Wind farm changes at Fell Wind Farm Site Between Blackcraig Wind Farm And Loch Urr 7km To The South-west Of Moniaive

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the revised proposal would not create additional significant or harmful visual impacts, with conditions controlling layout and micrositing.

“It assesses landscape sensitivity, the capacity of individual landscape units to accommodate change, provides advice on how the scale, siting and design of development should be informed by local landscape character, and includes an appraisal of the cumulative landscape and visual effects of existing and consented wind energy developments with an assessment of where a particular turbine typology cannot be accommodated in the relevant assessment unit without significant…”

“Turning now to the question of an increased micrositing allowance, up to 130m from the original positions shown on the approved site plan, this is not considered to be unduly large when compared to other recent approved windfarm developments where amended site layout plans are permissible with condition relating to micrositing variations allowing positional differences of up to 100m.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The community council and SEPA objected, while Scottish Power raised no objection and the roads team gave no response.

“(g) It is the role of Community Council’s to represent the local residents on matters such as planning applications. In line with survey work undertaken and recent representations, Corsock & Kirkpatrick Durham Community Council submits an unambiguous objection to these change requests. This is in line with our original objection to the development itself.”

“(j) SEPA has no issue with the removal of Turbine 3. SEPA understands from the correspondence with Energiekontor of the 23 July 2025 (which we have forwarded to you) that no new information has been provided in relation to private water supplies (PWS) because it was considered that such effects could be screened out as the previous conclusions (objection removed by SEPA with the 30 July 2020 response to 20/0148/FUL- our ref PCS/172276) were unlikely to be affected by the…”

Officer report

Objections from residents

Sixty representations objected, raising concerns about turbine height, landscape, peat, habitats, watercourses and the use of successive Section 42 applications.

“(a) Increase the tip height of turbine 1 to 200m: T1 is the closest to Loch Urr and as such has the most negative visual impact. To increase the height from 180m to 200m would make it even more overpowering and out of scale. The consented scheme Reporter specifically approved a lower turbine height to lessen the impact on the much valued Loch Urr.”

“(h) The use of Section 42 to make successive incremental changes, as in this instance, necessitates an appraisal of whether planning permission would have been granted in the first instance had all the changes been included in the original application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Governance Officer read a statement from an objector speaking on behalf of Help Save [the objector].

The committee vote

Thirteen members were present, and the application was approved subject to the report’s conditions; one member’s dissent was recorded.

“APPROVED application 25/0539/S42 subject to conditions detailed in the report.”

“DISSENT – Pauline Drysdale requested that her dissent be recorded in respect of the above decision due to not receiving a seconder for her motion to refuse application 25/0539/S42 on the grounds that the proposal has detrimental impacts on the environment due to the additional 20m on Turbine 1 on the Loch Urr which is a highly valued local asset which is also at odds with the hard won recommendations of the DGWLSS, Dumfries and Galloway Windfarm Landscape…”

Minutes