24/000750/Flm
Perth and Kinross Council · 12 March 2025
Back to Planning and Placemaking Committee — 12 March 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Perth and Kinross Council Planning and Placemaking Committee – 12 March 2025 Report of Handling by Strategic Lead: Economy, Development and Planning (Report No. 25/50) PROPOSAL: Formation of a 49.9MW energy storage facility comprising 24 battery storage container units, 2 switchrooms, welfare unit, substation, ancillary equipment, formation of vehicular access and track, boundary treatments, landscaping and associated works LOCATION: Land 260 Metres South West of Taigh An Struith, Tibbermore, Perth Ref. No: 24/00750/FLM Ward No: P9- Almond and Earn Summary: This report recommends the refusal of the application as the development is not considered to comply with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations apparent which outweigh the Development Plan. Background and Description of Proposal 1. The application site covers an area of approximately 1.11 hectares and is situated in the central part of an agricultural field currently used for the growing of arable crops. The site is located approximately 800m east of Tibbermore, a small hamlet close to Perth. The northern, eastern, southern, and western boundaries of the site are open and surrounded by agricultural fields. The C410 (Tibbermore Road) aligns the site’s northern boundary. Three residential dwellings are situated around 200m to the north-east and west of the site. The site is located within the Perth Green Belt. 2. The terrain of the site is generally flat. The site is currently accessed across the agricultural fields from a farm entrance on the C410 (Tibbermore Road). The existing access is near one of the adjacent residential properties. In terms of existing vegetation on the site, a hedgerow aligns the northern boundary of the site, with an adjacent ditch. There are no trees within the site or in the immediate surrounding area.
Page 2
3. Access to the site is via a new access roadway from the C410 (Tibbermore Road). During construction, traffic could be managed in accordance with an approved Construction Traffic Management Plan. When operational, infrequent visits for maintenance and monitoring by small vans would be required. 4. The proposed development consists of the following elements: • 24no containerised battery units (approximately 6.1m length x 2.5m width x 2.9m height) • 6no sets of BESS transformers and inverters (approximately 9.8m length x 5m width x 2.3m height) • A BESS switchroom (approximately 12.3m length x 3.3m width x 4.4m height) • A site supply transformer (approximately 3.3m length x 2.3m width x 3.2m height) • A site welfare unit and LV switchroom (approximately 7.5m length x 2.3m width x 2.9m height) • A DNO substation (approximately 6.6m length x 5.5m width x 4.2m height). Site History 5. 23/00020/PAN On 23 January 2024 for Formation of a 49.9MW Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and ancillary infrastructure Environmental Impact Assessment 6. The proposal is classed as a Schedule 2 Development in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. In the case of these regulations, prohibition is given to the granting of planning permission to “EIA development” unless an environmental impact assessment has been undertaken. In this case the Council has taken the opinion that it is not EIA development, and that sufficient information has been submitted with the application to enable a determination in consideration of all relevant environmental matters. These environmental aspects requiring further consideration, are namely: noise, landscape and visual amenity, trees and biodiversity, roads and transportation and flood / drainage matters. Pre-Application Consultation 7. Pre application Reference: 23/00030/PREAPM 8. The proposed development is classed as a Major development in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, therefore the applicant was required to undertake formal pre-application consultation with the local community.
Page 3
9. On 14 December 2023, the Applicant submitted a formal PAN to Perth and Kinross Council. This was more than 12 weeks before the application is submitted. The PAN and accompanying information confirmed the arrangements for the community consultation events to be held at The Bield, Blackruthven, Perth. The event included a presentation on the proposed development and provided an opportunity for attendees to ask any questions regarding the proposal. The PAN advised that there would be two events and would be held on 24 January 2024 and 20 February 2024. 10. The consultation events were advertised in the Perthshire Advertiser and Strathearn Herald on the following dates: • Event 1: 24 January 2024 – Advertised on 4 January 2024. • Event 2: 20 February 2024 – Advertised on 30 January 2024. 11. The advertisements contained all of the information required by the Regulations, including the location and description of the development and details of where further information could be obtained. Letters were also sent to 65 local residents on both occasions explaining the proposal and inviting them to attend the public consultation events. In addition to advising of the public consultation events, the letters explained about the proposed development and why there is a need for this type of development 12. Both events were held at The Bield, Blackruthven, Perth, PH1 1PY between 13:00 and 19:00. The purpose of the consultation events was to make the public aware of the proposed development and to provide them with an opportunity to comment on draft proposals, prior to the submission of an application to Perth and Kinross Council. 13. The first event was attended by approximately 2 Ward Councillors and 26 members of the public. 14. The second event was attended by 44 members of the public. Development Plan 15. The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) along with its associated statutory supplementary guidance. National Planning Framework 4 16. The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is the Scottish Government’s long- term spatial strategy with a comprehensive set of national planning policies. This strategy sets out how to improve people’s lives by making sustainable, liveable and productive spaces. NPF4 has an increased status over previous NPFs and
Page 4
comprises part of the statutory development plan. The following policies are considered to be most relevant to this application: Policy 1: Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises. Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation. Policy 3: Biodiversity. Policy 4: Natural Places. Policy 5: Soils. Policy 6: Forestry, Woodland and Trees. Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places. Policy 8: Greenbelt. Policy 11: Energy. Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place. Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management. Policy 23: Health and Safety. Policy 29: Rural Development. Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 17. The Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2) sets out a vision statement for the area and states that, “Our vision is of a Perth and Kinross which is dynamic, attractive and effective which protects its assets whilst welcoming population and economic growth.” It is the most recent statement of Council policy and is augmented by Supplementary Guidance. 18. The principal relevant policies are, in summary: Policy 1A: Placemaking. Policy 1B: Placemaking. Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions. Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places. Policy 8: Rural Business and Diversification. Policy 15: Public Access Policy 26A: Scheduled Monuments. Policy 26B: Archaeology. Policy 33A: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy: New Proposals for Renewable and Low-Carbon Energy. Policy 35: Electricity Transmission Infrastructure. Policy 39: Landscape. Policy 40A: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Forest and Woodland Strategy. Policy 40B: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Trees, Woodland and Development. Policy 41: Biodiversity. Policy 42: Green Infrastructure. Policy 43: Green Belt
Page 5
Policy 47: River Tay Catchment Area Policy 50: Prime Agricultural Land. Policy 51: Soils. Policy 52: New Development and Flooding. Policy 56: Noise Pollution. Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals. Statutory Supplementary Guidance 19. Supplementary Guidance - Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments (adopted in 2021) Supplementary Guidance - Green & Blue Infrastructure (adopted in 2020) Supplementary Guidance - Landscape (adopted in 2020) PKC Non Statutory Guidance 20. Planning Guidance - Planning & Biodiversity Supplementary Guidance - Renewable & Low Carbon Energy (draft) National Guidance 21. The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through Planning Advise Notes, Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars in addition to NPF4. Planning Advice Notes 22. The following Scottish Government Planning Advice Notes (PANs) and Guidance Documents are of relevance to the proposal: PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PAN 68 Design Statements PAN 69 Planning and Building standards Advice on Flooding PAN 75 Planning for Transport Creating Places 2013 23. Creating Places is the Scottish Government’s policy statement on architecture and place. It sets out the comprehensive value good design can deliver. It notes that successful places can unlock opportunities, build vibrant communities and contribute to a flourishing economy and set out actions that can achieve positive changes in our places.
Page 6
National Roads Development Guide 2014 24. This document supports Designing Streets and expands on its principles and is the technical advice that should be followed in designing and approving of all streets including parking provision. Consultations 25. As part of the planning application process the following bodies were consulted: External 26. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) - Overall, although the proposal would represent a limited area of change in the present landscape. It is considered that the level of impact of the development on key landscape characteristics and special qualities of the battlefield is not sufficient to warrant an objection. 27. Scottish Water - Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced. There is currently sufficient capacity in the Turret Water Treatment Works to service the proposed development. According to records there is no public Scottish Water, Waste Water infrastructure within the vicinity of this proposed development, and therefore, it is advised that the applicant to investigate private treatment options. 28. All proposed developments require to submit a Pre-Development Enquiry (PDE) Form to be submitted directly to Scottish Water via the Customer Portal prior to any formal Technical Application being submitted. This will allow Scottish Water to fully appraise the proposals. 29. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) - Due to a lack of information in relation to flood risk SEPA submitted a holding objection and requested that determination is deferred until the required information has been provided for further assessment. Following the submission of further information and providing compensatory flood storage is provided in accordance with the approved design, SEPA have now removed their holding objection. 30. Dundee Airport Ltd - No objection. Given position and height, this development would not infringe the safeguarding criteria and operation of Dundee Airport. 31. Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust (PKHT) - Initially, PKHT objected given the potential impacts on the Tibbermore Battlefield. Subsequently, the applicant has addressed this. Given the results of a recent metal detecting survey of the area, PKHT have now removed their objection, subject to the inclusion of a condition relating to a programme of archaeological works.
Page 7
Internal 32. Developer Contributions - No objection or comments to make on this proposal in terms of the Developer Contribution and Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance. 33. Contaminated Land - No objection. A search of the historic records did not raise any concerns regarding ground contamination and therefore, there are no adverse comments to make on the application. 34. Structures and Flooding - Structures and Flooding initially objected on grounds of further information being required through the submission of a revised Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and updated Drainage Strategy. This information was subsequently received and the objection has now been removed. 35. Roads and Transportation - No objection, subject to recommended conditions regarding a Construction Traffic Management Scheme (CTMS) and design details for the proposed junction. 36. Development Plan Team - Objection. The impact of the proposals on the River Tay SAC needs close consideration. In addition, no information has been provided to prove that steps have been taken to minimise land take. Furthermore, the proximity of the development to the road and the location in a lower setting on approach from both east and west will result in it forming a significant part of the landscape experience. It is considered that the proposed development will “erode the local distinctiveness, diversity and quality visual and scenic qualities of the landscape, or the quality of Landscape experience” as per LPD2 Policy 39. 37. Biodiversity - No objection, subject to recommended conditions regarding the submitted Biodiversity Study, an updated Ecology Study and the submitted, detailed Landscape and Planting Scheme. 38. Environmental Health – Noise / Odour - Environmental Health initially objected on the grounds of a lack of information being submitted. This information has now been received and they have removed their objection, subject to conditional control. 39. Methven and District Community Council - Methven and District Community Council has objected to the application on the following grounds: The site is of historical significance as it is within the boundary of the Battle of Tippermuir. There will be an impact on agricultural land and food production. The proposals will result in a significant visual impact. The proposed development does not meet Fire Regulations.
Page 8
The proposed development will result in an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding countryside. There are flooding issues on this site. There are potential contamination concerns on this site. The proposed development will result in noise impact for local residents. Representations 40. 20 representations were received. The main issues raised within the representations are: The greenbelt is an inappropriate location for this type of development. Adverse impact on visual amenity. Flooding risk. Out of character with the local area. Loss of open space. Adverse cumulative impacts as a result of this proposal and other similar development proposals in the surrounding area. Noise pollution. Road safety concerns. Fire risk. Inadequate landscaping / screening. Habitat loss. Contrary to LDP2 policies. The proposed groundworks will be irreversible. Loss of trees. 41. These issues are addressed in the Appraisal section of the report. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 42. Screening Opinion EIA not required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not required Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations Ecology Appraisal Report submitted. Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact e.g. Flood Risk Assessment Submitted: Flood Risk Assessment Drainage Strategy Landscape and Visual Appraisal Noise Report Heritage Statement
Page 9
Appraisal 43. Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) require the determination of the proposal to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises NPF4, the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 and statutory supplementary guidance. The relevant policy considerations are outlined in the policy section above and are considered in more detail below. In terms of other material considerations, this involves considerations of the Council’s other approved policies and supplementary guidance. Principle 44. The proposal would provide essential energy balancing services to the National Grid, actively contributing towards Scotland's CO2 reduction targets, supporting the strategy principles of the SES. Specifically, electricity would be drawn from the grid at times of low demand, stored and released back as required. When demand is higher, greater generation from non-renewable sources is required and energy storage facilities such as that proposed could reduce reliance on non -renewable resources, decreasing CO2 emissions. 45. National and local planning policies support the shift from fossil-fuels to renewable and low carbon energy sources. NPF4 Policy 11 Energy supports all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies including battery storage, Policy 11a (iii) refers. LDP2 policy considerations seeking to assess its suitability in principle include Policy 8 Rural Diversification; and Policy 33A Renewables and Low Carbon Energy, which support the utilisation, distributions and development of renewable sources of energy where factors such as impact on landscape character, residential amenity etc. will be considered. 46. On the basis of the above policies, the principle of a development of this nature could be acceptable given that the proposal seeks to reduce the CO2 emissions associated with energy production from non-renewables and would increase the efficiency of renewable energy sources themselves. Furthermore, there is a clear fit between Scottish Government aims of promoting a transition to a low carbon economy. However, in this instance, the proposed development is located within the PKC Green Belt and, as such, LDP2 Policy 43, and NPF4 Policy 8 are of particular relevance. 47. LDP2 Policy 43: Green Belt states that within the area designated as Green Belt, development will only be supported where (f) it constitutes essential infrastructure such as roads and other transport infrastructure, masts and telecom equipment, renewable energy developments, or new cemetery provision. The proposal falls within the definition of essential infrastructure, being a
Page 10
renewable energy development. However, the primary Green Belt consideration will be whether the infrastructure could instead be located on an alternative site which is out with the Green Belt. A statement may be required identifying the search area and the site options assessed, the details of the existing or proposed activity to which the infrastructure relates, and the reasons as to why a green belt location is essential. For all proposals, development must be appropriate to the overall objectives of the Green Belt, to protect and enhance the character, landscape setting and identity of settlements. It is noted that the current site is not in close proximity to an existing substation for connection, the proposed connection being at the Burghmuir Sub-Station some 2.5km to the east and on the east side of the A9. 48. NPF4 Policy 8 outlines certain exemptions for development in the Green Belt, including “essential infrastructure”. In this context NPF 4 defines ‘essential infrastructure’ to include “all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emission technologies for electricity generation and distribution and transmission electricity grid networks and primary substation. NPF4 Policy 8 a) ii) requires that reasons are provided as to why a green belt location is essential. Furthermore, Policy 8a) ii) requires that the purpose of the green belt at the location is not undermined, the proposal is compatible with the surrounding countryside and landscape character and that design and materials minimise the visual impact as far as possible. 49. In this instance, it is considered that the proposed BESS is not in keeping with the agricultural character of the local landscape and is, therefore, contrary to the overall objectives of the Green Belt, “to protect and enhance the character, landscape setting and identity of settlements”. The proposed BESS will appear as an industrial development within the Green Belt, with limited mitigation. The applicant has submitted a Green Belt Analysis, however, the document’s conclusions are disputed. Importantly the development proposed does not have a direct relationship with the land. Furthermore, there has not been sufficient site specific reasoning given for the choice of this particular location within the Green Belt. The site is prominent, being at the side of a main road, and its development for this type of proposal would be visually intrusive. As a result of this proposal, the overall purpose of the Green Belt would be undermined. Given the scale and massing of the proposed development, the established landscape character of this area will be weakened. 50. Battery Energy Storage systems are considered renewable energy development for the purposes of NPF4 and are supported by Policy 11(a): Energy. NPF4 Policy 11(c) states that proposals will only be supported where they maximise net economic impact including local and community socio-economic benefits. In this instance, no information has been provided in this regard. NPF4 Policy 11(e) (ii) further sets out that proposals should demonstrate how significant landscape and visual impacts are addressed. In this instance, there has not been sufficient enough evidence submitted to demonstrate how any potential significant impacts
Page 11
can be addressed. This being the case, the proposed BESS is only partially in accordance with all the points of NPF4 Policy 11. 51. Finally, in relation to the principle of the development at this location, the site under question is identified as being at risk of flooding. As such, NPF4 Policy 22 a) i) Flood risk and water management states that development proposals which are at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported if they are for essential infrastructure and where the location is required for operational reasons. Whilst it is accepted that this development is essential infrastructure, suitable evidence to demonstrate that this site, which is at risk of flooding, must be developed due to clear operational reasoning. Furthermore, it has not been shown that there are other sites in the vicinity, or between the site, and the intended connecting sub-station, which are not at flood risk which could be developed as an alternative. Although the applicant has attempted to justify the locational requirement for the site due to its proximity to a grid connection point, as mentioned the associated substation is located a not insignificant distance of 2.5km to the east. Evidence easily available, such as SEPA flood mapping, indicates that there are multiple locations in that catchment which are not at flood risk. 52. In light of the above, it is considered that the principle of the proposed BESS is contrary to LDP2 Policies 39, 43 and NPF4 Policies 8 and 22. Design and Layout 53. LDP2 Policy 1: Placemaking, requires new development to positively contribute to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. It further requires development to accord a series of place making criteria outlined in part B of the policy. On this basis, the physical nature of the proposal in terms of design, layout and physical characteristics must also be considered. 54. The design and layout essentially reflect the physical and engineering requirements for this type of development, taking into account environmental and technical standards. The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, which provides details of the proposed design, in terms of the proposed dimensions of the infrastructure and materials, together with the layout of the proposed development. This being the case, the proposed BESS is in accordance with LDP2 Policy 1: Placemaking. 55. The BESS, and associated equipment, is to be located within a fenced compound. The compound is enclosed by a 2.4m high closeboard wooden fence. CCTV cameras will be directed inwards and will be located at each of the four corners of the compound. The development includes a new access roadway from the C410 (Tibbermore Road), constructed with type 2 aggregate. The roadway enters the compound from the northeast. The BESS compound is surrounded by new landscape planting, including mixed native hedging and trees along the
Page 12
southwest, northwest and northeast boundaries of the Site. Two water tanks are located within the eastern area of the site. The surface of the open areas within the BESS compound will consist of unsealed aggregate or gravel. 56. The DNO substation will be connected to the electricity network at the Burghmuir substation, located approximately 2.5km to the east on Old Gallows Road. The proposed operational lifespan of the BESS is 40 years from commissioning, after which all equipment would be removed and the Site returned to agricultural use. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed battery storage facility is in accordance with LDP2 Policy 1 and NPF4 Policy 14 Design, quality and place. Residential Amenity 57. LDP2 Policy 56: Noise Pollution states that there will be a presumption against the siting of development proposals which will generate high levels of noise in the locality of existing or proposed noise sensitive land uses and similarly against the locating of noise sensitive uses near to sources of noise generation. 58. In this instance, a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) has been submitted with the application, which concludes that there will be no impact to residential amenity resulting from noise emitted during the operation of the BESS. The Council’s Environmental Health Team have been consulted to consider any impact in relation to noise, and initially they objected on grounds of a lack of information. The submitted NIA did not demonstrate that the proposed development site is suitable with regards to noise from the proposed operations, and the effect on amenity at the closest Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSR). The applicant then submitted additional information to address this point, and Environmental Health have subsequently removed their objection subject to conditional control. As such, the proposed development is in accordance with LDP2 Policy 56 and NPF4 Policies 14. Fire Safety 59. The BESS has been designed and manufactured to high standards in respect of safety and operational sustainability. The design of the Scheme confirms with National Fire Chiefs' Council (NFCC) guidance on grid-scale BESS safety. This application is accompanied by an Outline Battery Safety Management Plan (OBSMP) which has potential hazards and how to limit them. The design of the scheme includes two water tanks, each with a capacity of 250,000 litres to provide water if required in the event of a fire. Regular maintenance checks of the proposed infrastructure will be carried out by qualified personnel to ensure that instances of infrastructure malfunction or failure are prevented as far as practicable. However, it is noted that fire safety is not a material planning consideration in the assessment of this application.
Page 13
Landscape and Visual Amenity 60. Perth and Kinross Council LDP2, Policy 39: Landscape states that development and land use change, including the creation of new hill tracks, should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Perth and Kinross’ landscapes. Accordingly, development proposals will be supported where they do not conflict with the aim of maintaining and enhancing the landscape qualities of Perth and Kinross, or the quality of landscape experience. 61. In this instance, the proximity of the development to the road and the location in a lower setting on the approach from both east and west will result in the proposed BESS forming a significant part of the landscape experience. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) states that views to pylons mitigate the impact of the development on the character of the landscape. However, the submitted visuals show that while the existing pylons are considered as part of the landscape character, they are distant and do not make a material contribution to the landscape experience in this location. Similarly, the wooden telegraph poles, whilst compatible with the wide rural landscape, don’t give the impression of electricity moving through the landscape, and are, therefore, not considered comparable in a visual sense to the proposed development. 62. The LVIA states that the landscape impact from a number of viewpoints will be moderate. However, the LVIA does not factor in the Green Belt location to the sensitivity assessment. LDP2 policy specifically requires all proposals to be appropriate to the overall objectives of the Green Belt, to protect and enhance the character, landscape setting and identity of settlements. In this instance, the potential impact on the greenbelt will have an adverse impact on the character and quality of the local landscape. There will be a significant impact in terms of visual amenity, especially from the road and the most adjacent dwellinghouses. This being the case, the proposed development is contrary to LDP2 Policy 39. Furthermore, all proposed planting and landscaping will take time to grow to, and be maintained at an adequate height to soften the visual impact of the development. NPF4 Policy 4: Natural Places requires that proposals protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. This being the case, for reasons mentioned above, the proposed development is contrary to LDP2 Policy 39 and NPF4 Policy 4. Loss of Agricultural Land 63. LDP2 Policy 50: Prime Agricultural Land states that outside the identified settlements, development on prime agricultural land will not be permitted, unless it is necessary to meet a specific established need, such as a major infrastructure proposal and only when there is no other suitable site available on non-prime land.
Page 14
64. LDP2 Policy 51: Soils states that the Council seeks to protect soils from damage such as erosion or compaction. Developments located on areas of good quality agricultural soils will only be supported where they: (a) minimise impact on soil resources. (b) implement appropriate soil management measures, particularly for valuable soils such as good-quality agricultural soils, and soils with a high organic content. (c) adopt best practice when moving, storing and reinstating soils. (d) consider opportunities to re-use soils necessarily excavated from the site. 65. In this instance, although the planning statement recognises that the majority of the built development will be on 3.2 non-prime agricultural soils part of the site is 3.1 prime agricultural land. The applicant has provided site search information to demonstrate avoidance of sites of 3.1 soils and to address the specific locational need for prime land. NPF4 Policy 5: Soils also requires that applications on prime land demonstrate that “the layout and design of the proposal minimises the amount of protected land that is required.” This being the case, the Council should be fully informed of which steps in the design process have been taken to minimise the use of 3.1 land. 66. Furthermore, a soil management plan would be required with any approval to ensure that the proposal fully considers any impacts on soil, including details of excavation, storing, handling and re-use of soils on site. This applies to grade 3.2 soils as well as any 3.1 soils affected. This could be covered by a suitably worded condition. The proposed development is, therefore, in accordance with LDP2 Policies 50 and 51 and NPF4 Policy 5. Roads and Access 67. LDP2 Policy 15: Public Access states that development proposals that would have an adverse impact upon the integrity of any (including proposed) core path, disused railway line, asserted right of way or other well-used route and connectivity proposals identified in the Regional Transport Strategy and Delivery Plan will not be permitted. 68. In this instance, the proposed BESS will not have an adverse impact on any existing access, core paths and rights of way. Furthermore, the construction phase will not require the re- routing of any paths 69. LDP2 Policy 60A: Existing Infrastructure, sees existing transport infrastructure identified, and encouragement given to the retention and improvement of these facilities provided the improvements are compatible with adjoining land uses. 70. Access to the site is via a new access roadway from the C410 (Tibbermore Road), which will be constructed using type 2 aggregate. The roadway enters the
Page 15
compound from the northeast. During the construction phase, traffic could be managed in accordance with a Construction Traffic Management Plan, which could be secured through a planning condition. Once the proposed BESS is operational, occasional visits for maintenance and monitoring by small vans would be required. 71. A Transport Statement (TS) has been prepared which states that all construction traffic will be transported via the A9 Trunk Road and then the A85 and the C410 (Tibbermore Road), to access the development site. The TS confirms the single point of access to the site will be from the C410 (Tibbermore Road) and will be used by both construction and operational traffic. The TS further states that the proposed access road will provide appropriate visibility and is designed to accommodate HGV’s. Sufficient visibility splays of 160 metres at a 2.4 metre setback are shown on the Site Access Sightlines drawing, and the submitted TS includes a supporting Speed Survey. 72. In terms of traffic generation, the TS states that, during the construction phase of the scheme, it is anticipated the proposal will generate very low levels of HGV movements per day. Furthermore, once the site is operational the traffic generation will still be low as the site will be unmanned, and trip generation will be associated with occasional maintenance trips, amounting to approximately one vehicle trip per month. 73. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with LDP2 Policies 15 and 60A. Drainage and Flooding 74. LDP2 Policy 52: New Development and Flooding, states that the Council supports the actions and objectives to avoid increased, reduce overall, and more generally manage flood risk in alignment with SEPA Strategies and Plans. NPF4 Policy 22 states that development proposals must have regard to the water environment, and drainage, including floodwater management, within any proposal. 75. Despite the submission of a revised Flood Risk Assessment (FRA),12 battery units were still showing as being located within the identified flood risk area. This would result in a reduction in flood plain capacity, due to the combined volume of the structures. NPF4 Policy 22 a) i) states that development proposals which are at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported if they are for essential infrastructure and where the location is required for operational reasons. Whilst it is accepted that the proposal is essential infrastructure, suitable evidence to demonstrate that this site has an operational need to be developed for battery storage purposes has not been provided. Furthermore, it has not been shown that there is an operational reason for this specific site, as opposed to others which are not at flood risk.
Page 16
76. Although SEPA were consulted on the basis that this was essential infrastructure, it is at the Planning Authority’s discretion to consider if the site specific reasoning for developing a site at flood risk is appropriate. It was not considered necessary to reconsult SEPA once the Council arrived at the conclusion that there was no site specific reasoning and the proposals did not fall under any of the SEPA exemptions. This is because SEPA have been fully engaged with the Council during the assessment of this application and their position has been made clear. However, for reasons mentioned within the principle section of this report, it is not considered that the operational need justification has been demonstrated. In this instance, SEPA had originally submitted a holding objection on the grounds of flooding and lack of information being submitted regarding flood risk. The applicant subsequently submitted evidence that that the loss in flood plain capacity can be satisfactorily compensated for on site, and the proposed design of this flood storage has been approved by SEPA. This being the case, SEPA have removed their holding objection. Following this, the applicant has submitted a planning application (25/00086/FLL) for the proposed compensatory flood storage works, which has yet to be determined. In summary, although it is accepted that flood risk can be mitigated, NPF4 still does not allow for essential infrastructure on flood risk sites unless there is suitable operational reasons. For reasons mentioned above, it is not considered that there are suitable operations for this site, and as such the proposal is considered contrary to NPF4 Policy 22. 77. Also relevant to the flood risk of the site is LDP2 Policy 53C: Surface Water Drainage, requires Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) measures including relevant temporary measures at the construction phase. 78. In terms of SuDS, PKC Structures and Flooding initially objected on grounds of further information being required through the submission of a revised Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and updated Drainage Strategy. This information was subsequently received and the objection has now been removed. It is therefore considered that the proposals comply with LDP2 Policies 52 and 53C. River Tay Special Area of Conservation Catchment 79. The River Tay is not expected to be directly affected based on the supplied drawings and reports. However, it is advisable to adhere to the SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG). Consideration should also be given to the impact on the River Tay Special Area of Conservation. This being the case, a condition could be included to ensure that a Construction Method Statement is submitted prior to development commencing on site. Furthermore, any revisions to the FRA must be reflected in an updated Drainage Strategy, which could also be covered by a condition. In terms of drainage, and subject to conditions, the proposed development is in accordance with LDP2 Policies 47 and 53C.
Page 17
Conservation Considerations 80. Polices 26A and 26B of the LDP2 and Policy 7 of NPF4 are applicable to the application. It has been confirmed that the site lies within an area considered to be archaeologically sensitive. Given that the application site is greenfield and does not appear to have been developed in the past, there is potential for unknown buried archaeological remains to survive. The Site is located within the Inventory Boundary of the Battle of Tippermuir (1644). A Heritage Statement has been submitted with this application. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) have not objected to the proposal, as it is not considered to raise any issues of national significance, and the height of the proposed units will not have a significant impact on any local heritage assets. 81. Initially, PKHT objected given the potential impacts on the Tippermuir Battlefield. Subsequently, the applicant has addressed this. Given the results of a recent metal detecting survey of the area, PKHT have now removed their objection, subject to the inclusion of a condition relating to a programme of archaeological works. The results of the metal detecting survey indicated that no archaeological artefacts relating the battlefield were identified and, as such, this has decreased the sensitivity of impact at this location. However, there is still potential for buried archaeological remains, both battlefields related and, perhaps more likely, the prehistoric context. This could be covered by the inclusion of a condition relating to the need for a programme of archaeological works to be submitted. In light of the above, and subject to an appropriately worded condition, the proposed development is in accordance with LDP2 policies 26A, 26B and NPF4 Policy 7. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 82. LDP2 Policy 40: Forestry, Woodland, and Trees states that Tree Surveys, undertaken by a suitably qualified professional, should accompany all applications for planning permission where their sites contain trees and that there is a presumption in favour of protecting woodland resources. This policy is relevant in relation to the hedging on the site. 83. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report recommends inclusion of only native species. However, in this instance, the submitted Landscaping Plan proposed planting 34 native trees and 6 non-natives. Furthermore, the submitted Landscaping Plan does not contain details of how trees will be maintained to ensure successful establishment in the landscape. However, subject to the inclusion of appropriately worded conditions to resolve these issues, the proposed development is in accordance with LDP2 Policy 40, and NPF4 Policy 6. 84. LDP2 Policy 41: Biodiversity states that the Council will seek to protect and enhance all wildlife and wildlife habitats, whether formally designated/protected or not, all whilst taking into account the ecosystems and natural processes in the area. In accordance with NPF4, Policy 3 development proposals for national or
Page 18
major development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, including nature networks so they are in a demonstrably better state than without intervention. This will include future management. In this instance, the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report provides recommendations to achieve biodiversity enhancement but no confirmation of numbers and locations. 85. The PKC Planning for Nature Guidance clearly sets out what is required to inform planning applications, including a Site Biodiversity Action Plan. The plan should contain quantity, locations, techniques, timescales and monitoring arrangements. The plan should also include the recommendations set out in the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report and the requirements set out in the PKC Planning for Nature Guidance. In this instance, a Site Biodiversity Action Plan has not been submitted. 86. In addition, the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report was carried out in December 2023 which is out with the optimal surveying season. Undertaking survey in the sub-optimal period means botanical interests and breeding birds are not included. 87. However, subject to the inclusion of suitably worded conditions to address the above issues, the proposed development is in accordance with LDP Policy 41 and NPF4 Policy 3. Developer Contributions 88. Not applicable to this application. Economic Impact 89. The economic impact of the proposal is likely to be minimal and limited to the construction phase of the development. The proposal will support local renewable energy generation by helping balance fluctuations of intermittent energy generation. It will assist in the creation of a national grid asset of regional significance for the Perth and Kinross area. Variation of Application Under Section 32a 90. This application has been varied prior to determination, in accordance with the terms of section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended. The variations are in relation to floods and drainage matters, and issues relating to noise. Planning Obligations and Legal Agreements 91. None required.
Page 19
Direction by Scottish Ministers 92. Under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, regulations 30 – 33 there have been no directions by the Scottish Government in respect of an Environmental Impact Assessment screening opinion, call in or notification relating to this application. Conclusion and Reasons for Recommendation 93. To conclude, the application must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this respect, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan. Account has been taken of the relevant material considerations and none has been found that would justify overriding the Development Plan. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal on the grounds identified below. Recommendation Refuse the application. Reasons for Recommendation 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 43 Green Belt of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and Policy 8 Green Belt of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) as the position of the proposed BESS within the Green Belt will result in a level of visual intrusion which would have a detrimental impact on the character and landscape setting of the Green Belt. 2. The proposed development is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (2023) Policy 22 a) i) Flood risk and water management, as it has not been demonstrated that there is an operational need for essential infrastructure on this site which is at known risk of flooding. 3. The development, owing to its scale, area, and open location, will erode the local distinctiveness of landscape character at this location, significantly impacting the visual integrity of the area. The development is not considered to comply with Policy 39 ‘Landscape’ of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 and National Planning Framework 4 (2023) Policy 4 Natural Places. Background Papers Letters of representation 20 Authors Name Designation Contact Details Alan Atkins Planning Officer (Majors) 01738 475300 developmentmanagement@pkc.gov.uk
Page 20
Approved Name Designation Date Sean Panton Team Leader (Major Applications and Enforcement) 26 February 2025