Agenda Document Pack - Planning and Regulatory Services Committee - 16/04/2025
Moray Council · 16 April 2025
Back to Planning and Regulatory Services Committee — 16 April 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Planning and Regulatory Services Committee Wednesday, 16 April 2025 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee is to be held at Council Chambers, Council Office, High Street, Elgin, IV30 1BX on Wednesday, 16 April 2025 at 09:30. BUSINESS 1. Sederunt 2. Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests * 3. Pre-determination Hearing - Planning Application 23-00709- APP Report by Appointed Officer Proposed 100GW per year Anaerobic Digestion Plant on Land at Longmorn Elgin Moray for Acorn Bioenergy 5 - 40 Summary of Planning and Regulatory Services Committee functions: Town and Country Planning; Building Standards; Environmental Health; Trading Standards; Weights & Measures, Tree Preservation Orders, and Contaminated Land issues. Page 1
Page 2
Watching the Meeting You can watch the webcast live by going to: http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_43661.html Webcasts are available to view for 1 year following the meeting. You can also attend the meeting in person, if you wish to do so, please come to the High Street entrance door and a member of staff will be let into the building. Page 2
Page 3
GUIDANCE NOTES * Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests - The Chair of the meeting shall seek declarations from any individual or political group at the beginning of a meeting whether any prior decision has been reached on how the individual or members of the group will vote on any item(s) of business on the Agenda, and if so on which item(s). A prior decision shall be one that the individual or the group deems to be mandatory on the individual or the group members such that the individual or the group members will be subject to sanctions should they not vote in accordance with the prior decision. Any such prior decisions will be recorded in the Minute of the meeting. Page 3
Page 4
MORAY COUNCIL Planning and Regulatory Services Committee SEDERUNT Councillor David Gordon (Chair) Councillor Donald Gatt (Depute Chair) Councillor Neil Cameron (Member) Councillor Tracy Colyer (Member) Councillor Theresa Coull (Member) Councillor John Cowe (Member) Councillor John Divers (Member) Councillor Amber Dunbar (Member) Councillor Jérémie Fernandes (Member) Councillor Sandy Keith (Member) Councillor Marc Macrae (Member) Councillor Paul McBain (Member) Councillor Draeyk van der Horn (Member) Councillor Sonya Warren (Member) Clerk Name: Lissa Rowan Clerk Telephone: 07765 741754 Clerk Email: committee.services@moray.gov.uk Page 4
Page 5
Report to: Special Meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee Meeting Date: 16 April 2025 Report by: Head of Governance, Strategy and Performance Report No: GSP013/25 Author: Lissa Rowan, Committee Services Officer Contact Email: lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk Subject: Planning Application 23/00709/APP - Proposed 100 GW per year Anaerobic Digestion Plant on Land at Longmorn, Elgin, Moray for Acorn Bioenergy 1. PURPOSE ☒ For Decision ☐ For Information 1.1 To ask the Committee to consider the recommendation from the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee, following a Pre-Determination Hearing at its special meeting earlier today, in respect of Planning Application 23/00709/APP. 1.2 This report is submitted to Committee in terms of Section III (E) (1) of the Council's Scheme of Administration relating to the determination of any planning application that has been considered at a Pre-Determination Hearing. 2. SUMMARY 2.1 The Committee is invited to consider the recommendation of the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee for a proposed 100 GW per year Anaerobic Digestion Plant on Land at Longmorn, Elgin, Moray for Acorn Bioenergy. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that Committee: i) consider the recommendation from the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee in respect of Planning Application 23/00709/APP, following a Pre- Determination Hearing at its special meeting earlier today, and proceed to determine the application. Item 3. Page 5
Page 6
Lissa Rowan Committee Services Officer 4. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 4.1 The Planning and Regulatory Services Committee considered Planning Application 23/00709/APP during a Pre-Determination Hearing at its special meeting earlier today. 4.2 Following consideration of the representation relating to Planning Application 23/00709/APP, a recommendation has been made regarding the outcome of the application. 4.3 A copy of the Appointed Officer’s report has been circulated to all Members of the Committee with the agenda for the Pre-Determination Hearing earlier today. 5. BACKGROUND PAPERS Page 6
Page 7
PLANNING APPLICATION: 23/00709/APP In the event that a recommendation on this planning application is overturned the Committee is reminded of the advice contained on the front page of the agenda for Reports on Applications 1. THE PROPOSAL • The application seeks planning permission for an anaerobic digester (AD) with a capacity of 100gW per year. • The plant will take in organic matter which will be broken down by naturally occurring micro-organisms. The process produces gas which is upgraded in order to be injected into the national grid and digestate which can be used as a fertiliser. Carbon dioxide will also be recovered from the original biogas produced. • The plant is fed predominantly by distillery by-products and agriculture feedstock (not manure). • The gas is to be mostly transported to a site at Morayston outside Inverness for injection to the grid. Also, a direct injection point into the intermediate public gas main, adjoining the site by the A941, will see some bio methane enter the wider gas network. • The plant consists of: • 3 covered lagoons. • 3 Ark Clamp units (solid feedstock storage bays. • 3 Above-ground Storage Tanks (ASTs) (Tanks 1 - 3) which are connected via a Pump Building, 1no smaller AST (Tank 4), 5 ASTs identified as ‘dirty tanks’, 1 ASTs identified as ‘slurry tank’, and 4 unspecified ASTs. • 3 feed hoppers. • A straw shed. • A separation unit. • A gas upgrading plant. • Gas flare (occasional use). • Carbon dioxide tanks. • 2 Combined Heat and Power containers, a heat exchanger and technical equipment container. • A boiler. • Chiller. • 3 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) gas compressor units and a storage/dispenser unit. • 5 trailer bays. • 2 office buildings with parking. • Suds basin and drainage infrastructure. • An internal loop road with weighbridge and office (single storey). • Gas pipeline injection point to intermediate pressure gas main, gas access valve and underground tank. • Carbon capture plant. Page 7
Page 8
• A new access to the public road (A941) is proposed in the south-east of the site. • The proposed landscaping covers both screening and biodiversity enhancement for the site and includes compensatory planting for the 27 trees to be felled at the entrance to the site. The applicant has also agreed to additional landscaping beyond the site boundary. • A 1.8m secure fence will surround the site, with a 3m high timber acoustic fence along the southern edge of the entrance road. Of note hedging and tree planting along the southern edge of the site will be planted in front of the acoustic fence. 2. THE SITE • The site is 9.8ha open farm land at Longmorn to the south of Elgin. • The site is within the Countryside Around Towns (CAT) around Elgin as identified in the MLDP 2020. • Benriach Distillery is to the east of the site on the opposite side of the road, which also forms the northern end of the Longmorn rural community grouping. • There are clusters of houses adjacent to the distillery both to the north east and south east of the application site. The nearest property is 85m from the application site boundary. • There is tree cover to the north and west and open land to the south, but the site itself site entirely on agricultural land (not prime land). • The Longmorn Burn is to the east of the site where it crosses under the A941. A small burn lies close to the west of the site known as Foths Burn which leads in Linkwood Burn to the north. Areas of fluvial and surface water flood risk are identified to the north, west and east. • The A941 runs to the east of the site. Access is proposed directly from this road, which is not a trunked section of the A941. 3. HISTORY On site: 22/01654/SCN - Erection and operation of anaerobic digestion plant and associated infrastructure on Land at Longmorn, Elgin – EIA not required 30/11/2022. 22/01652/PAN - Erection and operation of anaerobic digestion plant and associated infrastructure on Land at Longmorn, Elgin. Reported to the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee on 14 March 2023. Members asked the developer to consider: • loss of prime agricultural land; • large footprint of the development; • access egress via A941; • road safety on a fast pace of A941; • stacking of tractors during harvest season on the A941; • increase in lorry movements through Rothes; Page 8
Page 9
• the draff not being a waste product as it used by local farmers according to local farmers and NFU representatives; • gas flare; • bus stop at Benriach Cottages; • flood risk; • the lack of definition of waste feed stock; • productive agricultural land is being used to produce biomass for the digestive plant; • how will methane be handled; • potential leeks of methane; • whether heat generated from production will be used • impact on wildlife, flora and fauna; • odour; • community wealth building; • sale of methane; and • change of landscape from rural to industrial landscape. Furthermore, while no formal pre-application discussions were undertaken, the applicant met with Moray Council staff briefly in 2022 and in that meeting the applicant was discouraged from selecting sites within the Countryside Around Towns designation. Wider relevant planning history: 11/01383/APP - Construction of a new biomass plant within the existing site at Glenlossie And Mannochmore Distillery And Dark Grains Site, Glenlossie Road, Birnie, Elgin, Moray, IV30 8SS. Approved in December 2011this Biomass plant has been operational for a number of years. This site is located approximately 1.6km west of Fogwatt. 24/00995/APP - Extend visitor centre building landscaping new access to the visitors centre and realigning the existing road at Hilton Cottage, Benriach Distillery, Elgin, Moray, IV30 8SF. This pending application is located a Benriach Distillery to the east of the site. 20/01171/APP - Formation of 16 (inc 2 accessible) porus parking spaces and associated footpath at Benriach Distillery, Longmorn, Elgin, Moray, IV30 8SJ. This development was approved in February 2021 and is located east of the proposed development site. 4. POLICIES NPF4 Sustainable Places 1 - Tackling the climate and nature crises 2 - Climate mitigation and adaption 3 - Biodiversity 4 - Natural places 5 - Soils 6 - Forestry, Woodland & Trees Page 9
Page 10
7- Historic Assets & Places 9 - Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty Buildings 11- Energy 12 - Zero waste 13 - Sustainable transport Liveable Places 14 - Design, quality and place 18 - Infrastructure First 22 - Flood risk and water management 23 - Health and safety Productive Places 25 - Community Wealth building 29 - Rural Development Moray Local Development Plan 2020 Primary Policies PP1 - Placemaking PP2 - Sustainable Economic Growth PP3 - Infrastructure and Services MLDP 2020 PP1 Placemaking PP2 Sustainable Economic Growth PP3 Infrastructure and Services DP1 - Development Principles DP5 Business and Industry DP9 - Renewable Energy EP1 - Natural Heritage Designations EP2 - Biodiversity EP3 - Special Landscape Areas and Landscape Character EP4 - Countryside Around Towns EP6 - Settlement Boundaries EP7 - Forestry, Woodland and Trees EP8 - Historic Environment EP12 - Management and Enhancement of the Water Environment EP14 - Pollution, Contamination and Hazards 5. ADVERTISEMENTS 5.1 The application was advertised for neighbour notification, as a departure from the development plan and as a Schedule 3 development. 6 CONSULTATIONS Heldon Community Council: Concerns raised regarding the impact on the overall road network, safety at the junction given accident data for the area, impact of odour on neighbouring houses, impact on air pollution from vehicles Page 10
Page 11
accessing the site, noise impacts, light pollution and departure from NPF4 in relation to green belt policy. Elgin Community Council: No response. Innes Community Council: No response. Speyside Community Council: No response. Strategic Planning & Development: A detailed consultation response was provided by the Strategic Planning & Development team but the main policy concerns are summarised below. The proposed development is contrary to the Moray Development Plan which consists of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Moray Local Development Plan 2020 (LDP2020) for the following reasons: NPF4 Policy 1 Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises, NPF4 Policy 2 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation, NPF4 Policy 9 Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings, LDP2020 Policy EP4 Countryside Around Towns, LDP2020 PP2 Sustainable Economic Growth, LDP2020 Policy DP5 Business & Industry, LDP2020 Policy DP9 Renewable Energy Countryside Around Towns (CAT) The aim of the LDP2020 Policy EP4 Countryside Around Towns (CAT) is to prevent development around towns and maintain and preserve the distinction between the rural and built-up areas. CAT areas are subject to the highest levels of development pressure. The significant size and scale of the proposed development (9.8ha), large intrusive appearance that is incongruous with the rural character of the Elgin CAT area, and location immediately adjacent to the main arterial route to/from Elgin (and Moray as a whole) from the south significantly undermines the function, nature and character of the Elgin CAT area. Given that the proposed development is less than 300m and 600m on the A941 from the edge of planned development in Elgin, the visual distinction between the built-up area and countryside will be significantly diminished. Similarly, this large intrusive development which is incongruous with its surroundings will have a significant adverse impact on the rural character of the CAT area and is out of keeping with the distinctive and attractive distillery buildings that front onto the A941 which are in close proximity to the proposed site. If the proposal were permitted within the Elgin CAT area it would significantly undermine the LDP CAT Policy (EP4) and lead to an undesirable precedent for all 5 CAT designations in Moray, particularly given that none of the LDP sites designated for future employment land requirements have been explored in any depth by the applicant. The Evidence Report for the new LDP that has recently passed the Gatecheck identified as a key issue the significant development pressure that Moray is experiencing within CAT and other rural areas from renewable energy developments and the need to direct these to planned designations. Page 11
Page 12
LDP Policy DP9 Renewable Energy requires all renewable energy developments to comply with policies to safeguard and enhance the natural and built environment. This is a key aim of LDP Policy EP4 and means that policy DP9 does not allow renewable energy developments in the CAT areas. The proposal is not considered to comply with either Policy DP9 or EP4. Locational Justification The Council has set out that renewable energy developments not permitted within the CAT areas in Moray to the applicant from the outset. However, the applicant has continued to pursue the proposed development with the Elgin CAT area. No evidence has been provided to justify the locational requirement. The wide radius of distilleries that could serve and be served by the proposed AD plant, does not necessitate a location within the Elgin CAT area. Similarly, the Morayston injector point is over 30 miles from the application site and other ‘options’ cited as ‘being considered’ by the applicant do not form part of the application. No detailed analysis of alternatives has been provided by the applicant. The objectives of the proposed development could be achieved on an alternative site outwith the Elgin CAT area that does not undermine the fundamental principles of the LDP and supports the Scottish plan-led system. Greenfield/Brownfield Sites and Site Selection Scotland has a plan-led system and none of the sites identified to meet future employment land requirements have been explored in any depth. No brownfield sites and only three alternative greenfield sites within the same landownership as the application site has been considered through the site selection process. A small amount of further information on Burnside of Birnie has been submitted however, no detailed analysis of this site or alternative options has been undertaken by the applicant. Landownership is not a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and should not determine the site selection process. As set out in NPF4 Policy 9 Brownfield Sites are to take priority over greenfield and proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for the development in the LDP or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. It is considered that the proposal does not comply with either of these requirements. Landscape and Visual Impact - LDP2020 Policy EP3 Landscape Character, LDP2020 Policy DP1 Development Principles, LDP Policy EP6 Settlement Boundaries Significant adverse landscape and visual effects will principally arise on the character of the proposed development site and the surrounding area up to approximately 3km and on views from the A941and nearby residential properties. The proposed development will adversely affect the approach to Elgin and will significantly detract from the distinctive frontage buildings on the Benriach distillery which is promoted as a visitor attraction. The conclusions of an independent assessment commissioned by the Council of the applicants Page 12
Page 13
Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA), visualisations and other documents are summarised in the main body of this response. Climate Change - NPF4 Policy 1 Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises, NPF4 Policy 2 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation, Moray Council NPF4 Policy 2 Guidance ‘Alternative options’ to reduce the carbon emissions for the inputs to the process are ‘being considered’ by the applicant. Given that all of these do not form part of the planning application and that the Council cannot enforce these ‘alternative options’ the whole lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions must be based on the original calculations which proposed transporting biomethane to the injector point at Morayston, Inverness. There are enduring concerns regarding the potential transportation emissions, as well as the capacity of the local landbank to manage the volume of digestate generated through the AD process. Additionally, there is uncertainty regarding the long-term disposal of the carbon dioxide gas that the applicant plans to ‘capture’ during operations. The applicant has proposed that this gas may be transported to a carbon capture and storage facility outside of Moray, which has not yet been developed. The proposal is likely to produce significantly more greenhouse gas emissions than it removes and does not comply with NPF4 policy 1 or 2 which seek to tackle the climate crisis by reducing emissions as far as possible through siting and design. The applicant did not undertake a pre-application meeting with the Council which is strongly advised for major applications, however, this has been raised with the applicant from the initial discussions that have taken place on the planning application. Community Wealth Building (CWB) and Socio-Economic Benefits - NPF4 policy 11 Energy, NPF4 policy 25 Community Wealth Building, LDP2020 Primary Policy PP2 Sustainable Economic Growth, LDP2020 Primary Policy PP3 Infrastructure and Services, LDP2020 policy DP5 Business and Industry, LDP2020 DP9 Renewable Energy Significant economic benefits for the local economy have not been demonstrated and it has not been adequately substantiated that community wealth building will be delivered as proposed by the applicant. There are no targets or monitoring measures in place and no evidence has been provided to offer certainty that the suggestions in the applicant’s CWB statement will be implemented. Whilst a financial contribution of between £150-250k and annual ‘community fund’ of £20k has been offered by the applicant this is not considered to be significant given that the average community benefit for a windfarm is £5k per MW on an annual basis. It is proposed that the development will produce 100GW (100,000MW per year). For the reasons summarised above and set out in detail within the body of full consultation response, the Strategic Planning and Development team object to the proposed development. Following the submission of updated information submitted by the applicant in December 2024 and January 2025 the policy position remains unaltered, and Page 13
Page 14
the Strategic Planning and Development team uphold their objection to the proposed development. Archaeology: No objection subject to a condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological works across the site. Contaminated Land: No objection but an informative regarding an infilled former gravel pit to the north of the site is recommended. Developer Obligations: None sought, as the development would have no impact on schools, health care provision etc. Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions to control construction working hours, acoustic fence provision, the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, to control noise, lighting, odour and dust. Moray Flood Risk Management: No objection. Transportation: The proposals were subject to negotiation and change regarding the proposed access. No objection subject to conditions relating to the proposed ghost island, visibility splays, proposed works to Longmorn Bridge, the provision of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and an Operational Traffic Management Plan (OTMP), EV charging, cycle parking, parking and the provision of a Road Safety Audit following 12 months of operation of the development. HSE: No objection. Scottish Fire & Rescue Service: No response at the time of writing this report. Scottish Water: No objection. SEPA: No objection. Comments passed onto the applicant regarding the separate Pollution Prevent and Control (PPC) application and the information needed for it and other informatives. Scottish Gas Networks: No objections. 7. OBJECTIONS-REPRESENTATIONS NOTE: Following the determination of this application, name and address details will be/have been removed (i.e. redacted) in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulations (paragraph 3 of Minute, Planning & Regulatory Services Committee 16 September 2014). There may be more than one representation received from the below respondees. It should also be noted that following amendments in late 2024 a further period of neighbour notification and public advertisement was undertaken. The period for receipt of representation was extended over the Christmas period to allow for when the Council was closed. Page 14
Page 15
Letters/emails of representation have been received from the following: Page 15
Page 16
Below is a summary only of the representations lodged. All were read and where material to planning, weight was attached the matter raised in the overall consideration of the application. The Council e-planning portal allows for submission of objections and includes a drop-down menu of various possible grounds for objection. Those selected by objectors include the headings noise, dust, odour, traffic, road safety, impact on the environment and effect on views. Issue: Road safety and the location of the access. Response (PO): The proposed access has changed from the original proposal (this was the subject of re-notification) and significant further assessment has been undertaken. The Transportation Manager is now content that the proposed access is safe subject to conditions (if approved). Of note, whilst acceptable in road safety terms, the principle of a new access onto the A941 at this location remains contrary to Policy PP3 Infrastructure and Services (see observations section). Issue: Noise. Response (PO): A Noise Impact Assessment has been carried out. The Environmental Health Manager has no objections but has recommended conditions to ensure that noise is maintained within acceptable limits. It is noted that SEPA have raised concerns that additional or altered development may be required in order to comply with the Pollution Prevention and Control Consenting overseen by SEPA. This is a separate matter to the planning application process and SEPA comments have been passed to the applicant. Issue: The development is out of character with the semi-rural location and incompatible with surrounding houses. Response (PO): The impact development on the rural location within the CAT designation forms part of the recommendation for refusal, see the observations section of the report below. Issue: Likelihood of the stated working hours being breached. Response (PO): The supporting statement states that the site would operate between 7am and 7pm. This could be controlled by condition if the development were to be approved. Any alleged breach of condition would be investigated as an enforcement case, and it is subjective to assume that conditions would be breached. Issue: Additional heavy traffic on A96 and coming through Elgin. Response (PO): The Transportation Manager has no concerns regarding the impacts on the A96 or the road network in Elgin. Page 16
Page 17
Issue: The development will encourage overproduction to feed for the AD plant which has negative environmental impacts. Response (PO): There is no policy requirement to demonstrate a need for the development or control productivity in the local area to provide sufficient feedstock. The applicant has provided information on links with local distilleries who will provide the majority of feedstock. It is speculative to presume that food production would encourage overproduction for the purposes of supplying AD plants. The applicant has also referred to the use of ‘break crops’ in the AD plant, which are part of the normal farming field cycle. Issue: The removal of the bus shelter will be unsafe for bus users. Response (PO): The bus shelter is no longer to be removed. Issue: The loss of trees from the visibility splays. Response (PO): The loss of trees is regrettable but the removal of trees to form the splay is in line with NPF4 Policy 6 and MLDP EP7 where it is unavoidable to ensure matter such as road safety. Compensatory planting will be provided on site which more than compensates for the loss of trees at the entrance to the site. There is also additional tree planting and landscaping being provided at the east side of the site. Issue: The development will adversely impact on tourist routes. Response (PO): MLDP Policy DP2 includes impact on tourism interests as one of the considerations for renewable energy developments. The impact upon the Countryside Around Towns designation is noted, as is the development being visible from a short stretch of the public road, it is unclear if an adverse impact on tourism would occur. The overall impact on landscape character is part of the recommendation for refusal, but it is difficult to quantify if this would tangibly and adversely affect tourism numbers. Issue: Odour and lack of technical detail on how it will be managed. Response (PO): Information on odour management has been provided and the Environmental Health Manager has recommended conditions to be attached in the event approval is granted. Issue: The proposal is contrary to green belt policy. Response (PO): It has been established that the green belt policy in NPF4 (Policy 8) does not apply in Moray where there is no green belt. This matter was reported to committee on 19 December 2023 and this matter is discussed below in the observations section of the report. MLDP Policy EP4 (Countryside Around Towns) does apply as the proposal is within the CAT designation around Elgin. The applicant has stated there will be a locational justification for the development as it is sited adjacent to a distillery which is anticipated to provide feedstock, but as it does not constitute one of the few exemptions permissible within the CAT, it is a departure from this policy. The departure from this policy and others forms part of the recommendation for refusal. Issue: Locational need not demonstrated. Response (PO): The applicant has submitted some information to indicate that there is a link with the existing distillery adjacent to the site, and that they have distilleries in the wider locality or beyond promising to use the AD Plant, or at least intimated they need such facilities to recycle their commercial waste. The Page 17
Page 18
locational justification of the development is discussed below in the observations section of the report, and it is not considered that a locational justification has been made. Issue: This development should be sited on business or industrial land away from houses. Response (PO): Each application must be considered on its own merits on the basis on which it is submitted. The developments potential proximity to houses close to the access is discussed elsewhere in the report. Issue: Growing crops to feed this plant instead of ourselves is not ‘green’. Response (PO): There is no policy requirement to demonstrate a need for the development or demonstrate the capacity of the local area to provide sufficient feedstock. It should be noted that the applicant can also use ‘break crops’ which often form part of the crop rotation, and used to rest/recover soils, causing a break from main crops to supress weeds/pests and are less valuable to the food chain, such that AD use can be an appropriate way to use them. Issue: Litter. Response (PO): This is a matter for the management of the site. Development of this nature will not directly create litter. Issue: Water required to service the site. Response (PO): Scottish Water has no objection. Issue: Factual information on the availability of feedstock is lacking so it is impossible to assess the local impact. Response (PO): Additional information has been submitted which has been kept confidential as it relates to commercial arrangements and is commercially confidential. This information from distillers does however identify that they see a need for such facilities and that they may/will use them. The carbon calculations necessary for applications consideration have indicated that there are distilleries in the local and wider locality that may use the facility. At the pre- determination stage not all likely user distillers would agree to supplying the site formally, but some support (commercially sensitive) has been supplied to the council showing intent to supply the facility from a number of Moray distilleries. Still not sufficient clarity however to NPF4 Policy 2 Climate mitigation and Adaption or justify its present within the CAT. Issue: There are existing AD plants at Portgordon, Dufftown and Rothes so this is not needed. Response (PO): Each application is considered on its own merits. If the applicants have made a commercial assessment that there is a need and market for their proposed development and are confident they can viably secure feedstock then the presence of other similar facilities is not grounds to refuse the current proposal. Issue: A significant proportion of available arable land in Moray would have to be given over to feeding this given the scale of the scheme. Response (PO): There is no policy requirement limiting the extent of crop provided for the development or controlling agricultural production in the local area to provide sufficient feedstock. The information provided by the applicant Page 18
Page 19
demonstrates that the majority of feedstock would come from distilleries, who are producing increasing amounts of by-product that could be in the AD Plant. Whether separate national limits should be set on how much crop is produced for anaerobic digestion facilities is a wider policy issue, not to be factored into the assessment of the current planning application. Issue: The ability to collect manure to contribute towards feedstock is limited in Moray as cattle are generally outside and the cattle population is dropping. Response (PO): There is no policy requirement to demonstrate a need for the development or demonstrate the capacity of the local area to provide sufficient feedstock. The information provided by the applicant demonstrates that the majority of feedstock would come from distilleries, but other possible source alongside crop, straw and other distillery by-products. It is no longer intended to use manure. Issue: The proposed lagoon is not big enough for the volume of digestate likely to be produced. Response (PO): The proposal is assessed as presented, and there is no reason to presume the applicants would have designed themselves insufficient sized covered lagoons. If this were the case, it would limit production. Issue: Production of greenhouse gasses. Response (PO): Anaerobic digestion produces greenhouse gas must be assessed in the context that it potentially offsets the need for North Sea fuel abstraction. The below observations however assess the wider carbon implications of such a use and how the AD plant would operate. The production of greenhouse gases form part of the recommendation for refusal as being contrary to policy. Issue: The proposal does not align to available biomass feedstocks, nor a suitable ‘landbank’ for the disposal of digestate produced, within a radius of the plant that would deliver a reasonable carbon saving. Factual detail of proposed Distillery by-product feedstock volumes which have been secured to serve the plant is either lacking from the application or not publicly available. Consequently, it is incredibly difficult to determine what the local impact of such a large-scale development will be. If such a development is granted permission, not only would it have the potential to greatly increase vehicle miles associated with the exportation of biomethane or captured CO2, but, given the proposed feedstock volumes to be processed at the site, will lead to the potential creation of c96,500 tonnes of digestate annually which will need to be disposed of to the local landbank. The significant majority of this landbank is already serviced during allowable periods by digestate from anaerobic digestion plants already operating within the region. This raises legitimate questions about local need for the plant when coupled with the significant anaerobic digestion capacity that is already available at Portgordon, with an additional generation capacity of 120GWh at this established location granted planning permission by Moray Council in 2024. Other sources of local biomass are also sent to the Corde plant in Rothes. Response (PO): The specific details of specific distillery food stock potentially supplying the facility remain commercially sensitive, but a number of distilleries have expressed support and the need for a further AD plant to support Page 19
Page 20
expansion of the whisky industry, and one has committed to use of the facility if developed. The applicants have also modified their submissions to include a local gas injection point, which should remove some of the vehicle journeys to Morayston high pressure gas main injection point, when demand allows for local injection to the grid. Other wider concerns about the local need for this additional AD plant, need to be weighed against the principle in the planning system that it is not there to curtail commercial competition for sale/disposal of digestate, and does not exist to protect the interests of one person or business against the activities of another. Concerns regarding increase vehicle miles associated with the exportation of biomethane or captured CO2 are reflected in the recommendations. Issue: The revised information such as gas injection point, should have required the applicants to conduct renewed public consultation events. Response (PO): The revisions would not have necessitated pre-application public meetings, as the application is now lodged. What was done, in accordance with the necessary legislation, was the relevant neighbours were directly notified and the statutory public advertisement placed in the local press allowing for further representations to be lodged. Issue: Beyond the grounds of objection submitted, supportive comments relating to the merits of Anaerobic digesters generally, economic contribution and contribution to meeting net zero targets. Response (PO): Support for the principle of anaerobic digestion is noted, and the applicant has sought to make the case the production of bio-fuel, from farming and mainly distillery by-product feeds into the circular economy, and makes positive contribution to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Other matters have however affected the overall recommendation. The following points were raised by several objectors but are not material planning considerations, so do not therefore influence the recommendation: • Impact on house prices. • The fact the company is not locally based. • Impact on the market of using draft which is currently used by farmers for other purposes. • The power will not be used locally. 8. OBSERVATIONS 8.1 Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, namely the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and adopted Moray Local Development Plan 2020 (MLDP) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Moray Council also attaches material weight to its own Carbon Guidance, prepared to assist in the assessment of proposals against NPF4 Policies. 8.2 Background In early 2024, the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee agreed that the Moray Local Development Plan 2020 Countryside Around Towns designation, was not to be assessed or compared to NPF4 ‘greenbelt’ designations which surround larger settlements and cities elsewhere in Scotland. This is pertinent Page 20
Page 21
to the current application as the exemptions for what development may occur in Moray CAT designation differs from the NPF4 Policy 8 Greenbelts. As an adopted and bespoke designation within the MLDP it would not be superseded by NPF4 Policy 8. 8.3 Of note the applicants submitted a number of amendments and supporting information in December 2024, in response to issues raised. The updated planning and environmental information and amended plans were substantial, and these have been the subject of renotification of neighbours and review by relevant consultees. 8.4 Pre-application Consultation Report The application is accompanied by a Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report, as prescribed under section 35C of the 1997 Act. This outlines the statutory consultation that the applicant undertook with the local community in relation to this application. The form and scope of the pre-application consultation was considered to be suitable and agreed by the Council in response to Proposal of Application Notice 22/01652/PAN. 8.5 The PAC Report states that two public events were held at Fogwatt Hall on 7 December 2022 and 18 January 2023. A project website was set up to provide information on the development. The report states that 48 people attended the first public event and 65 people attended the second. It is noted that concerns were raised in relation to traffic, the position of the access, road safety, odour, noise, air quality, visual impact, impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and siting in the countryside. The report also notes that concerns were raised in relation to loss of view and property values which the report acknowledges are not material considerations in relation to the assessment of the planning application. The report identifies the steps taken to address the concerns as part of the formal planning application. These include the preparation of a Transport Assessment, Air quality, noise and odour Assessments, Landscape and visual appraisal and justification of the setting. The report also identifies concerns raised around increased competition for feed supplies and diversion of crops and cereals away from producing animal feed to energy production. The report notes an intention to engage with the NFU to address some of the concerns. 8.6 The application has submitted a suite of different documents in support of the planning application. These include a Supporting Statement, Flood Risk Assessment, Woodland surveys, ecology surveys/appraisal, Road Safety Audits, a Design and Access Statement, Tree Protection Plan, Transport Statement, Drainage Impact Assessment, Construction Environmental Management Plan, Noise Impact Assessment, Lighting Assessment, Socio Economic Impact Assessment, Community Wealth Building Statement, Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI), Site Waste Management Plan, Soil Management Plan, Landscape and Visual Appraisal and other confidential submissions. In response to discussions certain documents have been amended and updated following input from consultees. 8.7 Environmental Impact Assessment A screening request (22/01654/SCN) was submitted to the Council to establish if the application was an EIA development for the purposes of the Town and Page 21
Page 22
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. In this case the proposal is Schedule 2 development under category 3 (d) Surface storage of natural gas where the area of any building, deposit or structure exceeds 500m. Having considered the characteristics of the development, the location of the development and characteristics of the proposed development it was concluded that there will be no significant adverse environmental effects and the proposal is not an EIA development. A negative screening opinion does not indicate that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the receiving environment and does preclude unacceptable impacts on a localised area. 8.8 Wider National Policy and Guidance The Scottish Governments support for ‘green gas’, and its role in the circular economy are reflected in the Draft Bioenergy Policy Statement make clear that AD is considered one of the ways in which use of fossil fuels can be avoided. There is also specific reference to the role that AD can have in supporting distilleries within this document. This policy statement is however in draft and is yet to become a material consideration. 8.9 There are a number of UK wide strategies, such as UK government Biomass Strategy 2023, Draft Strategic Spatial Energy Plans 2024 which support initiatives such as Green Gas Support Scheme, and all identify that bio- methane plays its part in reducing dependence on high carbon natural gas. 8.10 Weight is attached to the general support attached to the provision of green energy solutions across various national documents, but with all, they identify that high standards of design, and operational management are required. 8.11 The main development plan policy considerations are as follows: 8.12 Impact on the CAT (MLDP EP4 and EP6) The site is within the Countryside Around Town (CAT) around Elgin as identified in the MLDP. Policy EP4 presumes against development in the CAT except where it involves an existing building, is for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, low intensity recreational or tourism uses or is explicitly allowed under the terms of the LDP or is part of a LONG designation in the plan. 8.13 For the avoidance of doubt it has been clarified (report of 19 December 2023) that NPF4 Policy 8 (Green belts) does not apply in Moray. The concept of green belts, though not expressly defined in policy, is generally accepted to relate to cities and larger conurbations. The CAT policy is specific to Moray is more appropriate to the scale of settlement found here. The CAT cannot be considered a green belt for the purpose of NPF4 therefore Policy 8 does not apply. 8.14 The application site is some 300m from the southernmost ‘LONG’ designation in the current MLDP. The boundary of the Rural Grouping of Longmorn is on the east of the A941. MLDP policy EP6 Settlement Boundaries presumes against development immediately outwith settlement or rural grouping boundaries. There is no equivalent policy in NPF4. While there is proximity the boundaries are the application site are not conterminous with those of that of Elgin or Longmorn as identified in the MLDP therefore would not be considered Page 22
Page 23
immediately adjacent for the purposes of policy EP6 and that policy was not applied in this case. 8.15 The purpose of the CAT is to prevent urban sprawl from the main settlements in Moray. The proposal is a departure from EP4 as the development does not meet any of the exceptions set out in the policy and does not comply with EP4 b) as the requirements within other policies prevent its location within the CAT (such as Policy DP9 which requires renewable development to safeguard the natural environment and avoid adverse impacts on the landscape). Furthermore, the site is 9.8ha which represents a significant land take. The applicant has set out in their supporting case that there will be a link between the development and the distilleries on the opposite side of the road. It is noted that some of the supporting documents refer to a physical pipeline between the site and neighbouring distillery but this does not form part of the current application. However, the operational connection between the two supports the circular economy and provides a justification for siting this development in this location. The proposal is more than 300m from the southern edge of the Elgin LONG 3 designation. This is a site for future development and may not come forward during the lifetime of the current development plan. There is woodland between the application site and the LONG3 designation and a clear distinction between the town and the open countryside beyond. It is recognised that there is pressure on rural areas from large scale renewable energy projects. There are no sites designated for such schemes in the current MLDP and projects of this scale would very quickly absorb available employment land if sited on industrial designations. 8.16 Locational Justification The applicant has sought the proposed development to within the Elgin CAT area. One of the principal reasons cited is proximity to two distilleries which have a ‘combined demand for biomethane equivalent to >50% of the production capacity of the Longmorn AD plant’. Separate commercial agreements may be in place for these nearby distilleries. Therefore, there is no certainty that the high levels of biomethane suggested by the applicant will be utilised by the two distilleries that are located closest to the plant. This undermines the applicant’s argument for the plant to be in the Elgin CAT area. 8.17 The applicant suggests that the by-product will be obtained from a number of distilleries up to 18 miles from the application site. Letters of support suggest that distilleries in the Forres, Elgin and Keith areas will feed and use the biomethane from the proposed AD plant at Longmorn. Given the wide radius of distilleries, it is considered that an alternative, more appropriate site outwith the Elgin CAT area could equally serve and be served by distilleries without undermining the fundamental principles of the MLDP. 8.18 Further reasons for the location of the proposal plant at Longmorn cited by the applicant include proximity to the Morayston injector point and the transportation of biomethane to off-grid distilleries. The Morayston injector point is located 35 miles from the application site and the servicing of off-grid distilleries could take place from a variety of locations. Given that the objectives of the proposed development could be achieved on an alternative site there is no justification for the proposal within the Elgin CAT area. The applicant has suggested that alternative options have been ‘key locational factors’ in the Page 23
Page 24
identification of the application site. These alternative options that are ‘being considered’ by the applicant include directly piping biomethane to the two distilleries in close proximity. This alternative option does not form part of the current application but in theory, regardless of any pipeline the close prospective distance to two feedstock suppliers within 1mile would be advantageous if secured. This can however be also said for other locations closer to Speyside where the majority distilleries are concentrated. NPF4 Policy 9 promotes the reuse of brownfield over greenfield land and clearly sets out that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. The applicant has stated that they have considered alternative sites along with the application site for the proposed development, this includes most recently further explanation of the Burnside of Birnie. 8.19 NPF4 Policy 9 sets out that proposals on greenfield land will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. This is to ensure that ‘development is directed to the right locations, maximising the use of existing assets and minimising additional land’ (NPF4 Policy 9, Policy outcome). NPF4 Policy 9 is critical to delivering the intended impacts of NPF4 Policy 1 and 2, namely conserving and recycling assets. The proposed development is not located on an allocated greenfield site in the LDP or explicitly supported by the LDP policies, and in turn, is not supported by NPF4 Policy 9. 8.20 The application was amended in late 2024 to include a direct gas injection point into the adjoining intermediate pressure gas main, and this would justify its location in part, although there may be other locations outwith the CAT designation, where demand could allow for a connection to the grid. Of note it is acknowledged that not all gas pipelines would be appropriate for connection to bio methane facilities. 8.21 LDP2020 Primary Policy 2 (PP2) sets out that proposals that support the Moray Economic Strategy (MES) to deliver sustainable economic growth will be supported where the quality of the natural and built environment is safeguarded, there is a clear locational need, and all potential impacts have been mitigated. Similarly, LDP2020 Policy DP5 sets out that proposals for new business development in rural locations will be supported where there is a locational need for the site and the proposal is in accordance with all other relevant policies. Given the above, the proposal has not substantiated a clear locational need and for the reasons set out in this response does not accord with other relevant policies or deliver sustainable economic growth as per the requirements of PP2. Regardless, the proposal is not permitted within the Elgin CAT area as it is not a development permitted under LDP Policy EP4 and as confirmed by through a democratic process by the Council in December 2023, renewable energy development is not acceptable within CAT areas in Moray. 8.22 Renewable Energy Policy (NPF4 Policy 11 & MLDP DP9) The development is a large-scale renewable energy project exceeding 9 hectares. Neither NPF4 Policy 11 Energy and MLDP Policy DP9 Renewable Energy reference AD plants specifically but both are supportive of renewable Page 24
Page 25
energy development. It is however noted that both policies set out a range of impacts that the development must address. Impacts in relation to economic impact, noise and smell, landscape and visual impacts, road traffic, historic environment, flood risk and the water environment, biodiversity and trees are dealt with in more detail below. 8.23 It is requirement of both NPF4 Policy 11 and MLDP DP9 that decommissioning is considered as part of a renewable energy proposal. The development has a limited life span therefore a condition could be imposed limiting the operational lifetime of the development to 25 years if the development were approved. Such a condition would require the site to be cleared and restored at the end of that operational period. 8.24 Notwithstanding the significant weight to be attached to supporting renewable energy proposals within NPF4 Policy 11, the same paragraph also supports proposals which aid greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. This makes the assessment of aerobic digestion proposals producing bio-methane a more balanced assessment. The tests applied under Policies 1 and 2 of NPF4 (discussed below) becomes pivotal to assessing the negative or positive carbon effect of a development. It is acknowledged that bio-fuel may play its part in reducing extraction of carbon based fuels from offshore, but needs to be assessed in conjunction with the implications of its production, transportation, waste, etc. For the reasons discussed below, it considered on balance that the proposals do not comply with NPF4 Policies 1, 2 and 11, due to the uncertainty that production of greenhouse gases (bio methane) would be fully offset. 8.25 Under MLDP DP9 Renewable Energy it is accepted that anaerobic digestion could be considered as a form of this type of development if the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the inputs are lower than those to produce the biomethane (outputs). In such an event the policy will look favourably upon such development where a range of adverse impacts the policy lists are avoided. Landscape and visual impacts are amongst those criteria, and the siting of the proposed plan is discussed in more depth below. Failure to meet the criteria within DP9 results in part from the developments location within the CAT which is contrary to Policy EP4 as discussed above. 8.26 Carbon & Climate Change (NPF4 Policies 1 & 2 and Moray Council NPF4 Policy 2 Guidance) NPF4 Policies 1 and 2 aim to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crises, and ensure that development proposals are sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and adapt to the changing climate. The basic premise is that the whole life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions generated by inputs is significantly less than the output. This means that a development minimises greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible throughout its entire lifespan, significantly reducing the overall environmental impact through situation and design. 8.27 The carbon impact of anaerobic digesters is related to the carbon footprint of the organic material that is used as feedstock for the process. Therefore, carbon usage of anaerobic digesters can be evaluated based on two factors: the carbon intensity of the feedstock and the efficiency of the anaerobic Page 25
Page 26
digestion process. The carbon intensity of the feedstock is a measure of the amount of greenhouse gases emitted during the production and transportation of the feedstock. 8.28 The applicant's reliance on local distilleries for feedstock introduces uncertainty. While agreements are being pursued, the absence of signed contracts hinders the assessment of the development's carbon footprint. The applicant notes that they aim for most feedstock to be procured within 10 miles of the site (discussion latterly included potential supplier distilleries up to 17 miles drive away). The uncertainty around the origin and nature of these feedstocks, particularly those which are completely unaccounted for, undermines the applicant's ability to demonstrate compliance with NPF4 Policies 1 and 2. There exists further uncertainty surrounding the measures to be taken to reduce the embodied carbon emissions of the development itself. The applicant has not set out how the site (including buildings, infrastructure and surroundings) have been designed to minimise these emissions as far as possible, including considering the carbon impacts of land use change over a significant area of vegetated land. The Council’s Guidance on NPF4 Policy 2 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation was raised by officers at a meeting on 20 July 2023 with the applicant and their agent. Despite the Council’s guidance being set out clearly the applicant failed to provide the required information and this was evidenced at a meeting on 19 September 2024 where it was clear that embodied carbon had not been factored into their calculations. Furthermore, insufficient information has been provided regarding how the proposal will adapt to current and future climate risks. The applicant has responded stating that the submitted flood risk assessments undertaken did make an allowance for climate change in avoiding any flood incidence. They state that in developing an operation that supports the circular economy, utilises local farming and distillery by-product to produce a low carbon energy source provided resilience for the future. 8.29 Given the uncertainties surrounding feedstock procurement, embodied carbon emissions, and climate adaptation measures, the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with NPF4 Policies 1 and 2. 8.30 The applicant's stated plan to transport biomethane to Morayston, Inverness, for injection results in an estimated annual carbon output from the development of approximately 6,500tCO2e. To minimise the carbon emissions the applicant has stated that alternative options are ‘being considered’, including direct piping to two distilleries, direct piping into an existing pipeline adjacent to the site and using the biomethane as an alternative for diesel/heavy fuel oil/LPG for off-grid distilleries. It is proposed that directly piping biomethane to the two distilleries in the immediate vicinity would utilise over 50% of the production capacity of the AD plant. Whilst these alternative options are welcomed, only the direct gas injection to the adjoining intermediate gas pipeline forms planning application, it is unclear what proportion of gas this might receive. Given this, the carbon calculations must be based on the original proposal that biomethane will be transported to the injection point at Morayston, Inverness, which results in significant carbon emissions which are not negated by the options under consideration. The site is therefore not sited and designed to minimised lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible. Page 26
Page 27
8.31 The applicant states that substantial volumes of ‘biogenic’ carbon dioxide gas will be captured during the production process. However, the proposed plan is to transport this captured carbon for use in other industries and this raises concerns about its overall climate impact. The lifecycle assessment has not considered the potential emissions that may occur when this carbon is subsequently released into the atmosphere. Therefore, while in isolation the production process may remove carbon, for Policies 1 and 2 it is essential to evaluate the entire proposal to determine its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. It should be noted that fossil fuel derived carbon dioxide gas and biogenic carbon dioxide gas are the same chemical compound and therefore have the same global warming potential (the ability of the gas to trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere). On this basis, it is considered that the development will result in a significant increase in carbon emissions and contribution to the greenhouse effect which hinders progress in tackling the global climate emergency. 8.32 Renewable energy and low carbon and zero emission technology developments in Moray are supported where they comply with the Development Plan. Whilst NPF4 contains broad national planning policies, the LDP2020 sets out a spatial strategy and detailed policies that reflect local circumstances, which includes protecting and safeguarding the setting and character of Moray’s towns and landscapes from inappropriate development. Whilst the LDP2020 was adopted prior to NPF4 it continues to reflect the Council’s position on land-use planning in Moray. Since the adoption of the LDP2020 the pressure on Moray’s landscape and CAT areas has increased significantly for renewable energy and low carbon and zero emission technologies. This was agreed by the Moray Council through the Evidence Report for the LDP27 in April 2024 and that the CAT policy prevails at a meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Services Committee in December 2023. 8.33 The response from the Strategic Planning and Development, Climate Change team below addresses the updated information submitted by the applicant in December 2024 and January 2025: • The applicant has submitted additional information regarding potential operational scenarios for the proposed development. However, this information has not sufficiently addressed the concern that the development has been sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. As noted elsewhere in the Strategic Planning and Development response, the chosen location is not the most appropriate for this type of activity, as more suitable sites are available which could reduce the carbon impact associated with transportation, infrastructure and recycling existing assets. • Concerns regarding the carbon impact of digestate surplus persist, particularly regarding transportation emissions and the digestate’s subsequent use. No assessment has been provided on the capacity of the local landbank to accommodate the significant volumes of digestate produced by the proposed AD process. It is also understood that the proposed carbon capture facility does not currently exist. Given the existence of several other AD sites in Moray, there is a risk that any surplus digestate may need to be transported outside of the region, possibly further afield than suggested, thereby increasing traffic to and from the site and resulting in additional carbon emissions. Page 27
Page 28
8.34 Landscape and Visual Impact (NPF4 11 & MLDP EP3 & DP9) The application is supported by a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA). This has been the subject of independent assessment by the Council’s Landscape Architect who in July 2024 who advised that there were several issues with its conclusions and methodology. 8.35 These concerns raised in July 2024 were as follows: Information submitted by the applicant: The does not accord with the best practice set out in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition. The LVA does not make judgements as to the magnitude of change and the degree of significance likely to occur as a result of the proposed development. The LVA conclusions do not accord with other parts of the document and important considerations such as additional mitigation and enhancement measures have been overlooked. The visualisations are difficult to understand with the computer modelling too simplistic to allow a full appreciation of the likely visibility of the different components of the proposal. For example, it is not clear where existing and proposed embankments lie and what, if any, vegetation will be retained. Some components that would be potentially visible are not modelled on the visualisations and key structures are not annotated. It is considered that a LVIA should have been submitted. • Designations: the review sets out that the proposal is located within the CAT designation which aims to preserve the distinction of the main towns of Moray and prevent development sprawl into the countryside, and that only specific types of development are permitted. It is considered that the proposal would strongly contrast with the built development around the Longmorn/Benriach distilleries because of its scale and obvious industrial appearance, and that it would introduce a type of development which is not a key characteristic of rural Moray into the CAT area close to Elgin. • Landscape character: the review sets out that the landscape in this Landscape Character Type (LCT) has a relatively simple, undulating landform and open and expansive character where larger arable fields are broken by often blocky coniferous plantations. The well-settled landscape has a regular pattern of dispersed farms, houses and settlements with distilleries a feature particularly in the southern part of the LCT. The review concludes that whilst the proposal which is located in close proximity to an existing node of larger built development centred on the Benriach and Longmorn distilleries would reduce sensitivity in terms of limiting dispersal of development in a rural landscape, the proposal with its utilitarian and industrial appearance, would have an adverse and significant effect on the character. • Visual Amenity: the review sets out that there will be close and largely open views of the proposal from the A941 principally between Longmorn and the Benriach distillery, a distance of approximately 1km (viewpoints 2 and 3), and that the proposal will significantly detract from the Benriach distillery group of buildings which form a distinctive and attractive feature in views from the A941. The A941 is a key approach to Elgin for tourists and locals, alike. It is a busy road and whilst traffic is generally going at Page 28
Page 29
speed, and views are relatively fleeting, the prominence of taller structures very close to this road (and particularly close to the bend at Benriach distillery where traffic speed reduces) increases the magnitude of effect. The proposal will be located close to Elgin but within the countryside surrounding the town and would likely have a negative effect on visitor’s first impressions when approaching the town via the A941 (a route which is commonly used by people undertaking distillery and whisky tours within Moray). Whilst views from housing on the southern edge of Elgin will be limited this is only the case if the existing coniferous woodlands are retained in perpetuity. Whilst the review considers that current applications for licenses to Scottish Forestry are unlikely to result in a significant loss of screening, future felling operations could diminish the present visual containment of the site. In terms of informal footpaths on the south- eastern edge of the coniferous plantations which wrap around the proposed development site to the west and north, whilst views would not extend far into the core of the woodland, the noise (and potentially lighting) associated with the proposed development may adversely affect the experience of the recreational receptors even if built components were fully or partially screened. • Nearby residential properties: 8 -10 nearby residential properties located either side of the A941 close to the Benriach distillery will experience significant adverse effects on their visual amenity from the proposed development. Some more dispersed properties located to the south-west of the proposed development site would be adversely affected although the more rolling landform in this area will restrict visibility. Cumulative effects may be experienced from some residential properties in the area where this proposal would be seen together with existing distillery related buildings near Thomshill. 8.36 It is noted that the applicant in late 2024 took several steps seeking to reduce the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development. These involved removal of the proposed manure shed, reduction in height of the weigh bridge structure and a substantive increase in landscaping tree across the site. It is noted that a 3m timber acoustic fence will be introduced towards the south side of the site entrance road at the south east entrance to the site. There then followed in January 2025 a review of the amendments by the Councils Landscape Architect, including an Illustrative Landscape Masterplan, updated visualisations have been produced, revised and annotated photowires and photomontages, showing the proposal at Year 1 and Year 15 from each of the five viewpoints. Supplementary to the points raise above, the landscape architect made the further comments and conclusions. • Reducing the prominence of more intrusive buildings – The reduction in the height of the Weighbridge Office is a positive measure. It is not clear from the Tree Protection Plan whether the group of Scots pine on the bank adjacent to the A941 would provide long term screening of this building from Viewpoint 2 and whether the Applicant would have control anyway over these existing trees as they lie outside the application boundary (see also 4th bullet point below). • Increase in screen planting on the boundaries of the site. Paragraph 1.1.24 6th bullet point states that the screen planting around the site is now increased to 10,686 square metres rather than the 2,262 square Page 29
Page 30
metres originally proposed. However, it is difficult to ascertain where the second figure has come from given the vagueness of both the original site plan drawings (submitted in 2023) and the Landscape Mitigation Plan of April 2024. While the Illustrative Landscape Masterplan dated October 2024 provides more detail on the type of planting proposed, the differences in the area of landscape buffer shown around the infrastructure do not appear to have substantially altered when compared with earlier plans. Key differences are that woodland and tree planting is more clearly defined and tree groupings and hedgerow planting are now specifically proposed close to the entrance of the site. The introduction of a timber acoustic fence near the entrance splay will increase intrusion. The photomontage for Viewpoint 3 shows planting (hedge and trees) at year 15 which would provide some screening of the fence. The landscape buffer on the southern boundary of the site would need to be increased to ensure a good depth of planting and adequate screening in this location. • Use of recessive materials and colours for buildings/structures and low impact lighting - Paragraph 1.1.24 7th bullet point confirms that the Applicant is content to accept a planning condition to secure these measures. • Protection of existing trees adjacent to the A941 at Longmorn It is unclear from the Tree Protection Plan (revised December 2024) whether the pink circles shown in this area comprise trees which fall in Category U, noted in the key to be trees which cannot be retained beyond 10 years. The Tree Protection Plan is not referred to in Appendix B of the Updating Planning and Environment report and clarification is needed as to what control the Applicant will have over the existing trees here as these appear to lie outside the boundary of the development site. The mature stand of Scots pine appear somewhat battered from the baseline photographs from Viewpoint 2 and their longevity should be ensured if the proposed Straw Shed is to be retained in this more visible location close to the A941, the distillery buildings and visitor car park and nearby residential properties. • Retention of existing woodland abutting the development site. Existing woodlands are important in providing screening of the proposed development. Pages 6-7 of Appendix B of the Updating Planning and Environmental Information report confirm that the Applicant would not have control over the woodlands lying to the north and south-west of the site but that the Foths Burn Woodland to the west falls within the ownership of the landowner financially involved with the proposal and some agreement on management could be reached. • Woodland planting on the southern site boundary. The proposed development site appears tight with little space around infrastructure to accommodate an appropriate landscape buffer particularly along the southern boundary. The Illustrative Landscape Masterplan indicates ‘scattered tree groupings’ against this boundary which are unlikely to form an effective and uniform screen. 8.37 An assessment of the likely landscape and visual effects of the revised proposal is set out in Appendix B with conclusions reached as to the Page 30
Page 31
significance of effects (this was not provided for the original proposal due to an EIA not having been requested by the Council). The landscape architect largely in agreement with the findings of the landscape and visual assessment, these are in some instances predicated on the screening effect of existing woodlands lying to the north, west and south-west of the development site, some of which lie outside the control of the Applicant. 8.38 Landscape and Visual impact conclusions There has been some improvement to the design of the proposal but in general this does not go far enough in minimising intrusion of large built infrastructure. The revised Illustrative Landscape Masterplan gives some assurance that landscape and visual impacts have now been more thoroughly considered by the Applicant and is to be welcomed although the landscape buffers around the development site are still deficient in some areas. 8.39 While the landscape and visual effects of the proposal would not be widespread, significant adverse effects would arise on the character of the proposed development site and the surrounding area up to approximately 3km. As planting around the site matures the extent of these effects would diminish although the site and its immediate surrounds would be permanently altered from a rural to an industrial character. 8.40 During the construction and operational phases from 0-15 years the development would have significant and adverse effects on the approach to Elgin on the A941 and would detract from the distinctive frontage buildings of Benriach Distillery. There would also be significant adverse effects on views from up to 10 residential properties situated close to Longmorn. These effects on views and setting of the distillery would be major and adverse during the construction phase, persisting during the short to medium term of the operational phase prior to perimeter screen planting maturing. Adverse effects on views would be likely to persist beyond 15 years as the proposed development would not be entirely screened. 8.41 Given the above, the review concludes that significant adverse effects would principally arise on the character of the proposed development site and the surrounding area up to approximately 3km and on views from the A941 and from up to 10 residential properties situated close to Longmorn. The development as proposed would adversely affect the approach to Elgin and would significantly detract from the distinctive frontage buildings of the Benriach distillery which are additionally promoted as a visitor attraction. Notwithstanding that the proposed development is an unacceptable development within the CAT area and other planning matters raised in this response. The review concludes that the most effective mitigation measure is to redesign the layout of the proposed development with the aim of moving higher, more prominent components close to the western part of the development site and to ensure a broader strip of land is retained for screen planting on the eastern boundary of the site. In addition, the review recommends that conditions are used to; retain existing coniferous woodlands lying to the north, west and south-west of the proposed development site in the long-term to ensure screening from residential areas within Elgin South; proposed planting on the southern edge of the proposed development site to be substantially increased in area to form new predominantly Scots pine woodland with suitable understorey able to Page 31
Page 32
provide improved screening from the A941, from nearly residential properties and from more distant elevated views from the south; and, use of recessive materials (dull non-reflective cladding, muted olive green/brown colours) for all built infrastructure and low impact lighting to be installed. 8.42 These mitigation measures are not considered to negate the fundamental planning issues and unacceptable departures from development plan policies set out. If approved, some of the mitigation referred to about final sampling of building materials and finishes could be conditioned. 8.43 NPF4 Policy 11 identifies significant landscape and visual impacts as one of the impacts that must be addressed as part of any renewable energy project. It goes on to note that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy and that where impacts are localised and/or mitigation has been provided they will generally be considered acceptable. MLDP Policy DP9 also identifies landscape and visual impacts as a key impact to be considered as part of renewable energy schemes. 8.44 EP3 Special Landscape Areas and Landscape Character generally seeks development to be designed to reflect the reflect the landscape characteristics. The matter is covered also more definitively in the EP4 CAT and other policies. 8.45 The development will be read in the context of the existing distilleries on the eastern side of the A941. It is a mixed landscape that already accommodates some industrial scale development although this has been so long established that it can be seen to form part of the landscape character. They are also generally dispersed in the rural landscape. Furthermore, the surrounding woodland currently provides setting and backdrop for the development. While it is recognised that this woodland is not in the applicant’s control it is well established and any substantial felling is likely to be accompanied by restocking. Noting the type of woodland too, the riparian trees surrounding Foths Burn, the Burn of Linkwood and the Longmorn Burn which bound the west of the site are unlikely to be removed. In addition, a landscaping scheme proposed within the site has been amended to increase the number of trees at the entrance to the site to the east of the site. 8.46 In terms of the landscape character, notwithstanding the long-established distillery complex to the east, the lack of dispersal from other built form and low level industrial appearance of the proposal would have an adverse and significant effect on the character. Similarly in terms of visual amenity, the nearby properties on the west side of the A941 in the vicinity would experience significant adverse effects on their visual amenity from the proposed development (noting that in time such an impact would be diminished by the tree planting, but this would take approximately 15 years). While in general planning terms, the loss of view does not constitute a material planning consideration, it is the loss of amenity that results in the change of view, in what was perceived to be a landscape protected from development, that causes the issue. The proposed development is therefore a departure from MLDP Policies DP1 and EP3. Page 32
Page 33
8.47 Economic Impact (MLDP DP5, PP2 & PP3) MLDP Policy DP5 Business and Industry is supportive new rural businesses where there is locational need and where they comply with other relevant MLDP polices. MLDP Policy PP2 Sustainable Economic Growth seeks to deliver sustainable economic growth where the quality of the natural and built environment is safeguarded and the locational need and potential impacts are satisfactorily mitigated. The support for new rural businesses is therefore linked to locational need across several policies and is discussed below. 8.48 Policy PP3 Infrastructure and Services (b) (i) presumes against new accesses onto the A941 unless significant economic benefits are demonstrated. The road safety elements of the new access are dealt with below, but the location taking access directly onto the A941 does link into the location need and the wider suitability of the site. The applicants do state for example good transport links would be important to the export of the bio-methane produced. 8.49 The proposal involves a significant level of capital investment, and commitment to Moray, and this is acknowledged. It will create work for local business’s during construction and there will be local jobs during the operational phase of the development. The construction phase will support local business in terms of the provision of groundworks, landscaping and civil engineering and will support around 100 construction jobs both on and off site. During the operational phase 15 FTE equivalent jobs will be created on site and a further 35 in the supply chain. 8.50 The applicant has revised their submissions to demonstrate that a number of the full-time posts associated with the development would be paying higher than the average Moray Salary and will be skilled, so weight is attached to this pursuant to the objectives of Policy PP2 and the Moray Economic Strategy. However, while one of the aims of Policy PP2 as set out in the supporting text is to create higher paid employment the policy ultimately seeks to diversify the economy of Moray and deliver sustainable economic growth but not at the expense of the natural and built environment. For reasons expanded upon elsewhere in this report, the development would not safeguard the natural environment due its landscape and visual impact within the CAT designation and therefore fails to comply with all the necessary elements of MLDP Policy PP2 Sustainable Economic Growth. 8.51 Despite the supporting economic case being made by the applicant, it would be difficult to agree that this one AD plant constitutes a ‘significant economic benefit’ or facilitates wider development plan provisions. While the applicant can demonstrate that there will be economic benefits via job creation and the circular economy, as an individual development, it would amount to grounds to form a new access onto the A941 where specifically they are to be restricted. Whilst the applicants have now achieved an access design that complies with the road safety requirements of the Transportation Manager, the reasoning for no new access onto the A941 within the policy was to secure wider long term infrastructure requirements and integrity of the A941. The proposal therefore departs from Policy PP3 b) regarding the new access onto the A941. Page 33
Page 34
8.52 Access and Parking (NPF4 Policies 13 & 18 & MLDP PP3 and DP1) A new access to the site is proposed from the A941 to the east of the site. The economic case for such an access is addressed above. This is busy section of road and the proposed access is close to a location with history of accidents. Furthermore, there are a number of existing accesses in close proximity to the proposed access. There are also a series of bends immediately to the north of the site with limited opportunities for overtaking. The access has been moved from the originally proposed location because a solution that was satisfactory in road safety terms could not be achieved. The revised access is further south than originally proposed. Nonetheless concerns remain about large, slow moving vehicles associated with the development causing additional driver frustration on this section of road therefore a ghost island junction is proposed for the new development. This has been supported by a stage one Road Safety Audit (RSA). These proposals are acceptable, but conditions would be recommended if approved requiring the submission of further details to be informed by later stage RSAs. The proposals for the access also require the widening of the Longmorn Bridge. It is possible that even with widening of the bridge, the pedestrian barrier may obstruct visibility therefore conditions could be attached to any permission requiring assessment on completion of the work and following a period of operation to establish the compliance and performance of the bridge. Other conditions are suggested by Transportation in the event of approval seeking final details of the agreed visibility splay to ensure that all impacts on the strategic road network are fully addressed in accordance with NPF4 Policies 13 and 18 and secure a safe entry and exit to the site in accordance with MLDP Policy DP1 (ii) (a). 8.53 There is sufficient space within the site to provide adequate space for parking, EV charging and cycle parking. It is recommended if approved that these matters are secured by condition in order to ensure compliance with NPF4 Policy 13 and MLDP Policies PP3 and DP1 (ii) (d) and (e). 8.54 It is also recommended that a Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan (CPTMP) is sought by condition to ensure that construction traffic is effectively managed if the development is approved. 8.55 It is noted that the Transport Statement (TS) submitted in support of the application does not provide full details on how traffic generated by the development would be distributed across the area as it is not yet possible to be precise about the exact locations of feedstock sources. It is not therefore possible to fully assess the impact on the local road network and identify any measures to mitigate negative consequences. It is therefore recommended that an Operational Traffic Management Plan is sought by condition (if approved) to ensure that any adverse impacts are identified and suitably mitigated if the development is approved. Overall, subject to the recommended conditions the proposals accord with the development plan in relation to access and parking. 8.56 Pollution and Nuisance (NPF4 Policy 23 & MLDP Policy EP14) A detailed Noise Impact Assessment (NIA), Odour Impact Assessment and Lighting Assessment have been submitted in support of the application. The Environmental Health Manager has no objection subject to conditions to ensure noise and odour can be controlled. Page 34
Page 35
8.57 It is recommended that if approved, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is sought by condition to ensure that potential pollution and disturbance during the construction phase is adequately managed. Similarly, if approved a further condition to restrict construction working hours to ensure that the on-site activity does not cause nuisance or disruption for neighbours is attached. 8.58 The submitted assessments in relation to noise, odour and lighting cover the operational phase of the development. The Environmental Health Manager is content with the findings of these assessments subject to conditions to control noise levels in line with the NIA, to ensure implementation of the proposed lighting scheme and requiring the submission of an Odour Management Plan in accordance with the information contained in the Odour Impact Assessment. Environmental Health recommend that a dust management plan is sought also. Conditions could ensure that the operation of the development in controlled in a manner that does not give rise to unacceptable noise levels or cause any other significant pollution to the determinant of human health. The proposals therefore comply with NPF4 Policy 23 & MLDP Policy EP14 by virtue of the conditions that could be imposed. 8.59 It is noted that SEPA have highlighted that the development is likely to require a Pollution Prevention Control (PPC) permit and that they would not assess the proposals in relation to their regulatory requirements until all the necessary technical information has been provided to SEPA as part of a PPC application. SEPA have identified noise, odour, bunding and firefighting water as areas that will require to be assessed in more detail as part of the PPC process. The PPC process is separate regulatory process. 8.60 Impact on Trees and Landscaping (NPF4 Policy 6 & MLDP Policy EP7) NPF4 Policy 6 presumes against the removal of ancient or veteran trees. MLDP Policy EP7 presumes against any tree removal for development unless retention is technically unfeasible and where tree removal is agreed requires compensatory planting on a one for one basis. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) has been submitted along with a tree constraints plan and tree protection plan. The site is a largely open field that has been in agricultural use. There is woodland beyond the site to the north and west. There are some trees within the northern boundary of the site but a 15m woodland buffer is proposed and these trees will not be impacted by development. The majority of trees within the site are clustered along the eastern boundary on either side of the burn. The formation of the proposed access will require the removal of 27 trees (25 category C and 2 category B) along with crown lifting of 7 individual trees and 1 group of trees. The trees are not ancient or veteran trees. While the formation of safe access in this location the removal of 27 trees is considered to meet the technical feasibility test of MLDP Policy EP7. In excess of a 100 trees are to be planted principally along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site which significant exceeds the one for one compensation requirement. The removal of these trees is therefore considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 6 and MLDP Policy EP7. Conditions could be recommended to ensure that adequate tree protection measures are put in place as recommended in the AIA, to ensure that no additional trees within the Page 35
Page 36
site are removed and to ensure that the compensatory planting is timeously provided. 8.61 An updated ‘illustrative’ Landscape Masterplan has been submitted showing additional trees/hedging at the south-west corner of the site to assist screening the development, which will further enhance the biodiversity of the site. 8.62 Protected Species & Biodiversity (NPF4 Policies 3 & 4 MLDP Policies EP1 & EP2) NPF4 Policy 3 Biodiversity and MLDP Policies EP2 Biodiversity require all proposals to contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity. A Biodiversity Report has been submitted in support of the application. This report uses the DEFRA Statutory Biodiversity Metric which is used to assess biodiversity gain in England. The proposals include the formal of a wildflower meadow, tree planting and planting around the rainwater lagoon to provide a range of new habitats and enhance the current habitats. The DEFRA biodiversity calculator is not in use in Scotland but nonetheless it demonstrates a net gain in the biodiversity value of the site. A condition could be recommended to ensure that the proposed habitat creation is implemented in full in accordance with the submitted report and plans. This would bring about compliance with NPF4 Policy 3 and MLDP Policy EP2 covering biodiversity. 8.63 The application is supported by a Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) along with individual surveys for otters, badgers, water voles and breeding birds. In addition to identifying the need for additional surveys which have now being carried the PEA identifies mitigation measures which should be implemented including the need for pre-start checks for amphibians, reptiles, hedgehog, hare, rabbits and INNS, capping of pipes and consideration of lighting spillage. This mitigation would be pursued if development was to proceed. 8.64 The PEA recommends that pre-start checks are carried out and addressed as part of the CEMP. It is recommended that this is controlled by condition if approved. The PEA also identify potential for use of the site by otters. No sightings or field signs of otters were found and while foraging resources were identified the land is disturbed by agricultural use. It was concluded that otter may use the Longmorn and Foths Burns to commute to more suitable habitat. A licence will not be required in relation to otters. It is recommended that species protection plans for both badger and otter are sought by condition to ensure their protection during construction. It is also recommended that the general mitigation measures set out in both surveys are controlled by condition to ensure effective implementation in the event of approval. 8.65 The PEA also highlighted a need for surveys for breeding birds and water vole which are both protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Both surveys have been provided. The breeding bird survey identified 21 different species and 132 individual birds on site. No protected or schedule 1 species were identified. The survey concludes that adverse impacts could be avoided by timing construction to take place outside the bird breeding season (March – August) and if that is not possible a further survey would be required along with mitigation in relation to working practices. No water voles were identified but it was concluded that the Longmorn and Foths burns offer suitable habitat. Pre- Page 36
Page 37
start checks are recommended and pollution protection plan to protect the suitable habitat is also recommended. 8.66 Subject to conditions covering the above pre-commencement surveys and other mitigation the development would not have an adverse effect on any protected species and the proposals therefore comply with NPF4 Policy 4 and MLDP Policy EP1 Natural Heritage Designations. 8.67 Impact on Soils (NPF4 Policy 5) NPF4 Policy 5 seeks to protect carbon rich soils, restore peatland and minimise disturbance from soil. Development is only supported under this policy where it minimises disturbance to soils and protects soil from damage. The site is not peatland or prime agricultural land. A Soil Management Plan has been provided which identifies measures in relation to site preparation, soil stripping and soil storage. The document states that a more detailed version will be provided prior to the commencement of development. This will be implemented alongside the CEMP and ensure good general environmental management during the construction phase. A condition could be imposed requiring the submission of the updated soil management plan for approval. Subject to the above the proposal complies with NPF4 Policy 5. 8.68 Drainage and Flood Risk (NPF4 Policy 22 & MLDP Policy EP12) Surface water drainage will be dealt within the site. A detailed Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) has been provided in support of the application. Clean run- off will be direct to a swale which will discharge to water course to the north or the site. Rainwater and contaminated run-off from the plant and equipment will be harvested and reused in the digestion process. Moray Flood Risk Management have no objection to the proposals. A condition is recommended by the flood risk Management team to ensure that the submitted proposals are implemented in full if progressed. The measures proposed do not increase the risk of surface water flooding and manages rain and surface water in a sustainable manner incorporating the principles of SUDS as required by NPF4 Policy 22 and MLDP EP12. 8.69 A portion of the northern part of the site is identified on SEPA flood maps as being at risk of fluvial flooding in a 1in 200 year flood event. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been provided. The assessment and supporting documentation demonstrate that the development is out with the 1 in 200 year plus climate change design flood extents therefore SEPA have confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal. The application has demonstrated that the proposal is not a risk of flooding or in a flood risk area and the proposal therefore accords with NPF4 Policy 22 & MLDP Policy EP12. 8.70 Zero Waste (NPF4 Policy 12 & MLDP Policy PP3) NPF4 Policy 12 supports development that supports the circular economy and seeks to encourage the reuse and recycling of materials. MLDP Policy PP3 (ix) also seeks to encourage local waste recycling. The current proposal seeks to reuse waste products from distilleries and break crops and convert it into biogas some of which may be used by nearby sites without having to be transported to the grid. Carbon dioxide produced during the process will also be reused in the food industry. The proposal seeks to support the circular economy and reuse waste in a productive and renewable manner. It therefore Page 37
Page 38
supports the zero waste goals of the development plan and accords with NPF4 Policy 12 and MLDP Policy PP3. 8.71 Historic Environment (NPF4 Policy 7 & MLDP Policy EP8) The Council’s Archaeologist has requested A Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) of the site in order to safeguard the historic interest of the site. A full investigation and any further works or analysis recommended as part of the WSI will ensure that there is no adverse impact on the integrity of the site that are not adequately mitigated. Subject to conditions if approved, the proposal will comply with NPF4 Policy 7 and MLDP Policy EP8. 8.72 Community Wealth Building (NPF4 Policy 25) NPF4 Policy 25 states that development that contribute to community wealth building will be supported. This is supported by the Council’s guidance on Community Wealth Building which sets out specific requirements for large scale developments including renewable energy schemes such as this where the output exceeds 5MW. A community wealth building (CWB) statement has been provided with the application, which identifies commitments in line with the measures sought in NPF4 Policy 25. The applicant proposes to allocate ‘a sum of between’ £150-250k for ‘clearly identified and supported community initiatives which will enable and support ongoing CWB initiatives’ alongside an annual ‘community fund’ of £20k to support apprenticeships and work experience within the local community. It is acknowledged that the inability to provide specific targets or monitoring measures in line with Moray Councils supplementary guidance on CMB has made it difficult for the applicant to demonstrate and substantiate that be delivered. However, the broad principles are welcomed and are in line with the policy and the Council’s guidance on CWB and the applicants have stated that more detail could only be available once and if planning permission were granted, contracts concluded, tenders issued etc. It is recommended that this is dealt with by condition, and if approved, the applicants would then be in a better place to consolidate how the proposal would operate, obtain quotes from local and other contractors/suppliers such that they could prepare finalised CWB plan compliant with Moray Council guidance. 8.73 It should also be noted that Policy 25 of NPF4 is worded such that developments which contribute to local or regional community wealth building strategies and are consistent with local economic priorities will be supported. It does not however state that any developments unable to demonstrate such a contribution must be refused, so a softer approach must be taken, especially where the applicant in this case is prepared to deliver a CWB plan but is not yet able to define the targets or monitoring arrangements. Subject to a condition if approved, taking the updated Community Wealth Building Plan as a starting point the proposal would comply with NPF4 Policy 25. This a similar approach as taken to other developments in Moray, where the applicants can only develop their CWB plans so far. Conclusion The development is a departure from Policy EP4 in relation to the MLDP Countryside Around Towns designation surrounding Elgin and A941 new access veto imposed under Policy PP3 Infrastructure and Services and would Page 38
Page 39
have a negative impact upon the CAT setting and erode its intent to keep the CAT free of larger development. Its presence within the CAT would have unacceptable landscape and visual impacts upon this location, even with the amendments and additional landscaping proposed. National Planning Framework 4 gives ‘significant weight’ to those proposals which help to tackle the climate crisis, and aerobic digestion facilities are held to be such a proposal where comfort can be gained that their carbon assessment and lifecycle counter the production of greenhouse gases. There is considered to be sufficient doubt that the development might result in a significant increase in carbon emissions and contribution to the greenhouse effect. It therefore departs from NPF4 Policies 1 and 2. NPF4 and Moray Local Development Plan across various policies require such development to be well located, mitigate any adverse impacts, and be located and designed so as minimise carbon emissions and lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible. The locational need for such development is to be justified across various policies and the submissions fail to justify why the development needs to be located in the Elgin CAT and accessed via the A941. This includes the lack of any significant economic benefit the access onto the A941, even where the road safety issues have been addressed. This was a specific requirement of local Policy PP3 Infrastructure and Services. Many of the representations received raise material planning concerns, such as noise, odour and other matters that can reasonably be addressed via conditions in the event of approval or have been addressed by modifications to the proposal. There was notable concern however over the location of the proposed development, and objectors were aware of the CAT policy prohibiting development in this area. Recommendation Refuse planning permission. Author/Contact: Neal MacPherson Neal MacPherson Acting Development Management & Building Standards Manager (job share) Page 39
Page 40
Page 40