Agenda Document Pack - Planning and Climate Change Policy Board - 26/08/2025
Renfrewshire Council · 26 August 2025
Back to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board — 26 August 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
20/08/2025 Notice of Meeting and Agenda Planning and Climate Change Policy Board Date Time Venue Tuesday, 26 August 2025 13:00 Council Chambers (Renfrewshire), Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1AN Membership Councillor Jim Paterson (Convener): Councillor Bruce MacFarlane (Depute Convener): Councillor Jennifer Adam: Councillor Alison Ann-Dowling: Councillor Andy Doig: Councillor Chris Gilmour: Councillor Edward Grady: Councillor Neill Graham: Councillor Anne Hannigan: Councillor Kenny MacLaren: Councillor Marie McGurk: Councillor John McNaughtan: Councillor Iain Nicolson: Councillor John Shaw: Councillor Ben Smith: Members of the Press and Public Members of the press and public wishing to attend the meeting should report to the customer service centre where they will be met and directed to the meeting. Further Information This is a meeting which is open to members of the public. A copy of the agenda and reports for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the Customer Service Centre, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley and online at http://renfrewshire.cmis.uk.com/renfrewshire/CouncilandBoards.aspx For further information, please email democratic-services@renfrewshire.gov.uk MARK CONAGHAN Head of Corporate Governance
Page 2
20/08/2025 Webcasting of Meeting This meeting will be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site – at the start of the meeting the Convener will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. To find the webcast please navigate to https://renfrewshire.public-i.tv/core/portal/home Hybrid Meeting Please note that this meeting is scheduled to be held in the Council Chambers. However, it is a hybrid meeting and arrangements have been made for members to join the meeting remotely should they wish.
Page 3
20/08/2025 Items of business Apologies Apologies from members. Declarations of Interest and Transparency Statements Members are asked to declare an interest or make a transparency statement in any item(s) on the agenda and to provide a brief explanation of the nature of the interest or the transparency statement. 1 Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring 2025/26 as at 27 June 2025 Joint report by Chief Executive, Director of Finance and Resources and Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure. 1 - 10 2 Tree Preservation Order Requests Report by Chief Executive. 11 - 26 3 Developer Contributions (Education) - planning guidance update Report by Chief Executive. 27 - 78 4 Planning Applications List of planning applications to be determined by the Board. 79 - 80 4(a) 25/0059/PP - Erection of substation with associated apparatus, fencing, de-mountable floodlights and access track at BAE Land - UK Environmental Test Facility, Glenluce Drive, Bishopton by Scottish Power Energy Networks 81 - 108 4(b) 22/0647/PP - Erection of residential development including access, drainage, landscaping, and associated works at Site Between Strathgryffe Tennis and Squash Club and, Barochan Road, Houston by Stewart Milne Group Ltd 109 - 136
Page 4
20/08/2025 4(c) 23/0622/EB - Installation of a solar farm and battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure with a generating capacity of up to 100mw (Energy Consents Unit consultation request) at Site Between Turningshaw Farm and Knowes Farm, Houston Road, Houston, Johnstone by Energy Consents Unit (ECU) Scottish Government 137 - 168 4(d) 25/0232/PP - Installation of a ground-mounted solar array and associated infrastructure at Land at Middleton Farm, Middleton Road, Linwood, PA3 3AG by Bluestone Energy Ltd 169 - 194 4(e) 25/0241/FUR - Section 42 application to vary planning condition 10 (offsite improvements) of planning permission 20/0510/PP in relation to an alternative footpath location at Former Thornly Park Campus, Caplethill Road, Paisley by Miller Homes Ltd 195 - 208 4(f) 25/0370/PP - Erection of 8 holiday cottages with associated landscaping and infrastructure works at Site 350 Metres Northeast of Fodstone Farm, Kilmacolm Road, Bridge of Weir by Mr Douglas Lyle 209 - 220 4(g) 25/0379/FUR - Section 42 application to vary condition 9 (Drainage Impact Assessment) to include Surface Water Strategy and to remove condition 10 (Surface Water Strategy) of planning permission 22/0236/PP at 57 High Street, Paisley, PA1 2AN by Undefined c/o Tinto Architecture 221 - 230
Page 5
___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 26 August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive, Director of Finance and Resources and Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring 2025/26 as at 27 June 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 At the close of reporting Period 3 on 27 June 2025, the projected revenue outturn at 31 March 2026 for those services reporting to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board was an underspend position of £0.022m (2.8%) against the revised budget for the year. 1.2 The projected capital outturn at 31 March 2026 for projects reporting to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board, is a break-even position. 1.3 This is summarised in the table below and further detail is provided in the report and appendices. Revised Annual Budget £000 Projected Outturn £000 Budget Variance (Adv)/Fav £000 Budget Variance % Revenue Chief Executive’s Service (Planning Services) 575 553 22 3.8% Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Climate) 203 203 0 0.0% Total 778 756 22 2.8% Capital Climate 875 875 0 0.0% Item 1 PACC260825 Page 1 of 230
Page 6
2. Recommendations 2.1 Members are requested to: a) Note the projected Revenue outturn underspend position of £0.022m; b) Note the projected Capital outturn break even position; and c) Note the budget adjustment detailed at section 6. 3. Revenue Budget Projection – underspend of £0.022m by 31 March 2026 3.1 The tables in Appendix 1 present the projected year-end position for all services reporting to this board, by both subjective analysis (what the budget is spent on) and objective analysis (which division is spending the budget). Significant variances affecting the projected position are analysed further below. 3.2 Members are asked to note the inclusion of the Climate service in this Board report, owing to revenue and capital budgets being allocated here for the first time. 3.3 It should be noted that the projected outturn position reported here is based on the latest information available, which is subject to change during the financial year. The impact of any change on this projection will be updated at each board cycle until the close of reporting Period 10. 4. Objective Analysis – Significant Variances 4.1 There are no significant objective analysis variances to report at this stage in the financial year. 5. Subjective Analysis – Significant Variances 5.1 There are no significant subjective analysis variances to report at this stage in the financial year. 5.2 Income – Break-even by 31 March 2026 At the end of the first quarter of the financial year, both Planning and Building Standards income streams are projected to return a breakeven position by the end of the financial year. Due to the very demand-led nature of the income stream, which is impacted by the current economic and financial climate, the level of Planning and Building Standards income can vary over the course of the financial year, which can make it challenging to Page 2 of 230
Page 7
determine trends for income projection. A projected breakeven position reflects a reasonable forecast at this stage in the financial year. 6. Revenue Budget Virements 6.1. Under the Council’s financial regulations, Directors and their nominated officers, in consultation with the Director of Finance and Resources, have certain delegated authority to transfer sums between subjective budget headings within a service division to enable budget management throughout the financial year. This is known as ‘budget virement’. 6.2. Transfers between divisions of the same service / department in excess of £100,000, and transfers between services / departments must be authorised by the respective service Director/Chief Executive and the Director of Finance and Resources for submission to the relevant policy board for approval. Future reports may therefore ask the board to approve budget adjustments that are deemed necessary for good budget management. 6.3. As highlighted at the previous board meeting, the centralised Sustainability Team has now been established. The virement detailed below reflects this change and is presented for noting only: Revenue Budget Adjustments Objective Heading Subjective Heading Amount (£m) Reason Climate Employees 0.242 To fund new Climate team and associated activities. Note that the income relates to staff recharges to Capital. Other Supplies and Services 0.028 Transfer Payments 0.001 Income (0.068) Total 0.203 7. Capital Budget Projection – break-even position by 31 March 2026 7.1. The approved Capital Investment Programme 2025/26 to 2029/30 for Planning and Climate Change is £0.875m. Further information on the projects listed in Appendix 2 was reported to the Board in May 2025. 7.2. The in-year Capital budget is forecast to break even by 31 March 2026. There are no budget adjustments to report. Page 3 of 230
Page 8
Implications of the Report 1. Financial The projected budget outturn position for the Planning and Climate Change Revenue budget is an underspend position of £0.022m (2.8%) at 31 March 2026. Income and expenditure will continue to be monitored closely for the rest of the financial year and as far as possible, steps will be taken to mitigate any overspend. 2. HR & Organisational Development While staffing budgets form a significant proportion of the Council’s revenue budgets, there are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 3. Community/Council Planning Community Plan Our Renfrewshire is thriving The Council’s revenue and capital spend ensures that its facilities are fit for purpose and safe for the community, to maximise accessibility. Our Renfrewshire is well Our Renfrewshire is fair Our Renfrewshire is safe Council Plan Reshaping our place, our economy, and our future The Council’s revenue and capital spend ensures that its facilities are fit for purpose and safe for the community, to maximise accessibility. Building strong, safe, and resilient communities Tackling inequality, ensuring opportunities for all Creating a sustainable Renfrewshire for all to enjoy Ongoing revenue and capital budget monitoring is a tool to enable good financial management so that the Council has resources now and in the future for continued service delivery. Working together to improve outcomes 4. Legal There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 5. Property/Assets There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. Page 4 of 230
Page 9
6. Information Technology There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 7. Equality & Human Rights There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 8. Health & Safety There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in the report. 9. Procurement While Procurement is an important consideration prior to the Council incurring any revenue or capital spend, there are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 10. Risk The potential financial risk that the Council will overspend its approved revenue budgets for the year is managed at a Council-wide level by the Chief Executive and Directors. 11. Privacy Impact There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 12. Cosla Policy Position N/a 13. Climate Change The establishment of the Sustainability Team and the Climate related capital projects noted in Appendix 2 will contribute to the Council’s target of reducing its carbon and other emissions to net zero by 2030. 14. Children’s Rights There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. Page 5 of 230
Page 10
List of Background Papers • Revenue Budget and Council Tax 2025/26, Council 27 February 2025 • The Capital Investment Programme 2025/26 to 2029/30, Council 27 February 2025 • Update on Renfrewshire’s Climate Change Action, Planning and Climate Change Policy Board 20 May 2025 Authors: Revenue - Valerie Howie, Finance Business Partner and Lisa Dickie, Finance Business Partner Capital - Linsey McGregor, Capital Accountant Page 6 of 230
Page 11
Appendix 1 RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING STATEMENT 2025/26 1 April 2025 to 27 June 2025 POLICY BOARD: PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE Objective Summary Approved Annual Budget Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 3 Projected Outturn Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % Chief Executive's Service (Planning Services) 542 33 575 553 22 3.8% Environment, Housing and Infrastructure (Climate) 0 203 203 203 0 0.0% NET EXPENDITURE 542 236 778 756 22 2.8% Subjective Summary Approved Annual Budget Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 3 Projected Outturn Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % Employees 1,656 276 1,932 1,910 22 1.3% Premises Related 1 0 1 1 0 0.0% Transport Related 15 0 15 15 0 0.0% Supplies and Services 193 28 221 221 0 0.0% Third Party Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Transfer Payments 91 1 92 92 0 0.0% Support Services 317 0 317 317 0 0.0% Depreciation and Impairment Losses 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% GROSS EXPENDITURE 2,273 305 2,578 2,556 22 0.9% Income (1,731) (69) (1,800) (1,800) 0 0.0% NET EXPENDITURE 542 236 778 756 22 2.8% Page 7 of 230
Page 12
Appendix 1 RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING STATEMENT 2025/26 1 April 2025 to 27 June 2025 POLICY BOARD: PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE - CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S SERVICE (PLANNING SERVICES) Objective Summary Approved Annual Budget Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 3 Projected Outturn Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % Planning Strategy & Place 565 10 575 550 25 4.3% Development Management 245 10 255 254 1 0.4% Building Standards (268) 13 (255) (251) (4) (1.6%) NET EXPENDITURE 542 33 575 553 22 3.8% Subjective Summary Approved Annual Budget Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 3 Projected Outturn Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % Employees 1,656 34 1,690 1,668 22 1.3% Premises Related 1 0 1 1 0 0.0% Transport Related 15 0 15 15 0 0.0% Supplies and Services 193 0 193 193 0 0.0% Third Party Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Transfer Payments 91 0 91 91 0 0.0% Support Services 317 0 317 317 0 0.0% Depreciation and Impairment Losses 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% GROSS EXPENDITURE 2,273 34 2,307 2,285 22 1.0% Income (1,731) (1) (1,732) (1,732) 0 0.0% NET EXPENDITURE 542 33 575 553 22 3.8% Page 8 of 230
Page 13
Appendix 1 RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING STATEMENT 2025/26 1 April 2025 to 27 June 2025 POLICY BOARD: PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE - ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING & INFRASTRUCTURE (CLIMATE) Objective Summary Approved Annual Budget Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 3 Projected Outturn Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % Climate 0 203 203 203 0 0.0% Subjective Summary Approved Annual Budget Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 3 Projected Outturn Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % Employees 0 242 242 242 0 0.0% Premises Related 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Transport Related 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Supplies and Services 0 28 28 28 0 0.0% Third Party Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Transfer Payments 0 1 1 1 0 0.0% Support Services 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Depreciation and Impairment Losses 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% GROSS EXPENDITURE 0 271 271 271 0 0.0% Income (recharges to Capital) 0 (68) (68) (68) 0 0.0% NET EXPENDITURE 0 203 203 203 0 0.0% Page 9 of 230
Page 14
Appendix 2 Prior Years Approved Budget Revised Projected Expenditure Budget Adjustments Budget Outturn Total Approved Projected to 31/03/2025 2025-26 2025-26 2024-25 Budget Outurn Project Title to 31-Mar-30 to 31-Mar-30 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 CLIMATE PROJECTS 0 875 (840) 35 35 0 0% 327 327 0 0% Airgon Units Implementation 0 0 35 35 35 0 0% 35 35 0 0% Electric Vehicle Fleet Expansion 0 0 140 140 140 0 0% 140 140 0 0% EV Infrastructure Improvements/Expansion 0 0 140 140 140 0 0% 140 140 0 0% Linwood Moss Solar Farm 0 0 50 50 50 0 0% 50 50 0 0% Marketing and Communications 0 0 50 50 50 0 0% 50 50 0 0% Set Up Costs for Recycling Related Projects 0 0 25 25 25 0 0% 25 25 0 0% Solar PV(Photovoltaic) Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0% Windfarm Feasability 0 0 100 100 100 0 0% 100 100 0 0% Building Management Systems(BMS) 0 0 300 300 300 0 0% 300 300 0 0% Total Climate Projects 0 875 0 875 875 0 0% 1,167 1,167 0 0% TOTAL PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE BOARD 0 875 0 875 875 0 0% 1,167 1,167 0 0% *Rolling programmes have a prior year year expenditure of £0 as the expenditure is not directly linked from one year to the next as a singular project. Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY - NON-HOUSING SERVICES 1st April to 27th June 2025 POLICY BOARD: PLANNING & CLIMATE CHANGE Current Year 2025-26 Full Programme - All years Page 10 of 230
Page 15
___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 26 August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Tree Preservation Order Requests ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 This report seeks to respond to a request to apply a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) designation to a tree at Braids Road, Paisley and trees at a site at Inchinnan Industrial Estate. 1.2 The requests submitted are considered in line with the relevant legislation, namely Section 160 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, and with the procedures set out in the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order and Trees in Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Regulations 2011. 1.3 The report recommends that a tree preservation order is made in relation to the tree at Braids Road, Paisley. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 Approve a tree preservation order in respect of a tree at Braids Road, Paisley and agree that officers proceed to prepare the relevant order, serve it on relevant parties and make the order available to the public and seek representations. 2.2 Note that an assessment was undertaken of trees at a site at Inchinnan Business Park and that the trees in question were found not to meet the criteria for a tree preservation order. _________________________________________________________ Item 2 PACC260825 Page 11 of 230
Page 16
3. Background 3.1 A request for a tree preservation order has been received in relation to two sites, namely: A tree at Braids Road, Paisley; and Trees at a site at Inchinnan Business Park. 3.2 A TEMPO assessment has been undertaken in respect of both sites by an independent arboriculturist. Braids Road, Paisley 3.3 The independent assessment notes that the tree in question is a fully mature 100+ years weeping beech tree growing on the fence line marking the boundary of Brodie Park Playground and Braids Road. 3.4 The tree is found to overhang Braids Road, the pavement and playground and has been kept trimmed to maintain overhead clearance for vehicles over the carriageway and pedestrians on all sides. 3.5 The tree is considered to be a fine mature example of a rare species and achieved a TEMPO scoring of 19 thus indicating that the tree definitely merits a tree preservation order. 3.6 A copy of the assessment undertaken is detailed as Background Paper 1 as attached to this report. 3.7 In light of the above, it is recommended that a TPO designation is progressed in relation to the tree in question. Inchinnan Business Park 3.8 The independent assessment notes that the site comprises an open landscaped area of approximately 3.12ha on the eastern side of Inchinnan Business Park, of which approximately 1.25ha was planted as woodland with mostly native tree and shrub species in the early 1990’s. 3.9 It is noted that the site may have ecological, biodiversity and landscape value, however the tree cover comprises a relatively recent landscaping scheme, planted to screen the industrial estate. 3.10 The site achieved a TEMPO score of 6 indicating that making a tree preservation order would be indefensible. 3.11 A copy of the assessment undertaken is detailed as Background Paper 2 as attached to this report. 3.12 In light of the above, it is recommended that a TPO designation is not progressed in relation to the site in question. Page 12 of 230
Page 17
Next Steps 3.13 A TPO is prepared in respect of the tree at Braids Road, Paisley. Thereafter the order will be served on the respective landowners and made available to the public for comment. 3.14 Following a period of public consultation, the TPO will be returned to Board to take account of any comments received and to confirm, or otherwise the order. ___________________________________________________________________ Implications of the Report 1. Financial – None. 2. HR & Organisational Development – None. 3. Community/Council Planning – Reshaping our place, our economy and our future – the TPO designation will offer protection to a tree and protect it in the long term for the benefit of the local area. Creating a sustainable Renfrewshire for all to enjoy – the TPO designation will offer protection to a tree which contributes to the amenity of the local area. 4. Legal - The recommendations in the report would require tree preservation order to made in relation to the tree in question. Should the order be confirmed it would require to be lodged with the Land Register of Scotland. 5. Property/Assets – the tree at Braids Road is under the control of Renfrewshire Council. In the event that maintenance work is required to be undertaken in respect of the tree, permission to undertake works to a tree would be required via the submission of a treeworks application. 6. Information Technology – None. 7. Equality & Human Rights - The Recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report. If required following implementation, the actual impact of the recommendations and the mitigating actions will be reviewed and monitored, and the results of the assessment will be published on the Council’s website. 8. Health & Safety – None. 9. Procurement – None. Page 13 of 230
Page 18
10. Risk – None. 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Climate Risk – None. 13. Children’s Rights – None. 14. Cosla Policy Position – None. _______________________________________________________ List of Background Papers (a) Background Paper 1 – TEMPO Assessment of a weeping beech at Brodie Park Playground, Braids Road, Paisley (b) Background Paper 2 – TEMPO Assessment of woodland at site at Inchinnan Industria Estate, Inchinnan ___________________________________________________________________ Author: David Love, Chief Planning Officer Tel: 07483410182; Email: david.love@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 14 of 230
Page 19
Crownhead, Stobo, Scottish Borders, EH45 8NX t: 01721 760268 e: mail@treeconsultancygroup.com www.treeconsultancygroup.com Principal Consultant: Kenneth Harvey MICFor. M.Arbor.A. Dip.For. Chartered Arboriculturist Tree Consultancy Group Arboriculture - Urban Forestry - Planning 'TEMPO' ASSESSMENT OF A WEEPING BEECH AT BRODIE PARK PLAYGROUND BRAIDS ROAD PAISLEY Client: Renfrewshire Council Date: 9th June 2025 Page 15 of 230
Page 20
1 INSTRUCTIONS 1.1 We have been instructed by Mr David Love, Head of Planning at Renfrewshire Council, to assess the suitability of a Weeping beech Fagus pendula at Brodie Park Playground for inclusion within a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The assessment was to be carried out using the TEMPO evaluation method developed by Julian Forbes-Laird MICFor for CBA Trees Ltd. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 A TPO suitability assessment starts with a walkover assessment carried out from places to which the public have access, as the purpose of protecting trees by a TPO is primarily to preserve their visual amenity in the landscape. This process involves identifying the most significant trees, groups or woodlands and then considering the expediency of making them the subjects of a TPO. 2.2 In order to be able to decide which trees are suitable for inclusion in a TPO and which aren't, the use of some kind of system is recommended to ensure, as far as possible, that selection is carried out in a fair, consistent, objective, and repeatable manner. It helps the Council explain to landowners why their trees have been included in a TPO, and also helps to avoid including large numbers of low value trees within the TPO system which the Council then has to manage. 2.3 The most widely used appraisal system developed for this purpose is the Tree Evaluation Method for Tree Preservation Orders - TEMPO. It is an easy to use field guide to decision-making which also provides a written record of the process. It is presented as a single-page pro forma, and allocates scores to various relevant criteria. When these scores are added together, it gives a total figure which informs whether the tree merits protection by a TPO and, if so, whether the making of a TPO is justifiable (i.e. defensible). As with any such system, its efficacious use is predicated on the assessor having a thorough understanding and knowledge of the subject matter. 3 SITE VISIT AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 We visited the site to carry out an assessment of the tree on 21st May 2025. The tree was assessed to establish its general condition, character, longevity and visibility in the wider area. 4 ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 4.1 The tree is a fully mature 100+ years old Weeping beech growing on the fenceline marking the boundary of Brodie Park Playground and Braids Road, approximately 80m west of the junction with Carriagehill Drive. It appears to have been 'top grafted' where the weeping branches of the pendula cultivar were grafted onto a single trunk of a standard beech rootstock at around 1.8 metres (6 feet). It has a low, wide-spreading, multi-stemmed crown of typical weeping form with a height of around 12 metres and an average crown radius of 10 metres giving a crown spread of around 20 metres. 4.2 As it overhangs Braids Road, the pavement and the playground, it has been kept trimmed to maintain overhead clearance for vehicles over the carriageway and pedestrians on all sides. The trunk has overgrown the old park railings to some extent. There is a small patch of dead bark with incipient decay at ground level on the north (pavement) side but only minor incipient decay is visible. There are no external signs of the presence of decay fungi and overall the structure appears to be sound with only a few small decay pockets in old pruning wounds. The crown foliage shows normal vitality for an urban beech of this age. 1 Page 16 of 230
Page 21
4.3 Overall the tree appears to be a fine mature example of a rare species. It may be the even rarer Aurea cultivar with leaves that open bright yellow in Spring, but the foliage was normal green at the time of our visit so we cannot be sure. 4.4 A plan of the site along with the relevant TEMPO score sheet is attached. We are informed that there is no known threat to the tree at present, and that the making of a Tree Preservation Order would be precautionary only. Hence we have allocated the score of 1 point under Part 2 : Amenity assessment. If an actual threat is foreseeable, that score should be raised accordingly. 5 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 The TEMPO evaluation for the tree produced a total score of 19 points, indicating that it definitely merits a Tree Preservation Order. Kenneth Harvey MICFor. Dip.For. Chartered Arboriculturist 9th June 2025 2 Page 17 of 230
Page 22
3 Page 18 of 230
Page 23
4 Page 19 of 230
Page 24
TREE EVALUATION METHOD FOR PRESERVATION ORDERS ‐ TEMPO SURVEY DATA SHEET & DECISION GUIDE REFER TO GUIDANCE NOTE FOR ALL DEFINITIONS Part 1: Amenity assessment a) Condition & suitability for TPO 5) Good Highly suitable 3) Fair/satisfactory Suitable 1) Poor Unlikely to be suitable 0) Dead/dying/dangerous* Unsuitable * Relates to existing context and is intended to apply to severe irremediable defects only b) Retention span (in years) & suitability for TPO 5) 100+ Highly suitable 4) 40‐100 Very suitable 2) 20‐40 Suitable 1) 10‐20 Just suitable 0) <10* Unsuitable *Includes trees which are an existing or near future nuisance, including those clearly outgrowing their context, or which are significantly negating the potential of other trees of better quality c) Relative public visibility & suitability for TPO Consider realistic potential for future visibility with changed land use 5) Very large trees with some visibility, or prominent large trees Highly suitable 4) Large trees, or medium trees clearly visible to the public Suitable 3) Medium trees, or large trees with limited view only Suitable 2) Young, small, or medium/large trees visible only with difficulty Barely suitable 1) Trees not visible to the public, regardless of size Probably unsuitable d) Other factors Trees must have accrued 7 or more points (with no zero score) to qualify 5) Principal components of formal arboricultural features, or veteran trees 4) Tree groups, or principal members of groups important for their cohesion 3) Trees with identifiable historic, commemorative or habitat importance 2) Trees of particularly good form, especially if rare or unusual 1) Trees with none of the above additional redeeming features (inc. those of indifferent form) ‐1) Trees with poor form or which are generally unsuitable for their location Part 2: Expediency assessment Trees must have accrued 10 or more points to qualify 5) Immediate threat to tree inc. s.211 Notice 3) Foreseeable threat to tree 2) Perceived threat to tree 1) Precautionary only Part 3: Decision guide Any 0 Do not apply TPO 1‐6 TPO indefensible 7‐11 Does not merit TPO 12‐15 TPO defensible 16+ Definitely merits TPO Tree details TPO Ref (if applicable): Tree/Group No: Species: Owner (if known): Location: Score & Notes Score & Notes Score & Notes Score & Notes Add Scores for Total: Date: Surveyor: Score & Notes Decision: May 2025 K Harvey MICFor N/A Renfrewshire Council 5 A rare and unusual mature tree in good overall condition for its age and location. T1 Weeping beech Fagus pendula Brodie Park Playground, Braids Road, Paisley 4 Fully mature, but should have at least another 40 years of useful safe life expectancy. Unlikely to last another 100 years, but could do so. 4 Large tree clearly visible to the public. 5 A principal component of a large, formal arboricultural feature (i.e. Brodie Park). May be the rare Golden cultivar ‘Aurea pendula’. 1 Precautionary only - no known current threat to tree. 19 Definitely merits a TPO Page 20 of 230
Page 25
Page 21 of 230
Page 26
Crownhead, Stobo, Scottish Borders, EH45 8NX t: 01721 760268 e: mail@treeconsultancygroup.com www.treeconsultancygroup.com Principal Consultant: Kenneth Harvey MICFor..M.Arbor.A. Dip.For. Chartered Arboriculturist Tree Consultancy Group Arboriculture - Urban Forestry - Planning 'TEMPO' ASSESSMENT OF WOODLAND SITE AT INCHINNAN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE INCHINNAN RENFREWSHIRE PA4 9AF Client: Renfrewshire Council Date: June 2025 Page 22 of 230
Page 27
1 INSTRUCTIONS 1.1 We have been instructed by Mr David Love, Head of Planning at Renfrewshire Council, to assess the suitability of a site at Inchinnan Business Park, for inclusion within a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The assessment was to be carried out using the TEMPO evaluation method developed by Julian Forbes-Laird MICFor. for CBA Trees Ltd. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 A TPO suitability assessment starts with an appraisal carried out from places to which the public have access, as the purpose of protecting trees by a TPO is primarily to preserve their visual amenity in the landscape. This process involves identifying the most significant trees, groups or woodlands and then considering the expediency of making them the subjects of a TPO. 2.2 In order to be able to decide which trees are suitable for inclusion in a TPO and which aren't, the use of some kind of system is recommended to ensure, as far as possible, that selection is carried out in a fair, consistent, objective, and repeatable manner. It helps the Council explain to landowners why their trees have been included in a TPO, and also helps to avoid including large numbers of low value trees within the TPO system which the Council then has to manage. 2.3 The most widely used appraisal system developed for this purpose is the Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders - TEMPO. It is an easy to use field guide to decision-making which also provides a written record of the process. It is presented as a single-page pro forma, and allocates scores to various relevant criteria. When these scores are added together, it gives a total figure which informs whether the tree merits protection by a TPO and, if so, whether the making of a TPO is justifiable (i.e. defensible). As with any such system, its efficacious use is predicated on the assessor having a thorough understanding and knowledge of the subject matter. 2.4 As Woodland TPOs are essentially different in nature and intent to 'normal' TPOs, TEMPO has been produced in two forms - one for individual trees and groups of trees, and one for woodlands. In the assessment of the trees at Inchinnan Business Park we have used the woodland version. 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 The trees were assessed to establish their general condition, character, longevity and visibility in the wider area. 3.2 The tree cover was considered in the terms of a) individual trees, b) groups of trees and c) woodlands as deemed appropriate. Given the uniform age, recent history and general character of the site, it was considered appropriate that a Woodland TEMPO evaluation was carried out. 4 ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 4.1 The site comprises an open landscaped area of approximately 3.12 ha on the eastern side of Inchinnan Business Park, of which approximately 1.25 ha was planted as a woodland with mostly native tree and shrub species in the early 1990s. 4.2 The site is clearly visible to the public and will be of increasing significance in the wider landscape as the trees mature. 1 Page 23 of 230
Page 28
4.3 Although the site may have ecological, biodiversity and landscape value, the tree cover essentially comprises a relatively recent landscaping scheme, planted to screen the industrial estate. 4.4 A plan of the site along with the relevant TEMPO score sheet is attached. 5 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 The TEMPO evaluation for the site produced a total score of only 6 points, indicating that making a Tree Preservation Order would be indefensible. Kenneth Harvey MICFor. Dip.For. Chartered Arboriculturist 10th June 2025 2 Page 24 of 230
Page 29
WOODLAND EVALUATION METHOD FOR PRESERVATION ORDERS (WOODLAND TEMPO) SURVEY DATA SHEET & DECISION GUIDE Date: Surveyor: Woodland details TPO Ref (if applicable): Location:/OSGR: Owner (if known): Composition: REFER TO GUIDANCE NOTE FOR ALL DEFINITIONS Part 1: Amenity assessment a) Condition & suitability for TPO 10) Unmanaged – good/fair condition Highly suitable 8) Unmanaged – poor condition Very suitable 5) Excessively managed Suitable 2) Under good management Barely suitable 1) Derelict Unlikely to be suitable 0) Dead/dying/dangerous* Unsuitable Score & Notes * Relates to existing context and is intended to apply to majority of main stand trees having severe irremediable defects b) Naturalness & suitability for TPO Score & Notes 10) Ancient / ASN Highly suitable 8) Recent semi-natural Very suitable 5) Replanted ancient Suitable* 2) Recent native plantation Barely suitable 1) Pioneer dominant Unlikely to be suitable 0) Recent exotic plantation Unsuitable * If few old growth trees present & little or no regen consider TEMPO tree/group assessment c) Size (ha) & suitability for TPO Score & Notes 10) 100 + Extremely suitable 8) 10 - <100 Highly suitable 5) 5 - <10 Very Suitable 2) 0.25 to <5 Suitable 1) 0.1 – <0.25 Barely suitable 0) < 0.1 Unsuitable (consider TEMPO tree/group assessment) d) Cultural factors Woodland must have accrued 13 or more points (with no zero score) to qualify Score & Notes 10) Historical record / vital landscape feature / ≥10% veteran tree population present 8) SSSI or other national designation; significant landscape / habitat importance 5) Woodland with local designation / high public use / identifiable habitat value 2) Woodland with internal public access (use light or unknown) / some habitat value 1) Woodland adjacent to highway or with external public access / low habitat value 0) Woodland with none of the above additional features inc. minimal habitat value Part 2: Expediency assessment Woodland must have accrued 15 or more points to qualify 5) Immediate threat to overall woodland 4) Immediate risk of significant loss / severe fragmentation 3) Foreseeable risk of significant loss / severe fragmentation 2) Foreseeable risk of partial loss / fragmentation 1) Precautionary only Score & Notes Part 3: Decision guide Add Scores for Total: Decision: Any 0 Do not apply TPO 1-12 TPO indefensible 13-15 Does not merit TPO 16-20 TPO defensible 21 + Definitely merits TPO 2 points- Under management 2 points - Recent native plantation 2 points - 3.25 ha in total of which 1.25 ha is woodland N/a - insufficient points. N/a - insufficient points. 6 points TPO indefensible June 2025 K Harvey Dip.For. N/a Greenock Road, Inchinnan 247684, 668539 Scottish Enterprise Mixed native Page 25 of 230
Page 30
Page 26 of 230
Page 31
___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 26 August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 This report sets out finalised planning guidance on developer contributions towards education infrastructure from new housing development in Renfrewshire. 1.2 Following the publication of a draft version of the guidance for consultation purposes, amendments have been made, and the finalised guidance is now presented for approval by Board. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Board approve the finalised Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance set out in Appendix 1. ___________________________________________________________________ 3. Background 3.1 Developer contributions, also known as planning obligations, seek to mitigate the impacts of a proposed development and make it acceptable in planning terms. They can be used to secure financial contributions to, or in-kind provision of, infrastructure which is necessary to support new developments. 3.2 Developer contributions are usually entered into in accordance with Section 75 of Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, and are commonly referred to as Section 75 Agreements (S75). They are often used Item 3 PACC260825 Page 27 of 230
Page 32
where a planning condition or another form of legal agreement would not be appropriate to address the impact of the development in question. Contributions can also be made under Section 69 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 3.3 Scottish Government’s policy on Planning Obligations is expressed in Circular 3/2012 (Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements - Revised 2020). Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all the following tests: • necessary to make a proposal acceptable in planning terms; • serve a planning purpose and, where it is possible to identify infrastructure provision requirements to advance, should relate to development plans; • relate to the proposed development either as a direct consequence of the development or arising from the cumulative impact of development in the area • fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the proposed development • be reasonable in all other respects 3.4 Policy 18 of NPF4 (Infrastructure first) requires the impact of development proposals on infrastructure to be mitigated. It also restates the tests set out in paragraph 3.3. Policy I8 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) identifies education facilities as a type of infrastructure for which contributions will be sought to address deficits or a shortfall in infrastructure capacity that arise as a direct result of new development. ___________________________________________________________________ 4. Finalised Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance Changes to the draft guidance prior to publication 4.1 The draft Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance was approved for consultation purposes by Board on 19 March 2024, with the recommendation including for the Convenor, in conjunction with the Head of Economy and Development, to make any further incidental changes to the draft document as may be relevant, to account for any changes made by the Board and to ensure that the consultation document is as up to date as possible at the time of publication. Changes made to the draft guidance prior to publication included: • The introduction of an appendix setting out school roll projections • The removal of RAG (red/amber/green) status for each Renfrewshire school based on the likely impact of new housing development on the capacity of the school • More detail of currently planned school investment was introduced • A different pupil product ratio (i.e. the number of pupils generated by each new house) was used based on information received from the Page 28 of 230
Page 33
Council’s consultants Edge Analytics. The new pupil product ratio did not differentiate between houses and flats • The removal of an exception relating to developments of 9 or less houses not paying a developer contribution • The removal of a flow chart and detail around how the guidance will be applied. • Clarification added that the guidance will apply to applications for affordable/social housing. Changes to the draft guidance following publication and consultation 4.2 The draft guidance was published for consultation on 10 January 2025 for a 6- week consultation period ending on 21 February 2025. Eighteen representations were received. A summary of these and the Council’s proposed response are included as Appendix 2. Changes made to the guidance following publication and consultation on the draft guidance are set out below. 4.3 School roll projections – these have been removed from the guidance document and will be published separately alongside the guidance on the Council website, as this will allow for the most up to date projections to be published without the guidance having to be updated. The school roll projections have also been listed in secondary school clusters with a column added indicating whether school rolls are projected to exceed 85% of the planning capacity of the school during the projection period. Current school roll projections are attached in Appendix 3. 4.4 Currently planned school investment – this section has been removed from the guidance as planned school investment is likely to change over the lifetime of the guidance. 4.5 Explanation of potential mitigation/solutions introduced – the guidance sets out at para 4.6 that if the threshold for seeking a financial contribution is reached, consideration will also be given by the Council to the feasibility of other options to mitigate the impact including operational changes within a school, the implementation of the Council’s Admissions to Schools and Placing Request Policy, and, in limited, circumstances, the consideration of a catchment review to accommodate the application site. 4.6 Developer contribution per pupil – an appendix has been added to the guidance setting out how the calculation of £56,000 per pupil has been calculated. 4.7 Exceptions – additional exceptions to the developer contributions guidance have been added. These are: applications for developments of 1-3 houses; and applications for matters specified in conditions, where no contribution was sought at the planning permission in principle stage. 4.8 Changes in circumstances – a section has been added at 5.7 relating to changes in circumstances such as changes in the number of units to what was originally approved, or when school projections are updated and indicate Page 29 of 230
Page 34
that an increase in school capacity is no longer required or not required to the same extent. It is also made clearer at 5.9 that a developer contribution that has been made in relation to a development that is no longer going ahead can be returned to the developer if the related planning permission has lapsed and the contribution made has not been spent or committed. 4.9 General –some of the language and terms used in the guidance have been rephrased or reordered and unnecessary sentences/ paragraphs/ sections removed. Next steps 4.10 Once approved, the finalised guidance will be applied with immediate effect, including to extant applications for which the contribution level has not yet been negotiated/approved. ___________________________________________________________________ Implications of the Report 1. Financial – the planning guidance outlines that a contribution of £56,000 per additional pupil space required will be sought from developers where forecast school capacity in the relevant catchment when new housing is proposed is above the Council’s stated threshold for such a contribution All developer contributions received will be held in a separately identifiable ringfenced account until committed/used, when the funds will be transferred to the appropriate Council project. If a developer contribution is not fully expended within 10 years, any unused contribution will be refunded to the applicant, along with relative interest accrued. 2. HR & Organisational Development – None. 3. Community/Council Planning – Renfrewshire Community Plan 2017-2027 - the guidance is considered to align with the Community Plan priority of ‘Our Renfrewshire is thriving’ in relation to making sure infrastructure is in place to support growth in the local economy and population. Renfrewshire Council Plan 2024 – the guidance is considered to align with the Council Plan Place outcome through supporting delivery of the Council’s strategic capital investment programme in the school estate. 4. Legal – the guidance will be non-statutory planning guidance, meaning it will not form part of the development plan. It will be a material consideration in the determination of relevant planning applications. See also ‘Risks’ section. 5. Property/Assets – developer contributions will be used to invest in Renfrewshire education estate in order to increase its capacity as required by new housing development. 6. Information Technology – None. Page 30 of 230
Page 35
7. Equality & Human Rights – The recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report. 8. Health & Safety – None. 9. Procurement – None 10. Risk (i) if the guidance is not applied and developer contributions towards investment to increase school capacity are not collected, there is a risk that the cost of that investment falls on the Council or is not made, potentially meaning insufficient capacity will exist to accommodate pupils in their catchment school. This risk can be mitigated by the application of the guidance and alignment of the Learning Estate Strategy and housing development locations. (ii) consultation responses from the development industry indicate that the draft developer contribution guidance is not considered to meet the tests for planning obligations set out in Circular 3/2012. There is therefore a risk that application of the guidance could be challenged. This has been mitigated by making changes to the guidance to reflect some of the concerns set out in the development industry responses. However, the risk of a challenge to the guidance remains. 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Climate Risk – None. 13. Children’s Rights – investment in schools to ensure there is sufficient capacity to accommodate all catchment pupils has some alignment with United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provision 28 – every child has the right to an education. 14. Cosla Policy Position – None. _______________________________________________________ Appendices Appendix 1 – Finalised Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance, August 2025 Appendix 2 – Summary of responses to draft Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance Appendix 3 – School roll projections List of Background Papers Report to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board, 19 March 2024, ‘Developer Contributions (Education) - new planning guidance’ Page 31 of 230
Page 36
___________________________________________________________________ Authors: Alasdair Morrison, Head of Economy and Development alasdair.morrison@renfrewshire.gov.uk David Love, Chief Planning Officer david.love@renfrewshire.gov.uk Alan Williamson, Strategy & Place Manager, alan.williamson@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 32 of 230
Page 37
Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Planning Guidance Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance August 2025 Page 33 of 230
Page 38
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 2 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Contents 1. Introduction………………………………………........................................ 3 2. Background ………………………......................................................... 4 3. Current Context …………………………............................................. 7 4. Calculating the impact of new development …………........... 9 5. Legal Agreements .……………………………...................................... 16 6. Contact .........................................………......................................... 18 AUGUST 2025 Page 34 of 230
Page 39
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 3 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE 1. This Developer Contributions (Education) planning guidance is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Applicants and other stakeholders should take account of the guidance when preparing development proposals. This guidance details the Council’s approach to securing developer contributions in respect of education provision and will be reflected in all such discussions with applicants in relation to proposals for residential developments. The guidance covers a range of issues related to education impact from new housing development, including current school capacity, proposed housing development by catchment, estimated pupil product ratios from new housing and links to Renfrewshire Council’s Learning Estate Strategy. The guidance requires financial contributions from new housing developments in school catchments which (as a result of all new housing being built or expected to be built) will result in schools operating at or above 85% of the school planning capacity. The 85% threshold will be calculated from the published school planning capacities and projected school rolls. 1.1 1.2 Introduction 1.3 1.4 The principal aim of this guidance is to introduce a degree of certainty for all stakeholders concerned with education capacity in Renfrewshire. Linking with the Council’s Learning Estate Strategy, it clarifies how housing developments and the school pupils they generate will be accommodated within Renfrewshire’s schools. Renfrewshire’s Planning Service actively encourage discussions with prospective applicants for residential development at the earliest opportunity to ensure that they are fully conversant with the implications of this (and other) planning guidance before submitting applications for development. Prospective applicants are encouraged to submit a pre-application enquiry in the first instance to dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk. 1.5 1.6 Aims of the guidance 1.7 Review This data informing this guidance will be reviewed at regular intervals to ensure that the guidance is being applied appropriately and accurately. Page 35 of 230
Page 40
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 4 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE 2. Planning obligations seek to mitigate the impacts of a proposed development and make it acceptable in planning terms. They can be used to secure financial contributions to, or in-kind provision of, necessary new social and community infrastructure to support new developments. Obligations are usually entered into in accordance with Section 75 of Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, and are commonly referred to as Section 75 Agreements (S75). They are often used where a planning condition or another form of legal agreement would not be appropriate to address the impact of the development in question. Planning obligations can be entered into between a person with an interest in the land and the planning authority; or via a unilateral undertaking by a person with an interest in the land. S75 agreements run with the land and the obligation continues to be enforceable against any subsequent owner of the land until such time as the details of the agreement are fully discharged by the local planning authority. 2.1 2.2 Background 2.3 Purpose of planning obligations Scottish Government’s policy on Planning Obligations is expressed in Circular 3/2012 (Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements - Revised 2020). The Circular sets out five tests which must be met when seeking to secure a planning obligation: 2.4 Necessary to make a proposal acceptable in planning terms; Serve a planning purpose and, where it is possible to identify infrastructure provision requirements to advance, should relate to development plans; Related to the proposed development either as a direct consequence of the development or arising from the cumulative impact of development in an area; Fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the proposed development; and Be reasonable in all other respects. A planning authority may utilise an alternative legal mechanism to secure developer contributions in certain circumstances. Section 69 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 provides the Council with the power to enter into an agreement with the developer with the discharge of any if its functions. Known, more widely, as Section 69 Agreements, they can include payment of financial contributions and is normally used when a one-time payment of a developer contribution is agreed, without the need for this agreement to be binding on subsequent owners of the land. 2.5 2.6 Page 36 of 230
Page 41
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 5 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In the case of Renfrewshire, the development plan currently consists of: National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4; 2023); and Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) Policy 18 of NPF4 (Infrastructure First) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. The policy notes that developments will be supported where they provide or contribute to infrastructure in line with that identified as necessary in Local Development and Delivery Programmes. In addition, Policy 18 notes that the impacts of development proposal on infrastructure should be mitigated. The policy states that: Development proposals will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that provision is made to address the impacts on infrastructure. Where planning conditions, planning obligations, or other legal agreements are to be used, the relevant tests will apply. 2.7 2.8 Renfrewshire’s Planning Policy Context 2.9 Policy I8 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (Developer Contributions) sets the policy context for the outlined framework: Contributions will be sought for the following items to address infrastructure deficits and/ or a shortfall in infrastructure capacity that arise as a direct result of new development. Any contribution sought will be appropriate, proportionate, necessary and relevant to the nature of the development, its scale and its location: 2.10 Education – additional classrooms and associated school facilities required to support the operation of a school, related to the number of pupils generated by the development; Healthcare Services and Facilities – where investment is required to provide healthcare infrastructure to address increased demand generated by the development; Traffic Management and Active Travel – traffic signals, crossings, measures required in relation to road safety and providing safer routes to school, active travel connections and improvements to the road network required to support the development; Public Transport Infrastructure – where investment is required to address increased demand associated with the development; Open Space – where a contribution is required to enhance open space provision off-site to support the development; Blue/Green Infrastructure – where a contribution is required in relation to the sustainable management of water and where mitigation including on-site or offsite habitat creation or enhancements to watercourses are required. Page 37 of 230
Page 42
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 6 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Renfrewshire has been the subject of significant levels of housebuilding in recent years. The development of sites at Renfrew Riverside, Dargavel, Hawkhead Road in Paisley and Johnstone South West (amongst others) have kept completions at a relatively high level. The table below illustrates the annual total new build completions by year since 2012. Full analysis of Renfrewshire’s housing land supply on a site-by-site basis is available in the annually published Housing Land Audit. 2.11 2.12 Recent housing development in Renfrewshire YEAR OWNER OCCUPIED PRIVATE RENTED COMBINED LA/SOCIAL HOUSING ANNUAL TOTAL NEW HOUSING COMPLETIONS 2012-13 251 0 173 424 2013-14 313 0 219 532 2014-15 517 0 26 543 2015-16 577 0 101 678 2016-17 643 0 167 810 2017-18 601 0 107 708 2018-19 784 0 175 959 2019-21 1,383 0 324 1,707 2021-22 572 0 222 794 2022-23 422 0 195 617 2023-24 504 0 158 662 Total 6,567 0 1,867 8,434 Annual average (12 years) 547 0 156 703 Table 1 – Annual New Housing Completions in Renfrewshire Page 38 of 230
Page 43
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 7 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE 3. Current school rolls and school roll projections at each of Renfrewshire’s 61 mainstream primary and secondary schools are published by Renfrewshire Council on a regular basis. [School roll projections are not prepared for Renfrewshire’s two Additional Support Needs schools]. School rolls projections are regularly updated by the Council and published online to allow for this policy to reflect the latest circumstances in the assessment of planning applications. Calculations of developer contributions will be based on the latest published information on school rolls projections and school planning capacity. Each residential property within Renfrewshire sits within a ‘catchment area’ for denominational and non-denominational primary and secondary schools. It should be noted that school catchments are not permanent and may need to be revised based on pupil demand, new housing development and factors such as the location of new or enlarged schools. Although the Council aims to provide enough places for all children at the preferred catchment primary and secondary school, living within the delineated catchment area of a school does not guarantee a child a place at a catchment school. 3.3 Current Context 3.2 Renfrewshire school capacity 3.1 3.5 Each school in Renfrewshire has a planning capacity which is a physical, theoretical measure of the total number of pupils which could be accommodated in a school, based on the total number of teaching spaces, the size of those spaces and the class size maxima. Renfrewshire Council will consider the requirement for developer contributions when school roll projections indicate that school capacity will reach or exceed 85% of the school’s planning capacity. The rationale for 85% in the Renfrewshire context is that flexibility is required in each school to plan accommodation across all year groups and allow for sufficient communal and circulation space. At the time of publication of this Guidance, Renfrewshire Council has prepared school roll projections covering the period to 2033/34 for the number of pupils expected at each of its primary and secondary schools. This is based upon a cohort progression model of anticipated pupil journeys through the school estate and also the range of planned housebuilding expected to take place across Renfrewshire in this time period based on the finalised 2023 housing land audit. School roll projections will be updated and published regularly to inform this guidance, and to ensure they are based on updated housing development projections set out in a finalised housing land audit. 3.4 Page 39 of 230
Page 44
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 8 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE In applying this guidance, the Council will take account of all housing sites within Renfrewshire that are programmed for development during the period under consideration including sites which are allocated within the Local Development Plan, benefit from planning permission or appear in the Council’s published annual Housing Land Audit. More details of each are included in the listed documents which are available on the Council’s website. Housing Land Audit - Renfrewshire Website Renfrewshire Development Plan - Renfrewshire Website The Council’s forecast school rolls do not account for any “windfall” housing sites (see definition below) that may emerge during the period. These are sites which have been granted planning permission or otherwise identified as suitable for housing, which previously were not identified in the Local Development Plan or Housing Land Audit. Such sites are normally included in the next update of the Housing Land Audit. The Council reserve the opportunity to update capacity projections for individual schools and seek developer contributions from windfall sites and other sites in the catchment if a windfall site is likely to result in any school capacity reaching or exceeding 85% of its planning capacity. 3.6 Currently planned housing 3.7 Page 40 of 230
Page 45
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 9 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE 4. The pupil product ratio (PPR) is a commonly used calculation to demonstrate the number of pupils likely to be generated by new housing. Most local authorities in Scotland use a PPR in determining the level of education development contribution for policies of this type. Renfrewshire Council has based its PPR (see below) on advice from Edge Analytics and their methodology for such calculations. Calculating the impact of new development on school rolls and any financial contribution required 4.2 Pupil Product Ratio 4.1 Age group Type of school Pupils per house/ flat Primary schools Denominational 0.07 Non-Denominational 0.20 Total 0.27 Secondary schools Denominational 0.04 Non-Denominational 0.09 Total 0.13 Impact will be measured across all 4 principal school types for each proposed residential development. This will occur at the time of a planning application being considered by the Council. In any instances where the pupils generated by the new housing, and other housing proposed in the catchment, would cause the planning capacity threshold (85%) to be met or exceeded, a developer contribution may be sought in relation to that application. A contribution may be required in relation to more than one school type if the 85% threshold of planning capacity is breached by the proposed level of planned housing. The PPR values will be reviewed by the Council (and updated if necessary) regularly following the adoption of this guidance. Based on school roll projections at the time of assessing a planning application for residential development, the Council will determine whether a financial contribution is likely to be required toward school infrastructure investment, and the level of financial contribution it will seek to negotiate from the applicant. The financial contribution being sought will be directly related to the impact on school capacity resulting from the pupils expected to be generated from the development. 4.3 4.4 Table 2 – Pupil Product Ratio in Renfrewshire housing development 4.5 Page 41 of 230
Page 46
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 10 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE During the consideration of the planning application (prior to the application being determined) and its potential impact on school capacity in the relevant catchments (primary, secondary, non-denominational and denominational), the Council will assess if there are other options available for accommodating the estimated capacity impact. It should be noted that this will be assessed based on the particular circumstances at that point in time which will include the latest school roll projections and all identified housing land supply in the relevant catchments. These other options could include: Pupil Product Ratio 4.6 Consideration of any proposed mitigation measures for major planning applications (50 or more new homes) will be taken by the Council’s Learning Estate Delivery Board. In the event that any financial contribution paid to the Council is not spent or committed for the purposes of increasing education within 10 years of being received, the contribution will be returned to the applicant in line with the terms of the associated legal agreement. 4.7 Reasonable operational changes that can be made at the school to accommodate the additional pupils that will be generated by the new development(s); The implementation of the Council’s Admissions to Schools and Placing Request Policy with regard to the catchments of that planning application site; Consideration of a catchment review to accommodate the application site which would assist in helping to meet all or some of the capacity impact. It should be borne in mind that such instances will be limited and any changes would be subject to formal consultation in line with the terms of the Schools (Consultation)y(Scotland) Act 2010. It should be noted that catchment reviews will normally be aligned with the preparation of a new Local Development Plan. 4.8 Page 42 of 230
Page 47
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 11 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE 4.10 Cumulative effect of multiple applications for housing in the same catchment 4.9 Each planning application will be assessed individually and on its own merits against the development plan and other material considerations in effect at the time of its assessment. In considering any planning application submitted, school capacity projections and any required contributions will be based on all new homes included in the latest Housing Land Audit which are programmed to deliver completions in the relevant catchment in time period under consideration. The Council will assume that all homes programmed in the Housing Land Audit will be built as projected in the timescales estimated. Council officers responsible for monitoring housing land supply will be involved in assessing cumulative impact, as will colleagues in Children’s Services in terms of real time changes in school enrolments. The practical implication of this is that the school roll projections will be updated regularly by the Council, and this will affect planning applications not yet determined. Those making planning applications for residential development are therefore encouraged to engage at an early stage in the process. The Council will be able to discuss the implications of this cumulative effect for the calculation of an individual developer contribution with any prospective applicant. 4.12 4.13 4.11 Page 43 of 230
Page 48
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 12 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE New school required because of new housing development The approach set out in this guidance does not preclude specific contexts where large scale housing allocations may require new school provision as part of the future community facilities planning for that location. If this is the case this will be set out clearly in the Council’s Local Development Plan and its Learning Estate Strategy in advance of any planning application being considered for that site. The situation may arise in terms of future housing development, where a new school needs to be provided to meet the demand from additional pupils resulting from new housing being built. The size of site required for a new school is very much dependent on the proposed capacity of that school and therefore cannot be determined in advance. The context for this, the policy approach and the expectations from the developers involved (including land requirements and the respective values attributed to that) will be set out in full in the Renfrewshire LDP and its associated documents when they are published. 4.14 4.15 4.16 Page 44 of 230
Page 49
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 13 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Renfrewshire Council has taken the approach to negotiate for requisite developer contributions on a per additional pupil basis. The Council believe this is fairest way to calculate any contribution, as it allows the Council to monitor contributions and estimates of capacity impact against the number of pupils which eventually transpire for the relevant schools. The Council has based contribution levels on the costs of recent school developments within Renfrewshire, the details of which are set out in Appendix 1. 4.17 Developer Contribution per pupil 4.18 4.19 The developer contributions which Renfrewshire Council will be seeking from all new housing development (that meet the terms of this guidance) and which trigger the capacity thresholds in the relevant school catchments is as follows: In terms of the level of contribution it should be noted by applicants this contribution level is stated as at August 2025 and any required changes to this amount will be indexed linked in line with BCIS costs at Q3 2025. The Council reserve the ability, depending on the scale of the residential development proposed, to seek phased payments of the required contribution linked to thresholds reached in terms of new housing units built over time. This will be negotiated with the applicant at the time of the S75 being agreed. 4.20 4.21 School type Primary school Secondary school Level of contribution per pupil £56,000 £56,000 Table 3 – Developer contribution per additional pupil from new housing development (where applicable) Page 45 of 230
Page 50
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 14 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Exceptions to this policy Developer contributions associated with this policy will be utilised to overcome the impact in the specific school(s) affected by the increased number of primary and secondary school pupils generated by new housing development. There may be school specific factors, such as space, and quality of ancillary accommodation, which mean increasing capacity is not a practical solution. If it is technically impossible to provide extra capacity, the Council may resolve the issue using suspensive conditions to control the phasing of development or may refuse planning permission. Developer contributions will be held by the Council until either committed/used or returned to the applicant. 4.22 4.23 Exceptions to the policy will be applied as follows:4.25 Proposals for extending or altering existing residential dwellings; Developments of less than 4 houses; Proposals for one-bedroom dwellings; Proposals for student accommodation; Proposals for specific needs housing that are unlikely to be occupied by residents attending mainstream schools e.g. care homes or housing designated for older age groups; Proposals where a Viability Assessment has been submitted and independently verified and where the Council accept the justification offered by the applicant; and Applications for matters specified in conditions, where no contribution has been sought at the planning permission in principle stage. For the avoidance of doubt the policy will apply to applications for affordable/ social housing, including where such provision is a requirement associated with an application for private tenure homes. 4.26 How developer contributions will be used 4.24 Page 46 of 230
Page 51
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 15 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Exceptions to this policy Circular 3/2012 notes that the economic viability of proposals should be taken into consideration when applying developer obligations and alternative solutions should be considered including options of phasing or staging payments. The Council’s requirements from a viability assessment submitted by an applicant for planning permission for residential is set out in Appendix 2. Please note this will only be applicable for planning applicants who wish to make the case that the payment of a developer contribution would impact the financial viability of the development in question. The applicant should bring this matter to the attention of the Council’s Planning Team at the earliest opportunity. In all circumstances where a viability assessment has been undertaken, determination of the application will be the responsibility of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board (or equivalent). 4.27 4.28 Viability Assessments 4.29 4.30 Page 47 of 230
Page 52
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 16 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE 5. Developer contributions generally require applicants to enter into legally binding contracts, or obligations with the local authority. In line with this guidance, planning permission will not be granted until the relevant legal agreement has been concluded. The development should not commence until the decision notice has been released for the relevant planning application by Renfrewshire Council. Legal Agreements 5.2 5.1 Following the Council’s decision to grant planning permission, planning officers, together with legal colleagues, will finalise discussions in relation to seeking to agree the terms of a S75 legal agreement. It is anticipated that the broad terms of any agreement will have been discussed with the applicant before a decision is reached. The S75 legal agreement requires to either be registered in the Land Register, or acknowledgement has been received from the Keeper of the Register, prior to the release of the Council’s application decision notice. In cases where the planning application relates to planning permission in principle, depending on circumstances, the following process will be followed: Section 75 (S75) Agreements 5.3 5.4 Where the planning permission in principle application outlines the number of residential units, the application will be assessed, and any contributions determined on the stated number of units. The S.75 agreement will thereafter secure the identified contribution noting the number of units approved. In circumstances where the planning permission in principle application does not outline the number of residential units, the S.75 agreement will set out the principles that will be applied to calculate the level of applicable contribution in line with this guidance. Page 48 of 230
Page 53
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 17 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE In certain circumstances it may be appropriate for development contributions to be secured via a Section 69 (S69) agreement. This would be paid in full in one instalment prior to planning permission being issued. There is no need to register a S69 agreement as a burden against the land title. If a contribution has been paid in respect of a S69 agreement, and the proposed development does not go ahead, the Council will not return the contribution if it has already been spent or committed for the purposes collected within the timeframes set out in the legal agreement. 5.5 5.6 Section 69 Agreements Changes in circumstances It is recognised that the circumstances associated with any proposed development can change. Changes may range from alterations to layouts to developments no longer proceeding. Legal agreements will be drafted to accommodate changes in circumstances. Where the layout of a proposed development is revised to change the number of homes being developed, the contribution will be recalculated based on the most current metrics available, and a change to the legal agreement will be sought. Where updated school roll projections indicate that investment to increase school capacity is no longer required, or that the same level of investment is no longer required, then the legal agreement will be amended and any financial contribution that has been paid and has not been spent or committed for the purposes collected will be returned in full or in part to the applicant or their nominee along with relative interest accrued. 5.7 5.8 5.9 Page 49 of 230
Page 54
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 18 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Return of unused contributions All legal agreements entered into in conjunction with this guidance will be in favour of the Council on the expectation of having ten (10) years to expend the contribution received. Thereafter should contribution remain unspent, the contribution will be returned to the applicant following a request from the applicant. This timescale reflects the timescale taken to deliver larger housing sites and the resultant impacts on school capacity that may transpire. For developments involving phased payment of developer obligations the 10-year period for spending contributions shall commence on the date that the final phased payment is made to the Council. In the event of the contribution, or part of it, not being spent within this time period, the contribution, or part of it, will be refunded to the applicant or their nominee along with relative interest accrued. If a developer decides not to proceed with a development that a contribution has been made in relation to, there may be scope for that contribution to be returned if it has not already been spent or committed to a school project that was considered necessary as a result of the proposed development. A contribution would not be returned if the related planning permission has been implemented or is still extant. 5.10 5.11 5.12 6. For further information or to arrange a discussion in relation to developer contributions, in the first instance please email dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk. Contact 6.1 5.13 Page 50 of 230
Page 55
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 19 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE APPENDIX 1 Calculation of per pupil contribution level The per pupil contribution level is based on an average cost of different types of current school projects in Renfrewshire. These are set out in the table below. Costs are based on construction costs only with preliminaries, fees etc excluded from these costs Project Project type Construction cost (£) Pupil capacity Cost per pupil (£) Paisley Grammar New build secondary school 69,516,626 1,380 50,374.37 Thistle Primary New build primary school 40,000,000 800 50,000 Park Mains Secondary school extension 27,829,860 400 69,574.65 Average cost per pupil 56,649.67 Page 51 of 230
Page 56
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 20 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE Circular 3/2012 notes that the economic viability of proposals should be taken into consideration when applying developer obligations and alternative solutions should be considered alongside options of phasing or staging payments. The Planning Authority will give consideration to altering the levels or payment structure of any planning obligations as part of financial contributions in the interests of maintaining overall development viability. In the event that the applicant considers that the payment of a developer contribution would impact the financial viability of the development in question, the applicant should bring this matter to the attention of the Planning Authority at the earliest opportunity. In such circumstances, the applicant will require to submit a viability assessment including ‘open book accounting’ of the proposed development. The submitted viability assessment will be evaluated and assessed by the District Valuer, or other suitably qualified consultant, in order to provide an independent view of the viability of the proposed development. APPENDIX 2 Viability Assessments The evaluation and assessment of any submitted viability assessment will be instructed by the Planning Authority; however, it should be noted that any costs associated with undertaking the evaluation will be recovered in full from the applicant. Thereafter the opinion of the District Valuer or appointed consultant will form a material consideration in the processing and determination of the planning application in question. It should be noted that while viability assessments will be treated as confidential, full details of contributions, including an indication of the scale of any agreed reductions will be reported to members of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board via the Report of Handling. In all circumstances where a viability assessments has been undertaken, determination of the application will be the responsibility of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board. Page 52 of 230
Page 57
Appendix 2 – summary of responses to draft Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response McInally Associates The published guidance does not align with what was approved at 19th March 2024 Planning and Climate Change Policy Board. Specifically, the approved guidance made a difference between houses and flats, and the published guidance doesn’t. Future amendments to this guidance should be submitted for approval by Board before being released for public consultation. The finalised guidance will be reported to Board incorporating changes made prior to publication and following consultation. It is not reasonable to apply the same pupil ratio for housing and flatted developments, as the demographic profiles for these two types of development are significantly different. The calculation and application of separate pupil product ratios for different house types and sizes would not be practical, and the application of a standard pupil product ratio is considered proportionate. Scottish Water Scottish Water supports an infrastructure first approach to enable development and ensure that education provision is in place. Noted Springfield Group The guidance should contain sufficient “hook” to the local development plan (LDP2) to give it statutory weight. The guidance cannot be adopted as part of the development plan and issues such as developer contributions should be covered in the next LDP. Circular 6/2013 (Development Planning) states that matters that should not be included in Supplementary Guidance but included in the development plan include ‘items for which financial or other contributions…will be sought, and the circumstances (locations, types of development) where they will be sought. The guidance is not being published as statutory supplementary guidance (therefore not part of the development plan). It is non statutory planning guidance associated with LDP2. Policy I8 (Developer Contributions) of LDP2 does state that contributions will be sought for education facilities to address infrastructure deficits and/or a shortfall in infrastructure capacity that arise as a direct result of new development. Page 53 of 230
Page 58
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response The methodologies for the calculation on contribution levels are not based upon costed solutions to address site specific impacts and do not meet the test of fairly and reasonable set out in Circular 3/2012 (planning obligations and good neighbour agreements). Costed solutions have not been identified for all schools requiring investment to accommodate increased school roll. A contribution rate based on recent projects has been utilised. The terms ‘notional capacity’ or ‘operational capacity’ are not recognised in the 2014 Scottish Government Guidance ‘Determining Primary School Capacity’. These terms are not used in the finalised planning guidance. The guidance suggests the use of an 85% operating capacity as a threshold for seeking contributions, however other authorities operate higher thresholds e.g. 90%. Using any capacity threshold below 100% as a trigger for requiring mitigation is unnecessary. Heads of Planning Scotland (HoPS) research (from 2021) suggests that a trigger of 90% is generally applied elsewhere. The trigger should be amended to 90%. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. The guidance is not considered to be consistent with the tests set out in Circular 3/2012 (planning obligations and good neighbour agreements). The Circular emphasises the need to establish a clear link between the development and any mitigation offered as part of the developer’s contribution. Any mitigation needs to be related to the direct impacts from the proposal or the cumulative impact of development within the area. Contributions are based on the number of pupils expected to be generated from new developments. The requirement for solutions will therefore be based on the direct or cumulative impacts of developments. Pupil product ratio – experience in the Lothians has shown that using data only from new homes The Pupil Product Ratio calculated by Edge Analytics is based on several factors, not just new homes. Page 54 of 230
Page 59
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response will produce an unreasonably high and unsustainable pupil product. Only live and effective planning consents should be taken into account in the determination of impacts arising from development proposals. Applicants should not be asked to address the impacts of others or indeed address impacts which are likely to occur arising from allocated but unconsented sites. School roll projections, which show the need for mitigation and contributions within certain schools, are based on finalised housing land audits. This will include sites without planning permission that are expected to deliver housing within the projection period. Assessing the impacts from windfall sites should not prejudice contribution levels from committed sites Within a catchment area where a contribution is required, windfall sites will also be expected to contribute towards education infrastructure provision required as a result of new development. It is not anticipated that this would impact on the contribution level required from committed sites. Reliance on the Housing Land Audit is likely to result in an overestimate of the infrastructure required. Review clauses should be built into agreements to allow a reconsideration of the impacts arising from new development. It is considered reasonable that changes in circumstances are built into agreements and the guidance has been changed to reflect this at paragraph 5.7. The physical capacity of school buildings is just one factor that determines the overall capacity of a school. School capacity is a measure of how many pupils can be taught in a school based on the number and size of teaching spaces available. It is not a measure of the size of a school building. The application of an arbitrary figure of 85% capacity, defined as the original design capacity, takes no account of the local and individual circumstances applying to each primary school. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. Page 55 of 230
Page 60
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response Examples cited in the 2014 Guidance demonstrate that the working capacity is between 91-96% of the planning capacity. There is no basis for the use of 85% as an operational or working capacity. The planning capacity upon which the working capacity is based should not be based on the original design capacity. The application of a £56,000 per pupil contribution is not justified in the draft Guidance. The key metrics do not justify rejecting the SFT metrics of £30,000 per pupil in favour of £56,000 per pupil based upon an estimated gross cost for a proposed new secondary school in Renfrewshire. The draft Guidance does not explain the use of a similar per pupil rate for primary schools. In absence of justifiable exact levels, the contributions cannot be justified in terms of the scale and kind test of Circular 3/2012. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. Developer contributions should be returned if not utilised within 5 years of receipt. If a contribution cannot be spent within this timescale, it is questionable whether it was appropriate in the first place. The contribution return period has been changed to 10 years. Renfrewshire resident (Kimberley Nealis) There is no indication of another special educational need school in Renfrewshire. The two current special needs schools are at capacity. Renfrewshire Council Children’s Services have not identified a requirement for developer contributions towards special educational needs schools. Persimmon Homes West Scotland How is the requirement for any contribution considered in re-mix of plot type applications where additional units may be proposed e.g. full Contributions would be renegotiated in these circumstances. The guidance has been amended at paragraph 5.8 to reflect this. Page 56 of 230
Page 61
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response further consultation by Education and additional contribution sought? What land is available for new build schools in future LDPs to avoid refusal of potential applications when there is currently a housing shortage? Will catchments be reconsidered in such circumstances? The preparation of LDP3 will be aligned with the preparation and implementation of the Council’s Learning Estate Strategy with land identified for new schools where required. What are the timescales for independent verification of viability assessments where no or reduced contributions are proposed? The guidance does not specify timescales for this. Each case will be different. What is the written mechanism for a S69 agreement in the interests of transparency if monies are not to be refunded if being utilised for the purpose intended, even if consent not being implemented? If funds have not already been committed to a school project that is necessary as a result of additional capacity required due to a new residential development, then there will be scope to return those funds to a developer if the residential development is not to be implemented. The guidance has been amended at paragraph 5.9 to reflect this Renfrewshire resident (Catherine Noble) It is an error not to include single bed properties in the calculation for what a developer should contribute. It is considered unlikely that single bedroom properties would accommodate children of school age. The amount of money required for secondary school provision is underestimated and should be higher than the requirement for primary schools. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. Better use should be made of derelict and uninhabited properties and there should be a reduction in short term let properties with hotels promoted. Whilst valid suggestions, this comment is not considered relevant to the guidance. Page 57 of 230
Page 62
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response Zander Planning The Supplementary Guidance requires to be clear that contributions cannot be made to Applications for the Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions. A statement to this effect has been added to the guidance at paragraph 4.25. Iceni Projects for Hallam Land Management Not supportive of the introduction of the extent of the contributions sought in relation to new housing delivery and believe there could be consequences from a viability perspective and the realistic delivery of housing. The proposed education developer contributions may disproportionately affect projects, particularly in less economically robust areas where land values are significantly lower. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. Renfrewshire Council should detail how it arrived at a contribution figure of £56,000, providing more detail than currently set out in the guidance. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. The imposition of costly contributions may result in landowners deciding not to sell their land for development, discouraging the development of much needed homes in Renfrewshire, or may result in creating an unaffordable housing market. The guidance will introduce greater certainty over the cost of developer contributions that can be considered by landowners and developers when agreeing land prices. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. The guidance should acknowledge that contributions should be negotiable and assessed on a site-by-site basis rather than a blanket contribution sought for all new housing development. The publication of a standard contribution level provides certainty for developers and landowners. There will be an opportunity to discuss and challenge the contribution sought for any development. Clarification is requested as to how the Council has arrived at the pupil/product ratio for both primary and secondary schools in the guidance and whether it is an accurate reflection of the actual number of pupils generated by different types of housing developments. Suggest the Council allow The pupil product ration was calculated by Edge Analytics based on a range of factors. The calculation and application of separate pupil product ratios for different house types and sizes would not be practical, and the application of a Page 58 of 230
Page 63
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response flexibility that accounts for fluctuations in local demographics and housing types. standard pupil product ratio is considered proportionate. Private development is a key route in facilitating the delivery of much needed affordable housing. Whilst it is acknowledged affordable housing may generate additional pupil(s) per household, a viability perspective should be considered in applying such costly contributions to private development which facilitate 25% or more affordable housing delivery. Applying such contributions to affordable housing could reduce the ability for developers to meet affordable housing targets and complicate negotiations under Section 75 agreements. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. Further justification is requested on how the Scottish Future Trust’s evidence has been applied in setting Renfrewshire Council’s contribution level. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. Attention should be given as to whether the proposed obligations are reasonable in relation to the scale and kind of the proposed development. Strongly advise that contributions should be based on property sizes. The calculation and application of separate pupil product ratios for different house types and sizes would not be practical, and the application of a standard pupil product ratio is considered proportionate. Renfrewshire Council are proposing a standard contribution of £56,000 per primary and secondary school pupil, despite the scale of identified education ’need’. Other Council’s figures are considerably lower. The developer contributions associated with a development should reflect the extent of works required to address the need for either new build or extensions to education infrastructure. The draft guidance does not portray The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. Page 59 of 230
Page 64
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response how Renfrewshire Council have arrived at the same costs for new build and extensions. Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements Circular 3/2012 (Revised November 2020) states: “Planning obligations should not be used to resolve existing deficiencies in infrastructure provision or to secure contributions to the achievement of wider planning objectives which are not strictly necessary to allow permission to be granted for the proposed development. Where the need to improve, upgrade or replace that infrastructure does not arise directly from the proposed development then planning authorities should not seek to address this through a planning obligation.” The contribution return period propose (15 years) should be shortened to 5 or 10 years as this would allow for more timely expenditure of contributions, better aligning with actual demand and contribute to unlocking housing delivery. The contribution return period has been changed to 10 years. Suggest the Council should consider increasing the 85% threshold for contributions as this could create unnecessary financial burdens for developers without an immediate need for school expansions. Other authorities have higher thresholds. RC should explain how it has arrived at a blanket capacity of 85% for primary and secondary schools and should adopt a capacity on a per school basis. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. Page 60 of 230
Page 65
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response RC should consider variations in land values when applying developer contributions and the viability of new housing delivery. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. These can take account of land values. It is expected that land valuation should take into account developer contributions associated with the development of the land. Homes for Scotland Research suggests a contributions threshold of over 90% school capacity is generally applied by other Councils. Schools can and do routinely operate above the arbitrary 85% capacity threshold proposed by RC. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. Publishing up to date school rolls will ensure that pupils from past completions are all accounted for. The guidance advises that school rolls and school roll projections will be updated regularly. The tests for planning obligations now form part of NPF4/development plan. The Council is aware of this. When seeking a contribution, RC should understand and clarify why some existing schools exceed the capacity trigger requiring a contribution, for example are there pupils from new homes, school closures/mergers, or smaller replacement schools. Detailing this will have implications as to whether the contribution sought is reasonable. A contribution will only be sought when new development contributes to capacity issues. A sequential approach to addressing school capacity is proposed: 1. Consider whether the mitigation required is only temporary and an interim solution over a short period (3 to 5 years) is possible, such as temporary classrooms or internal reconfiguration. The guidance sets out that options that would not require physical changes to the school and therefore would not require a financial contribution will be considered. Where a physical intervention is required, a range of solutions will be considered. Page 61 of 230
Page 66
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response 2. Consider whether an extension to the existing catchment schools is feasible. 3. Consider whether it is possible to undertake a catchment review to realise available capacity in a nearby school subject to statutory consultation on this procedure. 4. Consider whether a new school is required. Such an approach will ensure mitigation complies with the ‘scale and kind’ test and will have less impact on development viability. Updated school rolls, housing land audit programming and a clear summary of potential developer contributions should be set out in the Delivery Programme so that all stakeholders are aware of the potential need for mitigation and can plan for it accordingly. The Council will consider this suggestion in relation to the Delivery Programme to be prepared for LDP3. RC should commit to an annual update of the 10- year forecast of the number of pupils expected at each primary and secondary school, including known and forecast rolls based on housing land audit programming. The Delivery Programme should be updated annually to reflect any change in mitigation requirements. The guidance advises that school roll projections will be updated regularly. The principle of applying a Pupil Product Ratio (PPR) is supported. RC should clarify if the cohort progression model or alternative, cumulative approach is used to forecast school rolls. The cohort model is the most robust and accurate and has been endorsed at appeal. The cumulative model overestimates demand. The Edge Analytics methodology is based on cohort progression. Page 62 of 230
Page 67
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response The Pupil Product Ratio for existing housing in Renfrewshire should be used (0.15 for primary schools, 0.135 for secondary schools based on 2022 Census). This demonstrates that whilst there might be an initial spike in PPR associated with new homes, it will settle to a lower figure over time. The Pupil Product Ratio calculated by Edge Analytics is based on several factors, not just new homes. Between the 2011 and 2022 Census, the number of school age children in Renfrewshire has fallen from 25,226 to 24,984. The need for contributions may therefore be questioned where the school operated previously with a higher roll. School roll projections are based on up-to-date demographic data. It is requested that RC share the PPR for new homes to ascertain if it is consistent across the RC area. If there is a variation, consideration should be given to applying different PPRs to different catchments to ensure the PPRs meets the fair and reasonable tests. The calculation and application of separate pupil product ratios for different catchments would not be practical, and the application of a standard pupil product ratio is considered proportionate. There are some instances when housing sites may collectively generate new pupils that may require mitigation at one school. An equitable approach to considering this cumulative approach is required. The guidance recognises that there may be a cumulative effect on school rolls from several housing sites and in circumstances where a contribution is required, this will be discussed with relevant applicants. Sites in the housing land audit disputed by Homes for Scotland should not be factored into future school rolls unless granted consent. The most recent housing land audit (2024) is undisputed. The Council work closely with Homes for Scotland to have an agreed housing land audit. More detail on how the contribution level per pupil (£56,000) was arrived at is requested. Industry standard for school infrastructure cost is the SFT metric. Unless any variation is both clarified and justified it is likely that any future education contribution is challenged. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. Page 63 of 230
Page 68
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response RC should clarify if the per pupil cost for an extension is different to a new school and detail the cost of an extension. Extension costs should only include the works essential to address the capacity constraint and not any other elements. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. Where a contribution is likely to be sought for new homes, it is important that the calculation is based on the proportion of new pupils generated by the development and not any existing capacity breach. RC will be liable for the mitigation associated with existing pupils above capacity. On this basis where a school is close to or already exceeds capacity RC should consider declining placing requests from outwith the catchment. Contributions will be based on the number of pupils associated with new development, as the cost of the solution will be impacted by these pupils. Affordable housing developments operate off much lower land values and profit margins and therefore it isn’t equitable, or realistic, to expect them to carry the same education contribution as private homes. Imposing an education contribution will likely render the majority of new affordable projects unviable. Affordable housing developments generate pupils which will impact on school capacity and any solution required. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. RC is seeking a 15-year period in which to implement mitigation funded by developer contributions. Such a long period is considered unreasonable given that pupils generated by the new housing development may have left both primary and secondary education by the time the mitigation is implemented. The timescale for implementing appropriate mitigation should reflect the nature of the potential intervention and suggested sequential approach. The contribution return period has been changed to 10 years. Page 64 of 230
Page 69
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response The period for implementing Options 1-3 set out above should be less than Option 4. It is suggested that the period of mitigation to be implemented is 5 years for options 1-3 and 10 years where a new school is required. Census figures suggest that the overall school estate could accommodate all children of school age. It is therefore questionable as to why any secondary school would require an extension at this point when there has been a reduction in the number of secondary school pupils. Appendix 1 of the guidance indicates that the majority of school rolls will decline. It is not appropriate to look at the accumulative capacity of all secondary schools across Renfrewshire as schools operate on a catchment basis. The guidance is silent on the threshold for seeking education contributions. Where relevant, HFS suggest that the requirement applies to all housing within a catchment, including proposals for single homes. The contribution requirement is applicable to housing development of 4 or more houses, with developments of less than 4 houses exempt. It is requested that an additional column is added to the school roll projections detailing which schools are likely to require a developer contribution. It is suggested that this is based on a RAG rating where red will require mitigation, amber may require mitigation and green where no mitigation is likely to be sought. This column should also include detail of the potential mitigation based on the options set out above and this information should be detailed in the Delivery Programme against sites within the relevant school catchment. A column has been added to school roll projections table highlighting which schools are projected to exceed the 85% threshold. Rather than listing the schools alphabetically, it is suggested that primary schools are grouped by School roll information and projections will be set out based on secondary schools and associated Page 65 of 230
Page 70
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response catchment. This will aid developers and the council in considering whether alternative mitigation, such as a catchment review, is appropriate or another temporary measure. primaries. As the intention is to update school roll data regularly, it will be removed from the Guidance document and published separately to avoid the data included in the Guidance becoming dated. If a Viability Statement is required to be reviewed it is suggested that there is an option for this to be assessed by either the District Valuer or a mutually agreed and suitably qualified consultant. HFS is aware of scenarios where, due to a lack of surveyor resource, there have been delays in obtaining District Valuer assessments. Having the ability to potentially appoint a consultant will ensure that the assessment of viability is not unduly delayed. The guidance has been amended to indicate that a suitable qualified consultant can also evaluate viability assessments. Geddes Consulting for CALA Homes (West) and Miller Homes The draft planning guidance should have been brought forward as statutory planning guidance. There is a clear policy hook in LDP2 that supplementary guidance could have been linked to, and there is an expectation at the national level that matters relating to planning obligations should be subject to scrutiny either through LDP examination or Scottish Ministers approval as statutory supplementary guidance. There was time for the guidance to be prepared as statutory supplementary guidance, and this would have increased confidence in the document. As non- statutory planning guidance, the document will remain diminished in weight. The guidance is being brought forward as non- statutory planning guidance linked to LDP2. Page 66 of 230
Page 71
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response It would be more logical to use school roll projections to assess the need for future mitigation, rather than the current school rolls. If this is the intention, then the Council needs to update text to refer to school roll projections, rather than school rolls. School roll projections are being used to assess the need for future mitigation. The Guidance has been amended to make this clear. The Respondent considers that applying an 85% occupancy limit on the actual school capacity is not in accordance with the tests of NPF 4 Policy 18 Infrastructure first and Circular 3/2012 Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements (Circular 3/2012). Specifically, it fails the relationship, planning purpose and scale and kind tests. In circumstances where the school roll is expected to peak at over 85%, but then decline, the financial contribution would be entirely redundant. There is no need for mitigation in the example above. The Council should not apply a percentage threshold for planning obligations as it is doing in this circumstance. The long-term trend needs to be taken into account as well. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. Where the school roll is expected to exceed the threshold for only a short time before declining again, this would be taken into account in the requirement for, and calculation of, any contribution. Planning obligations should only be sought where it can be demonstrated that the school roll will exceed the physical capacity of the school. This needs to be considered on a class organisation basis, rather than applying a percentage threshold. The example at St Fergus RC Primary School demonstrates that a school roll 12% higher than the Council’s arbitrary 85% threshold can be accommodated. In this example, a school is at 97% occupancy, but the entire school roll can be An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. The guidance sets out that options that would not require physical changes to the school and therefore would not require a financial contribution will be considered. Where a physical intervention is required, a range of solutions will be considered. Page 67 of 230
Page 72
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response accommodated within the space available. In such a circumstance, taking financial contributions would be contrary to the tests of NPF 4 Policy 18 and Circular 3/2012. There is therefore a need for the Council to demonstrate that any financial contribution sought is actually required on a case-by-case basis. The application of a threshold does not do this. The percentage threshold at secondary level is even less reasonable. It is usual practice to apply an efficiency factor on the maximum physical capacity of a secondary school to allow for timetable flexibility and course choice. Applying a threshold capacity onto a secondary school would reduce the capacity even further than the Strathclyde efficiency factor (76%). An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. The Council therefore needs to demonstrate through evidence such as a class organisation that a school roll cannot be accommodated in the space currently available before seeking a financial contribution. Applying a percentage threshold alone does not meet the relationship, planning purpose, scale and kind and reasonableness tests of NPF 4 Policy 18 and Circular 3/2012. Further consideration needs to be given by the Council regarding the circumstances in which it is appropriate to seek a financial contribution, and the Draft PG amended accordingly. The guidance sets out that options that would not require physical changes to the school and therefore would not require a financial contribution will be considered. Where a physical intervention is required, a range of solutions will be considered. It appears that the Council will base its financial contribution on the basis of the number of pupils calculated by the PPR, rather than the mitigation Costed solutions have not been identified for all schools requiring investment to accommodate Page 68 of 230
Page 73
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response required. It will then apply a charge based on a charging mechanism, regardless of the mitigation required. This does not meet the scale and kind and reasonableness tests of NPF 4 Policy 18 and Circular 3/2012. Evidence suggests this will lead to significant overcharges, as the Council approach effectively disregards any existing capacity in schools. increased school roll. A contribution rate based on recent projects has been utilised. The Council’s approach fails to take pupil transitioning into account. The phased development of a site means pupils will only enter into a school once homes have been constructed and occupied and will be spread across year groups. The school roll forecasts are based on the programme of house completions set out in the housing land audit. Concerns around the removal of assessment criteria that were included in the approved Committee version, which was better than what was included in the published version. The guidance sets out that options that would not require physical changes to the school and therefore would not require a financial contribution will be considered. Where a physical intervention is required, a range of solutions will be considered. The Council’s approach to charging financial contribution based on the total number of pupils generated has no regard to existing capacity in schools, or pupil transitioning that will occur. The approach should be changed to base financial contributions on the size of mitigation required. Costed solutions have not been identified for all schools requiring investment to accommodate increased school roll. A contribution rate based on recent projects has been utilised. Page 69 of 230
Page 74
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response The Council has ignored evidence from other sources when calculating the cost per pupil and applied a cost per pupil based on the rebuild of a secondary school (Paisley Grammar), with this cost applied to all types of mitigation including refurbishment, extensions and new builds, and to primary schools. SFT metrics evidence that primary school costs per pupil are lower than secondary school costs. The costs of Paisley Grammar new build may include costs that should not be applied to the cost of an extension. The approach taken by West Lothian Council that sets out a hierarchy of choices for how costs will be calculated is recommended as a more reasonable approach. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. The guidance should include a more appropriate mitigation hierarchy which considers managing placement requests, school catchment reviews, and capping P1/S1 intakes before seeking financial contributions or phasing of development. There should be very few circumstances where refusal of planning permission due to an education constraint is necessary. The guidance sets out that options that would not require physical changes to the school and therefore would not require a financial contribution will be considered. Where a physical intervention is required, a range of solutions will be considered. With regard to land for new schools, the Council should be able to provide certainty around the size of school expected and therefore the size of site. Although the provision of new schools is covered by the guidance, any new schools to be developed under the Council’s Learning Estate Strategy will be aligned with housing allocations set out in LDP3, providing more certainty around location and scale. Taylor Wimpey Contribution of £56,000 per pupil could impact viability of some sites. Clarity on how this figure The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. Page 70 of 230
Page 75
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response was calculated should be provided. Variation in land values should be a consideration. Reduction in number of school children evidenced by 2022 census should be considered. School roll projections are based on up-to-date demographic data. Sequential approach to addressing school capacity is suggested: 1. Consider whether mitigation is only required for short period and use temporary classrooms or internal reconfiguration 2. Consider extension to existing catchment schools 3. Consider whether a new school is required The guidance sets out that options that would not require physical changes to the school and therefore would not require a financial contribution will be considered. Where a physical intervention is required, a range of solutions will be considered. The blanket 85% capacity contribution requirement threshold for both primary and secondary schools should be explained. A threshold capacity per school basis should be adopted. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. Appendix 1 roll projections show 13 primary schools and 5 high schools already programmed to be over the 85% threshold at 2028/29. How will these be addressed before new sites come forward in LDP3? The planning guidance is associated with LDP2 and sites allocated for housing development within it. Homes for Scotland review suggest a 90% threshold is applied elsewhere. The guidance should reflect this. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. Appendix 1 roll projections show trend of declining school rolls from 2029 onwards. While the projections show the rolls of some schools declining, the rolls of other schools are projected to increase. Contributions will only be sought in relation to schools whose roll is projected to be at 85% or above of planning capacity. The guidance should include how standard charges have been calculated, how monies will be These matters are covered by the Guidance and associated documents. Page 71 of 230
Page 76
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response held, how they will be used, and how they will be returned. An unused contribution return period of 15 years is unreasonable. Many of the children generated by new housing may have left primary and or secondary schools within this time. The contribution return period has been changed to 10 years. If Renfrewshire Council are to maintain and improve school estates, new housing allocations will be required. Renfrewshire Council’s new local development plan will set out a housing land requirement in excess of the MATHLR set out in NPF4. The Evidence Report gatecheck process will determine the quantity of new housing land allocations required. Education capacity will inform the location of LDP3 housing sites. Without additional clarity and changes suggested by Homes for Scotland, the guidance will be contrary to the tests set out within NPF4 Policy 18 Infrastructure First and Planning Circular 3/2012 Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements. Changes have been made to the Guidance to reflect consultation responses. Wheatley Group (WHG) Continuous monitoring of the methodology used to calculate the Pupil Product Ratio should be undertaken to ensure that the level of developer contribution sought is appropriate. The Pupil Product Ration will be kept under review. The Council should consider aligning the percentage of capacity that triggers the need for developer contributions to 90% in line with many other Council areas. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. The Pupil Product Ratio should allow distinction between different types of housing e.g. houses and flats. The calculation and application of separate pupil product ratios for different house types and sizes would not be practical, and the application of a Page 72 of 230
Page 77
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response standard pupil product ratio is considered proportionate. Exceptions on a case-by-case basis for house types such as studio and one-bedroomed apartments, and special needs housing that is unlikely to generate school pupils should be considered. Exceptions to the contributions policy are set out in paragraph 4.25 and include one-bedroom dwellings and housing for specified needs e.g student and sheltered accommodation. The level of contribution sought by Renfrewshire would appear to be significantly higher than other local authorities. Further clarity on the basis of this calculation should be provided along with benchmarking with other Scottish LAs. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. The approach should allow for a case-by-case basis to ensure that contributions are fair and proportionate to the actual costs of infrastructure requirements, with opportunity for review and clawback where payments are made ahead of delivery. A paragraph has been added at 5.9 indicating that contributions can be reviewed and returned in full or in part if they have not been spent or committed. The approach to costs needs to be subject to regular review and benchmarking to ensure it remains proportionate, accurate and appropriate. The guidance should include details of how the review of contribution amounts is to be undertaken. The Guidance indicates that the costs of contributions will be linked to the BCIS index. Disproportionate levels of contribution are likely to have an impact on the attractiveness of Renfrewshire to developers of all tenures. The guidance will provide certainty around contribution levels that can be built into land value discussions. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. There needs to be acknowledgement on the delivery and viability pressures placed on proposals designed to meet 100% meet a specific housing need. A balance should be sought The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. Page 73 of 230
Page 78
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response between the importance of delivering affordable housing, and the need to collect developer contributions potentially making affordable housing developments unviable. Request that the draft guidance be amended to reflect the scope for consideration of the appropriateness of contributions associated with affordable, social and housing for specific needs, and to allow developments to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The requirement to provide developer contributions towards education from affordable housing developments has the potential to make Wheatley Housing group developments in Renfrewshire unviable. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. Linstone Housing Association Housing associations are not private developers and are not-for-profit. Housing associations fund new build housing through Scottish Government grant funding and the balance of costs from loans or reserves, which are paid by tenants’ rent. Applying an education contribution to affordable housing will reduce the ability of housing associations in Renfrewshire to provide new homes. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. Linstone HA has planning approval granted in 2023 for affordable housing development at Stirling Drive, Linwood subject to a S75 agreement requiring an education contribution; question how this can apply when planning guidance was not in existence The Linstone HA contribution will be calculated based on the finalised guidance. Page 74 of 230
Page 79
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response Paisley HA Imposition of this new development cost, at a time when construction costs are at an all-time high, can only act as a barrier to providing new affordable homes. Social housing cannot pass additional costs onto end users via increase in sales price. Education contribution costs are not grant eligible, meaning these costs will have to be added to the private finance element and will mean that some projects would become financially unviable to community-based housing associations. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. Responses from SEPA, NatureScot, Historic Environment Scotland and the Coal Authority indicated that they had no comments to offer on the guidance Page 75 of 230
Page 80
Appendix 3 - school roll projections School Planning capacity 2024/25 Census 2024/25 % 2025/26 2025/26 % 2026/27 2026/27 % 2027/28 2027/28 % 2028/29 2028/29% 2029/30 2029/30 % 2030/31 2030/31 % 2031/32 2031/32 % 2032/33 2032/33 % 2033/34 2033/34 % Is school roll projected to be above 85% of planning capacity during projection period? Castlehead HS 1230 737 60 757 62 748 61 760 62 771 63 778 63 787 64 805 65 809 66 808 66 Glencoats 352 179 51 182 52 185 53 178 51 176 50 163 46 157 45 155 44 156 44 159 45 Wallace 434 360 83 339 78 352 81 348 80 354 82 370 85 369 85 373 86 377 87 379 87 Yes West 761 396 52 429 56 437 57 443 58 449 59 461 61 468 61 466 61 473 62 477 63 Gleniffer HS 1425 1123 79 1126 79 1121 79 1115 78 1129 79 1111 78 1085 76 1083 76 1057 74 1045 73 Brediland 377 205 54 171 45 170 45 164 44 156 41 159 42 157 42 152 40 151 40 147 39 Bushes 489 312 64 290 59 277 57 263 54 240 49 230 47 216 44 210 43 206 42 199 41 Heriot 434 212 49 205 47 201 46 205 47 214 49 204 47 203 47 201 46 202 47 201 46 Langcraigs 434 279 64 273 63 261 60 262 60 256 59 254 59 251 58 247 57 253 58 259 60 Lochfield 459 262 57 259 56 261 57 260 57 264 58 263 57 259 56 250 54 247 54 241 53 Gryffe HS 960 960 100 962 100 976 102 988 103 956 100 956 100 916 95 900 94 914 95 897 93 Yes Bridge of Weir 489 421 86 464 95 450 92 444 91 454 93 448 92 451 92 449 92 430 88 426 87 Yes Houston 569 510 90 537 94 528 93 536 94 549 96 546 96 560 98 564 99 550 97 559 98 Yes Johnstone HS 1380 872 63 865 63 877 64 907 66 903 65 908 66 895 65 893 65 860 62 849 62 Auchenlodment PS 302 210 70 194 64 208 69 202 67 196 65 186 62 184 61 176 58 177 59 172 57 Cochrane Castle 242 113 47 95 39 90 37 92 38 83 34 87 36 89 37 88 36 89 37 90 37 Fordbank 327 257 79 251 77 248 76 246 75 237 72 234 72 226 69 220 67 224 69 219 67 Howwood 184 104 57 105 57 108 59 103 56 101 55 87 47 88 48 92 50 90 49 87 47 Kilbarchan 352 203 58 193 55 192 55 177 50 171 49 173 49 169 48 161 46 160 45 157 45 Lochwinnoch 327 189 58 218 67 202 62 205 63 215 66 232 71 231 71 213 65 205 63 195 60 Thorn 242 136 56 126 52 119 49 122 50 121 50 119 49 114 47 111 46 113 47 117 48 Linwood HS 576 431 75 452 78 457 79 450 78 444 77 450 78 430 75 420 73 408 71 411 71 East Fulton 377 228 60 235 62 252 67 260 69 267 71 272 72 276 73 276 73 282 75 278 74 Woodlands 459 199 43 202 44 195 42 192 42 194 42 177 39 181 39 181 39 182 40 179 39 Paisley Grammar 1329 1096 82 1092 82 1086 82 1094 82 1100 83 1101 83 1121 84 1153 87 1164 88 1190 90 Yes Gallowhill 352 207 59 207 59 215 61 212 60 213 61 207 59 196 56 189 54 182 52 175 50 Mossvale 272 203 75 196 72 198 73 201 74 212 78 212 78 206 76 209 77 215 79 214 79 Ralston 459 382 83 401 87 409 89 413 90 419 91 431 94 431 94 427 93 420 92 415 90 Yes Todholm 434 396 91 364 84 373 86 361 83 349 80 351 81 348 80 341 79 341 79 329 76 Yes Williamsburgh 594 325 55 363 61 389 65 396 67 407 69 411 69 417 70 418 70 429 72 428 72 Park Mains HS 1756 1517 86 1578 90 1626 93 Park Mains HS 2000 1669 83 1730 87 1805 90 1890 95 1985 99 2080 104 2169 108 Yes Bargarran PS 272 219 81 237 87 233 86 224 82 220 81 209 77 196 72 190 70 169 62 167 61 Yes Barsail 401 310 77 305 76 290 72 274 68 259 65 235 59 222 55 215 54 206 51 198 49 Bishopton 519 397 76 335 65 342 66 333 64 334 64 331 64 330 64 333 64 341 66 342 66 Dargavel 698 620 89 866 124 1000 143 1147 164 1261 181 1354 194 1406 201 1414 203 1423 204 1429 205 Yes Inchinnan 217 124 57 111 51 100 46 103 47 113 52 109 50 109 50 109 50 110 51 113 52 Langbank 100 73 73 79 79 85 85 93 93 93 93 97 97 98 98 101 101 103 103 100 100 Yes Rashielea 434 152 35 152 35 148 34 152 35 155 36 150 35 146 34 145 33 143 33 142 33 Renfrew HS 1267 881 70 854 67 872 69 879 69 884 70 894 71 899 71 927 73 949 75 962 76 Arkleston PS 352 282 80 315 89 322 91 334 95 346 98 336 95 330 94 326 93 323 92 323 92 Yes Kirklandneuk 619 436 70 445 72 447 72 448 72 428 69 423 68 420 68 420 68 422 68 430 69 Newmains 459 410 89 406 88 396 86 381 83 357 78 347 76 342 75 334 73 326 71 316 69 Yes Page 76 of 230
Page 81
St Andrew’s Academy 1250 1492 119 1488 119 1487 119 1489 119 1499 120 1499 120 1508 121 1532 123 1518 121 1531 122 Yes St Catherine’s 272 238 88 238 88 254 93 264 97 244 90 242 89 236 87 230 85 224 82 218 80 Yes St Charles’ 459 401 87 388 85 398 87 392 85 388 85 385 84 383 83 371 81 370 81 360 78 Yes St Fergus’ 175 151 86 176 101 178 102 163 93 156 89 149 85 140 80 138 79 139 79 141 81 Yes St James’ (Paisley) 217 161 74 145 67 143 66 146 67 147 68 151 70 144 66 147 68 151 70 150 69 St John Ogilvie 272 242 89 291 107 310 114 320 118 321 118 329 121 334 123 334 123 340 125 338 124 Yes St Mary’s 327 298 91 313 96 314 96 309 94 321 98 329 101 332 102 329 101 335 102 336 103 Yes St Paul’s 217 167 77 153 71 143 66 135 62 129 59 132 61 130 60 128 59 128 59 126 58 St Peter's 352 216 61 225 64 226 64 217 62 219 62 205 58 202 57 199 57 201 57 202 57 St Benedict's HS 850 783 92 824 97 837 98 853 100 858 101 853 100 831 98 820 96 794 93 786 92 Yes Our Lady of Peace 352 241 68 227 64 219 62 217 62 215 61 214 61 216 61 215 61 219 62 216 61 St Anthony’s 302 274 91 245 81 236 78 242 80 235 78 230 76 226 75 222 74 225 75 221 73 Yes St David’s 184 88 48 84 46 83 45 88 48 88 48 86 47 89 48 88 48 90 49 89 48 St Fillan's 184 97 53 89 48 79 43 83 45 91 49 94 51 93 51 93 51 91 49 92 50 St Margaret’s 272 173 64 154 57 144 53 143 53 138 51 141 52 136 50 133 49 135 50 136 50 Trinity HS 1032 977 95 1026 99 1052 102 1070 104 1097 106 1110 108 1121 109 1154 112 1187 115 1204 117 Yes St Anne’s 242 139 57 132 55 125 52 127 52 123 51 118 49 115 48 113 47 110 45 109 45 St Catherine’s 272 238 88 238 88 254 93 264 97 244 90 242 89 236 87 230 85 224 82 218 80 Yes St James’ (Renfrew) 676 553 82 583 86 593 88 610 90 601 89 589 87 573 85 569 84 568 84 571 84 Yes St John Bosco 272 242 89 264 97 264 97 260 96 252 93 254 93 258 95 256 94 249 92 248 91 Yes Page 77 of 230
Page 82
Page 78 of 230
Page 83
SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY BOARD ON 26/08/2025 RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL Item No.PROPOSAL:LOCATION:APPLICANT: WARD: APPN. NO: 25/0059/PP Mr Matthew Castle Scottish Power Energy Networks Unit B4 Southcraig Avenue Rowallan Business Park BAE Land UK - Environmental Test Facility Glenluce Drive Bishopton Erection of substation with associated apparatus, fencing, de-mountable floodlights and access trackWard 11 RECOMMENDATION: Grant Subject to Conditions A 22/0647/PP Stewart Milne Group Ltd. Kestel House 3 Kilmartin Place Tannochside Business Park Uddingston Site Between Strathgryffe Tennis And Squash Club And Barochan Road Houston Johnstone Erection of residential development including access, drainage, landscaping and associated works.Ward 10 RECOMMENDATION: Grant Subject to Conditions & S75 B 23/0622/EB Energy Consents Unit Scottish Government 5 Atlantic Quay 150 Broomielaw Glasgow G2 8LU Site Between Turningshaw Farm And Knowes Farm Houston Road Houston Johnstone Installation of a solar farm and battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure with a generating capacity of up to 100mw (Energy Consents Unit consultation request) Ward 10 RECOMMENDATION: No Objection with Provisions C 25/0232/PP Bluestone Energy Ltd. Tower 42 25 Old Broad Street London England EC2N 1HQ Land At Middleton Farm Middleton Road Linwood Paisley PA3 3AG Installation of a ground-mounted solar array and associated infrastructureWard 10 RECOMMENDATION: Grant Subject to Conditions D 25/0241/FUR Miller Homes Ltd Clydesdale House 300 Springhill Parkway Bailleston Glasgow Scotland G69 6GA Former Thornly Park Campus Caplethill Road Paisley Section 42 application to vary planning condition 10 (offsite improvements) of planning permission 20/0510/PP in relation to an alternative footpath location. Ward 6 RECOMMENDATION: Grant Subject to Conditions & S75 E Item 4 PACC260825 Page 79 of 230
Page 84
Item No.PROPOSAL:LOCATION:APPLICANT: WARD: APPN. NO: 25/0370/PP Mr Douglas Lyle Scart Farm Kilmacolm Road Bridge of Weir Scotland PA11 3SP Site 350 Metres North East Of Fodstone Farm Kilmacolm Road Bridge Of Weir Erection of 8 holiday cottages with associated landscaping and infrastructure worksWard 11 RECOMMENDATION: Refuse F 25/0379/FUR Undefined c/o Tinto Architecture Mill House Grandholm Crescent Bridge Of Don Aberdeen AB22 8BB 57 High Street Paisley PA1 2AN Section 42 application to vary condition 9 (Drainage Impact Assessment) to include Surface Water Strategy and to remove condition 10 (Surface Water strategy) of planning permission 22/0236/PP Ward 5 RECOMMENDATION: Grant Subject to Conditions G Total Number of Applications to be considered = 7 Page 80 of 230
Page 85
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 26 August 2025 Supplementary 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 supplementary report should be read together with the original report of handling considered by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board on the 20 May 2025. Appendix 1 details the original report of handling. Background The Planning and Climate Change Policy Board at its meeting on 20 May 2025 considered the attached report of handling and decided to continue the consideration of the report to allow a site visit to take place. The detailed assessment of the proposed development is included in the attached report of handling. It should be noted that following the meeting on 20th May 2025 an additional four letters of representation have been submitted. The total number of representations is now 125, all of which object to the proposed development. The additional letters of representation do not raise any additional matters beyond that which have already been summarised and responded to in the initial report. Site Visit A site visit took place on 19 August 2025 and those members attending viewed the application site and its surroundings. The site visit was conducted in accordance with the Protocol for Site Visits, and members attending did not discuss the merits of the proposal. Recommendation As detailed in the report of handling which was considered by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board on 20 May 2025, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Item 4(a) PACC260825 Page 81 of 230
Page 86
APPENDIX 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 82 of 230
Page 87
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. Page 83 of 230
Page 88
Negotiated Improvements 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 84 of 230
Page 89
▪ 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 85 of 230
Page 90
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 86 of 230
Page 91
▪ 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 87 of 230
Page 92
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 88 of 230
Page 93
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 89 of 230
Page 94
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 90 of 230
Page 95
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 91 of 230
Page 96
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 92 of 230
Page 97
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 93 of 230
Page 98
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 94 of 230
Page 99
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 95 of 230
Page 100
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 96 of 230
Page 101
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 97 of 230
Page 102
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 98 of 230
Page 103
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 99 of 230
Page 104
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 100 of 230
Page 105
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 101 of 230
Page 106
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 102 of 230
Page 107
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 103 of 230
Page 108
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 104 of 230
Page 109
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 105 of 230
Page 110
- 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 106 of 230
Page 111
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 SP4190120 0.A Visual Display of Similar Substation at Page 107 of 230
Page 112
Another Site For further information please contact James Weir, Development Standards Team, Email: james.weir@renfrewshire.gov.uk. Page 108 of 230
Page 113
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 26 August 2025 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 22/0647/PP Application Type Planning Permission Proposal Erection of residential development including access, drainage, landscaping, and associated works. Location Site Between Strathgryffe Tennis and Squash Club and, Barochan Road, Houston Ward 10 - Houston, Crosslee and Linwood Community Council Houston Community Council Applicant Stewart Milne Group Ltd. Recommendation Grant subject to conditions and an appropriate form of legal agreement to secure planning obligations 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=summary&keyVal=RI34VUMWJSF00 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 relates to a major development as defined within the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. Proposal This planning application for this site was initially lodged in September 2022 by Stewart Milne Homes (SMH), who subsequently entered receivership in 2023. In 2024, Miller Homes assumed control of the site, with confirmation from the appointed Administrator that the company was authorised to progress the planning application. Miller Homes has submitted a revised site layout and a package of updated supporting documentation, which has been the subject of appropriate statutory re-notification, re-advertisement and re-consultation alongside additional courtesy notification. Concurrently, the Council sought legal advice to determine whether a new round of statutory pre-application consultation activity (associated with the Proposal of Application Notice process) would be required, and were advised that no additional requirements applied, as the existing application was being progressed. The application has been assessed based on this updated information. This application seeks planning permission for a residential development of 100 units, on a site located on the northern edge of Houston, a village situated to the northwest of Paisley and designated as an additional Housing Site within the Adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021. The site is positioned approximately 200 metres north of the village centre, adjacent to Barochan Road, the main north-south route through the village and to the northwest of the Houston conservation area. The proposed development features a single point of vehicular access from Barochan Road to the east and is structured around a central open space corridor that runs through the centre of the site, forming a key feature of the layout and maintaining views to and from the War Memorial and the North Mound Scheduled Ancient Monument, located just outside the site boundary. Dwellings are arranged to front onto this corridor and the open space functions as a landscape, play area and movement corridor with the intention to integrate pedestrian and cycle routes to promote connectivity within the development. Five dwellings are positioned to Item 4(b) PACC260825 Page 109 of 230
Page 114
the front onto Barochan Road along the eastern boundary of the site providing a street frontage. Vehicular access is taken from Barochan Road leading into a circular street pattern, branching into smaller housing clusters. Footpath links extend outwards to the north onto Killalan Road, south-east onto Barochan Road and Main Street and west to Fleming Road, providing access to surrounding areas, local amenities, and public transport connections. The proposed dwellinghouses comprise a mix of house types, including detached, semi- detached, terraces and flatted properties, 25 of which are designated as affordable homes. A range of unit sizes are proposed, from one-bedroom to five-bedroom homes, designed with variations in design, height, form, and materials which aim to compliment the local context. Parking provision within each plot and visitor parking throughout the development would meet standard parking requirements. Finishing materials comprise a variety of materials including facing stone, a variety of renders and mortars and red and grey slates. The landscape strategy for the site includes the retention and enhancement of many existing trees and woodlands through management, including selective thinning south of the North Mound to preserve views towards the War Memorial. Replacement planting is proposed as a means to offset any tree loss, with further landscaping seeking to create a gateway feature, soften boundaries and promote habitat connectivity. Site Description The site extends to approximately 7.3 hectares and comprises two former grazing fields to the east, and a smaller paddock, farmstead, and kennels to the west. It includes several small woodland areas of varying age and species and forms an irregularly shaped plot. The site generally slopes from north to south towards the Houston Burn, with notable variations in elevation across its extent. The highest point lies in the northern section, with levels falling gradually to the south and east. In the western part of the site, the existing steading/kennels is situated approximately 44 metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD), while the adjacent watercourse along the site's boundary lies at around 35 metres AOD. To the north, the site is bounded by agricultural land and mature woodland and the North Mound Scheduled Ancient Monument just off Kilallan Road. Barochan Road forms the eastern boundary, opposite existing residential development. To the south the site adjoins the housing of Fleming Road and North Street along with woodland areas and a section of the Houston burn. To the west the site is bound by farmland and Strathgryffe Tennis and Squash Club. Houston Conservation Area lies to the south and east, with its northwestern extent defined by Barochan Road. A War Memorial located on the western side of Barochan road, adjacent to the site's eastern boundary, serves as a key visual landmark when viewed northwards along Main Street. 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 discussions have taken place, focusing on the following matters: ▪ Layout and design. ▪ Connectivity. ▪ Potential impacts on setting and character of the conservation area. ▪ Potential impacts on setting of North Mound Scheduled Monument and War Memorial. Housing mix. Page 110 of 230
Page 115
▪ Open space provision. ▪ Natural environment and biodiversity. ▪ Thinning of tree belt on Kilallan Road to enhance the setting of the North Mound and enhance its connection to the War Memorial and Main Street. Negotiated Improvements Following submission, the following changes have been negotiated between officers and the applicant: ▪ The reduction in units to ensure an appropriate off-set from the North Mound Scheduled Monument to the north. ▪ The re-orientation of various units to ensure a stronger and more effective connection between the built form and SUD's space. ▪ Enabling views across the green space from the development's public spaces. ▪ Retaining connections into the development including from the path which cuts between the Tennis Club and the housing to the southwest of the site to create an informal link to the application site and its path network. ▪ New pedestrian footpath provision to link the development with the existing village footpath network and that of the development; Footway enhancements with particular consideration to impacts on War memorial and woodland setting. 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 No: 22/0206/PN Description: Proposed residential development including access, drainage, landscaping, and associated works Decision: Accepted Application No: 22/0246/EA Description: Request for Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion for a residential development including access, drainage, landscaping, and associated work Decision: Environmental Assessment not required Consultations ▪ Houston Community Council - Object to the proposal for reasons including the principle of residential development on this site, inadequate pre-application consultation, disruption to historic fabric of village during construction, impact of development on Scheduled Ancient Monument and War Memorial, impact of development on setting of the conservation area, overdevelopment of the site, inadequate availability of local services including school provision, inappropriate house design, inappropriate housing mix and level of affordable homes, inadequate landscaping and biodiversity impact mitigation. ▪ Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) – No objection to the proposal on the ground of flood risk, commenting that in line with the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted in support of the application, it is clear that the updated layout ensures that the development continues to avoid the flood risk area as determined by the FRA. ▪ West Of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) - Although not objecting to the proposal, WoSAS maintains the view that the development would have a substantial impact on the setting of the North Mound Scheduled Ancient Monument. While acknowledging that, in determining planning applications, WoSAS have recognised that planning authorities may have to balance the benefits of development with the importance of the feature, and so Page 111 of 230
Page 116
they state that if planning permission is to be granted, a condition should be attached to secure a suitable programme of archaeological fieldwork in advance of development. ▪ Scottish Water - No objection. ▪ Children's Services - Children's Services have requested a contribution in respect of education provision at Gryffe High School, St Benedict’s High School and Houston Primary School as these schools are operating at above 85% capacity. The contribution sought totals £1,848,000. ▪ Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Contaminated Land) - No objection to the proposal subject to conditions requiring the submission of a Site Investigation Report and Remediation Strategy prior to the commencement of development and Verification Reports prior to the occupation of any unit. ▪ Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Environmental Protection) - No objection to the proposal confirming that the Noise Impact Assessment submitted demonstrates that no mitigation measures would be required. ▪ Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) - No objection to the proposal subject to conditions including: - Agreement on final details of the ramped path, including steps, local narrowing, and alignment with existing path. - Provision of swept path analysis to determine and confirm carriageway widths internally and widths on Main Street leading up towards the War Memorial. - Provision of a minimum of 2 metre footways between property frontages within the site, including on the opposite side of the carriageway where appropriate and along key desire lines. - Agreement on a landscaping plan to assist in maintaining exit speeds along Barochan Road and lowering traffic speeds entering from the north. This will include a tabletop gateway and avenue tree planting on both sides of the corridor from Killalan Road to Old School House Lane. - Agreement on a palette of materials reflective of location adjacent the conservation area and of the Fleming Road development and which accord with the Houston Community Led Active Travel Plan. ▪ Historic Environment Scotland (HES) - HES recognise that the North Mound monument has a clear relationship with Houston War Memorial and Main Street, as these features of the town have been aligned to reference Houston North Mound. They are satisfied that the reorientation/relocation of plots 21 and 22, taken together with the thinning of trees at the southeast of the monument and the removal of proposed planting are adequate adjustments to the proposed development to preserve the relationship between the scheduled monument, Houston Main Street and the War Memorial and sufficiently address concerns regarding the setting of the monument. This has all been reflected on an updated proposed site layout plan and HES offer no objection to the proposal on the basis. ▪ Fairhurst (Councils External Flooding & Drainage Independent Consultants) – The consultants are satisfied that the information provided in support of the application demonstrates that the proposed development can be located out with the area at risk of fluvial flooding and that appropriate measures are proposed to deal with overland flow subject to ongoing maintenance to ensure its effective operation. It states that information provided acceptably demonstrates that the site is not considered to be at risk of flooding in the event of infrastructure failure or in the event of sewer failure. A Pre-Development Enquiry Capacity review letter confirms capacity within the local water and sewer network to service the development. Page 112 of 230
Page 117
Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The following representations were received at the time of writing this report: ▪ Object - 563 ▪ Support - 6 ▪ Neutral - 3 The issues raised can be summarised as follows: 1. The site should have remained within the green belt as there are more suitable sites within Renfrewshire which could accommodate any housing land supply obligations. 2. Impact on Conservation Area. 3. Impact on North Mound Scheduled Ancient Monument. 4. Impact on War Memorial/tree loss. 5. Impact on biodiversity and Trees. 6. Impact on roads infrastructure. 7. Flooding and Drainage. 8. Schools are already at capacity and cannot cope with a development of this size. 9. Impact on local amenities and facilities already at breaking point. 10. Strength of objection against the proposal. 11. Impact on Climate Change. 12. Too many larger houses and absence of the house types demanded by local people. 13. Overdevelopment of the site. 14. Distance from the bus network. 15. Flooding in the Houston Burn in the last years has affected homeowners downstream. 16. The pre-application consultation undertaken related to an earlier proposal substantially different to the current proposal and should have been repeated for the current proposal. 17. The development could indirectly impact a natural habitat of the water vole, which is an endangered species, due to increased surface water out flows. 18. Potential disruption and damage to the historic fabric of the of buildings on Barochan Road and Main Street and the wider Houston area during the construction phase. 19. The Archaeology Report lacks sufficient depth given the history of area and archaeological sensitivity of the site. 20. Design and Access Statement lacking in information. 21. Ecology Survey is not sufficiently independent, relying on historical data. 22. Arboricultural Impact Assessment is not sufficiently independent. 23. The site was given an indicative capacity of 59 units within the LDP and no explanation of why it should be considered suitable for 100 homes. 24. The tree belt on the northern boundary of the site was artificially created by the landowner as a tree belt to justify release of the site. 25. The site is too far from the bus network to make the active travel provision viable and should include upgrading of pedestrian networks out with the immediate vicinity of the site. 26. Proposed footpaths are too steep and do not conform to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. 27. The educational contribution won't necessarily be applied to the local capacity issues. 28. Houston's infrastructure and public amenities cannot accommodate this scale of development, including road infrastructure, healthcare, shops, and education. 29. Unfair targeting by developers with unsuitable housing types and tenures. 30. Miller Homes have refused to engage in a public forum where they could be challenged on their plans. 31. There are no proposed public realm improvements to the village core or wider village which would integrate the development rather just being an addition. 32. Parking and access directly onto Barochan Road would present a serious a traffic hazard. Page 113 of 230
Page 118
33. The proposal is car orientated and includes three car driveways on many of the properties increasing traffic generation. 34. There would be no community benefit as a result of this proposal. 35. The stone turret feature proposed to mark entry into the village does not reflect the nature of the conservation area at this location. 36. Any low carbon sustainable infrastructure would be offset by the car usage associated with this development. 37. No details of the bio rich environment referred to are provided. 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 6 - Forestry, woodland, and trees ▪ Policy 7 - Historic assets and places ▪ Policy 12 - Zero waste. ▪ Policy 13 - Sustainable transport ▪ Policy 14 - Design, quality, and place ▪ Policy 15 - Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods ▪ Policy 16 - Quality homes ▪ Policy 18 - Infrastructure first ▪ Policy 21 - Play, recreation, and sport ▪ Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan ▪ Policy P1 - Renfrewshire's Places ▪ Policy P2 - Housing Land Supply ▪ Policy P3 - Housing Mix and Affordable Housing ▪ Policy ENV2 - Natural Heritage ▪ Policy ENV3 - Built and Cultural Heritage ▪ Policy I1 - Connecting Places ▪ Policy I3 - Flooding and Drainage ▪ Policy I4 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments ▪ Policy I7 - Zero and Low Carbon Buildings ▪ Policy I8 - Developer Contributions Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. Other relevant policies and guidance New Development Supplementary Guidance: ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy ▪ Delivering the Places Strategy Page 114 of 230
Page 119
Material Considerations: ▪ Renfrewshire Planning and Development Tree Policy ▪ Renfrewshire's Places Residential Design Guide ▪ Site Development Brief Submitted Reports and Assessments The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: ▪ Environmental Screening Checklist - A request for a screening opinion determined that though the proposal would fall within Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, it is not likely that the proposed works would have a significant environmental impact which would require an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken. ▪ Transport Assessment (June 2025) - The report contains details of data abstraction, traffic generation calculations and subsequent analysis of road network and junction operation. Parking provision and servicing requirements are also addressed. ▪ Flood Risk Assessment (May 2025) - The report assesses flood risk at the site and outlines any mitigation measures required to ensure that the proposed development is not at an unacceptable risk of flooding and will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere in accordance with current planning policy. ▪ Ecological Assessment Report (March 2025) - The assessment aimed to determine the ecological baseline and identify and evaluate potential effects that the proposed development may have on designated sites, habitats, and protected/notable species. ▪ Design and Access Statement and PAC Report (June 2025) - The statement explains the development parameters, design concepts and principles that have shaped and informed a detailed layout for the site and provides details of the PAC process and its outcomes. ▪ Arboricultural Impact Assessment (June 2025) - The report details the findings of a desk study, field data interpretation, quantification of tree constraints, descriptions of predicted impacts on arboricultural interest, and recommendations for avoidance, mitigation, and compensatory strategies. ▪ Drainage Strategy Report (November 2024) - The report provides an insight into the existing drainage arrangements at the site and how the drainage serving the proposed development can be managed in a sustainable manner to meet the requirements of Renfrewshire Council, Scottish Water, and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. ▪ Stantec Heritage Technical Note (June 2025) - This statement describes how the proposal has been formulated to comply with national policy requirements and how impacts on the monument have been minimised through the design and layout of the proposal. ▪ Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) (March 2025) - The LVIA considers the sites wider landscape and setting extending 2 km from the site, based on the site layout and the principles set out in the Design and Access Statement. Its purpose is to inform development of the site by identifying and assessing the significance of potential impacts and the mitigation of adverse effects thereby ensuring that landscape and visual considerations have been fully integrated into the design. It concludes although there will be moderate visual effects and moderate effects on the landscape on completion of the development, these should reduce to moderate-minor adverse effects as the proposed planting establishes and matures. No significant landscape effects on regional or Local Landscape Character are anticipated. Page 115 of 230
Page 120
▪ Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) (March 2025) - This assessment considers potential noise impacts arising from both a dog day care/kennels and from events held at Strathgryffe Tennis, Squash and Fitness Club, on future residents of the proposed development. It concludes that noise from both the dog daycare facility (Pawz & Co) and Strathgryffe Tennis, Squash and Fitness Club are within acceptable limits and would not unacceptably impact the residents of the development. ▪ Planning Statement (March 2025) - This statement analyses the planning context of the site, the character of its surroundings and the detail of the proposed development, against relevant planning policy and material considerations. ▪ Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment - The aims of the study were to assess evidence of past human use of the area, its archaeological sensitivity, and potential impact of any development upon the archaeological resource. It concludes that although the proposal has the potential to affect the settings of both the Schedules Ancient Monument of 'North Mound' and Houston Conservation Area, the setting of both sites has been considered within the development plans with suitable mitigation applied. ▪ Energy Statement - This report demonstrates how the development will meet energy and sustainability policies, by reducing energy demand, improving energy efficiency, and incorporating low-carbon or renewable energy technologies. ▪ Factoring Statement - This statement sets out the proposed arrangements for the management and maintenance of communal elements of the proposal after completion. ▪ Visualisation Sheets - Visualisations of the proposals within the site and its setting. 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. None. Planning Assessment The application site is designated as a Housing Land Supply Site under policy P2 of the Local Development Plan (2021) (LDP). Policy P2 identifies the site as contributing to the 5-year supply of effective housing land required for Renfrewshire. Therefore, in accordance with the Councils Local Development Plan, housing would be an appropriate and compliant use which would contribute towards meeting Renfrewshire's Housing Need and Demand. The application site is also covered by Policy P1 which states that within these areas there will be a general presumption in favour of a continuance of the built form and that new development proposals within these areas should make a positive contribution to the place and be compatible and complementary to existing uses and character. The proposed development is considered to comply with policy P1 in principle insofar as it is compatible with surrounding land uses which are predominantly residential. Page 116 of 230
Page 121
However, Policy P1 also states that all development proposals should avoid causing unacceptable impacts on the environment and/or biodiversity or a loss of amenity within the surrounding area while ensuring that the infrastructure, connections, and services required to support the development are in place. To demonstrate compliance with Policy P1, the development must be assessed against the provisions of the New Development Supplementary Guidance, Renfrewshire's Places Residential Design Guide, the Design Guide specific to this site and the Scottish Government publications on Designing Places and Designing Streets. These documents outline a series of key considerations that underpin effective places design which will be assessed in turn. Context and Character The application site is located on the edge of Houston, adjacent the Conservation Area and established areas of residential development. The site is bounded by both a Scheduled Ancient Monument and War Memorial and the layout proposed has recognised the importance of these features and their settings. Policy 7 of NPF4 'Historic Assets and Places' states that development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets or places should be accompanied by an assessment based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and identify the likely visual or physical impact of the proposals for change and provide a sound basis for managing the impacts of change. Such proposals should also be informed by national policy and guidance on Managing Change in the Historic Environment. Policy ENV 3 'Built and Cultural Heritage' considers that development in a conservation area and out with, which impacts on its appearance, character or setting should preserve or enhance its character and appearance. It also considers that development proposals, within or in the vicinity of a scheduled ancient monument will be required to demonstrate that there is no adverse impact on the site or its setting. In this regard the applicant has undertaken extensive consultation with the Council, Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and the West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS), and as a result, concessions have been made to the layout and landscape approach to site development in order to address concerns raised regarding impacts. A Heritage Note alongside visualisations have been submitted to demonstrate how the development will appear within the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument and how the impact of development will be minimised. Both HES and WoSAS were consulted on the application and while HES were satisfied with the concessions made and confirmed no objections subject to the updated site layout plan reflecting these, WoSAS, although not objecting to the proposal, maintain concerns that the development proposed would substantially impact the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument. In considering all information submitted, it is concluded that, the Heritage Note alongside the visualisations demonstrate that the layout of the site, the orientation of the dwellings within it, and the careful placement of areas of open space have all been thoughtfully designed to preserve the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument. These elements have worked together to ensure that the development respects the historical significance of the monument, maintaining its visual and spatial context including its relationship to the War Memorial. As a result, the impact on the monument has been kept to a minimum while enabling development of this site. In line with the advice of PAN 2/2011 - Planning and Archaeology, a balance has been achieved which considers both the benefits of development and importance of this archaeological feature. Due weight is also given to the consultation response from HES who are in this case a statutory consultee to the planning application. In this regard the proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of policy 7 and ENV3. Page 117 of 230
Page 122
Similarly, particular consideration has been given to the importance and setting of the War Memorial, which although not subject of an environmental designation, holds deep significance for the local community and its heritage. It occupies a prominent place within the village setting, contributing to its character and identity. Again, the layout and design of the development has recognised the importance of this feature and has sought to preserve the integrity of the memorial and its setting while facilitating the sensitive development of the site. The green spine extending through the site from the War Memorial at its southern boundary to the North Mound on its northwestern edge preserves visual connections between these key features. The development has been sensitively offset to retain elements of the original setting and spatial character of the Memorial, ensuring the conservation of existing woodland where possible, and views from beyond the site. In particular, the green spaces maintained around the War Memorial contribute to preserving its sense of serenity and reinforce its significance within the landscape. The application site plays a role in defining the setting of Houston when approaching the village from the north along Barochan Road. It also faces the western edge of Houston Conservation Area. In this regard, the site is situated close to a number of buildings and developments with characteristics that have helped inform the approach to development in layout, building design, materials, and streetscape. The Old Schoolhouse building which sits opposite the site on Barochan Road, features a gable end facing the street, which along with its fenestration creates an appealing gateway element that enhances the northern approach to the village. Between the School House and Kilmacolm Road is the late 20th century housing of School House Lane featuring rows of one and a half/two storey terraced properties within a landscape setting. These are set back from Barochan Road behind a natural stone wall that, along with tree canopies, add to the character of this approach. A recent housing development sits to the southwest of the site comprising two storey detached properties arranged around a watercourse. The proposed development has sought to create an attractive and distinct gateway into Houston along Barochan Road with an architectural form and building orientation that responds to the Old School House and School House Lane development while retaining important natural features within the site. The proposed housing has been designed to respect and enhance the established character of this approach to the village. The orientation of the new dwellings reflects the existing settlement pattern, reinforcing the linear emphasis of the village and maintaining key views along the approach route. Beyond the initial stretch of property frontage onto Barochan Road, homes are set back and orientated to create a village green feature providing a landscaped setting for the Old School House and directing views into the site and along the green corridor. To provide varied roof lines, buildings are a mix of heights which are reflective of the heights of buildings within the conservation area. Building designs have drawn from local architecture and surrounding development while proposed materials are intended to respect and compliment the palette of the surrounding area. Streetscape considerations, including the retention of woodlands, building setbacks and active frontages along Barochan Road and throughout the site, together with frontage landscaping and the inclusion of tree planting will soften the built form and reinforce the rural character of the village edge, enhancing the visual quality of this entrance to the village. Therefore, overall, the development is considered to adequately address its location in terms of context and character as set out within the Supplementary Guidance. Access & Connectivity Policies 13 and 15 advocate local living to encourage connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet most daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home. Policies 13 and I1 advocate good accessibility and connectivity to walking, cycling and public transport. Page 118 of 230
Page 123
The proposed development layout has been designed to ensure permeability and connectivity and includes three formal pedestrian access points. These are on the northern boundary which will connect onto Killalan Road, a designated core path, the eastern boundary which will connect the development with Barochan Road where footways will be upgraded to link with the existing pedestrian network into the village, and on the south western boundary which will connect the development with the existing pedestrian network past the Strathgryffe Tennis and Squash Club and onto Fleming Road. The connection to Barochan Road also functions as the sole point of vehicular access to the site. In terms of connections within the development, the circulatory roads layout provides the primary movement route for vehicles and pedestrians. However, an internal network of movement routes will feed through this corridor providing dwellings with direct, convenient, and safe connections to open space encouraging walking and cycling. The Residential Design Guide seeks to promote walkable neighbourhoods. Amenities that are within a walking distance of 5-10 minutes of the site include schools, public houses, shops, and recreational facilities. Schools including St Fillan's Primary School and Gryffe High School are within this distance and Abbey Nursery and Gryffe Manor Nursery are a 10-minute walk. Health services within this walking distance include Houston Surgery and a pharmacy. A local newsagent and the community facilities including the Carrick Centre and Houston Scout Hall and Youth Centre, bars, restaurants, and cafes are located nearby on Main Street, North Street and Bogstonhill Road, within the walkable distance. Places of worship including Houston & Killellan Kirk and St Fillan's Catholic Church are within the 20-minute round trip. Bus stops are situated within a 10-minute walk of the site including stops at Gryffe High School and St Fillan's Primary School. These offer connections to Bridge of Weir, Johnstone, Kilmacolm, Port Glasgow and Greenock and a service to Glasgow. As such, the proposed development aligns with the principles of NPF4 Policy 15 (Local Living and 20-minute Neighbourhoods) and Renfrewshire's Design Guide by creating a sustainable, well-connected neighbourhood where residents can meet their daily needs within a short distance through varying active travel routes. Roads Development have offered no objection to proposal subject to a suite of matters being covered by conditions relating to the final design of certain infrastructure features associated with the development. This would include the final design of pedestrian and cycle connections, the final details of the ramped path, including steps on the southern boundary of the site, local narrowing and alignment of the path connection to these, swept paths to confirm carriageway widths internally and on Main Street hill to the War Memorial, final details of footways between property frontages and agreement on landscaping plans to assist maintaining exit speeds and slowing traffic entering from the north. Particular attention has been given to the pedestrian connections along Barochan Road to Main Street and from the southeastern corner of the site, considering the surrounding mature trees, woodland and the War Memorial and the contribution these features make to the character of Borocahn Road/Main Street. A new footpath will be delivered, which will divert into the site to ensure that the setting of the War Memorial is not adversely impacted avoiding any works to the cobbles or walling of the memorial. It is anticipated that the re-routing of the footpath into the site would also reduce the level of tree removal which would otherwise be lost if the footpath were to be located along Main Street on approach to the site. These aspects of the development are considered to be both acceptable in principle and deliverable in practice subject to agreement of the final details through appropriately worded conditions. Layout and Built Form Page 119 of 230
Page 124
The development has been designed to respond sensitively to its setting, reflecting established patterns of built form, scale and orientation found in the surrounding area. Along the Barochan Road frontage, the layout has sought to reflect existing building lines and incorporate detailing that reflects the local vernacular. Landscaping has sought to address the specific features of this frontage, with similar areas of open space, contributing positively to the street scene. It is noted that in response to pre-application discussions changes were made to the layout of the development including the reduction in units to ensure an appropriate off-set from the North Mound Scheduled Monument to the north. Additionally, the re-orientation of various units was undertaken to strengthen the relationship within the development between the built form and SUD's space. Active travel routes were strengthened including from the path which cuts between the Tennis Club and the housing to the southwest of the site to create an informal link to the application site and its path network together with new pedestrian connections to link the development with the existing village footpath network and that of the development. Footway enhancements with particular consideration to impacts on the War Memorial and woodland setting were included. Environment and Community In accordance with Policy 3, which seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity, and Policy ENV 2 which seeks to minimise impacts on the natural environment, habitats/species and landscape character, the proposed landscape strategy and Arboricultural Report confirm that the majority of existing trees and woodland will be retained and enhanced through active management, with any losses offset by replacement planting. A new landscaped boundary to the northwest will support habitat connectivity and soften edges, while woodland along the western edge will link existing ecological features with the wider landscape. The central open space corridor would preserve views towards the North Mound and the War Memorial, incorporating varied planting, play areas, and recreational links. Existing tree lines to the north and west would be retained to strengthen site boundaries and enhance biodiversity, with selective thinning proposed to reflect the requirements of HES in maintaining the setting of the North Mound. These measures proposed, as supported by the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Arborocultural Report, represent an appropriate approach to biodiversity enhancement and the protection of landscape character, in accordance with Policy 3 and ENV 2. Renfrewshire's Places Design Guide states that the provision of both amenity and recreational open space is an important and valuable part of making sustainable places. In line with this guidance play space provision is located along the central green corridor so that it sits within a comfortable walking distance of all dwellings, in a location with good natural surveillance while also respecting the need for privacy margins and passive recreation. This includes a toddlers play area overlooked from both sides and a natural play area further to the north catering for a wider age range using natural materials to mimic the natural environment. A Noise Impact Assessment was submitted to evaluate potential noise impacts arising from a dog daycare facility located to the northwest of the site and function suite within Strathgryffe Tennis, Squash and Fitness Club. The assessment concluded that noise from both sources fall within acceptable limits and are not expected to result in undue disturbance to future residents. and its potential to cause disturbance to the residents of the proposed development. These findings have been reviewed and accepted by Environmental Services. Policy I3, Policy 22 and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Flooding and Drainage requires development not to have an adverse impact on flooding or drainage arrangements. A Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Report have been submitted in support of the application which conclude that by implementing measures to manage overland flows, the proposed development will not be at risk of flooding nor increase the risk Page 120 of 230
Page 125
elsewhere. Through consultation with Scottish Water, SEPA and the Councils External Flooding and Drainage consultants, it is concluded that the strategy proposed would ensure that the development can be drained in a sustainable manner to meet the requirements of Scottish Water and SEPA in compliance with requirements of NPF4 Policy 22 and Policy I3. Building and Design As set out above, the layout, design, scale, and finish of the proposed dwellings are considered to be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The development has been designed to enhance the gateway corridor into Houston along Barochan Road through the provision of a sensitively designed built frontage. The inclusion of an open space corridor extending from the War Memorial to the site entrance and towards the North Mound, retains important views and settings ensuring that the approach to Houston conservation area from the north is both preserved and enhanced. Views from within the village towards the site are also respected and maintained through careful layout and landscape design. The development will have a range of boundary treatments to assist in distinguishing between public and private spaces including 1800mm timber fences to the rear of properties and a mix of timber fences and brick walls to frontages. Soft landscaping treatments such as native hedgerows are proposed to provide a soft interface between streets, public open spaces and front gardens and where front parking is provided, appropriate boundary treatments such as hedges and walls will be used to ensure that parked cars do not dominate the street scene. Avenue tree planting will be sought along the Barochan Road frontage to enhance the approach to Houston and to contribute to traffic calming. Final details of the boundary treatments will be secured by condition as part of any planning permission granted. Therefore, as the site is also identified as an additional housing allocation under Policy P2 of the LDP and consequently in an appropriate location it is in accordance with Policies 14 and 16. The energy statement sets out the proposed efficiency of the buildings taking a fabric first approach with a highly insulated, airtight envelope which would minimise heat loss. The dwellings would also be fitted with high efficiency boilers together with weather compensators which respond to outside temperatures maximising energy efficiency and minimising energy usage. Photo Voltaic panels will be fitted to all dwellings and each dwelling will come with the inclusion of an Ev charger. The energy efficiency measures proposed would reduce emissions in accordance with Policies 2 and 17. The above assessment demonstrates compliance with relevant policies and guidance relating to place making. It confirms that the proposed development will not result in any unacceptable impacts on the environment, biodiversity, or residential amenity. Furthermore, appropriate infrastructure connections and services are in place, including access to public transport, open space provision, and local services and amenities thereby ensuring the development is well supported. The proposed development will support delivery of two of the overarching spatial principles set out in NPF4 Policy 1 - Local Living and Compact urban Growth. The application site is situated in a sustainable location, and its development as proposed will make a positive contribution to the quality, functionality, and sustainability of the place. In view of the above it is concluded that the development is consistent with the objectives and requirements of Policy P1 of the LDP. This assessment further demonstrates that the proposed development aligns with the other relevant development plan policies identified. Page 121 of 230
Page 126
Recommendations have been made to secure biodiversity enhancement in line with Policy 3 of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). In addition, measures concerning tree protection and compensatory planting will be secured by condition, in accordance with Policy 6 of NPF4 and Policy ENV 2 of the Local Development Plan. The waste management proposals outlined in the Energy Statement demonstrate compliance with Policy 12 of NPF4. The approach includes sourcing timber from certified sustainable sources, procuring bricks with 12% to 16% recycled content and implementing measures to reduce overall waste generation and minimising materials sent to landfill. The development would deliver a proportion of dwellings for affordable rent. The housing mix has been informed by current local needs and wider housing demand across Renfrewshire. As such the development is consistent with the aims and requirements of Policy 16 of NPF4 and P3 of the LDP. With regard to policies 18 of NPF4 and 18 of the LDP, to mitigate the impact of the development on local education infrastructure, Children's Services have requested a contribution in respect of education provision at Gryffe High School, St Benedict's High School and Houston Primary School as these schools are operating at above 85% capacity. The contribution sought has been calculated in line with the terms of the Draft Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance and totals, £1,848,000. The applicant has agreed to meet the cost of the contribution. This contribution will be secured through an appropriate form of legal agreement (most likely under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997), to ensure that the necessary funding is provided prior to the occupation of the development. 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. Representations The majority of the matters raised in the letters of representation have been addressed in the foregoing assessment however a detailed summary of the points raised is also set out below with a response below each highlighted in bold. 1. The site should have remained within the green belt as there are more suitable sites within Renfrewshire which could accommodate any housing land supply obligations. The site is allocated as an Additional Housing Site within the adopted Local Development Plan. The plan was adopted in 2021 following an examination by a Reporter. The application requires to be considered in the context of the Adopted Local Development Plan. 2. Impact on Conservation Area. As considered in the assessment section of the report, the proposed development has been carefully designed to respect and respond to its location on the edge of Houston Conservation Area. Particular attention has been given to the siting, design, and choice of materials to ensure that the development is sympathetic to its context, particularly on frontages to the conservation area. The landscape setting has been considered and integrated throughout the site and along its boundaries, with specific emphasis on preserving and enhancing the character of key views. Notably, the approach from Barochan Road, the main access Page 122 of 230
Page 127
from the north, has been considered to maintain a positive entry into Houston. Similarly, views from Main Street towards the site have been assessed to ensure that the development sits comfortably with its surroundings. 3. Impact on North Mound Scheduled Ancient Monument. The development has been designed to minimise impact on the North Mound scheduled Ancient Monument, with careful consideration given to siting and layout of the proposed buildings. Extensive consultation was undertaken with both Historic Environment Scotland and West of Scotland Archaeological Service and a Heritage Assessment was submitted in support of the application together with a series of Visualisations to demonstrate, that the development would not unacceptably harm the monuments significance or setting. Historic Environment Scotland as a statutory consultee to this planning application were satisfied that the proposed development preserves the relationship between the scheduled monument, Houston Main Street and the War Memorial and sufficiently address concerns regarding the setting of the monument 4. Impact on War Memorial/tree loss. The layout of the development and design of the buildings have been guided by a focus on preserving and enhancing the setting of the War Memorial and views from it to the North Mound. A key feature of the layout and landscaping proposals for the site is the creation of a green corridor that will extend through the site, preserving visual connections between the war memorial and the North Mound. By incorporating these design elements, the proposal will respect the significance of both the North mound and the War memorial, ensuring that both will remain prominent features of Houston, while also providing a high-quality residential development for the village. Of particular consideration was the tree cover adjacent to the War Memorial within the embankment along the Barochan Road frontage. A footpath connection from Barochan Road to Main Street has been formulated to preserve as many mature trees as is possible while providing footpath connections along Barochan Road to Main Street and from Main Street/ Barochan Road into the development. This would be secured by a condition of any planning permission granted. 5. Impact on biodiversity and Trees. An Ecological Assessment has been submitted in support of the application, which identifies measures to mitigate impact on biodiversity. The report details predicted impacts on arboricultural interest, and recommendations for avoidance, mitigation, and compensatory strategies. The results of this assessment and that of the Arborocultural Assessment have been used in formulating appropriate landscaping proposals for the site including ecological enhancement across the site to ensure there is no net loss of biodiversity. The landscaping strategy incorporates green buffers and boundary treatments designed to preserve and enhance existing tree cover while also mitigating the impact of any necessary tree loss. This is complimented by native shrub and hedge planting, which contributes to biodiversity, visual amenity, and the overall ecological value of the site. 6. Impact on roads infrastructure. A Transport Statement was submitted in support of the application to assess the suitability of the proposal and the impact that additional traffic would have on the road network. This information was assessed by the Councils Development Roads Service who were satisfied that the existing roads infrastructure could accommodate the Page 123 of 230
Page 128
proposal subject to a suite of conditions including traffic calming, additional pedestrian connections and upgrading. 7. Flooding and Drainage. A comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) were submitted in support of the application. The FRA concluded there to be no risk of flooding from either coastal or river flooding due to plan distance and vertical separation. Although there was noted to be some risk of surface water flooding to a low point to the north of the site it was concluded that the development of the site and provision of a formal drainage network including SUDs and a cut off ditch would in effect reduce that risk. The DIA concluded that the development could be drained in a sustainable manner to meet the requirements of SEPA, Scottish Water and Renfrewshire council. These strategies and conclusions were accepted by External Flooding and Drainage consultants acting on behalf of the Council. 8. Schools are already at capacity and cannot cope with a development of this size. Children's Services were consulted on this application and have confirmed that developer contributions will be required to ensure that relevant schools within the catchment are able to accommodate the development. This will be secured by an appropriate legal agreement/mechanism with the developer. 9. Impact on local amenities and facilities already at breaking point. The site is allocated as a housing site within the Adopted Local Development Plan. Through the preparation of the plan both prior to its submission to the Scottish Ministers and after their recommendations were published, relevant consultees and interested parties would have been consulted and notified. 10. Strength of objection against the proposal. While the strength of objection and concerns raised by the local community are recognised, planning decisions must be based on material planning considerations. As outlined in the above assessment, which involves balancing competing interests and weighing the benefits of the development against potential impacts, this proposal is considered to comply with the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan and National Planning Framework 4. 11. Impact on Climate Change. National Planning Framework 4 and the policies and guidance set out in the Adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan state that a layout that supports low carbon design is key to assisting in climate change mitigation. The applicant has submitted an Energy Statement demonstrating how the proposed layout, building orientation, construction methods, materials selection and incorporation of low carbon technologies have been integrated into the development to contribute towards reducing carbon emissions. 12. Too many larger houses and absence of the house types demanded by local people. The application proposes the erection of 100 dwellinghouses including 25 affordable homes. The private homes would be a mix of four and five-bedroom houses. The affordable homes would be a mix of two-bedroom terraced house and one-bedroom flats and would be transferred to a Registered Scottish Social Landlord following Page 124 of 230
Page 129
completion. The proposed mix of affordable homes and larger homes is considered appropriate for a development of this type in this area. The inclusion of affordable housing will help meet local housing needs, while the larger homes will cater to a range of household sizes and types, contributing to a balanced and sustainable community. This mix aligns with the policies of the NPF4 and the LDP which require a range of housing options to support local needs. 13. Overdevelopment of the site. The proposal has been carefully designed to ensure an appropriate scale, density, and layout that reflects its location and the character of the surrounding area. Generous provision has been made for open space, landscaping and separation between buildings ensuring a good standard of amenity for future residents and neighbouring properties. The scheme complies with relevant policies and design guidance, and the overall density is consistent with comparable development in the vicinity. It is considered that the development strikes an appropriate balance between meeting housing needs and protecting the amenity of the area. 14. Distance from the bus network. While the bus network is located towards the southern edges of Houston Village centre, there is a focus on enhancing pedestrian and cycle infrastructure with the aim of encouraging active travel to provide residents with viable alternatives to car dependency. It is considered that these measures will contribute to a more sustainable and connected community. 15. Flooding in the Houston Burn in the last years has affected homeowners downstream. In July 2025, following submission of the updated site layout, further consultation was carried out with both SEPA and the Council's external flooding and drainage consultants. Both parties confirmed that the submitted flood risk assessment and drainage information is acceptable and complies with NPF4 Policy 22, which requires that development proposals do increase the risk of flooding to others. 16. The pre-application consultation undertaken related to an earlier proposal substantially different to the current proposal and should have been repeated for the current proposal. Pre-application consultation (PAC) involves notifying and engaging with the local community before a formal major scale planning application is submitted. Where PAC is required, the applicant must provide to the Planning Authority, a proposal of application notice which must include a description of the development in general terms. The description should convey to the layperson what the development involves. In this case, residential development. There is scope for proposals to alter between PAC and an application being submitted. However, any subsequent application needs to be recognisably linked to what was described in the proposal of application notice. Given the nature of the proposal, it is considered that the application is sufficiently linked to the proposals consulted upon at the pre-application stage. 17. The development could indirectly impact a natural habitat of the water vole, which is an endangered species, due to increased surface water out flows. A sustainable drainage system (SuDS) has been incorporated into the design to manage surface water effectively and ensure that outflows do not result in adverse impacts downstream. Any potential indirect effects on habitats, could be mitigated Page 125 of 230
Page 130
where necessary, by ecological safeguards during construction, in line with relevant wildlife legislation. 18. Potential disruption and damage to the historic fabric of the of buildings on Barochan Road and Main Street and the wider Houston area during the construction phase. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) is proposed as a prior to commencement condition. This will set out clear measures to minimise disruption, including controls on vibration, noise, dust, and traffic movements. 19. The Archaeology Report lacks sufficient depth given the history of area and archaeological sensitivity of the site. In July 2025, following submission of an updated information including site layout, visualisations and a Heritage Statement, further consultation was carried out with both Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and the West of Scotland Archaeological Service (WoSAS). This further information enabled HES to conclude they were satisfied that the proposed development preserves the relationship between the scheduled monument, Houston Main Street and the War Memorial and sufficiently addresses concerns regarding the setting of the monument. While WoSAS maintained that the proposal would impact the monument, they did not raise any objections to the Archaeology Report. they suggested a pre-commencement condition to ensure appropriate archaeological field work is carried out, should planning permission be granted. 20. Design and Access Statement lacking in information. The Design and Access Statement forms one part of the overall submission and has been considered as part of the assessment. It is only one of many considerations taken into account in determining the application. 21. Ecology Survey is not sufficiently independent, relying on historical data. It is noted that the Survey has been prepared by a qualified ecological consultant governed by industry standards and guidance. 22. Arboricultural Impact Assessment is not sufficiently independent. It is noted that the Survey has been prepared by a qualified ecological consultant governed by industry standards and guidance. The findings have been reviewed by relevant ecology officers who have raised no objections to the methods used or conclusions reached. 23. The site was given an indicative capacity of 59 units within the LDP and no explanation of why it should be considered suitable for 100 homes. The housing capacity figure set out in the Local Development Plan (LDP) for identified housing sites is indicative rather than prescriptive. It represents an estimate based on initial assessments. The final number of units may vary provided that the proposal complies with relevant policies and design guidance and can be accommodated without unacceptable impacts on infrastructure and environment. 24. The tree belt on the northern boundary of the site was artificially created by the landowner as a tree belt to justify release of the site. Page 126 of 230
Page 131
The origin or motive for the planting of a tree belt is not in itself a material planning consideration. The assessment of the application takes is based on the current condition, ecological value, and visual contribution of the tree belt. 25. The site is too far from the bus network to make the active travel provision viable and should include upgrading of pedestrian networks out with the immediate vicinity of the site. Offsite improvements can only be required where they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the proposal and are proportionate in their scale when considered in the context of the development. The active travel measures have been reviewed by the Council's Roads Development, who are satisfied that the active travel measures proposed is appropriate to support sustainable travel choices. 26. Proposed footpaths are too steep and do not conform to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. The proposed footpath connections at the southeast corner of the site, linking to Barochan Road and Main Steet have been reviewed by the Councils Roads Development and are considered acceptable in principle, including in relation Disability Discrimination Act requirements. The detailed design of these connections will be secured through a planning condition to be approved prior to the commencement of development. 27. The educational contribution won't necessarily be applied to the local capacity issues. Children's Services have sought this contribution as necessary to address the impacts of the proposal on school capacity and will be allocated in accordance with the terms of the legal agreement to mitigate local education capacity pressures. 28. Houston's infrastructure and public amenities cannot accommodate this scale of development, including road infrastructure, healthcare, shops, and education. The site is allocated as a housing site within the Adopted Local Development Plan. Through the preparation of the plan both prior to its submission to the Scottish Ministers and after their recommendations were published, relevant consultees and interested parties would have been consulted and notified. 29. Unfair targeting by developers with unsuitable housing types and tenures. Each planning application is assessed on its individual merits against the policies and requirements of the Development Plan. 30. Miller Homes have refused to engage in a public forum where they could be challenged on their plans. The Council sought legal advice to determine whether a new round of pre-application consultation events was necessary, and were advised that no additional requirement applied, as the existing application remained live and was being progressed. Notwithstanding this, appropriate statutory notification, advertisement and consultation have been undertaken throughout the planning process including additional courtesy notification, and all issues raised by the public have been duly considered in the assessment of this application. Page 127 of 230
Page 132
31. There are no proposed public realm improvements to the village core or wider village which would integrate the development rather just being an addition. As detailed within the planning assessment, the proposal incorporates measures to ensure appropriate integration with its surroundings, maintaining a sensitive relationship with the conservation area, wider village and surrounding environment. The layout, building design and landscaping have been developed within this context with particular consideration given to the inclusion of appropriate public realm features in accordance with the policies and requirements of the LDP and NPF4. Additional enhancements to the wider public realm are not considered necessary to ensure the acceptability of this development nor are they proportionate to its scale and nature. 32. Parking and access directly onto Barochan Road would present a serious a traffic hazard. The proposed access and parking arrangements have been reviewed by the Council's Roads Development who are satisfied that the design complies with safety standards and guidance. 33. The proposal is car orientated and includes three car driveways on many of the properties increasing traffic generation. Parking provision complies with the adopted standards and the development has been designed to balance vehicular access with objectives for sustainable travel and residential amenity. The Council’s Roads Development have raised no objections in this regard. 34. There would be no community benefit as a result of this proposal. The proposal will deliver new housing to help meet identified local and strategic housing needs including affordable housing and incorporates improved pedestrian connectivity to the village centre, high quality landscaping and play provision. 35. The stone turret feature proposed to mark entry into the village does not reflect the nature of the conservation area at this location. The gateway feature intended to mark arrival into the village would be subject to agreement on its final design, materials and finishes to ensure that the final design is appropriate to its location These details would be secured by appropriately planning condition. 36. Any low carbon sustainable infrastructure would be offset by the car usage associated with this development. As detailed within the planning assessment, the proposal incorporates features such as electric vehicle charging provision, enhanced pedestrian and cycle connections and energy efficient building design in line with the relevant sustainability policies of the LDP and NPF 4. While it is recognised that car use will form part of travel patterns the measures proposed are considered to make a proportionate contribution to reducing emissions. 37. No details of the bio rich environment referred to are provided. The final details in terms of the bio-diversity provision and mitigation will be secured through an appropriate planning condition to ensure delivery in line with the recommendations of the submitted assessment and policy requirements. Page 128 of 230
Page 133
Planning Obligations The Council is required to provide a summary of the terms of any planning obligation which is required to be entered into under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in relation to the grant of permission for the proposed development: As detailed above, an appropriate form of legal agreement/mechanism would be required to secure financial contributions for education provision at St Benedict's High School, Gryffe High School and Houston Primary School and the provision, on site, of 25 affordable homes. Conclusion In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. There are no other material considerations. Planning permission should therefore be granted subject to conditions and an appropriate form of legal agreement to secure planning obligations. Recommendation Grant subject to conditions and an appropriate legal agreement to secure planning obligations. 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. No development shall commence on site until written approval of: (a) a Site Investigation report (characterising the nature and extent of any soil, water, and gas contamination within the site); and, if remedial works are recommended therein (b) a Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan identifying the proposed methods for implementing all remedial recommendations contained within the site investigation report all prepared in accordance with current authoritative technical guidance, have been submitted to and approved in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site will be made suitable for its proposed use. 2. That prior to the occupation of any residential unit on the site: (a) a Verification Report confirming completion of the works specified within the approved Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan; or (b) where remediation works are not required but soils are to be imported to site, a Verification Report confirming imported materials are suitable for use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Verification Reports shall not be submitted on a phased basis unless first agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To demonstrate that works required to make the site suitable for use have been completed. Page 129 of 230
Page 134
3. That, prior to the erection of any of the dwellinghouses hereby approved, a detailed schedule of the proposed external finishes for each of the dwellinghouses together with a plan and schedule of the surface treatments to be used on the roads and footpaths within the site shall be submitted for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Thereafter, the houses, roads and footpaths shall be constructed only in accordance with such details as may be approved to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area. 4. Notwithstanding the stamped approved plans, prior to the commencement of the development, details of all boundary treatments to be erected shall be submitted for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Thereafter, all boundary fences and walls as may be approved relating to or adjacent to each plot shall be erected prior to the occupation of the dwelling within that plot to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area. 5. Notwithstanding the stamped approved plans, no development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority a final scheme of landscaping, which shall include details of species, planting densities, soil treatment and aftercare. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area and to reflect the requirements of the Ecological Assessment Report. 6. That all planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping approved under the terms of condition 5 above shall be carried out in the first planting season and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area. 7. Prior to the development commencing, the applicant shall secure the implementation of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the applicant shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that any archaeological remains which may be disturbed can be identified, excavated, and recorded. 8. That prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, full details of the mitigatory measures to be implemented at the site along with a timetable for the works as contained within the Ecological Assessment Report (March 2025). During the course of the development, details demonstrating the implementation of the recommendations in each report shall be submitted for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Page 130 of 230
Page 135
Response: To ensure flora, fauna and biodiversity is protected and enhanced. 9. That prior to the commencement of development, details of phasing for off-site infrastructure works/footways/crossings shall be submitted for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented only in accordance with such phasing as may be agreed with Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area. 10. That prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority; ▪ Final details of the ramped path, including steps, local narrowing and alignment with existing path from Barochan Road/Main Street into the site; ▪ Details of swept path analysis to determine and confirm carriageway widths internally and widths on Main Street leading up towards the War Memorial; ▪ Details of a minimum of 2 metre footways between property frontages within the site, including on the opposite side of the carriageway where appropriate and along key desire lines; ▪ Details of a landscaping plan to assist in maintaining exit speeds along Barochan Road and lowering traffic speeds entering from the north. This will include a tabletop gateway and avenue tree planting on both sides of the corridor from Killalan Road to Old School House Lane; ▪ Details of surface materials reflective of the location adjacent the conservation area and of the Fleming Road development and which accord with the Houston Community Led Active Travel Plan. Thereafter, all details and improvements as may be approved, shall be implemented fully in accordance with the phasing plan for which the permission of the Planning Authority has been obtained under the terms of conditions 9 above. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety. 11. That prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, an Arboricultural Method Statement, and long-term Tree/Woodland Management & Maintenance Plan(s) for the site. For the avoidance of doubt, the Arboricultural Method Statement shall contain details on how retained trees will be protected on site through the construction phase and future use of the site and the Tree/Woodland Management & Maintenance Plan(s) shall contain details on the monitoring of growth and condition of all newly planted trees. Reason: To ensure that works are undertaken to a satisfactory standard in the interests of natural heritage. 12. That prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, A Low Carbon Energy Implementation Plan which will include the final details of energy efficiency measures to be implemented at the site as well as consideration of Electric Vehicle Charging Points. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented only in accordance with the plan as agreed with Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: To promote and implement low carbon measures at the site. Page 131 of 230
Page 136
13 That prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Ecological Management Plan (EMP) which will outline all mitigatory measures and activities, timescale and phasing, details of implementation of the mitigatory measures as well as post-construction monitoring. The measures set out within the approved CEMP and EMP shall thereafter be implemented on site during the construction phase. Reason: To ensure the requirement of the Construction Environmental Management Plan and other environmental protection measures are implemented and that the development’s construction is managed in a way that minimises adverse effects upon the environment. 14. That prior to the commencement of any development works on site, the developer shall provide for the written approval of the Planning Authority full details of a Locally Equipped Play Area (LEAP) to be provided in the designated area of open space at the western half of the development. Thereafter, prior to occupation of the final residential unit, the developer shall install and complete for use, the provision of the LEAP area in accordance with the detail finally approved. Maintenance of the play area finally approved, shall be in accordance with the factor scheme to be developed between the applicant and the factor. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. 15. That the development herby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy by Dougall Baillie Associates dated May 2025, and November 2024, submitted in support of the application. The drainage measures shall be implemented, maintained, and retained thereafter in perpetuity in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the development is served by an appropriate drainage system and to minimise the risk of flooding in accordance with the requirements of the development plan. Schedule of Plans Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title Stamped Drawing HO-SL0P4- 006 Location Plan HO-SL0P4-01 W Site Layout HO-SL0P4-003 F Sales Area Layout HO-SL0P4-004 D Route of Build HO-SL0P4-007 G Fencing Layout 24075-SK-16 Upgrade Works Overall Plan Page 132 of 230
Page 137
24075-SK-17 Barochan Road footpath link and upgrade works 24075-SK-26 Southern footway and remote footpath proposals 24075-100-103 Site Levels 24075-500-100 Drainage layout sheet 1 of 2 24075-500-101 Drainage layout sheet 2 of 2 24075-SK-21 Cut off drain overland flow route 51-134-01 E Landscape Proposals 51-134-02 E Landscape proposals 2 of 9 51-134-03 E Landscape proposals 3 of 9 51-134-04 E Landscape proposals 4 of 9 51-134-05 E Landscape proposals 5 of 9 51-134-06 E Landscape proposals 6 of 9 51-134-07 E Landscape proposals 7 of 9 51-134-08 E Landscape proposals 8 of 9 51-134-09 E Landscape proposals 9 of 9 HO-SL0P4-004 B Play Area Layout S555-P6 A Layford- Planning -Stone OPP S555-P5 A Layford- Planning -Stone AS S557-P4 Layford- Planning-Floor Plans OPP S557-P1 Layford- Planning-Floor Plans AS S557-P8 Layford Elevation Stone OPP S555-P7 A Layford Elevation Stone AS 24SA21-P6 Edenmont 2 Bed Stone OPP Page 133 of 230
Page 138
24SA21-P5 Edenmont 2 Bed Stone AS 2018/GAR 04 D Double Garage S462-P4 Denwood floor plan OPP S462-P1 Denwood floor plan AS S462-P8 A Denwood elevations OPP S462-P7 A Denwood elevations AS S560-P2 Danford floor plan OPP S560-P1 Danford floor plan AS S560-P8 A Danford elevations stone OPP S560-P7 A Danford elevations stone AS ABE/2018/Planning/01 Crossford floor plans OPP ABE/2018/Planning/01 Crossford floor plans AS ABE/2018/Planning/01 Crossford elevations OPP ABE/2018/Planning/03 Crossford elevations AS S556-P4 Bradford floor plans OPP S556-P1 Bradford floor plans AS S556-P8 A Bradford elevations stone OPP S556-P7 A Bradford floor elevations sone AS S461-P6 A Boswood stone plans & elevations OPP S461-P5 A Boswood stone plans & elevations AS S561-P5 Bedford floor plans OPP S561-P1 Bedford floor plans AS S561-P8 A Bedford elevations stone OPP Page 134 of 230
Page 139
S561-P4 A Bedford elevations stone AS 24SA30-P6 Ashton 3 bed Terrace stone OPP 24SA30-P5 Ashton 3 bed Terrace stone AS S471-P6 A Archerwood stone OPP S471-P5 A Archerwood stone AS S551-P4 Alford floor plans OPP S551-P1 Alford floor plans AS S551-P8 A Alford elevations stone OPP S551-P7 A Alford elevations stone AS HA.2P.1B.COT Planning 01 Cottage flats 1 bed-plans & elev. Supporting Document Barochan Road Factoring Statement Barochan Road Energy Statement Barochan Road Archaeology Report Barochan Road Noise Impact Assessment Barochan Road Landscape and Visual Impact assessment Planning Statement 27th March 2025 Barochan Road Visualisation Sheet Transport Assessment by Dougal Baillie Associates June 2025 Technical Heritage Note by Loraine King, June 2025 Flood Risk Assessment by Dougal Baillie Associates May 2025 Page 135 of 230
Page 140
Design and Access Statement June 2025 Ecological Assessment Statement by Envirocentre, June 2025 Drainage Strategy Report by Dougal Baillie Associates dated November 2024 Arboricultural Report by Envirocentre dated June 2025 For further information please contact Clare Murray, Development Standards Team, Email: clare.murray@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 136 of 230
Page 141
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 26 August 2025 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 23/0622/EB Application Type Electricity Undertaking Determination Proposal Installation of a solar farm and battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure with a generating capacity of up to 100mw (Energy Consents Unit consultation request) Location Site Between Turningshaw Farm and Knowes Farm, Houston Road, Houston, Johnstone Ward 10 – Houston, Crosslee and Linwood Community Council Houston Community Council Applicant Energy Consents Unit (ECU) Scottish Government Recommendation No objection subject to the suggested planning conditions listed below and to the conclusion of a legal agreement to secure appropriate funding for the decommissioning of the development and the restoration of the site All plans, reports, documents, and representations relating to this application can be viewed in full online at https://www.energyconsents.scot/ApplicationDetails.aspx?cr=ECU00004825 The purpose of this report is to present for the consideration of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board a formal consultation from the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) on an application made under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for a 100MW solar farm and battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure on land between Turningshaw Farm and Knowes Farm, Houston Road, Houston, Johnstone. The Section 36 application includes an application for deemed planning permission for the same development under Section 57(2) of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Scottish Ministers are responsible, under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, for the authorisation of any new, or extensions to existing, electricity generation schemes with a generation capacity in excess of 50 Megawatts (MW). As the proposed solar farm and battery energy storage system would have a maximum installed capacity of 100MW, Renfrewshire Council has been formally consulted on the proposed development by the ECU in terms of Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. The Council is a formal consultee in this process and not the determining or consenting authority. Scottish Ministers are the determining authority. In procedural terms the Council, as Planning Authority, requires to provide a consultation response to the ECU that would then be taken into consideration as part of the overall consenting process. The consultation request from the ECU was received on 31st October 2023, with an initial response deadline of 29th February 2024. The deadline was subsequently extended to 29 March 2024, 28 May 2024, and 30 August 2024 due to several deficiencies within the submission which required to be addressed before the Council could consider finalising a consultation response. These deficiencies were identified following the Councils own consultation process which included an audit of the submission by Ironside Farrar Ltd (IFL) acting as the Council’s Independent Consultants. Item 4(c) PACC260825 Page 137 of 230
Page 142
A report was presented to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board at its meeting on 27 August 2024. The Board decided that consideration of the consultation request be continued subject to confirmation of a further extension of the deadline for responses. In the event that a further extension of the deadline was not granted by 30 August 2024, an objection to the consultation request would be submitted on behalf of the Council for the reasons outlined within the report and the information deficiencies within the submission. A further extension to this deadline was not granted, and an objection to the development was submitted to the ECU. The ECU thereafter advised that the applicants would be provided with an opportunity to address the deficiencies within the submission (and outstanding objections from NatureScot, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Scottish Gas Networks (SGN) and Glasgow Airport), and a timeline on the applicants submitting the information required to address the deficiencies was imposed. The deficiencies previously identified are summarised as follows: ▪ No detailed information has been provided on the potential impact of the development, namely the access track, on the Linwood Moss Wood Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). ▪ There is a lack of survey data within the ecological assessment, and no mention of the impact of panel glint and glare on breeding birds. ▪ There is no detailed assessment of the development in general against NPF4, namely policies 3 on biodiversity, 8 on green belts and 11 on energy. The submission requires updating to fully respond to the policies within NPF4. ▪ Further information is required on measures to limit impact on prime quality agricultural land and carbon rich soils in line with Council guidance and NPF4 policy requirements. ▪ The Transport Statement requires updating to take cognisance of walkers, cyclists, and equestrian use of the road network within the site, that North Mains Road is a publicly maintained road, crash data prior to the last three years, and traffic count data which is not representative. ▪ There is a holding objection from Glasgow Airport Safeguarding and on this basis, it has not been demonstrated that the development is compatible with the safe and efficient operation of Glasgow Airport. ▪ There is a holding objection from Scottish Gas Networks and on this basis, it has not been demonstrated that the development is compatible with the safe operation of the high-pressure gas pipeline network. It was noted within the report presented on 27 August 2024 that the proposed development is compliant with the development plan in principle, and also with policies 1, 2, 6, 7, 14 and 22 of NPF4 and ENV3, ENV4, and I3 of the LDP. However, the deficiencies within the submission mean that it is not possible to definitively determine whether the development complies with policies 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 13 of NPF4 and ENV1, ENV2, ENV6, I1 and I4 of the LDP. On the 29 January 2025 the applicants submitted a suite of updated documents which sought to address the deficiencies identified by the Council, and also the outstanding objections from other consultees. In response to the submission of updated documents a further round of consultation was undertaken. On this basis the foregoing report has been updated from that which was presented to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board at its meeting on 27 August 2024 and now includes a summary of all consultation undertaken by the Council, and a response within the planning assessment to the deficiencies previously identified including those which have ben addressed and any matters which remain outstanding. Page 138 of 230
Page 143
In response to the ECU consultation the Council can either: ▪ Offer no objections to the Section 36 application as submitted; ▪ Offer no objections subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and/or legal obligations it considered neccesary to make the development acceptable (it should be noted that responsibility for discharging conditions and/or the legal obligations would fall upon the Council), or; ▪ Object to the application, stating the grounds on which the objection is made. Members should note at this point that a decision to object to the application would trigger a public local enquiry in terms of Section 62 and schedule 8 of the Electricity Act 1989. While the consultation response would normally fall within the scheme of delegation to be determined by officers, the scheme of delegation allows for officers to refer applications to the Board. The application has been refered in this instance to allow the proposed development to be fully considered given the scale of the development and the potential environmental matters associated with solar farms and battery energy storage facilities. Proposal and Site Description The proposed development is for a solar farm and battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure with a generating capacity of up to 100MW. It comprises of solar PV panels with associated sub stations, cctv cameras and permitter post and wire fencing, the battery energy storage facility, and the associated internal service tracks. The application site boundary extends to approximately 129 hectares of land to the east of Houston which is bisected by the B790. Approximately three quarters of the solar panels will be positioned on land to the north of the B790 either side of Turningshaw Road. This area predominantly comprises of flat agricultural land with pockets of woodland to the west and east. Approximately one quarter of the solar panels will be positioned on land to the south of the B790 either side of Moss Road. This part of the development is also proposed to accommodate the battery storage area. Again, this area predominantly comprises of flat agricultural and grassland with pockets of woodland to the south. 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 discussions have taken place, focusing on the following matters: ▪ The visual impact of the proposals, and the consenting process. Negotiated Improvements Following submission, the following changes have been negotiated between officers and the applicant: The suite of supporting information has primarily been updated to address the audit comments made by IFL as part of the Councils own consultation on the proposed development. This has resulted in changes to the proposed biodiversity enhancement plan including the type of grassland being proposed, adoption of a conservation grazing regime, and identification of an area for sacrificial crops. It is also noted that an enhanced landscaping and mitigation scheme has been sought by other consultees (namely Glasgow Page 139 of 230
Page 144
Airport), and this would be managed by the Council via the conditions recommended to the ECU as set out below. Site History (if applicable, site history will be listed here) None. Consultations undertaken by the Council ▪ Glasgow Airport Safeguarding – No objection subject to conditions relating to submission of a Bird Hazard Management Plan, details of soft and water landscaping works, and a mitigation scheme to prevent glint and glare from impacting Glasgow Airports air traffic control tower. ▪ Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Env. Protection) – No objection subject to condition relating to noise from plant, machinery, and equipment. ▪ National Air Traffic Services (NATS) – No objection. ▪ Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) – No objection subject to conditions relating to provision of sightlines during the construction phase, access to the substation at Moss Road/Auchans Road, and reinstatement of Moss Road/Auchans Road post construction. ▪ Scottish Power Networks (Transmission Sites) – No comments. ▪ Scottish Power Networks (Distribution Sites) – No objections. ▪ West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) - No objection subject to condition relating to the implementation of a programme of archaeological works. ▪ Scottish Gas Networks (SGN) – No objection subject to condition. ▪ Ironside Farrar Ltd (IFL) (Council’s Independent Consultants) - IFL were initially asked to review and provide a stage 1 audit comment on the following aspects of the project. A summary of their considerations is set out below: Glint and Glare Study Ref: 11710A, October 2023, (Rev: 03) – IFL consider the applicant’s assessment of the potential glint and glare impact to be robust, and agree that if the landscape mitigation plan and recommendations set out within the assessment are followed, there will be sufficient screening between the proposed arrays and the affected ground- based receptors which are neighbouring residential properties and the local road network. It is advised that Glasgow Airport are consulted to confirm if the predicted glare toward the air traffic control tower can be accommodated. Glasgow Airport Safeguarding have been consulted on the application and as noted above have no objections subject to conditions Decommissioning, Restoration and Aftercare Plan – The documentation submitted in support of the application has been reviewed to determine the areas which are relevant to and may have implications for the decommissioning of the development. A list of matters to be considered within a decommissioning plan is provided for inclusion within an appropriately worded condition. Ecology Impact Assessment Report version 2 dated 29th June 2023 and Shadow Habitats Regulations Appraisal version 2 dated 29th June 2023 – IFL advise that the Ecological Impact Assessment is a competent Preliminary Ecological Appraisal however several matters require attention including lack of survey data, no mention of the impact of panel Page 140 of 230
Page 145
glint and glare on breeding birds, and no mention of NPF4 and particularly the policy 3 on biodiversity. The Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) report is well written and well evidenced but does not concur with advice given by NatureScot in their consultation response with regard to the assessment of the development within the context of the Black Cart SPA conservation objectives and does not use NatureScot’s HRA proforma. The report requires to be updated in this regard. Land Capability for Agriculture version 2 dated July 2023 - The submission requires updating to refer to relevant planning guidance, review of the carbon and peatland map 2016, further detail regarding potential impact on peat and the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) on the southern boundary which is crossed by a track, and further details on measures to limit impact on prime quality agricultural land and carbon rich soils in line with council guidance and NPF4 policy. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment version 4 dated 3rd July 2023 – IFL advise that the conclusion of the LVIA is reasonable, in that higher/potentially significant effects would be relatively limited in extent and close to the site due to the low-lying topography and screening by surrounding woodland and hedges. IFL agree with the applicant’s conclusion that more distant views and effects would be very limited in extent and magnitude. The proposed landscape measures are appropriate but could be strengthened in places to reduce effects on the closest receptors. IFL then undertook a Stage 2 audit on the following updated documents. A summary of their considerations is set out below. Ecological Impact Assessment (ECIA) Report version 3 dated 4th December 2024 and Shadow Habitats Regulations Appraisal version 3 dated 4th December 2024 – IFL advise that the ECIA addresses some of the issues raised in the first audit however it remains incomplete as it omits relevant Scottish legal obligations and lacks a secure surveyed ecological baseline. Specific concerns relate to acknowledgment of local conservation sites, out of season habitat survey, lack of survey data on bats and the potential impact on foraging and commuting, and lack of survey date on breeding birds. The shadow HRA still does not address the likely significant effect of the development on the conservation objectives of the Black Cart SPA. The HRA should be presented in the format prescribed by NatureScot to reach a robust conclusion, and to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conservation objectives will be met during construction, operation and decommissioning. Biodiversity Enhancement Report version 2 dated 3rd December 2024 – IFL advise that the report uses the English DEFRA metric to calculate the rate of enhancement, and that this system has not been adopted in Scotland. There are also key omissions such as assessing potential impacts and mitigation provision with regard to the SINC. Badger and Otter Survey dated 10th October 2024 – IFL advise that the survey would benefit from enhancements in relation to clarification of ecological expertise, acknowledgement of survey limitations and suggestions for further supplementary survey methods, camera monitoring, licensing requirements and a comprehensive species protection plan, and evaluation of proximity to otter resting sites and disturbance thresholds. Implementing these measures will strengthen the reports compliance with industry best practice. IFL then undertook a Stage 3 audit on the following updated documents. A summary of their considerations is set out below. Page 141 of 230
Page 146
Biodiversity Enhancement Report version 3 dated 26th May 2025 – Note that the DEFRA metric can be used following guidance from the Scottish Government however further survey work is still required on the SINC woodland (this has not been provided) and associated update to the Phase 1 mapping area. This must also include reference to connecting nature networks within and beyond the site. Ecology Impact Assessment Report version 4 dated 26th May 2025 – IFL advise that the updated document largely responds to the previous comments except on the matter of bats. Further in season foraging and commuting surveys are required. A refresh of the bat roost survey is also required as the current work has expired. Consultations undertaken by the ECU The ECU consulted widely on the Section 36 application and a list of those who have responded (and who have not also been consulted by the Council), along with a summary of their comments, as shown on the ECU website, are provided below. ▪ Houston Community Council - No objections to the principle of the application, subject to recommendations in relation to screening and biodiversity gain. The Community Council also advise that they welcome collaboration with the developers with respect to potential community benefits. ▪ Scottish Forestry – No objections. Recommend that commitment to design mitigation measures is formalised via condition. ▪ Transport Scotland – No objection. ▪ Historic Environment Scotland (HES) – No objection. ▪ Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) – No objection. ▪ NatureScot – No objection subject to conditions relating to the timing of the works outwith the wintering period from October to April being imposed. ▪ Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – No comment. ▪ Scottish Water – No objections. ▪ Ministry of Defence (MoD) – No objection. ▪ Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) – No objection subject to condition relating to the submission of a Habitat Management Plan. Representations The consultation request was published on the Council’s weekly list of applications. Two letters of representation have been received. It is noted that they were received after the application was presented to the board in August 2024. The letters raise the following points: - Impact on ecology and protected species. - Economic impact, loss or property values, and viability of proposed tourist accommodation developments. - There are alternative sites that are preferable. - Proposal does not comply with green belt policies. - Impact on residential amenity. Page 142 of 230
Page 147
- Impact from construction traffic and activities. - Air and water pollution from construction activities and degradation of solar panels over time impacting human health. - Impact on quality of the soil and loss of fertile agricultural land. - Exposure to EMF and associated health risks. - Impact of glint and glare on roads and residential properties. - Visual impact and loss of view. - Fire risk. The ECU, as the determining authority, publicise the consent application, and representations can be submitted directly to them via their website. At the time of writing there are five letters of representation, four of which object to the development and one in support of the development. Policy Context As noted above the Council is a consultee in the consenting process and not the determining authority. To inform the Council’s consultation response an assessment against the Development Plan is required. 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 this submission. National Planning Framework 4 ▪ Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crisis ▪ 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 - Green belts ▪ Policy 11 - Energy ▪ Policy 13 - Sustainable transport ▪ Policy 14 - Design, quality, and place ▪ 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 ENV3 - Built and Cultural Heritage ▪ Policy ENV4 - The Water Environment ▪ Policy ENV6 - Soils ▪ Policy I1 - Connecting Places ▪ Policy I3 - Flooding and Drainage ▪ Policy I4 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. New Development Supplementary Guidance Page 143 of 230
Page 148
Delivering the Environment Strategy – Green Belt Development Criteria, Natural Heritage, Built and Cultural heritage, The water Environment and Soils Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy – Connecting Places, Flooding and Drainage and Renewable and Low carbon Energy Developments Other relevant policies and guidance Planning Advice Note – Solar Farm developments in Renfrewshire Submitted Reports and Assessments The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: ▪ Ecology Impact Assessment Report version 2 dated 29th June 2023 – Assessment considers the likely impact of the development on ecological receptors across the development site and in neighbouring areas. Ecological receptors identified include designated sites and habitats, badgers, water voles, bats, breeding birds and wintering geese. A number of measures have been incorporated into the design of the development to minimise impact on these receptors. This includes buffer zones around trees and water courses, raising deer fencing off the ground to permit movement of small animals, and no permanent lighting is proposed. ▪ Ecology Impact Assessment Report version 3 dated 4th December 2024 – Report has been updated to include results from additional field surveying undertaken in 2024 and includes additional mitigation measures for Whooper Swans and details of further consultation undertaken to inform the updated report. ▪ Ecology Impact Assessment Report version 4 dated 26th May 2025 – Report has been updated to include reference to updated biodiversity action plans for Renfrewshire and the Scottish Governments Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. These documents provide additional context however do not alter the conclusions within the report. Clarification on the timing for habitat surveys is also provided, noting that habitat surveys were undertaken in June which is in season. It is also noted that additional breeding bird surveys would be undertaken in May and June 2025. ▪ Flood Risk Assessment version 3 dated June 2023 – Report notes that development has been set out to avoid functional flood plains and medium to high risk areas. A buffer of between 5m and 10m has been used in the siting of the panels either side of any watercourse or drain. The proposals will not increase the rate of discharge from the current pre-development surface water run-off rates, and no formal drainage system will be installed. The development is at low risk of flooding and will not increase flood risk elsewhere. ▪ Addendum to Flood Risk Assessment – Addendum to the FRA is provided to take account of a clime change scenario in accordance with the principles of NPF4. ▪ Glint and Glare Assessment Issue 3 dated October 2023 – Assessment notes that solar reflections are possible on sections of Houston Road, Bridge of Weir Road and the B790. However existing vegetation and buildings will obstruct views from Houston Road and Bridge of Weir Road and no impact is predicted. Mitigation is recommended for a 200m section of the B790. For eight dwellings a low impact is predicted, and mitigation is not proposed. Screening is proposed for two dwellings as per the landscape mitigation Page 144 of 230
Page 149
plan. Glare towards the air traffic control tower at Glasgow Airport is possible but indicate that it could be accommodated. ▪ Glint and Glare Assessment Issue 5 dated December 2024 – updated to further analyse and examine the possible effects of glint and glare on road users including local roads in response to queries raised by the Roads Development Officer. ▪ Shadow Habitats Regulations Appraisal version 2 dated 29th June 2023 – The assessment concludes that there is no potential for adverse effects on site integrity for any European/Ramsar sites either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. The development can be undertaken in adherence with the requirements of the Habitat Regulations. ▪ Shadow Habitats Regulations Appraisal version 3 dated 4th December 2024 – Updated to provide information on the additional mitigation measures for whooper swans and details of further consultation undertaken to inform the updated report. ▪ Shadow Habitats Regulations Appraisal version 4 dated 26th May 2025 – The shadow HRA has been reformatted so that the information is presented in the format requested by IFL. ▪ Heritage Assessment version 2 dated June 2023 – The passement identifies one designated heritage asset in the site, the category B listed Fulwood Bridge. A listed building consent application will be submitted if the bridge is used as a cable crossing. Considered to be low potential for unrecorded archaeology to be present. Proposed that an archaeological programme of works targeting an area of higher ground with moderate potential for archaeological assets is undertaken. ▪ Land Capability for Agriculture Assessment dated July 2023 – The report notes that the majority of the site is assessed as class 3.2 or lower, which does not comprise prime land. Approx 2.4 hectares (8%) of the site is assessed as class 3.1 which is defined as prime land. Mitigation for the use of this land is that the land can continue to fulfil an agricultural purpose during the operation of the solar farm, there would be no permanent loss of the resource, and the land would be restored to agricultural use following completion of the solar farm operations. Development would not compromise the local supply of prime agricultural land in this regard. ▪ Land Capability for Agriculture Assessment dated September 2024 – Updated to address comments from ironside Farrar Ltd and to provide further information regarding potential impacts on prime quality agricultural land and measures to limit the potential impact. ▪ Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment version 4 dated 3rd July 2023 – The assessment notes that development will be perceived as a medium addition locally and will not be apparent or obvious at all within large parts of the wider context within this landscape character area. Landscaping is proposed on the western and north eastern field boundaries within the Houston North Parcel, and along Moss Road at the South Parcel. This will strengthen hedgerows and site boundaries. Predicted effects are limited in extent by the low-lying nature of the site, surrounding woodlands, hedgerows and other vegetation, and undulating topographical changes in the surrounding landscape. A total of 13 viewpoints have been assessed. Two viewpoints are predicted to have moderate to major effects however these will be mitigated by landscape planting. Landscape planting is also proposed to mitigate effects on residential properties. Page 145 of 230
Page 150
▪ Noise Impact Assessment version F01 dated 29th September 2023 – The assessment notes that noise monitoring was undertaken at two locations representative of noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site. Predicted operational noise was compared with the measure of background noise, and the results show no noise impact is expected due to the operation of the proposed development. ▪ Planning Support Statement version 03 dated 2nd August 2023 – The statements notes that the development will generate approx. 75,000,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per annum. The development site is not within a sensitive location in respect of critical environmental designations. There are a limited number of sensitive receptors in the vicinity, none of whom will suffer significant adverse impacts. Overall, it is considered that the proposed development complies with the relevant policies of the statutory development plan and other material considerations. ▪ Planning Support Statement version 4 dated December 2024 – Updated to provide a full assessment of the development against the criteria listed in NPF4. Statement concludes that the development accords with NPF4 generally and Policy 11 in particular. ▪ Pre-application Consultation Report version 02 dated !3th June 2023 – The developer has undertaken a meaningful and effective voluntary period of pre-application consultation. This includes provision of a dedicated website, a letter drop to local residents within the immediate vicinity of the site, and a public consultation event. The applicant has also met with Houston Community Council. ▪ Transport Statement version F01 dated July 2023 – The assessment considers traffic generation associated with the most onerous week of the construction phase and concludes that the construction phase will not have a significant impact upon the surrounding highway network. The operational phase will have an insignificant impact upon the surrounding road network, with anticipated generation of 2-3 vehicle trips per week for general maintenance. ▪ Transport Statement Version 2 dated December 2024 – Updated to provide a response to the queries raised by the Roads Development Officer. Appendix B of the statement provides a direct response to the 31 points that were raised. ▪ Biodiversity Enhancement Plan version 2 dated December 2024 – Provided in accordance with the requirements of Policy 3(b) of NPF4. The plan outlines a net gain in biodiversity through on site grassland and woodland creation and proposed hedgerow creation. It is also noted that gaps within existing hedgerow will be filled, and that shade tolerant species of grassland will also likely grow beneath the solar panels. These are additional benefits which were not quantified within the assessment. It is the intention to graze sheep within the site when it is operational, and it is recommended that a conservation grazing plan is produced to outline the measures to maximise biodiversity value. ▪ Biodiversity Enhancement Report version 3 dated 26th May 2025 – Additional explanation provided to describe how the proposed planting will enhance biodiversity, and MG5-type grassland is proposed following recommendation from IFL, a conservation grazing regime will be adopted, and an area has been identified for sacrificial crop for wintering geese and swans details of which can be provided via a pre-commencement condition. ▪ Badger and Otter Survey Report version 1 dated November 2024 – The report details the results from additional field surveying undertaken in 2024. Concludes that badgers and otters are present in the wider area and are using the site and the survey area. The Page 146 of 230
Page 151
mitigations outlined in the Ecology Impact Assessment are considered appropriate for the construction and operation of the development. ▪ Bat Survey Data Suitability for Ecological Impact Assessment – This technical note was provided in response to comments from IFL on the potential impact of the development on bats, and to outline the survey work that has been undertaken at the site. Field surveys were undertaken in June 2023 focussing on identifying potential roost locations and describing suitable habitats for foraging and commuting bats. Impact on bat habitats was considered within the EcIA, and suitable buffer zones were incorporated into the development layout. It is acknowledged within the technical note that there is recent literature which outlines negative associations between solar panels and foraging and commuting bats. The updated EcIA reinforces the mitigations within the development layout with regard to separation distance between the solar panels and the exiting hedgerows and burns which could be used as foraging or commuting routes, and that the survey work undertaken and mitigations being proposed are in line with NatureScots current guidance. Scottish Ministers Direction 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 would be a matter for the ECU and Scottish Ministers to consider as the determining authority. None. Planning Assessment The application for the solar farm and battery energy storage system has been submitted to the ECU under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Unlike a planning application, there is no requirement that the application be determined in accordance with the development plan. Instead, the development plan is one of a number of material considerations which require to be taken into account by the ECU in their determination of the application. The Council is one of a number of consultees in this process. To inform the Council’s consultation response to the ECU, the development plan represents the appropriate document against which to base the Council’s assessment of the application. The development plan comprises of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2022 (LDP). The application site is located within the green belt. Policies ENV1 of the LDP and 8 of NPF4 both consider renewable energy developments to be an acceptable form of development within the green belt in principle. The proposal must thereafter be assessed against the detailed development criteria set out within the green belt policies. This includes the green belt development criteria set out within the New Development Supplementary Guidance which will be assessed as follows. The New development Supplementary Guidance states that there will be no loss of prime quality land or agricultural land of lesser quality that is locally important. The supporting information indicates that part of the site would be classified as prime quality agricultural Page 147 of 230
Page 152
land. NPF4 defines prime quality agricultural land as that identified within Class 1, 2 or 3.1 of the Macaulay land capability classification. In this instance, the applicants Land Capability for Agricultural Report indicates that 8% of the solar farm layout will be on agricultural land falling within Class 3.1. Most of the solar farm layout (72%) will be on agricultural land falling within Class 3.2, with 14% on land within class 4.2, 4% on land within class 5.1, and 2% within Class 5.2. The LDP does not identify the site as being of cultural or local importance. The applicant has sought to justify development of the prime quality agricultural land on the basis that it can still fulfil an agricultural use while the solar farm is operating, the soils will remain in situ insofar as is possible, and as the solar farm is temporary there would be no permanent loss of the resource. Additionally, the land would be restored to the pre-working agricultural use following completion of the operation and associated decommissioning of the development. Policy 5 of NPF4 states that proposals on prime quality agricultural land will only be supported where it is for one of four specific uses. This includes essential infrastructure where there is a site specific locational need and no other suitable sites. Policy ENV6 of the LDP primarily relates to peat and carbon rich soils. However, the provisions of the new development Supplementary Guidance on prime quality agricultural land have been noted above. On balance it is noted while part of the solar farm is on land classified as prime agricultural it will not result in the permanent loss of this resource. The operational span of the solar farm will be restricted by condition at which point it will be decommissioned and the site restored. Financial provisions will be put in place to ensure the Council can access funds to undertake the decommissioning and restoration if neccesary, and ultimately the land will be restored back to its current condition. Additionally, the area of prime quality land impacted by the development is small in comparison to the site as a whole and some areas of prime quality land within the application site boundary have been avoided (there are 8.7 hectares of class 3.1 land within the red line however only 2.4 hectares will be covered by the solar farm layout). Additionally, it is noted that during the operation of the solar farm the land can also still fulfil an agricultural function. On balance therefore the development is considered to be in general accordance with the relevant policies on prime quality agricultural land. There is no impact on wild land. The Roads Development Officer initially issued a suite of comments with regard to both the submitted Transport Statement and the implementation of the development. The applicants provided a response to these comments and submitted an updated version of the Transport Statement accordingly. In response to the updated Transport Statement the Roads Development Officer has confirmed no objection to the development subject to conditions relating to provision of sightlines during the construction phase, access to the substation at Moss Road/Auchans Road, and reinstatement of Moss Road/Auchans Road post construction. These conditions can be recommended to the ECU. It is noted that no other off site works or potential enhancements have been identified for this application, with the focus for continuing it to date relating to addressing the deficiencies identified. It is not anticipated that the development would give rise to significant effects on public water supply or water courses from pollution risk. It is noted that SEPA, Scottish Water and Environmental Protection have not objected to the development on these grounds. A condition relating to the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to mitigate risk during the construction phase can be recommended to the ECU. The application site includes two core paths, LIN/1 along Moss Road and BBH/1 at North Mains. A condition could be recommended to ensure these paths (and any other existing active travel routes) are kept open at all times through the construction and operation of the Page 148 of 230
Page 153
development, with any proposed closures requiring the prior written permission of the Council. With regard to impact on local landscape character, the supporting information includes 13 viewpoints from which the potential impact of the development has been assessed. The predicted effects at the majority of these viewpoints are limited in extent by the low-lying nature of the site, surrounding woodlands, hedgerows and other vegetation, and undulating topographical changes in the surrounding landscape. Of the two viewpoints whereby moderate to major effect is predicted, landscaping is proposed as mitigation. Landscaping is also proposed to mitigate potential impact on residential properties. The Council’s independent consultant has advised that the conclusions within the applicant’s supporting information are reasonable, in that higher/potentially significant effects would be relatively limited in extent and close to the site due to the low-lying topography and screening by surrounding woodland and hedges. More distant views and effects would be very limited in extent and magnitude. The proposed landscape measures are appropriate but could be strengthened in places to reduce effects on the closest receptors. An enhanced landscape strategy will be sought via a recommended condition to the ECU. The development has been designed to respect important landscape features such as woodlands, water courses and field boundaries. It is noted that some field boundaries will be reinforced as part of the landscape strategy. Where field boundaries require to be removed to accommodate sight lines at the access points, the landscape strategy would seek replanting of the hedgerow in an alignment that accommodates the sight lines. This requirement will form part of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) which could be sought via a recommended condition. It is noted that Scottish Forestry have offered no objections to the development and have recommended a condition to ensure mitigations included within the proposed landscape design are delivered. This includes buffer zones between the development and adjacent woodland. In addition to the woodland adjoining the site, the panels have also been set back from all watercourses. The proposed deer stock boundary fencing is acceptable at this location. There is no security lighting proposed at present, with CCTV cameras utilising infra-red technology. Conditions could be recommended to ensure the final design and location of all boundary treatments and any lighting strategies for the site are agreed with the Council. In addition to the solar panels which are the primary infrastructure component, the development also includes invertor containers and battery storage infrastructure. While the invertor containers are dispersed throughout the layout, the battery element is concentrated in the southeast corner of the site to the south of the B790. It is noted that the battery storage area does not include any specific landscape screening. While wider external views of this area are mitigated by woodland, in the interest of visibility from Moss Road it is considered that this area would benefit from landscape screening. This requirement will be built into a landscaping condition. With regard to servicing, the connection between the development and the national grid is ultimately a matter for the applicant to agree with Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN). It is noted that SPEN have not objected to the development. NatureScot have offered no objections to the development with regard to its impact on nationally designated sites, namely the Black Cart Special Protection Area (SPA). This is subject to a condition relating to construction works taking place outwith the wintering period Page 149 of 230
Page 154
from October to April. If works have to be undertaken within the wintering period, no such work will take place when whooper swans are feeding within 200m of the development site boundary. The location of the swans must be confirmed by a suitably qualified ecological clerk of works. These conditions will protect the qualifying interest of the Black Cart SPA. It is noted that IFL have also advised the Council that the HRA report is acceptable. In addition to the above condition which will protect the whooper swans during any winter working, the proposal also now includes provision for an area of sacrificial crops which would provide a feeding resource for the Whooper Swans which overwinter at the Black Cart. Further detail on the implementation and management for the area of sacrificial crops can be requested via submission of an updated landscape strategy and accompanying Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (BEP). It is noted that the RSPB have withdrawn their previous objection to the development on the basis that the HMP and associated sacrificial crops are planted on site. With regard to local designations, the site is bound by Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) designations at Barochan Moss to the north and Linwood Moss Wood to the south. The development is set back from Barochan Moss, and significant impact on this SINC is not anticipated. While no component infrastructure is located within Linwood Moss Wood, the layout includes an access track which cuts through the SINC boundary. IFL have advised the Council that further information on the potential impact of the access track on the SINC is required in specific reference to the impact on biodiversity. IFL have advised that the BEP requires to be updated to ensure the impact on the SINC is quantified and included within the calculation on biodiversity gain. Further recommendations on enhancing nature connectivity and networks both within and outwith the site are also made. It is considered that an updated BEP can be requested via a suitably worded planning condition. The condition would also ensure that a timetable for the implementation of the biodiversity enhancements is provided along with a scheme of monitoring to ensure implementation and any interim arrangements where planting may have failed. With regard to ecology and protected species, the applicants have submitted an updated Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) in response to the comments raised by the Councils external consultants. IFL have advised that the latest version of the EcIA responds to all the comments that had previously been made with the exception of the potential impact of the development on bats. IFL have advised that in season foraging and commuting surveys are required, and that the bat roost surveys also require to be redone as they have expired. The EcIA and associated bat survey data technical note outline the survey work the applicant has undertaken to date, and the mitigations that have been put in place to protect existing commuting and foraging routes and trees or buildings with bat roost potential. The applicant asserts on this basis that further survey work is not required. On balance it is noted that the potential impact of the development on bats has been considered by the applicants, and that the layout has been configured to mitigate the impact of the development on foraging and commuting routes and bat roosts. However, notwithstanding this it is considered that further in season survey work as recommended by IFL would be beneficial to establish current bat activity at the site and to ensure the proposed mitigations are appropriate. It is noted that further survey work may not alter the mitigations currently being proposed however it would ensure the mitigations are best suited to the site and current bat activity. In addition to the above IFL have also advised that the bat roost survey is out of date. Additional comments have also been made with regard to the survey work on badgers, Page 150 of 230
Page 155
otters and breeding birds and recommendations have been made to strengthen the reports compliance with industry best practice. In view of the above it is considered that a condition should be recommended requiring the submission of an updated EcIA along with a species protection plan to ensure the potential impact of the development on protected species is mitigated. This is considered to be a proportionate position for the Council to adopt given our role as a statutory consultee and not the determining authority. While impacts on protected species should be fully understood before planning permission is granted, this would be a matter for the ECU to consider as they are the competent and determining authority and ultimately it would be a matter for the ECU to decide whether thresholds in terms of protected species survey and mitigation have been met. In view of the recommendations made by IFL the Council would strongly advise that the ECU address these matters before a determination is made. However, should the ECU decide to progress with the application prior to these matters being addressed, the Council would ask for the imposition of the conditions as listed below. With regard to biodiversity and habitats, the applicants state that the removal of intensive farming practices and reversion to grazing by livestock will result in ecological benefits at the site. This is in addition to the ecological enhancement measures set out within the EcIA which include the landscaping, grassland management, bat, and bird boxes. The developers have also now submitted a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (BEP) which quantifies the biodiversity gain associated with the development. The BEP notes that the site is currently composed primarily of arable fields and improved grassland which provides little biodiversity benefit to most species. Proposed biodiversity enhancements include creation of species rich grassland under and between the solar panels, woodland creation and hedgerow enhancement, and an area for sacrificial crops. It is proposed that a conservation grazing regime is developed. Woodland planting will replace the woodland lost to accommodate the development. Overall, the BEP is anticipated to deliver an increase of 113.32 habitat units resulting in a net gain of 49.27%, and 4.49 hedgerow units resulting in a net gain of 32.16%. IFL have reviewed the BEP and note that the matrix used to calculate biodiversity gain is acceptable. However, there are key omissions within the plan with respect to the impact of the development on the SINC designations at Barochan Moss to the north and Linwood Moss Wood to the south. Additionally, the plan should also consider nature networks and nature connectivity within and beyond the site. On balance it is considered that the BEP proposes sufficient measures to ensure biodiversity gain is delivered at the site in accordance with NPF4 policy 3. However, it is considered that the comments from IFL still require to be addressed to ensure the biodiversity gain is accurately quantified and maximised with regard to potential impact on the SINC, and that nature connectivity within and out with the site is considered. An updated BEP can be submitted via condition, and a suitably worded condition is recommended in this regard. It is noted that only a small area of the development comprising of an access track is located within the Linwood Moss Wood SINC. No part of the development is located within the Barochan Moss SINC. It is not considered that the impact of the access rack will be significant, and it is proportionate for a detailed design and alignment to be submitted via an updated BEP to ensure that any impact on the SINC is accurately quantified and mitigated with regard to delivery of biodiversity gain across the site as whole. Additionally, and as noted above the updated BEP should also consider delivering enhancements to areas within and outwith the site (including the SINCs) even if they will not be directly impacted by the development. Page 151 of 230
Page 156
The development does not include the conversion of any buildings. The criteria set out within Policy 8 of NPF4 that have not already been addressed above can be considered as follows. The scale and nature of the development necessitates a green belt location. The applicant has advised that the site selection is based on several criteria including predicted solar resource, landscape constraints, proximity of dwellings, nature conservation and environmental constraints, access and availability of land. While alternative sites were considered, these were discounted due to grid connection issues, lack of land, unsuitable topography, and incompatible planning policies and ecological designations. The purpose of the green belt and its long-term environmental quality would not be undermined. The operational lifespan of the project is 40 years, at which point it would be decommissioned and the land returned to its current use. Conditions could be recommended to safeguard this. Landscape character and visual impact has been assessed above. Policies I4 of the LDP and 11 of NPF4 seek to support development proposals for renewable and low carbon energy developments in principle. This includes energy storage. Policy I4 includes several detailed assessment criteria which will be considered in turn as follows. The potential impact of the development with respect to local environment, landscape character and the natural environment has been discussed above. It is noted that Historic Environment Scotland have not objected to the development with regard to its potential impact on above ground built heritage assets. The West of Scotland Archaeology Service have recommended a condition with respect to the implementation of a programme of archaeological works. Potential impact on the water environment can be mitigated through the incorporation of a strategy to manage surface water and pollution control. A condition can be recommended with respect to the sustainable drainage of surface water. With regard to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties, the principal matters identified in the applicant’s submission relate to visual impact and glint and glare. With regard to visual impact, moderate to major effects are anticipated at two semi detached cottages at North Mains and a two storey farmhouse on Turningshaw Road. However proposed mitigation in the form of landscape planting will ensure these impacts are not significant. The Council’s independent consultant has advised that the proposed landscape measures could be strengthened to reduce the impact on these closest receptors. An enhanced landscape strategy could be sought via a recommended condition. This could also include the application of privacy netting to the boundary fencing to provide immediate screening while the landscaping matures. The species and density of planting would also require to be clarified. The glint and glare assessment indicates that views of the reflecting panels are possible towards ten of the eighty-two dwellings assessed. For eight of these a low impact is predicted. For the remaining two the impact will be mitigated by the proposed landscaping scheme. Page 152 of 230
Page 157
The Council’s independent consultants conclude that the applicant’s assessment of glint and glare is robust, and the conclusions appear reasonable if applied conservatively. It is noted above that an enhanced landscape strategy and the application of privacy netting could be sought via condition to further mitigate glint and glare impact. The solar panels would also be required to incorporate an anti-reflective coating. Environmental Protection have recommended a condition to limit noise from plant and machinery. There are no concerns raised from any consultees regarding air quality or pollution control. Shadow flicker is not relevant to the proposed development. There is no lighting scheme proposed as part of the development. CCTV cameras will use infra-red technology. The development will not have a detrimental impact on outdoor sport or recreation interest. The Roads Development Officer has offered no objections to the development with regard to potential glint and glare impact on the local road network. The landscape strategy will mitigate this issue, and privacy netting can be employed where required to ensure screening is immediate. Transport Scotland have offered no objection to the development with regard to potential impact on the trunk road network. Glasgow Airport Safeguarding have confirmed that they have no objection to the development subject to the imposition of conditions relating to bird hazard management, landscaping, and glint and glare mitigation. The site is not within a potential heat network opportunity area. With regard to the relevant criteria within the New Development Supplementary Guidance on renewable and low carbon energy developments (not already discussed above), conditions will be recommended to ensure arrangements are in place to restore the site to an acceptable standard after the operation of the solar farm and battery storage development has ceased. This would include removal of all above and below ground elements. A decommissioning and restoration strategy, and also a bond or other financial guarantee to ensure funds are set aside for decommissioning and that the Council can call upon these funds to undertake the work if neccesary, would be negotiated via planning conditions. The advice from the Council’s independent consultant is noted with regard to the key considerations associated with the decommissioning and restoration of the development. These considerations could be included within the recommended conditions. The development will contribute to renewable energy generation and carbon emission reduction targets. The solar farm element would have the capacity to generate up to approx. 75MW of renewable energy per annum. The battery storage element would have the capacity to provide approx. 25 MW of generating capacity through storage of excess energy. The applicant states that the development as a whole would make a “significant contribution to the delivery of Scotland’s ambitious renewable energy targets and assist in enhancing the efficiency and security of energy supply”. Policy 11 of NPF4 sets out various criteria to be assessed when considering energy developments. In terms of maximising net economic benefit, in addition to the renewable energy generation noted above the applicants planning statement advises that the development will also result in the creation of 10 full time equivalent jobs during the operational period and approx. 200 full time equivalent jobs during the construction phase. Page 153 of 230
Page 158
The consultation provided by Houston Community Council refers to a community benefit package. This would ultimately be a matter for the community council to negotiate with the developer, and is not a material consideration within the planning process. There will be no significant impact on international or national designations subject to imposition of the recommended conditions. Impact on communities and residential dwellings with regard to amenity have been addressed above. Impact on landscape has been addressed above. It is noted that policy 11 recognises that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy. Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigations have been applied, they will generally be considered to be acceptable. Public access has been addressed above, as have impact on aviation and the local and trunk road network. It is not anticipated that the development would have a detrimental impact on telecommunications or broadcasting installations. It is noted that the MOD have not objected to the development. Impact on the historic environment has been addressed above. It is noted that SEPA have not objected to the development with regard to flood risk, hydrology and the water environment. Impact on trees, woodland and forestry has been assessed above. The applicant advises that the proposed development will have no impact on the existing woodland resource, and is accompanied by a comprehensive package of landscaping proposals which will deliver biodiversity enhancement at the site. It is noted that this can be managed via conditions relating to biodiversity enhancement and landscaping. Proposals for decommissioning including the availability of finances have been discussed above. Finally with regard to cumulative impact, it is noted that two solar developments have been granted on land approximately 2km to the east of the proposed development. These are applications 22/0746/PP at Glasgow Airport and 23/0431/PP between Greenock Road and Houston Road. It should also be noted that a solar farm at the Scottish water site on Middleton Road has also been approved (application ref: 24/0248/PP), and a further solar farm development at Middleton Road is under consideration (application ref: 25/0232/PP) both of which are approximately 1.3km to the south. Finally, a solar farm at Bridge of Weir Leather works approximately 3.5km to the south west has also been approved (application ref: 24/0139/PP). However given the separation distance and intervening land form and land uses (including woodland, the M8 motorway, railway line and urban areas), the cumulative impact of these development is not considered to be significant. The development is considered to comply with policies 1 and 2 of NPF4 relating to climate mitigation and tackling the climate crisis. The development will generate both renewable energy, and also store excess energy during times of surplus generation. The development will contribute to the decarbonisation of the electricity grid, and the transition towards greater electricity generation from renewable sources. Page 154 of 230
Page 159
The visual impact of the development will be mitigated by the landscape strategy in line with the above assessment. This will reduce the impact of the development on the character of the place with respect to the requirements of Policy 14 of NPF4. With regard to Policy 23 of NPF4, it is noted that Scottish Gas Networks (SGN) have not objected to the development subject to the imposition of a condition relating to the submission of a phase to earth study to determine any potential interference on the SGN pipeline network. Regarding the considerations set out within the solar farms guidance note which have not already been discussed above, a post construction road survey can be requested via condition. Additionally, it is not anticipated that significant site levelling works would be required. The solar panels are mounted on frames which are either pushed into the ground or mounted on shallow concrete shoes. Localised site levelling may be required to accommodate some of the component infrastructure, and details of existing and proposed ground levels can be requested as part of the landscape strategy. Representations The points raised in the representations made directly to the Council relating to ecology and protected species, green belt policies, residential amenity, construction traffic and activities, pollution risk, glint and glare, loss of agricultural land and visual impact have been discussed in the foregoing assessment. Matters relating to loss of property value, EMF and other health risks, and fire risk are not considered to be material planning considerations. It is noted that the ECU as determining authority would be required to formally address the representations submitted directly to them. Section 75 Obligations 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: A legal agreement to secure decommissioning and restoration of the site would be required. Conclusion The approach to the assessment and recommendations within this report reflect the fact that the Council is a consultee under the Electricity Act 1989 and that the ECU are the determining authority. In conclusion, the information submitted in support of the application has been updated in response to the matters raised during the Councils own consultation on the development. The deficiencies identified in the report which was presented to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board at its meeting on 27 August 2024 have been addressed as follows. No detailed information has been provided on the potential impact of the development, namely the access track, on the Linwood Moss Wood SINC. Matters relating to the potential impact of the development on the SINC have been discussed above, and a condition is recommended which would require an updated EcIA and BEP to be provided to ensure any potential impact on the SINC is mitigated. Page 155 of 230
Page 160
There is a lack of survey data within the ecological assessment, and no mention of the impact of panel glint and glare on breeding birds. Matters relating to survey data have been discussed above, and a condition is recommended which would require an updated EcIA and associated species protection plan to be provided. Regarding the impact of panel glint and glare on birds, the applicants acknowledged that this has not been assessed on the basis that NatureScot guidance for solar developments states that the main impacts are through habitat loss, displacement and disturbance. NatureScot advise that collision risk for solar PV panels is low and have advised that no collision risk assessment is neccesary. It is noted that both NatureScot and the RSPB have not objected to the development. There is no detailed assessment of the development in general against NPF4, namely policies 3 on biodiversity, 8 on green belts and 11 on energy. The submission requires updating to fully respond to the policies within NPF4. An updated Planning Statement has been provided which includes a detailed assessment of the development against NPF4. Further information is required on measures to limit impact on prime quality agricultural land and carbon rich soils in line with Council guidance and NPF4 policy requirements. An updated Land Capability for Agricultural Report has been provided. The Transport Statement requires updating to take cognisance of walkers, cyclists, and equestrian use of the road network within the site, that North Mains Road is a publicly maintained road, crash data prior to the last three years, and traffic count data which is not representative. An updated Transport Statement has been provided, and the Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) have offered no objections to the development subject to conditions. There is a holding objection from Glasgow Airport Safeguarding and on this basis, it has not been demonstrated that the development is compatible with the safe and efficient operation of Glasgow Airport. This holding objection has now been removed. There is a holding objection from Scottish Gas Networks and on this basis, it has not been demonstrated that the development is compatible with the safe operation of the high- pressure gas pipeline network. This holding objection has now been removed. All other consultation responses noted to date indicate that the proposed development would be acceptable. It is acknowledged that the Councils external consultants have identified two remaining matters that require further consideration namely survey data within the EcIA and the scope of the BEP. It is not considered that these matters being unresolved at this time would preclude the Council from issuing a consultation response. However it is noted above that while the Council would advise the ECU to resolve these matters prior to issuing a decision on the consent ultimately it is a matter for them to decide as the competent and consenting Page 156 of 230
Page 161
authority. If the ECU decide to favourably determine the application with these matters outstanding, then the Council would insist that the conditions listed below are applied to the decision to allow the matters to be addressed at a later date. It should be noted that a further extension of time for the Council to issue a consultation response has not been agreed with the ECU at this time. It is therefore recommended that the Council raises no objections to the development subject to the suggested planning conditions listed below and to the conclusion of a legal agreement to secure appropriate funding for the decommissioning of the development and the restoration of the site. Recommendation No objection subject to the conditions listed below being applied to any decision should the ECU be minded to approve the S36 application. If these conditions were not to be applied and/or applied in an alternative wording then the Council reserve the right to make further comments. Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. The proposed development is compliant with the development plan subject to planning conditions and a legal agreement to secure appropriate funding for the decommissioning of the development and the restoration of the site. All other consultation responses noted to date indicate that the proposed development would be acceptable. Condition(s) 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of its grant. Reason: This condition is for the purpose of the good planning of the area, to ensure that the permission will lapse if it is not implemented within three years. 2. The development is hereby approved for a temporary period of 40 years from the date of final commissioning of the development. Written confirmation of the date of first commissioning shall be provided to the Planning Authority no later than one calendar month after that date. Reason: In order to retain effective planning control. 3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, an outline decommissioning, site restoration and aftercare strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The strategy shall, without limitation, detail proposals for: (a) The removal of all above and below ground elements of the development; (b) The treatment of all ground surfaces, including any sub surface areas, hard standing and access tracks which would restore the site to its former condition or other such condition as agreed by the Council as Planning Authority; (c) The phasing and timing of the works, including any environmental management provisions; (d) Details relating to how and when the strategy will be reviewed. Page 157 of 230
Page 162
Reason: To ensure the decommissioning and removal of the development is in an appropriate and environmentally acceptable manner and the restoration and aftercare of the site, in the interests of safety, amenity and environmental protection. 4. No later than 3 years prior to decommissioning of the development or the expiration of this consent (whichever is the earlier) a detailed decommissioning, restoration, and aftercare plan, based upon the principles of the approved outline decommissioning, restoration, and aftercare strategy, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for written approval. The detailed decommissioning, restoration and aftercare plan shall include (but not be limited to the) provisions in respect of the following matters: - Removal of any in-situ foundations including removal to a depth of at least 1m underground - Removal of above ground infrastructure extending to Substations, PV panels and mountings, inverters/ inverter containers, fencing, lighting masts, internal tracks, equipment and hard standings and battery storage containers - Cable removal - Provision of a Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (DEMP) to be based on relevant elements of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) - A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) related to activities for decommissioning, demolition, and removal of infrastructure - Locations of temporary stockpiles for decommissioned materials and equipment - Treatment of disturbed ground surfaces resulting from decommissioning of infrastructure including cable removal and any sub-surface elements to restore the land to its pre-construction status or such condition as agreed in writing with the LPA - Restoration proposals including ecological and biodiversity enhancement works such as (but not limited to) provision of bird boxes, insect refuge and use of native seed mixes to deliver biodiversity gains and measures to safeguard all landscaping on the site which for the avoidance of doubt shall be retained. - An aftercare plan to monitor success of restoration measures with scope for interventions if required - A Decommissioning Timetable Thereafter the detailed decommissioning, site restoration and aftercare plan shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the decommissioning and removal of the development in an appropriate and environmentally acceptable manner and the restoration and aftercare of the site, in the interests of safety, amenity and environmental protection. 5. That prior to the commencement of development on site, a financial guarantee to cover the costs of decommissioning, site restoration and aftercare, as required by conditions 3 and 4 of this consent, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The acceptability of such financial guarantee shall be at the sole discretion of the Planning Authority. The financial guarantee must: A) be granted in favour of the Planning Authority and shall be maintained in favour of the Planning Authority throughout the duration of this consent and until the completion of all decommissioning, site restoration and aftercare obligations as required by conditions 3 and 4 of this consent. Page 158 of 230
Page 163
B) must be provided by an independent financial body with at least an A - rating who will be capable of fulfilling the obligations set out within the financial guarantee. C) be for an amount which covers the value of all decommissioning, site restoration and aftercare liabilities, such amount to be determined by the Planning Authority prior to energisation of the development. D) be subject to a review every five years from the date of this consent, or other such intervals as agreed by the Planning Authority. Each review shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified independent professional who has relevant experience in such matters, the identity of whom has been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the review of the financial guarantee commencing. The review of the financial guarantee shall be submitted no later than three months prior to the expiry of the existing financial guarantee, for the written approval of the Planning Authority. Thereafter and at least 28 days prior to the expiry of the existing financial guarantee, the replacement financial guarantee in favour of and in terms acceptable to the Planning Authority and for the value advised by the review noted above, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. E) come into effect on or before the energisation date, and expire no earlier than 24 months after the end of the aftercare period. The development shall not be energised until both: - written approval of the Planning Authority has been given to the terms of such financial guarantee and; - the validly executed guarantee has been delivered to the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to retain effective planning control 6. In the event that the financial guarantee becomes invalid, has expired, or is terminated for any reason following the commencement of operations at the site, all operations at the site shall cease no later than three months from the date the financial guarantee became invalid, expired or terminated. If a replacement financial guarantee, which meets the requirements of condition 5, is approved by the Planning authority and duly executed before the end of the three-month period, the operations may continue. If the operations have ceased due to this clause, they may recommence only upon the approval and execution of a replacement financial guarantee. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to retain effective planning control. 7. That no development shall take place within the development site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Reason: To ensure suitable investigations are undertaken in the interests of safeguarding archaeological heritage. Page 159 of 230
Page 164
8. 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 all the site access points including geometry for the construction and post construction phase of the development. ▪ Provision of sightlines at the access points. ▪ 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. ▪ A timetable for the construction phase including confirmation of site operating times on each day of the week. • Confirmation of the construction traffic route. • Confirmation of the construction and post construction arrangements for access to the substation at Moss Road/Auchans Road. • Confirmation of the arrangements for the reinstatement of Moss Road/Auchans Road post construction. 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. 9. That prior to the commencement of construction works on site, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority a specification detailing the pre and post construction road condition survey to be undertaken on the local road network identified as part of the construction traffic route set out in the CTMP approved under condition 8. The specification shall detail the survey scope and methodology, the timings of the survey, provision for selection of an alternative construction traffic route and notification to the Council of an alternative construction traffic route, provision for survey of the alternative construction traffic route, the methodology for identifying any extraordinary damage to the road (damage to the construction traffic route attributable to construction vehicles serving the development between the pre and post construction condition surveys but excluding fair wear and tear attributable to general vehicle use of the route over the same period) and the means by which any extraordinary damage will be repaired including timescales for completion of the works. Page 160 of 230
Page 165
The pre and post construction road condition survey shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved specification, and all extraordinary damage repaired to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure any damage to the local road network arising from the construction of the development is repaired. 10. 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 in consultation with Glasgow Airport. The landscape strategy shall include (but not be limited to) provisions 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 (particularly in relation to a protection zone for all new and existing planting to the north east and north west of the site), ▪ 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, number, spacing and location noting that all planting shall be a maximum of 2m centres. ▪ all areas of hard standing including location and materials (including the initial 5m of any access track taken from the public road which shall be finished in a bituminous material), ▪ all areas of surface water including ponds, and measures for the sustainable management and drainage of surface water where applicable, ▪ the implementation of all biodiversity and habitat enhancements including (but not limited to) those set out within section 4.6 of the Ecology Impact Assessment Report version 3 dated 4th December 2024. ▪ details of all earthworks including existing and proposed ground levels and all associated platforms and retaining walls. ▪ a Conservation Grazing Plan to ensure the existing and proposed areas of grassland are grazed in a manner which supports and promotes biodiversity. ▪ details of an area for provision of sacrificial crops including the exact crop type and a management plan for this area. ▪ 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 161 of 230
Page 166
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. No subsequent alterations to the approved landscaping scheme are to take place unless submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure a robust landscaping strategy is implemented in the interests of visual amenity, landscape character and biodiversity. 11. 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. 12. That prior to the installation of any lighting and associated columns at the site, the developer shall first provide for the written approval of the Planning Authority a specification detailing the final design and location of the lighting and the associated columns. The lighting shall be located and designed to avoid any statutory nuisance to residential properties, and shall be developed in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trust’s Guidance Note 08/23 Bats and Artificial Lighting at Night. Only the lighting and associated columns within the approved specification shall thereafter be implemented on site. Reason: To ensure any proposed security lighting is suitably designed and located in the interests of visual and residential amenity. Landscaping including Biodiversity alignment with recommendations within ecology report and maintenance programme. 13. That prior to the commencement of any works on site, 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: o Project Title Page – Defines the project and applicant details o Distribution List – Includes external recipients chiefly LPA and internal distribution such as contractors; to ensure familiarity with the consented requirements o Introduction – Project overview, site description, scope of proposed works, programme of works, details of any previous environmental assessments o Roles and Responsibilities – Organisational Chart of project personnel and key contacts plus training and competencies and communication procedures Page 162 of 230
Page 167
o Environmental Management Policy Statement – To include any accreditations or EM Systems followed o Regulations and Requirements – Legislation, Regulations and Technical Guidance applicable to the nature and scope of the development o Identification of Environmental Assets and Impacts: o Emissions to air – dust, noise, vibration, traffic/ vehicle movements on site and to/ from site o Land and Water (extends to surface and ground water) – discharges from construction activities, i.e. pollution, substance contamination, damage, waste management o Archaeology and heritage features o Ecological features including habitats and species o Environmental Mitigation Measures and control plans with regard to identified environmental assets and the potential impacts arising from construction; to take cognisance of relevant Legislation and Regulations and follow appropriate Technical Guidance/ best practice o Inclusion of an Emergency/ Incident Response Plan o Monitoring and Auditing – Procedures for audits (internal and external), monitoring and inspections, environmental performance monitoring e.g. KPIs, monitoring/ inspection reporting o 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. 14. 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, 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 Reason: To mitigate potential noise impact on sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the site boundary. 15. 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) buildings, containers, plant, batteries and other component infrastructure, and all boundary fencing and gates to be developed at the site. The Page 163 of 230
Page 168
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. 16. That prior to the commencement of development on site, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority a further revised version of the Ecological Impact Assessment Report ref 794-NI-P7E-NI2575 which includes in season foraging and commuting surveys for bats, and a refreshed bat roost survey, breeding bird survey, otter and badger survey including appropriate recommendations (including any changes to the development layout) to ensure any impact of the development on these protected species is mitigated. This shall include a Species Protection Plan completed in accordance with NatureScot guidance. All mitigations and recommendations identified within the approved Ecological Impact Assessment and Species protection Plan shall thereafter be implemented during the design, construction and operation of the development as required. Reason: In the interests of safeguarding protected species. 17. That prior to the installation of any fencing, walls, gates or other forms of enclosure at the site, the developer shall first submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority and plan and specification showing the location and final design of the fencing, walls, gates or other forms of enclosure to be installed. This shall include provision for an enhanced boundary treatment, such as green privacy netting, along key boundaries to ensure the development is screened from the local road network and neighbouring properties. Only the approved fencing, walls, gates or other forms of enclosure within the plan and specification shall thereafter be installed at the site. Reason: To control the final location and design of all fencing, walls, gates or other forms of enclosure in the interests of visual amenity. 18. Energisation of the development shall not occur until the applicant has provided assessment of the following to the Local Planning Authority. - The risk of any AC and DC interference from the proposed development on Scottish Gas Networks pipeline G04. - A phase-to-earth study to determine any interference levels from the electrical infrastructure from the proposed development on the Scotland Gas Networks pipeline G04. A written strategy for the mitigation of the impacts identified by the assessment shall also be provided and agreed in writing with Scotland Gas Networks and the Local Planning Authority. The mitigation measures identified and agreed shall be implemented in full prior to Energisation of the approved development. Reason: To protect the adjacent pipeline in the interests of health and safety. 19. That prior to the commencement of any works on site, the developer shall first submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority a strategy and associated measures to ensure that core paths LIN/1 and BBH/1 remain open and useable during both the construction and operational phase of the development. The strategy shall thereafter be Page 164 of 230
Page 169
implemented on site during the construction and operational phases of the development, and retained thereafter for the life of the development. Reason: To ensure access to the core path network is retained. 20. That prior to the installation of any solar panels, the developer shall first provide confirmation for the written approval of the Planning Authority of the make, modal, design, and power rating of the solar panels to be used, the incorporation of an anti- reflective coating on the surface of the panels, and evidence to confirm the overall maximum generation capacity (output) of the development. Only the approved solar panels shall thereafter be used in the development of the site. Any changes to the approved design or layout of the development shall require the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To define the consent. 21. Development shall not commence until a Bird Hazard Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. The submitted plan shall include details of: - Management of the ground mounted solar panels which may be attractive to nesting, roosting and loafing birds. The management plan shall comply with Aerodrome Safeguarding Advice Note 3 – Wildlife Hazards Around Airports (available from https://www.caa.co.uk/combined-aerodrome-safeguarding-team-cast/cast- publications/cast-advice-notes/ ) - monitoring of any standing water within the site temporary or permanent - earthworks, soil stripping or excavation works during construction - maintenance of planted and landscaped areas. The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved, prior to commencement of development, and shall remain in force for the life of the development. No subsequent alterations to the plan are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport Reason: It is necessary to manage the development in order to minimise its attractiveness to birds which could endanger the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Glasgow Airport. 22. That prior to the commencement of development on site, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority a further revised version of the Biodiversity Enhancement Report ref 794-NI-P&E-NI2575 by RPS. The revised version shall include a review of the impact of the development on the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) designations at Barochan Moss to the north and Linwood Moss Wood to the south to ensure any biodiversity loss in these designated areas is included within the enhancement calculations and that suitable compensation is provided within the biodiversity plan. Additionally, the plan should also consider nature networks and nature connectivity within and beyond the site. The revised report shall also include a timetable for the implementation of all biodiversity enhancements, and a strategy for monitoring the implementation and management of all biodiversity enhancements for the life of the development including details of measures where planting may fail and details for interim mitigation measures before planting is replaced. This shall include provision Page 165 of 230
Page 170
for written updates to be provided to the Council throughout the life of the development to ensure all biodiversity measures are being managed in accordance with the approved strategy. Reason: To ensure all approved biodiversity measures are implemented at the site and managed for the life of the development in the interests of delivering biodiversity gain. 23. That all construction works shall take place out with the wintering period which is from October to April inclusive when whooper swans are likely to be feeding in the area around the Black Cart Special Protection Area. If construction works must unavoidably have to be undertaken during the wintering period, no work of any kind associated with the development shall take place while any whooper swans are feeding within 200m of the planned site works. The locations of whooper swans must be confirmed by a suitably qualified and empowered ecological clerk of works in order to ensure that any whooper swans are more than 200m from the planned site works before any work related to this proposal proceeds during the wintering period. The appointed Ecological Clerk of Works, the terms of their appointment, role and scope of work must be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority prior to any work being undertaken within the wintering period. Records shall be kept of all decisions to proceed or postpone made by the appointed Ecological Clerk of Works as well as the reasons for these decisions, and these records shall be provided to the Planning Authority and NatureScot on completion of all construction works. Reason: To safeguard the qualifying interest of the Black Cart Special Protection Area. 24. Prior to the commencement of development, a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with NatureScot and RSPB Scotland. The HMP shall set out proposed habitat management of the Site during the period of construction, operation and decommissioning and restoration of the Site. The approved HMP shall include (but not limited to) - a minimum of 10ha of annually-sown wild bird cover/ unharvested crop (e.g Wild bird cover – CFE Online) to provide a food source for wintering Whooper Swans and other farmland birds; - detailed plan of hedge planting and gapping up around the Development site including details on species, and minimum height of planting; - consideration of mitigation to ensure a minimum of period before planting will be established; - programme of maintenance for duration of operational period in line with best practice guidance; - to include details of measures where planting may fail and details for interim mitigation measures before planting is replaced; - monitoring of species using the site and protocol for recording and reporting any collisions with the solar panels to NatureScot and RSPB; Page 166 of 230
Page 171
- and timescales for the implementation of each requirement within the HMP. The approved HMP shall be implemented within the approved timescales and in full for the lifetime of the Development. Reason: In the interests of good land management and the protection of habitats. Advisory Notes Given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane may be required during its construction. We would, therefore, draw the applicant’s attention 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 and Other Construction Issues’ (available at http://www.aoa.org.uk/policy-safeguarding.htm. Schedule of Plans and Documents Reviewed Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title version 4 Ecology Impact Assessment Report dated 26th May 2025 version 3 Flood Risk Assessment dated June 2023 Issue 5 Addendum to Flood Risk Assessment Glint and Glare Assessment dated December 2024 version 4 Shadow Habitats Regulations Appraisal dated 26th May 2025 version 2 Heritage Assessment dated June 2023 version 4 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment dated 3rd July 2023 Land Capability for Agriculture Assessment dated September 2024 version F01 Noise Impact Assessment dated 29th September 2023 version 4 Planning Support Statement dated December 2024 version 02 Pre-application Consultation Report dated 13th June 2023 Version 2 Transport Statement dated December 2024 version 3 Biodiversity Enhancement Report dated 26th May 2025 version 1 Badger and Otter Survey Report dated November 2024 Bat Survey Data Suitability for Ecological Impact Assessment ELGIN-BESS-001 A Typical BESS Unit ELGIN-BESS-002 A Typical Power Conversion System Unit ELGIN-FENCE&CCTV-001 A General Fence & CCTV Detail ELGIN-INVERTER-001 H Typical Invertor Detail ELGIN-PANEL-001 E Solar Panel Sections Page 167 of 230
Page 172
1101-ELDERSLIE-005 B Site Context Plan 1101-ELDERSLIE-002 K Site Layout Plan 1101-ELDERSLIE-001 C Site Location Plan 1101-BESS-003 - Typical Storage Container - - Typical 33kv Substation Elevations 2575.5.01 D Landscape Mitigation Plan ELGIN-75x75COMPOUND-001 A Typical 75m x 75m Construction Compound 2575.5.02 - Proposed Sections (Woodland Planting) For further information please contact James Weir, Development Standards Team, Email: james.weir@renfrewshire.gov.uk. Page 168 of 230
Page 173
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 26 August 2025 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0232/PP Application Type Planning Permission (Major) Proposal Installation of a ground-mounted solar array and associated infrastructure Location Land at Middleton Farm, Middleton Road, Linwood, PA3 3AG Ward 10 – Houston, Crosslee and Linwood Community Council Linwood Community Council Applicant Bluestone Energy Ltd 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=STTQDQMWH2R00 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 falls within the major category of development as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 as the output capacity of the development is more than 20MW. Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the installation of a ground mounted solar array and associated infrastructure on flat agricultural land at Middleton Road, Linwood. The application site boundary extends to approximately 62 hectares in total. It is bisected by Middleton Road, with approximately three quarters of the site to the northwest of Middleton Road and one quarter of the site to the southeast of Middleton Road. Middleton Road is identified in the Local Development Plan (LDP) as a core path. The solar array would be located on the land to the northwest of Middleton Road. The array would comprise of 72,202 panels, with an output capacity of 40MW. The panels are mounted on metal frames which are pile driven into the ground. The maximum height of the panels is 2.96 metres above ground level. The associated infrastructure includes 20 inverter and transformer stations which are distributed across the solar array. These are housed in shipping containers which measure 12.2 metres in length by 2.4 metres in width by 2.7 metres in height. Two 33kv substations, an auxiliary transformer and a maintenance, storage and welfare building are located in the southwest corner of the array. The substations are housed within a switchroom building which measures 13 metres in length by 4 metres in width by 3.4 metres in height. The auxiliary transformer is 1.8 metres in length, by 1.1 metres in width, by 1.75 metres in height. The maintenance, storage and welfare building also comprises of a shipping container with the same dimensions as the inverter and transformer housing. Proposed boundary treatment comprises of 2.4-metre-high wire mesh fencing. CCTV columns are proposed at various locations as identified on the proposed site plan. The Item 4(d) PACC260825 Page 169 of 230
Page 174
columns are 4 metres in height. The solar array is accessed via two existing field accesses on Middleton Road. Access tracks will be constructed with recycled aggregate. A proposed landscape strategy has also been submitted which includes native hedgerow mix planting, a wetland meadow mix which will be planted underneath the solar panels, and proposed tree planting. The land to the southeast of Middleton Road will be used as a sacrificial high value foraging habitat for Whooper Swans. This includes retention of patches of long vegetation and spreading of grain periodically through the wintering season to ensure a constant supply of feed. The application site boundary also includes a proposed cable route with would connect the solar array to Elderslie substation which is located on Linwood Road which is approximately. 2km to the southeast. The proposed cable route is along Middleton Road, Moss Road, Bridge Street and Linwood Road. The applicant advises that the route is indicative at planning stage and would likely be implemented and fulfilled separately (outwith the scope of the application) by a statutory undertaker such as Scottish Power Energy Networks. Site Description The application site is located on flat agricultural land to the northeast of Linwood. It is bound by the Black Cart water to the south, Moss Road to the west, a tree belt and former landfill site to the north, and agricultural land to the east. Neighbouring land uses include Linwood Recycling Centre which is immediately adjacent to the southwest corner of the solar array, Riverbrae School and neighbouring residential properties on Middleton Road to the southwest of the site. It should be noted that planning permission for a solar development has been approved at the Scottish Water Wastewater Treatment Works on Middleton Road to the southwest of the recycling centre under planning application reference 24/0248/PP. There are existing trees and vegetation along the western boundary between the site and Moss Road, the northern boundary between the site and the former landfill, and the southern boundary between the site and Middleton Road. 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. No pre-application discussions have been undertaken. Negotiated Improvements Following submission, the following changes have been negotiated between officers and the applicant: The number of replacement trees has been increased from two to ten to compensate for the removal of seven trees to accommodate the development. Site History Page 170 of 230
Page 175
Application Number: 24/0930/PAN Description: Installation of a 49MW ground mounted solar photovoltaic array development Decision: Accepted Application Number: 24/0007/EA Description: Request for screening opinion as to the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment relating to the installation of a 49MW ground mounted solar photovoltaic array development. Decision: Environmental Assessment not Required. Consultations ▪ Glasgow Airport Safeguarding – No objection subject to conditions relating to bird hazard management and the implementation of the development. ▪ Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Env. Protection) – Have reviewed application and have no comments to make. ▪ National Air Traffic Services (NATS) – No objection. ▪ Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) – No objection. Comments made in respect of the proposed cable connection route and potential off-site enhancement and environmental improvement works. ▪ Scottish Power Networks (Transmission Sites) – No objection. ▪ Scottish Power Networks (Distribution Sites) – No comment. ▪ West Of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) - No objection subject to condition relating to the implementation of a programme of archaeological works. ▪ Scottish Environmental protection Agency (SEPA) - Below threshold for consultation. Please refer to standing advice. ▪ Scottish Gas Networks (SGN) – No objection. ▪ Health and Safety Executive (HSE) - Does Not Cross Any Consultation Zones. ▪ NatureScot – No objections subject to conditions. ▪ Transport Scotland - No objection subject to condition relating to implementation of landscaping. ▪ Scottish Water – No objection. ▪ The Mining Remediation Authority (Formerly The Coal Authority) – No objection. An Advisory note is required with regard to coal mining features at shallow depth. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The following representations were received: ▪ Object - 2 ▪ Support - 0 ▪ Neutral – 0 Page 171 of 230
Page 176
The points raised in the letters of representation can be summarised as follows: 1 – Potential impact on existing farm access and access to adjoining fields, common field drainage. 2 – Potential impact on sewage main and requirement for areas either side to be able to work on if the main bursts. 3 – The access road maintained by Blackstoun Farm according to usage. 4 – Filed drainage pipes do not appear to have been considered. 5 – Loss of good quality agricultural 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 crisis ▪ 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 11 - Energy ▪ Policy 13 - Sustainable transport ▪ Policy 14 - Design, quality, and place ▪ Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management 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 I1 - Connecting Places ▪ Policy I3 - Flooding and Drainage ▪ Policy I4 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. New Development Supplementary Guidance ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy – Green Belt Development Criteria, Natural Heritage, Built and Cultural heritage, The water Environment and Soils ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy – Connecting Places, Flooding and Drainage and Renewable and Low carbon Energy Developments Other relevant policies and guidance ▪ Planning Advice Note – Solar Farm developments in Renfrewshire Submitted Reports and Assessments Page 172 of 230
Page 177
▪ Planning Statement (Cogeo version 1.0 dated 03/2025) – Provides an outline of the development and a description of the site and the development specification. The need for the development is also outlined, and a review of the proposal against the development plan is also undertaken. Finally, the statement focuses on key aspects of the proposal and potential impacts associated with the following matters: ▪ Landscape and Visual Assessment - The assessment notes that the landscape character type is Agricultural Plain however this has been influenced by neighbouring built environments and transport routes. Within 5km of the site there are no international, national or locally recognised landscape designations. While the development would result in the introduction of low-profile solar panels and ancillary infrastructure, it is not considered to be out of place or at odds with the scale of the landscape. The magnitude of the effect is considered to be low, and the significance of the effect is considered to be minor. Visualisations have also been produced to illustrate views of the development from two locations, Blackstone Road and Moss Road. From Blackstone Road the significance of the effect on landscape is considered minor, and from Moss Road it is considered Moderate to Minor. From both viewpoints the visual impact of the development will be mitigated over time by hedgerow planting. The cumulative impact of the development and other consented and proposed solar developments within 5km is also assessed. Due to the low lying nature of solar developments and the intervening landcover and separation distances, it is not considered that the cumulative impact will be significant. ▪ Heritage Impact Assessment – A number of heritage assets are noted within 5km radius of the site. However, it is not considered that the development will detrimentally affect heritage assets or their settings to a degree that would be classed as significant. ▪ Ecology – Summarises the findings of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Wintering Birds Survey, habitats Regulations Appraisal and Tree Survey. ▪ Glint and Glare – Potential glint and glare impact is considered with respect to aviation receptors, roadway receptors and static receptors. Planting is proposed to mitigate the impact of glare on residential properties at Semple Place. Intervening screening and new planting will also reduce the impact of glare on the trunk and local road network. Aviation receptors at Glasgow Airport are not predicted to be impacted by the solar array. ▪ Drainage – Summarises the findings of the Flood Risk Assessment and SUDS Report. ▪ Noise – Predicted specific noise levels generated by the operational solar array are below the ambient background sound baseline, and predicted operational noise will not constitute a significant adverse impact on identified neighbouring sensitive receptors. ▪ Emissions – Operationally the site does not require external lighting. Pole mounted security cameras will be infra-red. There will be no significant volumes of waste. ▪ Soils – The land is within classes 3.2 and 5.3 on the National Soil Map of Scotland and is not classed as prime quality agricultural land. A Coal Mining Risk Assessment has been undertaken, and the layout has been designed to ensure that ancillary infrastructure is located outwith the mining shaft areas. ▪ Access and Transport – A proposed access out and site access arrangements are set out. There are two site access points off Middleton Road which have been selected as Page 173 of 230
Page 178
they are existing field access points. It is not anticipated that the development wilk generate significant volume of additional traffic. Anticipated construction vehicle traffic is summarised, and once operational there are very low numbers of vehicle movements required. ▪ Decommissioning – Decommissioning will follow a reversed construction process. There are likely to be les vehicles than associated with the construction phase, and it will occur over a shorter timeframe. ▪ Shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment (EP Ecology revision 02 dated 29th July 2024) – The application site currently holds poor value as foraging habitat for whooper swans as it is primarily use for turf production. The proposed mitigation measures include creating new, good quality foraging habitat for whooper swans. On this basis the proposals are predicted to cause no likely significant negative effects to any internationally designated sites. ▪ Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints Assessment (Hinshelwood Arboricultural Consultants dated January 2024) – The assessment states that due to the intensive agricultural use of the site, tree and woodland cover is only supported in the field margins and boundaries. The principal Arboricultural features are linear woodland belts on the north side of Middleton Road. Five trees are recommended for removal as they pose serious concerns relating to decay, structure and crown decline. A further two trees will be felled to accommodate the development. ▪ Flood Risk Assessment and SUDS Report (Nimbus ref C3449-R1-REV-B dated March 2025) – A small part of the site is at risk from pluvial and fluvial flooding. The solar panels are raised above ground level and will not increase flood risk at the site or elsewhere. Solar arrays are not considered to increase surface water run off is vegetation is maintained underneath them. Therefore, no suds measures are proposed for the solar array. However, a SUDs detention basin is proposed to manage run off from the two substations. ▪ Pre-application Consultation Report (Cogeo version 1.0 dated 03/2025) – Provides feedback from the community consultation which included two public events at Tweedie Hall. ▪ Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (EP Ecology revision 02 dated 2nd November 2023) – The appraisal notes that several designated sites may be indirectly affected by the proposed works, and habitat Regulations Appraisal would be required. Limited signs of protected species were found over the course of the survey however existing habitat (particularly the field margins) is expected to be of high value for bats, birds, and badgers. Recommendations are made with regard to further survey work, biodiversity enhancement and management of invasive species. ▪ Wintering Bird Survey Report (EP Ecology revision 02 dated 29th July 2024) – A wintering bird survey was completed from November 2023 to May 2024. A desk-based study was undertaken in June 2024. Seventy-three species of bird were recorded during the desk study, and twenty five during the bird survey. This includes a small number of whooper swans, however most were observed on or near the Black Cart with only one instance of whooper swans near the site itself. 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 Page 174 of 230
Page 179
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. 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 located within the green belt. Policy ENV1 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) states that development within the green belt will only be considered acceptable where it can be demonstrated that it is compatible with the provisions of the new development supplementary guidance. The guidance sets out development that is acceptable within the green belt in principle. This includes renewable energy developments. Policy 8 of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) also states that renewable energy developments will be supported within areas identified as green belt within the LDP. The development is also considered to comply with policies 1 and 2 of NPF4 relating to climate mitigation and tackling the climate crisis given the nature of the development proposed. While the development complies with policy ENV1 of the LDP and 8 of NPF4 in principle, it must thereafter be assessed against the new development supplementary guidance green belt development criteria, and the detailed assessment criteria within policy 8. With respect to the new development supplementary guidance green belt development criteria, there is no loss of prime quality agricultural land. With regard to the Macaulay land capability classification the site is mostly within category 3.2 which is land capable of average production, and 5.3 which is land capable of use as improved grassland. NPF4 defines prime quality agricultural land as that identified within Class 1, 2 or 3.1. The LDP does not identify the site as being of cultural or local importance. There is no impact on wild land. The solar array will be accessed from two existing field gates on the northern side of Middleton Road. The applicant has committed to a pre and post construction survey of Middleton Road to ensure that any damage identified as a result of the construction works is remedied and made good. There are no upgrades being proposed to the existing access infrastructure which is considered suitable to accommodate the development. Within the solar array the existing access roads will be complemented by a network of proposed access tracks which are primarily located adjacent to the site boundaries. These tracks are formed from recycled aggregate and compacted type 1 material. The access infrastructure required to serve the development can be accommodated sensitively and without significant impact on the existing road network or on visual amenity. Page 175 of 230
Page 180
The proposed development includes a cable connection to the Elderslie substation which is approximately. 2km to the southeast of the solar array. This will be a buried cable connection running along the local and crossing the trunk road network at Linclive interchange on the A737. The applicant has advised that the cable route is indicative and may be subject to change. It is also likely that the cable route would be implemented by a statutory undertaker. However, notwithstanding this the implementation of the cable connection will require appropriate traffic management, and may be implemented by a private operator or as a private wire connection to another end user. As such it is considered neccesary to recommend a condition requiring a separate CTMP to be submitted which specifically relates to the implementation of the cable connection. It is also noted that separate road opening permits would be required from the Roads Authority. The Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) has offered no objections to the development. Comments have been made regarding the implementation of the cable connection and the suitability of the proposed cable route. However, due weight is given to the fact that the inclusion of the cable route at this stage is purely indicative, with the applicants advising in their supporting information that its fulfilment is likely to be undertaken separately by a statutory undertaker. On balance, it is considered that in so far as its implementation relates to this application and the planning process, the Roads Development considerations can be covered via an appropriately worded planning condition as above. Roads Development have also proposed a suite of local off-site enhancements and environmental improvements to Moss Road which bounds the application site to the west. These primarily relate to potential enhancements to Moss Road that are associated with wider Council and strategic/regional proposals to create a key active travel route which runs from Linwood to the Erskine Bridge via Bishopton. Whilst not fundamental to the development, the applicants have been receptive to these requests and have engaged positively to delivering at least some of these localised off-site enhancements and environmental improvements as part of this application, namely provision of a gate and turning head on Moss Road at the access to Moss Cottage, and a pre and post construction survey for Middleton Road. In turn, an appropriately worded planning condition is proposed to both consider and manage the implementation of potential local off-site enhancements. It is not anticipated that the development would have a significant effect on public water supply and water courses from pollution risk given the operational nature of the development. Pollution control during the construction phase can be requested as part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). It is noted that Middleton Road is designated as a core path. There are also existing access tracks within the development site which are publicly accessible. The development will not have a significant impact on these routes. The site plan indicates that boundary fencing will be set back from the tracks and will not block or hinder access to them. With regard to traffic generation, it is noted that during the operational phase additional trips to and from the development will be low. Traffic associated with the construction phase will be managed via a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). The associated planning condition will require the CTMP to take cognisance of the core path and other public routes to reduce conflict between construction vehicles and people using the core path. There is no requirement to incorporate links into the green network or active travel routes as part of the development, and the development will not have a significant impact on existing routes as noted above. With regard to impact on landscape character, the conclusions set out within the Landscape and Visual Assessment undertaken by the applicant are noted. The application site comprises of flat agricultural land. However, it benefits from existing areas of woodland Page 176 of 230
Page 181
which provide screening, most notably the linear woodland belts on the northern side of Middleton Road as noted in the Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints Assessment. There is also existing woodland and other screening in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the recycling centre, along the eastern edge of Moss Road, and along the northern edge of the site adjacent to the former landfill site. While the site does not benefit from any existing screening along the northeastern and eastern boundaries, there are few sensitive receptors or vantage points where the development would be visible from this direction. As noted in the accompanying Landscape and Visual Assessment, the low-lying nature of the solar arrays mean they will not be overly prominent from features within the landscape. The visual impact can also be mitigated further by additional boundary landscaping. The existing screening will be complimented by new planting which forms part of a landscape strategy for the site. This includes new hedgerow planting on the western, eastern and northern boundaries, and new tree planting to complement and reinforce the existing screening. Tree protection measures will also be put in place to ensure the existing trees which bound the site are protected during the construction phase. On balance the existing woodland coupled with the implementation of a landscape strategy will suitably mitigate the visual impact of the development and ensure the impact on landscape character is acceptable. There is no requirement to incorporate access to open space as part of a development of this nature. Seven trees will be removed as part of the development. However, the integrity of traditional field enclosures and existing landscape features, and woodlands will be safeguarded. As noted above, tree protection measures will be put in place to ensure trees are protected during the construction phase. Additional tree planting will be undertaken to replace those trees which are removed, with ten new trees proposed as part of the landscape strategy. The ancillary elements of the solar array are primarily grouped in the southwest corner of the site next to the recycling centre. This area benefits from existing screening via the linear woodland on the north side of Middleton Road. The inverter and transformer substations are scattered throughout the layout. However, the scale of these components is not considered to be significant with regard to visual impact. The applicant has confirmed that these ancillary elements will be finished in RAL 6011 (Reseda Green). A condition can be applied to safeguard this. As noted above, there is an existing access track through the development site linking Middleton Road with Moss Road. This track will be retained, and as such it splits the solar array into three distinct pods. Access along the existing track will be maintained in this regard. With regard to boundary treatment, the applicant has confirmed that the site will be bound in a 2.3-metre-high deer stock style fence. This is an appropriate boundary treatment given the location of the site. It is noted that on some boundaries it would be desirable to provide immediate screening via the boundary treatment while the landscape screening matures. This would be particularly relevant for the southwest boundary which is visible from Semple Place and Spiers Place. To provide immediate screening the deer stock fence could incorporate green privacy netting, and this matter can be managed via a condition. Page 177 of 230
Page 182
There are no identified nature conservation designations within the application site boundary. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) notes that there were limited signs of protected species found over the course of the survey however existing habitat (particularly the field margins) is expected to be of high value. As the majority of the site is agricultural land it will be of relatively low ecological and biodiversity value. The ecological and biodiversity value of the land will be enhanced through the landscape strategy which proposes a wet meadow grassland mix planted underneath the panels. Measures are also in place to retain and enhance the high value field margins, and this includes planting of new hedgerows. The landscape strategy also proposes the installation of insect hotels, hibernacula, and bird boxes in accordance with the recommendations set out within the PEA. A condition can be applied to ensure the development progress in accordance with the requirements and recommendations set out within the PEA. With regard to European Sites, a Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) and Appropriate Assessment (AA) have been undertaken, and mitigation in the form of a planning condition is required to ensure the qualifying interests if the Black Cart SPA are protected. The condition would restrict construction works to the summer months. If winter working were to be required an Ecological Clerk of Works would require to be appointed to oversee the works and ensure the qualifying interests of the SPA are protected. Additionally, an area of at least 13.5 hectares of sacrificial foraging crops should be planted in line with the timings and methods set out in the HRA. The consultation response from NatureScot aligns with the above, and they have recommended an appropriately worded planning condition. In view of the above assessment, the development will not have a significant detrimental effect on identified nature conservation interests including species and habitats providing the conditions as noted above with regard to the CEMP and the implementation of all requirements and recommendations within the PEA are applied. The development does not involve the conversion of any buildings. In view of the above assessment, it is considered that the development complies with the green belt development criteria. The criteria set out within Policy 8 of NPF4 which have not already been discussed above, are as follows. The green belt location is required in this instance given the nature and scale of the development. There will not be any significant long-term impact on the environmental quality of the green belt, and the purpose of the green belt at this location will not be undermined. It should be noted at this stage that the applicant is seeking a 40-year time period for the consent at which point the development will be decommissioned and the site restored (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council). However, the landscape planting and biodiversity enhancements will be retained, and on balance the long-term environmental quality of the green belt will be safeguarded. In view of the above assessment, it is considered that the development is fully compliant with the green belt policies ENV1 of the LDP and 8 of NPF4 and should be considered as a suitable development at this green belt location. Policies I4 of the LDP and 11 of NPF4 seek to support development proposals for renewable and low carbon energy developments in principle. This includes energy storage. Page 178 of 230
Page 183
Policy I4 includes several detailed assessment criteria which will be considered in turn as follows. The potential impact of the development with respect to local environment, landscape character and the natural environment has been discussed above. There are no above ground-built heritage designations in or in close proximity of the site. The recommendations from the West of Scotland Archaeology Society regarding the requirement for an archaeological watching brief are noted. This can be managed via an appropriately worded planning condition. Matters relating to surface water are addressed in the Flood Risk Assessment and SUDS Report. In this regard it is noted that solar panels are not considered to increase surface water run off if vegetation is maintained underneath them as is the case in this instance. An attenuation basin is proposed to manage surface water run-off from the transformers located in the southwest corner of the site. With regard to amenity of neighbouring residential receptors, the Environmental Protection Team have not made any comment on the development. Visual impact can be mitigated by landscape planting, boundary treatments and the appearance of the component infrastructure as noted above. Glint and glare impact on neighbouring residential properties has also been considered, and additional planting will mitigate potential impact on properties at Semple Place and Spiers Place. While properties at the western end of Middleton Road are closer to the application site, the development is screened from view by an existing area of woodland adjacent to the recycling centre. Middleton Farm is located within the area of the site which is proposed for sacrificial crops, and the solar array will be screened from view by the linear woodland belts along the northern side of Middleton Road. Riverbrae School and the properties at Napier Crescent are screened from the development by the recycling centre and the adjacent area of woodland. Blackstoun Farm, Candrens and the Old Schoolhouse are located to the east and northeast of the development. Given the separation distance and the orientation of these properties in relation to the solar array, it is not considered that amenity will be significantly impacted. It is noted above that the proposed landscape strategy includes hedgerow planting along the eastern boundary. It is considered that the amenity of neighbouring residential receptors will not be significantly impacted in this regard. With regard to potential impact on the road network from glint and glare, it is noted that Transport Scotland have offered no objection to the development subject to the implementation of the landscaping strategy. The development will not have a significant impact on the trunk road network in this regard. It is also considered that the landscape mitigation will ensure there is no significant impact on the local road network, and the conclusions within the applicants glint and glare assessment are also noted in this regard. A condition requiring the solar panels to be fitted with an anti-reflective coating and for the implementation of the landscape boundary treatment will be applied. It is acknowledged that it may take some time for the landscaping to mature to the point where it fully screens the development. On this basis a modification to the boundary fence (the installation of additional green privacy netting for example) can be considered to provide immediate screening of the site. This additional screening would remain in place until the boundary planting had matured. Page 179 of 230
Page 184
Matters relating to visual amenity and noise have been discussed above. There are no implications with regard to air quality, glare or shadow flicker. The development will not have a detrimental impact on outdoor sport or recreation interest. Matters relating to transport infrastructure and road safety have been discussed above. Glasgow Airport Safeguarding and NATS have offered no objections to the development with regard to the safe and efficient use of Glasgow Airport. The site is not within a potential heat network opportunity area. The relevant criteria within the new development supplementary guidance on renewable and low carbon energy developments (not already discussed above) are assessed as follows. Conditions can be used to ensure arrangements are in place to restore the site to an acceptable standard after the operation of the solar array has ceased. This includes the submission of decommissioning and restoration strategies, a time limit on the consent of 40 years, and a bond or other financial guarantee to ensure funds are set aside for decommissioning and that the Council can call upon these funds to undertake the work if neccesary. With regard to cumulative impact, it is noted that there are 4 other consented or proposed solar developments within a 5km radius of the site. These are the Glasgow Airport solar farm (consented under application 22/0746/PP), Inchinnan solar farm (consented under application 23/0431/PP) which are both located on the eastern side of the M8, Scottish Water solar farm (consented under application 24/0248/PP) which is located at the waste water pumping station on the southern side of Middleton Road, and Houston solar farm (pending decision under 23/0622/EB) located at the northern end of Moss Road. It is also noted that the Bridge of Weir Leather Works solar farm (consented under application 24/0139/PP) is also approximately. 5km to the west. While these developments are in relatively close proximity, the low-lying nature of solar farms coupled with the separation distances and intervening land uses, topography and vegetation ensure cumulative visual impact is not significant. The scale of the contribution towards renewable energy generation and carbon emission reduction is set out within the accompanying planning statement. The capacity of the solar array is 40MW, with a production value of 842 kilo watt hours per year and a carbon saving of 9675 tonnes of CO2 per annum and 387,0000 tonnes of CO2 over the project lifetime. It is also noted that potential enhancements to Moss Road have also been discussed with the applicants as noted above. While the application includes a cable connection to Elderslie substation, the planning statement advises that the developer is also investigating private wire connections to nearby buildings. It is recognised that technologies could come forward in the future that would allow for improved energy generation, and it is considered that this should be supported subject to the further assessment of any necessary development design changes needed to realise the improved generation capacities. This can be controlled by condition. The criteria set out within Policy 11 of NPF4 which have not already been discussed above, are as follows. It is not anticipated that there will be any detrimental impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations. Page 180 of 230
Page 185
The Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints Assessment specifies the removal of 7 trees. However, the landscape strategy provides for suitable compensation in the form of 10 new trees to be planted. These trees will reinforce the existing linear woodland buffers to the south of the site and provide additional screening in the northwest corner of the site. Matters relating to flooding are addressed in the Flood Risk Assessment and SUDS Report which notes that areas of the site are at risk of flooding. However, the SEPA flood risk maps indicate that the majority of the flood risk is within the area of the site allocated for the sacrificial crop, with only a small area of flood risk on the northern side of Middleton Road where the solar array is located. However, the solar development is considered to be compatible with the flood risk area given the nature of its construction, and it will not increase flood risk elsewhere as the panels are elevated above ground level. SEPA have advised that the development is below the threshold with which they would offer site specific advice. In view of the above, it is considered that the development complies with Policies I4 of the LDP and 11 of NPF4. The above assessment also broadly demonstrates compliance with the other relevant development plan policies and the Planning Advice Note on Solar Farm developments as follows. The development will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity at the site in accordance with the requirements of Policy 3 of NPF4. The recommendations within the PEA with regard to biodiversity enhancements will form part of the landscaping condition. The development will not have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment and will not have a significant impact on any national or local designated sites in accordance with Policy 4 of NPF4 and ENV2 of the LDP. With regard to Policy 6 of NPF4 and ENV2 of the LDP it is noted that seven trees are proposed for removal. Five of these will be removed on health and safety grounds given the condition of the trees, and two will be removed solely to accommodate the development. These are tree 413 and 414 which are of poor overall physiological and structural condition. As noted above, ten trees will be planted to compensate for the removal of the seven trees. Both the PEA and the tree survey note the importance of the existing woodland cover at the site, particularly the linear tree belts within the field margin along the northern side of Middleton Road. These trees are considered to be of high ecological value however they also screen the development and mitigate glint and glare. On this basis it is considered justifiable to implement a condition requiring the retention of these linear groups, and for no loping, topping or feeling to be undertaken without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority. This would also allow for the Planning Authority to manage replanting to ensure the ecological integrity and mitigatory function of the tree belts is retained. There are no above ground designated historic environment assets within or on the boundary of the site that would be impacted by the development. An archaeological watching brief will be required to ensure the potential for non-designated buried archaeological remains is investigated in line with the consultation response from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. The development complies with policy 7 of NPF4 and ENV3 of the LDP. The advice note on solar farm development requests a road condition survey to ensure that any damage to the road network that can be attributed to the construction of the solar farm is remedied. As noted above, the developers have committed to a pre and post construction Page 181 of 230
Page 186
survey on Middleton Road. The methodology and associated implementation of this survey will be managed via n appropriately worded planning condition. Matters relating to potential impact from glint and glare on the transport network have been addressed. The development has a low trip generation during its operational phase and does not require accessibility via public transport or active travel routes. The development complies with policy 13 of NPF4 and I1 of the LDP. The additional landscape planting that will form part of the scheme will over time further improve the quality and environment of the area and ensure the development is suitably screened from external views. The development complies with Policy 14 of NPF4. The development is compatible with the flood risk associated with the site and will not increase flood risk elsewhere with regard to displacement of flood water or the management of surface water. The development complies with Policy 22 of NPF4 and I3 of the LDP. Policy 23 of NPF4 requires developments within the vicinity of major accident hazards to consider the risks and potential impacts. Consultation has been undertaken with Scottish Gas Networks (SGN) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) given the proximity of the development to a high-pressure gas pipeline. SGN and HSE have not objected to the development. Representations 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. 1 – Potential impact on existing farm access and access to adjoining fields. Matters relating to the accessibility of existing farm tracks have been discussed in the foregoing assessment. It is noted that a condition will be applied to ensure accessibility of the tracks is managed during the construction and operation of the development. 2 – Potential impact on sewage main and requirement for areas either side to be able to work on if the main bursts. The presence of the sewer main is shown on the proposed site plan, and the development is set back from the sewer. Ultimately it is the developer’s responsibility to ensure utilities and wayleaves are maintained. However, it is noted that Scottish water have been consulted on the application and have not raised any objections. 3 – The access road maintained by Blackstoun Farm according to usage. Maintenance of the private access road is a separate legal matter and not a material planning consideration. 4 – Filed drainage pipes do not appear to have been considered. This would be the responsibility of the developer to ensure the existing field drains are safeguarded, and this is not a material planning consideration. 5 – Loss of good quality agricultural land. Page 182 of 230
Page 187
Matters relating to the value of the agricultural land have been discussed in the foregoing assessment. Planning Obligations 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 required. 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. Recommendation Grant subject to conditions. Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. The proposed development is compliant with the development plan subject to planning conditions and an appropriate agreement to secure appropriate funding for the decommissioning of the development and the restoration of the site. 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 development is hereby approved for a temporary period of 40 years from the date of final commissioning of the development. Written confirmation of the date of first commissioning shall be provided to the Planning Authority no later than one calendar month after that date. Reason: In order to retain effective planning control. 3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, an outline decommissioning, site restoration and aftercare strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The strategy shall, without limitation, detail proposals for: (a) The removal of all above and below ground elements of the development; (b) The treatment of all ground surfaces, including any sub surface areas, hard standing and access tracks which would restore the site to its former condition or other such condition as agreed by the Council as Planning Authority; (c) The phasing and timing of the works, including any environmental management provisions; (d) Details relating to how and when the strategy will be reviewed. Page 183 of 230
Page 188
Reason: To ensure the decommissioning and removal of the development is in an appropriate and environmentally acceptable manner and the restoration and aftercare of the site, in the interests of safety, amenity and environmental protection. 4. No later than 3 years prior to decommissioning of the development or the expiration of this consent (whichever is the earlier) a detailed decommissioning, restoration, and aftercare plan, based upon the principles of the approved outline decommissioning, restoration, and aftercare strategy, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for written approval. The detailed decommissioning, restoration and aftercare plan shall include (but not be limited to the) provisions in respect of the following matters: • Removal of any in-situ foundations including removal to a depth of at least 1 metre underground. • Removal of above ground infrastructure extending to Substations, PV panels and mountings, inverters/ inverter containers, fencing, lighting masts, internal tracks, equipment and hard standings. • Cable removal. • Provision of a Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (DEMP) to be based on relevant elements of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) • A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) related to activities for decommissioning, demolition, and removal of infrastructure. • Locations of temporary stockpiles for decommissioned materials and equipment • Treatment of disturbed ground surfaces resulting from decommissioning of infrastructure including cable removal and any sub-surface elements to restore the land to its pre-construction status or such condition as agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. • Restoration proposals including ecological and biodiversity enhancement works such as (but not limited to) provision of bird boxes, insect refuge and use of native seed mixes to deliver biodiversity gains and measures to safeguard all landscaping on the site which for the avoidance of doubt shall be retained. • An aftercare plan to monitor success of restoration measures with scope for interventions if required. • A Decommissioning Timetable. Thereafter the detailed decommissioning, site restoration and aftercare plan shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the decommissioning and removal of the development in an appropriate and environmentally acceptable manner and the restoration and aftercare of the site, in the interests of safety, amenity and environmental protection. 5. That prior to the commencement of development on site, a financial guarantee to cover the costs of decommissioning, site restoration and aftercare, as required by conditions 3 and 4 of this consent, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The acceptability of such financial guarantee shall be at the sole discretion of the Planning Authority. The financial guarantee must: (a) be granted in favour of the Planning Authority and shall be maintained in favour of the Planning Authority throughout the duration of this consent and until the completion of Page 184 of 230
Page 189
all decommissioning, site restoration and aftercare obligations as required by conditions 3 and 4 of this consent. (b) must be provided by an independent financial body with at least an A - rating who will be capable of fulfilling the obligations set out within the financial guarantee. (c) be for an amount which covers the value of all decommissioning, site restoration and aftercare liabilities, such amount to be determined by the Planning Authority prior to energisation of the development. (d) be subject to a review every five years from the date of this consent, or other such intervals as agreed by the Planning Authority. Each review shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified independent professional who has relevant experience in such matters, the identity of whom has been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the review of the financial guarantee commencing. The review of the financial guarantee shall be submitted no later than three months prior to the expiry of the existing financial guarantee, for the written approval of the Planning Authority. Thereafter and at least 28 days prior to the expiry of the existing financial guarantee, the replacement financial guarantee in favour of and in terms acceptable to the Planning Authority and for the value advised by the review noted above, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. (e) come into effect on or before the energisation date and expire no earlier than 24 months after the end of the aftercare period. The development shall not be energised until both: • written approval of the Planning Authority has been given to the terms of such financial guarantee and; • the validly executed guarantee has been delivered to the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests f amenity and in order to retain effective planning control 6. In the event that the financial guarantee becomes invalid, has expired, or is terminated for any reason following the commencement of operations at the site, all operations at the site shall cease no later than three months from the date the financial guarantee became invalid, expired or terminated. If a replacement financial guarantee, which meets the requirements of condition 5, is approved by the Planning authority and duly executed before the end of the three-month period, the operations may continue. If the operations have ceased due to this clause, they may recommence only upon the approval and execution of a replacement financial guarantee. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to retain effective planning control. 7. 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 residential properties and nationally and locally designated sites, • waste management, pollution control, and mitigation to prevent pollution of ground, air and water courses, Page 185 of 230
Page 190
• 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. • measures to ensure that access is retained to all core paths and other tracks within and on the edge of the site, and to reduce conflict between construction vehicles and people using these paths, 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. 8. That prior to the installation of any solar panels, the developer shall first provide confirmation for the written approval of the Planning Authority of the make, modal, design, and power rating of the solar panels to be used, the incorporation of an anti- reflective coating on the surface of the panels, and evidence to confirm the overall maximum generation capacity (output) of the development. Only the approved solar panels shall thereafter be used in the development of the site. Any changes to the approved design or layout of the development shall require the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To define the consent. 9. That no development shall take place within the development site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority in consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Reason: To ensure suitable investigations are undertaken in the interests of safeguarding archaeological heritage. 10. That the external walls of all buildings and ancillary infrastructure which forms part of the development hereby approved including (but not limited to) inverter and transformer stations, substations and maintenance and storage buildings shall be finished in RAL 6011Reseda Green unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure all buildings and ancillary infrastructure are finished in an appropriate colour in the interests of visual amenity. Page 186 of 230
Page 191
11. 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 all the site access points including geometry for the construction and post construction phase of the development. • Provision of sightlines at the access points. • The additional signage on both public roads where access will be taken to inform drivers of the construction vehicles. • Measures by which access along the Middleton Road core path and all other existing access routes within the development site shall be safeguarded pedestrians, cyclists and other road users including measures to manage any conflict with construction vehicles. • Details of proposed temporary site compound for storage of materials, machinery, and designated car parking. • A timetable for the construction phase including confirmation of site operating times on each day of the week. • Confirmation of the construction traffic route. 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. 12. That prior to the commencement of cabling works between the solar array development hereby approved and any location or premises to which energy from the solar array development will be transferred that are not undertaken by a Statutory Undertaker (as defined by Section 214 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997), an additional Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The additional CTMP will outline the alignment of the cable connection, the location of the proposed cable connection within the limits of the road and verge, the reinstatement of the road or verge including the surface finish, and shall specify any necessary traffic management measures required to install the cable connection. The cable connection shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the measures set out within the CTMP. Reason: To ensure traffic impacts are mitigated during the installation of the cable connection, and that the cable connection phase is undertaken safely. 13. That prior to the commencement of any works on site, the developer shall first submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority a strategy and associated measures to ensure that core path on Middleton Road and all other paths and existing rights of way within the application site remain open and useable during both the construction and Page 187 of 230
Page 192
operational phase of the development. The strategy shall thereafter be implemented on site during the construction and operational phases of the development, and retained thereafter for the life of the development. Reason: To ensure access to the core path network is retained. 14. That prior to the installation of any fencing, walls, gates or other forms of enclosure at the site, the developer shall first submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority and plan and specification showing the location and final design of the fencing, walls, gates or other forms of enclosure to be installed. This shall include provision for an enhanced boundary treatment, such as green privacy netting along the southwestern and northeastern boundaries of the site to ensure the development is screened while the associated landscaping matures. Only the approved fencing, walls, gates or other forms of enclosure within the plan and specification shall thereafter be installed at the site. Reason: To control the final location and design of all fencing, walls, gates or other forms of enclosure in the interests of visual amenity. 15. That the Landscape Proposal as detailed in approved drawing reference COG412/APP/027c titled ‘Appendix 5.9 Landscape Proposal’ (and any subsequent approved revisions to this drawing) shall be implemented on site prior to the energisation of the solar array hereby approved. The Landscape proposal shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the Maintenance Schedule set out within the approved drawing for the life of the development. Reason: To ensure the development is effectively screened in the interests of landscape character and glint and glare. 16. That all trees located within the linear woodland belts on the southern boundary of the site as shown by areas 4 and 5 within the Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints Assessment by Hinshelwood Arboricultural Consultants dated January 24 shall be protected during the construction phase in accordance with the requirements if British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction. The trees within these areas shall thereafter be retained for the life of the development, and shall not be topped, lopped, felled, or uprooted without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority. Any trees within these areas that are felled or uprooted shall be replaced by a tree of similar species within the next available planting season (October to march inclusive). Reason: To ensure the development is effectively screened in the interests of landscape character and glint and glare. 17. That all construction works shall take place out with the wintering period which is from October to April inclusive when whooper swans are likely to be feeding in the area around the Black Cart Special Protection Area. If construction works must unavoidably have to be undertaken during the wintering period, no work of any kind associated with the development shall take place while any whooper swans are feeding within 200m of the planned site works. The locations of whooper swans must be confirmed by a suitably qualified and empowered ecological clerk of works in order to ensure that any whooper swans are more than 200m from the planned site works before any work related to this proposal proceeds during the wintering period. The appointed Ecological Clerk of Works, the terms of their appointment, role and scope of work must be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority prior to any work being undertaken within the wintering period. Records shall be kept of all decisions to proceed or postpone made by the appointed Ecological Clerk of Works as well as the reasons for these decisions, and Page 188 of 230
Page 193
these records shall be provided to the Planning Authority and NatureScot on completion of all construction works. Reason: To safeguard the qualifying interest of the Black Cart Special Protection Area. 18. That following completion of the construction phase of the solar array hereby approved at least 13.5 hectares of sacrificial foraging crops for whooper swans shall be planted in accordance with the area and to the timings and methods set out within Appendix A Figure 3 and section 6.4 of the Shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment Revision 2 by EP Ecology dated 29th July 2024. The crop used shall be oil-seed rape (or where this is not possible, another appropriate species agreed in advance with NatureScot). The area of sacrificial crop shall be maintained as described in Appendix A Figure 3 and section 6.4 of the Shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment Revision 2 by EP Ecology dated 29th July 2024 throughout the operational lifetime of the development. Reason: To ensure the integrity and conservation objectives of the Black cart Special Protection Area are not undermined by the development. 19. That the drainage strategy detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment and SUDS Report by Nimbus ref C3449-R1-REV-B dated March 2025 shall be implemented on site prior to the energisation of the development, and throughout the operational lifetime of the development. Reason: To ensure surface water is managed sustainably. 20. That all mandatory requirements and recommendations as set out in sections 6 and 7 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report by EP Ecology revision 02 dated 2nd November 2023 shall be implemented on site during the construction phase and through the operational lifetime of the development as required. Reason: To ensure potential impacts on protected species are mitigated and measures to promote biodiversity are implemented. 21. Development shall not commence until a Bird Hazard Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. The submitted plan shall include details of: • management of the ground mounted solar panels which may be attractive to nesting, roosting and “loafing” birds. The management plan shall comply with Aerodrome Safeguarding Advice Note 3 – Wildlife Hazards around Airports • monitoring of any standing water within the site whether temporary or permanent • earthworks, soil stripping or excavation works during construction • maintenance of planted and landscaped areas including hedgerows. The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved, on completion of the development and shall remain in force for the life of the development. No subsequent alterations to the plan are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. Page 189 of 230
Page 194
Reason: It is necessary to manage the development in order to minimise its attractiveness to birds which could endanger the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Glasgow Airport. 22. The solar panels shall be constructed and thereafter maintained in compliance with the location, layout, orientation and tilt as detailed in approved plan reference SD-01 titled ‘Standard Drawing: Site Layout’ and the accompanying glint and glare assessment as detailed in Section 8 of the Planning Statement by Cogeo version 1.0 dated 03/2025. No subsequent alterations to the location, layout, orientation and tilt of the solar panels are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. Any proposed amendments to the location, layout, orientation and tilt of the solar panels shall be accompanied by a further glint and glare assessment against all aviation receptors to be submitted to the planning authority for written approval in consultation with Glasgow Airport prior to the amendments being implemented. Reason: To ensure the proposed development does not impact aviation safety by causing glint and glare. 23. That prior to the commencement of development on site, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority a strategy detailing the implementation of the off-site enhancement works including the design of a turning head and gateway on Moss Road at the access to Moss Cottage, and shall include consideration of other local off-site enhancement works including associated details for their implementation. The strategy shall also include a timetable for the implementation of off-site enhancement works. The approved strategy shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable and associated management and maintenance strategy. Reason: To secure off site works in the interests of enhancing accessibility and the environment. 24. That prior to the commencement of construction works on site, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority a specification detailing the pre and post construction road condition survey to be undertaken on Middleton Road, Linwood. The specification shall detail the survey scope and methodology, the timings of the survey, provision for selection of an alternative construction traffic route and notification to the Council of an alternative construction traffic route, provision for survey of the alternative construction traffic route, the methodology for identifying any extraordinary damage to the road (damage to the construction traffic route attributable to construction vehicles serving the development between the pre and post construction condition surveys but excluding fair wear and tear attributable to general vehicle use of the route over the same period) and the means by which any extraordinary damage will be repaired including timescales for completion of the works. The pre and post construction road condition survey shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved specification, and all extraordinary damage repaired to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure any damage to the local road network arising from the construction of the development is repaired. Page 190 of 230
Page 195
Advisory Notes 1. The proposed development lies within an area that has been defined by the Mining Remediation Authority as containing coal mining features at surface or shallow depth. These features may include: mine entries (shafts and adits); shallow coal workings; geological features (fissures and break lines); mine gas and former surface mining sites. Although such features are seldom readily visible, they can often be present and problems can occur, particularly as a result of new development taking place. Any form of development over or within the influencing distance of a mine entry can be dangerous and raises significant land stability and public safety risks. As a general precautionary principle, the Mining Remediation Authority considers that the building over or within the influencing distance of a mine entry should be avoided. In exceptional circumstance where this is unavoidable, expert advice must be sought to ensure a suitable engineering design which takes account of all relevant safety and environmental risk factors, including mine gas and mine-water. Your attention is drawn to the Mining Remediation Authority Policy in relation to new development and mine entries available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-on-or-within-the-influencing- distance-of-mine-entries Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) requires a Mining Remediation Authority Permit. Such activities could include site investigation boreholes, excavations for foundations, piling activities, other ground works and any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings and coal mine entries for ground stability purposes. Application forms for Mining Remediation Authority permission and further guidance can be obtained from The Mining Remediation Authority’s website at: www.gov.uk/get-a- permit-to-deal-with-a-coal-mine-on-your-property What is a permit and how to get one? – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/permit-process/permit-process In areas where shallow coal seams are present caution should be taken when carrying out any on site burning or heat focused activities. If any future development has the potential to encounter coal seams which require excavating, for example excavation of building foundations, service trenches, development platforms, earthworks, non-coal mineral operations, an Incidental Coal Agreement will be required. Further information regarding Incidental Coal Agreements can be found here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incidental-coal-agreement/guidance- notes-for-applicants-for-incidental-coal-agreements If any coal mining features are unexpectedly encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Mining Remediation Authority on 0800 288 4242. Further information is available on the Mining Remediation Authority website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/mining-remediation-authority. 2. The applicant should be informed that the granting of planning consent does not carry with it the right to carry out works within the trunk road boundary and that permission must be granted by Transport Scotland Roads Directorate. Where any works are required on the trunk road, contact details are provided on Transport Scotland's response to the planning authority which is available on the Council's planning portal. Page 191 of 230
Page 196
Trunk Road modification works shall, in all respects, comply with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the Specification for Highway Works published by HMSO. The developer shall issue a certificate to that effect, signed by the design organisation. Trunk Road modifications shall, in all respects, be designed and constructed to arrangements that comply with the Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads published by Transport Scotland. The developer shall provide written confirmation of this, signed by the design organisation. Any trunk road works will necessitate a Minute of Agreement with the Trunk Roads Authority prior to commencement. 3. Excavations, stockpiling of material, vehicles crossing over the route of the pipeline, changes in ground levels, drilling, piling and the siting of temporary structures, cabins and containers are all activities that can have a negative impact on the pipeline. This list is not exhaustive and SGN advice should be sought if in any doubt. Contact should be made with the local Pipeline Engineer Ryan Wilson (07901 515976) with regards to work commencing near the HP pipeline. 4. Given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane may be required during its construction. We would, therefore, draw the applicant’s attention 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 and Other Construction Issues’ (available at http://www.aoa.org.uk/policy-safeguarding.htm Schedule of Plans Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title Planning Statement (Cogeo version 1.0 dated 03/2025) Shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment (EP Ecology revision 02 dated 29th July 2024) Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints Assessment (Hinshelwood Arboricultural Consultants dated January 2024) Flood Risk Assessment and SUDS Report (Nimbus ref C3449-R1-REV-B dated March 2025) Pre-application Consultation Report (Cogeo version 1.0 dated 03/2025) Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (EP Ecology revision 02 dated 2nd November 2023) Wintering Bird Survey Report (EP Ecology revision 02 dated 29th July 2024) SD-11 01 Maintenance and Operation Container SD-04 01 Access Track SD-06 00 Cable Trench SD-09 01 Perimeter Fence SD-07 01 CCTV Camera and Post Page 192 of 230
Page 197
SD-01 1 of 2 03 Site Layout SD-01 2 of 2 03 Site Layout SD-01 03 Site Layout SD-03 01 PV Detail SD-08 01 Panel Design SD-02 01 Inverter and Transformer Station SD-05 01 Aux Transformer SD-10 01 33kV DNO/Customer Switchroom and Control Room SP-01 02 Site Location Plan For further information please contact James Weir, Development Standards Team, Email: james.weir@renfrewshire.gov.uk. Page 193 of 230
Page 198
Page 194 of 230
Page 199
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 26 August 2025 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0241/FUR Application Type Further Application Proposal Section 42 application to vary planning condition 10 (offsite improvements) of planning permission 20/0510/PP in relation to an alternative footpath location. Location Former Thornly Park Campus, Caplethill Road, Paisley Ward 6 - Paisley Southeast Community Council Glenburn Community Council Applicant Miller Homes Ltd Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions and a variation of the existing Unilateral Undertaking 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=summary&keyVal=SU2WUOMWH6N00 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 Chief Planning Officer has declined to exercise delegated powers in light of the planning history which relates to the parent planning application 20/0510/PP. Proposal This proposal is an application under Section 42 to vary condition 10 (off-site improvements) of planning permission 20/0510/PP in relation to an alternative footpath. Planning permission 20/0510/PP was granted on appeal by the Scottish Government on 15 July 2022 for the erection of a residential development comprising of 179 units with associated access, landscaping and ancillary works. Condition 10 states the following: 10. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of the planning authority, full details of: ▪ The upgrades to the core path GB/6 that runs along the western boundary; ▪ The 3-metre footway with 0.5 metre carriageway segregation as illustrated on drawing no. 19223-SK-18; ▪ Upgrades to the footpath to the northern footway on Caplethill Road as illustrated on drawing no. 19223-SK-18; ▪ The footpath that runs from the northeast of the site to Stoney Brae; ▪ Bus stop improvements on Caplethill Road; ▪ A signalised crossing on Caplethill Road; and ▪ Traffic calming measures on Caplethill Road. Thereafter, all improvements as may be approved, shall be implemented fully in accordance with the phasing plan for which the permission of the planning authority has been obtained under the terms of condition 9 above. Item 4(e) PACC260825 Page 195 of 230
Page 200
In response to condition 10, drawings were provided and reviewed by the Council's Chief Executives (Roads Development). The submitted drawings were considered to be acceptable to discharge the suspensive elements of this condition and that the works specified in the approved drawings are to be undertaken within and in accordance with the phasing plan approved under condition 9. The 3-metre footway with 0.5 metre carriageway as detailed above was illustrated on drawing no. 19223-SK-18 and relates to a proposed path on the southern edge of Caplethill Road. The formation of this footpath verge and associated embankment works would require removal of all the existing vegetation within this area with the estimated extent circa 3,800m2 which translates to close to 1 acre of removal. To minimise the impact on trees and ecology, the applicant proposes to vary condition 10 and upgrade the existing cycle route further to the south as an alternative. Upgrades include path lighting and upgrades to the existing path at Glenfield Road which also includes some widening of the path on Glenfield Road. The upgrades at Glenfield Road would require the removal of one overhanging tree at the southern end and the removal of a small cluster of 3 self-seeded sycamores at the northern end. For clarity, the applicant seeks to vary condition 10 to delete the requirement for the upgrades to the south side of Caplethill Road and to include the proposed alternative works for the upgrade of the cycle route and path at Glenfield Road. As detailed above, other pedestrian links were approved as part of this development including, improvement works on the northern side of Caplethill Road, a pedestrian link to the east of the site, works to the existing core path and a further pedestrian access point at the south-west corner of the site and links on to the north of the site. Traffic calming is also proposed on Caplethill Road and a crossing point. These remain unchanged as part of the current proposals and condition 10 is only to be partially varied in respect of the implementation of the footpath specifically. Site Description The application site relates to an existing footpath/cyclepath (core path GB/9 and core path SP/32) located to the south of the approved housing site which is currently under construction (20/0510/PP). Caplethill Road is located to the north and Thornley Dam to the south. The Glenfield Road area of path to be upgraded is also located adjacent to existing dwellinghouses which are located to the west. 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 discussions have taken place, focusing on tree loss and potential impact on ecology. Negotiated Improvements No changes have been negotiated. 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. Page 196 of 230
Page 201
Application No: 22/0503/AD Description: Display of one non-illuminated V stack sign (retrospective) Decision: Grant subject to conditions Application No: 22/0644/PP Description: Erection of temporary sales cabin with associated landscaping Decision: Grant subject to conditions Application No: 23/0349/NMV Description: NMV 10 of 20/0510/PP relocation of gas governor and alterations to path behind plot 280 Decision: Grant Application No: 23/0391/NMV Description: NMV of 20/0510/PP for alterations of SuDs area. Decision: Grant Application No: 23/0478/NMV Description: Variation 13 of 20/0510/PP Proposed infill area for off site works Decision: Withdrawn Application No: 23/0479/NMV Description: Variation to Planning Application 20/0510/PP for change to housetypes Decision: Grant Application No: 23/0509/DOC Description: Discharge condition 10 of planning application 20/0510/PP Decision: Withdrawn Application No: 23/0591/NMV Description: Non material variation to application 20/0510/PP to relocate electrical sub station and change of finishing material to sub station. Decision: Grant Application No: 23/0656/NMV Description: Non material variation to planning permission 20/0510/PP to indicate plots with enhanced glazing specification and increase path to rear of plots 3-6 Decision: Grant Application No: 23/0699/NMV Description: Non material variation to planning application 20/0510/PP Plots 244 and 245 block size corrected and plot 244 handing note corrected. Indicative note removed from the gas governor position Decision: Grant Application No: 23/0732/NMV Description: Non material variation for planning application 20/0510/PP - comprising 1.Plots 16 and 17 changed. 2.Footpath arrangements changed for plots 27, 33, 42, 43, 88 and 250. 3.Plot 53 moved 200mm towards plot 54 to assist with retention.4. Path next to plot 34 moved slightly to assist with retention also.5.Layby/turning area also shown at the SUDS area Decision: Grant Application No: 24/0055/NMV Page 197 of 230
Page 202
Description: Non material variation to planning application 20/0510/PP comprising adjustment to footpath at plots 17, 19, 69, 89. 90. 93, 94, 203, 242 and 243 and plot 17 handed. Decision: Grant Application No: 25/0149/NMV Description: Non-Material Variation in relation to planning permission 20/0150/PP for garage conversion for plots 7,8 and 75 Decision: Grant Application No: 25/0343/NMV Description: Non-Material Variation (NMV) for garage conversion to plot 84 for Planning Permission 20/0510/PP Decision: Grant Application No: 25/0385/NMV Description: Non-Material Variation (NMV) for garage conversion to plot 82 for Planning Permission 20/0510/PP Decision: Grant Application No: 20/0510/PP Description: Erection of residential development comprising of 179 units with associated access, landscaping and ancillary works. Decision: Refused Application No: 19/0384/NO Description: Erection of residential development Decision: Accepted Application No: 19/0385/EO Description: Request for a screening opinion for a residential development Decision: Environmental Assessment not Required Application No: 00/0939/PP Description: Extension to existing research station. Decision: Grant subject to conditions Application No: 93/1313/PP Description: Extension to sports hall. Decision: Grant subject to conditions Consultations ▪ Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Env. Protection) – No objections. ▪ Chief Executive's (Roads Development) - Object. To promote active travel and reduce car dependency for the housing development, upgrades on the northern footway at Caplethill Road including a new footpath to the south of Caplethill Road were considered necessary. The consented footpath on the south side of Caplethill Road would assist is removing the semi-rural character of the road. The proposed alternative is considered to be remote and will require pedestrians and cyclists to travel further. Clarification is also sought where the turning head at Glenfield Road stops in relation to the footpath and investigation and assessment is necessary to ensure that a clear forward sightline for drivers on Caplethill Road. Page 198 of 230
Page 203
Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The following representations were received: ▪ Object - 22 (including 1 from an elected member) ▪ Support - 0 ▪ Neutral - 0 The issues raised can be summarised as follows with responses to these detailed further in this report in the assessment section below: 1. Impact on habitat, biodiversity and habitat. 2. Deviation from what has already been consented. 3. Not a safe route for pedestrian and not a direct route to school. 4. Loss of trees including those already lost as a result of the housing development. 5. Path to the north of the site not DDA compliant. 6. Housing development should not have been approved. 7. Concerns developer will not adhere to conditions. 8. Concerns that widening of path will impact on wildlife. 9. Concerns over crossing point on Caplethill Road. 10. North side of Caplethill Road improvements not safe, safety barriers should be included. 11. Upgrades to Caplethill Road beyond Glenfield Road should be considered. 12. Concerns that the path to Stoney Brae will not be delivered, potential planning breach. 13. No specification on lighting. 14. Council should maintain the footpath once clearance works have been done. 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 6 - Forestry, woodland and trees ▪ Policy 12 - Zero waste ▪ Policy 14 - Design, quality and place ▪ Policy 15 - Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods ▪ Policy 16 - Quality homes ▪ Policy 18 - Infrastructure first ▪ Policy 21 - Play, recreation and sport ▪ Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan ▪ Policy P1 - Renfrewshire's Places ▪ Policy P3 - Housing Mix and Affordable Housing Page 199 of 230
Page 204
▪ Policy ENV2 - Natural Heritage ▪ Policy I1 - Connecting Places ▪ Policy I3 - Flooding and Drainage ▪ Policy I4 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments ▪ Policy I6 - Communications and Digital Infrastructure ▪ Policy I7 - Zero and Low Carbon Buildings ▪ Policy I8 - Developer Contributions Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. New Development Supplementary Guidance ▪ Delivering the Places Strategy: Affordable Housing and Open Space Provision in New Developments ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy: Connecting Places; Provision for Waste Recycling in New Developments; and Flooding and Drainage ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy: Noise and Contaminated Land. Submitted Reports and Assessments The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: Drawings have been submitted to show the extent of an approximate measure of tree removal should the consented footpath on the south side of Caplethill Road be implemented. 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. None. Planning Assessment In terms of the Development Plan, the principle of the residential development (which is partially implemented/under construction) has already been established and approved under planning permission 20/0510/PP and this Section 42 planning application as submitted requires to be assessed on its individual merits. The current application seeks only to vary condition 10 (off-site improvements) to provide an alternative footpath to the consented path on the south side of Caplethill Road and this forms the focus of this assessment. As discussed above, the previously consented and approved 3 metre footway with 0.5 metre carriageway relates to a proposed path on the southern edge of Caplethill Road. The formation of this consented footpath verge and associated embankment works would require removal of all the existing vegetation/trees within this area with the estimated extent circa 3,800m2 which translates to close to 1 acre of complete tree and vegetation removal. The applicant has submitted a specific overlay drawing which shows the impact of providing the approved verge/footpath to the south side of Caplethill Road, as per the current proposals. To minimise the impact on trees and ecology, the applicant now proposes to upgrade the existing cycle route further to the south as an alternative and seeks to vary an aspect of condition 10 to cover this. Upgrades include path lighting and upgrades to the existing path at Glenfield Road which also includes some widening of the path on Glenfield Road. The Page 200 of 230
Page 205
upgrades at Glenfield Road would require the removal of 1 overhanging tree at the southern end and the removal of a small cluster of 3 self-seeded sycamores at the northern end. Regardless of the submission of this current application, it is materially relevant to note that the consented footpath on the south side of Caplethill Road has been approved through condition 10 and can be implemented in the event of the current Section 42 application being refused. As discussed above, the consented footpath would require the removal of an area of existing vegetation/trees which would be significantly greater than the proposed tree loss for the alternative path upgrade. Conversely, the tree loss from the alternative path option subject to this Section 42 application would comprise of 1 overhanging tree and 3 self-seeded sycamores which would be significantly less than the ecological impact as a result of the loss of an area of approximately 3,800m2 vegetation/trees necessary for the consented path to be formed. As such, it is considered that the current alternative path proposal proposed through Section 42 more appropriately balances the need for connectivity whilst taking into account natural heritage and ecological impacts in-line with policies 3 (Biodiversity) of NPF4 and ENV3 (Natural Heritage) of the Councils LDP than the consented path. To capture the previously approved off-site infrastructure works including the proposed alternative Glenfield Road and Cycle Path upgrades, the revised condition would read as follows: - That infrastructure improvements as detailed on the following drawings, as approved on 3/06/2022 including the Glenfield Road Footway and Cycle Path Upgrade, shall be implemented only in accordance with the phasing plan as may be approved under the terms of condition 7 above:- 19219-100-207 A Horizontal Geometry (Northern Footpaths) 19219-100-208 A Vertical Geometry (Northern Footpaths) 19219-500-101 J Drainage Layout (Sheet 2 of 2) 19219-500-201 A Drainage Layout (Northern Footpaths) 19219-600-200 E Site Clearance 19219-700-200 G Pavements 19219-700-201 A Pavements & Kerbing (Northern Footpaths) 19219-1200-200 D Road Markings 19219-1200-201 A Signage 19219-1400-200 C Traffic Signals 19219-SK-36 Remote Footpath Details 19219-SK-47 Glenfield Road Footway Upgrade 19219-SK-43 Existing Cycle Path Upgrade For the avoidance of doubt this should not include clearance of the road verge or the formation of the footpath on the south side of Caplethill Road. Reason: in the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety. Policies 13 (Sustainable Transport) and I1 (Connecting Places) seek to support development which would improve or enhance active travel. On balance and regardless of the objection from the Council's Chief Executive's (Roads Development) in this regard, the issues raised can, to an extent be overcome by existing proposals and infrastructure, and on balance it is considered that the positive outcome of the alternative proposal in lessening the impact on biodiversity, ecology and natural heritage, significantly outweighs these concerns. As detailed above, other pedestrian links were approved as part of this development and this alternative should not be considered in isolation. It is also considered that the proposal together with these other consented improvements, pedestrian links and the connectivity to the existing road Page 201 of 230
Page 206
and footpath network would provide an acceptable alternative as part of the overall residential development and would comply with polies 13 and I1. The issue of the hammerhead and sight lines at Caplethill Road can be considered through the separate Road Construction Consent process. As the effect of granting a Section 42 application is such that a new and separate standalone planning permission exists, all other conditions associated with planning application 25/0510/PP which would be relevant to this new permission require to be re-imposed to this new permission. Given that the development has been implemented, and the suspensive conditions have been previously discharged, it is also considered necessary to attach the fulfilment and/or compliance element of these conditions and these conditions have been reworded on this basis. It is also considered necessary to re-attach a phasing plan with regards to off-site works with a defined timescale as a means to ensure control and fulfilment of the path through the Section 42 application. A unilateral undertaking was also completed by the applicant as part of the original planning application in respect of securing financial contributions towards replacement of playing pitches and education provision, and the provision, on site, of affordable homes. As stated earlier in the report, the principle of the development, including the unilateral undertaking, was established and approved under planning permission 20/0510/PP and this Section 42 planning application as submitted requires to be assessed on its individual merits. It is considered necessary that a form of Legal Agreement or other mechanism is submitted to reflect the Section 42 application should it be granted consent. Representations 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. 1. Impact on habitat, biodiversity and ecology. This has been addressed as detailed above and it is considered that the impact on habitat, biodiversity and ecology would be significantly less than the impact of the consented path. 2. Deviation from what has already been consented. As detailed above, the alternative proposal has been sought to minimise ecological impacts whilst still providing an alternative connectivity option. 3. Not a safe route for pedestrian. As detailed above, other pedestrian links were approved as part of this development and this alternative should not be considered in isolation. It is also considered that the proposal together with these other consented improvements, pedestrian links and the connectivity to the existing road and footpath network would provide an acceptable alternative as part of the overall residential development. 4. Loss of trees including those already lost as a result of the housing development. The proposed alternative path would have a significantly less impact on trees and vegetation the consented path as illustrated above. 5. Path to the north of the site not DDA compliant. Page 202 of 230
Page 207
The routes to the north fields are not being considered as part of this application and have already been consented through consultation with the Council's Chief Executive's (Roads Development). 6. Housing development should not have been approved. The residential development was approved by the Scottish Government on appeal and the principle of this development cannot be considered in the assessment of this proposal. 7. Concerns developer will not adhere to conditions. This would be a separate matter for the Council to consider and manage as part of the implementation of the consent and would not be a material consideration in the assessment of this proposal. 8. Concerns that widening of path will impact on wildlife. As discussed above, the impact on habitat, biodiversity and ecology would be significantly less than the impact of the consented path. 9. Concerns over crossing point on Caplethill Road. This is not being considered as part of this proposal. Notwithstanding this, this was considered to be acceptable by the Council's Chief Executive's (Roads Development). 10. North side of Caplethill Road improvements not safe, safety barriers should be included. This is not being considered as part of this proposal. Notwithstanding this, this was not considered to be necessary by the Council's Chief Executive's (Roads Development). 11. Upgrades to Caplethill Road beyond Glenfield Road should be considered. The application for the residential development was approved by the Scottish Government and upgrades beyond those that were presented in the application were not considered to be necessary. 12. Concerns that the path to Stoney Brae will not be delivered, potential planning breach. This would be a separate matter for the Council to consider and would not be a material consideration in the assessment of this proposal. 13. No specification on lighting. This can be addressed through the imposition of an appropriately worded planning condition with a condition recommended below. 14. Council should maintain the footpath once clearance works have been done. The path is within the ownership of the Council and as such would also be maintained by the Council. Page 203 of 230
Page 208
Planning Obligations 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: As detailed above, a unilateral undertaking was also completed by the applicant as part of the original planning application in respect of securing financial contributions towards replacement playing pitched and education provision and the provision, on site, of affordable homes. A form of Legal Agreement or other appropriate mechanism is also required to reflect this Section 42 application if approved. Conclusion In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal subject to this Section 42 application 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 and the submission of a Legal Agreement to reflect this Section 42 application. Recommendation Grant subject to conditions and a Legal Agreement to reflect this Section 42 application if approved. Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. 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. Prior to the occupation of any residential unit on the site, the following shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority: (a) a Verification Report confirming completion of the works specified within the approved Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan; or (b) where remediation works are not required but soils are to be imported to site, a Verification Report confirming imported materials are suitable for use. Verification Reports shall not be submitted on a phased basis unless first agreed in writing with the planning authority. Reason: To demonstrate that works require to make the site suitable for use have been completed. 2. That the dwellinghouses, road and footpath surface treatments within the site shall be constructed only in accordance with drawing no. TPP/PL-001 REV as approved on 25/08/2023, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of amenity. 3. That the boundary treatments to be formed shall be erected in accordance with drawing no. FEN-001A as approved on 5/10/2022. For the avoidance of doubt, all boundary fences and walls as approved, relating to or adjacent to each plot shall be erected prior to the occupation of the dwelling within that plot in accordance with the approved details. Page 204 of 230
Page 209
Reason: to ensure proper control over this feature of the development. 4. All planting, seeding or turfing contained in landscape drawing no.'s 01F, 02F, 03F, 04F, 05F, 06F approved on 2/11/2023, shall be carried out in the first planting season and seeding seasons following the occupation of the 150th dwelling or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: in the interest of the amenity of the area. 5. That the scheme of archaeological works detailed in Archaeological Evaluation March 2021, approved 5/10/2022, shall be fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the written satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Response: To ensure that any archaeological remains which may be disturbed can be identified, excavated and recorded. 6. That during the construction phase of the development, a yearly update containing details of the implementation of meeting measures contained within the Ecological Appraisal (August 2020), Thornly Park, Paisley, Biodiversity Management Plan (April 2023) Species Protection Plan - Bats (August 2022), Breeding Birds Walkover Survey (March 2023), Bat Roost Closure Technical Note (August 2022), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: to ensure flora, fauna and biodiversity is protected and enhanced. 7. That within 4 weeks of the date of this consent, details of phasing for off-site infrastructure works/footways/crossings (as specified in condition 10) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented only in accordance with such phasing as may be agreed with Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: in the interest of the amenity and road safety of the area. 8. That infrastructure improvements as detailed on the following drawings, as approved on 3/06/202 including the Glenfield Road Footway and Cycle Path Upgrade, shall be implemented only in accordance with the phasing plan as may be approved under the terms of condition 7 above:- 19219-100-207 A Horizontal Geometry (Northern Footpaths) 19219-100-208 A Vertical Geometry (Northern Footpaths) 19219-500-101 J Drainage Layout (Sheet 2 of 2) 19219-500-201 A Drainage Layout (Northern Footpaths) 19219-600-200 E Site Clearance 19219-700-200 G Pavements 19219-700-201 A Pavements & Kerbing (Northern Footpaths) 19219-1200-200 D Road Markings 19219-1200-201 A Signage Page 205 of 230
Page 210
19219-1400-200 C Traffic Signals 19219-SK-36 Remote Footpath Details 19219-SK-47 Glenfield Road Footway Upgrade 19219-SK-43 Existing Cycle Path Upgrade For the avoidance of doubt this should not include clearance of the road verge or the formation of the footpath on the south side of Caplethill Road. Reason: in the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety. 9. That the Low Carbon Energy Statement as detailed in the Low Carbon Implementation Plan (Rev A) approved on 5/10/2025, shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Response: To promote and implement low carbon measures at the site. 10. That the compensatory planting plan as detailed in drawing 51-115 Revision D and 51.115 08 Revision G (Tree Compensation Plan Sheet 1 of 1) approved on 6/06/20245, shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Response: To ensure that works are undertaken to a satisfactory standard in the interests of natural heritage. 11. That prior to the commencement of the improvement/upgrade works to footway/cycleway as detailed in drawings 19219-SK-47 (Glenfield Road Footway Upgrade) and 19219-SK-43 (Existing Cycle Path Upgrade). the applicant shall submit for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, full details/specification of lighting. For the avoidance of doubt, this should also include a timetable for the installation of the lighting and thereafter implemented in line with the approved details. Reason: These details have not been considered. Advisory Note(s) 1. None required. Schedule of Plans Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title Stamped Drawing Location Plan 19223-SK-18 Indicative Pedestrian Improvement Works on Caplethill Road 19219-SK-45 Existing and Alternative Footpath Upgrade Proposals 19219-SK-47 Glenfield Road Footway Upgrade 19219-SK-43 Existing Cycle Path Upgrade Page 206 of 230
Page 211
Supporting Document 19219-SK-48 Caplethill Road Southern Footway Extent of Tree Removal (Consented) For further information please contact Fiona Knighton, Development Standards Team, Email: fiona.knighton@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 207 of 230
Page 212
Page 208 of 230
Page 213
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 26 August 2025 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0370/PP Application Type Planning Permission (Local) Proposal Erection of 8 holiday cottages with associated landscaping and infrastructure works Location Site 350 Metres Northeast of Fodstone Farm, Kilmacolm Road, Bridge of Weir Ward 11 - Bishopton, Bridge of Weir and Langbank Community Council Bridge of Weir Community Council Applicant Mr Douglas Lyle Recommendation Refuse 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=summary&keyVal=SWIEUWMWI9900 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, Cllrs McCulloch, Airlie-Nicolson and James MacLaren have requested that the application be determined by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board due to the impact the development would have on the green belt. Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the erection of eight holiday lodges and associated infrastructure and landscaping on land to the north of Kilmacolm Road (A761), Bridge of Weir. The cottages would be divided into two groups, with four located at the northern end of the site and four at its eastern end. The single storey cottages would all be of a similar design and would, at their maximum extent, measure approximately 12 metres in width by 11 metres in depth. The buildings would each feature a cross-gable slate roof that would measure 3 metres in height to the eaves and 6.1 metres to the ridge. Passing spaces would be formed along an existing track within the site that would be used to link the northern group of cottages to Kilmacolm Road. A new 130-metre-long track would be formed to link the eastern group of cottages with the existing track. Space to park six cars would be formed at the intersection of the two tracks. A new junction linking the site to Kilmacolm Road would be formed, with entrance pillars and walls erected on either side to formalise the entrance. Areas of landscaping would be created across the site. Site Description The application site is located to the west of Bridge of Weir, with access taken from Kilmacolm Road, a national speed limit A road, to the south. The site rises gently from south to north. Woodland covers the section of the site that runs north from Kilmacolm Road to where the northernmost cottages would be located while the eastern leg of the site is an open field. Item 4(f) PACC260825 Page 209 of 230
Page 214
The application site is part of a much larger area of land owned by Scart Farm which is found approximately 800 metres to the west along Kilmacolm Road. 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 discussions have taken place, focusing on whether the development would be acceptable given the green belt designation. The applicant was advised that it would be difficult to support the proposal given the green belt location and lack of justification for tourism related facilities within the area. Negotiated Improvements No changes have been negotiated. 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 No: 21/1747/PP Description: Erection of farm shop and cafe and formation of children's play area and secured dog park. Decision: Refused. Application No: 24/0909/PP Description: Erection of 8 holiday cottages Decision: Withdrawn. Consultations ▪ Bridge of Weir Community Council - objects on the grounds that the development would undermine the greenbelt, that no market analysis has been undertaken to demonstrate the need for the development and that there are existing buildings that should be converted instead. The objection also raises road safety concerns, the lack of pedestrian and cycle provision, that the ecological survey was conducted at the wrong time of year and wider biodiversity concerns. ▪ Chief Executive's (Roads Development) - object on the grounds that it has not been demonstrated that the access into the site would be safe, the impact the development would have on an existing layby, the lack of a swept path analysis and the lack of pedestrian and cycle provision. Concerns have also been raised regarding the lack of information on how surface water runoff will be prevented from discharging onto the public road. ▪ Environment, Health and Infrastructure (Environmental Protection) - no objection, subject to a condition relating to the remediation of the site. ▪ Scottish Gas Networks (SGN) (High Pressure Gas Mains) - object as the impact the development would have on a high pressure gas pipeline that runs through the site is not understood. ▪ West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) - no objection subject to a condition relating to programme of archaeological works carried out in accordance with a written Page 210 of 230
Page 215
scheme of investigation that has been agreed in advance with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. ▪ Health And Safety Executive - do not advise against the development. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The following representations were received: ▪ Object - 21 ▪ Support - 1 ▪ Neutral - 0 The issues raised in support of the application can be summarised as follows: 1. The development would boost the local economy. 2. The proposal would strengthen the tourist offering in the area. 3. The development would be sympathetic to the character of the village. The issues raised by the objectors can be summarised as follows: 1. Existing road infrastructure is not suitable. 2. No safe pedestrian or cycle route serves the site. 3. The development would have a negative impact on biodiversity. 4. The development would undermine the green belt in this location. 5. Neighbour notification was not undertaken. 6. The setting of a nearby listed building would be negatively impacted. 7. The ownership details are incorrect. 8. No evidence of market demand for the cottages. 9. The ecological assessment was undertaken at the wrong time of the year. 10. Existing buildings should be converted to holiday accommodation instead. 11. Access will not be allowed via Gryffe Castle. 12. The development would set an undesirable precedent. 13. The ecological assessment is insufficient. 14. Holiday cottages could cause anti-social behaviour. 15. Disposal of wastewater from the development could negatively impact the Gryffe. 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 3 - Biodiversity ▪ Policy 4 - Natural places ▪ Policy 7 - Historic assets and places ▪ Policy 8 - Green belts ▪ Policy 13 - Sustainable transport ▪ Policy 18 - Infrastructure first ▪ Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management ▪ Policy 23 - Health and safety ▪ Policy 27 - City, town, local and commercial centres Page 211 of 230
Page 216
▪ Policy 30 - Tourism Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan ▪ Policy C2 - Development outwith Renfrewshire's Network of Centres ▪ Policy E4 - Tourism ▪ Policy ENV1 - Green Belt ▪ Policy ENV2 - Natural Heritage ▪ Policy ENV3 - Built and Cultural Heritage ▪ Policy I1 - Connecting Places ▪ Policy I3 - Flooding and Drainage Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. Other relevant policies and guidance ▪ Delivering the Economic Strategy - Tourism ▪ Delivering the Centres Strategy - Development Out with Renfrewshire's Network of Centres ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Connecting Places ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Flooding and Drainage ▪ Delivering the Places Strategy - Creating Places ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Green Belt Development Criteria ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Trees, Woodlands and Forestry ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Biodiversity ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Listed Buildings ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Pipelines and Major Hazards ▪ New Development in the Countryside 2022 ▪ NatureScot standing advice for planning consultations (Bats) Submitted Reports and Assessments The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: ▪ Planning Statement - sets out the applicant's rationale for the proposal. ▪ Heritage Impact Statement - considers the impact the development would have on the nearby Gryffe Castle, a B-listed building. ▪ Ecological Appraisal Report - examines the impact the development would have on nature, including protected species, and outlines measures to improve biodiversity in line with the requirements of NPF4. ▪ Traffic Survey Report - details the results of a traffic count carried out on Kilmacolm Road. ▪ Transport Statement - justifies the proposal in terms of road safety and active travel. ▪ Response to Public Representations - responds to issues raised in representations received from members of the public. 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 Page 212 of 230
Page 217
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. None. Planning Assessment The main issues that must be considered are the impact the tourism related development would have on the green belt and on the Bridge of Weir as a Local Service Centre. Other matters such as the impact on the environment and existing infrastructure must also be considered. Green Belt and Tourism Policy 8 of NPF4 provides support for tourism uses within the green belt provided all additional criteria set out within section ii) of the policy are met. As the application is for eight holiday cottages within the green belt it complies with the initial requirements of Policy 8 but can be assessed against the additional criteria set out in ii) as follows: Reasons are provided as to why a green belt location is essential and why it cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt The applicant's supporting statement notes that Scart Farm has sought to diversify in recent years, offering a range of services and activities that support the main farming operations. The statement lists a dog daycare facility, activity days such as off-road quad biking, a coffee kiosk, farm tours, educational workshops, seasonal events and an events space as facilities that are now offered at the farm. The supporting statement notes that holiday cottages offer the opportunity to further support and expand the business. However, no justification is provided as to why a green belt location is essential and why the development cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt. While it is acknowledged that the land in question is owned by Scart Farm, land ownership is not a material planning consideration. No site selection data has been provided, and no attempt has been made to discount land within the Bridge of Weir settlement boundary. Given that Bridge of Weir lies immediately to the east of the application site and is no further from the farm itself than the northernmost cottages would be, a detailed analysis to discount existing sites within the settlement is required. Arguments in favour of viewing the development as supplementary to the existing offering at Scart Farm are also undermined by the fact that the cottages themselves would be 1.2 kilometres away from the farm. In addition, no justification has been provided as to why overnight residential accommodation is required for the activities offered at the farm given they are not typically activities that take place over more than one day and the activities have been able to take place up until now with no associated accommodation. The applicant points to information that suggests that there is a lack of overnight accommodation within Bridge of Weir, but this in itself does not justify development outwith the settlement in the green belt. Given the above, the proposal is contrary to Policy 8 ii) of NPF4 in that reasons as to why a green belt location is essential and why the development cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt have not been provided. The purpose of the green belt at that location is not undermined Page 213 of 230
Page 218
The development would take place at the margins of the field and within cleared areas of woodland so would not prevent the land from being used for agricultural purposes should the landowner wish to do so. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding established countryside and landscape character As the cottages would be small in size and would be split into two groups of four, they would not stand out in the landscape when viewed from Kilmacolm Road or the nearby National Cycle Route. The traditional render and slate roof finish would also help minimise the impact the development would have on the established character of the countryside in this location. Furthermore, the existing woodland and proposed planting that would take place across the site would soften the impact the development would have on the landscape. The new track would not be highly visible within the landscape while junctions of a similar design to the one that would be formed to connect the development to Kilmacolm Road are found along the length of the road. The proposal has been designed to ensure it is of an appropriate scale, massing and external appearance, and uses materials that minimise visual impact on the green belt as far as possible The small scale of the cottages coupled with the proposed planting and render and slate finish means the development would not look out of place within a countryside setting. Full details of the finishing materials to be used across the development could be requested either prior to determination or via condition but as the proposal is unacceptable for the reasons discussed above this has not been progressed. The nearest cottage would be approximately 80 metres away from Gryffe Castle, a B listed building. However, the separation distance, the small scale of the development and the fact that the two are separated by well-established tree cover means the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the listed building. The proposal complies with Policy ENV3 of the LDP and Policy 7 of NPF4 in this regard. There will be no significant long-term impacts on the environmental quality of the green belt The track that would link the northernmost cottages to Kilmacolm Road and the cottages themselves would sit within an area of ancient woodland. However, the ecological appraisal submitted by the applicant notes that no trees would be removed as the proposal would make use of an existing track and clearing. If the proposal was considered acceptable in all other respects a condition covering tree felling could have been added to further protect the woodland. In addition, native woodland planting would take place across the site to increase tree cover. The proposal is considered to comply with Policy ENV2 of the LDP and Policy 6 of NPF4 in this regard. The ecological appraisal submitted by the applicant notes that three trees within close proximity to the site have preliminary roosting features for individual bats. While it is acknowledged that the trees are not near the cottages and the track in this location already exists, the proposal would result in an increase in activity in the area both during construction and when the site is operational. Standing advice from NatureScot states that a bat roost survey should be carried out in such circumstances. No bat roost survey has been undertaken but the matter has not been pursued given the proposal is considered unacceptable. The ecological appraisal raises no other concerns in respect of protected species in line with the requirements of Policy 4 of NPF4. Similarly, no information has been submitted to demonstrate how surface water or foul drainage will be dealt with in line with the requirements of the Development Plan but this has Page 214 of 230
Page 219
not been pursued given the Council cannot support the proposal for the reasons noted above. Grassland rich in flowering species and shrub planting would take place across the site to boost biodiversity in line with the requirements of Policy ENV2 of the LDP and Policy 3 of NPF4. While it is acknowledged that no trees would be removed to accommodate the proposal and additional planting would take place in an attempt to improve biodiversity, it has not been established, based on the information submitted by the applicant, that the development would not have a significant long term impact on the environmental quality of the green belt in respect of protected species and water quality. Given the above, the proposal is contrary to Policy 8 of NPF4 as a whole in that, although for a tourism related use, reasons as to why a green belt location is essential and why the development cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt have not been provided. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that there will be no significant long- term impacts on the environmental quality of the green belt. Separately, Policy ENV1 of the LDP provides support for tourism related development within the green belt provided the proposal is acceptable under Policy E4 of the LDP. Policy E4 states that proposals for sustainable tourism will only be supported where, among other criteria, the development can demonstrate a locational need. As discussed above, it has not been demonstrated that there is a site-specific locational need for the development. Policy ENV1 also provides support for developments that demonstrate diversification within the green belt and which promote new employment or tourism opportunities. However, such a provision does not exist within NPF4, which, as discussed above, requires additional justification for the green belt location beyond the fact the development is related to tourism. As NPF4 was adopted later it takes precedence and the opportunity to justify tourism related development within the green belt on that basis is no longer open to applicants. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies E4 and ENV1 of the LDP and the associated supplementary guidance of both policies. Policy 30 a) of NPF4 provides support for tourist facilities in locations identified in the LDP. The adopted spatial strategy, which forms part of the adopted LDP, does not designate the land for tourism related uses while the green belt designation cannot be used to justify a tourism use for reasons discussed above. Policy 30 b) sets out additional criteria that should be considered when assessing tourism related development. The proposal would make a positive contribution to the local economy, with the applicant attempting to quantify the impact in their supporting statement. The proposal would also not raise any compatibility issues with the surrounding landscape for reasons discussed above and as a small scale newbuild development the proposal would not have a negative impact on the provision of homes or services for local people. Issues such as access for disabled people and measures to minimise carbon emissions could have been conditions and would also be dealt with through the building warrant process. The proposal would also make access into the natural environment easier for those staying in the cottages. However, Policy 30 also requires proposals to take opportunities for sustainable travel into account. There is no continuous footway along Kilmacolm Road between Bridge or Weir, the application site and Scart Farm. Given that Kilmacolm Road is a national speed limit A road it is considered unacceptable that there would be no segregated route for pedestrians to use. Page 215 of 230
Page 220
The applicant argues that the National Cycle Route 75 - which runs from Bridge of Weir past Scart Farm - caters for pedestrians and cyclists. However, there is no direct connection from the application site onto the Cycle Route and no connection from the Cycle Route into Scart Farm. Given the National Cycle Route is in 3rd party ownership the delivery of such connections would not be solely within the gift of the applicant. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy I1 of the LDP and Policy 13 of NPF4 in that it would create a car dominated development that does not prioritise the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. Overall, while the proposal aligns with many of the criteria set out in Policy 30 b), the lack of a supporting designation within the adopted spatial strategy and the lack of active travel options for occupants means the development is ultimately considered contrary to Policy 30 of NPF4. Impact on Bridge of Weir Town Centre Policy C2 of the LDP and Policy 27 of NPF4 direct footfall generating development to Centre locations identified within the adopted spatial strategy. It is only acceptable for development to be located outwith the Centre if a sequential assessment to justify the location and it has been demonstrated that nearby Centres would not be negatively affected. No sequential assessment has been undertaken, and no evidence has been provided as to the impact on Bridge of Weir Village Centre beyond unsubstantiated figures around the potential economic impact of the development. The ability of visitors to travel into Bridge of Weir is made more difficult by the fact that there is no footway along Kilmacolm Road for most of the distance between the application site and the village. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy C2 of NPF4 as well as Policy 27 of NPF4. Other Matters The West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) have requested that a condition be applied requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological works agreed in advance with WOSAS and the Planning Authority. Had the proposal been considered acceptable then this condition would have been applied to ensure the development complied with the requirements of Policy 7 of NPF4 and Policy ENV3 of the LDP in this regard. Roads Development has objected to the proposal on numerous road safety grounds. These include the design of both the access onto Kilmacolm Road and the tracks within the site, the impact increased use of the access would have on an existing layby and the lack of a swept path analysis to demonstrate how large refuse or emergency service vehicles would access the site. Roads Development has also raised the lack of active travel options that were discussed earlier in the report. Finally, a high-pressure gas transmission pipeline runs through the site. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have not advised against the granting of the application due to the low number of occupants and the distance between the cottages and the pipeline. However, Scottish Gas Networks have objected as the potential impact the development, including construction, would have on their infrastructure has not been established. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 18 and 23 of NPF4 and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Pipelines and Major Hazards. Representations Neighbour notification was carried out in line with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. An advert was also published in the local newspaper for neighbour notification purposes in line with the requirements of the regulations. Land ownership information is acceptable in good faith by the Planning Authority as land ownership is not a material planning consideration. Page 216 of 230
Page 221
The fact there may not be market demand for the cottages or the fact that there could be existing buildings that should be converted instead are not material factors in the assessment of this application. In respect of the claim that the development would set an undesirable precedent, each application is assessed on its own merits. Although objectors note that no access would be allowed via Gryffe Castle, the development does not propose taking access via Gryffe Castle. All other issues have been addressed in the above report. Planning Obligations 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, the proposal is contrary to both Policy 8 of NPF4 and Policies E4 and ENV1 of the LDP in that adequate justification has not been provided as to why a location within the green belt and outwith the settlement boundary is required. The proposal is also contrary to Policy 30 of NPF4 as the land is not designated for tourist uses and opportunities for sustainable travel have not been incorporated into the proposal. The lack of sustainable travel options also means the proposal is contrary to Policy 13 of NPF4 and Policy I1 of the LDP. The proposal does not comply with Policy 27 of NPF4 and Policy C2 of the LDP in that no justification for the development's location outwith the nearby Centre has been provided. Finally, Scottish Gas Networks have objected as the impact the development would have on a high-pressure gas pipeline has not been established. Recommendation Refuse. Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 8 of National Planning Framework 4 in that although for a tourism related use, it has not been demonstrated that a green belt location is essential and that the development cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt. In addition, it has not been demonstrated that there would be no significant long-term impacts on the environmental quality of the green belt. 2. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 30 of National Planning Framework 4 in that the land is not identified for tourist facilities within the adopted spatial strategy and does not provide opportunities for sustainable travel. 3. The proposed development is contrary to Policy E4 of the Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Tourism in that it has not been demonstrated that there is a site-specific locational need for the development. The proposal is therefore also contrary to Policy ENV1 of the Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Page 217 of 230
Page 222
Development within the Green Belt in that there is no justification for the development outwith the settlement boundary. 4. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 13 of National Planning Framework 4, Policy I1 of the Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on both Connecting Places and Creating Places in that the transport requirements generated from the proposal have not been considered in line with sustainable travel hierarchies. 5. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 27 of National Planning Framework 4, Policy C2 of the Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Renfrewshire's Network of Centres in that the proposal is contrary to the town centre first approach and that no justification has been provided as to why the development should be located outwith a designated Centre. 6. The proposed development is contrary to Policies 18 and 23 of National Planning Framework 4 and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Pipelines and Major Hazards in that Scottish Gas Networks has objected on the grounds that the development is within the vicinity of a high pressure gas transmission pipeline. The applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of Scottish Gas Networks or the Planning Authority that the development would have no impact on the pipeline. Condition(s) 1. None required. Advisory Note(s) 1. None required. Schedule of Plans Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title 22-47-EX-01A Site Location Plan 22-47-EX-02A Site Location Plan Supplementary 22-47-PL-04B Existing and Proposed Site Layout 22-47-PL-05B Existing and Proposed Area 1 22-47-PL-06B Proposed Site Plan Area 3 22-47-PL-07B Existing and Proposed Area 2 22-47-PL-08 Proposed Tourism Units 22-47-PL-09 Proposed Contextual Elevations 22-47-PL-10 Proposed Chalet No. 2 Landscape Plan 22-47-PL-11A Proposed Road Sections Passing Bay Details 22-47-PL-12 Farm and Business Context Masterplan 22-47-PL-13 Proposed Entrance Detail - Overall Planting Layout - Detail Planting Layout A - Detail Planting Layout B - Ecological Appraisal Report - Summary Ecological Appraisal and Biodiversity Enhancements - Heritage Impact Statement - Transport Statement Page 218 of 230
Page 223
For further information please contact James McCafferty, Development Standards Team, Email: james.mccafferty@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 219 of 230
Page 224
Page 220 of 230
Page 225
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 26 August 2025 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0379/FUR Application Type Further Application Proposal Section 42 application to vary condition 9 (Drainage Impact Assessment) to include Surface Water Strategy and to remove condition 10 (Surface Water Strategy) of planning permission 22/0236/PP Location 57 High Street, Paisley, PA1 2AN Ward 5 - Paisley East and Central Community Council Paisley West and Central Community Council Applicant Undefined c/o Tinto Architecture 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=summary&keyVal=SWLNHMMWIBH00 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 Chief Planning Officer has declined to exercise delegated powers in light of the planning history which relates to the parent planning application 22/0236/PP. Proposal This proposal is an application under Section 42 to vary condition 9 (Drainage Impact Assessment) to include Surface Water Strategy and to remove condition 10 (Surface Water Strategy) of planning permission 22/0236/PP. Planning permission was granted subject to conditions on 11 November 2022 for the erection of self-contained student accommodation with associated facilities, including demolition. Condition 9 states the following: That prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Drainage Impact Assessment shall be submitted and approved by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. The Drainage Impact Assessment shall accord with the 'Council's Drainage Assessment - Notes for Guidance'. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for drainage associated with the development. Condition 10 states the following: That prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, confirmation shall be submitted in writing to Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority and certified by a suitable qualified person that a scheme to treat the surface water arising from the site has been prepared in accordance with the principles and practices contained in "The SuDS Manual" (CIRIA report C753, published in November 2015). Thereafter, the certified scheme shall be implemented prior to the completion of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Item 4(g) PACC260825 Page 221 of 230
Page 226
Reason: In the interests of securing a suitable SuDs scheme for the treatment of surface water runoff. The application requests that Condition 10 is deleted as the surface water scheme could be incorporated into condition 9 (drainage Impact Assessment) as one condition. To capture this, the revised condition would read as follows: - That prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Drainage Impact Assessment shall be submitted and approved by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. The Drainage Impact Assessment shall accord with the 'Council's Drainage Assessment - Notes for Guidance'. For the avoidance of doubt, the Drainage Impact Assessment shall also include confirmation and certification by a suitable qualified person that a scheme to treat the surface water arising from the site has been prepared in accordance with the principles and practices contained in "The SuDS Manual" (CIRIA report C753, published in November 2015). Thereafter, the certified scheme shall be implemented prior to the completion of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for drainage associated with the development. Site Description The application site is located on the corner of High Street and Storie Street and is adjacent to the University of West of Scotland (UWS) Student Union Building and the UWS Campus to the south. Paisley Museum is also located to the northwest of the site. The application site incorporates Leisure Land at no. 57 High Street and a gap site at 55 High Street which contains self-seeded trees. The site area is approximately 693sqm and is relatively flat along High Street to the north and is at a steeper incline along Storie street to the west. The area is characterised by a mix of commercial and residential properties. 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. No pre-application discussions have taken place. Negotiated Improvements No changes have been negotiated. 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 No: 21/1101/PP Description: Erection of self-contained student accommodation (in principle) Decision: Withdrawn Application No: 22/0236/PP Description: Erection of self-contained student accommodation with associated facilities including demolition. Decision: Grant subject to conditions Application No: 22/0240/CA Description: Demolition in association with the erection of student accommodation block. Page 222 of 230
Page 227
Decision: Grant subject to conditions Application No: 23/0457/DOC Description: Discharge of condition 13 of planning application 22/0236/PP for the erection of self-contained student accommodation with associated facilities including demolition. Decision: Grant Application No: 17/0049/PP Description: Installation of ATM to shop front (in retrospect) Decision: Grant Application No: 17/0050/AD Description: Display of internally illuminated ATM surround (in retrospect) Decision: Grant subject to conditions Consultations No Consultations required. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. No representations were received. 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 7 - Historic assets and places ▪ Policy 13 - Sustainable transport ▪ Policy 14 - Design, quality and place ▪ Policy 15 - Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods ▪ Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management ▪ Policy 27 - City, town, local and commercial centres ▪ Policy 1 - Tackling the climate and nature crises ▪ Policy 2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation ▪ Policy 3 - Biodiversity ▪ Policy 9 - Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan ▪ Policy C1 - Renfrewshire's Network of Centres ▪ Policy ENV3 - Built and Cultural Heritage ▪ Policy I1 - Connecting Places ▪ Policy I3 - Flooding and Drainage ▪ Policy I5 - Waste Management ▪ Policy I7 - Zero and Low Carbon Buildings ▪ Policy I8 - Developer Contributions Page 223 of 230
Page 228
Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. New Development Supplementary Guidance (2022) ▪ Delivering the Centres Strategy: Strategic Centres ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy: Built and Cultural Heritage ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy: Connecting Places; Provision for Waste Recycling in New Developments; Flooding and Drainage; Zero and Low Carbon Buildings; and Developer Contributions ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy: Noise and Contaminated Land Material Considerations ▪ Historic Environment Scotland's Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) 2019 and associated "Managing Change in the Historic Environment" guidance notes. Submitted Reports and Assessments No reports or assessments were submitted in support of the application. 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. None. Planning Assessment In terms of the Development Plan, the principle of the development has already been established and approved under planning permission 22/0236/PP and this Section 42 planning application as submitted requires to be assessed on its individual merits. The current application seeks only to delete Condition 10 in relation to the Surface Water Strategy and to amalgamate it with Condition 9 (Drainage Impact Assessment) as one condition. It is considered that the section 42 application raises no new issues that would require to be assessed against Development Plan Policy and the appropriateness of the development was established through planning permission 22/0236/PP. It is also considered that matters relating to drainage could be more appropriately considered through one consolidated and rationalised condition. As the effect of granting a Section 42 application is such that a new and separate standalone planning permission exists, all other conditions associated with planning application 22/0236/PP which would be relevant to this new permission require to be re-imposed to this new permission. Given the development subject to 22/0236/PP has not been implemented and none of the suspensive conditions had been previously discharged, effectively all conditions with the exception of condition 10 are to be re-attached. In addition to this, consideration has also been given to the fact that Section 32 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 amends the Section 58 provisions of the 1997 Act regarding the duration of planning permissions. Specifically, it requires that the duration of planning permission be specified as a condition attached to the grant of permission. To ensure compliance with this requirement of the legislation, a specific time limit condition will also now be attached to this consent. Page 224 of 230
Page 229
Representations No representations were received. Planning Obligations 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 1. The proposal to remove and vary the conditions 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. That prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details and/or samples of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Thereafter only the approved materials shall be used in the development of the site. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 3. That prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a comprehensive transitionary land use plan, including detailed timescales, showing precisely what will be happening on all areas of the site during the various stages of the redevelopment process. This will include details of: the demolition process, the various construction phases and the extent and location of the construction compounds required to deliver development on all parts of the site. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the conservation area during the demolition and construction process. 4. No development shall commence on site until written approval of: (a) a Site Investigation report (characterising the nature and extent of any soil, water and gas contamination within the site); and, if remedial works are recommended therein Page 225 of 230
Page 230
(b) a Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan identifying the proposed methods for implementing all remedial recommendations contained within the site investigation report all prepared in accordance with current authoritative technical guidance, have been submitted to and approved in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site will be made suitable for its proposed use. 5. That prior to the occupation of any unit on the site: (a) a Verification Report confirming completion of the works specified within the approved Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan; or (b) where remediation works are not required but soils are to be imported to site, a Verification Report confirming imported materials are suitable for use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Verification Reports shall not be submitted on a phased basis unless first agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To demonstrate that works required to make the site suitable for use have been completed. 6. That prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the developer shall secure the implementation of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that any archaeological remains which may be disturbed can be identified, excavated and recorded. 7. That prior to commencement of above ground works a Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. For the avoidance of doubt, the submitted plan shall include details of: o Management of and flat/shallow pitched green roofs on buildings within the site which may be attractive to nesting, roosting and "loafing" birds. The management plan shall comply with Advise Note 8 'Potential Bird Hazards from Building Design.' The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved on completion of the development and shall remain in force for the life of the development. No subsequent alterations to the plan are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in witing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. Reason: It is necessary to manage the development in order to minimise its attractiveness to birds which could endanger the safe movement of aircraft and the operations of Glasgow Airport. Page 226 of 230
Page 231
8. That prior the commencement of the development hereby approved, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, details of a designated drop off and pick up area. For the avoidance of doubt, this should include the exact location and design of the pick up area. Reason: This information has not been provided. 9. That prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, a Construction Traffic Management Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, this plan shall demonstrate how, during demolition and build phase, there will be no detrimental impact on pedestrian/cyclist/public transport and the local road network. Reason: This information has not been provided. 10. That prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Drainage Impact Assessment shall be submitted and approved by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. The Drainage Impact Assessment shall accord with the 'Council's Drainage Assessment - Notes for Guidance'. For the avoidance of doubt, the Drainage Impact Assessment shall also include confirmation and certification by a suitable qualified person that a scheme to treat the surface water arising from the site has been prepared in accordance with the principles and practices contained in "The SuDS Manual" (CIRIA report C753, published in November 2015). Thereafter, the certified scheme shall be implemented prior to the completion of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for drainage associated with the development. 11. The design, installation and operation of any plant, machinery or equipment proposed as part of the development itself 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, 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. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. 12. Notwithstanding the consent hereby given, the developer shall ensure the mitigation measures contained in Chapter 6 of the Airshed Report titled Environmental Noise Assessment for Proposed Residential Student Accommodation, High Street, Paisley, Renfrewshire (report no. AS 0925 dated 20th July 2022) shall be implemented and complied with during construction and for the lifetime of the development to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. These include the following: Road traffic noise Page 227 of 230
Page 232
• Provide acoustic insulation in the form of double-glazing and mechanical ventilation and heat recovery (MVHR) on all units where the free-field external noise level at exposed facades is predicted to exceed 50 dB LAeq 07:00 - 23:00 or 45 dB LAeq 23:00 - 07:00 (74% of all units). The units requiring this additional mitigation are listed in Table 6.1 of the report and shown in bold red text. • Details of the proposed scheme of acoustic insulation shall be submitted for written approval, prior to commencement of any works onsite, to ensure that the proposed mitigation measures will comply with BS 8233: 2014 Table 4 noise criteria in habitable rooms. Fixed plant noise The combined noise from existing and proposed fixed plant will not exceed Noise Rating Curve 25 (NR25) within all habitable rooms: • Where a mechanical ventilation and heat recovery (MVHR) scheme is required to achieve this these units will have enhanced double-glazing. • Details of the proposed scheme of acoustic insulation shall be submitted for written approval, prior to commencement of any works onsite, to ensure that the proposed mitigation measures will comply with NR25 with closed windows and MVHR where appropriate; • Prior to occupation of any units, a further assessment of noise from the proposed fixed plant associated with the developments heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) scheme must be undertaken and submitted for written approval to ensure that noise levels inside existing and proposed habitable rooms will not exceed NR25 at night. Public house noise The noise from music breakout and patrons will not exceed NR15 within all habitable rooms: • Where windows require to be closed a mechanical ventilation and heat recovery (MVHR) scheme shall be provided. • Details of the proposed scheme of acoustic insulation shall be submitted for written approval, prior to commencement of any works onsite, to ensure that the proposed mitigation measures will comply with NR15 with closed windows and MVHR where appropriate. No property within the development shall be occupied until all approved mitigation measures have been completed in full. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. 13. That prior to the occupation of the student accommodation hereby approved, the Waste Management Plan approved under 23/0457/DOC 'WRC Recycling, Total Waste Solutions (Issue A 2023 Revision 1, including the Statement of Bin Provision for adjacent properties at High Street' shall be implemented to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Page 228 of 230
Page 233
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to control waste. Advisory Note(s) 1. None required. Schedule of Plans Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title Stamped Drawing 3618-EX(190)001 Existing Site and Location Plan 3618-PL(190)001 Proposed Site Plan For further information please contact Fiona Knighton, Development Standards Team, Email: fiona.knighton@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 229 of 230
Page 234
Page 230 of 230