Agenda Document Pack - Planning Committee - 21/05/2025
North Ayrshire Council · 21 May 2025
Back to Planning Committee — 21 May 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
North Ayrshire Council, Cunninghame House, Irvine KA12 8EE Planning Committee A Meeting of the Planning Committee of North Ayrshire Council will be held in the Council Chambers, Ground Floor, Cunninghame House, Irvine, KA12 8EE on Wednesday, 21 May 2025 at 14:00 to consider the undernoted business. Meeting Arrangements - Hybrid Meetings This meeting will be held on a predominantly physical basis but with provision, by prior notification, for remote attendance by Elected Members in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003. Where possible, the meeting will be live-streamed and available to view at https://north-ayrshire.public- i.tv/core/portal/home. 1 Declarations of Interest Members are requested to give notice of any declarations of interest in respect of items of business on the Agenda. 2 Minutes The accuracy of the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2025 will be confirmed and the Minutes signed in accordance with Paragraph 7 (1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (copy enclosed). 3 25/00103/PP : Site to South West of Woodside House, Beith Seeking permission for the erection of detached dwelling house with associated garden ground, parking and boundary treatment (copy enclosed). 4 25/00130/PP : Hunterston Construction Yard, Fairlie Seeking permission for the proposed earthworks to grade existing construction yard area to tie in with adjoining site ground levels, including boundary fencing, lighting columns and CCTV (copy enclosed). 1
Page 2
North Ayrshire Council, Cunninghame House, Irvine KA12 8EE 5 25/00079/PP : Former Coal Terminal Hunterston, West Kilbride Seeking permission for the variation of condition 11 of permission 23/00070/PP relating to the construction of a high voltage sub-sea cable manufacturing facility (copy enclosed). 6 25/00042/CON : Kaim Hill, Fairlie Seeking permission for the erection of 14 no. wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 200 metres and generation capacity exceeding 80MW and the siting of a battery energy storage system with a capacity exceeding 50MW to include associated infrastructure (a consultation from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit ref. ECU00004981) (copy enclosed). 7 Urgent Items Any other items which the Chair considers to be urgent. Webcasting Please note: this meeting may be filmed/recorded/live-streamed to the Council's internet site and available to view at https://north-ayrshire.public- i.tv/core/portal/home, where it will be capable of repeated viewing. At the start of the meeting, the Provost/Chair will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed/recorded/live-streamed. You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act 2018. Data collected during the webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy, including, but not limited to, for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available via the Council’s internet site. Generally, the press and public will not be filmed. However, by entering the Council Chambers and using the press or public seating area, you acknowledge that you may be filmed and that any information pertaining to you contained in the video and oral recording of the meeting will be used for webcasting or training purposes and for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available to the public. In making this use of your information the Council is processing data which is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest. If you have any queries regarding this and, in particular, if you believe that use and/or storage of any particular information would cause, or be likely to cause, substantial damage or distress to any individual, please contact dataprotectionofficer@north-ayrshire.gov.uk 2
Page 3
North Ayrshire Council, Cunninghame House, Irvine KA12 8EE Planning Committee Sederunt Robert Foster (Chair) Cameron Inglis (Vice-Chair) Scott Davidson Stewart Ferguson Amanda Kerr Davina McTiernan Jim Montgomerie Ian Murdoch Chloe Robertson Ronnie Stalker Chair: Apologies: Attending: 3
Page 4
4
Page 5
Planning Committee 23 April 2025 At a Meeting of the Planning Committee of North Ayrshire Council at 2.00 p.m. involving a combination of participation by remote electronic means and physical attendance within the Council Chambers, Irvine. Present (Physical Participation) Robert Foster, Cameron Inglis, Stewart Ferguson and Chloé Robertson. Present (Remote Participation) Scott Davidson, Davina McTiernan and Ian Murdoch In Attendance A. Finlayson, Chief Planning Officer; and I. Davies, Senior Development Management Officer (Communities and Housing); C. Leslie, Solicitor (Legal Services); S. Wilson, Committee Services Officer; and C. Cheung, Digital, Media and Marketing Analyst (Communications) (Democratic Services) (Corporate Services). Chair Councillor Foster in the Chair. Apologies Amanda Kerr, Jim Montgomerie and Ronnie Stalker. 1. Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest by Members in terms of Standing Order 11 and Section 5 of the Code of Conduct for Councillors. Councillor Murdoch made a transparency statement in relation to Agenda Item 3 (24/00588/PPM : Hunterston Construction Yard, Fairlie, North Ayrshire) as a member of the Hunterston Parc Liaison Committee. Having applied the objective test, Councillor Murdoch assessed that it was not an interest in terms of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. 2. Minutes The Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 March 2025 were confirmed and signed in accordance with Paragraph 7 (1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 3. 24/00588/PPM : Hunterston Construction Yard, Fairlie, North Ayrshire Submitted a report by the Chief Planning Officer seeking planning permission for the creation of a RAS (Recirculated Aquaculture System) Complex to include all buildings, access roads, parking, landscaping and other required infrastructure. The Committee noted no deputation requests were received for this application. Agenda Item 2 5
Page 6
Officers responded to Members’ questions on various aspects of the report and Councillor Inglis, seconded by Councillor Ferguson proposed a motion to approve planning permission subject to the conditions detailed in the report. Councillor Davidson proposed an amendment that a condition be applied for the applicant to provide further information on the quantity of fish, the process of recycling and cleaning of water and management of waste from the tanks. The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that these were not material planning considerations and not within the remit of the Planning Committee to apply such conditions and therefore deemed that this was not a competent amendment. There being no further amendments, planning permission was granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) shall be provided to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, for written approval. The CEMP shall include details of flood resilient construction methods and preclude the use of the C26 and local unclassified roads, the B780/B781 and A78 through Fairlie as a route for construction vehicles. Thereafter all works are to be carried out in accordance with any CEMP as may be approved, to the satisfaction of the Council, as Planning Authority. 2. Prior to commencement of the development an independent ecological clerk of works (ECoW) shall be appointed. The contact details, credentials and terms of reference shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, for approval. For the avoidance of doubt, the ECoW will audit the CEMP, and the construction practices contained therein. The ECoW will have the authority to halt any works not in accordance with the CEMP and report such incidences to the Council, as Planning Authority. 3. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) shall be submitted to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, for written approval. The HMP will take cognisance of the outline management plan set out in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated July 2024, by Atlantic Ecology, and submitted as part of this application, and provide details of the steps to be taken through construction and operation of the site for the management and enhancement of habitats. 4. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of landscaping shall be submitted to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, for written approval. The details shall be based on draft drawings LO1 Rev C and LO2 Rev C, submitted as part of this application, and will include details of all soft landscaping including grasscrete or similar paving areas and maintenance details. Any details as may be approved shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the complex or in the first planting season following completion of the buildings, whichever is soonest. Any landscaping which dies, becomes diseased, is removed or otherwise fails within 5 years of planting shall be reinstated in the first available planting season. 6
Page 7
5. That the rated noise level, as defined in BS 4142:2014+A1:2019, from the operation of the development, as defined by the approved location plan, shall not exceed the background noise level at the curtilage of any noise sensitive premises existing or consented as of the date of the permission. 4. Urgent Items There were no urgent items. The meeting ended at 2.55 p.m. The full meeting proceedings can be viewed at https://north-ayrshire.public-i.tv/core/portal/home 7
Page 8
8
Page 9
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 21st May 2025 Planning Committee Locality Garnock Valley Reference 25/00103/PP Application Registered 13th March 2025 Decision Due 13th May 2025 Ward Garnock Valley Recommendation Refused __________________________________________________________________ Location Site to south west of Woodside House, Beith Applicant Glendeal Properties Ltd Proposal Erection of detached dwelling house with associated garden ground, parking and boundary treatment ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Description Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwellinghouse on land within the Woodside Estate to the northwest of Beith. The land is owned by housing developer and is in separate ownership from Woodside House. The site adjoins a consented development of 5 houses which was commenced during 2008 and remains extant (ref. 07/01232/PP). No houses have yet been built but the access road and services which were authorised by the planning permission were constructed in 2008/09, including a pedestrian footway link to Beith alongside Kings Road. As such, the planning permission has been implemented and remains live without limit of time. The applicants, who are the current owners of the land, have recently obtained a building warrant for the five houses which have planning permission. However, they state that the viability of constructing the consented 5 houses would not be profitable at present, due to the build costs exceeding the anticipated sale income. They are seeking planning permission to construct a sixth house within the development to either break even or make a profit. They have provided costings which illustrate the viability gap. Agenda Item 3 9
Page 10
The proposed house would be similar in size and design to the consented houses within the extant planning permission (which was subject to a non-material variation during 2024). It would be sited at the northwest corner of the development and would face southeast onto the access road. The house would have two storeys and would be L-shaped on plan. It would have a modern design and would provide living accommodation and an attached double garage on the ground floor with 5 bedrooms and bathrooms, on the upper floor. There would be garden ground to the front, sides and rear. It would adjoin consented plot 5 to the south and consented plot 4 to the east. The house would be externally finished using riven grey concrete roof tiles, grey roofline products, grey doors and windows, white wet dash render, and reconstituted stone to the basecourse and the projecting front gable. The application is accompanied by a supporting statement which discusses viability, design and access issues. The site is within an area of ground which was cleared for development during 2008/09. It is largely enclosed from the surrounding countryside by dense mature woodland. Woodside House, a category A listed building, is located approximately 320m to the northeast. There are two other listed buildings within Woodside Estate, one category B, the other category C. Access would be taken from the existing private road which connects to Muirburn Road, which is a short distance to the north of Kings Road. The application site is approximately 1.2km from the centre of Beith. The application requires to be considered in terms of the North Ayrshire Local Development Plan (LDP) Strategic Policy 1 (The Countryside Objective), Strategic Policy 2 (Placemaking), Policy 14 (Green and Blue Infrastructure) and Policy 16 (Protection of our Designated Sites). National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) also requires consideration. The Housing in the Countryside Note of March 2024 is a material consideration, as is the supporting information provided by the applicants. 2. Consultations and Representations The application was subject to the statutory neighbour notification process and included a notice in a local newspaper. Four comments, objecting to the proposed development, have been received. The grounds of objection are as follows: 1. The application does not accord with the adopted LDP. The site is within the countryside and the proposed development does not meet any of the criteria set out in The Countryside Objective. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 2. The site has been reclaimed by nature and is within a Provisional Scottish Wildlife Trust Wildlife Site and the proposal is considered contrary to Policy 16 of the LDP which seeks to protect designated sites. Wild plants and animals, both within the site and nearby, would be damaged. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 10
Page 11
3. The land is within the traditional boundary and landscape of an important listed building and the development would be damaging to its historical identity and integrity. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 4. The application has been made in the context of a viability assessment for the residential development which was consented in the past. The development was only consented to provide funding for the restoration of Woodside House and was limited to 5 houses since this was the figure deemed necessary for such works. Previous proposals, for a larger number of houses, had been refused (eg. 8 houses were refused planning permission under application 04/00784/PP). Response: Noted. See Analysis. 5. The consented development should not have been viewed in the first place as a viable development. The fact that the development remains unviable is not the planning authority's responsibility to ameliorate. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 6. There is a burden on the title deeds which require the applicants to pay the owners of Woodside House an overage for "any increase in the number of units of residential accommodation" which the applicants will be aware of. Response: This is not a material planning consideration. 7. The title deeds are burdened to provide servitude rights to discharge surface water. An additional property would materially change the amount of surface water that would be expected to be absorbed by the burn within Woodside Estate and which the owners would likely challenge. It is unclear who would be responsible for to insure against any contamination of the burn. Response: This is not a material planning consideration. 8. It is understood that the issue of waste water treatment became a fundamental obstacle for earlier developers. It is noted that a treatment plant to serve the whole development is noted on the plans because SEPA previously rejected a partial soakaway arrangement. It is thought that the current proposal may be a reason for the proposed additional house due to the increased costs of a treatment plant vs a partial soakaway with overflow to the burn. The last storm causes significant issues, with flooding and tree roots compromised due to saturated ground, leading to the loss of many ancient trees. Furthermore, additional surface water and outfall from the treatment plant could have an adverse effect on water quality at the lochs which the burn eventually drains into (Castle Semple and Barr Lochs). These lochs are a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Response: This is a regulatory matter for SEPA to determine. 9. It would be better to acknowledge that, after two decades, these plans have no future. With planning permission either in place or on allocated sites in Beith for over 400 new houses, there is no requirement for these houses to be built, especially as the effect on 11
Page 12
the local environment would be negative. As such, the land should be re-integrated into the Woodside Estate. Response: Noted. This is not a material planning consideration. 10. The planning application can either be treated as enabling the earlier planning permission or as a separate development judged on its own merit. It cannot be both. Response: Noted. All applications for planning permission require to be considered on their individual merits. 11. The external finishes proposed for the house are not in keeping with the other buildings in the historic Woodside Estate. Response: See Analysis. 12. The addition of the consented houses and that proposed would result in a significant increase traffic using Muirburn Road. This is a single track road with no passing places. Response: See NAC Active Travel & Transport consultation response below. 13. The suggestion by the community council that a path link be provided between the application site and the main entrance to Woodside House is not something which can be considered through a listed stone wall. Response: The suggestion made by the community council does not form part of the planning application. Consultations NAC Active Travel and Transportation - More than 5 dwellings require to be served by a road built to an adoptable standard as required by the Council's Supplementary Design Guide. Final consultation response deferred pending the provision of additional information regarding the requirement for the access road to be constructed to adoptable standard. Response: Noted. Scottish Water - no objections. There is sufficient water supply capacity to serve the proposed development. There are no public sewers in the area. Response: Noted. Provision for the treatment and disposal of waste water and surface water has been outlined in the submitted plans. Technical approval of the drainage systems serving the development would require to be obtained at the building warrant stage, with consent obtained from SEPA where necessary. Beith & District Community Council - No objection in principle. A number of points have been raised in their consultation response: 1. It seems only reasonable to consider the principle of the current application as an expansion of an existing grouping as set out in the Housing in the Countryside Guidance Note of March 2024. 12
Page 13
2. There would no longer be a 'greenbelt' between the town boundary and the countryside as the development would take place on land just beyond the new Persimmon housing estate currently taking place, although it is noted that the setting for the proposed house would be within a woodland area, which should be retained. 3. The community council would encourage the provision of a discrete path via the desire line to Beith by creating a pedestrian link at the southeast of the development site through the stone wall. This would improve access to the town for pedestrians. 4. The stone wall onto Mossneuk Road should also be extended into the site entrance to form a gateway with railings. 5. A greater variety of housing designs is encouraged: the suburban layout is incongruous for this rural setting. 6. Drainage details have not been provided and the specification and capacity for the private waste treatment plant should be confirmed to have sufficient capacity for all six houses in the development. 7. The additional traffic generation should be assessed in the context of the approved housing development being built by Persimmon Homes. 8. There is no information on how the proposed houses would be heated nor any details of any energy saving technologies etc. 9. No proposals for biodiversity enhancement have been included in the application. The following points are made in response to the Community Council: 1. Noted. All applications for planning permission require to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The housing in the countryside guidance note is not part of the development plan but is a material consideration that will be considered below. 2. Noted. The application is for one house. Five houses have previously been consented on the adjacent land. The woodland area between the Persimmon development and the application site would visually separate the two developments. 3. The applicant does not own the boundary wall and the landowner does not support this. 4. Noted. This is outwith the scope of the current application. 5. Noted. The only matter under consideration is the current application. The layout and house designs within the consented development are not part of the application. 6. Drainage details are specified in the building warrant for the existing development, which would require to be amended in the event of planning permission for a sixth house being approved (assuming that the sixth house would utilise the same plant). 7. See comments from NAC Active Travel & Transport, above. 8. The plans indicate the house would have an air source heat pump. The full technical specification for the heating plant and the energy efficiency measures for the house would be provided at the building warrant stage 9. Noted. The application site would provide a substantial area of private garden ground. If approved, details of measures to enhance biodiversity at the site could be required as a condition of planning permission. 13
Page 14
3. Analysis In terms of the adopted LDP, the site is located within a rural area allocated as countryside. The proposal therefore requires to be considered in terms of Strategic Policy 1 (The Countryside Objective). Strategic Policy 2 (Placemaking), Policy 14 (Green and Blue Infrastructure) and Policy 16 (Protection of our Designated Sites) also require consideration. NPF4 also requires consideration, primarily in respect of rural housing and the setting of listed buildings. Finally, the Council's non-statutory 'Housing in the Countryside Note' of March 2024 and the applicant's supporting information are also relevant material considerations. In terms of background, planning permission was granted by the Council's Planning Committee for the erection of 5 houses as a form of enabling development to fund restoration works at Woodside House. That permission, ref. 06/00471/PP, was issued on 25th May 2006 following the signing of a Section 75 legal obligation, the main purpose of which was to bind the sale of the land for the housing development to a programme of restoration works at Woodside House. The trigger for the payment would have been the implementation of that planning permission. It should be noted that the 2006 planning permission was not implemented and has since lapsed. In 2007, a second planning application (ref. 07/01232/PP), entirely separate from and independent of the first, was submitted to the Council and was duly granted by the Planning Committee on 10th January 2008. The second planning permission was not burdened by a Section 75 obligation. The second planning permission had a different layout and house designs in comparison with the first. It has been established that works on the development consented by the second planning permission commenced during 2008/09 to include the clearance of the land and various engineering operations including the formation of roads, building plots, drainage and associated infrastructure. The development did not proceed beyond that stage. At that time, most housebuilding projects throughout the country were stalled due to the 'credit crunch' and 'financial crisis' of 2008/09. At that time, financial institutions stopped lending to developers and mortgage finance was significantly curtailed. Nonetheless, the material operations carried out to implement the planning permission remain visible on the ground and it would be open for a developer to continue the development which was consented in 2008. In 2023, an application seeking the discharge of the inoperative Section 75 obligation was submitted to the Council (ref. 23/000907/ALO). This was approved on 22nd January 2024 on the basis that the planning permission it related to had not been implemented and had lapsed. The Section 75 obligation was not triggered by the second planning permission (ref. 07/01232/PP). In the time since, several developers have expressed an interest in taking forward the project to completion. The Council, as planning authority, has consistently advised that any additional development or material variation of the consented development would not accord with the development plan. This is examined below. Strategic Policy 1 (The Countryside Objective) This strategic policy, part of the spatial strategy for the LDP, sets out the circumstances where housing in the countryside may be supported in principle. These include: 14
Page 15
- housing for workers engaged in agriculture or forestry; This does not apply. The proposed development is for a house that would be an addition to a consented (but not yet built) housing development in the countryside. - sympathetic additions to existing well-defined nucleated groups of four or more houses in close proximity to one another and visually identifiable as a group with some common feature will be supported, up to a limit of 50% of dwellings existing in that group as of January 2005; This does not apply. No grouping of houses existed at (or beside) the site as of January 2005. Whilst consent was granted for the building of 5 houses during 2008, no houses have yet been built. - New housing in the countryside where it is a replacement or converted building or it is a house of exceptional design quality; This does not apply. There is no building on the site which could be converted or replaced, nor is it considered that the proposed house is of exceptional design quality. The house would be of suburban design, similar to those with consent on the adjoining land. Taking the above factors together, it is not considered that the proposal could be supported in terms of The Countryside Objective. As this is the determining policy which establishes whether or not the principle of the proposed development accords with the LDP, other policies are of lesser importance. However, they will be considered below for completeness. Strategic Policy 2 (Placemaking) This policy sets out the Six Qualities of a Successful Place which all planning applications are expected to meet. Its stated purpose is to ensure "all development contributes to making quality places” and also "to safeguard, and where possible enhance environmental quality through the avoidance of adverse environmental or amenity impacts." It is considered that the proposed house would have a suburban character and that it would not be a “sympathetic addition” to the previously consented group on the basis that it would further erode the established rural setting of the Woodside Estate. Notwithstanding a selection of external finishes that would blend in with the previously consented houses, it is noted that these also have a suburban design theme. Such a typology is unlikely to be harmonious with the established woodland policy landscape of the Woodside Estate and the historic buildings within it. Impacts on amenity and setting would therefore be negative. The Council's Roads Guidance requires that developments exceeding 5 houses in the countryside require a road of adoptable standard: the required roads design and associated lighting scheme would introduce a development typology to the countryside in such a manner that the quality of place would be suburban rather than rural in character. In summary, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would accord with Strategic Policy 2. Policy 14 (Green and Blue Infrastructure) This policy notes that all proposals should seek to protect, create, enhance and/or enlarge our natural features and habitats, and makes provision for including new features that would 15
Page 16
improve biodiversity. Whilst there are some immature self-sown trees on the site, there are no natural features of note. The wider setting for the site contains established woodland habitats. The proposals do not include plans to create new natural features and habitats suitable for a variety of wildlife. However, subject to a suitable condition, such features could be incorporated. Subject to such a condition, the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of Policy 14. Policy 16 (Protection of our Designated Sites) As noted above, the site is within the Provisional SWT Wildlife Site for Woodside. This covers an extensive area beyond the boundaries of the application site. It is not considered that the proposed development would significantly compromise the integrity of the wildlife site given that the land has previously been cleared as part of the consented housing development dating from 2008 and given the extensive area of the designation. It is not considered that the proposed development would restrict the movement of wildlife within or through the designated area. The proposed development is not contrary to Policy 16. NPF4 The application does not raise any significant strategic national or regional planning issues. Policy 17 intends for the delivery of high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations. Emphasis is placed on sites that have been allocated for housing in the LDP and on the reuse of brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention. Proposals for new houses in rural areas will consider how the development will contribute to local living, taking into account local housing needs, economic considerations and the transport needs of the development, as appropriate. The site is located close to the edge of Beith and is within walking distance of the town. The ground was excavated as part of the consented development but has become colonised by plants and trees in recent years but is not a true brownfield site given that no previous development has taken place there. The proposed house would meet the current building standards in terms of zero direct emissions, and the building fabric would incorporate high levels of insulation, thus reducing heat loss and improving energy efficiency. It would include a home office as well as numerous other rooms, and could thus contribute to local living (eg. through home working and support for local services due to its proximity to the town, whilst enjoying a rural setting). Whilst it is not considered that there is any strong evidence of "need" for the proposed development, it would contribute to the supply and diversity of new housing in the locality. A house of the type proposed would add choice at the upper end of the local housing market. Notwithstanding the above, the proposed development does not accord with Policy 17 of NPF4 since the site is not allocated for housing in the LDP. The other most relevant policy in NPF4 is 7c, which states that "development proposals affecting the setting of a listed building should preserve its character, and its special architectural or historic interest." It is not considered that the proposed development would adversely affect the setting of the nearby listed buildings at Woodside House (category A) Woodside Farm (category B) or Woodside Lodge (category C) due to the distances between the application site and the listed buildings in combination with the screening effect provided by the mature woodlands. 16
Page 17
Consideration of other material planning considerations relevant to the application follows below: Housing in the Countryside Policy Guidance Note (March 2024) In circumstances where proposed housing in the countryside meets the various development plan policy tests, the purpose of the guidance is to offer commentary on development quality, layout and design matters. In this case, the basis of the application is that the proposed house would be "read" as part of the consented development, as opposed to being a standalone house in the countryside. Whilst the design principles as set out in the applicant's supporting statement are logical as a "rounding off" of the consented development, it must be noted that this does not yet exist. This means that the proposed house could, in theory, be a standalone development and therefore requires to be determined on its own merits. With this being the case, it is considered that the proposed house would have a suburban design typology that is not encouraged by the Guidance Note of March 2024 as being appropriate for a rural setting. Supporting information submitted by the applicant The applicant states that the intention of the planning application is to make the previously consented development viable. They note that there is a gap between build costs and the sales valuations they have obtained. Without permission for a sixth house, they argue that the whole development is not viable. The site would remain disused, or plots with consent would have to be sold off individually. The proposed house would be of similar size and design to the consented houses and would be accessed off the same road. It would benefit from extensive garden ground and would be part of an exclusive small development. It is not the applicant's intention to develop the house independently of the other houses with consent. It had been the applicant's understanding that the road serving the development would remain private. However, the advice from the Roads Authority in the consultation response for this application is that the road would require to be constructed to adoptable standard (given that a sixth house would be served from it). The applicant was asked to comment on this requirement on 31st March 2025, but has not responded to date. As discussed above, the proposed development is contrary to the development plan. It is not considered that other material considerations, such as development viability, are of sufficient weight to overcome this. It is considered that the proposed house would have a suburban character and that it would not be a sympathetic addition to the previously consented group, dating back over 17 years. The Council’s Rural Design Guidance for housing has altered since that time. As such, the development of an additional house, or as a free standing house, would further erode the established rural setting of the Woodside Estate. Accordingly, the development plan takes primacy and planning permission should be refused. 4. Full Recommendation Refused 17
Page 18
Reason 1. The proposed development is contrary to the development plan and in particular Local Development Plan Strategic Policy 1 (The Countryside Objective) and Policy 17 (Rural Housing) of National Planning Framework 4. In reaching this determination, the material consideration of development viability in respect of an extant planning permission (ref. 07/01232/PP, approved in January 2008) for the development of five detached dwellinghouses on the adjoining land has been considered, but does not outweigh the provisions of the development plan in this instance. Allan Finlayson Chief Planning Officer For further information please contact Mr A Hume Planning Officer on 01294 324318. 18
Page 19
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 21st May 2025 Planning Committee Locality North Coast and Cumbraes Reference 25/00130/PP Application Registered 26th March 2025 Decision Due 26th May 2025 Ward North Coast Recommendation Approved subject to Conditions __________________________________________________________________ Location Hunterston Construction Yard Fairlie North Ayrshire Applicant Clydeport Operations Ltd Proposal Proposed earthworks to grade existing construction yard area to tie in with adjoining site ground levels, including boundary fencing, lighting columns and CCTV ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Description Planning permission is sought to carry out earthworks which would result in an area of land within the Hunterston Construction Yard being regraded to tie in with permitted ground levels on an adjacent site. The adjacent site was granted planning permission (ref: 24/00444/PPM) by the Planning Committee in December 2024 to allow works including the infilling of the existing dry dock. This proposal would essentially incorporate the application site into the approx. 40ha site granted permission in December 2024. Part of the site was originally included in the application for Bakkafrost's RAS facility, granted permission (ref: 24/00588/PPM) by the Planning Committee in April 2025. However, no specific works were proposed for this part of the site, and it is understood not to be required for the RAS development. Development of this area would not impact on the implementation of that permission. Agenda Item 4 19
Page 20
The whole Construction Yard has a lawful use for general industrial purposes (ref:
22/00717/LUE).
The application site is 'L' shape in plan form comprising some 1.86ha of land along the
southern and western boundaries of the RAS site. It is proposed to raise the land, which sits
approx. between 6.5mAOD and 8mAOD, to between approx. 7.8mAOD and 8.m AOD.
Security fencing and lighting similar to that approved under the December 2024 permission
is also proposed for the boundary.
The proposal was screened in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 on 11th March 2025 (ref:
25/00086/EIA). No EIA was required.
The site is within the Hunterston Strategic Development Area and a Business and Industry
Employment Location, as identified within the Adopted 2019 North Ayrshire Council Local
Development Plan ("the LDP"). NPF4 identifies Hunterston as a Strategic Asset. The
relevant polices are Strategic Policy 2, Strategic Policy 3, Policy 7, Policy 15, and Policy 16
of the LDP and Policy 1, Policy 4 and Policy 14 of NPF4.
The Council approved a development framework for Hunterston PARC, which includes the
construction yard. The development framework is a material consideration for this
application.
2. Consultations and Representations
The application was advertised in the local newspaper. No comments were received.
NAC Environmental Health - No objections. The presence of any significant unsuspected
contamination that becomes evident shall be brought to the attention of Environmental
Health with a suitable remediation strategy to be agreed and carried out.
Response: Noted. Such a condition could be attached to any permission. Other conditions
relating to potential environmental disturbance as required by permission 24/00444/PPM
could also be attached.
Given the scale of the proposal no other consultations were carried out. However, it is noted
that Transport Scotland, NAC Active Travel and Transportation (Roads), Office for
Nuclear Regulation, Northern Lighthouse Board, Marine Scotland, SEPA , NAC
Flooding, and NatureScot were all consulted in respect of 24/00444/PPM and had no
objections. Conditions imposed on that permission could be attached to any permission for
this site to ensure consistency across the wider area.
3. Analysis
Strategic Policy 3: Hunterston Strategic Development of the LDP area states that proposals
for certain industrial uses will be supported at Hunterston Deep Water Port including
renewable generation, manufacture, maintenance and testing; maritime decommissioning
and construction; bulk handling facilities; and other storage, processing and distribution and
20Page 21
light industry facilities which would not undermine the strategic importance and unique asset of Hunterston as a deep-water port. Policy 7: Business and Industry of the LDP states that support will be given in principle to business and industry uses in identified locations, including Hunterston. NPF4 identifies Hunterston, including the Construction Yard, as a Strategic Asset. It states that the repurposing of Hunterston will be supported. NPF4 identifies certain development proposals which are to be classified as 'national' in terms of the hierarchy of development. Such national developments are considered to support the redevelopment and reuse of the existing strategic asset. Such development supports the national spatial strategy. One of the developments identified as 'national' is 'Infrastructure to support a multi-modal deep-water harbour.' On 1st December 2021, the Planning Committee agreed to approve a development framework for Hunterston PARC, which includes the construction yard. The development framework identifies this location as suitable for development. It identifies the site as a marine yard with scope for industrial development. Strategic Policy 2: Placemaking of the LDP sets out the six qualities of a successful place. The relevant qualities in respect of this development are considered to be 'distinctive,' 'resource efficient,' 'safe and pleasant' and 'adaptable.' Policy 14 of NPF4 is essentially a reiteration of the six qualities, with the relevant qualities being 'distinctive,' 'sustainable,' 'pleasant' and 'adaptable.' The infilling of the dry dock basin and creation of the quay wall has already been approved as infrastructure to support a multi-modal deep-water harbour. This proposal would support the development of that proposal. The land also has a lawful use for general industry and this development will facilitate such uses. The proposal would support the repurposing of the Hunterston Construction Yard. As such the proposal accords with the principles of Strategic Policy 3 and Policy 7 of the LDP and Hunterston Strategic Asset, as identified in NP4, and the development framework for Hunterston PARC. The proposal also meets the 'adaptable' criteria of Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP and Policy 14 of NPF4 in that it will facilitate re-use and flexibility for an existing industrial site. Policy 15 of the LDP states that, where appropriate, development should take into consideration its individual and cumulative impacts on landscape features. The physical works proposed comprise regrading of land to provide a more consistent level. This would mean raising of sections by between 0m and 1.3m. These works would not be readily visible from outwith the site and it is noted that a factory development has been permitted immediately adjacent. Lighting columns and fences would be erected around the edge of the site. They would be similar in appearance to those approved for the rest of the yard. The physical appearance of the works is as may be expected for an industrial area. Given all of the above, it is not considered that the visual impact of the proposal would be such to harm the amenity of the area or local landscape features. The development is therefore considered to accord with Policy 15 of the LDP and the 'distinctive' qualities of Strategic Policy 2 and Policy 14 of NPF4. 21
Page 22
Policy 16 of the LDP states that support will be given to development which would not have an unacceptable impact on our valuable natural environment. Development affecting Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the overall objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the designated area will not be compromised, or any adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental, or economic benefits of national importance. Policy 4 of NPF4 is similar to Policy 16 of the LDP in that it states development proposals that will affect SSSIs will only be supported where the objectives of designation and overall integrity will not be compromised, or any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. The application site is not within any designated site. However, it is bounded on its northern and eastern side by the Southannan Sands SSSI. This was first notified as a SSSI in 1971 and re-notified in 2013 with a reduced area. The SSSI is notified for its intertidal marine habitats and saline lagoons: sandflats. The sandflats extend for over 4km of coast, divided into three areas by the Hunterston Construction Yard and the jetty of the former coal terminal. The proposed works are restricted to the interior of the existing yard. NatureScot was consulted in respect of the wider works on the proposal and offered no objections subject to a condition requiring an intertidal survey to be completed in advance of works commencing with details to be submitted and agreed. This should form part of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). Such a condition could be attached to any permission in respect of this development. The application for the wider yard included surveys of species within and near the site and mitigation measures to minimise disturbance during construction. Such mitigation could be required by condition as could the employment of an independent ecological clerk of works (ECoW) to ensure compliance with the CEMP. This would again tie in with the December 2024 permission. The surface water from the site currently drains to the Clyde and it is proposed to continue to do this. Subject to such conditions, it is not considered that the proposal would harm the objectives of the SSSI or its integrity. The proposal therefore complies with Policy 16 of the LDP and Policy 4 of NPF4. The proposal would also meet the 'resource efficient' and 'sustainable' qualities of Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP and Policy 14 of NPF4 in that supports the efficient use of resources and integrates biodiversity solutions. Conditions relating to the management of potential construction amenity impacts, such as dust and working hours could be controlled through any CEMP as could a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). These are all requirements of the December 2024 permission. Transport Scotland and NAC Active Travel and Transportation (Roads) were consulted and offer no objections. A condition could be attached to any permission requiring the submission of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to include measures to mitigate Subject to such conditions it is not considered the proposal would have any significant adverse impacts on local amenity, the road network or navigation. The proposal therefore 22
Page 23
accords with the 'safe and pleasant' criteria of Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP and the 'pleasant' criteria of Policy 14 of NPF4. Policy 1 of NPF4 states that when considered all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. The site is an existing industrial yard. The proposed works would facilitate the use of the yard. Any future uses which require planning permission would be considered on their own merits. However, it is not considered that the works subject of this application is intrinsically incompatible with addressing the climate and nature crises and the impact on protected species and habitats is considered above. Indeed, the changes to the yard could allow for development which would help address those issues. The proposal accords with Policy 1 of NPF4. The proposal is considered to accord with the relevant policies of the development pan. There are no other material considerations to the contrary and permission can be granted subject to conditions. 4. Full Recommendation Approved subject to Conditions Condition 1. Prior to any works commencing on site a Phase II Intertidal Survey will be completed and provided to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, and NatureScot. The Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) will be updated to reflect the findings of this survey including details of the approach to ongoing assessment of the identified PMFs during and post works. Following completion of the works a Project Completion report will be provided detailing the PMF condition recorded during and post work completion. This report will also detail any remedial work required to be carried out on the basis of the monitoring results, to be agreed with the Council, as Planning Authority, in consultation with NatureScot. Thereafter all works are to be carried out in accordance with any CEMP as may be approved, to the satisfaction of the Council, as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure the CEMP reflects any potential impacts on the adjacent intertidal area and provides an appropriate construction management plan and to meet the requirements NatureScot. Condition 2. Prior to commencement of the development an independent ecological clerk of works (ECoW) shall be appointed. The contact details, credentials and terms of reference shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, for approval. For the avoidance of doubt, the ECoW will audit the CEMP, and the construction practices contained therein. The ECoW will have the authority to halt any works not in accordance with the CEMP and report such incidences to the Council, as Planning Authority. Reason 23
Page 24
To ensure proper oversight during the construction process Condition 3. Prior to commencement of the development a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be submitted to the Council, as Planning Authority, for approval in consultation with Transport Scotland. Such a plan should include measures to facilitate the continuous operation of the Ayrshire Coastal Path. Thereafter all works are to be carried out in accordance with any CTMP as may be approved, to the satisfaction of the Council, as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure construction traffic is suitably managed and to maintain appropriate operation of the coastal path network Condition 4. That no infill material shall be brought to the site by road. Reason In recognition of the transport assessments carried out and in the interests of road traffic management. Condition 5. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP) shall be submitted to the Council, as North Ayrshire Council, for approval in consultation with NAC Environmental Health. Any CNMP shall include details of proposed monitoring for any possible work outwith the hours 7am to 7pm and details of procedures to be undertaken should NAC Environmental Health receive a valid complaint relating to noise disturbance. Thereafter all works shall be carried out in accordance with any CNMP as may be approved, to the satisfaction of the Council, as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure appropriate management of noise from construction in the interests of amenity. Condition 6. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Dust Management Plan (DMP) shall be submitted to the Council, as North Ayrshire Council, for approval in consultation with NAC Environmental Health. Thereafter all works shall be carried out in accordance with any DMP as may be approved, to the satisfaction of the Council, as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure appropriate management of dust from constriction in the interests of amenity. Condition 7. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in Section 5.2 of the Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Risk Assessment, prepared by Envirocentre dated March 2024. Any unsuspected contamination become evident during the works shall be brought to the attention of NAC Environmental Health. Thereafter a suitable investigation strategy as agreed with North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, shall be implemented 24
Page 25
and any necessary remediation works carried out prior to any further works taking place on the site, all to the satisfaction of North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that any unsuspected contamination is identified and dealt with appropriately site and to meet the requirements of NAC Environmental Health. Allan Finlayson Chief Planning Officer For further information please contact Mr Iain Davies on 01294 324320. 25
Page 26
26
Page 27
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 21st May 2025 Planning Committee Locality North Coast and Cumbraes Reference 25/00079/PP Application Registered 24th February 2025 Decision Due 24th April 2025 Ward North Coast Recommendation Approved subject to Conditions __________________________________________________________________ Location Former Coal Terminal Hunterston West Kilbride North Ayrshire Applicant XLCC F.a.o Mr Paul Dickson Proposal Variation of condition 11 of permission 23/00070/PP relating to the construction of a high voltage sub-sea cable manufacturing facility ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Description This application seeks to consolidate the permissions for the permitted XLCC cable factory at the former coal terminal at Hunterston. If this permission is granted there would be two detailed permissions for the site: i) 22/00712/MSCM which permitted details of the factory and ii) this application would permit a detailed permission for the tower with conditions relating to the factory removed. The time period to commence the development would remain unchanged i.e. June 2028. Planning permission is sought to vary Condition 11 of permission 23/00070/PP. That permission varied Conditions 9 and 18 of planning permission N/22/00133/PPPM relating to the construction of a high voltage sub-sea cable manufacturing facility. Planning permission 23/00070/PP was granted by the Planning Committee 23rd March 2023. Condition 11 of permission 23/00070/PP currently states Prior to commencement of the development of the tower, details of a financial bond to be secured with the land owner for the removal of the tower in the event of redundancy shall be submitted to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, for written approval. Any such bond shall be retained through the life of the development with confirmation to be provided Agenda Item 5 27
Page 28
to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, on a yearly basis following completion of
the tower.
The reason Condition 11 was imposed is as follows,
To ensure steps are in place to remove the tower should the site become redundant, in the
interest of visual amenity, and in recognition of the landowner being ultimately responsible
for compliance with any conditions.
This application seeks to change the wording to read,
Prior to commencement of the works above ground level of development of the tower,
details of a financial bond to be secured with the landowner for the removal of the tower in
the event of redundancy shall be submitted to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority,
for written approval. Any such bond shall be retained through the life of the development
with confirmation to be provided to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, on a
yearly basis following completion of the tower
Planning permission 23/00131/PP, 9th June 2023, was also granted by the Planning
Committee. The permission varied Condition 11 of planning permission N/22/00133/PPPM.
The wording permitted under permission 23/00131/PP is identical to that proposed in this
application.
Planning permission 22/00712/MSCM was also granted 9th June 2023 by the Planning
Committee. That permission granted the details of the factory and is unaffected by this
application or any variation to the PPPM permission.
Currently the planning permission for the tower requires a meaningful start to be made by
June 2028. Should this permission be granted, the development would have to be begun
within 3 years. i.e. June 2028.
The site is within the Hunterston Strategic Development Area and a Business and Industry
Employment Location, as identified within the Adopted 2019 North Ayrshire Council Local
Development Plan ("the LDP"). NPF4 identifies Hunterston as a Strategic Asset. The
relevant polices are Strategic Policy 2, and Policy 15 of the LDP and Policy 14 of NPF4. The
Scottish Government's Planning Circular 4/1998 sets out their policy on the use of planning
conditions.
2. Consultations and Representations
The application was subject to statutory neighbour notification procedures. There have
been no comments received.
3. Analysis
Planning permission in principle for the use of the land as a cable factory and detailed
permission for the construction of the tower has been granted. Detailed permission for the
factory has also been granted by the Planning Committee June 2023 (ref:
28Page 29
22/00712/MSCM). The principle of the development is therefore established. The application considers only whether or not the revised Condition 11 would accord with the LDP, NPF4, Scottish Government advice and any other material considerations. Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP sets out the six qualities of a successful place. The relevant quality is 'distinctive' which requires development to consider the local landscape. Policy 14 of NPF4 is essentially a reiteration of Strategic Policy 2. Policy 15 of the LDP states that support will be given the development that avoids unacceptable adverse impacts on our landscape areas. The revised wording of Condition 11 would allow works to commence at ground level and below. This would essentially allow the foundations and basement level of the tower to be commenced. The reason Condition 11 was imposed was to ensure steps are in place to remove the tower should the site become redundant, in the interest of visual amenity, and in recognition of the landowner being ultimately responsible for compliance with any conditions. The tower would be some 1450sqm in area. It would be sited some 440m north of the southern boundary of the site and 75m west of the eastern boundary of the site. It would be 25m wide, west to east, and 58m in length, north to south. It would be approx. 1km south of the settlement of Fairlie, as identified by the LDP. The site of the tower is within an existing industrial yard. The site of the tower is surrounded to the south, east and north by trees including the Hunterston House Tree Preservation Order (TPO). It would be approx. 2.8km from Cumbrae to the west. The factory buildings around the tower are permitted to be up to approx. 27m in height. Given all of the above, it is considered allowing the works up to ground level to commence without a bond would have no impact on visual amenity or the wider landscape. As such the amendment to the condition would accord with Strategic Policy 2 and Policy 15 of the LDP and Policy 14 of NPF4. Planning Circular 4/1998 states that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects. It is considered that the amended condition would remain relevant to planning, relevant to the development, enforceable and precise. The condition would remain necessary in respect of the tower i.e. the removal of the tower in the case of redundancy, being a structure visible in public realm. The condition would also remain reasonable in that it would allow works which will not have an adverse impact on visual amenity. It is also noted that permission to vary the original permission (ref: 22/00133/PPM) in these terms has already been granted (ref: 23/00131/PP). This is considered to be a material consideration which gives weight to the support of the application. If this permission is granted the development would essentially be granted a consolidated permission which includes the relevant varied conditions in one permission. It is also proposed to not include Conditions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 from the original permission in any grant of this application. This is because those conditions have already been met under 22/00712/MSCM. The revised condition numbers would be as follows: 29
Page 30
Condition 1 (no change) Condition 2 (Condition 6 of the original permission) Condition 3 (Condition 11, as amended by this permission) Condition 4 (Condition 12, of the original permission) Condition 5 (Condition 13, of the original permission) Condition 6 (Condition 14, of the original permission) Condition 7 (Condition 15, of the original permission) Condition 8 (Condition 16, of the original permission) Condition 9 (Condition 17, of the original permission) Condition 10 (Condition 18, as amended by permission 23/00070/PP) Condition 11 (Condition 19, of the original permission) Condition 12 (Condition 20, of the original permission) Condition 13 (Condition 21, of the original permission) Planning permission should therefore be granted subject to the conditions set out below. 4. Full Recommendation Approved subject to Conditions Condition 1. That the permission is for a high voltage cable manufacturing facility with associated factories, research and testing laboratories, offices with associated stores, transport, access, parking and landscaping with on-site generation and electrical infrastructure and cable delivery system only and planning permission would be required for any other use within Class 5 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order, as amended. Reason In recognition of the special justification for the tower and to retain control over the site and re-assess the need for the tower in the event of a different operation. Condition 2. Prior to development commencing the applicant shall implement the measures detailed under Mitigation Measures Adopted as Part of the Project in Chapter 9 Hydrogeology, Geology and Ground Conditions of the submitted EIA report dated February 2022. All documentation be verified by a suitably qualified Environmental Consultant and submitted to the satisfaction of North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure proper consideration is given to ground conditions and ground water. Condition 3. Prior to commencement of the works above ground level of development of the tower, details of a financial bond to be secured with the landowner for the removal of the tower in the event of redundancy shall be submitted to North Ayrshire Council, as 30
Page 31
Planning Authority, for written approval. Any such bond shall be retained through the life of the development with confirmation to be provided to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, on a yearly basis following completion of the tower. Reason To ensure steps are in place to remove the tower should the site become redundant, in the interest of visual amenity, and in recognition of the landowner being ultimately responsible for compliance with any conditions. Condition 4. Should the tower become redundant, it shall be removed within 6 months of redundancy. For the avoidance of doubt, redundancy means the factory not becoming operational within 3 years of construction of the tower or the factory ceasing to operate for a period of more than 1 year after first becoming operational. Reason To ensure the timely removal of the tower should the site become redundant, in the interest of visual amenity. Condition 5. The prior to commencement of the development of the tower, details of the external finish shall be submitted to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, for written approval. The development will thereafter be undertaken in accordance with any details as may be approved and the tower maintained with those details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason To ensure an appropriate external finish for the tower in the interest of visual amenity. Condition 6. The prior to the commencement of the development of the tower, a Dust Management Plan for the control of dust from the construction of the tower shall be submitted to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, for written approval. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with any Plan as may be approved. Reason To ensure proper management of dust throughout the construction period. Condition 7. That prior to the commencement of the development of the tower, a Construction Management Plan and Code of Practice, including details for monitoring and action against non-compliance shall be submitted to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, for approval. Thereafter the construction shall be carried out only as approved by the Plan and Code of Practice. For the avoidance of doubt this shall include an assessment of use of the rail and port connections as a first principle and the prohibition of the use of the A78 through Fairlie, the B780/B781, the C26 and all local non-classified roads by construction vehicles and details of management of impact on the core path and cycle rout network. Reason 31
Page 32
To ensure proper management of the construction process, including impact on the road network. Condition 8. Reason To ensure proper oversight of the construction of the tower. Condition 9. The rated noise level, as defined in `BS4142:2014+A1:2019, from the operation of the tower must not exceed the background noise level at the curtilage of any existing or consented noise sensitive property at the time of application. Reason The rated noise level, as defined in `BS4142:2014+A1:2019, from the operation of the tower must not exceed the background noise level at the curtilage of any existing or consented noise sensitive property at the time of application. Condition 10. The prior to the commencement of the development of the tower, that a scheme to treat surface water arising from the or otherwise affecting the site of the tower, prepared in accordance with the principles and practices contained in 'The SuDS Manual' (CIRIA report C7453, published November 2015) and the requirements of The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011, and certified by a suitably qualified person, shall be submitted to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, for written approval. Thereafter, the certified scheme shall be implemented prior to the completion of the development of the tower and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority. Any scheme approved shall include details of proposed ground levels, finished floor levels, and pre & post development overland flows that shall demonstrate that people and property would not be put at flood risk during the designed storm event (1 in 200 return period plus an allowance for climate change and urban creep) when the capacity of the proposed infrastructure is exceeded. Reason To ensure the proper treatment of surface water. Condition 11. Prior to the commencement of the tower, confirmation that the basement proposals are sufficiently flood resilient/resistant, including an accompanying certified flood management plan suitably addresses residual flood risk at the site form all sources of flooding, certified by a suitable qualified person, shall be submitted in writing for the written approval of North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure the risk of flooding to basement level proposal is suitable addressed. Condition 32
Page 33
12. In the event that the works to commence the tower are not undertaken within 1 year of the date of this permission, an updated habitat survey dated not more than 1 year prior to the date of commencement shall be submitted to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, for written approval prior to the commencement. Reason To ensure habitat and protected species considerations are of an appropriate date. Condition 13. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of omni-directional red aviation warning lights to be fitted to the tower shall be submitted to North Ayrshire Council, as Planning Authority, for approval in consultation with Prestwick Airport, Air Traffic Control and the Ministry of Defence. The lighting will thereafter be fitted and retained thereafter in accordance with any details as may be approved. Reason To meet the requirements of the relevant Air Authorities. Allan Finlayson Chief Planning Officer For further information please contact Mr Iain Davies on 01294 324320. 33
Page 34
34
Page 35
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 21st May 2025 Planning Committee Locality Reference 25/00042/CON Application Registered 30th January 2025 Decision Due 28th May 2025 Ward North Coast Recommendation Objection __________________________________________________________________ Location Kaim Hill Fairlie North Ayrshire Energy Consent Unit consultation Proposal Erection of 14 no. wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 200 metres and generation capacity exceeding 80MW and the siting of a battery energy storage system with a capacity exceeding 50MW to include associated infrastructure (a consultation from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit ref. ECU00004981) ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Description The Scottish Government's Energy Consent Unit has consulted the Council, as Planning Authority, on an application they have received under S.36 of the Electricity Act 1989, as amended. The application is for the 'Erection of 14 no. wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 200 metres and generation capacity exceeding 80MW and the siting of a battery energy storage system with a capacity exceeding 50MW to include associated infrastructure.' S. 36 of the Electricity Act states that consent is required from the Scottish Ministers for the construction of energy generating developments and storage with a capacity exceeding 50 megawatts. The Energy Consents Units, in accordance with The Electricity (Applications for Consent) Regulations 1990, has sought the views of the Council, as Planning Authority. The Council has until 28th May 2025 to respond. Agenda Item 6 35
Page 36
The site is some 1120ha in area. It runs from the southern side of Fairlie Gen to the B781 west of Munnoch, with an access spur crossing the B781 to the B780. The site incorporates Kaim Hill, on the north-side of the Fairlie Moor Road and the Crosbie Hills on the south-side. There would be 7 turbines on the northern side of the Fairlie Moor Road, sited on the southern and western side of Kaim Hill and Green Hill to its south-east. There would be 7 turbines on the southern side of Fairlie Moor Road sited approximately in a line running from north-west to south-east along the Crosbie Hills and either side of the Glenton Hill and Gill Hill. The turbines would be linked by tracks from the access at the B781/B780. The turbines would be sited at a range of approximately at the following heights above sea level: No. 1 - 290mAOD No. 2 - 280mAOD No. 3 - 265mAOD No. 4 - 270mAOD No. 5 - 275mAOD No. 6 - 270mAOD No. 7 - 265mAOD No. 8 - 225mAOD No. 9 - 240mAOD No. 10 - 305mAOD No. 11 - 255mAOD No. 12 - 220mAOD No. 13 - 220mAOD No. 14 - 220mAOD The battery energy storage system (BESS) would be sited at the south-eastern end of the site approx. 650m north of the B781. The BESS would be some 1ha in area and comprise the sub-station and transformers associated with the wind turbines as well as batteries for storage of energy generated. The site is largely to the east and south-east of Fairlie and the north-east of West Kilbride. The closest turbines to Fairlie are proposed turbine Nos. 1 and 4, some 2.1km east and south-east of the settlement respectively. The closest turbine to West Kilbride would be proposed turbine No. 12 some 2.9km north-east of the settlement. The site is some 2.5km west of Dalry with the nearest turbine to that settlement being some 3.55km distant. Fairlie sits at between approx. 0mAOD and 50mAOD, West Kilbride also sits between approx. 0m AOD and 85mAOD and Dalry approx. 25mAOD and 70mAOD. There are no residential properties within the site although there are such properties immediately adjacent at Knockendon Farm and Birkhead Farm on the eastern side and at Munnoch on the south-eastern corner. There are also further residential properties to the east between the site and Dalry, along the B781 towards West Kilbride and on the A78 between that settlement and Fairlie. Within 5km of the site there is the Ardrossan Wind Farm to the south, comprising some 15 turbines, 100m in height to blade tip. The distance between closest turbines would be some 2.35km. Further to the south is the Sorbie Wind Farm comprising 3 turbines some 125m in height to blade tip. The distance between closest turbines would be some 4km. 36
Page 37
To the north-east is the Kelburn Wind Farm comprising some 14 turbines, 100m in height to blade tip. The distance between closest turbines would be some 1km. Also, to the north-east is the Wardlaw Wood/Dalry Wind Farm and the adjacent Millour Hill Wind Farm comprising a total of 14 turbines some 125m in height to blade tip. The distance between the closest turbines would be some 1.2m. To the east at a distance of approx. 4km is the Swinlees Wind Farm, comprising 6 turbines at a height of 150m to blade tip, which was approved by the Planning Committee and has been notified to the Scottish Government. The site is within the Countryside and the Clyde Muirshiel Country Park and Special Landscape Area as identified in the Local Development Plan (LDP). The western part of the site is part of the Glen Burn (Crosbie to North Southannan) Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS). This LNCS has been reviewed, and it is proposed to split the LNCS into two, with an area similar to most of the application site being the Kaim Hill and Crosbie Hills LNCS. The application site also includes part of the Caaf and Knockendon Reservoirs LNCS, although no development is proposed within that LNCS. The southern access would be adjacent to the Munnoch Reservoir LNCS. Part of the site is identified as being carbon rich soil. There are category B Listed Buildings at Munnoch, Crosbie Towers, some 1km to the south-west, Lawwood Head some 2km to the south-west, and Fairlie Castle, some 780m to the west of the northern part of the site. The Fairlie Moor Road is part of the Core Path network. An application for planning permission for 5 turbines on Kaim Hill (ref: 08/00662/PP) was refused 15th December 2009. That proposal was for turbines with a blade tip height of 125m on the top and northern and western slopes of Kaim Hill. The reasons for refusal included the proposal having a significant adverse landscape and visual impact, including cumulative impact; be detrimental to the interests of tourism and recreation; be within 2km of Fairlie; and have an adverse impact on the Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park. The proposal requires to be assessed against Policy 1: Tackling the climate and nature crises; Policy 3: Biodiversity; Policy 4: Natural Places; Policy 5: Soils; Policy 6: Forestry, woodland and trees; Policy 11: Energy; Policy 14: Design, quality and place; and Policy 29: Rural development of NPF4. The proposal requires to be assessed against Strategic Policy 1: The Countryside Objective; Strategic Policy 2: Placemaking; Policy 15: Landscape and Seascape; Policy 16: Protection of our Designated Sites; Policy 17: Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park; Policy 18: Forestry, Woodland, Trees and Hedgerows; Policy 29: Energy Infrastructure Development and Policy 34 Protecting Peatland and Carbon Rich Soil of the LDP. The Council has approved a Landscape Wind Capacity Study October 2018. 2. Consultations and Representations The Council, as Planning Authority, is not required to carry out any consultations or notification. The Energy Consents Unit will carry out such consultations as they consider appropriate. 37
Page 38
NAC Environmental Health suggests conditions in relation to the operation of any turbines. They state that noise emission should not exceed the levels set out in the EIA submitted to the ECU. The rated noise level from the BESS must not exceed background at the curtilage of any noise sensitive receptor by 5dB or more. In the event of a complaint about noise being received by the Council, the operator should undertake monitoring to the satisfaction of the Council. The development must not result in the obstruction or contamination of any private water supply. Response: Noted. Conditions relating to noise and private water supplies could be recommended in the consultation response. NAC Flooding has no objections. Note that the development is largely outwith flood risk areas except for some parts of the access tracks. Suggest a condition requiring details of drainage should consent be granted. Response: Noted. Conditions related to drainage could be recommended in the consultation response. NAC Active Travel and Transportation (Roads) has no objection. Advice is given on abnormal load routes and the requirements for any temporary road alterations. Response: Noted. It is noted that development is largely contained outwith the road network, but it is proposed to have tracks which would give access onto the B780, B781 and the Fairlie Moor Road. A condition requiring details of the access onto the Fairlie Moor Road to ensure the Core Path is appropriately managed could be recommended in any consultation response. 3. Analysis Policy 1 of NPF4 states that when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 29 of NPF4 states that support will be given to energy infrastructure development, including wind, where they will contribute positively to our transition to a low carbon economy and have no unacceptable adverse environmental impacts. Strategic Policy 1: The Countryside Objective states that in principle support will be given to development in the countryside with a site-specific locational need, including renewable energy. The proposal is for a wind farm comprising 14 turbines, and associated BESS, with a maximum tip height of 200m. The energy generation capacity is stated to exceed 80MW. This equates to at least 5.75MW per turbine. The turbines would generate electricity from a renewable source i.e. the wind. Turbines have a specific locational need to be sited in locations where wind will be sufficient to generate electricity. This is often elevated countryside locations The proposal would contribute to tackling the global climate crisis. It is considered to have a site-specific locational need. The electricity generated would help the transition to a low 38
Page 39
carbon economy. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy 1 of NPF4 in terms of the climate crisis. It is considered to accord with Strategic Policy 1: The Countryside Objective of the LDP and it is considered to accord with the principle of Policy 29 of the LDP. However, in order to fully accord with Policy 29, the proposal must be considered to have no unacceptable adverse impacts. The relevant factors to be considered under Policy 29, including cumulatively, are as follows: visual impact, amenity, noise and shadow flicker impacts on communities and individual dwellings; water quality; landscape; natural heritage; carbon rich soils including peat; impact on the historic environment; establishing the use of the site for energy infrastructure; providing a net economic impact; scale of contribution to renewable energy targets; public access; impact on tourism and recreation; aviation and defence interests; telecommunications and broadcasting; road traffic and trunk roads; effects on the water environment; and decommissioning. Proposals should include redundancy plans which will demonstrate how apparatus will be removed as reasonably soon as the scheme ceases operation. Policy 11 of NPF4 states that development proposal for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emission technologies will be supported including wind farms. Development proposals will only be supported where they maximise net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities. In addition, project design and mitigation will demonstrate how the following impacts are addressed: impacts on communities and individual dwellings including visual impact, noise and shadow flicker; significant landscape and visual impacts, recognising that such impacts are to expected and localised impacts likely acceptable; public access; aviation and defence interests; telecommunications and broadcasting; road traffic; historic environment; hydrology and flood risk; biodiversity; trees and woods; provision of decommissioning and restoration although wind farms are expected to be suitable in perpetuity; and cumulative impacts. Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP sets out the qualities of a successful place including the visual, amenity and access considerations for a development. Policy 14 of NPF4 is essentially a reiteration of Strategic Policy 2. Visual impact Policy 15 of the LDP states that support will only be given to development which affects a Special Landscape Area where it would not have an unacceptable impact on their special character, qualities and setting. Policy 4 of NPF4 states that development that affects a local landscape designation will only be supported where it will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the area, or any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits. Policy 29 of NPF4 states that development in rural areas should be suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. The Council's Landscape Wind Capacity Study (LWCS) October 2018 finds the site to be part of the Blaeloch and Crosbie Hills landscape, a sub-type of the Rugged Moorland Hills 39
Page 40
and Valleys landscape. It is a gently undulating plateau edged by more defined hills on the southern fringes of the Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park uplands. The Kelburn, Dalry and Milllour Hill wind farms are within this landscape to the east and north-east of the application site. The LWCS states that the western edge of the landscape forms an important part of the setting of the Raised Beach Coast landscape which lies to the west. The Raised Beach Coast is essentially the entire mainland western coast of North Ayrshire, extending from Ardrossan to Skelmorlie. It is considered to be highly sensitive to impacts from all types of turbine development and particularly to potential cumulative impacts from turbine development outwith the area. The LWCS identifies that the site, and the Crosbie Hills in particular, is highly visible from the coast. The LWCS states that the landscape is highly sensitive to very large turbines (more than 130m in height). Turbines on the western edges, including on Kaim Hill and the Crosbie Hills would significantly affect the character of the Raised Beach Coast, including the setting of Fairlie, views from the Firth of Clyde and Cumbrae. Turbines on the Crosbie Hills would diminish the separation and containment those hills provide of the existing wind farms. The proposed turbines would be some 200m to blade tip. This means that the tips would be between approx. 440mAOD and 505mAOD. The turbines would be visible at distances of over 45km. Within North Ayrshire the turbines would be visible from the whole of Cumbrae, particularly from the Glaid Stone viewpoint on the highest point of the island and the town centre of Millport. The turbines would be between approx. 6km and 10km from Cumbrae. The turbines would be visible from West Kilbride, particularly along the northern edge of the village and the routes from the village to the east such as the B781 and the coastal path to the west. The turbines would also be visible from Dalry, particularly to the south of the town Parts of the turbines would be visible from Largs, particularly along the promenade at distances of over 6km. In Fairlie parts of the turbines would be visible from the beach and seafront. The turbines would also be visible from Arran, including Corrie, Brodick and Goat Fell at a distance of approx. 25km. Whilst the turbines would be visible over a very large area, the actual visual impact would vary. In long distances, such as from Arran, the views would be in the context of views towards the developed mainland, and it is not considered any impacts would be significant. In medium views from outwith the site, and in particular from Cumbrae, the Firth of Clyde and in some views from coastal settlements, it is considered that the visual impact would be significant. At present the turbines within the Rugged Moorland Hills and Valleys landscape are largely screened by the Kaim and Crosbie Hills. This proposal would site turbines on those hills. Whilst it is noted that the turbines have been sited away from the top and western slopes of Kaim Hill, they would remain highly visible and the screening that those hills provide to the existing turbines would not have any effect for this development. The turbines on the slopes of Kaim Hill would have a blade tip height of at least 465mAOD. The summit of Kaim Hill is 387mAOD. The turbines on the Crosbie Hills would be between 440mAOD and 505mAOD to blade tip. The summits of those hills are between 266mAOD and 332mAOD. 40
Page 41
Views to the site from the west are largely in the context of the Hunterston Strategic Development area with the hills beyond. It is acknowledged that Hunterston is an industrial area with existing energy development and planning permission for redevelopment. This includes the permitted but not yet built cable factory with 185m tower (ref: 22/00133/PPPM). Should that tower be built it would have a visual impact. However, that is considered to be in the contained context of the industrial landscape. The tower would be a static structure and sited at a height where it was significantly below the summits of the hills which frame the industry below. Those same hills are the proposed locations of these turbines. Given this, it is not considered the visual impact of the turbines would be any way mitigated by potential development of the Hunterston industrial area. The most direct view of the turbines would be from Cumbrae. They would be highly visible from the Glaid Stone viewpoint and Millport, its town centre and Conservation Area. As set out above the views to the east from those areas is of the Hunterston industrial area framed by the hills. Whilst some parts of existing turbines can be seen in long distances this proposal would introduce turbines onto the framing hills. The prominence and movement of those turbines would add significant visual impact to views from the west. A similar impact would be had in views from the Largs to Cumbrae ferry when looking south. As set out above, these turbines would also be visible from Largs, Fairlie and West Kilbride. Whilst the views would be limited by the alignment of the settlements and proximity, it is considered these visual impacts would be significant. The industrial view of Hunterston experienced from Cumbrae is largely screened from the settlements to the north and south by the landform. Whilst proximity would also screen parts of the settlements from views, where they are visible, they would appear very prominent particularly from Fairlie. The part of any mainland settlement most likely to experience significant impact is the northern edge of West Kilbride. The open countryside between there and the Crosbie Hills means that any turbines would be highly prominent on the skyline. Individual residences outwith the settlements would also experience adverse visual impact. These would include those immediately adjacent such a Knockendon Farm, and within the area between West Kilbride and Fairlie given the landscape type. Given that all these views are from within or across the Raised Beach Coast landscape it is considered that the visual impact can not be considered localised. As well as the wider visual impact, it is considered that the visual impact within the site would also be adverse. Whilst the Rugged Moorland and Valley landscape can potentially accommodate turbine development, and has, it is not considered that turbines of this size are appropriate. The existing turbines within the landscape are at least 75m smaller in height than those proposed. Parts of the southern edges of the Dalry Wind Farm can be seen from parts of the Fairlie Moor Road. However, existing turbines are largely screened from that road and Core Path. The proposed turbines would fundamentally change the character of the area around the Fairlie Moor Road and have an adverse impact on the views for users of the Core Path. The turbines, in terms of design, are as to be expected and it is acknowledged that turbines will have particular design characteristics. It is also noted that the siting is dependent on specific factors including potential wind speed. However, the scale of these turbines is considered to be out of keeping for the rural area. These would be some 75m or approx. 38% larger than the next largest built turbines in the area. There are larger turbines consented at further distances but those are smaller in number and are still 50m smaller 41
Page 42
than proposed. There is no development of this scale within this rural area. It is acknowledged that these impacts would be localised. However, given the scale of the proposed turbines it is considered they would be significant. The Clyde Muirshiel Special Landscape Area is some 16000ha in area and contains a variety of landscapes. Turbines are present within the Area and a feature of its southern portion, south of the A760. Notwithstanding, the existing turbines are largely contained within the interior of the Area and are not largely visible from the views across the Clyde from the west. This proposal would, as outlined above, introduce highly visible turbines on the western edge. This would impact on the Special Landscape Area. From the east, the turbines would be visible in views from the Garnock Valley, particularly from south of Dalry at a distance of 5-6km. The view of the southern portion of the Special Landscape Area, when viewed from the east is already one where turbines are present. The existing turbines are closer to the eastern edge of the landscape area so that the height difference of those proposed will not be as pronounced. Given the existing turbines, it is not considered that views from the east would be significantly adversely affected. The proposal is considered to be contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Policy 15 and Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11, Policy 14 and Policy 29 of NPF4 in terms of visual impact. The adverse impacts would both be localised, with severe impact on the Fairlie Moor Road and Core Path, and also in the wider area. There would be adverse visual impacts on the settlements to the west, north-west and south-west and in views across the Firth of Clyde and towards the Clyde Muirshiel Special Landscape Area. This is contrary to Policy 4 of NPF4 in terms of the integrity of the Special Landscape Area. Whether any social, environmental or economic benefits clearly outweigh this is considered below. Amenity impacts, noise and shadow flicker Construction impacts such as dust and noise could be controlled through a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). This could be a suggested condition and subject to such a condition it is not considered that the construction phase would have any unacceptable adverse impact on amenity. NAC Environmental Health has reviewed the submitted operational noise information. They state that noise emission from operation should not exceed the levels set out in the EIA. The rated noise level from the BESS must not exceed background at the curtilage of any noise sensitive receptor by 5dB or more. It is considered that subject to suitable conditions restricting the noise levels and requiring noise monitoring in the event of a complaint, the development could accord with Strategic Policy 2 and Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 and Policy 14 of NPF4 in terms of noise. In terms of shadow flicker, the effect of moving parts passing in front of the sun and casting a flickering shadow through the openings of properties, the applicants have provided an assessment that such an effect would be within 1.62km, or 10 rotor diameters from each turbine. The turbines have been sited at least 2.1km from the closest settlement, Fairlie, and as such there should no such effects on the settlements. In terms of individual dwellings, the applicant's methodology considers 30mins of shadow flicker per day and/or 30hours per year to be a threshold for disturbance. 42
Page 43
Nine properties have been identified as potentially experiencing the effects of shadow flicker. Five of those properties could experience shadow flicker for a total of 16.2hours or less every year. Another property could experience 28.4hours of flicker. These could be in periods of up to 29mins with a mean incidence per day of approx. 15mins One residential property, Crosbie Dykes on the south-western boundary of the site, could experience 18.8hours of shadow flicker but with potential for this to be in periods up to 31mins. Another property, Knockendon Farm on the eastern boundary, could experience 60.3hours of shadow flicker, lasting up to approx. 40mins with a mean incidence of approx. 24mins. The final property to potentially experience flicker is Wardlaw Farm to the east of Knockendon Farm. This property could experience 128hours a year, in incidences of lasting up to approx. 1hour and 12mins with mean incidence of approx. 36mins. It is noted that weather conditions will likely determine if and to what extent there is shadow flicker impact. However, it is considered that there would be potential for significant impacts on 3 residential properties (Crosbie Dykes, Knockendon Farm and Wardlaw Farm). The applicant suggests that shadow flicker could be overcome by a protocol which could require selective shut down at appropriate times. Such a protocol, required as a condition on any permission could overcome any adverse impact. As such, subject to a condition, the development could accord with Strategic Policy 2 and Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 and Policy 14 of NPF4 in terms of shadow flicker. Water quality, hydrology and flood risk The proposal does not seek development which would necessarily directly affect any water course. Access tracks may cross some water courses and consent from SEPA would be required. It is understood that the ECU has consulted them directly. NAC Flooding has no objection and suggest a condition be attached to any consent requiring details of drainage. NAC Environmental Health state the development must not result in the obstruction or contamination of any private water supply. Conditions requiring drainage details and an assessment of potential impact on private water supplies, with mitigation, if necessary, could be suggested for any consent. Subject to such conditions, the proposal could accord with Strategic Policy 2 and Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 and Policy 14 of NPF4 in terms of water quality. Natural heritage, biodiversity, trees and woods Policy 3 of NPF4 states that development that requires an EIA will only be supported where it can be demonstrate that the proposal will conserve or enhance biodiversity. Policy 4 of NPF4 states that development that affects a local nature conservation site will only be supported where it will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the area, or any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits. Policy 6 of NPF4 states that proposal will not be supported if they result in adverse impacts on native woodlands, hedgerows or trees. Policy 16 of the LDP states that development adversely affecting a LNCS will generally not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the overall integrity of the designation would not be compromised. Policy 18 of the LDP states that development will only be 43
Page 44
supported where it would not result in the loss or deterioration of ancient or long-established woodland. The development site is not designated as one of national significance. The ECU has consulted NatureScot who can give their opinion in respect of any impacts on such sites in the wider area. The ECU can also consult such bodies as it considers necessary to gain opinion on specific potential ecological impacts. The development site contains part of the Glen Burn (Crosbie to North Southannan) Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS), and part of the Caaf and Knockendon Reservoirs LNCS. The southern access would be adjacent to the Munnoch Reservoir LNCS. It is not considered that the Caaf and Knockendon Reservoirs or the Munnoch Reservoir LNCSs would be adversely impacted by the proposal. The Glen Burn (Crosbie to Southannan) LNCS was reviewed in 2023, and it is proposed to split it into two LNCSs. The eastern part would be extended to cover Kaim Hill and the Crosbie Hills meaning twelve of the turbines would be within the LNCS. Kaim Hill and Crosbie Hills LNCS is described as a mix of semi-natural woodland and conifer plantations, scrub and bracken/acid and neutral grasslands, wet and dry heaths/blanket bog, mire and marsh. The upland moorland habitat where the turbines would be sited is similar to the existing turbine sites to the north-east. Although the application site is relatively large, the developed areas for the turbines and tracks would comprise a relatively small proportion of the land. The LNCS itself is some 1083ha in area. The BESS and road accesses are outwith the LNCS. Given this it is not considered the proposal would have any significant adverse impact on the LNCS. The proposed development locations would largely be outwith woodland locations. Some tracks may be required through such areas and some hedgerow may be lost in forming road accesses. Details of specific routing with replacement planting as required could be suggested as a condition. The development could also be subject to a condition requiring submission of a Habitat Management Plan and the appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works to oversee the construction. Planting to screen the BESS and provide opportunities for biodiversity enhancement could also be a suggested condition. Subject to such conditions it is not considered that trees or woods would be significantly adversely affected. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Strategic Policy 2 and Policies 16 and 18 of LDP and Policies 3, 4 and 6 of NPF4 in terms of natural heritage. Carbon rich soils Policy 5 of NPF4 states that development proposals will only be supported where they are designed and constructed to minimise the disturbance of soils. Development on carbon rich soils will only be supported for certain development including the generation of energy from renewable sources. Where development on carbon rich soils is proposed a detailed site-specific assessment will be required to identify the likely impacts and net effects on climate emissions. 44
Page 45
Policy 34 of the LDP states that development on carbon rich soils will only be supported where there is no viable alternative, and it has been demonstrated through surveys and a management plan that mitigation measures can be implemented to minimise carbon emissions. The applicant has submitted an assessment of impact on soil as part of the EIA. This concludes that there would be negligible impact on soil and peat. Mitigation measures are proposed including the micro-siting of turbines to avoid steep slopes with deep peat deposits to minimise impact on stability. Soil and peat removed in construction would be used elsewhere within the site. The northern part of the site is identified as being carbon rich soil. This is much of the area around Kaim Hill and Green Hill. Turbines No. 1 to 7, and associated access tracks would be sited within this area. The rest of the site is considered unlikely to be carbon rich soil. It is considered that subject to suitable mitigation as set out in the EIA, impact on carbon rich soil would be minimal and there would be no negative net impact on carbon emissions. Conditions could be suggested which require any CEMP to include a peat and soil management plan including seeking agreement for the specific siting of the turbines. Subject to the above, the proposal could accord with Policy 29 and Policy 34 of the LDP and Policy 5 and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms of carbon rich soils. Historic environment There are no designated historic assets within the site. It is understood the ECU has sought the opinion of Historic Environment Scotland and West of Scotland Archaeology Service. If appropriate, a scheme of archaeological investigation could be required by condition. There are category B Listed Buildings at Munnoch, Crosbie Towers, some 1km to the south-west, Lawwood Head some 2km to the south-west, and Fairlie Castle, some 780m to the west of the northern part of the site. Fairlie Castle is also a scheduled monument. Views of parts of the turbines will be possible from these assets, but it is not considered they would necessarily have any specific impact on their setting. As set out above the development would be highly visible from Millport including many views from within its Conservation Area. The impact on views from Millport is considered above but it is again not considered there would be any specific impact on the setting of the Conservation Area. The proposal is considered to accord with Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms of the historic environment. Public access, tourism and recreation Policy 17 of the LDP states that proposals which affect the Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park must have regard to the Park's purpose of providing recreational access to the countryside. Proposals should take account wider management objectives namely to provide visitors of all ages and abilities opportunity for quality recreation, ensure the Park is a popular and productive venue for formal and informal education and ensure the Park is an attractive and ecologically important visitor destination. As stated, the application site sits within the Park. The Park is some 16000ha in area. The Fairlie Moor Road is a Core Path and runs through the middle of the site. This means that 45
Page 46
the site is already reasonably well served in terms of recreational access. The tracks for the turbines would allow access into the interior to the north and also create a through route with the B780 and B781 to the south. It is considered that the proposal would provide access for recreation. There is no intrinsic education benefit from turbine development, and it is noted that such development already exists within the Park. It is also noted that turbines have not necessarily put people off visiting the Park and improved access may encourage visitors. The potential ecological impacts are considered above. It is not considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the management objectives of the Park. The visual impact of the proposal is considered above. However, it is noted that the main adverse impact outwith the immediate environs would be on views from the west. These include popular tourist destination including the seafront at Largs and Failrie, the island of Cumbrae and the front at Millport in particular and recreational boating on the Clyde. A condition could be suggested for any consent requiring the CEMP to include details of how the Core Path will be managed to continue to allow access during the construction phase. Subject to such a condition the proposal is considered to accord with Policy 17 and Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms of access, tourism and recreation. Aviation and defence interests The ECU is understood to have consulted the statutory consultees in respect of these interests. Notwithstanding any required radar mitigation or similar requirements from those consultees, it is not considered that the proposal would necessarily be contrary to Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in aviation and defence terms. Telecommunications and broadcasting Again, the ECU will have consulted the relevant bodies in respect of these interest. It is not considered that the proposal would necessarily be contrary to Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in telecommunication and broadcasting terms. Road traffic NAC Active Travel and Transportation (Roads) has no objection to the proposal. There would be minimal traffic generated by the development outwith the construction period. A condition could be suggested requiring the CEMP provide details of routing for construction traffic in order to minimise impact on the road network. This could also include details of the new accesses onto the Fairlie Moor Road and B780 and B781. Subject to such a condition, it is considered that the proposal could accord with Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms of road traffic. Establishing use of site, decommissioning and restoration A scheme for decommissioning of the site and restoration, in the event of the turbines becoming redundant, could be a condition on any consent. There could also be a condition requiring a bond or other financial guarantee to be held between the operator of the turbines and the landowner. The landowner would, in planning terms, be ultimately responsible for complying with any conditions in breach. 46
Page 47
However, it is noted that Policy 11 of NPF4 states that areas identified for wind farms are expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. As set out above, the site is not considered suitable given the visual impact. Therefore, it is not considered appropriate to establish the use of this site for turbines. Whilst the proposal could accord with Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 in terms of decommissioning and restoration, it is considered to be contrary in term of establishing the use of the site. Net economic impact The construction of the development would likely lead to opportunities for local contractors and the supply chain. However, once operational it is unlikely there would be a significant economic impact in terms of jobs. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the construction would likely provide a net economic benefit. Financial benefits are not material considerations in relation to this planning application. The Supreme Court confirmed 20th November 2019 (Wright v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Forest of Dean District Council) that, in relation to a wind turbine application, the promise of community funding was an immaterial consideration as it was unconnected to the use of the land in question. Scale of contribution to renewable energy targets. The proposed turbines are stated to have a combined potential energy generation 80MW. The proposed BESS is stated to have potential for storage of 50MW. This is considered to be a significant contribution to renewable energy targets. The proposal's contribution to renewable energy and the likely net economic benefit through the construction phase are noted. In these respects, the proposal accords with Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4. However, it is not considered that these likely benefits outweigh the harm to the Special Landscape Area and as such the proposal remains contrary to Policy 4 of NPF4. Conclusion Significant weight is given to the climate crises, and that the proposal would contribute to a zero carbon economy, in line with Policy 1 of NPF4. The proposal, subject to appropriate conditions, could also accord with other relevant parts of the development plan including Strategic Policy 1 and Polices 16, 17, 18 and 34 of the LDP and Polices 3, 5 and 6 of NPF4. However, the visual impact and scale of the proposal is considered to be contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Policy 15 and Policy 29 of the LDP and Policy 14 and Policy 29 of NPF4. The visual impact would be significant and would be both localised and in the wider area. This would be particularly the case from the west and views across the Firth of Clyde. The visual impact would have significant adverse effects on the Special Landscape Area. The site is not considered appropriate for the establishment of a wind farm. The visual impact is not outweighed by compliance with other parts of the development plan or by any other material considerations. Given all of the above it is therefore recommended that the Council, as Planning Authority, objects to the proposal. 47
Page 48
4. Full Recommendation Objection Allan Finlayson Chief Planning Officer For further information please contact Mr Iain Davies on 01294 324320. 48