Supplementary Pack 1
Argyll and Bute Council · 15 February 2023
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 15 February 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 14 February 2023 SUPPLEMENTARY PACK 1 PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE - BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2023 at 11:00 AM I enclose herewith supplementary reports for items 4, 6 and 9 on the Agenda for the above meeting. Douglas Hendry Executive Director SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS 4. ROSNEATH FARMS LTD: SITE FOR THE ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE: PLOT 7, LAND TO THE REAR OF LOCHEWE AND ARDLANISH, KILGREGGAN, HELENSBURGH (REF: 21/00349/PPP) (Pages 3 - 6) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 6. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ON BEHALF OF ENERGIEKONTOR UK LTD: ELECTRICITY ACT SECTION 36 CONSULTATION RELEVANT TO ROWAN WIND FARM: LAND APPROXIMATELY 4.5KM NORTH WEST OF TARBERT, ARGYLL & BUTE (REF: 22/00385/S36) (Pages 7 - 10) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 9. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ON BEHALF OF DRAX CRUACHAN EXPANSION LIMITED: ELECTRICITY ACT SECTION 36 CONSULTATION RELEVANT TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF NEW UNDERGROUND POWER STATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE ADJACENT TO CRUACHAN 1 TO PROVIDE UP TO 600 MEGAWATTS (MW) OF ADDITIONAL NEW GENERATING CAPACITY: CRUACHAN POWER STATION, LOCHAWE, DALMALLY (REF: 22/01221/S36) (Pages 11 - 12) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey (Vice-Chair) Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Willie Hume Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum, Committee Services Officer Tel. No. 01546 604392
Page 3
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 21/00349/PPP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Rosneath Farms Ltd Proposal: Site for the erection of dwellinghouse Site Address: Plot 7, Land to the rear of Lochewe And Ardlanish, Kilcreggan, Helensburgh, Argyll And Bute ________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to make Members aware of additional representations that have been received on 13th February 2023 in relation to the main report on the agenda. The applicant’s agent has submitted a short supporting statement in response to this issue. 2.0 ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS Members are advised that two additional objections have been received subsequent to the publication of the Agenda. As such, an addendum is required to Section (F) – Representations, in the main report. “A total of 14 representations have been received. Twelve of these object to the proposed development and two are classified as representations.” The additional two objections are set out below; - Roger Mitchell – No address provided – Objection Jean Mitchell – No address provided – Objection. A summary of the issues raised is as follows: Fire risk to the proposed development and existing houses on the basis that the proposed access is not wide enough for a Fire Pump Appliance to gain access; and, low pressure in the water pipes at the only two Fire hydrants in the area. Page 3 Agenda Item 4
Page 4
Comment: - Fire safety has been raised by previous contributors and this is reported in the main report. However, clarification of the Officers’ response may be helpful. It is noted that the Area Roads Engineer has not raised any objections with regard to the private access driveway subject to planning conditions. Council Building Standards has advised that the minimum requirement for fire vehicle access, with regard to Building Regulations, is 3.7 metres width between kerbs and 3.5 metres at gateways in order to provide access for fire vehicles to within 45 metres of the front entrance to the proposed dwellinghouse. The agent has confirmed that a topographic survey shows the very narrowest point of the drive as 6.2 metres. On this basis, as set out in the main report, Officers do not consider that access for fire vehicles is a constraint to the approval of planning permission in principle. Existing houses already experience low water pressure during the day during peak hours of usage. Comment: - This issue has been fully assessed in the main report. No further comment is appropriate. Gravel is regularly taken from the beach in Meikle Bay in front of Mr Calderwood’s farm which he uses to make the beds for the tracks and roads on his Farm causing coastal erosion of the banks of the Clyde Estuary. Comment: - This is not a material planning consideration that can be afforded any weight in relation to the assessment of the current application. This allegation may be investigated as potential unauthorised development as a procedurally separate matter from this assessment. The landowner has sited a large manure pile (only one field down from this site) that leaches effluent down over the lower field to the beach and back into the Clyde estuary. Comment: - This issue is not material to the assessment of the current application for planning permission in principle for the erection of a house on the application site. Concerns regarding potential pollution of waters from agricultural operations on adjacent land should be taken up the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Concern regarding a future application for the Council to adopt the present service road running down from the B833 to ‘Portkil’ hamlet. It is getting broken up with pot holes due to all the heavy contractors’ vehicles. No one will pay for the up keep of the road should the council take it over on the basis of an agreement that access is free for all residence living south of the B833. Comment: - Access to the site via the existing public/private road regime has been assessed in full within the main report. Potential requests for the private road to be adopted by the Roads Authority in the future is not material to the assessment of the current application. No details are given with regard to the agreement referred to by the contributors. It is likely that this refers to a private agreement with the landowner however, as advised, this is not material to the current application. 3.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT Page 4
Page 5
The applicant’s agent has submitted a brief supporting statement in response to issues of fire safety, as reproduced below: “A topographic survey shows that the very narrowest point of the drive is 6.2 metres. The minimum width of access required for a fire engine in 3.7 metres. The final design proposals will be fully compliant with the technical standards with regard to distance, axle load, access, reversing of vehicles etc. and will obviously addressed during the building warrant application.” 4.0 ASSESSMENT The late objections do not raise any new material planning considerations over and above those set out, and fully assessed within the main report. It is noted that several other issues are raised relating to beach erosion and potential pollution from agricultural operations. These issues, where material to planning, may be investigated separately from this application however they are not material to the current assessment. As such the material planning considerations raised in these two representations do not warrant a departure from the recommendation in the main report. 5.0 RECOMMENDATION 1) Planning Permission in Principle be approved subject to planning conditions as set out in the main report. 2) The supplementary report be noted. Author of Report: Norman Shewan Date: 14th February 2023 Reviewing Officer: Howard Young Date: 14th February 2023 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 5
Page 6
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 7
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth This Supplementary report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (ECDU) Section 36 consultation on the proposed Rowan wind farm on Land Approximately 4.5km North West of Tarbert, Argyll & Bute _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 22/00385/S36 Applicant: The Scottish Government on behalf of EnergieKontor UK Ltd Proposal: Electricity Act Section 36 consultation relevant to Rowan Wind Farm Site Address: Land Approximately 4.5km Northwest of Tarbert, Argyll & Bute ________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 4 1. INTRODUCTION Since completion of Supplementary Report 3, the Applicant has raised several concerns and asked that they are addressed by means of a Supplementary Report. 2. CONCERNS RAISED BY APPLICANT The Applicants concerns about Supplementary Report 3 may be summarised as follows: The Applicant was naturally disappointed to note that the Council have introduced a (potential and perceived) regionalised cumulative effect as a primary reason for objection to the scheme. They respect the concerns the Council have around Sheirdrim and Rowan (whilst not agreeing on the balance or acceptability), however, as per the EIA Report, the main contributor to these effects, particularly on Dun Skeig, is Sheirdrim and not Rowan. Officer Comment: Officers have been consistently clear on the major cumulative effects that would be associated with the combination of Rowan wind farm and Sheirdrim Renewable Energy Development. This position has not changed. What has changed is that, following further consultation with the Council’s Landscape Consultant and reconsideration against NPF4, the reason for Objection has been revised to focus on the regional impacts of the proposal rather than regional and localised impacts. These impacts are not new. Like the aviation position, whereby the Applicant is very confident of the fact that both NATS and GPA (Glasgow Prestwick Airport) objections can and will be lifted, and this is acknowledged via text within the Committee Report that if these are lifted then the Council’s objection would be also, they note that there is no corresponding position on Sheirdrim. The Applicant has a key concern therefore that Members only have the benefit of the Council’s position under the worst case (and potentially unrealised) combined cumulative scenario, with Sheirdrim and the Council’s Report is silent on the acceptability Page 7 Agenda Item 6
Page 8
of Rowan as a proposal on its own merits. This requires to be addressed to give Members the full account of where the Council stands should Sheirdrim be refused in the coming months. Officer Comment: This matter has been addressed and has been included in the revised recommendation. It is recommended that the ECU be advised that if Sheirdrim is refused the Council’s landscape objection would be withdrawn. The Applicant also wishes to add that estimated timescales for a decision on Sheirdrim are in the region of July to October based on discussions with the ECU. They are sure this is already noted but worth stating – it is therefore entirely plausible that were the Council minded to not object (either via Officers or Members) then it is the Ministers who would have to consider this cumulative scenario for Sheirdrim where Rowan could be part of a consented baseline. The Applicant would be confident that aviation objections would be lifted before a Sheirdrim decision. Officer Comment: The Council has been consulted by the ECU on Rowan. We must therefore respond based on the current cumulative scenario. The current scenario includes Sheirdrim Renewable Energy Development. Sheirdrim Renewable Energy Development must be considered in the cumulative assessment. The advice of the Council’s Landscape Consultant is that Rowan is not acceptable when considered cumulatively with Sheirdrim. To clarify, should Sheirdrim be refused, then taking into account the new policy context of NPF4, it is now considered that Rowan would be acceptable from a Landscape & Visual Impact perspective. The Applicant has raised concern that the Energy Consents Unit will not await the Sheirdrim decision before passing Rowan to the DPEA to begin Public Inquiry proceedings. They are concerned that once it reaches this stage and a Reporter were appointed and were Sheirdrim to be refused it may not be as simple for the Council to withdraw its objection. Officer Comment: If a Reporter were to be appointed, and Sheirdrim were to be refused, and all the outstanding aviation objections were resolved the Reporter would see from the Council’s consultation response that we would not intend to object in that situation. It is considered that the reasons for this are set out clearly in the recommended response. 3. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION To clarify the Council’s position, it is recommended that an additional note is attached to the recommendation to the ECU as detailed in supplementary report number 3. This additional note states that if Sheirdrim Renewable Energy Development is refused by Scottish Ministers then Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object to Rowan wind farm on landscape and visual grounds. No change is recommended to the reason for objection or the note about the Council’s position in respect to aviation which states that in case of Page 8
Page 9
the aviation objections being withdrawn the Council would no longer object on these grounds. 4. RECOMMENDED REASONS FOR OBJECTION TO: 22/00385/S36 1. Landscape & Visual Impact (including cumulative) The proposed development site lies within the Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosaic Landscape Character Type (LCT) which covers much of the Knapdale area between West Loch Tarbert and the southern edge of the Knapdale National Scenic Area. This landscape has a simpler landform in the south-west but is complex and craggy in the north-east. This proposal, which comprises very large turbines of up to 200m, would be sited in a basin which reduces its prominence and intrusion seen from Loch Fyne and from the settled eastern coastal fringes of this loch. The containment provided by landform is however diminished in views from the south around West Loch Tarbert where turbines would be visible in closer proximity and where their scale would be more appreciated due to greater visual exposure and because they would be seen in close conjunction with the smaller scale settled loch fringes. The proposal would significantly affect the character of West Loch Tarbert and views from the A83, the Islay ferry route, settlement, and recreation routes on the south-eastern shores of the loch. Proposed aviation lighting would increase the duration of these significant adverse effects. While it is acknowledged that the extent of these significant adverse landscape and visual effects is confined to the waters and south-eastern shores of West Loch Tarbert and the proposal is well screened and/or distant from other sensitive locations, there is concern about the effects on the tourist routes of the A83 and the Islay ferry which are regionally important within Argyll and Bute. The potential cumulative effects of visible aviation lighting on character and views are also a concern given the number of recent applications for turbines >150m in Argyll & Bute requiring such lighting, including application stage: Narachan, Earraghail, Clachaig Glen and this proposal although we consider that these effects could be mitigated to an acceptable degree by the adoption of an Aviation Detection Lighting System which would significantly reduce the duration of visible night-time lighting. The principal concern is, however, the cumulative landscape and visual effects likely to occur with the application-stage Sheirdrim wind farm. If the Sheirdrim proposal is consented on appeal, it is considered that the addition of the Rowan proposal would result in significant combined cumulative landscape and visual effects on the West Loch Tarbert area with a substantial increase in the extent of major adverse effects. It is considered that the nature of these significant effects on landscape and visual interests would be of regional importance, affecting not just the tourist routes of A83 and the Islay Ferry but also settlement and recreation routes including views to and from the nationally important scheduled monument of Dun Skeig. In conclusion, it is considered that the cumulative landscape and visual impact of this proposal with Sheirdrim is unacceptable. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will have significant adverse cumulative landscape and visual impacts and is therefore inconsistent with the provisions of: SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape; SG 2 Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement Page 9
Page 10
of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design; of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; the Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2017; the Onshore wind policy statement and Policies 4 (Natural Places) and 11 (Energy) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) 2. Aviation Argyll & Bute Council will assess development proposals with the aim of preventing unnecessary dangers to aircraft. Policy requires that development is refused where it would constrain the present and future operations of existing airports and airfields. National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) have advised that an unacceptable technical impact is anticipated, and they object. Glasgow Prestwick Airport advise that the development raises aviation safety concerns which have an operational impact on the airport as an air navigation services provider. Until all technical and operational aviation safety matters are addressed to the satisfaction of Glasgow Prestwick Airport, and a mitigation agreement is put in place for the life of the wind farm, the airport also objects to the proposal. Local Development Plan Policy is clear that developments that have an adverse impact on the Safeguarding of Airports should be refused. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that due to the fact that National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport have advised the Energy Consents Unit that they object to the proposal, it will have an adverse impact on aviation and is therefore inconsistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and SG LDP TRAN 7 –Safeguarding of Airports of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, the Onshore Wind Policy Statement and Policy 11 (Energy) of the National Planning Framework 4 in this respect. Argyll & Bute Council therefore object to the proposal due to the adverse impact it would have on Aviation. The Energy Consents Unit should please note that: Should Sheirdrim Renewable Energy Development be refused, then Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object to Rowan wind farm on Landscape & Visual grounds. Should Sheirdrim Renewable Energy Development be approved then the Council’s objection would be maintained as per the recommendation in this report. If National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport withdraw their objections, then Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object on aviation grounds. Should these objections not be removed, and the proposal progresses to an Inquiry, Argyll & Bute Council would defer to National Air Traffic Services and Glasgow Prestwick Airport as the Technical Experts on this matter. Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 13th February 2023 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 14th February 2023 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 10
Page 11
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth This Supplementary report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (ECDU) Section 36 consultation on behalf of Drax Cruachan Expansion Limited _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 22/01221/S36 Applicant: The Scottish Government on behalf of Drax Cruachan Expansion Limited Proposal: Electricity Act Section 36 consultation relevant to construction and operation of new underground power station and associated infrastructure adjacent to Cruachan 1 to provide up to 600 megawatts (MW) of additional new generating capacity Site Address: Cruachan Power Station, Lochawe, Dalmally ________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 1. Legal Update on Wording of Recommendation Since completion of the Report of Handling, Legal advice has very recently been received which advises a change to the wording of the recommendation in order to avoid ambiguity on the Council’s position and to protect the Council’s interests in the event that these issues are not taken forward by the Energy Consents Unit. Revised Recommendation Officers recommend that Members agree that the Council Objects to the current proposals, unless the conditions as recommended by the Planning Authority and other consultees are imposed on any consent. Officers also seek Member’s authority to undertake further discussions with the applicants and The Scottish Ministers to determine whether a planning condition, a Section 69 agreement, or a Section 75 agreement between parties would most effectively deliver the Council’s requirement for the necessary Housing Strategy. Author of Report: David Moore Date: 14.02.23 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 14.02.23 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 11 Agenda Item 9
Page 12
This page is intentionally left blank