volume1 – the non-technical summary · 2019. 9. 3. · volume1 – the non-technical summary 1...

Kenly Wind Farm Environmental Statement

1

Volume1 – The Non-Technical Summary

1 Introduction (Chapter 1)

1.1 The University of St Andrews is seeking to develop, construct, operate and decommission

the Kenly Wind Farm (“the Proposal”) on land to the south of Boarhills, Fife. Figure 1 and

Figure 2 show the site location and regional context of the proposal. The Proposal requires

an environmental impact assessment to be carried out in accordance with the

Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999.

1.2 To produce the Environmental Statement a number of environmental impact assessments

(EIA’s) were undertaken. The Consultants used are listed in table 1 below:

Table 1: The Consultant Team.

Consultant Responsibility

Project Management of EIA and the technical baseline

studies and assessments

University / ACG/SOI Ltd

Landscape and Visual Impact Horner + Maclennan

Traffic, Access and Construction Fairhurst& Partners/ACG

Hydrology, hydrogeology, hydromorphology, geology SOI Ltd

Noise Sgurr Energy

Ecology, ornithology and bats SOI Ltd/Eden Ecology

Archaeology and cultural heritage SOI Ltd

Aviation and defence BAE Systems

Telecommunications, electromagnetic and Television

Reception

Pager Power, Spaven Consulting

Economy and Tourism Biggar Economics

Shadow Flicker Sgurr Energy

Grid Connection University / ACG

2: The Need for the Development (Chapter 2)

2.1 It is widely accepted that we are living with the effects of climate change and global

warming, and our past and present energy uses are contributing to these phenomenon.

Commitments have been made at a global, European and UK level to reduce these effects.

Increased generation of heat and electricity from renewable energy is a vital part of the

response to climate change. More renewable energy generation can also provide greater

diversity in our energy mix, which is vital in ensuring security and continuity of supply as

fossil fuels continue to deplete and the UK becomes more dependent on overseas sources of

fossil fuel.


2

2.2 At a European level, the Renewables Directive places an obligation on the UK to generate

15% of its total energy requirements from renewable energy by 2020. The UK Government

has committed, under the Kyoto Protocol (the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC)), to a binding target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by

12.5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. In the 2008 Climate Change Act, the UK Government

made a commitment to reduce the UK’s emissions of CO2 by 34% of 1990 levels by 2020 and

80% by 2050. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 put in place a legislative framework to

pursue a reduction in emissions associated with the unsustainable use of fossil fuels, and the

Scottish Government has committed to a reduction of carbon emissions of 42% from 1990

levels by 2020 and at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. On a more local level, Fife Council

aims to be the greenest Council in Scotland by 2011, and the Kenly Wind Farm would further

complement Fife’s renewable aims.

2.3 As a large percentage of CO2 emissions are derived from the production of energy through

conventional burning of fossil fuels, a key part of the strategy is to increase the supply of

electricity from renewable sources. The UK Government is obliged to encourage the use of

renewable energy through the requirements of the European Union, and has set a

commitment to ensure that 10% of the supply of electricity in the UK by 2010 will be from

renewable sources.

2.4 The Scottish Government wishes to see a largely de-carbonised electricity generation sector

by 2030, primarily using renewable sources for electricity generation with other electricity

generation from fossil fuelled plants utilising carbon capture and storage

(www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2009/06/18103720/3).

2.5 Since there is only limited potential for hydro power, and some of the tidal and wave power

technologies are still in the early stages of development, wind power (both onshore and

offshore), is currently the only viable technology with the potential to help reach the short

term targets set by international obligation and national policy. Wind power is a

commercially proven renewable technology and has a significant role to play in our steps to

combat climate change. In addition to preventing emissions of CO2, wind power avoids many

of the other external environmental costs of conventional generation, including poor local

air quality and the damage to the natural and built environment caused by acid rain.

2.6 The Proposal was developed by the University of St Andrews in response to the need to

minimise the use of precious resources and to reduce carbon emissions as part of the

University’s sustainability commitments. The University’s vision is to seek ways to achieve

these reductions in a sustainable manner and at the same time ensure community

involvement.

2.7 The University of St Andrews is committed to sustainable development and has set out its

strategic objectives and targets in the form of a Sustainability Strategy and Sustainability

Policy (which is currently undergoing a review that includes a widening of its scope). The

University is also integrating sustainability into all of its operations, and carbon management

across the whole estate is a fundamental part of this process. A major part of this agenda is

the University’s objective to become carbon neutral for energy consumption. In January


3

2009, the University achieved accreditation to the Carbon Standard following successful

development of the University’s Carbon Management Scheme.

2.8 The University’s Sustainability Policy commits it to:

• Influencing and changing behaviours through supporting new initiatives, marketing,

and the use of economic and other types of incentives and disincentives;

• Reducing resource use, pollution and atmospheric emissions through a variety of

incentives and innovative approaches to improve purchasing, reuse and recycling,

and decreasing the amount of materials sent directly to landfill;

• Reducing atmospheric pollution and resource use by increasing the amount of

renewable energy and alternative fuel types used by the University, improving the

purchasing processes, improving energy management and efficiency, and increasing

awareness and responsibility;

• Reducing atmospheric pollution and resource use, and improving the local

environment, through encouraging more sustainable travel alternatives to, from and

between University sites; and

• Preventing pollution through the continual assessment, planning, implementation,

operation, review and revision of internal procedures for all Schools and Units.

3: The Regulatory and Planning Context (Chapter 3)

3.1 At the Kyoto conference in December 2007, developed countries agreed to reduce emissions

of the six principal man-made greenhouse gases overall to 5.2% below 1990 levels over the

period 2008 to 2012. The European Community agreed jointly to undertake an 8% reduction

at Kyoto, with the UK agreeing to take on a reduction target of 12.5%.

3.2 Based upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings, the European

Commission’s analysis shows that global emissions will have to be stabilised by around 2020,

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

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

European Union has unilaterally agreed a new Climate and Energy Package which aims to

deliver cuts in emissions of 20% by 2020 which will be increased to 30% cuts in the event of

a global deal.

3.3 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)

from renewable sources by 2020. The RD was negotiated on this 20% target basis and

resulted in country “shares” of this target. For the UK, the share is that 15% of all final

energy consumption should be accounted for by energy from renewable sources.

3.4 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

CO2 emissions, maintaining energy security, promoting sustainable growth and tackling fuel

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


4

reducing CO2 emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 and in 2006 launched the UK

Climate Change Programme.

3.5 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.

3.6 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”). 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;

• Increase the rate of reduction from 2020 onwards to at least 3% per year; and

• Specify more detailed annual targets in 2010, for each year to 2022.

3.7 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.

3.8 For the electricity sector, targets have been set for the percentage of electricity demand

which should be met from renewable energy sources by 2020. The current target, which was

set by the Scottish Government in September 2010, is for 80% of Scotland’s electricity to be

generated from renewable sources by 2020. This 80% target (which is not a cap) translates

into a requirement for some 13.4 GW of installed renewable energy capacity compared with

the 2008 capacity of 8.4 GW.

3.9 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) was published in February 2010 and replaces the entire

previous topic based SPPs (which are now revoked) into a single consolidated document.

The SPP does not represent any review or change of policy, but presents policy in a clearer

and more concise form.

3.10 Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended

by The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006), require that planning decisions be made in

accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan in this instance comprises the Fife Structure Plan 2006-2026 and the

adopted St Andrews Local Plan 1996.

3.11 Fife Council has also produced Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy (SPGWE)

which expands on the policies in the Structure Plan. The SPGWE was the subject of formal

consultation and was approved by the Council’s Planning Committee on 15 April 2008. Fife


5

Council is currently preparing an update to SPGWE, with a draft published for public

consultation in November 2010 and the finalised update anticipated to be published in April

2011.

3.12 The Development Plan policies relevant to the proposed wind farm are set out in Table 2

below.

Table 2: Development Plan Policies

Policy Topic Structure Plan Local Plan

Renewable Energy R1 I19

General & Site Specific SS1 E1, E13 and ED9

Nature Conservation ENV2, ENV3 and ENV4

Historic Environment ENV5 E5, E6 and E18

Landscape E16

Water Environment I17

3.13 Chapter 3 sets out the relevant EU, UK and Scottish climate change and renewable energy

policy framework and identified the relevant planning policies and material considerations

relevant to the determination of the proposed Kenly Wind Farm. A detailed assessment of

the acceptability of the proposed wind farm in line with these policies is contained within a

separate supporting Planning Statement which accompanies the planning application. This

can be found within Volume 5.

4: The EIA Process (Chapter 4)

4.1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process whereby information regarding the

environmental effects of a project is collected, assessed and taken into account in a reaching

a decision about whether a project should go ahead or not.

4.2 The Environmental Statement (ES) that is prepared and submitted on behalf of a project

developer, in conjunction with a planning application, provides details of the development

and an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects predicted to arise as a

result of it. The ES forms a basis for consultation and enables decision-makers to consider

the significant environmental effects when determining the related planning application.

4.3 Scoping is the first stage of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and it enables a

robust ES to be developed. The Scoping Request identifies the range of issues that are likely

to arise as a result of the Proposal. The response to the Scoping Request, Scoping Opinion,

identifies the key issues to be considered by the EIA and included within the ES.

4.4 The University of St Andrews submitted a ‘Request for Scoping Opinion’, to seek clarification

from Fife Council regarding the information to be provided within the ES. The scoping


6

exercise for this proposal was undertaken in the summer of 2010. The Scoping Report was

issued to Fife Council in September 2010. The scoping report described the nature of the

Proposal and identified the environmental aspects and defined the methodologies that

would be adopted for the assessment of each of the aspects. The Scoping report also

outlined the conceptual scheme design and the relevant planning background that was

being considered for the EIA. The scoping report also noted a list of consultees that the

University was contacting or had already contacted as part of its own consultations about

the Proposal.

4.5 Fife Council forwarded the scoping report to their identified list of consultees. Comments

received from consultees were included within the Council’s Scoping Opinion which was

issued in November 2010.

4.6 The methodologies utilised for the assessment of specific issues are discussed in each

chapter. The process of evaluating the significance of an environmental effect is

fundamental to the EIA process. The level of significance determines the resources that

should be deployed in avoiding or mitigating an adverse impact, or identifying the actual

value of a positive effect. It is the combined significance of the mitigated effects that

determines the overall environmental acceptability of the Proposal. Within this ES,

significance is generally determined through combining the sensitivity of a receptor to an

effect and the magnitude of the predicted change. This is generally undertaken through:

• Identification of baseline conditions of the site and its environs;

• Identifying the sensitivity of receptors that may be affected by changes in the

baseline conditions;

• Predicting the magnitude of likely changes to the baselines;

• Assessment of the significance of effect taking into account sensitivity of receptors

and magnitude of effect;

• Identification of appropriate mitigation measures; and

• Assessing the significance of residual effects, taking into account any mitigation

measures.

5: Assessment of Alternatives and Design Development (Chapter 5)

5.1 Given the University of St Andrews specific land holding, they are unlike a commercial wind

energy developer who can consider and evaluate alternative sites as part of their scheme

development process. The applicant therefore commissioned Sgurr Energy to evaluate the

site and to generate several potential layout options, investigating different turbine types,

numbers and layouts for the Kenly Farm site. This process concluded that, given the initial

identified on-site constraints, which excluded at this stage strategic landscape capacity or

landscape and visual considerations, either 6 x 2MW turbines, with an overall height of


7

100m to blade tip, or 4 x 3MW turbines, with an overall height of 125m to blade tip, would

result in a generating output up to a maximum of 15MW capacity to meet the applicants

requirements. Two draft layout options were prepared for each of these different scenarios.

5.2 At this stage, landscape and visual considerations were introduced into the site layout

design process, and have been a primary consideration in developing the proposed layout of

the wind farm. This process involved the following initial considerations:

• An analysis of the existing landscape and visual character of the site and the local

area, to establish key characteristics and features, and evaluating the landscape

capacity of the site and its surroundings for the general scale of development

proposed;

• Establishing the role which the proposed site plays within the wider landscape, in

terms of its scale and degree of visual prominence within general views;

• Consideration of the initial wind farm layouts produced by Sgurr Energy, in terms of

their relationship with existing agricultural landscape pattern, and the scale of

turbine proposed in relation to the scale of landscape and geometric relationship

between individual turbines;

• Consideration of the initial photomontages produced by Sgurr Energy for each of the

2 layout scenarios from a series of selected viewpoints previously agreed between

the University of St Andrews and the local Community Councils.

5.3 In accordance with the requirements of Fife Council’s Wind Energy Supplementary Planning

Guidance, a detailed, site specific assessment of the landscape capacity of the Kenly Farm

site and surroundings to accommodate the level of wind energy development proposed has

been undertaken. This landscape capacity study has referenced the Fife Council report

‘Identifying Areas of Search for Groupings of Wind Turbines in Fife’ (the ASH Study) which

identifies the anticipated acceptable scale of development in terms of the likely maximum

acceptable turbine height and maximum acceptable scale of development in a given

location.

5.4 As part of this design development process, a series of detailed design objectives were

established, against which to review a series of design layout iterations. These design

objectives comprised:

1 The wind farm development should appear as a similar and clearly identifiable form

and composition of elements when seen from different orientations.

2 There should be a clear arrangement of turbines incorporating a similar size and

scale of visible spacings between them, avoiding or limiting occurrences of

overlapping blades, to create a visually cohesive image and a balanced arrangement

of elements. Overlapping of turbines themselves should be avoided from key

viewpoints.


8

3 The wind farm should be concentrated to appear as a single isolated and contained

feature, with a clearly legible and defined edge and extent. Whilst seen as a

predominantly visual design objective, ecological studies have shown that tighter

groupings of turbines, avoiding isolated turbine positions, may result in lower

incidents of bird strike [1].

4 The arrangement of the wind farm turbines should present a simple clarity of visual

composition, in relation to the turbines themselves and to key landscape features of

the site and the surrounding area.

5 Despite the expansive character of the landscape itself, the wind farm should appear

as a small-scale feature, clustered into a relatively tight grouping rather than

appearing to ‘sprawl’ within the landscape.

6 Detailed turbine layout and arrangement should respond to the geometric patterns

and scale of the surrounding agricultural landscape.

7 Other elements of the wind farm development such as access tracks, substation etc

should be located such that they respond to and are related to landscape

components and geometries of the site such as field boundaries, vegetation and

land use patterns.

8 Visibility of turbines should be avoided, or minimised as much as practicable, within

views from areas north of St Andrews, through a combination of turbine layout and

height to avoid any impacts on the landscape setting of St Andrews from these

views.

5.5 On the advice of the University of St Andrew’s Ecologist and consultees it was suggested that

no turbine should be located within:

• 78m buffer of bat transect routes;

• 2km of settlements;

• 600m buffer of houses and noise sensitive receptors;

• 100m buffer of roads;

• 41m buffer of small roads; and

• 141m buffer for telecommunication links.

5.6 Different layout scenarios were produced and considered using draft visualisations from a

series of key local viewpoints and from the West Sands car park north of St. Andrews. This

iterative process of gradual review, modification and refinement of the layouts was

progressed until detailed layouts for both generating options were produced which best

achieved a balanced composition and arrangement of turbines when seen from the 2 key

viewpoints (the local communities of Boarhills and Kingsbarns), whilst still complying with

the overall design principles and meeting the technical constraints.


9

5.7 Subsequently, these layouts were then tested for all of the selected viewpoints, to check

that there were no views where the visual composition was considered to be unacceptable

in terms of the design principles or appearance within these views. As a result of this review,

a few very minor modifications were made to the detailed layout to achieve an optimum

arrangement of turbines when considered from all the viewpoints.

5.8 The landscape capacity study had indicated that turbines of 100m to blade tip established a

more appropriate scale relationship with the existing landscape character of the local area

as well as a better proportional relationship with existing view characteristics within the key

visualisations than the 125m blade tip turbine option. Based on this, the 6 x 2.0MW option

was selected for the proposed wind farm and the 4 x 3MW option was not considered

further.

5.9 The design development process has taken a wide range of environmental and technical

factors into consideration, to develop a layout which accorded with various environmental

and technical constraints, and which also met a series of design objectives, aiming to achieve

the best balance of considerations throughout this complex, iterative process.

Consideration of landscape capacity issues have influenced the strategic approach to the

design development of the wind farm layout and landscape and visual issues have been at

the forefront of the design development process, seeking to establish a wind farm layout of

an appropriate scale to its landscape and visual context, avoid or minimise potential visibility

from viewpoints within St. Andrews and establish balanced visual compositions of turbines

when seen from the key local viewpoints in Boarhills and Kingsbarns.

5.10 The finalised layout plan is shown in Figure 3 and has been used for environmental

assessment purposes.

6: The Proposal (Chapter 6 and Chapter 7)

6.1 Kenly Farm is located close to the village of Boarhills in north east Fife. The 760 acre farm

unit is an exposed site that has been in the ownership of the University for several centuries.

The land is currently leased to a tenant farmer. The land that forms the higher part of the

site known as Upper Kenly was used as an airfield during the Second World War until it was

redisposed back to the University Court in 1959. Since then the land has been let to a tenant

farmer and the farm is now on the [3rd] generation of tenant farmer.

6.2 The only inhabited dwelling within the Kenly Farm boundary is the tenant farmer’s house

and cottages which are located at Lower Kenly. The only other dwellings within the site

boundary are the Upper Kenly Farmhouse and Farm Cottages which are derelict and

unoccupied. There are several other buildings near the site, including;

• Primrose (uninhabited) that lies approximately 1.2km (from the centre of the site) to

the west of the site;

• Balkaithly Farm (habited) that lies approximately 1.6km (from the centre of the site)

to the south west of the site;


10

• North Quarter (habited) that lies approximately 1km (from the centre of the site) to

the south east of the site; and

• Kilduncan Poultry Farm (habited) that lies approximately 1.2km (from the centre of

the site) to the east of the site.

6.3 It is noted that the final specification for the turbines themselves have still to be confirmed.

All impact assessments and consultations have been carried out on the hub height of 59m,

the rotor diameter of 82m and the maximum tip height of 100m.

6.4 The site is currently accessed from a lane off the unclassified Bonnytown Road that leads to

the A917. The farm lane has a narrow bridge over the Kenly water that would need to be

strengthened and widened. For the Kenly Wind Farm development, the University have

established an alternative access to the site via the B9131 and left onto Station Road. The

site will then be accessed via the Kilduncan Poultry Farm utilising the existing WWII access

tracks used to service the former HMS Jackdaw Fleet Air Arm airfield (although some track

infrastructure will need to be widened and improved as part of the development enabling

works). This delivery and site access strategy is discussed in greater detail within Chapter 14.

6.5 The proposal is to construct and operate a wind farm comprising 6 wind turbines, each with

a generating capacity of 2.05MW, therefore generating 12.3MW of electricity. The project

consists of the following:

• 6 wind turbines and associated infrastructure including foundations and hard

standings;

• Construction of a site entrance and upgrading of the existing access track to the

wind farm site;

• Construction of new internal tracks;

• Construction of a temporary site compound; and

• Construction of a new on-site substation including the control building and

transformers.

6.6 The main activities that will be undertaken during the construction of the wind farm are:

• Prepare the site compound and establish the office, welfare and storage facilities;

• Carry out all highway works along the delivery route to facilitate the wind turbine

component delivery from the Port of Dundee;

• Adapt the junction off Station Road leading to the site access route;

• Upgrade the existing water crossing;

• Upgrade existing access tracks and construct new internal access tracks;

• Construct crane hardstandings;


11

• Excavate wind turbine foundations and construct turbine bases;

• Excavate cable trenches and lay the power and instrumentation cables;

• Construct the substation compound;

• Install the electrical equipment within the substation compound

• Erect and commission the wind turbines; and

• Carry out all reinstatement works to the crane hardstandings and remove the

temporary construction compound.

6.7 All works will be carried out in accordance with good industry practice and relevant SEPA

Pollution Prevention Guidance. Only a suitably experienced Contractor will be appointed to

design, construct and commission the wind farm. Following appointment, the Contractor

will be required to develop a project specific Health, Safety and Environmental Management

System, which will include a detailed Construction Method Statement and a Pollution

Incident Response Plan. These documents will be discussed and agreed with Fife Council,

SNH and SEPA in advance of the commencement of construction activities and all works will

be completed in accordance with these documents.

6.8 Should planning permission be granted, construction would take approximately 12 months.

An indicative programme is included below. A detailed construction programme will be

developed in consultation with Fife Council, SNH and SEPA in order to take cognisance of

ecological constraints and weather conditions.

Activity Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12

Site Mobilisation

Construct Site Entrance & Access Tracks

Compound LaydownAreas

Bridge Adaptations (if req'd)

Foundations and Turbines

Electrical Works

Substation

Turbine Commissioning

Demobilisation of Site

6.9 On completion of the construction, commissioning and reinstatement works, only

maintenance traffic will need to visit the site to ensure the wind turbines are operating

safely with maximum performance. The maintenance traffic could use the new site access

road or the existing site access from the Lower Kenly Farm when carrying out twice yearly

planned maintenance.

6.10 The expected life expectancy of the wind turbines is 25 years. Before the end of this period it

will be necessary to decide whether the wind turbines will be decommissioned or the

turbines replaced or refitted. Any decision to extend the life of the wind farm will require

further environmental studies and will be the subject of a new application for consent.


12

6.11 If it is decided to decommission the wind farm, the following works will be carried out:

• A works compound will be established on the site of the former construction

compound for office, welfare facilities and material storage.

• The turbine blades, nacelle and tower sections will be dismantled and the substation

compound will be demolished. All materials will be removed from the site.

• The upstand section of the turbine foundations will be removed. The lower section

of the wind turbine foundations will remain in situ and will be reduced to plough

depth (or in accordance with any planning conditions), covered by topsoil and

reinstated for farming use.

• All cables would be cut off below ground level, de-energised and left in the ground.

• The majority of the internal tracks will be left for use by the farmer.

• The works compound will be removed and the area re-turfed following the

decommissioning works.

7: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Chapter 8)

7.1 Landscape and visual impact assessments (LVIA) are separate, although linked processes, as

stated within ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (GLVIA) (Landscape

Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002). The

assessment of effect on the landscape considers the landscape resource, which is objectively

described in terms of generalised ‘landscape character types/areas’, by identifying the key

defining features of regional diversity and local distinctiveness of a particular area. The

landscape assessment also considers the effect of the proposed wind energy development

on designated landscapes and other landscapes of recognised value. The effect of the

proposed Kenly wind farm on the landscape resource is presented within Chapter 8

7.2 The physical components which comprise the landscape resource are also components of

the visual resource: these are appreciated by people as ‘visual amenity’ and which can also

be described separately in an objective manner. The effect of the proposed Kenly wind farm

on the visual amenity is presented within Chapter 8. Assessments of effects on the

landscape resource and visual amenity were carried out in parallel.

7.3 Figure 4 shows the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) of the proposal and Figure 5 shows a

photomontage illustrating the view of the planned wind farm from Viewpoint 2.

7.4 A detailed, site specific landscape capacity study of the proposed Kenly Wind Farm and its

landscape context, included in Chapter 5, has indicated that this area has the capacity to

accommodate a ‘Medium: Large Extent’ wind farm development scenario, as defined in the

‘Identifying Areas of Search for Groupings of Wind Turbines in Fife Final Report’, based on

the following parameters:

• The number of turbines is close to the minimum of 6 turbines for such a development

scenario;


13

• Turbines are up to a maximum height of 100m to blade tip;

• The layout of the wind farm is of a simple, geometric composition closely related in

layout to the detailed ‘grain’ of the landscape;

The final design of the proposal adopts these parameters, as well as considering all other

known ecological and technical constraints such as habitats, birds and existing

infrastructure.

7.5 The proposal is located within a landscape characterised as ‘Lowland Open Sloping

Farmland’. This landscape character type (LCT) comprises a large-scale, open agricultural

landscape, generally containing few plantations and shelterbelts and dotted with isolated

but conspicuous settlements and farmsteads, which gently slopes eastwards and

southwards towards the coast. Large rectilinear fields, frequently undefined by boundary

fences, hedges or walls, create a strongly geometric and ordered character, which displays a

well managed appearance to this highly productive landscape. The exposed and open

landscape is strongly influenced by the weather and skies, with long views across undulating

arable fields to distant hills or the surrounding coastal waters. Deeply incised, heavily

wooded, narrow gorges (Lowland Dens LCT) occasionally penetrate this sloping farmland,

contrasting in their level of enclosure and intimacy with the surrounding simple open

landscape.

7.6 The introduction of the proposal into the generally low lying, predominantly open landscape

of the ‘Lowland Open Sloping Farmland’ LCT would inevitably result in considerable

landscape change to the area and associated adverse landscape character impacts. This is a

landscape of large-scale, simple compositions, comprising of a limited number of elements,

and which creates a clearly recognisable geometric order and pattern. Whilst the proposed

turbines would undoubtedly become prominent new features within this landscape, the

compact design layout and formally arranged, geometric layout would create a clearly

legible image and clarity of visual composition of components which would be strongly

related to the underlying organisation and regularity of the surrounding landscape, and

which would, through its simplicity of composition, relate well to the character of the

receiving landscape. The tight grouping of the proposed turbines would allow the wind farm

to appear as a small-scale, concentrated feature within expansive views of the surrounding

landscape. The proposal would have a moderate adverse impact on the ‘Lowland Open

Sloping Farmland’ LCT.

7.7 Within the adjacent Prior Muir and Cameron units of the ‘Lowland Hills and Valleys’ LCT, the

proposal would be likely to become a new visual feature in views outwards from this LCT,

particularly from higher ground, although the diverse landscape pattern of this LCT would be

unaffected and the intrinsic characteristics of the overall LCT would be essentially retained.

Impacts on other LCTs within the 30km Study Area would have either a minor or no effect. In

overall terms, considering the limited and relatively localised significant adverse impacts on

certain LCTs, the proposed Kenly wind farm would have a minor adverse impact on the

landscape character of the Study Area.

7.8 Large areas of the Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) /candidate Special Landscape

Areas (cSLAs) within the 30km Study Area would have no or limited theoretical visibility with


14

the proposed Kenly wind farm and therefore be their overall landscape qualities and

integrity would not be adversely affected by the introduction of the proposed Kenly Wind

Farm. Whilst other areas of the AGLV/cSLA lie in close proximity to the site of the proposed

Kenly Wind Farm, and have varying degrees of theoretical visibility with the proposed Kenly

Wind Farm it is considered that their key characteristics and qualities would be essentially

retained and that the underlying basis for their designation would remain intact.

Consequently, it is concluded that in overall terms, the proposed Kenly Wind Farm

development would have a minor adverse impact on the AGLV/cSLAs of the Study Area.

7.9 The key characteristics of the landscape setting of St. Andrews would be predominantly

unaltered by the introduction of the proposed Kenly wind farm and the integrity of the

town’s landscape setting would remain intact. Additionally, the underlying basis for the

designation of the St Andrews Green Belt, which essentially comprises the landscape setting

of the town, would not be compromised by the introduction of the proposed Kenly wind

farm. In overall terms the proposed Kenly wind farm would have a minor adverse impact on

the landscape setting of St Andrews.

7.10 Given the above considerations, it is concluded that the proposed Kenly wind farm would

have a minor adverse impact on the landscape resource of the Study Area, which is

considered to be not significant.

7.11 The likely effect of the proposal on the visual resource of the Study Area can be summarised

as follows:

• The ZTV plan indicates no theoretical visibility within St Andrews as the topography of

the region, and the buildings themselves, limits visibility of the proposal from within St

Andrews;

• There would be 6 occurrences of a ‘moderate’ adverse effect on visual amenity from

the 18 selected viewpoints which have been assessed in detail. Predominantly, 5 of

these 6 occurrences are within 3km of the development site (or 8km in the case of VP

11 Higham picnic site);

• The majority of the levels of effect on visual amenity from the selected viewpoints are

considered as slight adverse or no effect, and therefore ‘not significant’.

• The sequential visual assessment identifies slight or negligible impacts on the majority

of the lengths of routes considered, with moderate adverse effects restricted to

relatively short sections of the B9131 due to its proximity to the proposed

development site.

7.12 Considering the above factors, it is concluded that the proposal would have a slight adverse

effect on the visual amenity of the Study Area, and would therefore be considered as not

significant.

7.13 The LVIA also considers the predicted cumulative impacts of the proposed Kenly Wind Farm

in addition to 5 other existing, consented and proposed wind farms within the Study Area.

7.14 The proposed Kenly Wind Farm, along with the proposed Carhurly Farm and Troywood

individual turbines, lies within the ‘Lowland Open Sloping Farmland’ LCT, where operational

and approved wind energy development is currently absent. Consequently, wind turbines

are not a key characteristic of this LCT. The proposed Carhurly Farm and Troywood


15

developments in combination would result in a minor adverse cumulative landscape impact

on the ‘Lowland Open Sloping Farmlands’ LCT. The introduction of the proposed Kenly Wind

Farm would increase this level of cumulative impact to moderate adverse. Whilst the three

developments in combination would form prominent features within the landscape, the key

characteristics of the LCT would be retained.

7.15 In relation to the ‘Pronounced Volcanic Hills and Craigs’ LCT, the addition of the proposed

Kenly Wind Farm would have only a very limited additional cumulative effect in combination

with the proposed South Cassingray wind energy proposal, resulting in a slight adverse

cumulative landscape impacts on this LCT. There would be no cumulative landscape impacts

on other LCTs within the Study Area.

7.16 Large areas of the AGLV/cSLAs within the 30km Study Area would have no cumulative

theoretical visibility with any of the proposed wind farms and would therefore be

unaffected. Whilst other areas of the AGLV/cSLAs lie in close proximity to the various sites

of the proposed wind farms, and would have varying degrees of theoretical visibility with

them, it is considered that the key characteristics and qualities of the AGLV/cSLAs would be

essentially retained and that the underlying basis for their designation would remain intact.

Consequently, it is concluded that in overall terms, the proposed Kenly Wind Farm would

have a minor cumulative adverse impact on the AGLV/cSLAs of the Study Area.

7.17 The Cumulative Visual Impact Assessment has concluded that the large majority of

viewpoints assessed would have slight adverse or no cumulative impacts. Two viewpoints

with moderate adverse cumulative impacts after the introduction of the proposed Kenly

wind farm would be VP2 and VP4. These impacts result primarily from seeing the Kenly

wind farm in close proximity to and in combination with the other proposed wind energy

developments.

7.18 The Cumulative Sequential Visual Assessment has concluded that there would two routes

with moderate adverse cumulative impact – B9131 St Andrews to Anstruther and A915 St

Andrews to Upper Largo. This is primarily due to the generally more open and flatter

character of the landscape which, at times, provides good views towards the proposed Kenly

wind farm and the other proposed developments. In both cases, drivers would generally be

concentrating on the undulating and twisting road, so any potential visual impact would not

be experienced for long periods.

8: Ornithology (Chapter 9)

8.1 In general, the main aspects of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the

wind farm that have the potential to impact upon the terrestrial ornithological interest

associated with the site are:

• Construction and dismantling of works compound, connecting roads and other

temporary structures;

• Construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of wind turbines; and

• Construction, maintenance and decommissioning of electrical cable connection.


16

8.2 Ornithological survey and assessment work was carried out using qualified and experienced

surveyors. Fieldwork within the ornithology study area commenced in November 2009

(Vantage Point (VP) surveys, walkovers for geese, and winter farmland bird monitoring) and

continued through till August 2010 (VP’s and breeding farmland bird monitoring). Additional

VP work and geese walkovers were undertaken in October 2010 to supplement data

gathered in 2009.

8.3 Disturbance during the construction period may cause birds to be temporarily displaced to

other parts of the site, or surrounding areas. Some short term disturbance may arise if

construction work takes place during the nesting season, and this may be sufficient to cause

nests to fail. Long term displacement may arise from the loss of habitat to turbine bases and

associated infrastructure. The assessment concluded that given the temporary nature of

disturbance and the low likelihood of disturbance being sufficient to lead to complete

nesting failure significant impacts are not anticipated.

8.4 Turbines have been located away from peripheral habitats occupied by the birds observed

within the Study Area, and therefore impacts associated with collision or displacement will

be insignificant.

8.5 Collision risk modelling was carried out using the SNH Collision Risk Model (CRM), as

described in Band et al.(2007). Several assumptions were made in calculating the models

and these assumptions are described in detail within Chapter 9.

8.6 Collision risk modelling indicated only eight species spent more than 1% of the total survey

time in the Collision Risk Zone. All other species were recorded at too low a level for a

significant impact to arise. Of the eight species where collision risk was assessed black-

headed gull, lesser black-backed gull, greylag goose, lapwing and whooper swan all recorded

very low levels of collision risk that would not significantly affect background mortality (i.e.

predicted losses were less than one in 5-10 years). Buzzard collisions were predicted at one

every two and a half years, and pink-footed goose one every 1.2 years. However both

species have expanding populations (BTO, 2010; SE, 2005) and the predicted mortality is

well below the level needed to have a negative impact on the population viability of either

species. Herring gulls are predicted to have 3.15 collisions per annum. Herring gulls are red

listed due to a 48% decline in the UK populations since 1969. Given the natural background

variability in the herring gull population, its widespread distribution in Fife and continued

spread of gull nesting into urban areas (Scottish Government, 2006) it is unlikely that the

predicted collision rate will be sufficient to have a significant effect on either the Fife or

national herring gull population.

8.7 There are opportunities at a number of locations within the wider farm landscape where

habitat enhancement could produce biodiversity benefits. These would be dependent on

agreement with the existing tenant and farm operations and are listed within Chapter 9.

9: Ecology (Chapter 10)

9.1 A records search of the site boundary and 150m buffer zone, for non-statutory and statutory

nature conservation sites, found Kenly Den (upper) Wildlife Site (WS43) and Swinky Muir


17

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SS5) are both found on the boundary of the Site and

contribute to the biodiversity potential of Kenly. The habitats within the development site

are typical of the predominantly agricultural landscape. The Phase 1 habitat survey

identified the farm as having 34 fields, with only 2-3 of them not being arable farmed.

9.2 In the absence of mitigation, it is assessed that there will be no effects from the proposed

development on local designated areas. Since no water voles were found on site, there

should be no impact to this species, and indirect negative impacts to otters and badgers are

assessed to be extremely unlikely because of the perceived adequate spatial separation

from turbines and construction. Kenly Water is of moderate water quality and Kenly Burn is

of good water quality.

9.3 According to the Natural England guidance on bats and inshore wind farms, Myotis species

and long-eared bats are considered to be species at low risk from wind farms since they

avoid open habitats and they have had low incidences of mortality recorded in post

construction monitoring of European wind farm sites. Pipistrelle species are considered to

be species at medium risk from wind farms since they will exhibit hawking hunting

behaviour over more open habitats, and due to the levels of mortality found in post

construction monitoring of European wind farm sites. At the population level, all these

populations are considered to have a low likelihood of being threatened due to the impacts

from wind turbines.

9.4 Whilst the boundary habitats (waterbodies, riparian strips etc) are favourable to bat activity,

the arable landscape where the turbines are to be located is assumed to be of low foraging

value for bats, a supposition further supported by the distribution of bat registrations

recorded by the bat surveys. The siting of the wind turbines, in line with current guidance

on bats and wind farms, was altered to ensure suitable separation from features where bat

activity was recorded. Overall it is assessed that the proposal represents a low collision risk

to bats, considering the modest activity levels observed on the site and low activity levels

over the open, arable portion of the landscape.

9.5 Any need for the proposal to directly damage or destroy any places likely to be used as bat

roosts, will be carried out under licence and following appropriate mitigation strategies.

Indirect negative impacts to bat roosts are assessed to be extremely unlikely because of the

perceived adequate spatial separation.

9.6 Given the design of the wind farm and the implementation of mitigation strategies, the

construction and operation of the proposed development is unlikely to result in negative

ecological impacts beyond a low magnitude for some species at the local scale. The

magnitudes and possibilities of these potential impacts are not sufficient to expect that the

proposed development poses a significant risk to the conservation status of any of the

faunal species or habitats recorded within the focus area of this assessment.

10: Geology (Chapter 11)

10.1 The assessment considers the likely effects of the proposal on the site geology. The baseline

conditions for the site in the vicinity of Lower and Upper Kenly Farm, the northern boundary


18

of Kippo Plantation, and east towards Kilduncan Farm were assessed through a desktop

study (Table 11.3) and site visits, and the following data were collected and/or collated:

• Solid geology – rock lithologies, orientation and structural deformation, and fracture

density;

• Drift geology – deposit lithologies, location and extent of drift types, and significance

as landforms;

• Shallow subsurface geophysics – proposed turbine site investigation of soil type and

thickness and potential buried infrastructure;

• Soil – geotechnical investigation of proposed turbine site soil thickness, type, water

content, and fine sediment plasticity;

• Boreholes – BGS records of the location of existing abstractions (active and disused);

and

• Existing catchments pressures – pollution sources.

10.2 The main potential impacts identified by the Environmental Impact Assessment are

exposure of the bedrock and leaching of pollutants into the groundwater, and the

compaction of the soils and superficial deposits due to elevated amounts of traffic and heavy

vehicles over the land surface. Exposure of the bedrock will be minimised in the design

phase to reduce the area where leaching of pollutants into the groundwater can occur.

Impact significance is deemed to be moderate. The mitigation measures outlined are

predicted to reduce the impact significance to low.

10.3 At the end of the construction phase, site restoration will be conducted at the edges of

working areas adjacent to access routes, cabling, and turbine foundations in order to re-

establish the superficial deposits, soils and existing vegetation that were removed (and

stored) at the beginning of the construction phase.

10.4 The main identified impacts during the operational phase are the longer term effects of the

foundations on the bedrock, and the influence of the access routes on the shallow

groundwater flow through the superficial deposits. Impact significance is deemed to be low.

10.5 The impact of the constructional, operational and decommissioning phases is regarded as

minor in magnitude and the main receptor (groundwater) is thought to be low in sensitivity.

Overall, the effects of the proposed wind farm development on the hydrogeology of the

area and the geological baseline conditions are not significant under the terms of the

Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations.

11: Hydrology and Hydromorphology (Chapter 12)

11.1 The assessment considers the likely effects of the proposal on the hydrology and

hydromorphology of the site. The baseline conditions for the site in the vicinity of Lower

and Upper Kenly Farm, the northern boundary of Kippo Plantation, and east towards


19

Kilduncan Farm were assessed through a desktop study (Table 12.3) and site visits, and the

following data were collected and/or collated:

• Hydromorphology – field investigation of the Kenly Water and Kilduncan Burn

valleys, channels, banks, and floodplains that are near the proposed turbine site,

and their reaches downstream that could be affected by the development.

• Hydrology – historical rainfall patterns and averages (Met Office), comparison to the

Motray Water gauging station data (14005) at St Michaels, ArcGIS modelling of

surface water networks, catchment areas, and slopes, and field measurements of

river channel dimensions.

• Water quality – visual inspection of surface waters, and surface water sampling and

analysis to develop a baseline of water chemistry for the rivers potentially affected

by the proposed development.

• Flooding risks.

• Existing catchments pressures – diffuse pollution from agricultural practises.

11.2 The main identified impacts are exposure of topsoil and sediment during excavation of the

turbine sites and feeder cables, the leaching of pollutants into the shallow groundwater and

surface water, and the compaction of the soils and superficial deposits due to elevated

amounts of traffic and heavy vehicles over the land surface. Impact significance is deemed to

be moderate if adequate measures are not in place. If all the measures outlined within

Chapter 12 are followed, the residual magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low to

moderate.

11.3 The main identified impacts during the operational phase are the adequate drainage around

the access routes and the release of pollutants from vehicles and equipment into the surface

waters or by adsorption of contaminants onto clay particles. Impact significance is deemed

to be low.

11.4 The overall impact of the constructional, operational and decommissioning phases is

regarded as minor-moderate in magnitude and the main receptor (Kilduncan Burn) is

thought to be medium in sensitivity. The effects of the proposed wind farm development on

the hydrology of the area and the baseline conditions are not significant under the terms of

the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations.

12: Archaeology & Cultural Heritage (Chapter 13)

12.1 The physical impact of construction activity arising from the wind farm development has the

potential to destroy whole or parts of archaeological deposits, monuments and historic

structures; and to alter the burial environment of archaeological deposits which may result

in accelerated rates of deterioration and consequential destruction of deposits.

Additionally, the direct impacts upon the cultural heritage resource caused by construction

activities will always be major and adverse unless effectively mitigated.


20

12.2 Where effective mitigation is implemented, cultural heritage assets will be preserved in situ

or preserved by record. Positive outcomes of mitigation can result in improved

understanding and interpretation of the asset; previously unavailable information being

made available to a wider audience; and increased public understanding and enjoyment of

cultural heritage.

12.3 Every cultural heritage asset within the development site study area (the development site

study area includes a 1km buffer extending from the site boundary) was considered in the

assessment of direct and indirect impacts of the wind farm development. This includes all

designated and non-statutory recorded heritage, and was supplemented by additional desk-

based research and site walkover survey.

12.4 Within the wider study area (focuses on designated heritage within the zone of theoretical

visibility (ZTV) up to 10km from the development boundary), designated heritage assets of

medium and high sensitivity were selected for assessment of indirect impacts of the wind

farm upon setting.

12.5 A walkover of the development site was undertaken to assess the current condition of

recorded cultural heritage sites, to record current land use, and to assess the potential for

undiscovered or unrecorded cultural heritage sites within the development area. Site visits

were then carried out to every Scheduled Monument (SAM), Garden and Designed

Landscape (GDL), Category A listed building, Conservation Area and selected Category B and

C(S) Listed buildings with theoretical views of the wind farm within the wider study area to

assess their current setting and the potential impact of the development upon it.

12.6 Mitigation of direct and indirect impacts arising from all phases of the proposed Kenly wind

farm development has been embedded into the design process from the earliest stages.

12.7 Where direct impacts upon known and unknown cultural heritage features of low sensitivity

within the development area, arising from the construction and decommissioning of the

wind farm, cannot be avoided, provision for the preservation of affected features by record

is considered to fully mitigate the impact.

12.8 The indirect impact of the greatest magnitude is considered to be the presence of the

turbines in relation to nearby standing airfield remains within the development area. The

condition of most of these has already been detrimentally affected as a consequence of

demolition and decay. None are protected or designated. The resulting significance of the

impact upon them is assessed to be moderate. This effect, as with all other indirect affects

arising from the operation of the wind farm, is reversible in the event of the

decommissioning of the turbines.

12.9 The greatest visual impact upon setting is considered to be that upon Dunino Parish Church.

The essential characteristics of its setting in relation to its churchyard and Dunino Manse will

be only slightly affected, but there will be clear views of the turbines from the church

entrance and the resulting significance of the impact is assessed to be moderate.

12.10 The assessment has demonstrated that the predicted impact significance upon designated

cultural heritage receptors in the wider historic landscape is overwhelmingly none or


21

negligible. The highly sensitive setting of St Andrews; St Andrews Cathedral and St Andrews

Castle will not be affected by the development. Nearby historic settlements of Boarhills and

Kingsbarns and the Garden and Designed Landscape of Cambo are also relatively unaffected

by the wind farm despite their proximity to it, due to local topography, vegetation cover and

the layout of the built-up areas of the designated policies.

12.11 The overall predicted significance of impact arising from the Kenly wind farm development,

either to the survival or setting of the cultural heritage resource and historic landscape is

assessed to be negligible and acceptable in terms of the EIA regulations.

13: Traffic and Access (Chapter 14)

13.1 The Transport Assessment considers the potential access and traffic impacts associated with

the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed Kenly Wind Farm. The

assessment identifies the routes proposed for the transportation of the wind turbine

sections and construction materials.

The key issues relating to traffic and access are:

• Access routes for abnormal loads;

• Access route for construction vehicles;

• Impact of construction traffic on the local highway network; and

• Proposed mitigation measures to minimise environmental impacts.

13.2 Abnormal loads are expected to be delivered to Dundee Port (Port of Entry) and will route as

undernoted from Dundee (Figure 5).

• Stannergate Road to East Camperdown Street;

• East Camperdown Street to East Dock Street via Camperdown Level

Crossing;

• East Dock Street and via Tay Bridge and A92 to A914 roundabout;

• Left to A914 and via Balmullo to A91 Dairsie Roundabout (reverse);

• A91 via Guardbridge to St Andrews at A915 City Road;

• Right to A915 and via City Road/Bridge Street/Largo Road to Lamond Drive;

• Left to Lamond Drive towards A917Anstruther Road;

• Right to A917 Anstruther Road;

• A917 south to Brownhills Garage and right to B9131;

• B9131 south via Dunino to Station Road;

• Left to Station Road and north east to Kilduncan Farm Access; and


22

• Left to Kilduncan Farm and via existing farm access route to Wind farm Site.

13.3 A review of access options to the site from the local road network has been performed in

order to identify the most suitable route. The preferred route (Option C) is via Kilduncan

farm (see Figure 6). Constraints which are envisaged to require mitigation are the possible

temporary strengthening of the access bridge over Kenly Water, the provision of widening

on approach to the Kenly Water bridge to accommodate long loads and avoid overhanging

branches, and limited widening west of Kilduncan Farm. A structural assessment of the

access bridge over Kenly Water will be performed after Planning Permission in principle has

been secured.

13.4 Approximately 40 abnormal load trips (turbine delivery plus cranes) are anticipated to be

made over a 12 week period.

13.5 It is estimated that on average, 19 HGVs would access the site on a daily basis over the

construction period, assuming a 20 day working month. During the first 3 months of

construction, approximately 47 HGVs per day would deliver stone for access tracks and

compound areas along with a very modest number in connection with component delivery

and other activities.

13.6 The peak and average increases in traffic during construction at the assessment points and

their significance in terms of the predicted increase in traffic volumes is summarised within

Chapter 14. The predicted peak monthly increase during Months 1 to 3 (47 HGV plus 20

personnel one way vehicle movements) would result in temporary traffic increases of less

than 4%. HGVs and Construction personnel vehicles would respectively average 19 and 20

one way movements per day. In comparison to the projected Base Traffic Flows at the

assessment locations, this would represent an average increase of marginally greater than

2% in the vicinity of the wind farm site. There would not be a significant effect on the access

routes in terms of traffic flows.

13.7 This assessment concludes that the construction of Kenly wind farm would result in a

temporary increase in traffic levels on the preferred and alternative abnormal load routes

and on the construction traffic route within the study area. In accordance with the IEMA

Guidelines these increases are considered to be negligible and not significant.

13.8 This Traffic and Access Chapter has assessed the likely significance of the effects of traffic

movements associated with the development of Kenly wind farm during the construction,

operational and decommissioning phases. The implementation of mitigation measures is

expected to include an appropriate Traffic Management Plan and liaison with Fife Council,

Transport Scotland and Fife Police. The residual traffic and transport effects on all road

networks within the study area have been assessed as being negligible, not significant and

temporary.

14: Noise (Chapter 15)

14.1 An assessment of the noise and vibration effect of the development on nearby noise

sensitive receptors (NSRs) was conducted at 2 locations agreed with the Environmental

Health Officer (EHO). The EHO also indicated that, given the limited size of the development


23

and the short duration of the construction programme, construction noise may be

satisfactorily managed by constraining the working hours.

14.2 The operational noise impact assessment considered nine receptors covering a range of

directions from the indicative wind turbine locations. The receptors for which the

operational noise impact has been assessed are listed in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Noise Sensitive Receptors

Receptor Easting Northing Distance from nearest

Turbine Location (m)

A Upper Kenly 356,437 711,726 109

B Primrose Cottage 355,354 712,088 746

C Balkaithly 354,859 711,058 882

D Drumly 355,154 710,183 1241

E Swinkie 355,724 710,253 1040

F Poultry Farm 357,344 711,793 624

G Kilduncan 357,544 712,033 901

H Peekie Mill 355,974 712,648 968

I North Quarter 357,329 711,218 703

14.3 Background noise measurements were obtained between 21st October and 9th November

2010. Monitoring equipment was set up at Primrose Cottage, representing the areas to the

north and west of the Development, and North Quarter representing those receptors lying

to the south and east.

14.4 Although noise levels from construction and decommissioning activities are expected to be

significantly below required thresholds, there may be periods when noise generated by

construction activities, may be audible at properties close to the associated construction

activity. For these activities, i.e. track works, reasonable measures will be employed to

reduce noise levels as per the concept of ‘best practicable means’ as defined in Section 72 of

the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

14.5 The predicted noise levels from the operational phase are all below the criterion levels,

except for Upper Kenly (A) which is uninhabited and owned by the University of St Andrews.

At worst, the effect of the predicted level of noise could be described as slight. Given that

this level of effect will only occur when the wind is in a very narrow range of speeds, the

aggregate effect is negligible. In terms of the EIA Regulations (The Scottish Parliament,

1999), the impact of noise from the turbines is assessed as not significant.

14.6 There is no evidence of vibration due to the operation of wind turbines being perceptible

beyond the immediate vicinity of the turbines. This, together with the considerable

distances between the indicative turbine locations and the nearest sensitive receptor, will

ensure that the effect will be not significant.


24

14.7 The assessment for the operational Development has been carried out by comparing

predicted noise levels with noise limits set out in ETSU-R-97, Assessment and Rating of Noise

from Wind Farms (ETSU for the DTI, 1996). The assessment shows that the predicted wind

turbine noise levels at the residential locations assessed meet the day-time and night-time

noise limits.

15: Aviation and Defence (Chapter 16)

15.1 Aviation operations may be affected by wind turbines in a number of different ways and

with varying degrees of significance. A wind farm development that is detected by an air

traffic control radar or air defence radar can result in interference with the possibility of

erroneous information being reported on the radar display that may obscure genuine

aircraft targets or distract controllers. Air traffic services may also be affected by the

physical presence of a wind turbine close to airfields or where low flying activities are

undertaken; turbines may pose a physical obstruction to safe operations.

15.2 The assessed impact to radar and any subsequent impact to aviation operations resulting

from the proposed wind farm development has been determined using radar and radio

propagation modelling to predict the extent that the turbines are detected by the affected

radar. The radar propagation modelling was conducted using mature, industry recognised

techniques and tools, based on a 50m grid Digital Terrain Model. This assessment has taken

into consideration the following factors:

• The location of the proposed wind farm;

• The design of the wind farm;

• The technical characteristics and operational activities of aviation in the area of the

proposed wind farm; and

• An assessment of how these may be affected by the wind farm development.

15.3 A review of the regulatory requirements has identified the following aviation operations

within the Kenly area:

• Safeguarded Aerodromes outside 30km with potential radar detection: - Edinburgh

International Airport;

• Air Defence and military aerodrome within potential line of sight:- RAF Leuchars;

• En-Route Air Traffic Control: None;

• Officially safeguarded technical sites within 10km: - None;

• Licensed aerodromes with a runway of more than 1100m and within 17km of the

site: - None;

• Licensed aerodromes with a runway of less than 1100m and within 5km of the site: -

None;


25

• Unlicensed aerodromes with a runway of more than 800m and within 4km of the

site: - None;

• Unlicensed aerodromes with a runway of less than 800m and within 3km of the site:

- Kingsmuir Airfield;

• Any other unlicensed aviation land use within 3km of the site: - None;

• Offshore helicopter operations: - None;

• Navigation Aids within the Kenly Area: - None; and

• Meteorological radar operations within 20km of the site: - None.

15.4 The nearest of the identified aviation stakeholders is RAF Leuchars which is approximately 7

nm (13 km) from the Kenly development. The second nearest radar is the meteorological

radar at Munduff, situated approximately about 18 nm (33 km) away and thus of no

relevance to the present analysis because it is beyond the 20 km safeguarding distance from

the site. Edinburgh International Airport radar is sited approximately 31 nm (57 km) away

and due to its predicted low level radar coverage over the Kenly site, it was considered in

this assessment. There are no radars in the consultation area that are operated by NATS En

Route Limited (NERL).

15.5 The assessment found that the only major predicted impact to aviation was to operations at

RAF Leuchars potentially causing unacceptable interference to the primary radar leading to a

significant operational impact. Two letters of objection have been received from Defence

Estates (MoD) representing RAF Leuchars confirming this assessment. In order to address

these objections a potential technical mitigation scheme has been identified and issued to

the MOD. Further consultation is awaited with the MOD to confirm its suitability.

15.6 This assessment also identified a potential minor impact to operations at Kingsmuir Airfield

(non- radar) that requires consultation with the Operators to assess the impact.

16: Telecommunications (Chapter 17)

16.1 Fixed radio links, scanning telemetry systems are used by communication companies, utility

companies and emergency services. The presence of a wind turbine can affect these signals

by reflecting, refracting or masking the signals. Masking occurs when a large structure, such

as a wind turbine, prevents a transmitted signal from reaching a receiver. Wind turbines can

also reflect signals, causing multiple routes to a receiver or refract the signal away from its

intended path resulting in a loss of reception. This effect is not constant as the wind turbine

is a moving structure.

16.2 All the potential effects arising from a communication signals being affected by turbine

blades occur during the operational phase of the development.

16.3 Through constraints mapping and positioning of the turbines, the Orange and T-Mobile

communication links which pass through the proposed development site will not be

impacted by proposed wind farm development.


26

16.4 Telemetry scanning links are primarily used by Utility Companies to remotely monitor and

control unmanned sites from a central location. Atkins Limited analyses proposals for wind

farms on behalf of Scottish Water, their assessment has confirmed that ‘there is a risk that

the proposed Wind Farm / Turbine would cause interference to communications between

Outstations and a Scanning Base Station’.

16.5 Through informal discussions with Scottish Water’s Network Solutions (Solutions Consultant)

within the Technology Solutions & Service Delivery department it has been established that

technical mitigation measures suggested within a Desk Based Communications Link Report

would, in theory, be acceptable to Scottish Water. Agreement of the final mitigation

measure with Scottish Water will be progressed in due course.

16.6 A TV Reception Assessment was carried out which consulted the BBC online TV reception

assessment tool. The result of this assessment was that the wind farm would be likely to

affect television reception at two homes for whom there is no alternative off-air service, and

may affect up to 312 homes for whom there may be an alternative off-air service. The BBC

online tool generally provides worst case results. The figures above are low, and are likely to

mean that any issues with TV reception are likely to be negligible and capable of being

mitigated.

16.7 All transmitters in the STV North Area have completed switchover from analogue to digital

TV transmissions. As digital broadcast television is less susceptible to the shadowing and

reflection effects outlined above it is considered likely that the wind farm will have no

significant impacts on TV reception.

17: Economy and Tourism (Chapter 18)

17.1 Tourism is important to the East Neuk of Fife. While there are no examples of wind farms

developed elsewhere leading to negative impacts on the tourism economy, fears of such

effects are often raised at the planning stage. It is therefore important that the potential

tourism impacts are given serious and full consideration.

17.2 A series of consultations with tourism businesses and local tourist attractions in the

immediate vicinity of the proposed site as well as local and national tourism agencies have

been undertaken to facilitate the preparation of the impact assessment.

17.3 Since 1999, the Moffat Centre has worked on behalf of VisitScotland to compile the national

statistical performance indicators of the Scotland’s cultural tourism attractions. The annual

Visitor Attraction Monitor, which is published around July each year, supplies detailed data

on around 700 participating Scottish attractions. The Visitor Attraction Monitor for 2009

shows that the top five visitor attractions in Fife were:

• The Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther - 97,326 visitors;

• Abbot House Heritage Centre & Gardens, Dunfermline - 71,797 visitors;

• Kirkcaldy Museum & Art Gallery, Kirkcaldy - 59,319 visitors;

• St Andrew's Castle, St Andrews - 55,163 visitors; and


27

• Falkland Palace, Cupar - 48,364 visitors.

17.4 The proposed site is not visible from any of these attractions. Another important tourist

attraction in the area is Scotland’s Secret Bunker, a Cold War era military bunker now used

as a tourist attraction. The Secret Bunker is within three miles of the proposed site;

however, as the vast majority of the attraction is underground, the site operator does not

expect there to be any negative impact on visitor experience. (It is also worth noting that

there is a pending planning application for a single 2.3MW wind turbine within the

boundaries of the Secret Bunker site, application number 09/02880/FULL).

17.5 One of, if not the, most important elements of the tourism product in Fife is Golf. The

historic Old Course at St Andrews is the traditional home of golf. Numerous other less

famous golf courses are also located in the area around St Andrews, including the Fairmont

Golf Course (between St Andrews and Boarhills) and the Kingsbarns Golf Links (a little south

of the village of Kingsbarns) both of which are approximately 2.8km and 3.2km respectively

from the proposed site.

17.6 Walking (Fife Coastal Path) and cycling (National Route One which connects Dover and the

Shetland Islands via the east coast of England and Scotland) are other popular activities for

visitors to the East Neuk and consultations with accommodation suppliers within the vicinity

of the proposed site confirmed that many of their visitors participated in these activities.

17.7 Although the scenery around and views from the Coastal Path and National Route One are

likely to be extremely important to path users, it is unlikely that the proposed wind farm

would detract from their enjoyment since the main views of interest will be out to sea.

17.8 The site of the proposed development is currently not easily accessible and as such is not

much used for recreation purposes. This represents something of an opportunity for the East

Neuk since the site contains a disused WWII airfield which could be of interest to visitors to

the area. Walking and cycling are both already popular activities with visitors to the area and

consultations with local accommodation providers suggest that, if it were more accessible,

the airfield might provide an interesting diversion for these visitors. Any effort to make the

site more accessible to visitors will need to be carefully balanced with the needs of the

existing tenant farmer and accommodate the existing industrial use of the land for

agriculture.

17.9 The potential for the proposed development to have a negative impact on the tourism

industry as a whole has been considered. However, the scale of the development and

number of accommodation providers in the near vicinity is such that this impact has been

assessed as negligible. It is also important to note that the University of St Andrews which is

proposing the development, benefits considerably from tourism related income each year

and as such it would not be in the University’s interests to promote a scheme which might

be expected to have a negative impact on the local tourism economy.


28

18: Shadow Flicker (Chapter 19)

18.1 Shadow flicker occurs when the sunlight and the rotating wind turbine blades interact in

such a way that a moving shadow is cast onto the ground or stationary objects. Within the

range of the shadow at any specified location, a flickering effect is evident when the shadow

passes.

18.2 Shadow flicker usually occurs in the morning or evening when the sun is low in the sky and

shadows are long. When the sun is obscured by clouds, fog, or by intervening objects no

shadow flicker will be present. There will also be no shadow flicker from a wind turbine

when the turbine is not operating, or when the rotor is turned parallel to a line between the

receptor and the wind turbine.

18.3 The shadow flicker analysis was conducted using ReSoftWindFarm software. The WindFarm

analysis reports the ‘worst case’ scenario, that is, a situation where there is always sunshine,

the wind is always blowing, and the wind and the wind turbine rotors track the sun as the

Sun moves throughout the day. In addition, the model does not include consideration of any

screening effects of existing vegetation and other buildings.

18.4 In the UK there are no set guidelines for assessment of shadow flicker, or set limits for

acceptable exposure to shadow flicker. Onshore wind farm guidance (OWEPCGN, 2007)

states that “only dwellings within 130 degrees either side of north relative to a turbine can

be affected and the shadow can be experienced only within 10 rotor diameters (10RD) of the

wind farm.”

18.5 In Germany there has been a court case in which the judge tolerated 30 hours of actual

shadow flicker per year at a certain neighbour's property. In the 30 hours, one should only

include flicker which occurs during hours when the property is actually occupied.

18.6 A total number of nine properties were identified within the 10RD potential impact areas

around the proposed wind turbine locations for the 82m rotor diameter. There are 2

receptors that may potentially experience over 30 hours of shadow flicker per year. These

are the Upper Kenly Farmhouse and Farm Cottages in the north of the site.

18.7 The property at Upper Kenly, which is owned by the University of St Andrews, is dilapidated

and uninhabited. Consequently the potential impact on this property can be discarded.

18.8 The predicted impact at the Farm cottages in the north of the site is only slightly over the 30

hour threshold of acceptability. Given the conservative nature of the modelling undertaken

it would be expected that the shadow flicker effects experienced at this property would

actually be lower than the levels predicted.

19: Grid Connection (Chapter 20)

19.1 Kenly Farm receives its electrical supply from St Andrews in the form of a system of 11kV

overhead wooden poles. In terms of electrical supply, the existing network in the area

between St Andrews and Boarhills is relatively weak.


29

19.2 The connection of the proposed wind farm to the grid is not part of this ES and would be the

subject of a separate planning application. A detailed assessment of the grid connection

options will be undertaken in close consultation with the Distribution Network Operator

(DNO) should the proposal receive planning permission. An initial high level review has been

carried out and based on the findings of this initial grid connection assessment, connecting

to the St Andrews primary substation at 11kV is considered to be the most feasible option

available at this time. The suitability of all proposed connection options are subject to

further detailed assessment.

20: Conclusion

20.1 The Non Technical Summary outlines the findings of the Environmental Statement (ES) for

the proposed wind farm development. The ES is presented in five main volumes, namely:

• Volume 1 – Non Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement;

• Volume 2– Written Statement (main volume text);

• Volume 3–Visualisations and Figures;

• Volume 4– Appendices (supplementing the main volume text);

• Volume 5– Planning Statement, the purpose of which is to examine the Proposal in

context of the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental

Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 1999. On this basis, the Planning

Statement assesses the balance between local effects and the local, national and

global benefits of wind power development.

20.2 There have been a number of significant effects identified through the Environmental

Impact Assessment which inform the Environmental Statement. These principal issues can

be summarised as landscape and visual resource and aviation. The impact to the landscape

and visual resource was recognised early within the design development process and the

residual impact has been reduced through the design of the turbine layouts. Technical

mitigation measures have been issued to the MOD to address their objections and further

consultations will be held with the MOD to discuss and agree an acceptable technical

mitigation measure which will address their concerns.

20.3 An electronic copy of the full ES and NTS will be available to download at http://www.st-

andrews.ac.uk/Kenly

20.4 Copies of the Environmental Statement will be available for public inspection within the local

Council Office during normal opening hours. The exact location will be confirmed by Fife

Council following submission of the application.

20.5 Representations with respect to the application should be sent to the following address (Fife

Council, Development Services, Development Promotion & Design, Forth House, Abbotshall

Road, Kirkcaldy, FIFE, KY1 1RU), identifying that the correspondence refers to the proposed

Kenly Wind Farm and specifying the grounds for representation.


30



1 Introduction (Chapter 1) ......................................................................................................... 1

2: The Need for the Development (Chapter 2) .......................................................................... 1

3: The Regulatory and Planning Context (Chapter 3) ................................................................. 3

4: The EIA Process (Chapter 4) ................................................................................................... 5

5: Assessment of Alternatives and Design Development (Chapter 5) ....................................... 6

6: The Proposal (Chapter 6 and Chapter 7) ................................................................................ 9

7: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Chapter 8) ........................................................12

8: Ornithology (Chapter 9) .......................................................................................................15

9: Ecology (Chapter 10) ............................................................................................................16

10: Geology (Chapter 11) .........................................................................................................17

11: Hydrology and Hydromorphology (Chapter 12) .................................................................18

12: Archaeology & Cultural Heritage (Chapter 13) ..................................................................19

13: Traffic and Access (Chapter 14) ..........................................................................................21

14: Noise (Chapter 15).............................................................................................................22

15: Aviation and Defence (Chapter 16) ....................................................................................24

16: Telecommunications (Chapter 17) .....................................................................................25

17: Economy and Tourism (Chapter 18) ...................................................................................26

18: Shadow Flicker (Chapter 19) ..............................................................................................28

19: Grid Connection (Chapter 20) ............................................................................................28

20: Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................29

Ke

nly

Win

d F

arm

En

vir

on

me

nta

l S

tate

me

nt

FIG

UR

E 1

– S

ITE

LO

CA

TIO

N