Eight-turbine wind farm at The Site For The Drum Wind Farm Is Located On And Around The Drum, Approximately 5.2km North-east Of Cumnock, East

What was proposed

The application proposed eight wind turbines up to 220 metres high, with associated tracks, infrastructure and a 49.6MW generating capacity.

“The proposed development comprises of eight (8) wind turbines with a maximum blade tip height of 220m and the proposed development would have an installed capacity of approximately 49.6MW. Other associated infrastructure proposed includes access tracks comprising approximately 3.2km of new and 1.6km of upgraded track; four watercourse crossings (two new and two upgraded); crane pads; two borrow pits; a substation and temporary construction compound and associated…”

Officer report

The site

The site covers 196 hectares of commercial forestry and access tracks north-east of Cumnock, within undulating hills and accessed from the A70.

“The development site for The Drum Wind Farm is located on and around an area of commercial forestry on the northern side of the Glenmuir Valley known as The Drum, approximately 5.2km north-east of Cumnock and 6.5km east of Auchinleck, East Ayrshire. The A70 runs to the north of the site, heading in a north-east trajectory from Cumnock, and the Gass Water flows adjacent to the north-eastern boundary.”

“The proposed development is within a landscape area of the Plateau Moorland character type, and close to the Upland River Valley character type of the Bellow and Glenmuir Waters a short distance to the west, and that of the River Ayr to the north. ‘Landmark hills’ identified in the EALWCS including Blackside, Cairn Table, Wardlaw and Corsencon are within 10km of the proposed development.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

NatureScot, NATS and Glasgow Prestwick Airport objected, while several other consultees raised no objection subject to conditions.

“Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA) – have raised no objections to the proposed development, subject to a number of conditions relating to access improvement works, set back and opening method of gates, discharge of water from the site onto the public highway, route plan for Abnormal Indivisible Load (AIL) movements, acquisition of land for any additional works required, carrying out of any structural inspections of EAC assets as and when required, submission of a Construction…”

“Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) - have objected to the application as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there would not be any aviation safety concerns raised by the turbines.”

Officer report

Public views

Six objection letters raised concerns including visual, traffic, environmental and aviation effects, while four support letters focused mainly on community benefits.

“Following conclusion of the notification and advert processes, six letters of objection to the development from four separate objectors were received in response to the application. A summary of the points raised in the objections are as follows:”

“It is also noted that four letters of support have been received, in relation to the Drum Wind Farm Development. These come from one member of the public and from Ochiltree and Skares, Dalmellington and Drogan, Rankinston and Stair Community Councils. The letters of support primarily relate to the Community Benefit package proposal for allocation to the 9CC geographical eligibility area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors spoke about their own objections, followed by the agent speaking in support of the application.

Members’ debate

A motion proposed refusal for the report’s reasons, while an amendment added unacceptable landscape and visual impacts as a further reason.

“The Planning Officer reported that six letters of objection had been received from four separate objectors in respect of the application; four letters of representation had been received in support of the application; summarised the planning considerations in respect of the application; and gave the recommendation of the Chief Planning Officer: Refusal, subject to the conditions and for the reasons detailed in the report referred to above by the Chief Planning Officer.”

“Councillor Kyle, seconded by Councillor Lennox, moved as an amendment to refuse the application for the reasons detailed in the report with the additional reason for refusal in that the proposed development would present unacceptable landscape and visual impacts and would therefore be contrary to Policies NE1 and RE1 of LDP2 and Policy 11 of NPF4. On a vote being taken by calling the role, the amendment was carried by 7 votes to 4.”

Minutes