ConsultationMOD on the Ministry of Defence's approach to safeguarding the Eskdalemuir Seismological Array
- From:
- Ministry of Defence
- Published
- 27 September 2024
- Last updated
-
518 March20252026 — See all updates
We are analysing your feedback
Visit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback.
Summary
This
From consultation1 seeksFebruary views2026 on the MinistryMOD ofadopted Defence’sa proposalsnew regarding its approach to safeguarding the Eskdalemuir Seismological Array.
This consultation ran from
to
Consultation description
1. Introduction
1.1
The Ministry of Defence (“MOD”) consulted from 27 September 2024 to 20 December 2024 on its proposals regarding its approach to safeguarding the Eskdalemuir Seismological Array (“the Array”) in respect of windfarm development in the Eskdalemuir Consultation Zone (“the Consultation Zone”). The MOD’s consultation document can be found in the first appendix to this document.
1.2 Having carefully considered the consultation responses, the MOD, with effect from 1 February 2026, will adopt the new safeguarding approach as set out in the second appendix to this document.
1.3 This revised safeguarding approach will apply to all pending applications (submitted after 11 January 2018 and until the new safeguarding approach takes effect) and future applications (being applications submitted after the new safeguarding approach takes effect.
1.4 Requests submitted for scoping have not been considered to be applications for consent, whether submitted before or after 11 January 2018. Requests submitted for scoping have been removed from the list which is maintained by the MOD and in respect of which it assesses whether development, cumulatively, results in the Eskdalemuir threshold of 0.336nm being breached. This list, audited as explained in section 2 below, is referred to in this document as “the MOD’s List”. Requests for scoping which have been or are followed by an application for consent will be assessed by the date on which the associated consultation notification for that application was received by the MOD from the consenting authority in accordance with the new approach. Applications which have already been decided by the relevant consenting authorities will be unaffected.
2. Audit of the MOD’s List
2.1. The MOD explained in its consultation document that it would require to review and validate the baseline list of existing and/or consented wind turbine developments in the Consultation Zone in order to ensure that that list - and the associated calculation of headroom above the Eskdalemuir threshold which is not currently referable to already-consented development - is accurate. The MOD has completed this exercise. The MOD’s audited baseline (i.e. the MOD’s List) can be found in the third appendix to this document.
2.2 The MOD’s audit has confirmed that in certain respects the information held by it was inaccurate. This has occurred for a number of reasons including that:
2.2.1 the MOD has not been consulted on certain applications;
2.2.2. the MOD has not been consulted on or advised of variations to certain applications despite those variations having a bearing on the calculation of seismic ground vibration (“SGV”), meaning that consents have been granted which do not reflect the information recorded by the MOD on the MOD’s List (being the details with which it was provided at the point of consultation on the initial application); and
2.2.3 consents have been granted which do not contain (by way of condition or otherwise) a requirement to comply with all of the factors which are relevant to the calculation by the MOD calculated SGV from a development, being number of turbines, layout and location of individual turbines, and maximum hub height and maximum rotor diameter.
2.3 To ensure that the data the MOD used to calculate SGV was accurate and to ensure the safeguarding of the Array, when undertaking its audit and revising the MOD’s List, the MOD applied the following principles. The MOD has taken this approach to ensure that it is working with what it understands to be the most reliable data. The MOD has also sought to take a precautionary approach in terms of calculating the “worst case scenario” in terms of SGV for each development.
2.3.1 The MOD has updated the MOD’s List and therefore its calculations of SGV to take account of applications/variations to applications of which it had not previously been made aware;
2.3.2 It has relied upon “as implemented” data (in respect of the factors which are necessary to calculate SGV) collated on behalf of the Eskdalemuir Working Group (“EWG”) when the EWG undertook its own review of the baseline, where this data corresponds with the terms of the consent;
2.3.3 Where the data collated on behalf of the EWG is incomplete (in respect of the factors which are necessary to calculate SGV and/or where consent has been granted but only partially implemented), the MOD has relied upon the terms of the consent;
2.3.4 Where the “as implemented” data collated on behalf of the EWG is inconsistent with the terms of the consent - for example in respect of hub height - the MOD has relied upon the “worst case” data (i.e. whichever set of data results in the greater cumulative SGV);
2.3.5 Where the data collated on behalf of the EWG is incomplete and those factors are also missing from the consent, those missing factors will be taken from the information which was provided to the MOD during the processing of the application by the consenting authority (i.e. the factors on which the MOD relied when calculating SGV);
2.3.6 Where there are multiple consents in respect of a particular development, the MOD has again taken the “worst case” data (i.e. whichever set of data results in the greater cumulative SGV). Although a development may have been implemented in terms of one of those consents, the MOD has considered whether additional turbines from another consent should be included within its calculation of SGV. The MOD has also considered whether constructed turbines could be substituted with turbines which will have greater SGV; and
2.3.7 Where applications have been granted subject to conditions which relate to the impact of the development on the Array and/or a legal agreement has been entered into in that respect, the MOD has taken the terms of that agreement into account when noting the cumulative SGV of that development.
2.4 It should be noted the MOD has at this stage run its audited baseline against the current algorithm (i.e. the 2014 algorithm) and not a revised algorithm. This is because the technical work upon which a revised algorithm relies has still to be completed and then reviewed and accepted by the MOD. The MOD’s baseline list is therefore likely to be updated again, and SGV calculations in respect of development on the MOD’s list revised, when the revised algorithm has been accepted by the MOD.
3. Responses to consultation
3.1 The MOD is grateful for stakeholders’ engagement. Sixteen responses were received to the consultation.
3.2 Taking each of the questions posed by the MOD in its consultation in turn, and in summary, respondents expressed the following views. The MOD will set out its response to these comments in section 4 of this document.
3.2.1 Is the MOD’s proposal to consider applications on a first come, first served basis and add applications to its list, used to calculate the cumulative SGV of all such development, according to the date on which the application for consent was formally accepted as valid by the consenting authority, with a consistent approach for all types of application, clearly understandable and fair overall, and is it a practical approach?
3.2.1.1 The principle of the first come, first served approach was generally considered to be fair, subject to the comments summarised below.
3.2.1.2 A number of respondents asked that consideration be given to the scale of the impact of a proposed development on the Array and its predicted SGV. The MOD should manage the list dynamically, giving priority to developments with the lowest impact on the Array. Reference was made to the importance of the ongoing work of the EWG.
3.2.1.3 It was suggested that applications should not be considered on a strictly first come, first served basis. The order of consideration should instead be decided based on agreed weighted criteria including the date of the application and the development’s contribution towards decarbonisation targets.
3.2.1.4 Most comment made in response to this question focussed on: (i) the MOD’s proposal to add applications to the MOD’s List on the basis of the date on which the application was formally accepted as valid by the consenting authority; and (ii) the benefit, to ensure clarity, of the MOD providing greater definition of some of the terminology used in its proposed approach.
3.2.1.5 As regards the order in which it is proposed that applications are to be listed by the MOD, it was noted that “validation” is not a term used regarding applications made under the Electricity Act 1989 (“the Electricity Act”). Furthermore, for validation of applications made under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (“the Planning Act”), different planning authorities take different approaches to the date of validation, which could result in later applications being allocated a higher position in the MOD’s list as a result of being given an earlier date of validation by the planning authority.
3.2.1.6 There was considerable support for an approach which was put forward by Scottish Renewables. Scottish Renewables suggested firstly that a deemed validation date of ten working days after submission of an application should be adopted. While intimation to the MOD of submission would be given in the first instance by the applicant, the MOD would update the MOD’s List when notified by the consenting authority by reference to the submission date. Scottish Renewables made an alternative suggestion of an electronic receipt being provided by the consenting authority on submission of an application, which could then be sent to the MOD. It was suggested that developers should be able to challenge, within a given period of time and with evidence, the order in which applications have been listed, or to seek to have a development removed because the application has been finally refused or withdrawn.
3.2.1.7 Concern was expressed that any approach proposed could encourage developers to submit applications in a rush in order to secure a place in the MOD’s list, with the intention of providing further information at a later stage. It was noted that such practice would run contrary to the Energy Consents Unit’s expectation that developers submit complete applications.
3.2.1.8 There was also concern - which may relate in part to comment made about the need for greater clarity around terminology used in the proposed approach - about a lack of information concerning how applications for “repowering” projects would be treated, and about the potential unintended consequences of treating such applications in the same way as new applications for new sites. It was suggested that there should be a clear differentiation between the treatment of applications for new and for “repowering” projects, with the latter being assessed based on their incremental impact on SGV, existing infrastructure, and the project’s previous SGV contributions. A portion of the SGV budget could also be attributed specifically to “repowering” projects so that they are not disadvantaged by new applications. The contrary position was also suggested of “repowering” applications being afforded no particular status or priority. Reference should be made to sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.5 below.
3.2.1.9 Lastly, the MOD has been asked to clarify the status of currently submitted applications under the new approach, with a respondent noting that these should be prioritised in the new list ahead of new submissions after the new list comes into operation on the basis of the MOD’s existing records.
3.2.2 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal that, in the event of two or more applications sharing the same date on which the applications where formally accepted as valid by the consenting authority/authorities, the application which has the earlier date on which a consultation request was received by the MOD will take priority?
3.2.2.1 The issue raised by this question is closely related to the question above at section 3.2.1.
3.2.2.2 A number of respondents commented that the probability of two applications being received on the same day should be low. Nevertheless, concerns were raised that the proposed approach could be unfair to applicants, as the relevant date would depend on factors outwith applicants’ control, such as case officer workload, work pattern, and leave. It was also noted that it could be affected by the regime under which the application was made.
3.2.2.3 Some respondents wrote that this issue could be avoided if their suggestions given in response to the immediately preceding question (section 3.2.1 above) were to be adopted.
3.2.2.4 Failing this, one respondent noted that most if not all applications are submitted online. It was suggested that a time stamp given to such applications would resolve the issue as the application submitted earlier on the same day would be prioritised.
3.2.3 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal for “applications” (as referred to in paragraph 3.2.1 above) to include applications to vary, modify or amend existing consents (including “repowering” applications) subject to the exceptions proposed in the consultation (i.e. (a) applications to extend the duration of consents (whether before or after commencement of development) to which the MOD will not object if it has not objected to the original application on the basis that there is headroom available for the original application and there is no increase in predicted SGV as a consequence of the extension of duration application; (b) applications for variation, material or otherwise, modification or amendment of existing consents to which the MOD will not object if it has not objected to the original application on the basis that there is headroom available for the original application and there is no increase in predicted SGV as a consequence of the variation, etc. application).
3.2.3.1 This proposal was seen by several respondents as logical but in need of further clarification. Regarding the reference in the proposed approach to “repowering” applications, concerns were raised due to the lack of a statutory definition of such an application. It was suggested that clear guidelines should be established to differentiate between “new” and “repowering” applications.
3.2.3.2 Several respondents wrote that applications for variation, modification and amendment of existing consents (including “repowering” applications) should be assessed based on their incremental impact on SGV, rather than the whole application being put to the end of the list.
3.2.3.2 While support was expressed for “repowering” projects enjoying the SGV attributed to the project to be repowered, this view was not held by all respondents.
3.2.4 Do consultees have any comment on the MOD’s position regarding the use of suspensive conditions when there is no headroom available and the MOD’s approach to a “waiting list”?
3.2.4.1 Respondents had quite differing views on the use of suspensive conditions.
3.2.4.2 On the one hand it was felt that the use of conditions generally would not meet the tests of Planning Circular 4/1998: the use of conditions in planning permissions. Comment was made that it is unclear how suspensive conditions would effectively solve the problem: the use of these conditions risks leaving an increasing number of projects in limbo while they await headroom which may never materialise. This uncertainty can stall projects indefinitely, impacting the overall progress towards renewable energy generation.
3.2.4.3 It was felt that such conditions should be used only in specific and limited circumstances, such as where a project is intended to be constructed in a phased manner and additional SGV would be required for a later phase. Until a sustainable and enduring solution is adopted for the safeguarding of the Array, suspensive conditions were not generally considered to be a viable option.
3.2.4.4 On the other hand, some respondents expressed considerable support for the use of suspensive conditions.
3.2.4.5 It was said that the MOD should not rule out the use of suspensive conditions entirely, particularly where the use of suspensive conditions would enable projects that are ready to proceed and are unlikely to negatively impact on the Eskdalemuir threshold on adoption of future UK Government (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)/Scottish Government and MOD guidance supported by legislative reform and/or on headroom becoming available. If projects come forward to determination out of turn (meaning not in the order in which the applications have been added to the MOD’s list) then a suspensive condition, perhaps with an advisory note setting out under what circumstances the condition could be discharged, might be appropriate. Such an approach may have to be consulted upon to protect against any future challenge.
3.2.4.6 It was noted that the MOD’s approach must ensure that it does not unjustly increase risk of delays or deter investment in projects.
3.2.4.7 One respondent argued that conditions should be imposed only if they make a development acceptable that would otherwise be refused on its merits. Projects, if consented, should maintain their position in the MOD’s List if no headroom is available. As other projects fall away due to refusal, these projects could take up the available headroom, provided they remain extant. Applications could be submitted to extend the implementation period if the developer believes headroom will become available. The decision-maker would then consider any such extension based on the development’s merits and potential to obtain budget. This approach would prevent non-viable consented projects from occupying budget.
3.2.4.8 Concern was expressed about projects which are expected to breach the Eskdalemuir threshold, and that they should not serve to block other applications for development which are made after this date, which could be consented without breaching the Eskdalemuir threshold. The use of suspensive conditions may be appropriate in such circumstances until refinement of the algorithm and any UK Government (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)/Scottish Government guidance supported by legislative reform (see section 6 below).
3.2.4.9 Reference should also be made to section 3.2.9 below.
3.2.5 Do consultees have any other comment on the definition of applications as set out in the original consultation (i.e. applications for: (a) development; and (b) variation, material or otherwise, modification or amendment of existing consents (including “repowering” applications by way of new application)?
3.2.5.1 Concern was raised about how an application for a “repowering” project will be differentiated from an application for new development. Greater clarity on this issue was thought to be necessary.
3.2.5.2 It was suggested that applications for “repowering” projects should be included in the exceptions listed in section 3.2.3 above.
3.2.5.3 Clarity was sought on the status of sites with existing planning permission but outstanding applications under section 36 of the Electricity Act. The MOD was also asked to clarify that the consenting regime under which the SGV was originally calculated/attributed to a proposed development will not be material when considering modification of an existing consent, specifically what the position will be should a development which benefits from a planning permission be followed by an application under section 36 of the Electricity Act. This is relevant to the MOD’s position when applications for variation, etc of an existing consent are submitted and the variation, etc does not result in an increase of the predicted SGV for the original consent. See section 3.2.3 above.
3.2.6 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal to remove applications from the MOD’s list (and therefore the calculation of cumulative SGV) on final refusal (including the final refusal of any appeal, statutory challenge or Judicial Review or the end of the period within which any such application can be made)? Is this clear, fair and practical?
3.2.6.1 Respondents felt that this was clear and fair in theory, but some expressed concern about the practical implementation of this approach.
3.2.6.2 Some respondents raised doubts over the MOD’s capacity to maintain the accuracy of the MOD’s List, given resource constraints, and one respondent questioned how the MOD would necessarily know that final refusal had occurred. It was suggested that a consultancy could be engaged to regularly update the MOD’s List.
3.2.6.3 One respondent suggested having a timeline within which applications would be removed from the MOD’s List following final refusal, so that delays could be avoided in recalculating SGV for other pending applications.
3.2.6.4 One respondent questioned whether applications should be added to the MOD’s List at all if the projects with which they are concerned would exceed the Eskdalemuir threshold.
3.2.6.5 Reference should also be made to section 3.2.8 below.
3.2.7 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal that re- consultation will be required if any changes to the parameters required to calculate SGV (number of turbines, grid references of each turbine accurate to 1m and any micro-siting allowance, maximum hub height, maximum rotor diameter and maximum rated-power of proposed turbines) were to be proposed during the application process and that, in the event of re-consultation which has the effect of increasing the predicted SGV of the development, the MOD will consider the application anew as if it had been validated on the date of re-consultation and that the MOD will move the application on its list to this new date?
3.2.7.1 Considerable concern was expressed by some respondents in response to this proposal, with concern expressed that it could unfairly penalise certain projects and lead to industry uncertainty, delays, and inhibition of funding.
3.2.7.2 In particular, there were objections to the notion of an application being moved to the end of the MOD’s List due only to a small increase in predicted SGV being required during the application process, especially as this could be as a result of factors outwith the developer’s control, for example a local authority making its support conditional on relocating a turbine to a position that would result in the increase, or a change in the availability of certain makes or models of turbine. It was pointed out that developers often need to amend schemes in scenarios which are not developer-led.
3.2.7.3 It was suggested that, if an amendment to an application leads to an increase in predicted SGV, only the increase should be considered anew: the developer should be able to retain their place on the MOD’s List as regards the original predicted SGV and validation date.
3.2.7.4 It was suggested that there be an exception in the case of an increase to SGV owing to a local authority or consultee making their support conditional on relocating a turbine to a position that results in the increase in predicted SGV.
3.2.7.5 Some respondents indicated that increases in predicted SGV could be a good reason for use of suspensive conditions.
3.2.7.6 One respondent suggested that the materiality of the change should be taken into consideration by the MOD.
3.2.8 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal to remove developments from the MOD’s list if development has not taken place, there is no potential for the consent to be implemented, the consent having expired; or where development has been implemented, the development has been finally decommissioned and any underlying consent has clearly and unambiguously expired.
3.2.8.1 Respondents were generally in agreement with the principle of the proposal. However, several respondents raised concerns about the MOD’s capacity to accurately maintain the MOD’s List. It was said that the MOD must ensure that the removal process is timely and transparent.
3.2.8.2 It was clearly felt that the MOD should have a workable way of ascertaining when a criterion for removal from the MOD’s List has been met.
3.2.8.3 Further, respondents were concerned that developments would be removed from the MOD’s List while an application to vary, amend or modify was still live, if the underlying consent had expired. One respondent suggested exceptions to the proposal to account for the interaction between underlying and variations applications.
3.2.8.4 One respondent wrote that it was not always clear what the date of expiry of consent was, and that the consenting authority and applicant should always be consulted before action was taken to remove a development from the list.
3.2.8.5 The view was expressed that given the importance of repowering, developers should be afforded the opportunity to retain the SGV attributed to their current development prior to decommissioning, and only any additional SGV required should require to be assessed separately.
3.2.9 In order that the MOD can calculate the SGV from proposed developments, it will require certain information to be provided with the application, and that information will need to be captured by way of planning condition or otherwise in any consent. Is the MOD’s proposal clear, fair and practical?
3.2.9.1 This was generally thought to be a reasonable approach. However, there were concerns that it was overly prescriptive, and that the information required by the MOD should be only that which is strictly needed to assess the SGV taken by the proposed development.
3.2.9.2 Some respondents raised concerns about the information required. It was pointed out that maximum hub height, maximum rotor diameter, and maximum rated power are not part of the formal description of development. Maximum rated power was thought to be an inappropriate parameter, given that future technology could produce greater power using the same dimensions and so generate more renewable energy, which it would not make sense to limit. Careful consideration was therefore encouraged as to which parameters should be controlled.
3.2.9.3 It was felt that the method of capturing and providing the information should be flexible, subject to demonstrating SGV compliance.
3.2.9.4 One respondent felt that the MOD should ask for the manufacturer and turbine model used in the proposed development to be provided, so that it could calculate the actual SGV of the project (rather than rely on the predictive model used by the MOD) and discharge any suspensive condition.
3.2.10 Do consultees have anything to add?
3.2.10.1 Respondents had concerns that large developments in close proximity to the array could have a disproportionate effect, potentially exhausting any available headroom, and there was a suggestion that applications be ranked by SGV requirement to help ensure that the maximum number of developments can be built.
3.2.10.2 Transparency regarding how applications are assessed and prioritised was considered to be important. Given the dynamism of the renewables sector, respondents also requested regular updates on available headroom and the MOD’s List to give better visibility about future opportunities and ensure capacity is not reserved for projects that will not proceed.
3.2.10.3 Collaboration between the MOD, developers, and researchers in the renewables sector was encouraged. This could be used to explore advancements in technology such as mitigation techniques and more efficient turbine models which could expand the capacity for development within the Consultation Zone while maintaining the integrity of the Array.
3.2.10.4 One respondent requested that mapping data be provided to local authorities so that it can be used to identify when MOD consultation will be required.
3.2.10.5 Some respondents suggested revisiting the MOD’s resourcing and outsourcing. It was felt that the way in which the Array’s protection is managed presents a barrier to development across a large area, potentially having a detrimental effect on renewable energy targets, and that this justified reconsidering the way in which the MOD is resourced internally, and its ability to outsource work. In particular, a respondent suggested the engagement of external accreditation bodies to monitor and update the MOD’s List.
4. MOD’s response to comments received
4.1. The consultation responses to all the questions have been carefully considered. In light of the comments received, the MOD will adopt the approach as set out in its consultation document, subject to the following adjustments. The new approach is as set out in the second appendix to this document.
4.1.1.Is the MOD’s proposal to consider applications on a first come, first served basis and add applications to its list, used to calculate the cumulative SGV of all such development, according to the date on which the application for consent was formally accepted as valid by the consenting authority, with a consistent approach for all types of application, clearly understandable and fair overall, and is it a practical approach?
4.1.1.1 The MOD has noted the concerns expressed about a date of validation. The MOD had been mindful when it published its consultation document of there being no requirement for formal validation of an application made under the Electricity Act as opposed to the Planning Act.
4.1.1.2 The MOD is also mindful of the consultation, Electricity Infrastructure Consenting in Scotland: consultation document. While it may in due course be appropriate for the MOD to review its approach in light of the outcome of that consultation, the MOD considers it appropriate not to delay in publishing its new approach.
4.1.1.3 The MOD’s interest is in safeguarding the Array. This is achieved through the promulgation of a clear and easily applied safeguarding approach. When it comes to the calculation of cumulative SGV, first come, first served, satisfies those aims.
4.1.1.4 While some consultees expressed a desire for a more dynamic approach to the management of the Eskdalemuir threshold, with a view to optimising renewable energy generation in the consultation zone, the MOD would note that such optimisation is not part of the MOD’s functions and it has no powers in that regard. Nonetheless, the MOD has been working closely with the UK Government (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero), the Scottish Ministers and the Eskdalemuir Working Group (“EWG”), to support the delivery of the policy aim of optimising renewable energy generation in the Consultation Sone, while at all times ensuring the continuing safeguarding of the Array.
4.1.1.5 The MOD will carefully consider any guidance adopted by the UK and Scottish Governments supported by legislative reform. It will consider what changes appropriately should, as a consequence, be considered and, after appropriate further consultation, made to its safeguarding approach. The MOD does not consider it to be necessary or appropriate to await the publication of any new UK and Scottish Government guidance supported by legislative reform before publishing its own safeguarding approach. The MOD requires, in its role as statutory consultee in the consenting process, to consider applications now. And the MOD will still require to apply its safeguarding approach when managing the Eskdalemuir threshold after any UK and Scottish Government guidance supported by legislative reform has been brought into effect so as to ensure that the Eskdalemuir threshold is not breached.
4.1.1.6 As regards the date on which applications (on a first come, first served basis) are added to the MOD’s List, the MOD’s concern is to ensure certainty, and effective administration. An overly complicated arrangement could in itself cause confusion and could risk the safeguarding of the Array. The MOD safeguards the Array by applying its safeguarding approach. The MOD is a statutory consultee in the consenting process. The MOD responds to a consenting authority’s consultation request, confirming whether or not the MOD objects to the application. The MOD will decide whether or not to object by applying its safeguarding approach and noting whether an application, cumulatively with other relevant development, will or will not result in the Eskdalemuir threshold being exceeded.
4.1.1.7 The MOD would be particularly concerned about any suggestion that a decision not to object to an application because the Eskdalemuir threshold would not be breached might subsequently have to be changed to an objection because the position that the application takes in the MOD’s list has to be adjusted. This would be the effect of some of the views expressed during the MOD’s consultation on its new approach. This would not sit easily with the MOD’s role as a statutory consultee, initially having advised that it has no objection, and it is easy to see how, as a consequence of such an approach, the safeguarding or the Array could be prejudiced.
4.1.1.8 The MOD has carefully considered the concerns raised by consultees about the different approaches that consenting authorities take to seeking responses from statutory consultees, specifically that some consenting authorities seek responses much earlier in the process than others. The MOD has also noted the concern that unfairness could be introduced to the process through factors outwith applicants’ control such as case officer workload, work pattern and leave. There are also issues regarding the consenting regime under which an application has been made. The MOD seeks to act fairly, which includes acting consistently. This involves treating all applications in the same way, not just in terms of first come, first served as a principle (drawing no distinction between applications made under the Electricity Act and applications made under the Planning Act), but in terms of the date on which applications are added by the MOD to its list.
4.1.1.9 Having carefully considered the responses that the MOD has received to its consultation exercise, the MOD’s view is that the most straightforward and certain approach is for it to add applications to the MOD’s List in the order in which Defence Infrastructure Organisation - Safeguarding (“DIO Safeguarding”) receives a consultation request by email from a consenting authority. If a consultation request is sent by post, the date of receipt will be the date on which the consultation request is received by DIO Safeguarding at its principal office which is currently at St George’s House, DMS Whittington, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS14 9PY. This ensures that the MOD is dealing with all applications in a consistent manner. This addresses any concern expressed at consultation about what is meant by an application being treated as valid.
4.1.1.10 As regards the status of pending applications under the new approach (i.e. applications for consent submitted after 11 January 2018), these are included within the MOD’s audited baseline (i.e. the MOD’s List) which can be found in the third appendix to this document. The MOD has applied its new approach to the order that pending applications take in its list.
4.1.2 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal that, in the event of two or more applications sharing the same date on which the applications where formally accepted as valid by the consenting authority/authorities, the application which has the earlier date on which a consultation request was received by the MOD will take priority?
4.1.2.1 Having carefully considered consultee responses, the MOD agrees, especially given that it is to take the approach as set out at section 4.1.1 above, that the probability of two applications being received on the same day should be low.
4.1.2.2 However, for the avoidance of doubt, the MOD has made it clear in its new approach that if more than one consultation request is received on a particular day, the MOD will consider those applications in the order in which they have been received by DIO Safeguarding on that day. Given that consultation requests are invariably received by the MOD by email, the MOD will rely on the time of receipt by DIO Safeguarding of each email. If a consultation request were to be sent by post, the MOD will operate on the basis of a presumption that such requests are received at 9am on the day on which the request is received by DIO Safeguarding at its principal office which is currently at St George’s House, DMS Whittington, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS14 9PY.
4.1.3 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal for “applications” (as referred to in paragraph 4.1.1 above) to include applications to vary, modify or amend existing consents (including “repowering” applications) subject to the exceptions proposed in the consultation (i.e. (a) applications to extend the duration of consents (whether before or after commencement of development) to which the MOD will not object if it has not objected to the original application on the basis that there is headroom available for the original application and there is no increase in predicted SGV as a consequence of the extension of duration application; (b) applications for variation, material or otherwise, modification or amendment of existing consents to which the MOD will not object if it has not objected to the original application on the basis that there is headroom available for the original application and there is no increase in predicted SGV as a consequence of the variation, etc. application).
4.1.3.1 In its new approach the MOD has provided that applications made under section 42 of the Planning Act and those made under section 36C of the Electricity Act will both be regarded as applications to vary, modify or amend existing consents, and that the MOD will not object to such applications if it has not objected to the original application and there is no increase in predicted SGV as a consequence of the variation, modification or amendment application. The MOD may require a condition and legal agreement to ensure that the SGV attributed to the original consent will not be exceeded through the variation, modification or amended application. Further, the MOD may require a condition be attached to the subsequent permission to put beyond doubt that either the original or the replacement project could be implemented, not both.
4.1.3.2 On the other hand, if such an application were to result in greater SGV than attributed to the original consent, the MOD would have regard to the SGV of the replacement project and consider whether to object, determined by whether there is sufficient headroom above the Eskdalemuir threshold for the replacement development.
4.1.3.3 The MOD has considered whether applications for variation, modification and amendment of existing consents should be assessed based on their incremental impact on SGV rather than the whole application for variation, modification and amendment being put to the end of the MOD’s List. The MOD’s concern is to act fairly and consistently. In doing so, it considers that it should continue to treat such applications as new applications other than in respect of the limited exceptions as set out in its new safeguarding approach.
4.1.3.4 As regards “repowering” applications, the MOD will apply the approach as set out in paragraph 4.1.1 above in a consistent manner. For the purposes of this approach, the MOD defines “repowering” applications as being where turbine(s) which comprise an existing development are decommissioned and new turbine(s) are installed in their place. The MOD has noted the different views regarding the importance of “repowering” applications in terms of meeting renewable energy targets. It considers that it is not for the MOD in its safeguarding role to weigh up the merits of competing applications in terms of optimisation of renewable energy generation; that is a matter for the UK and Scottish Governments in terms of their proposed guidance supported by legislative reform.
4.1.4 Do consultees have any comment on the MOD’s position regarding the use of suspensive conditions when there is no headroom available and the MOD’s approach to a “waiting list”?
4.1.4.1 The MOD has consistently taken the view that the Array would not be adequately safeguarded by the use of suspensive conditions such as would only allow development lawfully to commence if and when the Eskdalemuir threshold would not be exceeded so as to allow the MOD to withdraw its objection to development. A suspensive condition in such circumstances would not meet the tests as set out in Planning Circular 4/1998. This remains the MOD’s position.
4.1.4.2 The MOD is aware that planning authorities have granted consent subject to a suspensive condition. As noted in the consultation document, the MOD does not consider the use of a suspensive condition in such circumstances – the Eskdalemuir threshold not being exceeded and headroom subsequently becoming available - to provide adequate protection for the Array. However, to ensure the safeguarding of the Array, the MOD when undertaking its baseline audit has attributed SGV to such development. The MOD’s approach in the future will be as set out above i.e. that it does not consider the use of suspensive conditions in such circumstances - reliance on headroom subsequently becoming available - to provide adequate protection for the Array, and this will be the MOD’s position in respect of applications which are intimated to it for consideration as statutory consultee following the coming into effect of this new approach.
4.1.5 Do consultees have any other comment on the definition of applications as set out in the original consultation (i.e. applications for: (a) development; and (b) variation, material or otherwise, modification or amendment of existing consents (including repowering” applications by way of new application)?
4.1.5.1 This question relates to “applications” which are subject to the “first come, first served” approach.
4.1.5.2 The MOD’s position as regards applications for “repowering” is set out at section 4.1.3 above.
4.1.5.3 There are instances where development has not commenced and consent has been granted pursuant to an application submitted in terms of section 42 of the Planning Act subject to a condition that the section 42 consent must be operated within the predicted SGV of the original consent. The MOD has entered into an agreement with the applicant to discharge such a condition. The MOD recognises that it should not differentiate between those instances and cases where there is an existing planning permission (granted in terms of the Planning Act), and a developer is seeking consent for a replacement development in terms of the Electricity Act, simply because the replacement proposal will take the development over the 50MW threshold. The criteria that the MOD will apply is that the replacement application relates to the same or substantially similar red line boundary as the existing permission.
4.1.5.4 The MOD’s comments at section 5 below regarding a future review of the MOD’s List, should a new algorithm be adopted should be noted. Applicants should not regard any entry on the MOD’s list as being an entitlement to a particular value of SGV; predicted SGV is subject to change should the approach to calculation of SGV (of consented and/or implemented and or pending development) change.
4.1.6 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal to remove applications from the MOD’s list (and therefore the calculation of cumulative SGV) on final refusal (including the final refusal of any appeal, statutory challenge or Judicial Review or the end of the period within which any such application can be made)? Is this clear, fair and practical?
4.1.6.1 A number of respondents expressed concern about how the MOD’s List would be kept up to date.
4.1.6.2 As regards the MOD’s capacity to maintain the accuracy of the MOD’s List, the situation has been markedly improved by the considerable work (which has included the instruction of an external consultancy) undertaken in connection with the audit of the baseline. The MOD is satisfied that it is now proceeding on the understanding that it has the most up to date information.
4.1.6.3 Concerns about the MOD’s List remaining up to date are likely to be addressed by the introduction of new safeguarding software.
4.1.6.4 The MOD will continue to exercise its right to correct any inaccuracies in the MOD’s List at any time.
4.1.6.5 As regards an application which would result in the Eskdalemuir threshold being exceeded, which has been colloquially referred to as “bed blocking” the MOD considers that to maintain a consistent approach and having regard to its interest to safeguard the Array necessitates the inclusion of that development on the MOD’s List. It is not for the MOD, effectively, to seek to optimise renewable energy development.
4.1.7 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal that re- consultation will be required if any changes to the parameters required to calculate SGV (number of turbines, grid references of each turbine accurate to 1m and any micro-siting allowance, maximum hub height, maximum rotor diameter and maximum rated-power of proposed turbines) were to be proposed during the application process and that, in the event of re-consultation which has the effect of increasing the predicted SGV of the development, the MOD will consider the application anew as if it had been validated on the date of re-consultation and that the MOD will move the application on its list to this new date?
4.1.7.1 While the MOD has noted concerns about applications being moved to the end of the MOD’s List because of what might be considered to be increases in SGV which consultees described as being de minimis, or arising from factors outwith the applicant’s control, the MOD again is seeking to act fairly and consistently. The MOD is also particularly mindful of the fact that as a statutory consultee it requires to confirm to the consenting authority whether it is objecting or not to an application. If the MOD were to indicate a partial objection, that would cause uncertainty and confusion and prejudice the safeguarding of the Array. The MOD has set out its position in respect of the use of suspensive conditions which refer to headroom subsequently becoming available at section 4.1.4 above.
4.1.8 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal to remove developments from the MOD’s list if development has not taken place, there is no potential for the consent to be implemented, the consent having expired; or where development has been implemented, the development has been finally decommissioned and any underlying consent has clearly and unambiguously expired.
4.1.8.1 Reference should be made to section 4.1.6 above.
4.1.9 As noted at section 3.2.9 above, in order that the MOD can calculate the SGV from proposed developments, it will require certain information to be provided with the application, and that information will need to be captured by way of planning condition or otherwise in any consent. Is the MOD’s proposal clear, fair and practical?
4.1.9.1 While a respondent queried the appropriateness of the information required by the MOD to be provided with the application, and expressed concern about unnecessary limitations being imposed on developers, the information that the MOD requires is informed by the technical research upon which the MOD relies to safeguard the Array. The parameters set out in the MOD’s approach are those which are necessary to predict SGV from a proposed development. This is subject to the qualification that while a record of rated power could be of assistance in connection with future guidance and legislative reform relating to optimisation of renewable energy in the Consultation Zone, rated power is not a parameter that is required to safeguard the Array. The reference to rated power has therefore been removed from the MOD’s new approach.
4.1.9.2 While noting consultees’ concerns about fixing parameters of development at the stage of the making of an application, this is necessary to ensure the effective safeguarding of the Array.
4.1.9.3 The MOD, when responding to consenting authorities’ consultations will, where no objection is to be made, seek the imposition of a condition to require compliance with the parameters.
4.1.9.4 The MOD’s position in the event that any of the parameters on which it relies in calculating SGV are varied during the processing of an application is set out at section 4.1.7 above.
4.1.10 Do consultees have anything to add?
4.1.10.1 A number of respondents commented that the central focus of any reform should be on developing and implementing an enduring solution, in line with the work of the EWG. The importance of prioritising projects within the list which have the least overall impact upon the Array was highlighted, potentially with reference to proposed mitigation.
4.1.10.2 The MOD’s position is that its function is to safeguard the Array: optimisation of renewable energy generation in the Consultation Zone is not part of the MOD’s functions and it has no powers in that regard. The MOD’s response to these comments is set out at section 6 below, which notes the UK and Scottish Governments’ proposal to consult on new guidance supported by legislative reform in respect of wind turbine development in the Consultation Zone.
5 Publication of the audited MOD List
5.1 The MOD explained in its consultation document that it would require to review and validate the baseline list of existing and consented wind turbine developments in the Consultation Zone (i.e. the MOD’s List) in order to ensure that it - and the associated calculation of headroom above the Eskdalemuir threshold which is not currently referable to already-consented development - is correct. The MOD has completed this exercise.
5.2 The reason for the MOD’s audit of the MOD’s List, and the approach taken to that audit, has been explained in section 2 above.
5.3 The revised MOD’s List can be found in the third appendix to this document. This will form the basis on which the MOD will safeguard the Array, and determine whether an objection should be made to an application. The algorithm and associated MOD safeguarding tool is simply a mechanism by which the MOD determines whether the Eskdalemuir threshold will be breached, if so the MOD will object to an application.
5.4 If the algorithm is replaced, either pursuant to the ongoing work of the EWG or at any other point in the future, the MOD’s List will be further reviewed and the SGV attributed to development (whether constructed and/or consented or as a pending or a future application) will be re-assessed/ assessed in accordance with that replacement algorithm.
6 Consultation by the UK and Scottish Governments on new guidance and legislative reform
6.1 While a number of respondents called upon the MOD to adopt an approach which, in effect, would optimise renewable energy generation in the Consultation Zone, this is not part of the MOD’s functions and it has no powers in that regard. Rather, the MOD has been working, and will continue to work, in collaboration with the UK and Scottish Governments and the EWG in order to support the delivery of the policy aim of optimising renewable energy generation in the Consultation Zone, whilst at all times ensuring the continuing safeguarding of the Array.
6.2 Any new policy, guidance and/or legislation arising out of the above work is separate from the MOD’s role and functions relative to the safeguarding of the Array.
First Appendix - MOD’s consultation
1 Introduction
1.1 This document seeks views on the Ministry of Defence’s (“MOD”) proposals regarding its approach to safeguarding the Eskdalemuir Seismological Array (“the Array”) in respect of windfarm development in the Eskdalemuir Consultation Zone. The MOD’s safeguarding role will continue to be as a consultee in the consenting process, as explained in paragraph 2.6 below. A number of specific questions are asked at the end of this document. The MOD invites responses to those questions. The MOD also welcomes comments on matters not specifically raised but which may be relevant to the proposals. All responses and comments will be taken into account by the MOD before deciding on its approach.
1.2 Reference should be made to the explanation given regarding the MOD’s approach to this consultation as set out in section 9 of this document.
1.3 All responses and comments are invited by the deadline of 20th December 2024.
2 Background
2.1 The Array is a seismological monitoring station in the Southern Uplands of Scotland that was established in 1962 to detect seismic signals from nuclear explosions. Continuously operating and safeguarding the Array ensures that the United Kingdom complies with its international obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (“CTBT”).
2.2 The CTBT bans any nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions, for military or civil purposes, and establishes a complex verification system to monitor compliance. Ending nuclear test explosions would constrain the development of new types of nuclear weapons and would therefore represent an important step towards global disarmament, as well as contributing significantly to nuclear non-proliferation. The Array is part of the verification and monitoring system envisaged under the CTBT. It is the only such site within the UK.
2.3 The CTBT opened for signature in 1996. 187 countries have signed the CTBT and 178 have ratified it. The CTBT has yet to come into force and cannot do so until the 44 parties countries listed in Annex 2 to the CTBT have signed and ratified it.
2.4 The UK signed the CTBT in 1996 and ratified it in 1998. The Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998 (“1998 Act”) implements the CTBT into domestic law. The 1998 Act will not enter into force until the CTBT itself does. Section 47 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 addresses the interim position by criminalising (amongst other things) causing a nuclear weapons explosion, development, or production of nuclear weapons, or military preparations intending or threatening to use a nuclear weapon. The provision is subject to exceptions but applies throughout the UK, and to acts done outside the UK where they are done by a UK person.
2.5 The Array is the UK’s primary asset for monitoring underground nuclear tests. In addition to the UK’s international obligations under the CTBT, it is also used to inform ministers on possible nuclear testing and explosions by countries of interest. The MOD considers it is carefullyessential consideringto national and global security that the responsesArray receivedis protected. This consultation is being carried out in the context of safeguarding the Array as a national and global asset, for which the MOD is responsible.
2.6 Decisions relative to the consent of windfarm development in Scotland are, of course, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the relevant consenting authority under either the Electricity Act 1989 (“the Electricity Act”) or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (“the Planning Act”). In terms of the Ministry of Defence Eskdalemuir Seismic Recording Station Technical Site Direction 2005 (“the 2005 Direction”) the MOD is consulted upon applications for consent under the Planning Act for windfarm developments within a 50 km Consultation Zone centred on the Array. The Scottish Ministers also require the MOD to be consulted in respect of Electricity Act applications. The MOD, in its response to any consultation, does not address the planning merits of the application. It does address the impact of the proposed windfarm development on the detection capabilities of the Array. It does so by use of a predictive model, the development of which is set out in section 5 below. If there is a predicted adverse impact on the Array, the MOD will object.
3 Reason for consultation
3.1 In 2020/2021 a windfarm developer, Energiekontor UK Ltd, raised judicial review proceedings against the MOD. Those proceedings challenged the MOD’s approach to the order in tandemwhich withthe completingMOD considered the impact (by use of the predictive model) of a proposed windfarm development on the Array. The MOD’s approach was first come, first served subject to the following order:
3.1.1 Proposals under the Electricity Act were processed by the MOD on notification of a request for an Environmental Impact Assessment scoping opinion, i.e. before an application for consent was submitted; and
3.1.2 Proposals under the Planning Act were processed by the MOD upon notification of a submitted application for consent.
3.2 The MOD had applied that order since 2005, both in Scotland and in England. By 2020 the MOD was unable to explain the reasons for it having adopted that order. It therefore accepted that it could not provide a rational justification and conceded the judicial review proceedings on that basis. The Court noted that the MOD’s approach led to a failure to treat like cases alike and unlike cases differently. The Court noted that the effect of the MOD’s approach was to afford developers of larger developments an opportunity to be considered by the MOD at an earlier stage of the process than developers of smaller wind farm developments simply by making an application to the Scottish Government to adopt a scoping opinion.
3.3 The MOD undertook to the Court, against this background, to consult on a new approach. Since that undertaking, there has been further research carried out in respect of the impact of windfarm developments on the Array. This is the subject of ongoing consideration by, amongst others, the Scottish Government, to inform its auditplanning policy relative to windfarm development within the Eskdalemuir Consultation Zone. This ongoing work and policy development has delayed the MOD’s consultation. The MOD considers that consultation on its proposed new approach should not be delayed any further to await the outcome of that work.
3.4 The proposed new approach would apply across the baselinewhole of the 50km Consultation Zone. If adopted by the MOD, it will apply to all windfarm development in England and Scotland in the Consultation Zone.
4 Proposed new approach
4.1 The proposed new approach, if adopted by the MOD, will come into effect following this consultation, on the date of adoption.
4.2 The proposed new approach will apply to all pending and future applications without distinction to the consenting regime under which they are made. Pending applications means all applications for consent submitted after 11 January 2018, that being the date when the MOD calculated the Seismic Ground Vibration (“SGV”) from the proposed windfarm development at Faw Side, until adoption of the proposed new approach. Future applications means those applications for consent submitted after the proposed new approach comes into effect. Requests submitted for scoping will not be considered an application for consent, whether submitted before or after 11 January 2018. Requests submitted for scoping will be removed from the MOD’s list. Requests for scoping which have been or are followed by an application for consent will be assessed in terms of the application for consent in accordance with the process set out at paragraph 4.5 below. Applications which have already been decided by the relevant consenting authorities will be unaffected.
4.3 The Eskdalemuir threshold of 0.336 nm is to be retained.
4.4 The 50km Consultation Zone (which is a matter for the Scottish Ministers) will remain. Within that zone, an advisory 10km exclusion zone currently operates (i.e. no windfarm development within that is permitted). It is understood that the Scottish Ministers may consider whether to extend the advisory exclusion zone beyond 10km. to allow additional generational capacity within the consultation zone. The advisory exclusion zone will remain, which will not be less than 10km.
4.5 Applications will be assessed on a first come, first served basis. The assessment will be a calculation by the MOD of the cumulative seismicSGV noisefrom total.applications. The order of assessment will be undertaken strictly on the basis of the date on which the application for consent was formally accepted as valid by the consenting authority, with no distinction between the consenting regimes under which they are made. The MOD will maintain a list, recording the relevant acceptance dates. In the event of two or more applications sharing the same date on which the applications where formally accepted as valid by the consenting authority/authorities, the application which has the earlier date on which a consultation request was received by the MOD will take priority. The list will also contain a record of the MOD’s calculation of SGV for all applications (past, present and future) and its decision whether or not to object.
4.6 Where the Eskdalemuir threshold is predicted to be breached, the MOD will object to the relevant application on the basis of adverse impact on the Array. The MOD is aware of consenting authorities having attached a condition to a consent which has been relied upon to permit development when headroom has subsequently become available. For the avoidance of doubt, the MOD’s practice is - and will continue to be - to object to development where it is predicted that the Eskdalemuir threshold will be breached. The MOD does not consider the use of a suspensive condition in such circumstances to provide adequate protection for the Array. To the extent that a “waiting list” has been or will be operated, this will only be to consider whether, on headroom subsequently becoming available, the MOD can withdraw any objections to applications which have not yet been determined by the consenting authority.
4.7 The order of assessment will apply to all pending and future applications, as defined in paragraph 4.2 above, being applications for: (a) development; and (b) variation, material or otherwise, modification or amendment of existing consents (including repowering” applications by way of new application).
4.8 It is anticipatedproposed that the only exceptions to this order of assessment will be: (a) applications to extend the duration of consents (whether before or after commencement of development) to which the MOD will not object if it has not objected to the original application on the basis that there is headroom available for the original application and there is no increase in predicted SGV as a consequence of the extension of duration application; (b) applications for variation, material or otherwise, modification or amendment of existing consents to which the MOD will not object if it has not objected to the original application on the basis that there is headroom available for the original application and there is no increase in predicted SGV as a consequence of the variation, etc. application (the MOD may require a condition to be attached to the subsequent permission to put beyond doubt that either the original or the replacement project could be implemented, not both).
4.9 For the avoidance of doubt, where an application to discharge a condition (as referred to in paragraph 4.6 above) is submitted, the assessment as to whether any headroom is available will be determined with reference to first come, first served in respect of the underlying consent (or subsequent application for variation, modification or amendment).
4.10 Applications will be removed from the MOD’s list on final refusal (including the final refusal of any appeal, statutory challenge or Judicial Review, and the MOD will not remove an application from its list until the statutory period for appeal/statutory challenge/Judicial Review has expired without an appeal, statutory challenge or Petition for Judicial Review having been submitted). The MOD will remove from its list those consented applications where development has not been commenced and the consent has expired.
4.11 Consented developments will be removed from the list where (a) if development has not taken place, there is no potential for the consent to be implemented, the consent having expired; or (b) where development has been implemented, the development has been finally decommissioned, and any underlying consent has clearly and unambiguously expired.
4.12 In order that the MOD can calculate the SGV, and its impact on the detection capabilities of the Array, from proposed developments, it will require certain information to be provided with the application. A decision not to object will be taken strictly on the basis of the information provided. The MOD will require that the development will be constructed in accordance with the information provided for the calculation and this will be secured by an appropriate condition on the consent. Re-consultation will be required if any changes to the information are proposed during the application process. In the event of re-consultation which has the effect of increasing the predicted SGV of the development, the MOD will consider the application afresh as if it had been validated on the date of re-consultation. The MOD will move the application on its list to this new date. The MOD will re-determine whether any headroom is available within the threshold on this basis.
4.13 The information required is:
4.13.1 Number of turbines;
4.13.2 Layout and location of individual turbines and ancillary development, including grid coordinates (Ordnance Survey grid references accurate to 1m) and any micro-siting allowance;
4.13.3 Maximum hub height and maximum rotor diameter; and
4.13.4 Maximum rated-power of proposed turbines.
5 Impact of wind farms on the Array
5.1 This section provides further background to safeguarding the Array and its detection capabilities, in the context of its importance as discussed in section 2 above. The UK Government and Scottish Government have both set ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions. As part of the UK’s drive to achieve a significant element of its energy from renewable energy, in 2003 several major wind farm developments were planned for the Southern Uplands of Scotland.
5.2 Following the publication of a number of international cases concerned with SGV caused by wind turbines (including Black Forest Germany, the USA Washington State LIGO facility case, data obtained from the US Stateline wind farm, and the UK St Breock’s Down wind farm experiment), a preliminary assessment based on results from these cases was conducted by Dr Bowers of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE Blacknest) on behalf of the MOD.
5.3 Following this assessment, it was recognised that further research was urgently required in order to assess the impact of SGV from future wind farm developments in the vicinity of the Array. To this end the Eskdalemuir Working Group (“EWG”) was set up in 2004. The EWG is a group of informed parties who set out to reach a consensus on the scientific basis for the Eskdalemuir threshold and the algorithmic (i.e. the predictive) model designed to protect the Array, with a view to assessing the impact of windfarm developments in the vicinity of the Array. Its precise membership has changed over the years but it has comprised UK and Scottish Government departments and relevant industry bodies. The EWG has commissioned research over the years, funded by, amongst others, the then Department of Trade and Industry, the then British Wind Energy Association and the MOD.
5.4 In 2005 a team of scientists at the University of Keele led by Professor Styles, with overview by experts from the BWEA and the MOD (“the Keele Group”) reported (“the 2005 Styles report”). The 2005 Styles Report demonstrated that wind turbines generate SGV which could have an adverse effect upon the detection capabilities of the Array.
5.5 The principal recommendation of the 2005 Styles Report was the establishment of a limit on the cumulative impact of the SGV produced by wind farm developments within a 50 km zone (the “Consultation Zone”) centred on the Array. This limit is referred to as the Eskdalemuir threshold and was set at 0.336 nm. The threshold was adopted as was the Consultation Zone and an advisory 10km exclusion zone within that.
5.6 As noted in paragraph 2.6 above, direction was issued in April 2005 (Ministry of Defence (Eskdalemuir Seismic Recording Station) Technical Site Direction 2005) that the MOD would be a statutory consultee where wind turbine development is proposed within a zone defined by a 50km radius circle drawn around the centre of the Eskdalemuir Seismic Array.
5.7 Where wind turbine development is proposed within the statutory consultation zone, the MOD adopted the use of the model developed in the 2005 Styles Report (described as the “Eskdalemuir SGV predictive model”) to calculate the cumulative SGV taking account of the contribution from any proposed wind farm within the Consultation Zone (on the assumption that the wind farm proposal did not incorporate a vibration mitigation measure). This allowed the MOD to assess whether or not the Eskdalemuir threshold would be exceeded as a result of a proposed development, and, if so, object to that proposed development on the basis that breach of the threshold would have an unacceptable impact on the detection capabilities of the Array.
5.8 In 2011-2012 further research was undertaken on the impact of wind turbine development on the Array. In 2012 the Scottish Government reconvened the EWG in light of the continuing interest in wind farm development in the Consultation Zone and its commitment in the 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy to deliver a secure, sustainable energy future for Scotland and to re-examine the 2005 Styles predictive model.
5.9 The EWG undertook a substantive piece of work to re-examine the 2005 Styles predictive model and to examine policy around the Eskdalemuir threshold in order to deploy wind turbines efficiently whilst protecting the Array. A staged approach was taken to this research, which considered whether capacity existed within the Eskdalemuir threshold due to developments in wind turbine technology since the 2005 Styles Report. In 2013, research undertaken on behalf of the MOD (referred to as Stage 0) found that there was a likelihood of capacity to allow further wind consents within the Consultation Zone without breaching the Eskdalemuir threshold. Following the conclusion of the Stage 0 research, increased cooperation with wind farm operators and developers within the Consultation Zone allowed further technical research and assessment to be undertaken by Xi Engineering Consultants Ltd, on behalf of and under the guidance of the EWG.
5.10 In 2013/2014 Xi Engineering Consultants Ltd carried out further research. Xi Engineering Consultants Ltd concluded, on the basis of more up to date data, that the predictive model could be revised. They developed an extension to the model using a precautionary “worst case turbine model” as, at that time, wind farm developers did not wish the Eskdalemuir SGV predictive model to tie them to a particular make and model of wind turbine for developments within the Consultation Zone. The extension to the Eskdalemuir SGV predictive model which resulted from the 2014 Xi Engineering Consultants Ltd research was therefore conservative by design, when it came to predicting the SGV impacts of proposed windfarms within the Consultation Zone. The outcome of this research led to the publication by the Scottish Government of “Eskdalemuir Interim Guidance” on 22 May 2014.
5.11 This Interim Guidance confirmed that the Consultation Zone should continue to apply and committed to a public consultation on an extension of the advisory 10 km exclusion zone out to 15km. This was on the basis that the research which had been carried out and reported to the EWG had demonstrated that the amount of SGV from wind turbines predicted at the Array decreased rapidly with distance from it. The research undertaken by Xi Engineering Consultants Ltd had also shown that the installation of turbines in close proximity to the Array would rapidly exhaust any headroom available within the Eskdalemuir threshold. This conclusion has been confirmed in more recent research undertaken since 2020.
5.12 The MOD proceeded to assess proposed windfarm developments in accordance with the 2014 revised predictive model. This situation continued until 2018 when a section 36 application for a proposed development at Faw Side resulted in the Eskdalemuir threshold being breached.
5.13 In June 2018, in recognition of the fact that the threshold had been breached, the Scottish Government reconvened the EWG with a remit to consider two issues: (a) the technical elements of the calculation of the Eskdalemuir threshold; and (b) the policy aspects regarding the management of the Eskdalemuir threshold.
5.14 In 2019, under the auspices of the EWG, the Scottish Government commissioned Xi Engineering Consultants Ltd to undertake a technical analysis of the 2014 revised predictive model used by the MOD. This technical work is being undertaken, with the cooperation and input from the MOD, in order to assess the SGV generated by particular commercially available wind turbines actually operating within the Consultation Zone as an alternative to the Xi Engineering Consultants Ltd 2014 “worst case turbine model”.
5.15 In July 2020, the findings of this technical analysis were presented to the EWG by Xi Engineering Consultants Ltd showing that there could be additional capacity within the Eskdalemuir threshold which would allow for additional generation capacity of between 0.8 and 1.2 Gigawatts (GW). These results acknowledged that the amount of additional capacity depends on the distance of turbines from the Array and suggested that the additional capacity could be protected by increasing the advisory exclusion zone around the Array. Xi Engineering Consultants Ltd concluded that a single typical (2.5 MW) turbine at 10 km from the Array station location has the same impact upon the Array as around 7000 turbines at 50 km. It was agreed therefore that further technical analysis would be undertaken by Xi Engineering Consultants Ltd and reported to the EWG in due course.
5.16 At a further meeting of the EWG in February 2021, a discussion on the need for a technical analysis involving measurement of seismic output at seven sample wind farm sites agreed with the MOD took place. The Scottish Government expressed the view that the undertaking of this work was essential to provide the evidence upon which any of its future policy decisions would be based.
5.17 As presently advised, as a result of the Xi Engineering Consultants Ltd technical analysis undertaken for the EWG, the MOD agrees that the current predictive model over-estimates the SGV from existing wind farms within the Consultation Zone, and that it is appropriate for a new predictive model to be developed.
5.18 However, the technical analysis and its conclusions requires to be reviewed and considered before it can be accepted by the MOD. The MOD will require to review and validate the baseline list of existing and consented wind turbine developments in the Consultation Zone on which that technical analysis relies in order to ensure that it - and the associated calculation of headroom which is not currently referable to already-consented development - is correct. The Scottish Ministers may bring into effect a new approach for the development management within the Consultation Zone to reflect the output of the technical analysis. Until then, the MOD will, in order to ensure continued protection of the detection capability of the Array, continue to apply the current 2014 predictive model (as referred to in paragraph 5.10 above).
5.19 The MOD’s review of the technical analysis and baseline is ongoing.
6 Current position
6.1 The MOD has objected to all wind farm development applications in the Consultation Zone since the Faw Side application exhausted the available headroom and breached the Eskdalemuir threshold. That application was refused by the Scottish Ministers on 22 December 2023 following a public inquiry.
6.2 Since the Judicial Review in 2020, the MOD has not operated its previous first come, first served approach. The MOD no longer operates a ‘queue’ or ‘waiting list’ whereby development proposals had been noted on a list, pending any headroom within the Eskdalemuir threshold becoming available. It does maintain a record, by date of formal acceptance by the consenting authority of a valid application, of applications which it will use if the proposed new approach is adopted and brought into effect.
6.3 Chronologically, after Faw Side Wind Farm, the next pending application, submitted in terms of section 36 of the Electricity Act, is for a proposed development at Scoop Hill. Applying the current predictive model, the cumulative SGV for that development is 1.1083502nm which results in the threshold being breached. There is accordingly no headroom available within the threshold, meaning that the MOD is continuing to object to further applications for consent.
6.4 While it might be completedsuggested that it is premature for the MOD to consult on its proposed new approach pending the ongoing review of the technical analysis, validation of the baseline, and the introduction by the Scottish Ministers of a new development management policy, the MOD undertook to the Court to consult. In any event, it is appropriate to do so now. This will enable assessment of applications to proceed in a fair, practical and timely manner once the review has been concluded.
7 Publication and adoption by the Scottish Government of new guidance and policy
7.1 The MOD understands that the Scottish Government intends to publishconsult on new guidance and policy in respect of wind farm development located within the Consultation Zone during 2024.
7.2 The MOD will carefully consider any guidance and policy adopted by the Scottish Government, and will consider what changes appropriately should, as a consequence, be considered and, after appropriate further consultation, made to its safeguarding approach. This could include the need for appropriate suspensive planning conditions and/or a legal agreement between the MOD and the applicant in order to protect MOD interests in safeguarding the Array.
8 Conclusion and questions
8.1 The MOD has set out its proposed new approach to safeguarding the safeguardingArray.
8.2 The MOD invites comments from all interested parties on its proposals. Specifically:
8.2.1 Is the MOD’s proposal to consider applications on a first come, first served basis and add applications to its list, used to calculate the cumulative SGV of all such development, according to the Arraydate on which the application for consent was formally accepted as valid by the consenting authority, with a consistent approach for all types of application, clearly understandable and fair overall, and is it a practical approach?
8.2.2 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal that, in the summerevent of two or more applications sharing the same date on which the applications where formally accepted as valid by the consenting authority/authorities, the application which has the earlier date on which a consultation request was received by the MOD will take priority?
8.2.3 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal for “applications” (as referred to in tandemsub- paragraph 8.2.1 above) to include applications to vary, modify or amend existing consents (including “repowering” applications) subject to the exceptions proposed in paragraph 4.8?
8.2.4 Do consultees have any comment on the MOD’s position regarding the use of suspensive conditions when there is no headroom available and the MOD’s approach to a “waiting list”?
8.2.5 Do consultees have any other comment on the definition of applications in paragraph 4.7 above?
8.2.6 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal to remove applications from the MOD’s list (and therefore the calculation of cumulative SGV) on final refusal (including the final refusal of any appeal, statutory challenge or Judicial Review or the end of the period within which any such application can be made)? Is this clear, fair and practical?
8.2.7 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal that re-consultation will be required if any changes to the information (referred to in in paragraph 4.13 above) were to be proposed during the application process and that, in the event of re-consultation which has the effect of increasing the predicted SGV of the development, the MOD will consider the application anew as if it had been validated on the date of re-consultation and that the MOD will move the application on its list to this new date?
8.2.8 Do consultees have any comment on the proposal to remove developments from the MOD’s list if development has not taken place, there is no potential for the consent to be implemented, the consent having expired; or where development has been implemented, the development has been finally decommissioned and any underlying consent has clearly and unambiguously expired.
8.2.9 As noted at paragraph 4.13 above, in order that the MOD can calculate the SGV from proposed developments, it will require certain information to be provided with the application, and that information will need to be captured by way of planning condition or otherwise in any consent. Is the MOD’s proposal clear, fair and practical?
8.2.10 Do consultees have anything to add?
8.3 All comments are invited by the deadline of 20 December 2024.
9 Approach to consultation
9.1 The MOD is grateful for stakeholders’ engagement in this matter.
9.2 Stakeholders can respond to the consultation in two ways:
9.3 By email, to DIOEstates-EskdalemuirArray@mod.gov.uk
9.4 By posting your response to: Safeguarding team, Defence Infrastructure Organisation, St George’s House, DMS Whittington, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS14 9PY.
9.5 Please ensure that your response reaches the MOD before the deadline. When responding, please state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation.
9.6 This consultation is being conducted in line with the government’s key consultation principles.
9.7 Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) or the auditedEnvironmental baseline.Information Regulations 2004. If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory code of practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain in your response why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If the MOD receives a request for disclosure of the information, the MOD will take full account of your explanation but cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the MOD. The MOD will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.
9.8 This consultation and the processing of personal data that it entails is necessary for the exercise of the MOD’s functions as a government department. In responding to this consultation, you may provide personal data. We shall collect and process your personal data in accordance with data protection legislation and our privacy notice. Please refer to the privacy notice which can be found on the MOD’s website: MOD privacy notice which explains your rights and gives you information you are entitled to under the Data Protection legislation. Should you require a printed copy of the MOD privacy notice, please write to the MOD Data Protection Officer; Ground floor, Zone D; Main Building; Whitehall; London SW1A 2HB or email cio-dpa@mod.gov.uk
Second Appendix - MOD’s new safeguarding approach
1 The proposed new approach will apply to all pending and future applications (hereafter referred to collectively as “Applications”) without distinction to the consenting regime under which they are made. “Pending applications” means all applications for consent submitted after 11 January 2018, that being the date when the MOD calculated the Seismic Ground Vibration (“SGV”) from the proposed windfarm development at Faw Side, until adoption of the proposed new approach. “Future applications” means those applications for consent submitted after the proposed new approach comes into effect. Requests submitted for scoping will not be considered an application for consent, whether submitted before or after 11 January 2018. Requests submitted for scoping will be removed from the list which is maintained by the MOD and in respect of which it assesses whether development, cumulatively, results in the Eskdalemuir threshold of 0.336nm being breached (“the MOD’s List”). Applications for consent which follow scoping requests will be assessed in accordance with the process set out at paragraph 4 below. Consents which have already been granted will be unaffected.
2 The Eskdalemuir threshold of 0.336 nm is to be retained.
3 The 50km Consultation Zone will remain. Within that zone, a 10km exclusion zone currently operates (i.e. no windfarm development within that is permitted). It is understood that the UK and the Scottish Governments may extend the exclusion zone beyond 10km. Pending such change, the MOD’s position is that the exclusion of 10km zone will remain.
4 Applications will be assessed on a first come, first served basis. The assessment will be a calculation by the MOD using its algorithm of the SGV from Applications. The order of assessment will be undertaken on the basis of the date on which the associated consultation notification is received by email by DIO Safeguarding from the consenting authority, with no distinction between the consenting regimes under which Applications have been made. If a consultation request is sent by post, the date of receipt will be the date on which the consultation request is received by DIO Safeguarding at its principal office which is currently at St George’s House, DMS Whittington, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS14 9PY. If more than one consultation request is received on a particular day, the MOD will consider those applications in the order in which they have been received by DIO Safeguarding on that day. The MOD will rely on the time of receipt by DIO Safeguarding of each email. If a consultation request is received by post, the MOD will operate on the basis of a presumption that such a request is received at 9am on the day on which the request is received by DIO Safeguarding at its said principal office. The MOD’s List will record the relevant notification dates (and where necessary times). The MOD’s List will also contain a record of the MOD’s calculation of SGV for all Applications (and past applications which have been granted), cumulative SGV, and its decision whether or not to object.
5 Where the Eskdalemuir threshold is predicted to be breached, the MOD will object to the relevant application on the basis of adverse impact on the Array.
6 The order of assessment will apply to all Applications, as defined in paragraph 1 above, being applications for: (a) development; (b) variation, material or otherwise, modification or amendment of existing consents; and (c) “repowering”. The MOD defines “repowering” as being where turbine(s) which comprise an existing development are decommissioned and new turbine(s) are installed in their place.
7 The only exceptions to this order of assessment will be:
(a) applications to extend the duration of consents (whether before or after commencement of development) to which the MOD will not object if it has not objected to the original application on the basis that the original application did not breach the Eskdalemuir threshold and there is no increase in predicted SGV as a consequence of the extension of duration application;
(b) other than in respect of repowering (which will not be an exception to the order of assessment):
(i) applications for variation, material or otherwise, modification or amendment of existing consents including in terms of section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and section 36C of the Electricity Act 1989; and
(ii) where consent is being sought for a replacement development in terms of the Electricity Act 1989 and the original consent was granted under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, and vice versa, provided that the replacement application relates to the same or substantially similar red line boundary as the original consent, in respect of both (i) and (ii) to which the MOD will not object if it has not objected to the original application on the basis that the original application did not breach the Eskdalemuir threshold and there is no increase in predicted SGV as a consequence of the variation, etc. application. The MOD may require a condition and legal agreement to ensure that the SGV attributed to the original consent will not be exceeded through the variation, etc. application. The MOD may also require a condition to be attached to the subsequent permission to put beyond doubt that either the original or the replacement project could be implemented, not both. In considering whether there is increase in predicted SGV the MOD will apply the same algorithm when calculating SGV for the original consent and the varied, etc. application.
8 The MOD is aware of consenting authorities having attached a condition to a consent which has been relied upon to permit development when headroom above the Eskdalemuir threshold may subsequently become available. For the avoidance of doubt, the MOD’s practice is - and will continue to be - to object to development where it is predicted that the Eskdalemuir threshold will be breached. The MOD does not consider the use of a suspensive condition in such circumstances to provide adequate protection for the Array.
9 Where an application to discharge a condition (as referred to in paragraph 8 above) is submitted, the assessment as to whether the Eskdalemuir threshold will be breached will be determined with reference to the date and time on which the consultation notification was received by the MOD from the consenting authority in respect of the consent to which the condition relates.
10 Applications will be removed from the MOD’s List on final refusal. The MOD will not remove an application from the MOD’s List until the statutory period for any appeal, statutory challenge or Judicial Review has expired without an appeal, statutory challenge or Judicial Review having been made. If an appeal, statutory challenge or Judicial Review is made against a decision of the consenting authority, the MOD will not remove an application from the MOD’s List until the final refusal of any such appeal, statutory challenge or Judicial Review.
11 Consented developments will be removed from the MOD’s List where (a) if development has not taken place, there is no potential for the consent to be implemented, the consent having expired; or (b) where development has been implemented, the development has been finally decommissioned, and any underlying consent has clearly and unambiguously expired.
12 In order that the MOD can calculate the SGV, and its impact on the detection capabilities of the Array, from proposed developments, it will require certain information to be provided with the application as set out in paragraph 13 below. A decision not to object will be taken strictly on the basis of the information provided. The MOD will require that the development will be constructed in accordance with the information provided for the calculation and this will be secured by an appropriate condition on the consent. Re-consultation will be required if any changes to the information are proposed during the application process. In the event of re- consultation which has the effect of increasing the predicted SGV of the development, the MOD will consider the application afresh and will move the application on the MOD’s List to the date and time on which the re-consultation notification is received by the MOD from the consenting authority. The MOD will re-determine whether the Eskdalemuir threshold would be breached by any changes to the information. In considering any breach of the Eskdalemuir threshold the MOD will apply the same algorithm when it is calculating SGV for the application as submitted and any variation.
13 The information required is:
-
Number of turbines;
-
Layout and location of individual turbines and ancillary development, including grid coordinates (Ordnance Survey grid references accurate to 1m) and any micro-siting allowance; and
-
Maximum hub height and maximum rotor diameter.
- The MOD may require a condition to be attached to a consent regarding strict compliance with the information provided with the application.
Third Appendix - MOD’s List
20260218 - Audited MOD List
| Wind Farm | Sub. Date | LPA Ref. | DIO Ref. | Number | Capacity (MW) | Mean Distance (km) | Amplitude (nm) | Cumulative Amp | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bowbeat | 23-Mar-00 | 00/00371/FUL | 7748 R0 | 24 | 31.2 | 42.304 | 0.0044188 | 0.0044187758 | Approved |
| Minsca | 22-Aug-03 | 03/P/4/0389 | 1960 R0 | 17 | 42.5 | 24.845 | 0.0349071 | 0.0351856539 | Approved |
| Dalswinton | 13-Oct-03 | 03/P/3/0610 | 2101 R1 | 15 | 30 | 35.872 | 0.0102568 | 0.0366501393 | Approved |
| Craig (Carlesghill) | 12-Dec-03 | 03/P/4/0326 (PPA-170-117) | 2825 R0 | 5 | 13.2 | 19.664 | 0.0316732 | 0.0484398888 | Approved |
| Halkburn OR Long Park WF | 19-Mar-04 | 04/00317/FUL (PPA-140-251) | 2095 R0 | 19 | 38 | 42.837 | 0.0055956 | 0.0487620146 | Approved |
| Harestanes | 21-Dec-04 | EC00004193 | 1823 R0 | 71 | 213 | 27.278 | 0.0580673 | 0.0758257530 | Approved |
| Clyde | 06-Sep-05 | EC00003159 | 2153 R0 | 152 | 456 | 29.993 | 0.0733000 | 0.1054629655 | Approved |
| Ewe Hill | 13-Sep-05 | EC00003181 | 1513 R0 | 22 | 50.6 | 19.015 | 0.0895412 | 0.1383476441 | Approved |
| Carcant | 18-Oct-05 | 05/01884/FUL | 2128 R0 | 3 | 9.9 | 49.191 | 0.0012670 | 0.1383534457 | Approved |
| Langhope Rig | 30-Jun-06 | 06/01236/FUL (PPA-140-337) | 4135 R0 | 10 | 15 | 21.352 | 0.0402848 | 0.1440990622 | Approved |
| Andershaw A | 16-Jul-07 | CL/07/0454 | 4530 R1 | 11 | 36.3 | 46.623 | 0.0049779 | 0.1441850169 | Approved |
| Middle Hill OR Glenkerie A | 04-Feb-08 | 07/02478/FUL | 4473 R0 | 11 | 22 | 29.240 | 0.0162102 | 0.1450933827 | Approved |
| Aikrigg Cottage | 08-Sep-08 | 08/0879 | 7349 R0 | 1 | 0.006 | 49.631 | 0.0000325 | 0.1450933864 | Approved |
| Kingstown Industrial Estate | 27-Oct-08 | 08/1030 | 7073 R0 | 1 | 0.015 | 47.432 | 0.0000402 | 0.1450933919 | Approved |
| Lammerlaw Farm | 11-Nov-08 | CL/08/0654 | 7153 R0 | 1 | 0.011 | 44.266 | 0.0001259 | 0.1450934465 | Approved |
| Brunstock Close | 17-Dec-08 | 08/1199 | 7291 R0 | 1 | 0.006 | 48.525 | 0.0000269 | 0.1450934490 | Approved |
| Minnygap | 13-Aug-09 | 09/P/3/0340 | 3313 R1 | 10 | 20 | 25.270 | 0.0316769 | 0.1485110563 | Approved |
| Craig Ext (Carlesgill Ext) | 07-Sep-09 | 09/P/4/0342 | 7386 R0 | 1 | 3.2 | 19.031 | 0.0157205 | 0.1493407730 | Approved |
| Langshaw Farm | 29-Oct-09 | 09/01140/FUL | 8532 R0 | 1 | 0.05 | 43.815 | 0.0001952 | 0.1493409006 | Approved |
| Land East of Braidwood | 15-Dec-09 | 09/01700/FUL | 8716 R0 | 1 | 0.006 | 34.538 | 0.0001388 | 0.1493409651 | Approved |
| Westmill Farm | 17-Mar-10 | CL/10/0449 | 9302 R0 | 1 | 0.011 | 44.374 | 0.0001246 | 0.1493410171 | Approved |
| Rennieston Edge | 17-Mar-10 | 10/00306/FUL | 9248 R0 | 1 | 0.06 | 41.055 | 0.0000722 | 0.1493410345 | Approved |
| Scotston Bank Farm | 15-Apr-10 | 10/00521/FUL | 9462 R0 | 3 | 0.045 | 40.959 | 0.0002204 | 0.1493411971 | Approved |
| Windyknowe | 07-Jun-10 | CL/10/0239 | 9781 R0 | 1 | 0.006 | 43.544 | 0.0000577 | 0.1493412083 | Approved |
| Land NW of Ferniehaugh Farm | 15-Jul-10 | 10/00985/FUL | 10654 R0 | 2 | 0.06 | 48.043 | 0.0000926 | 0.1493412370 | Approved |
| Land NW of Threepwood House | 12-Oct-10 | 10/01421/FUL | 11039 R0 | 1 | 0.015 | 45.251 | 0.0001130 | 0.1493412798 | Approved |
| Lauder B | 12-Oct-10 | 10/01382/FUL | 9508 R0 | 2 | 0.12 | 49.762 | 0.0001156 | 0.1493413245 | Approved |
| Meadowside Cottage | 17-Jan-11 | CL/11/0021 | 11918 R0 | 1 | 0.02 | 44.196 | 0.0001247 | 0.1493413766 | Approved |
| Mosshouses Farm | 08-Feb-11 | 11/00123/FUL | 10713 R0 | 1 | 0.015 | 43.912 | 0.0000961 | 0.1493414075 | Approved |
| Land SW of Larkhill | 23-Feb-11 | 11/00195/FUL | 12341 R0 | 1 | 0.015 | 47.902 | 0.0000885 | 0.1493414337 | Approved |
| Muirlea Farm | 15-Mar-11 | CL/11/0098 | 12598 R0 | 1 | 0.02 | 43.232 | 0.0001388 | 0.1493414982 | Approved |
| Hillfield | 11-May-11 | 11/0339 | 13287 R0 | 1 | 0.005 | 47.666 | 0.0000388 | 0.1493415032 | Approved |
| Cargo Farm Cottage | 12-May-11 | 11/0338 | 13259 R0 | 2 | 0.04 | 47.000 | 0.0001359 | 0.1493415650 | Approved |
| Land NW of the Batts | 16-May-11 | 11/00621/FUL | 13278 R0 | 1 | 0.015 | 47.538 | 0.0000793 | 0.1493415861 | Approved |
| Kirkpatrick Hill | 17-May-11 | 11/P/3/0442 | No consult | 1 | 0.011 | 39.447 | 0.0001994 | 0.1493417193 | Approved |
| Burnhouse | 18-May-11 | CL/11/0212 | 13323 R0 | 1 | 0.015 | 42.998 | 0.0000927 | 0.1493417481 | Approved |
| The Beeches | 19-May-11 | CL/11/0201 | 13339 R0 | 1 | 0.02 | 46.052 | 0.0001074 | 0.1493417867 | Approved |
| Symington Mains Farm | 24-May-11 | 11/00560/FUL | 13428 R0 | 1 | 0.02 | 46.233 | 0.0001048 | 0.1493418234 | Approved |
| Newton of Wiston | 25-May-11 | CL/11/0220 | 13383 R0 | 1 | 0.015 | 42.623 | 0.0000961 | 0.1493418543 | Approved |
| Midhill | 25-May-11 | CL/11/0217 | 13375 R0 | 1 | 0.015 | 43.596 | 0.0001320 | 0.1493419127 | Approved |
| Whinney Rig | 26-May-11 | 11/P/4/0161 | 10724 R0 | 1 | 0.1 | 36.110 | 0.0004222 | 0.1493425095 | Approved |
| Newtonhead | 09-Jun-11 | CL/11/0246 | 12599 R0 | 1 | 0.06 | 49.599 | 0.0001482 | 0.1493425831 | Approved |
| Gaups Hill Farm | 10-Jun-11 | 11/D/3/0008 | 13531 R0 | 1 | 0.01 | 49.671 | 0.0000428 | 0.1493425892 | Approved |
| South Melbourne Farm | 17-Jun-11 | CL/11/0256 | 13535 R0 | 1 | 0.006 | 43.091 | 0.0000606 | 0.1493426015 | Approved |
| Walston Braehead Farm | 27-Jun-11 | CL/11/0281 | 13636 R0 | 3 | 0.18 | 45.465 | 0.0001964 | 0.1493427307 | Approved |
| Easton Farm | 06-Jul-11 | CL/11/0298 | 13813 R0 | 1 | 0.02 | 47.679 | 0.0000917 | 0.1493427588 | Approved |
| Lochmailing | 07-Jul-11 | 11/P/3/0037 | 10203 R0 | 1 | 0.015 | 40.750 | 0.0001460 | 0.1493428302 | Approved |
| Pumro Fell | 15-Jul-11 | 08/P/3/0209 | 13897 R0 | 1 | 0.0015 | 27.622 | 0.0000868 | 0.1493428555 | Approved |
| Rivox | 11-Aug-11 | 11/P/4/0262 | 14164 R0 | 1 | 0.015 | 23.373 | 0.0006970 | 0.1493444818 | Approved |
| Land at Arthurshiels | 11-Aug-11 | CL/11/0356 | 11876 R0 | 1 | 0.02 | 44.804 | 0.0001206 | 0.1493445305 | Approved |
| Hyndshawland | 26-Aug-11 | CL/11/0384 | 13354 R0 | 1 | 0.02 | 43.699 | 0.0001338 | 0.1493445904 | Approved |
| East Millrig | 21-Oct-11 | CL/11/0457 | 13054 R0 | 1 | 0.015 | 41.616 | 0.0001631 | 0.1493446794 | Approved |
| Braco Farm | 27-Oct-11 | 11/P/3/0457 | 12042 R0 | 2 | 0.06 | 49.030 | 0.0000979 | 0.1493447115 | Approved |
| Mallshill | 28-Nov-11 | 11/0999 | 15119 R0 | 1 | 0.005 | 37.610 | 0.0001009 | 0.1493447456 | Approved |
| Brockhouse | 02-Dec-11 | 11/01571/FUL | 15161 R0 | 1 | 0.011 | 47.911 | 0.0000898 | 0.1493447726 | Approved |
| Broom Hills | 15-Dec-11 | 11/1057 | 10723 R0 | 1 | 0.01 | 40.228 | 0.0000994 | 0.1493448057 | Approved |
| Land SW of Copland Farm | 22-Dec-11 | 11/01651/FUL | 13700 R0 | 1 | 0.011 | 41.590 | 0.0001622 | 0.1493448938 | Approved |
| Birkenside Farmhouse | 06-Feb-12 | 12/00109/FUL | 12183 R0 | 1 | 0.05 | 48.473 | 0.0001276 | 0.1493449483 | Approved |
| Libberton Mains Farm | 13-Mar-12 | CL/12/0102 | 15796 R0 | 1 | 0.02 | 47.117 | 0.0000973 | 0.1493449800 | Approved |
| SW of Bankhouse Farm | 30-Apr-12 | 12/00206/FUL | 16251 R0 | 1 | 0.012 | 45.965 | 0.0000595 | 0.1493449918 | Approved |
| Lammerlaw Farm 2 | 10-May-12 | CL/12/0194 | 8465 R0 | 2 | 0.044 | 44.496 | 0.0001742 | 0.1493450934 | Approved |
| Green Croft | 23-May-12 | 2/2012/0354 (APP/G0908/A/12/2183244/NWF) | 16044 R0 | 1 | 2 | 49.860 | 0.0001123 | 0.1493451357 | Approved |
| Cormiston Farm | 01-Jun-12 | CL/12/0240 | 16509 R0 | 1 | 0.02 | 41.107 | 0.0001699 | 0.1493452323 | Approved |
| Hartsop | 15-Jun-12 | CL/12/0261 | 13194 R0 | 1 | 0.015 | 40.894 | 0.0001480 | 0.1493453057 | Approved |
| Parkhouse Farm | 22-Jun-12 | CL/12/0269 | 16645 R0 | 2 | 0.04 | 44.068 | 0.0001451 | 0.1493453762 | Approved |
| Shankfield Head | 25-Jun-12 | 12/0445 | 13921 R0 | 2 | 0.04 | 39.889 | 0.0001453 | 0.1493454468 | Approved |
| Cambwell | 26-Jun-12 | 12/00783/FUL | 13920 R0 | 1 | 0.011 | 39.850 | 0.0001918 | 0.1493455700 | Approved |
| South of Hyndfordwells Farm | 10-Jul-12 | 12/00847/FUL | 12365 R0 | 3 | 0.18 | 45.343 | 0.0001986 | 0.1493457021 | Approved |
| Rose Cottage | 20-Jul-12 | CL/12/0317 | 16870 R0 | 1 | 0.006 | 44.818 | 0.0000506 | 0.1493457106 | Approved |
| Hillend Farm | 26-Jul-12 | CL/12/0327 | 16872 R0 | 1 | 0.011 | 39.670 | 0.0001952 | 0.1493458382 | Approved |
| Land N of Midtown Farm | 03-Sep-12 | 12/0735 | 17167 R0 | 1 | 0.05 | 47.861 | 0.0001350 | 0.1493458992 | Approved |
| Clyde Extension | 14-Sep-12 | EC00003160 | 9428 R1 | 54 | 162 | 29.898 | 0.0494334 | 0.1573145116 | Approved |
| W of Hyndfordwells Farm | 24-Oct-12 | 12/01275/FUL | 13560 R0 | 1 | 0.02 | 45.695 | 0.0000881 | 0.1573145363 | Approved |
| Blackdyke Farm Riding Centre | 02-Jan-13 | 12/0554 | 16952 R0 | 1 | 0.01 | 44.372 | 0.0000670 | 0.1573145505 | Approved |
| Cottage Farmhouse | 16-Jan-13 | 13/00031/FUL | 17847 R0 | 1 | 0.011 | 49.289 | 0.0000792 | 0.1573145704 | Approved |
| Lampits Farm 2 | 03-Feb-13 | CL/13/0412 | 19375 R0 | 1 | 0.25 | 49.982 | 0.0002113 | 0.1573147124 | Approved |
| Land NW of West Morriston Fm | 25-Mar-13 | 13/00312/FUL | 16877 R0 | 1 | 0.25 | 49.982 | 0.0002113 | 0.1573148543 | Approved |
| Land E of Mossbank Langshaw | 05-Apr-13 | 13/00108/FUL | 18142 R0 | 1 | 0.011 | 42.977 | 0.0001421 | 0.1573149185 | Approved |
| Middle Muir WF | 14-May-13 | EC00005219 | 13264 R1 | 15 | 51 | 45.570 | 0.0062297 | 0.1574382189 | Approved |
| Glenkerie Ext | 15-May-13 | 13/00552/FUL (PPA-140-2052) | 18360 R0 | 6 | 15 | 29.673 | 0.0111356 | 0.1578315385 | Approved |
| Lion Hill WF | 12-Jun-13 | CL/13/0205 | 18491 R0 | 4 | 9.2 | 29.266 | 0.0120426 | 0.1582903017 | Approved |
| Townfoot | 04-Jul-13 | CL/13/0242 | 18601 R0 | 1 | 0.01 | 43.872 | 0.0001306 | 0.1582903556 | Approved |
| Windy Edge | 30-Aug-13 | 13/00789/FUL (PPA-140-2055) | 18787 R0 | 9 | 22.5 | 22.673 | 0.0357219 | 0.1622710475 | Approved |
| Rose Cottage 2 | 15-Oct-13 | CL/13/0394 | 9812 R0 | 1 | 0.006 | 44.874 | 0.0000503 | 0.1622710553 | Approved |
| East of Newton of Covington | 04-Nov-13 | CL/13/0429 | 16682 R0 | 2 | 0.04 | 44.564 | 0.0001385 | 0.1622711143 | Approved |
| Bailey Town Farm | 05-Nov-13 | 13/0862 | 10725 R0 | 1 | 0.01 | 37.862 | 0.0002365 | 0.1622712866 | Approved |
| Kilravoch | 15-Nov-13 | 13/P/3/0477 | 19452 R0 | 1 | 0.0012 | 39.320 | 0.0000311 | 0.1622712896 | Approved |
| Crookedstane Farm | 28-Nov-13 | CL/13/0206 | 18481 R0 | 4 | 9.2 | 31.507 | 0.0095326 | 0.1625510453 | Approved |
| South Melbourne Farm 2 | 23-Dec-13 | CL/13/0506 | 19700 R0 | 1 | 0.011 | 42.846 | 0.0001439 | 0.1625511090 | Approved |
| Cloich Forest | 17-Feb-14 | ECU00003108 | 13930 R0 | 18 | 54 | 42.958 | 0.0064902 | 0.1626806250 | Approved |
| Solwaybank | 18-Jun-14 | 11/P/4/0354 (PPA-170-2091) | 1252 R0 | 15 | 30 | 25.652 | 0.0374756 | 0.1669413219 | Approved |
| SW of Kettleshill Farmhouse | 03-Jul-14 | 14/00746/FUL | 20757 R0 | 1 | 0.012 | 48.240 | 0.0000488 | 0.1669413291 | Approved |
| Trough Head Farm | 21-Jul-14 | 14/0574 | 20832 R0 | 2 | 0.02 | 36.462 | 0.0003841 | 0.1669417708 | Approved |
| Twentyshilling Hill | 11-Aug-14 | (13/P/3/0260) 18/0206/FUL | 9860 R0 | 9 | 27 | 48.029 | 0.0025326 | 0.1669609802 | Approved |
| 72 Carlisle Road | 17-Feb-15 | CL/15/0046 | 22021 R0 | 2 | 0.17 | 44.795 | 0.0003275 | 0.1669613014 | Approved |
| East of Whitslaid Farm | 15-Apr-15 | 15/00407/FUL | 22267 R0 | 2 | 0.05 | 49.750 | 0.0001157 | 0.1669613414 | Approved |
| Solway BeckBurn WF | 29-May-15 | 15/0489 | 6668 R0 | 9 | 31.05 | 36.871 | 0.0095086 | 0.1672318825 | Approved |
| SW of Clackmae Farmhouse | 24-Jul-15 | 15/00179/FUL (15/00018/RREF) | 20306 R0 | 1 | 0.1 | 44.963 | 0.0002292 | 0.1672320395 | Approved |
| Whins Farm | 21-Aug-15 | 15/P/4/0218 | 12953 R0 | 1 | 0.09 | 32.860 | 0.0007654 | 0.1672337911 | Approved |
| South Slipperfield Farmhouse | 27-Aug-15 | 13/00839/FUL | 12327 R0 | 1 | 0.05 | 48.388 | 0.0001428 | 0.1672338520 | Approved |
| Jockstown Farm | 09-Oct-15 | 15/P/4/0272 | 23252 R0 | 1 | 0.1 | 34.092 | 0.0007029 | 0.1672353290 | Approved |
| Deanfoot Farmhouse | 18-Jan-16 | 16/00024/FUL | 13497 R1 | 1 | 0.05 | 49.207 | 0.0001323 | 0.1672353814 | Approved |
| West of M6 | 11-Feb-16 | 16/0117 | 20758 R1 | 1 | 0.5 | 44.027 | 0.0006278 | 0.1672365599 | Approved |
| Hallburn Farm | 20-Apr-16 | 16/0363 | 8275 R3 | 6 | 18 | 39.810 | 0.0055591 | 0.1673289288 | Approved |
| Burnswark Garage | 16-Jun-16 | 16/P/4/0168 | 10035183 R1 | 1 | 0.5 | 30.772 | 0.0009480 | 0.1673316142 | Approved |
| Whitelaw Brae WF | 25-Jun-16 | EC00002090 (WIN-140-4) | 19378 R1 | 14 | 50.4 | 23.853 | 0.0489194 | 0.1743358098 | Approved |
| Priestgill Littlegill Farm | 06-Jan-17 | (CL/17/0009 (PPA-380-2075)) P/19/1803 | 10038485 R1 | 7 | 22.4 | 36.908 | 0.0101450 | 0.1746307407 | Approved |
| Pines Burn SW of Lurgiescleuch | 12-Jan-17 | 17/00010/FUL (PPA-140-2069) | 23260 R3 | 11 | 36.3 | 27.751 | 0.0346282 | 0.1780309245 | Approved |
| Loganhead | 26-Jan-17 | 15/P/4/0273 | 21543 R4 | 8 | 25.6 | 18.582 | 0.0800810 | 0.1952126379 | Approved |
| Crossdykes | 27-Feb-17 | 17/0145/FUL | 21542 R4 & R9 | 15 | 64 | 16.596 | 0.1690962 | 0.2582663641 | Approved |
| Hopsrig | 21-Mar-17 | 17/0415/FUL (PPA-170-2135) | 10035845 R1 | 12 | 42 | 16.125 | 0.1111291 | 0.281160440 | Approved |
| Little Hartfell Castlemilk | 26-Feb-18 | 18/0188/FUL | 23114 R6 | 9 | 49.896 | 16.485 | 0.1317873 | 0.310514227 | Approved |
| Scoop Hill | 13-Nov-20 | ECU00000533 (WIN-170-2008) | 10036444 R4 | 60 | 432 | 11.973 | 1.0088500 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Harestanes South WF Ext | 20-Jan-21 | ECU00002185 | 8832 R2 | 8 | 44.8 | 27.445 | 0.0413912 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Daer Reservoir | 26-May-21 | ECU00000740 | 10045032 R4 | 17 | 112.2 | 27.733 | 0.0582632 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Little Hartfell | 05-Jul-21 | 20/1844/FUL (PPA-170-2175) | 23114 R9 | 9 | 50.4 | 16.485 | 0.1595722 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Cloich Forest | 08-Jul-21 | ECU00003288 | 13930 R5 | 12 | 0 | 42.808 | 0.0086894 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Greystone Knowe | 28-Oct-21 | ECU00003341 (WIN-140-9) | 10048173 R3 | 14 | 70 | 46.456 | 0.0082441 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Loganhead | 08-Dec-21 | ECU00002161 | 21543 R6 | 8 | 0 | 18.339 | 0.1248603 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Hopsrig | 08-Dec-21 | ECU00002160 | 10035845 R8 | 12 | 0 | 16.559 | 0.1938325 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Grayside WF | 19-Apr-22 | ECU00003446 | 10049096 R1 | 15 | 0 | 34.875 | 0.0260620 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Teviot WF | 30-May-22 | ECU00003249 (WIN-140-11) | 10051325 R1 | 53 | 0 | 18.778 | 0.3321409 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Callisterhall WF | 12-Jul-22 | 22/0930/FUL (PPA-170-2168) | 10046577 R3 | 7 | 39.2 | 21.556 | 0.0752048 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Pines Burn | 21-Oct-22 | 22/01580/FUL | 23260 R15 | 11 | 55 | 27.751 | 0.0366808 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Bloch WF | 24-Nov-22 | ECU00003463 | 10054901 R1 | 18 | 108 | 25.412 | 0.0785373 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Millmoor Rig WF | 06-Dec-22 | ECU00003426 | 10054451 R3 | 13 | 78 | 35.609 | 0.0247630 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Scawd Law WF | 04-Jan-23 | ECU00002111 | 10048772 R1 | 8 | 0 | 37.893 | 0.0142117 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Bodinglee WF | 12-Jul-23 | ECU00004839 | 10049508 R2 | 35 | 245 | 46.218 | 0.0177419 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Rivox WF | 19-Jul-23 | ECU00003293 | 14164 R3 | 29 | 208.8 | 25.527 | 0.1034591 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Torfichen WF | 23-Nov-23 | ECU00004661 | 10057693 R1 | 10 | 60 | 49.231 | 0.0054631 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Leithenwater Hub | 26-Apr-24 | ECU00004619 | 10056377 R3 | 13 | 85.8 | 39.509 | 0.0160339 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Oliver Forest WF | 30-Sep-24 | ECU00004669 (WIN-140-12) | 10057243 R1 | 7 | 0 | 26.856 | 0.0445059 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| M74 West Renewable | 02-Oct-24 | ECU00005019 | 10061682 R1 | 22 | 165 | 42.961 | 0.0152339 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Harestanes West | 23-Jan-25 | ECU00004778 | 10058454 R1 | 12 | 84 | 33.738 | 0.0281290 | Pending - MOD Object | |
| Mid Hill WF | 28-Nov-25 | ECU00005192 | 10064312 R2 | 13 | 93.6 | 15.980 | 0.2288353 | Pending - MOD Object |
Documents
Share this page
The following links open in a new tab
Updates to this page
Last updated
-
Update: MOD anticipates publishing its new approach to the safeguarding of the Array in the summer.
Sign up for emails or print this page
Update history
2026-03-18 16:17
New document added after consultation.
2025-03-05 16:34
Update: MOD anticipates publishing its new approach to the safeguarding of the Array in the summer.
2024-09-27 09:30
First published.