Item 5b - DC24.197.FUL - Amendment to Condition 2 and Condition 14 of permission DC20.253 for proposed site at landfill site at Auchincarroch Rd.
West Dunbartonshire Council · 4 June 2025
Back to Planning Committee — 4 June 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 4th June 2025 _____________________________________________________________ DC24/197/FUL: Amendment to Condition 2 and Condition 14 of permission DC20/253 in relation to proposed site restoration Landfill Site at Auchincarroch Road, Jamestown, Alexandria by Barr Environmental Ltd 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 The application seeks to amend the terms of two conditions of a planning application originally determined by the Planning Committee. It therefore requires to be determined by the Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Grant planning permission for this Section 42 application, subject to the conditions set out in Section 9 below. 3. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 3.1 Auchencarroch Landfill Site is located to the south-east of Jamestown and lies between the open hills of Auchencarroch and Pappert Hill. It sits in a natural plateau and, although the site itself is hidden by the rising landform in front, the access road is visible from Auchencarroch Road. The site has few neighbouring sensitive receptors, with the closest residential property being Mid Auchencarroch Farmhouse, the owner of which is an interested party cited on the existing legal agreement. Other agricultural holdings, primarily used for livestock grazing, surround the site in all directions. 3.2 Landfill operations on the site began in 1995, with planning permission granted in 2004 (DC02/324) to increase the lifespan of the facility by extending the landfill area. Application DC07/233/FUL allowed for the further extension of the site to the south-east. This area is a natural valley between Auchencarroch and Pappert Hills and comprises a mix of semi-improved upland pasture, heathland, and blanket bog. The DC07/233/FUL permission allowed for land raising to continue the overall height of the existing restored landform in an easterly direction. The finished landform of the existing and extended landfill would form a low hill covered with heathland vegetation. This is a lower height than Auchencarroch Hill (210m) and Pappert Hill (257m) and maintains the surface drainage profile by having gentle slopes on the east and west approaches. In terms of site area, DC07/233/FUL extended the landfill workings by 14.4 ha (8 cells) to 27.4ha within a total area of 43.2ha. Adjacent to the site, also operated by the current applicant (Barr Environmental Ltd), is a materials recycling facility (MRF) which was granted ITEM 5b
Page 2
permission in 2013. The MRF separates out recyclable material from waste before the latter goes to landfill. 3.3 In December 2022, planning permission (DC20/253) was granted to amend Condition 1 of permission DC07/233/FUL in order to extend the time of the approved landfilling operation and restoration by a further two years, to 2024 and 2026 respectively. There was no physical extension to the landfill. This change was due to the rate of landfilling (amount of material coming on site) since 2009 being significantly less than originally anticipated due to a number of factors, including increased recycling and landfill tax rates and the opening of the Auchencarroch Materials Recycling Facility, which increased on-site recycling rates. 3.4 Landfill operations on the site ceased early in March 2024, with only 5 cells out of the 8 additional cells approved under DC07/233/FUL being constructed and filled due to the impacts arising from a number of political, environmental and economic policy changes. This included household waste being recycled at source, landfill tax escalators and the Biodegradable Municipal Waste Ban, which combined to make the landfill operation commercially untenable. With the cessation of landfill activities, site works now relate solely to specific restoration and regulatory aftercare. 3.5 The Restoration Masterplan agreed as part of the DC07/233/FUL permission is based on an approach of progressive capping of the completed landfill cells, with a total of 8 cells to be developed and restored. The final restoration includes the planting of woodland, linear strips of hedgerow and typical heathland grass species, with peat stripped and translocated to the restored profiles to form an acid heathland habitat. Reedbeds and surface water lagoons will be managed to form wetland areas with diverse planting, with a small area of agricultural grassland forming a permanent pasture for sheep grazing. This masterplan was included, unchanged, in the DC20/253 permission and its implementation secured through Condition 2. 3.6 With the early cessation of landfill activities meaning that only 5 cells have been constructed and filled, the approved restoration masterplan cannot be implemented in full as 3 cells situated within the eastern part of the site have not been developed and therefore do not require restoration. 3.7 This Section 42 application relates to Condition 2 and Condition 14 of permission DC20/253, which are copied below: 3.8 Condition 2 “At all times during the lifetime of this permission, the landfill operations on site, the operational conduct of the site and the restoration of the site shall be undertaken as indicated in the Environmental Impact Assessment dated November 2020 together with all supporting documentation, plans and details that forms part of this application. For the avoidance of doubt, the landfill operations shall be undertaken and completed progressively as approved”. 3.9 Condition 14
Page 3
“On completion of the landfill operations, except in so far as may be required for leachate and gas monitoring, the site shall be cleared of all buildings, plant and machinery with details of the phasing of this to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority prior to the cessation of landfill operations on site”. 3.10 The current application seeks permission to vary Condition 2 to allow for an updated restoration masterplan to be implemented. The key changes are outlined below: • The proposed restoration masterplan shows 3 cells, which the approved masterplan identifies for restoration to agricultural grassland, as ‘undeveloped’, although it is proposed to landscape these areas and return them to heathland in order to match the surrounding area. • A hedgerow shown within the approved restoration masterplan has been removed from the proposed masterplan as it was intended to delineate between the agricultural grassland and heathland restoration of the undeveloped 3 cells. • Two settlement lagoons shown in the approved restoration masterplan are shown as 8 smaller lagoons in the proposed restoration plan, with the overall lagoon area remaining the same. 3.11 The application also seeks to vary Condition 14 to allow for the retention of the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) building, which was constructed in 2014 under planning permission DC13/216, during the 30 year aftercare period. It is proposed to use the building for the storage of spare parts and materials required for the ongoing operation of the leachate treatment plant and to provide a structure on which to mount solar panels that would provide power to the plant. 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 West Dunbartonshire Council Environmental Health – No comments in respect of the proposal. 4.2 West Dunbartonshire Council Biodiversity Officer – No objection. It was noted that a more biodiverse grassland mix would be preferred. Requested information on follow up habitat management to ensure the heathland, grassland and woodland habitats establish. 4.3 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency – No objection 4.4 Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park – No objection. It was noted that an area of scattered woodland along the northern boundary of the site, which has been removed from the proposed restoration masterplan, is important for nature networks. 5. REPRESENTATIONS
Page 4
5.1 None received. 6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Framework 4 (2023) 6.1 Policy 1 states that significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises when considering all development proposals. Policy 2 also relates to the climate in the form of climate mitigation and adaptation, requiring development proposals to be sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and promote adaptation, as far as possible. Policy 3’s intent is to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. The amendments to the final restoration would have a largely neutral impact in respect of Policies 1, 2 and 3, with some additional biodiversity and climate change benefits delivered through the revised lagoon arrangement and intention to generate renewable energy by bringing forward future proposals for mounting solar panels on the MRF building. 6.2 Policy 5 aims to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development, with Policy 6 supporting proposals which enhance, expand and improve woodland and tree cover. Policy 7 seeks to protect the historic environment, including archaeological sites. No concerns arise in respect of these policies. 6.3 Policy 12 sets out the circumstances in which development proposals for new or extended landfill sites will be supported. The proposal is not for a new or extended landfill site and the final restoration arrangements do not conflict with the requirements of the policy. 6.4 Policy 22 addresses flood risk and water management, stating that proposals will not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk; manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), and seek to minimise the area of impermeable surface. No flooding concerns arise. 6.5 Policy 23 seeks to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, and promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. The amendments to the final restoration would have a neutral impact in respect of this policy. 6.6 It is considered that the application complies with the relevant policies above, as set out in the assessment below. West Dunbartonshire Adopted Local Plan 2010 6.7 Policy PS1 seeks to protect established public utility, social and community facilities, as identified on the Proposals Map. The application site at Auchencarroch is identified on the Proposals Map under this policy. 6.8 Policy E1 aims to ensure the conservation of biodiversity, with Policy E3A seeking to ensure that development proposals do not have an adverse effect on the integrity or character of Local Nature Conservation Sites. Policy E9 requires that development proposals will have regard to the landscape character and
Page 5
distinctiveness of the Plan area and of adjoining areas. Proposals which are detrimental to the landscape will not generally be supported. Policy BE5 seeks to ensure that cultural heritage resources, including archaeological sites, are not adversely affected. Policies F1 and F2 aim to ensure that new development is not at risk from, and does not increase the risk of flooding, and has suitable SuDS drainage infrastructure. No concerns arise in respect of these matters. 6.9 Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that all new development respects the character and amenity of the area and sets out a range of criteria for the assessment of all development proposals. 6.10 The overall principle of the proposal to update the restoration masterplan and retain the MRF building complies with the policies of the adopted Local Plan, as discussed in detail in Section 7 below. West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 6.11 On 15 March 2023, the Planning Committee took a decision that the Council would not adopt Local Development Plan 2. The Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), incorporating the recommended modifications of the Examination Report received on 22 April 2020, which were accepted by the Planning Committee of 19 August 2020, remains the Council’s most up to date spatial strategy and is therefore afforded significant weight in the assessment and determination of planning applications, subject to compatibility with NPF4. The Scottish Ministers’ Direction relating to the adoption of LDP2, dated 18 December 2020, is also a material consideration. 6.12 The site is identified as an existing waste management facility by Policy ZW1 and associated Table 10. Policy ZW1 requires that all such development meets the aims of the Zero Waste Plan and follows the development principles of the Waste Hierarchy. While the policy includes criteria for the assessment of new waste management facilities, this application is not proposing a new facility, rather the approval of an updated restoration masterplan and retention of the MRF building. Policy MIN2 requires appropriate financial guarantees in respect of restoration. Whilst the policy relates to minerals extraction rather than landfill sites, the general principles of the Policy are considered relevant. 6.13 Policy ENV1 addresses nature conservation and requires developments to conserve biodiversity and habitat networks, both within and adjacent to sites of special designation, together with non-designated habitats and protected species. Policy ENV2 requires development to be sited and designed to relate to the existing landscape character and ensure the integrity of landscape character is maintained. Policy BE1, ENV4 ENV5 and ENV6 are similar to the cultural heritage, water environment and flooding policies of the adopted Local Plan. Policy CP1 requires all new development to contribute towards creating successful places. 6.14 The overall principle of an updated restoration masterplan and the retention of the MRF building for the aftercare period is considered to comply with the policies of proposed Local Development Plan 2. 7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Page 6
7.1 The application is made under section 42 of the Planning Act 1997, which is an application for planning permission for the development of land but without compliance with a condition or conditions attached to the original permission. In this case, the applicant seeks not to comply with the terms of Condition 2 and Condition 14 of planning permission DC20/253/FUL as worded, with alternative wording sought. Condition 2 requires landfill operations, operational conduct and restoration of the site to be undertaken in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment (Nov 2020), with Condition 14 requiring that upon completion of landfill operations, except in so far as may be required for leachate and gas monitoring, the site shall be cleared of all buildings, plant and machinery. The effect of a Section 42 application, if successful, is to grant planning permission again for the whole development but with the amended conditions replacing those that were issued previously. The original application, as approved, has commenced and therefore if granted it must be ensured that any conditions attached to the new permission are relevant to the works that are still be undertaken on site. Planning Authorities, if minded, may attach new or updated conditions if permission is granted. Principle of Development 7.2 The application site is identified in the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 as a waste management site and operated as a landfill in accordance with planning permissions DC02/324, DC07/233/FUL and DC20/253 until landfill activities ceased in March 2024. The DC07/233/FUL and DC20/253 permissions also included a Restoration Masterplan. As such, the principle of landfill operations and site restoration are established. Landfill operations have ceased in accordance with condition 1 of DC20/053 and this application does not propose any amendment to Condition 1 to allow further landfilling on site. With respect to the MRF building, it’s use as a waste management facility, specifically a recycling facility, was established under planning permission DC13/216. 7.3 In light of the above, this application does not revisit the principle of a waste management use and associated site restoration, it only considers the appropriateness of the conditions attached to the previous consent. In this case the application seeks not to comply with the terms of Condition 2 and Condition 14 of planning permission DC20/253/FUL, as set out above. 7.4 With respect to Condition 2, the submitted application seeks to update the approved Restoration Masterplan, with the proposed Masterplan identifying the 3 cells which were undeveloped when landfill operations ceased as ‘undeveloped’, with a hedgerow removed, 8 lagoons identified, and an area of new scattered woodland relocated from the northern boundary to the midpoint of the western boundary. Following a full and detailed assessment, set out below, it is concluded that the proposed amendment to the approved restoration masterplan is appropriate as the 3 undeveloped cells do not require to be restored, while the other changes would have positive effects for the water environment and no detrimental impacts on the overall site restoration, in so far as it relates to human health and the natural environment. In relation to Condition 14, the proposed retention of the MRF building during the 30 year aftercare period to support the ongoing maintenance and operation of the leachate plant is also acceptable as it would clearly contribute to site restoration.
Page 7
Landscape and Visual Impact 7.5 The updated restoration masterplan raises no concerns with respect to landscape character and visual impact as the key change, i.e. that three undeveloped cells would not be restored to agricultural grassland, would have a neutral effect. Indeed, the proposed Masterplan shows that these areas will be landscaped and returned to heathland to match the surrounding area, which constitutes an enhancement beyond the existing position. The removal of a hedgerow shown in the approved restoration plan would also have a neutral effect as this was only included to delineate the agricultural grassland and heathland restoration of the 3 undeveloped cells. The consultation response from the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park raised no objection or concerns about landscape and visual impacts. 7.6 While the proposed retention of the MRF building would not increase the landscape and visual impacts of the building beyond the existing position, it still rests to consider the significance of these effects when assessing its retention for the duration of the aftercare period. The landscape and visual impacts were previously considered during the assessment of DC13/216, which noted that the building would sit at a lower level than much of the surrounding ground to the north, south and east. It was further noted that the building would not be a prominent feature in the landscape when viewed from the west and southwest, which includes views from Balloch and the National Park, due to the separating distances, the undulating nature of the ground and the excising tree coverage. The DC13/216 assessment concluded that there would be no significant indirect landscape impacts or magnitude of change. The building as constructed is not prominent within the landscape and sits notably lower than the surrounding landform, as was originally envisaged. This results in the building having little impact within the wider landscape. In light of the limited effects, it is considered that the building’s retention during the aftercare period is acceptable. 7.7 Overall, the amendments to the restoration of the site presents no conflict with Policy 12 of NPF4, Policy E9 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy ENV2 of proposed Local Development Plan 2. Impact on Water Environment 7.8 While the approved Restoration Masterplan included three large settlement lagoons, the proposed masterplan shows 8 smaller lagoons covering the same total area. It is noted that this change was identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment (Nov2020) submitted with the DC20/253 application in order to enhance habitat creation and biodiversity, although the permission did not incorporate this change at the time. As the proposed change would promote habitat creation and deliver biodiversity enhancements, and the consultation response from SEPA raised no objection, it is acceptable. Impact on Ecology 7.9 In addition to the ecological enhancements to the water environment noted above, the consultation response from the Biodiversity Officer advised that the mixed mosaic habitat proposed ties in with the overall Nature Network plans for the surrounding land. While the response raised no objection, it noted that a more biodiverse grassland mix would be preferred over the mostly agricultural mix
Page 8
proposed. As the proposed grassland mix was previously agreed under permission DC20/253, it is acceptable. The response also requested further information on follow up habitat management to ensure that the heathland, grassland and woodland habitats establish. While the current application does not include any information on follow up habitat management, it is noted that a Habitat Management Plan (2008) was approved under the DC07/233/FUL and DC20/253 permissions. In light of this, and the significant time since the Habitat Management Plan was developed in 2008, it is considered appropriate to require an updated Habitat Management Plan that includes follow up habitat management measures, which can be secured through condition. While the consultation response from the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park raised no objection, it was noted that the proposed restoration masterplan does not show an area of scattered woodland along the northern boundary, which was included in the approved masterplan. The applicant has advised that this change was required due to the scattered woodland being within the site boundary but outwith their ownership/control. As compensation, the applicant submitted a revised restoration masterplan which shows an additional area of scattered woodland midway along the eastern boundary. As this area of woodland is the same size as that previously shown along the northern boundary, it is acceptable. Flood Risk 7.10 The application raises no concerns with respect to flood risk as the proposal does not seek new development or any changes to the existing drainage arrangements. Health and Safety 7.11 The proposal would have a neutral effect on health and safety as it seeks only to remove the requirement to restore undeveloped cells, relocate an area of woodland, increase the number (not size) of lagoons and retain the MRF building. It is noted that the consultation from SEPA, who regulate the site, raised no objection to the proposal. Climate change 7.12 The proposal is likely to have a positive effect on climate change adaptation through the habitat/biodiversity enhancements discussed above. In addition, the application indicates that the retention of the MRF building would possibly solar panels to be mounted on the structure, which would contribute to climate change mitigation, although this is not currently part of this proposal. Built and Cultural Heritage 7.13 Two features of archaeological interest are situated within the site and recorded as being dams associated with the textile/printing industry in the Leven Valley. The proposal raises no concerns with respect to these assets and there are no conflicts with Policy 7 of NPF4, Policy BE5 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy BE1 of proposed Local Development Plan 2. Restoration Bond 7.14 The DC20/253 planning permission requires site restoration to be completed by 30/06/2026. In order to meet this requirement, the current application advises that site restoration be completed by August 2025 due to the summer months being the optimal time for such the required works. The application confirms that the overall cost of the remaining restoration works is £305,101.
Page 9
7.15 The Council holds a financial bond of £1,000,000 for the application site to ensure that the restoration works are completed in full. It is noted that the bond was recently extended from 31/12/2024 to 31/12/2025, with a copy of the Bond Certificate submitted with this application. This time extension ensures that the bond will be in place for the proposed completion of restoration works by August 2025. The application advises that if the restoration works are not completed by August 2025, the applicant would continue to hold a bond against the site, with the value being for the outstanding restoration works only, which is acceptable and can be secured through an updated legal agreement, if required. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 This proposal seeks permission for an updated Restoration Masterplan which primarily removes the requirement for the restoration of three cells which were never constructed and filled due to the early cessation of landfill operations in March 2024. In addition, the application seeks the retention of the MRF building for the duration of the aftercare period. This application considers only the above elements. 8.2 Overall, subject to the conditions below, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with reference to NPF4, the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2. The updated Restoration Masterplan takes account of the early cessation of the landfill operation while still ensuring that the developed part of the site is fully restored, with some additional habitat/biodiversity enhancements. The retention of the MRF building will support the ongoing maintenance and operation of the leachate plant while also providing scope for renewable energy to power the plant. Conditions 8, 17 and 26 as applied to DC20/253 and which relate to the active landfilling operations are no longer required and have been removed. However, a variety of conditions previously imposed to DC20/253 are considered to still be necessary and are recommended to be attached, albeit some have updated wording to reflect the up-to-date position with the site and to take account of the cessation of landfill operations. These are as recommended below. Additional conditions to address Policy 1 of the NPF4, Policies E1 and E9 of the Local Plan, Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the proposed LDP2, the points raised in the consultation responses and to reflect the up-to-date position in relation to the site are also recommended as part of the updated suite of conditions. 9. CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall ensure for the benefit of the applicant only, with the final restoration of the site being completed by 30th June 2026 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure the timely restoration of the site. 2. No further landfill material shall be brought on to any part of the site and no further landfill operations shall take place on any part of the site. Reason: To ensure that future works under this permission relate to site restoration activities only.
Page 10
3. At all times during the aftercare period of the site, the restoration of the site shall be undertaken as indicated in the Environmental Impact Assessment, dated November 2020, together with all supporting documentation, plans and details that form part of this application, including amended restoration masterplan (reference ED13968-005F). Reason: To ensure that the development operates in accordance with the approved details. 4. Except in the case of emergency, the hours of working of the site shall be restricted to between the hours of 7.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Saturday only and not on a Sunday or on a recognised Public Holiday in West Dunbartonshire without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority with the exception of essential site maintenance and the maintenance of plant and machinery. Access to and exit from the site shall be by way of Auchencarroch Road. Reason: In order to minimise disturbance to local resident and to ensure that the site is accessed in the approved manner. 5. The site operator shall be responsible for the maintenance of a vehicle register log book of all deliveries to the site which shall be available for inspection by the Planning Authority upon request at any time. Reason: In order to ensure that the number of vehicle movements and the volume and type of waste remain within the approved limits. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for the collection and disposal of any windblown material emanating from the area of infill. Reason: In order to prevent the operation of the site giving rise to litter, which would detract from the amenities of the surrounding area. 7. No burning of materials in connection with the infilling operations shall take place on or adjoining the site. Reason: In order to protect the environment and the amenities of local residents. 8. Within 28 days of the date on which planning permission for the development, hererby approved, is issued, an updated Habitat Management Plan, which includes details on follow up habitat management, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the Plan will be implemented as approved. Reason: In order to ensure that the developer continues to make appropriate provision for bird life and natural habitat. 9. The annual monitoring on the progress of the mitigation areas shall be carried out as required by the Habitat Management Plan and by the applicant or by any person engaged by them. An annual report will be made available to the Technical
Page 11
Working Group at least 3 weeks prior to the formal review meeting of that Group and the annual monitoring report shall be approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the mitigation measures are operating effectively. 10. All advance works, including habitat translocation to receptor areas for landfill restoration shall take place outside the bird nesting season (March to July inclusive) unless a checking survey confirms the absence of nests. The checking survey shall be carried out at a time and approved in advance by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to minimise the impact of the development on bird life. 11. All diversions of watercourses shall follow the details approved in respect of condition 18 of planning permission DC07/233/FUL. Reason: To ensure that works to watercourses are carried out in an appropriate manner and do not give rise to pollution. 12. The access track which runs partly through the active landfill and links up with the track leading to Paper Muir and the western edge of the commercial forestry plantation shall not be used for the export of timber without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that works to watercourses are carried out in an appropriate manner and do not give rise to pollution. 13. On completion of the landfill operations, except in so far as may be required for leachate and gas monitoring, the site shall be cleared of all buildings (except for the MRF building which will be retained during the aftercare period), plant and machinery, with details of the phasing of this to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority prior to the cessation of landfill operations on site. Reason: In order to ensure the appropriate restoration of the site upon the conclusion of the landfill operations. 14. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority, the MRF building will be removed from the site at the end of the aftercare period on 01/04/2056. Reason: In order to ensure the removal of the building following the conclusion of the aftercare period. 15. Appropriate measures to prevent mud, dirt, dust, slurry or stones being carried onto the highway shall be taken and such steps shall include the provision and the use of hard standing areas and a wheel wash facility for the cleaning of all lorries, dump trucks, other heavy vehicles and plant leaving the site. Reason: In order to minimise nuisance to local residents and in the interest of road safety and to ensure the measures are in accordance with the approved details.
Page 12
16. The access road and public road adjacent to the site shall be kept clear of mud or other deposited materials at all times by means of mechanical brushing. Reason: In the interests of road safety and the amenities of the area. 17. Soils to be imported to the site shall share similar profile characteristics as the soil structure currently on site. Topsoil and sub-soil shall only be stripped when the soils are sufficiently dry so that when moved, no damage will be done to the structure of the soils. Apart from the works required to enclose the site, no operations shall be carried out until the topsoil is fully stripped and stored in the designated areas within the site. Reason: In order to ensure that the soil used in restoration work is appropriate to the local environment. 18. Topsoil shall be stripped to full available depth from all areas within the site except those areas designated in the approved plans as topsoil dumps. Following topsoil stripping operations from any areas of land, sub-soil shall be stripped as a separate operation to a depth, where possible, to achieve topsoil and sub-soil not less than 0.9 metre at restoration. Reason: In order to ensure the retention of soil required for restoration purposes and to ensure that the soil used in restoration is appropriate to the local environment. 19. Topsoil and sub-soil shall be carefully stored in separate dumps and prevented from mixing. Topsoil dumps shall not exceed 5 metres in height. Topsoil dumps and sub soil dumps shall be evenly graded and tops shaped to prevent water ponding. Sub-soil dumps shall not exceed 8 metres in height. Reason: In order to ensure the retention of soil required for restoration purposes and to reduce its impact on the local environment. 20. In the first available seeding season following their formation, all mounds of topsoil, sub-soil and soil making materials shall be seeded in grass and shall be so maintained until the soils are required for use in the restoration of the site except as may be otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure the retention of soil required for restoration purposes, and to ensure that soil is an aesthetically acceptable manner. 21. All water treatment areas and settlement lagoons shall be enclosed by a one metre high stock-proof fence and shall be implemented prior to any significant soil stripping. Reason: In order to ensure the timely provision and protection of water treatment and settlement facilities, in the interests of public safety. 22. Appropriate precautions shall be taken to prevent the discharge of oil from fuelling, oil storage, plant maintenance and vehicle wash areas within the site.
Page 13
Reason: In order to prevent pollution of the local environment. 23. Dust monitoring shall be routinely carried out by the applicant and undertaken using appropriate equipment and recording devices. The results and records shall be made available to the Planning Authority on a monthly basis during the operational life of the site. Reason: In order to minimise nuisance to local residents and damage to the environment arising from dust blown from the site. 24. Noise monitoring programme shall be undertaken during the operational life of the site using appropriate equipment and recording devices, the results of which shall be made available to the Planning Authority on a monthly basis. Reason: In order to minimise disturbance to local residents arising from noise generated at the site Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 4th June 2025 ______________________________________________________________ Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Email: Michael.Mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk James McColl, Development Management Team Leader Email: james.mccoll@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application documents and plans 2. National Planning Framework 4 3. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 4. West Dunbartonshire LDP - Proposed Plan 2 5. Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan 2010 6. The Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 7. Consultation responses 8. Planning permission DC07/233/FUL 9. Planning permission DC20/253