Northern Light Book Shop

Stopping Wind Turbines On Rossie Moor (a)

An old ruin, just farther along the track from my house, now somewhat swallowed by the field of barley, lyng on a little rocky hillock overlooking the big Park where the Australian company, Novera, wants to put the Windfarm, is reputed to be an old inn. I need to poke about in there a bit more when the barley is finally gone.
You know, this windfarm. Having been told tales about those against it, who want to keep the view and the spirit of the place, and those for, mainly farmers, I can’t see that it boils down to anything other than money. Sod green power, it is about how much cash can I get from this?
From the big local landowner who rents the field, to the energy company getting giant Government subsidies to stick them up, to the smaller farmer who owns a bit of road and wants to charge for it – I mean, where is the Save the Planet ethic?

We knew about the development before we came. We were told, but there were no details that you could see about it, and nobody local seemed to have an idea about it.
We were apprised over that weekend that STORM existed – “Stop Turbines On Rossie Moor”, and as good neighbours we decided, in our own self interest, that we did want to keep the land pure of these beasts.
I feel an unease over the piece though, I don’t want a nuclear power station there for sure, but wind turbines? I feel all confused, and have to move from rhetorical position to rhetorical position to gain any comfort.
In situations like this emotion seems to take over, and I can’t be yet like that Aberdeenshire farmer, an embracer of the technology.
Your objections have to be based on more than just spoiling your view but, apparently not. That is something that the public inquiry will take into account, your view and your house prices.
We were asked to write a statement of our objections. Our campaign has a QC attached, who will put out arguments to the enquiry.
Our neighbours have no doubts, they don’t want them, and are prepared to back it up. I don’t know this place yet, and my wife is into it with a lot less doubts. She wants to write the statement, and does.
I belatedly, tail between my legs, ask to be included on it – can we write a joint one? Thin lippedly she agrees to this, and what we produce is a bit of a composite of our points of view.
We came up with quite a lot, based on our five weeks of living here, but the issues here are the same as elsewhere really, it is a question of degree and of fitting the situation to the situation.
It goes like this:

Grounds for opposing the application (b)
1. The turbines will be visible from our house, will have a detrimental impact on our view and potentially have a negative effect on the value of our property and its future saleability.
The turbines will be situated approximately 1.2 kilometres from our house, in a north-westerly direction. They will be clearly visible from the house, which faces west and south and has extensive views in both directions over open farmland. The uninterrupted rural view is one of the key selling points of the house. In future the view to the west from the dining room and family sitting room and upstairs sitting area and bedrooms, will include the three turbines.
2. We may be affected by noise and/or vibration disturbance from the turbines which may cause stress and/or have other detrimental effects on the health of family members.
There appears to be no conclusive evidence based on UK studies of the extent to which turbines may cause noise or vibration disturbance to local residents. The area of Mountboy is rural and exceptionally quiet, with little or no background noise from traffic. This raises a concern that any noise and/or vibration generated will be more noticeable than in an urban or busier setting. The siting of the turbines also makes it likely that noise will be carried towards Mountboy when the wind is blowing from the north or west – as it does.
Anecdotal evidence gathered from the Internet suggests that noise and vibration from turbines, even at relatively low decibel levels, can be very disruptive due to the particular frequency and the ‘whoosh’ effect. There is little documented evidence about the cumulative effect of exposure to noise and vibration disturbance from wind turbines, even at low levels. However, newspaper reports tell of families forced to leave their homes because of stress and inability to sleep as a result of turbine noise and the noise of the generators used to control the turbines and switch them on and off.
3. We may be affected by the visual impact of ‘flicker’ from the turbines which may cause stress and/or have other detrimental effects on the health of family members
The turbines will be clearly visible from our house and therefore any ‘flicker’ or other visual effects will also be noticeable from the house, and from the garden; which lies mainly to the west of the house and looks out directly over the farmland surrounding the turbines. Again the concern is that the effect on human health and wellbeing of cumulative exposure to aural and visual disturbance of this nature is not well documented.
4. The rights of way which are closest and most easily accessible from our property are likely to be closed, which will have a detrimental impact on our leisure activity and quality of life
We have a horse and a pony and ride regularly round a circular route of approximately 3 miles which includes the Rights of Way , TA99 and TA100. These directly cross the field where the turbines would be located and lead to the Rossie Moor Right of Way, TA98. This is the only route accessible from our house which does not involve having to ride down the road from Mountboy to the A92 (which is busy at certain times with traffic to and from Rossie School) or on the A92 itself. My daughter is 10 years old and, although a competent rider, the risks to her safety would be greatly increased if she had to ride on roads rather than on the Rights of Way which are currently available.
TA98, to the south of where it crosses with TA99, seems under some dispute with the local farmers anyway, given that they appear to be trying to close them down by completely overplanting this Right of Way.
It may be that this is going to be the actual access road, along TA98, and this closure would make sense in this context.
We would like it made clear how the construction company actually intends to access this site.
Given too the location of the turbines we do not believe that the Right of Way we currently use would continue to be available for horse riding or walking. The Rossie Moor road to the north would become the main access route for construction traffic to the site, making it totally unsuitable for riding.
Right of Way TA99 would be effectively closed down, as no local residents would be able to walk down what would effectively become a busy road leading to a factory site.
This would leave us with no riding or walking routes directly accessible from our house other than to ride down the road to the A92 and back.
5. Road traffic (particularly heavy plant and construction traffic) in the immediate vicinity is likely to increase which will have a detrimental impact on our leisure activity and quality of life
The Mountboy area is very quiet with little traffic other than at certain times of day to and from Rossie School. Our children catch the local school bus (serving Ferryden Primary School) every morning from the top of our road and are dropped off there at the end of the day. At present they are able to walk up to catch the bus and return after school on their own; as there is little traffic (the road has no pavement and no street lighting).
At present the road becomes a track beyond Rossie School and hence there is no through traffic.
If the turbines are built, however, the road will lead to the turbine site. Even if this road is not the main access road to the site (i.e if the road to the north which leads to Rossie Moor becomes the main access road) some access to the site via this lower road may still be granted which would turn it into a ‘through’ road with consequent increase in traffic.
This would make the road and the whole area far less safe for children to use as part of their journey to school and at other times.
If TA99, from the road turn with Rossie School, is indeed the favoured access road it is well to note that this starts as a tractor wide farm track, and then becomes a much narrower footpath where it joins with TA100. Along the tractor track a line of beech trees would have to be cut down in order to lay tarmac, and what looks like a (pre)historic field boundary would also be demolished.
There are also signs of tumuli along this boundary, and we would have to ask if a proper archaeological assessment has been made of what is a very historic landscape in the context of the development of Scottish history. The road would have to be wide enough to incorporate heavy plant, and we are unaware personally of just how wide, and intrusive, this road is going to be into the local landscape. We would appreciate clarification of just what and where this access road is likely to be.
We are particularly worried about the impact of the construction works both in terms of heavy plant traffic in the area and the noise and disturbance.
6. We feel that is incumbent upon the turbine constructors to provide evidence that this spot is indeed suitable for wind turbine electricity generation on a basis that would supply constant energy to the Grid, thus easing global warming; this surely being the reason why Scottish and British Governments want to subsidise such technology particularly noticeably via our energy bills.
Our personal experience of living at Mountboy is that there are long periods when the wind does not blow, and that anti-cyclonic situations, we understand, are also not unusual for long periods.
The turbine sites would thus be an extrusion on the landscape without actually doing what they are meant to do, i.e. provide green, clean energy to the National Grid via the fortuitously sited electricity cables that cross this site.
We feel that the turbine company should make the data available from their highly visible, to us, weather mast, which has been sited there for over 2 years now, and which, anecdotally, we believe has been there longer than the original terms of the siting agreement. Would these turbines therefore be worth the money that we as taxpayers are giving to the construction company to build something that we are, at best, ambivalent about?
While this part of Angus appears relatively remote, it is in fact quite densely settled in the way that all the dwellings around the site are interconnected.
It is not empty land, it is an intensively used working environment, and has evolved that way due to historical, economic and social pressures.
The area around Rossie Moor and the local farmland cannot support such a development because wind turbines are not part of that evolution, and, as we have said, will have impacts on this working environment in ways that may turn out be quite deleterious, in a clash between agricultural and industrial practices.
In this clash we are particularly concerned that these turbines would not be the end of the matter, the construction company would come back for more, and that this then would turn this area into an industrial park, rather than the interlinked set of farming communities that, historically, it has become.

7. We are concerned about the impact on the local bird population, and the migratory flocks to and from Montrose Basin and Lunan Bay.
We are highly impressed with the sheer biomass of resident bird species in the local area, particularly jackdaws, rooks, house sparrows (nationally threatened), buzzards, and a variety of gulls.
Given that the local farming environment is not actively managed for them, and in many ways is quite detrimental, the size of these flocks is something to cherish locally.
The gulls particularly seem to move about with the tides, between Montrose Basin and Lunan Bay.
Rossie Moor itself is not particularly large, and is highly degraded from its original self by local practices i.e. the non existence of Nicholls Loch as a loch, though it is clearly marked as such on the OS map.
What the SSI is becoming may be a long way removed from what it originally was. The actual size of the moor and the local environment for birds is quite small.
These birds flock up in quite spectacular numbers. These numbers may be due to the fact that suitable habitat elsewhere is in even shorter supply, making this area, such as it is, rather important.
The turbine sites themselves would only add to the degradation of this landscape for birds, and other flora and fauna, particularly the population of deer living locally.
The continuing development of the site, if that is the construction company’s actual plan, would only add to the pressures on the birds to move somewhere else.
Each year the bird population is swelled by the arrival of many thousands of migrating birds. Personally we have seen large flocks of geese and lapwings passing over the house this early in the migrating season.
The height of the turbines would be of real concern to birds and their survival as they pass through this area – we have seen a nationally rare bittern tangled up and killed in lower lying power cables elsewhere, and the sheer height of the turbines would provide a real barrier to birds that cannot fly over.
The reason that Montrose Basin exists as it does is that it is a nationally important site for bird conservation, and recognised as such by the Scottish Government via the SWT.
Montrose Basin, and indeed Lunan Bay, therefore also has to be part of the equation in deciding on the siting of these turbines, and we believe that these would not be favourable in the outcome of this equation, which is to preserve, and enhance, bird numbers.
8. We are concerned about the safety of the wind turbine structures in the longer term and the risk of injury to those in the vicinity if they are not properly constructed and/or maintained.
We have seen press reports of turbine blades cracking and falling off, causing damage to nearby property. We have not seen any assurances about the safety aspects of the proposed turbines, the tolerances to which they are being built or how they will be maintained in the longer term.
As we walk and ride regularly in the area which currently crosses the site of the proposed turbines we are concerned about whether it will be safe to do so, even if the Rights of Way remain open.

Alternatives (c)

I really felt all that to be true, and still do. I don’t understand why turbines can’t be near sites of population, where the intermittent energy can be generated, and used, locally.
It can be windy here, over the Braes, but as often as not it is quite still. The giant anemometer aerial data has been being gathered for over two years now – I wonder if we will be apprised of it? No sigh of the company taking it down though, as per the Planning agreement. When the things do spin you can’t store the electricity, it either is or it isn’t. I wonder if it would actually feed to the National Grid, or be parked somewhere, to dissipate out of a coil in a cul de sac? Or just die where it is, in a quiet moor, unwanted and unloved by anyone.
You can’t use them for base load generation, they are too unpredictable. What is the point of these things, if all they do is just spin around? But the logic is the usual big business one.
These three are just a Trojan Horse to come back to put in more, it has been reliably reported, anecdotally that is, that the engineer said that when they get these three in they will “cover the moor in turbines”.
But that is another conversation.
Driving into Dundee, where the two turbines are located at the Motorola works, it seems obvious that they should be put in industrial estates. You can lose them there, and maintain them easily, something that would never happen with the three on The Moor.
My father would say that the reason that cables are slung up on pylons is so that they can be maintained easily but, in Dundee they have taken down the metal triffids that march up the main road out of town to the A92.

The Outcome (d)

We had a week of the Appeal process, some of which we attended. In the end the application was turned down, by the Reporter, Michael Shiel, on the grounds set out in this link below:

http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/Documents/qJ3499/J76891.pdf

It said:
“Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals

Appeal Decision Notice

T: 01324 696 400
F: 01324 696 444
abcdefghijklmnopqrst

E: dpea@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Decision by Michael Shiel, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers

•
Planning appeal reference: P/PPA/120/222
•
Site address: Land at Mountboy, Adjacent to Rossie School, Montrose, Angus DD10 9TN
•
Appeal by Novera Energy plc against the failure by Angus Council to determine the
planning application within the prescribed time.
•
Application for planning permission no. 07/00050/FUL, dated 5 January 2007.
•
The development proposed: Construction of a wind farm consisting of 3 wind turbines and
ancillary development, including access tracks, hardstandings, wind monitoring mast and
control building.
•
Dates of public local inquiry: 4-7/11-13 November 2008, and 3-5 February 2009 (with
accompanied site visits on 4 and 13 November 2008.)
Date of appeal decision: 26 May 2009

Decision

I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.

Preliminary

This appeal was conjoined with an appeal by Montreathmont Wind Ltd against the failure by
Angus Council to determine within the prescribed period an application for the construction
of a wind farm consisting of 11 wind turbines and ancillary development at Montreathmont
Moor, Friockheim. I have issued a separate decision notice on that appeal.

Background

The proposal comprises the construction of three wind turbines, with a hub height of up to
65 metres and a blade radius of 40 metres, giving a maximum blade tip height of 105
metres, and with an individual generating capacity of 2-2.5 MW; together with the
necessary ancillary development of access tracks, crane hardstandings, a control building,
and a 65 metre high anemometer mast. They would be located on approximately 52
hectares of predominantly arable farmland west of Rossie School, a secure school
operated by Rossie Secure Accommodation Services Ltd. To the north and west of the
appeal site, and adjoining it in part, is the Rossie Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI). About 3.7 km north-east of the site is Montrose Basin Special Protection Area
(SPA), designated under the European Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds.

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX 557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 2

Reasoning

1. The determining issues in this appeal are whether: (1) the proposal accords with the
relevant provisions of the development plan; (2) there are any material considerations that
justify departing from those provisions; (3) the development would have a significant effect
on the qualifying interests of the Montrose Basin SPA, or on any European or other
protected species, having regard to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations
1994, as amended (the Habitat Regulations); (4) the development would adversely affect
Rossie Moor SSSI, having regard to section 12 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act
2004; and (5) it would preserve the setting of listed buildings, having regard to section 59(1)
of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.
The development plan

2. The development plan comprises the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan 20012016
and the Angus Local Plan Review 2009 (ALPR), which was adopted by the council
on 19 February 2009 and supersedes the 2000 Local Plan current when the application
was submitted.
3. The most relevant provision of the structure plan is Environmental Resources Policy
(ERP) 10, which supports proposals for renewable energy developments where they deliver
quantifiable environmental and economic benefits and any significant or cumulative adverse
impacts on the natural and historic environment, landscape and local communities can be
satisfactorily addressed. Development proposals will be considered in the context of the
wider environmental policies of the structure plan and local plans are required to establish
detailed criteria-based policy, locational guidance and, where appropriate, areas of search
for individual sources of renewable energy. The relevant wider environmental policies of
the structure plan are ERP 1 (Natural Heritage Designations), ERP 2 (The Wider Natural
Heritage) and ERP 5A (Historic Environment).
4. The proposal would provide quantifiable environmental benefits in the form of a
contribution of up to 7.5 MW of generating capacity towards the Scottish Government’s
target of 50% of electricity generation from renewable energy sources by 2020; which is
equivalent to some 8 GW of installed capacity. The extent to which it would reduce CO2
emissions into the atmosphere would depend on the type of electricity generation the wind
farm would displace, which is likely to change during the course of its operational life.
However, using what currently appears to be a reasonably well-accepted displacement
figure of 430g/KWh, the three turbines could, at their predicted 29.9% capacity factor,
displace between 6757 and 8447 tonnes of CO2 per annum.
5. Any local economic benefits of the proposal would primarily accrue to the landowner,
a family-owned company with extensive farming interests in the locality. There may also be
some wider economic benefits during the construction and decommissioning phases, but
these would be of a short-term nature and their extent is difficult to determine. Nonetheless
I accept that the development would be likely to provide some local economic benefit, albeit
hard to quantify.
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 3

6. Policy ERP 10 also requires, however, that any significant adverse impacts of the
development be satisfactorily addressed; consideration of which overlaps with the
assessment of the proposal against the appropriate policies of the local plan. Of these, the
most directly relevant are ER34 and ER35. The former supports proposals for all forms of
renewable energy developments in principle and requires them to be assessed against the
following criteria: (a) the siting and appearance of the apparatus have been chosen to
minimise the impact on amenity, while respecting operational efficiency; (b) there will be no
unacceptable adverse landscape and visual impacts having regard to landscape character,
the setting of the development within the immediate and wider landscape, and sensitive
viewpoints; (c) there will be no unacceptable detrimental impact on any sites designated for
nature conservation, scientific, historic or archaeological reasons; (d) associated
transmission lines will have no unacceptable environmental effects; and (e) access for
construction and maintenance traffic can be achieved without compromising road safety or
causing unacceptable and permanent change to the environment or landscape.
7. Policy ER35 relates specifically to wind energy developments which, in addition to
meeting the requirements of policy ER34, must demonstrate: (a) the reasons for site
selection; (b) that no wind turbines will cause unacceptable interference to birds, especially
those with statutory protection and which are susceptible to disturbance, displacement or
collision; (c) that there is no unacceptable detrimental impact on residential amenity,
existing land uses or road safety by reason of shadow flicker, noise or reflected light; (d)
that no wind turbines will interfere with authorised aircraft activity; (e) that no
electromagnetic disturbance is likely to be caused to any transmitting or receiving system,
or that it can be minimised or remedied if it does occur; (f) that the proposal can co-exist
with other existing or permitted wind energy developments in terms of cumulative impact,
particularly on visual amenity and landscape; and (g) that there are realistic proposals for
the removal of redundant apparatus and site restoration.
8. A number of other local plan policies have some bearing on the consideration of this
proposal and will be referred to where appropriate. For convenience, I assess this proposal
against the development plan on the basis of a number of topics, as follows.
Landscape impact

9. Local plan policy ER5 (Conservation of Landscape Character) requires development
proposals to take account of the guidance provided by the Tayside Landscape Character
Assessment (TLCA), prepared for Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) in 1999, and indicates
that, where appropriate, sites selected should be capable of absorbing the proposed
development to ensure that it fits into the landscape. The appeal site is within the Dipslope
Farmland Landscape Character Type (LCT) defined in the TLCA, which extends over a
large area from Montrose Basin south-westwards as far as the countryside north of Dundee
adjoining the Sidlaw Hills. Its key characteristics are its general slope from north-west to
south-east; the dominance of productive agricultural land; low woodland cover, except on
large estates and along river corridors; a variety of historic sites; and the limited visual
impact of Dundee and Arbroath. The landscape is described as of medium scale, semi-
enclosed to open, with extensive arable production on very fertile land, medium to large
fields and a scattered settlement pattern of hamlets and farmsteads.
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 4

10. There was a general consensus amongst the landscape witnesses that the Dipslope
Farmland is a landscape of medium sensitivity to wind farm development; a view with which
I agree. Given its overall size (extending for some 40 km, and where the Zone of
Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) maps in the Environmental Statement (ES) show that there
would be no potential view of the turbines for about half that distance) it is unsurprising that
the small wind farm proposed at Mountboy should be considered to result in a small
magnitude of change and, thus, a moderate/minor impact on the Dipslope Farmland LCT
taken as a whole. I accept that, on that basis, the proposal would not have a significant
impact on this LCT.
11. However, I am not convinced that this conclusion is particularly helpful in assessing
the full landscape impact of this proposal. The wind farm would be located close to the
north-eastern end of the Dipslope Farmland LCT on land which I consider forms a distinct
topographical unit, comprising a ridge of higher land falling away to the south-east to the
valley of the Lunan Water, and more steeply to the north-west towards Montrose Basin.
These lower-lying areas, together with the coastline to the east, accentuate the prominence
of the ridge, despite its maximum height of no more than about 150 metres AOD. The
boundaries of this sub-area are defined in the Angus Windfarms Landscape Capacity
and Cumulative Impacts Study, September 2008, prepared for the council by Ironside
Farrar. Whilst it shares the general landscape characteristics of the wider LCT, the three
tall wind turbines, with their rotating blades, would inevitably have a much greater impact on
the landscape of this smaller area. Although there is an existing television mast about 65
metres high in the grounds of Rossie School, the turbines would be much more substantial
and prominent structures, seen on or close to the skyline from many viewpoints. The ES
acknowledges that they would create a large magnitude of change locally, resulting in a
major/moderate impact, but does not describe the nature of that impact (whether positive,
negative or neutral). Notwithstanding the potential long-term effect of climate change on
landscapes, wind turbines are not sited for the specific purpose of benefitting the landscape
of their locality; and I consider that, in terms of their impact on inherent landscape
character, it should generally be judged as adverse.
12. Even more locally, the turbines would dominate the landscape of Rossie Moor and
its immediate surroundings, which contain a mixture of heathland, scrub woodland, arable
farmland, deciduous and plantation woodlands. A particular characteristic of the landscape
of this part of the ridge is the wide prospects from it, including towards the coast to the east
and south-east and across Strathmore to the north-west; prospects that would be
substantially altered by the presence of the turbines. At this very local level, the
development would have a major adverse impact on the landscape.
13. The appeal site is within a Zone 1 area of lowest natural heritage sensitivity, as
defined by SNH in its Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms in
respect of Natural Heritage (Policy Statement 02/02, update 2005), where there is
considered to be the greatest opportunity for wind farm developments and where a large
number of such developments could be acceptable in natural heritage terms, so long as
they are undertaken sensitively and with due regard to cumulative impact. Supplementing
this broad-brush categorisation, the ALPR identifies three broad geographic areas, derived
from the TLCA, with the appeal site falling within Area 2 (Lowland and Hills), much of which
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 5

is classified as SNH Zone 1; in contrast to the other two areas (Highland and Coast) which
are mainly in Zones 2 and 3 and, thus, of higher natural heritage sensitivity. The local plan,
however, points out that within Area 2 there are locally important examples of higher natural
heritage sensitivity such as small-scale landscapes, skylines and habitats which will
influence the location of wind turbines. It states that in all cases, as advocated by SNH,
good siting and design should show respect for localised interests. I consider that these
general categorisations, whilst indicating broad areas of search for wind farm locations,
provide no endorsement of any individual site.

14. SNH, whilst not objecting to this development, nonetheless stated that its impact
would be likely to be considerable. In paragraph 8 of its consultation response of 23 May
2007, it said:
SNH believes that a windfarm development can be accommodated in this location,
however, we are of the view that the height of the turbines should be reduced. We consider
that at 105m high, the proposed turbines are too tall and would form a dominant feature
seen in the context of the settled Dipslope Farmland character type within which the
windfarm is sited.

This can hardly be seen as an endorsement of the current proposal.

15. In its more detailed advice on landscape impacts in Appendix B of the above-
mentioned response, SNH considered that, while larger scale features such as turbines
could be accommodated in the simple and often open landscape of the Dipslope Farmland,
the presence of smaller scale woodlands/scrub and dispersed farmsteads and houses,
which provide a degree of enclosure and a more diverse pattern, limit the capacity of the
landscape to accommodate particularly tall structures because of the discordant scale
relationship that would occur between elements. It further stated that the 105 metre to
blade tip turbines proposed would be very large structures and would be dominant features
within the context of this settled and farmed landscape, with significant adverse effects on
its landscape character. SNH was of the opinion that its concerns could be successfully
addressed by reducing the overall turbine height by a third (which would result in a blade tip
height of about 70 metres).
16. SNH has provided similar advice in respect of some other wind farm proposals in
Angus and in agricultural landscapes in Aberdeenshire. In a document entitled Designing
Windfarms in the Landscape: Draft for Consultation SNH makes the general point that
large turbines (100-120 metres to blade tip) are likely to be out of scale and visually
dominant in most lowland, settled, or smaller-scale landscapes, characterised by the
relatively human scale of buildings and patterns, such as field and woodland sizes, or by
small-scale topography. In such landscapes, it suggests that turbines of greater than 80100
metres may dwarf existing features such as undulating landforms and scattered
settlement. The consultative status of this document limits the weight that can currently be
given to it, although I consider the general proposition advanced above may have some
merit. I note, however, the criticism made by both the appellant’s landscape witness and
the British Wind Energy Association in their consultation responses to this document of
what they consider to be an over-simplistic relationship between upland and lowland
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 6

landscapes and turbine size. I also note the evidence of the council’s landscape witness
that the advantages of a reduction in turbine size to 70 metres would be relatively marginal
in this case, as they would still be several times taller than other local landscape features,
although there would be some effect in reducing the degree of dominance in close views
and reducing visibility over parts of Rossie Moor. In practice, the point is academic; what is
before me are three 105 metre turbines, and I must assess the proposal on that basis.

17. Although the council has not objected to the Mountboy wind farm on its own, its
landscape witness nonetheless concluded that it would have a significant, adverse
landscape impact. I share that conclusion. I accept that such impact would be largely
confined to the sub-area within the wider Dipslope Farmland LCT described in paragraph
11 above. I find no significant adverse landscape impact on the adjoining LCT: Lowland
Basin (Montrose Basin), Low Moorland Hills (Forfar Hills and Montreathmont Moor), and
Coast (from Lunan Bay to Montrose). From the first of these, the Rossie Moor ridge forms
the southern skyline and parts of the turbines would be visible from various points around
the basin. Whilst this might have a bearing on the visual impact of the development, I am
satisfied that the effect on the intrinsic landscape character of the basin itself would be
relatively minor.
18. Returning to the development plan policies, I conclude that the development cannot
be absorbed into the landscape of the area, as required by policy ER5. However,
compliance with that policy is unlikely to be possible for any wind farm proposal given the
height of the structures involved. A more appropriate test is criterion (b) of policy ER34,
which refers to no unacceptable adverse landscape impact, rather than to the absence of
any such adverse impact. There is no guidance on how acceptability is to be defined. The
appellant’s landscape witness fairly concluded that, whilst the predicted landscape impact
would be localised, it was for the decision-maker to judge the acceptability of that impact.
In doing so at this stage, I am considering only landscape impact; the wider issues that will
affect the overall acceptability of the proposal will be assessed in due course.
19. It is inevitable that any wind farm will have a very substantial impact on the
landscape in its immediate locality because of the height of the structures. In this case that
locality includes Rossie Moor, which I consider has a particularly distinctive landscape.
Notwithstanding its lack of a specific landscape designation (and I place no particular
weight on that as the council has eschewed the use of local landscape designations in its
local plan), I conclude that it has a high landscape value because of the rarity of this type of
heathland within the surrounding settled and intensively managed agricultural landscape
and the recreational potential which it provides. The proximity and height of the proposed
turbines would dominate the immediate landscape, including, as I have previously
indicated, the views that can be obtained from it. All told, I find that the development would
have an unacceptable impact on the immediate landscape of the area.
20. In terms of its effect on the topographical unit defined in paragraph 11 (the Rossie
Moor ridge) I accept that there are certain characteristics of its landscape that would not be
incompatible with the presence of wind turbines; particularly the large open fields on its
southern slopes. The generally horizontal skyline of the ridge is broken into smaller
elements by areas of woodland, such as that around Rossie School. The existing television
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 7

mast is a prominent feature from many surrounding viewpoints. Its scale, however, is
significantly less than that of the proposed turbines and it serves to emphasise how visually
dominant they would be on or close to the skyline of the ridge. Their height to blade tip
would not be substantially less than the height of the ridge above the Lunan Valley and,
despite the limited horizontal extent of the proposed wind farm, I conclude that it would
become a defining characteristic of the landscape of this sub-area, especially when seen
from the south and south-west. The impact when seen from the north would be somewhat
less as the turbines would be beyond the crest of the ridge and partially screened by trees
in various views. Overall, however, I conclude that the wind farm would have an
unacceptably adverse effect on the landscape of the Rossie Moor ridge. As indicated in
paragraph 10, I find that it would not have an adverse impact on the Dipslope Farmland
LCT, taken as a whole. Nonetheless, my overall conclusion on this topic is that the
proposal would have an unacceptable landscape impact and, thus, conflict with criterion (b)
of policy ER34.

Visual impact

21. It is generally accepted that residents should be treated as of high sensitivity in
assessing the significance of visual impact. The magnitude of change (and, thus, the
significance of the impact they will experience) will vary with the context of the house that
they occupy: its distance from the proposed wind farm and orientation in relation to it; the
presence of intervening screening from vegetation and other buildings; and the presence of
other significant visual features. I do not consider that only the views from principal rooms
are of importance. Residents use the space around their house and travel to and from it on
local roads, usually on a daily basis, and the potential visual impact of the turbines in such
circumstances must be taken into account.
22. It is inevitable that those houses closest to the proposed turbines would be subject to
the greatest visual impact. In this case, two properties at Strathella (viewpoint 23), on the
north-west edge of Rossie Moor, would experience a major adverse visual impact from the
presence of the three turbines on the skyline to the south-east, the nearest being at a
distance of about 900 metres. Even more obtrusive would be the view from Pamphry
(viewpoint 22) and a nearby house, to the south-west of the site, where the nearest turbine
would be some 950 metres away. The original visualisations in the ES were superseded by
those in later Supplementary Environmental information (SEI), which dramatically highlight
the visual impact of the turbines from these properties. Perhaps surprisingly, no
visualisations were produced for the group of residential properties at Mountboy,
approximately 1.2 km from the nearest turbine. The impact from that location would be
primarily from one turbine, the others being screened to a large extent by the woodland
around Rossie School. The same woodland would also screen other houses adjoining and
in the grounds of the school. Residential properties further east, such as Gightyburn,
Westerton of Rossie, Woodpark and Govanhill would see the upper parts of the turbines
above that woodland. From West Mains of Rossie, about 2 km east of the nearest turbine,
only the blades of two turbines would be visible, although their movement above the
horizon may draw attention to them. Further east, there would be clear views of all three
turbines in the middle distance beyond the higher ground at Rossie School from properties
alongside or close to the A92, such as East Mains of Dysart and Upper Dysart.
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 8

23. To the south, the turbines would be very prominent from residential properties at
Cothill (viewpoint 2) and Hilton, at distances from about 2.5-3 km, along the minor road
which runs south-westwards to descend into the valley of the Lunan Water. Between this
road and the appeal site is the shallow valley of the Gighty Burn, and large, open
agricultural fields which would allow an unobstructed view of the wind farm. To the southwest
and west, there would be views from properties such as Renmure, Easter Braikie and
at Poole (viewpoint 3), in some cases partially screened or filtered by trees.
24. From the north, the steep slope of the ridge down to the A934 would prevent views
of the turbines from properties along that road, but to the north-west they would be visible
from properties such as Fithie and Whanland; and from some houses in Farnell, including
the cottages at Farnell Mains.
25. Further afield, there would be little visibility of the turbines from the village of
Inverkeilor (viewpoint 4) to the south, but they would be much more prominent from
properties and minor roads on the ridge of higher land to the south-east, at a distance of
about 7.5 km. National Cycle Route 1 follows the road which runs along the crest of this
ridge. The turbines would also be clearly visible in the view north from the A92 in the
vicinity of West Newton (viewpoint 28). They would be seen from the A933 Arbroath-
Brechin Road near Colliston (viewpoint 20), approximately 9.5 km south-west of the site;
and from the B961 north of Redford, about 11.5 km away in the same direction. From the
west, the turbines would be seen from the minor road over Guthrie Hill at a distance of
approximately 10 km and from the summit of Turin Hill (viewpoint 15), some 14 km away. A
number of residential properties situated on the rising ground north of Montreathmont Moor
would also have visibility of the Mountboy wind farm on the skyline, at a distance of 6-7 km.
26. It would be visible from the A90 north of Brechin (viewpoint 16) and from houses
alongside the B966 at Trinity (viewpoint 17) at a distance of about 9.5 km; from about 6 km
on the A935 in the vicinity of the farm at Kincraig (viewpoint 26); and from Bridge of Dun,
where the terminus of the preserved Caledonian Railway is located, approximately 5 km
north of the site. Views from within the grounds of the House of Dun (viewpoint 7), a
National Trust for Scotland (NTS) owned property north of the A935, would be partly
screened by mature trees, especially in summer, but there would be a clear view from
upper floor windows, as demonstrated by the visualisation in the SEI. From residential
properties in Hillside, north of Montrose Basin, the turbines would also be seen on the
skyline at a distance of approximately 8.5 km; as they would from sections of the A937 road
into Montrose. They would be visible from the western edge of the town, as exemplified by
viewpoint 8 from the railway station, but also shared by some residential properties on that
edge of Montrose. In general, views of the turbines from the north would be less prominent
than from the south and west, as they would be beyond the ridge line and partially screened
by the areas of woodland that also appear as noticeable features on the skyline.
27. The visualisations also demonstrate that there would be views of the proposed
turbines from more distant viewpoints: for example, Balmashanner Hill, south of Forfar
(viewpoint 18), at 20 km; White Caterthun (viewpoint 12), in the foothills of the Angus
Highlands some 16 km north-west of the site; and Cairn O’Mount (viewpoint 14) on the
B974 road through the highlands to Deeside, about 27 km north. I am satisfied that any
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 9

impact that the turbines would have on the wide vistas available from such locations in clear
weather would be insignificant.

28. I agree that the most significant visual impact of the proposed turbines would be
experienced in the immediate area, within a radius of about 3-4 km. That such an impact
may be inevitable for a wind farm does not necessarily make it acceptable. Criterion (b) of
ALPR policy ER34 refers to unacceptable visual impacts in relation to sensitive viewpoints.
Again there is no guidance to assist the decision-maker in defining these terms. I consider
that sensitive viewpoints must include residential properties that would experience a
significant adverse visual impact as a result of the development, given the high sensitivity
accorded to residents in visual impact assessment. Guidelines for Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment (The Landscape Institute/Institute of Environmental
Management and Assessment) indicates that sensitive visual receptors may also include
the users of outdoor recreational facilities, including public rights of way, whose attention or
interest may be focused on the landscape.
29. On that basis, I find that the proposed wind farm would have an unacceptable visual
impact on the occupants of the residential properties at and in the immediate vicinity of
Strathella, Pamphry and Mountboy. I also find that it would have an unacceptable visual
impact on recreational users of Rossie Moor and the public rights of way which cross the
appeal site. To the extent that such users are local residents it would extend the
unacceptable visual impact to those who live further from the site than the properties
referred to above, and to those who come to Rossie Moor from further afield. I consider
that a number of residential properties situated to the south and south-west of the site,
although further from the turbines, would also experience an unacceptable adverse visual
impact because of the uninterrupted view of them across the intervening open land.
30. I find that the proposed turbines would have an adverse visual impact in certain
longer distance views where they would appear as very prominent features on the skyline
of the Rossie Moor Ridge. This would be particularly the case in views from the south and
south-west. Given the distances involved, however, I do not consider that the impact on
residential receptors affected by such views, albeit adverse, would be unacceptable.
31. Overall I conclude that the proposal would conflict with policy ER34(b) of the ALPR
in causing an unacceptable visual impact on residents and recreational users in the vicinity
of the appeal site.
Cumulative landscape and visual impact

32. The cumulative impact of the proposed Mountboy wind farm has been assessed in
combination with 14 other operational, approved or proposed wind farms identified in the
SEI, although it subsequently transpired that one of the latter had been withdrawn. Of the
remaining 13, five are in Angus, of which one, an 8-turbine scheme at Ark Hill has
permission. There is only one currently operational wind farm; the two turbines at the
Michelin factory on the edge of Dundee. The other seven wind farms are in the adjoining
part of Aberdeenshire, to the north-east of Angus, of which five have permission.
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 10

33. On the basis of the evidence before me, including the cumulative ZTVs, I conclude
that, with the exception of the Montreathmont Moor proposal, the cumulative landscape and
visual impact of Mountboy with all the other wind farms would not be significant, because of
the distances involved and the relatively small scale of most of the proposals. The Ironside
Farrar study concluded that the currently proposed level of wind farm development in
Angus would not result in a significant or unacceptable level of change in the landscape
over Angus as a whole, or even over the lowland area taken as a whole. There would,
however, likely be a significant cumulative change in the lowland area east and south of the
A90, where wind farms could become a key defining element in the landscape.
Notwithstanding, I am satisfied that the contribution of Mountboy to such an overall
cumulative impact (which is a worst-case scenario assuming all the wind farms considered
in the study are permitted and built) would be limited.
34. There was a general consensus that the critical cumulative impact to be considered
is that between Mountboy and the proposal for 11 turbines, with a maximum blade tip
height of 126 metres, at Montreathmont Moor some 6 km to the west; although some
disagreement between the landscape witnesses as to the appropriate methodology for
undertaking such an assessment. The issue in dispute was whether the effect of Mountboy
should be added to a theoretical baseline containing the Montreathmont Moor wind farm,
the approach which appears to be advocated in SNH’s guidance document Cumulative
Effects of Windfarms, 2005; or whether the cumulative effect of the two proposals should
be addressed together. The principal difference between these approaches is that, in the
first case, the impact of the wind farm under consideration is assessed against a theoretical
landscape baseline which already contains a wind farm; whereas in the second both
proposals together are assessed against a baseline with no wind farms.
35. From my consideration of the cumulative ZTVs for Mountboy and Montreathmont,
and my observations from a number of visits to the locality, I consider that the most affected
areas would be: (a) the rising land to the north of Montreathmont Moor and Forest; (b) parts
of the area lying between the two sites including around Farnell and the slopes to the southeast
leading up to Rossie Moor; (c) parts of the Dipslope Farmland LCT to the south and
west of Friockheim; (d) areas of higher land to the west and south-west of Montreathmont
Forest such as Turin Hill and Guthrie Hill; and (e) some areas around Montrose Basin and
the rising land to the north. The two wind farms lie in different LCTs as defined in the
TLCA: Rossie Moor in the Dipslope Farmland and Montreathmont Moor in the Low
Moorland Hills; whilst some of the land in between is at the western end of the Lowland
Basin LCT. Although there was some debate as to the exact extent of its boundaries, I do
not disagree with the general assessment of the Ironside Farrar study that the combined
landscape impact of the two proposals would be to create a “Landscape with Windfarms”
character over parts of these three LCTs, within which wind turbines would become a
defining characteristic.
36. However, the major contribution to that character would come from the
Montreathmont Moor wind farm because of the greater areal extent, number and height of
its turbines. It is true that the Mountboy wind farm would be on higher ground, so the
difference in turbine height would not be readily apparent, and it would extend the
landscape impact of wind turbines over a wider area. Nonetheless, I conclude that, had I
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 11

been minded to approve the Montreathmont Moor wind farm (and, for the reasons set out in
the decision notice on that appeal, I have not done so), the cumulative landscape effect of
the Mountboy proposal, either in total or incrementally, would not be unacceptable.

37. I reach the same conclusion with regards to the cumulative visual impact. The
additional wireframe diagrams prepared for the cumulative session of the inquiry
demonstrate that, from viewpoints where the Montreathmont Moor wind farm would have a
major visual impact, the additional effect of Mountboy would be relatively minor. Although it
might increase the overall arc of view within which wind turbines could be seen, those at
Montreathmont Moor would generally be so dominant that the impact of the three turbines
at Mountboy would be limited. Even from properties in the area between the two sites,
where the two wind farms would mainly be seen in succession and the Mountboy turbines
would be more prominently located on the skyline, I still consider that the Montreathmont
Moor wind farm would be the overwhelmingly dominant visual element.
38. Turning to the development plan, the only local plan policy that specifically refers to
cumulative impact is criterion (f) of policy ER35, which requires that wind energy proposals
must be capable of co-existing with other existing or permitted developments in terms of
cumulative impact, particularly on visual amenity and landscape. As worded, the policy is
not applicable to a situation where neither wind farm exists or has been permitted. If taken
literally, “co-existing” need only mean that two or more wind farms can exist at the same
time with each other; a criterion that virtually any proposals would meet. Whilst reference to
visual amenity and landscape implies that judgment is required, it is regrettable that the
wording is not explicit in requiring an acceptable level of cumulative impact. In this case,
the only existing or permitted wind energy developments relevant to the assessment are
those at Ark Hill, in Dundee, and in Aberdeenshire and I have concluded in paragraph 33
above that Mountboy would have no significant cumulative impact in combination with any
of these schemes. The proposed wind farm does not therefore conflict with policy ER35(f).
39. Criterion (b) of policy ER34 concerns landscape and visual impacts of renewable
energy projects and there is no reason why this should not encompass cumulative impacts.
Structure plan policy ERP 10 specifically requires such cumulative impacts to be
satisfactorily addressed. Based on my conclusions in paragraphs 36 and 37 above, I find
that the Mountboy wind farm would not conflict with these policies when considered in
combination with the Montreathmont Moor proposal. In this conclusion I differ from the
council’s decision that, if the latter scheme was allowed, it would oppose Mountboy on the
basis of cumulative impacts; although this was not a position that was specifically endorsed
by either of its professional witnesses.
Effect on residential amenity

40. I concluded in paragraph 29 above that the turbines would have an unacceptable
visual impact on the occupants of a number of residential properties in the locality of the
site and it follows that their amenity would be adversely affected by the development.
Criterion (a) of ALPR policy ER34 requires the siting and appearance of renewable energy
apparatus to be chosen to minimise its impact on amenity, while respecting operational
efficiency. Whilst it is suggested in closing submissions for the appellant that this criterion
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 12

concerns only the design of the apparatus, I consider that the reference to siting must also
relate to its location. If the turbines had been reduced in height to about 70 metres, as
recommended by SNH, I accept that they would still have been substantially taller than any
other feature in the area, with the exception of the television mast at Rossie School. I also
acknowledge that most people would be unable to judge, in isolation, whether a turbine was
70 metres or 100 metres high. However, I have no doubt that the choice of a lower turbine
height would have reduced the visual impact of this development to a significant extent from
those houses most severely affected by the current proposal. This is particularly illustrated
by the comparative wireframe diagrams produced showing the effect of reducing overall
turbine height from 105 to 70 metres when seen from Pamphry. To that extent, it cannot be
said that the appearance of the apparatus has minimised its impact on visual amenity.

41. I recognise that reducing the rotor diameter of the turbines would very substantially
reduce their power output. I have to say that I do not find the term “respecting operational
efficiency” very helpful, as it is not clear whether it refers to the individual items of apparatus
or the whole development. If the former, I have no reason to believe that smaller turbines
would not operate efficiently on this site, although the overall result could be said to be a
reduced efficiency in the conversion of the wind resource into electrical energy. I am not
persuaded that, as a general proposition, maximising power output from any site should be
the overriding consideration; rather, it is a question of seeking an acceptable balance
between “harvesting” the available wind resource and the landscape and visual impact of
the necessary apparatus. Given my conclusions that the three 105 metre turbines would
have an unacceptable landscape and visual impact at this location, I find the development
to be in conflict with policy ER34(a).
42. Other potential impacts on residential amenity are covered in criterion (c) of policy
ER35. I am satisfied that the issue of shadow flicker, if it was to be a problem at all, could
be adequately covered by a condition requiring the installation of the appropriate equipment
and software. There is no evidence before me concerning reflected light. On the matter of
noise, agreement was reached between the main parties, including the Stop Turbines on
Rossie Moor action group (STORM), on a series of conditions which would ensure that
noise immission levels at the closest residential properties would comply with the guidance
in The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (ETSU-R-97), the use of
which is recommended in PAN 45 – Renewable Technologies. I conclude, therefore, that
the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on residential amenity by reason of noise.
Overall, I find that the development would comply with the specific requirements of policy
ER35(c) in relation to residential amenity.
The impact of the proposal on Rossie School

43. That policy also refers to other land uses. Concerns were expressed by Rossie
Secure Accommodation Services Ltd. over the potential effect the wind farm would have on
Rossie School, which provides secure residential accommodation for the care and
education of children placed there through the Children’s Hearing system or as a result of
court sentencing, and who suffer from a variety of emotional, social and psychological
problems. It is one of seven similar establishments in Scotland, but the only one in a
secluded rural location. The average length of stay for the children is about six months.
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 13

The school is nearing the completion of a major new-build programme for both classroom
and residential accommodation, which will provide more open places as well as the secure
places, and may lead to some children staying longer as they move from secure to open
accommodation. It is set in extensive wooded grounds at the highest point on the Rossie
Moor ridge. There are 18 tenanted houses within the grounds, but none are occupied by
staff or others associated with the school.

44. In general, views of the proposed turbines from the school buildings would be
screened by the intervening high ground and trees, although there would be visibility of the
upper parts from some windows in the new residential accommodation, especially in winter.
There would be no views from the new classrooms. Given the extent of the screening, I do
not consider that the wind farm would be overly obtrusive or visually distracting when seen
from within the school buildings. The children do make use of the grounds, mainly on a
supervised basis, and there would be clear views of turbines from the horticultural training
area south of the school buildings and the wooded areas on the western edge of the
grounds. However, I do not believe that the presence of the turbines would significantly
detract from the enjoyment and benefits of such outdoor activities for the children involved.
45. I am satisfied that the agreed noise conditions would provide adequate protection for
the school as well as surrounding residential properties; and I consider that shadow flicker
is unlikely to be a problem but could, in any event, be dealt with through an appropriate
condition. I have no doubt that the maintenance of a calm, well-ordered atmosphere in an
establishment such as Rossie School is desirable, but I find no compelling evidence to
suggest that the presence of the wind farm would make that more difficult. Nor do I find any
evidence that it would deter local authorities and others from placing children at the school,
as is feared by its management. It seems to me that such decisions will be based
overwhelmingly on factors such as the quality of the facilities and services offered and the
specific needs and circumstances of the child. Whilst the rural setting of the school may
have certain benefits, there is no evidence to indicate that it is a prerequisite for the service
it provides; indeed its location seems to owe more to historical accident than design.
46. I therefore conclude that, in relation to the circumstances of Rossie School, the
proposed development would not conflict with criterion (c) of ALPR policy ER35.
Impact on recreation and tourism

47. A number of claimed public rights of way cross the appeal site and Rossie Moor,
some of which the council is seeking to include within its Core Paths Plan. In addition the
Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 gives more general statutory access rights. Although
there is no quantitative data available on the use of the Rossie Moor area for recreational
purposes, I am satisfied from the evidence that it is well used by walkers, horse riders and
cyclists. Many of these are also local residents and the presence of the turbines would
compound any loss of amenity that they might experience from direct views from their
houses. Other recreational users come from further afield, including riders using the nearby
livery stables at Westerton of Rossie.
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 14

48. As previously indicated, I consider Rossie Moor to have a high landscape value
because of its character and recreational potential. It provides a rare example in this part of
Angus of semi-natural landscape and vegetation within a well-farmed area and, when on
the moor itself, one is struck by its distinctiveness. It is an area of peace and tranquillity
with very wide views as one moves about: to the coast, and across Strathmore to the
highlands in the north. In addition to the direct detrimental visual impact of the proposed
turbines, I consider that the aesthetic experience of recreational users would be
substantially diminished by the close proximity of three very tall man-made structures.
49. I accept that, apart from during construction of the wind farm, access to the area
would not be prevented by the presence of the turbines. I do not agree, however, that the
new and upgraded access tracks required for this development would be of benefit to
walkers or horse riders, compared to the present tracks. Rather, I consider that the
existence of 5 metre-wide, hard-surfaced tracks, built to a standard to take heavy vehicles,
would further detract from the visual amenity and current ambience of the area. Two of the
proposed turbines would be situated approximately 125 metres north of the east-west path
crossing the site; depending on the wind direction their blade tips could come within 85
metres. Some concern was expressed by local residents about the risk of ice-throw during
cold weather. That such a risk exists is acknowledged by the appellant and measures can
be taken to stop the turbines during periods when it is greatest. There is no evidence that
the risk of injury as a result of ice-throw is great, but I accept that it could cause anxiety to
some users of the path, further reducing their enjoyment of the area.
50. Similarly, the evidence of the effect of turbines on horses is inconclusive. It appears
that some horses will tolerate their presence, whilst others may be “spooked” by them. I
note the recommendations of the British Horse Society on the minimum separation distance
they wish to see between turbines and routes used by horses. That no reference is made
to this in current Scottish national guidance on wind farms does not mean that it should be
given no weight, but the advice appears to be based on a relatively limited amount of
anecdotal evidence on how horses have reacted close to wind turbines. The most that can
perhaps be said is that concern over how their horse might behave when passing close to
moving turbine blades might cause anxiety to some riders which, in turn, would diminish
their enjoyment of this recreational activity.
51. However, in general, I conclude that the proposed wind farm would have a
detrimental impact on the recreational use of Rossie Moor and the adjoining paths. As an
adverse affect on the overall amenity of the area, this would conflict with criterion (a) of
policy ER34.
52. In contrast, despite some concerns expressed, I find no persuasive evidence to
suggest that the presence of the wind farm would have a significant adverse effect on
tourism in this part of Angus.
Nature conservation issues

53. The relevant development plan policies are ERP 1 in the structure plan, and ER1
(Natura 2000 and Ramsar Sites), ER2 (National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222
15

Scientific Interest) and ER35(b) of the ALPR. Consideration of the proposed development
in relation to these policies overlaps with the third and fourth determining issues identified in
paragraph 1, and these matters can conveniently be dealt with together.

54. The Montrose Basin SPA is about 3.7 km north-east of the appeal site and, for the
most part, comprises a shallow intertidal basin containing the enclosed estuary of the River
South Esk. It provides an important roosting location for migratory bird species which
overwinter each year in the UK. The majority of species which comprise the qualifying
interests of the SPA are waterfowl, which feed either entirely within its boundaries or on
coastal and intertidal habitats, such that their regular flight activity would not bring them into
contact with the proposed Mountboy wind farm. In contrast, two species – pink-footed and
greylag geese – range over a wide area of farmland surrounding the SPA to feed, and may
both fly over the area of the three turbines and use land in their vicinity for feeding.
55. In terms of the requirements of regulation 48(1) of the Habitats Regulations, the
proposed wind farm is not necessary for the conservation management of the Montrose
Basin SPA. SNH has advised, in its submission of 5 December 2008, that the proposal
would have a likely significant effect on the qualifying interests of the SPA in relation to
pink-footed and greylag geese. It is therefore necessary for me to undertake an
appropriate assessment of the implications of the development on the SPA in view of its
conservation objectives, of which six have been identified by SNH. In carrying out such an
assessment, I give substantial weight to the advice provided by SNH as the agency
responsible for advising central government on all aspects of Scotland’s natural heritage.
56. In relation to the six conservation objectives, I accept that:
•
The wind farm would not cause any deterioration of the habitats of pink-footed and
greylag geese within the SPA itself.
•
It would not cause any visual or noise disturbance to geese within the SPA.
•
It would not affect the distribution of geese within the SPA.
•
The wind farm would have no impact on the distribution and habitats within the SPA.
•
It would not affect the structure, function or supporting processes of the habitats
within the SPA that provide roost sites for pink-footed and greylag geese.
57. The remaining objective concerns the maintenance of the population of the two
goose species as a viable component of the SPA. Dealing firstly with greylag geese, the
numbers roosting at the SPA have declined over the last 10 years because of a change in
the distribution pattern of wintering birds. The vantage point surveys carried out for the
appellant, the results of which are summarised in the ES, recorded a limited number of
flights of greylag geese in the vicinity of the wind farm site; and SNH is satisfied that the
survey work was sufficient to provide a robust sample to inform a collision risk analysis.
The estimate of collision risk to greylags from the Mountboy proposal is zero; even when
the potential cumulative risk associated with other wind farm proposals in the area is taken
into account, the estimate is for less than one greylag goose mortality a year. SNH has
also advised that the displacement of greylags from feeding areas or regular flight paths,
either as a result of Mountboy alone or cumulatively, would not be significant. On the basis
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 16

of the evidence before me I conclude that the proposed wind farm would not adversely
affect the population of greylag geese as a viable component of the SPA.

58. Turning to pink-footed geese, the number using the SPA for roosting has remained
relatively stable over the last 10 years, although it fluctuates from year to year. The mean
winter peak for the period from 2003/4 – 2007/8 was 27,379 birds, approximately 11% of
the UK population of about 241,000. Pink-footed geese may forage up to about 20 km from
their roosting site. The vantage point surveys at Mountboy recorded over 29,000 pink-
footed geese flying over the area, of which approximately 51% were at risk, passing
through the potential turbine envelope. SNH is satisfied that the survey work was sufficient
to provide a robust sample to inform a collision risk analysis. It has also confirmed that it
accepts that the avoidance rate for geese species is 99%. On this basis, the collision risk
as modelled in the ES would result in 17 mortalities per year. SNH, having undertaken its
own analysis of the survey data, has advised that the wind farm could result in 25 pink-
footed geese deaths a year. In either case, however, this is a very small percentage of the
peak wintering population, and compares to about 500 deaths annually from licensed
shooting in and around the basin. There is no evidence to suggest that adding the
predicted number of deaths resulting from the wind farm to the present number of nonnatural
deaths would prejudice the integrity of the wintering population at Montrose Basin or
nationally. There is, however, some evidence that actual avoidance rates are higher than
used in the collision risk modelling at 99.82-99.93%. On that basis annual mortality would
only be between about 1-3 geese.
59. The vantage point surveys undertaken for the ES did not record any geese using the
appeal site itself for feeding. Evidence from local residents indicates that this occurs on a
frequent basis, and I witnessed it on one of my visits to the site. SNH advises that collision
risk and displacement are considered to be mutually exclusive impacts, in that birds either
continue to use the area within the turbine envelope for feeding and are, therefore, at risk of
collision, or they are displaced from it. In the absence of detailed research and monitoring,
it is difficult to know which impact is more likely; and, at the level of individual birds, some
species may vary in their response. Pink-footed geese will feed in a wide catchment
around the SPA, depending on the crops available, and their feeding patterns will show
variation both spatially and over time. There is no evidence to suggest that the land within
the appeal site is preferentially used by geese from the SPA. SNH has estimated that, if
the foraging area currently available to pink-footed geese in the vicinity of the appeal site is
lost, it would represent only about 0.07% of the area of 79,349 ha of the potential feeding
catchment around the SPA; an insignificant proportion. SNH has also advised that any
displacement in flight paths for the geese in order to avoid the turbines would have little
impact in terms of increasing the energetic cost to the birds, given the very broad range of
flights that they already undertake.
60. In terms of the potential cumulative impact on pink-footed geese, SNH has advised
that an upper estimate of collision mortality from all consented or proposed wind farms
within approximately 30 km of the SPA is about 170 deaths per year, of which 121 would
arise from the Montreathmont Moor proposal. Although I consider this issue in more detail
in my decision notice on that appeal, I accept the advice of SNH that this level of mortality
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 17

would not result in any noticeable decline in average population sizes at Montrose Basin, or
affect pink-footed geese as a viable component of the SPA.

61. Overall, I find that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate, even on a
precautionary basis, that the Mountboy wind farm would not have an adverse impact on the
integrity of Montrose Basin SPA, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
I conclude that I would not, therefore, be precluded from granting planning permission in
terms of the Habitat Regulations.
62. Rossie Moor SSSI adjoins the appeal site. It has been designated because of its
mixture of habitats, including oligotrophic and mesotrophic mire communities (these terms
relate to the levels of nutrients that the water bodies receive), surrounded by extensive
areas of lowland dwarf shrub, interspersed with pockets of unimproved meadow and
birchwood. It is the largest and most diverse remaining area of such habitat in Angus, and
also supports an exceptionally high number of water beetle and fly species. Following a
number of amendments to the original proposals to overcome objections from SNH, I am
satisfied that the wind farm would have no direct impact on the SSSI. The main potential
indirect effect would be on its hydrological conditions; through, for example, alterations to
groundwater flow, possible chemical pollution and sedimentation via groundwater flow, or
sedimentation via surface water runoff. There are no surface watercourses draining from
the site to the SSSI, so the principal impact would be through groundwater linkage. The
greatest risk is during the construction phase.
63. Having considered the evidence before me, including the advice from SNH and the
Scottish Environment Protection Agency, I am satisfied that the interests of the SSSI could
be adequately protected through appropriate conditions, as have been agreed by the main
parties. I find that to grant permission for this development would not, therefore, conflict
with the requirement of section 12(2) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to
further the conservation and enhancement of the SSSI.
64. Although there are bats, which are European protected species, present in the area
surrounding the site, there is no compelling evidence to indicate that the wind farm would
have an adverse effect on them; or on the red squirrels which are found in the woodlands
around Rossie School and in other locations, and are protected under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981, as amended. No other protected mammal, reptile or amphibian
species were found on or in the vicinity of the appeal site, the greater part of which
comprises arable farmland of low ecological value. The ES indicates that the site supports
a fairly typical assemblage of breeding farmland birds, including several species included in
the Scottish Biodiversity List, whilst other species in that list were seen in the area, although
not found to be breeding on the site. Other species of high conservation value were
observed flying over the site in small numbers. I am satisfied that, subject to the avoidance
of disturbance to breeding birds during construction, a matter that could be covered by a
condition, the wind farm would not have a significant impact on any other bird species, in
terms of either collision risk or displacement. To grant planning permission would not,
therefore, conflict with the duty to further the conservation of biodiversity in section 1 of the
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 18

65. On the basis of my findings in the preceding paragraphs, I conclude that the
development would comply with structure plan policy ERP 1, and with ALPR policies ER1,
ER2 and criterion (b) of policy ER35.
Impact on cultural heritage

66. The relevant development plan policies are structure plan policy ERP 5A, and
policies ER16 (Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building), ER18
(Archaeological Sites of National Importance), ER19 (Archaeological Sites of Local
Importance), ER20 (Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes) and ER34(c) of the
ALPR. Assessment of the proposal against these policies can be considered alongside the
fifth determining issue in paragraph 1 above.
67. There are no archaeological sites of national or local importance that would be
adversely affected by the proposed wind farm. There are a number of estates and gardens
included within the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland from
which there may be potential views of the turbines, but I am satisfied that, given the
distances involved and extent of screening by vegetation, the development would not
significantly affect the character of integrity of any such Historic Gardens and Designed
Landscapes.
68. The ES identified 426 category A and B listed buildings within 15 km of the site and I
accept its conclusions that for the vast majority of these any impact of the wind farm on
their setting would be negligible. It is argued for STORM, however, that the development
would adversely affect the setting of the House of Dun, a category A listed building situated
6 km north-east of the site, and would, thus, be contrary to the requirement of section 59(1)
of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 that special
regard be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their settings and any
features of architectural or historic interest that they possess. The NTS, which owns the
House of Dun, withdrew its original objection to the proposal, and Historic Scotland has also
raised no concerns in this respect.
69. From the visualisations in the SEI and my own observations I agree that the three
turbines would be prominent features on the skyline to the south-west when seen from
upper floor windows of the house and from the steps adjoining its south-east elevation.
From the terrace and grounds in front of the house views would be screened or filtered by
the mature trees within the policies. The Technical Guidance Notes published by Historic
Scotland following withdrawal of the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas on 31 March 2009 retain the advice in section 10.0.0 of Appendix 1 of
that document in respect of development affecting the setting of a listed building. This
states that, at all times, the listed building should remain the focus of its setting and
attention must never be distracted by the presence of any new development whether within
or outwith its curtilage. It further indicates that development outwith the curtilage should be
regarded as affecting the setting where it will be seen in any principal view of or from the
listed building. The principal view from the south-east façade of the House of Dun is southeastwards
over its grounds towards the Montrose Basin. Although the presence of the
turbines on the ridgeline to the south-west may distract the eye of viewers to some degree,
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 19

I am not persuaded that, given the distance involved, their impact would be sufficient to
adversely affect the setting of this listed building taken as a whole. The impact would be
neutral and, thus, preserve the setting of the House of Dun.

70. Overall I conclude that the proposal would not conflict with the policies listed in
paragraph 66 above; nor would it conflict with the statutory requirements of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.
Other development plan considerations

71. Policies ER34 and ER35 of the ALPR contain a number of other requirements not
yet considered. In relation to the first of these policies I find that there would be no
unacceptable environmental effects of transmission lines associated with the wind farm
(criterion (d)); and that the evidence indicates that access for construction and maintenance
traffic can be achieved without compromising road safety or causing unacceptable and
significant environmental or landscape change (criterion (e)).
72. Criterion (a) of policy ER35 states that wind energy developments must demonstrate
the reasons for site selection. It does not, however, call for any comparative evaluation of
those reasons as against potential alternative sites and is, thus, easily met by the factors
listed in paragraph 2.1.1. of the ES. There is no evidence that the wind turbines would
interfere with authorised aircraft activity (criterion (d)). The issue of electromagnetic
disturbance to any existing transmitting or receiving system (criterion (e)) can be
adequately covered by a condition; as can the means for removing apparatus when
redundant and the restoration of the site (criterion (g)).
Overall conclusions in respect of the development plan

73. From the above I conclude that, whilst the proposed wind farm would comply with
many of the relevant policies and criteria in the ALPR, it would conflict with others to a
significant extent; in particular criteria (a) and (b) of policy ER34. Policy ER35 requires
wind energy developments to meet the requirements of policy ER34 and is, therefore, also
not met. As significant adverse effects of the proposal on the landscape and local
communities have not, in my view, been satisfactorily addressed I also conclude that the
development does not comply with structure plan policy ERP 10.
74. Overall, I find that the proposed wind farm at Mountboy would not accord with the
development plan.
Other material considerations

75. It is necessary, however, to determine whether there are any material considerations
that justify approving the proposal, notwithstanding its lack of compliance with the
development plan. Foremost amongst such considerations are the UK and Scottish
Governments’ energy policies, especially as translated into Scottish planning policy through
SPP 6: Renewable Energy. This demonstrates Scottish Ministers strong support for
increasing the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and their
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 20

recognition that onshore wind power is expected to make the most substantial contribution
towards meeting renewable targets in the immediate future. The targets referred to in SPP
6 have been superseded, with the aim now of generating 50% of electricity in Scotland from
renewable sources by 2020, with an interim target of 31% by 2011; equating to about 8 GW
and 5 GW of installed generating capacity respectively.

76. Set against these targets, the potential generating capacity from the Mountboy wind
farm of about 7.5 MW is very small. Paragraph 54 of SPP 6 makes clear that projects
making a small contribution to renewables targets should not be dismissed as of little
benefit, as they have the potential to make a significant cumulative contribution. It does
caution, however, that unacceptable impacts should be satisfactorily mitigated. In respect
of the environmental benefits to be obtained from the wind farm, referred to in paragraph 4
above, I do not accept the contention made on behalf of STORM that these can only be
taken into account in any balancing exercise if they can be guaranteed through, for
example, a section 75 agreement. The government’s targets are set out in terms of
installed capacity and it is implicit in this approach that the provision of this capacity will
provide general environmental benefits; for example, a reduction of CO2 emissions into the
atmosphere. I do not believe that there is any policy support for seeking a guarantee of
electricity output from individual schemes, effectively as a proxy for guaranteeing the level
of environmental benefit. I do not consider that paragraph 52 of SPP6 is intended to cover
such a possibility, but is rather directed towards site-specific environmental, social or
economic benefits that may be associated with particular developments.
77. Nonetheless, the very modest contribution towards meeting national targets that this
development would provide is a factor to be taken into account in the overall balance to be
struck between its benefits and disbenefits, as is made clear in paragraph 54 of SPP 6.
Paragraph 55 states that where valid concerns have been raised as part of the planning
process it will be necessary to demonstrate how they can be overcome or how detrimental
environmental effects can be minimised. In increasing the Scottish renewables target in
November 2007, the Minister indicated that renewable energy was not wanted “anywhere
or at any price to the environment”. The advice in PAN 45 on the visual impact of wind
turbines recognises that they are likely to be highly visible, especially within a radius of up
to 5 km. It states that developers should seek to ensure that their landscape and visual
impacts are limited and appropriate to the location through good siting and design.
78. Deciding what impacts are “appropriate” in any specific circumstances clearly
involves a significant element of judgement but, from my assessment of the evidence and
visits to the appeal site and the surrounding area, I consider that this proposal would result
in a significant adverse landscape and visual impact and would be detrimental to the
amenity of local residents and recreational users of the Rossie Moor area. Paragraph 71 of
PAN 45 acknowledges that some landscapes will be able to accommodate wind farms
more readily than others. Whilst it states that it is important for society at large to accept
wind farms as a feature of many areas of Scotland for the foreseeable future, I do not
believe that this means that they must be accepted in every circumstance, irrespective of
their particular impact. That the adverse impact in this case would be confined to a
relatively small area does not mean that it should necessarily be over-ridden by the wider
benefits associated with the increased provision of energy from renewable sources. In the
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR
DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals

abcdefghij abcde abc
a

 
P/PPA/120/222 21

particular circumstances of this case, I find that the small contribution that this wind farm
would make to Scottish and UK renewable targets does not outweigh its significant adverse
local impact. I conclude that there is nothing in national energy policy or SPP 6 which
justifies granting planning permission contrary to the provisions of the development plan.

79. I have given careful consideration to all the evidence and submissions in this case,
including the ES and other relevant environmental information, but find no other matters
that persuade me to determine this appeal other than in accordance with those provisions.
Conclusion

80. Returning to the five determining issues identified in paragraph 1 I conclude that,
whilst the last three would not justify the refusal of planning permission, the proposal does
not accord with the development plan in significant respects, and there are no other
material considerations that warrant granting permission in the circumstances of this case.
This is a true and certified copy of the decision issued on 26 May 2009.

MICHAEL D SHIEL
Reporter “

What the Local Newspaper said

And the local newspaper The (Angus and Mearns) Courier, carried the following article, on the 29th May 2009:
“Wind farm groups claim victory

By Graham Brown

ANGUS CAMPAIGNERS were celebrating last night after winning their fight to halt two wind farm developments in the district.

A Scottish Government planning reporter’s decision to dismiss appeals lodged over planned schemes at Montreathmont, near Friockheim, and Mountboy, close to Montrose, was hailed as a victory for the communities who joined forces through two campaign groups to battle the plans at a public inquiry.

That inquiry was staged in Montrose between last November and February this year after two companies appealed Angus Council’s failure to determine their planning applications within prescribed time limits.

The Montreathmont Wind Ltd proposal involved siting 11 turbines—with a maximum blade height of 126 metres—on a 546-hectare site west of the Arbroath-Brechin road.

The second application, by Novera Energy plc, was for a three-turbine wind farm on 52 hectares of farmland west of Rossie School. The maximum blade height of that scheme was indicated at 105 metres.

Scottish Ministers’ Reporter Michael Shiel has now released his findings, and in both cases said the renewable energy contribution the wind farms would make did not outweigh what would be “significant local impact.”

On the larger, Montreathmont plan, Mr Shiel said the scheme would comply with many relevant Angus plans and policies, but overall was against the district’s development plan.

Mr Shiel also highlighted the scale of the proposed turbines, saying they were simply “too large.”

“It is generally acknowledged that a negative landscape effect can be achieved not only by the removal of characteristic features, but also by the addition of incongruous new elements.

“I consider that the introduction of 126 metre high, moving structures into the current landscape of Montreathmont Moor and its immediate surroundings would have such an adverse effect,” he added.

“Whilst noting the broad support of the council and SNH for the appropriateness of Montreathmont Moor as a suitable location for wind farms in principle….I find that whatever benefits in landscape terms might be derived from the containment of the turbines within the forest would be outweighed by their height when contrasted with that of the trees.

“They would dominate the landscape of the area to an unacceptable degree and would fail to fit comfortably into the overall landscape setting,” the Reporter continued.

Similar concerns over the dominant aspect of wind turbines were expressed in relation to the Mountboy plan, which the reporter said would have a “very small” generating capacity.

“Deciding what impacts are appropriate in any specific circumstances clearly involves a significant element of judgment but, from my assessment of the evidence and visits to the appeal site and the surrounding area, I consider that this proposal would result in a significant adverse landscape and visual impact and would be detrimental to the amenity of local residents and recreational users of the Rossie Moor area.”

He added, “Whilst it (Planning Advice Note 45) states that it is important for society at large to accept wind farms as a feature of many areas of Scotland for the foreseeable future, I do not believe that this means that they must be accepted in every circumstance, irrespective of their particular impact.

“That the adverse impact in this case would be confined to a relatively small area does not mean that it should necessarily be over-ridden by the wider benefits associated with the increased provision of energy from renewable sources.

“In the particular circumstances of this case, I find that the small contribution that this wind farm would make to Scottish and UK renewable targets does not outweigh its significant adverse local impact.”

The proposals were fought on two fronts by action groups Friends of the Forest (FoF) and STORM (Stop Turbines on Rossie Moor), with one campaigner last night lauding their combined drive as a key factor in convincing the government reporter to block the bids.

FoF chairman Jim Hair said, “We are so pleased with this decision.

“It made no sense to put wind turbines in a low wind area, but there were so many other reasons why these turbines should never have been considered, not least their impact on the landscape, wildlife, ancient woodland, a much loved public amenity and neighbouring properties.

“This proposal brought uncertainty to many people living and working in the area and divided our community.”

He continued, “It is sad that, in order to protect our environment, such a great amount of time and money had to be wasted, not just by ourselves but also by Angus Council and many other agencies.

“This is the right decision. We just hope that at last we can all put this fiasco behind us and get on with our lives.

“On behalf of Friends of the Forest, I would like to thank all those who have supported us and worked tirelessly over the past years—your help and encouragement have been greatly appreciated,” he concluded.

Mrs Jo Woolley of STORM told The Courier, “We are just absolutely delighted with the result. The value of the location placed on it by the people who live here and love it has been recognised.”

She then praised her fellow campaigners for avoiding the potential pitfalls of a conjoined inquiry.

“With two applications there was a potential for people to play off against each other, but the Montreathmont people are an extraordinary group, and I would like to think that we helped them as well.

“We did things on each others’ behalf because we believed so strongly in what we were doing and we are just delighted with the inquiry outcome,” she said.”