ES Vol 1 Written Statement - Partnerships for Renewables

Carron Valley Wind Farm 

Environmental Statement Volume 1 – Written Statement 

July 2012


Quality Management 

Prepared by: 

Name: Andrew Mitchell Title: Associate Director, RPS 

Signature: 

Authorised by: 

Name: Mike Kelly Title: EIA Director, RPS 

Signature: 

Current Status: 

FINAL 

Issue Date: July 2012 

Revision 

Number: 

- 

Revision Notes: - 

Project File Path: 

W:\2069SAE – Carron Valley Wind Farm\admin\Reports\ES Final\Carron Valley 

– Volume 1 Written Statement.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. 

July 2012 i Environmental Statement: Volume 1: Written Statement 

Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©


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 

July 2012 ii Contents 



Preface 

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

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

application to Stirling Council by Carron Valley Wind Farm LLP, wholly owned by Partnerships for 

Renewables Ltd (PfR) to construct and operate a wind farm at Carron Valley, Stirlingshire. 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://www.pfr.co.uk/carronvalley/ 

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

Stirling Council Planning Department 

Viewforth 

Stirling 

FK8 2ET 

Fintry Sports and Recreation Club 

Kippen Road 

Fintry 

Glasgow 

G63 0YA 

July 2012 iii Preface 



Abbreviations 

% Percent 

AADT 

AGLV 

ALS 

AOD 

ASFB 

ASPT 

AWI 

BAP 

BBS 

bgl 

BGS 

BHMP 

BMWP 

BS 

BSBI 

BTO 

BWEA 

CA 

CO 2 

Annual Average Daily Traffic 

Area of Great Landscape Value 

Area of Landscape Significance 

Above Ordnance Datum 

Association of Salmon Fisheries Boards 

Average Species Per Taxa 

Ancient Woodland Inventory 

Biodiversity Action Plan 

Breeding Bird Survey 

Below Ground Level 

British Geological Survey 

Bird Hazard Management Plan 

Biological Monitoring Working Party 

British Standard 

Botanical Society of the British Isles 

British Trust for Ornithology 

British Wind Energy Association 

Conservation Area 

Carbon Dioxide 

CAR Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 

CBC 

Common Birds Census 

CDM Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 

CEIA 

Comparative Environmental Impact Assessment 

July 2012 iv Abbreviations 



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 

July 2012 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 

July 2012 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 

July 2012 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 

July 2012 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 

July 2012 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) 

July 2012 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 

July 2012 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. 

July 2012 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. 

July 2012 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. 

July 2012 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 Carron Valley Wind Farm (hereafter referred to as the 

‘proposed wind farm’). It has been prepared to accompany an application for planning 

permission in full to Stirling Council to construct and operate a wind farm comprising fifteen 

turbines at Cairnoch Hill, immediately north of the Carron Valley Reservoir (approximate grid 

reference NS 6970 8550). 

1.1.2 The site of the proposed wind farm is located approximately 10 km north west of 

Cumbernauld and approximately 7 km north of Kilsyth. The southern boundary of the site is 

bounded by the B818 and Carron Valley Reservoir. Carron Valley forest is located to the 

south of the reservoir. 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 15 turbines, an anemometry mast, associated 

infrastructure and ancillary development including access tracks and a control building. The 

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

1.2. 

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

purpose of developing the Carron Valley Wind Farm. Carron Valley 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 EIA 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 EIA discussed further in Chapter 2: The EIA and Scoping Process. 

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. 

July 2012 1-1 ES Chapter 1 

Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 © 

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. 

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 Carron Valley 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 fifteen wind 

turbines, each with a maximum overall height (to vertical blade tip) of up to 126 

meters, and ancillary development including new access tracks, modification to 

existing tracks and improved site access, temporary construction compound, hard 

standing areas, control building and cabling, anemometry mast and temporary borrow 

pits." 

1.2.3 A key objective of the proposed wind farm is to generate approximately 98.55 gigawatt-hours 

(GWh) of renewable energy, thereby preventing approximately 42,376 tonnes of CO 2 being 



Introduction


emitted each year and producing enough energy to supply up to of up to 22,081 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 4.9. 

• 15 variable pitch (three-bladed) wind turbines each to a maximum of 126 m to tip and a 

generating capacity of up to 3 MW; 

• 15 circular reinforced concrete foundations of approximate 21 m diameter (typically 

containing approximately 727 m 3 structural concrete and 65 tonnes of high yield steel 

reinforcement); 

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

45 m x 25 m); 

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

control building; 

• A single-storey, pitched roof control building comprising of a control room, switch room 

and metering room (typical dimensions are 5 m x 10 m x 5.5 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; 

• 9.34 km of permanent access tracks from the site entrance to the turbines and 

ancillary development (of which 6.24 km is existing forest track); 

• 7 m wide crossing points along the access tracks at typically 250 m intervals and 30 m 

long passing places at a distance of the order of 500 m apart; 

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

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

• Three borrow pits to provide material for construction aggregate, with the potential to 

provide an estimated 67,500 m 3 of material, representing about twice the estimate of 

aggregate volume required (see Appendix 13.1); 

• Upgrading a total of six 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 MW. PfR has identified two possible turbine models with an ‘installed capacity’ of 3 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 “worst 

case” turbine dimensions 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 Wind Turbine ‘System Control and Data Acquisition’. 



Introduction


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 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 [..] 

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.” 

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: 



Introduction


• 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 Carron Valley 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. 

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 



Introduction


accreditation scheme run by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 

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

1.4.3 Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Chapter 8: Noise of this ES were 

independently reviewed by RSK and Hoare Lea respectively. 

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/StrategyPlanInt 

eractivePDFreduced.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/ScottishLowlandsIPDF.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; 

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

environmental sciences; 

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

promote the project; 

• It should be 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 

• It should be 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 development is described fully in Chapter 3: Design Evolution. Further topicspecific 

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 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 20 months. 

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 

development 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 proposed 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 Stirling 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 PfR and submitted to Stirling Council in 

September 2011 (see Appendix 2.1) together with a request for a formal Scoping Opinion. 

To expedite the scoping process, at the request of Stirling Council this was also submitted 

directly to the adjoining local authorities of East Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire, and 

Falkirk Council as well as to Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish 

Natural Heritage (SNH), Historic Scotland, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 

Authority and Scottish Water. 

The Scoping Opinion 

2.2.6 The formal Scoping Opinion was issued on 5 January 2012. The responses from the 

following consultees were included: 

• SNH; 

• SEPA; 

• Historic Scotland; 

• Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority; 

• Transport Scotland; 

• Stirling Council (Roads, Environmental Health); 

• Scottish Government (noise); 

• North Lanarkshire Council; 

• East Dunbartonshire Council; and 

• Falkirk Council. 

2.2.7 A copy of scoping responses received from consultees, and the official Stirling Council 

scoping opinion is presented in Appendix 2.2. 

The Agreed Scope of the EIA 

2.2.8 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. 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 Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report submitted 

in support of the application for planning permission. 





Table 2.1 Scoping / Consultation Summary Table 

Consultee Response Where and How Addressed 

Defence 

Estates 

East 

Dunbartonshire 

Falkirk 

Council 

Identified that turbines will cause an unacceptable 

effect on the Meteorological Office radar at 

Holehead by obscuring the radar beam, resulting 

in unacceptable degradation. 

MOD will look at suggested mitigation to 

overcome this issue but will object if an 

application is submitted without addressing these 

concerns. 

If the developer is able to overcome the issues 

the MOD will request the turbines be fitted with 

aviation lighting. 

Having considered the proposed ES content with 

regard to East Dunbartonshire and in particular 

the Campsie Fells Regional Scenic Area, East 

Dunbartonshire Council have no comments to 

make. 

Landscape and Visual - The proposal should 

consider effects on the AGLVs of the Denny Hills, 

the Avon Hills and Bo’ness South, together with 

effects on three Inventory Designed Landscapes 

that are within the Council area. Note that visual 

effects on Falkirk/Grangemouth and associated 

settlements are assessed including visual effects 

from the Falkirk Wheel. 

Identifies wind farms relevant for the cumulative 

assessment. 

Recommends Falkirk Wheel and / or the 

Stenhousemuir/Falkirk area are added to the list 

of viewpoints. 

Ecology – No specific concerns raised. 

Access/Infrastructure – Broadly satisfied with 

the methodology. Early engagement with Falkirk 

Councils Roads and Development team is 

encouraged in particular in relation to 

Dunipace/Denny/Stoneywood. 

As described in the Design and 

Access Statement, turbines 

originally proposed within Line 

of Sight of Holehead radar 

station were removed from the 

layout and MOD has confirmed 

no objection to the 15 turbine 

layout proposed. 

N/A. 

Chapter 9: Landscape and 

Visual Impact Assessment 

assesses the effects of the 

proposed development on 

designated sites and cumulative 

effects with other wind farms. 

Suggested viewpoints were 

considered in the context of the 

ZTV and the other viewpoints 

identified, and Falkirk Wheel 

was included as a viewpoint in 

the LVIA. 

N/A 

Chapter 7: Traffic and Transport 

assesses the effects on 

access/infrastructure. Effects 

on Dunipace/Denny/ 

Stoneywood are referenced 

where relevant and personal 

accident data was obtained 

from Falkirk Council and used in 

the assessment. 






Loch 

Lomond and 

Trossachs 

National 

Park 

Historic 

Scotland 

Location of the proposed development a concern 

due to proximity with the National Park. The site 

is considered sensitive to development. The 

proposed development will be visible from the 

national park which raises issues of visual impact. 

A comprehensive landscape and visual 

assessment should be incorporated within the ES. 

It is identified that the site will be intervisible from 

the National Park and the Trossachs and Loch 

Lomond National Scenic Areas as well as several 

locally designated landscape areas. In particular 

it is identified that the wind farm will be visible 

from the Trossachs and Loch Lomond NSAs as 

well as other important public viewpoints 

settlements, areas, recreational and other routes 

within and approaches to the National Park with 

significant impacts due to visual intrusion. 

Identifies that the wind farm is situated within an 

area of significant protection identified within the 

Stirling Council SPG. 

Welcome that viewpoints have been identified at 

the West Hifghland Way, Mentieith Hills and Ben 

Ledi. Request that David Marshalls Lodge is 

selected as an alternative for the Mentieth Hills 

viewpint and that Conic Hill is added. 

Identify further schemes to be included within the 

cumulative assessment: Ard Ghaoth and Merkins. 

Also suggest routes for the sequential 

assessment. 

Planning Policy – Policies relevant to the 

proposed development are identified, in particular 

Policy REN 5 of the finalised draft National Park 

Plan. 

Historic Scotland identifies that further 

consultation should take place. States that the 

proposed development appears likely to have a 

significant impact on the historic environment due 

to the proximity of the turbines to Sir John de 

Grahams Castle Scheduled Monument and that a 

number of the proposed turbines will be likely to 

have an impact on this site. 

Identifies a number of other sites in the vicinity of 

the proposed development which the proposed 

development may also have an impact. Identifies 

that it may be helpful to apply a ZTV to the 

historic environment. 

Welcome that further discussions will take place 

with Historic Scotland and Stirling Councils 

archeaologist regarding viewpoints. 

Identify that it would be helpful to provide a visual 

representation of the likely impact of the proposed 

development on the Sir John de Graham’s castle. 

Note that a cumulative assessment should take 

place and that consultation with Stirling Councils 

archaeologist reageading unscheduled 

Chapter 5: Planning Policy 

Overview identifies the relevant 

planning policy context of the 

site, and an appraisal of 

compliance with the policy is 

presented in the Planning 

Statement. 



presents a comprehenive LVIA 

of the proposed development, 

including visibility from the 

National Park and other 

landscape designations where 

relevant. Suggested alterations 

to the viewpoints were 

considered in the context of the 

ZTV and the other viewpoints 

identified, as with suggested 

cumulative wind farm sites. 



includes the ZTV used to 

identify the potential for setting 

effects on potentially sensitive 

sites and features. 

Chapter 10: Cultural Heritage 

and Archaeology considers the 

effects of the proposed 

development on designated 

sites and features, and follow up 

consultation with Historic 

Scotland took place in the form 

of written correspondence and 

face to face meetings, and this 

informed evolution of the 

proposed layout to minimise 

impacts on, and develop a suite 

of measure to improve upon, 

the setting of Sir John de 

Graham’s Castle Scheduled 

Monument. Views, panorama 

and photomontages were used 

to assess effects on the site and 






North 

Lanarkshire 

Council 

archaeology and B and C listed buildings would 

be welcomed. 

Due to the topography of the immediate area the 

proposed development is not likely to have any 

particular significant environmental impact on the 

North Lanarkshire Council area. 

Satisfied with the content of the scoping report 

and no comments to make. 

are also presented in this 

chapter. 

N/A. 

RSPB No comments to make. N/A. 

Scottish 

Environment 

Protection 

Agency 

Carbon balance and peat management – 

recommend that the ES contains a section 

systematically assessing carbon balance and 

refer to Scottish Government guidance 

‘Calculating carbon savings from wind farms on 

scottish peat lands – a new approach. The ES 

should also include preventative/mitigation 

measures to avoid significant drying or oxidation 

of peat. 

Disruption to peatlands – The ES should 

demonstrate how the layout and design of the 

proposal avoid impact on peat where possible. 

Where not possible details of how the impact is 

minimised and mitigated should be provided. 

Disposal of waste peat to borrow pits – 

Disposal of surplus peat waste to borrow pits is 

not encouraged. Important waste management 

implications of measures to deal with surplus peat 

are identified. 

Peat Slide Risk – Guidance on preparing a peat 

stability report can be found on the Scottish 

Government website. 

Chapter 6: Climate Change and 

Atmospheric Emissions 

summarises the results of the 

assessment of carbon savings 

using the Scottish Government 

guidance, and the detailed 

results are provided within 

Appendix 6.2. 

Chapter 13: Hydrology, 

Hydrogeology and Ground 

Conditions considers the 

potential effects on peat. 

Chapter 3: Design Evolution 

discusses the layout evolution 

process which took account of 

peat depths across the site with 

a view to avoiding peat where 

practicable. Where not 

practical, Chapter 13: 

Hydrology, Hydrogeology and 

Ground Conditions considers 

the effects on peat and the need 

for any mitigation. 

Chapter 4: Description of the 

Proposed Development 

identifies that peat is only 

anticipated to be excavated at 

the site of one turbine, and 

excavated peat will be used to 

reinstate the disturbed area 

around this turbine. There is no 

proposal to dispose of peat to 

borrow pits or off site. 

An assessment of peat slide risk 

is included within Appendix 13.2 

and discussed in Chapter 13: 


Ground Conditions. 

Wetland Ecology – A Phase 1 Habitat Survey 

should be carried out for the whole site. National 

Vegetation Classification should be carried out for 

any wetlands identified. 

The site design should be developed to avoid 



As discussed in Chapter 3: 

Design Evolution, the layout 

was designed taking account of 

the results of the Phase 1 

Habitat Survey and NVC in 

order to minimise impacts on 




impacts on all wetlands and peat should be 

avoided. 

Groundwater dependant terrestrial ecosystems 

are specifically protected to avoid impacts. 

Development likely to impact these features will 

require further assessment. 

Groundwater – A list of groundwater abstractions 

sources within and outwith the site boundary 

within a radius of i) 100 m from roads, tracks and 

trenches and ii) 250 m from borrow pits and 

foundations should be provided. If groundwater 

abstractions are identified within the 100 m or 250 

m radii from development infrastructure , then 

either the applicant or should ensure that the 

route or location of engineering operations avoid 

this buffer area or further information will be 

required. 

Construction Environmental Management 

Document - Recommend that a Schedule of 

Mitigation should be produced, including a 

timetable of works. A Construction Environmental 

Management Document is a key management 

tool to implement the Schedule of Mitigation. The 

priciples of the CEMP should be set out in the ES 

which will form the basis of a more detailed 

CEMP. The detailed CEMP should be submitted 

to the determining authority at least two months 

prior to the proposed commencement of 

development. 

Engineering Activities in the Water 

Environment – In line with the Water Framework 

Directive developments should be designed to 

avoid engineering activities in the water 

environment wherever possible. Where a 

watercourse crossing cannot be avoided, unless 

no practicable alternative, bridging solutions or 

bottomless or arched culverts which do not affect 

the bed and banks of the watercourse should be 

used. 

SEPA also refer to relevant guidance that should 

be taken into account. 

Flood Risk – The site should be assessed for 

flood risk from all sources in line with Scottish 

Planning Policy. 

Water Abstraction – Where water abstraction is 

proposed the ES should detail if a public or 

private source will be used. The Scoping 

response provides details of the information that 

important habitats and flora. 

This inlcuded identification of 

groundwater dependant 

terrestrial ecosystems. 

This is also assessed in 

Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology 

and Chapter 13: Hydrology, 


Conditions. 



Conditions assess the impact 

on known groundwater 

abstractions, with mitigation 

measures proposed where 

necessary. 

Chapter 4: Description of the 

Proposed Development 

includes reference to the 

proposed Health, Safety and 

Environmental Management 

System (HSEMS) and a 

template structure for this is 

included within Appendix 4.4. 


identifies that the site was 

designed to avoid surface water 

features as far as practicable. 



Conditions considers the need 

to upgrade six water crossing 

and full details are provided 

within Appendix 13.3. 



Conditions considers the 

potential for flooding issues as a 

result of the proposed 

development, in line with SPP. 



Conditions considers the need 

for abstractions and their 

potential effect on the water 






Scottish 

Government 

– 

Environment 

al Quality 

Division 

Scottish 

Natural 

Heritage 

should be provided within the ES. 

Borrow pits – Detailed investigations regarding 

need and impact of borrow pits should be 

included within the ES. The scoping response 

states the details that should be submitted and 

identifies relevant guidance. 

Air Quality – Recommends the Local Authority 

Environmental Health officer be consulted as they 

can advise on the need for this development to be 

assessed alongside other developments that 

could contribute to an increase in road traffic as 

well as noise issues and exacerbation of local air 

pollution. 

Opportunities for Environmental 

Improvements – Identifies that there are usually 

opportunities to incorporate improvements in the 

water environment. Applicants are encouraged to 

seek such opportunities through a variety of 

measures identified within the scoping response. 

Regulatory Advice – Any proposed watercourse 

crossings, cable crossings of 

watercourses/sewage discharges will require 

authorisation under CAR regulations. 

Identifies research projects relating to noise that 

may be of interest. 

Strategic Locational Guidance – The location of 

the Carron Valley wind farm falls within Zone 2 – 

medium natural heritage sensitivity - as it falls 

within an Area of Great Landscape Value. 

environment. 



Conditions presents information 

on the three proposed borrow 

pits and an assessment of 

borrow areas is included within 

Appendix 13.1. 

Chapter 6: Climate Change and 

Atmospheric Emissions 

considers the issue of 

atmospheric emissions of CO2, 

but not detailed assessment of 

local air quality was considered 

necessary due the nature of the 

proposed scheme. 


considers the traffic impacts of 

the proposed development and 

Chapter 8: Noise considers the 

potential noise impacts. 



Conditions identifies any 

opportunities for improvement to 

the water environment, where 

relevant. 



Conditions acknowledges the 

possible need for authorisations 

under CAR regulations. 

Full details of water course 

crossings are provided within 


Chapter 8: Noise makes 

reference to all relevant 

publications used to inform the 

assessment. 



presents a detailed LVIA of the 

proposed development 

including reference to planning 

policy and statutory 

designations. 






Nature Conservation Designations – The EIA 

should consider the likely impacts on designated 

sites with which the proposed development is in 

connectivity and include mitigation measures. 

The scoping response identifies that the site 

includes watercourses that are within the 

catchment of the Endrick Water SAC designated 

for Atlantic salmon, brook lampery and river 

lampery. SNH considers there to be connectivity 

between the development proposal and the SAC 

and that the requirements of the Conservation 

(Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 as 

amended apply. 


assess the effects of the 


ecology and nature 

conservation, and Appendix 

11.6 contains Information to 

Inform Appropriate Assessment 

prepared with regard to the 

Habitats Regulations. 

SNH does not consider the proposed 

development is in connectivity and is therefore 

unlikely to have a significant impact on any other 

site designated for its ecological nature 

conservation value. 

Landscape and Visual Assessment – indicates 

that an assessment of the likely effects on the 

landscape resource should include considerations 

of individual elements, characteristics, character 

and landscape value. An assessment of visual 

effects describes likely changes in available views 

resulting from the development and changes in 

visual amenity of visual receptors. 

The design process and design iterations should 

be clearly explained in a design statement or 

chapter submitted in the ES. 

The scoping response identifies available/relevant 

guidance. 

SNH highlights matters that require particular 

attention in repect of the LVIA. The Stirling 

Landscape Capacity Study indicates that there is 

no capacity within the landscape to absord the 

proposed development. Due to local landscape 

character, landscape scale, landscape pattern, 

sense of remoteness and cumulative impacts. 

The study area of 35 km is appropriate for the 

LVIA. Happy for a cumulative assessment to be 

undertaken on the 35/70 km study area. 

Comments provided on viewpoints: 

4. Carron Reservoir Southeast – with micrositing 

in the field may also be representative of 

settlement. 

5. Minor Road from Kilsyth – to be ground-truthed 

in the field. 

15. Alloa Tower – View must be taken from the 

top of tower. 

17. Antonine Wall/Grangemouth – Visibility to be 

ground-truthed in the field. Alternative location 

on/near the M9 may also be appropriate. 

18. West Highland Way – This viewpoint is 



presents a detailed LVIA of the 

proposed development 

including reference to planning 

policy and statutory 

designations. This icludes 

consideration of viewpoints and 

cumulative sites suggested 

where relevant. 


presents the design evolution 

process that has taken place. 






actually on the Rob Roy Way. 

New Viewpoint – Meikle Bin – popular hill top 

close to the site. 

New Viewpoint – Conic Hill – very popular summit 

within National Park. 

New Viewpoint – Falkirk Wheel (upper basin) – 

Popular visitor destination with panoramic views 

across Midland Valley. 

Cumulative LVIA should include cumulative 

landscape effects, cumulative visual efects, static 

combined effects, static successive effects, 

sequential effects, impact on landscape 

character. Requirements for Cumulative ZTVs are 

also provided. Relevant planning authorities 

should be contacted for a current list of all known 

wind farms in the public domain. 

The proposal should be planned and designed in 

the context of existing/consented development. 

SNH reiterate that the wind farm proposal is 

located within an Area of Great Landscape Valley. 

The wind farm proposal is also within 10 km of 

Inventory-listed Gardens and Designated 

Landscapes. 

Ecology – SNH is content with the scope and 

methodologies presented. 

Further consideration should be given to the 

underlying depth of peat on site. 

Any secondary effects on vegetation interests 

should be considered, assessed and mitigation 

measures presented in the ES. 

The ES should present: likely key species which 

may be adversely affected by the development 

proposal; possible reasons why the species may 

be affected by the development; indicative 

timescales for proposed fieldwork; outline survey 

methodology for each species. 

Bird Ecology – SNH is content with the scope 

and methodologies presented. 

Identify Osprey as a key issue to be addressed 

within the EIA. 

The ES should consider other Annex 1/Schedule 

1 species as well as Red-listed birds of 

conservation concern and BAP species. The ES 

should also provide information on any mitigation 

measures proposed with respect to nesting birds. 

SNH also provide advice and guidance on 

assessment methodology. Also indicate that a 

confidential annex may be required. 

Soil and Water – peatland/peatland soils should 

be clearly mapped and used to inform the design, 

SNH advise that areas of deap peat should be 


assess the effects of the 


ecology and nature 

conservation. The underlying 

depth of peat is considered in 



Conditions. 

Chapter 12: Ornithology 


proposed development on birds, 

including mitigation measures to 

enhance osprey nesting 

attractiveness in the wider 

forested site away from the 

proposed wind farm. 

A confidential annex relating to 

ornithology is included as 



discusses the layout evolution 

process which took account of 






Scottish 

Water 

Stirling 

Council 

Stirling 

Council 

Environmental 

Health 

Officer 

avoided. 

SNH refer to Scottish Goverment guidance 

regarding peat slide risk assessment. 

Designated watercourses and water bodies which 

could potentially be affected by the proposal are 

identified above, SNH recommend advice is 

sought from SEPA regarding hydrological work 

undertaken as part of the EIA. 

Recreation and Access – SNH identifies that the 

Carron Valley area is important for recreation. 

The following should be considered within the ES: 

The effect on enjoyment of any strategic access 

routes in the area; 

The use of boundary features and essential 

access controls to ensure that these are not a 

barrier to the general right of access; 

Increased noise and other changes in experience 

of the area from its present character. 

Temporary and permanent effects of the proposal 

of recreation and access should be considered. 

SNH also expect an assessment of how current 

and future recreational use is likely to be effected 

during construction and subsequent operation of 

the wind farm. 

Identify that no Scottish Water assets are affected 

by the proposed development. 

Largely satisfied with the Scoping Report subject 

to the detailed advice included within the 

consultation responses. 

The effect on the setting of six listed buildings 

located to the east of Craigannet Farm at Carron 

Valley and Carron Bridge and the landscape 

setting of Stirling Castle and the Wallace 

Monument as Ancient Monuments should be 

taken into account in the ES. 

Craigannet Wind Farm Scoping Report is taken 

into account in the Environmental Statement. 

Satisfied that the developer will adequetely 

address all aspects within remit. 

peat depths across the site with 

a view to avoiding peat where 

practicable. 

An assessment of peat slide risk 

is included within Appendix 

13.2. 



Conditions considers the effects 

on peat and on the water 

environment, and the need for 

any mitigation. 

Chapter 15: Socio-Economics, 

Tourism, Recreation and Land 

Use assess the effects of the 


recreation and access, including 

the potential for mitigation and 

enhancement. 

N/A. 

Chapter 10: Cultural Heritage 

and Archaeology conisders the 

effects of the proposed 

development on cultural 

heritage assets, and a number, 

including the Wallace 

Monument, were selected as 

viewpoints in Chapter 9: 

Landscape and Visual Impact 

Assessment. 

N/A. 

Stirling 

Council 

Roads and 

Transport 

Requested Falkirk Roads department is 

consulated with regards to the proposed delivery 

route. Suggests provision of a detailed transport 

statement covering a number of issues including 

identfying traffic generation, anticipated length of 

operations, assessment of suitable transport 





proposed development in 

transportation, including the 

proposed deliver route, traffic 

generation, construction 




Transport 

Scotland 

routes and development of a traffic management 

plan. 

Identifes that overall there will be a minimal 

increase in traffic on the trunk road during the 

operation of the facility and that the proposed 

development is not likely to have a significant 

impact on the operation of the trunk road. 

As it is likely that many of the construction loads 

will be abnormal. Advises Bear Scotland are 

consulted regarding transport of abnormal loads. 

programme etc. 



proposed development in 

transportation. 

Bear Scotland would be 

consulted at the project 

planning stage is the wind farm 

secures planning permission. 

2.2.9 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 Impact Assessment; 

• 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, Recreation and Land Use. 

2.2.10 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 disciplines include 

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 development 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 significance of 

effect. Best practice EIA typically goes beyond this to identify a level of significance when the 

predicted effect is determined to be significant. 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 significance 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 assigning significance 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 significance 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 

the effect or change, the assessment methodology often uses a matrix to determine 

significance of the effect. In this approach significance of effect in broad terms is determined 

by a combination of the value of the receptor being affected and the magnitude of the effect. 

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 significance levels and associated 

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

aligned their significance levels 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 significance using 

criteria defined in DMRB2 Volume 11:Environmental Assessment (2009) are frequently 

employed (Table 2.3 is based on significance criteria set out in the DMRB). This is the case 

for example in assessing the significance of effect on the water environment. These levels of 

significance apply to both adverse and beneficial effects. In some instances a further 

category of ‘no effect’ may be used. 

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 


moderate 

Moderate or 

slight 

Negligible 

Moderate Slight Negligible 

SMALL Moderate or slight Slight Slight or 

negligible 

Negligible 

NEGLIGIBLE Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 

Table 2.3 Generic Significance Criteria 

Significance 

Level 


Substantial 

Moderate 

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. 

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





Significance 

Level 

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 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 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 significant effects. 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.” 

Type of Effect 

2.3.16 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. 

2.3.17 Most predicted effects will be adverse/negative or beneficial/positive, direct, indirect, 

secondary or cumulative, temporary or permanent, 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’. 

2.3.18 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 

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 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 

2.3.19 According to the Guidelines for Cumulative Effects Assessment prepared for the 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”. 

2.3.20 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. 

2.3.21 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. 





2.3.22 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”. 

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 There is nowhere in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act as amended by The 

Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 that expressly or otherwise requires 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 development may be 

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

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 Stirling 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 Stirling 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 development 

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. 

iii. 

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. 

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 are 

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 Environmental 

Management 

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 The Carron Valley site contains a complex 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 Partnerships for Renewables (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 selected 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 site specific characteristics and 

constraints. Detailed site specific characteristics and constraints, gathered through both 

desk-based and site survey work, are then used to inform and constrain the location of 

turbines and associated infrastructure within the site as part of the design evolution process. 

3.1.7 This approach has enabled the findings of the EIA to guide the evolution of the proposed 

wind farm layout and for the site design to be modified in order to avoid, reduce or mitigate 

potentially negative environmental effects as far as possible. 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. 

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. 



Design Evolution


3.2.2 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. 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: 

• 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 A separation distance of up to 2 km between areas of search and the edge of cities, towns 

and villages is recommended to guide developments to the most appropriate sites and to 

reduce visual impact, but decisions on individual developments should take into account 

specific local circumstances and geography. Development plans should recognise that the 

existence of these constraints on wind farm development does not impose a blanket 

restriction on development. 



Design Evolution


Scottish Government Planning Advice - Onshore Wind Turbines 

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

(2011); which contains some detailed planning advice and technical information which has 

further assisted in the site selection process. 

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. 

Development Plan Policy 

3.2.9 Development Plan policies relevant to site selection and design include Stirling Council Local 

Plan Policy E10 which requires, amongst other criteria, that the siting and external 

appearance of apparatus have been chosen to minimise the impact on amenity, while 

respecting operational efficiency. 

3.2.10 In addition, the Stirling Council Supplementary Planning Guidance – Wind Turbines (March 

2011) sets out local guidance and criteria for wind farm proposals, including requiring that 

proposals are an appropriate scale, design and layout for the location. 

3.3 Site Identification and Selection 

3.3.1 The initial site selection process for the Carron Valley development proceeded in three 

stages as follows. 

3.3.2 PfR originally investigated over 30 Forestry Commission Scotland sites in the Borders and 

Lowlands Districts. 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 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. Carron Valley was part of the group with the best potential, as, for instance, the 

indicative wind speed varied from 6.5 – 9.5 m/s at 80 m hub height, main residential areas 



Design Evolution


are at a sufficient distance, the available land area was very large, site access is deemed 

feasible and aviation constraints could be overcome by using the large area available. 

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. Further detail on the feasibility can be found in 

Section 3.5 below. 

3.3.6 The feasibility identified that Carron Valley has excellent potential for a wind farm, not only 

based on the above mentioned criteria that were concluded at the first stage, but also 

because of the landscape potential of the site, the absence of deep peat from the majority of 

the site and the potentially low environmental sensitivity. The key risks that were identified 

were aviation, landscape, cultural heritage and access constraints. 

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

risks before proceeding towards the next phase which encompasses environmental survey 

work and EIA. By mitigation, PfR means mitigating risk that could potentially stop 

development. The identified risks have been mitigated in DP1 by consultation with the 

aviation stakeholders, creating a set-back distance to the Scheduled Monument on-site, 

identifying and contacting access landowners, 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 is between 6.5 m/s to 9.5 m/s which is considered favourable in terms 

of locating a proposed wind farm. An assessment into the wind resource was also 

carried out taking into account forestry cover, confirmed that the wind speed at the site 

at a height of 80 m is well over 7.00 m/s, also considered suitable in terms of locating a 


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

monitoring wind speed from November 2011. 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 air flow buffer is placed around each 



Design Evolution


proposed turbine equivalent to six times the rotor diameter in the down wind direction 

and four times the rotor diameter in the cross wind direction based on the assumed 

worst case turbine rotor diameter of 90 m (45 m blade length). 

• 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; 

• Avoiding surface and groundwater resources and minimising indirect effects on these 

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 proposed amendment to the Forest Design Plan (FDP) for Cairnoch Hill was taken into 

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

amended FDP coupes, 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. 

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 



Design Evolution


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 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 existing wind farm turbine size, scale and layout. 

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

design process. 

3.4.11 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, the layout of the proposed wind farm evolved over a period of 

around two years. The design of the layout was led by all criteria as set out in this Chapter, 

taking into account 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 77 turbine layout including the forestry block south of the reservoir; 



Design Evolution


2. Intermediate Design – a 24 and then a 2 x 16 turbine layout; 

3. Final Design – a 15 turbine layout. 

Initial Design 

3.5.3 The bulk site screening work and feasibility 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 77 turbines of up to 3 MW as shown on Figure 3.5. 

3.5.4 At this stage in the project the site boundary encompassed the majority of the Carron Valley 

Forest, including both forest blocks north and south of the Carron Valley Reservoir. 

3.5.5 Information to inform the feasibility study was gathered through a combination of desk based 

study, including information from FCS records, and consultation. Feasibility work included: 

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

and through an assessment carried out by SgurrEnergy and preliminary wind analysis; 

• 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 Ofcom to identify fixed and microwave links and more 

detailed consultation with Cable and Wireless, Arqiva, Orange and JRC; 

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

NATS En-Route Limited (NERL) mapping tool and BAA/Glasgow Airport. An initial 

Aviation Impact Assessment was also carried out; 

• 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; 

• A preliminary Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to 35 km. 

3.5.6 A number of constraints and appropriate separation distances were also considered within 

the initial design including from watercourses to avoid or minimise physical interface, 

residential properties to protect amenity, ancient woodland, roads and public rights of way / 

bridleways, infrastructure including pipelines and power lines, and radar visibility and 

communications links. 

3.5.7 Only minor changes to the initial design turbine locations were made following the feasibility 

study. The study concluded that the site could accommodate up to 77 turbines, fifteen of 

which were within the Cairnoch Hill Site, however the study also identified a number of key 

risks to the layout at this stage of the design evolution process as follows: 

• Aviation - Consultation with NERL identified that turbines in areas to the north and 

south of the site are ‘likely to interfere with NATS radar systems’. 



Design Evolution


• Cultural Heritage/Archaeology – Two Scheduled Monuments are located within the 

site. 

• Ecology – Proposed development may impact on nearby Endrick Water Special Area 

of Conservation (SAC) / Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 

• Landscape / Visual – A large number of turbines are likely to give rise to visual 

impacts. 

• Noise – Cumulative noise impact of two adjacent wind farms are likely to require 

removal of turbines. 

• Ornithology – Bird nests identified within site, turbines should be relocated to reduce 

the potential impact. 

• Scanning Telemetry – Link identified within proximity to turbine locations. 

• Shadow Flicker – There are properties identified within the zone of shadow flicker. 

3.5.8 The work in DP1, as described in Section 3.3 above, included risk management of areas that 

could potentially stop development on the Carron Valley site. 

3.5.9 One of these areas was aviation risk, and initially the Ministry of Defence objected to the 77 

turbines due to unacceptable impact on their Met Office radar at Holehead. The main 

objection was due to the proximity of the turbine to the radar, the number of turbines, and the 

visibility of the turbines to the radar main beam. This resulted in the removal of turbines 

closest to the radar installation, and within direct Line of Sight of the main beam. 

3.5.10 Some turbines were also having an impact on Glasgow PSR and Lowther Hill radar, 

controlled by BAA and NATS. Turbines within Line of Sight of these radar installations were 

removed. 

3.5.11 Following this, a layout of 37 turbines was deemed feasible which concentrated on the areas 

around the reservoir, thereby avoiding areas where turbines would be detected by military 

and civilian radar systems. 

3.5.12 A further Landscape and Visual Feasibility Study was undertaken in December 2010 based 

on this layout. This concluded that further detailed design should focus only on the Cairnoch 

Hill site to the north of the reservoir. The main reason for this conclusion was that the wind 

farm could be viewed as two wind farms when travelling on the B818 road, and from key 

viewpoints. The reservoir acts as a natural divider between turbines north and south of it, and 

taking into account the location of existing operational and consented wind farms, the location 

of Cairnoch Hill was chosen in May 2011 as most suitable within the land holding and 

identified constraints. 

3.5.13 The final exercise in DP1 was therefore to produce a constraints plan focused on the 

Cairnoch Hill block. 

Intermediate Design 

Overview 

3.5.14 The above described process enabled the team to deal with most of the outstanding risks, 

including designing a layout that could be made acceptable to radar operators. 



Design Evolution


Constraints Plan and Developable Area 

3.5.15 Focusing only on Cairnoch Hill, an updated constraints plan was prepared showing the 

location and necessary buffers of the known physical and environmental constraints present 

on the site and its environs. 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). 

3.5.16 Constraints were mapped using a GIS and buffer zones created around known constraining 

features. Constraints that were applied to the proposed development site as identified in 

Table 3.1 below and shown on Figure 3.1. 

Table 3.1 Constraints 

Constraint 

Residential Receptors 

Ancient Woodland 

Sir John de Graham’s Castle Scheduled 

Monument 

Core Path/ROW 

Sensitive ecological constraints: 

Broadleaved woodland, Scattered scrub, 

Marshy grassland, Dry heath, Acid grass 

mosaic 

Peat 

Known watercourses as shown on 1:25,000 

OS Mapping 

B818 

Unclassified Road 

Overground/Underground Services 

Lowther Hill and Met Office Radar 

Quarry 

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. 

Ecologically sensitive areas were mapped and areas 

constrained from development. 

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 from B road for safety reasons and 

to avoid blade oversailing and blade tip fallover 

distance. 

Seperation distance from unclassified road 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. 

Areas constrained from development associated with 

radar coverage – to be avoided completely 

Avoid infrastructure development on existing quarry. 



Design Evolution


3.5.17 In addition to the constraints identified in Table 3.1, RPS consulted with communications links 

operators through Ofcom. No fixed links were identified within or in the vicinity of the site. 

3.5.18 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. 

Design Workshop 

3.5.19 A theoretical layout of 24 turbines was initially prepared based only on physical spacing 

within the developable area using the requisite turbine separation distances (Figure 3.5) and 

a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) model was run on this layout to identify visibility. From 

an initial review of landscape and visual constraints, and particularly the potential full visibility 

of turbines from the Wallace Monument and Stirling Castle, the initial 24 turbine layout was 

reduced to a 16 turbine layout (Figure 3.5) which became the starting point for the design 

workshop held on 1 September 2011. 

3.5.20 The 16 turbine layout was then refined within the workshop through the application of several 

key design principles, including: 

• Landscape and Visual – Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) models and wirelines from 

key visual receptors were run to assess and then modify the turbine layout to reduce 

impacts in terms of overall visibility, particularly from key sensitive viewpoints such as 

Stirling Castle, as well as turbine overlap and clustering. This process resulted in a 

number of iterations to the layout. Figure 3.3 shows comparative wirelines from the 

key viewpoints used during the design process. Relevant visual issues associated 

with cultural heritage (including the setting of Sir John de Graham’s Castle Scheduled 

Monument) and recreation were also considered as part of this assessment (refer to 

Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Chapter 15: Socioeconomics, 

Tourism, Recreation, and Land Use and Chapter 10: Cultural Heritage and 

Archaeology); 

• Peat – The layout was designed and revised to avoid areas of deeper peat (Figure 3.4) 

identified on the site through peat probing (refer to Chapter 13: Hydrology, 

Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions); 

• 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); 

• 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. 

• Noise – The noise contour and noise modelling was rerun following each design 

iteration in order to identify any significant change to the contour within which each 

potential Noise Sensitive Receptor (NSR) was predicted to fall (refer to Chapter 8: 

Noise and Figure 8.1). 



Design Evolution


3.5.21 Following review of all site constraints and other issues identified above an optimum layout of 

16 turbines was identified as the Intermediate Design (Figure 3.5). A number of further 

assessments were then carried out on this layout: 

• 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). 

• An assessment of the wind resource was undertaken. 

• The MOD was re-consulted on the Intermediate Design layout and confirmed no 

objection. 

3.5.22 A design was developed at this stage for the access tracks and supporting wind farm 

infrastructure, including the location of a permanent anemometry mast. These 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. 

3.5.23 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. 

3.5.24 The route and alignment of the new access tracks has also taken land stability and 

topography into account. 

3.5.25 A buffer of 77.5 m was also put in place around all infrastructure, including the provision of 

turbine keyholes, 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. 

Final Design 

3.5.26 After further EIA assessment, consultation with public and statutory/non-statutory bodies, and 

consideration of the formal Scoping Opinion received from Stirling Council (Appendix 2.2), it 

was considered that a further iteration to the design was required. This related in particular to 

concerns raised by Historic Scotland regarding the potential impact on turbines on the setting 

on the Sir John de Graham’s Castle Scheduled Monument identified within their formal 

Scoping Response (refer to Chapter 10: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology). 

3.5.27 Following subsequent consultation with Historic Scotland a further design workshop was held 

on the 20 February 2012 to reconfigure the proposed turbine locations in light of Historic 

Scotland’s comments, with a view to reducing the potential effects on the setting on the Sir 

John de Graham’s Castle Scheduled Monument. As a result of concerns raised by Historic 

Scotland, two of the turbines in the Intermediate Design layout were removed, and the 

remaining 14 turbines were rearranged within the previously defined constraints and 

developable area to address the gap left. 



Design Evolution


3.5.28 Through the redesign process using 14 turbines it was clear that the developable area could 

accommodate a fifteenth turbine whilst still achieving the design objective of maximising the 

separation distance between the castle and the turbines and avoiding, as far as reasonably 

practicable, the positioning of turbines in the field of view looking down the Carron Valley, that 

being the view that most aids interpretation of why the castle was originally sited in this 

location. 

3.5.29 Using the resultant 15 turbine layout, wirelines from key visual receptors were rerun (Figure 

3.3) to reassess and make minor alterations to turbine positioning to further reduce impacts 

on the setting of the Scheduled Monument, and to confirm that there was no substantial 

change to the likely visual impacts predicted from the other sensitive receptors considered 

previously, and the viewpoint locations now known to be included within the LVIA 

assessment. 

3.5.30 In addition the noise contour was rerun and noise modelling was undertaken to determine the 

predicted noise levels at each NSR, baseline data was used to set the day and night time 

noise limits in accordance with ETSU-R-97 methodology, and to confirm that predicted noise 

levels fall within those limits (refer to Chapter 8: Noise and Figure 8.1). 

3.5.31 A further assessment of shadow flicker and wind resource was carried out as well as initial 

noise modelling to ensure that the revised layout did not substantially change the predicted 

noise levels at nearby noise sensitive receptors. 

3.5.32 This process confirmed that a 15 turbines layout could be brought forward to respond to the 

comments raised by Historic Scotland without materially affecting the significance of impacts 

on other environmental disciplines. This 15 turbine layout is shown on Figure 3.6. 

3.5.33 On this basis, the infrastructure design was revised, including relocating the permanent 

anemometry mast, and the red line boundary was confirmed to reflect the minimum land take 

necessary to accommodate all infrastructure for the proposed wind farm. 

3.5.34 Further consultation on the new proposed site layout was then carried out with Historic 

Scotland to present and explain the changes made and seek views on the likely acceptability 

of the proposal as revised. The MOD was also re-consulted on the amended layout and 

reconfirmed no objection. 

3.5.35 This final design was confirmed as the basis of the application and EIA and the design frozen 

accordingly. The revised turbine locations were then provided to FCS and the proposed 

amendment to the FDP was updated to align with the revised turbine layout. 


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 (2005). The Water (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005. Available at: 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2005/348/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 



Design Evolution


Scottish Government (2011). On-line Renewables Advice. Available at 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National-Planning- 

Policy/themes/renewables 

Stirling Council (1999). Local Plan. Available at http://www.stirling.gov.uk/services/planningand-the-environment/planning-and-building-standards/local-and-statutory-developmentplans/local-plan-general-information 

Stirling Council (2011). Supplementary Guidance Renewable Energy. Available at 

http://www.stirling.gov.uk/__documents/planning/planning/strategic-environmentalassessment/wind-farms/adopted-policies-_and_-guidance.pdf 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2009), Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape. 

Available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A317537.pdf 



Design Evolution


4 Description of the Proposed Development 


Overview 

4.1.1 This chapter describes the proposed Carron Valley Wind Farm 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 Carron Valley and initial 

consideration of the likely forest related impacts associated with the wind farm proposal as 

described in this chapter. 

4.1.3 As stated in Chapter 1: Introduction, key objective of the proposed wind farm is to generate 

approximately 98.55 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of renewable energy, thereby preventing 

approximately 42,376 tonnes of CO 2 being emitted each year and producing enough energy 

to supply up to of up to 22,081 average households in Britain. 

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: 

• 15 variable pitch (three-bladed) wind turbines each to a maximum of 126 m to tip (see 

Figure 4.1); 

• 15 circular reinforced concrete gravity foundations of approximate 21 m diameter 

(typically containing approximately 727 m 3 structural concrete and 65 tonnes of high 

yield steel reinforcement) (see Figure 4.2); 

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

of 45 m x 25 m and a 2 m wide granular path to the turbine base (see Figure 4.3); 

• A total of 9.4 km of 5 m wide access tracks from the site entrance to each turbine 

location and other wind farm components. The internal tracks required for construction 

of the wind farm will be in existence as FCS forest roads in advance of construction 

commencement, and will be upgraded to meet the loading requirements of 

construction vehicles. This will result in 7.5 km of upgraded forestry track and 1.9 km 

of new track for construction of the wind farm (see Figure 4.4); 

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

a refuelling area, materials storage, batching facility and welfare facilities) (see Figure 

4.5); 

• A single-storey, pitched roof control building comprising of a control room, switch room 

and metering room (typical dimensions are 5 m x 10 m x 5.5 m) (see 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 (see 

Figure 4.7); 



Description of the Proposed Development


• Underground electrical and SCADA 1 cabling in trenches linking each wind turbine with 

the site control building (see Figure 4.8); 

• 7 m wide crossing points along the access tracks at typically 250 m intervals and 30 m 

long passing places at a distance of the order of 500 m apart (see Figure 4.9); 

• Three borrow pits to provide material for construction aggregate, with the potential to 

provide an estimated 67,500 m 3 of material, representing about twice the estimate of 

aggregate volume required (see Appendix 13.1); and 

• Upgrading a total of six 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 0.52 

Crane hard standing areas 1.69 

Control building compound 0.03 

Access roads including upgrades of existing track 7.22 

Borrow areas 1.89 

Temporary construction compound 0.25 

Anemometry mast laydown area 0.17 

Turbine blade oversail area not covered by the development components 7.09 

4.2 Site Description and Context 

Site Context 

4.2.1 The site is part of Cairnoch Hill, which forms the northern block of the Carron Valley Forest. 

It is located within Stirlingshire, approximately 10 km north-west of Cumbernauld and 

approximately 7 km north of Kilsyth, Central Scotland at approximate grid reference NS 6970 

8550. The location of the site is shown on Figure 1.1. 

4.2.2 The elevation of the site varies from approximately 225 m AOD to approximately 413 m AOD 

at its peak. Cairnoch Hill comprises approximately 505 ha of productive plantation woodland. 

The area within the proposed wind farm application boundary comprises approximately 

340.6 ha. 

4.2.3 Whilst the majority of the site consists of plantation woodland there is also an open hill area 

which has not been afforested and other open areas within the forest awaiting restocking post 

tree removal during harvesting operations. 

1 Wind Turbine ‘System Control and Data Acquisition’. 





4.2.4 The southern boundary of the site is formed by the B818 and then the Carron Valley 

Reservoir. The remainder of Carron Valley Forest is located to the south of the reservoir and 

provides a well used recreational resource for walkers, mountain bikers and horse riders, and 

incorporates hills at Meikle Bin (570 m AOD), Little Bin (443 m AOD), and Drumbuoy (393 m 

AOD). 

4.2.5 A number of properties lie along the B818 and further isolated properties are situated within 

the vicinity of the site. 

4.2.6 Cairnoch Hill is drained by forestry drainage systems and by a number of small unnamed 

watercourses. The southern hill slopes drain towards Carron Valley Reservoir. Towards the 

north-east small watercourses discharge into the Earl’s Burn which confluences with the 

River Carron downstream of Carron Valley Reservoir. The River Carron discharges into the 

Firth of Forth near Grangemouth. The north-western hill slopes drain via an unnamed burn to 

the Endrick Water. The Endrick Water flows west and discharges into Loch Lomond near 

Balmaha. 

Designations 

4.2.7 The site itself falls is not the subject of any international or national designations. It lies within 

an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and is identified as an Area of Significant 

Protection within Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) produced by Stirling Council 

(Stirling Council, 2011). 

4.2.8 There are four Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within 5 km of the site: Endrick 

Water, Double Craigs, Denny Muir and Carron Glen. Endrick Water SSSI is the closest at 

approximately 2.2 km to the west of the site boundary and is also designated a Special Area 

of Conservation (SAC). 

4.2.9 There are several historic environment assets of national importance within 10 km of the site. 

The remains of Sir John de Graham’s Castle (Scheduled Monument) are located within the 

forest block to the west of the proposed site boundary. 

4.2.10 Designations in the vicinity of the proposed site are shown on Figure 4.10 (within 10 km) and 

Figure 4.11 (within 35 km). 

History of the Forest 

4.2.11 Cairnoch Hill Plantations are managed by Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). The 

Forestry Commission was set up in 1919 by the UK Government to ensure a timber reserve 

following the First World War. The UK had a very small percentage of land under woodland 

management and the Forestry Commission was tasked with increasing the volume of 

available timber to the UK and reducing its reliance on overseas imports. 

4.2.12 This policy was the main driving force for UK Forest Policy for the next fifty years. The 

plantations at Cairnoch Hill were planted to comply with the demands of this policy. The hill 

was very much open ground up to the early 1950’s. The OS plans from 1952 (Stirlingshire 

1:10,560) show Carron Valley Reservoir but only scattered plantings on the hill. By 1958 the 

OS plan (Stirlingshire 1:10,560) for the site shows plantations to the east and west and a 

central open area. This area was planted up in the 1960’s to complete the plantations found 

there today. 

4.2.13 The early plantations followed the pattern of commercial forestry planting regionally with the 

vast majority of trees planted being coniferous and in particular Sitka Spruce (Picea 





sitchensis). Sitka spruce is a fast growing tree from the western coast of the United States 

and provides timber of reasonable quality. It is also very adaptable to the site conditions of 

those presented at Cairnoch Hill. 

4.2.14 The Forestry Commission (FC) managed its plantations using, in the majority, economic 

rotations based around the yield class system as described in the Forest Mensuration 

Handbook (Forest Research, 2006). This considered potential yield of the crop with a rotation 

length refined by consideration of the wind firmness of the crop. 

4.2.15 The latest management strategy for FC woodlands is based on this system but refined further 

to take account of forest restructuring and reduction in visual impacts caused by large scale 

forest felling. Forest managers create a Forest Design Plan (FDP) from the crop information 

and this becomes the operational plan for the next forest rotation. The FDP is a ten-year 

plan, reviewed at five-year intervals. 

4.2.16 The initial plantations were set out in a very structured and set pattern with forest blocks 

being straight edged where contours or existing features were not present. Much of the site is 

approaching its second rotation and changes are being made to the structure of the size, 

shape and species mix of the forest compartments. Where possible, forest thinnings have 

been harvested as prescribed in Forestry Commission Booklet 34, Forest Management 

Tables (Forestry Commission, 1971). However where the likelihood of wind blow has been 

assessed as high then a ‘No Thin’ approach has been taken as the management approach. 

4.2.17 A Forestry Devolution Review was carried out in 2002 and resulted in the Forestry 

Commission devolving into the individual countries of the UK. Scottish forests came under 

the responsibilities of the Scottish Ministers and Carron Valley became part of the Scottish 

Lowland Forest District. 

Current Forest Strategy 

4.2.18 The Scottish Forestry Strategy (SFS) was published in October 2006. Implementation of the 

Strategy has been focused on delivering forestry benefits to Scotland helping to achieve the 

Scottish Government’s wider policies to contribute towards its National Outcomes. 

4.2.19 The strategy also recognises the changing role and crosscutting nature of forestry and as 

such is organised around seven key themes which include: Climate Change, Timber, 

Community Development, Environmental Quality, Business Development, Access & Health 

and Biodiversity. 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. There is also the Strategic Plan for the National Forest Estate which 

directs the implementation of the SFS on the national forest estate over five years, from 2009 

to 2013. It provides context and direction for ten local district strategic plans. 

4.2.20 The Scottish Lowlands Forest District Strategic Plan 2009-2013 defines how the SFS will be 

implemented at a local level and accounts for local priorities and context. It also provides 

direction for implementing a repositioning policy that will ensure that the nature and 

distribution of the national forest estate better reflects its role and purpose. This 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 Carron Valley and Cairnoch Hill are visited by recreational day visitors on a 

regular basis. 





4.2.21 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. 

4.2.22 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 development of wind farms in the district are 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.’ 

4.2.23 This is combined with a desire to research the use of coppice and Short Rotation Forestry 

(SRF) to provide a sustainable wood fuel resource. Cairnoch Hill and the short rotation 

periods provided by the forest provides a perfect site for the development of areas managed 

in this way. 

4.2.24 Cairnoch Hill 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 management of the forest. Once the trees have established and reached a 

reasonable height they have been subject to wind blow. Up to January 2012 approximately 

71 hectares (ha) were surveyed areas of wind blow requiring clearance, and in January 2012 

a major storm hit the region and a further 39 ha was affected by wind blow. The short period 

in which the forest was planted has resulted in a period where large areas are now being 

restocked as part of the rotational cycle and further areas that were to be retained to reduce 

the visual impact of forest felling now have to be cleared due to wind blow. 

4.2.25 Much of the current forest management of Cairnoch Hill 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, to a certain extent, is also dictating the management of the forest and will 

continue to do so over the coming decades. 

Forest Design Plan 

4.2.26 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 restocking patterns during the period, and is based on the current 

principles of management produced in the Lowland District Strategy document. The current 

plan and restocked compartment shapes and sizes show the move towards reduced felling 

coupe sizes and less hard boundaries to the compartments. All FDP’s conform to the United 

Kingdom Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS). 

4.2.27 The March 2012 amendment to the FDP (see Appendix 4.1) incorporates the January 2012 

wind blow damage into its overall felling programme. The amendment is a result of the 

reasons described above and due to the wind farm proposal. The FDP amendment was 

approved by FCS Conservancy on 12 June 2012. 

4.2.28 The plan also shows proposed forest roads to be constructed to aid extraction and access to 

the forest. 





4.2.29 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. 

4.2.30 An important influencing factor that could in the future have a major influence on forest crops 

on Cairnoch Hill 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 has been responsible for large areas of 

Japanese 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. 

4.2.31 The restocking plan shows a much greater proportion of Larch and Scots Pine being used 

within Cairnoch Hill 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, visual quality and to an extent crop 

stability within individual forests. 

4.2.32 Appendix 4.1 presents the approved amendment to the FDP (March 2012) showing proposed 

felling, restocking and compensatory planting. This represents the “with-development” 

scenario incorporating the infrastructure footprint for the proposed wind farm including turbine 

positions, access roads, borrow pits and passing places, and the extent of recent and 

potential felling at Cairnoch Hill. The loss of forest due to the wind farm footprint is a total of 

33.52 ha (FCS figure) however only 13 ha are permanently lost to forestry, the rest is lost 

only for the period of the wind farm and will be available to be reforested directly following decommissioning. 

4.2.33 FCS has identified approximately 275 ha within the forest as areas of potential Short Rotation 

Forestry (SRF) or Early Felling (EF). SRF is defined as single or multi-stemmed trees of fast 

growing species grown on a reduced rotation length primarily for the production of biomass. 

EF means that a non-mature coupe will be felled within five years of the start of operation of 

the wind farm, and subsequently replanted. 

4.2.34 FCS has guaranteed PfR 20 % of this SRF/EF area to improve wind flow and energy capture. 

In the event that the wind farm is consented, FCS will submit a FDP amendment which 

includes the wind farm footprint and agreed SRF/EF areas shown in Appendix 4.2. It should 

be noted that this area is currently indicative only as, for instance, further wind blow may 

cause another FDP amendment and consequent re-evaluation of the potential SRF/EF areas. 

The plans presented in Appendix 4.2 are therefore included within this ES for information only 

and do not form part of the proposed development as assessed. 

4.3 Energy Generation and Anemometry 

Candidate Wind Turbine Model 

4.3.1 The proposed wind farm will consist of 15 variable pitch (three bladed) wind turbines with a 

maximum tip height of 126 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 reasonable worst case scenario is assessed. It is anticipated that the 

turbines will have a maximum 85 m hub height and a maximum 45 m blade radius, however 





the turbine tip height will not exceed 126 m. Where directly relevant to the technical 

assessments in this ES, each chapter states the assumed turbine parameters used. 

4.3.2 The maximum rating of each turbine will be 3 MW of renewable energy, providing a total 

installed capacity of up to 45 MW. 

4.3.3 The candidate turbines that have been investigated 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 4.2 outlines the assumed technical 

parameters of the turbines and Figure 4.1 illustrates the dimensions of the turbine. 

Table 4.2 Assumed Turbine Parameters 

Parameter 

Value 

Number of Turbines 15 

Maximum height to blade tip (m) 126 

Maximum hub height (m) 85 

Maximum blade diameter (m) 90 

Turbine rated capacity (MW) 3 

Maximum site rated capacity (MW) 45 

Number of blades 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 Stirling Council 

and other consultees. 

4.3.5 Depending on the eventual model selected, turbines will generate electricity in wind speeds 

of 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 a transformer located outside each turbine base. 

4.3.8 In line with a requirement for aviation lighting stipulated by Defence Estates (see Chapter 2: 

The Environmental Impact Assessment and Scoping Process, 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. 

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 Stirling 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 transmission network. The 

connection is likely to be made at Bonnybridge substation some 15 km east of the site, in the 

form of two underground cables at 33 kilovolt (kV) each. 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 will be the subject of a separate application 

under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 and is therefore not described in further detail 

within this ES. 

Control Building 

4.4.3 Figure 1.2 shows the location of the control building and Figure 4.6 illustrates its technical 

parameters. 

4.4.4 The single storey control 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 Stirling Council. 

4.4.5 The control building compound will be approximately 10 m x 5 m x 5.5 m high. The control 

building will comprise a control room, switch room and metering room. 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 control 

building will have fire and closed-circuit television (CCTV) detection systems. 

4.4.6 A small area of hardcore will be constructed outside the control building with parking for four 

vehicles. Any external signage will be agreed with Stirling Council. There will be no external 

illumination of the control building 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 Civils Works 

Wind Turbine Foundations 

4.5.1 Foundation construction design will be finalised at the detailed design and engineering stage. 

However, typical foundation designs for the candidate turbine are shown in Figure 4.2. 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. Depending on the terrain, the foundations will typically be constructed at a 

depth of approximately 3 m. 

4.5.3 The depth of the excavation will depend on the depth to the suitable bearing strata or pile 

cap. The sides will be ‘battered’ back to ensure that they remain stable during construction. 

Each foundation will require approximately 727 m 3 of structural concrete and 65 tonnes of 

high yield steel reinforcing. 

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. 

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 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 B818, the outline 

layout design of which is presented in Appendix 7.1. 

4.5.12 The proposed site access is discussed in more detail in Chapter 11: Traffic and Transport. 





Onsite Tracks 

4.5.13 FCS intends to install tracks to facilitate removal of wind blown forestry in advance of wind 

farm construction. To maximise integration between forestry activities and wind farm 

construction these tracks have been designed to follow the same alignment as would be 

utilised for the construction process following upgrade. There will also be some new access 

track construction, for example spurs between the main internal loop and individual turbine 

locations. A total internal track length of 9.4 km will be required (measured from the site 

entrance) to access the turbines, of which approximately 7.5 km will be upgraded FCS tracks 

and 1.9 km will be new track construction. The proposed access track configuration is 

illustrated on Figure 1.2. 

4.5.14 Access tracks will be approximately 5 m wide. 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 cases. A typical cross section of access track is shown in Figure 4.4. 

4.5.15 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. 

4.5.16 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. 

4.5.17 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 Stirling 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. 

4.5.18 7 m wide crossing points are provided along the internal access tracks at 250 m intervals to 

enable forestry operations to continue. 30 m long passing places are also provided at a 

distance of 500 m apart. 

On Site Borrow Pits 

4.5.19 The borrow area assessment has identified three borrow area locations which coincide with 

rock exposures in sloping ground or at existing borrow pit locations, referred to as Borrow 

Areas A, B and C. These are located at grid reference NS 6905 8580, NS 6931 8562, NS 

6905 8580 respectively. The rock in each of the three borrow areas is extrusive basaltic 

lavas. The fine grained basic rocks are suitable for use as aggregates in construction. Peat 

deposits are not anticipated to be present at the proposed borrow pit locations but limited 

mineral soil/glacial till is anticipated at Borrow Area B and C. 

4.5.20 The rock in Borrow Areas A and B is of a macroporphyritic nature and is therefore considered 

to be less desirable for use in concrete aggregate. The rock in Borrow Area C is 

microporphyritic and is therefore considered more suitable for sourcing concrete aggregate. 

4.5.21 Borrow pit dimensions and volumes have been estimated and probable extraction methods 

identified. The total volume of materials available from the proposed borrow pits identified is 

67,500 m 3 which provides about twice the estimate of aggregate volume required. 

4.5.22 Detailed ground investigations including geotechnical testing and slope stability will be 

required to inform detailed design of the proposed borrow pits. 





4.5.23 Borrow Areas A and B will be reinstated in line with the requirements of FCS. Borrow Area C 

will be utilised for the storage of some ripped and crushed material which will be recovered as 

needed for the purposes of track maintenance throughout the lifetime of the wind farm. 

Temporary Construction Compound 

4.5.24 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. 

4.5.25 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. 

4.5.26 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 

4.5.27 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. 

4.5.28 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 

4.5.29 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. 

4.5.30 Detailed track drainage proposals will be presented to Stirling Council and key consultees 

prior to works commencing for each relevant track section. 

4.5.31 Drainage is discussed further in Chapter 13: Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground 

Conditions. 





Watercourse Crossings 

4.5.32 No new watercourse crossings will be required. It will be necessary to upgrade a total of six 

existing watercourse crossings and concept design drawings are shown in Figure TA13.3.1 in 


4.5.33 The crossing locations have been inspected and the crossing structure type chosen taking 

into the potential impact on river flows, geomorphology and ecology. Further detail on the 

watercourse crossings are included in Appendix 13.3. 

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. 

Principal Site Operations 

4.6.2 The principal construction activities will include: 

• Clearance of forestry and other land for wind farm development and associated 

infrastructure (approximately 33.52 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; 

• Formation of three borrow areas; 

• Upgrading of existing access track and construction of new access tracks and 

widening 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 control building and electrical equipment; 

• Erection and commissioning of wind turbines; 

• Reinstatement of the temporary construction compound. 

4.6.3 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 4.3 shows the typical construction 

sequence. 

4.6.4 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 Stirling Council and other relevant stakeholders 





prior to construction. Adherence to the requirements of the HSEMS will be a contractual 

obligation placed upon the contractor. 

4.6.5 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. 

4.6.6 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. 

4.6.7 Three borrow areas will be formed to provide aggregate for access track construction and for 

concrete aggregate. The quality of the basalt rock varies between the borrow area locations. 

Details of the borrow area development, quantities and quality is provided in Appendix 13.1. 

4.6.8 The existing forest access tracks will be upgraded to provide access for the wind farm 

construction by widening to minimum of 5 m. New tracks also 5 m wide will lead off the main 

access track 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 Construction of turbine foundations will be formed by excavation into the mineral sub-soil and 

establishment of a suitable formation. The base will be blinded suitable for the installation of 

a reinforcing cage prior to placing the concrete to form the support foundation for installation 

of the turbine mast. 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. 

4.6.11 It is anticipated that peat will only be excavated at Turbine 2 and the associated access track. 

This turbine foundation 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 3 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. 

4.6.12 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 

control building. 

Indicative Construction Programme 

4.6.13 Construction of the proposed wind farm is estimated to take approximately 20 months, 

including commissioning and site reinstatement. Table 4.3 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 1 of 2015. A more 

detailed programme of works will be produced with the appointed construction contractors 

and agreed with Stirling Council in advance. 

Table 4.3 Indicative Construction Programme 

Site preparation 

Site access track 

Temporary construction 

compound 

Hardstanding installation 

Substation & Control 

Building 

Control and Switchgear 

Wind turbine foundation 

installation 

Turbine erection 

Onsite cabling 

Commissioning 

Final works 

2015 2016 

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 

4.6.14 A breakdown of delivery loads to site is provided in Table 4.4 below. 

Table 4.4 Breakdown of Delivery Loads to Site 

Item Number Dimensions 

(area m 2 ) 

Dimensions 

(depth) 

m 3 of 

Material 

Deliveries 

Two-way 

Movements 

Access track 

and area of 

minor works 

(Aggregate) 

81030 0.3 &0.6 33193.5 Nil 

Nil 

Crane pad 

and kiosk 

(Aggregate) 

15 1125 0.6 10125 (Site won) 

Construction 

compound 

(Aggregate) 

2500 0.6 1500 

Earthworks 

Plant 

62 124 






(area m 2 ) 

Dimensions 

(depth) 

m 3 of 

Material 

Deliveries 

Two-way 

Movements 

River 

Crossings 

(Culverts 

Pipes & 

Bedding) 

6 12 24 

Geotextile 

Membrane 

(rolls) 

34 5m x 50 m 

rolls 

8 16 

Turbine 

Bases 

(Cement & 

Additives) 

15 346 m 2 2 3738 50 100 

Turbine 

Bases 

(Formwork 

and 

Reinforcing 

Steel) 

15 Non uniform 

depth 

Up to 40 

tonnes 

steel per 

base 

30 60 

Sub-station, 

Control 

Building and 

ancillaries 

1 51 102 

Turbine 

Components 

15 - - 90 

abnormal 

loads 

90 

Large Crane 2 1 abnormal load, 5 HGV 

(Pulled off & return for winter 

closedown) 

- 2 abnormal 

+ 10 HGV 

24 

Support crane 2 1 abnormal load, 3 HGV 

(Pulled off & return for winter 

closedown) 

- 2 abnormal 

+ 6 HGV 

16 

Cables & 

electrical 

switch gear 

Material & 

Fuel 

Deliveries 

Waste 

Material 

270 540 

340 680 

8 16 

Staff 

25 staff on 

site per day 

- Typically 16 

per day – 

not HGV 

30 per day – 

not HGV 

Total HGV vehicles 896 1792 





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 Stirling 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, 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 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. 

• Oil Wastes - Disposal of oil and any accumulation of fuel residues in the bunded 

refuelling area will be disposed of in accordance with Duty of Care requirements 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 Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) 

Regulations 1991 (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 

4.6.25 Some soils will be extracted from the access route track (modifications to the existing access 

track to the proposed wind farm site and creation of internal tracks within the site), 

hardstanding areas, cable trenches and turbine bases. In addition there will be a temporary 

construction compound and a wind farm substation building that will require soil stripping. A 

full soils survey and soils balance assessment will be carried out prior to development. 

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 as appropriate to facilitate the re-establishment of natural 

vegetation. 

4.7.3 Following completion of the wind farm construction and commissioning of the turbines, all 

internal access tracks will be reinstated. 

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 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 Sensor activated external lighting will be located at the substation building to ensure the 

safety of operators accessing these buildings. 

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 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 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 building. 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 building and compound; 

• 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 building 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 Cairnoch Hill the positioning of the turbines has 

been considered to allow for this impact to be in most cases be 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 and is presented in Appendix 4.3. 

4.10.4 The areas most affected are the turbine keyholes that are likely to be maintained as relatively 

open areas for their radius (77.5 metres). However, if the proposed wind farm receives 

planning permission PfR is keen to explore with SNH and Stirling Council potential 

opportunities to research different keyhole management techniques and their effects on 

habitats and species through varying and monitoring keyhole management practices for a 

defined period of operation of the wind farm. This would be discussed in more detail and 

agreed with SNH and other interested parties post-consent. 

4.10.5 Road access to the turbine positions will need to be created where required. Within the forest 

sections of road are to be constructed to access parts not currently served by existing roads, 

this applies to only a couple of minor sections of road beyond that already identified in the 

FDP as being required to resource the plan. 

4.10.6 Three borrow pits to provide the stone required for roads and crane base construction are 

needed. These are identified within the current amendment to the FDP and would partly been 

required for the roads identified on the plan. 

4.10.7 Internal track widening and upgrading 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. 

4.10.8 Infrastructure including the anemometry mast, construction compound and passing places 

will have an impact on the available forest area. 

4.10.9 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 

4.10.10 The current total productive forest found at Cairnoch Hill is 505 hectares. The amended FDP 

proposes 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. 

4.10.11 Recent wind damage in January 2012 has increased the wind blow affected area from 71 ha 

to 110 ha. If this is combined with the area currently in the restocking phase (100 ha planted 

in the last 10 years) it is a considerable percentage of the forest. The majority of the 

remaining forest will be felled within the next 20 years. 

4.10.12 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 33.52 ha, of which 2.4 ha will be lost 

due to the creation of hard surfaces and solid bases within the forest. 28.5 ha will be taken 

out of production to accommodate the keyhole area and will be maintained as mostly clear 

open spaces within the forest or using alternative management techniques for research 

purposes. This land can revert back to forest once the turbines are removed. 

4.10.13 The majority of proposed turbine locations are within areas of restocking or current 

windblown areas (ten of the fifteen turbines are located in either areas needing to be cleared 

in the next two years or in restocking areas). This has been a very deliberate exercise 

through the design evolution process in order to minimise any unnecessary removal of nonmature 

forestry to facilitate wind farm infrastructure. 

4.10.14 Roads will need to be widened and additional passing places constructed and this will result 

in improved access for future forestry operations. 

4.10.15 In line with the Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal (Forestry 

Commission Scotland, 2009), the net loss of forest cover (33.52 ha) will be compensated for 

by restocking either within Cairnoch Hill or within the Carron Valley forest block to the south 

of the reservoir. The temporary loss of forest production in addition can be mitigated for by 

additional restocking or as an acceptable increase in open space within Cairnoch Hill and the 

habitat diversity these would result in. 

4.10.16 An assessment of impacts in relation to forestry land use is included within Chapter 15: 

Socioeconomics, Tourism, Recreation and Land Use. 

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. 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. The 

HSEMS will be agreed with Stirling Council and all relevant statutory bodies prior to 

commencement, and will be monitored by the Construction Project Manager and the 

Ecological 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 





Stirling Council Supplementary Guidance Renewable Energy (2011) [online] Available at 


[Accessed 19 March 2012] 

The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) Regulations (Scotland) 2005. 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 Carron Valley 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 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings, the European 

Commission’s analysis shows that global emissions will have to be stabilised by around 

2020, then reduced by at least 50 % of 1990 levels by 2050, with developed countries 

collectively cutting their emissions to 30 % below 1990 levels by 2020 and 60-80 % by 2050. 

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 

poverty. Regarding the first of these objectives, the UK Government has set a goal of 



Planning Policy Overview


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, 

one Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC) is issued for each megawatt hour (MWh) of 

eligible renewable output generated. The ROCs can be used by suppliers to demonstrate 

compliance with the RO and can also be sold (traded) to suppliers so that they may fulfil their 

obligation. In 2011, power generation from renewable sources eligible under the Renewables 

Obligation), 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 Plan sets out the high level 

measures required in each sector to meet Scotland’s statutory climate change targets to 

2020 as set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009; and the work to be done over the 

next decade to prepare for the more radical changes needed by 2030 if the 80 % emission 

reduction target is to be achieved. 

5.2.12 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 16 GW of installed capacity (compared 

to around 2.4 GW today) and is the most ambitious target in Europe. 

5.2.13 Paragraph 3.20 of the Plan notes that the requirement on the UK to meet EU renewable 

targets by 2020, equating to 15 % of all energy use from renewable sources, will lead to 

strong demand from elsewhere in the UK for Scottish renewable electricity. 

The Scottish Renewables Action Plan (2009) 

5.2.14 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 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 those: 

• 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 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 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 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 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 

ENERGY 20 % 34 % 42 % 

ELECTRICITY - 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 Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan (approved 2002) (hereafter referred 

to as the CSSP); 

• The Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan Alteration (2004) (hereafter referred 

to as the CSSPA); 

• The Stirling Council Local Plan (adopted December 1999) (hereafter referred to as the 

SCLP); and 

• The Stirlingshire Council Local Plan First Alteration (2007) (hereafter referred to as the 

SCLPA). 

5.3.3 The Development Plan policies of relevance to the proposed Carron Valley Wind Farm are 

set out in Table 5.3 below. These are summarised in the following paragraphs, focusing 

firstly on those policies specific to wind farm developments and latterly on generic policies 

that apply to all development proposals. All policies are covered on a policy subject basis. 

Table 5.3 Relevant Development Plan Policy 

Policy CSSP CSSPA SCLP SCLPA 

Sustainability SD1 - LD1 

Renewable Energy ENVP5 ENV14, 

ENV16 

E10, E11, E12 - 

Landscape & 

Countryside 

ENV2, ENV 3, ENV4, 

ENV5, ENVP1, ENV7, 

ENV9 

ENV8 

E1, E6, E7, REC.E1, 

E13, E14, E15 

E16, E61. 

E62 

Cultural Heritage ENV6, E17, E34, E43, E45, 

E47, E48, E49, E50, 

Natural Heritage & 

Biodiversity 

ENV1 

E54, E55 





Policy CSSP CSSPA SCLP SCLPA 

Communities 

ENV3, ED4, H4, H5, H6 

HP3 

E7, H8 

Recreation & Tourism T1, TP1 B19, B20, C1, C2, 

C3, C4, C5, C6 

Rural Diversification/ 

Economic Development 

ED3, ED4 B6, B22, B26 ED7 

Transport and Access TR1, TR2, TRP1 T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, 

T9, T10, 

Development Strategy 

Sustainability 

5.3.4 The CSSP recognises that the Council can make a large contribution to Sustainable 

Development by providing clear and effective guidance to protect and enhance the 

environment. It also assists and supports strategies aimed at creating a better quality of life. 

5.3.5 Policy SD1 represents an all-embracing approach to proposed development setting out key 

principles. It states: 

“In identifying sites for development in Local Plans and in the assessment of other 

development proposals, the Councils will consider the contribution of the development 

to the Plan's strategy of "Working Towards Sustainable Development". 

5.3.6 The principles relevant to Carron Valley in this policy require that full account is taken of the 

impact on the environment. The precautionary principle will be applied when impacts are 

unclear or inconclusive and where there is potential for irreversible damage. The CSSP 

looks for all development to contribute to the enhancement of the quality and distinctiveness 

of the environment as well as enhancing employment opportunities, social inclusion, 

community safety, urban and rural regeneration. It refers to the need to address the 

promotion of efficient use and re-use resources including energy, material, land, buildings 

and infrastructure. If adverse impacts are identified mitigation and compensatory measures 

will be required; and new developments must be accompanied by the appropriate 

infrastructure and other facilities. 

5.3.7 The principles of a locational strategy seeks to guide development to sustainable locations 

where overall it: 

• Reduces the need to travel; 

• Minimises adverse impacts; 

• Reuses previously developed land; 

• Is easily accessible by everyone; 

• Promotes urban regeneration and appropriate rural development; 

• Is close to strategic public transport corridors; and 

• Affords enhancement opportunities. 





5.3.8 The CSSP administrative area is divided up into three distinct zones. The Carron Valley 

Wind Farm site is located in the Uplands Area in which pressures are different, tending to 

focus on the need to support and manage rural economic activities. There is also a need to 

promote appropriate rural development. 

5.3.9 The SCLPA, Policy LD1 makes clear linkages between the Structure and Local Plan in the 

context of “Working Towards Sustainable Development” and seeks to encompass the key 

issues which new development should address. This updates policy and acts as guide to the 

type of information required in all planning applications applying the following sustainable 

development principles: 

• Conserve and enhance the quality of the built and natural environment. 

• Promoting social inclusion, regeneration and safety. 

• Achieving integrated transport, improving accessibility, and reducing the need to travel. 

• Efficient use and recycling of resources. 

• Addressing the impacts of new development. 

• Delivering the infrastructure to serve new development. 

5.3.10 The Council recognises that not all developments will be able to meet the above criteria. 

Renewable Energy 

5.3.11 The CSSP recognises the significant role which renewable energy has to play in supporting 

the Scottish climate change programme and the UK Government’s policy for the development 

of renewable energy. Broad areas of search have been identified in accordance with the now 

revoked NPPG 6 (Renewable Energy Developments) which will be suitable for wind and 

other renewable technology. An indication is also given of the areas where overriding 

environmental reasons would mean that development should only take place in exceptional 

circumstances and guidance is to be provided on the broad criteria which would apply to 

renewable energy projects. Policy ENVP5 (Renewable Energy) advises that the Council will 

prepare a policy on renewable energy in accordance with NPPG 6 and submit this as an 

alteration. 

5.3.12 Subsequent alterations led to the CSSPA, encouraging renewable energy developments in 

locations where there would be no significant loss of amenity, and ensuring the setting and 

integrity of features of importance (for their scenic, conservation and heritage value) would 

not be harmed. Policy ENV14: Renewable Energy and Energy – Efficient Development 

states: 

“In the interests of sustainable development the Councils and the National Park 

Authority will, subject to conformity with other relevant Structure and Local Plan 

policies, support: 

- Developments required for the generation of energy from renewable sources and 

fuels; and 

- Integration of renewable energy generation and utilisation into new developments. 

Development proposals must demonstrate that energy conservation and efficiency are 

integral to the design, and to the layout of new buildings making references to other 

environmental policies [ENV 2-6] and the key principles of sustainability”. 





5.3.13 The CSSPA also recognises the importance of wind energy technology but also seeks to 

protect specific landscape features and settings of natural and cultural heritage assets from 

adverse impacts. Of particular concern are the cumulative impacts of wind farms. Policy 

ENV16 advises on the principles against which the strategic location and design will be 

assessed: 

“For overriding landscape character, built heritage and natural heritage conservation 

reasons, siting of wind turbines will not normally be acceptable in National Scenic 

Areas, in Green Belts or in the areas shown on the Structure Plan Renewable Energy 

Supplementary Key Diagram as ‘Exclusion Areas’. These areas are: 

- The Ochil Hills escarpment; 

- The Touch – Gargunnock – Fintry Hills escarpments (including Lewis Hill); 

- The Campsie Fells escarpments; 

- Queen’s View ( Auchineden); 

- Kippen Muir view; 

- The settings of Abbey Craig - Wallace Monument, Stirling Castle, Bannockburn 

Memorial and battlefield, and Sheriffmuir battlefield; and 

- Flanders Moss. 

The remainder of the Structure Plan area is regarded as an ‘area of search’ for 

development opportunities. 

Within the ‘area of search’, it will be for Local Plans, the National Park Plan and 

Supplementary Advice to set out all relevant consultation requirements and 

constraints. Local Plans will also further define the ‘Exclusion Areas’ and give guidance 

regarding development opportunities in ‘buffer zones’ around National Scenic Areas.” 

5.3.14 The proposed wind farm is within an “Area of Search” as shown in the Renewable Energy 

Supplementary Key Diagram of the CSSPA. 

5.3.15 In the SCLP the Council strongly supports the principle of exploiting sustainable and 

renewable energy resources. Policy E10 of the SCLP reinforces this support for such 

developments if they accord with other policies in the Plan and they avoid significant adverse 

impacts. 

5.3.16 For larger scale wind farms, like Carron Valley, there will be a presumption in favour of 

development within areas of defined countryside provided the following criteria are met: 

• The siting and external appearance of apparatus have been chosen to minimise the 

impact on amenity, while respecting operational efficiency; 

• The development will not result in unacceptable intrusion into the landscape; 

• Access for construction and maintenance traffic can be achieved without 

compromising highway safety or causing unacceptable permanent and significant 

change to the environment; 

• The development will have no significant detrimental effect on any designated heritage 

feature, including Listed buildings, Conservation Areas, Ancient Monuments, Historic 





Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Areas of Great Landscape Value and National 

Scenic Areas; 

• The development will not affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers unacceptably 

by reason of noise, visual dominance, shadow flicker, reflected light or other emission; 

• No electromagnetic disturbance is likely to be caused by the proposal to any existing 

transmitting or receiving system or (where such disturbances may be caused) that 

measures will be taken to remedy or minimise any such interference; 

• A realistic means of achieving the removal of any apparatus when redundant and the 

restoration of the site are proposed; 

• No wind turbines should interfere with authorised aircraft activity or with the known 

regular flight paths of birds, particularly protected migratory species. 

Stirling Council Supplementary Planning Guidance – Wind Turbines (March 

2011) 

5.3.17 In March 2011, Stirling Council resolved to adopt (with amendments) Planning Policies and 

Guidance on renewable energy (wind turbine) developments. The Council’s intention was 

that the policies contained within the Supplementary Planning Guidance - Interim Locational 

Policy and Guidance for Renewable Energy Developments - Wind turbines (SPG) were to be 

a material consideration for the determination of relevant planning proposals, pending 

inclusion in the new Local Development Plan (LDP). The status of this policy guidance 

remains uncertain in the context of the ongoing debate in the Council regarding the 

representations made to the LDP regarding wind turbine development. There is a need for 

full Council to consider all the issues to include the implications of the SPG. The 

Development Plan policies prevail in this case, free from uncertainty. 

5.3.18 The policy framework applies to all wind turbine proposals. For the purposes of the guidance 

classifications of turbines are given within Table 5.4. 

Table 5.4 Stirling Council Turbine Classification 

Type 

Micro 

Small 

Medium 

Medium - Large 

Large 

Very Large 

Classification 

As per GPDO Review 

(as above) – 25 m 

25 – 50 m 

50 – 80 m 

80 – 110 m 

> 110 m 

5.3.19 The turbines proposed at Carron Valley fall within the “Very Large” classification. 

5.3.20 In general, outwith areas of significant protection the policy approach supports proposals for 

wind turbines where they meet a set of criteria. The proposals at Carron Valley fall within an 

area of Significant Protection (Policy Map 1 South) which contradicts the provisions of the 

Development Plan. In these circumstances wind farms will be assessed in accordance with 

the following provisions of Policy (1)(b): 





• Technical and planning criteria established through national planning policy and 

guidance, principally the SPP and PAN 45 (now revoked); 

• Locational and design guidance issued by SNH; 

• All relevant environmental protection policies in the Development Plan; 

• The landscape and visual impact criteria addressed in Policy 2 and any issues of 

cumulative impact identified in accordance with Policy 3; and 

• Local technical, planning and environmental criteria as set out in the associated 

Guidance. 

5.3.21 The Stirling administrative area possesses a landscape of a high quality. To protect this 

resource the Council’s Policy (2) considers the capacity of the landscape to be limiting with 

regard to large and very large turbines. The proposals are for turbines that fall into the very 

large classification. 

5.3.22 Policy (3) addresses cumulative impact. All wind farms proposals will be assessed in relation 

to wind turbines established, approved, or the subject of valid undetermined planning 

applications. New proposals that will have an adverse impact on the natural or historical 

heritage resources of the area, because of cumulative or ecological impact, will not normally 

be acceptable. When considering cumulative impact the colour, design, layout, scale and/or 

proportions of new proposals relative to existing turbines will be taken into account. Discrete 

wind farms will not be supported around existing wind farms within the zones on Policy Map 

1. Cumulative impact is to be assessed under the terms of SNH guidance a summary of 

which is given below. 

5.3.23 Community benefit will not be taken into consideration in the Development Management 

process. Policy (6) encourages developers to liaise with the Council in order to establish any 

“spin-offs” for the local economy. 

5.3.24 The SPG sets out local guidance and criteria advising that proposals within or outwith 

identified areas will be assessed on their merits. The factors relevant and which act as a 

guide are: 

• Appropriate scale, design and layout for the location; 

• Relativity to historic environment; 

• Avoiding adverse impacts on wildlife and habitats of international, national and regional 

importance; 

• Avoiding construction and operational impacts on the water environment; 

• Protection of aviation and telecommunications interests; 

• Avoidance of significant detrimental effects upon nearby residential amenity (visual 

intrusion, noise, TV/Radio/Telecommunications interference, shadow flicker); and 

• Other concerns to local communities including safety concerns, traffic impact, grid 

connection type and routes, ancillary works. 

5.3.25 At a recent meeting of the Stirling Council, a report submitted by the Head of Economy, 

Planning & Regulation described the consultation process undertaken on the Draft Proposed 

Local Development Plan published in October 2011 and a summary of the representations 

received to the Draft Plan. 





5.3.26 The representations submitted regarding the wind energy policy were summarised as follows: 

“too restrictive as it relies on the landscape study, which was not subject to appropriate 

consultation before being adopted with the interim Wind Turbines policy. Study 

requires to be reviewed and updated. Interim policy is also potentially out of date as it 

was adopted after online government guidance was issued which updated the 

approach to preparing spatial frameworks.” 

5.3.27 The representations received will now be considered by the Local Development Plan Group 

and used to inform the officials during the preparation of the proposed LDP. The intention is 

to submit a report to the Council at its meeting in August 2012. There remains uncertainty 

with regard to the finalised policy position of Stirling Council (wind turbines). 

Landscape and Countryside 

5.3.28 Policies ENV2, ENV4, ENV5, ENVP1, ENVP3, ENV7, ENV9 of the CSSP provide the 

necessary background to allow the development process to be informed of the means in 

which to protect and enhance the landscape character of the area. 

5.3.29 Policy ENV2 sets out guidelines for limiting the extent of development in National Scenic 

Areas and advises that development in Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) will only be 

permitted where it does not affect the overall quality of the landscape and meets the terms of 

Policy ENV3 (Development in the Countryside). Proposal ENVP1 and POL.E13 of the 

SCLP advises that the Council will be reviewing their landscape designations. 

5.3.30 There is a presumption against developments in National Scenic Areas unless related to the 

rural economy or are in the national interest or locational requirements cannot be satisfied 

elsewhere and the overall integrity of the designation is not compromised with strict control 

exercised over siting, design and landscape treatment. 

5.3.31 Policy POL.E15 of the SCLP makes a presumption against development in AGLV’s with the 

exception of activities related to the rural economy. Other developments will be permitted 

where their locational requirements cannot be met elsewhere with strict control over siting, 

design and landscape treatment. Renewable energy developments are not normally favoured 

but may be permitted subject to rigorous assessment and conformity with high environmental 

standards. 

5.3.32 The CSSP also recognises the importance of preventing “sprawl” into the countryside and the 

importance of imposing strict controls. Policy ENV4 seeks to establish the principle of a new 

Green Belt designation which will be taken forward through the Development Plan. In theses 

areas development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. The Carron Valley 

Wind Farm does not lie within a Green Belt or a National Scenic Area. 

5.3.33 The SCLP Policy POL.E7 relates to development proposals falling within countryside policy 

boundaries. Favourable consideration will be given to developments, which are essential to 

the proper functioning of the primary rural activities, or other uses which can be shown to 

have an overriding need for a countryside location. Such developments will be subject to 

further assessment in relation to traffic generation and access, services, pollution, and 

potential conflict with established neighbouring users. 

5.3.34 The key principles of sustainability are embraced in Policy ENV5 of the CSSP with the 

intention of achieving environmental and community benefits. The Council expect 





environmental enhancement to be part of any new development proposals with particular 

attention given to environmental features. 

5.3.35 In an attempt to assimilate, new development into the landscape Policy POL.E6 of the SCLP 

encourages developers to include proposals for significant structural planting. In the case of 

larger sites, which may be developed over a number of years, advanced planting may be 

requested all bringing about environmental enhancement in accord with the CSSP. 

5.3.36 As part of the enhancement and protection of the countryside the CSSP presumes against 

the loss of prime agricultural land unless, through the provisions of Policy ENV7. 

5.3.37 The SCLP Policy POL.E1 also provides protection for agricultural land and sets out criteria: 

a) a general presumption against development which would result in the loss of prime 

quality agricultural land; 

b) resist development proposals, which would threaten the viability of agricultural units; 

c) seek, where necessary, to negotiate environmentally satisfactory developments when 

notified of building proposals which are exempt from planning control. 

5.3.38 Recognition is given to the importance of forestry to the rural economy, landscape quality, 

recreation and biodiversity. Despite forestry being mostly outwith the control of the planning 

system the Councils aim is to provide strategic guidance in the revised Policy ENV8 

(CSSPA). This supports the development of forestry and woodland which is consistent with 

the Indicative Forestry Strategy (IFS) and guidance from Forestry Commission Scotland 

where they; 

• Are consistent with the objectives and targets specified in the LBAPs and other 

supplementary guidance; prepared by the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park 

Authority, Stirling and Clackmannanshire Councils. 

• Accord with the key strategic aims of the appropriate landscape character area as 

defined by the landscape character assessments. 

• Enhance the landscape setting of settlements, industry and transport corridors as well 

as improve the landscape, nature conservation and recreational value of degraded 

landscapes and Greenbelt. 

• Enhance native woodland, riparian woodland and sites contained in the Inventory of 

Gardens and Designed Landscapes. 

• Promote sustainable forest and woodland based recreation and public access 

including agricultural diversification. 

• Create new woodland in and around settlements. 

5.3.39 The proposed wind farm avoids the sensitive areas identified by the IFS. The Landscape and 

Visual Assessment section of the ES (Chapter 9 Landscape and Visual Assessment) 

contains detailed information regarding minimising impact on these and other countryside 

resources. 

5.3.40 Policy ENV9 of the CSSP makes reference to the commitment of the Local Authorities to 

river catchment-based planning initiatives. The precautionary principle will be adopted 

toward flooding with a presumption against development in flood risk areas unless the 

flooding can be mitigated. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are promoted to aid 





flood control. Developers are expected to adopt the SUDS principles and in doing so realise 

opportunities for ecological enhancement. Policy ENV9 also reinforces the CSSP approach 

to water resource management. 

5.3.41 The SCLPA proposes to adopt a precautionary planning policy, with site-specific guidelines 

based upon a 'risk framework' when dealing with flooding. The criteria contained in Policy 

E61 are applicable to the Carron Valley site as follows: 

• The Council will require the submission of a flood risk assessment in relation to any 

development proposal in a location where it considers (or is advised by SEPA) that any 

part of the site may be liable to flooding, or where development may lead to, or 

exacerbate, flooding elsewhere. 

• Development will not normally be permitted where a site-specific flood risk assessment 

indicates that: 

a) the location is part of a functioning river flood plain, or is otherwise at risk of 

inundation because of its relation to contours, flood defences, or tidal waters; or 

b) the nature of the proposal is such that increased surface-water run-off may cause 

or exacerbate flooding elsewhere; or 

c) the ecological value of affected wetlands and related habitats will be unacceptably 

reduced. 

• Exceptionally, where the flood risk is shown to be low, development or redevelopment 

may be permitted contrary to part 2(a) if: 

a) the proposal is sufficiently important to warrant specific flood alleviation or 

defence measures; or 

b) the proposal is of such a nature that people, and the structural integrity of 

buildings and other features, will not be at risk should flooding occur; and 

c) the developer bears all costs of providing and maintaining flood defences and 

flood warning measures. 

5.3.42 The Council requires flood risk assessments to be undertaken and they should be of a scope 

appropriate to the site and nature of development. More details of the flood risk assessment 

are contained within the Chapter 13 Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions. 

5.3.43 Policy E62 of the SCLPA states that the design of all developments, the aim normally should 

be to retain the surface water discharge from the area of the site at or below the development 

levels. SUDS will be fundamental to this approach (see PAN 61). 

Cultural Heritage 

5.3.44 The CSSP advises of the inextricable link between the natural and the built environment and 

the importance of protecting and enhancing the areas cultural heritage. This policy section 

makes reference to the now revoked NPPG 5 and NPPG 8 as the documents providing 

framework for the management of these valuable resources, including ancient monuments, 

listed buildings and conservation areas. Policy ENV6 seeks to ensure that these resources 

are protected and enhanced and that all new development respects the character and quality 

associated of the area. 

5.3.45 There are eight policies in the SCLP which are relevant to the built environment and these 

are summarised in Table 5.5. 





Table 5.5 SCLP Cultural Heritage Policies 

Policy Subject Comment 

POL.E17 

Historic Gardens & Designed 

Landscapes. 

Any development within or affecting these cultural 

resources will be required to be situated and designed 

to avoid an unacceptable impact. 

POL.E43 Preservation of Listed Buildings. Encourage the preservation of the fabric of listed 

building and their setting. 

POL.E45 

POL.E47 

POL.E48 

Development Affecting The 

Character or Setting of Listed 

Buildings. 

Scheduled Ancient Monument 

or Unscheduled Remains. 

Features of Archaeological 

Importance. 

Development affecting the character or the setting of a 

listed building will not be permitted. 

A presumption against development which would have 

an adverse impact on this type of cultural resource. 

Development affecting sites of archaeological. 

Importance must be assessed against the benefits of 

the proposed development. 

POL.E49 Archaeological Evaluation. Developer to arrange for an evaluation when the 

extent and significance of archaeological remains are 

unclear. 

POL.E50 Archaeological Investigation. If a development has commenced and archaeological 

remains become apparent opportunity must be 

afforded for an archaeological investigation. 

Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 

5.3.46 The area contains many designations with valued habitats and species. Policy ENV1 of the 

CSSP sets out criteria to protect and conserve wildlife habitats and other natural features. 

Development that has an adverse impact will not be permitted unless it can be proven that 

the designation and overall integrity of any area will not be damaged. All development 

proposals will be considered in the context of the findings of the Local Biodiversity Action 

Plans. 

5.3.47 The SCLP identifies the hierarchy of special area designations that contribute to nature 

conservation. As defined by Policy POL.E54 The Council will not normally permit or approve 

developments or land use changes which may adversely affect: 

d) the wildlife interest and conservation management of Local Nature Reserves, nonstatutory 

and community nature reserves and fully defined Wildlife Sites; or 

e) the integrity or continuity of the landscape features listed below, which are of major 

importance for wild fauna and flora. Where the reasons in favour of a development 

clearly outweigh the desirability of retaining the feature(s), mitigating measures, 

including replacement habitat creation will be sought on land within the developers’ 

control. The features included are linear tree belts, shelterbelts and hedgerows; 

plantations and policy woodlands; semi-natural and ancient woodlands; river and 

estuary corridors; lochs, reservoirs and ponds; marshland; stone dykes. 

5.3.48 Policy POL.E55 of the SCLP addresses the remainder of the hierarchy and advises that: 

f) New development will not be acceptable where it is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the integrity of a Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation, or 





Ramsar site. The few possible extenuating circumstances are described in SOEnD 

Circular 6/1995. 

g) Development will not normally be acceptable which is likely to affect an SSSI or NNR, 

unless it can be demonstrated that it will not have a significant effect on the special 

interest of the site. 

Communities 

5.3.49 The strategy of the CSSP reinforces need to care for the environment, provide appropriate 

development and improve quality of life. Conserving the features that contribute to local 

distinctiveness, including the setting of settlements needs to be addressed. Policy ENV3 

restricts development to those that need a countryside location and respect and preserve all 

features contributing to local character. The policy framework of the CSSP seeks to restrict 

rural development and protects the environment from adverse impacts with Policy ED4 

focussing development in towns and villages. With operations in the housing market 

indicating that a large proportion of people buy housing in rural areas of Stirling Policies H4, 

H5 and H6 establish criteria for controlling housing in the rural villages, the Upland Area and 

in the countryside generally. 

5.3.50 The SCLP strategy reinforces this strategic approach seeking to ensure that the needs of all 

communities are met and the quality of life of local residents is enhanced. The protection of 

landscape and landscape setting of towns and villages will be secured by ensuring that 

development does not compromise the environment. Policy POL.E7 seeks to control 

development in the countryside not associated with rural economic activities being subject to 

assessment regarding traffic impact, accessibility, pollution and potential conflict with 

neighbouring users. Policy POL.H8 sets out siting and design criteria in accordance with 

national guidance PAN 36 and PAN 44. 

Recreation and Tourism 

5.3.51 The importance of tourism to inward investment is reinforced through the provisions of Policy 

T1 of the CSSP with an emphasis placed on promoting a sustainable approach to tourism 

with Proposal TP1 recognising the need for joint working in this respect. 

5.3.52 The SCLP recognises that tourism is likely to be the mainstay of economic growth. Policies 

POL. B19 and POL.B20 support proposals for tourist and recreational facilities which are 

sensitively located and appropriately designed with the Housing Development in the 

Countryside section of the SCLP reinforcing the approach to maintaining very strict approach 

to new buildings in rural areas, including tourist facilities. 

5.3.53 Countryside is closely related to many aspects of tourism and to environmental concerns. 

The Stirling administrative area has substantial and varied resources which need to be 

managed to avoid conflicts and impacts on the environment. Policies POL.C1 and POL.C2 

seek to maintain and secure access and the importance of recreation on rivers and lochs is 

reinforced in Policy POL.C4, POL.C5 and POL.C6. 

Economic Development 

5.3.54 Policy ED3 of the CSSP provides a framework to ensure major business and industrial uses 

are appropriately located where they are outwith the strategic framework of major economic 

development sites. 





5.3.55 Recognition is given to the importance of traditional rural activities in the economy; and the 

importance of a framework to support these industries and to allow diversification, which is a 

priority in the Stirling countryside. 

5.3.56 There is an emphasis on a flexible approach to rural development, including technologybased 

employment, with support given where the proposals are of a scale and nature which 

is consistent with the natural and built environment. A more constrained approach is 

advocated to sensitive landscape areas. Policy ED4 of the CSSP provides the general 

framework for rural development which is reinforced through the SCLP. 

5.3.57 The SCLP Policies POL.B6, POL.B22 and POL.B26 are applicable. Stirling District is 

overwhelmingly rural in character dominated by traditional rural activities. To promote rural 

employment opportunities Policy B6 encourages businesses which are complementary to 

the primary rural activities. The Council also supports farm diversification proposals provided 

that the new use is ancillary to the primary function as a farm (Policies POL.B22 and 

POL.B26) provided other SCLP policies are not prejudiced. 

5.3.58 Reconciling job creation with maintaining the character, quality and distinctiveness of the 

countryside is an aim of Policy ED7 of the SCLPA (Economic Opportunities outwith the 

villages and Rural Activity Areas). This policy contains criteria applicable to the Carron Valley 

Wind Farm as follows: 

• Outwith settlements and the identified Rural Activity Areas, economic development will 

be tightly controlled and restricted to that which is of a scale and nature consistent with 

the pattern of existing development, the landscape character and the natural and 

cultural heritage of the area. 

• Exceptionally, developments which demonstrate a particular need to be located in the 

countryside and/or a demonstrable benefit to the rural economy, which would not 

otherwise be achieved within the existing settlement pattern or within the Rural Activity 

Areas, may be permitted. 

• Development should not result in noise, light or other forms of pollution which will 

detract from the rural character of the environment. 

• Development should be easily and safely accessed from the main road network (Class 

A or B, excluding those which are single track); or should have a negligible traffic 

impact. 

• Developers will be expected to meet other infrastructure and servicing requirements. 

• In assessing such applications, the Council will have particular regard to the 

cumulative impact of development and to the application of appropriate design, 

locational and environmental criteria. 

• Intensification of existing development will only be considered where it does not 

conflict with the above. 

Transport and Access 

5.3.59 The transport policies of CSSP promote a sustainable approach and seek to provide better 

links with land use planning. Policy TR1 provides for an integrated approach to land use and 

transport which will be implemented through the CSLP. The strategy is aimed at creating 

new opportunities for effective traffic management and improvements. The Policy places an 





emphasis on; reducing the need to travel; improve transport choice and accessibility; 

ensuring developers are responsible for transport assessments and mitigation of adverse 

impacts; and reducing environmental impact (noise, air and congestion). 

5.3.60 Policy TR2 promotes a wider choice of transport requiring: 

• Developers to ensure that developments integrates and where possible enhances the 

transport network; 

• Contribution to the cost of providing and operating public transport; 

• Encouraging a shift from road borne to rail freight; 

• Integration between transport modes; 

• A reduction in the use of Trunk Roads and other routes for short journeys. 

5.3.61 The development of strategic transport infrastructure including; walking and cycling routes 

with linkages to local networks; and the provision of strategic transport infrastructure (Stirling 

- Alloa – Kincardine railway and upgrading of the A907 and the Upper Forth Crossing) is 

promoted through Proposal TRP1 of CSSP. 

5.3.62 The approach is reflected in the SCLP showing how the strategic aims are to be 

implemented. This advocates that there is a redirection of investment to schemes which 

reduce dependence upon road traffic by promoting other forms of transport. The Council will 

support proposals which do not adversely affect traffic flows (POL.T1) and does not affect 

strategic opportunities (POL.T2). Policy POL.T3 supports the principle of a comprehensive 

transport system which will: 

• Assist in easing congestion and allow the fullest degree of mobility for residents; and 

• In the interests of energy conservation and improved accessibility will encourage future 

land use proposals to be located where they represent an extension to existing 

development. 

5.3.63 Long distance cycleway and footpath development is promoted and to be safeguarded from 

unacceptable forms of development as the Council apply sustainable principles to transport. 

Policies POL.T4 and POL.T5 sets out how this is to be achieved. 

5.3.64 Policies POL.T9 and POL.T10 identifies the provisions of social inclusion requiring access 

for disabled persons to be available in new and existing developments, new routes and 

amenities. The Design and Access Statement accompanying the planning application 

addresses social inclusion. 

5.4 Other Material Considerations 

National Planning Framework 2 

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 onshore wind power is 

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 farm of all scales, and should set out the 

criteria that will be considered in deciding applications for all wind farm developments. 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 weight that planning 

authorities attach to undetermined applications should reflect their position in the application 

process. 

Scottish Government On-Line Renewables Advice 

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 provides that the suggested areas of focus for planning authorities should 

include: 

• “Providing 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; 

• Detailing criteria to be applied in assessing wind turbine applications; and 

• Ensuring 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 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.” 

5.4.11 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 

5.4.12 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. 

5.4.13 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 

5.4.14 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. 

5.4.15 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.” 

Stirling Council Local Development Plan 

5.4.16 At present Stirling Council is preparing the Local Development Plan under the requirements 

of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. The Council approved the Main Issues Report (MIR) 

for consultation in April 2010. The Council has reported representations to the Draft 

Proposed Plan to Committee on the 1st March 2012. This included representations on the 

SPG on wind turbine development. The Council have asked the LDP Group to consider the 

representations and advise officers on the preparation of the proposed LDP which is to be 

considered by the Council in August 2012. 

5.4.17 The proposed plan will become a material consideration in the determination of this planning 

application. 

Scottish Natural Heritage Policy Statement: Strategic Locational Guidance for 

Onshore Wind Farms (2009) & Policy Statement 01/02 

5.4.18 This Strategic Locational Guidance, published by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), whilst 

endorsing the importance of wind farm development as a means of addressing climate 

change, recognises the importance of adopting a strategic approach to reduce the potential 

significant impact of development on natural heritage. 

5.4.19 The document makes reference to the guiding principles on wind farm location, which are 

embodied in SNH’s Policy Statement 01/02: Renewable Energy (2001). This establishes 

guiding principles on the location of renewables. 

5.4.20 The policy takes these guiding principles and applies them across Scotland. Throughout the 

country SNH have identified a range of landscape and biodiversity sensitivities which are 

judged on the basis of the importance of the interest and the susceptibility to impact from 

wind farms. These are shown in a mapping format (Maps 1 - 5). 

5.4.21 Sensitivity is categorised in three broad zones as follows: 

• Zone 1 Lowest natural heritage sensitivity, with the greatest opportunity for 

development. 

• Zone 2 Medium natural heritage sensitivity where through careful choice there is scope 

for development. 

• Zone 3 High natural heritage sensitivity. 

5.4.22 The detailed maps and tables within the policy statement provide guidance on where there is 

scope and constraint for wind farm development. 

Scottish Natural Heritage Guidance Assessing The Cumulative Impact Of 

Onshore Wind Energy Developments (2012) 

5.4.23 The guidance recognises the importance of addressing cumulative impacts and outlines the 

legislative framework within which cumulative impact requires to be addressed, including the 

EIA Regulations 2011. 





5.4.24 The guidance has due regard to the abovementioned Strategic Locational Guidance and 

Policy Statement 01/02 as they both point firmly to the need to take account of cumulative 

impact. The document gives advice on how, when and where to take account of these 

impacts and gives advice to decision takers and developers. SNH advises also that: 

“In all cases, the focus is on forward planning: setting out the vision for windfarm 

development; and determining the thresholds of acceptable change, where the most 

suitable locations for development are, and what might be an appropriate design and 

scale.” 

5.4.25 The guidance refers to the cumulative impact of windfarm development on landscape and 

visual amenity as a product of: 

• the distance between individual windfarms (or turbines), 

• the distance over which they are visible, 

• the overall character of the landscape and its sensitivity to windfarms, 

• the siting and design of the windfarms themselves, and 

• the way in which the landscape is experienced. 

5.4.26 The cumulative effects on landscape, visual amenity as well as the perceived effects are 

topics covered within the guidance, with SNH providing recommendations on how to carry out 

a Cumulative Landscape Visual Impact Assessment. 

Forestry Commission Scotland Strategy Policies and Programmes 

5.4.27 The Scottish Forestry Strategy and Implementation Plan (2011-14) focuses on key 

priorities for the next decade so as to take forestry forward through the first half of this 

century. The national forest estate recognises that there needs to be a focus on six priorities: 

• safeguarding ‘national forestry treasures; 

• delivering forestry for people and rural development; 

• managing landscape-scale areas for threatened species and habitats; 

• retaining sufficient timber production potential to help market stability and 

development; 

• using acquisition, sale or land transfer, partnerships and other arrangements to 

generate a greater scale and pace of change; and 

• sustaining sufficient regional presence to provide policy development, exemplar and 

leadership roles. 

5.4.28 To support this framework a number of policies and programmes have been developed. The 

Climate Change Action Plan (2006) recognises the important role of forestry in contributing 

to a low cost mitigation portfolio and the role of the forestry sector in helping to tackle climate 

change. 

5.4.29 Climate change is a significant driver in the Forestry Commission Scotland’s (FCS) policy 

“Control of Woodland Removal” (2009), setting an agenda to allow Scotland to play its part 

in the global debate. Woodland removal is defined as the permanent removal of woodland for 

the purposes of conversion to another type of land use. Wind farms is one of the reasons for 

tree loss. The document establishes a strategic framework for appropriate woodland removal, 

lending support to the maintenance and expansion of forest cover as a means of achieving 





the right balance between forested and non-forested areas in Scotland. Guiding principles 

establish the intent of FCS with criteria determining when woodland removal is acceptable 

and when and where it is not. 

5.4.30 Woodland removal, with compensatory planting, is most likely to be appropriate where it 

would contribute significantly to: 

• helping Scotland mitigate and adapt to climate change; 

• enhancing sustainable economic growth or rural/community development; 

• supporting Scotland as a tourist destination; 

• encouraging recreational activities and public enjoyment of the outdoor environment; 

• reducing natural threats to forests or other land; or 

• increasing the social, economic or environmental quality of Scotland’s woodland cover. 

5.4.31 Other relevant policy guidance centres on working with communities, recognising the ways to 

deliver woodland benefits, strengthen communities and encourage active citizenship. In 

“Forests for People” (2008) recreational strategy document, the national forest estate is 

identified as a place for all types of recreation. It is an environment that contributes to active 

lifestyles and the improvement of wellbeing and provides opportunities for others to develop 

businesses. The “Woods for Health” (2009 - 2011) strategy reinforces these benefits 

focussing upon the health promoting opportunities in a green environment; and the “Woods 

for Learning Strategy” (2009) aims to create greater awareness and use of the 

opportunities and benefits of learning and teaching outdoors. 

5.4.32 The FCS has published the Carron Valley Forest Visitor & Interpretation Plan in February 

2012. It is a practical guide to assist FCS deliver an improved visitor experience for all forest 

users. The vision is to make this area Central Scotland’s favourite forest destination 

indentifying an underlying need to offer a high quality experience and a management 

objective to maximise the quality of the experience and preserve the natural environment, in 

places. 

5.4.33 The Scottish Forestry Strategy encourages competitive and innovative business to deliver on 

the Governments national outcomes related to sustainable economic growth. The FCS 

promote this through the strategic framework “Supporting Business Development” (2009) 

which identifies opportunities in the forestry estate. This includes the renewables industry 

where a major opportunity exists for well-coordinated and strategically located projects 

related to wind farms and other technologies, as the task of raising profitable revenue 

remains a focus of FCS. 

5.4.34 The Framework Strategic Plan 2008 – 2013 (2008) provides more detail on some of the 

opportunities summarised above. 

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 Carron Valley 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. 


Clackmannanshire Council (2002), Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan. Available 

at http://www.clacksweb.org.uk/property/structureplan/chapter1/1 [Accessed 19 March 2012] 

DECC (2008), Climate Change Act. Available at 

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/cc_act_08/cc_act_08.aspxt [Accessed 19 

March 2012] 

CCC (2008), Committee on Climate Change. Available at http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports 


DECC (2007), UK’s Energy White Paper. Available at 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page3 

9534.html [Accessed 19 March 2012] 

DECC (2011). UK Renewable Energy Roadmap. Available at 

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/renewable-energy/2167-ukrenewable-energy-roadmap.pdf 


European Renewables Directive (2009). Available at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:en:PDF 

[Accessed 

19 March 2012] 

European Union Climate and Energy Package (2008). [online] Available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm [Accessed 19 March 2012] 

Forestry Commision Scotland (2012) .Carron Valley Forest Visitor Experince & Interpretation 

Plan Fina Draft Report. 

Forestry Commission Scotland (2006) Climate Change Action Plan 2009-2011. Available at 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/ [Accessed 5 April 2012] 

Forestry Commission Scotland (2009) Control of Woodland Removal. Available at 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf [Accessed 5 April 2012] 

Forestry Commission Scotland (2008) Forests for People Receational Strategy. Available at 


Forestry Commission Scotland (2008) Framework Strategic Plan 2008-2013. Available at 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf 

Foresety Commission Scotland Supporting Business Development Strategy (2009) [online] 

Available at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf [Accessed 5 April 2012] 

Forestry Commission Scotland (2009) Woods for Health Strategy. Available at 


Forestry Commisssion Scotland (2009) Woods for Learning Strategy. Available at 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/woodsforlearning [Accessed 5 April 2012] 

Forestry Commission Scotland (2011) Scottish Forestry and Implementation Strategy 2011- 

14. Available at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/SFSIMPLEMENTATIONPLAN [Accessed 5 

April 2012] 

Scottish Government (2009) National Planning Framework. Available at 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National-Planning-Policy 


Scottish Government (2011) On-line Renewables Advice. Available at 


Policy/themes/renewables [Accessed 19 March 2012] 





Scottish Government (2009) The Climate Change (Scotland) Act. Available at 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/climatechange/scotlandsaction/climatechangeact 


Scottish Government (2009) Climate Change Delivery Plan. Available at 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/276273/0082934.pdf [Accessed 19 March 2012] 

Scottish Government (2000) Planning Advice Note 60 Planning for Natural Heritage. 

Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2000/08/pan60-root/pan60 [Accessed 

19 March 2012] 

Scottish Government (2011) Planning Advice Note 1/2011 Planning and Noise. Available at 


Scottish Government (2009) Renewables Action Plan Scotland. Available at 


Scottish Government (2011) 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland. Available at 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/08/04110353/0 [Accessed 19 March 2012] 

Scottish Government (2010) Scottish Planning Policy. Available at 


Scottish Natural Heritage (2012) Guidance Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore 

Wind Energy Developments. Available at http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs [Accessed 5 April 

2012] 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2001) Policy Statement 01/02 Renewable Energy. Available at 

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs [Accessed on 5 April 2012] 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2009) Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms. 

Available at http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/renewable-energy/onshorewind/ 

[Accessed 5 April 2009] 

Stirling Council (1999) Local Plan. Available at http://www.stirling.gov.uk/services/planningand-the-environment/planning-and-building-standards/local-and-statutory-developmentplans/local-plan-general-information 


Stirling Council (2007) Local Plan First Alteration. Available at 

http://www.stirling.gov.uk/services/planning-and-the-environment/planning-and-building- 

standards/local-and-statutory-development-plans/local-plan-general-information/local-plan- 

1st-alteration [Accessed 19 March 2012] 

Stirling Council (2012) Local Development Plan. Available at 

http://www.stirling.gov.uk/services/business-and-trade/planning-and-building-standards/localand-statutory-development-plans/local-development-plan 


Stirling Council (2011) Supplementary Guidance Renewable Energy. Available at 







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 “pay-back” 

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 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 

in 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 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, with a particular focus on actions needed 

over the immediate 24 month period. 

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 this has the potential to avoid compared with other generation sources, with a qualitative 

assessment of the significance of this contribution towards meeting regional targets. 

6.3.2 Information on the average electricity usage of households is taken from the Average 

Scottish Domestic Electricity Sales (DECC, 2009). 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 15 turbines with a 

total installed capacity of 45 MW could generate up to 98.55 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of 

renewable electricity per year. This figure is based on a conservative capacity factor of 25 % 

(for onshore wind the five year average capacity factor 2006 – 2010 is 26.16 % (DECC, 2011, 

Table 7.4). These figures are derived as follows (using a 25 % capacity factor): 

45,000 kilowatts kW (15 × 3 MW turbine) × 8,760 hours/year × 0.25 (capacity factor) = 

98,550,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) or 98.55 GWh 

6.4.2 The Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DEC, 2011) gives 2010 domestic electricity consumption 

as 118, 681 (GWh) which when divided by the number of households in the UK (26,591,600 

households (DECC, 2010) gives an average electricity usage of 4,463 kWh per year per 

household in the UK (118,681,000,000 ÷ 26,591,600 = 4,463). 

6.4.3 Based on the 4,463 kWh household figure, and the predicted electricity generation of up to 

98.55 GWh, it is estimated that the yearly output from the wind turbines will be equivalent to 

the approximate domestic electricity needs of up to 22,081 average households in Britain 

(e.g. 98,550,000 ÷ 4463 = 22,081). 

6.4.4 In 2010, there were approximately 38,048 households in the Stirling Council area (GRO 

Scotland, 2010); therefore the proposed wind farm alone could supply approximately 58 % of 

the annual electricity demand for Stirling. 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 that are currently being 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 substantial proportion of electricity used in the local 

area. 

Reductions in Atmospheric Emissions of CO 2 

6.4.5 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. 

6.4.6 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). On this basis, and on 

the assumption that the proposed wind energy development annual output is 98.55 GWh, a 

wind energy development of this scale is expected to displace approximately 42,376 tonnes 

of CO 2 emissions per year being emitted to atmosphere. These figures are derived as 

follows: 

98,550,000 kW (output) × 430 gCO 2 /kWh ÷ 1,000,000 = 42,376 tonnes CO 2 





6.5 Carbon Payback 

6.5.1 A key environmental benefit of the proposed Carron Valley 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). 

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 6.2. 

Table 6.1 Proposed Wind Farm Carbon Balance and Payback 

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 -145 179861 179716 1.9 3.8 2.7 

Minimum 4 132607.5 132611.1 1.4 2.9 2.1 

Maximum -161 242349.2 242188.6 2.6 5.1 3.6 

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 2.7 years, 

with a minimum payback time of 2.1 years and a maximum payback time of 3.6 years. 





6.5.9 This is increased to an expected 3.8 years against the grid mix of electricity generation, which 

includes other renewable electricity sources and the payback is decreased to an expected 

1.9 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 (2010), Energy Consumption in the United Kingdom. Table 3.3. Available at: 

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/publications/ecuk/269-ecuk-domestic-2010.xls 

DEC (2011), Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2011. Available at: 

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/dukes/dukes.aspx 

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 

GRO Scotland (2010), Stirling Council Area – Demographic Factsheet, Available at: 

http://gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/council-area-data-sheets/stirling-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 

OXERA (2002), Regional Renewable Energy Assessments, 2002, OXERA Consulting Ltd 

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: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/917/0117391.pdf 

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 describes the baseline traffic conditions which currently exist within the vicinity of 

the proposed wind farm and surroundings, the assessment methodology, potential traffic 

related effects and their significance during the construction, operation and decommissioning 

phases of the project, any mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any 

significant adverse effects identified and any likely significant effects after these measures 

have been implemented. 

7.1.3 The location of the proposed wind farm and the surrounding road network is shown on Figure 

7.1. It is expected that all construction traffic associated with the proposed wind farm would 

likely travel along the strategic road network and suitable routes including the M9, the A872 

and the B818. The vast majority of all construction staff would also travel along these routes. 

7.1.4 It is expected that the wind turbine components would travel to the proposed wind farm from 

Grangemouth. If Grangemouth port is not available then an alternative port could be used at 

Rosyth. 

7.1.5 The route from Grangemouth would route onto the M9 at Junction 6 from the A904 to 

Junction 9, turning onto the A872 and then the B818 to the site. This is essentially the same 

route that the adjacent Earlsburn Wind Farm utilised and is shown on Figure 7.1. 

7.1.6 The existing access routes would be upgraded within the site and new routes to each turbine 

location created where necessary (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 B818 into the site is attached 

at Appendix 7.1, Figure TA7.1.1. 


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 

• Rule 2: Include any other specifically sensitive areas where total traffic flows have 

increased by 10% or more. 



Traffic and Transport


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. 

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, 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 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 and, 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 refers 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. 

7.2.25 Where relevant, the effects of hazardous loads are considered within this chapter. 

Dust and Dirt 

7.2.26 Certain types of development, notably quarrying and the transport of quarried materials, 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). 

7.2.27 Where relevant, the effects relating to dust and dirt are considered within this chapter. 

Assessment of Significance 

7.2.28 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 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 

significance. 





Table 7.2 Establishing the Significance of Effects 

Sensitivity/Importance of Receptor 


Magnitude of Change/Effect 

LARGE 

MEDIUM 




moderate 


moderate 

Moderate or 

slight 

Negligible 


SMALL Moderate or slight Slight 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. 






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. 

7.2.29 In accordance with the above IEMA guidance, the assessments are being based upon the 

relative change between the baseline conditions and the baseline plus development 

conditions. The effect along all road links of the adjacent road network where any 

development traffic is predicted to route along will be assessed in accordance with the above 

methodology. 

7.2.30 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. 

7.2.31 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. 

7.2.32 As set out below, it is considered that sections of the A872 through Dunipace and Denny may 

be sensitive to changes in traffic conditions, as is the B818 within the built up area to the west 

of Denny, 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. 

7.2.33 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 significance of effect, in 

conjuction with Table 7.2 and Table 7.3. 

Consultation 

7.2.34 A Scoping Report (RPS report ref: SAE2069) was sent out to all statutory consultees. The 

relevant responses from road authorities are attached at Appendix 7.2. The key transport 

related responses were: 

• Identify traffic generation during construction, operation and decommissioning; 

• Anticipated length of operations; 

• Assessment of suitable traffic routes and road network; 

• Proposed modifications; 

• Predicted effects; 

• Mitigation; 

• Development of a Traffic Management Plan; and 

• Section 96 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 to cover any extraordinary damage to the 

road network. 

7.2.35 In addition, discussions have commenced with the road authorities on the proposed access 

route for abnormal loads, and at the time of submission these discussions are ongoing. 

7.3 Baseline Information 

Sources of Data 

7.3.1 The baseline transport situation 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 These 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 below therefore sets out those relevant Development Plan documents which provide a 

context for undertaking EIA as part of this Chapter with relevant Policies following: 

• The Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan (approved 2002) (hereafter referred 

to as the CSSP); 

• The Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan Alteration (2004) (hereafter referred 

to as the CSSPA); 

• The Stirling Council Local Plan (adopted December 1999) (hereafter referred to as the 

SCLP); and 

• The Stirlingshire Council Local Plan First Alteration (2007) (hereafter referred to as the 

SCLPA). 

7.3.5 The transport policies of CSSP promotes a sustainable approach and seeks to provide better 

links with land use planning. Policy TR1 provides for an integrated approach to land use and 

transport which will be implemented through the CSLP. The strategy is aimed at creating 

new opportunities for effective traffic management and improvements. The Policy places an 

emphasis on; reducing the need to travel; improve transport choice and accessibility; 

ensuring developers are responsible for transport assessments and mitigation of adverse 

effects; and reducing environmental effect (noise, air and congestion). 

7.3.6 Policy TR2 promotes a wider choice of transport requiring: 

• Developers to ensure that developments integrates and where possible enhances the 

transport network; 

• Contribution to the cost of providing and operating public transport; 

• Encouraging a shift from road borne to rail freight; 

• Integration between transport modes; 

• A reduction in the use of Trunk Roads and other routes for short journeys. 

7.3.7 The development of strategic transport infrastructure including; walking and cycling routes 

with linkages to local networks; and the provision of strategic transport infrastructure (Stirling 

- Alloa – Kincardine railway and upgrading of the A907 and the Upper Forth Crossing) is 

promoted through Proposal TRP1 of CSSP. 

7.3.8 The approach is reflected in the SCLP showing how the strategic aims are to be 

implemented. This advocates that there is a redirection of investment to schemes which 

reduce dependence upon road traffic by promoting other forms of transport. The Council will 

support proposals which do not adversely affect traffic flows (POL.T1) and does not affect 

strategic opportunities (POL.T2). Policy POL.T3 supports the principle of a comprehensive 

transport system which will: 

• Assist in easing congestion and allow the fullest degree of mobility for residents; and 

• In the interests of energy conservation and improved accessibility will encourage future 

land use proposals to be located where they represent an extension to existing 

development. 





7.3.9 Long distance cycleway and footpath development is promoted and to be safeguarded from 

unacceptable forms of development as the Council apply sustainable principles to transport. 

Policies POL.T4 and POL.T5 sets out how this is to be achieved. 

7.3.10 Policies POL.T9 and POL.T10 identifies the provisions of social inclusion requiring access for 

disabled persons to be available in new and existing developments, new routes and 

amenities. The Design and Access Statement accompanying the planning application 

addresses social inclusion. 

Baseline Conditions 

Local Road Network 

7.3.11 The site in context to the local road network is shown on Figure 7.1. The site takes access 

from the B818 which routes west from Denny into rural areas towards Loch Lomond. The 

B818 is a single carriageway road of varying widths, geometries and speed restrictions. 

7.3.12 In the vicinity of the site access, the B818 is approximately 4.8m wide with grass verges on 

its northern and southern sides and fences set further back to delineate the road boundary. 

There is no street lighting and the B818 is derestricted, being subject to the national speed 

limit of 60mph. 

7.3.13 At its eastern end, the B818 routes through Stoneywood and the western fringes of Denny, 

has street lighting and is subject to a 30mph speed restriction. There is frontage access to a 

number of residential properties and no parking restrictions. 

7.3.14 The B818 forms the minor arm of a ghost island right turn priority junction with the A872 

Nethermains Road, which routes north to south around the western fringes of Denny. At its 

southern end, the A872 joins with the A803 which provides links to Junction 4 of the M80 in 

the west and with Bonnybridge in the east. 

7.3.15 At the northern end of Denny, the A872 Nethermains Road becomes the A883 and continues 

east out of Denny towards Falkirk. The A872 Stirling Street routes north from the A872 

Nethermains Road / A883 ghost island priority junction through Dunipace and to Junction 9 of 

the M9 and Junction 6 of the M80. 

7.3.16 The A872 Stirling Street is an urban wide single carriageway road, a 30mph speed restriction, 

frontage access to a number of properties and street lighting. North of Dunipace to the M9 

and M80 junctions, the A872 becomes rural and is subject to the national speed limit of 

60mph. 

7.3.17 From Junction 6, the M80 routes south only towards Glasgow. The M9 routes north-west to 

Dunblane and south-east to Edinburgh. 

7.3.18 As explained below in Section 7.5, it is envisaged that construction staff vehicles and 

construction HGVs would utilise the above road network 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: 

• Abnormal loads will access onto the A904 Earl’s Road; 

• Route south west onto Junction 6 of the M9; 

• Route north west along the M9; 





• Turn south onto the A872 from Junction 9 of the M9; 

• Route south along the A872 Stirling Street to Denny, turning right onto the A872 

Nethermains Road; and 

• Turn right onto the B818 and route west to the site access. 

7.3.19 The characteristics of these roads are described above and the physical geometric ability of 

the network to accommodate the loads are set out in a Swept Path Analysis which 

accompanies this application. 

Baseline Traffic Counts 

7.3.20 Traffic flow data has been obtained from Stirling Council and Falkirk Council for the A872 and 

B818. The locations of the traffic data are shown in Figure 7.2. The weekday 12 hour and 24 

hour traffic flows are set out in Table 7.4 and also summarised graphically by location on 

Figure 7.2. 

Table 7.4 Observed Weekday Traffic Flows 

Number Location Year of 

Count 

24 Hour Traffic 

Flow 


Flow 

Total HGV Total HGV 

1 A872 north of Roman Rd 2010 8810 727 6827 463 

2 A872 south of Roman Road 2010 8312 474 6650 407 

3 A872 Stirling St through Dunipace 2010 9816 530 8047 298 

4 B818 West Denny 2010 2554 66 2050 59 

5 B818 east of Tak-Ma-Doon Road, 

Carronbridge 

6 B818 west of Tak-Ma-Doon Road, 

Carronbridge 

2010 443 10 356 10 

2010 569 9 442 5 

7 B818 east of site access 2010 341 4 286 2 

8 B818 west of site access 2010 369 3 269 1 

7.3.21 The Construction of the proposed wind farm is likely to take place for 20 months with peak 

activities and traffic movements during month seven. The construction of the proposed wind 

farm is likely to commence within the coming years. For assessment purposes, it is assumed 

that peak construction month (month seven) would occur during 2015. Therefore, 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 2015. 

7.3.22 The Trip End Model Presentation Programme (TEMPRO) has been used to update observed 

traffic data obtained from 2010 to predict the likely level of traffic which will be using the road 

network in 2015. 

7.3.23 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. 

7.3.24 The 2010-2015 growth rate calculated by TEMPRO for the Falkirk and Stirling areas are 

1.0442 and 1.333 respectively. 

7.3.25 Link numbers 3, 4 and 5 are within the Falkirk area whilst link numbers 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 are 

within the Stirling area. The relevant area growth rate has been applied to the observed 

traffic flows set out in Table 7.4. The resultant 2015 baseline traffic flows are set out in Table 

7.5 and summarised graphically by location on Figure 7.3. 

Table 7.5 2015 Weekday Baseline Traffic Flows 

Number Location Future 

Year 


Flow 


Flow 

Total HGV Total HGV 

1 A872 north of Roman Rd 2013 8907 735 6902 468 

2 A872 south of Roman Road 2013 8403 479 6723 411 

3 A872 Stirling St through Dunipace 2013 9996 540 8194 303 

4 B818 West Denny 2013 2601 67 2088 60 

5 B818 east of Tak-Ma-Doon Road, 

Carronbridge 

6 B818 west of Tak-Ma-Doon Road, 

Carronbridge 

2013 451 10 363 10 

2013 575 9 447 5 

7 B818 east of site access 2013 345 4 289 2 

8 B818 west of site access 2013 373 3 272 1 

Personal Injury Accident Statistics 

7.3.26 Personal Injury Accident (PIA) statistics have been obtained from Stirling Council and Falkirk 

Council, for the surrounding road network over the latest available 36 months (3 years) 

between 1 November 2008 and 31 October 2011. These have been plotted in terms of 

location and severity on Figure 7.4. 

7.3.27 There were twenty injury accidents during this three year period, five of which resulted in 

serious injury and 15 of which resulted in only slight injury. There were no fatal injury 

accidents. None of the injury accidents involved a HGV. 

7.3.28 There were no clusters of injury accidents and no common contributory factors amongst the 

injury accidents. 

7.3.29 There were only two injury accidents on the B818 between the site access and the A872, one 

of which resulted from a car overtaking on a bend and one resulted from a cyclist failing to 

give way. 

7.3.30 It is considered that there are no existing road safety issues along the proposed access 

route. 





Information Gaps 

7.3.31 The above data covers the proposed access route and has been obtained from Falkirk 

Council and Stirling 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 in Appendix 7.1, 

Figure TA7.1.1. This design has been progressed taking due consideration of the existing 

access track, the adjacent road boundaries, the watercourse running alongside the access 

road and the existing footpath routeing along the northern side of the B818. 

7.4.2 Visibility splays from the access are 2.4m x 90m to the left and 2.4m x 110m to the right. 

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 the operational 

Earlsburn Wind Farms adjacent to the site. 

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, the A872 and the B818, as shown on Figure 7.1 and as described 

below: 

• Abnormal loads will leave Grangemouth Port onto the A904 Earl’s Road; 

• Route south west onto Junction 6 of the M9; 

• Route north west along the M9; 

• Turn south onto the A872 from Junction 9 of the M9; 

• Route south along the A872 Stirling Street to Denny, turning right onto the A872 

Nethermains Road; and 

• Turn right onto the B818 and route west to the site access. 

7.5.6 At this stage, it is proposed to erect either the Vestas V90 or the Enercon E82. The Vestas 

V90 is the largest of the two and has the greatest transportation requirements. To represent 

a worst case scenario, and for the purposes of assessment, it has been assumed that the 

V90 would be transported to the site. A Swept Path Analysis has been undertaken in this 

regard and is submitted as part of this application. The vehicles used in the Swept Path 

Analysis are set out at Appendix 7.3. 

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 B818 

from the east of the site and the A872. 

7.5.8 Given the accessible nature of the site, it has been assumed that one-quarter of all HGVs 

and construction workers would route to the site from west / south-west via the A80 / M80 

corridor, one-quarter would route from the east / south-east via the M9 corridor, one-quarter 

would route locally from the Falkirk area via the A883 and one-quarter would route from the 

north via the M9 corridor. 

7.5.9 This results in half of all vehicle movements routeing along the A872 from the M9 Junction 9 

and onto the B818, one-quarter routeing along the A883 from Falkirk, onto the A872 at Denny 

and onto the B818 and one-quarter routeing along the A803 from Junction 4 of the M80 and 

onto the A872 and B818. 

7.5.10 As set out above, a preliminary design access junction has been designed and is shown in 

Appendix 7.1, Figure TA7.1.1 which has taken due consideration of the existing access track, 

the adjacent road boundaries, the watercourse running alongside the access road, the 

existing footpath routeing along the northern side of the B818 and the swept path of the 

abnormal loads within the extent of surfaced road without any reliance upon any verge use. 

Construction Traffic Trip Generation 

7.5.11 The construction of the 15 turbines is predicted to be over a 20 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 These have been summarised in terms of total vehicles generated over the construction 

process in Table 7.6. 

Table 7.6 Construction Traffic Flows 


(area m 2 ) 

Dimensions 

(depth) 

m 3 of 

Material 

Deliveries 

Two-way 

Movements 

Access track and 

area of minor works 

(Aggregate) 

81030 0.3 &0.6 33193.5 Nil 

Nil 

Crane pad and 

kiosk (Aggregate) 

15 1125 0.6 10125 (Site won) 

Construction 

compound 

(Aggregate) 

2500 0.6 1500 

Earthworks Plant 62 124 

River Crossings 

(Culverts Pipes & 

Bedding) 

6 12 24 

Geotextile 

Membrane (rolls) 

34 5m x 50 m 

rolls 

8 16 

Turbine Bases 

(Cement & 

Additives) 

15 346 m 2 2 3738 50 100 

Turbine Bases 

(Formwork and 

Reinforcing Steel) 

15 Non uniform 

depth 

Up to 40 

tonnes 

steel per 

base 

30 60 

Sub-station, Control 

Building and 

ancillaries 

1 51 102 

Turbine 

Components 

15 - - 90 

abnormal 

loads 

90 

Large Crane 2 1 abnormal load, 5 HGV 

(Pulled off & return for 

winter closedown) 

Support crane 2 1 abnormal load, 3 HGV 

(Pulled off & return for 

winter closedown) 

- 2 

abnormal 

+ 10 HGV 

- 2 

abnormal 

+ 6 HGV 

24 

16 

Cables & electrical 270 540 






(area m 2 ) 

Dimensions 

(depth) 

m 3 of 

Material 

Deliveries 

Two-way 

Movements 

switch gear 

Material & Fuel 

Deliveries 

340 680 

Waste Material 8 16 

Staff 

25 staff on 

site per day 

- Typically 

16 per day 

– not HGV 

30 per day 

– not HGV 

Total HGV vehicles 896 1792 

7.5.14 The construction programme set out in Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development 

has then been used to estimate the likely traffic generated per month during the construction 

phase and is set out below in Table 7.7. From these monthly totals, the average number of 

daily vehicle movements can be calculated. 

Abnormal Load Trip Generation 

7.5.15 Turbine component deliveries are likely to take place between months 7 and 14 with a three 

month break during months 10 to 12. During that period up to 90 abnormal loads of wind 

turbine components would be delivered to the proposed wind farm, including blades, tower 

sections, transformers and nacelles for the 15 turbines. 

7.5.16 Based on the construction programme this equates to a maximum of 14 abnormal load 

deliveries per month. 

7.5.17 The delivery of cranes and components may or may not result in abnormal loads depending 

upon the crane provider. If it is assumed that the cranes do result in abnormal loads and that 

they are removed from site during the break period (months 10 to 12), then an additional 

eight abnormal load movements (four deliveries) would be generated. This scenario would 

increase the total number (cranes plus wind turbine components) to 98 abnormal loads. 

7.5.18 This assumption would increase the maximum number of abnormal loads to 16 per month. 

Heavy Goods Vehicle Trip Generation 

7.5.19 It is estimated that 896 Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) will access the proposed wind farm 

over the entire construction period (1,792 two-way HGV movements). The construction 

breakdown and timeline is attached at Appendix 7.4 and shows that this equates to a 

maximum of three HGV arrivals per day (six two-way HGV movements per day). It is noted 

that the abnormal loads contract to a typical HGV size when departing the site. The inclusion 

of these vehicles increases the maximum number of HGV movements to seven two-way 

movements per day (months 7, 8 and 15). 

7.5.20 It is noted that rockfill is being won on the site and there will be concrete batching on the site. 

Both of these practices result in fewer HGV deliveries being required to the site when 

compared to importing all required stone and concrete to site. 





7.5.21 Indeed, if rockfill was not won on site and concrete batching was off site, then there would be 

a requirement for an approximate additional 3,000 to 4,000 HGV deliveries over the 

construction process, equating to approximately 6,000 to 8,000 two-way HGV movements. 

Construction Worker / Vans / Light Good Vehicles Trip Generation 

7.5.22 Over the entire construction period, it is expected that the construction process will require a 

total of 4,390 construction worker / van / LGV arrivals (8,780 two way vehicle movements). 

7.5.23 It is expected that month seven will be the peak traffic generating month of the construction 

process, during which time it is expected that the construction process will require 325 

construction worker / van / LGV arrivals. Based on a five day working week this equates to 

approximately 15 arrivals per day during this period (30 two-way light vehicle movements a 

day). 

Total Construction Generated Vehicles 

7.5.24 Table 7.7 shows the estimated daily construction traffic flows generated in line with the 

construction programme and based on a 5 day working week. 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. Table 7.7 therefore sets out the 

number of vehicle movements on an average day during the busiest month of the 

construction process. 

Table 7.7 Construction Traffic Flows per Day 

Month 

Construction HGV 

(excl abnormal 

loads) * 

Abnormal loads 

Construction 

Workers / Vans / 

Light Goods 

Vehicles 

Total Vehicle Trips 

In Out Two 

Way 

In Out Two 

Way 

In Out Two 

Way 

In Out Two 

Way 

1 1 1 2 0 0 0 5 5 10 6 6 12 

2 1 1 2 0 0 0 10 10 20 11 11 22 

3 2 2 4 0 0 0 11 11 22 13 13 26 

4 3 3 6 0 0 0 13 13 26 16 16 32 

5 3 3 6 0 0 0 13 13 26 16 16 32 

6 3 3 6 0 0 0 15 15 30 18 18 36 

7 3 4 7 1 0 1 15 15 30 19 19 38 

8 3 4 7 1 0 1 14 14 28 18 18 36 

9 2 3 5 1 0 1 13 13 26 16 16 32 

10 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 4 

11 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 4 

12 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 4 





Month 

Construction HGV 

(excl abnormal 

loads) * 

Abnormal loads 

Construction 

Workers / Vans / 

Light Goods 

Vehicles 

Total Vehicle Trips 

In Out Two 

Way 

In Out Two 

Way 

In Out Two 

Way 

In Out Two 

Way 

13 1 2 3 1 0 1 5 5 10 7 7 14 

14 2 3 5 1 0 1 11 11 22 14 14 28 

15 3 4 7 1 0 1 13 13 26 17 17 34 

16 2 3 5 1 0 1 13 13 26 16 16 32 

17 2 3 5 1 0 1 14 14 28 17 17 34 

18 2 3 5 1 0 1 11 11 22 14 14 28 

19 1 2 3 1 0 1 9 9 18 11 11 22 

20 1 1 2 0 0 0 8 8 16 9 9 18 

21 1 1 2 0 0 0 5 5 10 6 6 12 

22 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 4 

* Includes departing abnormal loads as a standard HGV 

7.5.25 Over the entire construction period, it is expected that the daily HGV movements (excluding 

abnormal loads) would be between two and seven two-way movements per working day. 

The number of vehicle movements generated by construction workers and vans would be 

between two and 30 two-way light vehicle movements per working day. 

7.5.26 With consideration to all vehicles, the total number of vehicle movements would be between 

four and 38 two-way movements per working day. 

Potential Significant Effects 

7.5.27 In terms of the thresholds outlined by the IEMA Guidelines, it suggests that traffic increases, 

or the number of HGVs, of less than 30 % generally results in imperceptible changes in the 

environmental effects of traffic. The guidance document also suggests that any specifically 

sensitive areas where total traffic flows have increased by 10 % or more should be 

considered in more detail. 

7.5.28 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 7.8. 





Table 7.8 Construction Vehicle Movements per Day by Road Link 

Number Location Construction 

HGVs 

Construction 

Worker 

Vehicles 

Abnormal 

Loads 

Total Vehicles 

All 

Vehicles 

(HGVs) 

1 A872 north of Roman 

Rd 

2 A872 south of 

Roman Road 

3 A872 Stirling St 

through Dunipace 

4 15 1 20 (5) 

4 15 1 20 (5) 

4 15 1 20 (5) 

4 B818 West Denny 7 30 1 38 (8) 

5 B818 east of Tak- 

Ma-Doon Road, 

Carronbridge 

6 B818 west of Tak- 

Ma-Doon Road, 

Carronbridge 

7 B818 east of site 

access 

8 B818 west of site 

access 

7 30 1 38 (8) 

7 30 1 38 (8) 

7 30 1 38 (8) 

0 0 0 0 (0) 

7.5.29 These have been assessed against the 2015 baseline traffic flows in accordance with the 

IEMA guideline in order to determine their increase in Table 7.9. 

Table 7.9 Construction Vehicle Effect 

Number 

Location 

2015 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 A872 

north of 

Roman 

Rd 

2 A872 

south of 

Roman 

Road 

9,103 751 7,054 478 20 5 0.22 % 0.67 % 0.28 % 1.05 % 

8,589 490 6,871 421 20 5 0.23 % 1.02 % 0.29 % 1.19 % 

3 A872 

Stirling St 

through 

Dunipace 

10,25 

0 

553 8,403 311 20 5 0.20 % 0.90 % 0.24 % 1.61 % 





Number 

Location 

2015 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 

4 B818 

West 

Denny 

5 B818 

east of 

Tak-Ma- 

Doon 

Road, 

Carronbri 

dge 

6 B818 

west of 

Tak-Ma- 

Doon 

Road, 

Carronbri 

dge 

7 B818 

east of 

site 

access 

8 B818 

west of 

site 

access 

2,667 69 2,141 62 38 8 1.42 % 11.59 % 1.77 % 12.9 % 

463 10 372 10 38 8 8.21 % 80 % 10.2 % 80 % 

588 9 457 5 38 8 6.46 % 88.89 % 8.32 % 160 % 

352 4 296 2 38 8 10.80 % 200 % 12.8 % 400 % 

381 3 278 1 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 

7.5.30 Table 7.9 shows that the percentage increases as a result of the construction vehicles along 

the A872 and along the B818 in western areas of Denny are all well within the IEMA 

thresholds and the construction traffic generated by the proposals will therefore result in 

imperceptible effects. 

7.5.31 Indeed, the maximum predicted increase in total vehicles along the A872 is predicted to be to 

the south of Roman Road where an increase of 0.3 % is predicted over a 12 hour daily 

period. The corresponding increase in HGV movements at this location is only 1.19 %. 

7.5.32 The predicted 12 hour and 24 hour increases along the rural sections of the B818 to the west 

of Denny for total vehicles are all well within the IEMA thresholds which would indicate that 

the construction traffic generated by the proposals would result in imperceptible effects. 

Indeed, the maximum increase in total vehicles in these locations is predicted to the east of 

the site access where an increase of 10.8 % is predicted. 

7.5.33 However, it is noted that the HGV increases along the rural sections of the B818 exceed the 

thresholds. This is due to the very low number of HGV movements within the baseline 

scenario. 





7.5.34 For example, there are two HGV movements along the B818 to the east of the site access 

over a 12 hour period in the baseline scenario. An increase of only one HGV movement 

would therefore result in an increase of 50 %. 

7.5.35 In such instances, the percentage increases are misleading and the absolute numbers should 

be considered. 

7.5.36 The proposals are predicted to result in a maximum increase of eight two-way HGV 

movements along the B818 over the construction daytime working period, typically an eight to 

ten hour period ranging between 07:00 and 17:00. This equates to approximately one HGV 

movement per hour associated with the construction process along the rural sections of the 

B818. 

7.5.37 Such increases are low, particularly when considered against the total increase in vehicle 

movements where a maximum increase of 10.8 % is predicted over a 12 hour day. In this 

context, it is considered that the HGV movements generated during the construction phase 

would not result in any significant environmental effects. 

7.5.38 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. 

7.5.39 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. 

7.5.40 In order to ensure a robust assessment, it is therefore considered appropriate to consider the 

possible effects of the abnormal loads below. Given that the above assessments shows 

there would be no significant effects as a result of the total construction traffic, and that the 

Swept Path Analysis, 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 along the entirety of the access route. This consideration is not necessary but 

is provided for completeness. 

• 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 A872 and B818 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 90 abnormal loads over the entire turbine delivery 

period and efforts will be made to undertaken 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 be there not only to 

assist the abnormal loads but to control any oncoming vehicles or vehicles following 





the abnormal load. On this basis, driver frustration should be minimised and the risk of 

accidents reduced. It is therefore considered any magnitude of change would be 

negligible and the significance of effect of accidents and safety as a result of the 

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 90 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 

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 

7.5.41 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, eight of which 

will be HGVs. 

7.5.42 The greatest increase in total traffic is predicted to be on the B818 to the east of the site 

access where an increase of 10.8 % on the 12 hour baseline 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. 

7.5.43 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 

7.5.44 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 generated to the 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. 

7.5.45 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 

7.5.46 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 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. 

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 7.10 

summarises the effects. 





Table 7.10 Summary of Effects 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Increase in Traffic 

Volume. 

Construction Low Negligible Negligible - 

Traffic 

Management 

Plan 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 

Abnormal Loads. 

Severance, Intimidation 

and Pedestrian Delay 

from Abnormal Loads. 

Construction High Negligible Negligible - 


Traffic 

Management 

Plan and 

Police escort. 

Traffic 

Management 

Plan and 


Negligible 

Negligible 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Dust and Dirt from 



Traffic 

Management 

Plan and 


Negligible 

Temporary 

Visual Effects from 



Traffic 

Management 

Plan and 


Negligible 

Temporary 





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 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 

wind farm results in only small increases relative to the baseline traffic flows which results in 

negligible. Indeed, if the above development traffic flows were doubled, the increase would 

still not exceed the thresholds identified by the IEMA and such an increase would still result in 

negligible effects. 

7.8.2 In terms of the movement of abnormal loads, such movements from any other development 

would not occur at the exact same time and location as those for Carron Valley. Therefore, 

there would be no cumulative assessment in relation to these. 

7.8.3 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 vehicles generated will 

be far less. 

7.8.4 On this basis, there is an opportunity for other wind farm developments to proceed and 

generate traffic similar to the above and the resultant cumulative effect would be negligible. 

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. 

7.8.5 It should also be noted that the local access roads, once off the strategic road network, is 

specific to each wind farm and not every site will generate construction traffic along those 

assessed above. 


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 assess the baseline conditions currently existing 

within the study boundary and surroundings, likely construction and operational noise and 

vibration effects, any 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 employed. 

8.1.3 A glossary of noise and vibration technical terms is presented in Appendix 8.1. Background 

information on wind turbine noise is provided in Appendix 8.2. 


Construction Noise and Vibration Significance 

8.2.1 Potentially noisy activities related to wind farm site construction include ripping of borrow pits, 

formation of access tracks, crane pads, the construction compound and turbine foundations, 

erection of turbines, site cabling and installation of the substation building/transformer. 

8.2.2 Potential effects of construction noise and vibration have been considered with reference to 

the guidance set out in British Standard (BS) 5228. 

Operational Noise Significance 

8.2.3 Operational noise will affect the closest properties to the wind farm more than those further 

away. Generally speaking, operational noise is not perceptible at distances greater than 2 km 

from a wind turbine. Properties identified within 2 km of the proposed wind farm have 

therefore been considered in this assessment; however, the assessment has also given 

consideration to more distant properties where relevant. 

8.2.4 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 limits are considered not to be significant; 

• Predicted scheme or cumulative wind turbine noise levels that exceed the ETSU-R-97 

derived limits are considered to be significant. 

8.2.5 Only those likely effects considered significant are material to this assessment. 

8.2.6 Potential effects of operational vibration have been scoped out of this assessment. 



Noise


8.3 Baseline 

Consultations 

8.3.1 A scoping opinion was sought from Stirling Council and direct communication was made with 

the presiding Environmental Health Officer (EHO) to agree suitable locations for baseline 

noise monitoring (see Table 8.1). 

Policy and Guidance 

Planning Policy and Legislative Context 

8.3.2 The following policy and guidance documents have been referred to for the purposes of this 

assessment: 

• 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; 

• The Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines The Assessment & Rating of Noise 

from Wind Farms (ETSU-R-97) (1996); 

• British Standard 5228 (2009) Code of practice for noise and vibration control on 

construction and open sites Part 1: Noise and Part 2: Vibration. 

8.3.3 These documents are described in more detail below. 

Legislation 

The Control of Pollution Act 1974, Part III 

8.3.4 The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA) is specifically concerned with the control of noise 

pollution. Section 60, Part III of COPA refers to the control of noise on construction sites. It 

provides legislation by which local authorities can control noise from construction sites to 

prevent noise disturbance occurring. In addition, it recommends that guidance provided by 

BS 5228 be implemented to ensure compliance with Section 60. 

8.3.5 Section 61, Part III of the COPA refers to prior consent for work on construction sites. It 

provides a method by which a contractor can apply for consent to undertake construction 

works in advance. If consent is given, and the stated method and hours of work complied 

with, then the local authority cannot take action under Section 60. 

8.3.6 Section 72, Part III of COPA refers to best practicable means (BPM). COPA 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” includes “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”. 

Environmental Protection Act 1990 

8.3.7 The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) deals with statutory nuisance, including noise. 

Section 79, Part III of EPA places a duty on local authorities to regularly inspect their areas to 

detect whether a statutory nuisance exists. This section also considers and defines the 



Noise


concept of ‘Best Practicable Means’ which originates in Section 72, Part III of the COPA 

where practicable is defined as “reasonably practical having regard, among other things, to 

local conditions and circumstances, to the current state of technical knowledge and to the 

financial implications”. 

8.3.8 Section 80, Part III of EPA outlines the summary of proceedings for statutory nuisances. 

Under Section 79, the local authority must take such steps, as are reasonably practicable, to 

investigate any complaints of statutory nuisance within the area. Where the local authority is 

satisfied that a statutory nuisance does exist, or is likely to occur or reoccur, it must serve an 

abatement notice requiring the abatement of the nuisance or prohibiting or restricting its 

occurrence or recurrence, and/or the carrying out of such works or other action as maybe 

necessary to abate the nuisance. 

Guidance 

Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011 Planning and Noise 

8.3.9 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. 

8.3.10 With regard to wind turbines, the document states: “There are two sources of noise from wind 

turbines - the mechanical noise from the turbines and the aerodynamic noise from the blades. 

Mechanical noise is related to engineering design. Aerodynamic noise varies with rotor 

design and wind speed, and is generally greatest at low speeds. Good acoustical design and 

siting of turbines is essential to minimise the potential to generate noise. Web based 

planning advice on renewable technologies for Onshore wind turbines provides advice on 

‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97) published by the 

former Department of Trade and Industry [DTI] and the findings of the Salford University 

report into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise.” 

Scottish Government Factsheet - Onshore Wind Turbines 

8.3.11 Scottish Government information and planning advice on the technologies for renewable 

energy is available in the form of a series web-based factsheets. The document Onshore 

Wind Turbines is of relevance to this assessment. 

8.3.12 In respect of noise, the document states: “The Report, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise 

from Wind Farms’ describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise, which 

should be followed by applicants and consultees, and used by planning authorities to assess 

and rate noise from wind energy developments, until such time as an update is available. 

This gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind 

farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable burdens on wind farm developers, and 

suggests appropriate noise conditions.” 

8.3.13 Accordingly ETSU-R-97 has been used for this assessment. 

The Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines The Assessment & Rating of Noise 

from Wind Farms (ETSU-R-97) 

8.3.14 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. ETSU-R-97 is 



Noise


the assessment method stipulated in the Scottish Government planning advice and recently 

the UK government has reaffirmed that noise from wind farms should be assessed according 

to the ETSU-R-97 guidance. 

8.3.15 ETSU-R-97 provides a method for assessing wind turbine noise and, in particular, for setting 

external noise limits to protect residential amenity and prevent sleep disturbance. The limits 

are either: 5dB above the prevailing background noise L A90,10min ; or fixed, at an absolute level, 

when background noise levels are otherwise very low. The higher of the two limits applies, 

and the limits will vary with wind speed. In most cases the absolute part of the limit applies at 

low wind speeds and the relative part, prevailing background level plus 5dB, applies at higher 

wind speeds. The limits are set relative to the prevailing background noise levels determined 

during quiet daytime periods (as defined in ETSU-R-97) and night time periods, (11 pm to 7 

am). 

8.3.16 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. 

8.3.17 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. 

8.3.18 For the quiet daytime periods, the suggested external noise limits across the range of wind 

speeds are 35 - 40 dB L A90,10min or 5 dB(A) above the prevailing background, whichever is the 

greater. A degree of judgement is required to determine the lower fixed limit within the 35 - 

40 dB L A90,10min range and ETSU-R-97 suggests that this 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 

• The duration and level of exposure. 

8.3.19 For the purposes of this assessment, a quiet daytime fixed limit of 35dB L A90,10min has been 

selected. This limit, although derived only from data obtained during the quiet periods defined 

above, applies throughout the entire day: 7 am to 11 pm. 

8.3.20 For night-time periods, the lower fixed noise limit across the range of wind speeds is 43 dB 

L A90,10min or 5 dB(A) above the prevailing background level, whichever is the greater. 

8.3.21 ETSU-R-97 allows for an increased lower fixed limit where residents are financially involved 

with the wind farm development. The suggested lower fixed limit is 45 dB L A90,10min for both 

the quiet day and night-time periods and ETSU-R-97 goes on to say that consideration 

should be given to increasing the permissible margin above background.. 

8.3.22 Where audible tones are present in the wind turbine noise spectrum, ETSU-R-97 

recommends that a tonal penalty be added, based on the level of the tone above the masking 

noise. Modern wind turbines do not usually have significant tonal characteristics because 

noise control techniques have improved, particularly in reducing noise from gearboxes. 



Noise


Prediction and Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise – Agreement about Relevant 

Factors for Noise Assessment from Wind Energy Projects 

8.3.23 In the March/April 2009 issue of Acoustics Bulletin, published by the Institute of Acoustics 

(IOA), several noise consultants working on wind farm developments for 

developers/applicants, local authorities and other groups agreed various particulars to 

standardise noise assessments. The article clarified three main issues: 

• That baseline noise measurements are correlated with the derived wind speed at 10 m 

height in preference to measured 10 m values so that wind shear on the site is taken 

into account; 

• ISO 9613-2 is to be used for wind farm predictions, with certain stipulations and 

limitations; 

• Research into low frequency noise, infrasound and vibration was summarised, and it 

was concluded that none of these issues have had adverse effects on wind farm 

neighbours. 

8.3.24 The article should be regarded as a refinement of the ETSU-R-97 guidance to ensure 

consistency and this noise assessment follows the guidelines stated therein. The article is 

not official IOA guidance. For brevity, it will be referred to as the Acoustics Bulletin article in 

this assessment. 

British Standard 5228 (2009) Code of practice for noise and vibration control on 

construction and open sites Part 1: Noise and Part 2: Vibration 

8.3.25 BS 5228 Part 1: Noise and Part 2: Vibration provides guidance, information and procedures 

on the control of noise and vibration from construction sites. In its previous versions the 

Standard, in its various parts, was adopted under s71 of COPA. 

8.3.26 There are no set standards for the definition of the significance of construction noise and 

vibration effects. Whilst BS 5228 does not promote specific limits for construction noise, it 

does provide a number of example limits at Annex E of Part 1. The assessment of whether 

changes in noise levels due to construction constitute significant effects will be dependent on 

the absolute levels of ambient and construction noise, as well as the magnitude, duration, 

time of occurrence and frequency of the noise change. BS 5228 does, however, provide 

guidance on controlling, predicting and measuring noise and vibration. 

8.3.27 BS 5228 includes a comprehensive best practice guide to minimising the adverse effects of 

noise and vibration from construction sites and a database of plant and activity noise levels 

for undertaking predictive assessments. 


Description of Local Noise Environment 

8.3.28 Potential noise sensitive receptors (NSRs) within 2 km of the proposed wind farm have been 

identified, through examination of Ordnance Survey mapping and confirmed through noise 

contour modelling and site visits. Two properties beyond this distance were also initially 

identified as potential receptors but not considered to be NSRs on the basis of their distance 

from the nearest turbine (see Table 8.1 and Figure 8.1). 



Noise


Table 8.1 Identified Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSRs) 

Potential Receptor 

OS Grid Coordinate 

Easting 

Northing 

Distance 

to closest 

turbine 

(m) 

Noise 

Sensitive 

Receptor 

(NSR)? 

Representative Baseline 

Monitoring Location 

1 – Along B818 267009 685940 1526 Y 10 - Todholes Farm 

2 – Cairnoch Lodge 270312 686769 1016 Y 5 – Easter Clingate 

3 - Craigannet 271792 684148 1512 Y 3. Craigannet 

4 - Craigengelt 274443 685847 4118 N 

(distance) 

N/A 

5 – Easter Clingate 270469 686776 1158 Y 5 – Easter Clingate 

6 – Easter Cringate 

Cottage 

271727 687536 2609 N 

(distance) 

N/A 

7 - Easterton 272213 684170 1888 Y 3 - Craigannet 

8 – Gartcarron 266806 685727 1772 N (derelict) N/A 

9 – Right B818 271626 683999 1448 Y 3 - Craigannet 

10 – Todholes Farm 267296 686086 1220 Y 10. – Todholes Farm 

11 - Cringate 268454 687361 842 N (derelict) N/A 

8.3.29 Of the 11 potentially sensitive receptors initially identified, two were considered to be too 

distant from the nearest proposed turbine to be NSRs and two were subsequently found to be 

derelict. As a result, a total of seven NSRs have been taken forward and three of these were 

selected as representative locations at which to conduct baseline noise monitoring. 

8.3.30 None of the NSRs are considered to be financially involved in relation to the proposed wind 

farm development. 

Baseline Noise Monitoring 

8.3.31 Baseline noise monitoring was conducted at three locations (see Table 8.1), in accordance 

with the methodology described in ETSU-R-97 and with reference to the supplementary 

guidance in the Acoustics Bulletin article. Selection of baseline noise monitoring locations 

was informed by the production of an initial noise contour map from the SoundPLAN 

electronic noise model, site visits, professional judgement, and consultation with the presiding 

EHO prior to noise monitoring being carried out. 

8.3.32 Baseline noise surveys were carried out at: 

• NSR 3 – Craigannet (January 2012); 

• NSR 5 - Easter Clingate (January 2012 and March 2012); and 

• NSR 10 – Todholes Farm (January 2012). 

8.3.33 Further investigation into the Easter Clingate data sets revealed the potential for 

contamination from the existing operational wind farms to the northeast (Craigengelt) and 



Noise


west (Earlsburn). Filtering of the data set to isolate south-westerly wind measurements only, 

thus minimising the potential for contribution from the operational wind farms, resulted in a 

data set considered inadequate for the purposes of this assessment. 

8.3.34 As a precautionary approach, the data set gathered at Todholes Farm has been adopted as 

representative of baseline conditions at Easter Clingate and Cairnoch Lodge for the purposes 

of this assessment. Todholes Farm has been selected over Craigannet as a proxy location 

for these two NSRs as it has the lower measured baseline noise levels, resulting in a more 

stringent assessment. 

8.3.35 The noise surveys were carried out using Rion NL-31 Class 1 Sound Level Meters (SLMs) 

which were installed complete with full environmental protection kits. The calibration of each 

SLM was checked using a 01dB calibrator before and after monitoring and no significant 

deviations were found (less than 0.2dB). The Rion NL-31 sound level meters incorporate a 

large wind shield which is approximately 240 mm in diameter and is therefore ideally suited to 

wind farm noise monitoring. 

8.3.36 The following section describes each noise monitoring location. All monitoring locations were 

positioned in the property’s main amenity area as indicated by the householder, where 

possible. Appendix 8.5 presents photographs of the equipment in situ at the two monitoring 

locations which have been used for the purposes of this assessment. No further information 

is provided for the noise surveys at Easter Clingate which are not utilised further within the 

assessment (see paragraph 8.3.33 above). 

NSR 3 - Craigannet 

8.3.37 The survey was set up in the garden to the east of the residential building, at a height of 

1.5 m above local ground level and in a free-field position (at least 3.5 m away from any 

reflecting surfaces excluding the ground, consistent with the advice contained within ETSU- 

R-97). 

8.3.38 Noise monitoring equipment was located in a position representative of where the residents 

spend the majority of their time outdoors, as indicated by the resident. Sound levels were 

measured from 12 January to 25 January 2012. During the installation and removal of the 

monitoring equipment, some livestock noise, farm vehicles and general wildlife noise were 

audible. 

NSR 10 – Todholes Farm 

8.3.39 The survey was set up in the garden to the south of the residential building, at a height of 

1.5 m above local ground level and in a free-field position (at least 3.5 m away from any 

reflecting surfaces excluding the ground, consistent with the advice contained within ETSU- 

R-97). 

8.3.40 Noise monitoring equipment was located in a position representative of where the residents 

spend the majority of their time outdoors, as indicated by the resident. Sound levels were 

measured from 12 January to 25 January 2012. During the installation and removal of the 

monitoring equipment, distant road traffic movements from the B818, occasional farm vehicle 

noise and general wildlife noise were audible. 



Noise


Meteorological Data 

8.3.41 ETSU-R-97 requires correlation of the individual L A90,10min measurements with the concurrent 

standardised average 10 minute wind speed at a height of 10 m to determine prevailing 

background noise levels. 

8.3.42 A 70 m high anemometry mast was erected in the vicinity of the proposed wind turbines to 

monitor wind speed and direction. 

8.3.43 A wind shear analysis has been undertaken by RPS to derive standardised 10 m high 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 Acoustics Bulletin 

article. The 10 minute average wind speed at proposed turbine maximum hub height (85 m) 

was 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 

was subsequently undertaken using a standard roughness length of 0.05 m. 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 Acoustics Bulletin article, 

which requires one anemometer to be at 40-50 % of hub height and a second at greater than 

60 % hub height. It is considered however that the calculation undertaken provides adequate 

assessment of any local wind shear effects, given the information available. The full 

procedure for wind shear analysis is included within Standard IEC-61400-11 Wind turbine 

generator systems – Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques. 

Baseline Noise Levels 

8.3.44 Table 8.2 summarises the results of the baseline noise monitoring undertaken at Craigannet 

and Todholes Farm. The data summarises the range of wind speeds and background noise 

data measured. 

8.3.45 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. 

8.3.46 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. 

8.3.47 Obvious outliers have been removed from the data sets gathered at the two remaining 

monitoring locations, although it should be noted that occasional data points outwith the main 

body of data but nonetheless included in the assessment will not typically influence the 

outcome of the statistical assessment. Examination of the available meteorological data 

suggests that there were no periods of significant rainfall during the survey period. 



Noise


Table 8.2 Baseline Noise Survey Summary 

Location 

Period 

Wind Speed Range 

(ms-1 @ 10m) 

Background Noise 

Level Range (dB, 

L A90,10mins ) 

Number 

of Data 

Samples 

Min Max Min Max 

3 - Craigannet 

Quiet Daytime 1.3 16.3 36.1 57.6 582 

Night-time 0.9 16.5 35.2 56.7 624 

10 – Todholes Farm 

Quiet Daytime 1.3 16.3 26.1 61.5 582 

Night-time 0.9 16.5 26.3 55.6 624 

8.3.48 The measured background noise levels have been plotted against the corresponding 

standardised 10 m height wind speed for quiet daytime and night-time periods (see Charts 

8.1 to 8.4). A line of best fit has been applied to each dataset (representative of the derived 

background noise levels across the range of wind speeds) in relation to which operational 

noise limits have been established, as described in ETSU-R-97. 

8.3.49 The baseline noise measurement locations used by proxy as representative of other 

identified NSRs are detailed in Table 8.1 above. 


8.4.1 As described in Chapter 3: Design Evolution, in designing the wind farm layout 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. 

8.4.2 An initial scheme noise emission contour of 35dB L A90,10min was electronically modelled to 

provide an indication of the likely noise immission levels that would be received at each 

identified NSR (see Table 8.1 and Figure 8.1). This model uses the proprietary noise 

modelling software SoundPLAN 7.1, and the calculation methodology used by the software is 

compliant with ISO9613-2 as recommended in the Acoustics Bulletin article. The noise 

immission modelling for the Carron Valley Wind Farm has used a candidate wind turbine, 

which is the Vestas V-90 of hub height 85 m. It is common practice to adopt this approach to 

establish the likely noise effects associated with wind farm proposals and this is discussed in 

further detail later in the Chapter. 

8.4.3 Cumulative electronic modelling was also undertaken to predict the total noise immission 

levels at identified NSRs from the operational Muirpark, Craigengelt, Earlsburn and Earlsburn 

North wind farms as well as contributions from the Carron Valley proposals. These 

calculations have been based upon the candidate turbine models and methodology adopted 

for each of the foregoing ES chapters. 


8.5.1 The proposed development comprises 15 wind turbines with a maximum height to hub of 85 

m, a control building and substation, an anemometry mast, a temporary construction 



Noise


compound and amended vehicular access on to site. A description of the proposed 

development is presented in Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development. 

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 90 abnormal loads 

transporting turbine components to the proposed wind farm over the entire turbine delivery 

program. Although it is inevitable that these 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. 

Construction on Site 

8.5.5 The construction works will follow a 20 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 Due to the attenuation that will be achieved from the propagation of sound over the large 

distances between source and receptor it is considered unlikely that construction activities 

will give rise to any significant adverse noise effects and no further assessment of noise from 

these sources has been undertaken. 

8.5.8 It is recognised that noise from construction may occasionally be audible at the closest noise 

sensitive receptors, however due to the distance between source and receptor and the lack 

of piling or blasting carried out on site, it is therefore considered that noise from construction 

activities will be slight at most. 

8.5.9 It is likely that the determining authority will stipulate core hours for construction outside of 

which noisy works must not occur. This will serve to minimise any residual noise break-out 

from construction activities. 

8.5.10 A strategy for minimising noise effects in so far as is reasonably practicable is discussed later 

in this Chapter. 

Vibration Effects During Construction 

8.5.11 Construction activities will not involve piling or blasting and, as a result, it is considered highly 

unlikely that construction activities will give rise to any significant adverse vibration effects; no 

further assessment of vibration effects has been undertaken. 



Noise


Operational Effects 

8.5.12 Noise associated with operation of the substation and routine maintenance visits will be 

minimal, therefore no further assessment of these aspects is considered necessary. Noise 

associated with the operation of the proposed wind turbines is therefore the sole focus for this 

section of the Chapter. 

8.5.13 It is common practice to use candidate turbines when assessing the noise effects of a wind 

farm because the final turbine choice is often only made when the developer enters into 

commercial contract negotiations with a range of turbine manufacturers. The final turbine 

choice would have similar noise emissions not exceeding those of the candidate turbine. 

Noise immissions from the operational scheme should be controlled by a suitably worded 

planning condition, rather than by specifying a single turbine type. 

8.5.14 For the purposes of this assessment, a candidate wind turbine, the Vestas V90 3MW has 

been used to determine the likely operational noise effects of the proposals. 

8.5.15 Manufacturer’s measured noise emission data (A – weighted sound power levels) have been 

used in the prediction process, and are summarised in Table 8.3. 

Table 8.3 Vestas V90 3MW – Manufacturer’s Measured Sound Power Level Data 

Windspeed/ms -1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

LWA/dB (re IEC 

61400-11) 

97.9 100.9 104.2 106.1 107.0 106.9 105.6 105.2 105.3 

8.5.16 A SoundPLAN 7.1 proprietary environmental noise modelling software was used to predict 

noise levels resulting from the operation of the proposed wind farm, referencing ISO 9613-2 

(see Appendix 8.3). The use of this technique is considered most appropriate for predicting 

the noise from the proposed wind turbines and is recommended in the Acoustics Bulletin 

supplementary guidance. Full details of the modelling procedure are given in Appendix 8.3. 

8.5.17 Conservative assumptions have been made in the modelling process and, as such, it is more 

likely that the model will over-predict than under-predict noise levels. 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 occur in the evening or at night). Upwind conditions may reduce the predicted turbine 

noise levels by up to 10 dB. No correction for prevailing wind conditions has been applied 

throughout the operational noise predictions, including the cumulative assessment presented 

in Section 8.8 below. 

8.5.18 As the Vestas data are based upon manufacturer-commissioned measurements conducted in 

accordance with IEC 61400-11 and as such are not warranted or guaranteed, a ground 

absorption factor of G=0 (i.e. hard ground) has been adopted for the purpose of the modelling 

calculations. Assuming hard ground cover intervening between source and receiver gives rise 

to sound immission levels approximately 2 dB higher than if the turbine emission data were to 

be warranted or guaranteed, in which case a ground absorption factor of G=0.5 (semi-porous 

ground) would have been appropriate. This strategy has been adopted in accordance with 

the guidance set out in the Acoustics Bulletin article. 



Noise


8.5.19 Wind turbine noise levels for the proposed Carron Valley scheme have been calculated for 

the identified NSRs over the range of wind speeds 4 – 12 m/s. The results are of these 

predictions shown in Table 8.4 below. 

Table 8.4 Carron Valley Wind Farm - Predicted Wind Turbine Noise Levels (Vestas V90 

3MW candidate turbine) 

NSR 

Predicted Carron Valley Wind Farm Operational Noise Levels (L A90,10min ) (dB) 

Standardised Wind Speed @10 m height / ms -1 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

1 – Along B818 26 29 32 34 35 35 34 33 33 

2 – Cairnoch 

Lodge 

30 33 36 38 39 39 37 37 37 

3 - Craigannet 21 24 28 30 31 30 29 29 29 

5 – Easter Clingate 28 31 35 36 37 37 36 36 36 

7 – Easterton 20 23 26 28 29 29 27 27 27 

9 – Right B818 22 25 28 30 34 31 30 29 29 

10 - Todholes 28 31 34 36 31 37 36 35 35 

8.5.20 An indicative noise contour plot has been created (see Figure 8.1) at a wind speed of 8 ms -1 

which is the wind speed at which the Vestas V90 has the highest measured sound power 

level (see Table 8.3 above). 

8.5.21 Table 8.5 details the derived ETSU-R-97 noise limits for quiet day and night time at each of 

the NSRs together with the predicted turbine noise levels presented in Table 8.4 above. It 

can clearly be seen that the predicted levels of operational turbine noise from the Carron 

Valley Wind Farm comply with the ETSU-R-97 derived operational noise criteria for each 

NSR during both daytime and night-time periods and across all wind speeds. 

8.5.22 Operational noise from Carron Valley Wind Farm is therefore considered not to be significant 

in the context of the ES (see paragraph 8.2.4 above). 



Noise


Table 8.5 Predicted Operational Noise Levels and Noise Limits 

Receptor 

Noise Level L A90,10min/dB 

Standardised Wind speed @10 m height /ms -1 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

1 – Along 

B818 

Quiet Daytime Limit 37 38 39 41 43 44 47 49 52 

Night-time Limit 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 46 49 

Predicted Turbine Noise 

Level 

26 29 32 34 35 35 34 33 33 

2 – Cairnoch 

Lodge 




Level 

30 33 36 38 39 39 37 37 37 

3 - 

Craigannet 




Level 

21 24 28 30 31 30 29 29 29 

5 - Easter 

Clingate 




Level 

28 31 35 36 37 37 36 36 36 

7 – Easterton 




Level 

20 23 26 28 29 29 27 27 27 

9 – Right 

B818 




Level 

22 25 28 30 34 31 30 29 29 

10 - 

Todholes 




Level 

28 31 34 36 31 37 36 35 35 



Noise


8.5.23 For each of the two representative baseline monitoring locations (Craigannet and Todholes), 

scatter charts of measured L A90,10min against concurrent wind speed (standardised to 10 m as 

previously described) are presented below for quiet day and night time periods. Prevailing 

background noise levels across the range of windspeeds are presented in black as a best-fit 

curve through each data set. The noise limits varying with windspeed which have been 

derived specific to each location and time period in accordance with ETSU-R-97 are 

presented in red. The predicted operational noise levels across the range of wind speeds 4 – 

12m/s from the Carron Valley Wind Farm at each location is presented in blue.. 

8.5.24 These scatter charts (8.1 to 8.4) present a graphical representation of the information 

contained within Table 8.5 above for Craigannet and Todholes but clearly show the 

relationship between the baseline noise monitoring and the prevailing background levels 

derived from the surveys and the ETSU-R-97 derived limits. 

Model Uncertainty and Validation 

8.5.25 The operational noise predictions cannot be validated until the development is constructed 

and operating. The modelling is however sufficiently conservative in its assumptions such 

that a realistic worst case has been assessed. The model predictions are based on a widely 

validated prediction algorithm, manufacturer’s published data and the proposed wind farm 

layout. 

8.5.26 The range of measured wind speeds is between 0 - 17 ms-1. Therefore it is considered that 

datasets of sufficient quality and extent have been recorded to enable a reliable ETSU-R-97 

assessment to be undertaken. 

Low Frequency Noise, Infrasound and Amplitude (Aerodynamic) Modulation 

8.5.27 Low frequency noise, infrasound and amplitude modulation are sometimes cited as adverse 

effects of operational wind farms. Appendix 8.2 explains the potential sources of these 

effects and considers their significance. In summary, under normal circumstances, the levels 

of low frequency noise and vibration generated by modern wind turbines are generally 

considered to be well below both the limits of perception, and recommended exposure limits 

at the nearest properties. 

Decommissioning Effects 

8.5.28 In the same way as for the construction period, it is anticipated that the activities associated 

with the future decommissioning of the wind farm would be confined to days of the week and 

hours of working agreed with Stirling Council through the use of planning conditions. It is 

unlikely that this activity would lead to any greater disruption, since it is expected that 

decommissioning of the wind farm will be generally similar to, or quieter than, the 

construction phase. This is because the activities involved would be broadly similar and the 

plant used would either be similar or quieter. 

8.5.29 Decommissioning noise levels are therefore considered to be at the most of slight 

significance. 



Noise


Chart 8.1 Todholes 

Quiet Daytime Predicted Noise Levels and Noise Limit 

70 

60 

Background Noise Level: LA90,10min (dB) 

50 

40 

30 

y = 0.0974x 2 + 0.3093x + 28.805 

R 2 = 0.7955 

20 

Measured Background Noise Level 

Daytime Noise Limit 

Predicted Turbine Noise Level V90 

Derived Background Noise Level 

10 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 

Wind Speed at 10m Height: (m/s) 

Chart 8.2 Todholes 

Night-time Predicted Noise Levels and Noise Limit 

70 

60 


50 

40 

30 

20 

y = 0.1078x 2 - 0.0966x + 29.43 

R 2 = 0.8107 


Night-time Noise Limit 



10 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 




Noise


Chart 8.3 Craigannet 

Quiet Daytime Predicted Noise Levels and Noise Limit 

70 

60 


50 

40 

30 

y = 0.067x 2 + 0.0752x + 38.27 

20 


Quiet Daytime Noise Limit 



10 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 


Chart 8.4 Craigannet 

Night-time Predicted Noise Levels and Noise Limit 

70 

60 


50 

40 

30 

. 

y = 0.0704x 2 + 0.0959x + 37.646 

20 


Night-time Noise Limit 



10 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 




Noise



Construction Phase 

8.6.1 A Noise and Vibration Management Plan will be incorporated into the HSEMS (see Appendix 

4.4) that will identify Best Practicable Means (as defined in the Control of Pollution Act 

(CoPA) (1974)), in the form of construction best practice measures, to appropriately and 

effectively manage noise and vibration from construction activities. Typical mitigation 

measures may include: 

• Agreed core hours of noisy working; 

• Commitments to using well maintained, low noise emission plant; 

• Switching off plant when not in use; 

• Considerate management and working to minimise noise effects, e.g. low haul road 

speed; and 

• Contact details for site personnel in case of noise issues. 

Operational Phase 

8.6.2 No mitigation measures are required. 

Decommissioning Phase 

8.6.3 A noise assessment would be required 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 and vibration 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 to be 

at worst of slight significance. 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 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. 



Noise



Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Residential Noise 

Sensitive Receptors 

Temporary Construction High N/A Slight 

Adopting Best 

Practicable 

Means 

N/A Negligible Temporary 

Permanent Operation High N/A Negligible N/A N/A Negligible Permanent 

Temporary Decommissioning High N/A Slight 

Adopting Best 

Practicable 

Means 




Noise



8.8.1 There are 5 relevant wind farm developments in the vicinity of the proposed Carron Valley 

Wind Farm at varying stages within the planning process. These are described in Table 8.7 

below. It is considered that any wind turbines at a greater separation distances from the site 

would not contribute significantly to the cumulative assessment and have therefore not been 

included. The information relevant to each wind farm has been extracted from the relevant 

ES Chapters. 

Table 8.7 Cumulative Effect – Wind Farms Assessed 

Wind Farm Status Approx 

Distance to 

Carron Valley 

(km) 

No. 

Turbines 

Turbine Type 

Used in 

Assessment 

Hub 

Height 

(m) 

Ground 

Type 

Craigannet Application 1.9 6 Nordex N90 80 G=0 

Earlsburn Operational 2.7 15 Nordex N80 70 G=0 

Craigengelt Operational 2.8 8 Nordex N90 80 G=0 

Earlsburn North Approved 4.3 9 Nordex N90 70 G=0 

Muirpark Application 4.6 11 Siemens 2.3-93 80 G=0.5 

8.8.2 The following Table 8.8 provides the manufacturer’s sound power levels for each of the 

candidate turbines used in the cumulative predictions. 

Table 8.8 Cumulative Effect – Technical Information for Noise Model 

Wind 

Turbine 

Model 

Manufacturer’s 

Data 

Status 

LWA (dB) at Standardised 10m Height / Wind Speed (m/s) 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Vestas 

V90 3MW 

Nordex 

N80 

Nordex 

N90 HS 

2MW 

Siemens 

2.3-93 

Test 97.9 100.9 104.2 106.1 107 106.9 105.6 105.2 105.3 

Test 96.5 99 101 101.7 102.2 102.7 103 103 103 

Test 97.5 101 104 105 105.5 105.5 105.5 105.5 105.5 

Warranted 101 103 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 

8.8.3 The cumulative assessment does not make any correction for prevailing wind direction, 

assuming that all NSRs are downwind of the turbines. In reality, this situation will never exist 

due to the directional distribution around the proposed Carron Valley Wind Farm site, 

ensuring an absolute worst case assessment. The following Table 8.9 presents the results of 

the cumulative operational wind turbine noise assessment for all relevant schemes. 



Noise


Table 8.9 Cumulative Effect – Predicted Cumulative Operational Noise Levels at NSRs 

NSR 

L A90,10min (dB) at NSRs / Wind speed (m/s) 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Along B818 28 31 34 35 36 36 35 35 35 

Cairnoch Lodge 33 36 39 41 41 41 41 41 41 

Craigannet 29 32 35 37 37 37 37 37 37 

Easter Clingate 33 37 39 41 41 41 41 41 41 

Easterton 29 32 35 36 37 37 37 37 37 

Right B818 28 32 35 36 37 37 36 36 36 

Todholes Farm 30 33 35 37 38 38 37 37 37 

8.8.4 Tables 8.10 and 8.11 present the results of comparisons of the predicted cumulative noise 

levels presented in Table 8.8 above with the quiet daytime and night time derived ETSU-R-97 

limits for the NSRs presented in Table 8.5 previously. 

Table 8.10 Comparison of Predicted Cumulative Operational Noise Levels with ETSU-R- 

97 Derived Quiet Daytime Limits 

NSR 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Levels Relative to Quiet Daytime Limits (dB(A)) / 

Wind Speed (m/s) 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Along B818 -9 -7 -5 -6 -7 -8 -12 -14 -17 

Cairnoch Lodge -4 -2 0 0 -2 -3 -6 -8 -11 

Craigannet -16 -13 -11 -10 -11 -12 -14 -15 -17 

Easter Clingate -4 -1 0 0 -2 -3 -6 -8 -11 

Easterton -16 -13 -11 -11 -11 -12 -14 -15 -17 

Right B818 -17 -13 -11 -11 -11 -12 -15 -16 -18 

Todholes Farm -7 -5 -4 -4 -5 -6 -10 -12 -15 



Noise


Table 8.11 Comparison of Predicted Cumulative Operational Noise Levels with ETSU-R- 

97 Derived Night Time Limits 

NSR 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Levels Relative to Night Time Limits (dB(A)) / 

Wind Speed (m/s) 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Along B818 -15 -12 -9 -8 -7 -7 -9 -11 -14 

Cairnoch Lodge -10 -7 -4 -2 -2 -2 -3 -5 -8 

Craigannet -15 -13 -11 -10 -11 -12 -14 -15 -17 

Easter Clingate -10 -6 -4 -2 -2 -2 -3 -5 -8 

Easterton -15 -13 -11 -11 -11 -12 -14 -15 -17 

Right B818 -16 -13 -11 -11 -11 -12 -15 -16 -18 

Todholes Farm -13 -10 -8 -6 -5 -5 -7 -9 -12 

8.8.5 Results of the cumulative assessment show that although operational noise levels are 

predicted generally to be higher at all NSRs than the Carron Valley scheme levels alone, 

predicted cumulative levels remain within the daytime and night-time ETSU-R-97 noise limits 

for all receptors at all windspeeds. 

8.8.6 It is noted that quiet daytime levels at Cairnoch Lodge and Easter Clingate are predicted to 

be on the derived limit at wind speeds of 6 and 7 m/s however it should be remembered that 

calculations are representative of NSRs being downwind of all wind turbine sources 

simultaneously, which results in an overestimate of received operational noise. 

8.8.7 Cumulative noise levels at all NSRs at all wind speeds are therefore considered not to be 

significant under the terms of the EIA regulations. No consideration of mitigation is required. 


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 



Noise


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


10 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 


10.1.1 This chapter considers the direct and indirect effect of the proposed Carron Valley 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 development are likely to affect the historic 

environment: 

• Construction - this will be the phase where direct physical effects to any buried 

archaeology are most likely to occur; 

• Operation - this is the phase during which visual effects on the settings of surrounding 

historic assets will occur; 

• Decommissioning - this is the phase during which the components of the wind farm will 

be removed. 

10.1.3 The construction of the tracks, turbine foundations, crane pads, control building, construction 

compounds, borrow pits and cabling - as they will all involve significant groundworks - have 

the potential to disturb buried archaeological remains. 

10.1.4 A thorough desk-based assessment (see Appendix 10.1) of the area of the proposed wind 

farm (see Figure 10.1), followed by a site walkover on 11 November 2011, 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 development comprises 15 wind turbines with a maximum hub height of 85 m 

and maximum heights to blade tip of 126 m, which will be seen for a considerable distance in 

the surrounding landscape and therefore have the potential to affect the settings of a number 

of historic assets. 

10.1.6 The assessment of visual effects on setting is addressed using the computer-generated Zone 

of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to establish which sites are likely to have views of the turbines 

or where the turbines may affect appreciation of important views from or towards historic 

assets. Those historic assets that will be affected are then considered in two groups: those 

within 3.5 km of the nearest turbine, where effects are likely to be greatest, and between 

3.5 km and 10 km away. Beyond 10 km it is considered that any effects will be minimal, 

particularly within Carron Valley where the containing effect of the surrounding landscape 

means that there will be no notable views of the proposed wind farm beyond approximately 

8 km, except in a narrow corridor to the west. 

10.1.7 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 



Cultural Heritage and Archaeology


assessment of the location of historic assets within the land holding it has been possible to 

avoid direct physical effects on known archaeological sites. 

10.1.8 The chapter is structured as follows: 

• Methodology; 

• Baseline Information; 

• Topic Specific Design Evolution; 

• Potential Significant Effects of the Scheme Prior to Mitigation; 

• 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 assessments, walk-over); 

• Assessment methodology (criteria used to assess levels of direct and indirect, visual 

effects). 

Consultation 

10.2.2 Through the formal Scoping Opinion, initial responses were obtained from Historic Scotland 

and Stirling Council. A meeting with the Stirling Council Archaeology officer was held on 31 

January 2012, at which time potential direct and indirect effects on the historic environment 

and appropriate mitigation strategies were discussed. 

10.2.3 Consultation concerning appropriate methodology for assessing ‘indirect’ visual effects has 

taken the form of an initial meeting with representatives of Historic Scotland (HS) on 15 

November 2011 followed by submission of a number of requested visualisations. Historic 

Scotland responded to this in a letter dated 7 February 2012 (see Appendix 10.5) setting out 

a number of concerns about the proximity of turbines to Sir John de Graham’s Castle 

Schedule Monument. As a result of these concerns, the proposed wind farm in the vicinity of 

the Castle was redesigned and the number of turbines ultimately reduced from 16 to 15 (see 

Section 10.4: Topic Specific Design Evolution and Chapter 3: Design Evolution). 

Baseline Survey Methodology 

Desk-Based Assessment 

10.2.4 The first stage in the baseline assessment of the proposals site involved the preparation of a 

desk-based assessment (DBA) in accordance with IFA guidelines. The direct effects and 

proposed mitigation measures outlined in the DBA document have been included in this 

chapter, as has the gazetteer of historic assets within and close to the proposed site (see 

Figure 10.2 and Appendix 10.4). 





Walkover Survey 

10.2.5 A walkover survey of the proposed site was carried out on 11 November 2011. All features 

and sites of possible archaeological significance identified on aerial photographs as well as 

scheduled sites and those listed in the SMR were checked on the ground. Each site of 

archaeological significance was located using a hand-held GPS, photographed, described 

and, if appropriate, sketched. 

Assessment Methodology 

10.2.6 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. 

Historic Asset Importance 

10.2.7 In order to reach an understanding of the significance of any effect that a proposed 

development may have on a historic asset, it is necessary to understand the importance of 

that asset, for example its importance at a national level, regional or local level. 

10.2.8 This chapter provides assessments of significance both of cultural heritage resources (in this 

case mostly archaeological sites), and of the effects that the proposed development is likely 

to have on them. Professional judgement and a degree of flexibility are relevant to the 

assessment process. There are occasions when limited information about buried 

archaeological resources requires an assessment of risk to be extrapolated from broader 

knowledge of the region and periods involved. 

10.2.9 A detailed assessment of hierarchies of importance of buried archaeological remains, historic 

buildings and historic landscapes can be found in Appendix 10.2, which forms the basis for 

the following summary of levels of historic asset importance: 

• High - National: the highest status of site e.g. Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings 

Category A and B; registered Historic Battlefields; registered Historic Parks and 

Gardens; 

• Medium - Regional: the bulk of sites with reasonable evidence of occupation, ritual, 

industry etc., Category C Listed Buildings, well preserved historic landscapes; 

• Low - Local: sites with some evidence of human activity, but in a fragmentary or poor 

state, buildings of local importance, dispersed elements of historic landscapes; and 

• Negligible - Unimportant: destroyed, non-antiquities, random stray finds, buildings of 

no architectural merit. 

Magnitude of Change 

10.2.10 The magnitude of effect is assessed without regard to the importance of the historic asset. In 

terms of the judgement of the magnitude of effect, this is based on the well-established 

principle that preservation of the asset is preferred, and that total physical loss of the asset is 

the least preferred. 

10.2.11 The following summary scale of magnitude of effect is based on a more detailed set of criteria 

for buried archaeological remains, historic buildings and historic landscapes set out in 

Appendix 10.3: 





• Large: Changes to most or all key archaeological elements, such that the asset is 

totally altered and much of its significance is lost. Substantial change within the setting 

leading to considerable loss of significance of the asset. 

• Medium: Changes to many key archaeological elements, such that the asset is clearly 

modified and there is some loss of significance. Change within the setting leading to 

some loss of significance of the asset. 

• Small: Changes to key archaeological elements, such that the asset is slightly altered 

and there is a slight loss of significance. Slight change within the setting leading to a 

slight loss of significance of the asset. 

• Negligible: Very minor changes to key archaeological elements or within the setting 

that hardly affect the significance of the asset. 

• None: No substantive change to key archaeological elements or within the setting. 

10.2.12 For the purposes of this assessment, effects of medium adverse or greater are considered to 

be significant in line with the EIA Regulations. 

10.2.13 Additional methodology regarding the assessment of effects on settings is provided below 

under the heading 'Settings'. 

Significance of Effects 

10.2.14 The significance of effects is a combination of the importance of the historic asset and the 

magnitude of effect on that asset. Effects can be adverse or beneficial. Beneficial effects are 

those that mitigate existing effects and help to restore or enhance the significance of historic 

assets, therefore allowing for greater understanding and appreciation. In line with DMRB 

Guidance Note 208/07 the matrix in Table 10.1 has been applied to effects on buried 

archaeological remains, historic buildings and historic landscapes. 

Table 10.1 Cultural Heritage: Significance of Effects Matrix 

Importance or Sensitivity of Receptor 

Magnitude/Degree of Change 

LARGE 

MEDIUM 

SMALL 





moderate 

Moderate or 

slight 


moderate 

Moderate or 

slight 

Negligible 


Slight 

Slight or 

negligible 

Negligible 


NONE None None None None 

10.2.15 Where the matrix provides a split in the level of significance, e.g. moderate or slight, the 

assessor has exercised professional judgement in determining which of the levels is more 

appropriate. 





Settings 

10.2.16 The methodology for assessing effects on settings provided here is based on the latest policy 

and guidance including Historic Scotland guidance Managing Change in the Historic 

Environment: Setting (Historic Scotland, 2010) which states 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.” (paragraph 2.1) 

10.2.17 The paper goes on to point out in this context that monuments, buildings and gardens were 

constructed with reference to their surroundings, relationships that need not be limited to the 

immediate property boundary. 

10.2.18 The Historic Scotland guidance provides a template for assessing the effects of development 

on the settings of historic assets comprising three stages: 

• Stage 1: identify historic assets; 

• Stage 2: define and analyse setting; and 

• Stage 3: assess the effect of new development. 

10.2.19 In light of this, the methodology for the assessment of settings used here has been 

developed by RPS to make the process of assessing effects on settings as consistent, 

transparent and comprehensible as possible. 

Identifying Historic Assets 

10.2.20 Up to date information on designated assets in the area of the wind farm was acquired from 

Historic Scotland, while information on non-designated assets has been acquired from 

Stirling Council’s Historic Environment Record, through a site walkover and from a variety of 

published sources including historic maps. 

10.2.21 Experience demonstrates that significant visual effects on historic assets rarely occur beyond 

a distance of around 10 km. For this reason the assessments contained within this chapter 

are limited to this distance, although there has been consideration of nationally important 

receptors beyond this on a case-by-case basis where considered appropriate. Furthermore, it 

is generally the case that the highest level of visual effects on historic assets tend to occur 

within 3.5 km. For this reason the assessments below are divided into historic assets up to 

3.5 km from the nearest of the proposed turbines and those between 3.5 km and 10 km from 

the nearest turbine. 

10.2.22 A key tool in undertaking this type of assessment is the ZTV, which models those areas in the 

surrounding landscape from where there will be direct lines of sight, however slight, of the 

proposed development (see Figure 10.2). It is important to recognise that the ZTV represents 

a worst-case scenario as it does not take account of vegetation, forestry or built form and is 

‘triggered’ by visibility of a single blade tip. 

10.2.23 The sites most likely to be significantly affected by the proposed wind farm are therefore 

designated sites of national importance that lie within 3.5 km of the nearest turbine. 

Nevertheless, significant effects are possible at greater distances and, in some exceptional 

cases (for example with iconic landscape monuments such as Stirling Castle which falls 

outside the ZTV for this site), beyond 10 km. 





Definition and Analysis 

10.2.24 The guidance sets out a non-definitive list of a number of issues that should be addressed 

when considering setting as follows: 

• “How do the surroundings contribute to our ability to appreciate and understand a 

historic asset or place? 

• When the historic asset or place was developed or in use, was it located to be seen 

from a distance, perhaps from other sites or buildings? 

• Was it intended to have wide views over the landscape? 

• How does a historic asset or place contribute to its surroundings: for instance, is it a 

prominent or dominant feature in the landscape?” 

10.2.25 An assessment of the sensitivity of the setting of a historic asset requires consideration of its 

broader landscape and historic context. Thus, while the existence of direct lines of sight 

between the designated receptor and the proposed turbines is a key factor in judging the 

visual effect of the development, it is possible for its setting to be affected even when such a 

relationship does not exist. For example, views of listed buildings from a popular location, 

such as a park or other public amenity, may be impacted by the presence of wind turbines, 

even if they are not visible from the building itself. 

10.2.26 Conversely, the use of these combined criteria means that, although the proposal may have 

a clear visual effect, the overall effect on the setting of the resource may be lessened if the 

resource’s setting has a low sensitivity to change. 

Assessing the Effect of New Development 

10.2.27 Assessing effects on the settings of cultural heritage resources is largely a case of informed 

professional judgement. The procedure explained below aims to combine an objective 

assessment of the magnitude of change of the setting of an identified cultural heritage 

resource with a judgment of the sensitivity of its setting to change. This covers a variety of 

considerations including the following set out in the Historic Scotland guidance: 

• the visual effect of the proposed change relative to the current place of the historic 

asset or place in the landscape; 

• the presence, extent, character and scale of the existing built environment within the 

surroundings of the historic asset or place and how the proposed development 

compares to this; 

• the magnitude and cumulative effects of the proposed change – sometimes relatively 

small changes, or a series of small changes, can have a major effect on our ability to 

appreciate and understand a historic asset or place; 

• the ability of the landscape, which comprises the setting of a historic asset or place, to 

absorb new development without eroding its key characteristics; 

• the effect of the proposed change on qualities of the existing setting such as sense of 

remoteness; 

• the historical past, sense of place, cultural identity, spiritual responses. 

10.2.28 The following summary scale of effect magnitude is used in assessing the magnitude of 

visual effects on the setting of cultural heritage resources. This accords with the requirements 





of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) (The Landscape 

Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, Second Edition, 

2002) and is presented in line with the detailed assessment of visual effects in Chapter 9: 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment: 

• Very Large - the proposals would result in a major change within the setting of a 

historic asset. 

• Large - the proposals would result in a substantial change within the setting of a 


• Medium - the proposals would result in a moderate change within the setting of a 


• Small - the proposals would result in a slight change within the setting of a historic 

asset. 

• None - the proposals would result in no appreciable change within the setting of a 


10.2.29 Appraisal of the sensitivity of the setting of a cultural heritage resource to change 

incorporates a number of factors as outlined above. The levels are set as: 

• Reduced - the significance of an asset is not likely to be affected by development 

within its surroundings - there are already several detracting elements within the 

setting and few contributory elements. 

• Restricted – the significance of an asset may be slightly diminished by development 

within its surroundings - there are some detracting elements within the setting and 

some contributory elements. 

• Notable – the significance of an asset may be substantially diminished by 

development within its surroundings - there are several contributory elements within 

the setting and few detracting elements. 

• Elevated - the significance of an asset may be wholly diminished by development 

within its surroundings - there are a number of contributory elements within the setting 

and almost no detracting elements. 

10.2.30 Table 10.2 identifies the methodology for assessing the degree of effects on the settings of 

cultural heritage resources, which is a function of the magnitude of visual effect on the setting 

of the resource (as indicated in Table 10.1 above) with the sensitivity of the resource to 

change. Table 10.2 is not designed as an absolute predictive tool, but to make the 

professional judgements contained within this report as transparent as possible. Where the 

table gives two possible outcomes, e.g. Moderate / Slight, the allocation of one of these 

outcomes is made by the assessor on the basis of the individual circumstances of the 

resource, the visual effect and the amenity value, using professional judgement and 

expertise. For example, a medium magnitude of change on a setting of notable sensitivity 

would result in a medium or slight degree of effect on the setting, and the assessor would 

decide which one of these is the most appropriate. 

10.2.31 The effects described in Table 10.2 can be adverse or beneficial. 

10.2.32 The overall significance of effect on settings is a function of the degree of effect on setting 

and the importance of the asset as set out in Table 10.1. 





Table 10.2 Magnitude/ Degree of Effect on Settings of Heritage Assets 

Sensitivity of Setting to Change 

Magnitude/Degree of Change 

ELEVATED NOTABLE RESTRICTED REDUCED 

VERY LARGE Large Large Large or medium Medium 

LARGE Large or medium Medium Medium or small Small 

MEDIUM Medium Medium or small 

SMALL 

Small 

Small or 

negligible 

Small or 

negligible 

Small or 

negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

NONE None None None None 



10.3.1 A number of data sources were consulted, principally: 

• Data on designated historic assets from Historic Scotland’s website; 

• The Stirlingshire Historic Environment Record held by Stirling Council; 

• 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; and 

• The Bodleian Library, Oxford University. 


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 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) 

Regulations 2008 requires planning authorities to consult Scottish Ministers on “development 

which may affect…a garden or designed landscape”. Historic Scotland’s views are a material 

consideration in planning determinations affecting such sites. An Inventory of Gardens and 

Designed Landscapes in Scotland was originally published by Historic Scotland in 1987-88 

and has been supplemented since. The full up-to-date list is available on the Pastmap 

website. 

10.3.7 Scottish Planning Policy (February 2010) includes a section providing advice on safeguarding 

the historic environment within the planning process. It states that “when significant elements 

of the historic environment are likely to be affected by development proposals, developers 

should take the preservation of this significance into account in their proposals”. 

10.3.8 Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) was published in July 2009 and provides 

detailed guidance to planning authorities when considering planning applications that affect 

the historic environment. It states that “the challenge for sustainable management of the 

historic environment…is to identify its key characteristics and to establish the boundaries 

within which change can continue so that it enhances rather than diminishes historic 

character”. 

10.3.9 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)”. 

10.3.10 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 to how to define setting and assess the effects of 

development proposals on the settings of historic assets. 

Local Planning Policy 

Stirling Council 

10.3.11 The policies set out below were published in Stirling’s Local Plan in 1999 and remain 

applicable pending the completion of the Local Development Plan currently in preparation. 

10.3.12 POL.E47 There will be a presumption against any development proposal which would have 

an adverse effect on: 

(a) a scheduled ancient monument or its setting; or 

(b) unscheduled remains and their settings which have been identified as particularly 

worthy of preservation. 

10.3.13 POL.E48 When considering development proposals which would adversely affect features of 

archaeological importance, the Council must be satisfied that the benefits of the proposed 

development will outweigh the disturbance of the archaeological interest. Approval of any 

such proposal, where preservation of the archaeological interest is not possible, will be 

conditional upon satisfactory provision being made by the developer for the appropriate level 

of archaeological investigation, including publication of the results. 





10.3.14 POL.E49 Where there is an indication that archaeological remains may exist within a 

development proposal but their extent and significance is unclear, the Council will require the 

prospective developer to arrange for an evaluation prior to the determination of the 

application in order to establish the importance of the site, its sensitivity to development and 

the most appropriate means for preserving or recording surviving archaeological features. 

10.3.15 POL.E50 Where the presence of archaeological interest becomes apparent once a 

development has commenced, adequate opportunity must be afforded by the developer for 

an archaeological investigation. It is desirable that, where possible, important archaeological 

remains are preserved in situ. 

10.3.16 In addition to these policies, in March 2011 Stirling Council adopted Supplementary Planning 

Guidance on Locational Policy & Guidance for Renewable Energy Developments. This 

includes notes on ‘local guidance and criteria’ which, in relation to the historic environment, 

specify that: “Developers will be expected to take into account Scheduled Ancient 

Monuments, Listed Buildings and their settings (especially Category A buildings and 

structures), Conservation Areas and Inventory Gardens & Designed Landscapes.” 

10.3.17 In the Stirling area, two battle sites – Bannockburn and Sheriffmuir – are of importance and 

the Council will consider their implications for the siting of any large wind turbines that may 

affect their setting. (Historic Scotland has issued draft definitions/maps of these sites – 

(Historic Scotland, 2011). 

10.3.18 Developers will be expected to consider sites listed in the Sites and Monuments Record for 

the area when considering the location of wind farms and the detailed siting of turbines. 


Topography and Geology 

10.3.19 The solid geology is fairly uniform across the site, made up of extrusive igneous rocks 

(basaltic lavas) from the Clyde Plateau Volcanic Formation. Superficial deposits across the 

site are predominantly Devensian till deposits. The hills around the Carron Valley comprising 

volcanic Clyde Plateau basalts overlain in the valleys by Devensian till. The site lies within the 

Carron Valley. To the north lie the Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Hills which combine as an 

undulating plateau of uplands and to the south lies the ridge of Kilsyth Hills and Campsie 

Fells. These upland areas provide the immediate context of the proposal site. 

10.3.20 The proposed site lies on the western and southern sides of Cairnoch Hill that is situated in 

the centre of this area of upland. To the south lies the Carron Valley Reservoir, completed in 

1939. The dam lies approximately 2 km to the east of the site beside Craigannet Farm. The 

reservoir is fed by runoff within the upper River Carron catchment. Additionally water can be 

diverted from the Endrick Water into the reservoir if required. Backside Burn, that runs down 

the valley immediately to the west of Cairnoch Hill, is a tributary of Endrick Water.. To the 

south of the reservoir the commercial forestry covers a wide area of hills, including the 

highest peak in the area, Meikle Bin (570 m). 

10.3.21 Cairnoch Hill itself reaches a maximum elevation of 413 m. The proposed turbines would be 

constructed at elevations of between 250 m and 350 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). 

10.3.22 Before the construction of the Carron Valley Reservoir, the road that forms the southern 

boundary of the modern forest ran slightly further to the south where it passes Sir John De 

Graham’s Castle Scheduled Monument as far as the historic farm at Cairnoch. The original 





course of the River Carron lay on the south side of the valley, hugging the base of Haugh Hill, 

separated from Cairnoch Hill by a wide area of flat bog. By the later nineteenth century, the 

valley floor had been extensively improved, forming part of Finniegh Haugh Farm which lay 

on the south side of the valley. The parish boundary of St Ninians runs east-west broadly 

along the centre of the valley. 

Soils 

10.3.23 There are essentially two different soil types on the proposed site as indicated on the one 

inch to one mile (1:63,360) Soil Survey of Scotland Sheet 39 (Stirling) (British Geological 

Survey, 1967). Hill peats, generally 0.5 m to 1 m in depth, with occasional deeper patches, 

extend across much of the northern-western side of Cairnoch Hill. There are limited peat 

deposits located within the north west boundary of the site. The remainder of the site is 

characterised by three different mineral soils series’ formed in fine to medium textured glacial 

till. The best drained of these – the Darleith soils – correspond fairly closely to the areas 

known to have been cultivated in the medieval and post-medieval periods: the area around 

Sir John De Graham’s Castle, and other patches on the lower southern slopes of the hill 

including either side of the stream west of Cairnoch, Cairnoch itself and the area around the 

site of Kirk O’Muir near the proposed site access. The remaining areas are poorly drained 

with peaty topsoils. 

Archaeology 

Early Prehistoric (c.10000-c.700BC) 

10.3.24 There are few recorded traces of Neolithic or Mesolithic date in the vicinity of the proposed 

site. Remains of this period may survive beneath alluvium and peat deposits. 

10.3.25 Recent surveys in the area have identified significant numbers of Bronze or Iron Age hut 

circles to the west of Cairnoch Hill, on lower ground to the west of Endrick Water (sites 2-6), 

and on the east-west ridge running down towards Easter Cringate to the north of the site. 

These tend to be 5-7 m in diameter, defined by banks and occasionally the preserved 

remains of walls. A variety of earthwork features may be associated with these remains of 

later prehistoric settlement including lazy beds (similar to cord rig). This clearly points towards 

the widespread preservation of settlement of this period in the area, perhaps on south-facing 

slopes in particular. This is likely to apply to the area of Cairnoch Hill also, although in those 

areas that fall within forestry any trace of such features are likely to have been largely or 

entirely destroyed. 

10.3.26 The two scheduled cairns north of Todholes are likely to be Bronze Age burial mounds 

(Figure 10.2, SM 2 & SM 3). Examination of historic (pre-forestry) aerial photographs shows 

no trace of any such barrows within the proposed wind farm site. 

10.3.27 The presence of such widespread evidence of Bronze Age settlement in an upland area such 

as this is entirely consistent with the picture more widely in central and lowland Scotland. 

Iron Age (c. 700BC-AD400) 

10.3.28 Across the region of central/southern Scotland there is a marked change in settlement 

pattern from around the seventh century BC onwards, with the disappearance of the open 

settlements with associated field systems of the Bronze Age to the largely enclosed and 

fortified settlement that characterises the Iron Age. 





10.3.29 There are a number of defended Iron Age enclosures in the vicinity of the proposed wind 

farm site, notably on the west side of Fintry Village, with the scheduled sites of Craigton Dun 

(SM 15), and the forts at Dunmore (SM 17) and Dunbeg (SM 16) on slopes overlooking 

Endrick Water. To the east there is a defended enclosure on the east side of the summit of 

Dundaff Hill (SM 18). There is no evidence for such settlements on Cairnoch Hill. 

Early Historic (c. AD400-c.1200) 

10.3.30 No clear evidence of settlement during this period is known from the area at a time when it 

fell on the fringes of the Pictish kingdom, that lay on the western side of Scotland to the north 

of the Forth, and the kingdom of Strathclyde to the south-west. Cairnoch Hill falls within the 

historic parish of St Ninians, but is recorded in some medieval documents as Egglis or 

Eccles, a toponym normally associated with the late/sub-Roman Christianisation of lowland 

Scotland. 

10.3.31 The Parish of St Ninian is exceptionally large, extending from the Forth to the north to the 

Carron to the south. It is unclear at which date it came into being as a territory, but the fact 

that it holds a name with sub-Roman/early medieval associations suggests that it may go 

back this far. If so the proposed wind farm site lies on its southern boundary, a location that 

may have been of some strategic importance. By the eleventh century, the area had fallen 

under the control of the Scots, expanding from their base in Argyll. 

Medieval (c.1200-1700) 

10.3.32 By the thirteenth century the influence of the Norman administration to the south was 

increasingly strong. This saw the development of feudal society focussed on local 

aristocracies based in motte and bailey castles. Sir John De Graham’s Castle, which lies 

immediately to the south-west of the proposed wind farm, may have its origins in this period 

as the seat of the Barony of Dundaff which is known to have existed as early as 1237. Sir 

John de Graham, after whom the site is named, was heir of this title and died at the Battle of 

Falkirk in 1298 fighting with William Wallace against the English. The location of the castle at 

the south-western corner of St Ninian’s Parish, at the point where Endrick Water and the 

River Carron run closest, was in many ways the strategic key to movement through the 

uplands to the south-west of Stirling. 

10.3.33 Little archaeological fieldwork has previously taken place on the site and overall 

understanding of its history therefore remains poor. The description provided here is based 

on a site visit and examination of pre-forestry aerial photographs held by the Royal 

Commission of Ancient and Historic Monuments for Scotland (RCAHMS). A square moated 

platform, c22 m across inside a moat c11 m wide and c3 m deep, oriented to the south-west, 

stands on a spur on the south-west side of Cairnoch Hill that commands a view of the Carron 

Valley in both directions (Figure 10.3; feature F). There are traces of stone buildings on the 

north-east (upslope) side of the moat (G). Aerial photography taken before the plantation of 

commercial forestry indicates the presence of a large square enclosure to the north-east (A), 

while there are suggestions of a possible track approaching the site from the south-east (B). 

There are earthworks beside the stream immediately to the west of the site that appear to 

have once supported a small bridge (C). Running south from this point on the east side of the 

stream is a bank, still a clearly discernable earthwork feature, presumably to control the water 

flow. On the basis of other motte and bailey castles in Scotland, it may be that the original 

building on the site was wooden, replaced in the later thirteenth century in stone. 





10.3.34 Kirk O’Muir, the former chapel that stood at the south-eastern corner of Carron Forest and of 

which only the burial ground now survives, is believed to date back to the late medieval 

period. Indeed some documents suggest that it may once have controlled its own parish or 

sub-parish, perhaps not surprisingly given the size of St Ninians Parish and the distance from 

the mother church near Stirling. This being so, both chapel and parish are likely to have been 

dominated by the Barons of Dundaff. 

10.3.35 The first clear evidence for the development of the area in the later medieval period is 

provided by early maps. These show a landscape of upland moor – much of it presumably 

used for grazing sheep and cattle – with scattered farmsteads along the river and stream 

valleys, each associated with patches of rig and furrow cultivation. It is likely that some of 

these farms date back to the medieval period. 

10.3.36 The late sixteenth century Pont map (Pont, 1583-1601) depicts Sir John De Graham’s Castle 

as ‘Dundaff Castle’ with a symbol of a tower suggesting that it was a standing building at this 

time. This might indicate that the masonry footings to the north of the square motte are the 

remains of this late medieval/early post-medieval building, probably a tower house of the sort 

that is better preserved at Fintry Castle, c4 km to the west (SM 7). It also marks the presence 

of a series of farmsteads along the north side of the Carron Valley to the east of Sir John De 

Graham’s Castle within the area of the modern forest: 

• ‘Santauries’ (later known as Smallburn – the site of which is visible immediately south 

of Sir John De Graham’s Castle on the edge of the reservoir; site 49); 

• ‘Boigsyde’ (Bogside: also inundated by the reservoir but marked on early Ordnance 

Survey maps half way between Sir John De Graham’s Castle and Cairnoch; site 51). 

The bog referred to is presumably that in the base of Carron Valley to the south; 

• ‘Krimzetts’ (probably to be identified with Cairnoch); 

• ‘K. of Moore’ (Kirk O’Muir; site 15), shown as a square tower marked with a cross 

beside a separate tower, the significance of which is not immediately obvious. This 

does, however, suggest that the church was still in use at this time. 

10.3.37 The area to the north of the valley is labelled simply as ‘Dundaff Moore’. 

10.3.38 On the mid-seventeenth century revision of Pont’s map (Gordon, 1636-1652) by Robert and 

James Gordon, Sir John De Graham’s Castle is labelled as ‘Ruynis of Grayme Castell’ 

beside the label ‘Dundaff C(astle)’, suggesting that it may have been abandoned in the early 

seventeenth century. 

Post-Medieval (c.1707-present) 

10.3.39 By the mid-eighteenth century, with the first accurate survey available in the form of Roy’s 

military map of 1752-1755 (Roy, 1747-1755), the picture becomes clearer. The following 

features can be identified to the north of the road (identified here as the ‘Road from Fintray to 

Falkirk): 

• Sir John De Graham’s Castle is labelled simply as ‘Graham’s Castle’; 

• Smallburn (as marked on later maps) to the north, is labelled ‘Bogside’; 

• Bogside (as marked on later maps) is not shown; 





• A settlement called ‘Sheen Hill’ is shown beside the road to the west of the stream that 

runs down the side of Cairnoch Hill to the west of Cairnoch Farm (site 48), while to the 

east of the stream is shown Ashen Tall (site 47); 

• Cairnoch Farm does not seem to be marked, although a farmstead named Hole Craig 

is shown further up the side of the hill; 

• ‘Aboon the Kirk’, marked on later maps as Boon ‘o Kirk (site 50; presumably the house 

of the priest attached to the local church) is shown for the first time; 

• East of this is another farmstead named Dyke House the site of which appears to lie in 

the forestry 100-200 m north of Kirk O’Muir; 

• Finally Kirk of Muir is marked in the position of the surviving graveyard. On Edgar’s 

map of approximately the same date (Edgar, 1745) the site is labelled as ruins 

indicating that it, like the castle, had fallen out of use. 

10.3.40 Upslope and around all of these farmsteads large areas of cord rig (i.e. improved ground) are 

indicated on Roy’s map. The early OS maps suggest that these areas extended up to 

approximately the 275 m contour. 

10.3.41 On the first detailed OS maps (OS, 1865) (surveyed in 1858-1863) Smallburn and Bogside 

(both subsequently abandoned owing to the construction of the reservoir), Cairnoch and 

Boon a’Kirk and are shown in detail. Sheen Hill and Ashen Tall are marked by a group of 

improved fields but nothing more. There is no trace of Craig Hole or Dyke House. 

10.3.42 The situation changed relatively little before the construction of the Carron Valley Reservoir in 

1939, with a dam erected 2.3 km west of Carron Bridge. This flooded the famously boggy 

base of the valley as well as the lower slopes of the hills to either side. As a result the old line 

of the Fintry-Falkirk road now lies partly under water. It can clearly be seen running some 

85 m south of the present road as it passes Sir John De Graham’s Castle, at which point the 

earthwork remains of Smallburn lie at the water’s edge. 

Historic Landscape 

Scottish Historic Land-Use Assessment 

10.3.43 No historic landscape characterisation has been carried out in Stirlingshire. The Scottish 

Historic Land-Use Assessment (HLA) is the nearest thing (http://hla.rcahms.gov.uk/). It is a 

mapped analysis of past and present land-use in Scotland. The area of the proposed wind 

farm falls within the following land-use categories: 

• 18 th -19 th century fields and farming; 

• 20 th century coniferous plantation; 

• 19 th century reservoir; 

• 20 th century roads; 

• Prehistoric-modern moorland and rough grazing. 

Previous Effects 

10.3.44 A key issue that needs 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. 

10.3.45 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 – will 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 - 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. 

10.3.46 Effects on historic setting and the wider landscape at Carron Valley need to take into account 

not only the immediately surrounding forestry but also the construction of the mid-twentieth 

century reservoir immediately to the south and the plantation of further forestry beyond it. 

Within the basin in which the reservoir lies, the historic landscape has been almost entirely 

obscured and/or destroyed with the exception of Sir John De Graham’s Castle, Cairnoch 

Farm and the Kirk O’Muir graveyard, all of which are very largely isolated from any sense of 

their original context. They once formed part of a string of agricultural settlements along the 

Fintry to Falkirk road, some of which dated back well into the medieval period. Most of these 

settlements have now disappeared, their remains either underwater or planted over by 

modern forestry, while a significant stretch of the old road itself has been submerged. 


10.3.47 There were no restrictions on access to information and therefore no gaps within the baseline 

presented. 


10.4.1 The most significant effects of a wind farm on Cairnoch Hill 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. During the design evolution, most attention was therefore given to this 

aspect in relation to avoiding significant effects through the evolution of the layout. 

10.4.2 The historic asset most sensitive to the proposed wind farm is Sir John De Graham’s Castle, 

given that it is a historic landmark of some significance for the history of the area as the seat 

of the Barony of Dundaff. A secondary consideration was the potential effects on the settings 

of the two scheduled barrows on east-facing slopes to the west of the proposals (Figure 10.2; 

SM2 & SM3). 

10.4.3 A meeting was held at Historic Scotland’s office in Edinburgh on 15 November 2011 to 

discuss whether the level of effect of the proposals (at that time for a 16 turbine scheme, with 

the nearest turbine being just over 200 m from the scheduled area – refer to Figure 10.9b) on 

the settings of these designated historic assets was acceptable. Following this meeting, at 

the request of Historic Scotland, visualisations were provided demonstrating the visual effect 

of the proposals on these assets. Historic Scotland responded by letter dated 7 February 





2012 (Appendix 10.5) recommending the removal of the four closest turbines to Sir John De 

Graham’s Castle. 

10.4.4 As a consequence of this, the western half of the proposed wind farm was redesigned to 

mitigate as far as possible effects on the setting of Sir John De Graham’s Castle. The 

development was, as a result, reduced to a 15-turbine scheme, with the nearest turbine 

located approximately 480 m to the north-east of the scheduled area. The complete removal 

of the turbines requested by Historic Scotland would have resulted in two separate groups of 

turbines that would have been unacceptable from a technical and visual point of view. 

10.4.5 In terms of turbines that affect views from the castle looking along the valley – which is the 

most important aspect of its wider setting – the nearest turbine will now be more than 1 km 

away. This addressed concerns expressed by Historic Scotland that the original layout would 

‘dominate the castle and diminish the sense of the castle on high ground and commanding 

the surrounding landscape’ (see Appendix 10.5). 

10.4.6 In addition it was proposed that a large, square plantation of Norwegian spruce lying between 

the scheduled area and the B818 should be removed as part of the amended Forest Design 

Plan (FDP) in order to improve visibility towards and from the Castle (see Chapter 4: 

Description of the Proposed Development). A suite of other compensatory measures was 

also proposed in order to improve understanding and access to Sir John De Graham’s Castle 

for the public, including topographical and geophysical survey, sample excavation and the 

provision of new on-site information signage. The revised proposals were sent, with 

supporting illustration, to Historic Scotland by email on 2 March 2012. 

10.4.7 The removal of the closest turbines and the opening up of views along the valley means that 

the castle’s historic dominance of the local landscape will remain undiminished. The revised 

scheme is therefore considered the best possible compromise in terms of reducing the effect 

of the proposals on the setting of Sir John De Graham’s Castle while maintaining the viability 

of the proposed wind farm. 

10.4.8 Historic Scotland responded by letter on 16 March 2012 (Appendix 10.6), acknowledging that 

the changes do go some way to reducing the effect of the development, while maintaining 

that the effects are still significant. It was noted specifically that the revised felling plan would 

improve the setting of the monument considerably. It was also stressed that the mitigation 

proposals offset rather than reduce the effect of the revised scheme. Consultation with 

Historic Scotland is ongoing. 

10.4.9 While the magnitude of effect of the intermediate scheme (see Chapter 3: Design Evolution) 

on Sir John De Graham’s Castle, with a turbine standing only 200 m east of the monument, 

would have been assessed as very large, under the revised proposals it is assessed as large 

on a site of restricted sensitivity. The overall effect of the proposals on the setting of the 

Castle, which would have been major under the intermediate scheme, is now assessed as 

medium on a monument of high importance leading to an assessment of a moderate overall 

effect (see paragraph 10.5.19). 


Construction: Direct Physical Effects - Overview 

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 will 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. Given that there are no designated sites within the area of the proposed wind farm, that 

remains of non-designated historic sites and features have been substantially destroyed by 

forestry plantation, and that none of these known sites will be affected by the proposals, the 

overall significance of effect on buried archaeology will be negligible or none given that the 

sensitivity of all receptors within the forestry is at most negligible. 

Turbines 

10.5.2 Construction of the 21 m-diameter wind turbine foundations to a depth of c3 m, would remove 

any archaeological remains that fall within the foundation footprint. Beside each turbine site, it 

will be necessary during construction to lay down an area of hard standing, 45 m by 25 m, to 

support cranes, requiring a topsoil strip to c0.5 m) and some level of additional cut in 

advance. The sloping nature of the site will mean that there will need to be substantial cut in 

these areas which will remove any archaeological remains that might survive in these 

locations, although none have been identified by this assessment. 

Access Tracks 

10.5.3 Access tracks to accommodate the vehicles required to carry the turbine components run 

wherever possible along existing forestry tracks, although tracks leading from the main track 

to each proposed turbines will also need to be constructed. The tracks need to be 5 m wide. 

Topsoil will be stripped to an approximate depth of up to 0.5 m in advance of construction. 

This is likely to disturb any underlying archaeological features that may survive, although 

none have been identified by this assessment. 

Construction Compound/Control Building 

10.5.4 The construction compound and control building will be located immediately inside the site 

and will cover an area of approximately 60 m (east-west) by 50 m. This will be cut into the 

hillside which will remove any archaeological remains that might survive at this point, 

although none have been identified by this assessment. The control building itself will be 

10 m x 5 m x 5.5 m high. The construction compound will also contain a concrete batching 

plant. 

Cabling 

10.5.5 Cabling will be laid in trenches c1.1 m deep and 0.6 m wide alongside the access tracks 

where possible, connecting the turbines with the control building. 

Borrow Pits 

10.5.6 Three borrow pit locations have been identified (see Figure 10.1). All are well away from sites 

of possible archaeological significance. 

Site Drainage 

10.5.7 Drainage trenches will be inserted beside all access tracks with drainage pipes flowing 

perpendicular to the tracks every 50 m. 

Effects on the Site During Operation: Indirect Visual Effects on the Setting of 

Historic Assets 

10.5.8 The operation of the wind farm would have effects on historic assets resulting from changes 

to their settings. There would also be effects on the overall historic landscape. 





10.5.9 Likely effects on historic assets resulting from changes to their settings have been assessed 

and are described below. Where effects have been assessed as negligible, no further 

detailed description is provided. Where this is the case this is generally on the basis of one 

of the following reasons: 

• although the asset is located within the ZTV, local conditions such as woodland, built 

development or microtopography mean that there would not be any intervisibility 

between the historic asset and the proposed wind farm; and/or 

• the change within the setting of the asset will not lead to any change to the significance 

of the asset, or the asset is of negligible or low importance, or a combination of both of 

these factors. 

10.5.10 The potential for effects upon historic assets that fall outside the ZTV was considered but no 

such assets were identified. 

Designated Sites within 3.5 km of Turbines 

Scheduled Monuments 

10.5.11 The main consideration in assessing the likely effect of the proposed Carron Valley Wind 

Farm on historic assets is its potential effect on the setting of Sir John de Graham’s Castle, 

due not only to the importance of the site and its proximity to the development, but also 

because most other historic assets in the area have been destroyed as a result of the 

construction of the reservoir and the widespread planting of commercial forestry in this 

section of the Carron Valley. 

10.5.12 The other main consideration is the potential effect on scheduled cairns to the north and east 

of the proposed site. 

Sir John de Graham’s Castle 

Definition and Analysis of Setting 

10.5.13 In defining and analysing the setting of Sir John de Graham’s Castle, it is necessary to 

address the question of how its surroundings ‘contribute to our ability to appreciate and 

understand’ the monument. This question can helpfully be broken down further by looking at 

i) its immediate surroundings and ii) its wider landscape context. 

10.5.14 The scheduled area covers the moated platform as well as the remains of the post-medieval 

house to the north-east. Aerial photographs, especially those taken before the planting of the 

forestry around the site in the 1950’s, show a range of features extending beyond this area, 

at least some of which are likely to relate to the associated medieval landscape. These 

include a variety of earthworks associated with the management and crossing of the streams 

that run west and south of the site, a large rectangular enclosure immediately to the northeast 

of the site, and a series of linear earthworks to the east and south-east of the site, 

perhaps the boundaries of agricultural enclosures associated with the life of the castle 

(Figure 10.3). Apart from those features closest to the Castle – which are much less clear 

today than they were in the aerial photographs taken in the late 1940’s – the remainder have 

now been overtaken by forestry and have therefore almost certainly been destroyed. 

10.5.15 In terms of its wider landscape setting, the features in the local landscape that we can be 

reasonably sure existed during the period of the castle’s use are relatively few: the old road, 

Kirk O’Muir, the spire of which was probably once visible from the castle, and possibly Fintry 





Castle to the west. In addition some of the farmsteads that formerly lay along the road to the 

east of the castle may well have medieval origins. None of these relationships has endured: 

the old road near the castle now lying underwater, there is no trace of the chapel which fell 

into ruins some 300 years ago, while any visual connection that might once have existed to 

Fintry Castle no longer exists, partly because of the masking effect of the surrounding 

forestry. Equally the wider landscape has been radically altered, all elements of the historic 

landscape in the valley and on the slopes to the south having been removed or obscured by 

the reservoir and the forestry. The upland pastoralist landscape within which the castle stood 

for much of the past millennium no longer exists, while the forestry enclosing the site impedes 

views both towards and away from it. 

10.5.16 As the seat of the Barony of Dundaff from at least the twelfth century, the castle was the 

feudal centre of the district and its historic location within the landscape reflects this. The 

Castle was formerly an important local landmark standing at a key strategic point in the 

Carron Valley, controlling movement along the east-west road. However, the combination of 

the fact that there is no longer a standing building on the site and that it is surrounded by 

forestry means that this is no longer the case. It can now only be seen from the modern road 

(B818) at one point as it passes across the relatively narrow unplanted section of ground 

running south from the Castle, and even then only the mound is visible, the moat being 

hidden by the slope (see Figure 10.4). From the other side of the reservoir, the site can only 

be recognised as a clearance in the forest. 

10.5.17 Of potential greater significance are the views from the castle, particularly along the valley to 

east and west (see Figures 10.5 and 10.6). The views along the valley to the west are 

extensive, albeit partially obscured by intervening forestry. In other directions, little other than 

forestry plantation is visible, except to the south where the reservoir and the forested 

southern side of the valley can be seen. 

Impact Assessment 

10.5.18 The revised 15 turbine wind farm layout, designed to minimise effect on Sir John de 

Graham’s Castle, locates the closest turbine to the scheduled area (T5) now standing a 

minimum of some 480 m away. However this turbine lies to the north-east of the site and will 

largely be obscured by existing trees (see Figure 10.7), while the key historic views from the 

castle are along the valley to the west and south-east. Views to the west, looking towards 

Fintry, will not be affected at all by the proposals. The nearest turbines in views looking along 

the valley to the south-east will be T7 over a kilometre away, and, further upslope, T6 over 

900 m away. The turbines will be seen over the top of the forestry plantation surrounding the 

castle, with further forestry behind. 

10.5.19 The magnitude of effect of the proposed 15 turbine scheme is assessed as large. The 

sensitivity of the Castle’s setting can be assessed as restricted, leading to an overall 

assessment of the degree of effect on its setting as medium. The overall effect of the 

proposals on the setting of the Castle, a monument of high importance, is assessed as 

moderate. 

Todholes Cairn (Lower) 

10.5.20 This scheduled cairn, most likely to be a Bronze Age burial mound, lies c1 km north-west of 

the nearest proposed turbines (T1 and T5) on an elevated plateau overlooking the 

headwaters of Endrick Water. There are no known contemporary features on Cairnoch Hill – 





any there might have been are likely to have been destroyed and/or obscured by forestry 

planting. 


10.5.21 The key elements of the cairn’s surroundings in terms of its setting are its relationships to 

nearby remains of the same period: in this case the possible Bronze Age hut circles either 

side of the track leading north from Todholes Farm, and other cairns in the area, notably the 

one that lies 400 m upslope to the north-west and those at Stronend and on the Gargunnock 

Hills, both more than 5 km away. 

10.5.22 The cairn is placed in a location that suggests that views towards it were not a major 

consideration in its positioning, although outward views, looking along the Carron Valley 

towards the west and south-east, were probably important. The landscape will certainly have 

changed very substantially since the cairn was originally constructed, with the planting of 

commercial forestry and the flooding of Carron Valley being notably recent changes. The 

existing Earlsburn Wind Farm to the east of the cairn has also changed its setting in recent 

years. 


10.5.23 Although the proposals will represent a change to the setting of the cairn, this change will be 

much less significant than it would otherwise have been because of the existence of the 

Earlsburn Wind Farm at a similar distance. While the cumulative effect of the two schemes 

on its setting will represent a greater effect than the Earlsburn Wind Farm alone, the sense of 

a remote upland setting remains largely intact. 

10.5.24 The magnitude of effect of the proposed wind farm on Todholes Cairn (Lower) is considered 

to be medium, while the sensitivity of the cairn’s setting is considered to be restricted, 

indicating a small degree of effect on its setting. The overall significance of effect of the 

proposals on the setting of the cairn, a monument of high importance, is therefore assessed 

as slight. 

Todholes Cairn (Upper) 

10.5.25 This cairn, again likely to be a Bronze Age burial mound, lies upslope of the cairn described 

above, c1.5 km north-west of the nearest proposed turbines (T1 and T5) on the eastern ridge 

of the Fintry Hills. It would have a clear view of all of the proposed turbines. 


10.5.26 The key elements of its setting are very similar to those of lower cairn previously discussed. It 

is known to be intervisible with scheduled cairns at the western end of Fintry Hills and on the 

northern edge of the Gargunnock Hills. 

10.5.27 The cairn’s location – on a knoll high above the valley – was clearly not chosen to make it 

visible from below. Again outward views seem more important, with its main outlook being 

across the low ground around the upper part of Endrick Water, in the area where a series of 

potentially contemporary hut circles have been recognised. Its relationship with these 

features may well be an important part of its setting therefore. As with the lower cairn, the 

landscape around has changed to a very great extent over the past 3-4,000 years but 

particularly in the past 70 years. The Earlsburn wind farm is slightly closer to this cairn than 

the nearest proposed turbine at Carron Valley. 





Assessment of Impact 

10.5.28 The proposed turbines in the Carron Valley Forest lie at the same distance from the cairn as 

the existing Earls Burn turbines. Given that the cairn retains the key aspects of its upland 

setting notwithstanding the existing wind farm, the proposed additional turbines to the south, 

within a portion of the landscape that has already seen much change in recent decades, will 

not significantly change the setting of this monument. 

10.5.29 The magnitude of effect of the proposed wind farm on Todholes Cairn (Upper) is considered 

to be medium, while the sensitivity of the cairn’s setting is considered to be restricted. The 

degree of effect of the proposals on the setting of the cairn is therefore assessed as small. 

The overall significance of effect of the proposals on the setting of the cairn, a monument of 

high importance, is therefore assessed as slight. 

Dundaff Hill Mound 

10.5.30 This probable prehistoric burial mound lies c3.4 km east of the proposals on the north side of 

Dundaff Hill. 


10.5.31 As with the other cairns already described, this cairn is situated on a hill slope in a relatively 

discreet location where views out were clearly more important than views towards. This might 

relate to Bronze Age settlement in the valley to the north. 


10.5.32 Given the relationship of the mound on Dundaff Hill with the lower ground to the north, this 

seems more important than views to the west. Views towards the proposed wind farm are 

also likely to be screened by trees. 

10.5.33 The magnitude of effect of the proposed wind farm on Dundaff Hill Mound is considered to be 

small, while the sensitivity of the monument’s setting is considered to be restricted. The 

degree of effect of the proposals on the setting of the monument is therefore assessed as 

small. The overall significance of effect of the proposals on the setting of the castle, a 

monument of high importance, is therefore assessed as slight. 

Listed Buildings 

Bentend Steading (Category C) 

10.5.34 This nineteenth century, single range block overlooks Carron Valley from the south at a 

distance of almost 3.5 km east of the nearest proposed turbines. The ZTV indicates that 

between four and seven of the proposed turbines would be visible from the building although 

it is partially masked by trees. 


10.5.35 The key aspect of the setting of this farm building lies in its relationship to the surrounding 

farmland, in particular the fields in the valley immediately to the north over which it looks. It 

does have views looking west down the Carron Valley, although these are oblique and a 

secondary aspect of its setting. 


10.5.36 Given that the setting of this building is concerned largely with its immediate surroundings, 

the proposed development will only have a limited effect on it. 





10.5.37 The magnitude of effect of the proposed wind farm on Bentend Steading is considered to be 

small, while the sensitivity of the building’s setting is considered to be notable. The overall 

degree of effect of the proposals on the setting of the building is therefore assessed as small. 

The overall significance of effect of the proposals on the setting of the farm, a building of 

medium importance, is therefore assessed as slight. 

Designated Sites 3.5 – 10 km from Turbines 

10.5.38 At distances of greater than 3.5 km from the proposed wind farm, only historic assets of the 

highest levels of designation (Scheduled Monuments, Category A & B Listed Buildings and 

Registered Parks and Gardens) are assessed. Those where there will be no change in 

setting are not discussed. 

10.5.39 The setting of the proposed wind farm is unusual in that the site lies in a bowl in the Upper 

Carron Valley, limiting visibility of the proposed wind farm to the immediately surrounding hills 

and a narrow corridor running down the valley of Endrick Water to the west (see Figure 10.2). 

Thus the main area from which the proposals will be visible extends up to 10 km to the west, 

3 km to the south, a maximum of 6 km to the north and, albeit substantially screened, for 

around 5 km to the east. Some theoretical visibility starts again c15 km or more to the east, 

but at this distance the effects on the historic environment will be negligible. 

10.5.40 As a result of these effects of the proposals on designated historic assets beyond 3.5 km is 

generally not significant. 

10.5.41 The Conservation Area and Category C Listed Buildings at Fintry will not be significantly 

affected by the proposals given the combination of their distance from the proposed wind 

farm and masking from adjacent built form and trees. The same is true for the Scheduled 

Monuments that lie on the valley sides to the north and west of the town. For this reason they 

are not discussed here in any further detail. 

Scheduled Monuments 

Fintry Castle 

10.5.42 Substantial remains of this former tower house survive on the lower northern slopes of the 

Endrick Water, c4.5 km west of the proposed wind farm. The ZTV suggests that there will be 

views of all 15 turbines from here although it is likely that some turbines will be obscured by 

the forestry. 


10.5.43 The setting of this monument is similar to Sir John de Graham’s Castle in that it stands on a 

low rise on the north side of the valley controlling the strategic east-west road. Similarly, it 

has an immediate and a wider setting: the immediate setting being the relationship of the 

castle to the adjacent streams, tracks and nearby historic settlement, and the wider setting 

being its relationship with the valley as a whole, taking in the views to the east and the west. 


10.5.44 The distance of the turbines to the east of the castle means that their effect on its setting will 

be limited. They will not affect its immediate setting. In terms of its wider setting, eastward 

views will be affected although the overall strategic dominance the castle has over 

approaches from that direction will still be evident. The dominance of the site in the 

landscape will remain unaffected. 





10.5.45 On this basis, the magnitude of effect of the proposals on the site is considered to be small 

on a monument of notable sensitivity, leading to a small degree of effect on the castle’s 

setting. The overall significance of effect of the proposals on the setting of the farm, a building 

of high importance, is assessed as slight. 


10.5.46 Decommissioning will not result in any significant additional effects on the historic 

environment other than removing the operational effects described above. 

10.5.47 Table 10.3 provides a summary of potential effects on cultural heritage and archaeology. In 

addition Table 10.4 provides a more detailed summary of effects. 

Table 10.3 Summary of Potential Effects of Proposed Wind Farm on Cultural Heritage 

and Archaeology 

Potential Effect 

Effects on buried archaeological remains 

Effects on the setting of Sir John de Graham’s Castle (SM 4278) 

Effects on the setting of Todholes Cairn (lower; SM 2492) 

Effects on the setting of Todholes Cairn (upper; SM 4491) 

Effects on the setting of scheduled burial mound on Dundaff Hill (SM 6553) 

Effect on the setting of Bentend Steading (Category B Listed Building; LB 12990) 

Effects on the setting of Fintry Castle (SM 7085) 

Significance 

Negligible 

Moderate 

Slight 

Slight 

Slight 

Slight 

Slight 


10.6.1 Given that the most significant effects of this proposed wind farm on the historic environment 

is its effect on the setting of Sir John de Graham’s Castle – as discussed and agreed with 

Historic Scotland and the Stirling Council archaeology officer – the mitigation approach has 

been focussed on diminishing and offsetting these effects. 

10.6.2 Further to the design changes referred to in Section 10.4. In addition, a further series of 

enhancement measures have been proposed in discussions with Historic Scotland 

addressing the future setting and management of the Castle. A key element of these 

proposals, following consultation with Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS), is a proposal to 

remove the square plantation of Norwegian spruce that currently lies between the Castle and 

Carron Valley Reservoir. This will significantly open up views both from and towards the 

castle, going some way to restoring its position within the wider local landscape that has been 

obscured in recent decades. 

10.6.3 In addition to the proposals having a direct effect on improving the setting of the Castle, a 

number of proposals have been put forward addressing its longer-term management. Within 

the existing FCS management plan for the Castle (Appendix 10.7) concerns are expressed 

about the use of the site for camping, involving removal of stones from the ruins, the burning 

of camp fires within the scheduled area, as well as evidence for illicit metal detecting on the 

site. While the site is open for public access, there is no information provided on site, nor is 





there anything available on the internet, largely because surprisingly little is known about its 

history. 

10.6.4 To address these issues the following management changes, agreed in consultation with the 

FCS archaeologist, are proposed: 

• An aerial photographic and earthworks survey of the Castle and associated features; 

• A geophysical survey of the motte and the area to the north-east; 

• Targeted sampling of the sedimentary sequence in the motte to retrieve i) dating 

evidence for the period of its use and ii) an understanding of the changing environment 

of the area during the medieval period and subsequently; 

• A review of primary historic sources to try to recover a clearer idea of the Castle’s 

history; 

• An illustrated interpretation panel on the site setting out in an accessible the results of 

this research; 

• A web-page on the FCS website providing public access to further information on this 

work and its results. 


10.7.1 Based on the information and discussion set out above, the only receptor that could 

experience a significant effect from the proposals is Sir John de Graham’s Castle. 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 this 

important medieval site to moderate. 


10.8.1 In terms of cumulative effects, significant changes to setting/historic landscape are generally 

limited to 3.5 km and, at most, 10 km from a wind farm. For that reason the only significant 

cumulative effects in this case are likely to result from the effect of the proposals when 

combined with the existing Earlsburn and Craigannet Wind Farms. It also needs to be taken 

into account that the Earlsburn North Wind Farm has already been consented. Cumulative 

effects of existing and approved schemes on heritage assets affected by the Carron Valley 

proposals are considered below. 

Sir John de Graham’s Castle 

10.8.2 There will be no wider cumulative effects on setting of Sir John de Graham’s Castle in 

addition to those described and assessed above as none of the existing or approved 

schemes fall are or will be visible from the monument. If the Roseburn application to the west 

is taken forward to a full application this is likely to have additional effects on views looking 

westwards from the Castle. 

Todholes Cairns (Lower and Upper) 

10.8.3 The sites most affected will be the scheduled cairns north of Todholes, as well as the nondesignated 

remains of prehistoric settlement in the low ground around the upper part of 

Endrick Water. The setting of these monuments has already been very substantially 





compromised by twentieth century changes to the landscape (the reservoir and commercial 

forestry). The existing wind farms have significantly altered but not materially damaged their 

settings, with the relationships of the monuments to each other and the surrounding 

landscape being only marginally affected. The degree of effect on their setting from these 

developments is medium (a large effect on monuments of restricted sensitivity). Given their 

high importance, the overall effect on their settings is moderate. It is not considered that the 

additional turbines proposed under the Carron Valley scheme would significantly alter this 

level of effect. 

Dundaff Hill Mound 

10.8.4 Of the existing wind farms in the area, Dundaff Hill Mound is most significantly affected by 

Craigengelt, with the closest turbine standing c.1.7km north-west of the monument, while the 

nearest turbine at Earlsburn stands some 5km away. The degree of effect on the setting of 

this monument from these developments is small (a small effect on a monument of restricted 

sensitivity). Given its high importance, the overall effect on its setting is slight. The additional 

turbines proposed under the Carron Valley scheme will be a minimum of 3.4km from this 

monument and would not significantly alter this level of effect. Should the Craigannet 

application be constructed immediately to the west of Dundaff Hill it would significantly 

increase cumulative effects on the setting of this monument. 

Bentend Steading (Category C Listed Building) 

10.8.5 The Category C Listed Building at Bentend Steading stands c.2.5km south-east of the 

nearest turbine at Craigengelt, although views of the turbines are only partial from this valleybottom 

location. There are views of the Earlsburn turbines. The degree of effect on the 

setting of this monument from Craigengelt is small (a small effect on a monument of 

restricted sensitivity). Given its medium importance, the overall effect on its setting is slight. 

The additional turbines proposed under the Carron Valley scheme will be a minimum of 

3.5km from this monument and would not significantly alter this level of effect. Should the 

Craigannet application be constructed immediately on the east of Cairnoch Hill it would 

significantly increase cumulative effects on the setting of this monument. 

Fintry Castle 

10.8.6 At present it is possible to see portions of a number of the turbines at Earlsburn at a distance 

of 4.5km or more from Fintry Castle. The degree of effect on the setting of this monument 

from Earlsburn is small (a small effect on a monument of notable sensitivity). Given its high 

importance, the overall effect on its setting is slight. The additional effect of the Carron Valley 

scheme, assessed above, will add slightly to the magnitude of effect but the overall effect on 

its setting will remain slight. Should the Kingsburn wind farm, presently in scoping, be 

constructed these effects would be significantly greater. 






Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of Effect 

Effects on 

buried 

archaeological 

remains 

Disturbance of 

buried remains. 

Construction Negligible None-Large Negligible - - Negligible 

Possible further 

disturbance of 

buried remains 

already 

damaged by 

forestry planting. 

Remove spruce 

plantation. 

Effects on the 

setting of Sir 

John de 

Graham’s 

Castle (SM 

4278) 

Effect on 

setting. 

Operation High Medium Moderate - 

Revision of 

management plan. 

Non-intrusive 

surveys. 

Targetted sampling 

of moat. 

Historical review. 

Moderate 

Moderate 

negative effect 

on setting. 

Interpretation 

panel. 

Web-page. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 



setting of 

Todholes Cairn 

(lower; SM 

2492) 

Effect on 

setting. 

Operation High Small Slight - - Slight 

Slight negative 

effect on setting. 


setting of 


(upper; SM 

4491) 

Effect on 

setting. 





setting of 

scheduled 

burial mound on 

Dundaff Hill 

(SM 6553) 

Effect on 

setting. 




Effect on the 

setting of 

Bentend 

Steading 

(Category B 

Listed Building; 

LB 12990) 

Effect on 

setting. 

Operation Medium Small Slight - - Slight 




setting of Fintry 

Castle (SM 

7085) 

Effect on 

setting. 









British Geological Survey. (1967). (1:63,360) Soil Survey of Scotland Sheet 39 (Stirling) 

Council of Europe, (1997). European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological 

Heritage (Revised) 

Foster, S. (1997). Picts, Gaels and Scots. Batsford. 

Greig C, (1841). ‘Parish of St Ninian’s’, New Statistical Account, Stirlingshire Collection 

(1855), 303-339. 

IFA (1994a) Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-based Assessments, Institute of 

Field Archaeologists. 

IFA (1994b) Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Evaluations, Institute of Field 

Archaeologists. 

HMSO. (1997). Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 

HMSO. (2008). Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) 

(Scotland) Regulations 

Landscape Institute/ Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. (2002). 

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) 

Historic Scotland. (2009). 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. 

Stevenson J. 1995. Glasgow, Clydeside and Stirling. HMSO 

Stirling Council. (2011). Supplementary Planning Guidance on Locational Policy & Guidance 

for Renewable Energy Developments 

Historic Mapping 

Edgar, W. (1745). Map of Stirlingshire. (SCRAN ref. 000-000-606-716-C) 

Gordon R & J. (1636-1652). Sterlingshire & Lennox. (NLS: Adv.MS.70.2.10) 

Ordnance Survey (1865) (1st Edition) Stirlingshire - Sheet XVI. 6” to 1 mile 

Ordnance Survey (1899) (2nd Edition) Stirlingshire - Sheet XVI SW. 6” to 1 mile 

Pont, T ca.1583-1601 Pont 32: The east central lowlands (Stirling, Falkirk & Kilsyth). 

(manuscript) 

Roy, W 1747-55 Military Survey of Scotland. Sheet 5/7 

http://maps.nls.uk/ 





RCAHMS Aerial Photograph References 

10 May, 1946 006-012-001-303-C, 006-005-000-744-C, 006-005-000-745-C, 006- 

005-000- 746-C, 006-005-000-747-C, 006-005-000-748-C, 006-005- 

000-919-C, 006- 005-000-920-C, 006-005-000-921-C, 006-005-000- 

922-C, 006-005-000-923- 

C, 006-005-000-924-C 

14 June, 1988 006-005-000-427-C, 006-005-000-428-C 





11 Terrestrial Ecology 


11.1.1 This chapter asses the ecological effects of the proposed wind farm. The assessment 

outlines the methodologies used to assess potential effects on internationally, nationally, 

regionally and locally protected habitats, flora and fauna (non-avian). An assessment of the 

significance of these potential effects is given along with 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 April 2011 and September 2011 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 – Consultation Responses; 

• Appendix 11.2 – Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes; 

• Appendix 11.3 – National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey Community Polygon 

Data; 

• Appendix 11.4 – Bat Technical Appendix; 

• Appendix 11.5 – Electrofishing Survey Report; 

• Appendix 11.6 – Report to Inform the Habitat Regulations Appraisal (HRA) in Regard 

of the Potential Impacts Upon the Endrick Water SAC; and 

• Appendix 11.7 – Protected Species Confidential Annex. 

11.1.4 Bird 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 are outlined in this section, in relation 

to the three main 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 works compound, connecting roads and other 

temporary structures; 

• construction, operation and decommissioning of wind turbines; 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 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: 

• the application site, site or site boundary – the area within the redline boundary as 

shown in Figure 11.1; 

• ecology data search area (excluding bats and designated sites) – a 1 km buffer from 

the northern block of Carron Valley Forest centred around Cairnoch Hill; 

• bat data search area (excluding high risk bats such as Nyctalus species and 

Nathusius’ pipistrelle [Pipistrellus nathusii] – a 5 km buffer from the northern block of 

Carron Valley Forest centred around Cairnoch Hill; 

• high risk bat data search area – a 10 km buffer from the northern block of Carron 

Valley Forest centred around Cairnoch Hill; 

• designated sites data search area – a 5 km buffer from the northern block of Carron 

Valley Forest centred around Cairnoch Hill; 

• the vegetation survey area – a 250 m buffer around the plantation forestry to the north 

of Carron Valley Reservoir, centred on Cairnoch Hill, as shown in Figure 11.2; 

• the protected mammal survey area – a 250 m buffer around the plantation forestry to 

the north of Carron Valley Reservoir, centred on Cairnoch Hill, as shown in Figure 

11.2; 

• the bat survey area – a 500 m buffer around the plantation forestry to the north of 

Carron Valley Reservoir, centred on Cairnoch Hill as shown in Figure 11.3. 



Terrestrial Ecology



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 

windfarm construction (2010); 

• Stirling Council Area Local Biodiversity Action Plan (2002); 

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) (1994); 

• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); and 

• Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 (WANE Act). 

Consultations 

11.2.2 In September 2011, relevant consultees, as outlined in the table below, were each sent an 

EIA Scoping Report 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. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.2.3 Details of the consultation responses that had an influence on the ecological assessment are 

given in Table 11.1. 

Table 11.1 Summary of Consultaions and Responses 

Consultee 

Date of 

Consultation 

Summary of Response 

Scottish 

Natural 

Heritage 

(SNH) 

Stirling 

Council 

Scottish 

Environmental 

Protection 

Area (SEPA) 

14/10/2011 The site includes watercourses that are within the catchment of the 

Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for 

Atlantic salmon, brook lamprey and river lamprey. SNH consider that 

there is connectivity between the development proposal and the SAC. 

The site’s status means that the requirements of the Conservation 

(Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended apply. SNH 

consider that the proposed development is not in connectivity with any 

other designated sites. 

SNH confirmed that they are content with the scope and 

methodologies outlined in the Scoping Report. If peatland vegetation 

is identified, further consideration to peat depth on site should be 

considered. The presentation of survey results in the ES is important; 

work should be presented clearly and transparently. It is important to 

ensure that surveys are carried out at the right time of year. It is also 

helpful if the maps that present vegetation recorded on-site are also 

marked with the finalised layout of the wind farm proposal, including 

turbines and tracks. 

05/01/2012 Confirmed that the scoping report was largely satisfactory, subject to 

the detailed advice included in the consultation responses. The 

Scoping report on Craigannet Wind Farm should be taken into account 

in the ES. 

11/10/2011 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. 

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 

11.2.4 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 

desk based sources, primarily: Scottish Badgers; Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH); British 

Bryological Society (BBS); Glasgow Museums Biological Recording Centre (GMBRC); 

Buglife; Central Scotland Bat Group (CSBG); Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels (SSRS); 

Stirling Council; Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT); Scottish Environment Protection Agency 

(SEPA); and Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI). The relevant data search areas are 



Terrestrial Ecology


outlined in Section 11.3 of this chapter. Copies of consultation responses can be seen in 


11.2.5 Summaries of the results of the desk study are also provided in the appropriate sections 

within the ecological baseline descriptions. 

11.2.6 In addition to the data requests, the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) was searched for 

additional information within the relevant 10 km grid squares covered by 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). 

11.2.7 A search was also made for all sites with a European, National or Local Authority designation 

with an ecological interest (including SACs, SSSIs, and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs)) that 

could be affected by the development. This data was collected using SNH’s designated site 

datasets, while information on these sites was gathered from SNH’s Sitelink website (Figure 

11.1). Aerial photography and base maps were used to identify any habitat features of note 

within the site and surrounding environs and assess their suitability for various relevant 

protected species and habitats. 

Vegetation Surveys 

11.2.8 The site was visited on 11/04/2011, 21/04/2011 and 20/06/2011 and the range of seminatural 

habitats within the vegetation survey area as defined in Section 11.3 and shown in 

Figure 11.2 were mapped, according to the techniques and definitions described in the 

Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2010). Target notes were made to provide 

descriptions of the key habitat features across the site (Appendix 11.2). 

NVC Surveys 

11.2.9 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 12/10/2011, and areas of particular botanical 

interest within the vegetation survey area (Figure 11.2) were classified and mapped using the 

NVC system (Rodwell 1991 et seq.), to NVC sub-community level wherever possible. NVC 

polygons and their associated NVC proportions for the site are listed in Appendix 11.3. 

11.2.10 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. 

11.2.11 Notes were also made about the locations of any plant species of special interest found 

during the survey. 

11.2.12 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). 



Terrestrial Ecology


Protected Species Surveys 

European Protected Species 

Otter (Lutra lutra) 

11.2.13 Otter surveys were carried out on 19/04/2011 and 28/10/2011 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 11.2). 

11.2.14 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 

11.2.15 Consultation regarding the proposed bat survey methodology outlined below was undertaken 

with SNH in May 2011. A detailed description of the survey methodology and dates can be 

found in Appendix 11.4. 

11.2.16 A series of field surveys were carried out to determine the presence of bat species, estimate 

population size, and the level of usage of the site by the bat species. The surveys carried out 

are listed below. 

Site Walkover 

11.2.17 A daytime site walkover was undertaken on 19/04/2011 within the survey area (Figure 11.2). 

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 

11.2.18 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 related to 

two specific properties: Easter Clingate and Todholes. 

11.2.19 Easter Clingate was inspected on 12/10/2011, and evidence of roosting bats recorded. Any 

signs of current bat use, signs of historical bat use and/or potential use by bats were 

recorded. Ladders, torches and endoscopes were used where necessary. Internal 

inspection was not possible as the tenants were not available to provide access. During the 

inspection, signs of roosting bats were recorded in two buildings at Easter Clingate. This site 

was assessed as having potential for bat roosting; therefore, a hand-netting survey was 

carried out on 24/10/2011. The hand-netting surveys involved locating the egress points of a 

known roost and positioning large fine-meshed net outside the roost at dusk before the bats 

have left. In order to ensure any bats leaving are caught no gaps must be left uncovered. 

Once bats are caught, the species, age and sex are recorded. 

11.2.20 Access to Todholes was denied therefore a roost survey was not undertaken at this property. 

11.2.21 The site predominantly contained coniferous plantation woodland with a mix of different age 

stands. The mature stands are predominantly Sitka spruce with a dense canopy and 

therefore 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 

11.2.22 Dusk commuting watches were undertaken once a month from May to October 2011 to 

assess the level of commuting activity to or across the site and to record early emerging, high 



Terrestrial Ecology


risk species such as noctule bats (Nyctalus noctula). Vantage points (VPs) (Figure 11.3) were 

located at elevated ground near likely commuting routes in habitat of greater suitability for 

bats. 

11.2.23 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 

11.2.24 Walked transect surveys (Figure 11.3) were carried once a month from May to October 2011 

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). 

11.2.25 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 avoid temporal bias in the results. 

Driven Transect Survey 

11.2.26 Driven transect surveys were undertaken following the walked transect or vantage points 

surveys on a monthly basis from May to October, to gain an overview of bats using the site 

and wider area. 

11.2.27 The transect routes (Figure 11.3) 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 

11.2.28 Two remote recording bat detectors (Anabats) were positioned at two different locations on 

site for a two week period during both the maternity and mating/dispersal periods to monitor 

bat activity. 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 surveys 

are shown in Figure 11.3. 

Wildcat (Felis silvestris) 

11.2.29 Wildcat surveys at the proposed development site were undertaken on 28/10/2011 and 

covered all areas of suitable habitat within the protected mammal survey area (Figure 11.2). 

11.2.30 The survey involved a site walkover to record any evidence of wildcat within the protected 

mammal survey area and to identify any potential den sites for wildcats within the survey 

area. Rock crevices, rabbit burrows, disused badger setts, areas under fallen debris and old 

fox earths were searched for evidence of wildcat. This took into consideration Forestry 

Commission (FC) Guidance Note 34d (2009). 



Terrestrial Ecology


Great Crested Newt (Triturus Cristatus) 

11.2.31 During the Extended Phase 1 Survey, all ponds and waterbodies within the vegetation survey 

area (Figure 11.2) were assessed for suitability for great crested newt. 

UK Protected Species 

Water Vole (Arvicola aquaticus) 

11.2.32 Water vole surveys were undertaken on 28/10/2011 within the protected mammal survey 

area (Figure 11.2). 

11.2.33 Field signs of water vole were searched for using standard methodology, as described in 

Strachan and Moorhouse (2006), in areas of potential water vole habitat, e.g. watercourses. 

Badgers (Meles meles) 

11.2.34 Badger surveys were carried out on 28/10/2011 and 17/02/2011 within all accessible areas of 

suitable habitat (e.g. woodland, scrub and field margins) within the protected mammal survey 

area (Figure 11.2). 

11.2.35 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). 

Pine Marten (Martes martes) 

11.2.36 As no pine marten field signs were identified during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey and 

the initial desk study did not identify any pine marten records within the site boundary or a 

1km buffer, it was not deemed necessary to undertake a targeted survey. However, due to 

the presence of potentially suitable habitat, scats and potential den sites within the protected 

mammal survey area (Figure 11.2) were recorded during the NVC survey and protected 

mammal surveys. 

Red Squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) 

11.2.37 As no red squirrel field signs were identified during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey and 

the initial desk study did not identify any pine marten records within the site boundary or a 

1km buffer, it was not deemed necessary to undertake a targeted red squirrel survey. 

However, due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat, feeding signs of squirrel within 

the protected mammal survey area (Figure 11.2) were recorded during the NVC survey and 

protected mammal surveys. 

Reptiles 

11.2.38 Although no targeted surveys for these species groups were undertaken, all incidental 

observations during the Phase 1, NVC survey and the protected species surveys were 

recorded. 

Freshwater species 

11.2.39 Electrofishing surveys were carried out on 03/08/2011, 15/09/2011, 16/09/2011 and 

29/09/2011 by the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust (LLFT). The locations of the survey points 

are shown in Figure 11.8. These surveys were undertaken in accordance with the Scottish 

Fisheries Co-ordination Centre protocol (SFCC, 2007). Further detail of the methodology can 

be found in Appendix 11.5. 



Terrestrial Ecology


Invertebrate species 

11.2.40 Although no targeted surveys for these species groups were undertaken, all incidental 

observations during the Phase 1, NVC survey and the protected species surveys were 

recorded. 

Limitations of Assessment 

11.2.41 It was not possible to undertake an inspection of one property for bat roost potential within 

the bat survey area as access was denied. Due to a comprehensive desk study and 

assessment of bat activity in the local area, it is not considered that this will affect the findings 

of the assessment. 

11.2.42 The FCS consultation response was received 04/04/2012 following planning and completion 

of the protected mammal field survey season in 2011. Subsequently, the field survey suite 

and methodology agreed with SNH does not take account of the data provided by FCS. As 

the initial desk study findings did not identify any records of pine marten, red squirrel or 

wildcat within the site boundary or within a 1km buffer, targeted surveys for these species 

were not undertaken and instead field signs were recorded during the Phase 1 Habitat 

survey, NVC survey and protected mammal survey. Due to the potential low density and 

secretive nature of both pine marten and red squirrel, formal surveys for these species in this 

context are unlikely to confirm absence. Therefore, although it is considered highly unlikely 

that either of these species are present on-site, the impact assessment will use a 

precautionary approach. The absence of targeted surveys for red squirrel, pine marten and 

wildcat is therefore not considered to affect the findings of the assessment. 

11.2.43 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. 

The Assessment Process 

Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) 

11.2.44 This section details how the significance of effects on ecological receptors is assessed. This 

is a staged process based on the IEEM guidelines (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 11.4. This is for reasons 

of clarity and does not prevent the use of the 2006 guidelines to determine significance 

through reasoned argument. 

11.2.45 The choice of VERs for the site is described in the Evaluation of VERs section, following and 

in consideration of the baseline conditions. 

Evaluating Biodiversity Assets 

11.2.46 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 11.2. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.2.47 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, typicalness, recorded history, position in an ecological or geographical unit, current 

condition and potential value. 

11.2.48 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 11.2 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. 

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 if 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. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.2.49 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. 

11.2.50 Taking account of these elements, Table 11.3 defines the magnitude of effect for VERs. 

Table 11.3 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 Significant Effects 

11.2.51 The significance of the potential effects on each VER is determined by considering the value 

of each nature conservation interest and the degree to which it may be affected (the 

magnitude of effect) by the proposed wind farm, i.e. by using Table 11.2 and Table 11.3 

above. These are described as ‘very substantial’, ‘substantial’, ‘moderate’, ‘slights and 

‘negligible’. This is presented as a matrix in Table 11.4. 

Table 11.4 Significance of the Effects Defined by The Realtionship Between The 

Receptor Sensitivity and Magnitude of Effect 

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 


moderate 


Small Moderate or slight Slight Slight/ or negligible Negligible 

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.2.52 Some combinations of receptor sensitivity and effect magnitude may vary in the level of 

significance depending on the circumstances, which is why some of the cells in Table 11.4 

have two levels within them. This allows for professional judgement to be applied when 

identifying the level of significance. 

11.2.53 Effects/residual effects 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. 


Development Strategy 

11.3.2 The study area contains many designations with valued habitats and species. Policy ENV1 

of the CSSP sets out criteria to protect and conserve wildlife habitats and other natural 

features. Development that has an adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be 

proven that the designation and overall integrity of any area will not be damaged. All 

development proposals will be considered in the context of the findings of the Local 

Biodiversity Action Plans. 

11.3.3 The SCLP identifies the hierarchy of special area designations that contribute to nature 

conservation. As defined by Policy POL.E54 the Council will not normally permit or approve 

developments or land use changes which may adversely affect: 

a) the wildlife interest and conservation management of Local Nature Reserves, nonstatutory 

and community nature reserves and fully defined Wildlife Sites; or 

b) the integrity or continuity of the landscape features listed below, which are of major 

importance for wild fauna and flora. Where the reasons in favour of a development 

clearly outweigh the desirability of retaining the feature(s), mitigating measures, 

including replacement habitat creation will be sought on land within the developers’ 

control. The features included are linear tree belts, shelterbelts and hedgerows; 

plantations and policy woodlands; semi-natural and ancient woodlands; river and 

estuary corridors; lochs, reservoirs and ponds; marshland; stone dykes. 

11.3.4 Policy POL.E55 of the SCLP addresses the remainder of the hierarchy and advises that: 

c) New development will not be acceptable where it is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the integrity of a Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation, or 

Ramsar site. The few possible extenuating circumstances are described in SOEnD 

Circular 6/1995. 

d) Development will not normally be acceptable which is likely to affect an SSSI or NNR, 

unless it can be demonstrated that it will not have a significant effect on the special 

interest of the site. 



Terrestrial Ecology


PAN 60 - Planning for Natural Heritage 

11.3.5 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. 

11.3.6 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. 


Designated Sites in the Area 

11.3.7 Table 11.5 gives details of all the designated areas within 5 km of the site boundary and the 

locations are shown in Figure 11.1. Consideration has been given to the potential 

development effects on all these sites. 

11.3.8 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 11.5 Designated Sites within 5 km of the Site Boundary 

Site Name and 

Designations 

Distance from Site 

Reason for its Designation 

Statutory Designated Sites 

Endrick Water 

SAC and SSSI 

Denny Muir 

SSSI 

Double Craigs 

SSSI 

Carron Glen 

SSSI 

2.2 km west of site 

boundary. 

4 km southeast of 

the site boundary. 


boundary. 

4.8 km east of site 

boundary. 

The SAC is designated for river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis), 

brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo 

sala). 

The SSSI is designated for brook lamprey, river lamprey and 

Scottish dock (Rumex aquaticus). 

This site is designated for its subalpine acid grassland, blanket 

bog and basin fen flora. 

The site is designated for its sub-alpine calcareous grassland. 

This site is designated for its upland oak, upland mixed ash 

woodland and lowland neutral grasses. 

Non-statutory Designated Sites 

Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

(proposed 

LNCS) 

0.4 km south of site 

boundary. 

This site was provisionally designated as a wildlife site or 

Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS) in the late 1980’s but 

has not been formally surveyed. The provisional designation 

was based on freshwater, wetland, bird, amphibian and insect 

interests potentially on the site. 

Upper Endrick 2.4 km west of site Upper Endrick Water consists of an aggregate of many 


Terrestrial Ecology 



Site Name and 

Designations 

Distance from Site 

Reason for its Designation 

Water LNCS boundary. different habitat types, including semi-natural broadleaved 

woodland, broadleaved woodland plantation, semi-improved 

acid and neutral grasslands, marshy grassland, dry heath, 

scrub and tall ruderal, which support over 140 vascular plant 

species along a 3 km stretch of river east of Fintry. 

Ballochleam 

Crags LNCS 

Double Craigs 

LNCS 

4.7 km northwest of 

site boundary. 


boundary. 

Ballochleam Crags are a line of cliffs and steep slopes which 

hold a variety of largely undisturbed and natural habitats 

including upland species-rich ledges, unimproved grassland, 

heathland and small pockets of woodland. This site holds 

several species including early purple orchid(Orchis mascula), 

juniper (Juniperus communis), aspen (Populus tremula) and 

green spleenwort (Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum) which 

are scarce or uncommon within the surrounding landscape. 

The designation is based on the presence of alkaline rock 

scree flora including Minuartia verna, Anthyllis vulneraria and 

early purple orchid. 

11.3.9 The northwest corner of the site falls within the catchment area for the Endrick Water SAC, 

SSSI and Upper Endrick Water LNCS and it is considered that the proposed development 

has the potential to impact these designated areas. 

11.3.10 Due to the proximity of the proposed Carron Valley Wind Farm to the Endrick Water SAC in 

particular, a separate document outlining the potential impacts has been prepared to allow an 

appropriate assessment to be made (Appendix 11.6). 

11.3.11 Carron Valley Reservoir is a proposed wildlife sites or LNCS which was identified in the late 

1980’s, over 20 years ago. This site has not been formally surveyed in the interim and as 

such it is unknown what the condition of the notable features are. Given the time period and 

provisional nature of the designation, this site is not considered further within this chapter. It 

is considered that mitigation measures to protect freshwater habitats on site and the Endrick 

Water SAC will prevent any significant effect on Carron Valley Reservoir and the species it 

supports. 

11.3.12 All other designated sites within the 5 km search buffer are not considered to be in 

connectivity with the proposed development due to topography and distance from the site 

and as such are not considered further within this chapter. 

Habitats and Flora 

Legal Protection 

11.3.13 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 11.6. 



Terrestrial Ecology


Table 11.6 Communities found at Carron Valley which are listed either as Annex 1 

Biotope Type, UK BAP Priority Habitat or are Listed on the Scottish Biodiversity List 

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 

H12a 

Calluna vulgaris – Vaccinium 

mrytillus heath, Calluna vulgaris subcommunity. 

Upland 

heath 

Yes 

- - M6c Carex echinata-Sphagnum 

fallax/denticulatum mire, Juncus 

effusus sub-community. 

Upland 

flush, fen 

& swamp 

Yes 

H7130 

Blanket 

bogs 

M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire. Blanket 

bog 

Yes 

H7130 

Blanket 

bogs 

M25 

Molinea caerulea – Potentilla erecta 

mire. 

Blanket 

bog 

Yes 

- - MG10 Holcus lanatus – Juncus effusus 

rush-pasture. 

Upland 

flush, fen 

& swamp 

No 

11.3.14 The Stirling Biodiversity Action Plan (SBAP) 2002 lists the following relevant habitats and 

species with action plans: 

• neutral grassland; 

• rivers and burns; 

• upland mosaic habitats; and 

• conifer plantation. 

Desk Study 

11.3.15 Consultation with GMBRC, BSBI and a search of the NBN database for the NS68 and NS78 

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 Table 11.7. 

Table 11.7 Notable Plant Species Potentially on Site 

Common Name Latin Name UK SBL 2 IUCN 

BAP 1 End 3 

IUCN 

Vul 4 

IUCN Rare 6 Scarce 7 

NT 5 

a lichen Arthonia stellaris x 

a lichen 

Bryoria 

chalybeiformis 

x 

a lichen Buellia pulverea x 

a lichen 

Immersaria 

athroocarpa 

x 

a lichen Lecidea plana x 



Terrestrial Ecology


Common Name Latin Name UK 

BAP 1 End 3 

SBL 2 IUCN 

IUCN 

Vul 4 


NT 5 

a lichen Placopsis gelida x 

a lichen Rinodina efflorescens x 

a lichen 

Verrucaria 

conturmatula 

x 

a lichen Xanthoria ucrainica. x 

Arnell's apple-moss Philonotis arnellii x 

bluebell 

Hyacinthoides nonscripta 

x 

corn spurrey Spergula arvensis x 

dwarf elder Sambucus ebulus x 

eight-stamened 

waterwort 

fine bog-moss 

flexuous bog-moss 

Elatine hydropiper 

Sphagnum 

angustifolium 

Sphagnum 

flexuosum 

x 

x 

x 

a bramble Rubus rotundifolius x 

good-king-Henry 

Chenopodium bonushenricus 

x 

x 

gouty-moss 

Oedipodium 

griffithianum 

x 

greater butterflyorchid 

Platanthera 

chlorantha 

x 

x 

hairy stonecrop Sedum villosum x x 

harebell 

heather 

Campanula 

rotundifolia 

Calluna vulgaris 

x 

hoary plantain Plantago media x 

large-flowered 

hemp-nettle 

lesser butterflyorchid 

Galeopsis speciosa x x 

Platanthera bifolia x x x 

lesser fringe-moss Racomitrium affine x 



Terrestrial Ecology



BAP 1 End 3 

SBL 2 IUCN 

IUCN 

Vul 4 


NT 5 

mossy saxifrage Saxifraga hynoides x x 

river pocket-moss Fissidens rivularis x x 

masterwort 

Peucedanum 

ostruthium 

x 

x 

round leaved bryum Bryum cyclophyllum x x x x 

slender threadmoss 

Orthodontium gracile. x x x x 

small-white orchid Pseudorchis albida x x 

speckled rustwort 

Marsupella 

sphacelata 

x 

wild pansy Viola tricolor x x 

1 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) Priority Species 

2 Scottish Biodiversity Priority List (SBL) Species 

3 Red listing based on 2001 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN guidelines) – 

Endangered 

4 Red listing based on 2001 IUCN guidelines – Vulnerable 

5 Red listing based on 2001 IUCN guidelines – Near Threatened 

6 Nationally Rare 

7 Nationally Scarce 

Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results 

11.3.16 The Phase 1 Habitat Survey types are mapped in Figure 11.4 along with specific features 

highlighted with target notes (see Appendix 11.2). 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 

Phase 1 Habitat 

Survey Area 

Covered (Ha) 

Area of Site 

Covered (Ha) 

% of Site 

Covered (Ha) 

Coniferous plantation woodland 379.62 227.64 (157.23)* 67.02 (50.15)* 

Recently felled coniferous woodland 207.47 99.92 (170.33)* 29.42 (46.29)* 

Semi-natural broadleaved woodland 9.428 - - 

Broadleaved plantation woodland 0.87 - - 

Dry heath/acid grassland mosaic 17.09 - - 

Semi-improved acid grassland 49.28 1.61 0.47 



Terrestrial Ecology


Phase 1 Habitat 

Survey Area 

Covered (Ha) 

Area of Site 

Covered (Ha) 

% of Site 

Covered (Ha) 

Unimproved neutral grassland 4.32 - - 

Semi-improved neutral grassland 9.65 7.91 2.33 

Poor semi-improved grassland 149.45 - - 

Improved grassland 4.94 - - 

Marshy grassland 29.41 2.44 0.72 

Continuous bracken 6.75 - - 

Dense scrub 0.20 - - 

Quarry 0.13 0.13 0.04 

Standing water 69.57 - - 

* Figures in brackets represent the baseline assuming a build date of 2015. All other figures represent 

the values at the time of survey. 

Coniferous Woodland Plantation 

11.3.17 The survey area is dominated by coniferous plantation woodland and contains a mix of 

different aged stands. Within the site boundary at the time of survey this habitat covered 

227.64ha out of the total site area of 340.6ha. Assuming a build date of 2015 for the 

proposed wind farm, ongoing forestry works will result in 70.41 ha of plantation being felled. 

The baseline level of coniferous plantation estimated to be present on site prior to 

construction of the wind farm is therefore 157.23 ha. The predominant species within the 

survey area is Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and lodge-pole pine (Pinus contorta), with 

occasional stands of larch species (Larix spp.). 

11.3.18 Due to the density of the mature canopy within the site, very little light penetrates the ground 

floral layer causing many species to be shaded out; with needle litter therefore the dominating 

characteristic. As such, throughout the plantation areas, there is little biological diversity 

within the floral ground layer. 

11.3.19 Within the coniferous plantation there are numerous areas where wind throw has affected the 

crop, opening up the predominately closed canopy, allowing a more diverse ground floral 

layer to occur. Pleurocarpous mosses such pointed spear-moss (Calliergonella cuspidata), 

neat feather-moss (Pseudoscleropodium purum), and red-stemmed feather-moss 

(Pleurozium scherberi) have been able to recolonise the needle litter in these areas. 

Recently Felled Coniferous Woodland 

11.3.20 Throughout the site boundary, a number of the forest coupes have recently been clear felled 

(99.92 ha) following industry best practice (UKWAS etc). All of these have been restocked. 

This technique creates a ‘brash mat’ essential to allow machine access and minimise ground 

damage. Assuming a build date of 2015 for the proposed wind farm, ongoing forestry works 

will result in 70.41 ha of additional plantation being clear felled and restocked. The baseline 

level of recently felled and largely restocked coniferous woodland is therefore estimated to be 

170.33 ha. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.3.21 Between the brash mats the vegetation is recolonising with an assemblage 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 odaratum). 

Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland 

11.3.22 Throughout the survey area there are numerous mature and immature broadleaved trees, 

including beech (Fagus sylvatica), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), alder (Alnus glutinosa), 

silver birch (Betula pendula), downy birch (Betula pubescens), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), 

sessile oak (Quercus petraea), penduculate oak (Quercus robur), and rowan (Sorbus 

aucuparia). 

11.3.23 The largest area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland is located in the west of the 

vegetation survey area and covers an area of approximately 9.43 ha, bordering the survey 

boundary alongside Endrick Water. This area was previously planted coniferous forestry. In 

implementing the restructuring of the forest this riparian zone is being managed to ensure it 

regenerates with native woodland, predominantly birch species in open space, with a 

maximum tree height of 6 m. Trees of a greater height follow the boundary of the site in this 

area where commercial afforestation has not taken place, with the dominant species being 

oak and birch. 

11.3.24 This habitat was absent from within the site boundary. 

Broadleaved Plantation Woodland 

11.3.25 A strip of broadleaved plantation runs along the south of the B818 in the southeast of the 

vegetation survey area. The plantation covers 0.87 ha of the survey area and was dominated 

by sycamore, horse-chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) and beech with occasional birch. 

This habitat was absent from the site. 

Dry Heath/Acid Grassland Mosaic 

11.3.26 The largest area of heath within the vegetation survey boundary, is an area of dry heath 

covering 17.09 ha located at the summit of Cairnoch Hill which has not undergone 

afforestation. This habitat is not present within the site boundary. The area is surrounded by 

felled forestry and existing coniferous plantation forestry and thus is likely to have been 

affected by the associated forestry drainage. Dwarf shrub heath species such as ling heather 

(Calluna vulgaris) and blaeberry (Vaccinium mrytillus) occupy less than 30 % of the total 

cover, with acidic grassland species such as wavy hair grass dominating the area and as 

such the area is classified as a dry heath/acid grassland mosaic. The peat depth across this 

area did not exceeded 40 cm. 

Semi-improved Acid Grassland 

11.3.27 The largest area of semi-improved acid grassland within the survey area is present to the 

north of the site boundary and has been heavily grazed by sheep. This area contains a 

mosaic of wetter heath communities and scattered bracken. The acid grassland contains 

species such as sweet vernal grass, common bent grass (Agrostis capillaris), red fescue, mat 

grass (Nardus stricta), and heath bedstraw (Galium saxatile). Towards the south of the area 

there is an increase in heath species such as purple moor grass, wavy hair grass, common 

sedge (Carex nigra), and hare’s-tail cotton grass (Eriophorum vaginatum). 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.3.28 Within the site boundary, corridors of semi-improved acid grassland are also present along 

the forest rides and cover an area of 1.61 ha. 

Unimproved Neutral Grassland 

11.3.29 The clearing around Sir John de Graham’s Castle in the west of the vegetation survey area 

covers 4.32 ha and contains a notable grassland mosaic. This habitat is absent from within 

the site boundary. The dominant community here is unimproved neutral grassland dominated 

by Yorkshire fog and creeping soft grass (Holcus mollis), with small pockets of acid 

grassland, including wavy hair-grass and velvet bent grass (Agrostis canina). 

Semi-improved Neutral Grassland 

11.3.30 Semi-improved neutral grassland areas are present within the site boundary (7.91 ha) in 

forest rides and are dominated by species such as Yorkshire fog, tufted hair grass, meadow 

foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), annual meadow grass (Poa annua), and smooth meadow 

grass (Poa pratensis). The historical burial ground in the southeast of the site also comprised 

semi-improved neutral grassland. The desk study confirmed that masterwort, a near 

threatened species (2001 IUCN guidelines) and nationally scarce species has historically 

been recorded within the burial ground. 

Poor Semi-improved Grassland 

11.3.31 This habitat is absent from the site but is present in the northwest and east of the vegetation 

survey area and covers 149.45 ha. These fields are used for grazing and are generally 

segregated by wire fencing or drystone walls. 

Improved Grassland 

11.3.32 The fields to the west of the site boundary are used for grazing and comprise of improved 

grassland and cover 4.94 ha of the survey area. This habitat is absent from the site. 

Marshy Grassland 

11.3.33 Marshy grassland covers 29.41 ha of the vegetation survey area, predominantly along the 

southern edge adjacent to the reservoir. This strip which runs along the edge of the 

reservoir, is a fine mosaic of marshy grassland and acid grassland, with small burns crossing 

it and occasional single species stands too small to map (e.g. rosebay willowherb (Epilobium 

angustifolium), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)). Tufted hair-grass dominates 

the marshy grassland, with sweet vernal grass, false oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), 

marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre) heath woodrush (Luzula multiflora), and reed canary grass all 

frequently present. Scattered willow scrub (Salix spp.) borders the reservoir edge. 

11.3.34 Around Sir John de Graham’s Castle, areas of marshy grassland and swamp are present 

within the remnant defensive earthen dykes contain sharp flowered rush (Juncus acutiflorus), 

yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), marsh cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris) and tufted hair grass. 

11.3.35 Within the site, marshy grassland is limited to two small clearings in the southwest. The 

westernmost of these clearings (TN13) covers 0.374 ha and was identified as a species rich 

marshy grassland-swamp-acid grassland mosaic. 

Continuous Bracken 

11.3.36 Two stands of bracken covering 6.75 ha are present within the semi-improved acid grassland 

to the northwest of the site boundary. This habitat is absent from within the site boundary. 



Terrestrial Ecology


Dense Scrub 

11.3.37 A small patch of dense scrub covering 0.2 ha comprising of gorse (Ulex europaeus) is 

present to the southeast of the site boundary within an area of poor semi-improved grassland 

used for grazing. This habitat is absent from within the site boundary. 

Quarry 

11.3.38 Within the site boundary two quarries were identified. The larger quarry in the vegetation 

survey area is found on the eastern boundary of the site (TN31). This area contains a 

mixture of habitats including abandoned gravel and rubble piles, semi-natural vegetation of 

acid grassland and marsh/swamp. The marsh/swamp habitat are a mixture of permanent and 

ephemeral with the latter drying out in the summer months. They contain species such as 

common spike rush (Eleocharis palustre), hare’s tail cotton grass, jointed rush (Juncus 

articulatus), sharp-flowered rush, toad rush (Juncus bufonius), bulbous rush (Juncus 

bulbosus), reedmace (Typha sp.), lesser spearwort (Ranuculus flammula), oval sedge (Carex 

leporina), cuckoo flower (Cardamine pratensis), and northern marsh orchid (Dactylorhiza 

purpurella). The drier areas contain an assemblage of species such as early hair-grass (Aira 

praecox), creeping bent grass (Agrostis palustris), heath bedstraw, red fescue, white clover 

(Trifolium repens), coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara), and common vetch (Vicia sativa). The 

second quarry is situated in the west of the site (TN18) and contains a similar assemblage to 

the drier areas noted in the larger quarry. 

Standing Water 

11.3.39 The dominant water body in the area is the Carron Valley Reservoir bordering the southern 

boundary of the site. The reservoir is fed by the River Carron from the west and flows out via 

a weir at its eastern tip. The shores of the reservoir are relatively free of emergent vegetation 

with only scattered areas of reedmace, soft rush (Juncus effusus), and common spiked rush 

being present. This is typical of the drawdown zone around oligotrophic to mesotrophic 

reservoirs. Marshy grassland runs along the shore edges, and occasional areas of swamp 

are present within sheltered bays. 

11.3.40 One pond was identified within the survey area at TN6 to the west of the site boundary. The 

fringe of the pond contains emergent vegetation of soft rush. Two small pools of water were 

identified within the semi-natural broad–leaved woodland to the west of the site boundary; 

however, these were too small to map. The Forestry Commission submitted records from 

2008 of two ponds to the northwest of Cairnoch steading, on the southern site boundary. 

These were not located during the site visits and are thought to have dried out during the 

2011 survey season. 

Running Water 

11.3.41 The Endrick Water flows through the west of the vegetation survey area (TN5) and at this 

point is a swiftly flowing burn approximately 7 m wide. The burn flows over a gravel and 

boulder base with a water depth at the time of survey of 40 cm. The banks were 

approximately 1m high for the length of the burn within the survey area, comprising of a 

mixture of brown earth and gley soils. 

11.3.42 Earl’s Burn flows through the north eastern corner of the survey area (TN38). At this point the 

burn is approximately 4 m wide running over a gravel and boulder base. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.3.43 Numerous small burns run through the survey area draining into the previously mentioned 

watercourses and waterbody. 

NVC Field Survey Results 

11.3.44 The NVC communities were identified and mapped and are shown on Figure 11.5. The 

proportions of each habitat per polygon are listed in Appendix 11.3. Table 11.9 lists the 

dominant NVC communities present within the survey area. 

Table 11.9 Dominant NVC Communities Present Within the Vegetation Survey Area 

NVC 

Code 

NVC Type 

Survey Area 

Covered (ha) 

Area Within the 

Site Boundary 

(ha) 

MG9 Holcus lanatus – Deschampsia cespitosa grassland 33.6 1.75 

M23 M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus – Galium saxatile mire 24.5 0.56 

U20 U20 Pteridium aquilinum – Galium saxatile community 7.6 - 

MG10 MG10 Holcus lanatus – Juncus effusus rush pasture 3.1 1.19 

H12 H12 Calluna vulgaris – Erica cinerea heath 2.45 - 

M25 M25 Molinea caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire 1.6 0.26 

M19 M19 Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum mire 0.8 - 

A9 A9 Potamogetan natans aquatic community 0.39 - 

A9 Potamogeton natans community 

11.3.45 This aquatic community is dominant in polygons 4 and 6, both of which contain small water 

bodies. The community is dominated by the floating leaves of broad-leaved pondweed 

(Potamogetan natans). The community is usually found in association with swamp and mire 

communities such as S4 Carex rostrata swamp and M6c Carex echinata – Sphagnum 

fallax/denticulatum, Juncus effusus sub-community. These form emergent vegetation 

communities on the fringes of the pools in which A9 is found. 

H12a Calluna vulgaris – Vaccinium myrtillus heath, Calluna vulgaris sub-community 

11.3.46 This sub-community is present in mosaics in the north of the survey area which are 

dominated by acid grassland communities such as U4 Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaries – 

Galium saxatile grassland, and mire communities such as M20 Eriophorum vaginatum mire. 

The H12a community is dominated by mature stands of heather interlaced with blaeberry, 

with a groundcover beneath this dominated by bryophytes such as Pleurozium schreberi, 

Hypnum jutlandicum, and Hylocomium splendens. Heath bedstraw and tormentil (Potentilla 

erecta) are frequently found throughout. 

H18a Vaccinium myrtillus – Deschampsia flexuosa heath, Hylocomium splendens – 

Rhytidiadelphus loreus sub-community 

11.3.47 A dense sward of blaeberry characterised this community with a carpet of pleurocarpous 

mosses including Hylocomium splendens, Hypnum jutlandicum, and Pleurozium scherberi 

beneath the ericoid species. This community is found in small proportions within polygons 15 



Terrestrial Ecology


and 25 within the survey area, in association with acid grass communities such as U2 

Deschampsia flexuosa acid grassland, and U4 Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Galium 

saxatile acid grassland. 

M6c Carex echinata-Sphagnum fallax/denticulatum mire, Juncus effusus sub-community 

11.3.48 This sub-community is found in small proportions throughout the survey area, predominantly 

surrounding burns, drainage ditches, and waterbodies. The community is dominated by soft 

rush with a mixture of sedges; common sedge, star sedge (Carex echinata), grasses; wavy 

hair grass and velvet bent grass, and mosses; common hair-moss (Polytrichum commune) 

and Sphagnum fallax, common throughout the soft rush sward. 

M6d Carex echinata-Sphagnum fallax/denticulatum mire, Juncus acutiflorus sub-community 

11.3.49 The species composition of this sub-community is similar to that of M6c Carex echinata- 

Sphagnum fallax/denticulatum mire, Juncus effusus sub-community, however soft rush is 

replaced by sharp-flowered rush as the dominant species. As with other M6 subcommunities, 

M6d is often found in mosaics containing M25 Molinea caerulea – Potentilla 

erecta mire in areas of high water table, and is common throughout the survey area. 

M19a Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire, Erica tetralix sub-community 

11.3.50 This sub-community is found throughout the survey area, usually in mosaics with heath and 

mire communities such as M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire and M6c Carex echinata 

– Sphagnum fallax/denticulatum, Juncus effusus sub-community. The community is 

dominated by heather and hare’s tail cottongrass which gives the community a distinctive 

tussocky appearance. Deer grass (Trichophorum germanicum) and wavy hair-grass are 

occasionally found but are not a constant feature, and the ground cover beneath the 

dominant vascular species contains frequent Sphagnum capillifolium, Sphagnum papillosum, 

Sphagnum tenellum, and Sphagnum fallax. Mosses such as Pleurozium schreberi and 

Hypnum, jutlandicum are also abundant in this ground cover. 

M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire 

11.3.51 A dominant sward of Hare’s tail cottongrass characterises this community, with ericoid shrubs 

having a negligible impact on the foliar cover; heather and blaeberry are only occasionally 

present and do not consistently occur throughout the community. Wavy hair-grass, purple 

moor grass and common cottongrass (Eriophorum angustifolium) are frequently found 

scattered throughout the areas, and Sphagnum mosses and other bryophytes frequently 

carpet the ground. This community is often a sign of high grazing pressure where the more 

palatable dwarf shrub heath species have been grazed out from the sward leaving only the 

tougher, nutrient poor grass species. Within the survey area the community is found most 

frequently in the north of the site which is used for grazing sheep. 

M23 Juncus effusus / acutiflorus rush pasture 

11.3.52 This community is dominated by either soft rush within sub-community ‘a’, or sharp-flowered 

rush in sub-community ‘b’, with Yorkshire fog, and marsh bedstraw (Galium palustre) 

abundantly present. Sweet vernal grass, meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria), and lesser 

spearwort are also frequently found within the community. The ground cover often contains 

frequent mosses, such as Calliergonella cuspidata and Rhytideadelphus squarrosus. Within 

the survey area, this community is found most frequently in the north. It is generally the 



Terrestrial Ecology


dominant community within mosaics also contain mire communities, such as M19 Calluna 

vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum mire, and M20 Eriophorum vaginatum mire. 

11.3.53 Within the site, this habitat is only found in the west of the site within the small species rich 

clearing of marshy grassland (TN13, Figure 11.4) 

M25 Molinea caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire 

11.3.54 The presence of purple moor grass with tormentil interlaced with the grass sward 

characterises this community, with a negligible moss presence throughout and only 

occasional patches of Sphagna present in areas containing a high water table. 

11.3.55 Two sub-communities are present throughout the survey area. Sub-community ‘a’ contains 

ericoid species such as crossed-leaved heath (Erica tetralix) and heather and within the site 

boundary is only located within polygon 31. Sub-community ‘b’ contains a higher species 

assemblage of grasses such as sweet vernal grass, sheep’s fescue, and wavy hair-grass and 

is absent from the site. Both of these sub-communities are found frequently throughout the 

survey area, in particularly within the ride system of the plantation forestry. 

MG1a Arrhenatherum elatius neutral grassland, Festuca rubra sub-community 

11.3.56 The community, typical of deeper richer soils of a more neutral pH, is dominated by false oatgrass, 

with frequent cock’s foot (Dactylis glomerata), red fescue, and Yorkshire fog. Small 

herbs such as white clover (Trifolium repens), sorrel (Rumex acetosa), and ribwort plantain 

(Plantago lancelata) are similarly frequently present in the understorey of the community. 

Within the survey area the community is found on the verges surrounding the roads and in 

association with other mesotrophic grasslands such as MG9 Holcus lanatus – Deschampsia 

cespitosa grassland. 

MG9a Holcus lanatus – Deschampsia cespitosa neutral grassland, Poa travialis subcommunity 

11.3.57 This grassland is found throughout the survey area and is dominated by tall tussocks of tufted 

hair-grass. Within the site it is located in polygons 27, 28 and 33. Grasses such as Yorkshire 

fog and sweet vernal grass are also frequently present within the sward, with grasses such as 

cock’s foot occasionally seen. Soft rush is frequent throughout these areas, but insufficiently 

for the areas to be classified as an MG10 Holcus lanatus – Juncus effusus rush pasture. 

Rough-stalked meadow grass (Poa trivialis) is frequently present. Scattered herbs such as 

creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and marsh thistle are also frequently recorded. 

HG9b Holcus lanatus – Deschampsia cespitosa neutral grassland, Arrenatherum elatius subcommunity 

11.3.58 This sub-community is similar in its species assemblage to MG9a, however rough-stalked 

meadow grass is replaced as a constant by false oat-grass. Within the survey area this subcommunity 

is most notably found recolonising the felled areas of forestry plantation. Within 

the site it is found in NVC polygon 23. 

MG10a Holcus lanatus – Juncus effusus rush-pasture, typical sub-community 

11.3.59 This community is abundant throughout the survey area, especially in the north and west 

surrounding the Endrick Water and Earl’s Burn. Within the site it is present in NVC polygon 

29. Areas where the community is found are dominated by soft rush, with Yorkshire fog and 

creeping bent grass constantly present throughout, although in varying degrees of 



Terrestrial Ecology


abundance. Creeping buttercup is consistently present in all areas, and rough-stalked 

meadow grass is occasionally found. The sub-community is the typical type with no other 

characteristic species present. It is often is found within mosaics in association with acid 

grassland communities such as U4 Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Galium saxatile 

grassland which are found surrounding many of the waterways in the survey area. 

MG10x Holcus lanatus – Juncus effusus rush-pasture, non-NVC sub-community 

11.3.60 Soft rush dominates this sub-community of MG10. Unlike the MG10a sub-community, the 

ground flora between the soft rush tussocks is dominated by an assemblage of acid 

grassland species such as sweet vernal grass, sheep’s fescue, and common bent-grass. This 

sub-community is not currently included within the NVC nomenclature but is recognised as a 

separate sub-community within MG10 (Averis et al, 2004). 

OV27 Epilobium angustafolium community 

11.3.61 This community is characterised by the dominant presence of rosebay willowherb and is 

usually a characteristic of highly disturbed ground. Within the survey area two subcommunities 

are found; sub-community ‘a’ is characterised by ground flora dominated by 

Yorkshire fog, whereas sub-community ‘b’ contains an abundance of common nettle amongst 

the dominant rosebay willowherb. Both of these sub-communities are found surrounding the 

roads throughout the survey area. 

S4 Phragmites australis swamp 

11.3.62 This community was found occasionally along the shore of the Carron Valley Reservoir on 

the southern boundary of the survey area. The community is notable by the dominance of 

common reed (Phragmites australis) with few other species present within the reed sward. 

Other emergent communities such as S9 Carex rostrata swamp are found in association with 

this swamp community. 

S9 Carex rostrata swamp 

11.3.63 This swamp community is found within the vegetation survey area surrounding a number of 

water bodies and in particular in patches along the edge of the Carron Valley Reservoir. The 

vegetation is dominated by bottle sedge (Carex rostra), with few other species present, and 

often in association with other emergent swamp communities such as S4 Phragmites 

australis swamp and M6c Carex echinata-Sphagnum fallax/denticulatum mire, Juncus 

effusus sub-community. 

U2a Deschampsia flexuosa acid grassland, Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris subcommunity 

11.3.64 Wavy hair-grass dominates this community with frequent to occasional heather present within 

the grass sward. Sweet vernal grass, common bent-grass, and sheep’s fescue are all 

frequent present. The community is found in polygons 1 and 11 in association with the 

mesotrophic community MG9 Holcus lanatus – Deschampsia cespitosa grassland. 

U4a Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Galium saxatile grassland, typical sub-community 

11.3.65 This grassland is characterised by the constant presence of common bent-grass, sweet 

vernal grass, sheep’s fescue, heath bedstraw, and common hair-moss, with a carpet of 

bryophytes such as Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus covering the ground. There are occasional 

patches of heather within this sub-community along with creeping buttercup. The community 



Terrestrial Ecology


is found throughout the north of the survey area in association with the mire communities 

M20 Eriophorum vaginatum mire and M19 Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum mire. 

U4b Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Galium saxatile grassland, Holcus lanatus – 

Trifolium repens sub-community 

11.3.66 As with the U4a sub-community, U4b is defined by the presence of sheep’s fescue, sweet 

vernal grass, and common bent-grass, however the frequent presence of Yorkshire fog, 

cock’s foot, and occasional crested dog’s tail within the sward is distinctive. Within the survey 

area the community is found on damp soils thereby increasing the levels of Yorkshire fog, 

with sedges such as star sedge, common sedge, green-ribbed sedge (Carex binervis), and 

pill sedge (Carex pilulifera) also frequently found. The sub-community was found in mosaics 

throughout the survey area and most commonly associated with areas of mire and other acid 

grassland communities. 

U4d Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Galium saxatile grassland, Vaccinium mrytillus – 

Deschampsia flexuosa sub-community 

11.3.67 This sub-community has a similar species assemblage to that of U4a and U4b, however it is 

characterised by the presence of blaeberry throughout the grass sward. Within the survey 

area the sub-community is found in polygon 25 at the top of Cairnoch Hill, in association with 

the dry heath community H18 Vaccinium mrytillus – Deschampsia flexuosa heath, and M19 

Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum mire. 

U13a Deschampsia cespitosa – Galium saxatile grassland, Anthoxanthum odoratum subcommunity 

11.3.68 This community is characterised by the constant presence of tufted hair-grass and common 

bent-grass, with the presence of sweet vernal grass identifying the sub-community. The grass 

sward is interlaced with heath bedstraw, with a carpet of pleurocarpous mosses such as 

Hylocomium splendens and Rhytidiadelphus loreus. Within the survey area the community is 

found within polygon 17 in association with the acid grassland community U4b Festuca ovina 

– Agrostis capillaris – Galium saxatile grassland, Holcus lanatus – Trifolium repens subcommunity. 

U20 Pteridium aquilinum – Galium saxatile community 

11.3.69 This community is characterised by the presence of a bracken sward. Three subcommunities 

are found in the survey area, with sub-community ‘a’ characterised by sparse 

bracken overlying an acid grassland sward with species such as sweet vernal grass, common 

bent-grass, and wavy hair-grass present, whereas sub-community ‘b’ contains blaeberry 

amongst the bracken sward. Sub-community ‘c’ is characterised by its dense bracken sward 

which shades out most other species, with only occasional Yorkshire fog present within the 

bracken leaf-litter. Within the survey area all of these sub-communities are found in the north 

of the site on the steeper ground above the Earl’s Burn and the tributaries to the Endrick 

Water, in association with the U4 acid grassland communities. 

W4b Betula pubescens – Molinea caerulea woodland, Juncus effusus sub-community 

11.3.70 This community is characterised by the presence of a downy birch canopy covering a ground 

flora dominated by a mixture of tufted hair-grass and purple moor grass, with occasional 

patches of Sphagnum fallax in areas of higher water table. The sub-community contains 

patches of soft rush, with an increase in the percentage cover of alder and silver birch in the 



Terrestrial Ecology


canopy along with willow saplings. The community is found in the west of the survey area at 

polygons 3 and 8. 

Holcus lanatus ride 

11.3.71 A number of the rides within the forestry plantation areas contain a limited number of species 

and are dominated by Yorkshire fog, with occasional patches of pleurocarpous mosses 

beneath the grass sward. These rides do not fit into the NVC nomenclature; however they are 

mentioned due to the frequency in which they were encountered throughout the survey area. 

European Protected Species 

11.3.72 This section of the chapter describes the results of the surveys to assess the likely presence 

of European Protected Species (EPS) (for which the UK and Scottish governments have a 

responsibility to maintain populations in favourable conservation status). 

Otter Survey 


11.3.73 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 Stirling LBAP (2002). 

Desk Study 

11.3.74 Records provided on the NBN gateway database show records of otters within the site and 

the ecology data search area. These records date from between 1977 up to 1995. The 

GMBRC holds no records of otter within the ecology data search area. SEPA confirmed the 

presence of otters on the Earls Burn and River Carron but do not have any record of otters on 

the unnamed tributaries bordering the site. 

Field Survey Results 

11.3.75 All watercourses and waterbodies were assessed for their potential to support otters and are 

described in paragraphs 11.7.39 – 11.7.43 within the Phase 1 Habitat survey results. 

11.3.76 No otter holts were identified during the survey however two otter couches were identified: 

• a couch was recorded under an un-named bridge on the B818 over the Endrick Water. 

Otter spraints and mink scats were recorded adjacent to the couch which was located 

810 m to west of the site boundary and 1,025 m from the closest turbine (Turbine 5); 

and 

• a second otter couch with a spraint adjacent to it was identified near a tributary of the 

Endrick Water. The couch was located within the site boundary, 234 m to the north of 

the closest turbine (Turbine 1). 

11.3.77 Otter spraints were identified predominantly on the margins of the protected mammal survey 

area, outwith the site boundary. Spraints were concentrated along the Endrick Water and its 

tributaries to the west of the site indicating that this waterway is important for otter and is 

likely to be used for foraging and commuting. Within the site boundary, there are numerous 

small burns that drain into the Earl’s Burn, Endrick Water and Carron Valley Reservoir. 

Where these waterways flow through dense conifer plantation, they are considered to present 

sub-optimal habitat for otters. Towards the margins of the plantation where more clearings 



Terrestrial Ecology


are present, (especially those containing marshy grassland), the waterways have higher 

potential for otters and may act as commuting corridors and offer some foraging potential. 

11.3.78 The forestry drainage channels which flow through the site were considered to be unsuitable 

for otters due to their heavily modified, ephemeral nature and poor water quality. 

11.3.79 The pond located to the west of the site boundary at TN6 may provide some foraging 

potential although no otter evidence was identified during the survey. 

11.3.80 The areas of marshy grassland along the edge of the Carron Valley Reservoir and within the 

site in the forest rides provide potential foraging habitat for otters. During the Phase 1 Habitat 

Survey, frogs were present within the species rich marshy grassland at TN13 indicating that 

this area could provide a seasonal resource for foraging otters. 

Bat Survey 


11.3.81 All UK bat species are European Protected Species 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. 

11.3.82 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. 

11.3.83 Noctules, 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 Stirling LBAP (2002). 

Desk Study 

11.3.84 Published sources of bat distribution data, consultation data shown below and the surveyors’ 

experience indicated that the following species were likely to be present in the area: 

• soprano pipistrelle; 

• common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus); 

• Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii); 

• Natterer’s bat (Myotis nattereri); 

• brown long-eared bat; 

• noctule; and 

• Nathusius’ pipistrelle. 

11.3.85 A search of the NBN gateway database for NS68 and NS78 10 km grid squares covering the 

site and the surrounding area shows records of common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and 

brown long-eared bats. Central Scotland Bat Group similarly returned records for common 

pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and additionally Nathusius’ pipistrelle. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.3.86 Data search and desk study did not provide records of hibernation sites within the bat data 

search area or the high risk bat data search area. 


11.3.87 The section below summarises the findings of the bat technical report which can be found in 


11.3.88 There are two known roost structures within the bat survey area, both of which were located 

more than 500 m from the nearest turbine (Figure 11.7): 

• the property at Easter Clingate which is located 1,158 m from the closest turbine 

(Turbine 3); and 

• a barn owl box which is located 925 m from the closest turbine (Turbine 15). 

11.3.89 During the dusk commuting watches, no bats were seen to commute onto or across site. 

11.3.90 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 of low value to 

bats. Comparatively higher levels of activity were recorded in the low lying southern area 

within the site, alongside the Carron Valley Reservoir (Figure 11.7). In addition, comparatively 

higher levels of activity were recorded in the maternity season when compared to the 

mating/dispersal period. 

11.3.91 Surveys showed that the site is used by a low diversity of species with moderate to very low 

activity levels and only two different bat species being recorded. Soprano pipistrelle was most 

abundant species, comprising of 70 % of all survey records, followed by common pipistrelle 

which made up 12 % of all records. The remaining records were all pipistrelle bats but were 

not identifiable to species level, and were thus defined as pipistrellus species. 

11.3.92 No hibernation or swarming sites were identified during surveys or the desk study. 

Wild Cat 


11.3.93 Wildcats 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. 

Desk Study 

11.3.94 A search of NBN gateway database did not identify records of wildcat within the ecology data 

search area. Records provided by FCS identified a wildcat sighting from 2010 approximately 

30 m to the east of the site boundary (Figure 11.6). Given the proximity of the site to various 

rural residences and Carron Bridge to the east, it is likely that any wildcats records from this 

area represent hybrids with domestic cats (Felis catus). As it is not possible to say with 

certainty that individuals displaying classic wildcat markings in populated areas are not pure 

genetically, they are afforded the same level of protection as pure wildcats. 


11.3.95 During the Phase 1 Habitat survey, NVC survey and protected mammal field surveys 

(targeting suitable habitat for badger, otter and water vole) no evidence of wildcat was found. 



Terrestrial Ecology


Disused badger setts or rabbit warrens found on site had the potential to provide potential 

denning sites although no evidence of this was recorded at the time of the survey. 

Great Crested Newt 


11.3.96 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 Stirling LBAP (2002). 

Desk Study 

11.3.97 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. 


11.3.98 During the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey a number of waterbodies were identified within 

the survey boundary: 

• Carron Valley Reservoir – this waterbody is known to contain fish species which 

predate on newts and is too large to be considered suitable for great crested newts; 

• pond at TN6 - this pond was small and heavily shaded with poor water quality. 

Therefore it was not considered suitable for great crested newts. 

• two small pools in the broadleaved woodland plantation to the west of the site 

boundary. These were considered to be ephemeral in nature and not suitable for great 

crested newts. 

11.3.99 Consequently, the likelihood of great crested newts being present on site is considered to be 

negligible. As such this species is not considered further within this chapter. 

UK Protected Species 

Water Vole Survey 


11.3.100 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 Stirling LBAP (2002). 

Desk Study 

11.3.101 The NBN database provided no records for this species within the ecology data search area. 

The consultation process did not return any records of water vole within the ecology data 

search area. 


11.3.102 All watercourses and waterbodies were assessed for their potential to support water vole as 

well as for the presence of this species. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.3.103 The Endrick Water is considered to have low potential for water vole due to the fast flowing 

nature of the waterway. The surrounding tributaries of the Endrick Water provide some 

suitable habitat for water vole however no evidence was recorded during the survey. 

11.3.104 The waterways in the east of the site were not considered to be suitable for water vole due to 

the lack of suitable foraging habitat in the area and suitable banks for burrowing. The 

drainage channels within the conifer plantation were considered to be unsuitable due to their 

heavily modified, ephemeral nature and poor water quality. No evidence of water voles was 

detected along any of the watercourses surveyed. 

11.3.105 Mink (Neovison vison) scats and prints were identified within the survey boundary along the 

Endrick Water and on one of the tributaries to Carron Valley Reservoir in the southeast of the 

site. Mink predate on water vole and the presence of this species is a strong indicator that 

water vole are likely to be absent in an area. 

11.3.106 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 Survey 


11.3.107 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 

11.3.108 Records provided on the NBN gateway database show that badgers have been recorded to 

the south of the site within 1 km of the site boundary. The record was from 2006. The FCS 

provided one badger record within the ecology data search area. This is discussed in 

Appendix 11.7 (Protected Species Confidential Annex). 


11.3.109 The survey recorded evidence of badger activity within the survey area; this is further detailed 

within Appendix 11.7 and Figure TA11.7.1 (confidential). 

Pine marten 


11.3.110 Pine marten are protected through Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as 

amended). The details of this are further set out in Section 11.2 of this chapter. 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 

11.3.111 NBN and GMBRC hold no records of pine marten within the ecology data search area. FCS 

provided one record within the ecology data search area of a nest box predated by pine 

marten in the northwest corner of the site (Figure 11.6). 

11.3.112 The surveyor’s experience has highlighted the presence of pine marten within the local area, 

however these sightings all fall outwith the ecology data search area. 



Terrestrial Ecology




(targeting suitable habitat for badger, otter and water vole) no evidence of pine marten was 

found and no suitable denning sites with signs of occupations were identified. 

Red squirrel 


11.3.114 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 Stirling LBAP(2002). 

Desk Study 

11.3.115 Following consultation with Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels, NBN gateway database was 

consulted to determine whether any red squirrel records had been recorded as present within 

the vicinity of the site. The NBN gateway database search did not identify any records of red 

squirrel on the site or within a 1 km radius. The GMBRC and FCS were also consulted and 

did not provide any records of this species within the ecology data search area, though red 

squirrels were recorded to the south of the Carron Reservoir, outwith the ecology data search 

area. 

11.3.116 The surveyor’s experience has highlighted the presence of red squirrel within the local area, 

however these sightings all fall outwith the ecology data search area. 



(targeting suitable habitat for badger, otter and water vole) no evidence of red squirrel 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 Carron Valley 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 


11.3.118 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 

11.3.119 A search of the records provided on the NBN gateway database did not identify any records 

of reptiles within the ecology data search area. The consultation process did not return any 

records of reptiles within the ecology data search area. 


11.3.120 Forest edges and wide forest rides provide good potential habitat for reptiles, while forest 

rides can also provide good connectivity for reptiles to commute between suitable habitats. 



Terrestrial Ecology


The quarry habitats (TN18 and TN31) and the clearing around Sir John de Graham’s Castle 

(TN10) particularly provide good suitable basking and refuge habitats within the site for 

reptiles. 

11.3.121 During the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey one pregnant female common lizard was 

observed in a clearing in the southwest of the site (TN110). 

Freshwater Species 


11.3.122 Atlantic salmon is a species of high conservation concern. It is listed on Annexes II and V of 

the EC Habitats Directive and on Schedule 3 of the UK Habitats Regulations 1994. It is a 

priority species for conservation within the UKBAP, is included on the Scottish Biodiversity 

List and the Stirling LBAP (2002). 

11.3.123 Brook lamprey are listed on Annex II and river lamprey on Annexes II and V of the EU 

Habitats Directive. River lamprey are also on the UKBAP priority list. 

11.3.124 Powan (Coregonus Lavaretus) are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside 

Act 1981 (as amended). Powan is also a priority species under the UK Biodiversity Plan and 

included on the Scottish Biodiversity List. 

11.3.125 Brown and sea trout (Salmo trutta) are highlighted as a priority species under the UK 

Biodiversity Action Plan. 

Desk Study 

11.3.126 Records provided on the NBN gateway database for the ecology data search area show 

Atlantic salmon and brown/sea trout have been recorded within the River Endrick. The 

records all date from 1990 and were at a 1 km resolution from watercourses to the north and 

northwest of the site. 

11.3.127 No records of brook or river lamprey were returned within the ecology data search area on 

NBN gateway or from the consultees. 

11.3.128 Data provided by the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust confirmed the presence of a refuge 

population of powan in Carron Valley Reservoir of Loch Lomond origin. 


11.3.129 The detailed results of the electrofishing surveys are presented in Appendix 11.5. The 

surveys showed that a healthy population of both migratory salmon and trout are present 

within the Endrick Water below the falls at Loup of Fintry (sample points EW3 and EW4 – see 

Figure 11.8). High densities of under-yearling (age 0+) trout at EW3 indicate that this area is 

an important nursery habitat for this species. It is also known to be used by spawning 

salmon. 

11.3.130 Trout were found at all sampling points along the Endrick Water and its tributaries above the 

falls at the Loup of Fintry. Salmon were only found at EW2 upstream of the falls. The falls act 

as a natural barrier to upstream movement of migratory salmonids. As such, the salmon 

upstream of the falls are present due to active stocking by the Loch Lomond Angling 

Improvement Association (LLAIA). Stoneloach, minnow and sticklebacks were also found to 

be present within the Endrick Water and its tributaries, though all three species were not 

found at all locations. Salmon were absent from all sampling points on or adjacent to the site 

boundary. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.3.131 Low densities of brown/sea trout were identified in the Earls Burn. Salmon were absent 

during the survey and it is thought that migratory salmonids are absent from this watercourse. 

No other species were identified during the surveys. 

11.3.132 Three tributaries of the Carron Valley Reservoir were sampled and all three were found to 

contain brown/sea trout. High densities of under-yearling trout were present in CV1 and CV2 

which indicates that these waterways provide important nursery habitats for this species. 

Salmon were absent from the tributaries of the Carron Valley Reservoir. 

11.3.133 The survey did not identify the presence of river lamprey or brook lamprey. Consequently, 

given the absence of field evidence and records of these species at Carron Valley Wind 

Farm, the likelihood of river lamprey and brook lamprey being present on site is considered to 

be negligible. As such these species are not considered further within this chapter. 

Invertebrates 


11.3.134 A number of invertebrates identified within the desk study are listed as UKBAP priority 

species and on the Scottish Biodiversity List. These species are not afforded any special 

legal protection. 

Desk Study 

11.3.135 Consultation with the GMBRC and a search of the NBN gateway database for the NS68 and 

NS78 10 km grid squares covering the site and surrounding area found the following notable 

invertebrates with the potential to be on the site taking into account the habitats identified 

during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey as identified in Table 11.10. 

Table 11.10 Notable Invertebrate Species Potentially on Site 


BAP 1 

IUCN 

NT 2 

small heath Coenonympha pamphilus x x 

small pearl-bordered fritillary Boloria selene x x 

1 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) Priority Species. 

2 Red listing based on 2001 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN guidelines) – Near 

Threatened. 

11.3.136 Small heath generally prefer well drained grassland with fine grasses. The largest colonies 

are found on heathland or coastal dunes, however, small populations occur in other habitats 

including roadside verges, waste ground, woodland rides and woodland glades. The food 

plants for this species include festuca species, agrostis species and poa species. 

11.3.137 Small pearl-bordered fritillary are found in woodland glades, damp grassland, grassland with 

bracken/scrub and woodland edges where there is some grazing. This species preferred 

food plant is common dog violet (Viola riviniana) and marsh violet (Viola palustris) though 

other violet species can be used. 


11.3.138 The woodland edges, rides and clearings on site may provide suitable habitat for small 

populations of small heath and small pearl-bordered fritillary. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.3.139 During the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, 2 small pearl-bordered fritillary were recorded 

at TN13 within the marshy grassland habitat. 


11.3.140 Initial surveys were based on a site boundary and turbine layout provided by the client in 

Autumn 2010. Following a review of constraints in May 2011, the site boundary was reduced 

in size. This resulted in the survey area exceeding the 250 m buffer of the current application 

boundary as such is not considered to negatively impact the assessment. 


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, dry heath acid grassland mosaic) - no wind farm infrastructure placed on these 

habitats; 

• known watercourses as shown on 1:25,000 OS mapping – 50 m buffer employed 

where possible and 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 removal of forestry to facilitate construction). Further details of key-holing 

operations are discussed in Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development; 

• the need for new tracks was minimised by utilising existing tracks where possible, to 

reduce habitat loss and disturbance; 

• wherever possible the layout was designed to minimise the number of watercourse 

and drainage channel crossings; 

• turbines and access tracks were sited so as to avoid impacts on areas of Annex I 

habitats present on the site; and 

• all areas identified as containing protected species were buffered at the design stage 

by 30 m, with all development sited outside of this. 

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 11.11). 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. 

11.5.2 The site is located within the SNH Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ) West Central Belt 17. This 

appraisal provides an estimate of habitat cover across Scotland and maps several habitat 

types as mosaics. These habitats included coniferous plantation, felled woodland, and rough 

grassland habitats and any associated mosaics. Therefore, within West Central Belt NHZ 17 

(SNH 2001) there is approximately 79500 ha of the relevant habitats. The proportion of these 



Terrestrial Ecology


habitats present within the proposed development site is c. 339.65 ha which equates to 0.4 % 

of the relevant habitat types within the NHZ 17 region. 

Table 11.11 Summary of Conservation Value and Sensitivity of VERs Identified 

Valued 

Ecological 

Receptor 

Covering Legislation and Guidance Summary 

Conservation 

Value 

Sensitivity 

Designated Sites 

Upper Endrick 

Water LNCR 

This site is located 4km downstream if the site and is 

designated by Stirling Council as a Local Nature 

Conservation Site based on the presence of an 

aggregate of habitat types including broadleaved 

woodland, marshy grassland and dry heath. 

Local 

Low 

Endrick Water 

SSSI 

Endrick Water 

SAC 

The SSSI is designated for brook lamprey, river 

lamprey and Scottish dock and is located 4km 

downstream of the site. 

The SAC is located 4km downstream of the site and 

is designated for river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis), 

brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) and Atlantic salmon 

(Salmo sala). 

National 

International 

High 

High 

Habitats 

Coniferous 

plantation 

woodland 

This habitat covers 157.23 ha within the site 

boundary and is dominated by Sitka spruce and 

lodge-pole pine with occasional stands of larch 

species. 

Local 

Low 

Semi-improved 

acid grassland 

This habitat is limited to the woodland rides within the 

northern half of the site boundary and covers an area 

of 1.61 ha. 

Local 

Low 

Semi-improved 

neutral grassland 

This habitat is recorded within the southern half of the 

site along the forest rides. It covers an area of 7.913 

ha in total within the site boundary. 

Local 

Low 

Marshy 

grassland 

This habitat is located within forest rides and two 

clearings located in the western half of the site and 

covers 2.436 ha. The clearing located at TN13 

contains 0.374 ha of species rich marshy grasslandswamp-acid 

grassland mosaic. 

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 onsite, 

however the majority of the evidence was 

concentrated on the Endrick Water, to the west of the 

site boundary. An otter couch was identified in the 

site on the northwestern site boundary, 234 m north 

of the nearest turbine (Turbine 1). 

Bat species 

(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 



Local 

Low 

Terrestrial Ecology


Valued 

Ecological 

Receptor 


Conservation 

Value 

Sensitivity 

pipistrelle) 

Biodiversity List. 

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 site, it is considered that the site is of 

low value to bat populations. 

Wildcat 

This species is protected under Annex IV of the EC 

Habitats Directive. This species is further highlighted 

as a UK BAP priority species and within the Scottish 

Biodiversity List. 

One wildcat sighting 30 m to the west of the site was 

identified during the consultation process. No 

evidence of wildcat activity was identified during any 

of the surveys. 

Local 

Low 

Badger 

This species is protected through the Protection of 

Badgers Act 1992. In Scotland this legislation was 

update by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 

2004. 

Evidence of badger activity was detected within the 

survey area but absent from the site. Further details 

of this can be found in the Appendix 11.7 

(confidential). 

Local 

Low 

Pine marten 

Pine marten are protected through Schedule 5 of the 

Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This 

species is further highlighted as a priority species 

within the UKBAP. 

One pine marten record relating to a predated nest in 

the northwest corner of the site was reported during 

the consultation process. No evidence of pine marten 

activity was identified during any of the surveys. 

Local 

Low 

Reptiles 

Native reptiles are protected through Schedule 5 of 

the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981 in respect of 

Section 9(4). Slow worm, adder and common lizard 

are UK BAP priority species. 

The forest edges clearings and quarries within the 

forest were identified as suitable habitat for reptiles. A 

pregnant common lizard was recorded to the west of 

the site boundary at TN10. 

Local 

Low 

Atlantic salmon 

Atlantic salmon is a species of high conservation 

concern. It is listed on Annexes II and V of the EC 

habitats Directive and on Schedule 3 of the UK 

Habitats Regulations 1994. It is listed as one of the 

designated species for the Endrick SAC to the 

southwest of the site. It is a priority species for 

conservation within the UKBAP and is also included 

on the Scottish Biodiversity List. 

This species is known to occur and spawn 4 km 

downstream of the site within the Endrick Water SAC. 

The falls at the Loup of Fintry downstream of the site 



Regional 

Medium 

Terrestrial Ecology


Valued 

Ecological 

Receptor 


Conservation 

Value 

Sensitivity 

acts as a natural barrier to migratory salmonids. As 

such, Atlantic salmon were not found within any of the 

waterways within the site boundary. The closest 

record of this species was from 2.5 km downstream 

and represents a population of fish translocated by 

local fishing groups. 

Brown/sea trout 

Brown/sea trout are listed as priority species under 

the UK BAP. 

This species was recorded within the Endrick Water 

and its tributaries, Earl’s Burn and two tributaries of 

the Carron Valley Reservoir. The two Carron Valley 

Reservoir Tributaries are considered to act as nursery 

habitats for this species. 

Local 

Low 

Invertebrates 

(small heath and 

small pearlbordered 

fritillary) 

Small heath and small pearl-bordered fritillary 

butterflies are both UK BAP priority species. 

The woodland edges, forest rides and clearings on 

site may provide suitable habitat for these species. 

Small pearl-bordered fritillary were recorded at TN13 

within the species rich marshy grassland. 

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 the potential to affect the Upper Endrick 

LNCS, Endrick Water SSSI and Endrick Water SAC through water borne pollution into 

hydrological systems which link the site to these designated sites; for example, through a 

fuel, chemical or oil pollution incident and through increased sedimentation and turbidity in 

site run off. Within the site, only Turbines 1, 2 and 3 fall within the catchment for the Endrick 

Water, therefore only works relating to these turbines and the immediate surrounding area 

will potentially impact the Upper Endrick LNCS, Endrick Water SSSI and Endrick Water SAC. 

These designated sites lie 4 km downstream of the site therefore the effects of dilution and 

settlement of sediment are expected to limit the potential effects of pollution on the 

designated sites. 

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. 

Further information on the potential impact upon the SAC is outlined in Appendix 11.6. 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 11.12. 



Terrestrial Ecology


Table 11.12 Potential Unmitigated Effects and Associated Significance of Effects of 

Pollution on Designated Sites 

Designated Site Sensitivity Magnitude Effect Significance 

Upper Endrick Water LNCR Low Small Slight 

Endrick Water SSSI High Small Moderate 

Endrick Water SAC High Small Moderate 

Pollution of Terrestrial 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 each habitat on site 

considered to be of low sensitivity importance the overall significance of effect is considered 

to be slight. 

Effects of Pollution on Terrestrial Species 

11.6.5 During construction there is the potential for protected species to be impacted due to a 

variety of types of pollution incidents. Of particular importance is the potential effect on 

freshwater species and this is dealt with in the relevant section below. 

11.6.6 These impacts also apply to protected mammals, not only having the potential to damage 

habitats 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. The assessment takes into account the 

limited presence of otters within the site boundary and the relatively low levels of bat activity 

on the site. 


Pollution on Terrestrial Protected Species 

Species Sensitivity Magnitude Effect 

Significance 

Otter Low Medium Slight 

Bat species (soprano pipistrelle, common pipistrelle) Low Small Slight 

Wildcat Low Negligible Negligible 

Badger Low Negligible Negligible 

Pine marten Low Negligible Negligible 

Reptiles Low Small Slight 

Invertebrates (small heath and small pearl-bordered 

fritillary) 

Low Small Slight 



Terrestrial Ecology


Pollution of Freshwater Habitats and Species 

11.6.7 There is the potential for watercourses to be impacted during the construction phase by a 

variety of pollution types. These include: 

• sediment and particulate run off from activities such as earthworks; 

• site infrastructure, including site compounds and borrow pits, giving rise to changes in 

water turbidity levels, oxygen saturation levels and water pH; and 

• chemical spills from various hazardous materials used on site, including fuels and oils. 

11.6.8 Where areas of coniferous plantation are felled to facilitate the construction of the proposed 

wind farm, this may result in the release of nutrients. This is due to the exposure of organic 

material present in the needle beds, disturbance of peat deposits, and the deposition of brash 

material during the felling process. The timber will be taken offsite for sale and therefore 

there will be no additional material left on site as a result of mulching practices. As the 

majority of turbines are to be situated in areas of woodland already felled during forestry 

practices and keyholing practices will be used where felling in required, it is considered that 

the potential for pollution by eutrophication due to felling activities associated with the 

proposed wind farm will be low. 

11.6.9 The potential magnitude of these effects is influenced by a variety of factors including the flow 

levels within the watercourse e.g. pollution during low flows has a higher potential effect than 

during high flow periods when greater dilution occurs. Therefore, for the purpose of this 

assessment these effects have been assessed taking into account the design elements of the 

development including buffering of watercourses from infrastructure and works by at least 

50 m. 

11.6.10 The potential effect of pollution on freshwater habitats and species is shown below in Table 

11.14. This takes into account the presence of potential nursery areas for brown/sea trout in 

the waterways along the southern edge of the site feeding the Carron Valley Reservoir. 

Salmon are only present in the Endrick Water with the closest record, occurring 2.5 km 

downstream of the nearest point of influencing works, representing an artificially stocked 

population above the falls at Fintry. Within the site, only turbine 1, 2 and 3 fall within the 

catchment for the Endrick Water, therefore only works relating to these turbines and the 

immediate surrounding area will potentially effect Atlantic salmon. Further information 

regarding the potential effects on Atlantic salmon can be found in Appendix 11.6. 


Pollution on Freshwater Species 

Species Sensitivity Magnitude Effect Significance 

Atlantic salmon Medium Medium Moderate 

Brown/sea trout Low Medium Slight 

Damage and Disturbance to Terrestrial Habitats 

11.6.11 Outwith the habitat removal (loss) that will occur to facilitate 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 in areas of 

construction works post habitat restoration. This can occur through physical damage with 



Terrestrial Ecology


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, the overall effect has been assessed accordingly. The potential effect of 

this disturbance is shown below in Table 11.15. 


Damage and Disturbance on Terrestrial Habitats 

Habitat Type Sensitivity Magnitude Effect Significance 

Coniferous plantation woodland Low Negligible Negligible 

Semi-improved acid grassland Low Small Slight 

Semi-improved neutral grassland Low Small Slight 

Marshy grassland Low Small Negligible 

Disturbance, Displacement and Injury of Terrestrial Species during Construction 

11.6.12 Overall, construction related disturbance would be relatively localised and reasonably shortterm 

in nature. 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, wildcat, badgers and 

pine marten 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. 

11.6.13 There is the potential for increased mortality of species such as otter, wildcat and pine marten 

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 within 

excavations if pipework or excavations are left open over night. If a method of escape is not 

provided this can result in injury or death. 

11.6.14 With regards to otter and badger, the habitat present 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. 

11.6.15 Pine marten and wildcat are likely to use the mature plantation forestry predominantly for 

foraging for small mammals, bird and their nests. These prey sources are most likely to be 

found on the forest margins and clearings as the dense forest interior allows little light to 

penetrate the forest floor resulting in low overall biodiversity. Where works are carried out 

near these areas during early morning and late evening construction activities, there is the 

potential to cause disturbance to foraging pine marten and wildcat. 

11.6.16 The site represents suboptimal habitat for foraging bats with more suitable habitat present at 

the southern site boundary. 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 will 

have negligible effect upon local populations of roosting bats. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.6.17 The specific details relating to the potential for disturbance and displacement of badgers due 

to the proposed development is dealt with in Appendix 11.7 (confidential). 

11.6.18 Reptiles are vulnerable to injury or death during the late autumn and winter when they are 

hibernating (i.e. either underground or in other suitable features, such as drystane dykes), 

often in large numbers. At this time, they are susceptible to being dug up and/or crushed by 

machinery. During their active phase in the spring, summer and early autumn, they are more 

able to move away from construction machinery when disturbed. As a result of such 

movement, reptiles may be temporarily displaced during the construction phase. 

11.6.19 The potential effect of this disturbance is shown below in Table 11.16. 


Disturbance, Displacement and Injury on Terrestrial Species During Construction 


Otter Low Small Slight 

Bat species (soprano pipistrelle, common 

pipistrelle) 


Wildcat Low Medium Slight 


Pine marten Low Medium Slight 

Reptiles Low Small Slight 

Invertebrates (small heath and small pearlbordered 

fritillary) 

Low Negligible Negligible 

Disturbance and Displacement of Freshwater Species during Construction 

11.6.20 There is the possibility of temporary disturbance to fish populations in the vicinity of 

construction activities, through the use of lights and through vibration from plant operation. 

However, these effects are likely to be infrequent and temporary with highly mobile fish 

species able to disperse from affected areas. With only the locally (low) sensitive brown trout 

having been identified within the waterways on the site, the potential effect of these changes 

is assessed as being of a small magnitude with an effect of slight significance anticipated. 

Operation 

Habitat Loss 

11.6.21 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 of this ES and the results are presented below in 

Table 11.17. These figures represent direct habitat loss due to the establishment of the 

development infrastructure. Of the dominant NVC communities present within the site 

boundary, only M25 is listed as an Annex I habitat. M25 is present within polygon 31 (Figure 

11.4) and will not be directly effected by the proposed wind farm footprint. 



Terrestrial Ecology


Table 11.17 Areas of Habitat Loss Due to Wind Farm Establishment 

Aspect of Development Habitat Type Area of Habitat Loss (ha) 

Turbine construction 

Coniferous plantation woodland 0.33 

Recently felled coniferous plantation 0.17 

Semi-improved neutral grassland 0.01 

Borrow area 



Quarry 0.10 

Control Building Recently felled coniferous plantation 0.03 

Proposed track 



Semi-improved acid grassland 0.01 


Existing track upgrade 





Marshy grassland 0.01 

Total areas 





Quarry 0.1 


11.6.22 The effects and associated significance of any loss of the habitats affected by the 

development are set out below in Table 11.18. 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 the land use as commercial forestry and the context of the habitats within the 

surrounding area. 



Terrestrial Ecology



Development Establishment on Terrestrial Habitats 

Habitat Type Sensitivity Magnitude Effect Significance 

Coniferous plantation woodland Low Small Slight 

Semi-improved acid grassland Low Small Slight 

Semi-improved neutral grassland Low Small Slight 

Marshy grassland Low Negligible Negligible 

11.6.23 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 

11.6.24 The development will not result in the loss of significant habitat for the majority of the 

protected species detected on the site. For species such as pine marten that use the 

plantation forestry, the impact will be low as existing forestry tracks are to be used for access 

and key-holing will be used for turbine placement where necessary. 

11.6.25 The site contains sub-optimal foraging habitat for otter and badger. Otter activity was limited 

to the peripheral edges of the site boundary. The loss of coniferous plantation on site may 

improve the foraging habitat for otters on site by opening up the riparian habitats. 

11.6.26 Where key-hole felling is employed, this will increase the area of forest edge which may 

enhance the potential for foraging bats, pine marten and reptiles on site. Key-holing will also 

create man made glades which may provide sheltered basking areas for reptiles. 

11.6.27 Where key-hole 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. 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 63 m, based on a 14 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 habitat close to turbines should be managed to minimise it’s 

attractiveness to foraging bats: all habitats within 50 m of the turbines blade tips should be 

maintained in state which offers poor foraging for bats: tree and scrub growth to be controlled 

to < 1 m; pond formation to be avoided (Entwistle et al 2001). No bat commuting routes were 

detected on the site and as such there will be no impact due to fragmentation and habitat loss 

for commuting bats. 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. 

11.6.28 The potential effect of habitat loss and fragmentation on terrestrial species is assessed in 

Table 11.19 below. 



Terrestrial Ecology



Habitat Loss and Fragmentation on Terrestrial Protected Species 


Otter Low Negligible Negligible 

Bat species (soprano pipistrelle, common 

pipistrelle) 


Wildcat Low Negligible Negligible 


Pine marten Low Small Slight 

Reptiles Low Negligible Negligible 

Invertebrates (small heath and small pearl-bordered 

fritillary) 

Low Negligible Negligible 

Damage and Disturbance to Freshwater Habitats 

11.6.29 The establishment of wind farm infrastructure in or adjacent to watercourses, such as 

watercourse crossings, have the potential to cause damage and/or disturbance to aquatic 

habitats and species associated with these habitats. This could occur through direct damage 

or by indirect means; such as alteration of flow rates, flow regimes or surrounding drainage 

mechanisms. There are no new proposed watercourse crossings. Where required, existing 

crossings will be upgraded within the development site. These will be designed to be 

appropriate to the specific watercourse, taking into account bank stability and the potential 

seasonal alterations in flow rates. Outline design/method statements for these upgraded 

water crossings can be found in Appendix 13.3: Watercourse Crossings Survey. The areas 

of habitat loss associated with these crossings will be minimal and the effect has therefore 

been assessed as shown in Table 11.20 below. The assessment reflects the fact that within 

the site boundary, only brown/sea trout was indentified during the electro-fishing surveys and 

the presence of two potential nursery areas for trout in the waterways draining to the Carron 

Valley Reservoir. 


Damage and Disturbance to Freshwater Species 


Atlantic salmon Medium Negligible Negligible 

Brown/sea trout Low Medium Slight 

Species Habitat Fragmentation for Freshwater Species 

11.6.30 There is the potential for the restriction of access for fish species, depending on the type of 

watercourse crossing constructed. This aspect has been taken into consideration during the 

design process to ensure access is maintained. No new water crossings are proposed and 

instead existing water crossings will be upgraded where necessary. Further information 

relating to the potential water course crossing solutions can be found in Appendix 13.3. The 

potential unmitigated effects of this are shown in Table 11.21 below. The assessment 



Terrestrial Ecology


reflects the fact that within the site boundary, only brown/sea trout was identified during the 

electro-fishing surveys. 


Habitat Loss and Fragmentation on Freshwater Species 


Atlantic salmon Medium Negligible Negligible 

Brown/sea trout Low Small Negligible 

Damage, Disturbance and Pollution of Terrestrial Habitats during Maintenance 

Activities 

11.6.31 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 significance is anticipated. 

Disturbance, Displacement and Injury of Terrestrial Protected Species during 

Maintenance Activities and Operation 

11.6.32 During the operational phase of the wind farm there is the potential for disturbance to 

protected species through human presence on the site during 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 unlikely to be of disturbance. 

11.6.33 The operation of the wind farm is also likely to result in increased levels of noise, vibration 

and traffic. However, due to the low levels of these disturbances and low levels of protected 

species activity, it is unlikely that there would be a significant effect on the species present on 

site. 

11.6.34 Given the low sensitivity of species present on site, disturbance during operation is therefore 

assessed as being of negligible magnitude and negligible significance. 

Pollution of Freshwater Habitats and Disturbance of Freshwater Species during 

Maintenance Activities 

11.6.35 Maintenance activities associated with the operation of the wind farm have the potential to 

result in pollution incidences impacting aquatic habitats and associated species. There is 

also the potential for these activities to result in the disturbance of fish species through noise 

and vibration generated through the operation of machinery. Due to the fact that 

maintenance activities will be carried out infrequently and be relatively short lived, the risk of 

pollution incidences and disturbance is reduced in comparison to the construction phase. 

11.6.36 The assessment below takes into account the presence of potential nursery areas for 

brown/sea trout in the waterways along the southern edge of the site feeding the Carron 

Valley Reservoir. Salmon are only present in the Endrick Water, with the closest record 



Terrestrial Ecology


occurring 2.5 km downstream of the nearest point of influencing works. Within the site, only 

turbine 1, 2 and 3 fall within the catchment for the Endrick Water, therefore only works 

relating to these turbines and the immediate surrounding area will potentially effect Atlantic 

salmon. Further information regarding the potential effects on Atlantic salmon can be found 

in Appendix 11.6. 

11.6.37 The potential unmitigated effects of this are shown in Table 11.22 below. 


Pollution of Habitats and Disturbance of Freshwater Species During Maintenance 

Activities 

Species Conservation value Magnitude Effect Significance 

Atlantic salmon Medium Small Slight 

Brown/sea trout Low Small Slight 

Bat Mortality due to Collision and Barotrauma 

11.6.38 During the operation of the 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. 

11.6.39 The effects of a single bat death is unlikely to be significant on any 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 only pipistrelle species were 

recorded (soprano and common pipistrelle). Natural England (as accepted by SNH), 

consider both of these more commonly occurring pipistrelle species to be of medium risk of 

collision with wind turbines (Mitchell-Jones and Carlin, 2009). 

11.6.40 Most of the areas of proportionally higher bat activity were out-with the proposed turbine 

layout (Figure 11.7). However two turbines fall within 100 m of bat records (Turbines 8 and 

13) and all turbines fall within 100 m of likely or known bat 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. 

11.6.41 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 45 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 habitat, and thus the 

likely mortality levels will be nearer the lower end of the range, i.e. 0 – 1 per turbine per year. 

With 15 turbines proposed, the total annual mortality at the Carron Valley site is thus 

estimated to fall between 1 – 15 bats per year. 

11.6.42 This assessment takes into account the considered design of the 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 



Terrestrial Ecology


England, 2009). Therefore, the risk of collision and barotraumas on these species of low 

sensitivity is assessed as being of small magnitude and thus slight significance. 

Habitat Change 

11.6.43 During the construction of the 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 11.23 below shows the areas of calculated habitat change taken into account in 

this assessment. 

Table 11.23 Areas of Habitat Change Due to Wind Farm Establishment 

Aspect of Development Habitat Type Area of Habitat 

Change (ha) 

Cranepads 




Construction compound Recently felled coniferous plantation 0.29 

Control Building Recently felled coniferous plantation 0.02 

Anemometry mast laydown area Coniferous plantation woodland 0.17 

Turbines (including key-hole felling) 




Proposed track 





Existing track upgrade 






Quarry 0.01 



Terrestrial Ecology


Aspect of Development Habitat Type Area of Habitat 

Change (ha) 

Total 






Quarry 0.01 

11.6.44 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. 

However, research is underway to develop this knowledge relating to the physical 

requirements of habitats and flora in relation to water conditions. The only Phase 1 Habitat 

category of terrestrial habitat considered particularly sensitive to hydrological changes 

present within the site is marshy grassland. In addition, the NVC survey identified a number 

of habitats sensitive to hydrological changes, including M6c, M23a and MG10. 

11.6.45 The following potential Ground Water Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE’s) set out 

in Table 11.24, as identified in SEPA’ s Landuse Planning System Guidance Note 4 (2010), 

were identified as present within the site, with those directly affected by the construction of 

the wind farm detailed. 

Table 11.24 GWDTE’s Identified 

GWDTE NVC Code 

M6 Carex echinata-Sphagnum fallax/denticulatum mire 

M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus rush pasture 

MG9 Deschampsia cespitosa neutral grassland 

MG10 Holcus lanatus – Juncus effusus rush-pasture 

Affected by Wind Farm Construction 

Some access track crossings and Turbine 

8. 

All outside of the wind farm footprint. 

One access track crossing. 

Some access track crossings. 

11.6.46 Only a small number of the NVC polygons were identified as containing habitats classified as 

GWDTE’s. These polygons predominantly relate to forest rides and as such are considered 

to be heavily modified and of low conservation value. They are also already fragmented due 

to the forestry practices on site. The findings of Chapter 13: Hydrology, Hydrogeology and 

Ground Conditions identify these areas as having no significant aquifers or springs within the 

bedrock or superficial soils and as such at Carron Valley these habitats are considered to be 



Terrestrial Ecology


surface water fed. Therefore, although these habitats are influenced by water levels held 

within the soils, they are not dependant on groundwater sources. 

11.6.47 There is also the potential for windblown pollution from dust generated within the site to 

influence species composition of habitats in the long term through the input of nutrients and 

alterations to substrate pH. 

11.6.48 Due to the small likelihood of these factors occurring, the small proportion of these habitats to 

be affected in the context of the site and the limited reach of these possible effects, the 

potential effect of these changes on these habitats of low sensitivity is assessed as being of a 

small magnitude, and thus of slight significance. 


11.6.49 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 micrositing 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 an 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 Stirling 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; 

• 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; 



Terrestrial Ecology


• 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; 

• 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 An Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) will be present on site to oversee enabling works and 

construction. They will be a suitably experienced individual, 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 all 

European Protected Species, water voles, badgers, pine marten, red squirrel and reptiles. 

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 site in order to minimise the risk of collision 

with animals. 

11.7.8 Removal of the most suitable terrestrial habitats for reptiles to be affected by construction 

activities, namely in quarry areas to be utilised as borrow pits, will be planned to take place 

outside of the hibernation periods for these species. The probable low density of reptiles 

within the construction areas does not merit specific searches in advance of construction. 

Removal of these habitats will be supervised by the ECoW who will halt works where 

necessary to allow reptiles to move away from the affected areas. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.7.9 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 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. 

11.7.10 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, electrofishing surveys and macroinvertebrate sampling to ensure water quality is 

maintained. 

11.7.11 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. 

11.7.12 Mitigation measures specific to the protection of badgers on the site are detailed further 

within Appendix 11.7 (confidential). 

Operation Mitigation 

11.7.13 The vehicle speed restrictions stipulated above should also be implemented during the 

operation of the wind farm. 

11.7.14 Vehicles coming on site will be regularly checked for oil leaks to avoid risk of pollution. 

Spillage kits will be available on the wind farm 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. 

11.7.15 A method statement for responding to bat corpses should be included in the site operation 

procedures. Incidental records of dead bats should 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. 

11.7.16 In line with SNH accepted Natural England guidance, all habitats within 50 m of the turbines 

blade tips should be maintained in state which offers poor foraging for bats. 

Decommissioning Mitigation 

11.7.17 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’ significance) 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. 



Terrestrial Ecology



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 with the exception of designated sites i.e. all VERs present within the site boundary. 

As the designated sites are located outwith the site boundary, it is considered that all relevant 

developments within 5 km of the designated site could effect cumulatively on the Endrick 

Water SSSI/SAC. As such, all relevant developments within 5 km of the designated site and 

the proposed Carron Valley Wind Farm are considered with regards to designated sites. 

The assessment includes projects which are completed, under construction or approved 

(Figure 11.9). 

11.9.3 There are five wind farms within 5 km of the site boundary which have been considered for all 

VERs, with the exception of designated sites: 

• Earlsburn Wind Farm (operational) Located 2.7 km to the north and consists of 14 

turbines; 

• Craigannet Wind Farm (application). Located 1.9 km to the east with 6 turbines 

proposed; 

• Craigengelt Wind Farm (operational). Located 2.8 km to the east and consist of 8 

turbines; 

• Earlsburn North Wind Farm (approved). Located 4.3 km to the north with 9 turbines 

proposed; 

• Muirpark Wind Farm (application). Located 4.6 km to the north east with 11 turbines 

proposed. 

11.9.4 When a 5 km buffer of the Endrick Water SSSI/SAC is considered, there are no additional 

development likely to result in cumulative effects. As such, the five wind farms identified 

above will be considered for all designated site VERs. 

Potential Cumulative Effects on Designated Sites 

Upper Endrick Water LNCS, Endrick Water SSSI and Endrick Water SAC 

11.9.5 It was not possible to obtain the Environmental Statement for the existing Earlsburn Wind 

Farm. 

11.9.6 Craigannet and Craigengelt do not consider the Upper Endrick Water LNCS, Endrick Water 

SSSI and Endrick Water SAC as receptors. 

11.9.7 Earlsburn North Wind Farm was assessed as having a residual effect of minor significance 

on the Endrick Water SAC in respect to loss of integrity of the SAC and pollution or 

disturbance. 

11.9.8 Muirpark Wind Farm was assessed as having no effect on designated sites. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.9.9 It is concluded that the development may add cumulatively to the pollution effects on the 

Endrick Water LNCS, Endrick Water SSSI and Endrick Water SAC in combination with 

Earlsburn North Wind Farm. However, with both developments predicted to have minor 

effects upon the river, overall, the cumulative effect is considered to be no greater than slight 

overall. 

Potential Cumulative Effects on Habitats 

Coniferous Plantation Woodland 


Farm. However, there is no plantation woodland on this site and cumulative effects would not 

therefore result. 

11.9.11 Craigannet, Craigengelt, Earlsburn North and Muirpark do not consider coniferous plantation 

woodland as a receptor. 

11.9.12 It is concluded that the development will not add cumulatively to the effects on this habitat 

within the surrounding area. 

Semi-improved Acid Grassland 


Farm. 

11.9.14 Craigannet and Craigengelt do not consider this habitat as a receptor. 

11.9.15 Earlsburn North is assessed as having an effect of minor significance through the loss of 

areas of this habitat during the construction of the site. 

11.9.16 Muirpark is assessed as having a minor effect through habitat loss, disturbance and 

fragmentation during the construction of the site. 


within the surrounding area due to the small area of this habitat to be lost. 

Semi-improved Neutral Grassland 


Farm. 

11.9.19 Craigannet, Craigengelt, Earlsburn North and Muirpark do not consider semi-improved 

neutral grassland as a receptor. 



Marshy Grassland 


Farm. 

11.9.22 Craigannet is considered to have no significant effect on marshy grassland following 

mitigation as a result of habitat loss. 

11.9.23 Earlsburn North is assessed as having an effect of minor significance on marshy grassland 

as a result of habitat loss. 

11.9.24 Craigengelt and Muirpark do not consider marshy grassland plantation as a receptor. 



Terrestrial Ecology




Potential Cumulative Effects on Protected Species 

11.9.26 The 5 km buffer distance takes into account the ranging distances of protected species 

detected on the Carron Valley 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 20 km (SNH, 2008). The area this equates to 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). The habitat types recorded within the Carron Valley site are also present within the 

forestry plantation to the south of the reservoir. The habitats within the local surrounding 

area are generally considered to offer more suitable habitat for bats, otters and badgers. 

Otter 


Farm. 

11.9.28 The effect of Craigannet on otter through disturbance during construction is assessed as 

being not considered to be significant. 

11.9.29 Craigengelt Wind Farm is not considered to have a significant effect on otter. 

11.9.30 Earlsburn North is not considered to have a significant effect on otters in respect to loss and 

or disturbance of otter. 

11.9.31 Muirpark Wind Farm is assessed as having a minor effect on otter due to habitat 

disturbance, territory severance and altered water quality and quantity. 

11.9.32 While the surrounding wind farms were considered to have a minor or negligible effect on 

otter, if Carron Valley was to undergo construction as the same time as any of the other 

proposed wind farms, cumulatively this may result in an increased disturbance and 

displacement of terrestrial species during construction. This potential effect is considered to 

be of small magnitude and slight significance. 

Bat Species 


Farm. 

11.9.34 Craigangelt, Earlsburn North and Muirpark do no consider bats as receptors. 

11.9.35 Craigannet considers there to be no effects on bats in respect of collision risk and 

displacement of bats. 

11.9.36 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 significance within the context of the local bat population. 



Terrestrial Ecology


Badger 


Farm. 

11.9.38 Craigannet is assessed as having no effect on badgers through disturbance from 

construction activities or habitat loss. 

11.9.39 Craigengelt is considered to have no significant effect on badgers as a results of damage to 

setts during construction or loss of foraging areas. 

11.9.40 Earlsburn North does not consider badgers as a receptor as part of the assessment. 

11.9.41 Muirpark Wind Farm is assessed as having a minor effect through indirect disturbance from 

construction activities including risk of injury to animals. 

11.9.42 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. 

Reptiles 


Farm. 

11.9.44 Craigengelt, Earls Burn North and Muirpark do not consider reptiles as receptors. 

11.9.45 Craigannet is assessed as having no significant effect on reptiles in respect of potential harm 

and disturbance caused during construction. 

11.9.46 It is concluded that the development will not add cumulatively to the effects on reptiles within 

the surrounding area. 

Atlantic Salmon 


Farm. 

11.9.48 Craigannet, Craigengelt and Muirpark do not consider salmon as a receptor. 

11.9.49 Earls Burn North is assessed as having an effect of minor significance on salmon through 

disturbance. It is concluded that, as salmon were absent from the waterways within the area 

of development, the development will not add cumulatively to the effects of disturbance on 

salmon. 

Brown/Sea Trout 


Farm. 

11.9.51 Craigannet, Craigengelt, Earls Burn North and Muirpark do not consider trout as a receptor. 

11.9.52 It is concluded that the development will not add cumulatively to the effects on trout within the 

surrounding area. 

Invertebrates 


Farm. 



Terrestrial Ecology


11.9.54 Craigannet, Craigengelt, Earls Burn North and Muirpark do not consider invertebrates as 

receptors. 

11.9.55 It is concluded that the development will not add cumulatively to the effects on invertebrates 


11.10 Summary 

11.10.1 Table 11.25 summarises the potential effects of the proposed Carron Valley Wind Farm, 

recommended mitigation actions and residual significance of the effects. 



Terrestrial Ecology


Table 11.25 Summary Effects 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Upper 

Endrick 

Water LNCS 

Endrick 

Water SSSI 

Endrick 

Water SAC 

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 

Low/ 

Local 

High/ 

National 

High/ 

International 

Preparation and 

implementation of 

Small Slight a HSEMS 

- Negligible 

detailing pollution 

prevention 

measures and 

dust controls. 

Small Moderate Considered 

- Slight 

design of 

upgraded 

watercourse 

crossings. 

Small 

Moderate 

Water quality 

monitoring 

covering a 

baseline period 

and construction 

phase of the wind 

farm. 

- Slight 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Employment of an 

ECoW on the site. 



Terrestrial Ecology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Application of best 

practice guidance 

and techniques. 

All habitats 

Pollution of 

terrestrial 

habitats through 

airborne and 

waterborne 

sources. 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Slight 



HSEMS outlining 

pollution 

prevention 

measures. 

Timing of works to 

avoid heavy 

periods of rainfall 

when the risk of 

fine sediment 

being transported 

from earth works 

is significantly 

increased. 

- Negligible 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Otter 

Bat species 

Pollution of 

habitats and 

associated prey 

sources. 

Construction 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Application of best practice guidance 

Medium Slight and techniques. 

Negligible 

Preparation and implementation of a 

HSEMS detailing pollution prevention 

Small Slight 

measures and dust controls. 

Negligible 

Water quality monitoring. 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Wildcat 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

covering a baseline period and 

Negligible Negligible 

construction phase of the wind farm. 

Negligible N/A 

Employment of an ECoW on the site. 

Badger 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

N/A 



Terrestrial Ecology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Pine marten 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible Negligible Negligible N/A 

Reptiles 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small Slight Negligible 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Invertebrates 

Pollution of 

habitats and 

associated food 

plants. 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 


Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 




Atlantic 

salmon 

Pollution of 

freshwater 

habitats. 

Construction 

Medium/ 

Regional 

Medium 

Moderate 



a HSEMS 


prevention 

measures and 


- Slight 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Considered 



Terrestrial Ecology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

design of 

watercourse 

crossing upgrades 

where necessary. 

Brown/sea 

trout 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Medium 

Slight 

Water quality 

monitoring 

covering a 




farm. 

- Negligible 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 



Coniferous 

plantation 

woodland 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 


Semiimproved 

acid 

grassland 

Semiimproved 

neutral 

grassland 

Damage and 

disturbance to 

habitats. 

Construction 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 



Small Slight measures. 

Negligible 

Employment of best practice 

construction methods and habitat 

restoration techniques. 

Small Slight 

Use of micrositing wherever necessary 

Negligible 

under advice of ECoW. 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Marshy 

grassland 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Negligible 

Negligible 

N/A 



Terrestrial Ecology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Otter 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Pre-construction and pre-felling 

Small Slight checks for protected species to be Negligible 

undertaken by the ECoW. 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Bat species 

Wildcat 

Badger 

Pine marten 

Disturbance, 

displacement 

and injury due to 

construction 

activities. 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Specific protection measures for 

Small Slight 

protected species (e.g. covering 

trenches, pits and pipelines). Negligible 

Demarcation of working zones to limit 

disturbance to species. 

Medium Slight Vehicle speed restrictions on site. Negligible 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 




Medium Slight Negligible 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Invertebrates 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

N/A 



Terrestrial Ecology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Reptiles 

Disturbance, 

displacement 


construction 

activities. 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Slight 

Removal of 

suitable habitat in 

quarry areas 

outside of the 

hibernation 

season. 

- Negligible 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Brown/sea 

trout 

Disturbance and 

displacement 

due to 

construction 

activities. 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Slight 

Considered 

design of 

watercourse 



- Negligible 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Coniferous 

plantation 

woodland 

Semiimproved 

acid 

grassland 

Semiimproved 

neutral 

grassland 

Marshy 

grassland 

Direct habitat 

loss through the 

installation of 

wind farm 

infrastructure. 

Operation 

Operation 

Operation 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Small Slight - Negligible 



HSEMS detailing 

Small Slight 

habitat delimitation 

to limit the potential 

- Negligible 

for habitat loss, and 

habitat restoration 

techniques. 

Small Slight Use of micrositing 

- Negligible 

wherever necessary 

under advice of 

ECoW. 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Direct, 

negative, 

permanent. 

Direct, 

negative, 

permanent. 

Direct, 

negative, 

permanent. 

- Negligible N/A 

Otter 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 




Terrestrial Ecology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Bat species 

Wildcat 

Habitat loss and 

habitat 

fragmentation. 

Operation 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 


Key-hole felling will increase the area 

of suitable habitat. 

Direct, 

negative, 

permanent. 


Badger 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 


Pine marten 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 


Direct, 

negative, 

permanent. 

Reptiles 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 


Invertebrates 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

N/A 

Atlantic 

salmon 

Brown/sea 

trout 

Damage and 


freshwater 

habitats and 

species. 

Operation 

Operation 

Medium/ 

Regional 

Low/ 

Local 

Implementation of best practice and 

Negligible Negligible guidance when carrying out Negligible N/A 

maintenance activities. 

Medium 

Slight 

Preparation of a site pollution incident 

response plan. 

Negligible 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 



Terrestrial Ecology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Atlantic 

salmon 

Brown/sea 

trout 

Habitat 

fragmentation for 

freshwater 

species. 

Operation 

Operation 

Medium/ 

Regional 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible Negligible - - Negligible N/A 

Small Negligible - - Negligible N/A 

All habitats 

Damage, 

disturbance and 

pollution of 

terrestrial 

habitats during 

maintenance 

activities 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Slight 

Implementation of 

best practice and 

guidance when 

carrying out 

maintenance 

activities. 

Preparation of a 

site pollution 

incident response 

plan. 

- Negligible 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

All terrestrial 

species 


displacement 

due to 

maintenance 

activities 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible Negligible - 

Demarcation of 

working zones to 

limit disturbance 

to species. 

Vehicle speed 

restrictions. 

Implementation 

of best practice 

and guidance 

when carrying 

out maintenance 

activities. 

Negligible 

N/A 



Terrestrial Ecology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Atlantic 

Salmon 

Brown/sea 

trout 

Pollution of 

habitats and 


freshwater 

species during 

maintenance 

operations. 

Operation 

Operation 

Medium/ 

Regional 

Low/ 

Local 


Small Slight 


and techniques 

- Negligible 

and outlined in the 

HSEMS. 

Small 

Slight 

Periodic checks of 

vehicles for leaks. 




plan. 

- Negligible 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Bat species 

Death of bats 

through collision 

or barotrauma. 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Small Slight - - Slight 

Direct, 

negative, 

permanent. 


habitats 

Indirect changes 

to habitat 

composition due 

to changes in 

hydrology and 

soil chemistry. 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Slight 





HSEMS. 






plan. 

- Negligible 

Indirect, 

negative, 

permanent. 

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 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. 


Arnett, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J.K. Fiedler, B.L. Hamilton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D. 

Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R. Koford, C.P. Nicholson, T. J. O’Connell, M.D. Piorkowski, R.D. 

Tankersley, Jr. (2010) Patterns of bat Fatalties at Wind Energy Facilities in North America 

Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):61–78 

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. 

Entwhistle, A.C., Harris, S., Hutson, A.M., Racey, P.A., Walsh, A.,, (2001) Habitat 

management for bats - A guide for land managers, land owners and their advisors. JNCC. 

Forestry Commission (2009) Guidance Note 34d Forest Operations and Wildcats in Scotland 

Glover, A.M., Altringham, J.D. (2008) Cave selection and use by swarming bat species, 

Biological Conservation, 141: 1493-1504 

Haddow, JF and Herman, J.S. (2000). Recorded distribution of bats in Scotland. Scottish 

Bats, vol.5, ISBN 0952018241 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) (2006). Guidelines for Ecological 

Impact Assessment in the UK. IEEM, Winchester 

Joint Nature Conservancy Council (JNCC) (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Joint 

Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough 

Joint Nature Conservancy Council (JNCC) (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 G., Cooper-Bohannon R., Barlow K.--and Parsons K. (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 



Terrestrial Ecology


Natural England (2009) Bats and onshore wind turbines, Interim Guidance, 1st Edition, TIN 

051 

NBN Gateway Website (http://data.nbn.org.uk/) 

Nicholls, B., Racey, P. (2006) Contrasting home range size and spatial partitioning in two 

cryptic bat species Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Pipistrellus pygmaeus. Ecography, 29, 1-12 

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 tall-herb 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. and Morris, P. (2003) How to find & Identify Mammals. The Mammal Society, 

London 

Scottish Fisheries Co-ordination Centre (SFCC) (2007) Electrofishing Team Leader Training 

Manual. Fisheries Management SVQ Level 3: Managing electrofishing operations. Scottish 

Fisheries Co-ordination Centre, Pitlochry and Inverness College, Inverness 

Scottish Natural Heritage Information service website (Sitelink) 

(http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/snhi) 

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. (2006) The Water Vole Conservation Handbook. Second 

Edition 



Terrestrial Ecology


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 proposed wind farm development on the natural heritage. 

12.1.2 The assessment uses data from specifically commissioned surveys in 2010-2011 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 proposed site (approximate central grid reference NS 6970 8550) lies approximately 

7 km north of Kilsyth, Central Scotland. Within the site boundary, the habitat is dominated by 

coniferous plantation woodland (379.62 ha) containing a mix of different aged stands. The 

forestry has been subject to increased windblow episodes over recent years. The 

surrounding habitat comprises a mixture of open upland moorland and rough grazing, forestry 

and open water (mainly the Carron Valley Reservoir). 

12.1.4 The original development site boundary encompassed the entire Carron Valley Forest (Figure 

TA12.1.1, Appendix 12.1) but was substantially reduced in May 2011 following the Initial 

Design stage (refer to Chapter 3: Design Evolution). Thus, in May 2011 the site boundary 

was altered to exclude the area to the south of the reservoir, so that the proposed 

development area became restricted to the forest on the north side of the reservoir, 

encompassing mainly the land to the south and west of Cairnoch Hill (Figure TA. 12.1.1, 

Appendix 12.1). This, and the original site boundaries formed the basis of the baseline 

surveys carried out in 2010 and 2011. The ornithological study area comprised the 

application site boundary and a set of variable buffer zones, depending on each species 

group surveyed. A full description of the evolution of the proposed scheme is presented in 

Chapter 3: Design Evolution. 

12.1.5 The site boundary was again further reduced in March 2012 to provide the current application 

site boundary for use in the assessment (Figure 12.1). This resulted in the assessment of 

ornithological effects being carried out for a slightly different study area compared to those 

originally surveyed. 

12.1.6 Any incomplete spatial survey coverage is however considered to be insignificant in terms of 

being able to accurately determine the baseline assemblage present at Carron Valley. This 

discrepancy was rectified for the flight activity surveys by creating two new vantage points for 

2011 and 2012 surveys which offered complete spatial coverage. For breeding and 

wintering bird surveys, the small areas not directly covered are very unlikely to host any 

additional target species, particularly with the availability of bird data from a variety of 

sources, including nearby wind farm projects with overlapping survey areas. 

12.1.7 These aspects are explained in more detail for each survey type in the Methodology 

Section 12.2, and in the Information Gaps section of this chapter. 



Ornithology


Predicted Key Issues 

12.1.8 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; 

• Conservation status of resident raptors during winter, 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; 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 direct 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 Scottish Raptor Study Group, the Central Scotland Black Grouse and 

Capercaillie Study Group, nearby wind farm projects (e.g. Earlsburn, Craigannet) 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. 



Ornithology


12.2.3 The baseline field surveys were undertaken from September 2010 to August 2011, and 

augmented in April and May 2012. They therefore initially encompassed the initial 77 turbine 

layout and site boundary referred to as the Initial Design in Chapter 3: Design Evolution. 

These were subsequently amended following the boundary change in May 2011 to reflect the 

revised situation. With the exception of the flight activity data, all data presented from the 

field surveys refer to the areas within the respective buffers of the final site boundary, and not 

to the initial larger proposed development area, unless specifically referenced. 

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) 1 ; 

• 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) 2 ; 

• 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 3 ); 

• 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); 

• SNH (2001) Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms and Small Scale 

Hydroelectric Schemes; 

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) 4 ; and 

• The Stirling Council Area Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) 2002. 

1 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1373 

2 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4341 

3 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National-Planning-Policy/themes/enviroassessment/eia/EIARegulation 

4 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5155 



Ornithology


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 In September 2011, SNH, RSPB Scotland, Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park, and 

Stirling, Falkirk, East Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire Councils 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. 

12.2.7 Details of the relevant Scoping consultation responses received and where the points raised 

are addressed within this chapter are presented in Table 12.1 and Table 12.9. 

Table 12.1 Scoping Consultation Responses 

Consultee Contact Response Section of 

chapter where 

point(s) 

addressed 

Scottish 

Natural 

Heritage 

(SNH) 

14 October 

2011 letter 

from Iain 

Jeffrey, 

Stirling 

Council 

containing 

response 

from 

Matthew 

Topsfield 

General comments: 

SNH is content with the scope and methodologies 

presented in the Scoping Report. 

A key issue to be addressed within the EIA is the 

potential impact on osprey, which are known to nest 

at/close to this site. 

The ES must give careful consideration to the 

potential impacts of the proposed windfarm on other 

Annex1 / Schedule 1 species that may occur in 

proximity to this site, as well as Red-listed Birds of 

Conservation Concern and Biodiversity Action Plan 

species. 

12.5; 12.6; 12.7 

12.3; 12.5; 12.6; 

12.7 

The ES needs to provide information on any 

mitigation measures proposed with respect to 

nesting birds. The implications of any change in 

land management practice should also be 

considered and presented in relation to the bird 

species that breed within or use the proposed 

windfarm site. 

12.6; 12.5.2 

Approach and methodology: 

Developers should combine three approaches 

towards forming a view on the bird populations on a 

site and their likely sensitivity: 

• Desk-based study of existing information. 

• Appraisal of habitats and species likely to be 

present. 

12.2 

• Reconnaissance survey. 

All bird survey work, analysis and presentation of 

EIA should follow the methodology outlined in the 

guidance note Survey Methods for use in 

Assessment of the Impacts of Proposed Onshore 

Windfarms on Bird Communities 

12.2 

An assessment of cumulative effects on birds 

should follow the approach detailed in SNH’s 

guidance Cumulative effects of Windfarms. 

12.8 



Ornithology


Consultee Contact Response Section of 

chapter where 

point(s) 

addressed 

Presentation: 

It is essential that the record of the survey work 

which has been undertaken is presented clearly and 

in a transparent manner. 

Likewise the full workings of any collision risk 

analysis should be presented clearly in an ES. 

Maps should be clearly laid out, and it is helpful for 

flight-line maps and for maps recording the locations 

of breeding birds to be also marked with the 

finalised windfarm layout. 

It is possible that a confidential annex may be 

required in relation to the distribution of vulnerable 

nesting birds. 

12.2, Appendix 

12.1 

Appendix 12.1 

Figures 

Appendix 12.2 

Ornithology 

Confidential 

Annex 

Royal 

Society for 

the 

Protection 

of Birds 

(RSPB) 

Scotland 

5 March 

2012 email 

from Yvonne 

Boles 

(Central 

Scotland 

Conservation 

Officer) 

No comments to add. 

n/a 

Baseline Studies 

Sensitive Receptors 

12.2.8 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 as priorities on the UKBAP; and/or 

• Bird species identified as priorities in the Stirling Council Area LBAP (2002). 

12.2.9 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. 



Ornithology


Desk Study 

12.2.10 Ornithological data and details of protected areas for birds located within the development 

site and surrounding areas were sought from a range of sources including SNH, RSPB 

Scotland, Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS), and the Central Scotland Raptor Study 

Group. Information on designated sites within up to 20 km of the proposed development was 

sourced from SNH’s Sitelink website (http://www.snh.org.uk/snhi) and Stirling Council, and 

any site locations identified were mapped using ArcMap 10. The following conservation 

designations were considered in this search: 

• Special Protection Areas (SPAs); 

• Ramsar sites; 

• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); 

• National Nature Reserves (NNRs); 

• Local Council Nature Sites (LCNS); and 

• Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). 

Field Surveys 

12.2.11 A range of baseline field surveys were undertaken between September 2010 and May 2012 

to characterise 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 Figure 12.1. 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 Carron Valley Wind Farm 

Month 

Survey-type 

Flight 

activity 

Breeding 

raptors 

Barn 

owls 

Black 

grouse 

Moorland 

breeding 

birds 

Forest 

point 

counts 

Winter 

walkover 

Sept 2010 

 

Oct 2010 

Nov 2010 

Dec 2010 

 

Jan 2011 

Feb 2011 

Mar 2011 

Apr 2011 

May 2011 



Ornithology


Month 

Survey-type 

Flight 

activity 

Breeding 

raptors 

Barn 

owls 

Black 

grouse 

Moorland 

breeding 

birds 

Forest 

point 

counts 

Winter 

walkover 

Jun 2011 

Jul 2011 

Aug 2011 

April 2012 

May 2012 

 

 

 

 

Flight Activity Surveys 

12.2.12 Flight activity surveys were carried out in accordance with SNH guidelines (SNH 2005, 

revised 2010) and were designed to record the flight activity of birds using the airspace over 

the application site, and the spatial and temporal variation in that usage. Data from these 

surveys were used in the calculation of collision risk models (see Appendix 12.1 for full 

details). 

12.2.13 Vantage points (VPs) from which surveys were undertaken were selected so that the 

resultant viewsheds provided coverage of the air space from 20 m above ground level, and 

up to a radius of 2 km, of the area encompassed by all proposed turbine locations plus a 

surrounding buffer (of at least 200 m). This was initially carried out using GIS software in 

combination with Ordnance Survey (OS) digital terrain data, with viewsheds from selected 

VPs subsequently verified during site visits. 

12.2.14 Details of the three VP locations that were used to cover the finalised development area, and 

of the survey effort expended at each are provided in Appendix 12.1. Survey effort was in 

accordance with SNH guidance (SNH, 2005). The site boundary change in May 2011 meant 

that a small part of the revised turbine layout was not covered by the viewshed from the one 

existing VP location (i.e. VP1) that provided coverage of this revised layout (Figure 12.2). 

Therefore, two additional VPs were selected to provide (virtually) full coverage of the 

proposed site boundary, with surveys from these two additional VPs undertaken from June to 

August in 2011 (Figure 12.2). Further surveys were also undertaken between late March and 

late May (inclusive) at all three VPs in 2012 to ensure that data for all parts of the revised 

turbine layout were available from this period of the year (Table 12.2). 

12.2.15 Overall, a total of 170 hours of VP surveys were undertaken between October 2010 and late 

May 2012. VP1 received a minimum of 6 hours survey per month (with minor exceptions), 

increasing to 9 hours during June and July when high levels of flight activity from breeding 

raptors might be expected. The two additional VPs each received between 6 – 12 hours 

survey in each of the three months over which they were surveyed in 2011, and all three VPs 

received 15 hours survey between late March and late May in 2012 (Table 12.A.2 in 

Appendix 12.1). Surveys were also planned to accurately record dawn, day and dusk 

activity. 



Ornithology


12.2.16 The surveys conducted from June to August in 2011 and from April to May in 2012 from all 

three VPs meant that almost the entire area of the proposed wind farm site boundary (and 

associated buffer) received coverage in all months of the breeding period at Carron Valley, 

with in excess of 36 hours per VP over this season, as recommended by SNH (2005). 

12.2.17 Minimum survey effort during the non-breeding season was also exceeded from VP1, with 42 

hours surveyed between October 2010 and March 2011 (and a further 3 hours in March 

2012). Although VPs 2 and 3 were not surveyed over these months, the data from VP1 

covered the vast majority of the site boundary and indicated that the winter period at Carron 

Valley is of very low importance to birds, particularly over forestry areas. The area of the 

Carron Valley reservoir that lies within the proposed site boundary and its 200m buffer was 

covered entirely from VP1. Thus, no significant flight activity for any species is likely to have 

been missed due to incomplete spatial coverage. 

Table 12.3 Summary of Survey Effort for Flight Activity Surveys at Proposed Carron 

Valley Wind Farm Site 

Vantage Point 

Non-Breeding hours 

Breeding hours 

Breeding hours 

(Sep 10- mid-March 11) 

(mid-March – Aug 11) 

(March-May 12) 

1 42:00 36:00 18:00 

2 - 23:00 18:00 

3 - 24:00 18:00 

12.2.18 During VP surveys, the observer scanned the airspace within the viewshed, recording all 

flying birds observed up to a distance of 2 km (or up to 3 km for geese and other large 

species). Flight-lines were mapped in the field (see Appendix 12.1) and those of target 

species were subsequently compiled in a GIS (ArcView v.10), with each flight-line linked to 

data on flight duration and flight height held in an MS Access database. 

12.2.19 The data collected on key target species flying over the proposed wind farm development 

site and the adjacent airspace were used to measure flight activity. For species with at least 

three separate flight events recorded at potential collision height (PCH), data were used in 

collision risk modelling (CRM) to estimate the number of individuals of each species predicted 

to collide with the turbine rotors. CRM was undertaken following the standard methods used 

for onshore wind farm sites, and as recommended by SNH (Band et al. 2007, see 

Appendix 12.1 for details of methodology). 

Breeding Raptor Surveys 

12.2.20 The proposed development site plus a 2 km buffer zone (Figure 12.1) was surveyed for all 

breeding raptor species in 2011. Target species were any Annex 1 (EU Birds Directive) and 

Schedule 1 (Wildlife and Countryside Act) listed species. Visits were carried out under a SNH 

Schedule 1 license (see Appendix 12.1 for details). 

12.2.21 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 proposed 

development site in April and May 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. 



Ornithology


12.2.22 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. 

Barn Owl Surveys 

12.2.23 Records of current barn owl nest box locations and previous usage were provided by FCS 

prior to surveys (Figure TA12.2.2 of Appendix 12.2 Ornithology Confidential Annex). In 

addition, potential barn owl nesting and roosting habitat (stone buildings, outhouses, mature 

trees with cavities) within the proposed development area and a surrounding 1km buffer were 

checked for occupancy on 13 April 2011, where access was possible. 

Black Grouse Surveys 

12.2.24 The proposed development site plus a 1.5 km buffer zone (Figure 12.1) was surveyed for 

lekking (displaying) black grouse from April to mid-May 2011. 

12.2.25 The survey protocol followed the methodology outlined in Gilbert et al. (1998). Any known lek 

sites (information provided by FCS and Central Scotland Black Grouse and Capercaillie 

Study Group) and areas of suitable lek habitat were identified prior to the first survey, and 

subsequently visited in early morning (and in dry, calm, conditions). The maximum number of 

males and females seen in the one hour before or the hour after dawn was recorded. 

Moorland Breeding Bird Surveys 

12.2.26 Surveys were undertaken on open moorland habitat within the proposed development area 

and a surrounding 500 m buffer. Only very small areas of such habitat were present within 

this area (Figure 12.1). Although the wind farm layout was altered subsequent to study area 

design, small sections of open moorland habitat were not covered by these surveys (e.g. to 

the north of Turbines 1 and 2). This is predicted to be insignificant in the evaluation of 

baseline data, particularly as sensitive breeding moorland species (e.g. waders) are unlikely 

to be located in close proximity to forest edges (e.g. Stroud et al. 1986). 

12.2.27 As recommended by SNH Guidance (SNH, 2005), three survey visits were undertaken 

between late April and late June. Survey methods followed those of Brown & Shepherd 

(1993), with the surveyor covering all parts of the open moorland ground to within 100 m on 

each survey visit. Bird locations and behaviour were plotted onto 1:10,000 scale OS maps 

using standard British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) notation, and an estimate of the numbers 

of breeding pairs of each species derived from the combined records from each visit. 

12.2.28 Further details of the survey timings and methods are provided in Appendix 12.1. 

Winter Walkover Surveys 

12.2.29 To assess bird occurrence and abundance on the site over the winter period, winter walkover 

surveys were completed monthly between September 2010 and March 2011. The walkover 

method combines the use of brief VP watches with a predetermined walked route designed to 

maximise coverage of the study site, and of the main terrestrial habitats present. The area 

covered includes the proposed turbine layout plus a 500 m buffer (WWO area in Figure 12.1). 

This made use of tracks, footpaths, accessible rides and open areas to aid efficiency in 

recording birds. The same route was used each month, although it was walked in alternate 

directions on the different surveys. Bird registrations were recorded on OS maps (see 

Appendix 12.1 for further details). 



Ornithology


12.2.30 Although the same survey area as the moorland breeding bird surveys was used for winter 

walkovers which meant incomplete survey coverage of the wind farm, coverage of the forest 

was deemed sufficient to be able to robustly determine species assemblage present, 

particularly when birds tend to be more mobile during the winter period. 

Point Count Surveys 

12.2.31 Cairnoch Hill is predominantly a sitka spruce Picea sitchensis and conifer species mix 

plantation, in varying stages of management. In order to survey a random sample of habitats, 

a grid of points (400 m apart) was generated using GIS software, and laid onto the turbine 

area plus a 500 m buffer. The original layout contained 109 points. After the layout change in 

May 2011, only the 19 points located within the revised layout (and associated buffer) were 

retained (Figure 12.3). Thus, the reporting of results is limited to data from those 19 sample 

points only. Three visits were made to each point during the breeding season, between April 

and July 2011. 

12.2.32 Counts took place within 5 hours of sunrise. The duration of each point count was five 

minutes, with a 2 minute settling period before each count. 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. 

12.2.33 Habitat within 100 m of each survey point was also recorded into one of five types: Open 

space/unplanted, Clearfell, Pre-thicket (incl. restock (3 m); and 

Other (windblow, tracks, deciduous trees). 

Assessment of the Significance of Effects 

12.2.34 Assessment of the significance of effects on ornithological interests follows the general 

Assessment Methodology in Chapter 2: The EIA 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). 

12.2.35 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 significance of those effects based on the magnitude and duration of the 

effects on the nature conservation value of the bird populations affected; 

• identify and assess mitigation measures required to address significant adverse 

effects; and 

• determine the significance of any residual effect once the benefits of the prescribed 

mitigation measures have been assessed. 

12.2.36 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 12.4). These correspond with the categories of importance defined in the 

significance matrix (Table 12.7). 



Ornithology


12.2.37 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 12.4 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 as a UK BAP priority species and species listed under 

Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act or Annex I of the EU 

Birds Directive. 

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 not conservation significance. 

Loss of such a species from the site would not be seen as 

detrimental to the ecology of the area. 



Ornithology


12.2.38 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 12.5. 

12.2.39 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 12.5 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. 

12.2.40 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 12.5); 

• the scale/magnitude of the predicted effect (as detailed in Table 12.6); and 

• whether there are any cumulative effects that may affect the long-term integrity of the 

ecosystem(s) at the site. 



Ornithology


Table 12.6 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. 

12.2.41 The significance of a potential effect on each VOR was determined by considering the type 

and magnitude of the effect (Table 12.5 and Table 12.6) in relation to the conservation 

importance (sensitivity) of the VOR (Table 12.4). Significance is described as Substantial, 

Moderate, Slight or Negligible, or within a range (e.g. Substantial - Moderate) as illustrated in 

Table 12.7. 

Table 12.7 Establishing the Significance of Effect 

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 


12.2.42 An explanation of levels of significance is provided below in Table 12.8. 

Table 12.8 Significance Criteria 

Significance Level 


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


Significance Level 

Slight 

Negligible 

Criteria 





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. 

12.2.43 The significance level generated from Table 12.7 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:


the impact assessment will however be at the wider spatial levels (i.e. regional, national or 

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, ‘grey’ 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 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. 2011) and Forrester et al. (2007). 


12.3.3 The planning policy overview for this proposed development is presented in Chapter 5: 

Planning Policy Overview, which includes the identification of the Development Plan policies 

and material considerations relevant to the determination for the proposed Carron Valley 

Wind Farm. 

12.3.4 In terms of Development Plan policies with direct relevance to ornithological interests within 

the proposed development area, policy ENV1 of the CSSP aims to prevent developments 

that have adverse effects on wildlife habitats and other natural features, and states that all 

development proposals will be considered within the context of the Local Biodiversity Action 

Plans. 

12.3.5 In addition to this, Policy POL.E54 and Policy POL.E55 of the SCLP set out the hierarchical 

approach taken to special area designations that contribute to nature conservation in relation 

to developments. 

12.3.6 Thus, as defined by POL.E54, The Council will not normally permit or approve developments 

or land-use changes which may adversely affect wildlife interests and conservation 

management of Local Nature Reserves, non-statutory and community nature reserves and 

fully defined Wildlife Sites, or the integrity or continuity of the landscape features listed below, 

which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora. In cases where the reasons in favour 

of a development clearly outweigh the desirability of retaining the feature(s), mitigating 

measures, including replacement habitat creation will be sought on land within the 

developers’ control. 

12.3.7 POL.E55 addresses the remainder of the hierarchy set out in the SCLP. It advises that; (i) a 

new development will not be acceptable where it is likely to have a significant adverse effect 



Ornithology


on the integrity of a Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation, or Ramsar site 

(with the few possible extenuating circumstances described in SOEnD Circular 6/1995); and 

(ii) a development will not normally be acceptable which is likely to affect an SSSI or NNR, 

unless it can be demonstrated that it will not have a significant effect on the special interest of 

the site. 

12.3.8 Other material considerations relevant to ornithological interests include PAN 60 – Planning 

for the Natural Heritage. Although this does not specifically address wind farm developments, 

it provides general guidance on the siting and design of development in relation to Scotland’s 

natural environment. 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’. 


Desk-based Study 

12.3.9 Contacts were made with nature conservation bodies to obtain any relevant data to inform 

the baseline situation of bird usage at Carron Valley. A summary of correspondence is 

shown below in Table 12.9. 

Table 12.9 Desk-based Consultation to Obtain Background Ornithological Data 

Source 

Forestry Commission 

Scotland 

National Biodiversity 

Network (NBN Gateway) 

Scottish Ornithologist 

Club - Upper Forth. 

RSPB Scotland 

Central Scotland Raptor 

Study Group 


Biological Recording in 

Scotland (BRISc) 

Central Scotland Black 

Grouse and Capercaillie 

Study Group 

Consultation and information obtained 

30.03.2011 - RPS consulted with local managers and rangers within the 

Carron Valley catchment. They provided records or barn owl, hen harrier, 

goshawk and osprey. 

As part of a wider data gathering process through FCS RPS were 

provided with records of black grouse lek sites in the wider area. 

Data were downloaded from the Gateway for the surrounding area. These 

data lacked any accurate co-ordinates and breeding evidence. They were 

thus deemed of little value for this assessment. 

19.03.2012 - Contacted local bird recorder. Some data available. Await 

reply. 

20.03.2012 - Consulted with RSPB regarding records of protected species 

which they may hold on file. However, they stated that they have very 

limited and outdated records for this area, and these would provide little or 

no value to the assessment. 

20.03.2012 - Consulted with windfarm contact for this group. They have 

very limited coverage of species within this area. Most data are collected 

by local FCS staff. 

21.03.2012 - Provision of LBAP and list and location of LCNSs. 

29.02.2012 – provision of all records for 1km around the application site. 

Records of black grouse lek sites were made available for the purposes of 

the ES. 



Ornithology



12.3.10 A desk-based study was carried out to obtain information on all statutory and non-statutory 

designated sites with ornithological interests within 20 km (SPAs and Ramsar sites), 10 km 

(SSSIs, LNRs and other national-level designations) and 5 km (LCNSs) (Table 12.10). The 

maximum 20 km search area was based on regular foraging ranges of osprey and geese, 

and based on SPA connectivity guidance from SNH (2012a). 

12.3.11 There are no statutory sites within the application site boundary, nor within 13km of the site. 

12.3.12 Two SPAs are located within 20 km – the Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site, which hosts a 

wide variety of waterfowl during the winter period; and Slamannan Plateau SPA which at the 

time of citation held over 53% of the Great British population of Taiga bean goose. No SSSIs 

or other national-level sites with an ornithological interest are located within 10 km of the site. 

12.3.13 Only one LNR, Dumbreck Marsh, is within 10 km of Carron Valley, and although no specific 

information is available it is likely to contain a lowland grassland/marshland assemblage of 

birds. 

12.3.14 Four LCNSs with noted ornithological interest can be found within 5 km of the site: Carron 

Valley, Loch Coulter and North Third Reservoirs, and Gargunnock Hills. The first three of 

these sites consist primarily of freshwater and wetland habitats with associated wildlife, with 

the Gargunnock Hills LCNS comprising mainly moorland habitat with an assemblage 

influenced by red grouse management. 

Table 12.10 Statutory and Non-statutory Designated Sites within up to 20km of Carron 

Valley 

Designated Site Distance Qualifying features 

Firth of Forth SPA 5 and Ramsar site 6 15 km east Various overwintering waterfowl species; 

Sandwich tern on passage; waterfowl 

assemblage. 

Slamannan Plateau SPA 7 13 km southeast Taiga bean goose. 

Dumbreck Marsh LNR 8 6.2 km south Bird assemblage including lapwing, 

skylark and water rail. 

Carron Valley Reservoir LCNS 0 km Wetland birds. 

Loch Coulter Reservoir LCNS 3.8 km Water birds. 

North Third Reservoir LCNS 4.5 km Water birds. 

Gargunnock Hills LCNS 4.9 km Upland birds. 

5 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/SPA/UK9004411.pdf 

6 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/RIS/UK13017.pdf 

7 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/SPA/UK9004441.pdf 

8 http://www.snh.org.uk/about/lnr/detail.asp?id=8134 



Ornithology



Flight Activity Surveys 

12.3.15 A total of 19 species was recorded during the flight activity surveys undertaken at VPs 1-3 

between October 2010 and May 2012 (Table 12.11, Figures 12.4 to 12.7). In general, flight 

activity during the breeding season within the application site and surrounding area was 

relatively low compared to winter usage, with the exception of osprey that is only present 

through the summer months. During summer a small number of raptor and wader flights 

were recorded. 

12.3.16 In winter months the area is used more frequently, particularly by wintering ducks on the 

Carron Valley Reservoir, and overflying wildfowl. Although there was regular flight activity 

recorded, the vast majority was well away from the proposed turbine area, and only two 

species (osprey and greylag goose) had sufficient flight events at PCH within the proposed 

turbine area to justify undertaking CRM. For all other species there were either zero, or 

insufficient ‘at-risk’ flights – i.e. recorded at PCH within the proposed wind farm development 

area. 

Table 12.11 Flight Activity Data Recorded at the Carron Valley Wind Farm Site, as 

Derived from the Surveys Undertaken at VPs 1 - 3. 

Species 

Season 

Total no. of Flight 

Events (all VPs) 

Total Time in 

Flight (sec) 

Total no. of Birds 

No. of Birds at 

PCH 


PCH within WP 

No. of Flight 

Events for CRM 

Wildfowl 

Common scoter winter 1 60 1 0 0 0 

Greylag goose 

winter 25 2325 207 185 23 6 

summer 24 1020 54 19 15 7 

Goldeneye 

winter 12 705 12 0 0 0 

summer 2 75 4 1 0 0 

Mallard 

winter 5 345 17 14 0 0 

summer 14 510 21 16 1 1 

Mute swan winter 4 345 7 0 0 0 

Pink-footed goose winter 1 60 55 0 0 0 

Pochard winter 3 105 15 15 0 0 

Teal 

winter 3 75 15 0 0 0 

summer 2 30 2 0 0 0 



Ornithology


Species 

Season 

Total no. of Flight 

Events (all VPs) 

Total Time in 

Flight (sec) 

Total no. of Birds 


PCH 


PCH within WP 

No. of Flight 

Events for CRM 

Wigeon winter 2 90 7 1 0 0 

Whooper swan winter 3 210 5 1 1 1 

Waders 

Curlew summer 14 600 19 6 0 0 

Common snipe summer 1 15 1 1 0 0 

Common sandpiper summer 1 15 3 0 0 0 

Oystercatcher 

winter 1 15 2 2 2 1 

summer 1 75 1 1 0 0 

Lapwing 

winter 1 45 5 5 0 0 

summer 1 90 1 0 0 0 

Raptors 

Osprey summer 76 20,985 78 36 7 7 

Hen harrier summer 3 150 3 0 0 0 

Merlin summer 7 1,215 7 0 0 0 

Red kite summer 1 30 1 1 0 0 

Breeding Raptors 

12.3.17 Consultation with local FCS staff, and on-site surveys in 2011 resulted in identification of two 

Annex I / Schedule 1 raptors breeding within the application site boundary and 2 km survey 

buffer in recent years: osprey and hen harrier. The locations of breeding activity are detailed 

in Appendix 12.2 (confidential) and Figures TA12.2.1 and TA12.2.2 therein. 

12.3.18 In 2009, two artificial osprey nest platforms were built by FCS in forestry to the south of 

Carron Valley Reservoir, within 2 km of the application site. Neither platform has been used 

by breeding osprey to date. In 2010 there was evidence of an unconfirmed osprey nest 

within the application site boundary (Figure TA12.2.1 of Appendix 12.2 (confidential)). There 

was also evidence that a natural osprey nest was newly-built within forestry to the south of 

the reservoir, approximately 1.6 km from the application site boundary. Observations 

suggested that this pair laid, but the brood was later abandoned. 



Ornithology


12.3.19 Raptor surveys in 2011 highlighted a potentially new osprey nest site within the application 

site boundary (Figure TA12.2.1 of Appendix 12.2 (confidential)). Adults were seen regularly 

carrying food into an area of mature spruce. A survey of this woodland failed to find a nest, 

but because this survey occurred after the unseasonably strong winds in late May, it is likely 

that this nest was destroyed prior to the survey. 

12.3.20 The confirmed 2010 osprey nest to the south of the reservoir again failed to breed 

successfully in 2011. 

12.3.21 It is considered possible that breeding evidence around Carron Valley Reservoir may have 

been either from one pair, or two separate pairs. In the case of the former, ospreys often 

build "frustration" nests if their first nest fails, although they rarely lay eggs a second time. 

This may have been the case in 2010 and 2011 although there was not enough evidence to 

confirm this. 

12.3.22 There was evidence from FCS that a hen harrier pair attempted to breed within the northern 

part of the application site boundary in 2009 (Figure TA12.2.2 of Appendix 12.2 

(confidential)), although no breeding evidence has been recorded in subsequent years, likely 

due to maturation of forestry which will have caused the habitat to become unsuitable for the 

species. The nest site was approximately 700 m from the closest turbine location. Only one 

flight was recorded during flight activity surveys (in September, Table 12.11), suggesting that 

the species does not currently breed in the wider area. 

12.3.23 FCS has recorded sightings of goshawk over the main forest block, and although breeding is 

possible, no evidence has been recorded to date by any conservation organisation or during 

baseline surveys. It was considered from flight activity surveys in 2010/11 that sightings were 

of a lone male. 

12.3.24 Although there was no breeding evidence recorded, flight activity surveys have shown that 

merlin use the forestry within the application site boundary in summer months, suggesting 

that there may be occupation of a territory either within or near the site. However, as flights 

were recorded in March, late July and early August only, it is more likely that the site is used 

prior to and after birds have attempted to breed elsewhere. 

12.3.25 No peregrine flights were recorded during flight activity surveys from the three VPs covering 

the proposed site boundary (and associated buffer) and used to generate data for CRM 

calculations. However, a single peregrine flight was recorded on the south western edge of 

the flight activity survey buffer in October 2010. This was recorded from an additional VP 

location (subsequently disused following the site boundary change in May 2011). This single 

flight was not at PCH, and overall the data suggest the application site is not part of any 

territory. 

12.3.26 Incidental records during various surveys in 2010/11 recorded regular buzzard activity, with 

the suggestion that the area forms part of at least one breeding territory. It is also likely that 

the site hosts at least two tawny owl territories. 

Barn Owl 

12.3.27 FCS provided records of barn owl nest boxes and other activity in 2010. There are two barn 

owl boxes placed at the forest edges along the application site boundary, one within 1 km, 

and a further two are known within forestry to the south of the Carron Valley Reservoir 

(beyond 1 km of the application site, Figure TA12.2.2, Appendix 12.2 (confidential)). 



Ornithology


12.3.28 In 2010, one of the nests within the application site recorded breeding activity, although the 

nest was predated by pine marten Martes martes. The other two boxes north of the reservoir 

were not used that year. Of the two boxes to the south, one again was used but predated by 

pine marten, and a second was used as a roost. 

12.3.29 There was no evidence of barn owl nesting or roosting elsewhere within a 1 km buffer, as 

determined from a survey conducted in April 2011. 

Black Grouse 

12.3.30 Locations of historic lek sites within the past decade or so were provided by FCS and Central 

Scotland Black Grouse and Capercaillie Study Group. There were two sites within the 

application site boundary, although dates and maximum sizes of these leks were unknown. 

A further lek site was within 1.5 km of the site boundary, and five lek sites were located 

outside this buffer within forestry areas to the south of Carron Valley Reservoir. 

12.3.31 All of these lek sites were checked in 2011, but no birds were found at them, or within the 

entire 1.5 km buffer surrounding the indicative turbine layout. It is likely that these leks no 

longer exist in these locations, and the maturation of plantation will have rendered habitats 

considerably less suitable (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2007). The only black grouse record within 

the application site was of a flushed grey hen in March 2011, during a winter walkover 

survey. An incidental record of a flushed black cock was provided from a surveyor en route 

to a flight activity survey, some 4 km south of the application site boundary, in November 

2010, and one black cock and two grey hens were recorded in the same area during a winter 

walkover survey in January 2011. 

12.3.32 A series of droppings attributed to black grouse were recorded along the southern edge of 

plantation to the south of the Carron Valley Reservoir in late March 2011. This area was 

approximately 2.8 km from the application site boundary. 

Moorland Breeding Birds 

12.3.33 As the application site comprises mainly plantation forestry, only a small area of open 

moorland required study within the 500 m buffer (Figure 12.1). Consequently only two 

species of conservation concern were recorded during the three survey visits (curlew and 

skylark). Table 12.12 presents records of these species during each survey. It is considered 

that up to two curlew pairs and seven skylark pairs occurred within this survey area. 

Table 12.12 Moorland Bird Survey Results (number of individuals) 

Species 

Curlew 

Skylark 

Conservation 

Status 

Amber-listed; 

UKBAP; LBAP 

Red-listed; 

UKBAP; LBAP 

April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 

2 4 0 

4 7 2 

Winter walkover surveys 

12.3.34 The winter walkover surveys recorded a typical suite of woodland passerines. In total, 44 

species were recorded within the application site boundary and 500 m buffer (Appendix 12.1). 

Of these, 21 species were of conservation concern, including four Schedule 1 species 

(goshawk, crossbill, brambling and redwing, although it is very likely that the latter two at 



Ornithology


least do not breed here), as well as four Red-listed BoCC species (black grouse, lesser 

redpoll, skylark and song thrush) and six UKBAP species (Table 12.13). 

Table 12.13 Winter Walkover Survey Results 

Species Peak Count Index of 

relative 

abundance 

* 

Sched 

-ule 1 

BoCC 

Redlisted 

BoCC 

Amber 

-listed 

UK 

BAP 

Stirling 

LBAP 

Bullfinch 1 (Jan) 14% 

Black-headed gull colony (Mar) 29% 

Black grouse 1 (Mar) 14% 

Brambling 2 (Jan) 43% 

Crossbill 78 (Nov) 100% 

Dunnock 12 (Mar) 57% 

Great black-backed gull 1 (Oct) 14% 

Goshawk 1 (Jan) 14% 

Greylag goose 16 (Jan) 29% 

Goldeneye 3 (Feb) 29% 

Kestrel 2 (Nov) 57% 

Lesser redpoll 10 

(Jan/Mar) 

71% 

Mistle thrush 1 (Jan/Feb) 29% 

Meadow pipit 6 (Oct/Mar) 57% 

Oystercatcher 1 (Mar) 14% 

Pink-footed goose 35 (Feb) 14% 

Redwing 8 (Oct) 29% 

Red grouse 1 (Oct) 14% 

Skylark 1 (Feb) 14% 

Song thrush 6 (Mar) 14% 

Woodcock 2 (Nov) 29% 

* The index of relative abundance represents the percentage of surveys where each species was 

recorded 



Ornithology


Point Count Surveys 

12.3.35 A total of 23 species were judged to be breeding within the survey area, with a further nine 

species recorded flying over the site only (Appendix 12.1). Few species of conservation 

value were recorded breeding, with four Red-listed species (cuckoo, song thrush, 

grasshopper warbler and skylark) most noteworthy (Table 12.14). One Annex I species 

(osprey) was recorded in flight only. 

Table 12.14 Species of Conservation Value Recorded During the Point Count Surveys 

Common Name Status Peak 

survey 

count 

Index of 

relative 

abunda 

nce 

Annex 

I 

Sched 

-ule 1 

BoCC 

Redlisted 

BoCC 

Amber 

-listed 

UK 

BAP 

Stirli 

ng 

LBAP 

Cuckoo Breeding 3 28% 

Grasshopper warbler Breeding 1 6% 

Meadow pipit Breeding 20 44% 

Red grouse Breeding 1 6% 

Skylark Breeding 3 17% 

Song thrush Breeding 14 89% 

Whinchat Breeding 3 6% 

Willow warbler Breeding 16 83% 

Black-headed gull flying over 2 11% 

Curlew flying over 3 28% 

Greylag goose flying over 81 39% 

Osprey flying over 1 11% 

Swallow flying over 2 11% 

Raven flying over 1 11% 

* the index of relative abundance represents the percentage of points at which each species was 

recorded across the three survey visits 

Collision Risk Modelling 

12.3.36 CRM followed the method presented by Band et al. (2007), 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 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 

(i.e. 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 



Ornithology


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 99% for 

geese – SNH 2010) is then multiplied by the figure calculated at stage 2 to give an overall 

estimate of mortality rate. 

12.3.37 For each target species recorded in sufficient numbers, 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. 

12.3.38 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. 

12.3.39 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 for the Two Species for which 

a Sufficient Number of ‘at risk’ Flights were Recorded to Enable Modelling to 

Undertaken 

Mean number of collisions 

predicted per year using 

recommended avoidance rate* 

Mean number of years predicted 

to be required to obtain one 

collision as derived using 

recommended avoidance rate* 

Osprey 0.086 11.6 

Greylag goose 3.81 0.26 

*98% for osprey and 99% for greylag goose (SNH 2010) 


12.3.40 Following a review of constraints in May 2011, and subsequent review in March 2012, layout 

changes resulted in the assessment of ornithological effects being carried out for a slightly 

different study area compared to those originally surveyed (Figure 12.1). 

12.3.41 As described above, this difference was rectified for the flight activity surveys by the addition 

of two new VPs (2 and 3, Figure 12.2), which provided coverage of the relatively small part of 

the revised site boundary not covered by VP1. As a result of the VP coverage in 2010-11 

being incomplete during the early breeding season across the northern part of the site, further 

surveys from all three VPs were conducted from late March to May 2012 to increase the 

confidence of the impact assessment and gather more flight activity data for each species for 



Ornithology


inclusion in CRM. It is not considered that this will prove to be a significant constraint to 

providing a robust assessment of ornithological effects. 

12.3.42 The survey areas for breeding birds and winter walkovers were also slightly different 

compared to the required study areas. The small areas not directly covered are however 

very unlikely to host any additional target species, particularly with the availability of data from 

a variety of sources including nearby wind farm projects with overlapping survey areas, and 

FCS data, and so there is unlikely to be a material difference in the accuracy of assessment. 

Receptor Sensitivity 

12.3.43 A total of 28 species met at least one of the criteria identified in paragraph 12.2.8 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. 

12.3.44 The aim of the evaluation of ornithological effects was to report on “likely” significant effects, 

based on the EIA Regulations guidance, rather than every perceivable effect. As such, a 

number of species were discounted from assessment as 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. 

12.3.45 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 priority species within the UKBAP, 

LBAP and/or are Red or Amber-listed species of BoCC (Eaton et al. 2009), and would 

therefore generally be considered of Regional conservation value (Table 12.4), their 

conservation status reflects a decline in numbers rather than rarity or a concentration of 

population in a few sites; they remain relatively common and widespread in the UK. Even 

though these species (e.g. song thrush, dunnock) 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. 

12.3.46 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 UKBAP 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. They are therefore omitted from the 

impact assessment. 

12.3.47 Other species such as redwing and brambling are Red-listed on the basis of their breeding 

populations, because the UK is at the edge of their breeding range and has, at best, very 

small breeding numbers. No breeding evidence was recorded for such species in the study 

area, and therefore these species were omitted from further consideration. Other species 

(mainly waterfowl on Carron Valley Reservoir) have been recorded flying in low numbers 

within the proposed turbine area, and do not use the application site for breeding, feeding or 

roosting. These species were also omitted from assessment. 

12.3.48 When considering all omitted species of conservation value, it was concluded that based on 

population estimates in Forrester et al. (2007) and other sources, none were found in 

regionally-important numbers within the study area, and are at most of a District conservation 

value. 



Ornithology


12.3.49 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): 

• greylag goose; 

• osprey; 

• barn owl; and 

• breeding bird assemblage. 



Ornithology


Table 12.16 Valued Ornithological Receptors at Proposed Carron Valley Wind Farm Site 

Species Recorded presence UK conservation status 

and level of protection 

International 

conservation status 9 

Conservation 

importance/value 

(from Table 12.4) 

Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 

(‘in’ = part of 

assemblage 

only) 

Whooper 

swan 

Flight activity: 3 flight 

events, 1 ‘at-risk’. 

BoCC Amber List; UK 

population is internationally 

important UK Species of 

Conservation Importance. 

Non-SPEC (Secure, 

concentrated in Europe). 

Medium/Regional OUT Non-breeder, 

occasional. 

Legal protection: Annex I 

(migratory). 

Greylag 

goose 


events, 13 ‘at-risk’. 

BoCC Amber List; Species of 

European Conservation 

Concern, UK Species of 

Conservation Importance. 

Legal protection: Annex 

II/A10, Schedule 2. 

Non-SPEC (secure, not 


Medium/Regional* 

(*due to international 

importance of UK 

population) 

IN 

Regular usage of 

airspace within site 

boundary presents 

theoretical collision risk. 

Pink-footed 

goose 


events, none ‘at-risk’. 

BoCC Amber List; UK 

population is internationally 

important. 

Legal protection: Annex II/B, 

Schedule 2. 

Non-SPEC (secure, 


Medium/Regional* 

(*due to international 

importance of UK 

population) 

OUT 

Non-breeder, 

occasional. 

Common Flight activity: 1 flight BoCC Red List; UKBAP; Non-SPEC (Secure, Medium/Regional OUT Non-breeder, very 

9 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). 

10 Annex II/2 of the EU Birds Directive. The species listed here may be legally killed or sold. 



Ornithology




International 


Conservation 



Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 


assemblage 

only) 

scoter event, not ‘at-risk’. LBAP. 


occasional. 

Legal protection: Schedule 1 

(breeding). 

Black grouse 

1 female flushed within 

site during winter. 

BoCC Red List; UKBAP; 

LBAP. 

Legal protection: Annex II/B. 

SPEC 3 (Depleted - large 

historical decline). 

Medium/Regional OUT No evidence of current 

breeding within wind 

farm or 2km buffer. 

Very occasional. 

Hen harrier 

Previously recorded 

breeding within site 

(2009). 


events, not ‘at-risk’. 

BoCC Red List. 

Legal protection: Annex I, 

Schedule 1. 

SPEC 3 (depleted, large 

historical decline). 

Medium/Regional OUT No evidence of current 

breeding within wind 

farm or 2km buffer. 

Very occasional. 

Osprey 

One probable breeding 

pair within site boundary, 

and second pair within 

core foraging range. 

BoCC Amber List. 


Schedule 1. 

SPEC 3 (Unfavourable 

conservation status in 

Europe, not concentrated 

in Europe). 

High/National IN Breeding raptor of high 

conservation concern. 

Merlin 

7 flights in early and late 

summer (none ‘at-risk’), 

but no breeding evidence. 



Schedule 1. 

Non-SPEC (secure). Medium/Regional OUT Non-breeder, 

occasional. 

Peregrine 

Flight activity: 1 incidental 

flight record, not ‘at-risk’. 


Schedule 1. 

Non-SPEC (secure). Medium/Regional OUT Non-breeder, very 

occasional. 

Goshawk 

Flight activity: 1 incidental 

flight record, c.3 km south 

Legal protection: Schedule 1. Non-SPEC (secure). Medium/Regional OUT Non-breeder, very 



Ornithology




International 


Conservation 



Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 


assemblage 

only) 

of the proposed site 

boundary and not ‘at-risk’. 

occasional. 

1 record during winter 

walkovers. 

Red kite 


event, none ‘at-risk’. 

BoCC Amber List; LBAP. 


Schedule 1. 

SPEC 2 – declining 

(concentrated in Europe). 

Medium/Regional OUT Non-breeder, very 

occasional 

Barn owl 

Breeding evidence within 

application site boundary. 

BoCC Amber List: UK BAP; 

LBAP. 

Legal protection: Schedule 1. 

Medium/Regional IN Breeding species of 

high conservation 

concern. 

Lapwing 



SSSI qualifying species; 

BoCC Red List; UK BAP; 

LBAP. 

SPEC 2 (vulnerable, 



occasional. 

Legal protection: general, 

under WCA. 

Curlew 

2 possible breeding pairs 

within 500 m. 



SSSI qualifying species; 

BoCC Amber List; UK BAP; 

LBAP. 

Legal protection: general 

under WCA, Annex II/B. 

SPEC 2 – declining 

(concentrated in Europe). 

Medium/Regional In Part of breeding bird 

assemblage. 



Ornithology




International 


Conservation 



Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 


assemblage 

only) 

Common 

snipe 



BoCC Amber List; LBAP 


under WCA, Annex II/1. 

SPEC 3 - declining Medium/Regional OUT Non-breeder, very 

occasional 

Common 

sandpiper 





under WCA, 

SPEC 3 - declining Medium/Regional OUT Non-breeder, very 

occasional 

Skylark 

Small number of territories 

likely in surrounding open 

moorland. 

BoCC Red List: UK BAP; 

LBAP. 


under WC. 

SPEC 3 (depleted - not 



assemblage. 

Cuckoo 

At least 3 breeding 

territories. 

BoCC Red List: UK BAP. 


under WC. 

Non-SPEC (secure, not 



assemblage. 

Song thrush 


territories. 

BoCC Red List: UK BAP; 

LBAP. 




assemblage. 


under WCA. 

Grasshopper 

warbler 


territory. 



under WCA. 

Non-SPEC (secure - 



assemblage. 

(Common) Peak count of 78 Legal protection: Schedule 1. Non-SPEC (secure, not Medium/Regional In Part of breeding bird 


Ornithology 





International 


Conservation 



Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 


assemblage 

only) 

Crossbill 

individuals in winter. 

Likely breeder. 


assemblage. 

Brambling Peak count of 2 



(breeding). 




occasional. 

Redwing Peak count of 8 


BoCC Red List. 


(breeding). 




occasional. 

Lesser 

redpoll 

Peak count of 10 




under WCA. 




occasional. 

Bullfinch 

Peak count of 1 individual 

in winter. 

BoCC Amber list: UKBAP; 

LBAP. 

Non-SPEC (secure - not 



occasional. 


under WCA. 

Dunnock Peak count of 12 


BoCC Amber List: UK BAP. 


under WCA. 




occasional. 

Oystercatcher 

Flight activity: 2 flights in 

March, one ‘at risk’. 

BoCC Amber List; LBAP. 


under WCA. 



Low/District OUT Non-breeder, 

occasional. 

Raven 1 overflying bird in LBAP. Non-SPEC (secure - not Low/Local OUT Non-breeder, very 


Ornithology 





International 


Conservation 



Scoping IN/ 

OUT of 

assessment 

Rationale 


assemblage 

only) 

breeding season. 


under WC. 


occasional. 



Ornithology



12.3.50 The statutory and non-statutory designated sites in proximity to Carron Valley, as outlined in 

Table 12.10 are also considered in the preliminary list of VORs. It can however be 

reasonably concluded that none will be adversely affected by the proposed wind farm 

development for the following reasons. 

12.3.51 Of the two SPAs, no Taiga bean geese were recorded during baseline surveys, and so any 

connectivity with the Slamannan Plateau SPA is considered very unlikely. Although some 

waterfowl species that are designated within the Firth of Forth SPA citation were found over 

winter at Carron Valley, it is very unlikely that these individuals would utilise the SPA (15 km 

distant at its closest point) at any time, except perhaps briefly on passage. With very little 

activity within the application site itself, connectivity with the SPA is likely to be negligible. 

12.3.52 Regarding the locally-designated non-statutory sites (LNR and LCNS), no particular species 

have been highlighted as residing within the sites at any time. The general bird assemblages 

found within these sites are likely to remain local to the area, and with the exception of the 

adjacent Carron Valley Reservoir LCNS, likely to be beyond foraging range. For the latter 

site, it has already been established that the effects of the wind farm on waterfowl are likely to 

be minimal, with habitat within the application site boundary unsuitable for such species. 

12.3.53 It is therefore concluded that no designated sites require consideration in the assessment 

stage, and are therefore scoped out. 

Reference Populations and Conservation Status 

12.3.54 As described in the Assessment of the Significance of Effects section, the significance 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. 

12.3.55 According to SNH (2006), an effect is judged as 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. 

12.3.56 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. 

12.3.57 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. 

12.3.58 For breeding birds, the regional scale equates to SNH’s Natural Heritage Zones (NHZ), 

where there is high biogeographical coherence within each zone. In this case, the proposed 

wind farm development site lies within the West Central Belt (NHZ 17) but is also within 

10 km of the Eastern Lowlands (NHZ 16) (Figure 12.8). It is considered that the West Central 

Belt 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. 

12.3.59 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. 

Osprey 

12.3.60 Osprey is listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive, and Schedule 1 to the Wildlife and 

Countryside Act, and is a rare breeder in the UK. 

12.3.61 The species has shown a steady long-term increase in breeding numbers since its mid-20 th 

century reintroduction, with a minimum of 208-211 pairs recorded in Scotland in 2008, which 

is an increase in the 140 pairs present at 198 nest sites checked in Scotland in 2007 

(Etheridge et al. 2010, 2011). The national population is likely to therefore be around 215 

pairs, based on the most recent UK breeding report (Holling et al. 2011). 

12.3.62 From the latest Scottish Raptor Study Monitoring Report (2008 – Etheridge et al. 2011) there 

were 21 monitored pairs in the Central Scotland study area, which was an increase from 18 

in the previous year (Etheridge et al. 2010), and up from 12 pairs in 2004 (Etheridge et al. 

2007, Diagram 1). Of these 21 pairs, 16 fledged a total of 34 young, with the other five laying 

eggs but subsequently failing (giving a mean brood size of 1.6 fledged young per monitored 

occupied nest site). In 2007 there were 18 pairs found, of which 13 were successful, rearing 

32 young (1.8 fledged young per monitored occupied nest site). These are higher success 

rates than the Scottish average of 1.5 young per monitored occupied nest site in 2008, and 

1.3 in 2007. 

12.3.63 According to Etheridge et al. (2011), the increasing number of pairs in southern Scotland is 

largely due to the provision of nesting platforms by a few enthusiasts, but it also reflects 

range expansion of this species in Scotland. In general, from results in Diagram 1, it appears 

that productivity is relatively high in Central Scotland compared to the Scottish average, 

which will further encourage growth and expansion of the population. 

12.3.64 Ospreys are slowly colonising south and central Scotland and the regional population 

appears to be increasing. Therefore, based on the above information, osprey is a VOR of 

National conservation value (


25 

2 

Number of pairs 

20 

15 

10 

5 

1.8 

1.6 

1.4 

1.2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

Fledging success per pair 

0 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Year 

0 

No. Pairs Central Scotland fledging success All Scotland fledging success 

Diagram 12.1: Osprey pairs and productivity in the Central Scotland population 

Greylag Goose 

12.3.65 Greylag goose is an Amber-listed species, but is internationally-important within the UK as at 

least 20% of the non-breeding population is found here. Of these, at least 50% are found in 

10 or fewer sites (Eaton et al. 2009). 

12.3.66 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, 

the birds present over Carron Valley are likely to be part of the Icelandic-breeding population 

which winters in the UK. The most recent census data available from 2010 indicated that the 

British population reached 110,962 individuals (Mitchell, 2011). Compared to population 

estimates in 2009, the 2010 figures represent a very small increase of 1.3% in the greylag 

goose population, although the long-term trend is one of continued growth. The 

Stirling/Falkirk/Clackmannan areas held relatively low peak numbers of 630 birds in October. 

12.3.67 Although there has been a redistribution of greylag goose 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. Although a widespread migratory species, the peak flock size of 103 

individuals over the application site may be of at least regional conservation value (medium 

importance). 

Barn Owl 

12.3.68 Barn owl is listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, is an Amber-listed BoCC, 

and is a priority species of in the UKBAP and Stirling Council LBAP. 

12.3.69 The barn owl has a cosmopolitan world distribution and is not threatened over most of its 

range. The British and Scottish breeding populations remain strong in many areas, but the 

species is Amber-listed due to a moderate range decline (25-49%) in the UK over the last 25 

years (Eaton et al. 2009). The Scottish breeding population has been estimated as 500-1,000 



Ornithology


pairs and 1,000-2,000 individuals (winter) (Forrester et al. 2007), with a UK breeding 

population of 4,000 pairs (Robinson, 2005). 

12.3.70 Distributional data provide evidence for a decline throughout the 20 th century, although 

annual monitoring started only very recently. The erection of barn owl nest boxes, already 

numbering 25,000 by the mid 1990s, has enabled the species to occupy areas that were 

previously devoid of nesting sites, and may have been a factor in improving nesting success. 

Breeding bird survey data for the UK show a large increase since 1995, with the strong 

caveat that the previous surveys monitored nocturnal species poorly (Risely et al. 2010). This 

trend suggests however that the current population estimate is much too low (BTO BirdFacts, 

as per Robinson 2005). 

12.3.71 The Scottish Raptor Study Group monitored 369 pairs across Scotland in 2008, and just 276 

(75%) pairs succeeded in rearing any young (Etheridge et al. 2011). The mean brood size 

was 1.9 young per monitored pair, which is low compared to an 86% success rate and a 

mean brood size of 2.8 young in 2007. The low success rate in 2008 was attributed to a 

crash in vole numbers in late spring (voles being a major food source for the species). 

12.3.72 A total of 64 pairs were monitored in the Stirling area by the Raptor Study Group in 2008, of 

which 44 pairs successfully fledged a total of 72 young (1.1 young per pair or a mean brood 

size of 1.6) which was low compared to the Scottish average. This population represents 

only a sample of the likely total regional population. Using an estimated Scottish population 

of 500-1,000 pairs (Forrester et al. 2007), the Scottish Raptor Study Group monitored 41- 

81% of these (409 pairs) in 2008. If applying this monitoring rate at a regional level, the NHZ 

population is estimated to be around 79-155 pairs. 

12.3.73 Although trends are difficult to discern due to incomplete survey coverage, as a result of an 

apparent long-term decline (albeit with some signs of improvement) barn owl is a VOR of 

National conservation value (Schedule 1 listed), and has an unfavourable conservation status 

at a national and regional (NHZ) level. The one pair of barn owl recorded within the 

application site boundary may therefore be up to a regional conservation value (medium 

importance). 

Breeding Bird Assemblage 

12.3.74 Although the species’ populations recorded during breeding bird surveys within and adjacent 

to the application site are likely to be of at most District level conservation value alone, the 

assemblage as a whole may be seen to reach regional conservation value (medium 

importance), due to relatively uncommon and/or declining species such as crossbill, curlew 

and cuckoo in the context of central Scotland. 


12.4.1 Although not a determining factor, the decision to locate turbines only on the northern forest 

block at Carron Valley was taken in cognisance of the potential effects on VOR species 

across the forestry plantation as a whole, and the retention of forestry to the south of the 

reservoir offered the opportunity to propose artificial nest platforms for ospreys and other 

mitigation to offset some of the effects on bird species. 



Ornithology



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 above. 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 application site lies within an area of commercial forestry, a phased felling strategy by 

FCS is in place until at least 2045, and therefore will likely cover the whole lifespan of the 

wind farm. Phase 1 felling (2010-2014) will occur before commencement of construction 

activities in 2015, and this comprises the harvesting of 33.52 ha of mature trees (Figure 

TA4.3.1 of Appendix 4.3). These areas will then be restocked with a combination of sitka 

spruce, lodgepole pine, larch, Scots pine and some broadleaved trees. 

12.5.4 As a result there will be a loss of current nesting habitat for some species due to clearance of 

forestry in Phase 1 blocks. Conversely, the new habitat (open grassland, scrub, young 

plantation, forest edges) may provide feeding and nesting opportunities for the same, or 

different species. This provides a material difference in baseline condition to that surveyed. 

12.5.5 Subsequent felling phases may coincide with the construction and operational activities of the 

wind farm, resulting in potential cumulative disturbance or displacement events. 

12.5.6 The most realistic baseline situation will therefore be similar in nature to 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. 

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 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 area. 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 Carron Valley is generally not considered of high value for birds at a regional or 

larger scale. The predominant Phase 1 habitat is conifer plantation which is of low 

conservation value for most VORs, either for breeding or foraging. 



Ornithology


Osprey 

12.5.10 The 2010 and 2011 unconfirmed osprey nest sites within the application site boundary are 

both within 100 m of proposed turbine locations. It is also evident however that neither of 

these nest sites will be available at the time of wind farm construction as both are within 

Phase 1 felling blocks and will be removed by FCS (outside of the breeding season) prior to 

the construction phase. Notwithstanding this, evidence suggests that the 2011 nest site has 

already been destroyed in May 2011 due to high winds. 

12.5.11 There have been two artificial nests set up within forestry to the south of Carron Valley 

Reservoir in recent years, and although there is no evidence to date that these have been 

used, they should be seen as potential alternative nesting habitat. One of these platforms is 

within 500 m of an osprey nest abandoned in 2010, and the other is around 2 km distant. It is 

not clear whether the same pair have attempted to nest in these nest sites both north and 

south of the reservoir, or more likely that two pairs are present. Ospreys do not defend a 

home range that includes foraging locations but they will however defend a nesting territory 

against ospreys of the same sex (Hardey et al. 2009). Given an adequate food supply, 

breeding ospreys often concentrate where nest sites are safest and most available and so it 

is likely that in this situation, the distance between nest sites is sufficient so that two osprey 

pairs would be able to nest simultaneously in forestry to the south of the reservoir in future 

years. 

12.5.12 The wind farm infrastructure will not cause any significant habitat loss for the pair nesting to 

the south of the Carron Valley Reservoir, and no loss of foraging habitat (open waterbodies 

and adjacent perching trees) will result from the proposed development for any pair. 

12.5.13 In conclusion, although the historic nest sites within the application site boundary will be 

unavailable, and despite a significant reduction in suitable nesting trees prior to construction, 

it is not possible to completely rule out the possibility that birds may attempt to nest in trees 

elsewhere within the application site boundary. Therefore, a worst-case scenario would be 

the unlikely loss of one nesting pair to the site due to felling of trees within the wind farm’s 

footprint. This would result in a small magnitude effect on the regional population (4.8% 

loss), resulting in an effect of moderate or slight significance. 

Barn Owl 

12.5.14 The occupied barn owl nest box in 2010 was located at the edge of an area of forestry not 

considered for felling until after 2045. 

12.5.15 Based on the proposed site layout and construction methods, it is considered that the loss of 

a barn owl nest site (whether it be a nest box or natural nest) is about as likely as not (IPCC, 

2005). Results obtained from 2010 show that the nest box occupied in 2010 may be within 

an area of forest that would be cleared as part of a turbine’s footprint, although the actual 

extent of felling will likely depend on micrositing of turbines. No suitable foraging habitat will 

however be lost due to the development, with the species strongly preferring more open 

grassland and rough grass along field boundaries as foraging habitat, rather than maturing 

plantation. Unmitigated, the potential loss of one breeding pair to the NHZ population is 

considered to be of at worst small magnitude on a VOR of medium importance (regional 

conservation value) resulting in a long-term adverse effect on the regional population of slight 

significance. 



Ornithology


Greylag Goose 

12.5.16 All greylag goose records were of flocks of birds using the airspace above the application 

site, and there is no evidence to suggest that the species utilises any habitat within the 

application site boundary for feeding, roosting or breeding. As such, the effect of habitat loss 

to greylag goose is predicted to be negligible. 


12.5.17 Although 33.52 ha of forestry within the application site boundary will be cleared for turbines 

and other infrastructure, the key-holing technique used for turbine placement, and the usage 

of existing forest tracks for access routes means that little suitable nesting habitat will be lost 

in comparison to the overall area of the site. It is considered very likely that some nest sites 

for various passerines will be lost due to construction, but as much of the infrastructure will be 

placed in the forest interior, this will be of relatively poor quality habitat compared to forest 

edges and clearings which are preferred by many woodland species. Therefore, although a 

small number of territories will be affected by habitat loss, it is not considered that these 

losses will be significant to any species above a local level. 

12.5.18 The creation of some woodland edge habitat due to turbine placement and access tracks 

may provide a small amount of extra foraging habitat for various species, including goshawk. 

12.5.19 As such, overall a small magnitude adverse effect is predicted on a VOR of medium 

importance (but see Table 12.17), resulting in a long-term adverse effect on the local 

population of slight significance. 

Disturbance 

12.5.20 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 July or August, inclusive) carries a 

risk of illegal destruction or damage to occupied bird nests, as well as disturbance to Annex I 

and Schedule 1 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 

appropriate legislation (see Mitigation and Enhancement Measures section). 

12.5.21 As identified in Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed Development, the main construction 

period is likely to last for a total of 20 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 being approved and the discharging of associated planning conditions. 

Osprey 

12.5.22 The proposed development will be within 100 m or so from possible nest site locations used 

within the application site boundary in 2010 and 2011, and more than 1 km from other nest 

sites, either natural or artificial, outside of the boundary. As has been established, the nest 

sites within the application site boundary will be unavailable at the time of construction, and 

so no disturbance effects are applicable. Nevertheless it is possible that a pair may attempt 

to nest in an alternative location nearby and so disturbance remains a possibility. 



Ornithology


12.5.23 A survey of expert opinion conducted by Ruddock and Whitfield (2007) revealed a wide range 

in the presumed typical disturbance distances for osprey, with static disturbance or alert 

distance (birds may call or appear more vigilant but remain in place) ranging from 100–150 m 

to 500-750 m, and an upper limit of active disturbance or flight initiation distance (birds take 

flight or move away) at 500-750 m. 

12.5.24 Taking a precautionary approach, if the upper limit of the alert distance for osprey (750 m) is 

considered appropriate as a disturbance buffer for active nest sites, no intact natural or 

artificial nest sites will be subject to construction disturbance, these being over 1 km distant. 

12.5.25 It is also considered very unlikely that foraging ospreys using Carron Valley Reservoir would 

be subject to significant disturbance which would impair foraging and therefore breeding 

success, particularly since birds are likely to have become habituated to human activities to 

some extent prior to construction due to forest clearance operations. 

12.5.26 Nevertheless, one breeding pair may be displaced in the short-term by construction activities 

if a nesting attempt is made in alternative habitat within 750 m of the wind farm footprint. This 

is considered to be an effect of small magnitude on a high sensitivity VOR, and therefore 

moderate or slight significance to the regional population. This is likely to be tolerable, since 

the regional population has recently followed an upward trend, which is expected to continue 

despite the loss of one pair. 

Barn Owl 

12.5.27 Barn owls are evidently tolerant of some human activity due to their selection of man-made 

structures for nesting, but where remote localities are used new disturbance from human 

activity may still be an issue. Ruddock and Whitfield’s (2007) expert opinion survey produced 

an upper limit of 50-100 m distance at which disturbance could occur, although many 

respondents considered that disturbance did not occur until a human was within 10 m of the 

nest. 

12.5.28 Although construction activity would be potentially located within or close to this disturbance 

range, it would be screened naturally by trees, and so it is considered unlikely that barn owls 

would be disturbed by any operations. As foraging activity would take place outside of the 

application site boundary, and during nocturnal and crepuscular periods when construction 

work will have ended, no disturbance will occur. Nevertheless, in a worst-case situation, the 

unlikely loss of one pair to the region would be of small magnitude on a receptor of 

medium/regional importance resulting in a long-term adverse effect on the regional 


Greylag Goose 



application site boundary for feeding, roosting or breeding. As such, disturbance to greylag 

goose is predicted to be negligible. 


12.5.30 The breeding bird assemblage, which largely comprises a range of small passerine species, 

may be temporarily disturbed during the construction process. There is little empirical data 

on human disturbance of such species, although Ruddock and Whitfield (2007) suggested an 

active disturbance at 10–50 m or lower for crossbills, and an upper limit of 100-150 m for 



Ornithology


passive disturbance. FCS (2006) guidance recommended a safe working distance for forest 

operations in the early stages of the breeding season, of 50-150 m for crossbill species. 

12.5.31 Localised short-term disturbance during the breeding season will therefore be very likely due 

to construction activities. In some cases this may lead to breeding failure or abandonment of 

a territory. As mentioned previously however, the number of territories likely to be affected is 

expected to be small and confined mainly to common woodland passerine species, with most 

activities taking place in the forest interior. It is considered very unlikely that any species’ 

population will be adversely affected at any more than a local or district scale (low 

importance), and an effect of small magnitude results in a short-term adverse effect on the 

local or district population of slight significance at worst. 

Operation 

12.5.32 This section presents an evaluation of changes predicted during operational activities against 

the criteria outlined in the Evaluation Criteria section. The nature of the potential construction 

effects of the development are considered in turn for each VOR. 

Disturbance/Displacement 

12.5.33 The displacement effects attributable to wind farms are variable and are species, season and 

site-specific. 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. 

12.5.34 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. 

Osprey 

12.5.35 Ruddock and Whitfield’s (2007) expert review deals with all forms of disturbance to ospreys 

when considering likely disturbance-displacement distances. As the operational development 

constitutes a mainly predictable disturbance source compared to other activities (e.g. forestry 

felling), it is likely that there is some potential for ospreys to habituate to the development. 

Ospreys are known to tolerate similar man-made structures, and have nested on electricity 

pylons, with an example of this occurring in Highland Scotland (see SHETL, 2005). 

12.5.36 It is unlikely that, in future, any birds would be displaced by operational turbines unless 

nesting in very close proximity. The closest nest sites south of the Carron Valley Reservoir 

are more than 1 km distant and so beyond likely maximum displacement distance, as 

indicated by Ruddock and Whitfield (2007). 

12.5.37 Foraging activity will not take place within the application site boundary and so no 

displacement effects are predicted. 

12.5.38 Considering a worst-case scenario however, the loss of one pair from the regional population 

due to long-term displacement from nest sites would be of small magnitude and therefore of 



Ornithology


moderate or slight significance. This is likely to be tolerable due to the upward trend of the 

regional population. 

Barn Owl 

12.5.39 Already living close to man-made structures and using nest boxes, it is unlikely that barn owls 

will be displaced by turbines within the forestry, even if within 100 m from the nest. In support 

of this, from RPS post-construction monitoring of one wind farm in south Scotland there is 

evidence of successful breeding within 150 m of the closest turbine. Consequently, it is 

considered that disturbance-displacement effects on the conservation status of breeding barn 

owl are very unlikely and therefore negligible at any level. 

Greylag Goose 



application site boundary for feeding, roosting or breeding. As such, operational disturbance 

or displacement to greylag goose is predicted to be negligible. 


12.5.41 Although the breeding bird assemblage within the forestry is likely to be screened from 

operational turbines by trees, some birds may be displaced if in close proximity to turbines. 

There is conflicting evidence for the effects of wind farms on passerines but with the relevant 

studies being conducted in open moorland habitats where there would be no screening 

effects. Thus, for example, evidence of some avoidance of turbines by skylark was found in a 

multi-site correlative study (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009), but in a second study involving 

comparisons between pre- and post-construction wind farm sites, as well as with control sites 

without turbines, skylark densities tended to be greater during construction and operational 

periods (Pearce-Higgins et al., 2012) 

12.5.42 Any displacement is therefore likely to be limited to the loss of some foraging or nesting 

habitat immediately beside the turbines and nesting along the edge of each turbine footprint. 

This is unlikely to affect any species’ population above a local scale (low importance), and an 

effect of medium magnitude (at worst) results in a short-term adverse effect on the local 


Collisions with Turbines 

12.5.43 Collision of a bird with the turbine rotors is almost certain to result 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 shortlived 

species with high reproductive rates found at high densities, including most passerines. 

12.5.44 At Carron Valley, few flights at potential collision height were recorded during the flight 

activity surveys (Table 12.11), and it was considered that there were too few ‘at risk’ flights 

recorded to allow robust CRM predictions to be made for all species except osprey and 

greylag goose. Therefore, given the low frequency of ‘at-risk’ flights, it follows that mortality 

from collisions with turbines for all species other than osprey and greylag goose are likely to 



Ornithology


be negligible within the context of their respective national and regional populations and 

current baseline mortality. Although an isolated collision risk event over the lifespan of the 

development cannot be discounted for any species, this is considered very unlikely and so no 

significant effects are predicted. This is therefore negligible at any level. 

12.5.45 For osprey and greylag goose, CRM was undertaken to predict mortality levels from collisions 

with turbines, assessing this for the Vestas V90 turbine. This is the candidate turbine for the 

proposed development and has a 90 m rotor diameter and a hub height of 80m. 

12.5.46 For full details of CRM methodology see Appendix 12.1. 

Osprey 

12.5.47 Ospreys are likely to be at some risk of collision between late March and September only, 

this being the period over which the species is likely to be present in the Carron Valley area. 

As would be expected, the bulk of osprey flights recorded during flight activity surveys in 

summer were likely to comprise foraging activity centred over the Carron Valley Reservoir 

(Figure 12.4). There was however a smaller number of flights located above the application 

site boundary, which may relate to birds returning and leaving nest sites, either locally or 

further afield, since Carron Valley Reservoir is potentially a rich source of food for this 

species. There was some apparent connectivity with birds heading across the application 

site to waterbodies (or nest sites) further north, such as Earlsburn Reservoirs or North Third 

Reservoir. 

12.5.48 It is therefore likely that even if birds do not continue to nest within the application site in 

future years, there will be continued osprey activity as local birds and potentially those from 

the wider area will continue to use Carron Valley Reservoir to forage. 

12.5.49 Using the Vestas V90 turbine specifications it was predicted that 0.086 collisions per year 

would occur at a 98% avoidance rate (Table 12.15), which equates to approximately 2 birds 

during the proposed 25 year operational lifespan of the wind farm (see Appendix 12.1 for 

further details). 

12.5.50 The likely loss of c.2 birds during the lifespan of the wind farm is unlikely to adversely affect 

the conservation status of the Central Scotland (regional) population, which is currently 

favourable. The loss of two birds represents 5% of the current Central Scotland breeding 

population of 21 pairs. Based on a background mortality rate of 9% (Forrester et al. 2007), 

this equates to an additional annual mortality of 1.6% and therefore would be an effect of 

small magnitude effect over a 25 year period. On a VOR of high importance this would result 

in an effect of moderate or slight significance on the regional population, which is likely to be 

tolerable due to the upward trend of the regional population. 

12.5.51 This effect is likely to be tolerable, since the population has shown a continued increase over 

the last decade, and coupled with relatively high productivity (Diagram 12.1), any losses 

would likely be replaced by young or currently non-breeding individuals from the larger 

regional pool of birds. Scottish birds can breed any time between three and seven years old 

(Forrester et al. 2007), suggesting there is likely to be a pool of non-breeding individuals in 

most years. 

Greylag Goose 

12.5.52 Although it is possible that some smaller flocks may have comprised local feral birds, 

individuals from the Icelandic breeding population of greylag goose are likely to have been 



Ornithology


recorded over the application site, and will be at some form of collision risk in winter months. 

From flight activity results, this is particularly the case during autumn and spring migration 

periods. The bulk of the greylag goose flight activity was recorded parallel to the length of the 

Carron Valley Reservoir, indicating that birds may use this as a landmark en route to their 

foraging or roosting destinations. A small number of flights were however above the 

application site and so this species will likely continue to be at collision risk during the 

operational phase of the wind farm. 

12.5.53 Using the Vestas V90 turbine specifications it was predicted that 3.81 collisions per year 

would occur at a 99% avoidance rate (Table 12.15), which equates to approximately 95 birds 

during the lifespan of the wind farm (see Appendix 12.1 for further details). 

12.5.54 The most recent estimate for over-winter population of Icelandic greylag geese in Great 

Britain is 108,507 birds (Holt et al. 2011), and as this population is in favourable conservation 

status, the likely additional mortality of 95 birds would be of negligible magnitude, at a 

national and migratory flyway level (which is the geographical scale relevant to assessment 

of migratory species, according to SNH, 2006). With an annual mortality rate of 0.16 for this 

species (Trinder 2010), the additional annual mortality due to the proposed wind farm would 

represent an increase of c.0.02% to the overall mortality in any one year. An effect of 

negligible magnitude is therefore predicted resulting in an effect that is negligible. 

Barrier Effects 

12.5.55 Individual turbines or the 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. 

12.5.56 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). By implication, 

this will reduce the efficiency with which they accumulate reserves, potentially affecting their 

survival or breeding success. During the lifetime of the 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. 

12.5.57 Although there is evidence that the adjacent Carron Valley Reservoir is important for foraging 

species (e.g. osprey, waterfowl), and also as a landmark for migratory geese, relatively few 

flights were recorded over the application site to and from the reservoir. 

12.5.58 The site may form part of an occasional commuting route for the local osprey within a regular 

foraging range of 20 km (Hardey et al. 2009), but due to the overall distance that ospreys can 

travel, a slight detour is unlikely to significantly affect the ability of birds to obtain fish and the 

resulting survival and productivity rates of the regional population. If ospreys continue to 

breed somewhere within the application site boundary however, there may be some small 

barrier effect between the nest site and the reservoir, with the species being a central-placed 

forager during the breeding season. It is unlikely that turbines close to the reservoir will 

prevent birds from accessing the reservoir for foraging, but the cumulative effect of detours 

around turbines across the whole season may potentially reduce productivity for this pair. 

12.5.59 An adverse effect on the conservation status of the regional population is however 

considered unlikely, with relatively high productivity elsewhere compensating for a reduction 



Ornithology


to any pair. This is therefore an effect of small magnitude at worst on a species of high 

importance, resulting in an effect of slight significance at a regional level. 

12.5.60 Greylag goose apparently use Carron Valley Reservoir as part of an occasional migratory 

route, but only rarely transit across the application site. Barrier effects are therefore very 

unlikely for this species, particularly in comparison with overall migratory distances travelled. 

This is of negligible magnitude and therefore negligible at any level. 

12.5.61 In general, no evidence was found that the application site lies on an important route for any 

other species, or between nest site and feeding areas for centrally-placed breeding species. 

The proposed development is therefore unlikely to present a significant barrier effect to the 

overall breeding bird assemblage. Small passerine species will be able to continue to forage 

in the area surrounding their nest unaffected. This is of negligible magnitude and therefore 

negligible at any level. 


12.5.62 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 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 unlawful destruction of nest sites, or 

disturbance to protected species. 

12.5.63 Given the similarities between the effects of construction and decommissioning, the effects of 

decommissioning are not considered separately for each species. 


12.6.1 Whilst the above impact assessment does not predict any effects of greater than moderate or 

slight significance (and likely to be tolerable in all cases), 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 and habitat enhancement measures have therefore been 

identified which would maximise the likelihood of any construction or operational effects being 

slight or lower and increase the opportunity for enhancement of the baseline situation where 

relevant. These measures are discussed below. 

Best Practice Regarding Breeding Birds 

12.6.2 There is a need to follow best practice during the construction of the development 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 



Ornithology


• 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 Best practice will be necessary to reduce the possibility of illegal damage, destruction or 

disturbance to occupied bird nests during the construction phase (or during any maintenance 

work in the operational phase). Three best practice measures outlined below will be adopted: 

the use of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW), and the timing of construction activities and 

visual deterrents. 


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 for ensuring these 

measures are adhered to, which will be specified in the Health, Safety and Environmental 

Management System (HSEMS) to which the appointed contractor will be required to adhere 

(see Appendix 4.4). 

Timing of Construction Activities and Visual Deterrents 

12.6.6 If feasible, site clearance and construction activities will be timed to take place outside of the 

main breeding season so as to avoid nest destruction and disturbance to breeding birds. 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), and for osprey, young birds may still be present 

around the nest into August. Common crossbills, a Schedule 1 species, were recorded in 

forestry and may breed in this area. It should however be noted that the timing of breeding in 

this species is determined by the availability of conifer seeds and nesting may take place 

during the winter months (Forrester et al., 2007; Currie & Elliott 1997). 

12.6.7 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. In this 

case, activities will aim to commence before mid-March wherever possible. By timing 

construction activities to start before the breeding season, birds will have an 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 nest site for that season. 

12.6.8 In areas where work is unavoidable during the breeding season, deterrents may be placed 

within a restricted area well in advance so that birds will not choose to nest within that 

locality. Examples of deterrence include using 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. 

12.6.9 Limiting construction activity in close proximity to breeding birds during certain periods of the 

day can reduce the effects on these species by minimising exposure to disturbance. 

Avoiding the periods two hours before and after dawn and dusk can benefit foraging barn owl 

near the application site boundary, and although not present during baseline surveys, if any 

black grouse leks are recorded, a similar measure will be required within approximately 



Ornithology


500 m of any such site if present in the future. Such restrictions will be specified in the 

HSEMS (see Appendix 4.4). 

Pre-construction Surveys 

12.6.10 Following the implementation of any appropriate deterrent devices prior to the breeding 

season, surveys will be undertaken by an ECoW or other suitably-qualified person, to locate 

nesting birds and lekking black grouse in the vicinity of construction works to ensure that 

none are disturbed. 

12.6.11 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 construction operations 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. 

12.6.12 Larger buffer distances will be used to avoid spatial overlap of construction activities and 

breeding attempts of Schedule 1 and/or Annex I species, which are subject to additional 

protection relating to disturbance during the breeding season. Exact distances are 

dependent on site-specific characteristics (e.g. topography, screening), but will be based on 

those recommended in Ruddock and Whitfield (2007) and other relevant papers. An 

agreement will be reached with SNH prior to construction activities commencing. 

12.6.13 If nest building activity of Schedule 1 species is seen within a cordoned area, continued 

deterrence would constitute disturbance and is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside 

Act, so would be stopped immediately. In this case, and also if birds are nesting outside of 

controlled areas but in the opinion of the ECoW within possible disturbance zones, the work 

will either be re-scheduled or the nest site cordoned-off and destruction prevented. 

12.6.14 In such situations, SNH recommends that pre-construction breeding bird surveys take place, 

with works then being programmed to avoid disturbance. A number of surveys may therefore 

be required as construction progresses through the site. 

Mitigation and Enhancement for Osprey and Barn Owl 

12.6.15 Specific objectives will be made for osprey if required. In conjunction with the Central 

Scotland Raptor Study Group, artificial nests and/or nesting platforms would be proposed 

within suitable habitat in the local area, beyond recognised disturbance-displacement zones 

from the proposed development or other projects, and within areas that are likely to facilitate 

the continued expansion of the Central Scotland population (e.g. on the shore-side of Carron 

Valley Reservoir or in the forestry to the south). Site selection and construction will follow 

relevant best practice guidelines (e.g. http://www.roydennis.org/osprey/index.asp?id=90). 

The aim will be to help continue the upward population trend and range expansion of osprey 

numbers in central Scotland. 

12.6.16 Additional barn owl boxes will be placed in suitable habitat, away from the effects of the wind 

farm, if any current sites are to be disturbed. This will help reverse the habitat loss and 

fragmentation for this species of conservation concern. 

12.6.17 In conjunction with creation of new nest sites, forest clearance undertaken by FCS in 

advance of the wind farm construction programme will also be undertaken with ospreys in 

mind. Surveys will be conducted prior to wind farm construction to determine the remaining 

locations of any potential nesting trees within displacement or high collision risk zones on 



Ornithology


Cairnoch Hill, and these will be felled or the crowns removed during the non-breeding 

season. The extent and suitability of this measure will be determined by the ECoW in 

conjunction with FCS and will include discussions with SNH and the Central Scotland Raptor 

Study Group if considered appropriate. 


12.7.1 A summary of the residual effects on ornithology discussed in this section is presented in 

Table 12.18. 

Osprey 

12.7.2 Without suitable mitigation measures implemented, it is predicted that the wind farm would 

result in short- and long-term effects of moderate to slight significance on the regional 

population (displacement of one pair, and/or mortality of c.2 birds during the proposed 25 

year operational period). 

12.7.3 There will be a need to carry out pre-construction surveys and continue to consult with the 

Central Scotland Raptor Study Group about the current location of any osprey nests, 

particularly as the species appears to be expanding in numbers and range. If ospreys again 

occupy a site within or close to the proposed wind farm footprint, this may be subject to 

removal by tree-felling between September and late-March to avoid disturbance to breeding 

birds and their nest. The effect of this will be mitigated by creation of alternative nest sites 

away from the wind farm’s influence prior to any nest removal (e.g. within forestry on the 

south side of the reservoir). 

12.7.4 Dissuasion from nesting in close proximity to turbines by removing suitable trees will mean 

that collision risk will be reduced, since much osprey flight activity would normally take place 

in the immediate area around the nest site. Similarly, any barrier effect caused by turbines 

close to the nest will be removed. 

12.7.5 These measures will reduce any short- or long-term effects on the conservation status of the 

species at the regional/NHZ scale to at worst slight significance, and therefore residual 

effects are not considered to be significant in terms of the EIA Regulations 

Barn Owl 

12.7.6 Without suitable mitigation measures implemented, the proposed wind farm may potentially 

affect at least one barn owl breeding pair due to the removal of a nest box, or excessive 

disturbance associated with nearby construction activities. 

12.7.7 Nest site removal will be mitigated by constructing alternative nest boxes in suitable habitat 

areas (forest edge adjacent to open grassland for foraging) away from disturbance. In the 

longer-term, suitably located broadleaved planted areas may also provide natural nesting 

habitat for the species. 

12.7.8 Disturbance effects on this species are likely to be limited to within 100 m of the nest, but 

effects will be mitigated by avoiding activities in this zone during the breeding season (March 

to August inclusive) if preconstruction surveys show that barn owls are utilising a nest box or 

any natural nest site. Where considered necessary by the ECoW, construction activities will 

be avoided in this area in the two hours prior to dawn and after dusk to aid foraging. 



Ornithology


12.7.9 These mitigation measures will remove any short- or long-term effects on the conservation 

status of the species at the NHZ scale (negligible magnitude) and therefore residual effects 

are predicted to be negligible at any level. 

Greylag Goose 

12.7.10 Only collision risk and barrier effects were considered of any potential issue for this species, 

and the impact assessment concludes that no effects would be significant at any level. No 

specific mitigation measures are therefore proposed for this species, and the predicted 

residual effect remains negligible. 


12.7.11 No significant effects are predicted at anything greater than local or district level. 

Nevertheless, generic measures outlined above in Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 

are proposed in order to help prevent nest destruction to all species during the breeding 

season, whilst some additional woodland edge habitat will be created from the felling required 

for turbine placement. As such residual effects are predicted to be negligible for any 

breeding species . 


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 (2012b) guidance, an assessment of cumulative effects 

associated with a specific development proposal should encompass the effects of the 

proposal in combination with: 

• existing development, either built or under construction; 

• approved development, awaiting implementation; and 

• proposals awaiting determination within the planning process 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, 2012) includes the following VORs at Carron Valley: osprey and greylag goose. Barn 

owl is not on this list and is therefore excluded from the cumulative assessment (it is 

considered unlikely that this species will be affected by the proposed wind farm in any event). 

None of the other species present in lower numbers at Carron Valley are likely to be at risk of 

cumulative effects due to very low site usage (waterfowl, raptors), high regional populations 



Ornithology


(common passerines), and the minor effects that have been mitigated to an acceptable level 

(e.g. cuckoo, curlew, non-breeding raptors such as goshawk or merlin). 

12.8.5 Predicted greylag goose collision rates are negligible compared to the population size and 

the background mortality rate for the Icelandic breeding population (representing an 

additional 0.02% to the annual mortality of the population that winters 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. Barrier effects are also likely to be negligible. 

As such this species is excluded from the cumulative assessment. 

12.8.6 Osprey is therefore the sole species that may be subject to cumulative effects. Based on the 

impact assessment, slight adverse residual effects are predicted for this species at a regional 

level due to collision risk and barrier effects. 

Scope of Projects and Activities 

12.8.7 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”. 

12.8.8 The cumulative assessment of the effects of the proposed development has therefore 

considered, where information was available, all other wind farms (constructed, consented or 

proposed) within the West Central Belt NHZ, and any other activities subject to the EIA 

Regulations that may affect the ornithological interests of the area. 

12.8.9 After a desk-based research exercise, it was concluded that the only development types of 

significant scale to potentially affect osprey (collision risk and barrier effects) were other wind 

farms. The latest available Wind Farm Footprint Map of Scotland 11 on the SNH website (July 

2011 version) as well as information from Stirling Council and other council’s websites was 

used to determine all other wind farm projects within this potential zone of influence. Results 

showed that there are 62 wind farm projects at all stages within the NHZ. 

12.8.10 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. 

12.8.11 Proposed wind farms that have been rejected by the competent authority or withdrawn by a 

developer 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. 

11 

http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/renewable-energy/research-data-and-trends/trendsandstats/windfarmfootprint-maps/ 



Ornithology


Cumulative Collision Mortality 

12.8.12 The effect of collision risk to ospreys due to the proposed wind farm alone was not 

considered significant in comparison with natural mortality rates. However, when considered 

in conjunction with other sources of additional mortality, especially from other wind farms, it 

may initiate a population decline that cannot be reversed unless the adverse effect is 

removed. 

12.8.13 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 (i.e. the regional osprey population) and mortality can represent a significant proportion 

of the population. With the Central Scotland population of 21 breeding osprey pairs in an 

area of multiple wind farm developments, then if one pair is lost due to collision mortality with 

one wind farm, that will mean that there are fewer birds remaining in the population that are 

then subject to a risk of further collision mortality. 

12.8.14 Within an osprey’s foraging range of 20 km from the nest, there are two wind farms in 

proximity to Carron Valley that are operational (Earlsburn and Craigengelt), two that have 

been approved (Earlsburn North and Greengairs), and three in the application process 

(Craigannet , Rullie, and Muirpark). 

12.8.15 Of these, there was no mention of osprey activity in the respective ES chapters for Muirpark, 

Forthbank and Greengairs. A summary of activity at the remaining sites is provided below. 

Earlsburn and Earlsburn North Wind Farms 

12.8.16 The nine turbine Earlsburn North Wind Farm is a consented extension to the operational 

14 turbine Earlsburn Wind Farm. The original site is adjacent to the northern site boundary of 

Carron Valley, and the extension is approximately 1.8 km to the north at its closest point. 

12.8.17 The Earlsburn North ES (RDC, 2008) provides a summary of osprey activity at both this site 

and the original Earlsburn Wind Farm site. 

12.8.18 A total of 28 osprey flights were observed during VP watches, concentrated over the 

Earlsburn Reservoirs (2 km north of Carron Valley) and over Ling Hill (over 2 km northeast of 

Carron Valley) on a flight path along the valley between the Fintry Hills and the Gargunnock 

Hills. Although no breeding activity was observed, birds were carrying food probably to nest 

sites to the north. 

12.8.19 It was concluded that the activity of the osprey observed at Earlsburn North appeared to be of 

birds foraging over the Earlsburn reservoirs to the south east of that development site or of 

birds travelling to and from Carron Valley Reservoir foraging then travelling back to nest sites 

to the north of the development site. There was an apparent pattern to the commuting: 

ospreys followed the valley between the Gargunnock Hills and the Fintry Hills along the 

course of the upper reaches of the Endrick Water and over Burnfoot Cottage ruin and Ling 

Hill. 

12.8.20 The CRM used an avoidance rate of 98%, and predicted 0.085 collisions per year (equivalent 

to 1 collision every 11.8 years). 

12.8.21 The original Earlsburn ES (RDC, 2003) predicted a collision rate of 0.002 birds per year, 

giving a combined total of 0.087 birds per year at the two sites (one collision every 4.6 years). 



Ornithology


Craigannet Wind Farm 

12.8.22 This seven turbine wind farm, adjacent to the eastern site boundary of the proposed Carron 

Valley Wind Farm site, is in the application stage. The ES (Lomond Energy, 2012) showed 

that osprey were confirmed as breeding within the survey area in 2011. This is likely to have 

been one of the nest sites recorded at Carron Valley in 2011. Although there was frequent 

flight activity observed, the majority of it was outwith the Craigannet site boundary, and only 

three osprey flights came within 200 m of the turbine layout during the entire survey period 

(April 2010 to April 2011). Due to the low level of activity over this area, CRM was not 

undertaken. 

Rullie Wind Farm 

12.8.23 This ten turbine wind farm is approximately 6.5 km east of the proposed Carron Valley Wind 

Farm site. The ES (Community Windpower, 2011) detailed survey work carried out in 2008- 

09. Osprey was recorded fishing occasionally at Carron Valley Reservoir, but recorded on 

only one survey, fishing on Loch Coulter Reservoir and flying briefly over the wind farm site 

on three occasions. Collision rate calculations predicted one collision every 363 years at 

98% avoidance rate. 

Conclusions 

12.8.24 Within the foraging range of birds that may use the airspace over Carron Valley (particularly 

to forage within Carron Valley Reservoir), there are five operational and planned wind farms 

that may contribute to a cumulative collision risk. From CRM predictions in respective ESs, a 

total annual mortality of 0.15 birds per year was predicted (Table 12.17), which equates to 

one bird every 6-7 years. 

12.8.25 Taking the background mortality rate for this species as being 0.09, this cumulative loss 

would result in an increase in background mortality to the NHZ breeding population of 4.0% 

(assuming all collisions would be on breeding birds). This would represent a small magnitude 

of effect on a species of high importance, resulting in an overall cumulative effect of slight 

adverse significance at a regional level. 

Table 12.17 Cumulative Osprey Collision Risk Predictions 

Wind Farm 

Number of 

Turbines 

Predicted Annual Collision Rate (98% Avoidance) 

Carron Valley 15 0.086 

Earlsburn 14 0.002 

Earlsburn North 9 0.085 

Craigannet 7 0 

Rullie 10 0.003 

TOTAL 56 0.15 

12.8.26 It is also possible that other local osprey populations within the larger Central Scotland 

population may be at risk from collisions from other wind farm projects, thereby contributing 

to a greater cumulative effect at a NHZ level. A quantitative assessment of all wind farms 



Ornithology


within the NHZ is beyond the reasonable scope of this assessment, and would not 

necessarily reflect an accurate cumulative collision risk for reasons outlined in SNH (2012b). 

Nevertheless, although distribution of ospreys in relation to all wind farms is unknown, further 

mortality increases cannot be discounted. Taking a precautionary approach, the overall 

cumulative collision mortality at a NHZ level is therefore considered to be of moderate 

significance. 

12.8.27 This level of significance is however considered to be tolerable due to the apparent 

expansion of the species in the NHZ and in southern Scotland as a whole. This current rate 

of increase is likely to be able to compensate for any losses to the breeding population due to 

collisions, from a likely pool of young non-breeders replacing any lost adults. 

Cumulative Barrier Effects 

12.8.28 Barrier effects are recognised as being more difficult to quantify than other effects. SNH 

(2012b) advises that one approach is to identify the proportion, or percentage, of a species’ 

dispersal or migration route that is occupied by wind farm developments. 

12.8.29 In the case of breeding osprey, where foraging birds that are local or from the wider area may 

incur a daily ‘detour’ to reach the Carron Valley Reservoir for example, this may add 

significantly over time to the overall expenditure of energy. 

12.8.30 Compared to other identified effects on wind farms, there is less consistency in ESs on 

barrier effects, with only some projects including any such assessment. 

12.8.31 It was concluded by RDC (2008) that osprey flight lines could be slightly displaced due to the 

barrier effect of the Earlsburn North turbines, potentially resulting in a ‘Slight Adverse’ effect. 

It was thought that the turbines to the south west on Ling Hill could potentially disrupt the 

ospreys commuting route to and from foraging nesting areas. The six proposed turbines on 

and to the north west of Ling Hill lie on a line which is similar to the recorded osprey 

commuting route. Displacement could either make birds fly further to the north east or to the 

south west of the six turbines. This is however only going to require a small deviation to their 

flight route, with the majority of these commuting flights recorded just to the south west of the 

proposed turbine locations. 

12.8.32 With birds from the north already being displaced by Earlsburn and Earlsburn North Wind 

Farms, it is unlikely that Carron Valley would add any additional barrier effect, with overall 

increase in foraging distance being negligible. Evidence from the Earlsburn North survey 

work suggests that commuting birds make use of the Endrick Water valley heading northwest 

from Carron Valley, rather than crossing the wind farm sites on a regular basis. It is unlikely 

therefore that a significant cumulative barrier effect will result on the local osprey population 

within the 20 km foraging range. 

12.8.33 It is not known whether any other osprey pairs within the NHZ may be subject to potential 

barrier effects, but in general the threat to this species is likely to be low due to its capability 

of foraging over a wide area and utilisation of a number of waterbodies within range. As 

such, the predicted cumulative barrier effect at a NHZ level is considered to be of slight 

significance. This is likely to be tolerable due to the availability of alternative habitat if 

required, for both foraging and nesting, and the current high productivity rate of birds within 

the Central Scotland population. 



Ornithology


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 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 four VORs to be taken into account in the impact 

assessment: osprey, greylag goose, barn owl and the general breeding bird assemblage. 

12.9.2 The impact assessment identified potential effects on these VORs associated with the 

development during the construction and operation phases (habitat loss, disturbance, 

displacement, collision risk and barrier effects). These are summarised in Table 12.18. 

12.9.3 It was concluded that when mitigation and enhancement measures were considered, there 

were no predicted significant effects due to the Carron Valley Wind Farm on any VOR, either 

alone, or cumulatively with other projects or activities. 

12.9.4 The confidence in the predicted effects should however consider the following limitations of 

baseline surveys and assessment: 

• The baseline surveys were designed to be carried out during hours of daylight, as well 

as at dawn and dusk. It is therefore possible that nocturnal migratory movements may 

not have been recorded, and that some species (e.g. geese, swans, passerines) may 

be at greater risk of collision and barrier effects than identified in the impact 

assessment. The likelihood of this is low however, based on the low number of 

records for such species during dusk and dawn periods, and also the greater 

probability of migratory flights taking place both over the Carron Valley Reservoir, and 

at high altitude, well above rotor height, and thereby negating the risk of any collision 

or barrier effects. 

• The baseline situation may alter from that predicted by the time Carron Valley 

construction commences. Although the phased forestry felling plan is likely to occur as 

planned, unpredictable additional felling due to wind blow effects may be required in 

the meantime. Nevertheless, this is not expected to materially affect predictions in this 

assessment. 



Ornithology


Table 12.18 Summary of Potential Predicted Effects for VORs at Carron Valley 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Osprey Habitat loss Construction High/National Small 

Moderate or 

slight 

Artificial nest 

site creation. 

- Negligible 

Potential loss of 

nest site due to 

tree felling. 

Barn owl Habitat loss Construction Medium/Regional Small Slight 

Provision of 

additional nest 

boxes. 

- Negligible 

Potential loss of 

nest site. 

Greylag 

goose 

Habitat loss Construction Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible None predicted. 

No specific 

mitigation 

proposed, 

Breeding 

bird 

assemblage 

Habitat loss Construction Medium/Regional* Small Slight 

although 

felling for 

turbine 

placement will 

- Negligible 

Loss of some 

woodland 

passerine nest 

sites. 

create some 

woodland 

edge habitat. 

Osprey Disturbance Construction High/National Small 

Moderate or 

slight 

Preconstruction 

surveys to 

- Negligible 

Possible 




Ornithology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

determine nest 

sites. 

Timing where 

possible to 

avoid breeding 

season. 

short-term 

displacement of 

one breeding 

pair. 

Visual 

deterrents. 

Buffer 

distances of 

construction 

from nest site. 

Removal of 

suitable nest 

sites within 

disturbance 

zone prior to 

construction, 

alongside new 

artificial nests 

created. 

Barn owl Disturbance Construction Medium/Regional Small Slight 

Timing where 

possible to 


season. 

- Negligible 

Possible 


Visual 

deterrents. 

nesting pair. 



Ornithology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Temporal and 

spatial buffers 

of construction 

around nest 

site. 


surveys to 


sites. 

Erection of 

nest boxes 

away from 

disturbance. 

Greylag 

goose 

Disturbance Construction Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible None predicted. 

Breeding 

bird 

assemblage 

Disturbance Construction Medium/Regional* Small Slight 

Timing where 

possible to 


season. 

Visual 

deterrents. 


surveys to 


sites. 

- Negligible 

Localised, shortterm, 

disturbance 

to breeding bird 

assemblage, 

most likely to 

affect woodland 

passerines. 

Temporal and 



Ornithology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

spatial buffers 


around nest 

sites to avoid 

destruction (all 

species) or 

disturbance 

(Schedule 1 

species). 

Maintenance 

activities timed 

where 

possible to 


season. 

Osprey Displacement Operation High/National Small 

Moderate or 

slight 

Buffers for 

maintenance 

activities 

around nest 

site. 

- Negligible 

Possible 

displacement of a 

breeding pair. 

Erection of 


outside 

displacement 

zone. 

Barn owl Displacement Operation Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible None predicted. 



Ornithology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Greylag 

goose 

Displacement Operation Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible None predicted. 

Maintenance 


where 

possible to 


season. 

Breeding 

bird 

assemblage 

Displacement Operation Medium/Regional* Small Slight 


maintenance 

activities 

around nest 



Negligible 

Localised 


breeding 

passerines from 

habitat adjacent 

to turbines. 

species) or 

disturbance 

(Schedule 1 

species). 

Osprey Collision risk Operation High/National Small 

Moderate or 

slight (Carron 

Valley). 

Moderate but 

tolerable 

(cumulative). 

- - 

Moderate or 


Valley). 

Moderate but 

tolerable 

(cumulative). 

c.2 cases of 

collision mortality 

predicted at the 

proposed 

development 

during its 

proposed 25 year 



Ornithology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

operation period. 

The cumulative 

mortality from 

operational and 

proposed wind 

farms within the 

foraging range of 

birds using 

airspace over 

Carron Valley is 

predicted to 

equate to be one 

bird every 6–7 

years. 

Barn owl Collision risk Operation Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible 

Collisions likely 

to be very rare. 

Greylag 

goose 

Collision risk Operation Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible 

c.4 cases of 

collision mortality 

per year 


proposed 

development, 

representing an 

increase of 



Ornithology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

0.02% to the 

overall mortality 

of the population. 

Breeding 

bird 

assemblage 

Collision risk Operation Medium/Regional* Negligible Negligible - - Negligible 

Collisions likely 

to be very rare. 

Potential small 

energetic costs to 

Osprey 

Barrier 

effects 

Operation High/National Small Slight - - Slight 

any pairs that 

nest within the 

proposed site 

boundary. 

Barn owl 

Barrier 

effects 

Operation Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible None predicted. 

Possible minor 

Greylag 

goose 

Barrier 

effects 

Operation Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible 

detours required 

on rare 

occasions birds 

transit site. 

Breeding 

bird 

Barrier 

effects 

Operation Medium/Regional* Negligible Negligible - - Negligible None predicted. 



Ornithology


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

assemblage 

*Although the overall breeding bird assemblage is of medium/regional importance, this is largely as a consequence of the open ground species in that 

assemblage. The woodland passerines in the assemblage are likely to be mainly of low/local importance only. 



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. 

Community Windpower (2011). Rullie Wind Farm Environmental Statement. 

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, 

Etheridge, B., Holling, M., Riley, H., Wernham, C. and Thompson, D. (2010). Scottish Raptor 

Monitoring Scheme Report 2007. Scottish Raptor Study Groups. 

Etheridge, B., Riley, H., Wernham, C., Holling, M. and Thompson, D. (2011). Scottish Raptor 

Monitoring Scheme Report 2008. Scottish Raptor Study Groups. 

Forestry Commission Scotland. (2006) FCS Guidance Note 32: Forest operations and birds 

in Scottish forests: November 2006. Forestry Commission Scotland. 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Guidancenote32Birddisturbance.pdf/$FILE/Guidancenote32Bir 

ddisturbance.pdf 

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 

Gilbert, G, Gibbons, D.W and Evans, J (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB, Sandy. 

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. 

Holling, M. and the Rare Breeding Birds Panel (2011). Rare Breeding Birds in the United 

Kingdom in 2009. British Birds 104: 476-537. 

Holt, C., Austin, G., Calbrade, N., Mellan, H., Mitchell, C., Stroud, D., Wotton, S. & Musgrove, 

A. (2011). Waterbirds in the UK 2009/10: The Wetland Bird Survey. BTO/RSPB/JNCC, 

Thetford. 

IEEM (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK. Institute of Ecology 

and Environmental Management, Winchester. 

IPCC (2005). Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on 

Addressing Uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, July 2005. 



Ornithology


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 

Lomond Energy (2012). Craigannet Wind Farm Environmental Statement. 

Madsen J., and Boertmann, D. (2008). Animal behavioural adaptation to changing 

landscapes: spring-staging geese habituate to wind farms. Landsc Ecol 23:1007–11. 

Mitchell, C. (2011). Status and distribution of Icelandic-breeding geese: results of the 2010 

international census. Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Report, Slimbridge. 

Pearce-Higgins, JW, Grant, MC, Robinson, MC and Haysom, SL. (2007). The role of forest 

maturation in causing the decline of black grouse Tetrao tetrix. Ibis, 149, 143-155. 

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. 

Pearce-Higgins, JW, Stephen, L, Douse,A and Langston, RH. (2012). Greater impacts of 

wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation: results of a 

multi-site and multi-species analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology. 

RDC (2003). Earlsburn Wind Farm Environmental Statement. 

RDC (2008). Earlsburn North Wind Farm Environmental Statement. 

Risely, K., Baillie, S.R., Eaton, M.A., Joys, A.C., Musgrove, A.J., Noble, D.G., Renwick, A.R. 

& Wright, L.J. (2010) The Breeding Bird Survey 2009. Research Report 559. BTO, Thetford. 

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). 

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. 

SHETL (2005). Beauly to Denny Overhead Transmission Line Environmental Statement. 

Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Limited. 

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%20impacts%20Jul 

y%2006.pdf 

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. 



Ornithology


SNH (2012b). Assessing the Cumulative impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments. 

Scottish Natural Heritage, March 2012. 

Stroud, D.A. and Reed, T.M. (1986). The effect of plantation proximity on moorland breeding 

waders. IWSG Bulletin 46: 25-28. 

Trinder, M. (2010). Status and Population Viability of Icelandic Greylag Geese in Scotland. 

Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.366 



Ornithology


13 Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions 


13.1.1 This chapter assesses the potential hydrological, hydrogeological and geological effects 

associated with the proposed Carron Valley 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. In addition, information to inform the need for 

Appropriate Assessment has been completed and presented in Appendix 11.6 in relation to 

potential effects on the Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and should be 

read in conjunction with this chapter. 

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 Carron Valley Reservoir, the River Carron and the Endrick Water, as 

shown in Figure 13.1. In this assessment, 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 have been undertaken: 



Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions


• Consultation with relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies; 

• 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 

Desktop Study 

13.2.2 The purpose of the desktop study is to establish the baseline conditions within and adjacent 

to the site 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 has been collected and assessed, it will be used to establish the 

sensitivity of the baseline environment. This will allow for key receptors to be identified and 

inform 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. 





Table 13.1 Criteria for Defining Sensitivity of the Receiving Environment 

Sensitivity 

High 

Definition 

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. 

Low 

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; 





Sensitivity 

Definition 

• 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 – >800 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. 

Negligible 

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


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 

Results in loss of 

attribute. 

• 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 flood storage/increased flood risk; and 

• Pollution of potable source of abstraction compared 

to pre-development conditions. 

Medium 

Affects integrity of 

attribute or partial loss of 

attribute. 

• 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. 

Small 

Results in minor effect on 

attribute. 

• Detectable but non-material and transitory changes 

to the geology, hydrology, water quality and 

hydrogeology; and 


Negligible 

Results in an effect on 

attribute but of insufficient 

magnitude to affect the 

use/integrity. 

• 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 has been assessed, the results can be compared 

with the sensitivity of the baseline environment and used to define the significance of the 

effect as outlined in Table 13.3. 





Table 13.3 Establishing the Significance of Effects 

Magnitude 

Large 

Sensitivity 

High Medium Low Negligible 

Very substantial or 

substantial 


moderate 

Moderate or slight 

Negligible 

Medium 


moderate 


Small 

Negligible 

Moderate or slight Slight Slight or negligible Negligible 

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 

13.2.10 Potential effects are therefore assessed of being either of major, moderate, minor or 

negligible significance. Where the significance of the effects are determined to be major or 

moderate, 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 • Ordnance Survey topographic maps, scales 1:10,000; 1:25,000 

and 1:50,000. 

• NextMap digital terrain model (DTM). 

Surface Hydrology and 

Flooding 

• Ordnance Survey maps as above. 

• Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (SEPA) www.sepa.org.uk. 

• Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) CD-ROM. 

Geology, Solid and Drift • British Geological Survey (BGS) Digital Data provided at 


Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions 



Baseline Survey 

Data Source 

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 6. 

• See Appendix 13.2 for further baseline information sources, used 

to inform the Peat Depth Survey. 

Hydrogeology • Scottish Environment Protection Agency, (2004a). Bedrock Aquifer 

Map of Scotland. 

• Scottish Environment Protection Agency, (2004b). Groundwater 

Vulnerability of the Uppermost Aquifer Map of Scotland. 

Surface Water and 

Groundwater Quality 

• SEPA, Draft River Basin Management Plans, Web Mapping 

Application, http://gis.sepa.org.uk/rbmp/MapViewer.aspx. 

Water Resources • Infrastructure and asset information from Scottish Water. 

• Private Water Supply (PWS) information from Stirling 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) 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 

Response 

SEPA • Assessment of the carbon balance in relation to peat disturbance. 

• Avoidance of disturbance of peat, management of waste peat and peat stability risk 

assessment. 

• Effect on groundwater flows, and how this may impact any near by groundwater 

water dependant terrestrial ecosystems (e.g. wetlands and peatlands). 

• Pollution prevention measures and the preparation of a Construction Environmental 

Management Plan. 

• Engineering in the water environment and watercourse crossings. 

• Confirmation of any water abstractions required. 

• Assessment of flood risk. 

• Opportunities for environmental improvements. 

• A Freedom of Information Request (FOI) was submitted to SEPA requesting further 

information on CAR authorisations in the area and any known incidents of historical 

flooding within the local area. 

SNH • SNH noted that the proposed development includes tributaries of the Endrick Water, 

which is designated as a SAC and SSSI. These tributaries will need consideration 

under the EIA process. The qualifying species for the Endrick Water SAC include 

Atlantic salmon, brook lamprey and river lamprey. As there is a connectivity between 

the development proposal and the SAC SNH have highlighted that the requirements 





Consultee 

Response 

of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended, (the 

“Habitats Regulations”) apply. 

• SNH also requested that peatlands or peatland soils found on-site should be clearly 

mapped (depth, nature, hydrology and condition) and used to inform the routing of 

proposed infrastructure, avoiding these areas where possible. Where peatland/ 

peatland soils are encountered on-site the Scottish Government guidance in respect 

of peat stability hazard risk assessment should be consulted and a Peat Stability 

Risk Assessment undertaken if necessary. 

Scottish 

Water 

• No specific issues were raised by Scottish Water in response to the Scoping Report 

and the location of the proposed development adjacent to the Carron Valley 

Reservoir. 

• Further data has since been received from Scottish Water confirming the location of 

sensitive infrastructure adjacent to the site (see Figure 13.2). 

Local 

Councils 

• The planning, roads and environmental health departments were also consulted 

within Stirling, Falkirk, East Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire council. No 

relevant comments relating to hydrology, hydrogeology or soils were received. 

• The Environmental Health Officer within Stirlingshire Council has been contacted to 

enquire about any Private Water Supplies within the area. Awaiting response. 

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 Context and consideration of compliance with 

relevant policies is presented in the Planning Statement. 

Table 13.6 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidance 

Source 

Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance 

European Legislation • Freshwater Fish Directive 2006/44/EC. 

• Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC. 

Scottish Legislation • Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. 

• Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 

2011 (CAR). 

Scottish Government 

policy and advice 

documents 



• 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. 

Stirlingshire Council • Stirling Local Development Plan – Draft Proposed Plan, October 

2011. 

• Draft Supplementary Guidance 18: Planning Development and 

Flood Risk. 

• Draft Supplementary Guidance: 34: Planning and Water Quality. 

SEPA policy and 

guidance documents 

• 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 



Source 

Other guidance 

documents 


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. 

• 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, 2009. 

• 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, 2011. 

• 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. 

• Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessments: Best Practice Guide 

for Proposed Electricity Generation Developments, 2006. 

• 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, 





Source 


2006. 

• River Crossings and Migratory Fish: Design Guidance, A 

Consultation Paper, The Scottish Executive. 2000. 


Site Visit 

13.3.4 A walkover survey was undertaken in March 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 overcast but dry and rainfall levels prior 

to the survey were considered to be typical of the estimated long-term annual average 

values. 

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 crossing 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; 

• The level of CAR authorisation likely to be required. 

Designated Areas 

13.3.6 There are no international designated conservation areas within or immediately adjacent to 

the site, however there are several national water quality designations within and adjacent to 

the site. 

13.3.7 The designated areas associated with the hydrology, hydrogeology and ground conditions 

within the site are shown in Table 13.7 below and illustrated on Figure 4.10 in Chapter 4: 

Description of the Proposed Development. 

Table 13.7 Downstream Designated Areas 

Site Designated Features Distance from the Site 

(Measured Along 

Rivers) 

Endrick Water SAC/ Site of 

Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 

Carron Glen SSSI 

River lamprey, brook lamprey, 

Atlantic salmon. 

Upland mixed ash woodland, 

upland oak woodland, lowland 

neutral grassland. 

4.0 km 

4.4 km 

Drinking Water Directive Lake Carron Valley Reservoir.


Site Designated Features Distance from the Site 

(Measured Along 

Rivers) 

with Blane Burn. 

Drinking Water Directive 

Groundwater 

East Campsie bedrock and 

Campsie bedrock and localised 

sands and gravels. 


13.3.17 The southern and western slopes of Cairnoch Hill drain towards the Carron Valley Reservoir 

via a number of minor streams. The largest of these streams flows near the eastern boundary 

of the site and discharges into the reservoir in the vicinity of Kirk o’ Muir. 

13.3.18 Water levels within the reservoir set at a maximum elevation of 225 m AOD (Scottish Water 

2011). 

Endrick Water 

13.3.19 The north-western hill slopes of Cairnoch Hill drain towards a tributary of the Endrick Water. 

This is the only area within the development site outside the River Carron catchment. The 

Endrick Water flows in a westerly direction and discharges into Loch Lomond south of 

Balmaha. 

Flow Regime 

13.3.20 River levels and flows are monitored by SEPA along the River Carron and the Endrick Water. 

The nearest gauging stations are at Headswood (River Carron, NS 832 820) and Gaidrew 

(Endrick Water, NS 485 866) (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology n.d.). These stations are too 

far downstream to evaluate the flow regime at the development site. In the absence of river 

flow data near the development site, RPS has utilised data from the FEH to analyse the 

hydrological regime. 

13.3.21 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 approximately 0.34 (34%). 

13.3.22 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 ranges from between 39% and 50%. 

13.3.23 Overall the FEH parameters suggest that the development area, compared with other 

Scottish catchments, will respond quickly to rainfall events, the effect of which will be of 

increased significance when considering that rainfall is also relatively high within these 

catchments in comparison with others along the Scottish west coast. 

13.3.24 The low flow rates have been estimated for the unnamed watercourse discharging into the 

Carron Valley Reservoir near Kirk o’ Muir, as this location may be utilised as a surface water 

abstraction point for the proposed construction works, as shown in Figure 13.1. Table 13.8 

below shows the Mean Annual Flow (MAF) rate as well as the Q 95 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 

area 

MAF 

Low Flow, 

Q 95 

km 2 m 3 /day l/s m 3 /day l/s 

Unnamed watercourse near Kirk 

o’ Muir 

1.48 4,800 53 570 6.6 





Solid Geology 

13.3.25 The solid geology is fairly uniform across the site, made up of extrusive igneous rocks 

(basaltic lavas) from the Clyde Plateau Volcanic Formation, part of the Strathclyde Group. 

Within the Stirling area, it is known for these deposits to exceed 500 m in depth. The are also 

two small igneous intrusions as shown in Figure 13.3. 

13.3.26 Several normal fault lines cross the site, running from west south west to east north east. 

13.3.27 Borrow pits will be located within the site as a source of construction material. The geological 

assessment of the suitability of the solid geology for such purposes is discussed in Appendix 

13.1. The size and location of the borrow pits is shown in Figure 13.3. 

Superficial Geology 

13.3.28 Superficial deposits across the site are predominantly Devensian till deposits, as shown in 

Figure 13.4, with further moraine deposits (sand, gravel and till) along the northern edge of 

the reservoir and western boundary of the site. 

13.3.29 The main central area of the site, around Cairnoch Hill, has limited superficial deposits with 

bedrock at or near the surface. 

13.3.30 Limited peat deposits are noted along the central and north western site boundary, and a 

very small area of alluvium around the mouth of an unnamed tributary flowing into the 

reservoir just northwest of Cairnoch. 

Soils and Peat 

13.3.31 The predominant soils within the site, summarised in Table 13.9, are noncalcareous humic 

gleys. These cover a similar spatial extent as the superficial till deposits noted within the site. 

These areas also contain some peaty gleys. 

13.3.32 The next predominant soil type within the site are Brown Forest Soils that correlate with the 

areas of bedrock at or near the surface within the central part of the site and to the western 

section of the site. 

13.3.33 The third soil type noted within the site is peaty podzols and humic iron podzols along the 

northern site boundary. The location of these soils correlates to the areas of peat shown in 

Figure 13.4. 

Table 13.9 Soil Types 

Map 

Unit 

Soil 

Association 

Component 

Soils 

Parent 

Material 

Landforms 

Vegetation 

149 Darleith/ 

Kirktonmoor 

Noncalcareous 

gleys, humic 

gleys, some 

brown forest 

soils and peaty 

gleys. 

Drifts derived 

from basaltic 

rocks. 

Undulating 

lowlands with 

gentle and 

strong slopes, 

non-rocky. 

Arable and 

permanent 

pastures. 

Rush 

pastures and 

sedge mires. 

150 Darleith/ 

Kirktonmoor 

Brown forest 

soils, some 

brown forest 

soils with 

gleying. 


from basaltic 

rocks. 

Undulating 

lowlands and 

hills with 

gentle and 


Bent-fescue 

grassland. 

Crested hairgrass 

grassland. 

Heath-grass – 





Map 

Unit 

Soil 

Association 

Component 

Soils 

Parent 

Material 

Landforms 

Vegetation 

slightly rocky. 

white bent 

grassland. 

154 Darleith/ 

Kirktonmoor 

Peaty podzols, 

peaty gleys, 

peat, some 

rankders. 


from basaltic 

rocks. 

Hills with 

gentle to 


slightly rocky. 

Moist Atlantic 

heather moor. 

White bent 

grassland. 

Bog heather 

moor. 

13.3.34 The presence of gley on site indicates that drainage is poor and saturation of the soils occurs 

with a high enough frequency to affect the soil profile. Gleys can be subdivided into two 

types: groundwater gleys and surface water gleys. Groundwater gleys occur in areas of low 

ground and basins where the water table is above the ground surface often enough to lead to 

gleying. Surface water gleys occur in areas where precipitation within the site cannot drain 

freely through the ground, which has a slowly permeable lower subsoil or substrate, leading 

to saturated soils or a "perched" water table. 

13.3.35 An initial peat assessment and depth survey was undertaken in August 2011 to inform the 

initial wind farm layout. A subsequent survey was undertaken in April 2012 to identify in more 

detail peat depths at the locations of the proposed infrastructure to the north of the site, 

where the existence of peat was identified in the initial survey. 

13.3.36 There are limited peat deposits located within the north west boundary of the site. The 

deposits are highly disturbed by the presence of active commercial forestry, as well as the 

many drains that run throughout the areas of peat. Peat depths, as discussed in Appendix 

13.2, are highly erratic, with depths varying from 0.5 m to over 3.5 m over a distance of 20 m. 

13.3.37 As some of the proposed turbines and associated infrastructure are located adjacent to and, 

potentially, within areas of peat to the north west of the site, a Peat Stability Risk Assessment 

was undertaken to determine the risk of peat stability within this area. The report is provided 

in Appendix 13.2. 

Coal Mining 

13.3.38 The site is not located within over any coal measures, and therefore issues related to coal 

mining have not been considered further within this assessment. 

Hydrogeology 

13.3.39 The site is underlain by impermeable extrusive igneous strata. These rocks have very limited 

groundwater flow or storage capacity. SEPA’s Bedrock Aquifer map (SEPA, 2004) shows 

that the site is located on bedrock within which flow is dominated by fracture flow with a low 

productivity (F L). 

13.3.40 There may be more localised movement of groundwater through the superficial deposits due 

to the presence of sand and gravel within the glacial moraines and till, but these will be 

limited. The drift aquifer is mostly unclassified/ absent however the peat in the north and 

hummocky glacial deposits in the west are classified as having intergranular flow with low 

productivity. 





13.3.41 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 4d (central and northern parts), with 4a-4c within the southern area of the 

site. There exists a small area of 5 in the south western part of the site and a small area in 

the vicinity of Turbine 10. 

13.3.42 This classification reflects the low permeability (fractured) and low productively of the igneous 

bedrock combined with the thin superficial deposits present across the majority of the site. 

13.3.43 As part of the ecological assessment of the site, (Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology), it was 

noted that the results of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey indicated that 

there were several potential Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems, as defined by 

SEPA in their Landuse Planning System Guidance Note 4, 2011, within the site as shown in 

Figure 13.5. Having reviewed the location of these sites in relation to on-site observations as 

well as the abundant hydrology and limited hydrogeology of the site, it is considered likely 

that these habitats are fed by water from surface water in the form of ponded water and 

overland flow, and are not fed by groundwater. 

Flood Risk 

13.3.44 In the context of planning and development, the government has defined a number of flood 

risk zones or levels as shown in Table 13.10 below (Scottish Government 2010). The table 

also shows government policy on whether development is acceptable in each zone. 

Table 13.10 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. 

13.3.45 The Indicative River and Coastal Flood Map for Scotland (Scottish Environment Protection 

Agency 2010) does not indicate any potential flood extent within the development site. This 





does not mean that there is no risk of flooding as the drainage areas of the rivers within the 

site are less than 3 km 2 . Such rivers are not included in SEPA’s flood map. 

13.3.46 Although the rivers within the site are small, a flood risk may still be present. However, 

flooding would likely be limited to areas directly adjacent to the river channels, due to the 

incised nature of the watercourse within the site. The steepness of some of the streams may, 

however, lead to fast flowing flood waters during periods of high rainfall. 

13.3.47 SEPA’s flood map indicates that no or very limited flooding from the Carron Valley Reservoir 

is expected. Water levels in the reservoir are controlled by a wide spillway at the eastern 

dam. Maximum water levels within the reservoir are 225 m AOD (Scottish Water 2011) which 

is likely to correspond to the spillway crest level or just above. The B818 road level near the 

development site is shown to be at 227 m AOD on Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale maps. It 

is therefore unlikely that the area or the access road near the development site is at risk of 

flooding from the reservoir. 

13.3.48 Some areas along the Endrick Water below the western Carron Valley Reservoir dam and 

some areas along the River Carron near the confluence with the Earl’s Burn are shown to be 

at risk of flooding. Generally, however, both rivers near the development site have only 

narrow floodplains. 

Overland Flooding 

13.3.49 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). 

13.3.50 Due to the steep slopes covering the majority of the site, along with impermeable soils, it is 

likely that overland flow will occur frequently, but due to the steep slopes characterising the 

site, it is unlikely that these overland flows would accumulate to the extent required for 

flooding to occur. 

Groundwater Flooding 

13.3.51 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. 

13.3.52 The restricted nature of groundwater flows within the bedrock beneath the site, the low 

permeability of the superficial geology (tills and gleys) and the gleyed nature of the soils is too 

restrictive to allow for any significant or widespread groundwater flooding within the site. The 

steep topography of the site also does not allow for extensive groundwater flooding. 

13.3.53 Very localised groundwater flooding may occur where there are sand and gravel deposits at 

or near the surface in areas where the topography is flat. Any observations of standing water 

within the site however are likely to be the result of rainfall runoff ponding in topographic low 

points underlain by impermeable soils. 





Artificial Drainage System Flooding 

13.3.54 Due to the presence of active commercial forestry throughout the majority of the site, there 

are numerous artificial networks draining water from the site. 

13.3.55 The specification, construction and placement of drainage between stands of trees and along 

forestry access tracks are set out in the document ‘Agreed Standard for the Design and 

Construction of the Carron Valley Wind Farm Access’, (FCS, October 2010) which specifies 

that all drainage systems should be designed to manage a 1 in 200 year flood event. 

13.3.56 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. 

Water Quality 

13.3.57 All major surface watercourses near the proposed wind farm 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 2008 is shown in Table 13.11 below. 





Table 13.11 WFD Surface Water Quality Classification (2008) 

River Overall Status Overall 

Ecological 

Status 

Key Pressures 

River Carron 

(source to 

reservoir) 

Poor Poor Morphological alterations 

(barriers to fish passage). 

Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

Poor ecological 

potential (heavily 

modified water 

body) 

Poor 

Morphological alterations 

(water collection, 

impounding weir/dam). 

Flow regulation (changes in 

outflow from the lake). 


Lake. 

River Carron 

(Carron Valley 

Reservoir to Avon 

Burn confluence) 

Poor ecological 

potential (heavily 

modified water 

body) 

Poor 

Abstractions (public water 

supply), morphological 

alterations (barriers to fish 

passage) and flow 

regulation. 

Endrick Water 

(source to Blane 

Water confluence) 

Moderate Moderate Point source pollution 

(sewage disposal), flow 

regulation, abstractions 

(public water supply). 


River. 

13.3.58 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. Both 

units were assessed in 2008, with the resultant classifications shown in Table 13.12 below. 

Table 13.12 WFD Groundwater Quality Classification (2008) 

Groundwater 

Unit 

Associated Surface 

Waters 

Water 

Quality 

Status 

Water 

Resource 

Status 

Key Pressures 

and 

Designations 

East Campsie 

Bedrock and 

localised sand 

and gravel 

aquifers 

Auchenbowie Burn (Loch 

Coulter Reservoir to 

River Carron). 

Auchenbowie Burn 

(Source to Loch Coulter 

Reservoir). 

Bannock Burn (Source to 

Sauchie Burn 

confluence). 

Carron Valley Reservoir. 

Earl's Burn. 

Loch Coulter Reservoir. 

River Carron (Carron 

Valley Reservoir to Avon 

Burn Confluence). 

Good Good No Pressures 

Drinking Water 

Directive 

Groundwater 





Groundwater 

Unit 

Associated Surface 

Waters 

Water 

Quality 

Status 

Water 

Resource 

Status 

Key Pressures 

and 

Designations 

River Carron (Source to 

Carron Valley Reservoir). 

Campsie 

Bedrock and 

localised sand 

and gravel 

aquifers. 

Allander Water. 

Blane Water/Ballagan 

Burn. 

Duntocher Burn. 

Garrel Burn. 

Kirk Burn. 

Good Good No Pressures 

Drinking Water 

Directive 

Groundwater 

13.3.59 Though the headwaters of the Endrick Water, above Craigton, fall within the Campsie 

Bedrock groundwater unit, the majority of the river catchment is associated with the 

Alexandria Bedrock groundwater unit which is located 4 km west of the proposed site. 

Water Resources 

13.3.60 Information provided by Stirling Council indicated that there were no private water supplies 

located within the catchments draining the proposed development or immediately adjacent to 

the site (Figure 13.1). 

13.3.61 Scottish Water provided detailed drawings showing the location of their water supply and 

sewerage infrastructure near the development site (Scottish Water 2011). Raw water 

distribution pipes are shown at both dams of the Carron Valley Reservoir. Other pipe 

infrastructure near the reservoir includes water distribution mains. None of the infrastructure 

is located within the development site. The location of the pipe network is shown in 

Figure 13.2. 

13.3.62 Not shown on Scottish Water’s drawings are the aqueducts used to transfer water from the 

River Endrick to Carron Valley Reservoir and from the Earl’s Burn to Buckieburn Reservoir. 

The alignments of these aqueducts have been estimated based on the known locations of 

intakes and outlets and are also shown in Figure 13.2. 

Controlled Activities Regulations 

13.3.63 Details of activities covered by the Water Environment (Controlled Activities)(Scotland) 

Regulations 2011, present within the vicinity of the site were requested from SEPA. This data 

excluded details of Scottish Water licences, due to security concerns. 

13.3.64 The locations of these activities are shown in Figure 13.2 and detailed in Table 13.13 below. 

13.3.65 It is not anticipated that any of these impacts will affected by the proposed development. 

Table 13.13 Controlled Activities 

Licence 

Number 

Licence 

Holder 

Location 

Easting Northing Activity 

CAR/R/1013912 RJMcLeod 

Todholes Farm, 

Denny, Fintry 

267600 688140 Abstraction - 

Feeding cattle 





Licence 

Number 

Licence 

Holder 

Location 


CAR/R/1026149 N/A 

11 Carron Valley, 

Denny 

271720 683890 Discharge 

Sewage 

CAR/R/1091410 N/A Glendale 272580 683920 Discharge 

Sewage 

CAR/R/1074156 N/A 

Roadmans 

Houses and 

Glendale Cottage 

272610 683910 Discharge 

Sewage 

CAR/R/1019587 N/A 

Muirmill Cottage, 

Roadman House 

272560 683940 Discharge 

Sewage 

CAR/R/1095090 Farrans 

Construction 

Gartcarron WTW 

(closure) 

272860 683990 Engineering - 

removal of 

pipe crossing 


Construction 


(closure) 

272220 683970 Engineering - 

removal of 

pipe crossing 


Construction 


(closure) 

270170 683970 Engineering - 

removal of 

pipe crossing 


Construction 


(closure) 

269000 684760 Engineering - 

removal of 

pipe crossing 


Construction 


(closure) 

268820 684810 Engineering - 

removal 13of 

pipe crossing 


Construction 


(closure) 

268400 685370 Engineering - 

removal of 

pipe crossing 


Construction 


(closure) 

268170 685580 Engineering - 

removal of 

pipe crossing 


Construction 


(closure) 

267970 685660 Engineering - 

removal of 

pipe crossing 


Construction 


(closure) 

270000 683970 Engineering - 

removal of 

pipe crossing 





Licence 

Number 

Licence 

Holder 

Location 


CAR/R/1023030 Forestry 

Commission 

Carron Valley 268910 682510 Engineering - 

bridge 

CAR/S/1017139 

N & C 

Chambers 

Todholes, Fintry 267370 686070 Disposal of 

sheep dip 

CAR/S/1017139 

N & C 

Chambers 

Todholes, Fintry 267390 686020 Disposal of 

sheep dip 

CAR/R/1035184 Craigengelt 

Wind Farm 

CAR/R/1050930 Easter 

Cringate 

Cottage 

CAR/R/1050925 Bentend 

Farm 

Craigengelt Farm 273060 686660 Engineering - 

culvert 

Earlshill 271760 687530 Discharge 

Sewage 

Denny 273470 683500 Discharge 

Sewage 

CAR/R/1080419 Highfield 

Forestry 

Limited 

Carron Valley 

Forest 

273470 682530 Engineering - 

culvert 

CAR/R/1034665 Halcrow 

Group Ltd 

Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

271850 683670 Engineering - 

culvert 


Group Ltd 

Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

271820 683640 Engineering - 

culvert 


Group Ltd 

Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

271620 683390 Engineering - 

culvert 


Group Ltd 

Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

271430 683360 Engineering - 

culvert 

CAR/R/1075454 Earlsburn 

Cottage 

Stirling 270630 688330 Discharge 

Sewage 

Fisheries 

13.3.66 Carron Valley Reservoir is used for recreational fishing. Further information is provided within 

Chapter 15: Socio-Economics, Tourism, Land Use and Recreation. Baseline information on 

fish populations in the vicinity of the site is provided in Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology and 


Baseline Sensitivity 

13.3.67 Table 13.14 presents a summary of the sensitivity of identified receptors based on the criteria 

in Table 13.1. 





Table 13.14 Receptor Sensitivity 

Receptor Sensitivity Justification and Comments 

Fluvial System 

Tributaries of Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

Low 

Watercourse


13.3.72 The site underlain by a relatively impermeable solid geology, where groundwater will be 

restricted to fracture flow. Will little or no significant soils covering the majority of the site, the 

groundwater vulnerability will be high. Where there are superficial deposits, the majority of 

these are of low permeability, and are therefore likely to result in rainfall runoff as the majority 

of the site is too steep to allow for ponding. 

13.3.73 The large number of small burns, artificial drainage systems, relatively high annual rainfall 

and low permeable geology result in a site that has a quick response to rainfall events. 

Therefore it is reasonable to expect quick changes to flows in watercourse and drainage 

channels as well as significant volumes of overland flow during heavy rainfall events. 


13.4.1 During the design evolution process, a buffer of 50 m was established around all of the 

watercourses identified on the 1:25,000 OS map of the site, and the number of instances of 

water crossings was minimised as far as possible. 

13.4.2 The results of initial peat probing were used in order to locate turbines away from deep peat, 

or from peat altogether. 


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 the 

predicted 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. 

Construction 

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. 

Hydrology 

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; 

• 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 13.15 below. 

Table 13.15 Comparison of Areas at Risk of Reduction in Permeability and Drainage 

Areas (see Figure 13.1 for locations) 

Location 

Drainage Area 

(ha) 

Additional 

Infrastructure Area 

(ha) 

Percentage of 

Drainage Area (%) 

Carron Valley subcatchments 

Endrick Water subcatchments 

406.82 5.14 1.3 

62.86 0.83 1.3 

13.5.9 The potential effects on runoff and infiltration are considered to have a medium magnitude, 

and the sensitivity of the local tributaries affected is considered to be low, resulting in a slight 

significance 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 During the construction phase, approximately 30 m 3 of water per day would be required for 

the concrete batching and associated activities such as plant washing. This water would be 

abstracted from the unnamed tributary near Kirk O’Muir. The required volume of water 





corresponds to approximately 0.6 % of the average flow and 5.3 % of the low flow rate in the 

stream. Note that land upstream from the proposed abstraction, including any peat bog, is 

not affected by the abstraction as the water table will not be lowered. 

13.5.14 Effects on river flows and flooding are considered to be of small magnitude and as the fluvial 

system within the site is of low sensitivity, this results in an effect that is slight to negligible 

without mitigation. 

Effects on Peat 

13.5.15 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. 

13.5.16 The only area of peat that will be affected by the construction activities are located within the 

Endrick Water catchment near to Turbine 1 and 2.. 

13.5.17 A Peat Stability Risk Assessment has been completed (see Appendix 13.2). This concludes 

that the site has acceptable factors of safety and a medium or less risk in relation to peat 

stability. This is therefore considered to be of small magnitude and slight significance. 

13.5.18 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 sparse and fragmented. The 

total area with peat deposits more than 0.5 m deep is approximately 14.75 ha which equates 

to 65% of the total area surveyed within the north west of the site. 

13.5.19 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. Note 

that only a short section of the Turbine 2 access is near deep peat. 

13.5.20 The potential effect on the hydrological regime of peat is considered to be of small to medium 

magnitude and slight significance to negligible. 

Erosion and Sedimentation 

13.5.21 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. 

13.5.22 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. 

13.5.23 Sediment can settle out in slower moving stretches of a watercourse, with the potential to 

smother gravels used for salmonid spawning and hatching, whilst deposits of significant 

quantities of sediment can alter river morphology. Sediment can also have effects on the 

health of aquatic fauna by interfering with respiration and increasing stress levels. An 

assessment of the effects on aquatic fauna is presented in Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology. 





13.5.24 The effects from erosion and sedimentation on the surface water bodies downstream of the 

site, which have high receptor sensitivity, are considered to be of a medium to large 

magnitude and moderate to very substantial significance without mitigation. 

Water Quality 

13.5.25 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. 

13.5.26 Spillages of concrete may occur during concrete pumping operations into turbine bases, 

which may runoff into surface watercourses or seep into groundwaters. Concrete is highly 

corrosive and can cause pH changes in watercourses. This can have severe or fatal 

consequences on freshwater ecology. An assessment of the effects of changes to water 

quality on aquatic fauna is presented in Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology. 

13.5.27 Contamination of surface water may also occur as a result of spillages from routine plant 

maintenance, improper storage and accidental spillages. 

13.5.28 Should an unmitigated pollution incident occur, there is a potential for periods of heavy rain to 

increase the volume of surface water runoff with pollutant Ioads such as oils and fuels from 

hardstandings and unset concrete from turbine foundations. 

13.5.29 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 high sensitivity surface 

waters downstream of the site, any releases of chemicals are likely to have a large 

magnitude and therefore have substantial to very substantial effect without mitigation. 

Soils 

13.5.30 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. 

13.5.31 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. 

13.5.32 The effects of construction on drainage patterns on the low sensitivity soils are considered to 

be of a medium magnitude and slight significance. 

Superficial Deposits 

13.5.33 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 predicted effects would be slight/negligible. 

Geology 

13.5.34 The excavation of deep foundations for turbines and quarrying within borrow pits may effect 

on the bedrock and have adverse effects on the local geological resource. 

13.5.35 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 small and the effect slight/negligible. 





13.5.36 As it is proposed that material for construction of the site tracks and production of concrete is 

sourced from within the site from, three Borrow Pits will be created. The proposed location of 

the Borrow Pits is shown in Figure 1.2. The geological implications of this proposal have been 

assessed in Appendix 13.1. 

Hydrogeology 

Modifications to Hydrogeological Regime 

13.5.37 Any dewatering required for turbine foundation excavations and borrow pits, 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, deep excavations such as those needed for the 

turbine bases and borrow pits 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. 

13.5.38 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 

high. The significance of this effect prior to mitigation is therefore substantial - moderate. 

Chemical Pollution 

13.5.39 The leaching of hydrocarbons, chemicals, transformer oils and fuel from any spills during 

construction present 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 high. The significance of this effect 

prior to mitigation is therefore substantial - moderate. 

Private Water Supplies 

13.5.40 Potential effects on private water supplies include the infiltration or runoff of contaminants 

from any releases of chemicals stored on site with the potential to affect the quality of surface 

waters from which the supplies abstract. 

13.5.41 Activities such as dewatering excavations may also impact supplies if undertaken within 

catchment areas of local supplies as private water supplies are also very susceptible to local 

changes in flow regimes, which may be small on a catchment scale, but may be 

comparatively large in relation to the quantities abstracted for supply. These effects may be 

long term. 

13.5.42 The baseline assessment indicates that there no private water supplies within the catchments 

draining the site, though there are several in the surrounding area, as shown in Figure 13.1. 

Therefore the magnitude of any effect is considered to be negligible and sensitivity of private 

water supplies is considered to be negligible. This effect is therefore negligible. 

Public Water Supplies and Abstractions 

13.5.43 The Carron Valley Reservoir is used for public water supplies and the associated 

infrastructure adjacent to the site is shown in Figure 13.2. The reservoir is fed by water from 





the headwaters of the River Carron, with the potential to top up reservoir levels from the 

Endrick Water. 

13.5.44 Potential effects on public water supplies include the infiltration or runoff of contaminants from 

any releases of chemicals stored on site with the potential to affect the quality of surface 

waters from which the supplies abstract, and effects on available water resources due to 

alterations to flow. 

13.5.45 Any release of contaminants that reaches the Carron Valley Reservoir or Endrick Water 

would be impacting upon a public water supply. The magnitude of the effect would be 

dependent on the type and extent of the contamination. Therefore the magnitude of this 

effect is considered to be medium to large and the sensitivity of the receptors is high. The 

significance of this prior to mitigation is therefore moderate to very substantial. 

13.5.46 In terms of water resource, as a source of public water supplies the reservoir would only be 

impacted by large abstractions or diversions of flow which are not proposed in this instance. 

Therefore, the magnitude of the potential effect on public water supplies is considered to be 

negligible and whilst the sensitivity of the receptor is high this nonetheless results in a 

predicted effect that is negligible. 

Operation 

13.5.47 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. 

Hydrology 


13.5.48 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 surrounded by large areas of undisturbed fields. 

13.5.49 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 

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. 

13.5.50 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 was 

not already altered. 

13.5.51 The potential effect on runoff and infiltration on the local low sensitivity fluvial system is 

considered to have a medium magnitude and therefore a slight significance without 

mitigation. 






13.5.52 Effects on river flows and flood risk are similar as during the construction phase. This is 

considered to have a small magnitude and low sensitivity, resulting in negligible to slight 


Effects on Peat Hydrological Regime 

13.5.53 Effects on the hydrological regime of peat are similar as during the construction phase. This 

is considered to have a small to medium magnitude and peat is assessed as being of low 

sensitivity, resulting in an effect of slight significance to negligible without mitigation. 


13.5.54 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. This can have a secondary 

detrimental effect on the ecology of aquatic plants, fish, and invertebrates, which are 

discussed further in Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology. These effects on the high sensitivity on 

the high sensitivity downstream surface water bodies are considered to be of small 

magnitude and moderate to slight significance without mitigation. 

Water Quality 

13.5.55 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. 

13.5.56 Borrow Pit C will also continue to be used during the operational phase, as a store for 

materials to be used for site maintenance (e.g. tracks). Though no quarrying will take place, 

the materials stored in the borrow pit have the potential to release sediment into rainfall runoff 

from the area. Maintenance activities themselves will also have the potential to result in the 

release of sediment into the water environment. 

13.5.57 The effects on the downstream high sensitivity water bodies arising from these activities are 

considered to be of small magnitude and moderate to slight significance without mitigation. 

Soils 

13.5.58 The presence of the concrete turbine foundations, tracks and cable trenches may cause 

obstructions for natural drainage and flow patterns within the local soils. 

13.5.59 The potential effects of these changes during the operation phase on the low sensitivity soils 

are considered to be of small magnitude and slight significance/negligible. 

Superficial Deposits 

13.5.60 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 low, 

resulting in effects that will not be significant. 





Geology 

13.5.61 No excavations of bedrock will occur during the operational phase. Therefore, the magnitude 

of effect on bedrock will be negligible and the sensitivity is low, resulting in effects that will not 

be significant. 

Hydrogeology 

Modification to Hydrogeological Regime 

13.5.62 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 high, resulting in an effect of substantial to 

moderate significance prior to the implementation of mitigation. 

Chemical Pollution 

13.5.63 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 would 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 high, resulting in an effect of substantial to moderate significance prior to 

the implementation of mitigation. 


13.5.64 No private water supplies are predicted to be affected during the operation of the wind farm 

as there are no underground works or further disturbances to runoff or groundwater. The 

magnitude is therefore negligible and the sensitivity is negligible, resulting in a effect that is 

considered to be negligible. 

Public Water Supplies 

13.5.65 Public water are not predicted to be affected during the operation of the wind farm as there 

are no underground works or further disturbances to runoff or groundwater. 

13.5.66 Potential effects on the quality of public water supplies from infiltration or runoff of 

contaminants from any releases of chemicals stored on site will remain a risk, albeit with a 

much reduced likelihood of occurrence compared to the construction phase. 

13.5.67 Any release of contaminants that reaches the Carron Valley Reservoir or Endrick Water 

would be impacting upon a public water supply. As the magnitude of the effect would be 

dependent on the type and extent of the contamination, the likely magnitude of this effect 

during the operational phase is considered to be small. As the sensitivity of the receptors is 

high, the significance of this effect prior to mitigation is therefore moderate to slight. 

13.5.68 Small abstractions may still continue to supply the welfare facilities on site. These quantities 

will be much reduced compare to the abstracted quantities required for the construction 

phase. The magnitude of the effect is considered negligible and though the sensitivity is 

considered high, the resulting effect is considered to be negligible. 






Hydrology 


13.5.69 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 of low sensitivity and the effect is 

considered to have a small magnitude, the effect will not be significant. 


13.5.70 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 not be significant. 

Effects on Peat 

13.5.71 Potential effects of the decommissioning phase are expected to be similar in nature but to a 

lesser extent than those of the construction phase, and have not been assessed further. 


13.5.72 Erosion or sedimentation may occur as a result of general earth works as part of the 

decommissioning and landscaping works. Considering the high 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 significance of the effect will be of moderate to slight 


Water Quality 

13.5.73 The effect on water quality and the potential for chemical pollution of the sensitive surface 

water bodies down stream of the site is similar as those arising during the construction phase 

and is considered to have a large magnitude and substantial to very substantial significance 

without mitigation. 

Soils, Superficial Deposits, Geology and Hydrogeology 

13.5.74 The effects are expected to be the same, and no worse, than those of the construction 

phase. 



13.5.75 Existing private water supplies are unaffected during the decommissioning of the wind farm 

and are not considered any further in this assessment. Any potential effect on new water 

supplies developed during the life-time of the wind farm will need to be assessed at the 

appropriate time prior to decommissioning. 

Public Water Supplies 

13.5.76 The effect on water quality and the potential for chemical pollution of surface water during 

decommissioning is similar to that of the construction phase. As such, it is considered that 

the potential impact on the high sensitivity Carron Valley Reservoir and Endrick water, as 





sources of public water supply, from a release of contamination would be of large magnitude 

and substantial to very substantial significance without mitigation. 

13.5.77 In terms of water resource, as a source of public water supplies the reservoir would only be 

impacted by large abstractions or diversions of flow which are not currently considered likely 

to occur during decommissioning. Therefore, the magnitude of the potential effect on public 

water supplies is considered to be negligible and whilst the sensitivity of the receptor is high 

this nonetheless results in a predicted effect that is negligible. 


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 

publication, issued jointly by Scottish Renewables, SNH, SEPA and Forest Commission 

Scotland in October 2010. Reference has also been made to SEPA’s Regulatory Position 

Statement for Developments on Peat (9 February 2010) and the relevant sections of the FCS 

Civil Standard guidance document. 

13.6.2 These measures are designed to reduce the significance of the effects predicted above, as 

summarised in Table 13.16. 

Site 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 

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 training 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 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 identified and undertaken 

within a suitable timeframe. 

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 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; 

• Recommendations for Inspection and Maintenance. 

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 Stirling Council prior to implementation. 

Surface Water 

13.6.10 A surface water 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. 





13.6.11 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. 

13.6.12 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. 

13.6.13 Monitoring will also be required as a condition of any discharge consents, abstraction 

licences or other environmental regulations. 

13.6.14 A preliminary design for the water monitoring regime recommended for the site is provided 

within Appendix 13.4. 

Monitoring Ground Movement 

13.6.15 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. 

13.6.16 A line of surveyed and levelled pegs and visual monitoring is an acceptable method of 

monitoring movement adjacent to roads. 

13.6.17 During and immediately after periods of heavy rainfall, earthmoving activities will be reviewed 

with temporary restrictions where necessary. 

Drainage 

13.6.18 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. 

13.6.19 Where appropriate, SuDS principles have been incorporated into the water management 

methods discussed in the following sections. 

13.6.20 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. Key runoff characteristics 

and drainage areas are shown in Figure 13.1. 


13.6.21 There are no private water supplies recorded within the catchments draining the proposed 

development, and therefore no mitigation measures are proposed. 





Abstractions 

13.6.22 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 effects 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. 

13.6.23 If more than 50 m 3 /day is required to be abstracted, an application will be made for a “simple 

licence” under the Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR). Full details on the abstraction 

rates, flow rates, etc will be provided as part of the licence application. If the abstraction 

requires less than 50 m 3 /day “general binding rules” under the CAR will be followed. 

Geotechnical Design 

13.6.24 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 

13.6.25 The Peat Stability Risk Assessment report included in Appendix 13.2 has identified a low to 

medium 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


13.6.31 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 

13.6.32 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 

13.6.33 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 and upgraded between the site entrance and construction 

compound. 

13.6.34 The 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. 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. 

13.6.35 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. 

13.6.36 In general, 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 

1.3% in any sub-catchment. 

• 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. 

13.6.37 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 

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. 


13.6.38 The location of the existing watercourse crossings on site are shown in Figure 13.2. The 

proposed wind farm access tracks require upgrading, which will require all but one of the 

existing water crossings to be upgraded. 

13.6.39 Upgrading of the existing water crossings is considered to be the best environmental option, 

in comparison with replacing the existing crossings completely. Removing the crossings 

would require significantly more excavation works, would effect a greater length of the burn 

bed and banks, and would potentially pose a greater pollution risk due to the release of 

sediments during construction. 

13.6.40 Location of the new site access tracks required for the development has been minimised to 

avoid the need for water crossings where possible. As such, no additional water crossing will 

be required. Details of the existing structures are provided in Appendix 13.3. 

13.6.41 Confirmation of the type of any CAR authorisations required for upgrading the existing water 

crossings will be confirmed with SEPA in advance. 

13.6.42 Extended crossing structures will not form a barrier to aquatic fauna, and will be designed 

and constructed with respect to relevant guidance and best practice. An assessment of the 

potential effects from extension of existing structures on aquatic fauna is presented in 

Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology. 

13.6.43 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. Any potential 

effects arising from the artificial drainage is presented in Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology. 

13.6.44 Watercourses, 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 

13.6.45 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. 

13.6.46 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. 

13.6.47 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 

13.6.48 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; and 

• 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. 

Concrete Batching and Pouring 

13.6.49 If concrete batching is to be undertaken on site, it should be undertaken only in a designated 

area, away from watercourses, private water supplies, wetland areas and in an impermeable 

area. 

13.6.50 Washout from concrete batching and drainage from the concrete batching area will be 

collected in a separate drainage system and treated before being discharged. 

13.6.51 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. 

13.6.52 Concrete batching and pouring will not be undertaken during adverse weather. 

Traffic 

13.6.53 Site traffic will be kept to clearly designated tracks, in line with a site-specific traffic 


13.6.54 Barriers and/or netting will be used to prevent vehicle movements in sensitive areas. 

13.6.55 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. 

13.6.56 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 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. 


13.7.1 Table 13.16 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. The tables are followed by a discussion of the 

overall significance of effects by way of summary. 





Table 13.16 Summary of Residual Effects 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 


Construction Medium Slight The implementation of SuDS. 

Negligible 

Tributaries of 

Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

Effects on 

surface runoff 

characteristics. 

Effects on river 

flow and 

flooding. 

Operational Medium Slight 

Bunds around borrow pits, turbine foundations. 

Slight 

Avoidance of ponding in borrow pits. 

Decommission 

Construction 

Operational 

Low 

Small 

Small 

Small 

Negligible - 

slight 

Negligible - 

slight 

Negligible - 

slight 

Treating runoff from both excavations and dewatering 

activities in a settlement lagoon prior to discharge. 

Removal of all drainage around the foundations after 

construction phase. 

Treated water can also be discharged onto vegetated 

surfaces and directed away from watercourses and drainage 

ditches to avoid direct entry into watercourses. 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Permanent. 

Permanent. 


Endrick 

Water 

Effects on 



Decommission 


Use of a permeable surface for turbine hardstandings. 

Negligible 

Track design which minimises ponding and has appropriate 

Construction Low Medium 

Slight to 

drainage measures. 

moderate Upgrading of existing water crossings using appropriate 

Negligible 

design. 


Adequately designed and maintained welfare facilities. 

Negligible 

Decommission 

Small 

Negligible - 

slight 

Negligible 

Permanent. 


flow and 

flooding. 

Construction 

Small 

Slight - 

negligible 

Negligible 

Permanent. 

Operational 

Small 

Slight - 

negligible 

Negligible 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Decommission Negligible Negligible Negligible 

Construction 

Operational 

Small to 

medium 

Small to 

medium 

Negligible - 

slight 

Negligible - 

slight 

Monitoring ground movement. 

Detailed design utilising current and location 

specific geotechnical data. 

Micrositing of the access track for Turbine 2 to 

avoid deeper peat. 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Effects on peat 

hydrological 

regime. 

Implementing mitigation measure in the peat 

stability report (Appendix 13.2). 

Minimising size of cable trenches, staged 

excavation for laying and bunds along route. 

- 

Permanent. 

Decommission Not assessed Not assessed 

Keep site traffic to clearly designated tracks 

and use barriers and/or netting to prevent 

vehicle movements in sensitive areas. 

Not assessed 

Keep off-track movements to a minimum. 

Designated, bunded area for vehicle washing. 

Surface Water 

Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

Potential 

contamination 

from suspended 

solids and 

erosion. 

Construction 

Operational 

Decommission 

High 



Medium to 

Large 

Small to 

medium 

Moderate to 

very 

substantial 

Negligible 

Small Slight - 

moderate 

Production of a HSEMS. 

Water quality monitoring and visual inspection of 

watercourses. 

The implementation of SuDS. 






Slight 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete.


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 








Upgrading of existing water crossings using appropriate 

design. 


Keep site traffic to clearly designated tracks and use barriers 

and/or netting to prevent vehicle movements in sensitive 

areas. 



Construction 

Large 

Substantial – 

very 

substantial 



watercourses. 

Slight 

Potential 

contamination 

from oils, fuel, 

concrete works, 

etc. 

Operational 

Decommission 

Small to 

medium 

Large 

Negligible 


very 

substantial 








Negligible 

Slight 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 






Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 







design. 


Minimising size of cable trenches, staged excavation for 

laying and bunds along route. 

Designated area for concrete batching (not to be undertaken 

in adverse weather). 



areas. 



Endrick 

Water 

Potential 

contamination 


solids and 

erosion. 

Construction 

Operational 

Decommission 

High 

Medium to 

Large 

Small to 

medium 

Moderate to 

very 

substantial 

Negligible 


moderate 



watercourses. 







Slight 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 









design. 




areas. 



Construction 

Medium to 

Large 

Very 

substantial - 

substantial 



watercourses. 

Slight 

Potential 

contamination 



etc. 

Operational 

Decommission 

Small to 

medium 

Medium to 

Large 

Negligible 

Very 

substantial - 

substantial 








Negligible 

Slight 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 






Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 







design. 








areas. 



Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology 

Soils 

Temporary water 

controls. 

Alteration to 

drainage and soil 

flow patterns. 

Compaction of 

the soil from site 

traffic. 

Peat stability and 

Production of a SWMP. 

Construction Medium Slight Negligible 


Operational 

Decommission 

Low 

Small 

Medium 

Negligible - 

slight 

Slight 







- 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 

Changes to 

flow 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 


peat. 



Permanent. 

Treating runoff from both excavations and 

dewatering activities in a settlement lagoon 

prior to discharge. 

Removal of all drainage around the 

foundations after construction phase. 

Treated water can also be discharged onto 

vegetated surfaces and directed away from 

watercourses and drainage ditches to avoid 

direct entry into watercourses. 

Use of a permeable surface for turbine 

hardstandings. 

Track design which minimises ponding and 

has appropriate drainage measures. 






Superficial 

Deposits 

Disruption from 

excavation of 

foundations. 

Construction 

Small 

Negligible - 

slight 

Negligible 

Operational Negligible Negligible Detailed design utilising current and location specific Negligible 

Low 

geotechnical data. 

Decommission 

Negligible 

Negligible 



Micrositing of the access track for Turbine 2 to avoid deeper 

peat. 

Negligible 

Short term 

and 

Permanent 

elements. 

Implementing mitigation measure in the peat stability report 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

(Appendix 13.2). 













Geology 

Disruption to 

local geological 

features by 

turbine 

excavations 

required for 

construction. 

Construction 

Small 

Slight - 

negligible 

Detailed design utilising current and location specific 

Negligible 

Operational Low Negligible Negligible 


Negligible 


Decommission 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Short term 

and 

Permanent 

elements. 

Hydrogeolog 

y 

Construction 

High 

Medium 

Moderate - 

substantial 



Slight 

Modifications to 

hydrogeological 

regime. 

Operational 

Medium 

Moderate - 

substantial 





- 

Slight 

Permanent. 







Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Decommission Medium Moderate - 

substantial 




Slight 

Construction 

Operational 

Medium 

Medium 

Substantial - 

moderate 

Substantial to 

moderate 


Water quality monitoring and visual inspection 

of watercourses. 


Negligible 

Negligible 



Chemical 

Pollution, 

potential spills 

and leaching of 

contaminants. 

Decommission 

Medium 


moderate 












- 

Slight 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 



Upgrading of existing water crossings using 

appropriate design. 

Adequately designed and maintained welfare 

facilities. 






Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 


Designated area for concrete batching (not to 

be undertaken in adverse weather). 







Private water 

supplies 

Construction Negligible Negligible Production of a HSEMS. 

Negligible 

Operational Negligible Negligible 


watercourses. 

Negligible 



Potential 

contamination of 

water supply. 

Decommission 

Negligible 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 









Not assessed 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 









Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

design. 








areas. 



Potential effect 

on quantity of 

water supply. 

Construction Negligible Negligible Ensuring a Negligible 

minimum 

Operational Negligible Negligible stream 

water depth 

Negligible 

is 

maintained. 

Decommission 

Negligible 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

- 

On-site 

water 

storage 

facilities for 

high 

demand 

periods. 

Not assessed 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 

Public water 

supplies and 

abstractions 

Potential 


water supply. 

Construction 

Medium - 

Large 

Moderate – 

Very 

substantial 

Slight 





- 

Slight 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Operational Small Slight – 

moderate 




Negligible 

complete. 











Decommission 

Large 


very 

substantial 




facilities. 

Slight 










Potential impact Construction Negligible Negligible Negligible - Leaving a Negligible 

Temporary – 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

on water 

resources. 


portion of 

water in 

Negligible 

stream. 

Decommission Negligible Negligible 

On-site 

water 

storage 


high 

demand 

periods. 

Not assessed 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 





Summary of Residual Effects 

13.7.2 In this chapter the potential effects of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the 

proposed Carron Valley Wind Farm on the hydrology, hydrogeology and geology have been 

assessed. The assessment demonstrates that the most significant effects have the potential 

to occur during the construction phase. The potential effects during the operation and the 

decommissioning phase are limited. 

13.7.3 The chapter has identified a number of mitigation measures that will be implemented to 

reduce the magnitude and therefore significance of potential effects. Following mitigation, all 

potential effects are reduced to negligible or minor. 

13.7.4 Overall, the effects of the proposed wind farm development on the site’s hydrological, 

hydrogeological and geological regime are considered to be of negligible to minor 

significance with mitigation. 


13.7.5 The impact assessment has taken into account the site’s hydrological regime including the 

natural runoff patterns and the location of all watercourses. Runoff rates and drainage 

patterns could be affected during the construction of the proposed wind farm due to 

excavation works and the construction of tracks and hard standing areas. However, this will 

be effectively mitigated by providing an adequately designed drainage system. 

13.7.6 The hydrological effect on the peat has been minimised by the design of the development 

layout which avoids areas of deep peat. Where tracks are near deep peat, drainage systems 

will be adapted to minimise lowering of the water table and to prevent draining of the peat or 

barriers to natural flow paths in the upper and lower peat layers. 

13.7.7 Effects on river flows and flooding are predicted to be very limited. 

Surface Waters 

13.7.8 Water quality within nearby waterbodies is classified as “poor” (River Carron, Carron Valley 

Reservoir, classed as a Heavily Modified Water Body) and “moderate” (Endrick Water). 

13.7.9 Pollution of surface water could potentially occur during the construction activities. A range of 

mitigation measures have been presented in this chapter to prevent pollution and these 

measures will be detailed in the HSEMS. 

Soils 

13.7.10 The impact assessment has identified that the main effects on soils are changes to drainage 

patterns as a result of compaction and construction of foundations/infrastructure. These 

effects are of limited extent focussed on the proposed access tracks and turbine locations 

and as such are considered to be of moderate significance, which would be mitigated to slight 

through the implementation of the drainage mitigation measures detailed in this chapter. 

Superficial Deposits & Geology 

13.7.11 The impact assessment has identified that the main effects on superficial deposits and 

geology are disturbance as a result of foundation excavations. With mitigation in place the 

effect is considered to be small and the residual effects are considered to be negligible. 





Hydrogeology 

13.7.12 Pollution of groundwater could potentially occur during the construction and operational 

activities. A range of mitigation measures have been presented in this chapter to prevent 

pollution and these measures will be identified in the HSEMS. The residual risk of chemical 

pollution of groundwater is not considered significant. 

13.7.13 The impact assessment has identified that the main effects on hydrogeology are likely to be 

changes to groundwater flow patterns in the area of proposed excavations. The shallow 

groundwater is however of low resource potential and any residual effects are likely to be of 

limited extent focussed on the proposed turbine locations and as such are considered to be 

of slight significance. 


13.7.14 Information on the location of both private and public water supply systems has been 

collected to assess whether these could be affected by Carron Valley Wind Farm. No private 

water supplies are considered to be affected by the proposals, however there is a risk of 

effecting the water quality of public water supply sourced from the Carron Valley Reservoir 

and the Endrick Water. The residual effect is considered to be slight to negligible following 

implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this chapter. 

13.7.15 The assessment also concludes that flow rates within the watercourses are not significantly 

affected and that downstream abstractions are therefore not impacted by the development. 


13.8.1 RPS has identified 37 existing or proposed 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). 

13.8.2 The closest wind farm to the proposed site is the Craigengelt Hill Wind Farm, approximately 

1 km north-east of the site, located within the Earls Burn and Easter Buckie Burn catchments, 

both of which are tributaries of the River Carron downstream of the Carron Valley Reservoir. 

Craigengelt Hill is currently operational. 

13.8.3 Earlsburn Wind Farm is an operational wind farm located approximately 1 km to the north, 

with an approved extension to the wind farm (known as Earlsburn North) 3 km to the north of 

the proposed Carron Valley Reservoir. This wind farm, including the extension, drains into 

the Earls Burn and Burnfoot and Backside Burns, which are tributaries of the Endrick Water. 

13.8.4 Craigannet Wind Farm is currently at application stage. If this wind farm proceeds it would 

be located less than 1 km to the east of the proposed site, within the Carron Valley Reservoir, 

River Carron and Earls Burn catchments. 

13.8.5 Kingsburn Wind Farm is currently at scoping stage. The proposed wind farm is located 

approximately 2 km to the west of the Carron Valley site. If this development proceeds, the 

site would be drained by several tributaries of the Backside Burn and the Belmenoch Burn, 

which are tributaries of the Endrick Water. It may also lay within the Loch Walton catchment. 

13.8.6 As the proposed site of the Carron Valley Wind Farm drains into the Carron Valley Reservoir 

and Endrick Water, there is the potential for cumulative effects to arise from pollution of 

watercourses (suspended solids or oils, for example). However, the existing Earls Burn Wind 





Farm is assumed to mitigate such effects within the planning application boundary similar to 

Carron Valley, and it is assumed that the other wind farms, when constructed and operational 

will also seek to mitigate effects on the hydrology, hydrogeology and ground conditions, 

therefore it is considered that cumulative effects will be negligible. 

13.8.7 However, should one of these proposed wind farms be constructed at the same time as 

Carron Valley, then there may be an increased cumulative risk from sedimentation in 

catchments where more than one wind farm is being constructed at the same time, and 

increased monitoring in construction areas draining into that catchment will be required. 

13.8.8 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. 


British Geological Society, 1985. British Regional Geology: The Midland Valley of Scotland, 

3 rd Edition 

Carron Valley Fishery. Available at: http://www.carronvalley.com 

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, (2008). Flood estimation handbook (five volumes), 

Wallingford: Centre for Ecology & Hydrology 

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, National River Flow Archive. NRFA National River Flow 

Archive Index. Available at: http://www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/index.html 

Forestry Commission Scotland, (2010). Agreed Standards for the Design and Construction of 

the Carron Valley Wind Farm Access 

Scottish Environment Protection Agency, (2011). Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map 

(Scotland). Available at: 

http://www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_risk_maps/view_the_map.aspx 

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency SEPA (2011) Landuse Planning System 

Guidance Note 4, Planning Guidance on Windfarm Developments 

Scottish Environment Protection Agency, (2004)., Bedrock Aquifer map 

Scottish Environment Protection Agency, (2003). Loch Lomond catchment management plan 

Scottish Government, (2010). Scottish Planning Policy 

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

Edition. Available at http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/heritagemanagement/EIA.pdf 

Scottish Renewables, SNH, SEPA and Forest Commission Scotland in October (2010). 

Good Practice During Windfarm Construction 

Scottish Water, (2011). SWPP/11/33770 Plans Water 

Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum of Environmental Research (SNIFFER) (2004). 

Development of a groundwater vulnerability screening methodology for the Water 

Framework Directive 





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. 

This study area is referred to as the zone of potential shadow flicker. 



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); 

• The Stirling Council Local Plan (adopted December 1999); and 

• Stirling Council Supplementary Planning Guidance – Wind Turbines (March 2011). 

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. 



Shadow Flicker


Stirling Council Local Plan 

14.3.6 Policy E10 of the SCLP reinforces support for developments if they accord with other policies 

in the Plan and they avoid significant adverse impacts. 

14.3.7 For larger scale wind farms, like Carron Valley, there will be a presumption in favour of 

development within areas of defined countryside provided the following criteria are met 

including that the development will not affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers 

unacceptably by reason of noise, visual dominance, shadow flicker, reflected light or other 

emissions. 

Stirling Council Supplementary Planning Guidance – Wind Turbines (March 2011) 

14.3.8 The Supplementary Planning Guidance sets out local guidance and criteria advising that 

proposals within or outwith identified areas will be assessed on their merits. Criteria which 

proposals will be assessed against includes avoidance of significant detrimental effects upon 

nearby residential amenity, including shadow flicker. 


14.3.9 A study area of ten times the maximum proposed turbine rotor diameter of 90 m, totalling 

900 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. 

14.3.10 Only one property ‘Craigannet’ was identified within the zone of potential shadow flicker (see 

Figure 14.1). From analysis of Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping, site visits and discussions 

with stakeholders ‘Craigannet’ was identified as derelict and uninhabited and was therefore 

not considered further within this assessment. In addition, a search of the Stirling Council 

Online Planning System did not identify any valid planning applications for the property. 

14.3.11 No further properties were identified within the zone of potential shadow flicker as shown on 

Figure 14.1. 

14.4 Design Evolution 

14.4.1 The location of residential properties was identified early in the design process in order to 

locate turbines in such a way that no potentially sensitive receptors fell within the zone of 

potential shadow flicker for any individual turbine location. 

14.4.2 The shadow flicker model was re-run throughout the design iteration process to ensure that 

this remained the case, and the final 15 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. 



Shadow Flicker



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 


Policy/themes/renewables 

Stirling Council (1999). Local Plan. Available at http://www.stirling.gov.uk/services/planningand-the-environment/planning-and-building-standards/local-and-statutory-developmentplans/local-plan-general-information 

Stirling Council (2011). Supplementary Guidance Renewable Energy. Available at 




Shadow Flicker


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, and then professional judgement is 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 

change to 

baseline 

business / 

employment / 

economic 

conditions. 



Socio-Economics, Tourism, Land-Use and Recreation


Criteria for Magnitude of Effects 

Receptor Large Medium Small Negligible 

Land Use 

A fundamental 

change to the 

baseline 

economic/public 

benefits provided 

by the existing 

land use. 



change to the 

baseline 


benefits provided 

by the existing 

land use. 


baseline 


benefits 

provided by the 

existing land 

use. 

No change to 

baseline 


benefits 

provided by the 

existing land 

use. 

Tourism 

A fundamental 

change in the 

number of 

visitors to a 

tourism 

resource. 



change to visitor 

numbers. 


visitor numbers. 

No change to 

visitor numbers. 

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. 

The business 

/ 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 


predicted 

change. 

Land Use 

The land use 

would have a 

low capacity to 

accommodate 

the predicted 

change. 

The land use 

would have 

some 

tolerance to 

accommodate 

the predicted 

change. 

The land use 

would be 

generally 


predicted 

change. 

The land use 

would be 

entirely 


predicted 

change. 





Sensitivity Criteria 

Receptor High Medium Low Negligible 

Tourism 

The tourism 

resource would 

have a low 

capacity to 

accommodate 

the predicted 

change. 

The tourism 

resource 

would have 

some 

tolerance to 

accommodate 

the predicted 

change. 

The tourism 


be generally 


predicted 

change. 

The tourism 

resource 

would be 

entirely 


predicted 

change. 

Recreation and 

Outdoor Access 

The access / 

recreation 


have a low 

capacity to 

accommodate 

the predicted 

change. 

The access / 

recreation 

resource 

would have 

some 

tolerance to 

accommodate 

the predicted 

change. 

The access / 

recreation 


be generally 


predicted 

change. 

The access / 

recreation 

resource 

would be 

entirely 


predicted 

change. 

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 Significance of Effects 

Sensitivity / Importance of Receptor 

Magnitude of Change/Effect 

LARGE 

MEDIUM 





moderate 


moderate 

SMALL Moderate or slight Slight 

Moderate or 

slight 

Negligible 


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); 

• Stirling Council (www.stirling.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); 

• Stirling Tourism Association (www.destinationstirling.com); and 

• Sustrans (www.sustrans.org.uk). 

Scoping Responses 

15.3.2 Scoping responses received relevant to this chapter are presented in Table 15.4. 

Table 15.4 Scoping Responses 

Consultee 

Scottish Natural 

Heritage 

Loch Lomond & 

The Trossachs 

National Park 

Response 

Access and Recreation 

The Carron Valley is an area important for recreation. SNH 

recommends that the ES overall should address the following 

matters in respect of recreation and access: 

• The effect on the enjoyment of any strategic access routes in the 

area. 

• The use of boundary features and essential access controls to 

ensure that these are not a barrier to the general right of access. 

• Increased noise and other changes in experience of the area 

from its present character. 

The ES should deal with the temporary and permanent effects of the 

proposal on recreation and access. SNH would expect that an 

assessment will be made of how current and future recreatiional use 

is likely to be affected during construction and subsequent operation 

of the wind farm. 

Impact on Gateway and Journeys through the National Park 

The ZVI for 126m high turbines suggests that potentially 4-16 

turbines tips will be visible from some of the key ‘gateway routes’ to 

the south and east of the Park. For example the A811 from Balloch, 

the A81 from Aberfoyle and from the A82 Alexandria to Luss. It is 

also visible from the minor roads entering the Park from across the 

Campsies (B822) and from Fintry (B818). 

Impact on Key Recreational Routes 

The ZVI for 126m high turbines suggests that they will be visible from 

a number of key summit routes including Ben Lomond (35km), Ben 

Ledi (25km) and the Mentieth Hills (20km) and Luss Hills (35km). It 

will also be visible from a number of core paths and smaller hills 

within the National Park such as Conic Hill as well as the West 

Highland Way, NCR7, some areas of Loch Lomond itself and key 

visitor destinations within the Park such as David Marshall Lodge. 


15.3.3 Although now superseded by web based renewables advice, the Scottish Government’s 

(2008) 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 development 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. 


Population 

15.3.4 The site of the proposed wind farm falls within the Census Area Statistic (CAS) wards of 

Bannockburn West and Campsies (see Figure 15.1) which lie within Stirling 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. In 2010, the total population of Stirling was estimated to 

be 89,850, approximately 1.7 % of the Scottish population. This represents an increase of 

1.3 % since the 2009 mid year population estimate of 88,740 and is significantly higher than 

the Scottish average of 0.5 %. Most of this population growth within Stirling has been as a 

result of an estimated net in-migration of 1,039 people. However, there has also been a 

“natural” increase in population with births outnumbering deaths by 60 over the year. 1 

15.3.6 According to the 2001 census, Bannockburn West has a total population of 4,346 and 

Campsies a total population of 3,850. This represents 5.0 % and 4.5 % of the total 

population of Stirling respectively. This consisted of 3,943 males and 2,295 females in 

Bannockburn West and 1,892 males and 1,958 females in Campsies. There are no reliable 

estimates for these ward areas 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 these wards at a 

similar rate to those within Stirling. 

15.3.7 According to the 2001 census, Bannockburn West had a population density of 0.59 persons 

per hectare and Campsies had a population density of 0.18 persons per hectare. The figure 

for Stirling is 0.39 persons per hectare and for Scotland is 0.65 persons per hectare. 

15.3.8 Table 15.5 highlights the age structure of Bannockburn West and Campsies and places them 

in the context of Stirling and Scotland. The age structure of Bannockburn West and 

Campsies are similar to the Scottish population as a whole. In Bannockburn West, persons 

aged 15 and under in the 2001 Census made up 23 % of the total population. This is larger 

than both Stirling and Scotland where 19 % are aged under 15 or under. In Campsies 26 % 

of the population are aged 35 to 49. This is larger than both Stirling and Scotland where 

22 % are aged 35 to 49 years. This reflects the fact that many middle-aged people from 

outwith the local area have moved in. 

1 The Office for National Statistics, Mid-2010 Population Estimates Scotland: Population estimates by sex, age and 

administrative area. 27 April 2011. 





Table 15.5 Age Structure of Population 

Age Group 

Bannockburn 

West 

Campsies Stirling Scotland 

0-15 23 % 21 % 19 % 19 % 

16-19 5 % 4 % 5 % 5 % 

20-34 18 % 12 % 20 % 20 % 

35-49 23 % 26 % 22 % 22 % 

50-59 11 % 14 % 13 % 13 % 

60-64 5 % 6 % 5 % 5 % 

65-74 9 % 10 % 9 % 9 % 

75 and over 6 % 7 % 7 % 7 % 

Total 4,346 3,850 86,212 5,062,011 

Source: GROS, 2001 Census of Population 

Employment and Economic Activity 

15.3.9 Table 15.6 shows the economic activity of all persons aged 16 to 74 years in Bannockburn 

West, Campsies, Stirling and Scotland in the 2001 Census. 

Table 15.6 Economic Activity of Persons Aged 16-74 Years 

Bannockburn 

West 


Employees Part-time 13 % 12 % 11 % 11 % 

Employees Full-time 40 % 38 % 38 % 40 % 

Economically Active 

Self-employed 6 % 16 % 9 % 7 % 

Unemployed 4 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 

Full time students 2 % 2 % 4 % 3 % 

Total economically 

active 

64 % 70 % 65 % 65 % 

Retired 14 % 15 % 14 % 14 % 

Student 3 % 3 % 6 % 4 % 

Economically Inactive 

Looking after 

home/family 

Permanently 

sick/disabled 

5 % 6 % 5 % 6 % 

9 % 3 % 6 % 7 % 

Other 4 % 3 % 3 % 4 % 





Bannockburn 

West 


Total economically 

inactive 

36 % 30 % 35 % 35 % 

All people aged 16-74 3,081 2,761 63,552 3,731,079 


15.3.10 The economic activity of all persons aged 16 to 74 years in Bannockburn West in the 2001 

Census was 64 %, which is slightly below the average for both Stirling and Scotland of 65 %. 

The percentage of Bannockburn West’s population in employment (employee or self 

employed) was 59 %, slightly above Stirling and Scotland’s rate of 58 %. The number of 

permanently sick / disabled people in Bannockburn West was 9 %, compared to 6 % for 

Stirling and 7 % nationally. 

15.3.11 The economic activity of all persons aged 16-74 years in Campsies in the 2001 Census was 

70 %, significantly above the average for both Stirling and Scotland of 65 %. The percentage 

of Campsies population in employment (employee or self employed) was 66 %, significantly 

above Stirling and Scotland’s rate of 58 %. Self employment is more important in Campsies 

that nationally, with 16 % of people in Campsies being self employed compared to only 7 % 

nationally. 

15.3.12 The most recent unemployment statistics show that in January 2012 there were 2,052 

unemployed residents within the Stirling Council area, 4.7 % of all residents, lower than the 

Scottish average of 5.2 %. However, the number of employed residents in Stirling increased 

by 93 % between June 2006 and June 2011 (Nomis, 2012). This rise is directly attributed to 

the global recession. 

15.3.13 Table 15.7 shows the industries of employment of all persons in employment in the 2001 

Census. 

Table 15.7 Industries of Employment of All Persons Aged 16-74 in Employment 

Bannockburn 

West 


Agriculture, hunting and 

forestry 

2 % 8 % 3 % 2 % 

Fishing 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 

Mining and quarrying 0 % 0 % 0 % 1 % 

Manufacturing 10 % 9 % 9 % 13 % 

Electricity, gas and water 

supply 

1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 

Construction 11 % 7 % 8 % 7 % 

Wholesale and retail 

trade, repairs 

18 % 12 % 15 % 14 % 

Hotels and restaurants 6 % 7 % 8 % 6 % 





Bannockburn 

West 


Transport, storage and 

communications 

6 % 5 % 5 % 7 % 

Financial intermediaries 5 % 3 % 5 % 5 % 

Real Estate, renting and 

business activities 

Public administration and 

defence, social security 

9 % 14 % 11 % 11 % 

7 % 6 % 7 % 7 % 

Education 6 % 11 % 10 % 7 % 

Health and social work 11 % 12 % 12 % 12% 

Other 6 % 5 % 6 % 5 % 

Total 1,857 1,879 3,9073 2,261,281 


15.3.14 The above table demonstrates the significant importance of agriculture and forestry to 

Campsies with 8 % of all employed persons aged 16 to 74 employed in these sectors 

compared to 3 % for Stirling and only 2 % nationally. There is also a significantly high 

proportion of people in Campsies employed in education (11 %), reflecting the role of Stirling 

University. Within Bannockburn West there is a significantly high proportion of people 

employed in construction, with 11 % of all employed persons aged 16 to 74 employed in this 

sector compared to 8 % for Stirling and 7 % nationally. 

15.3.15 In terms of supply of skills, the travel to work origins of individuals working in Stirling Council 

Area shows that the labour market is quite contained. According to the 2001 Census data, 

almost two thirds of those working within the Stirling Council area live locally. 

15.3.16 According to the 2010 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (NOMIS, 2010), the median 

gross weekly earnings for full time employees in Stirling in 2010 was £529.10 per week, 

higher than the Scottish average of £486.90. This reflects the fact that the working age 

population within the Stirling Council area is generally highly qualified. According to the 

Annual Population Survey 2010 (Office for National Statistics, 2010) 40 % of the working age 

population have a VQ4 or above level qualification (degree level or above), compared with 

the 34 % average of Scotland’s working age population. 

15.3.17 In 2009, Stirling residents had higher levels of disposable income than the national average. 

Annual disposable income per head in Stirling, Perth & Kinross was £16,376 per head, higher 

than the Scottish average of £14,908 (Office for National Statistics, 2009). 

Socio-Economic Indicators 

15.3.18 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. 





15.3.19 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 S01006078. In 2009, this data zone had an overall rank of 3,683 

of 6,505. This rank places data zone S01006078 in the 57 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 for which data zone S01006078 is ranked amongst the 

worst 8 % of data zones in Scotland. 

Table 15.8 Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2009 – Data Zone S01006078 

Rank 

Percentile 

Current income domain 4,615 71 % 

Empoyment domain 3,399 52 % 

Health domain 3,473 53 % 

Education, skills and 

training domain 

Geographic access 

domain 

4,658 72 % 

497 8 % 

Crime domain 5,078 78 % 

Housing domain 4,927 76 % 

Overall SIMD 3,683 57 % 

Source: Scottish Government, Scottish Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2009 

Land Use 

15.3.20 The proposed wind farm is located within the Carron Valley Forest, a commercial forestry 

plantation which is currently managed by Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). The Carron 

Valley Forest lies within the Scottish Lowlands Forest District. 

15.3.21 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. 

15.3.22 The Scottish Forestry Strategy (SFS) (Scottish Executive, 2006) sets out the Scottish 

Government’s vision for Scottish woodlands 2 and identifies seven key themes that will help 

achieve the vision: 

• using forestry to mitigate the effects of climate change; 

2 ‘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. 





• 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; 

• helping to conserve and enhance Scotland’s biodiversity. 

15.3.23 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 

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. 

15.3.24 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 the Carron Valley 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). 

15.3.25 The site of the proposed wind farm is situated within the Cairnoch main block of the Carron 

Valley Forest. The woodland structure of the Cairnoch main block is dominated by Sitka 

spruce with much smaller areas of other conifers and broadleaves. This is a legacy of the 

historic nature of planting in the area. Open space occupies a small percentage of the 

Cairnoch main block and comprises predominantly of the summit of Cairnoch Hill and an area 

around Sir John de Graham’s castle. The woodland was planted in the mid 20th century and 

a major programme of restructuring of this woodland is currently underway. Details of the 





proposed harvesting and restocking of this woodland can be found in the approved Forest 

Design Plan (FDP) for Cairnoch Hill (revised March 2012 following extensive wind blow) (see 

Appendix 4.1). It is proposed within the FDP that the Cairnoch main block will continue to be 

managed as commercial productive woodland, whilst also having regard to environmental, 

recreational, aesthetic and other objectives which, as outlined above, are as important to 

FCS as timber production. 

15.3.26 As well as commercial timber production, the Carron Valley Forest is used for a wide range of 

outdoor access and recreational uses. These are discussed later in this chapter. 

Tourism Attractions 

15.3.27 Tourism is vitally important to the Scottish economy. According to the VisitScotland around 

14.7 million tourists took overnight trips to Scotland in 2010, contributing over £4 billion to the 

Scottish economy. Tourism related employment in 2008 supported about 9 % of total 

employment in Scotland. The Scottish Government’s ambition is to grow tourism by 50 % by 

2015. 

15.3.28 The VisitScotland 2007 Visitor Experience Survey confirms the most important factor in 

determining the choice of Scotland as a holiday destination is its scenery, followed by the 

number of things to see and do and the nature and wildlife. 

15.3.29 Tourism in the Argyll, Loch Lomond, Stirling & Forth Valley Region is estimated by 

VisitScotland in 2010 to be worth £392 million to the economy (10 % of the total value of 

tourism in Scotland), derived from 1.79 million tourist trips (12 % of all trips) and 4.25 million 

overnight stays (6 % of all stays). 

15.3.30 The total revenue generated by tourism within the Stirling Council area in 2010 was 

estimated around £372.37 million, comprising £164.11 million with the City of Stirling and 

£208.26 million within rural Stirling. Visitors spent their money on a variety of things. In 

2010, £57.15 million was spent on food and drink, £56.59 million was spent on 

accommodation, £52.54 million on transport, £42.92 million on shopping and £19.23 million 

on recreation. This revenue accounted for 8,241 full time equivalent jobs in 2010 (STEAM 

Report, 2010). 

15.3.31 Tourists are drawn to the Stirling Council area for a variety of attractions. Stirling City Centre 

is the focus for the historical and tourist offering, whilst the highly accessible and expansive 

rural environment surrounding the city is also a major draw for tourists, offering a range of 

recreation opportunities as well as acting as a gateway to the Loch Lomond and the 

Trossachs National Park. 

15.3.32 The Stirling Council Visitor Survey (Lyn Jones 2010) is a comprehensive survey of visitors to 

the Stirling area. The survey identifies that: 

• Stirling Castle is the biggest draw for visitors to Stirling, with 80 % of visitors 

identifying it as a driver in the decision making process, up from 66 % in 2008/2009. 

The history of the city also plays an important role, with 54 % of visitors identifying it as 

a driver in their decision to visit the city. 

• The overwhelming majority of respondents stated they visited at least one tourism 

attraction during their visit, with Stirling Castle by far the most commonly visited 

attraction (88 % of those who visited at least one attraction). The Old Town Cemetery 





(18 %), Stirling Old Town Jail (14 %) and Church of the Holy Rude (13 %) were also 

visited by at least 10 % of visitors. 

• Shopping is an important activity for visitors to Stirling, and was the third most popular 

activity (40 %) after visiting attractions (80 %) and walking around (55 %). 

• 28 % of all visitors to Stirling (both day and overnight) visit the city on the way to or 

from the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. 

• Stirling Castle was identified by 54 % of respondents as the best or most enjoyable 

aspect of their stay. Specific aspects of the city such as its picturesque surroundings 

and views along with the history of Stirling were referenced by 35 % of respondents. 

Table 15.9 Top Visitor Attractions in Stirling Council Area 2008 

Attraction 

Visitor Numbers 

Mugdock Country Park 622,375 

Blairdrummond Safari Park 388,112 

Stirling Castle, Stirling 375,344 

National Wallace Monument, Stirling 117,466 

Stirling Smith Art Gallery and Museum, Stirling 51,438 

Glenoyne Distillery, Nr Killearn 42,356 

Bannockburn Heritage Centre, Stirling 40,925 

Doune Castle, Doune 31,879 

Argyll’s Lodging, Stirling 28,470 

Old Town Jail, Stirling 27,045 

Church of the Holy Rude, Stirling 26,000 

Briarlands Farm, Stirling 25,162 

Inchmahome Priory, Stirling 16,441 

Dunblane Cathedral, Dunblane 11,552 

Buchlyvie Pottery, Buchlyvie 3,600 

Leighton Library, Dunblane 926 

Bridge of Allan Parish Church, Bridge of Allan 229 

Source: VisitScotland, Scottish Visitor Attraction Survey 2008 

15.3.33 The Carron Valley Forest Visitor Experience & Interpretation Plan draft (FCS, 2012) 

estimates that there are between 17,000 and 45,000 visits to Carron Valley Forest per year. 

A visitor survey undertaken for the Plan identifies that: 

• The majority of visitors are visiting on a day trip from home. 





• The majority of visitors are from Greater Glasgow, followed by those from Edinburgh, 

the local area (Denny, Kilsyth, Bonnybridge and Lennoxtown) and Stirling. 

• Just under half visit alone and almost a quarter are in small groups. Family groups 

account for less than 20 %. 

• Almost half of visitors visit frequently (more than once a month), but the number of first 

time visitors at over one in ten is still significant. 

15.3.34 As discussed later in this chapter, the majority of visitors to the Carron Valley Forest come for 

mountain biking and outdoor access opportunities. In addition to vantage point locations, 

other popular destinations within the Carron Valley Forest include: 

• The main car park, located to the east of the Carron Valley Reservoir, which provides 

parking for approximately 40 cars, has accessible toilets picnic area and 

interpretation/orientation. The car park forms the start point of the mountain biking 

tracks and loch shore trails discussed later in this chapter. 

• Sir John de Graham’s Castle, a scheduled ancient monument situated to the north 

west of Carron Valley Reservoir. The site is highlighted by FCS on its website, it is not 

currently signposted or promoted on the ground. 

• Duncarron, a proposed full-scale replica of a medieval fortified village currently being 

constructed by the Clanranald Trust located near the main car park (to the east of the 

reservoir below Cock Hill). It is the intention of the Clanranald Trust to develop the fort 

as a visitor attraction events space and education / training facility. 

15.3.35 The Carron Valley Forest also provides the venues for an informal events programme run by 

FCS that includes visits from a wide variety of users from pre-primary to elderly, and 

educational / ranger events largely led and promoted by other groups such as weekly Forest 

Kindergarten visits. Major events recently held on site include horse endurance, Rat Race 

endurance, rally driving and the Clanranald open day (FCS, 2012). 

15.3.36 Tourist attractions within 20 km of the proposed wind farm are shown on Figure 15.2 and 

include (but are not limited to): 

• Colzium House, Kilsyth – located approximately 6 km to the south of the proposed 

wind farm. Gifted to the community in 1937, it houses a local history museum and is 

surrounded by planned gardens with collections of conifers and shrubs. 

• Kilsyth Heritage, Kilsyth - located approximately 6.3 km to the south of the proposed 

wind farm. A museum dedicated to the heritage of the settlement of Kilsyth, it is 

located within the town’s library. 

• The Antonine Wall – a 60 km stone and turf Roman fortification stretching from 

Carriden on the Forth to Old Kilpatrick on the Clyde. In 2008 the Antonine Wall was 

inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The wall lies approximately 7.9 km from 

the proposed wind farm at its nearest point. 

• Bannockburn Heritage Centre, Stirling - located approximately 10.6 km to the north 

east of the proposed wind farm. This is the battlefield where in June 1314 King Robert 

the Bruce of Scotland defeated Edward II. A National Trust for Scotland site, there is a 

visitor centre and car park. The Heritage Centre attracted 50,751 visitors in 2009. 





• Stirling Old Town Jail, Stirling – an authentic Victorian jail located approximately 

11.8 km to the north east of the proposed wind farm. 

• The Smith Art Gallery & Museum, Stirling – a gallery, museum and cultural centre 

located approximately 11.8 km to the north east of the proposed wind farm. 

• Stirling Castle, Stirling – located approximately 11.9 km to the north east of the 

proposed wind farm. One of Scotland’s grandest castles and graded as a five star 

visitor attraction by Visit Scotland, the Castle attracted 377,204 visitors making it one 

of the most popular visitor attractions in Scotland. 

• Church of the Holy Rude, Stirling – a 15 th century medieval church located 

approximately 11.9 km to the north east of the proposed wind farm. 

• Argyll’s Lodging, Stirling - a 17 th century townhouse in the care of Historic Scotland 

located approximately 12 km to the north east of the proposed wind farm. 

• Blair Drummond Safari & Adventure Park – located approximately 12.8 km to the 

north of the proposed wind farm. The Park is Scotland’s only African Safari Park and 

is open to the public from late March until early November. 

• Torwood Castle, near Stenhousemuir – a 16 th century castle ruin located 

approximately 13 km to the east of the proposed wind farm to the north west of 

Stenhousemuir. The castle is not open to the public but can be enjoyed by the public 

for photography and walks around. 

• Cambuskenneth Abbey, Cambuskenneth - a ruined Augustinian monastery located 

approximately 13.4 km to the north east of the proposed wind farm. 

• National Wallace Monument, Stirling – a tower on the summit of Abbey Craig 

located approximately 14.4 km to the north east of the proposed wind farm. The 

monument, also known as the Wallace Monument, was erected to commemorate Sir 

William Wallace. The monument attracted126,237 visitors in 2009. 

• MacRobert Arts Centre, Stirling - located approximately 14.8 km to the north east of 

the proposed wind farm on the grounds of Stirling University. The centre contains a 

local arts cinema and a gallery and hosts performances and events ranging from 

dance, drama to jazz nights. The centre attracted 125,000 visitors in 2009. 

• Falkirk Wheel, Falkirk - located approximately 15.3 km to the north of the proposed 

wind farm. The Falkirk Wheel is the only circular boat lift in the world and transports 

barges between the Forth & Clyde Canal and the Union Canal. The Falkirk Wheel 

attracted 476,778 visitors in 2009. 

• Glengoyne Distillery, near Killearn - located approximately 16 km to the west of the 

proposed wind farm, the distillery attracted 45,601 visitors in 2009. 

• Menstrie Castle, Menstrie - located approximately 18.4 km to the north east of the 

proposed wind farm, this early 17 th century castellated house was restored in the 20 th 

century and now incorporates holiday accommodation and a museum and café. 

• The Dunmore Pineapple, near Airth - a folly located approximately 18.7 km to the 

east of the proposed wind farm. 

• Alloa Tower, Alloa – located approximately 19.6 km to the north east of the proposed 

wind farm, it is the largest oldest keep in Scotland. 





Tourism Accommodation 

15.3.37 Around half of tourism accommodation within the Stirling Council area is contained within 

Stirling City, with the remainder located throughout the rural area. Accommodation supply 

within the Stirling Council area is detailed in Table 15.10 below. This table shows that there 

are more non-serviced sleeping spaces (62 %) than serviced sleeping spaces (38 %) within 

the Stirling Council area. The largest supply of sleeping spaces is from touring/camping 

accommodation (31 %), followed by self catering (31 %) and 50+ room establishments 

(14 %). 

Table 15.10 Accomodation Supply in Stirling Council Area 2010 

Accommodation Category Establishments Beds / Sleeping 

Spaces 

Serviced Accommodation 

50+ Room Establishments 14 2,418 

26-50 Room Establishments 7 627 


Table 15.11 Tourist Numbers by Accomodation Type 2010 

Month 

Serviced Accomodation 

(thousands) 

Non Serviced Accomodation 

(thousands) 

January 19.9 2.7 

February 26.1 5.4 

March 35.5 7.5 

April 50.3 21.3 

May 60.3 25.4 

June 56.8 33.2 

July 59.5 34.2 

August 77.0 33.8 

September 62.1 26.2 

October 57.3 20.0 

November 33.5 5.5 

December 26.2 2.7 

TOTAL 564,000 218,000 

Source: Stirling Council STEAM Report, 2010 

15.3.40 With the local area, the majority of visitor accommodation is located around the periphery of 

the Campsies and includes a mix of small hotels (including country house style provision) and 

a range of Guest Houses/B&B, self catering and caravan/camping provision. Examples of 

this include: 

• Banknock – Glenskirlie House & Castle (15 rooms); 

• Kilsyth – The Boathouse (10 rooms), the Coachman Hotel (11 rooms), Allanfauld B&B; 

• Milton of Campsies – Kincaid House Hotel (10 rooms); 

• Lennoxtown – Glazert Country House (5 rooms); 

• Strathblane – Strathblane Country House Hotel (9 rooms) and the Kirkhouse Inn; 

• Killearn – The Black Bull Hotel, Ivy Cottage & willow Tree Cottage (self-catering); 

• Buchlyvie – Ballochneck Country House (3 rooms), Buchlyvie B&B; 

• Arnprior – Thorntree Barn (self-catering); 

• Kippen – The Inn at Kippen; Larne Cottage (self catering); 

• Balfron – Ballochruin Farm B&B, Loaninghead Farm B&B, Campsies Cottages (self 

catering). 





15.3.41 Visitor accommodation supply within the Carron Valley area is more limited in supply and 

comprises: 

• Carronbridge - Carronbridge Hotel, a four room hotel to the east of the Carron Valley 

approximately 3.8 km from the proposed wind farm. 

• Fintry – The Culcreuch Castle Hotel (14 rooms), the Clachan Hotel (6 rooms), the 

Fintry Inn (2 self catering apartments), approximately 6.5 km from the proposed wind 

farm. 


15.3.42 The geographical make up of the Stirling Council area means that it is very attractive for a 

wide range of formal and informal recreational and access activities. The Stirling Countryside 

Access and Recreation Strategy vision is “to improve access and recreation opportunities for 

all to the countryside of Stirling district, whilst promoting responsible use, supporting rural 

economies and respecting current land management.” 

15.3.43 The West Highland Way is a long distance footpath which links Milngavie, just outside 

Glasgow to Fort William in the Highlands. It passes through parts of Stirlingshire near 

Killearn, approximately 15.8 km from the proposed wind farm at its nearest point. 

15.3.44 The Forth and Clyde Cycle Route is a long distance cycle route between Gourock and 

Edinburgh along the Union and Forth Canals and parts of the National Cycle Network. The 

route lies approximately 7.3 km to the south of the proposed wind farm at its nearest point. 

15.3.45 Almost three-quarters of Scottish adults visit woodland for recreation each year (FCS, 2007). 

A consultation draft of the Lowlands Forest District Community, Recreation and Tourism 

Strategy (FCS, 2011) was published in October 2011. The aim of the strategy is “to deliver 

meaningful benefits to the communities of Central Scotland.” The strategy aims to develop 

several key forests with broader appeal as ‘Destination Sites’. Carron Valley is one of these 

proposed Destination Sites. 

15.3.46 As outlined above, The Carron Valley Forest Visitor Experience & Interpretation Plan (draft 

FCS, 2012) estimates that there are currently between 17,000 and 45,000 visits to Carron 

Valley Forest per year. Table 15.12 provides a breakdown of the key current user groups set 

against their point of origin. 

Table 15.12 User Group Survey to Carron Valley Forest 2012 

Main User Groups Local Area Greater 

Glasgow 

Wider 

Scotland 

Mountain biking (approx. 70 % of 

users 

Dog walkers (approx 15 % of users) 

Walkers (approx 10 % of users) 

Strollers (gentle walk and / or 

picnic) 

Runners 

 

 

 

 

 

Partner visitors (fishing and fort) 





Main User Groups Local Area Greater 

Glasgow 

Wider 

Scotland 

Horse Riders 

Events 

Educational groups 

Organised groups (scouts, walking 

groups, clubs etc.) 

 

 

Families 

Source: FCS Carron Valley Forest Visitor Experience and Interpretation Plan (draft 2012). 

15.3.47 The above table demonstrates the attractiveness of the Carron Valley as a local and regional 

resource for mountain biking. 

15.3.48 From the main car park, the Lochside Trail is a promoted 1.3 km family friendly waymarked 

trail for walkers to the south east of the Carron Valley Reservoir which runs along the shores 

of the reservoir, providing open views over the water and to the hills beyond. The Lochside 

Trail forms part of a longer distance core path towards Meikle Bin as identified on the North 

Lanarkshire Core Path Plan. 

15.3.49 A second small informal car park for approximately six cars is located to the west of the 

Carron Valley Reservoir at Todholes. From the west car park there are no waymarked trails. 

However, access is promoted to Meikle Bin from the west car park. Meikle Bin, which lies to 

the south west of the Carron Valley Reservoir, is the highest peak in the Campsie Hills, rising 

to a height of 570 m. 

15.3.50 The Carron Valley Forest also has a number of forests roads and tracks freely accessible 

under the terms of the Scottish Outdoor Access code (SOAC). These include forest roads 

and tracks around Cairnoch Hill which link into wider paths into the Kilsyth Hills beyond e.g. 

Ling Hill, Cringate Law, Hart Hill and Earl’s Hill and Sir John de Graham’s Castle. 

15.3.51 From the B818 the access tracks for Earlsburn Wind Farm provide further opportunities for 

walkers, cyclists and horseriders. There is also a Core Path (as shown on the Stirling 

Council Core Path Plan) which runs along the eastern bank of the Endrick Water to 

Ballochearn (to the south east of Kippen). The location of other Core Paths in the local area 

are shown on Figure 15.3. 

15.3.52 Within the wider study area, The Touch – Gargunnock – Fintry Hills-Carron Valley area has 

an established and growing importance for recreation. Hill walking, touring by car and 

mountain biking are all popular. In the past there have been proposals for the whole area to 

be designated a ‘regional’ park. In addition to those Core Paths identified on Figure 15.3, the 

most popular walking routes around the area include: 

• From Carron Bridge to Kilsyth on the Tak Ma Doon Road. 

• Routes along the south-side of Carron Valley Reservoir into the Kilsyth Hill range. 

• The minor road (which links Stirling to the B818 at the west end of the Carron Valley 

Reservoir) and provides routes to Earl’s Hill, Lewis Hill and Sauchie Craig. 





• Skyline routes above Campsie Glen such as Lecket Hill, Holehead, Hart Hill, Cort-ma- 

Law and Meikle Bin. 

• Through the Clampsie Glen at Clachan of Campsie. 

• Milton of Campsie to Clachan of Campsie via Lennoxtown on the Strathkelvin Railway 

Path. 

15.3.53 The most popular cycling routes in the local area include: 

• The Crow Road / Tak Ma Doon Road “loop” on the B822 – B818 –A303. This is a 

popular cycle touring, as well as time trial and training run route for road cycling clubs. 

• The Balfron circular on the B818 – B822 Crow Road, and on to the A891, the A81 and 

the A875. 

• Kippen to Lennoxtown on the B822 via Fintry. 

• The Forth & Clyde towpath to the Tak Ma Doon Road via the B802 from Auchinstarry 

marina. 

15.3.54 Horse riding facilities in the local area include: 

• Meadowside Farm Livery at Banton; 

• Woodend Equestrian Centre at Kilsyth; and 

• Campsie Glen Livery. 

15.3.55 In terms of other recreational activities, the River Forth adjacent to Stirling, the River Allan at 

Bridge of Allan, the River Carron by Denny and the River Devon in Clackmannanshire offer 

good opportunities to catch salmon, brown trout, sea trout and grilse. The Carron Valley 

Reservoir (managed by Scottish Water) offers boat and bank fly fishing for rainbow trout and 

wild and stocked trout. National and international fishing events on the Carron Valley 

Reservoir are run by Carron Valley Fishery. There is also fishing on Loch Coulter Reservoir, 

North Third Reservoir and at Swanswater Fishery. 

15.3.56 In 2004, the Scottish Executive (now Scottish Government) published a study on the 

‘Economic impact of game and coarse angling in Scotland’. This study found that anglers 

spend almost £21.5 million a year in Central Scotland (including Stirling). Of this, nearly £11 

million is spent on angling for rainbow trout, whilst brown trout fishing accounts for a revenue 

of £5.2 million and salmon and sea trout a revenue of £3.4 million. The survey concluded that 

473,233 angler days a year were spent fishing in Central Scotland. It also indicated the effect 

that a loss of angling would have on regional employment. If rainbow trout angling stopped 

entirely in Central Scotland, employment equal to 218 full time equivalent jobs would be lost. 

If brown trout angling stopped, employment equal to 43 full time equivalent jobs would be 

lost. 

15.3.57 Kilsyth Lennox Golf Club lies approximately 5.9 km to the south east of the proposed wind 

farm. The nearest golf course to the proposed wind farm within Stirling is Brucefield Family 

Golf Centre, a new 18 hole golf course to the southwest of Bannockburn. Stirling Golf 

Course, an 18 golf course which lies to the south west of the town, is approximately 11.3 km 

form the proposed wind farm. 





15.3.58 Other recreational activities include grouse shooting in the north Campsie Fells area and the 

Gargunnock Hills, and hang gliding and paragliding from the ridge line above Lennoxtown 

and from the ridge line north of the Gargunnock Hills. 


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 £55 million). There may be opportunities for parts of the supply chain based in 

Scotland to capitalise upon this capital spend, albeit that it is recognised that the majority of 

the supply chain is primarily based in mainland Europe. 

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 the 

local area and Stirling. Although these would represent relatively small proportions of the 

total capital costs, this direct expenditure would be likely to recirculate and bring some 

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 20 months), the magnitude of this effect is 

considered to be small. 

15.4.5 The decommissioning phase would entail considerable expenditure at similar levels to that 

involved during the construction phase. 

15.4.6 Furthermore, whilst it is acknowledged not to be a material planning consideration, it should 

be noted that the proposed wind farm will also contribute to the local economy through 

provision of a community fund. 

15.4.7 A market-leading community benefit offering will be provided alongside any future 

development. This will consist of a Community Benefit Fund, which will receive an annual 

payment at the rate of £5,000 per installed megawatt. If fifteen 3 MW turbines are 

constructed, the fund would receive £225,000 on an annual basis (index linked) for the 

operational life of the project of between 20-25 years, amounting to over £5m in donations. 





The fund would be independently administered with decisions on funding allocations made by 

representatives of the local community. 

15.4.8 In the event that planning permission is granted for the site, a separate Community Benefit 

Fund consultation will take place in order to establish the community’s views on the best way 

to make use of this funding locally. 

15.4.9 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, up to a limit of 10 % at financial 

close. 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. 

15.4.10 Further discussion will take place with community groups throughout the planning period, 

during which more information and guidance will be provided on the Forestry Commission 

Scotland website (http://www.forestry.gov.uk/communitiesandrenewables). 

15.4.11 Overall, a slight positive effect is anticipated to the local economy from project expenditure 

during the construction and decommissioning phases. 

Direct Employment 

15.4.12 In terms of employment, the construction of the proposed wind farm will directly support 40 to 

50 full time equivalent jobs for a period of approximately 20 months. It is estimated that the 

total value of the construction contracts would be in the order of £19 million. 

15.4.13 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. Consequently the 

sensitivity of the receptor is 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 


15.4.14 The operational phase of the proposed wind farm will directly support two to three operational 

manager jobs for the duration of the 25 year operational life of is 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 small. Overall, a slight positive effect is 

anticipated to direct local employment during the operational phase. 

15.4.15 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 

15.4.16 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. . 

15.4.17 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 require accommodation, is between 

£230,400 and £550,000. This estimate is based on the following scenarios: 

• 80 weeks with 50 workers staying five nights per week at £55 per night for a twin room 

= £550,000; and 

• 64 weeks with 40 workers staying four nights per week at £45 per night for a twin room 

= £230,400. 

15.4.18 In addition, workers may select to stay in local accommodation and this would have a positive 

economic effect on other local services such as shops, pubs, cafes, takeaways etc. 

15.4.19 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. 

15.4.20 Overall, a slight positive effect in terms of indirect and induced local employment is 

anticipated. 

Land Use 

15.4.21 Construction and operation of the proposed wind farm will require the felling and permanent 

loss of 33.52 ha of commercial forestry land from within the Cairnoch block. The Forest 

Design Plan (FDP) directs all forestry operations, and is the subject of periodic review as the 

vagaries of weather, disease and markets can drive changes to the plan. In the case of 

Cairnoch Hill the storms of January 2012 resulted in such a review, and brought forward the 

felling of compartments resulting in greater volumes of timber being harvested than would 

have been the case under the existing FDP. 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. 

15.4.22 The extension of the wind blow clearance to include the turbine infrastructure can be 

achieved by using the available workforce, 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 effect 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. Following decommissioning of the 

wind farm, some of the area lost to the development footprint will be available to return to 

commercial forestry. The effect of the proposed development on commercial forestry is 

therefore considered to be negligible. 

Tourism and Recreation 

15.4.23 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 and effects of the proposed wind 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 

15.4.24 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. 

15.4.25 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 felt that wind farms have a positive or neutral impact on the landscape. 

• Those interviewed whose main activity was hiking or walking 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 (four 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. The change impact was estimated at -0.08 %. 

• 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. The change impact of this was estimated at -0.73 %. 

15.4.26 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 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. 

15.4.27 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. 

15.4.28 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. Further, anecdotal evidence from 

other FCS wind farm sites that the improvements to path infrastructure and delivery of visitor 

experience enhancements can result in an increase in visitor numbers. 

Tourism Industry and Attractions 

15.4.29 There are relatively few tourist attractions within 20 km of the proposed wind farm which 

could have theoretical visibility. Beyond 20 km, it is considered that any effects upon tourist 

attractions would not be significant. It is notable that the most popular tourist attractions are 

located within Stirling where there would be no theoretical visibility of the proposed wind farm. 

In view of this it is considered that the proposed wind farm is unlikely to have a detectable 

effect upon the local and regional tourism industry. The sensitivity of this receptor is 

therefore considered to be small. 

15.4.30 Those tourist attractions within 20 km of the proposed wind farm that could have theoretical 

visibility include the National Wallace Monument, parts of the Antonine Wall, the Falkirk 

Wheel, Dunmore Pineapple, Menstrie Castle and Alloa Tower. Actual visibility from these 

attractions would be influenced by the localised effects of topography and vegetation as 

discussed below: 

• The National Wallace Monument: The landscape and visual impact assessment (ES 

Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) establishes that there would be 

theoretical visibility of up to 2 turbine blade tips from the Wallace Monument. Site 

visits confirm that these two turbine tips would be barely perceptible and the character 

of the predominantly rural view would be maintained. 

• The Antonine Wall: The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) predicts views of up to 11 

turbines along parts of the Antonine Wall between Falkirk and Bonnybridge. This 

includes Watling Lodge Fort and Tamfourhill Camp. However, local screening greatly 

affects the wider visibility of this section of the Wall. Within Falkirk, visibility from the 





wall is largely contained by built form, whilst near the Falkirk Wheel the Wall is 

contained within woodland. Beyond the woodland near the Falkirk Wheel the ZTV 

establishes that there would be no visibility of the proposed wind farm. 

• The Falkirk Wheel: The ZTV predicts views of up to 3 turbines from the Falkirk. 

However, site visits confirm that the proposed wind farm would not be visible from this 

location. 

• Dunmore Pineapple: The ZTV predicts that up to 15 turbines would be visible from 

Dunmore Pineapple. However, site visits confirm that the walled garden and 

surrounding woodland would obscure views of the proposed wind farm. 

• Menstrie Castle: The ZTV predicts that up to 3 turbines may be visible from Menstrie 

Castle. However, site visits confirm that neighbouring housing would screen views of 

the proposed wind farm. 

• Alloa Tower: The landscape and visual impact assessment (ES Chapter 9: Landscape 

and Visual Impact Assessment) establishes that the blade tips of 8 turbines may be 

visible from Alloa Tower. Site visits confirm that views of these turbine blades, 

although perceptible, would be distant and would be seen as a slight intensification of 

existing developments in the view. 

15.4.31 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. 

15.4.32 With regard to the wider tourism industry and market, the majority of visitors are drawn to the 

City of Stirling and to Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, both of which are 

considered to be of high sensitivity. As there would be no theoretical visibility of the proposed 

wind farm from Stirling city centre, there proposed wind farm would have no effect upon 

visitor numbers and the magnitude of effect is considered to be negligible, resulting in a 

negligible effect. 

15.4.33 With regards to gateways to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, the A811 

from Stirling to Balloch, the A81 from Aberfoyle and the A82 from Glasgow to Luss are 

considered to be the main tourist gateways and are considered to be of medium sensitivity. 

Other minor roads which form gateways to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National 

Park, including the B822 from the Campsies and the B8181 from the Carron Valley to Fintry, 

are considered to be of low sensitivity. For the purposes of this assessment, this level of 

sensitivity is based upon the conclusion that the primary purpose of travelling on these routes 

is to visit Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park itself. 

15.4.34 Visibility of the proposed wind farm on the main A road gateway routes to the Loch Lomond 

and the Trossachs National Park is discussed below: 

• A811 from Stirling to Balloch: The landscape and visual impact assessment (ES 

Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) establishes that up to 4 km of 

the A811 to the south of Drymen may potentially experience views of the proposed 

wind farm. These views would be distant and would predominantly relate only to 

motorists travelling eastwards. Trees and woodland would intermittently obscure these 

distant views, and the proposed wind farm would form only a minor, easily missed 

element in the view, visible for a few seconds on each occasion. 





• A81 from Aberfoyle: The landscape and visual impact assessment (ES Chapter 9: 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) establishes that up to 1 km of the A81 

when travelling southbound at Aberfoyle may potentially experience distant oblique 

views of the proposed wind farm. The proposed wind farm would form only a minor 

elements on the horizon of the Campsie Fells in the view. 

• A82 from Glasgow to Luss: The ZTV predicts that up to 6 km of the A82 to the south of 

Luss may experience views of the proposed wind farm. However, the landscape and 

visual impact assessment (ES Chapter 9: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) 

establishes that the dense tree cover along the shore of Loch Lomond immediately to 

the east of the A82 obscures all actual views towards the proposed wind farm. 

15.4.35 On the basis of these findings that the views of the proposed wind farm would only form a 

small part of the total distance of the A811 and the A81 and, where experienced, the 

proposed wind farm would form only a minor element of the view, it is considered unlikely that 

the proposed wind farm would deter visitors from using either of these main gateway routes. 

The evidence of the various surveys as identified above into the effect of wind farms on 

tourists supports this conclusion. The magnitude of this effect is therefore considered to be 

small, resulting in a slight negative effect. As there would be no views from the A82 from 

Glasgow to Luss, the magnitude of this effect is therefore considered to be negligible, 

resulting in a negligible effect. 

15.4.36 Visibility of the proposed wind farm on the other B road gateway routes to the Loch Lomond 

and the Trossachs National Park is discussed below: 

• B822 from the Campsies: The landscape and visual impact assessment (ES Chapter 

9: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) establishes that the proposed wind farm 

would be visible on the total 7 km distance from the top of the Campsies toward the 

B818. Although the proposed wind farm would form a prominent new element in the 

view, this would be in the context of the existing Earlsburn Wind Farm which is of a 

similar scale. Views would predominantly relate only to motorists travelling northwards 

on this route. 

• B8181 from Fintry: The landscape and visual impact assessment (ES Chapter 9: 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) establishes that there would be potential 

views of the proposed wind farm for up to 4 km of the B8181 to the west of Fintry. 

These views would be in addition to up to 13 km of potential views from along the 

B8181 from the Carron Bridge. However, actual views on the B8181 from Fintry would 

be intermittent and would be sometimes filtered by intervening vegetation. Where 

experienced, the turbines would be seen on the horizon as minor elements in the view, 

with the farmland, moorland and forestry remaining the dominant elements. Views 

would predominantly relate only to motorists travelling eastwards on this route. 

15.4.37 On the basis these finding on the B8181 from Fintry it is considered that the proposed wind 

farm is unlikely to detract from using this gateway route. The magnitude of this effect is 

therefore considered to be small, resulting in a slight negative effect. 

15.4.38 On the basis of these findings that there would be prominent views of the proposed wind farm 

on longer sections of the B822, this could result in some motorists not using this route as a 

gateway to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. However, on the basis of the 

surveys identified above into the effect of wind farms on tourists, it is concluded that for the 

vast majority of motorist the presence of the wind farm on this route will not be a major factor 





in their decision to use this gateway route. The magnitude of this effect is therefore 

considered to be medium, resulting in a slight negative effect. 

15.4.39 Overall, the proposed wind farm is therefore anticipated to have a slight negative effect at 

worst on gateway routes to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. 

Tourist Accommodation 

15.4.40 There is very limited accommodation supply within the immediate Carron Valley area for the 

proposal to result in a detectable change to visitor numbers and the economy of the area in 

general, with the majority of accommodation providers located around the periphery of the 

Campsies where there would be no theoretical visibility of the proposed wind farm. The 

sensitivity of this receptor is therefore considered to be low. 

15.4.41 Although it is possible that some potential visitors may be deterred from staying in tourist 

accommodation at Carronbridge and Fintry if there was a possibility that their view would be 

compromised, 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 at worst. 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) and from those visitors who are attracted to the Carron Valley by new 

access opportunities and facilities created as a result of the proposed wind farm. The 

magnitude of this effect is therefore considered to small at worst. 

15.4.42 Overall the proposed wind farm is therefore anticipated to have a slight negative effect at 

worst on tourist accommodation providers. 


15.4.43 The majority of access and recreational activity in the Carron Valley Forest takes place to the 

south east of the Carron Valley Reservoir where the mountain biking, waymarked trail and 

car parking facilities are located. There is lower and less formal visitor access to the site of 

the proposed wind farm. 

15.4.44 During the construction and decommissioning phases of the proposed wind farm it will be 

necessary to restrict access to the site for public safety reasons, including parts of the forest 

access tracks around Cairnoch Hill and the forest access track which connects to the core 

path towards Kippen. Given the currently low and informal use, the relatively short 

construction programme and the potential for diversions in some locations, the sensitivity of 

this receptor is considered to be low. As short closures for health and safety reasons already 

commonly occur during harvesting operations, the magnitude of this effect is considered to 

be small. Overall, the proposed wind farm is therefore anticipated to have a slight negative 

effect with regards to on-site public access during the construction / decommissioning 

phases. 

15.4.45 By making the site more accessible through the construction of access tracks, in particular 

two new link routes, the western end of the Carron Valley reservoir will become more 

popular. 

15.4.46 However, it is possible that some recreational and outdoor access users could be deterred 

from using access and recreational resources in the Carron Valley and the wider area if there 





is a possibility that their views would be compromised, although anecdotal evidence of 

previous FCS experience suggests this is unlikely. 

15.4.47 The mountain bike trails are recognised to be well used both locally and regionally (FCS data 

indicates some 80 % of all visits) and the sensitivity of this receptor is therefore considered to 

be high. However, given that the majority of these routes are within woodland to the south of 

the reservoir where views of the proposed wind farm would be screened by the tree cover, 

and that this user group tends to be more influenced by trail design and accessibility than 

views, it is considered unlikely that the proposed wind farm would deter bikers from using 

these trails. The evidence of the various surveys as identified above into the effect of wind 

farms on tourists supports this conclusion. The magnitude of this effect is therefore 

considered to be small, resulting in a slight negative effect. 

15.4.48 The Lochside Trail is also well used local recreational resource, and forms part of the 

Stirlingshire Core Path network. The sensitivity of this receptor is therefore considered to be 

medium. From the Lochside Trail panoramic views across the Carron Valley towards the 

proposed wind farm would be experienced along the shores of the reservoir, including from 

the viewing area at the end of the trail. Although it is possible that some potential visitors 

may be deterred from using the Lochside Trail due to these views of the proposed wind farm, 

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 access users would be small at worst. Furthermore, it 

should be recognised that although the view may be regarded by some access users as the 

primary reason for using the Lochside Trail, the journey and experiences other than the view 

(such as exercise, shared experience with family/ friends) 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. The magnitude of effect is therefore considered to be small, resulting in 

a slight negative effect. 

15.4.49 The woodlands to the south of the Carron Valley Forest are used by hill walkers and contain 

several paths that form part of the North Lanarkshire core path network. The sensitivity of this 

receptor is therefore considered to be medium. Within these woodlands, views from the 

footpaths into the Kilsyth Hills are determined by the age and density of tree cover and by the 

orientation of the paths. Views from the open summits within this woodland at Meikle Bin, 

Little Bin, Garrel Law and Tomtain are extensive, and all of the proposed turbines would be 

visible. The proposed turbines would also be visible from popular hillwalking skyline routes 

above Campsie Glen such as Lecket Hill, Holehead and Harthill. As outlined above, 

although it is possible that some potential hill walkers may be deterred from using these 

routes which provide access to the hill summits, 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 

access users would be small at worst. The magnitude of effect is therefore considered to be 

small, resulting in a slight negative effect. Further south beyond the Carron Valley Forest, 

views of the proposed wind farm on the south side of the Kilsyth Hills would be obscured by 

the intervening topography. 

15.4.50 The Gargunnock and Touch Hills to the north of the Carron Valley are also well used by hill 

walkers and for grouse shooting and are therefore considered to be of medium sensitivity. 

From these hill ranges views would be restricted by Earl’s Hill and Hart Hill except on the 

upper slopes. Some of the proposed turbines may be also visible from the lower slopes of 

the Fintry Hills to the north west of the site. As outlined above, although it is possible that 

some potential hill walkers and field sports participants may be deterred from these areas, 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 hill walkers and field sports participants would be small at 

worst. In the case of field sports participants, it is considered to be the overall quality of the 

available shooting opportunity more than simply views that is likely to influence decision 

making. The magnitude of effect is therefore considered to be small, resulting in a slight 

negative effect. 

15.4.51 A number of other popular walking and cycling routes in the Carron Valley area may also 

experience views of the proposed wind farm along short durations of these routes, including 

the Tak Ma Doon Road and the minor road which links Stirling to the B818. None of these 

receptors are considered to be of more than low sensitivity. Given the short duration of the 

predicted views , it is considered unlikely that the proposed wind farm would deter walkers or 

cyclists from using these routes. The evidence of the various surveys as identified above into 

the effect of wind farms on tourists supports this conclusion. The magnitude of this effect is 

therefore considered to be small, resulting in a slight negative effect. 

15.4.52 Any views from hills further beyond, including those within the Loch Lomond and the 

Trossachs National Park, would be distant and would consequently be unlikely to deter 

walkers, recreational user groups or visitor numbers to the National Park. 

15.4.53 The Carron Valley 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, all 15 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. 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. 

15.4.54 Any effects upon hydrology during the construction of the proposed wind farm which could 

have the potential to increase sediment load to the Carron Valley Reservoir and consequently 

reduce fish numbers will be mitigated through best practice and the mitigation measures 

identified in ES Chapter 13: Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions. The 

magnitude of this effect is therefore considered to be small. 

15.4.55 Overall the proposed wind farm is therefore anticipated to have a slight negative effect on the 

demand for angling on the Carron Valley Reservoir. 

15.4.56 In terms of other recreational activities, there are relatively few activities in the vicinity of the 

proposed wind farm for it to have a 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, new access tracks, crane 

hardstandings, control area and the temporary construction areas will be achieved where 

possible by restocking additional areas in the main Carron Valley Forest and if possible within 

the Cairnoch Hill forest block. This compensatory restocking will balance the overall 

economic effects regarding forestry operations. 


15.5.3 Minimisation of visual impacts 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 It is proposed that, once the wind farm is operational, PfR will contribute an agreed specified 

annual sum towards continued delivery of the FCS Forest Experience and Interpretation 

Plan. Through this mechanism, income from the operation of the proposed wind farm will be 

provided to FCS for use in developing access and recreational opportunities, as well as for 

maintaining and enhancing existing access and recreational resources within the Carron 

Valley 


15.6.1 The predicted effects of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed 

wind farm are summarised in Table 15.13 below. 






Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


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 

change to baseline 

business/employment 

conditions. 

Slight - 

PfR will seek 

to use local 

labour where 

possible to 

maximise the 

benefits to the 

local 

economy. 

Slight 

Positive: 

Business/employment 

opportunities may 

arise. 

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 - 

PfR will seek 

to use local 

labour where 

possible to 

maximise the 


local 

economy. 

Slight 

Positive: 



arise. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


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 






conditions. 

Slight - 

PfR will seek 

to use local 

labour where 

possible to 

maximise the 


local 

economy. 

Slight 

Positive: 



arise. 

Land use 

Loss of 

commercial 

forestry land. 


operational 

phases. 

Low: There is a 

large extent of 

commercial 

forestry locally. 


commercial forestry 

to be lost is relatively 

small. 

Negligible - 

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 

main Carron 

Valley Forest 

and if possible 

within the 

Cairnoch Hill 

forest block. 

Negligible 

Negative: Loss of 

income from potential 

future harvesting 

activity. 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Industry and 

Attractions 

(Visitor 

Numbers). 

Operational 

phase. 

Medium: There 


gateways to the 

Loch Lomond 

and the 

Trossachs 

National Park 

Small: The length of 

gateway routes to the 

Loch Lomond and 

the Trossachs 

National Park over 

which visual amenity 

would be significantly 

Slight - - Slight 

Negative: Some 

visitors may be 

deterred by visual 

effects. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


with theoretical 

views of the 

proposed wind 

farm to have a 

significant 

effect on the 

tourism industry 

of the area in 

general. 

affected would be 

relatively small in 

relation to total route. 

The number of 

people who feel 

strongly enough 

about wind farms that 

it would deter them 

from visiting the 

National Park is also 

likely to be very 

small. 

Tourism 

Tourist 

Accomodation 

(Visitor 

Numbers). 

Operational 

phase. 

Low: There are 

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 




it would influence 

their holiday 

destination is likely to 

be very small. 

Slight - 

New access 

opportunities 

and facilities 

created as a 

result of the 

proposed wind 

farm may lead 

to an increase 

in demand for 

tourist 

accomodation. 

Slight 




effects. 

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 

Slight / 

negligible 

Where 

possible a 

suitable 

diversion 

would be 

put in 

- 

Slight / 

negligible 


public access on site. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


harvesting and 

restocking 

operations. 

place 

along with 

the 

display of 

signage at 

each end 

of the 

track 

where the 

track is 

diverted. 

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. 

Medium: The 

operation of the 


will provide a source 

of income to FCS to 

realise access 

enhancement and 

creation 


Moderate - - Moderate 

Positive: New access 

opportunities and 

facilities may be 

created. 

Recreation 

and outdoor 

access 

Outdoor 

Access (off 

site) 

experience. 

Operational 

phase. 

Medium: There 


core paths and 

promoted paths 

sufficiently 

close to be 

potentially 

affected. 






from using these 

accesss routes is 


small. 

Slight - 

New access 

opportunities 


created as a 

result of the 

proposed wind 

farm may 

improve the 

existing 

experience for 

some access 

users. 

Slight 


access users may be 


effects. 






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 

and valid applications for wind farms in the area has been identified. 

15.7.2 On the basis of the various surveys as identified above into the effect of wind farms on 

tourists and recreational users, it is concluded that the number of tourists and recreational 

users who may be deterred by potential cumulative landscape and visual effects arising from 

the introduction of the proposed wind farm would be very small. For this reason, no potential 

for significant cumulative effects upon tourism and recreation have been identified. 


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 

FCS (2012) Carron Valley Forest Experience & Interpretation Plan – Final Report. Rob 

Robinson Heritage Consulting for FCS. February 2012 

Office for National Statistics (2009) Gross Disposable Household Income 2009 

Office for National Statistics (2010) Annual Population Survey 2010 

NOMIS (2010) Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2010 

NOMIS (2012) Claimant Count with Rates and Proportions January 2012 

Scottish Executive (2006) Scottish Forestry Strategy 2006 

Scottish Government (2004), Economic Impact of Game and Course Angling in Scotland, 

Scottish Government. Available at: 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/03/19079/34369 

Scottish Government (2008), Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism, Scottish 

Government. Available at: http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/03/07113554/22 

Stirling Counci STEAM Report, 2010 

Stirling Visitor Survey, Stirling Council and Lynn Jones Reserach, 2010 

VisitScotland 2007 Visitor Experience Survey 

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 (2012) Wind Farm Consumer Research. VisitScotland. Available at: 

http://www.visitscotland.org/research_and_statistics/tourism_topics/wind_farms.aspx 





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 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Increase in Traffic 

Volume 


Traffic 

Management 

Plan including 

signage. 

Negligible 

Temporary 

Disruption and 

Driver Delay from 


Construction 

Low 

Small / 

Medium 

Slight / 

Moderate 

Traffic 

Management 

Plan and 


- Slight Temporary 

Road Users 

along Route 

Increased Risk of 

Accidents from 


Severance, 

Intimidation and 

Pedestrian Delay 

from Abnormal 

Loads 



Traffic 

Management 

Plan and 


Traffic 

Management 

Plan and 


Negligible 

Negligible 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Dust and Dirt from 



Traffic 

Management 

Plan and 


Negligible 

Temporary 

Visual Effects from 



Traffic 

Management 

Plan and 


Negligible 

Temporary 





Table 16.2 Summary of Effects - Noise 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Residential 

Noise Sensitive 

Receptors 

Adopting Best 

Temporary Construction High N/A Slight 

Practicable N/A Negligible Temporary 

Means. 

Permanent Operation High N/A Negligible N/A N/A Negligible Permanent 

Temporary Decommissioning High N/A Slight 

Adopting Best 

Practicable 

Means. 


Table 16.3 Summary of Effects – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 


Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Occupiers of 

residential 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Major - - Major 

Temporary 

direct 

property at 

Visual 

High 

Large 

Todholes 

Farm 

Operation 

Substantial - - Substantial 

Permanent 

direct 

Construction/ 

Decommission 


Temporary 

direct 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 


Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Easter 

Cringate 

Cottage 

Operation Major - - Major 

Permanent 

direct 

Occupiers of 

residential 

property at 

Cringate 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Operation 

High 

Medium 



Temporary 

direct 

Permanent 

direct 

Viewpoint 1: 

Todholes 

Bridge. Users 

of footpath 

Visual 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Operation 

High 

Large 



Temporary 

direct 

Permanent 

direct 

Viewpoint 6: 

Carron Valley 

Construction/ 

Decommission 


Temporary 

direct 

Reservoir 

Visual 

High 

Large 

South. Users 

of footpath 

Operation 


Permanent 

direct 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 


Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Occupiers of 

vehicles 

travelling 

east on the 

B818 from 

Sequential 

effects 

Construction/ 

Decommission 

Medium 

Large 


Temporary 

direct 

Balfron to 

Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

Operation 


Permanent 

direct 

Occupiers of 

vehicles 

travelling 

Construction/ 

Decommission 


Temporary 

direct 

west on the 

B818 from 

Carron 

Sequential 

effects 

Medium 

Large 

Bridge to 

Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

Operation 


Permanent 

direct 





Table 16.4 Summary of Effects – Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


Effects on 

buried 

archaeological 

remains 

Disturbance of 

buried remains. 

Construction Negligible None-Large Negligible - - Negligible 

Possible further 


buried remains 

already 

damaged by 

forestry planting. 

Remove spruce 

plantation. 


setting of Sir 

John de 

Graham’s 

Castle (SM 

4278) 

Effect on 

setting. 

Operation High Medium Moderate - 

Revision of 


Non-intrusive 

surveys. 

Targetted sampling 

of moat. 

Historical review. 

Moderate 

Moderate 

negative effect 

on setting. 

Interpretation 

panel. 

Web-page. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 



setting of 


(lower; SM 

2492) 

Effect on 

setting. 





setting of 


(upper; SM 

4491) 

Effect on 

setting. 





setting of 

scheduled 

burial mound on 

Dundaff Hill 

(SM 6553) 

Effect on 

setting. 




Effect on the 

setting of 

Bentend 

Steading 

(Category B 

Listed Building; 

LB 12990) 

Effect on 

setting. 

Operation Medium Small Slight - - Slight 




setting of Fintry 

Castle (SM 

7085) 

Effect on 

setting. 








Table 16.5 Summary of Effects – Terrestrial Ecology 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Upper 

Endrick 

Water LNCS 

Endrick 

Water SSSI 

Endrick 

Water SAC 

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 

Low/ 

Local 

High/ 

National 

High/ 

International 



Small Slight a HSEMS 

- Negligible 


prevention 

measures and 


Small Moderate Considered 

- Slight 

design of 

upgraded 

watercourse 

crossings. 

Small 

Moderate 

Water quality 

monitoring 

covering a 




farm. 

- Slight 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 







Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 




All habitats 

Pollution of 

terrestrial 

habitats through 

airborne and 

waterborne 

sources. 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Slight 



HSEMS outlining 

pollution 

prevention 

measures. 

Timing of works to 

avoid heavy 

periods of rainfall 

when the risk of 

fine sediment 

being transported 

from earth works 

is significantly 

increased. 

- Negligible 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Otter 

Bat species 

Pollution of 

habitats and 

associated prey 

sources. 

Construction 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Application of best practice guidance 

Medium Slight and techniques. 

Negligible 



Small Slight 

measures and dust controls. 

Negligible 

Water quality monitoring. 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Wildcat 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

covering a baseline period and 


construction phase of the wind farm. 

Negligible N/A 

Employment of an ECoW on the site. 

Badger 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

N/A 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Pine marten 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 


Reptiles 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 


Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Invertebrates 

Pollution of 

habitats and 

associated food 

plants. 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 


Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 




Atlantic 

salmon 

Pollution of 

freshwater 

habitats. 

Construction 

Medium/ 

Regional 

Medium 

Moderate 



a HSEMS 


prevention 

measures and 


- Slight 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Considered 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

design of 

watercourse 



Brown/sea 

trout 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Medium 

Slight 

Water quality 

monitoring 

covering a 




farm. 

- Negligible 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 



Coniferous 

plantation 

woodland 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 


Semiimproved 

acid 

grassland 

Semiimproved 

neutral 

grassland 

Damage and 


habitats. 

Construction 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 



Small Slight measures. 

Negligible 

Employment of best practice 

construction methods and habitat 

restoration techniques. 

Small Slight 

Use of micrositing wherever necessary 

Negligible 

under advice of ECoW. 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Marshy 

grassland 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Negligible 

Negligible 

N/A 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Otter 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Pre-construction and pre-felling 

Small Slight checks for protected species to be Negligible 

undertaken by the ECoW. 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Bat species 

Wildcat 

Badger 

Pine marten 

Disturbance, 

displacement 


construction 

activities. 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Specific protection measures for 

Small Slight 

protected species (e.g. covering 

trenches, pits and pipelines). Negligible 



Medium Slight Vehicle speed restrictions on site. Negligible 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 




Medium Slight Negligible 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Invertebrates 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

N/A 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Reptiles 

Disturbance, 

displacement 


construction 

activities. 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Slight 

Removal of 

suitable habitat in 

quarry areas 

outside of the 

hibernation 

season. 

- Negligible 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Brown/sea 

trout 


displacement 

due to 

construction 

activities. 

Construction 

Low/ 

Local 

Slight 

Considered 

design of 

watercourse 



- Negligible 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Coniferous 

plantation 

woodland 

Semiimproved 

acid 

grassland 

Semiimproved 

neutral 

grassland 

Marshy 

grassland 

Direct habitat 

loss through the 

installation of 

wind farm 

infrastructure. 

Operation 

Operation 

Operation 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 

Small Slight - Negligible 



HSEMS detailing 

Small Slight 

habitat delimitation 

to limit the potential 

- Negligible 

for habitat loss, and 

habitat restoration 

techniques. 

Small Slight Use of micrositing 

- Negligible 

wherever necessary 

under advice of 

ECoW. 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Direct, 

negative, 

permanent. 

Direct, 

negative, 

permanent. 

Direct, 

negative, 

permanent. 

- Negligible N/A 

Otter 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 






Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Bat species 

Wildcat 

Habitat loss and 

habitat 

fragmentation. 

Operation 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Low/ 

Local 


Key-hole felling will increase the area 

of suitable habitat. 

Direct, 

negative, 

permanent. 


Badger 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 


Pine marten 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 


Direct, 

negative, 

permanent. 

Reptiles 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 


Invertebrates 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

N/A 

Atlantic 

salmon 

Brown/sea 

trout 

Damage and 


freshwater 

habitats and 

species. 

Operation 

Operation 

Medium/ 

Regional 

Low/ 

Local 

Implementation of best practice and 

Negligible Negligible guidance when carrying out Negligible N/A 

maintenance activities. 

Medium 

Slight 

Preparation of a site pollution incident 

response plan. 

Negligible 

Direct, 

negative, 

temporary. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Atlantic 

salmon 

Brown/sea 

trout 

Habitat 

fragmentation for 

freshwater 

species. 

Operation 

Operation 

Medium/ 

Regional 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible Negligible - - Negligible N/A 

Small Negligible - - Negligible N/A 

All habitats 

Damage, 


pollution of 

terrestrial 

habitats during 

maintenance 

activities. 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Slight 

Implementation of 

best practice and 

guidance when 

carrying out 

maintenance 

activities. 




plan. 

- Negligible 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 


species 


displacement 

due to 

maintenance 

activities. 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Negligible Negligible - 

Demarcation of 

working zones to 

limit disturbance 

to species. 

Vehicle speed 

restrictions. 

Implementation 

of best practice 

and guidance 

when carrying 

out maintenance 

activities. 

Negligible 

N/A 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Conservation 

Value of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Atlantic 

Salmon 

Brown/sea 

trout 

Pollution of 

habitats and 


freshwater 

species during 

maintenance 

operations. 

Operation 

Operation 

Medium/ 

Regional 

Low/ 

Local 


Small Slight 



- Negligible 


HSEMS. 

Small 

Slight 






plan. 

- Negligible 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Indirect, 

negative, 

temporary. 

Bat species 

Death of bats 

through collision 

or barotrauma. 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Small Slight - - Slight 

Direct, 

negative, 

permanent. 


habitats 

Indirect changes 

to habitat 

composition due 

to changes in 

hydrology and 

soil chemistry. 

Operation 

Low/ 

Local 

Small 

Slight 





HSEMS. 






plan. 

- Negligible 

Indirect, 

negative, 

permanent. 

Decommissioning Phase: Of comparable type and of similar magnitude to the construction phase effects 





Table 16.6 Summary of Effects – Ornithology 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


Osprey Habitat loss Construction High/National Small 

Moderate or 

slight 

Artificial nest 

site creation. 

- Negligible 

Potential loss of nest 

site due to tree 

felling. 

Barn owl Habitat loss Construction Medium/Regional Small Slight 

Provision of 

additional nest 

boxes. 

- Negligible 

Potential loss of nest 

site. 

Greylag 

goose 

Habitat loss Construction Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible None predicted. 

No specific 

mitigation 

proposed, 

Breeding 

although felling 

Loss of some 

bird 

Habitat loss Construction Medium/Regional* Small Slight 

for turbine 

- Negligible 

woodland passerine 

assemblage 

placement will 

nest sites. 

create some 

woodland edge 

habitat. 

Osprey Disturbance Construction High/National Small 

Moderate or 

slight 

Pre-construction 

surveys to 


sites. 

Timing where 

- Negligible 

Possible disturbance 

and short-term 

displacement of one 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


possible to 


season. 


Visual 

deterrents. 

Buffer distances 


from nest site. 

Removal of 

suitable nest 

sites within 

disturbance 

zone prior to 

construction, 

alongside new 


created. 

Timing where 

possible to 


season. 

Barn owl Disturbance Construction Medium/Regional Small Slight 

Visual 

deterrents. 

Temporal and 

spatial buffers of 

construction 

around nest site. 

- Negligible 

Possible disturbance 

to nesting pair. 






Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


surveys to 


sites. 

Erection of nest 

boxes away 

from 

disturbance. 

Greylag 

goose 

Disturbance Construction Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible None predicted. 

Timing where 

possible to 


season. 

Breeding 

bird 

assemblage 

Disturbance Construction Medium/Regional* Small Slight 

Visual 

deterrents. 


surveys to 


sites. 

Temporal and 

spatial buffers of 

construction 

- Negligible 

Localised, short-term, 


breeding bird 

assemblage, most 

likely to affect 

woodland passerines. 

around nest 



species) or 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


disturbance 

(Schedule 1 

species). 

Maintenance 


where possible 

to avoid 

breeding 

season. 

Osprey Displacement Operation High/National Small 

Moderate or 

slight 


maintenance 

activities around 

nest site. 

- Negligible 

Possible 

displacement of a 


Erection of 


outside 

displacement 

zone. 

Barn owl Displacement Operation Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible None predicted. 

Greylag 

goose 

Displacement Operation Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible None predicted. 

Breeding 

bird 

assemblage 

Displacement Operation Medium/Regional* Small Slight 

Maintenance 


where possible 

to avoid 

breeding 

Negligible 

Localised 


breeding passerines 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


season. 

from habitat adjacent 


to turbines. 

maintenance 

activities around 

nest sites to 

avoid 


species) or 

disturbance 

(Schedule 1 

species). 

c.2 cases of collision 

mortality predicted at 

the proposed 

Osprey Collision risk Operation High/National Small 

Moderate or 


Valley). 

Moderate but 

tolerable 

(cumulative). 

- - 

Moderate or 


Valley). 

Moderate but 

tolerable 

(cumulative). 

development during 

its proposed 25 year 

operation period. The 

cumulative mortality 

from operational and 

proposed wind farms 

within the foraging 

range of birds using 

airspace over Carron 

Valley is predicted to 

equate to be one bird 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


every 6–7 years. 

Barn owl Collision risk Operation Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible 

Collisions likely to be 

very rare. 

Greylag 

goose 

Collision risk Operation Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible 

c.4 cases of collision 

mortality per year 


proposed 

development, 

representing an 

increase of 0.02% to 

the overall mortality 

of the population. 

Breeding 

bird 

assemblage 

Collision risk Operation Medium/Regional* Negligible Negligible - - Negligible 

Collisions likely to be 

very rare. 

Potential small 

Osprey 

Barrier 

effects 

Operation High/National Small Slight - - Slight 

energetic costs to 

any pairs that nest 

within the proposed 

site boundary. 

Barn owl Barrier Operation Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible None predicted. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change/Effect 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


effects 

Possible minor 

Greylag 

goose 

Barrier 

effects 

Operation Medium/Regional Negligible Negligible - - Negligible 

detours required on 

rare occasions birds 

transit site. 

Breeding 

bird 

assemblage 

Barrier 

effects 

Operation Medium/Regional* Negligible Negligible - - Negligible None predicted. 

*Although the overall breeding bird assemblage is of medium/regional importance, this is largely as a consequence of the open ground species in that 

assemblage. The woodland passerines in the assemblage are likely to be mainly of low/local importance only. 





Table 16.7 Summary of Effects – Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 


Construction Medium Slight The implementation of SuDS. 

Negligible 


Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

Effects on 




flow and 

flooding. 



Slight 


Decommission 

Construction 

Operational 

Low 

Small 

Small 

Small 

Negligible - 

slight 

Negligible - 

slight 

Negligible - 

slight 








Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Permanent. 

Permanent. 


Endrick 

Water 

Effects on 



Decommission 



Negligible 


Construction Low Medium 

Slight to 


moderate Upgrading of existing water crossings using appropriate 

Negligible 

design. 



Negligible 

Decommission 

Small 

Negligible - 

slight 

Negligible 

Permanent. 


flow and 

flooding. 

Construction 

Small 

Slight - 

negligible 

Negligible 

Permanent. 

Operational 

Small 

Slight - 

negligible 

Negligible 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

Decommission Negligible Negligible Negligible 

Construction 

Operational 

Small to 

medium 

Small to 

medium 

Negligible - 

slight 

Negligible - 

slight 






Negligible 

Negligible 

Effects on peat 

hydrological 

regime. 





- 

Permanent. 

Decommission Not assessed Not assessed 




Not assessed 



Surface Water 

Carron Valley 

Reservoir 

Potential 

contamination 


solids and 

erosion. 

Construction 

Operational 

Decommission 

High 



Medium to 

Large 

Small to 

medium 

Moderate to 

very 

substantial 

Negligible 


moderate 



watercourses. 







Slight 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Summary of Effects and Mitigation 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete.


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 









design. 




areas. 



Construction 

Large 


very 

substantial 



watercourses. 

Slight 

Potential 

contamination 



etc. 

Operational 

Decommission 

Small to 

medium 

Large 

Negligible 


very 

substantial 








Negligible 

Slight 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 






Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 







design. 








areas. 



Endrick 

Water 

Potential 

contamination 


solids and 

erosion. 

Construction 

Operational 

Decommission 

High 

Medium to 

Large 

Small to 

medium 

Moderate to 

very 

substantial 

Negligible 


moderate 



watercourses. 







Slight 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 









design. 




areas. 



Construction 

Medium to 

Large 

Very 

substantial - 

substantial 



watercourses. 

Slight 

Potential 

contamination 



etc. 

Operational 

Decommission 

Small to 

medium 

Medium to 

Large 

Negligible 

Very 

substantial - 

substantial 








Negligible 

Slight 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 






Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 







design. 








areas. 



Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology 

Soils 

Temporary water 

controls. 

Alteration to 

drainage and soil 

flow patterns. 

Compaction of 

the soil from site 

traffic. 

Peat stability and 


Construction Medium Slight Negligible 


Operational 

Decommission 

Low 

Small 

Medium 

Negligible - 

slight 

Slight 







- 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 

Changes to 

flow 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 


peat. 



Permanent. 



















Superficial 

Deposits 

Disruption from 

excavation of 

foundations. 

Construction 

Small 

Negligible - 

slight 

Negligible 

Operational Negligible Negligible Detailed design utilising current and location specific Negligible 

Low 


Decommission 

Negligible 

Negligible 



Micrositing of the access track for Turbine 2 to avoid deeper 

peat. 

Negligible 

Short term 

and 

Permanent 

elements. 

Implementing mitigation measure in the peat stability report 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

(Appendix 13.2). 













Geology 

Disruption to 

local geological 

features by 

turbine 

excavations 

required for 

construction. 

Construction 

Small 

Slight - 

negligible 

Detailed design utilising current and location specific 

Negligible 

Operational Low Negligible Negligible 


Negligible 


Decommission 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Short term 

and 

Permanent 

elements. 

Hydrogeolog 

y 

Construction 

High 

Medium 

Moderate - 

substantial 



Slight 

Modifications to 

hydrogeological 

regime. 

Operational 

Medium 

Moderate - 

substantial 





- 

Slight 

Permanent. 

Decommission 



Medium Moderate - 

substantial 



Slight 



Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 




Construction 

Operational 

Medium 

Medium 

Substantial - 

moderate 


moderate 


Water quality monitoring and visual inspection 

of watercourses. 


Negligible 

Negligible 



Chemical 

Pollution, 

potential spills 

and leaching of 

contaminants. 

Decommission 

Medium 


moderate 












- 

Slight 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 






facilities. 






Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 










Private water 

supplies 

Construction Negligible Negligible Production of a HSEMS. 

Negligible 



watercourses. 

Negligible 



Potential 


water supply. 

Decommission 

Negligible 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 









Not assessed 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 









Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

design. 








areas. 



Potential effect 

on quantity of 

water supply. 

Construction Negligible Negligible Ensuring a Negligible 

minimum 

Operational Negligible Negligible stream 

water depth 

Negligible 

is 

maintained. 

Decommission 

Negligible 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

- 

On-site 

water 

storage 


high 

demand 

periods. 

Not assessed 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 

Public water 

supplies and 

abstractions 

Potential 


water supply. 

Construction 

Operational 

Medium - 

Large 



Moderate – 

Very 

substantial 

Slight 

Small Slight – 





- 

Slight 

Negligible 

Summary of Effects and Mitigation 

Temporary – 

until 

decommission 

phase


Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

moderate 




complete. 











Decommission 

Large 


very 

substantial 




facilities. 

Slight 










Potential impact Construction Negligible Negligible Negligible - Leaving a Negligible 

Temporary – 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Nature of 

Effect 

on water 

resources. 


portion of 

water in 

Negligible 

stream. 

Decommission Negligible Negligible 

On-site 

water 

storage 


high 

demand 

periods. 

Not assessed 

until 

decommission 

phase 

complete. 





Table 16.8 Summary of Effects – Socio-Economics, Tourism, Land Use and Recreation 

Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


Employment 

and the 

economy 

Additional 

local 

expenditure. 



phases. 

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. 

Small: There is no 

guarantee that 

contractors materials 

and equipment would 

be sourced locally. 

Expenditure would be 

for a short temporary 






conditions. 

Slight - 

PfR will seek 

to use local 

labour where 

possible to 

maximise the 


local 

economy. 

Slight 

Positive: 



arise. 

Employment 

and the 

economy 

Direct local 

employment. 

Construction, 

operation and 


phases. 

Medium: Local 

economy has 

capacity to 

benefit from 

contracts 


the proposed 

wind farm. 


opportunities 

associated with the 


is expected to be 

relatively small. 

Slight - 

PfR will seek 

to use local 

labour where 

possible to 

maximise the 


local 

economy. 

Slight 

Positive: 



arise. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


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 temporary 






conditions. 

Slight - 

PfR will seek 

to use local 

labour where 

possible to 

maximise the 


local 

economy. 

Slight 

Positive: 



arise. 

Land use 

Loss of 

commercial 

forestry land. 


operational 

phases. 

Low: There is a 

large extent of 

commercial 

forestry locally. 


commercial forestry 

to be lost is relatively 

small. 

Negligible - 

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 

main Carron 

Valley Forest 

and if possible 

within the 

Cairnoch Hill 

forest block. 

Negligible 


income from potential 

future harvesting 

activity. 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Industry and 

Attractions 

(Visitor 

Numbers). 

Operational 

phase. 

Medium: There 


gateways to the 

Loch Lomond 

and the 

Trossachs 

National Park 

Small: The length of 

gateway routes to the 

Loch Lomond and 

the Trossachs 

National Park over 

which visual amenity 

would be significantly 

Slight - - Slight 




effects. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


with theoretical 

views of the 

proposed wind 

farm to have a 

significant 

effect on the 

tourism industry 

of the area in 

general. 

affected would be 

relatively small in 

relation to total route. 

The number of 





from visiting the 

National Park is also 


small. 

Tourism 

Tourist 

Accomodation 

(Visitor 

Numbers). 

Operational 

phase. 

Low: There are 

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. 





it would influence 

their holiday 

destination is likely to 

be very small. 

Slight - 

New access 

opportunities 


created as a 

result of the 

proposed wind 

farm may lead 

to an increase 

in demand for 

tourist 

accomodation. 

Slight 




effects. 

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 

Slight / 

negligible 

Where 

possible a 

suitable 

diversion 

would be 

put in 

- 

Slight / 

negligible 


public access on site. 





Receptor 

Effect 

Development 

Phase 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Significance 

Prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Significance 

after 

Mitigation 


harvesting and 

restocking 

operations. 

place 

along with 

the 

display of 

signage at 

each end 

of the 

track 

where the 

track is 

diverted. 

Recreation 

and outdoor 

access 

Outdoor 

Access 

development 


Operational 

phase. 

Medium: The 

site is currently 

not well used 

for public 

access and has 

excellent 

potential. 

Medium: The 

operation of the 


will provide a source 

of income to FCS to 

realise access 

enhancement and 

creation 



Positive: New access 

opportunities and 

facilities may be 

created. 

Recreation 

and outdoor 

access 

Outdoor 

Access (off 

site) 

experience. 

Operational 

phase. 

Medium: There 


core paths and 

promoted paths 

sufficiently 

close to be 

potentially 

affected. 






from using these 

accesss routes is 


small. 

Slight - 

New access 

opportunities 


created as a 

result of the 

proposed wind 

farm may 

improve the 

existing 

experience for 

some access 

users. 

Slight 


access users may be 


effects. 





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 

Traffic and Transport 

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. 

Construction Phase 

A Noise and Vibration Management Plan will be incorporated into the HSEMS (see Appendix 4.4) that will identify Best Practicable Means 

(as defined in the Control of Pollution Act (CoPA) (1974)), in the form of construction best practice measures, to appropriately and 





Topic 

Landscape and Visual Impact 

Assessment 

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 


effectively manage noise and vibration from construction activities. Typical mitigation measures may include: 

• Agreed core hours of noisy working; 

• Commitments to using well maintained, low noise emission plant; 

• Switching off plant when not in use; 

• Considerate management and working to minimise noise impacts, e.g. low haul road speed; and 

• Contact details for site personnel in case of noise issues. 

Operational Phase 

No mitigation measures are required. 

Decommissioning Phase 

A noise assessment would be required 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 most significant impacts of this proposed wind farm on the historic environment is its effect on the setting of Sir John de Graham’s 

Castle and thus the mitigation approach has been focussed on diminishing and offsetting these effects. 

The proposed wind farm layout has gone through several design iterations, including the complete removal of one turbine. The results of 

these changes has increased the distance of the nearest turbine to Sir John de Graham’s Castle from 200 m to 480 m. In terms of 

turbines that affect views from the castle looking along the valley the nearest turbine will now be more than 1 km away. 

Removal of an area of non-native plantation that currently lies between the Castle and Carron Valley Reservoir with th aim of significantly 

opening up views both from and towards the castle, going some way to restoring its position within the wider local landscape that has 

been obscured in recent decades. 

For the longer-term management of the Caslte by the FCS the following is proposed to take tackle concerns expressed about the use of 

the site for camping, involving removal of stones from the ruins, the burning of camp fires within the scheduled area, as well as evidence 

for illicit metal detecting on the site and a lack of information availble to the public about the significance of the site 

• An aerial photographic and earthworks survey of the Castle and associated features; 

• A geophysical survey of the motte and the area to the north-east; 

• Targeted sampling of the sedimentary sequence in the motte to retrieve i) dating evidence for the period of its use and ii) an 





Topic 

Terrestrial Ecology 


understanding of the changing environment of the area during the medieval period and subsequently; 

• A review of primary historic sources to try to recover a clearer idea of the Castle’s history; 

• An illustrated interpretation panel on the site setting out in an accessible the results of this research; and 

• A web-page on the FCS website providing public access to further information on this work and its results. 

. 

Pre-Construction Mitigation 

Within 6 months prior to commencement of the 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 micrositing 

and/or adjustments to the construction programme to take into account any up-dated distributions or presence of species. 

Construction Mitigation 

All relevant mitigation measures will be implemented through the project Health, Safety and Environmental Management System 

(HSEMS) (HSEMS, see Chapter 4, Appendix 4.4), which will be prepared in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of Stirling 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; 

• 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; and 

• Timing of works to avoid periods of heavy rain when the risk of fine sediment being transported from earth works is significantly 





Topic 


increased. 

Pollution incident response and drainage management measures will be prepared as a part of the HSEMS to minimise potential pollution 

effects. 

An Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) will be present on site to oversee enabling works and construction. Part of the ECoW’s duties will 

be to provide pre-construction and pre-felling checks for all European Protected Species, water voles, badgers, pine marten, red squirrel 

and reptiles. 

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 site in order to minimise the risk of collision with animals. 

Removal of the most suitable terrestrial habitats for reptiles to be affected by construction activities will be planned to take place outside 

of the hibernation periods for these species and supervised by the ECoW who will halt works where necessary to allow reptiles to move 

away from the affected areas. 

Where water crossings are to be upgraded, these will be designed so as to not present any barriers to the passage of migratory fish or 

other fauna. 

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, electrofishing surveys and macroinvertebrate sampling to ensure water 

quality is maintained. 

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. 

Mitigation measures specific to the protection of badgers on the site are detailed further within Chapter 11, Appendix 11.7 (confidential). 

Operation Mitigation 

The vehicle speed restrictions stipulated during the construction phase will continue during the operation of the 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 wind farm 

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 


A method statement for responding to bat corpses should be included in the site operation procedures. Incidental records of dead bats 

should 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. 





Topic 


In line with SNH accepted Natural England guidance, all habitats within 50 m of the turbines blade tips should be maintained in 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 

Best practice regarding breeding birds 

There is a need to follow best practice during the construction of the development to ensure compliance with the legislation concerning 

disturbance to breeding birds. 

Legislative protection 

Best practice will be necessary to reduce the possibility of illegal damage, destruction or disturbance to occupied bird nests during the 

construction phase (or during any maintenance work in the operational phase). Three best practice measures outlined below will be 

adopted: the use of an ECoW, and the timing of construction activities and visual deterrents. There will be a clear line of responsibility for 

ensuring these measures are adhered to, which will be specified in the HSEMS to which the appointed contractor will be required to 

adhere (see Chapter 4, Appendix 4.4). 


A suitably experienced ECoW will carry out pre-construction surveys and locate any active nests close to construction works shortly 

before these commence. 

Timing of construction activities and visual deterrents 

If feasible, site clearance and construction activities will be timed to take place outside of the main breeding season so as to avoid nest 

destruction and disturbance to breeding birds 

Where working in the breeding season can be avoided, activities will aim to commence before mid-March wherever possible. By timing 

construction activities to start before the breeding season, birds will have an 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 nest site for that season. 

In areas where work is unavoidable during the breeding season, deterrents may be placed within a restricted area well in advance so that 

birds will not choose to nest within that locality. Examples of deterrence include using bird scarers, reflective tape or ribbons on posts or 

physical removal of habitat. 

Where applicapble, construction activities in close proximity to breeding birds would be limited to certain periods of the day, such as 

avoiding periods two hours before and after dawn and dusk where species such as barn owl are most active. 





Topic 


Ground Conditions 


Pre-construction surveys 

Following the implementation of any appropriate deterrent devices prior to the breeding season, surveys will be undertaken by an ECoW 

or other suitably-qualified person, to locate nesting birds and lekking black grouse in the vicinity of construction works to ensure that none 

are disturbed. 

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 construction operations 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. 

Larger buffer distances will be used to avoid spatial overlap of construction activities and breeding attempts of Schedule 1 and/or Annex I 

species, which are subject to additional protection relating to disturbance during the breeding season. 

If nest building activity of Schedule 1 species is seen within a cordoned area, continued deterrence would constitute disturbance and is an 

offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, so would be stopped immediately. In this case, and also if birds are nesting outside of 

controlled areas but in the opinion of the ECoW within possible disturbance zones, the work will either be re-scheduled or the nest site 

cordoned-off and destruction prevented. 

In such situations, SNH recommends that pre-construction breeding bird surveys take place, with works then being programmed to avoid 

disturbance. A number of surveys may therefore be required as construction progresses through the site. 

Mitigation and Enhancement for Osprey and Barn Owl 

Specific objectives will be made for osprey if required. In conjunction with the Central Scotland Raptor Study Group, artificial nests and/or 

nesting platforms would be proposed within suitable habitat in the local area, beyond recognised disturbance-displacement zones from 

the proposed development or other projects, and within areas that are likely to facilitate the continued expansion of the central Scotland 

population (e.g. on the shore-side of Carron Valley Reservoir or in the forestry to the south). Site selection and construction will follow 

relevant best practice guidelines (e.g. http://www.roydennis.org/osprey/index.asp?id=90). The aim will be to help continue the upward 

population trend and range expansion of osprey numbers in central Scotland. 

Additional barn owl boxes will be placed in suitable habitat, away from the effects of the wind farm, if any current sites are to be disturbed. 

This will help reverse the habitat loss and fragmentation for this species of conservation concern. 

In conjunction with creation of new nest sites, forest clearance undertaken by FCS in advance of the wind farm construction programme 

will also be undertaken with ospreys in mind. Surveys will be conducted prior to wind farm construction to determine the remaining 

locations of any potential nesting trees within displacement or high collision risk zones on Cairnoch Hill, and these will be felled or the 

crowns removed during the non-breeding season. The extent and suitability of this measure will be determined by the ECoW in 

conjunction with FCS and will include discussions with SNH and the Central Scotland Raptor Study Group if considered appropriate. 

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 





Topic 




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 training 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 

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 



Topic 


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. 

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; 



Topic 


• 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 low to medium 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 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 and upgraded between the site entrance and construction 

compound. 

The 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. 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. 

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. 

In general, 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 1.3 % in any sub-catchment. 

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. 





Topic 


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 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 Negligiblely affected by the track. 


The proposed wind farm access tracks require upgrading, which will require all but one of the existing water crossings to be upgraded. 

Upgrading of the existing water crossings is considered to be the best environmental option, in comparison with replacing the existing 

crossings completely. 

Location of the new site access tracks required for the development has been minimised to avoid the need for water crossings where 

possible. As such, no additional water crossing will be required. 

Extended crossing structures will not form a barrier to 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. 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. 

Watercourses, 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; 

and 

• 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. 

Concrete Batching and Pouring 





Topic 

Shadow Flicker 

Socioeconomics, Tourism, 

Recreation and Land Use 


If concrete batching is to be undertaken on site, it should be undertaken only in a designated area, away from watercourses, private 

water supplies, wetland areas and in an impermeable area. 

Washout from concrete batching and drainage from the concrete batching area will be collected in a separate drainage system and 

treated before being discharged. 

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 batching and pouring will not be undertaken during adverse weather. 

Traffic 

Site traffic will be kept to clearly designated tracks, as per the site traffic management plan. 

Barriers and/or netting will be used to prevent vehicle movements in sensitive areas. 

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. 

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 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 required. 


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, new access tracks, 

crane hardstandings, control area and the temporary construction areas will be achieved where possible by restocking additional areas in 

the main Carron Valley Forest and if possible within the Cairnoch Hill forest block. This compensatory restocking will balance the overall 

economic impacts regarding forestry operations. 





Topic 



Minimisation of visual impacts 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. 

It is proposed that, once the wind farm is operational, PfR will contribute an agreed specified sum towards continued delivery of the FCS 

Forest Experience and Interpretation Plan. Through this mechanism, income from the operation of the proposed wind farm will be 

provided to FCS for use in developing access and recreational opportunities, as well as for maintaining and enhancing existing access 

and recreational resources within the Carron Valley. 





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 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, that 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 Environmental Statement (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 Chapter 4: Description of the Proposed 

Development of this ES. 

9.1.6 The planning policy overview for the proposed wind farm is set out in Chapter 5: Planning 

Policy Overview 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 100 m, 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 Stirling Council (SC), North Lanarkshire Council (NLK), Falkirk Council (FK), East 

Dunbartonshire Council (EDC), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Loch Lomond and the 



Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment


Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA) in order to determine sensitive receptors and 

representative viewpoints. 

9.2.3 A plan within the Scoping Report of September 2011 illustrating a preliminary zone of 

theoretical visibility (ZTV) based on a 126 m blade tip height for the 16 turbine scheme and 

20 candidate viewpoint locations provided the basis for the consultation. SNH suggested new 

viewpoints at Meikle Bin, Conic Hill and Falkirk Wheel upper basin. LLTNPA suggested the 

David Marshall Lodge as a potential alternative to the Mentieth Hills viewpoint. The NPA also 

recommended views from the following ‘gateway routes’ for consideration within the ES; the 

A811 from Balloch, the A81 from Aberfoyle, the A82 Alexandria to Luss. The following 

sequential receptors were suggested; the A811 from Stirling to Balfron Station, the A873 

Stirling to Aberfoyle, the A81 Aberfoyle to Balfron Station, the A809/A81 from Glasgow to 

Balfron Station, the West Highland Way from Balmaha to Conic Hill, cyclists on the NCR7 

from Balloch to Aberfoyle and walkers using the Rob Roy Way parallel to this. The Councils 

were content with the choice of viewpoints. 

9.2.4 As part of the consultation process Viewpoint 5: minor road from Kilsyth was discarded in 

favour of a location at Tomtain Hill which is a local high point in the landscape. Viewpoint 17: 

Antonine Wall was also discarded in favour of a new viewpoint at Falkirk Wheel, as no 

significant views could be identified within the ZTV. Following site visits and the preparation 

of wirelines this viewpoint was also discarded as no view of the proposals would be possible. 

9.2.5 A final list of 22 candidate viewpoints was established following the consultation process. The 

locations were visited and photography undertaken to establish their relevance within the 

assessment process. 

9.2.6 Other specific issues raised by SNH include; 

• The need to consider the Stirling Landscape Capacity Study. 

• Consideration should be given during the design phase to existing, consented and 

planned wind farms in the vicinity. 

9.2.7 This LVIA addresses the main issues of concern raised by SC, as determining authority, and 

statutory consultees during the pre-application consultations. 

9.2.8 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 

9.2.9 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. 

9.2.10 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); 

• Stirling Council, Stirling Landscape and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development 

(Nov. 2007); 

• Central Region Landscape Character Assessment, ASH Consulting Group (1999); 

• 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). 

9.2.11 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 

9.2.12 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. 

9.2.13 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. 





9.2.14 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 a ‘worst case scenario’ i.e. 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. 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 & Cumulative Effects) 

9.2.15 The baseline for EIA purposes is taken as being the existing situation at submission of the 

application, including operational wind farms. 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 

which changes 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 2015 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 has since been withdrawn without any assurances that a revised or modified 

application is known to be pending are not included in the assessment. 

9.2.16 The cumulative effects of two or more wind farm schemes should consider the effect of all 

those wind farms within 70 km (i.e. twice the 35 km study area for each wind farm). The 

assessment concentrates on cumulative wind farms within a 35 km radius of the site and 

more specifically the developments which are likely to influence the decision making process. 

Nature and Scope of Effects 

9.2.17 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. 

9.2.18 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. 

9.2.19 Standard practice treats landscape and visual effects separately and, as a matter of 

convention, landscape effects have been dealt with first. 

Assessment Process 

9.2.20 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. 

9.2.21 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. 

9.2.22 The assessment of representative viewpoints has been supplemented by scheduling 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) 

9.2.23 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. 

9.2.24 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. 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 

9.2.25 Field surveys have been undertaken over a number of months providing a good 

understanding of the site and study area. 

9.2.26 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. 

9.2.27 The visual amenity of the study area was surveyed 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. 

9.2.28 The study area was traversed extensively during the field study to verify the extent of the ZTV 

maps. 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. 

9.2.29 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 

9.2.30 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 

9.2.31 Individual viewpoints are selected on the basis of where the proposal is theoretically visible 

from and where it is likely to have a significant effect. This can create a slightly misleading 

impression when assessing a number of viewpoints along a route. The sections of the route 

from where the proposal is not visible tend not to be represented through viewpoints. 

9.2.32 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. 

9.2.33 Throughout the study area users of a small number of roads, National Trails, Rights of Way 

and core paths would experience changes due to the introduction of the proposed wind farm 

in the view. Receptors assessed as part of the sequential assessment are shown in Figure 

9.19. 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. 





9.2.34 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. 

9.2.35 The potential for effects to occur in views from roads 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 in the local area, much will depend on 

local circumstances including the extent to which roadside vegetation or forestry filter or 

screen views towards the site. 

9.2.36 The roads assessed in the sequential assessment are the B818 from Balfron to Carron 

Bridge, the B822 Campsie Fells, the A811 from Drymen to the junction with the A81 and the 

minor road east of Earl’s Hill to Todholes Bridge. Occupiers of vehicles in these locations 

would be receptors of medium sensitivity. Walkers using the minor road east of Earl’s Hill 

would be of high sensitivity. Walkers using the West Highland Way from Balmaha to Conic 

Hill would be of high sensitivity to sequential effects on views. 

Cumulative Effects 

9.2.37 Cumulative effects are the effects of the proposed wind farm in combination with other 

existing and proposed wind farms in the study area. 

9.2.38 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. 

9.2.39 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. 

9.2.40 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 100m 

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. The majority of the baseline data gathering and figure preparation was 

undertaken prior to the publication of the March 2012 guidance and was based on a study 

area radius of 70 km. This larger study area has been retained for the project. 

9.2.41 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, given the detailed and discrete nature 

of the assessment. 





9.2.42 An initial list of all proposals within 70 km of the proposed wind farm was prepared based on 

information derived from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the RenewableUK (RUK) 

(formerly BWEA) and the Stirling Council. This was sent to the various council regions in 

which the proposals are based for comment. 

9.2.43 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. 

9.2.44 In assessing the cumulative effects of wind farms within 35 and 70 km (Figure 9.15 and 9.16), 

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 

9.2.45 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 virtually inevitable that from some 

angles this will occur, but the extent to which this happens, and the importance of the 

views from where this takes place has an influence on the significance of the effect. 

Other vertical elements, such as pylons, can also detract from the unity of the proposal 

and add to a sense of visual confusion; 

• Movement: the movement of an object in a landscape that provides distraction or 

interest including the rotation of a turbine. This can relate to landscapes which are 

relatively still and static and landscapes which 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 

9.2.46 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 20c. 

9.2.47 The majority of the photographs were taken in favourable conditions and clear visibility. 

Where this was not possible the computer generated wind turbines have been adjusted to 

achieve enough contrast to aid visibility. 

9.2.48 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 

9.2.49 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 

9.2.50 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. 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. 

9.2.51 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) or undesignated but 

value expressed through literature and cultural associations or through 

demonstrable use. 





Value Designation Example 

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. 

9.2.52 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. 

Condition 

9.2.53 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 

Example 

Very Good Strong structure; very attractive with distinct features worthy of conservation; strong sense 

of place; no detracting features. 

Good 

Ordinary 

Poor 

Very Poor 

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. 

Damaged structure; evidence of severe disturbance or dereliction; no distinctiveness; 

detracting features dominate. 

9.2.54 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. 

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. 

9.2.55 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. 

9.2.56 Significance in landscape character terms is defined to the extent to which new landscape 

types/character area 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. 

9.2.57 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). 

9.2.58 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’. 

9.2.59 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. 

Medium tolerance to change. 

Medium 





Resource Rationale Sensitivity 

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. 

High tolerance to change. 

High tolerance to change. 

Low 

Negligible 

9.2.60 Magnitude of landscape effect (i.e. effect upon the landscape resource or its constituent part) 

is defined as high, medium, low 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 cocharacterising 

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 

9.2.61 The assessment of visual effects is based on the magnitude of the change and the relative 

sensitivity of the receptors (viewers). 

9.2.62 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). 





9.2.63 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. 

9.2.64 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. 

9.2.65 The magnitude of likely effects is categorised as follows: 

Table 9.6 Magnitude of Change - Visual Receptors 

Magnitude of Effect 

Large 

Medium 

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. predevelopment 

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. 





Magnitude of Effect 

Small 

Negligible 

Example 

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 

9.2.66 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). 

9.2.67 Significance of landscape and visual effects is 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 

Where the proposed changes would be 

uncharacteristic and would compromise 

the integrity of a landscape or objectives 

of a designation. 

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. 

Major 


uncharacteristic and/or would 

significantly alter a valued aspect of 

landscape character. 


uncharacteristic and/or would significantly alter 

a valued view or a view of high scenic quality. 





Significance 

of Effects 

Moderate 

Landscape Resource 

Where proposed changes would be 

noticeably out of scale or at odds with 

the character of an area. 

Visual Resource / Amenity 

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 and/or would maintain 

quality, or where the benefits of 

proposed mitigation would balance 

adverse impacts. 

Where proposed changes would have a barely 

noticeable effect on views/visual amenity. 

Where proposals would retain existing views, 

or where on balance the proposed mitigation 

would maintain the quality of the views. 

9.2.68 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: The Environmental Impact 

Assessment and Scoping Process of the ES to enable topic specific effects to be more 

accurately assessed. 

Table 9.8 Establishing the Significance of Effect 

Sensitivity of Receptor 

Magnitude of Change/Impact 

LARGE 

MEDIUM 

SMALL 

NEGLIGIBLE 


Substantial 

Major or 

Moderate 

Moderate or 

Slight 

Slight or 

Negligible 

Major or 

Moderate 

Moderate or 

Slight 

Slight or 

Negligible 


Slight Slight Negligible 

Negligible Negligible Negligible 

9.2.69 In the assessment of visual effects, 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. 





9.2.70 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 

9.2.71 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. 

9.2.72 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 

9.2.73 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 

9.2.74 ‘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. 

9.2.75 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 is 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 

9.2.76 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. 

9.2.77 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. 

9.2.78 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. 

9.2.79 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. The assessment of effects is 

based on a worst case scenario of excellent visibility experienced during clear atmospheric 

conditions and bright or sunny weather. 


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, in order to 

identify more clearly baseline conditions and potential effects in the immediate vicinity of the 

proposals. 





Overview of the Proposal Site 

9.3.2 The proposal site lies within the Carron Valley on the northern shores of the Carron Valley 

Reservoir. The site extends over the rounded landform of Cairnoch Hill which rises from 

226 m AOD at the reservoir to 413 m AOD at the peak. To the north lie the Fintry, 

Gargunnock and Touch Hills which combine as an undulating plateau of uplands and to the 

south lies the ridge of Kilsyth Hills and Campsie Fells. These upland areas provide the 

immediate context of the proposal site due to the location of the site within this combined 

upland plateau area well away from visually distinctive hill edges, which contrast with the 

relatively flat expanses of the Forth Valley and the Kelvin/Clyde Valley. 

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 

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. A few stone wall field boundaries form remnants from the site’s 

previous agricultural land use. The grassed over earth work remains of Sir John de Graham’s 

Castle lie in a clearing in the south west corner of the site. This is a Scheduled Monument 

and is described and assessed within Chapter 10: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology. 

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, ruderal weeds and gorse scrub has become established. Adjacent to the 

B818, 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 

Goat willow (Salix caprea), Alder (Alnus glutinosa) and Silver birch (Betula pendula). 

Communications 

9.3.5 There are no roads within the site. The B818 follows the alignment of the southern boundary, 

between the forestry and the reservoir. 

Settlement 

9.3.6 There are no towns or villages adjacent to the proposal site or within the local study area. 

Residential properties are scattered along the B818. 

Core Paths and Access 

9.3.7 There is one public right of way, designated as a ‘core path’ which links the north western 

corner of the site on the access track to Cringate and continues north up the valleys of 

Endrick Water and Backside Burn towards Kippen. Several core paths are also associated 

with the Carron Valley Forest on the south side of the reservoir. 

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 6: 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 

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 

9.3.11 The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park lies approximately 20 km to the north 

west of the proposal site. The National Park (Scotland) Act 2000 defines the following four 

key objectives for National Parks; 

• ‘To conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area, 

• To promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area, 

• To promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of 

recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public, and 

• To promote sustainable economic and social development of the area's communities’. 

9.3.12 The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Local Plan adopted in October 2011 

states within Policy SQ1 Conserving and Enhancing Special Qualities underpins all policies, 

programmes and activities within the plan. 

9.3.13 The Special Qualities of The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park are outlined in 

Scottish Natural Heritage and Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority 

(2020) Commissioned Report, No.376, and are determined as follows: 

• ‘A world-renowned landscape farmed for its beauty; 

• Wild and rugged highlands contrasting with pastoral lowlands; 

• Water in its many forms; 

• The rich variety of woodlands; 

• Settlements nestled within a vast natural backdrop; 

• Famous through-routes; 

• Tranquillity; and 

• The easily accessible landscape splendour.’ 





National Scenic Areas 

9.3.14 There are 40 National Scenic Areas (NSAs) in Scotland, two of which lie 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.’ 

9.3.15 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’. 

9.3.16 The two NSA’s coincide with the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park and are 

defined as; 

• Loch Lomond NSA; 

• The Trossachs NSA. 

9.3.17 The Loch Lomond NSA lies within the south eastern part of the National Park and is 

described by the National Park Authority as follows; 

‘Ben Lomond stands guard over Loch Lomond, the largest expanse of freshwater in 

Great Britain and the romantic centrepiece of the National Park. In the north the loch is 

deep and narrow, bound by steep-sided mountains. Further south it spills into an island 

studded panorama’. 

9.3.18 The Trossachs NSA lies within the north eastern part of the National Park and is described by 

the National Park Authority as follows; 

‘The Trossachs, the wild glens and sparkling lochs between Callander and Aberfoyle – 

are often regarded as the ‘Highlands in miniature’. Here the contrast between Highlands 

and Lowlands is stark as you leave Aberfoyle to climb up through the twisting Duke’s 

Pass to Loch Katrine’. 

Regional Designations 

Areas of Great Landscape Value 

9.3.19 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. 

9.3.20 The AGLV in which the site is located lies on the southern edge of the Stirling region, 

extending from Killearn in the west to Stirling in the east and comprising the northern slopes 

of the Campsie Fells, the Fintry Hills, Touch Hills and Gargunnock Hills. 

9.3.21 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 20c. 






9.3.22 In the SNH commissioned report 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), it states that: 

‘there is considered to be a need for a second tier of high-quality landscape 

designations, but the present arrangements for this regional level, using many different 

names and criteria, are inadequate and confusing’. 

9.3.23 The report finds that with respect to regional landscape designations, AGLVs and other 

landscape designation names, cause a state of confusion. It suggests that a more consistent 

approach across Scotland would help to clarify the level of designation and that a simpler title 

of ‘Regional Scenic Areas’ be adopted for all regional landscape designations. 

9.3.24 There are three Regional Scenic Areas (RSAs) currently identified within the study area, the 

Kilpatrick Hills (within West Dunbartonshire), the Campsie Fells (within East Dunbartonshire) 

and the Kilsyth Hills (within North Lanarkshire). The latter two RSAs lie adjacent to each other 

and abut an AGLV to the north. 

Local Designations 

9.3.25 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. 

Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes 

9.3.26 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. 

9.3.27 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: 

Planning Policy Overview), 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 9.5. 

9.3.28 The 42 Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes identified within the area of search are 

shown on Figure 9.10. The following 7 sites coincide with the ZTV: 

• Rossdhu, Loch Lomond; 

• Buchanan Castle; 

• Dunmore Park; 

• Talliallan Castle; 

• Dunimarle Castle; 

• Valley Field, Culross; 





• Callendar Park, Falkirk. 

9.3.29 The presence of extensive mature woodland and tree planting which forms part of the 

designed landscape at each of these locations is likely to obscure all significant views of the 

wind farm proposal. No significant effects are predicted on the character of the landscape, 

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 

9.3.30 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 

9.3.31 Previous Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) 

series have been replaced by a single, consolidated SPP (2010), and in doing so national 

planning policy for Scotland has been rationalised. Paragraphs 125 – 148 of the SPP (2010) 

outline the approach to Landscape and Natural Heritage. 

The Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park 

9.3.32 Within the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Local Plan, Policy REN5 

Renewable Energy Development Adjacent to the National Park Boundary provides some 

guidance for development outside, although visible from, the National Park, although the 

proposed wind farm lies approximately 20 km to the south east of the National Park. 

‘The National Park Authority, as a statutory consultee, will support renewable energy 

developments outwith the Park where: 

(a) They will not individually, or cumulatively with other developments or proposals, 

have a significant adverse visual impact on the landscape setting of the Park and 

its principal gateways; 

(b) They do not result in significant adverse impacts upon protected sites, species or 

biodiversity interests within the Park; as a result of cross boundary effects; and 

(c) They do not result in significant adverse impacts upon residential amenity by virtue 

of proximity, noise generation, shadow flicker, lighting, or visual impact. 

The National Park Authority will object to renewable energy developments outwith the 

Park where these criteria are not met.’ 

Local Planning Policy 

East Dunbartonshire Council 

9.3.33 A number of policies are identified within the East Dunbartonshire Local Plan (October 2011) 

of which the following have most relevance to landscape and visual amenity. 





9.3.34 Policy DQ8 – Renewable Energy Developments states: 

‘The Council will generally support proposals for all types of renewable energy 

development except: 

a) where there would be an adverse impact on historic and natural environment 

resources defined in this plan 

b) where there would be an adverse impact on the landscape quality of the Green 

Belt, Campsie Fells and Kilpatrick Hills Regional Scenic Areas 

c) where there would be an adverse impact on local amenity through traffic, noise and 

visual impact 

d) windfarm developments in the Campsie Fells and Kilpatrick Hills Scenic Areas’. 

9.3.35 Policy NE4 – Protection of Landscape Character states: 

‘Development in any location will not be permitted if it would result in significant adverse 

impacts on the landscape character of the Green Belt or a Regional Scenic Area 

(Kilpatrick Hills/Campsie Fells). In assessing any impact, account will be taken of the 

landscape value of any area designated during the life of the plan as of Local 

Landscape Quality, and of the findings and recommendations of the Glasgow and Clyde 

Valley Landscape Character Assessment. Development within either Regional Scenic 

Area should be designed and landscaped so as to protect and reinforce its landscape 

character’. 

North Lanarkshire Council 

9.3.36 With regards to the Kilsyth Hills RSA, the protection afforded to RSAs is identified within the 

North Lanarkshire Local Plan Finalised Draft (2009), policy ‘NBE1 Protecting the Natural and 

Built Environment, A Natural Environment’, which states: 

‘The Council will safeguard sites of importance for natural heritage and Biodiversity from 

development. Planning permission will only be granted for proposals potentially 

affecting these sites of recognised importance if the applicant demonstrates to the 

Council’s satisfaction that there will be no adverse impact, or that any impacts can be 

mitigated in environmental terms relevant to the impact’. 


9.3.37 The Development Plan for Stirling comprises the Stirling Council Local Plan (adopted 1999) 

and the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan (2002). Identified within the 

Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan (March,2002) Policy ENV2 states, with regards 

to Protected Landscapes: 

‘1. In National Scenic Areas development will only be permitted where there is a 

specific site requirement for the development which council not be met in a less 

sensitive location, and where the nationally important landscape character and 

scenic interest of the designated area would not be adversely affected. 

Developments which are approved will be expected to satisfy particularly rigorous 

quality stands. 

2. In Areas of Great Landscape Value development will only be permitted if it satisfies 

the requirements of Policy ENV3 and can be accommodated without adversely 

affecting the overall quality of the designated landscape area.’ 





9.3.38 The proposed wind farm site is located within an AGLV, and as such, Policy ENV3 of the 

Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan applies: 

‘In areas of Countryside, as defined in Local Plans, development will only be permitted 

where: 

1. The proposed enterprise of activity is dependent upon a countryside location; or 

2. It accords with Policy ED4. 

3. All development in the Countryside should, both in function, siting and design, be 

suitable for its particular location, and should respect and preserve features 

contributing to local character. Proposals satisfying these criteria should where 

possible re-use redundant vernacular buildings.’ 

9.3.39 The Stirling Council Local Plan (1999) also identifies a number of policies relevant to 

landscape and visual amenity. Policy E10 states: 

‘Subject to all other relevant policies in the Plan, and providing that the development will 

not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, applications for renewable 

energy developments will be supported within areas of defined countryside (but outwith 

Green Belt area). Within areas of international conservation interest (as defined in para. 

2.64) renewable energy developments will only be allowed in the most exceptional 

circumstances where it can be demonstrated the overall integrity of the designated area 

will remain largely unaffected.’ 

9.3.40 With regards to wind farm development in particular, Policy E12 states: 

‘The development of individual wind turbines of greater that 25Kw output, or wind farms 

will be considered favourably within areas of defined countryside (but outwith Green 

Belts areas) where all the following criteria can be met: 

a) the siting and external appearance of apparatus have been chosen to minimise the 

impact on amenity, while respecting operational efficiency; 

b) the development will not result in unacceptable intrusion into the landscape; 

c) access for construction and maintenance traffic can be achieved without 

compromising highway safety or causing unacceptable permanent and significant 

change to the environment; 

d) the development will have no significant detrimental effect on any designated 

heritage feature, including Listed buildings, Conservation Areas, Ancient 

Monuments, Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Areas of Great 

Landscape Value and National Scenic Areas; 

e) the development will not affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers 

unacceptably by reason of noise, visual dominance, shadow flicker, reflected light 

or other emission; 

f) no electromagnetic disturbance is likely to be caused by the proposal to any 

existing transmitting or receiving system or (where such disturbances may be 

caused) that measures will be taken to remedy or minimise any such interference; 

g) a realistic means of achieving the removal of any apparatus when redundant and 

the restoration of the site are proposed; 





h) no wind turbines should interfere with authorised aircraft activity or with the known 

regular flight paths of birds, particularly protected migratory species.’ 

9.3.41 With regards to Areas of Great Landscape Value, Policy E15 states: 

‘a) the council will operate a presumption against developments within Areas of Great 

Landscape Value, with the exception of those required in relation to farming, 

forestry and appropriate tourist and recreation activities. Other developments may 

be permitted when their particular locational requirements cannot be satisfied 

elsewhere. All development will be subject to strict control other siting, design and 

landscape treatment.’ 

9.3.42 With regards to Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Policy E17 states: 

‘Developments within or affecting areas of Designed Landscape included within the 

Inventory proposed by Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland will require to be 

situated and designed to avoid an unacceptably adverse impact on the landscape.’ 

9.3.43 In addition to the above policies, an alteration has been provided in Structure Plan Alteration 

1 – Renewable Energy (2004) by Clackmannanshire and Stirling Councils, of which Policy 

ENV 16: Wind Energy is most relevant: 

‘The strategic location and design of wind energy developments will be assessed 

against the following principles:- 

1. For overriding landscape character, built heritage and natural heritage conservation 

reasons, siting of wind turbines will not normally be acceptable in National Scenic 

Areas, in Green Belts or in the areas shown on the Structure Plan Renewable 

Energy Supplementary Key Diagram as ‘Exclusion Areas’. These areas are: 

• The Ochil Hills escarpment; 

• The Touch – Gargunnock – Fintry Hills escarpments (including Lewis Hill); 

• The Campsie Fells escarpments; 

• Queens View (Auchieneden); 

• Kippen Muir view; 

• The settings of Abbey Craig – Wallace Monument, Stirling Castle, Bannockburn 

Memorial and battlefield, and Sherrifmuir battlefield; 

• Flanders Moss. 

2. The remainder of the Structure Plan area will be regarded as an ‘area of search’ for 

development opportunities. Scope within the National Park is expected to be limited 

and developments there should demonstrate that the objectives of the designation 

of the Park and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised (see 3 

below). 

3. Within the ‘area of search; it will be for Local Plans, the National Park Plan and 

Supplementary Advice to set out all relevant consultation requirements and 

constraints. Local Plans will also further define the ‘Exclusion Areas’ and give 

guidance regarding development opportunities in ‘buffer zones’ around NSAs. 





4. The relationship of new proposals to established and approved developments and 

those that are currently the subject of undetermined applications. Proposals will not 

normally be acceptable where they would result in an adverse effect upon amenity, 

or features of scenic and/or heritage value, by reason of cumulative visual impact.’ 

Stirling Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development 

9.3.44 Horner + Maclenna was commissioned in July 2007 jointly by Stirling Council, Loch Lomond 

and the Trossachs National Park Authority 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 Stirling Council area to accommodate wind farms and where the least 

adverse landscape and visual impacts would occur. The basis for the study area is land 

within the Stirling region which lies outwith the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National 

Park. At the time of the study the wind farms which were under consideration included the 

following; 

• Braes of Doune – Existing; 

• Earlsburn – Existing; 

• Burnfoot – Consented; 

• Greenknowes – Consented; 

• Earlsburn extension – EIA in preparation; 

• Craigengelt – Submitted; 

• Muirpark - EIA in preparation; 

• Kingsburn - EIA in preparation; 

• Ballindalloch - EIA in preparation. 

9.3.45 However, conclusions within the report have mainly been based on a study area which 

includes Earlsburn in close proximity to the north, Braes of Doune approximately 23 km to the 

north and Burnfoot and Greenknowes in the Ochil Hills within the study area context and 

beyond the study area context respectively. 

9.3.46 The study included an assessment of landscape character to define distinct character types 

and determine sensitivity to wind farms, the visual resource and identification of sequential 

receptors including the B818 from Boquhan to Denny. 

9.3.47 The capacity of the landscape was assessed based on the following 7 criteria: 

Constraint 

• Landscape scale; 

• Distinctive hill edges; 

• Iconic landscape features; 

• Impacts of existing and consented windfarms. 

Sensitivity 

• Areas of landscape character incompatible with existing and consented windfarm sites; 

• Landscape pattern; 





• Area valued for sense of remoteness while being easily accessed from an urban 

centre. 

Landscape Scale 

9.3.48 The study defines landscape scale as follows; 

‘The effect of landscape scale on capacity to accommodate wind energy development is 

principally manifested through the scale of topography and the shape of the landform, 

as these affect visibility and contain spaces, in addition to the size of elements that 

make up landscape pattern, and how scale is experienced, for example through a sense 

of openness and exposure’. 

9.3.49 This particular constraint criteria relates principally to the perception of vertical scale provided 

by hill edges when seen adjacent to the flat landscape of the Forth Valley. The study regards 

that the addition of turbines into these views is likely to diminish the distinction between small 

and large scale landscape types. The study goes on to state that a particular characteristic of 

the landscape of the Stirling area is that the vertical scale of the hills is perceived as being 

large when in actual fact it is small. The identified area of constraint for turbines over 110 m 

high covers the whole study area. 

Distinctive Hill Edges 

9.3.50 These upland landscape are; 

‘highlighted by their strong contrast of slope, elevation, landuse and relation to adjacent 

land and lochs’ 

9.3.51 The proposal site does not lie within the constraint area. 

Iconic Landscape Features 

9.3.52 The study area contains 8 iconic landscape features which are either based on historic sites 

and features of landscape character types. 


Impacts of Existing and Consented Windfarms 

9.3.54 The study supports the image of windfarms as ‘distinctive and isolated landscape features’ 

which retain a buffer of land around them. Clustering of windfarms is considered, within the 

study, to create a confusing image that would dominate a landscape character type. Upland 

landscapes which form a backdrop to the Forth Valley and those with a relationship with the 

edge of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park are considered, by the study, to 

be most sensitive. 

Areas of Landscape Character Incompatible with Existing and Consented Windfarm Sites 

9.3.55 The study reiterates opinions expressed for the ‘Impacts of Existing and Consented 

Windfarms’ constraint however, it also considers that ‘capacity of a landscape to 

accommodate additional windfarms is also affected by the relationship that existing 

windfarms have with a distinctive landscape character type if developments have been 

consistently located within that type’. The 4 existing and consented wind farms in the study lie 

within an area defined as ‘smooth hills’. The proposed wind farm would lie outside of this 

character area. 






Landscape Pattern 

9.3.57 Pattern in the landscape and its sensitivity is defined as follows; 

‘Areas of no obvious pattern or simple pattern are sensitive to the introduction of a 

windfarm as this may introduce a new pattern itself and thus contrast with the 

underlying simplicity. However, areas that possess distinct pattern are also sensitive to 

the addition of a windfarm, especially if the elements of that pattern are of a very 

different scale to wind turbines’. 

9.3.58 The landscape of the Carron Valley has an irregular pattern of reservoir and commercial 

forestry and a diverse topography of steep valley sides and open expanse of water. The 

study places the proposed wind farm site within the area defined as sensitive to wind farms in 

relation to landscape pattern as it concludes that the regular spacing of turbines would 

conflict with the irregular pattern and landform. 

Area Valued for Sense of Remoteness while being easily accessed from an Urban Centre 

9.3.59 This area comprises the Fintry, Touch and Gargunnock Hills and the Campsie Fells and is 

defined in the study as follows; 

‘possessing a sense of retreat and remoteness derived from being located within an 

area of interior hills/moorland where views are mainly inward and the area is sparsely 

populated and not managed intensively’. 

9.3.60 The sites proximity to the large urban areas at Glasgow to the south extending round to 

Stirling in the north east and the inward looking and sparsely settled nature of Carron Valley 

would place the proposal site within this sensitive category. However, the dominance of 

commercial forestry and the presence of the reservoir reinforce the areas’ managed and man 

made character. 

9.3.61 The study places the proposed wind farm site within the area defined as sensitive to wind 

farms in relation to a landscapes sense of remoteness whilst being easily accessible from 

urban areas. 

Landscape Character Types 

9.3.62 The study goes on to define landscape character types within the Stirling area and to provide 

descriptions and general windfarm siting and design guidance. The study area is divided into 

8 distinct character types. The proposals site lies within the Plateau Interior character type 6. 

Key guidance for windfarm development where capacity may exist is as follows; 

‘This character type has very limited capacity to accommodate wind energy 

development. This is partly because the extent of this landscape character type is quite 

small and partly because Earlsburn windfarm already forms a very prominent focus from 

much of this landscape character type. This means that any further windfarm 

development would collectively seem to dominate this character type as no significant 

‘windfarm free’ area would seem to exist’. 

9.3.63 The study states that if capacity does exist the proposed wind farm would need to be 

designed as follows; 

• ‘Relate to the open character, medium scale and simple composition of this landscape. 

• Not located near the edges of the plateau area. 





• Not to conflict with the sense of remoteness and refuge within this landscape character 

type. 

• Appear concentrated and simple in form. 

• Use turbines that appear the same size as others within a distinct area and follow a 

similar layout and image.’ 

9.3.64 However, the study does recognise that ‘windfarms will not necessarily conflict with the 

recreational value of this landscape, as much of this is based on active pursuits’. 

Stirling Council Supplementary Planning Guidance: Interim Locational Policy and 

Guidance for Renewable Energy Development (Wind Turbines) 

9.3.65 In response to the Horner + Maclenna commissioned (2007) report, the Council resolved to 

adopt (with amendments) Planning Policies and Guidance on renewable energy (wind 

turbine) developments, to be deemed a material consideration for the determination of 

relevant planning proposals, on 17 th March 2011. 

9.3.66 The policies are based upon the staged approach to spatial frameworks in PAN45 Annex 2, 

and modified by the findings of the Horner + Maclenna (2007) report. ‘Areas of Significant 

Protection’, and ‘Areas of Search’ are identified in the interim SPG, albeit stating that: 

“Proposals, whether located within the identified areas of search with some scope for 

development, in landscape terms, or not, will be assessed on their merits”. The proposed 

wind farm is located in an Area of Significant Protection. 

Wind Energy: General 

9.3.67 The first policy details the approach to wind energy development in general and outlines the 

‘areas of significant protection’ as follows: 

“ (1) Wind Energy: General 

a) Outwith ‘Areas of significant protection’ (see Policy Map 1) the Council will support 

proposals for wind turbines where: 

• they are appropriate in scale, design and layout for their location; 

• the landscape character and scale is capable of accommodating the scale of 

development proposed; 

• landscape, wildlife and habitats of international and national importance are not 

significantly adversely impacted; 

• historic heritage of national importance is not significantly adversely impacted; 

• construction and operation will not impact adversely on the water environment 

(including water supply catchments); 

• aviation and telecommunication interest’s can be protected; 

• significant detrimental effects upon nearby residential areas can be avoided.” 

9.3.68 All proposals for wind turbines will be assessed in relation to: 

• “technical and planning criteria established through national planning policy and 

guidance, principally the SPP and PAN45 

• locational and design guidance issued SNH 





• All relevant and environmental protection polices in the Development Plan 

• the landscape and visual impact criteria addressed in Policy 2 and any issues of 

cumulative impacts identified in accordance with Policy 3 

• local technical, planning and environmental criteria as set out in the associated 

Guidance.” 

Wind Energy: Visual and Landscape Impacts 

9.3.69 In terms of potential landscape and visual impacts Policy 2 states ‘the capacity of the plan 

areas to accommodate additional very large wind turbines (80 – 110 metres and 

>100 metres) is considered to be severely limited’. 

Wind Energy: Cumulative Impacts 

9.3.70 The SPG seeks to protect landscape and visual amenity by reason of cumulative impacts and 

states within Policy 3 ‘discrete wind farms will not be supported within zones identified on 

Policy Map 1 around existing wind farms’. 


Landscape Character 

9.3.71 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. 

9.3.72 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 has been 

informed by SNH, the local authority and other agencies as well as field study over a number 

of months. 

9.3.73 The 35 km radius study area for the development is covered by the following assessments: 

• ASH Consulting Group, (1998), Clackmannanshire Landscape Character Assessment, 

Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 96; 

• ASH Consulting Group, (1999), Central Region Landscape Character Assessment, 


• David Tyldesley and Associates, (1999), Stirling to Grangemouth Landscape 

Character Assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 124; 

• David Tyldesley and Associates, (1999), Fife Landscape Character Assessment, 


• Land Use Consultants, (1999), Tayside Landscape Character Assessment, Scottish 

Natural Heritage Review No. 122; 

• Janet Swailes, (2009), Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Landscape 

Character Assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage; 

• ASH Consulting Group, (1998), The Lothians Landscape Character Assessment, 

Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 91; and 





• Land Use Consultants, (1999), Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Landscape Character 

Assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 116. 

9.3.74 At a more detailed scale, the differences within each of these character areas become 

apparent. The areas have been identified, located and described based on desk study and 

field observation. 

9.3.75 The SNH Landscape Character Assessments identified 60 generic character types within the 

35 km radius area of search. Following review of the descriptions within the text, it is 

considered that some of the character types are equivalent. As the site lies within the Central 

Region, the landscape character types within this landscape assessment have been used as 

the basis for all character types within the seven districts of the study area and the Loch 

Lomond and the Trossachs NP. These were subsequently correlated using similarities within 

the character to correspond with a manageable assessment of 16 character types designed 

by PfR’s consultants under the following titles: 

• Lowland River Valleys; 

• Lowland Plateau; 

• Lowland Plains; 

• Lowland Hills; 

• Lowland Hill Fringes; 

• Lowland Valley Fringes; 

• Lowland Loch Basins; 

• Coastal Margins; 

• Upland Glens; 

• Glen Sides; 

• Strath and Glen Floors; 

• Hills; 

• The Highland Boundary Fault Ridge; 

• Upland Ridge; 

• Upland Hills; 

• Upland Fringes. 

9.3.76 Table 9.10 below describes the corresponding 44 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 9.5.3 to 9.5.11 and 9.5.45 to 9.5.64. 

Figure 9.9 illustrates the combined Character areas. 





Table 9.10 Landscape Character Types and Areas 

LCT/LCA 

LCTs - Description and extent within the study area 

LOWLAND 

Lowland River Valleys 

Upper Carron 

(contains the 

proposal site) 

Middle 

Carron 

Middle 

Endrick 

Water 

Moss 

Farmland 

with Estates 

The dominant feature of this landscape is the Carron Valley Reservoir which nestles 

within and is enclosed by the volcanic rock masses of the Campsie Fells and 

Gargunnock, Fintry and Kilsyth Hills. The River Carron, which rises in the hills above 

Lennoxtown, has been dammed on its journey eastwards to create this long curving 

sweep of water. Along the southern edges numerous inlets interweave between 

jutting promontories, backed by the steep, mostly convex slopes of Meikle Bin 

(570m), Little Bin and Cock Hill. To the north the smoother, more rounded forms of 

Cairnoch, Craigannet and Dundaff Hills drop down to the even, sweeping margins of 

the reservoir. 

The hillsides are covered almost entirely by mature coniferous plantations, which 

extend up to the edges of the reservoir, leaving only the peaks of Meikle Bin, Little 

Bin and Cairnoch Hill exposed. 

Along the northern edge of the reservoir narrow drifts of mixed and deciduous trees 

are scattered. 

Tumbledown stone walls, topped by post-and-wire fencing, line the roadside and 

enclose the rough grassland on the slopes of Craigannet Hill. On the western flank of 

Dundaff Hill, a distinctive group of shelterbelts is conspicuous. 

Only a few houses and farmsteads of varied styles dot the winding line of the B818 

along the northern perimeter, generally restricted towards the eastern end of the 

reservoir, leaving the hillsides uninhabited. The forest walks which run through the 

southern hillsides commence at the small parking area below Cock Hill, and are a 

popular recreational resource. 

The simple composition of water and afforested hillside, combined with a lack of 

settlement and the position of the reservoir within the hills, creates a moderately 

remote atmosphere. The sweep of the reservoir leads the eye westwards towards 

the banded edge of the Fintry Hills and beyond, backed by the hazy profile of the 

Trossachs. The tight circle of hills and blanket coniferous woodland creates a 

powerful sense of enclosure, lessened only by glimpses westwards. 

As the River Carron leaves the Touch and Kilsyth Hills, it has carved deeply into the 

volcanic rocks, creating a narrow river valley with often precipitously steep sides, 

marked by the ripples and scars of soil creep and soil slip. 

The deep fissure of the river valley, cutting through low hills, produces views 

outwards and creates a strongly contained visual corridor. The bare soil, rocky 

outcrops and scrubby thickets, blending with feathery broadleaves, etch and stipple 

the base and sides of the valley, forming a highly textured landscape of inaccessible 

and untouched character. 

Towards the head of the middle Endrick valley, west of its hill-top origin, the river is 

pinched between and dominated by the volcanic masses of the Fintry Hills to the 

north and the Campsie Fells to the south, before flowing westwards towards 

Drymen. The small, strongly meandering river runs across a near-flat valley floor, 

occasionally broken by gentle undulations, and enclosed by steeply rolling valley 

slopes. Many small streams cut through the hillsides and incise the southern tip of 

the plateau of Kippen Muir before merging with the Endrick Water. 

There are three small areas of this more extensive LCT that lie just within the 

National Park boundary to the west and south of the Lake of Menteith, encompassed 

by the Rednock Estate lands. It is generally similar in character to adjacent LCTs 

Rolling Farmland with Estates and Glen Floor Ridges and Knolls with Estates, where 

estate features and the distinctive aesthetics of designed landscapes dominate. 





LCT/LCA 


However, the broader relationship to the Carse merits individual treatment. 

Allan Water 

Falkirk/Denny 

Urban Fringe 

Carse of 

Forth/Stirling 

Lower Devon 

Carselands 

Avon Valley 

Middle Devon 

Water 

The uppermost stretch of the valley of the Allan Water is bordered to the west by the 

Braes of Doune, and to the east by the lower slopes of the Ochils. The broad, flat 

length of Strath Allan becomes, as it enters the area, narrower and more contained, 

eventually cutting through high, tightly enclosing slopes within a narrow cleft. 

The river valley is dominated by the parallel courses of several route corridors, 

including the broad sweep of the A9 trunk road and the railway line, and two smaller 

winding roads which lie lower down the valley. Towards the southern edge of the 

area these transport routes converge to form a confusing network of major and minor 

roads, scything through and around the town of Dunblane. 

LCT between the slopes of the Touch Hills and Denny Muir to the west and the 

floodplain of the River Forth to the east. A wide swathe of low, very gently rolling 

land stretches between the slopes of the Touch Hills and Denny Muir to the west and 

the flat floodplain of the Forth to the East. The lower stretches of the River Carron 

and its major tributary, the Bonny Water, run eastwards through the shallow, 

relatively flat open valley. To the north and south the ground rises gradually, the 

broad valley basin begin cupped by the fringes of the east Touch Hills and 

Slamannan Plateau. 

This Character type constitutes part of a larger unit which extends westwards into 

Stirling District and southwards across the Forth into Falkirk District. 

The immensely broad floodplain of the River Forth cuts a dramatic swathe from the 

Highland Boundary Fault in the west towards its confluence with the sea in the east. 

To the north, it merges with the related carselands of the Lower Devon, to the east 

lie the coastal flats of Kincardine. 

The open floodplain of the lower Devon River bears a strong similarity to the 

neighbouring carselands of the Forth, into which the Devon discharges. 

South-west of Linlithgow the River Avon flows through a narrow, deep, sinuous, 

gorge-like valley with deep slopes on both the Falkirk and West Lothian banks. The 

slopes are extensively covered in mixed and semi-natural broadleaved woodland 

interspersed with pastures. 

The strongly undulating low hills, bluffs and spurs which enclose and conceal the 

middle stretches of the River Devon adjoin the steep, rounded south-easternmost 

edge of the Ochils. 

Lowland Plateaux 

Plateau 

Moorland 

/Slamannan 

Plateau 

Plateau 

Farmland 

Kippen Muir 

A large expanse of elevated (200m AOD), open undulating plateau lies south of the 

dense band of industry and settlement which lines the Bonny and Carron valleys 

west of Falkirk. 

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. 

Plateau Farmlands occur on the lower slopes of all the Plateau Moorland areas 

encircling Glasgow and the Conurbation . Plateau Farmlands are characterised by 

their transitional location between the sheltered landscapes of Rolling Farmlands 

and Broad Valley Lowland, and exposed uplands and moorlands. 

The open, gently rolling plateau of Kippen, Buchlyvie and Ballindalloch Muirs 

stretches northwestwards from the fringes of the Fintry Hills. Bounded by the narrow 

valley of the Endrick Water to the south, and the broad carselands of the Forth valley 

to the north, subtle undulations within the landform coalesce to create the overall 





LCT/LCA 


impression of a level horizon-line. 

Plateau 

Moorland 

Central 

Plateau) 

West Lothian 

Plateau 

Moorland 

The Plateau Moorlands consist of blanket bog, heather and grass moorland. The 

topography is comparatively level with extensive plateau basins rising to soft 

contoured ridges. 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. 

A heavily-modified lowland plateau landscape which shelves gently eastward to 

merge gradually wit h the farmland plain of the lower Almond. 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. To the east, igneous intrusions create a 

strongly rolling terrain which peaks at Dechmont Law (217m) to the north of 

Livingston . 

Areas of moorland occur both north and south of the Highland Boundary Fault Zone 

and form part of the transitional zone between highland and lowland landscape 

character types. Moorland is important for open unspoilt characteristics and visual 

qualities associated with plateaus, a sense of altitude, extensive space, remoteness 

and wildness. 

Lowland Plains 

Gartocharn 

Rolling 

Farmland 

Rolling Farmlands are distinguished from Plateau Farmlands by their lower altitude 

and their more undulating landform. The general character is strongly influenced by 

the undulating, medium-small scale landforms which are soft in profile. Agriculture is 

the predominant land use in the Rolling Farmlands landscape type. 

Lowland Hills 

Ochil Hills 

Fintry, 

Gargunnock 

and Touch 

Hills 

Campsie 

Fells 

Uamh Bheag 

The prominent mass of the Ochil Hills forms an abrupt northern boundary to the 

Forth Valley, stretching eastwards from Dunblane and Bridge of Allan and continuing 

to spread north and east into Perth and Kinross District. 

The northern and western edges of the hills are dramatically defined by steep, 

precipitous slopes, topped by the exposed rock of horizontally banded lava flows. 

These basalt flows are notched deeply by a fault-line which demarcates the division 

between the Fintry and Gargunnock Hills. The cliff-edged plateau reaches its peak, 

at 485m, above Black Craig in the Gargunnocks. The hill-mass becomes less 

unified, the rock banding becoming fragmented and interspersed with isolated 

dolerite outcrops, as the Touch Hills drop down towards the east. Numerous streams 

and falls plunge sharply down the sheer, convex lower slopes, lending a markedly 

ribbed appearance to parts of the hill-flanks. Within the hill-plateau, several small-to 

medium-scale reservoirs are concealed in dips and depressions. 

The Campsie Fells form part of the larger hill-group which also comprises the 

Gargunnock, Touch, Fintry and Kilsyth Hills. Lying on the south-west perimeter of 

Central Region, they comprise the highest ground within the grouping, rising to 578m 

at Earl's Seat. The dense mass of interwoven rounded hill-tops varies in profile to the 

north and south. Long ridges of rock extrude from the upper slopes of the 

Strathblane Hills, in contrast to the more broken silhouette created by the deep 

corries on the northern boundary of the Campsie Fells. Deep V-shaped valleys 

furrow the hillsides, holding minor watercourses which tumble down the fissured 

slopes. 

To the north of the Teith Valley, the rolling Braes of Doune gradually give way to the 

peaks of Uamh Bheag (665m) and Beinn Odhar which mark the northern boundary 

of Central Region. Separated from the dramatic landscape of lochs and mountains to 





LCT/LCA 


the north-west by the Highland Boundary Fault, these quieter hills are underlain by 

sedimentary bedrock. The rounded hill-tops cap smooth and gentle southern slopes, 

which become more irregular and broken to their western extremity due to 

conglomerated outcrops of the Highland Boundary Complex. Numerous small 

streams run southwards across the slopes, forming faint, visually unintrusive 

incisions in the hillsides. 

Bathgate Hills 

Lowland Hills 

And Ridges 

Tayside 

Lowlands: 

Knaik Hills 

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 sharply-demarcated 

western boundary to the area . 

Knaik Hills lye to the south of Glen Artney. The hills rise to over 600 metres OD. In 

contrast to the areas of true upland to the north, these hills are generally smooth and 

well-rounded. Small valleys cut easily into the sandstone creating a series of convex 

ridges and valleys. Pastoral and even arable fields on the lower slopes give way to 

rough grazing and then to open moorland as height is gained. Large plantations are 

found on the lower slopes of the Knaik Hills. 

Lowland Hill Fringes 

Denny Muir 

Gargunnock/ 

Fintry Fringe 

East Touch 

Fringe 

A small portion of the Kilsyth Hills intrudes south of the Carron Valley. The higher, 

undulating hill-sides which fringe the River Carron, culminating in Darrach Hill 

(357m) which forms part of Denny Muir SSSI, shelve gradually downwards to the 

settlements of Denny, Dunipace and Banknock which border the hills. The 

undulating hill fringes form a gentle backdrop to the built-up valley edges below. 

Frequent Stream courses incise the slopes, cutting their routes towards the Bonny 

Water and River Carron. The undulations of the lower slopes contain several small, 

well-concealed reservoirs, and a more visually intrusive waterworks on the northern 

boundary of Darrach Hill. 

The northern and western perimeter of the discrete, rock-bounded mass of the 

Gargunnock and Fintry Hills is edged by an encircling, rippling belt of strongly rolling 

slopes. The fields are deeply incised by a multitude of burns, cutting downwards 

from the craggy hill outcrops rearing above, and forming a landscape of interwoven 

undulating groundswells. A distinct topographical division demarcates the meeting of 

the fringes of the Gargunnocks and the broad carselands of the Forth valley; to the 

west, the separation of the slopes from the broad plateau of Kippen Muir is less welldefined. 

The eastern boundary of the Touch Hills is demarcated by the rugged, crag-edged 

dolerite outcrops of Gillies and Lewis Hills. These denote the edge of broad swathe 

of strongly rolling, occasional hummocky farmland which forms a transition in height 

and form from west to east between the Touch hill-slopes and the wide flat valley of 

the Forth Estuary. To the south the area is bounded by the steep gorge of the Carron 

Glen and the broad industrialised expanse of the adjoining lower Carron River and 

Bonny Water. 

Lowland Valley Fringes 

Devon/Forth 

Lowland Hills 

& 

Valleys:Black 

Devon, 

Bluther Burn, 

The valley of the Devon Water to the north is separated by this broad area of 

elevated, strongly rolling ground from the Forth estuary and adjacent plains to the 

south. 

This extensive landscape type extends across the whole of Fife in a wide band 

between the Upland Slopes, Foothills, Volcanic Hills, Coastal Hills and coastal 

Braes. The landscape type is locally interrupted by volcanic hills and by river and 

loch basins and designed landscapes. 





LCT/LCA 


Devilla Forest 

Lowland Loch Basin 

Loch Leven 

Basin 

Loch Shore 

Fringes 

Loch Leven basin is edged by the volcanic Redwell Hills along the minor road 

running from Ballingry to Auchmuirbridge which is relatively steep and wooded in 

parts. The Leven basin is in intensive arable production. The Leven basin drains 

northwards to the River Leven, flowing eastwards out of Loch Leven. 

Loch Shore Fringes is a transitional landscape character type, significant for its 

natural and cultural heritage value, and which, in association with loch Lomond, 

makes a particular scenic contribution to the landscape. 

COASTAL 

Coastal Margins 

The Bo’ness 

Coastal Hills 

Kincardine to 

Culross; 

Valleyfield to 

Charlestown 

Coastal Hills 

Linlithgow 

/Queensferry 

Farmlands 

Coastal Hills 

Coastal Flats: 

Kincardine, 

Longannnet 

Grangemouth 

Bo’ness 

Coastal Flats 

A series of rolling, coastal hills about 100 to 150m ADD with a general down-slope to 

Bo'ness and the Firth of Forth. The town of Bo'ness lies mainly on the rising land of 

the hills which are topped by a golf course. The hills are crossed by the M9 and 

other major roads and railways. 

Around the coast of Fife there is a series of Coastal Hills mainly located above the 

Coastal Cliffs, braes, and terraces, which slope gradually towards the sea offering 

panoramic views of the Firths. Predominantly large, open, undulating arable fields, 

often with no field boundaries or wit h mainly wire fences, low hedges or some stone 

dykes and little other vegetation cover. 

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. 

Generally a simple, sloping, balanced, active, organised, tended, farming landscape 

with regular or geometric patterns. These hills mark the transition between coastal 

and landward areas of Fife sharing the characteristics of both. 

Coastal Flats are flat, low-lying, open, large-scale, exposed coastal landscapes at 

sea level. From the Coastal Braes and Hills, the Flats are seen as encroachments 

into the estuary. 

In general, the landscape is large-scale, open and exposed, uniform and smooth or 

textured, flat with curved lines. It is a mostly balanced, still, organised, tended and 

quiet landscape. Where the Coastal Flats are more confined, either by buildings or 

vegetation, experiences tend to be of a smaller-scale landscape that is more diverse, 

rough and discordant, busier and more disturbed . 

Bounded by the Kincardine Bridge and the M 876 in the north west, and the M9 to 

the south west and Bo'ness to the east, this area of low lying coastal flats is 

dominated by the town of Grangemouth, the docks and by large-scale petrochemical 

and other industrial installations. 

HIGHLAND 

Upland Glens 

Glen Sides 

Upland glens are associated with the remote upland slopes and summits of the 

highlands, but form transitions visually when moving through to the lower-lying and 

enclosed main glens. Upland glens are typically narrow V- or U-shaped glens, from 

small to medium scale, with steep sides, often with rocky outcrops, boulders and 

screes. 

Deep, U-shaped glens are characteristic features of the highland landscape resulting 

from the action of glaciers that formed initially in existing drainage systems. Locally, 





LCT/LCA 


where upland glens enter main glens, outwash material gives rise to broken glen 

side slopes. Glen sides are better drained than glen bottoms. Burns and waterfalls 

plummet from hilltops and drain glen side slopes. Spring lines are a common feature, 

often associated with wet flushes. 

Strath and 

Glen Floors 

Hills: 

Ben Lomond, 

Ben Venue, 

Ben Ledi, Ben 

Vorlich Hills 

The Highland 

Boundary 

Fault Ridge 

Loch Ard 

Forest 

Upland Ridge 

Deep, U-shaped glens are characteristic features of the highland landscape. Straths 

are generally wider, but have still been influenced by glaciation. Straths and glens 

may be occupied by lochs or sea lochs, or have filled to some extent with sediment. 

Strath and glen floors in the larger, more open straths and glens are farmed where 

river deposition has formed sufficient flat land for agriculture. Whilst these form a 

small proportion of the Park, they are significant in terms of their diversity of 

landscape and scenic character. 

The hill areas are north of the HBFZ and are composed of upland slopes, ridge lines, 

summits, and the upper reaches of upland glens. Typically the hill areas edge other 

upland and parallel ridges, moorlands or glen sides. On rare occasions, hill areas 

extend to glen floors, where rocky and typically upland slopes contrast dramatically 

with farmed strath floor or loch basins. These areas have significant scenic quality. 

Whilst hill areas do not rise above 1175m, they generally have a rugged character 

that belies their height. 

Parallel ridges form prominent topographic features on the south-eastern margins of 

the HBFZ. The ridges are strongly orientated in a north-east to south-west direction 

giving a distinctive grain to the landscape, but do not rise above 500m. 

Diverse landforms occur in this ground, including smooth moorlands, rocky outcrops, 

gullies and screes, within the unifying structure of ridges and intervening 

depressions. Burns and lochans are orientated along the depressions. 

The transition from the HBFZ to the north is less clearly defined, as the character of 

neighbouring uplands is similarly ridged and the area is intercut with glens and loch 

basins. This area is not so visually prominent and the ridges are somewhat obscured 

by dense forest plantations, variations of geology and obscure underlying 

topography. 

UPLAND 

Upland Hills 

Campsie 

Fells Rugged 

Moorland 

Hills 

The southern edge of the Campsie Fells/Kilsyth Hills is defined by the Campsie 

Fault, creating the escarpment slopes along the edge of the Kelvin Valley. Summits 

range in height between about 580 metres in the Campsie Fells. It has distinctive 

upland character created by the combination of elevation, exposure, rugged 

landform, moorland vegetation and the predominant lack of modern development. 

Upland Fringes 

Cleish Slopes 

Upland 

Fringes 

Cleish 

Foothills 

Upland 

Fringes 

The east facing Cleish Slopes are dominated by the extensive coniferous plantations 

covering part of the Blairadam designed landscape . These woodlands mask the 

natural landform. The west facing Cleish slopes generally fall gradually, although 

quite steeply in parts, to the Black Devon, fed by small burns flowing down the 

hillside. 

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. Numerous burns flow in a westerly direction in the lower-lying 

valleys between the hills, towards the Bluther Burn. 

There is also a series of reservoirs and small lochs . Distinctive breaks of slope 





LCT/LCA 


contrast with more undulating areas in between, giving a varied landform, which is 

predominantly open and exposed with the exception of Carnock Moor Forest. 

Visual Receptors 

Zone of Theoretical Visibility 

9.3.77 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 is 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. 

9.3.78 The ZTV for the proposal is relatively limited due to the location of the wind farm in a valley 

between areas of upland to the north and south. The ZTV in the vicinity of the site would 

extend south over the reservoir and forestry plantations of Carron Valley to the Kilsyth Hills. 

This range of hills lies approximately 4 km to the south of the proposals site and forms the 

southern limit of the ZTV. The likely zone of visibility within areas of forestry would be 

significantly smaller than the ZTV shown, as trees are mature and mainly coniferous, 

screening many views. To the south west the Campsie Fells form a continuation of this ridge 

and would form the limit of the ZTV. To the west the ZTV would extend along the southern 

side of the Carron Valley beyond Fintry. To the north west the Fintry Hills rise up steeply 

forming a scarp edge approximately 2 km from the proposals site and would form the limit of 

the ZTV in the immediate vicinity of the site. To the north the ZTV would cover Hart Hill and 

the Gargunnock Hills beyond. To the east the ZTV would extend over Craigannet Hill, 

Craigengelt Hill, Dundaff Hill and the plateau landscape around Loch Coulter Reservoir, 

approximately 4 km from the proposal site. These landscapes form the study area in the 

immediate context of the site. 

9.3.79 The ZTV within the remaining 35 km radius area of search would be relatively limited. To the 

east the ZTV would extend over a large area of the low lying landscapes either side of the 

River Forth estuary. The string of settlements from Cumbernauld in the south, via Denny to 

Dunblane in the north would form the western extent of this area of the ZTV. The Ochil Hills 

would contain the ZTV to the north east. To the west the interlocking landforms of the Fintry 

Hills and Campsie Fells would channel views to form a narrow wedge of the ZTV, which 

would continue to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park on the edge of the 

35 km radius study area. Several small isolated areas of the ZTV would lie within upland 

areas of the National Park at the Menteith Hills and the peak of Ben Ledi, both to the north 

west of the site. Small areas of isolated ZTV would also exist to the north within the 

undulating landscape of the Forest of Glenartney, approximately 25 km to the north. 

9.3.80 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 

9.3.81 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 

9.3.82 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. 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 have the potential to contain residents who may be 

significantly affected in EIA terms. Properties within a 2 km radius are identified on Figure 

9.13. 

9.3.83 Properties which may be afforded views of the proposed wind farm include the following; Two 

pairs of semi detached houses at Gartcarron on the B818 approximately 600 m west of the 

site (approximately 1.5 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 5)). Todholes Farm 

north of Randieford Bridge approximately 300 m west of the site (approximately 1.2 km from 

the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 5)). Five pairs of semi detached bungalows and 

houses on the B818 at Craigannet approximately 1.3 km east of the site (approximately 

1.4 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 15)). Craigannet and Easterton Farms at 

the base of Craigannet Hill approximately 1.4 km and 1.7 km respectively east of the site 

(approximately 1.5 km and 1.8 km respectively from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 

15)). Six properties on the B818 at Muirmill approximately 2.1 km east of the site 

(approximately 2.2 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 15)). Drum Farm at the 

base of Dundaff Hill approximately 1.7 km to the east of the site (approximately 2.3 km from 

the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 15)). 2.2 km north east of the site lies Easter Cringate 

Cottage (approximately 2.6 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 2)). Single storey 

properties at Easter Cringate and Cairnoch Lodge lie 600 m and 550 m north east, 

respectively of the site (approximately 1.1 and 1 km respectively from the nearest proposed 

turbine (Turbine 3)). Cringate, which is currently derelict and uninhabited, lies beside the 

Endrich Water valley approximately 500 m north of the site (approximately 800 m from the 

nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 1)). Further up the valley at the base of Ling Hill lies 

Burnfoot, approximately 1.8 km to the north of the site (approximately 2.2 km from the 

nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 1)). 

Public Rights of Way, Access Land and Public Viewpoints 

9.3.84 Forest tracks within the Carron Valley Valley Forest are accessible to vehicles, cyclists and 

walkers. The track nearest to the southern shore of the Carron Valley Reservoir provides 

some opportunities for views towards the proposal site. Approximately 6 km of this track lies 

mainly within dense mature conifer plantation which contains all views out into the landscape. 

In several locations around the base of Haugh Hill the track lies in more open parts of the 

Forest. Grassland with clumps of scattered deciduous trees and shrubs lies around the 





reservoir edge. Framed and fragmented views through vegetation can be gained across the 

water towards the site. The nearest viewpoints would be approximately 600 m from the site 

boundary. 

Dynamic Views 

9.3.85 The B818 follows the southern boundary of the proposal site, adjacent to the northern shore 

of the reservoir. The sequential effects on occupiers of vehicles using this route are 

discussed in more detail at paragraph 9.5.114 to 9.5.123 and illustrated in Figure 9.19. 

Existing Views from Viewpoints 

9.3.86 Photographs have been taken from various 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 Figures 9.14. Photography for Viewpoint 11 is 

provided in Appendix 9.11 and Viewpoint 17 provided in Appendix 9.12. 

Viewpoint 1. Todholes Bridge 

9.3.87 This is an open view across Endrick Water at a popular location for walkers beside the car 

park at the head of the Carron Valley Reservoir. The river cuts through the grazing pasture in 

the flat valley base. The bridge forms a distinct feature in the foreground. Earth banks rise up 

to the left and right to frame the view of Cairnoch Hill beyond. Open deciduous woodland 

lines the water course at the base of the hill, whilst blocks of dense, uniform conifer plantation 

covers the rising land. The crest of the hill remains open. Overhead power lines cross the 

foreground view and line the B818 to the right of the view. 

9.3.88 There are no significant sources of light that would be visible at night in this view. 

Viewpoint 2. Cringate Law 

9.3.89 This viewpoint is located within open moorland immediately adjacent to the wind farm at 

Earlsburn. The turbines in the foreground frame the view beyond towards the forested 

landforms of Cairnoch Hill and the Kilsyth Hills. The site is clearly visible in the centre of the 

view. The dark blocks of conifer plantations are interspersed with open grassland and 

moorland which form a mosaic of muted colours and textures. The reservoir forms a narrow 

expanse of water in the base of the Carron Valley. 

9.3.90 There would be no significant visible light sources within the view at night. 

Viewpoint 3. Minor Road near Earls Hill 

9.3.91 This open view of steeply undulating landforms comprises predominantly exposed moorland 

and grassland in the foreground which slopes down to a gully to the left. Post and wire 

fencing, overhead power lines and a narrow road form linear development which snake 

across the undulations in the topography. Cairnoch Hill forms a domed landform in the centre 

of the view covered by blocks of dark conifer plantation and open areas of grassland and 

more recently planted trees. The smooth profiles of the Kilsyth Hills and the Campsie Fells 

are visible in the distance on the horizon to the left and right of the view respectively. 

Turbines at the Earlsburn Wind Farm are visible on the right side of the view. 

9.3.92 There would be no nighttime sources of significant light sources the view at night. 





Viewpoint 4. Carron Valley Reservoir east 

9.3.93 This is a near partially constrained view looking north west from the B818, which is also 

representative of views from neighbouring residential properties. Native trees and shrubs 

along the shore of the reservoir are visible in the foreground. The landform rises up to 

Craigannet Hill and the mature trees at Craigannet Crag to the north of the B818, forming the 

horizon. To the left of the view the peak of Meikle Bin beyond forestry plantations surrounding 

the Carron Valley Reservoir forms a backdrop to the view. Telegraph poles, lighting and 

signage form some foreground visual clutter. 

9.3.94 A roadside lighting column and residential properties would form limited sources of light 

within nighttime views. 

Viewpoint 5. Tomtain Hill 

9.3.95 This is an open, mid-distance view looking north west from the summit of Tomtain Hill in the 

range of Kilsyth Hills. Land in the foreground falls away steeply to the Carron Valley which 

cuts across the centre of the view. The landform rises again beyond the reservoir in the valley 

base to form the uplands at Fintry Hills, Cringate Law, Hart Hill and Earl’s Hill. The 

foreground comprises upland grassland and moorland with a scattering of conifer trees in a 

broad sweep along the crest of the hills. The sides of Carron Valley are covered by extensive 

blocks of conifer plantation within the Carron Valley Forest and at Cairnoch Hill. The existing 

wind farms at Earlsburn and Craigengelt form prominent features within the grassland and 

moorland of the hills beyond. In the far distance the more extensive wind farm at Braes of 

Doune is visible on a range of hills. In the distance a series of ridgelines and hills within the 

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park form a distinctive backdrop to the view. The 

B818 and traffic moving along it are visible following the far shore of the reservoir. 

9.3.96 Traffic using the B818 and isolated residential properties would form visible light sources in 

the view. The red warning lights on turbines at Earlsburn and Craigengelt form relatively 

prominent features in a dark setting. 

Viewpoint 6. Carron Valley Reservoir south 

9.3.97 This is an open view from the southern shore of the reservoir looking across the expanse of 

water to Cairnoch Hill beyond. Access tracks within the forestry land provide recreational 

routes for walkers and cyclists and allow users to gain intermittent views towards the site. 

Grassland, marginal plants and deciduous scrub form a band of native planting around the 

waters edge. Geometric blocks of conifer plantation clothe the undulating hillsides in the 

remaining view, forming a distinctly managed landscape. Turbines within the Earlsburn and 

Craigengelt Wind Farms are visible on the horizon to the left and right of the view 

respectively. The turbines form the main elements of development in the view. The B818 on 

the far side of the reservoir and the traffic upon it are also visible. 

9.3.98 Traffic using the B818 would form light sources in the view beyond the reservoir. The red 

lights on turbines at Earlsburn and Craigengelt form prominent features in a relatively 

landscape dark setting. 

Viewpoint 7. B822 

9.3.99 Where the road crosses the ridge of the Campsie Fells a view over open moorland towards 

the site is revealed. The undulating edge of dense conifer plantations within the Carron Valley 

Forest extends across the full width of the view obscuring the base of the hills beyond. The 





cluster of buildings within the farmstead at Watershead is visible against the woodland edge. 

A series of hills stretches across the skyline from left to right incorporating the Fintry Hills, 

Hart Hill on which the Earlsburn Wind Farm forms a focal point, Cairnoch Hill on which the 

site is located and Craigannet Hill. The alternating expanses of grassland and conifer 

plantation create a diverse backdrop to the view. 

9.3.100 Lighting within the farm buildings and warning lights on the turbines would form the only light 

sources visible at night. 

Viewpoint 8. Fintry 

9.3.101 The view from the eastern edge of the village extends east over a foreground of rural 

farmland to more distant hills and forestry. Small scale pasture fields divided by post and wire 

fences and gappy, unmanaged hedgerows occupy the majority of the view in the flat valley 

base. Either side of the view the landform rises to form ridges of grazing land and dark blocks 

of plantation conifers. The alignment of the B818 is defined by mature trees and hedgerows 

and occasional houses with garden vegetation. Telegraph poles and overhead power lines 

are visible crossing the view. This view combines the attractive rounded shapes, light foliage 

and movement of native vegetation in the foreground with the uniform, geometric forestry of 

the background. 

9.3.102 Residential properties scattered along the B818 and traffic using this road would be visible at 

night in a dark rural context. 

Viewpoint 9. Earl’s Seat 

9.3.103 The top of the hill at Earls Seat forms an open elevated vantage point for views across a 

large part of the study area. The exposed undulating moorland of the Campsie Fells in the 

foreground is a complex mosaic of textures and colours. The distinctive scarp slope edge of 

the Fintry Hills plateau lies to the left of the view in front of the Earlsburn Wind Farm which 

forms a prominent chain of turbines on the skyline. To the right of the view the landform rises 

to form the Kilsyth Hills which form a high point at Meikle Bin. The site at Cairnoch Hill is 

visible in the centre of the view beyond a dip in the intervening landform. The dark 

commercial conifer plantations contrast with the open moorlands of the surrounding 

landscape. The Craigengelt Wind Farm is visible beyond the crest of Cairnoch Hill. The ridge 

of the Ochill Hills forms a distant backdrop to the view. 

9.3.104 There are very limited sources of light in this rural landscape. Warning lights on the turbines 

would form the most prominent lights at night. 

Viewpoint 10. Balfron 

9.3.105 This view looking south east from the edge of the village of Balfron has a foreground of 

undulating arable farmland contained by a belt of mixed deciduous and coniferous trees. 

Large farm outbuildings are prominent in the foreground on the right of the view. Distant hills 

within the Campsie Fells frame the view to the right, providing a dramatic backdrop. Dark 

conifer plantations cover the base of the fells. The hills dip down below the level of the trees 

in the centre of the view at the head of the Carron Valley. To the left of the view the tops of 

the Fintry Hills are partially visible above the tree tops. This is a simple rural view with strong 

textures. 

9.3.106 There would be no obvious sources of light visible in a nighttime view. 





Viewpoint 11. Stirling Castle 

9.3.107 This is an open view from the viewing terrace of Stirling Castle looking south west. Stirling 

Castle forms one of the eight Iconic Landscape Features identified in the ‘Stirling Landscape 

Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development’. The elevation of the viewpoint 

above the surrounding flat, River Forth floodplain provides a unique opportunity for views 

across the landscape. In the foreground the formal geometric layout of earthworks and lawns 

within the gardens of the castle grounds provide a context for the view. Beyond lies open 

farmland and a well treed golf course beside main distributor roads, the M9 corridor and the 

mixed residential and commercial development of the urban fringes of Stirling. In the distance 

the land rises to form an upland range comprising the Touch and Gargunnock Hills. A mosaic 

of dense conifer plantations and open grassland and moorland extends over these hills to 

form a backdrop to views. Within the centre of the view the Craigengelt Wind Farm and the 

telecommunications towers at Earl’s Hill are visible as prominent, although distant, features 

on the horizon. To the right of the view the blade tips of turbines within the Earlsburn Wind 

Farm are visible on the skyline. In the far distance to the right of the view lie the range of 

peaks within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. 

9.3.108 Development on the edges of Stirling would form the most prominent sources of nighttime 

lighting within the view. Traffic using the road network and street lighting would form further 

sources of light. Red warning lights on the turbines and telecommunication towers on the 

horizon would also be prominent at night. 

Viewpoint 12. Wallace Monument 

9.3.109 The public viewing level at the top of the Wallace Monument allows framed views out 

between stone pillars over the surrounding diverse landscape and townscape. The Wallace 

Monument forms another of the eight Iconic Landscape Features identified in the ‘Stirling 

Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development’. The flat floodplain 

of the River Forth is visible in the foreground where the sinuous course of the river cuts 

through open grazing land. The town of Stirling occupies the majority of the scene, extending 

across the full width of the view. Residential and commercial development and the civic 

centre of the town form a relatively dense urban mass. Stirling Castle, located on an outcrop 

of rock, is prominent in the middle distance in the centre of the view. Beyond Stirling the 

fringes of the settlement merge with farmland, golf courses and commercial forestry. The land 

continues to rise to form an undulating horizon within the Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Hills. 

Blocks of dark conifer plantation and areas of open moorland combine to form a mosaic of 

colours and textures which cover these hills. The windfarms at Craigengelt and Earlsburn are 

prominent features on the horizon, together with telecommunications masts at Earl’s Hill. 

9.3.110 Extensive lighting associated with development and roads within Stirling would form the most 

prominent sources of nighttime lighting within the view. Red warning lights on the turbines 

and telecommunication towers on the horizon would also be visible at night. 

Viewpoint 13. Dumyat Hill 

9.3.111 This viewpoint is located on the southern edge of the Ochil Hills which rise up steeply from 

the flat landscape of the River Forth flood plain. The foreground moorland dips out of site to 

reveal the expansive settled plain below. The River Forth forms a sinuous water course which 

winds across this flat landscape linking the large town of Stirling via a series of smaller 

settlements to Grangemouth. The variety of urban pattern and grain is clearly visible 

interspersed with open space, woodland blocks and agricultural land. Traffic on motorways 





and main roads is visible in several locations within the valley. The Wallace Monument forms 

a prominent vertical focal point in the foreground, rising up from a wooded hill. The land rises 

beyond the valley floor to form a series of hills and ridges culminating in the Kilsyth Hills and 

Campsie Fells on the horizon. Woodland, commercial forestry and golf courses occupy the 

base of the hills, whilst moorland covers the upland areas. The steep scarp slope of the 

Gargunnock Hills forms a distinctive hill edge feature in the landscape to the right of the view. 

The mountains of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park are visible in the 

distance to the right. A string of turbines at the Earlsburn Wind Farm are minor, although 

prominent features on the horizon. Telecommunication masts at Earls Hills are also visible 

against the sky. The wind farm at Craigengelt is less prominent mainly below the horizon in 

the centre of the view. Meikle Bin forms a recognisable peak on the horizon in the centre of 

the view. 

9.3.112 At night the settlement of Stirling would contain numerous light sources, mainly on roads, 

which would form the most prominent aspect of the view. The urban area would be clearly 

defined at night. Red warning lights on turbines and telecommunication towers in the distance 

would also be visible. 

Viewpoint 14. Cowie 

9.3.113 This is an open view looking south west from playing fields on the fringes of the village. The 

mown grass of the football pitches occupies the majority of the foreground. Low scrub and 

intermittent trees form a naturalistic boundary to this open area which slopes down steeply 

out of view. Beyond lies an undulating landscape of arable farmland with blocks of woodland 

and mature trees along hedgerow boundaries. Pylon towers along an overhead power line 

are prominent vertical structures crossing this landscape. In the distance the landform 

continues to rise at the Touch Hills and the Campsie Fells and Kilsyth Hills in the distance. 

Dark blocks of conifer plantation and pale moorland and grassland form a mosaic of shapes 

on the upland areas. Turbines at Craigangelt Wind Farm form distant although prominent 

structures on the horizon in the centre of the view. Telecommunication masts at Earls Hill to 

the right of this form less significant vertical features on the horizon. 

9.3.114 Red warning lights on turbines and the masts would form the most visible light sources in 

nighttime views in an essentially dark rural landscape. 

Viewpoint 15. Alloa Tower 

9.3.115 The rooftop viewing level of the historic Alloa Tower provides an elevated vantage point 

within the heart of the town. The canopies of trees which lie within the small parkland which 

surrounds the tower frame the foreground of views. Residential properties and a school are 

partially visible surrounding the park. The industrial fringes of the town dominate the majority 

of the view. Large scale warehouses and industrial buildings with slender stacks are located 

on the bank of the River Forth which is visible in the distance. Beyond the river lies the arable 

farmland of the river floodplains. Tree belts and woodland filter views of the low lying 

landscape beyond. As the land rises in the distance the land cover changes to forestry 

plantations and moorland. The Campsie Fells and Kilsyth Hills form a horizon of undulating 

peaks, the highest of which is at Meikle Bin. The Craigengelt and Earlsburn Wind Farms are 

visible as very distant elements on the horizon to the right of Meikle Bin and partially 

obscured by the dominant vertical stacks in the foreground. The railway bridge and overhead 

power lines are more conspicuous elements of infrastructure in the middle distance. The 





stacks and plumes of industrial development at Cowie are prominent features in the middle 

distance visible against the dark hills. 

9.3.116 Lighting along roads and within buildings at Alloa in the foreground would create a well lit 

context for views at night. Settlements along the River Forth would create a secondary sky 

glow in the middle distance. Warning lights on the turbines and masts would form minor 

visible light sources in the distance. 

Viewpoint 16. Slamannan 

9.3.117 This is an open view looking north west from public open space on the northern edge of the 

village. The mown grass of the football pitch occupies the foreground. A gently undulating 

landscape of mixed arable and pasture fields, subdivided by woodland belts and large blocks 

of conifer plantation extends into the distance. Farmsteads are prominent, scattered 

throughout this landscape. The chain of settlements linking Glasgow to Grangemouth are 

concealed in a broad valley in the landscape. In the far distance the land rises to form the 

Campsie Fells and Kilsyth Hills. The steeply undulating landform is covered by a combination 

of forestry and open moorland. The turbines within wind farms at Craigengelt and Earlsburn 

are distant although recognisable on the horizon. 

9.3.118 A limited number of light sources would be associated with the farmsteads and visible in a 

dark rural landscape. Warning lights on turbines would be visible in the distance. 

Viewpoint 17. Falkirk Wheel 

9.3.119 Following a site visit, the completion of photography and the preparation of wireline images it 

was found that the proposal would not be visible from this location. This viewpoint has 

therefore been discarded at the baseline data gathering stage and no further assessment has 

been undertaken. 

Viewpoint 18. West Highland Way 

9.3.120 This is a distant open view looking east across moorland on the fringes of the Loch Lomond 

and the Trossachs National Park. Watercourses cutting through moorland create a deeply 

fissured foreground which dominates the view. In the distance lies the high ground of the 

Campsie Fells, Fintry Hills and Gargunnock Hills and the distinctive hill edge formed by the 

escarpment slope. The tops of the Ochil Hills are visible in the distance to the left of the view. 

Farmland and forestry is visible in the middle distance covering the base of the hills and 

providing variety in the landcover. The tops of turbines within the Craigengelt Wind Farm are 

visible on the horizon as minor elements to the left of the view. Overhead power lines cross 

the entire view forming prominent vertical elements of infrastructure in this otherwise 

relatively simple landscape. Colours are muted and textures rough in a predominantly rural 

view. 

9.3.121 Warning lights on turbines are likely to be the only sources of light that would be visible at 

night in this view. 

Viewpoint 19. Menteith Hills 

9.3.122 This distant view from the eastern edge of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 

is open in nature due to the elevated moorland location of the viewpoint. The landform drops 

away steeply to the low lying landscape of the River Forth valley base. The Lake of Menteith 

forms an attractive and prominent focus in the landscape. A mix of pasture farmland, 

moorland and large blocks of commercial forestry plantation extends over much of the middle 





distance, forming a subtle patchwork of greens and browns. Farmsteads and small 

settlements are scattered throughout this landscape. In the background the Touch, 

Gargunnock and Fintry Hills combine with the Campsie Fells to form a distinctive upland area 

on the horizon, with some areas displaying particularly distinctive hill edges. Open moorland 

covers the steep scarp slope and relatively flat plateau. The Earlsburn wind farm forms a 

distant, although recognisable feature on the horizon within the centre of the view. 

9.3.123 Nighttime light sources within properties and settlements would be relatively limited. The 

lights of vehicles using the local road network would also be visible and at times prominent. 

Warning lights on turbines at Earlsburn are distant and would not form a significant element 

within nighttime views. 

Viewpoint 20. Ben Ledi 

9.3.124 This is a distant location on one of the highest peaks within the National Park which enables 

panoramic views over the study area to be gained. The foreground of rugged and rocky 

moorland with cairns falls away steeply to reveal commercial forestry plantations and 

moorland on the lower slopes and valley sides within the Park. The settlement of Callander 

forms the most prominent concentration of development within the base of the wide open 

River Teith valley. A small section of the Lake of Menteith is visible in the base of the River 

Forth valley to the right of the view. The farmland and forestry of this broad and relatively flat 

valley base occupies a large proportion of the middle distance. The land rises beyond to form 

the uplands of the Campsie Fells, Kilsyth Hills and the Fintry, Touch and Gargunnock Hills. 

The undulating forms of these hills form a distinctive backdrop to the right of the view. 

Earlsburn wind farm is visible although barely discernible on the skyline of these hills. To the 

left of the view the Ochill Hills form a linear range of open uplands. The Braes of Doune wind 

farm forms a distant although prominent feature in the Knaik Hills to the left of the view. 

9.3.125 Lighting at Callander and farmsteads and along roads would form the main focus for 

nighttime views in a dark rural landscape. Lighting on turbines would form distant light 

sources within upland areas. 

Viewpoint 21. Conic Hill 

9.3.126 This is a distant open view looking east over an attractive rural landscape from a popular 

peak within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. The foreground of upland 

moorland falls away steeply to merge with farmland comprising mixed arable and pasture 

fields defined by hedgerows and interspersed with woodland belts and blocks of dark conifer 

plantation. Beyond the gently undulating landscape of farmland the land rises as a series of 

hills and peaks formed by the Campsie Fells, Fintry Hills, Gargunnock Hills and the Ochil 

Hills. The tops of turbines within the Earlsburn Wind Farm form a distant, although 

recognisable feature above the distinctive hill edge of the Gargunnock Hills beside the Forth 

Valley. Open moorland and grassland covers the high ground, with farmland and forestry 

around the bases of the hills. Small settlements, farmsteads, a network of mainly minor roads 

and overhead power lines form limited urban elements in the view. A mosaic of subtle colours 

and a mix of smooth and rough textures creates a diverse, attractive landscape. 

9.3.127 Lighting within settlements and farmsteads and along roads would form the main focus for 

nighttime views in an essentially dark rural landscape. Lighting on turbines would form distant 

light sources on the horizon. 





Viewpoint 22. Meikle Bin 

9.3.128 This is a mid-distance open view looking north east from the peak of Meikle Bin, which 

adjoins the Kilsyth Hills. The foreground of moorland drops away steeply to reveal the 

relatively open, rounded crest of Little Bin. The curving expanse of water at the Carron Valley 

Reservoir forms the focus of this view. The dense blocks of forestry plantation surround the 

reservoir, forming an undulating and incised southern shoreline. The dark, geometric and 

uniform conifer woodland contrasts with the open, pale mosaic of moorland. Cairnoch Hill 

occupies the centre of the view. The Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Hills form an upland 

plateau beyond on which lie the prominent wind farms at Earlsburn and Craigengelt. The 

River Forth plain stretches into the distance to the right of the view, with the Ochill Hills rising 

up to form a mountainous backdrop. This is a highly managed landscape dominated by 

forestry and a man made water body, with focal points provided by wind farms. 

9.3.129 Traffic using the B818 and isolated residential properties would form visible light sources in 

the view. The red warning lights on turbines at Earlsburn and Craigengelt form relatively 

prominent features in a dark setting. 

Sequential Views 

Balfron to Carron Valley Reservoir travelling east on the B818 

9.3.130 The ZTV coincides with a 17 km long section of this route and indicates views of the 

proposed wind farm may be possible. 

9.3.131 The local road between the eastern edge of Balfron and the junction with the B818 passes 

through an agricultural landscape of mainly pasture fields divided by hedgerows and blocks 

of mixed woodland. The landform is gently undulating and the road is generally orientated 

directly towards the proposal site. Hedgerows lie along both sides of the road, channelling 

views ahead. The presence of woodland and tree belts in the landscape obscures many 

wider views across the surrounding fields however, in several locations more distant views 

towards the Fintry Hills and Campsie Fells are possible and the entrance to the Carron Valley 

between the two upland areas. 

9.3.132 Turning left onto the B818 views open up as the landscape scale increases and woodland 

diminishes. The dip in the hills on the horizon where the Carron Valley is located is more 

pronounced. The Fintry Hills and Campsie Fells rise up steeply either side of the view, 

directing the eye towards the proposed wind farm site. Stone walls and low managed 

hedgerows define the road edges. There are still sufficient mature trees, tree belts and small 

blocks of woodland in the landscape to disrupt and fragment views into the distance. As the 

road approaches Fintry the landscape becomes more wooded and views towards the 

proposed wind farm site are generally obscured. Within the village houses and trees contain 

most distant views out of the settlement. East of this new part of Fintry views over the pasture 

of the flat valley base become more open and the church tower in the old part of Fintry 

becomes a focus in views. Passing through the older part of Fintry, buildings and trees 

continue to filter and fragment views. As the road crosses over the River Carron to the north 

side of the valley, views are contained by the steep valley side. The view eventually opens 

out where the valley base widens and the existing turbines of Earlsburn Wind Farm are 

visible on the horizon beyond a foreground of pasture farmland. These relatively open views 

continue to be gained as the road approaches the western end of the reservoir. The forestry 

covered landform of Cairnoch Hill forms a prominent feature in the foreground of views. As 

the road passes round the base of Cairnoch Hill and follows the shore of the reservoir an 





intermittent fringe of native vegetation is visible in front of dense blocks of plantation conifers 

within the proposal site. Views are generally directed across the open expanse of water at the 

reservoir to the range of forestry clad hills beyond and the peak at Meikle Bin. Driving past 

the eastern boundary of the site views focus on the profile of Craigannet Hill and glimpses 

through trees to the reservoir. 

Carron Bridge to Todholes Bridge travelling west on the B818 

9.3.133 The ZTV coincides with an 8 km long section of this route and indicates views of the 

proposed wind farm may be possible. 

9.3.134 Travelling west on this route along the base of a shallow ‘U’ shaped river valley across open 

pasture land, more distant blocks of woodland and forestry plantation lie on higher ground. 

The proposed wind farm site is not visible at this point of the journey. Passing through a small 

cluster of properties at Muirmill, trees conceal views out from the road corridor. Further to the 

west as the view opens out Craigannet Hill forms the horizon to the right, with the peak of 

Meikle Bin in the distance to the left beyond trees. Approaching the eastern end of the 

reservoir the engineered damn wall is visible in the foreground with the forested slope of 

Meikle Bin rising up beyond. As the road follows the shore of the reservoir glimpses of the 

water are visible through trees. The proposed wind farm site is still not visible at this stage of 

the journey. As the landform at Craigannet Hill dips towards the eastern edge of the site the 

conifer plantation becomes visible. As the road passes round the base of Cairnoch Hill and 

follows the shore of the reservoir an intermittent fringe of native vegetation is visible in front of 

dense blocks of plantation conifers within the proposal site. Views are generally directed 

across the open expanse of water at the reservoir to the range of forestry clad hills beyond 

including the peak at Meikle Bin. As the road continues north the open moorland of the Fintry 

Hills forms a contrasting backdrop to views of the wooded Carron valley. Driving past the 

western boundary of the site conifers continue to confine views to the right and views are 

directed over the reservoir and the reinforced earth slope to the left. 

The A81 travelling east from Aberfoyle to Stirling 

9.3.135 The ZTV indicates that approximately 4 km of this road would provide a potential location for 

views of the proposals. However, roadside trees and woodland obscure the majority of views. 

From a 1 km length of road occupiers of vehicles are able to gain distant oblique views south 

west over farmland and forestry of a backdrop of hills at the Campsie Fells and 

Fintry/Gargunnock/Touch Hills. 

The A81 travelling north from Glasgow to Balfron Station 

9.3.136 A 2 km length of road lies within the ZTV. The road crosses a landscape of lowland pasture 

farmland with hedgerows, trees and small blocks of woodland. The earthworks and 

vegetation associated with a disused railway lies parallel to the eastern side of the road. A 

combination of these elements within the intervening landscape are sufficient to limit most 

views to heavily filtered, oblique glimpses of the Campsie Fells and Fintry Hills in the 

distance. The proposed wind farm site is not apparent. 

The A811 travelling east from Loch Lomond south of Drymen 

9.3.137 The ZTV indicates that approximately 4 km of this road would provide a potential location for 

views of the proposals. A gently rolling landscape of pasture farmland with hedgerow field 

boundaries and many hedgerow trees and blocks of woodland line both sides of the road. 

The tops of the Campsie Fells and Fintry Hills are visible as a distant upland horizon in the 





vicinity of the proposal site. Trees and woodland intermittently obscure views of this distant 

landscape. 

The A82 travelling north of south on the western shore of Loch Lomond south of Luss 

9.3.138 The dense tree cover along the shore of Loch Lomond immediately adjacent to the road 

obscures all views towards the distant landscape in the vicinity of the proposal site. 

The West Highland Way from Balmaha to Conic Hill 

9.3.139 A 3 km length of footpath lies within the ZTV. Woodland and conifer plantations at the base of 

the hill obscure all views out towards the site. The upper slopes of Conic Hill are open 

moorland however, the footpath is located on the south west facing side of the hill which 

directs views over Loch Lomond. Heading east from the summit on the descent a 1 km 

stretch of the footpath would allow users to gain open views to the east. The landscape in the 

vicinity of Carron Valley would be visible in the distance beyond a foreground of hills and 

lowland farmland. This route is represented by viewpoint 21 described at paragraph 9.3.126 

to 9.3.127. 

Rob Roy Way/Cycleway NCR7 travelling north from Drymen 

9.3.140 A 5 km length of footpath lies within the ZTV. Forestry obscures views towards the proposed 

wind farm site as the land rises out of Drymen. Emerging from the conifer plantations the 

view opens out to the east where the Campsie Fells and Fintry/Gargunnock/Touch Hills are 

visible as a distant backdrop. The landscape at Carron Valley is visible as a distant element 

in the view from approximately 1 km of the routes as it approaches a high point at Bet a 

Charcal. This is represented by viewpoint 18 described at paragraph 9.3.120 to 9.3.121. 


Overview of Design Development 

9.4.1 The site selection process and general site design considerations which defined the evolution 

of the proposed Carron Valley 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 15 turbine scheme assessed within the ES. 

Design Strategy 

9.4.2 An initial feasibility study considered land to the north and south of the reservoir for a 

potential wind farm. The initial design included a 77 turbine layout. The Landscape and Visual 

Feasibility Study undertaken in December 2010 concluded that the land at Cairnoch Hill 

should form the focus of further design development. 

9.4.3 Environmental constraints mapping was undertaken to define a ‘Developable Area’ at 

Cairnoch Hill where an intermediate design for a theoretical 24 turbine layout was prepared. 

At this stage some preliminary input to define key landscape and visual considerations was 

undertaken ahead of a design workshop. The 24 turbine layout was rapidly reduced to 16, 

concentrating on the most desirable developable area to avoid likely significant effects on key 

landscape and visual receptors. An area predominantly on the southern and western slopes 

of Cairnoch Hill was identified which would support a compact and balanced layout of 16 

turbines. 





9.4.4 Key viewpoint locations were identified following the preparation of a blade tip ZTV. Wireline 

images were generated for the following strategic locations which were used to illustrate the 

various iterations of the 16 turbine layout; 

• Todholes Bridge (west of site) - In the vicinity of some of the closest residential 

properties. The scheme has been designed to limit adverse effects on sensitive 

receptors in this location. 

• Cringate Law (north of site) - A local high point in the vicinity of the Earlsburn Wind 

Farm. 

• Carron Valley reservoir (east of site) - Representative of the closest residential 

properties to the east. The scheme has been designed to limit adverse effects on 

sensitive receptors in this location. 

• Meikle Bin (south of site) - The highest peak in the vicinity of the site. The elevated 

location allows unhindered views of the Earlsburn and Craigengelt wind farms and has 

enabled the design to be adapted to respond to the context and limit effects on the 

AGLV. 

• Stirling Castle - This receptor has been chosen to ensure turbines are not visible from 

this key location. 

• West Highland Way, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park - This location 

within a nationally designated landscape has been chosen to ensure turbines sit below 

the level of surrounding uplands and are not prominent in views. 

9.4.5 The first four viewpoint locations are in relatively close proximity to the site and allow open 

views of the turbine layout to be analysed. Stirling Castle was a key receptor identified 

through consultation and would potentially gain mid-distance views of the proposals to the 

north east of the site. Turbines have been sited on lower ground within the site to conceal the 

wind farm in views in the context of distinctive hill edges from an important destination and 

viewing point. The view from the National Park is more distant however, it was considered 

important to test scheme visibility from this nationally important landscape. The turbines have 

been located to be discrete in the landscape. 

9.4.6 A series of layouts using the 16 turbines were examined through an iterative design process. 

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 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 reservoir and the landform of Cairnoch Hill. 

• Potential conflicts with sense of remoteness. 





• Relationship of turbines with backdrop and horizon. Turbines have been located away 

from distinctive hill edges and scarp slopes of the plateau landscape. When visible 

turbines would often be visible below the horizon line or level of the surrounding hills. 

• Relationship with existing wind farm turbine size, scale and layout. Turbine size would 

be consistent with neighbouring schemes at Earlsburn and Craigengelt and the wind 

farm scale would be similar to these schemes. The visual separation between the 3 

schemes would be maintained. 

9.4.7 Following the identification of potential impacts on the setting of Sir John de Graham’s Castle 

Scheduled Monument a second design workshop took place. A turbine was removed and the 

15 remaining turbines were repositioned within the developable area. 

9.4.8 In addition to 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 Significant 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 20 months. 

The following construction phase activities have been considered: 

• 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 entrances 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; 

• Re-grading of levels to accommodate wind turbine foundations; and 

• Excavation and filling of borrow pits. 





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 9.2 

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 significance 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 types are set out in detail at Appendix 9.6. 

Landscape Character: Direct Effects 

9.5.3 The likely effects on the landscape fabric and character during the construction phase are 

described in tables at Appendix 9.6. 

9.5.4 The proposed wind farm would be located within the Upper Carron Lowland River Valleys 

character type. The creation of the construction site and activities which 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, borrow pits and access tracks and anemometry mast would involve the removal 

of a typical feature of the landscape character type. These works would be typical practices 

within a commercially managed forest. The high level turbine erection activities and the 

presence of cranes within the landscape would be discordant within the Carron Valley. 

Although conspicuous within the landscape the 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. 

9.5.5 There would be no significant lighting requirements at the site during the construction phase. 

The nighttime 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 

9.5.6 The Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Lowland Hills character type lies immediately to the north 

of the Upper Carron Valley and provides important landscape context to the proposal. The 

construction site and activities would form a prominent feature in the context of this 

landscape character type, which would have an influence over the 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, immediately adjacent to the edge of the character type. The sensitivity of the 

landscape would be medium and the magnitude of change medium, resulting in a Slight nonsignificant 

effect. 

9.5.7 The Campsie Fells Upland Hills and Campsie Fells Lowland Hills character types are two 

further character types which lie adjacent to the Carron Valley. The ridge of hills to the south 

of the proposal site would form the backdrop to the construction activities. The commercial 

forestry of the reservoir fringes within the character types has a similar appearance to land at 

Cairnoch Hill within the construction site. The elevated nature of the landform provides 





opportunities for views out from these hills including most aspects of the construction 

activities. The construction site and in particular the high level activities and cranes would 

form a prominent addition to the landscape in the context of the character types. The 

sensitivity of the landscape and the magnitude of the temporary change would be medium 

leading to a Slight effect during the day which is not significant. 

9.5.8 The Middle Endrick Water Lowland River Valleys character type lies to the west of the Carron 

Valley. The high level construction activities would be visible from relatively large parts of the 

lowland farmed landscape. The sensitivity of the landscape and the magnitude of change 

would be medium, resulting in a Slight non-significant effect. 

9.5.9 The Middle Carron Lowland River Valleys character type and the Denny Muir Lowland Hill 

Fringes character type lie adjacent to the character type in which the construction site would 

be located. These landscapes form a corridor of farmland, moor and woodland and would 

have limited views of the high level construction activities. The sensitivity of these landscapes 

would be medium and the magnitude of change small. The temporary effect would be 

Negligible which is not significant. 

9.5.10 Other landscape character types which lie within a zone of the study area between 5 km and 

35 km from the proposals site would be defined as either Lowland, Coastal or Upload 

character areas. They are located mainly to the east of the site between the Ochil Hills in the 

north and the West Lothian Plateau in the south. Only limited aspects of the high level 

construction activities would be visible above intervening hills which surround the Carron 

Valley. The sensitivity of these landscapes is medium or negligible and the magnitude of 

change would be small to negligible, resulting in a Negligible effect during the day and at 

night, which is not significant. 

9.5.11 Six landscape character types within the Highland character area are located within the Loch 

Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. These landscapes are located between 

approximately 20 km to 35 km from the construction site and are of high scenic quality. 

However, the long distances and sense of separation between the construction activities and 

the character types would limit the influence the temporary works would have over these 

landscapes. These landscapes would have a high sensitivity, would temporarily experience a 

small magnitude of change and a Negligible effect, which is not significant. 

Effects on Visual Receptors During the Construction of the Wind Farm 

9.5.12 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 into the site. The 

cranes would be visible above the surrounding trees and woodland which screens the 

majority of the existing site area. 


9.5.13 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. 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. 






9.5.14 Mature conifers surround the two pairs of semi detached houses at Gartcarron on the B818 

approximately 600 m west of the site (approximately 1.5 km from the nearest proposed 

turbine (Turbine 5)). Views of high level construction activities would be largely obscured by 

trees. The oblique, temporary views of works would be negligible in magnitude resulting in 

effects which would be Negligible overall and not significant. Near views of the construction 

activities would be gained by occupiers of Todholes Farm north of Randieford Bridge 

approximately 300 m west of the site (approximately 1.2 km from the nearest proposed 

turbine (Turbine 5)). Views over grassland and woodland of mainly high level turbine erection 

works and cranes would be gained by residents. The prominent, temporary addition to views 

would be large in magnitude, resulting in a Major effect which is significant in terms of the EIA 

Regulations. 

9.5.15 Five pairs of semi detached bungalows and houses on the B818 at Craigannet approximately 

1.3 km east of the site (approximately 1.4 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 15)) 

are located at the base of the hill, whilst Craigannet and Easterton Farms at the base of 

Craigannet Hill lie approximately 1.4 km and 1.7 km respectively east of the site 

(approximately 1.5 km and 1.8 km respectively from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 

15)). Limited views of high level construction activities would be gained by residents in these 

three properties. The magnitude of change in view would be negligible, resulting in a 

Negligible and non-significant effect. Six properties on the B818 at Muirmill approximately 


and Drum Farm at the base of Dundaff Hill approximately 1.7 km to the east of the site 

(approximately 2.3 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 15)) are surrounded by 

scattered mature trees. Views of high level construction activities on the eastern edge of the 

site would be heavily filtered by intervening trees, limiting the magnitude of change to 

negligible and the significance of effect to a Negligible and non-significant effect. 

9.5.16 Easter Cringate Cottage lies 2.2 km north east of the site in an open moorland location 

(approximately 2.6 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 2)). Residents would gain 

open views over the landscape and conifer plantations of high level construction activities, 

including cranes, behind Cairnoch Hill. The magnitude of change would be medium and the 

significance of effect would be Moderate. Occupiers of single storey properties at Easter 

Cringate and Cairnoch Lodge, which lie 600 m and 550 m north, respectively of the site 

(approximately 1.1 and 1 km respectively from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 3)) 

would have filtered views through trees of high level construction activities rising out of 

forestry on Cairnoch Hill. The magnitude of change would be small and the significance of 

effect would be a Slight and non-significant effect. Cringate lies beside the Endrich Water 

valley approximately 500 m north of the site (approximately 800 m from the nearest proposed 

turbine (Turbine 1)). The landform channels views immediately south. The construction site 

and activities would be prominent in views with a backdrop of the reservoir, forestry beyond 

and Meikle Bin. The magnitude of change would be medium resulting in a Moderate and nonsignificant 

effect. Further up the valley at the base of Ling Hill lies Burnfoot, approximately 

1.8 km to the north of the site (approximately 2.2 km from the nearest proposed turbine 

(Turbine 1)). Views would be channelled towards the wind farm construction site and 

activities beyond a foreground of turbines at Earlsburn. The construction activities would 

temporarily form prominent elements in the view, with a backdrop of the reservoir and 





forestry. The magnitude of change would be medium resulting in a Moderate and nonsignificant 

effect. 

Core Paths, Access Land and Public Viewpoints 

9.5.17 Walkers, cyclists and occupiers of vehicles are all recreational receptors using the forest 

tracks within Carron Valley. The nearest track to the southern shore of the Reservoir provides 

some opportunities for views towards the proposal site. In several locations around the base 

of Haugh Hill, framed views from clearings would be gained towards the wind farm 

construction site and activities. The turbine erection activities and cranes in particular would 

form prominent temporary elements in views. The magnitude of change would be large 

leading to Major effects for walkers which is significant, and Slight effects for cyclists and 

drivers which are not significant. 

Viewpoint Analysis 

9.5.18 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 

22 specific viewpoint locations described at paragraphs 9.5.19 to 9.5.40. below. The likely 

effects on these visual receptors during the construction phase are also summarised at 

Appendix 9.7. 


9.5.19 During the construction phase the activities at the site would become the new focus of the 

view. The activities associated with the erection of the turbines, including cranes, would be 

visible on the slopes of Cairnoch Hill. These high level activities would be seen as prominent 

new elements on the skyline, above the blocks of conifer plantation. The felling of trees to 

accommodate turbines, access tracks and borrow pits would be apparent however the 

temporary and permanent infrastructure itself would be concealed by the extensive area of 

retained forestry. The sensitivity of walkers at this location is high and the magnitude of the 

temporary change in view they would experience would be large, resulting in a Major effect 

which is significant. 


9.5.20 From this location on rising land to the north of the proposed site the construction activities 

would be prominent located on the western side of Cairnoch Hill beside the reservoir, 

although the turbines at the Earlsburn Wind Farm would continue to be very prominent in the 

foreground of the view. Turbine erection activities and cranes would form discordant 

elements in the valley landscape of the river Carron, currently dominated by conifer 

plantations. The tree felling operations associated with construction of wind farm 

infrastructure at the site would be generally characteristic of management operations within a 

commercial forest. Crane pads, borrow pits and track construction would be visible in more 

open areas of the plantation. The sensitivity of receptors would be high and the magnitude of 

change as a result of the construction activities would be medium, resulting in a Moderate 

and non-significant effect. 






9.5.21 The high level wind farm construction activities would be seen beyond the brow of Cairnoch 

Hill which forms an undulating landform in the middle distance and against a distant backdrop 

of the Campsie Fells. The turbine erection activities and cranes would temporarily become a 

prominent addition to the view. The construction site and ground level activities would be 

concealed by forestry and landform. The sensitivity of occupiers of vehicles would be medium 

and the sensitivity of walkers would be high. The magnitude of change would be small for 

both receptor groups leading to a temporary Negligible effect for occupiers of vehicles and 

Slight effect for walkers, neither of which are significant. 


9.5.22 Glimpses of high level construction activities and cranes would be visible on the skyline 

above the rising landform and woodland of Craigannet Hill. The activities would not be 

immediately apparent and could be easily missed by receptors at the eastern end of the 

reservoir. Occupiers of properties and walkers would be of high sensitivity, although the 

negligible magnitude of change would temporarily result in a Negligible and non-significant 

effect. 


9.5.23 The elevated nature of the summit of Tomtain Hill provides opportunities for open views over 

Carron Valley to the mountains of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park on the 

distant horizon. The construction site for the proposed wind farm would be visible on the 

south west flank of Cairnoch Hill adjacent to the reservoir. Many aspects of the construction 

phase would be visible in this panoramic view and would temporarily form discordant 

elements in the landscape. Turbine erection activities and the presence of cranes would be 

the most prominent additions to the view. Borrow pit, crane pad and access track 

construction would also be visible although less prominent within the retained mosaic of 

conifer plantation. The sensitivity of receptors in this location is high and the magnitude of 

change would be medium resulting in a Moderate and non-significant effect. 


9.5.24 Open views across the reservoir from recreational tracks within the forestry would focus on 

the prominent wind farm construction activities. The turbine erection activities and cranes 

would be visible on the slopes of Cairnoch Hill, against the undulating skyline, in a landscape 

of conifer plantation and open forestry land. Borrow pit, crane pad and access track 

construction activities would be visible although partially concealed by the retained blocks of 

conifer plantation. The temporary construction activities would form a discordant addition to 

the view. Walkers would be of high sensitivity to the large magnitude of change in view 

leading to a Major effect, which is significant. Cyclists would be of medium sensitivity and 

would experience a Moderate and non-significant effect. 


9.5.25 High level construction activities associated with the wind farm would be visible with respect 

to all turbines in the proposed wind farm. The construction site and some ground level 

activities would be visible on the slopes of Cairnoch Hill. Tree felling activities to 

accommodate the turbines would be generally characteristic of ongoing management 

practices for commercial forestry. The sensitivity of occupiers of vehicles using the B822 





would be medium and the temporary magnitude of change in view would also be medium, 

leading to a Slight and non-significant effect. 


9.5.26 A small section of the high level construction activities and cranes would be visible on the 

horizon at the head of the Carron Valley. Conifer plantations and woodland fringes in the 

intervening view would conceal further elements of the wind farms construction. Occupiers of 

properties on the eastern edge of the village are receptors of high sensitivity. The small 

magnitude of change would result in a Negligible and non-significant effect. 


9.5.27 The majority of the Carron Valley wind farm construction site and activities would be visible 

on the slopes of Cairnoch Hill in the mid distance view. High level turbine erection activities 

would be prominent in the view, although would be visible below the horizon. Borrow pit, 

crane pad and access track construction activities would be barely perceptible due to the 

screening effects of the retained conifer plantation. Walkers in this location would be 

receptors of high sensitivity, experiencing a small magnitude of change that would 

temporarily result in a Slight and non-significant effect. 


9.5.28 Only glimpses of the high level construction activities would be visible through the tree tops of 

an intervening woodland belt on the edge of the village. The tops of turbines and cranes 

would be barley perceptible and the character of the predominantly rural view would be 

maintained. Receptors would be of high sensitivity and the magnitude of change would be 

negligible, which would temporarily result in a Negligible and non-significant effect. 


9.5.29 Following the preparation of wirelines for this viewpoint it became apparent that no part of the 

proposed construction activities would be visible from this location at Stirling Castle. 


9.5.30 The tops of turbines and cranes for a small section of the wind farm construction activities 

would theoretically be visible from this location. The barely perceptible nature of the 

proposals would form a negligible change in views from the Wallace Monument. The effect 

would be Negligible and therefore not significant. 


9.5.31 The high level turbine erection activities and cranes at some locations within the Carron 

Valley wind farm would be visible as barely perceptible additions to the view below the 

horizon of the distant hills. The temporary activities would form a very minor addition to the 

view. The high sensitivity of walkers and the negligible magnitude of temporary changes in 

this distant view would temporarily result in a Negligible and non-significant effect. 


9.5.32 The tops of 5 turbines and the cranes associated with their erection would temporarily form 

barely perceptible additions to the view beyond Craigengelt Wind Farm. Receptors in this 

location would be of high to medium sensitivity, experiencing a negligible magnitude of effect, 

which would result in a Negligible to and non-significant, effect. 






9.5.33 High level construction activities and cranes would be visible on the horizon beyond 

Craigengelt Wind Farm in the context of extensive and dominant industrial and commercial 

development on the banks of the river Forth in the foreground. The activities would be very 

distant, although recognisable elements in the landscape. The negligible magnitude of 

change in view for these high sensitivity receptors would be temporary and would result in a 

Negligible and non-significant, effect. 


9.5.34 The tops of 6 turbines and the cranes associated with their erection would temporarily form 

barely perceptible additions on the horizon beyond a foreground of open farmland. Although 

a recognisable new element within the view the construction activities would not be 

prominent. The magnitude of change and resulting effect would be negligible and would not 

have a significant effect on views gained by high sensitivity receptors in this location. 


9.5.35 The wireline reveals that no part of the proposed wind farm construction activities would be 

visible from this location. 


9.5.36 The turbine erection activities and cranes at the proposed wind farm site would form a 

distant, although recognisable new element in the view crossing the ridge of hills in the 

distance. Low level infrastructure construction activities would be barely perceptible at this 

distance. The temporary activities would form a new focus within distant views however, the 

magnitude of change at this distance would be small. The high sensitivity receptors would 

experience a small magnitude of change resulting in a Slight and non-significant, effect. 


9.5.37 High level turbine construction activities and cranes would be visible on or below the horizon 

within a dip in the landscape at the head of the Carron Valley. The activities would form very 

minor elements in distant views. Walkers are receptors of high sensitivity and would 

experience a negligible magnitude of change in view which would result in a Negligible 

significance of effect. 


9.5.38 Open views from this peak within the National Park comprise ranges of hills surrounding low 

lying, broad river valley bases. The high level construction activities at the Carron Valley wind 

farm would be visible adjacent to the more visually prominent Earlsburn wind farm. The 

proposals would form a minor temporary element in distant views. Walkers in this location 

would be of high sensitivity to a change in view which would be of negligible magnitude, 

resulting in a Negligible significance of effect. 


9.5.39 The majority of high level construction activities associated with turbine erection and the 

presence of cranes at the proposed wind farm site would be visible at the head of the valley 

which is defined by a gentle dip on the horizon. The activities would form a very distant, 

although recognisable feature within this view. Walkers in this location are receptors of high 





sensitivity and they would experience a negligible magnitude of change in view and a 

Negligible non-significant effect. 


9.5.40 The peak of Meikle Bin provides a local high point in the landscape for panoramic views over 

the study area. The forestry covered slopes of the Carron Valley, rising up from the curving 

expanse of the reservoir dominate the view. The wind farms at Earlsburn and Craigengelt are 

prominent features in the adjoining moorland plateau. The construction site and activities at 

the proposed wind farm would form a prominent addition to the rounded profile of Cairnoch 

Hill, visible below the ridge of the plateau beyond. The felling of trees to accommodate the 

turbines and access tracks would be visible from this elevated location however, this would 

be similar to practices typical of the ongoing management of the commercial forest. The 

construction phase of the proposed wind farm would form a visually prominent and slightly 

discordant aspect of the view in the short term. Receptors in this location would be of high 

sensitivity and the magnitude of change would be medium temporarily resulting in a Moderate 

and non-significant effect. 

Operation 

Activities Associated with the Operational Phase 

9.5.41 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; 

• Anemometry Mast; 

• Sub station/control building; 

• Access tracks; 

• Movement of wind turbine blades; 

• Aviation warning lights. 

9.5.42 In line with a requirement for aviation lighting stipulated by Defence Estates (see Chapter 2: 

The Environmental Impact Assessment and Scoping Process, 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 used 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 500m, the proposals would not result in any change to 

predicted effects on visual receptors or landscape character. 

9.5.43 The visual effects of the movement of the blades will vary according to wind direction, 

meteorological conditions and distance. The paragraphs below have taken into account the 

effects of blade movement on the views available to visual receptors. 

Effects on Landscape Resources During the Operation of the Wind Farm 

Methodology 

9.5.44 The detailed methodology used in assessing the significance of effects has been undertaken 

using the methodology set out in Section 9.2 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 wind farm would be the key landscape 

characteristic, that is whether the wind farm would establish a ‘wind farm landscape type’ and 

further from the site, a ‘wind farm landscape sub-type’ or whether it is 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 9.8. 

Effects on Designated landscapes 

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 

9.5.45 The special qualities of the National Park are defined at para. 9.3.11 to 9.3.13 and generally 

focus on physical attributes of the landscape within the park boundaries. The special qualities 

defined by the LLTNPA would not be unacceptably harmed by the introduction of the 

proposed wind farm into the landscape of the Carron Valley. In long distance views from the 

National Park the wind farm would at times be evident but often would be barely perceptible. 

The tranquillity of the park would therefore not be materially altered. 

9.5.46 Within the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Local Plan, Policy REN5 

Renewable Energy Development Adjacent to the National Park Boundary provides some 

guidance for development outside, although visible from, the National Park. The wind farm 

would be located at least 20 km from areas within the ZTV within the National Park boundary 

and would not be directly affected by the proposals. The distance helps to preserve a buffer 

between users of the LLTNP and the proposed wind farm. The turbines would be seen as a 

new very minor or barely discernible element associated with existing wind farms in the 

vicinity. 

9.5.47 Landscape character types which coincide with the National Park are illustrated on Figure 

9.9. An assessment of effects on their character can be found at paragraph 9.5.65 and in 

Appendix 9.8. With high sensitivity but negligible magnitude of effect, the significance of the 

operational effects of the proposed wind farm on the character of the National Park can be 

summarised as Slight adverse and not significant. The effects on visual receptors within the 

National Park located at viewpoints 18, 19, 20 and 21 would generally be Slight adverse also, 

and not significant (see paragraphs 9.5.104 to 9.5.111). 

Areas of Great Landscape Value 

9.5.48 These landscape designations define and protect small, local areas of scenic and 

recreational value. The proposal would lie within an AGLV which comprises the western end 

of the Campsie Fells and the plateau landscape of the Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Hills. 

The wind farm would be located in an area of commercial forestry and would have a direct 

effect on the landscape fabric and character of the Carron Valley. The arrangement of the 

turbines would reflect the curving form of the reservoir and would sit below the plateau 

landscape which lies to the north and forms the majority of the AGLV. The proposed wind 

farm would form a prominent addition to the landscape in the context of existing wind farms at 

Earlsburn and Craigengelt. The scenic value of the Carron Valley within the wider AGLV 

would be affected, however the recreational resource would be largely unaltered. Six 

viewpoints have been assessed which lie within the AGLV. Walkers at viewpoints within the 

base of the valley at Todholes Bridge (Viewpoint 1) and south of the reservoir (Viewpoint 6) 





would experience Substantial effects. Cyclists south of the reservoir (Viewpoint 6) would 

experience Major effects. Residential receptors east of the reservoir (Viewpoint 4) would 

experience Slight effects. On the edge of the plateau to the north (Viewpoints 2 and 3) 

walkers would experience Moderate effects and from Fintry to the west (Viewpoint 8) 

residential receptors would experience Negligible effects. Effects on character types which 

comprise the AGLV are generally of Moderate significance. The medium magnitude of 

change on a landscape of medium sensitivity would result in a Moderate significance of 

effect. Sufficient landscape would remain largely undeveloped within the AGLV to prevent the 

overall effects from becoming significant. 

National Scenic Areas 

9.5.49 The Loch Lomond NSA and the Trossachs NSA lie with the boundary of the National Park. 

These nationally designated landscapes share the same attributes as the National Park. 

Effects on the character and scenic qualities of these areas would be the same as discussed 

in paragraph 9.5.64 and paragraphs 9.5.104 to 9.5.111. 


9.5.50 There are three RSAs within the study area; the Kilpatrick Hills (within West Dunbartonshire), 

the Campsie Fells (within East Dunbartonshire) and the Kilsyth Hills (within North 

Lanarkshire). RSA’s are designated for the scenic quality of their landscape and are 

protected at a regional level. The RSA’s coincide with the Campsie Fells Upland Hills 

character type which lies in close proximity to the south of the proposed wind farm. The 

prominent proposed wind farm development in the context of the upland hills and existing 

wind farms at Earlsburn and Craigengelt in the neighbouring Fintry, Gargunnock, Touch Hills 

character type would result in an indirect effect on a landscape of medium sensitivity and 

medium magnitude of change which would be of Moderate significance. 

Landscape Character: Direct Effects 

9.5.51 The likely effects on the landscape fabric and character during the operational phase are 

described in tables at Appendix 9.8. 

9.5.52 The proposed wind farm would lie within the Upper Carron Lowland River Valleys Character 

Area. Figure 9.9 shows the application boundary overlapping with the adjoining Fintry, 

Gargunnock and Touch Lowland Hills character area. However, the SNH based character 

boundaries do not entirely reflect the genuine landcover and topography in this location. The 

site lies within an area of commercial forestry on Cairnoch Hill which extends further north 

than the SNH boundary suggests. The assessment considers the Upper Carron Valley to be 

the host character area with consideration also of the indirect visual effect on the adjacent 

character of the Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Lowland Hills. The Lowland Hills to the north 

comprise open moorland and form the plateau edge of this character area. 

9.5.53 Direct effects on the Upper Carron Lowland River Valleys character area would include the 

introduction of a new landscape feature into the area. There are no operational windfarms 

within the valley landscape and the proposed wind farm would form a prominent new 

addition. The relatively enclosed nature of the valley, comprising dense commercial forestry 

covering the valley sides which rise up from the curving expanse of water formed by the 

reservoir, creates a sense of containment and partial separation from the wider landscape. 

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 commercial forestry, as a feature of the landscape character area, is of medium 

sensitivity to a medium magnitude of change. The effect on the character of the forestry land, 

as a result of the wind farm would be Moderate and not significant. 

9.5.54 The turbines would be arranged around the sides of Cairnoch Hill to reflect the underlying 

topography of the site. Open views would be retained to the summit of the hill. The turbines 

would also reflect the curving form of the reservoir and the dominant pattern of this valley 

landscape. The creation of the reservoir and the extensive area of commercial forestry have 

eliminated any sense of wild character within the valley. The condition of the character area is 

good and the value, based on the regional importance of the AGLV, is medium. The 

sensitivity would be medium and the magnitude of change also medium, resulting in a 

Moderate and non-significant effect. 

9.5.55 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 Upper Carron Lowland River 

Valley. 

9.5.56 The nighttime effect of aviation warning lights on proposed turbines in a relatively dark rural 

landscape would be Slight adverse within the character type. The presence of lights on 

turbines at the Earlsburn and Craigengelt Wind Farms has established a similar context 

immediately adjacent to the proposal site. 

Landscape Character: Indirect Effects 

9.5.57 The Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Lowland Hills character area lies immediately to the north 

of the Upper Carron Valley and provides important landscape context to the proposal. The 

range of hills form an upland plateau with steep scarp slopes to the north and west. The land 

cover of open moorland contrasts with the forested Carron Valley. The presence of existing 

wind farms at Earlsburn and Craigengelt form prominent established features in the 

landscape which lie in close proximity to the proposal site and the southern edge of the 

character area. 

9.5.58 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. Wind turbines 

currently form an important feature within this character area. The proposed development 

would form an intensification of this character through the close proximity of the development 

and the relationship between the three schemes. The sensitivity of the character area would 

be medium and the magnitude of change medium, resulting in a Moderate non-significant 

effect. 

9.5.59 Nighttime effects of warning lights on turbines in the context of existing turbine lighting within 

the character type would be Slight and not significant. 

9.5.60 The Campsie Fells Upland Hills and Campsie Fells Lowland Hills character areas lie adjacent 

to the Carron Valley to the south. The ridge of hills form the backdrop to the proposal site and 

the northern edges of the character type form the upper reaches of the Carron Valley sides. 

The commercial forestry of the reservoir fringes have a similar character to the proposal site 

however the open moorland of the ridge top provides contrast. The upper reaches of the hills 

form an elevated vantage point for panoramic views over the study area. The proposed wind 

farm would provide an intensification of developments in the context of the character areas, 

having an influence over their sense of remoteness. The sensitivity of the landscape and the 





magnitude of change would be medium leading to a Moderate significance of effect during 

the day and a Slight effect at night, which are not significant. 

9.5.61 The Middle Endrick Water Lowland River Valleys character area lies to the west of the Carron 

Valley. The proposed turbines would be visible from relatively large parts of the lowland 

farmed landscape. The proposed wind farm would form a new type of development visible in 

the context of a rural landscape with no existing visual relationship with windfarms in the 

vicinity. The sensitivity of the landscape and the magnitude of change would be medium, 

resulting in a Moderate significance of effect in the daytime and Slight effect at night, which 

are not significant. 

9.5.62 The Middle Carron Lowland River Valleys character area and the Denny Muir Lowland Hill 

Fringes character area lie adjacent to the proposed wind farm site to the east. These 

landscapes form a strongly contained corridor of farmland, moor and woodland. Limited 

intervisibility with the proposed wind farm would result in a medium sensitivity and a small 

magnitude of change in character. The effects would be Slight during the day and Negligible 

at night, which are not significant. 

9.5.63 Other character areas within the Lowland, Coastal and Upland character types within 5 km to 

35 km of the proposal site are located mainly to the east of the site between the Ochil Hills in 

the north and the West Lothian Plateau in the south. The location of intervening landform 

within the Touch Hills and Kilsyth Hills, and the intensely developed swathe of land 

associated with The River Forth, limits the intervisibilty between the character areas and the 

proposed wind farm. The presence of blade tips on a distant horizon in the vicinity of existing 

turbines would not have a significant influence over the character of landscape types within 

the study area. The sensitivity of these landscapes is generally medium or negligible and the 

magnitude of change would be small to negligible, resulting in a significance of effect ranging 

from Slight to Not significant during the day and Negligible to Not significant at night. 

9.5.64 Landscape character areas within the Highland character type are located within the Loch 

Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. There landscapes are located between 20 km to 

35 km from the study area and are of a very good condition and national value. However, the 

long distances and sense of separation between the proposals and the character areas 

would limit the influence the proposals would have over these landscapes. As a result these 

landscapes of high sensitivity, would experience a small magnitude of change and a Slight 

significance of effect during the day, reducing to Negligible at night, which are not significant. 

Effects on Visual Receptors During the Operation of the Wind Farm 

9.5.65 The effects of the operational phase of the wind farm on visual receptors is detailed at 

Appendix 9.9. 


9.5.66 Visual receptors within a radius of approximately 2 km form a local level study area and are 

of high sensitivity. The effect on their view is described below. 


9.5.67 Views from the two pairs of semi detached houses at Gartcarron on the B818 approximately 

600 m west of the site (approximately 1.5 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 5)) 

are generally contained by mature conifers within surrounding plantations. Oblique, heavily 

filtered views through trees towards turbines and the anemometry mast on the north western 





edge of the proposed wind farm may be possible, seen in the context of existing turbines at 

the Earlsburn Wind Farm. The magnitude of change in view would be negligible, resulting in a 

Negligible effect in the day and at night, which are not significant. Todholes Farm north of 

Randieford Bridge approximately 300 m west of the site (approximately 1.2 km from the 

nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 5)) lies within open grassland, allowing occupiers of the 

property to gain views out over the river and woodland to the wind farm located on Cairnoch 

Hill. The turbines and anemometry mast would be prominent in the landscape and visible 

beside the Earlsburn Wind Farm to the north. The magnitude of the permanent operational 

effect would be large leading to a Substantial effect in the day, which is significant in terms of 

the EIA Regulations, and a Moderate effect at night. 

9.5.68 Five pairs of semi detached bungalows and houses on the B818 at Craigannet approximately 


are located at the base of the hill. Views of the turbines are restricted by the landform to a 

couple of blade tips. The magnitude of change in view would be negligible, resulting in a 

Slight significance of effect during the daytime and a Negligible effect at night, which are not 

significant. Occupiers of Craigannet and Easterton Farms at the base of Craigannet Hill 

approximately 1.4 km and 1.7 km respectively east of the site (approximately 1.5 km and 

1.8 km respectively from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 15)) would experience similar 

effects to the nearby bungalows. Six properties on the B818 at Muirmill approximately 2.1 km 

east of the site (approximately 2.2 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 15)) are 

surrounded by scattered mature trees. Views of turbines on the eastern edge of the site 

would be heavily filtered by intervening trees, limiting the magnitude of effect to negligible and 

the significance of effect to Negligible in the day and Not significant at night, which are nonsignificant. 

Drum Farm at the base of Dundaff Hill approximately 1.7 km to the east of the site 

(approximately 2.3 km from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 15)) would experience 

similar effects. 

9.5.69 2.2 km north east of the site lies Easter Cringate Cottage (approximately 2.6 km from the 

nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 2)). The open moorland location and relatively elevated 

aspect of the property would allow residents to gain open views over the landscape and 

conifer plantations of turbines and anemometry mast rising up behind Cairnoch Hill. Views 

would be gained in the context of exiting wind farms at Earlsburn and Craigengelt. The 

magnitude of change of the permanent operational effect would be medium and the 

significance of effect would be Major during the day, which is significant in terms of the EIA 

Regulations and Moderate at night. Single storey properties at Easter Cringate and Cairnoch 

Lodge lie 300 m and 250 m north, respectively of the site (approximately 1.1 km and 1 km 

respectively from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 3)). These properties are located 

within groups of mature trees immediately north of the conifer plantation of the site. 

Occupiers of these properties would have filtered views through trees of turbines and 

anemometry mast rising out of forestry on Cairnoch Hill. The magnitude of change would be 

small and the significance of effect would be Slight in the day and Negligible at night, which 

are not significant. Cringate lies beside the Endrich Water valley approximately 500 m north 

of the site (approximately 800 m from the nearest proposed turbine (Turbine 1)). The 

landform channels views immediately south. Turbines on the north western edge of the wind 

farm and the anemometry mast would be visible with a backdrop of the reservoir, forestry 

beyond and Meikle Bin. The magnitude of change would be medium resulting in a Major 

effect during the day, which is significant in terms of the EIA Regulations, and a Moderate 

effect at night. Further up the valley at the base of Ling Hill lies Burnfoot, approximately 





1.8 km to the north of the site (approximately 2.2 km from the nearest proposed turbine 

(Turbine 1)). This property lies within moorland which covers the valley sides of the burn. 

Views would be channelled towards the wind farm beyond a foreground of turbines at 

Earlsburn. The Carron Valley turbines and the anemometry mast would be visible as 

prominent additions to the view, with a backdrop of the reservoir and forestry beyond in the 

context of existing turbines at Earlsburn wind farm. The magnitude of change would be 

medium resulting in a Moderate significance of effect during the daytime and a Slight effect at 

night, which are not significant. The effect is not significant due to the presence of existing 

turbines at Earlsburn defining the expectations of the viewer at this location. 

Core Paths, Access Land and Public Viewpoints 

9.5.70 The forest track nearest to the southern shore of the Carron Valley Reservoir provides some 

opportunities for views towards the proposal site for walkers, cyclists and occupiers of 

vehicles. In several locations around the base of Haugh Hill near, framed views 

(approximately 600 m) between dense stands of conifers and over the scrubby edge of the 

reservoir would be gained towards the proposed wind farm. The turbines would form 

prominent new elements in views which contain existing turbines at Earlsburn and 

Craigengelt. Wind farm infrastructure would also be visible. The magnitude of the permanent 

operational change would be large leading to Substantial effects for high sensitivity walkers, 

and Major effects for medium sensitivity cyclists and occupiers of vehicles, which are 

significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 

Dynamic Views 

9.5.71 The B818 follows the southern boundary of the proposal site, adjacent to the northern shore 

of the reservoir. The sequential effects on occupiers of vehicles using this route are 

discussed in more detail at paragraphs 9.5.114 to 9.5.123. 

Viewpoint Analysis 


9.5.72 This near view would contain a new focus following the development of the wind farm. The 

majority of the 15 turbine scheme would be visible on the slopes of Cairnoch Hill. The 

turbines would be seen as prominent new elements on the skyline, rising out of the blocks of 

conifer plantation. The turbines are evenly spaced within the view and would not unduly 

obstruct views of the landscape. The blocks and strips of trees which would need to be felled 

to accommodate turbines and access tracks are barely perceptible in this view due to the 

extensive area of retained forestry. 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 EIA Regulations. 

9.5.73 Warning lights on turbines would be visible above the horizon in an essentially dark, unlit 

landscape. Effects on receptors would be Moderate, which is non-significant . 


9.5.74 From this location on rising land to the north of the proposed site the turbines at the Earlsburn 

Wind Farm would dominate the view. The addition of 12 visible turbines and the anemometry 

mast of the proposed wind farm into the view would provide a secondary focus for walkers in 

this location. The turbines would be clustered around the western side of Cairnoch Hill beside 





the reservoir, in the valley landscape of the River Carron, currently dominated by conifer 

plantations. The blade tips of some of the turbines would break the horizon formed by the 

Kilsyth Hills. The open blocks and strips within the plantation created by the felling of forestry 

trees to accommodate turbine and access tracks would be visible, although not 

uncharacteristic in the managed landscape. The sensitivity of receptors would be high and 

the magnitude of change as a result of the introduction of further turbines into the view would 

be medium. The receptors expectation in this location is that turbines will be seen within the 

view. The addition of the proposals into the view would result in a Moderate effect, which is 

not significant. 

9.5.75 Warning lights on proposed turbines would be visible in the context of existing lighting on 

turbines within the Earlsburn Wind Farm. The landscape context is otherwise generally dark. 

Effects on receptors would be Slight which is not significant. 


9.5.76 The 12 visible turbines and the anemometry mast of the Carron Valley Wind Farm would be 

seen beyond the brow of Cairnoch Hill which forms an undulating landform in the middle 

distance. The landscape of geometric blocks of commercial forestry, out of which the turbines 

would rise, contrasts with the open moorland of the foreground in which the wind farm at 

Earlsburn is located, visible on the right side of the view. The turbines and the anemometry 

mast are visible on the skyline against a distant backdrop of the Campsie Fells. The turbines 

would become a prominent addition to the view, although would not form the dominant 

element. Other wind farm infrastructure would not be visible. The sensitivity of occupiers of 

vehicles would be medium and the sensitivity of walkers would be high. The magnitude of 

change would be small for both receptor groups leading to a Moderate effect for walkers and 

a Slight effect for occupiers of vehicles, neither of which would be significant. Effects on 

views gained by walkers in this location would not be Major as the wind farm would not 

dominate the view and the expectation of the viewer has been defined by the presence of the 

existing wind farm at Earlsburn. 

9.5.77 Lighting on proposed turbines would be visible in the context of existing lighting on turbines 

within the Earlsburn Wind Farm. The landscape setting is otherwise unlit. Effects on 

receptors would be Slight or Negligible, which is not significant. 


9.5.78 The blade tips of two turbines on the eastern edge of the proposed wind farm would be 

visible on the skyline above the rising landform and woodland of Craigannet Hill. The wind 

farm would not be immediately apparent to receptors at the eastern end of the reservoir. 

Occupiers of properties and walkers would be of high sensitivity, although the negligible 

magnitude of change would result in Slight effects on views, which are not significant. 

9.5.79 No lighting associated with the proposed wind farm would be visible. Existing street lights and 

lighting from within properties would form the focus of nighttime views. 


9.5.80 The elevated nature of the summit of Tomtain Hill provides opportunities for open views over 

Carron Valley to the mountains of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park on the 

distant horizon. The proposed wind farm would be visible on the side of Cairnoch Hill which 

sweeps down to the shore of the reservoir. The turbines and the anemometry mast would be 

visible within the mosaic of conifer plantations, felled trees and moorland of the forestry 





commission land. The proposed wind farm would form a prominent addition to this valley 

which sits low in the landscape and would retain open views to the peaks within the national 

park. The wind farms at Earlsburn and Craigengelt occupy open moorland in the adjoining 

landscape area, providing an established context in which the proposed wind farm would be 

seen and defining the expectation of the viewer. The sensitivity of receptors in this location is 

high and the magnitude of change would be medium resulting in a Moderate effect. Effects 

are not significant due to the presence of existing wind farms in the view providing an 

established visual context within which the effects of the Carron Valley Wind Farm have been 

assessed. 


within the Earlsburn and Craigengelt wind farms and the telecommunication masts at Earl’s 

Hill. The only other significant light source would be vehicles on the B818 which follows the 

edge of the reservoir. The landscape setting is otherwise unlit. Effects on receptors would be 

Slight and not significant. 


9.5.82 Open views across the reservoir would focus on the prominent new turbines with the 

proposed wind farm. Turbines at the Earlsburn and Craigengelt wind farms are visible on the 

skyline however, they are more distant and form minor elements of the view. The proposed 

turbines would be located on the slopes of Cairnoch Hill in the contrasting landscape of 

dense blocks of conifer plantation and open forestry land. The strong shapes and form of the 

managed landscape and the turbines would provide balance within the view. However, the 

proposed wind farm would form the most prominent element in the view, visible against the 

undulating skyline. Walkers would be of high sensitivity to the large magnitude of change in 

view leading to a Substantial effect, which is significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. The 

ability to see all turbines and some other infrastructure including tracks and the felled areas of 

trees in relatively close proximity would result in the Substantial effects for receptors at this 

viewpoint. Cyclists would be of medium sensitivity and would experience a Moderate effect, 

which is not significant. 


within the Earlsburn and Craigengelt Wind Farms. The only other significant light source 

would be vehicles on the B818 beyond the reservoir. The landscape setting is otherwise unlit. 

Effects on walkers would be Moderate and cyclists would be Slight and not significant. 


9.5.84 All 15 turbines in the proposed scheme would be visible on the slopes of Cairnoch Hill. The 

slender nature of the anemometry mast would begin to diminish the visibility of this element 

of the wind farm at this distance. The proposed wind farm would form a significance increase 

in the extent of turbines within the view. The proposals would form a continuation of the chain 

of turbines at Earlsburn Wind Farm, dropping down to the valley side of the River Carron. 

Areas of trees felled to accommodate the turbines would form very minor changes to the 

broad blocks of conifers. The location of the proposed wind farm relates to the wider area of 

forestry spanning the entire view, in front of the moorland plateau beyond. The proposed 

wind farm would form a prominent new element in a view which contains an existing wind 

farm of similar scale. The sensitivity of occupiers of vehicles using the B822 would be 

medium and the magnitude of change in view would also be medium, leading to a Moderate 

effect, which is not significant. 





9.5.85 Existing lighting on turbines within the Earlsburn Wind Farm and masts at Earl’s Hill would 

form a nighttime context for views of the proposed wind farm turbines. The only other light 

source would be at Watershead farmstead. The landscape setting is otherwise unlit. Effects 

on receptors would be Slight and non-significant. 


9.5.86 The proposed wind farm would be visible at the head of the Carron Valley where interlocking 

landforms dip down to form a shallow ‘V’ shape on the horizon. Only 3 turbines would be 

seen above conifer plantations and woodland fringes in the valley base. The turbines would 

be visible on the horizon as minor elements in the view. The farmland, moorland and forestry 

which comprise the view would remain the dominant elements. Occupiers of properties on 

the eastern edge of the village are receptors of high sensitivity. The small magnitude of 

change would result in a Slight effect which is not significant. 

9.5.87 Lighting within properties on the edge of Fintry and along the B818 would form minor 

nighttime sources of light. Vehicles using the B818 would be more prominent. These limited 

light sources would form the context for views of the warning lights on turbines, which would 

form a minor addition to the view. The significance of the effect would be Negligible, which is 

not significant. 


9.5.88 The majority of the proposed wind farm would be visible on the slopes of Cairnoch Hill in the 

mid distance view. The plateau landscape of the Fintry Hills frames the view to the left and 

provides a prominent location for the Earlsburn Wind Farm, visible on the skyline and against 

the Ochil Hills. The smooth slopes of the Campsie Fells and Meikle Bin flank the proposal to 

the right. The proposed wind farm would be visible below the horizon, in front of the 

Craigengelt Wind Farm. The proposed wind farm would form a prominent, although minor 

addition to a view, within a landscape containing existing wind farms. The position would not 

coincide with the distinctive hill edge to the left. Walkers in this location would be receptors of 

high sensitivity, experiencing a small magnitude of change that would result in a Slight effect, 



within the Earlsburn and Craigengelt Wind Farms. Vehicles on a short stretch of the B818 

would be visible in the centre of the view. The landscape setting is otherwise unlit. Effects on 

receptors would be Slight and non-significant. 


9.5.90 In this view near the edge of the settlement the proposed wind farm would be partially visible, 

filtered through the tree tops of an intervening woodland belt. The profile of the Carron Valley 

is apparent where the landform dips down to reveal views of the proposal however, the 

turbines would be barley perceptible and the character of the predominantly rural view would 

be maintained. Receptors would be of high sensitivity and the magnitude of change would be 

negligible, leading to a Negligible non-significant effect. 

9.5.91 Warning lights on turbines would be barely perceptible beyond intervening woodland. Lighting 

within farm buildings may provide some context for nighttime views in a rural area. The effect 

would be Negligible, which is not significant. 






9.5.92 Following the preparation of wirelines during the design development process the wind farm 

has been successfully concealed beyond intervening hills in views from Stirling Castle and 

avoids conflicts with distinctive hill edges. 


9.5.93 The wireline reveals that the blade tips of two turbines would theoretically be visible from this 

location. It can be concluded that the barely perceptible nature of the proposals would not 

have a significant effect on views from the Wallace Monument. The existing wind farms at 

Craigengelt and Earlsburn would continue to form the focus for views towards the horizon. 

The magnitude of change would be negligible, experienced by a high sensitivity receptor, 

resulting in a Negligible non-significant effect. 

9.5.94 The extensive, well lit urban areas within the river valley would provide the most significant 

light sources in this view. Warning lights on the proposed turbines would be visible on the 

horizon next to lights on the Craigengelt and Earlsburn turbines. These would be visible 

although relatively insignificant within the wider view. Effects on receptors would be 

Negligible and not significant. 


9.5.95 Views across the developed base of the broad forth valley towards the distant horizon of the 

Fintry/Gargunnock/Touch Hills and the Campsie Fells and Kilsyth Hills focus on the Earlsburn 

and Craigengelt Wind Farms which break the skyline. Some of the turbines within the 

proposed wind farm would be visible as barely perceptible additions to the view, overlapping 

with the Craigengelt Wind Farm, but below the horizon. The extensive development in the 

valley base and the massed hills of the plateau landscape would continue to form the 

dominant elements of the view. The proposed wind farm would form a very minor addition to 

the view in the vicinity of currently established wind farms and would not coincide with or alter 

the distinctive hill edge to the right. The high sensitivity of walkers and the negligible 

magnitude of change in this distant view would result in a Negligible effect which is not 

significant. 

9.5.96 Lighting within settlements within the river valley would provide the most significant light 

sources in this view. Warning lights on the proposed turbines would be visible on the horizon 

next to lights on the Craigengelt and Earlsburn turbines and masts at Earl’s Hill. These would 

be visible although relatively insignificant within the wider view. Effects on receptors would be 



9.5.97 The focus of this view is the large area of public open space (currently undergoing extensive 

remodelling) surrounding the receptor. The narrow sliver of undulating hills visible on the 

horizon form a distant backdrop to the view. The Craigengelt Wind Farm forms a distant 

focus for views of this plateau landscape, with Earlsburn Wind Farm less prominent to the 

right. The blade tips of 5 turbines at the proposed wind farm would form a barely perceptible 

addition to the view beyond Craigengelt. Receptors in this location would be of high to 

medium sensitivity, experiencing a negligible magnitude of effect. The effect would be 


9.5.98 The proposed wind farm would not be visible at night in this view. 






9.5.99 Distant views of the Kilsyth Hills and Campsie Fells are visible beyond the foreground of 

extensive and dominant industrial and commercial development on the banks of the river 

Forth. The Craigengelt Wind Farm forms a distant, although prominent feature on the horizon 

whilst the Earlsburn Wind Farm is partially obscured by stacks and structures in the 

foreground. The blade tips of 8 turbines within the proposed wind farm would be visible as 

very distant, although recognisable elements on the horizon beyond Craigengelt. The 

proposed wind farm would be seen as a slight intensification of existing developments in the 

view. The negligible magnitude of change in view for these high sensitivity receptors would 

result in a Negligible effect which is not significant. 

9.5.100 The proposed wind farm would not be visible at night in this view. 


9.5.101 This open view from a recreation ground has a setting of farmland and the distant undulating 

ridge of the Kilsyth Hills and Campsie Feels. The cluster of turbines at Craigengelt and 

Earlsburn form a distant focus for views. The 6 turbines within the proposed wind farm would 

form a smaller secondary focus to the left. Although recognisable new elements within the 

view the turbines are not prominent and do not have a significant effect on the views. The 

high sensitivity receptors would experience a negligible magnitude of change and a 

Negligible effect which is not significant. 

9.5.102 Existing lighting on turbines within the Earlsburn Wind Farm would form a nighttime context 

for views of the proposed turbines. The only other light source would be at farmsteads 

scattered throughout the landscape. The landscape setting is otherwise unlit. The magnitude 

of change would be negligible and the effect Negligible and non-significant. 


9.5.103 The wireline reveals that no part of the proposed wind farm would be visible from this 

location. 


9.5.104 This open view from the edge of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park extends 

over a middle distance of relatively flat farmland to a backdrop of hills. The head of the 

Carron Valley lies at the shallow notch on the horizon formed by the interlocking landforms of 

the Fintry Hills and Campsie Fells. The location of the wind farm in this notch would avoid 

conflict with the more distinctive and sensitive hill edges on either side, therefore reducing 

any effect that it might have had on the perceived scale of this area of upland. The proposed 

wind farm would form a distant, although recognisable new element in the view crossing the 

ridge of these hills. The edge of the Earlsburn Wind Farm is also visible on the horizon to the 

left of the view. The new development would form a new focus within distant views however, 

the magnitude of change at this distance would be small. The high sensitivity receptors would 

experience a Slight effect, which is not significant. 

9.5.105 Scattered farmsteads and traffic on local roads are likely to form the only nighttime light 

sources as a context to warning lights on the proposed turbines at Carron Valley. The new 

distant light sources would result in a Negligible effect on views, which is not significant. 






9.5.106 The open view over the flat valley base of the River Forth extends to the distant uplands at 

the Touch, Gargunnock and Fintry Hills and the Campsie Fells. The majority of turbines at the 

Carron Valley site would be potentially visible. The proposal would form a very distant, 

although recognisable feature adjacent to the Earlsburn wind farm, which would remain the 

most visible wind farm in the view. The position of the wind farm would not coincide with any 

section of distinctive hill edge or change the viewers appreciation of scale. Walkers using the 

core path would be of high sensitivity and they would experience a negligible magnitude of 

change, leading to a Negligible effect, which is not significant. 

9.5.107 Small rural settlements, scattered farmsteads, traffic on local roads and turbines at the 

Earlsburn wind farm form a nighttime context in which the warning lights on the proposed 

turbines at Carron Valley would be seen. The new distant light sources would result in a 

Negligible effect on views, which is not significant. 


9.5.108 Open views from this peak within the National Park comprise ranges of hills surrounding low 

lying, broad river valley bases. The cluster of turbines at the Carron Valley wind farm would 

be visible adjacent to the more visually prominent Earlsburn wind farm. The proposals would 

form a slight intensification of development at this location beyond the Fintry Hills. The 

change in view would be barely perceptible at this distance. Walkers in this location would be 

of high sensitivity to a change in view which would be of negligible magnitude, resulting in a 

Negligible effect, which is not significant. 

9.5.109 Lighting at Callander and farmsteads and along roads would form the main focus for 

nighttime views in a dark rural landscape. Lighting on turbines would be seen as a minor 

addition to the view next to Earlsburn wind farm and in the wider context of lighting at the 

Braes of Doune scheme. 


9.5.110 Views east from Conic Hill extend across undulating lowland farmland and moor. The series 

of hills formed by the Ochil Hills, Touch/Gargunnock/Fintry Hills and the Kilsyth Hills and the 

Kilsyth Hills and Campsie Fells dominate distant views and characterise the landscape. The 

majority of turbines within the proposed wind farm would be visible at the head of the valley 

which is defined by a gentle dip on the horizon. The location of the wind farm in this dip would 

avoid visual conflict with the distinctive hill edges, therefore reducing effects on the perceived 

scale of this area of upland. The proposal would form a very distant, although recognisable 

feature within this view and would be more prominent than the Earlsburn Wind Farm, which is 

visible to the left. Walkers in this location are receptors of high sensitivity and they would 

experience a negligible magnitude of change in view and a Negligible effect which is not 

significant. 

9.5.111 Small rural settlements, scattered farmsteads, traffic on local roads and turbines at the 

Earlsburn wind farm form a nighttime context in which the warning lights on the proposed 

turbines would be seen. The new distant light sources would result in a Negligible effect on 

views, which is not significant. 






9.5.112 The peak of Meikle Bin provides a local high point in the landscape for panoramic views over 

the study area. The forestry covered slopes of the Carron Valley, rising up from the curving 

expanse of the reservoir dominate the view. The wind farms at Earlsburn and Craigengelt are 

prominent features in the adjoining moorland plateau. The proposed wind farm would form a 

prominent new development on the rounded profile of Cairnoch Hill, visible below the ridge of 

the plateau beyond. The areas of forestry felled to accommodate the turbines would be 

clearly visible from this elevated location however, in most situations this would appear to 

form an extension of the ongoing management of the commercial forest. The access tracks 

are more typical of existing forestry tracks and do not appear uncharacteristic. The felled 

trees at Sir John de Graham’s Castle site open up the setting of this heritage feature on the 

edge of the reservoir. The changes to the conifer plantations generally provide an 

enhancement to the appearance of this large scale feature in the landscape and help to 

merge the site with the surrounding less managed parts of the landscape. The proposed wind 

farm would form the most visually prominent wind farm in a view in which this type of 

development has been established. Receptors in this location would be of high sensitivity and 

the magnitude of change would be medium, resulting in a Moderate effect which is not 

significant. The presence of prominent existing wind farms defines the expectations of 

viewers at this location and prevents the visual effects of the proposals resulting in significant 

effects. 

9.5.113 Warning lights on the Earlsburn and Craigengelt turbines and masts at Earl’s Hill would form 

an immediate nighttime context in which the proposed turbine lights would be seen. Vehicles 

on the B818 and more distant lighting in urban areas in the Forth valley would also be 

prominent in a largely dark, rural landscape. The effect on visual receptors would be Slight 


Sequential Effects 

Balfron to Carron Valley Reservoir travelling east on the B818 

9.5.114 Potential views of the proposed wind farm would be gained from a 17 km length of this road. 

Between Balfron and the western approach to the Carron Valley reservoir the road passes 

through an agricultural landscape of mainly pasture fields divided by hedgerows and blocks 

of mixed woodland. The landform is gently undulating and the road is generally orientated 

directly towards the proposal site. Hedgerows lie along both sides of the road, channelling 

views ahead. In several locations more distant views towards the Fintry Hills and Campsie 

Fells are possible and the entrance to the Carron Valley between the two upland areas. 

Turbines on the western side of the wind farm would be partially visible on the horizon at the 

head of the Carron Valley (See viewpoint 8 Fintry). The proposals would form a minor, 

although prominent addition to the view, often visible in the distance. Views would be 

intermittent and sometimes filtered by vegetation. The sensitivity of the receptor would be 

medium and the magnitude of effect would be small resulting in a Slight effect which is not 

significant. 

9.5.115 As the road approaches the western end of the reservoir views become relatively open. The 

turbines would be prominent on the forestry covered landform of Cairnoch Hill (See viewpoint 

1 Todholes Bridge). As the road follows the shore of the reservoir turbines would only be 

visible where there are gaps in the intermittent fringe of native vegetation in front of dense 

blocks of plantation conifers. Views are generally directed across the reservoir to Meikle Bin. 





Views would be intermittent depending on the presence of vegetation. The sensitivity of the 

receptor would be medium and the magnitude of effect would be large resulting in Major 

effects which are significant. 


9.5.116 Potential views of the wind farm would be gained from an 8 km long section of this route. 

West of a small cluster of properties at Muirmill, as the trees thin out glimpses of turbine 

blade tips may be visible above Craigannet Hill. Approaching the eastern end of the reservoir 

the engineered damn wall is visible in the foreground and blade tips may be visible on the 

horizon (See viewpoint 4 Carron Valley Reservoir). The proposals would form a barely 

discernible and easily missed element in the view. The sensitivity of occupiers of vehicles 

would be medium and the magnitude of effect negligible. The effect would be Negligible 


9.5.117 As the road follows the shore of the reservoir glimpses of the turbines are revealed through 

gaps in the intermittent fringe of native vegetation and dense blocks of plantation conifers 

within the proposal site. Views are generally directed across the open expanse of water at the 

reservoir to the range of forestry clad hills beyond including the peak at Meikle Bin. In this 

location the magnitude of change would be large to medium leading to a Major to Moderate 

effect, which is significant. 

9.5.118 As the road continues north the open moorland of the Fintry Hills forms a contrasting 

backdrop to views of the wooded Carron valley. The proposed turbines would be visible in the 

foreground with the Earlsburn Wind Farm in the background. The proposals would be 

prominent in the view and form a new focus for occupiers of vehicles. The magnitude of 

change would be large, leading to a Major effect which is significant. 


9.5.119 From a 1 km length of road occupiers of vehicles are able to gain distant oblique views 

approximately 20 km south west over farmland and forestry of the proposed wind farm 

forming a very minor element on the horizon of the Campsie Fells. The magnitude of change 

would be small, leading to a Slight effect which is not significant. 

The A81 travelling north from Glasgow to Balfron Station 

9.5.120 The earthworks and vegetation associated with a disused railway which lies parallel to the 

road are sufficient to obscure views of the proposed wind farm. 


9.5.121 Approximately 4 km of this road between 25 km and 20 km from the proposed wind farm site 

would provide a potential location for views of the proposals. The proposed wind farm would 

be visible on the horizon above the tops of the Campsie Fells and Fintry Hills. Trees and 

woodland intermittently obscure these distant views. The proposed wind farm would form a 

minor, easily missed element in the view, visible for a few seconds on each occasion. The 

magnitude of change and effect would be Negligible and not significant. 


9.5.122 Heading east from the summit on the descent a 1 km stretch of the footpath would allow 

users to gain open views approximately 25 km to the east. The landscape in the vicinity of 

Carron Valley would be visible in the distance beyond a foreground of hills and lowland 





farmland. The proposed wind farm would be visible on the horizon as a very minor although 

recognisable element in the view. The sensitivity of the receptor would be high and the 

magnitude would be Negligible, resulting in a Slight effect which is not significant. This route 

is represented by viewpoint 21 described at paragraphs 9.5.110 to 9.5.111. 


9.5.123 The proposed wind farm at Carron Valley is visible as a distant element, approximately 20 km 

away, in the view from approximately 1 km of the route as it approaches a high point at Bet a 

Charcal. The sensitivity of the receptor would be high and the magnitude would be negligible, 

resulting in a Slight effect which is not significant. This is represented by viewpoint 18 

described at paragraphs 9.5.104 to 9.5.105. 

Summary of Effects 

9.5.124 Occupiers of three of the 29 residential properties within approximately 2 km of the proposal 

site would experience significant adverse effects during the day. Occupiers of vehicles driving 

in either direction on one of the four routes assessed would experience significant adverse 

sequential effects during the day. There would be no significant effects on walkers or cyclists 

using the two pedestrian/cycle routes considered within the sequential assessment. 

Receptors at two of the viewpoints assessed within the study area would experience 

significant adverse effects during the day. No other 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. Table 9.11 below identifies the seven receptors 

which would experience significant adverse effects. 





Table 9.11 Summary of Significant Effects 

Receptor 

Effect 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Development 

Phase 

Significance 

prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Residual 

Significance 


Occupiers 

of 

residential 

property at 

Todholes 

Farm 

Visual High Large 

Construction/ 

Major - - Major Temporary direct 

Decommission 

Operation Substantial - - Substantial Permanent direct 

Occupiers 

of 

residential 

property at 

Easter 

Cringate 

Cottage 

Visual High Medium 

Construction/ 

Moderate - - Moderate Temporary direct 

Decommission 

Operation Major - - Major Permanent direct 

Occupiers 

of 

residential 

property at 

Cringate 

Visual High Medium 

Construction/ 

Moderate - - Moderate Temporary direct 

Decommission 


Viewpoint 

1: 


Construction/ 

Decommission 






Receptor 

Effect 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Development 

Phase 

Significance 

prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Residual 

Significance 


Todholes 

Bridge. 

Users of 

footpath 


Viewpoint 

6: Carron 

Valley 

Reservoir 

South. 

Users of 

footpath 


Construction/ 


Decommission 


Occupiers 

of vehicles 

travelling 

east on the 

B818 from 

Balfron to 

Sequential 

effects 

Medium 

Large 

Construction/ 

Decommission 


Carron 

Valley 


Reservoir 





Receptor 

Effect 

Sensitivity/ 

Importance 

of Receptor 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Development 

Phase 

Significance 

prior to 

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

Enhancement 

Residual 

Significance 


Occupiers 

of vehicles 

travelling 

west on 

Construction/ 

Decommission 


the B818 

from 

Carron 

Sequential 

effects 

Medium 

Large 

Bridge to 

Carron 


Valley 

Reservoir 





Analysis of the Carron Valley Wind Farm against the Stirling Landscape Sensitivity 

and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development 

9.5.125 The site of the proposed wind farm falls within the ‘area of constraint’ identified by the 

capacity study by reason of four of its seven defined criteria. 

Landscape Scale 

9.5.126 Two key questions which need to be considered when assessing the potential effects of the 

proposed wind farm on landscape scale are; 

• Are the hills in the context of the site perceived as high, but are actually low? 

• Are the turbines seen against a backdrop of these hills? 

9.5.127 The proposed wind farm would not be visible against a hill edge adjacent to the flat 

landscape of the Forth Valley, which is considered by the study to be the most sensitive 

landscape scenario. The proposal would be located in the Carron Valley which is separated 

from the scarp edge by the extensive plateau formed by the Touch, Gargunnock and Fintry 

Hills. Cairnoch Hill. The turbines would be arranged around the base of Cairnoch Hill which 

rises to 400 m AOD (approximately 180 m high) and Meikle Bin rises to 570 m AOD 

(approximately 340 m high). These hills form the immediate context of the turbines, which sit 

within the Carron Valley landscape, relatively confined physically and visually. They are 

sufficiently large scale to accommodate the scale of the proposed turbines. Cairnoch Hill and 

Meikle Bin would only form a backdrop to views of the turbines when looking across the 

reservoir from one of these hills to the other, not from the wider landscape of the Touch, 

Gargunnock and Fintry Hills. The area of constraint for turbines over 110 m high extends over 

the whole of the study area, regardless of the differing scale of the diverse landscape and the 

juxtaposition of key features within the landscape. 

Impacts of Existing and Consented Windfarms 

9.5.128 Clustering of wind farms in upland landscapes which form a backdrop to the Forth Valley and 

those with a relationship with the edge of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 

are considered, by the study, to be most sensitive. The proposed wind farm would be located 

in close proximity to the existing Earlsburn and Craigengelt Wind Farms however, its location 

within the Carron Valley is at a sufficiently low level in the landscape to conceal all but the 

blade tips in most views from the Forth Valley towards the Touch Hills. The proposals would 

be located at least 20 km from the boundary of the National Park, forming a very minor or 

barely perceptible feature in a distant landscape character area which is not immediately 

related to the park. 

Landscape Pattern 

9.5.129 The pattern of the landscape at the proposal site and within the immediate vicinity is defined 

by the main landuse of commercial forestry beside a reservoir. Blocks of conifers in relatively 

geometric shapes, interspersed with open ground and the large expanse of water forming a 

simple curving shape with some irregular edges and the 2 straight engineered dams define 

the landscape of Carron Valley. The valley sides rise up to horizon lines of undulating hills. 

The landscape pattern is of moderate diversity and complexity with landscape elements 

distributed at a moderate scale. The landscape of Cairnoch Hill and the Carron Valley would 

be of an appropriate scale to accommodate the proposed wind farm without compromising 

the landscape pattern. 





Area Valued for Sense of Remoteness while being easily accessed from an Urban Centre 

9.5.130 Two key questions which need to be considered when assessing the potential effects of the 

proposed wind farm on landscape sensitivity are; 

• Would the turbines conflict with the man made and managed aspects of the 

landscape? 

• Would a receptor engaged in recreational activities be sensitive to change of this 

nature in a landscape which contains existing windfarms? 

9.5.131 The site’s proximity to the large urban areas at Glasgow to the south extending round to 

Stirling in the north east and the inward looking and sparsely settled nature of Carron Valley 

would place the proposed wind farm site within this sensitive category. However, the 

dominance of commercial forestry and the presence of the reservoir reinforce the area’s 

managed and man made character. People engaged in active recreational pursuits are 

considered to be of medium sensitivity to a change of this nature. The presence of existing 

wind farms within this immediate landscape context defines receptors’ expectations. The 

intensification of wind farm development would not significantly affect visual amenity in this 

location. 

Effects on Landscape Resources and Visual Receptors at Decommissioning 

9.5.132 The anticipated effects on landscape and visual resources associated with the 

decommissioning phase are expected to be broadly similar to those identified for the 



9.6.1 The scheme design and mitigation measures described in Chapter 4: Description of the 

Proposed Development and Section 9.4 Topic Specific Design Evolution of this chapter 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 would 

be proposed. 


9.7.1 No further secondary mitigation measures are proposed to address the residual effects of the 

scheme on receptors. 

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. 


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 Earlsburn and Craigengelt. 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 70 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 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 journey. This can either 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. 

9.9.5 A comprehensive search has been undertaken to identify other wind farms which are 

operational, under construction, consented or proposed, through various means of 

consultation. As a result 94 other commercial wind farms within a 70 km radius of the 

proposed wind farm at the time of submission of this ES have been identified and reviewed 

(See Figure 9.15 and 9.16). The relevant wind farms, excluding those in scoping, which lie 

within 35 km of the proposed wind farm (Figure 9.15 and 9.17) have been assessed and 

include the following: 

Table 9.12 Cumulative Wind Farms within 35 km Radius 

Ref 

No. 

Wind Farm 

Name 

Status 

No of 

Turbines 

Blade 

Tip 

Height 

Location 

Co-ordinates 

Landscape 

Character 

Area 

1 Black Law Operational 62 110 291000 653998 Lowland 

Plateaux 

2 Braes of Doune Operational 35 100 272175 710752 Lowland 

Hills 

3 Braiden Hill Operational 1 100 274300 666500 Lowland 

Plateaux 

4 Burnfoot Hill Operational 13 102 290505 703499 Lowland 

Hills 





Ref 

No. 

Wind Farm 

Name 

Status 

No of 

Turbines 

Blade 

Tip 

Height 

Location 

Co-ordinates 

Landscape 

Character 

Area 

5 Craigengelt Operational 8 125 272276 686399 Lowland 

Hills 

6 Earlsburn Operational 14 115 269210 688358 Lowland 

Hills 

7 East Kilbride Operational 1 77 264498 651990 Lowland 

Plains 

8 Green Knowes Operational 18 95 297847 707110 Upland 

Hills 

9 Greendykeside Operational 2 100 281290 670345 Lowland 

Plateaux 

10 AG Barr Factory Approved or 

Under 

Construction 

11 ASDA depot Approved or 

Under 

Construction 

12 Black Law Ext Approved or 

Under 

Construction 

13 Blantyre Muir Approved or 

Under 

Construction 

14 Blantyre Muir Ext Approved or 

Under 

Construction 

15 Cathkin Braes Approved or 

Under 

Construction 

16 Earlsburn North Approved or 

Under 

Construction 

17 Feddal Farm Approved or 

Under 

Construction 

18 Greengairs Approved or 

Under 

Construction 

19 Tormywheel Approved or 

Under 

Construction 

1 126 271500 672500 Lowland 

Plains 

1 120 290100 682000 Lowland 

River 

Valleys 

23 127 290008 655943 Lowland 

Plateaux 

3 111 267500 653000 Lowland 

Plateaux 

3 115 267703 653500 Lowland 

Plateaux 

1 125 261050 658140 Lowland 

Plateaux 

9 115 268715 689869 Lowland 

Hills 

1 54 282269 709905 Lowland 

River 

Valleys 

9 125 279114 669166 Lowland 

Plateaux 

15 100 295240 658156 Lowland 

Plateaux 

20 Bracco Application 3 54 282901 665939 Lowland 





Ref 

No. 

Wind Farm 

Name 

Status 

No of 

Turbines 

Blade 

Tip 

Height 

Location 

Co-ordinates 

Landscape 

Character 

Area 

Plateaux 

21 Burnfoot Hill Ext Application 2 102 289900 704102 Lowland 

Hills 

22 Calcarb Factory Application 1 99 274935 661700 Lowland 

Plains 

23 Craigannet Application 6 126 271375 684924 Lowland 

River 

Valleys 

24 Forthbank Application 2 125 289425 690908 Lowland 

River 

Valleys 

25 Frandy Hill 

(Burnfoot Ext) 

Application 7 100 291964 703926 Upland 

Hills 

26 Glentaggart Application 5 132 271489 655892 Lowland 

Plains 

27 Hartwood Application 9 139 283822 660362 Lowland 

Plateaux 

28 Muirpark Application 11 127 273816 687524 Lowland 

Hills 

29 Rhodders 

(Burnfoot Ext) 

Application 9 102 289206 702605 Lowland 

Hills 

30 Rullie Application 10 130 277706 685025 Lowland 

Hill Fringes 

31 Standingfauld 

(formerly 

Greenbog) 

Application 8 100 287812 713166 Lowland 

Hills 

Cumulative Effects on Landscape Character 

Area of Great Landscape Value 

9.9.6 The proposal would lie within the AGLV centred on the Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Hills. 

Six further schemes which are either operational, approved or an application made would 

also lie within the AGLV. The existing Earlsburn and Craigengelt wind farms and the 

approved Earlsburn extension are located in areas of open plateau which form prominent and 

distinct elements within the AGLV. In addition applications have been submitted for wind 

farms at Muirpark, which would also lie in a landscape of a similar character, whilst Rullie and 

Craigannet wind farms would lie within open grazed moorland/grassland locations in lower 

lying Carron Valley settings. These last four additional cumulative schemes would create a 

more prominent loose cluster of wind farms and a significantly more developed context into 

which the Carron Valley Wind Farm would be placed. The proposed Carron Valley Wind 

Farm would be located on the side of the Carron Valley below the main plateau landscape. 

The proposal would lie within the Upper Carron Lowland River Valleys character area within 





the AGLV which is different to Earlsburn and its extension, Craigengelt, Muirpark and Rullie 

however, it would be strongly visually associated with these cumulative schemes and 

Craigannet. The introduction of the Carron Valley Wind Farm into this landscape of medium 

sensitivity would result in a small magnitude of change. The additional cumulative effect on 

the landscape character of the AGLV would be Slight, which is not significant. 

9.9.7 Appendix 9.10 Identifies the generic landscape character types in which the cumulative wind 

farms lie. Only 6 of the 16 character types in the study area would contain at least one of the 

37 wind farms. These character types are as follows: 

• Lowland River Valleys – 5 wind farms, in addition to the proposed wind farm; 

• Lowland Plateaux – 13 wind farms; 

• Lowland Plains – 4 wind farms; 

• Lowland Hills – 11 wind farms; 

• Lowland Hill Fringes – 2 wind farms; 

• Upland Hills – 2 wind farms. 

9.9.8 The proposed wind farm would be located in the Lowland River Valleys character type. Five 

further schemes which have been approved or an application made would also lie within 

various different parts of this character type within the study area. No existing wind farms are 

operational within the Lowland River Valleys. The Craigannet Wind Farm would lie within the 

same Upper Carron Lowland River Valleys character area and has the greatest potential to 

result in cumulative effects. This wind farm would be located in an area of grassland and 

moorland which differs from the land use of commercial forestry of the proposed wind farm 

site. There would be no significant cumulative loss of landscape features. However, there 

would be a direct adverse cumulative effect on the character of the Upper Carron Lowland 

River Valleys character area. The two schemes would be well related to each other in terms 

of size and scale in the valley setting. The sensitivity of the character type is medium and the 

magnitude of change would be small. The additional cumulative effect on character following 

the development of the proposed wind farm would be Slight which is not significant. 

9.9.9 The ASDA depot, Feddal Farm and Forthbank cumulative schemes lie in different character 

areas within the Lowland River Valleys character type at some distance from the proposal 

site. The relatively small number of schemes and the difference in the specific land cover in 

the site locations would prevent significant direct cumulative effects on landscape arising for 

these wind farms in combination with the proposed wind farm. The additional cumulative 

effect which would occur as a result of the proposed wind farm on the landscape character of 

the Lowland River Valleys area would be Negligible and non-significant. 

9.9.10 The remaining 27 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 

Lowland Plateaux, Lowland Plains, Lowland Hills, Lowland Hill Fringes or Upland Hills 

character areas as a result of the development of the proposed wind farm. 

9.9.11 There is the potential for cumulative indirect effects on generic landscape characteristics and 

features which are common to more than one character area within the study area. The 

attributes of remoteness and wild character occur within all of the Highland and Upland 

character types and the Lowland Hills and Lowland Hill Fringes character types. The 

Campsie Fells Upland Hills, Campsie Fells Lowland Hills, Fintry, Gargunnock, Touch 





Lowland Hills and Denny Muir Lowland Hill Fringes form the immediate upland character 

context of the proposal site. The open nature of the peaks and ridges within these areas 

allowing extensive views over the study area and the lack of settlements and limited 

development result in a sense of remoteness. The existing wind farms at Earlsburn and 

Craigengelt form the most prominent developments in the vicinity of the proposal site and 

form part of the landscape character baseline. The approved Earlsburn extension and the 

Muirpark, Craigannet and Rullie Wind Farms which 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 combination of the six cumulative wind farms 

would create a wind farm landscape sub-type which would flow over the three separate 

character types. The additional cumulative effect on the sense of remoteness of the upland 

landscapes in the vicinity of the site, following the development of the proposed Carron Valley 

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 cluster of wind farms 

which would be more extensive in nature than the Carron Valley scheme. The addition of the 

proposed wind farm would not represent a significant increase in the overall scale of the wind 

farm cluster. 

9.9.12 The existing wind farm at Braes of Doune is currently visible from the Loch Lomond and the 

Trossachs National Park as the closest and most prominent wind farm development and lies 

within the landscape setting of the National Park. Two further existing wind farms at 

Earlsburn and Burnfoot are visible from the park as minor distant elements in the landscape 

which are beyond the immediate landscape setting of the park. The addition of a further five 

cumulative schemes, including the consented Earlsburn extension and applications for two 

Burnfoot Hill extensions and Standingfauld, between the edge of the park and the vicinity of 

existing visible wind farms are likely to be visible. The sensitivity of the National Park is high 

and the magnitude of change following the addition of the Carron Valley scheme would be 

negligible, resulting in a Negligible cumulative significance of effect. 

Cumulative Effects on Visual Receptors 

Cumulative Zones of Theoretical Visibility 

Earlsburn, Earlsburn Extension, Craigengelt, Craigannet and Muirpark Wind Farms 

9.9.13 The most significant overlap between the proposed wind farm ZTV and the ZTV’s of 

cumulative schemes occurs for these five schemes in close proximity to the proposal site. 

The cumulative ZTV is concentrated around the Campsie Fells, Kilsyth Hills and the Fintry, 

Gargunnock and Touch Hills in the immediate vicinity of the site. Views from public access 

land, core paths, properties and roads within these areas would include the Carron Valley 

Wind Farm as a relatively minor addition to a larger, existing cluster of wind farms. Small 

areas of the peaks and high land within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 

are affected and large parts of the lowland plateau between Glasgow and Falkirk and the low 

lying Forth valley landscape. 

Rullie Wind Farm 

9.9.14 Limited high points within the Campsie Fells, Kilsyth Hills and the Fintry, Gargunnock and 

Touch Hills would lie within the cumulative ZTV. Peaks and high land within the north eastern 

part of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park would be affected and large parts 

of the lowland plateau between Glasgow and Falkirk and the low lying Forth valley 

landscape. 





Braes of Doune Wind Farm 

9.9.15 The cumulative ZTV would extend over the Campsie Fells and Kilsyth Hills, ridges within the 

Knaik Hills and the low lying Forth valley landscape. 

Branden Hill and AG Barr Factory Wind Farms 

9.9.16 There is very limited overlap between the ZTV’s. Receptors on the ridge around Slamannan 

and the southern edge of the Ochil Hills would be affected. 

Burnfoot Wind Farm and Extensions and Standingfauld Wind Farm 

9.9.17 The cumulative ZTV would extend over the Campsie Fells and Kilsyth Hills, ridges within the 

Knaik Hills and peaks within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. 

East Kilbride, Blantyre Moor and Cathkin Braes Wind Farms 

9.9.18 The only overlap of the ZTV’s would be on the southern fringes of the plateau moorland. 

Green Knowes and ASDA depot Wind Farms 

9.9.19 The only overlap in the ZTV’s would be on the ridges of the Knaik Hills and the lowlands 

around Grangemouth. 

Greendykeside, Greengairs, Hartwood and Tormywheel Wind Farms 

9.9.20 The cumulative ZTV would extend over large parts of the lowland plateau between Glasgow 

and Falkirk, the low lying Forth valley landscape and the Ochil Hills. 

Bracco and Black Law Wind Farms 

9.9.21 The cumulative ZTV would extend over large parts of the lowland plateau between Glasgow 

and Falkirk, the low lying Forth valley landscape. 

Foddal Farm Wind Farm 

9.9.22 The only overlap between the ZTV’s is at the Knaik Hills. 

Forthbank Wind Farm 

9.9.23 The cumulative ZTV is concentrated around the low lying Forth valley landscape and the 

Ochil Hills. 

9.9.24 There would be no significant overlap between the proposed wind farm ZTV and the ZTV’s 

for the Calcarb factory and Glentaggart Wind Farms. 

9.9.25 The area of the landscape which lies within an overlap of the greatest number of ZTV’s are 

the upper reaches and peaks of the Campsie Fells and Kilsyth Hills. These hills form a 

significant ridge in the landscape of the study area, separating landscapes to the north from 

the urban mass of the Glasgow conurbation to the south. 

Cumulative Viewpoint Analysis 

9.9.26 The existing wind farms at Earlsburn and Craigengelt lie in close proximity to the proposal 

site and are visible in the photographs and photomontages which have been prepared for the 

viewpoints within the assessment. This has enabled cumulative visual effects with existing 

schemes and the proposed wind farm to be illustrated. 

9.9.27 Cumulative visual effects have been assessed based on nine key viewpoints of the 20 

locations taken through the assessment stage (see Figures at 9.18). 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 1 Todholes Bridge 

9.9.28 In this near view looking north east the operational Earlsburn Wind Farm and consented 

Earlsburn extension would form a prominent feature on the horizon on the edge of the 

Lowland Hills and Fintry Hills. The proposed wind farm would form a development of similar 

prominence in the view, visible as a continuation of the turbines to the east. Approximately 

120º of the view would contain wind farm developments. The magnitude of change would be 

medium and the additional successive cumulative visual effect of the proposed wind farm 

would be Major which is significant. 

Viewpoint 2 Cringate Law 

9.9.29 The viewpoint at Cringate Law is located within the footprint of the existing Earlsburn Wind 

Farm. The turbines form dominant elements in a 180º angle of the view between the south, 

east and north. The tips of the existing Craigengelt turbines are visible breaking the horizon 

to the south east. In addition the consented Earlsburn extension to the north and north west 

would also form a significant element in the foreground and Craigannet in planning scheme 

would be beyond Earlsburn to the south east. Very distant existing schemes at 

Greendykeside, Black Law and extension and the consented Tormywheel would be 

potentially visible to the south east. Approximately 270º of the view would include prominent 

wind farms. The proposed wind farm would be located to the south beyond turbines at 

Earlsburn. The scheme would form a prominent new element in the view which would be 

defined by cumulative 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 3 Minor road near Earls Hill 

9.9.30 In this near view the existing Earlsburn Wind Farm is partially visible beyond landform to the 

west and Craigengelt is very prominent in the foreground to the south. Schemes which are in 

planning include Craigannet which would be visible immediately south of Craigengelt and the 

tops of turbines at Muirpark which would be visible to the south east adjacent to Craigengelt. 

The wind farms would collectively occupy approximately 140º of the view. The proposed wind 

farm would be partially visible beyond Cairnoch Hill to the south west within a gap in the 

landscape between Craigannet and Earlsburn wind farms. Cumulatively approximately 180º 

of the view would contain wind farm developments. The magnitude of change would be small 

and the additional effect of the proposed wind farm would be Moderate which is not 

significant. 

Viewpoint 5 Tomtain Hill 

9.9.31 This elevated location on the Kilsyth Hills allows panoramic views to be gained over a diverse 

array of rural landscapes and urban townscapes in the study area. In the vicinity of the 

proposal site the existing Earlsburn and Craigengelt Wind Farms lie prominently in the middle 

distance on the edge of the Lowland Hills, whilst Braes of Doune lies in the distance beyond. 

The addition of the consented Earlsburn extension and planned Craigannet and Muirpark 

schemes would form a cluster of wind farm developments extending over approximately 60º 

of the view to the north. The schemes would form a wind farm landscape character sub-type. 

The Rullie Wind Farm is in planning and would be visible at a similar distance to the north 

east, forming a prominent addition to the view. To the south east within the Lowland Plateaux 





landscape on the fringes of Glasgow a cluster of seven wind farms including the existing 

Greendykeside, Black Lawand Greengairs, the consented Tormywheel and Hartwood which 

is in planning would be visible in the distance. Wind farms would be visible as prominent 

elements in approximately 180º of this view and would form barely perceptible additions to 

the landscape in the remaining view. The proposed wind farm would form the closest visible 

scheme predominantly to the left of Earlsburn, whilst retaining some degree of visual 

separation with this scheme and the Craigannet wind farm to the north. The proposed wind 

farm would form an intensification of development is this cluster of wind farms on the edge of 

the Carron Valley Lowland River Valley and Fintry, Gargunnock and Touch Lowland Hills 

character types. The magnitude of change would be small and the additional effect of the 

Carron Valley proposal would be Slight which is not significant. 

Viewpoint 9 Earl’s Seat 

9.9.32 In views to the east from this peak within the Campsie Fells the existing Earlsburn and 

Craigengelt Wind Farms form minor, although prominent developments on the horizon in the 

middle distance. The addition of the consented Earlsburn extension and the planned Muir 

Park, Craigannet and Rullie Wind Farms in the vicinity would create a more prominent cluster 

extending over approximately 30º of the view. The existing Braes of Doune Wind Farm is 

visible in the distance to the left of this cluster and a cluster of seven schemes including the 

existing Greendykeside, Black Lawand Greengairs wind farms, the consented Tormywheel 

scheme and Hartwood which is in planning would be visible in the distance to the south east 

beyond the urban fringes of Glasgow. The Carron Valley wind farm would be located in front 

of the Muir Park, Craigengelt, Craigannet and Rullie Wind Farms, on the valley side below 

the horizon. The proposal would not increase the horizontal extent of wind farms visible in 

this view. It would form an intensification of development within this cluster resulting in a 

small magnitude of change and an additional cumulative effect which is Slight and not 

significant. 

Viewpoint 13 Dumyat Hill 

9.9.33 Views in the vicinity of the proposal site currently focus on the distant although prominent 

existing wind farms at Earlsburn and Craigengelt on the horizon of the Fintry, Gargunnock 

and Touch Hills. The consented Earlsburn extension and planned Craigannet and Muir Park 

schemes would expand this loose cluster to approximately 20º in this south westerly 

direction. The series of 14 distant schemes to the south including Tormywheel, Rosehill, 

Black Law and extension, Torwood, Hartwood, Glentaggert, Greendykeside, Greengairs, 

Blantyre Muir and extension and Rullie spread across approximately 50º of the view. There 

are no visible cumulative schemes to the north or east. The addition of the proposed wind 

farm to the cluster to the south west would form a minor intensification of development in this 

part of the view. The magnitude of change would be negligible which would result in 

additional cumulative effects which are Negligible and non-significant. 

Viewpoint 20 Ben Ledi 

9.9.34 In this view from a peak within the LLTNP a cluster of 12 wind farms to the south east in the 

vicinity of the proposals site would include the existing Earlsburn and Craigengelt schemes 

and Craigannet and Muir Park which are in planning. Barely perceptible in the distance would 

be the existing Black Law and Greendykeside schemes the consented Black Law extension 

and Greengairs and the planned Rullie and Hartwood wind farms. The existing Braes of 

Doune Wind Farm to the east is significantly closer with further existing schemes at Green 





Knowesand Burnfoot Hill together with Staningfauld, Frandy Hill and Rhodders Hill, which are 

in planning, visible on the horizon beyond. These two clusters of wind farms, in the vicinity of 

the site and Braes of Doune, would result in an established wind farm context into which the 

Carron Valley scheme would be placed.. Views to the west into the heart of the National Park 

would not include wind farm developments. The magnitude of change would be negligible. 

Additional cumulative effects due to the development of the proposed wind farm would be 


Viewpoint 21 Conic Hill 

9.9.35 Views to the east towards the proposal site currently focus on the existing Earlsburn Wind 

Farm on the horizon of the Fintry Hills. The consented extension to this wind farm and the 

addition of the planned Craigannet scheme would expand this distant cluster. The existing 

Braes of Doune scheme to the north east would form the only other recognisable scheme in 

the view. Views to the north, south and west would not be affected by wind farm 

development. The proposed wind farm would be of a similar level of visibility to the Earlsburn 

Wind Farm and extension crossing the ridge of land at the head of the valley. The magnitude 

of change would be small leading to Slight additional cumulative effects which is not 

significant. 

Viewpoint 22 Meikle Bin 

9.9.36 This peak within the Campsie Fells, in relatively close proximity to the proposal site, allows 

panoramic views to be gained over a diverse study area of rural landscapes and urban 

townscapes. To the north the existing Earlsburn Wind Farm is prominent on the Fintry Hills in 

the middle distance. The existing Braes of Doune scheme is more distant, although still 

prominent in the landscape beyond. The existing Craigengelt Wind Farm is prominent in the 

Lowland Hills to the north east. With the addition of the consented Earlsburn extension and 

the planned Craigannet and Muir Park schemes two clusters would form with a third group of 

turbines to the east at Rullie, which is in planning. These schemes, although not continuous 

across the horizontal extent of the view, would occupy a large proportion of this quadrant of 

the view between the north and east. Another more distant cluster of wind farms would be 

located to the south east including the existing Black Lawand Greendykeside, the consented 

Black Law extension, Tormywheeland Greengairs and the Hartwood scheme which is in 

planning. These schemes would form minor or barely perceptible addition to the view. The 

proposed wind farm would form the closest scheme to the viewer and would be located within 

the valley landscape in front of and visually overlapping with the Earlsburn, Craigengelt and 

Craigannet Wind Farms. The scheme would be prominent and would result in a significant 

intensification of development within the existing cluster and a medium magnitude of change. 

Additional cumulative effects due to the proposal would be Moderate which is not significant. 

9.9.37 The cumulative visual effects of the Carron Valley wind farm in combination with other 

schemes from viewpoints 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 would be Negligible and not 

significant. The cumulative effects for viewpoints 6 and 7 are well presented in 

photomontages at Figures 9.14- 6b and c and 9.14 – 7b and c. The cumulative effects on 

walkers at viewpoint 6 would be Substantial which is significant and on receptors at viewpoint 

7 Moderate which is not significant. 

Cumulative Sequential Visual Effects 

9.9.38 Figure 9.20 illustrates the routes and the cumulative wind farm schemes considered within 

the cumulative sequential assessment. 





Balfron to Carron Valley Reservoir travelling east on the B818. 

9.9.39 Travelling between Balfron and Fintry the planned Craigannet wind farm would be visible at 

the same time as the proposal, with very brief periods where the existing Braes of Doune and 

Earlsburn wind farms would be visible. East of Fintry to the site boundary Earlsburn would be 

visible most of the time, whilst the existing Craigengelt, planned Craigannet and consented 

Earlsburn extension would be visible for approximately half of the journey. The medium 

sensitivity of occupiers of vehicles and the small to medium magnitude of change due to the 

proposal would lead to a Slight to Moderate additional cumulative effect which would not be 

significant. 


9.9.40 Travelling west on this road the Craigannet scheme, which is in planning, would be visible 

most of the time and the existing Craigengelt wind farm would be visible approximately half of 

the journey, with brief glimpses of the existing Earlsburn scheme and its consented 

extension. The medium sensitivity of occupiers of vehicles and the small to medium 

magnitude of change as a result of the cumulative schemes in addition to the proposal would 

lead to a negligible magnitude of change and a Negligible effect which would be not 

significant. 


9.9.41 The existing Earlsburn scheme and its consented extension would be visible from this section 

of the road. Forth Bank, Burnfoot and Rhodders are all in planning and would also be visible. 

The addition of the proposal into the view of medium sensitivity receptors in combination with 

the other schemes would be of negligible magnitude. The effect would be Negligible and not 

significant. 


9.9.42 The existing Craigengelt wind farm would be visible during the majority of this journey, whilst 

the existing Earlsburn wind farm would be visible for less that 1 km of the journey. The 

medium sensitivity of occupiers of vehicles and the negligible magnitude of change as a 

result of the cumulative schemes would not lead to significant effect. The addition of the 

proposal into the view in combination with the other schemes would lead to a Negligible 

effect, which would not be significant. 


9.9.43 The existing Earlsburn wind farm and consented extension and the planned Craigannet wind 

farm would be visible from this section of the footpath. The high sensitivity of walkers and the 

negligible magnitude of change as a result of the additional Carron Valley proposal would be 



9.9.44 The existing Earlsburn and Braes of Doune wind farms, consented Earlsburn extension, and 

the planned Craigannet wind farm would be visible from the majority of this section of the 

footpath. The consented Cathkin Braes scheme would also be visible from a large section of 

this route. The high sensitivity of walkers and the negligible magnitude of change as a result 

of the Carron Valley Wind Farm would lead to a Negligible additional effect, which is not 

significant. 





Cumulative Effects of Wind Farms 35 to 70 km from the Proposal Site 

9.9.45 Cumulative wind farms within a zone between 35 km and 70 km from the proposal site total 

56 schemes (See Figure 9.16). The majority of these schemes are located to the south of 

Glasgow in a swathe of landscape between the coast in Ayrshire, through Renfrewshire to 

the South Lanarkshire and the Pentland Hills. A second cluster of schemes would extend 

along the northern coast of the Firth of Forth within Fife. The ability to gain views of 

cumulative wind farms south of Glasgow, in combination with the Carron Valley scheme is 

limited by the lack of hills towards the southern edge of the 25 km radius study area, which 

might enable views to the north towards the proposals and south towards the cumulative 

wind farms. However, the Ochil Hills to the north east of the proposal site straddle the 35 km 

radius buffer, providing an elevated location for distant views south west towards the site and 

south east towards schemes within Fife. There is potential for successive cumulative effects 

on views from the Ochil Hills. The Carron Valley 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 

9.9.46 It is anticipated that the greatest number of potential views of cumulative wind farms 

schemes, whether in combination with the proposal, or successively if the receptor turns 360 

degrees, would be attained within the Campsie Fells and Kilsyth Hills. Cumulative visual 

effects have been assessed based on nine key viewpoints of the 20 locations taken through 

the assessment stage, of which only one would receive additional successive cumulative 

significant visual effects, at Todholes Bridge. 


ASH Consulting Group, (1998), The Lothians Landscape Character Assessment, Scottish 

Natural Heritage Review No. 91 

ASH Consulting Group, (1999), Central Region Landscape Character Assessment, Scottish 


Clackmannanshire Council (2002), Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan 

Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002), Landscape Character Assessment – 

Guidance for England and Scotland 

David Tyldesley and Associates, (1999), Stirling to Grangemouth Landscape Character 

Assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 124 

David Tyldesley and Associates, (1999), Fife Landscape Character Assessment, Scottish 


Durham County Council (unpublished, 1996), Impact Assessment Matrices 

East Dunbartonshire (2011), East Dunbartonshire Local Plan 

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) 

Janet Swailes, (2009), Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Landscape Character 

Assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage 





Landscape Institute, (2011) Advice Note 01/11 Photography and Photomontage in Landscape 

and Visual Impact Assessment 

Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002) 

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2 nd Edition 

Land Use Consultants, (1999), Tayside Landscape Character Assessment, Scottish Natural 

Heritage Review No. 122 

Land Use Consultants, (1999), Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Landscape Character 

Assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 116 

North Lanarkshire (2009), Local Plan Finalised Draft 

Scottish Executive (2003) PAN 68 – Design Statements 

Scottish Government (2010) Scottish Planning Policy 

Scottish Government (2011) On-line Renewables Advice 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2005), Cumulative Effects of Wind Farms, Guidance Note v2 

Scottish Natural Heritage (dated 2006, published 2007), Visual Representation of Wind Farms: 

Good Practice Guidance 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2009), Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2010), The Special Qualities of the National Scenic Areas 

Scottish Natural Heritage, (2012) Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Onshore Wind Energy 

Developments 

Scottish Natural Heritage and Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (2010) 

Commissioned Report, No.376 

Stirling Council (2007), Stirling Landscape and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development 

Sustainable Development Commission (2005), Wind Power in the UK – A guide to the key 

issues surrounding onshore wind power development in the UK 

The Countryside Agency (2003) Topic Paper 9: ‘Climate Change and Natural Forces – the 

Consequences for Landscape Character’ 

The National Park (Scotland) Act 2000 

The Town and Country Planning (National Scenic Areas) (Scotland) Designation Directions 

2010 

Stirling Council (1999) Local Plan. Available at http://www.stirling.gov.uk/services/planningand-the-environment/planning-and-building-standards/local-and-statutory-developmentplans/local-plan-general-information 

Stirling Council (2011) Supplementary Guidance Renewable Energy. Available at 


ASH Consulting Group, (1998), 

Clackmannanshire Landscape Character Assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 

96 




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

ES Vol 1 Written Statement - Partnerships for Renewables

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?