Complete Planning_Redacted
Renfrewshire Council · 15 November 2022
Back to Local Review Body. — 15 November 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
PLANNING AUTHORITY’S SUBMISSIONS
Page 2
Chief Executive's Service Renfrewshire House Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1WB //www.renfrewshire.gov.uk My Ref: Contact: James Weir Telephone: 07483 370666 Email: dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk Date: 12 July 2022 Stephen Govan Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse with associated access (in principle) Location: Site On Western Boundary Of Marypark, Marypark Road, Langbank, , Application Type: Planning Permission in Principle Application No: 22/0125/PP Dear Sir/Madam, NOTIFICATION OF REFUSAL OF CONSENT The Council has decided to refuse your application, details of which are given above. I enclose a Decision Notice which provides details of the reasons for refusal. I also enclose a copy of your submitted plans duly endorsed. You have the right to appeal against this decision to the Local Review Body and notes on how to appeal are attached. Yours faithfully, Alasdair Morrison Head of Economy and Development
Page 3
Page 1 of 3 Chief Executive's Service Renfrewshire House Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1WB //www.renfrewshire.gov.uk REFUSE Consent subject to the reasons Ref. 22/0125/PP DECISION NOTICE Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 TO Mr Arthur MacMillan Finlaystone House Finlaystone Estate Langbank Port Glasgow PA14 6TJ With reference to your application registered on 22 February 2022 for Planning Consent for the following development:- PROPOSAL Erection of dwellinghouse with associated access (in principle) LOCATION Site On Western Boundary Of Marypark, Marypark Road, Langbank, DECISION The Council in exercise of their powers under the above Acts and Orders, having considered the above proposal, the plans endorsed as relating to it and the particulars given in the above application hereby:- REFUSE Consent subject to the reasons listed on the reverse/paper apart. PLANS AND DRAWINGS The plans and drawings relative to this refusal are those identified in the Schedule of Plans/Drawings attached as a paper apart and forming part of this Decision Notice. Dated: 8 July 2022 Signed ...................................................... Appointed Officer on behalf of Renfrewshire Council
Page 4
Page 2 of 3 Ref. 22/0125/PP REASON FOR REFUSAL PAPER APART TERMS AND CONDITIONS Reason for Decision 1. The proposed development does not comply with Policy ENV1 of the Adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021 and the draft New Development Supplementary Guidance, Green Belt Development Criteria and Housing in the Green Belt as it has not been demonstrated that there is a specific locational need for a dwellinghouse and the development has the potential to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and the ancient woodland. 2. The proposed development does not comply with Policy ENV2 of the Adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021 and the draft New Development Supplementary Guidance, Trees, Woodland and Forestry and Local Designations as the development has the potential to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and the ancient woodland.
Page 5
Page 3 of 3 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 1. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under section 43A of the Town and Country Planning Act (Scotland) Act 1997 within three months beginning with the date of this notice. The notice of review should be addressed to Head of Legal and Democratic Services, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1PR. 2. If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of the owner of the land's interest in the land in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
Page 6
Appendix 1 RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL Application No: 22/0125/PP CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S SERVICE RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING APPLICATION Regd:22 February 2022 Applicant Agent Mr Arthur MacMillan Finlaystone House Finlaystone Estate Langbank Port Glasgow PA14 6TJ Stephen Govan Ingram Architecture & Design 227 Ingram Street Glasgow G1 1DA Nature of Proposals Erection of dwellinghouse with associated access (in principle) Site Site On Western Boundary Of Marypark, Marypark Road, Langbank, Description This application seeks planning permission in principle for the erection of a dwellinghouse on a site to the west of Marypark House in Langbank. The site is accessed from Marypark Road which is a private single track road serving nine houses. Marypark Road is accessed from the A8 trunk road to the west of the site. The application site extends to approx. 700 square metres. It is situated in an area of woodland, with rising ground and a rocky outcrop to the west and south. To the east is another development plot on which planning permission in principle for a dwellinghouse was granted in 2019. The proposed house and the consented house would share the same access. Beyond the development plot to the east is Marypark House. Marypark Road bounds the site to the north with the A8 beyond. History Application No: 19/0516/PP Description: Erection of dwellinghouse and formation of access (planning consent in principle) Decision: Grant subject to conditions Policy and Material Considerations Adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021 Policy ENV1 – Green Belt Policy ENV2 – Natural Heritage Policy P1 – Renfrewshire’s Places Policy I1 – Connecting Places Policy I3 – Flooding and Drainage Draft New Development Supplementary Guidance Delivering the Environment Strategy – Green Belt Development Criteria, Housing in the Green
Page 7
Belt, Local Designations and Trees, Woodlands and Forestry Delivering the Places Strategy – Creating Places Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy – Connecting Places, Flooding and Drainage Material Considerations Renfrewshire’s Places Residential Design Guide Publicity The Council has undertaken neighbour notification in accordance with the requirements of legislation. An Advert was placed on the press on 9 March 2022 for the following reasons; Neighbour Notification. Objections/Representation None received. Consultations Environment & Infrastructure Services - (Roads) – No comments. Communities & Housing Services - (Environmental Protection Team) – Advisory note requested should ground disturbance uncover any contamination or unusual materials. Transport Scotland – No objections. Glasgow Airport Safeguarding – No comments. Applicants Supporting Information Tree Survey – Trees within the site are entirely self seeded surviving among areas of invasive rhododendron. There are fourteen low quality trees and one medium quality cherry tree. The overall biological value of the plot is considered low. Ecological Constraints Survey – Proposed development may impact the integrity of the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and the ancient woodland. However, the effects are likely to be short term and mainly during construction works. If development is kept to the open area of the site, then it is likely that only limited limbing and felling of young trees would be required. The open area has previously been cleared and is now dominated by rhododendron. The site has suitable habitat for badgers and nesting birds. However, no evidence of badgers was identified on the site. Two trees were found to be suitable for roosting bats. However again there is no evidence that they are being used by bats. Various recommendations are made with respect to the development of the site. These include vegetation clearance outwith the bird nesting season, retention of the vegetation line along the
Page 8
northern edge of the site, and timing of works on site to avoid disturbance to foraging or commuting bats. Flood Risk Assessment – The site is at medium to high risk of flooding from fluvial sources and failure of drainage infrastructure. Mitigation measures include forming a maintenance wayleave along the eastern boundary of the site, raising ground levels to mimic those along the eastern boundary, a 200mm freeboard, and confirming responsibility for maintenance of a culvert. The development will not increase the flood risk at neighbouring properties and is in general accordance with the principles set out in Scottish Planning Policy. Assessment The application site is covered by both Policy P1 and Policy ENV1 designations within the adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021. The Policy P1 area relates to the proposed access which would be shared between the proposed dwellinghouse and the dwellinghouse approved on the plot to the east. Most of the site, including the area on which the dwellinghouse will be sited, is covered by Policy ENV1. As most of the site area is covered by Policy ENV1, it is considered that assessment against this policy should take precedence. Policy ENV1 states that development within the green belt will be considered appropriate in principle where it is a housing land shortfall remedy which satisfies Policy 8 of Clydeplan or is in support of certain uses. It also 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. A housing land shortfall has not been identified. Therefore, the proposal requires to be assessed against the other criteria that allow development of this type to come forward and the criteria within the draft New Development Supplementary Guidance (SG). The SG states that development can be acceptable in principle where it is for a purpose in support of acceptable green belt uses. Green Belt Development Criteria provides a set of guidance that all development require to meet, including that traffic and access infrastructure can be sensitively accommodated and that it has been demonstrated that there has been careful consideration of the siting, design, scale and grouping of any buildings and infrastructure. Further to this guidance Housing in the Green Belt states residential development proposals require to be assessed against the following criteria. Development is required to maintain and support an established activity The development is not required to maintain or support an established activity that is suitable in the green belt. There is a need for the residential use to be located outwith the settlement It has not been demonstrated that there is a need for the development to be located outwith the settlement. Buildings which have special architectural, traditional or historic character may be converted for residential use
Page 9
The development does not involve the conversion of an existing building. The proposal demonstrates outstanding quality of design, is of an appropriate scale within its setting, and makes a positive contribution to the site and surrounding area As the application is in principle only no design details have been provided. The applicant has provided a site plan which shows a dwellinghouse could be accommodated on the plot with respect to its dimensions. There is not any significant tree coverage on this part of the site, and only self-seeded trees of low quality would have to be removed to accommodate the development. The topographical constraints are acknowledged, and the submitted levels plan shows that most of the rear curtilage would be on steeply sloping ground. Whilst it is noted that a similar topographical relationship was accepted at the neighbouring plot it is also noted that the ecological survey submitted has indicated that this proposal may impact the integrity of the SINC and the ancient woodland that the site is located within. The proposal integrates with, complements and enhances the established character of the area As the application is in principle only no design details have been provided. However, as the plot is enclosed by sloping ground and tree coverage to the south, east and west and the A8 trunk road to the north it is unlikely that development would be overly visible. However, it has the potential to have an adverse impact on the SINC and the ancient woodland. Replacement dwellings should reflect the specific character of the location, fit well with the surrounding landscape and achieve a high design standard The proposed development does not constitute a replacement dwellinghouse. It is noted that the applicant has submitted survey work relating to trees, ecology, topography, and flood risk which determines that the site’s constraints could potentially be overcome. However, the proposal does not meet the criteria required in assessment of this type of development for the above reasons. The development must also be assessed against the green belt development criteria. There is no loss of prime quality agricultural land associated with the proposals. It is also not anticipated that the development poses a significant pollution risk with respect to public water supply and water courses. There is no requirement to provide access to open space. Whilst it is noted that an argument has been made that the development can be accommodated with limited impact on identified nature conservation interests there is potential that the development may impact the integrity of the SINC and the ancient woodland that the site is located within. The northern boundary of the site is defined by a stone wall. Removing part of the wall to form an access has already been accepted through the approval of application 19/0516/PP. Both the proposed dwellinghouse and the previously approved dwellinghouse would share the same access.
Page 10
It is unlikely that the development would have a significant adverse impact on landscape character given the characteristics of the site. The proposed development continues the ribbon style of residential development along the southern side of Marypark Road. Further development to the south and west of the site wouldn’t be possible given the topography and tree coverage which encloses the site. The applicant has advised that a connection could be made to the public water supply and drainage network. Further details regarding the disposal of foul and surface water could be controlled via condition. Policy ENV2 states that development proposals must consider the potential impact on natural heritage. Further guidance is provided in the SG on Trees, Woodlands and Forestry and Local Designations. The ecology report and tree survey submitted with the application conclude that the site is of low natural heritage value despite its location within an ancient woodland and SINC. It is notable from the site visit that the site has been cleared of trees in the past, and invasive rhododendron is now present. The trees which are present are self-seeded, with the tree survey noting that the majority are of low quality. The ecology report advises that the development may impact the integrity of the SINC and the ancient woodland but that the effects are likely to be short term and mainly during construction works. Whilst it is recognised that the applicant seeks consent in principle for the erection of a dwellinghouse it is considered that to allow any development to be formed substantial works would be required and that there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the development would not affect the integrity of the ancient woodland and SINC has not been established. Policy P1 states that within Renfrewshire’s Places there will be a general presumption in favour of a continuance of the built form. As noted above the principal assessment has been undertaken against policy ENV1 as the bulk of the site is covered by this designation. However, Policy P1 is still considered to be relevant with respect to matters of amenity and compatibility. The Environmental Protection team have raised no concerns with respect to statutory nuisances such as noise affecting the site. The indicative site plan also demonstrates that the relationship between the proposed dwellinghouse and the neighbouring plot is likely to be acceptable with respect to maintaining sufficient levels of privacy and daylight. Policy I1 states that all development proposals require to ensure appropriate provision for accessibility. In this instance the Environment and Infrastructure Service (Road) has not offered any formal comments as the development falls outwith their jurisdiction (the site is serviced from a private road which connects to a trunk road). However, they have recommended that any development is undertaken in accordance with the standards set out within the National Roads Development Guide. It is noted that Transport Scotland have not objected to the proposals. With respect to Policy I3, the Flood Risk Assessment confirms that the presence of a culvert to the southeast of the site is not a barrier to development subject to the incorporation of some recommendations. The development will not increase the flood risk at neighbouring properties and is in general accordance with the principles set out in Scottish Planning Policy.
Page 11
In conclusion, the applicant has demonstrated the principle that the development plot could accommodate a dwellinghouse. A continuation of the existing development pattern along the southern side of Marypark Road is not considered to be undesirable. The topography and woodland coverage to the south and west largely screens the site from external vantage points. However, the proposal does not comply with the adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan or the draft New Development Supplementary Guidance as it has not been demonstrated that there is a specific locational need for a dwellinghouse in this green belt location and the details provided of the development are such that it has not been fully demonstrated that the development would not have an adverse impact on the integrity of the SINC or the ancient woodland given the works required to form such a development. It is therefore considered that the application must be refused. Index of Photographs A site visit has been undertaken on 13 December 2021, and photographs relevant to the application have been archived. RECOMMENDATION Refuse. Reason for Decision 1. The proposed development does not comply with Policy ENV1 of the Adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021 and the draft New Development Supplementary Guidance, Green Belt Development Criteria and Housing in the Green Belt as it has not been demonstrated that there is a specific locational need for a dwellinghouse and the development has the potential to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and the ancient woodland. 2. The proposed development does not comply with Policy ENV2 of the Adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021 and the draft New Development Supplementary Guidance, Trees, Woodland and Forestry and Local Designations as the development has the potential to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and the ancient woodland.
Page 12
Applicant: Mr Arthur MacMillan Ref. No: 22/0125/PP Site: Site On Western Boundary Of Marypark Marypark Road Langbank Officer: James Weir Documents Document Document Attached (Admin) Document Attached and Signed Decision Letter Decision Notice Appendix 1 – Report of Handling Plans to be stamped Drawing Number Drawing Title Checked Paper/DMS (Officer) Stamped DMS (BS) 1720(2-)01 A Site Plan as Existing 1720(2-)02 B Site Plan as Proposed 1720(2-)03 Existing and Proposed Block Plan AP1579/Topo/01 Topographical Survey 1720(2-)00 Location Plan Officers Initials: JW Business Support Initials: __DM_____
Page 13
Notes: 1. This drawing is the property of Ingram Architecture & Design Limited and must not be disclosed, loaned or copied without the written permission of Ingram Architecture & Design 2. All sizes in millimetres 3. Do not scale from drawings 4. Any discrepancies to be notified to client/architect immediately 5. All sizes to be checked on site revision 1:500@A3 Mar 17 A Site Plan Arthur Macmillan Marypark Road Proposed Housing 1720(2-)01 As Existing drawing scale project client date revnumber INGRAM A r c h i t e c t u r e & D e s i g n 227 Ingram Street Glasgow G1 1DA 0141 221 5191 getus@ingramarchitecture.co.uk www.ingramarchitecture.co.uk NORTH Marypark House Woodview Cottage Briarwood MARYPARK ROAD GREENOCK ROAD A Planning 17.02.22 0 10 20 50 METRES
Page 14
8.93 Notes: 1. This drawing is the property of Ingram Architecture & Design Limited and must not be disclosed, loaned or copied without the written permission of Ingram Architecture & Design 2. All sizes in millimetres 3. Do not scale from drawings 4. Any discrepancies to be notified to client/architect immediately 5. All sizes to be checked on site revision 1:500@A3 Mar 17 B Site Plan Arthur Macmillan Marypark Road Proposed Housing 1720(2-)02 As Proposed drawing scale project client date revnumber INGRAM A r c h i t e c t u r e & D e s i g n 227 Ingram Street Glasgow G1 1DA 0141 221 5191 getus@ingramarchitecture.co.uk www.ingramarchitecture.co.uk new opening in wall NORTH Marypark House Woodview Cottage Briarwood MARYPARK ROAD GREENOCK ROAD Plot 1 Plot 2 existing water course A Design Development 17.11.17 B Planning 17.02.22 0 10 20 50 METRES Plot 1 previously granted Permission in Principle 19/0516/PP
Page 15
LP LP TP AP2 6.610 AP1 6.879 AP3 11.592 AP4 10.928 9.54 9.18 9.40 9.15 9.12 8.96 8.81 8.78 8.64 8.61 7.08 6.98 7.09 7.11 7.02 7.29 6.99 6.78 6.80 6.74 6.70 6.65 6.68 6.59 6.57 6.62 6.64 6.72 6.68 6.96 6.74 6.73 6.72 6.68 6.64 6.63 7.37 7.04 11.68 9.83 9.38 8.93 8.74 9.18 9.47 9.95 10.28 10.21 10.21 9.51 9.77 10.33 11.45 10.67 11.89 13.87 17.03 14.45 17.18 12.22 12.85 11.61 10.51 12.46 11.49 13.22 13.32 14.15 13.79 14.96 15.50 17.06 18.42 9.62 9.41 9.75 10.11 10.16 11.17 12.70 14.87 11.19 10.46 13.61 15.29 19.79 12.17 14.39 16.53 18.12 15.76 14.11 13.92 12.76 11.69 11.58 13.2614.23 13.38 13.61 15.01 15.74 15.37 12.56 10.23 9.19 8.45 8.33 8.11 8.24 8.83 8.22 8.15 8.56 9.29 10.41 9.23 9.57 10.31 10.73 10.28 10.59 10.67 10.81 14.91 13.98 11.70 12.25 12.67 14.88 14.09 18.87 19.39 19.43 18.47 16.61 15.5017.58 13.70 12.43 11.22 10.52 9.99 9.57 9.05 8.76 12.00 10.93 13.66 14.29 8.03 8.23 9.43 8.97 8.74 8.33 9.85 9.65 10.21 Marypark Road Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Stone Wall 1.2m Stone Wall 1.2m Stn : AP1 E : 237565.876 N : 673477.898 Z : 6.879 Stn : AP2 E : 237545.414 N : 673469.159 Z : 6.610 Stn : AP3 E : 237556.899 N : 673453.231 Z : 11.592 Property Boundary Marker Property Boundary Marker 900MM DIA 1300MM DIA Stn : AP4 E : 237590.425 N : 673451.715 Z : 10.928 Rock Face Rock Face Rock Face Rock Face Post and Wire Fencing 1.1m Overhead Line Dilapidated Metal Railing 1.1m Trees Trees Grass Grass GrassLP LP TP AP2 6.610 AP1 6.879 AP3 11.592 AP4 10.928 9.54 9.18 9.40 9.15 9.12 8.96 8.81 8.78 8.64 8.61 7.08 6.98 7.09 7.11 7.02 7.29 6.99 6.78 6.80 6.74 6.70 6.65 6.68 6.59 6.57 6.62 6.64 6.72 6.68 6.94 6.96 6.74 6.73 6.72 6.68 6.64 6.63 7.37 7.04 6.98 11.68 9.83 9.38 8.93 8.74 9.18 9.47 9.95 10.28 10.21 10.21 9.51 9.77 10.33 11.45 10.67 11.89 13.87 17.03 14.45 17.18 12.22 12.85 11.61 10.51 12.46 11.49 13.22 13.32 14.15 13.79 14.96 15.50 17.06 18.42 9.62 9.41 9.75 10.11 10.16 11.17 12.70 14.87 11.19 10.46 13.61 15.29 19.79 12.17 14.39 16.53 18.12 15.76 14.11 13.92 12.76 11.69 11.58 13.2614.23 13.38 13.61 15.01 15.74 15.37 12.56 10.23 9.19 8.45 8.33 8.11 8.24 8.83 8.22 8.15 8.56 9.29 10.41 9.23 9.57 10.31 10.73 10.28 10.59 10.67 10.81 14.91 13.98 11.70 12.25 12.67 14.88 14.09 18.87 19.39 19.43 18.47 16.61 15.5017.58 13.70 12.43 11.22 10.52 9.99 9.57 9.05 8.76 12.00 10.93 13.66 14.29 8.03 8.23 9.43 8.97 8.74 8.33 9.85 9.65 10.21 Marypark Road Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Dense Vegetation Post and Wire Fencing 1.1m Stone Wall 1.2m Stone Wall 1.2m Stn : AP1 E : 237565.876 N : 673477.898 Z : 6.879 Stn : AP2 E : 237545.414 N : 673469.159 Z : 6.610 Stn : AP3 E : 237556.899 N : 673453.231 Z : 11.592 Property Boundary Marker Property Boundary Marker 900MM DIA 1300MM DIA Stn : AP4 E : 237590.425 N : 673451.715 Z : 10.928 Rock Face Rock Face Rock Face Rock Face Post and Wire Fencing 1.1m Overhead Line Dilapidated Metal Railing 1.1m Dilapidated Metal Railing 1.1m Trees Trees Grass Grass Grass new opening in wall NORTH Marypark House shared access bins Notes: 1. This drawing is the property of Ingram Architecture & Design Limited and must not be disclosed, loaned or copied without the written permission of Ingram Architecture & Design 2. All sizes in millimetres 3. Do not scale from drawings 4. Any discrepancies to be notified to client/architect immediately 5. All sizes to be checked on site Feb 221:200@A1 - Existing & Proposed Arthur Macmillan Marypark Road 1720(2-)03 Block Plan revision INGRAM A r c h i t e c t u r e & D e s i g n drawing scale project client date revnumber 227 Ingram Street Glasgow G1 1DA 0141 221 5191 getus@ingramarchitecture.co.uk www.ingramarchitecture.co.uk A - - 0 1 Proposed Housing bins 2 3 4 5 10 25 METRES SITEPLAN AS EXISTING 1:200 SITEPLAN AS PROPOSED 1:200 Plot 1 previously granted Permission in Principle 19/0516/PP
Page 16
No embedded text on this page.
Page 17
No embedded text on this page.
Page 18
No embedded text on this page.
Page 19
No embedded text on this page.
Page 20
No embedded text on this page.
Page 21
No embedded text on this page.
Page 22
International House, Hamilton International Park, Stanley Boulevard, Hamilton, G72 0BN www.terrenus.co.uk Directors: William Hume Company Reg. No. SC464672 MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Report No.: 1800-200 Version: FINAL Revision: - Issue Date: 24th September 2019 Authors: RA/WH
Page 23
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN SITE SUMMARY INFORMATION Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc Name of Site: Marypark Road, Langbank Ordnance Survey Grid Reference: NS 37598 73469 Site Address: Marypark Road, Langbank, Renfrewshire PA14 6UT Local Authority: Renfrewshire Council Current Site Use: Wooded overgrown land Proposed Site Use: Residential Development Area (hectares): 0.1 ha approx. On site buildings: No current buildings Type of Investigation: Level 2 Flood Risk Assessment
Page 24
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................ 1 1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 PROPOSED SITE END-USE ....................................................................................................... 1 1.5 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT ...................................................................................................... 1 2 SITE DETAILS ......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 DATA SOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 2 2.3 SITE NEIGHBOURS .................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 GEOLOGICAL SETTING ........................................................................................................... 3 2.5 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE............................................................................................... 3 2.5.1 SEPA Flood Map ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.6 RIVER CLYDE FLOOD MODELLING .................................................................................... 5 2.7 GROUNDWATER ......................................................................................................................... 5 3 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................ 6 3.1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 FLUVIAL FLOOD RISK .............................................................................................................. 6 3.3 SURFACE WATER ....................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 LOCAL DRAINAGE ..................................................................................................................... 6 3.5 COASTAL FLOODING ............................................................................................................... 7 3.6 GROUNDWATER RISE .............................................................................................................. 7 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 8 4.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 8 4.2 DEVELOPMENT AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................... 8 4.3 EFFECTS ON SITE NEIGHBOURS .......................................................................................... 8 4.4 OVERALL FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION .................................................... 8
Page 25
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc Figures Fig 1 - Site Location Fig 2 – Additional Survey Works Fig 3 – Overland Flow Pathways Fig 4 –Catchment Analysis Photographic Plates
Page 26
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The development of a parcel of land at the eastern extent of Finlaystone House Estate, south of Marypark Road, Langbank is currently under consideration by Arthur MacMillan. In order to meet the requirements of the Planning process, Terrenus Land & Water Ltd were approached by Arthur MacMillan, to undertake a flood risk assessment for the site. 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF INVESTIGATION The principal aim of the assessment is to develop an understanding of the flood risk to the site and the proposed development. Consideration of feasible mitigation measures if required also forms part of the investigation. 1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY The following tasks were undertaken during the course of this investigation: Collation of data; Site walkover inspection; Assessment of data; Undertake a qualitative assessment of the potential impacts of and constraints to the proposed layout; and Production of an Interpretative Report. 1.4 PROPOSED SITE END-USE It is understood that the proposed development will entail the construction of a single residential dwelling with access off Marypark Road. Proposed layout plans were not available at the time of writing this report. 1.5 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT Terrenus Land & Water Ltd. has prepared this report for the sole use of the Client, in accordance with generally accepted consulting practice and for the intended purpose as stated in the related contract agreement. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. Should any third party wish to use or rely upon the contents of the report, written approval must be sought from Terrenus Land & Water Ltd; a charge may be levied against such approval. To the best of our knowledge, information contained in this report is accurate at the date of issue. There may be conditions pertaining at the site not disclosed by the study, which might have a bearing on the recommendations provided if such conditions were known. We have, however, used our professional judgement in attempting to limit this during the assessment. It is important therefore that these implications be clearly recognised when the findings of this study are being interpreted. In addition, this should be borne in mind if this report is used without further confirmatory investigation after a significant delay.
Page 27
Marypark Road, Langbank Flood Risk Assessment For Arthur MacMillan Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc Page 2 of 9 2 SITE DETAILS 2.1 DATA SOURCES The following data sources were consulted during the course of the Flood Risk Assessment: Client supplied information; SEPA Flood Maps; British Geological Survey Interactive Map (Geology of Britain Viewer); Publicly available on-line aerial imagery and mapping; Publicly available on-line historic maps; River Clyde Flood Management Strategy, Hydrodynamic Modelling Report- Halcrow /Fairhurst; and Available additional information including site specific topographic survey of salient points. 2.2 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION The site is centred around National Grid Reference (NGR) NS 37598 73469 and is shown on Figure 1 in the Appendix. Publicly available local maps and site specific topographic survey information were combined with information obtained during the site walkover to form the basis of the understanding of the site topography and surrounding area. A site walkover inspection was undertaken on the 17th September 2019 and forms the basis of the following description. A photographic record of the site visit is included in the Appendix to this report. The site forms an irregular shaped plot of land covering approximately 0.1ha of land to the south of Langbank Road in the west of Langbank, Renfrewshire. The site is bound to the north by a stonewall along Marypark Road, to the east by a stonewall and fence to the adjacent property of Marypark House, to the west by a dilapidated metal fence and to the south is constrained by a steep rock outcrop. The site slopes down to the north from the base of the rocky outcrop towards Marypark Road. The area is heavily overgrown with many mature trees and rhododendron bushes (photo 1 and 2). The site forms the eastern extent of Finlaystone House Estate which lies 1km to the west. There is some rubble and metal sheeting present at the site which may be associated with the former building that occupied the site. There is a gap in the stone wall located on the northern boundary that has a wooden fence across and was formerly a gateway. Due to the dense tree cover at the site it was difficult to carry out a comprehensive topographic survey at the site. The relevant salient points that were able to be determined are shown on Fig 2 included in the Appendix. The topographic survey information together with Ordnance Survey information has been used to provide information on ground levels in the vicinity of the site. There is a rocky outcrop located on the southern boundary of the site which is approximately 10m high. The ground levels at the top of this outcrop are around 25mOD and at the base are approximately 15mOD. At the southern corner of the site there is a cleft in the cliff face where a watercourse is present discharging from the ground above. At the base of the cliff the watercourse enters an old stone culvert.
Page 28
Marypark Road, Langbank Flood Risk Assessment For Arthur MacMillan Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc Page 3 of 9 The ground surface of the site falls approximately 8m from the base of the cliff face towards Marypark Road which lies at around 6.8mOD in the vicinity of the site. The central part of the site is relatively flat lying where the former building occupied the site. Marypark Road falls gently to the east and west from the site and lies approximately 2 to 3m above the adjacent A8 dual carriageway. The duel carriageway itself lies at around 4mOD in the vicinity of the site. A review of on-line historic maps shows that on the first edition Ordnance Survey sheet dated 1858 the site comprises land belonging to Finlaystone House Estate with the eastern boundary identified and the cliff face on the southern boundary of the site. A railway line located to the north of the site. The 1897 edition records Marypark House being constructed together with Marypark Road. A well is identified at the base of the cliff 75m to the east of the site. The 1914 edition identifies the boundaries of the site being a separate parcel of land. A watercourse is identified ‘rising’ 150m south of the site and flowing towards the cliff face where it terminates. A well is recorded adjacent to Marypark House at the base of the cliff. The 1958 edition records little change however the 1968 edition records an alteration in the layout of the A8 and Marypark Road with a new crossing point beneath the railway line further to the south. A building is shown present on the southern part of the site which is again recorded on the 1971 edition. The 1977 edition records the building at the site to be no longer present with the adjacent A8 widened into a dual carriageway with little change shown on the most recent 1994 edition. 2.3 SITE NEIGHBOURS To the south and west the site is bordered by open ground, which in the west comprises woodland belonging to the Finlaystone House Estate. To the north is Marypark Road and an embankment down to the A8 dual carriageway beyond which lies a railway line and the southern banks of the River Clyde estuary. To the east is Marypark House and other dwellings located along Marypark Road. 2.4 GEOLOGICAL SETTING The superficial deposits are likely to be thin or absent beneath the site due to the steeply sloping nature of the topography of the site. A southwest to northeast trending geological fault crosses the southern part of the site along the line of the cliff face present in the southern part of the site. North of this fault the bedrock comprises sedimentary units of the Inverclyde Group which are Carboniferous in age. South of the fault there is igneous bedrock, also of the Carboniferous. 2.5 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE The Ordnance Survey sheet records an unnamed watercourse terminating at the southern boundary of the site which rises some 150m to the south of the site. A well is also indicated behind Marypark House. The watercourse was identified on the Ordnance Survey sheets at the same time as the building of Marypark House; the culvert at the base of the cliff into which the watercourse sinks may have been constructed at this time. During the site walkover there was no defined channel noted in the land above the cliff face (plate 3), only a boggy area was noted with a change of vegetation approximately 100m south of the site (plate 4). A small amount of water was noted to be flowing down a cleft in the cliff face (plate 5) and entering the culvert located on the southern boundary of the site at the base of the cliff (plate 6). At the location of the culvert there is an old stone trough approximately 900mm wide and 1500mm long (3 foot by 5 foot) surrounding the culvert. The culvert inlet is located in the base of the trough at the northern end and is 230mm in diameter and has an opening on both the vertical and horizontal face (plate 8). The culvert is protected by an metal grill as is the top of the southern wall of the trough and also over the inlet of the culvert.
Page 29
Marypark Road, Langbank Flood Risk Assessment For Arthur MacMillan Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc Page 4 of 9 Immediately downstream and on the west side of the stone trough, there is a low wall approximately 200mm high and the trace of a fenceline (plates 9 and 10). This relict feature appears to follow the original land boundary and extends between the northwest corner of the trough and the existing boundary fence to the neighbouring property. This indicates that the stone trough and culvert are located on and to the east of the site boundary and not as far west as shown on the current Ordnance Survey map. In addition, the line of the watercourse recorded on the Ordnance sheet is not considered representative. Downstream of the stone trough a 400mm high concrete wall topped with angular cobbles has been more recently constructed to the rear of Marypark House (plate 11). This wall is orientated northwest to southeast and appears to have been constructed to prevent any water entering the rear garden of Marypark House in the event of a blockage of the culvert and overtopping of the stone trough. The gardens of Marypark House generally lie at a lower level than that of the site itself and without this cut off wall overland flow would preferentially flow through the neighbour’s garden of Marypark House. Anecdotal evidence indicates that Scotland Transerv periodically clear out the culvert and surrounding area and a pile of angular gravel was noted adjacent to the culvert during the site walkover (plate 12). During the site walkover large blocks of rock were noted in the base of the cleft which had fallen from the cliff face and a large tree had fallen across the top of the cleft (plate 13). The outfall of the culvert was not determined during the site walkover however it is considered likely that it is connected with drainage infrastructure within Marypark Road or discharges directly into the River Clyde. During the site walkover no other seepages were noted along the base of the cliff within the site. The ground surface of the site is dry and firm. Slight seepages were noted issuing from the base of the embankment to the north of Marypark Road issuing onto the lower lying ground on adjacent footpaths (plates 14 and 15). Along the northern edge of Marypark Road, small channels at the sides of the road have been made (plates 16 and 17) to assist the drainage of Marypark Road. Limited drainage gulleys were noted along Marypark Road with a gulley located in front of Woodside View appearing to have been recently maintained (plate 18). Limited drainage gulleys were noted along the southern edge of the A8 dual carriageway, however several gulleys were noted adjacent to the central reservation located along the low point of the roadway beneath the railway bridge. 2.5.1 SEPA Flood Map The SEPA flood map does not show any likelihood of fluvial or coastal flooding within the site, however, surface water and coastal flooding potential is noted over the A8 to the north of the site. Furthermore, the minor watercourse to the south of the site has a catchment which is too small to be assessed fluvially by SEPA and is shown as a surface water flood potential along the eastern boundary of the site. SEPA makes the following statement about the Flood Map: “The river flood map was developed using a nationally consistent approach to producing flood hazard information, such as depth of water and speed of flow arising from river flooding. It is based on a two-dimensional flood modelling method applied across Scotland to all catchments greater than 3km2. The river flood map includes hydraulic structures and defences such as bridges, culverts and flood storage areas where appropriate information was available.
Page 30
Marypark Road, Langbank Flood Risk Assessment For Arthur MacMillan Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc Page 5 of 9 and The surface water flood map combines information on rainfall and sewer model outputs. It incorporates data from a national surface water study, a regional surface water study with increased resolution in selected areas and a Scottish Water sewer flooding assessment.” The flood map should be treated with caution and SEPA makes the following general comment: “The flood maps are designed to provide a community level assessment of flooding and its impacts. They model flooding at a national scale. As with any approach of this scale, there are limitations and assumptions made to enable modelling and a consistent approach to be applied across Scotland. Limitations arise from the data used to create the maps, the modelling techniques applied and the ability to incorporate datasets from local studies into a national approach.” Additional background details of the SEPA flood map can be found on the SEPA website: http://www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_maps.aspx 2.6 RIVER CLYDE FLOOD MODELLING The River Clyde Flood Management Strategy- Hydrodynamic Modelling Report – Flood Defence Levels for Design prepared by Halcrow and Fairhurst predicts water levels at ISIS cross sections that are taken along the route of the River Clyde. The relevant cross section contained within the report (SEC_117) is located close to the eastern boundary of the site. At this location the 1 in 200 year predicted water levels is 4.26mOD. The 1 in 200 year predicted water levels identify the Functional Flood Plain and the design level given in the report is + 20% Climate change and +0.7m freeboard. This gives a design level of 5.27mOD in this area of the River Clyde. 2.7 GROUNDWATER Local and Regional groundwater flow will be in line with the general landform to the north towards the River Clyde Estuary. Local groundwater will be perched and is likely to lie at the interface of the superficial deposits and the bedrock. A review of the SEPA River Basin Management Plan Interactive Map shows the regional groundwater body immediately to the south of the site to be the Langbank Groundwater Body and beneath the site itself to be the Greenock Groundwater Body. Groundwater flows and levels and groundwater quality in both these bodies are noted to be Good, with an overall classification of Good.
Page 31
Marypark Road, Langbank Flood Risk Assessment For Arthur MacMillan Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc Page 6 of 9 3 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT 3.1 GENERAL Flooding occurs when the amount of water arriving on land exceeds the capacity of the land to discharge that water (by infiltration, overland flow, groundwater rise or a failed drainage system). It can occur on any level or near-level areas of land but the main concern in inland areas is with land adjacent to watercourses (fluvial flooding) and the possibility of overland flow (surface water flooding). 3.2 FLUVIAL FLOOD RISK The site walkover has confirmed that the watercourse identified on the Ordnance Survey map is not a clearly defined channel and does not exist in the location shown on the map. In the vicinity of the southern extent of the site there is a cleft in the rockface that forms a conduit for water to flow from the higher ground above the site to the south over the rock face. At the base of this cleft there is a stone trough that collects the water and it is then culverted down the hillside. The line and extent of this culvert is not known. This culvert is protected by a metal grill to prevent blockages and it is understood that debris is periodically removed from the stone trough by Scotland Transerv. The minor watercourse has a catchment which is too small to be assessed fluvially by SEPA and is shown as a surface water flood potential along the eastern boundary of the site. A review of the Flood Estimation Handbook Web Service (FEH13) indicates that the catchment for the watercourse located to the south of the site is less than 0.5km2 and is therefore not recorded. Following the site walkover and a review of available topographic information and utilising the overland flow pathways, the catchment was determined. The extent of this catchment is interpreted to be 0.18km2 and is shown on Fig 4 included in the Appendix. An outline estimation for the minor watercourse indicates a peak flow of between 400l/s and 700l/s. The watercourse culvert is likely to be steeply sloping and has been calculated to have a capacity in the order of 200l/s and is thus undersized for the potential 200 year storm event. During the design storm overland flow will occur at the culvert in the south of the site, leading to a Medium to High risk of fluvial flooding at the site. Consideration of the overland flow route through the site is considered in Section 3.4 below. 3.3 SURFACE WATER A review of the SEPA Flood Map indicates a risk of surface water flooding along the A8 and also down the eastern boundary of the site. Potential surface water flow was assessed by utilising available topographic information, supplemented by the site walkover. The interpreted flow pathways are shown on Fig 3 included in the Appendix which indicates that surface water runoff within the site will generally be to the north towards Marypark Road, thereafter, will be to the west and east along Marypark Road and to the north down the embankment towards the A8 dual carriageway. The local landform indicates that the risk of surface water flooding within the site is Low to Medium according to Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). 3.4 LOCAL DRAINAGE During the site walkover, limited road drainage gullies were noted to be present in the vicinity of the site and rudimental drainage channels had been cut along the northern edge of Marypark Road. In addition, seepages were noted to be issuing from the embankment in front of the site down towards the A8.
Page 32
Marypark Road, Langbank Flood Risk Assessment For Arthur MacMillan Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc Page 7 of 9 A failure of the local road drainage system may lead to flood routing along Marypark Road and the A8 but the local topography indicates that any overland flow will be to the east and west and away from the site. Such a failure in road drainage will not impact the site and the site is considered to be at Little or No Risk of flooding from a failure in the local road drainage infrastructure. A failure of the watercourse culvert in the south of the site will lead to overtopping of the stone trough which would have historically flowed to the east and through the gardens of Marypark House. As noted in Section 2.5 above a low wall has been constructed to redirect any overland flow to the southwest and to the west of the eastern site boundary, through the site and onto Marypark Road. Given the current modification to the overland flow pathway the risk to the site from a failure of this culvert is considered to be Medium to High. 3.5 COASTAL FLOODING A review of the SEPA flood map shows that the site lies in close proximity to the flood plain of the River Clyde. The River Clyde Flood Management Strategy recommends a design level of 5.27mOD in this area of the River Clyde. Marypark Road at the site entrance lies at 6.8mOD with the site itself lying above this level. The site therefore lies in excess of 2.5m above the peak 1 in 200 year water level. Whilst it is noted that the RCFMS hydraulic model is currently being updated which may result in alterations to the estimated peak water level, the site entails a significant freeboard so that coastal flood risk is assessed to be Little to None according to Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). 3.6 GROUNDWATER RISE The underlying superficial deposits are likely to be thin or absent beneath the site and shallow groundwater may be present. No springs or seepages were noted along the base of the rockface. The local landform indicates that there is Little to No Risk of isolated ground water rise within the site.
Page 33
Marypark Road, Langbank Flood Risk Assessment For Arthur MacMillan Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc Page 8 of 9 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS For new developments, the acceptable risk of flooding should take into account various factors including risk to human health and the direct and indirect financial losses relating to flooding. For the proposed re-development of the site, the following general conclusions can be made: The site is at Medium to High risk of flooding from fluvial sources. There is Low to Medium risk of flooding as a result of surface water. There is Medium to High risk of flooding as a result of a failure in drainage infrastructure. The site is at Little or No risk from coastal flooding. There is Little or No risk of isolated groundwater rise occurring at the site. Dry pedestrian access and egress is maintained throughout the design storm event from Marypark Road. Emergency vehicular access along Marypark Road, should be possible throughout the design storm event. 4.2 DEVELOPMENT AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Consideration should be given in the proposed layout to include a maintenance wayleave along the eastern boundary of the site in order to enable the existing maintenance of the culvert to continue and maintain the existing overland flow route. Such a wayleave should be in the order of 2m wide and at least 0.5m deep. The bed should be vegetated in order to mimic the existing slope and prevent additional sheet flow. It is recommended that the existing ground level be raised within the central part of the site to mimic the ground levels along the eastern boundary. Final Floor Levels should be set at least 200mm above the final ground level. Discussions should be held at the earliest opportunity with Scotland Transerv in order to confirm the responsibilities for maintaining the culvert. The possibility of shallow perched groundwater below the site should be considered as part of the development. 4.3 EFFECTS ON SITE NEIGHBOURS The proposed development will have a neutral impact on any flooding and will not increase the flood risk to any site neighbours. 4.4 OVERALL FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION The Scottish Planning Policy notes that new developments should be free from significant flood risk from any source and that such development should not: materially increase the probability of flooding elsewhere; add to the area of land which requires protection by flood prevention measures; affect the ability of the functional flood plain to attenuate the effects of flooding by storing flood water; interfere detrimentally with the flow of water in the flood plain; or
Page 34
Marypark Road, Langbank Flood Risk Assessment For Arthur MacMillan Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc Page 9 of 9 compromise options for future river management. With the proposed wayleave constructed to maintain the existing overland flow pathways and the land raising at the site the proposed development will be at Little or No risk from flooding according to the SPP flood framework. Dry emergency pedestrian and emergency vehicular access is available to the site throughout the design storm event. It is concluded that the proposed development is feasible and is in broad accordance with the principles of the Scottish Planning Policy. -oo000oo- Terrenus Land & Water Ltd wishes to thank Arthur MacMillan for the opportunity to prepare this report and trust that it meets with your requirements. However, should you wish to discuss the contents of the report then please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Signed for and on behalf of Terrenus Land & Water Ltd William Hume Director
Page 35
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc APPENDIX
Page 36
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc FIGURES
Page 37
©2019 Microsoft. Image courtesy of Ordnance Survey Client: Arthur MacMillan Drawing Title: Site Location Plan International House, Hamilton International Park, Stanley Boulevard, Hamilton, G72 0BN www.terrenus.co.uk Project: Marypark Road, Langbank Date:19/09/2019 Figure 1 Grid Ref: NS 37598 73469 SCALE: N.T.S. DO NOT SCALE Site centred on NS 37598 73469
Page 38
Copyright: Imagery ©2019 Google, Imagery ©2019 Getmapping plc, Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky, Maxar Technologies, Map data ©2019 United Kingdom Client: Arthur MacMillan Figure Title: Additional Survey Works International House, Hamilton International Park, Stanley Boulevard, Hamilton, G72 0BN www.terrenus.co.uk Project: Marypark Road, Langbank Date: 18/09/2019 Figure 2 Grid Ref: NS 37598 73469 SCALE: N.T.S. DO NOT SCALE
Page 39
Copyright: Imagery ©2019 Google, Imagery ©2019 Getmapping plc, Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky, Maxar Technologies, Map data ©2019 United Kingdom Client: Arthur MacMillan Figure Title: Overland Flow Pathways International House, Hamilton International Park, Stanley Boulevard, Hamilton, G72 0BN www.terrenus.co.uk Project: Marypark Road, Langbank Date: 18/09/2019 Figure 3 Grid Ref: NS 37598 73469 SCALE: N.T.S. DO NOT SCALE
Page 40
Copyright: Imagery ©2019 Google, Imagery ©2019 Getmapping plc, Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky, Maxar Technologies, Map data ©2019 United Kingdom Client: Arthur MacMillan Figure Title: Catchment Analysis International House, Hamilton International Park, Stanley Boulevard, Hamilton, G72 0BN www.terrenus.co.uk Project: Marypark Road, Langbank Date: 18/09/2019 Figure 4 Grid Ref: NS 37598 73469 SCALE: N.T.S. DO NOT SCALE
Page 41
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Z:\Jobs\Jobs L&W\1800-1899\1800 - Arthur MacMillan\1800-200 - Marypark Road FRA\7 - Reports\1800-200 - Marypark Road, Langbank FRA Report.doc PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES
Page 42
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Plate 1 – General view of site looking east from base of cliff. Plate 2 – General view of site looking north from base of cliff.
Page 43
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Plate 3 – General view looking north towards site. Plate 4 – Boggy area to south of site above cliff.
Page 44
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Plate 5 – View south of cleft in cliff face. Plate 6– Culvert at base of cliff.
Page 45
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Plate 7 – Culvert at base of cliff looking north. Plate 8 – Looking down on culvert located at northern end of stone trough.
Page 46
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Plate 9 – Looking north along relict fenceline located between stone trough and boundary with Marypark House. Plate 10 – Relict stonewall and fenceline.
Page 47
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Plate 11 – Concrete wall constructed to rear of Marypark House to deflect water flow in case of blockage. Plate 12 – Mound of stones assumed to be removed during clearance of culvert.
Page 48
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Plate 13 – Fallen rocks and tree in vicinity of cleft. Plate 14 – Seepage from embankment onto footpath adjacent to A8.
Page 49
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Plate 15 – Seepage from embankment onto footpath adjacent to A8. Plate 16– Pathway cut into northern side of Marypark Road to assist drainage down the embankment.
Page 50
MARYPARK ROAD, LANGBANK FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ARTHUR MACMILLAN Plate 17– Pathway cut into northern side of Marypark Road to assist drainage down the embankment. Plate 18 – Area cleared around manhole located in Marypark Road.
Page 51
Tree Survey BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction-Recommendations Land to the South of Marypark Road Finlaystone Estate 29th January 2022 Prepared for Finlaystone Estate Prepared by C. A. Calvey, P.T.I., Tech.Cert (Arbor.A), Cert.Arb (RFS), BA Hons. Principle Arboricultural Consultant Ayrshire Tree Surgeons Ltd
Page 52
CONTENTS Introduction & Survey Findings Summary Page 1 Map: Site Location Plan (Scale 1: 2500) Page 2 Map: Tree Positions Plan (Scale 1:250) Page 3 Photographs Page 4 Tree Schedule Pages 5 - 7 Tree Survey Assessment criteria Pages 8 - 9 Report Limitations Pages 10 - 11 Appendix 1: Project Contact Details Page 12 Appendix 2: References Page 13
Page 53
Page 1 Introduction Finlaystone Estate instructed the Arboricultural survey conducted on 25th January 2022 for a small plot of land to the south of Marypark Road, Finlaystone Estate. Trees were assessed in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction-Recommendations. Christopher Calvey is an independent arboriculturist and the report presents an impartial assessment of the tree stock. The report is based on visual inspections conducted from ground level for the purpose of categorizing trees in relation to design, demolition and construction and does not provide reliable data on tree safety. This report is not, nor should it be taken to be, a full or thorough assessment of the health and safety of trees on or adjacent to the site, and therefore it is recommended that detailed tree inspections of retained trees are undertaken on a regular basis with the express purpose of complying with the landowner’s duty of care and satisfying health and safety requirements. Please refer to Report Limitations on pages 10-11. The authority of this report ceases within one year from the date of the survey or following severe weather occurrences which supersede the current validity of the report. Survey Findings The survey area is within an unused corner of the estate and trees are entirely self-seeded specimens surviving amongst areas of invasive rhododendron. The plot falls within the SINC (non-statutory ‘Site of Importance for Nature Conservation’) which covers the wider Estate. Due to natural degradation and colonisation by non-native invasive species the biological value of the plot is very low. There are eleven ‘C’ low quality trees within the site boundary and one ‘B’ moderate quality young cherry tree. Trees neighbouring the site to the east and south are included in the tree survey to measure their root protection areas in proximity to the site boundary. Trees 836, 837 and 838 will cause structural damage to the stone boundary wall if left in situ and recommended for removal irrespective of any future proposals for the site. Rhododendron ponticum is recommended for eradication. Mature Ash tree 835 is at stage 3 of Chalara Ash dieback disease and in terminal decline. Using the Report Trees are identified by a numbered metal tree tag attached to the tree which corresponds to the site plan and tree schedule. Tree maps show the position of trees, crown spread and maximum rooting zone illustrated by grey dodecagons. The crown spread of a tree is identified by a coloured circle and illustrates: 1. Green for ‘A’ (High quality trees) – not applicable 2. Mid blue for ‘B’ (Moderate quality trees) 3. Grey for ‘C’ (Low quality trees) 4. Dark Red for ‘U’ (trees ‘Unsuitable’ for retention in the current land use).
Page 54
Page 2
Page 55
Page 3
Page 56
Page 4 Tree 824 Suppressed with extensive bark wounds Tree 827 Basal wounding and bleeding canker. Very low quality Tree 836 threatens wall Trees 830 -832 south boundary Hazel Shrub 829 Tree 828
Page 57
Page 5
Page 58
Page 6
Page 59
Page 7
Page 60
Page 8 Tree Survey Assessment Criteria The tree survey is undertaken in accordance with a range of criteria listed in BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction-Recommendations. Quality Category Category A: (HIGH quality, trees with particular merit with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years). Category B: (MODERATE quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years). Category C: (LOW quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years). Category U: (UNSUITABLE quality, in such condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use. Life expectancy less than 10 years). Sub Categories: The BS 5837 subcategories: 1 - mainly Arboricultural Qualities, 2 - mainly landscape qualities, 3 - Cultural qualities. Tree Condition Defects or diseases and relevant observations have been recorded under condition of Crown, Stem, Basal area and Physiological condition. It is important to appreciate that in BS5837 criteria only basic condition categories are recorded and the inspection process does not constitute a tree safety survey. The overall condition of a tree has been referred to as one of the following: • Good: A sound tree needing little if any attention at the time of survey. • Fair: A tree with minor but rectifiable defects or in the early stages of stress, from which it may recover. The tree may have structural weaknesses which might result in failure. • Poor: A tree with clear and obvious major structural and or physiological defects or stressed such that it would be expensive to retain and necessarily requires to be inspected on a regular basis for safety purposes. • Decline: Irreversible with death inevitable in the short term. • Dead. To be removed unless stated to the contrary. Age Class Age Class and Life Expectancy are clearly related but the distinction is necessary due to the variation among tree species. Knowledge of the longevity of individual species has been applied to determine the relative age and life expectancy categories in which trees are placed. Age class is classified as: • Y: Young trees up to 15 years of age. • SM: Semi-mature trees less than 1/3rd life expectancy. • EM: Early Mature trees between 1/3rd and ½ of life expectancy. • M: Mature trees between ½ and 2/3rd of life expectancy. • LM: Late mature - A senescent or moribund specimen with a limited safe useful life expectancy. • V: Veteran status – a tree of significant age and character such that even in poor condition the tree has a value for retention for arboricultural or ecological reasons.
Page 61
Page 9 Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) The survey schedule identifies a Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) for each tree. This is a subjective assessment of the number of years that the tree can be expected to survive without deteriorating to the extent that safety is compromised. The estimated remaining contribution is given in ranges of years (<10, 10 to 20, 20 to 40, >40). It is important to note that SULE does not in any way suggest that regular inspection and remedial work can be ignored. SULE does not take into account routine management that will be required to deal with minor structural or cultural problems, or damage that may arise from climatic or other physical intervention. The SULE value given for each tree reflects the following opinion based on current tree condition and environmental considerations: <10 years. The tree has very limited prospects, due to terminal decline or major structural problems. Its removal should be planned within the next 10 years, unless immediate removal is recommended for safety reasons. 10-20 years. The tree has obvious structural or physiological problems that cannot be rectified, and decline is likely to continue. Removal or major tree surgery work may be necessary, or the species is approaching its normal life expectancy and decline due to senescence can be expected within this timeframe. 20-40 years. Relatively minor defects may exist that are likely to increase safety risks or general tree health over a longer period of time. At this stage it is not possible to fully predict the impact of such defects. Or the species is approaching its normal life expectancy and due to senescence decline can be expected within this timeframe. >40. There is currently no health or structural problems evident, and the tree can be expected to survive safely for 40 or more years.
Page 62
Page 10 Report limitations 1. The survey is only concerned with the arboriculture aspects of the site. 2. The report is based on visual inspections conducted from ground level with the purpose of categorising trees in relation to design, demolition and construction and does not provide reliable data on tree safety. This report is not, nor should it be taken to be, a full or thorough assessment of the health and safety of trees on or adjacent to the site, and therefore it is recommended that detailed tree inspections of retained trees are undertaken on a regular basis with the express purpose of complying with the landowner’s duty of care and satisfying health and safety requirements. 3. The statements made in this report do not take account of the effects of extremes of climate, vandalism, or accident, whether physical, chemical or fire. 4. The authority of this report ceases within one year from the date of the survey or when any site conditions change, soil levels are altered near trees, tree work undertaken, or following severe weather occurrences which supersede the current validity of the report. 5. The validity, accuracy and findings of this report will be directly related to the accuracy of the information made available prior to and during the inspection process. No checking of independent third-party data will be undertaken. 6. Any observations that are made in regard to the condition of built structures and hydrology are from a laypersons view. The legal property on which the trees stand is not assessed. 7. The report contains Visual Tree Inspections undertaken from ground level. Visual inspections relate only to those parts of the tree which are visible. Roots are not inspected and during summer when trees are in leaf parts of the canopy may not be visible. Where a tree or parts of a tree could not be inspected due to epicormic growth, ivy or restricted access, liability is not accepted. Only the visible pathogens are recorded; this does not confirm the absence of other pathogens but that no fungal fruiting bodies, or other signs, were visible at the time of the survey. Ayrshire Tree Surgeons cannot accept any liability in connection with the following: I. A tree which has not been subject to a full and thorough inspection. II. For any part of a tree that is not visible from the ground near the tree. III. Where excavations have taken place within the rooting area of a tree. IV. Branch or limb failure resulting from conditions associated with Summer Branch Drop. V. The effect of extreme weather events, climate, vandalism or accident, whether physical, chemical or fire.
Page 63
Page 11 VI. Where tree surgery work is not carried out in accordance with current good practice 8. Felling licenses are the responsibility of the tree owner. The Forestry Commission controls tree felling by issuing felling licences. In any calendar quarter, you may fell up to 5 cubic metres without a licence if no more than two cubic metres are sold. Timber volumes are not assessed. 9. Planning restrictions applying to tree works remain the responsibility of the tree owners. 10. No failsafe guarantees can be given regarding tree safety because the lightweight construction principles of nature dictate a natural failure rate of intact trees. Trees are living organisms and can decline in health rapidly due to biotic and abiotic influences. Therefore, failure of intact trees can never be ruled out due to the laws and forces of nature. 11. This report has been prepared exclusively by the Ayrshire Tree Surgeons Ltd for the ‘Client’ and no responsibility can be accepted for actions taken by any third party arising from their interpretation of the information contained in this document. No other party may rely on the report and if they do, then they rely upon it at their own risk. Christopher Calvey - Ayrshire Tree Surgeons Ltd
Page 64
Page 12 Appendix 1: Project Contact Details Arthur MacMillan Finlaystone Country Estate PA14 6TJ arthur@finlaystone.com Tel. 07802 254056 Project Arboriculturalist Christopher Calvey, Ayrshire Tree Surgeons Ltd North Hourat Farm, Kilbirnie, Ayrshire KA25 7LJ Tel. 01505 681898 Mobile: Mo. 07920 763132 E-mail: chris@ayrshiretreesurgeons.co.uk
Page 65
Page 13 Appendix 2: References British Standards Institute. (2012). Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations BS5837:2012BSI, London. British Standards Institute. (2010). Recommendations for Tree Work BS 3998:2010 BSI, London. Tree Preservation Orders, A Guide to the Law and Good Practice (2005). Department for Communities and Local Government Lonsdale D. (1999). Research for Amenity Trees No 7: Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management, HMSO, London. Mattheck & Breloer H. (1994). Research for Amenity Trees No.4: The Body Language of Trees, HMSO, London. NHBC Standards (2007) Chapter 4.2 ‘Building Near Trees’. National House-Building Council. NJUG 4 Guidelines for the planning, installation and maintenance of utility apparatus in proximity to trees. Issued 16 November 2007. STROUTS R.G. & WINTER T.G. (1984), Diagnosis of ill health in trees, HMSO Publications, London SHIGO A.L. (1991), Modern Arboriculture, Shigo and Trees Associates Hazards from Trees – A General Guide ISBN 0-85538-514-6 Tree Felling – Getting Permission. Forestry Commission and free to download from their website www.forestry.gov.uk Trees and the Law ISBN 0-900978-15-5 Published by the Arboricultural Association Tel: 01794 68717 Institute of Chartered Foresters Tel: 0121 225 2705
Page 66
www.wildsurveys.co.uk St James Business Centre, Linwood Road, Paisley, PA3 3AT Telephone 0141 887 2770 Mobile 07788 826 480 Fax 0871 5030923 Ecological Constraints Survey & Aerial Tree Survey Finlaystone, Langbank For Arthur MacMillan FINAL 11th January 2022
Page 67
ii www.wildsurveys.co.uk OP08-01-20-V2 Quality Management Project No: WS3608.21 Prepared by: Chloe Rossi-Easto 11/01/22 Signed by: Reviewed by: Morna McBean 3/02/22 Signed by: Version No. Date Comments / Changes Changed by 2 10/02/22 As per requested by the client, amendments have been made within the report. CR 3 16/02/22 As per requested by the client, amendments have been made within the report. CR 00/00/00 Contacts Chloe Rossi-Easto E: M: 0 NatureScot Caspian House Mariner Court Clydebank Business Park Clydebank G81 2NR T:0131 314 6750 www.nature.scot The report is confidential to the Client and Wild Surveys Ltd accepts no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to whom this report may be made known. The material in this report has been produced for the exclusive use of the Client and shall not be distributed or made available to any other company or person without the knowledge and written consent of the Client. The report has been prepared by Wild Surveys Ltd. No individual is personally liable in connection with the preparation of this report. By receiving this report and acting on it, the client or any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract, tort, for breach of statutory duty or otherwise.
Page 68
iii www.wildsurveys.co.uk OP08-01-20-V2 Table of Contents Introduction 1 1.1 Project Objectives 1 1.2 Site Location 1 Methodology 2 2.1 Desk Study 2 Planning Policies 2 2.2 Ecological Constraints 2 2.3 Protected Species 3 2.4 Limitations 6 Results 7 3.1 Desk study 7 3.2 Ecological Constraints Survey 7 Discussion and Recommendations 9 4.1 Discussion 9 4.2 Recommendations 9 References 11 Appendix 1 – Site Location and Photographs 12 Appendix 2 – Summary of Relevant Policy and Legislation 21 Appendix 3 - European Protected Species and the Law 23 Appendix 4 – Wildlife and Countryside Act Species and the Law 25 Appendix 5 – Badgers and the Law 26 Appendix 6 – Birds and the Law 27 Appendix 7 – Guidance on Optimal Survey Periods 28 Appendix 8 - Desk Study Search Results 29 Appendix 9 – Constraints Plan 33
Page 69
Ecological Constraints Survey and Preliminary Roost Assessment – Finlaystone, Marypark Road, Finlaystone iv www.wildsurveys.co.uk OP08-01-20-V2 Executive Summary Wild Surveys Ltd was commissioned by Author MacMillan to undertake an ecological constraints survey and desk study at Finlaystone, Marypark Road (National Grid reference NS3759273466). The aim of the survey was to describe the broad habitats on site and to identify any potential ecological constraints within or adjacent to the survey area and provide mitigation and recommendations for further survey as appropriate in order to inform planning prior to the development of residential houses on the site. A desk study was undertaken to review information available within the public domain. Publicly available databases, local wildlife groups and our own internal records were consulted for historical evidence of protected species in and around the site. In addition, a walkover survey was carried out on 11th January 2022 by experienced ecologists to identify the broad habitat types present as well as any field signs of protected or notable species. An aerial tree survey was then carried out on the 25th January 2022 to inspect suitable features for roosting bats within trees on the site. From the desk study it was found that there are four Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation found within 2km of the site boundary. The site lies on the extreme edge of The Finlaystone Estate, immediately adjacent to the village of Langbank. There are 15 woodlands listed within the Ancient Woodland Inventory which lie within 2km of the site boundary. The closest ancient woodland is located within the site boundary, Wood ID: 26708. The Inner Clyde is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Protection Area, a Ramsar as well as a RSPB Reserve, which located 80m north of the site, with a main road and railway line separating the designated sites from the site boundary. Brucehill-Inland Cliff is a Local Nature Conservation Site which is located approximately 1.6km north of the site boundary. There are records of soprano pipistrelle, brown long eared and hedgehog found within 2km of the site boundary. The survey area has habitat suitable for badger, nesting birds and foraging, commuting and roosting bats. No field signs of any protected species was found during the survey. Two trees were found to be suitable for use by roosting bats. As there was no current or historical evidence of use by bats these features were soft blocked with organic material.
Page 70
Ecological Constraints Survey and Preliminary Roost Assessment – Finlaystone, Marypark Road, Finlaystone Project number: WS3608.21 1 www.wildsurveys.co.uk 11 January 2022 OP08-01-20-V4 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Objectives 1.1.1 Wild Surveys Ltd (WSL) was commissioned by Arthur MacMillan to undertake an ecological constraints survey, an aerial tree survey and desk study at Finlaystone, (hereafter referred to as ‘the site’), Marypark Road, Langbank (National Grid Reference NS3759273466). This report presents the results of the survey carried out. The survey area included the area within the site boundary and an additional 30m buffer around the site boundary. Site location can be found within Appendix 1. 1.1.2 The aim of the survey was to provide a broad description of the existing habitat types within the survey area and to determine the presence and location of any ecologically valuable areas and habitat types with the potential to support protected species in order to inform planning prior to the development of a residential property. 1.1.3 Following the ecological constraints survey which was undertaken on the 11th January 2022, an aerial tree survey was carried out on two trees which were identified as having suitable features for use by roosting bats on the 25th January 2022. 1.1.4 This report will therefore identify any ecological constraints with regards to potential development and highlight the need for further survey work and mitigation measures, where appropriate. 1.2 Site Location 1.2.1 The site is located adjacent to the village of Langbank, east of Port Glasgow. The site is located within the extreme edge of the Finlaystone Country Park. With ancient woodland directly south of the site. Further south is agricultural land with areas of woodland. Gleddoch Golf course is located to the southeast of the site. The River Clyde is located north of the site. The location of the survey and photographs are shown in Appendix 1.
Page 71
Ecological Constraints Survey and Preliminary Roost Assessment – Finlaystone, Marypark Road, Finlaystone Project number: WS3608.21 2 www.wildsurveys.co.uk 11 January 2022 OP08-01-20-V4 2 Methodology 2.1 Desk Study 2.1.1 A data search was undertaken by WSL to review information available within the public domain. Publicly available databases, local wildlife groups and our own internal records were consulted for historical evidence of protected species in and around the site. Listings in Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL) and Local BAP was also checked. This information was gathered to identify the status of these protected species within 2 km of the site. 2.1.2 A search using NatureScot sitelink, the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan was carried out to discover any statutory or non-statutory designated sites within 2 km. These would include: ▪ Local Nature Reserve (LNR); ▪ Local Authority designated site, e.g. Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC); ▪ Wildlife Nature Reserve (Scottish Wildlife Trust, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, etc.); ▪ Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI); ▪ Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); ▪ Special Area for Conservation (SAC); and, ▪ Special Protection Area (SPA). 2.1.3 This information was gathered to identify the status of protected species within 2 km of the site, determine the Zone of Influence (ZoI) (survey area) that may be required for further surveys. In addition, the information was used to identify potential impacts on bats which may result from the proposed redevelopment. Planning Policies 2.1.4 The policies set out below are those relevant to nature conservation and include those from the Local Development Plan. The Local Development Plan was adopted by Renfrewshire Council on 2021 and is the land use plan which sets out the policies and proposals which the Council wishes to use to guide development across the area up to date and beyond. 2.1.5 In respect to the above, regard has been made to the following policies: ▪ Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2014 (Scottish Government, 2014); ▪ Planning Advice Note 60: Planning for Natural Heritage (Scottish Government, 2000); and, ▪ Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (2021): - Policy ENV1: Greenbelt; and - Policy ENV2: Natural Heritage. 2.2 Ecological Constraints 2.2.1 An ecological constraints survey was carried out on the 11 January 2022 to establish broad habitat types and their ecological importance. The survey also aimed to identify suitability for a number of protected species in order to make recommendations for avoidance, mitigation
Page 72
Ecological Constraints Survey and Preliminary Roost Assessment – Finlaystone, Marypark Road, Finlaystone Project number: WS3608.21 3 www.wildsurveys.co.uk 11 January 2022 OP08-01-20-V4 and for any further survey effort, if required. A summary of relevant policy and guidance in Scotland can be found in Appendix 2, with the legal context in relation to protected species and habitats found in Appendix 3 - 6. The survey area included the area within the site boundary and an additional 30m buffer around the site boundary. 2.2.2 Habitats on site consists of an area of semi improved grassland and rhododendron (Rhododendron sp.) with broadleaved woodland and a steep rocky incline to the south of the site. Given the habitat types on site particular attention was given to the potential presence of the following species; bats (Chiroptera), badger (Meles meles) and habitat suitable for use by nesting birds. Methodologies are detailed below for each of these species. There is no habitat within the survey area suitable for otter (Lutra lutra), great crested newt (Triturus cristatus), red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris), pine marten (Martes martes), water vole (Arvicola amphibius), reptiles (Squamata), or wildcat (Felis silvestris) and these species are not discussed further. 2.3 Protected Species Bats 2.3.1 A daytime assessment was carried out to identify habitat with the potential to support roosting or foraging and commuting bats within and adjacent to the site (including habitat suitable for roosting such as buildings and trees). The survey area Zone of Influence (ZOI) where all development activities will be located is shown in Appendix 1. Further information on the legal protection afforded to bats can be found in Appendix 3. 2.3.2 All trees were inspected from the ground and climbed for an aerial inspection where required on the 25th January 2022 to identify signs of current and historical bat use and to assess the trees’ potential to support bats. Any features which were suitable for supporting bats were noted and, if necessary, trees were climbed and cavities inspected internally using Rigid CA- 150 SeeSnake inspection cameras. 2.3.3 The habitat assessment was carried out in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trust’s Bat Survey Guidelines (Collins, J. 2016). 2.3.4 The location of the trees inspected can be found in Appendix 9. The assessment aimed to identify the following: ▪ Roosts and potential for roosts within the ZoI determined by the area affected by the proposed activities within the site and data collected during the desk study; ▪ Bat activity / field signs of bats; ▪ Evaluate the suitability of any habitat within the ZoI which may support roosting, foraging or commuting bats; ▪ Determine any potential impacts on bats within the ZoI; ▪ Any requirement for further survey work or for section 44 licensing; and, ▪ Determine the scope and survey area for any further survey work. 2.3.5 The ZoI was inspected in accordance with current best practice guidance from the Bat Conservation Trust 3rd Edition (Collins, J. 2016) in order to identify the suitability of the ZoI to support roosting, commuting and foraging bats. Guidelines for determining suitability of habitat features for bats is presented in the following table:
Page 73
Ecological Constraints Survey and Preliminary Roost Assessment – Finlaystone, Marypark Road, Finlaystone Project number: WS3608.21 4 www.wildsurveys.co.uk 11 January 2022 OP08-01-20-V4 Table 1: Guidelines for assessing the potential suitability of proposed development sites for bats, based on the presence of habitat features within the landscape (to be applied using professional judgement) (adapted from Table 4.1 on Page 35 of current BCT, 2016): Suitability Description Roosting habitats Commuting and foraging habitats Negligible Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by roosting bats. Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by commuting or foraging bats. Low A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by individual bats opportunistically. However, these potential roost sites do not provide enough space, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions and/or suitable surrounding habitat to be used on a regular basis or by larger numbers of bats (i.e. unlikely to be suitable for maternity or hibernation). A tree of sufficient size and age to contain Potential Roost Features (PRFs) but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential. Habitat that could be used by small numbers of commuting bats such as a gappy hedgerow or unvegetated stream, but isolated, i.e. not very well connected to the surrounding landscape by other habitat. Suitable, but isolated habitat that could be used by small numbers of foraging bats such as a lone tree (not in a parkland situation) or a patch of scrub. Moderate A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (with respect to roost type only – the assessments in this table are made irrespective of species conservation status, which is established after presence is confirmed). Continuous habitat connected to the wider landscape that could be used by bats for commuting such as lines of trees and scrub or linked back gardens. Habitat that is connected to the wider landscape that could be used by bats for foraging such as trees, scrub, grassland or water.
Page 74
Ecological Constraints Survey and Preliminary Roost Assessment – Finlaystone, Marypark Road, Finlaystone Project number: WS3608.21 5 www.wildsurveys.co.uk 11 January 2022 OP08-01-20-V4 High A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding. Continuous, high-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by commuting bats such as river valleys, streams, hedgerows, lines of trees and woodland edge. High-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by foraging bats such as broadleaved woodland, tree-lined watercourses and grazed parkland. Site is close to and connected to known roosts. Badger 2.3.6 The survey included searching for field signs of badgers, including: ▪ Presence of holes with evidence of badgers such as footprints, discarded hairs; etc.; ▪ Presence of dung pits or latrines; ▪ Presence of well-used runs with subsidiary evidence of badger activity; and ▪ Presence of other indications of badger activity such as signs of foraging, snuffle marks and footprints. 2.3.7 In addition, any mammal holes which were either dug by badger or could be used by badger (known as setts) were also noted. Setts were examined for evidence of current use including: ▪ Identifiable badger hairs present within sett entrances or spoil heaps; ▪ Badger prints present within sett entrances or spoil heaps; ▪ Well-worn paths connecting the sett with other known setts, badger latrines or dung pits; ▪ Recent digging when associated with other evidence of badger; or ▪ Bedding present at sett entrances or recently buried within spoil heaps. 2.3.8 Day nests comprised of collections of bedding above ground were also noted if present. 2.3.9 Badger surveys can be carried out at any time of the year. However, the optimum period is between November and March when vegetation has died back, and signs can be more easily seen. Information on the legal protection afforded to badger can be found in Appendix 5.
Page 75
Ecological Constraints Survey and Preliminary Roost Assessment – Finlaystone, Marypark Road, Finlaystone Project number: WS3608.21 6 www.wildsurveys.co.uk 11 January 2022 OP08-01-20-V4 Nesting Birds 2.3.10 The habitats within the survey area were evaluated for their suitability to support notable bird species and, in particular, nesting birds. Information on the legal protection afforded to birds can be found in Appendix 6. Invasive Non-native Species 2.3.11 Particularly common, invasive non-native species, such as giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum), Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), and Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) will have been noted, where found. Other Notable Species or Habitats 2.3.12 Any suitable habitat for and field signs of SBL species brown hare (Lepus europaeus), hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) and common toad (Bufo bufo) will be recorded where present. No survey was undertaken specifically for SBL invertebrates or bird species, however, species were recorded where incidentally observed during the survey. 2.4 Limitations Physical Limitations 2.4.1 No physical limitations occurred during the survey. Seasonal Limitations 2.4.2 Ecological surveys provide a snapshot of the broad habitats and species present within the survey area at the time the survey is undertaken. Faunal species are transient in nature and can move in and out of an area. A lack of field signs of any particular species does not confirm absence, only that no field signs were present at the time of survey. Suitability for protected species and variation in use of the site by protected species on a seasonal basis has been considered based on the broad habitat types present. 2.4.3 There are seasonal limitations to all species and habitats surveys. A table of optimal survey periods can be found in Appendix 7.
Page 76
Ecological Constraints Survey and Preliminary Roost Assessment – Finlaystone, Marypark Road, Finlaystone Project number: WS3608.21 7 www.wildsurveys.co.uk 11 January 2022 OP08-01-20-V4 3 Results 3.1 Desk study 3.1.1 The following designated sites were located within 2km of the proposed site: ▪ Brucehill - Inland Cliff, Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS), approximately 1.6 km from the site; ▪ Inner Clyde, SSSI, SPA, Ramsar and RSPB Reserve, approximately 80m from the site; ▪ 15 AWIs, closest being Wood ID:26708 , located within the site; and, ▪ Four SINCs, the closest being Finlaystone Estate found within the site boundary, Barscube Hill, approximately 950m from the site, Knockmountain Wood, approximately 1.7km, Ferryhill Plantation, approximately 1.8km from the site. 3.1.2 From the desk study it has been found that the following bat species are known to be found within Renfrewshire: common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (P. pygmaeus), Daubenton’s (Myotis daubentonii), Natterer’s (Myotis nattereri), Leisler’s (Nyctalus leisleri), noctule (Nyctalus noctula) and brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus). There are records of soprano pipistrelle bats found approximately 300m from the site. Brown long-eared bat has been recorded within 1km of the site. 3.1.3 Within the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan, policy ENV1: Greenbelt and ENV2: Natural Heritage are both relevant to the site. 3.1.4 One record of hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) was recorded approximately 420m from the site. 3.1.5 The full desk study results can be found in Appendix 8. 3.2 Ecological Constraints Survey 3.2.1 All ecological constraints identified within the site can be viewed in Appendix 9. Habitat 3.2.2 The site is found within a woodland setting, dominated by rhododendron and an open area of semi improved grassland with broadleaved woodland, including beech (Fagus sylvatica), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), goat willow (Salix caprea). The south of the site is a steep rock face. Protected Species Bats 3.2.3 As the site is surrounded by ancient woodland, the site and areas surrounding the site has suitable foraging and commuting habitat for bats. The vegetation line, stone wall and road to the north of the site provides a suitable commuting corridor for foraging and commuting bats. Therefore, site was classed as having moderate suitability for foraging and commuting bats. 3.2.4 One mature ash tree to the far west of the site contains two knot holes and one tear out which were inspected by endoscope for signs of roosting bats. No field signs of bats were found within any of the features. Two knot holes approximately 7m up, south facing and north facing had negligible suitability for roosting bats. The limb tear out had high suitability for roosting
Page 77
Ecological Constraints Survey and Preliminary Roost Assessment – Finlaystone, Marypark Road, Finlaystone Project number: WS3608.21 8 www.wildsurveys.co.uk 11 January 2022 OP08-01-20-V4 bats with a depth of approximately 0.5m and a diameter of 3/4cm. All features were soft blocked with vegetation. 3.2.5 A sycamore tree located to the far east of the site contains a tear out located on the main stem approximately 1m up. This feature was endoscoped and no field signs of bats were found within it. The feature had low suitability for roosting bats and was soft blocked with vegetation. 3.2.6 The locations of the trees can be seen in Appendix 9. Badger 3.2.7 The site has suitable habitat for badger within the woodland area of the site. No field signs were recorded during the survey. Nesting Birds 3.2.8 The trees and shrubs within the site have suitable habitat within the site for nesting birds. No nests were noted on site. During the survey calls of long-tailed tits (Aegithalos caudatus), blue tits (Cyaniste caeruleus), magpie (Pica pica), blackbird (Turdus merula), and robin (Erithacus rubecula) were recorded. Invasive, Non-native Species 3.2.9 Rhododendron was recorded to the east of the site. Other Notable Species or Habitats 3.2.10 No other species were recorded.
Page 78
Ecological Constraints Survey and Preliminary Roost Assessment – Finlaystone, Marypark Road, Finlaystone Project number: WS3608.21 9 www.wildsurveys.co.uk 11 January 2022 OP08-01-20-V4 4 Discussion and Recommendations 4.1 Discussion 4.1.1 As the site is found on the extreme edge of the Finlaystone Estate SINC and within an ancient woodland, the proposed development may affect the integrity of these designated site, however if recommendations are followed, there may be short term indirect effects to these sites, during construction works. 4.1.2 The woodland within the site is an ancient woodland which is listed within the Scottish biodiversity list. It is WSL understanding that the proposed plans will be restricted to an open area which has previously been cleared in the distant past and is now dominated by rhododendron with limited tree limbing and removal of young trees only, therefore avoiding any direct impact to the ancient woodland. 4.1.3 Within the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan, policy ENV1 and ENV2 are both relevant to the site. 4.1.4 The site has suitable habitat for badger and nesting birds, however no field signs of badger were found during the survey. There is a large area of rhododendron which is an invasive non- native species found within the site. 4.1.5 As the surrounding habitat to the site is ancient woodland, there are other opportunities for foraging and commuting bats in the nearby woodland, beyond the site boundary. 4.1.6 Two trees were found to be suitable for use by roosting bats. As there was no current of historical evidence of use by bats these features were soft blocked with organic material. 4.2 Recommendations Licensing Requirements 4.2.1 No licence is currently required but may be required following further survey work. 4.2.2 A summary of relevant policy can be found in Appendix 2, with the legal position in relation to protected species is contained within Appendix 3 - 6. Avoidance / Retention 4.2.3 WSL understands that the ash tree to the west of the site is to be retained within the project plans. If the tree is to be removed it is recommended that the tree undergoes a pre-fell check for bats prior to removal. 4.2.4 It is recommended that any vegetation clearance should be carried outside the nesting bird season (typically March-September). 4.2.5 It is recommended that where possible, the vegetation line which borders the north of the site should be retained along with the stone wall to avoid disturbance to foraging and commuting bats. 4.2.6 It is recommended that all works stop an hour before sunset and not commence again until an hour after sunrise to avoid disturbance to any foraging and commuting bats. 4.2.7 As the rhododendron is an invasive non-native species, it should not be allowed to spread from the site, if they must be removed advice should be sought from a specialist prior to removal.
Page 79
Ecological Constraints Survey and Preliminary Roost Assessment – Finlaystone, Marypark Road, Finlaystone Project number: WS3608.21 10 www.wildsurveys.co.uk 11 January 2022 OP08-01-20-V4 Further Survey 4.2.8 The blocking of features in our experience can remain in place up to three months, therefore the work should be carried out as soon as possible. If the proposed works extends beyond three months from the point of survey, an ecologist should be contacted for further advice. 4.2.9 Should avoidance of the nesting bird season (March-September) not be possible, a nesting bird survey should be undertaken no more than 48 hours prior to any work being undertaken on site by a suitability experienced ecologist. 4.2.10 A pre-construction survey for badger should be carried out within eight weeks of works commencing due to the high mobility of wildlife. 4.2.11 Due to the high mobility of wildlife and to re-establish the ecological baseline, if the proposed works have not commenced within 12 months then the project ecologist should be contacted to determine the requirement for repeat ecological surveys. The bat survey is valid for up to 18 months from the date of survey (CIEEM, 2019). Enhancement Measures 4.2.12 The Local Development Plan contains policies ENV1 and ENV2 which focus on the natural environment and details how new developments can enhance habitats/biodiversity including through creating, enhancing and better linking habitats and ecosystems. 4.2.13 The policies state that new development should aim to enhance biodiversity where possible. For redevelopment of the site, consultation should be undertaken with the individual responsible for biodiversity at the Local Planning Authority and bespoke enhancement measures designed for the site.
Page 80
Ecological Constraints Survey and Preliminary Roost Assessment – Finlaystone, Marypark Road, Finlaystone Project number: WS3608.21 11 www.wildsurveys.co.uk 11 January 2022 OP08-01-20-V4 5 References Bang, P. & Dahlstrom, P., 2001, Animal Tracks and Signs, Oxford University Press, Oxford CIEEM, 2019, Advice Note on the Lifespan of Ecological Reports & Surveys, April 2019 https://cieem.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Advice-Note.pdf- Collins, J. (Ed), 2016, Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition), Bat Conservation Trust, London Entwistle, A.C., et al., 2001, Habitat Management for Bats – A guide for land managers, landowners and their advisors, JNCC, Peterborough Forestry Commission and The Bat Conservation Trust, 2005, Guidance Note: Woodland Management for Bats, Forestry Commission, Wetherby IEMA - Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (1997) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment, Taylor & Francis, London JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2005, Handbook for Phase I Habitat Survey: A Technique for Environmental Audit, JNCC, Peterborough JNCC, 2003, Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, England Field Unit, Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough Mitchell-Jones, A.J and McLeish, A.P, 2004, The Bat Workers Manual. JNCC, Peterborough. Renfrewshire Biodiversity Action Plan 2018 – 2022: https://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/media/6303/Renfrewshire-Biodiversity-Action-Plan-2018- 2022/pdf/Biodiversity_Action_Plan_FINAL.pdf?m=1527000856037 Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021: https://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/media/14133/Renfrewshire-Local-Development-Plan- 2021/pdf/Renfrewshire_Local_Development_Plan_2021.pdf?m=1638892760710 Roper, Timothy J., 2010, Badger, Collins, London Rose, F. & O’Reilly, C., 2006, The Wild Flower Key (revised edition), Frederick Warne, London Scottish Biodiversity Forum, 2012, www.biodiversityscotland.gov.uk Scottish Natural Heritage, 2001, Scottish Wildlife – Badgers and development, SNH, Battleby Scottish Natural Heritage, 2014, Licensing Guidance – What is a Badger Sett?, SNH, Inverness The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP), 2012, http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5155
Page 81
Appendix 1 – Site Location and Photographs
Page 82
Photographs Image 1: Proposed site area Image 2: Rhododendron on site. Target note 1.
Page 83
Image 3: Ash tree with features suitable for roosting bats. No field signs of bats noted.
Page 84
Image 4: Stone wall along the northern boundary of the site. Image 5: Sloping area to the south of the site.
Page 85
Image 6: Site view looking to the north of the site.
Page 86
Image 7: Knot holes on ash tree which has suitability for roosting bats. Target note 2.
Page 87
Image 8: Limb tear out on ash tree. Target note 2.
Page 88
Image 9: Knot hole which has suitable features for roosting bats. Target note 2.
Page 89
Image 10: Tear out on sycamore tree, feature suitable for roosting bats. No field signs of bats were found. Target note 3.
Page 90
Appendix 2 – Summary of Relevant Policy and Legislation Policy and Guidance in Scotland This section briefly summarises the policy, guidance and related issues in Scotland that are relevant to the main text of the report. The following text does not constitute legal or planning advice. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (Scottish Government, 2014)1 The SPP sets out planning policies including those that relate to the protection of biodiversity. Planning authorities, and all public bodies, have a duty under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to further the conservation of biodiversity Policy Principles. The SPP states the planning system should: ▪ Facilitate positive change while maintaining and enhancing distinctive landscape character; ▪ Conserve and enhance protected sites and species, taking account of the need to maintain healthy ecosystems and work with the natural processes which provide important services to communities; ▪ Promote protection and improvement of the water environment, including rivers, lochs, estuaries, wetlands, coastal waters and groundwater, in a sustainable and coordinated way; ▪ Seek to protect soils from damage such as erosion or compaction; ▪ Protect and enhance ancient semi-natural woodland as an important and irreplaceable resource, together with other native or long-established woods, hedgerows and individual trees with high nature conservation or landscape value; ▪ Seek benefits for biodiversity from new development where possible, including the restoration of degraded habitats and the avoidance of further fragmentation or isolation of habitats; and ▪ Support opportunities for enjoying and learning about the natural environment. National Planning Framework 3 (Scottish Government, 2014)2 The National Planning Framework, sets out a long-term vision for development and investment across Scotland over the next 20 to 30 years. Paragraph 4.5 states “Biodiversity in Scotland is rich and varied. We have numerous internationally and nationally important habitats and species with a diverse network of protected sites, concentrated particularly in the north and west of Scotland, along our coasts and estuaries and in our upland areas. However, biodiversity is not just confined to our rural areas - our built environment, key infrastructure corridors and the greenspaces within our cities and towns also provide important habitats, and can together contribute to a wider national ecological network. Our marine wildlife is rich and varied. Geodiversity underpins our landscapes and provides important ecosystem services.” Paragraph 4.10 states “The 2020 Challenge for Scotland's Biodiversity aims to promote and enhance Scotland's nature, and to better connect people with the natural world. Maintaining our natural capacity to provide services makes economic sense - to help achieve this, biodiversity in Scotland needs to be viewed at a landscape scale.” The 2020 Challenge for Scotland's Biodiversity is part of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy as described below. UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP), (JNCC, 1994)3 The United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) was published in 1994. It was the UK Government’s response to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which the UK signed up to in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The UK BAP describes the biological resources of the UK and provides detailed plans for conservation of these resources. 1 https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy/ 2 https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-3/ 3 https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/uk-bap/
Page 91
Scottish Biodiversity Strategy4 In Scotland, the Scottish Biodiversity Group was formed and identified national priorities and targets for species and habitats in conjunction with local authorities, non-governmental organisations and local communities, with the production of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (including the Scottish Biodiversity List5. The Scottish Biodiversity List is a list of animals, plants and habitats that Scottish Ministers consider to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland. Planning and Development: Protected Animals, Protected Areas NatureScot (Formerly SNH)6 NatureScot states that the presence, or potential presence, of any protected species is a “material consideration in planning application decisions”. If there is reasonable evidence that a protected species is present on site or may be affected by a proposal, its presence must be assessed and measures proposed to avoid impacts, as necessary. Early surveys and comprehensive protection plans will help to progress a development proposal that may affect a protected animal. Proposals requiring the most careful scrutiny include those that may impact on: ▪ European protected species – e.g. bats, otter and great crested newt; ▪ Species on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) – e.g. red squirrel and water vole; and ▪ Badger – protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. You may need to apply to NatureScot for a licence for any activity that has the potential to disturb a protected species. This includes disturbance of the species for the purpose of the development and/or survey work. The “Planning and Development -Protected Areas” document highlights the importance of protected areas in Scotland. A Habitats Regulations Appraisal must be conducted for any development proposal that requires planning permission or other consent and might affect a Natura site. Guidance on European Protected Species, development sites and the planning system (Scottish Government 2006)7 This document highlights the importance of completing all surveys for European Protected Species prior to seeking planning permission. It warns against the use of suspensive conditions in planning permissions instead of fully ascertaining, prior to the determination of the planning application, whether a European Protected Species (EPS) is present on a site. Therefore, to ensure that all decisions are compliant with the Habitats Directive and the Regulations and the above mentioned Guidance, planning authorities should fully ascertain whether protected species are on site and what the implications of this might be before considering whether to approve an application or not. Therefore, it is recommended that ecological surveys for EPS are carried out prior to seeking planning permission. 4 https://www.nature.scot/scotlands-biodiversity/scottish-biodiversity-strategy 5 https://www.nature.scot/scotlands-biodiversity/scottish-biodiversity-strategy/scottish-biodiversity-list 6 https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/planning-and-development/planning-and-development- advice/planning-and-development-protected-species and https://www.nature.scot/professional- advice/planning-and-development/advice-planners-and-developers/planning-and-development-protected-areas 7 https://www.gov.scot/publications/european-protected-species-chief-planner-letter/
Page 92
Appendix 3 - European Protected Species and the Law Bats, otters, great crested newts, natterjack toad, wildcat, cetaceans, and several other animals are protected under European law, in Annexes II and IV of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (The Habitats Directive 1992). The Habitats Directive is translated into Scots law under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended in Scotland), often referred to as the Habitats Regulations, with these species being classified as European protected species. Under these regulations it is an offence to: ▪ Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal; and to, deliberately or recklessly: ▪ Capture, injure or kill a wild animal of a European protected species; ▪ Harass a wild animal or group of wild animals of a European protected species; ▪ Disturb such an animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection; ▪ Disturb such an animal while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its young; ▪ Obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place of such an animal, or otherwise to deny the animal use of the breeding site or resting place; ▪ Disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of the species to which it belongs; and, ▪ Disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to impair its ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or rear or otherwise care for its young. There are also several plant, fungi, and lichen species protected under this legislation. EPS animals can potentially return to the same resting site every year; therefore, bat roosts, otter holts, etc. are protected even if there are no animals there all year round. These laws are not designed to prevent work, but to minimize its impact on the long-term survival of EPS. As such, some activities affecting EPS or their places of shelter may need to be done under and in accordance with the terms of a licence issued by the licensing authority, NatureScot allow certain otherwise illegal actions to be undertaken legitimately. Such activities might include: ▪ Blocking, filling or installing grilles over old mines or tunnels; ▪ Building, alteration or maintenance work; ▪ Getting rid of unwanted bat colonies; ▪ Tree felling; ▪ Re-roofing; ▪ Remedial timber treatment; ▪ Rewiring or plumbing in roofs; ▪ Demolition; ▪ Maintenance or construction of watercourse crossings (e.g. culverts under roads, bridges); ▪ Vegetation clearance along riparian corridors; ▪ Any disturbing (e.g. loud or night works) within proximity to watercourses; ▪ Dewatering or infilling ponds; ▪ Removal of woodpiles and debris near waterbodies; and, ▪ Translocation of species. If a licence is required: Further survey will be required in order to gain sufficient information in order to supply a sufficient baseline and to inform the necessary mitigation plan required to support a licence application. Application forms can be found on the NatureScot website along with guidance: https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/protected-areas-and-species/licensing/species-licensing-z- guide/bats/bats-licences-development Please note the need to provide clear justifications as to the purpose of the licence and any alternatives which may have been considered. Supporting information will be required to specifically support an application and depending on the findings of this survey, further survey work may be required, along with a detailed mitigation plan specific to the bat interest on this site and to the works proposed. NatureScot
Page 93
also generally require that all other consents, such as planning permission and historic building consent, are in place before a licence will be considered. A Habitats Regulations licence may be granted by NatureScot if the following three tests are met: 1. That the licence application must demonstrably relate to one of the purposes specified in Regulation 44(2) of the Habitats Regulations. These purposes include, among others: ▪ Preserving public health or public safety; ▪ Other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; or, ▪ Preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property, or to fisheries. 2. That there is no satisfactory alternative; and 3. That the development will not be detrimental to maintenance of the populations of the species at a favourable conservation status. If an EPS is found during the period of development: The project ecologist should be contacted immediately for advice before proceeding with works. Advice from NatureScot may be required; the project ecologist should be able to determine this.
Page 94
Appendix 4 – Wildlife and Countryside Act Species and the Law Red squirrel, pine marten, water vole, freshwater pearl mussel, as well as some species of fish and other invertebrates protected under national legislation, the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended in Scotland) Schedule 5. Several plants are also protected under this piece of legislation under Schedule 8. Species such as pine marten and red squirrel are fully protected, making it an offence to intentionally or recklessly: ▪ Kill, injure, or take any wild animal included in Schedule 5; ▪ Damage or destroy any structure or place which any wild animal specified in Schedule 5 uses for shelter or protection; ▪ Disturb any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection; and ▪ Obstruct access to any structure or place which any such animal uses for shelter or protection. The water vole, though in sharp decline in the UK, and is listed on Schedule 5 in respect of section 9(4) only, i.e. their habitat is protected but the animals themselves are not, except while they are in their shelters. So while it is not an offence to kill, injure or take a water vole in Scotland, the other offences regarding damage to shelter and disturbance still apply. Although water voles are not currently protected from killing or taking in Scotland, England and Wales gave water vole full protection in April 2008, and they are expected to receive full protection in Scotland in the near future. If a licence is required: The recent Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2012 provided a new licensing purpose to apply to Schedules 5 and 8 species listed in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The new purpose is designed to mimic the tests required for EPS species. Therefore, there is still a need to provide clear justifications as to the purpose of the licence and any alternatives which may have been considered. Supporting information will be required to specifically support an application and depending on the findings of this survey, further survey work may be required, along with a detailed mitigation plan specific to the Schedule 5 interest on this site and to the works proposed. NatureScot also generally require that all other consents, such as planning permission and historic building consent, are in place before a licence will be considered. The relevant purposes for which a licence can be granted include: ▪ Preserving public health or public safety; ▪ Preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber, or any other form of property or to fisheries; or ▪ For any other social, economic or environmental purpose; provided that a. Undertaking the conduct authorized by the licence will give rise to or contribute towards the achievement of, a significant social, economic or environmental benefit; and, b. There is no other satisfactory solution. Application forms can be found on the NatureScot website along with guidance: https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/protected-areas-and-species/licensing/licensing-forms-and- guidance If a Schedule 5 species is found during the period of development: The project ecologist should be contacted immediately for advice before proceeding with works. Advice from NatureScot may be required; the project ecologist should be able to determine this.
Page 95
Appendix 5 – Badgers and the Law Badgers are protected by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended in Scotland). The purpose of the Act is to protect the animals from deliberate cruelty and from the incidental effect of lawful activities which could cause them harm. Under this legislation it is an offence to deliberately or recklessly: ▪ Kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger or attempt to do so; ▪ Damaging or destroying it; ▪ Obstruct access to, or any entrance of, a badger sett; and, ▪ Disturb a badger whilst it is occupying a sett. If a licence is required: Application forms can be found on the NatureScot website along with guidance: https://www.nature.scot/badgers-licence-forms-and-guidance-documents Please note supporting information will be required to specifically support an application and depending on the findings of this survey, further survey work may be required, along with a detailed mitigation plan specific to the badger interest on this site and to the works proposed. NatureScot also generally require that planning permission is in place before a licence will be considered. If a badger is found during the period of development: The project ecologist should be contacted immediately for advice before proceeding with works. Advice from NatureScot may be required; the project ecologist should be able to determine this.
Page 96
Appendix 6 – Birds and the Law All species of wild bird and their nests are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland), which makes it illegal to deliberately or recklessly: ▪ kill, injure or take any wild bird; ▪ take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built; ▪ At any other time takes, damages, destroys or otherwise interferes with any nest habitually used by any wild bird included in Schedule A1; ▪ Obstructs or prevents any wild bird from using its nest; and, ▪ take or destroy an egg of any wild bird. There are also further offences for birds listed on Schedule 1 of the Act which includes deliberately or recklessly: ▪ Disturbing any wild Schedule 1 bird while it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; and, ▪ Disturbing dependent young of such a bird. You should note that there is no licensable purpose of development for birds. Should there be a risk of one of the above offences it is strongly advised that works are either micro-sited to avoid the nests or timed to avoid the nesting season (1 March to 31 August), depending on the species and type of work. If live nests are found: The project ecologist should be contacted immediately for advice before proceeding with works. Advice from NatureScot may be required; the project ecologist should be able to determine this.
Page 97
Appendix 7 – Guidance on Optimal Survey Periods Protected Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Habitats & Vegetation Recommended time to surveys mosses and lichens only Recommended time to undertake Phase 1 habitat surveys Recommended time to surveys mosses and lichens only Badgers Best time for field surveys Surveys possible, but sub-optimal Best time for field surveys Bats Inspection of hibernation, tree and building roosts Activity surveys only; invasive surveys to be avoided Activity surveys and inspection of building roosts. Emergence counts. Activity surveys only; invasive surveys to be avoided Inspection of hibernation, tree and building roosts Birds Winter birds Breeding birds/migrant species Breeding birds Breeding birds/migrant species Winter birds Otters Year-round surveying, though wet weather can limit visibility. Surveys for otters can potentially be conducted all year round, preferably when weather condition are stable, though dense vegetation cover can be limiting Year-round surveying, though wet weather can limit visibility. Pine Martens Surveys can be carried out at any time of year, though better in spring and summer Survey for breeding dens Optimal survey period is spring to summer Surveys can be carried out at any time of year, though better in spring and summer Red Squirrels Survey at any time of year, breeding females Survey at any time of year weather permitting, optimal in spring and summer. Breeding females can be surveyed December to September Survey at any time of year Breeding females Water Voles Reduced WV activity Initial surveys Best time to survey Surveys possible, but vegetation cover & weather conditions can be limiting Initial surveys Reduced WV activity Great Crested Newt No surveys as newts in hibernation Pond Surveys for adults: mid-March to mid-June. Surveys must include visits undertaken between mid-April and mid-May. Egg surveys April to mid- June. Larvae surveys from mid-May Terrestrial habitat surveys Larvae surveys to mid- August Terrestrial habitat surveys Terrestrial habitat surveys No Surveys – newts in hibernation
Page 98
Appendix 8 - Desk Study Search Results Location Finalystone, Marypark Road OS Grid Squares NS37587734 60 Date of Search 05/11/2022 Wild Surveys Data Bat Species No of Records within 2 km Approximate distance in km Site name/Grid Ref Date Soprano pipistrelle 1 390m south NS3788373105 Sep 2013 Wild Surveys Data Protected Species No of Records within 2 km Approximate distance in km Site name/Grid Ref Date No Data NBN Bat Species Data No of Records within 2 km Approximate distance in km Site name/Grid Ref Date Data Licence Soprano pipistrelle 4 1km west NS3649173501 June 208 – Jue 2019 CC-BY Bat Conservati on Trust Brown long eared 24 1km west NS3649173501 June 2007 – June 2019 CC-BY Bat Conservati on Trust NBN Species Protected Species No of Records within 2 km Approximate distance in km Site name/Grid Ref Date Data Licence Hedgehog 1 420m east NS3804373448 August 2019 The Conservati on Volunteer LOCAL BAT GROUP Bat Species Data No of Records within 2 km Approximate distance in km Site name/Grid Ref Date No Data Renfrewshire Biodiversity Action Plan (2018 – 2022)
Page 99
Species action plans with relevance to the site / survey area: ▪ Juniper ▪ Orchids ▪ Red and amber list bird species ▪ Lesser whitethroat ▪ Invasive, non-native species Habitat action plans with relevance to the site / survey area: • Mixed deciduous woodlands • Upland oakwood • Upland birchwood • Wet Woodland • Blanket bogs • Meadows • Heathland Bat species known to be present within the LBAP area: ▪ Soprano pipistrelle ▪ Common pipistrelle ▪ Daubenton’s bat ▪ Whiskered bat ▪ Leisler’s bat ▪ Natterer’s bat ▪ Brown long eared bat ▪ Nathusius pipistrelle Designated Site Search- Statutory, Non-statutory and Local Nature Reserves within 2 km Site name & Grid Reference Designation Features Distance Brucehill- Inland Cliff LNCS Inland sandstone cliffs with dripping water which supports various ferns and bryophytes. 1.6km north Inner Clyde SSSI & SPA & RAMSAR & RSPB Reserve Inner clyde encompasses the interidal zone of the Clyde estuary which is important habitat for wintering birds, especially waders. Estuarine saltmarsh and mudflats. 80m north 15 AWI AWI 15 AWI found within 2km of the site boundary. The closest being within the site, Wood ID: 26708 which is of semi-natural origin. Within the site – 2km
Page 100
Finlaystone Estate SINC Broad leaved woodland with extensive conifer plantations. Within in the site. Barscube Hill SINC Semi-improved pasture on a lope with several prominent ridges and depressions. 950m south Knockmountain Wood SINC Woodland, Grassland and Marshland. 1.7km southwest Ferryhill Plantation SINC Woodland mainly downy and silver birch with ancient woodland. 1.8km east Data Licenses Open Government License (OGL). OGL license information can be found at: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ Creative Commons license with attribution (CC-BY). CC-BY license information can be found at: https://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Page 101
Designated Sites Map
Page 102
Appendix 9 – Constraints Plan Ecological Constraints Map Finlaystone Estate, Marypark Road, Langbank, PA14 6UT
Page 103
Target Note Grid Reference Notes 1 NS3757573462 Rhododendron approximately 3m x 7m. 2 NS3755573450 Mature ash tree. Three knot holes and one tear out located on tree. 3 NS3758773453 Sycamore tree. Tear out on the main steam approximately 1m up, south facing. Tree No. Grid Reference Species Feature BCT Suitability Field Signs Recommendations 2 NS3755573450 Ash 2 knot holes 1 limb tear out Low High NA Works within site be carried out within three months. 3 NS3758773453 Sycamore Tear out on main stem ~1m high Negligible NA NA
Page 104
Registered Address Room 41, St James Business Centre, Linwood Road, +44 (0) 141 887 2770 j
Page 105
MEMORANDUM Communities and Housing Director: Mary Crearie Tel: 07768988028 Fax: 0141 618 7500 My Ref: CH/KMcI/LC Your Ref: 22/0125/PP Ask For: Karen McIndoe Date: 9 March 2022 To: Sharon Marklow, Strategy and Place Manager From: Head of Communities & Public Protection Application Number: 22/0125/PP LOCATION: Site On Western Boundary Of Marypark, Marypark Road, Langbank While the site does not appear to have a long history of previous use, historical map information suggests a building (unknown use) was formerly present onsite c1970s. While there is no requirement for action at this stage, should ground disturbance uncover any evidence of contamination or unusual materials (e.g. membranes, relict structures, materials with unusual colour/texture/odour, staining/sheens etc) during the proposed works, all work should cease immediately. The applicant should then seek professional advice regarding the ground conditions at the site, and their implications for the proposed development, and notify the Building Standards section of the Council in the first instance. Karen McIndoe Environmental Health Officer
Page 106
Page 1 of 7 Renfrewshire House Cotton Street Paisley PA1 1JD Tel: 0300 3000 144 Fax: 0141 618 7935 Email: dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100538106-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Type of Application What is this application for? Please select one of the following: * Application for planning permission (including changes of use and surface mineral working). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application, (including renewal of planning permission, modification, variation or removal of a planning condition etc) Application for Approval of Matters specified in conditions. Description of Proposal Please describe the proposal including any change of use: * (Max 500 characters) Is this a temporary permission? * Yes No If a change of use is to be included in the proposal has it already taken place? Yes No (Answer ‘No’ if there is no change of use.) * Has the work already been started and/or completed? * No Yes – Started Yes - Completed Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Application for Permission in Principle for new Dwelling House
Page 107
Page 2 of 7 Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Ingram Architecture & Design Mr Stephen Arthur Govan MacMillan Ingram Street Finlaystone Estate 227 Finlaystone House 07900 882 495 G1 1DA PA14 6TJ UK UK Glasgow Port Glasgow Langbank 07802 254 056 s.govan@ingramarchitecture.co.uk arthurmacmillan10@me.com
Page 108
Page 3 of 7 Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Pre-Application Discussion Have you discussed your proposal with the planning authority? * Yes No Pre-Application Discussion Details Cont. In what format was the feedback given? * Meeting Telephone Letter Email Please provide a description of the feedback you were given and the name of the officer who provided this feedback. If a processing agreement [note 1] is currently in place or if you are currently discussing a processing agreement with the planning authority, please provide details of this. (This will help the authority to deal with this application more efficiently.) * (max 500 characters) Title: Other title: First Name: Last Name: Correspondence Reference Date (dd/mm/yyyy): Number: Note 1. A Processing agreement involves setting out the key stages involved in determining a planning application, identifying what information is required and from whom and setting timescales for the delivery of various stages of the process. Email correspondence with advice given to provide information on the developable footprint, Tyree protection, ecology, topography and flooding Mr Renfrewshire Council James Weir 02/12/2021 SIte adjacent to Marypark House, Marypark Road, Langbank 673465 237577
Page 109
Page 4 of 7 Site Area Please state the site area: Please state the measurement type used: Hectares (ha) Square Metres (sq.m) Existing Use Please describe the current or most recent use: * (Max 500 characters) Access and Parking Are you proposing a new altered vehicle access to or from a public road? * Yes No If Yes please describe and show on your drawings the position of any existing. Altered or new access points, highlighting the changes you propose to make. You should also show existing footpaths and note if there will be any impact on these. Are you proposing any change to public paths, public rights of way or affecting any public right of access? * Yes No If Yes please show on your drawings the position of any affected areas highlighting the changes you propose to make, including arrangements for continuing or alternative public access. Water Supply and Drainage Arrangements Will your proposal require new or altered water supply or drainage arrangements? * Yes No Are you proposing to connect to the public drainage network (eg. to an existing sewer)? * Yes – connecting to public drainage network No – proposing to make private drainage arrangements Not Applicable – only arrangements for water supply required Do your proposals make provision for sustainable drainage of surface water?? * Yes No (e.g. SUDS arrangements) * Note:- Please include details of SUDS arrangements on your plans Selecting ‘No’ to the above question means that you could be in breach of Environmental legislation. Are you proposing to connect to the public water supply network? * Yes No, using a private water supply No connection required If No, using a private water supply, please show on plans the supply and all works needed to provide it (on or off site). 719.60 Vacant Land
Page 110
Page 5 of 7 Assessment of Flood Risk Is the site within an area of known risk of flooding? * Yes No Don’t Know If the site is within an area of known risk of flooding you may need to submit a Flood Risk Assessment before your application can be determined. You may wish to contact your Planning Authority or SEPA for advice on what information may be required. Do you think your proposal may increase the flood risk elsewhere? * Yes No Don’t Know Trees Are there any trees on or adjacent to the application site? * Yes No If Yes, please mark on your drawings any trees, known protected trees and their canopy spread close to the proposal site and indicate if any are to be cut back or felled. All Types of Non Housing Development – Proposed New Floorspace Does your proposal alter or create non-residential floorspace? * Yes No Schedule 3 Development Does the proposal involve a form of development listed in Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Yes No Don’t Know Planning (Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013 * If yes, your proposal will additionally have to be advertised in a newspaper circulating in the area of the development. Your planning authority will do this on your behalf but will charge you a fee. Please check the planning authority’s website for advice on the additional fee and add this to your planning fee. If you are unsure whether your proposal involves a form of development listed in Schedule 3, please check the Help Text and Guidance notes before contacting your planning authority. Planning Service Employee/Elected Member Interest Is the applicant, or the applicant’s spouse/partner, either a member of staff within the planning service or an Yes No elected member of the planning authority? * Certificates and Notices CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE UNDER REGULATION 15 – TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATION 2013 One Certificate must be completed and submitted along with the application form. This is most usually Certificate A, Form 1, Certificate B, Certificate C or Certificate E. Are you/the applicant the sole owner of ALL the land? * Yes No Is any of the land part of an agricultural holding? * Yes No Certificate Required The following Land Ownership Certificate is required to complete this section of the proposal: Certificate A
Page 111
Page 6 of 7 Land Ownership Certificate Certificate and Notice under Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Certificate A I hereby certify that – (1) - No person other than myself/the applicant was an owner (Any person who, in respect of any part of the land, is the owner or is the lessee under a lease thereof of which not less than 7 years remain unexpired.) of any part of the land to which the application relates at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of the accompanying application. (2) - None of the land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding Signed: Stephen Govan On behalf of: Mr Arthur MacMillan Date: 21/02/2022 Please tick here to certify this Certificate. * Checklist – Application for Planning Permission Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Please take a few moments to complete the following checklist in order to ensure that you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. Failure to submit sufficient information with your application may result in your application being deemed invalid. The planning authority will not start processing your application until it is valid. a) If this is a further application where there is a variation of conditions attached to a previous consent, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application b) If this is an application for planning permission or planning permission in principal where there is a crown interest in the land, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application c) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle or a further application and the application is for development belonging to the categories of national or major development (other than one under Section 42 of the planning Act), have you provided a Pre-Application Consultation Report? * Yes No Not applicable to this application Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 d) If this is an application for planning permission and the application relates to development belonging to the categories of national or major developments and you do not benefit from exemption under Regulation 13 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, have you provided a Design and Access Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application e) If this is an application for planning permission and relates to development belonging to the category of local developments (subject to regulation 13. (2) and (3) of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013) have you provided a Design Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application f) If your application relates to installation of an antenna to be employed in an electronic communication network, have you provided an ICNIRP Declaration? * Yes No Not applicable to this application
Page 112
Page 7 of 7 g) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle, an application for approval of matters specified in conditions or an application for mineral development, have you provided any other plans or drawings as necessary: Site Layout Plan or Block plan. Elevations. Floor plans. Cross sections. Roof plan. Master Plan/Framework Plan. Landscape plan. Photographs and/or photomontages. Other. If Other, please specify: * (Max 500 characters) Provide copies of the following documents if applicable: A copy of an Environmental Statement. * Yes N/A A Design Statement or Design and Access Statement. * Yes N/A A Flood Risk Assessment. * Yes N/A A Drainage Impact Assessment (including proposals for Sustainable Drainage Systems). * Yes N/A Drainage/SUDS layout. * Yes N/A A Transport Assessment or Travel Plan Yes N/A Contaminated Land Assessment. * Yes N/A Habitat Survey. * Yes N/A A Processing Agreement. * Yes N/A Other Statements (please specify). (Max 500 characters) Declare – For Application to Planning Authority I, the applicant/agent certify that this is an application to the planning authority as described in this form. The accompanying Plans/drawings and additional information are provided as a part of this application. Declaration Name: Mr Stephen Govan Declaration Date: 21/02/2022 Payment Details Online payment: 413702 Payment date: 21/02/2022 11:56:53 Created: 21/02/2022 11:56 Flood Risk Assessment, Ecological Report, Tree Survey, Topographic Survey Ecological Report, Tree Survey
Page 113
Transport Scotland Roads Directorate Network Operations - Development Management Response On Development Affecting Trunk Roads and Special Roads The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 S.I.2013 No 155 (S.25) Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009 To Renfrewshire Council Chief Executive's Service Renfrewshire House Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1WB Council Reference:- 22/0125/PP TS TRBO Reference:- NSW/29/2022 Application made by Mr Arthur MacMillan per Stephen Govan, Ingram Architecture & Design 227 Ingram Street Glasgow G1 1DA and received by Transport Scotland on 02 March 2022 for planning permission for erection of dwellinghouse with associated access (in principle) located at Site On Western Boundary Of Marypark, Marypark Road, Langbank affecting the A8 Trunk Road. Director, Roads Advice The Director does not propose to advise against the granting of permission1. 2. The Director advises that planning permission be refused (see overleaf for reasons). 3. The Director advises that the conditions shown overleaf be attached to any permission the council may give (see overleaf for reasons). To obtain permission to work within the trunk road boundary, contact the Area Manager through the general contact number below. The Operating Company has responsibility for co-ordination and supervision of works and after permission has been granted it is the developer's contractor's responsibility to liaise with the Operating Company during the construction period to ensure all necessary permissions are obtained. ü Operating Company:- Address:- Telephone Number:- e-mail address:- OCCR.SWSCOTLAND@amey.co.uk TS Contact:- Area Manager (A8) 0141 272 7100 NEW SOUTH WEST Buchanan House, 58 Port Dundas Road, Glasgow, G4 0HF 150 Polmadie Road, Glasgow Page 1 of 2
Page 114
Transport Scotland Response Date:- 09-Mar-2022 Roads - Development Management Buchanan House, 58 Port Dundas Road, Glasgow, G4 0HF Telephone Number: e-mail: development_management@transport.gov.scot Transport Scotland Contact:- Transport Scotland Contact Details:- Iain Clement NB - Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 Planning Authorities are requested to provide Transport Scotland, Roads Directorate, Network Operations - Development Management with a copy of the decision notice, and notify Transport Scotland, Trunk Roads Network Management Directorate if the recommended advice is not accepted. Page 2 of 2
Page 115
1 James Weir From: Stephen Boyle Sent: 10 March 2022 10:24 To: James Weir Subject: RE: Consultation Letter for Planning Application Ref:22/0125/PP Hi James, Yes, as it is a private road it would be recommended the access is constructed as per the national roads development guide ( width, surfacing, drainage, sightlines etc). No surface water should discharge onto the private road. I have not been sent the drive thru application, so either John has it or its been missed. It’s a difficult one as on first glance I thought it would not be acceptable. However, I'm struggling to see a reason why. Doesn’t appear to have any impact on sightlines for the Glenburn Rd/ Caplethill Rd junction, if there was a restriction then it would be resolved by ensuring no parking takes place on space No1. There is no pedestrian provision but that could be conditioned and maybe get a footway provided on Glenburn Rd between where the footway stops and the access to this development. Parking could be considered limited and when car wash is opened could cause issues. The access off Caplethill Rd would be better closed up and all movements concentrated on Glenburn Rd, but this would have implications for the car wash. I would say if there was a reason to refuse it would be for the increased movements for an access in close proximity to a junction. There is a lot going on here with a car wash, tyre place and a barbers. There is three access points and it is hard to determine the impact the development will have on vehicle trips and parking. I know that maybe doesn’t help as its quite conflicting but its an awkward one. Let me know if you want to discuss further. Thanks Stephen -----Original Message----- From: James Weir <james.weir@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 10 March 2022 09:25 To: Stephen Boyle <stephen.boyle@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: RE: Consultation Letter for Planning Application Ref:22/0125/PP Hi Stephen, Yes it looks like private road accessed from trunk road as you say so no problem to not provide comments. An FRA has been done and we will condition drainage as standard if it gets approved. And we have consulted TS regards the trunk road. If they ask for a roads authority update I will just say outwith jurisdiction but recommended to follow national roads development guide or something if that sounds ok? Can I ask a favour about another application 21/0057/PP. Not sure who has been allocated it but I am wondering if you guys will find it acceptable or not? I have attached a block plan. Basically it's at the junction of Glenburn Road and Caplethill Road, and we have received several objections on road safety. There are also cllr's involved, and its been called to board. I think we will be recommending refusal anyway, but would be grateful for roads input as well as if you have concerns as well it would add weight to our decision. Hope that’s ok, let me know if you want to discuss further.
Page 116
2 Thanks again, ________________________________ James Weir Planner, Development Management Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1JD Phone: 07483370666 Email: dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk Web: Renfrewshire Council Website Please consider the environment before printing this email I am currently working from home so have no access to my phone line. Please contact me by email and I will respond as soon as possible. Due to the ongoing issues related to the Coronavirus, unfortunately the Planning Authority are suspending the drop in duty planning officer service. Please contact Planning via email – dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk Please note if you submitted your application via the eDevelopment portal all additional supporting documentation in relation to your application should be submitted in the same manner as the original application. Supporting Documentation should not be sent to the Case Officers email address or to the Council’s dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk mailbox. If you have any queries with this process please contact 0300 3000 144. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Boyle <stephen.boyle@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 09 March 2022 15:55 To: James Weir <james.weir@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: FW: Consultation Letter for Planning Application Ref:22/0125/PP Hi James, Mark had sent this to John which has made its way to me as John is still off sick. Looking at this application, it is a private road and is served off the trunk road. Is that correct? Not 100% sure we want or need to comment on this one? I know we had not been consulted on the 19/0516/PP application, Let me know your thoughts, slightly reluctant to comment on it as any issues (construction, flooding, surface water onto the trunk road etc) may come back to us but it is private. Thanks Stephen -----Original Message----- From: Mark Higginbotham <mark.higginbotham@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 08 March 2022 10:36 To: Stephen Boyle <stephen.boyle@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Cc: John Everett <john.everett@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: FW: Consultation Letter for Planning Application Ref:22/0125/PP Stephen Can you do while John is off Mark Higginbotham Transportation & Development Manager Environment & Infrastructure, Renfrewshire Council, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1BR Mob 07432 105694
Page 117
3 -----Original Message----- From: Mark Higginbotham Sent: 03 March 2022 12:03 To: John Everett <john.everett@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: FW: Consultation Letter for Planning Application Ref:22/0125/PP For you John Mark Higginbotham Transportation & Development Manager Environment & Infrastructure, Renfrewshire Council, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1BR Mob 07432 105694 -----Original Message----- From: dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 02 March 2022 14:49 To: Mark Higginbotham <mark.higginbotham@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: Consultation Letter for Planning Application Ref:22/0125/PP Dear Mark Higginbotham Please find attached important information from Renfrewshire Council with regards to the planning application submitted on 22 February 2022. The documentation relating to the application can be reviewed online through the Council's Public Access web site, if you have registered as a Consultee on the system you directly input your comments to the case through this web site. Kind regards Renfrewshire Council Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1JD
Page 118
1 James Weir From: Kirsteen Macdonald <Kirsteen.Macdonald@agsairports.co.uk> Sent: 28 March 2022 10:37 To: James Weir Subject: 22/0125/PP Hi James 22/0125/PP This application is below consultation height for us so we have no comment. Kind regards Kirsteen Aberdeen | Glasgow | Southampton Kirsteen Macdonald Safeguarding Manager Glasgow Airport M +44 (0)7808 115 881 kirsteen.macdonald@agsairports.co.uk www.agsairports.co.uk Glasgow Airport, Erskine Court, St Andrews Drive, Paisley, PA3 2TJ CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information contained in this email and accompanying data are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and / or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, the use of this information or any disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact Kirsteen Macdonald and delete all copies of this message and attachments. Please note that AGS Airports Limited monitors incoming and outgoing mail for compliance with its Information Security policy. This includes scanning emails for computer viruses. AGS Airports Limited is a private limited company registered in England and Wales under Company Number 09201991, with the Registered Office at 1 Park Row, Leeds, LS1 5AB.