A Lauderdale Preservation Group supporter has shared their objection to the grid connection proposed by Epower for a Ditcher Law windfarm. A short sample objection can be found here. Please get your objection in to the Energy Consents Unit before Wednesday 23 September 2026.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
As one of many who lodged representations to this scheme I have asked the ECU to explain exactly where matters stand on this scheme but have received no response.
I believe there were serious flaws in the way the original decision was reached (which I explain below) and that the conclusions which appear in the decision notice need to be re-examined.
As a result this representation includes comments on the material recently provided about the grid connection but also repeats many of those in my earlier representations, updates some of the data in them and adds some comments on the process that has been followed here.
LVIA ISSUES
I believe the term “localised effects” is meaningless and shouldn’t feature in
consideration of any scheme because it hasn’t been defined. Every wind farm
must be assessed on its own individual merits.
Developers applying to increase the height of turbines of a consented scheme cite previous approval for turbines as a reason for approving their new scheme. The converse must apply so as this site has never had permission for turbines the presumption must be that no scheme is acceptable here.
All 8 tips can be seen from 19 of the 22 viewpoints. This exceptionally high figure indicates that this scheme is badly sited. The developer acknowledged significant impacts from 9 viewpoints.
RESIDENTIAL VISUAL AMENITY ASSESSMENTS (RVAA)
This scheme is a rarity because RVAA is on its own sufficient reason to refuse it. The RVAA was more honest than most and in the extracts below the developer accepts it is a major issue.
As the Proposed Development occupies the entire of the field of view northwards from the properties it is considered that the proposed turbines could create an overwhelming change in visual amenity, particularly when the turbine blades rotate. As a result, the Residential Visual Amenity Threshold is considered to have been met at these properties.
Overwhelming views of the proposed turbines were predicted from two property clusters which include six residential properties: 2 and 4-6 Carfrae Farm Cottages; Vineleaf Cottage; and Dodcleugh. This is due to the anticipation that the proposed turbines will occupy a substantial field of view from the properties and create a dominant feature within primary views.
There would potentially be six properties where the Proposed Development
negatively affects the visual amenity of residents to an extent where it may
make the property an unattractive place to live.
Overwhelming views of the proposed turbines were predicted from two properties / property clusters, these included residential properties 2 and 4-6 Carfrae Farm Cottages, Vineleaf Cottage and Dodcleugh.
The proposed layout changes would marginally reduce the prominence of the
proposed turbines within the views from the rear of the aforementioned
properties. It is, however, considered that the AIR layout would not constitute
substantial changes to the conclusions of the RVAA in the EIA Report. This is
principally due to the proximity of the properties /property clusters to the
nearest proposed turbine and the extent to which the proposed turbines will
occupy northerly views from the properties.
The RVAA concluded that the development would breach the residential visual amenity threshold for 6 of the 8 properties (in 2 clusters) with overwhelming views of the 8 turbines due to the turbines ‘occupying a substantial field of view from the properties and create a dominate feature within primary views.’ The proposed development would negatively affect the visual amenity of residents to such an extent that it may make the property an unattractive place to live.
Council Landscape Architects should decide whether the assessment in a RVAA is accurate, whether the conclusions reached are correct and if the impacts are acceptable. The SBC Landscape Architect agreed with the analysis in the RVAA so logically should have concluded that the unusually high level of effects here is unacceptable. She avoids any conclusion. That is unsatisfactory but everyone living at Carfrae considers the effects are unacceptable for reasons explained in
their representation (number 44).
IS THIS SCHEME REALLY NEEDED?
Developers claim their schemes will help meet the 2030 Onshore Target even if they have no guaranteed grid connection by 2030.
The latest SG update showing the position on 31 st March 2026 states “Scotland’s capacity for electricity generation from renewable sources has increased substantially over the past 10 years and currently stands at 18.1 GW – a 3.2% increase compared to 17.6 GW at the end of the first quarter of 2025” 3GW is under Construction and another 7.9GW has been consented.
Schemes at all stages of the planning process have risen steadily. Before this scheme is determined more schemes will have been consented from the 10.7GW in planning.
In March 2026 Onshore Windfarms with a total capacity of 10.7GW were operational with a further 2.1GW under construction giving a guaranteed capacity of 12.8GW. A further 5.9GW has consent raising the figure to 18.7MW. The 10.7GW in planning pushes the figure to over 29GW. Targets won’t be met however many schemes are consented and however fast applications are processed unless developers make consented schemes operational timeously. This hasn’t happened.
EXCESS CAPACITY CAN’T SIMPLY BE IGNORED
The figures for constraint payments to wind farm generators speak for
themselves.
| year | cost £ | Capacity MWh | rate £/MWh |
| 2026 (to date) | 202,591,500 | 7,671,799 | 26 |
| 2025 | 381,465,357 | 10,221,841 | 37 |
GRID CONNECTION
The decision in Raeshaw Farms was long overdue. It was misguided to ignore the impact of a grid connection when that was essential to make a windfarm operational.
Some developers have claimed their grid connection was too uncertain to be assessed but others (as here) have suggested it will have virtually no effect. That may be true if the developer’s assumption that the grid connection will be to the existing Dun Law substation is correct. That may be the most likely connection but the developer should be aware of proposals to repower Dun Law which may well leave no capacity available at that substation for Ditcher Law. The worst case scenario involving an alternative grid connection should have been assessed.
EVENTS FOLLOWING THE OBJECTION BY SBC
I am well aware of the process which S36 schemes have followed until the Planning Act made some changes but I don’t accept the process has been completely fair. Some of the changes introduced by the Act support my concerns particularly the removal of the nonsensical concept of non timeous objections (NTO’s).
People who will be impacted by this scheme (many of whom lodged well argued objections) lost the right to an automatic PLI (which would have involved a Reporter) only because SBC only made their request to extend the date for their response a few weeks after the 4 months allowed for it had passed. If anyone really believed that the 4 month period (set out in regulations which date from 1997) was sufficient to provide a response extensions wouldn’t have been allowed as they regularly were.
Having deemed the objection here to be non-timeous the ECU could still have decided to hold a PLI. That would have involved a Reporter who would be someone with qualifications in planning.
Decisions on S36 schemes without an objection from a council are made by
Scottish Ministers and are purely administrative so the decision maker doesn’t need any qualifications in planning. Where a council has objected meaning there are matters on which a planning judgement has to be reached qualifications in planning are essential.
I have been told that nobody at the ECU had any planning qualifications and
that their role is purely administrative. I was told that Ministers ultimately
make the final decision but that provides no reassurance as there is no reason
to think that Scottish Ministers have any planning qualifications either, meaning decisions on planning issues would be made by someone without any
planning qualifications. That is fundamentally unfair and the new process
which always involves a Reporter is far preferable.
This was one of very few schemes with a NTO and the only one where a decision was before NTO’s were abolished following which a Reporter would have had to be involved. One of the other schemes has recently followed the new procedure and a Reporter is involved.
Unlike decisions on appeals or PLI reports the decision notice is anonymous
and as such should carry no weight in deciding this application. I do not intend
to challenge in detail the so-called reasoning in it but will make some
observations.
It was unreasonably influenced by the response of the Landscape Architect which I criticised above and the Report to Committee with both of which the PC disagreed. The decision maker did not see the arguments made to the PC which may well have been important in persuading them to object. These would have been further developed at a PLI.
The decision notice states that no property failed the Lavender Test even though the developer accepted the impact was unusually high (see RVAA above).
As the Proposed Development occupies the entire of the field of view northwards from the properties it is considered that the proposed turbines could create an overwhelming change in visual amenity, particularly when the turbine blades rotate. As a result, the Residential Visual Amenity Threshold is considered to have been met at these properties.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Planning applications should be consented only when it is judged that the benefits outweigh all the adverse effects. The only benefit of this windfarm is the provision of new renewable energy capacity and the amount of that is fairly small. Unbiased analysis of official data shows this scheme isn’t needed to meet the 2030 Target.
Scottish Planning Policy stated that “the aim is to achieve the right development in the right place not to allow development at any cost” and in spite of differences about the implications of NPF4 everyone agrees that it adopts this comment.
It is the wrong scheme in the wrong place and should be refused.