6 - 25-0059-PP Dargavel Substation
Renfrewshire Council · 20 May 2025
Back to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board — 20 May 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 20 May 2025 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0059/PP Application Type Planning Permission (Local) Proposal Erection of substation with associated apparatus, fencing, de- mountable floodlights and access track Location BAE Land UK - Environmental Test Facility, Glenluce Drive, Bishopton Ward 11 – Bishopton, Bridge of Weir and Langbank Community Council Bishopton Community Council Applicant Scottish Power Energy Networks Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions All plans, reports, documents and representations relating to this application can be viewed in full online at https://pl-bs.renfrewshire.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=SQWMX2MWFL000 This report fulfils the requirements of regulation 16, Schedule 2, paragraphs 3(c) and 4 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The report is presented to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board in line with the Council's Scheme of Delegation. In this instance the application would normally fall within the Council's scheme of delegation to be determined by an appointed officer. However, a request was submitted by Cllr Colin McCulloch, Cllr James MacLaren and Cllr Fiona Airlie- Nicolson, within 21 days of the application appearing on the weekly list, that the matter be removed from the scheme of delegation for determination by the Board due to the due to the possible effect on badger sets as well as the visual impact of the development. Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a substation with associated apparatus, fencing, de-mountable floodlights and access track on land on the southeastern edge of the Dargavel Village core development area. The proposed substation has a total footprint of approximately 1,176 square metres which is defined by the 2.5-metre-high timber fence which demarcates the external boundary. Approximately 1.8 metre behind the timber fence there is a secondary boundary treatment proposed comprising of a 2.5-metre-high palisade fence. The substation comprises of two 33/11kV transformers which are a maximum of approximately 4.5 metre in height and are positioned in the eastern half of the site. In the western half there is one 11kV switchgear board and associated housing which is a maximum of 4 metre in height, and one secondary 6.6kV/11kV substation which is a maximum of 2.6 metre in height. Two 5-metre-high demountable lights are positioned along the eastern boundary. The substation includes a 5-metre-wide internal access road and turning area. This will in turn connect to a 6-metre-wide access road which connects the site to an existing turning head located between the BAE site offices and number 65 Abbington Circle and 31 Glenluce Drive. The access road is approximately 127 metre in length. The access road route passes through an area of trees and over a water course.
Page 2
The applicant confirms that the development is required to supply the increased electricity demand from further residential developments in Bishopton and the new school development at Dargavel Village (approved under planning application 24/0872/PP). It is also stated that the proposed development will enhance the reliability of the local electricity supply. It is noted that part of this increased demand derives from The Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2023 which prohibit the use of direct emission heating systems for new buildings. It is noted that site clearance works have taken place. This includes realignment of the Environmental Test Facility (ETF) boundary fence, removal of the concrete platforms at the site of the proposed substation, removal of grassland, formation of a temporary access over the watercourse including removal of trees, and removal of trees and other vegetation to form an area for a compound. Site Description The application site is located approximately 45 metres to the southeast of the Dargavel Village Core Development area as defined in the Dargavel Village Masterplan, and 60 metres to the southeast of the front elevation of the nearest residential properties on Abbington Circle. The BAE site offices and the BAE Environmental Test Facility (ETF) are located approximately 120 metres to the southwest. The proposed substation site straddles the boundary of the ETF. It comprises a mix of hard standing and rough grassland. The access road is within an area of rough grassland with shrubs and young trees. The site of the substation is flat, however, the land to the west and southwest has an undulating topography. The land also rises to the north, with Barrangary Road approximately 86 metres away occupying a higher ground level. The site is bound to the east by the ETF facility which at this location comprises of woodland. It is noted that the Georgetown Wood (ROF) Site of Importance for Nature Conservation is located approximately 130 metres to the southeast. It is also noted that approximately 10 metres to the southeast of the application site there is an electricity substation and switching room building which was approved under planning application 11/0851/PP. The applicant has advised that the site selection for the substation is based on a number of criteria, and that this location was most optimum of the five sites considered with regard to accessibility, proximity to cable network, ecological constraints, proximity to residential properties, visual impact, compliance with ETF constraints, land ownership and topography. Pre-Application Consultation with Officers The Scottish Government strongly encourages constructive pre-application discussions between prospective applicants and the planning authority. Pre-application discussions seek to identify key planning considerations at an early stage and help inform what supporting information is required to support a subsequent application. Pre-application feedback was issued in April 2022. The feedback noted that such installations would be considered as essential infrastructure which is acceptable within the green belt in principle. However, it was advised that the development would require assessment against the green belt development criteria, and matters relating to visual impact, noise, and loss of existing vegetation were raised. It is also noted that for the purposes of the pre-application response the proposed site was to the northeast of the application site and approximately 80 metres from the nearest residential properties on Abbington Circle. Negotiated Improvements
Page 3
Following submission, the following changes have been negotiated between officers and the applicant: The application now includes provision for landscaping and screening on the land between the application site and the properties on Abbington Circle. Site History The planning history for the site is as follows; if no history is listed then planning has no record of previous applications for the site. Application Number: 17/0394/PP Description: Use of land within the Core Development Area for residential development. Decision: Granted subject to conditions and a Section 75 agreement Application Number: 17/0393/PP Description: Use of land within the Core Development Area for residential development (as part of north west residential neighbourhood) with associated SUDS pond (in principle). Decision: Granted subject to conditions and a Section 75 agreement. Application Number: 12/0584/PP Description: Variation of Condition 12 of planning consent 06/0602/PP to change the point at which the proposed M8 junction at Bishopton will be constructed and brought into use. Decision: Granted subject to conditions and a Section 75 agreement. Application Number: 09/0527/PP Description: Engineering operations comprising remediation and bulk earthworks. Decision: Granted subject to conditions. Application Number: 06/0602/PP Description: Regeneration of the site to form a mixed use community growth area. Decision: Granted subject to conditions and a Section 75 agreement 10/08/2009. Consultations ▪ Glasgow Airport Safeguarding – No objections. Advisory note required with regard to the potential use of cranes. ▪ Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Env. Protection) - No objection subject to condition relating to noise. ▪ Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) - No objection subject to conditions relating to submission of a Construction Traffic Management Plan and a cable network plan. ▪ National Air Traffic Services (NATS) - No objections. ▪ Regeneration and Place (Placemaking Officer) – A review of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and the Protected Species Survey has been undertaken and the response advises that they are reasonable and include appropriate measures which would mitigate impacts of the development and support biodiversity net gain in line with NPF4. ▪ Explosives Inspectorate – Have reviewed the submission and have no comments to make on the basis that the development is not classed as a vulnerable building. The development does not meet the definition of a vulnerable building in this regard.
Page 4
▪ Health and Safety Executive Land Use Planning – Development does not cross any consultation zones. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The Council has undertaken two rounds of neighbour notification, one initial notification on validation of the planning application and another round of notification following the submission of additional information by the applicant to comply with Section 32A Subsection 4) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The following representations were received: ▪ Object - 121 ▪ Support - 0 ▪ Neutral – 0 The points raised in the representations can be summarised as follows. 1 - Electro Magnetic Field (EMF) emitted from the substation poses a health risk, and development should be at least 100 metres from residential properties, and to be closer than 100 metres is contrary to the applicant’s own guidance. 2 - Noise and vibration during construction and operation. A noise impact assessment has not been undertaken. 3 - Fire Risk, electrical faults and explosions posing risk to nearby homes. 4 - Visual impact and development will detract from the character of area, no information provided on any other design mitigations such as housing. 5 - Decline in property value and mortgages being declined for properties near substations. 6 - Environment desktop assessment is not undertaken by independent consultant and is not representative of the area, further ecological impact assessment is required. 7 - Loss of habitat and trees and impact on protected species and wildlife. A tree survey has not been undertaken. 8 - Proposal to plant oak trees will not be sufficient to screen the development. 9 - Potential flood risk and disruption of surface water drainage. 10 - Impact from flood lights on neighbours and wildlife. 11 – Neighbours were advised at time of house purchase that land would remain undeveloped and form part of the community woodland park as noted in the development plan. 12 - Impact of additional construction and operational traffic through residential areas and associated safety concerns and damage to road network. 13 - More suitable brownfield sites are available further away from residential areas. 14 - No requirement for the development. 15 - What is the purpose of the substation and why has this area been selected. 16 - Potential for further overhead line construction and pylons. 17 - Time period and timeline for construction. 18 - Safety risk to children who play in the area and people who use the area for dog walking, loss of access to the open space. 19 - Land has already been cleared and works have commenced. 20 – The substation is some distance from the required load point, and the substation should be built closer to the development that it will supply. 21 – Daylight, overshadowing and loss of privacy, loss of amenity to existing residents. 22 – Risk associated with children accessing the site. 23 – There has been no public engagement or consultation. Requirement for substation should have been presented as part of the consultation on the new primary school. 24 – Impact on the green network. 25 – Proposal is contrary to the development plan.
Page 5
26 – Proposal does not meet minimum recommended distance between substation and residential properties. 27 – The cross-section drawings do not consider views from upper floor windows 28 – An archaeological assessment has not been undertaken. 29 – Contamination of water courses. 30 – The initial submission was not comprehensive and lacked information. 31 – Inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the submitted plans and non-compliance with Heads of Planning Scotland guidance. 32 – The additional documents do not lessen concerns raised above. 33 – The proposed landscaping is not acceptable mitigation and there is a lack of information on the bund, who will implement the landscaping and who will maintain it. 34 – The justification in the planning statement is contrary to SPENs liaison officer who advised that the substation was to provide additional capacity for the additional houses being built and BAE systems and not the new primary school. 35 – The site selection process is not robust nor has it been undertaken in good faith. The exercise was undertaken by BAE alone, and other sites further away from family homes need to be considered. Other potential sites have not been fully investigated. 36 – The application site is now designated as part of the community woodland park and is used for informal recreation, and the fact that historically it was industrial land is not relevant. 37 – SPEN are tenants of land in the surrounding area and should build the substation on this land. Policy Context In making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance the Development Plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (2021) (LDP). The following provisions of the Development Plan are considered relevant to the determination of this application: National Planning Framework 4 ▪ 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 8 – Green Belts ▪ Policy 9 – Brownfield Land, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings ▪ Policy 11 – Energy ▪ Policy 13 – Sustainable transport ▪ Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place ▪ Policy 18 – Infrastructure first ▪ Policy 19 – Heating and Cooling ▪ Policy 20 – Blue and green infrastructure ▪ Policy 22 – Flood risk and water management ▪ Policy 23 – Health and Safety Principles Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan ▪ Policy ENV1 – Green Belt ▪ Policy ENV2 - Natural Heritage ▪ Policy ENV4 – The Water Environment
Page 6
▪ Policy ENV6 – Natural Resources (Minerals and Soil) ▪ Policy I1 – Connecting Places ▪ Policy I3 – Flooding and Drainage ▪ Policy I4 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments ▪ Policy P5 – Green/Blue Network ▪ Policy P6 – Open Space ▪ Policy P7 – Dargavel Village New Development Supplementary Guidance ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy – Green Belt, Green belt Development Criteria, Natural Heritage and the water Environment ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy – Connecting Places, Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments, Flooding and Drainage ▪ Delivering the Places Strategy – Creating Places, Green/Blue Network and Open Space Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. Other relevant policies and guidance ▪ PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise ▪ PAN 50 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation ▪ PAN 60 Planning for Natural heritage ▪ PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems ▪ PAN 79 Water and Drainage Submitted Reports and Assessments The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: ▪ Planning Statement (SP Energy Networks dated 09/042025) - Provides information on the development, site selection process and the requirements for the development, access and infrastructure and transport. There is a review of the development against policies 1, 2 and 3 of NPF4, and policies ENV1 and I1 of the LDP. With regard to ecology, a summary is provided in respect of designated sites and habitats, protected species, and biodiversity enhancements. Finally, a response to some of the points raised in the letters of representation is also provided. ▪ Site Selection (SP Energy Networks dated 09/042025) – Provides a summary of the considerations associated with the site selection process. Five sites were considered against the selection criteria which consists of site requirements (accessibility and cable network) and constraints (ecological, residential, Environmental Test Facility (ETF) constraints, and other miscellaneous such as land ownership and topography ▪ Protected Species Statement (Bowland Ecology, dated 12/03/2025) – Provides details of the relevant protected species and recommended mitigation measures following a survey undertaken by the Ecological Clerk of Works (ECOW) on 7th March 2025. There is potential for nesting birds to use habitats within the proposed construction area. Mitigation includes timing of clearance works outside the bird nesting season, and pre- start checks. While otters are known to use the wider site, no otter holts/couches have been identified within the water course which crosses the access road. Mitigation includes no flood lighting, excavations to be covered or a means of escape provided, capping of exposed pipes, and implementation of pollution prevention measures.
Page 7
Badgers may use the area, however there are no active sets within 30 metres of the development. Mitigations include pre-start checks no flood lighting, excavations to be covered or a means of escape provided, capping of exposed pipes. ▪ Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Bowland Ecology, dated March 2025) – The habitat survey advises that the site comprises of bare cleared ground which was formerly semi- improved grassland. The clearance extends to the area associate with the access road, with vegetation along the access route cleared and pipes installed in the drainage channel. It is noted that pre-start checks were undertaken by the ECOW. With regard to protected species, great crested newts have never been recorded at the site and are considered absent. Common amphibians are likely to use suitable terrestrial habitat within the area. There are no active badger setts within 30 metres however the area is a known and well-established commuting route for badgers. There are no habitats suitable for roosting bats, however the area has moderate suitability for foraging and commuting bats. Habitats are also suitable for nesting birds and small mammals. No otter field signs or holts/couches were identified within the water course. Mitigations and opportunities are set out. This includes pollution prevention measures during the construction phase, and mitigations to protect amphibians, bats, badgers, birds, otters and other species. Proposed enhancement measures include new hedgerow planting, woodland creation, habitat creation within the remediated compound area, and hibernacula for hedgehogs. ▪ Environmental Desktop Assessment (Connicks, dated 15th November 2024) – Notes the presence of a possible disused badger sett in the woodland to the east of the site. The desktop survey examined the area for environmental, ecological and archaeological constraints. The site survey then focused on the area designated for the construction compound which includes the area for the proposed substation. Within the substation boundary the land is primarily composed of species poor grassland including old foundations indicating a building was present in the past. To the east is a mature birch woodland. To the north, west and south is a mix of species poor grassland, scrub and trees. The protected species survey includes species records from datasets, and species data from the site survey. Recommendations and mitigations are set out with regard to birds and badgers. This includes additional survey work for badgers. ▪ Flood Risk Assessment (Kiloh, dated 15th November 2024) – The site is considered to be at little to no risk from all sources of flooding subject to management of surface water flows reaching the northern and western boundary. It is therefore recommended that a surface water management strategy is developed and that surface water interception is developed along the northern and western boundaries. Scottish Ministers Direction In determining a planning application, the Council is required to provide details of any Direction made by Scottish Ministers under Regulation 30 (Directions requiring consultation), Regulation 31 (Directions requiring information), Regulation 32 (Directions restricting the grant of planning permission) and Regulation 33 (Directions requiring consideration of condition) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, or under Regulation 50 (that development is EIA development) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017.
Page 8
None. Planning Assessment Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act requires decisions on planning applications to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises the National Planning Framework 4 (2023) (NPF4) and the adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (2021) (LDP). The application site is within the Dargavel Village Community Growth Area as designated within the LDP proposals map C for Bishopton, Erskine and Inchinnan. The community growth area is covered by two policies. Policy P7 Dargavel Village relates to the core development area, with the remainder of the growth area covered by Policy ENV1 Green Belt. The application site is out with the core development area and within the area designated as green belt. While the land is allocated as greenbelt it is relevant to note that the land on which the substation will be located historically accommodated forms of infrastructure and/or buildings with this evident from the existing areas of hardstanding. The site of the substation can therefore be considered as brownfield land in character. However, as the green belt policy applies, the development must be assessed against the provisions of the green belt policies ENV1 of the LDP and the associated new development supplementary guidance, and 8 of NPF4. Policy ENV1 sets out a list of developments that are considered to be appropriate within the green belt in principle. This includes essential infrastructure such as electricity grid connections. The applicant has advised within the Planning Statement that the development is required to meet the growing electricity demand associated with the implementation of the masterplan at Dargavel Village. Electricity demand has increased in part through The Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2023 which prohibit the use of direct emission heating systems for new buildings. This would include the remaining residential development plots and the new primary school which was recently approved under planning application 24/0872/PP. There are also additional electricity demands arising from EV charging for example. As the development is required to facilitate the implementation of the Dargavel Village masterplan including development of the remaining residential development plots and the new primary school it is considered to constitute essential infrastructure and is therefore an appropriate development within the green belt in principle. All developments must thereafter be assessed against the New Development Supplementary Guidance on green belt development with respect to the site-specific considerations. Each of the assessment criteria will be considered in turn. There will be no loss of prime quality agricultural land or agricultural land of lesser quality that is locally important. There will be no adverse impact on the qualities of wild land. The development includes a new access road which will connect the proposed substation to an existing turning head adjacent to the BAE site offices. The access road crosses a water course. It is noted that a temporary access across the water course has already been formed, and trees have been removed to facilitate this.
Page 9
Removal of the trees to accommodate the access road is accepted on the basis that the proposal now includes a landscape scheme which specifies areas of woodland planting to the west of the substation. The proposed woodland mix includes Holly, Birch, Elder and Hawthorn, and will compensate for the loss of the trees to facilitate the access road and the compound area. It is noted that the area of proposed compensation is greater than the area of tree loss however a final landscape plan which fully reflects the recommendations set out in the PEA will be requested via condition. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) can be covered via a condition to ensure the water course is protected from sediment pollution during the construction phase. The applicant has advised that the access road will be 6 metres in width, and a 600mm diameter pipe will be installed to allow the road to cross the water course. The final design and surface finish of the access road can be requested via condition. The development will not give rise to significant effect on public water supply or the water environment from any pollution risk during both the construction and operational phases. As noted above, a CEMP will be requested via condition to ensure pollution risk is managed during the construction phase. A drainage strategy will also be requested via condition to ensure surface water is managed during the operational phase. Given the nature of the development there is no requirement to link the site to the active travel network or the green network. The development does not reduce or unduly compromise access to any existing active travel routes or the green network. The land to the east of Abbington Circle is accessible and includes an informal footpath which provides access towards Barrangary Road to the north. A number of letters of representation note that the area is used informally for dog walking or for children playing. The development of the substation, the access road and the associated landscaping will result in the loss of some of this land. It is noted that within the Dargavel Park Strategic Plan, which was approved under the Section 75 agreement associated with the Planning Permission in Principle applications for the Dargavel Village masterplan, the land is designated as an informal recreation zone. Additionally, it should be noted that the land on which the substation itself will be sited straddles the previous boundary of the ETF before it was realigned. Approximately two thirds of this area was therefore previously behind the ETF boundary fence and not accessible. The submitted plans show the realignment of the ETF boundary fence to the rear of the substation, and the applicants have advised that this work has already been undertaken. The submitted plans also show retention of the informal footpath. On balance and taking into account the specific characteristics of the land subject to the application, it is not considered that existing access to the land will be significantly impacted. The development will be visible from Barrangary Road to the north and Abbington Circle to the west. The development is approximately 100 metres from Barrangary Road, and its visual impact will be mitigated by the topography of the intervening land. The topography of the land to the west will also partly obscure the development from Abbington Circle. The applicant has provided sections which indicate how the visual impact of the development will be further mitigated when viewed from Abbington Circle to the west through additional mounding and landscaping comprising of woodland mix planting. The planting comprises of a woodland core, edge and wetland mix with additional areas of scrub mix. The species mix includes shrubs and tree, and the shrubs will be planted at a density of 1.5m centres which is considered to be an acceptable density of planting. The sections show the landscaping at years 5 and 15. Most of the plants which form part of the landscaping
Page 10
scheme will be 40-60cm in height when planted with the exception of gorse which will be 30- 40cm, and Downy Birch trees which will be 250-300cm. The visual impact of the development will be mitigated by the woodland to the east. To the south the site is bound by the ETF, the BAE site offices and other ancillary buildings including an existing substation housing. Due to a combination of the above factors, it is not considered that the development will have a significant detrimental impact on local landscape character. The applicant has provided detail on the site selection process which has been undertaken. It is noted that five sites had been considered but were discounted on a range of criteria including accessibility, visual impact and ecology. As noted above, the impact of the proposed site for the development will be further mitigated through the proposed landscape strategy. Appropriate landscaping proposals have been incorporated in this regard. With regard to services, the proposed location has in part been informed by operational requirements and in particular the location of the existing 33kv cable that will power the substation. The potential impact of the development on nature conservation interests has been assessed by the applicant through the Environmental Desktop Assessment, the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) and the Protected Species Statement (PSS). A review of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and the Protected Species Survey has been undertaken by the Councils Regeneration and Place Service who advise that they are reasonable and include appropriate measures which would mitigate impacts of the development and support biodiversity net gain. Both the PEA and the PSS include mitigations to safeguard natural heritage and protected species and promote biodiversity gain during the construction and operation of the development. A condition can be applied to ensure these mitigations are implemented and fulfilled. The development does not include the conversion of any buildings. The development must also be assessed against policy 8 of NPF4. This policy also includes a list of acceptable development proposals and again this includes essential infrastructure. The proposed development is considered to constitute essential infrastructure as noted above specifically to meet the increased demand associated with the development of the masterplan for Dargavel Village, namely the remaining residential plots and the new primary school (approved under planning application 24/0872/PP), and to provide greater reliability and resilience to the electricity supply. All proposals must thereafter be assessed against the following requirements. The applicant has provided detail on the site selection process. It is noted that all five site locations considered are within the green belt and were grouped in close proximity to the existing 33kv cable which would feed the substation. Proximity to the existing cable network appears to be the key site selection criteria in this regard given its fundamental to allowing it to function. However, it is also recognised that there would potentially be additional issues associated with locating a development of this nature within alternative sites outwith the green belt. On balance a green belt location is considered to be acceptable in principle for a development of this nature.
Page 11
It is not considered that the purpose of the green belt at this location would be undermined. The LDP states that the green belt in Renfrewshire maintains the identity of settlements, protects and enhances the landscape setting of an area and protects and promotes access opportunities to open space. It is not considered that the development would undermine these objectives. Matters relating to landscape character, external appearance have been addressed above. On balance it is considered that there will not be a long-term detrimental impact on the environmental quality of the green belt. Policy P7 states that the Council will support development within Dargavel Village where it supports the principles set out in Figure 13 and the approved masterplan. Figure 13 of the LDP indicates that the development site falls within the Community Woodland Park which bounds the core development area. The masterplan for Dargavel Village was most recently updated in September 2023 to reflect the requirement for the new primary school approved under planning application 24/0872/PP. This update to the masterplan also indicates that the site falls within Dargavel Park. Although it is noted above that part of the site also falls within the ETF boundary. Dargavel Park is covered by the Dargavel Park Strategic Plan which forms part of the Section 75 agreement for Dargavel Village. The strategic plan sets out thirteen strategic objectives and five key considerations to be taken into account to ensure the objectives are met. These are management of woodland, enhancement of habitat, landscape, open water and watercourses, access, community and recreation, and heritage. The Dargavel Park Strategic Plan further identifies the application site as falling within the informal recreation zone which wraps around Dargavel Village and will absorb the majority of informal recreation pressures generated by the local population. However, it is also noted that part of the site falls within the previous ETF area which is not included within the park strategy area. Accessibility has been discussed above, and on balance it is not considered that the development would undermine the Dargavel Park Strategic Plan objectives and considerations. It does not therefore conflict with the masterplan for Dargavel Village. Policy I4 of the LDP states that development proposals which deliver increased energy efficiency and the recovery of energy that would otherwise be lost will be supported. While the development does not generate electricity, it is associated with the transmission and distribution of electricity. The assessment criteria set out under policy I4 are therefore considered to be relevant and will be assessed in turn. Matters relating to local environment, landscape character, natural heritage and the water environment have been discussed above. It is not considered that the development will have an impact on any built or cultural heritage assets. There are no listed buildings, scheduled monuments or archaeological sensitive areas that will be impacted by the development. The amenity of neighbouring residential properties is a key consideration. The consultation response from Environmental Protection notes the requirement for a condition to limit noise and structure borne vibration, and this condition would be applied accordingly. It is noted that the development includes provision for lighting columns. The applicant has advised that the floodlighting will only be operational intermittently during maintenance.
Page 12
Floodlights are also operated manually rather than via passive infrared. Environmental Protection has not made any comment on the lighting scheme. It is noted that the majority of the representations list potential health risk from EMF associated with the development. While potential health risks are out with the scope of the planning assessment, the applicant has advised that all equipment is manufactured to current European Standards and is CE (European Conformity) compliant and operates at set standards that pose no risk to health. Environmental Protection has not made any comment on other potential amenity impacts relating to air quality, glare or shadow flicker. Potential noise and vibration issues arising during the construction phase can be managed through the CEMP. Matters relating to the potential impact of the development on the recreational value of the land have been discussed above. With regard to potential impact on the local road network, Roads Development has requested submission of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to ensure the introduction of additional construction traffic associated with the development has minimal interaction with pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and private vehicles using the local road network. This includes swept path to demonstrate that the largest anticipated vehicle can safely access and egress the site. Roads Development have also requested submission of a cable network plan should any new cables need to be installed on a prospectively adopted or adopted road. However these matters would be controlled via other legislation (namely the Roads (Scotland) Act), and a planning condition to control this matter is not required. The development is not at a location or of a scale that triggers consultation with Transport Scotland or Network Rail. It is not anticipated that the development would have a detrimental impact on the trunk road or railway network in this regard. Finally, both NATS and Glasgow Airport Safeguarding have not objected to the development. The development will not therefore have a detrimental impact on the safe and efficient operation of Glasgow Airport. Regarding the relevant criteria on Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments as set out within the new development supplementary guidance, it is considered that significant visual intrusion within the landscape has been minimised. There will be no significant unacceptable adverse impact on the natural or historic environment. The selection of the proposed site has been justified, and consideration has been given to alternative sites. It is not considered that there will be a significant unacceptable impact on the amenity of nearby residential properties in terms of statutory air quality objectives, noise or other nuisances including glare and shadow flicker. The consultation response from Environmental Protection is again noted in this regard, and as previously outlined, potential health issues relating to EMF are outwith the scope of the planning assessment.
Page 13
There will be no significant unacceptable impacts on the transport network including Glasgow Airport. It is not considered that there are any cumulative impacts associated with the development and any other existing or proposed developments. The presence of an existing substation to the south is noted. However, this is of a much smaller scale and visual impact as it is concealed within a housing. Matters relating to access routes and open space have been addressed above. NPF4 policy 11 seeks to encourage and facilitate all forms of renewable energy development including new and replacement transmission and distribution infrastructure. While the development does not generate electricity, the assessment criteria set out within policy 11 are still considered to be of relevance as the development relates to the transmission and distribution of energy. The assessment criteria within policy 11 are broadly similar to those set out within policy I3 and the associated new development supplementary guidance. With regard to the additional criteria set out within policy 11, the development will not give rise to any impact on telecommunications or broadcasting installations with regard to transmission links. The Regeneration and Place Service has advised that the mitigations set out within the PEA and the PSS will support biodiversity net gain. The mitigations will also ensure impact on birds is minimised through the timing of works outwith the bird breeding season, and/or prestart checks on site before works commence. The development will not have an impact on the woodland to the east given the separation distance. The woodland will also remain within the ETF site boundary. It is acknowledged that trees have been removed to accommodate a temporary access road and that this temporary road reflects the alignment of the proposed access road. However, the proposed landscaping scheme ensures this loss will be compensated for. It is also noted that an area of scrub and trees have been cleared to form the construction compound. Plans for the remediation of the compound area will be require as part of the CEMP, with the PEA and PSS noting the opportunity for associated ecological improvements. Turning to the remaining development plan policies, NPF4 policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, and deliver positive effects from development. Proposals for local development will include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity in accordance with national and local guidance. Measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development. Section 5.15 of the PEA sets out biodiversity enhancement measures which include new hedgerow planting around the boundary of the substation, native woodland creation and planting of scattered groups of native trees to the east and west, post construction remediation of the compound area to provide habitat creation opportunities, and hibernacula for hedgehogs. As noted above, the application includes woodland mix planting to the west of the substation. This is primarily in response to the visual impact of the development. However, this planting is also in line with the native woodland creation enhancement measure recommended above and will compensate for the loss of woodland associated with the
Page 14
formation of the access road. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that a further landscaping strategy should be submitted which fully reflects and delivers the enhancements noted in the PEA. This matter can be managed via condition. The Councils Regeneration and Place Service has advised that implementation of the enhancement measures will support biodiversity net gain. NPF4 policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. In view of the above assessment, it is not considered that the development proposal by virtue of its type, scale or location will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment. There are no local, regional or national designated sites that will be impacted by the development. The substation will be located on an area previously comprising of hardstanding and rough grassland. The applicant indicates that there was previously a substation at this location. However, satellite imagery indicates the site has been vacant since at least 2009. The access road and the construction compound will be developed over rough grassland, areas of scrub and young trees, and over a watercourse. Site clearance works and a temporary crossing over the water course have already been undertaken as noted above. The PEA states that the existing habitats within the site are species poor and commonly occurring. Construction of the substation will primarily affect areas of former hard standing. It is noted that ground clearance works have already taken place. However, the PEA indicates that impact on the existing habitat is minimal, and most of the habitats will be retained post construction. There are also opportunities for enhancement as noted above. Permanent losses are largely restricted to the access road as the substation will be developed on an area which was previously hard standing. The PEA and PSS also set out set out the survey for protected species which was undertaken. The potential impact on amphibians, badgers, bats, birds, otters and other mammals has been considered. While not all these species were observed, it was noted that the land could still be used for foraging and commuting purposes for example in respect of bats and badgers. A range of mitigations are therefore set out to ensure species are protected during construction and operation phases. These mitigations range from pollution prevention measures to the timing of vegetation clearance. A condition can be applied to ensure the mitigations are implemented at the construction phase as part of the CEMP, and the ongoing operation of the substation. As noted above, the PEA and the PSS have been reviewed by the Councils Regeneration and Place Service who has advised they are reasonable and include appropriate measures which would mitigate impacts of the development. Policy 6 of NPF4 seeks to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. Development proposals that enhance, expand and improve woodland and tree cover will be supported. Proposals will not be supported where they result in loss of ancient woodland, native woodland, hedgerows and trees of high biodiversity value, fragmenting or severing woodland habitats, or conflict with restocking direction. The development will result in the loss of some trees to facilitate the formation of the access road. It is noted that these trees have already been removed. However, the trees were not within any of the categories set out within Policy 6 with respect to age or biodiversity value. Compensation for the loss of trees will be delivered via the landscaping scheme and this is greater than those which require to be felled
Page 15
The PEA notes that Georgetown Wood SINC is located approximately 120 metres to the southeast of the proposed substation boundary. The SINC overlaps an area of ancient woodland situated approximately 90 metres to the east. Considering the intervening distance and scale of the development the risk of impact the designated site and woodland is considered to be low. It is noted that some connectivity between the site and these designated areas may be present via the water course which may provide a pathway for silts or other pollutants. However, pollution control measures will be implemented during the construction phase via the CEMP, and the operational phase via the drainage scheme. Policy ENV2 of the LDP states that development proposals should protect and restore degraded habitats, enhance and promote access to the natural environment and minimise any adverse impact on habitats, species, network connectivity or landscape character. Proposals must not have an adverse effect on the integrity of sites protected for their nature conservation interest or wider biodiversity value. The above assessment is considered to demonstrate compliance with Policy ENV2 and the associated new development supplementary guidance. Policy 5 of NPF4 seeks to protects carbon rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development. While the protection of prime quality agricultural land and land of lesser quality that is locally important is the primary focus of the policy, the policy also seeks to avoid and then minimise the disturbance to soils on undeveloped land. Section 3.5 of the PEA notes the presence of peat (up to 300mm deep) on the site of the substation following site clearance works. It is noted that the site has previously been developed and is brownfield. Redevelopment of the site would not therefore be contrary to policy 5 and it is relevant to note that the site does not constitute prime quality agricultural land. However, the presence of peat must be considered with regard to protecting carbon rich soils. Submission of a peat management plan is therefore considered to be reasonable to ensure any peat on the site is managed appropriately. The management plan can be secured by condition Policy ENV6 of the LDP also seeks to minimise the impact on peat and other carbon rich soils. The submission of a peat management plan would also satisfy the terms of this policy. Policy 9 of NPF4 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings. Development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land will be supported. In this instance it is noted that part of the substation footprint will be located on an area which previously contained hard standing (it is noted that the hard standing has since been removed in association with the realignment of the ETF boundary fence). The applicant has advised that the hard standing was previously associated with a substation. However, satellite imagery indicates the site has been vacant since at least 2009. Notwithstanding this the presence of the hard standing indicates that the site has been previously developed and would be considered brownfield. Policy 9 also states that the biodiversity value of the brownfield land which has been naturalised should be taken into account. Matters relating to biodiversity have been addressed above. Policy 13 of NPF4 primarily seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling and cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. However, in this instance the development will not generate a significant number of journeys when in use. Additionally, it will not have a detrimental impact on the strategic transport network.
Page 16
Policy I1 of the LDP also seeks to ensure good accessibility and connectivity to walking, cycling and public transport use. Development proposals require to ensure appropriate provision and accessibility in this regard. Again as noted above, the development will not generate a significant number of journeys when in use and on this basis there is no requirement to ensure connectivity and accessibility to walking, cycling and public transport. Regarding the associated new development supplementary guidance, Roads Development has offered no objections to the development subject to a condition requiring submission of a CTMP to ensure construction traffic is managed appropriately. Policy 14 of NPF4 states that development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in an urban or rural location and regardless of scale. Development proposals will also be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful place. In this instance and as noted above, the development includes measures to mitigate its impact on amenity and the quality of the area. This includes the mounding and landscaping along the western boundary, and the additional biodiversity enhancements noted in the PEA. Matters relating to residential amenity have also been discussed above. On balance it is acknowledged that the substation will have an impact on the quality of the area primarily in relation to visual impact and character although this will be reduced over time as the landscaping matures. Due weight is also given to the fact that the development constitutes essential infrastructure for which the site-specific demand has been demonstrated with regard to meeting the demand associated with the remaining residential development plots and the new primary school. The mitigations noted above will ensure the impact on the quality of the place is reduced. Policy 18 of NPF4 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning. Proposals which provide (or contribute to) infrastructure in line with that identified as neccesary in LDP’s and their delivery programmes will be supported. The applicant has justified the need for the development, and it is considered to constitute essential infrastructure which is required to serve the final phases of the Dargavel Village masterplan as defined within the LDP namely the development of the remaining residential plots and the new primary school. The need for additional electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure to serve the final phases of the development arises from the adoption of decarbonised heating solutions for all new buildings. The development will also provide greater reliability and resilience to the electricity supply, and there is a demonstrable need for the development in this regard. Similarly to policy 18, policy 19 of NPF4 states that development which supports decarbonised solutions to heat and cooling demand should be encouraged and promoted. The development will support this policy by providing a reliable and resilient electricity supply to new buildings within Dargavel where a decarbonised heating solution has been adopted. Policy 20 of NPF4 seeks to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure and their networks. The impact on accessibility and open space has been noted above. While the development will result in a net loss of open space it is not considered to be significant, nor will it result in or exacerbate a deficit in blue or green infrastructure provision or the overall integrity of the network. As noted above approx. two thirds of the footprint of the substation was on previously inaccessible land behind the ETF boundary fence. The ETF boundary fence has now been realigned. The net loss of open space and the green network relates to the remaining footprint of the substation and the access road. The construction compound will be remediated as part of the CEMP and the landscape strategy. Potential impact on blue
Page 17
infrastructure, namely the water course, will be mitigated via the CEMP and associated pollution prevention plan. Policy P5 of the LDP and the associated new development supplementary guidance also states that development which protects, maintains or enhances the quality and connectivity of green/blue networks including rights of access and open space, will be supported. The proposed plans show retention of the informal footpath, and it is not considered that access to the open space will be restricted by the development. The net loss of open space has been discussed above. Policy P6 of the LDP refers specifically to areas of valuable and functional open space, recreation provision and amenity space as shown on the LDP proposals maps will be protected from development. Development proposals which result in a net loss of open space not identified in the proposals map will be assessed in relation to the criteria set out in the new development supplementary guidance. As the application site is identified on the proposals plans as green belt and not open space, the criteria within the new development supplementary guidance are relevant and will be considered in turn. The development is not for recreational or physical activity use. There is a long-term strategy (Leisure Services Strategy and Dargavel Park Strategic Plan) for provision of open space at Dargavel Village. This includes the structural landscaping within the core development area, and the woodland park. The strategies aim to ensure provision of open space of recreational and amenity value. The development will not undermine these strategies with respect to provision of open space in the wider area. It is not considered that the development will lead to a significant net loss of open space. There is not considered to be a significant adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents. Matters relating to the retention of existing facilities and redevelopment of the surplus section of the site are not relevant. There are alternative existing and proposed areas of open space of equal or greater value at other locations within Dargavel Village. This includes Central Park and the other areas of Dargavel Park which will be delivered in accordance with the park strategy. The benefits of the proposed development have been set out above, namely that the development will support the transition to decarbonised sources of heating for all new buildings within Dargavel Village including the remaining residential plots and the new primary school. The letters of representation note the value of the open space fronting Abbington Circle for recreation. However, it is noted that the open space will not be lost in its entirety, and land surrounding the substation will still be accessible for dog walking. In terms of security, it is noted the substation includes two forms of boundary fence, a 2.5-metre-high timber fence and a 2.5-metre-high palisade fence which will ensure the substation is secure. There will not be a significant net loss or overall deficit in open space provision in this regard. Finally, it is not considered that the amenity of the surrounding area will be significantly affected by the loss of a small part of the open space or by the nature of the proposed development. It is acknowledged that the substation will have an impact on the quality of the area primarily in relation to visual impact and character although this will be reduced over time as the landscaping matures and on balance when taking the mitigations into account the impact is not considered to be significant.
Page 18
Policy 22 of NPF4 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which notes that the site is at little to no risk of flooding from river or coastal sources. The source of flood risk relative to the site is surface water, with surface water flows reaching the northern and western boundary. It is therefore recommended that a surface water management strategy is developed, and that surface water interception is developed along the northern and western boundaries. The surface water management strategy can be submitted via condition. The strategy will ensure surface water is managed appropriately with regard to pollution risk and the risk of flooding elsewhere. Policy 22 states that all surface water should be manged through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) which should form part of the existing blue/green infrastructure. The provisions of policy 22 are also reflected in LDP policy I3 and the associated new development supplementary guidance which also supports the use of SUDS and integration into blue/green infrastructure. Policy ENV4 of the LDP states that here will be support for proposals which encourage protection of the existing water environment, improvements to the control and management of water and enhancement of biodiversity surrounding blue corridors. In this instance the water environment will be safeguarded via the pollution prevention measures which form part of the CEMP. Surface water will be managed sustainably via the drainage strategy. Matters relating to biodiversity have been addressed above. Policy 23 of NPF4 seeks to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. A key consideration in the assessment of health impacts is the consultation response from Environmental Protection. In this instance, Environmental Protection have not objected to the development and have recommended a condition to mitigate noise impact. No concerns have been raised in relation to air quality. As noted above, matters relating to the potential health impacts associated with EMF are considered to be outwith the scope of the planning assessment. The development also includes two boundary fences which will ensure that the substation is secure. On this basis, it is considered that the development is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on health within the scope of matters that can be assessed as part of the planning application. There have been no objections to the development from the Health and Safety Executive Land Use Planning team or the Explosives Directorate. The development has been screened against The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 to determine if it should be accompanied by an environmental impact assessment. In this instance, the development does not fall within schedule 1 or schedule 2 of the regulations. An environmental impact assessment is not therefore required. The majority of the matters raised in the letters of representation have been addressed in the foregoing assessment however a summary of the points raised is also set out below with a response below each highlighted in bold.
Page 19
1 - EMF poses a health risk, and development should be at least 100 metres from residential properties, and to be closer than 100 metres is contrary to the applicant’s own guidance. Matters relating to EMF have been considered in the foregoing assessment. 2 - Noise and vibration during construction and operation. A noise impact assessment has not been undertaken. Matters relating to noise and vibration have been considered during the foregoing assessment. 3 - Fire Risk, electrical faults and explosions posing risk to nearby homes. The potential for the facility to combust is not in itself a material planning consideration, and planning decisions cannot be based on the likelihood of a facility catching fire. 4 - Visual impact and development will detract from the character of area, no information provided on any other design mitigations such as housing. Matters relating to visual impact have been considered in the foregoing assessment. 5 - Decline in property value and mortgages being declined for properties near substations. Impact on property value is not a material planning consideration. 6 - Environment desktop assessment is not undertaken by independent consultant and is not representative of the area, further ecological impact assessment is required. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Protected Species Statement have been submitted in addition to the Environmental Desktop Assessment. 7 - Loss of habitat and trees and impact on protected species and wildlife. A tree survey has not been undertaken. Matters relating to trees, habitats and protected species have been considered in the foregoing assessment. 8 - Proposal to plant oak trees will not be sufficient to screen the development. Matters relating to the provision of landscaping and screening have been considered in the foregoing assessment. 9 - Potential flood risk and disruption of surface water drainage. Matters relating to flood risk and surface water drainage have been considered in the foregoing assessment. 10 - Impact from flood lights on neighbours and wildlife. Matters relating to flood lights have been considered in the foregoing assessment. 11 – Neighbours were advised at time of house purchase that land would remain undeveloped and form part of the community woodland park as noted in the development plan.
Page 20
This is a civil/legal matter between house purchasers and the seller and is not a material planning consideration. 12 - Impact of additional construction and operational traffic through residential areas and associated safety concerns and damage to road network. Matters relating to construction traffic have been considered in the foregoing assessment. 13 - More suitable brownfield sites are available further away from residential areas. The suitability or availability of other sites does not make the application site unsuitable. The application must be assessed on its own merits against the provisions of the development plan. 14 - No requirement for the development. The applicant has demonstrated a requirement for the development. 15 - What is the purpose of the substation and why has this area been selected. The purpose of the development and the site selection process have been considered in the foregoing assessment. 16 - Potential for further overhead line construction and pylons. The applicant has advised that overhead lines will not be required, and the substation will utilise new and existing underground cables. 17 - Time period and timeline for construction. Ultimately the time period and commencement date for the construction phase is not a material consideration. Planning permissions must be implemented within 3 years of the date of the consent. Potential impacts associated with the construction phase will be mitigated through the CEMP and the CTMP. A condition will be applied to restrict working hours. 18 - Safety risk to children who play in the area and people who use the area for dog walking, loss of access to the open space. Matters relating to access have been considered in the foregoing assessment. 19 - Land has already been cleared and works have commenced. This has been noted and is reflected in the above assessment. It is noted that land clearance works can be undertaken without requiring planning permission. 20 - The substation is some distance from the require load point, and the substation should be built closer to the development that it will supply. Matters relating to site selection have been considered in the foregoing assessment. 21 – Daylight, overshadowing and loss of privacy, loss of amenity to existing residents.
Page 21
It is not considered that the development raises any issues relating to daylight, overshadowing or loss of privacy given the nature of the development and the separation distance to residential properties. 22 – Risk associated with children accessing the site. Ultimately this is a risk that needs to be managed by the operator however it is noted in the foregoing assessment that the substation has two boundary fences which secure and enclose the site. 23 – There has been no public engagement or consultation. Requirement for substation should have been presented as part of the consultation on the new primary school. Pre-application consultation with the local community is not required as part of the planning process as the development falls within the ‘local’ category of development. It is understood that separate and additional community consultation outwith the scope of planning requirements has been undertaken following a request from an MSP. 24 – Impact on the green network. Matters relating to the green network have been considered in the foregoing assessment. 25 – Proposal is contrary to the development plan. The development has been assessed against the development plan in the foregoing assessment. 26 - Proposal does not meet minimum recommended distance between substation and residential properties. The development has been assessed against the development plan which does not specify a minimum separation distance. 27 – The cross-section drawings do not consider views from upper floor windows The cross section drawings have been updated to consider upper floor windows. 28 – An archaeological assessment has not been undertaken. The application site is not within an archaeological trigger zone, and the West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) have not submitted a consultation response. 29 – Contamination of water courses. Matters relating to water contamination have been considered in the foregoing assessment. 30 – The initial submission was not comprehensive and lacked information. Additional information has been requested in line with Section 24 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. Following receipt of this additional information, a further Neighbour Notification was undertaken in line with procedural planning requirements.
Page 22
31 – Inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the submitted plans and non-compliance with Heads of Planning Scotland guidance. The initial form and content of the submission complies with the requirements of section 6 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The application site boundary is clearly set out on the Location Plan regarding the extent of land associated with the application. Neighbour Notification has also been undertaken on the basis of the red line set out on the Location Plan. 32 – The additional documents do not lessen concerns raised above. Matters relating to the additional documentation and all above matters have been discussed in the foregoing assessment. 33 – The proposed landscaping is not acceptable mitigation and there is a lack of information on the bund, who will implement the landscaping and who will maintain it. The proposed landscaping has been considered in the foregoing assessment. A planning condition will be used to ensure the landscaping is delivered and maintained. Section 41 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that conditions may be imposed on any land under the control of the applicant whether or not it is land in respect of which the application was made. The fact that the area of landscaping falls outwith the red line site boundary does not prohibit a planning condition in this regard. 34 – The justification in the planning statement is contrary to SPENs liaison officer who advised that the substation was to provide additional capacity for the additional houses being built and BAE systems and not the new primary school. The Council was not party to the discussions with SPEN’s liaison officer and must base the assessment of the application on the information that has been provided. Ultimately as noted in the foregoing assessment there is an increased electricity demand associated with the development of the masterplan at Dargavel both in terms of the remaining residential development plots and the new primary school. Demand from the ETF may be a factor as well as this is an established operation at this location. The substation will ensure this demand can be met and provide a more reliable and resilient electricity supply. 35 – The site selection process is not robust nor has it been undertaken in good faith. The exercise was undertaken by BAE alone, and other sites further away from family homes need to be considered. Other potential sites have not been fully investigated. Matters relating to site selection have been discussed in the forgoing assessment. 36 – The application site is now designated as part of the community woodland park and is used for informal recreation, and the fact that historically it was industrial land is not relevant. Matters relating to the status of the land, the Dargavel park strategy and accessibility have been discussed in the foregoing assessment. 37 - SPEN are tenants of land in the surrounding area and should build the substation on this land.
Page 23
The proposed development must be assessed on its own merits against the development plan. The Council is required to provide a summary of the terms of any planning obligation which is required to be entered into under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in relation to the grant of permission for the proposed development: None. Conclusion In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would accord with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. There are no other material considerations. Planning permission should therefore be granted subject to conditions. Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions. Reason(s) for Recommendation The proposal accords with the provisions of the Development Plan and there were no material considerations which outweighed the presumption in favour of development according with the Development Plan. Condition(s) 1. That the development hereby permitted must be begun within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To be in compliance with Section 58 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by Section 32 of The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. 2. The design, installation and operation of any plant, machinery or equipment shall be such that noise associated with the development does not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR25 between the hours of 2300 to 0700 hours and NR 35 at all other times OR NR35 between the hours of 0700 and 2300 hours with no plant operating outwith these times, when measured within any dwelling in the vicinity of the development. Structure borne vibration from the proposed development shall be imperceptible within any dwelling in the vicinity of the development. For an explanation of noise rating curves, refer to BS 8233:2014 Sound insulation and noise reduction in buildings- code of practice, Annex B. Should any of the above ratings be exceeded the operator shall agree mitigation in writing with the Planning Authority and thereafter implement the mitigation as agreed. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. 3. During the period of construction, all works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary (or at such other place (s) as may first be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority), shall be carried out between the following hours unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority: - Monday to Fridays: 08.00-18.00 - Saturdays: 08.00-13.00 - Sundays and public holidays: No working Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
Page 24
4. That prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include (but not be limited to) provisions in respect of: - mitigation measures for potential dust, noise, and vibration impacts on nearby sensitive receptors and nationally and locally designated sites, - waste management, pollution control, and mitigation to prevent pollution of ground, air and water courses, - the design of the access road including provision for crossing the water course, - a plan showing existing drainage pipes and other utilities within the site and procedures for how they will be safeguarded during construction, - surface water management, - tree protection measures for trees to be retained both within and on the edge of the site boundary, - the location and layout of all site compounds, - procedures for monitoring compliance and dealing with any breaches of the approved plan, - the additional signage to be installed where access will be taken to inform drivers of the construction vehicles. - details of proposed temporary site compound for storage of materials, machinery, and designated car parking. The measures set out within the approved CEMP shall thereafter be implemented on site during the construction phase. Reason: To ensure environmental impacts are mitigated during the construction phase, and that the construction phase is undertaken safely. 5. That prior to the commencement of development on site, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority a detailed drainage strategy for the site. The strategy shall set out the SUDS measures to be implemented at the site to ensure that surface water is managed sustainably and shall include a maintenance plan for all SUDS features. The drainage strategy as approved in writing by the Planning Authority shall thereafter be implemented on site and maintained thereafter for the life of the development. Reason: To ensure effective drainage infrastructure is installed on site and maintained appropriately in the interests of effective surface water management. 6. That prior to the commencement of development on site, the developer shall submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The CTMP shall include (but not be limited to) details in respect of; - Details of the design, layout, geometry and surface finish of the access including geometry for the construction and post construction phase of the development and swept path to demonstrate that the largest expected vehicle can access the site. - The additional signage on both public roads where access will be taken to inform drivers of the construction vehicles. - Details of proposed temporary site compound for storage of materials, machinery, and designated car parking.
Page 25
- Details of construction traffic routing, vehicle types and number of journeys, identifying potential points of conflict between construction traffic and pedestrians and cyclists and measures to mitigate any impact. The details set out within the approved CTMP shall thereafter be implemented on site during the construction phase. Reason: To ensure traffic impacts are mitigated during the construction phase, and that the construction phase is undertaken safely. 7. That prior to the commencement of development on site, the developer shall submit a specification for the written approval of the Planning Authority which details the final design and finishing colour of all above ground elements of the development including (but not limited to) all transformers, housing, floodlights, boundary fencing and gates, and any other plant or machinery to be developed at the site. The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the details within the approved specification. Reason: To ensure the colour of all built elements within the site is reflective of the landscape setting in the interests of visual amenity. 8. That prior to the commencement of development on site, full details of all landscaping works shall be submitted as part of a landscape strategy for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The landscape strategy shall include both the landscape proposals set out in approved drawing 715-3371 revision C and 715-2912 revision J, and also shall include all enhancement measures set out in section 5.15 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by Bowland Ecology, dated March 2025 in respect of: - all existing trees, hedgerows, and boundary treatments both within and on the edge of the site to be retained including the management of these features and protection measures to be implemented during the construction phase - confirmation of any hedgerows or trees that need to be removed including any to form the visibility splays associated with the access sightlines, - all proposed trees, shrubs, hedgerows, areas of grass/wildflower seeding, turfing including size, species, spacing and location, - all earthworks including mounding specifying existing and proposed ground levels, - the location and surface finish of all areas of hard standing including the access road, - all areas of surface water including ponds, and measures for the sustainable management and drainage of surface water where applicable, - a timetable for the implementation of the landscape strategy, - a strategy for the future management and maintenance of all landscaped areas including provision for replacement of trees, shrubs, hedgerows and areas of grass/wildflower seeding and turfing if they were to become diseased, die, become seriously damaged or are removed within 5 years of being planted.
Page 26
The approved landscape strategy shall thereafter be implemented on site in accordance with the approved timetable and shall be managed and maintained thereafter for the duration that the solar park is operational. Reason: To ensure a robust landscaping strategy is implemented in the interests of visual amenity, landscape character and biodiversity. 9. That all mitigations set out in section 5.2 – 5.14 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by Bowland Ecology, dated March 2025 and the outline mitigation measures set out in the Protected Species Statement by Bowland Ecology, dated 12/03/2025 shall be implemented on site during the construction and operation of the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of safeguarding protected species. 10. That prior to the commencement of development on site, the developer shall submit a Peat Management Plan for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The management plan will set out the means by which the disturbance of peat has been avoided, and thereafter detail methods for the handling, storage and compensatory reinstatement of peat that will be disturbed. The approved Peat Management Plan shall thereafter be implemented on site to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure peat on the site is protected and any detrimental impacts are mitigated in the interests of safeguarding carbon rich soils. Advisory Note(s) 1. Glasgow Airport Safeguarding has observed that given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane may be required during its construction. In the circumstances, your attention is drawn to the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of cranes, for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome. This is explained further in Advice Note 4 - Cranes (available at https://www.aoa.org.uk/policy-campaigns/operations-safety). Schedule of Plans Determined Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by Bowland Ecology, dated March 2025 Protected Species Statement Bowland Ecology, dated 12/03/2025 715-3371 C Primary Substation Landscape Proposals 715-3372 B Primary Substation Landscape Sections 715-2912 J Planting Schedules SP4189001 0.G Proposed Substation Layout & Construction Laydown Area SP4189002 0.F Proposed Land Purchase Layout SP4189003 0.H Location Plan SP4189004 0.F Block Plan SP4189005 0.B Existing Site Plan SP4189006 0.E Proposed Site Plan SP4189007 0.E Existing and Proposed Elevations
Page 27
SP4190120 0.A Visual Display of Similar Substation at Another Site For further information please contact James Weir, Development Standards Team, Email: james.weir@renfrewshire.gov.uk.