Camilty Wind Farm - Partnerships for Renewables
Camilty Wind Farm - Partnerships for Renewables Camilty Wind Farm - Partnerships for Renewables
Camilty Wind Farm 12.8 Cumulative Effects 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 March 2013 12-58 ES Chapter 12 Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 © Ornithology
Camilty Wind Farm 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).. March 2013 12-59 ES Chapter 12 Ornithology Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
- Page 360 and 361: Camilty Wind Farm Flight Activity S
- Page 362 and 363: Camilty Wind Farm (ii) For a sample
- Page 364 and 365: Camilty Wind Farm 12.2.40 The Town
- Page 366 and 367: Camilty Wind Farm Level of Effect S
- Page 368 and 369: Camilty Wind Farm Table 12.8 Desk-b
- Page 370 and 371: Camilty Wind Farm Table 12.10 Fligh
- Page 372 and 373: Camilty Wind Farm 12.3.19 All speci
- Page 374 and 375: Camilty Wind Farm Table 12.13 Speci
- Page 376 and 377: Camilty Wind Farm Collision Risk Mo
- Page 378 and 379: Camilty Wind Farm • Goshawk; •
- Page 380 and 381: Camilty Wind Farm Species Recorded
- Page 382 and 383: Camilty Wind Farm Species Recorded
- Page 384 and 385: Camilty Wind Farm Species Recorded
- Page 386 and 387: Camilty Wind Farm Species Recorded
- Page 388 and 389: Camilty Wind Farm sites for the sam
- Page 390 and 391: Camilty Wind Farm 12.3.52 In summar
- Page 392 and 393: Camilty Wind Farm Given that the Ph
- Page 394 and 395: Camilty Wind Farm three VORs (i.e.
- Page 396 and 397: Camilty Wind Farm there is an abund
- Page 398 and 399: Camilty Wind Farm 12.5.40 It is exp
- Page 400 and 401: Camilty Wind Farm 12.5.49 Based on
- Page 402 and 403: Camilty Wind Farm above), then conn
- Page 404 and 405: Camilty Wind Farm 12.5.67 The most
- Page 406 and 407: Camilty Wind Farm (or during any ma
- Page 408 and 409: Camilty Wind Farm while all other s
- Page 412 and 413: Camilty Wind Farm stages of develop
- Page 414 and 415: Camilty Wind Farm wind farms are al
- Page 416 and 417: Camilty Wind Farm 12.8.36 Surveys a
- Page 418 and 419: Camilty Wind Farm considered to mat
- Page 420 and 421: Camilty Wind Farm Receptor Sensitiv
- Page 422 and 423: Camilty Wind Farm Receptor Sensitiv
- Page 424 and 425: Camilty Wind Farm • IPCC (2005).
- Page 426 and 427: Camilty Wind Farm 13 Hydrology, Hyd
- Page 428 and 429: Camilty Wind Farm Table 13.1 Criter
- Page 430 and 431: Camilty Wind Farm 13.2.6 Effects ar
- Page 432 and 433: Camilty Wind Farm Baseline Survey G
- Page 434 and 435: Camilty Wind Farm Source Other guid
- Page 436 and 437: Camilty Wind Farm Land-use and Topo
- Page 438 and 439: Camilty Wind Farm Groundwater Flood
- Page 440 and 441: Camilty Wind Farm Table 13.13 Distr
- Page 442 and 443: Camilty Wind Farm Public Water Supp
- Page 444 and 445: Camilty Wind Farm Table 13.16 Sensi
- Page 446 and 447: Camilty Wind Farm Table 13.17 Compa
- Page 448 and 449: Camilty Wind Farm 13.5.32 The site
- Page 450 and 451: Camilty Wind Farm Superficial Depos
- Page 452 and 453: Camilty Wind Farm 110% of the fuel
- Page 454 and 455: Camilty Wind Farm • Improving wat
- Page 456 and 457: Camilty Wind Farm March 2013 be nea
- Page 458 and 459: Camilty Wind Farm Table 13.18 Summa
<strong>Camilty</strong> <strong>Wind</strong> <strong>Farm</strong><br />
12.8 Cumulative Effects<br />
Background Guidance<br />
12.8.1 The above sections have considered the implications of the proposed wind farm on VORs in<br />
isolation from potential effects of other projects and activities. The EIA Regulations also<br />
require the potential <strong>for</strong> cumulative effects to be assessed.<br />
12.8.2 According to the latest SNH guidance (SNH, 2012b), an assessment of cumulative effects<br />
associated with a specific development proposal should encompass the effects of the<br />
proposal in combination with:<br />
• Existing developments, either built or under construction;<br />
• Approved developments, awaiting implementation; and<br />
• Proposals awaiting determination within the planning process with design in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
in the public domain. Proposals and design in<strong>for</strong>mation may be deemed to be in the<br />
public domain once an application has been lodged, and the decision-making<br />
authority has <strong>for</strong>mally registered the application.<br />
Species to be Considered<br />
12.8.3 SNH (2012b) stipulates that “the key principle <strong>for</strong> all cumulative impact assessments is to<br />
focus on the likely significant effects and in particular those which are likely to influence the<br />
outcome of the consenting process”. SNH there<strong>for</strong>e only seeks cumulative impact<br />
assessments “where it is considered that a proposal could result in significant cumulative<br />
impacts which could affect the eventual planning decision”.<br />
12.8.4 A list of protected species potentially at risk of effects from onshore wind farms (Annex C,<br />
SNH, 2012b) includes the following VORs at the proposed <strong>Camilty</strong> wind farm site: goshawk,<br />
pink-footed goose and greylag goose. None of the other species present in lower numbers at<br />
the proposed <strong>Camilty</strong> wind farm site are likely to be at risk of cumulative effects due to very<br />
low site usage (raptors such as osprey, peregrine and merlin) or high regional populations<br />
(common passerines).<br />
12.8.5 Predicted greylag goose collision rates are negligible compared to the population size<br />
(representing 0.001% of the population that overwinters in Great Britain), and so it is<br />
considered very unlikely that this will materially contribute to an overall significant NHZ or<br />
national cumulative collision risk in any way. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest<br />
that greylag geese utilise the habitats within the application site boundary or any other areas<br />
within 500m of the site <strong>for</strong> feeding, roosting or breeding, nor was there any evidence to<br />
suggest that the proposed <strong>Camilty</strong> wind farm would present a barrier to the movement of<br />
migratory or locally occurring greylag geese. Consequently, it is concluded that the effects of<br />
the proposed <strong>Camilty</strong> wind farm on greylag geese are minimal and not significant and they<br />
are not anticipated to contribute cumulatively to the impacts associated with other wind farms<br />
on the species. As such, greylag goose is excluded from the cumulative assessment.<br />
12.8.6 The predicted effects of habitat loss, disturbance/displacement, barrier effect and collision<br />
mortality from the proposed <strong>Camilty</strong> wind farm on pink-footed geese are also considered to<br />
be negligible and thus very unlikely to materially contribute to a significant cumulative impact<br />
on the population at the NHZ or national level. However, as a qualifying species of<br />
March 2013 12-58 ES Chapter 12<br />
Copyright <strong>Partnerships</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Renewables</strong> Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©<br />
Ornithology