VOLUME 2 Chapter 16: Geological & Soils Assessment

srlSTAMFORD RENEWABLES LTD

VOLUME 2Chapter 16:

Geological & Soils Assessment

Vol 2 - Chapter 16_Layout 1 12/03/2015 08:43 Page 1


2

Chapter 16: Geological and Soils Assessment



BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................5

PART 1 .......................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................5Full BGS Report Available for Viewing at Volume 3 Appendix 3 ................................5

PART 2 .......................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................6Geology .......................................................................................................................6Geological hazards ......................................................................................................6Soils .............................................................................................................................6Land Capability Classification ......................................................................................7Hydrology ....................................................................................................................8Soil mechanics.............................................................................................................8

RECOMMENDATION..................................................................................................................9

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................9

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................10

APPENDIX 1 – SOIL PROFILE FOR INSPECTED AREAS..............................................................10Soil Profile for Wind Turbine 4 ..................................................................................10Soil Profile for Wind Turbine 3 ..................................................................................10Soil Profile for Wind Turbine 2 ..................................................................................11Soil Profile for Wind Turbine 1 ..................................................................................12Soil Profile for Transformer Site.................................................................................13

CONTENTS

3

Parks of Keillour Wind Turbine Cluster



4




BACKGROUND16.1.1 SRL commissioned the British Geological Survey (part of the Natural Environment

Research Council) to carry out a Geological Assessment of Parks of Keillour. SRL alsocommissioned soils expert, Dr David Dent to carry out a Soils Assessment of theParks of Keillour site. The Geological Assessment forms Part 1 of this Chapter andthe Soils Assessment forms Part 2 of this Chapter.

PART 1INTRODUCTION16.1.2 The BGS Report contains a geological description of the specified site at Parks of

Keillour. It was based on currently available 1:10 000 scale geological maps, unlessotherwise stated, together with other relevant local information such as boreholerecords. The report included extracts from digitized 1:50 000 scale geological maps(DigMapGB‐50) and contained the following 8 modules:

• Geological Map Extracts

• Geological Assessment (area)

• Geological Cross Section

• Geologists Assessment of Geo‐hazard Potential

• Hydrogeology (non abstraction)

• Engineering Geological and Drilling Considerations

• Temperature and Thermal properties basic

• Geo‐science Data List

Full BGS Report Available for Viewing at Volume 3 Appendix 3

16.1.3 The full 47 page Report by the British Geological Survey, on Parks of Keillour, can beviewed at Appendix 3 in Volume 3 to the EIA.

5



PART 2INTRODUCTION16.2.1. The proposed wind turbine cluster site is the south‐facing flank of ridge trending

west‐east. The ridge crest reaches 210m above sea level (asl), the bases for the fourturbines are to be built at 175‐185m asl.

Geology

16.2.2 The bedrock is massive, sometimes flaggy, Old Red Sandstone penetrated by basaltdykes, one of which is mapped crossing the line of the Keillour Burn close by KeillourCastle SW the site. The bedrock is covered by a stiff glacial till greater than 2m thickat each of the proposed turbine sites and recorded as 14m thick at the BGSborehole NN92NE4, 1km NW of the site. There is no worked or made‐up ground,landslide deposits, nor recorded mineral deposits within the area of interest (BGS2014). The 1901 OS map indicates a small bedrock quarry in the basalt dyke south ofthe minor road marks the SW boundary of the site.

Geological hazards

16.2.3 The BGS geologist’s assessment of all available data indicates no or very low hazardof shrink, swell soil, landslide, dissolution, soft ground, collapsible ground, runningsand, flooding or gas from bedrock, coal or peat.

Soils

16.2.4 The soils are all members of Balrownie Association developed in reddish brownglacial till derived from Lower Old Red Sandstone sediments. The till varies intexture from fine sandy loam to fine sandy clay loam with 10‐24% stones, mostlysandstone with occasional Highland schist and igneous erratics; at each turbine sitethe till is more than 2m thick.

16.2.5 The site selected for the wind turbine cluster carries moderately well drained toimperfectly drained soils of Balrownie Series; the gently‐sloping ridge crest above185m and some lower, concave slopes draining to Keillour Burn carry poorly drainedsoils of the Lour Series.



6



16.2.6 The usual Balrownie soil profile on cultivated land exhibits a 22‐30cm (9‐12”) darkgreyish brown (10YR4/2) loamy sand topsoil with a few small stones, moderatemedium subangular blocky structure and friable consistence; over 30cm (12”) darkreddish grey to reddish brown (5YR4/2‐4/3) prominently finely mottled yellowishred (5YR 5/6) and, frequently, light grey (5YR 7/1) sandy clay loam with many smallsubangular stones and occasional large cobbles, subangular blocky structure andfirm consistence; over compact, sometimes weakly indurated reddish brown sandyclay loam with many subangular and sub‐rounded stones; with weathered bedrockbelow 1m (36”) (Laing 1976). At the wind turbine cluster site under pasture, topsoilsare dark brown with a greater content of humus and a crumb structure and the till ismore than 2m thick.

16.2.7 The mottled colours of the subsoil indicate that the compact till impedes drainage;most drainage water flows parallel with the slope, through the soil (interflow).However, heavy stocking and cultivation can puddle the top‐soil which leads tooverland flow and sometimes gulleying, as observed in the westernmost field of thewind turbine cluster site. The field margins and fence lines are distinctly raisedabove the general field level, which suggests periodic erosion of topsoil by surfacerun‐off. This sediment rarely reaches the Keillour Burn but is deposited at the breakin slope at the southern margin of the proposed wind turbine cluster site. Onceestablished, a close sward will prevent any soil erosion, but sediment barriers shouldbe installed during construction.

16.2.8 The gentle slopes of the ridge crest above the site and along the spring line at thefoot of the slope carry poorly drained soils of Lour Series which exhibits 5‐8cm (2‐3”)of peaty humus on 12cm (5”) of dark greyish brown (10YR4/2) sandy loam to loamysand with frequent yellowish red (5YR5/6) mottles; over 25‐30cm (11”) weak red(2.5YR4/2) prominently mottled yellowish red (5YR5/8) and yellowish brown(10YR6/4) sandy clay loam with a few stones; over dark reddish grey (5Y4/2)mottled yellowish red (5YR5/8) and light grey sandy clay loam.

Land Capability Classification

16.2.9 Although this is a categorisation of suitability for agriculture, it also draws attentionto potential problems for land‐work and access.

16.2.10 Balrownie Series is classed as 2W and Lour Series as 3W to 5W depending onelevation and stoniness. Class 2 land suffers from ‘moderate limitations that restrictthe choice of crops and/or require careful management’ (Bibby and Macney 1977)in this case the limitation is the slowly permeable subsoil with patchy indurationthat restricts drainage. This, in turn, renders the top‐soil prone to puddling andfurther compaction from untimely land‐work and heavy stocking.

7



16.2.11 The poorly drained Lour Series poses problems at all times for access, roadconstruction and maintenance.

Hydrology

16.2.12 The ridge separates the catchments of the River Almond to the north and theKeillour Burn draining south to the Pow Water. The slowly permeable subsoilcharacteristic of the Balrownie Association impedes drainage, leading to boggyconditions on the gently sloping ridge crest above 190m asl.

16.2.13 Across the steeper slope selected for the wind turbine cluster, the soils aremoderately well drained to imperfectly drained. In late May 2014, the water tablewas encountered at between 1.6 and 2m. Infiltration and subsequent interflowthrough the topsoil and, to a lesser extent, through fissures in the subsoil performsan important service in delaying the transmission of rainfall to the streams. As notedabove, overland flow can occur when the topsoil has been puddled and this willcarry sediment into the Keillour Burn. It is important that run‐off be preventedduring construction and, on completion of the work, provision should be made forinfiltration of run‐off from the sealed surfaces (see Soil Mechanics, below).

16.2.14 The till itself is not a significant groundwater source and its very slow permeabilitywill protect the underlying aquifer from any introduced pollutants. There is aseasonal spring line at the lower break in slope at about 155‐170m asl.

16.2.15 The groundwater in the underlying sandstone is likely to be at a depth of way fromthe Keillour Burn (BRG 2014) and the very slow permeability of the till cover willprotect the groundwater from any introduced pollutants.

Soil mechanics

16.2.16 The till which will form the foundation for the turbines, access roads and on‐sitefacilities is a compact, moderately stony to stony sandy loam to fine sandy clayloam, locally silty clay loam. It is effectively watertight; very firm in summer andearly autumn; plastic and slightly sticky in winter and early spring, depending onantecedent rainfall. The till is at least two metres thick so wind turbines will requireconcrete foundations.

16.2.17 The slope is stable, no evidence of landslips was observed, but the soil prone to rilland gulley erosion by overland flow. The till presents no particular excavationproblems.



8



16.2.18 Balrownie Series soils are able to bear light traffic, except within a few days of heavyrain. However, it will present trafficability problems when wet and, especially, whenpuddled by traffic. There is a spring line at the lower break in slope at about 155‐170m asl.

16.2.19 Except during construction, the wind turbine cluster will not affect the naturalhydrology, but attention should be paid to the access road for all‐weatheroperations and in order to avoid sedimentation of the foot‐slopes and the KeillourBurn, it will be best to carry out foundation works during the summer months.Sediment traps should be in place until the turf is re‐established.

RECOMMENDATION16.2.20 It is worth considering adjusting the site design to create an entrance from the

minor road along the SW boundary at grid ref 973 265, rather than from the roadjunction at 975 269. This may avoid the need for the internal access roads crossingthe wet Lour soils along the spring line. Post Report Note: As part of the designIteration process (involving a range of other factors in addition to this one) the siteentrance was subsequently moved north from the SW boundary point of the site, toan already existing access point close to the recommended re‐location spot of GR975 269.

REFERENCES1. Bibby JD and D Mackney 1977 Land capability classification. Soil survey technicalmonograph 1, Rothamsted Expt Station, Harpenden, and Macaulay Institute for SoilsResearch, Aberdeen

2. BGS 2014 British Geological Survey Geo Rept 209728/1 b prepared for StamfordRenewables, Sept 2014

3. Laing D 1976 The soils of the country around Perth, Arbroath and Dundee (sheets 48 and49) Memoirs of the Soil Survey of Scotland, HMSO, Edinburgh

4. Shipley BM and others 1983 Soil Survey of Scotland sheet 47, Crieff, one inch to one mile.Macaulay Institute for Soils Research, Aberdeen

9



APPENDICES1. Appendix 1: Soil descriptions at inspection sites

APPENDIX 1 – SOIL PROFILE FOR INSPECTED AREASSoil Profile for Wind Turbine 4 Location: EASTING 297 697, NORTHING 726 639

Elevation: 175m

Landform: Upper convex slope 0‐8o, 4o at the turbine site

Groundwater: Encountered at 1.8m below surface

Soil: Balrownie Series, moderately well drained

0‐25/28cm Dark brown (7.5YR3/2) with few fine dark red (2.5YR3/6) mottles; loam; mediumcrumb structure; friable consistence; few small subangular stones; many fine fibrous roots;common earthworms; sharp, irregular boundary

25/28‐45/50cm Dark reddish brown (5YR3/3) with common fine yellowish red (5YR4/8)mottles and black manganiferous nodules; sandy clay loam; coarse polyhedral structure;compact, very firm consistence; 10 per cent subangular stones, mostly sandstone, somestrongly weathered to strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) weakly cohesive sand; few fine roots;gradual wavy boundary

45/50‐ 180+cm Reddish grey (5YR5/2) mottled weak red (2.5YR4/2) with grey ped faces;sandy clay loam; very coarse polyhedral structure; very firm; 10 per cent stones andboulders, mostly subangular sandstone with some sub‐rounded quartz schist and stronglyweathered igneous erratics; groundwater at 180cm; sample no.1 from 100‐180cm.

Soil Profile for Wind Turbine 3Location: EASTING 297 427, NORTHING 726 637

Elevation : 180m

Landform: Upper convex slope: 0‐8o, 4o at turbine site

Water table: Observed at 2m



10



Soil: Balrownie Series, moderately well drained

0‐25/28cm Dark brown (7.5YR3/2) with few fine dark red (2.5YR3/6) mottles; loam; mediumcrumb structure; friable consistence; few small subangular stones; many fine fibrous roots;common earthworms; sharp, irregular boundary

25/28‐60cm Dark reddish brown (5YR3/3) fine sandy clay loam; coarse polyhedral structurewith reddish grey (5YR5/2) ped faces; compact, very firm consistence; common (5‐10 percent) small stones, mostly sandstone, some highly weathered to strong brown 7.5YR5/8 crispto weakly cohesive sand; common black manganiferous nodules; common fine roots; gradualboundary

60‐200+cm Dusky red (2.5YR3/2) silty clay loam; very coarse platy and polyhedral structure,platy fissility evident to depth of 1m; very firm consistence; 10per cent stones up to 25cmlong axis, subangular to sub‐rounded sandstone with black manganiferous staining, sub‐rounded quartz schist, occasional strongly weathered basic igneous; water table at 2m;sample no. 2 from 150‐200cm.


Elevation: 185m

Landform: Upper convex slope: 0‐6o, 2.5o at turbine site

Water table: Observed at 1.5m

Bedrock: Probably close at 2m

Soil: Balrownie Series, imperfectly drained

0‐20/25cm Dark brown (7.5YR3/2) with many fine reddish brown root mottles; loam; weakmedium subangular blocky structure; friable consistence; common small subangular andangular stones; abrupt, irregular boundary

20/25‐60/70cm Mottled dark reddish grey (5YR4/2) and strong brown (7.5YR4/8) withoccasional yellowish red (5Y5/8) mottles; fine sandy clay loam; very coarse prismaticstructure with reddish grey drying to grey (5YR5/1) ped faces; compact, very firmconsistence; 10‐20 per cent stones ‐ subangular and sub‐rounded sandstone, sub‐roundedquartz schist and few sub‐rounded basic igneous with strong onion‐skin weathering; few fineroots; gradual boundary

11



60/70‐150cm Coarsely mottled dark reddish grey (5YR4/2) and dark brown (7.5YR 4/4) sandyclay loam; platy fissility within very coarse prismatic or polyhedral structure with pinkish grey(5YR6/2) ped faces; compact, very firm consistence with abrupt rupture under pressurewhen unconstrained; 15‐20 per cent stones and boulders up to 50cm long axis – subangularand tabular surface‐weathered sandstone, a few sub‐rounded quartz‐schist boulders andigneous rocks weathered to grit; clear boundary150‐200+cm Dark reddish brown (5YR3/2‐3)medium sandy clay loam; very firm consistence; 20‐25per cent stones as above with; watertable at 150cm; sample no.3 collected from 1.5 – 2m.


Elevation 185m

Landform: Upper convex slope: 0‐4o, 1.5‐2o at turbine site; nearby gully from upper fieldmargin to footslope, possibly initiated by blocked stone drain

Water table: Not encountered within 2m

Bedrock: Not encountered


0‐30/35cm Dark greyish brown (10YR3/2) medium sandy clay loam; weak subangular blockystructure; firm consistence; common small subangular stones; many fine roots; abrupt,irregular boundary

30/35‐50/60cm Mottled dark reddish grey (5YR4/2), grey (5YR6/1) and strong brown (7.5YR5/6) medium sandy clay loam; coarse polyhedral structure with grey ped faces; compact,very firm consistence; common (<10 per cent) subangular stones; few fine roots; clear wavyboundary

50/60‐160cm Dark reddish brown with fine and medium yellowish red (5YR 4/8) mottles; finesandy clay loam; coarse polyhedral structure with grey ped faces; <10 per cent stones, mostlyflaggy sandstone, few schists and rare igneous erratic; smooth clear boundary

160‐200cm+ Dark reddish brown (5YR3/2) clay loam; few stones, mostly strongly weatheredsandstone; sample no.4 collected from 160‐200cm



12



Soil Profile for Transformer SiteLocation: Transformer site, grid reference 969264

Elevation: 175m

Landform: Mid convex slope: 3‐4o


0‐30cm Dark brown sandy loam, few surface stones

30‐60cm Mottled reddish grey, grey and strong brown sandy loam, few subangular stones

13




VOLUME 2Chapter 17:

Telecommunications &Utilities



2

Chapter 17: Telecommunications & Utilities



INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................5

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................5

BASELINE CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................6Consultation with OfCom ............................................................................................6Consultation with Utilities and Telecommunications Organizations ..........................7Other Possible Asset Owners Consulted .....................................................................8Other Possible Asset Owners Consulted .....................................................................8Consultations With The Joint Radio Company (JRC)....................................................9

TERRESTRIAL TELEVISION – ANALOGUE TV SCREENED OUT OF ASSESSMENT .........................9

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...............................................................................................................10Microwave Telecommunication Links........................................................................10Radio Telemetry Links................................................................................................10Utility Services...........................................................................................................10Terrestrial Television..................................................................................................11

MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................13Terrestrial Television..................................................................................................13

RESIDUAL IMPACTS .................................................................................................................14Microwave Telecommunication Links........................................................................14Radio Telemetry Links................................................................................................14Utilities Infrastructure ...............................................................................................14Terrestrial Television..................................................................................................14

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................15

CONTENTS

3




4




INTRODUCTION

17.1 SRL undertook an assessment of the proposed Parks of Keillour Wind TurbineCluster and its potential impacts on existing utilities infrastructure andtelecommunications systems. The assessment included gas and water pipelines,electrical infrastructure (both transmission and distribution), fixed microwavetelecommunication links and terrestrial television reception.

17.2 This chapter firstly describes the utilities and telecommunication baselineenvironment of the proposed Parks of Keillour Wind Power Development asestablished through consultation with national and local organisations. Then, itdescribes (1) the potential effects predicted as a result of the construction,operation and decommissioning phases of the proposal, (2) the available mitigationmeasures to reduce or eliminate any potential impacts and (3) a summary ofresidual impacts, following the implementation of the mitigation measuresdiscussed.

METHODOLOGY

17.3 A desk study was carried out to collect baseline information. The desk studyincluded:

• Identification of microwave telecommunication and radio telemetry linkscrossing or near to the site boundary;

• Identification of utility infrastructure in close proximity to the site;

• Identification of television and telecommunications fixed link signaltransmissions in close proximity to the proposed turbine development site;

• Plotting of identified links and utility infrastructure to determine whichcrossed the site boundary or are proximate to the proposed site;

• Consultation with telecommunication and infrastructure operators andservice providers where potential impacts were anticipated;

• Consultation with the owners and operators of the electricity, gas andwater networks.

5



BASELINE CONDITIONS

Consultation with OfCom

17.4 The telecommunications regulator, the Office for Communications (OfCom),communications link operators and television transmitter management agencieswere consulted, in accordance with the best practice pre‐planning processrecommended by Renewable UK, to establish baseline conditions.

17.5 Pre‐planning consultation with OfCom (and research through OfCom’s Site‐finderSearch‐tool), revealed that there were no microwave Telecommunication links sitedwithin an 850m Grid Square centring on the proposed development site OfCom’sfindings are detailed in Table 17.1 below.

Table 17.1. Telecommunications links within an 850m Grid Square centring onthe development site.

Type of Technology Abbrev Features How many sites?

Global System for Mobiles GSM • Digital Nil• 2nd Generation• 80% of Global Market

Universal Mobile UMTS • Digital NilTelecommunication • 3rd GenerationSystem • <20% of Global Mkt

Terrestrial Tracked Radio TETRA • Private High security NilMobile System • Voice encryption

• Fire, Police, Ambulance, Taxis etc

Shared base stations Shared • Shared by 2 or more Nilmobile operators.

• Mix of technologies



6



Consultation with Utilities and Telecommunications Organizations

17.6 A wide range of Utilities and Telecommunications companies were then consultedthrough the ‘Linesearch‐before‐U‐Dig’ service. The baseline was established by thefindings that none of the Companies listed in Table 17.2 owned any assets on theland at Parks of Keillour. See list of agencies/companies consulted below.

Table 17.2. Consultations made with Utilities & TelecommunicationsCompanies

UTILITIES & TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES CONSULTED BY SRL THROUGH AGENTSAT ‘LINESEARCH‐BEFORE‐U‐DIG’

AWE Pipeline ✓ BOC Limited ✓

Fibre‐Speed Limited ✓ (A Member of the Linde Group)Oikos Storage Limited ✓ Gamma ✓

Perenco UK Limited ✓ Esso Petroleum Company Ltd ✓

(Purbeck Southampton Pipeline) ✓ NPower CHP Pipelines ✓

Zayo Group UK Ltd c/o JSM Group Ltd ✓

BP Midstream Pipelines ✓ BPA ✓

Government Pipelines & Storage System ✓ Humbly Grove Energy ✓

Phillips 66 ✓ Premier Transmission Ltd (SNIP) ✓

Centrica Energy ✓ Centrica Storage Ltd IGas Energy ✓

HV Cables ✓ SABIC UK Petrochemicals ✓

RWEnpower (Little Barford and South Haven) ✓

ConocoPhillips (UK) Ltd ✓ Coryton Energy Co Ltd (Gas Pipeline) ✓

Ineos Enterprises Limited ✓ INEOS Manufacturing (Scotland and TSEP) ✓

Scottish Power Generation ✓ Seabank Power Ltd ✓

CSP Fibre c/o Centara ✓ EirGrid ✓

Lark Energy ✓ Mainline Pipelines Limited ✓

Shell Pipelines ✓ Spiecapag UK Limited (Carrington) ✓

Electricity North West Limited ✓ E‐on UK Plc (Gas Pipelines Only) ✓

Manchester Jetline Limited ✓ Marchwood Power Ltd (Gas Pipeline) ✓

Total (Finaline, Colnbrook & Colwick Pipelines) ✓ Transmission Capital ✓

ESP Utilities Group ✓ National Grid Gas (above 2 bar) and National ✓

Grid Electricity Transmission ✓ Western Power Distribution ✓

ESSAR ✓ Wingas Storage UK Ltd ✓

Northumbrian Water Group ✓

Findings ‐ None of the above owned any assets in the vicinity of Parks of Keillour

7



Other Possible Asset Owners Consulted

17.7 Other possible asset owners, not covered in Tables 17.1 and 17.2 above, were thenconsulted to discover whether or not they owned any assets on Parks of KeillourLand. No significant problems or issues arose from the consultations. Only SSEowned any assets, which consisted of the 132kV wires and pylons running, aboveground, across the Parks of Keillour site. See CAD Drawing at Volume 4 Figure 6.Scottish Water owned no assets on the developable area of the site and a copy oftheir survey map and legend can be found at Volume 4 Figures 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3.

Other Possible Asset Owners Consulted

Table 17.3 Other possible Asset Owners not covered in previous groups wereconsulted

COMPANY E‐MAIL CONTACT CONSULTED TELEPHONE

British Telecom [email protected] ✓ 08000232023

Colt [email protected] ✓ 01227768427

Energetics Electricity plantenquiries@energetics‐uk.com ✓ 01698404646

Fulcrum FPL [email protected] ✓ 03330146455

GTC Plant.enquiries@bu‐uk.co.uk ✓ 01359240363

Instalcom [email protected] ✓ 02087314613

Interoute [email protected] ✓ 02070259000

Perth & Kinross Council [email protected] ✓

Scotia Gas Networks [email protected] ✓ 01414184093

Scottish and Southern Energy [email protected] ✓ 01256337294

Scottish Water [email protected] ✓ [email protected]@national‐one‐call.co.uk

Verizon Business osp‐[email protected] ✓ 01293611736

Virgin Media http://www.digdat.co.uk ✓ 08708883116

Vodafone [email protected] ✓ 01454662881

Vtesse Networks https://vtplant.vtesse.com ✓ 01992532100

Site Infrastructure services (UK) Ltd [email protected] ✓ 03331231223

National‐One Call swplans@national‐one‐call.co.uk ✓ 0844800 9957



8



Consultations With The Joint Radio Company (JRC)

17.8 The Joint Radio Company Limited at Dean Bradley House, 52 Horseferry Road,London SW1P 2AF were consulted about the proposed development to establish abaseline picture. Their role is to analyse proposals for wind turbine developmentson behalf of the UK Fuel & Power Industry together with the Water Industry in NWEngland.

17.9 On this occasion JRC were asked to assess the potential of the four turbines(proposed for Parks of Keillour) to interfere with radio systems operated by utilitycompanies in support of their statutory and regulatory operational requirements.

17.10 In the case of the Parks of Keillour windpower development, JRC informed SRL inwriting that they did not foresee any potential problems based on knowninterference scenarios and the data provided it them. No links would be affected byany of the 4 turbines. However, they added the caveat that if any details of the windturbine cluster were to change, particularly the disposition or scale of anyturbine(s), it would be necessary to re‐evaluate the proposal. JRC have been kept upto date with evolutionary design changes.

17.11 In making this judgment, JRC used its best endeavours with the available data,although they recognised that there might be effects which were as yet unknown orinadequately predicted. JRC emphasized, therefore, that they could not be heldliable if subsequently problems arose that had not been predicted.

TERRESTRIAL TELEVISION – ANALOGUE TVSCREENED OUT OF ASSESSMENT17.12 The potential for an adverse effect to television reception was limited to terrestrial

television only. Cable and satellite services would remain unaffected by the development.

17.13 In October 2012 the last analogue TV signals across the UK were turned off. Theissue, therefore, of potential interference to analogue TV sets was screened out ofthis assessment.

17.14 Digital transmission was much more robust than analogue transmission and so veryfew impacts on reception were anticipated. However, where terrestrial televisionreception was interfered with by the development, the Developer was committed toproviding the necessary financial resources to mitigate the impact.

9



POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Microwave Telecommunication Links17.14 Microwave telecommunication links operate along a line‐of‐sight to site basis and to

remain effective the link between transceivers needs to be free of obstructions.Were the communication path to be blocked by the passage of a turbine blade, thesignal or service and any transmitted data could be lost or degraded.

17.15 As the telecommunication links can carry signals and data for a wide range of users,including the emergency services, it is important that such signals are permitted topropagate without impediment to avoid loss of services to end users.

17.16 As the proposed Parks of Keillour Wind Power Development has been assessed asbeing clear from affecting any of the Telecommunications links identified (confirmedby JRC that no links will be affected), and has so far been acceptable to the networkoperators consulted, no adverse impacts are expected on microwavetelecommunications links. Nevertheless, the obvious mitigation measure, shouldany last minute objections be raised, is for the link operators to change the currentmicrowave telecommunication links to satellite communication links.

Radio Telemetry Links17.17 Radio telemetry links principally operate on a line‐of‐sight basis. However, this rule

Is not absolute and they are often able to function with obstacles in the path of thesignal route by the way of signal diffraction and reflection. In view of thisproblematic characteristic, the actual path taken by any signal can be difficult topredict. Furthermore, it may be affected by new objects constructed in the vicinityof the signal path or constructed in the vicinity of the objects causing any reflectionor diffraction.

17.18 As no radio telemetry links were identified within the development area of Parks ofKeillour, no impacts from the proposed development are anticipated on such networks.

Utility Services17.19 As no electricity cables, fibre‐optic cables or gas transmission or distribution lines

were identified within the development area, no impact from the proposals areanticipated on the utilities networks.

17.20 As no water or sewage pipelines were found to cross the site, no impacts areanticipated on water infrastructure, as a result of the proposals.



10



Terrestrial Television

17.21 The digital television broadcast platform offered many advantages over the olderanalogue broadcast technologies. Due to the way picture signals were encoded andbroadcast, digital television offered a much more resilient platform against the typesof interference encountered by former analogue television broadcast networks. Theconstruction of digital signals ensured that they were much more impervious to theeffects of interference from indirect secondary reflections, which consequentlyensured good quality and coherent data stream integrity at the receiver, resulting inan interference free picture.

17.22 Digital Television Transmission (DTT) signals were also more robust when faced withthe interference effects created by moving wind turbine blades. The structure of thesignal ensured that the data stream was much less susceptible to the interferencemechanisms.

17.23 Disruption to DTT services was more frequently caused by a poor quality receive‐antenna‐systems (i.e poor antennas, cables and interconnects) or locally generatedwideband electrical noise. Wind turbine generated interference was highly unlikelyif minimum recommended DTT signal levels had been met. All multiplexes (exceptBBC HD) were 64QAM modulation, with a coding rate 2/3, & 8K FFT. Minimumrecommended receive levels were 46 dBμV/m. The BBC HD multiplex operated theDVB‐T2 standard ‐ 256QAM modulation, with a coding rate 2/3, & 32K FFT.Minimum recommended receive levels were 47 dBμV/m.

17.24 Digital satellite signals were also highly unlikely to be affected by the developmentprovided that the turbines were 300m distant from the satellite receiver dish. Digitalsatellite services were provided by satellites positioned above the equator, 22,300miles out in space, in Geo‐stationary orbit around the Earth’s Axis. In the UK, Freesatand Sky services come from the 28.2 degrees east ASTRA 2A, ASTRA 2B and ASTRA2D satellites. These three satellites occupy the same space and are collectivelycalled the Astra Cluster. To ensure good reception of satellite services, satellitedishes were normally positioned away from trees and other clutter. They wereorientated to face approximately south–south‐east. Disruption to satellite televisionservices was normally caused by an obstruction in the line of sight from the satelliteto the receiver dish e.g. a tall building, tall structure or tall trees. Adverse weathercould also influence reception. However, for a turbine to obstruct a residentialsatellite signal it would have to be built within 300m of the satellite dish. At present,there were no residences within 300m of any of the four wind turbines proposed.

11



17.25 It was therefore highly unlikely that the development would affect satellite TVsignals (Freesat and Sky) but technically possible that some of the nearby homesmight suffer interference to their terrestrial digital television reception via antennaonce the proposed wind power development was operational. However, until thewind turbine was erected, it would not be possible to categorically predict the exactnumber of homes that might be affected.

17.26 Nevertheless, recognised and established mitigation measures could easily beapplied to ensure that any terrestrial television interference experienced wasrectified at the developer’s expense.

17.27 The potential for an adverse effect to television reception was limited to terrestrialtelevision only. Cable and satellite services would remain unaffected by thedevelopment. Digital transmission was much more robust than analoguetransmission so very few impacts on reception were anticipated. However, whereterrestrial television reception was interfered with by the development, theDeveloper would provide the necessary needs to mitigate the impact. It was thedeveloper’s stated undertaking that nobody would suffer adverse television signalimpacts from the erection of the planned wind turbine development.



12



MITIGATION


17.28 Terrestrial television reception interference caused by the development could easilybe resolved, post construction, through technical solutions that would be agreedbetween the Developer and Perth & Kinross Council. The Developer has made anundertaking to fund the corrective measures agreed.

17.29 The specific effects could only be assessed and resolved once the entire windturbine cluster had been constructed and was operating normally. Sometimes,individual turbines could actually improve signal reception at individual dwellings aswell as degrade received signals. Any affected viewer could upgrade their antennasystems or use digital satellite reception equipment to restore television reception.Where interference was shown to be directly attributable to the operation of theParks of Keillour Wind Turbine Cluster, all upgrades and improvement measureswould be funded by the developer.

17.30 The developer undertakes to carry out a post‐construction terrestrial televisionsurveys, on request, at the dwelling of any resident claiming to have experienced alevel of television signal interference, to determine the quality of their individualterrestrial television digital service. Those dwellings experiencing terrestrialtelevision interference to their digital televisions, as a result of the wind powerdevelopment, would then be visited by a qualified engineer who would attempt toresolve the issue or make recommendations to the Developer about how the issuewould best be resolved. The developer undertakes to implement mitigationmeasures at the developer’s expense, where a professional survey, carried out intandem with local authority consultation, deems mitigation essential in individualhomes.

13



RESIDUAL IMPACTS

Microwave Telecommunication Links

17.31 The proposed Parks of Keillour Wind Power Development is expected to have nosignificant residual effects on existing, known microwave telecommunication links inthe area.

Radio Telemetry Links

17.32 The proposed Parks of Keillour Wind Power Development is expected to have nosignificant residual effects on existing, known radio telemetry links in the area.

Utilities Infrastructure

17.33 There are no anticipated residual impacts on electricity, gas or water distributionand transmission assets/networks as a result of the proposed development.


17.34 There are no anticipated residual impacts from television signal interference toanalogue television services because analogue transmission in the UK wasterminated in 2012.

17.35 There are no anticipated residual impacts from television signal interference todigital satellite television reception because there are no residences within 300m ofany of the turbines which might experience obstruction of the satellite signal.

17.36 If the mitigation measures described in paragraphs 17.23 to 17.25 are applied thenthere are no predicted residual impacts associated with terrestrial television digitalsignal interference via antenna.



14



REFERENCES

BBC & Ofcom, ‘The Impact of Large Buildings and Structures (including Wind Farms) onTerrestrial Television Reception’, viewed at:http://ww.bbc.co.uk/reception/factsheets/pdfs/buildings_factsheet.pdf

ITU, 1992, ‘Assessment of Impairment Caused to Television Reception by a Wind Turbine’,International Telecommunications Recommendation ITU‐R BT.805, ITU, Switzerland

15



Documents

VOLUME 2 Chapter 16: Geological & Soils Assessment