Rumster Community Wind Energy Project · Final Report Rumster Community Wind Energy Project October...

Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd 6 North End Road Stromness Orkney KW16 3AG

Rumster Community Wind Energy Project

Technical Potential and Feasibility Study

Report OSE/2824 Volume 1

Final Report Rumster Community Wind Energy Project October 2007

OSE/2824 3


Technical Potential and Feasibility Study Report OSE/2824: Final October 2007 Project Developer: Latheron, Lybster and Clyth Community Development Company Project Coordination: Eric Larnach Telephone 01593 731455 Email [email protected] Project design: Richard Gauld BSc(Hons) IEng MInstMC Dip.Design&Innovation Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd 6 North End Road Stromness Orkney KW16 3AG Telephone 01856 850054 Facsimile 01856 851239 Email [email protected]

Richard Gauld is a Member of the Institute of Measurement and Control, is a professional design engineer, and

is registered as an Incorporated Engineer with the Engineering Council of Great Britain.


OSE/2824 4


Report OSE/2824

Technical Potential and Feasibility Study

This report is a study into the technical potential and feasibility of a community-

owned wind energy project proposed for part of Rumster Forest, to the north-west of

Lybster in Caithness. The report is divided into two volumes; Volume One identifies

the possible location, planning constraints, ecological constraints, geomorphology,

the wind regime, land use, grid issues, forestry and MoD constraints, visual impact

assessment, and community ownership issues, with an appendix on potential

archaeological impacts,. Volume Two contains preliminary site plans, zone of

theoretical visibility maps, and photomontage images.

Volume 1:

Section 1 Location identification, grid issues, and planning constraints

Section 2 Land use, geomorphology, hydrology and forestry constraints

Section 3 Ecological constraints

Section 4 Landscape and visual impact assessment

Section 5 Socio-economics and community governance

Appendix A Archaeology desk-based assessment

Volume 2: Preliminary Site Drawings, Maps and Photomontage Images


OSE/2824 5

CONTENTS

SUMMARY 7

INTRODUCTION 8

1 SITE DESCRIPTION, GRID AND PLANNING CONSTRAINTS 9

1.1 PROPOSED LOCATION 9

1.2 WIND ASSESSMENT 10

1.3 CARBON EMISSION AVOIDANCE 10

1.4 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS 11

1.5 PROVISIONAL DESIGN STATEMENT 13

1.6 WIND TURBINE SELECTION 14

1.7 EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION 15

1.8 NATIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT 16

1.9 LOCAL PLAN CONTEXT 16

1.10 STRUCTURE PLAN CONTEXT 17

1.11 HIGHLAND RENEWABLE ENERGY STRATEGY 18

1.12 GRID ISSUES 18

1.13 POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE FROM NOISE 19

1.14 POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE FROM SHADOW FLICKER 20

1.15 POTENTIAL RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS INTERFERENCE 21

2 LAND USE, GEOMORPHOLOGY, HYDROLOGY AND FORESTRY 22

2.1 GEOLOGY 22

2.2 HYDROLOGY 23

2.3 GEOMORPHOLOGY – RISK OF PEAT SLIDE 24

2.4 LAND USE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 25

2.5 FORESTRY ISSUES 26

3 ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS 27

3.1 BACKGROUND 27

3.2 SHIELTON PEATLANDS SSSI 27


OSE/2824 6

3.3 EAST CAITHNESS CLIFFS SPA 28

3.4 REISGILL BURN SSSI 29

3.5 PROPOSED BIRD STUDIES 29

BROWN & SHEPHERD SURVEY – METHOD 29

VANTAGE POINT SURVEY - METHOD 30

SWAN AND GOOSE CHECKS – METHOD 30

WADER CHECKS – METHOD 30

BREEDING RAPTORS – METHOD 30

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 30

3.6 PROPOSED MAMMAL SURVEY 32

4 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 33

4.1 VISUAL IMPACT UPON THE LANDSCAPE 33

4.2 ZONE OF THEORETICAL VISIBILITY 33

4.3 IMPACT ON VISUAL RESOURCE 34

4.4 VISUAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 34

4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACT 37

5 SOCIO-ECONOMICS AND COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE 38

5.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 38

5.2 GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 38

5.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS 39

5.4 GRANT FUNDING 39

5.5 CONCLUSIONS 40

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 41

APPENDIX A: DESK-BASED ARCHAEOLOGY ASSESSMENT


OSE/2824 7

Summary

The Rumster Community Wind Energy Project is a locally owned community windfarm being

developed by the Latheron, Lybster and Clyth Community Development Company, with co-ordination

by Mr Eric Larnach. Orkney Sustainable Energy have been contracted to complete a technical

potential and feasibility study.

It is proposed that up to three wind turbines be installed on land belonging to the community, on part

of Rumster Forest, north-west of Lybster. The preliminary turbine chosen for the development is the

REPower MM70 2MW. The turbine model may change, subject to availability, however for the

purposes of this report the REPower MM70 has been used to show a typical machine for the

development. The electricity generated will be traded to meet the requirements of the Renewables

Order (Scotland) 2002.

The concept of a locally owned, community wind energy development was initiated by the

Community Development Company. Consultation has taken place with the Forestry Commission,

Forest Enterprise, SEERAD, the Crofters Commission, Latheron, Lybster and Clyth Community

Council, Highland Council Planning and Development, Historic Scotland, the Royal Society for the

Protection of Birds, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the

Ministry of Defence, Wick Airport, the Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Services and

OFCOM, the radiocommunications agency. No objections have been raised by these agencies,

although OFCOM did indicate that there were concerns with the radiocommunications links that

traverse the area, and the project was subsequently redesigned to avoid a radio link to Orkney.

As a result of the desk-based design studies, the project has been designed around three 100m tall

turbines to give a maximum output of 6MW, with the project designed to fit within the landscape and

to have minimal impact upon neighbours. Preliminary landscape and visual impact studies have been

completed, and it was determined that the turbines present a simple, clear relationship to the landform

and other existing features, and have largely a negligible significance. Potential ecological impacts

have been considered, including recommendations for a habitat survey, a mammal survey, a breeding

bird survey, and an assessment of any protected species near the site. Initial assessment on the

archaeology of the site and surrounding area has been completed and analysis includes a geological

and hydrogeological survey, photomontage modelling, a description of the wind turbines, and detailed

maps of the development.

It was concluded that a small wind energy project is feasible for this part of Caithness, with low

impacts upon ecology and the local community. Strong social and economic benefits can be achieved

by constructing the Rumster project, along with the associated climate change benefits resulting from

renewable energy production.


OSE/2824 8

Introduction Caithness has the potential to become an important area for wind energy development; a

number of projects have been proposed for the county, primarily as large scale windfarms on

hilltop and moorland locations. The Rumster project is an alternative to this pattern of

development, and has been designed as a small-scale community-owned cluster of wind

turbines to avoid dominating the landscape, while providing strong economic benefits.

Orkney Sustainable Energy have completed preliminary environmental, financial and social

impact studies, resulting in an initial design and development of a three wind turbine project.

The Latheron Lybster and Clyth Community Development Company has been leading the

development.

The Rumster project has been designed around the RE Power 2MW wind turbine, however

the actual turbine model may alter nearer the time of construction; the site layout and all

modelling has used a 65m turbine tower height and a maximum of 35m blade length. The

nearest 33 kV electricity transmission line is located in the A9 corridor to the west of the

development site, with underground cabling proposed throughout.

The average wind speed on the Rumster site is predicted to be around 9.2 metres per second

(ms-1), compared with 9.6 ms-1 predicted at the summits of nearby hills. This lower

windspeed is due to the slightly lower elevation of the site, chosen with the aim of reducing

visual impact. Based on the manufacturers predictions, three 2MW wind turbines on Rumster

will produce around 16.5 GWh of electricity per annum, equivalent to the annual domestic

requirements of 3500 households(DUKES).

Electricity produced from renewable resources avoids the emission of pollution, and the

production of 16,500 MWh is projected to avert the production of around 2000 tonnes of

carbon per annum(Carbon Trust). Per head of population, the Rumster project provides a very

good contribution towards the Scottish Executive annual targets:

This report is presented in seven sections: Section 1 is a description of the location and

includes a summary of planning constraints and grid issues, Section 2 is a summary of

existing landuse and possible geomorphology and hydrology constraints, Section 3 contains

an assessment of ecological impacts, Section 4 is a preliminary landscape and visual impact

assessment, Section 5 is a socio-economics study and an assessment of the implications of

community ownership, and Appendix A contains a preliminary archaeology survey. Volume

2 of the report contains initial plans, drawings, maps, wireframe images and photomontages.


OSE/2824 9

1 Site description, grid and planning constraints

This part of the report identifies the proposed site for the wind turbine development and the

activities involved in delivering and constructing the wind energy project at Rumster Forest.

The assessment includes planning constraints in Caithness, a description of the site and

identification of grid connection locations. The aspects considered include civil engineering,

transport of the equipment, installation of the wind turbines, operation and maintenance of the

project and eventual decommissioning of the turbines.

1.1 Proposed location

The site for the development is within the boundary of Rumster Forest, on the elevated land

behind the community of Lybster, in eastern Caithness. Up to three wind turbines are

proposed for an area of cleared forestry, with the positions chosen to be on hard, stable

underlying rock under a layer of peat. The grid references are as listed below, Table 1.1, with

a note of the base elevation and overall height of each installation above sea level, including

maximum wind turbine blade tip height. There will be a requirement for an external

switchgear housing located next to the overhead cables to the west of the site.

The set of overhead wires travelling through Lybster is an 11kV system, and is the main

supply for the community, farms and domestic properties in the area. The project will require

an extension of the 33kV system, and it is proposed that these wires should be mounted on

wooden poles between the switchgear building and the point of connection, and then should

be underground from the building to the site. All site cabling will be underground. The

switchgear house will consist of a building designed to resemble a small garage or

outbuilding, finished to match nearby buildings, and a provisional location has been identified

adjacent to the A9.

Turbine Easting Northing Position elevation

Tower top elevation

Maximum elevation

T1 E320750 N941120 179m 244m 279m

T2 E320750 N940770 165m 230m 265m

T3 E320750 N940420 152m 217m 252m

Substation E318375 N939150 155m -- 160m

Table 1.1 Provisional turbine locations and heights


OSE/2824 10

1.2 Wind assessment

Extensive wind measurement has not yet been conducted for the Rumster Forest project. It

will likely be necessary to conduct a wind monitoring programme at some stage in order to

clarify the resource; funders and the turbine supply company will require this information to

quantify annual mean wind speed, turbulence intensity, air flow roughness and to confirm that

separation of wind flow does not occur. Turbine manufacturers require wind analysis to

ensure that their product will operate correctly in the location, and wind measurement has

become necessary in determining the appropriate classification of the wind turbine.

For the purposes of this study the national wind speed database has been used to provide an

indication of the resource, and the square kilometre containing the Rumster Forest turbines

has an annual mean windspeed of 9.2ms-1 at a height of 45m above ground level, with 9.6ms-1

indicated at the slightly more elevated land to the north of the site. At these windspeeds a

2MW wind turbine will produce an annual energy yield of approximately 5500 MWh, with

three turbines producing 16,500 MWh, equivalent to that consumed by around 3500

households in one year (DUKES).

When considering the classification of wind turbines, this site appears to be a class 1 location,

requiring machines that have been built to cope with stronger windspeeds. There are limited

class 1 machines available, and accordingly it may be necessary to downsize the development.

1.3 Carbon emission avoidance

In the UK electricity is produced by a mixture of generation sources, and in 2006 the

increasing cost of gas to the UK increased the use of coal, with a corresponding increase in

the volume of greenhouse gas emissions; CO2 emissions have been identified as the primary

cause of climate change, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions are a cause of acid

rain. Generation of this electricity by a mixture of resources would result in pollution at a rate

of 0.43 Tonnes of CO2 per MWh of generation (Carbon Trust); a three turbine development at

Rumster Forest producing 16,500 MWh per annum will therefore avoid the production of the

following emissions (Boyle 1996):

• CO2 7000 tonnes per annum

• SO2 300 to 400 tonnes per annum

• NOx 60 to 80 tonnes per annum

Over a twenty year lifetime the project will avoid the production of 140,000 Tonnes of CO2.


OSE/2824 11

1.4 Alternative locations

The proposed site for the project has been established by the Community Development

Company in consultation with Forest Enterprise, and has been chosen to provide an area of

land suitable for community ownership. The Development Company indicated that a project

of around 5MW in scale would provide an appropriate economic return, and for the purposes

of this study three 2MW turbines with 35m blades and 65m towers have been used, providing

renewable energy in excess of the electricity used by the surrounding communities.

Preliminary assessment of the proposed wind energy project appears favourable. Guidance

and resources from SNH identified all nearby Special Protection Areas (SPA), candidate

Special Areas of Conservation (cSAC) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). A full

ornithological and habitat survey will be necessary as the turbine site directly adjoins a SSSI.

This survey should encompass a vantage point survey, breeding bird surveys, a geese survey

and assessment of impact upon mammals and vegetation. A landscape and visual impact

assessment will also be required, with cumulative and sequential issues important in

Caithness, and a qualified archaeologist has completed a preliminary archaeology assessment.

The following organisations have been consulted as part of the feasibility study:

• Highland Council, Planning and Development • Latheron, Lybster and Clyth Community Council • Forest Enterprise • Forestry Commission • Crofters Commission • SEERAD • Historic Scotland • RSPB • SNH • SEPA • Highlands and Islands Airports • Wick Airport • Ministry of Defence, Sutton Coldfield • Civil Aviation Authority, London • National Air Traffic Services, London • OFCOM, the radiocommunications agency, London • Crown Castle Telecoms • Scottish and Southern Energy plc • Thus plc


OSE/2824 12

Wind energy development has been encouraged in Caithness, however there are constraints to

be considered. The wind turbines should not be a nuisance to neighbours and should be far

enough away from properties to minimise visual, noise and shadow effects; the turbines at

this location are much more than 1km from neighbours and will have negligible

environmental health impacts. Other constraints considered are impact upon ecological

concerns, mainly birds, and to ensure that any archaeological concerns are identified, that

direct impacts are avoided and that the setting of any protected monuments are not adversely

affected. In addition cumulative issues are important in Caithness, with both ecological and

visual impacts to be considered.

The Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SPA / cSAC extend westwards from the northern

boundary of Rumster forest and the Shielton Peatlands SSSI directly adjoins the site to the

north. To the south and east of Rumster the East Caithness Cliffs SPA runs from Wick to

Helmsdale. The general principal used when determining a site is to maximise the distance

from all designated or protected areas, and then to conduct detailed ecological assessment of

the chosen area.

Caithness is rich in prehistoric monuments and landscapes, with the key Neolithic site of

Camster approximately 5km north-east of the turbine site. The wind turbines will not be seen

from the Camster cairns due to the local topography at the cairns, however Historic Scotland

have provided information on a range of other scheduled monuments in the environs of the

site, along with advice that the impact on the settings of these monuments should be explored

using zone of visual influence maps and photomontages.

OFCOM, the radiocommunications agency, has been consulted. There are major

communications links that traverse the area, and 200m wide transmission corridors from

microwave links 5430, 4141, 4142 and 27083 will be required. The relevant telecoms

companies have been consulted and the turbine positions have been adjusted to ensure

adequate clearance.

The Ministry of Defence and the aviation authorities have been consulted using the standard

Safeguarding procedure. It has been confirmed that the turbine site is outwith Tactical Low

Flying Area 14T (LFA 14T) that covers much of northern Scotland. Highlands and Islands

Airports at Inverness and Wick have also been consulted, and no objections have been raised

by either the aviation authorities or the Ministry of Defence.


OSE/2824 13

1.5 Provisional design statement

The Rumster Community Wind Energy Project should be designed by identifying all

ecological, historic, social and technical constraints in the area, then completing a range of

detailed environmental studies to ensure that the site is generally suitable for a wind energy

development. Through an iterative process the turbine positions should then be adjusted to

produce an optimum layout, considering the view from a variety of locations around the site.

Given the density of other wind energy projects around Caithness, and the possibility of

cumulative and sequential impacts, the development site should avoid the highest land.

The site is a clear-felled section of Rumster Forest, to the north-west of Lybster, in an area

identified to have a hard stone base with a shallow peat covering. Three wind turbines are

proposed, each a maximum of 100m tall, positioned at an approximate elevation of between

150 and 180m, spaced more than 1km away from the nearest neighbours, in a north-south

linear layout. The wind turbine locations will consist of areas of hardstanding nominally 25m

by 40m, with the turbine foundations located below ground level. A trench will be excavated

next to the track to accommodate the high voltage and telecommunications cabling. The area

of hardstanding is required for the construction and assembly process. The cabling from the

site should all be underground, connecting to the National Grid at a switchgear building

adjacent to the A9, with this building designed to fit the surroundings.

To avoid shadow flicker nuisance, planning guidelines recommended that turbines should be

a minimum of 10 rotor diameters from neighbouring properties, in this case 700m (PAN 45).

This has been achieved with a large margin. Noise from wind turbines disperses naturally

with distance, and will reach background levels at around 800m. As a consequence of the

large clearances to neighbouring properties, noise emissions and shadow flicker impacts are

minimal at the Rumster site.

The layout has been chosen to reflect linear features in the landscape, namely the existing

boundaries of the Rumster Forest and the ridgeline appearance of Stemster Hill and Ben-a-

chielt when viewed from Lybster. By ensuring a north – south alignment and equal spacing

between turbines, visually overlapping rotors are avoided and the view of the site appears

balanced from all viewpoints. The photomontage at Viewpoint 5 of volume 2 clearly shows

the balanced nature of the development. The hills to the west and south of the site are very

effective barriers, and there are very few locations to the south of Rumster where the project

can be seen, evident from the maps showing the zone of theoretical visibility.


OSE/2824 14

1.6 Wind turbine selection

A range of alternative models should be considered. The Community Development Company

indicated that the project should attempt to maximise generation within the identified

constraints, with visual impact, transport access and grid capacity all important issues. A

5MW capacity is desired, and all identified turbines are operating in Scotland.

Vestas V52 – 850kW

Vestas has a range of machines available rated from 850 kW to 3 MW. The Vestas V52 is

rated at 850 kW and is part-manufactured in Scotland. This machine is an upwind design,

with a 52m diameter rotor, and variable operational speeds of 14 to 30 rpm. Tower height for

the V52 is 44m to 55m. Noise levels are low, and can be set at 100 dB(A) at a windspeed of 8

ms-1, if desired. These turbines are IEC class 1A and can be recommended for sites where the

annual mean windspeed reaches 10 ms-1, and for locations requiring good power quality. The

V52 is operating at the Buolfruich site, to the west of Rumster.

RE Power MM70 - 2MW

RE Power are relatively new manufacturers, and are concentrating on both the large offshore

and onshore markets. RE Power have recently constructed the two 5MW wind turbines for

the Beatrice offshore project in the Moray Firth. By using advanced technology, they have

produced machines which are relatively more efficient for the size of the rotor, with this

2MW turbine having a 35m blade rather than the more typical 40 to 42m. Noise levels are

also low, and can be set at 100 dB(A) by reducing rotor speed. This machine is a Class 1

upwind design turbine, with a 70m diameter rotor, a nacelle height of 55 or 65m, and variable

speed operation of 12 to 19 rpm. Parts for this turbine are manufactured in England.

Nordex N80 – 2.5MW

Nordex are a German/Danish company producing a small range of wind turbines between 1.3

and 2.5MW, primarily for the onshore market. The N80 is a class 1 2.5MW wind turbine, and

by allowing the machine to run slightly faster than competing machines they have been able

to use a 40m blade rather than the more typical 42m. This machine is an upwind design, with

an 80m diameter rotor, a tower height of 60m, variable speed operation of 15 to 20 rpm.

Noise levels are slightly higher than other equivalent machines due to the higher rotational

speeds. This turbine was used for phase 3 on Burgar Hill, Orkney, with two turbines installed

in 2006.


OSE/2824 15

NEG-MiconNM92 – 2.75MW

The largest wind turbine operating onshore in the UK is the NEG Micon NM92, a 2.75MW

wind turbine. A 46m blade is used and the scale of this machine is thought to be too large for

Rumster, due to access difficulties and visual impact This machine is an upwind design, with

a 92m diameter rotor and a tower height of 70m. Versions of this turbine are in operation in

Orkney. The design of the NM92 is similar to that of the Siemens turbines installed at

Causeymire, north of Rumster, however note that the Siemens turbines are not being

considered for Rumster as the manufacturer will not supply small scale developments.

Selection process

The Vestas V52 is robust and quiet, and has very good installed costs per kW. The RE Power

turbine is also quiet with good installed cost per kW, with much higher power levels. The

Nordex N80 was a possibility, however the higher operational speed results in greater noise

emissions. The RE-Power MM70 was identified as being the most appropriate, providing

more than twice the power of the V52 along with a 40% reduction in rotational speed, from

only a 9m increase in blade length. To match the output using the smaller V52 would require

a windfarm of 6 wind turbines, compared with the two or three machines proposed for

Rumster. The limited availability of Class 1 turbines may make it necessary to use the

smaller turbines, however the planning application should allow for a standard turbine with a

blade radius of 35m and a nacelle height of 65m.

1.7 Equipment specification

RE Power MM70 Wind turbine Structure:

Colour of machine Tower type Tower base diameter Hub height Total height

Light grey, matt finish, RAL 7035 Tubular conical steel 4 m 65 m 100 m

Rotor: Number of blades Blade material Rotor diameter Swept rotor area Rotational speed

3 GRP monocoque 70 m 3,850 m2

Variable 12 - 19 rpm Switchgear building Dimensions Material Finish Total height

Conventional building 4 m by 6 m Concrete block Slate tiled roof, to be agreed 3 m

Table 1.2 Provisional turbine dimensions


OSE/2824 16

1.8 National planning context

The project has been designed and planned using the recommendations and advice contained

within Best Practice Guidelines for Wind Energy Developments (BWEA), NPPG 6: Renewable

Energy Developments(Scottish Executive 2000), Planning Advice Notes PAN 45: Renewable Energy

Technologies (Scottish Executive 2002), PAN 56: Planning and Noise (Scottish Executive 1999), PAN 58:

Environmental Impact Assessment (Scottish Executive 1999) and PAN 68: Design Statements (Scottish

Executive 2003), the SNH Guidelines on the Environmental Impact of Windfarms (SNH Publications),

the DTI Draft Report on the Assessment of Noise from windfarms (ETSU 1996) and the

Guidelines on Wind Energy and Aviation Interests from the Defence and Civil Aviation

Interests Working Group(ETSU 2002). The project has also considered Scottish Planning Policy

15: Planning for Rural Development, and PAN 73: Rural Diversification(Scottish Executive 2006).

The overarching aim of the Scottish Executive, as detailed in the above policies and advice

notes is to have a prosperous rural economy, with a stable or increasing population that is

more balanced in terms of age structure, and where rural communities have reasonable access

to good quality services. Planning authorities are advised to welcome development in rural

Scotland and proactively enable opportunities for development in sustainable locations.

The Rumster Community Wind Energy Project is a rural diversification scheme: “Rural

Diversification helps to broaden the economic activity of rural areas, providing opportunity

and creating a more balanced and stable economy.” (PAN73) This Advice Note goes on to

further discuss the diversity of the rural economy, “There are many activities that make a

valuable contribution to the rural economy that are less immediately obvious such

as….quarrying, waste disposal, hydro-electric schemes and wind turbines”.

1.9 Local Plan context

The Caithness local plan was adopted in 2002, and considers renewable energy proposals in

Section 2, Vision. The Councils vision for Caithness is of a growing population, a robust and

expanding economy, improved communications and services, coupled with strong safeguards

for the environments. Renewable energy is addressed in the Strategic Objectives, part 6: “The

Council will seek to support the development of renewable energy opportunities in suitable

locations that accord with the Structure Plan and National Planning Policy Guidance.” The

specific plans for Lybster do not consider renewable energy projects, and do not provide any

locational guidance, other than a general desire to safeguard open spaces and farmland.


OSE/2824 17

1.10 Structure Plan context

The Highland Council Structure Plan considers the relevance, suitability and sustainability of

renewable energy projects in the Highland area, with a key aspect of safeguarding and

enhancing the environment. This Structure Plan is founded on three principles of sustainable

development, and in a local context they are (part1.4):

• Supporting the viability of communities

• Developing a prosperous and vibrant local economy

• Safeguarding and enhancing the natural and built environment

In the context of the Rumster development, these aims are realised through community

empowerment, diversification of the local economy, an improvement in the quality and

quantity of employment opportunities, the optimal use of renewable resources, the efficiency

of energy use and improvements to the quality of air, water and land.

Wind energy proposals are examined in more detail part 2 of the Structure Plan. The plan

recognises that all electricity in the Highland area is derived from renewable resources,

comprising hydro and wind energy, and that this resource should be reconciled with

environmental issues, section 2.12.2. It is further stated that it is important that there is a local

benefit derived from meeting UK targets of non-fossil sources of energy. Policy E1 states:

“The Council supports the utilisation of the region’s distributed renewable energy

resource…” and “Approvals for renewable energy developments will normally be for a

temporary period, tied to the lifetime of the project”.

Small scale wind energy developments are examined in section 2.12.5 of the Plan: “Small

scale wind energy developments, for a single building or a community, are considered to be

particularly relevant for Highland, given the remote nature of many settlements. Such

applications will generally be supported”. Section 2.12.11 further examines small scale

projects: “A key means by which new renewable energy projects can provide local benefit is if

they improve the supply of electricity for local residents or communities…The Council views

small-scale community projects as particularly appropriate for the Highland area, especially

for remoter settlements in the west and north”. Policy E8 states: “The Council will support

efforts to make more provision for small community renewable energy projects”.


OSE/2824 18

1.11 Highland Renewable Energy Strategy

Renewable energy has a long history in the Highland Council area. Large scale hydro electric

schemes were constructed after the Second World War and these are now being added to by

wind farms and smaller scale hydro projects, stimulated by central government policy to

respond to climate change. Highland Council is the planning authority for wind energy

schemes up to 50 megawatts, and between February and August 2005, the Council convened

a Renewable Energy Working Group with the objective of framing a comprehensive

renewable energy policy for the Highlands.

In 2006 the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy was published, identifying locations

suitable for large scale development, and in the context of the Rumster project, it also

identified locations suitable for local scale developments. The site is not a preferred area for

community-scale development, although the adjacent square kms to the west and east are,

suggesting that the broad-brush nature of the Strategy is over simplistic. Consultation has

taken place with Highland Council on this issue, and analysis of the constraints for the area

showed that derelict buildings adjacent to the public road were interpreted as an adjacent

house, and although no part of the project is on designated land, the square kilometre to the

north of the site contains the boundary of the Shielton Peatlands SSSI. These are

inappropriate constraints, and the aims of Highland Renewable Energy Strategy have largely

been overtaken by subsequent planning guidance from the Scottish Executive.

1.12 Grid issues

There are various grid systems than run through Caithness, The 275kV cable from Dounreay

is routed through Strath Halladale and Forsinard, while the 132kV cables from Dounreay are

routed further to the east, mainly following the line of the A9 corridor to the west of Rumster.

Projects of the scale of the Rumster development should connect into the local 33kV system,

and in this instance the 33kV system follows the same route as the 132kV cable, with a

substations at Mybster and Dunbeath. The Rumster project can be physically connected into

any part of this 33kV cable, with a switchgear building located as near to the cable as

possible. A location has been identified which has the shortest cable route, while avoiding the

archaeological sites around Loch Stemster. The cable between the switchgear building and

the site should be underground, and can be routed to avoid any burns and forestry. The cable

will go under the minor road that cuts through Rumster Forest, and should follow the line of

the site access track to minimise impact upon the streams that feed into Reisgill Burn.


OSE/2824 19

1.13 Potential disturbance from noise

Noise is generated by turbine blades passing through the air as the hub rotates, along with

mechanical noise from the gearbox and generator. Noise from the turbine blades is reduced

by good design, particularly of the blade tip. These sound levels are measured in decibels

(dB) and are a measure of the sound pressure levels; a 1dB change in noise level is just

perceptible, a 3dB change in noise level is clearly perceptible and a 10dB change in noise

level is heard as a doubling or halving of the perceived level. Environmental noise

measurement is made in dB(A) which more fully represents sounds heard by the human ear.

Background noise levels naturally increase with windspeed, PAN 56, and it should be considered

that noise levels from the turbines will decrease further due to ground affects and barrier

attenuation. Table 1.3 shows the predicted impact at the neighbours to the Rumster project

along with other indicative environmental noise levels.

Source/Activity Indicative noise level dB (A)

Threshold of hearing 0

Rural night-time background 20-40

Rumster wind farm 25

Quiet bedroom 35

Busy road at 5km 35-45

Car at 65 km/h at 100m 55

Busy general office 60

Conversation 60

Truck at 50kmh at 100m 65

City traffic 90

Pneumatic drill at 7m 95

Jet aircraft at 250m 105

Threshold of pain 140

Table 1.3 – Indicative noise levels in the environment

The Planning Advice Note on Renewable Energy Technologies, PAN 45 provides

information on noise from wind turbines. Paragraph 65 states: "Well designed wind turbines

are generally quiet in operation". The document goes on to discuss the sources of noise and

the effects of increasing wind speed on wind turbine noise and background noise. It notes


OSE/2824 20

that the report “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms” ETSU-R-97, describes a

framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels thought

to offer a reasonable degree of protection to windfarm neighbours, without placing

unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and

administrative burdens on wind farm developers or planning authorities

The impact of noise from the wind turbines is not significant. The noise levels from the RE

Power 2MW is adjustable, and can be set at a range of levels from 100 dB(A) to 104 dB(A).

This value decreases with distance from the turbine and with atmospheric absorption, and

when considering the impact from a windfarm, the noise levels from individual wind turbines

must be combined. The nearest neighbours are over 2km from the nearest wind turbine,

accordingly measurement of background noise levels is not required and a simplified

assessment is sufficient. Impact has been assessed using an assessment model produced for

the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the predicted sound levels from the

individual turbines are between 18 and 22 dB(A), giving a combined noise level of 25 dB(A),

well within the recommended limit of 35 dB LA90 at residential locations.

1.14 Potential disturbance from shadow flicker Under certain combinations of geographical position, time of day and time of year, the sun

may pass behind the rotor of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties.

This would normally occur in late evening or early morning when the sun is at low elevations.

When the wind turbine blades rotate the shadow appears to flick on and off, creating an effect

known as shadow flicker, and is noticeable only in buildings when viewed through narrow

window openings.

Planning advice note PAN45 recommends 10 rotor diameter separation between the wind

turbines and the nearby dwellings to avoid shadow nuisance. The Rumster project achieves

this recommendation by a large margin; 10 rotor diameters is 700m and all properties are over

2200m from any wind turbine. Nevertheless the potential for shadow effects was checked for

a selection of neighbouring properties around the site using the WINDFARM software tool,

regardless of the distance. Three properties around the site were selected for the study and the

distances involved to the nearest turbine were between 2.2 and 3km. It was presumed that

windows face directly on towards the turbines to produce worst case examples. As expected

none of the properties has the potential for shadow flicker, with zero hours of impact returned

by the analysis, and accordingly no further assessment will be required.


OSE/2824 21

1.15 Potential radiocommunications interference

When a wind turbine is positioned near to a radar, radio, television, or microwave transmitter

system, it may reflect some of the electromagnetic radiation in such a way that a reflected

signal interferes with the original signal as it arrives at the receiver; this can cause the

received signal to become distorted and lead to interference. The extent of any

electromagnetic interference caused by a wind turbine, beyond positioning, depends mainly

on the blade materials and the surface shape of the tower. Electromagnetic interference may

also occur if a wind turbine is close to a radio communications service. Consultation with the

Ministry of Defence, the Civil Aviation Authority, and National Air Traffic Services has

taken place, and responses are awaited from these agencies.

OFCOM, the radiocommunications agency, indicated that three companies have microwave

links traversing Rumster Forest, and clearance will be required from Scottish and Southern

Energy, Crown Castle Telecoms and Thus plc; transmission corridors for microwave links

5430, 4141, 4142 and 27083 are required. OFCOM also recommended that BT, Cable and

Wireless, T-Mobile and MoD Estates Safeguarding should also be consulted. The

recommended clearance for wind turbines near to microwave links is 100m plus the length of

blade for the turbine being considered; 135-170m for the Rumster project. Consultation has

been completed and it was determined that radio links to Orkney could have been affected,

and accordingly the position of the northern and southern turbines were adjusted to ensure the

correct clearances. The three turbines are now have a true north-south alignment, with the

southernmost turbine approximately 150m from the centreline of the radio link to Wideford

Hill in Orkney.

The potential for interference with television systems has also been considered, using a

service provided by the BBC, http://windfarms.kw.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/windfarms/. The

BBC have been advised about the proposed wind turbine positions and a response is awaited.

The potential for interference to television and radio systems cannot be predicted, but there is

the possibility of interference if reception in an area is generally poor. In these circumstances

the blades and towers can sometimes reflect television and radio signals, producing a

characteristic interference pattern. Should this interference occur, and is clearly shown to be

due to the wind turbines, the owners of the affected property should be offered a digital or

satellite television service. This mitigation measure has been proved at one of the Orkney

wind energy sites, and is a relatively straightforward measure.


OSE/2824 22

2 Land use, geomorphology, hydrology and forestry

2.1 Geology

An assessment of the geology and the hydrogeological features of the area was conducted

with reference to the superficial and solid geology maps produced by the British Geological

Survey (BGS) and with reference to the resources provided on the Caithness geology web

site; www.fettes.com/caithness. These assessments confirmed that this area is mainly

underlain by Devonian Old Red Sandstone sedimentary rock.

This is a relatively homogenous area from a geological perspective, dominated by Old Red

Sandstone and is a raised part of Lake Orcadie, a former lake basin dating from around 380

million years ago, that has resulted from sediment laid down on the lake bed. These sediment

rocks rest on basement complexes, evident as exhumed landscapes and inselbergs, such as

Scaraben, west of Dunbeath.

The flat or rounded landforms present throughout Caithness are partially the result of

extensive glaciation, with major ice sheets developing around 850,000 years ago. The last ice

sheet disappeared around 15,000 years ago, with the summit tors of the Caithness inselbergs

modified by the passage of ice sheets. The passage of these ice sheets also resulted in the

extraction of sea bed sediment, producing the layer of boulder clay that covers much of the

north Caithness plain.

The Caithness plain is partly the result of the bedrock structure, with low dips of the

Devonian flagstones leading to the development of gentle slopes. On the main hills, such as

Ben-a-chielt to the west of Rumster Forest, the outline of the hill is stepped and the hill top is

flat, a reflection of glacial erosion of horizontally-bedded flagstones and sandstones of uneven

resistance. Glacial erosion has been significant in deepening valleys and streamlining ridges,

resulting in a strong lineation of the plain.

The plain is a major erosion surface, a gently undulating land surface cut indiscriminately

across underlying geology, and is the end product of a long period of erosion, created during

periods of prolonged denudation before the Ice Age glaciation. The termination of the plain

in cliffs at the coast indicates that the plain has been subject to isostatic uplift of around 100 m

but the amount of tilting, warping and differential movement has been modest.


OSE/2824 23

The Caithness plain also predates the major earth movements that established the Scottish

Highlands around 60 million years ago, and was likely of low relief before being buried by

subsequent sediments. The plain of Caithness can therefore be considered an ancient

geological feature.

2.2 Hydrology

The blanket peat of northern Scotland represents one of the most extensive bogs in western

Europe, covering 4000 km2. The peatlands are least developed in the areas covered by shelly

boulder clay in north Caithness, although the drift-free sandstone ridges may carry peat

covers. The peat is most extensive on the rocks of southern Caithness and in neighbouring

Sutherland where peat may rise to cover the hill tops.

The peat deposits in northern Scotland have been established following the end of the last

period of glaciation, and the Caithness and Sutherland Flows are a relatively recent feature,

and have been mainly established in the last 3000 years. It should be noted however that

there are peat deposits that predate the last glaciation period, with a documented site at

Ellanmore on the Burn of Reisgill, at grid reference ND237370. At this location there is an

exposed section of the burn which reveals peat and Caithness vegetation going back 15,000

years: http://www.fettes.com/caithness/Ellanmore.htm

Annual rainfall in Caithness has been measured to be 1102mm at the Halladale river, the

nearest SEPA recording site, http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/yb/daily/2001/096001g.html, thirty

year mean. There is variation across Caithness, with the west seeing higher levels that the

east, however rainfall is relatively low, largely due to the rainshadow effect of hills to the

west and south.

At Rumster Forest the turbines are proposed for an area between two small streams that feed

into Reisgill Burn. An existing access will be used which has been constructed to support

forestry vehicles, and will be appropriate for turbine delivery. There are culverts in place at

the location where the road traverses the streams, and it may be necessary to analyse the

culvert dimensions to ensure that water flows are not restricted. As reported in Section 3,

Ecology, Reisgill Burn is a biological SSSI and pollution impacts must be avoided (SEPA).


OSE/2824 24

2.3 Geomorphology – Risk of Peat Slide

Peat is a biogenic deposit which when saturated consists of about 90-95% water. The organic

content of the solid part of peat is very high, and is made up of the decayed remains of

vegetation which has accumulated over a timescale of 100s of years. Peat depth should be

measured across the site, following the route of the access track between turbines.

Analysis of BGS maps indicate that there are peat deposits at Rumster. These peat deposits

will likely follow the shape of the bedrock, draping over the land in a blanket covering. The

slope of the hill is around 5° at the steepest, flattening out at the upper parts of the site. From

Reisgill Burn back to the Lybster the peat depth is likelier to be shallower, reflecting different

bedrock conditions and a greater proportion of glacial till, resulting in more fertile soils.

Peat slides, bog flows and bog bursts are widespread in the uplands of the British Isles(Tomlinson

and Gardiner), and these movements are usually triggered by heavy or prolonged rainfall. The

exact mechanisms of peat slide are not fully understood, but involve instability of peat

deposits over a rock or mineral subsurface(Warburton et al). Bog burst involve the rupture of the

peat surface due to internal swelling, resulting in disruption of the surface(Bowes). In contrast,

peat slides are slab-like failures involving a shear failure mechanism.

Peat slides can result in significant movement of superficial deposits, and can have major

impact on stream or river ecosystems. Two devastating peat movements occurred in Ireland

in 2003, at Dooncarton in County Mayo, and at Derrybrien in County Galway, with both

events producing widespread damage to infrastructure and ecosystems. Sites of mass peat

movement share several common characteristics, all relating to hydrological processes:

a. A peat layer overlying an impervious rock, clay or mineral base;

b. A convex slope or a slope with a break of slope at the head;

c. Proximity to local drainage either from seepage or groundwater flow;

d. A connection between surface drainage and the peat/rock interface.

Although peatslide is not fully understood, the hydrological process which triggers the event

is likely to be an increase in water flow at the interface between the peat layer and the

underlying impermeable base. Analysis of recorded peat movements in the British Isles

indicated that more than half occurred in the late summer months of October and

August(Warburton et al)., suggesting that summer storms and periods of above average rainfall can

trigger slides.


OSE/2824 25

Slope form is also likely to influence hillside hydrology and stability. Peat slides often occur

on convex slopes, however slope angle can vary considerably; a study of 18 occurrences of

peat instability in the Pennines recorded slope angles of 4° to 24°(Warburton et al). .

Hydrology remains the most important issue when considering the risk of peat slide, and

accordingly the access track should be constructed to ensure that water cannot drain into the

interface between the superficial peat layers and the bedrock. The access track to the site

should also be aligned to ensure the track does not cut across the slope, and the construction

process should ensure that water does not drain into the peat/rock interface, again to minimise

the potential risk of peat slide.

2.4 Land use environmental effects

A major part of the project will be the construction of the site track and foundations, with risk

of disturbance to peat based soils. A carbon balance calculation should therefore be

completed as part of the assessment. The maximum volume of peat and topsoil that could be

disturbed is likely to be approximately 1500 m3, consisting of the new access track and hard

standing areas, a total area of 5,000 m2 at an average depth of 0.3m. The carbon content of

peaty soils has been considered by the Scottish Executive Central Research Unit (Chapman et al)

and assuming that the soils at Rumster have 0.069 tonnes of carbon per cubic metre of peat,

the carbon content of this volume of peat is estimated to be 100 tonnes. The carbon emission

factor of grid electricity is 0.117 T/MWh (Carbon Trust) therefore three wind turbines at Rumster

provide 16,500 MWh of renewable electricity and a positive carbon balance of 5.2 tonnes per

day; 20 days of generation would be required to compensate for the potential carbon released

from the peat. Note that this calculation has presumed a shallow peat covering of 300mm at

the site, and should be recalculated once actual peat depths are determined.

The foundation manufacture will require approximately 600m3 of concrete. It is recognised

that the production of concrete is responsible for the emission of CO2, from both the energy

required and from the calcining of limestone when producing cement; 600 m3 of concrete

requires 270T of cement, and assuming 1.25T of CO2 per tonne, (Boden et al), 337 T of CO2

would be emitted. Using a CO2 avoidance factor of 0.43T CO2/MWh, the wind turbines

provide a positive CO2 balance of 19 T per day; 18 days of generation are required to

compensate for the carbon dioxide released during concrete manufacture.


OSE/2824 26

2.5 Forestry issues

Rumster Forest was first planted in the late 1940’s, and the trees that remain are now are

amongst the tallest in Caithness, with spruce and pine the original plantings. Much of the

forest has been replanted with larch, birch and rowan to make the forest more varied and

appealing to wildlife, and consequently Rumster is home to a good variety of wildlife

including pine marten, merlin, crossbill and goldcrest.

The section of the forest chosen for the wind energy project has been subject to clear-felling,

with much of the forest cover in this area already removed. Deforestation has significant

environmental effects, including bird and mammal impacts, changes to carbon capture,

alterations to run-off water quality, and the possibility of excess nitrates and phosphates

entering hydrological systems. These issues are beyond the remit of the wind energy project.

Research has also been undertaken into the effects of forestry plantation on the hydrology of

deep peat, with measurements and analysis conducted at Bad a' Cheo, near to the Mybster

substation.

When considering a wind energy project, existing forestry adjacent to the site can have effects

on the quality of the wind resource, with changes to roughness and turbulence, depending on

the height of the trees. Slow growing species should be selected for replanting the forest.

Similarly the site track network should be constructed with care, ensuring that the hydrology

of the area is not significantly altered.

Detailed studies of the ground conditions at the turbine locations will be an essential part of

any environmental assessment, with measurement of peat depth essential at an early stage.

Foundation design is dependent upon ground conditions, with alternative structures possible.

For deep peat or soil a piled foundation would be more appropriate, reducing concrete

volumes while still providing a robust structure. For thin soils, the appropriate design would

be to remove all soil to a depth of approximately 1m, then to construct a reinforced concrete

slab around 12m x 12m on bedrock or hard strata. Carbon balance calculations should be

based on the actual design and total assessment of concrete volumes.


OSE/2824 27

3 Ecological constraints 3.1 Background The Rumster site is an area of fell-cleared plantation forestry directly adjoining the Shielton

Peatlands Site of Special Scientific Interest, an integral part of the Caithness and Sutherland

Peatlands SPA (designated for breeding birds), Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SAC

(designated for vegetation, Otter, Salmon and Freshwater pearl) and the Caithness and

Sutherland Peatlands Ramsar (an internationally important wetland). To the east of the site

there is the East Caithness Cliffs SPA (designated for the breeding seabird assemblage). To

the north there is the Caithness Lochs SPA (a disparate groups of lochs designated for geese

and swans). Initial discussions have taken place with SNH and RSPB regarding the extent of

ecological survey that could be necessary, and the following is a summary of the minimum

work required to discover the level of impact that a wind energy project could have on

designated species:

• a vegetation map by National Vegetation Classification;

• a survey of breeding birds on the site;

• to find out whether any divers or raptors nest in the vicinity;

• to gauge the extent to which cited species from SPAs might use, or overfly the site.

• a mammal survey

3.2 Shielton Peatlands SSSI

This area of east-central Caithness is characterised by extensive development of deep peat

over gently undulating, low altitude Old Red Sandstone. It rises gradually from an altitude of

50m up to 150m above sea level. The area is partially dissected by several small burns.

These drain into larger rivers which form part of the northern and eastern boundaries.

The range of mire types is more limited here than at some other peatland sites, and all the

mires are either of the watershed or valley side type. Of particular note is Eastern watershed

blanket bog, characterised by numerous, deep, widely spaced pools. This type is confined to

the small area of Caithness in and around this site. Within the peatland expanse there are

several discrete areas of pools. Between the pools the mire vegetation is fairly uniform both

in structure and in species composition, but local variation occurs as a response to gradient

and management history. The combination of features such as pools, mire and wet heath

provides a suitable habitat for moorland and wetland wading birds, dragonflies and other

aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates.


OSE/2824 28

The mire vegetation is dominated by deer-sedge, cotton grass, heather and species of

Sphagnum bog moss. Particularly distinctive is the community characterised by hare’s tail

cotton grass tussocks and the dwarf shrubs heather, bearberry and crowberry. Wet heath

vegetation covers the steeper slopes and a few peat mounds occur in the area. In addition to

the extensive areas of blanket bog there are localised flushes of several types; the range of

variation includes soft rush mire, flushes dominated by small sedges such as yellow sedge,

star sedge and mud sedge and, less frequently, black bog rush.

The pool systems display a wide range of patterns, from scattered seasonal pools filled with

Sphagnum to complex suites of concentric and eccentric depressions, pools and lochans.

Some of these pool systems contain areas of quaking mire a bog type comprising a floating

carpet of Sphagnum moss, which is nationally rare. Among the Sphagnum species present are

the hummock formers Sphagnum imbricatum and S.fuscum, indicating an absence of

disturbance. Other notable species, having either restricted distributions or being at the limits

of their range are: cranberry, small cranberry, lesser twayblade, and the rare moss Dicranum

undulatum.

The extent and diversity of habitats provide ideal conditions for a range of waders and other

waterfowl. Seven species of wader, including dunlin, golden plover and greenshank, have

been recorded as breeding on the site. Of the five breeding species of waterfowl, greylag

goose and widgeon are particularly notable. Several pairs of arctic skuas also breed on the

mire.

3.3 East Caithness Cliffs SPA

The East Caithness Cliffs Special Protection Area is of special nature conservation and scientific

importance within Britain and the European Community for supporting very large populations of

breeding seabirds. It includes most of the sea-cliff areas between Wick and Helmsdale on the

east coast of Caithness. The cliffs are formed from Old Red Sandstone and are generally

between 30-60 m high, rising to 150 m at Berriedale. Cliff ledges, stacks and geos provide

ideal nesting sites for internationally important populations of seabirds, especially gulls and

auks.

The section of the SPA between Latheron and Clyth is the Dunbeath to Sgaps Geo SSSI,

designated for the interesting range of vegetation on the clifftops along with the seabirds that

nest along the cliffs, mainly herring gulls, guillemots, razorbills, fulmars and a nationally

important number of shags and cormorants.


OSE/2824 29

The East Caithness Cliffs qualify as a Special Protection Area under Article 4.2 of the Wild

Birds Directive by regularly supporting, in summer, internationally or nationally important

breeding populations of nine seabird species. These comprise fulmar (15,000 pairs; 3% of the

British and EC breeding populations); shag (2,300 pairs, 2% of the total population of this

subspecies, 4% of EC and 6% of British breeding populations); herring gull (9,400 pairs, 1% of

western & central European population, 2% of EC and 6% of British); great black-backed gull

(800 pairs, 3% of EC and 4% of British); kittiwake (32,500 apparently occupied nests, 2% of

western European, 6% of EC and 7% of British); guillemot (106,700 individuals on breeding

ledges, 3% of western European, 9% of EC and 10% of British); razorbill (15,800 individuals,

2% of western European, 9% of EC and 11% of British); black guillemot (1,500 individuals, 3%

of EC and 4% of British); and cormorant (230 occupied nests, 3% of British).

In addition to its importance for individual seabird species, the East Caithness Cliffs Special

Protection Area is of strong scientific interest for the overall assemblage of breeding seabirds it

supports. These include, in addition to species listed above, arctic skua and puffin(Snow and Perrins).

3.4 Reisgill Burn SSSI

The Reisgill burn has cut a deeply incised coastal gorge at Lybster harbour, and contains

scrub woodland and a rich ground flora. It is the richest gorge woodland site in Caithness and

has been designated to represent this habitat with its associated fauna. The steep sides of the

gorge carry patches of birch-hazel scrub, and bird cherry, rowan, aspen, willows, roses and

juniper are also present. The ground flora contains a range of species characteristic of lime

rich soils and there are several rarities. The shaded slopes have woodrush and tall ferns. No

direct impact is predicted upon the burn, however it should be noted that the source of the

Reisgill Burn is Rumster forest, and clearly there is a pollution risk from the wind energy

project. The SEPA guidance and recommendations on sustainable drainage systems should

be adopted by the project to prevent oils entering water systems.

3.5 Proposed bird studies Brown & Shepherd survey – method

Two walkover surveys should be conducted in the spring/early summer breeding period, (Brown

& Shepherd). Approximately 3 square kilometres are proposed, including the whole of the upper

reaches of the land surrounding the site. The aim should be to ensure that 500m radius circles

around each turbine position are surveyed; 1:10,000 field maps and a handheld global

positioning system (GPS) should be used to achieve this.


OSE/2824 30

Vantage point survey - method

It is recommended that a total of 80 hours over sixteen days between April and September

should be spent in vantage point surveys from points to the north and south of the site. The

proposed turbine positions have been tightly defined and from October the vantage survey

should continue for a further 40 hours over eight days between October and March, with the

aim of identifying any overwintering species.

Swan and Goose checks – method

Specific checks should be made from October onwards to establish the movements of any

flocks of Whooper swan, or Greenland white-fronted and Greylag geese that could pass

through the area. These should include dawn watches from points above the site. Any

foraging fields in the area should also be identified. The Caithness Lochs SPA lies 16-20km

north of Rumster, and although no direct impacts are predicted, their remains the possibility

that flocks could fly over the Stemster Hill watershed enroute to Watten Loch (Worden et al)..

Wader checks – method

Dunlin, golden plover, greenshank and wader have been recording as breeding on the Shielton

Peatlands SPA, and although the wind turbine site does not have suitable habitats for these

species, there remains the possibility that the birds could overfly the area. The site should be

surveyed for wader activity in wet and mire areas.

Breeding raptors – method

It appears unlikely that there are area of nesting habitat suitable for moorland raptors; in

particular, there is very little long heather that might attract Hen Harriers, and there are few

areas of rushes likely to be attractive to Short-eared Owls (Greenwood et al).. The Shielton

Peatlands designation does not list these or other raptors, however it would be appropriate for

the breeding survey the flight path surveys to look for any evidence of raptor activity in the

area.

Ecological Impact Assessment

The impact assessment should be broken down into three steps. First, consideration may be

given to the effect of each potential impact against each habitat and species (the receptors).

This will enable identification of those impacts considered to be more than negligible (Langston et

al). Second, the scale of these potentially non-negligible impacts can be assessed. The


OSE/2824 31

cumulative effects of other wind energy developments in the area should then be addressed

(Whitefield and Band).. The sensitivity of the receptors should be ranked as follows:

4– National Nature Reserve; SPA qualifying interest within and outside SPA boundaries

3– SSSI interest; European listed species or habitat not associated with a Natura site

2– Internationally important numbers of a species; national priority species or habitat

1– Nationally important numbers of a species; locally important species or habitat

There are various factors to take into account when assessing the scale of environmental

impacts. These relate to the nature of the impact (e.g. its duration, scale etc) and to the

sensitivity of the receptor. This study considers that impacts are regarded as significant if they

are assessed as major or moderate, and not significant if assessed as minor or negligible

(Thomas). Where applicable assessments should be made in relation to the land area and bird

numbers in non-protected regions, or to the bird populations of adjacent components of

protected regions.

Overall, it is believed that the proposed development site appears appropriate for a wind

energy development, reflecting the low densities of breeding birds in the surrounding area and

the relatively large distances between turbine positions and nest sites. It also believed that the

development site is not on a heavily used flight path or in a favoured feeding area.

There are various factors to take into account when assessing the scale of environmental

impacts relating to the nature of the impact itself (e.g. its duration, magnitude, likelihood etc)

and to the population status of the affected species. For SPA qualifying interests a significant

impact is one that will affect the integrity of the SPA, in terms of the numbers or distribution

of the species within it. In line with the most recent guidelines from the Institute of Ecology

and Environmental Management all impacts should be classed as either significant or

insignificant on the affected population(IEEM). This means that an impact affecting the numbers

or distribution of a non-designated population might be scored as significant, but only within

a local or regional frame of reference.

Potential impacts can be mitigated by planning the timing of construction work and access

route. Some improvement of the vegetation on the site is possible to partly offset the impact

of habitat loss, and any remaining uncertainties could be addressed by further targeted

observations and by consideration of access management.


OSE/2824 32

3.6 Proposed mammal survey

The aim of the survey should be to determine the presence and extent of activity of protected

mammals in and around the part of Rumster Forest selected for the development. Various

mammals could occur in this part of Caithness, and the survey should look for signs of the

following species:

Species Highest level of protection Designated sites in vicinity Otter European protected species (EC

Habitats Directive) Caithness & Sutherland Peatlands SAC; also protected anywhere.

Wildcat European protected species (EC Habitats Directive)

None, but protected anywhere.

Badger The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) Not applicable, but protected anywhere. Water Vole Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended by the Nature Conservation Act Scotland 2004)

None.

Pipistrelle (bat)

European protected species (EC Habitats Directive)

None, but protected anywhere.

Table 3.1 – Protected mammal species likely to occur

The level of protection varies between legislation:

• European Protected Species – offences include the deliberate disturbance of an animal (wherever it might be) and the destruction of, or damage to, a breeding site or resting place (intentional or unintentional).

• Water Vole – it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place used for shelter or protection, and to intentionally or recklessly disturb Water Voles while they are using such a place.

• Badger – offences include intentional or reckless damage, destruction or obstruction to a sett, and intentional or reckless disturbance of Badger when it is occupying a sett.

If any of these otherwise illegal activities are unavoidable it is possible to apply for a licence

to allow the development to proceed. A licence will not be issued if there are any viable

alternatives to the destruction or disturbance, and the development should avoid such impacts.

The evaluation of mammals in ecological impact assessment is largely governed by their legal

status, which does not necessarily equate to their conservation importance. As an example,

Badgers are specifically protected, but are widespread and very common in places, and not of

any conservation concern in many parts of the UK. Nevertheless, because of the UK

legislation, Badgers should be evaluated as nationally important wherever they occur.

Similarly, EU legislation defines the importance of Otters, Wildcats and all bat species as

international, although the various species are of different conservation concern and status

within and across the UK.


OSE/2824 33

4 Landscape and visual impact assessment

4.1 Visual impact upon the landscape

The visual impact of wind turbines in a coastal area is affected by the topography of the land

and the relationship that the land has with the sea and the sky. The full landscape and visual

impact should only be conducted once there is agreement on the final layout and viewpoints.

To aid assessment of the visual impact of the development, a series of preliminary wireframe

images and photomontages has been produced. Maps showing the Zone of Theoretical

Visibility (ZTV) of the project have also been produced, showing all locations where the

turbines or blades can be seen.

It was felt that the turbines should present a simple, clear relationship to the landform and

other existing features; cluttered, overlapping, unbalanced and partial views have been

avoided by using a simple linear layout that follows the boundary of Rumster Forest. The

turbines have been positioned back from public roads, and the access has been designed to use

the existing tracks where possible. The project switchgear building is located away from the

turbines and the proposed location is adjacent to the A9 at the Crofts of Benachielt, near to

existing overhead cables.

4.2 Zone of Theoretical Visibility

Zone of theoretical visibility diagrams were generated using the WindFarm programme along

with Ordnance Survey gridded topographic ‘Panorama’ data. This shows the full extent of

visibility of the project, measured to uppermost tip height, assuming very clear weather

conditions. A 30km boundary has been chosen, in accordance with the recommendations in

‘Visual Assessment of Windfarms: Best Practice.’ though it should be considered that in very

clear conditions the site may be seen from areas beyond this boundary, and similarly no

account has been taken of the reduction of views through obstruction by trees and buildings,

particularly from local communities. It can be seen that the ZTV is most concentrated within

5km of the site, and the turbines will not be readily viewed along the main transport corridors.

Two ZTV maps have been produced; the first shows the maximum extent of theoretical

visibility up to 30km from the site on a backdrop map scaled at 1:250,000, and the second has

used a higher resolution background map scaled 1:50,000, showing the visual impact upon

communities within a 15km radius. Three colours were used on the large scale map to

indicate locations where 1, 2 or 3 turbines can be seen, which has highlighted the low

significance of impact upon the transport links between Lybster, Wick and Thurso.


OSE/2824 34

4.3 Impact on Visual Resource

It is proposed that the significance of the impact of the development on the area should be

assessed from 12 viewpoints, by considering the sensitivity of the viewpoint and the

significance and magnitude of change. Each viewpoint should be graded from Negligible to

Very High, taking into account the quality of the landscape, the value of the landscape, the

presence of any discordant or prominent features, and the type and number of potential

viewers. The viewpoints were selected to reflect a variety of views and to include those

experienced by motorists, residents and visitors, across a range of landscape types and at

varying distances.

Preliminary wireframe images and initial photomontages have been produced using the

WindFarm software programme. The photographs were taken from the viewpoints on clear

or slightly cloudy days to show maximum visibility. Wireframes have been used where

photographs do not exist, and all wireframes and photomontages are included in Volume 2.

Only viewpoints within the ZTV have been considered, with twelve viewpoints established.

The subsequent photomontages all have realistic images, using 40° viewing angles

throughout; 90° viewing angles have not been used as this would artificially diminish turbine

height. Comments on methodologies, the proposed viewpoints and resultant images are

welcome.

1: Mybster substation 7: Bruan Broch, Ulbster 2: Rumster car park 8: Cairn Hannach 3: Minor road to Rumster Forest 9: Wick Airport, Ackergill 4: Path to Brethren Well, Lybster harbour 10: Killimster 5: A99 Junction Rumster road 11: Loch Hempriggs 6: East of Lybster 12: Westerdale

Table 4.1 – Proposed viewpoints

4.4 Visual assessment methodology

The significance of the impact of the proposed development on the landscape character should

be considered by assessing the sensitivity of the landscape character and the degree or

magnitude of the predicted changes to it, and by assessing the significance of the impact by

means of a simple matrix which relates sensitivity to magnitude. This matrix approach has

been used for a preliminary assessment of the visual impact of the development, by assessing

the significance of the impact. Viewpoint sensitivity is considered, along with the magnitude

of change predicted to occur at each location, and preliminary assessment of the above

viewpoints suggests that the project has largely low or negligible significance.


OSE/2824 35

Landscape and Visual Sensitivity: The sensitivity of the landscape and viewpoints is an

indication of the capacity to absorb change. The factors used to assess sensitivity included the

quality of the landscape and views, the value and importance of the landscape through

national or local designations and archaeological, historical or cultural associations, the

presence of discordant features, the rareness of the landscape character, the number of

viewers, and the ability of the landscape to absorb change.

The grading of the landscape and visual sensitivity can thus be summarised as follows:

VERY HIGH sensitivity is used to describe an area or view with the following criteria:

• The landscape and views are of very high quality - intact, coherent and harmonious; • The landscape and views are very highly valued - distinctive and considered

scenically beautiful and of high importance; • The landscape contains no or very few discordant features; • It is a very rare landscape character type; • This type of development may cause major degradation to the landscape quality; • The development is seen by a very large number of viewers.

HIGH sensitivity is used to describe an area which meets the following criteria:

• The landscape and views are of good quality - largely intact, coherent and harmonious;

• The landscape and views are very highly valued - considered attractive and valued nationally and locally;

• The landscape may contain only minor discordant or intrusive elements; • It is a moderately rare landscape character type; • The development may cause moderate degradation to the landscape quality; • The development is seen by a large number of viewers.

MEDIUM sensitivity is used to describe an area which meets the following:

• The landscape and views are of average quality - less intact, coherent and harmonious,

• The landscape and views have lower values or valued only locally, • The landscape may contain a number of confusing, discordant or intrusive elements, • It is a moderately common landscape character type, • The landscape can absorb the development with minor degradation to values; • The development is seen by a moderate number of viewers.

LOW to NEGLIGIBLE sensitivity is used to describe an area which meets most of the following criteria:

• The landscape and views are of low quality, that is despoiled or degraded; • The landscape and views are not valued locally; • The landscape may contain many confusing, discordant or intrusive elements; • It is a very common landscape character type; • The landscape could easily absorb this type of development; • The development is seen by only a very low number of viewers.


OSE/2824 36

Magnitude of Change to Landscape Character: The degree or magnitude of change to the

landscape character was assessed by primarily considering the location, size and scale of the

turbines in relation to the size and scale of the surrounding landform. The magnitude of

change also considered the extent of effects predicted by the development, the compatibility

of the development within the landscape character, including a fit with the landform and the

identification of any conflicts with vertical elements. The loss of key landscape features and

the permanence of effects have also been assessed, along with the cumulative effect of any

other adjacent wind projects in the same landscape.

Magnitude of Change to Visual Amenity: The degree of change to the visual resource was

assessed by considering a range of factors. The proximity of the development, the scale and

number of wind turbines and the compatibility with the exiting landscape character, visual

conflicts with discordant features, the composition and balance of the development, the

direction and elevation of the view, the distance over which the view is seen, the percentage

of view taken up by the development, the permanence of the change and cumulative effects.

The grading of the magnitude of effect can be summarised as follows:

5:VERY HIGH magnitude is used to describe a major change to baseline conditions, resulting in

complete alteration of landscape character, composition and quality. The development would

dominate the view;

4:HIGH magnitude is used to describe an easily discernible and noticeable change to some

aspect of the landscape character, composition and quality. The development would be

conspicuous and distinct;

3:MEDIUM magnitude is used to describe a moderate, but still discernible change to some

features of baseline conditions, resulting in a slight change to the landscape character,

composition and quality. The development would be apparent;

2:LOW magnitude is used to describe a minor change such that the baseline conditions remain

largely unchanged. The development would be inconspicuous;

1:NEGLIGIBLE magnitude is used to describe a change of such indiscernible nature that the

baseline conditions remain fundamentally unchanged. The development would be scarcely

visible.

0:ZERO magnitude is used when a development is not visible.


OSE/2824 37

Significance is a relative term; a landscape could be highly sensitive to change, but if the

magnitude of change is very low then the overall significance would only have medium

effects. The significance of the impact on the landscape character brought about by the

proposed development is a combination of the sensitivity of the landscape character and the

magnitude of the change affecting it, and similarly the significance of the impact on the visual

resource is a combination of the sensitivity of the view and the magnitude of change.

In line with the recommendations given in section 6.4 of Visual Assessment of Windfarms

(SNH) a 20-cell matrix has been created to determine the likely significance of the impact upon

both the landscape character and the visual resource, with eight impact categories created,

table 4.2. These categories are should be used to determine the overall significance of the

development. Note that zero magnitude of impact results in zero significance, regardless of

the sensitivity of the view, as clearly the development project cannot be seen, and accordingly

zero magnitude is not included in the matrix.

5:Very High Medium/High High High/Very High Very High

4:High Medium Medium/High High High/Very High

3:Medium Low Medium Medium/High High

2:Low Negligible/Low Low Medium Medium/High

1:Negligible Negligible Negligible/Low Low Medium

Magnitude

Sensitivity

Low / Negligible Medium High Very High

Table 4.2 – Visual impact significance matrix

4.5 Cumulative Impact

Cumulative impact is an important consideration for Caithness due to the number of projects

proposed for the area, however this is not predicted to be an important issue for the Rumster

project due to the isolated location and the natural barriers created by the surrounding hills.

The only other project located within the immediate environs of Lybster is a large scale

development proposed for forestry near to Camster. The two developments are significantly

different in scale and form, and cannot be considered a single development from any of the

viewpoints. Assessment of cumulative impact shall therefore required, including the

sequential impact of the projects viewed from the main public roads. The Causeymire and

Buolfruich windfarms are two developments which have been constructed in the same area,

however the Stemster and Ben-a-chielt hills act as an effective visual barrier.


OSE/2824 38

5 Socio-economics and community governance

5.1 Community involvement

The Rumster Community Wind Energy Project was initiated by the Latheron, Lybster and

Clyth Development Company and has been designed and developed to provide

environmental, economic and social benefits to the whole community around Rumster Forest.

A renewable energy project was considered ideal for developing the viability of the

community by providing sustainable economic diversification, and assessment of the area

indicated that the site would be appropriate for a small-scale wind energy cluster. Orkney

Sustainable Energy Ltd were retained to provide advice to the Development Company, and

have become responsible for preliminary planning as part of the project feasibility study.

Wind energy projects in Scotland have been mainly developer-owned, with project profits

diverted from local economies. The exceptions to this have been the Burray wind energy

project in Orkney, where there has been a commitment to encourage local investment in a

wind energy development, and the community wind energy project on Gigha. The Rumster

project is a community owned project and should replicate the Gigha development, using

modern large scale wind turbines to ensure long term economic security and stability.

5.2 Governance and sustainability

The Rumster Community Wind Energy Project is a viable mechanism of rural diversification,

and is to be locally owned and controlled. The project developers have taken an open

approach to the development and have fully engaged with statutory consultees and

environmental agencies; both SNH and RSPB have been consulted at an early stage. By fully

addressing ecological and historic concerns and by adjusting the development to take into

account sensitive habitats, birds, landscape and proximity to neighbours, the project

developers have demonstrated good governance, and it is felt that the Rumster project is a

good example of sustainable development.

The economics of wind energy is particularly favourable at the moment, due to the renewable

energy targets set by the Scottish Executive, and accordingly there is now the opportunity for

community groups to obtain major benefits by controlling the projects, with financial benefits

accruing from electricity production and Renewable Obligation Certificates. The project has

been structured to provide a meaningful revenue, while at the same time offering an

alternative to the large scale exploitation of commercial windfarms.


OSE/2824 39

5.3 Socio-economic benefits

A community project requires robust economics. A copy of a spreadsheet is included in

volume 2 of the report, showing the cost and benefits from wind energy, based on existing

projects and 2006 prices. It can be seen that it costs around £800,000 per MW to construct a

windfarm, and on a windy location such as Rumster, a wind turbine will produce electricity

worth £200,000 per MW per annum. In simple terms this represents a four year payback on a

project expected to last twenty years. Allowing for capital and interest payments of 10% per

annum, the project produces a community benefit of around £40,000 per MW per annum, if

the 2MW turbine is used. Note that the capital and interest payments are quite substantial,

and efforts should be made to reduce the capital cost through economies of scale and by using

grant funding if possible.

The project income stream is the sum of four different mechanisms of energy trading; a power

purchase contract, a Renewable Order Certificate contract (ROC), a Climate Change Levy

Exemption Certificate contract (LEC), and annual ROC buy-out Recycle payment. The first

three income streams are monthly, however there is a 2-3 month delay in the production of

ROCs and LECs, and accordingly the monthly income is somewhat variable. The power

purchase contract can be negotiated with the various utilities, and there is merit in linking the

power contract to the fossil fuel markets; rising gas and oil prices will give a greater value to

renewable energy. ROC and LEC trading can be done directly on the market, however it is

simpler to enter into a long term contract with a utility, where the marginal buy-out price will

be offered. The recycle payment is calculated in the November following the year-end and is

in proportion to the volume of ROCs produced in that year. Power purchase contracts vary

and are around £30/MWh, ROC buyout is presently set at £32/MWh, LECs are worth

£3.50/MWh and the Recycle payment for 2006 came to £7.50/MWh; total income stream for

2006 was £73/MWh, or £0.073 per kWh. With an estimated 16,500 MWh per annum the

income for three 2MW turbines at Rumster comes to £1.2M each year, based on 2006 prices.

5.4 Grant funding The capital costs of community windfarms can be reduced through grant funds, at the project

development stages, and to reduce the cost of the turbines themselves. Around £50,000 in

grant funding is available from the Highlands and Islands Community Energy Company to

take a project through planning, and around £200,000 is available in loans to reduce the

overall cost of the project. The Big Lottery Fund will also support these type of community

developments.


OSE/2824 40

5.5 Conclusions

Development of a wind energy industry is predicted to have significant economic and

environmental benefits for Scotland. With Highland Council strongly committed to

encouraging community renewable energy developments, it is felt that the Rumster project is

particularly appropriate and relevant to the socio-economic development of this part of

Caithness. Although the turbines are manufactured abroad, there will be additional design,

civil and electrical engineering requirements, approaching one third of the total project costs.

The development team should ensure that much if not all of this work is completed by local

organisations. New long term employment opportunities will also arise from the project, with

local support necessary for the long term operation and maintenance of the site.

This study has described a project to install a small wind farm on a remote part of Rumster

forest in Caithness. The possible range of environmental studies has been considered, with

emphasis on visual impact, impact upon habitats, potential disturbance to birds, impact on

archaeology, potential nuisance impact upon neighbours and pollution issues. Life-cycle

analysis of the development has considered the location, the sustainability of the project and

the type and size of wind turbines to be installed. The study has further addressed the

environmental and socio-economic benefits of the project.

The visual impact upon the landscape has been considered and the preliminary design is a

simple linear layout of three machines. Although any wind energy project involving modern

wind turbines will be seen from the surrounding area, the installation of wind turbines at this

location would only have visual impact on the immediate surroundings, mainly the scattered

housing surrounding Lybster and Clyth.

This project has been designed to provide a commercially viable wind energy development,

with strong local economic benefits. The local community will own the development and will

ensure, as far as possible, that most if not all the project revenue is retained within the area.

Constructing the Rumster Community Wind Energy Project will give a positive message on

the importance of renewable energy to this part of Caithness, demonstrating the benefits of

community ownership, while at the same time allowing diversification and a more viable and

sustainable use of the land.


OSE/2824 41

References and bibliography

BWEA (1998). Best Practice Guidelines for Wind Energy Developments, www.bwea.com/ref/bpg.html

Boardman, B et al. (1997) 2MtC: Two Million Tonnes of Carbon, Environmental Change Unit, University of

Oxford.

Boden T.A., Marland G., Andres R.J. (1995). Estimates of global, regional, and national annual CO2 emissions

from fossil-fuel burning, hydraulic cement production, and gas flaring: 1950-1992, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory. Report ORNL/CDIAC-90, NDP-030/R6.

Bowes, D.R. (1960). A bog burst in the Isle of Lewis. Scottish Geographical Journal 76, pg 21-23

Boyle, G (1996). Renewable Energy; Power for a Sustainable Future. Oxford University Press.

British Geological Survey. Sheet 110 Latheron (1931), Solid and Drift: 0751810339

British Geological Survey. Sheet 110 Latheron (1985), Solid: 0751802875

Brown, A.F., Shepherd K.B. (1993) A method of censusing upland breeding waders. Bird Study 40

The Carbon Trust. Guidelines on measuring carbon and CO2 emissions from electricity.

http://www.thecarbontrust.co.uk/carbontrust/low_carbon_tech/dlct2_1_6.html

Chapman, S.J., Towers, W., Williams, B.L., Coull, M.C., Paterson, E. (2001) Review of the Contribution to

Climate Change of Organic Soils Under Different Land Uses. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

Defence and Civil Aviation Interests Working Group (2002). Wind Energy and Aviation Interests – Interim

Guidelines. ETSU W/14/00626/REP

Department for Transport The Road Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types)(General) Order 2003.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_023695-01.hcsp

DTI Noise Working Group (1996). The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Windfarms. ETSU-R-97.

DUKES: Digest of UK Energy Statistics, Chapter 5: Electricity www.dtistats.net/energystats/dukes06_c5.pdf

IEEM (2006) Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom,

www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html.

Greenwood J.J.D., Crick H.Q.P., Bainbridge I.P.(2003). Numbers and International Importance of Raptors and

Owls in Britain and Ireland. Birds of Prey in a Changing Environment, SNH publications, Edinburgh.

Langston R.H.W., Pullan J.D. (2003) Windfarms and Birds: An analysis of the effects of windfarms on birds,

and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Secretariat memorandum for the


OSE/2824 42

Standing committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.

Directorate of Culture and of Cultural and Natural Heritage, Council of Europe.

National Planning Policy Guideline NPPG6 (2000). Renewable Energy Developments. Scottish Executive

Development Department. ISBN 0 1-84268-684-4

Planning Advice Note PAN 45 (2002). Renewable Energy Technologies. Scottish Executive; ISBN 0 7559

0372 2

Planning Advice Note PAN 56 (1999). Planning and Noise. Scottish Executive Development Department.

Planning Advice Note PAN 58 (1999). Environmental Impact Assessment. Scottish Executive; ISBN 0 7480

8912 8

Planning Advice Note PAN 68 (2003). Design Statements. Scottish Executive; ISBN 0 7559 0862 7

Planning Advice Note PAN 73 (2005). Rural Diversification. Scottish Executive; ISBN 0 7559 4425 9

Scottish Natural Heritage. Guidelines on the Environmental Impact of Windfarms and Small Scale Hydroelectric

Schemes. SNH Publications

Scottish Natural Heritage (2002). Visual Assessment of Windfarms: Best Practice. Report F01AA303A

University of Newcastle, SNH Publications.

Scottish Planning Policy SPP15 (2005) Planning for Rural Development. Scottish Executive Development

Department.

SEPA pollution prevention guidelines http://www.sepa.org.uk/guidance/ppg/

SEPA recommendations on drainage systems in Scotland - Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).

http://www.sepa.org.uk/publications/leaflets/suds/?lang=_e

Snow D.W., Perrins C.M.(1998) The Birds of the Western Palaearctic,Concise Edition. Oxford University Press.

Thomas, R (1999). An Assessment of the Impact of Wind Turbines on Birds at Ten Windfarm Sites in the UK.

Sustainable Development International.

Tomlinson R.W, Gardiner T. (1982). Seven bog slides in the Slieve-an-Orra Hills, County Antrim. Journal of

Earth Science, Royal Dublin Society 5.

Warburton J., Holden J., Mills A.J. (2004). Hydrological controls of superficial mass movements in peat. Earth

Science Review 67 pg 139-156.

Whitefield D.P., Band W. Estimates of collision avoidance rates at operational wind farms in the USA.

Worden J., Mitchell C., Merne O., Cranswick P. (2004) Greenland Barnacle Geese Branta Leucopsis in Britain

and Ireland: Results of the International Census, March 2003. WWT Report.

Orkney Sustainable Energy Redland April 2007

OSE/2414 Section 2

Section 2

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Richard Gauld

Appendix A

Richard Gauld

Archaeology desk-based assessment

Richard Gauld

OSE/2414 Section 2

Richard Gauld



OSE/2414 Section 2

Richard Gauld


Richard Gauld

OSE/2414 Section 2

Discussion and preliminary archaeological assessment of 3-turbine windfarm proposal

at Rumster Forest, Caithness

Prepared by David Lynn for Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd

Contents 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Status of this report 1.2 Target audiences

2.0 Methodology 3.0 Current project and archaeological information

3.1 Forest information and archaeological implications 3.2 Recorded sites within the forest 3.3 Conclusions for forested area 3.4 Outside the forested area

4.0 Indirect impacts outside the development footprint

4.1 Scope of discussion 4.2 Site selection 4.3 SAMs 4.4 LBs and Lybster Conservation Area 4.5 PICs and other archaeological attractions 4.6 VI from interconnector route

5.0 Conclusions

© David Lynn 2007

David Lynn retains full copyright of this report under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 with all rights reserved, except for hereby providing an exclusive licence to Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd for use of this report in all project development and planning matters directly relating to the proposed wind turbine construction project on the Rumster Forest site covered by this report.

Flat 3/2, 4 Lawrence St, Glasgow G11 5HQ; e-mail: [email protected]

1

mailto:[email protected]

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Status of this report This discussion and preliminary archaeological assessment has been commissioned by Richard Gauld of Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd (OSEL). It contains a preliminary Desk-Based Assessment (DBA) of the archaeological implications of the project. As the project design is at an early stage, some of its elements have only been defined at a broad level, and this DBA is therefore written to highlight any archaeological issues which might influence the further development of the project design. The DBA has not been reinforced by any site visit or field survey at this stage, and is built around a programme of literature and on-line investigation. It also outlines the main anticipated elements of work for a full archaeological evaluation of this development proposal, which in the normal course of events would cover the historic environment elements of the Environmental Statement within the documentation package submitted for planning consideration. This paper therefore has a provisional status for its use within the planning and project design processes; this status will continue until:

the appropriate site visits and walkover investigations are undertaken, and

the project design is confirmed with detailed information on the location of the turbines and ancillary features.

Within the planning process, the eventual archaeological assessment is intended to provide an external and independently derived perspective which can be used by the planning authority within their decision-making process and by other consultees to inform their recommendations to the planning authority. The assessment would primarily focus on two aspects of the development proposal:

the direct or physical implications of the proposed constructions on recorded and as yet unrecorded archaeological features; this normally covers excavations for items such as turbine sites, crane pads, access tracks, on-site stone supply, switchgear building location, interconnector routes and any other elements which may occur both on- and off-site, and which may be temporary or permanent in effect. the indirect implications of the proposed development on archaeological features outside the development footprint which would not be physically affected. The main element of this would be the visual implications of the development on a number of statutorily protected historic environment sites and area designations.

1.2 Target audiences for this report This report has four main audiences, and aims to satisfy the various requirements of investigation, relevant site identification, consequent impact prediction and overall assessment which each audience would need in reaching their respective comments about the suitability of the project.

1.2.1 The planning authority

The planning authority is defined here as the organisation who will take the decision on whether an eventual planning application would ultimately receive consent, thereby allowing the project to go ahead. In the first instance this will be the Planning Department of Highland Council. It is assumed that the planning authority will want to have the full range of relevant information, discussion and analysis from this report to enable a preliminary planning comment which is as fully informed as possible. The planning authority is therefore a major audience, both as the ultimate decision-maker, and as an audience whose needs are broader in some respects than the defined responsibilities or interests of some of the other audiences.

1.2.2 The developer and the project designer

The intending developer, Latheron Lybster & Clyth Community Development Company is based within the landscape which would contain the proposed turbines and ancillary features and within the wider community on which its impacts would be felt. Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd, as the project designer, aims to create designs which cause minimal negative environmental impact and which can be integrated as much as is practically feasible with the surrounding landscape. Both parties are therefore hoping that this independent preliminary

2

report, which has been commissioned to inform the initial package of documentation for planning consideration, will produce results which are compatible with their environmental objectives. The developer and the project designer are therefore the most immediate audiences for this report, and it would be used for a number of practical and procedural avenues as the project design and consultation develop momentum.

1.2.3 Historic Scotland and Highland Council Archaeological Unit

Although they share this sub-heading, these are two distinct main audiences who have defined responsibilities within the planning process. These are defined under Scottish law and by a number of Scottish Executive policy guidance and planning advice notes. Both Historic Scotland (HS) and Highland Council Archaeological Unit (HCAU) will offer initial comment on the impact of the development proposal within their responsibilities; this report therefore aims to provide them with relevant initial information for their deliberations, with particular attention paid to a relevant identification and selection of historic environment sites and locations, and an objective presentation of the early results.

1.2.4 The local community

Any proposed development is likely to create community interest in terms of whether their quality of life would be affected. Caithness has become a focus for many windfarm projects, and it is known from local contacts that the community reactions have been very varied, particularly in some cases where the proposals are regarded as poorly designed or insensitively located.

In this case there are two further dimensions to register. The first is that the potential developer is a local community venture, which will therefore be particularly concerned with the compatibility of the proposal and pursuing the most appropriate project design within their own perspectives. The second point is to recognise that the local community has been one of the most dynamic over recent years in Scotland in developing community archaeological projects and facilities. This has led to the award-winning creation of the Caithness Archaeological Trust (CAT) and increased activity by other local groups, promoting public access to and understanding of archaeology and the development and promotion of the county’s archaeological resource.

Two relevant examples exist for the context of this report. The first is the regular use of Rumster Forest as a venue for archaeological events, such as the guided walk planned during the Caithness Archaeology & Heritage Festival in October 2007 with the title “Archaeology before the forest”. While the proposed development would be contained in a separate portion of the forest from the main focus of archaeological features (Section 3.1 below), it shows that the cultural amenity value of the forest is a significant consideration. The other example is the role taken by local community groups in developing and promoting archaeological visitor trails in Caithness. The Yarrows Archaeological Trail, a collaborative venture which has also been supported by HS and HCAU, is particularly relevant, with community concern likely to be expressed if this proposal creates visual impact for that trail. As discussed in Section 4.5, the provisional indications from this desk-based stage are that visual impacts on the Yarrows sites will be negligible or zero.

1.2.5 Responding to the potential audiences

As a result of this identification of a number of potential audiences, this report is designed to anticipate the various areas of possible interest and concern. It is intended to be readable and open in its rationale; this includes an emphasis on narrative explanations and discussion. It is also meant to be clear about what steps the current analysis has included and what other tasks will be needed before a full archaeological assessment can be made. This should give a picture of the route ahead for the project designers, but also brings a cautionary statement that the current results are provisional until the further investigations are undertaken for any full planning submission.

2.0 Methodology The following information resources were used for this desk-based assessment:

3

the National Monuments Record of Scotland (NMRS), compiled by the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS), and accessed through the on-line CANMORE database (www.rcahms.gov.uk)

the PASTMAP on-line database of sites and monuments with statutory protection, also compiled by RCAHMS and accessed at www.rcahms.gov.uk

the Highland Council Archaeology Unit Sites and Monument Record (SMR), a computerised database accessed via the PASTMAP portal; at this desk-based stage of investigation the full SMR housed at Highland Council offices in Inverness has not been consulted, a task which will be required for the full archaeological assessment

maps, with particular emphasis on the Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 County Series first edition of 1879 (accessed at www.old-maps.co.uk), and the current OS 1:25000 Explorer series map of the area (no. 450, Wick & the Flow Country, revised 2003), other old maps from the National Library of Scotland (accessed at www.nls.uk/digitallibrary/map). These included Timothy Pont’s maps of 1583-96, Blaeu’s re-drawing of the Pont maps in 1654 and maps by Thompson in 1832, and

the Forestry Commission (FC) website and literature covering Rumster Forest.

3.0 Current project and archaeological information

The preliminary design information covers a 3-turbine windfarm within Rumster Forest, Caithness. The forest is a Forestry Commission plantation, a portion of which would be purchased by the Latheron Lybster & Clyth Community Development Company for management by the local community. The turbines would be arranged in a regularly spaced N-S line, with the middle turbine (T2) located at about NGR ND 207/407 alt 166m, within the forest and close to its edge. No details have been confirmed on ancillary features of the proposal, such as access tracks, on-site stone supply, switchgear building location, interconnector routes and any other physical elements which may occur both on- and off-site. OSEL-designed projects normally anticipate an excavation for each turbine base of an area of 10m x 10m, which would be contained within a larger crane pad excavation of approximately 30m x 20m.

One on-site access track would connect all three turbines in a single linear formation, thereby minimising the required track length; it is not yet known whether this could take advantage of any existing tracks or rides within the plantations. Normal practice would require a finished track width of 4m, with additional trackside work often needed for drainage and on-site cabling to give an overall width of the affected area of up to 6m. The depth of excavation would vary with the subsoil conditions, particularly the depth to bedrock or other solid geological material. Site entry would be constructed at the nearest feasible point on the unnumbered minor road running between Lybster and the A9 at Achavanich, with particular consideration needed to avoid abrupt gradients and tight corners to enable successful turbine transport.

The interconnector route is undecided, but early indications are that the preference for a minimum distance would entail a route running due west from the site to an existing N-S powerline alongside the A9, with the junction somewhere near Lochend (ND 18523/41017), a linear distance of c2.5km through unforested land.

3.1 Forest information and archaeological implications Rumster Forest is described in Forestry Commission (FC) visitor leaflets and on its website as “steeped in history”. The forest was first planted on ex-crofting ground in the late 1940s with spruce and pine, with some of the remaining examples now among the tallest in Caithness. Subsequent felling has opened several outward panoramic views, with replanting programmes of larch, birch and rowan to make the forest more varied and to encourage wildlife. FC have identified “over 29 longhouses many of which were occupied until the forest was first planted in the late 1940s” and several prehistoric archaeological remains such as the broch sites at Golsary and Rumster Mill; some of these have been opened up within the plantations for display and facilitated access along forestry trails.

A key issue for the full archaeological assessment will be to estimate the impact that the various forestry drainage, planting and felling phases have had on the archaeological contents, and therefore whether the windfarm construction would encounter archaeological features which have survived in any identifiable form. Previous experience of forestry surveys suggests that they often indicate high degrees of destruction, particularly for features covering

4

small ground areas or which were not substantially constructed. In many cases big or solid sites and features have survived, sometimes as clearings where the disturbance has been minimal, although these may be hidden within the plantations without any path access. In other instances, planting may have occurred within structures and features, so that upstanding walls or banks survive both within and around clusters of trees.

Both permutations look at this stage to have occurred within Rumster Forest. This picture, taken from the FC website, almost certainly shows one of the two broch sites as a grass-covered mound, though is not directly identified. It appears to show a site which has been encircled by forestry but left intact within its boundary; there may also be some more recent field walls visible. This scenario seems to apply for both the broch sites and for a number of the former crofting sites among the 29 identified by FC in their literature.

From other sources, particularly the on-line Highland Council SMR database, it looks as if the second permutation, of planting within upstanding structures has also occurred. The following photo is taken from the SMR record for one of the Sheppardstown croft sites (at Blackburn, SMR no. ND23NW0092) and is described as showing the walls of the main longhouse structure in 2003.

5

3.2 Recorded sites within the forest The forest outline can be summarised as two sub-rectangular tracts which touch at right angles at one corner. The SW rectangle is aligned N-S and contains the majority of the recorded sites, including both brochs, many of the ex-crofting house sites, and the publicly promoted forestry trails. The rectangles join at the NE corner of the SW rectangle, from which the NE rectangle continues eastwards and northwards; the public road from Lybster to Achavanich cuts through the forest at this merger zone.

The turbine sites would be located within the NE rectangle close to its western boundary. The map extract below was copied from the RCAHMS Pastmap database, and shows the recorded sites within the NMRS database (blue dots – see key) and additional SMR sites (smaller green dots) in and around the development footprint; the usual situation is that NMRS records will each have SMR counterparts, but the map only shows the NMRS occurrence of such pairings.

Key

The turbines would be sited within the forest edge towards the top right where the name Golticlay finishes, which looks safe from recorded archaeology as shown on the online databases. The FC leaflet map does not cover the NE rectangle, and there is no specific information on the FC website for the turbine area. However the 1:25000 OS map shows a single unnamed rectangular building at ND2081/4076 next to a forest ride, which is close to the envisaged development footprint.

3.3 Conclusions for forested area From the lines of enquiry available to a desk-based investigation, the provisional turbine locations seem to avoid any direct impact on recorded archaeology. This would need to be confirmed against the full SMR database housed at Highland Council Archaeology Unit in Inverness before the project design progresses much further, as the full SMR database is more current and comprehensive than the online version, and similarly ahead of the NMRS databases. Further investigations could also be useful for any FC archive material; research for another project elsewhere in the Highlands revealed that FC recorded in detail the

6

features of a forest they purchased in the 1920s in a series of – appropriately named – logbooks, which provided some fascinating material which had not previously been captured. The online investigation of old maps did not add anything significant for this initial report, which is a point worth registering for its implication that pre-forestry archaeological evidence was not obvious in the affected area, but further old map and archive research may be productive for progressing the archaeological assessment into a formal component of the planning submission. It would be very helpful if any such sources could be identified, particularly those which might escape detection by mainstream search techniques or which have limited or local accessibility.

The ancillary elements of the development within the forested area are as yet unconfirmed, but would probably be contained within the map above. If the windfarm access track is built to join the public road within the forest, the presence of one site as a blue dot on the above map alongside the track leading ENE from the road should be noted. This is Osclay Burn, shown on the 1877 1st edition OS 6-inch map as a farmstead of three unroofed buildings, including a two-compartment long building (NMRS no. ND23NW 43, SMR no. ND23NW0102). Further project information will be needed before anything more precise can be stated.

On the currently assembled information, the pre-forestry landscape appears to have been well settled and used from prehistoric periods until the early 20th century, and was therefore capable of containing archaeological and historical elements. The effect of the forestry process with its repeated cycles of activity is likely to have been selectively destructive and to have created different permutations of feature survival and of the current potential for coherent recognition, as demonstrated in the preceding sub-section. It is fully possible that the only surviving features around the development footprint have previously been recorded, and that anything else is now lost. However this possibility can only be confirmed through on-site walkovers, and the question remains open for now whether other unrecorded archaeology still survives in the areas which would be affected.

If unrecorded archaeology still survives in an identifiable state within the forested area, the likelihood is that it may not be particularly massive or solid in nature; therefore further broch sites or post-medieval homesteads are unlikely. While this opens up a wide range of alternative possibilities, it also suggests that whatever may still exist is unlikely to be sufficiently significant to threaten the further development or implementation of the proposal. If anything is discovered through on-site investigation, the chances are that it could be accommodated by appropriate mitigation without becoming a major project issue. Again, this comment remains speculative until on-site surveying is undertaken.

3.4 Outside the forested area On current information, the major activity would be the installation of the interconnector route. The strategy for this is largely unconfirmed apart from the probable use of underground cabling and a preference for a minimum distance to the N-S powerline alongside the A9. This suggests a course heading due west or west-north-west across open country for about 2.5km from the turbines/switchgear building. The usual practice would be for a linear trench excavation by machine up to 1m deep and 1m wide; for machine passage a further width on either side is often required, giving an overall affected width of up to 4m. After cable insertion, the trench would be backfilled and surface-tidied.

An alternative strategy would be to carry the cable above ground for part or all of the same route. In terms of direct archaeological impact this is substantially less intrusive, but has implications on creating a visual impact, as discussed in Section 4.6.

There has been no ground survey at this stage to ensure the cable route is viable, and OSEL have suggested that the choice will be responsive to any archaeological issues. Without an archaeological site visit to survey for visible features, this report can only highlight the existence of some recorded sites from the online NMRS and SMR databases, and recommend that they are avoided by the eventual route selection. The search corridor focused between ND 180-210 easting and ND 400-410 northing; this is shown within the upper half of the database map reproduced in Section 3.2. It revealed the following sites:

7

Site Type NGR ND Area affected NMRS no. SMR no. Prehistoric cairn (robbed) ND 2034/4048 Point ND24SW 1 ND24SW0001

Township; Head Dyke ND 202/406 Area ND24SW 24 ND24SW0028 Golticlay Field System, Deserted Settlement

ND 201/410 Area N/a ND24SW0014

Badereskie Cruck framed cottage ND 201/401 Point ND24SW.26 ND24SW0026

Clashcrebie Mor

Head Dyke, Farmstead ND 190/401 Point? ND14SE.11 ND14SE0020

Clashcrebie Beag Farmstead ND 1943/4080 Point ND14SE.13 ND14SE0019

Large building ND 1826/3973 Point N/a ND13NE0032 Cnoc Dubh Dyke ND 1832/3989 Area? N/a ND13NE0031 Farmstead ND 1821/4061 Area N/a ND14SE0025 Lochend Cairn ND 1818/4087 Point N/a ND14SE0024

Clais Balgaire Building ND 1893/4175 Point N/a ND14SE0014 Blackmire Burn

Deserted Settlement ND 1880/4080 Area? N/a ND14SE0013

Jock's Lodge Township ND 1895/3892 Area? N/a ND13NE0004

Again, these results will need confirmation against the full SMR database housed at Highland Council Archaeology Unit in Inverness, which is more current and comprehensive than both the online SMR and the NMRS databases, and the list is provisional until on-site surveying is undertaken. However at this stage of investigation, none of the currently identified sites suggest major constraints for the route selection, and the project needs can probably be accommodated by low-level mitigation as appropriate.

4.0 Indirect impacts outside the development footprint 4.1 Scope of discussion The main element of this topic is the visual implications of the proposed development on a number of statutorily protected historic environment sites. Other indirect impacts such as noise or shadow flicker exist, but are only experienced within distances of less than 1km for a windfarm of this type, and there are no relevant protected sites in such proximity. The discussion is based on a process of identifying the relevant statutorily protected historic environment sites in the surrounding landscape from online database investigation and testing the visual impact against a preliminary Zone of Visual Impact (ZVI) map supplied by OSEL. This map shows whether 0, 1, 2, or 3 turbines would be theoretically from any point by a series of coloured overlays, and is reproduced elsewhere in the OSEL project documentation. The distance of each site from the proposed windfarm is also identified, as this gives a preliminary indication of the degree of prominence with which the turbines would be seen. Scottish Executive Planning Advice Note 45 gives the following guidance on the effect of distance on the perception of a windfarm in an open landscape:

Distance Perception Up to 2 km Likely to be a prominent feature 2-5 km Relatively prominent 5-15 km Only prominent in clear visibility – seen as part of the wider landscape 15-30 km Only seen in very clear visibility – a minor element in the landscape Source: PAN 45 (revised 2002): Renewable Energy Technologies, Table 3.

These distance thresholds are used to define the geographical boundaries of the investigation, as described in Section 4.2.

The exercise operates at two main levels. Firstly it provides an early indication of which protected sites might receive impact and the degree to which it might occur from the current provisional windfarm design. The second is more precautionary and is to register that the surrounding landscape has a number of relevant sites, and by identifying and locating these sites, gives a baseline against which any alterations in design – such as turbine relocations – can be given an initial consideration.

8

http://lmid1.rcahms.gov.uk/pls/portal/newcanmore.details_gis?inumlink=92055

http://www.ambaile.org.uk/smr/pastmap.jsp?id=ND24SW0026


http://www.ambaile.org.uk/smr/pastmap.jsp?id=ND14SE0020





http://www.ambaile.org.uk/smr/pastmap.jsp?id=ND13NE0004

At this stage the results are only indicative, as they are derived purely from comparing software-generated mapping systems. Two major elements await subsequent analysis if the project is pursued. The first is that the ZVI map is generated from topographic GIS data, which has no capacity to include any above-ground features which may in real life provide screening; these would include forestry, buildings and other landscape components, and will be particularly relevant for this project. The second is that no assessment is made at this stage of the qualitative landscape character, simply a statement of the possibility of visual impact existing within the level of accuracy which can currently be calculated.

Subsequent steps to be taken would include site visits to obtain pictures for wireframe and photo-montage preparation and landscape assessment – thus giving the actual scenario for each site, more detailed testing of site locations with the ZVI software when the windfarm design is confirmed, and the incorporation of Cumulative Visual Impact investigations of this project with other windfarms, whether built, consented or lodged in the planning system.

4.2 Site selection Within the area which might receive indirect impact from the proposed development are a number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs), Listed Buildings (LBs), and Historic Scotland Properties In Care (PICs). In addition there is a small Conservation Area designation covering the centre of Lybster village from Harbour Road up to St Mary’s church, and containing many of the village’s LBs. There are no Historic Gardens & Designed Landscapes nor World Heritage Sites within relevant distances. The defined protective responsibilities for the relevant sites are:

Historic Scotland Local Authority Archaeological monuments SAMs All others

Historic buildings LB Category A LB Categories B & C(S)

Heritage Visitor Attractions

Not defined; however HS manage PICs, which will all be either SAMs and/or LBs (Category A), so there is a particular responsibility for some sites

Not defined, but may fall within the responsibility for non-SAM archaeological sites or for LB Categories B & C(S)

Conservation areas Advisory non-management role (minor) Lead responsibility

SAMs are undifferentiated designations, but LBs are formally defined within a hierarchical level of significance:

Listed Buildings – definitions of categories CATEGORY A Buildings of national or international importance, either architectural or historic, or fine little-altered examples of some particular period, style or building type. CATEGORY B Buildings of regional or more than local importance, or major examples of some particular period, style or building type which may have been altered. CATEGORY C(S) Buildings of local importance, lesser examples of any period, style, or building type, as originally constructed or altered; and simple, traditional buildings which group well with others in categories A and B or are part of a planned group such as an estate or an industrial complex. (from Scotland’s Listed Buildings: A Guide for Owners and Occupiers; undated, issued by Historic Scotland about 1999)

The criteria used in selecting sites for consideration at this early stage combines the PAN45 prominence thresholds and the designations to focus on all SAMs or LB Cat As within 7kms (ie the 5km threshold with an additional safety margin to ensure a useful capture); there are no HGDLs within 7 kms. Particular local circumstances include the active development of some more distant sites as visitor attractions, which has led to a much wider investigative net for PICs and for non-PIC archaeological trails.

4.3 SAMs The identified SAMs are shown in the following table, with some preliminary observations on ZVI occurrence.

SAM No Name NGRs Dist

kms In ZVI?

419 Achkinloch, chambered cairn 800m SW of, Loch Stemster ND 188/417 2.1 No

9

http://hsewsf.sedsh.gov.uk/eschedule/SHOW?ID=419

420 Achkinloch, stone setting SW of, Loch Stemster

555 Greysteil Castle, broch, Loch Rangag ND 179/416 2.9 No

520 Ballachly, broch 360m S of, Stemster ND 195/442 3.7

Uncertain – 1-2 turbines possible; detailed investigation needed

519 Appnag Tulloch, broch 550m N of Forse House ND 212/359 4.9

Possibly not – detailed investigation needed; may be screened by Rumster Forest

550 Golsary, broch on W bank of Burn of Golsary, Rumster Forest ND 205/374 3.3

Probably not – detailed investigation needed; may be screened within Rumster Forest

573 Rumster, broch 200m WSW of, Forse ND 212/372 3.6

Probably not – detailed investigation needed; may be screened within Rumster Forest

575 Rhianrivach, broch 400m N of ND 230/361 5.2

Probably yes for <3 turbines – detailed investigation needed; may be screened by Rumster Forest

599 The Tulloch (Usshilly), broch & field system WNW of Forse House

ND 206/352 ND 209/356 ND 207/355

5.5

Probably yes for <3 turbines – detailed investigation needed; may be screened by Rumster Forest

4.4 LBs and Lybster Conservation Area On-line database investigation showed over 50 LBs within a 5km radius of the turbine sites. The vast majority are located in or around the coastal settlements to the south, including a concentration in Lybster. However, only two are LB Category A sites, with the others being LB-B or LB-C(S). Given the size of the sample, it was decided on practical grounds to focus only on the LB-As at this stage, leaving the others until such time as the information is required. Much of Lybster and the other LB zones appears to sit within the ZVI as receiving visual impact from 3 turbines, so this is a cogent possibility to be recognised.

The portion of Lybster within the Conservation Area will require similar consideration, possibly overlapping with the analysis of the contained LBs. However unravelling the individual permutations of actual VI receipt within town settings, where screening is often provided by other buildings and street furniture, will be a complex and resource-consuming process. The task will be hugely simplified if it can be shown at an early stage that Lybster would be totally screened from VI by the Rumster Forest plantations. If this is the actual situation, it may be useful to explore with FC whether the screening portions will remain in place for the duration of the turbines’ presence; if this can not be clarified, Highland Council may raise planning concerns.

The identified LB-As are shown in the following table, with some preliminary observations on ZVI occurrence.

LB no.

Name LB Cat

NGR Dist kms

In ZVI?

7935 The Corr A ND 2025/3570 5.1 Uncertain – detailed investigation needed; may be screened by Rumster Forest

7949 Forse House dovecote A ND 2115/3536 5.5

Probably not – detailed investigation needed; may be screened by Rumster Forest and/or Forse House and woodland

4.5 PICs and other archaeological attractions Five sites were identified, four of which are PICs run by HS with some degree of promotion and presentation as visitor attractions; this varies according to the nature of the PIC. All are also SAMs based on a single location. The fifth site is the Yarrows archaeological trail, which contains 12 SAMs in or around the signposted tour; one site has been selected as the highest

10









http://hsewsf.sedsh.gov.uk/hslive/portal.hsstart?P_HBNUM=7935


and most prominent location from the collection to represent the group. The identified sites are shown in the following table, with some preliminary observations on ZVI occurrence.

SAM No Name NGRs Dist

kms In ZVI?

90048 Cairn of Get [PIC] ND 313/411 10.7 No 90056 Grey Cairns of Camster [PIC] ND 260/442 6.4 No

90162 Hill o'Many Stanes, stone rows [PIC] ND 295/384 9.3 No

90065 Castle of Old Wick [PIC] ND 369/488 18.1 Possibly 2 turbines; may be screened by Rumster Forest

508 South Yarrows, long cairn 210m SW of [non-PIC site within Yarrows archaeological trail]

ND 304/431 10.0 Probably not – detailed investigation needed; may be screened by Rumster Forest

A further point is that three of these five sites each occur within a pocket of other SAMs. At this stage it can be assumed that the VI comments for each PIC or lead site in the above table apply to the other members of the respective groups. This could become an issue if the project design evolves into any turbine relocation and a change in the VI situations, as the other set members could be similarly affected. The site groups are:

1] Yarrows archaeological trail (12 SAMs) SAM No. Name NGRs

435 Cairn Reain, chambered cairn, North Yarrows, Thrumster ND 311/442 467 McCole's Castle, chambered cairn ND 316/433 506 Loch of Yarrows, stone rows 350m SE of North Yarrows ND 313/440 507 South Yarrows, long cairn 220m NW of ND 304/434 508 South Yarrows, long cairn 210m SW of [lead site above] ND 304/431 610 Loch of Yarrows, hut circles & cairns 500m SSE of South Yarrows ND 309/428 611 Loch of Yarrows, broch on SW side of, Thrumster ND 309/435 612 South Yarrows, hut circle and kiln barn 450m W of ND 303/433 8516 Loch of Yarrows, hut circle 450m SSE of S end of loch ND 312/427 8520 Loch of Yarrows, cairn 550m ENE of South Yarrows ND 312433 8521 Loch of Yarrows, two cairns 700m ENE of South Yarrows ND 313/433 8533 Loch of Yarrows, hut circle 300m ESE of South Yarrows ND 309/432

2] Cairn of Get (13 SAMs) SAM No. Name NGRs

429 Broughwhin, cairn and stone row 190m NW of Groat's Loch ND 312/409 433 Cairn Hanach, chambered cairn S side of Warehouse Hill ND 310/408

436 Cairns of Warehouse, cairns at N end of Warehouse Hill ND 305/420 ND 305/422 ND 308/422

501 Ulbster School, standing stone ND 324/416 504 Watenan, cairn and stone setting 400m W of ND 314/413 548 Garrywhin, fort and settlement, Ulbster ND 312/413 595 Ulbster School, broch 90m S of ND 324/414 607 Watenan, fort 100m SSW of ND 317/411 696 Watenan, broch 140m N of, Ulbster ND 318/414 4255 Broughwhin, hut circle and cists 130m E of ND 313/411 4289 Watenan, fort 165m NW of, Ulbster ND 316/413 4338 Groats Loch, cairn 200m W of, Watenan ND 312/407

90048 Cairn of Get [PIC] ND 313/411

3] Camster cairns (5 SAMs) SAM No Name NGRs

463 Loch of Camster, stone rows 400m WSW of S end of ND 260/437 591 Toftgun, broch 365m SSE of, Loch of Camster ND 279/424 536 Camster, broch 275m E of ND 255/456 537 Camster, broch S of ND 252/450

90056 Grey Cairns of Camster [PIC] ND 260/442 ND 260/440

4.6 VI from interconnector route

11




































As described in Section 3.4, the strategy for this construction element has yet to be confirmed. If an underground cable is used, there would be no VI implications. However the alternative of an overhead cable between poles does have a minor VI implication. It is impossible to be specific about the detail until precise route details are available, but it could create potential VI for part or all of the cable route for 4 SAMs at three locations and possibly one LB-A. VI on other protected sites seems less likely, mainly because Rumster forest would provide the necessary screening. These are shown in the table below; on present estimates the first three SAMs escape any VI from the turbines. The distance of each site from the nearest visible portion of the cable route is not currently calculable, but the closest approach is likely to be over 1km away, which is unlikely to create a prominent visual impact within a landscape which already contains many equivalent features.

SAM No Name NGRs In overhead cable route ZVI?

419 Achkinloch, chambered cairn 800m SW of, Loch Stemster

420 Achkinloch, stone setting SW of, Loch Stemster

ND 188/417 Part of the cable route might be visible, but may be seen against a forestry backcloth for much of any visible extent

555 Greysteil Castle, broch, Loch Rangag ND 179/416

Small parts of the cable route might be visible, but foreground and middle distance topography could prevent sightlines

520 Ballachly, broch 360m S of, Stemster ND 195/442

A large part of the cable route might be visible, but may be seen against a forestry backcloth for much of any visible extent

7935 LB-A The Corr ND 2025/3570 Part of the cable route might be visible

near the west end, but seems unlikely

5.0 Conclusions As previously explained, this report can only provide preliminary findings which will need further investigation before full confirmation can be given. Its objectives are therefore to give an initial impression of the archaeological context which the proposed development might affect and to highlight any major implications which might ensue.

The archaeological context of the area shows a high distribution of sites from prehistoric and post-medieval periods, many of which survive in an identifiable form in the landscape today. Many of these site types can extend further below ground than the surface indications might suggest. However the majority of the potential development footprint is situated in a zone which has been heavily affected by forestry disturbance, a series of processes which can be highly destructive for archaeological features. The impression gained from exploring a number of desk-based enquiries is that this particular forest has preserved a number of archaeological features which were too big or solid to remove, but would have destroyed any smaller less substantial remains. Therefore the sites which remain visible may constitute the full set of survivors, and their existence has been previously recorded. The initial conclusion, unconfirmed by any on-site experience, is that provided the development avoids any visible archaeology in the forest, it is unlikely to physically affect any surviving features.

Outside the forest, the recorded archaeology contains a variety of sites and features in a largely deserted landscape; the interconnector route would be the major development activity in this zone, and on the current information could affect a number of post-medieval settlement and farming features. These are not normally regarded as highly significant archaeological survivals, so any physical impact could probably be accommodated within a range of comparatively light mitigation responsibilities. Again, direct on-site experience will be needed to confirm this and the lack of other unrecorded archaeological features.

The indirect or visual impact on a number of statutorily protected historic environment sites and sites promoted as visitor attractions has been given a preliminary discussion. The early indications suggest that some degree of visual impact is likely for some of these sites, but that there are no major problems which could create high levels of controversy with statutory consultees or local community interests. A particular sensitivity is known locally for the Achkinloch/Achavanich monuments which look likely to escape any VI. A procedural sensitivity may apply for the Lybster Conservation Area which could require a robust demonstration that the actual VI would be negligible if the Rumster Forest screening effect is

12






a crucial determinant. Further work will be required to translate these various initial comments into robust assessments, but the outlook is encouraging.

Overall the archaeological prospects for this proposal are promising:

in terms of directly affected archaeology, some features may be affected, including a limited potential for as yet unrecorded remains, but the likelihood is that the resultant implications can be accommodated within standard mitigation strategies, and

indirect or visual impacts on statutorily protected or actively promoted archaeological sites in the surrounding landscape would be caused to varying degrees, but are unlikely to create major controversies with consultees and other local interests.

There is therefore no archaeological reason identified at this stage of investigation to suggest that the proposal is inappropriate and which could require a major redesign or abandonment.

13

Date post:	20-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	12 times
Download:	0 times

Rumster Community Wind Energy Project · Final Report Rumster Community Wind Energy Project October...

Documents