down the supply chain. 

15.4.2 Potential employment effects as a result of changing visitor numbers to tourism attractions, 

tourism accommodation providers and access and recreational facilities are considered later 

in this chapter. 

Expenditure 

15.4.3 The proposed wind farm is a large construction project with significant total capital costs 

(approximately £18 million). On the basis of previous experience of similar sized wind farm 

construction projects and knowledge of where supply chain contractors and subcontractors 

are based, the potential contribution to the Scottish economy from this expenditure is 

estimated at £6.3 million (including direct, indirect and induced impacts). 

15.4.4 The structure of the local economy is such that it is considered to have the capacity to benefit 

from expenditure associated with the proposed wind farm. The sensitivity of this receptor is 

therefore considered to be medium. During the construction phase, site preparation works 

would provide opportunities for materials and construction equipment to be sourced within 

West Lothian. Although these would represent relatively small proportions of the total capital 

costs, this direct expenditure would be likely to recirculate and bring benefits to the local 

economy. However, given there is no guarantee that materials and construction equipment 

would be sourced locally and given also that expenditure would only be for a short temporary 

period (approximately 6 months), the magnitude of this effect is considered to be small. The 

decommissioning phase would entail considerable expenditure at similar levels to that 

involved during the construction phase. Overall, a slight positive effect is anticipated to the 

local economy from project expenditure during the construction and decommissioning phases 

15.4.5 Furthermore, whilst it is acknowledged not to be a material planning consideration, it should 

be noted that once operational the proposed wind farm would also contribute to the local 

economy through the provision of a community fund of £5,000 per annum for each MW 

installed. On the basis of the proposed six 3.4MW turbines, this would equate to £102,000 

per annum; or approximately £2.5 million over the 25 year lifetime of the proposed wind farm. 

The fund would be independently administered with decisions on funding allocations made by 

representatives of the local community. A separate community benefit fund consultation 

would take place in order to establish the community’s view on the best way to make use of 

this funding locally. 





15.4.6 In addition to the community benefit fund, PfR has agreed with FCS that eligible community 

groups will be able to invest in the project, if they desire. This investment could come from 

the community’s own money or alternatively from reinvestment of windfall received from the 

community benefit fund. This community investment initiative has been designed and is 

driven by FCS with the support of the Scottish Government. For eligibility criteria, community 

groups have been asked to refer to the National Forest Land Scheme guidance and register 

their interest with either PfR or FCS. At the time of writing this ES, one community group has 

registered their interest in the investment opportunity in line with the process (see Technical 

Appendix 15.1). PfR is working on a Community Investment Stage 2 specifically for Camilty 

that will be distributed to the community group, and any other community groups that register 

an interest. Further discussion will take place with community groups throughout the planning 

period, during which more information and guidance will be provided on the FCS website 

(http://www.forestry.gov.uk/communitiesandrenewables). 

15.4.7 Whilst details of how the community would wish to make use of the community benefit fund 

and any investment returns made from the project are not yet available, it is likely that funds 

would be used to finance investment in local facilities. Although such investment would be 

primarily intended to the benefit the local community, in practice it is likely that the benefits 

would also be shared by visitors to the area. Given that even very small movements to the 

fabric of an area can make a big difference to visitor perceptions of an area, the sensitivity of 

this receptor is considered to be medium. However, although such local community projects 

might help to give visitors a more positive impression of an area they are unlikely to be of a 

scale sufficient to influence people’s decision to visit or return to the area. The magnitude of 

this effect is therefore considered to be small. Overall, a slight positive effect is anticipated to 

the local economy due to community benefit expenditure during the operational phase of the 


Direct Employment 

15.4.8 In terms of employment, the construction of the proposed wind farm will directly support 30 to 

40 full time equivalent jobs for a period of approximately 6 months. 

15.4.9 The structure of the local economy is such that it is considered to have the capacity to benefit 

from construction contracts associated with the proposed wind farm. The sensitivity of the 

receptor is therefore considered to be medium. However, due to the specialist nature of the 

turbine erection and installation work, there will be a greater competitive advantage for 

experienced contractors who are likely to be located outwith the local area. This effect is 

therefore considered to be small in magnitude. Key opportunities for local firms and 

businesses during the construction work will be for site preparation and establishment, 

including access track and turbine hardstanding construction. Furthermore, construction of 

the proposed wind farm will also require a number of transportation services which may be 

provided by businesses in the local area. However, given that there is no guarantee that 

these services would be sourced locally the magnitude of this effect is considered to be 

small. Overall, a slight positive effect is anticipated to direct local employment during the 

construction phase. 

15.4.10 The operational phase of the proposed wind farm will directly support one to two operational 

manager jobs for the duration of the 25 year operational life of the wind farm. Employees 

from the turbine manufacturer and/or contractors will also carry out maintenance and 

servicing at regular intervals, for which teams of between 5 and 8 staff will be required. 





There will be opportunities from suitably qualified locally based contractors to carry out this 

maintenance / servicing work. The structure of the local economy is such that it is considered 

to have the capacity to benefit from these operational employment opportunities. 

Consequently, the sensitivity of the receptor can be assessed as medium. However, given 

the scale of employment opportunities associated with the operation of the proposed wind 

farm, this magnitude of this effect is considered to be negligible. Overall, a negligible effect is 

anticipated to direct local employment during the operational phase. 

15.4.11 At the end of the proposed wind farm’s operational life, the decommissioning phase would 

necessitate employment at similar levels, and with comparable experience and expertise, to 

that involved in the construction phase. Overall, a slight positive effect is therefore anticipated 

to direct local employment during the decommissioning phase. 

Indirect and Induced Employment 

15.4.12 Indirectly, the proposed wind farm may also create further employment opportunities down 

the supply chain for those companies providing services to the contractors during the 

construction and decommissioning phases of the proposed development. 

15.4.13 Whilst the level of employment created directly as a result of the proposed wind farm may be 

limited in terms of benefiting the local economy, there would be additional economic benefit 

relating to local businesses, in particular in providing accommodation for specialist 

construction workers. PfR estimates that the potential effect of the construction phase 

undertaken by contractors outwith the area that will require local accommodation, is between 

£x and £x. This estimate is based on the following scenarios: 

• 24 weeks with 40 workers staying five nights per week at £55 per night for a twin 

room = £132,000; and 

• 20 weeks with 30 workers staying four nights per week at £45 per night for a twin 

room = £108,000. 

15.4.14 In addition, this would have a positive economic effect on other local services such as shops, 

pubs, cafes, takeaways etc. 

15.4.15 The structure of the local economy is such that it is considered to have the capacity to 

provide such services to contractors. Consequently, the sensitivity of the receptor can be 

assessed as medium. However, given that there is no guarantee that contractors will make 

use of local businesses and given that the provision of such services would be for a short 

period of time, this magnitude of this effect is considered to be small. 

15.4.16 Overall, a slight positive effect in terms of indirect and induced local employment is 

anticipated during the construction and decommissioning phases. 

15.4.17 During the operational phase, the scale of direct employment is so small that there is likely to 

be very limited indirect and induced employment opportunities. Consequently a neglible 

effect in terms of indirect and induced local employment is anticipated. 

Land Use 

15.4.18 Construction and operation of the proposed wind farm will require the felling and permanent 

loss of 3.28 ha of commercial forestry land from within Camilty Forest. 





15.4.19 Given the extent of commercial forestry of similar age and structure locally, this receptor is 

considered to be generally tolerant to this loss and the sensitivity of this receptor is therefore 

considered to be low. 

15.4.20 Much of the wind blow activity at Camilty has been within sites associated with the proposed 

turbine layout. When analysed with areas felled within the past five years, predicted fellings 

due to the proposed wind farm will be small within the term of the construction and outside 

that already targeted. 

15.4.21 The extension of the forest felling operations to include the turbine infrastructure can be 

achieved by using the available work force, or transient forestry contractors that would 

normally resource such operations. In the short term, much of the crop generated from the 

construction of the wind farm will be sold and revenues generated. However, for the 

purposes of this assessment it has been assumed that, were the wind farm not to be built and 

operated, the extent of felling required for the purposes of the wind farm would eventually be 

felled under normal operations. Assuming the forestry operations continued over the lifetime 

of the wind farm it would not, therefore, be anticipated that there would be any significant net 

gain or loss with respect to timber sales resulting from the construction phase, and so the 

magnitude of change is considered negligible. Sections of felled and replanted trees will 

continue to mature during the lifetime of the forest and the operations required to successfully 

establishing trees will be carried out without interruption. 

15.4.22 Construction of the proposed wind farm will therefore result in a small increase in forestry 

operational activity outside that already planned in the current FDP and is of low impact and 

hence minimal significance. The effect of the proposed development on site operations is, 

therefore, considered not significant. 

15.4.23 Compensatory planting is planned to ensure that the total forestry land is not lost. This 

additional planting will be directed by the Forestry Commission Scotland and will be located 

on part of their current estate. This work will replace the lost area that would be reestablished 

as forest and therefore will balance the overall economic impacts regarding 

forestry operations. 

15.4.24 The operational wind farm will result in the loss of approximately 21.03 ha of land from 

continued production over its 25 years (Appendix 4.1). This loss will be compensated for and 

additional areas of land will be used for forestry purposes. Thus the effect on the local 

economy from the wind farm on Camilty Forest is likely to be positive. Although the 

significance locally is currently not clear and will be realised from income received by the 

FCS provided from the wind farm itself. In addition, in the long term, the wind farm operation 

will make ongoing contributions to the Scottish economy through payment of business rates. 

Tourism and Recreation 

15.4.25 The actual effects of the operational phase of the proposed wind farm on tourist and 

recreational users is difficult to assess given that people’s perception of the landscape and 

visual effects of wind farms are entirely subjective. For example, even at locations where the 

proposed wind turbines may be a significant feature in the landscape, for some tourists or 

recreational users this may increase their enjoyment and their future propensity to revisit, 

whilst for others the presence of turbines may decrease their enjoyment and propensity to 

revisit. Before assessing the effects of the proposed wind farm on tourism and recreation, a 

literature review of surveys relating to the effects of wind farms on these matters is discussed 

below. 





Existing Tourism Evidence and Surveys 

15.4.26 A number of studies have been undertaken in order to determine the effect upon tourism and 

recreation interests of the presence of a wind farm in an area. 

15.4.27 The Scottish Government report ‘Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism’ 

(2008) is considered to be the most comprehensive and robust study into the potential effects 

of wind farm developments on tourism. The study, which was based upon an extensive 

literature review and survey of 380 people, found that there is no evidence to suggest that 

wind farms have a serious negative economic effect on tourism. The key findings of the 

survey were that: 

• 75 % of people (285 out of 380 respondents) felt that wind farms have a positive or 

neutral impact on the landscape; 

• Those interviewed whose main activity was hiking or walking (70 out of 351 

respondents) were more likely to feel that wind farms have a positive or neutral impact 

on the landscape (81 %); 

• 2 % of those interviewed who had seen a wind farm in the area (4 respondents out of 

191 who had seen a wind farm) said that it would affect their decision to visit the area 

again – two indicated that the likelihood would increase and two that the likelihood 

would decrease. No one indicated that they would not return as a result of the wind 

farm; 

• After seeing a photomontage of a local wind farm before and after development, 3 % 

of those interviewed (11 out of 379 respondents) said that it would affect their decision 

to visit the area again. 

15.4.28 VisitScotland’s ‘Wind Farm Consumer Research’ (2012) provides the most up to date study 

into attitudes to wind farms and their effects on tourism. The study, which was based upon 

interviews with 1,000 people from within Scotland and 2,000 people from within the UK, found 

that for the majority of respondents (80 % of UK respondents and 83 % of Scottish 

respondents) that the presence of a wind farm would not affect their decision about where to 

stay when on holiday or on a short break. Other key findings of the study were that at 

present, UK/Scotland consumers do not feel that wind farms spoil the look of the countryside, 

with 81.4 % of UK respondents and 80.4 % of Scottish respondents claiming to disagree or 

neither agree or disagree with the statement that wind farms spoil the look of the countryside. 

15.4.29 VisitScotland’s report ‘Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in 

Scotland’ (2002) focused upon the perceived impact of wind farms as a comparative visual 

element in the countryside in ascertaining visitors’ views and the visual impact upon their 

visitor experience. The research demonstrates that, in general, respondents have a more 

positive than negative view towards the effects of wind farms on tourism. The majority of 

those surveyed had a neutral view. Positive views included that wind farms can be an 

attraction in themselves in the landscape if sensitively sited. They are perceived to have the 

potential to attract new markets and those visitors attracted by “environmentally friendly” 

energy and new technology. New wind farm developments were also identified as having the 

potential to provide greater access to remote areas and have a positive effect on the local 

economy. The main negative effect identified by respondents was the visual impact, 

particularly in rural, undeveloped areas, which was recognised to be intrusive and therefore 

detract from the visitor’s experience. Other negative effects included mental ‘barriers’ for the 





exploration of hills, effects on wildlife and effects on tourism businesses as a result of fewer 

visitors. 

15.4.30 Overall, it is therefore concluded that there is there is no evidence that wind farms have a 

negative effect upon tourism or recreation interests and that for the vast majority of tourists, 

wind farms are not a major factor in their decision-making. 

Tourism Attractions 

15.4.31 It is notable that a number of key tourist attractions are located in Linlithgow and along the 

Firth of Forth coastline where there would be no theoretical visibility of the proposed wind 

farm once operational. However, there are a number of key tourism attractions within central 

West Lothian ( the Livingston and Bathgate locality) that could have theoretical visibility of the 

proposed wind farm, including Harperrig Fishery, Five Sisters Zoo, Livingston Designer Outlet 

and The Centre, the Almondell & Calderwood Country Park and the Almond Valley Heritage 

Centre. In view of this it is considered that there is the potential for the proposed wind farm to 

have a detectable impact upon the tourism industry in West Lothian. The sensitivity of this 

resource is therefore considered to be medium. 

15.4.32 However, actual visibility from each of these tourist attractions would be influenced by the 

localised effects of topography, the built environment and vegetation as discussed below: 

• Harperrig Fishery – The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) predicts views of up to 6 

turbines from Harperrig Fishery. The landscape and visual impact assessment (ES 

Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual) confirms that the proposed turbines would be 

visible from Harperrig Reservoir and would form a prominent addition in views from 

the reservoir westwards towards the site. However, it concludes that the proposed 

turbines would not be out of character with the existing views which include 

commercial forestry plantations and the turbines at Pates Hill Wind Farm; 

• Five Sisters Zoo – The ZTV predicts views of up 6 turbines from Five Sisters Zoo. 

However, site visits confirm that views of the proposed wind farm would be screened 

by surrounding vegetation to the south; 

• Morton Clay Targets – The ZTV predicts views of up to 6 turbines from Morton Clay 

Fishery. Site visits confirm that views of the proposed wind farm would be screened 

by the intervening topography and vegetation; 

• Livingston Designer Outlet and The Centre – The ZTV predicts views of up to 6 

turbines from the Livingston Designer Outlet and The Centre. Site visits confirm that 

there would be no views of the proposed wind farm from within these shopping 

centres. The intervening buildings, vegetation and topography would screen views of 

the proposed wind farm from the parking areas; 

• Almondell & Calderwood Country Park – The ZTV predicts views of up to 6 turbines 

from within parts of the Country Park. However, site visits confirm that the proposed 

wind farm would be screened by the surrounding topography and vegetation; 

• Almond Valley Heritage Centre – The ZTV predicts views of up to 6 turbines from the 

Almond Valley Heritage Centre. However, site visits confirm that the proposed wind 

farm would be screened by the surrounding vegetation. 

15.4.33 On the basis of these findings, it is considered that the proposed wind farm is unlikely to 

detract from visitor enjoyment and likely demand to visit any of these tourist attractions. The 





magnitude of this effect is therefore considered to be small. Overall, the proposed wind farm 

is therefore anticipated to have a slight negative effect on tourist attractions. 

Tourism Routes 

15.4.34 West Lothian Council have identified 14 principal sensitive tourist routes. However, given 

that none of these routes form signed tourist routes or scenic routes as shown on any 

motoring or tourist maps, it is considered unlikely that any adverse effects upon these routes 

as a result of the proposed wind farm would result in a detectable effect upon the local and 

regional tourism industry. The sensitivity of this receptor is therefore considered to be low. 

15.4.35 A number of the principal sensitive tourist routes identified within West Lothian would have 

theoretical visibility of the proposed wind farm in their key sensitive views. However, actual 

visibility from the routes would be influenced by the direction of travel and the localised 

effects of topography and vegetation as discussed below: 


boundary - The proposed wind farm would not interrupt the key sensitive views across 

the reservoir southwards and eastwards towards the Pentland Hills which provide the 

justification for this section of route as a sensitive tourist route; 

• A704 – The proposed wind farm would not be visible in the key sensitive views 

northwards across the Breich Valley and Almond Valley towards the Bathgate Hills 

which provide the justification for this section of route as a sensitive tourist route; 

• A70 ‘Lang Whang’ at the southern West Lothian boundary – The proposed wind farm 

would not interrupt views northwards across Cobbinshaw Reservoir towards the 

Bathgate Hills which provide the justification for this section of route as a sensitive 

tourist route; 

• A706 south of Longridge and B7010 west of Longridge - The proposed wind farm 

would not interrupt views towards Leven Seat and the Gladmuir Hills which provide 

the justification for this section of route as a sensitive tourist route when travelling 

westwards along the B7010 and southwards along the A706; 

• A706 south of Whitburn – The proposed wind farm would not be visible within views 

northwards towards the Blackridge Heights and the Bathgate Hills. The ZTV predicts 

theoretical visibility of up to 6 turbines when travelling southwards in views southeastwards 

towards the Pentland Hills. Site visits confirm that the blade tips of the 

proposed wind farm would be visible in front of the Pentland Hills immediately beyond. 

However the proposed wind turbines would remain below the distinctive horizon of the 

Pentland Hills and would be viewed in the context of the existing Pates Hills Wind 

Farm and other man made features. The landscape and visual impact assessment 

(ES Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual) concludes that the broad extent of the 

Pentland ridge would remain unaltered by views of wind farms and therefore the 

overall effects on views towards the Pentland Hills from the A706 would not be 

unacceptably compromised by the proposed wind farm; 

• A706 from close to the junction with the A704 – The proposed wind farm would not be 

visible within views northwards across Polkemmet Moor and the Bathgate Hills and on 

towards the Ochils which provide the justification for this route as a sensitive tourist 

route; 





• A705 between Livingston and Seafield – The ZTV predicts there would be theoretical 

visibility of up to 6 turbines within views southwards across the Almond Valley towards 

the Pentland Hills. Site visits confirm that, although there would be views of the 

proposed wind farm from the A705, these would be intermittent and far enough away 

for visitors’ appreciation and enjoyment not to be significantly affected; 

• A899 Livingston ‘spine road’ – The ZTV predicts there would be theoretical visibility of 

up to 6 turbines within views southwards towards Auchinoon Hill, Corston Hill and the 

Pentlands. Site visits confirm that views of the proposed wind farm would be 

screened by the roadside vegetation and buildings; 

• A89 between Blackridge and Armadale – The proposed wind farm would not be 

visible within views northwards to the Blackridge Heights which provide the 

justification for this route as a sensitive tourist route; 

• A800 and A801 – There would be no visibility of the proposed wind farm in views 

eastwards towards the Bathgate Hills. The ZTV predicts theoretical visibility of up to 6 

turbines when travelling southwards in views towards the Pentland Hills. Site visits 

confirm that views of the proposed wind farm from the A801 would be screened by the 

surrounding vegetation. Although there may be intermittent views when travelling 

southwards on the A800, any views that are experienced of the proposed wind farm 

would be far enough away for visitors’ appreciation and enjoyment not to be 

significantly affected; 

• B8046 at Tar Hill – The ZTV predicts theoretical visibility of up to 6 turbines when 

travelling southbound in views towards the Pentland Hills. Site visits confirm that 

views of the proposed wind farm would be predominantly screened by the intervening 

vegetation and buildings and that any views that are experienced would be far enough 

away for visitors’ appreciation and enjoyment not to be significantly affected; 

• M9 west of junction 2 – There would be no visibility of the proposed wind farm from 

this section of road; 

• M9 west of junction 1a – The ZTV predicts theoretical visibility of up to 6 turbines 

when travelling eastbound in views southwards to the Pentland Hills. Site visits 

confirm that views would be intermittent and far enough away for visitors’ appreciation 

and enjoyment not to be significantly affected; 

• A904 between Newton and Queensferry – There would be no visibility of the 

proposed wind farm in views northwards towards the Forth bridges and the Ochil Hills. 

15.4.36 On this basis, it is considered that the proposed wind farm is unlikely to deter visitors from 

using these sensitive tourist routes. The magnitude of this effect is therefore considered to 

be small. Overall, the proposed wind farm is therefore anticipated to have a slight or 

negligible negative effect on this tourist resource. 

Tourism Accommodation 

15.4.37 There is very limited accommodation supply within the locality of the proposed wind farm for 

the proposal to result in a detectable change to visitor numbers and the economy of the area 

in general. The sensitivity of this receptor is therefore considered to be low. 

15.4.38 Although it is possible that some potential visitors may be deterred from staying in tourist 

accommodation within the towns and villages of Livingston, Uphall, East Calder and Bathgate 





if there was a possibility that their view would be compromised, given the distance from these 

settlements and on the basis of the various surveys on the effects of wind farms on tourists 

identified above, it is considered that the number of such visitors would be small. It is also 

expected that any losses incurred in this way would be compensated for, to some degree if 

not completely, by an increase in accommodation demand during the construction and 

decommissioning periods (as a result of contractors outwith the area that require 

accommodation). The magnitude of this effect is therefore considered to be small. 

15.4.39 Overall the proposed wind farm is therefore anticipated to have a slight or negligible negative 

effect on tourist accommodation providers. 

Access and Recreation 

15.4.40 Public access to the site in general is afforded by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The 

site of the proposed wind farm is not considered to be well used for outdoor access purposes 

and the sensitivity of this receptor is therefore considered to be low. Construction and 

decommissioning activities on the site would inevitably result in a loss of public access to 

parts of the site where turbines are being installed and materials and equipment stored for 

health and safety reasons. However, given this loss would only be for a short term temporary 

period, given such closures would not apply to the wider application site or tracks within it and 

given short closures for health and safety reasons already commonly occur during harvesting 

operations, the magnitude of this change is considered to be small. Overall, the proposed 

wind farm is therefore anticipated to have a slight or negligible negative effect with regards to 

on-site public access during the construction / decommissioning phases. 

15.4.41 By making the site more accessible through the construction of access tracks for the 

proposed wind farm and upgrading existing forestry tracks to create circular routes from the 

Shear Bridge car park , it is possible that the site may become more popular for public access 

during the operational phase. Given the site is not considered to currently be well used for 

outdoor access, the sensitivity of this receptor is considered to be medium. However, given 

the limited extend of footpaths that will be created and the fact that these footpaths do not link 

to any other wider access networks, the magnitude of this change is therefore considered to 

be small. Overall, the proposed wind farm is therefore anticipated to have a slight positive 

effect with regards to on-site access during the operational period. 

15.4.42 Outwith the site, the most sensitive receptor to the proposed wind farm is the Pentland Hills 

Regional Park given its importance as an established and popular recreational resource and 

its relatively close proximity to the site. The sensitivity of the Regional Park is therefore 

considered to be High. 

15.4.43 The Zone of Theoretical Visibility for the proposed wind farm demonstrates that visibility of 

the proposed turbines would be predominantly confined to the western parts of the Regional 

Park (to the west of Mid Hill) and to the northern parts of the Regional Park to the south-east 

of Balerno and Currie. As illustrated in the Pentland Hills Visitor Survey (TNS, 2006) , the far 

west of the Regional Park is generally far less used as a recreational resource than other 

parts of the Regional Park and is therefore considered to have a reduced sensitivity as a 

recreational resource. 

15.4.44 The landscape and visual impact assessment (ES Chapter 9) identifies that from the western 

parts of the Regional Park, the proposed wind farm would have an indirect impact on the 

landscape and visual character and qualities of the area. Viewpoints 11 Harperrig Reservoir 

(Figure 9.14/11) and 12 West Cairn Hill (Figure 9.14/12) are considered to be representative 





of the views that would be experienced from the western parts of the Regional Park. The 

assessment continues that the proposed wind farm would extend the influence of existing 

wind farms in the landscape and that areas of the Regional Park that are currently intervisible 

with the existing wind farms at Black Law, Pates Hill and Muirhall would also be influenced by 

the new, closer proposal. The assessment consequently concludes that the landscape and 

visual impacts of the proposed wind farm on the western parts of the Regional Park would be 

small. On this basis, and taking into account the reduced sensitivity of this part of the 

Regional Park, the proposed wind farm is therefore anticipated to have a slight negative 

effect on the recreational and access demand within the western parts of the Regional Park 

during the operational phase. 

15.4.45 From the more popular northern parts of the Regional Park to the south-east of Balerno and 

Currie, the landscape and visual impact assessment identifies that, given that these areas 

are located up to 18km from the application site, that they would be significantly less 

influenced by the indirect landscape and visual effects of the proposed wind farm than the 

western parts of the Regional Park. Viewpoints 17 Black Hill (Figure 9.14/17) and 18 

Thriepmuir Reservoir (Figure 9.14/18) are considered to be representative of the views that 

would be experienced from the northern parts of the Regional Park. The landscape and 

visual assessment consequently concludes that the magnitude of this change would be small. 

On this basis the proposed wind farm is therefore anticipated to have a slight negative effect 

on the recreational and access demand within northern parts of the Regional Park during the 

operational phase. 

15.4.46 Overall, given that the majority of the Regional Park would not be strongly influenced by the 

landscape and visual effects of the proposed wind farm, and that those areas that would 

occur in an area of the Park with lesser recreational demand, it is considered that the 

proposed wind farm would be unlikely to deter access and recreational users of the Regional 

Park as a whole. The evidence of the various surveys as identified above into the impact of 

wind farms on tourists and recreational users supports this conclusion. 

15.4.47 Furthermore, it should be recognised that although the view may be regarded by some 

walkers and hill walkers as the primary 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) 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 farm. This effect 

is therefore considered to be small in magnitude. Overall, the proposed wind farm is therefore 

anticipated to have a slight negative effect on the recreational and access demand within the 

Pentland Hills during the operational phase. 

15.4.48 Harperrig Fishery and Reservoir is well used by local anglers. However, given that views 

experienced are unlikely to be the prime reason for fishing on the reservoir, the sensitivity of 

this receptor is considered to be low. Given the proximity to the proposed wind farm, up to all 

6 turbines would be visible. As some anglers enjoyment could be affected by views of the 

proposed turbines, this could result in reduced numbers of anglers on the reservoir and to the 

fishery. However, on the basis of the various surveys as identified above, it is concluded that 

for the vast majority of anglers the visual presence of the wind farm would not be a major 

factor in their decision to fish there. The magnitude of this effect is therefore considered to be 

small. Overall the proposed wind farm is therefore anticipated to have a slight negative effect 

on the demand for angling at Harperrig Fishery and Reservoir. 





15.4.49 In terms of other access and recreational activities, there are relatively few activities in the 

vicinity of the proposed wind farm for it to have a significant detrimental effect on the 

economy or on the levels of participation in these activities in the area in general. 



15.5.1 PfR will seek to use local labour where possible to maximise the benefits to the local 

economy. 

Land Use 

15.5.2 All forestry required to be felled for the proposed wind farm will be removed in accordance 

with the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. Mitigation for the direct 

loss of forestry as a result of the footprints of the turbine bases and keyholing around 

turbines, new access tracks, crane hardstandings, control area and the temporary 

construction areas will be achieved where possible by restocking additional forest blocks in 

the vicinity of Camilty Forest. This compensatory restocking will balance the overall 

economic effects regarding forestry operations. 


15.5.3 Minimisation of visual effects has taken place through the site selection and design iteration 

process. 

15.5.4 Where possible, where forest access tracks are to be closed during construction works, a 

suitable diversion would be put in place along with the display of signage at each end of the 

track where the track is diverted. The signage would detail the track which is closed, the 

proposed alterative route and the duration of the closure. 

15.5.5 Where possible, existing forestry access tracks have been upgraded alongside the access 

tracks to be created to create circular walks. These include a circular trail from the Shear 

Bridge car park to the south east of the site past turbines 4 and 5 before returning along the 

A70, and a circular trail from the Shear Bridge car park to the north west of the site via turbine 

3 and Camilty Hill and back via the B7008. 


15.6.1 The predicted effects of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed 

wind farm are summarised in Table 15.9 below. 







Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Employment 

and the 

economy 

Additional 

local 

expenditure. 

Construction and 

decommissioning 

phases. 

Medium: The 

structure of the 

local economy 

is such that it is 

considered to 

have the 

capacity to 

benefit from 

expenditure 

associated with 

the proposed 

wind farm. 

Small: There is no 

guarantee that 

contractors materials 

and equipment would 

be sourced locally. 

Expenditure would be 

for a short temporary 

period of time and 

would be unlikely to 

result in a detectable 


business/employment 

conditions. 

Slight (not 

significant) 

- PfR will seek to 

use local labour 

where possible 

to maximise the 

benefits to the 

local economy. 

Slight 

(not 

significant) 

Positive: 

Business/ 

employment 

opportunities 

may arise. 

Employment 

and the 

Economy 

Community 

Benefits 

Operational 

Phase 

Low: 

Community 

improvement 

projects might 

help to give 

visitors a more 

positive 

impression of 

an area but 

they are 

unlikely to be of 

a scale 

sufficient to 

influence 

people;s 

decision to visit 

or return to an 

area. 

Medium: Even very 

small local 

improvements can 

make a big difference 

to visitor perception 

of an area 

Slight (not 

significant) 

- - Slight (not 

significant) 

Positive: 

Some visitors 

may be 

attracted by 

local 

improvements 



Socio-Economics, Tourism, Land-Use and Recreation



Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Employment 

and the 

economy 

Direct local 

employment. 

Construction, 

operation and 


phases. 

Medium: Local 

economy has 

capacity to 

benefit from 

contracts 


the proposed 

wind farm. 

Small: The scale of 

opportunities 

associated with the 

proposed wind farm 

is expected to be 

relatively small. 

Slight (not 

significant) 







Slight 

(not 

significant) 

Positive: 

Business/ 

employment 

opportunities 

may arise. 

Employment 

and the 

economy 

Indirect and 

induced 

employment. 



phases. 

Medium: There 

are a number of 

businesses 

which could 

benefit from 

providing 

services to 

contractors. 

Small: Provision of 

services would be for 

a short temporary 

period of time and 

would be unlikely to 

result in a detectable 


business/employment 

conditions. 

Slight 

(not 

significant) 







Slight 

(not 

significant) 

Positive: 

Business/emp 

loyment 

opportunities 

may arise. 

Land use 

Loss of 

commercial 

forestry land. 


operational 

phases. 

Low: There is a 

large extent of 

commercial 

forestry locally. 

Small: The scale of 

commercial forestry 

to be lost is relatively 

small. 


significant) 

- Direct loss of 

forestry as a 

result of the 

footprints of the 

proposed wind 

farm will be 

offset where 

possible by 

restocking 

additional areas 

in the vicinity of 

Camilty Forest 

where possible. 


significant) 

Negative: 

Loss of 

income from 

potential 

future 

harvesting 

activity. 






Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Attractions 

(Visitor 

Numbers). 

Operational 

phase. 

Medium: There 


visitor 

attractions in 

Central West 

Lothian with 

theoretical 

views of the 

proposed wind 

farm to have a 

significant 

effect on the 

tourism industry 

of the area in 

general. 

Small: The number of 

tourist attractions with 

actual visibility of the 

proposed wind farm 

would be relatively 

small.The number of 

people who feel 

strongly enough 

about wind farms that 

it would deter them 

from visiting these 

tourism attractions is 

also likely to be very 

small. 

Slight (not 

significant) 


significant) 

Negative: 

Some visitors 

may be 

deterred by 

visual effects. 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Routes 

(Visitor 

Numbers) 

Operational 

Phase 

Low: There are 

no signed or 

promoted 

tourist or scenic 

routes within 

West Lothian 

Small: The length of 

sensitive tourism and 

amenity routes over 

which visual amenity 

would be significantly 

affected would be 

relatively small. The 

number of people 

who feel strongly 

enough about wind 

farms that it would 

deter them from 

using these tourism 

and amenity routes is 

also likely to be very 

small. 

Slight (not 

significant) 


significant) 

Negative: 

Some visitors 

may be 

deterred by 







Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Tourism 

Tourist 

Accomodation 

(Visitor 

Numbers). 

Operational 

phase. 


a very few 

tourism 

accommodation 

providers in 

close proximity 

of the proposed 

wind farm for 

the proposal to 

potentially 

result in a 

detectable 

change to 

visitor numbers 

and the 

economy of the 

area in general. 

Small: The number of 



about wind farms that 

it would influence 

their holiday 

destination is likely to 

be very small. 

Slight (not 

significant) 


significant) 

Negative: 

Some visitors 

may be 

deterred by 


Recreation 

and outdoor 

access 

Outdoor 

Access (on 

site). 


decommissiong 

phases. 

Low: The site is 

currently not 

considered to 

be well used for 

public access. 

Small: Loss of access 

would only be for a 

short temporary 

period and already 

commonly occurs 

during forestry 

harvesting and 

restocking 

operations. 

Slight / 


significant) 

Where 

possible a 

suitable 

diversion 

would be 

put in 

place 

along with 

the display 

of signage 

at each 

end of the 

track 

where the 

track is 

diverted. 

- Slight / 


significant) 

Negative: 

Loss of public 

access on 

site. 






Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Recreation 

and outdoor 

access 

Outdoor 

Access 

development 

opportunities. 

Operational 

phase. 

Medium: The 

site is currently 

not well used 

for public 

access and has 

excellent 

potential. 

Small: the extent of 

new footpaths that 

would be created is 

limited. 

Slight (not 

significant) 

- - Moderate Positive: New 

access 

opportunities 

may be 

created. 

Recreation 

and outdoor 

access 

Outdoor 

Access (off 

site) 

experience. 

Operational 

phase. 

High: The 

Pentland Hills 

is a popular 

recreational 

resource and is 

sufficeintly 

close to be 

potentially 

affected. 

Small:The far west of 

the Regional Park in 

closest proximity to 

the proposed wind 

farm is far less used 

as a recreational 

resource than other 

parts of the Park. The 

number of people 

who feel strongly 

enough about wind 

farms that it would 

deter them from 

using these accesss 

routes is likely to be 

very small. 

Slight (not 

significant) 


significant) 

Negative: 

Some access 

users may be 

deterred by 







15.7.1 No potential for cumulative effects upon employment and the economy and land use due to 

the proposed wind farm and other existing wind farms, those which have planning permission 

or valid applications for wind farms in the area has been identified. 

15.7.2 The greatest potential for having a significant detrimental effect on the levels of tourism and 

recreational activity in the area as a result of cumulative effects would be on the Pentland 

Hills Regional Park. This potential is based on the findings of the landscape and visual 

impact assessment (ES chapter 9) which identifies that the greatest number of views of 

cumulative wind farms would be attained from within the Pentland Hills. As previously 

identified, the sensitivity of the Pentland Hills Regional Park is considered to be high given its 

importance as an established and popular recreational resource and its close proximity to the 

site. 

15.7.3 The landscape and visual impact assessment identifies that there would be a number of 

potential combined and successive cumulative effects from viewpoints within the Regional 

Park. These cumulative effects would predominantly arise as a result of the number of 

proposed wind farms which lie in close proximity to the proposed wind farm, in particular the 

proposed Fauch Hill Wind Farm (a 23 turbine scheme approximately 1.6 km from the 

proposed wind farm), the proposed Harburnhead Wind Farm (a 22 turbine scheme 

approximately 1.9 km from the proposed wind farm) and the proposed Pearie Law Wind Farm 

(a 6 turbine scheme approximately 3.3 km from the proposed wind farm). However, the 

landscape and visual assessment concludes that the addition of the proposed wind farm into 

this potentially far more developed cumulative context would result in a lower level of 

landscape and visual effect compared with seeing the proposed wind farm in a relatively 

undeveloped context such as the current baseline. Consequently the landscape and visual 

impact assessment predicts that there would be no significant cumulative effects upon the 

Pentland Hills as a result of the introduction of the proposed wind farm. 

15.7.4 On the basis of the findings of the landscape and visual impact assessment, as well as on the 

findings of the various surveys as identified above into the effect of wind farms on tourists 

and recreational users, it is considered that the number of recreational users who may 

deterred from visiting the Pentland Hills Regional Park by potential cumulative impacts arising 

from the introduction of the proposed wind farm would be very small. The magnitude of 

change is therefore considered to be small, resulting in a slight negative predicted effect on 

the recreational demand within the Pentland Hills during the operational phase. 

15.7.5 The landscape and visual impact assessment also considers the potential for cumulative 

effects on the A70, including the sections to the south and to north of the site which West 

Lothian Council has identified as principal sensitive tourist routes. As previously identified, 

given that neither of these routes form signed tourist routes or scenic routes as shown on any 

motoring or tourists maps, the sensitivity of these receptors is considered to be low. 

15.7.6 To the south, the landscape and visual assessment concludes that the addition of the 

proposed wind farm to the proposed Harburnhead, Pearie Law and Fauch Hill Wind Farms 

would result in significant adverse visual effects on the section of the A70 within 4 km of the 

site when travelling north in views extending from Cobbinshaw Reservoir on the left of the 

A70 across to the Pentland Hills on the right. This section of road includes the section at the 

southern West Lothian boundary identified as a sensitive tourist route. However, given that 





the justification for this section of route at the southern West Lothian boundary as a sensitive 

tourist route relates only to views across Cobbinshaw Reservoir towards the Bathgate Hills 

and that cumulative visual impacts would only occur as a result of the addition of the 

proposed wind farm to the far right of this view, it is considered unlikely to deter visitors from 

using this route. Again, the evidence of various surveys as identified into the impact of wind 

farms on tourists supports this conclusion. The magnitude of this effect is therefore 

considered to be small. 

15.7.7 Turning to cumulative effects on the section of the A70 to the north of the application site, the 

landscape and visual assessment concludes that the addition of the proposed wind farm to 

the proposed Harburnhead, Pearie Law and in particular the Fauch Hill Wind Farms would 

only result in significant adverse cumulative visual effects when travelling south within 

approximately 2 km of the site. This section of road excludes the section between Harperrig 

Reservoir and the eastern West Lothian boundary defined as a sensitive tourist route which 

lies beyond 2 km of the site. Given that the proposed wind farm would only slightly increase 

the horizontal extent of cumulative schemes within the view from the A70 between Harperrig 

Reservoir and the eastern West Lothian boundary, and that this would be confined to the far 

right of the view away from the sensitive views towards the Pentland Hills that form the 

justification for this section of route as a sensitive tourism route, it is considered unlikely to 

deter visitors from using this route. The magnitude of this effect is therefore considered to be 

small. 

15.7.8 Overall, the addition of the proposed wind farm is anticipated to have no worse than a slight 

negative effect on the demand for using any of West Lothian’s principal sensitive tourist 

routes. 


• FCS (2006) The Scottish Forestry Strategy. Forestry Commision Scotland, Edinburgh 

• FCS(2007) Public Opinion of Forestry. Forestry Commision for Scotland , Edinburgh 

• FCS (2008a) Discussion Paper on Woodland Expansion in Scotland. Forestry 

Commision Scotland, Edinburgh 

• FCS(2008b) Forests for People: access, recreation and tourism on the national forest 

estate. Forestry Commision Scotland, Edinburgh 

• FCS (2009) Scottish Lowlands Forest District Strategic Plan 2009 – 2013. Forestry 

Commision Scotland, Edinburgh 

• NRS (2011), Mid-2011 Population Estimates Scotland: Population estimates by sex, 

age and administrative area. 27 April 2011. National Records of Scotland 

• ONS (2011a) Annual Population Survey 2011. Office for National Statistics 

• ONS (2011b) Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2011. Office for National 

Statistics 

• ONS (2012) Annual Population Survey 2012. Office for National Statistics 

• Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh & Lothian (2006). Edinburgh and the Lothians Tourism 

Accomodation Audit. Available at: http://www.edinburghinspiringcapital.com/pdf/edinburgh-accom-audit-%20full-report-oct-2006[1].pdf 





• Scottish Executive (2006) Scottish Forestry Strategy 2006 

• Scottish Government (2008), Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism, 

Scottish Government. Available at: 

http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/03/07113554/22 

• Scottish Government (2010), Scottish Planning Policy, [online]. Available at: 


2013] 

• TNS (2006), Pentland Hills Visitor Survey 2005 - 2006. TNS Travel & Tourism, 

September 2006 

• VisitScotland (2008), Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on 

Tourism in Scotland, VisitScotland. Available at: 

http://www.viewsofscotland.org/library/docs/VS_Survey_Potential_Impact_of_WF_02. 

pdf 

• VisitScotland (2011a) 2011 Scotland Visitor Survey. Available at: 

http://www.visitscotland.org/pdf/Updated%20Final%20Version%20Visitor%20Survey 

%20-%20National%20Summary%20%20FV3_pptx%20[Read-Only].pdf 

• VisitScotland (2011b) Scotland: The key facts on tourism in 2010. Available at: 

http://www.visitscotland.org/pdf/VS%20Insights%20Key%20Facts%202012_FINAL.pd 

f 

• VisitScotland (2011c) Tourism in Eastern Scotland 2011. Available at: 

http://www.visitscotland.org/pdf/Tourism%20in%20Eastern%20Scotland%202011.pdf 

• VisitScotland (2012) Wind Farm Consumer Research. VisitScotland. Available at: 

http://www.visitscotland.org/research_and_statistics/tourism_topics/wind_farms.aspx 

• Visit West Lothian (2012) West Lothian Visitor Survey 2012 

• West Lothian Council (2012) West Lothian Council STEAM Report Jan – Sep 2012 





16 Summary of Effects and Mitigation 


16.1.1 This chapter presents a collation of all the summary of effects tables for each assessment 

undertaken for the proposed development. In addition, a schedule of proposed mitigation 

and enhancement measures is provided. 

16.2 Summary of Effects 

16.2.1 The following series of tables (Tables 16.1 to 16.8) provides the Summary of Effects for each 

assessment as identified in the individual chapters of this ES. 


Summary of Effects and Mitigation 



Table 16.1 Summary of Effects - Transport 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 


(and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 


(and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Increase in Traffic 

Volume. 


Negligible 


- 

Traffic 


including signage. 

Negligible 


Temporary 

Disruption and 

Driver 

Delay from 

Abnormal 

Loads. 

Construction 

Low 

Small / 

Medium 

Slight / 

Moderate 


Traffic Management 

Plan and Police escort. 

- 

Slight 


Temporary 

Road Users 

along Route 

Increased Risk of 

Accidents from 


Severance, 

Intimidation 

and Pedestrian 

Delay 

from Abnormal 

Loads. 



Negligible 


Negligible 


- 

- 

Traffic 



Traffic 



Negligible 


Negligible 


Temporary 

Temporary 

Dust and Dirt from 



Negligible 


- 

Traffic 



Negligible 


Temporary 

Visual Effects from 



Negligible 


- 

Traffic 



Negligible 


Temporary 



Summary of Effects and Mitigation


Table 16.2 Summary of Effects - Noise 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 


(and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significanc 

e) after 

Mitigation 


Residential 

Noise 

Sensitive 

Receptors 

Temporary Construction High N/A 

Permanent 

Operation 

(scheme only) High N/A 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Negligible(not 

significant) 

Adopting Best 

Practicable Means 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Temporary 

Permanent 

Temporary 

Decommission 

ing High N/A 

Slight(not 

significant) 

Adopting Best 

Practicable Means 

N/A 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Temporary 





Table 16.3 Summary of Effects – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 


Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect (i.e. 

temporary/ 

permenant/ 

direct etc) 

Occupiers of 

residential 

properties at 

Aberlyn 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Operation 

High 

Large 

Major 

(significant) 

Substantial 

(significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 


(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Permanent 

Direct 

Occupiers of 

residential 

properties at 

Parkview 

Cottages 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Operation 

High 

Medium 

Moderate 

(not 

significant) 

Major 

(significant) 

- - Moderate 

(not 

significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Permanent 

Direct 

Occupiers of 

residential 

properties at 

Over 

Williamston 

Farm 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Operation 

High 

Medium 

Moderate 

(not 

significant) 

Major 

(significant) 

- - Moderate 

(not 

significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Permanent 

Direct 

Occupiers of 

residential 

properties at 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High Medium Moderate 

(not 

- - Moderate 

(not 

Temporary 

Direct 






Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect (i.e. 

temporary/ 

permenant/ 

direct etc) 

Camilty Lodge 

significant) 

significant) 

Operation 

Major 

(significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 

Walkers using 

Core Path A70 

to High 


Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Operation 

High 

Large 

Major 

(significant) 

Substantial 

(significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 


(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Permanent 

Direct 

Walkers using 

Core Path A70 

to Pentlands 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High 

Large 

Major 

(significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 

Substantial 

(significant) 


(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 

Viewpoint 4: 

Crosswood 

Reservoir 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High 

Large 

Major 

(significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 

Substantial 

(significant) 


(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 

Viewpoint 12: 

West Cairn Hill 

Visual Construction/ High Medium Moderate 

(not 

- - Moderate 

(not 

Temporary 

Direct 






Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect (i.e. 

temporary/ 

permenant/ 

direct etc) 

Decommission significant) significant) 

Operation 

Major 

(significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 

Viewpoint 13: 

Craigengar 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High 

Medium 

Moderate 

(not 

significant) 

- - Moderate 

(not 

significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 

Major 

(significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 

Occupiers of 

vehicles 

travelling north 

east and south 

west on A70 

between 

Windygreen 

and Auchinoon 

Sequentia 

l effects 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Medium 

Large 

Moderate 

(not 

significant) 

- - Moderate 

(not 

significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 

Major 

(significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 

Occupiers of 

trains 

Sequentia 

l effects 

Construction/ Medium Medium Moderate 

(not 

- - Moderate 

(not 

Temporary 

Direct 






Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect (i.e. 

temporary/ 

permenant/ 

direct etc) 

travelling north 

east and south 

west on 

Lockerbie to 

Livingston 

railway 

Decommission significant) significant) 

Operation 

Major (an 

accumulation 

of Moderate 

effects. 

Significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 

Walkers using 

Cauldstane 

Slap/Old 

Drove 

Road/Thieves 

Road Heritage 

Footpath 

between A70 

and Pentland 

Ridge 

Sequentia 

l effects 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

High 

Medium 

Moderate 

(not 

significant) 

- - Moderate 

(not 

significant) 

Temporary 

Direct 

Operation 

Major 

(significant) 

- - Major 

(significant) 

Permanent 

Direct 





Table 16.4 Summary of Effects – Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 


(and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 


Effects on 

buried 

archaeological 

remains 

Disturbance of 

buried remains. 

Construction 

Negligible to 

Low 

None-Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Programme 

of fieldwork 

- 

Slight(not 

significant) 

Possible further 

disturbance of 

buried remains 

already 

damaged by 

forestry planting. 

Scheduled Monuments (n.b. no Scheduled Monument shown on Figures 10.1-10.3 would have a greater than slight (not significant) adverse effect other than those listed below) 


SM 1930 


Hill,Roman 

fortlet,Castle 

Greg 

Effect on 

setting. 

Operation High Medium 

Moderate 

(significant) 

- 

Screen planting 

remaining 

Moderate 

(significant) 

Moderate 


Total of 2 

further SMs. 

See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 

Operation High Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 

- 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 


Total of six SMs 

See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 


Slight (not 

significant) 

- 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 


(and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 



Total of 10 SMs 

See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 


Slight (not 

significant) 

- 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 

Listed Buildings(nb no listed building shown on Figures 10.1-10.3 would have a greater than slight (not significant) adverse effect other than those listed below) 


Total of 4 

Category B 


See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 


Moderate 

(significant) 

- 

Moderate 

(significant) 

Moderate 



Linhouse HB 

number 14156, 

Category A 

Effect on 

setting. 


Moderate 

(significant) 

- 

Moderate 

(significant) 

Moderate 


Total of 1 

further 

Category A 

listed building. 

See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 


Slight (not 

significant) 

- 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 


(and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 


Total of 23 

Category B 


See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 

Operation Medium Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 

- 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 

Total of 8 

Category C 


See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 

Operation Low Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 

- 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 


Total of 5 

Category A 


See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 


Slight (not 

significant) 

- 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 

Total of 27 

Category B 


See Appendix 


Effect on 

setting. 

Operation Medium Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 

- 


remaining 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect 





Table 16.5 Summary of Effects – Terrestrial Ecology 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 


Craigengar 

SAC and 

SSSI 

Cobbinshaw 

Moss SSSI 

Cobbinshaw 

reservoir 

SSSI 

Linhouse 

Valley SSSI 

Hermand 

Birchwood 

SSSI 

Pollution: 

waterborne 

and airborne 

sources. 


impacts on 

groundwater 

systems are 

assessed in 

Chapter 13 

Hydrology, 

Hydrogeology 

and Ground 

Conditions. 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

High/ 

International 

High/ 

National 

High/ 

National 

High/ 

National 

High/ 

National 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 



of a HSEMS 

detailing 

pollution 

prevention 

measures and 


Considered 

design of 

upgraded 

watercourse 

crossings. 

Water quality 

monitoring 

covering a 


and 

construction 

phase of the 

wind farm. 

Employment of 

an ECoW on 

the site. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 


temporary. 


temporary. 


temporary. 


temporary. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 


Crosswood 

reservoir and 

Linhouse 

Water 

SWT Wildlife 

Site 

Murieston 

Water 

SWT Wildlife 

Site 

Pollution: 

waterborne 

and airborne 

sources. 


impacts on 

groundwater 

systems are 

assessed in 

Chapter 13 

Hydrology, 

Hydrogeology 

and Ground 

Conditions. 

Construction 

Construction 

Low/ Local 

Low/ Local 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 



of a HSEMS 

detailing 

pollution 

prevention 

measures and 


Considered 

design of 

upgraded 

watercourse 

crossings. 

Water quality 

monitoring 

covering a 


and 

construction 

phase of the 

wind farm. 

- 

- 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 


temporary. 

Employment of 

an ECoW on 

the site. 

All habitats 

excluding wet 

modified bog 

Pollution of 

terrestrial 

habitats 

through 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


best practice 

guidance and 

techniques. 

- 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 


airborne and 

waterborne 

sources. 



of HSEMS 

outlining 

pollution 

prevention 

measures. 

Wet Modified 

Bog 

Construction 

High/ 

International 

Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Timing of works 

to avoid heavy 

periods of 

rainfall when the 

risk of fine 

sediment being 

transported 

from earth 

works is 

significantly 

increased. 

Otter 

Bat species 

Pollution of 

habitats and 

associated 

prey sources. 

Construction 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Medium 

Small 

Slight(not 

significant) 

Slight(not 

significant) 

Application of best practice 

guidance and techniques. 



prevention measures and dust 

controls. 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 


temporary. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 



Badger 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

covering a baseline period and 

construction phase of the wind 

farm. 

Employment of an ECoW on the 

site. 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 

Coniferous 

plantation 

woodland 

Broadleaved 

woodland 

Damage and 


habitats. 

Construction 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Large 

Small 

Moderate to 

slight (not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 



prevention measures. 

Employment of best practice 

construction methods and habitat 

restoration techniques. 

Use of micrositing wherever 

necessary under advice of ECoW. 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Direct, 

negative,temporary 


temporary. 

Wet modified 

bog 

Construction 

High/ 

International 

Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 

Marshy 

grassland 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 

Semiimproved 

acid 

grassland 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

N/A 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 


Watercourses 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 

Otter 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Slight or 

negligible(not 

significant) 

Pre-construction and pre-felling 

checks for protected species to be 

undertaken by the ECoW. 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 

Bat species 

Badger 

Disturbance, 

displacement 

and injury due 

to construction 

activities. 

Construction 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Negligible 

Slight or 


significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Specific protection measures for 

protected species (e.g. covering 

trenches, pits and pipelines). 



Vehicle speed restrictions on site. 



Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 

N/A 

Coniferous 

plantation 

woodland 

Broadleaved 

woodland 

Wet modified 

bog 

Direct habitat 

loss through 

the installation 

of wind farm 

infrastructure. 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

High/ 

International 

Large 

Negligible 

Small 

Moderate to 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Slight (not 

significant) 


implementation of 

HSEMS detailing 

habitat 

delimitation to limit 

the potential for 

habitat loss, and 

habitat restoration 

techniques. 

Use of micrositing 

wherever 

- 

- 

- 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


permanent. 


permanent. 


permanent. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 


Marshy 

grassland 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

necessary under 

advice of ECoW. 

- 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


permanent. 

Semiimproved 

acid 

grassland 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


permanent. 

Watercourses 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

N/A 

Otter 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- - 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

N/A 

Bat species 

Habitat loss 

and habitat 

fragmentation 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Keyhole felling will increase the 

area of suitable habitat. 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


permanent. 

Badger 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

- - 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

N/A 

All habitats 

excluding Wet 

Modified Bog 

Damage, 

disturbance 

and pollution 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 



and guidance 

- 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 


Wet Modified 

Bog 

of terrestrial 

habitats during 

maintenance 

activities 

Operation 

High/ 

International 

Small 

Slight (not 

significant) 

when carrying 

out 

maintenance 

activities. 



incident 


- 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


temporary. 


species 

excluding 

bats 

Bats 

Disturbance 

and 

displacement 

due to 

maintenance 

activities 

Operation 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible 

Small 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Slight(not 

significant) 

Demarcation of 

- 

working zones 

to limit 


species. 

Vehicle speed 

restrictions. 



and guidance 

when carrying 

out 

maintenance 

activities. - 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

N/A 

N/A 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 


Bat species 

Death of bats 

through 

collision or 

barotrauma. 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Slight(not 

significant) 

- 


of postconstruction 

monitoring 

scheme 

Slight (not 

significant) 


permanent. 


habitats 

(except wet 

modified bog) 

Wet modified 

bog 

Indirect 

changes to 

habitat 

composition 

due to 

changes in 

hydrology and 

soil chemistry. 

Operation 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

High/ 

International 

Small 

Small 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Slight(not 

significant) 


best practice 

guidance and 

techniques and 

outlined in the 

HSEMS. 

Periodic checks 

of vehicles for 

leaks. 



incident 


- 

- 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


permanent. 


permanent. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

after 

Mitigation 


Decommissioning Phase: Of comparable type and of similar magnitude to the construction phase effects 

Table 16.6 Summary of Effects – Ornithology 

Level of 

Level of 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Effect (and 

Significance 

) after 


Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Assumes 

Removal (felling) 

theoretical loss of a 

Goshawk 

Habitat loss 

(nesting) 

Construction 

Regional 

Small (worst 


Slight 

(not 

significant) 

of nest site prior 

to construction 

and outside of 

the breeding 

season 

N/A 

Slight (not 

significant) 




within the 

development 

footprint 

Habitat loss 


Construction Regional Negligible 


significant) 

None 

N/A 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


Goshawk 

Disturbance/ Construction Regional Small (worst Slight Pre- and midconstruction 

N/A Slight (not Assumes 

March 2013 Displacement 

16-19 

theoretical ES Chapter 16 

Summary of Effects and Mitigation 



Level of 

Level of 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Effect (and 

Significance 

) after 


Mitigation 

Mitigation 

(nesting) case scenario) (not 

surveys to 

significant 


significant) 

identify any 


goshawk nests 


and 


establishment of 

within the 

work exclusion 

development 

zones where 

footprint 

necessary 

Disturbance/ 

Displacement 


Construction Regional Negligible 


significant) 

None 

N/A 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 



areas 

Assumes 

theoretical 

Disturbance/ 

Slight 

Slight 



Goshawk 

Displacement 

(nesting) 

Operation Regional Small 

(not 

significant) 

None 

N/A 

(not 

significant) 



in close proximity 

to the proposed 

wind farm site 





Level of 

Level of 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Effect (and 

Significance 

) after 


Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Disturbance/ 

Displacement 



Slight 

(not 

significant) 

None 

N/A 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Minor 



areas 

Goshawk 

Collision 

Mortality 


Slight 

(not 

significant) 

None 

N/A 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Predicted mortality 

not anticipated to 

significantly affect 


at NHZ level. 

Partial barrier 

effect which is 

unlikely to 

significantly 

Goshawk Barrier Effect Operation Regional Small 

Slight 

(not 

significant) 

None 

N/A 

Slight (not 

significant) 

increase energy 

expenditure but 

could possibly lead 

to habitat 

segregation, the 

impact of which is 

reduced by the 

availability of 

suitable alternative 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Level of 

Effect (and 

Significance 

) after 

Mitigation 


habitat in the wider 

area to which birds 

are likely to be 

displaced 

Pink-footed 

Goose 

Habitat loss Construction International Negligible 


significant) 

None 

N/A 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


Pink-footed 

Goose 

Disturbance/ 

Displacement Construction International Negligible 


significant) None N/A 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


Pink-footed 

Goose 

Disturbance/ 

Displacement 

Operation International Negligible 



Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


Pink-footed 

Goose 

Collision 

Mortality 

Operation International Negligible 



Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


Pink-footed 

Goose 

Barrier Effect Operation International Negligible 



Negligible 

(not 

significant) 






Level of 

Level of 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Effect (and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Effect (and 

Significance 

) after 


Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Greylag 

Goose 

Habitat loss Construction Regional Negligible 



Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


Greylag 

Goose 

Disturbance/ 

Displacement Construction Regional Negligible 



Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


Greylag 

Goose 

Disturbance/ 

Displacement 

Operation Regional Negligible 



Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


Greylag 

Goose 

Collision 

Mortality 

Operation Regional Negligible 



Negligible 

(not 

significant) 


Greylag 

Goose 

Barrier Effect Operation Regional Negligible 


significant) 

None 

N/A 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 






Table 16.7 Summary of Effects – Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions 


Phase 

Watercourses 

Effects on 

surface runoff 

characteristics 

Effects on 

river flow and 

flooding 

Erosion and 

sedimentation 

Sensitivity / 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change/ 

Effect 


(and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Construction Low Medium Slight (not 

significant) 

Operation Medium Slight (not 

significant) 



significant) 

Construction Small Slight or 


significant) 



significant) 


significant) 

Construction Large Moderate or slight 

(significant) 



significant) 

Decommission 

Small Slight or 


significant) 


effect and 

significance 

after 

mitigation 

Construction 

drainage system 

(SuDS) 

Track design 

including 

permeable paving. 

Removal of 

drainage around 

foundations 

Construction 


(SuDS) 

Working buffers 

around streams. 

Stream crossing 

design. 

Working buffers 

around streams. 

Construction 


(SuDS). 

Landscaping and 

vegetation 

restoration. 

Construction 


(SuDS) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Slight or 

negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Slight or 

negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Slight or 

negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Nature of 

effect 

Temporary 

Permanent 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Permanent 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 






Phase 

Groundwater 

Effects on 

water quality 

Modification of 

hydrogeologic 

al regime 

Chemical 

pollution of 

groundwater 

Construction 

and 

decommission 

Sensitivity / 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change/ 

Effect 

Large 


(and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 


(significant) 



significant) 

Construction 

and 

decommission 

Medium 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Operation Negligible Negligible (not 

significant) 

Construction 

and 

decommission 

Operation 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Slight (not 

significant) 


effect and 

significance 

after 

mitigation 

SuDS water 

quality treatment. 

Pollution 

prevention and 

construction best 

practices. 

Water quality 

monitoring. 

Operation and 

maintenance 

pollution 


best practice 

measures. 

Construction 


(SuDS) 

None 

SuDS water 

quality treatment. 

Pollution 


construction best 

practices. 

Water quality 

monitoring. 

Operation and 

maintenance 

pollution 


best practice 

measures. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Slight or 

negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Slight or 

negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Nature of 

effect 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 






Phase 

Soils and peat 

Superficial 

geology 

Effect on peat 

hydrology 

Effects on soil 

erosion and 

drainage 

Excavation of 

superficial 

deposits 

Sensitivity / 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change/ 

Effect 


(and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Construction Medium Large Substantial or 

moderate 

(significant) 

Operation Medium Moderate 

(significant) 


significant) 

Construction 

and 

decommission 

Operation 

Construction 

and 

decommission 

Operation 

Low 

Medium 

Small 

Small 

Negligible 

Moderate 

(significant) 

Slight (not 

significant) 


(significant) 


significant) 


effect and 

significance 

after 

mitigation 

Minimise 

excavation by 

layout design. 

Floating roads 

over deep peat. 

Maintain 

hydrological 

regime through 

drainage 

provisions and 

adequate 

construction 

materials. 

Effective 

permanent 

drainage 

provisions. 


vegetation 

restoration. 

Construction 


(SuDS). 


vegetation 

restoration. 

Minimising 

excavations. Reuse 

of excavated 

materials. 

None 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Nature of 

effect 

Permanent 

Temporary 

Permanent 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Permanent 

Permanent 






Phase 

Bedrock 

geology 

Excavation of 

bedrock 

Construction, 

operation and 

decommission 

Sensitivity / 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change/ 

Effect 


(and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Low Negligible Negligible (not 

significant) 


effect and 

significance 

after 

mitigation 

Minimising 

excavations. Reuse 

of excavated 

materials. 

N/A 

Negligible 

(not 

significant) 

Nature of 

effect 

Permanent 

Table 16.8 Summary of Effects – Socio-Economics, Tourism, Land Use and Recreation 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 


(and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 


andSignificance 


Nature of 

Effect 

Employment 

and the 

economy 

Employment 

and the 

Economy 

Additional 

local 

expenditure. 

Community 

Benefits 



phases. 

Operational 

Phase 

Medium: The 

structure of the 

local economy 

is such that it is 

considered to 

have the 

capacity to 

benefit from 

expenditure 


the proposed 

wind farm. 

Low: 

Community 

improvement 

projects might 



Small: There is no 

guarantee that 

contractors 

materials and 

equipment would 

be sourced locally. 

Expenditure would 

be for a short 

temporary period 

of time and would 

be unlikely to 

result in a 

detectable change 

to baseline 

business/employm 

ent conditions. 

Medium: Even 

very small local 

improvements can 

make a big 

Slight (not 

significant) 

Slight (not 

significant) 

- 

PfR will seek 

to use local 

labour where 

possible to 

maximise the 


local 

economy. 

- - 

Slight 


Slight (not 

significant) 

Positive: 

Business/emplo 

yment 

opportunities 

may arise. 

Positive: Some 

visitors may be 

attracted by 

local 



Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 


(and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 




Nature of 

Effect 

help to give 

visitors a more 

positive 

impression of 

an area but 

they are 

unlikely to be of 

a scale 

sufficient to 

influence 

people;s 

decision to visit 

or return to an 

area. 

difference to visitor 

perception of an 

area 

improvements 

Employment 

and the 

economy 

Direct local 

employment. 

Construction, 

operation and 


phases. 

Medium: Local 

economy has 

capacity to 

benefit from 

contracts 


the proposed 

wind farm. 

Small: The scale 

of opportunities 



farm is expected to 

be relatively small. 

Slight (not 

significant) 

- 

PfR will seek 

to use local 

labour where 

possible to 

maximise the 


local 

economy. 

Slight 


Positive: 

Business/ 

employment 

opportunities 

may arise. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 


(and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 




Nature of 

Effect 

Employment 

and the 

economy 

Indirect and 

induced 

employment. 



phases. 

Medium: There 


businesses 

which could 

benefit from 

providing 

services to 

contractors. 

Small: Provision of 

services would be 

for a short 


of time and would 

be unlikely to 

result in a 

detectable change 

to baseline 

business/employm 

ent conditions. 

Slight 


- 

PfR will seek 

to use local 

labour where 

possible to 

maximise the 


local 

economy. 

Slight 


Positive: 

Business/emplo 

yment 

opportunities 

may arise. 

Land use 

Loss of 

commercial 

forestry land. 


operational 

phases. 

Low: There is a 

large extent of 

commercial 

forestry locally. 

Small: The scale 

of commercial 

forestry to be lost 

is relatively small. 


significant) 

- 

Direct loss of 

forestry as a 

result of the 

footprints of 

the proposed 

wind farm will 

be offset 

where 

possible by 

restocking 

additional 

areas in the 

vicinity of 

Camilty Forest 

where 

possible. 


significant) 

Negative: Loss 

of income from 

potential future 

harvesting 

activity. 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Attractions 

(Visitor 

Numbers). 

Operational 

phase. 

Medium: There 


visitor 

attractions in 

Central West 

Small: The number 

of tourist 

attractions with 

actual visibility of 


Slight 


- - 

Slight 


Negative: Some 


deterred by 






Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 


(and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 




Nature of 

Effect 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Routes 

(Visitor 

Numbers) 

Operational 

Phase 

Lothian with 

theoretical 

views of the 

proposed wind 

farm to have a 

significant 

effect on the 

tourism industry 

of the area in 

general. 


no signed or 

promoted 

tourist or scenic 

routes within 

West Lothian 

farm would be 

relatively 

small.The number 

of people who feel 


about wind farms 

that it would deter 

them from visiting 

these tourism 

attractions is also 

likely to be very 

small. 

Small: The length 

of sensitive 

tourism and 

amenity routes 

over which visual 

amenity would be 

significantly 

affected would be 

relatively small. 

The number of 




that 

it would deter them 

from using these 

tourism and 

amenity routes is 

also 

likely to be very 

small. 

Slight 


- - 

Slight 




deterred by 






Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 


(and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 




Nature of 

Effect 

Tourism 

Tourist 

Accomodatio 

n (Visitor 

Numbers). 

Operational 

phase. 


a very few 

tourism 

accommodation 

providers in 

close proximity 

of the proposed 

wind farm for 

the proposal to 

potentially 

result in a 

detectable 

change to 

visitor numbers 

and the 

economy of the 

area in general. 

Small: The number 




that it would 

influence their 

holiday destination 

is likely to be very 

small. 

Slight 


- - 

Slight 




deterred by 


Recreation 

and outdoor 

access 

Outdoor 

Access (on 

site). 


decommissiong 

phases. 

Low: The site is 

currently not 

considered to 

be well used for 

public access. 

Small: Loss of 

access would only 

be for a short 


and already 

commonly occurs 

during forestry 

harvesting and 

restocking 

operations. 

Slight / negligible 


Where 

possible a 

suitable 

diversion 

would be 

put in place 

along with 

the display 

of signage 

at each 

end of the 

track 

where the 

track is 

diverted. 

- 

Slight / negligible 


Negative: Loss 

of public access 

on site. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 


(and 

Significance) 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 




Nature of 

Effect 

Recreation 

and outdoor 

access 

Outdoor 

Access 

development 

opportunities 

. 

Operational 

phase. 

Medium: The 

site is currently 

not well used 

for public 

access and has 

excellent 

potential. 

Small: the extent 

of new footpaths 

that would be 

created is limited. 

Slight 


- - Moderate 

Positive: New 

access 

opportunities 

may be created. 

Recreation 

and outdoor 

access 

Outdoor 

Access (off 

site) 

experience. 

Operational 

phase. 

High: The 

Pentland Hills 

is a popular 

recreational 

resource and is 

sufficeintly 

close to be 

potentially 

affected. 

Small:The far west 

of the Regional 

Park in closest 

proximity to the 

proposed wind 

farm is far less 

used as a 

recreational 

resource than 

other parts of the 

Park. The number 




that it would deter 

them from using 

these accesss 

routes is likely to 

be very small. 

Slight (not 

significant) 

- - 

Slight (not 

significant) 


access users 

may be 

deterred by 


16.3 Schedule of Mitigation 

16.3.1 Mitigation measures have been identified in the technical assessments in this ES and will be implemented as described. The majority of mitigation 

has been built in to the design of the proposed wind farm. Other mitigation measures will involve use of best practice procedures in construction and 





site management. Proposed mitigation measures identified in the ES are summarised in Table 16.9 below, grouped according to the aspect of the 

development mitigation is designed to address. Full details of mitigation are provided within each individual technical chapter. 

Table 16.9 Schedule of Mitigation and Enchancement Measures 

Topic 


Noise 

Key Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 

The traffic and trasnsport assessments demonstrate that there is no requirement for any mitigation measures. However, a Traffic 

Management Plan (‘TMP’) will be drawn up and agreed with the Road Authority as an enhancement measure prior to construction. The 

TMP will provide the following information: 

• approved access routes and any necessary restrictions; 

• temporary signage in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm warning of construction traffic; 

• temporary signage warning other users of abnormal load turbine movements; 

• arrangements with Police for escort of abnormal loads; 

• ground preparation, including protection of services; 

• arrangements for road maintenance and cleaning; 

• timing of deliveries – construction hours will be outside of peak traffic hours, subject to agreement with the road authorities; and 

• wheel cleaning arrangements and regular road sweeping runs. 

Abnormal loads will be escorted, from the port of entry (currently envisaged being Grangemouth) with timings agreed with the road 

authorities and police as appropriate. 

These measures will assist in minimising any environmental effects associated with the construction traffic generated by the proposed 

wind farm. 

In order to further reduce traffic effects associated with the construction of the proposed wind farm, construction personnel will be 

encouraged to car-share where practicable. 


The following safeguards should operate during the construction to minimise the effects of construction noise: 

• The various EU Directives and UK Statutory Instruments that limit the noise emissions of a variety of construction plant 

• The guidance set out in BS 5228: Part 1 (2009) which covers noise control on construction sites 

• The powers that exist for local authorities under sections 60 and 61 of the CoPA and section 80 of the Environmental 

Protection Act (1990) to control environmental noise and pollution on construction sites. 





Topic 


Construction contract documents supplied to contractors will require, through a condition of the planning permission, that the effects of 

environmental noise are considered during the design and execution of the works. If found to be required a noise control plan that 

provides a noise management system tailored to the specific needs of the construction works, the site and the surrounding area will be 

developed. If required, as a minimum, any noise control plan should cover: 

• Procedures for ensuring compliance with statutory or other identified noise control limits; 

• Procedures for ensuring that all works are carried out according to the principle of Best Practicable Means, as defined in the 

CoPA; 

• General induction training for site operatives and specific training for staff having responsibility for particular aspects of 

controlling noise from the site; 

• Liaison with WLC and the existing local community; and 

• Provision of a contact telephone number and responsible person to whom any complaints or concerns with regard to noise, 

vibration and other environmental issues should be put as a first port of call. This affords the Contractor the opportunity to 

address any issues prior to WLC involvement. 

The following conditions and measures will be imposed on the construction works. 

• As far as is reasonably practicable, the contractors should bring to site and employ on the works only the most environmentally 

acceptable and quietly operating plant and equipment compatible with the safe and efficient execution of the works. Equipment 

should be well maintained and fit for purpose. The noise emitted by any plant item should not exceed the limits quoted in either 

the relevant EC Directive / UK Statutory Instrument and should be no greater than the relevant values quoted in the current 

version of BS 5228. All items of plant operating on the site in intermittent use should be shut down in the intervening periods 

between uses. In particular All pneumatic tools should be fitted with silencers or mufflers. 

• Deliveries should be programmed to arrive during daytime hours only. Care should be taken when unloading vehicles to 

minimise noise. Where possible, delivery vehicles should be routed so as to minimise disturbance to local residents. Delivery 

vehicles should be prohibited from waiting on the highway or within the site with their engines running. 

• All plant items should be properly maintained and operated according to manufacturers recommendations in such a manner as 

to avoid causing excessive noise. All plant should be sited so that the noise impact at nearby noise sensitive properties is 

minimised. Local hoarding, screens or barriers should be erected as necessary to shield particularly noisy activities. 

• Works should not be undertaken outside of the core daytime hours, unless absolutely necessary. 

• Relevant NSRs potentially affected by the works should be informed well in advance of such works using a leaflet drop giving 

full details of the hours during which the works are to be undertaken and also providing an appropriate contact name and 

number to whom complaints should be addressed. 






Topic 

Landscape and Visual Impact 

Assessment 




No mitigation measures are required. 


Noise from decommissioning is likely to be similar to that generated during construction. Given the longevity of the development, 

however, a noise assessment should be undertaken prior to the commencement of decommissioning works and appropriate noise 

control measures at the time identified and agreed with the relevant authority. 

The majority of landscape and visual mitigation has, been ‘built in’ to the design of the proposed wind farm through the design process 

of its layout, which in principal, aimed to avoid and reduce the potential for adverse landscape and visual effects whilst achieving the 

most suitable wind farm layout for the particular site location. No further landscape mitigation would be proposed. 

The majority of landscape and visual mitigation has, been ‘built in’ to the design of the proposed wind farm through the design process 

of its layout, which in principal, aimed to avoid and reduce the potential for adverse effects particularly with respect to Camilty Hill 

Roman Fortlet, Harburn House GDL, and Linhouse Listed Building, whilst achieving the most suitable wind farm layout for the particular 

site location. 

It has also been proposed to modify the felling plans for the area to retain the screening woodland around the turbines to reduce the 

effect of the proposed wind farm on the assets at Camilty Hill Roman Fortlet, where the retention of the trees removes Turbines 5 and 6 

entirely from the view as well as providing significant screening for Turbines 2 and 3, and at Harburn House, where Turbine 1 would be 

screened. Felling and restocking would involve retaining a screen of the existing trees to screen the proposed turbines and replanting 

with Sitka spruce and larch. 

Mitigation for effects on buried archaeological assets would include a scheme of archaeological monitoring of soil stripping near the 

Harburn Tile Works (HER number 50332) and the possible enclosure at Camilty Moss (HER number 17933). 

Pre-Construction Mitigation 

Prior to commencement of works on site, pre-construction surveys based on existing data for protected species will be carried out to 

check for changes in baseline conditions. Where requried, micro-siting and/or adjustments to the construction programme will be 

completed to take into account any up-dated distributions or presence of species. Should this 6 months elapse between pre-construction 

surveys and the commencement of works then the need to repeat surveys will be assessed by a suitably experienced ecologist. 

Construction Mitigation 

All relevant mitigation measures will be implemented through the project Health, Safety and Environmental Management System 

(HSEMS), which will be prepared in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of West Lothian Council, SEPA and SNH. These will detail 

measures such as: 

• application of SEPA’ Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG’s) delimitation of working areas to minimise damage to habitats; 

• a minimum 50 m buffer will be maintained, where possible, between working areas, machinery and watercourses in all areas 





Topic 


except at watercourse crossing points; 

• a minimum buffer of 300 m around the 7 ponds to the north will be maintained; 

• pollution prevention measures will be installed and maintained as appropriate, including silt interception traps, settling lagoons 

or mobile silt-trapping units (such as Siltbusters or equivalent device), as well as installation of splash boards at watercourse 

crossing points to prevent contamination from track run-off; 

• chemicals, oils and hazardous materials will be stored in designated areas securely at a minimum distance of 50 m from the 

watercourses; 

• spillage contingency kits will be provided in all site vehicles and there will be daily checks for oil and fuel leaks; 

• application of best practice in relation to the removal and storage of vegetation turfs and soils to ensure effective reinstatement 

of vegetation wherever possible; 

• application of best practice techniques of track and turbine base construction to ensure that drainage patterns and water quality 

within the study area are maintained; 

• application of best practice to ensure materials appropriate to site geology are used in construction activities; 

• all habitats within 50 m of the turbines blade tips should be maintained in a state which offers poor foraging for bats: tree and 

scrub growth to be controlled and pond formation to be avoided (Entwistle et al. 2001). 

• timing of works to avoid periods of heavy rain when the risk of fine sediment being transported from earth works is significantly 

increased. Detailed method statements relating to pollution prevention and control will be presented in the HSEMS and are 

discussed further in Chapter 13: Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions. 

Pollution incident response and drainage management measures will be prepared as a part of the HSEMS to minimise potential 

pollution effects. 

A suitably experienced Environmental Clerk of Works (ECoW) will be present on site to oversee enabling works and construction, whose 

role will ensure works are carried out in accordance with the HSEMS to ensure compliance with international and national legislation 

and planning conditions. Part of the ECoW’s duties will be to provide pre-construction and pre-felling checks for protected species. 

Notwithstanding the findings of pre-construction surveys, best practice measures for minimising the potential for disturbance and injury 

to protected species will be employed. These will include: 

• covering all trenches, trial pits, excavation 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; and 

• vehicle speeds will be restricted across the site in order to minimise the risk of collision with animals. 

The mitigation measures outlined for protecting watercourses and water bodies are outlined below under Hydrology, Hydrogeology and 

Ground Conditions. 





Topic 


Where practicable, reinstatement of habitats will be undertaken around infrastructure. This will be carried out as the work front 

progresses, or as soon as is practical after the completion of the works. The methods of this will be detailed within the HSEMS. 

Operation Mitigation 

The vehicle speed restrictions stipulated above should also be implemented during the operation of the proposed wind farm. 

Vehicles coming on site will be regularly checked for oil leaks to avoid risk of pollution. Spillage kits will be available on the site. Best 

practice methodologies (outlined in the HSEMS) will be employed during any maintenance works to ensure the prevention of any 

pollution to habitats or watercourses, along with implementation of the site pollution incident response plan and drainage management 

plan. 

A method statement for responding to bat corpses will be included in the site operation procedures. Incidental records of dead bats will 

be noted and taken into account in the operation of the site. Consideration should then be given to whether it might be appropriate to 

undertake additional survey or monitoring, such as corpse searches. 

In line with SNH accepted Natural England guidance, all habitats within 50 m of the turbines blade tips will be maintained in a state 

which offers poor foraging for bats. 

Decommissioning Mitigation 

Best practice measures, as described in the construction stage, will be followed. New guidance available at the decommissioning phase 

will be adopted if appropriate. 

Ornithology 

Environmental Clerk of Works 

A suitably experienced ECoW will carry out pre-construction surveys and locate any active nests close to construction works shortly 

before these commence. 

Pre- and Mid-construction Goshawk Surveys and Consultation 

Prior to the commencement of felling for the purposes of the wind farm construction and the construction works themselves, a preconstruction 

raptor/goshawk survey of the site and a surrounding buffer of at least 1 km will be carried out. The survey will follow the 

methods detailed in Hardey et al. (2009) and will involve a combination of vantage point surveys and more intensive forest checks. The 

vantage point surveys will include the late winter/early spring months when the species engages in display flight activity and may help to 

target certain areas during the forest searches. A detailed survey protocol will be prepared and agreed with SNH prior to the 

commencement of surveys to ensure appropriate intensity and coverage by the survey. 

Ideally, this survey will be undertaken in the breeding season immediately preceding the commencement of construction works. The 

purpose of this survey will be to identify the presence of goshawks (any other specially protected raptor species which may be present) 

in the vicinity of the proposed Camilty wind farm site, establish whether any breeding pairs are present and where the current nest sites 

(if any) are located. This survey will be supplemented by consultation with the Lothian and Borders Raptor Study Group and Forestry 





Topic 


Commission Scotland who may hold information on any other goshawk (or other raptor) nesting activity which may have taken place in 

the intervening years between the submission of this ES and the commencement of works. 

The results of this survey will allow for any potential impacts associated with habitat loss or disturbance and displacement on goshawks 

during construction to be more accurately identified and mitigated. If the construction works are scheduled to coincide with the goshawk 

breeding season (mid-February to August inclusive), then the goshawk surveys should be repeated in order to identify any potential 

nesting attempts during the construction works and any constraints that they may pose to the construction programme. 

Timing of Construction Activities and Pre-construction Checks 

Site clearance and construction activities will be timed to take place outside the main breeding season (March to August inclusive) so as 

to avoid nest destruction and disturbance to nesting birds. With regards to goshawk, young recently fledged birds may still be present 

around the nest into August and the presence and potential disturbance of these dependent young must be taken into consideration 

given the species Schedule 1 protection status. Account will also be taken of the breeding by crossbills (most likely common crossbills), 

where nesting may take place during the winter months (Forrester et al. 2007; Currie & Elliott 1997). 

Should it not be possible to limit construction works to the non-breeding season then certain precautionary measures will need to be 

taken, including: 

• attempts will be made to at least start the works before mid-March. 

• In areas which are considered to be particularly attractive for nesting birds, deterrents may be placed within a restricted area 

well in advance, so that birds may be deterred from choosing that area to nest in (only to be used should no other options be 

viable). 

• During the breeding season, pre-felling / pre-construction checks will be made ahead of the works in all areas of potential bird 

nesting habitat by the ECoW, or other suitably qualified ecologist, in order to check for the presence of nesting birds. 

• Any active nests found will be cordoned off to a suitable distance for the species concerned (up to 20 m for woodland and 

scrub nesters and up to 50 m for open-ground nesting species) and all site personnel would be made aware of the works 

exclusion zone through toolbox talks presented by the ECoW. 

• Construction operations will be delayed within the cordon until the young have fledged and the nest becomes vacant. This will 

be confirmed by the ECoW prior to the recommencement of construction. 

• In the unlikely event that goshawks, or any other specially protected Annex 1 of Schedule 1 bird species should establish a 

nest site in close proximity to the proposed development footprint, then a buffer zone will be established around that nest site 

and no works would be permitted within that area. Toolbox talks presented by the EcoW will identify these zones to site staff. 

• Nesting sites will be regularly monitored by the ECoW or other suitably-qualified ecologist to check on the progress of the 

nesting attempt and identify whether the birds were displaying any signs of distress through disturbance associated with the 

construction works. Where feasible the extent of the works exclusion zone will be reduced based on increased tolerance or 

reduced susceptibility to disturbance and the nature of the disturbance source. 





Topic 

Hydrology, Hydrogeology and 

Ground Conditions 


All such restrictions regarding the protection and best practise measures relating to nesting birds will be specified in the HSEMS. 

Site Pollution Control 

A Health, Safety and Environmental Management System (HSEMS), including pollution prevention measures, specifically aimed at the 

water environment, and construction method statements, will be in place during construction, operation and decommissioning. An 

outline structure of the document is presented in Chapter 4, Appendix 4.4. The HSEMS will include the mitigation measures to be 

implemented to prevent or minimise effects on the surface and groundwater environment, and will also include a bespoke Incident 

Response Plan. 

The timing of the works will be planned to avoid construction of tracks and other potentially polluting activities during periods of high 

rainfall as far as reasonably practicable. 

The HSEMS will address the following issues: 

• Storage – all equipment, materials and chemicals will be stored in designated locations at an appropriate distance from 

watercourses. Chemical, fuel and oil stores will be sited on impervious bases within a secured bund in accordance with 

relevant guidance and best practice. 

• Vehicles and Refuelling – standing machinery will have drip trays placed underneath to prevent oil and fuel leaks causing 

pollution. Drip trays will have minimum capacity of 110% of the fuel tank. Where practicable, refuelling of vehicles and 

machinery will be carried out in one or potentially two designated areas, on an impermeable surface, and well away from any 

watercourse. Drip trays will also be used during refuelling and spill kits will be stored in vehicles on site, at designated refuelling 

areas and where chemicals are stored. Site staff will be trained in their use. 

• Maintenance – where vehicles or plant require maintenance, this will be undertaken in a designated area within the 

construction compound where reasonably practicable, 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 that all wastewater and 

sewage is disposed of appropriately. This may take the form of an on-site septic tank with soakaway, or offsite 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 avoided or, where essential, carefully controlled by provision of an agreed 

construction method statement prior to construction. 

• Contingency Plans – will ensure that emergency equipment will be available on-site i.e. spill kits and absorbent materials, 

addition pumps, information on where and from whom to seek advice, and who should be informed in the event of a pollution 

incident; and 

• Inspections – All mitigation measures put in place, e.g. silt traps and sediment settlement tanks, will be inspected regularly and 

suitably maintained to ensure they remain fully operational and effective. Where failures or shortfalls within mitigation measures 





Topic 


are noted, these will be recorded, suitable action identified and undertaken within a suitable timeframe. 

Waste Management 

The production of waste will be minimised throughout the works, including wastes from peat and this has been taken into account in the 

design process to avoid where possible areas of deeper peat. Where waste is generated, this will be reused and recycled where 

possible. 

A Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) will be produced to address the management of waste streams. The SWMP will address the 

following issues: 

• Waste Minimisation; 

• Separation of Waste at Source; 

• Appropriate Storage and Disposal of Waste taking account of stability and pollution prevention; 

• Management of peat, Superficial Deposits and Bedrock; 

• Re-use of peat where possible on site (Consultation with SEPA will be required for any intended re-use of peat on the site.); 

• Management of Waste Oils; 

• Recommendations for Inspection and Maintenance. 

Environmental Monitoring 

A groundwater and surface water monitoring programme will be implemented to obtain baseline data, as well as data during 

construction works. The scope will be agreed with SEPA and Stirling Council prior to implementation. 

Surface Water 

A surface water monitoring network will be established a minimum of six months prior to construction works. 

In addition to surface water monitoring, regular visual inspection of surface water management features such as drainage pipes and 

receiving watercourses will be carried out in order to establish whether there are increased levels of suspended sediment, erosion or 

deposition. It is likely that there will be an ongoing need to maintain these structures, for example by the removal of debris, to ensure 

they continue to function as designed. 

Regular visual inspection of watercourses will also be required during construction and decommissioning stages, particularly during 

periods of high rainfall but also during low flow conditions, in order to establish that levels of suspended solids have not been 

significantly increased by on-site activities. 

Monitoring Ground Movement 

As the access tracks are being constructed, the appearance of the track and surrounding land will be monitored for increased rate of 

sinking or tilting or a rise in water levels. 





Topic 


During and immediately after periods of heavy rainfall, earthmoving activities will be reviewed with temporary restrictions where 

necessary. 

Drainage 

The implementation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) as opposed to conventional drainage systems on the proposed wind farm 

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; 

• Replicating natural drainage patterns, including the recharge of groundwater so that local base flows are maintained. 

Where appropriate, SuDS principles have been incorporated into the water management methods discussed in the following sections. 

Where there is a high risk of oil contamination identified by the appointed construction contractor, and subsequently by the site operator, 

it may be appropriate to integrate an oil separator into any SuDS measures. The implementation of the type of SuDS measures will be 

dependent upon detailed site and hydrological investigations. 

Abstractions 

A surface water abstraction will be required for the concrete batching and washing of plant. It is estimated that approximately 30 m 3 of 

water will be required per day. To minimise downstream impacts during periods of low flows, a proportion of water will be left in the 

stream for water quality purposes, fish and other fauna. On-site water storage facilities will also be provided to create a water supply 

buffer for periods of high demand or prolonged low flows. 

Geotechnical Design 

Detailed geotechnical design will be undertaken for each turbine location, access track, hard standing areas and the construction 

compound. This will be based on the location-specific mechanical characteristics of the ground conditions and the morphology of the 

underlying strata (i.e. superficial deposits or bedrock). Further targeted ground investigation will therefore inform a detailed design 

utilising current and location specific geotechnical data. 

Peat Stability Risk 

The Peat Stability Risk Assessment report included in Chapter 13, Appendix 13.2 has identified a medium to high baseline qualitative 

risk of peat stability for the site. The semi-quantitative assessment has identified that under the loaded scenario, the Factor of Safety 

(FOS) would be


Topic 


Turbine Foundations 

Bunds will be placed around turbine foundations to direct any overland flow away from open excavations. Drainage ditches will be 

constructed to attenuate and convey the runoff away from the excavation before being treated in a settlement lagoon. 

Water derived from all dewatering activities during the construction phase will be treated via settlement lagoons before being discharged 

to groundwater or surface water. 

Treated water can also be discharged onto vegetated surfaces and directed away from watercourses and drainage ditches to avoid 

direct entry into watercourses. For discharge onto rough grasslands to be effective the discharge must be spread efficiently. 

Turbine Hardstandings 

Turbine hardstandings will be designed in such a way that surface water will infiltrate through the relatively permeable surface or will 

discharge into the associated road drainage. This means that overall runoff rates remain close to greenfield conditions. 

Site Tracks 

The only area where the track is within an area of deep peat is between turbines 2 and 6. This track crosses the peat bog and will be 

constructed using a floating road technique, designed in accordance with the guidance document “Floating roads on peat” (Forestry Civil 

Engineering and SNH, 2010). 

In general, tracks will be constructed with sufficient camber or crossfall to minimise ponding of surface water on the track surface. Any 

surface water not infiltrating through the access track base will be directed into infiltration trenches and/or drainage ditches prior to being 

discharged into settlement ponds. Infiltration trenches and drainage ditches will be constructed with outlets at frequent intervals to limit 

the volume of water collected in a single channel, thus reducing the erosive potential and allowing 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. 

Where the access tracks are constructed across natural areas of drainage such as flushes and springs, drainage measures in the form 

of drainage pipes will be installed under the access track to allow the run-off to continue to follow its natural course. Where required, 

existing field drains will be reconfigured to ensure an effective drainage of the area and to prevent surface water ponding behind tracks. 

Track and construction area drainage systems will be in all cases separated from the surrounding drainage systems and watercourses 

by settlement lagoons and silt traps. 

The SuDS proposed as part of the access tracks and other infrastructure are predicted to reduce any potential effect on runoff 

characteristics to baseline conditions. This is due to: 



• The sparse distribution of the proposed infrastructure, without large continuous impermeable areas. The total surface area of 

proposed infrastructure does not exceed 0.13% in the catchments. 

• Access tracks and hard standing areas will be constructed using graded bedrock allowing some surface water infiltration and 

drainage through adjacent soils. 

• Where drainage ditches are required, outfalls will be distributed along the ditches to minimise runoff rates and to allow infiltrate 



Topic 




into adjacent soils. 

Where tracks are situated near deep peat, drainage systems will be adapted to ensure that the water table in the adjacent peat is not 

affected or only affected over a short distance. For example, drainage ditches along the track will be as shallow as possible but sufficient 

to drain rainfall from the track surface and to prevent runoff flooding the track. The track surface will be near the adjacent peat surface 

and cross-drains will be installed at or just below the track surface. These measures will ensure that runoff within the upper peat layer 

(acrotelm) is not blocked by the track. The track base will be constructed using suitably permeable graded material such that the slow 

movement of water in the deeper peat layers is not significantly affected by the track. 

Watercourse Crossings 

Two new watercourse crossings will be required. Confirmation of the level of any CAR authorisations required for the new watwercourse 

crossings will be confirmed with SEPA in advance. 

The new crossing structures will not form a barrier to river flows (low flows and flood flows) and aquatic fauna, and will be designed and 

constructed with respect to relevant guidance and best practice. 

Where access tracks cross artificial drainage ditches, simple pipe structures will be installed in accordance with the Forests and Water 

guidance document. The pipe invert levels will be installed slightly below upstream and downstream bed levels to ensure that barriers 

for fish passage and sediment transport are minimised. 

Streams, crossings and drainage ditches will be inspected and cleared regularly to prevent blockages and remove the risk of flooding 

throughout the construction and operational life of the wind farm. 

On-Site Buildings 

On-site welfare facilities will be adequately designed and maintained to ensure all wastewater and sewage is disposed of appropriately. 

Rainfall on roofs will be collected in a rainwater tank for re-use within the building. Any excess rainwater will be discharged to 

groundwater or surface water. 

Cables 

Where cables are required to be buried, the following mitigation shall be put in place: 

• Excavations for trenches will be of minimal size necessary to undertake works; 

• Cable trenches will be dug, cables laid and filled in sections to minimise the areas of active excavation open at any one time; 

• Bunds will be placed along the route of the buried cable route to prevent the creation of a preferential pathway for groundwater 

arising along the path of the cable; and 

• All cables will be marked above and below ground to ensure there is no danger to human health or the environment during 

maintenance or earth works within the vicinity of the cable routes. 

Concrete Pouring 



Topic 


Socioeconomics, Tourism, 

Recreation and Land Use 


When concrete is being poured shutters will be used and, if being poured into an excavation, only into an area free from standing water. 

Pumps should be used to keep excavations dry if required. 

Concrete pouring will not be undertaken during heavy rainfall. 

No concrete will be placed within 0.5 m of an open water channel unless the area can be fully isolated from the stream, for example 

through bunding and lining. 

Concrete batching will be undertaken on-site only in the construction compound. 

Traffic 

Site traffic will be kept to clearly designated tracks, in line with a site-specific traffic management plan. 

Barriers and/or netting will be used to prevent vehicle movements in sensitive areas as per CE Handbook specifications. 

Where vehicle movements are required to take place off-track, e.g. on soft ground during construction phase, these will be limited to the 

absolute minimum and where excessive off-track vehicle movements are required, temporary tracks (e.g. geotextile overlain with 

aggregate) or peat-boards should be used to prevent damage to the soil and creation of sediment laden runoff. Such tracks will be 

removed upon completion of the works. 

If there is a requirement to wash vehicles on-site or as they enter, or leave site, this activity should be undertaken in a designated area 

that is bunded to prevent uncontrolled runoff or release of water from the washing process. All water and runoff arising from vehicle 

washing will be controlled and treated prior to discharge back into any watercourse. 

As no inhabited properties were identified within the zone of potential shadow flicker, no significant effects have been identified and thus 

no mitigation measures are proposed. However, should complaints arise during operation, PfR will complete the necessary 

assessments to ascertain the extent to which mitigation is required. Should it be required it will be implemented in agreement with West 

Lothian Council and relevant landowner/occupier. 


PfR will seek to use local labour where possible to maximise the benefits to the local economy. 

Land Use 

All forestry required to be felled for the proposed wind farm will be removed in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Control of 

Woodland Removal Policy. Mitigation for the direct loss of forestry as a result of the footprints of the turbine bases and keyholing 

around turbines, new access tracks, crane hardstandings, control area and the temporary construction areas (including appropriate 

buffers around these areas) will be achieved where possible by restocking additional forest blocks in the vicinity of Camilty Forest. This 

compensatory restocking will balance the overall economic effects regarding forestry operations. 






Topic 


Minimisation of visual effects has taken place through the site selection and design iteration process. 

Where possible, where forest access tracks are to be closed during construction works, a suitable diversion would be put in place along 

with the display of signage at each end of the track where the track is diverted. The signage would detail the track which is closed, the 

proposed alterative route and the duration of the closure. 

Where possible, existing forestry access tracks have been upgraded alongside the access tracks to be created to create circular walks. 

These include a circular trail from the Shear Bridge car park to the south east of the site past turbines 4 and 5 before returning along the 

A70, and a circular trail from the Shear Bridge car park to the north west of the site via turbine 3 and Camilty Hill and back via the 

B7008. 




P 

Station House 12 Melcombe Place 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 Partnerships for Renewables for Renewables Limited is a private Limited limited is a private company limited company Registered in Registered England and in England Wales, number and Wales, 06526742 number 06526742 Registered at Registered 4th Floor, at Dorset Station House, 27-45 12 Melcombe Stamford Street, Place, London, NW1 SE1 9PY 6JJ

Camilty Wind Farm - Partnerships for Renewables

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?