Sharing Good Practice - Onshore wind repowering 7 th December 2017 - PDF document

Sharing Good Practice - Onshore wind repowering 7 th December 2017 Summary and key messages Introduction This note captures the key messages from the Sharing Good Practice event on repowering held at Battleby on 7 th December 2017. The event was attended by over 80 people from a mix of planning, consultancy, developer and NGO backgrounds. This note does not capture all of the points raised – it is a summary of key messages. It does not summarise the presentations given – these are available here. Note – the note captures the messages shared by attendees at the event, and does not necessarily reflect the views of SNH. We plan to consult on draft guidance on assessing repowering applications during 2017 and attendees will have an opportunity to comment on our proposals at that stage. Key messages from plenary sessions  Repowering older sites does not negate need for new wind farms, we need both  Onshore wind making a significant contribution to electricity targets in Scotland and is likely to be a key long term energy source  Repowering applications still need to follow the normal planning and EIA process  SPP already sets out some key principles for repowering  Existing scheme a material consideration  There are mixed views on whether a national approach to repowering would be beneficial  Need to encourage innovation to streamline the process and reduce costs  Variation in consenting – some time limited some not  We need a consistent approach to repowering applications  Repowering will take many different forms: life extension, replanting, repowering, geographical extensions  Turbine sizes increasing rapidly  Removal of subsidies driving increase in tip heights as is change in technology  Opportunity to take a more planned approach national / regional / local scale  Scope within existing SPP to plan at the local level  Repowering is an opportunity to improve individual schemes and the wider pattern of development

 Larger turbines will require lighting – a new issue for LVIA  SNH developing guidance on assessing applications and keen to engage in dialogue about this  Some new issues to be addressed: survey methods, baselines for assessment  Different approaches unfairly applied to different technologies (eg coal and nuclear)  Need to plan positively for the future of onshore wind  Need for proportionality in the way repowering applications are assessed  Some infrastructure can be re-used, but some not likely to be fit for purpose  Significant opportunities could arise from recycling and refurbishment markets  Very large quantities of material will need to be recycled  We need to rethink the way some infrastructure is designed to facilitate re-use and recycling  SNH and SEPA working with industry to explore new methods for building turbine bases  New technologies coming in to market – repowering schemes likely to include multiple technologies in future to maximise use of grid Key messages from workshops on planning The workshops on the planning system focussed on identifying the main challenges and opportunities associated with repowering. Groups were also asked to identify t heir ‘key asks’ from the planning system. Challenges  A high standard of EIA is applied to onshore wind – can we reduce expectations ?  Need to determine scope of new EIA required  Cumulative effects, including the impact of small / individual turbines  Larger turbines appropriate in some areas but not others  Need clarity on perpetuity paragraph in SPP  Land ownership patterns have significant influence on pattern of development and scope to improve this  Communities ’ expectations are that schemes are consented for 25 years  Need to improve community engagement process and outcomes  Need to consider mix of energy sources in future  Relatively short duration of consents creates challenges for planning process  Grid capacity has significant influence on pattern of development – is a more strategic approach to grid required ?  Route to market is challenging following subsidy removal  Net economic benefits need to be considered in planning process  SPP is quite restrictive on what planning authorities can do  Capacity already reached in some areas  Need for better information sharing with the public on applications, scale of development and the technology itself

Opportunities  Life extension of existing schemes is attractive as it maximises the use of existing infrastructure  Opportunities to reuse existing infrastructure  Scope for greater collaboration both between developers, and between developers and planning system – opportunity to learn from other sectors ?  Better community engagement processes could be developed  Scope to improve some sites to optimising layout / tip heights  Scope to maximise generation capacity and utilise new technology  Opportunity to remove some wind farms which are not well sited  Scope to adopt a ‘m asterplanning ’ approach to repowering to maximise capacity and to be more proactive in steering development  Visualisation methods improved – scope to look at 3D / Digital next ?  Could we move to a ‘call for sites’ approach as used in LDPs for other forms of development ?  Opportunity to secure additional benefits from Habitat Management Plans  Calls for a national approach to repowering  Woodland creation opportunities on restored sites  Employment opportunities from repowering  Manufacturing / refurbishment commercial opportunities and links to circular economy  Scope to change the way turbine bases are built  Improving efficiency of new turbines will increase output  Opportunity to learn lessons from existing schemes  LPAs can steer development to best locations based on experience  Greater collaboration between developers  Opportunity to secure more benefits from repowering sites, including community benefits Key asks  Don’t be too prescriptive  Greater collaboration  Clarify what is meant by perpetuity paragraph in SPP  Consistent definition of baseline  More resources in planning system  Developers to take head of early advice from planning and statutory consultees  Future proof capacity studies and spatial plans  Take account of need to increase tip heights in light of subsidy removal  Need to think about carbon implications of long term repowering

Key messages from workshops on developing SNH guidance Attendees participated in 4 workshop sessions in the afternoon (one led by SEPA). This note captures the key messages from the SNH led sessions on birds; habitats and ecology; and landscape and visual assessments. Each section includes a summary of what SNH propose and a record of the key points raised in discussion. Attendees were also asked to vote on a key question for each topic. The results of the voting are included here for completeness. Birds Survey and Assessment Methods Summary of proposals SNH proposes that proposed changes within the footprint of the existing wind farm should normally only require a desk-based study. No distribution and abundance surveys are required in the existing footprint because the ground has previously been surveyed for the original proposal and it is unlikely that any significant changes have occurred. Vantage point surveys are not required over the existing turbines. Flight activity would not be representative because the flight activity is affected by the presence of the existing wind farm. Any new collision risks predicted from such work would be inaccurate. However, as part of the desk study, if possible, developers should recalculate collision risks using the original VP data. For proposed changes outside the existing footprint, normal bird survey methods should be followed. Birds may now be using a much smaller area of nearby habitat much more intensively, or activity may be lower due to displacement. New survey will help provide data on this. There may be exceptions – for example no need for new survey if in areas of low bird sensitivity, or if it is a minor extension close to the existing footprint. Discussion 1) Are there alternative methods that could be used to assess repowering applications? 2) Are there any situations where vantage point surveys would be helpful within the existing wind farm footprint?