North Logiealmond Wind Farm

Design and Access Statement

2. The Proposed Development

2.1 Site Location

The Proposed Development is located within the administrative boundary of Perth and Kinross, on the North Logiealmond Estate, part of Scone Estates, approximately 18 km northwest from Perth and 14 km southeast from Aberfeldy.

EIA Figure 1.1: Site Location (Figure 1) shows the geographical location of the Site.

Figure 1: Site location (EIA Figure 1.1)

Click image to zoom

Scone Estates is the predominant landowner. However, the two access option routes from the public road include sections outwith the ownership of Scone Estates.

The Site is predominantly used for rough grazing and other estate management practices, and a woodland creation scheme has recently been planted by Scone Estates to the northeast of the Site.

The Site is located within an upland landscape, with elevations often exceeding 400 metres (m) Above Ordnance Datum (AOD), and ranging between 200 m and 600m AOD. The Site is characterised by rolling terrain and upland watercourses together with areas of blanket bog, heath and mire habitat that is typical of the area.

There are a number of residential properties (22) within 2 km of the Site.

There are a number of hills in the local area, with Findowie Hill at 580 m AOD being the most prominent within the Site boundary. There are a number of watercourses within the Site Boundary, including Allt Coire Nuis, Auchmore Burn and Sloggan Burn. There are a number of paths through the Site and in close proximity to the Site.

2.2 Description of the Proposed Development

The Proposed Development comprises up to 13 wind turbines, crane hard standings, a substation, networks of connecting tracks and associated infrastructure. It covers an area of around 803.4 ha.

Turbines

The Proposed Development would comprise the construction of up to 13 wind turbines:

  • 7 with a maximum tip height of 200 m;

  • 6 with a maximum tip height of 180 m; and

  • associated ancillary infrastructure (EIA Figure 1.2: Site Layout (Figure 2)).

The final turbine model has not yet been selected and will depend on procurement and availability. However, the parameters set out above allow for candidate turbines with a maximum tip height of 180 m or 200 m to be considered.

The Proposed Development layout is provided in EIA Figure 1.2: Site Layout (Figure 2).


Operational Timescales

The requested lifespan of the Proposed Development would be 50 years, after which it would be decommissioned or further consent sought.

Ancillary infrastructure

In addition to the turbines, the Proposed Development would also comprise:

  • Turbine foundations and hardstandings;

  • External transformer housing;

  • Substation and control building;

  • Construction Compound;

  • Crane pads;

  • Access tracks;

  • Underground electricity cables;

  • Six borrow pits (this is subject to sufficient quality and quantity of stone being available at the identified borrow pit locations);

  • Temporary construction and storage compounds and ancillary infrastructure;

  • Site signage; and

  • Potential for temporary batching plant.

Micrositing

Micrositing of up to 100 m is proposed to minimise localised environmental impacts and enable detailed design refinement. The final location of turbines and their associated infrastructure would be determined following detailed ground investigation and would be controlled by an appropriately worded planning condition.

Access arrangements

There are currently two access routes from the public road (the A822) to the Proposed Development being considered:

  • Northern Access Option

  • Western Access Option

Both access options have been assessed as part of the EIA and are included in the Site Boundary. Only one of these options would be constructed under the consent.

Table 1 details the centre point coordinates for each of the proposed turbines.

Further details on the description of the development are set out in EIA Chapter 4.

2.3 Planning History

A Town and Country Planning Application was submitted by another developer for 14 turbines with a tip height of 107 m in 2008 on the Site. It was refused by Perth and Kinross Council on landscape and visual grounds, and the decision to refuse planning permission was upheld on appeal, based on planning policy at that time.

The iterative design process for the Proposed Development has taken into consideration the concerns raised during the previous application in the context of the current planning policy and guidance.

A Town and Country Planning Application for the erection of a met mast on the Site was granted planning permission in July 2025 for a five year period. At the time of this Application, the consent has not been implemented.

Table 1: Turbine Coordinates
Turbine Easting Northing Maximum Tip Height (m)
T1 293413 734755 200
T2 293879 734719 200
T3 294360 734736 180
T4 294853 734696 180
T5 295245 734488 200
T6 295705 734380 200
T7 296146 734373 200
T8 296001 734914 200
T9 295532 734946 200
T10 295188 735262 180
T11 294929 735656 180
T12 294510 735759 180
T13 294520 735185 180

2.4 Site Constraints

Desk based and site surveys

As part of the iterative design process, a number of desk-based and site surveys were undertaken to establish a baseline environment. EIA Figure 1.3: Site Constraints (Figure 3) illustrates the constraints identified as a result of the survey efforts. EIA Figure 1.3 (Figure 3) shows the regional context for constraints.

Figure 3: Site constraints (EIA Figure 1.3)

The following desk based and site surveys were carried out;

  • Hydrological and hydrogeological surveys, including peat probing and characterisation;

  • Ecological surveys, including habitats, vegetation and protected species;

  • Ornithological surveys, including flight line and breeding and wintering birds;

  • Noise monitoring at selected residential locations;

  • Site surveys for archaeological and heritage assets;

  • Assessment of Archaeological assets from a range of locations;

  • Traffic engineering review of potential turbine delivery routes;

  • Landscape character analysis;

  • Landscape and visual surveys from a range of locations;

  • Identification of service infrastructure, including utilities and radio-coms; and

  • Aviation analysis, including air traffic and radar operations (civil and military) within the wider area.

Constraint Identification

The following technical constraints were mapped:

  • Oversail buffer

  • Site slope and gradient

  • Wake effect

  • Aviation considerations

  • Infrastructure (electricity lines, gas/oil lines)

  • Access to the Site

The following environmental constraints were mapped:

  • Water courses

  • Core paths

  • Public Rights of Way

  • Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

  • Geological Conservation Review (GCR) sites

  • Special areas of Conservation (SAC)

  • Special Protection Areas (SPA)

  • RSPB Reserves

  • Scottish Wildlife Trust Reserves

  • Priority Peatland

  • Habitats

  • Semi Natural Woodland

  • Archaeological and Historic Environment Records

  • Battlefields

  • Scheduled Monuments

  • Listed Buildings

  • Noise sensitive properties

  • Residential properties

  • Wild Land Areas

  • National Parks

  • Special Landscape areas

  • Area with potential for wind farm development

The results of the constraints mapping provided an initial start point for the identification of possible locations for turbine development.

Further information on the design approach that takes account of the constraints is set out in Section 4.

2.5 Consultation and Engagement

Scoping

An EIA Scoping Report was submitted to the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) in October 2024 to accompany a request for the Scottish Ministers to adopt a Scoping Opinion under Regulation 15 of the EIA Regulations 2017. The Scoping Opinion was received from the ECU in February 2025. A copy of the Scoping Opinion is provided in EIA Technical Appendix 1.2. The Scoping Opinion is shown within the consultation tables in the EIAR Chapters 6 to 14, detailing how comments have been addressed. In addition, the Gatecheck Report also sets out how responses received from scoping have been addressed in the EIA.

Engagement with Statutory Consultees

Summary of Engagement with the Local Planning Authority (LPA)

A scoping response was received from Perth and Kinross Council (PKC) in February 2025 agreeing the scope of assessment. A meeting was held with PKC following the scoping response, however no additional requests or feedback beyond what was provided at scoping were provided.

The Applicant, via email, provided an updated Design Chill Layout, comparative wirelines and cultural heritage wirelines for comment. Feedback was requested on the additional VPs by PKC, cumulative developments, and whether any other council departments should be directly engaged. No further comments were received.

Applicant, via email, sought confirmation of a 3-month cut off for cumulative assessments advising if no response was received then the EIAR would progress on that basis. No response was received.

A request was submitted to PKC requesting private water supplies within 2 km of the Proposed Development Site Boundary. The supply name, address, grid reference and full address were supplied by PKC.

Summary of Engagement with Historic Environment Scotland (HES)

Comments were received from HES in December 2024, agreeing the scope of assessment. A call was held with HES on 7 May 2025 to discuss viewpoints (VPs) in relation to designated heritage assets, including Ancient Monuments.

Further engagement took place between December 2025 and the end of January 2026 where HES raised concerns regarding the impact on the setting Meikle Findowie stone circle. Additional wirelines and visualisation were prepared by the Applicant in support of this engagement.

Summary of Engagement with NatureScot

Comments were received from NatureScot in December 2024, agreeing the scope of assessment.

A call was held with NatureScot on 4 July 2025 to provide an update on the Proposed Development and the evolution of the design following scoping. This included consideration of special landscape qualities of the River Tay (Dunkeld) NSA and subsequent design changes in response to this designation, as well as the Highland Boundary Fault and other landscape and visual considerations.

Further changes to the Proposed Development are considered by the Applicant to significantly reduce the impacts which NatureScot has raised concerns about.

Summary of engagement with Scotways

Comments were received from Scotways in January 2025, where they identified the relevant heritage paths to be included in the impact assessment

Summary of engagement with Dunkeld and Bimam Community Council

Comments were received from Dunkeld and Bimam Community Council, where concerns were raised regarding cumulative effects from existing and proposed wind farm developments in the area.

Public consultation

Extensive consultation has been undertaken, including eight public engagement events held between November 2024 and February 2026.

Public exhibitions were undertaken as part of the consultation process. The following events have taken place:

  • 12 November 2024 at Chapelhill Community Hall (5:00–8:30 pm)

  • 13 November 2024 at Birnam Guide Hall (5:45–8:30 pm).

  • 27 May 2025 at Birnam Arts Centre (3:00-7:30 pm).

  • 28 May 2025 at Bankfoot Church Centre (3:00-7:30 pm).

  • 29 May 2025 at Chapelhill Community Hall (3:00–7:30 pm).

  • 22 January 2026 at Bankfoot Church Centre (3:00-7:00 pm).

  • 28 January 2026 at Chapelhill Community Hall (3:00-7:00 pm).

  • 2 February 2026 at Birnam Arts Centre (3:00-7:00 pm).

These events were supported by a programme of advertisement and stakeholder notification. Adverts were placed in the local Perthshire Advertiser and Courier for all events, and letters were posted to residents living closest to the Proposed Development. The Applicant’s website and social media were used to promote the events, in addition to community groups sharing information. All information from the events, including feedback forms, was made available on the Applicant’s website for the Proposed Development.

Engagement Summary

  • Planning History

    • ‘A prior application, which was refused’, was noted frequently. The current proposal was therefore queried on that basis.

    • The Applicant explained to attendees that there has been a substantive shift in planning policy since the refusal of the original wind farm. It was explained that the planning justification would be set out in a Planning Statement. It would ultimately be up to Scottish Ministers to determine whether the Application should be approved or refused when considered in the planning balance.

  • General concerns about Energy Policy

    • There was mixture of views on the need for additional renewable energy generation in the UK and Scotland. Queries on whether wind turbines are beneficial to the environment, concerns around carbon emissions and decommissioning were raised. On the other hand, a number of people were also fully supportive of wind turbines in general terms.

    • The Applicant advised that the need for additional renewable energy generation is addressed in detail in the Planning Statement supporting the Application. The lifetime emissions of the Proposed Development are set out in detail in the Carbon Balance assessment provided in EIA Chapter 13: Other Issues.

  • Landscape and Visual

    • Across all engagement, both negative and positive opinions were expressed on the visual impact of wind turbines in general. Concerns included the scale of the turbines, impacts to residential views, aviation lighting and the Western Access Option.

    • The Applicant acknowledged that there is a subjective nature of wind turbines, and EIA Chapter 6 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is based on a worst-case basis. Details of design changes, which aim to reduce by design the visual impact, are set out in EIA Chapter 3: Site Selection & Design Evolution.

  • Access and Construction

    • Concerns were raised about the level of impact construction will have on the local road network. Previous wind farm construction was disruptive, and concerns were raised about disruptions should this scheme be consented.

    • The Applicant’s preferred route seeks to minimise disruption to the local road network through the utilisation of an off-road cut through Abercairny Estate between the A85 and the A822, which would remove the requirement for a blade lifter through the village of Gilmerton. A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would be required to be agreed prior to construction, which would include mitigation to reduce impacts on the road network and residents. A draft CTMP is set out in EIA Technical Appendix 12.2 Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan.

  • Impact on Wildlife and Habitats

    • Concerns were raised about the impacts of birds, loss/disturbance of peat and important habitats and potential adverse impacts on watercourse environments on the Site.

    • The Applicant advised that collision risk (impacts to birds) is addressed in detail in EIA Chapter 9: Ornithology and EIA Technical Appendix 9.2 Collision Risk Model. The Applicant has undertaken extensive peat depth surveys across the Site, see EIATechnical Appendix 7.2 Outline Peat Management Plan which sets out best working practices to minimise disturbance. A 1:10 disturbance to restoration ratio for peatland is proposed as part of EIA Technical Appendix 8.5 Outline Habitat Management Plan.

  • Grid Infrastructure

    • Several attendees thought there was insufficient information relating to the grid and potential for new overhead lines.

    • At events, it was explained that any new overhead lines would be subject to a separate consenting regime, under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, and that connection into the National Grid would likely be delivered by the Transmission Network Operator, (SSENT).

  • Walking Routes

    • Concerns were raised about impacts on existing walking routes through the Site, including Core Paths. It was noted there could be new opportunities to improve access across the Site.

    • The Applicant advised that temporary alternative diversions of the Core Path may be required during construction works to maintain access for recreational users, likely secured as part of a suitably worded planning condition. New and upgraded tracks across the Proposed Development will be available for recreational users during the operational lifetime of the wind farm.

  • Noise Impacts

    • Concerns about the impact of noise from the proposed turbines, individually and cumulatively with other developments.

    • Background noise monitoring was undertaken for several weeks at seven properties, representative of the residential properties closest to the Proposed Development. During the construction period, higher levels of noise disruption would be anticipated, but these would be over short periods, and standard mitigation would be adopted to reduce impacts

  • Private Water Supplies

    • There were concerns raised in relation to potential pollution or other disruption to nearby private water supplies.

    • The Application has been supported by a robust assessment set out in EIA Technical Appendix 7.3: Private Water Supply Risk Assessment, which has been based on consultation with relevant properties, Perth & Kinross Council, and site surveys.

  • Impacts on Property Values & Businesses

    • Concerns were raised in relation to the devaluation of residential properties and the loss of business in the tourism sector.

    • The Applicant advised that loss of property value is not a material planning consideration. As previously set out, people’s views of wind farms are individual and highly subjective. The Application is supported by a socio-economic assessment

  • Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)

    • Concerns were raised regarding the inclusion of BESS as part of the Proposed Development at EIA Scoping Stage, including noise, fire risk and visual impacts.

    • The proposed BESS has been removed from the Proposed Development at this time. Subject to the final grid connection for the Proposed Development, a suitably designed BESS may be progressed at a later date, under a separate planning application, should it be deemed appropriate and commercially viable.

  • Community Benefits

    • A range of views was expressed in relation to the Community Benefit package proposed as part of the Proposed Development.

    • The Applicant is offering an industry-leading £7,000 per MW during the operation of the Proposed Development, in addition to smaller funds being made available during the development and construction phase of the Proposed Development

The Applicants more detailed responses to the summarised feedback can be viewed in Table 6 of the Pre-Application Consultation Report.

Further information on the consultation process and how this has helped shape the Proposed Development can be found in the Pre-Application Consultation Report and throughout the EIAR.